DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Rich on March 05, 2008, 09:33:44 AM
-
Excusing Palestinian Terrorists
By Joseph Klein
FrontPageMagazine.com (http://FrontPageMagazine.com) | 3/5/2008
Palestinian terrorism is the inevitable consequence of Israeli occupation, according to the United Nations. This unsurprising bit of pro-Palestinian propaganda came in the form of a report just recently prepared by John Dugard, the so-called independent investigator on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the UN Human Rights Council. [1] His report, to be formally presented later this month, has already been issued as an official UN document.
Dugard?s report is the latest in a series of verbal fusillades against Israel by this anti-Semitic polemicist, whom Anne Bayefsky of Eye on the UN refers to as "the UN's Spokesperson for Suicide Bombers" and "the most fanatical spokesperson for terrorism at the UN outside the Arab and Moslem world."
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon must immediately and unconditionally ?denounce and reject? this shameless justification for suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism against innocent Jewish civilians or risk whatever moral authority he has managed to salvage for the UN since replacing Kofi Annan.
Dugard?s report equates Palestinian suicide bombers and militants launching rocket attacks, who knowingly and indiscriminately kill innocent women and children, with the World War II resistance fighters who targeted members of the Nazis? Waffen-SS. Ironically, Dugard displays the influence of Nazism on his own anti-Semitic thinking when he uses the term ?Judaization? to explain the ?historical context? against which Palestinian terrorists? actions should be judged. He cites what he calls the ?Judaization of Jerusalem? as a serious violation of human rights. Dugard says that this Judaization must be undone. The term "Entjudung" (de-Judaization) was used in Nazi anti-Jewish legislation to refer to the confiscation of Jewish property and the removal of Jews from Germany?s social, economic and political life, leading ultimately to the death camps. Until the Palestinians de-Judaize not only Jerusalem but all of Israel, Dugard sees no alternative but a continuation of Palestinian terror. His solution is some sort of bi-national Palestinian state that would extinguish any sense of a Jewish identity in the Jews? ancient homeland.
Dugard?s report also says that Palestinian terrorism committed ?in the course of a war of liberation? against Israel is more understandable than ?acts of mindless terror, such as acts committed by Al Qaeda?. This reflects today?s mindset at the United Nations. For years the UN has failed to condemn all acts of terrorism as violations of international law because of such a false distinction. The distinction is false because all terrorists portray themselves as fighters against some imagined oppression, which they use to justify their rampant killings. The rationale for deliberately murdering innocent civilians offered by the perpetrators of 9/11 is essentially the same as that offered by the Palestinian terrorists. Al Qaeda leaders have repeatedly referred to the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraq as examples of ?occupation? justifying their terrorist attacks. They also accuse the United States of aiding and abetting Israel?s occupation of Palestinian territories. Excusing Palestinian terrorists means excusing al Qaeda terrorists, plain and simple.
Dugard?s report repeats the canard that there would be no Palestinian terrorism but for the Israeli occupation. It claims that the ?right of the Palestinian people to self-determination has been denied and obstructed for nearly 60 years by Israel.? Of course, this omits the fact that the Palestinians were offered their own state at the same time that Israel was offered theirs. There was no Israeli occupation of the West Bank or Gaza for the first twenty years of Israel?s existence, as even Dugard admits. The Palestinians failed to create an independent state of their own as early as 1948 when given the chance because of the same obstinate refusal to co-exist peacefully with the Jewish state that we continue to witness today.
Israel would not have found it necessary to take over Gaza (which it no longer occupies) and the West Bank twenty years later if Israeli citizens had not been subjected to invasions and repeated acts of terrorism from the day of its founding.
From 1949 to 1956, for example, Egypt waged a terror war against Israel, launching about 9,000 attacks from cells set up in the refugee camps of the Gaza Strip which was then under Egyptian control. Altogether, between 1949 and 1956, 400 Israelis were killed and 900 wounded by Palestinian fedayeen attacks. In 1964, the PLO was founded in order to "liberate" what they called the "usurped part" of Palestine, which had become the state of Israel. This all preceded the 1967 Six-Day War, after which Israel finally assumed control of the areas that were being used to launch repeated terrorist attacks against its citizens.
Let us not forget that Israel is the only member state of the United Nations that was brought into being by an official act of the United Nations. The UN partition of the British Mandate of Palestine was intended to give the Jews and Palestinians their own national homelands, side by side. The Jews accepted this solution but the Arabs rejected it. Those who have attacked Israel and denied its right to exist as a Jewish state have included the PLO militants, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. They are defying international law in a bid to destroy the state that the UN had created in the first place. They are not the romantic freedom fighters of Dugard?s imagination.
In the last few days, violence has escalated considerably in the Gaza vicinity. During a special emergency session of the Security Council held on March 1 at the request of the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors, Ban Ki-moon gave a report on the current situation. He told the Security Council that some 117 rockets have been fired from Gaza at southern Israel in the last week, including 26 rockets on March 1st alone.[2] These rockets have been fired at several civilian centers, and have extended as far north as the Israeli city of Ashkelon. According to press reports and Israeli government sources, the rockets fired at Ashkelon were of advanced Katyusha-like design, allegedly smuggled into Gaza when the border with Egypt was breached. An Israeli citizen was killed and others wounded.
The Israeli Defense Force has undertaken retaliatory attacks from the air and by land aimed at rocket launching and other Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip. There have been significant Palestinian casualties, including Palestinian civilians.
In his statement to the Security Council, Ban Ki-moon explicitly called for an end to the Palestinian rocket attacks, which he said ?serve no purpose, endanger Israeli civilians, and bring misery to the Palestinian people?. Thus, he has not gone as far as Dugard in saying that such attacks are understandable acts of resistance fighters. However, neither has he condemned Dugard?s statements which remain official United Nations dogma. In fact, Ban has pointedly accused Israel of ?disproportionate and excessive use of force?. In other words, he is saying that while the Palestinian terrorist attacks that target Israeli civilians are bad, the Israelis? military response to these provocations is far worse. He focuses on the comparative numbers of casualties on both sides rather than the cause, including the fact that Hamas uses the civilians under its control as human shields.
Robert Zelnick, professor of national security studies at Boston University, explained the Israelis? dilemma best by pointing out that terrorism thrives ?where the civilized values of the target society become its weakness. The terrorist blows up a marketplace while the more mature power expresses regret about accidental civilian casualties,? Zelnick said. ?The terrorist drags schoolchildren off a bus and murders them in the street while the mature power flies wounded children for treatment at its state-of-the-art medical centers. Israel has learned all this the hard way. It has also learned that a ?disproportionate? response to provocation may be its only ticket to survival." [3]
In short, there is no such thing as a disproportionate response to an existential threat.
Israel has offered to give the Palestinians virtually all of the occupied territories for them to create their own state in return for real peace. The Palestinian response has been more deadly terrorist attacks. The Israeli government has no policy advocating the destruction of its neighbors, and certainly no policy to liquidate the Palestinian people. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and their chief state sponsor Iran are sworn to the destruction of Israel as it exists today and the slaughter or mass expulsion of its Jewish inhabitants by any means at their disposal. So long as the United Nations? leaders fail to grasp this essential difference between Israel?s peaceful intentions and the Palestinians? desire for a violent end to the Jewish state, the UN will remain on the wrong side of the moral divide.
