Prefatory comments by MORRISSEY BREEN, Daisycutter Sports:
It often seems impossible to find any right wingers who can match the
standards of scholarship and integrity of people like Robert Fisk,
John Pilger, Professor Noam Chomsky. Ann Coulter is, of course, a
joke; unfunny, but a joke nonetheless. Who else is there on the right
that has even a sliver of credibility? Rush Limbaugh? Snort. Bill
O'Reilly? Okay, stop laughing. Christoher Hitchens? No, he was
frivolous and incoherent even when he was regarded by some as a
"liberal". Remember his ridiculous, utterly spurious campaign to
demonize Mother Theresa?
It often seems impossible to find any right wingers who can match the
standards of scholarship and integrity of people like Robert Fisk,
John Pilger, Professor Noam Chomsky. Ann Coulter is, of course, a
joke; unfunny, but a joke nonetheless. Who else is there on the right
that has even a sliver of credibility? Rush Limbaugh? Snort. Bill
O'Reilly? Okay, stop laughing. Christoher Hitchens? No, he was
frivolous and incoherent even when he was regarded by some as a
"liberal". Remember his ridiculous, utterly spurious campaign to
demonize Mother Theresa?
One conservative commentator, however, has always seemed a cut above
his colleagues: George Will. Bespectacled, polite, intellectual,
serious, sober, and witty, Will writes clear, forceful prose that is
always thought-provoking, interesting and (usually) quite fair. He
seems as different from the likes of Coulter and O'Reilly as it is
possible to be. But perhaps Will's outward urbanity is nothing more
than an illusion.
his colleagues: George Will. Bespectacled, polite, intellectual,
serious, sober, and witty, Will writes clear, forceful prose that is
always thought-provoking, interesting and (usually) quite fair. He
seems as different from the likes of Coulter and O'Reilly as it is
possible to be. But perhaps Will's outward urbanity is nothing more
than an illusion.
The following article, written two years ago, shows that, for all his
good manners and his charm, when it comes to facing up to Israel's
relentless war of terror against the people of Palestine, George Will
is actually as bloody-minded, cruel and hypocritical as the most
uneducated Fox presenter....
good manners and his charm, when it comes to facing up to Israel's
relentless war of terror against the people of Palestine, George Will
is actually as bloody-minded, cruel and hypocritical as the most
uneducated Fox presenter....
..............................
GEORGE WILL: SNEERING AT POWELL, FLACKING FOR SHARON
by Scott McConnell
by Scott McConnell
Last Sunday, George Will published a column mocking
Secretary of State Colin Powell's initiative to
restart the Mid East peace process. Powell, he writes,
would have the United States, "intruding itself, with
special emissaries and multiplying plans" into the
conflict. Instead, the US should just exercise
"restraint" and let well enough alone.
Secretary of State Colin Powell's initiative to
restart the Mid East peace process. Powell, he writes,
would have the United States, "intruding itself, with
special emissaries and multiplying plans" into the
conflict. Instead, the US should just exercise
"restraint" and let well enough alone.
But letting well enough alone is not what Will really
means. He is not suggesting that the United States
"restrain" itself from giving a $2 to $3 billion
annual subsidy to Israel (a sum larger than US aid to
any other country, despite Israel's distinctly first
world economy), nor that it restrain itself from
shipping to Israel the most up-to-date weaponry the
American arsenal can produce. Nor does he suggest that
Washington restrain from deploying its veto in the UN
Security Council in order to shield Israel from
unpleasant resolutions.
means. He is not suggesting that the United States
"restrain" itself from giving a $2 to $3 billion
annual subsidy to Israel (a sum larger than US aid to
any other country, despite Israel's distinctly first
world economy), nor that it restrain itself from
shipping to Israel the most up-to-date weaponry the
American arsenal can produce. Nor does he suggest that
Washington restrain from deploying its veto in the UN
Security Council in order to shield Israel from
unpleasant resolutions.
Feeding a large stream of dollars, tanks, helicopters
and jet fighters to one side in a nasty conflict is
not the kind of intrusion which upsets Will. What irks
him is that Colin Powell has laid out a plan to follow
through on the George Mitchell and Warren Rudman plan
to prod Israel into a peace settlement with the
Palestinians who inhabit the land it seized in 1967.
For Will, working towards a peace process – trying to
create the kind of settlement backed by every one of
America's NATO allies, and every friendly Arab country
– is reckless intervention.
and jet fighters to one side in a nasty conflict is
not the kind of intrusion which upsets Will. What irks
him is that Colin Powell has laid out a plan to follow
through on the George Mitchell and Warren Rudman plan
to prod Israel into a peace settlement with the
Palestinians who inhabit the land it seized in 1967.
For Will, working towards a peace process – trying to
create the kind of settlement backed by every one of
America's NATO allies, and every friendly Arab country
– is reckless intervention.
Will seeds his argument with a few untruths, or
half-truths, perhaps hoping readers won't notice. He
claims that at Camp David in the summer of 2000,
former Israeli premier Ehud Barak offered 98 percent
of the West Bank to the Palestinians and they scorned
the offer. Actually Barak's maximum offer at Camp
David – at least the verbal suggestion that went from
Barak to President Clinton to the Arab negotiators –
came to about 90 percent of the West Bank, with a
compensating 1 percent to be taken from Israel proper.
half-truths, perhaps hoping readers won't notice. He
claims that at Camp David in the summer of 2000,
former Israeli premier Ehud Barak offered 98 percent
of the West Bank to the Palestinians and they scorned
the offer. Actually Barak's maximum offer at Camp
David – at least the verbal suggestion that went from
Barak to President Clinton to the Arab negotiators –
came to about 90 percent of the West Bank, with a
compensating 1 percent to be taken from Israel proper.
This was certainly a more realistic offer than any
previous Israeli leader had made, and demonstrated
considerable political courage on Barak's part. Most
observers, (including knowledgeable Palestinians)
agree that it was a shortsighted mistake for Arafat's
team to fail to respond in kind. But it falls well
short of the 98 percent claimed by Will, or the 95
percent touted by various Israeli spokesmen after the
collapse of the negotiations.
previous Israeli leader had made, and demonstrated
considerable political courage on Barak's part. Most
observers, (including knowledgeable Palestinians)
agree that it was a shortsighted mistake for Arafat's
team to fail to respond in kind. But it falls well
short of the 98 percent claimed by Will, or the 95
percent touted by various Israeli spokesmen after the
collapse of the negotiations.
Will takes some detours for slaps at Arafat's
provisional governing authority; it is a "thugocracy"
which could not successfully govern Switzerland, he
writes. Apparently Will thinks it a simple matter to
establish democratic rule in a territory whose
commerce and roads and water supply remain under the
control of a hostile occupying power. More
realistically, he might have said that even the Swiss
would have a trouble governing themselves properly as
subjects of the occupation in Palestine.
provisional governing authority; it is a "thugocracy"
which could not successfully govern Switzerland, he
writes. Apparently Will thinks it a simple matter to
establish democratic rule in a territory whose
commerce and roads and water supply remain under the
control of a hostile occupying power. More
realistically, he might have said that even the Swiss
would have a trouble governing themselves properly as
subjects of the occupation in Palestine.
Will then amuses himself wondering whether Powell will
try to persuade Ariel Sharon to drop his "supposedly
utopian" demand for seven days without violence before
proceeding even to talk to the Palestinians. Yet the
sincerity of Sharon's wish for seven days of "peace
and quiet," can be viewed in the light of the Israeli
prime minister's response to Powell's peacekeeping
speech, delivered the Monday before Thanksgiving. The
day after, Reuters reported "Israel demolished
Palestinian houses in Gaza and said it would build new
homes for Jewish settlers in the West Bank city of
Hebron." The day after that, the Israeli military
settled on a Palestinian militant to kill with their
American built helicopters.
try to persuade Ariel Sharon to drop his "supposedly
utopian" demand for seven days without violence before
proceeding even to talk to the Palestinians. Yet the
sincerity of Sharon's wish for seven days of "peace
and quiet," can be viewed in the light of the Israeli
prime minister's response to Powell's peacekeeping
speech, delivered the Monday before Thanksgiving. The
day after, Reuters reported "Israel demolished
Palestinian houses in Gaza and said it would build new
homes for Jewish settlers in the West Bank city of
Hebron." The day after that, the Israeli military
settled on a Palestinian militant to kill with their
American built helicopters.
The death toll since Powell's speech: 13 Palestinians,
including some elementary school boys in Gaza who
touched an Israeli tank shell rigged as a booby trap
and a thirteen-year-old shot in the chest for throwing
rocks; one Israel soldier, killed by mortar fire in
the occupied territories. Sharon desperately wants
seven days of peace and quiet before negotiations can
begin, you see.
including some elementary school boys in Gaza who
touched an Israeli tank shell rigged as a booby trap
and a thirteen-year-old shot in the chest for throwing
rocks; one Israel soldier, killed by mortar fire in
the occupied territories. Sharon desperately wants
seven days of peace and quiet before negotiations can
begin, you see.
I understand that there are Israelis who believe, as
Sharon's late tourism minister Zeevi so charmingly put
it, that the Palestinians are "lice" who deserve no
better than extermination; I understand too that some
American Jews have invested their hearts and souls in
the belief that Israel has a divine right to the
biblical lands of "Judea" and "Samaria." I don't
understand the Waspish George Will.
Sharon's late tourism minister Zeevi so charmingly put
it, that the Palestinians are "lice" who deserve no
better than extermination; I understand too that some
American Jews have invested their hearts and souls in
the belief that Israel has a divine right to the
biblical lands of "Judea" and "Samaria." I don't
understand the Waspish George Will.
The United States will be fighting terrorism in one
form or another for a long time to come, and the
Palestinian situation has become a festering wound
which has diminished and diminished again America's
standing in the Middle East. The failure of American
peacemaking efforts have erased whatever positive
image the United States might once have had by virtue
of not being a colonial power. The Israeli settlers in
Gaza and the West Bank – many of whom, to our shame,
are actually American citizens – serve objectively as
agents for fomenting animosity against this country –
animosity both from the Palestinians whose land and
resources they take and from all those throughout the
Arab and Muslim world who identify with the
Palestinian plight. Why does George Will want to
exacerbate the problem?
form or another for a long time to come, and the
Palestinian situation has become a festering wound
which has diminished and diminished again America's
standing in the Middle East. The failure of American
peacemaking efforts have erased whatever positive
image the United States might once have had by virtue
of not being a colonial power. The Israeli settlers in
Gaza and the West Bank – many of whom, to our shame,
are actually American citizens – serve objectively as
agents for fomenting animosity against this country –
animosity both from the Palestinians whose land and
resources they take and from all those throughout the
Arab and Muslim world who identify with the
Palestinian plight. Why does George Will want to
exacerbate the problem?
If he were putting forth an argument based on concern
for Israel's security, it would be morally
understandable. But he doesn't even bother. Perhaps
that is because it is so clear that those who want to
destroy Israel or submerge it under endless terror are
the major beneficiaries of the Israeli occupation. It
gives them a large and growing pool of Palestinians
living in hopeless circumstances from which to
recruit.
for Israel's security, it would be morally
understandable. But he doesn't even bother. Perhaps
that is because it is so clear that those who want to
destroy Israel or submerge it under endless terror are
the major beneficiaries of the Israeli occupation. It
gives them a large and growing pool of Palestinians
living in hopeless circumstances from which to
recruit.
A peace settlement – one which gives Palestinians
promise of normalcy, education, and careers, and the
prospect of a better life for their children – would
go far toward draining the swamp of future terrorists.
Peace would thus benefit the Israelis who want and
deserve tranquil lives of their own. Its benefits to
the United States and the West, which cannot win its
struggle against terrorism without allies in the
Muslim world, are vast. Colin Powell understands this
and is trying to make progress accordingly. George
Will's sneering answer is, "Create more Terrorists."
promise of normalcy, education, and careers, and the
prospect of a better life for their children – would
go far toward draining the swamp of future terrorists.
Peace would thus benefit the Israelis who want and
deserve tranquil lives of their own. Its benefits to
the United States and the West, which cannot win its
struggle against terrorism without allies in the
Muslim world, are vast. Colin Powell understands this
and is trying to make progress accordingly. George
Will's sneering answer is, "Create more Terrorists."
______________________________
This item first posted by eric stewart (sonsu...@yahoo.com)
misc.activism.progressive
2001-12-01 21:00:38 PST
This item first posted by eric stewart (sonsu...@yahoo.com)
misc.activism.progressive
2001-12-01 21:00:38 PST
Click here to Reply
 |
Raving Leftist Lunatic "Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:fb3a0456.0401220511.
message news:fb3a0456.0401220511.
> Prefatory comments by MORRISSEY BREEN, Daisycutter Sports:
LOL. WHO the hell is HE?
> It often seems impossible to find any right wingers who can match the
> standards of scholarship and integrity of people like Robert Fisk,
> John Pilger, Professor Noam Chomsky.
> standards of scholarship and integrity of people like Robert Fisk,
> John Pilger, Professor Noam Chomsky.
Uh, NEXT?
"I will watch the news every evening on
the BBC, whose reporters are more
objective and its anchors less pompous.
I'll listen to the morning news on the radio
(six minutes) and tune in National Public
Radio when I'm driving."
Leftist Half-Pipe Andrew Greeley
the BBC, whose reporters are more
objective and its anchors less pompous.
I'll listen to the morning news on the radio
(six minutes) and tune in National Public
Radio when I'm driving."
Leftist Half-Pipe Andrew Greeley
|
Someone calling himself "King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net>
blithered in message
news:<YaQPb.18897$i4....@
>
> Raving Leftist Lunatic "Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:fb3a0456.0401220511.
>
> > Prefatory comments by MORRISSEY BREEN, Daisycutter Sports:
>
> LOL. WHO the hell is HE?
blithered in message
news:<YaQPb.18897$i4....@
>
> Raving Leftist Lunatic "Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:fb3a0456.0401220511.
>
> > Prefatory comments by MORRISSEY BREEN, Daisycutter Sports:
>
> LOL. WHO the hell is HE?
Contributing editor for Daisycutter Sports. Who are you?
> >
> > It often seems impossible to find any right wingers who can match the
> > standards of scholarship and integrity of people like Robert Fisk,
> > John Pilger, Professor Noam Chomsky.
>
> Uh, NEXT?
> > It often seems impossible to find any right wingers who can match the
> > standards of scholarship and integrity of people like Robert Fisk,
> > John Pilger, Professor Noam Chomsky.
>
> Uh, NEXT?
