OT: Aid Flotilla To Gaza Strip
Glenn Greenstein
see Israel destroyed. Over a month ago North Korea sank a South Korean
war ship with a torpedo and you barely heard a word of protest but
when Israel goes to check the contents of a ship headed to a area that
is controlled by terrorists that have fired thousands of rockets and
mortar shells at civilian populated areas in Israel and then they are
attacked, it's all Israel's fault. This was supposed to be an aid
flotilla, well I guess they had a shortage of baseball bats, metal
rods, fire bombs and sacks of marbles and slingshots in gaza and these
are the vital things they need to survive there. Unfreaking
believable.
MZ
Glenn, apples and oranges. In one case you have military action against
military targets. In another case, you have military action against
civilian targets. It's why people are also angry about US drone attacks
killing civilians in Afghanistan, for example.
My sense is that militaries -- US, Israeli, whoever -- aren't careful
enough about civilian casualties. Whatever. At least the discussion is
being had.
Glenn Greenstein
Mark, you're being very vague here. Exactly who is firing at military
targets and who is firing at civilians? if you're inferring that the
ship Israeli commandos boarded was a civilian vessel then I ask you
this, why were they armed to the teeth with slingshots, knives,
mace,baseball bats and iron rods? Why were they all wearing life
vests, were they having a life boat drill? This was planed for.
papa.carl44
"Glenn Greenstein" <lex...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ac40a7d-7b0c-45ef...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
Damn Glenn...I was on your side...but "armed to the teeth" with slingshots,
sticks etc? Against automatic weapons? If that is a military unit, with
sticks and stones....bring it on. Mark was referring to North Korean
military attacking a South Korean military unit.
MZ
So it's your view that they were secret military? Or terrorists?
Glenn Greenstein
wrote:
> "Glenn Greenstein" <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Papa, I know that much but this ship was not an aid ship or at least
not in my opinion, it had passengers on it with terrorist ties and if
you are on a humanitarian mission, you don't need to bring things that
can be used as weapons in case you get boarded, you cooperate to get
the much needed supplies to where they are needed. This ship was used
to provoke this exact response and the only way I can see people
siding with an organization that is trying to aid terrorist who have
openly attacked innocent people over Israel is that they want it wiped
from the map just as Hamas does.
And btw, the automatic weapons were paint ball guns so I'll take a
sling shot and a bag of marbles over one of those.
Glenn Greenstein
If you are on a humanitarian mission trying to get needed supplies to
impoverished people and your vessel gets boarded, do you try to
cooperate and allow them to inspect the cargo so they can see you
really are bringing in what you say you are or do you attack them with
weapons? I mean look at the videos on youtube, they were beaten up as
soon as they hit the deck.
MZ
Only in america would someone consider THE VESSEL THAT GOT RAIDED to be
the aggressor.
papa.carl44
I don't disagree, but I also don't agree with Israel continuing to support
settlements in parts or regions they annexed at one time or another. Both
sides in this thing seem Hell bent on destruction. Years ago I took some
classes / lectures at The New School with a professor named Stanley Diamond.
He suggested that the cultures of these people were based on
oppression...both sides...and that if things continued they would emerge as
groups that MUST be at war. Something has to give, somebody has to force
both of them to stop. Who will it be? IMHO, a lot of the issues were
created by Britain many years ago and all we see now are very predictable
results. Does Israel allow any humanitarian supplies to enter Gaza? It was
my understanding that even these are restricted and that was part of the
blockade. How many actual Palestinians does Hamas represent? Are they not
just the strong arm thugs and supported by Iran? Wouldn't extending aide to
people in need tend to win more understanding that a blockade? I just don't
see any end to this given the stance of both sides. I need to see some
support that there were weapons on those boats and that they had intentions
of creating terror. All I'm saying is I think Israel, who used to do
everything very smartly is making some bad logistical choices these days.
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:y_WdnZiXjZaSuZrR...@giganews.com...
And in international waters.
Glenn Greenstein
As far as Hamas, they are now the elected government of the
Palestinian people so maybe there numbers are not great as compared to
the whole but they make the rules now.
I don't think this ship had weapons but in the past the blockade has
stopped other ships that were trying to smuggle weapons so there is a
legit president.
Glenn Greenstein
That isn't what I said, stop trying to twist things, I have just asked
you a question and you are drawing a conclusion.
I asked you if the conduct displayed by the people on that ship was
that of humanitarians?
MZ
I don't know. Otherwise good people can turn pretty damned mean when
they're being provoked or attacked.
Michael
The world reaction has me wondering too. Taken on its own, a commando
raid on a boat carrying humanitarian supplies in international water
that ends up with activists being gunned down looks fairly
outrageous. If you consider the events that lead up to this, there
should be a lot less foaming at the mouth.
I have a lot of humanitarian sympathies for the Palestinian people
that caught up in all of this, but I can’t have much political
sympathy for them. Yeah, the UN blew it in ’48 by not considering the
people that were displaced, but since then several administrations
both American and Israeli have put blood, sweat and tears into trying
to work a solution only to be rebuffed. The Oslo offer of the West
Bank, Gaza, the corridor between them and sovereignty was not good
enough for the Palestinian leaders. Other attempts have been made at
arranging a solution, but it appears to me that "victims" can be
unfair and unreasonable. Again… I have humanitarian sympathies for
the people that are getting pushed to the wall in Gaza, but their past
leaders helped to make that bed for them.
Yeah, the Israelis screwed up royally, but given the history of it
all, I’m not surprised that they malfunctioned. More of the same to
come, I'm sure.
Glenn Greenstein
Communication logs how that the raid went on for 20 minutes until
authorization for the use of deadly force was given, in the mean time
they were being beaten, stabbed and thrown onto lower decks. I'm not
so sure that Israel was the only group that screwed up here. 5 other
vessels were boarded without incident.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
from a political stand point, they made a mistake by boarding a ship
in international waters. given that the supporters of "the victims"
have dabbled in unconventional activites such as exporting materials
that are used to kill people and not save them, i can understand what
drove them to cross the line. i'm not commenting so much on the
details of the incident itself. just the world reaction to it that
appears to be all together lost as to how it came to this. again... i
sympathise with peple that are being pused to the wall from a humane
stand point, but my political view is that unreasonable leadership on
the part of the Palestinans has taken them to it.
papa.carl44
So...when we, the US, runs around the globe shouting about creating
democracies and then someone elects Hamas, in a democratic election, what do
we do? Part of what I'm saying is Hamas got to be in power because of a
long undealt with situation. Frustration and anger gets militant solutions
put into place and sometimes the trite statements such as, "Fighting for
Peace is like, Screaming for Silence" begin to make sense.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Papa...
What do you think about the offer that was made and refused by the
Palestinian leadership ??? An offer of: Gaza, the West Bank, the
corridor, limited right of return and sovereignty ??? What more can be
offered ??? May be all the Israelis jumping into the sea too ??? Can
you make any case contrary to what things look like to me ??? The
Palestinian leadership and many of their supporters want Israel gone
all together. They want it all, they cant get it all. Relationships
break down and the less powerful side... the one that wants it all...
takes to unconventional war. It becomes tit for tat, the other side
gets sick of it and trys to wall them off. The offer rebuffs are
forgotten about and so is the subsequent gurilla/terror campaign. Why
are the walled up there getting angry and frustrated and abused ???
papa.carl44
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:c683b18c-3f7b-4550...@b21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
Papa...
Michael, You are so quick to tell others they didn't read or that they jump
to conclusions and make inferences. Look at what YOU do. It is obvious
that you did not read or comprehend what I said. In a democratic election
the people elected a terrorist group. Those things happen when negative
situations are in place for long periods of time. The more the situation
goes on the more radical it becomes. What I'm saying is that if many years
ago meaningful discussions had taken place then perhaps this situation would
be different. The fact is, if you READ what I said, is I don't think there
is a foreseeable way out of this. More than a generation of militants,
living in abject conditions have come to be, and the world sat by and
watched this happen. I generally support Israel ( I suppose you didn't read
that part either ) but I also see where they have made bad decisions. I've
had the opportunity to speak and work with Israeli's who believe it is their
destiny to control the entire region....I don't think that is realistic
either. Since you seem to have the answers you tell me how it is going to
get solved. All of a sudden the tactics of the PLO don't seem as bizarre as
what has replaced them. I'm of the belief that some things are happening in
the world that simply can not be fixed. Unless somehow, somebody can
convince one of the powerful Muslim or Arab states to intervene and
seriously control the Palestinians I don't see a solution to this. Let me
know what you think it is. Does Israel keep living in constant war? Does
that work? When will some loose cannon on their side cross a very serious
line? Please, enlighten me...and as you do it, explain how your answer even
related to what I said. You obviously do not read things before you
respond.
Michael
wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Papa... I read every word you wrote and I understood it to the full.
I did not accuse you of being pro this or anti that... This is the key
point I am making in recognition of the original post.
I offered this:
" I'm not commenting so much on the details of the incident itself.
just the world reaction to it that appears to be all together lost as
to how it came to this."
You spoke about: "Hamas got to be in power because of a long undealt
with situation."
I stated that it had in fact been dealt with at length by several
administrations putting forth considerable effort. I has been dealt
with. It has not been resolved because the Palestinian leaders wanted
it all, including getting rid of Israel. I am not dictating here. I
am honestly asing for any info that can counter my appraisal. We need
to answer that question first before the world and have it recognized
in order to plan a resolution.
I also wanna add. We got two groups that got screwed. The Jewish
people by means of what happened in the 30's-40's and the people that
got displaced after the UN legal paper that created the state of
Israel. I cant take one side or the other completely because I see
both sides as deserving of sympathy.
