@Foofie,
Quote:And thank you for comparing Jews, with their over abundance of Nobel Prize winners, with aboriginal peoples. You British are funny sometimes, and you do not even know it.
I did not compare Jews to the aboriginal peoples of N. America whose land you now prosper on. I was exposing your hypocrisy. When you have different principles for your race than for other races you are a supremicist.
The only escape for you is to go and live in Israel. Anybody can shout the odds safely ensconced thousands of miles from the action.
We gentiles have a legitimate concern that continuous strife will lead, with advancing technology, to nuclear war. What do we say to Iran after this debacle?
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
...
foofie should make a greater effort to be an American.
If he ...
Astonished. I thought it was a bitch.
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
Quite so, my dear Spendius, and please pay no attention to Puffiefoofie here: peoples whose main cultural inheritance is getting quasi-exterminated (they have a term for this, untranslatable into any Western language) on a regular schedule (in re Heinrich Heine, quoted just above Milton on this page) tend to be verbose. They have to make up for lost time, and lay out word reserves for the next time - kind of like squirrels, except uglier - and ignoring them is best
In my opinion, you are blaming the victim, in your above logic. I guess you will not vote for Bloomberg?
@Steve 41oo,
Steve 41oo wrote:
Foofie wrote: Gentiles are fickle philo-Semites... Did you know Foofie was the favorite hunting spaniel of one of your kings?...You are talking from the position of someone that spells "favor," "favour," meaning you have a perspective that is not that of Jews. Perhaps, a few British Jews,...You British are funny sometimes, and you do not even know it.
Speaking as a British fickle philo-semite
I edited the above post just for fun
I did not know that "fun" was in your repertoire of activities, Holmes?
@Foofie,
I think what HS meant foofie is that a continuous record of victimisation might be assumed to have a practical cause.
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
If foofie continues in his victim mode a not so fickle philo-semetic might think it useful to lay out some of the legitimate criticisms of Jewish activity.
foofie should make a greater effort to be an American.
If he consults the Urban Dictionary he will find that "foofie" has connotations other than some old king's dog's name.
It certainly is an odd name for someone who bandies about words like "fickle".
Holmes, you are entertaining as always.
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Quote:And thank you for comparing Jews, with their over abundance of Nobel Prize winners, with aboriginal peoples. You British are funny sometimes, and you do not even know it.
I did not compare Jews to the aboriginal peoples of N. America whose land you now prosper on. I was exposing your hypocrisy. When you have different principles for your race than for other races you are a supremicist.
The only escape for you is to go and live in Israel. Anybody can shout the odds safely ensconced thousands of miles from the action.
We gentiles have a legitimate concern that continuous strife will lead, with advancing technology, to nuclear war. What do we say to Iran after this debacle?
Look carefully and you might discover that Jews are not a race. They are an ethnic group if one is talking about Ashkenazi Jews. Otherwise, Jewish Israelis are just a nationality made up of many genomes from around the world. But, you prove to me, once again, that with the perception of Jews as a race, they periodically need to watch out for Gentiles that have that perception. The solution is to have their own country, so they need not rub elbows with Gentiles that misconstrue them as a race.
@Foofie,
British Jews have their own country, as do British Muslims. Its called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
@Steve 41oo,
Steve 41oo wrote:
British Jews have their own country, as do British Muslims. Its called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Yes, just like American Jews and American Muslims. However, history has proven to Jews that a homeland is of value when other nations may not have the same largesse as the U.S., and Britain. And, for intellectual honesty, Jews were banished from England once or twice in England's history? Not once in the shorter history of the U.S. Therefore, I suspect God/Jesus is an American citizen and likely a Republican.
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:Therefore, I suspect God/Jesus is an American citizen and likely a Republican.
That is really very funny. Or you are quite mad.
No matter what Israel does or doesn't do in defending itself, its enemies deem it to be guilty of something.
For HRW, Israel is always guilty
By GERALD M. STEINBERG
For many years, Ken Roth and Human Rights Watch have been at the forefront of the campaign to criminalize self-defense against terrorism and to brand Israel as the primary perpetrator of war crimes. Emotional outbursts, convoluted pseudo-legal language and post-colonial bias have contributed to the ideological destruction of human rights principles.
