Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
israels secret weapon
the transcript of the BBC documentary that has israels govt in anti-semitic hysterics
BBC Transcript of "Israel's Secret Weapon" (part 1)
Transcript, BBC World Service, 29 June 2003
Israel declared over the weekend that it is cutting off ties with the BBC to protest a repeat broadcast of a documentary about non-conventional weapons said to be in Israel. The program was broadcast for the first time in March in Britain, and was rerun Saturday on a BBC channel that is aired all over the world. The boycott decision was made by Israel's public relations forum, made up of representatives from the Prime Minister's Office, the Foreign Ministry and the Government Press Office. It was decided that government offices won't assist BBC producers and reporters, that Israeli officials will not give interviews to the British network, and that the Government Press Office will make it difficult for BBC employees to get press cards and work visas in Israel. Before the broadcast Saturday, Israeli officials tried to pressure the BBC to cancel the broadcast, saying that the program was biased and presented Israel as an evil dictatorship. Here is a complete transcript of the program.
Correspondent: ISRAEL'S SECRET WEAPON
Tx Date: 17th March 2003
This script was made from audio tape - any inaccuracies are due to voices being unclear or inaudible
00.00.01 Correspondent Theme Music
00.00.11 Music
00.00.11 Graphic: Which country in the Middle East has undeclared Nuclear weapons?
00.00.16 Graphic: Which country in the Middle East has undeclared biological and chemical capabilities?
00.00.21 Graphic: Which country in the Middle East has no outside inspections?
00.00.26 Graphic: Which country jailed its nuclear whistleblower for 18 years?
00.00.31 Title page: ISRAEL'S SECRET WEAPON
00.00.36 Music
00.00.42 St Paul, Minnesota
00.00.45 Olenka Frenkiel: Meet the Eoloffs. Five years ago they adopted a man they'd never met who writes to them from a prison cell in Israel.
00.00.55 Actor's voice
00.00.55 Voiceover: My dearest Nick and Mary, I am very glad to hear from you so soon. About the next parole hearing I don't know what will happen. We've passed a long time in a very bad cruel condition.
00.01.07 Voiceover: We will see what the U.S. is going to do with Iraq, if they'll go to war.
00.01.13 Olenka Frenkiel: The man they adopted is Mordechai Vanunu, jailed as a traitor. He spent eleven years in solitary confinement.
00.01.21 Mary Eoloff: He was buried alive. He was shut up in a six by nine-foot cell with no windows so he couldn't see outside. Even when he exercised there was a canvas around him when he was out walking.
00.01.32 Nick Eoloff: He has spent more time in isolation in a prison in the western world than any other human being. It was that bad. His condition was that bad. And that was what really moved us to adopt him. How can a country treat a human being that way?
00.01.52 Olenka Frenkiel: Vanunu moved to Israel as a child with his family from Morocco. He served in the Israeli army, studied philosophy, and found work at Dimona.
00.02.07 Olenka Frenkiel: This mysterious complex in the Negev desert employed thousands of people all sworn to secrecy. For years Israel called it a textile factory, never admitting its true purpose; making plutonium for bombs.
00.02.26 Olenka Frenkiel: Vanunu's dissent over government policies was noted. He was given a warning and decided to leave.
00.02.35 Olenka Frenkiel: But not without the evidence which would change history. Today his are still the only photographs ever seen of the inside of Israel's nuclear bomb factory.
00.02.55 Olenka Frenkiel: It's 16 years since Sunday Times journalist Peter Hounam heard rumours that an Israeli whistleblower was offering proof of what the world had long suspected.
00.03.05 PETER HOUNAM, Freelance Journalist: Here was someone who said he'd worked right inside the plutonium separation plant helping to fabricate atomic weapons; who had taken photographs of the machinery and who had lots of information about how much material was being processed, and so on.
00.03.21 Peter Hounam: Therefore he was potentially going to be able to provide incontrovertible evidence that Israel had a very advanced programme.
00.03.31 Olenka Frenkiel: Hounam flew to meet Vanunu, who was now a Christian living in Australia.
00.03.36 Olenka Frenkiel: He was brought to England. He was hidden in a country hotel and smuggled into the paper's offices in the boot of the car while they checked his story.
00.03.45 Olenka Frenkiel: But Israeli intelligence agents caught here on Wapping's security cameras were onto him. They were waiting to strike.
00.03.58 Olenka Frenkiel: It took weeks for The Sunday Times to go to press with their scoop. When they finally did on Oct 5th 1986 Vanunu had vanished.
00.04.10 Reconstruction
00.04.14 Olenka Frenkiel: He'd met an American woman in Leicester Square who seemed to like him. He was vulnerable and afraid.
00.04.23 Olenka Frenkiel: When she suggested he'd be safer with her in Rome, he fell for it. It was a classic honey trap.
00.04.39 Olenka Frenkiel: Once in Rome the full weight of Israel's wrath kicked in. Vanunu was overpowered, assaulted and drugged.
00.04.56 Olenka Frenkiel: He'd been kidnapped and smuggled back to Israel by boat, unconscious. For weeks no one knew where he was.
00.05.09 Olenka Frenkiel: Eventually the Israelis brought Vanunu to court for a secret trial. They now admitted they had him but still no one knew how he'd got there.
00.05.19 Olenka Frenkiel: His kidnap - an illegal act on foreign soil - was kept secret. Somehow Vanunu found a pen and solved the mystery for the waiting press.
00.05.31 Olenka Frenkiel: Hijacked in Rome thirtieth of September 1986.
00.05.38 Olenka Frenkiel: It was Shimon Peres, then Prime Minister, who had ordered Vanunu's capture. To this day the kidnap remains an official state secret. Peres was the father of Israel's secret nuclear programme and for him Vanunu was a spy.
00.05.52 Shimon Peres: He was a traitor to this country.
00.05.56 Olenka Frenkiel: So what was your reaction?
00.05.57 Shimon Peres: Very negative.
00.05.58 Olenka Frenkiel: What did you do?
00.06.00 Shimon Peres: What I thought should be done.
00.06.01 Olenka Frenkiel: Which was what?
00.06.03 Shimon Peres: To put him to trial.
00.06.06 Olenka Frenkiel: Kidnap him?
00.06.08 SHIMON PERES, Former Prime Minister: My lady, I can't go into all the processes. I am unwilling. I don't see any reason to do so. The fact is that he was brought to trial.
00.06.22 Olenka Frenkiel: Vanunu's trial was held in secret. He was found guilty of treason and espionage and sentenced to eighteen years in jail.
00.06.41 AVIGDOR FELDMAN, Mordechai Vanunu's lawyer: Vanunu was treated this way out of revenge out of a way to deter others and because actually he was the person who broke the taboo of the secrecy in Israeli society, a very strong and influencing taboo in a very closed society more like a tribe.
00.07.05 Olenka Frenkiel: Mordechai Vanunu started his sentence on the twenty seventh of March 1988. Few tears were shed. For most Israelis he was more than a traitor. He had rejected Judaism.
00.07.18 Olenka Frenkiel: His parents declared him dead. And the world forgot about Israel's nuclear whistleblower. But the truth was out.
