Anti-Neocons

Kerr, that's an embarrassingly weak little piece. I like the the Photoshop job you did on that image, though.



ROTFLOL. We're about to see that I still only have one arsehole, but evidently Drew J's posts are better than anything Kerr can come up with. Since Kerr's new 'article' at the O'Connell blog uses Drew J's sophistic drivel to give it a spine (Kerr doesn't seem to have one), I'll post my response to Drew's pissweak "arguments". I don't have the time right now to deal directly with Kerr.



Have you calmed down yet, Drew? It looks like you may have been a bit upset when you wrote that. We'll get to the "double standards" and "weak excuses" in a minute, but for now let's just settle down and look at this rationally. Unraveling your convoluted ranting and raving will take some doing, but we'll get there.

Let's take a second to review the situation and look at how we got here. O'Connell spectacularly lost his court case and was sent to prison after being convicted on a number of charges. Basically, he was imprisoned for calling a whiny little Jewish kid a "racist, homicidal maniac". As I've written already, it doesn't take a genius to predict the effect that will have on Australian anti-Zionism (and "anti-Judaic activism"). It's basic human psychology and a very simple case of cause and effect: One goes to prison for calling a Jew names, and others, reluctant to face the same charges and risk a prison sentence, are scared into silence. Some, obviously not all. The logic behind this is unassailable and the truth of it self-evident, regardless of Drew J's disingenuous, alchemical attempts to spin it otherwise. So that's that.

On Feb 10, 2011, Kerr issues an "open challenge" to Steve Johnson, suggesting that he "go after the big fish" (a phrase that Drew J. has co-opted like a fawning little fanboy and repeated ad nauseum on this forum) and call Steve Lieblich:



Later in the same article, he implies that it should be an impromptu visit with a video camera rather than a simple phone call, something Johnson (and the rest of the world) is not in the habit of doing:



Now this was quite a statement to make, coming from someone who has done nothing, nil, nada, nol (I'm learning Indonesian at the moment) for the anti-Zionist movement in terms of real life activism. So I wrote a comment for the article, suggesting that fair and equal terms be set on Kerr's "challenge" to Johnson. I suggested, without writing or talking to Johnson, that perhaps Johnson would take up Kerr's "challenge" if Kerr would commit himself to something of equal (or even lesser) effort. Something, anything, whatever. Just something. I thought that was fair enough, don't you?

But since Kerr's idea of 'proving oneself' seemed to be confronting people on camera as O'Connell had done with whiny little Jewish "enemy" Stanley Keyser ("Brendon O'Connell wasn't afraid to get in the enemy's face with his camera. He didn't hide behind a telephone like you do. Brendon has proven himself. You haven't."), I intimated that perhaps Kerr himself should pick up a camera and hassle a Jew or two:



And he won't, of course. But it's worth pausing here for a moment to reflect on Kerr's idea of heroism. Let's take a minute to recall what O'Connell did to "prove himself" in Kerr's eyes. Well, he got into an argument with little yid-kid Keyser and posted it to YouTube. Okay, I don't see much bravery in that, but that's not all he did. He put out the video "Israel did 9/11 - some street activism for you" in which he walks up to a couple of people on the street and misquotes Dr. Alan Sabrosky by telling them that Sabrosky "wants Israel wiped off the map". By the end of it he has achieved not a single thing. No one in the video is impressed, inspired, or left better educated by his "street activism". In fact, they've been fed a line of bullshit about Sabrosky, reminiscent of the Western media's anti-Ahmadinejad propaganda, which is clearly doing more harm than good. Anyone who has seen the video knows as well as I do that it's not "activism"; it's just walking around aimlessly like a bored idiot and approaching people with absolutely no intention of actually connecting with them or communicating with them. Their reactions and facial expressions tell you all you need to know about the efficacy of O'Connell's "activism". But according to Kerr, this is how O'Connell "proved himself".

On Feb 12, 2011 -- 2 days after the publication of the "open challenge" to Steve Johnson -- two things happened. My comment on the Steve Johnson article was published by Kerr, and a new, disinformational "open challenge" was issued, this time to me. So Kerr had seen the comment I'd submitted on Feb 10 but delayed its publication until he'd responded to it with an entire, inane 'article'. He would later do exactly the same thing with the comments I submitted to that article, by holding off on publishing them until he'd written and posted his ridiculous "Response To James "Infensus Mentis"/"Crimes Of Zion" Linton" piece. Obviously he didn't want people reading them until he had plastered the front page of the O'Connell blog with his misleading, disinformational response. That is, of course, his right, but it's pussy-shit if you ask me.