That's a clever answer. Your teachers would have been impressed with
your ability at school - right?
your ability at school - right?
...<Snip irrelevant quote by Andrew Greeley>...
You're out of your depth, my friend.
|
On 22 Jan 2004 23:32:43 -0800, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
Breen) wrote:
- show quoted text -
That was obvious before your reply.
|
On 22 Jan 2004 05:11:59 -0800, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
lunch. I heard a short debate between Chomsky and Medved. It got to
a point where Chomsky just muttered and spoke incoherently.
Most Liberal academics won't debate Conservatives. There is a good
reason why Conservative speakers are not allowed on college campus.
They make the Liberals look foolish.
Breen) wrote:
>Prefatory comments by MORRISSEY BREEN, Daisycutter Sports:
>It often seems impossible to find any right wingers who can match the
>standards of scholarship and integrity of people like Robert Fisk,
>John Pilger, Professor Noam Chomsky. Ann Coulter is, of course, a
>joke; unfunny, but a joke nonetheless. Who else is there on the right
>that has even a sliver of credibility? Rush Limbaugh? Snort. Bill
>O'Reilly? Okay, stop laughing. Christoher Hitchens? No, he was
>frivolous and incoherent even when he was regarded by some as a
>"liberal". Remember his ridiculous, utterly spurious campaign to
>demonize Mother Theresa?
>
I'd pay to see Chomsky and O'Reilly debate. O'Reilly would eat his>It often seems impossible to find any right wingers who can match the
>standards of scholarship and integrity of people like Robert Fisk,
>John Pilger, Professor Noam Chomsky. Ann Coulter is, of course, a
>joke; unfunny, but a joke nonetheless. Who else is there on the right
>that has even a sliver of credibility? Rush Limbaugh? Snort. Bill
>O'Reilly? Okay, stop laughing. Christoher Hitchens? No, he was
>frivolous and incoherent even when he was regarded by some as a
>"liberal". Remember his ridiculous, utterly spurious campaign to
>demonize Mother Theresa?
>
lunch. I heard a short debate between Chomsky and Medved. It got to
a point where Chomsky just muttered and spoke incoherently.
Most Liberal academics won't debate Conservatives. There is a good
reason why Conservative speakers are not allowed on college campus.
They make the Liberals look foolish.
|
John Rackham wrote:
> I'd pay to see Chomsky and O'Reilly debate. O'Reilly would eat his
> lunch. I heard a short debate between Chomsky and Medved. It got to
> a point where Chomsky just muttered and spoke incoherently.
<snip>
> I'd pay to see Chomsky and O'Reilly debate. O'Reilly would eat his
> lunch. I heard a short debate between Chomsky and Medved. It got to
> a point where Chomsky just muttered and spoke incoherently.
I find that very hard to believe. Cohmsky is a very good debater, and I
can't imagine Medved besting him. Do you have a citation for that?
can't imagine Medved besting him. Do you have a citation for that?
--
John Starrett
John Starrett
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
|
John Rackham <johnr...@calico.com> wrote in message news:<97a3105m72ej4trurt1hsph1
eating his lunch.
>
> I'd pay to see Chomsky and O'Reilly debate.
> I'd pay to see Chomsky and O'Reilly debate.
Wouldn't happen. They're not in the same league. Also, you've
forgotten that O'Reilly's idea of "debate" is to shout down his victim
(guest). It doesn't always work, though, as in the following
instance, when a young man whose father died in the 9/11 attacks
challenges O'Reilly's hypocrisy and deceit, provoking the idiot
O'Reilly to shout "Shut up! Shut up!" and then, in desperation, he
orders his embarrassed floor crew to cut the young man's microphone.
Read it all by clicking HERE...
http://www.thismodernworld.
forgotten that O'Reilly's idea of "debate" is to shout down his victim
(guest). It doesn't always work, though, as in the following
instance, when a young man whose father died in the 9/11 attacks
challenges O'Reilly's hypocrisy and deceit, provoking the idiot
O'Reilly to shout "Shut up! Shut up!" and then, in desperation, he
orders his embarrassed floor crew to cut the young man's microphone.
Read it all by clicking HERE...
http://www.thismodernworld.
>
> O'Reilly would eat his lunch.
No doubt he would. At least he's not going to embarrass himself by> O'Reilly would eat his lunch.
eating his lunch.
>
> I heard a short debate between Chomsky and Medved. It got to
> a point where Chomsky just muttered and spoke incoherently.
> I heard a short debate between Chomsky and Medved. It got to
> a point where Chomsky just muttered and spoke incoherently.
Ha! I doubt THAT. Medved has achieved infamy as a shallow,
dishonest, heartless apologist for Israeli atrocities. Jesus, even
this writer (moi) has kicked his assss on Usenet. Here, see for
yourself....
http://tinyurl.com/ypm7y
dishonest, heartless apologist for Israeli atrocities. Jesus, even
this writer (moi) has kicked his assss on Usenet. Here, see for
yourself....
http://tinyurl.com/ypm7y
>
> Most Liberal academics won't debate Conservatives.
> Most Liberal academics won't debate Conservatives.
That's not correct.
>
> There is a good reason why Conservative speakers are not allowed on college
> campus. They make the Liberals look foolish.
> There is a good reason why Conservative speakers are not allowed on college
> campus. They make the Liberals look foolish.
Really dumb thing to say. I think by "Conservative", you mean
"extreme, rabid right wing". As anybody who has watched the idiotic,
offensive behaviour of David Horowitz and Ann Coulter on college campi
over the last two years would know, the reason they and others on the
rabid right aren't invited to speak to young people is because they
have little of value to say.
"extreme, rabid right wing". As anybody who has watched the idiotic,
offensive behaviour of David Horowitz and Ann Coulter on college campi
over the last two years would know, the reason they and others on the
rabid right aren't invited to speak to young people is because they
have little of value to say.
|
morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote in message
> Ha! I doubt THAT. Medved has achieved infamy as a shallow,
> dishonest, heartless apologist for Israeli atrocities. Jesus, even
> this writer (moi) has kicked his assss on Usenet. Here, see for
> yourself....
> http://tinyurl.com/ypm7y
> dishonest, heartless apologist for Israeli atrocities. Jesus, even
> this writer (moi) has kicked his assss on Usenet. Here, see for
> yourself....
> http://tinyurl.com/ypm7y
ROTFLMAO
1. In the URL that you give, you lied your ass off, and I proved it :)
2. I am not Michael Medved, the talk show host. You know that there are
thousands of Michael Medveds in this country, right? What a pathetic
puffed up maroon pillock.
thousands of Michael Medveds in this country, right? What a pathetic
puffed up maroon pillock.
|
Mike wrote:
- show quoted text -
And its worth reproducing your figures which will surprise a few people:
"Here are the numbers:
Palestinian casualties: 27 September 2000 through 29 January 2003
Total: 1981
Female non-combatants: 96
Below age 12: 59
Female non-combatants: 96
Below age 12: 59
Israeli casualties: 27 September 2000 through 29 January 2003
Total: 707
Female non-combatants: 217
Below age 12: 26
Female non-combatants: 217
Below age 12: 26
Explain where the original poster found the "1000 babies" figure.
The above figures clearly show that while Israelis target combatants,
thus resulting in overwhelmingly adult male Palestinian casualties,
Palestinians target civilians."
The above figures clearly show that while Israelis target combatants,
thus resulting in overwhelmingly adult male Palestinian casualties,
Palestinians target civilians."
JC
|
You know you're in trouble when your only support comes from an
extreme fantasist/humorist like John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>,
who comes out in support of the beleaguered "Mike" in message
news:<4012D9FD...@ihug.
extreme fantasist/humorist like John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>,
who comes out in support of the beleaguered "Mike" in message
news:<4012D9FD...@ihug.
>
> "Here are the numbers:
> "Here are the numbers:
Let's get this perfectly straight... the Israelis "saved" all those
Palestinian children. Right?
Palestinian children. Right?
|
The illiterate, unethical and increasingly desperate mi...@medved.net
(Mike) blithered in message
news:<3b59b02.0401240932.
> morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote in message
>
> > Ha! I doubt THAT. Medved has achieved infamy as a shallow,
> > dishonest, heartless apologist for Israeli atrocities. Jesus, even
> > this writer (moi) has kicked his assss on Usenet. Here, see for
> > yourself....
> > http://tinyurl.com/ypm7y
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> 1. In the URL that you give, you lied your ass off, and I proved it :)
(Mike) blithered in message
news:<3b59b02.0401240932.
> morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote in message
>
> > Ha! I doubt THAT. Medved has achieved infamy as a shallow,
> > dishonest, heartless apologist for Israeli atrocities. Jesus, even
> > this writer (moi) has kicked his assss on Usenet. Here, see for
> > yourself....
> > http://tinyurl.com/ypm7y
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> 1. In the URL that you give, you lied your ass off, and I proved it :)
Medved proved nothing. All he did was quibble over the exact number
of Palestinian victims, and sneer at them. Of course, he has no other
tactic, other than his lame attempts at humor.
of Palestinian victims, and sneer at them. Of course, he has no other
tactic, other than his lame attempts at humor.
>
> 2. I am not Michael Medved, the talk show host. You know that there are
> thousands of Michael Medveds in this country, right?
> 2. I am not Michael Medved, the talk show host. You know that there are
> thousands of Michael Medveds in this country, right?
There may well be "thousands of Michael Medveds in this country", but
I wonder how many of them are in the habit of raving about the
"homicadal [sic!] pathology" of Arabs, would be stupid enough to cast
a rogue ambassador's moronic act of vandalism in Sweden as the actions
of a "hero", or write, with all the humor of an Ann Coulter, of
"Mohammed having sex with a pig with the face of that female suicide
bomber".
I wonder how many of them are in the habit of raving about the
"homicadal [sic!] pathology" of Arabs, would be stupid enough to cast
a rogue ambassador's moronic act of vandalism in Sweden as the actions
of a "hero", or write, with all the humor of an Ann Coulter, of
"Mohammed having sex with a pig with the face of that female suicide
bomber".
I particularly liked the following refutation of this fellow, written
by Stein R, after another of Medved's obscene and unfunny raves in
defence of the vandal: "You can inflate yourself as a bullfrog, if you
need to, and keep blathering about how this was an insult to Israelis,
and try to figure out some insult to Swedes - but to a normal,
balanced mind wondering what makes a suicide bomber tick can hardly be
construed as pissing on the memory of the victims of his or her
attack."
by Stein R, after another of Medved's obscene and unfunny raves in
defence of the vandal: "You can inflate yourself as a bullfrog, if you
need to, and keep blathering about how this was an insult to Israelis,
and try to figure out some insult to Swedes - but to a normal,
balanced mind wondering what makes a suicide bomber tick can hardly be
construed as pissing on the memory of the victims of his or her
attack."
Common sense, humanity, fairness, tolerance. What a contrast to
Medved's unintelligent, hypocritical ranting.
Medved's unintelligent, hypocritical ranting.
>
> What a pathetic puffed up maroon pillock.
> What a pathetic puffed up maroon pillock.
See what I mean about "lame attempts at humor"?
|
Morrissey Breen wrote:
- show quoted text -
I've reproduced some facts on the Israel/Palestinian conflict and
despite your claim to be a voracious reader and researcher you cant
answer them?
despite your claim to be a voracious reader and researcher you cant
answer them?
Here they are again, as I see you've accidentally erased them:
"Palestinian casualties: 27 September 2000 through 29 January 2003
Total: 1981
Female non-combatants: 96
Below age 12: 59
Female non-combatants: 96
Below age 12: 59
Israeli casualties: 27 September 2000 through 29 January 2003
Total: 707
Female non-combatants: 217
Below age 12: 26
Female non-combatants: 217
Below age 12: 26
Explain where the original poster found the "1000 babies" figure.
The above figures clearly show that while Israelis target combatants,
thus resulting in overwhelmingly adult male Palestinian casualties,
Palestinians target civilians."
The above figures clearly show that while Israelis target combatants,
thus resulting in overwhelmingly adult male Palestinian casualties,
Palestinians target civilians."
It should be easy for a man of your intellect and research skills to
rebut them.
rebut them.
JC
|
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40132B53...@ihug.
- show quoted text -
You're a little selective in your quote, John. Here is what the site
reveals:
reveals:
1) Approximately three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have
died within the time period specified;
2) There is no definition of the word "combatant." So I assume kids
throwing stones who are up against Israeli sharpshooters are all
placed in this category;
3) Approximately one and one-half times as many
Palestiniannon-combatants have died at Israeli hands than the other
way around;
4)Twice as many Palestinian kids have died;
5)More than three times as many Palesinian non-combatants over 12 have
died.
died within the time period specified;
2) There is no definition of the word "combatant." So I assume kids
throwing stones who are up against Israeli sharpshooters are all
placed in this category;
3) Approximately one and one-half times as many
Palestiniannon-combatants have died at Israeli hands than the other
way around;
4)Twice as many Palestinian kids have died;
5)More than three times as many Palesinian non-combatants over 12 have
died.
--John Baglow
|
bag...@travel-net.com (John Baglow) wrote in message news:<8b5c46df.0401250616.
>
> You're a little selective in your quote, John. Here is what the site
> reveals:
>
> 1) Approximately three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have
> died within the time period specified;
> 2) There is no definition of the word "combatant." So I assume kids
> throwing stones who are up against Israeli sharpshooters are all
> placed in this category;
> 3) Approximately one and one-half times as many
> Palestiniannon-combatants have died at Israeli hands than the other
> way around;
> 4)Twice as many Palestinian kids have died;
> 5)More than three times as many Palesinian non-combatants over 12 have
> died.
>
> --John Baglow
> You're a little selective in your quote, John. Here is what the site
> reveals:
>
> 1) Approximately three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have
> died within the time period specified;
> 2) There is no definition of the word "combatant." So I assume kids
> throwing stones who are up against Israeli sharpshooters are all
> placed in this category;
> 3) Approximately one and one-half times as many
> Palestiniannon-combatants have died at Israeli hands than the other
> way around;
> 4)Twice as many Palestinian kids have died;
> 5)More than three times as many Palesinian non-combatants over 12 have
> died.
>
> --John Baglow
John, the person you are trying to reason with has argued, in apparent
high seriousness, that the Coalition of the Killing is not killing
people in Iraq, but SAVING them. Lord know how, but if he replies to
you, he will probably justify all those killings of Palestinian
children. Terrorist baby girls, presumably.
high seriousness, that the Coalition of the Killing is not killing
people in Iraq, but SAVING them. Lord know how, but if he replies to
you, he will probably justify all those killings of Palestinian
children. Terrorist baby girls, presumably.
|
John Baglow wrote:
- show quoted text -
Nope. Check the thread. Note I said I was "reproducing" some facts, which are here reproduced
exactly as posted further up the thread.
exactly as posted further up the thread.