00.07.27 Peter Hounam: Vanunu told the world that Israel had developed between one hundred and two hundred atomic bombs and had gone on to develop neutron bombs and thermonuclear weapons. Enough to destroy the entire Middle East and nobody has done anything about it since.
00.07.45 Olenka Frenkiel: Today, proliferation experts report Israel has the world's sixth largest nuclear arsenal with small tactical nuclear weapons, nuclear landmines as well as medium range nuclear missiles launchable from air, land or sea.
00.08.00 Olenka Frenkiel: It's thought plutonium is made in Dimona; nuclear weapons are assembled at Yodefat and stored at Zachariah and Eilabun. Three nuclear submarines are based in Haifa and Israel's biological and chemical warfare laboratories are at Nes Ziona.
00.08.16 Olenka Frenkiel: Israel never comments on such reports.
00.08.20 Olenka Frenkiel: But evidence continues to emerge. In 1992 an Israeli cargo plane crashed in Amsterdam killing forty-three people.
00.08.28 Olenka Frenkiel: The Israelis claimed it was carrying flowers and perfume. It took six years and a Dutch parliamentary enquiry before they admitted it was carrying DMMP, a key component for sarin nerve gas.
00.08.42 Olenka Frenkiel: The DMMP was bound for The Israeli Institute of Biological Research at Nes Ziona, one of Israel's most secret defence sites. It is subject to no international inspection and reporting of its activities in Israel is prevented by strict military censorship.
00.09.08 Olenka Frenkiel: As war has loomed closer small signs of dissent have appeared on the suburban streets of Middle America. Nick and Mary Eoloff have been peace campaigners since the Vietnam War and the draft.
00.09.20 Mary Eoloff: The definition of a conscientious objector is someone who sincerely objects to participation in all forms of war. There are two words that are extremely important in that definition: "sincere" and "all".
00.09.37 Olenka Frenkiel: Fear that the draft may return has lead a new generation to the local church hall to hear how, if they're called up to fight, they can claim their right to say no.
00.09.50 Olenka Frenkiel: For the Eoloffs, Mordechai Vanunu is the ultimate conscientious objector. When they first visited him in 1997 it was his eleventh year in solitary confinement.
00.10.03 MARY & NICK EOLOFF, Mordechai Vanunu's adoptive parents: And we waited and they brought him in and he looked like an old man. I didn't anticipate that. And he came up to us and he put his fingers through the bars through the cage, because it was a steel cage. We were crying. We felt so awful to see him like this.
00.10.33 Olenka Frenkiel: Vanunu writes regularly. It is the only communication he is allowed with the outside world. But his letters take months to arrive and are always censored.
00.10.46 Mary Eoloff: He says, don't feel so bad, we can bear another year.
00.10.50 Nick Eoloff: My, what courage!
00.10.54 Mary Eoloff: The early letters that we got were totally cut out. This isn't even an example because they were cut out more than that, this. They use a highlighter and then they bring it to Mordechai, and he has to cut out the things they've highlighted.
00.11.11 Mary Eoloff: One time, he said they weren't paying attention. And so he just put the pieces in the envelope and we got them, because we said, you know, we got the pieces, and they're really not even significant. I think it's control, total control.
00.11.30 Music
00.11.34 Olenka Frenkiel: Today Jerusalem is a ghost town, drained of life. Israel's nuclear weapons have proved useless in its latest war. The suicide bombers have frightened the tourists away. The economy has collapsed.
00.11.51 Olenka Frenkiel: Israelis have learnt to live with war. Every citizen gets a gas mask, is taught how to use it and is expected to have it ready in case of attack.
00.12.13 Olenka Frenkiel: Nuclear weapons are seen as a justifiable deterrent by most Israelis, who feel besieged by enemies.
00.12.21 Olenka Frenkiel: Forty years ago Uzi Even, then a young scientist at Dimona was in at the start of Israel's bomb.
00.12.28 Professor UZI EVEN, Dimona scientist, 1962-68: We were a very small country, and we were surrounded by much much larger, more populous states on borders that are almost impossible to defend. The holocaust was very much in our memory at that time, and we all realised that we have to do something to prevent the same scenario from happening again.
00.12.51 Uzi Even: So we were a young crew, most of us very young, very enthusiastic, working on something we believed is essential for our existence, like building the final insurance policy that we will not be attacked or terminated.
00.13.15 Olenka Frenkiel: It was the young Shimon Peres, back in the fifties who negotiated a secret deal with the French to buy a nuclear weapons reactor like theirs.
00.13.24 Olenka Frenkiel: But while Dimona was going up, intelligence reports reached Washington that Israel was building an atom bomb.
00.13.30 Olenka Frenkiel: Despite claims that Dimona was for peaceful purposes only, Israel's leader Ben Gurion was summoned to Washington. President Kennedy feared an arms race in the Middle East and demanded inspections.
00.13.45 Olenka Frenkiel: But when inspectors finally entered the plant in May 1961 they were tricked. They were shown a fake control room on the ground floor. They were unaware of the six floors below where the plutonium was made.
00.14.00 PETER HOUNAM, Freelance journalist: Well this was something of great pride and almost a legendary story in Dimona, according to Vanunu. When the Americans came they were completely hoodwinked.
00.14.11 Peter Hounam: All the entrances including the lift shafts were bricked up and plastered over so it was impossible for anyone to find their way down to the lower floors.
00.14.24 Olenka Frenkiel: After Kennedy's assassination the pressure on Israel was off. His successor Lyndon Johnson turned a blind eye.
00.14.33 Olenka Frenkiel: Then In 1969 Israel's Golda Meir and President Richard Nixon struck a deal, renewed by every President to this day. Israel's nuclear programme could continue as long as it was never made public. It's called nuclear ambiguity.
00.14.48 Olenka Frenkiel: The term nuclear ambiguity, in some ways it sounds very grand. But isn't just a euphemism for deception?
00.14.58 SHIMON PERES, Former Prime Minister: If somebody wants to kill you, and you use a deception to save your life it is not immoral. If we wouldn't have enemies we wouldn't need deceptions. We wouldn't need deterrent.
00.15.12 Olenka Frenkiel: Was this the justification for concealing the floors of the plutonium reprocessing areas from the Americans, the inspectors, when they came?
00.15.23 Shimon Peres: You are having a dialogue with yourself, not with me.
00.15.27 Olenka Frenkiel: But that's been documented in a number of books.
00.15.30 Shimon Peres: Ask the question to yourself, not to me.
00.15.32 Olenka Frenkiel: I mean, Is it not true?
00.15.35 Shimon Peres: I don't have to answer your questions even. I don't see any reason why.
00.15.43 Olenka Frenkiel: Ambiguity is a luxury unique to Israel. Today the country's an inspection-free zone, protected from scrutiny by America and her allies.
00.15.56 Ronen Bergman: This is the place where Vanunu identified as the separation plant, built mostly underground. And this is the silver dome of the Dimona nuclear reactor.
00.16.11 Olenka Frenkiel: Ronen Bergman is an Israeli journalist specialising in security and defence.
00.16.17 Ronen Bergman: This picture was taken by one of the best commercial satellites available called Ikonos, and Ikonos is capable of taking pictures up to a resolution of one metre.
