Obama - Another AIPAC PUppet
Blackout-weaver
Posts: 16
Blackout-weaver
Posts: 16
Blackout-weaver
Posts: 16
Comments
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Thanks. It's really amazing how spineless some people are.
You should check out the 'Occupation' documentary. It really needs to be seen.
http://www.occupation101.com/
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3759278/Occupation_101_-_Palestine-Israel_Mideast_Conflict_[DVD]_[ENG]
I'll check it out
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
-Obama
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
um, he is right to an extent.
or did you just start paying attention in the 21st century?
both sides have made mistakes. pro-israel people ignore the wrong doings of Israel, pro-paletinian/muslim folks ignore the wrongful actions of Israels neighbors over the years...
for some people that may not know the histroy of the conflict and the many attacks on Israel by her Arab neighbors, here are some links. here is just 1 or 2 to start
1948 Arab-Israeli war where israel was attacked by multiple Arab states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War
the "6 day war" where Israels Arab neighbors surrounded Israel in anticipation of an all out attack by multiple Arab countries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_day_war
and here is the Yom Kippur war... the war in which Israel was suprise attacked by multiple Arab nations on Israels holy day and holiday
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
and then people are suprised when israel takes out a nuclear site in syria, and the one in Iraq in the 80's. and people wonder why they takes Irans threats as REAL :rolleyes:
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/snakebite/Wars.html
'In late 1947 the United Nations proposed that Palestine be divided into a Palestinian Arab state and a Jewish state. The UN Partition Plan recommended that 55 percent of Palestine, and the most fertile region, be given to the Jewish settlers who compromised 30 percent of the population. The remaining 45 percent of Palestine was to comprise a home for the other 70 percent of the population who were Palestinians. The Palestinians rejected the plan because it was unfair. Israel and its supporters claim that the Arabs first attacked in Janurary 1948 and then invaded Israel in May 1948.
The truth is that by May 1948 Zionist forces had already invaded and occupied large parts of the land which had been allocated to the Palestinians by the UN Partition Plan. In January 1948 Israel did not yet exist.
The evidence that Israel started the 1948 war comes from Zionist sources. The History of the Palmach which was released in portions in the 1950s (and in full in 1972) details the efforts made to attack the Palestinian Arabs and secure more territory than alloted to the Jewish state by the UN Partition Plan (Kibbutz Menchad Archive, Palmach Archive, Efal, Israel).
'...it is not true that the Arabs "invaded Israel" in 1948. First, Israel did not exist at the time of the alleged invasion as an established state with recognised bounderies. When the Zionist leaders established Israel on 15 May 1948 they purposely declined to declare the bounderies of the new state in order to allow for future expansion.
Secondly, the only territory to which the new state of Israel had even a remote claim was that alloted to the Jewish state by the UN Partition Plan. But the Zionists had already attacked areas that were alloted to the Palestinian Arab state.
Thirdly, those areas which the Arab states purportedly "invaded" were, in fact, exclusively areas alloted to the Palestinian Arab state proposed by the UN Partition Plan. The so-called Arab invasion was a defensive attempt to hold on to the areas alloted by the Partition Plan for the Palestinian state.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=10259
"We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him (Nasser) .” -- Former Israeli PM Menahem Begin.
Israel has long claimed that it launched the Six-Day War in 1967 to defend itself. Below are some statements made by Israeli leaders as well as some report excerpts that prove otherwise.
Israel’s former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was “no threat of destruction” but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could “exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.” Menahem Begin, the first Likud Prime Minister of Israel, also said: “In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde on 28 February 1968.
“Deliberately provoked by Israel”
"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland... They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997.'
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/snakebite/Wars.html
'In the early hours of 5 June 1967, Israel announced to a credulous Western world that the Egyptian Air Force had initiated hostile actions. In fact, it was the Israelis who had attacked the Egyptians and destroyed virtually the entire Egyptian Air Force while its fleet was still on the ground.
General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, committed what the Israeli public considered blasphemy when he admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19
March 1972). Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972). Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories" (Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).