> Here is what the site
> reveals:
>
> 1) Approximately three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have
> died within the time period specified;
> reveals:
>
> 1) Approximately three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have
> died within the time period specified;
Close enough.
>
> 2) There is no definition of the word "combatant." So I assume kids
> throwing stones who are up against Israeli sharpshooters are all
> placed in this category;
> 2) There is no definition of the word "combatant." So I assume kids
> throwing stones who are up against Israeli sharpshooters are all
> placed in this category;
Agreed. Lets have a look at that. 74 Palestinian kids have been killed, probably because they
were shielding snipers in back of them and simply by being there at the scene of the
fighting. There are 36 Israeli kids killed, not by being in the front line but blown apart on
busses by suicide bombers. Multiplying by three to get the correct proportions between deaths
we get 108 Israeli kids killed, ie significantly more than Palestinians. There is ample
evidence on the web of children as young as 8 being armed and pushed into the front line of
the conflict on one side and ample evidence that Israeli kids being killed in their homes, on
busses and in restaurants, ie, nowhere near the conflict.
were shielding snipers in back of them and simply by being there at the scene of the
fighting. There are 36 Israeli kids killed, not by being in the front line but blown apart on
busses by suicide bombers. Multiplying by three to get the correct proportions between deaths
we get 108 Israeli kids killed, ie significantly more than Palestinians. There is ample
evidence on the web of children as young as 8 being armed and pushed into the front line of
the conflict on one side and ample evidence that Israeli kids being killed in their homes, on
busses and in restaurants, ie, nowhere near the conflict.
>
> 3) Approximately one and one-half times as many
> Palestiniannon-combatants have died at Israeli hands than the other
> way around;
> 3) Approximately one and one-half times as many
> Palestiniannon-combatants have died at Israeli hands than the other
> way around;
Agreed. Which proves that Israel prefers to kill combatants. The same figures show that
Palestinians prefer to non combatants. Palestinian non coms killed 932, Israeli 683. Multiply
by three to get the relativity and you get more than twice as many Jew non coms as
Palestinians. Same for females, 118 Palestinians to 277 Israelis. Multiply by three and
Palestinians are killing nearly 8 times more females than the Israelis.
Check the over 45 years deaths. 80 for Palestine and 219 for the Jews. Multiply by three and
you get Palestinians killing 8 times more older people than the Israelis.
Palestinians prefer to non combatants. Palestinian non coms killed 932, Israeli 683. Multiply
by three to get the relativity and you get more than twice as many Jew non coms as
Palestinians. Same for females, 118 Palestinians to 277 Israelis. Multiply by three and
Palestinians are killing nearly 8 times more females than the Israelis.
Check the over 45 years deaths. 80 for Palestine and 219 for the Jews. Multiply by three and
you get Palestinians killing 8 times more older people than the Israelis.
The figures show a monstrous Palestinian death culture for its own people and kids, and a
deliberate targeting of Israeli non coms, mainly by suicide bomber.
deliberate targeting of Israeli non coms, mainly by suicide bomber.
JC
>
> 4)Twice as many Palestinian kids have died;
> 5)More than three times as many Palesinian non-combatants over 12 have
> died.
>
> --John Baglow
> 4)Twice as many Palestinian kids have died;
> 5)More than three times as many Palesinian non-combatants over 12 have
> died.
>
> --John Baglow
|
Morrissey Breen wrote:
> bag...@travel-net.com (John Baglow) wrote in message news:<8b5c46df.0401250616.
>
> >
> > You're a little selective in your quote, John. Here is what the site
> > reveals:
> >
> > 1) Approximately three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have
> > died within the time period specified;
> > 2) There is no definition of the word "combatant." So I assume kids
> > throwing stones who are up against Israeli sharpshooters are all
> > placed in this category;
> > 3) Approximately one and one-half times as many
> > Palestiniannon-combatants have died at Israeli hands than the other
> > way around;
> > 4)Twice as many Palestinian kids have died;
> > 5)More than three times as many Palesinian non-combatants over 12 have
> > died.
> >
> > --John Baglow
>
> John, the person you are trying to reason with has argued, in apparent
> high seriousness, that the Coalition of the Killing is not killing
> people in Iraq, but SAVING them.
>
> >
> > You're a little selective in your quote, John. Here is what the site
> > reveals:
> >
> > 1) Approximately three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have
> > died within the time period specified;
> > 2) There is no definition of the word "combatant." So I assume kids
> > throwing stones who are up against Israeli sharpshooters are all
> > placed in this category;
> > 3) Approximately one and one-half times as many
> > Palestiniannon-combatants have died at Israeli hands than the other
> > way around;
> > 4)Twice as many Palestinian kids have died;
> > 5)More than three times as many Palesinian non-combatants over 12 have
> > died.
> >
> > --John Baglow
>
> John, the person you are trying to reason with has argued, in apparent
> high seriousness, that the Coalition of the Killing is not killing
> people in Iraq, but SAVING them.
No Iraqi kids dying of hunger and lack of medicines now. Lots being saved now, eh?
> Lord know how, but if he replies to
> you, he will probably justify all those killings of Palestinian
> children. Terrorist baby girls, presumably.
> you, he will probably justify all those killings of Palestinian
> children. Terrorist baby girls, presumably.
Dont forget. I asked you to rebut the figures.
JC
|
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40144E0F...@ihug.
> > Here is what the site
> > reveals:
> >
> > 1) Approximately three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have
> > died within the time period specified;
>
> Close enough.
>
> >
> > 2) There is no definition of the word "combatant." So I assume kids
> > throwing stones who are up against Israeli sharpshooters are all
> > placed in this category;
>
> Agreed. Lets have a look at that. 74 Palestinian kids have been killed, probably because they
> were shielding snipers in back of them and simply by being there at the scene of the
> fighting. There are 36 Israeli kids killed, not by being in the front line but blown apart on
> busses by suicide bombers.
> Multiplying by three to get the correct proportions between deaths
> we get 108 Israeli kids killed, ie significantly more than Palestinians. There is ample
> evidence on the web of children as young as 8 being armed and pushed into the front line of
> the conflict on one side and ample evidence that Israeli kids being killed in their homes, on
> busses and in restaurants, ie, nowhere near the conflict.
>
> >
> > 3) Approximately one and one-half times as many
> > Palestiniannon-combatants have died at Israeli hands than the other
> > way around;
>
> Agreed. Which proves that Israel prefers to kill combatants. The same figures show that
> Palestinians prefer to non combatants. Palestinian non coms killed 932, Israeli 683. Multiply
> by three to get the relativity
> and you get more than twice as many Jew non coms as
> Palestinians. Same for females, 118 Palestinians to 277 Israelis. Multiply by three and
> Palestinians are killing nearly 8 times more females than the Israelis.
> Check the over 45 years deaths. 80 for Palestine and 219 for the Jews. Multiply by three and
> you get Palestinians killing 8 times more older people than the Israelis.
>
> The figures show a monstrous Palestinian death culture for its own people and kids, and a
> deliberate targeting of Israeli non coms, mainly by suicide bomber.
- show quoted text -
But not *all* the facts.
> > Here is what the site
> > reveals:
> >
> > 1) Approximately three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have
> > died within the time period specified;
>
> Close enough.
>
> >
> > 2) There is no definition of the word "combatant." So I assume kids
> > throwing stones who are up against Israeli sharpshooters are all
> > placed in this category;
>
> Agreed. Lets have a look at that. 74 Palestinian kids have been killed, probably because they
> were shielding snipers in back of them and simply by being there at the scene of the
> fighting. There are 36 Israeli kids killed, not by being in the front line but blown apart on
> busses by suicide bombers.
There are a lot of suppositions here. Try checking out this reference:
> Multiplying by three to get the correct proportions between deaths
Huh? What the hell are you talking about? Try absolute comparisons.
What's this "multiplying by three" nonsense? Is that the value of a
Palestinian life compared to an Israeli life?
What's this "multiplying by three" nonsense? Is that the value of a
Palestinian life compared to an Israeli life?
> we get 108 Israeli kids killed, ie significantly more than Palestinians. There is ample
> evidence on the web of children as young as 8 being armed and pushed into the front line of
> the conflict on one side and ample evidence that Israeli kids being killed in their homes, on
> busses and in restaurants, ie, nowhere near the conflict.
>
> >
> > 3) Approximately one and one-half times as many
> > Palestiniannon-combatants have died at Israeli hands than the other
> > way around;
>
> Agreed. Which proves that Israel prefers to kill combatants. The same figures show that
> Palestinians prefer to non combatants. Palestinian non coms killed 932, Israeli 683. Multiply
> by three to get the relativity
This is bullshit, John. What "relativity?"
> and you get more than twice as many Jew non coms as
> Palestinians. Same for females, 118 Palestinians to 277 Israelis. Multiply by three and
> Palestinians are killing nearly 8 times more females than the Israelis.
> Check the over 45 years deaths. 80 for Palestine and 219 for the Jews. Multiply by three and
> you get Palestinians killing 8 times more older people than the Israelis.
>
> The figures show a monstrous Palestinian death culture for its own people and kids, and a
> deliberate targeting of Israeli non coms, mainly by suicide bomber.
The figures show that murderous Zionist colonizers will kill anyone
who gets in their way.
who gets in their way.
--John Baglow
|
John Baglow wrote:
>
> > >
> > > You're a little selective in your quote, John.
> >
> > Nope. Check the thread. Note I said I was "reproducing" some facts, which are here reproduced
> > exactly as posted further up the thread.
> >
>
> But not *all* the facts.
>
> > > Here is what the site
> > > reveals:
> > >
> > > 1) Approximately three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have
> > > died within the time period specified;
> >
> > Close enough.
> >
> > >
> > > 2) There is no definition of the word "combatant." So I assume kids
> > > throwing stones who are up against Israeli sharpshooters are all
> > > placed in this category;
> >
> > Agreed. Lets have a look at that. 74 Palestinian kids have been killed, probably because they
> > were shielding snipers in back of them and simply by being there at the scene of the
> > fighting. There are 36 Israeli kids killed, not by being in the front line but blown apart on
> > busses by suicide bombers.
>
> There are a lot of suppositions here. Try checking out this reference:
>
> http://www.findarticles.com/
>
> > Multiplying by three to get the correct proportions between deaths
>
> Huh? What the hell are you talking about? Try absolute comparisons.
> What's this "multiplying by three" nonsense? Is that the value of a
> Palestinian life compared to an Israeli life?
> > >
> > > You're a little selective in your quote, John.
> >
> > Nope. Check the thread. Note I said I was "reproducing" some facts, which are here reproduced
> > exactly as posted further up the thread.
> >
>
> But not *all* the facts.
>
> > > Here is what the site
> > > reveals:
> > >
> > > 1) Approximately three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have
> > > died within the time period specified;
> >
> > Close enough.
> >
> > >
> > > 2) There is no definition of the word "combatant." So I assume kids
> > > throwing stones who are up against Israeli sharpshooters are all
> > > placed in this category;
> >
> > Agreed. Lets have a look at that. 74 Palestinian kids have been killed, probably because they
> > were shielding snipers in back of them and simply by being there at the scene of the
> > fighting. There are 36 Israeli kids killed, not by being in the front line but blown apart on
> > busses by suicide bombers.
>
> There are a lot of suppositions here. Try checking out this reference:
>
> http://www.findarticles.com/
>
> > Multiplying by three to get the correct proportions between deaths
>
> Huh? What the hell are you talking about? Try absolute comparisons.
> What's this "multiplying by three" nonsense? Is that the value of a
> Palestinian life compared to an Israeli life?
OK. I was playing round with something that I agree isnt well thought out.. so lets go back to the
raw figures.
raw figures.
Non coms killed, Israel 683 of 880 or 77.6% of total Israeli deaths.
Non coms Palestinians killed, 932 of 2573 or 36.2%.
Non coms Palestinians killed, 932 of 2573 or 36.2%.
Summary. Israel kills half the percentage of non coms that the Palestinians do.
Females killed, Israel 277 of 880 or 31.4%
Females killed, Palestinians, 118 of 2573 or 4.5%
Females killed, Palestinians, 118 of 2573 or 4.5%
Summary. Palestinians kill 6.9 times more Israeli females than vice versa.
Over 45s killed, Israel 219 of 880 or 24.8%
Over 45s killed Palestinians 80 of 2573 or 3.1%
Over 45s killed Palestinians 80 of 2573 or 3.1%
Summary, Palestinians kill 8 times more over 45s than Israel.
Non com females killed, Israel 272 of 880 or 30.9%
Non com females killed, Palestinians 87 of 2573 or 3.3%
Non com females killed, Palestinians 87 of 2573 or 3.3%
Summary, Palestinians kill 9 times more non com females than Israel.
Kids under 12 killed, Israel 36 of 880 or 4%
Kids under 12 killed, Palestine 74 of 2573 or 2.8%
Kids under 12 killed, Palestine 74 of 2573 or 2.8%
Summary, Palestinians kill more kids.
Killed by own side, Israel 20 of 880 or 2.2%
Killed by own side, Palestinians 324 of 2573 or 12.5%
Killed by own side, Palestinians 324 of 2573 or 12.5%
Summary, Palestinians kill 5 times more of their own people.
And the big one:
Combatants killed by other side, Israel 179 of 880 or 20.3%
Combatants killed by other side, Palestinians 1194 of 2573 or 46.4%
Combatants killed by other side, Palestinians 1194 of 2573 or 46.4%
Summary, Israel kills more than twice as many combatants as the Palestinians.
General summary
This is asymmetrical warfare being waged by about 4 million Palestinians on about 5 million Jews.
Children from age 9 and women of any age are recruited into the battle by the Palestinian side with
a declared aim of getting rid of Israel. The preferred method of the Palestinians is murder of the
Israeli non combatant population. The preferred method of the Israelis is to kill Palestinian
combatants.
Children from age 9 and women of any age are recruited into the battle by the Palestinian side with
a declared aim of getting rid of Israel. The preferred method of the Palestinians is murder of the
Israeli non combatant population. The preferred method of the Israelis is to kill Palestinian
combatants.
JC
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:27:11 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
wrote:
George Will a "thinking conservative"
Geoge spent the first half of his life thinking about how to dodge the
draft and avoid Viet Nam. Typical republican, all show and no go.
draft and avoid Viet Nam. Typical republican, all show and no go.