00.16.30 RONEN BERGMAN, Journalist, "Yediot Ahronot": However due to the demand of Israel the American Congress ruled a new amendment to the law that forbids American satellites to sell anything of Israeli sites that is better than two metres, meaning the Ikonos is taking imagery of Israel. Then they change the imagery to the resolution of two metres.
00.16.52 Olenka Frenkiel: Worse, less clear?
00.16.53 Ronen Bergman: Much much less clear.
00.16.55 Olenka Frenkiel: And that was a ruling in the United States that's specifically for Israel, not for other countries.
00.17.00 Ronen Bergman: Only to Israel.
00.17.03 Olenka Frenkiel: Last November there were signs of a softening towards Vanunu. The authorities allowed pictures to be taken at his parole hearing. Parole itself has always been refused. Vanunu still has secrets, the prosecutor claims, that could harm Israel. It's an argument his lawyer will have to fight at the next hearing.
00.17.22 Olenka Frenkiel: Will the court hear the secret that they claim Vanunu holds?
00.17.27 AVIGDOR FELDMAN, Mordechai Vanunu's lawyer: They will hear some of the secrets, not the real secrets. They will hear secrets about the secrets.
00.17.34 Olenka Frenkiel: And you too, as his lawyer, will hear those?
00.17.37 Avigdor Feldman: Part of it. Less that the court. The court will hear the secrets about the secrets. I may hear the secrets about the secrets about the secrets.
00.17.47 Olenka Frenkiel: Is that really the case, or is that a sort of ironic...?
00.17.50 Avigdor Feldman: No, it's really the case. I will be given some type of general description of the secrets. The court will get something more concrete and the secrets themselves will be never released to anybody, they exist at all.
00.18.14 Olenka Frenkiel: Nick and Mary Eoloff have arrived in Israel. They hope to visit Vanunu in prison but they haven't yet got permission.
00.18.28 Mary Eoloff: Oh gosh, any news?
00.18.31 Rayna Moss: Not yet. Not good news. Not yet.
00.18.33 Olenka Frenkiel: Rayna Moss is one of a small group of Israelis campaigning for Vanunu's release. She's been hassling the prison authorities for weeks to get Nick and Mary the necessary permissions.
00.18.46 Rayna Moss: What she says now is that they have approval from one authority but she's waiting for approval from a second authority.
00.18.54 Nick Eoloff: Do they clearly understand our time limitation that we're due to be leaving on Friday?
00.18.53 Rayna Moss: Oh absolutely. I made that absolutely clear to them. I said that you're leaving on Friday, that you've already been here for a couple of days.
00.19.06 Mary Eoloff: Well I appreciate you making all these calls, Rayna.
00.19.08 Mary Eoloff: Oh it's nothing. I don't mind. I just wish I had good news for you.
00.19.16 Olenka Frenkiel: Forty-year-old reactors are usually shut down, but Dimona grinds on. Dimona is under the control of the Prime Minister, beyond the reach of Parliament or public scrutiny.
00.19.32 Olenka Frenkiel: And that worries the scientist who once worked there so optimistically.
00.19.37 UZI EVEN, Dimona scientist, 1962-68: As the reactor gets older the tendency to have accidents becomes more probable. You should have an outside watchdog and the secrecy more or less created an ex- territorial area in Israel where standard procedures of safety monitoring is not implemented.
00.19.58 Uzi Even: So, worker safety, environmental questions, industrial safety procedures, all are not covered and there are thousands of people working there.
00.20.25 Olenka Frenkiel: But the secrets of this old reactor are beginning to leak.
00.20.34 Olenka Frenkiel: Evidence has seeped out of accidents, lies and deceit.
00.20.43 Olenka Frenkiel: In 1996 the press heard rumours of a radioactive hotspot in the desert. The Environment Minister took them to watch him test the site with a Geiger counter. They weren't allowed to bring their own, one journalist told me.
00.21.00 Olenka Frenkiel: The Minister proclaimed the site clean. The readings for radioactivity, his instrument showed, were below normal.
00.21.06 Olenka Frenkiel: But journalists weren't happy.
00.21.09 Journalist, Subtitles: What worries us is the disposal of the waste. Can you please tell us where it is buried?
00.21.21 YOSSI SARID, Environment Minister, 1992-96, Subtitles: In a good place. I am being honest with you... I would lose my job if I told you where the nuclear waste is buried. The Prime Minister considers this information to be classified.
00.21.46 Olenka Frenkiel: But on Israeli television last year, a groundbreaking documentary alleged it was a cover-up.
00.21.57 Olenka Frenkiel: Ariel Spieler, a holocaust survivor and a loyal Dimona worker for 27 years, described how he had been told to prepare the site for the Minister's visit by removing contaminated waste from a deep crater.
00.22.11 Olenka Frenkiel: He said he'd replaced it with fresh soil and planted trees to cover the hole as though it had never happened. Then he said they brought the minister and the press to prove that everything was okay.
00.22.24 Olenka Frenkiel: Five Dimona workers appeared on the programme. They'd given their lives for Dimona, they said, and now they felt betrayed.
00.22.32 Olenka Frenkiel: They broke no secrets. Only the code of silence.
00.22.36 Olenka Frenkiel: They said they'd worked with uranium. There were fires, spills, and explosions of toxic gas.
00.22.44 Olenka Frenkiel: Now they were sick, they said, the plant didn't want to know. The management was denying they'd worked with radioactive materials, and because they were bound to secrecy they couldn't fight for their rights.
00.23.01 Olenka Frenkiel: The programme listed more than a hundred Dimona workers who'd developed cancer and whose claims were being ignored.
00.23.08 Olenka Frenkiel: A doctor and two lawyers backed their story.
00.23.18 Olenka Frenkiel: It was the first time Dimona workers had spoken out.
00.23.26 Olenka Frenkiel: I want to talk to Ariel Spieler. He's suffering from cancer and in the last few years he's seen a number of his friends and colleagues who worked there with him die of the disease.
00.23.35 Olenka Frenkiel: He's been fighting for compensation for their families, for their widows, and I know he'd really like to talk to us about this.
00.23.41 Olenka Frenkiel: He's told me he wishes he could, but he's also told me he's been warned off. He's been told not to talk. I'm going to go and see him and see if he'll change his mind.
[NEXT...]
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1665.shtml
BBC Transcript of "Israel's Secret Weapon" (part 2)
Transcript, BBC World Service, 29 June 2003
[...PREVIOUS]
00.23.59 Secret filming
00.23.59 Olenka Frenkiel: I just wanted to ask you, you know, why you can't?
00.24.04 Ariel Spieler, Subtitles: The Secret Service silenced me. They've silenced me completely. They told me not to say one word. What can I do? What can I do?
00.24.18 Ariel Spieler, Subtitles: They told me; "You'll end up like Vanunu". How long has he been in prison? 15 years? Do you want me to go to jail? I really wanted to talk. I asked the others but they refused. Nobody wants to talk.
00.24.50 Olenka Frenkiel: It was time to try the others: The doctors, the relatives, the lawyers.
00.24.58 Voice One: Hello?
00.24.59 Olenka Frenkiel: Hello. I just wanted to ask if there would be any possibility of doing an interview with you about the cancer victims and about their case?
00.25.07 Voice One: I'm really reluctant to be interviewed publicly on the media over the story overseas. It's just not appropriate.
