Mike Renzulli

The last scorecard from Cato shows Perry got a B rating (respectfully) while Tim Pawlenty got an A. Not bad. I would back Pawlenty but I do not think he has as much star appeal as Perry in order to kick out Obama.

You are correct that's not what I am talking about. I mean the one who not only can best kick out Obama but a candidate that would be the friendliest to capitalism. As to your assertion about the American Empire, that is false and at best a myth. It is not imperialism when your country if not civilization in general is under relentless attack from radical religionists hell-bent on bringing down your society and wanting to enslave you while openly stating they wish to do so since (as they claim) their god commands it. The imperialists in all of this are the Islamists not the United States. If this be an empire then let us make the most of it.

Me too! In case you or the others following this thread are interested, there is a campaign afoot to draft Perry to run. http://www.theunion.com/article/20110521/NEWS/110529992/1001&parentprofile=1053 ya ok And he can win and I could support him quite comfortably!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/us/politics/20ttramsey.html After Rush Limbaugh praised Perry the rumors started swirling that he might actually jump in.

Read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book Infidel and read about her experience with female circumcision. In Ali's case her grandmother coerced her into having her genitalia mutilated. After doing so then let me know if you still come to the same conclusion. Solution: Do not ban the genital surgery on females. It is not life threatening and if it makes people with certain religious beliefs jolly, let it be done. The State does not own the c*nts of baby girls. Ba'al Chatzaf

