Gaza's Humanitarian Crisis - All thanks to the Neocons - BBC Report

lets see if we can find a peaceful solution?
what do they propose? why can't they agree to you leave me alone and i live
you alone.policy? how much arms can they get to be a match for israel?
what does this mean?
taking care of it militarily
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/27/world/main3882055.shtml
why can't israel do what the majority of its people want?

 

"You make you're bed you sleep in it" They gave support to hamas, they stood by and cheered when hamas killed innocent civilians, they voted hamas into power, watched them wage a civil war for the rest of power they couldn't get through the election process and as a consequences there is a block aid because terrorist there government, the people are pissed. Like I said, they made they're bed, they're going to have to sleep in it.

 

I'm holding holding my vitriol (as you put it) for Israel, because I'm not reading any Hamas apologists on here, trying to dignify their terrorism.

But pretty much any thread about Israel, brings out a wave of apologists, people like browntwn who would have us believe that poor Israel is the canary in the ME coal mine, and if anything happens to Israel, it's a signal that the muslim hoards are ready to storm the world.

Ariel "The Butcher" was elected by the people of Israel. He actually did it as a 3rd party candidate, which is almost unheard of. My point being, if people want to blame the Palestinians for electing Hamas, then they should also blame the Israelis for electing a leader who is a war criminal and murderer.

Again, there are no good guys in this. But there are no Hamas apologists here (that I have read), and your insecure attempts to stalk and discredit me on the forum undermines the discussion about peace, freedom and justice.

The problem is occupation. Until the land dispute is settled, there will be no peace. It's either that, or genocide, and right now, we're flirting with ethnic cleansing by both sides.

Btw Earl, didn't you accuse me of supporting Hamas in another thread? Care to answer for that? How exactly do I "support" Hamas?

 

Hamas is the current government in Gaza.

Sharon is not part of the government in Israel.

Other than showing your bias again what is the point of you talking about past leaders? I guess for you to justify your current positions on Israel you need to drag in Sharon. Par for the course.

 

No, only an Israel apologist would not want to talk about Sharon.

He would probably still be the PM if he didn't have a stroke. The Butcher of Beirut was incredibly popular.

The only bias I have, is against the liars and bigots who claim that Israel does no wrong, and Israel's hands are clean of murder and crimes against humanity.

When did Hamas win the election? When Sharon was PM. I think it is totally relevant, but the apologists for Israel will try to condemn Palestinians for electing a terrorist government but not acknowledge that Israel also operates a government that uses terrorism for political ends.

Back to the OP, I find it very disappointing that you (browntwn) endorse denying humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. This is the equivalent of starving someone out, but like Food for Oil, it's perpetuated against civilians, not the actual enemy. Like how GWB invaded Iraq when the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

So argue about me all you want, the real story is that you support Israeli sponsored terrorism but think you (and they) have some philosophical superiority because Hamas uses terrorism as well.

 

I am seeing why you support RP, but you kept denying the link between neo-nazis and RP??

 

First, you're not clever enough to make a veiled accusation like that very convincing.

Second, I don't think neo-nazis would be happy with the Israel and Palestine ending their conflict. They probably want to see Israel destroyed. I am fine with Israel existing if we can have peace.

Big difference.

Just a suggestion Bunk. Before you try to point fingers and name call, figure out who you are talking about, and what the name you are calling them means. Like your misuse of the term "Islamist", you just make yourself look incredibly ignorant and uninformed.

 

I didn't veil anything, I am calling what I see. You are the one hiding.

Really, I don't see too much difference here. You don't mind them living. Is this the same way you feel about handicapped people? If someone is willing to take care of them, then you are 'fine' with them being born?

At what point are you not "fine" with Israel's existence?

Your misunderstanding of the word islamist will keep you ignorant. And you are the one who claims not every Jew is a zionist and you don't know what an islamist is?

 

What am I hiding?

This has nothing to do with living. You would be hard pressed to find anywhere in my several thousand posts that I have ever endorsed murder or killing. I'm pretty sure that I have never ever posted such, because I think it is immoral.