Notes:
[1] Human Rights Situation In Palestine And Other Occupied Arab Territories:
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 by John Dugard (January 21, 2008).
[2] Secretary-General's statement to the Security Council on the situation in the Middle East (March 1, 2008).
[3] Hit hard, hit harder by Robert Zelnick, Guardian Unlimited (July 14, 2006).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. Klein is the author of Global Deception: The UN?s Stealth Assault on America?s Freedom.
-
<<Palestinian terrorism is the inevitable consequence of Israeli occupation, according to the United Nations. This unsurprising bit of pro-Palestinian propaganda came in the form of a report just recently prepared by John Dugard, the so-called independent investigator on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the UN Human Rights Council. [1] His report, to be formally presented later this month, has already been issued as an official UN document.>>
Seems to me like Dugard got that entirely right. But why is he called a "so-called" independent investigator?
Because, according to the so-called "independent journalists" of Eye on the U.N., another Zionist front organization, Dugard is a Nazi. You see, the UN is very sloppy in picking independent investigators and they totally missed Dugard's Nazi connection. Those poor dumb bozos probably really believed that Dugard was independent.
Eye on the UN, though, very cleverly detected Dugard's Nazi connection. How? Through his language - - he used the word "Judaization," which, it appears, bears the same relationship to the Jews as "Americanization" does to the Americans, or "Vietnamization" does to the Vietnamese. Or "Anglicization" does to the English. Well, you get the picture.
Know who else used the term "Judaization?" THE NAZIS, that's who!! Ergo, Dugard is a Nazi. Q.E.D.
As commendable as this piece of "independent" journalistic investigation is, I feel it did not dig deep enough. I am sure that Dugard used many other words in his work, also used by the Nazis - - dig for them, guys! Words like "attack," "occupy," "territories," "death toll," and hundreds of other Nazi words can be found in practically anything that Nazi bastard Dugard has written. Why, his work is a veritable sewer filled with Nazi-era literature and he is the head sewer rat!
So, no Pulitzer for you yet, Eye on the U.N. The job's only half-done. But keep digging guys, and especially YOU, Joseph Klein, "independent journalist" at "independent" Front Page Magazine, another Zionist front rag but "independent" nonetheless ("independent" means they don't accept ONE CENT of Palestinian money) because there's a Pulitzer in this for you when the job is properly done. I know, the editor of the NYT has virtually guaranteed his support of your nomination.
-
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o143/badmensch/ENDUNJUSTJEWOCCUPTATION.jpg)
-
Map drawn by dolts, unaware that Kyrghiz, Uzbeks, Iranians, Pakistanis, Turm=kmen and Turks, among others, are not Arabs.
-
arabs, middle east, whatever
regardlesss the point is the same
quit changing the subject because it kicks your ass
-
arabs, middle east, whatever
regardlesss the point is the same
quit changing the subject because it kicks you ass
===========================================
No, the point is NOT the same. Israel is a colony that was imposed on the Middle East from outside.
That is why it is unpopular. Colonialization was outlawed by the UN in 1945.
I suppose that a picture of your neighborhood which had a small area designated 'Romany Gypsies" which happened to be the exact site of your home and "regular Americans" all around would convince you of the righteousness of the map.
Not only are Arabs NOT the residents of most of the countries shown on the map, Arabs are not even poplar with many of the other nationalities shown. The only thing pretty much all of the people designated as "Arabs" have in common is that they think Israel is unjust in its continuous grabbing of Palestinians land.
The subject is that the map was drawn by ignorant dolts, and you admire ignorant dolts for some strange (or perhaps not so strange) reason.
-
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o143/badmensch/ENDUNJUSTJEWOCCUPTATION.jpg)
Perspective does speak volumes
-
<<Perspective does speak volumes>>
Rarely have I seen a more misleading picture and caption. The perspective portrayed is fallacious, the lands are mislabeled as "Arab" and the only people that can read "volumes" into it are as XO points out, not very diplomatically, "dolts." I personally would have preferred the term "fucking morons," but "dolts" works, too.
-
Rarely have I seen a more misleading picture and caption.
No? I'm stunned. The vast preponderance of your posts are repetatively misleading & distorted. Back to the point however, the Middle East is accurately represented in how Israel is a tiny country surrounded by a majority Arab/Muslim region. (read NOT all). The perspective, to that sense, is absolutely on the mark.
-
Well, your home would look equally tiny on a map of the U.S.A.
How about my family and I move in, throw you and your family out and then use the map to prove what an insignificant little piece of land it all is compared to all the lands occupied by all the Amerikkkans around it?
-
How about my family and I move in, throw you and your family out
Thats what your country already did to North American Indians!
And you live the good life at their expense.
But that was a few years ago, so it makes it ok.
::)
-
Thats what your country already did to North American Indians!
And you live the good life at their expense.
But that was a few years ago, so it makes it ok.
Roll Eyes
=================================
Yeah yeah yeah. But how about you or sirs answering the question?
-
As I said, I am part Choctaw, and my Choctaw part s happy with allowing the rest of me to live here.
You change the subject rather than answer the question.
What if we move someone else into your diggings and move you out? People like you got too much already.
-
Well, your home would look equally tiny on a map of the U.S.A.
Yea......and? I'm not surrounded by native Africans. Point being Isreal isn't a tiny country surrounded by like minded neighbors. They're a tiny country surrounded by vastly different cultures, many of whom are openly hostile to their presence. Then again, you knew that
How about my family and I move in, throw you and your family out and then use the map to prove what an insignificant little piece of land it all is compared to all the lands occupied by all the Amerikkkans around it?
When I first start lobbing grenades, rockets, and blowing up your car with your family in it, then by all means, go for it. It's that perspective concept again
-
When I first start lobbing grenades, rockets, and blowing up your car with your family in it, then by all means, go for it. It's that perspective concept again
====================================
In this particular perspective, you are a Palestinian. No grenades or rockets for you!
Maybe you could McGuyver a slingshot, and hurl pebbles.
-
>>What if we move someone else into your diggings and move you out? People like you got too much already.<<
Starting with a false premise must be in the liberal handbook. Is there really any point in proving this to be nothing but terrorist propaganda ... again?
-
Because you do not approve of the answer does not mean the question was not answered.
But a 2nd answer to what has already been answered that again you will not approve is:
Yeah go right ahead and try it. move in to my house.
There will be war.
Just like there was war here in the US & Canada when land was "stolen"
and countless other nations were also built on "stolen lands". Israel is
no different.
And as alsways somebody will come out on top.
A far as the map.
Yes if you drew a new map it would be correct.
If you were in my house.
But completely surrounded by enemies.
It would be an accurate portrayal that you were a blip on the radar in the big picture.
The Arabs/Muslims if they didn't have Israel as a whipping boy would have to create
another "boogie man" to distract themselves from their abysmal record of achievement.
Was the car invented by Arabs/Muslims?
Where are the Honda's, Toyota's of Muslim/Arab invention?
Was the MRI machine invented by Arabs/Muslims?
Have Muslims/Arabs landed on the moon?
Was the airplane invented by Muslims/Arabs?
Was the computer invented by Arabs/Muslims?
Was the Jarvik Heart invented by Arabs/Muslims?
