Matthew Yglesias / proudly eponymous since 2002

The 'liberalism' of other parts of TNR sadly contributes to the normalisation of this sort of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry.

Posted by: otto on January 25, 2007 10:24 AM

Oh wow. Are they going to do a 'Shattered Glass' type movie on Peretz's blog? They could call it De-Martinized.

Posted by: crack on January 25, 2007 10:25 AM

Way to throw down the challenge. Let's see if Chait is anything short of a bloody hypocrite.

Posted by: Martin Buber on January 25, 2007 10:27 AM

Wow.

The value of a Harvard education just dropped a bit, although at least Matt got out of there ok. :-)

Posted by: SoCalJustice on January 25, 2007 10:28 AM

Beyond parody is right. That has to be one of the ten dumbest things I have ever read.

Posted by: Matthew C on January 25, 2007 10:32 AM

I wonder if Jon Chait and others concerned about Wesley Clark's alleged anti-semitism feel it's a problem that one of America's leading political magazines is owned and operated by a man whose political opinions appear to be primarily driven by bigotry against Arabs and Muslims

Why would Chait be concerned? I suspect he agrees with most of Peretz's opinions. At best, you'll get the "If They Did It" response that the Judt thing got just after Beinart's call to Dems to defend free speech against Muslim groups attempts to chill discussion.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on January 25, 2007 10:32 AM

SomeCallMeTim: Jon doesn't share most, many, or any opinion of Marty's short of "cats are cute" and "I love my children." Among TNR staffers, there's a desire to put distance between themselves and Marty, and a desire to believe that TNR readers understand that there's a big difference between Marty and the staff. Your comment shows that not many readers are willing to devote that much time or interest in drawing such a distinction.

Posted by: Spencer on January 25, 2007 10:37 AM

Of course Peretz doesn't like the analogy of Israelis in occupied territories = civil rights era white southerners and Arabs = civil rights era blacks. It's kinda like former President Carter's analogy with apartheid. Both analogies are basically correct and instructive which is why Peretz is throwing one of his mini-tantrums.

Likewise, the Sunni Arabs of Iraq under Saddam Hussein lorded over the majority Shia and Kurds, yet for some reason so-called anti-war liberals didn't have much of a problem with it.

Posted by: Peter K. on January 25, 2007 10:38 AM

without exaggeration, that's one of the most amazing comments I've ever read in the history of blogs. the ignorance and bigotry is astonishing.

Posted by: right on January 25, 2007 10:39 AM

It's okay to hate the Arabs. Unlike the Jews, they have never been victimized by others.

Posted by: dj moonbat on January 25, 2007 10:41 AM

I am reminded often at times like this of Tom Clancy's best book, "The Sum of All Fears." Not the nuclear terrorism part, but the beginning, when Israel is forced into a compromise with the Palestinians once the Palestinians adopt effective non-violent protest a la MLK and Gandhi, instead of terrorism. If only...

Posted by: right on January 25, 2007 10:41 AM

"Among TNR staffers, there's a desire to put distance between themselves and Marty"

Well, not much of a desire to distance themselves, given that they keep working there, honourable exceptions aside.

Posted by: otto on January 25, 2007 10:42 AM

Spenser:

Part of that's because various TNR people--including Chait--keep saying things about Iran that sound very much like the 2.0 version of the prior glide path to Iraq. I seem to recall that Chait just recently wrote a piece or post positing a"Crazy Iranian" at the head of a nuclear state; how much difference it makes that Chait believes in"crazy Muslims" and Peretz believes "barbaric Muslims" is not clear to me.

OTOH, I lack training from the preeminent philosophy school on the east coast, so maybe I'm missing something. (That's at least half serious.) At a minimum, let's say that, as between various risks, killing a lot of Muslims for no purpose appears to be at the light end of the scale for various non-Peretzes at TNR. (I'm not sure I'm much better: I think I'm more outraged by the pointlessness and wastage and probable negative consequences than the immorality of it all. Not much, but still better.)

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on January 25, 2007 10:48 AM

um... Maybe I'm sorely mistaken this in this belief, but I do believe MLK Jr. WAS imprisoned, I'm sure he suffered property damage. And, um... He WAS killed!

Irony knows no bounds, does it?

szr, who thinks that Martin should choose his words more carefully. Or, considering his inability to choose words carefully, just stop.

Posted by: szr on January 25, 2007 10:50 AM

Lucky for Martin Luther King, he wasn't Muslim. Or else they would break his windows, imprison him, kill him. He'd be finished.

Probably a good thing he's not around any more. You can just imagine what they would do.

Posted by: JJF on January 25, 2007 10:57 AM

I wonder how many times Marty would need to read Matt's post before he got it. Would he ever get it. Would we need to put on a little puppet show for him to get it

Posted by: Njorl on January 25, 2007 10:57 AM

primarily driven by bigotry against Arabs and Muslims

And Catholics. Don't forget that Marty hates him some Papists.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc on January 25, 2007 11:01 AM

Wow. Wow.

Posted by: a on January 25, 2007 11:02 AM

oy vey. always quality insight from marty, of course.

although i guess one could argue that marty is insinuating that an Al-King would be dispatched in a way analogous to if african-american's during MLK's era imprisoned and killed MLK, rather than white southerners. even with that perspective, it still doesn't work because i would believe that the muslim community is more akin to civil rights America as a whole (after all, whites and blacks, particularly in the south, shared the same religion for the most part), rather than one racial group within the US.

So on another level, it just illustrates his ignorance of the Muslim community by lumping all the disparate groups together in one mass who would surely oppose some sort of prophetic, pacificist figure.

Posted by: looj on January 25, 2007 11:02 AM

The King comment might actually be one of the most amazing things I've ever read.

Posted by: Barbar on January 25, 2007 11:03 AM

"Likewise, the Sunni Arabs of Iraq under Saddam Hussein lorded over the majority Shia and Kurds, yet for some reason so-called anti-war liberals didn't have much of a problem with it."

There is a subtle distinction, too difficult for our friends on the right to follow, between "not having a problem" with oppression, and thinking that a war killing 600,000 and costing $1.2 trillion is a bad idea for dealing with oppression . . .

Posted by: rea on January 25, 2007 11:04 AM

I don't agree with Peretz on this, but isn't it obvious that he means that if there were a Muslim MLK, the MUSLIMS would imprison or kill him? Obviously, American blacks did not attack or imprison King (though apparently one killed him).

Of course, American blacks didn't have the power independently to imprison King, whereas the Muslims certainly do, which I guess just speaks to the fact that the analogy was imperfect when Tom Friedman used it too.

