Monkey girl,
Your posts:
“Did I say Republican Media?”
“Simply because yourself and other right wing.. uh.. NEOCONS want it to mean that, doesn't mean that it does mean that. Like I said, NEOCON refers to a neoconservative agenda. Deep down, I am sure you know that Howard, but you do like to stoke the fire.”
One assumes from your previous post, above, that you considered conservative equals Republican, As two of the references I showed included al-Jazeera and Air America, the inferred logical assumption is self evident.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Where did you quote Air America?”
One big culprit has been Air America. Tune in to the proudly liberal radio network, and you'll hear actress-turned-activist Janeane Garofalo and other hosts frequently blast the "influence" of the "neocons" on the Bush Administration, then go on to name names such as
Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams and Libby. Not a single gentile name makes the list, so it's the Jewish influence to which the network takes particular exception.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005656
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This thread has wandered, but well illustrates the left’s inability to use logic.
It started with JJP claiming the religious right planned and took over the Republican Party. Later, JJP cites Youtube videos stating the Republican Party played the religious right for fools.
Pogo used one of the worst truthers as a source. To your credit, you did denounce the truther line.
In all, I’ve had to educate several of you on simple social word usage. Still, even when presented with sources of divergent nature all using the same terminology, you’ve denied their meaning. It would be amusing, except it points to a serious weakness in the education system, a failure to teach logic and argumentation, once the basics for higher education.
Invulnerable ignorance, in short!
Ok let me explain this so we are on the same page here.
When I said you didn't quote Air America, I meant it as a news source. You didn't. You quoted an opinion journal who cites Air America as using NeoCon to mean Jew, even though the instances mentioned actually never do say that. It just so happens the people they mentioned as being NeoCons, are Jewish. Your article drew a rather large conclusion.
When I said you and other NeoCons, it was meant in general. It didn't mean, "Howard and all the Republican Media." Something tells me you knew that though.
The word NeoCon and the ideology of Neoconservatism has been around much longer than the current batch of NeoCons. If you want to think that it means "Jew" then you can. Republicans do love to attach racial/religious labels to things. But simply put, and I can not see how you are missing this (maybe invulnerable ignorance?), a NeoCon is one who follows the aforementioned ideology.
When I said you didn't quote Air America, I meant it as a news source. You didn't. You quoted an opinion journal who cites Air America as using NeoCon to mean Jew, even though the instances mentioned actually never do say that. It just so happens the people they mentioned as being NeoCons, are Jewish. Your article drew a rather large conclusion.
When I said you and other NeoCons, it was meant in general. It didn't mean, "Howard and all the Republican Media." Something tells me you knew that though.
The word NeoCon and the ideology of Neoconservatism has been around much longer than the current batch of NeoCons. If you want to think that it means "Jew" then you can. Republicans do love to attach racial/religious labels to things. But simply put, and I can not see how you are missing this (maybe invulnerable ignorance?), a NeoCon is one who follows the aforementioned ideology.
Monkey,
Ideally, the term means what you state it means. But, among portions of the left, racial bigots, some middle eastern media, and the islamists it is a code word for jew. Failure to recognize this even after numerous citations points to a particular blindness to the obvious.
Ideally, the term means what you state it means. But, among portions of the left, racial bigots, some middle eastern media, and the islamists it is a code word for jew. Failure to recognize this even after numerous citations points to a particular blindness to the obvious.
Monkey,
Courtesy of JJP, via Huffington Post, so I'll not vouch for veracity, but interesting.
"The fact that this man was so angry at what George Bush had done to him, and at what Bush represented for their party, that he did not even vote for him in 2000 shows just how far he has fallen since then in his hunger for the presidency. By abandoning his core principles and embracing Bush -- both literally and metaphorically -- he has morphed into an older and crankier version of the man he couldn't stomach voting for in 2000"
http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=9091033...331083427#3331083427
Courtesy of JJP, via Huffington Post, so I'll not vouch for veracity, but interesting.
"The fact that this man was so angry at what George Bush had done to him, and at what Bush represented for their party, that he did not even vote for him in 2000 shows just how far he has fallen since then in his hunger for the presidency. By abandoning his core principles and embracing Bush -- both literally and metaphorically -- he has morphed into an older and crankier version of the man he couldn't stomach voting for in 2000"
http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=9091033...331083427#3331083427
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Howard Roak:
Pogo and Monkey,
To claim neocon is not used as a code word for jew is either naive or demogogic, at best. Here are five sources, one like WSJ reputable, others severely bigoted, but agreeing on the subject. Note the al-Jazeera article:
“Neoconservatism is better described in general as a complex interlocking professional and family network centered around Jewish publicists and organizers flexibly deployed to recruit the sympathies of both Jews and non-Jews in harnessing the wealth and power of the United States in the service of Israel.”
http://wake-up-america.net/NEO-CON%20JEWS%20AND%20THE%20WAR%20IN%20IRAQ.htm
“Last week Pat Buchanan appeared on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," and liberal host Jon Stewart bonded with his paleoconservative guest over their mutual opposition to the liberation of Iraq. Mr. Stewart smiled and nodded while Mr. Buchanan derided "neoconservatives" four times in the course of the six-minute interview. In his efforts to promote his and his guest's common agenda, Mr. Stewart didn't ask Mr. Buchanan what he meant by "neoconservatives." It was clear that the Jewish Mr. Stewart didn't realize that Mr. Buchanan was using what has become an epithet for "Jews"--an epithet employed most often by the left.