Was the MAYO Clinic a Muslim/Arab invention?
Did Arabs/Muslims invent the NY Stock / Nasdaq Stock Exchanges?
Did the Arabs/Muslims invent the telephone?
How about food production? Are Arabs/Muslims world leaders in food production?
Yeah they can try to buy their way in, but what about actual invention/achievement?
Abysmal!
Yeah and it's all somebody else's fault.
Oh boo whoo.
-
<<Yea [my home would look equally tiny on a map of the U.S.A].......and? I'm not surrounded by native Africans. Point being Isreal isn't a tiny country surrounded by like minded neighbors. They're a tiny country surrounded by vastly different cultures, many of whom are openly hostile to their presence. >>
That's crazy reasoning that totally misses the point. The ARABS are the focal point of the objections to the Jewish state, specifically the Palestinian Arabs displaced by the Jewish invasion. They are the ones forced out of their homes and off their lands by invaders from another country. They are the ones, however, who are surrounded by a sea of "Arab" land as the map shows. In the analogy that I presented to you, that you still did not answer, does the existence of all that "Amerikkkan" land, inhabited by other Amerikkkans, surrounding your home make it OK for me to sweep in over the border, kick you and your family out of your home and off your land and settle down on your property with my family?
<<When I first start lobbing grenades, rockets, and blowing up your car with your family in it, then by all means, go for it. It's that perspective concept again>>
Come on, get real. The Palestinians didn't start "lobbing grenades, rockets etc." until after the Jews dispossessed them and ran them off their own property. In my analogy, you and your family don't do a God-damn thing to me till I push you out of your home and off your land. THEN you start lobbing grenades. Is it OK for me to do that to you just because you are surrounded by millions of acres owned by your fellow Amerikkkans or not?
-
Someone apparently has a problem with their timeline. Not surprising
-
>>Someone apparently has a problem with their timeline. Not surprising<<
Not surprising at all. Of course they have a problem with a lot more than that. The very idea that Jews forced anyone off their land to create Israel is simply false. If you start with that premise, there's no sense continuing to discuss the problem. Which is of course why they (both sides) have the problem they have.
-
The very idea that Jews forced anyone off their land to create Israel is simply false.
Rich can you elaborate on this a bit?
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa56/USA2008/Politics/WAVINGFLAG-1.gif)
-
Was the car invented by Arabs/Muslims?
Where are the Honda's, Toyota's of Muslim/Arab invention?
Was the MRI machine invented by Arabs/Muslims?
Have Muslims/Arabs landed on the moon?
Was the airplane invented by Muslims/Arabs?
Was the computer invented by Arabs/Muslims?
Was the Jarvik Heart invented by Arabs/Muslims?
Was the MAYO Clinic a Muslim/Arab invention?
Did Arabs/Muslims invent the NY Stock / Nasdaq Stock Exchanges?
Did the Arabs/Muslims invent the telephone?
How about food production? Are Arabs/Muslims world leaders in food production?
Yeah they can try to buy their way in, but what about actual invention/achievement?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they had in fact done all these things, you would STILL want them to surrender their ancestral lands to the Israelis.
So all this stuff is totally irrelevant to the case.
The Jews did not invent the telephone, the stock exchanges or the Mayo Clinic, either. There are certainly Arab doctors that work there.
Your basic argument is that you consider the Arabs to be losers, and you, like a bully, get to decide what can be taken from them and why. Tony Soprano is brighter than that.
-
Jews purchased most of the land that is now Israel. That is land that wasn't already their's. Jews have always been in the area known as Palestine, for more than 5000 years. The idea that Jews came storming in and forcefully took land that didn't belong to them is patently ridiculous. Anyone who believes that doesn't know history or is a useful idiot for terrorists.
A simple history lesson puts this to rest. Try this site: http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_history.htm (http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_history.htm)
-
There have always been a FEW Jews in Israel, principally around Safed, because they did not rebel against the Romans in the Bar Kochba rebellion and were not expelled. But only a very, very few. No more than several thousand at most.
In 1947, the Grand Mufti told the Arabs in the disputed lands to leave, so that the various Arab armies of Syria, Egypt, and Jordan could have a free fire zone and shoot everything that moved. Of course, the Arab armies were incompetent buffoons and the Grand Mufti was a dolt, but the people fled, and when the Zionists took the land, which was a lot more than the area approved under the UN Mandate, they kept it and refused to allow the Arabs to return.
Other Arabs did not leave, and were killed or driven off by the Zionists. This has been well documented by impartial sources.
According to the UN Charter, a country cannot seize lands in war and keep them. Not even if they are Jews. There are requirements for occupied land and the people living on them, and the Israelis have not followed these. They admit this.
Like I am about to believe a bunch of propaganda on a website named http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_history.htm... You can believe that, but unlike you, I am not a gullible dolt.
Zionism is just another name for Jewish colonialism.
I do not believe that God gave any land to anyone ever in perpetuity. You do. You believe that God wrote the Bible. I don't.
-
With the point being made by Xo, Israel was being attacked. They then took lands in better DEFENSE of their existance, not requiring the UN to authroize such. The war being brought to them by the surrounding Arab nations, makes that injection, irrelevent
So, until there's a committment to cease the efforts of Hamas, and other radical islamic militants raining rockets from neighboring Palestinian areas, into Israel, there will be no peace. And until that happens there will be no united referendum that Israel change it's foreign policies, especially as it relates to Palestinians.
Thank you Xo, for your contribution
-
>>Other Arabs did not leave, and were killed or driven off by the Zionists. This has been well documented by impartial sources.<<
Why would Jews kill or drive off Arabs? Arabs live and work in Israel to this day. The only time Arabs where ever killed or driven off was during the war of independence when they chose to ally themselves with the surrounding Arabs countries against Israel. Arab countries told them to leave, and when they did, Jordon, Syria, Egypt, wouldn't let them in, thus creating the refugee problem which they use to this day as a way to portray Israel in a bad light. If they were such wonderful Muslim's, why don't they allow their brothers and sisters to come live in their country? Because they are using them against Israel.
I'd love to see some of these "impartial sources."
-
Exclusive: Israeli cabinet okays Hamas, Jihad Islami targets for attack
March 5, 2008, 8:57 PM (GMT+02:00)
DEBKAfile?s military sources disclose that Israel?s security cabinet approved Wednesday, March 5, a series of terrorist targets for early attacks as part of a sustained military offensive against escalated Palestinian attacks from Gaza on Israeli civilians.
Prime minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Ehud Barak earlier obtained a quiet nod from US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice before she wound up her visit.
These targets are revealed here by DEBKAfile:
1. Chiefs and senior officers of Hamas? and Jihad Islami?s armed wings.
2. Their senior political officials in the Gaza strip, excluding prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, but including hard-line Mahmoud a-Zahar.
3. Hamas and Jihad institutions, including police stations.
These decisions were taken at the security cabinet?s first exhaustive review of Israel?s Gaza options.
Sources reveal the ministers considered demolishing urban districts in Gaza which serve as launching pads for missiles after evacuating their inhabitants. No final decision was reached on this.