What I think needs to happen is that the Palestinians need to employ
leaders that want a two state solution. I have never been to the area,
so I am ignorant to the full as to just how hard/improbable that will
be.
papa.carl44
Then SAY you are commenting on the original post! You didn't, you directly
addressed me. Do you believe every group in this country (USA) that has
been wronged should be given a free pass to act out? Boarding ships in
internatinonal waters comes with risks, and people are reacting to it. I
think the World reacts because they perceive Israel as the favorite child of
the USA and in that sense are treated as if they can do no wrong. In case
you haven't noticed, the past decade did a lot to get folks to not like the
USA...right or wrong, it's a reality.
I offered this:
" I'm not commenting so much on the details of the incident itself.
just the world reaction to it that appears to be all together lost as
to how it came to this."
You spoke about: "Hamas got to be in power because of a long undealt
with situation."
I stated that it had in fact been dealt with at length by several
administrations putting forth considerable effort. I has been dealt
with. It has not been resolved because the Palestinian leaders wanted
it all, including getting rid of Israel. I am not dictating here. I
am honestly asing for any info that can counter my appraisal. We need
to answer that question first before the world and have it recognized
in order to plan a resolution.
Figure this one out....countries like England, who would not have to deal
with the consequences helped create the state of Israel...then walked
away...now it's a mess....like Iraq...that was created by the UK too...never
really was a country before it became convenient for England to see it that
way.
I also wanna add. We got two groups that got screwed. The Jewish
people by means of what happened in the 30's-40's and the people that
got displaced after the UN legal paper that created the state of
Israel. I cant take one side or the other completely because I see
both sides as deserving of sympathy.
What I think needs to happen is that the Palestinians need to employ
leaders that want a two state solution. I have never been to the area,
so I am ignorant to the full as to just how hard/improbable that will
be.
What I said....seems like the days of the two state solution are gone...and,
I don't believe Israel wants a two state solution either...so how do you
resolve that?
Michael
wrote:
> Then SAY you are commenting on the original post! You didn't, you directly
> addressed me.
1,000 pardons...
> Do you believe every group in this country (USA) that has
> been wronged should be given a free pass to act out? Boarding ships in
> internatinonal waters comes with risks, and people are reacting to it. I
> think the World reacts because they perceive Israel as the favorite child of
> the USA and in that sense are treated as if they can do no wrong. In case
> you haven't noticed, the past decade did a lot to get folks to not like the
> USA...right or wrong, it's a reality.
I think that is part of the reason for the reaction. Not the larger
part. Please tell me what country has given the Palestinians more
real USEFUL consideration than the United States ??? What have the
Arabic countries done for the Palestinians ??? What I see offered are
public rhetoric that can only be interpreted as efforts to inflame
followed by underground shipments of pop guns and bottle rockets. How
much land has Jordan offered to give the Palestinians ??? Why do the
people in the UK get so flamed ??? You want to talk about a group that
has expanded, oppressed and ripped off other peoples resources ???
Again... I know that the commando raid was a screw up, but it looks to
me at times that a lot of people and countries just have it in for
Israel. Incidently, I dont support Israel because of any idiotic
religious pretext. In the main, it is a sane and stable secular
democracy regardless of how may people call it a theocracy. A large
part of the population is not religious at all and most of the ones
that are religious are secular.
MZ
I really have no idea what you guys are talking about with this whole
"reaction" thing. The reaction has been overwhelmingly pro-Israel from
what I've seen, because the conservatives are featuring this more than
anyone else.
I read an article on antiwar.com earlier that talked about the
pro-Israeli slant in the america media:
(excerpt)
"...The story of what actually happened is already vanishing from the
newspapers. Instead we are seeing and will continue to see articles,
letters, and opinion pieces justifying what Israel did. The Washington
Post, which has become a neocon bastion under editorial page editor Fred
Hiatt, led the charge with three feature articles on June 1st plus a
lead editorial. All the pieces refer to the passengers on the ships as
"pro-Palestinian activists" but the editorial goes one step farther in
referring to them as "militants." The editorial "The flotilla fiasco"
began with "The Israeli commandos who landed on the deck of the Turkish
ferry Mavi Marmara off the coast of the Gaza Strip early Monday were
totally unprepared for what they encountered: dozens of militants who
swarmed around them with knives and iron bars" and then went on to
explain "We have no sympathy for the motives of the participants in the
flotilla � a motley collection�Israel says that some of the organizers
have ties to Hamas and al-Qaeda."
"The three news articles are equally slanted both in their language and
what they choose to report. The feature article in its morning edition
had a sub-headline "Commandos battle with pro-Palestinian activists" and
includes a color photo of an "activist" praying on board the Turkish
vessel. A second article "Israel says Free Gaza Movement poses threat
to Jewish state" with the sub-heading "Aid flotilla was run by member
charity with alleged ties to Islamists." The Free Gaza movement is then
described as a "security threat to the Jewish state." The Post coverage
is basically a compendium of made-in-Israel talking points. The
incident is invariably described as a "battle" as if it were a face-off
between two equal opponents instead of an attack by heavily armed
soldiers against unarmed civilians. The coverage exploits key words:
Terrorism, Threat, al-Qaeda."
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark... Check out a few on-line news sources that allow readers to
post commentary beheath the article. Visit two or three such main
steam news services and take in some of the reader commentary. Let me
know what you think after reading.
Hammer
I am going to respond to a few of these posts, against my better
judgment.
Mark, your comment that the Israeli military isn't careful enough
about civilian casualties is inaccurate. The IDF prides itself on
being the most humane army in the world. I don't agree with what they
do, because they expose their soldiers to needless risk in order to
minimize the possibility of any civilian casualties. For example, if
terrorists are holed up in a building, they don't just bomb the
building, they storm the front door and put soldiers at risk to make
sure there is no collateral damage. Before they go into combat they
have planes dropping flyers in Arabic warning civilians that they are
coming (and giving up the element of surprise) so that they can take
cover. The list goes on and on.
Hammer
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not sure where that comment comes from that the cultures of both
sides are based on oppression. I don't think it's correct but if
there's any evidence to support it I'd love to hear it.
I agree that Israel's leadership is making terrible, terrible,
terrible, awful, horrendous logistical choices. They seem not to have
a clue.
BTW, Israel does allow humanitarian supplies to enter Gaza. The stated
reasons for the blockade are that they want to inspect humanitarian
supplies to prevent arms smuggling, and that they want to maintain
their control over the coastal waters (by letting boats in, its
effectively giving up any rights they might have, like not protecting
a copyright. However, their rights in this area are sort of tenuous.)
Hammer
>
> - Show quoted text -
My view is that they were hard-core liberals who believed very
strongly in their cause, not military or terrorists. However, the fact
that they brought weapons leads me to believe that they knew this
would happen, and it was part of their plan to make Israel look bad.
Hammer
wrote:
> "MZ" <m...@nospam.void> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
The real problem here is that Israel thinks it has a right to stop
those vessels. They consider it part of there territorial waters. How
they can think that when they essentially gave away the Gaza Strip (a
big mistake) is beyond my comprehension.
MZ
Hammer, I'll defer to your judgment on that. I don't follow their track
record closely enough to be able to speak with authority on that issue,
though it's always been my impression that they embroil themselves in
too much civilian stuff. Maybe it's the difficult nature of Israel's
position in the region. I don't know.
But in this case, it seems to me to be a slam dunk case of an armed
military doing something they shouldn't have done to what turned out to
be an unarmed civilian ship (sticks and chains and whatnot don't count
as "armed" ... there wasn't a single firearm of any sort on board).
The problem now, as I see it, is that Israel doesn't appear to show any
remorse over the incident and will continue to do this, meanwhile Turkey
vows to escort these ships with military. That is not a good combo.
For the record, I'm not taking sides with any country over any other in
this thread. What I find objectionable is misuse of military power
against civilians. I don't like it when America does it, I don't like
it when russia does it, and I don't like it when Israel does it.
MZ
If that were true, they would have brought guns. This isn't the middle
ages.
papa.carl44
1,000 pardons...
You are absolutely right...that's why I said in one post that some Arab or
Muslim state has to step up and do something...they haven't and they have
never been behind the Palestinians, only in lip service or as Iran does to
create terror activities that hurt them in the long run. Egypt should step
up, and they haven't. Your're right, the US has done more to support
Palestine than any of the powers in that region.
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
Your last sentence says it all....and is enough to stand on it's own. Amen.
Hammer
>
> - Show quoted text -
But then they might have gotten hurt. They wanted to provoke a
response without giving Israel any sort of excuse to use deadly force.
At least that's how I see it.
Hammer
Well, supposedly the Israeli soldiers originally were only firing
paintballs but were getting beaten pretty severely by the sticks and
chains. I don't know if that's true or not.
> The problem now, as I see it, is that Israel doesn't appear to show any
> remorse over the incident and will continue to do this, meanwhile Turkey
> vows to escort these ships with military. That is not a good combo.
Yeah, as I said before, Israel isn't acting very smart.
> For the record, I'm not taking sides with any country over any other in
> this thread. What I find objectionable is misuse of military power
> against civilians. I don't like it when America does it, I don't like
> it when russia does it, and I don't like it when Israel does it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I hear that, but I also think these civilians should mind their own
business. They're coming from far away just to cause trouble. That's
not smart either. I certainly wouldn't be dumb enough to go protest in
China or something like that.