Posted by: Brian24 on January 25, 2007 11:08 AM

I don't agree with Peretz on this, but isn't it obvious that he means that if there were a Muslim MLK, the MUSLIMS would imprison or kill him?

You mean like how, when there was a Christian MLK (we just called him "MLK" at the time), and the Christians imprisoned and killed him?

Posted by: dj moonbat on January 25, 2007 11:10 AM

You mean like how, when there was a Christian MLK (we just called him "MLK" at the time), and the Christians imprisoned and killed him?

Well, no, because MLK wasn't fighting for the rights of Christians vs. non-Christians. He was fighting for the rights of blacks vs. whites.

Posted by: Brian24 on January 25, 2007 11:14 AM

"Well, no, because MLK wasn't fighting for the rights of Christians vs. non-Christians. He was fighting for the rights of blacks vs. whites."

You don't understand the analogy.

A Muslim MLK would be against violent Muslims. So, his opposition group would be the one breaking his windows, imprisoning him, and killing him.

It's not that difficult.

Posted by: a on January 25, 2007 11:18 AM

Well, no, because MLK wasn't fighting for the rights of Christians vs. non-Christians. He was fighting for the rights of blacks vs. whites.

I can't read the Friedman piece, as it's behind a wall. But I'll bet a lot, sight unseen, that Tom isn't arguing that Muslims need an MLK who will stand up to US.

Posted by: dj moonbat on January 25, 2007 11:20 AM

I haven't read Friedman's column, but presumably a Muslim MLK wouldn't be fighting for the rights of Muslims v. non-Muslims. Rather he'd be either a Shia in a Sunni country or vice versa, and would (non-violently) fight for the end of the injustices practiced by the majority against the minority.

Posted by: washerdreyer on January 25, 2007 11:20 AM

You mean like how, when there was a Christian MLK (we just called him "MLK" at the time), and the Christians imprisoned and killed him?
..
Well, no, because MLK wasn't fighting for the rights of Christians vs. non-Christians. He was fighting for the rights of blacks vs. whites.

This is really a silly argument. It isn't a perfect analogy, because perfect analogies do not exist. King tried to work towards peace and equality, bridging the gaps between two groups. Christians, blacks, Sunnis, whatever, it doesn't matter. What King was, and what we are saying would be helpful for Iraq, is a charismatic figure that appeals to a broad spectrum of people, and is advocating peaceful means to resolve an awful and violent conflict.

Posted by: Matthew C on January 25, 2007 11:26 AM

Why don't all the editors and writers who purpotedly don't like Marty's views simply walk out en masse one day and start their own mag? Surely they could get funding. I mean, they all went to Yale and Havard.

Posted by: david mizner on January 25, 2007 11:28 AM

Rather he'd be either a Shia in a Sunni country or vice versa, and would (non-violently) fight for the end of the injustices practiced by the majority against the minority.

Perhaps by "a Muslim MLK," Friedman is really referring to the makers of any dairy product.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on January 25, 2007 11:29 AM

"You don't understand the analogy.

A Muslim MLK would be against violent Muslims. So, his opposition group would be the one breaking his windows, imprisoning him, and killing him.

It's not that difficult."

Hold on now. You can't have a proper analogy if on the one hand you're talking about race, and on the other religiously inspired *behavior*.

You also can't make the analogy that a Muslim MLK would be fighting against violence, as though it were the non-violent Muslims who are a persecuted minority. The real MLK *advanced* the cause of people persecuted because of their color. A "Muslim MLK," I take it, would try to *thwart* the cause of people who have hijacked the majority? How does that make someone a Muslim MLK? I guess I don't get the analogy either.

Posted by: Bill on January 25, 2007 11:29 AM

I agree that Peretz is a hateful bigot. But that doesn't make Friedman look smart. Friedman's still an idiot.

On NPR a few days ago, Friedman described 9/11 as (paraphrasing here) the distilled essence of our policies over the previous several decades (of supporting repressive regimes) coming home to roost. How can someone who is so inane achieve his level of prominence? Matt, you're going to have to seriously lower your IQ if you hope to become a big-time pundit some day.

Posted by: Jim W on January 25, 2007 11:30 AM

Friedman's column is about the need for a Muslim MLK to stand against Muslim-inflicted injustices:

How could it be that Danish cartoons of Muhammad led to mass violent protests, while unspeakable violence by Muslims against Muslims in Iraq every day evokes about as much reaction in the Arab-Muslim world as the weather report? Where is the Muslim Martin Luther King? Where is the “Million Muslim March” under the banner: “No Shiites, No Sunnis: We are all children of the Prophet Muhammad.”

Posted by: Matthew Yglesias on January 25, 2007 11:30 AM

Last I heard, Thomas Friedman was ranting on NPR that next life he wanted to be a liberal so he wouldn't have to care about whether people in Muslim countires lived under dictatorships. Friedman is a snake.

Posted by: Jennifer on January 25, 2007 11:33 AM

No, this is the analogy -- King was an American, trying to bring peace to the between the two major American tribes. He was killed by violent Americans. The lesson is that Americans are murderous thugs. Finished.

Posted by: Anon on January 25, 2007 11:33 AM

Friedman's column is about the need for a Muslim MLK to stand against Muslim-inflicted injustices:

So it is pretty stupid, but not for the reasons that Peretz thinks. (Here, obviously, I'm using "thinks" somewhat loosely.)

Posted by: dj moonbat on January 25, 2007 11:34 AM

Martin Luther King would be asking us to leave Iraq, as he asked us to leave Vietnam in 1967 and before. We can then offer peaceful assistance to the Iraqis. Friedman is a snake and has written a snake's column as usual.

Posted by: Jennifer on January 25, 2007 11:37 AM

Friedman's column is about the need for a Muslim MLK to stand against Muslim-inflicted injustices

And after some IDF commando puts a bullet throught the Muslim MLK's head?

Wouldn't it just be easier in the long run to just move Israel to say Texas or Florida and be done with this farce we call foreign policy?

Posted by: Marcus Wellby on January 25, 2007 11:39 AM

Wouldn't it just be easier in the long run to just move Israel to say Texas or Florida

I say Utah. The fight with the Mormons would be epic.

Posted by: dj moonbat on January 25, 2007 11:40 AM

So it is pretty stupid, but not for the reasons that Peretz thinks.

Agreed.

Posted by: a on January 25, 2007 11:41 AM

Of course, Peretz has save Friedman from the shellacking he deserves of his lack of grasp of the region and culture. Before MLK was Martin Luther and more than anything, it's that kind of change that is being forecast to happen next in the Muslim world. It won't be exactly the same and who knows whether it will be as painful in transition or positive in the end as the changes inspired by Martin Luther, but it's a good bet that it's the kind of event we should be watching for.

