OT - Link to "Anti-Semite" Group, for Mr. Burke
Willow
Semitic" by those like Mr. Burke:
J Street is gaining support quickly. I suppose in Mr. Burke's view, J
Street is anti-Semitic or composed of "self-hating Jews" or the like.
Bah! Humbug.
Willow
Mike Burke
wrote:
Wow, now _there's_ a surprise!
>
>Bah! Humbug.
I'll bow to you superior familiarity with humbug.
Mique
ggg
JStreet apparently wants to stick its nose into the Palestinian-
Israeli dispute which has been going on for millenia, depending on
whom you read, or who you are. There were several centuries during
which we actually got along. Butt out, please. It's not your concern.
Reuben the Hooked-Nose Reindeer
Willow
>There were several centuries during
> which we actually got along. Butt out, please. It's not your concern.
Considering the world is at risk due to a dispute that has gone on for
decades, I cannot see how it is not my concern.
World affairs are the concern of any interested party. Unless you
wish to imitate an ostrich or isolate yourself from the rest of the
world.
Willow
Willow
Time and all the other news magazines, as well as the world articles
from our newspapers. Perhaps we can keep them but not allow letters
to the editor on any issues they raise? Is this your point of view?
Willowhe
ggg
The editors of Time are in the business of selling magazines to people
especially to those who are willing to believe what they tell them.
They do not show the damage and injury done by Hezbollah rocket and
mortar fire onto Israel. They will respond to Irani saber rattling and
claim how this threatens all of us. I repeat my original request, Butt
out.
Barry
Willow
Building a wall around North America, are we? Turning our backs on
the world? Or just sticking our heads in the sand?
And might I ask why you claim any right to tell others to "But Out"?
So that you can but in, I should imagine. Have you been known to
voice any opinion on things outside north America? I suspect so.
In fact, many articles did indeed show the very limited damage done by
Hezbollah rockets. They also shows the damage done but the Israeli
military to Gaza, and before that to south Lebanon. What magazines
and newspapers do you read, anyway?
Look - Israel has a very strong very conservative lobby in North
America. They do very well and have for years. Chances of the media
no showing damage to Israel as justification for the military action
taken by Israel is nil. One of the old bombed buses even goes on tour
in the USA.
No, Barry. We have butted out for far too long and allowed a bad
situation to get worse.
Willow
Mike Burke
wrote:
>Gosh, Barry,
That was a remarkably stupid, callous and cynical thing to say, even
for you Willow.
Please, tell us in fine detail exactly what you believe in all your
military wisdom and experience what would be a proportionate reponse
to the 10,000 odd missiles fired at random targets in Israel.
Mique
Willow
> Please, tell us in fine detail exactly what you believe in all your
> military wisdom and experience what would be a proportionate reponse
> to the 10,000 odd missiles fired at random targets in Israel.
Oh please, Mr. Burke.
10,000 rockets? Please see the list and numbers from the Jewish
Policy Centre:
http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/prr/history.php
Here is the listing for 2009:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2009
10,000? Bah and humbug to your lies. "That was a remarkably stupid,
callous and cynical thing to say, even
for you Willow." In what manner, pray. There has been full ocverage
of rocket damage, even the ones that caused no damage - and that is
the majority.
These are rockets, not missiles. With your vast military experience,
you should know the difference. Rockets are unguided, simply fired.
Missiles are guided towards targets, like homes full of people. Note
the repeated phrase "No injuries or damage were reported".
I have never stated that the Palestinians are morally right. However,
I have denied that Israel is morally right. Both are to blame. A
bomb carred by a suicde bomber is no more morally wrong than a bomb
dropped by a Skyhawk. And the concept of "Greater Israel" is morally
corrupt, as bad as Shira or Biblical law. The Settlements and
Outposts are morally indefensible. "Lords of the Land" tells of the
foundation of both by religious zealots, and nor it is simply a suburb
and represents cheaper housing for some (according to Israeli papers,
by the way). Getting a cheaper house is no reason to take the home
of others...
Willow
Jim Gysin
Willow sent the following on 12/9/2009 9:55 AM:
> A
> bomb carred by a suicde bomber is no more morally wrong than a bomb
> dropped by a Skyhawk.
I just wanted to see this again. Heh.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Mike Burke
wrote:
>On Dec 8, 11:20�pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
Answer the question, please, Willow. What is you idea of a
proportionate response to _any number_ of missiles fired from the
"cover" of the general Palestinian civilian population and aimed to
cause fatalities and damage in populated Israeli communities?