So now that I'd piped up with a comment suggesting that Kerr be willing to engage in the same kind of 'activism' that he'd challenged Johnson with (or any activism at all), it was my turn to be "challenged" by Kerr the inactivist. His "open challenge" to myself was not as ambiguous as the one he'd put to Johnson. This time there was no mention of a phone call; he was clearly asking for a video-taped interview:



Not taking Kerr's laughable "challenge" seriously (I still don't), I responded the next day (Feb 13) with a comment pointing out his idiocy (more likely, it turns out, a deliberate attempt to mislead), which as I said, wasn't published there until 8 days later when he posted his response to it on the O'Connell blog on Feb 21.

I responded to that article the next day with this one (first published here on Feb 22) wherein I told him to shove his "challenge" up his arse, and I've been accused by you of being a "COWARD" ever since. So now that we're pretty much up-to-date, let's now look at that charge, because you've been raving on about it incessantly.







First of all, who are you to call me a coward? What have you done for the anti-Zionist cause, Drew J? I want this question answered in your next post. Don't get back to me without it. Are you a member of any local activist groups? Are you an activist in any way, shape or form, outside of posting to this forum? Do you distribute DVDs or help organise film screenings? Do you organise or even take part in events designed to raise awareness of that which matters to you? Have you put yourself and your home on video and posted it to YouTube? As far as I'm aware, you haven't released a single photo of yourself. What are you afraid of? Are you fat, skinny, ugly, pimply, what? Show yourself. Let's see you, Mr. Braveheart.

I've done all of the above and plenty more. So again, who the fuck are you to be calling me a coward? Like most people, you've never confronted anyone with a video camera but when I ignore this arbitrary "challenge" you call me "TWO FACED" and a "coward". You're the coward, Drew J. It's you that presents us with two faces, not me. One is the invisible, hidden face of someone who does nothing in the way of real life activism, and the other is the very loud, mouthy face of someone who calls others "COWARDS" as if he does.

I refer to myself as an activist in the Jim Kerr 'Nuked' piece because I am one. I'm not a hero, a "messiah" or a "saviour", but I fit the profile of an activist quite neatly and sufficiently. I don't brag about it out of context or try to exaggerate what I do. I could always do more, and to be perfectly honest, I'm not happy with what I've achieved. I won't be happy until I see real change, which is the main reason I keep doing this shit. But at least I'm trying, I really am, and I've spent good money in the process. Have you? Are you trying? How, what have you done? What are you doing and how much have you spent? Since you're calling me a coward in caps and punctuating it with exclamation marks, I think I deserve the answer to that question.

Another good question is, why on Earth should I do what Kerr "challenges" me to? When one of the biggest dickheads you know tells you to do something, chances are you're not going to do it. But you've proffered several other reasons why I should accept this "challenge" in your posts on this forum. One is that I'm the "ablest" and "the best man for the job". Another is that I'm the closest (God forbid one of O'Connell's friends actually drive to Mount Lawley or take a short bus trip from another suburb). But the main argument you've made repeatedly here is that I should want to "prove" you wrong.



Here's something that will no doubt come as quite a shock to you, Drew. I don't give a shit what you think. I've already made it pretty clear that I don't have much respect for you, and when I went a bit overboard with the nastiness earlier on you even admitted you were a nobody.



And since I have about as much respect for Kerr as I do for you, I don't care what he thinks either. I just don't give-a-shit.

None of O'Connell's Perth supporters have confronted Lieblich with a camera, and let's face it: none of them ever will. Why don't they hassle people with cameras? Because it's not their thing. It's not what they do. It's not Mark Glenn's thing, either. It's not Mike Piper's thing, or Daryl Smith's thing. It's not Kerr's thing, and evidently it's not your thing, Drew. It's not my thing either. Does that make any of us, any of the above people, "cowards"? No. It just simply means that fucking around with video cameras isn't our style, it's not what we do. I don't even own a video camera for fuck's sake, do you? I've never owned one.

Not long ago, this is what you wrote:



So what you're basically saying is that anyone who doesn't "expose" Lieblich on camera is a "coward". Right? I'm going by your words here, not mine. Do you know all of O'Connell's Perth supporters, Drew? Apparently there were a dozen of them in court with him. I know one of them, actually (I'll leave Kerr to try and figure out which one). According to your logic, Drew, since none of them have taken up the "challenge" and in all likelihood never will, they're all cowards. Does that really make sense to you? I didn't think so.



