i don't get this.

Latuff enjoys the suffering of innocent people...

He blames 'Jews' for 9/11...

Latuff is from Brazil...

Which was also the top destination for Nazis fleeing from justice after WWII...

"Latuff enjoys the suffering of innocent people... He blames 'Jews' for 9/11"

Bollocks. He's never written anything of the sort. What he has done is blamed your dream-date Sharon for his numerous crimes against humanity.

Sling enough mud at Latuff though, and maybe it'll stick, eh?

Britain, like the USA, was a top source of Nazi support before WWII.

King Edward VIII, who abdicated the throne in 1938 due to his support for the Nazis, is said today to be a "black sheep", an aberration in an otherwise unblemished Windsor line. Nothing could be further from the truth. The British monarchy, and the City of London's leading Crown bankers, enthusiastically backed Hitler and the Nazis, bankrolled the Führer's election, and did everything possible to build the Nazi war machine, for Britain's planned geopolitical war between Germany and Russia.

Support for Nazi-style genocide has always been at the heart of House of Windsor policy, and long after the abdication of Edward VIII, the Windsors maintained their direct Nazi links.

Prince Philip was not only trained in the Hitler Youth curriculum, but his German brothers-in-law, with whom he lived, all became high-ranking figures in the Nazi Party.
Three of Philip's brothers-in-law were part of a group of German aristocrats who were Anglophile and pro-Nazi at the same time.
Philip's sister Cecilia and her husband Georg Donatus, hereditary grand duke of Hesse-by-Rhine, died in a plane crash in one of Göring's Junker aircraft on a trip to London for Georg's brother's wedding. According to the British magazine Private Eye, the funeral became a gathering point for leading Nazis and their appeasers. Prince Philip himself developed secretive ties with King Edward VIII, continuing after Edward was deposed in 1938.

One of the central figures in the 1930s Nazi-British back-channel was Philip's uncle and sponsor, Lord Louis Mountbatten (originally, Battenberg, a branch of the House of Hesse). Until he was forced to abdicate, King Edward VIII enjoyed the full backing of Mountbatten. Through much of World War II, secret channels of communication were maintained between the British royal family and their pro-Hitler cousins in Germany, by Lord Mountbatten, through his sister Louise, who was crown princess of pro-Nazi Sweden. Louise was Prince Philip's aunt.

Prince Philip was co-founder with Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and once told an interviewer that he hoped to be "reincarnated as a deadly virus" to help solve the "population problem".

Britain's aim in WWII was always to tame Germany, never to end Nazism. The British bear direct responsibility for the Holocaust as well. Not only did they not intervene to bomb rail lines into concentration camps, once the existence of such camps had become common knowledge, but they deliberately concealed information they had about the Holocaust years earlier. It was recently revealed in declassified documents that Churchill personally knew about the Holocaust a year earlier than was thought, and deliberately concealed the information from the Allies.

So it's a bit rich calling Brazilians Nazi sympathisers, when your own country is still owned and operated by a monarchy and political class with documented ties to the Nazis.

Don't worry Ian, you won't have to suffer the diversity of opinion for long... the Indymedia censors will be here to whitewash your cosy narrowminded world clean... they will make your mind pure for you...

So if Latuff isn't revelling in the suffering of others, why make this stamp, poking fun at an event at which thousands of people from many different backgrounds and religions and nations died? If he made a stamp about Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, I would have to say fair enough. But why take pleasure in the murder of innocent people?

"So it's a bit rich calling Brazilians Nazi sympathisers, when your own country is still owned and operated by a monarchy and political class with documented ties to the Nazis."

Was this strident nationalistic outburst necessary? I'm not British.

Still, Brazil is heaving with old Nazis and their sympathisers. Whatever happens in other countries isn't going to mitigate that fact.

I note you aren't yet able to back up your bizarre assertion that "Latuff blames Jews for 9/11".

