News What's the game, Mr. President?

kat

12
0
Originally posted by pelastration
Kat,

I am a pacifist not by weakness or fear but because I believe in human dignity. I have a cosmological believe that we are all connected and each of us must respect and help each other.

To bad that doesn't extend to the protection of the middle eastern population from their own leadership.


As I said there were rumors (I refer to a radio interview with an war analyst)
ah, rumors...what radio, what war analyst? Is there a transcript? I'm sure you realize without answers to these questions..this amounts to little more then meaningless talk for talks sake.
talking about US-soldiers with Jewish name getting other names
Why would US-soldiers with Jewish names get other names? ...could it be to protect them from being singled out by jew hating enemies?
and the possibility that also Israeli 'special' troops were active in Iraq.
SOURCE??
Of course if such thing would happen it would classified. Here you have a link with a 'between the lines'.
"The art of reading between the lines is as old as manipulated information".--Serge Schmemann, On distortion of news.
http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/1013575p-7114237c.html [Broken]

Two things that grasp my attention with this article.
1. It has no mention of your conspiracy: "in fact Iraq is almost ruled directly by Sharon (Israel). ' *cough*
2. It does support what some of us have been saying for a long time. "Uriel Masad, spokesman in Israel for the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Swiss-based organization that promotes respect for the laws of war, has seen the software. "We were impressed by the presentation and viewed it very positively," he says."


"The Israeli military has developed a software program to teach junior commanders 11 "codes of conduct" when operating among civilians - fight only those fighting you, respect the dignity of the local population, don't pillage, and so forth." I'd like to view the software myself. Interesting that this is coming from the Evil World Dominating and Oppressive Israeli's

Kat, I hope you have the guts to go to next link. What do you see? Good Will? Pride? Peace? Just normal politics? Respect for human rights? Respect of the own US soldiers?
Is this for Honor or horror? Do we have to start a War against Political Horror?
Here is your link: http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/US-empire.htm [Broken]

d
I looked at your link and it didn't take any "guts". What I see is an absolute criminal negligence to recognize or cover how Arab leaders oppress their own people. A criminal negligence to recognize Syrian occupation of Lebanon, A criminal negligence to recognize that the Arab leadership is responsible for far more death and oppression of their own people including the "Palestinians" then Israel has ever been INCLUDING present day in the case of Syrian imprisonment of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. "who has long called for the United States and Israel to work together to 'roll back' the Ba'ath-led government in Syria has been quietly appointed as a Middle East adviser ' Finally. Someone needs to roll back oppressive dictatorships who rob and oppress thier people, who retain leadership by eliminating opposition.
You see that's the problem with so called "pacificist" when it's Arab leaders killing and oppressing it's Arab population their too busy sucking on their "anti-american empirism" pacifier to notice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zero

Originally posted by kat

*snip*
What I see is an absolute criminal negligence to recognize or cover how Arab leaders oppress their own people. A criminal negligence to recognize Syrian occupation of Lebanon, A criminal negligence to recognize that the Arab leadership is responsible for far more death and oppression of their own people including the "Palestinians" then Israel has ever been INCLUDING present day in the case of Syrian imprisonment of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. "who has long called for the United States and Israel to work together to 'roll back' the Ba'ath-led government in Syria has been quietly appointed as a Middle East adviser ' Finally. Someone needs to roll back oppressive dictatorships who rob and oppress thier people, who retain leadership by eliminating opposition.
You see that's the problem with so called "pacificist" when it's Arab leaders killing and oppressing it's Arab population their too busy sucking on their "anti-american empirism" pacifier to notice. [/B]
Care to explain how any of this reflects on Israel, one way or the other? How the atrocities of other countries somehow absolves Israel of responsiblity for its own horrible actions? Do we allow some criminals to go free because they aren't as bad as some other criminals? "Less atrocious' is not the same as 'good', kat.
 
137
0
I agree with Zero: "Less atrocious' is not the same as 'good'.