I guess you're right, Drew: You can prove a negative. I just proved with logic alone that I'm not a "coward" for not "exposing" Steve Lieblich with a video camera, as you so hypocritically, stupidly claim. I can't prove that I don't have a cat sitting on my arm right now, though. I could be up to my elbow in pussy right now and I'd be helpless to prove otherwise.

So you can call me a "COWARD" as much as you like, Drew, but it's been blown to bits. It simply doesn't make any sense. It's meaningless, and in any event, I couldn't care less. Being called a coward by someone sitting behind a computer doing fuck all for the world outside of posting to forums doesn't pack much punch for me. I'd like to see you say it to my face, though. That'd be interesting. But you know you'll never have to do that, don't you. So does the limp-ankled foot-waggler.

Now to the claim that I've "changed [my] tune":





I've already explained above that there has been so such 'change of tune' and even in the absence of that explanation it's clear to readers of this thread that there hasn't been one, but you continue to seize on my hypothetical as a means to push the angle that I'm "afraid" of ending up in prison:









There's "Noting [sic] in there about being afraid of jail" because not once since Kerr issued his silly "challenge" have I considered taking him up on it. Now here's a challenge for you, Drew J: Show me where I "claimed" I was "always afraid of jail".







It's been written that you're an administrator on this forum. Are you? At the very least, you're a long-time contributor. You joined in 2007, only a few months before I did, but your posts make up 1.39% of all the entries ever submitted to this forum -- an average of 1.1 posts per day, or 1676 posts. That's a lot of experience. Surely as an avid poster and debater you're aware of the rules, unwritten as some of them may be. You don't misquote people, or attribute "claims" to those who have not made them. So why have you done so? Are you stupid, or are you deliberately trying to mislead readers? Don't get back to me without answering this question, Drew.



There you go again, putting words in my mouth. You're a bullshit artist, Drew. You can't respond to my arguments without pushing bullshit. And now you're fantasizing about having "shot to shit" arguments that I never made.

The notion that pro-Palestinian activism will get one sent to prison is ridiculous. I've never made that claim, and unless you're totally fucked in the head, you know I haven't. This is all part of your agenda to mislead casual, unwary readers into believing that I'm "afraid" of going to jail. Part of what I do is simple Palestine solidarity activism, and I'll continue to do it without fear of a prison sentence. Some of my other activities in the field of anti-Zionism go further than simple pro-Palestinian activism, and I will carry on with that too, without fear of going to jail. The only point I've made that has anything to do with fear and/or prison is that the O'Connell case will scare some people into silence with regard to Judaism and its inherent racism and bigotry. In one case, I used myself as an example for a hypothetical, which Drew has seized upon to push his misleading, disinformational bullshit about me "changing [my] tune". Dickhead.

Now let's look at my alleged "double standards".





It should be clear by now how Drew J. operates. He sets up strawmen by falsely claiming that I've made certain statements and adopted certain positions, so that he can then proceed to knock them down. This is his art, the art of bullshit and disinformation. As a not-so-skillful bullshit artist, he makes for a perfect friend and ally of Jim Kerr, who operates in much the same way. So too does Drew J's hero, Brendon "I Was Poisoned By Jews" O'Connell.

Drew claims that I have "double standards", based on non-existent claims ostensibly made my myself. I've already made it clear that Perth Palestine solidarity activists have nothing to fear as far as prison goes, provided they don't break the law. They never have and hopefully they never will. I don't fear a prison sentence for being a pro-Palestinian activist, so that's one "standard" dealt with. The other "standard" (presumably) is my alleged fear of confronting Steve Lieblich with a video camera. Since I've never considered doing that, I have no fear of it. What I have stated on this forum is my belief that a person would be risking charges (and therefore a prison sentence) if they were to confront Lieblich on camera. But of course, there are ways one could go about it that would preclude any risk of charges being laid. For example, if you rocked up to Lieblich's offices screaming at the top of your lungs like O'Connell does when he visits my place (or if you behaved in the same way that O'Connell did with Keyser), you'd be risking charges. But if you walked in and politely asked for an interview, there would be no such risk. In the alternate reality wherein I would actually take Kerr's "challenge" seriously and confront Lieblich on camera, I would choose the latter approach or something similar, so I would have nothing to fear regarding racial vilification charges and a prison sentence. So that deals with "standard" number two, set out ambiguously by Drew J. in the post above. It also deals with this needless, pointless crap:



There were never any "double standards" to begin with. Not much of what you write makes any sense, Drew. It's all based on and constructed out of bullshit -- logical fallacies, made up statements, strawmen, sophistry, and general good old fashioned nonsense. Look at the lengths I've had to go to in order to unravel it and make sense of it all. And you wonder why I can't be bothered responding to you.