Michael
Mark... I dont like it either. I dont like when that happens and I
dont like when the government uses a false pretext to start a 3
trillion dollar war. With this commando raid crap I'm just thinking a
bit about the mud that got slung at soldiers in the Vietnam war. In
the case of the Vietnam war and some elements of the Palestinian
resistance, one side wants to shoot from the shadows with the
combatants being disguised as bystanders. When you have to play that
game you are sure to look like a jack ass when your instincts suggest
to you that some bystanders are really soldiers in the shadows.
Michael
wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
We dont have a beef here Papa... We are on the same page.
Glenn Greenstein
Then tell us Mark, what was the point of bringing knives, mace,
baseball bats, slingshot and sacks of marbles as well as fire bombs?
MZ
Michael, I would agree with you if it was a nam-like situation. But
soldiers without guns? The evidence points to them being civilians in
every sense of the word.
MZ
Fire bombs?
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
The IDF has seen enough bystanders with bombs up their asses to cause
a constant state of concern. The other side there never wears
uniforms. There is also little question that "aid" shipments in the
past have included contraban weapons materials. I dont think the
comando guys went on that boat to provoke a fire fight. The went to
see what it hand on board because it may very well have had bad stuff
on it along with good stuff. The communications logs look very much
like the commado guys might have felt they could get killed. Catch 22
I guess. No inspecion and may be weapons get it. Force an inspection
and you provoke an international incident. I dont know... Should the
commando guys have abandoned the inspection when they realized things
were gonna get hot ?? May be defer to some other form of visable
political pressure to impound the boat and clear the way for an
inspection ??? I dont know what options there are for this sort of
thing.
MZ
Right. But in this case, there were no bombs up people's asses. Israel
should acknowledge this and apologize, even if it's an empty one.
Instead, they're sticking to their guns (no pun intended).
Johnny Morongo
> On Jun 3, 11:32 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 3:47 pm, Glenn Greenstein <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm starting to think the whole world , not just the Mid East wants to
>>> see Israel destroyed. Over a month ago North Korea sank a South Korean
>>> war ship with a torpedo and you barely heard a word of protest but
>>> when Israel goes to check the contents of a ship headed to a area that
>>> is controlled by terrorists that have fired thousands of rockets and
>>> mortar shells at civilian populated areas in Israel and then they are
>>> attacked, it's all Israel's fault. This was supposed to be an aid
>>> flotilla, well I guess they had a shortage of baseball bats, metal
>>> rods, fire bombs and sacks of marbles and slingshots in gaza and these
>>> are the vital things they need to survive there. Unfreaking
>>> believable.
>> raid on a boat carrying humanitarian supplies in international water
>> that ends up with activists being gunned down looks fairly
>> outrageous. If you consider the events that lead up to this, there
>> should be a lot less foaming at the mouth.
>>
>> I have a lot of humanitarian sympathies for the Palestinian people
>> that caught up in all of this, but I can’t have much political
>> sympathy for them. Yeah, the UN blew it in ’48 by not considering the
>> people that were displaced, but since then several administrations
>> both American and Israeli have put blood, sweat and tears into trying
>> to work a solution only to be rebuffed. The Oslo offer of the West
>> Bank, Gaza, the corridor between them and sovereignty was not good
>> enough for the Palestinian leaders. Other attempts have been made at
>> arranging a solution, but it appears to me that "victims" can be
>> unfair and unreasonable. Again… I have humanitarian sympathies for
>> the people that are getting pushed to the wall in Gaza, but their past
>> leaders helped to make that bed for them.
>>
>> Yeah, the Israelis screwed up royally, but given the history of it
>> all, I’m not surprised that they malfunctioned. More of the same to
>> come, I'm sure.
>
> Communication logs how that the raid went on for 20 minutes until
> authorization for the use of deadly force was given, in the mean time
> they were being beaten, stabbed and thrown onto lower decks. I'm not
> so sure that Israel was the only group that screwed up here. 5 other
> vessels were boarded without incident.
Of course you believe the veracity of those so called communications
logs? Over eye witness accounts that say that the ship was fired on
before the IDF hit the deck? Your choice, not mine. Of course you will
believe what you will.
Johnny Morongo
You're not talking about the Camp David II Accords? If so, you are so
full of shit. Want to know what a few of the Israeli caveats were?
A Palestinian state would be established in most of the West Bank and
all of the Gaza strip, with these conditions:
* The state would not have an army with heavy weapons,
* The state would not make alliances with other countries without
Israeli approval and would not allow introduction of foreign forces west
of the River Jordan.
* Israel would be allowed deploy troops in the Jordan Valley if
Israel were to be threatened by invasion from the east.
* Israeli aircraft could overfly Palestinian airspace.
* Israeli would install early warning stations in the mountains
overlooking the Jordan valley and other areas.
* Palestinians would control border crossings with Jordan and Egypt
along with Israeli security observation.
* The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the
West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians.
* Israel would lease areas in the Jordan Valley or maintain
temporary sovereignty over them for up to 25 years.
Sounds fair and balanced to me. SURE. And then say that it was
rejected. The logic escapes me.
Johnny Morongo
"...In the main, it is a sane and stable secular
democracy regardless of how may people call it a theocracy..."
No Michael. The number of people who call it a theocracy have nothing
to do with it being a theocracy. The way the country is run is why it
is called a theocracy. Their law is the Torah. All else redounds from
that.
That YOU don't want to call it a theocracy is what doesn't make it so.
Johnny Morongo
Ah! Another voice of Zionism. Yes, the IDF did not bomb a U.N.
compound, at least one hospital, or use phosphorous bombs or frag
grenades.
Not lil ole Israel. Not us. We would never do something like that!
We're God's chosen ones. We're the good guys...always. Yes, we
preserve the rights of those poor wretches...when we don't slaughter them.
Johnny Morongo
Weapons? WEAPONS??? Right.
Johnny Morongo
Did you ever notice that by and large the peoples against whom the
Americans, Russians AND Israelis misuse their military power against
have all been third world countries fighting for their very existence?
It's never a fair fight.
Johnny Morongo
Who told you what "ammunition" they bought? The American press? Good
source for truth, Glenn.
Johnny Morongo
> On Jun 2, 9:02 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> wrote:
>> "Glenn Greenstein" <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2ac40a7d-7b0c-45ef...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>> sticks etc? Against automatic weapons? If that is a military unit, with
>> sticks and stones....bring it on. Mark was referring to North Korean
>> military attacking a South Korean military unit.
>
> Papa, I know that much but this ship was not an aid ship or at least
> not in my opinion, it had passengers on it with terrorist ties and if
> you are on a humanitarian mission, you don't need to bring things that
> can be used as weapons in case you get boarded, you cooperate to get
> the much needed supplies to where they are needed. This ship was used
> to provoke this exact response and the only way I can see people
> siding with an organization that is trying to aid terrorist who have
> openly attacked innocent people over Israel is that they want it wiped
> from the map just as Hamas does.
> And btw, the automatic weapons were paint ball guns so I'll take a
> sling shot and a bag of marbles over one of those.
Glenn, not to mince words here, but you are a Jew. Therefore, you have
an agenda. You accept, blindly I might add, the Israeli position. Am I
offensive to you? Tough shit. Don't come crying in here about sling
shots against .54s. But no one should be surprised.
Israel has become a Nazi state, walling in a portion of the Gaza
population, starving it as best they can, annexing territory at will and
then building on it, bombing schools, hospitals and U.N. facilities.
You see Israel as a freedom loving nation. I see it as a nuclear armed
nation, the only one in the region BTW, willing to use phosphorous bombs
on a civilian population armed, for the most part, with a few rocket
launchers, sticks and stones. Oh, and by the way, Hamas just happens to
be the party that the Gazans themselves have chose, by a free election,
to lead them. But since Israel doesn't like that, they seem to feel
that they are at liberty to take down that FREELY ELECTED political
party, and their weapon of choice would seem to be starvation. Please
remember that the aid ships were trying to get through a fucking
BLOCKADE! Can you put two and two together and somehow understand that
the purpose of a blockade is to starve the blockaded into submission.
Or are you too young to remember the Berlin Blockade? But for the
Gazans, there is no American led air-lift to break it.
Unfortunately, an attack on unarmed or weakly defended populations is
not new for the IDF, or maybe you haven't heard of the U.S.S. Liberty?
Or read the Old Testament stories of slaughter of hundreds of thousands
of men, women and children, spurred on by Yahweh who, however, gave them
permission to keep the young virgins for themselves? Look it up. Do
some research. It's there in black and white:
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children,
that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
(Numbers 31:16-18)
This is the attitude that continues to permeate the councils of the
Jewish state. Kill 'em all. God said it was OK. You're chosen.
And, not for nothing, there are more than one report from survivors,
that of course you're not going to see in the N.Y. Times or on CNN, that
testify that a dual Turk/American citizen was shot, at close range, four
times - in the head. Typical IDF overkill (and some would say, in the
form of a mob land/spy hit).
I'm sorry, but when you drag the Israeli flag into this news group,
exclaiming the innocence of those who are *unquestionably* the deadly
perpetrators, then someone has to talk back to you. I'm ashamed that no
one else has. OK, maybe Mark has somewhat and Papa too, but you
continue to defend, AFAIC, an untenable position in your dialogue with
them. As a Jew, you SHOULD be ashamed. No wonder "...the whole world ,
not just the Mid East wants to see Israel destroyed." It seems that
they are deliberately courting the enmity of world opinion, not unlike
the same kind of arrogance with which BP has responded to their crimes
too. In short, neither BP nor the Jews give a shit about what the world
community thinks, BP because of their financial and political clout
and the Israeli's because they have God on their side. "...armed to the
teeth"??? Don't make me laugh.