Posted by: Meh on January 25, 2007 11:41 AM

I ask that one of the commenters, "right", spare us the Friedmanesque the "if only there were a Palestian MLK" bullshit.

There are probably a bunch, only they're tied to chairs with wet bags over their heads.

Amazingly, I will recommend Tom Friedman, the younger one, the journalist. His "Beirut to Jerusalem" sympathetically conveys how the first intifada was a cousin to non-violence, where the Palestinians symbolically threw rocks.

Posted by: brendan on January 25, 2007 11:42 AM

"Where is the “Million Muslim March” under the banner: “No Shiites, No Sunnis: We are all children of the Prophet Muhammad.”"

If you know anything about the actual history of the split between Sunnis and Shiites, that banner is . . . particularly unfortunate.

Posted by: rea on January 25, 2007 11:47 AM

If one were living on earth, they'd break his windows

On Earth? What if said MMLK were not on Earth, but living on a nearby planet? A nearby red planet? Why did Bush bring up Mars that time? Why? Does AIPAC control NASA as well?

Down with the Zionist Occupied Space Program!

Posted by: Gatchaman on January 25, 2007 11:47 AM

I'm the publisher of a major East Coast political journal, and I've known Martin Peretz since childhood. I am outraged to see his esteemed and honorable name dragged through the mud by the stormtroopers of blogofascism. Marty is no racist. He loves *all* the children of the world... even the ones who wear those funny headscarves and throw rocks at Israeli soldiers. In fact, some of Marty's best friends are Arabs. He also has a passion for Moroccan cuisine and lusts insatiably for the gyrating hips of belly dancers.

Back in the 1960s, Marty jammed with the groundbreaking funk band Kosher Sex Machine, and he spent many nights hangin' with his soul brothers from the Civil Rights movement. Once, in Montgomery, they were beaten up by Klansmen and dragged off to prison. Marty ended up in the cell next to Martin Luther King, and they became close friends. If MLK were here today, Marty is sure he'd understand that 9/11 changed everything. He'd drop all of that nonviolence shit and tell his flock to prepare for war with Iran.

It's a sad day when a great man like Marty, who has brought so much hope and joy to the world, is slandered by bloggers whose narrow, Jew-hating minds can't grasp the rich complexity of his historical analogies. A very sad day indeed.

Posted by: Peretzzatura on January 25, 2007 11:49 AM

I am not Martin Luther King Jr, but I did stay at a Birmingham Holiday Inn Express and wrote an email letter to Tom Friedman about 6 months ago. Or was that another 6 months ago before that? I forget.

Posted by: trifecta on January 25, 2007 11:50 AM

If you know anything about the actual history of the split between Sunnis and Shiites, that banner is . . . particularly unfortunate.

Hah! Good catch.

If Tom Friedman knew anything, he wouldn't be the entertaining figure that he is.

Posted by: dj moonbat on January 25, 2007 11:52 AM

I havent contributed a dime to TNR for over a decade, and this latest idiocy from Marty Peretz pretty much confirms my decision.

Shorter Marty Peretz: "Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..................(drool)"

Posted by: Hesiod on January 25, 2007 11:52 AM

Not that this is relevant, but I always like etymology trivia, and when someone phrased it "Al-King" above, the similarity hit me — the Arabic root "malik" means "king". There is now a rather well-known politician in the Middle East named Al-Maliki. Peretz should be careful what he wishes for, he just might get it.

Not that there's any significance to the name, of course, and not that MLK Jr. and Al-Maliki have any major similarities that I know of, but I thought it was funny.

Posted by: Cyrus on January 25, 2007 11:54 AM

Brian24:
Obviously, American blacks did not attack or imprison King (though apparently one killed him).

Yikes, the ignorance is contagious!

Posted by: SqueakyRat on January 25, 2007 11:56 AM

Somebody should e-mail this to Keith Olbermann. I think it would, at the very least, make it into the top three of his "Worst Person in the World" segment.

Posted by: Hesiod on January 25, 2007 11:57 AM

It sounds to me like Friedman is not really calling for a Muslim MLK, he's calling for a Muslim Uncle Tom.

But that is only because Friedman doesn't seem to really understand what he's saying when he talks about Muslim unity. Shias and Sunnis living together does not mean they will suddenly adopt a Western point of view. There is already a prominent leader who wants to unify all Muslims under a single umbrella - Osama Bin Laden.

Posted by: vanya on January 25, 2007 11:57 AM

Er... "Leading" in what sense? Certainly not in circulation. I'll grant that they're a loss-leader.

Posted by: Septic Tank on January 25, 2007 11:59 AM

Would we need to put on a little puppet show for him to get it.

Well, Lee Siegel is available....

Posted by: Jeff Fecke on January 25, 2007 12:02 PM

Leave it to blame America first liberals to draw moral equivalence between the plight of Blacks in America to Islamofascists' dreams of a Caliphate extending from Peking to Oakland.

Posted by: gregor on January 25, 2007 12:02 PM

Beyond parody is right. That has to be one of the ten dumbest things I have ever read.

Posted by: Matthew C on January 25, 2007 10:32 AM

Top five for me.

Posted by: eric on January 25, 2007 12:07 PM

Why don't all the editors and writers who purpotedly don't like Marty's views simply walk out en masse one day and start their own mag? Surely they could get funding.

Indeed, surely there are more lonely heiresses out there?

Posted by: M. Duss on January 25, 2007 12:07 PM

Matthew C says "Beyond parody is right. That has to be one of the ten dumbest things I have ever read."

But gregor really ups the ante, stupidwise, with this one:

Leave it to blame America first liberals to draw moral equivalence between the plight of Blacks in America to Islamofascists' dreams of a Caliphate extending from Peking to Oakland.

Posted by: dj moonbat on January 25, 2007 12:14 PM

Dear Marty:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail....

Yours:

ML Al-King

Posted by: Lettuce on January 25, 2007 12:20 PM

I don't agree with Peretz on this, but isn't it obvious that he means that if there were a Muslim MLK, the MUSLIMS would imprison or kill him?

Actually, the Friedman piece makes the claim that non-Islamist governments in the area oppress liberal MLK-ish types rather than radical Islamists because they want the support of Western governments, and therefore they want to be the only alternative to the Islamists.

So, at least some of the time, non-Muslims are at least indirectly behind attacks on potential Muslim MLKs. It would be as though whites had constructed black reservations under martial law with white-allied blacks put in charge to maintain order. On the other hand, that sounds enough like British India to make us wonder where the Muslim Gandhi is. And the answer is probably that peacemakers are really rare in all cultures, religions, and races. It's just too easy to label someone advocating tactical restraint as some sort of traitor, especially in times of chaos and uncertainty, which is precisely when tactical restraint is needed.