Our military sources report that these strikes are expected to let loose a stepped up Hamas Grad rocket barrage against Ashkelon or even points further north, such as Ashdod, both important Mediterranean port cities. Sderot, Netivot and Ofakim may also come under heavy missile attack and Hamas will make a supreme effort to bring off suicide attacks inside Israel.
Notwithstanding this expectation, the defense minister is determined to deny Hamas the ability to create a balance of deterrent with Israel. Therefore, the Israeli operation will persist even under heavy Hamas assaults.
In any case, the Palestinians launched a fresh onslaught on the heels of Rice?s departure after her talks with Palestinian and Israel leaders.
Five Katyusha rockets fired from Gaza at Ashkelon exploded on empty ground south of the city; four Qassam missiles were aimed at as Sderot and the Eshkol farming region, raising the total from Wednesday morning to eight.
Our military sources believe that the five rockets were deliberately aimed to explode harmlessly as a warning from Hamas of the violence in store if Israeli goes ahead with more military offensives. Military experts informed the cabinet that this was further proof that Hamas is now capable of precise targeting against specific locations.
-
I do not believe that God gave any land to anyone ever in perpetuity.
But on the other hand you believe Palestinians get land for perpetuity?
-
<<I'd love to see some of these "impartial sources.">>
Then maybe you'd like to read Yigal Alon's autobiography. Alon was the Israeli general who oversaw the forcible removal of about 70,000 Arabs forced at gunpoint out of their houses and into trucks on four hours' notice, then driven to the banks of the Jordan River and dumped there. "Arab countries told them to leave" my ass. Alon's army told them to leave, at gunpoint.
-
Once again we are to believe Mike's word that these people (who we don't know anything about) were innocent civilians. When were they removed Mike? And why? Who were they? Who gave the order?
Oh hell, Like Mike actually would tell the truth about any of this. I'll check it out myself.
-
DEBKAfile?s military sources disclose that Israel?s security cabinet approved Wednesday, March 5, a series of terrorist targets for early attacks as part of a sustained military offensive against escalated Palestinian attacks from Gaza on Israeli civilians.
Prime minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Ehud Barak earlier obtained a quiet nod from US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice before she wound up her visit.
These targets are revealed here by DEBKAfile:
1. Chiefs and senior officers of Hamas? and Jihad Islami?s armed wings.
2. Their senior political officials in the Gaza strip, excluding prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, but including hard-line Mahmoud a-Zahar.
3. Hamas and Jihad institutions, including police stations.
These decisions were taken at the security cabinet?s first exhaustive review of Israel?s Gaza options.
Interesting stuff. If the Israelis are serious about this, they must feel this is a good time for them to attack and a bad time for Hamas to BE attacked. They are pretty fucking smart, especially after the ass-kicking they took in Lebanon in 2006 - - they really learn from their mistakes.
So I would think that Hamas would learn from ITS mistakes and not give the Israelis the fight that they are looking for. I don't mean they should back down and stop firing rockets, because that would make them look like punks folding under pressure, but they should lie low and not take on the superior force of the IDF. The rockets, though, would have to continue at all costs, and even at a greatly increased rate over what they are presently firing.
We'll see what happens. The object here should be to bleed the invading army at least financially and gain a propaganda victory by giving them nothing to boast of in terms of final results. Also more calls on the UN so the world can see that it is the U.S.A. that is blocking all attempts of the Security Council to resolve the situation and stem the loss of civilian life. This can turn into yet another great propaganda coup for Hamas and the Palestinian people in the eyes of the world.
-
The rockets, though, would have to continue at all costs, and even at a greatly increased rate over what they are presently firing.
Speaks volumes, don't it
-
Firing rockets, particularly grossly incompetent rockets, at civilians does not seem to me to be likely to cause anyone to admire Hamas. Hamas does not seem to have done a better job of running Gaza than the PLO. The Gazans are basically trapped in a prison with little or no hope of improving their condition in the foreseeable future.
Religion and politics make a rather poisonous mixture. If the truth comes straight from God, there can be no compromise, and therefore no political movement at all.
I recognize that Gazans are in a hopeless situation and all they feel they can do is lob these stupid rockets, but there is no chance that they will ever come close to inflicting the same damage on Israel than Israel did on them.
Hamas needs to read more Gandhi and stop firing those dumb rockets. Some compromise has to be possible. Some moral suasion by people sympathetic to the Palestinian cause abroad has to be possible to cause Israel to change something: the number of hours at checkpoint crossings, the number of workers permitted in Israel, the amount of electricity.
Arafat was not very bright, but he was way brighter than Hamas seems to me.
-
Firing rockets at civilians does not seem to me to be likely to cause anyone to admire Hamas. Hamas needs to read more Gandhi and stop firing those dumb rockets. Some compromise has to be possible. I recognize that Gazans are in a hopeless situation and all they feel they can do is lob these stupid rockets, but there is no chance that they will ever come close to inflicting the same damage on Israel than Israel did on them.
Your problem is 2 fold Xo.
1) It's not the Palestinians/"Gazians" as you want to call them doing the lobbing. It's Terrorists & Islamic militants, and those who don't care about life, especially Israeli life, doing the lobbing.
2) They're not "lobbing" because they were screwed in life & have nothing better to do, they're lobbing because they want to inflict as much damage on Israel as possible, 1 rocket at a time, 1 bombed bus at a time, 1 bombed nightclub at a time, and with the right type of twisted propoganda, get the world to believe that they're lobbing rockets because they were screwed in life, and have nothing better to do
The Gazans are basically trapped in a prison with little or no hope of improving their condition in the foreseeable future.
And the status quo will be perpetuated indefinately by enabling folks like Hamas to use the rockets at all costs, and even at a greatly increased rate over what they are presently firing
-
So they are not Palestinians or Gazans who are sending the rockets?
My point is that this rocketry is unlikely to cause any change in their status.
It is not my "problem" I have nothing to do with this.
-
<<The very idea that Jews forced anyone off their land to create Israel is simply false. If you start with that premise, there's no sense continuing to discuss the problem. Which is of course why they (both sides) have the problem they have.>>
I've been following this debate for a long time and at this point, absolutely nothing that is said by either side can surprise me. But if anything COULD amaze me, it would be statements like the above, that take obvious historical facts apparent to anyone with the slightest familiarity with the topic, and turn the reality that everyone knows is the truth - - and couldn't be anything else but the truth - - and just turn it around 180 degrees.
An Israeli general publishes a book telling exactly how he and his men forced 70,000 Arabs off their land at gunpoint and transported them in trucks to the banks of the Jordan River and you have this opinion: "The very idea that Jews forced anyone off their land to create Israel is simply false." I mean the very idea that anyone has the balls to write such a bare-faced lie and present it to a forum of reasonably intelligent people is mind-boggling. You have census figures that show huge increases in Jewish population roughly coincident in time with Hitler's rise to power, you have massacres such as Deir Yassin, and then you still have this clown - - "The very idea that Jews forced anyone off their land to create Israel is simply false. "
I think part of the problem in attempting to have a sane and rational exchange of ideas with a die-hard Zionist is this: they have no fucking shame. They will lie to your face, not little lies, but Big Lies, lies that fly in the face of all known evidence and they will just flatly contradict - - against not only known facts, but common sense and logic as well - - the basic facts of the situation. How can any discussion be possible with liars like this? They aren't interested in exchanging ideas, they are interested only in one thing - - making Israel's case, admitting nothing and denying everything in order to do so.