Plan on telling us anytime soon on what grounds you spurted out this gratuitous lie? Or should we just take it on faith that anyone who criticises Sharon is operating a sinister anti-Jewish conspiracy? How very "narrowminded" of anyone to disagree with this self-evident truth.

"If he made a stamp about Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, I would have to say fair enough."

Of course you would. Arabs, like Brazilians, are all genetically guilty, right?

Interesting bit, but can you give us some hint on sources where we can read up on this story ie. books, essays, etc.

Yes, although I´m no great friend of the zionists and their pals, and certain people like Sharon and their world wide supporters can frankly kiss mer im toches, I must admit Latuff´s stuff is a bit unsavoury sometimes. Some of it reminds me of historical Nazi-carricatures of Jews. You might look at Neo-Nazi publications and find similar stuff to Latuff´s Sharon bits. Apart from that I find his style not very original but rather corny, cheap and hackneyed. But, comrades! Let me finish my point by stating: Even if Latuff was a blatant Nazi; nay, even if Nazis used similar cartoons, - it would not make the state of Israel´s (sensible Israelis excluded, of course) immoral policies towards the Palestinians, the Arab world, AND Israel´s cosy realtionship with the US imperialists, culminating in accompliceship with the fascists in Chile and the racists of RSA,- one dot better. The main problem is not Latuff´s carricatures - but the politics of US and Israeli neocons! ...And a bleesed evening to you all!

not only is this post a complete load of rubbish, it can easily be shown to be a complete load of rubbish.

'King Edward VIII, who abdicated the throne in 1938 due to his support for the Nazis' - er, I think Wallis Simpson may just have had a little bit to do with this.


'Britain's planned geopolitical war between Germany and Russia' - just one tiny reference, please?

'Prince Philip was not only trained in the Hitler Youth curriculum' - actually, he attended the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth from the age of 13 - check on Google

'Prince Philip himself developed secretive ties with King Edward VIII, continuing after Edward was deposed in 1938.' Really? Philip was 18 in 1938 and had just joined the Navy. He would have had zero influence in political circles at that time. He didn't marry ELizabeth until 1947.

'Lord Louis Mountbatten (originally, Battenberg, a branch of the House of Hesse).' Ah, nothing like a good smear. Do you know why the name was changed. Because his father was First Sea Lord in 1914, and the yellow press of the day indulged in a smear campaign just like this one. He had to resign, and the family changed their name.

But don't let facts spoil a good smear.

Ex soviet diplomat Valentin Falin published a book "The second front" avail. in English, based on new archive material. You might find some proof there for the fact that Churchil wanted to divert Hitler´s ambitions into the depths of Russia to save the British Empire.

which is, of course, a completely different issue.

It does make sense, however, to pit two of the world's most evil dictatorships at each other's throats. In 1940, Britain was one of the very few democratic countries left in Europe, other than a couple of neutrals like Sweden and Switzerland. Why waste blood when there is an equally nasty and vile dictator [Stalin] to do it for you?

One does wonder how Russian archives can give anyone an insight into Churchill's strategic thinking.

However, the idea of stopping one nasty and vile dictatorship with another does seem quite a good one. Britain was the only democracy left in Europe at the end of 1940, other than the neutral Sweden and Switzerland.

As for Britain being so pro Nazi, why then did we go to war over Poland? There was no way in practice that we could defend Poland. Instead, it was carved in two by the Nazis and by the Soviets. That, as much as anything, should tell us something about the Soviet regime. And one of Churchill's regrets after the war was that he had to hand Poland from one mass murderer to another. It took another 35 years or so before Poland could become a democracy.

From the BBC

As the Public Record Office releases more documents concerning the abdication of King Edward VIII, BBC News Online looks at his life.

King Edward VIII, who became the Duke of Windsor, found himself at the centre of a personal and political storm which shook the foundations of the monarchy.

More than 30 years after his death, his life continues to intrigue and tantalise historians.

Some commentators see him as a pampered playboy, whose louche lifestyle and numerous relationships with married women, most notably Mrs Simpson, made him unfit to be King.