THOM
|
"Thom" <thoma...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4014643c.283450@news.
- show quoted text -
Wow! You make him sound like John Kerry! That guy attacked our mission in
Vietnam too!
|
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40149067...@ihug.
>
> OK. I was playing round with something that I agree isnt well thought out..
> OK. I was playing round with something that I agree isnt well thought out..
Good. Now how about an apology for your idiotic antics?
>
> so lets go back to the raw figures.
> so lets go back to the raw figures.
...<Snip even MORE brutally ignorant playing around with figures>....
You're discredited. Even you admit it now.
|
"DeansDeathSpiral" <Aaarrrgggghhhh!@nowheresville
- show quoted text -
What "mission", you idiot?
|
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40149067...@ihug.
- show quoted text -
Gee. Can I play? US-backed sanctions killed half a million kids under
Saddam Hussein. Hussein killed no American kids. Summary, the US
killed more kids than Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein. Hussein killed no American kids. Summary, the US
killed more kids than Saddam Hussein.
See how stupid this kind of playing with figures is?
The facts are these:
1) Palestine is an occupied nation; Israel is the occupier.
2) The Palestinians, resisting occupation, are getting the worst of
it, measured by mortality figures that run 3-to-1 in Israel's favour.
2) The Palestinians, resisting occupation, are getting the worst of
it, measured by mortality figures that run 3-to-1 in Israel's favour.
Now, you can fool around with the numbers all you want. But the
categories in the stats provided, without definition, are highly
suspect. What is a "combatant?" What does gender have to do with
anything, given the large number of women in the Israeli occupying
force (an equal opportunity oppressor, it seems)? Under what
circumstances did people on the same side get killed?
I see more Palestinian kids dead than Israeli kids. Don't play games
with proportions and simple arithmetic. The Israeli occupation force
has killed more Palestinian kids than the other way round. Period.
with proportions and simple arithmetic. The Israeli occupation force
has killed more Palestinian kids than the other way round. Period.
As to the definition of a "combatant," which you none-too-subtly
evaded, kids throwing rocks at Israelis count as "combatants," on a
par with fully-equipped Israeli soldiers. Once again, here is how some
of those statistics are generated:
evaded, kids throwing rocks at Israelis count as "combatants," on a
par with fully-equipped Israeli soldiers. Once again, here is how some
of those statistics are generated:
Lies, damned lies and statistics will not cover up the atrocity of
West Bank occupation, the apartheid wall being built, the seizure of
water and land by the occupiers, the shooting of olive-harvesters in
Nablus, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
West Bank occupation, the apartheid wall being built, the seizure of
water and land by the occupiers, the shooting of olive-harvesters in
Nablus, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
As a commentator said in a letter to one of our national newspapers,
all Zionism has managed to achieve is yet another Jewish ghetto, this
time in the Middle East. I wish I'd said that.
all Zionism has managed to achieve is yet another Jewish ghetto, this
time in the Middle East. I wish I'd said that.
--John Baglow
> General summary
>
> This is asymmetrical warfare being waged by about 4 million Palestinians on about 5 million Jews.
> Children from age 9 and women of any age are recruited into the battle by the Palestinian side with
> a declared aim of getting rid of Israel. The preferred method of the Palestinians is murder of the
> Israeli non combatant population. The preferred method of the Israelis is to kill Palestinian
> combatants.
>
> JC
|
A common folly is to confuse the "gift of gab", or the ability to use
words disarmingly, for intelligence. Two very different things. In
fact, one could argue that the very nature of one's superior ability
to use language indicates a propensity to deceive. You know, like
illustrated in that "apple from the tree of knowledge" story...
> For Will, working towards a peace process ? trying to
> create the kind of settlement backed by every one of
> America's NATO allies, and every friendly Arab country
> ? is reckless intervention.
>
> Will seeds his argument with a few untruths, or
> half-truths, perhaps hoping readers won't notice. He
> claims that at Camp David in the summer of 2000,
> former Israeli premier Ehud Barak offered 98 percent
> of the West Bank to the Palestinians and they scorned
> the offer. Actually Barak's maximum offer at Camp
> David ? at least the verbal suggestion that went from
> Barak to President Clinton to the Arab negotiators ?
> Gaza and the West Bank ? many of whom, to our shame,
> are actually American citizens ? serve objectively as
> agents for fomenting animosity against this country ?
> animosity both from the Palestinians whose land and
> resources they take and from all those throughout the
> Arab and Muslim world who identify with the
> Palestinian plight. Why does George Will want to
> exacerbate the problem?
>
> If he were putting forth an argument based on concern
> for Israel's security, it would be morally
> understandable. But he doesn't even bother. Perhaps
> that is because it is so clear that those who want to
> destroy Israel or submerge it under endless terror are
> the major beneficiaries of the Israeli occupation. It
> gives them a large and growing pool of Palestinians
> living in hopeless circumstances from which to
> recruit.
>
> A peace settlement ? one which gives Palestinians
> promise of normalcy, education, and careers, and the
> prospect of a better life for their children ? would
> go far toward draining the swamp of future terrorists.
> Peace would thus benefit the Israelis who want and
> deserve tranquil lives of their own. Its benefits to
> the United States and the West, which cannot win its
> struggle against terrorism without allies in the
> Muslim world, are vast. Colin Powell understands this
> and is trying to make progress accordingly. George
> Will's sneering answer is, "Create more Terrorists."
>
> ______________________________
> This item first posted by eric stewart (sonsu...@yahoo.com)
> misc.activism.progressive
> 2001-12-01 21:00:38 PST
words disarmingly, for intelligence. Two very different things. In
fact, one could argue that the very nature of one's superior ability
to use language indicates a propensity to deceive. You know, like
illustrated in that "apple from the tree of knowledge" story...
morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote in message news:<fb3a0456.0401220511.
- show quoted text -
> create the kind of settlement backed by every one of
> America's NATO allies, and every friendly Arab country
>
> Will seeds his argument with a few untruths, or
> half-truths, perhaps hoping readers won't notice. He
> claims that at Camp David in the summer of 2000,
> former Israeli premier Ehud Barak offered 98 percent
> of the West Bank to the Palestinians and they scorned
> the offer. Actually Barak's maximum offer at Camp
> Barak to President Clinton to the Arab negotiators ?
- show quoted text -
> are actually American citizens ? serve objectively as
> agents for fomenting animosity against this country ?
> animosity both from the Palestinians whose land and
> resources they take and from all those throughout the
> Arab and Muslim world who identify with the
> Palestinian plight. Why does George Will want to
> exacerbate the problem?
>
> If he were putting forth an argument based on concern
> for Israel's security, it would be morally
> understandable. But he doesn't even bother. Perhaps
> that is because it is so clear that those who want to
> destroy Israel or submerge it under endless terror are
> the major beneficiaries of the Israeli occupation. It
> gives them a large and growing pool of Palestinians
> living in hopeless circumstances from which to
> recruit.
>
> promise of normalcy, education, and careers, and the
> go far toward draining the swamp of future terrorists.
> Peace would thus benefit the Israelis who want and
> deserve tranquil lives of their own. Its benefits to
> the United States and the West, which cannot win its
> struggle against terrorism without allies in the
> Muslim world, are vast. Colin Powell understands this
> and is trying to make progress accordingly. George
> Will's sneering answer is, "Create more Terrorists."
>
> ______________________________
> This item first posted by eric stewart (sonsu...@yahoo.com)
> misc.activism.progressive
> 2001-12-01 21:00:38 PST
|
Can't be. "Thinking" and "conservative" is an obvious oxymoron.
> For Will, working towards a peace process ? trying to
> create the kind of settlement backed by every one of
> America's NATO allies, and every friendly Arab country
> ? is reckless intervention.
>
> Will seeds his argument with a few untruths, or
> half-truths, perhaps hoping readers won't notice. He
> claims that at Camp David in the summer of 2000,
> former Israeli premier Ehud Barak offered 98 percent
> of the West Bank to the Palestinians and they scorned
> the offer. Actually Barak's maximum offer at Camp
> David ? at least the verbal suggestion that went from
> Barak to President Clinton to the Arab negotiators ?
> Gaza and the West Bank ? many of whom, to our shame,
> are actually American citizens ? serve objectively as
> agents for fomenting animosity against this country ?
> animosity both from the Palestinians whose land and
> resources they take and from all those throughout the
> Arab and Muslim world who identify with the
> Palestinian plight. Why does George Will want to
> exacerbate the problem?
>
> If he were putting forth an argument based on concern
> for Israel's security, it would be morally
> understandable. But he doesn't even bother. Perhaps
> that is because it is so clear that those who want to
> destroy Israel or submerge it under endless terror are
> the major beneficiaries of the Israeli occupation. It
> gives them a large and growing pool of Palestinians
> living in hopeless circumstances from which to
> recruit.
>
> A peace settlement ? one which gives Palestinians
> promise of normalcy, education, and careers, and the
> prospect of a better life for their children ? would
> go far toward draining the swamp of future terrorists.
> Peace would thus benefit the Israelis who want and
> deserve tranquil lives of their own. Its benefits to
> the United States and the West, which cannot win its
> struggle against terrorism without allies in the
> Muslim world, are vast. Colin Powell understands this
> and is trying to make progress accordingly. George
> Will's sneering answer is, "Create more Terrorists."
>
> ______________________________
> This item first posted by eric stewart (sonsu...@yahoo.com)
> misc.activism.progressive
> 2001-12-01 21:00:38 PST
morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote in message news:<fb3a0456.0401220511.
- show quoted text -
> create the kind of settlement backed by every one of
> America's NATO allies, and every friendly Arab country
>
> Will seeds his argument with a few untruths, or
> half-truths, perhaps hoping readers won't notice. He
> claims that at Camp David in the summer of 2000,
> former Israeli premier Ehud Barak offered 98 percent
> of the West Bank to the Palestinians and they scorned
> the offer. Actually Barak's maximum offer at Camp
> Barak to President Clinton to the Arab negotiators ?
- show quoted text -
> are actually American citizens ? serve objectively as
> agents for fomenting animosity against this country ?
> animosity both from the Palestinians whose land and
> resources they take and from all those throughout the
> Arab and Muslim world who identify with the
> Palestinian plight. Why does George Will want to
> exacerbate the problem?
>
> If he were putting forth an argument based on concern
> for Israel's security, it would be morally
> understandable. But he doesn't even bother. Perhaps
> that is because it is so clear that those who want to
> destroy Israel or submerge it under endless terror are
> the major beneficiaries of the Israeli occupation. It
> gives them a large and growing pool of Palestinians
> living in hopeless circumstances from which to
> recruit.
>
> promise of normalcy, education, and careers, and the
> go far toward draining the swamp of future terrorists.
> Peace would thus benefit the Israelis who want and
> deserve tranquil lives of their own. Its benefits to
> the United States and the West, which cannot win its
> struggle against terrorism without allies in the
> Muslim world, are vast. Colin Powell understands this
> and is trying to make progress accordingly. George
> Will's sneering answer is, "Create more Terrorists."
>
> ______________________________
> This item first posted by eric stewart (sonsu...@yahoo.com)
> misc.activism.progressive
> 2001-12-01 21:00:38 PST
|
Morrissey Breen wrote:
> John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40149067...@ihug.
>
> >
> > OK. I was playing round with something that I agree isnt well thought out..
>
> Good. Now how about an apology for your idiotic antics?
>
> >
> > so lets go back to the raw figures.
>
> ...<Snip even MORE brutally ignorant playing around with figures>....
>
> >
> > OK. I was playing round with something that I agree isnt well thought out..
>
> Good. Now how about an apology for your idiotic antics?
>
> >
> > so lets go back to the raw figures.
>
> ...<Snip even MORE brutally ignorant playing around with figures>....
Dont forget. I've challenged you to debunk them. This is your third call.
JC
>
>
> You're discredited. Even you admit it now.
>
> You're discredited. Even you admit it now.
|
John Baglow wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You're a little selective in your quote, John.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. Check the thread. Note I said I was "reproducing" some facts, which are here reproduced
> > > > exactly as posted further up the thread.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But not *all* the facts.
> > >
> > > > > Here is what the site
> > > > > reveals:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Approximately three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have
> > > > > died within the time period specified;
> > > >
> > > > Close enough.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) There is no definition of the word "combatant." So I assume kids
> > > > > throwing stones who are up against Israeli sharpshooters are all
> > > > > placed in this category;
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. Lets have a look at that. 74 Palestinian kids have been killed, probably because they
> > > > were shielding snipers in back of them and simply by being there at the scene of the
> > > > fighting. There are 36 Israeli kids killed, not by being in the front line but blown apart on
> > > > busses by suicide bombers.
> > >
> > > There are a lot of suppositions here. Try checking out this reference:
> > >
> > > http://www.findarticles.com/
> > >
> > > > Multiplying by three to get the correct proportions between deaths
> > >
> > > Huh? What the hell are you talking about? Try absolute comparisons.
> > > What's this "multiplying by three" nonsense? Is that the value of a
> > > Palestinian life compared to an Israeli life?
> >
> > OK. I was playing round with something that I agree isnt well thought out.. so lets go back to the
> > raw figures.
> >
> > Non coms killed, Israel 683 of 880 or 77.6% of total Israeli deaths.
> > Non coms Palestinians killed, 932 of 2573 or 36.2%.
> >
> > Summary. Israel kills half the percentage of non coms that the Palestinians do.
> >
> > Females killed, Israel 277 of 880 or 31.4%
> > Females killed, Palestinians, 118 of 2573 or 4.5%
> >
> > Summary. Palestinians kill 6.9 times more Israeli females than vice versa.
> >
> > Over 45s killed, Israel 219 of 880 or 24.8%
> > Over 45s killed Palestinians 80 of 2573 or 3.1%
> >
> > Summary, Palestinians kill 8 times more over 45s than Israel.
> >
> > Non com females killed, Israel 272 of 880 or 30.9%
> > Non com females killed, Palestinians 87 of 2573 or 3.3%
> >
> > Summary, Palestinians kill 9 times more non com females than Israel.
> >
> > Kids under 12 killed, Israel 36 of 880 or 4%
> > Kids under 12 killed, Palestine 74 of 2573 or 2.8%
> >
> > Summary, Palestinians kill more kids.
> >
> > Killed by own side, Israel 20 of 880 or 2.2%
> > Killed by own side, Palestinians 324 of 2573 or 12.5%
> >
> > Summary, Palestinians kill 5 times more of their own people.