Fuck that. When I see a lie, I will just call it a lie. I will present the evidence I have, as I have done here, and for guys like Rich, I just say: Rich, believe whatever the fuck you like. My responses to you aren't aimed at you, they are for anyone who reads your lying bullshit and might, without my pointing out the truth and the facts behind that truth, actually be taken in by it. You are not going to get away with your lies and bullshit because I won't let you. I will be there with the facts every time you are there with your lies. Every single fucking time.
-
So they are not Palestinians or Gazans who are sending the rockets?
Not in the sense it's just the citizenry. They're terrorists....who are plausibly Palestinian. But the inferrence should not be that they're the same.
My point is that this rocketry is unlikely to cause any change in their status.
Tell that to the mother who loses the life of a child hit by a rocket. Tell that to the father that lost his family in a bus bombing. Obviously they're not laser guided 2000lb bombs. They ARE DESIGNED to inflict bodily injury, if not death. And that is MY point
It is not my "problem" I have nothing to do with this.
Ummmm, ...........ok ::)
-
Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term "Zionism" was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.
-
<<Tell that to the mother who loses the life of a child hit by a rocket. Tell that to the father that lost his family in a bus bombing. Obviously they're not laser guided 2000lb bombs. >>
sirs obviously means the Israeli mother who loses the life of a child, the Israeli father who loses his family in a bombing. It's a practical matter, I guess, because it wouldn't take very long to tell that to all the Israeli mothers and fathers who lost children in this conflict. The fact is that there aren't very many of them, certainly not many in comparison to Palestinian families who have experienced similar losses in the same conflict.
sirs' focus on Israeli deaths (tragic, outrageous) and non-focus on Arab deaths (tough but really they brought it on themselves) is understandable when you consider how the Amerikkkan media deals with them. If Americans Knew, an organization striving for even-handed media treatment of the conflict, has actually studied media reporting of the subject, and really, if the AP is typical of the Amerikkkan way of reporting the conflict, probably accounts for sirs' skewed view of things.
Their study of Amerikkkan media reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is found here;
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/ap-report.html
The first thing you will notice is that the AP consistently (a) over-reports Israeli deaths in the conflict and (b) under-reports Palestinian deaths.
The next thing you will have to notice, if you were impressed by sirs' copious weeping of giant crocodile tears over the deaths of Israeli children, is that (a) a great many more Palestinian children die in the conflict than Israeli children (179 to 8 in 2004) and (b) that the AP over-reported Israeli child deaths in the conflict (113% of actual total in 2004) and under-reported Palestinian child deaths for the same period of time (an astonishing 15% only of the actual total.) According to the site's math, the deaths of Israeli children are reported at a rate 7.5 times the rate of reporting of Palestinian child deaths.
Why the discrepancies? This was not explained. IMHO it could reflect either institutional bias by the Zionist-owned U.S. media or, as I suspect, vastly superior Israeli PR skills, ensuring that no Israeli child death goes unreported. But it does provide some insight into why sirs', Rich and others are so intently focused on Israeli child casualties of the conflict - - for whatever reason, those are the casualties they are most likely to be confused over, due to serious blockages in the information pipeline.
The bottom line, however, is that sirs' ill-thought-out and overly-simplistic Zionist "tell-it-to-the-mother" argument is pure bullshit and in fact works very strongly in the opposite direction if the "mother" in the argument becomes, as she is much more statistically likely to be anyway, an Arab mother. Someone ought to tell Rich and sirs and any other racists in this group that Arabs are people too.
-
Despite Tee's completely misdirected efforts at trying to paint what sirs focuses & doesn't focus on, for clarity of purpose and for those that aren't going to buy into Tee's misrepresentation of my position, it focuses on BOTH Israeli & Palestinian deaths. And more importantly it focuses on the source (Arab/Muslim/Islamofascist agenda of driving Israel from the region) & not the symptoms (back and forth attacks from Islamic terrorists and counter reprisals from Israeli forces)
It also focuses on the timeline of events, which contrary to the anti-semetic propoganda you'll get from Tee & like minds, DID have Israelis & Palestinians living amongst themselves, in peace. Israel was NOT driving Palestinaisn from their lands, and never were. However, events in the late 40's demonstrates that Israel's neighbors were not going to sit still and allow Israel to remain as is. Israel was required to defend themselves, which unfortunately required them to take lands in DEFENSE of their very existance. It was not taken in some form of racist South African like action, simply to drive Palestinians from "their lands", no matter how many times that lie is repeated.
Until the source of the conflict is dealt with, just as Xo has accurately referenced, there will be continued suffering and using of the Palestinians, by both Israel & Islamic militants, such as Hamas, who incidentally, care squat about the Palestinians, and their plight. Instead, they use the Palestinians as PR fodder, and as human shields, then look forward to those idiots who advocate more rockets, bigger rockets, more death & destruction.
-
<<Despite Tee's completely misdirected efforts at trying to paint what sirs focuses & doesn't focus on, for clarity of purpose and for those that aren't going to buy into Tee's misrepresentation of my position, it focuses on BOTH Israeli & Palestinian deaths. >>
No, it doesn't. Your argument "tell it to the mother . . " etc. focused exclusively on an Israeli mother and an Israeli father. But please continue to misrepresent what you just said in this very thread, as if all the rest of us were a bunch of fucking idiots too dumb to scroll back through this thread to see for ourselves what you really said.
<<And more importantly it focuses on the source (Arab/Muslim/Islamofascist agenda of driving Israel from the region) & not the symptoms (back and forth attacks from Islamic terrorists and counter reprisals from Israeli forces)>>
Ludicrous bullshit. It obviously focuses on the immediate open wound of the 40-year military occupation of millions of Arabs and the theft of their land, homes and freedom of movement for the benefit of the stream of newly-arrived Jewish settlers being settled onto their lands as fast as possible.
<<It also focuses on the timeline of events, which contrary to the anti-semetic propoganda you'll get from Tee & like minds, DID have Israelis & Palestinians living amongst themselves, in peace. >>
The timeline, as demonstrated clearly by the census figures which some Zionist idiot (probably Rich) brought into these discussions, not even realizing that they actually destroyed the Zionist bullshit story, proves that Zionist settlement began in the last decades of the 19th century, when the Jews were less than 10% of the population of Palestine and began to take off when Hitler came to power in Germany. The history shows that the Arabs reacted with great hostility to the obvious Jewish land grab, which was evident not only from Zionist literature but from the observable fact of Zionist settlement.
<<Israel was NOT driving Palestinaisn from their lands, and never were. >>
What fucking bullshit. It's totally inconsistent with the record of massacres (including Deir Yassin) deliberately designed to panic the Arab residents into mass evacuation, the record of General Alon, who chronicles exactly how he and his men forcibly evicted about 70,000 Arabs from their homes at gunpoint, and common sense itself (how the hell could the Jews ever establish a state for themselves in the form of the original UN Partition Plan, honeycombed throughout with Arab towns and villages?)