00.25.13 Olenka Frenkiel: But why is it so sensitive?
00.25.21 Voice One: Come on now. Any discussion of nuclear issues is sensitive.
00.25.30 Voice Two: I talked to my family. I don't want to participate in this. I don't think it's the right thing to do.
00.25.37 Olenka Frenkiel: Nobody is prepared to talk about it.
00.25.45 Voice Three: There are things that it's not good to talk about, even if you're a lawyer.
00.25.54 Olenka Frenkiel: Are you worried about a sort of Vanunu scenario?
00.25.58 Voice Three: Of course! You think about it.
00.26.03 Olenka Frenkiel: I just don't get it. If this was the Soviet Union or Iraq or North Korea I'd understand why people are so scared to talk.
00.26.11 Olenka Frenkiel: But this is Israel. This is supposed to be a democracy.
00.26.22 Olenka Frenkiel: In Israel today, an invisible power enforces the code of silence - through fear. It comes from one man, whose own identity was itself a secret until two years ago, Yehiyel Horev.
00.26.39 RONEN BERGMAN, Journalist, "Yediot Ahronot": Horev is the smartest, most brilliant official figure in the sense of getting power. He took some kind of very small office and made it the fourth intelligence agency in Israel, with no law, no real scrutiny and monitoring by the Israeli Parliament.
00.27.05 Ronen Bergman: In this sense he is a grave danger to Israeli democracy.
00.27.11 Olenka Frenkiel: For sixteen years Horev has been the faceless guardian of Israel's secrets. His picture has never been published unmasked till now.
00.27.24 Olenka Frenkiel: It's Horev from his office at the Ministry of Defence who is blocking Vanunu's early release.
00.27.35 Olenka Frenkiel: But next year Vanunu's sentence is up. So Horev found a new Vanunu, Brigadier-General Yitzhak Yaakov, known to his friends as Yatsa. In his retirement he wrote a fictionalised memoir and talked on camera about his life.
00.27.54 Olenka Frenkiel: A distinguished soldier and scientist, Yaakov had for years led Israel's top-secret weapons development programme.
00.28.02 Olenka Frenkiel: So eminent was he, he was a candidate for the prestigious Israel Prize.
00.28.07 Olenka Frenkiel: But when he told his life story to a journalist, he broke the rules.
00.28.13 Olenka Frenkiel: The journalist was Ronen Bergman. He showed his article, as all Israelis must, to the censor.
00.28.19 Olenka Frenkiel: It went straight to Horev - who sent in the heavies.
00.28.23 Ronen Bergman: They were deadly deadly serious. My phones were bugged. I was followed by Israeli Secret Service, Yaakov was followed by Israeli Secret Service, and the whole system was surrounding us and following us and stalking us.
00.28.43 Olenka Frenkiel: Yaakov went from hero to zero. He was arrested secretly and charged with treason. He spent two years fighting Horev. Two years of jail, heart disease, bankruptcy and house arrest ended in public disgrace.
00.29.01 Olenka Frenkiel: He was spared prison, but the court found him guilty of betraying Israel's secrets.
00.29.08 Ronen Bergman: Horev was afraid that veterans of the Israeli army, the Israeli intelligence, the Israeli nuclear effort, would try to maintain their footprint in the history of Israel and tell their story.
00.29.26 Ronen Bergman: And he wanted to frighten them. In this sense he was successful.
00.29.33 Olenka Frenkiel: Do you think that there is too much secrecy? The power of somebody like Horev to destroy the life of an individual like this Brigadier-General Yaakov, for example. The man's life had been destroyed and he'd been a very loyal Israeli all his life.
00.29.51 SHIMON PERES, Former Prime Minister: It happens unfortunately in life, of false accusations, and some innocent people are paying the high cost.
00.29.59 Shimon Peres: I cannot see how can it be avoidable.
00.30.04 Olenka Frenkiel: Israel's parliament had never debated Dimona or nuclear weapons, until one MP three years ago forced them onto the agenda for the first time.
00.30.14 Olenka Frenkiel: Issam Makhoul an Israeli Arab broken the taboo - to the outrage of his colleagues.
00.30.21 Issam Makhoul, Subtitles: Vanunu is not the problem. The problem is the Israeli government's policy. A policy that's turned a small territory into a poisonous nuclear waste bin... which could make us all disappear into a nuclear cloud.
00.30.40 Olenka Frenkiel: These words uttered in the heart of Israel's democracy were seen by his fellow MPs as a sacrilege.
00.30.48 Issam Makhoul, Subtitles: The entire world knows that Israel is a vast nuclear, biological... and chemical warehouse that is used as an anchor... for the nuclear arms race in the middle east.
00.31.04 Olenka Frenkiel: He wasn't allowed to finish his speech, but he had made his point.
00.31.16 Olenka Frenkiel: But in his constituency during the recent election campaign it was a different story. Here his audience are - like him - Israeli Arabs.
00.31.23 Issam Makhoul, Subtitles: Why are the Americans looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I can tell them where there are weapons of mass destruction... including nuclear weapons.
00.31.40 Issam Makhoul, Subtitles: They are in Dimona, in Haifa Bay in the Eilabun mountain... and in the area of Sakneen, Yolfhata. Let them send their inspectors to me... and I will lead them by the hand and show them.
00.32.00 Olenka Frenkiel: There is a cry going up which is talking about a double standard. The world has to check Iraq's nuclear installations but not Israel's.
00.32.08 Shimon Peres: How can you compare it? Iraq is a dictatorship. Saddam Hussein is a killer. He killed a hundred thousand Kurds with gas bombs. How can you compare that at all?
00.32.23 Shimon Peres: Just because he calls himself a state? He's not a state - he's a Mafia. He's not a leader - he's a killer. You cannot say that about us.
00.32.34 Olenka Frenkiel: But even in Israel some do. The current Prime Minister Ariel Sharon directed the invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Thousands of innocent civilians were killed.
00.32.49 Olenka Frenkiel: The worst excesses were in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, for which an Israeli enquiry held Sharon personally responsible. In Belgium there are plans to prosecute him for alleged war crimes.
00.33.09 Olenka Frenkiel: While Sharon has been Prime Minister seven hundred Israelis have been killed. But more than two thousand Palestinians have died in attacks by Israeli soldiers.
00.33.21 Olenka Frenkiel: The Israeli army has used new unidentified weapons. In February 2001, a new gas was used in Gaza. A hundred and eighty patients were admitted to hospitals with severe convulsions.
00.33.41 Voiceover: The Israelis say this is tear gas. But this is not tear gas. We have never seen this gas before. We need some medicine for treatment. But it must be the right medicine.
00.33.56 Dr MOHAMMED SALAMA, Director, Palestinian Health Ministry: We asked, what kind of gas? But nobody verified for us the type of gas to give the antidote at that moment. Also we don't know how to check, how to examine, how to send this. We are in occupied area. We are surrounded. It is impossible to send these samples to international lab to test.
00.34.27 Olenka Frenkiel: Israel is outside chemical and biological weapons treaties and still refuses to say what the new gas was.
00.34.44 Olenka Frenkiel: The Eoloffs have still not heard from the prison. Their flight home is tomorrow night and they worry they may have to leave without seeing their adopted son.