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110522/NEWS05/305220008/

I agree with this and what Greybird and Michael have said. The involuntary mutiliation of a human being's genitalia (no matter what age or sex they are) is not only barbaric but should be left to someone wait until they are of age to where they would be able to decide. A parent takes on the role of guardian and caretaker of the child they bring into the world. That right does not include circumcising their baby's genitals for religious or other reasons.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110519/ap_on_re_us/us_circumcision_ban Circumcision ban to appear on San Francisco ballot By ROBIN HINDERY, The Associated Press Robin Hindery, The Associated Press Wed May 18, 9:30 pm ET SAN FRANCISCO – A proposal to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco has been cleared to appear on the November ballot, setting the stage for the nation's first public vote on what has long been considered a private family matter. But even in a city with a long-held reputation for pushing boundaries, the measure is drawing heavy fire. Opponents are lining up against it, saying a ban on a religious rite considered sacred by Jews and Muslims is a blatant violation of constitutional rights. Elections officials confirmed Wednesday the initiative had qualified for the ballot with more than 7,700 valid signatures from city residents. Initiatives must have at least 7,168 names to qualify. If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions. The proposed ban appears to be the first in the country to make it this far, though a larger national debate over the health benefits of circumcision has been going on for many years. Banning circumcision would almost certainly prompt a flurry of legal challenges alleging violations of the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs. Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that is unnecessary, extremely painful and even dangerous. They say parents should not be able to force the decision on their young child. "Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what's in the best interest of the child. It's his body. It's his choice," said Lloyd Schofield, the measure's lead proponent and a longtime San Francisco resident. He added the cutting away of the foreskin from the penis is a more invasive medical procedure than many new parents or childless individuals realize. But opponents say such claims are alarmingly misleading, and call the proposal a clear violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms. "For a city that's renowned for being progressive and open-minded, to even have to consider such an intolerant proposition ... it sets a dangerous precedent for all cities and states," said Rabbi Gil Yosef Leeds of Berkeley. Leeds is a certified "mohel," the person who traditionally performs ritual circumcisions in the Jewish faith. He said for the past few months he has been receiving daily phone calls from members of the local Jewish community who are concerned about the proposed ban. But he said he is relatively confident that even if the measure is approved, it will be abruptly — and indefinitely — tied up in litigation. Jews consider religious male circumcision a commandment from God. It also is widely practiced by Muslims, and while it does not appear in the Quran it is mentioned in the Sunnah, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. Most Christian denominations neither require nor forbid circumcision. The initiative's backers say its progress is the biggest success story to date in a decades-old, nationwide movement by so-called "intactivists" to end circumcision of male infants in the United States. A similar effort by the Tarrytown, N.Y.-based group Intact America to introduce a circumcision ban in the Massachusetts Legislature last year failed to gain traction. "It's been kind of under the radar until now, but it was a conversation that needed to happen," Schofield said of the debate over male circumcision. "We've tapped into a spark with our measure — something that's been going on for a long time." Schofield's group calls its initiative the San Francisco Male Genital Mutilation bill, though he said the city attorney has opted to call the measure "Male Circumcision" on the ballot. The group's official website features a picture of a wide-eyed, delighted-looking baby and urges visitors to help "protect ALL infants and children in San Francisco from the pain and harm caused by forced genital cutting." Female genital cutting, a controversial practice that usually involves the removal of the clitoris, is illegal in the United States. A circumcision ban would simply extend the same protections to males, Schofield said. International health organizations have promoted circumcision as an important strategy for reducing the spread of the AIDS virus. That's based on studies that showed it can prevent AIDS among heterosexual men in Africa. But there hasn't been the same kind of push for circumcision in the U.S., in part because nearly 80 percent of American men are already circumcised, a much higher proportion than the worldwide average of 30 percent. Also, HIV spreads mainly among gay men in the U.S., and research indicates circumcision doesn't protect gay men from HIV. For years, federal health officials have been working on recommendations regarding circumcision. The effort was sparked by studies that found circumcision is partially effective in preventing the virus' spread between women and men. The recommendations are still being developed, and there is no date set for their release, said a spokeswoman for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC doesn't have a position on the San Francisco proposal, said the spokeswoman, Elizabeth-Ann Chandler. The chief of pediatric urology at the University of California, San Francisco Benioff Children's Hospital said he remains neutral on the subject of circumcision when parents come to him seeking advice. Dr. Laurence Baskin said he instead tries to educate them about the medical benefits and potential downsides of the procedure. In addition to the AIDS studies, Baskin cited published research indicating that circumcision can reduce the incidence of other sexually transmitted diseases, as well as penile cancer and urinary tract infections. He disputed claims that circumcision is mutilation or causes significant pain. "It has what I would say would be a minimal amount of pain if done properly, so my recommendation is to use anesthesia," he said. However, he noted, "most people aren't circumcised and they do just fine." Baskin was not neutral on the subject of the new ballot measure, calling it "a bunch of nonsense." "I'm not going to stop doing circumcisions, and this would never pass the First Amendment test," he said. "The people who are doing this should focus on our budget problems, lack of education — something that could really help society." ___ AP Medical Writer Mike Stobbe contributed to this report from Atlanta.

The more I read about Mitch Daniels the more I like him. I am also reading that Governor Rick Perry of Texas might jump in the race. However, I think I read at RedState.com that members of Perry's staff are supporting Gingrich with the Governor's blessing. If Gingrich faulters (which looks likely) I would not be surprised if Perry jumps in. I do not know if I could support Perry as I know little about his record. However, if he decides to run I will support Mitch Daniels for President.

UPDATE: Just got this notice. Alan Bock died shortly after being admitted to hospice.

I have some bad news everyone. I have just found out that Orange County Register libertarian columnist and author Alan Bock has entered hospice. He retired from the paper in March and is now dying of cancer after having undergone chemotherapy for it recently. His wife reports he is comfortable and is surrounded by family and friends. For those of you who do not know he is not only the author of two books on the Ruby Ridge incident and medical marijuana but also uncovered the lies the ATF made about the Viper Militia which was repeated as gospel by the Clinton Administration and the subject of an article published in Reason magazine in the 1990's. I met and talked to Alan and his wife at a conference here in Phoenix back in 2004. He is a very nice man and a great journalist. Sadly, it won't be much longer before he is no longer with us.