Posted by: Consumatopia on January 25, 2007 12:22 PM

But gregor really ups the ante, stupidwise, with this one:

I think that might be a joke. That said, we really shouldn't give up Hawaii.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on January 25, 2007 12:23 PM

Here is Jack Shafer's piece on Peretz, always timely:
http://www.slate.com/id/2134011/

It begins:
"Am I the only writer on the Middle East who has not been invited by PBS or NPR to speak about the Gulf?" Martin Peretz bawls in the April 15 New Republic..."

Posted by: otto on January 25, 2007 12:23 PM

I think that might be a joke.

Oh. Well, that takes all the fun right out of it.

Posted by: dj moonbat on January 25, 2007 12:30 PM

Obviously, American blacks did not attack or imprison King (though apparently one killed him).

You're thinking of Malcolm X. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by James Earl Ray, a white man.

Leave it to blame America first liberals to draw moral equivalence between the plight of Blacks in America to Islamofascists' dreams of a Caliphate extending from Peking to Oakland.

Dude, it's been called Beijing for about 20 years now. Nobody says "Peking" anymore unless they're ordering Peking Duck.

Next, you're going to start worrying about all of those Soviets plotting against you from their base in Stalingrad.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on January 25, 2007 12:31 PM

I'm not sure Marty's in a position to criticize a people who would imprison and kill one of their ownfor pointing out a better, non-violent, and less dogmatic way of living. I mean, Jesus, anyone?

The analogy would perhaps be more apt given the occupation by foreign power at the time. But ya, nevermind.

Posted by: MFA on January 25, 2007 12:31 PM

"Nobody says "Peking" anymore unless they're ordering Peking Duck."

I thought he was talking about the town in Illinois . . .

Posted by: rea on January 25, 2007 12:34 PM

I'm pretty sure Martin Luther King Jr. had his windows broken too.

Posted by: Jumbo on January 25, 2007 12:40 PM

I wish it weren't too early/too late to commend Peretz's post to The Poor Man for Wank of the Year.

Posted by: sniflheim on January 25, 2007 12:44 PM

Likewise, the Sunni Arabs of Iraq under Saddam Hussein lorded over the majority Shia and Kurds, yet for some reason so-called anti-war liberals didn't have much of a problem with it.
Posted by: Peter K. on January 25, 2007 10:38 AM

On the contrary, this so-called anti-war liberal had a very big problem with it. Only I had a firm belief that invading Iraq, ousting Saddam Hussein from power, and occupying the country would exacerbate, rather than solve, the problem.

I'm very saddened to report that I was right. Now, the displaced Sunni are blowing up the Shia with car bombs and other explosives. The Shia are retaliating by forming death squads and summarily executing their former Sunni overlords. The death count from Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence appears to have sharply increased. We've made things considerably worse.

I generally agree with your Israeli/Palestinian comments. Those who reject the Reconstruction or Apartheid parallels are a large part of the reason we haven't seen significant peace progress in the region.

I also don't see it as anti-Semetic or racist to expect Israel, as a nation, to answer tough questions and face tough scrutiny for its actions, as a nation. Not all Israelis are Jewish (ethnic or religious), and not all Jews (ethnic or religious) are Israeli. We have a natural sensitivity toward criticising people of Jewish ethnic or religious affiliation which is getting in the way of a rational approach to the national identity of Israel and how it should behave with regard to its neighbors. We won't resolve the Palestinian issue until we can find away around that.

Posted by: joel on January 25, 2007 12:46 PM

Tom Friedman, the reason Sunnis and Shia aren't going to unite and proclaim "We are all Children of Mohammed" is because THAT IS PRECEISLY THE FUCKING STICKING-POINT, YOU STUPID DIPSHIT.

Posted by: Bill on January 25, 2007 12:53 PM

I thought the same thing when I read it and wanted to post a response in the comments section of the Spine but couldn't because I don't subscribe.

Marty Peretz seems to have no knowledge of history, not even history 101.

He also seems to have no self awareness. He attacks John Kerry for marrying a rich woman. He attacks the Clintons for having rich friends.

Posted by: DonB on January 25, 2007 01:01 PM

"THAT IS PRECEISLY THE FUCKING STICKING-POINT, YOU STUPID DIPSHIT."

Worth shouting . . .

For those of you who don't know, the Sunnis and the Shiites split over whether the descendants of the prophet should inherit his leadership role. The Sunnis had Mohammed's grandson murdered. So a banner saying,“No Shiites, No Sunnis: We are all children of the Prophet Muhammad.” would likely start a riot . . .

Posted by: rea on January 25, 2007 01:02 PM

Re: Leave it to blame America first liberals to draw moral equivalence between the plight of Blacks in America to Islamofascists' dreams of a Caliphate extending from Peking to Oakland.

And who has proposed such an empire? Even Osama bin laden only lays claim to the territory of the original, 8th century Caliphate. That includes most of Spain, but none of Turkey (then, the heartland of the Christian Byzantine Empire), and would also leave out India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, most of Africa as well the non-Muslim parts of Europe, Asia, and (certainly!) the Americas. Caliphate version 3.0 (the Ottoman Empire was 2.0) is also as much of a pipe dream about restoring the unrecoverable past as the Holy Roman Empire was for restoring the original Roman Empire.

Posted by: Jonf on January 25, 2007 01:07 PM

MY:

This is a great post. Everyone at TNR needs to know that Peretz speaks for them, and that they now must make a choice.

Posted by: brendan on January 25, 2007 01:14 PM

I'm finally letting my subscription to TNR lapse. I've been a subscriber since 1984. The last straw was some lie Peretz wrote about Chavez, but I can't take the bigotry about Muslims. I can get my republican nonsense for free any time I want from fox news, don't have to pay big bucks for it.

Posted by: Eric U. on January 25, 2007 01:16 PM

Here is the Tom Friedman column;

http://donkeyod.wordpress.com/2007/01/23/martin-luther-al-king/

Posted by: DonB on January 25, 2007 01:17 PM

You don't understand the analogy.

Um, right. This is a Thomas Friedman analogy we're talking about. Not even he understands it. (And the race/religion category error is pretty important here.)

Friedman is inane; Peretz is just a nasty fucking bigot.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc on January 25, 2007 01:18 PM

Ahh, Marty -- the Christians did kill Martin Luther King. Maybe you forgot that . . .

Posted by: Cervantes on January 25, 2007 01:20 PM

Marty Peretz and his buddies refuse to admit that they and the other Likudniks were hosed by Ahmad Chalabi, who of course has ties to Iran right out the wazoo.

Posted by: Phoenix Woman on January 25, 2007 01:24 PM

I thought he was talking about the town in Illinois . . .

