Anti-Neocons

Let's try this again. Here are your words.




If people aren't given an opportunity to see the full context, then what the hell are those three links he gives that lead back to rys2sense for? Sure they lead to individual posts, mostly mine that he quoted on the blog. But if one COMES HERE, then they can FUCKING SCROLL DOWN AND SEE WHAT YOU SAY THUS ENABLING PEOPLE TO GET THE FULL CONTEXT AS YOU WISH. Again, why are you complaining? Answer. You have nothing better to say. Especially since I threw your words back at you and showed how you DID type that O Connell's activities would scare people into not doing anti Zionist activities.

If this flies over your head, I'll put out another way to explain it. Look at the top of his blog entry.



The first hyperlink he gives is to A POST OF YOURS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. This is nothing for you to complain about, buddy. Kerr went with your words first, and then he went with my words last. And if one clicks on the one of the MANY links back to rys2sense.com, they can scroll down (they most likely will since they are not morons and know to scroll down when reading blogs and websites), and see everything else, thus enabling them to get the full context you want them to. Therefore, WHO CARES if he doesn't give the direct link back to my long post. When people click on the hyperlinks, one of them that leads to your post, they will scroll down (because we already established they have no choice) and then they will see my words so that they will know Kerr wasn't making anything up about what a guy named Drew J said. Thus, KERR DOESN'T HAVE TO GIVE AN INDIVIDUAL LINK BACK TO MY POST THAT HE QUOTED since he already gave out three hyperlinks leading back here. One of which was your post THAT CAME BEFORE MINE - THE ONE OF MINE HE QUOTED. Who's the fool now, eh?

Despite your claims to the contrary, Kerr gives enough links back here that everyone will see everything and that Kerr was also faithful in his coyping and pasting what he took from me. Again, no reason for that last little complaint of yours. People are not prevented from coming back to the original source AND FINDING IT like you seem to make out they are.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

Okay, I get it - you're Kerr's quibbleboy. His diversion-ator. "Quick, I'm getting 'nuked' - send in the diversionator!"

You two operate in almost exactly the same way. Kerr quibbles endlessly about the difference between "retired" and unemployed" and about how the word "immediately" should be used, and after three posts (and one from Poseidon) that point out Kerr's various lies and blunders, all you want to do is quibble in caps over the fact that Kerr's petty post at the O'Connell blog does actually link back to this web site. A source link is a link back to that which you've published, but I'll end this right now by saying fine, he links back to the board. Now let's drop the bullshit, stop quibbling, and address more important matters.

I posted my mobile phone number on a public forum and invited both of you to use it - slightly more noteworthy than the quibblefest above - but you haven't addressed that. You've both just quietly moved past it as if it never happened. After accusing Poseidon of "engaging in deceit" it was demonstrated that Kerr was in fact deliberately bullshitting. After accusing me of "lying" about the O'Connell = Fester thing and issuing a fresh "challenge" that I prove myself, I took him up on it and pointed out that he was in fact also bullshitting about that. After repeatedly pointing out that Kerr has also lied on multiple occasions about Jewish sites "promoting" my work, he still hasn't provided an explanation for that. After providing evidence that I'd posted Kerr's "meth-head" "drug dealer" image on Facebook for my real-life friends to see - hardly the act of someone truly guilty of those charges, as Kerr has alleged - I still haven't seen either of you comment on that. After confronting the two of you with some pretty relevant and direct questions regarding O'Connell's credibility, not a single answer to a single question has been forthcoming. Those questions ("3-4 million hits a month", "six South African boxers", 'poisoned by Jews and suffered a stroke', 'sister killed by Jews', 'Linton has my phone tapped' etc) are still there at the last link, or you could just scroll up. But no, instead all we've seen is this ridiculous quibble-a-thon.

By the way, Drew, I'm still waiting for that photo. You've accused me of being a "TWO FACED COWARD!" on this forum but you can't even face me over the telephone from thousands of kilometers away or produce a photograph of yourself. Stop quibbling and nut the fuck up, you silly prick.