One big culprit has been Air America. Tune in to the proudly liberal radio network, and you'll hear actress-turned-activist Janeane Garofalo and other hosts frequently blast the "influence" of the "neocons" on the Bush Administration, then go on to name names such as Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams and Libby. Not a single gentile name makes the list, so it's the Jewish influence to which the network takes particular exception.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005656
“New poll reveals how unrepresentative neocon Jewish groups are”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/12/ajc_poll/
President George W. Bush is merely the puppet and "go-for boy" of powerful, behind-the-scenes, Marxist, neo-con, dual loyalist Jews. That's the conclusion of people in the know in Washington, D.C.
http://www.conspiracyworld.com/index0067.htm
„There is an obsession in the Arab media about Jewish control of American foreign policy. It is a theme in Al-Jazeera, which usually tries to hide the notion of Jewish control behind words like “Zionists” and “Neoconservatives”. The following Al-Jazeera article attempts to understand why ‘progressive’ Jews support ‘reactionary’ pro-Israel organizations, an artificial dichotomy invented by those who refuse to understand that many Jews support Israel because they are progressive. They certainly would not back Hamas, the PA, or Syria (although there are plenty of confused Jewish ’progressives’ who are so far to the left that they support Islamist organizations that are on the far right of the spectrum).“
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/12/28/neoconservat...olicy-in-al-jazeera/
________________________________________________________________________________________________
These articles are not really reflective of the progressive left, which is what I read and I have never read that neocons is a "code" word. The word Neocon technially means new conservative and it's just a word used to describe the extreme right wing of the Republican Party that has now taken over, as opposed to mainline conservatives. These articles are just carefully worded spin to confuse people and discredit critics of Israel and Bush. These conclusions are being put forth by the writers of these article, talk about conspiracy theorists. Just because someone names Jewish names in the Bush administration doesn't mean it is a code word. Wall Street Journal or not it's off the wall.
As I have stated previously there are a number of Jewish Neocons in the Bush administration but one can be a neocon and not Jewish. Reagan and Jeanne Kilpatrick are two examples that come to mind. There are some people who say they have too much influence over the government. Bush's policies toward Israel and the Palestinians has been a totally one sided slant toward Israel and Sharon made a fool of him. It is so bad that some people feel that Bush's policies are influenced by Jews in the administration.
There is also an alliance between the Evangelical Christians and Jewish Conservatives.
Many progressive Jews do not support Israel but some that do still oppose Israelis crimes. The article al-Jeezera is asking is why would a person who claims to be "progressive" support a country that is based on colonialism, terrorism, ethnic cleansing and racism.
Neocon is not a "code" word for Jewish.
New conservatives are for the destruction of the constitution whereas old conservatives valued it. Neocons have supported running up huge debt, another taboo to old conservatives. Old conservatism supported individual liberties and less government whereas Neocons are building a Big Bother government. That's what's meant by Neocons. It has nothing to do with Jews or anti-Semitism.
Howard Roak:
Pogo and Monkey,
To claim neocon is not used as a code word for jew is either naive or demogogic, at best. Here are five sources, one like WSJ reputable, others severely bigoted, but agreeing on the subject. Note the al-Jazeera article:
“Neoconservatism is better described in general as a complex interlocking professional and family network centered around Jewish publicists and organizers flexibly deployed to recruit the sympathies of both Jews and non-Jews in harnessing the wealth and power of the United States in the service of Israel.”
http://wake-up-america.net/NEO-CON%20JEWS%20AND%20THE%20WAR%20IN%20IRAQ.htm
“Last week Pat Buchanan appeared on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," and liberal host Jon Stewart bonded with his paleoconservative guest over their mutual opposition to the liberation of Iraq. Mr. Stewart smiled and nodded while Mr. Buchanan derided "neoconservatives" four times in the course of the six-minute interview. In his efforts to promote his and his guest's common agenda, Mr. Stewart didn't ask Mr. Buchanan what he meant by "neoconservatives." It was clear that the Jewish Mr. Stewart didn't realize that Mr. Buchanan was using what has become an epithet for "Jews"--an epithet employed most often by the left.
