Israel supporters=idiots

[truth on hold]

Someone who supports what? US involvement in Palestine? Are you joking? I don't support it at all.

 

You threw around these negatives acting like they don't have reasons to be there. I corrected you. I never have supported the Middle East ventures at face-value.

 

Just because the US is there for its own reasons doesn't mean they don't benefit me. It doesn't mean they don't harm me. But there are reasons. What's really happening in this country is dumb chits like you take my support on a issue between two Non-US nations or cultures or whatever and paint me with a brush. That's what's wrong with this country. You assume I want Middle East support.

 

This isn't generalities, or even stereotypes. Those are unrelated opinions that you jam together and label as "them" instead of "us." It's patently retarded. You know, at first, I didn't really see why 90% of PPP calls posters like you an idiot all the time. Now I get it. I bet you chafe when you take a stance on something and someone calls you a communist or a hippie or a gay-lover or says you want a nanny-state. Or when you take another stance and they call you a gun-nut or a redneck or a bible-thumping mongoloid. I bet it bothers you. And you're so quick to do the same. It's funny really. This whole time I've been pointing out the hypocrisy of judging Israel from your Ivory Tower and you go ahead and show me some more.

 

It's a hamper to discussion and further produces stupid as !@#$ dividing lines.

fine with me, but I never saw you object to it. Just a lot of back and forth w/ NJ and posts like ...

 

"Of course. I can see how you think "moral high-ground" Israel supporters sound a bit foolish.

 

But still, they won, and I'm okay with that."

 

And you do realize that the "they won" that you're "okay with" and the support we give them that you say is "corrupt and self-serving" is somehow, kind of, sort of, maybe ..... ummmm, related?

 

 

And please spare me, with the goofballs who dominate PPP I wouldn't want it any other way than them name calling me ... matter of fact, it would be highly disturbing to be accepted by them

Edited July 12, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[FireChan]

fine with me, but I never saw you object to it. Just a lot of back and forth w/ NJ and posts like ...

 

"Of course. I can see how you think "moral high-ground" Israel supporters sound a bit foolish.

 

But still, they won, and I'm okay with that."

 

And you do realize that the "they won" that you're "okay with" and the support we give them that you say is "corrupt and self-serving" is somehow, kind of, sort of, maybe ..... ummmm, related?

 

 

And please spare me, with the goofballs who dominate PPP I wouldn't want it any other way than them name calling me ... matter of fact, it would be highly disturbing to be accepted by them

 

I remember posing a question earlier. Are you okay with the French supporting the fledgling United States in the revolution? I assure you, they had their own self-serving reasons.

 

That's why I'm okay with the Israelis winning, you dolt. As in, I have no objections. I wouldn't give a **** if the situations reversed and it was the Palestinians winning land and the wars, as long as they aren't a threat to me.

 

I empathized with NJ's stance that the Israelis don't have clean hands in terms of their dealing with the Palestinians. Saying that I can see how the "Israelis are good and Palestinians are evil" crowd sounds foolish means nothing in terms of the US involvement.

 

Look at you go. Taking two different conversations, and blending them into a nonsensical point wrought with hypocrisy and gaps in logic. I thought you'd actually give me a response with substance or critical thinking. I hopefully won't make that mistake again.

Edited July 12, 2014 by FireChan

[truth on hold]

 

 

I remember posing a question earlier. Are you okay with the French supporting the fledgling United States in the revolution? I assure you, they had their own self-serving reasons.

 

That's why I'm okay with the Israelis winning, you dolt. As in, I have no objections. I wouldn't give a **** if the situations reversed and it was the Palestinians winning land and the wars, as long as they aren't a threat to me.

 

I empathized with NJ's stance that the Israelis don't have clean hands in terms of their dealing with the Palestinians. Saying that I can see how the "Israelis are good and Palestinians are evil" crowd sounds foolish means nothing in terms of the US involvement.

 

Look at you go. Taking two different conversations, and blending them into a nonsensical point wrought with hypocrisy and gaps in logic. I thought you'd actually give me a response with substance or critical thinking. I hopefully won't make that mistake again.

So who do you think are the beneficiaries of the corrupt aid that goes to the dirty hands of the Israelis? Are you saying its corrupt but it benefits us citizens so its OK? Instead of us citizens, might it be benefitting special interest groups and individuals, to the detriment of us citizens? Who might those special interest groups and individuals be?

