If Americans Knew
- Thread starter moono
- Start date
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Well one would assume that their fellow Israel haters and Muslim brothers the Iranians would help them out, no? Or maybe one of the many Arab nations who permit rampant anti-semitism in their press and profess to despise the state of Israel.
Irrespective of the humanitarian aid situation, if the PA is alerady resorting to repressive action what will be the difference between Israel and the Palestinian leadership?
Irrespective of the humanitarian aid situation, if the PA is alerady resorting to repressive action what will be the difference between Israel and the Palestinian leadership?
Kyser: Oh yes. Indeed, it has been made almost from day one.
Moono: The PA just paid off municipal workers yesterday so your argument is moot. Prior to that, very few doctors were on their payroll [practically none][ so that it made difference one way or another. Many worked through and/or in conjunction with NGOs, which of course had no impediment in front of their funding.
Moono: The PA just paid off municipal workers yesterday so your argument is moot. Prior to that, very few doctors were on their payroll [practically none][ so that it made difference one way or another. Many worked through and/or in conjunction with NGOs, which of course had no impediment in front of their funding.
More lies, liarboy. Only the poorest of workers received any pay, a fraction of what they are due, and that money came from the banks themselves.
When Palestinian doctors, teachers and policemen go on record as saying that they have received no pay for three months I believe them. Believing you is impossible.
I dont see where I lied? As for believing me, NEVER. Simply visit the land! You won't even invest in a regional satellite system and sit there complaining when someone counters your thirdhand allegations with actual facts. sorry, don't like it? do your homework.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Very good, I was waiting for that
Anti-jewish anti-semitism. You know, the kind that the Nazis used to specialise in.
Moono: One liners are cute, but how about some substance?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
rachamim18 said:
You're a bullshitter who loves spreading propaganda and discord. All this talk of sending me a pm with loads of 'evidence' is nothing but bullshit. There is no internal investigation into alleged anti-Jewishness within the BBC.
The sooner someone sees sense and bans you the better.
Nino: The ineternal investigation was actrually posted by another member, lst week. As for the p.m., check your mailbox, I have sent you two for now, both mainstream reputable sources. Have fun.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
rachamim18, do you think the palestinians have a right to their own state?
Sleater: ABSOLUTELY. They have had the option to do so since 1919, just as long as the Jews. I think it is highly regrettable that they did not act on it immediately, as the Jews did.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Would you say that israel has obstructed this in any way?. Vis a vis settlements and the occupation?rachamim18 said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
rachamim18 said:
That's right The National Review and Horowitz's Front Page Magazine: both organs aren't exactly unbiased - are they? In fact, The National Review has published two stories in the space of 12 months that have both been discredited. Indeed, in one instance, they were forced to retract.
Horowitz, for those who don't know, is a neo con who was a member of the left in the US in the 1970's. He suddenly embraced extreme right wing politics and the rest, as they say, is history.
If you want to try and fool someone, find someone else. Because I don't suffer fools gladly and you're a fool.
Sleater: No, Israel has not obstructed it. How could "Settlements" have obstructed something that the "Palestinians" refused to even discuss [until the early 90s]?
As for "Occupation," beyond what I said above, Israel took over the land AFTER "Jordan and Egypt abandoned it. The "Palestinians" refused to even touch the idea of a state that did not encompass 100 percent of the Mandate.
What should Israel have done? Abandon it to anarchy? Look at Gaza. Gaza was a mediated handover [somewhat anyway, although the description is a joke due to the PA] and see how that is going.
Israel has always agreed to an independant "Palestine." It is a central component of the Kadimah Platform.
Nino: Look at the message, not the messenger. Neither piece is Op-Ed. They are factual and can be factchecked by anyone that cares to. Furthermore, since you and I have already had this exhcnage via p.m., you are doing nothing but detrating from the subject at hand...grandstanding I think it is called. If you insist on off thread nonsense, leave me out of it.
[edited for speeling]
As for "Occupation," beyond what I said above, Israel took over the land AFTER "Jordan and Egypt abandoned it. The "Palestinians" refused to even touch the idea of a state that did not encompass 100 percent of the Mandate.
What should Israel have done? Abandon it to anarchy? Look at Gaza. Gaza was a mediated handover [somewhat anyway, although the description is a joke due to the PA] and see how that is going.
Israel has always agreed to an independant "Palestine." It is a central component of the Kadimah Platform.
Nino: Look at the message, not the messenger. Neither piece is Op-Ed. They are factual and can be factchecked by anyone that cares to. Furthermore, since you and I have already had this exhcnage via p.m., you are doing nothing but detrating from the subject at hand...grandstanding I think it is called. If you insist on off thread nonsense, leave me out of it.
[edited for speeling]
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
rachamim18 said:
No, both pieces are Op-Eds and the National Review article is the worst since it draws some rather lazy comparisons with other anti-Semitic hate figures like Farrakhan. As for the Front Page article, this relies heavily on rented quotes from the usual sources: the AEI and the BDBJ. The AEI, for example, has a particular ideological agenda and anything that comes from the mouth or pen of a so-called AEI 'scholar' isn't worth two shits. You may just as well lift a quote from a PNACer or straight from the mouth of Cheney. It's nothing but demonisation and you expect me to take this nonsense seriously? You must think that I came down in the last shower.
It's a pity that you can't find anything that doesn't come from a couple of extreme right organs. You've done your argument no favours at all.
If this is the best you can come up with, I pity you.
Edited for what now?