One big culprit has been Air America. Tune in to the proudly liberal radio network, and you'll hear actress-turned-activist Janeane Garofalo and other hosts frequently blast the "influence" of the "neocons" on the Bush Administration, then go on to name names such as Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams and Libby. Not a single gentile name makes the list, so it's the Jewish influence to which the network takes particular exception.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005656
“New poll reveals how unrepresentative neocon Jewish groups are”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/12/ajc_poll/
President George W. Bush is merely the puppet and "go-for boy" of powerful, behind-the-scenes, Marxist, neo-con, dual loyalist Jews. That's the conclusion of people in the know in Washington, D.C.
http://www.conspiracyworld.com/index0067.htm
„There is an obsession in the Arab media about Jewish control of American foreign policy. It is a theme in Al-Jazeera, which usually tries to hide the notion of Jewish control behind words like “Zionists” and “Neoconservatives”. The following Al-Jazeera article attempts to understand why ‘progressive’ Jews support ‘reactionary’ pro-Israel organizations, an artificial dichotomy invented by those who refuse to understand that many Jews support Israel because they are progressive. They certainly would not back Hamas, the PA, or Syria (although there are plenty of confused Jewish ’progressives’ who are so far to the left that they support Islamist organizations that are on the far right of the spectrum).“
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/12/28/neoconservat...olicy-in-al-jazeera/
________________________________________________________________________________________________
These articles are not really reflective of the progressive left, which is what I read and I have never read that neocons is a "code" word. The word Neocon technially means new conservative and it's just a word used to describe the extreme right wing of the Republican Party that has now taken over, as opposed to mainline conservatives. These articles are just carefully worded spin to confuse people and discredit critics of Israel and Bush. These conclusions are being put forth by the writers of these article, talk about conspiracy theorists. Just because someone names Jewish names in the Bush administration doesn't mean it is a code word. Wall Street Journal or not it's off the wall.
As I have stated previously there are a number of Jewish Neocons in the Bush administration but one can be a neocon and not Jewish. Reagan and Jeanne Kilpatrick are two examples that come to mind. There are some people who say they have too much influence over the government. Bush's policies toward Israel and the Palestinians has been a totally one sided slant toward Israel and Sharon made a fool of him. It is so bad that some people feel that Bush's policies are influenced by Jews in the administration.
There is also an alliance between the Evangelical Christians and Jewish Conservatives.
Many progressive Jews do not support Israel but some that do still oppose Israelis crimes. The article al-Jeezera is asking is why would a person who claims to be "progressive" support a country that is based on colonialism, terrorism, ethnic cleansing and racism.
Neocon is not a "code" word for Jewish.
New conservatives are for the destruction of the constitution whereas old conservatives valued it. Neocons have supported running up huge debt, another taboo to old conservatives. Old conservatism supported individual liberties and less government whereas Neocons are building a Big Bother government. That's what's meant by Neocons. It has nothing to do with Jews or anti-Semitism.
Pogo,
"These articles are not really reflective of the progressive left, which is what I read and I have never read that neocons is a "code" word."
Therefore, anything not on a progressive left website is non-existent. How liberal of you! Speaking of the closing of the America mind!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The word Neocon technically means new conservative and it's just a word used to describe the extreme right wing of the Republican Party that has now taken over, as opposed to mainline conservatives. These articles are just carefully worded spin to confuse people and discredit critics of Israel and Bush. These conclusions are being put forth by the writers of these article, talk about conspiracy theorists. Just because someone names Jewish names in the Bush administration doesn't mean it is a code word. Wall Street Journal or not it's off the wall."
Ideally it refers to liberals who converted to conservatives. True, they sometimes make the most militant conservatives. But, among portions of the left, racial bigots, some middle eastern media, and the islamists it is a code word for jew. I've provided five examples from extreme to responsible who agree. I could provide a dozen more, easily. Failure to recognize evidence in front of your face is blindness to reality.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"There is also an alliance between the Evangelical Christians and Jewish Conservatives."
And, it rains in May.
________________________________________________________________________________________
"Many progressive Jews do not support Israel but some that do still oppose Israelis crimes. The article al-Jeezera is asking is why would a person who claims to be "progressive" support a country that is based on colonialism, terrorism, ethnic cleansing and racism. "
And, they used the tern neocon to refer to jews.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"These articles are not really reflective of the progressive left, which is what I read and I have never read that neocons is a "code" word."
Therefore, anything not on a progressive left website is non-existent. How liberal of you! Speaking of the closing of the America mind!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The word Neocon technically means new conservative and it's just a word used to describe the extreme right wing of the Republican Party that has now taken over, as opposed to mainline conservatives. These articles are just carefully worded spin to confuse people and discredit critics of Israel and Bush. These conclusions are being put forth by the writers of these article, talk about conspiracy theorists. Just because someone names Jewish names in the Bush administration doesn't mean it is a code word. Wall Street Journal or not it's off the wall."
Ideally it refers to liberals who converted to conservatives. True, they sometimes make the most militant conservatives. But, among portions of the left, racial bigots, some middle eastern media, and the islamists it is a code word for jew. I've provided five examples from extreme to responsible who agree. I could provide a dozen more, easily. Failure to recognize evidence in front of your face is blindness to reality.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"There is also an alliance between the Evangelical Christians and Jewish Conservatives."
And, it rains in May.