<< However, events in the late 40's demonstrates that Israel's neighbors were not going to sit still and allow Israel to remain as is. Israel was required to defend themselves, which unfortunately required them to take lands in DEFENSE of their very existance. >>
That explains the fighting off of the invading Arab national armies and the Arab Legion, a British-officered Jordanian fighting force. It does NOT explain the refusal of the Jews to permit the Arabs who had fled their homes during or in advance of the combat operations to return to them when a cease-fire was established.
<< It was not taken in some form of racist South African like action, simply to drive Palestinians from "their lands", no matter how many times that lie is repeated.>>
That's NOT a lie, it is the obvious truth. Your denial of the facts is just one more of your bullshit Zionist lies. OF COURSE it was done to drive the Arabs from their lands. What other motive could the Jews have had? Pure racial hatred not even related to the land issue? Don't be so fucking stupid. Once the fighting had stopped and the cease-fire accomplished, there was no reason in the world, other than greed for land, to have prevented the Jews from permitting the Arabs to return to their homes.
<<Until the source of the conflict is dealt with, just as Xo has accurately referenced, there will be continued suffering and using of the Palestinians, by both Israel & Islamic militants, such as Hamas, who incidentally, care squat about the Palestinians . . . >>
Hamas, who put their lives on the line every day in the cause of the Palestinians, who are themselves Palestinians, "incidentally care squat about the Palestinians . . . " Thank you for your brilliant psychoanalysis of the Hamas movement and political party. And you know this because . . . ?
<<Instead, they use the Palestinians as PR fodder, and as human shields . . . >>
Schmuck, they are "the Palestinians."
<< . . . then look forward to those idiots who advocate more rockets, bigger rockets, more death & destruction.>>
Whereas, if they understood the situation in the very place where they were born and raised as well as sirs understands it, they would follow instead the wisdom of sirs, which counsels them to lay down their weapons, pull down their pants and bend over so that the Israelis can resume fucking them in the ass.
-
<<Speaks volumes, don't it>>
Yeah, and you know what those volumes say? Shoot back when your enemies shoot at you. Shoot at the enemy who killed your brother. Shoot at the enemy who occupies your land and your home. Shoot at the enemy who tortured your children in jail.
-
>>Israel was required to defend themselves, which unfortunately required them to take lands in DEFENSE of their very existence. It was not taken in some form of racist South African like action, simply to drive Palestinians from "their lands", no matter how many times that lie is repeated.<<
Absolutely correct.
I wonder, besides the United States and Israel, how many countries have ever given land back concerned in war to the countries that attacked it? I can't think of any, can you? Certainly not the much loved Soviet Union. The lies these useful idiots repeat are straight out the Islamic terrorist guide to genocide. It's incredible that they are so gullible as to believe these obvious lies. To what end you must ask, and how is it possible? I think it lies with the class envy that feeds their socialist hatred of what they see as the "Big Guy," Israel, oppressing the "little guy," the terrorists. Never mind hat the little guy started the war, and continues to fight it by the most dispicable means possible. They feed off the lies because it feeds their own anger. The little guy isn't interested in peace, he's interested in death, nothing more.
So I say, give it to him, in spades.
-
<<I wonder, besides the United States and Israel, how many countries have ever given land back concerned in war to the countries that attacked it? I can't think of any, can you? Certainly not the much loved Soviet Union.>>
Listen and learn, moron. Maybe one day you too can start speaking with your lips instead of out of your ass.
The following countries, all members of the Axis Powers, participated in Hitler's invasion of Russia: Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austria (the incorporated into Germany,) Slovakia and Croatia. Unfortunately for them, things didn't turn out the way their leader, Adolf Hitler, had planned. After participating in the deaths of about 35 million Russians during the war, all of Hitler's Eastern European satellites were overrun by the Red Army. Not one of them was absorbed into the Soviet Union. All received back their independence with the exceptions of Croatia (re-absorbed into Yugoslavia) and Slovakia (re-absorbed into Czechoslovakia.) Their land was their land - - the Soviet Union harboured no ambitions towards any of it.
-
>>all of Hitler's Eastern European satellites were overrun by the Red Army. Not one of them was absorbed into the Soviet Union.<<
You truly are insane.
-
After participating in the deaths of about 35 million Russians during the war, all of Hitler's Eastern European satellites were overrun by the Red Army.
27 million.
Not one of them was absorbed into the Soviet Union. All received back their independence with the exceptions of Croatia (re-absorbed into Yugoslavia) and Slovakia (re-absorbed into Czechoslovakia.) Their land was their land - - the Soviet Union harboured no ambitions towards any of it.
I notice you didn't mention Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania - all absorbed into the Soviet Union and not given their independence until 1991 - and some eastern portions of Poland, northern portions of East Prussia, and Transcarpathia - all absorbed into various Russian states.
-
Amianthus, Michael's error reminds me of Gerald Ford's devastating debate gaffe
declaring "there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe".
(http://www.npr.org/news/images/2004/sep/30/ford_carter500.jpg)
(http://media.npr.org/politics/politicaljunkie/2004/sep/ford140.jpg)
-
<<I notice you didn't mention Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania - all absorbed into the Soviet Union and not given their independence until 1991 - and some eastern portions of Poland, northern portions of East Prussia, and Transcarpathia - all absorbed into various Russian states.>>
Both a you guys should follow the debate a little more carefully. I wasn't trying to prove that the U.S.S.R. gave back every fucking inch to every fucking bunch of fascist war criminals. I was -- as my post made perfectly clear - - responding to the idiotic remark of our crypto-fascist friend, and I quote (as indeed I quoted in the post you both commented on) :
<<I wonder, besides the United States and Israel, how many countries have ever given land back concerned in war to the countries that attacked it? I can't think of any, can you? Certainly not the much loved Soviet Union.>>
My point was adequately made by the examples I gave, most of which probably exceeded in both area and population the entire State of Israel and the West Bank.
CU4: <<Amianthus, Michael's error (sic) reminds me of . . . blah blah blah>>
Yeah, right, CU4. And YOUR error reminds ME of the idiocies of our moon-dust twins, Rich and sirs.
-
<<27 million.>>
35 million. Get with the times. Apparently, the U.S.S.R. was underestimating its own dead to hide the magnitude of the disaster. Researchers with access to previously sealed records upped the count.
-
<<I notice you didn't mention Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania - all absorbed into the Soviet Union and not given their independence until 1991 - and some eastern portions of Poland, northern portions of East Prussia, and Transcarpathia - all absorbed into various Russian states.>>
Both a you guys should follow the debate a little more carefully. I wasn't trying to prove that the U.S.S.R. gave back every fucking inch to every fucking bunch of fascist war criminals. I was -- as my post made perfectly clear - - responding to the idiotic remark of our crypto-fascist friend, and I quote (as indeed I quoted in the post you both commented on) :
<<I wonder, besides the United States and Israel, how many countries have ever given land back concerned in war to the countries that attacked it? I can't think of any, can you? Certainly not the much loved Soviet Union.>>
My point was adequately made by the examples I gave, most of which probably exceeded in both area and population the entire State of Israel and the West Bank.
CU4: <<Amianthus, Michael's error (sic) reminds me of . . . blah blah blah>>
Yeah, right, CU4. And YOUR error reminds ME of the idiocies of our moon-dust twins, Rich and sirs.
-
"both a you guys should follow the debate a little more carefully. I wasn't trying to prove that the U.S.S.R. gave back every fucking inch"
Then Michael why did you say the following?:
"Not one of them was absorbed into the Soviet Union. All received back their independence with the exceptions of Croatia..."