Keep your blood soaked flag outta here and you won't have to be offended
by anything I say.
Johnctx
Papa, if I could interject and this is a general comment & not directed
at you.
The Europeans have been very supportive of the Palestinians and they did
it sooner & far more openly than we did in this country. It can be
political suicide in the US for a pol to openly support the
Palestinians. Carter lost in 1980 because of it, Bush sent quite a few
dollars over to the Dems the minute Baker made his peace initiatives &
ask Cynthia McKinney how often she talks about the Palestinians.
The problem is we can't have a meaningful discussion about Israel in
this country because if you say something that is anti-Israel you can
quickly get labeled an anti-Semite. The reality is that there are still
too many people who dislike Jews but I think it wrong to paint everyone
that comments in a negative way about Israel a bigot.
We won't have a meaningful discussion about this or any major issue in
this country until we eliminate the money in politics or at least bring
transparency.
Finally the Arab states could care less about the Palestinenas. They
were the most hated Arabs as the Brits turned them into colonial
administrators throughout the Mideast and most Arab countries. Also the
Saudis & the like are only interested in their own $. hating the Jews
keeps their people in line.
If Jerusalem was made an international city pre-1967 a big issue could
have been avoided. We should have built the UN there.
Johnctx
>> For the record, I'm not taking sides with any country over any other in
>> this thread. What I find objectionable is misuse of military power
>> against civilians. I don't like it when America does it, I don't like it
>> when russia does it, and I don't like it when Israel does it.
>
> Your last sentence says it all....and is enough to stand on it's own. Amen.
>
>
I will not abide anyone showing any common sense in here.
Johnctx
Johnny Camp David II = Clinton's attempt at cleaning up his obituary.
Did you ever look at the gerrymandered map of the West bank? It was a joke.
Glenn Greenstein
wrote:
Israel to Nazi's is beyond fucking belief. Not even Brian Pratt ever
said that. Are the Israelis herding Palestinians into extermination
camps trying to preform genocide? Israel is a nuclear power, are they
dropping nukes on the Gaza strip? You can bet if the Hamas had Nukes
they'd be trying to detonate a bomb in Israel.
Further more you choose to believe the accounts from people who are
not trying to get aid to Gaza or in other words a terrorist state,
they are trying to break the blockade by Israel under the guise of
bringing aid. If they were serious about bring aid the ship that left
from Ireland would be sailing to Egypt who has lifted it's blockade,
not going in the same path where they will meet the same resistance
the other ship did.
Open your fucking eyes. They want to go to Gaza and eventually deliver
rockets from Iran that will be fired indiscriminately at Israel.
Thousands of rockets have already been fired at Israel by Hama from
Gaza.
Oh and BTW, who has given more to these people that Israel? I haven't
seen any Arabs offering Palestinians land to live on. If you want to
go back in history, I don't agree with the way Israel became a state
but what's done is done, it isn't going to change.
Glenn Greenstein
Who told you they had assault rifles with live ammo? The Turkish
press? Good source of the truth Terrorist lover.
Glenn Greenstein
wrote:
And who is provoking it? Was it not North Korea that provoked South
who could wipe if from the face of the earth? Did Afghanistan not send
terrorist to the US to kill thousands of Americans on 9/11 (go ahead
Johnnie, tell me the Afgan government was not turning a blind eye to
the Taliban)? Are the Israelis not also victims when Hamas sends
suicide bombers into street cafe's or fires thousands of rockets and
mortar shells at civilians in Israel?
Glenn Greenstein
AP has interviews with people that were on the ship that said they
were not fired on. Who do you want to believe, AP or the Turkish media?
Hammer
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
What the hell are you talking about? How is that in any way a response
to what I said?
"Another voice of Zionism"??? You sound like a real asshole.
Johnctx
> seen any Arabs offering Palestinians land to live on. If you want to
> go back in history, I don't agree with the way Israel became a state
> but what's done is done, it isn't going to change.
Glenn, I don't read much about the Israelis & the Palestinians anymore
because it never changes. I would like point out a problem, from where I
stand, in your thinking.
Why is it the responsibility of an Arab country over the Jewish state to
provide for these people? They were not forced out of anyplace except
what they consider their homeland. They were not displaced from Syria or
Egypt but Israel.
As for forgetting, the Jews didn't forget for 1500 years that they once
had a country why can't you understand that these people will have
memories as well. That when you have nothing to live for you become very
dangerous.
If forward thinking people had stepped up on the Israeli side -- and I
know the political reality of facing an enemy with goals of driving you
to the sea makes risk difficult- but more importantly if the Arabs had a
Gandhi like leader, prior to the building on the West bank, there may
have been a solution. I can't see it now.
People say this has been going on for 1500 years are idiots. This is a
60 year old problem & will probably lead to a nuke in Israel & or the
US in my lifetime. i would not want to be the Isaraeli or American
leader facing the aftermath & the decision as to whether you kill 10's
of millions of people as retaliation.
Glenn Greenstein
Like I said John, I don't really agree with the way Israel became a
state but you can thank the UN for it. Papa also said the UK had it's
hand in it as well but I knew nothing of that. There are also Jews
that do not recognize Israel so it's not totally our homeland.
What I was trying to say is Israel has done more to make peace with
the Palestinians than anyone and what did they get for it, thousands
of rocket attacks.
Glenn Greenstein
Why don't you watch the video Jew hater. Should I believe the words of
a prick that compares Israel to WWII Germany or my own eyes?
Glenn Greenstein
Mark, watch the video.
Johnctx
Not letting our state dept off the hook but from Africa to Asia we have
been cleaning up French & English colonial slop since we became chief --
yeah Johnny I know we have made some ourselves.
The Palestineans are pawn of first the Soviets, then the Gulf States &
now Islamic political movement.
It is horrible situation. Both sides knowing their children will die.
At east for the Israelis they know for every one they lost the
Palestineans will lose 4 or 5.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark.. 100 % agree. I have never once stated that they should not
recognize or appogize. That is in order. I have said that it was a
screw-up from the get go. Check out my original post.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
I cant say for sure what happened. I am not sure what happened. I was
not there. After evaluating what was available to me, I'm thinking the
activists began the violence.
Michael
wrote:
Have you ever been to Israel ??? How may Israelies do you know ???
Michael
<j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com>
> Keep your blood soaked flag outta here and you won't have to be offended
> by anything I say.- Hide quoted text -
Not much blood on the American Flag...
Glenn Greenstein
Don't confuse the Jew hater with facts.
Glenn Greenstein
wrote:
The Blockade has already stopped ship THAT HAD WEAPONS ON THEM IN THE
PAST.
MZ
I have. It's plastered all over the news. But I don't know what you're
talking about.
This is a cliche case of showing up with a knife to a gun fight.
Glenn Greenstein
wrote:
> papa.carl44 wrote:
> > "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:c683b18c-3f7b-4550...@b21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 3, 2:14 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>> >>news:0c82091f-3498-4a49...@c11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jun 3, 12:01 am, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> "Glenn Greenstein" <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:02e1ed37-7cf8-4254...@d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Jun 2, 9:02 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "Glenn Greenstein" <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:2ac40a7d-7b0c-45ef...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> slingshots,
> >> As far as Hamas, they are now the elected government of the
> >> Palestinian people so maybe there numbers are not great as compared to
> >> the whole but they make the rules now.
> >> I don't think this ship had weapons but in the past the blockade has
> >> stopped other ships that were trying to smuggle weapons so there is a
> >> legit president.
>
> >> So...when we, the US, runs around the globe shouting about creating
> >> democracies and then someone elects Hamas, in a democratic election, what
> >> do
> >> we do? Part of what I'm saying is Hamas got to be in power because of a
> >> long undealt with situation. Frustration and anger gets militant solutions
> >> put into place and sometimes the trite statements such as, "Fighting for
> >> text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > What do you think about the offer that was made and refused by the
> > Palestinian leadership ??? An offer of: Gaza, the West Bank, the
> > offered ??? May be all the Israelis jumping into the sea too ??? Can
> > you make any case contrary to what things look like to me ??? The
> > Palestinian leadership and many of their supporters want Israel gone
> > all together. They want it all, they cant get it all. Relationships
> > break down and the less powerful side... the one that wants it all...
> > takes to unconventional war. It becomes tit for tat, the other side
> > gets sick of it and trys to wall them off. The offer rebuffs are
> > forgotten about and so is the subsequent gurilla/terror campaign. Why
> > are the walled up there getting angry and frustrated and abused ???
>
> > Michael, You are so quick to tell others they didn't read or that they jump
> > to conclusions and make inferences. Look at what YOU do. It is obvious
> > that you did not read or comprehend what I said. In a democratic election
> > the people elected a terrorist group. Those things happen when negative
> > situations are in place for long periods of time. The more the situation
> > goes on the more radical it becomes. What I'm saying is that if many years
> > ago meaningful discussions had taken place then perhaps this situation would
> > be different. The fact is, if you READ what I said, is I don't think there
> > is a foreseeable way out of this. More than a generation of militants,
> > living in abject conditions have come to be, and the world sat by and
> > watched this happen. I generally support Israel ( I suppose you didn't read
> > that part either ) but I also see where they have made bad decisions. I've
> > had the opportunity to speak and work with Israeli's who believe it is their
> > destiny to control the entire region....I don't think that is realistic
> > either. Since you seem to have the answers you tell me how it is going to
> > get solved. All of a sudden the tactics of the PLO don't seem as bizarre as
> > what has replaced them. I'm of the belief that some things are happening in
> > the world that simply can not be fixed.