He stood on his principles that much is certain. However, this is the problem with many libertarians like him and those that follow him. They take consistency as an intrinsic value (i.e. consistent for the sake of being consistent). As a result they take their logic to an illogical extreme. Paul's opposition to assassinating bin Laden is an example.

I have to admit I am not the biggest fan of Ron Paul. But a statement he made goes to show not only how naive he is about foreign policy but how idiotic his logic is. Due to the early attention he is getting about another Presidential run, Paul was recently quoted in the press as saying that he would not have ordered the assassination of Osama bin Laden [1]. While being questioned on a radio talk show, Paul elaborated by saying that we didn't get Pakistan's permission therefore the legality of such an operation was questionable since we violated the country's sovreignty. Never mind that bin Laden declared war on the U.S. in 1998 and later stated it was justified to kill Americans. Almost the entire government of Pakistan is friendly to Al-Quaeda and it was recently revealed that personel in the Pakistani government were alleged to have assisted bin Laden[2]. Possibly within the ISI which is the country's intelligence agency [3]. Like George Smith rightly pointed out bin Laden was a smug, self-righteous murderer who got what he deserved. With a statement like this and his asserting terrorism is the result of U.S. foreign policy (which it certainly is not) I think it's clear that Ron Paul is not fit to be President of the U.S. 1) http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110512/pl_dailycaller/ronpaulsayshewouldnothaveorderedbinladenkill_1 2) http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/05/pervez_musharraf_admits_pakist.html 3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/pakistan-spy-chief-offers-to-resign-after-bin-laden-killing/2011/05/13/AFDbBv2G_story.html

But it is not impossible to come up with or form concepts based on reality to explain certain things. A concept, idea, or conclusion can be changed if new evidence is discovered which allows someone to change their minds of conclusions they originally held but it is valid only if it is based on reality. In terms of Popperian falsification or even Kantian skepticism, their absurd logic entails that even if someone discovers a black swan that invalidates someone's conclusion that all swans are white ultimate knowledge or reality can never be known since according to both Kant and Popper, no one can really be certain about anything but they can make up their reality as they go along. It is impossible to verify a general statement (about the world) that has indefinite number of instances empirically. To do so would require that the statement be tested everywhere and everywhen. It cannot be done. One can only refute a general statement with an empirically observed contrary fact. Ba'al Chatzaf

His theory of the forms and philosophy gave the basis for determinism. Neoplatonists took his ideas further to culminate the concept of the divine including the existence of God. I didn't say Kant was a skeptic. However, Kant's skepticism as revealed in his ethics has been the basis for some awful ideas. The falsification theories as articulated by Karl Popper (who was an admitted Kantian skeptic) immediately come to mind. On the Aristotle quote I stand corrected.

This year not only marks the 10th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks but also the anniversary of a somewhat forgotten scandal that helped perpetuate the rebirth of the American left: the Enron scandal. Liberal groups latched on to the Enron scandal like bees on honey using the company as a scapegoat to point out the evils of capitalism. However, the events surrounding the scandal itself were not only misrepresented by the media but conspiracists on the left were able to conjure up a mythological tale worthy of a B-grade film for a grindhouse movie theater. In addition to the typical right-wing conspriacy theories (such as the New World Order), you've probably heard conspiracy theories from the left before: The Military Industrial Complex, the American Empire, multinational corporations and conglomerates, and the vast right wing conspiracy started by Hilary Clinton. At the time liberal spin-doctors labored night and day to make Enron out to be a typical cabal of free marketers. On the one hand leftists claimed the company was in bed with President George W. Bush to profit from its political connections with the White House. When it was revealed that the President turned down requests for help from Enron executives they then scolded Bush for not having done more to protect shareholders and Enron employees. There were also other conspiracies based on outright lies too. For example, despite not pointing out a singe rule to which Enron was immune New York Times columnist Paul Krugman stated politicians with ties to the company helped exempt Enron from regulations. One Newsweek columnist reeled against Enron brass alleging they pocketed stock options to benefit from an artifically inflated stock price while running the company into the ground. He also pointed out Wall Street brokers were the victims of being seduced by Enron's inflated stock price due to false bookkeeping kept silent by the company's accounting firm Arthur Andersen. Some even claimed Enron profited from California's electricity market deregulation despite the fact that the state's deregulation was done with hundreds of pages of new rules. To this day, none of this makes any sense. If any of the aforementioned groups stood to profit from Enron's demise why would Wall Street investment and prestigious accounting firms want to destroy their long-established reputations? At best the facts reveal that the only conspiracy was an unsuccessful attempt by Enron managers attempting to hide their incompetence. What explains conspiracy theories are not facts but a flawed philosophical outlook if not some semblance of paranoia. In the case of the Enron scandal conspriacies they are based on the Marxist theory of exploitation. According to Marx the bourgeoisie (i.e. Enron executives) conspired to exploit the proletariat (i.e. Enron shareholders and employees). Marx also went on to point out that ideas other than his (such as those that further capitalism) are part of the conspiracy to exploit the little guy as well. The overall underpinnings of conspiracy theories are a strand of faith influenced by Kantian skepticism and Plato's Theory of the Forms. Plato theorized that people's lives are predetermined by some hidden, unknown entity or group beyond man's ability to comprehend or understand while Kant stated that man's knowledge is always in doubt therefore reality or the truth can never be known. In terms of Plato, fortunately, his student Aristotle put his teacher's theory to bed. I love Plato, Aristotle said. but I love the truth more. Unfortunately, Kant and Plato's influence are still seen to this day in various forms of cultural and political movements. The most stark examples are religion, political correctness, multiculturalism, philosophical skepticism, environmentalism, subjectivism, pragmatism, and intelligent design. If central planning occurs as a result of plans from powers behind the thrones, then, consequently, people do not have free will since a person's freedom is negated by deterministic plans made without their knowledge by powers they cannot know or comprehend. This being the case one cannot claim to be a freedom lover yet purport determinism as the explanation for events like the Enron scandal and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I suggest following Aristotle's (or better yet Ayn Rand's) lead instead. The events surrounding alleged conspiracies are better explained by reality and not determinism or even mysticism. In the case of Enron and other economic disasters they are the result of bad policies and outright incompetence either on the part of politicians or corporate executives and not out of some vast conspiracy of cloistered rule.

Oh okay, Adam. Thanks for clarifying.

I wanted to comment with regards to comments someone made on these boards regarding the network Al-Jazeera. The individual (whose name escapes me at the moment) said they thought Al-Jazeera was a good source of reporting and information in terms of the goings on in the Middle East. I would suggest questioning anything that is reported by that network. Al-Jazeera has been caught reporting one thing on their English language programs but something completely the opposite on their Arab language networks. For example, last year when the Gaza flotilla incident occured, Al-Jazeera reported on the English side that the Gaza flotilla was a peaceful effort to bring aid to Gazans yet on their Arab language channels they ran a story from the Mavi Marmara ship in which footage was shown of Arab/Muslim participants chanting a song with verses discussing killing Jews. Then the same news report cut to a woman who stated that they hoped for either victory by breaking the Israeli blockade or martyrdom. http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=2323

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/atlas-shrugged-producer-promises-two-182714 "The man who says he spent $10 million of his own money to bring Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 to the big screen vowed Wednesday to go through with his plans to make the next two installments, even though critics hate the movie and business at movie theaters has fallen off a cliff. In fact, said John Aglialoro, the co-producer and financier, it's the monolithic view from critics that say the movie stinks that is motivating him to make Parts 2 and 3, he told The Hollywood Reporter."

The libertarians I am refering to are mainly of the anarchist strain. Many of the ones I have been in contact with locally and nationally do tend to side with the Gazans since they see the U.S.'s support of the American Empire (so-called). So in reaction to this, they will support the side in opposition to Israel. In this case the Palestinians. They also borrow somewhat about Ron Paul's assertion that Israel created Hamas which is not true at all. One Phoenix libertarian in particular has befriended and conducted activities with said Code Pink activist and when I was opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan I also allied with many leftists who organized/participated in the Arizona Alliance for Peaceful Justice that I and a couple of other libertarians participated in as well. There is also Antiwar.com which has not only detractors on the right but on the left too and (to the best of my knowledge) has had numerous leftists on their radio program. In 2008 the Future of Freedom Foundation had a conference that had libertarian and socialists in their speaker line up.

Okay I would like to hear your thoughts on why it is. In terms of which libertarians I am refering to I thought I made it clear in the latter part of the article. Specifically, I am refering to the ones who ally themselves with Palestinians in the Gaza-Israel conflict. Many go so far as to borrow the logic of leftists, Hamas and other jihadist groups who are hostile to Israel and the Jews.

Vittorio Arrigoni is one more casualty in a morally bankrupt cause undertaken by hardcore leftists to defend terrorists and obstruct Israel’s ability to defend herself. Upon volunteering to do so, Arrigoni was sent to Gaza by the International Socialist Movement (ISM). The ISM (which really stands for I Support Murderers) is the same group responsible for recruiting people such as Rachel Corrie and Angelo Frammartino. Arrigoni and Frammartino were murdered by Islamic jihadists while Corrie (despite the lies told by her apologists) died attempting to block the destruction of a tunnel entrance used by Palestinian terrorists to smuggle weapons into Israel. It should also be noted that on numerous occasions the ISM has had their facilities raided by Israeli authorities. This is mainly due to the group's ties to terrorist groups. Regretfully, all three of these albeit naïve idealists are dead. Their lives wasted for a cause that embraced the very violence they abhorred so long as it was directed at Israel and not Gaza Palestinians. The worst part about it is that Corrie's parents and Arrigoni’s mother continue the work of their kids. Rachel Corrie's parents have gone so far as to initiate a lawsuit against the IDF ironically enough via Israel's court system. Vittorio Arrigoni's mother will travel to Gaza via one of the second Gaza Flotilla ships in May. Corrie and Arrigoni's parents are conducting themselves in true communist form. They obviously consider sacrifice (even of their own children) as their highest calling despite their well-to-do lifestyles and the true intentions of the people they staunchly defend. A short time ago I had an exchange with a local Code Pink activist on Facebook. I borrowed from the logic of David Horowitz and asked this individual if she denounced Hamas as a terrorist organization. Her reply was only that she denounced violence and despite my pressing her numerous times on a discussion thread and emails she would not condemn Hamas. In real life and cyberspace discussions I have had with libertarians (some of whom have worked with local leftist groups on certain activities), I am told that I have been brainwashed or am a victim of propaganda for defending Israel. Am I? Let’s consider the actual words of the people some claim are the victims of Israeli oppression and that they so rigorously defend. Consider these quotes from the charter of Hamas: Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. And [The Jews’] scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and their present [conduct] is the best proof of what is said there. Then there is the Quran: Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve. (8:55) The unbelievers (i.e. non-Muslims) are your invenerate enemy. (48:29) Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. (9:73 & 66:9) Then there is Islam's prophet Muhammad: I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. And You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them hide will behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying: ‘O Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew jiding behind me; so kill him’. Finally consider the wisdom of these prominent Muslim scholars: In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations. - ibn-Khaldun, 14th century Muslim scholar The meaning of the term terror used by the media … is jihad for the sake of Allah. Jihad is the peak of Islam. Moreover, some of the clerics … see it as the sixth pillar of Islam. Jihad – whether Jihad of defense of Muslims and of Islamic lands such as Chechnya, the Philippines, and Afghanistan, or Jihad aimed at spreading the religion – is the pinnacle of terror, as far as the enemies of Allah are concerned. – Sheikh Wajdi Hamza Al-Ghazawi, October 6, 2001 And finally Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad’. .... the objective of the Islamic ‘ Jihād’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule. – Abul Ala Maududi Finally, let's not forget a 1991 memo published by the Muslim Brotherhood uncovered by the F.B.I. entitled An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America which says: The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Proecess" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal. Islamic scholar and Middle Eastern expert Bernard Lewis summed it up beautifully in his essay Communism and Islam about how the two ideologies are two sides of the same coin: Quite obviously, the Ulama of Islam are very different from the Communist Party. Nevertheless, on closer examination, we find certain uncomfortable resemblances. Both groups profess a totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on heaven and earth; the answers are different in every respect, alike only in their finality and completeness, and in the contrast they offer with the eternal questioning of Western man. Both groups offer to their members and followers the agreeable sensation of belonging to a community of believers, who are always right, as against an outer world of unbelievers, who are always wrong. Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which- the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same. The humorist who summed up the Communist creed as There is no God and Karl Marx is his Prophet! was laying his finger on a real affinity. The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith-a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy-might well strike a responsive note. Let me stress that not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslims. There are decent, secular Muslims (like Dr. Zudhi Jasser) who want to practice their religion peacefully, and do not wish to harm anyone. However, the facts not only about Islamist terrorism but also the Israeli-Gaza conflict, by and large, are facts libertarians seem to have largely ignored. Either out of a willful ignorance of the enemy we face or out of an intrinsic, subjective notion of being consistent for the sake of being consistent. If anything the above quotes and the abundant of amount of evidence make it amply clear that the left is allied with Islamists soley to bring down Western civilization and not out of any high-minded, noble concern for the plight of the downtrodden, opposition to warfare, or out of any concern for our liberties. This and that the American Empire and the conspiracist mythology the left and some libertarians follow has been thoroughly debunked by the author should be ample reason for libertarians to disassociate themselves with leftists in their activities. Those on the left who are allied with Islamists do so not only out of their hatred of capitalism (i.e. Western civlization) but also due to both ideologies wishing to subject the individual to the collective will. Libertarians allying themselves with leftists in general is a serious error in judgement and is not consistent with libertarian principles. What libertarians will be not remembered for is their principled defense of liberty but rather the company they keep exemplifying their intellectual daftness and useful idiocy for defending the very people who want them dead.