_________________
http://crimesofzion.blogspot.com/

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

No, Drew, you did "nuke" yourself. As I've already written, everything in that post had already been addressed by me in the post immediately above it. You only brought up points that I'd already responded to in a long, convoluted, sophistic rant. You wrote that I was "scared to continue [my] pro palestinian activism" when I'd already explained that I wasn't, and that Palestine solidarity activists have nothing to fear. You called me a "coward" after I'd already pointed out the illogic and hypocrisy of it. You tried to portray me as being "afraid of going to jail" for confronting Steve Lieblich, after I'd already explained that it could quite easily be done in such a way that would obviate that risk. You carried on about me having "changed my tune" after I'd already debunked it. You continued with the "excuses" shit after I'd already challenged you to show me where I'd made one. Like I said, it was as if it was written before my post was, or before you'd read it. And in fact, you even admitted in your post that you hadn't finished reading it yet:



ROTFLOL. And of course, I had already outlined a "safe way to confront Lieblich". You go on to quote it later in your post, but when you wrote the above, you just hadn't 'gotten there' yet.

Come on man, what kind of bullshit is that? Were you pretending that you'd started writing your response before reading my post so that you could dribble your shit and weave your magic sophistry, or did you really not finish reading it before you started writing? Who puts together "paragraph by paragraph responses" before they've even taken in what they're responding to?

And now you've done the same thing all over again:



(Emphasis not mine.) Again, you're reintroducing shit that I've already clarified, already addressed. You just can't stop doing it. You're hopeless.

Here is where I've addressed it, not that my position has ever been anything but crystal clear to anyone but Drew the intellectual midget:



No, Drew, you gave yourself a good, thorough nuking, and it wasn't just because of one "misunderstanding" whereby you failed to spot the "content to that concept". It's like shit goes in one ear and out the other with you - either that, or you completely lack basic comprehension skills.

Now, please stay focused on the issues I raised in my last post, Drew. Don't try to find in this post an excuse to avoid them, because there isn't one. You have questions to answer, points to address, and if you're not a "coward", photos to provide.

_________________
http://crimesofzion.blogspot.com/

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

When I kept on prodding you, you finally admitted there was a way around the australian hate laws in terms of how you would confront Lieblich. I then admitted I was mistaken about you being a coward after you told me you figured out a way to do it. I then said, "Okay you are not afraid of jail." I admitted that. But yet, you still refuse to confront Lieblich. THAT is why you are a coward. I already know you're not afraid of jail. I admitted it. So why bring up something I admitted a correction on after my prodding FORCED YOU TO CLARIFY AND GET SPECIFIC ABOUT HOW IT COULD BE DONE OR NOT DONE WITH OR WITHOUT JAIL.


Probably people who read paragraph by paragraph. Simple enough for you?


You claim this is another 'clarification' whereas by anti Zionists in this quote I grabbed from you:

It's been all over the news that a man has been sent to prison simply for calling a Jew a "racist, homicidal maniac". It doesn't take a genius to figure out the effect this has had, and will continue to have, on Australian anti-Zionism.

you didn't really mean people who protest Israel, you mean people who protest racist Judaism. While this may be acceptable, you are saying that people who protest Judaism are real anti Zionists. I'm sorry I thought Judaism and Zionism were distinct. You certainly imply that with your use of language JUDAISM IS NOT THE REAL PROBLEM, do you not. First you say it's not the real problem, now you are saying that real anti zionists protest Judaism, a religion. I'm sorry I thought one was political and one was religious. If one is protesting a religion, then to say they are protesting a political ideology (zionism) is a categorical mistake on your part. So since you can't change the meanings of the words in English like that, you are stuck with being caught by your own choice of words when you say Anti Zionists - which are not the same as anti judaists - will feel pressured to shut up thanks to O Connell. That's all my point ever was. That if you didn't mean what you said, then you shouldn't have said it. You should have selected your words carefully.