________________________________________________________________________________________
"Many progressive Jews do not support Israel but some that do still oppose Israelis crimes. The article al-Jeezera is asking is why would a person who claims to be "progressive" support a country that is based on colonialism, terrorism, ethnic cleansing and racism. "
And, they used the tern neocon to refer to jews.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I stand by my post
You did not provide any real evidence from credible sources on the left, just some twisted spin from writers on the right spinning words to fit their agenda. An article from the Wall Street Journal is not an article form the left.
They are twisting quotes to fit their lies and slander, typical techniques which the right wing is based on. The article by al-Jeezera is asking why would a person who claims to be "progressive" support a country that is based on colonialism, terrorism, ethnic cleansing and racism. "
The term is only a code word in the twisted minds and spin of the right which uses it's typical techniques of lies and slander to discredit it's critics.
You did not provide any real evidence from credible sources on the left, just some twisted spin from writers on the right spinning words to fit their agenda. An article from the Wall Street Journal is not an article form the left.
They are twisting quotes to fit their lies and slander, typical techniques which the right wing is based on. The article by al-Jeezera is asking why would a person who claims to be "progressive" support a country that is based on colonialism, terrorism, ethnic cleansing and racism. "
The term is only a code word in the twisted minds and spin of the right which uses it's typical techniques of lies and slander to discredit it's critics.
quote:The article by al-Jeezera is asking why would a person who claims to be "progressive" support a country that is based on colonialism, terrorism, ethnic cleansing and racism. "
Good question, why would any "progressive" support Hamas? They are a prime example of colonialism, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and racism.
Progressives support Hamas in the election because Fatah is corupt and is a collaberator with Israel to sell out the Palestinian for their own personal gain. It is why they won the election in Gaza.
Hamas became popular with their social programs to help the Palestinian people, like medical and schools and other programs. They are Palestinian people so they are not colonialists, nor do they believe in ethnic cleansing. They have used terrorist attacks in response to Israelis repression, terrorist attacks and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people.
They also have shown to honest and are trying their best to run a clean government. They are Fundamentalists and believe in an Islamic State. They say that they are tolerant of all religions but they believe Palestine must be an Islamic State. They also have stated they would not try to impose one against the will of the Palestinian people.
Hamas became popular with their social programs to help the Palestinian people, like medical and schools and other programs. They are Palestinian people so they are not colonialists, nor do they believe in ethnic cleansing. They have used terrorist attacks in response to Israelis repression, terrorist attacks and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people.
They also have shown to honest and are trying their best to run a clean government. They are Fundamentalists and believe in an Islamic State. They say that they are tolerant of all religions but they believe Palestine must be an Islamic State. They also have stated they would not try to impose one against the will of the Palestinian people.
You just defended a group that teaches kids to hate and murder Jews, encourages terrorism, and wants an oppressive Islamic state. That's not very progressive of you.
Have you ever looked at Israel on a map and compared it to the rest of the Middle East? It's microscopic. There are plenty of other places for Palestinians to settle. It's not about land, it's about eradicating Jews from the Middle East. Killing infidels is part of their religion and they simply use land as a means to excuse it.
Have you ever looked at Israel on a map and compared it to the rest of the Middle East? It's microscopic. There are plenty of other places for Palestinians to settle. It's not about land, it's about eradicating Jews from the Middle East. Killing infidels is part of their religion and they simply use land as a means to excuse it.
NashBama, You argue with anybody that disagrees with you. You have only presented your opinion and not any facts. As Pogo stated, and I quote, ''You did not provide any real evidence from credible sources on the left, just some twisted spin from writers on the right spinning words to fit their agenda. An article from the Wall Street Journal is not an article form the left.''
quote:NashBama, You argue with anybody that disagrees with you. You have only presented your opinion and not any facts. As Pogo stated, and I quote,
You do realize that Pogo was talking to Howard, not me, right? That was a separate discussion that I was not taking part in.
I'm not arguing, I'm debating. That's what you do with people of differing opinions. I've also posted several videos of Hamas kids shows depicting a Mickey Mouse character and a little girl talking about their hatred of Jews. Farfar, the Mickey Mouse rip off was eventually maytered by a Jew. Plug in "Hamas Kids Show" in YouTube and see what results you get. It will make you sick.
As for evidence of the size of Israel compared to the rest of the Middle East, buy an atlas.
You do realize that Pogo was talking to Howard, not me, right? That was a separate discussion that I was not taking part in.
NashBama, Please forgive me for my mistake.
NashBama, Please forgive me for my mistake.
For a Youtube view of Hamas Mouse teaching Islamic Supremacy, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZEGsnWZKh8
My post explained Hamas and why they are popular. The Palestinians live under occupation from an Israeli invasion in 1967 and are repressing, killing, imprisoning stealing land and ethnically cleansing it. You support that. I don't. I do not support Fundamentalists of any sort, Muslim, Christian or Jewish but if a Christian Evangelical ran for office and I believed he were the best qualified I probably would. That would not mean I support their movement.
Even the State of Israel was created on land that the Palestinians were the majority people. It was stolen through terrorism and violence by the European Zionist movement that claimed the land and took it.
Even the State of Israel was created on land that the Palestinians were the majority people. It was stolen through terrorism and violence by the European Zionist movement that claimed the land and took it.