Mique
ggg
Do you do much traveling? Have you ever been to Israel? You should
go. You might be very much surprised at what you see. Your first
impressions will consist of the modern nature of its buildings, and
the greenness of the land. This greenness has been vigorously wrested
from a desert land. Much like California. Only in CA no one is
shooting at them. After seeing the whole country including whichever
biblical lands might interest you, I recommend you travel South just
beyond the rocket range from Gaza and see the "limited" damage from as
close-up as you may feel safe. Then go south to Eilat and enjoy the
seaside resort. At every opportunity, look at Jordan, the East Bank
country of the Balfour division. It was called Trans-Jordania prior to
1948. The West Bank was called Palestine. We, the original
Palestinians, changed the name to Israel. We were attacked by every
Arab country in the vicinity. The Arabs living in Palestine were told
to get out of the way and they will have their land back after they
pushed the Jews into the sea. Those Palestinians who left to go to
safety were not accepted into any Arab country put were put into camps
without provisions and told to fend for themselves. When the Israelis
began to prove that they were going to fight for their country, and
were pushing these mighty armies back to the borders, they sued for
peace and created the "West Bank." The 56, 67, and 73 wars enabled
Israel to gain some breathing room. When Israel entered Gaza for the
first time in '56, they hooked them up with electricity, and water and
sewerage for he first time in their lives. They gave them work by
allowing a labor force to come across the border each day and go back
each evening. They were paid for their services. Arabs in the Ramallah
area if they qualify may go to universities anywhere in the country.
Whom do you think you can help by inserting the US into this
interfamilial fight. You the mystery, police procedural (or what the
hell are you doing in this group then?) reader know that the cops fear
most being called to a domestic squabble. More cops are killed in
these situations than any other. We are not the world's police force.
In 1964, while we were visiting in the area of the Sea of Galilee
there was a UN police keeping force HQ in the area. They did nothing
to protect Israeli fishermen from Syrian snipers in the Golan Heights.
When Israel took the Golan Heights in the 67 war, they captured a huge
Russian radar station-supposedly manned by Syrians, but since all the
instructions were in Russian the Russian tutors and helpers were still
there-which could easily hone in on the US 6th fleet in the Eastern
Mediterranean.
I don't read magazines, other than EQ and National Geographic. News
magazines are slanted towards the oil. Point me towards one that is
not.
Barry
ggg
Imitate an Ostrich!? Doing what? Feeding? Fleeing a lion? Have you
eveer really heard of an Ostrich burying its head in sand? That notion
has proven false for decades. That's a pretty big chicken for the cat
predators of the African Plains. How many flightless birds in less
threatening environments are now extinct? Be careful of what imagery
you present.
Barry
Willow
> Imitate an Ostrich!? Doing what? Feeding? Fleeing a lion? Have you
> eveer really heard of an Ostrich burying its head in sand? That notion
> has proven false for decades.
I bow to your much superior knowledge of ostriches. The image is
commonplace even today. In fact, I heard Chris Mathews use it just
today....
Willow
ggg
Who? So is the image of the silent majority. It is why I avoid the
commonplace, and adhere to the dictum that those who don't speak up
deserve what they get.
Barry
ell...@webtv.net
<<These are rockets, not missiles. With your vast military experience,
you should know the difference. Rockets are unguided, simply fired.
Missiles are guided towards targets, like homes full of people. Note the
repeated phrase "No injuries or damage were reported".>>
This puts me in minsd of an incident when the 12-year-old boy next door
was throwing rocks at my 7-year-old son and his friend.
When I complained to his mother later, she siad, " Well, he wasn't _
aiming._"
Ellen
Mike Burke
Hehe. And rocks are missiles, too, which will obviously come as news
to Willow, too.
Mique
Willow
> Hehe. And rocks are missiles, too, which will obviously come as news
> to Willow, too.
Please advise when you see a rock mounted on the missile racks of a
Skyhawk or Phantom, or better yet, an F-14.
Or is that a particular new development in the Australian Air Force??
Willow
Mike Burke
wrote:
>On Dec 18, 1:01�am, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
Oh dear. No wonder you can't answer the question.
Here, this might help:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/missile
Mique
Willow
No doubt the Australian Air Force has come up with "guided rocks".
Yes, missiles is a term that can be applied to rocks, but the Israeli
missiles are rather complex things that are guided. not randomly
shot. Teh Palestinian rockets, basically made in kitchens, are not at
all guided. They are "point and shoot" weapons.
The missiles of the USAF are veyr sophisticated, but I am certain they
would love to hear from you on guided rocks...
Willow
Mike Burke
wrote:
>On Dec 18, 10:12�pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
Don't you think it's time you admitted that you don't even have one
tattered feather to fly with, Willow. You won't answer the question
because you _can't_ answer the question.
Instead of admitting the obvious, ie that one cannot rationally accuse
anyone of making a _disproportional_ response to anything unless one
can precisely define what would constitute a _proportional_ response
in each specific instance, you resort to the classic tactic of trying
to divert the argument into trivia.
You might as well simply have said "I don't know what a proportional
response looks like, but I'll recognise one if I see it".
Mique
(who really does think there is nothing more that needs to be said in
this argument)
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Dec 18, 1:01�am, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
>
>> Hehe. �And rocks are missiles, too, which will obviously come as news
>> to Willow, too.
>
>Please advise when you see a rock mounted on the missile racks of a
>Skyhawk or Phantom, or better yet, an F-14.
While guided projectiles are always referred to as missiles, in truth
it is just a synonym for "projectile".
ell...@webtv.net
to Willow, too.
Mique>>
As my sainted father used to say, "Dead is dead."
Ellen