13
   

Sarkozy overheard telling Obama that Netanyahu is a 'liar'

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 12:47 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I just love when you tell me what I know. Your mind reading talent is amazing. Smile

They didn't get into the pickle you've described...and you know it!

The suggestion was to reduce all foreign aid to zero and then re-examine each and every grant. Obviously the implication is that a number of grants will be discontinued, but the idea was not to end foreign aid. They didn't have a problem when the question of Israel came up. Those in favor of the idea answered that Israel would also have to "re-apply."

When we allow the Israelis to do the dirty work and take out Iran's nukes, we will see some evidence of the value of our alliance with Israel.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 12:53 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
When we allow the Israelis to do the dirty work and take out Iran's nukes, we will see some evidence of the value of our alliance with Israel.


They can't....all the good stuff is under a mountain. Any attempt to do so anyways will in all likelihood irretrievably lead to the removal of Israel from the map. The region belongs to Iran now, the leaders of the Region as well as the USA need to adjust to the new reality.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 12:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
We don't agree
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 01:09 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
We don't agree
An attack on Iran will also strengthen the regime which just two years ago looked very close to collapse. Since attacking at best will only serve to delay the stockpiling of Nukes in Iran, and will lead to the rubbing out of Israel, it would be a stupid move.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 01:12 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:


When we allow the Israelis to do the dirty work and take out Iran's nukes, we will see some evidence of the value of our alliance with Israel.


I fear Iranian nukes no more so than any other nation who has them. But, then again, I don't buy into the constant bullshit your party throws forth regarding Iran being some sort of terror for the entire world to fear.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 01:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
I fear Iranian nukes no more so than any other nation who has them. But, then again, I don't buy into the constant bullshit your party throws forth regarding Iran being some sort of terror for the entire world to fear.
They like China are working to rebuild their empire, they want to create ,not blow **** up. Military power is a means not an end.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 01:19 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Good for you Cy.

We'll see what happens.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 01:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
While there is always a chance that Iran might blow something up with their nukes, I agree that that is not why they are developing them.

They want them for precisely the reason you've advanced.

A new Persian Empire ruled by theocrats is not in the best interests of America
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 01:23 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

While there is always a chance that Iran might blow something up with their nukes, I agree that that is not why they are developing them.

They want them for precisely the reason you've advanced.

A new Persian Empire ruled by theocrats is not in the best interests of America


Who gives a ****? It's not our job to tell the rest of the world to do what is best for us.

Cycloptichorn
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 01:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
How will Israel be rubbed out?

First of all, no matter what Obama thinks about Netanyahu or Israel, he can't abandon them to anihilation. Secondly, unlike Iran, Israel actually has nukes, and if it looks like they could be rubbed out, the "rubbers" will be nuked out.

If they make the attempt to knock out Iran's facilities it will be an extremely tough job and I'm certain that the pilots given the job will understand that there is a high probability that they will not return home alive. If anyone can do it, they can.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 01:28 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Me, and millions of Americans like me give a ****.

It is our government's job to protect our strategic interests and the oil in that part of the world, unfortunately, is vital to our interests. If you think the economy is bad now...

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 01:36 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
First of all, no matter what Obama thinks about Netanyahu or Israel, he can't abandon them to anihilation. Secondly, unlike Iran, Israel actually has nukes, and if it looks like they could be rubbed out, the "rubbers" will be nuked out
Nukes are useless when the combat is at close quarters. The crumbling of the state of Israel would take place in the form of armed rebellion in and near Israel.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 01:51 pm
@hawkeye10,
Rebellion by who?

If the Palestinians are stupid enough to wage all out war on Israel because they bombed Iran's nuke facilities they will deserve to be rubbed out by the Israelis.

Even they are not that stupid.

Another intifada is certainly possible but it isn't going to take Israel down.

Only the combined might of the region's Islamic nations could ever possibly take Israel down, and the only countries Iran might be confident of joining them is Syria, and Lebanon, and they aren't exactly military juggernauts.

Jordan, and the Saudis won't go to war and even if they were willing to, which they are not, Kuwait and The Emirates could only provide money.

Egypt might make noise and having the populace focus on Israel rather than the anemic Arab Spring outcome, might be made to order for the Egyptian military that still rules that nation, but they can't afford another crushing defeat at the hands of Israel.