I'm here because Kerr wants me to be and needs my help? I thought I was responding to you and Poseidon because of things you said to me and not Kerr. I guess I was wrong. LOL. If you have been paying attention, you will see that I have butted heads with Poseidon over the position of Jews in the NWO. I also said I would apologize to you if you did confront Lieblich and that I could not speak for Kerr. However if you do get in his face and I do apologize, I would prod Kerr to follow my suit. I have already stated such. What's more is that you demand people meet your challenges, but you aren't under the same obligation to meet older challenges. Hypocritical much?


We are not here to feed your ego. We are here to question your bravery and chest thumping when you won't even go after a rabid Zionist employed by a Mossad front.


See above you hypocrit.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

I'm getting bored of being drawn into your circular grooves, Drew, and having to address the same points over and over again, ad nauseum.



1) I didn't "finally admit" anything. It's always been clear that confronting Lieblich is possible without risking charges.

2) You did carry on about me being "afraid of going to jail" for confronting Steve Lieblich in your post. It's right here:



3) You didn't 'admit you were mistaken' about your "coward" allegations.







You repeated all of the things I say you did in the quote above, after they'd already been addressed. You "nuked" yourself, and it was funny as fuck. This is the caliber of 'work' Kerr deems fit for the O'Connell blog.



Everyone reads paragraph-by-paragraph, but only a fool would begin to prepare a response before making sure they understand what they're responding to.



Again, only to a fool am I having to explain what it is I meant by "real anti-Zionists", after having explained myself thusly:



You're quibbling again, this time over semantics. Moderate pro-Palestinian liberal types aren't 'real' anti-Zionists in my book. I'm an anti-Zionist and I point out Judaic extremism when I see it, but I don't go around calling myself an "anti-judaist". I will, however, concede that I was wrong about you being a "real anti-Zionist". Real anti-Zionists don't promote nonsense such as "GENTILE KNIGHTS OF MALTA RUN THE MEDIA".



That was a joke, Drew. But it's certainly convenient for Kerr that you consistently divert attention from his various lies and blunders. He hasn't been back to explain them. Perhaps he's busy with his volunteer work. You should know - you've already admitted that you're in contact with him via PM on this forum.



You calling me a hypocrite is itself the height of hypocrisy. I've released photo after photo of myself over the years, I revealed my full name four years ago, I've posted my phone number on this very forum, my home address is all over the Internet and I've even taken viewers on a video tour of my bedroom and my back yard (hardly the modus operandi of a "drug dealer" by the way, as Kerr and O'Connell have falsely and ridiculously alleged). I couldn't possibly be more "exposed" or open about myself. You, on the other hand, hide comfortably behind a wall of anonymity and yet you have the temerity to call me a "coward".

I take part in all sorts of real life activism, some of which entails breaking the law and directly defying security personnel and the police. You admit openly that you do nothing for the movement outside of posting to Internet forums. And yet you have the chutzpah to help Kerr push his "challenges" without being willing to do a single thing yourself for that which you believe in. Honestly man, you should be embarrassed that you've even dared to talk about cowardice given who you are and who you're talking to.



1) If, say, you misquote me or misrepresent my positions as you've done repeatedly on this board, I will challenge you to produce the evidence. That's a very different thing to challenging someone to do something that they themselves are unwilling to do. I haven't issued "challenges" of that nature. I offered to pay half the cost of a plane ticket to Perth so that Kerr could "expose" Lieblich himself, but it wasn't framed as a "challenge". Here's what I challenged Kerr to do, from the Jim Kerr 'Nuked' piece:



I knew Kerr wouldn't take me up on that offer, and I know that even if I offer to pay for the whole ticket myself he still won't do it. The point is, Kerr is not an activist; he's an inactivist issuing bogus challenges from behind the safety of his computer monitor.

2) Your "older challenges" angle is moot. If I had challenged Kerr to confront Larry Silverstein on camera before he challenged me to confront Lieblich, it wouldn't make my challenge any more valid.

It all comes back to Kerr shirking his responsibilities and you acting as his enabler. Your posts seem designed to divert attention away from Kerr's assorted lies and fuck-ups. Kerr has made a series of false allegations on this forum and elsewhere that he should feel obliged to explain. I'm not "challenging" him to do so, but if he doesn't, we can call it the end of the story and he may consider himself well and truly debunked, or to use Kerr's own ridiculous vernacular, "nuked".