 

 

[FireChan]

So who do you think are the beneficiaries of the corrupt aid that goes to the dirty hands of the Israelis? Are you saying its corrupt but it benefits us citizens so its OK? Instead of us citizens, might it be benefitting special interest groups and individuals, to the detriment of us citizens? Who might those special interest groups and individuals be?

 

I see you sidestepped my question. Could you be afraid of outing your own hypocrisy? Here, I'll pose it again. Are you okay with the French supporting the fledgling United States in the revolution?

 

So who do you think are the beneficiaries of the corrupt aid that goes to the dirty hands of the Israelis?

 

First off, I never said the aid was corrupt, I meant the reasons for the aid may be corrupt. I have no reason to believe that the aid itself is corrupt in the way of bribery.

 

Are you saying its corrupt but it benefits us citizens so its OK?

 

Yes. I don't see our money being the direct or even indirect cause of or tool for the Israeli conflicts. Further more, I don't see a morally superior side in the conflicts. So yeah, if helping the Israelis, who are our allies, helps the US and brings back more money than we spend, that's fine. I don't necessarily believe that's the case in this instance, but if it was, I'm all for it. There's even a US precedent. With little knowledge of the abhorrent practices of the Axis powers, the US implemented the Lend-Lease act to promote the defense of the US by granting us base rights as well as money in exchange for munitions support to our allies, the Allies. Knowing what we know now, in terms of the evil of the Axis, it seems like a no-brainer, but we didn't at the time. Was that corrupt? Do you support that decision?

 

Instead of us citizens, might it be benefitting special interest groups and individuals, to the detriment of us citizens?

 

It might. Do you know this?

 

Who might those special interest groups and individuals be?

 

Do you know? Why don't you link me to some articles that link our aid to Israel to big oil and big military to keep the proletariat down?

 

I have already expressed myself unfamiliar with the idiosyncrasies of the US involvement in the Middle East. In fact, I said that right before this conversation took place. I said it might be corrupt. I don't know. I just know they have reasons. They could be good, they could be corrupt and bad for the US. Maybe the pressure by big oil to help Israel helps keep their costs down, and keeps our domestic prices down. Who knows?

 

I'm starting to see a pattern here. Rather than staying on one issue, you jump to another in a effort to cloud the whole thing. Two pages ago, I was talking about the right of conquest between the Israelis and Palestinians. Somehow, we've transitioned to US aid. Not only have you shifted the conversation, but you deliberately disregard my "maybe's" and "possibly's" and pretend I'm speaking in absolutes.

 

"As corrupt and self serving as they might be."

 

"That's a pretty big admission"

 

What in the actual !@#$? I didn't admit anything ever, except my own doubts. Are you even reading or just spouting nonsense?

Edited July 12, 2014 by FireChan

[truth on hold]

I see you sidestepped my question. Could you be afraid of outing your own hypocrisy? Here, I'll pose it again. Are you okay with the French supporting the fledgling United States in the revolution?

 

 

sorry perhaps I thought it was sarcasm comparing US as the recipient of aid in one case to donor in the other. so to answer the obvious recipients obviously dont question how it's obtained they're just cashing checks, but as the donor we damn well should care where it's going and who's benefiting ... actually we should be obsessing over it.

 

Ever consider the opportunity cost of what it would cost to have more US military and intelligence in the region if Israel didn't provide it?

I really don't give a s#^t that Omar is organizing a rock throwing protest in Gaza. As for "intelligence" outside the apartheid state, Id steer as far away from the BS that a Netanyahu cooks up as I possibly could. That POS just tries to sucker US into fighting his f%@$ing wars

 

http://youtu.be/MMsaGTAUWd4

Edited July 12, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[B-Man]

Two liberals are walking down the road, when they come upon a man in the ditch. He has been badly beaten, left for dead. He is moaning, groaning. One liberal turns to the other and says, “Quick, we have to find the people who did this. They need help.”

 

 

 

Israel is in a weird position: Almost uniquely, they are prohibited from destroying their enemy — an enemy committed to their destruction.

 

They have to slap their enemy on the wrist, retreat behind their borders, and wait to be hit again. At which point they can slap again.

 

We keep seeing this movie over and over . . .

 

 

As soon as the Arabs are willing to coexist, there will be peace. Not a second before.

 

 

You can study this conflict till the cows come home. But it boils down to that.

[Bronc24]

Two liberals are walking down the road, when they come upon a man in the ditch. He has been badly beaten, left for dead. He is moaning, groaning. One liberal turns to the other and says, “Quick, we have to find the people who did this. They need help.”