> >
> > And the big one:
> >
> > Combatants killed by other side, Israel 179 of 880 or 20.3%
> > Combatants killed by other side, Palestinians 1194 of 2573 or 46.4%
> >
> > Summary, Israel kills more than twice as many combatants as the Palestinians.
>
> Gee. Can I play? US-backed sanctions killed half a million kids under
> Saddam Hussein. Hussein killed no American kids. Summary, the US
> killed more kids than Saddam Hussein.
>
> See how stupid this kind of playing with figures is?
> John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40149067...@ihug.
> > John Baglow wrote:> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You're a little selective in your quote, John.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. Check the thread. Note I said I was "reproducing" some facts, which are here reproduced
> > > > exactly as posted further up the thread.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But not *all* the facts.
> > >
> > > > > Here is what the site
> > > > > reveals:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Approximately three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have
> > > > > died within the time period specified;
> > > >
> > > > Close enough.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) There is no definition of the word "combatant." So I assume kids
> > > > > throwing stones who are up against Israeli sharpshooters are all
> > > > > placed in this category;
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. Lets have a look at that. 74 Palestinian kids have been killed, probably because they
> > > > were shielding snipers in back of them and simply by being there at the scene of the
> > > > fighting. There are 36 Israeli kids killed, not by being in the front line but blown apart on
> > > > busses by suicide bombers.
> > >
> > > There are a lot of suppositions here. Try checking out this reference:
> > >
> > > http://www.findarticles.com/
> > >
> > > > Multiplying by three to get the correct proportions between deaths
> > >
> > > Huh? What the hell are you talking about? Try absolute comparisons.
> > > What's this "multiplying by three" nonsense? Is that the value of a
> > > Palestinian life compared to an Israeli life?
> >
> > OK. I was playing round with something that I agree isnt well thought out.. so lets go back to the
> > raw figures.
> >
> > Non coms killed, Israel 683 of 880 or 77.6% of total Israeli deaths.
> > Non coms Palestinians killed, 932 of 2573 or 36.2%.
> >
> > Summary. Israel kills half the percentage of non coms that the Palestinians do.
> >
> > Females killed, Israel 277 of 880 or 31.4%
> > Females killed, Palestinians, 118 of 2573 or 4.5%
> >
> > Summary. Palestinians kill 6.9 times more Israeli females than vice versa.
> >
> > Over 45s killed, Israel 219 of 880 or 24.8%
> > Over 45s killed Palestinians 80 of 2573 or 3.1%
> >
> > Summary, Palestinians kill 8 times more over 45s than Israel.
> >
> > Non com females killed, Israel 272 of 880 or 30.9%
> > Non com females killed, Palestinians 87 of 2573 or 3.3%
> >
> > Summary, Palestinians kill 9 times more non com females than Israel.
> >
> > Kids under 12 killed, Israel 36 of 880 or 4%
> > Kids under 12 killed, Palestine 74 of 2573 or 2.8%
> >
> > Summary, Palestinians kill more kids.
> >
> > Killed by own side, Israel 20 of 880 or 2.2%
> > Killed by own side, Palestinians 324 of 2573 or 12.5%
> >
> > Summary, Palestinians kill 5 times more of their own people.
> >
> > And the big one:
> >
> > Combatants killed by other side, Israel 179 of 880 or 20.3%
> > Combatants killed by other side, Palestinians 1194 of 2573 or 46.4%
> >
> > Summary, Israel kills more than twice as many combatants as the Palestinians.
>
> Gee. Can I play? US-backed sanctions killed half a million kids under
> Saddam Hussein. Hussein killed no American kids. Summary, the US
> killed more kids than Saddam Hussein.
>
> See how stupid this kind of playing with figures is?
I've already made this point several times in other threads.
>
>
> The facts are these:
>
> 1) Palestine is an occupied nation; Israel is the occupier.
>
> The facts are these:
>
> 1) Palestine is an occupied nation; Israel is the occupier.
There is no nation of Palestine. It is land that is disputed by both sides.
>
> 2) The Palestinians, resisting occupation, are getting the worst of
> it,
> 2) The Palestinians, resisting occupation, are getting the worst of
> it,
Are they? I doubt they think so.
> measured by mortality figures that run 3-to-1 in Israel's favour.
>
> Now, you can fool around with the numbers all you want. But the
> categories in the stats provided, without definition, are highly
> suspect. What is a "combatant?"
>
> Now, you can fool around with the numbers all you want. But the
> categories in the stats provided, without definition, are highly
> suspect. What is a "combatant?"
I've given an opinion above.
> What does gender have to do with
> anything, given the large number of women in the Israeli occupying
> force
> anything, given the large number of women in the Israeli occupying
> force
The stats above break this down. All females for Israel 277. Non com females 272.
> (an equal opportunity oppressor, it seems)? Under what
> circumstances did people on the same side get killed?
> circumstances did people on the same side get killed?
The Palestinians blow themselves up making bombs and the like. They kill each other if someone deals with
an Israeli or is seen as unsympathetic to the cause.
an Israeli or is seen as unsympathetic to the cause.
>
>
> I see more Palestinian kids dead than Israeli kids. Don't play games
> with proportions and simple arithmetic. The Israeli occupation force
> has killed more Palestinian kids than the other way round. Period.
>
> I see more Palestinian kids dead than Israeli kids. Don't play games
> with proportions and simple arithmetic. The Israeli occupation force
> has killed more Palestinian kids than the other way round. Period.
As you can see from various pictures on film and photos on the net, the kids are marching with armed men.
As your URL shows, they are attacking the Israelis in suicidal fashion. You would expect more kids killed
in such situations.
As your URL shows, they are attacking the Israelis in suicidal fashion. You would expect more kids killed
in such situations.
>
>
> As to the definition of a "combatant," which you none-too-subtly
> evaded, kids throwing rocks at Israelis count as "combatants," on a
> par with fully-equipped Israeli soldiers. Once again, here is how some
> of those statistics are generated:
>
> As to the definition of a "combatant," which you none-too-subtly
> evaded, kids throwing rocks at Israelis count as "combatants," on a
> par with fully-equipped Israeli soldiers. Once again, here is how some
> of those statistics are generated:
As your URL shows, these kids are combatants. In this particular case they are throwing stones and
taunting their own armed men as cowards because they wont attack. As one of the Palestinian men says they
cant be stopped. These kids are conditioned from birth to hate and fight.
taunting their own armed men as cowards because they wont attack. As one of the Palestinian men says they
cant be stopped. These kids are conditioned from birth to hate and fight.
>
>
> http://www.findarticles.com/
>
> Lies, damned lies and statistics will not cover up the atrocity of
> West Bank occupation, the apartheid wall being built, the seizure of
> water and land by the occupiers, the shooting of olive-harvesters in
> Nablus, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
>
> http://www.findarticles.com/
>
> Lies, damned lies and statistics will not cover up the atrocity of
> West Bank occupation, the apartheid wall being built, the seizure of
> water and land by the occupiers, the shooting of olive-harvesters in
> Nablus, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
And the facts show that one side is engaged in terrorist attacks on civilians, the other at least trying
to act responsibly in an impossible situation where every Palestinian is a potential combatant.
to act responsibly in an impossible situation where every Palestinian is a potential combatant.
>
>
> As a commentator said in a letter to one of our national newspapers,
> all Zionism has managed to achieve is yet another Jewish ghetto, this
> time in the Middle East. I wish I'd said that.
>
> As a commentator said in a letter to one of our national newspapers,
> all Zionism has managed to achieve is yet another Jewish ghetto, this
> time in the Middle East. I wish I'd said that.
In 1948 it was an indefensible ghetto (because the UN changed the much better boundaries) that managed to
survive till 1965 when the Arabs were massing for an attack to obliterate it. 1965. Israel now has a more
defensible boundary and has a strong and formerly agreed case for ownership of the Palestinian
territories.
survive till 1965 when the Arabs were massing for an attack to obliterate it. 1965. Israel now has a more
defensible boundary and has a strong and formerly agreed case for ownership of the Palestinian
territories.
It may still be a ghetto, but at least its a democratic one.. which is the main sticking point in the
Arab world.
Arab world.
JC
>
>
> --John Baglow
>
>
> > General summary
> >
> > This is asymmetrical warfare being waged by about 4 million Palestinians on about 5 million Jews.
> > Children from age 9 and women of any age are recruited into the battle by the Palestinian side with
> > a declared aim of getting rid of Israel. The preferred method of the Palestinians is murder of the
> > Israeli non combatant population. The preferred method of the Israelis is to kill Palestinian
> > combatants.
> >
> > JC
>
> --John Baglow
>
>
> > General summary
> >
> > This is asymmetrical warfare being waged by about 4 million Palestinians on about 5 million Jews.
> > Children from age 9 and women of any age are recruited into the battle by the Palestinian side with
> > a declared aim of getting rid of Israel. The preferred method of the Palestinians is murder of the
> > Israeli non combatant population. The preferred method of the Israelis is to kill Palestinian
> > combatants.
> >
> > JC
|
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40160799...@ihug.
> There is no nation of Palestine. It is land that is disputed by both sides.
> > 2) The Palestinians, resisting occupation, are getting the worst of
> > it,
>
> Are they? I doubt they think so.
> > What does gender have to do with
> > anything, given the large number of women in the Israeli occupying
> > force
>
> The stats above break this down. All females for Israel 277. Non com females >272.
"Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom
were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they
kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more,
three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other
conflicts I have covered--death squads gunned them down in El Salvador
and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in
Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched
them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo--but I have never before
watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them
for sport."
> > Lies, damned lies and statistics will not cover up the atrocity of
> > West Bank occupation, the apartheid wall being built, the seizure of
> > water and land by the occupiers, the shooting of olive-harvesters in
> > Nablus, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
>
> And the facts show that one side is engaged in terrorist attacks on >civilians, the other at least trying
> to act responsibly in an impossible situation where every Palestinian is a >potential combatant.
> It may still be a ghetto, but at least its a democratic one.. which is the
> main sticking point in the
> Arab world.
> There is no nation of Palestine. It is land that is disputed by both sides.
If Palestinians are not a nation, why are Israelis a nation? Or New
Zealanders?
Zealanders?
[Baglow]
> > 2) The Palestinians, resisting occupation, are getting the worst of
> > it,
>
> Are they? I doubt they think so.
You aren't serious.
[Baglow]
> > What does gender have to do with
> > anything, given the large number of women in the Israeli occupying
> > force
>
> The stats above break this down. All females for Israel 277. Non com females >272.
Point made. But what does gender have to do with anything?
> As you can see from various pictures on film and photos on the net, the kids >are marching with armed men.
> As your URL shows, they are attacking the Israelis in suicidal fashion. You >would expect more kids killed
> in such situations.
> As your URL shows, they are attacking the Israelis in suicidal fashion. You >would expect more kids killed
> in such situations.
Readers should check out the URL for themselves. The Israelis
deliberately provoke the children, then shoot them down. The most
telling observation:
deliberately provoke the children, then shoot them down. The most
telling observation:
"Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom
were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they
kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more,
three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other
conflicts I have covered--death squads gunned them down in El Salvador
and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in
Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched
them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo--but I have never before
watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them
for sport."
In this context, your deliberate misreadings and your trolling in
general is simply disgusting.
general is simply disgusting.
[Baglow]
> > Lies, damned lies and statistics will not cover up the atrocity of
> > West Bank occupation, the apartheid wall being built, the seizure of
> > water and land by the occupiers, the shooting of olive-harvesters in
> > Nablus, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
>
> And the facts show that one side is engaged in terrorist attacks on >civilians, the other at least trying
> to act responsibly in an impossible situation where every Palestinian is a >potential combatant.
That one side (Israel) is the colonizing side. The other side
(Palestinian) is the colonized side, and certainly every one of them
is a "potential combatant." Your point makes no sense within that
context. "Act responsibly"? Come on.
(Palestinian) is the colonized side, and certainly every one of them
is a "potential combatant." Your point makes no sense within that
context. "Act responsibly"? Come on.
> It may still be a ghetto, but at least its a democratic one.. which is the
> main sticking point in the
> Arab world.
So you are claiming that Israel is opposed solely because of their
political system? Get serious.
political system? Get serious.
--John Baglow
|
John Baglow wrote:
> John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40160799...@ihug.
>
> > There is no nation of Palestine. It is land that is disputed by both sides.
>
> If Palestinians are not a nation, why are Israelis a nation? Or New
> Zealanders?
>
> > There is no nation of Palestine. It is land that is disputed by both sides.
>
> If Palestinians are not a nation, why are Israelis a nation? Or New
> Zealanders?
Check with the UN. There is a Jewish nation but not a Palestinian one.
>
>
> [Baglow]
> > > 2) The Palestinians, resisting occupation, are getting the worst of
> > > it,
> >
> > Are they? I doubt they think so.
>
> You aren't serious.
>
> [Baglow]
> > > 2) The Palestinians, resisting occupation, are getting the worst of
> > > it,
> >
> > Are they? I doubt they think so.
>
> You aren't serious.
The Palestinians are (in their minds) involved in a total war. If a Palestinian woman blows herself up and kills
many Jewish citizens, she is a hero and proof that the battle is being won. One Palestine = x Jews.
many Jewish citizens, she is a hero and proof that the battle is being won. One Palestine = x Jews.
>
>
> [Baglow]
> > > What does gender have to do with
> > > anything, given the large number of women in the Israeli occupying
> > > force
> >
> > The stats above break this down. All females for Israel 277. Non com females >272.
>
> Point made. But what does gender have to do with anything?
>
> [Baglow]
> > > What does gender have to do with
> > > anything, given the large number of women in the Israeli occupying
> > > force
> >
> > The stats above break this down. All females for Israel 277. Non com females >272.
>
> Point made. But what does gender have to do with anything?
Gender, esp female civilian death tells us about the bestial nature of the conflict. The Palestinians are
winning hands down.
winning hands down.
>
>
> > As you can see from various pictures on film and photos on the net, the kids >are marching with armed men.
> > As your URL shows, they are attacking the Israelis in suicidal fashion. You >would expect more kids killed
> > in such situations.
>
> Readers should check out the URL for themselves. The Israelis
> deliberately provoke the children, then shoot them down. The most
> telling observation:
>
> "Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom
> were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they
> kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more,
> three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other
> conflicts I have covered--death squads gunned them down in El Salvador
> and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in
> Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched
> them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo--but I have never before
> watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them
> for sport."
>
> In this context, your deliberate misreadings and your trolling in
> general is simply disgusting.
>
> > As you can see from various pictures on film and photos on the net, the kids >are marching with armed men.