00.34.56 Olenka Frenkiel: Today they are having lunch with a small group of activists who for sixteen years have fought in vain for Vanunu's release.
00.35.03 First Israeli activist: They pressurise Iraq about nuclear weapons. What about Israel and nuclear weapons?
00.35.07 Second Israeli activist: Imagine for one moment that Mordechai Vanunu was not an Israeli, that the whole story had happened with a Korean or an Iranian or a Pakistani technician, he would have had the Nobel Peace Prize. He would have been the second Sakharov.
00.35.23 Second Israeli activist: Instead he is a non-person in the West. This tells you what we are dealing with. We're dealing with the number one privileged state on earth.
00.35.34 Third Israeli activist: Counter to the Israeli argument that the whole world is against us, it is the exact opposite. We started the nuclear race in the Middle East. There is no doubt about it.
00.35.53 Third Israeli activist: And there is not even one important state in the Western Hemisphere who is dealing with it seriously.
00.36.00 Rayna Moss: You can talk all we want. We can sit until tomorrow morning and discuss Israel's nuclear policy. We can discuss whatever we want. It's the people who work in those areas, with weapons of mass destruction, the environment, Dimona itself, all these research places.
00.36.16 Rayna Moss: Vanunu is a living warning to them. This is what will happen to you if you speak out. You'll be Vanunu-nised. That's the warning. You will spend ten years in solitary confinement.
00.36.28 Rayna Moss: You will be cut off from all your family. You will be cut off from everyone who knows you. You will be this prisoner without a number and without a name. That's what will happen to you if you speak out.
00.36.41 Olenka Frenkiel: It's the prison on the phone.
00.36.47 Mary Eoloff: Hello? Oh how marvellous! What time? Well, if we come at eleven, can we have an hour and a half? Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. Bye.
00.37.06 Olenka Frenkiel: On their last day the Eoloffs get their visit. After an hour and a half they emerge with a message.
00.37.16 Mary Eoloff: It's just wonderful. We're so excited we don't know what to think. All right, you talk.
00.37.21 Nick Eoloff: It was a marvellous experience. It was the first time we've seen him so high and just anxious to talk about what's going on in his life and what he's looking forward to. Especially the anticipation of getting out.
00.37.33 Nick Eoloff: He's just strong. That was his final word: "Let them know that I'm strong and anxious to get out of here, out of Israel and just start life all over again". And he was just beaming.
00.37.45 Mary Eoloff: And he said the message to world is the message to the world is that I have forgotten the last sixteen years. I'm looking towards the future. I believe in a future of non- violence.
00.37.56 Olenka Frenkiel: So did he say that he'd do it all again?
00.37.58 Mary Eoloff: You know, he did. He said, of course I would. Isn't that incredible?
00.38.12 Olenka Frenkiel: The Eoloffs have gone, and Vanunu is again up for parole. But as usual everything, even the location of the parole hearing, is secret.
00.38.22 Secret filming
00.38.22 Olenka Frenkiel: Apart from me and Peter Hounam, who has come from London, there are no other journalists here.
00.38.27 Peter Hounam: Mordechai Vanunu? Mordechai Vanunu? Is he in there?
00.38.34 Olenka Frenkiel: Mordechai Vanunu is in there? Is that where the case is being held?
00.38.40 PETER HOUNAM, Freelance journalist: He is the most sensitive prisoner that this country has got, and whenever he comes here they block off the windows of his van if they can, or they, in the early days they used to put a crash helmet over him so people couldn't see him.
00.38.54 Peter Hounam: At one point they even had an electronic device that emitted a screeching signal so people couldn't hear him speak.
00.39.02 Olenka Frenkiel: And yet you and I are the only journalists here. The most sensitive prisoner Israel has got, and there's not a single member of the press here apart from you. Why do you keep coming?
00.39.10 Peter Hounam: I keep coming because he's in there because he spoke to me and we published his story on the Sunday Times in 1986, and I feel a sense of responsibility that we should be helping him get out.
00.39.23 Olenka Frenkiel: Three hours later the hearing ended. As usual Vanunu left behind darkened windows. In court Horev's prosecutor had cited the war with Iraq as a new reason for blocking parole.
00.39.38 AVIGDOR FELDMAN, Mordechai Vanunu's lawyer: The prosecutor of course went back to the old argument that Vanunu is a threat to security and she even said that if Vanunu will be released, probably the Americans would leave Iraq and go after Israel and Israel's nuclear weapons, which I found extremely ridiculous.
00.40.11 Olenka Frenkiel: Minnesota, the Peace Bridge and a weekly ritual. Every Wednesday hundreds protest against the war.
00.40.22 Olenka Frenkiel: Mary is there. So of course is Nick. Every week the numbers grow. There is a new generation of peaceniks who were children when Israel's nuclear weapons were exposed.
00.40.38 Olenka Frenkiel: Have any of you guys heard of Mordechai Vanunu?
00.40.42 Protesters: No.
00.40.43 Olenka Frenkiel: You don't know who he is.
00.40.47 Olenka Frenkiel: And if I tell you that he's somebody who exposed Israel's weapons of mass destruction, which nobody knew about until then, what would you say?
00.40.56 Protester: One Why is our media that's supposed to be free and open not telling us and why is our government not letting us know this information if we're living in the home of the free?
00.41.06 Protester Two: I think if our administration was consistent or had any integrity, then he would be held as a hero.
00.41.14 President George W. Bush: We're going to work with the members of the Security Council in the days ahead to make it clear to Saddam that the demands of the world and the United Nations will be enforced.
00.41.26 Olenka Frenkiel: In Washington, which gives Israel more than three billion dollars a year, the talk is only of Iraq. For weeks we've tried to get an interview about Israel's weapons of mass destruction, but no one in this Bush administration wants to talk about Israel.
00.41.41 Olenka Frenkiel: So we've asked for an interview about the military balance of power in the Middle East. And now they've agreed.
00.41.43 Olenka Frenkiel: This morning we've finally been told that we're going to have an interviewee. He's an expert in all matters Israeli. He's an Under Secretary of Defense, and his name is Douglas Feith.
00.42.04 Olenka Frenkiel: The Pentagon has demanded a list of questions in advance. So, it's "The balance of power", "Israel's nuclear ambiguity", "Allegations of a double standard" and "Mordechai Vanunu".
00.42.16 President George W. Bush: The gravest danger facing America and the world is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
00.42.35 Olenka Frenkiel: Yet again the shutters have come down on this story. Our interview with Under Secretary for Defense Douglas Feith was scheduled for four o'clock somewhere in this vast complex of the Pentagon behind me. Yet at the last minute we've heard the interview is cancelled.
00.42.50 Olenka Frenkiel: Questions about Israel, it appears, are strictly off-limits.
00.42.56 Olenka Frenkiel: We'd received this e-mail from the Pentagon.
00.43.00 Voiceover: Subtitles. Ladies: We showed Mr Feith the list of topics for the BBC interview. He is not willing to answer any of the questions you listed... Respectfully request you resubmit your questions as soon as possible this morning. Questions directed towards the current Iraqi situation.