In attacking the IDF's actions against Hamas in Gaza, Roth applies the skills he acquired during his years as a prosecutor in New York, building a tendentious case based on unsupported "evidence," and stripping away the context. He would have us believe that an army - and the IDF in particular - that is less than perfect must be wholly condemned, regardless of the circumstance. His case combines half-truths, speculation, unverifiable evidence and subjective claims that may seem convincing to a jury that has never experienced terror, knows nothing about Hamas, asymmetric warfare or international law, and has a strong anti-Israel bias from the beginning.
HRW'S STATEMENTS on Gaza follow the organization's pattern and practice used for many years. For example, in October 2000, HRW joined the campaign blaming Israel for the highly publicized death of Muhammad al-Dura, citing "eyewitnesses" and rejecting contradictory evidence. A few months ago, a French defamation court known for its strict rulings, reviewed the details and sided with those who argued this video was staged by the Palestinian cameraman for France 2 TV - the only "witness."
In 2004, Roth held a high-profile press conference at the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem to publicize a glossy 135-page anti-Israel indictment entitled "Razing Rafah." The description of terrorism as "resistance" and the use of this report to promote the boycott campaign against Caterpillar over sales to Israel reveal HRW's ideological bias. The main claims were that tunnels from Egypt to Gaza posed little threat, and, according to "experts," including sales clerks, could be readily detected by equipment used in America. The IDF's attacks against buildings that hid tunnel entrances were "unnecessary," "unlawful" and designed to maintain "long-term control over the Gaza Strip." Less than one year later, Israel had fully withdrawn from Gaza, opening the way for the import of thousands of rockets through the tunnels - HRW got it completely wrong, but learned no lessons.
RELATED
IDF's violations of laws-of-war prohibitions
Roth followed a similar pattern during the 2006 Second Lebanon War, with numerous false claims quoting "eyewitnesses" from territory fully controlled by Hizbullah. In the case of an attack in Kana, HRW adopted false claims regarding casualties that were nearly double the on-site figure provided by the Red Cross. In these and other cases, Roth has never apologized, and no independent investigations of HRW's numerous errors and biases have been conducted.
When it comes to war crimes committed by terror groups like Hizbullah and Hamas, time and again, Roth ignores the clear evidence, refusing to issue public condemnations or hold press conferences, claiming the need for thorough investigations. In contrast, Israel is found guilty from the outset. HRW issued 18 separate condemnations of Israeli policy in Gaza during 2008, exploiting the rhetoric of international law, including false claims that Israel was guilty of "collective punishment" and for causing a "humanitarian crisis." Very little was said about obvious Palestinian violations of the laws of war and common-sense morality, including launching of thousands of rockets, the indisputable use of human shields, the kidnapping of Gilad Schalit and the subsequent denial of his rights in captivity.
THE WHITE phosphorus issue - Roth's main weapon in attacking the IDF regarding Gaza - is only one aspect in this complex war. Once again, Roth has crafted a highly misleading case worthy of an aggressive prosecution, based on the allegation that the IDF caused unnecessary or indiscriminate harm to civilians. Does Roth claim to be privy to the details of Hamas military deployments in houses, schools, mosques and hospitals, as well as the targeting decisions of the IDF? And how did HRW's "military expert" (apparently Marc Garlasco, whose ideological bias and lack of expertise were evident in "Razing Rafah" and in the 2006 "Gaza beach incident"), make such determinations while observing from an unnamed distance and location outside of Gaza?
Roth justifies HRW's disproportionate campaign on the white phosphorous issue by claiming that illegal actions by terrorists do not justify "illegal" defense measures. But as Prof. Avi Bell, an international legal expert, states, "When a combatant hides in a civilian house, the house ceases to be a civilian target and becomes a military target... [The] use of civilian shields is very relevant to the legal standard to be applied."
In contrast, HRW's flood of condemnations suggests that all weapons used in self-defense are somehow illegitimate.
In the complexities of defense against well-armed terror organizations like Hamas and Hizbullah, mistakes are made, and these should be corrected. But the checks and balances in Israel's democratic process are clearly more credible than Roth's emotional outbursts, HRW's ideological "experts" and the counterproductive exploitation of international legal rhetoric. Beyond the demonization of Israel's right to defend its citizens from attack, such cynical distortions undermine the moral foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This moral destruction is antithetical to the worthy objectives envisioned by the founders of HRW.