If you support Hamas, you support anti-semitism, murder, and terrorism. You yourself admitted that Hamas has used these tactics. Why would you align yourself with a group that teaches children to murder Jews and promotes suicide bombing?
Let's say a group of mean ole neocons drove your grand parents from their house that was in the family for generations and took it over. Years later, you had a chance to get that house back and so you did. Even though the mean ole neocons have the entire country to live in, they want your tiny family home. They shoot guns at you daily, throw bombs, teach their kids to hate you, and you constantly live in a state of fear.
Using your logic, you should pack up and leave, giving the mean ole neocons your family home. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
The same is true with Israel. There are plenty of places for Palestinians to live. They even have the Gaza Strip to call their own, yet it's not good enough. They have to have that tiny little strip of land and are willing to die for it. Why?
Since it's obvious that no one would die for a tiny patch of desert in a huge desert, it's clear there is another motive. The muslims want to eradicate the Middle East of Jews, plain and simple.
So if "progressives" or radical leftists are so tolerant and accepting, why do they side with anti-Semite terrorist groups?
Let's say a group of mean ole neocons drove your grand parents from their house that was in the family for generations and took it over. Years later, you had a chance to get that house back and so you did. Even though the mean ole neocons have the entire country to live in, they want your tiny family home. They shoot guns at you daily, throw bombs, teach their kids to hate you, and you constantly live in a state of fear.
Using your logic, you should pack up and leave, giving the mean ole neocons your family home. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
The same is true with Israel. There are plenty of places for Palestinians to live. They even have the Gaza Strip to call their own, yet it's not good enough. They have to have that tiny little strip of land and are willing to die for it. Why?
Since it's obvious that no one would die for a tiny patch of desert in a huge desert, it's clear there is another motive. The muslims want to eradicate the Middle East of Jews, plain and simple.
So if "progressives" or radical leftists are so tolerant and accepting, why do they side with anti-Semite terrorist groups?
The Gaza strip is extremely valuable property. Trust the Palis to turn it into a slum.
A better analogy would be if a country like say Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, or all
decide to back a movement by Native Americans to reclaim their land. Mean while these Native America groups begin to carryout acts of terrorism against Americans. It was the European Zionist groups, the Irgan, Hagana and the Stern Gang that were the first terrorist groups and that began in 20's 30's and 40's. There is a good quote about throwing hand grenades into Arab Markets by a member of the Knesset.
Yitzak Shamir, also had a quote about why it was necessary for them to carryout acts of terrorism, he later became a Prime Minister of Israel in the 80's and 90's. The Stern Gang killed a UN peace moderator in 1947 or 48. These groups drove the British, who were given jurisdiction over Palestine after WW1, from the region. They even threatened to carryout attacks in England.
These groups then ethnically cleansed the land destroying over 400 Arab villages anddriving the people from the region.
Suppose this happened in America and you were driven from your land? And the UN decided to "Partition" the land back to Native Americans. What would you do? If you opposed this you would be "against peace."
In 1967 Israel invaded the rest of the partition and began to build Jewish settlements. They use repression, murder and continue to steal land. When you support Israel you support this. I know why you say what you do because that's the one sided story you are given by the Corporate Media. We support Israel because the US sees the oil as a strategic asset to the US and it is a western colony in the region. It was the main reason the British supported the European Zionist movement in the 1880's. They saw it as a western colony in the region.
The Palestinian people, along with the Arab League, have agreed to peace and recognition if Israel will abide by international law and withdraw from the stolen land of 67 and allow the war refugees from 1948 their legal right under international law to return to their land. Israel refuses.
You support this. Hamas has said it will abide by the will of the Palestinian people.
Howard, your remark scares me. You say you work in the Foreign Service and you are this ignorant of the facts? You remark really borders on racism but I will chalk it up to ignorance.
decide to back a movement by Native Americans to reclaim their land. Mean while these Native America groups begin to carryout acts of terrorism against Americans. It was the European Zionist groups, the Irgan, Hagana and the Stern Gang that were the first terrorist groups and that began in 20's 30's and 40's. There is a good quote about throwing hand grenades into Arab Markets by a member of the Knesset.
Yitzak Shamir, also had a quote about why it was necessary for them to carryout acts of terrorism, he later became a Prime Minister of Israel in the 80's and 90's. The Stern Gang killed a UN peace moderator in 1947 or 48. These groups drove the British, who were given jurisdiction over Palestine after WW1, from the region. They even threatened to carryout attacks in England.
These groups then ethnically cleansed the land destroying over 400 Arab villages anddriving the people from the region.
Suppose this happened in America and you were driven from your land? And the UN decided to "Partition" the land back to Native Americans. What would you do? If you opposed this you would be "against peace."
In 1967 Israel invaded the rest of the partition and began to build Jewish settlements. They use repression, murder and continue to steal land. When you support Israel you support this. I know why you say what you do because that's the one sided story you are given by the Corporate Media. We support Israel because the US sees the oil as a strategic asset to the US and it is a western colony in the region. It was the main reason the British supported the European Zionist movement in the 1880's. They saw it as a western colony in the region.
