Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ArabNews)   Arab countries: "So using the Palestinians as a distraction for our own problems wasn't a good idea after all"   (arabnews.com) divider line 240
    More: Sad, Arab-Israeli, Palestinians, Arab Spring, Arab countries, major wars, Israeli presidents, Sinai, Israel Defense Forces  
•       •       •

16018 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Oct 2012 at 8:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



240 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-08 04:50:32 AM  
It would be great to see more introspective people in the Middle East raising questions like this man has.
 
2012-10-08 08:03:01 AM  
+1

(darned no-voting phone app)
 
2012-10-08 08:29:24 AM  

Therion: +1

(darned no-voting phone app)


I gotcha. Good article.
 
2012-10-08 08:43:59 AM  
Well said, of course the people who need to read this are being oppressed enough that they'll never see it.
 
2012-10-08 08:44:54 AM  

jenlen: It would be great to see more introspective people in the Middle East raising questions like this man has.


I'd say we need that everywhere, not just certain regions.
 
2012-10-08 08:48:19 AM  
Sooner or later, the oil money is going to run out. Once that happens they won't be able to sell enough rugs. 90% of all exports from Saudi Arabia are petroleum products.

For starters, I can't think of one university in the Arab would that I would want to attend.
 
2012-10-08 08:48:22 AM  
Arab spring good when over throwing Arab oppressors? Other oppressors ok? Why not give them their own state.
 
2012-10-08 08:49:35 AM  
On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.
 
2012-10-08 08:51:07 AM  
ABDULATEEF AL-MULHIM this is an example of courage and honesty.

Now if we could only get Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton, to stop playing my princess pony with American lives and show the same integrity.
 
2012-10-08 08:52:05 AM  

Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.


Why would one attempt to rescue the cannon fodder? As long as they can keep them oppressed and use them for photo ops, it's all good, no? Allah Akbar.
 
2012-10-08 08:52:14 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-08 08:56:24 AM  

Giltric: They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....


When was the last time an Arab country invaded Israel?
I don't think arab leaders are that keen on rescuing the land any more.
 
2012-10-08 08:56:31 AM  
Hero tag out banging your mom? The author has some giant balls to write this.
 
2012-10-08 08:56:43 AM  
*golf-clap*
 
2012-10-08 08:57:54 AM  
wouldn't surprise me if this is written by the CIA
 
2012-10-08 08:58:15 AM  
Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?
 
2012-10-08 08:58:53 AM  
This dude is toast. Or Pita.
 
2012-10-08 08:58:58 AM  
I am sure no one in the arab world will over react to this... cooler heads will surely prevail...

/just kidding
//car bomb
 
2012-10-08 08:59:14 AM  
FTA: Finally, if many of the Arab states are in such disarray, then what happened to the Arabs' sworn enemy (Israel)? Israel now has the most advanced research facilities, top universities and advanced infrastructure. Many Arabs don't know that the life expectancy of the Palestinians living in Israel is far longer than many Arab states and they enjoy far better political and social freedom than many of their Arab brothers. Even the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip enjoy more political and social rights than some places in the Arab World. Wasn't one of the judges who sent a former Israeli president to jail is an Israeli-Palestinian?

I did not know that.

/Also, truth is a very bitter pill to swallow, especially if you've been living with the lie for more than half a century.
 
2012-10-08 09:00:40 AM  
Shouldn't there be an angry mob burning this guys house down about right now?
 
2012-10-08 09:01:38 AM  

Muta: Giltric: They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....

When was the last time an Arab country invaded Israel?
I don't think arab leaders are that keen on rescuing the land any more.


I forgot that invasions/war were like bankruptcies and after a certain number of years they are not on your record anymore.
 
2012-10-08 09:01:57 AM  
Yeah they never helped their Arab brothers like building a sewage treatment plant that was destroyed by air force. Yeah that will teach them. Talk about collective punishment. I wonder if the Jews have ever experienced this?
 
2012-10-08 09:03:17 AM  

LL316: Hero tag out banging your mom? The author has some giant balls to write this.


The hero tag is tired of this subject and went home.
 
2012-10-08 09:04:55 AM  

Giltric: Muta: Giltric: They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....

When was the last time an Arab country invaded Israel?
I don't think arab leaders are that keen on rescuing the land any more.

I forgot that invasions/war were like bankruptcies and after a certain number of years they are not on your record anymore.


The United States better hope that is true.
 
2012-10-08 09:06:34 AM  
Yay. Sort of. I guess.

I have no farks left to give
 
2012-10-08 09:06:37 AM  

Muta: Giltric: They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....

When was the last time an Arab country invaded Israel?
I don't think arab leaders are that keen on rescuing the land any more.


Israel has served as a convenient distraction for the various leaders of the region and their mismanagement. It should be telling exactly how unstable the region is by the fact that Israel isn't enough anymore, and the various nations are collapsing on themselves.
 
2012-10-08 09:06:37 AM  
Why is it that Israel was given Jerusalem anyhow? Was it just a big middle finger from the catholic church in the power vacuum after WW2?

"Haha told you dirty arabs we'd take that shiat back one way or another!"
 
2012-10-08 09:07:32 AM  
It's the Israelis' fault the Arabs are self-destructive idiots. Somehow.
 
2012-10-08 09:12:01 AM  
this article raises some good questions... then again, it raised some "huh?" questions:

In Syria, the atrocities are beyond anybody's imaginations? And, isn't the Iraqis are the ones who are destroying their own country?

Then again i hate reading an article that is composed 75% or more of rhetorical questions...

Dear Journalists,

Please stop asking rhetorical questions of your readers unless you plan on answering them with your own insight.

Then again, we will be discussing these questions on Fark, but I don't think Abdulateef Al-Mulhim had us in mind when he wrote his column.
 
2012-10-08 09:13:44 AM  
FTA: "why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?"

Death cults tend to have that effect on people, yea islam!!!
 
2012-10-08 09:14:01 AM  
Excellent article, arab reporter actually acknowledging reality and also published by an arab news site ? in public ? This is extremely rare.
This guy has balls of steel. I hope he won't get hurt for speaking the truth.
 
2012-10-08 09:15:11 AM  

TappingTheVein: Excellent article, arab reporter actually acknowledging reality and also published by an arab news site ? in public ? This is extremely rare.
This guy has balls of steel. I hope he won't get hurt for speaking the truth.


He won't feel a thing...
 
2012-10-08 09:15:11 AM  

Joe Blowme: FTA: "why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?"

Death cults tend to have that effect on people, yea islam!!!


yea USA!!!!!
 
2012-10-08 09:15:41 AM  
Giltric: I forgot that invasions/war were like bankruptcies and after a certain number of years they are not on your record anymore.

So attitudes never change. The US is still at war with Canada over the invasion in 1812.
 
2012-10-08 09:15:56 AM  

Alonjar: Why is it that Israel was given Jerusalem anyhow? Was it just a big middle finger from the catholic church in the power vacuum after WW2?

"Haha told you dirty arabs we'd take that shiat back one way or another!"


Had nothing to do with the catholic church and you might want to see a therapist if you see a catholic conspiracy everywhere.

But the reason Israel now has Jerusalem is because of the Palestinians and Arabs themselves. The initial Jewish boundary state of Israel was much smaller and Jerusalem was squarely in Palestine. However, the war of 1948 with the Arabs changed all that since the Israelis won and they decided to say "to the victors, spoils" and claimed virtually everything that is Israel today. Below is a good map showing the change in territory coverage from 1947-pre war to post-war and how Jerusalem became Israeli property.

www.israpundit.com
 
2012-10-08 09:18:29 AM  

mauricecano: Alonjar: Why is it that Israel was given Jerusalem anyhow? Was it just a big middle finger from the catholic church in the power vacuum after WW2?

"Haha told you dirty arabs we'd take that shiat back one way or another!"

Had nothing to do with the catholic church and you might want to see a therapist if you see a catholic conspiracy everywhere.

But the reason Israel now has Jerusalem is because of the Palestinians and Arabs themselves. The initial Jewish boundary state of Israel was much smaller and Jerusalem was squarely in Palestine. However, the war of 1948 with the Arabs changed all that since the Israelis won and they decided to say "to the victors, spoils" and claimed virtually everything that is Israel today. Below is a good map showing the change in territory coverage from 1947-pre war to post-war and how Jerusalem became Israeli property.

[www.israpundit.com image 600x602]


So it's their own bloody fault.
 
2012-10-08 09:18:47 AM  

Girion47: Joe Blowme: FTA: "why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?"

Death cults tend to have that effect on people, yea islam!!!

yea USA!!!!!


Indeed



http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/Girion47/subiekayak.jpg
 
2012-10-08 09:23:44 AM  
"So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are." - T.E. Lawrence
 
2012-10-08 09:23:45 AM  

Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?


For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.
 
2012-10-08 09:24:48 AM  

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: I am sure no one in the arab world will over react to this... cooler heads will surely prevail...

/just kidding
//car bomb


cps-static.rovicorp.com

/hot
//If we don't ask rhetorical questions, won't the terrorists have already won?
 
2012-10-08 09:25:02 AM  

Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians Jordanians.


FTFY
 
2012-10-08 09:25:09 AM  
B...but...we have to keep those womens' heads covered and uneducated, so "vote" for the dictator.
 
2012-10-08 09:27:51 AM  
I had no idea the Palestinians were being treated so fairly by the Israelis, thank you sunny for helping me to see past the Arab lies.
 
2012-10-08 09:28:11 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.


Instead we gave 39+million people a chance at freedom and self determination Why do you hate brown people?
 
2012-10-08 09:28:52 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.


The other major tragedy of war: Opportunity Cost
In reality if we didn't go to war that money would probably not have been spent. But, if we wound back the clock and were told we absolutely HAD to spend the money, major infrastructure improvements would have been the way to go.

/I always thought the criticism that solar is not a good power source because of the space requirements and transmission difficulty was a ridiculous argument when there are vast amounts of surface area on the roofs of millions of homes... Sure, it can't be your only power source, but who the hell was saying that?
 
2012-10-08 09:28:55 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.


But Saddam and Osama would still be alive. Money well spent.
 
2012-10-08 09:29:38 AM  

Magruda: I had no idea the Palestinians were being treated so fairly by the Israelis, thank you sunny for helping me to see past the Arab lies.


That's not what he said but don't let that fact distract you.
 
2012-10-08 09:30:41 AM  
Yes, the Middle East has violent oppressive dictators. Yes, these dictators commit horrible human rights violations. Yes, the Holy Land was violently taken away from the Arabs (which, if the tables were turned, Christians and Jews would react with the same righteous indignation).
Lets not pretend though these dictators maintain power through their hatred of Israel. The countries with oppressive dictators also contain the world's most precious commodity.....oil. The rest of the world tolerates the actions of these dictators because oil drives the global economy, and the rest of the world refuses to move beyond fossil fuels. As long as we continue to purchase fossil fuels from countries with oppressive regimes, the oppressive regimes will continue to exist. Oil is power. Money is power. Yeah, we like to run around saying, "Look how horrible these leaders treat their people", but it's just lip service. These countries turn off the spigot and life as we know it is much harder. We all have our cross to bear regarding Middle Eastern dictators.
 
TWX
2012-10-08 09:30:48 AM  

Muta: Giltric: They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....

When was the last time an Arab country invaded Israel?
I don't think arab leaders are that keen on rescuing the land any more.


Europeans held the land between the Jordan river and the Med for more than 200 years before the Arabs drove them into the sea. Israel has 140 years to go before even matching that record.
 
2012-10-08 09:31:29 AM  

Joe Blowme: Girion47: Joe Blowme: FTA: "why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?"

Death cults tend to have that effect on people, yea islam!!!

yea USA!!!!!

Indeed



http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/Girion47/subiekayak.jpg


I fail to see what a pic of my car and kayak have to do with the U.S. wasting trillions of dollars killing people on the opposite side of the globe, developing fighter jets that will never be used, maintaining tanks that will rust, and keeping ww2 era boats in combat condition when a speedboat with C4 will take them out, or strip searching people at airports.
 
2012-10-08 09:32:24 AM  

Smoking GNU: mauricecano: Alonjar: Why is it that Israel was given Jerusalem anyhow? Was it just a big middle finger from the catholic church in the power vacuum after WW2?

"Haha told you dirty arabs we'd take that shiat back one way or another!"

Had nothing to do with the catholic church and you might want to see a therapist if you see a catholic conspiracy everywhere.

But the reason Israel now has Jerusalem is because of the Palestinians and Arabs themselves. The initial Jewish boundary state of Israel was much smaller and Jerusalem was squarely in Palestine. However, the war of 1948 with the Arabs changed all that since the Israelis won and they decided to say "to the victors, spoils" and claimed virtually everything that is Israel today. Below is a good map showing the change in territory coverage from 1947-pre war to post-war and how Jerusalem became Israeli property.

[www.israpundit.com image 600x602]

So it's their own bloody fault.


And again in '67. '73, well... attack me once, shame on me. Attack me twice, shame on you. Attack me thrice? You won't get the chance, sucka!!!

// nah, but it was a war, and people died
// and my uncle got his paratrooper wings
// and they actually negotiated a peace accord and both sides agreed to never argue again
// and it lasted about 30 years, unless you count "soft" hostilities
 
2012-10-08 09:32:55 AM  

Joe Blowme: FTA: "why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?"

Death cults tend to have that effect on people, yea islam!!!


Agrees...

blogs.e-rockford.com
 
2012-10-08 09:34:59 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Smoking GNU: mauricecano: Alonjar: Why is it that Israel was given Jerusalem anyhow? Was it just a big middle finger from the catholic church in the power vacuum after WW2?

"Haha told you dirty arabs we'd take that shiat back one way or another!"

Had nothing to do with the catholic church and you might want to see a therapist if you see a catholic conspiracy everywhere.

But the reason Israel now has Jerusalem is because of the Palestinians and Arabs themselves. The initial Jewish boundary state of Israel was much smaller and Jerusalem was squarely in Palestine. However, the war of 1948 with the Arabs changed all that since the Israelis won and they decided to say "to the victors, spoils" and claimed virtually everything that is Israel today. Below is a good map showing the change in territory coverage from 1947-pre war to post-war and how Jerusalem became Israeli property.

