15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 08:00 pm
@Foxfyre,
And another example of the stupidity engendered by your grade school indoctrination.

It's becoming clearer all the time how 59 million Americans could be so dumb.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 08:05 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

And another example of the stupidity engendered by your grade school indoctrination.

It's becoming clearer all the time how 59 million Americans could be so dumb.


You are a fine one to talk. What language do they speak in Montreal?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 08:15 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
What language do they speak in Montreal?


Confused Confused Confused Confused Confused

As I mentioned;

And another example of the stupidity engendered by your grade school indoctrination.

It's becoming clearer all the time how 59 million Americans could be so dumb.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 11:11 pm
@JTT,
Actually, its a fair question.
They dont speak pure french, it a slightly bastardized version, much like french-creole is.
They do speak english, but its not the oficial language of Quebec.
So, it is a fair question.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 11:33 pm
@mysteryman,
It's an idioic question designed to avoid the central issue.

Quote:
They dont speak pure french, it a slightly bastardized version, much like french-creole is.e]


They speak pure French just as you speak pure English, MM.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 11:35 pm
@JTT,
And where did I ever claim to speak "pure english"?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 11:38 pm
@mysteryman,
Leave it alone, MM. You don't understand.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 01:55 am
@Foofie,

Ah, truth, the first casualty in any conflict.

Our papers are reporting a marked increase in anti-semitic attacks in Britain, today.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 09:06 am
Strangely, the UN Resolution Doesn't Mention Hamas

The UN Security Council has adopted Resolution 1860 calling for a cease-fire in Israel's war with Hamas. It is a remarkable document that acknowledges only one party in the conflict and it is not the one that started the war. While Israel is mentioned five times in the resolution, the word "Hamas" shockingly does not appear once. Well, it would be shocking to anyone unfamiliar with the UN's history.

The resolution talks about Israeli withdrawal, the humanitarian issues in Gaza, and declared that Gaza will be part of a Palestinian state. Nowhere, however, does it condemn the more than 450 rockets that Hamas has fired just since the war began, let alone the roughly 6,000 it launched at Israeli civilians in the preceding three years.

What is more surprising is that the Bush Administration abstained on the resolution even though it had earlier said it would not accept such a one-sided resolution, and a few years ago said it would not support resolutions that did not explicitly mention the name of the terrorist organizations responsible for violence against Israel.

As in the case of the Hizballah War, the UN has stepped in to prevent Israel from exercising its legal right, and moral obligation to defend its citizens. If Israel prematurely accepts the resolution it is likely to end this war as it did the last, with its enemies able to claim victory and the Hamas leadership and arsenal sufficiently intact to resume its terror campaign in the future.

newsblaze.com
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 11:44 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:


Ah, truth, the first casualty in any conflict.

Our papers are reporting a marked increase in anti-semitic attacks in Britain, today.


You mean someone in the royal family said the word, "Jew"?
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 02:17 pm
@Foofie,
A good deal of misplaced humour, here. I was referring to physical attacks, such as on schoolchildren on a bus. What's funny about an increase in anti-semitic attacks?

Today, Jewish leaders in Britain came out against the attack on Gaza.

"....warning that its actions, far from improving the country's security, will "strengthen extremism, destabilise the region, and exacerbate tensions inside Israel"."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/11/gaza-israel-letter-british-jews
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 02:23 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

...
What is more surprising is that the Bush Administration abstained on the resolution even though it had earlier said it would not accept such a one-sided resolution, and a few years ago said it would not support resolutions that did not explicitly mention the name of the terrorist organizations responsible for violence against Israel. ...
newsblaze.com


Do you believe that the new Obama Administration will be any more supportive of Israel in issues like this? Could this be an ominous sign that the political alignment of the Western World and particularly of the United States with the aims of Israeli Zionists is fading ?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 02:26 pm
I think those distinguished folks should spend a few days near the Israeli/Gaza border while the rockets are coming in. They should have their spouses and children/grandchildren with them for maximum effect. And then let's see if they express the same point of view.

Arm chair quarterbacking is so much easier when you aren't worried about being blown to smithereens if you venture out of a reinforced building or bunker.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 02:32 pm
@Foxfyre,
Yeah, they should visit the region to get a firm grip on the bleak reality that a necessarily oppressive ethnocentric state requires in order to "exist."
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 02:38 pm
@Foxfyre,

Foxy, do you have some vital extra information about this situation which you think maybe these people haven't got?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 04:31 pm
@georgeob1,
O, like all past presidents, will quickly learn that our support for Israel is the greatest bargain our country has. I previously elaborated on this.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 04:58 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

O, like all past presidents, will quickly learn that our support for Israel is the greatest bargain our country has. I previously elaborated on this.


Is that a code phrase for the effectiveness of AIPAC and other elements of the Israeli lobby?? The fact is that their power is fading quickly, as the American public increasingly comprehends the real costs of the Zionist dream and the degree to which it flies in the face of important (and largely beneficial) trends towards pluralism in the modern world.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 08:10 pm
@georgeob1,
Gaza exists!