The Palestinian people, along with the Arab League, have agreed to peace and recognition if Israel will abide by international law and withdraw from the stolen land of 67 and allow the war refugees from 1948 their legal right under international law to return to their land. Israel refuses.
You support this. Hamas has said it will abide by the will of the Palestinian people.
Howard, your remark scares me. You say you work in the Foreign Service and you are this ignorant of the facts? You remark really borders on racism but I will chalk it up to ignorance.
So on one hand America is evil for taking the Native Americans' land. On the other hand Israel is evil for taking their stolen land back. You can't have it both ways.
Besides, the comparisson between the US and Israel isn't quite accurate. Israel is tiny in comparison.
Now look at Israel in comparison to the entire Arab world.
That little blue strip is Israel, you might have to squint to see it.
So after looking at that map, I'm supposed to believe that this is only about land and not about the eradication of Jews from the Arab world?
Besides, the comparisson between the US and Israel isn't quite accurate. Israel is tiny in comparison.
Now look at Israel in comparison to the entire Arab world.
That little blue strip is Israel, you might have to squint to see it.
So after looking at that map, I'm supposed to believe that this is only about land and not about the eradication of Jews from the Arab world?
Pogo,
Trust a leftie to call racism! When they do it means, they are out of ideas. It’s a corollary of Godwin's Law!
I made a true observation. Correct development of the Gaza strip would yield land worth billions, but the locals insist on turning it into a slum and worse. Gazans could be working at good paying jobs with 100 percent employment and an economy the Israelis would envy.
“Some talk of speaking truth to power, but the true challenge is to speak truth to idiots!”
Trust a leftie to call racism! When they do it means, they are out of ideas. It’s a corollary of Godwin's Law!
I made a true observation. Correct development of the Gaza strip would yield land worth billions, but the locals insist on turning it into a slum and worse. Gazans could be working at good paying jobs with 100 percent employment and an economy the Israelis would envy.
“Some talk of speaking truth to power, but the true challenge is to speak truth to idiots!”
It's about western colonialism. The Zionists and the right wing try to make you believe that Muslims are just "Naturally Intolerant." and the wars are baised on a hatred of non-Muslims, but if you know history you would know that the small minority of jews lved in peace for hundreds of years with Muslims. They would escape anti Semitism and persecution form Europe. The problems didn't begin until the European Zionist movement claimed the land and began to take it with terror and violence.
And like I say, suppose Native Americans seized a small section of land somewhere, would that be OK? Do you remember back in the late 1960's or early 70's some Native Americans "seized" Alcatraz Island under the terms of treaties that were made with Indians that gave them the right to abandon land? The US did not recognize it as legal and removed them by force.
The Romans destroyed Israel and expelled them from the region. Since the 7th century the Arabs have been the dominate people, the Jews a small minority. Stealing land is wrong under any circumstances. If Israel has the right to use terrorism to steal land then you are saying so do Native Americans. How about the Puerto Rican Independence Movement, "the Machetero's," I believe they are called. (The machete wielders)They are fighting for their land.
The reason Israel is so small is because they were not living there, the land was Arab.
And Howard, It's more like trust it to the Right Wing to use racism to degrade people when confronted with facts. Palestine was a fertile, productive and populated land when the European Zionists arrived in the 1880's. People were not wealthy but they were "well off." They farmed and traded. Since the occupation the Palestinians have been restricted in construction and development and basically isolated in villages and towns that are separated by Israelis illegal settlements and their "roads for Jews only."
Being in the Foreign Service I would think that you would know such things.
And like I say, suppose Native Americans seized a small section of land somewhere, would that be OK? Do you remember back in the late 1960's or early 70's some Native Americans "seized" Alcatraz Island under the terms of treaties that were made with Indians that gave them the right to abandon land? The US did not recognize it as legal and removed them by force.
The Romans destroyed Israel and expelled them from the region. Since the 7th century the Arabs have been the dominate people, the Jews a small minority. Stealing land is wrong under any circumstances. If Israel has the right to use terrorism to steal land then you are saying so do Native Americans. How about the Puerto Rican Independence Movement, "the Machetero's," I believe they are called. (The machete wielders)They are fighting for their land.
The reason Israel is so small is because they were not living there, the land was Arab.
And Howard, It's more like trust it to the Right Wing to use racism to degrade people when confronted with facts. Palestine was a fertile, productive and populated land when the European Zionists arrived in the 1880's. People were not wealthy but they were "well off." They farmed and traded. Since the occupation the Palestinians have been restricted in construction and development and basically isolated in villages and towns that are separated by Israelis illegal settlements and their "roads for Jews only."
Being in the Foreign Service I would think that you would know such things.
quote:The reason Israel is so small is because they were not living there, the land was Arab.
That doesn't even make sense.
Native Americans have larger plots of land all over the country. They also have casinos which make them a fortune. What happened to them was wrong, yes, but at least they aren't blowing themselves up in crowded malls.