 

 

 

Israel is in a weird position: Almost uniquely, they are prohibited from destroying their enemy — an enemy committed to their destruction.

 

They have to slap their enemy on the wrist, retreat behind their borders, and wait to be hit again. At which point they can slap again.

 

We keep seeing this movie over and over . . .

 

 

As soon as the Arabs are willing to coexist, there will be peace. Not a second before.

 

 

You can study this conflict till the cows come home. But it boils down to that.

 

I've read all of this with great interest and this really sums it up.

[FireChan]

sorry perhaps I thought it was sarcasm comparing US as the recipient of aid in one case to donor in the other. so to answer the obvious recipients obviously dont question how it's obtained they're just cashing checks, but as the donor we damn well should care where it's going and who's benefiting ... actually we should be obsessing over it.

 

 

I really don't give a s#^t that Omar is organizing a rock throwing protest in Gaza. As for "intelligence" outside the apartheid state, Id steer as far away from the BS that a Netanyahu cooks up as I possibly could. That POS just tries to sucker US into fighting his f%@$ing wars

 

http://youtu.be/MMsaGTAUWd4

 

I was only talking about the recipients, that's why I asked. You made it seem like the source and cause of the foreign aid is pertinent to the Israeli conflict with Palestinians, when its not and it wasn't pertinent to the US in the Revolution. You just stated my point, to me, in response to my point. I don't even know what to say.

[keepthefaith]

Two liberals are walking down the road, when they come upon a man in the ditch. He has been badly beaten, left for dead. He is moaning, groaning. One liberal turns to the other and says, “Quick, we have to find the people who did this. They need help.”

 

 

 

Israel is in a weird position: Almost uniquely, they are prohibited from destroying their enemy — an enemy committed to their destruction.

 

They have to slap their enemy on the wrist, retreat behind their borders, and wait to be hit again. At which point they can slap again.

 

We keep seeing this movie over and over . . .

 

 

As soon as the Arabs are willing to coexist, there will be peace. Not a second before.

 

 

You can study this conflict till the cows come home. But it boils down to that.

 

Very well summed up.

[truth on hold]

 

 

Very well summed up.

The ongoing source is the occupation. Whenever you have one nation occupying another there'll be conflict ... especially when the populations are of relatively equal size.

 

The source of the current bombing of Gaza is netanyahus political motive to scapegoat Hamas. When they reconciled with Fatah and both US and Europe recognized the new government it put netanyahu in awkward position. When the 3 boys were abducted instead of making a focused attempt to recover them he saw this a political opportunity to blame hamas and killed some of them in Gaza.

 

That a leader of a country behaves like this should be an affront to anyone with morals anywhere. That he holds a lot of sway in Washington and is constantly angling to sucker us into his wars, should be an outrage to Americans. He poses the greatest risk of getting Americans senselessly killed of any leader in the world

Edited July 13, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[Justice]

Two liberals are walking down the road, when they come upon a man in the ditch. He has been badly beaten, left for dead. He is moaning, groaning. One liberal turns to the other and says, “Quick, we have to find the people who did this. They need help.”

 

 

 

Israel is in a weird position: Almost uniquely, they are prohibited from destroying their enemy — an enemy committed to their destruction.

 

They have to slap their enemy on the wrist, retreat behind their borders, and wait to be hit again. At which point they can slap again.

 

We keep seeing this movie over and over . . .

 

 

As soon as the Arabs are willing to coexist, there will be peace. Not a second before.

 

 

You can study this conflict till the cows come home. But it boils down to that.

 

Not true. Three Israelis were kidnapped and killed in the West Bank yet Israel responds by bombing Gaza. Gaza retaliates with rocket attacks. Israel hits back 1000 times harder. Why hit Gaza in the first place? People from Gaza can't even visit the West Bank, much less pick up three hitchhikers and kill them.

 

What's their motive? I don't know, but I won't be surprised if the Israelis blame Iran for supplying Gaza with more effective rockets real soon. Or maybe there's some other motive? I guess we'll find out soon.

[DC Tom]

Not true. Three Israelis were kidnapped and killed in the West Bank yet Israel responds by bombing Gaza. Gaza retaliates with rocket attacks. Israel hits back 1000 times harder. Why hit Gaza in the first place?

 

Because "the West Bank" didn't kidnap Israelis, Hamas did (according to Israel). And Hamas is based in, and governs, Gaza.

 

Whether you agree with Israel's actions or not, the logic's pretty !@#$ing straightforward.