This doesn't make any sense. I don't see how receiving a phone call from Kerr or yourself could possibly inflate my ego, and I don't see what either of you had to lose from it. You could've just asked me point blank, verbally, why I rejected Kerr's "challenge". You could have just listened carefully and tried to ascertain whether or not you were speaking to a "meth-head". You could have just called me a "coward", Drew, if you couldn't think of anything better to say. But no, you didn't have the nuts for it, and Kerr isn't interested in the truth about whether or not I'm a "meth-head". Kerr the "truth seeker" wants to hang on to that claim for propaganda purposes, so that he can continue to push lies and bullshit like he always has.



Likewise.

_________________
http://crimesofzion.blogspot.com/

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

Yes I am because you got your semantics wrong. You can say that the real or the best (whatever that means) anti Zionists are the ones who protest a religion, but that doesn't make any sense since Zionism is not a religion. You can attempt to redefine words all you want. It won't fly.


If you were than I missed it. It sure seemed like it when you refused to confront Lieblich and then stated that thanks to O connell anti Zionists would feel trapped about protesting. It was the best induction I had at the time because it took you a while to come flat out and say to me, "There is the O Connell way and the right way." Plus when you make excuses for not confronting Lieblich when it is easy for you, what else was I supposed to think? In that you were afraid of jail or other suffering?


All you did was say two things.

1. You won't do it because Kerr is an asshole who doesn't go out in public as much as you.
2. What of O Connell's supporters? To which I said two things.
a. They are cowards for not doing it as well.
b. If you are going to bring them up and say they are cowards for not doing it, then that makes you one. To which you then said it makes no sense to call them cowards. Remember these words of yours? 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. So you called them non-cowards. But then if they are not cowards for not confronting Lieblich, then you can't get mad at them since you won't either. For you would have to get mad at yourself. The only way you could bring that up was for rhetorical effect in order to GET THEM to do what they tell you to do and thus have a race to the finish line with you to see who does it first and therefore who has bragging rights as a non coward. It is logically consistent for me to say they are cowards as well as you for not going after Lieblich.


You're going to question whether or not I understand English, when I had to correct you on your semantics earlier?


So you use 'real' as in a figurative sense. Fine. But what you mean to say is they are entry level anti Zionists, correct? they don't go as far as they could into the next level? Fine. But once you bring the religion of judaism into it, you are in fact an anti judaist. You are an anti Zionist AS WELL AS an anti judaist. You oppose BOTH a political theory AND a religion. But they are not the same and you shouldn't conflate them and excuse it with poetic language.


Why shouldn't I fear the government? If you want to posture as someone who is fearless you have every right to claim as much if you do that stuff. But you are still a coward IN RESPECT TO ANOTHER ISOLATED ISSUE. The Lieblich one. As someone who is Pro palestinian would be an entry level anti Zionist, you are an entry level non coward.


This isn't about who has more personal information about themselves out there. This is about you being logically consistent. If you are so brave, then you have no reason to not confront Lieblich and show up Kerr and myself for the fools we are and make us apologize to you once you go after the big fish. I can't speak for Kerr, but I have an apology waiting for you upon your completion of your anti Lieblich mission.


let's change a thing or two.

Linton things he can duck my challenge simply by changing the subject.

Which is what you have done with the Lieblich thing.


Actually yes it would. because look at your own words just now.



Thus applying your logic about changing subject and red herrings to distract from previous challenges that were unmet, if you went after Kerr first with a challenge, I would expect him to fulfill that. Unfortunately, that's not how it happened. Sounds like you have a case of the 'would've could've should've's."


What do you call posting a response to his stuff that you don't agree with? Logically, philosophically how are you not challenging him by putting forth a different and allegedly better response/explanation for a given phenomena?