That's Pekin.

Posted by: ogged on January 25, 2007 01:45 PM

Of course Peretz doesn't like the analogy of Israelis in occupied territories = civil rights era white southerners and Arabs = civil rights era blacks. It's kinda like former President Carter's analogy with apartheid. Both analogies are basically correct and instructive

Should have known someone would step up to keep Peretz from hogging all the beyond parody action

Posted by: aretino on January 25, 2007 01:58 PM

jim W,

Muslim in the mouth of Martin Peretz is a religious, not a racial epithete.

Yeah, sure.
And Afro-american is an historical description.

Posted by: face it on January 25, 2007 02:17 PM

DJ Monnbat wrote: It's okay to hate the Arabs. Unlike the Jews, they have never been victimized by others.

I have to believe that this was said tongue-in-cheek. Because the crusades instantly come to mind, and, lest we forget, Iraq and the middle east have been on the receiving end of colonialism, coveted by "the west" for over a century and counting.

Posted by: Eskwaya on January 25, 2007 02:20 PM

Islamofascists' dreams of a Caliphate extending from Peking to Oakland.

Which would be what? Waterworld?

I think he may have meant from Oakland to Peking. That would at least be a little drier.

But bushtards don't do geography.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on January 25, 2007 02:29 PM

"If you know anything about the actual history of the split between Sunnis and Shiites, that banner is . . . particularly unfortunate."

Perhaps a banner of "We are all variously sons-in-law or long time confidants of Mohammed in our own way now."

My eyes get moist just at the thought of it.

Nope...wait... I just have a bug in my eye.

Posted by: Njorl on January 25, 2007 02:42 PM

Where is the “Million Christian March” under the banner: “No Catholics, No Protestants: We all accept Papal Infallibilty.”

Posted by: Preston on January 25, 2007 02:42 PM

Don't make fun, it's well known that the Islamofascists dream of an underwater kingdom. You won't be laughing so much when they come for your ass riding upon sharks with frikkin lasers attached to their heads.

Posted by: hed on January 25, 2007 02:43 PM

Uh, let me first make it clear what morons Friedman and Peretz are, but then try to rehabilitate what is actually a very important point that has been besmirched by these clowns (kind of like how suspicious documents muddled the Bush National Guared story).

The point is that the cause of Palestinians has suffered because there has not been a MLK/Ghandi type figure advocating non-violent resistance to Israeli oppression. Instead, there has been a history of terror that has undermined the message -- a lot of Israeli bad behavior gets second billing for this reason. And the Israelis have ruthlessly exploited this fact -- "we need to expropriate Arab lands to protect ourselves from these monsters!" Uh, as Benny Morris acknowledges, the very notion of Zionism required expropriation of Arabs lands in order to found Israel.

But it is also likely that extremist Palestianians would murder the Palestinian equivalent of MLK/Ghandi. That is also a sad aspect of history in that region -- fratricide within the Palestinian movement to eliminate anyone not as extreme as the extreme elements. (Does the assasination of Rabin also fit this pattern?)

So the cycle continues.

Posted by: dmbeaster on January 25, 2007 02:48 PM

"There is a subtle distinction, too difficult for our friends on the right to follow, between "not having a problem" with oppression, and thinking that a war killing 600,000 and costing $1.2 trillion is a bad idea for dealing with oppression . . ."

First of all, I'm not on the right. Actually, I bet a lot of supporters of the war on the right didn't care about the fact that the minority Tikriti clan of the minority Sunnis ruled with great cruelty over the majority Shia and minority Kurds. Nor did they care that Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds.

A lot of isolationists on the right don't want the U.S. trying to deal with foreign problems and injustices. They see it as bleeding heart social work. They were against doing anything about Bosnia. The hard reality is you can ignore issues overseas and pretend they don't exist, but as 9/11 demonstated, they won't go away.

Sistani was sort of an MLK type. Religious, telling the Shia to turn the other cheek while al qaeda types went on a bloody rampage blowing up mosques and beheading people.

Posted by: Peter K. on January 25, 2007 03:10 PM

"Among TNR staffers, there's a desire to put distance between themselves and Marty, and a desire to believe that TNR readers understand that there's a big difference between Marty and the staff. Your comment shows that not many readers are willing to devote that much time or interest in drawing such a distinction."

I draw that distinction.

I think SCMT's comment speaks more to his level of political sophistication, rather than acting as a poll of TNR's readers.

Posted by: Petey on January 25, 2007 03:11 PM

rather than acting as a poll of TNR's readers

As I understand it, there are few enough left that I don't think you'd really have to use a poll to find out. You could just ask.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on January 25, 2007 03:19 PM

The Shias and Sunns can get along, pace all the wise-acres here. Last summer the Shia militia Hezbollah handed Israel a military defeat in Lebanon. At first the Sunni governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc, blasted Hezbollah for instigating the war by kidnapping Israeli soldiers and lobbing rockets into Israel proper. (Plus they saw the growing power of Iran).

And yet the Sunni masses of these countries cheered on Hezbollah. The Sunni elite quickly did a 180 and changed their tune. Very interesting to watch.

Posted by: Peter K. on January 25, 2007 03:21 PM

It's a good thing those Jews would never murder anyone who tried to make peace non-violently (cough...Rabin...cough). The Palestinians did try some non-violent resistance back during the Intifada, as I recall.

Posted by: MQ on January 25, 2007 03:23 PM

MFA, I believe I mentioned on the other thread that a lot of us Jews get very touchy when accused of killing Jesus. Asshole.

Posted by: Matt Weiner on January 25, 2007 03:24 PM

"I'm not on the right."

And yet you mindlessly recite right wingnut talking points.

If you can find half a dozen lefties in the whole country who don't acknowledge that it was wrong for Saddam to oppress the Shiites and Kurds, I'd be amazed.

The cure, in this instance, however, has been worse than the disease. I repeat: 600,000 dead, $1.2 trillion . . .

Posted by: rea on January 25, 2007 03:50 PM

Peter K:

It might have been unintentional, but don't muddy the chronology of this summer's events, which were important and which will repeated soon enough.

You say, "(Sunnis)...blasted Hezbollah for instigating the war by kidnapping Israeli soldiers and lobbing rockets into Israel proper".

The sequence of events was:

1. Hezbollah border raid (which included killing of soldiers, not just their "kidnapping")
2. Israeli bombing
3. Hezbollah rocket attacks

Posted by: brendan on January 25, 2007 03:51 PM

I'm with Brendan about 98% of the time here. But the "kidnapping" thing puzzles me. When there's a war on, isn't the usual term "capturing" or "taking prisoner"?

(Or maybe that was your point -- the nested layers of snark in these dicsussions get hard to parse soemtimes.)

