0
   

It looks like Arafat was murdered by the Israelis after all. No surprise there.

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 01:08 pm
@Foofie,
What?>??>>>>>????
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 01:16 pm
@Foofie,
No qualifier needed, I speak English.

I'm under no illusions about your lack of moral values.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 02:31 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

No qualifier needed, I speak English.

I'm under no illusions about your lack of moral values.


Says the commoner from the once proud British Empire.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 03:02 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Says the commoner from the once proud British Empire.
I don't know if izzy is a commoner. But I do know that he's from England, UK, and not the British Empire. ("The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom. ... ....")
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 06:17 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

No qualifier needed, I speak English.

I'm under no illusions about your lack of moral values.


Do you really feel so grand that you can clearly judge others on their moral values based upon what they post in this forum?
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 07:50 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Do you really feel so grand that you can clearly judge others on their moral values based upon what they post in this forum?


As a matter of fact, yes, Finn, it's rather easy. Foofie and you, and certainly others regularly makes excuses for war crimes and terrorism committed so regularly by the US that one might compare it to how a clock works.

That shows a distinct lack of morals.

The overall ignorance is also pretty damn easy to discern.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 09:59 pm
I have figured out who jtt is, or who I think he is.
Most of you know about the run-in I had with a person named "henrygreen "when I returned from Iraq.
That's who I think jtt is.
The writing style is the same, the vitriol towards the US and the military is the same, and the sentiments expressed are the same.

I hope I am wrong, but I doubt that I am.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2012 02:34 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Foofie has constantly told us of his complete disregard for human life other than Israeli or American. To any impartial outsider that is morally repugnant.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2012 08:19 am
@mysteryman,
If you spent half as much time trying to stop the war mongering, the war crimes, the terrorism, MM, you might actually accomplish something.

Too much time on your hands, too much time on your hands ...

Actually, Foofie, Miller and I are all the same. We are all sock puppets for Setanta and Beth, or they are sock puppets for us - I forget which it is.



0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2012 10:58 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Do you really feel so grand that you can clearly judge others on their moral values based upon what they post in this forum?


As a matter of fact, yes, Finn, it's rather easy. Foofie and you, and certainly others regularly makes excuses for war crimes and terrorism committed so regularly by the US that one might compare it to how a clock works.

That shows a distinct lack of morals.

The overall ignorance is also pretty damn easy to discern.


Morals really are an outgrowth of religious teachings, in my opinion. So, if a religion says, "thou shalt not kill," then one shouldn't kill under any circumstances. However, "ethics" makes arguments for one's actions; so in certain situations, it is acceptable to kill, so oneself doesn't get killed, all while still believing in the basic moral precept, "thou shalt not kill."

The problem with my position is that it is based on the ethical reality that when the United States kills it is based on protecting itself, and the world at large, from greater conflagrations in a nuclear age. Meaning that after inheriting the mantle of superpower, the U.S.A. needed to keep a lid on aggression by maintaining its superpower role. That cannot be done if the U.S.A. functions like a Girl Scout den mother, singing "koom, bah, yah."

But, let's be honest, my position is just an opinion. Remember, Catholicism tells one that what one thinks (aka, "position") can be a sin. From my upbringing, only "an act" can be a sin. So, I am continually beinging told that I am immoral. No, I am quite moral, since I perpetrate no "acts." What I "think" just means I have compassion for only certain people (Americans mostly). I guess I would not make a good Catholic (thank God). It is not immoral not to be Catholic (unless one gets out of one's time-machine during the Spanish Inquisition, perhaps).




Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2012 11:13 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Foofie has constantly told us of his complete disregard for human life other than Israeli or American. To any impartial outsider that is morally repugnant.


Foofie, just being Jewish, was "morally repugnant" to the Nazi regime. So, Foofie is quite aware that some people will always subscribe to belief systems that include the concept of being objectively correct, and accepts no ethical arguments to the contrary.

Also, when people explain that Israel or America are the bad guys, so to speak, it is often out of context of the bigger historical picture.

In my own opinion, people in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones. Britain has a long history of exploiting less developed societies. So now, in the 21st century, it is sort of laughable, in my opinion, to listen to a Brit whose comfortable lifestyle reflects living in a society that exploited its way to economic advancement. And, let's not even mention that two times in the 20th century the U.S.A. aided Britain in its hour of need.