You made an error dude. Just admit it and we move on. We all make errors. It doesn't mean you're a dumbass. Don't be so insecure.
-
35 million. Get with the times. Apparently, the U.S.S.R. was underestimating its own dead to hide the magnitude of the disaster. Researchers with access to previously sealed records upped the count.
Source? (The 27 million is already a high end estimate - the "official" records of the time listed only about 17 million.)
-
<<Then Michael why did you say the following?:
<<"Not one of them was absorbed into the Soviet Union. All received back their independence with the exceptions of Croatia..."
<<You made an error dude. Just admit it and we move on. We all make errors. It doesn't mean you're a dumbass. Don't be so insecure.>>
Once again, 4, you reveal your total fucking ignorance of the subject matter, but that's OK - - we're all here to learn.
Croatia, before the war, was a part of Yugoslavia. During the war, it separated itself from Yugoslavia under the leadership of Ante Pavelic of the Ustashi party, a pro-Hitler group, which proceeded to massacre about 600,000 Serbs and about 60,000 Jews, before it was liberated by the Red Army. The U.S.S.R. did not seize any Yugoslav territory for itself (which would have been a big problem due to the large and well-armed Communist guerrilla forces led by Marshall Tito, who prided himself on his independence from the Kremlin) but gave it all back to the Yugoslavs under Tito. Croatia did not get to keep the independence that its fascist rulers had declared in WWII, so I couldn't say that it received back its independence. But I still wanted to make the point that its land was NOT retained by the U.S.S.R., although conquered in war, but was given back to somebody else, Yugoslavia in this case.
Slovakia was in a similar situation. After the Munich agreements, under a Nazi Roman Catholic priest, Father Joseph Tiso (hanged after the war, like Ante Pavelic, as a fascist war criminal) Slovakia declared itself iindependent from Czechoslovakia and allied itself with the Axis Powers. Despite the connection to the Divine Power through the mediation of Pope Pius XII, Tiso and his local fascists didn't fare any better than Pavelic did, but at the end of the war, the U.S.S.R., which had overrun Slovakia, did not keep that land for itself either. Again, I can't say that Slovakia got back its independence, but its land was handed over to Czechoslovakia and NOT kept by the U.S.S.R., once again proving my point AND with accuracy.
As someone around here once said, "You made an error dude. Just admit it and we move on. We all make errors. It doesn't mean you're a dumbass. Don't be so insecure."
-
Czechoslovakia and NOT kept by the U.S.S.R.
The Czechs were not within the Soviet sphere of influence in Post World War II? I thought in 1968 hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops invaded Poland because Poland was not minding their slave masters? Is that like a slavemaster giving his slave a few acres of land but telling the slave what he can and cant do 24 hours a day? Boy thats real generous "giving back" isn't it? Hey since you brag about the Russians giving back, how 'bout Israel follow your praise and give back some land but dictate what the new "owners" can do and can't do 24 hours a day and station 4 Israeli ground divisions there like the Soviets did in Czechoslovakia until 1987. Would that work Michael? Would you then boast about Israel "giving back" like you did in this thread about Russia?
-
Legally, the Russians gave back the land. If they had kept it, when communism fell, Hungary, Romania, etc. would still have been Russia. As it was, legally given back land remained in the hands of the people.
Rich asked for examples of countries other than Israel and the U.S. that handed back to the inhabitants lands won in combat. The U.S.S.R., which he specifically referred to as a country which did not hand back land, actually handed back large amounts. Some, Yugoslavia for example, exercised a considerable degree of independence from Moscow. Others did not. All were governed by local communists, long-time Party members.
Your point seems to be, the U.S.S.R. still exercised considerable control over the lands it "gave back." What is so fucking unusual about that? The U.S. exercised considerable control over its neighbours in Central and South America, and it hadn't even been previously invaded by them.
When your ass is busted, you love to move the goalposts rather than admitting how busted you are. At first, in response to Rich's challenge, the issue was whether the U.S.S.R. gave back land conquered in battle. When examples were found of exactly that, you and Ami demanded why the U.S.S.R. did not give back every inch. That of course was never the issue. When your objection was busted as phony bullshit, you changed the goal-posts again - - the issue was no longer whether the U.S.S.R. gave back lands it had conquered in battle, it now became, why did the U.S.S.R. retain so much control over its neighbours? As if the U.S.S.R. was the only superpower to keep a tight lid on its neighbours.
You guys can play with this bullshit forever but I don't have the patience for it. Let me just reiterate that you and Rich are full of shit, don't know what you are talking about, and think that moving the goal-posts is some kind of victory. Well if it works for you, congratulations. And now, if you'll excuse me . . .
-
Your point seems to be, the U.S.S.R. still exercised considerable control over the lands it "gave back." What is so fucking unusual about that? The U.S. exercised considerable control over its neighbours in Central and South America, and it hadn't even been previously invaded by them.
Yes but I didn't make the claim, you did, and you used a piss poor example.
Giving someone land back and at the same time making them a slave is not giving them shit!
Oh and by the way, are you gonna answer my question?
Would you consider Israel "giving back the land" if they retained divisions
of troops in the land they "give back" and basically keep total control like your
piss poor example of the Soviets doing it?
-
<<The Czechs were not within the Soviet sphere of influence in Post World War II? I thought in 1968 hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops invaded Poland [I'm guessing you mean Czechoslovakia here] because Poland [Czechoslovakia] was not minding their slave masters? Is that like a slavemaster giving his slave a few acres of land but telling the slave what he can and cant do 24 hours a day? >>
A little basic math here indicates that the events of which you complain occurred twenty-three years after the U.S.S.R. turned Slovakia back to Czechoslovakia.
<<Boy thats real generous "giving back" isn't it? Hey since you brag about the Russians giving back, how 'bout Israel follow your praise and give back some land but dictate what the new "owners" can do and can't do 24 hours a day and station 4 Israeli ground divisions there like the Soviets did in Czechoslovakia until 1987.>>
Oh, like you mean like Israel "giving up" Gaza and then reinvading whenever the mood strikes and not waiting 23 years to do so?
<<Would that work Michael? >>
Works for the Israelis, eh 4?
<<Would you then boast about Israel "giving back" like you did in this thread about Russia?>>
Nah. The israelis didn't wait 23 years to invade. They didn't wait 23 minutes.
-
>>The Czechs were not within the Soviet sphere of influence in Post World War II?<<
CU4G,
Look, you're dealing with a Communist flat-earther here. The Soviets were very similar to Barack Hussien Obama in the respect that they summon pixy dust and lolly pops and sugar plum fairies to make life wonderful for all the little comrades on the Big Rock Candy Mountian.
-
Rich he beams about the Soviets supposedly "giving back" land but
if Israel did the exact same thing, "gave" back land but dictated
every move and kept 4 ground troop divisions there Michael
would be howling like hell. When the Soviets do it, hey
it's something to brag about, if Israel did the exact same
thing the Soviets did Israel would be demonized.