>
> Unless somehow, somebody can
>
> > convince one of the powerful Muslim or Arab states to intervene and
> > seriously control the Palestinians I don't see a solution to this.
>
> How about somebody convincing the United States to intervene and
> seriously control the Jews? Last I looked it was Israel who was the
> aggressor in this situation and it the ONE COUNTRY in that region armed
> to the teeth and in possession of nuclear warheads. Who needs to be
> controlled?
>
> Let me
>
> > know what you think it is. Does Israel keep living in constant war? Does
> > that work? When will some loose cannon on their side cross a very serious
> > line? Please, enlighten me...and as you do it, explain how your answer even
> > related to what I said. You obviously do not read things before you
> > respond.
Johnny, this is so sad on so many levels. First off it isn't
controlling Jews, believe it or not, one of the ultra orthodox sects
in Judaism does not even recognize Israel as it's home land, they
believe the Messiah will take us to the holy land and in case you
don't know it, we are all as Jews waiting for him to appear, we didn't
buy the Jesus Christ part of the Bible. Israelis are also very unlike
American born Jews, they are extreme and not in religion but beliefs.
They believe they have a some sort of entitlement and are better than
the rest of us so enough of showing what a fucking redneck you can
sound like. Israel is made up of Israelis.
Now as far as being the aggressor, 5 other ships were boarded with
only minor incidents, no being beaten, stabbed or thrown over decks.
This ship in particular had an agenda and it was to provoke an attack.
Honestly they brought this on themselves if they thought they were
going to beat a bunch of highly trained soldiers and there would not
be consequences. I can tell you right now, If I was on a ship in
international waters or not and It was boarded in the fashion this one
was, the last thing I'm doing is picking up a chair to beat the
soldiers with but I guess that's what you would do since you think
they are so right and the soldiers are so wrong.
MZ
> Now as far as being the aggressor, 5 other ships were boarded with
> only minor incidents, no being beaten, stabbed or thrown over decks.
Glenn, I'm curious to know if you think the revolutionaries in colonial
america were the aggressors. By the logic you're using in this thread,
I expect you to say that the americans were the aggressors and the brits
were not.
> This ship in particular had an agenda and it was to provoke an attack.
> Honestly they brought this on themselves if they thought they were
> going to beat a bunch of highly trained soldiers and there would not
> be consequences. I can tell you right now, If I was on a ship in
> international waters or not and It was boarded in the fashion this one
> was, the last thing I'm doing is picking up a chair to beat the
> soldiers with but I guess that's what you would do since you think
> they are so right and the soldiers are so wrong.
You're right that they were not smart! They should have bent over and
took it. Seriously. If someone invades your home, your ship, or
whatever else, and they're armed and you're not, you don't pick a fight.
You give them what they want.
These people on the boats were idiots. That doesn't make them wrong.
It makes them idiots.
Glenn Greenstein
> Glenn Greenstein wrote:
> > Now as far as being the aggressor, 5 other ships were boarded with
> > only minor incidents, no being beaten, stabbed or thrown over decks.
>
> Glenn, I'm curious to know if you think the revolutionaries in colonial
> america were the aggressors. By the logic you're using in this thread,
> I expect you to say that the americans were the aggressors and the brits
> were not.
I'm curious Mark, were the people on that ship made to pay taxes that
the king of England made up as he went along?
>
> > This ship in particular had an agenda and it was to provoke an attack.
> > Honestly they brought this on themselves if they thought they were
> > going to beat a bunch of highly trained soldiers and there would not
> > be consequences. I can tell you right now, If I was on a ship in
> > international waters or not and It was boarded in the fashion this one
> > was, the last thing I'm doing is picking up a chair to beat the
> > soldiers with but I guess that's what you would do since you think
> > they are so right and the soldiers are so wrong.
>
> You're right that they were not smart! They should have bent over and
> took it. Seriously. If someone invades your home, your ship, or
> whatever else, and they're armed and you're not, you don't pick a fight.
> You give them what they want.
>
> These people on the boats were idiots. That doesn't make them wrong.
> It makes them idiots.
Sorry, I see being an idiot and acting as one wrong in many
circumstances especially ones where you could die.
Michael
> "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
> woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children,
> that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
> (Numbers 31:16-18)
> This is the attitude that continues to permeate the councils of the
> Jewish state. Kill 'em all. God said it was OK. You're chosen.
I want to be clear with what I think and have said.
1. I am on record stating that I have humanitarian and political
sympathies for the Israelis
2. I am on record stating that I have humanitarian and political
sympathies for the Palestinians.
3. I am on record stating that I want a two state solution.
4. I am on record stating that my support for the state of Israel is
NOT based on any religious pretext. It is social and political.
5. JohnC will tell you a lot of things about me, and he will tell you
I am on record voicing my opposition and distaste for "organized"
religion.
6. I want to add that although I am in support of the state of Israel,
I am not in the least bit supportive in ANY way of ANY American
citizen that puts Israel before America or any Israeli masquerading as
an American citizen.
8. Although I understand that Israel is a theocracy in the minds of a
MINORITY of religious fundamentalist Israelis, in practice the state
of Israel by force of the majority is a secular affair.
7. And in parting let me say that the last holy man should be
strangled with the intestines of the last political tyrant.
MZ
> On Jun 4, 12:57 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> Glenn Greenstein wrote:
>>> Now as far as being the aggressor, 5 other ships were boarded with
>>> only minor incidents, no being beaten, stabbed or thrown over decks.
>> Glenn, I'm curious to know if you think the revolutionaries in colonial
>> america were the aggressors. By the logic you're using in this thread,
>> I expect you to say that the americans were the aggressors and the brits
>> were not.
>
> I'm curious Mark, were the people on that ship made to pay taxes that
> the king of England made up as he went along?
No. The "why?" doesn't really matter. Some people think that
unreasonable taxes aren't a reason for violence either.
I came up with the analogy to determine if you think thwarting a bunch
of people with guns is an aggressive act. I call it self-defense, not
aggression. I'm sure the brits sold it the same way Israel is selling
it now -- as militants initiating violence against "peaceful" soldiers
who commandeer a ship.
>>> This ship in particular had an agenda and it was to provoke an attack.
>>> Honestly they brought this on themselves if they thought they were
>>> going to beat a bunch of highly trained soldiers and there would not
>>> be consequences. I can tell you right now, If I was on a ship in
>>> international waters or not and It was boarded in the fashion this one
>>> was, the last thing I'm doing is picking up a chair to beat the
>>> soldiers with but I guess that's what you would do since you think
>>> they are so right and the soldiers are so wrong.
>> You're right that they were not smart! They should have bent over and
>> took it. Seriously. If someone invades your home, your ship, or
>> whatever else, and they're armed and you're not, you don't pick a fight.
>> You give them what they want.
>>
>> These people on the boats were idiots. That doesn't make them wrong.
>> It makes them idiots.
>
> Sorry, I see being an idiot and acting as one wrong in many
> circumstances especially ones where you could die.
The distinction is important. If someone breaks into your house and
holds you and your family at gunpoint, it would be stupid to try to
attack them with your living room lamp even though you wouldn't be WRONG
for doing so. Stupid does not equal wrong.
Glenn Greenstein
> Glenn Greenstein wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 12:57 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >> Glenn Greenstein wrote:
> >>> Now as far as being the aggressor, 5 other ships were boarded with
> >>> only minor incidents, no being beaten, stabbed or thrown over decks.
> >> Glenn, I'm curious to know if you think the revolutionaries in colonial
> >> america were the aggressors. By the logic you're using in this thread,
> >> I expect you to say that the americans were the aggressors and the brits
> >> were not.
>
> > I'm curious Mark, were the people on that ship made to pay taxes that
> > the king of England made up as he went along?
>
> No. The "why?" doesn't really matter. Some people think that
> unreasonable taxes aren't a reason for violence either.
>
> I came up with the analogy to determine if you think thwarting a bunch
> of people with guns is an aggressive act. I call it self-defense, not
> aggression. I'm sure the brits sold it the same way Israel is selling
> it now -- as militants initiating violence against "peaceful" soldiers
> who commandeer a ship.
The problem is the Brits were never non aggressors in the way they
went about collecting such taxes. They didn't send some guy wearing
glasses in a suit with a bill, the sent armed soldiers that
practically robbed the Americans. After so much of this the Americans
told England to go fuck themselves and so the start of the revolution.
I don't see how you can compare it since the people on that ship were
not threatened with guns to hand over their money to a country that
was no longer serving them, they were supposed to a group of
humanitarians.
>
>
>
> >>> This ship in particular had an agenda and it was to provoke an attack.
> >>> Honestly they brought this on themselves if they thought they were
> >>> going to beat a bunch of highly trained soldiers and there would not
> >>> be consequences. I can tell you right now, If I was on a ship in
> >>> international waters or not and It was boarded in the fashion this one
> >>> was, the last thing I'm doing is picking up a chair to beat the
> >>> soldiers with but I guess that's what you would do since you think
> >>> they are so right and the soldiers are so wrong.
> >> You're right that they were not smart! They should have bent over and
> >> took it. Seriously. If someone invades your home, your ship, or
> >> whatever else, and they're armed and you're not, you don't pick a fight.
> >> You give them what they want.
>
> >> These people on the boats were idiots. That doesn't make them wrong.
> >> It makes them idiots.
>
> > Sorry, I see being an idiot and acting as one wrong in many
> > circumstances especially ones where you could die.
>
> The distinction is important. If someone breaks into your house and
> holds you and your family at gunpoint, it would be stupid to try to
> attack them with your living room lamp even though you wouldn't be WRONG
> for doing so. Stupid does not equal wrong.