Of course the U.N. is going to stand by the report or the conclusion of it's other bodies that conduct investigations. Most the U.N. member nations are dictatorships in which many of them are Islamist despots. If Israel intentionally targets civilians then why does their military warn them prior to their attacks on Gaza? The Associated Press in 2008 reported that the IDF send texts and pre-recorded cell phone messages to Gazans prior to an attack. The IDF did the same thing for Lebanese civilians prior to an Israeli attack on a village in Lebanon in 2006. The truth is that Hamas purposely positions weapons caches near civilian targets hoping such defacto human shields will prevent their positions from being destroyed by Israeli precision fire weapons. However, despite their best efforts at warning the populace if Gaza Palestinian civilians are killed or wounded as a result of Israeli retaliation, Hamas blames Israel and (worst of all) the media will report it as such. Hamas has turned the Gaza strip into a terrorist base and the group has broken every cease fire agreement negotiated with the Israelis in which Egypt has been the moderator. So the blame for civilian deaths in Gaza lies with Hamas. Not Israel.

Goldstone also said: We had no evidence that Israel didn't intentionally target civilians, so we concluded that Israel did so. Now we have evidence to the contrary. If only Israel had provided that sooner... Essentially, Goldstone's notion is that Israel is guilty until proven innocent. Such excuse making and idiocy leaves me in awe!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html Richard Goldstone is the former head of the UN Human Rights Council that alleged in a 2008-2009 report to the body claiming that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza. In the above op-ed he repudiates/retracts what the commission concluded in its report. Islamists (like Hamas) have used the report's conclusions and the fact that the Israelis would not participate in the investigation as a way to drive home their claims about Israeli oppression in the Gaza Strip. Now, fortunately, they have had the wind taken out of their sails.