[www.israpundit.com image 600x602]

So it's their own bloody fault.

And again in '67. '73, well... attack me once, shame on me. Attack me twice, shame on you. Attack me thrice? You won't get the chance, sucka!!!

// nah, but it was a war, and people died
// and my uncle got his paratrooper wings
// and they actually negotiated a peace accord and both sides agreed to never argue again
// and it lasted about 30 years, unless you count "soft" hostilities


Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.
 
2012-10-08 09:35:39 AM  

DubyaHater: Yes, the Middle East has violent oppressive dictators. Yes, these dictators commit horrible human rights violations. Yes, the Holy Land was violently taken away from the Arabs (which, if the tables were turned, Christians and Jews would react with the same righteous indignation).
Lets not pretend though these dictators maintain power through their hatred of Israel. The countries with oppressive dictators also contain the world's most precious commodity.....oil. The rest of the world tolerates the actions of these dictators because oil drives the global economy, and the rest of the world refuses to move beyond fossil fuels. As long as we continue to purchase fossil fuels from countries with oppressive regimes, the oppressive regimes will continue to exist. Oil is power. Money is power. Yeah, we like to run around saying, "Look how horrible these leaders treat their people", but it's just lip service. These countries turn off the spigot and life as we know it is much harder. We all have our cross to bear regarding Middle Eastern dictators.


The spice must flow...
 
2012-10-08 09:37:02 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.


Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.
 
2012-10-08 09:38:34 AM  
They should switch over to using Iran as a boogey man.
 
2012-10-08 09:38:53 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.


You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?
 
2012-10-08 09:39:07 AM  

Joe Blowme: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.

Instead we gave 39+million people a chance at freedom and self determination Why do you hate brown people?


So you think the only way Iraq and Afghanistan could have freed themselves from tyrannical governments and directed the course of their countries' future was by begging white people for help?

You racist.
 
2012-10-08 09:39:20 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.


Yeah but punching a guy at a bar because you like his stool better is a dick move.
 
2012-10-08 09:41:06 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?


No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.
 
2012-10-08 09:42:15 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.


Except the land grab that happend afterward.
 
2012-10-08 09:42:23 AM  
It's enheartening to see in print what many of my Arab buddies have told me in private.
 
2012-10-08 09:43:04 AM  

give me doughnuts: Joe Blowme: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.

Instead we gave 39+million people a chance at freedom and self determination Why do you hate brown people?

So you think the only way Iraq and Afghanistan could have freed themselves from tyrannical governments and directed the course of their countries' future was by begging white people for help?

No

You racist?


No
 
2012-10-08 09:43:44 AM  

Magruda: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

Except the land grab that happend afterward.


No doubt. I was just referring to the start. The after part was a blatant land grab. You can't launch a pre-emptive strike claiming self-defense and then not give anything back. Sort of undoes any justification you had previously.
 
2012-10-08 09:44:45 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.


Don't forget about the Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tirian.
 
2012-10-08 09:45:42 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.


We were rapidly building up forces in the Philippines, including long range bombers which could strike at Japaneses bases in Formosa, which had been under Japanese sovereignty since 1895.
 
2012-10-08 09:47:24 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.


Mr. Queeg no doubt strongly disagrees with you because Mr. Queeg hates Jews and is looking for any excuse to condemn them, ideally in a posthumous manner.
 
2012-10-08 09:49:35 AM  

Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?


If only we had taken that trillion Dollars and spent it here at home. Oh wait, we did, every year for the last 4yrs.
 
2012-10-08 09:50:49 AM  
FTFA:
"And, isn't the Iraqis are the ones who are destroying their own country?"

img.youtube.com

......and such as.
 
2012-10-08 09:51:18 AM  

clambam: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

Mr. Queeg no doubt strongly disagrees with you because Mr. Queeg hates Jews and is looking for any excuse to condemn them, ideally in a posthumous manner.


I love that I get accused of both hating Jews and being a Jew when I post in Arab/Israeli threads.

In case you missed it, I attacked the entire concept of pre-emptive war, including when the US does it, not just when it is Israeli policy.
 
2012-10-08 09:52:15 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?


Well, whaddaya know... Actually, I'd say that may be the exact justification the Japanese used to attack Pearl Harbor, it but it was not the jusitification they had. In point of fact they had no justification beyond imperial ambitions they saw slipping away as the Chinese and Koreans increasingly tried to free themselves from Japanese domination and the precariousness of the Japanese position--large population, resource-hungry industrial base, resource-poor home territory--became ever more apparent.
 
2012-10-08 09:52:44 AM  

Magruda: Except the land grab that happend afterward.


Yeah, bummer how Israel did what everyone else was trying to do to them. Fark em. Tough shiat. Seriously.

Pretty sure Israel was ready to live and let live. Should have just let them live.
 
2012-10-08 09:53:23 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.


Or it could have been spent on something useful.
 
2012-10-08 09:53:41 AM  

Magruda: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

Except the land grab that happend afterward.


Did you ever wonder how the United States was built from all that land occupied by native Americans?

/hint - it was mostly land grabs after hostilities
 
2012-10-08 09:54:34 AM  

jaybeezey: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

If only we had taken that trillion Dollars and spent it here at home. Oh wait, we did, every year for the last 4yrs.


We did? We aren't still in Iraq and Afghanistan? We aren't paying the mercenaries(Security Contractors)?
 
2012-10-08 09:55:23 AM  

clambam: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

Well, whaddaya know... Actually, I'd say that may be the exact justification the Japanese used to attack Pearl Harbor, it but it was not the jusitification they had. In point of fact they had no justification beyond imperial ambitions they saw slipping away as the Chinese and Koreans increasingly tried to free themselves from Japanese domination and the precariousness of the Japanese position--large population, resource-hungry industrial base, resource-poor home territory--became ever more apparent.


So they used it to justify a land grab to improve their marginal economic and geographic position? Sounds rather familiar.
 
2012-10-08 09:55:37 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

We were rapidly building up forces in the Philippines, including long range bombers which could strike at Japaneses bases in Formosa, which had been under Japanese sovereignty since 1895.


a total force of less than 40 bombers does not a build-up make. Especially considering the Japanese already had a significant fighter presence on Formosa to counter it. And Formosa is not considered one of the home islands.

Less than 40 bombers is as tactical problem that was already countered. If you are referring to the Rainbow Plan that was a long-term defense white paper which was years and years from completion.

The war was started for the strategic reasons:
1) They absolutely needed the oil to continue operations throughout the pacific theater and for their economy
2) They absolutely needed the scrap metal to continue operations throughout the pacific theater and for their economy
 
2012-10-08 09:57:08 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

We were rapidly building up forces in the Philippines, including long range bombers which could strike at Japaneses bases in Formosa, which had been under Japanese sovereignty since 1895.


This build-up never really got past the planning stages. Alternative plans were also drawn up for a complete abandonment of the Phillipines.
 
2012-10-08 09:58:09 AM  
FTA
"The common thing among all what I saw is that the destruction and the atrocities are not done by an outside enemy. The starvation, the killings and the destruction in these Arab countries are done by the same hands that are supposed to protect and build the unity of these countries and safeguard the people of these countries. So, the question now is that who is the real enemy of the Arab world?"

This applies not only in the Middle East, but all over the world and it has to stop.
 
2012-10-08 09:58:21 AM  

s2s2s2: Magruda: Except the land grab that happend afterward.

Yeah, bummer how Israel did what everyone else was trying to do to them. Fark em. Tough shiat. Seriously.

Pretty sure Israel was ready to live and let live. Should have just let them live.


Wonderful justification.
 
2012-10-08 09:59:45 AM  

madgonad: Magruda: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

Except the land grab that happend afterward.

Did you ever wonder how the United States was built from all that land occupied by native Americans?

/hint - it was mostly land grabs after hostilities


So they did it makes it ok?
 
2012-10-08 10:01:54 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

We were rapidly building up forces in the Philippines, including long range bombers which could strike at Japaneses bases in Formosa, which had been under Japanese sovereignty since 1895.

a total force of less than 40 bombers does not a build-up make. Especially considering the Japanese already had a significant fighter presence on Formosa to counter it. And Formosa is not considered one of the home islands.

Less than 40 bombers is as tactical problem that was already countered. If you are referring to the Rainbow Plan that was a long-term defense white paper which was years and years from completion.

The war was started for the strategic reasons:
1) They absolutely needed the oil to continue operations throughout the pacific theater and for their economy
2) They absolutely needed the scrap metal to continue operations throughout the pacific theater and for their economy


Just as the 1967 war was started by the Israelis for strategic reasons. The "pre-emptive" war justification was bullshiat in both cases, just as it was when we used in in 2003. The thing is, in all 3 cases may in power in the attacking countries actually believed their own bullshiat. Many in the Japanese leadership did believe the US was an imminent threat to their existence as a nation.
 
2012-10-08 10:02:35 AM  

pdee: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.

Or it could have been spent on something useful.


Hey! I included Hookers and Blow!

But seriously - the US spends vast sums heating houses in winter and cooling them in summer. This represents a major drain on family finances and makes family energy bills highly dependent on global energy price fluctuations. A long term lowering of energy bills for every family in the country through a program that puts large numbers of people to work in all parts of the country for a long term investment in energy independence may or may not be the most useful way to spend money, but it's a damn sight better than blowing shiat up on the other side of the world and killing a few thousand Americans in the process while sowing long term ill will towards the US.
 
2012-10-08 10:02:52 AM  

madgonad: Magruda: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

Except the land grab that happend afterward.

Did you ever wonder how the United States was built from all that land occupied by native Americans?

/hint - it was mostly land grabs after hostilities


Since about 90% of the pre-Columbian population of North America was dead by 1600, it was mostly land-grab of de-populated territory with some minor hostilities scattered about.
If it weren't for virgin-field epidemics, colonizing North America would have been like trying to invade and colonize Europe (with minor differences in technology).
 
2012-10-08 10:04:09 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.


You just justified a preemptive attack by Iran, who has been threatened many times.

\bomb bomb bomb Iran
 
2012-10-08 10:05:11 AM  

madgonad: Magruda: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

Except the land grab that happend afterward.

Did you ever wonder how the United States was built from all that land occupied by native Americans?

/hint - it was mostly land grabs after hostilities


If you're comparing the current Israeli treatment of Palestinians to the American treatment of Indians in the 18th and 19th century, you may have a point. If you think any person of conscience is going to try to defend the way the Indians were treated, you do not.
 
2012-10-08 10:06:06 AM  
/slowclap.gif

Lots of the questions in the article apply to just about everyone.
 
2012-10-08 10:07:42 AM  

give me doughnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

We were rapidly building up forces in the Philippines, including long range bombers which could strike at Japaneses bases in Formosa, which had been under Japanese sovereignty since 1895.

This build-up never really got past the planning stages. Alternative plans were also drawn up for a complete abandonment of the Phillipines.


That's not the case. The build up was going on. A flight of B-17s in transit to the Philippines happened to arrive in Hawaii on the morning of December 7, 1941. It did not go so well for them. 2 squadrons had already preceded them. There had been a significant build up of aircraft in the Philippines through the fall of 1941.
 
2012-10-08 10:10:23 AM  
Duh.

TheGreatGazoo: For starters, I can't think of one university in the Arab would that I would want to attend.


... and this is the great tragedy of the region. With the right infrastructure, they have a chance to use the abundence given to them by God to turn the desert into a paradise (or at least less of a heck-hole) and promulgate his message in prosperity and joy. There should be world-leading institutions of learning for the whole world in Istanbul, Demascus, Cairo, Tehran, Riyadh, Islamabad and Tangiers. Instead, the world sends their children to Berkley, Boston, New York, Chicago, Cambridge, Oxford, Paris and Berlin to be inculcated into the western motif of life.

They should be using their enormous wealth to try to find a way for their people to align their way of living with their way of earning. Imagine the number of shoes tied up in a single Scud Missile ...
 
2012-10-08 10:11:59 AM  
FTFA:why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?

A better question for us might be: Why is the Republican Platform mirroring that of the Arab states?
 
2012-10-08 10:12:04 AM  

Magruda: s2s2s2: Magruda: Except the land grab that happend afterward.

Yeah, bummer how Israel did what everyone else was trying to do to them. Fark em. Tough shiat. Seriously.

Pretty sure Israel was ready to live and let live. Should have just let them live.

Wonderful justification.



"If somebody tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back."
-- Malcolm Reynolds
 
2012-10-08 10:12:38 AM  

rubi_con_man: Duh.

TheGreatGazoo: For starters, I can't think of one university in the Arab would that I would want to attend.

... and this is the great tragedy of the region. With the right infrastructure, they have a chance to use the abundence given to them by God to turn the desert into a paradise (or at least less of a heck-hole) and promulgate his message in prosperity and joy. There should be world-leading institutions of learning for the whole world in Istanbul, Demascus, Cairo, Tehran, Riyadh, Islamabad and Tangiers. Instead, the world sends their children to Berkley, Boston, New York, Chicago, Cambridge, Oxford, Paris and Berlin to be inculcated into the western motif of life.

They should be using their enormous wealth to try to find a way for their people to align their way of living with their way of earning. Imagine the number of shoes tied up in a single Scud Missile ...


ahhh, see what the wonders of islam has wrought
 
2012-10-08 10:13:32 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Just as the 1967 war was started by the Israelis for strategic reasons. The "pre-emptive" war justification was bullshiat in both cases, just as it was when we used in in 2003. The thing is, in all 3 cases may in power in the attacking countries actually believed their own bullshiat. Many in the Japanese leadership did believe the US was an imminent threat to their existence as a nation.



Ahh, now I am fully seeing the cut of your jib.
I think the Israeli case for pre-emptive war was considerably more fleshed out than Japans in '41 or the US in '03 (not arguing that it was enough, just saying they had more material, my personal jury is still out), but I understand your point.
/Countries should follow that old adage of the more seedy parts of society: "Never use your own product."
 