Now to the "weak excuses" claim.



Here's another challenge for you, Drew. Show me where I've made "excuses" for not confronting Lieblich with a video camera. You'll have a hard time because I haven't made any. You can try using this:



And of course, you will. But it's not gonna fly, not for me and not for other readers. That’s not an “excuse”, it's a hypothetical scenario illustrating a point. I don't need an "excuse" not to confront Lieblich with a video camera anymore than anyone else does. I've told Kerr to shove it up his arse and that's that. Full stop, end of story. Now I'm going to tell you to shove it up your arse, too. Shove it up your arse, Drew.



So now you're telling me I'm wrong about what I think. You're a mind-reader now. No, you're a dickhead now, at least that's what my spider senses are telling me about how you're feeling at the moment.



Only once, Drew. I've written stuff like this --









-- but that's the first and only time you've heard me say that I'll no longer be responding to your idiocy-slash-sophistry. Now I've changed my mind. Whenever I have the time, and as long as you continue to dribble shit, I'll continue to tear it apart and put it neatly back together again, into something that actually makes sense.

Please don't forget what I've asked of you, Drew. It's all there, just scroll up. And Jim "The Inactivist" Kerr: don't forget to get back to me about my offer. I'd jump at the chance if I were you.

_________________
http://crimesofzion.blogspot.com/

http://crimes-of-zion.blogspot.com/

Kerr has already explained, and I have quoted, that his website was taken down and he is busy trying to get it back up and so he doesn't have as much time as he would like to respond to everything he would like to.


So now you're scared to continue your pro palestinian activism because of what O Connell did? yeah, I have heard this already. And I have said Keyser in court said himself that the friends of palestine group was not anti Jewish. Therefore the Jews won't have you in their crosshairs. Once again you are trying to claim you are next to be crucified when based on the testimony of a Jew, that doesn't seem likely to happen. You have already protected yourself by saying Judaism is not the problem. So once again you are not next on the chopping block though you are pretending you are.



you guys being in Australia are more capable of doing so, and yet you refuse. You are pissed that Kerr and I have busted you on how convenient and COST FREE it would be to confront the enemy on camera and yet you keep making excuses. Each passing day you refuse to do so you show yourselves up. Oh but that's right. You claim you can't confront Lieblich because that will get you charged with racial vilification. THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS. Which is already impossible because Kesyer said your type is not anti Jewish and you would not be stupid enough as O Connell to attack Liblich's religion, but rather his POLITICAL AND BUSINESS connections, which as I already quoted with proof, was protected under the good faith and public good clauses in Australian law.


An activist who isnt' scared by anyone and who truly wants to confront the bigger fish in terms of the Mossad sayanim network, would respond to a challenge, showing up the challenger to be wrong about the alleged person's cowardice and basking in the glory of being right and forcing his opponent to eat his words. He wouldn't make excuses and then respond to the challenge by issuing another challenge which would entail him spending money when he doesn't have to. That's what cowards with excuses do. You know Kerr won't do it, THAT'S WHY YOU OFFERED IT. Even if you were right Kerr wouldn't accept it, you claim he's a coward and you're not. However, that's taking light off the fact that it would be a pot calling a kettle black almost. You won't do it either. So if Kerr won't do it and that makes him a coward, then what does it make you if you won't do it, huh?

You're the closest so you should go do it and challenge Lieblich and make us look like idiots if you really want to come out on top. But you won't. You make excuses claiming you will be charged under racial vilification. Which, I already showed, can't happen to you in the previous scneario I already constructed. Now if that scenario was wrong, you should show me why you would still be in the crosshairs of a prosecutor looking to enforce that racial vilidication charge upon you. But you haven't showed me why my scenario is bulletproof against you being brought up on charges. At least not to my knowledge since I type this paragraph by paragraph response. I have no idea what's at the bottom of your post. Maybe you will see how I'm right in that there is a safe way to confront Lieblich. I hope you don't disappoint.


Since Kerr can't do it due to geographical constraints, you are the next best person. You know it. You should show up Kerr and prove what a tough man you are and what a fearless anti Zionist you are. But you won't. Coward.


That video no longer exists. I think O Connell's youtube account was taken down. So we have only your word to go on. But that phrase was attributed to Ahmadinejad, and that was a deliberate Zionist mistranslation. So I don't see why you would attribute that to Sabrosky. Unless you are saying O Connell misquoted Sabrosky. In which case, I don't rememeber that being in the video.


