Everyone needs to watch this video

24567…18

Comments

  • Posts: 10,118
    _outlaw wrote:
    show previous quotes
    uh, it's not literal... like he said. and maybe when you experience what the children in Gaza experience, you can answer that question for yourself.

    its great how you can take the words that come from his mouth and say, well no, "he didnt mean it that way" got it
  • Posts: 16,832
    _outlaw wrote:
    "A ten-year old child with cancer has died in the Gaza Strip while awaiting Israeli government permission to cross the border to reach a scheduled appointment with a specialist inside Israel."

    http://www.imemc.org/article/60434


    This type of stuff has to stop. Someone has to extend a hand first.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Posts: 4,069
    jlew24asu wrote:
    its great how you can take the words that come from his mouth and say, well no, "he didnt mean it that way" got it
    do you fucking understand arabic all of a sudden? go learn the language, even a moron with some experience in it would be able to understand what he's saying.
  • Posts: 10,118
    _outlaw wrote:
    show previous quotes
    do you fucking understand arabic all of a sudden? go learn the language, even a moron with some experience in it would be able to understand what he's saying.

    I'm just sayin, its very convenient to interpret the meaning of what people say to make it fit however you'd like.

    anyway, how are my posts about Hamas "PRO-Israeli"
  • Posts: 4,984
    _outlaw wrote:
    1. you used a topic about an infant dying as a platform to shove pro-Israel propaganda at everyone reading this.


    .
    yeah i didn't want to get into it on this thread, but that's kind of fucked up to turn this story into a anti-hamas thread or whatever jlew was trying to do.


    whoever is doing whatever...the shit the op posted in the vid needs to end
  • Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:
    show previous quotes
    yeah i didn't want to get into it on this thread, but that's kind of fucked up to turn this story into a anti-hamas thread or whatever jlew was trying to do.


    whoever is doing whatever...the shit the op posted in the vid needs to end

    I'm just wondering if outlaw gets equally upset about the way Hamas treats its children. apparently not. personally I find it sickening what both sides are doing. but in doing so, I'm somehow "pro-Israeli"
  • Posts: 4,069
    jlew24asu wrote:
    [some shit]
    you really do need everything spelt out for you. I'll try to be as blatant as possible.

    I said what you posted was pro-Israel propaganda, not that you were pro-Israeli (though I do think you most certainly and clearly are). There is a difference in the two, in that you may not be smart enough to realize that those videos are clearly trying to project a pro-Israel platform by demonizing Hamas. Considering that I think the video was bullshit, I called it propaganda.

    I'm no true fan of Hamas, I'll tell you that. I think in terms of representation of the Palestinian people, eventually there will definitely have to be some change. However, I try to be as realistic and rational as possible. Consider the situation right now: Israel is brutally occupying them and treating them horribly (something you claim to agree with, I assume, when you say you are also against Israel). When they are treated so horribly, it is only normal and in accord with what has happened in any situation in history to retaliate. In such a time, when the original government, Fateh, not only seemed to be treating their own people horribly, but seemed to be working in accordance with the Israeli government, it is only natural for the Palestinians to shift support to the other major party who vows to retaliate against an occupying power. Now, see, the problem with you is that you seem to keep placing all this emphasis on how bad Hamas is (tactics that pro-Israelis use to shift attention from Israel's crimes). Not only does this distract people from the real issue, it is as if you are placing equal blame on "both sides," which I find damn fucking annoying. You can't blame both sides equally. There is only one side occupying the other. There is one side imprisoning the other. One side limiting the other's needed food, water, medicine, electricity, etc.

    To ignore these obvious differences is why you get into arguments with Byrnzie. Because you say things like "yeah yeah i know, israel is bad, but so is hamas." Hamas is not even the issue. They said they'd be willing to accept a two-state solution, they said they'd be willing to stop rockets, and enter a complete truce with Israel should Israel withdraw to the '67 borders. The entire world supports this, jlew, do you? If you don't, why not? If you do, then why do you sit here wasting time yelling at Hamas, when the one person who could end the violence, Israel, refuses to withdraw to the '67 borders?

    This post was longer than I expected, but whatever.
  • Posts: 10,118
    _outlaw wrote:
    show previous quotes
    you really do need everything spelt out for you. I'll try to be as blatant as possible.