Originally posted by kat
To bad that doesn't extend to the protection of the middle eastern population from their own leadership.
For that we have a number of International Organizations and Conventions. Let them do the JOB.
We don't need Christian Zionist fundamentalists replacing other fundamentalists. Why didn't you comment the Wurmser Case? Is it his intention to give protection of the middle eastern population from their own leadership? No create a Jordan, Israel, Turkey axe. Occupy Syria. Put the New Order of the Levant. If Wurmser is put on that place as Advisor then his ideas will be 'bush'ed.

ah, rumors...what radio, what war analyst? Is there a transcript? I'm sure you realize without answers to these questions..this amounts to little more then meaningless talk for talks sake.
I said 'rumors', remember. That was what the guy (a military expert of a military academy) said too: there are rumors ....
I repeat what I wrote:
"1. Now I see that in the future an extreme delicate situation is going to come up in Iraq when Arabs in general are going to say that - due the "why is America in favor of Israel-syndrome and the fundamentalist US-President always backing Sharon - in fact Iraq is almost ruled directly by Sharon (Israel). ". I said what you can read. Read it. ... when Arabs in general are going to say that in fact Iraq is almost ruled directly by Sharon (Israel). In every war and 'occupation' there is the perception ... and iff the Iraqies believe that Iraq is sold by the Americans to Israel then you will have a real massacre. Every Iraqi will attack soldiers. Now then I wrote: "If the rumors are correct that there are Israel secret troops with US passports in Iraq then we have a worse case.", meaning if that rumor of that analyst would become 'reality or disclosed' then you have a very serious problem.
Two things that grasp my attention with this article. 1. It has no mention of "in fact Iraq is almost ruled directly by Sharon (Israel).
I think you know exactly what this is all about. There is evidence that US and Israel are very close. The whole group around Bush is pro-Israel and guys like DeLay. So why try to hide this kat, it's reality. If the international community (UN) wants a condemnation of Israel on some issues or repeats that Israel needs to apply some previous resolutions ... you always have a veto from US. Why did Arafat was acceptable for US during Camp David and signing the 1993 Olso Agreement but since Sharon is in power ... US confirms that Arafat is a non-acceptable negotiator.
How far goes that feeling of superiority of the Bush Group? This attitude is not only to the outer world, but also inside US, i.e. his group dropped the normal communications channels in intelligence ie. the 'balanced' analysis's of the own CIA in relation to the nuclear weapons of Iraq. We see the same in the treatment of the reservists.

Quote: For U.S. soldiers wondering what they should and should not do in their role as occupiers of Iraq, help may be on the way from the Israel Defense Forces.
Indeed kat ... Israeli soldiers are an example of humanity, politeness and dignity, and you can see that those "codes of conduct" are really applied when you watch European TV. A number of images will not be shown in US Channels. I remember seeing myself on BBC a reportage of a peace march to the encircled Arafat HQ to bring food ... where Israeli soldiers were beating with their guns a number of women till bleeding. Then I went to CNN ... and the only thing that was shown where people marching and singing, and then (just) stopped by soldiers. These soldiers have also a profound interest in journalists. Some are no longer with us. Yes that must be fun software!

So no comment on Wurmser. Not interested in World War IV?

I looked at your link. What I see is an absolute criminal negligence to recognize how Arab leaders oppress their own people. A criminal negligence to recognize Syrian occupation of Lebanon, A criminal negligence to recognize that the Arab leadership is responsible for far more death and oppression of their own people including the "Palestinians" then Israel has ever been INCLUDING present day in the case of Syrian imprisonment of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. "who has long called for the United States and Israel to work together to 'roll back' the Ba'ath-led government in Syria has been quietly appointed as a Middle East adviser ' Finally. Someone needs to roll back oppressive dictatorships who rob and oppress thier people, who retain leadership by eliminating opposition.
Kat that link was of course telling a part of the story, but it shows that the US is not playing a sweet and ethic game. There is more hidden and there are long term goals we don't see at first sight. Of course oppressive dictatorships who rob and oppress their people like Pinochet did in Chile, Sadam in Iraq, Norriega (Panama), etc. must be possible. But even then you will notice that 'some' of these dictators where put in power by *...*.
So it's not the job of the US ... it's the international community that must react.
And BTW why doesn't US recognize the International Court of Justice? Do US fears something? Because US is above International law?
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,979
5,140
Re: Re: Re: What's the game, Mr. President?