2012-10-08 10:15:50 AM  

rubi_con_man: ... and this is the great tragedy of the region. With the right infrastructure, they have a chance to use the abundence given to them by God to turn the desert into a paradise (or at least less of a heck-hole) and promulgate his message in prosperity and joy. There should be world-leading institutions of learning for the whole world in Istanbul, Demascus, Cairo, Tehran, Riyadh, Islamabad and Tangiers. Instead, the world sends their children to Berkley, Boston, New York, Chicago, Cambridge, Oxford, Paris and Berlin to be inculcated into the western motif of life.


Do not confuse the Muslim world for the oil rich countries of the region. Many of the cities you mention don't have abundant national resources to draw on.
 
2012-10-08 10:16:48 AM  
Much of the history of the world is writ through conquest and displacement. Damned Romans, how did they not realize that it's self-evidently wrong and acknowledge that it's only fair that the world stays in complete geopolitical stasis. I'm still worried about the Tibet. Did we free it yet? Fait accompli is obviously the best way to take land in the modern era. Demographic warfare is the new battlefront I suppose. If you can't outfight 'em, outbreed 'em (at some point in the nearish future we'll realize that expanding populations beyond replacement rates is an equally immoral form of resource theft).
 
2012-10-08 10:19:15 AM  

Magruda: Wonderful justification.


Actually, it is. If my neighbor plans to take my house, and I end up winning his. That is 100% his problem.
 
2012-10-08 10:20:06 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: That's not the case. The build up was going on. A flight of B-17s in transit to the Philippines happened to arrive in Hawaii on the morning of December 7, 1941. It did not go so well for them. 2 squadrons had already preceded them. There had been a significant build up of aircraft in the Philippines through the fall of 1941.


DO YOU HEAR ME SIR? SIGNIFICANT!!!
 
2012-10-08 10:20:33 AM  

Rashnu: Much of the history of the world is writ through conquest and displacement. Damned Romans, how did they not realize that it's self-evidently wrong and acknowledge that it's only fair that the world stays in complete geopolitical stasis. I'm still worried about the Tibet. Did we free it yet? Fait accompli is obviously the best way to take land in the modern era. Demographic warfare is the new battlefront I suppose. If you can't outfight 'em, outbreed 'em (at some point in the nearish future we'll realize that expanding populations beyond replacement rates is an equally immoral form of resource theft).


Follow the "Featherston Doctrine" of excess population reduction.
 
2012-10-08 10:20:34 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Dr Dreidel: Smoking GNU: [www.israpundit.com image 600x602]

So it's their own bloody fault.

And again in '67. '73, well... attack me once, shame on me. Attack me twice, shame on you. Attack me thrice? You won't get the chance, sucka!!!

Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.


HA! You're right. I confused my wars. In '73, Israel was not the aggressor, as my OP suggested (why would Israel attack anyone on Yom Kippur?).
 
2012-10-08 10:22:11 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Philip Francis Queeg: Dr Dreidel: Smoking GNU: [www.israpundit.com image 600x602]

So it's their own bloody fault.

And again in '67. '73, well... attack me once, shame on me. Attack me twice, shame on you. Attack me thrice? You won't get the chance, sucka!!!

Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

HA! You're right. I confused my wars. In '73, Israel was not the aggressor, as my OP suggested (why would Israel attack anyone on Yom Kippur?).


Much like the Spanish Inqusition: nobody would expect it.
 
2012-10-08 10:22:58 AM  

Magruda: Except the land grab that happend afterward.

Did you ever wonder how the United States was built from all that land occupied by native Americans?

/hint - it was mostly land grabs after hostilities

So they did it makes it ok?


Nope, but you don't get to criticize others for doing the exact same thing that made you powerful.
 
2012-10-08 10:23:13 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: Well said, of course the people who need to read this are being oppressed enough that they'll never see it.


This sentence is well said? "And, isn't the Iraqis are the ones who are destroying their own country?"

C'mon.
 
2012-10-08 10:24:55 AM  

s2s2s2: Magruda: Wonderful justification.

Actually, it is. If my neighbor plans to take my house, and I end up winning his. That is 100% his problem.


That just makes you the bigger bully.
 
2012-10-08 10:30:05 AM  

madgonad: Magruda: Except the land grab that happend afterward.

Did you ever wonder how the United States was built from all that land occupied by native Americans?

/hint - it was mostly land grabs after hostilities

So they did it makes it ok?

Nope, but you don't get to criticize others for doing the exact same thing that made you powerful.


Wrong is wrong. Pointing fingers and saying "he did it too" is just childish.
 
2012-10-08 10:35:32 AM  
images.sodahead.com


How dare the author make sense. Quick, kill some more people and we'll blame Americans and the Jews.
 
2012-10-08 10:38:32 AM  

theteacher: This sentence is well said? "And, isn't the Iraqis are the ones who are destroying their own country?"

C'mon.


I have this crazy feeling that English isn't his first language, since it's on an Arab news site.....
 
xcv
2012-10-08 10:39:51 AM  
Was this article also published in Arabic?
 
2012-10-08 10:44:04 AM  
I love how this guys pens a thoughtful and thought-provoking column that even translated into English gets people talking, and still the pedants on Fark have to waste their time picking apart the grammar flubs and translational errors.

theteacher: This sentence is well said? "And, isn't the Iraqis are the ones who are destroying their own country?"


Notice your poor use of grammar as well. Teacher: educate thyself.
 
2012-10-08 10:45:41 AM  

LL316: But Saddam and Osama would still be alive. Money well spent.


Maybe, but who knows what an Arab Spring in Saddam's Iraq would have looked like. Arab Spring didn't work out so well for Gaddafi.
 
2012-10-08 10:48:49 AM  

Smoking GNU: FTA: Finally, if many of the Arab states are in such disarray, then what happened to the Arabs' sworn enemy (Israel)? Israel now has the most advanced research facilities, top universities and advanced infrastructure. Many Arabs don't know that the life expectancy of the Palestinians living in Israel is far longer than many Arab states and they enjoy far better political and social freedom than many of their Arab brothers. Even the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip enjoy more political and social rights than some places in the Arab World. Wasn't one of the judges who sent a former Israeli president to jail is an Israeli-Palestinian?

I did not know that.

/Also, truth is a very bitter pill to swallow, especially if you've been living with the lie for more than half a century.


It's easier to control your populace when you can present a believable-enough bogeyman.
 
2012-10-08 10:50:10 AM  

mauricecano: Alonjar: Why is it that Israel was given Jerusalem anyhow? Was it just a big middle finger from the catholic church in the power vacuum after WW2?

"Haha told you dirty arabs we'd take that shiat back one way or another!"

Had nothing to do with the catholic church and you might want to see a therapist if you see a catholic conspiracy everywhere.

But the reason Israel now has Jerusalem is because of the Palestinians and Arabs themselves. The initial Jewish boundary state of Israel was much smaller and Jerusalem was squarely in Palestine. However, the war of 1948 with the Arabs changed all that since the Israelis won and they decided to say "to the victors, spoils" and claimed virtually everything that is Israel today. Below is a good map showing the change in territory coverage from 1947-pre war to post-war and how Jerusalem became Israeli property.

[www.israpundit.com image 600x602]


What's with the word "Surrender" being written all over that map?
 
2012-10-08 10:50:29 AM  

give me doughnuts: Rashnu: Much of the history of the world is writ through conquest and displacement. Damned Romans, how did they not realize that it's self-evidently wrong and acknowledge that it's only fair that the world stays in complete geopolitical stasis. I'm still worried about the Tibet. Did we free it yet? Fait accompli is obviously the best way to take land in the modern era. Demographic warfare is the new battlefront I suppose. If you can't outfight 'em, outbreed 'em (at some point in the nearish future we'll realize that expanding populations beyond replacement rates is an equally immoral form of resource theft).

Follow the "Featherston Doctrine" of excess population reduction.


Wait, did you just 'alternate timeline' Godwin me? Though there is actually a real Jake Featherston of the 19th century who, in respect to policy towards New Zealand's Maoris, advocated a policy of "wait" rather than conquest to obtain Maori lands. Temporizing and delaying he saw could only be a benefit in "dealing with a race that is continually decreasing on behalf of a race that is continually increasing. It is easier to grow into the undisturbed sovereignty of New Zealand than to conquer it." Something the Palestinians and La Raza crowd could keep in mind if they're feeling patient. Though I assume whitey ain't goin' out like that and will go all Republic of Gilead style.
 
2012-10-08 10:52:35 AM  

Magruda: s2s2s2: Magruda: Wonderful justification.

Actually, it is. If my neighbor plans to take my house, and I end up winning his. That is 100% his problem.

That just makes you the bigger bully.


That's a pretty stupid thing to say. "Hey kids, if you end up getting the better of your aggressors, fnck you for being worse than them!"

So you are voting republican, this year?
 
2012-10-08 10:54:34 AM  

s2s2s2: Magruda: s2s2s2: Magruda: Wonderful justification.

Actually, it is. If my neighbor plans to take my house, and I end up winning his. That is 100% his problem.

That just makes you the bigger bully.

That's a pretty stupid thing to say. "Hey kids, if you end up getting the better of your aggressors, fnck you for being worse than them!"

So you are voting republican, this year?


I will go on the record saying that the result of the Arab-Israeli War in 1948 is probably the single densest case of schadenfreude in recorded history.
 
2012-10-08 10:57:16 AM  

s2s2s2: Magruda: s2s2s2: Magruda: Wonderful justification.

Actually, it is. If my neighbor plans to take my house, and I end up winning his. That is 100% his problem.

That just makes you the bigger bully.

That's a pretty stupid thing to say. "Hey kids, if you end up getting the better of your aggressors, fnck you for being worse than them!"

So you are voting republican, this year?


A lot of conjecture there. Bonus, perceived aggression is not aggression.
 
2012-10-08 10:58:03 AM  

Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.


Why should they? Palestinians are more Jewish than Arab.

The dirty secret of the Middle East is that despite claims to the contrary, Palestinians are not Arab. They're Jewish converts to Islam. The story of the Jewish Diaspora in the 1st-2nd Centuries AD is only half-true; not all Jews were expelled. Some remained behind, and many had converted to Christianity by that time. When the armies of Islam marched in during the 7th Century AD, these quasi-Jewish/Christian Palestinians, wanting to get in good with their conquerors, started converting over to their religion.

Seriously, the whole Palestinian mess could be solved overnight if the Palestinians would convert back to the faith of their ancestors and re-adopt Judaism. The Israeli authorities could hardly discriminate against one of their own, now could they?
 
2012-10-08 11:01:07 AM  

give me doughnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: We were rapidly building up forces in the Philippines, including long range bombers which could strike at Japaneses bases in Formosa, which had been under Japanese sovereignty since 1895.

This build-up never really got past the planning stages. Alternative plans were also drawn up for a complete abandonment of the Phillipines.


No, you don't understand: East Good, West, especially Jews, Bad. It's interesting to see the argument that the Japanese "pre-emptive strike" against Pearl Harbor was justified because they were entitled to protect the land they had stolen in 1895. Somebody bring up the Rape of Nanking; I want to hear PFQ justify that.
 
2012-10-08 11:02:49 AM  
That article is, by far, the most anti-Zionist screed I have read in a long, long time.
 
2012-10-08 11:04:11 AM  

clambam: give me doughnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: We were rapidly building up forces in the Philippines, including long range bombers which could strike at Japaneses bases in Formosa, which had been under Japanese sovereignty since 1895.

This build-up never really got past the planning stages. Alternative plans were also drawn up for a complete abandonment of the Phillipines.

No, you don't understand: East Good, West, especially Jews, Bad. It's interesting to see the argument that the Japanese "pre-emptive strike" against Pearl Harbor was justified because they were entitled to protect the land they had stolen in 1895. Somebody bring up the Rape of Nanking; I want to hear PFQ justify that.


You are truly a moron. I have repeatedly said that all three examples of "pre-emptive" war gave are utter bullshiat and completely unjustified.
 
2012-10-08 11:04:35 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.



What about 2012 / 2013?
 
2012-10-08 11:07:01 AM  

clambam: give me doughnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: We were rapidly building up forces in the Philippines, including long range bombers which could strike at Japaneses bases in Formosa, which had been under Japanese sovereignty since 1895.

This build-up never really got past the planning stages. Alternative plans were also drawn up for a complete abandonment of the Phillipines.

No, you don't understand: East Good, West, especially Jews, Bad. It's interesting to see the argument that the Japanese "pre-emptive strike" against Pearl Harbor was justified because they were entitled to protect the land they had stolen in 1895. Somebody bring up the Rape of Nanking; I want to hear PFQ justify that.


you missed the point by a mile clambam. He is making a direct comparison between the claims of Japan in '41 to the claims of Israel in '67. He is not using them to justify anything, he is using it as an example of "This is unjust for the same reasons"
 
2012-10-08 11:12:43 AM  
⌘-F "Tatsuma"

no results.

meh.
 
2012-10-08 11:16:07 AM  

Mouser: Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.

Why should they? Palestinians are more Jewish Jordanian than Arab.

The dirty secret of the Middle East is that despite claims to the contrary, Palestinians are not Arab. They're Jewish converts to IslamJordanian. The story of the Jewish Diaspora in the 1st-2nd Centuries AD is only half-true; not all Jews were expelled. Some remained behind, and many had converted to Christianity by that time. When the armies of Islam marched in during the 7th Century AD, these quasi-Jewish/Christian Palestinians, wanting to get in good with their conquerors, started converting over to their religion.

Seriously, the whole Palestinian mess could be solved overnight if the Palestinians would convert back to the faith of their ancestors and re-adopt Judaism. The Israeli authorities could hardly discriminate against one of their own, now could they? go back to Jordan or leave islam

 
2012-10-08 11:19:08 AM  

Joe Blowme: Mouser: Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.

Why should they? Palestinians are more Jewish Jordanian than Arab.

The dirty secret of the Middle East is that despite claims to the contrary, Palestinians are not Arab. They're Jewish converts to IslamJordanian. The story of the Jewish Diaspora in the 1st-2nd Centuries AD is only half-true; not all Jews were expelled. Some remained behind, and many had converted to Christianity by that time. When the armies of Islam marched in during the 7th Century AD, these quasi-Jewish/Christian Palestinians, wanting to get in good with their conquerors, started converting over to their religion.