    I said what you posted was pro-Israel propaganda, not that you were pro-Israeli (though I do think you most certainly and clearly are). There is a difference in the two, in that you may not be smart enough to realize that those videos are clearly trying to project a pro-Israel platform by demonizing Hamas. Considering that I think the video was bullshit, I called it propaganda.

    sigh. you just dont get it. just because something shows Hamas in a bad light, doesnt automatically make it pro-Israeli. Hamas has its own problems, which are completely INDEPENDENT of Israel. brainwashing children and dressing them in bombs is NOT "pro-Israeli propaganda", is sick and disgusting. but according to people like you and Byzine, its no "big deal", they are just "resisting".

    and considering that you think the video is bullshit means absolutely nothing. I mean, who the fuck are you? no one.
    _outlaw wrote:
    I'm no true fan of Hamas, I'll tell you that. I think in terms of representation of the Palestinian people, eventually there will definitely have to be some change. However, I try to be as realistic and rational as possible. Consider the situation right now: Israel is brutally occupying them and treating them horribly (something you claim to agree with, I assume, when you say you are also against Israel). When they are treated so horribly, it is only normal and in accord with what has happened in any situation in history to retaliate. In such a time, when the original government, Fateh, not only seemed to be treating their own people horribly, but seemed to be working in accordance with the Israeli government, it is only natural for the Palestinians to shift support to the other major party who vows to retaliate against an occupying power. Now, see, the problem with you is that you seem to keep placing all this emphasis on how bad Hamas is (tactics that pro-Israelis use to shift attention from Israel's crimes). Not only does this distract people from the real issue, it is as if you are placing equal blame on "both sides," which I find damn fucking annoying. You can't blame both sides equally. There is only one side occupying the other. There is one side imprisoning the other. One side limiting the other's needed food, water, medicine, electricity, etc.

    To ignore these obvious differences is why you get into arguments with Byrnzie. Because you say things like "yeah yeah i know, israel is bad, but so is hamas." Hamas is not even the issue. They said they'd be willing to accept a two-state solution, they said they'd be willing to stop rockets, and enter a complete truce with Israel should Israel withdraw to the '67 borders. The entire world supports this, jlew, do you? If you don't, why not? If you do, then why do you sit here wasting time yelling at Hamas, when the one person who could end the violence, Israel, refuses to withdraw to the '67 borders?

    This post was longer than I expected, but whatever.

    its all comes down to the 1967 borders doesnt it. do I support them? I dont know. I do know a war was fought in 1967 and the borders changed. what those new borders should be, is in dispute. where I do think Israel is wrong, however, has been in the constant expanding of settlements in disputed land. that is wrong.

    and BOTH sides are to blame for the problems. is it equal? no. but Hamas is absolutely part of the problem. they specifically target Israeli civilians. and this is where me, you and Byzine disagree. you both feel that Israelis living in "occupied" land are valid targets by Hamas militants. I very much strongly disagree. Civilians should never be targeted IMO. and Israel, on the other hand, will blatantly kill Palestinian civilians as well. so in my eyes, BOTH sides are wrong.

    at this point, I dont not support Hamas or Israel. I dont think peace will happen while the current Israeli leadership is in place and Hamas is power. sadly, I think its going to a long time. but I could be wrong, hell, just today there was a meeting about it at the white house....but it wasn't a good meeting IMO.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090518/pl_nm/us_israel_usa
  • Posts: 794
    _outlaw wrote:
    show previous quotes
    do you fucking understand arabic all of a sudden? go learn the language, even a moron with some experience in it would be able to understand what he's saying.


    maybe stupid conversations like the ones we can read here started this war. maybe an israeli told the palestinian (or viceversa) "hey moron, get the fuck out of my land!" several thousands of years ago.

    i think this war will end when earth dies.

    and nobody can pick a side, whos right and whos wrong. unless you have an interest on either side, or hate either side.
    IN THE DARK, ALL CATS ARE BLACK.
  • Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,236
    force-10 wrote:
    show previous quotes


    maybe stupid conversations like the ones we can read here started this war. maybe an israeli told the palestinian (or viceversa) "hey moron, get the fuck out of my land!" several thousands of years ago.

    i think this war will end when earth dies.

    and nobody can pick a side, whos right and whos wrong. unless you have an interest on either side, or hate either side.

    It certainly will NEVER end as long as the US back Israel with the millions od $$$ we blindly send them. Along with the propaganda that is done in US media to sell why we give so much to Israel.