Originally posted by pelastration
Indeed, this is not the issue here:
But:
(1) There were elections. Yes or no? Jim Carter was a controller.
(2) Did Arafat loose? I remember he won. Please correct me.
(3) I seems to me that Arafat is accepted in his 'country' or 'territory' (if you prefer) as the leader. He appoints the Prime Minister and other ministers.
De jure and de facto he is the leader if Sharon don't accept it or not.
IMO Sharon has no legitimacy to decide who is the leader of the Palestines.
1. There were elections in April.
2. Yes, Arafat lost. Mahmoud Abbas won. He has since resigned because Arafat refused to relinquish power. His successor then resigned for the same reason.
3. Arafat was rejected in this election.

Abbas (and his successor - I'm not sure who is in now) were Prime Minsiter of the somewhat nebulous "Palestinian People" which is a group of people who call themselves "Palestinians" and not a country. If the Palestinians would accept peace, they would be given a country and then whoever is prime minister would be leader of that country (likely pending new elections).

Sharon has nothing to do with this and he had no part in selecting Abbas.
It's not a matter of picking and choosing a map to support one side or the other. The maps tell a story. A story of a place called Israel that was once called Palestine
That simply isn't true. The vast majority of the land that was to become "Palestine" including the now occupied territories belonged to Syria and Jordan. Palestine did not become a country because they (and Egypt) wouldn't allow it.
Care to explain how any of this reflects on Israel, one way or the other?
It doesn't reflect on Israel's actions at all. It simply exposes the double standard.
 
Last edited:

Zero

Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the game, Mr. President?

Originally posted by russ_watters
It doesn't reflect on Israel's actions at all. It simply exposes the double standard.

Where's the double standard? I don't see us giving Iran a billion dollars, do you? Or Syria? America has sent tens of billions of tax dollars to Israel, so I think we have a bigger responsibility to point out their crimes. Plus, no one ever said that Iran, Iraq, or Syria have good, freedom-loving governments. We don't have to make every other country perfect before we dare criticize Israel.

If the Palestinians would accept peace, they would be given a country and then whoever is prime minister would be leader of that country (likely pending new elections).
This is a pretty nice view you have...wrong, of course, but nice and rosy. The truth is, the Palestinians have been offered table scraps in exchange for peace. They've never been offered anything that could be considered a country. What they have been offered is similar to South Africa-style apartheid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
137
0
Originally posted by russ_watters
1. There were elections in April.
2. Yes, Arafat lost. Mahmoud Abbas won. He has since resigned because Arafat refused to relinquish power. His successor then resigned for the same reason.
3. Arafat was rejected in this election.

Sharon has nothing to do with this and he had no part in selecting Abbas. That simply isn't true. The vast majority of the land that was to become "Palestine" including the now occupied territories belonged to Syria and Jordan. Palestine did not become a country because they (and Egypt) wouldn't allow it.
Thanks Russ. But your first remarks are not correct. Arafat was not rejected. Arafat did not refuse to relinquish power, that was not questioned even.
Please check: http://www.nad-plo.org/speeches/abumazen5.html [Broken] .
Quote:
Mahmoud Abbas Speech to the PLC
April 29, 2003

"In the name of Allah the most Merciful, the Compassionate

(And He says:_ Do._ For Allah will see the results of your work and so will his Prophet and believers)

Brother and life-long comrade, President Yasser Arafat, President of the State of Palestine , Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, President of the National Authority ... "(end of quote).

The elections system is similar to France not like in USA. The President stays (like a king) during the elections for the Parliament. Only the Parliament is replaced, not the President. The President appoints the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has a relative independency but finally the President must approve and co-sign.