Seriously, the whole Palestinian mess could be solved overnight if the Palestinians would convert back to the faith of their ancestors and re-adopt Judaism. The Israeli authorities could hardly discriminate against one of their own, now could they? go back to Jordan or leave islam


That's the other dirty secret of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Arab nations don't want the Palestinians.
 
2012-10-08 11:20:33 AM  

give me doughnuts: Joe Blowme: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.

Instead we gave 39+million people a chance at freedom and self determination Why do you hate brown people?

So you think the only way Iraq and Afghanistan could have freed themselves from tyrannical governments and directed the course of their countries' future was by begging white people for help?

You racist.


Thousands of years of history tells us they cannot free themselves from a tyrannical government. Of coarse it also tells us that they will immediately install another tyrannical government at their earliest opportunity.
 
2012-10-08 11:27:22 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You are truly a moron. I have repeatedly said that all three examples of "pre-emptive" war gave are utter bullshiat and completely unjustified.


Reduced to ad homninem attack. You lose, I win.

Wicked Chinchilla: you missed the point by a mile clambam. He is making a direct comparison between the claims of Japan in '41 to the claims of Israel in '67. He is not using them to justify anything, he is using it as an example of "This is unjust for the same reasons"


Israel did not pre-emptively attack the Arabs in 1967 to grab territory. Israel pre-emptively attacked the Arabs to prevent the Arab attack that was blatantly in the works given the scope and location of their military build-up. As far as the '67 War being an excuse for territorial aggrandizement, um, does "the Sinai peninsula" ring a bell with you? You know, that enormous piece of territory, complete with actual oil deposits, that Israel willingly gave back to Egypt in return for a peace treaty? The West Bank and Gaza weren't conquered by Israel; they were abandoned by the Jordanians and Egyptians, who frankly were no more interested in dealing with the Palestinians than the Israelis are (the Jordanians are already 60% Palestinian, so the royal family probably gave a huge sigh of relief when they were able to shuck off a chunk of territory filled with extremist kooks).

Mouser: Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.

Why should they? Palestinians are more Jewish than Arab.

The dirty secret of the Middle East is that despite claims to the contrary, Palestinians are not Arab. They're Jewish converts to Islam. The story of the Jewish Diaspora in the 1st-2nd Centuries AD is only half-true; not all Jews were expelled. Some remained behind, and many had converted to Christianity by that time. When the armies of Islam marched in during the 7th Century AD, these quasi-Jewish/Christian Palestinians, wanting to get in good with their conquerors, started converting over to their religion.

Seriously, the whole Palestinian mess could be solved overnight if the Palestinians would convert back to the faith of their ancestors and re-adopt Judaism. The Israeli authorities could hardly discriminate against one of their own, now could they?


What the... I don't even...

Actually, while it is true that the Jews have maintained a small presence in Israel since the Diaspora and of course for 1800 years before that, the vast majority of the inhabitants of Palestine at the time of the Arab Conquest were Christians. Jews tend to cling to their religion no matter what, which is why there are still Jews... and why there aren't more of them. However, I totally agree with you. Were the Palestinians to convert en masse to Judaism the Israelis would have no choice but to accept them as citizens. You have to understand though, it's not a matter of "I want to be a Jew." There is a lot of study and reading involved, there's a test, and spelling counts. Generally it takes about two years to convert to Orthodox Judaism if you devote yourself to it full time. The Palestinians are of course welcome to undertake this onerous task, as is anyone else sincerely interested in converting. By comparison:

Two Jews are walking past a Catholic church with a sign outside: "Convert and Get a Thousand Dollars." One of the Jews says "I'm going to check it out." An hour later he comes back and his friend says "Well? Did you get the thousand dollars?" and the other one says "Is that all you people think about?"
 
2012-10-08 11:28:47 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: Joe Blowme: Mouser: Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.

Why should they? Palestinians are more Jewish Jordanian than Arab.

The dirty secret of the Middle East is that despite claims to the contrary, Palestinians are not Arab. They're Jewish converts to IslamJordanian. The story of the Jewish Diaspora in the 1st-2nd Centuries AD is only half-true; not all Jews were expelled. Some remained behind, and many had converted to Christianity by that time. When the armies of Islam marched in during the 7th Century AD, these quasi-Jewish/Christian Palestinians, wanting to get in good with their conquerors, started converting over to their religion.

Seriously, the whole Palestinian mess could be solved overnight if the Palestinians would convert back to the faith of their ancestors and re-adopt Judaism. The Israeli authorities could hardly discriminate against one of their own, now could they? go back to Jordan or leave islam

That's the other dirty secret of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Arab nations don't want the Palestinians.


Look at how the UN defines and treats refugees everywhere else (UNHCR), and then look at how they define and treat "Palestinian" refugees (UNRWA).
 
2012-10-08 11:29:54 AM  

Muta: So attitudes never change. The US is still at war with Canada over the invasion in 1812.


It's the incident with the pig back in 1859 that's the real motive for the ongoing strife. The US got distracted by some internal problems shortly after, but after we get the repercussions from that settled out, we'll be taking up the issue with Canada once more.
 
2012-10-08 11:48:15 AM  

Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.


"Palestinians" are their own people, abandoned by their home nations when those nations who went after Israel were crushed. They abandoned their own citizens and Israel had to establish refugee camps to try and handle this vast human disaster created by Arab adventures.

But then, most people know nothing of Yuri Andropov's sworn Cause. What he lived for every day.

From Pavel Stroilov's Behind Desert Storm to Yuri Andropv's Incandescent Hatred of Jews to the Mitrokhin Archives the real truth is Red Russia's bloody hands all over the Middle East with intrigues, assassinations, political corruption, propaganda piled upon propaganda saturating our American MSM and it's willing sycophants who tout the Party line. 

To defeat America Andropov like his predecessors and his antecedents in the new, sanitized version of Russian Evil chose a course of deploying the massive, intractable, easily stirred up and mostly illiterate Muslim mob to conduct a proxy war for Russia. Tie hatred of Jews to America as the Great Satan and let nature take it's course. Andropov had 4,000 agents in Egypt alone spewing propaganda and manipulating Muslim sentiments behind the lines.

Then there's Iran. And Syria, both client states. The tussle between the US and Russia over Turkey and Pakistan. Wherever you look the red hands of Russia are at work, or as Gorbachev said just this past week, the Arab Spring is the last act of our Cold War.

Or, we could just read Laura Logan's speech in Chicago Link October 07, 2012 

Meanwhile, me and my house say ...

i1.cpcache.com

It will always be Six Days, no matter what they try.
 
2012-10-08 11:49:47 AM  

Joe Blowme: FTA: "why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?"

Death cults tend to have that effect on people, yea islam!!!


Yeah, we have the same problem with our local death cult in the States.
 
2012-10-08 11:51:18 AM  

clambam: Philip Francis Queeg: You are truly a moron. I have repeatedly said that all three examples of "pre-emptive" war gave are utter bullshiat and completely unjustified.

Reduced to ad homninem attack. You lose, I win.


In that case you lost when when you began by claiming I hate Jews.
 
2012-10-08 11:51:24 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: LL316: Hero tag out banging your mom? The author has some giant balls to write this.

The hero tag is tired of this subject and went home.


Dad? Is that you?
 
2012-10-08 11:57:02 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: clambam: Philip Francis Queeg: You are truly a moron. I have repeatedly said that all three examples of "pre-emptive" war gave are utter bullshiat and completely unjustified.

Reduced to ad homninem attack. You lose, I win.

In that case you lost when when you began by claiming I hate Jews.




Welcome to the "dark side", PFQ.

Bwwwaahahahahahaha! 


/there is no escape
 
2012-10-08 12:06:21 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: clambam: Philip Francis Queeg: You are truly a moron. I have repeatedly said that all three examples of "pre-emptive" war gave are utter bullshiat and completely unjustified.

Reduced to ad homninem attack. You lose, I win.

In that case you lost when when you began by claiming I hate Jews.


Noo, because you do hate Jews. You called me a moron, which is obviously untrue. I called you an anti-semite, which is apparent with every word that comes out of your mouth.
 
2012-10-08 12:08:31 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Joe Blowme: FTA: "why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?"

Death cults tend to have that effect on people, yea islam!!!

Yeah, we have the same problem with our local death cult in the States.


HHAHAHA yea, thats why we are a retarded 3rd world country living like its the 7th century.
 
2012-10-08 12:09:28 PM  

abb3w: Muta: So attitudes never change. The US is still at war with Canada over the invasion in 1812.

It's the incident with the pig back in 1859 that's the real motive for the ongoing strife. The US got distracted by some internal problems shortly after, but after we get the repercussions from that settled out, we'll be taking up the issue with Canada once more.


Celine Dion was alive in 1859?
 
2012-10-08 12:20:53 PM  

clambam: Noo, because you do hate Jews.


This is a nasty and unfounded attack.

I've seen this guy PFQ call out real anti-Semites, many times. He's one of the good guys and they deserve to be praised, not libeled.
 
2012-10-08 12:21:40 PM  
san juan islands, something about a pig.
 
2012-10-08 12:31:45 PM  

Joe Blowme: HeartBurnKid: Joe Blowme: FTA: "why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?"

Death cults tend to have that effect on people, yea islam!!!

Yeah, we have the same problem with our local death cult in the States.

HHAHAHA yea, thats why we are a retarded 3rd world country living like its the 7th century.


Well, no, but we do spend a farkload more money on war than education, health care, or infrastructure. And it is the "conservative Christians" who are the impetus for that.
 
2012-10-08 12:34:13 PM  

pdee: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.

Or it could have been spent on something useful.


But The Evil _did_ say "hookers and blow"...
 
2012-10-08 12:35:40 PM  
Ok, lets see some real history. And not that white washed pile of crap that good little slaves of propaganda are taught by the Israel.

/Freedom shall be ours and our land shall be returned. 
//This message brought to you by the humanity fund.
 
2012-10-08 12:38:30 PM  

Wooly Bully: clambam: Noo, because you do hate Jews.

This is a nasty and unfounded attack.

I've seen this guy PFQ call out real anti-Semites, many times. He's one of the good guys and they deserve to be praised, not libeled.


Thank you kind Sir or Madam.
 
2012-10-08 12:41:54 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Wooly Bully: clambam: Noo, because you do hate Jews.

This is a nasty and unfounded attack.

I've seen this guy PFQ call out real anti-Semites, many times. He's one of the good guys and they deserve to be praised, not libeled.

Thank you kind Sir or Madam.



LOL!

He's probably talking about when you tell lies about me for brownie points, PFQ.

How's them apples?
 
2012-10-08 12:47:14 PM  
As with almost every major issue:

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Good Guy Greg calls peace summit with Alright Arab Abulateef? I guess.
 
2012-10-08 12:55:36 PM  

sheep snorter: Ok, lets see some real history. And not that white washed pile of crap that good little slaves of propaganda are taught by the Israel.

/Freedom shall be ours and our land shall be returned. 
//This message brought to you by the humanity fund.


Ah, the always authoritative Reddit thread.
 
2012-10-08 12:56:21 PM  
Is there a widely-accepted standard of closure in territorial disputes? I mean, not many people are suggesting the Normans give England back to the Anglo-Saxons. And Panama probably won't stop being an independent country anytime soon. But in other cases, reparations are being paid, and "who rightfully owns what" is still under discussion.

Do the big brains provide any consistent guidance on this one?
 
2012-10-08 01:07:54 PM  

Magruda: I had no idea the Palestinians were being treated so fairly by the Israelis, thank you sunny for helping me to see past the Arab lies.


Read up on the UN hdi.
 
2012-10-08 01:08:51 PM  
Why would Iraqi brains leave Iraq in a country that makes 110 billion dollars from oil export?


wat?
 
2012-10-08 01:12:31 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?


What they 'felt' would have been the exact same if Pearl harbor was on Japans border. But why I mix up facts with your Japanese propaganda.
 
2012-10-08 01:13:56 PM  

314/: Is there a widely-accepted standard of closure in territorial disputes? I mean, not many people are suggesting the Normans give England back to the Anglo-Saxons. And Panama probably won't stop being an independent country anytime soon. But in other cases, reparations are being paid, and "who rightfully owns what" is still under discussion.

Do the big brains provide any consistent guidance on this one?


The traditional methods are:

1. Wipe out the entire population that was there before you.
2. Assimilate the conquered group through inter-marriage with their women.
3. Hundreds of years of warfare and strife.
 
2012-10-08 01:22:23 PM  
Why would Iraqi brains leave Iraq in a country that makes 110 billion dollars from oil export?

Zombies.
 
2012-10-08 01:24:29 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: 314/: Is there a widely-accepted standard of closure in territorial disputes? I mean, not many people are suggesting the Normans give England back to the Anglo-Saxons. And Panama probably won't stop being an independent country anytime soon. But in other cases, reparations are being paid, and "who rightfully owns what" is still under discussion.

Do the big brains provide any consistent guidance on this one?

The traditional methods are:

1. Wipe out the entire population that was there before you.
2. Assimilate the conquered group through inter-marriage with their women.
3. Hundreds of years of warfare and strife.


I like number 2, that results in people getting laid.
 
2012-10-08 01:25:52 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

What they 'felt' would have been the exact same if Pearl harbor was on Japans border. But why I mix up facts with your Japanese propaganda.


Ahh look another moron who failed to notice that I condemned all three instances of "pre-emptive" war.
 
2012-10-08 01:31:58 PM  

Cast: Shouldn't there be an angry mob burning this guys house down about right now?


Or at least attacking an undefended US consulate.
 
2012-10-08 01:33:55 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

What they 'felt' would have been the exact same if Pearl harbor was on Japans border. But why I mix up facts with your Japanese propaganda.

Ahh look another moron who failed to notice that I condemned all three instances of "pre-emptive" war.


Don't bother, there is a reason why Liam76 is the sole inhabitant of my ignore list.
 
2012-10-08 01:36:47 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

What they 'felt' would have been the exact same if Pearl harbor was on Japans border. But why I mix up facts with your Japanese propaganda.

Ahh look another moron who failed to notice that I condemned all three instances of "pre-emptive" war.


I didn't say if you condemned it or not (but I have come to expect that level of dishonesty from you). I was just pointing out you are a moron for putting those in the same league. Doesn't matter if you buy Japan's justification, when you put it on the same level as amassing troops along their border you are supporting Japanese propaganda.
 