00.43.17 Olenka Frenkiel: On February nineteenth Vanunu was again refused parole. He remains in Ashkelon prison.
00.43.30 Olenka Frenkiel: Horev has let it be known he intends never to let Mordechai Vanunu leave Israel.
00.43.36 End music
00.43.46 Olenka Frenkiel: You can comment on tonight's programme by visiting our web site at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/correspondent
00.43.46 Credits:
Reporter OLENKA FRENKIEL
Camera IAN PERRY
VT Editor BOYD NAGLE
Dubbing Mixer CLIFF JONES
Graphic Design STEVE ENGLAND
Production Team ALEXANDRA CAMERON SARAH EVA MARTHA O'SULLIVAN AGNES TEEK
Production Manager JANE WILLEY
Unit Manager SUSAN CRIGHTON
Film Research NICK DODD
Historical Research AVNER COHEN
Yitzhak Yaakov photos YEDIOT AHRONOT
Research CANDICE TALBERG TOM WATSON
Web Producer ANDREW JEFFREY
Picture Editor JONATHAN COOKE
Produced & Directed by GISELLE PORTENIER
Deputy Editor DAVID BELTON
Editor KAREN O'CONNOR
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1667.shtml
Transcript, BBC World Service, 29 June 2003
Israel declared over the weekend that it is cutting off ties with the BBC to protest a repeat broadcast of a documentary about non-conventional weapons said to be in Israel. The program was broadcast for the first time in March in Britain, and was rerun Saturday on a BBC channel that is aired all over the world. The boycott decision was made by Israel's public relations forum, made up of representatives from the Prime Minister's Office, the Foreign Ministry and the Government Press Office. It was decided that government offices won't assist BBC producers and reporters, that Israeli officials will not give interviews to the British network, and that the Government Press Office will make it difficult for BBC employees to get press cards and work visas in Israel. Before the broadcast Saturday, Israeli officials tried to pressure the BBC to cancel the broadcast, saying that the program was biased and presented Israel as an evil dictatorship. Here is a complete transcript of the program.
Correspondent: ISRAEL'S SECRET WEAPON
Tx Date: 17th March 2003
This script was made from audio tape - any inaccuracies are due to voices being unclear or inaudible
00.00.01 Correspondent Theme Music
00.00.11 Music
00.00.11 Graphic: Which country in the Middle East has undeclared Nuclear weapons?
00.00.16 Graphic: Which country in the Middle East has undeclared biological and chemical capabilities?
00.00.21 Graphic: Which country in the Middle East has no outside inspections?
00.00.26 Graphic: Which country jailed its nuclear whistleblower for 18 years?
00.00.31 Title page: ISRAEL'S SECRET WEAPON
00.00.36 Music
00.00.42 St Paul, Minnesota
00.00.45 Olenka Frenkiel: Meet the Eoloffs. Five years ago they adopted a man they'd never met who writes to them from a prison cell in Israel.
00.00.55 Actor's voice
00.00.55 Voiceover: My dearest Nick and Mary, I am very glad to hear from you so soon. About the next parole hearing I don't know what will happen. We've passed a long time in a very bad cruel condition.
00.01.07 Voiceover: We will see what the U.S. is going to do with Iraq, if they'll go to war.
00.01.13 Olenka Frenkiel: The man they adopted is Mordechai Vanunu, jailed as a traitor. He spent eleven years in solitary confinement.
00.01.21 Mary Eoloff: He was buried alive. He was shut up in a six by nine-foot cell with no windows so he couldn't see outside. Even when he exercised there was a canvas around him when he was out walking.
00.01.32 Nick Eoloff: He has spent more time in isolation in a prison in the western world than any other human being. It was that bad. His condition was that bad. And that was what really moved us to adopt him. How can a country treat a human being that way?
00.01.52 Olenka Frenkiel: Vanunu moved to Israel as a child with his family from Morocco. He served in the Israeli army, studied philosophy, and found work at Dimona.
00.02.07 Olenka Frenkiel: This mysterious complex in the Negev desert employed thousands of people all sworn to secrecy. For years Israel called it a textile factory, never admitting its true purpose; making plutonium for bombs.
00.02.26 Olenka Frenkiel: Vanunu's dissent over government policies was noted. He was given a warning and decided to leave.
00.02.35 Olenka Frenkiel: But not without the evidence which would change history. Today his are still the only photographs ever seen of the inside of Israel's nuclear bomb factory.
00.02.55 Olenka Frenkiel: It's 16 years since Sunday Times journalist Peter Hounam heard rumours that an Israeli whistleblower was offering proof of what the world had long suspected.
00.03.05 PETER HOUNAM, Freelance Journalist: Here was someone who said he'd worked right inside the plutonium separation plant helping to fabricate atomic weapons; who had taken photographs of the machinery and who had lots of information about how much material was being processed, and so on.
00.03.21 Peter Hounam: Therefore he was potentially going to be able to provide incontrovertible evidence that Israel had a very advanced programme.
00.03.31 Olenka Frenkiel: Hounam flew to meet Vanunu, who was now a Christian living in Australia.
00.03.36 Olenka Frenkiel: He was brought to England. He was hidden in a country hotel and smuggled into the paper's offices in the boot of the car while they checked his story.
00.03.45 Olenka Frenkiel: But Israeli intelligence agents caught here on Wapping's security cameras were onto him. They were waiting to strike.
00.03.58 Olenka Frenkiel: It took weeks for The Sunday Times to go to press with their scoop. When they finally did on Oct 5th 1986 Vanunu had vanished.
00.04.10 Reconstruction
00.04.14 Olenka Frenkiel: He'd met an American woman in Leicester Square who seemed to like him. He was vulnerable and afraid.
00.04.23 Olenka Frenkiel: When she suggested he'd be safer with her in Rome, he fell for it. It was a classic honey trap.
00.04.39 Olenka Frenkiel: Once in Rome the full weight of Israel's wrath kicked in. Vanunu was overpowered, assaulted and drugged.
00.04.56 Olenka Frenkiel: He'd been kidnapped and smuggled back to Israel by boat, unconscious. For weeks no one knew where he was.
00.05.09 Olenka Frenkiel: Eventually the Israelis brought Vanunu to court for a secret trial. They now admitted they had him but still no one knew how he'd got there.
00.05.19 Olenka Frenkiel: His kidnap - an illegal act on foreign soil - was kept secret. Somehow Vanunu found a pen and solved the mystery for the waiting press.
00.05.31 Olenka Frenkiel: Hijacked in Rome thirtieth of September 1986.
00.05.38 Olenka Frenkiel: It was Shimon Peres, then Prime Minister, who had ordered Vanunu's capture. To this day the kidnap remains an official state secret. Peres was the father of Israel's secret nuclear programme and for him Vanunu was a spy.
00.05.52 Shimon Peres: He was a traitor to this country.
00.05.56 Olenka Frenkiel: So what was your reaction?
00.05.57 Shimon Peres: Very negative.
00.05.58 Olenka Frenkiel: What did you do?
00.06.00 Shimon Peres: What I thought should be done.
00.06.01 Olenka Frenkiel: Which was what?
00.06.03 Shimon Peres: To put him to trial.
00.06.06 Olenka Frenkiel: Kidnap him?
00.06.08 SHIMON PERES, Former Prime Minister: My lady, I can't go into all the processes. I am unwilling. I don't see any reason to do so. The fact is that he was brought to trial.