Other than maybe Egypt none of the Northern African nations will get involved.

The Muslims didn't go to war with Israel when they took out Iraq or Syria's facilities. Things will be tense as hell and it's quite possible that Iran might retaliate, but the region is going to go up in flames.

The deterence factor that Iran craves from nukes is what Israel already has.

The whole thing sucks because one way or the other the price of oil is going to skyrocket.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 01:54 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Me, and millions of Americans like me give a ****.

It is our government's job to protect our strategic interests and the oil in that part of the world, unfortunately, is vital to our interests. If you think the economy is bad now...


Giving Israel billions of dollars a year doesn't protect our oil supply in that part of the world. I would challenge you to provide some sort of proof for that assertion of yours.

Also, what does the term 'strategic interests' mean? It sounds awful like a nebulous bs response.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 11:10 am
Here's Goldberg on how stupid the right-wing is being on this issue -

Quote:
Jeffrey Goldberg
Nov 16 2011, 6:00 AM ET

In response to my Bloomberg View column on the potential consequences of the brittle relationship between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, Jennifer Rubin writes in The Washington Post:

Quote:
It's time for pro-Israel liberals to be honest: This president's animus toward the Jewish state is so evident that only a foolish prime minister would trust him with the survival of the Jewish state. And Netanyahu is no fool. Surely Goldberg could concede both these points?

Surely Goldberg will not concede both these points. Rubin, like many of her colleagues to my right, believes that Netanyahu is the living embodiment of the State of Israel. Her formula: If you dislike Netanyahu, you dislike Israel. This is absurd. Barack Obama has shown zero animus to the state of Israel or to the idea of Israel. In word and in deed, he has been in Israel's corner; he has spoken eloquently in defense of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and he has provided it with unparalleled defense support.

Obama obviously disagrees with some of the polices of the current Israeli government, and he doesn't seem to like the prime minister on a personal level. But this hasn't seemed to matter, so far. He and his administration have risen to Israel's defense repeatedly, most recently at the United Nations (just ask Susan Rice, his ambassador to the UN, how much time she spends batting back viciously anti-Israel resolutions). And there is no proof at all to suggest that he would not aid Israel in its national defense because he finds its current leader tendentious.

Obama, like the majority of Americans, is broadly sympathetic to Israel. On the question of Iran, I believe that Obama is trying to stop the mullahs from developing nuclear weapons, and I believe he would contemplate the use of force if he believes this to be in America's national interest -- and America's national interest in this case includes the defense of its Middle East allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, most notably. Do I think this is probable? No. But it is certainly plausible. Obama has made it clear that he wants to stop Iran, and there is nothing in his record to suggest that these are empty words. I also believe, however, that the lack of trust between Obama and Netanyahu is potentially harmful to both countries (particularly on an issue as dicey as Iran) but unlike Rubin, I believe it is mainly up to the junior partner (defense aid flows in only one direction here) to work harder to repair the relationship.


Cycloptichorn
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 11:35 am
@Cycloptichorn,
The smartest thing to do right now would be to support the Syrian rebels. The main way Iran is spreading its influence throughout the Middle East right now is by its support of the Syrian regime. The Iranian regime is not exactly popular either, if things had gone a little differently a few years ago, the Arab Spring may well have started in Iran. Any attack on Iran will only help to bolster the regime. A truly democratic Iran would be the solution to a lot of this.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 11:37 am
@izzythepush,
Amen.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 01:30 pm
I wonder how the USA would act were the president of Iran effectively threaten to remove the USA from the map. Please remember the Cuban missile crisis, when the USA was not even threatened.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2011 01:33 pm
Here is an interesting piece.

Peace Through Victory

Steven Plaut, FrontPage, November 10, 2011

By now, Israel, at the urging and bullying of the world, has tried pretty much every conceivable idea and option for achieving tranquility and reconciliation with the Hamas, except for one. Israel removed its army and civilian population from the Gaza Strip. In what amounted to the first ethnic self-cleansing in history, Israel evicted the entire Jewish presence in Gaza. The entire area was turned over to the Palestinians, lock, stock, barrel, and Jew-free.

