I think it's fair in this thread to discuss both the positive and negative aspects of this act.
I think it's fine to address the individuals that support the action, but you've already initiated a process that will steer this thread away from a specific topic and back to the perennial "dirty liberals vs. scummy conservatives" discussion.
I think it's fine to address the individuals that support the action, but you've already initiated a process that will steer this thread away from a specific topic and back to the perennial "dirty liberals vs. scummy conservatives" discussion.
Why?
Why did I post? Because 'enlightened' people shouldn't accept assassination as a solution to their problems.
Will it be OK to respond by assassinating Sharon? Supporting assassinations is about the most anti-American activity you can support. It just proves how out of touch with America and the Constitution the right wing really is.
Bush administration officials, who met Monday in Washington with Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, denied that the United States had advance notice of Israel's assassination plan. While U.S. officials described Yassin's killing as "not helpful," they also reiterated what they called Israel's right to self-defense.
"Hamas is a terrorist organization," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
"U.S. officials described Yassin's killing as 'not helpful.'"
"Hamas is a terrorist organization."
Those two statements are true. I don't see how that indicates anything, especially considering the quotes belong to a full-length statement that was omitted in the reference.
What about some more headless quotes?
"We are deeply troubled by this morning's incident in Gaza." --White House rep.
"State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the attack was 'deeply troubling,'"
Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., defending Israel, said, "Just as the United States is justified in seeking out and targeting al-Qaida leaders such as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Israeli government has a responsibility to do what it can to protect its citizens against these deadly terrorists.
Does the following generic statement mean he supports the assassination? Filthy Democrat!
"We are deeply troubled by this morning's incident in Gaza." --White House rep.
"State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the attack was 'deeply troubling,'"
'Deeply troubling' is sincerely out of touch. Sharon broke international law, but that's somehow not more than 'deeply troubling.' That's out of touch.
Why don't we invade Israel like we did Iraq? Sharon is obviously a bigger threat than the WMD in Iraq.
Holy shit! I never said anything about political parties!
Nor did I. It was a baseless blanket statement just like yours. Since his name is Engel, and he's a democrat from New York, he's probably one of those stinky Jews, eh?
I know nothing about the rest of his views, so why should I label him right-wing or left-wing? Or a stinky Jew?
"We clearly recognize that Israel is in a very difficult situation and we recognize Israel's attempt to secure security for itself and its citizens," Graham told reporters Monday.
Out of context quote from a Canadian government representative.
Quote:
"But there are ways of going about that which can contribute to lasting peace and ways which will not and in our view this way chosen is contrary to Israel's legal obligations and one which will definitely create more problems in the region."
How diplomatic...er, I mean out of touch. Crazy right-winger must be from Alberta.
It really doesn't seem so different from this statement:
Quote:
"We have also always said that all parties need to keep in mind the consequences of their actions," said McClellan.
"It is also important during this time period that all parties should exercise restraint and do everything possible to avoid any further actions that make it more difficult to restore calm in the region."
The rightness or wrongness of an action is judged solely in its usefulness to the person or body who is judging it. I think this is just another example of Israelis (or should I say the Jews) being very in touch with the fact that they are looking out for their own interests and have little concern with the political correctness or repurcussions to anyone else of their actions. Unfortunately, no one else is allowed to act this way.
Anti-Semitism is on the rise for a reason, you know.
The White House can say they are "deeply troubled" all they want, while paying homage to their Jewish overlords behind closed doors, and doing nothing to stop them. Pretty soon, they will simply gas the Palestinians en masse in the ultimate irony, and no one will stop them.
Ah well, this should get interesting pretty quick, whatever happens.
Muahahaha...
Here is an informative summation of the White House's immediate reaction to these events.
By the way, does anyone else think Sheikh bore a resemblance to a certain Lord of the Rings villain...
"The best way of fighting Arabs is to leave them alone".
Hamas is a terrorist group, and the Israeli military is no better. It's a cycle of violence and neither side wants it to stop. Hamas is funded by Saudi Arabian oil money and Israel is funded by the US taxpayer. Without funds, terrorist acts and reprisals cannot happen and without terror, the war on terror becomes redundant. Peace is the last thing that Bush, Sharon and Hamas wants. Peace is the last thing US defense contractors want. Peace is the last thing the the hardline extremist likudniks want, and peace is the last thing Hamas wants. The war generates jobs and money changing hands and too many peope are invested in the conflict for peace to ever happen.
Bush's war on terrorism is fake. He is cherrypicking his terrorists, some are OK and others are to be stomped on. In fact, he is as much of an international terrorist himself (9-11 and Iraq), and should be put on war crimes charges for the sake of the US and the rest of the world.
I think the basic reasoning is that being the head of Hamas is atrocious enough.
Probably true but who is focusing on the acts of terror he organised now? Israel missed the opportunity to concentrate on the harm he has done to them, gaining increased sympathy and understanding for their position, to put on a 'spectacular' show of force.
Comments
Originally posted by Eugene
I thought we were talking about Israel.
Are you saying Sharon isn't an Israeli? Or are you simply avoiding my point?
Originally posted by Scott
It's an act of war. No different than killing Hitler.
I don't think anyone with even a small amout of knowledge on the subject agrees with you.
Originally posted by bunge
Are you saying Sharon isn't an Israeli? Or are you simply avoiding my point?
I think you're avoiding my point. Why don't you start an "American right wing out of touch" thread. There seems to be a shortage.