> > As your URL shows, they are attacking the Israelis in suicidal fashion. You >would expect more kids killed
> > in such situations.
>
> Readers should check out the URL for themselves. The Israelis
> deliberately provoke the children, then shoot them down. The most
> telling observation:
>
> "Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom
> were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they
> kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more,
> three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other
> conflicts I have covered--death squads gunned them down in El Salvador
> and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in
> Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched
> them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo--but I have never before
> watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them
> for sport."
>
> In this context, your deliberate misreadings and your trolling in
> general is simply disgusting.
I'd be a bit more circumspect about Hedges. He's most comfortable on left wing shows with Chomsky, Pilger and
co.
co.
>
>
> [Baglow]
> > > Lies, damned lies and statistics will not cover up the atrocity of
> > > West Bank occupation, the apartheid wall being built, the seizure of
> > > water and land by the occupiers, the shooting of olive-harvesters in
> > > Nablus, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
> >
> > And the facts show that one side is engaged in terrorist attacks on >civilians, the other at least trying
> > to act responsibly in an impossible situation where every Palestinian is a >potential combatant.
>
> That one side (Israel) is the colonizing side. The other side
> (Palestinian) is the colonized side, and certainly every one of them
> is a "potential combatant." Your point makes no sense within that
> context. "Act responsibly"? Come on.
>
> [Baglow]
> > > Lies, damned lies and statistics will not cover up the atrocity of
> > > West Bank occupation, the apartheid wall being built, the seizure of
> > > water and land by the occupiers, the shooting of olive-harvesters in
> > > Nablus, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
> >
> > And the facts show that one side is engaged in terrorist attacks on >civilians, the other at least trying
> > to act responsibly in an impossible situation where every Palestinian is a >potential combatant.
>
> That one side (Israel) is the colonizing side. The other side
> (Palestinian) is the colonized side, and certainly every one of them
> is a "potential combatant." Your point makes no sense within that
> context. "Act responsibly"? Come on.
That side set out to push Israelis into the sea. They still refuse to recognize the state.
With every breath they defy the UN for creating Israel. Meanwhile, in the adult world, the Palestinian
territories are disputed territories. Disputed by both Israel and the stateless Arabs in the Palestine sector.
With every breath they defy the UN for creating Israel. Meanwhile, in the adult world, the Palestinian
territories are disputed territories. Disputed by both Israel and the stateless Arabs in the Palestine sector.
>
>
> > It may still be a ghetto, but at least its a democratic one.. which is the
> > main sticking point in the
> > Arab world.
>
> So you are claiming that Israel is opposed solely because of their
> political system? Get serious.
>
> > It may still be a ghetto, but at least its a democratic one.. which is the
> > main sticking point in the
> > Arab world.
>
> So you are claiming that Israel is opposed solely because of their
> political system? Get serious.
I said it was the main sticking point.. not the sole one. But I concede the point.
The principle reasons for Arab hate of Israel are racism, hatred, envy, homicidal mania, tyranny, inadequacy,
tiny penises since the Perfumed Garden, brainlessness, personal inadequacy, conspiracy ridden, treacherous, God
bothering and worst of all boring.
The principle reasons for Arab hate of Israel are racism, hatred, envy, homicidal mania, tyranny, inadequacy,
tiny penises since the Perfumed Garden, brainlessness, personal inadequacy, conspiracy ridden, treacherous, God
bothering and worst of all boring.
That accounts for about 15% of the population. For the rest, they raise their eyes to Heaven and say "Oh Allah,
Oh Allah, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Oh Allah, why hast thou forsaken me?"
JC
|
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40179306...@ihug.
> John Baglow wrote:
>
> > John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40160799...@ihug.
> >
> > > There is no nation of Palestine. It is land that is disputed by both sides.
> >
> > If Palestinians are not a nation, why are Israelis a nation? Or New
> > Zealanders?
>
> Check with the UN. There is a Jewish nation but not a Palestinian one.
> >
> >
> > [Baglow]
> > > > 2) The Palestinians, resisting occupation, are getting the worst of
> > > > it,
> > >
> > > Are they? I doubt they think so.
> >
> > You aren't serious.
>
> The Palestinians are (in their minds) involved in a total war. If a Palestinian woman blows herself up and kills
> many Jewish citizens, she is a hero and proof that the battle is being won. > One Palestine = x Jews.
> >
> >
> > [Baglow]
> > > > What does gender have to do with
> > > > anything, given the large number of women in the Israeli occupying
> > > > force
> > >
> > > The stats above break this down. All females for Israel 277. Non com females >272.
> >
> > Point made. But what does gender have to do with anything?
>
> Gender, esp female civilian death tells us about the bestial nature of the conflict. The Palestinians are
> winning hands down.
> >
> >
> > > As you can see from various pictures on film and photos on the net, the kids >are marching with armed men.
> > > As your URL shows, they are attacking the Israelis in suicidal fashion. You >would expect more kids killed
> > > in such situations.
> >
> > Readers should check out the URL for themselves. The Israelis
> > deliberately provoke the children, then shoot them down. The most
> > telling observation:
> >
> > "Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom
> > were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they
> > kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more,
> > three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other
> > conflicts I have covered--death squads gunned them down in El Salvador
> > and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in
> > Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched
> > them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo--but I have never before
> > watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them
> > for sport."
> >
> > In this context, your deliberate misreadings and your trolling in
> > general is simply disgusting.
>
> I'd be a bit more circumspect about Hedges. He's most comfortable on left wing shows with Chomsky, Pilger and
> co.
> That accounts for about 15% of the population. For the rest, they raise their eyes to Heaven and say "Oh Allah,
> Oh Allah, why hast thou forsaken me?"
> John Baglow wrote:
>
> > John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40160799...@ihug.
> >
> > > There is no nation of Palestine. It is land that is disputed by both sides.
> >
> > If Palestinians are not a nation, why are Israelis a nation? Or New
> > Zealanders?
>
> Check with the UN. There is a Jewish nation but not a Palestinian one.
So, then, the Kurds are not a nation; the Palestinians are not a
nation; and, prior to independence, Algeria was not a nation. What a
bizarre notion of "nation" you have--a superficial legalistic
approach.
nation; and, prior to independence, Algeria was not a nation. What a
bizarre notion of "nation" you have--a superficial legalistic
approach.
> >
> >
> > [Baglow]
> > > > 2) The Palestinians, resisting occupation, are getting the worst of
> > > > it,
> > >
> > > Are they? I doubt they think so.
> >
> > You aren't serious.
>
> The Palestinians are (in their minds) involved in a total war. If a Palestinian woman blows herself up and kills
> many Jewish citizens, she is a hero and proof that the battle is being won. > One Palestine = x Jews.
That's a far cry from not getting the worst of it. Dies it ever occur
to you that suicide bombing is an act of desperation that symptomizes
getting the worst of it? Try re-reading "The Wretched of the Earth"
for a little insight here.
to you that suicide bombing is an act of desperation that symptomizes
getting the worst of it? Try re-reading "The Wretched of the Earth"
for a little insight here.
> >
> >
> > [Baglow]
> > > > What does gender have to do with
> > > > anything, given the large number of women in the Israeli occupying
> > > > force
> > >
> > > The stats above break this down. All females for Israel 277. Non com females >272.
> >
> > Point made. But what does gender have to do with anything?
>
> Gender, esp female civilian death tells us about the bestial nature of the conflict. The Palestinians are
> winning hands down.
So women have a privileged status in a struggle against/for
occupation? Perhaps you could enlarge upon this quaint notion.
occupation? Perhaps you could enlarge upon this quaint notion.
As for the Palestinians winning, would that it were so. They have a
far better claim to the land than a bunch of American and Russian
ex-pats.
far better claim to the land than a bunch of American and Russian
ex-pats.
> >
> >
> > > As you can see from various pictures on film and photos on the net, the kids >are marching with armed men.
> > > As your URL shows, they are attacking the Israelis in suicidal fashion. You >would expect more kids killed
> > > in such situations.
> >
> > Readers should check out the URL for themselves. The Israelis
> > deliberately provoke the children, then shoot them down. The most
> > telling observation:
> >
> > "Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom
> > were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they
> > kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more,
> > three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other
> > conflicts I have covered--death squads gunned them down in El Salvador
> > and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in
> > Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched
> > them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo--but I have never before
> > watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them
> > for sport."
> >
> > In this context, your deliberate misreadings and your trolling in
> > general is simply disgusting.
>
> I'd be a bit more circumspect about Hedges. He's most comfortable on left wing shows with Chomsky, Pilger and
> co.
Great counter-argument. Is ad hominem the only arrow in your
rhetorical quiver? Do you have anything to refute his observations?
No, thought not. So you'll ssnip and evade.
rhetorical quiver? Do you have anything to refute his observations?
No, thought not. So you'll ssnip and evade.
> >
> >
> > [Baglow]
> > > > Lies, damned lies and statistics will not cover up the atrocity of
> > > > West Bank occupation, the apartheid wall being built, the seizure of
> > > > water and land by the occupiers, the shooting of olive-harvesters in
> > > > Nablus, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
> > >
> > > And the facts show that one side is engaged in terrorist attacks on >civilians, the other at least trying
> > > to act responsibly in an impossible situation where every Palestinian is a >potential combatant.
> >
> > That one side (Israel) is the colonizing side. The other side
> > (Palestinian) is the colonized side, and certainly every one of them
> > is a "potential combatant." Your point makes no sense within that
> > context. "Act responsibly"? Come on.
>
> That side set out to push Israelis into the sea. They still refuse to recognize the state.
> With every breath they defy the UN for creating Israel. Meanwhile, in the adult world, the Palestinian
> territories are disputed territories. Disputed by both Israel and the stateless Arabs in the Palestine sector.
> >
> > [Baglow]
> > > > Lies, damned lies and statistics will not cover up the atrocity of
> > > > West Bank occupation, the apartheid wall being built, the seizure of
> > > > water and land by the occupiers, the shooting of olive-harvesters in
> > > > Nablus, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
> > >
> > > And the facts show that one side is engaged in terrorist attacks on >civilians, the other at least trying
> > > to act responsibly in an impossible situation where every Palestinian is a >potential combatant.
> >
> > That one side (Israel) is the colonizing side. The other side
> > (Palestinian) is the colonized side, and certainly every one of them
> > is a "potential combatant." Your point makes no sense within that
> > context. "Act responsibly"? Come on.
>
> That side set out to push Israelis into the sea. They still refuse to recognize the state.
> With every breath they defy the UN for creating Israel. Meanwhile, in the adult world, the Palestinian
> territories are disputed territories. Disputed by both Israel and the stateless Arabs in the Palestine sector.
So there are no Palestinian adults? This conversation is becoming
downright surrealistic. Only the most extreme, Baruch-Goldstein type
Zionist would argue that the Palestinians a) do not exist and b) have
no claim on Palestine. "Stateless Arabs." Sheesh. There are "stateless
Kurds," too. Does that make them less of a people?
downright surrealistic. Only the most extreme, Baruch-Goldstein type
Zionist would argue that the Palestinians a) do not exist and b) have
no claim on Palestine. "Stateless Arabs." Sheesh. There are "stateless
Kurds," too. Does that make them less of a people?
> >
> >
> > > It may still be a ghetto, but at least its a democratic one.. which is the
> > > main sticking point in the
> > > Arab world.
> >
> > So you are claiming that Israel is opposed solely because of their
> > political system? Get serious.
>
> I said it was the main sticking point.. not the sole one. But I concede the point.
> The principle reasons for Arab hate of Israel are racism, hatred, envy, homicidal mania, tyranny, inadequacy,
> tiny penises since the Perfumed Garden, brainlessness, personal inadequacy, conspiracy ridden, treacherous, God
> bothering and worst of all boring.
> >
> > > It may still be a ghetto, but at least its a democratic one.. which is the
> > > main sticking point in the
> > > Arab world.
> >
> > So you are claiming that Israel is opposed solely because of their
> > political system? Get serious.
>
> I said it was the main sticking point.. not the sole one. But I concede the point.
> The principle reasons for Arab hate of Israel are racism, hatred, envy, homicidal mania, tyranny, inadequacy,
> tiny penises since the Perfumed Garden, brainlessness, personal inadequacy, conspiracy ridden, treacherous, God
> bothering and worst of all boring.
Your racism is showing, John. Also your disingenuousness. There could
be, in your narrow world-view, no resentment whatever of the
land-grabbing propensities of Israel plus their catspaw role for US
interests in the region?
be, in your narrow world-view, no resentment whatever of the
land-grabbing propensities of Israel plus their catspaw role for US
interests in the region?
> That accounts for about 15% of the population. For the rest, they raise their eyes to Heaven and say "Oh Allah,
> Oh Allah, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Possibly a good question within that world-view. It can be re-phrased,
of course, for us secular humanist types, as "Why does no one give a
damn about Israeli atrocities, theft and apartheid in the so-called
'enlightened' and 'humane' West?"
of course, for us secular humanist types, as "Why does no one give a
damn about Israeli atrocities, theft and apartheid in the so-called
'enlightened' and 'humane' West?"
--John Baglow
> JC
|
John Baglow wrote:
> John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40179306...@ihug.
> > John Baglow wrote:
> >
> > > John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40160799...@ihug.
> > >
> > > > There is no nation of Palestine. It is land that is disputed by both sides.
> > >
> > > If Palestinians are not a nation, why are Israelis a nation? Or New
> > > Zealanders?
> >
> > Check with the UN. There is a Jewish nation but not a Palestinian one.
>
> So, then, the Kurds are not a nation; the Palestinians are not a
> nation; and, prior to independence, Algeria was not a nation. What a
> bizarre notion of "nation" you have--a superficial legalistic
> approach.
> > John Baglow wrote:
> >
> > > John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40160799...@ihug.
> > >
> > > > There is no nation of Palestine. It is land that is disputed by both sides.
> > >
> > > If Palestinians are not a nation, why are Israelis a nation? Or New
> > > Zealanders?
> >
> > Check with the UN. There is a Jewish nation but not a Palestinian one.
>
> So, then, the Kurds are not a nation; the Palestinians are not a
> nation; and, prior to independence, Algeria was not a nation. What a
> bizarre notion of "nation" you have--a superficial legalistic
> approach.
Guilty as charged. I have the same view as the UN.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > [Baglow]
> > > > > 2) The Palestinians, resisting occupation, are getting the worst of
> > > > > it,
> > > >
> > > > Are they? I doubt they think so.
> > >
> > > You aren't serious.