2012-10-08 01:39:42 PM  

Magruda: Don't bother, there is a reason why Liam76 is the sole inhabitant of my ignore list


The reason is because you made a stupid argument that states being "required to allow x", equals "forced x", and were too dishonest to admit you were wrong.
 
2012-10-08 01:45:14 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

What they 'felt' would have been the exact same if Pearl harbor was on Japans border. But why I mix up facts with your Japanese propaganda.

Ahh look another moron who failed to notice that I condemned all three instances of "pre-emptive" war.

I didn't say if you condemned it or not (but I have come to expect that level of dishonesty from you). I was just pointing out you are a moron for putting those in the same league. Doesn't matter if you buy Japan's justification, when you put it on the same level as amassing troops along their border you are supporting Japanese propaganda.


Tell us, would the presence of Israeli troops on their border be a justification for another nation to launch a pre-emptive war on Israel?
 
2012-10-08 01:46:20 PM  
Fatwa on this guy in 3.... 2.... 1..
 
2012-10-08 01:51:10 PM  

Joe Blowme: Mouser: Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.

Why should they? Palestinians are more Jewish Jordanian than Arab.

The dirty secret of the Middle East is that despite claims to the contrary, Palestinians are not Arab. They're Jewish converts to IslamJordanian. The story of the Jewish Diaspora in the 1st-2nd Centuries AD is only half-true; not all Jews were expelled. Some remained behind, and many had converted to Christianity by that time. When the armies of Islam marched in during the 7th Century AD, these quasi-Jewish/Christian Palestinians, wanting to get in good with their conquerors, started converting over to their religion.

Seriously, the whole Palestinian mess could be solved overnight if the Palestinians would convert back to the faith of their ancestors and re-adopt Judaism. The Israeli authorities could hardly discriminate against one of their own, now could they? go back to Jordan or leave islam


Go back to Jordan?

I'm guessing you aren't familiar with the phrase "Black September."
 
2012-10-08 01:53:23 PM  

liam76: What they 'felt' would have been the exact same if Pearl harbor was on Japans border.


IIRC from my wiki-ing a few weeks ago, the wiki and/or people in real life do make a distinction between pre-emptive and preventive war.

And basically say that preemptive war (6 day war by most accounts or by my account) is justifiable. Preventive war (strike on Pearl Harbor by most accounts or by my account) is not.

Not that Old Yellow-Stain would acknowledge there was any difference to the Six day war and Pearl Harbor.
 
2012-10-08 01:55:33 PM  
The Mullahs are so going to fatwa writers ass.
 
2012-10-08 01:58:18 PM  
There is a reason why land grabs as a spoil of war were stopped after WWII. Because it just leads to more conflict. I can think of no better example than the Palestine issue.
 
2012-10-08 01:58:31 PM  
You mean being a Fundie-Racist-Jackoff is actually bad for a country?
 
2012-10-08 02:37:27 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Joe Blowme: HeartBurnKid: Joe Blowme: FTA: "why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?"

Death cults tend to have that effect on people, yea islam!!!

Yeah, we have the same problem with our local death cult in the States.

HHAHAHA yea, thats why we are a retarded 3rd world country living like its the 7th century.

Well, no, but we do spend a farkload more money on war than education, health care, or infrastructure. And it is the "conservative Christians" who are the impetus for that.


You have to keep in mind that America was founded by a bunch of try-hards. It took amazing drive for both the founders and immigrants to cross the Atlantic seeking a better life. America is a culture of working hard to benefit yourself (all jokes aside).

These cultures arent like that... they're living the same way they always have because.. well.. its what they've always done. Im not trying to insult middle eastern peoples or paint with a wide brush, but this IS a significant factor.
 
2012-10-08 02:46:51 PM  

BarleyGnome: "So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are." - T.E. Lawrence


Turrists are destroying 'Murkia! And them Messicans are TAKING OUR JERBS!

/Sure, we're not as violent, but we ain't much better.
//And if you study history, you realize it's really a human problem.
///Ain't we humans grand?
 
2012-10-08 02:47:59 PM  
You know the best thing we could do is get all of Islam to convert in mass to Judaism. That would solve all their problems pretty much.

I wonder why no one has tried to convince them of that.
 
2012-10-08 02:49:39 PM  

Skraeling: Why would Iraqi brains leave Iraq in a country that makes 110 billion dollars from oil export?

wat?


Why would smart Iraqis leave Iraq when their country makes 110 billion dollars from oil export?
 
2012-10-08 02:55:43 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: Sooner or later, the oil money is going to run out. Once that happens they won't be able to sell enough rugs. 90% of all exports from Saudi Arabia are petroleum products.

For starters, I can't think of one university in the Arab would that I would want to attend.


www.marketplace.org
 
2012-10-08 03:12:42 PM  

PsiChick: BarleyGnome: "So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are." - T.E. Lawrence

Turrists are destroying 'Murkia! And them Messicans are TAKING OUR JERBS!

/Sure, we're not as violent, but we ain't much better. WTF does that even mean??
//And if you study history, you realize it's really a human problem.
///Ain't we humans grand?


Its an islam problem, and for you to support it or to justify it by denegrating your own country just shows how ignorant you are. "Aint much better" than a death cult? If you hate this country so much why are you still here? In islam you are property, here you have the right to say stupid things on fark with out wondering if you will lose your head. Come, join us in the real world.
 
2012-10-08 03:29:09 PM  

Joe Blowme: PsiChick: BarleyGnome: "So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are." - T.E. Lawrence

Turrists are destroying 'Murkia! And them Messicans are TAKING OUR JERBS!

/Sure, we're not as violent, but we ain't much better. WTF does that even mean??
//And if you study history, you realize it's really a human problem.
///Ain't we humans grand?

Its an islam problem, and for you to support it or to justify it by denegrating your own country just shows how ignorant you are. "Aint much better" than a death cult? If you hate this country so much why are you still here? In islam you are property, here you have the right to say stupid things on fark with out wondering if you will lose your head. Come, join us in the real world.


...Wow, this was hard to decipher. I think you're confusing the theocratic-based problems of the Arabic nations in question with the racist ones.

Now, in my post, I was not talking about the theocratic-based problems, such as rampant sexism and killing others based on religion. Those are a different topic, although you'll be interested I'm sure to note that, um, actually those are features of every theocracy, not just Islam. What I was actually discussing, however, was the human habit of, during economic difficulties, blaming a foreign enemy.

Louis XIV, the Sun King, blamed the Protestants when France started heading downhill due to his horrible policies. Germany, during World War II, blamed the Jewish people. In modern times, the Arab nations blame America\Israel, and America in turn blames the Arabs (under the moniker of 'terrorists') and Mexico.

That doesn't mean I support it, quite the opposite--I find it disgusting and shameful that we are so damned stupid we keep doing this. But calling it an Islamic or Arabic problem means you're trying to treat bronchitis when your patient is missing a limb. It's not just futile, it causes new problems that we'll spend decades solving.
 
2012-10-08 04:00:06 PM  
And basically say that preemptive war (6 day war by most accounts or by my account) is justifiable. Preventive war (strike on Pearl Harbor by most accounts or by my account) is not.


You're missing a slight detail here.

1967 was not a preemptive war.

In May, weeks beforehand, Egypt placed Israel's port of Eilat under a blockade.

That's an act of war. Ergo, Egypt had started the war weeks beforehand.

Egypt wanted a simmering war.

Israel decided on a boiling hot war.

Once you decide to make war, you don't get to set the terms under which the war will be fought.
 
2012-10-08 04:13:04 PM  
Both Israel and the Palestinians are equally bad, so let Palestinians blow up Israeli school children!
 
2012-10-08 04:19:18 PM  

ocschwar: You're missing a slight detail here.

1967 was not a preemptive war.

In May, weeks beforehand, Egypt placed Israel's port of Eilat under a blockade.

That's an act of war.


I think that's a reasonable position. But either the Six Day War was a justifiable reaction to Egypt's War, or a justifiable pre-emptive war, it was certainly not an unjustifiable preventive war like Pearl Harbor.

But convince Old Yellow-Stain of that.
 
2012-10-08 04:59:14 PM  

beta_plus: Both Israel and the Palestinians are equally bad, so let Palestinians blow up Israeli school children!


I'm pretty sure WAY more Palestinian children have been blown up in the past decade.
 
2012-10-08 06:17:12 PM  

LibertyHiller: Celine Dion was alive in 1859?


No, no; this was about an American pig.
 
2012-10-08 06:26:21 PM  

Magruda: I'm pretty sure WAY more Palestinian children have been blown up in the past decade.


This logic always astounds me. How dare Israel build fortified bomb shelters and sophisticated alarm systems in the towns and cities bombed by the palestinians! they should march the israelis to the street so they can die and even up the numbers. The palestinians do the opposite: march their children to be human shields for the courageous mujaheddin. This is propaganda gold, you see.
 
2012-10-08 06:39:55 PM  

TappingTheVein: Magruda: I'm pretty sure WAY more Palestinian children have been blown up in the past decade.

This logic always astounds me. How dare Israel build fortified bomb shelters and sophisticated alarm systems in the towns and cities bombed by the palestinians! they should march the israelis to the street so they can die and even up the numbers. The palestinians do the opposite: march their children to be human shields for the courageous mujaheddin. This is propaganda gold, you see.


Too bad the IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields as well. I guess neither side thinks Palestinian children's lives are worth very much, do they?
 
2012-10-08 06:46:04 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Too bad the IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields as well. I guess neither side thinks Palestinian children's lives are worth very much, do they?


If an israeli soldier does it there is an investigation and a trial and the israeli public like myself think he's a piece of shiat, the israeli court itself forbids it (nohal shachen). The palestinians do it as part of their training and warfare, it's their tactic. Do you understand the difference ?
 
2012-10-08 06:46:22 PM  

Magruda: s2s2s2: Magruda: s2s2s2: Magruda: Wonderful justification.

Actually, it is. If my neighbor plans to take my house, and I end up winning his. That is 100% his problem.

That just makes you the bigger bully.

That's a pretty stupid thing to say. "Hey kids, if you end up getting the better of your aggressors, fnck you for being worse than them!"

So you are voting republican, this year?

A lot of conjecture there. Bonus, perceived aggression is not aggression.


Then they shouldn't have put on aggressor airs so hard.
 
2012-10-08 06:52:48 PM  

Wicked Chinchilla: Joe Blowme: Mouser: Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.

Why should they? Palestinians are more Jewish Jordanian than Arab.

The dirty secret of the Middle East is that despite claims to the contrary, Palestinians are not Arab. They're Jewish converts to IslamJordanian. The story of the Jewish Diaspora in the 1st-2nd Centuries AD is only half-true; not all Jews were expelled. Some remained behind, and many had converted to Christianity by that time. When the armies of Islam marched in during the 7th Century AD, these quasi-Jewish/Christian Palestinians, wanting to get in good with their conquerors, started converting over to their religion.

Seriously, the whole Palestinian mess could be solved overnight if the Palestinians would convert back to the faith of their ancestors and re-adopt Judaism. The Israeli authorities could hardly discriminate against one of their own, now could they? go back to Jordan or leave islam

That's the other dirty secret of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Arab nations don't want the Palestinians.


Its not a secret, they are pretty clear
 
2012-10-08 07:02:24 PM  

TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: Too bad the IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields as well. I guess neither side thinks Palestinian children's lives are worth very much, do they?

If an israeli soldier does it there is an investigation and a trial and the israeli public like myself think he's a piece of shiat, the israeli court itself forbids it (nohal shachen). The palestinians do it as part of their training and warfare, it's their tactic. Do you understand the difference ?


So why do you guys use white phosphorus?
 
2012-10-08 07:07:43 PM  

Alonjar: HeartBurnKid: Joe Blowme: HeartBurnKid: Joe Blowme: FTA: "why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?"

Death cults tend to have that effect on people, yea islam!!!

Yeah, we have the same problem with our local death cult in the States.

HHAHAHA yea, thats why we are a retarded 3rd world country living like its the 7th century.

Well, no, but we do spend a farkload more money on war than education, health care, or infrastructure. And it is the "conservative Christians" who are the impetus for that.

You have to keep in mind that America was founded by a bunch of try-hards. It took amazing drive for both the founders and immigrants to cross the Atlantic seeking a better life. America is a culture of working hard to benefit yourself (all jokes aside).

These cultures arent like that... they're living the same way they always have because.. well.. its what they've always done. Im not trying to insult middle eastern peoples or paint with a wide brush, but this IS a significant factor.


I wouldn't say they've always been like that. After all, they're the ones who kept learning alive when Europe was going through its dark age.

My personal opinion is that there's really no intrinsic difference between the Middle East and us. What you see in the ME today is the result of giving political power to religious fundamentalists for long periods of time. Meanwhile, I'm seeing the beginnings of that practice right here, right now. If the "religious right" were to hold power for a few decades or so, I doubt we'd be much different from them.
 
2012-10-08 07:18:20 PM  

Girion47: So why do you guys use white phosphorus?


Not for the reasons the palestinians use white phosphorus.
 
2012-10-08 07:33:27 PM  

TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: Too bad the IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields as well. I guess neither side thinks Palestinian children's lives are worth very much, do they?

If an israeli soldier does it there is an investigation and a trial and the israeli public like myself think he's a piece of shiat, the israeli court itself forbids it (nohal shachen). The palestinians do it as part of their training and warfare, it's their tactic. Do you understand the difference ?


A trial at which they get slapped firmly on the wrist and are returned to duty.

The court ruling, which demoted two staff sergeants to the rank of sergeant and gave them suspended three-month sentences, sends a dangerous signal that the Israeli military justice system will not seriously sanction soldiers convicted for offenses that are war crimes under international law, Human Rights Watch said.

The military court ruling took into consideration the sergeants' records of good military service and "the difficult conditions in which [they] had to operate." Israeli media reports said that both soldiers, whose identities have not been made public, had completed their mandatory military service but will still be able to serve as commanders when called for reserve duty


This for ordering a 9 year old boy to open packages they thought contained explosives at gunpoint.

Oh but I'm sure you frowned disapprovingly when you read that.
 
