Israel bombs playground in Gaza & fires missile into Syria

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I don't think someone who was a Communist (nyuk nyuk) has any right preaching about morality, but what is a lonesome, middle-aged turd of a person to do with their free time?

Yadda yadda

Epic genius: One who turns away from Marxism in large part over moral issues has no right to say anything about morality, followed by another slurry bomb of resentful, ad hominem abusive attacks of which you seem addicted to like crack cocaine.

Let us know when you have something valid to add to the thread besides your personal anger issues, which seem to be so voluminous that you're literally drowning in them.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

what if Israel erected a giant trampoline wall ,and when the missiles hit the trampoline wall the missles will bounce back heh

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

So you admit the US didn't take part in a gassing genocide. Thanks.

I didn't say that the US took part. I did say that the US didn't mind, and actively helped, Saddam use chemical weapons against his enemies. You have to concede reality, you know.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

It's the world's problem

How so? Explain.

Is it the world's problem like North Korea is? Like Rwanda was? That one everyone ignored.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

and as the major stabilizer of world markets and politics, it's our problem. Isolationist leftism isn't the answer, and it never was. Neither is holding your own government and countrymen to a higher and different standard than you do others.

I hold my government and fellow citizens to an extremely high standard.

Why don't you?

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

You have two definitions of human rights: One for us, and one for them. Thus, you're laughable.

No. You're projecting your own failings - using your own standards for "morality", 9/11 was completely acceptable.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Epic genius: One who turns away from Marxism in large part over moral issues has no right to say anything about morality, followed by another slurry bomb of resentful, ad hominem abusive attacks of which you seem addicted to like crack cocaine.

Let us know when you have something valid to add to the thread besides your personal anger issues, which seem to be so voluminous that you're literally drowning in them.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Every statement you made is factually wrong.

The Palestinians have indeed turned down multiple offers for statehood, such as:

The 1937 Peel Commission Partition
The 1947 UN Partition -- If you look at the WIKI page on this plan, you'll see "In 2011, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas stated that the Arab rejection of the partition plan was a mistake he hoped to rectify."
The 2000 Camp David summit (reasons for impasse below from Wikipedia):

Both sides blamed the other for the failure of the talks: the Palestinians claiming they were offered little more than cantons of territory, and the Israelis claiming that they could not reasonably offer more territory.[citation needed]

According to The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, "most of the criticism for [the] failure [of the 2000 Camp David Summit] was leveled at Arafat".[19] Ehud Barak stated that he offered Arafat an eventual 91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with some Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods as a capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries.[20] The Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would dismantle the Palestinian terror organizations. The Israeli response as stated by Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Relations who participated in the talks, was "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation."[21]

Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.[19][22][23] Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.[24]

and last but not least, Olmert's 2008 proposal.

The question I don't see backers of the Palestinians asking is this: Why didn't Egypt or Jordan create a state for them when they controlled the territories? They could have simply handed it over. Where was the outrage about this? They could also have integrated them into their own countries, rather than keeping them separate like an unwanted house guest. Again, no questions from the pro-Palestinian crowd.

And what is your great response to this? Asserting I'm wrong but not correcting me, and posting junk articles from the usual lefty circle of nitwits.

The history of the conflict has been as bitterly contested as the conflict itself. Unfortunately, the truth has not been told in the west.

So why aren't YOU, mhgaffney O heroic one, telling this truth? Instead, you're recycling **** from lefty websites.

The Zionist version of events has prevailed, and it is based on lies.

Thanks. I hadn't realized that the Arabs turned down several offers of statehood were a "Zionist lie."

To take just one of your statements -- that the Jews were given less land. Nonsense. In 1947 -- even though Jews made up a small percentage of the total population compared with the Palestinians -- they were given over half the land.

The original Mandate included all of what is now Jordan being given to the Jews. (Refer to the San Remo Conference of 1920.) Even if the Jews were given ALL of the "occupied territories" today along with Israel, that still leaves them with far less land than given the Arabs and far less land originally promised them. Understand?

This was the UN partition plan. Nor did the land belong to the UN to give away. They had no right to do so. The native people were never even consulted about the expropriation of their own country.

Any and all possible two-state deals were rejected by the Arabs.

Not that the Zionists had any intention of abiding by the partition. Their plan from the start was to take all of Palestine for themselves.