-
<<Look, you're dealing with a Communist flat-earther here. The Soviets were very similar to Barack Hussien Obama in the respect that they summon pixy dust and lolly pops and sugar plum fairies to make life wonderful for all the little comrades on the Big Rock Candy Mountian.>>
Apparently, when it gets too tough for Rich to maintain his incredibly stupid ideas in debates with rational human beings, he just invents a whole new bunch of people to debate with in his strung-out and scrambled excuse for a brain - - flat-earthers, a Senator Hussein (why bother with his other names at all, to Rich the guy is Hussein, always was Hussein and always will be) who is "very similar" to the Soviets (hilarious!) and purveyors of pixie dust and sugar-plum fairies. And lollipops.
Wow. You should have a very interesting debate with all those folks, Rich. Get back to us when you wake up and let us know who won.
-
<<Rich he beams about the Soviets supposedly "giving back" land but
if Israel did the exact same thing, "gave" back land but dictated
every move and kept 4 ground troop divisions there Michael
would be howling like hell. When the Soviets do it, hey
it's something to brag about, if Israel did the exact same
thing the Soviets did Israel would be demonized.>>
Idiot. That's pretty much what Israel just DID. In Gaza.
-
(http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7BCB53E8F5-6CB8-4836-9E6D-3344B356F211%7D.gif)
-
"That's pretty much what Israel just DID. In Gaza".
EXACTLY!
Soviets do it...it's applauded.
Israel does it...Isreal is demonized!
Michael sits on "stolen land"...hey it was stolen a long time ago....so thats ok.
Israel sits on "stolen land"......DEMONS THEY ARE!
-
>>if Israel did the exact same thing the Soviets did Israel would be demonized.<<
I don't think it really matters to him what Israel does. He wants them dead, period. Like I've said before, anyone who defends the Soviet Union today has more than a screw loose. 20 ... 40 million dead? Doesn't matter. He'll explain it away with some delusion rambing his manic brain concocts out of whole cloth.
-
I fail to see what possible disadvantage it could be for the president of the US to have a peaceful dialog with any world leaders.
Obama is wise to suggest this. Juniorbush is a stubborn fool for not having done it.
-
<<Soviets do it...it's applauded.>>
To bring you back to the real world, if only just for a microsecond: Rich claimed that the Soviets never gave back land taken in battle. I provided several examples. I did not applaud them or ask for applause. I merely wanted to demonstrate that as usual, Rich was full of shit. And I did. The Soviets never had to re-invade Bulgaria or Yugoslavia. They DID have to re-invade Czechoslovakia - - 23 YEARS after giving the land back. In 23 years a lot can happen. Friends can become not so friendly. The point being, when they gave back Slovakia, they gave back Slovakia. The Czechoslovak government happened to be very friendly with Russia at the time. So were a lot of countries - - it was the Red Army, after all, which had liberated them from the Nazis.
<<Israel does it...Isreal is demonized!>>
Rich's point was that Israel was demonized for NOT giving back land, which he defended by claiming that no countries other than Israel and the U.S.A. had EVER given back land. A claim that was easily demolished for the ignorant bullshit that it was. Once again, you have moved the goal-posts - - no longer is the issue whether the Soviet Union gave back land or not - - you were thoroughly busted on that one!! So now the goal-posts are moved again (don't your back and shoulders ever get sore?) and the issue is who is demonized or not demonized for exercising too much control over the people whose land was given back to them.
<<Michael sits on "stolen land"...hey it was stolen a long time ago....so thats ok.>.
Oh shit. Not only did you move the goal-posts (again!) now you want to start a whole new game. One that I already won just a few posts back. Sorry, not playing same game again.
<<Israel sits on "stolen land"......DEMONS THEY ARE!>>
Yeah yeah yeah. Give it up already. When ya lose, ya lose.
-
"no longer is the issue whether the Soviet Union gave back land or not"
Yes it is.
In reality it is not giving land back if the people remain slaves on the land they are "given".
The people on the land the Soviets so called "gave back" were dominated by the Soviets.
So they didn't give shit back.
Just like if Israel gives back land but remains in total control you'd be screaming holy hell.
You're demonization of Israel is very much a part of this thread and thats why
you sitting on stolen land and then condemning Israel is still a part of the discussion.
Your hypocrisy is a constant and never excluded from a discussion that concerns Israel.
The goal posts are not moved just because your condemnations of Israel are
shown for the frauds they are. You have not even condemned today's attack
that targeted innocent civilians at a religious seminary in Israel. You have
no shame.
-
You have not even condemned today's attack that targeted innocent civilians at a religious seminary in Israel.
That also speaks volumes, unfortunately
-
<<In reality it is not giving land back if the people remain slaves on the land they are "given".
The people on the land the Soviets so called "gave back" were dominated by the Soviets.
<<So they didn't give shit back.
<<Just like if Israel gives back land but remains in total control you'd be screaming holy hell.>>
You're just talking out of your ass through sheer damned ignorance. The Soviet Union did not retain "total control" over any of its satellites. They all set their own policies, decided through their own communist parties how much private enterprise would remain, which businesses and services would be nationalized, who the leaders of the nation would be and what kind of infrastructure to invest in. Some resources (typically, the Hungarian uranium mines) were subject to war reparations agreements and whether the Hungarians liked it or not, those uranium-supply agreements were carved in stone by the Russians. They had not asked the Hungarians to sign up with Adolf Hitler, nor asked them to invade their Soviet Union, nor asked them to devastate it and kill millions of their citizens. So when the war was over and the Hungarians lost the war, they had to ship out their uranium whether they liked it or not.
Israel DID retain control over Gaza, controls its ports, makes them export through Israeli ports, controls the electricity and water which it can turn on and off at will. There was never any such control by the U.S.S.R. over the Eastern European communist countries.
If you are going to debate things, at least keep your facts in the real world. You are repeating Cold War propaganda as if it were fact. You sound ridiculous.
They weren't "slaves" on the land - - that's typical bullshit Cold War propaganda; I was in some of those communist countries - - well, one of them, East Germany, and they were no more slaves than you are.
-
>>That also speaks volumes, unfortunately.<<
It certainly does.
I've been drawn into a pissing match with people who really don't deserve even the tiniest bit of respect. I'm done. There's nothing to gain associating with people like this.
-
I've been drawn into a pissing match with people who really don't deserve even the tiniest bit of respect. I'm done. There's nothing to gain associating with people like this.
Now that's a crying shame. Wonder who Rich will find to insult and slander, err, debate with now.
-
<<Now that's a crying shame. Wonder who Rich will find to insult and slander, err, debate with now.>>
Someone on his own intellectual level, I have no doubt. One of the higher primates.
-
Higher?
-
<<Higher?>>
Well, yeah, higher. Not homo sapiens, of course, but something around the order of the Great Apes - - I don't think it's fair to stick him in with the lemurs, actually. Not fair to him and certainly not fair to the lemurs. They'd all wind up a bunch of dead lemurs if Rich thought they were disagreeing with him.
-
Does a baboon qualify as a great ape?
-
I'm not sure, but I think that might be aiming a bit high for our friend. Chimps and gorillas I think are great apes, orangutans, bonobos - - shit, I wish I could remember this stuff better. When I was studying it, I never realized I'd meet anyone who might make the definitions relevant.
-
It would be an overstatement to call Richie a Great Ape. Not really a good ape, either.
I'm thinking mediocre ape.
Or monkey, if it turns out he has a tail.