2012-10-08 07:35:54 PM  

Mouser:
Why should they? Palestinians are more Jewish than Arab.
The dirty secret of the Middle East is that despite claims to the contrary, Palestinians are not Arab.


Don't the uhh... pigmentally-challenged Jews have a minority control of the country over the umm... more sunlight resistant Jews?
It's not apartheid levels, but it's not like the native people are the ones calling the shots.
 
2012-10-08 07:39:58 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

What they 'felt' would have been the exact same if Pearl harbor was on Japans border. But why I mix up facts with your Japanese propaganda.

Ahh look another moron who failed to notice that I condemned all three instances of "pre-emptive" war.

I didn't say if you condemned it or not (but I have come to expect that level of dishonesty from you). I was just pointing out you are a moron for putting those in the same league. Doesn't matter if you buy Japan's justification, when you put it on the same level as amassing troops along their border you are supporting Japanese propaganda.

Tell us, would the presence of Israeli troops on their border be a justification for another nation to launch a pre-emptive war on Israel?




It wasn't just the "presence" it was the unparalleled massing of troops by every surrounding nation.


Still having trouble seeing how it is absolutely nothing like what went on with Japan?
 
2012-10-08 07:48:46 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: Too bad the IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields as well. I guess neither side thinks Palestinian children's lives are worth very much, do they?

If an israeli soldier does it there is an investigation and a trial and the israeli public like myself think he's a piece of shiat, the israeli court itself forbids it (nohal shachen). The palestinians do it as part of their training and warfare, it's their tactic. Do you understand the difference ?

A trial at which they get slapped firmly on the wrist and are returned to duty.

The court ruling, which demoted two staff sergeants to the rank of sergeant and gave them suspended three-month sentences, sends a dangerous signal that the Israeli military justice system will not seriously sanction soldiers convicted for offenses that are war crimes under international law, Human Rights Watch said.

The military court ruling took into consideration the sergeants' records of good military service and "the difficult conditions in which [they] had to operate." Israeli media reports said that both soldiers, whose identities have not been made public, had completed their mandatory military service but will still be able to serve as commanders when called for reserve duty


This for ordering a 9 year old boy to open packages they thought contained explosives at gunpoint.

Oh but I'm sure you frowned disapprovingly when you read that.


Palestinians encourage stuff like that, Israel punishes it (but not to your satisfaction) and somehow that makes Israel the bad guy in the equation.
 
2012-10-08 08:05:18 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: Too bad the IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields as well. I guess neither side thinks Palestinian children's lives are worth very much, do they?

If an israeli soldier does it there is an investigation and a trial and the israeli public like myself think he's a piece of shiat, the israeli court itself forbids it (nohal shachen). The palestinians do it as part of their training and warfare, it's their tactic. Do you understand the difference ?

A trial at which they get slapped firmly on the wrist and are returned to duty.

The court ruling, which demoted two staff sergeants to the rank of sergeant and gave them suspended three-month sentences, sends a dangerous signal that the Israeli military justice system will not seriously sanction soldiers convicted for offenses that are war crimes under international law, Human Rights Watch said.

The military court ruling took into consideration the sergeants' records of good military service and "the difficult conditions in which [they] had to operate." Israeli media reports said that both soldiers, whose identities have not been made public, had completed their mandatory military service but will still be able to serve as commanders when called for reserve duty


This for ordering a 9 year old boy to open packages they thought contained explosives at gunpoint.

Oh but I'm sure you frowned disapprovingly when you read that.

Palestinians encourage stuff like that, Israel punishes it (but not to your satisfaction) and somehow that makes Israel the bad guy in the equation.


I condemn both sides acts. Do you? Do you condemn the actions and lack of punishment on this case?

I have yet to find an Israeli act which you have felt is worthy of the slightest criticism.
 
2012-10-08 08:09:37 PM  

Girion47: TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: Too bad the IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields as well. I guess neither side thinks Palestinian children's lives are worth very much, do they?

If an israeli soldier does it there is an investigation and a trial and the israeli public like myself think he's a piece of shiat, the israeli court itself forbids it (nohal shachen). The palestinians do it as part of their training and warfare, it's their tactic. Do you understand the difference ?

So why do you guys use white phosphorus?


Burn!!
 
2012-10-08 08:13:09 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I condemn both sides acts.


For all the times you cry about people seeing things in black and white you have a real hard time seeing any grey when it comes to Israel. We have a clear case of one side endorsing the use of human shields and the other actively trying to stop it, yet you pretend they are the same.



Philip Francis Queeg: Do you? Do you condemn the actions and lack of punishment on this case?

There was punishment, you may not agree with the level of punishment but don't lie about there not being one.

I don't agree with what they did, and I think their punishment should have been more severe.

Philip Francis Queeg: I have yet to find an Israeli act which you have felt is worthy of the slightest criticism


That is because you seem to rarely read what I actually write just pull BS positions out of your ass.
 
2012-10-08 08:13:24 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: Too bad the IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields as well. I guess neither side thinks Palestinian children's lives are worth very much, do they?

If an israeli soldier does it there is an investigation and a trial and the israeli public like myself think he's a piece of shiat, the israeli court itself forbids it (nohal shachen). The palestinians do it as part of their training and warfare, it's their tactic. Do you understand the difference ?

A trial at which they get slapped firmly on the wrist and are returned to duty.

The court ruling, which demoted two staff sergeants to the rank of sergeant and gave them suspended three-month sentences, sends a dangerous signal that the Israeli military justice system will not seriously sanction soldiers convicted for offenses that are war crimes under international law, Human Rights Watch said.

The military court ruling took into consideration the sergeants' records of good military service and "the difficult conditions in which [they] had to operate." Israeli media reports said that both soldiers, whose identities have not been made public, had completed their mandatory military service but will still be able to serve as commanders when called for reserve duty


This for ordering a 9 year old boy to open packages they thought contained explosives at gunpoint.

Oh but I'm sure you frowned disapprovingly when you read that.

Palestinians encourage stuff like that, Israel punishes it (but not to your satisfaction) and somehow that makes Israel the bad guy in the equation.

I condemn both sides acts. Do you? Do you condemn the actions and lack of punishment on this case?

I have yet to find an Israeli act which you have felt is worthy of the slightest criticism.


Your problem is that you are trying to reason with him. This is not something he responds too.
 
2012-10-08 08:17:11 PM  

Magruda: Your problem is that you are trying to reason with him. This is not something he responds too


Tell me again how a state allowing something means people are forced to do it.
 
2012-10-08 08:21:20 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: I condemn both sides acts.

For all the times you cry about people seeing things in black and white you have a real hard time seeing any grey when it comes to Israel. We have a clear case of one side endorsing the use of human shields and the other actively trying to stop it, yet you pretend they are the same.



Philip Francis Queeg: Do you? Do you condemn the actions and lack of punishment on this case?

There was punishment, you may not agree with the level of punishment but don't lie about there not being one.

I don't agree with what they did, and I think their punishment should have been more severe.

Philip Francis Queeg: I have yet to find an Israeli act which you have felt is worthy of the slightest criticism

That is because you seem to rarely read what I actually write just pull BS positions out of your ass.


I sense your deep outrage at this heinous war crime.

I bet that you were incensed at the Israel prior to 2005 when using Palestinian human shields was perfectly legal policy rather than the wink and a nudge practice it is now.
 
2012-10-08 08:30:35 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I sense your deep outrage at this heinous war crime.


I sense your indifference to much more egregious actions by Palestinians.



Philip Francis Queeg: I bet that you were incensed at the Israel prior to 2005 when using Palestinian human shields was perfectly legal policy rather than the wink and a nudge practice it is now


You are fine making shiat up about how I feel now, why not make up shiat from 7 years ago?
 
2012-10-08 08:32:26 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I have yet to find an Israeli act which you have felt is worthy of the slightest criticism.


Oddly, I am hopeful you can point me to numerous Israeli acts that here at FARK you have agreed with and complimented.
 
2012-10-08 08:37:19 PM  

RoyBatty: Philip Francis Queeg: I have yet to find an Israeli act which you have felt is worthy of the slightest criticism.

Oddly, I am hopeful you can point me to numerous Israeli acts that here at FARK you have agreed with and complimented.


Personally I agree with their peace activists. Much like in the USA they tend to be marginalized.
 
2012-10-08 08:39:57 PM  

Magruda: RoyBatty: Philip Francis Queeg: I have yet to find an Israeli act which you have felt is worthy of the slightest criticism.

Oddly, I am hopeful you can point me to numerous Israeli acts that here at FARK you have agreed with and complimented.

Personally I agree with their peace activists. Much like in the USA they tend to be marginalized.


That's fantastic. Terrific even. Can you show me any times when you have agreed with their government and mentioned it here?
 
2012-10-08 08:42:57 PM  

RoyBatty: Magruda: RoyBatty: Philip Francis Queeg: I have yet to find an Israeli act which you have felt is worthy of the slightest criticism.

Oddly, I am hopeful you can point me to numerous Israeli acts that here at FARK you have agreed with and complimented.

Personally I agree with their peace activists. Much like in the USA they tend to be marginalized.

That's fantastic. Terrific even. Can you show me any times when you have agreed with their government and mentioned it here?


Not really, but I can't do the same for the USA, so I guess it evens out.
 
2012-10-08 08:45:10 PM  

RoyBatty: Magruda: RoyBatty: Philip Francis Queeg: I have yet to find an Israeli act which you have felt is worthy of the slightest criticism.

Oddly, I am hopeful you can point me to numerous Israeli acts that here at FARK you have agreed with and complimented.

Personally I agree with their peace activists. Much like in the USA they tend to be marginalized.

That's fantastic. Terrific even. Can you show me any times when you have agreed with their government and mentioned it here?


Oh wait, there was that one time they released that political prisoner who was on hunger strike before he died, that was nice of them.
 
2012-10-08 08:47:13 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: I sense your deep outrage at this heinous war crime.

I sense your indifference to much more egregious actions by Palestinians.



Philip Francis Queeg: I bet that you were incensed at the Israel prior to 2005 when using Palestinian human shields was perfectly legal policy rather than the wink and a nudge practice it is now

You are fine making shiat up about how I feel now, why not make up shiat from 7 years ago?


I apologize for stating that you were incensed at policy of using Palestinian civilians including children by the IDF.

In the future I will be clear that you are only incensed by such actions when they are done by groups other than the IDF.
 
2012-10-08 08:49:37 PM  

RoyBatty: Philip Francis Queeg: I have yet to find an Israeli act which you have felt is worthy of the slightest criticism.

Oddly, I am hopeful you can point me to numerous Israeli acts that here at FARK you have agreed with and complimented.


I support their policy of universal health care.
 
2012-10-08 08:54:27 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: RoyBatty: Philip Francis Queeg: I have yet to find an Israeli act which you have felt is worthy of the slightest criticism.

Oddly, I am hopeful you can point me to numerous Israeli acts that here at FARK you have agreed with and complimented.

I support their policy of universal health care.


Right so by this basic admission of yours that you disagree with Israel at every turn, you are hardly in position to complain that liam76 never criticizes Israel at all so somehow you are more nuanced and less a partisan hack.

(And after all, liam76 here has criticized the government of Israel.)
 
2012-10-08 08:57:47 PM  

RoyBatty: Philip Francis Queeg: RoyBatty: Philip Francis Queeg: I have yet to find an Israeli act which you have felt is worthy of the slightest criticism.

Oddly, I am hopeful you can point me to numerous Israeli acts that here at FARK you have agreed with and complimented.

I support their policy of universal health care.

Right so by this basic admission of yours that you disagree with Israel at every turn, you are hardly in position to complain that liam76 never criticizes Israel at all so somehow you are more nuanced and less a partisan hack.

(And after all, liam76 here has criticized the government of Israel.)


Oh that's not the only item I support. I certainly support the camp David accords. I support their withdrawal from southern Lebanon. I support many of their progressive domestic institutions.

What Israeli policies Do you support and condemn?
 
2012-10-08 09:07:57 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I certainly support the camp David accords


Do you support a two state solution?

Philip Francis Queeg: What Israeli policies Do you support and condemn?


I am not usually one of the big participants here, so my views are pretty valueless. I tend to say nothing except express BS at the clearest amounts of BS, and other than that I read and learn a lot about history that I can't figure out how I never learned before.

I live in the southwest US and have never been to Israel. My research into the issues is such that I find the Israelis much more trustworthy and working for peace than any of the other constituents.

So I usually keep my mouth shut since I don't have clear enemies that want to kill me and my kids living 10 - 20 miles away and give a great leeway to the Israelis and what they say since they do.

But I've always thought continued expansion of the settlements was stupid.

Like most good liberals I was against the wall when it was being built, but since it seems to have worked, well, shiat, maybe I was wrong.

I dislike the human rights abuses when they are discovered and hate the slap on the wrists they are sometimes given.

But I truly dislike the bullshiat that I often hear here that Israel is to blame for all of this.

The basic truth I know and support is that if Israel put down her arms Tuesday, by Wednesday there would be no Israel. And if Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran and everyone else put down their arms tonight, peace would break out by tomorrow morning.
 
2012-10-08 09:14:18 PM  

RoyBatty: Philip Francis Queeg: I certainly support the camp David accords

Do you support a two state solution?

Philip Francis Queeg: What Israeli policies Do you support and condemn?

I am not usually one of the big participants here, so my views are pretty valueless. I tend to say nothing except express BS at the clearest amounts of BS, and other than that I read and learn a lot about history that I can't figure out how I never learned before.

I live in the southwest US and have never been to Israel. My research into the issues is such that I find the Israelis much more trustworthy and working for peace than any of the other constituents.

So I usually keep my mouth shut since I don't have clear enemies that want to kill me and my kids living 10 - 20 miles away and give a great leeway to the Israelis and what they say since they do.

But I've always thought continued expansion of the settlements was stupid.

Like most good liberals I was against the wall when it was being built, but since it seems to have worked, well, shiat, maybe I was wrong.

I dislike the human rights abuses when they are discovered and hate the slap on the wrists they are sometimes given.

But I truly dislike the bullshiat that I often hear here that Israel is to blame for all of this.