The result is of course known. The Hamas immediately converted all of Gaza into a large rocket launch pad and a base for initiating terrorist attacks against Israel. It kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and held him incommunicado, refusing medical treatment to him, even though his arm was filled with shrapnel. Israel in response provided free electricity and water to the Gazans and sent civilian supplies into Gaza. Israel never made any serious efforts to stop the massive tunnel smuggling into Gaza from Egypt, even when it was clear that the main item being smuggled was weapons. These smuggled weapons include bomb materials and sophisticated rockets that can now reach Tel Aviv. Israel responded to the endless rocket attacks against its own civilians by turning the other cheek. Only after 8000 rocket strikes did it launch the half-hearted symbolic retaliation in the "Cast Lead" campaign, withdrawing quickly after it was launched.

There is only one strategy for dealing with the Hamas that Israel has never attempted. That untried strategy is victory. Israel has never seriously attempted to achieve peace and tranquility with the Gaza Palestinians by means of victory. This is somewhat strange, since it is hard to think of any other war that did not end in peace only after victory. Instead, the world keeps demanding that Israel respond to Hamas provocation with an endless series of one-sided "goodwill measures." Never mind that the only invariable effect of such Israeli "goodwill measures" has been to trigger more Hamas terrorism. The only "peace settlement" the Hamas is interested in is one in which Israelis volunteer to allow themselves to be placed in Hamas-run extermination camps for Jews.

Victory in the case of the war with the Gaza terrorists would mean annihilating the Hamas. Interestingly, here is an increasing chorus of voices inside Israel now calling for peace through victory. One of these is General Dan Halutz, the controversial erstwhile chief of staff of the Israeli army. A few days ago a Hamas rocket was fired into Israel and struck a school building. In response, Halutz called for a "mortal blow" to be dealt to the Hamas' civilian and "military" leadership. Then, in a radio interview, Halutz said, "We must bring back our deterrence vis-à-vis Gaza. It has not existed for even one moment since Operation Cast Lead and to this day." He has been joined by other Israeli leaders. The finance minister, Yuval Steinitz (who is a philosophy professor at my own university when he is not busy in public life), recently called on Israel to topple the Hamas "regime" in Gaza if the terror continues.

The terrorist aggression by the Hamas has been carried on nonstop ever since it seized power in Gaza. Most acts of Hamas barbarism do not even get reported in the world media, for which dogs biting and shooting rockets at postmen are passé. Hamas rockets land in Israeli civilian areas almost every day. Hamas leaders continue to call openly for Israel's obliteration and for the annihilation of Jews. All this is surprising only for those who have no understanding of what the Hamas really is. Anyone who has read the brochure on the Hamas being distributed by the David Horowitz Freedom Center will know otherwise.

It has become vogue in many circles to represent Middle East savagery as part of some sort of "War of Civilizations." It is not. In fact, the Middle East is simply a war by barbarism against all civilization. It is also considered chic to represent the Middle East conflict as a "cycle of violence," and as something fundamentally symmetrical between Arab terrorists and Israeli soldiers. It is not.

The entire world has convinced itself that violence and terrorism in the Middle East are the results of Israeli "occupation" over Arabs. They are wrong. If there is one thing that has become glaringly obvious in the past two decades it is that the main cause of terrorist violence in the Middle East is the removal of Israeli occupation over Arabs. The Gaza violence was not caused by Israeli occupation but by its removal. The Hezbollah violence and threats from Lebanon were not caused by Israeli "occupation" of Southern Lebanon but rather by its removal.

Part of the world's problem in understanding such things about the Middle East is that most people have no idea how small Israel really is. Without the West Bank, Israel is at its waist about as wide as the length of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. All of the West Bank is smaller than the Everglades. The Arab world insists territory controlled from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf is insufficient for its appetites, but promises that if only Israel agrees to place its neck in a strategic hangman's noose by turning over the West Bank to the PLO/Hamas, then peace will prevail. And if Israel refuses to place its neck in such an Arab noose voluntarily, then this shows that Israeli aggression is what is behind the violence.