No, 80% of Palestine was given to the Arabs, it's called "Jordan." Now they want the rest of the other 20%. The Arabs took Jordan all for themselves, in spite of the fact that "Arabs" were not the only indigenous people to the area; indeed, Jews and others have existed there before the Arabic language even existed. Further, Arab countries have mistreated and/or expelled their Jewish minorities, thus leaving them with little option other than migrating to Israel. Would you rather they simply drop off the face of the earth?

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Requiem

If the shoe fits, wear it.

A couple tips for you:

Anger management: 10 tips to tame your temper

Coping skills

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I didn't say that the US took part. I did say that the US didn't mind, and actively helped, Saddam use chemical weapons against his enemies. You have to concede reality, you know.

You accused me of "justifying genocide." Suffice it to say, the context of which is supporting US policy in the Middle East, specifically to the topic at hand which is Iraq.

Again, why howl about Islamists being killed off, either by a gun, a bomb or a gas bomb? I've seen such nonsensical moral contortions by the Left before, perhaps you can woo us and be the first to justify such a thing. You can also do us a favor and not mention gassing invading soldiers and civilian cities in the same breath, as if they're joined at the hip. That's discussing the issue in bad faith.

How so? Explain.

Is it the world's problem like North Korea is? Like Rwanda was? That one everyone ignored.

I've already explained this on another thread, as you are fully aware. Refer to the discussion elsewhere on US foreign policy. Refer also to my posts on this thread (from YOUR sources) which quote US officials explaining the reasoning behind support for Iraq against Iran. That is well more than enough. Since you refuse (again) to explain why these policies are wrong with little more than pseudo-moralistic huffing and puffing and more torrents of ad hominem abusive, we'll assume that you are (again) debating the subject in bad faith.

I hold my government and fellow citizens to an extremely high standard.

You hold them to a different and higher standard than others, specifically one in which what you call a "human right" in another country is "evil" when we do it. Typical of the Left, I will add. Self-loather, much? Yes, I think much.

No. You're projecting your own failings - using your own standards for "morality", 9/11 was completely acceptable.

I would suspect you consider 9/11 "blowback," knowing the ideological bent of your political corner. Those imperialist pigs were asking for it, etc.

I don't suffer from double-standard moral failings. You, however, do, as I have pointed out in great length for all to see. You're aren't alone as the single greatest moral failing of the Left in the United States is the exact same type of double-standards that you subscribe to; one that dictates that it's within the "rights" of a foreign country to elect a homicidal maniac as its ruler and to invade and butcher at will, but also one that dictates that when WE elect someone who invades somewhere, it's necessarily evil imperialism regardless of the reasons and considerations involved. You don't even bother trying to defend it, because after all, it's wholly indefensible. That is liberalism, and that is garbage. 100%.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

You accused me of "justifying genocide." Suffice it to say, the context of which is supporting US policy in the Middle East, specifically to the topic at hand which is Iraq.

Saddam was just hunky-dory in your view when he using chemical weapons against his enemies. Why?

You're the moral equivalent of al-Qaeda, ya know.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

You hold them to a different and higher standard than others, specifically one in which what you call a "human right" in another country is "evil" when we do it.

Other countries don't use war against us to make us agree with them. We do it to other countries on a depressingly regular basis. I expect better from America, given it exceptionalism and all. You want us to be no better than anyone else. And you're stunned when we're hated for just that.

Get a ****ing clue.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I would suspect you consider 9/11 "blowback," knowing the ideological bent of your political corner. Those imperialist pigs were asking for it, etc.

Well, we have been allied with Saudi Arabia since WWII, trading our protection for their oil, and given the pre-Enlightenment nature of their society, and that they promote a very severe kind of Islamic fundamentalism, the corruption of the al-Saud regime might just piss off some Islamic fundamentalists (i.e., OBL) and seeing as how we're the country providing the al-Sauds the most support (weapons, training, etc.), then a strike against the protectors of the corrupt and heretical al-Saud regime, to weaken it and make it vulnerable to being overthrown, makes sense. Yes, 9/11 was a blowback of sorts.

You see, that's the outcome of your amoral realpolitik.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I don't suffer from double-standard moral failings.

You don't have any morality to fail.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Saddam was just hunky-dory in your view when he using chemical weapons against his enemies. Why?

You're the moral equivalent of al-Qaeda, ya know.

Instead of answering points you ask more questions - which have already been answered ON THIS THREAD. More bad faith claptrap. I am disappoint.