Now this is a strawman because Kerr never said this was the ONLY thing O connell did that impressed him. His exposures of Leon Wende, Campbell Barracks, and other things, ALL COMBINED is what impressed Kerr. As him that and I am sure that is what he will tell you. So don't put thoughts in Kerr's brain that likely aren't there.


You do want to make sure Kerr is not a hypocrit. That he is of the same calibre as the person he wants you to be in terms of getting in Lieblich's face. That is fair of you to expect the same kind of balls or gonads from Kerr that he demands from other people. But he can't do it. But you offered to change that to give him a plane ticket. That also seems kind of fair. But that takes the burden off of you, a great anti Zionist who is smack in Lieblich's neighbourhood. In other words, the best you can do, is to DO IT YOURSELF AND SHOW KERR AND MYSELF UP AND MAKE US EAT OUR WORDS THAT YOU ARE A COWARD. Since you won't, it's pretty clear you are making excuses to refuse going after the big fish.


I don't go out in public to protest the occupation of the Palestinians like you do. That is true. But I don't need to protest something that others are already protesting about and that even Jews are comfortable talking about. As far as I know, there is no Mossad nest in my neighbourhood. You clearly have one in yours, and yet you refuse to expose it? Don't bring in red herrings (distractions) and ad hominems (personal attacks) because those are fallacies and they are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Your refusal to confront Lieblich when you can do it nearly free of cost (camera and battery cost money) is what is at issue and it looks bad for someone claiming to be anti Zionist when they won't go after a Zionist when they are perfectly capable of doing so. This is not about me, this is about you and you know it. So stop with the personal attacks because they are fallacious and don't disprove anyting about how it is up to you to do it yourself and prove yourself and make us look bad for questioning you - instead of whipping out personal attacks and trying to score rhetorical points by making excuses for not having to confront this man.


Jim Kerr and I are cowards because we wont' spend money to fly to Australia and confront Lieblich when you, someone who lives ten minutes away from his offices can do it yourself, and make us eat our words about you being a coward. Shouldn't you want to make us eat our words? Shouldn't you want to show us up like that? Shouldnt' you want to make us apologize and retract our statements and revise our skepticism? Apparently you don't. We are supposed to be on the same anti Zionist team. We are on the bench and you are on the field. You can score a goal, but you won't and instead demand us two do something like that, when we're on the bench with injuries (lack of money and lack of proximity), when you can get in the goalie's face yourself and do it and make us want to cheer for you? What a joke. The more you wait, the more you prove us right. Go on. Confront him. Make Kerr and myself eat our words. Make us apologize to you. Show me why the hypothetical scenario I constructed for you to protect yourself against racial vilification laws IS WRONG. Until you do that, you have no proof that my scneario for you for confronting Lieblich is not feasible.




because if you prove us wrong, I will apologize for calling you a coward. I mean it. I will apologize if you confront Lieblich.


No actual refutation yet of my arguments about why you should do it since you are the best man for the job. I.E. the goalie analogy. Reminds me of how you refuse to show me why my hypothetical scnario about how you can confront lieblich and not get put on trial is mistaken. until you advance logicl and legal arguments showing why my hypothetical scneario for you confronting Lielibch WON'T GET YOU IN TROUBLE, then you have no evidence to claim you will get in trouble for doing so. You have not yet argued for that position of yours. Saying 'maybe' doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Especially when you refuse to point out where in my hypothetical scnario I was missing something. If you say you're in trouble, back it up. Show the faults of my arguments about that hyopthetical scnenairo.



Now you are either willfully omitting or unwillingly forgetting what I said earlier about those O Connell supporters who won't get in Lieblich's face. I said they are cowards as are you. I call them cowards too. The first one to do it, shows how much less cowardice they have. As much as I side with O Connell, his supporters mean dick all to me. So who is the lesser coward? You, or his supporters? It's that simple.


How, by using my logic against me in terms of O Connell supporters. Let's see that again in instant replay.

So what you're basically saying is that anyone who doesn't "expose" Lieblich on camera is a "coward". Right? I'm going by your words here, not mine. Do you know all of O'Connell's Perth supporters, Drew? Apparently there were a dozen of them in court with him. I know one of them, actually (I'll leave Kerr to try and figure out which one). According to your logic, Drew, since none of them have taken up the "challenge" and in all likelihood never will, they're all cowards. Does that really make sense to you? I didn't think so.