The caterwauling against Israel's decision to shoot back occasionally at the terrorists is coming from those claiming that Israel was erected on "Palestinian lands." This is like claiming that Alaska sits on Russian lands. The Arabs briefly controlled Palestine militarily, as the Russians briefly owned Alaska. The Jews and not the Arabs are analogous to the native Eskimos. Israeli settlements are about as "illegal" as are Eskimo villages in Alaska. There has never ever in history been a Palestinian state, and there is no such thing as a Palestinian people, any more than there is a separate Rhode Islander people. The fact of the matter is that the West Bank and Gaza are hardly "Palestinian lands."

Even if anyone thinks the Palestinians might have had some legitimate claim to statehood or sovereignty, the Palestinians forfeited any such right they might have had due to the past century of Palestinian atrocities and terror. Just like the Sudeten Germans lost their claim to any sort of self-determination. True, Israeli governments have nevertheless naively and foolishly offered to allow the Palestinians to exercise control over these territories in exchange for peace. But Israel got war and mass murder of its civilians in exchange, not peace, so the foolhardy Oslo "peace process" deals are now off and should never have been implemented. Proposals to "liberate" the West Bank and end Israeli "occupation" there are nothing more than demands that Israel allow Gazan barbarism and terrorism to be replicated and cloned in the West Bank, with Israeli citizens subsequently bathed in countless thousands of rockets.

The only real way to suppress the carnage is for Israel to re-occupy Gaza and the West Bank in full, implement open-ended military control there and a long-term program of Denazification (based in part on the Allied programs at the end of World War II). Israel needs to expel the terrorists and destroy their infrastructure. It needs to get serious about shooting terrorists. Everything else is wishful thinking and delusion.

Palestinian "suffering"? If the Palestinians are unhappy with Israeli anti-terror policies, retaliations, checkpoints and military incursions, let them stop the terror and desist from murdering Israelis, or let them move to any of the 22 Arab states. As long as they persist in the violence, any "suffering" by Palestinians is, much like the suffering of Germans and Japanese during World War II, their own fault. The solution is certainly not for Israel to stop resisting the terror, to stop fighting back, nor for Israel to desist from trying to protect its citizens.

The endless post-Oslo Middle East violence and terror was triggered because Israel indicated that it was on the run, exhausted, unwilling to fight, afraid to resist, and ready to capitulate. It will end only when Israel returns to its determination to end the terror through military victory and force of arms. The same United States that has understood that there is only a military option for dealing with terror in Iraq and Afghanistan must back up such a return by Israel to pre-Oslo sanity.

There are no non-military solutions to the problems of terrorism.



InfraBlue
 
  4  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 04:21 pm
@Advocate,
Advi! It sure has been a while since you’ve been around!
I see you’re still up to your tired cut and paste jobs of self-serving, paranoid Zionist hack pieces. Since it’s been some time since you’ve done this here, I think I’ll indulge once again in refuting this crap that is your wont to post.

Steven Plaut, in his hack piece for FrontPageMag, wrote:
By now, Israel, at the urging and bullying of the world, has tried pretty much every conceivable idea and option for achieving tranquility and reconciliation with the Hamas, except for one. Israel removed its army and civilian population from the Gaza Strip. In what amounted to the first ethnic self-cleansing in history, Israel evicted the entire Jewish presence in Gaza. The entire area was turned over to the Palestinians, lock, stock, barrel, and Jew-free.

Well, no, Israel hasn’t come close to trying “pretty much every conceivable idea and option for achieving tranquility and reconciliation with Hamas.” Israel hasn’t stopped discriminating against and oppressing the Palestinian peoples. That is the only way that Israel will achieve tranquility and reconciliation not only with Hamas but with all of the peoples of Palestine.
The unilateral evacuation of Gaza was merely a ploy to create a mega-concentration camp over which Israel wields complete control, and then market the endeavor as a kind of good will gesture for the international community to consume. Israel’s sights are set on the real prize: the West Bank, what they refer to as Judea and Samaria.