The Palestinians have the Gaza Strip, why isn't that enough? It's prime land, sea access, plenty of room, and they can do as they please as long as they don't strap bombs on their kids and send them to Israel.
Yet, you support suicide bombings and anti-semitism. Again, how is that progressive?
Do you think Hamas is justified in using suicide bombers and other terrorist tactics against Israel?
Israel is a tiny country because the land was Arab, Jews a small a minority. They relied on immigration to in crease it's population. What's so hard to understand?
The Palestinians don't have an army. Hamas attacks civilians because Israel kills civilians. Israel has killed more then twice the number of civilians then the Palestinians. The suicide attacks were always in retaliation for a killing by Israel and after every attack Hamas puts out a statement as to why they carried out the attack. They are not done randomly or without a reason.
The US is not continuing to repress, strangle, kill and ethnically cleanse Native Americans. American Indians have freedoms including the freedom to travel and are not shot randomly.
Israel surrounds Gaza and the Palestinians in The West Bank Palestinian Villages and Towns are surrounded and isolated from each other by Illegal Jewish settlements and roads for "Jews only."
I forget the seize of Gaza but it is smaller then Israel, only a slice, and it has a million and a half people squeezed into it.
You support ethnic cleansing. Hamas as well as the Palestinians and the Arab League have offered peace if Israel will abide by International Law, it refuses and continues to build more illegal settlements. It has never renounced the 1880's European Zionists' claim to all of Palestine.
I support Justice and Peace. Occupation, murder, repression, stealing land and water and ethnic cleansing are all terrorism. Hamas answers terrorism with terrorism.
The Palestinians don't have an army. Hamas attacks civilians because Israel kills civilians. Israel has killed more then twice the number of civilians then the Palestinians. The suicide attacks were always in retaliation for a killing by Israel and after every attack Hamas puts out a statement as to why they carried out the attack. They are not done randomly or without a reason.
The US is not continuing to repress, strangle, kill and ethnically cleanse Native Americans. American Indians have freedoms including the freedom to travel and are not shot randomly.
Israel surrounds Gaza and the Palestinians in The West Bank Palestinian Villages and Towns are surrounded and isolated from each other by Illegal Jewish settlements and roads for "Jews only."
I forget the seize of Gaza but it is smaller then Israel, only a slice, and it has a million and a half people squeezed into it.
You support ethnic cleansing. Hamas as well as the Palestinians and the Arab League have offered peace if Israel will abide by International Law, it refuses and continues to build more illegal settlements. It has never renounced the 1880's European Zionists' claim to all of Palestine.
I support Justice and Peace. Occupation, murder, repression, stealing land and water and ethnic cleansing are all terrorism. Hamas answers terrorism with terrorism.
quote:Israel is a tiny country because the land was Arab, Jews a small a minority. They relied on immigration to in crease it's population. What's so hard to understand?
So why are Arabs so worried about a tiny country with a small minority of the population? Why not just leave them alone?
I don't support ethnic cleansing at all. You yourself said that Jews are a minority in the Middle East. You really believe a tiny minority of people in a small little country are trying to kill almost the entire population of the Middle East? That's totally irrational.
I never said I support ethnic cleansing. I don't. You also have never provided legitimate evidence that proves that claim.
Sure, you can claim that Israel has killed more civilians, but when Hamas encourages civilians to take arms and fight, of course that number will be higher. When civilians are strapping bombs to themselves and killing innocent people, the number will rise. Who's fault is that?
Why can't the Palestinians be happy with the land they have and just leave Israel alone? Maybe if they would quit attacking Israel and teaching kids to murder Jews, there wouldn't be any more violence. Of course, that won't happen because as long as there is a Jew in the Middle East, an Arab will try to kill him and a leftist will make excuses for him.
Israel is a tiny country because they are European settlers who took the land by terror and violence, which you support. They may be tiny but they have the 4th to 6th most powerful military in the World and the most powerful in the region. They also have nuclear weapons and have not signed the Non Proliferation Act and do not agree to inspections, like Iran does.
They claim all of Palestine, not all of the Mideast
Hamas strikes back after Israel kills civilians or one of their leaders.
The Palestinians live under occupation and Israel is stealing their land, I am sure you have heard the words "Jewish Settlements." It's just that the Corporate Media leaves out they are illegally built under military occupation in land legally recognized as Palestinian that Israel invaded in 1967.
While Palestinains are isloated and scattered in villages and towns that are seperated by Israelis settlements and roads "for Jews only," in their own land.
If we lived under occupation anyone that resisted would be a hero.
The Palestinians have agreed to live in peace on the land that is legally theirs, it's just that Israel military is occupying it and building Jewish settlements in.
They claim all of Palestine, not all of the Mideast
Hamas strikes back after Israel kills civilians or one of their leaders.
The Palestinians live under occupation and Israel is stealing their land, I am sure you have heard the words "Jewish Settlements." It's just that the Corporate Media leaves out they are illegally built under military occupation in land legally recognized as Palestinian that Israel invaded in 1967.