Originally posted by Eugene
I think you're avoiding my point. Why don't you start an "American right wing out of touch" thread. There seems to be a shortage.
I think it's fair in this thread to discuss both the positive and negative aspects of this act.
Originally posted by bunge
I think it's fair in this thread to discuss both the positive and negative aspects of this act.
I think it's fine to address the individuals that support the action, but you've already initiated a process that will steer this thread away from a specific topic and back to the perennial "dirty liberals vs. scummy conservatives" discussion.
Why?
Originally posted by Eugene
I think it's fine to address the individuals that support the action, but you've already initiated a process that will steer this thread away from a specific topic and back to the perennial "dirty liberals vs. scummy conservatives" discussion.
Why?
Why did I post? Because 'enlightened' people shouldn't accept assassination as a solution to their problems.
Originally posted by bunge
Why did I post? Because 'enlightened' people shouldn't accept assassination as a solution to their problems.
That's not what you posted. You said something akin to "conservatives suck."
Originally posted by bunge
Supporting assassinations is about the most anti-American activity you can support.
Originally posted by bunge
Will it be OK to respond by assassinating Sharon? Supporting assassinations is about the most anti-American activity you can support. It just proves how out of touch with America and the Constitution the right wing really is.
Bush administration officials, who met Monday in Washington with Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, denied that the United States had advance notice of Israel's assassination plan. While U.S. officials described Yassin's killing as "not helpful," they also reiterated what they called Israel's right to self-defense.
"Hamas is a terrorist organization," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Out of touch.
Originally posted by bunge
Out of touch.
"U.S. officials described Yassin's killing as 'not helpful.'"
"Hamas is a terrorist organization."
Those two statements are true. I don't see how that indicates anything, especially considering the quotes belong to a full-length statement that was omitted in the reference.
What about some more headless quotes?
"We are deeply troubled by this morning's incident in Gaza." --White House rep.
"State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the attack was 'deeply troubling,'"
Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., defending Israel, said, "Just as the United States is justified in seeking out and targeting al-Qaida leaders such as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Israeli government has a responsibility to do what it can to protect its citizens against these deadly terrorists.
Does the following generic statement mean he supports the assassination? Filthy Democrat!
Originally posted by Eugene
"We are deeply troubled by this morning's incident in Gaza." --White House rep.
"State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the attack was 'deeply troubling,'"
'Deeply troubling' is sincerely out of touch. Sharon broke international law, but that's somehow not more than 'deeply troubling.' That's out of touch.
Why don't we invade Israel like we did Iraq? Sharon is obviously a bigger threat than the WMD in Iraq.
Originally posted by Eugene
Filthy Democrat!
Holy shit! I never said anything about political parties!
Now are you finished or are you going to keep trying to push to find something that isn't there?
Originally posted by bunge
Holy shit! I never said anything about political parties!
Nor did I. It was a baseless blanket statement just like yours. Since his name is Engel, and he's a democrat from New York, he's probably one of those stinky Jews, eh?
I know nothing about the rest of his views, so why should I label him right-wing or left-wing? Or a stinky Jew?
"We clearly recognize that Israel is in a very difficult situation and we recognize Israel's attempt to secure security for itself and its citizens," Graham told reporters Monday.
Out of context quote from a Canadian government representative.
"But there are ways of going about that which can contribute to lasting peace and ways which will not and in our view this way chosen is contrary to Israel's legal obligations and one which will definitely create more problems in the region."
How diplomatic...er, I mean out of touch. Crazy right-winger must be from Alberta.
It really doesn't seem so different from this statement:
"We have also always said that all parties need to keep in mind the consequences of their actions," said McClellan.
"It is also important during this time period that all parties should exercise restraint and do everything possible to avoid any further actions that make it more difficult to restore calm in the region."
Anti-Semitism is on the rise for a reason, you know.
The White House can say they are "deeply troubled" all they want, while paying homage to their Jewish overlords behind closed doors, and doing nothing to stop them. Pretty soon, they will simply gas the Palestinians en masse in the ultimate irony, and no one will stop them.
Ah well, this should get interesting pretty quick, whatever happens.
Muahahaha...
Here is an informative summation of the White House's immediate reaction to these events.
By the way, does anyone else think Sheikh bore a resemblance to a certain Lord of the Rings villain...
"The best way of fighting Arabs is to leave them alone".
Hamas is a terrorist group, and the Israeli military is no better. It's a cycle of violence and neither side wants it to stop. Hamas is funded by Saudi Arabian oil money and Israel is funded by the US taxpayer. Without funds, terrorist acts and reprisals cannot happen and without terror, the war on terror becomes redundant. Peace is the last thing that Bush, Sharon and Hamas wants. Peace is the last thing US defense contractors want. Peace is the last thing the the hardline extremist likudniks want, and peace is the last thing Hamas wants. The war generates jobs and money changing hands and too many peope are invested in the conflict for peace to ever happen.
Bush's war on terrorism is fake. He is cherrypicking his terrorists, some are OK and others are to be stomped on. In fact, he is as much of an international terrorist himself (9-11 and Iraq), and should be put on war crimes charges for the sake of the US and the rest of the world.
I think the basic reasoning is that being the head of Hamas is atrocious enough.
Probably true but who is focusing on the acts of terror he organised now? Israel missed the opportunity to concentrate on the harm he has done to them, gaining increased sympathy and understanding for their position, to put on a 'spectacular' show of force.