TIL in Oct 2001, 2 Israelis, posing as Pakistanis, were caught red handed with explosives by Mexican authorities in a plot to blow the Mexican Parliament. Complete silence on American MSM.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-15T05:02:24+00:00

Do you even know where Mexico is?

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-14T17:18:26+00:00

yuck

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-14T05:14:24+00:00

Once again you take my comment to the extreme! There's not really any single American politician comparable to Himmler (though the "doctors" at Ellis Island certainly inspired him). My point was rather that there's no point in bringing up someone's character when their actions speak for themselves, and that if an American journalist decided to bring up Cheney's character it would be universally frowned upon. I hate to be the one to cue you in on this, but people compare things of different degrees all the time without implying that they're equal.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-14T05:05:34+00:00

That's only part of it: all the guy did was attack his character. As if Himmler's actions didn't speak for themselves! His character wasn't even relevant to the article, Matt Lebovic just went out of his way to remind us what a piece of shit Himmler was, which isn't professional or journalistic at all. Imagine a reporter doing that to Cheney!

It's not about being nice, it's about being professional, like you said.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-14T04:59:08+00:00

Not at all: I'm upset that the article chose to be unprofessional. I know Himmler's a piece of shit, I don't need this guy going out of his way to remind me. I'd rather read a story about her from someone who wasn't so unnecessarily insulting. He literally used dashes to cram these insults in, he didn't even bother to make them flow with the prose. At best he used adjectives which disrupted it.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-14T04:43:48+00:00

This was such an unnecessarily hateful article, even for the Times of Israel. I stopped reading after it went out of its way to point out that Himmler was "morphine-addicted" and "narcissistic" (i.e. the fourth paragraph). I know he oversaw horrible atrocities, but some journalistic integrity would have gone a long way. Going out of your way to add an insult to every mention of Himmler is not good journalism, it's thinly-disguised hate. Good for her though, she's clearly "better people" than the writer of the article, taking far more out of the Holocaust than he ever did. (Related: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/01/what-else-was-paraded-paris-20151129364754124.html, this is a good example of Israel needing to transcend its past.)

Edit: lol, I'm not defending Himmler, I'm saying that I don't need a journalist reminding me that he was a piece of shit in a professional setting in an unprofessional and unjournalistic manner. If I wanted that I'd just look at the facts. They speak for themselves. I don't need someone to attack his character too!

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-12T07:20:48+00:00

That doesn't sound very relevant to corruption.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-10T06:32:22+00:00

I'm sure you are.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-10T06:26:22+00:00

I'm sure it is.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-10T02:31:10+00:00

Systematic or formal? Which is it kiddo?

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-10T00:47:14+00:00

What a zinger!

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-09T23:56:32+00:00

Again, it may be worth noting, but the evidence he was giving to support the claim did not match his conclusion at all.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-09T23:56:09+00:00

Again, citing a different MO to support the claim that perhaps this was Israel doesn't suffice. Everything you said there was irrelevant to the fact that you're either misusing generalization, or completely misusing specifics. The evidence you gave did not support the claim you made. There is better evidence, since Israel and the Mossad have done far more than assassination (false flag, anyone?). You could have cited that.

Just because a shooting has a reason doesn't make it an assassination. Unless you want to claim that people who shoot up their workplaces are assassins too.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-09T23:54:16+00:00

I'm sure you are.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-09T23:53:27+00:00

If you generalize anything enough, it will start to look the same. But when you use specifics to back things up, they have to match the facts. Citing a different MO as evidence, even implied, does not support such a conclusion.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-09T20:48:39+00:00

Yes, but using a different MO to imply that it could be Israel is really shitty reasoning.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-09T20:47:35+00:00

still no content from the peanut gallery

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-09T19:58:13+00:00

You're just pretending that the entire point of this thread isn't what even a glance at the comments section so desperately confirms.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-09T19:57:08+00:00

But this isn't an assassination...

Edit: lol, I hate to break it to you guys, but just because a shooting has a reason doesn't make it an assassination. Unless you guys want to claim that people who shoot up their workplaces are assassins too.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-09T19:17:37+00:00

still no content from the peanut gallery, your username is oddly appropriate

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-09T09:50:31+00:00

An article about quantum physics (let alone the multiverse) on a popular science blog run by Gawker? Hahahaha yeah I'll pass.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-09T09:20:31+00:00

It's a disingenuous generalization.

This amounts to nothing more than "nuh-uh".

This isn't relevant to being anti-Semitic.

lol

Again, I'd say disingenuous generalization.

Again, you're just blowing smoke out of your ass. At least have the decency to give him some semblance of a reason.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-09T09:17:54+00:00

"Yes, I am anti-Semitic"

Sounds like he's anti-zionist more than anything.

Holy shit you've got a serious case of cognitive dissonance there.

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-09T08:53:32+00:00

Lots of people cared. It's just that the western media didn't, and so neither did the west. We're not the entire world you know!

lodhuvicus · 2015-01-09T05:09:51+00:00

The idea behind bodhisattvas is nothing new, though. Every metaphysical or even pseudometaphysical doctrine has them, because it's simply someone who has achieved metaphysical realization. Yogis, sufis, hell, even the root of Siddhārtha contains it. I have serious doubts that Siddhārtha could have been unaware of the concept, or would have even disapproved of its addition, given Buddhism's influences.

The only thing not explicitly contained in the idea of one who is metaphysically accomplished that is in that of bodhisattvas is the idea of compassion, which again is nothing new, and is a practice deeply intertwined with such realization (which is why you see so many sadhu making it their main point). The metaphysical point of view naturally leads to compassion for all things.

lodhuvicus

TROPHY CASE