You're making the ignorant mistake that browntwn made. Conflating Jews with Israel. Not all Jews are Israelis, and not all Israelis are Jews.

I'm not ok with Israel as it exists if the state continues to perpetuate terror and not work towards a peaceful solution in the region. They grabbed the land, it's up to them to work hardest to find a peaceful compromise with their neighbors.

I don't have a misunderstanding of the word Islamist. Again, you're practicing collectivist speech, which always leads to bigoted opinions.

Islamists are politically active Muslims. They may be terrorists, they may not. They may be fundamentalists, they may not. But you use the term intentionally, because it's not your objective to differentiate between peaceful members of a religion and terrorist zealots. Right?

Btw, not every Jew is a Zionist. And anyone who perpetuates that idea is a liar. And quite possibly, an idiot as well.

 

Your anti-semitic and trying to pretend you are not.

You just said you were 'fine' with their existence - as long as they don't fight back is implied.

Again, you are assuming something that I never said, in fact I have repeatedly said that in Israel Jews, Arabs and others live together and work together, but once you cross the border that no longer is true.

Why is it up to them when they are the ones being attacked? Why must they just take it?
I suppose you think that a woman being raped should allow that too in order for their to be peace around her? Holy crap you are a fool.

Islamist is used for those who push islam by force upon others - usually resulting in death to the infidel. dang you are stupid....

Why must you repeat this? I used this to compare the term you use 'zionist' with the term 'islamist' yet you define them in a different light each time, yet you think I don't know the difference between a Jew and what is called a 'zionist' ZOG is out to get you for your brainpower... not.

 

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=6951761&postcount=110 nothing else to say

 

Hm...As I've stated above Israel has made peace with Arab nations and returned land to Arab nations, Jordan and Egypt specifically who have maintained peace treaties with Israel since 1994 and 1979 respectively.

I fail to see you comment upon that history. I suppose you are like the rest of the tyrannical Arab world in power who refuse to acknowledge this precedent.

As to occupation, Israel ceded Gaza to the Palestinians and removed all its population in settlements there. Those Israeli's are among the most fundamentalist religeous types that are similar to the Islamic fundamentalists. They provoke confrontation.

After taking this action Palestinians had control of Gaza. What happened? Hamas drove Fatah out of Gaza, and as I've quoted news reports from witnesses, stripped and shot the Fatah soldiers. Quite merciful of Hamas.

Then Hamas started sending rockets into Israel.

So in the case of Hamas, how does occupation of land have anything to do with peace. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to survive.

Its a shame, as vivaspots posted here. Something else you fail to recognize.

It is so obvious that if Gaza's powers had embraced peace they would have received massive support and their people would be developing.

It was not surprising that even as I copied your vitriol against Israel, and your non-stop ranting against every perceived injustice carried out by anyone who doesn't agree with your radical ideas, so too did GTech do the same.

Someone who only sees the evil in every aspect of America and blames it all on conspiracies is someone who is too immature to understand how democracy works. But that doesn't surprise me. You also rip apart American voters.

Currently, the American political system in power and the body politic has not decided to overturn that which the Bush administration has put into power.

Polls seem to indicate that a majority of the American public wants to see the war in Iraq move to conclusion...but doesn't want an immediate withdrawal. Polls are the closest thing to a reading of where the public stands. Polls don't indicate any interest in impeachment.

Your own leader, RP, has spoken to the fact that that in which he believes won't be accomplished in a moment.

You on the other hand, like a wailing baby want everything immediately, and denounce anyone who doesn't see it your way.

The article I referenced about the Israeli doctor/helicopter pilot who counterattacks Gaza after missiles have been fired into Israel, describes one bit of the real world. I'm sure you didn't read it.

In the same day, as a doctor he might save the life of a Gazan infant, and later that day shoot missiles into Gaza as part of the Israeli defense efforts.

What a miserable state, yet one that some live in.

I doubt if any of the Hamas who wore hoods while stripping fellow Palestinians (Fatah) and shooting them would take the time to aid an Israeli baby.

But you are happy to support and make every excuse for them and do it by unleashing your vitriol on Israel and give Hamas a blank check.