So you think it's morally OK for the Syrians to elect a guy who wants to invade Israel and slaughter its population, yet I am the "moral equivalent of al-Qaeda."

Where was my stash of MENSA apps, again?

Other countries don't use war against us to make us agree with them. We do it to other countries on a depressingly regular basis. I expect better from America, given it exceptionalism and all. You want us to be no better than anyone else. And you're stunned when we're hated for just that.

Ah! So you're moving the goal posts! We do no such thing, if that were the case we'd bomb everyone whoever elected a moron into power, and we've never done that. Yet again, more national self-hatred from you with zilch in the way of justification for it.

Get a ****ing clue.

I did. That's why I'm no longer a lefty.

Well, we have been allied with Saudi Arabia since WWII, trading our protection for their oil, and given the pre-Enlightenment nature of their society, and that they promote a very severe kind of Islamic fundamentalism, the corruption of the al-Saud regime might just piss off some Islamic fundamentalists (i.e., OBL) and seeing as how we're the country providing the al-Sauds the most support (weapons, training, etc.), then a strike against the protectors of the corrupt and heretical al-Saud regime, to weaken it and make it vulnerable to being overthrown, makes sense.

So where once you said the Saudis had the right to have any type of society they want, you're now saying we're a-holes for letting them do so. Uh... You realize, of course, that pulling support from the House of Saud will do nothing in terms of making that country the shining bastion of secular liberalism you want it to be, right? Again, you aren't taking into consideration geopolitical issues relating to our foreign policy. You're a very rudimentary, shallow thinker in this regard.

Yes, 9/11 was a blowback of sorts.

Told you I know how you tick. I KNOW the Left.

You don't have any morality to fail.

Like the average elitist, smug liberal, you fail not in our expectations that you believe that you are the singular keeper of morality, much like the average hated "fundie" Christian that you love to hate.



If you're going to make such wild claims, at least be consistent about it.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

So you think it's morally OK for the Syrians to elect a guy who wants to invade Israel and slaughter its population, yet I am the "moral equivalent of al-Qaeda."

It's not our job to dictate to other countries whom they can elect and whom they cannot. What gives the US that right? You certainly wouldn't have objected after Bush's re-election if Iraq and its allies had attacked us as retaliation for Bush's invasion of Iraq, correct? That is, if your "morality" is consistent...

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

We do no such thing, if that were the case we'd bomb everyone whoever elected a moron into power, and we've never done that.

We don't necessarily have to bomb a nation into submission - subverting them via covert means and proxies are our preferred methods.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

So where once you said the Saudis had the right to have any type of society they want, you're now saying we're a-holes for letting them do so.

We don't have to support tyranny. You demand that we do so. And are surprised when 9/11 happens.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Uh... You realize, of course, that pulling support from the House of Saud will do nothing in terms of making that country the shining bastion of secular liberalism you want it to be, right?

Protecting the al-Saud regime will never allow Saudis to become free. Ponder that.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Again, you aren't taking into consideration geopolitical issues relating to our foreign policy.

What is completely off the table in regards to our foreign policy? That is, what actions can we never undertake and what actions by those we support can we never sanction?

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

The Palestinians have indeed turned down multiple offers for statehood, such as:

The 1937 Peel Commission Partition
The 1947 UN Partition -- If you look at the WIKI page on this plan, you'll see "In 2011, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas stated that the Arab rejection of the partition plan was a mistake he hoped to rectify."
The 2000 Camp David summit (reasons for impasse below from Wikipedia):

Both sides blamed the other for the failure of the talks: the Palestinians claiming they were offered little more than cantons of territory, and the Israelis claiming that they could not reasonably offer more territory.[citation needed]

According to The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, "most of the criticism for [the] failure [of the 2000 Camp David Summit] was leveled at Arafat".[19] Ehud Barak stated that he offered Arafat an eventual 91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with some Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods as a capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries.[20] The Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would dismantle the Palestinian terror organizations. The Israeli response as stated by Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Relations who participated in the talks, was "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation."[21]

Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.[19][22][23] Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.[24]

and last but not least, Olmert's 2008 proposal.

The question I don't see backers of the Palestinians asking is this: Why didn't Egypt or Jordan create a state for them when they controlled the territories? They could have simply handed it over. Where was the outrage about this? They could also have integrated them into their own countries, rather than keeping them separate like an unwanted house guest. Again, no questions from the pro-Palestinian crowd.