Your second remarks. Indeed Sharon had nothing to do with the election of Abbas ... but Sharon refuses to recognize Arafat as a valid decision maker, although all previous Israeli Prime Ministers recognized and spoke directly (?) with Arafat. (I am not sure about Netaniyu) Who did signed the Oslo Agreements of 1993 ? Who did everything to destroy that peace agreement. You can not deny it: Sharon. He is not a peace maker. Sharon sees the United Nations as a hostile body, skewed in favor of the Palestinians.
Why is he now in Moscow? ( http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RUSSIA_ISRAEL?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME ). Officially (UN resolution, situation in Iraq, nuclear help of Russia to Iran) and unofficially? My speculation: talks about if Russia will react neutral on an attack on Syria (cfr. Wurmser's doctrine and the public comments of DeLay: Israel Air Force delivered the message in Damascus). We will see want it brings.

About the land Palestine we can discuss for hours and hours.
If you want to see the growth of the settlements check: http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-10/11/article01.shtml [Broken] (below that page: Zionist's Settlements Growth, and interesting below that: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal.

Israel can not accepts nukes in Iran but has their own, but that's very normal isn't it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,979
5,140
Originally posted by pelastration
Thanks Russ. But your first remarks are not correct. Arafat was not rejected. Arafat did not refuse to relinquish power, that was not questioned even.
Please check: http://www.nad-plo.org/speeches/abumazen5.html [Broken] .
Quote:
Mahmoud Abbas Speech to the PLC
April 29, 2003
That speech was made long before Abbas resigned. I'm sure you've read about it, but if you really want, I'll find you some articles on why he resigned.
Where's the double standard? I don't see us giving Iran a billion dollars, do you? Or Syria? ....We don't have to make every other country perfect before we dare criticize Israel.
Quite right, Zero - the US is consistent with regard to the issue - and we DO criticize and even exert control over Israel. Israel's restraint in both Gulf Wars for example wasn't a coincidence. No double standard there.

The double standard is from those on the other side of the issue of course. People protesting Israeli treatment of Arab citizens of Israel while terrorists are blowing up busses and Arab countries are oppressing their people. Its like a fire department ignoring a burning apartment to get a cat out of a tree.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zero

Originally posted by russ_watters


The double standard is from those on the other side of the issue of course. People protesting Israeli treatment of Arab citizens of Israel while terrorists are blowing up busses and Arab countries are oppressing their people. Its like a fire department ignoring a burning apartment to get a cat out of a tree.
I'll be honest with you, Russ...I wish that people paid more attention to EVERY lousy rotten situation on Earth. Israel's horrible behavior is easily matched and surpassed by other nations...but[rant] I'M NOT PAYING FOR THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES TO DO IT! [/rant] At least, not as far as I know...
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
Care to explain how any of this reflects on Israel, one way or the other? How the atrocities of other countries somehow absolves Israel of responsiblity for its own horrible actions? Do we allow some criminals to go free because they aren't as bad as some other criminals? "Less atrocious' is not the same as 'good', kat.
My comment was in regards to the site he linked and the comments I quoted. Comments and link.... which you will find...directly above...my comments...So I would care to explain that it reflects...on that...one way or the other..and not Israel. Although, I probably would have been better to instruct him to stop creating omelets..anwering the 20 different directions he goes into in the course of one thread is a bit..wearying..at best. I can see how you were confused.

As to absolution for atrocities..I'm not looking for any absolution, I'd just like a little recognition and effort to end the worst of it, preferably starting with the worst of it. However, given that this is unlikely (or we'd be far more focused on other areas of the world) it would be nice to see the outrage correspond in direct correlation to the level of atrocities. When I see that they are consistently not, and consistently ignored or discarded..and consistently and overwhelmingly voiced in a manner that is so incredibly inbalanced that it quite literally blows the mind....one can only assume ignorance or bigotry. You take your pick.
 
Last edited:

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
I'll be honest with you, Russ...I wish that people paid more attention to EVERY lousy rotten situation on Earth. Israel's horrible behavior is easily matched and surpassed by other nations...but[rant] I'M NOT PAYING FOR THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES TO DO IT! [/rant] At least, not as far as I know...
Well, yes you do pay for it...in many ways..what immediately comes to mind would be the money we give to egypt and the money we give to the U.N. and how that is disbursed to nations..including the PA (which helped fund Arafats "retirement" nest /sarc) But, really..Israel didn't recieve much of anything from us until after they'd been repeatedly attacked by surrounding countries. With the money we give to Egypt..you'd think the least they could do would be to secure their borders and prevent tunneling and arms movement into gaza. We won't even get into their human rights record, vitriolic, hate filled media...
 