After the 1967 war Israel, claimed it invaded because of imminent Arab attack. It claimed that Nasser's closing of the Straits of Tiran constituted an act of war. It also cited Syrian shelling on the demilitarized zone of the Syrian-Israeli border. The claim that the Arabs were going to invade appears particularly ludicrous when one recalls that a third of Egypt's army was in Yemen and therefore quite unprepared to launch a war. On the Syrian front, Israel was engaging in threats and provocations that evidenced many similarities to its behavior in the lead up to the Gaza raid of 1955.
The 1973 war??
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020402.htm
'US rejectionism...goes back 5 years earlier, to February 1971, when President Sadat of Egypt offered Israel a full peace treaty in return for Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian territory, not even bringing up Palestinian national rights or the fate of the other occupied territories. Israel's Labor government recognized this as a genuine peace offer, but decided to reject it, intending to extend its settlements to northeastern Sinai; that it soon did, with extreme brutality, the immediate cause for the 1973 war. The plan for the Palestinians under military occupation was described frankly to his Cabinet colleagues by Moshe Dayan, one of the Labor leaders more sympathetic to the Palestinian plight. Israel should make it clear that "we have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process leads." Following that recommendation, the guiding principle of the occupation has been incessant and degrading humiliation, along with torture, terror, destruction of property, displacement and settlement, and takeover of basic resources, crucially water.
Sadat's 1971offer conformed to official US policy, but Kissinger succeeded in instituting his preference for what he called "stalemate": no negotiations, only force. Jordanian peace offers were also dismissed. Since that time, official US policy has kept to the international consensus on withdrawal (until Clinton, who effectively rescinded UN resolutions and considerations of international law); but in practice, policy has followed the Kissinger guidelines, accepting negotiations only when compelled to do so, as Kissinger was after the near-debacle of the 1973 war for which he shares major responsibility, and under the conditions that Ben-Ami articulated.
Official doctrine instructs us to focus attention on the Arab summit, as if the Arab states and the PLO are the problem, in particular, their intention to drive Israel into the sea. Coverage presents the basic problem as vacillation, reservations, and qualifications in the Arab world. There is little that one can say in favor of the Arab states and the PLO, but these claims are simply untrue, as a look at the record quickly reveals.'
No. Some people are just surprised at how gullible and misinformed most Americans are to the facts concerning this issue.
I recommend you watch this documentary. It's a good one.
http://www.occupation101.com/
Torrent...
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3759278/Occupation_101_-_Palestine-Israel_Mideast_Conflict_[DVD]_[ENG]
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
No. He's not right at all. He's incredibly blinkered and subservient to power politics. The conflicts in the Middle East - in this instance we are talking specifically about Israel/Palestine - stem not from radical Islam, but from the illegal Israeli occupation.
yup...
some obscure internet documentary that is going to explain how all of the israeli/arab conflict is actually only israels fault and that they have not been under threat by their neighbors since day 1... and that israel actually provoked all of the attacks by her neighbors oer the years
let me ask you a question... if a staunch enemy of yours, one that attacked you before, suddenly postitioned 100,000 troops and its military on your border in what clearly was a build up to an invasion, you would not consider that a threat to your safety? i am no supporter of war, but if mexico put 100,000 troops an stanks on our border and was about to attack, i might even sign up.
everyone thinks they know how it all works until a mortar lands in their living room or THEIR country is invaded.
both parties have serious security concerns. and to ignore the arab muslims role in this is just flat out silly, and wrong. they have leaders of major arab countries STILL calling for their complete destruction, yet some folks just whistle on by that one. well guess what, israel takes that very seriously. for good fucking reason.
you are really not fooling anyone, at all.
Firstly, why don't you watch this 'obscure internet documentary' - http://www.occupation101.com/screenings.html (list of public screenings) - that just so happens to have won dozens of awards, and which 'features a list of some of the most credible Middle East scholars, historians, peace activists, journalists, and humanitarian workers' - first and then comment on it?
Secondly, can you explain how any of this relates to the illegal occupation and Israels current breach of over 60 U.N resolutions?
