Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Hello, welcome to UT. Do you really think that your party line, cut and paste defence of Israel somehow adds to this conversation? It does not. Do us a favour and have a look around at the vast amount of debate that has taken place here.
You have added nothing new. If we want to hear your puerile, ill thought out comments we could just tune in to FOX.
I am sure that there are good arguments for wholesale slaughter. So maybe you could make some, instead of just vapidly repeating RW talking points.
If you care so much, get thee hence to Gaza, there are still children alive, here and there, and an enterprising anti-terrorist like yourself could most certainly root them out and burn them alive with white phosphorus. We need to keep America safe right?
Good luck!
"I don't support Hamas' use of terror, but..." (Actually, I'm trying to think of the last time Glenn Greenwald condemned Hamas outright"
Glenn neither needs me nor has he asked me to answer on his behalf. But damm it I'm going to jump in anyway because your expressed sentiment really bloody annoys me. No one at this time NEED condemn Hamas. They are practically ineffective at their best when firing rockets. They are obviously even more ineffective at protecting their own population. Unless I've missed it they haven't even managed to knock out a single Israeli tank. That PROVES that they never did offer a threat to Israel even in the beginning and Israel knew that all along.
Air Force Vet in Amsterdam"So according to Friedmann Israel's intent was to inflict unintended casualties. Sort of like doing something accidentally on purpose. His lack of logical thought (or ability to express it) is as sad as his war and terror-mongering."
No I don't think he is being illogical at all. He means precily what he says. He wants civvies killed to teach them a lesson, but wants it done accidentally on purpose so as not to leave a easily followed trial of evidence of deliberate intent from Gaza through to the Hague via Washington.
Well said.
who asked: 'But is there any hard evidence for sabotaging negotiations as national or even party policy?'
I don't know if there are any documents that meticulously lay out the strategy and give cost estimates, etc. like the Nazis did with their odious policies, but I've read enough quotes from high ranking Likuds & members of parties that form parts of the parlimentary majority to conclude that this is the case.
I've also posited that all the lack of control/allowing of lawlessness in Iraq was premeditated by those neocons who helped with that fiasco. Their whole idea being:
1) Convert secular Arab regime to state where it could never miltarily threaten Israel (having 100,000 American troops parked in country will help assure that).
2) Bring American public opinion regarding Arabs in general more in line with avarge Likud voter (i.e. if Arabs are killing American soldiers, then the American public will view Israel's occupation in a more favorable light).
Sorry if this has been posted already, the pages whiz by too fast to keep up on "discussing Israel" days.
Israel may face UN court ruling on legality of Gaza conflict
Afua Hirsch, legal affairs correspondent The Guardian, Wednesday 14 January 2009
Israel faces the prospect of intervention by international courts amid growing calls that its actions in Gaza are a violation of world humanitarian and criminal law.
The UN general assembly, which is meeting this week to discuss the issue, will consider requesting an advisory opinion from the international court of justice, the Guardian has learned.
"There is a well-grounded view that both the initial attacks on Gaza and the tactics being used by Israel are serious violations of the UN charter, the Geneva conventions, international law and international humanitarian law," said Richard Falk, the UN's special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories and professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University.
"There is a consensus among independent legal experts that Israel is an occupying power and is therefore bound by the duties set out in the fourth Geneva convention," Falk added. "The arguments that Israel's blockade is a form of prohibited collective punishment, and that it is in breach of its duty to ensure the population has sufficient food and healthcare as the occupying power, are very strong."
A Foreign Office source confirmed the UK would consider backing calls for a reference to the ICJ. "It's definitely on the table," the source said. "We have already called for an investigation and are looking at all evidence and allegations."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/israel-gaza-un-court-palestine
The most ridiculous thing about Friedman is that he thinks a flashy turn of phrase is as substitute for a knowledge base and understanding of the issues. His metaphorical platforms are all flash in the pan one liners, of little use to hominids.
Bears were living their own, happy lives here for thousands of years, but unfortunately (for the bears) they could not really be considered a "race" of bears, so to speak (y'know, lacking souls, and all that). So when the europeans showed up with their divine mandate, It didn't look good for the bears.
Now, the europeans (now americans) don't have anything against bears. We like bears. But they are sort of dangerous, so we have hearded them up and got them somewhat contained in "wild" areas, surrounded by, well, us. There is not really enough food (or land) in these wild areas to support their once robust population, but their numbers keep adjusting to this (dwindling) to correspond with the carrying capacity of their habitat, as it gets more encroached on, and polluted. And, of course, they can not be allowed into our civilized society - Goodness knows what havoc they would wreak!
There are the occasional unfortunate events, attacks by the bears, which could be considered intolerable. But we are a benevolent people, and only if the bears really got uppity would we consider complete eradication all at once, rather than this more humane containment of the species.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