The challenge itself does because you are boasting about what you've done or can do, in order to prove you are not a coward. So what? Good for you. How does that relate to how you have backed down from Kerr's challenge to confront Lieblich which would earn you an apology from me and jealousy from the O Connell supporters, which you would rightfully shove in their also cowardly faces? Let's rewind a bit here.


let's change a thing or two.

Linton things he can duck my challenge simply by changing the subject.

Hmmmm. What do you call someone who instead of confronting Lieblich, a challenge from someone, sidesteps the challenge and challenges other to call him on his cell phone? I'd say that's a ducking of a previous challenge. Again...hypocrit much? Logically inconsistent, much?

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

There's nothing in that post worth responding to, Drew, but I'll play anyway. Since you keep harping on about the Lieblich thing, I'll start with that.

I do things in my own time, on my own terms, and at my own discretion. What I do is, always has been, and always will be determined by the choices I make. I don't let other people make choices for me, unless, for whatever reason, I'm unable to make them for myself. Sometimes we find ourselves in situations where we have no choice, and we have to take a certain course of action whether we like it or not. A quick example would be when you're caught at the traffic lights in the far right lane where a left turn is not permitted, or when you're physically attacked and you have no choice but to use violence to defend yourself or others.

Kerr's "challenge" to confront Steve Lieblich with a video camera means nothing to me, for the above reasons. I do what I want to do, and I do them in my own time and on my own terms. If I confront Steve Lieblich, it will have nothing to do with Kerr or his "challenge". I make my own choices, and it's as simple as that. Why would I spring into action simply because I've been presented with a childish and arbitrary "challenge"? Add to that the fact that the "challenge" in question has been issued by someone I have no respect for, who has made an enemy of me for years by accusing me of being Brendon O'Connell and his long list of pseudonyms, a "meth-head", a "junkie", a "drug dealer", a "Jew", "possibly bisexual" etc., and the idea becomes that much more absurd, especially when that person is himself unwilling to do that which he has challenged me to do, or match it with something that requires equal or even lesser effort. It doesn't make any sense, and yet you rave on about it incessantly as if it does.

Time and time again you've stated outright on this forum that I've made "excuses" for not accepting this "challenge", and I've challenged you to show me those excuses, but of course you can't do that for the simple reason that I haven't made any. I haven't made excuses because I don't need to. And nary do you make a post here without calling me a "coward" for not accepting this "challenge", but that is meaningless to me, especially coming from you. I know who and what I am. You can continue to call me a coward and justify it with your "logical consistency" ('you're ALL cowards!'), but it will mean nothing to me.



Show me where I haven't been logically consistent. I've told you about some of the things I do in the way of activism, and I've told Kerr to shove his "challenge" up his arse. That's not logical inconsistency; that's me demonstrating my God-given right to self-determination. I haven't claimed to be "so brave", I've merely pointed out the hypocrisy in your claim that I'm a "coward".

There is no reason why I shouldn't confront Lieblich. There is no reason why I shouldn't do the dishes right now. There is no need to "show up Kerr and yourself for the fools you are" and "make you apologize". You both already know that your "coward" / "chicken" accusations are hypocritical and foolish. I have no reason to do those things, and I have no reason not to do those things. There are only choices, and they are my choices. You have your choices and so does Jim “The Inactivist” Kerr, aka the limp-ankled foot-waggler. So keep pushing the "chicken" shit, Drew, but after refusing to show us your face, telling us you're not interested in real life activism and admitting you're afraid of the government, just know how you sound when you say it.



What a dick. Does this look like a "challenge" to you?





You seem to live in a world where everything is a "challenge", Drew. It seems that you yourself are in some way challenged - intellectually, by the look of it.

I offered my phone number to Kerr in a peace overture; it wasn't a "challenge". Actually, it was more like a truth overture, because it didn't necessarily have to result in peace and love. I offered him half the cost of a plane ticket to Perth; that wasn't a "challenge", either. I've only issued one challenge, and you know what it is. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if you don't.

I’m bored, you’ve bored the shit out of me, Drew. The limp-ankled foot-waggler is much more fun than you are – at least he knows how to use Photoshop.

_________________
http://crimesofzion.blogspot.com/

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