[Justice]

 

 

Because "the West Bank" didn't kidnap Israelis, Hamas did (according to Israel). And Hamas is based in, and governs, Gaza.

 

Whether you agree with Israel's actions or not, the logic's pretty !@#$ing straightforward.

 

Only if you believe them. Is there any real evidence those guys were a part of Hamas?

 

I mean just look at 9/11. We were hit by mainly Saudis and who do we attack? Iraq.

Edited July 13, 2014 by NoJustice

[Justice]

Let's not forget the Israelis actually apprehended the two suspects of that heinous crime. That's not enough?

 

Even if they're a part of Hamas, how do we know they didn't act alone?

Edited July 13, 2014 by NoJustice

[3rdnlng]

Only if you believe them. Is there any real evidence those guys were a part of Hamas?

 

I mean just look at 9/11. We were hit by mainly Saudis and who do we attack? Iraq.

 

We didn't attack Iraq because of 9/11. We attacked Afghanistan over 9/11 because of all the terror training camps that were training the terrorists.

 

Let's not forget the Israelis actually apprehended the two suspects of that heinous crime. That's not enough?

 

Even if they're a part of Hamas, how do we know they didn't act alone?

 

Now you are just being obtuse. Hamas has come right out and said what they are going to do. The Israelis listen. The Arab world should have let 1967 be a lesson in that regard.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Now you are just being obtuse. Hamas has come right out and said what they are going to do. The Israelis listen. The Arab world should have let 1967 be a lesson in that regard.

Exactly. If your pointing a gun at me, telling me you're going to kill me, I don't need to wait until you shoot to defend myself.

[Justice]

 

 

We didn't attack Iraq because of 9/11. We attacked Afghanistan over 9/11 because of all the terror training camps that were training the terrorists.

 

 

 

Now you are just being obtuse. Hamas has come right out and said what they are going to do. The Israelis listen. The Arab world should have let 1967 be a lesson in that regard.

 

Huh? Wait? What? Are you that !@#$ing stupid? Hamas said what? This all started how? The kidnappings and murders, right? They caught the guys, right? No due process-nothing. Let's just bomb these guys for the hell of it because they're Arabs and no one will care. Kill em first, ask questions later.

 

Let's not get into '67. Their motive for their preemptive strike was a land grab. Nothing more. Nothing less. They knew exactly what they were doing. It took less than a week to win that war "they had no choice in fighting". It defies all logic to think otherwise.

 

As far as Iraq goes, GW strongly implied several times there was a connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam.

Edited July 13, 2014 by NoJustice

[3rdnlng]

Huh? Wait? What? Are you that !@#$ing stupid? Hamas said what? This all started how? The kidnappings and murders, right? They caught the guys, right? No due process-nothing. Let's just bomb these guys for the hell of it because they're Arabs and no one will care. Kill em first, ask questions later.

 

Let's not get into '67. Their motive for their preemptive strike was a land grab. Nothing more. Nothing less. They knew exactly what they were doing. It took less than a week to win that war "they had no choice in fighting". It defies all logic to think otherwise.

 

As far as Iraq goes, GW strongly implied several times there was a connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam.

 

Let's not get into '67 but let me tell you my version. Good one. Who was amassed on the Sinai Peninsula?

 

Show me the several times Bush "strongly implied" the connection.

[Justice]

 

 

Let's not get into '67 but let me tell you my version. Good one. Who was amassed on the Sinai Peninsula?

 

Show me the several times Bush "strongly implied" the connection.

 

Here you go. A quick copy and paste.

 

In early October 2002, President Bush was trying to convince Congress to pass a resolution to give him unilateral authority to go to war with Iraq. In a major address to the nation on October 7, he said “We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. . . . We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses.” He also said that a “very senior al Qaeda leader” received medical treatment in Baghdad. In the same speech, the president closely connected the need to attack Iraq with the 9/11 attacks: “Some citizens wonder, ‘after 11 years of living with this [saddam Hussein] problem, why do we need to confront it now?’ And there’s a reason. We have experienced the horror of September the 11th.” Thus, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were a major reason for attacking Iraq.

Vice President Cheney said on “Meet the Press” in late 2001 that a meeting between Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi official in Prague in 2001 was “pretty well con- firmed.”3 On September 27, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld argued that the link between Saddam and al Qaeda was “bulletproof.”

[meazza]

http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/07/12/daniel-pipes-hamas-knows-it-will-lose-a-military-battle-but-hopes-it-will-win-public-support