Others believe this outward appearance masked something much darker - a fascination with Nazism, possibly even a brooding determination to overthrow his brother George VI.


The young Edward enjoyed a busy social life
Edward was born on 23 June 1894. His father, who became George V in 1910, was a fierce disciplinarian.

Besides Edward - always called David by his family - there were four other royal princes: Bertie - later George VI, Henry, George, and John.

Edward, good-looking, raffish and easy going, was the pick of the crop.

Dilemma

After becoming Prince of Wales in 1911 and serving in the Grenadier Guards during World War I, he became the darling of 1920s society.

Life was a seemingly endless round of balls, cocktail parties and country house weekends. His penchant for married women was already well-known in aristocratic circles.


Edward was captivated by Wallis Simpson
During the early 1930s, Mrs Wallis Warfield Simpson, a divorcee from Baltimore, Maryland, was constantly with him.

But there was another, more serious, side to Edward's character.

During the Depression which followed the Wall Street Crash of 1929, he visited poverty-stricken areas of the UK and encouraged 200,000 unemployed men and women to join his back-to-work scheme.

His popularity far outstripped that of his distant father.

Following George V's death in January 1936, the new King faced two huge problems.

The first was his love for Wallis Simpson: as King, and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, he could not marry a divorcee. He would have to choose between his country and his lover.

Concentration camp

The second was that some felt that the new King was too sympathetic to Nazi Germany.

Following Edward's accession, the German embassy in London sent a cable for the personal attention of Hitler himself.


The Windsors met Hitler in 1937

In part, it read: "An alliance between Germany and Britain is for him (the King) an urgent necessity."

Alan Lascelles, Edward's private secretary, gave his own harsh judgment of the situation.

"The best thing that could happen to him would be for him to break his neck."

Within the year Edward, pressurised by the Church of England, the government and royal courtiers, decided to abdicate.

In October 1937, Edward and his wife - by now the Duke and Duchess of Windsor - visited Nazi Germany.

They met Hitler, dined with his deputy, Rudolf Hess, and even visited a concentration camp.

The camp's guard towers were explained away as meat stores for the inmates.

Bahamas

At the outbreak of war, the duke served as a military liaison officer in Paris before eventually ending up in Lisbon after the French capitulation.

Hitler, wishing to bring the duke into his camp, made an abortive attempt to coax Edward and his wife to Spain, which was then sympathetic to the Nazi cause.

But the duke soon moved on to become Governor of the Bahamas from 1940-45. It was while he was there that he is said to have made his views explicit.

He reputedly told a journalist that "it would be a tragic thing for the world if Hitler was overthrown".

To an acquaintance on the island, the Duke reportedly said: "After the war is over and Hitler will crush the Americans...We'll take over...They (the British) don't want me as their King, but I'll be back as their leader."

After the war, the duke and duchess returned to France. He died there in 1972, while the Duchess lived on until 1986.

Though the official Whitehall view was that "His Royal Highness never wavered in his loyalty to the British cause", the reputation of "the King who never was" seems destined to remain cloaked in ambiguity.


And here's a little bit of extra information about one of the main reasons for the abdication being connections to Nazi germany
 http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/a/ab/abdication_crisis_of_edward_viii.html

The Duke of Windsor went on to serve during the war as Governor of the Bahamas, where, in a revealing comment to an acquaintance, he commented:
'After the war is over and Hitler will crush the Americans . . . we'll take over. . . They (the British) don't want me as their king, but I'll soon be back as their leader.' [5]

He told another acquaintance that 'It would be a tragic thing for the world if Hitler was overthrown'. Such comments re-inforced the belief that the Duke and Duchess held nazi sympathies and that the Abdication Crisis of 1936's effect was to force off the throne a man whose political views could have been a threat to his country, and replace him with a king (George VI) who showed no such sympathies.
The feelings of his former subjects about King Edward's abdication were much like those of Americans when President Richard Nixon resigned that office in 1974 to resolve the Watergate scandal: relief that the crisis paralyzing the national government was over, pride that the legal mechanisms designed to resolve such crises had worked properly, sorrow about the situation that had created the crisis, and lingering doubts about whether the crisis could have been resolved in a better way.