Zero

Originally posted by kat
Well, yes you do pay for it...in many ways..what immediately comes to mind would be the money we give to egypt and the money we give to the U.N. and how that is disbursed to nations..including the PA (which helped fund Arafats "retirement" nest /sarc) But, really..Israel didn't recieve much of anything from us until after they'd been repeatedly attacked by surrounding countries. With the money we give to Egypt..you'd think the least they could do would be to secure their borders and prevent tunneling and arms movement into gaza. We won't even get into their human rights record, vitriolic, hate filled media...
Let me ask you a question, kat...by the numbers you posted a few months ago, Israel kills 4 noncombatant Palestinians for every 6 combabtants. Many organizations, including human rights activists and the United Nations, see a problem with the actions of the Israeli government and military in regards to Palestinians. Do you see any room for improvement in the actions of Israel's gov't or troops, independent of what anyone else does?
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by pelastration


I said 'rumors', remember. That was what the guy (a military expert of a military academy) said too: there are rumors ....
I repeat what I wrote:
"1. Now I see that in the future an extreme delicate situation is going to come up in Iraq when Arabs in general are going to say that - due the "why is America in favor of Israel-syndrome and the fundamentalist US-President always backing Sharon - in fact Iraq is almost ruled directly by Sharon (Israel). ". I said what you can read. Read it. ... when Arabs in general are going to say that in fact Iraq is almost ruled directly by Sharon (Israel). In every war and 'occupation' there is the perception ... and iff the Iraqies believe that Iraq is sold by the Americans to Israel then you will have a real massacre. Every Iraqi will attack soldiers. Now then I wrote: "If the rumors are correct that there are Israel secret troops with US passports in Iraq then we have a worse case.", meaning if that rumor of that analyst would become 'reality or disclosed' then you have a very serious problem.
I did read what you said and I have no interest in helping you spread nasty rumors about jews ruling the United States. Iraq or the world for that matter.

I think you know exactly what this is all about. There is evidence that US and Israel are very close. The whole group around Bush is pro-Israel and guys like DeLay. So why try to hide this kat, it's reality. If the international community (UN) wants a condemnation of Israel on some issues or repeats that Israel needs to apply some previous resolutions ... you always have a veto from US. Why did Arafat was acceptable for US during Camp David and signing the 1993 Olso Agreement but since Sharon is in power ... US confirms that Arafat is a non-acceptable negotiator.
One, would only hope that they're not dealing with Arafat now..becuase they learned their lesson from the Camp David experience and are not foolish enough to fall into the same trap twice. I don't have a problem with Delay or the administration being pro-israel. Although there are many times when I see them as less pro-israel then opportunistic.





"codes of conduct" are really applied when you watch European TV. A number of images will not be shown in US Channels. I remember seeing myself on BBC a reportage of a peace march to the encircled Arafat HQ to bring food ... where Israeli soldiers were beating with their guns a number of women till bleeding. Then I went to CNN ... and the only thing that was shown where people marching and singing, and then (just) stopped by soldiers. These soldiers have also a profound interest in journalists. Some are no longer with us. Yes that must be fun software!
BBC is not the epitome of honest reporting, particularly in regards to Israel. I don't watch U.S. television. I try to rely on factual information. Direct transcripts of speaches, bills, referendums etc...not "rumors" on some "radio show" by "some general" I also rely on first hand reports from family members in the middle east in regards to certain areas and events. I also rely on several U.N. workers, and members of an organization that develops meetings and events with Palestinian and Israeli teens and adults. BTW have you actually read the transcript of Delay's speach? or just relied on someone else's understanding of it?

So no comment on Wurmser.
I think I've made my position clear. I'm not ready to go off on another one of your tangents..maybe you should resolve the issues you approached previously and statements you've already made prior to delving into wurmser.
Not interested in World War IV?
I'm kinda fond of trying to stick to facts and not creating a future that does not yet exist. Maybe we should stick to winning WWIII first eh?
 