    Peace
    *We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti

    *MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
    .....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti

    *The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)


  • Posts: 13,202
    Byrnzie wrote:
    show previous quotes

    You tube is blocked in China now. :roll:

    And here I thought China was so much more free than the US... or so you tried to tell me a few months ago.
  • Posts: 4,984
    jlew24asu wrote:
    its all comes down to the 1967 borders doesnt it. do I support them? I dont know. I do know a war was fought in 1967 and the borders changed. what those new borders should be, is in dispute. where I do think Israel is wrong, however, has been in the constant expanding of settlements in disputed land. that is wrong.


    its not disputed, or up for grabs or anything like that.


    land Israel is occupying outside the 67 borders is land it has taken with force.

    Anyone at all serious about the issue agrees that the only plausible solution is for Israel to retreat to those borders. Its peace. Since they haven't agreed to the 67 borders, an agreement that all Arab countries including Hamas agreed to in a 2002 summit (think it was 02) tells me Israel's desire for land may be stronger than its desire for peace.
  • Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I thought you couldnt see youtube? but since you apparently did, how did those videos make you feel? it would be nice if you can answer that and not cut and paste something about Israel.

    I can't see Youtube. I read another posters comments about your diversionary tactics - trying to deflect attention from the op's original subject by claiming that Palestinians use human shields.

    Very lame.
  • Posts: 21,037
    edited May 2009
    cincybearcat wrote:
    This type of stuff has to stop. Someone has to extend a hand first.

    They already have. The Palestinian leadership has already stated that it supports the international consensus of a two-state settlement along the June 1967 border - http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9917.shtml

    Meanwhile, the Israeli's continue with their familiar stalling tactics:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ma ... peacetalks

    Israel wants peace talks, Binyamin Netanyahu tells Barack Obama

    • US president says Israel must honour commitments
    • Prime minister counters that primary threat is Iran

    * Chris McGreal in Washington
    * guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 May 2009 22.09 BST


    'Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, met President Barack Obama yesterday and said that he wants to begin immediate peace talks with the Palestinians aimed at self-government, but he stopped short of explicitly committing Israel to Palestinian independence.

    At discussions in the White House expected to shape the direction of one of the toughest political challenges either leader will face, Obama said he told Netanyahu that the goal of "an extraordinary opportunity" for peace must be "allowing the Palestinians to govern themselves as an independent state".

    The US president was expected to press Netanyahu to make an explicit commitment to that end at the talks but, whatever was said in private, the Israeli prime minister shied away in public.

    "I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians immediately," he said. "I want to make it clear that we don't want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them, we want them to govern themselves without [control over] a handful of powers that could endanger Israel. There'll have to be compromises by Israelis and Palestinians alike."

    Obama said he was confident that Netanyahu "is going to seize this moment".

    But Netanyahu's failure to speak of an independent state – instead talking of "an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, in security and in peace" – and his insistence that the Palestinians be denied certain powers, such as control over their own borders and airspace, is a reminder to Obama of the difficulties he is likely to face in dealing with Israel's well practised tactics of prevarication and obstruction.

    The US president laid down a marker by which to judge Netanyahu's intent, in demanding that he fulfil previous commitments that successive Israeli governments have broken to halt the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

    "Israel is going to have to take difficult steps," Obama said. "Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward. That's a difficult issue, I recognise that. But it's an important one and it has to be addressed."

    But Netanyahu offered no such commitment in public.

    He said a precondition of any agreement is for the Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, which Hamas has refused to do. That in turn is likely to mean that the Israelis will insist on negotiating only with Fatah, a move likely to deepen the divide in the Palestinian camp.

    But Obama suggested that Hamas should be brought in to the talks, when he spoke about the failure of isolation in dealing not only with the Palestinian group but also Hezbollah and Iran.

    Obama said Netanyahu had been "very vocal" in expressing his concerns about Iran developing a nuclear weapon, which the Israeli prime minister described as "the worst danger we face". He agreed that it should be prevented, but said that diplomacy not confrontation should be given a chance.

    "Understand that part of the reason that it's so important for us to take a diplomatic approach is that the approach we've been taking, which is no diplomacy, obviously has not worked. Nobody disagrees with that. Hamas and Hezbollah have got stronger. Iran has been pursuing its nuclear capabilities undiminished. Not talking clearly hasn't worked," he said.

    But he warned that talks should not become an excuse for inaction "while Iran proceeds with developing and deploying a nuclear weapon".

    He said he would like to see progress by the end of the year and, if there is no change in Iran's position, he would consider a range of steps "including much stronger international sanctions".

    "Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilising in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran," Obama said.