The basic truth I know and support is that if Israel put down her arms Tuesday, by Wednesday there would be no Israel. And if Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran and everyone else put down their arms tonight, peace would break out by tomorrow morning.


I think a two state solution is the only viable option at this point.

However the roots of this conflict lie in the decision to try an split the land into two non-viable, non-contiguous states in 1947. This same mistake was made in India and Pakistan at the same time, with results nearly as tragic.

That however is all water under the bridge. There is no going back. We must simply wait for the day when both sides are willing to make hard sacrifices to have peace.
 
2012-10-08 09:15:51 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I think a two state solution is the only viable option at this point.

However the roots of this conflict lie in the decision to try an split the land into two non-viable, non-contiguous states in 1947. This same mistake was made in India and Pakistan at the same time, with results nearly as tragic.

That however is all water under the bridge. There is no going back. We must simply wait for the day when both sides are willing to make hard sacrifices to have peace.


I can certainly agree with this, thank you.
 
2012-10-08 09:29:31 PM  
When I was in Jr. High and High School I wondered how there could be 30 Year Wars or 100 Year Wars or even why people still disliked Germany because WWII ended 30 years earlier during the black and white days.

And now, well, fark me, it's amazing to me how we are still fighting the leftovers of WWII and earlier.
 
2012-10-08 09:53:50 PM  
Hey, guys. God doesn't give a shiat about that patch of sand, scorpions, and camels. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you'll stop killing each other.

/the only thing more vast than the universe is the hubris and arrogance of man
 
2012-10-08 10:52:29 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, guys. God doesn't give a shiat about that patch of sand, scorpions, and camels. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you'll stop killing each other.

/the only thing more vast than the universe is the hubris and arrogance of man


Now now, their god is very real, his name is money and power, you'd better show some respect.
 
2012-10-09 02:03:34 AM  

Amos Quito: Philip Francis Queeg: Wooly Bully: clambam: Noo, because you do hate Jews.

This is a nasty and unfounded attack.

I've seen this guy PFQ call out real anti-Semites, many times. He's one of the good guys and they deserve to be praised, not libeled.

Thank you kind Sir or Madam.


LOL!

He's probably talking about when you tell lies about me for brownie points, PFQ.

How's them apples?


weknowmemes.com
 
2012-10-09 02:38:06 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: A trial at which they get slapped firmly on the wrist and are returned to duty.


So you don't understand the difference. Big surprise there i can tell you.
How many such incidents took place since then ? and for the palestinians it's a warfare tactic, used specifically for a reason.
 
2012-10-09 07:03:34 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I apologize for stating that you were incensed at policy of using Palestinian civilians including children by the IDF.


So now you are pretending you don't understand sarcasm?


Philip Francis Queeg: In the future I will be clear that you are only incensed by such actions when they are done by groups other than the IDF


No. I am incensed by such actions when anyone does it, however I recognize it is worse when people do it to their own people, when the people make it standard procedure, and when there is no punishment. Distinctions you refuse to recognize because you like things to be black and white whenever you try and demonize Israel.
 
2012-10-09 07:17:51 AM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: I apologize for stating that you were incensed at policy of using Palestinian civilians including children by the IDF.

So now you are pretending you don't understand sarcasm?


Philip Francis Queeg: In the future I will be clear that you are only incensed by such actions when they are done by groups other than the IDF

No. I am incensed by such actions when anyone does it, however I recognize it is worse when people do it to their own people, when the people make it standard procedure, and when there is no punishment. Distinctions you refuse to recognize because you like things to be black and white whenever you try and demonize Israel.Vi/>

So in your amazing sliding scale of morality t's more evil to use a child as a human shiled when they are of your own demographic or geopolitical group? That's just amazing. Is an American murdering a Mexican child less evil, then if they murder an American child?

Congratulations. You have succinctly expressed the type of ultra-nationalism that leads to atrocities.

 
2012-10-09 08:00:34 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: I apologize for stating that you were incensed at policy of using Palestinian civilians including children by the IDF.

So now you are pretending you don't understand sarcasm?


Philip Francis Queeg: In the future I will be clear that you are only incensed by such actions when they are done by groups other than the IDF

No. I am incensed by such actions when anyone does it, however I recognize it is worse when people do it to their own people, when the people make it standard procedure, and when there is no punishment. Distinctions you refuse to recognize because you like things to be black and white whenever you try and demonize Israel.Vi/>



Nice to see you gloss over those points, again.



So in your amazing sliding scale of morality t's more evil to use a child as a human shiled when they are of your own demographic or geopolitical group?

How the fark is that a "sliding scale" I am not putting a different moral "penalty" based on who is doing it.


That's just amazing. Is an American murdering a Mexican child less evil, then if they murder an American child?

We aren't talking about "murder" in a vaccuum. We are talking about war and the tactics a group will tolerate or endorse. An individual murder doesn't become more or less "evil" based on nationality, and I never said that (once again you never fail to let truth get in the way of your made up arguments). It a society or group decides they are A-ok using their kids as human shields I find that far more repulsive than a group saying they will use their enemies children as human shields. I am sure you are going to chirp back with soem BS about the two actions being the same, and once again display your ignorance of what goes on in war and your inability to see anything other than black and white when it comes to demonizing Israel.


Congratulations. You have succinctly expressed the type of ultra-nationalism that leads to atrocities.

Using your enemies children as human shields is terrible, using your own children is worse, yeah that totally leads to atrocities. I would say what leads to atrocities is people who care less for their kids then their enemies do (looking at you palestine).
 
2012-10-09 08:48:40 AM  

liam76: No. I am incensed by such actions when anyone does it, however I recognize it is worse when people do it to their own people, when the people make it standard procedure, and when there is no punishment. Distinctions you refuse to recognize because you like things to be black and white whenever you try and demonize Israel.Vi/>


Nice to see you gloss over those points, again.


Yes, I did gloss over your dishonesty. Prior to 2005 the use of Palestinians civilians as human shields was standard procedure for the IDF and bore no punishment. The IDF fought making the use of human shields illegal. You didn't acknowledge that and I gave you a pass. If it makes it feel better I will say that you are living up to your reputation for obvious intellectual dishonesty.

liam76: Using your enemies children as human shields is terrible, using your own children is worse, yeah that totally leads to atrocities. I would say what leads to atrocities is people who care less for their kids then their enemies do (looking at you palestine).


Yes, yes it does lead to atrocities. Valuing the life off an innocent child differently based on whether they are part of your nationality is simply monstrous. But that's hardly surprising from a well known ultra-nationalist like you. What's even more tragic is that you cannot even comprehend that there is the slightest thing wrong with your barbaric values.
 
2012-10-09 09:40:43 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, I did gloss over your dishonesty. Prior to 2005 the use of Palestinians civilians as human shields was standard procedure

Standard procedure? So military institutions in Israel normally had palestenian kids hanging around as a deterent?

What am I supposed to acknowledge? I said I disagreed with allowing it, and with the relatively light punishment.

The only one being dishonest here is you (you ignore what I write, and you ignore any steps Israel has taken to stop the practice and pretend they are the same).

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, yes it does lead to atrocities. Valuing the life off an innocent child differently based on whether they are part of your nationality is simply monstrous.

You either go to war to defend your people or kill the other people. If you are willing to risk your kids in that war then you aren't going to war to defend your people. That hurts any legit justification you can have for war.

If every country valued children equally why don't first world nation have welfare and food programs for third worls countries at the same level as they do for their own children? Are you for the US spending just as much on the feeding and education of children in Syria as we do in the US? If not you are as "monstrous" as I am.


Philip Francis Queeg: What's even more tragic is that you cannot even comprehend that there is the slightest thing wrong with your barbaric values

There are the values of your and every other country on the planet. Acknowledging it doesn't make me "unltra nationalistic", and all your refusal to recognize it is show how insanely ignorant or dishonest you are.


Philip Francis Queeg: But that's hardly surprising from a well known ultra-nationalist like you.

Haha, ok.

 
2012-10-09 10:06:45 AM  

liam76: Standard procedure? So military institutions in Israel normally had palestenian kids hanging around as a deterent?


Yes, it was standard procedure of your heroes in the IDF.

The Israeli Defence Ministry will appeal against a supreme court ruling banning the use of Palestinian human shields in raids, officials said. Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz is prepared to make a personal appearance in court to defend the practice, ministry officials added. Human rights groups have frequently condemned the use of human shields.

The Israeli military believes that the use of Palestinian civilians can often defuse a tense situation.


liam76: You either go to war to defend your people or kill the other people. If you are willing to risk your kids in that war then you aren't going to war to defend your people. That hurts any legit justification you can have for war.


We certainly couldn't have attitudes that hurt justifying war can we? Seriously, do you see how utterly barbaric you are?

liam76: If every country valued children equally why don't first world nation have welfare and food programs for third worls countries at the same level as they do for their own children? Are you for the US spending just as much on the feeding and education of children in Syria as we do in the US? If not you are as "monstrous" as I am.


A starving Syrian child is every bit as much a tragedy as a starving American child. My compassion for children is not bounded by national borders as yours is. And yes, the fact that we as humans allow national borders to limit our aid and compassion for those in need is truly barbaric. Nationalism is tribalism raised to an obscene scale. The pernicious and deadly effects of nationalism are to be fought, not embraced as you do.

It is sad and tragic that you would allow a piece of cloth and an imaginary line determine how you would treat an innocent child.
 
2012-10-09 10:31:26 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Standard procedure? So military institutions in Israel normally had palestenian kids hanging around as a deterent?

Yes, it was standard procedure of your heroes in the IDF.

The Israeli Defence Ministry will appeal against a supreme court ruling banning the use of Palestinian human shields in raids, officials said. Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz is prepared to make a personal appearance in court to defend the practice, ministry officials added. Human rights groups have frequently condemned the use of human shields.

The Israeli military believes that the use of Palestinian civilians can often defuse a tense situation.


Saying it can often difuse a tense situation = std procedure? Standard procedure to me would be making it the rule that when you go into hostile territories you have children as shields.

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: You either go to war to defend your people or kill the other people. If you are willing to risk your kids in that war then you aren't going to war to defend your people. That hurts any legit justification you can have for war.

We certainly couldn't have attitudes that hurt justifying war can we? Seriously, do you see how utterly barbaric you are?


I didn't say we can't have those attitudes, just pointing out (and you have just agreed) that Palestenian justification for attacking Israel isn't supported by their actions.

Philip Francis Queeg: A starving Syrian child is every bit as much a tragedy as a starving American child. My compassion for children is not bounded by national borders as yours is. And yes, the fact that we as humans allow national borders to limit our aid and compassion for those in need is truly barbaric. Nationalism is tribalism raised to an obscene scale.


Maybe personally, but the actions of your govt say otherwise. And what are talking about are judging the actions of a govt (or group).


Philip Francis Queeg: The pernicious and deadly effects of nationalism are to be fought, not embraced as you do.


From the guy with the double standards on Israel and Palestine (you think since Israel doesn't punish the use of human shields enough they are on the same page as Paelstenians who don't punish them at all) that is rich.


Philip Francis Queeg: It is sad and tragic that you would allow a piece of cloth and an imaginary line determine how you would treat an innocent child


I guess I missed the point where I was elected god emperor of the world. Because last I checked those are decisions every country makes and none give equal support to all children of the world.
 
2012-10-09 10:40:58 AM  

liam76: Maybe personally, but the actions of your govt say otherwise. And what are talking about are judging the actions of a govt (or group).


I condemn those actions. You embrace and justify them.

liam76: From the guy with the double standards on Israel and Palestine (you think since Israel doesn't punish the use of human shields enough they are on the same page as Paelstenians who don't punish them at all) that is rich.


Yes I soundly condemn both actions. I hold any use of human shield in abject and complete contempt. I will not justify the use of that tactic by either side or moderate my condemnation of them. Guilty as charged.

liam76: I guess I missed the point where I was elected god emperor of the world. Because last I checked those are decisions every country makes and none give equal support to all children of the world


Decisions you defend and embrace. Decisions that you justify. Do you deny that you willingly allow a piece of cloth and an imaginary line determine how you would treat an innocent child?
 
2012-10-09 10:57:13 AM  
http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/
 
2012-10-09 11:03:25 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes I soundly condemn both actions. I hold any use of human shield in abject and complete contempt. I will not justify the use of that tactic by either side or moderate my condemnation of them. Guilty as charged.


The both actions here are opne in which Israel punishes peopel for doing it and when where it is encouraged. For you to continually pretend they are the same show you have a clear double standard. Which is nothing new to me, just particularly funny given your current rant.


Philip Francis Queeg: Decisions you defend and embrace. Decisions that you justify. Do you deny that you willingly allow a piece of cloth and an imaginary line determine how you would treat an innocent child


Yes I deny it.

Jesus you are farking childish.

Very high and mighty childish and naive of you to say it is a "piece of cloth and an imaginary line". Those lines and bits of cloth aren't just imaginary or "bits of cloth" when people believe in them.

Your rants about all kids being equal are empty slogans. Even if everyone int he US thought the same as you it wouldn't make a bit of difference to those kids in Syria unless we were willing to put boots ont he ground and kill people (some of them would be children). Would you do that?
 
2012-10-09 11:20:51 AM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes I soundly condemn both actions. I hold any use of human shield in abject and complete contempt. I will not justify the use of that tactic by either side or moderate my condemnation of them. Guilty as charged.

The both actions here are opne in which Israel punishes peopel for doing it and when where it is encouraged. For you to continually pretend they are the same show you have a clear double standard. Which is nothing new to me, just particularly funny given your current rant.


Philip Francis Queeg: Decisions you defend and embrace. Decisions that you justify. Do you deny that you willingly allow a piece of cloth and an imaginary line determine how you would treat an innocent child

Yes I deny it.

Jesus you are farking childish.

Very high and mighty childish and naive of you to say it is a "piece of cloth and an imaginary line". Those lines and bits of cloth aren't just imaginary or "bits of cloth" when people believe in them.

Your rants about all kids being equal are empty slogans. Even if everyone int he US thought the same as you it wouldn't make a bit of difference to those kids in Syria unless we were willing to put boots ont he ground and kill people (some of them would be children). Would you do that?