As I said before, I called them cowards too. Why? Because I'm logically consistent. If I call you a coward, I have to be logically consistent and call them cowards for the same thing. And I do. AND I DID. You are a coward for not confronting Lieblich. BUT SO ARE THEY. I MADE THAT CLEAR. DON'T ACT LIKE I DIDN'T. Is your memory that shitty? Do I have to quote a previous exchange of ours for you? I guess I do you intellectual infantile.


What's funny is that right after you quoted me saying that O COnnell supporters are cowards, you claim they are not cowards. You said in regards to my calling them cowards, "does it really make sense to you?" But the reason you made that move and called them non cowards, is so that you could excuse yourself from being called a coward since you are not going to confront Lieblich and in spite of that, reject being called a coward by me. You called them non-cowards to save yourself from my logical attack on you. But wait a minute, if they are non cowards for not bothering to confront Lieblich. THEN WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU BRING THEIR NON ACTION AGAINST LIBLICH UP IN THE FIRST PLACE IN OTHER TO ATTACK THEM AND SAY WHY AREN'T THEY RISING TO THIS CHALLENGE? If you are going to use that rhetorical move and say, "Why aren't they rising to this challenge of Kerr's to confront Lieblich" (loose quotes, not exact but the spirit is the same obviously), then you are trying to claim they are cowards. But then you FLIP FLOPPED AGAIN, and above tried to say they were not cowards for not confronting Lieblich. But that was just so you could excuse your own inaction. So you have flip flopped and shown you you use more than one standard when it suits you.




That's right. People who expose things on the internet never get their work traced. They never get harrassed or assassinated or hacked. That's all bullshit. People behind computers never get fucked with. George French of Canada never got poisoned but lived. Eric Jon Phelps never got poisoned and lived. Craig Oxley never had his website hacked in September 2008 on 9-11. Ryan Dawson never got his website his with a ddos attack when he was exposing the Anthrax bullshit. that all never happened. Aaron James of Canada never had his computer hacked by the FBI when he was exposing the mistreatment he recieved on the airlines simply because he was dark skinned. That all never happened. People who do work with computers are never pissing anybody in the intelligence agencies off. LOL.



So you are not afraid of going to jail if you confront Lieblich? Let's just see your own words again.

Do I think I (or any other West Australian) would be risking a prison sentence by confronting Lieblich on camera and posting it to YouTube? Yes.




You are taking quotes of mine from this post here of me.
viewtopic.php?p=156985#p156985


Excuse me while I continue to refuse to believe you since you only bothered to state that your fear of prison was only just recently [...]

After that, you have this from me.

I'll dig up that reference to prove I'm right and that your paranoia (which to me is faked since you're changing excuses now of why you won't confront Lieblich) is unwarranted.


So that's you quoting me where I will show you where in Australian law, if you confront Lieblich in the right way, you would be protected from jail, one of your main concerns as your own words show us.

Are you suggesting that since I'm currently a free man, I'll necessarily always be a free man? Or that since O'Connell is the only Australian currently in prison for these charges, that no such charges will be brought against other anti-Zionists in the future? That's just absurd.

See? You're concerned about jail for anti Zionist activities. Activities that are clearly not limited to confronting Lieblich. In other words, the pro palestinian activism you do could get you in trouble. But I arleady shot that to shit. There has been ample time to put you up on trial before O Connell and it never happend. Keyser said in court that the friends of palestine who talk about the occupation are not anti Jewish. Therefore, there are not making it a racial issue. And you arent' either when you say Judaism is not THE PROBLEM. Again, you can't cruficy yourself when jews don't even want to. Bullshit exposed once again.


Ah, that is true, you never said you were afraid of jail when Kerr issued the challenge about Lieblich. That is true. You simply said you wouldn't dignify a challenge from an asshole. But after arguing with me, you changed you tune and said the following.
Do I think I (or any other West Australian) would be risking a prison sentence by confronting Lieblich on camera and posting it to YouTube? Yes.

Isn't that nice how you can flip flop back and forth and come up with new excuses when necessary? All you need is to hope someone won't catch you like I have.



What the hell else am I supposed to take away from your statements like this?




Pro Palestinian activists like the Friends of Palesine are anti Zionist (but not anti Jewish) as Stanley keyser himself said at O Connell's trial. It is not a huge inductive leap for me to make to think that you were talking about non Lieblich related activies when you said OTHER ANTI ZIONISTS? As in ones who don't bother with Lieblich and stick to the anti occupation stuff. If you didn't mean to say pro palestinian activists aren't risking jail, then who and what the heck were you talking about? Please fill that concept out with specifics. Don't just utter vague phrases.