> >
> > The Palestinians are (in their minds) involved in a total war. If a Palestinian woman blows herself up and kills
> > many Jewish citizens, she is a hero and proof that the battle is being won. > One Palestine = x Jews.
>
> That's a far cry from not getting the worst of it. Dies it ever occur
> to you that suicide bombing is an act of desperation that symptomizes
> getting the worst of it? Try re-reading "The Wretched of the Earth"
> for a little insight here.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > [Baglow]
> > > > > 2) The Palestinians, resisting occupation, are getting the worst of
> > > > > it,
> > > >
> > > > Are they? I doubt they think so.
> > >
> > > You aren't serious.
> >
> > The Palestinians are (in their minds) involved in a total war. If a Palestinian woman blows herself up and kills
> > many Jewish citizens, she is a hero and proof that the battle is being won. > One Palestine = x Jews.
>
> That's a far cry from not getting the worst of it. Dies it ever occur
> to you that suicide bombing is an act of desperation that symptomizes
> getting the worst of it? Try re-reading "The Wretched of the Earth"
> for a little insight here.
Try looking at what's been offered to the Palestinians here. They were offered 90+% of the occupied territories in the
mid 90s by the Israel PM of the time and turned it down in favor of getting rid of Israel. Also, my recall of the
region is that Palestinians clustered around Israeli settlements because that was where the work came from. Even now,
many, many Palestinians are dependent on work from the Israelis.
mid 90s by the Israel PM of the time and turned it down in favor of getting rid of Israel. Also, my recall of the
region is that Palestinians clustered around Israeli settlements because that was where the work came from. Even now,
many, many Palestinians are dependent on work from the Israelis.
The desperation is very much self induced.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > [Baglow]
> > > > > What does gender have to do with
> > > > > anything, given the large number of women in the Israeli occupying
> > > > > force
> > > >
> > > > The stats above break this down. All females for Israel 277. Non com females >272.
> > >
> > > Point made. But what does gender have to do with anything?
> >
> > Gender, esp female civilian death tells us about the bestial nature of the conflict. The Palestinians are
> > winning hands down.
>
> So women have a privileged status in a struggle against/for
> occupation? Perhaps you could enlarge upon this quaint notion.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > [Baglow]
> > > > > What does gender have to do with
> > > > > anything, given the large number of women in the Israeli occupying
> > > > > force
> > > >
> > > > The stats above break this down. All females for Israel 277. Non com females >272.
> > >
> > > Point made. But what does gender have to do with anything?
> >
> > Gender, esp female civilian death tells us about the bestial nature of the conflict. The Palestinians are
> > winning hands down.
>
> So women have a privileged status in a struggle against/for
> occupation? Perhaps you could enlarge upon this quaint notion.
Yes, its a bit old fashioned. Its a useful distinction between the parties.
>
>
> As for the Palestinians winning, would that it were so. They have a
> far better claim to the land than a bunch of American and Russian
> ex-pats.
>
> As for the Palestinians winning, would that it were so. They have a
> far better claim to the land than a bunch of American and Russian
> ex-pats.
The population stats for both sides show wholesale immigration.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > As you can see from various pictures on film and photos on the net, the kids >are marching with armed men.
> > > > As your URL shows, they are attacking the Israelis in suicidal fashion. You >would expect more kids killed
> > > > in such situations.
> > >
> > > Readers should check out the URL for themselves. The Israelis
> > > deliberately provoke the children, then shoot them down. The most
> > > telling observation:
> > >
> > > "Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom
> > > were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they
> > > kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more,
> > > three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other
> > > conflicts I have covered--death squads gunned them down in El Salvador
> > > and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in
> > > Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched
> > > them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo--but I have never before
> > > watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them
> > > for sport."
> > >
> > > In this context, your deliberate misreadings and your trolling in
> > > general is simply disgusting.
> >
> > I'd be a bit more circumspect about Hedges. He's most comfortable on left wing shows with Chomsky, Pilger and
> > co.
>
> Great counter-argument. Is ad hominem the only arrow in your
> rhetorical quiver? Do you have anything to refute his observations?
> No, thought not. So you'll ssnip and evade.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > As you can see from various pictures on film and photos on the net, the kids >are marching with armed men.
> > > > As your URL shows, they are attacking the Israelis in suicidal fashion. You >would expect more kids killed
> > > > in such situations.
> > >
> > > Readers should check out the URL for themselves. The Israelis
> > > deliberately provoke the children, then shoot them down. The most
> > > telling observation:
> > >
> > > "Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom
> > > were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they
> > > kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more,
> > > three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other
> > > conflicts I have covered--death squads gunned them down in El Salvador
> > > and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in
> > > Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched
> > > them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo--but I have never before
> > > watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them
> > > for sport."
> > >
> > > In this context, your deliberate misreadings and your trolling in
> > > general is simply disgusting.
> >
> > I'd be a bit more circumspect about Hedges. He's most comfortable on left wing shows with Chomsky, Pilger and
> > co.
>
> Great counter-argument. Is ad hominem the only arrow in your
> rhetorical quiver? Do you have anything to refute his observations?
> No, thought not. So you'll ssnip and evade.
Not really. I'm just cautious about accepting Hedges word when he is an avowed antiwar activist who states that
regardless of the circumstance he will stand with the victim and against the more powerful side. He is an unusual
character with disturbing notions of being antiwar and published views that war gives him a huge buzz.
regardless of the circumstance he will stand with the victim and against the more powerful side. He is an unusual
character with disturbing notions of being antiwar and published views that war gives him a huge buzz.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > [Baglow]
> > > > > Lies, damned lies and statistics will not cover up the atrocity of
> > > > > West Bank occupation, the apartheid wall being built, the seizure of
> > > > > water and land by the occupiers, the shooting of olive-harvesters in
> > > > > Nablus, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
> > > >
> > > > And the facts show that one side is engaged in terrorist attacks on >civilians, the other at least trying
> > > > to act responsibly in an impossible situation where every Palestinian is a >potential combatant.
> > >
> > > That one side (Israel) is the colonizing side. The other side
> > > (Palestinian) is the colonized side, and certainly every one of them
> > > is a "potential combatant." Your point makes no sense within that
> > > context. "Act responsibly"? Come on.
> >
> > That side set out to push Israelis into the sea. They still refuse to recognize the state.
> > With every breath they defy the UN for creating Israel. Meanwhile, in the adult world, the Palestinian
> > territories are disputed territories. Disputed by both Israel and the stateless Arabs in the Palestine sector.
>
> So there are no Palestinian adults? This conversation is becoming
> downright surrealistic. Only the most extreme, Baruch-Goldstein type
> Zionist would argue that the Palestinians a) do not exist and b) have
> no claim on Palestine. "Stateless Arabs." Sheesh. There are "stateless
> Kurds," too. Does that make them less of a people?
>
> > >
> > >
> > > [Baglow]
> > > > > Lies, damned lies and statistics will not cover up the atrocity of
> > > > > West Bank occupation, the apartheid wall being built, the seizure of
> > > > > water and land by the occupiers, the shooting of olive-harvesters in
> > > > > Nablus, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
> > > >
> > > > And the facts show that one side is engaged in terrorist attacks on >civilians, the other at least trying
> > > > to act responsibly in an impossible situation where every Palestinian is a >potential combatant.
> > >
> > > That one side (Israel) is the colonizing side. The other side
> > > (Palestinian) is the colonized side, and certainly every one of them
> > > is a "potential combatant." Your point makes no sense within that
> > > context. "Act responsibly"? Come on.
> >
> > That side set out to push Israelis into the sea. They still refuse to recognize the state.
> > With every breath they defy the UN for creating Israel. Meanwhile, in the adult world, the Palestinian
> > territories are disputed territories. Disputed by both Israel and the stateless Arabs in the Palestine sector.
>
> So there are no Palestinian adults? This conversation is becoming
> downright surrealistic. Only the most extreme, Baruch-Goldstein type
> Zionist would argue that the Palestinians a) do not exist and b) have
> no claim on Palestine. "Stateless Arabs." Sheesh. There are "stateless
> Kurds," too. Does that make them less of a people?
No. And not a nation either. The example you use is good though.
Under dire circumstances the Kurds have created universities, a democracy of sorts, health care that's superior
outside the wealthy Arab states and a functioning apparatus of governance. They have argued persuasively for a nation
and their emigrants fight well on their behalf.
outside the wealthy Arab states and a functioning apparatus of governance. They have argued persuasively for a nation
and their emigrants fight well on their behalf.
The Palestinians are still stuck in a primordial ooze of the mind.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > It may still be a ghetto, but at least its a democratic one.. which is the
> > > > main sticking point in the
> > > > Arab world.
> > >
> > > So you are claiming that Israel is opposed solely because of their
> > > political system? Get serious.
> >
> > I said it was the main sticking point.. not the sole one. But I concede the point.
> > The principle reasons for Arab hate of Israel are racism, hatred, envy, homicidal mania, tyranny, inadequacy,
> > tiny penises since the Perfumed Garden, brainlessness, personal inadequacy, conspiracy ridden, treacherous, God
> > bothering and worst of all boring.
>
> Your racism is showing, John. Also your disingenuousness. There could
> be, in your narrow world-view, no resentment whatever of the
> land-grabbing propensities of Israel plus their catspaw role for US
> interests in the region?
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > It may still be a ghetto, but at least its a democratic one.. which is the
> > > > main sticking point in the
> > > > Arab world.
> > >
> > > So you are claiming that Israel is opposed solely because of their
> > > political system? Get serious.
> >
> > I said it was the main sticking point.. not the sole one. But I concede the point.
> > The principle reasons for Arab hate of Israel are racism, hatred, envy, homicidal mania, tyranny, inadequacy,
> > tiny penises since the Perfumed Garden, brainlessness, personal inadequacy, conspiracy ridden, treacherous, God
> > bothering and worst of all boring.
>
> Your racism is showing, John. Also your disingenuousness. There could
> be, in your narrow world-view, no resentment whatever of the
> land-grabbing propensities of Israel plus their catspaw role for US
> interests in the region?
That you separated this from the obviously related bit below to create a different racist meaning is disgraceful.
>
>
> > That accounts for about 15% of the population. For the rest, they raise their eyes to Heaven and say "Oh Allah,
> > Oh Allah, why hast thou forsaken me?"
>
> Possibly a good question within that world-view. It can be re-phrased,
> of course, for us secular humanist types, as "Why does no one give a
> damn about Israeli atrocities, theft and apartheid in the so-called
> 'enlightened' and 'humane' West?"
>
> > That accounts for about 15% of the population. For the rest, they raise their eyes to Heaven and say "Oh Allah,
> > Oh Allah, why hast thou forsaken me?"
>
> Possibly a good question within that world-view. It can be re-phrased,
> of course, for us secular humanist types, as "Why does no one give a
> damn about Israeli atrocities, theft and apartheid in the so-called
> 'enlightened' and 'humane' West?"
Which is a neat way of saying that the Palestinians should abandon their God and religion and get real. I know you
dont mean that but getting real about the existence of the Israeli nation is a critical factor in resolving the
dispute. People make much about the many and various sanctions from the UN about Israel. But at the end of the day,
these are simply meaningless anti-Semite ramblings about occupied and disputed territory that has no nationhood. The
Palestinians and their mentors and funders have to get real, recognise Israel, accept defensible boundaries for the
state and get nationhood for the disputed territory.
dont mean that but getting real about the existence of the Israeli nation is a critical factor in resolving the
dispute. People make much about the many and various sanctions from the UN about Israel. But at the end of the day,
these are simply meaningless anti-Semite ramblings about occupied and disputed territory that has no nationhood. The
Palestinians and their mentors and funders have to get real, recognise Israel, accept defensible boundaries for the
state and get nationhood for the disputed territory.
Regardless of what you or I might argue, there is no such nation as Palestine and no resolution till there is.
JC
|
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<4018DD7B...@ihug.
> John Baglow wrote:
>
> > John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40179306...@ihug.
> > > John Baglow wrote:
> > >
> > > > John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40160799...@ihug.
> > > >
> > > > > There is no nation of Palestine. It is land that is disputed by both sides.
> > > >
> > > > If Palestinians are not a nation, why are Israelis a nation? Or New
> > > > Zealanders?
> > >
> > > Check with the UN. There is a Jewish nation but not a Palestinian one.
> >
> > So, then, the Kurds are not a nation; the Palestinians are not a
> > nation; and, prior to independence, Algeria was not a nation. What a
> > bizarre notion of "nation" you have--a superficial legalistic
> > approach.
>
> Guilty as charged. I have the same view as the UN.
So then, your point becomes even more obscure. If you stick to a
narrow legalistic definition of "nation"--not only a people, a
national psychology and land, but formal UN recognition too--then the
next step is to deny the existence of Palestinians too. "Palestine" is
terra nullius, and any formally-recognized "nation" has the right to
settle it--not just Israel. Sounds like a quaint colonialist notion
dressed up as international convention.
> > > > [Baglow]
> > > > > > 2) The Palestinians, resisting occupation, are getting the worst of
> > > > > > it,
> > > > >
> > > > > Are they? I doubt they think so.
> > > >
> > > > You aren't serious.
> > >
> > > The Palestinians are (in their minds) involved in a total war. If a Palestinian woman blows herself up and kills
> > > many Jewish citizens, she is a hero and proof that the battle is being won. > One Palestine = x Jews.
> >
> > That's a far cry from not getting the worst of it. Dies it ever occur
> > to you that suicide bombing is an act of desperation that symptomizes
> > getting the worst of it? Try re-reading "The Wretched of the Earth"
> > for a little insight here.
>
> Try looking at what's been offered to the Palestinians here. They were >offered 90+% of the occupied territories in the
> mid 90s by the Israel PM of the time and turned it down in favor of getting >rid of Israel.
>Also, my recall of the
> region is that Palestinians clustered around Israeli settlements because that was where the work came from. Even now,
> many, many Palestinians are dependent on work from the Israelis.
> The desperation is very much self induced.
> > > > [Baglow]
> > > > > > What does gender have to do with
> > > > > > anything, given the large number of women in the Israeli occupying
> > > > > > force
> > > > >
> > > > > The stats above break this down. All females for Israel 277. Non com females >272.
> > > >
> > > > Point made. But what does gender have to do with anything?
> > >
> > > Gender, esp female civilian death tells us about the bestial nature of the conflict. The Palestinians are
> > > winning hands down.
> >
> > So women have a privileged status in a struggle against/for
> > occupation? Perhaps you could enlarge upon this quaint notion.
>
> Yes, its a bit old fashioned. Its a useful distinction between the parties.
> >
> >
> > As for the Palestinians winning, would that it were so. They have a
> > far better claim to the land than a bunch of American and Russian
> > ex-pats.
>
> The population stats for both sides show wholesale immigration.
> > > That accounts for about 15% of the population. For the rest, they raise their eyes to Heaven and say "Oh Allah,
> > > Oh Allah, why hast thou forsaken me?"
> >
> > Possibly a good question within that world-view. It can be re-phrased,
> > of course, for us secular humanist types, as "Why does no one give a
> > damn about Israeli atrocities, theft and apartheid in the so-called
> > 'enlightened' and 'humane' West?"
>
> Which is a neat way of saying that the Palestinians should abandon their God > and religion and get real.
>I know you
> dont mean that but getting real about the existence of the Israeli nation is a critical factor in resolving the
> dispute. People make much about the many and various sanctions from the UN about Israel. But at the end of the day,
> these are simply meaningless anti-Semite ramblings about occupied and disputed territory that has no nationhood.
> accept defensible boundaries for the
> state and get nationhood for the disputed territory.
> John Baglow wrote:
>
> > John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40179306...@ihug.
> > > John Baglow wrote:
> > >
> > > > John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<40160799...@ihug.
> > > >
> > > > > There is no nation of Palestine. It is land that is disputed by both sides.
> > > >
> > > > If Palestinians are not a nation, why are Israelis a nation? Or New
> > > > Zealanders?
> > >
> > > Check with the UN. There is a Jewish nation but not a Palestinian one.
> >
> > So, then, the Kurds are not a nation; the Palestinians are not a
> > nation; and, prior to independence, Algeria was not a nation. What a
> > bizarre notion of "nation" you have--a superficial legalistic
> > approach.
>
> Guilty as charged. I have the same view as the UN.
So then, your point becomes even more obscure. If you stick to a
narrow legalistic definition of "nation"--not only a people, a
national psychology and land, but formal UN recognition too--then the
next step is to deny the existence of Palestinians too. "Palestine" is
terra nullius, and any formally-recognized "nation" has the right to
settle it--not just Israel. Sounds like a quaint colonialist notion
dressed up as international convention.
> > > > [Baglow]
> > > > > > 2) The Palestinians, resisting occupation, are getting the worst of
> > > > > > it,
> > > > >
> > > > > Are they? I doubt they think so.
> > > >
> > > > You aren't serious.
> > >
> > > The Palestinians are (in their minds) involved in a total war. If a Palestinian woman blows herself up and kills
> > > many Jewish citizens, she is a hero and proof that the battle is being won. > One Palestine = x Jews.
> >
> > That's a far cry from not getting the worst of it. Dies it ever occur
> > to you that suicide bombing is an act of desperation that symptomizes
> > getting the worst of it? Try re-reading "The Wretched of the Earth"
> > for a little insight here.
>
> Try looking at what's been offered to the Palestinians here. They were >offered 90+% of the occupied territories in the
> mid 90s by the Israel PM of the time and turned it down in favor of getting >rid of Israel.
This is incorrect. They were offered far less; a territory
criss-crossed by Israeli roads, and encircled by a military buffer
zone. They were offered, in fact, a bantustan, and they declined.
criss-crossed by Israeli roads, and encircled by a military buffer
zone. They were offered, in fact, a bantustan, and they declined.
"Of course, it's easy to be fooled. The first local radio shows
illustrated all too well how the Middle East discourse is handled in
America. When Gayane Torosyan opened WSUI/KSUI for questions in Iowa
City, a caller named "Michael" – a leader of the local Jewish
community, I later learnt, though he did not say this on air –
insisted that after the Camp David talks in 2000, Yasser Arafat had
turned to "terrorism" despite being offered a Palestinian state with a
capital in Jerusalem and 96 per cent of the West Bank and Gaza. Slowly
and deliberately, I had to deconstruct this nonsense. Jerusalem was to
have remained the "eternal and unified capital of Israel", according
to Camp David. Arafat would only have got what Madeleine Albright
called "a sort of sovereignty" over the Haram al-Sharif mosque area
and some Arab streets, while the Palestinian parliament would have
been below the city's eastern walls at Abu Dis. With the vastly
extended and illegal Jerusalem municipality boundaries deep into the
West Bank, Jewish settlements like Maale Adumim were not up for
negotiation; nor were several other settlements. Nor was the 10-mile
Israeli military buffer zone around the West Bank, nor the settlers'
roads, which would razor through the Palestinian "state". Arafat was
offered about 46 per cent of the 22 per cent of Palestine that was
left."
illustrated all too well how the Middle East discourse is handled in
America. When Gayane Torosyan opened WSUI/KSUI for questions in Iowa
City, a caller named "Michael" – a leader of the local Jewish
community, I later learnt, though he did not say this on air –
insisted that after the Camp David talks in 2000, Yasser Arafat had
turned to "terrorism" despite being offered a Palestinian state with a
capital in Jerusalem and 96 per cent of the West Bank and Gaza. Slowly
and deliberately, I had to deconstruct this nonsense. Jerusalem was to
have remained the "eternal and unified capital of Israel", according
to Camp David. Arafat would only have got what Madeleine Albright
called "a sort of sovereignty" over the Haram al-Sharif mosque area
and some Arab streets, while the Palestinian parliament would have
been below the city's eastern walls at Abu Dis. With the vastly
extended and illegal Jerusalem municipality boundaries deep into the
West Bank, Jewish settlements like Maale Adumim were not up for
negotiation; nor were several other settlements. Nor was the 10-mile
Israeli military buffer zone around the West Bank, nor the settlers'
roads, which would razor through the Palestinian "state". Arafat was
offered about 46 per cent of the 22 per cent of Palestine that was
left."
Source: Robert Fisk http://www.robert-fisk.com/
Add to that the latest land-grab with the building of the apartheid
wall and you see things as they are: a highly militarized country
invading, occupying and seizing land, water and resources. Can you
say, "Eretz Israel?"
wall and you see things as they are: a highly militarized country
invading, occupying and seizing land, water and resources. Can you
say, "Eretz Israel?"
>Also, my recall of the
> region is that Palestinians clustered around Israeli settlements because that was where the work came from. Even now,
> many, many Palestinians are dependent on work from the Israelis.
So you will make their victimization a rationale for further
victimization? The bantustans were clustered around sources of work
too.
victimization? The bantustans were clustered around sources of work
too.
> The desperation is very much self induced.
Would you argue the same about the "kaffirs?"
> > > > [Baglow]
> > > > > > What does gender have to do with
> > > > > > anything, given the large number of women in the Israeli occupying
> > > > > > force
> > > > >
> > > > > The stats above break this down. All females for Israel 277. Non com females >272.
> > > >
> > > > Point made. But what does gender have to do with anything?
> > >
> > > Gender, esp female civilian death tells us about the bestial nature of the conflict. The Palestinians are
> > > winning hands down.
> >
> > So women have a privileged status in a struggle against/for
> > occupation? Perhaps you could enlarge upon this quaint notion.
>
> Yes, its a bit old fashioned. Its a useful distinction between the parties.
Why?
> >
> >
> > As for the Palestinians winning, would that it were so. They have a
> > far better claim to the land than a bunch of American and Russian
> > ex-pats.
>
> The population stats for both sides show wholesale immigration.
The Palestinians are primarily native to the region, and many are
descended from those expelled from Israel in 1948. The settlers are
primarily a bunch of Russians and Americans.
descended from those expelled from Israel in 1948. The settlers are
primarily a bunch of Russians and Americans.
If you're hot on the definition of "nation," perhaps you might at
least want to agree that ethnicity is a factor. What is the Israeli
ethnicity? Anybody with Jewish grandmother can go there, regardless
of language, culture, history...
least want to agree that ethnicity is a factor. What is the Israeli
ethnicity? Anybody with Jewish grandmother can go there, regardless
of language, culture, history...
- show quoted text -
This is evasion and further ad hominem. Consider the idiocy of this
approach. "We can't believe a word the man says about the ME because
he's anti-war." Sheesh.
approach. "We can't believe a word the man says about the ME because
he's anti-war." Sheesh.
Israel carries its brutal occupational war to the kids. What was the
"broken bones" camapign, in which occupying troops deliberately broke
the arms and legs of children throwing stones at tanks? Oh, I forgot:
the kids were "combatants," weren't they?
"broken bones" camapign, in which occupying troops deliberately broke
the arms and legs of children throwing stones at tanks? Oh, I forgot:
the kids were "combatants," weren't they?
- show quoted text -
On reflection, I believe that you are right. My apologies. I didn't
read far enough before reacting. I've seen so much of this stuff
applied to "Ay-rabs" in general that I thought I was seeing it once
again.
read far enough before reacting. I've seen so much of this stuff
applied to "Ay-rabs" in general that I thought I was seeing it once
again.
> > > That accounts for about 15% of the population. For the rest, they raise their eyes to Heaven and say "Oh Allah,
> > > Oh Allah, why hast thou forsaken me?"
> >
> > Possibly a good question within that world-view. It can be re-phrased,
> > of course, for us secular humanist types, as "Why does no one give a
> > damn about Israeli atrocities, theft and apartheid in the so-called
> > 'enlightened' and 'humane' West?"
>
> Which is a neat way of saying that the Palestinians should abandon their God > and religion and get real.
So should the Israelis. So should the US, an aggressive,
fundamentalist Christian state.
fundamentalist Christian state.
>I know you
> dont mean that but getting real about the existence of the Israeli nation is a critical factor in resolving the
> dispute. People make much about the many and various sanctions from the UN about Israel. But at the end of the day,
> these are simply meaningless anti-Semite ramblings about occupied and disputed territory that has no nationhood.
Crap. The double standard applied to Israel is sickening. They can
flout any UN resolution they want with impunity, thanks to Uncle Sam.
Let any other country try that, and it's "coalition of the willing"
time.
flout any UN resolution they want with impunity, thanks to Uncle Sam.
Let any other country try that, and it's "coalition of the willing"
time.
To claim that Palestine is "disputed territory" is just a word game.
So is Israel. So is Iraq, for that matter.
So is Israel. So is Iraq, for that matter.
And please don't play that tired "anti-semitic" card. That kind of
name-calling simply reflectes the bankruptcy of your arguments.
name-calling simply reflectes the bankruptcy of your arguments.
>The
> Palestinians and their mentors and funders have to get real, recognise Israel,
> Palestinians and their mentors and funders have to get real, recognise Israel,
You are aware that the PLO amended its Charter in this respect?
> accept defensible boundaries for the
> state and get nationhood for the disputed territory.
Not under Israel's terms. I'm leaning towards a one-state solution
anyway. Secular, incidentally.
anyway. Secular, incidentally.
--John Baglow
|
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<4018DD7B...@ihug.
> Under dire circumstances the Kurds have created universities, a democracy of sorts, health care that's superior
> outside the wealthy Arab states and a functioning apparatus of governance. They have argued persuasively for a nation
> and their emigrants fight well on their behalf.
>
> The Palestinians are still stuck in a primordial ooze of the mind.
Sorry: missed this point. I assume that you are talking about the
Kurds of Northern Iraq.
> Under dire circumstances the Kurds have created universities, a democracy of sorts, health care that's superior
> outside the wealthy Arab states and a functioning apparatus of governance. They have argued persuasively for a nation
> and their emigrants fight well on their behalf.
>
> The Palestinians are still stuck in a primordial ooze of the mind.
Sorry: missed this point. I assume that you are talking about the
Kurds of Northern Iraq.
Perhaps this difference can be explained thus: the Kurds have been
more effective in shaking off the Iraqis than the Palestinians the
Israelis. Their geography certainly helped, as well as the "no-fly
zone" assistance provided them.
more effective in shaking off the Iraqis than the Palestinians the
Israelis. Their geography certainly helped, as well as the "no-fly
zone" assistance provided them.
--John Baglow
|
John Baglow wrote:
> John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<4018DD7B...@ihug.
>
>
>
>>Under dire circumstances the Kurds have created universities, a democracy of sorts, health care that's superior
>>outside the wealthy Arab states and a functioning apparatus of governance. They have argued persuasively for a nation
>>and their emigrants fight well on their behalf.
>>
>>The Palestinians are still stuck in a primordial ooze of the mind.
>
>
>
> Sorry: missed this point. I assume that you are talking about the
> Kurds of Northern Iraq.
>
> Perhaps this difference can be explained thus: the Kurds have been
> more effective in shaking off the Iraqis than the Palestinians the
> Israelis.
>
>
>
>>Under dire circumstances the Kurds have created universities, a democracy of sorts, health care that's superior
>>outside the wealthy Arab states and a functioning apparatus of governance. They have argued persuasively for a nation
>>and their emigrants fight well on their behalf.
>>
>>The Palestinians are still stuck in a primordial ooze of the mind.
>
>
>
> Sorry: missed this point. I assume that you are talking about the
> Kurds of Northern Iraq.
>
> Perhaps this difference can be explained thus: the Kurds have been
> more effective in shaking off the Iraqis than the Palestinians the
> Israelis.
If the Palestinians would renounce suicide-bombing once and for all--I
mean stop ALL of it and stop it PERMANENTLY--then there would be no
Israelis for them to "shake off".
mean stop ALL of it and stop it PERMANENTLY--then there would be no
Israelis for them to "shake off".
The Palestinians should confine their "resistance" to passive peaceful
civil disobedience in the style of Gandhi.
civil disobedience in the style of Gandhi.
Then the Israelis wouldn't need to take any military actions.
-- Steven L.
|
Steven Litvintchouk <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<xOcSb.2089$GO6...@
> If the Palestinians would renounce suicide-bombing once and for all--I
> mean stop ALL of it and stop it PERMANENTLY--then there would be no
> Israelis for them to "shake off".
> The Palestinians should confine their "resistance" to passive peaceful
> civil disobedience in the style of Gandhi.
>
> Then the Israelis wouldn't need to take any military actions.
> If the Palestinians would renounce suicide-bombing once and for all--I
> mean stop ALL of it and stop it PERMANENTLY--then there would be no
> Israelis for them to "shake off".
So all the settlers and troops would just shuffle off to Tel Aviv,
would they? Novel theory.
would they? Novel theory.
> The Palestinians should confine their "resistance" to passive peaceful
> civil disobedience in the style of Gandhi.
>
> Then the Israelis wouldn't need to take any military actions.
No, they could then use ordinary civilians to drive bulldozers over
them. As Rachel Corrie learned too late, Gandhi's tactics don't work
in every situation.
them. As Rachel Corrie learned too late, Gandhi's tactics don't work
in every situation.
--John Baglow
No comments:
Post a Comment