    He said the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Iran nuclear issue had a bearing on each other. "To the extent we can make peace between the Palestinians and Israelis then it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian nuclear threat."

    Netanyahu agreed, but added that Iran developing a nuclear weapon would have a negative effect on the search for peace with the Palestinians.

    Both agreed that the issues make it necessary to draw in other governments in the region.

    Obama is likely to urge Arab states to recognise Israel as part of a package that would include its withdrawal, not only from the West Bank but also the Golan Heights, after they were captured from Syria in the 1967 war.

    The Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, are scheduled to meet Obama in Washington next week. In early June, Obama will travel to Cairo to deliver an address to the Islamic world.'


    So according to Netanyahu the Palestinians have to to recognise Israel as a Jewish state. They are asking for the Palestinians and the rest of the world to accept ethnic nationalism and racism. They're asking for the 20% of Arab-Israeli's within Israel to formally accept being second class citizens.
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I'm just wondering if outlaw gets equally upset about the way Hamas treats its children. apparently not. personally I find it sickening what both sides are doing. but in doing so, I'm somehow "pro-Israeli"

    Your failure - or is it refusal? - to see the bigger picture is the problem.
  • Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    its all comes down to the 1967 borders doesnt it. do I support them? I dont know. I do know a war was fought in 1967 and the borders changed. what those new borders should be, is in dispute.

    Firstly, Israel started the 1967 war, as I've shown time and again using quotations from the Israeli leadership.

    Secondly, the land is not in dispute. I've already posted what the law states on this subject. You clearly ignored it. I'll post it again:

    Resolution 242:
    'Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security...

    Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict..'

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... lution_242
    'Lord Caradon, chief author of the resolution....[says] that the lack of a definite article is intended to deny permanence to the "unsatisfactory" pre-1967 border, rather than to allow Israel to retain land taken by force. Such a view would appear to allow for the possibility that the borders could be varied through negotiation:

    'Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn’t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle.[20] The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1948, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...[21]'

    I.e, the 67 border is a temporary border, and that therefore Israel ultimately needs to withdraw to the 1948 border or the 1949 armistice lines.
    jlew24asu wrote:
    and BOTH sides are to blame for the problems.

    How are the Palestinians to blame for the occupation and the ongoing illegal settlement building?
  • Posts: 21,037
    soulsinging wrote:
    And here I thought China was so much more free than the US... or so you tried to tell me a few months ago.

    You have a very short memory. I didn't say that China was more free than the U.S. I said that people live freer lives.

    Still, the truth is I was exaggerating. People here are no more or no less free than people in the U.S. Both countries have their propaganda systems firmly in place, amongst other things.
  • Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:
    show previous quotes


    its not disputed, or up for grabs or anything like that.


    land Israel is occupying outside the 67 borders is land it has taken with force.

    Anyone at all serious about the issue agrees that the only plausible solution is for Israel to retreat to those borders. Its peace. Since they haven't agreed to the 67 borders, an agreement that all Arab countries including Hamas agreed to in a 2002 summit (think it was 02) tells me Israel's desire for land may be stronger than its desire for peace.

    YES IT IS DISPUTED. and the rest of your post is true. they want the land more then they want peace. when wars are fought, land changes hands. thats what happened.
  • Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    show previous quotes

    You have a very short memory. I didn't say that China was more free than the U.S. I said that people live freer lives.

    Still, the truth is I was exaggerating. People here are no more or no less free than people in the U.S. Both countries have their propaganda systems firmly in place, amongst other things.

    people in the US are MUCH more free then you in China. you not being able to watch youtube is a perfect example.
  • Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    show previous quotes

    Firstly, Israel started the 1967 war, as I've shown time and again using quotations from the Israeli leadership.

    Secondly, the land is not in dispute. I've already posted what the law states on this subject. You clearly ignored it. I'll post it again:

    no need for you cut and paste party. the land is in dispute. Israel wants and took it by force and Palestine wants it back. dispute.

    and it doesnt matter who started the war in 1967. when wars are fought, most often, borders change as a result. that happened here. I'm not saying what is right and wrong, just that it happened. borders are always changing and this is one of those times.


    jlew24asu wrote:
    and BOTH sides are to blame for the problems.
    Byrnzie wrote:
    How are the Palestinians to blame for the occupation and the ongoing illegal settlement building?

    LOL did I say they were?

    Hamas is part of the blame for the ongoing problems in the region by their deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians. which of course is something you agree with so you still wont be able to place blame on them

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories