MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Sapping Assad’s strength: Israel stirs the pot in Syria
By A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 12:48pm |According to some well-placed Israeli commentators, the best Israel can hope for is that Assad holds on but only just. That would keep the regime in place, or boxed into its heartland, but sapped of the energy to concern itself with anything other than immediate matters of survival.
In closed-door discussions, analyst Ben Caspit has noted, the Israeli army has put forward its “optimal scenario”: Syria breaking up into three separate states, with Assad confined to an Alawite canton in Damascus and along the coast.
A long war of attrition between Assad and the opposition has additional benefits for Israel following the decision by Hizbullah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, to draft thousands of fighters to assist the Syrian army. Protacted losses could deplete Hizbullah’s ranks and morale, while fighting is likely to spill over from Syria into Lebanon, tying up the militia on multiple fronts.
URL:
http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2013-06-17/sapping-assads-strength-israel-stirs-the-pot-in-syria/
- Add new comment
- 3607 reads
Comments
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 12:49pm
All the neighbors of Syria do not have the luxury of laissez-faire that we do. Their neighborhood has already been upended:
I find it amazing how little Israel has done so far.
Also when a conflict starts to have stories like this one, chances are high that you have next-door-neighbor turmoil for decades, no matter who signs what peace conference accords.
by artappraiser on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 2:23pm
This is just incredibly classic, to wit, Israel would be best off with a protracted battle in Syria, and so therefore, as the headline blares, it is Israel that is "stirring the pot" -- by doing nothing. Yup, it's Israel . . . again.
Unfortunately, this stuff can be made up; indeed it happens all the time.
Of course, never mind that Israel's border with Syria hasn't been a problem for forty years.
by Bruce Levine on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 3:28pm
Not best written article, but would behoove you to read it again. ( and headlines are seldom written by the author )
What the article contends is that Israel has been doing nothing for 2 years as this has gone on, but as it looks like the rebels would lose and the West would dry up support, Israel has taken a few small actions - a couple attacks, a few accusations, a bit of humanitarian aid/intelligence/something in some villages - to keep the conflict pushed towards stalemate and get the West to stay in the game.
So yes, that's stirring the pot a bit, not a lot, not unusual for a neighbor to want a say in outcomes in a bordering country. Not sure why you're so defensive about this.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 4:16pm
Defensive? Hardly. I am more amused than anything else. 90,000 plus people dead, millions of refugees, so let's talk about Israel stirring the pot. Normal? OK.
But thank you for guiding me through the nuance of this "analysis" because I thought I was supposed to read what I was reading. Silly me.
by Bruce Levine on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 6:07pm
Yes, you're defensive. The author notes that after a long period of staying on the sidelines, Israel's starting to push its preferences. This is what's called "news". He describes several ways Israel's doing it, how there's internal turmoil & indecision, that the goal is a split-the-baby keep it going rather than an easier pick one side or another; that there are no easy good solutions.
As I noted, usually someone else writes headlines to stories. But you're worried about Israel looking bad rather than actually reading the article.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 6:46pm
OK, you win the argument with your super, duper extraordinary psychoanalysis from afar. Yes, let's have fun and turn this into the Jew sticking up for Israel in response to an article that is, at best, ridiculous. The entire Shia and Sunni world threatens to erupt in the confines of Syria, and it's important to speculate about Israel's role because Israel has. . .well, it's done nothing, but who cares --it's Israel and let us not forget that nothing more be said.
Gosh, am I mad at myself for responding to this kind of smegma. You win PP, dig it.
by Bruce Levine on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 8:35pm
Uh, Bruce - the guy writes from Nazareth. It's kind of his job to look at the world from that perspective, not to balance events in the Philippines with those in S. Denver.
He detected a change in Israeli behavior & concerns re: Syria over the last few weeks. Do you agree or not, and why? He gave concrete examples - debate those, not your distraction about 90,000 dead or however else you want to do his job. His article is focused on 1 aspect. All else is your typical whinging "smegma" as you call it.
"well, it's done nothing, but who cares --it's Israel and let us not forget that nothing more be said." no, for 2 years Israel's done nothing - lately it has - he gave specific examples. if you disagree, discuss why. Crying on your keyboard yet again about how poor Israel is being targeted really wasn't the point of Lulu posting this - it was to see if Bibi's going to get more involved after 2 years of sitting it out. It's reasonable for Israel to assert its interests in a neighbor's civil war & seek best course of action for best outcomes - nothing startling here, dog bites man.
Really, all you do is show up to find a pre-emptive way to bend things to your point of view in case there's any possible criticism of Israel coming up, rather than read the post. It gets old. The article could have been about how Erdogan was changing his tactics and maybe you would have ignored that - but you have to be an Israel hack if Israel's mentioned. To whit, there's no criticism of Israel here.
Smegma. You summed it up. Hit the showers.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 3:22am
PP,
If you don't know who Jonathan Cook is that doesn't make you smarter--although we all know you're very smart.
Here's my conclusion:
1. If Lulu wants to continue to post the most virulently hateful stuff, then if I'm management I have to let him do that. No smoking guns so to speak, as required when it comes to antisemitism--as distinguished from other forms of irrational hate. OK, I understand the terrain.
2. I think, and I will write this until the cows come home, that Lulu and you enjoy goading the Jew. That doesn't make you an antisemite, but you do enjoy goading the Jew.
3. As to number 2, I really believe that.
4. It's your nickel.
5. Mr. Cook lives in Nazareth which is in Israel yes. I've been there too. So? All Israelis of Palestinian descent think like Cook? You think? I don't but even if they did Cook is a kid from England, with a very fine pedigree I might add. Oh the pain of being young and privileged.
6. I have to work for a living. Good day.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 8:17am
I don't care who Cook is - nothing in what he wrote was controversial (except somehow to you) - and certainly not hateful. It was simply reporting a possible shift in Israeli diplomacy.
The only negative was the way the title was put on - not Cook's fault, as the title was less controversial elsewhere.
If you wear your chip with every tuxedo, it won't be very much fun at the ball.
And no, I really have no fun "goading the Jew". Fortunately I don't find most Jews like that, so it's not a stereotype I have to keep.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 8:50am
So, having sat through court all day I get to read and respond to your predictable response on the train. What fun.
Let's set the stage. One time, yes just one time, PP defended by defense of the integrity of Jews in response to the notion that Jews were dancing around after 9/11 and were likely responsible. You found that anti-semitic, I think, or maybe just irresponsible. My response was that your comment gave you credibility, but please understand that you don't hate Israel as much as everyone in world is a status you be proud of if you choose. Your credibility, moreover, does not give you license to attack me personally every time express what my views are on Israel.
Continuing, you accuse me of predictability and yet your comments on Israel, and frankly every one of your several dozen comments each day are as predictable as the sun rising in the east. Please don't assume the contrary.
I will let people read the headline, Lulu's chosen excerpt from the article, and then the whole article itself. It is the work of a hater, one who looks past the death of more than 90,000 Syrians, the displacement of millions, and the issue joined between Shia and Sunni, and focuses instead on alleged but invisible that Israel will be taking steps to make the situation worse. And, in doing so, he just lies about Israel and chemical weapons conclusions (which was France), and so just once again invokes that old, heinous and vile notion that when it comes to war, just look behind the curtain and you'll find it all controlled by the Jew. And, of course, I know you don't wanna look at who Jonathan Cook is, because I guess who someone is is completely irrelevant in understanding where they are coming from (right PP????), but so far as I know he's the old polished British white guy to have been fired from the Guardian for being to hard on the Jews and his hated Israel.
But I digress. I have no idea whom you offend or do not offend PP. I do understand a disturbing pattern with you, and that is no matter when or how infrequently something bothers me about Jews and I make the mistake of writing things that bother you and others, you have to come back with your offensive, and tiresome, and chilling allegations that I'm defensive or something directed at me personally.
Sorry I'm the only Jew here who in your mind wears it on his fucking sleeve. It does not disqualify me from discourse, unless Michael, who certainly tolerates your bullshit, chooses not to tolerate mine.
Finally, if you want to defend Cook, focus on his prose; don't rewrite it so that it fits with your goading the Jew routine.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 5:51pm
I refuted the chemical weapons part below. Your position isn't conclusive fact. (see JPost)
The article didn't claim Israel's actions were making the situation worse - it was looking at what the effects might be.
I ignored who Cook is because the point of this article is simple and non-controversial. Churchill was controversial at Gallipoli & in Iraq, but a book of Churchill anecdotes doesn't require reading his verbose Histories & autobiography to comment.
Nobody said Israel is controlling everything in Syria. Even Lulu's article makes it clear the actions are minimal - that's the whole point! - just enough to help keep a standoff, not get drawn in to a bad situation. (see Jewish News Service - planned US/Israeli actions)
Presumably if Israel's planning actions, she's thought about what effect it will have on the various parties in the conflict - hope that's not controversial. Having a victorious radical Islamist rebel force sounds bad for Israel, as would an emboldened Assad - is it absurd or anti-semitic to report Israel would like both sides to lose and disperse energy that would make trouble for Israel?)
You exaggerate, ignore facts or what's written, and twist things to fit some kind of line of argument you're more comfortable with. Nope, not fun.
Then you key in on this "goad the Jew" bit. I didn't rewrite fuck all. Give it a break.
PS - "If Lulu wants to continue to post the most virulently hateful stuff" - you don't get out much, do you?
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 6:46pm
Moderated
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 8:47pm
ToS warning, Bruce
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 9:03pm
Protest, respectfully, but no appeal.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 9:04pm
And I don't have a "position" on chemical weapons. I don't know who used them in Syria or if they were used at all. So I have no idea what you're talking about. All I wrote was that it was bullshit and irrational and hardly analysis to connect Israel and only Israel with the U.S. determinations about chemical weapons use, as Cook does in his article. And I only brought it up because Lulu asked for an example or something.
Edited: Jewish guilt beginning to overtake urge to use F bomb. Deletions accordingly.
Edited a second time to quote what Mr. Cook actually wrote about chemical weapons [as distinguished from a position on chemical weapons which you claim that I have] in the article I claim is bad things. Here's Cook from the article Lulu posted:
Analysis my foot PP, and you have to know it man.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 8:36pm
Bslev, surely there is someone else writing on the very same subject and giving a smart, fair, balanced appraisal of the situation , someone who covers the same ground as Cook but does it right. Someone who's analysis isn't smeared as coming from a "hater" by having written critically about Israel any time in the past. Maybe even someone who can explain how an airstrike isn't meddling. If you run across an article like that, how about pointing it out.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 10:03pm
Excuse me, I consider this to be condescending. I am not charged with bringing anything to the table Lulu, simply because I object to hate speech.
I am not asking for your stuff to be removed.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 8:13am
Wilkerson called the chemical claims a "false flag operation", and the UN is still hesitant to believe the claims. But between Israel pushing the claim of chemical weapons use in April (with attack on Syrian chemical stores shortly after) and Obama's decision to supply the rebels & do a no-fly zone this month, US policy has changed. Would you like to suggest a synonym for "foment" that meets the Bruce Lev seal-of-approval?
Here's Ital Brun asking for response for claimed chemical attacks:
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 2:04am
This is entirely non-responsive to Cook's prose, which you've defended while chiding me as a defensive Jew. This is what one might call bush league, and tactical, but not responsive and hardly genuine.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 8:14am
Time headline:
Bruce: fomented [foment means "incite"] claims that Damascus had used chemical weapons, in what looked suspiciously like an attempt to corner Washington into direct intervention. [looked suspiciously by whom????? cite?????? C'mon]
Uh Bruce, I noted that many at the UN and elsewhere didn't buy Israel's late-April claims of chemical weapons, sent you links. Re: "corner Washington into direct intervention", by Time's account it has succeeded unless you think this was just happenstance. US/Israel are targeting Assad's arsenal, Obama's arming the rebels - a decision made weeks ago. I.e. about the time chemical weapons crossed Obama's red line.
The more you object, the more I look at details, and hey, they line up. But he's not even complaining about Israel's actions - he's trying to understand them. More elsewhere.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 9:10am
I reply to this continuous non response below. That Israel reported something in April that is then challenged bears zero relation to what Cook wrote. Insults won't change truth.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 9:57am
Nor will whiney protestations about "hate speech". Try explaining yourself for once rather than latching onto words as the end of the world. What specifically gets your goat about Cook? He gives some of his analyst's names, it's not unusual for reporters to have scuttlebutt from insiders they don't name, and even the Israeli general Itai Brun who started the accusations of Syria using chemical weapons didn't have anything but photographic evidence - that some were foaming at the mouth and had dilated pupils so that must mean sarin poisoning, so we must arm the rebels & strike chemical supplies et al. There still haven't been tests on the ground, no physical tests for chemicals. Obama notes the Russians are still skeptical that chemical weapons were used. But Bruce has a monopoly on "truth".
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 10:33am
Stopped reading after you called me "whiny" a personal slur and a stereotyped characterization of Jewish people. PP, you are a product of your upbringing--you can't help it, just like the rest of us. Look inward. Reply on Whiny below.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 11:26am
Oh, I can't use the term "whiney" because that's anti-Semitic? I'll have to inform my kids that incessant sobbing is now acceptable, and that to call them out on it is ethnically intolerant. You're really a joke. Forget it.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 12:32pm
Bslev, I agree that the headline is provocative. A headline is supposed to be provocative, but this one does make a charge and so I understand why your twitchy knee did its regular thing.
I first read the article at The National. There the title is:
Israel's Best Hope in Syria is Survival of a Weaker Assad
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/israels-best-h...
I googled Jonathan Cook to skim a few things about him. Somewhere I found the same article and ended up using it when I made the posting. I didn't notice the different title. Fuck the title.
You are an intelligent, well educated person with a love for the state of Israel and a concern for its future. You know a lot about the place and its situation. Would you consider addressing the article?
Does Cook offer reasonable analysis? Do any of his statements of fact sound wrong? Are his speculations crazy? Does he sound like he has a biased agenda to push?
These are not rhetorical questions. I understand 'confirmation bias'. If that is what makes me think a misleading article is a good one I would like to find that out. In a response to you recently I said that I suspected that Israel wanted Assad to suffer a crushing victory, or words to that effect. Since then I have seen many versions of this same speculation. This article by Cooke made its case and provided a good synopsis of the overall situation, it seems to me. If you can show where it is wrong in whole or in part I would be happy to see it. Seriously, and I expect some others would be too.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 11:51pm
One quick example of how Cook is a hater and not an analyst.
Everyone, nay everyone, knows that France (and Britain too?) came out in the last month to announce their tests and not Israel's tests, confirmed that Syria used chemical weapons. That's not news.
In Cook's world of hatred, the Jews appear to have made up the chemical stuff--read your article--and uses the license that PP says British dudes have if they live in Nablus to simply assert that Israel made that stuff up to force the U.S. to intervene, i.e. thate goes Israel again, controlling American foreign policy.
So does Cook offer reasonable analysis? You might think so. I think he is just reiterating his M.O. I think he's a hater, and I think you enjoy goading the Jew with this stuff. But enjoy your posture of alleged reasonableness and of one who aches to just try to understand. . .
Good day.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 7:05am
Everyone?
It's not just that you decide what evidence you want to believe - you ignore the existence of other evidence.
Note: someone pointed out that 80%+ of weapons "intelligence" is coming out of the US & Israel - attributing some detail to the French or British is probably meaningless unless the data actually came from them and not just their interpretation of possibly slanted data.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 8:47am
I have to say that this "reply" is just really weird, seriously man. I reply above.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 8:39pm
Al Jazeera clearly stoking the sectarian flames.
"Angry Arab" As'ad AbuKhalil, who is nearly as fond of that particular media outlet as he is of Zionists (not), had a new thought on that topic today.
by artappraiser on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 9:30pm
I have to say that with nearly every country on the international stage poking sticks into this conflict, including the U.S., Russia, Turkey, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Egypt, not to mention Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and Hamas, it's a little odd to see an article accusing Israel of meddling by...uh...sending out contradictory signals.
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 9:22pm
As you note, everyone in the world's involved. It's not unusual for Israel to want things to turn out in a way that benefits. But being Israel in the middle of a Muslim world, she has to be careful - damned if you do, damned if you don't. And the options between Assad winning and radical rebels winning aren't attractive either. So in this case Israel has stayed out of it, but lately seems to be doing a few things to affect events - including air strikes and some explosions, but other. How controversial is this?
YNet has a report saying Israel was behind some explosions 3 days ago - is that okay for the Israeli press to report? would that rise to the horror of accusing her of "meddling"? such as the claims of Syria's use of chemical weapons, which would push them past Obama's famous red line? Mainstream Israeli & international media (Guardian, CNN, BBC, Time's recent is especially strong) are reporting this stuff - not sure why it's so controversial to quote.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 2:50am
Peracles,
I believe it is dishonest, and blatantly so, for you to assert as you do here that the article by Mr. Cook, about which this post is about and in response to which I reacted, is just like all these other analyses in your reply relating to Israel and its legitimate concerns as Israel's neighbor.
I implored you to at least admit that Cook's "analysis" was hardly that when it came to Israel and chemical weapons. And above you skirt that issue in your reply to me, and you ignore me and quote Wilkerson.
That says far more about you than it does about me.
And so it goes, as we push another disgusting piece of rubbish about the Jewish State under the rug, move on, and chide the Jew for being defensive. For that is what is critical here as I conclude from this thread--as more than 90,000 Syrians are dead, millions are displaced, and the Islamic world is lining up behind sectarian factions.
I'm disappointed in many things arising out of this thread this morning. I apologize to Michael for removing my comment to you, which plainly violated TOS.
But I submit that I am responding to what it is clearly a hate piece about the Jewish States by Mr. Cook.
And as always take the last word if you want it.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 8:49am
How is it "hate speech"? You're bonkers. Read the damn thing.
"The answer can be deduced in the unappealing outcomes for Israel whoever emerges triumphant. Israel stands to lose strategically if either Assad or the opposition wins decisively." - controversial? or simply states Israel's predicament
"Assad, and before him his father, Hafez, ensured that for decades the...line between Syria and Israel... remained the quietest of all Israel’s borders." - as the American saying goes, "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch " - anti-Israeli?
"A taste of what might happen should the Syrian regime fall was provided in 2011 when more than 1,000 Palestinians massed in the no man’s land next to the Golan, while Assad’s attention was directed to repressing popular demonstrations elsewhere. At least 100 Palestinians crossed into the Heights" - point Israel, real reason to worry
"Briefly the opposition forces captured Quneitra, offering a reminder that any void there would likely suck in Palestinian militants and jihadists keen to settle scores with Israel." - point Israel, real reason to worry
"Israeli military is reported to be considering two responses: invading ...or covertly training and arming Syrian proxies inside the same area....indications ...that Israel is already pursuing the second track." - that's the more legal & less explosive route & lines up with what the US is doing - anti-Israeli? hate speech?
He goes on to describe Hizbullah as probably Israel's bigger worry, with Israeli strikes to prevent their arming - point Israel, real reason to worry
Concern about Assad upgrading its missiles - point Israel, real reason to worry
Israel’s much vaunted ambition to engineer an attack on Iran [to prevent a bomb]...would probably come at too high a price to be feasible." - may sound negative, but isn't that fairly accurate?
"According to some well-placed Israeli commentators, the best Israel can hope for is that Assad holds on but only just. That would keep the regime in place, or boxed into its heartland, but sapped of the energy to concern itself with anything other than immediate matters of survival. It would be unable to offer help to Hizbullah, isolating the militia in Lebanon and cutting off its supply line to Iran." - the crux of the biscuit, sounds like a good plan if Israel can get it. Is Israel doing anything unreasonable in pushing this option?
Cook paints 2 possibilities - that protracted battle would sap Hizbullah strength - advantage Israel - or that Hizbullah would gain if they handled the conflict well. Nowhere does Cook condemn Israel in this scenario.
So I simply don't get where you think of this as hate speech or puts Israel in bad light, aside from coming out of its shell and deciding to push the conflict to its own advantage - something that Michael noted 10 other countries are doing.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 9:32am
I stopped reading after bonkers. And I just read yet another non response above. Questioning evidence is hardly accusing the Jeqish State of unilaterally pushing America into another war with false claims about chemical weapons.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 9:53am
Not even Al Qaeda can agree on what to do:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/2013615172217827810.html
by artappraiser on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 11:44pm
This responds specifically to one of the many names that Peracles has determined to call yours truly. This is about "whiny". I say that is an anti-semitic stereotype, which Peracles just levied at me. He has and presumably respond and say I'm defensive, or paranoid, or bonkers, or . . . whiny, that whiny was just coincidental having nothing to do with me being a Jew.
I did not make this up and Peracles can call me what he wishes, but here's just corroboration that I'm hardly the first to notice the propensity of many folks to call Jews whiny. That is what Peracles, a product of the same society all of us are, just called me.
Here's a teachable moment for all good and decent people, with a tad of a tongue in cheek. This is a snarky but real list of anti-semitic tropes listed by someone other than this defensive, paranoid, bonkers writer [sorry about formatting below]:
Not necessarily my list, because I'm more concerned about the tropes like Cooks, which turn the bloodbath in Syria into another example where "meddling" by the Jewish State will put our boys and girls in danger overseas--as in Iraq, a Cook favorite, and of course World War I and World War II.
In what world other than consideration of what Jews think, are history and context treated as so meaningless, or worse, as a ruse, or raised as the product of paranoia?
And now I'm done.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 11:45am
You win, I'm speechless.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 12:59pm
I don't consider anything about the train wreck thread above a win. I'm ill.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 1:07pm
No, you won - I'm floored. Savor it.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 7:32pm