Mark, we are not going to agree on this I guess, I see that as being
the WRONG thing to do in such a circumstance as well as stupid. If you
are speaking that it is right to defend yourself in the sense that you
are not committing an illegal act then fine but what Israel did was
not illegal in the same sense, they have a right to defend their
country from a government that has said the destruction of Israel is
part of their agenda. They are trying to stop Hamas from firing
rockets at them.
MZ
An armed military forced them to halt so that they can be searched. If
they refused, which they did, then the military uses force. This is
basic, Glenn. It's the definition of aggression.
>>
>>
>>>>> This ship in particular had an agenda and it was to provoke an attack.
>>>>> Honestly they brought this on themselves if they thought they were
>>>>> going to beat a bunch of highly trained soldiers and there would not
>>>>> be consequences. I can tell you right now, If I was on a ship in
>>>>> international waters or not and It was boarded in the fashion this one
>>>>> was, the last thing I'm doing is picking up a chair to beat the
>>>>> soldiers with but I guess that's what you would do since you think
>>>>> they are so right and the soldiers are so wrong.
>>>> You're right that they were not smart! They should have bent over and
>>>> took it. Seriously. If someone invades your home, your ship, or
>>>> whatever else, and they're armed and you're not, you don't pick a fight.
>>>> You give them what they want.
>>>> These people on the boats were idiots. That doesn't make them wrong.
>>>> It makes them idiots.
>>> Sorry, I see being an idiot and acting as one wrong in many
>>> circumstances especially ones where you could die.
>> The distinction is important. If someone breaks into your house and
>> holds you and your family at gunpoint, it would be stupid to try to
>> attack them with your living room lamp even though you wouldn't be WRONG
>> for doing so. Stupid does not equal wrong.
>
> Mark, we are not going to agree on this I guess, I see that as being
> the WRONG thing to do in such a circumstance as well as stupid.
Really?? If someone defended themselves with a lamp, you would say they
were in the WRONG? Most people would call it heroic (stupid, but heroic).
> If you
> are speaking that it is right to defend yourself in the sense that you
> are not committing an illegal act then fine but what Israel did was
> not illegal in the same sense, they have a right to defend their
> country from a government that has said the destruction of Israel is
> part of their agenda. They are trying to stop Hamas from firing
> rockets at them.
Civilians, Glenn. This was not a military. There's no evidence -- none
whatsoever -- that their mission was to attack Israel in any way.
Johnny Morongo
>> Glenn Greenstein wrote:
>>> On Jun 2, 9:02 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Glenn Greenstein" <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2ac40a7d-7b0c-45ef...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Glenn Greenstein wrote:
>> an agenda. You accept, blindly I might add, the Israeli position. Am I
>> offensive to you? Tough shit. Don't come crying in here about sling
>> shots against .54s. But no one should be surprised.
>>
>> Israel has become a Nazi state,
> OK, I got this far. Hey Johnnie, go fuck yourself.
I should have said "...not to mince words here, but you are a close
minded, defensive Jew."
> For you to compare Israel to Nazi's is beyond fucking belief.
The comparison only differs in degree, Glenn. Isolating, blockading and
invading a sovereign state the way Israel has in this instance is NOT
different than what the Nazis did. It only differs in degree. The same
intense hatred lies at the heart of both situations. I know that you
won't believe me here, but what I am about to tell you is the absolute
truth.
Years ago, prior to 9/11, one of our close friends met and fell in love
with a Rabbi. He was splitting time between a synagogue in L.A. and one
in Israel. They came out to the desert to see us and we, another couple
and they went out to dinner. The dinner conversation came around to
David's (the Rabbi) experience in L.A. as opposed to his work in Haifa,
when, without any precedent, he said something to the effect, (I don't
remember his exact words) that "We will be OK if we could just wipe out
all of those fucking animals!" He became animatedly agitated. When my
wife tried to soothe over the comment, he became even more adamant that
they (all Arabs) were dogs and not worthy of life and other comments of
the sort, eventually angrily storming away from the table. This was a
RABBI! One who had spent time "in country." When he came back he
apologized for getting so upset but continued to maintain, in a much
calmer tone, that "they" were less than human and deserved to die. Five
of us were astounded by the intensity of his attitude. The relationship
between he and our friend essentially ended that night but she later
told us David had said that basically all Israeli Jews felt the same way
towards Arabs. As far as I'm concerned, David's unreasoned hatred
towards Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular was not
different than any Nazi's unreasoned hatred for Jews.
> Not even Brian Pratt ever said that.
Pratt says what he says to nettle you. I'm not doing that, nor am I a
Jew hater, which you say in another post, although I DO MOST DEFINITELY
hate the inhumanity that is so apparently evidenced by the Israeli
State's behavior towards the Palestinians. Go back to first
causes...the confiscation of the land which became the State of Israel,
which even you say was not "kosher," and one has to admit that the
"original sin" was committed against the local, indigenous population
that had been in place for no fewer than 1,500 continuous years. The
Jews' historical claim to the land is biblical, not legal. Native
Americans have a more valid "legal claim" to their land than do Jews to
theirs. The Jews' claim to the land is based on what their God says.
But Glenn, and this may come as a surprise to you, not everyone else in
the world believes in that particular man-in-the-clouds version of "God."
> Are the Israelis herding Palestinians into extermination
> camps trying to preform genocide? Israel is a nuclear power, are they
> dropping nukes on the Gaza strip? You can bet if the Hamas had Nukes
> they'd be trying to detonate a bomb in Israel.
But Hamas DOESN'T have nukes, nor does any other Middle Eastern country.
Why does Israel alone need them? Nukes ARE NOT defensive weapons.
> Further more you choose to believe the accounts from people who are
> not trying to get aid to Gaza or in other words a terrorist state,
> they are trying to break the blockade by Israel under the guise of
> bringing aid. If they were serious about bring aid the ship that left
> from Ireland would be sailing to Egypt who has lifted it's blockade,
> not going in the same path where they will meet the same resistance
> the other ship did.
Think of it this way: the blockade was, AT THE VERY LEAST, making it
difficult to get any aid into Gaza at all. Gaza is cut off by land and
air. Their only other avenue is by sea. Blockaded? This is the 21st
century Glenn. And even if a paucity of "arms" did manage to get
through, it would be very much like 19th century weaponry vs. 21st. IDF
forces are armed as menacingly as any Lucas' hi-tech Storm Troopers.
(Oh I forgot. The IDF only used paint ball guns.) What arms that might
get through would not be a threat to the hi-tech Israeli IDF. The
blockade, on the other hand, is a clear and present threat to the
existence of Gaza as an independent state.
> Open your fucking eyes. They want to go to Gaza and eventually deliver
> rockets from Iran that will be fired indiscriminately at Israel.
> Thousands of rockets have already been fired at Israel by Hama from
> Gaza.
> Oh and BTW, who has given more to these people that Israel? I haven't
> seen any Arabs offering Palestinians land to live on.
Are you kidding? The Jews are offering Palestinians land to live on
that is their own. What a joke.
> If you want to go back in history, I don't agree with the way Israel became a state
> but what's done is done, it isn't going to change.
Wanna bet?
Johnny Morongo
Glenn, please read:
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0603/citizen-killed-flotilla-reportedly-shot-times-head/
If this is true, then this is an execution. It is meant to send a
message. The Middle East is about to ramp up.
Glenn Greenstein
getting them killed is the right thing to do? You think dying for a
cause is right? I think it was Patton that said nobody ever served
their country by dying for it, they served their country by making the
other SOB die for his.
>
> > If you
> > are speaking that it is right to defend yourself in the sense that you
> > are not committing an illegal act then fine but what Israel did was
> > not illegal in the same sense, they have a right to defend their
> > country from a government that has said the destruction of Israel is
> > part of their agenda. They are trying to stop Hamas from firing
> > rockets at them.
>
> Civilians, Glenn. This was not a military. There's no evidence -- none
> whatsoever -- that their mission was to attack Israel in any way.
Israel. That is why this policy exists.
Johnny Morongo
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 00:01:22 -0400, "papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
>> "Glenn Greenstein" <lex...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> On Jun 2, 9:02 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>> "Glenn Greenstein" <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:2ac40a7d-7b0c-45ef...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Glenn Greenstein wrote:
> both sides, that everyone believes the propaganda now, more than the actual reality.
> As an example, there's never mention anymore that when Israel was founded, the Israelis
> opted for two-states. The Arabs said no, and advised the Palestinian Arabs to flee, so
> they could return later, when they destroyed Israel. Didn't happen.
> On the Israeli side, over the years they've often portrayed the Palestinians as savages.
> Generations later, after all the misinformation, neither side has a clue who the other is.
>
> I've always said the only thing that would bring them together, would be some historic
> disaster... or, if Jerusalem was attacked by Reptilian ETs ;)
Burf, my brother, the issue of a two state solution is at fault from the
get go. Although I don't agree with everything he says, Norm Chomsky
has long advocated the position that a one state solution is the
appropriate model. I agree. A democratically elected state would have
been heavily no-Israeli as the non-Jewish population of the actual
territory outweighed the Jews significantly. The two state solution
allows one larger, militarily controlled state to exist side by side
with a smaller, far less sophisticated but more heavily populated one.
At best it is an unjust distribution of the land.
MZ
I think it's the STUPID thing to do, but from an ethical standpoint,
they wouldn't be in the wrong.
> You think dying for a
> cause is right? I think it was Patton that said nobody ever served
> their country by dying for it, they served their country by making the
> other SOB die for his.