In these discussions on Gaza you have wailed about Iraq, wailed about Ariel Sharon and generally denounced anything from any period of time that doesn't comport with your philosophy.

I suggest you move to Oman, Kuwait, or Dubai. They have virtually no income tax. I'm sure you'd love it there.

 

How am I antisemitic? I have absolutely no problem with Jews.

I'm fine with Israel as a nation state provided they are committed to peace. It has nothing to do with Jews. Israel != Jews. I feel like I am talking to a wall here.

There is a difference btw between self-defense and terrorism. Israel frequently crosses that line.

Right, so then how do you come to the conclusion that I am antisemitic for speaking out about Israel?

Will.Hypocrite.Spencer tried the "rape" example with me before, it's an attempt at making an extreme (although thoroughly flawed) argument to create embarassment around my position. It won't work. I am for self-defense.

But self-defense is different than terrorism. Bombing or starving civilians is terrorism, not self-defense. Locking people into camps that are demolished with nowhere to escape, is not self-defense. That is terrorism. I have a problem with this. That you do not, is troubling.

Read and learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism#Post_9.2F11_Issues

I wouldn't have called your thinking fundamentally misconceived, but I am willing to run with that...

I'm asking this question in all honesty, concern and seriousness.

Are you 12 years old?

 

Hey, you've made an @ss out of yourself with a lot of assumptions lately, just consider this one more!

Hamas are also terrorists. But let's not pretend this conflict only dates back to 2005 ok?

Nonsense and ad hominem. You're the guy who didn't know that Vietnam was started on a lie. I had to tell you. Are these the conspiracies you are talking about? The conspiracy of willful ignorance?

Impeachment is not dependent on polls. If a member of the government has committed an illegal act, they should be impeached. It doesn't matter if only 1% of people care, it's the law. Geezus.

Can you imagine if people weren't outraged that you were anally raped by a gang of youths late at night? No trial or investigation?

* guerilla's head explodes for second time today

That is totally false. I'm patient enough to wait for the market to develop solutions. I don't believe as you do, in confiscating people' property and the fruits of their labor, so that it can be wasted in government graft and corruption, under the guise of providing solutions to social problems.

You're the one who thinks the government can fix things if we only give them the power, the money, the mandate, our souls.

Bogus strawman.

Wailed about Iraq? You mean the place where you condone and encourage the subjugation and genocide of the Iraqi people? It takes brass balls for you to point the finger at me, when you are the one who endorses terror and murder. When you think that there is any moral justification for pre-emptively killing, or that collateral damage is acceptable.

You're the evil one Earl. Don't try to turn it around on me, because I won't condemn Hamas as loudly as you would like. Perhaps it is impossible to satisfy your desire to see Hamas painted as the sole evil in Gaza. I'm not the one who endorses murder, occupation or terror. You do. You make every excuse for it (the polls say, bla bla bla...)

Ah, when you're done spreading lies, calling names, and making up bous arguments, your answer is to exile me.

That hard to fashion an intelligent response is it? We'll just kick out the people we don't agree with.

Or maybe as you endorse in Iraq, you could have me murdered. Or maybe you could have my mother raped. Or bomb my sister's home. Maybe you could put my father in prison and torture him. That's what you approve of, right?

 

You got the idea, so it confirmed my suspicions.

 

so, you attack me and deny what actually happened in history, which are existing peace treaties. It appears the only real facts and history you believe in are the ones you can twist around your hatred of every aspect of America that doesn't coincide with your juvenile assumptions.

A not surprising answer from someone who ignores any aspect of any FACT that doesn't coincide with your minority, fantasy, juvenile views.

. hm.....but you like to bring up a totally irrelevant issue by labeling Ariel Sharon as "the butcher of Lebanon. Your views are extraordinarily one sided and you never take an approach like that of Pizzaman or vivaspots. You save all your hatred and vilest attacks for Israel. couching a mild statement with vicious and irrlevant venal attacks is anything but evenhanded.
[quoteBut let's not pretend this conflict only dates back to 2005 ok?[/quote] As is typical in your style you bring up something totally irrelevant, not referenced, and has nothing to do with the discussion. Does your mind wander for too much drugs?