Yes, I did just spend an hour of my life researching into the schooling of Prince bloody Philip. But knowledge is power and all that, it shines some light on my understanding.

He attended Salem school, in Southern Germany, from age 12, then transferred to Gordonstoun in England. Salem has an interesting history, with regards to its founder, Kurt Hahn.


Kurt Mathias Robert Martin Hahn (1886 - 1974). German educationalist, born in Berlin, who founded the Salem Schools (Castle Salem 1920), Gordonstoun public school (1934). Outward Bound (1941), the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme (1954 - 6) and the Atlantic Colleges (1957). Kurt Hahn was educated at Wilhelm Gymnasium, Berlin, Univerisity of Göttingen and Christ Church, Oxford (where he studied philosophy and classics). He also had spells at a number other universities. Early on he decided to be a schoolmaster. The work of Plato was one of his early influences and gave some direction to his thinking.
Kurt Hahn valued the contribution of English public school education to the development of 'rounded' character (his first port of call were some of the more progressive institutions such as Abbotsholme - but he later came to admire more traditional boarding schools. His first school was founded at the castle and estate of Prince Max von Baden (Salem near Bodensee). Von Badem had been the Imperial Chancellor for two months in late 1918 - but Hahn had been his private secretary whilst serving in the Foreign Press Centre of the German Foreign Office. Whilst in that capacity he had written a highly critical report on the dangers of submarine use (it would bring the Americans into the war) for which he was sacked. This is said to be significant moment in the development of his thinking. What he had said was shared by many others in government but who were seemingly too frightened to speak out. He concluded that there was a need to educate so that people would speak of their convictions. Kurt Hahn

The seven laws of Salem
These principles were set out in a document written in 1930 (and quoted in Flavin 1996: 15 - 17).

1. Give the children opportunities for self-discovery.

2. Make the children meet with triumph and defeat.

3. Give the children the opportunity of self-effacement in the common cause.

4. Provide periods of silence

5. Train the imagination.

6. Make games important but not predominant.

7. Free the sons of the wealthy and powerful from the enervating sense of priviledge.



This approach emphasized character-building and, to some extent, down played the development of intellectual ability (although this should not be over-done - students were educated for the school certificate). A fairer statement might be that they were able to work (academically) more at their own pace. Kurt Hahn

Kurt Hahn was arrested in 1933 after he had spoken out against Hitler's congratulation of five stormtroopers convicted of murdering a young communist. However, there are certain elements in his approach which bear some similarity to the thinking and practices of the German Youth Movements (the Hitler Jugend) - the emphasis on self-effacement in the common cause, on the body and athleticism, and his concern for character and 'race'.Given his Jewish background he said surprisingly little about the holocaust. He was released, came to Britain and quickly founded Gordonstoun. Among his first pupils was Prince Philip (who transferred from Salem).

One of Kurt Hahn's early innovations was the introduction, with a local school, of the Moray Badge, a County Award. It was to be awarded when people met a vertain standard in track and field, expeditions and life saving. It was this idea that was to be developed into the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme. Indeed, the development of the Award is a testament to Hahn's ability as a 'mover and shaker'. He kept on at Prince Philip to put his name to the scheme and persuaded John Hunt (the leader of the first successful Everest expedition) to be its first Director.

Outward Bound also grew out of Hahn's Gordonsoun activities. There had been some emphasis on sea training and coastguardship at Gordonstoun, but when the school moved to its wartime home near Aberdovey, the idea of sea training and of learning from the sea took root. The first Outward Bound Sea School was founded in 1941 - and the practice of short challenging courses (26 days) for boys from industry - complete with a confidential report on their behaviour and performance under pressure - quickly became established. Kurt Hahn

From this review it can be seen that Hahn's contribution lay less in his abilities as an original thinker or educator, but rather in his capacity to set out a vision, to convince people to fund and sponsor that vision - and to pick the right people to develop the work. He does seem to have had some ability to connect with young men. Kurt Hahn could be over-powering and rather autocratic.