Posted by: lemuel pitkin on January 25, 2007 04:07 PM

Chait responds quite nicely to Matthew's challenge. He finishes off by saying of Matthew:

something about this topic seems to send him off the deep end.

I'd identify that "something" as Spackermania.

Posted by: Petey on January 25, 2007 04:12 PM

Chiat's response quotes MattY as saying TNR (or Peretz) are racist.

Did BigMediaMatt ever say that? If he did, he'd be wrong. Muslims are not a 'race'. Peretz is a bigot. He is prejudiced, sectarian and communalist. But not a racist.

As for the rest of it -- I think it's great that TNR is having an open discussion about wether its proprietor is prejudiced against Muslims. I think he is, and that he dangerously bigoted articles in his magazine.

Chait disagrees? Good. Let's have him open TNR's comments section up to non-subscribers (and non-registrants) and have a debate and analysis over whether Martin Peretz is a hatemonger. A thousand flowers, etc.

Posted by: Ikram on January 25, 2007 04:30 PM

"I'd identify that "something" as Spackermania"

I'd say that "something" is a genuine fear that there is going to be an attack on Iran....and Matt is trying to do everything in his power to fight the propaganda campaign which is preparing for this attack.

And while in some I think Chait does have the better of the argument about Wesley Clark...his response does suck up to Marty Peretz in the most disgusting way.

Posted by: peep on January 25, 2007 04:31 PM

Shorter Chait:
"If you just examine only this one statement of Peretz's very generously, it is possible to argue that my boss is not a bigot and a racist."

Posted by: M. Duss on January 25, 2007 04:34 PM

Brendan, apologies. How can I make amends? Actually what *really* happened is that

"The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict refers to the military conflict in Lebanon and northern Israel, primarily between Hezbollah and Israel, which started on 12 July 2006. The conflict began with a cross-border Hezbollah raid and shelling, which resulted in the capture of two and killing of eight Israeli soldiers. Israel held the Lebanese government responsible for the attack, as it was carried out from Lebanese territory, and initiated an air and naval blockade, airstrikes across much of the country, and ground incursions into southern Lebanon. Hezbollah continuously launched rocket attacks into northern Israel and engaged the Israeli Army on the ground with hit-and-run guerrilla attacks. A ceasefire came into effect at 05:00 UTC, 14 August 2006, although violations of the ceasefire have occurred from both sides. The conflict killed over one thousand Lebanese civilians,[24] 440 Hezbollah militants, and 119 Israeli soldiers,[25] as well as forty-four Israeli civilians,[25] and caused massive damage to the civilian infrastructure and cities of Lebanon and damaged thousands of buildings across northern Israel, many of which were completely destroyed"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#2000s

Posted by: Peter K. on January 25, 2007 04:40 PM

My favourite Chait line has to be, "At the risk of sounding like a suck up, I think that redounds enormously to Marty's credit."

Finally, a risk Chait is willing to take! An ordinary sycophant would have left out the adverb.

Posted by: Pithlord on January 25, 2007 04:49 PM

Chait responds quite nicely to Matthew's challenge.

I look forward to Chait's similar defense that Buchanan's statement that "if it comes to war, it will not be the 'civilized world' humping up that bloody road to Baghdad; it will be American kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales and Leroy Brown" is not anti-semitic. I think Buchanan's an antisemite, and Peretz's is an anti-Muslim bigot.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on January 25, 2007 04:50 PM

I must say, Jon's response to Matt does accurately assess the situation:

What a clever gambit. Either I agree with Matt and make a very serious charge against the person who signs my paychecks, or I disagree and look like a suck-up, or I say nothing and look like a coward.

He then proceeds to wisely choose what's behind Door #4: Defend Peretz from the charge that this particular statement is inherently bigoted, while delicately refuse to comment on Matt's specific charge that Martin Peretz is, in fact, primarily driven by bigotry against Arabs and Muslims.

Well played, sir.

Posted by: LaFollette Progressive on January 25, 2007 04:56 PM

Not only is Peretz obviously a bigot, but the statement about King is obviously bigoted as well.

Try replacing "Muslim" with "Jewish" in Peretz's statement, and it would obviously be vicious anti-semitism. But vicious anti-Muslim sentiments are OK, while anti-semitism is not.

Posted by: MQ on January 25, 2007 05:47 PM

MP's remarks deserve some deeper criticism. After all, MLK was killed in the US. And imprisoned.

But the problem isn't bigotry. More likely MP was just asleep on the job. It is true that a Muslim campaigner for non-violence would probably be killed. And it is true that moderates don't seem to get very far in Muslim countries.

But I think there's another confusion here. Many westerners have been looking for a Muslim Martin Luther (not King). And they haven't found him. Just google for 'muslim martin luther' and you'll see. I bet that's what Peretz was thinking about.

Posted by: Warren on January 25, 2007 07:18 PM

But he was responding to an article about "a Muslim Martin Luther King," Warren. I'm also unsure about what's supposed to be so awesome about a Muslim Martin Luther -- if you're looking for a figure who encourages direct interpretation of scripture, opposes celebration of saints' days, and accumulated cultural practices, don't you wind up with al-Wahhab?

(I don't really know much about Wahhabism, but Luther doesn't seem like any great shakes to me.)

BTW, did you read the links to about Iranian peace overtures in the other thread? Top three links here.

Posted by: Matt Weiner on January 25, 2007 07:58 PM

Hmmph. Peretz compared Martin Luther King to G-d, and you are offended? [Yiddish proverb, which is well enough known that I'm surprised you didn't notice the reference: "If G-d lived on earth, people would break His windows."]

And call it bigotry all you wish, the point he makes is true: a person who advocates non-violence in the Arab world has a very hard time being heard, and if he's a Palestinian, stands a good chance of being killed as a "collaborator".

Similarly, while Pat Buchanan is fairly obviously an anti-Semite, the statement quoted is no evidence of that. Unless you want allege that he is obviously bigoted against Italians and American Indians because he did not include names which were obviously Italian and American Indian.

Posted by: kishnevi on January 25, 2007 08:15 PM

The curious thing is that Mr. Peretz has a point: A Muslim MLK would probably be quickly killed by a member of his own community. But is this a muslim speciality? Gandhi was killed by a member of the Hindu right, Rabin by the israeli right, Malcolm X, just as he started to get sensible, was killed by a fellow member of Nation of Islam,
and then there is Sadat, Jean Jaures, Henri IV, Michael Collins, Rathenau

And, no jewish zealots didn´t kill Jesus, but latter during the Jewish War they slaughtered with abandon first moderates, then other zealots, hastening the romans victory.