Where does this assumption come from. How old are you anyways? Were you born in the 1980's or 1990's? I was around during Vietnam. You don't need to describe the experience, the reasons to me?

It must be the drugs that are affecting your brain....conversely maybe you just don't think straight from the getgo.

I don't know how many members of Congress called for impeachment? I know Kucinich has. Frankly, I don't think many called for it.

It obviously gained no groundswell of support. Obviously, the Democratic party didn't see it as a priority. Obviously there has been no overwhelming demand for it to get it started or for it to get traction.

It obviously has lots of traction in your head, regardless that members of congress decided it was not a priority. Again, the only thing I can account for that is that your reading of facts is way off base. I can see why your head explodes.

My own perspective on it would be that it would have been fruitless and dramatically dumb at the time, regardless of the fact that I see no good out of the Bush administration, which during one of your few lucid moments you detected. Reasons include the following:

1. Effective impeachment would have meant impeaching both the President and Vice President; something that is unprecedented.

2. The public doesn't want it. Why should politicians do something that they may not believe in, doesn't have support, would be dramatically unprecidented, and detracts from enormous other issues.

3. Even if one wanted to impeach, it is my opinion that hard evidence would have been unavailable. The one consistent about the Bush administration, even before 9/11 2001 is that it reveals nothing to the public. It does not make documents public, it has hidden emails, claimed they are lost, refuses testmony before Congress, stalled, delayed, etc. There are no facts. The courts aren't demanding documents from the administration.

The case isn't there.

That is life. Move on.

hm... typical guerillaisms....I want impeachment now. I want troops out of Iraq now. I want the gold standard now. I want the end of all departments of govt. now. I want an end to all taxes now.

Don't sound too patient to me.

I have repeatedly said I am unhappy with Iraq. I do not call for an immediate pull out of troops. Having gone in we have dramatically created a new problem. The old problem had Saddam Hussein in power. He was an evil man. He was not a threat to either the US or Israel at the time. We were falsely led into Iraq by the Bush administration. Frankly, from what I have read it appears the neo-cons in the Bush administration and Bush had a target on Iraq long before 9/11 and simply never stated that to the public. They lied.

But now there is a new problem. In the combustible middle east there is a weak nation in Iraq that is part Shiite, part, Sunni, part Kurd. It is patently clear there could be a greater breakout of violent war should we leave. It is not hard to see Iran and Saudi Arabia with its Sunni allies going to war to defend the relative groups there. It is not hard to see Turkey take excursions into northern Iraq to quell Kurdish rebels.

They have already done that. Existing efforts to address these issues are nil by the Bush administration. I'd like to see a different administration take a different tack and try to address these issues while pulling us out of Iraq in some fashion.

The final comments are again probably manifestations of the delusions and fantasies that dance through your head.

I'd suggest to your parents that they cut your allowance and force you to go to bed an hour earlier, say 9:00PM. That way when you get back to eighth grade you might be awake enough to learn a thing or two.

 

I read the cbs article, pizzman.

whether one engages in talks or doesn't ....it doesn't get to the meat of the issue.

One interesting side note. Back when the Annapolis peace talks were started there was grudging support from groups who would have never shown up before, specifically the Saudi's and some other Arab groups. Obviously, neither, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, or Hamas supported the peace effort.

Shortly after that announcement and meeting the US security report came out suggesting that Iranian nuclear efforts were stopped or stalled.

While the intelligence reports aren't definitive they changed the attitude of many with regard to a host of issues, not just the facts of whether Iran has or doesn't have, is pursuing or isn't pursuing nukes.

It possibly mted the greater concerns of shiite national leaders of nations such as Saudi Arabia, that Iran was a bigger danger than the issue of Israeli/Palestinian peace.


Subsequent to that report, Arab Sunni support of peace efforts has become non-existant again.

It would seem to me that we as an independant force should reinforce the differences and dangers to Sunni's with regard to the status of Iran. Iran is the strongest supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas. They remain the significant entities that wish to continuously battle with Israel.

maybe the US and other nations need to emphasize and push for isolation and fear of Iran in the eyes of the Sunni arab nations.

The remarkable difference during the run up to the Annapolis peace calls was that initial, first sign of grudging support for some kind of peace from nations and groups that had never acknowledged that. That was unprecidented.

Talks without meat behind them will be fruitless.

how do you develop the meat for realistic efforts to lay down arms.

 

I had originally written, "are you retarded" but figured you would whine to the moderators for that.

Btw, care to comment further on your incorrect and belligerent usage of "islamists"?

 

I thought ZOG was the subject we were on.

BTW, you can call me retarded, I won't complain. I am too old to let names calling hurt my feelings (or fillings)

 

Ah yes, my views are in the minority, and as a statist, you'll like nothing better than trampling a minority with a majority, right? That's how our Republic is supposed to work, is it?

It's the Butcher of Beirut. Why are my views one sided? Is he or is he not known as the Butcher of Beirut? Was he or was he not the PM of Israel when Hamas was elected to power? Did he or did he not win election as a 3rd party candidate, which was unprecedented in Israeli history?

These are known as FACTS Earl. You can call facts venal, vicious and vile but they are still facts. Truth. The response I have received from debunk, browntwn and you are consistent to what happens to anyone who speaks out against Israel. Labelled an anti-semite, a terrorist supporter and now you have gone so far as to recommend exile.

My crime apparently is not condemning Hamas loud enough, in a thread about Gaza's Humanitarian crisis, which none of you Israel apologists want to discuss. You in particular have carefully evaded making clear where you stand on forced starvation as terror.

Well, you brought it up in this thread, again evading the question of starving civilians, and whether that is torture or not.

But since you continue to explain against impeachment, I ask again. Is a crime not a crime if there is not popular support for it? Can I kill a man no one finds desirable? Is that moral and legal?

Think about it Earl. You're arguing that breaking the law is ok, because impeachment is too much of a hassle and no one wants to go through that.

Nice country you want to live in. A nation of convenience, not laws.

Impeachment is the only disincentive for an elected official to screw around with their office. If we set a precedent that impeachment is too much hassle, what is our check and balance on an imperial presidency? How criminally can our executive behave before it is enough?

While it is OT, this is quite possibly the dumbest position you have ever taken.

Strawmen. All of it. You're twisting my positions into a desire for instant gratification. Which you can't source because I haven't posted such.

It's low, but you've been crawling on your belly for several posts now.

This is all horsecr@p and I think you are old enough to know it. The same was said about Vietnam. The Iraqis are asking us to leave, everyone now knows we went in under false premises and Robert Pape has pretty conclusively made the case that suicide bombing is related to occupation.

But you're going to pull the same crap they pulled with Vietnam (another bogus war). We can't leave, there will be a domino effect. Back then it was Cambodia, now it is Iran.

So the justification for staying and people dying is that if we leave there will be dying. Same BS all over again. And people like you eat it up.

It's not hard to see boogeymen everywhere Earl. See above. The longer we stay, the worse it will be.

Pulling us out in some fashion? Of a country we should have never invaded, and never occupied?

Do you ever stop and think about the Iraqis. Not as a group, but individual Iraqis? Watch any of the YouTubes that college age kids from there post on the net? How can you in anyway justify this occupation continuing, in any way shape or form, when the Iraqi people do not want us there? Can you even imagine such a thing going on in your country? People bombing you then patrolling the streets? Searching you, making you pass through checkpoints? Listening to weapons fire at night in your house? Can you imagine 5 years of that?

Oh, but you don't want to move too fast. Damn the soldiers on extended tours, they can toughen up, and to hell with their wives, children, mothers and fathers at home.

How many people have to die so you can feel good about coming home at the right time?

I read your profile. Says you are old and grumpy but willing to learn.

I'll agree with the former, but have yet to see evidence of the latter.

Status quo, conventional thinking, and even the lame attack style that neos like GTech use when their arguments are lost.

Perhaps your education can carry on with someone else. I'm super disappointed in your position that it's ok for politicians to commit crimes, if no one cares, they are unaccountable.

Particularly from someone who endorses corporate style government, and broad reaching social mandates.