His emphasis on experience and 'experiential therapy' can be seen as deriving from educationalists such as Pestalozzi and Dewey. His concern for service and helping could be seen as coming from 'old aristitocratic' values (he often quoted Prince Max's remark that the goal should be 'a sense of responsibility to humanity'). There was the Platonic ideal (paideia) - the development of energetic participation' and the Jamesian notion of psychological motivation as an aid to self knowledge.

Here is an article from the Observer...

British spy's early alert on Holocaust
Discovery poached from Chilean cable raises question of why Jews were kept in the dark about the Final Solution

Peter Beaumont,
foreign affairs editor

AN agent working for Britain's wartime intelligence services alerted the Allies to the Nazi plan to eradicate the Jews of Europe in late 1941, two months before the Wannsee conference that rubber-stamped Hitler's Final Solution.

A British intelligence document held in the US National Archives and declassified last week shows that Britain was warned about Hitler's plans for the Jews after 'a most secret' British source 'poached' diplomatic cables written by a fanatically pro-Nazi Chilean diplomat in Prague.

The revelation that Britain and the US -- which was passed the cable in March 1942 -- were warned so early in the war is certain to fuel the bitter historical debate over whether the Allies should have done more to prevent the Holocaust -- which claimed the lives of six million Jews -- or at least warn its potential victims.

It also comes amid fresh revelations -- in a book to be published in the autumn by Richard Overy, a British military historian [see box on right] -- claiming to identify for the first time the order for the Final Solution signed in Hitler's name.
The warning was contained in a document prepared by Gonzalo Montt Rivas, Chile's flamboyant consul in Prague, then under Nazi occupation.

The cable is one of nearly three million US intelligence documents relating to the Holocaust declassified under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act enacted by President Bill Clinton.

In November 1941, the anti-Semitic Montt was one of the last 'neutral' diplomats in Prague, a fact not unconnected with the revelation that he had been recruited to provide information to Walter Schellenberg, the head of the Foreign Intelligence Branch of the Reich Security Main Office.

Montt, 48, was a dapper former soldier who had fought in the Paraguayan army and enjoyed a taste for fine wine, fine food and women. As an agent of Schellenberg, he would have enjoyed access to senior Gestapo officials in Prague.

Through his connections, Montt remained remarkably well-informed about the German policy towards the Jews.

His own views were made clear when he advised that Chile should avoid taking even 'baptised Jews' fleeing from Europe as he believed that even 'baptismal water' could not cleanse the 'filth accumulated during centuries in ghettoes'.

By 25 November, secret talks were under way that would seal the fate of the Jews. Germany was still riding high on a wave of euphoria after its surprise attack on Soviet Russia and Hitler had turned his mind to settling the Jewish 'problem'.

Hitler had given the task of solving this 'problem' to Heinrich Himmler, the head of the Gestapo, and to Rheinhard Heydrich (below), then based in Prague, who two months later would chair the Wannsee conference.

Montt filed his cable to Santiago on 24 November. Twenty-four hours later, Germany would announce the Eleventh Decree -- that the property of Jews who had fled would be forfeited.

A day before the decree was published, Montt had obtained and translated it for the diplomatic pouch. With it he included his reflections on the future for the Jews of Czechoslovakia and Europe.

'The German triumph,' he noted, 'will leave Europe free of Semites. Those who escape with their lives from this trial will certainly be deported to Siberia.' Montt added that as US rhetoric and military action against the Nazis accelerated, so 'Germany will expedite the destruction of Semitism'.

Professor Richard Breitman, a historian at the US National Archives, says: 'This is certainly the earliest piece of evidence we have that Britain and the US were warned about the coming genocide. It predates by months the British Postal and Telegraph Censorship Office report that would claim the Nazis were planning to exterminate the Jews.