The writer is executive director of NGO Monitor and chairman of the Political Science Department at Bar-Ilan University.
--jpost.com
@Steve 41oo,
Steve 41oo wrote:
Foofie wrote:Therefore, I suspect God/Jesus is an American citizen and likely a Republican.
That is really very funny. Or you are quite mad.
Why are you surprised? In the British National Anthem, I thought it is ask for God to save the Queen. In the American National Anthem, I thought it is asked for God to bless America. It sounds like God is only concerned about the Queen, while God is concerned about all of America?
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:In the American National Anthem, I thought it is asked for God to bless America.
I thought the American National Anthem was mainly about rockets and "bombs bursting in air". I don't recall any part where someone asked for god to bless America.
You
are American, right?
Here is a rare dose of truth from the EU.
EU envoy lays Gaza blame on Hamas
Louis Michel is touring the Gaza Strip to assess the humanitarian needs
A senior European Union official touring war-torn Gaza has blamed the ruling militant movement Hamas for the humanitarian crisis there.
Humanitarian aid chief Louis Michel called the destruction left by Israel's offensive "abominable", but said Hamas bore "overwhelming responsibility".
He said there would be no dialogue with with the "terrorist" movement until it gave up violence and recognised Israel.
He also announced emergency aid for Gaza worth more than US $70m (£50m).
And he called on Israel to open the territory's borders to allow supplies in.
Sick of paying
"It is abominable, indescribable," Mr Michel told reporters after touring some of the worst-hit places of Israel's 22-day assault which killed about 1,300 Palestinians, including 400 children. Thirteen Israelis were also killed in the conflict.
"At this time we have to also recall the overwhelming responsibility of Hamas," he said.
"I intentionally say this here - Hamas is a terrorist movement and it has to be denounced as such."
He added there would be no dialogue with Hamas, and its use of terrorism against Israeli civilians meant it was not a legitimate resistance movement.
The BBC's Aleem Maqbool in Gaza says some aid agencies have expressed doubts about how effective a reconstruction drive in Gaza can be, without the involvement of Hamas, the people in charge there.
Announcing the extra aid package, Mr Michel said people in the EU was sick of paying for the same infrastructure being destroyed over and over again in Israeli military action.
The body is the main donor to the Palestinians, having given three billion euros since 2000, Mr Michel said.
"Every year, we spend 600 to 700 million euros. Today we decided on a supplementary payment of 60 million euros."
--bbc.co.uk
@old europe,
old europe wrote:
Foofie wrote:In the American National Anthem, I thought it is asked for God to bless America.
Defense of Fort McHenry)
September 20, 1814
I thought the American National Anthem was mainly about rockets and "bombs bursting in air". I don't recall any part where someone asked for god to bless America.
You
are American, right?
Old Europe - here are the lyrics of the US national anthem:
Quote:The Star Spangled Banner
Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
You will see that the only direct reference to God is the phrase "In God is our trust" - whose expanded version is frequently posted in bars as "In God we trust, everyone else pays cash".
As to your question to Foofie on whether he's American, you might get an indirect reply by checking wording of other countries' national anthems - maybe one of them actually asks God to bless America, though somehow I doubt that. The US national anthem definitely doesn't.
@Steve 41oo,
Steve 41oo wrote:
That is really very funny. Or you are quite mad.
Or, as appears to be the case of Foofie, both statements are true!
@High Seas,
PS too late to correct previous post, should add that the text I posted is the original version - the verses about the Brits (who at the time had just burned the White House and much of DC and were shelling Baltimore) were later modified. Here's the current version:
Quote:First Verse
Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say, does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave
Second Verse
On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream;
'Tis the Star-Spangled Banner, O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave
Third Verse
Oh, thus be it ever when free men shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto, "In God is our trust"
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave
No mattter what version though, Foofie is STILL wrong
@Foofie,
Quote:Look carefully and you might discover that Jews are not a race.
I know they are not a race. Going back 1000 years I am related to them all myself.
@High Seas,
Stirring stuff HS but as I was musing last night, its a pity we didnt hang onto the American colonies. What the world would be like with Britannia ruling land sea and air!
There now follows several verses of "Land of Hope and Glory..."