Well then what the hell were you talking about when you said charges will be brought against other anti Zionists in the future? If you weren't talking about pro palestinian activism, then what the hell were you talking about? If you admit that jail won't be waiting for you when you do anti occupation stuff, then I will agree, but I will continue to be bewildered as to what you were talking about when you said other anti Zionists? What are these other anti Zionists doing that you claim will get them in trouble under the racial vilification act if they are ANTI ZIONIST as opposed to ANTI JEWISH? If you can do pro palestinian activism without fear of jail, then for what fucking reasons to people who don't do anti Lieblich, but anti Zionist related stuff have to fear? You haven't filled that concept out. Nevermind. Before you do that, you still need to explain why my hypothetical about you confronting Lieblich in the right way, with the right words FAILS to save you from racial vilification charges. Until you do, no one has any good logical reason to believe that you would get charged with racial vilification for doing so. Until you argue for your position, and show why my hyopthetical is WRONG, then you can't claim to have evidence, or to have proven you're next if you go after Lieblich.


Well at least we cleared up that you aren't afraid of jail for pro palestinian activism. I thank you for that. But as you can see, my thanks was qualified, because if you aren't afraid of jail for anti occupation protests, then what the hell did you mean earlier when you said other anti Zionists would get in trouble for simple Anti Zionism, that was NOT anti Judaism? Who did you have in mind when you made that statement? Come on, give content to that concept please.


No, I MADE THAT CLEAR when I quoted the exceptions in the Australian statute. And you apparently assent to that. Fine. But the mystery remains, why did you make it seem like pro palestinian activism was doomed due to O connell's mucking around? What the hell else could you have meant when you said other anti Zionist activities (that were by logical implication not related to anything with Lieblich) would be cracked down upon? Will you clear this up and give content
to that concept?
Are you suggesting that since I'm currently a free man, I'll necessarily always be a free man? Or that since O'Connell is the only Australian currently in prison for these charges, that no such charges will be brought against other anti-Zionists in the future?


Okay fine. But in terms of my confusion about your word choice earlier, you should get back to me about that and clarify what you really meant since I saw no other interpretation from those words than the one I made, which clearly was a mistake since it doesn't reflect your mind state since you just stated your anti occupation protests don't worry you about jail.


You never actually explained why. That's the problem. You didn't explain why my hypotherical scneario about how to do it right without being charged WAS WRONG or that IT WAS MISSING SOMETHING. Until you actually attack those arguments/suggestions of mine and show where they falter, then you can't claim with evidence or logic that confronting him equals jail for you. But I see you clarify later. You did NOT dissapoint on that front.

And what is stopping you from doing that? Why do you think Kerr and I would not want that done by someone who is able to do so if they can find a way? All we wanted was for you to get at Lieblich and ask tough questions and make him quiver. If you say there is a way to do that without risking jail, you are accepting that you are able to do it. Therefore you can't make excuses for not doing it. Saying Kerr is an asshole isn't enough of a reason to fob off this challenge that apparently wont' even get you landed in jail. Even if Kerr is, you should want to show us assholes up and make us apologize to you and make us want to congratulate you for doing the Lieblich thing. If you do, I WILL APOLOGIZE AND CONGRATULATE YOU. I can't speak for Kerr however.


Boy it really does take you forever to fill out your thoughts doesn't it? Fair enough. So if you have nothing to worry about, if you have found a hypothetical scenario whereby you could get in his face and grill him with tough questions, what is stopping you?


So now that you claim you have found a way to get in Lieblich's face without getting into jail, we are back to you saying you won't accept the challenge simply because Kerr told you to. So if there is no jail to fear, then maybe you are not a coward. Maybe you are just an egomaniac who can't handle that you are the best man for the job, and that you have been busted on your inaction. However, if it's not dangerous to confront Lieblich, then maybe he isn't that big of a fish after all if there isn't a jail sentence waiting for you behind him. So then go and do it. Saying Kerr is an asshole isn't enough of a reason to fob off this challenge that apparently wont' even get you landed in jail. It's an ad hominem. It's a fallacy. It's not even a well constructed deductive argument that justifies you not doing anything related to Lieblich when you have just admitted there is a jail safe way to do it. Even if Kerr is an asshole, and you can claim he is I suppose, you should want to show us assholes up and make us apologize to you and make us want to congratulate you for doing the Lieblich thing. If you do, I WILL APOLOGIZE AND CONGRATULATE YOU. I can't speak for Kerr however.

