the sound of one hand clapping ...

 .. Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent?

-=*=-

Independent perhaps, but if so that'd only be one out'a four. (But what of that story, actually admitted via email, of intimidation? Ooops! Down to zero out'a four?)

-=*=-

The definition of a dialogue[1] implies 'more than one side.' But what if one side or other is criminal?

I don't like criminals, and I don't think they have anything (positive) to say.

I really shouldn't need to be specific about which criminals are 'in discussion' here, but if anyone has been 'out to lunch' (detested Ameri-speak; spit!) - out to lunch these past 5+ - or 60+ years, I speak of USrael, the entity formed from the US and its M/I/C-plex plus Israel and its I/J/Z-plex, 'melded' by the neoCon cabal, say, and M-W's Israel Lobby etc.. This entity demonstrates its filthy, dishonourable criminality daily by 'executing' its policies of murder for spoil; the US mass-murdering for oil in Iraq (not only; one place of many!) - and Israel mass-murdering for land and water in and around the mostly now ex-Palestine.

I found 'I, E, A & T?' in the run-up to B, B & H's illegal invasion of Iraq now turned brutal occupation, each ugliness more murdering than the other. (Vicious war crimes of Nuremberg severity.)

I beseeched "No war!" and bemoaned 'murder for oil,' all to no avail; Howard called us, we the sheople® anti-wars 'a mob' and disregarded our every entreaty.

But I stuck to 'I, E, A & T?' in the hope of finding similar souls, and making some progress - towards truth and justice, say.

I was frustrated in my attempts; various apologists, accessory/agitators and outright lying trolls impeded progress by indulging in distortions, disingenuity and outright dishonesty to provoke dissension, division & distraction in vile attempts at derailing worthwhile discussions; phew!

Extracting a single word from the preceding para, namely 'accessory[2],' we wonder how one can have a 'civilised' (aka CWA-style, jolly hockey-sticks etc.) chat with same, and in general, I won't. Talk to them, that is; they have, as I've said, nothing (good) to say. (Note that such advocates for criminality take on shades of criminality themselves.)

Imagine the frustration, then, when 'I, E, A & T?' not just tolerates the crooked side, but actively encourages, i.e. coddles(cuddles?) them.

Yuk! So who's listening to 'em? Not me. And not too many others, it now seems...

Under the principle, brought to our undivided attention by GWBush&Co (an entity of the utmost black, aka criminality), of "If y'ain't with us, yore agin' us," then 'IEA&T?' is not part of any solution, it's actually made itself part of 'the problem.' Sooo, if we are seeing its demise, we may say it's a bit'a 'natural justice,' admittedly only served on a minnow, whilst the 'big fish' are still raging 'free' - to plunder our once jewel-like planet.

While our world cries out for succour, 'IEA&T?' encourages the help-hinderers[0].

Now, who will remove the ugly blot that is USrael?

-=*end*=-

PS

Q: How can we liberate ourselves from this ghastly criminality?

A: Well, (a) get real, (b) rein them in, and (c) vote them out.

a) Get a morality, see my attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality.

b) Demand honesty, from the MSM (AusBC!), from business and from our so-called leaders.

c) Demand honest representation (or devolve to direct citizen government - by CIRs, say.)

After all, daaarlings, it's 'only' our democratic right.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[0] the 'last standing' were not all goodies (haw!):

-----Thu, 8 May 2008 04:27:25
8 Eliot Ramsey
4 Fiona Reynolds
4 Paul Morrella
2 Kathy Farrelly
2 Richard Tonkin
1 BasilSmith
1 Craig Rowley
1 Jenny Hume
1 John Pratt
1 Scott Dunmore
-----Tue, 6 May 2008 20:52:13

[1] dialogue n. (US dialog) 1 a conversation. b this in written form. 2 discussion between people with different opinions. [Greek lego speak] [POD]

[2] accessory n. .... 3 (often foll. by to) person who abets or is privy to an (esp. illegal) act. [medieval Latin: related to *accede] [ibid.]