'Right now, it is impossible to know why it was not acted on,' says Breitman, regarded as an expert on the planning of the Holocaust. 'My guess, though, is that this was not an isolated document.'

The Montt cable raises important questions about the fate of intelligence gathered first by Britain -- and passed to the US -- about the Nazi's treatment of the Jews.

From September 1939, Breitman says, British codebreakers had been reading messages of the German Order Police responsible for mass killings of Polish Jews.

By June [sic] 1941, the codebreakers were decoding SS signals describing the massacre of Jews in the Soviet Union -- a fact Breitman believes was known to Winston Churchill, but to which he did not allude in his blanket condemnation of Nazi executions in a speech in August 1941 which did not refer specifically to the Jews.

That Churchill knew Jews were being massacred, says Breitman, was acknowledged on 12 September 1941 when MI6 staff concluded in a note that

'the fact that the police are killing all Jews that fall into their hands [in the Soviet Union] should by now be sufficiently well appreciated. It is not therefore proposed to continue reporting these butcheries specifically [to the Prime Minister]'.
It was against this background that the Montt cable was received.

'There is something discomfiting,' says Breitman (left), 'about the conclusion that a document today considered an important source about Nazi policy had limited impact on Western governments. It prompted no Western action to warn potential Jewish victims.' He concedes that for many the priority was the war -- not the atrocities that accompanied it.

'The reason this document is important,' says Overy, professor of modern history at King's College London, 'is that it appears to confirm that a decision had been made by October 1941 to exterminate the Jews. In Adolf Eichmann's interrogation he recalled that a decision had been made by mid-October.'

Equally important was the fact that the Allies had been warned within a month of that decision.

Overy's book, Interrogations , published in September, will add one of the final missing pieces to genesis of the Final Solution, proof that Hitler ordered the genocide. Overy found it in an account of a long-vanished command to Heinrich Himmler to order Heydrich to begin the killing.

The order was shown by Eichmann -- with Himmler and Heydrich one of the architects of the genocide -- to Dieter Wisliceny, his lieutenant, in spring 1942.

Although not mentioned in Wisliceny's affidavit during his war crimes trial, Overy found the reference in his long buried interrogation. The order he was shown, said Wisliceny, was signed by Himmler. Beneath it were the words 'on the orders of the Führer'.

But the mystery remains how Britain acquired Montt's dispatch. Breitman believes that the British spy was either working in the Chilean embassy or that British agents in Bermuda were opening diplomatic bags sent across the Atlantic by South American diplomats.

OK, I'm not going to post a big article for this one.

Why did Britain go to war with Germany? Well, they had already turned a blind eye to 3 major invasions by Hitler. He was a threat to their sovereignty. Hitler had actually expressed admiration towards the British, and there were these ties to the ruling class. But at the end of the day, there is only room in the neighbourhood for one alpha-male, eh? It was not because of the evils perpetrated by Nazi Germany that we went to war with them. It was to maintain a favourable balance of power. Britain never, ever ever shall be slaves, and all that...
Better the British and Americans than the Nazis, for sure, but it doesn't make the Allies automatically 'good', as opposed to 'evil'. It makes them slightly better than an evil tyranny. But the British empire did many terrible things, and we continue to do terrible things, as well as many good things. Empires play their roles in uniting cultures and people. But people want to be free from empire.

Which brings us back a full circle to the initial posting, and why so many of us felt guiltily happy as the World Trade Centre collapsed. It symbolised an exploitative empire more than any other building. They didn't choose that building simply to kill lots of people. That building represents global capitalism. Do you understand that?