00.06.22 Olenka Frenkiel: Vanunu's trial was held in secret. He was found guilty of treason and espionage and sentenced to eighteen years in jail.
00.06.41 AVIGDOR FELDMAN, Mordechai Vanunu's lawyer: Vanunu was treated this way out of revenge out of a way to deter others and because actually he was the person who broke the taboo of the secrecy in Israeli society, a very strong and influencing taboo in a very closed society more like a tribe.
00.07.05 Olenka Frenkiel: Mordechai Vanunu started his sentence on the twenty seventh of March 1988. Few tears were shed. For most Israelis he was more than a traitor. He had rejected Judaism.
00.07.18 Olenka Frenkiel: His parents declared him dead. And the world forgot about Israel's nuclear whistleblower. But the truth was out.
00.07.27 Peter Hounam: Vanunu told the world that Israel had developed between one hundred and two hundred atomic bombs and had gone on to develop neutron bombs and thermonuclear weapons. Enough to destroy the entire Middle East and nobody has done anything about it since.
00.07.45 Olenka Frenkiel: Today, proliferation experts report Israel has the world's sixth largest nuclear arsenal with small tactical nuclear weapons, nuclear landmines as well as medium range nuclear missiles launchable from air, land or sea.
00.08.00 Olenka Frenkiel: It's thought plutonium is made in Dimona; nuclear weapons are assembled at Yodefat and stored at Zachariah and Eilabun. Three nuclear submarines are based in Haifa and Israel's biological and chemical warfare laboratories are at Nes Ziona.
00.08.16 Olenka Frenkiel: Israel never comments on such reports.
00.08.20 Olenka Frenkiel: But evidence continues to emerge. In 1992 an Israeli cargo plane crashed in Amsterdam killing forty-three people.
00.08.28 Olenka Frenkiel: The Israelis claimed it was carrying flowers and perfume. It took six years and a Dutch parliamentary enquiry before they admitted it was carrying DMMP, a key component for sarin nerve gas.
00.08.42 Olenka Frenkiel: The DMMP was bound for The Israeli Institute of Biological Research at Nes Ziona, one of Israel's most secret defence sites. It is subject to no international inspection and reporting of its activities in Israel is prevented by strict military censorship.
00.09.08 Olenka Frenkiel: As war has loomed closer small signs of dissent have appeared on the suburban streets of Middle America. Nick and Mary Eoloff have been peace campaigners since the Vietnam War and the draft.
00.09.20 Mary Eoloff: The definition of a conscientious objector is someone who sincerely objects to participation in all forms of war. There are two words that are extremely important in that definition: "sincere" and "all".
00.09.37 Olenka Frenkiel: Fear that the draft may return has lead a new generation to the local church hall to hear how, if they're called up to fight, they can claim their right to say no.
00.09.50 Olenka Frenkiel: For the Eoloffs, Mordechai Vanunu is the ultimate conscientious objector. When they first visited him in 1997 it was his eleventh year in solitary confinement.
00.10.03 MARY & NICK EOLOFF, Mordechai Vanunu's adoptive parents: And we waited and they brought him in and he looked like an old man. I didn't anticipate that. And he came up to us and he put his fingers through the bars through the cage, because it was a steel cage. We were crying. We felt so awful to see him like this.
00.10.33 Olenka Frenkiel: Vanunu writes regularly. It is the only communication he is allowed with the outside world. But his letters take months to arrive and are always censored.
00.10.46 Mary Eoloff: He says, don't feel so bad, we can bear another year.
00.10.50 Nick Eoloff: My, what courage!
00.10.54 Mary Eoloff: The early letters that we got were totally cut out. This isn't even an example because they were cut out more than that, this. They use a highlighter and then they bring it to Mordechai, and he has to cut out the things they've highlighted.
00.11.11 Mary Eoloff: One time, he said they weren't paying attention. And so he just put the pieces in the envelope and we got them, because we said, you know, we got the pieces, and they're really not even significant. I think it's control, total control.
00.11.30 Music
00.11.34 Olenka Frenkiel: Today Jerusalem is a ghost town, drained of life. Israel's nuclear weapons have proved useless in its latest war. The suicide bombers have frightened the tourists away. The economy has collapsed.
00.11.51 Olenka Frenkiel: Israelis have learnt to live with war. Every citizen gets a gas mask, is taught how to use it and is expected to have it ready in case of attack.
00.12.13 Olenka Frenkiel: Nuclear weapons are seen as a justifiable deterrent by most Israelis, who feel besieged by enemies.
00.12.21 Olenka Frenkiel: Forty years ago Uzi Even, then a young scientist at Dimona was in at the start of Israel's bomb.
00.12.28 Professor UZI EVEN, Dimona scientist, 1962-68: We were a very small country, and we were surrounded by much much larger, more populous states on borders that are almost impossible to defend. The holocaust was very much in our memory at that time, and we all realised that we have to do something to prevent the same scenario from happening again.
00.12.51 Uzi Even: So we were a young crew, most of us very young, very enthusiastic, working on something we believed is essential for our existence, like building the final insurance policy that we will not be attacked or terminated.
00.13.15 Olenka Frenkiel: It was the young Shimon Peres, back in the fifties who negotiated a secret deal with the French to buy a nuclear weapons reactor like theirs.
00.13.24 Olenka Frenkiel: But while Dimona was going up, intelligence reports reached Washington that Israel was building an atom bomb.
00.13.30 Olenka Frenkiel: Despite claims that Dimona was for peaceful purposes only, Israel's leader Ben Gurion was summoned to Washington. President Kennedy feared an arms race in the Middle East and demanded inspections.
00.13.45 Olenka Frenkiel: But when inspectors finally entered the plant in May 1961 they were tricked. They were shown a fake control room on the ground floor. They were unaware of the six floors below where the plutonium was made.
00.14.00 PETER HOUNAM, Freelance journalist: Well this was something of great pride and almost a legendary story in Dimona, according to Vanunu. When the Americans came they were completely hoodwinked.
00.14.11 Peter Hounam: All the entrances including the lift shafts were bricked up and plastered over so it was impossible for anyone to find their way down to the lower floors.
00.14.24 Olenka Frenkiel: After Kennedy's assassination the pressure on Israel was off. His successor Lyndon Johnson turned a blind eye.
00.14.33 Olenka Frenkiel: Then In 1969 Israel's Golda Meir and President Richard Nixon struck a deal, renewed by every President to this day. Israel's nuclear programme could continue as long as it was never made public. It's called nuclear ambiguity.
00.14.48 Olenka Frenkiel: The term nuclear ambiguity, in some ways it sounds very grand. But isn't just a euphemism for deception?
00.14.58 SHIMON PERES, Former Prime Minister: If somebody wants to kill you, and you use a deception to save your life it is not immoral. If we wouldn't have enemies we wouldn't need deceptions. We wouldn't need deterrent.
00.15.12 Olenka Frenkiel: Was this the justification for concealing the floors of the plutonium reprocessing areas from the Americans, the inspectors, when they came?
00.15.23 Shimon Peres: You are having a dialogue with yourself, not with me.
00.15.27 Olenka Frenkiel: But that's been documented in a number of books.
00.15.30 Shimon Peres: Ask the question to yourself, not to me.
00.15.32 Olenka Frenkiel: I mean, Is it not true?
00.15.35 Shimon Peres: I don't have to answer your questions even. I don't see any reason why.
00.15.43 Olenka Frenkiel: Ambiguity is a luxury unique to Israel. Today the country's an inspection-free zone, protected from scrutiny by America and her allies.