P.S.: I do not have a complete disregard for non-American or non-Israeli lives; just the adults mostly. Children are innocents, and if they came to America would likely make good citizens, and add to the diversity of the country. You see, it's the "American exceptionalism" I care about. I should not even be talking to someone that is comfortable in a silly monarchy, in my opinion (of course).

P.S.S.: Americans just refer to immigrants from Pakistan as Pakistanis. Not "Pakiis". Would that perchance be pejorative?

ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2012 11:21 am
@mysteryman,
Interesting. You're right that the opinions and posting style are quite similar.

However, jtt/henrygreen's views about American world politics/military actions are not that unusual.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2012 12:36 pm
@Foofie,
You're the one who constantly displays casual racism. What is going on in Israel/Palestine has absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust, although Israel does use the Holocaust to justify the brutal occupation of the West Bank, and seige of Gaza.

Just because the British Empire doesn't have a spotless record is no reason to keep quiet about injustices and attrocities being committed right now. The fact you use it to try to silence any criticism, shows you realise there is no excuse for the brutal treatment of the indiginous population by a colonial power.

I don't use racist language, have never called anyone a 'Paki,' unlike your president George W Bush.

Quote:
President George Bush's fractured command of international nuance landed him in yet more trouble yesterday as Pakistanis protested over his casual use of the abbreviation "Pakis", which is widely regarded as an offensive epithet.
He was trying at the time to defuse tensions, saying: "We are working hard to convince both the Indians and the Pakis that there's a way to deal with their problems without going to war." However, he was not quite working hard enough.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jan/09/usa.matthewengel
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2012 01:25 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Just because the British Empire doesn't have a spotless record is no reason to keep quiet about injustices and attrocities being committed right now.

Perhaps you'll keep this in mind when you respond to criticism of Obama with a recounting of the perceived sins of Bush,

I don't use racist language, have never called anyone a 'Paki,' unlike your president George W Bush.

Quote:
President George Bush's fractured command of international nuance landed him in yet more trouble yesterday as Pakistanis protested over his casual use of the abbreviation "Pakis", which is widely regarded as an offensive epithet.
He was trying at the time to defuse tensions, saying: "We are working hard to convince both the Indians and the Pakis that there's a way to deal with their problems without going to war." However, he was not quite working hard enough.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jan/09/usa.matthewengel

Surely you don't mean to suggest that Bush intentionally used an offense term. Frankly, it's pretty hard keeping up with all the terms that apparently give rise to offense.

In any case, considering how you detest the man I have to wonder why you use him as a yardstick. It should an easy feat for you to rise above his behavior.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2012 01:40 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn, when you're talking about criticism of President Obama, you can only compare him with another president. In the case of Romney, he hadn't been president, but he had very similar policies to Bush. Bush's presidency was only four years ago. Cameron makes disparaging remarks about the Brown/Blair years all the time.

Fluff is the one who brought up racist language in the somewhat perverse belief that Americans are less racist than us. I just pointed out it was one of his heads of state that used it in a speech, not one of mine.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2012 07:16 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Surely you don't mean to suggest that Bush intentionally used an offense term. Frankly, it's pretty hard keeping up with all the terms that apparently give rise to offense.


He may well have.

It isn't hard keeping up with things unless you're congenitally ignorant.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2012 08:29 pm
@izzythepush,
Here are some anti-Semites who are against the blockade of Gaza.

Quote:
THE GAZA FREEDOM MARCH ~~ JUST WHAT DOES NORMAN FINKELSTEIN OBJECT TO?
September 10, 2009 at 12:32 (Activism, Gaza, International Solidarity)

Join Alice Walker, Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein, Mustafa Barghouti, Diana Buttu in endorsing the historic Gaza Freedom March on Jan. 1, 2010 — a massive nonviolent demonstration that will breach the illegal Israeli blockade.

So what does Norman Finkelstein object to? WE NEED ANSWERS.



STATEMENT OF CONTEXT

Amnesty International has called the Gaza blockade a “form of collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza, a flagrant violation of Israel’s obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.” Human Rights Watch has called the blockade a “serious violation of international law.” The United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, Richard Falk, condemned Israel’s siege of Gaza as amounting to a “crime against humanity.”
Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter has said the Palestinian people trapped in Gaza are being treated “like animals,” and has called for “ending of the siege of Gaza” that is depriving “one and a half million people of the necessities of life.”