While Palestinains are isloated and scattered in villages and towns that are seperated by Israelis settlements and roads "for Jews only," in their own land.
If we lived under occupation anyone that resisted would be a hero.
The Palestinians have agreed to live in peace on the land that is legally theirs, it's just that Israel military is occupying it and building Jewish settlements in.
quote:Israel is a tiny country because they are European settlers who took the land by terror and violence, which you support. They may be tiny but they have the 4th to 6th most powerful military in the World and the most powerful in the region. They also have nuclear weapons and have not signed the Non Proliferation Act and do not agree to inspections, like Iran does.
No, they are displaced Israelis who have been living abroad since they originally lost their land. It was their's long before the Palestinians came.
Of course Israel has a massive military. They are the size of Rhode Island with the entire Middle East trying to wipe them off the map. They would be stupid for not trying to protect themselves.
Show me an example of an Israeli suicide bomber. Show me actual photographic or video evidence that proves Israel is trying to commit ethnic cleansing.
Remember, legitimate unbiased sources only. No "progressive" slanted BS.
Even when the jewish settlers repelled those trying to do them in, the order was to leave palestinian villages that did fight in peace. Those villages still exist, their inhabitants vote in Israeli elections and elect arabs to the Knessset. The one that attacked the jews are the ones that were destroyed.
quote:Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Interesting, when I reveal the credibility of their sources such as Roberts, they hopscotch to another topic, quickly.
That is rather noticeable,,,,by most of us......
Paul Craig Roberts is still very well respected but not by Neocons, who's, lies, failure and thievery he exposes. Unable to answer his arguments you rely on slander. Nothing new or surprising about that. I did not change the subject and continue to agree and defend what he says.
You can't answer what he says.
He was and still is a long time conservative who complains that the Republican Party has been take in over by the extreme right who have bankrupted and destroyed the country.
He is correct.
He was the Under Secretary of the Treasury for about a year under Reagan and an associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
Palestinian villages were attacked and destroyed, leveled to the ground, wether they resisted or didn't. The Palestinians had no real army and although they out numbered the European Zionists the Zionists were well armed and trained and were more organized.
The Europeans always claimed all of Palestine and had written they needed to drive the Palestinians from the land. They began seizing towns on the Palestinian side of the Partition before the actual date of the Partition began. They destroyed over 400 Arab villages. They did allow some villages to remain. 750,000 Palestinians either were expelled or fled. Israel did not allow them to return and still denies them thei legal right to return.
You can't answer what he says.
He was and still is a long time conservative who complains that the Republican Party has been take in over by the extreme right who have bankrupted and destroyed the country.
He is correct.
He was the Under Secretary of the Treasury for about a year under Reagan and an associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
Palestinian villages were attacked and destroyed, leveled to the ground, wether they resisted or didn't. The Palestinians had no real army and although they out numbered the European Zionists the Zionists were well armed and trained and were more organized.
The Europeans always claimed all of Palestine and had written they needed to drive the Palestinians from the land. They began seizing towns on the Palestinian side of the Partition before the actual date of the Partition began. They destroyed over 400 Arab villages. They did allow some villages to remain. 750,000 Palestinians either were expelled or fled. Israel did not allow them to return and still denies them thei legal right to return.
Pogo,
Paul Craig Roberts, a once respected economist and journalist, has descended to truther status. His comments on the "scientific impossibility" of the official explanation for the events of 9/11 are just sad. I was amused and saddened by his comments that engineers and physicists who accept the official reason for the collapse of the towers are wrong.
He wrote, “I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false... Since the ****ing incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and “conspiracy theories” have filled the void.”
Never mind the National Bureau of Standards study to the contrary. Nor, can anyone explain to me how explosives could propel a building downward in a "rocket effect" without baffling to direct the explosions downward nor what would be the reason to for such a construct. Explosive direct their blast towards the weakest barrier in their surroundings. The glass and thin metal of the towers would cause the blast to be directed sideways, not downward.
Pogo,
I know you accept such balderdash as true along with the AIDS is a man made disease, etc. Its rather sad to see a grown man immerse himself in such theories to the exclusion of so much else.
Paul Craig Roberts, a once respected economist and journalist, has descended to truther status. His comments on the "scientific impossibility" of the official explanation for the events of 9/11 are just sad. I was amused and saddened by his comments that engineers and physicists who accept the official reason for the collapse of the towers are wrong.
He wrote, “I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false... Since the ****ing incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and “conspiracy theories” have filled the void.”
Never mind the National Bureau of Standards study to the contrary. Nor, can anyone explain to me how explosives could propel a building downward in a "rocket effect" without baffling to direct the explosions downward nor what would be the reason to for such a construct. Explosive direct their blast towards the weakest barrier in their surroundings. The glass and thin metal of the towers would cause the blast to be directed sideways, not downward.
Pogo,
I know you accept such balderdash as true along with the AIDS is a man made disease, etc. Its rather sad to see a grown man immerse himself in such theories to the exclusion of so much else.
Pogo, are you from the Shoals? If not, why are you posting here?