Israel exists!

Gazians want Israel to cease to exist.

Israelis want their country to continue to exist.

For more than 6 months people in Gaza have been the source of rockets fired into Israel. Israel wants people in Gaza to stop firing rockets into Israel.

The people of Gaza are responsible for all the casualties in Gaza caused by Israel's counter attacks to stop these rockets from continuing to be fired into Israel. Had the people of Gaza themselves purged the rocket firers from Gaza, they wouldn't have suffered any casualties from Israel's counter attacks. There would have been no counter attacks by Israel.

Israel has the right to do whatever is required to stop the continuation of rockets being fired from Gaza into Israel.

Israel's only real chance to stop those rocket firings is to conquer Gaza and make it part of Israel.

ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 08:21 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob 1 wrote:
[Israel's action] flies in the face of important (and largely beneficial) trends towards pluralism in the modern world.


The Palestinian Arabs not living in Israel are intolerant of pluralism.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 08:37 pm
@ican711nm,
This is from 2001, but it is just as current and truthful as if it were written yesterday.


Quote:
Media bias whitewashes Israeli terrorism

by Ray Hanania
I expected to wake up to read the headline, "Jewish terrorists murder Arabs."

But, of course, that was not to be.

Members of Israel's fanatic settler movement killed three Palestinian civilians July 19th, including a 3 and 1/2 month old baby, Diya.

Suddenly, the news media finds a conscience.

They start using terms like "Israeli underground" or "Settler vigilantes," instead of the much harsher terms used to describe similar acts by Palestinians which include "barbaric terrorists," and "blood thirsty Arab killers." One declared cleverly that a "blast" caused the killings.

The conflict between Palestine and Israel has a lot to do with the way the American news media covers the events.

Certain headlines and adjectives describing the attackers play a significant role in how the public responds, and how the political theater acts itself out.

And those perceptions result in assessing blame.

Most people "blame" the Palestinians for the violence, accepting the Israeli contention that former Prime Minister Ehud Barak they gave the Palestinians everything "including Jerusalem" and they opted instead toward violence "to get even more from Israel."

What is not told until nearly a year later is that Palestinian President Yasir Arafat demanded that the Israeli proposal also include compassion for the millions of Palestinian civilians who were forced out of their homes and lands in 1948 and again in 1967. Arafat demanded that these refugees have a "Right of Return" that include a variety of options, with only a few allowing some to actually return to their original homes and land.

Today, my family's homes and lands are occupied by Jewish immigrants who took the homes and the land during the 1948 war. Part of this land is today the settlement of Gilo near Jerusalem.

This disparity in truth sets up Israel in the enviable position of not only having done its part, but suddenly, it is the victim of irrational behavior. Therefore, the Israelis can do no wrong.

The Israelis can kill nearly 600 Palestinian civilians and the news media and the world shrugs it off as a consequence of the Palestinians having refused Barak's peace offer. In contrast, about 100 Israelis are killed, most professional soldiers trained to face war. Every attack is treated like it is the 1972 massacre at the Olympics.

The truth is that Israel is provoking the violence, but most American
journalists are afraid to report that simple truth. Journalists, especially in the West, function under the pressure of peer censorship and pressures, while many in the Arab World function under an environment of government censorship and limitations.

I am not sure which is worse, but I do know that both are wrong. American journalists are always quick to point out the limitations on Arab journalists by their governments as a way of responding to charges that the Western Media is biased against the Arabs.

But the truth is that American journalists in particular operate under a cloud of pressure that prohibits them from reporting the truth about Israel.

This bias is inherent in the professional news media structure and is absorbed by the reporters who don't want to be criticized by the pro-Israeli editors and publishers who manage these media operations.

The news media also goes to great lengths to dissect Israeli actions to the point of anti-Arab precision. There are two kinds of Israeli attacks, one involving Israeli soldiers who are sent in to oppress the Palestinian civilians. All are considered "defensive" and therefore "justified."

The presence of Israeli soldiers in Arab areas is the primary cause of the current violence and the provocation that pushes many frustrated and desperate Palestinian civilians to acts of violence of their own.

The second is the kind involving the fanatic settler movement. Israeli settlers are among the worst fanatics in the world, even though the media seems consumed only with the so-called "Islamic fanatic." These Israeli settlers have been engaged in a hate war against the Palestinians with the goal of killing Arabs and stealing their lands.

They have been doing it since the founding of the State of Israel and they have culled this campaign of hate to a fine art.

Arab acts of rebellion against the occupation fall under the term "Intifadah," and involve everything. Every act of Arab resistance that results in an Israeli death, injury or simple assault is described as an act of "terrorism."

We all want the conflict to come to a peaceful resolution.

But we will not get there if we allow the news media to distort the truth, downplay the crimes of Israel, and deny the Palestinians the compassion and understanding they deserve.

(Ray Hanania is a Palestinian American writer based in Chicago and a regular contributor to MMN. His columns are archived on the web at www.hanania.com)

http://www.mediamonitors.net/hanania21.html





 

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 5.42 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 06:16:18