One of the world’s leading authorities on Gaza, Sara Roy of Harvard University, has said that the consequence of the siege “is undeniably one of mass suffering, created largely by Israel, but with the active complicity of the international community, especially the U.S. and European Union.”

The law is clear. The conscience of humankind is shocked.

The Palestinians of Gaza have exhorted the international community to move beyond words of condemnation.

Yet, the siege of Gaza continues.

Upholding International Law

The illegal siege of Gaza is not happening in a vacuum. It is one of the many illegal acts committed by Israel in the Palestinian territories it occupied militarily in 1967.

The Wall and the settlements are illegal, according to the International Court of Justice the Hague.

House demolitions and wanton destruction of farm lands are illegal.

The closures and curfews are illegal.

The roadblocks and checkpoints are illegal.

The detention and torture are illegal.

The occupation itself is illegal.

The truth is that if international law were enforced the occupation would end.

An end to the military occupation that began in 1967 is a major condition for establishing a just and lasting peace. For over six decades, the Palestinian people have been denied freedom and rights to self-determination and equality. The hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were forced out of their homes during Israel’s creation in 1947-48 are still denied the rights granted them by UN Resolution 194.

Sources of Inspiration

The Gaza Freedom March is inspired by decades of nonviolent Palestinian resistance from the mass popular uprising of the first Intifada to the West Bank villagers currently resisting the land grab of Israel’s annexationist wall.

It draws inspiration from the Gazans themselves, who formed a human chain from Rafah to Erez, tore down the border barrier separating Gaza from Egypt, and marched to the six checkpoints separating the occupied Gaza Strip from Israel.

The Freedom March also draws inspiration from the international volunteers who have stood by Palestinian farmers harvesting their crops, from the crews on the vessels who have challenged the Gaza blockade by sea, and from the drivers of the convoys who have delivered humanitarian aid to Gaza.

And it is inspired by Nelson Mandela who said: “I have walked that long road to freedom. I have tried not to falter; I have made missteps along the way. But I have discovered the secret that after climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. … I dare not linger, for my long walk is not ended.”

It heeds the words of Mahatma Gandhi, who called his movement Satyagraha-Hold on to the truth, and holds to the truth that Israel’s siege of Gaza is illegal and inhuman.

Gandhi said that the purpose of nonviolent action is to “quicken” the conscience of humankind. Through the Freedom March, humankind will not just deplore Israeli brutality but take action to stop it.

Palestinian civil society has followed in the footsteps of Mandela and Gandhi. Just as those two leaders called on international civil society to boycott the goods and institutions of their oppressors, Palestinian associations, trade unions, and mass movements have since 2005 been calling on all people of conscience to support a non-violent campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions until Israel fully complies with its obligations under international law.

The Freedom March also draws inspiration from the civil rights movement in the United States.

If Israel devalues Palestinian life then internationals must both interpose their bodies to shield Palestinians from Israeli brutality and bear personal witness to the inhumanity that Palestinians daily confront.

If Israel defies international law then people of conscience must send non-violent marshals from around the world to enforce the law of the international community in Gaza. The International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza will dispatch contingents from around the world to Gaza to mark the anniversary of Israel’s bloody 22-day assault on Gaza in December 2008 – January 2009.

The Freedom March takes no sides in internal Palestinian politics. It sides only with international law and the primacy of human rights.

The March is yet another link in the chain of non-violent resistance to Israel’s flagrant disregard of international law.

Citizens of the world are called upon to join ranks with Palestinians in the January 1st March to lift the inhumane siege of Gaza.



Source
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2012 09:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Boring, CI. Is that all you ever do is rail against Israel?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 09:00 am
@izzythepush,
Why do you feel the need to compare him to any president?

If there is reason to believe Obama has screwed the pootch as president, what relevance is there in the argument that a prior president screwed it more passionately?

izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 09:55 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
It's the standard cut and thrust of politics. When looking at Obama's record, it's fairly normal to compare his record to that of his immediate predecessor.

I don't know why you find this unusual.
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 03:11:54