Now, I am not happy that thousands of people died, and I have actually visited the building in my life, and a relative of mine employs people who worked in that building. I don't like the fact that we are suffering. But it is a direct consequence of the suffering we are inflicting upon the rest of the world. I wish my fellow Brits and Americans were not engaging in and supporting an exploitative capitalist system. But we are, and so we are suffering for it. Latuff's cartoon is not a celebration of the deaths of thousands of people. But it expresses very blatantly something many of us feel and want. An end to the system that those twin towers represented. How many thousands more people have died as a result of capitalist wars and exploitation? Why must we mourn the dead of those towers any more than we should mourn the thousands more killed in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why is the symbol of the destruction of the World Trade Centre any more offensive than pulling down the Statue of Saddam in Iraq? Both acts have the blood of thousands of innocents behind them.

Latuff is a glorifying the 9/11 attacks and, in case you didn't notice, those attacks killed thousands of INNOCENT people for the purpose of creating terror and attention, not even for any military objective. It wasnt some blow against the US, it was an attack by the militant islamic network.

He is an anti-semite. He famously posted a cartoon in which a jew rabbi is pulling the strings on a globe - typical anti-semitic image.

Nazis escape to Brazil with the help of Vatican etc, but Britain also has a lot of responsibility for Holocaust. They claimed that bombing Aushwitz lines was unfeasible or impossible, even tho they never conducted studies,and in fact did bomb the lines once - by mistake. They refused to accept Jews, even to Palestine, and countless Jews died because of that, because they were allied to the Arab anti-semites.

"He is an anti-semite. He famously posted a cartoon in which a jew rabbi is pulling the strings on a globe - typical anti-semitic image."

I just can't find this cartoon on IMC newswire or in any of Latuff's galleries around the Web. Obviously you are able to point us where this cartoon was published, or then to post it here, right? Otherwise, it's just another cheap slander...

I can't post a link to it because I don't spend my time acuainting myself with this lunatic's work. He probably has got rid of it also. I distinctly remember it however. I saw it posted on this site. At the time I was pro-Palestinian, but thought "uuh a bit kinda anti-semitic isnt it". And someone had posted underneath it calling it antisemitic, and i distinctly remember at the time, being indoctrinated pro-Palestinian, trying to rationalise it, and say oh maybe a little bit but not really cos just saying that Israel has influence really maybe a bit risky to put rabbi controlling world tho, etc.

To say you were pro-Palestine one day is the same to say that Pinochet was a communist...

"...I can't post a link to it because I don't spend my time acuainting myself with this lunatic's work..."

If you can't prove your argument with FACTS, please, just shut up. Enough of cheap slanders. Face it, you are just another Zionist, simple like that. And slanders can't help you.

Except that Pinochet quite obviously was never a communist... Why do you find it so hard to believe that someone can change their mind from being pro-Palestinian? Ever formed an independent opinion? Try it, its interesting when your thoughts aren't dictated to you by Chomsky and the like. I was leftist pro-Palestinian, now I'm leftist pro-Israel. Just like the left, and the far left, used to be.

A Zionist is someone who believes in the right of the Jewish people to self-determination. If you're not a Zionist you what Israel destroyed and a genocide. As that well-known evil colonist racist Martin Luther King reminded us, anti-Zionism is anti-semitism (unless you don't think anyone but Britain should have self-determination or something, in which case you're Nigal Ferguson, or whatever he's called). So yes, I am a Zionist. Aren't you? Do you want a genocide of the Jewish people and the destruction of their state?

Slander is when its not true. What I am saying is true. Therefore it is not slander. I don't have proof that it is true, perhaps if there were archives of everything on IndyMedia going back past year or two I could find it. But I don't have access to Echelon, and so can't back it up with proof. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but given his other cartoons, I don't see why anyone would find it hard to believe that he made this one.

You said "He is an anti-semite. He famously posted a cartoon in which a jew rabbi is pulling the strings on a globe - typical anti-semitic image." If Latuff "famously posted" that cartoon, obviously anyone would be able to find it.

And now you say "I don't have proof that it is true".
Yes, I know you are Zionist. From Zionists we can expect such kind of dirty tricks...

"So yes, I am a Zionist. Aren't you? Do you want a genocide of the Jewish people and the destruction of their state?"