Yes, people do share your ultra-nationalism, no doubt. They like you believe that harming a child is acceptable if that child does not live on the same side of the line you do.They, like you, believe that sacred piece of cloth justifies heinous acts. They, like you, willingly surrender their human decency to the tribe.

If everyone believed as I do there would be no need to put boots on the ground to protect those children. They would not be being harmed to protect a tribe, a line, a piece of rotting, tattered, cloth.They wouldn't be "kids in Syria", they would simply be "kids" no different than any other child on the planet.

Am I naive and childish because I recognize the tremendous damage that the nationalism you embrace so fervently does to the world? Perhaps. However I'd rather be a child then be the barbaric ultra-nationalist you are.
 
2012-10-09 11:26:08 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: clambam: Philip Francis Queeg: You are truly a moron. I have repeatedly said that all three examples of "pre-emptive" war gave are utter bullshiat and completely unjustified.

Reduced to ad homninem attack. You lose, I win.

In that case you lost when when you began by claiming I hate Jews.


That was pre-emptive.

/this is snark
 
2012-10-09 12:17:07 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: It is sad and tragic that you would allow a piece of cloth and an imaginary line determine how you would treat an innocent child.


This sort of intentional misrepresentation of other people's views is why you are in yellow and labeled as old yellow stain.
 
2012-10-09 12:24:52 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, people do share your ultra-nationalism, no doubt. They like you believe that harming a child is acceptable if that child does not live on the same side of the line you do.They, like you, believe that sacred piece of cloth justifies heinous acts. They, like you, willingly surrender their human decency to the tribe.


So once again you are reduced to outright lying.

Saying X is worse than Y doesn't mean you are fine with Y. Only a liar would continue to pretend that is what it means.

Philip Francis Queeg: If everyone believed as I do there would be no need to put boots on the ground to protect those children. They would not be being harmed to protect a tribe, a line, a piece of rotting, tattered, cloth.They wouldn't be "kids in Syria", they would simply be "kids" no different than any other child on the planet.


Pretty easy to spout your BS all kids are sacred line when you don't have the balls to say what you would do to help them.

If we lived in yoru dreamworld then your feelings may matter, but the fact is your feelings do absolutley nothing for those kids, but don't lett hat stop your from feeling high and mighty over doing nothing.


Philip Francis Queeg: Am I naive and childish because I recognize the tremendous damage that the nationalism you embrace so fervently does to the world? Perhaps.


You are naive and childish (not to mention dishonest) because you cry about the influence of "bits of cloth and imaginary lines" then turn around nad have double standards based on those lines and bits of cloth.
 
2012-10-09 12:25:07 PM  

RoyBatty: Philip Francis Queeg: It is sad and tragic that you would allow a piece of cloth and an imaginary line determine how you would treat an innocent child.

This sort of intentional misrepresentation of other people's views is why you are in yellow and labeled as old yellow stain.


Huh, and I thought it was because you were familiar with 20th Century American literature.
 
2012-10-09 12:33:50 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, people do share your ultra-nationalism, no doubt. They like you believe that harming a child is acceptable if that child does not live on the same side of the line you do.They, like you, believe that sacred piece of cloth justifies heinous acts. They, like you, willingly surrender their human decency to the tribe.

So once again you are reduced to outright lying.

Saying X is worse than Y doesn't mean you are fine with Y. Only a liar would continue to pretend that is what it means.

Philip Francis Queeg: If everyone believed as I do there would be no need to put boots on the ground to protect those children. They would not be being harmed to protect a tribe, a line, a piece of rotting, tattered, cloth.They wouldn't be "kids in Syria", they would simply be "kids" no different than any other child on the planet.

Pretty easy to spout your BS all kids are sacred line when you don't have the balls to say what you would do to help them.

If we lived in yoru dreamworld then your feelings may matter, but the fact is your feelings do absolutley nothing for those kids, but don't lett hat stop your from feeling high and mighty over doing nothing.


Philip Francis Queeg: Am I naive and childish because I recognize the tremendous damage that the nationalism you embrace so fervently does to the world? Perhaps.

You are naive and childish (not to mention dishonest) because you cry about the influence of "bits of cloth and imaginary lines" then turn around nad have double standards based on those lines and bits of cloth.


Only a person of your monumental levels of intellectual dishonesty could claim a condemnation of the use of civilians as human shields in all cases is a double standard. Lines and bits of cloth regardless, it is a heinous and unforgivable act.
 
2012-10-09 12:38:06 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.

"Palestinians" are their own people, abandoned by their home nations when those nations who went after Israel were crushed. They abandoned their own citizens and Israel had to establish refugee camps to try and handle this vast human disaster created by Arab adventures.

But then, most people know nothing of Yuri Andropov's sworn Cause. What he lived for every day.

From Pavel Stroilov's Behind Desert Storm to Yuri Andropv's Incandescent Hatred of Jews to the Mitrokhin Archives the real truth is Red Russia's bloody hands all over the Middle East with intrigues, assassinations, political corruption, propaganda piled upon propaganda saturating our American MSM and it's willing sycophants who tout the Party line. 

To defeat America Andropov like his predecessors and his antecedents in the new, sanitized version of Russian Evil chose a course of deploying the massive, intractable, easily stirred up and mostly illiterate Muslim mob to conduct a proxy war for Russia. Tie hatred of Jews to America as the Great Satan and let nature take it's course. Andropov had 4,000 agents in Egypt alone spewing propaganda and manipulating Muslim sentiments behind the lines.

Then there's Iran. And Syria, both client states. The tussle between the US and Russia over Turkey and Pakistan. Wherever you look the red hands of Russia are at work, or as Gorbachev said just this past week, the Arab Spring is the last act of our Cold War.

Or, we could just read Laura Logan's speech in Chicago Link October 07, 2012 

Meanwhile, me and my house say ...



It will always be Six Days, no matter what they try.


Love that image!
 
2012-10-09 12:54:46 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Only a person of your monumental levels of intellectual dishonesty could claim a condemnation of the use of civilians as human shields in all cases is a double standard.


You are pretending a group that punishes people for doing it (Israel) is as bad as a group that encourages it (Palestine).

That is the dishonesty. Actually that is one of many exampels of your dishonesty in this thread.

Here is another one. Pretending that since I think using your own kids as human shields is worse than using somebody elses means I am ok with using somebody elses (even after being corrected numerous times) is dishonest.
 
2012-10-09 01:01:31 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: Only a person of your monumental levels of intellectual dishonesty could claim a condemnation of the use of civilians as human shields in all cases is a double standard.

You are pretending a group that punishes people for doing it (Israel) is as bad as a group that encourages it (Palestine).

That is the dishonesty. Actually that is one of many exampels of your dishonesty in this thread.

Here is another one. Pretending that since I think using your own kids as human shields is worse than using somebody elses means I am ok with using somebody elses (even after being corrected numerous times) is dishonest.


Your insistence that the nationality of the child makes the slightest bit or moral or ethical difference is what makes you the ultra-nationalist barbarian you are. Holding a child, any child, as human shield is utterly and completely despicable. That evil is not minimized in the slightest if the child is not of your tribe.
 
2012-10-09 01:04:54 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: RoyBatty: Philip Francis Queeg: It is sad and tragic that you would allow a piece of cloth and an imaginary line determine how you would treat an innocent child.

This sort of intentional misrepresentation of other people's views is why you are in yellow and labeled as old yellow stain.

Huh, and I thought it was because you were familiar with 20th Century American literature.


Huh? What are you referencing?
 
2012-10-09 01:13:09 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Your insistence that the nationality of the child makes the slightest bit or moral or ethical difference is what makes you the ultra-nationalist barbarian you are.


If I was an "ultra-nationalist barbarian" I would rate the difference on if the kid was of my tribe. I am not.


Philip Francis Queeg: Holding a child, any child, as human shield is utterly and completely despicable.


How many times you going to lie about this one?

Pretending that since I think using your own kids as human shields is worse than using somebody elses means I am ok with using somebody elses (even after being corrected numerous times) is dishonest. :

Saying X is worse than Y doesn't mean you are fine with Y. Only a liar would continue to pretend that is what it means. :


Philip Francis Queeg:
That evil is not minimized in the slightest if the child is not of your tribe


No but it does speak to why you are fighting. Fighting to save your people I can understand. If you are risking your kids you aren't "fighting to save your people" you are "fighting to kill the other guy" (like in Palestine).

So for those keeping score, you are still lying about my position on human shields, and you are still ignoring any differences between the stance Israel and Palestine have (which is extra funny because you are only doing so because it is Israel, even though you get mad abotu peopel having different standards because of what "bit of cloth" they fly).
 
2012-10-09 01:51:22 PM  

Joe Blowme: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.

Instead we gave 39+million people a chance at freedom and self determination Why do you hate brown people?


How's that working out?

There's ten times that number of people here who need bridges that aren't going to collapse under them and all sorts of other things that we could've done with that money.
 
2012-10-09 02:08:45 PM  

RoyBatty: Philip Francis Queeg: RoyBatty: Philip Francis Queeg: It is sad and tragic that you would allow a piece of cloth and an imaginary line determine how you would treat an innocent child.

This sort of intentional misrepresentation of other people's views is why you are in yellow and labeled as old yellow stain.

Huh, and I thought it was because you were familiar with 20th Century American literature.

Huh? What are you referencing?


The Caine Mutiny by Herman Wouk.
 
2012-10-09 02:09:33 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Huh? What are you referencing?

The Caine Mutiny by Herman Wouk.


Seriously, the wiki says you're right. Go figure.
 
2012-10-09 02:22:32 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: Holding a child, any child, as human shield is utterly and completely despicable.

How many times you going to lie about this one?


It's a lie to say that Holding a child, any child, as human shield is utterly and completely despicable?

liam76: No but it does speak to why you are fighting. Fighting to save your people I can understand. If you are risking your kids you aren't "fighting to save your people" you are "fighting to kill the other guy" (like in Palestine).


Holding a human shield of the other side shows no less that you are only concerned about killing the other guy, even if that other guy is a small child. Holding a child of the enemy as a shield doesn't show anything noble about your motivation. It just shows that you are a cowardly monster.

Through all your twists here, the very core of your argument is that the nationality of the human shield is of great moral and ethical impact. That what side of the imaginary line that child lives on somehow makes them intrinsically different than another child. That somehow your motivation to protect life is enhanced if you are cowering behind one child and not another. That's what makes you an ultra-nationalist barbarian.

That someone would reject your nationalist arguments is profoundly alien to you. You cannot conceive of viewing a child without the filter of political boundaries. You must see that child as the Other. The flag you wrap yourself in leaves you blind to greater truths. It's sad.
 
2012-10-09 02:48:04 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: Holding a child, any child, as human shield is utterly and completely despicable.

How many times you going to lie about this one?

It's a lie to say that Holding a child, any child, as human shield is utterly and completely despicable?


No. However the context you used it in (and earleir flat out said) where it was phrased as something I was disagreed with is a lie.

Philip Francis Queeg: Holding a human shield of the other side shows no less that you are only concerned about killing the other guy, even if that other guy is a small child. Holding a child of the enemy as a shield doesn't show anything noble about your motivation. It just shows that you are a cowardly monster.


If someone comes to my house to shoot me and I use my kids as a shield while screaming I am trying to protect my family you know I am full of shiat.

If I use some other family's kid as a shield and make that claim you don't know if it is BS.

I never said anything about "nobility".

Philip Francis Queeg: Through all your twists here, the very core of your argument is that the nationality of the human shield is of great moral and ethical impact.


No. The core of my argument is that it makes a difference. You have pretended it is of "of great moral and ethical impact". You have pretended this distinction is unique to me even though it is shared by every nation on earth.

You can't reason with a guy who would rather sacrifice his kids to hurt you, and that is the position of the Palestenians.

Philip Francis Queeg: That somehow your motivation to protect life is enhanced if you are cowering behind one child and not another.


Never said anything remotely like that. I said it proves you aren't trying to protect the people you are using as a shield.

Philip Francis Queeg: You cannot conceive of viewing a child without the filter of political boundaries.


You can't have a grown up conversation about the implications of using your own peopel as human shields vice using sombody elses. You can pretend all you want you are above political boundaries, and they don't really matter but all your petty wishing does nothing for those kids and does nothing to help you understand the conversation.

Philip Francis Queeg: It's sad


What is sad is 10 posts on about how messed up it is to put value on a flag (which I didn't) and you are still having a different standard when we are talking about the Israeli and Palestenain flag.
 
2012-10-09 03:26:02 PM  

liam76: What is sad is 10 posts on about how messed up it is to put value on a flag (which I didn't) and you are still having a different standard when we are talking about the Israeli and Palestenain flag.


You simply cannot comprehend that nationality is not at all part of my view on this argument. Nationalism is the very water you swim in. You simple do not have the intellectual abilities to have this discussion. Your ultra-nationalist obsession prevents that. A All you see are Palestinians and Israelis. I see children. If we aren't even seeing the same reality, we cannot fruitfully discuss it.

I do hope the scales fall away from your eyes someday. If not, hopefully you don't pass your obsessive ultra-nationalism onto another generation.
 
2012-10-09 06:30:45 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You simply cannot comprehend that nationality is not at all part of my view on this argument.


If that were the case you wouldn't find it impossible, some 15 posts in to admit that Israel's stance toward human shields is better than the Palestinians.

Nationality doesn't have to be part of your view, if you can't recognize how i is part of other peoples view you are a farking moron.


Philip Francis Queeg: Nationalism is the very water you swim in. You simple do not have the intellectual abilities to have this discussion.


How many times are you going to lie about that?

I never said the value of a child's life is dependent on their nationality.

Just because I don't have my head firmly up my ass and realize that even if I call borders "imaginary lines" and flags "bits of cloth" that they still have meaning to others. I won't refuse to accept the reality that how a group treats their kids matters, and can tell you something about that group that how they treat other kids doesn't.


Philip Francis Queeg: All you see are Palestinians and Israelis. I see children.


No you see Palestinians and Israelis, which is why you can't judge them on the same scale.

I see people who put their kids at risk and people who go out of their way to protect their kids.


Philip Francis Queeg:If we aren't even seeing the same reality, we cannot fruitfully discuss it.

We are seeing the same thing, you are just lying about how you filter it.
 
Displayed 240 of 240 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report