The illegal Israeli occupation is 'actually only Israels fault'. Who else do you consider to be to blame for the illegal occupation of Palestinian land?
see, you have a completely biased agenda. you consider the actual state of israel to be illegal and an occupation
it shows through in most of your posts and threads...
and i am in no way defending some of israels actions, but i am also not dismissing the arab/muslim role in this, their heinous actions, and their continued OPEN threats to Israel
the more people like you that are engaged in this issue, the less likely peace will become a reality
half the links you posted are bogus horsehit by the way, do you understand that you can find anything you want to believe in on the internet? your the same guy that said he watched "loose change" and automatically ran with that as if 9/11 was a DEFINITE inside job and was FACT :rolleyes:
talk about gullable
did you even watxh this video? you know, the one where the palestinian endorses Obama and has a whole sotre full of people chanting for obama?
or did you just miss that part by accident? let me guess, you know the israel/arab conflict better then them :rolleyes:
Please go ahead and quote me where I said that 'the actual state of Israel is illegal and an occupation'.
You can't. Great.
This sentence is completely meaningless.
Yep. How dare the Palestinians attempt to defend themselves.
Because peace will be achieved by those in favour of the occupation and of continued illegal settlement building, right?
O.k, Mr Wikipedia, can you address any of the points in the articles I posted, or not?
Ermm, nope.
That's gullible, not gullable.
O.k, I'll explain it to you. The point of the thrread was to point out the pandering by all candidates to the Israel lobby. Obama made a comment in which he drew attention to the suffering of Palestinians. He was then forced/persuaded to back-track and prove his unwavering commitment to Israel, and by association, the standard policy of successive U.S governments - I.e, 100% support for the occupation and $4 billion a year in military aid, e.t.c.
Edit: My mistake. I should have provided a link to the first part of the documentary. Obama said "No one has suffered more than the Palestinian people". He was then forced to "qualify his comments and apologize".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4ly2D3pnc&feature=related
Fuck it, here's the torrent for the whole program.. http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4121195/Frontline_USA_-_Lobbying_for_Israel_-_05_April_08_avi_
Well, it of course goes without saying that anyone critical of the brutal and illegal Israeli occupation is an anti-Semitic, holocaust denier, right?
now i remember why
and of course everyone who agrees with Isreal is just a fool. both sides do the same thing which is sad becuase we will never learn anything.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
progressive? not exactly....not at all..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Not enough capital letters.
I was thinking Roland.
:: looks up one, scratches head ::
hmm...
- Michael S. McCready
Another sub 100 post regular. Lemme guess you've been lurking for years...
lol...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
So you agree with Israel and the occupation? Would you care to tell us why?
And you say that both sides do the same thing? Really? So the Palestinians have destroyed 18,147 Israeli homes, and are occupying 121 illegal settlements on land stolen from Israel, and are currently in breach of over 60 U.N resolutions?
Your statement is very interesting in that It contradicts all of the facts.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/index.html
I'm not Drifting, but I'm interested to know why you don't respond to these threads. Is it because your argument is so weak, and full of holes, that you often find yourself with nowhere to turn but to personal comments about the OP?
I asked you to respond to the points raised in the articles I posted. You haven't been able to, therefore I take it that you really have no argument and nothing to bring to the table. You suggested that the 1948 war, the 1967 war, and the 1973 war are justification for Israels present crimes and the illegal occupation. That's all.
I mean, seriously, if you defend the occupation and the human rights abuses that that entails, then you also support the murder, terrorising, home demolitions, subjugation, and imprisonment of an entire people.
How can you defend that?
That's a fallacy. It's not an equal equation. A lot of people think it is the same on both sides...but it isn't.
Either was apartheid.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
That's right. And neither was the French resistance, and other partisan groups in WW2. Neither was the FLN in Algeria, or the Irish struggle for independence against the English, e.t.c.
The Palestinians have every right to defend themselves against the U.S sponsored occupation.
Duh....parts of it were, it's been proven scientifically.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")