And what is your great response to this? Asserting I'm wrong but not correcting me, and posting junk articles from the usual lefty circle of nitwits.




So why aren't YOU, mhgaffney O heroic one, telling this truth? Instead, you're recycling **** from lefty websites.




Thanks. I hadn't realized that the Arabs turned down several offers of statehood were a "Zionist lie."



The original Mandate included all of what is now Jordan being given to the Jews. (Refer to the San Remo Conference of 1920.) Even if the Jews were given ALL of the "occupied territories" today along with Israel, that still leaves them with far less land than given the Arabs and far less land originally promised them. Understand?




Any and all possible two-state deals were rejected by the Arabs.



No, 80% of Palestine was given to the Arabs, it's called "Jordan." Now they want the rest of the other 20%. The Arabs took Jordan all for themselves, in spite of the fact that "Arabs" were not the only indigenous people to the area; indeed, Jews and others have existed there before the Arabic language even existed. Further, Arab countries have mistreated and/or expelled their Jewish minorities, thus leaving them with little option other than migrating to Israel. Would you rather they simply drop off the face of the earth?

You have done no research on your own. You are reciting the standard Zionist line - -gleaned from some Zionist website.

Palestine is the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It does not include Jordan.

Yes we know that Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton blamed the failure of the peace talks in the 1990s -- on Arafat. All during the 1990s Israel kept taking more Arab land and building more settlements in the W Bank -- even as the so called talks proceeded.

It was all a fake -- a sham process. Israel's actions in making facts on the ground speaks louder than the propaganda about how Israel had no one to talk to. Nonsense.

Barak and Clinton set up Arafat -- tried to bully him into capitulation.

If you look at the map of the W bank -- this says it all. I will post it as soon as I locate it on my hard drive.

MHG

[mhgaffney]

Here is the key map. It's no coincidence the US and Israel kept this map out of the press during the Oslo Peace process. The American people never saw it. Had they seen it they would have known the truth -- that the Oslo Process was a sham.

The map shows the shrinking of Palestine. Ehuk Barak and Clinton attempted to bully Arafat into signing away his homeland.

Arafat wanted a compromise settlement -- but refused to capitulate. It was shameful how Clinton and the US press tarred and feathered him.
MHG

[mhgaffney]

The video Nyuk posted -- with Danny Ayalon is a shameless piece of propaganda.

It's a parade of falsehoods -- every single statement is a lie.

Nyuk's brain (I'm assuming he has one) has been completely colonized.

MHG

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Here is the key map. It's no coincidence the US and Israel kept this map out of the press during the Oslo Peace process. The American people never saw it. Had they seen it they would have known the truth -- that the Oslo Process was a sham.

The map shows the shrinking of Palestine. Ehuk Barak and Clinton attempted to bully Arafat into signing away his homeland.

Arafat wanted a compromise settlement -- but refused to capitulate. It was shameful how Clinton and the US press tarred and feathered him.
MHG

who side was the Palestine on during WWII

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The video Nyuk posted -- with Danny Ayalon is a shameless piece of propaganda.

It's a parade of falsehoods -- every single statement is a lie.

Nyuk's brain (I'm assuming he has one) has been completely colonized.

MHG

say will you be doing the history of the native Americans soon they too lost alot of land ie North America Canada just saying

[cutthemdown]

Playgrounds are a legitmate target. They always say this Jewish aggression leads to kids wanting to be terrorists. So you might as well just kill the kids right along with the adults. how come no one ever thought of this before?

I wonder what type of missile is the best for penetrating a jungle gym?

Israeli air force new slogan.........Turning playground sand into glass one schoolyard at a time.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

[nyuk nyuk]

The Men of Virtue from the Religion of Peace recently bombed an Israeli bus. Here we go again.

[Requiem]

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I hope that wasn't lifted from Syria.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I hope that wasn't lifted from Syria.

Gulp, gulp, swallow, swallow.

[nyuk nyuk]

These bloodthirsty animals not only intentionally target civilians as a tactic of war, they even make songs about it complete with footage of injured and dead Jews:

[Requiem]

Sign up all those guys throwing rocks to the Yankees farm system.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Gulp, gulp, swallow, swallow.

I guess you did.

I would also hope and assume that you understand the difference between accidental civilian deaths as opposed to aiming at them intentionally as a tactic of war. Little things like this tend to distinguish the honest from the dishonest, the sane from the insane... And the left from the right.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

These bloodthirsty animals

Palestinians are not animals.