Last edited:

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
Let me ask you a question, kat...by the numbers you posted a few months ago, Israel kills 4 noncombatant Palestinians for every 6 combabtants. Many organizations, including human rights activists and the United Nations, see a problem with the actions of the Israeli government and military in regards to Palestinians. Do you see any room for improvement in the actions of Israel's gov't or troops, independent of what anyone else does?
I'm going to answer this with you condition that you also answer a tough question...of my choosing...afterwards.

Yes, I think there is always room for improvement.
The first would be to remove the majority of the settlements, forcibly(as will be neccesary). This would reduce the need for a lot of the check points and closures. I don't think it will reduce the animosity or even the suicide attacks against Israel but it will reduce the restrictions on the Palestinian civilians and also cut out the incredible expense of keeping a protective force in place for 20 families here and another 2 dozen there. This to me is insanity and I'm not sure what could possibly be the strategy of such a thing. Although, clearly there are/can be political benefits. So of course Sharon will have to deal with the fallout from this and it could cost him his position. But, this is the reality of Democracy, isn't it?
The problem a lot of Israeli's (who don't live in the settlements) are concerned that the Palestinians will take this as a "win" and that terrorist attacks will increase not decrease.
The second is to complete the security fence. And I KNOW I KNOW the outrage..but really...it's the best hope I see to bring any kind of security to the Israeli's without bringing tanks into the gaza strip and west bank on a regular basis. BUT I would say..that in the case of the fence..getting rid of the settlements would cut down on this meandering wall that will create pockets of literally enclosed palestinian villages and people.
Third-any abuse by Israeli soldiers must be treated very seriously and punished. Israeli actually does a better job at this then most countries, actually then all that I am familiar with..there is definately room for improvement. Reducing the need for checkpoints and closures would cut down on this as well.

I have more thoughts on this but I"m out of time. I'll get back to you.
 

Zero

Thanks, Kat...appreciate you taking the time. I look forward to answering your question as best I can.
 
137
0
Originally posted by kat
I don't have a problem with Delay or the administration being pro-israel. Although there are many times when I see them as less pro-israel then opportunistic.
BBC is not the epitome of honest reporting, particularly in regards to Israel. I don't watch U.S. television. I try to rely on factual information. Direct transcripts of speaches, bills, referendums etc...not "rumors" on some "radio show" by "some general" I also rely on first hand reports from family members in the middle east in regards to certain areas and events. I also rely on several U.N. workers, and members of an organization that develops meetings and events with Palestinian and Israeli teens and adults. BTW have you actually read the transcript of Delay's speach? or just relied on someone else's understanding of it?
BBC is worldwide considered giving the most objective news. I remember that BBC called the killing of Palestines - without any form of process - 'murder'. Of course they called that in both ways. But the Israeli ambassador protested against that term. The same is now happening with the 'WALL' ... which Sharon wants to call a 'fence'. Also you speaks in next post about a fence.
To me a fence is a barrier made of posts and wire or boards. And a Wall is a Wall. The WALL Sharon is building is even higher then the Wall of Berlin was. Btw, a fence is also a receiver of stolen goods, or a place where stolen goods are bought.

If you have an electronic transcript of DeLay's speech in the Knesset ... or a link ... that would be very interesting to put it here. Thanks.

I think I've made my position clear. I'm not ready to go off on another one of your tangents..maybe you should resolve the issues you approached previously and statements you've already made prior to delving into wurmser. I'm kinda fond of trying to stick to facts and not creating a future that does not yet exist. Maybe we should stick to winning WWIII first eh?
Winning ... so in your opinion WWIII started?
If Bush puts David Wurmser in charge Bush has the intention to create a future after or similar to Wurmser's extreme views.
 

kat

12
0
continued....
Israel should insist that the PA takes over policing of the west bank and Gaza strip and if they are unable than they should insist that it is with the help of the EU or NATO. There is too much distrust and anger between the two sides to allow for Israel to assist in the turnover in the manner they did the last time, yet it's doubtful that the PA can actually police their own country. It's also likely that if there were a case where the focus was not Israel they would turn on each other even more brutally then they do when disagreeing today. The other problem is that in the past, without Israel prescence life for civilian Palestinians becomes worse(believe it or not) there must be a transfer of power..to those who will uphold human rights. The responsibility for this needs to be laid at the feet of the international world. It is not something the Israeli's can do, and it is not something the PA would willingly to do.
Israel also needs to stop taking money from the U.S., it's tied them to our whims, our whims have not always been beneficial to them or to their "road" to peace.
Once the fence is completed, having removed the settlements and leaving the westbank, gaza and east jerusalem to the palestinians, Israel should hold tight to it and if it or they are attacked by Palestinians it should be viewed as an act of war.
Israeli's should improve their public relations department by infusing it with funds instead of cutting funding and by hiring capable people who understand todays information world.
Israeli's should invest greater amounts into the Israeli Arab populations education and health care, they should not only condemn anti-arab actions but prosecute them diligently. They should promote tolerance and acceptance of the Israeli Arab population.


Your question (Zero):
Ignoring any argument you might want to offer against the right of Israel to even exist or any temptation you might have to argue the wrongs of the Israelis etc...:wink:
Assuming that Israeli's have taken all steps possible to make peace with the Palestinians, and they are still being attacked daily and the PA fails to control those people who are attacking and murdering Israeli's..what methods do you believe are 1. okay to use? and 2. would actually be effective?...#2 may or may not be morally acceptable to you, the only requirement would be that they are effective in providing security for the Israeli's.
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by pelastration
BBC is worldwide considered giving the most objective news.
If you want to believe that, that is your choice. I choose not to, I also choose to keep in mind that there is a reason that there is a media watch site who's sole purpose is to note BBC's faulty reporting. Just don't expect me to take the word of the BBC in any argument you offer. In other words, I hope you have other sources if you expect me to believe...you.:wink:
The same is now happening with the 'WALL' ... which Sharon wants to call a 'fence'. Also you speaks in next post about a fence.
To me a fence is a barrier made of posts and wire or boards. And a Wall is a Wall. The WALL Sharon is building is even higher then the Wall of Berlin was. Btw, a fence is also a receiver of stolen goods, or a place where stolen goods are bought.
Unfortunately the high concrete barrier your speaking of is only across the area of the highway and other areas in which the palestinian snipers are fond of picking off women and small children. The rest of it is ...a fence.

If you have an electronic transcript of DeLay's speech in the Knesset ... or a link ... that would be very interesting to put it here. Thanks.
It's online, you can google it if you'd like to see it.

Winning ... so in your opinion WWIII started?
If Bush puts David Wurmser in charge Bush has the intention to create a future after or similar to Wurmser's extreme views.
I think there is a definate possiblity that we may look back to this time period and realize that it was the beginning of world war 3. As for wurmser, maybe. Time will tell. I'm more concerned with the extreme religious veiws that are eminating from the ME.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,979
5,140
Originally posted by Zero
I'll be honest with you, Russ...I wish that people paid more attention to EVERY lousy rotten situation on Earth. Israel's horrible behavior is easily matched and surpassed by other nations...but[rant] I'M NOT PAYING FOR THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES TO DO IT! [/rant] At least, not as far as I know...
Point well taken Zero, but do you have any idea what our trade deficit is with China?
 

Zero

Originally posted by russ_watters
Point well taken Zero, but do you have any idea what our trade deficit is with China?
That's a beef for another thread, Russ...and trust me, we probably agree on trade deficits too.
 
258
0
Haven't any of you guys heard of the MCarthy hearings ..... ! Anyway for what it's worth , I don't think anyone , let alone the Saudis (Iraqis were not involved in 9/11) should be able to perpetrate as obscene an act as 9/11 and get away with it . Call me old fashioned but that's what I believe. I also believe that if Bush hadn't gone in when he did , things could have gotten worse. Having said that , the time to call in the UN is long past , if you try to mix money with politics you are going to end up paying the price, especially in an issue as sensitive as this one. This is a world issue , let the countries of the world have a hand in deciding what to do.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
I also choose to keep in mind that there is a reason that there is a media watch site who's sole purpose is to note BBC's faulty reporting.
And guess what? That media watch is from the daily telegraph, hardly an independent newspaper, with an unblemished record.