>>> If you
>>> are speaking that it is right to defend yourself in the sense that you
>>> are not committing an illegal act then fine but what Israel did was
>>> not illegal in the same sense, they have a right to defend their
>>> country from a government that has said the destruction of Israel is
>>> part of their agenda. They are trying to stop Hamas from firing
>>> rockets at them.
>> Civilians, Glenn. This was not a military. There's no evidence -- none
>> whatsoever -- that their mission was to attack Israel in any way.
> Civilians that could be arming a military that is aggressive to
> Israel. That is why this policy exists.
Arming them with iron bars and slingshots?
Glenn Greenstein
Johnny I'm not even going to address anything you wrote before. Your
Rabbi friend is an isolated incident and I agree he is a kook but your
definition of what a Nazi is is way different than mine. What Hamas
does is murder innocent people in Israel. If Israel kills some
innocent people in Gaza then maybe Hamas should stop using them as
human shields. Now to your response above, that isn't the fucking
point, the point is that Israel is not trying to commit genocide, that
was the main goal of Hitler, the perfect race. He even killed his own
people if they didn't fit that mold. This is who you are comparing
Israelis to.
>
> > Further more you choose to believe the accounts from people who are
> > not trying to get aid to Gaza or in other words a terrorist state,
> > they are trying to break the blockade by Israel under the guise of
> > bringing aid. If they were serious about bring aid the ship that left
> > from Ireland would be sailing to Egypt who has lifted it's blockade,
> > not going in the same path where they will meet the same resistance
> > the other ship did.
>
> Think of it this way: the blockade was, AT THE VERY LEAST, making it
> difficult to get any aid into Gaza at all. Gaza is cut off by land and
> air. Their only other avenue is by sea. Blockaded? This is the 21st
> century Glenn. And even if a paucity of "arms" did manage to get
> through, it would be very much like 19th century weaponry vs. 21st. IDF
> forces are armed as menacingly as any Lucas' hi-tech Storm Troopers.
> (Oh I forgot. The IDF only used paint ball guns.) What arms that might
> get through would not be a threat to the hi-tech Israeli IDF. The
> blockade, on the other hand, is a clear and present threat to the
> existence of Gaza as an independent state.
This does not address the point I just brought up and boy are you
misinformed. As I said, these are people that are supposedly bring in
aid for people who are in a really bad way so what are they doing?
They are bringing it in through a route where there is a really high
chance they will meet resistance when there is a perfectly acceptable
route through Egypt where there will be no resistance at all.If this
does not tell you they couldn't care less if the supplies get to Gaza
or not and all they care about is breaking the blockade, you are thick
as a brick.
Now lets talk about what kind of weapons they could bring in. In case
you didn't know Iran wants to see Israel wiped from the map also and
they will send all kinds of rocket to them. So far the rockets Hamas
fires can only reach some points in the desert over Israels boarder
but the rockets that Iran would send them will reach Tel Avie. That is
what can not happen and why there is a blockade.
>
> > Open your fucking eyes. They want to go to Gaza and eventually deliver
> > rockets from Iran that will be fired indiscriminately at Israel.
> > Thousands of rockets have already been fired at Israel by Hama from
> > Gaza.
> > Oh and BTW, who has given more to these people that Israel? I haven't
> > seen any Arabs offering Palestinians land to live on.
>
> Are you kidding? The Jews are offering Palestinians land to live on
> that is their own. What a joke.
In any case the land belonged to Israel and that is another poor dodge
on your part.
>
> > If you want to go back in history, I don't agree with the way Israel became a state
> > but what's done is done, it isn't going to change.
>
> Wanna bet?
OK, I now take this last statement as you openly admitting you as Iran
and Hamas want's to see the destruction of Israel. And you say I have
an agenda.
Glenn Greenstein
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:47:10 -0700 (PDT), Glenn Greenstein <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm starting to think the whole world , not just the Mid East wants to
> >see Israel destroyed. Over a month ago North Korea sank a South Korean
> >war ship with a torpedo and you barely heard a word of protest but
> >when Israel goes to check the contents of a ship headed to a area that
> >is controlled by terrorists that have fired thousands of rockets and
> >mortar shells at civilian populated areas in Israel and then they are
> >attacked, it's all Israel's fault. This was supposed to be an aid
> >flotilla, well I guess they had a shortage of baseball bats, metal
> >rods, fire bombs and sacks of marbles and slingshots in gaza and these
> >are the vital things they need to survive there. Unfreaking
> >believable.
>
> It's been 40 years of a well-orchestrated revisionist history campaign, against Israel.
> The Left has shifted 180 on Israel, and most are so anti-Israel at this point, even if
> their eyes see one thing, they're brains cannot fathom it.
> The Right has become the great supporter of Israel, many in large part because of the
> whole biblical end-of-times/Rapture prophesy stuff. In other words, other than the few
> rationale supporters of Israel, they be on their own.
>
> I tend to see both sides of the mess, but I think it's so emotional for so many, that it's
> rare to have an honest discussion. Thus, I aint touching this ;)
Good idea
Glenn Greenstein
Burf, they are trying to prevent them from smuggling in rockets and
supplies that have military applications. They don't know what's on
the ship unless they inspect it.
MZ
I know what they say they're TRYING to do. That doesn't give them the
right to do it. Who made them the world's authority to intercept ships
and allow them to pass only if they approve of the contents?
Oh yeah, I forgot. The US. :)
Johnny Morongo
> have bought the revisionist history propaganda, since the late 60s.
OK, junior, you neocon in moderates clothing. Thanks for the link, but
it's only gonna bury you.
In the first place, can we get a look at the source? "The Emperor's
Clothes?" Any Agenda on that site? Or, how about the POV that is based
on the assumption that the United Nations was within its rights to annex
sovereign territory for the purpose of creating the State of Israel? To
pose this question is not to make a revisionist's history. It goes to
the heart of the issue. To suggest otherwise is to agree that because
the winners write the history that such a history was actually the way
things happened.
> When I was young the Left was adamently Pro-Israel.
When I was young I worked in the Nixon campaign...then I became a
Marxist. Maybe not the wisest of choices, but it was in the late 60s
when I began to understand that this was a battle of theocracies. If,
as Marx noted, religion is the opiate of the people, then theocracy is
the opiate of nations. Such a clash can only end when one theocracy
crushes the other. God Vs. God. Only the strong survive.
Years ago, I read an article in The Nation, from the late
> 40s... a great historical piece about the formation of Israel, and how the British incited
> the Arabs to attack Israel. The Nation no longer makes it available, I guess because
> their present-day subscribers would go ballistic, being the opposite of present-day
> revisionist history. I'm a subscriber to the Nation, btw ;)
> I actually found it online a few years ago, on some website related to Kosovo (go
> figure)... http://emperor.vwh.net/history/br.htm
> It's long, but worth the read, if you're interested in actual historical documentation, as
> opposed to spin.
>
> Israel's not a theocracy. If the Chief Rabbi was the leader, and the Government was set
> up in a similar fashion, then you might call it that. The Religious Parties are
> significant minorities, and only wield any power, when forming a government after a tight
> election.
> The Majority of Israelis aren't even very religious. It's more like a Tribal State, if
> one needs to label it.
Tribal or theocratic...that's splitting hairs. They both, in this case,
adhere to the Torah as the Law, which comes from the Word of God: I am
the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. IOW, I'm
the boss. You are my chosen ones. Together we rule. We take this land
as ours.
This is my problem, and its really not revisionist.
Johnny Morongo
OK. Lets say that I use the term "inhuman" instead of Nazi. Better?
Damn, Glenn, where did I say that. What I mean is that I don't see the
Middle East as looking anywhere near what it does now in the end.
Within your lifetime Israel will either prevail over the whole region or
it will not exist at all. It's coming to a head as we speak. Things
will only get worse before they even come close to being better.
I also mean that I don't think that Israel has a right to existence.
What it has is a de facto right to existence. But that doesn't justify
its existence.
papa.carl44
"Johnctx" <j...@spamtx.net> wrote in message
news:ms6dneR5zM4hbJXR...@giganews.com...
> papa.carl44 wrote:
>> "Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:facc27e5-7dca-4062...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 3, 7:45 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Then SAY you are commenting on the original post! You didn't, you
>>> directly
>>> addressed me.
>>
>> 1,000 pardons...
>>
>>> Do you believe every group in this country (USA) that has
>>> been wronged should be given a free pass to act out? Boarding ships in
>>> internatinonal waters comes with risks, and people are reacting to it. I
>>> think the World reacts because they perceive Israel as the favorite
>>> child of
>>> the USA and in that sense are treated as if they can do no wrong. In
>>> case
>>> you haven't noticed, the past decade did a lot to get folks to not like
>>> the
>>> USA...right or wrong, it's a reality.
>>
>> I think that is part of the reason for the reaction. Not the larger
>> part. Please tell me what country has given the Palestinians more
>> real USEFUL consideration than the United States ??? What have the
>> Arabic countries done for the Palestinians ??? What I see offered are
>> public rhetoric that can only be interpreted as efforts to inflame
>> followed by underground shipments of pop guns and bottle rockets. How
>> much land has Jordan offered to give the Palestinians ??? Why do the
>> people in the UK get so flamed ??? You want to talk about a group that
>> has expanded, oppressed and ripped off other peoples resources ???
>> Again... I know that the commando raid was a screw up, but it looks to
>> me at times that a lot of people and countries just have it in for
>> Israel. Incidently, I dont support Israel because of any idiotic
>> religious pretext. In the main, it is a sane and stable secular
>> democracy regardless of how may people call it a theocracy. A large
>> part of the population is not religious at all and most of the ones
>> that are religious are secular.