Quote:
The result is of course known. The Hamas immediately converted all of Gaza into a large rocket launch pad and a base for initiating terrorist attacks against Israel. It kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and held him incommunicado, refusing medical treatment to him, even though his arm was filled with shrapnel. Israel in response provided free electricity and water to the Gazans and sent civilian supplies into Gaza. Israel never made any serious efforts to stop the massive tunnel smuggling into Gaza from Egypt, even when it was clear that the main item being smuggled was weapons. These smuggled weapons include bomb materials and sophisticated rockets that can now reach Tel Aviv. Israel responded to the endless rocket attacks against its own civilians by turning the other cheek. Only after 8000 rocket strikes did it launch the half-hearted symbolic retaliation in the "Cast Lead" campaign, withdrawing quickly after it was launched.

That is exactly what Israel expected to happen after it unilaterally “withdrew” from the Gaza Strip precisely at the moment when Hamas was about to come to power after elections were held by the PA. It provides for a pretext for the perpetuation of Zionist persecution delusion paranoia which itself is a pretext for the Zionists’ continued discrimination against and oppression of the Palestinian peoples.

Quote:
There is only one strategy for dealing with the Hamas that Israel has never attempted. That untried strategy is victory. Israel has never seriously attempted to achieve peace and tranquility with the Gaza Palestinians by means of victory. This is somewhat strange, since it is hard to think of any other war that did not end in peace only after victory. Instead, the world keeps demanding that Israel respond to Hamas provocation with an endless series of one-sided "goodwill measures." Never mind that the only invariable effect of such Israeli "goodwill measures" has been to trigger more Hamas terrorism. The only "peace settlement" the Hamas is interested in is one in which Israelis volunteer to allow themselves to be placed in Hamas-run extermination camps for Jews.

No, the only one strategy for dealing with Hamas and the rest of the peoples of Palestine is to stop discriminating against and oppressing them, and granting them their due: the right of return and egalitarian and pluralistic enfranchisement within a truly democratic system of government that abandons and replaces the unsavory and grotesque ethnocentrically motivated Zionist one that demands that Palestine is “for the Jews” through which Israel necessarily discriminates against and oppresses the Palestinian peoples for merely being non-Jewish.
The emotionalist line about “the only ‘peace settlement’ the Hamas is interested is one in which Israelis volunteer to allow themselves to be placed in Hamas-run extermination camps for Jews” is puerile, and exhibits the considerable paranoid mindset which is behind much of Zionist thought processes. Where do these paranoids get this idea from? Hamas, if anything, want a theocratic state based on Islamic law in all of Palestine. They want a Palestine “for the Muslims,” which isn’t much of a difference from the Zionists’ idea of Israel “for the Jews.” The discrimination against and oppression of non-Muslims in such a state would be roughly comparable to that which the Zionists presently perpetuate against non-Jews in Israel/Palestine. In this Hamas and the Zionists are equally reprehensible.

What is needed in Israel/Palestine is the implementation of a single, egalitarian and pluralistic bi-national state for all of the peoples therein.

Quote:
Victory in the case of the war with the Gaza terrorists would mean annihilating the Hamas.

Yeah right, just like victory in Afghanistan for the US was to annihilate the Taliban. That war was close to ruining the US which now is attempting to define victory to include as a series of negotiations with the Taliban to reach a truce.
No, victory for all of the people in Israel/Palestine would be to implement a government like the one I’ve described above.

Quote:
The entire world has convinced itself that violence and terrorism in the Middle East are the results of Israeli "occupation" over Arabs. They are wrong. If there is one thing that has become glaringly obvious in the past two decades it is that the main cause of terrorist violence in the Middle East is the removal of Israeli occupation over Arabs. The Gaza violence was not caused by Israeli occupation but by its removal. The Hezbollah violence and threats from Lebanon were not caused by Israeli "occupation" of Southern Lebanon but rather by its removal.

This is the most astoundingly ass-backwards assessment of the situation in the Middle East. Saying that the absence of an occupier begets violence is tantamount to claiming that the absence of rhinovirus begets the common cold. The premise is absurd. Plainly and simply, the absence of an occupier does not beget violence. The presence of an occupier begets violence.

Quote:
Part of the world's problem in understanding such things about the Middle East is that most people have no idea how small Israel really is.

Israel’s size is irrelevant to the crux of the problem at the heart of the Israel/Palestine Conflict: the Zionists’ discrimination against and oppression of the Palestinian peoples. Arguments about size are straw man arguments and red herrings designed to obfuscate, convolute and draw attention away from the matter at hand.
Quote:
The caterwauling against Israel's decision to shoot back occasionally at the terrorists is coming from those claiming that Israel was erected on "Palestinian lands." This is like claiming that Alaska sits on Russian lands. The Arabs briefly controlled Palestine militarily, as the Russians briefly owned Alaska. The Jews and not the Arabs are analogous to the native Eskimos. Israeli settlements are about as "illegal" as are Eskimo villages in Alaska. There has never ever in history been a Palestinian state, and there is no such thing as a Palestinian people, any more than there is a separate Rhode Islander people. The fact of the matter is that the West Bank and Gaza are hardly "Palestinian lands."

However one wishes to think of the lands that the Zionists occupy--that a god gave those lands to “the Jews” (a term that Zionists themselves have trouble defining) that some of “the Jews’” ancestors once lived there, etc. ad nauseam-- this does not negate the rights of the peoples that the Zionists are repressing. These arguments are also straw man arguments and red herrings designed to obfuscate, convolute and draw attention away for the crux of the problem: the Zionists’ discrimination against and oppression of the Palestinian peoples.

Quote:
Even if anyone thinks the Palestinians might have had some legitimate claim to statehood or sovereignty, the Palestinians forfeited any such right they might have had due to the past century of Palestinian atrocities and terror.

No, the violence perpetrated by Palestinian militants is merely a pretext by the Zionists for their continued repression of all of the Palestinian peoples in the name of their ethnocentric regime “for the Jews.”
Quote:
The only real way to suppress the carnage is for Israel to re-occupy Gaza and the West Bank in full, implement open-ended military control there and a long-term program of Denazification (based in part on the Allied programs at the end of World War II). Israel needs to expel the terrorists and destroy their infrastructure. It needs to get serious about shooting terrorists. Everything else is wishful thinking and delusion.

No. Once again, the only real way to even begin to suppress the carnage—which has, by and large, been much more heavily against the Palestinians in this conflict—is for Israel to stop repressing the Palestinian peoples. Then, if any extremists from either side persist (like Kach, Kahane chai and other violently motivated ultra-nationalist groups), these extremists should be persecuted and prosecuted to the highest extent of the law.

Denazificaition? Plaut has a severely lacking knowledge of history seeing as how the Nazis no longer exist. Plaut needs to shut up and read more about the things he spews about. He exemplifies the adage about it being better to be quiet and risking being thought a fool than to open one’s yap and remove all doubt.

Quote:
Palestinian "suffering"? If the Palestinians are unhappy with Israeli anti-terror policies, retaliations, checkpoints and military incursions, let them stop the terror and desist from murdering Israelis, or let them move to any of the 22 Arab states. As long as they persist in the violence, any "suffering" by Palestinians is, much like the suffering of Germans and Japanese during World War II, their own fault. The solution is certainly not for Israel to stop resisting the terror, to stop fighting back, nor for Israel to desist from trying to protect its citizens.

Palestinian suffering is predicated on the Zionists repression of the Palestinian peoples, Plaut’s dismissivness of Palestinian suffering notwithstanding. As long as the Zionists persist, those Palestinians who are violently motivated will continue to perpetrate violence against the Zionists. It’s blaringly simple.
Quote:
The endless post-Oslo Middle East violence and terror was triggered because Israel indicated that it was on the run, exhausted, unwilling to fight, afraid to resist, and ready to capitulate.

The post-Oslo Middle East violence was triggered because the Zionists refused to own up to their obligations and grant the Palestinians their Right of Return, and their sovereignty over East Jerusalem; and provocative actions by Israel’s leadership at the time.
Quote:
It will end only when Israel returns to its determination to end the terror through military victory and force of arms. The same United States that has understood that there is only a military option for dealing with terror in Iraq and Afghanistan must back up such a return by Israel to pre-Oslo sanity.

Yeah, and we all know how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted for the US what with their cost bringing the country to the brink of ruin, and a shift from dictatorship to democracy that won’t bring Iraq any closer to US influence, and a “victory” in Afghanistan that includes a negotiated truce.

Quote:
There are no non-military solutions to the problems of terrorism.

The only solution to the problems of terrorism is for the repressors to desist and redress their tort.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 01:22:44