Meanwhile, investigation shows that the BBC is indeed biased - towards the US point of view on issues such as the Iraq war. The myopia here is staggering.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3356222,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1078652,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1078833,00.html
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,941493,00.html

In these cases, direct transcripts are the biggest problem. Official statements are too easily relied on, and most often flawed - it being unlikely that you would be able to access all such data.


Delay's speech? This one?
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-delay073003.asp [Broken]

This is a load of BS. A combination of religious posturing, lying about facts, using emotion where there should be calm thought about the way ahead, telling people what they want to hear, false comparisons to Auschwitz, huge misconceptions about the power and connection of Arafat's government, ignorance of the fact arafat is democratically elected, scapegoating, us vs them naivety, imcomprehension of the neccessity of diplomacy and the futility of force against such an amorphous target, self congratulatory self-delusionment, moral blindness over Israeli war crimes and other nonsense. If this is the official line of the US government, then it is worse than I ever thought.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kat

12
0
Originally posted by FZ+
And guess what? That media watch is from the daily telegraph, hardly an independent newspaper, with an unblemished record.

Meanwhile, investigation shows that the BBC is indeed biased - towards the US point of view on issues such as the Iraq war. The myopia here is staggering.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3356222,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1078652,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1078833,00.html
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,941493,00.html

In these cases, direct transcripts are the biggest problem. Official statements are too easily relied on, and most often flawed - it being unlikely that you would be able to access all such data.


1. We were discussing the Israeli-Palestinian situation in regards to the BBC and I did say "particularly in regards to Israel"
2. I'm not sure which site your referring to in regards to the daily telegraph? www.bbcwatch.com[/url] ? [url]www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com[/url] ? [URL=http://www.btinternet.com/~brentours/BB2003.htm]beebwatch?[/URL] [URL=http://www.globalbritain.org/BBC/BBC%20Front%20page.htm]Global Britian?[/URL] [PLAIN]http://www.bbcbias.org/ [Broken] Or maybe Camera's sections on the BBC Or maybe honestreportings honorable mention for dishonest reporting awards 2002? are these ALL the telelgraph sites?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zero

Is this like the 'liberal media bias' lie(it is important to call it exactly what it is, which is an intentional falsehood.) that you hear about American media outlets?

Anyhoo, this is not the place for this discussion...
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,979
5,140
Originally posted by Zero
Is this like the 'liberal media bias' lie(it is important to call it exactly what it is, which is an intentional falsehood.) that you hear about American media outlets?
The liberal media bias isn't a lie and it isn't even hidden. Its right there for you to see if you choose to. Many big names in the media are very open about their political afiliation. They make speaches, write books, give commentaries, etc. And thats just those in TV. In print, its for some reason even more acceptable to report your opinion as news mixed in with other news.

Zero, I'll certainly give you that Fox leans to the right. But the reason there is a backlash against them is they are the ONLY major news source that leans to the right. You can measure how far a news source leans to the left by how much attention they give Fox (or Rush for that matter).
 

Njorl

Science Advisor
245
10
There was a survey done about 10 years ago in which 92% of journalists self-identified as liberal. This was hyped by conservatives to no end. What conservatives left out of their ravings was that the same survey showed that 84% of editors self-identified as conservative. Here is a link to a modern survey. It shows that the press are to the left of the people on social issues, but the the right of the people on economic issues.

http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html [Broken]

I would have thought that the last presidential election would have laid to rest the whole "liberal-media bias" myth. The press crucified Gore, even the NY Times gave more favorable press to Bush than to Gore.

I think one reason that conservatives think the press is liberal is because the press is fairly incompetent. Conservatives seem to think incompetence is a liberal trait. The explosion of press outlets has led to a drastic decrease in the quality of reporting. If airline pilots had the same level of competence it would be raining Boeings. Consider how often the ENTIRE press corps gets a story wrong, and how rarely you hear a story about the entire press corps getting a story wrong. They are a bunch of self-protective, poorly educated, glory mongers with average intelligence who portray themselves as oracles.

Njorl
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: What's the game, Mr. President?

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
45
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Top