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
I would say that the restrictions placed upon the palestians have left them unable to have a viable state, this is by design.rachamim18 said:
I thought Isreal invaded the territories in 1967, what business did it have in there in the first place and why stay and settle in there?
Nino: I will not discuss items froma personal message in a thread. it is disrespectful to other posters. This is what? the 3rd time I have had to say this? I have also told you that english is not my first language, how many times? You like tripping blind people? Quite a cut up among your chums I am sure but could you leave the thread to actual issues people wish to discuss?
Moono: If Israel did not aim for them, it is not terrorism.
Sleater: Israel did not "invade" anywhere, ever. Israel gained the "Territories" as the result od a war forced upon them. In short, Egypt illegaly evicted UN Observers from sinai in violation of the treaty signed after Suez. It then immediately replaced them with close to 300,000 armed troops. Militirisation of Sinai was causus belli on its own. then, Egypt deployed armed naval ships and subs to Tiran, blockading Israeli imports in violation of both Geneva and UN Maritime treaties. this was separate causus.
At the same time Syria, and then Jordan deployed troops along the Eastern Front. Israel preemptively struck at Egypt and then the others in quick succession. Israel was victorious and Jordan relinquished its claim to land it had illegaly annexed in 1948 [i.e. the "West Bank"] and Egypt did the same to land [Gaza] it had been militarily administering since the same war.
In short, no nation other than the Jewish Kingdom of Judea has ever stood on that land. Secondly, both Jordan and Egypt abandoned the lands. Israel could have just left after things calmed down except for two things: I] the population was highly antagonistic towards Israel, aiding and abetting terrorist attacks launched from their soil. II] Israel, in light of wars being foisted upon it every few years needed to maintain a defense belt on the "Territories' " outer perimiters until it could be certain that none of the 3 nations it had fought with [in 67, etc.] still posed a military threat.
Why settle? Well, as stated. Israel had security concerns. this is why Ariel Sharon as housing minister in 69 pushed for the program. Shortly thereafter though, ultra nationalists and ultra religious Jews joined in for partisan reasons. Still, only less than 20% of "Settlers" were ever religious or ultra nationalist. Most settled for economic benefits [govt. incentives, etc].
Does not really matter now as Israel is pulling out of the "West Bank" and already pulled out of Gaza.
Moono: If Israel did not aim for them, it is not terrorism.
Sleater: Israel did not "invade" anywhere, ever. Israel gained the "Territories" as the result od a war forced upon them. In short, Egypt illegaly evicted UN Observers from sinai in violation of the treaty signed after Suez. It then immediately replaced them with close to 300,000 armed troops. Militirisation of Sinai was causus belli on its own. then, Egypt deployed armed naval ships and subs to Tiran, blockading Israeli imports in violation of both Geneva and UN Maritime treaties. this was separate causus.
At the same time Syria, and then Jordan deployed troops along the Eastern Front. Israel preemptively struck at Egypt and then the others in quick succession. Israel was victorious and Jordan relinquished its claim to land it had illegaly annexed in 1948 [i.e. the "West Bank"] and Egypt did the same to land [Gaza] it had been militarily administering since the same war.
In short, no nation other than the Jewish Kingdom of Judea has ever stood on that land. Secondly, both Jordan and Egypt abandoned the lands. Israel could have just left after things calmed down except for two things: I] the population was highly antagonistic towards Israel, aiding and abetting terrorist attacks launched from their soil. II] Israel, in light of wars being foisted upon it every few years needed to maintain a defense belt on the "Territories' " outer perimiters until it could be certain that none of the 3 nations it had fought with [in 67, etc.] still posed a military threat.
Why settle? Well, as stated. Israel had security concerns. this is why Ariel Sharon as housing minister in 69 pushed for the program. Shortly thereafter though, ultra nationalists and ultra religious Jews joined in for partisan reasons. Still, only less than 20% of "Settlers" were ever religious or ultra nationalist. Most settled for economic benefits [govt. incentives, etc].
Does not really matter now as Israel is pulling out of the "West Bank" and already pulled out of Gaza.
Personally, I would not take my family bathing in an area where nuts are launching homemade missiles at a sovereign nation but that's just me...call me eccentric.
Terror shelling does not need predefined targets. It's just terror shelling. That's already established. Israeli terror is State -sponsored, that's just about common knowledge amongst anybody that reads a half-truthful newspaper.
You're losing the propaganda war, Rachamim, with every fascist action. Ain't the Internet great ?
You're losing the propaganda war, Rachamim, with every fascist action. Ain't the Internet great ?
rachamim18 said:
Much as I hate to admit it, I have to agree here.
But, I am not used to shelling in the way this family obviously was.
Humans amazingly can adapt to such conditions, so living with shelling can seem normal to them, in the same way as living in extremely busy cities can seem normal to us.
True indeed. However, as used to gunfire as I am [still as in my neighbourhhod it happens every night] I still make note of it and take proper precautions.
rachamim18 said:
Having lived in similar conditions as you, I know that you can't lock yourself away, and you know that a random shot might get you. So I'm sure it was the same with this family - they cannot lock themselves away, and probably did take some sort of precaution.
Astronaut: Fair enough but then it can only be chalked up to que sera sera.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
]
My, how convenient for you. I'm not here to take shit from you and I'm not here to be bullied or browbeaten by you. You never dealt with my points and seem all too keen to avoid them. You keep making the allegation that I am "OFF THREAD" but you do this only to avoid answering my questions. You're craven...I'm sure your English is good enough to understand that word.
Similar threads