>>
>> You are absolutely right...that's why I said in one post that some Arab
>> or Muslim state has to step up and do something...they haven't and they
>> have never been behind the Palestinians, only in lip service or as Iran
>> does to create terror activities that hurt them in the long run. Egypt
>> should step up, and they haven't. Your're right, the US has done more to
>> support Palestine than any of the powers in that region.
>
> Papa, if I could interject and this is a general comment & not directed at
> you.
>
> The Europeans have been very supportive of the Palestinians and they did
> it sooner & far more openly than we did in this country. It can be
> political suicide in the US for a pol to openly support the Palestinians.
> Carter lost in 1980 because of it, Bush sent quite a few dollars over to
> the Dems the minute Baker made his peace initiatives & ask Cynthia
> McKinney how often she talks about the Palestinians.
>
> The problem is we can't have a meaningful discussion about Israel in this
> country because if you say something that is anti-Israel you can quickly
> get labeled an anti-Semite. The reality is that there are still too many
> people who dislike Jews but I think it wrong to paint everyone that
> comments in a negative way about Israel a bigot.
>
> We won't have a meaningful discussion about this or any major issue in
> this country until we eliminate the money in politics or at least bring
> transparency.
>
> Finally the Arab states could care less about the Palestinenas. They were
> the most hated Arabs as the Brits turned them into colonial administrators
> throughout the Mideast and most Arab countries. Also the Saudis & the
> like are only interested in their own $. hating the Jews keeps their
> people in line.
>
> If Jerusalem was made an international city pre-1967 a big issue could
> have been avoided. We should have built the UN there.
DAMN!!!! We agree on all accounts. I stand very corrected in the fact that
the Europeans did show support and understand this issue as you described.
I think you nailed it. We really agree on this.
papa.carl44
"Johnny Morongo" <j.mir...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote in message
news:vuGdnSH8m8M...@giganews.com...>> news:c683b18c-3f7b-4550...@b21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 3, 2:14 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>>>> news:0c82091f-3498-4a49...@c11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jun 3, 12:01 am, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>>>>> news:02e1ed37-7cf8-4254...@d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>> negative situations are in place for long periods of time. The more the
>> situation goes on the more radical it becomes. What I'm saying is that
>> if many years ago meaningful discussions had taken place then perhaps
>> this situation would be different. The fact is, if you READ what I said,
>> is I don't think there is a foreseeable way out of this. More than a
>> generation of militants, living in abject conditions have come to be, and
>> the world sat by and watched this happen. I generally support Israel ( I
>> suppose you didn't read that part either ) but I also see where they have
>> made bad decisions. I've had the opportunity to speak and work with
>> Israeli's who believe it is their destiny to control the entire
>> region....I don't think that is realistic either. Since you seem to have
>> the answers you tell me how it is going to get solved. All of a sudden
>> can not be fixed.
>
>
> Unless somehow, somebody can
>> convince one of the powerful Muslim or Arab states to intervene and
>> seriously control the Palestinians I don't see a solution to this.
>
> How about somebody convincing the United States to intervene and
> seriously control the Jews? Last I looked it was Israel who was the
> aggressor in this situation and it the ONE COUNTRY in that region armed to
> the teeth and in possession of nuclear warheads. Who needs to be
> controlled?
I don't see that happening....for the reasons John indicated...but I do
agree with you. The US has intervened, I think that is what a lot of our
actions over there are really about. I think attacking Saddam was really
about this issue. I agree with you.
papa.carl44
> Glenn Greenstein wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 11:04 am, Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
>>>> Oh and BTW, who has given more to these people that Israel? I haven't
>>>> go back in history, I don't agree with the way Israel became a state
>>>> but what's done is done, it isn't going to change.
>>> because it never changes. I would like point out a problem, from where I
>>> stand, in your thinking.
>>>
>>> Why is it the responsibility of an Arab country over the Jewish state to
>>> provide for these people? They were not forced out of anyplace except
>>> what they consider their homeland. They were not displaced from Syria or
>>> Egypt but Israel.
>>>
>>> As for forgetting, the Jews didn't forget for 1500 years that they once
>>> had a country why can't you understand that these people will have
>>> memories as well. That when you have nothing to live for you become very
>>> dangerous.
>>>
>>> If forward thinking people had stepped up on the Israeli side -- and I
>>> know the political reality of facing an enemy with goals of driving you
>>> to the sea makes risk difficult- but more importantly if the Arabs had a
>>> Gandhi like leader, prior to the building on the West bank, there may
>>> have been a solution. I can't see it now.
>>>
>>> People say this has been going on for 1500 years are idiots. This is a
>>> 60 year old problem & will probably lead to a nuke in Israel & or the
>>> US in my lifetime. i would not want to be the Isaraeli or American
>>> leader facing the aftermath & the decision as to whether you kill 10's
>>> of millions of people as retaliation.
>>
>> Like I said John, I don't really agree with the way Israel became a
>> state but you can thank the UN for it. Papa also said the UK had it's
>> hand in it as well but I knew nothing of that. There are also Jews
>> that do not recognize Israel so it's not totally our homeland.
>> What I was trying to say is Israel has done more to make peace with
>> the Palestinians than anyone and what did they get for it, thousands
>> of rocket attacks.
>
> Not letting our state dept off the hook but from Africa to Asia we have
> been cleaning up French & English colonial slop since we became chief --
> yeah Johnny I know we have made some ourselves.
>
> The Palestineans are pawn of first the Soviets, then the Gulf States & now
> Islamic political movement.
>
> It is horrible situation. Both sides knowing their children will die. At
> east for the Israelis they know for every one they lost the Palestineans
> will lose 4 or 5.
Again we agree...very much so...especially about dealing with the slop
created by the Brits and the French...and we are acting more and more like
The Brits.
papa.carl44
>
>>> For the record, I'm not taking sides with any country over any other in
>>> this thread. What I find objectionable is misuse of military power
>>> against civilians. I don't like it when America does it, I don't like
>>> it when russia does it, and I don't like it when Israel does it.
>>
>> Your last sentence says it all....and is enough to stand on it's own.
>> Amen.
>
> I will not abide anyone showing any common sense in here.
I apologize...this is what happens when you almost die, get last rites three
times (and did not ask for it !) and then have some miracle
happen....somehow, you find some common sense....Mark's point says it all,
this world is trying to turn a history of screw ups and wrongs into
something right, and it ain't gonna happen. OMHO, Papa Carl
papa.carl44
On Jun 4, 1:25 am, Johnny Morongo <j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com>
wrote:
> MZ wrote:
> >> judgment.
>
> >> Mark, your comment that the Israeli military isn't careful enough
> >> about civilian casualties is inaccurate. The IDF prides itself on
> >> being the most humane army in the world. I don't agree with what they
> >> do, because they expose their soldiers to needless risk in order to
> >> minimize the possibility of any civilian casualties. For example, if
> >> terrorists are holed up in a building, they don't just bomb the
> >> building, they storm the front door and put soldiers at risk to make
> >> sure there is no collateral damage. Before they go into combat they
> >> have planes dropping flyers in Arabic warning civilians that they are
> >> coming (and giving up the element of surprise) so that they can take
> >> cover. The list goes on and on.
>
> > Hammer, I'll defer to your judgment on that. I don't follow their track
> > record closely enough to be able to speak with authority on that issue,
> > though it's always been my impression that they embroil themselves in
> > too much civilian stuff. Maybe it's the difficult nature of Israel's
> > position in the region. I don't know.
>
> > But in this case, it seems to me to be a slam dunk case of an armed
> > military doing something they shouldn't have done to what turned out to
> > be an unarmed civilian ship (sticks and chains and whatnot don't count
> > as "armed" ... there wasn't a single firearm of any sort on board).
>
> > The problem now, as I see it, is that Israel doesn't appear to show any
> > remorse over the incident and will continue to do this, meanwhile Turkey
> > vows to escort these ships with military. That is not a good combo.
>
> > For the record, I'm not taking sides with any country over any other in
> > this thread. What I find objectionable is misuse of military power
> > against civilians. I don't like it when America does it, I don't like
> > it when russia does it, and I don't like it when Israel does it.
>
> Americans, Russians AND Israelis misuse their military power against
> have all been third world countries fighting for their very existence?
> It's never a fair fight.
And who is provoking it? Was it not North Korea that provoked South
who could wipe if from the face of the earth? Did Afghanistan not send
terrorist to the US to kill thousands of Americans on 9/11 (go ahead
Johnnie, tell me the Afgan government was not turning a blind eye to
the Taliban)? Are the Israelis not also victims when Hamas sends
suicide bombers into street cafe's or fires thousands of rockets and
mortar shells at civilians in Israel?
Koreans are Koreans, common language and culture. It was a civil war and
Chinese aggression that was dealth with poorly by the world community and
the US. Afghanistan did NOT send terrorists to the US to kill
people....rather Saudi's and Egyptians hiding in some mountains inside of a
tribal region did. If you look at where these so called "countries" came
from you will learn a lot. States like Iraq did not evolve, they were
created and shaped by colonialism. Afghanistan was in part united by
bringing together tribes to hold off the empires of Britain and the
Russians. This has always been a crossroads between cultures...and the
geography makes it a place where people can hide....the people who created
the terrorists were Saudi's and Egyptians who exported it to angry folks in
Pakistan and Afghanistan. Saudi's always get a free pass...why?
Glenn Greenstein
So I guess you didn't think the US had the right to block Russian
ships from Cuba either.
Glenn Greenstein
Well maybe you should have said that instead of "wanna bet".
I also was not saying the borders wouldn't change, I was saying
history would not change.