First you wouldn't take the challenge because Kerr is an asshole and you wanted him to put his money where his mouth is. Which would save you, a great anti Zionist activist of putting YOUR money where you rmouth is and YOU getting in his face with no MONETARY COST. Then you claim you won't do it because jail scares you. Then after I hound you on the exceptions in the statute and propose safe ways to confront Lieblich, I finally get it out of you that you sort of agree. you do seem to say the same thing later. That confronting him won't necessarily mean a jail sentence. I appreciate the clarification/revision of your thoughts. But that still doesn't explain your current inaction on the matter. But I would like one from you. And you know what it's about. I've already stated. What else could you have meant when you said other anti ZIonists would be in trouble?



What offer, the offer to fly Kerr out? I've already addressed that. It's un-necessary. All you have to do is confront Lieblich in the right way yourself and guess what? I WILL APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING YOU A COWARD. And if Kerr doesn't apologize to you likewise, I WILL CALL HIM OUT ON IT. I PROMISE YOU.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

ROTFLMAO!!!! Drew, everything you just wrote is obliterated by what I've already written (edited; wrong link). You just did for me what I could never do: You just nuked yourself!!

Fucking classic! I hope people are reading this.

_________________
http://crimesofzion.blogspot.com/

http://crimes-of-zion.blogspot.com/

Man, seriously, I could never consider you an enemy. I feel too much love and compassion for you. Bless your soul brother, and I mean that. I really do.

_________________
http://crimesofzion.blogspot.com/

http://crimes-of-zion.blogspot.com/

LMAO! Drew J has posted 30.4 KB of text in an attempt to damage Infensus by citing the fact that Infensus hasn't rocked up at Steve Lieblich's office with a video camera, when none of O'Connell's dozen or so supporters in the Perth area have done so either. The best Drew can manage from this is a 1 - 12 resounding defeat. If Drew J and Jim Kerr are so anxious to discredit Infensus, then why don't they have an O'Connell supporter - just one out of the dozen, any one, who owns a video camera - go and confront Lieblich? Then they can say that the O'Connell supporter did it and Infensus didn't.

It's also particularly telling that someone who claims the "Gentile knights of Malta run the media" should be so anxious to discredit genuine anti-Zionists and to defend bogus "anti-Judaics" and "anti-Zionists", e.g. who claim to have suffered a "stroke" after being poisoned by the Mossad at Fred Toben's home. This is the very modus operandi as would be expected of a Jewish disinformation agent. Or someone who has become so detached from reality that they have fallen hook line and sinker for Jewish disinformation.

It's a pity you didn't show some love and compassion for the unborn child that was being aborted while you watched the 9-11 attacks on TV. While warm-blooded people would be distraught at the loss of a child, all you had to say was "thank fuck". But what else is to be expected from a psycho who boasts of how capable he is of raping your family?

But it wasn't any of Brendon O'Connell's supporters who stated that "we should move on to exposing the big fish" - it was you. So why are you not encouraging Linton to expose the big fish named Steve Lieblich you fucking hypocritical twat?



And it isn't any of Brendon O'Connell's supporters who are boasting on Internet forums of how active they are, and of how much of a contribution they make to the anti-Zionist cause, no - it's your butt-buddy from Mount Lawley who's been doing all the bragging.



Conversely, why doesn't Linton haul his sorry arse round to Lieblich's offices and do it himself? He lives just a 5-10 minute walk away. Linton can then claim all the bragging rights.



I'm sure Ry Dawson will be surprised to discover that one of his administrators is a "Jewish disinformation agent" just as Qrswave over at WUFYS must have been when "Poseidon" accused one of her administrators of being a "Zionist agent". That was after the dick-splash had priorly stated that there was "no evidence" of this person being a "Zionist agent". Typical "Poseidon": anyone who has the nerve to oppose Mr. know-it-all gets labelled a "Zionist agent" and/or a "disinformationalist".

This from the guy who has put-out a ton of disinformation about myself: that "I live in a £350,000 house in Doncaster, paid for by "Zionist shekels" and "refuse" to show myself on the electoral register, that my former website is a "porn site" that was "run by" "Jewish interests" "all along", that I am "handled" by my two friends Michael (Fugazi) and Andy (Quasimodo), by Eric Hufschmid, and by some carpenter/joiner from Sheffield who I've never even met.

This from the prick who accepts without question, then parrots, disinformation that was supplied to him by a self-admitted, mentally-ill heroin addict and ADL informant. This from the clown who spent the best part of a year trying to convince the world that there exists two Daryl Bradford Smiths and that there are "reams and reams" of "evidence" which "proves" one of these Daryl "Pedophile" Bradford Smiths to be a "Zionist agent", only to then turn round and state that he "was wrong". Pah.