You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
The irresponsible pursuit of war
2006-07-04
Barry Kissin is a Democratic candidate for Congress in Maryland's 6th District
By Barry Kissin
Our country is engaged in an illegal and immoral war of aggression. The only thing unusual about the massacre in Haditha and the ensuing cover-up is that the massacre has been uncovered.
Nice, categorical statement. I'm sure he has evidence...
On June 1, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated that violence against civilians had become a "daily phenomenon" by troops in the American-led coalition who "do not respect the Iraqi people." "They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion," he said.
I missed that statement. If he did make it, it wasn't very diplomatic, was it? Nor does it jibe with the other things he's been saying...
On June 9, congressional conservatives quietly stripped a provision from an Iraq War funding bill that would have prohibited using any of the appropriated funds for the construction of permanent military bases in Iraq. We are constructing 16 massive military bases in Iraq, not to mention our huge fortress of an embassy in Baghdad. These bases are part of a network of about 800 bases in 130 different countries that we maintain around the world.
Posted by:Fred

#20  "Our country is engaged in an illegal and immoral war of aggression."

-a statement based on pure opinion and not one real fact. Saddam Hussein violated the 91 Gulf War peace treaty 17 times over a 12 year period. Kicking his ass was not only legal but essential.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2006-07-04 22:46  

#19  That's why it was Stalin's favorite.

Hmm, hadn't thought of that. BTW, we are talking about the bad guys, of course.
Posted by: Thraith Snereque4913   2006-07-04 21:55  

#18  It was, BTW, a 116 AD evolt, not 125 AD.
Posted by: 11A5S   2006-07-04 21:47  

#17  Some folks consider the 125 AD revolt to be the Second Revolt. It is much more common to call the 132 AD (Bar Kokhba) revolt the Second Jewish Revolt. No good reason is to be found for this, just custom.

There was a Galilean revolt in 6 AD, led by Judas of Galilee and Zadok (probably a title rather than a proper name, IMO), a priest. Although most scholars are scornful of applying the term "zealot" to Hebrew rebels prior to Josephus' first use of the term (68 AD in his chronology, IIRC), we see here the priestly/kingly parallelism found in Josephus' later descriptions of the Zealots and in writings found in the Dead Sea Caves and associated with the Essenes.

Posted by: 11A5S   2006-07-04 20:43  

#16  On a cost basis, you can't beat starvation. That's why it was Stalin's favorite.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-07-04 20:15  

#15  Ovens and showers are far more efficient.
Posted by: Thraith Snereque4913   2006-07-04 20:11  

#14  (Sigh) Can't add today, 1520 years, still quite a long time.
Now can we erect enough Gallows (Today's Cross Equivalent) to set the next Islamic troubles around 1800 years off into the future?
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2006-07-04 19:48  

#13  #11 Was there a third Jewish Revolt?
1945-47, RJ.

Hmmm, 1881 years between revolutions, and god knows how many changes of Governments. Seems extremely harsh measures do indeed work.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2006-07-04 19:42  

#12  Rantburg U. at its finest.

Thanks for the lectures, TW and FOTSGreg
Posted by: badanov   2006-07-04 18:48  

#11  Was there a third Jewish Revolt?

1945-47, RJ.
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-07-04 18:17  

#10  Can this guy squeeze any more Big Lies into this piece of sh*t?
Posted by: xbalanke   2006-07-04 13:41  

#9  but after the second Jewish Revolt in 125 AD, the bodies of Jews nailed to crucifixes lined the road almost all the way to Rome.

Was there a third Jewish Revolt?
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2006-07-04 11:20  

#8  #4 rjschwarz - I'll take Door #2.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-07-04 10:19  

#7  Pontius Pilate was so vicious and corrupt that the Emperor Tiberius -- not exactly known for his own sweetness and light -- had him recalled to Rome and executed for it. While governor of Judea, he had the entire population of a city in Samaria put to the sword because the elders asked him to look into overtaxation.

As for crucifiction, the Romans may not have liked to do it, but after the second Jewish Revolt in 125 AD, the bodies of Jews nailed to crucifixes lined the road almost all the way to Rome.

Revolt against Rome was already in the air in Jesus' time. The priestly class in Jerusalem, to a man closely related to the Maccabees who'd ruled before the Romans came, feared exactly the result of the two Judean Revolts, and would have been willing to get rid of a man who threatened the safety of all the Jews in the Roman Empire. Understand, at that time to claim to be the Messiah was to claim the earthly throne of King David, and open repudiation of Rome's rule, and that would have been how the Jewish mob would have understood it.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-07-04 10:19  

#6  Me thinks Barry should be Kissin my ass. What a small and insignificant little liar man
Posted by: Frank G   2006-07-04 10:04  

#5  Roscoe Bartlett's (RINO, MD) seat is still safe.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-07-04 09:34  

#4  My question is, is this guy misinformed and foolish or an outright bull$hitting piece of dung?
Posted by: rjschwarz   2006-07-04 09:33  

#3  I wish I had a time machine. I'd grab a copy of this article and go back to 9/12 and shove it in the face of every Democrat I met and say, "THIS is what your party is going to degenerate into in less than five years, if you don't do something about it."

Posted by: Dave D.   2006-07-04 09:33  

#2  Now that he as come out of the closet and declared himself a full blown moonbat who is hid opposition for the 6th district? We need to support whoever it is to insure this goof is not elected.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-07-04 09:25  

#1  Rome responded to every act of resistance disproportionately. By the time of Jesus, the Roman legions had killed tens of thousands in Galilee and had enslaved many thousands more. Another method practiced by Rome for deterring challengers of its rule was crucifixion.

Actually, that's historically and provably untrue in almost all its aspects.

Rome's crackdown on the Jews really didn;t get rolling until almost 40 years after Jesus' crucifixion when the Jewish rebels staged a full-scale rebellion. Prior to this time the Romans governed the region with their normal doctrine of firm reasonableness. They had no desire to kill tens of thousands of law-abiding tax-paying civilians when simply leaving them alone, so long as they obeyed the law, paid their taxes, and didn;t try to foment or incite rebellion.

In addition, crucifixion was a form of punishment intended, and generally used, only against those who had seriously transgressed Roman law. It was usually a long and agonizing process reserved solely for those deserving of "special treatment" in their execution. Putting a condemned criminal to the sword or beheading him was much more efficient and much less time consuming without all the foofaraw of all that publicity as well.

It was the Jewish hierarchy that demanded that Jesus be executed by crucifixion. Pontius Pilate actually saw little or no reason to execute Jesus at all, but bent to the will of the locals.

So, this moonbat is wrong all the way around and is simply attempting to use his faulty "knowledge" of history and the Bible to gain himself a little extra status amongst the religious folks (whom he probably looks at as wingnuts anyway).

Posted by: FOTSGreg   2006-07-04 02:37  

00:00