You're setting up a false choice here, which is saying: "either you're a zionist, or you want the genocide of the Jewish people". There are actually many choices open to Jews for how to have self-determination and security, and the present zionist state in Palestine is only one of those many choices. Are all the Jews who oppose the state of Israel in it's present form demanding "a genocide of the Jewish people"?
Typical zionist propaganda, designed to tug at the public sense of guilt over the Holocaust, to defend your butchery. You bastards have no shame at all.

"Slander is when its not true. What I am saying is true. Therefore it is not slander."

Heh heh. Wrong again. What you're saying is an opinion. If it's not provably true, then it's slander. Name me a single slander case in British legal history where defendant got let off because he believed what he was saying was true.

I doubt Latuff can be bothered to give a flying fuck about what some anonymous zionist shill thinks though, so don't bother hiring a lawyer just yet. :)
Latuff, on the other hand, makes all his details public, in fact he's even put his photo up here again last night:
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/06/293841.html

So troll away, loser. We love it. Who do you think is going to have more impact on public opinion in the world, you or Latuff?

"You're setting up a false choice here, which is saying: "either you're a zionist, or you want the genocide of the Jewish people". There are actually many choices open to Jews for how to have self-determination and security, and the present zionist state in Palestine is only one of those many choices"

Zionism is the belief in the right of the Jewish people to self-determination. If you aren't a Zionist, you don't believe that Jews have a right to self-determination, and should not have a country which they run and is their own. Technically, in theory, an anti-Zionist could want to reduce Jews to merely a minority in some big Palestinian state, in which case Jews would not have their own state and hence would not have self-determination, but genocide would not be involved. But the reality is that the people the anti-Zionists support, such as the PLO and the Arabs, want to slaughter all the Jews as well, i.e. the genocide solution to destroying Israel. There is no alternative for Jews having self-determination to Zionism, because they are one and the same.

"Are all the Jews who oppose the state of Israel in it's present form demanding "a genocide of the Jewish people"? "

As far as I can tell there are two types of Jews who oppose the state of Israel. On the one hand you have the self-hating Jews who want to fit in and be accepted so bad that they denounce everything they are. A typical self-hating Jew is Noam Chomsky, who claims that Holocaust deniers are doing real historical research. Then on the other hand you have the extreme religious Jews, who denounce Israel because they believe for religious reasons that Jews should not have founded it again. For example, JewsNotZionists. However, they also appear quite self-hating, or at least pro-Nazi in order to fight the common enemy of Zionist, heretical Jews. On their site in their articles they make out Hitler to be a moderate who would have sent the Jews somewhere else if it weren't for the evil Zionist Jews who provoked him into the Holocaust. These people would probably be glad to see the Jews expelled from Israel, because they think they should remain in exile, for religious reasons.

"What you're saying is an opinion. If it's not provably true, then it's slander. Name me a single slander case in British legal history where defendant got let off because he believed what he was saying was true. "

No its not, its a fact. An opinion would be "in my opinion latuff is an anti-semite", a statement of fact would be that "latuff made this cartoon which ive been going on about". Another statement of fact could be "the french revolution happened". Now i don't have any proof that either of those statements of fact are actually true, but they are not "opinions" just because you can't prove them. If something is an opinion, there are possible alternatives. There is no possible alternative to something that definately happened. You can interpret it differently, but it is not an "opinion" to state a fact. Perhaps you could say that what I am saying is a "claim". But a slander is a claim that is false, and just because I haven't proven that it is true, doesn't make it false. Like I said, if I had Echelon, I could prove it.

latuff is indeed an anti-semite, but he doesn't employ open antisemitism which is obvious and blatant. it's there, but it's insidious. it's the kind of antisemitism which "anti-zionists" tend to have a blind eye for.

I know, I know you Zionists try hard to attach to any anti-Zionist the label of anti-Semitism. I know. But you weren't able to prove that Latuff is anti-Semitic. It's your opinion and opinion is just like an ass: everybody have one.
:)