Posted by: IM on January 25, 2007 09:14 PM

No, the naive one is you Matthew. At best a Muslim MLK would be ignored, and that's just stating the facts. Even though some Muslims may be peaceful, this is not a religion of peace - read the Koran, read the polls from any Muslim country, listen to the leaders who are really respected. They are not moderates, and you cannot attribute all of that to despots taking advantage of their underlings.

What would Pakistan's leadership look like, if it we held a democratic election there today?

Peretz, whatever his state of mind, is at least not spouting wishful thinking, PC bs.

Posted by: Steve C on January 25, 2007 11:32 PM

So which one is the religion of peace?

Posted by: Ed Marshall on January 26, 2007 03:18 AM

Steve C, at the risk of stating the obvious- the point isn't that there would be Muslims that would reject 'al-King' with imprisonment and death but that this was exactly the treatment that our very own MLK received.

Posted by: Preston on January 26, 2007 09:41 AM

IM, you mean Henry III not Henry IV. Henry III was killed by a fantical member of his own side, Henry IV was killed by a fanatical member of the opposing side (sort of, technically he had converted).

Posted by: G on January 26, 2007 09:50 AM

Hmmm, I wonder what Israeli society would do to a moderate leader.

Show posters of him dressed in Nazi uniform, like Bibi Netanyahu did?

Or shoot him down and then laugh about it, like Yigal Amir did?

Posted by: HeavyJ on January 26, 2007 10:41 AM

And if there were a muslim John Kennedy they'd probably kill him too, those dirty arabs!

Posted by: markg on January 26, 2007 11:18 AM

No G, i did mean Henri Quatre, who was a catholic when killed. I left Henri III out to avoid analogy overload; but perhaps this example is even more fitting, because Henri III was not much of a peacemaker, just a not-fanatic enough catholic.
( A bit like , say, Sen Hagel in the eyes of Mr. Hewitt and his "Republican League")

Posted by: IM on January 26, 2007 12:54 PM

But it is also likely that extremist Palestianians would murder the Palestinian equivalent of MLK/Ghandi.

Really, besides thinking that the Arabs are a bunch of savages, what's your point? Both MLK AND Gandhi were killed too.

It's probable extremist Palestinians would do so, as it is documented that extremist Israeli Jews have done so. Moreover, while MLK was killed by a white, Malcolm X was killed by the Faharakhan faction for becoming too accomodationist -- as he was inspired by the peace and color-blindness he found during his trip to Mecca.

In the same vein, it was the Hindu Gandhi who had the trust and support of India's then-massive Muslim population for his non-violent methods. He, of course, was killed by radical nationalist Hindis.

But whatever right? Those fucking Arab wogs will turn on anyone promoting peace, unlike anyone else. Or do you just discount actual history?

Posted by: Jay B. on January 26, 2007 12:55 PM

Well, at least the Israelis would never turn on their own if that person dared to attempt a reconciliation between Palestine and Israel and bring peace to the region.

Oh, wait....

Posted by: dt on January 26, 2007 01:44 PM

oh, it's the usual "we are special" assumption that undergirds all this bullshit. see, americans are special. israelis are special. arabs are (bad) special. i've noticed that the speaker, when making inevitably invidious comparisons that redound solely to the detriment of 'the other', never note their own place in the universe. it's all heisenberg-y of them.

funny story, marty, about what we did to MLK, as others will continue to point out to you until you are in your grave. and while i am a firm believer that our system is 'better', in that i believe that democracy is better than fascism or theocracy or whatever, i don't think that americans are better than arabs. i'm no relativist, i hate that shit. but i'm no fool. ask a native american about how we established democracy here, if you can find one. or ask an african-american. etc. give me a break. those savages have always had to taste a bit of our steel to understand what civilization was all about, and they've always probably observed that we tend to kill people from a greater distance, and in great numbers, than they do. i'm not clear it gives them the message we hope to promulgate.

Posted by: Robert Green on January 26, 2007 03:26 PM

Let's not forget that technically, Arabs are semites.

So Marty Peretz is actually quite anti-semetic.

Posted by: ME on January 26, 2007 03:49 PM

Also (from wikipedia):

"Genetic analysis suggests that the Semitic peoples share a significant common ancestry"

So anytime Peretz trashes Arab genes, he's trashing Jewish genes too.

Posted by: ME on January 26, 2007 03:52 PM

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006/08/04/story_4-8-2006_pg7_44
Where can a liberal survive these days? Not in Canada.

Posted by: Arun on January 26, 2007 09:45 PM

If one were living on earth, they'd break his windows. Imprison him. Or kill him. Finished.

Or they'd kill his daughter.

Posted by: vivelame on January 27, 2007 10:51 AM

How about an "Iraqi Yitzhak Rabin"?

Oh, well, that didn't work out so well either.

Posted by: Jon H on January 27, 2007 11:57 AM

thankss

Posted by: sohbet , sohbet odaları on July 31, 2007 04:47 PM

Very Good Site.

Posted by: sohbet on August 7, 2007 06:13 AM

Thanks..

Posted by: sohbet on August 7, 2007 06:17 AM

Veyry Good Sİte Thanksyou

Posted by: chat on August 7, 2007 06:19 AM

ThanksYou..

Posted by: yonja on August 7, 2007 02:12 PM

very Good site..

Posted by: chat odaları on August 7, 2007 02:12 PM

Thanksyou senem

Posted by: sohbet odaları on August 7, 2007 02:13 PM

Oh, well, that didn't work out so well either By..

Posted by: arkadas on August 7, 2007 02:14 PM

thanks

Posted by: indir on August 8, 2007 03:25 PM

thank you

Posted by: ucuz tatil on August 8, 2007 03:25 PM

Of course Peretz doesn't like the analogy of Israelis in occupied territories = civil rights era white southerners and Arabs = civil rights era blacks. It's kinda like former President Carter's analogy with apartheid. Both analogies are basically correct and instructive which is why Peretz is throwing one of his mini-tantrums.

Posted by: sohbet on August 14, 2007 03:53 PM

thanks

Posted by: hikaye on August 29, 2007 06:46 PM

Let's not forget that technically, Arabs are semites.

So Marty Peretz is actually quite anti-semetic.

Posted by: Sohbet on September 5, 2007 08:38 AM

But gregor really ups the ante, stupidwise, with this one:

I think that might be a joke. That said, we really shouldn't give up Hawaii.

Posted by: Sohbet on September 5, 2007 08:40 AM

thanks it s great job friend.

Posted by: aytac on September 9, 2007 08:12 AM

thanks

Posted by: siir on September 12, 2007 05:06 PM

Thanks for very interesting article. btw. I really enjoyed reading all of your posts. It’s interesting to read ideas, and observations from someone else’s point of view… makes you think more. So please keep up the great work

Posted by: youtube on September 15, 2007 01:54 PM

Verry Good web Thank Youu

Posted by: Sohbet on September 18, 2007 09:26 PM

Verry Good web Thank Youu

Posted by: Sohbet on September 18, 2007 09:27 PM

thanks

Posted by: Katalog Stron on September 19, 2007 08:09 AM

thank you

Posted by: Linki on September 19, 2007 12:59 PM

thank you

Posted by: evden eve nakliyat on September 20, 2007 05:55 AM

evden eve nakliye

Posted by: evden eve nakliyat on September 20, 2007 05:56 AM

thank you

Posted by: evden eve nakliyat on September 20, 2007 05:57 AM

very good web sites

Posted by: evden eve nakliyat on September 20, 2007 05:58 AM

thank you

Posted by: evden eve nakliyat on September 20, 2007 05:58 AM

I knew there was a way to do this but I didn’t want to have to use a

forum software for this functionality, because, the actual forum aspect

would have been superfluous… don’t add more than you need seems to be a

good policy

Posted by: nord on September 20, 2007 03:52 PM

thank you.

Posted by: Sohbet odası on September 21, 2007 03:48 AM

I am interested in the topics discussed but have been feeling a little intimidated by the thought of the work.

Posted by: top site on September 23, 2007 11:33 AM

Has any body tried to do V2P? IE can we do NTBackup in the VM and then do the restore on another machine?

Posted by: sohbet on September 23, 2007 09:42 PM

Has any body tried to do V2P? IE can we do NTBackup in the VM and then do the restore on another machine? !!

Posted by: Kadınca on September 23, 2007 09:43 PM

Thankskskskss

Posted by: Kadın on September 23, 2007 09:43 PM

thankss

Posted by: sohbet on September 24, 2007 09:25 AM

good neydi arkadaslar?? ondan iste yani it is good, good it is nasil?? zupper di mi:))
really very good a place here
we liked this website and we always visit here

Posted by: sohbet on September 28, 2007 02:47 AM

I am interested in the topics discussed and I appreciated it. Thank you

Posted by: wiertarka on September 28, 2007 03:24 AM

Thanks a lot, it's great peace of work.

Posted by: elektronarzedzia on September 28, 2007 03:25 AM

thats like mree

Posted by: oyun on September 28, 2007 08:31 PM

thank you

Posted by: seks shop on October 2, 2007 10:58 AM

Grande mierda del toro.Gracias

Posted by: Barcelona Tours on October 2, 2007 01:31 PM

thanks very nice..

Posted by: sohbet on October 4, 2007 04:54 PM

tnx

Posted by: Sevgi, chat, sohbet on October 4, 2007 09:43 PM

Thanks.

Posted by: sohbet on October 7, 2007 05:53 AM

Eyw.

Posted by: chat on October 7, 2007 05:54 AM

Sohbet, World

Posted by: Sohbet on October 8, 2007 08:07 AM

Sohbet, World

Posted by: Chat on October 8, 2007 08:09 AM

SohbetChat

Posted by: SohbetChat on October 8, 2007 08:09 AM

Birdiyar

Posted by: Birdiyar on October 8, 2007 08:09 AM

Canli Sohbet

Posted by: Canli Sohbet on October 8, 2007 08:10 AM

Sohbet Siteleri

Posted by: Sohbet Siteleri on October 8, 2007 08:10 AM

Canlı SOhbet

Posted by: Canlı Sohbet on October 8, 2007 08:11 AM

sohbet siteleri, chat, muhabbet, canlı sohbet chat, güzel sözler, aşk sevgi sözleri, şiir, arkadaş, çocuk şarkıları, oyun

Posted by: Sohbet Siteleri on October 8, 2007 12:15 PM

Canlı Sohbet

Posted by: Canlı Sohbet on October 8, 2007 12:42 PM

welcome selam sohbet

Posted by: chat sohbet on October 9, 2007 04:12 AM

thans you

Posted by: sohbet on October 9, 2007 08:08 AM

thx link ;)

Posted by: chat on October 9, 2007 08:09 AM

realy nice article, great job, thanks for very interesting informations

Posted by: nero za darmo on October 9, 2007 08:12 AM

buyrun ;)

Posted by: idealsohbet on October 9, 2007 02:00 PM

özel ürünler

Posted by: gay transsexsuel on October 10, 2007 03:42 AM

sekssi arkadaslık

Posted by: seks muhabbet on October 10, 2007 03:43 AM

http://www.pornosepeti.com/Scripts/prodList.asp?idCategory=15

Posted by: online seks shop on October 10, 2007 03:45 AM

http://www.sexi-porno.com/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=9456

Posted by: adult on October 10, 2007 09:39 AM

fantazi ürünler

Posted by: bayanlara özel on October 10, 2007 09:45 AM

http://www.sexi-porno.com/Scripts/prodList.asp?idCategory=125

Posted by: bayan azdırıcılar on October 10, 2007 09:47 AM

sagol gozum

Posted by: chat on October 10, 2007 01:01 PM

canum

Posted by: sohbet on October 10, 2007 01:02 PM

farz

Posted by: islam on October 10, 2007 01:03 PM

Forum

Posted by: Forum on October 10, 2007 01:04 PM

seksi

Posted by: Adult on October 10, 2007 01:04 PM

oldu

Posted by: sohbet on October 10, 2007 01:05 PM

bitiyo

Posted by: sohbet on October 10, 2007 01:05 PM

bitti

Posted by: sohbet on October 10, 2007 01:06 PM

Sohbet

Posted by: Sohbet on October 10, 2007 01:07 PM

thanks in flowers

Posted by: çiçek gönder on October 11, 2007 11:37 AM

thanks for this article.

Sohbet
Regards,
Carpe

Posted by: Sohbet on October 11, 2007 04:05 PM

thanks a lot

Posted by: seks on October 12, 2007 04:33 AM

thanks for this article.

Oyun
Regards,
Onur KAYA.

Posted by: Oyun on October 12, 2007 05:16 AM

thanks for artichle

Posted by: mirc on October 13, 2007 11:04 AM

Thank You for another very interesting article. It’s really good written and I fully agree with You on main issue, btw. I must say that I really enjoyed reading all of Your posts. It’s interesting to read ideas, and observations from someone else’s point of view… it makes you think more. So please try to keep up the great work all the time. Greetings

Posted by: Artikelverzeichnis on October 15, 2007 01:56 PM

thanks.

mirc indir

Posted by: mirc indir on October 16, 2007 05:35 PM

thanks .

Posted by: arkadaş on October 16, 2007 06:44 PM

thank you ..

Posted by: sohbet odaları on October 16, 2007 06:45 PM