00.15.56 Ronen Bergman: This is the place where Vanunu identified as the separation plant, built mostly underground. And this is the silver dome of the Dimona nuclear reactor.
00.16.11 Olenka Frenkiel: Ronen Bergman is an Israeli journalist specialising in security and defence.
00.16.17 Ronen Bergman: This picture was taken by one of the best commercial satellites available called Ikonos, and Ikonos is capable of taking pictures up to a resolution of one metre.
00.16.30 RONEN BERGMAN, Journalist, "Yediot Ahronot": However due to the demand of Israel the American Congress ruled a new amendment to the law that forbids American satellites to sell anything of Israeli sites that is better than two metres, meaning the Ikonos is taking imagery of Israel. Then they change the imagery to the resolution of two metres.
00.16.52 Olenka Frenkiel: Worse, less clear?
00.16.53 Ronen Bergman: Much much less clear.
00.16.55 Olenka Frenkiel: And that was a ruling in the United States that's specifically for Israel, not for other countries.
00.17.00 Ronen Bergman: Only to Israel.
00.17.03 Olenka Frenkiel: Last November there were signs of a softening towards Vanunu. The authorities allowed pictures to be taken at his parole hearing. Parole itself has always been refused. Vanunu still has secrets, the prosecutor claims, that could harm Israel. It's an argument his lawyer will have to fight at the next hearing.
00.17.22 Olenka Frenkiel: Will the court hear the secret that they claim Vanunu holds?
00.17.27 AVIGDOR FELDMAN, Mordechai Vanunu's lawyer: They will hear some of the secrets, not the real secrets. They will hear secrets about the secrets.
00.17.34 Olenka Frenkiel: And you too, as his lawyer, will hear those?
00.17.37 Avigdor Feldman: Part of it. Less that the court. The court will hear the secrets about the secrets. I may hear the secrets about the secrets about the secrets.
00.17.47 Olenka Frenkiel: Is that really the case, or is that a sort of ironic...?
00.17.50 Avigdor Feldman: No, it's really the case. I will be given some type of general description of the secrets. The court will get something more concrete and the secrets themselves will be never released to anybody, they exist at all.
00.18.14 Olenka Frenkiel: Nick and Mary Eoloff have arrived in Israel. They hope to visit Vanunu in prison but they haven't yet got permission.
00.18.28 Mary Eoloff: Oh gosh, any news?
00.18.31 Rayna Moss: Not yet. Not good news. Not yet.
00.18.33 Olenka Frenkiel: Rayna Moss is one of a small group of Israelis campaigning for Vanunu's release. She's been hassling the prison authorities for weeks to get Nick and Mary the necessary permissions.
00.18.46 Rayna Moss: What she says now is that they have approval from one authority but she's waiting for approval from a second authority.
00.18.54 Nick Eoloff: Do they clearly understand our time limitation that we're due to be leaving on Friday?
00.18.53 Rayna Moss: Oh absolutely. I made that absolutely clear to them. I said that you're leaving on Friday, that you've already been here for a couple of days.
00.19.06 Mary Eoloff: Well I appreciate you making all these calls, Rayna.
00.19.08 Mary Eoloff: Oh it's nothing. I don't mind. I just wish I had good news for you.
00.19.16 Olenka Frenkiel: Forty-year-old reactors are usually shut down, but Dimona grinds on. Dimona is under the control of the Prime Minister, beyond the reach of Parliament or public scrutiny.
00.19.32 Olenka Frenkiel: And that worries the scientist who once worked there so optimistically.
00.19.37 UZI EVEN, Dimona scientist, 1962-68: As the reactor gets older the tendency to have accidents becomes more probable. You should have an outside watchdog and the secrecy more or less created an ex- territorial area in Israel where standard procedures of safety monitoring is not implemented.
00.19.58 Uzi Even: So, worker safety, environmental questions, industrial safety procedures, all are not covered and there are thousands of people working there.
00.20.25 Olenka Frenkiel: But the secrets of this old reactor are beginning to leak.
00.20.34 Olenka Frenkiel: Evidence has seeped out of accidents, lies and deceit.
00.20.43 Olenka Frenkiel: In 1996 the press heard rumours of a radioactive hotspot in the desert. The Environment Minister took them to watch him test the site with a Geiger counter. They weren't allowed to bring their own, one journalist told me.
00.21.00 Olenka Frenkiel: The Minister proclaimed the site clean. The readings for radioactivity, his instrument showed, were below normal.
00.21.06 Olenka Frenkiel: But journalists weren't happy.
00.21.09 Journalist, Subtitles: What worries us is the disposal of the waste. Can you please tell us where it is buried?
00.21.21 YOSSI SARID, Environment Minister, 1992-96, Subtitles: In a good place. I am being honest with you... I would lose my job if I told you where the nuclear waste is buried. The Prime Minister considers this information to be classified.
00.21.46 Olenka Frenkiel: But on Israeli television last year, a groundbreaking documentary alleged it was a cover-up.
00.21.57 Olenka Frenkiel: Ariel Spieler, a holocaust survivor and a loyal Dimona worker for 27 years, described how he had been told to prepare the site for the Minister's visit by removing contaminated waste from a deep crater.
00.22.11 Olenka Frenkiel: He said he'd replaced it with fresh soil and planted trees to cover the hole as though it had never happened. Then he said they brought the minister and the press to prove that everything was okay.
00.22.24 Olenka Frenkiel: Five Dimona workers appeared on the programme. They'd given their lives for Dimona, they said, and now they felt betrayed.
00.22.32 Olenka Frenkiel: They broke no secrets. Only the code of silence.
00.22.36 Olenka Frenkiel: They said they'd worked with uranium. There were fires, spills, and explosions of toxic gas.
00.22.44 Olenka Frenkiel: Now they were sick, they said, the plant didn't want to know. The management was denying they'd worked with radioactive materials, and because they were bound to secrecy they couldn't fight for their rights.
00.23.01 Olenka Frenkiel: The programme listed more than a hundred Dimona workers who'd developed cancer and whose claims were being ignored.
00.23.08 Olenka Frenkiel: A doctor and two lawyers backed their story.
00.23.18 Olenka Frenkiel: It was the first time Dimona workers had spoken out.
00.23.26 Olenka Frenkiel: I want to talk to Ariel Spieler. He's suffering from cancer and in the last few years he's seen a number of his friends and colleagues who worked there with him die of the disease.
00.23.35 Olenka Frenkiel: He's been fighting for compensation for their families, for their widows, and I know he'd really like to talk to us about this.
00.23.41 Olenka Frenkiel: He's told me he wishes he could, but he's also told me he's been warned off. He's been told not to talk. I'm going to go and see him and see if he'll change his mind.
[NEXT...]
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1665.shtml
BBC Transcript of "Israel's Secret Weapon" (part 2)
Transcript, BBC World Service, 29 June 2003
[...PREVIOUS]
00.23.59 Secret filming
00.23.59 Olenka Frenkiel: I just wanted to ask you, you know, why you can't?
00.24.04 Ariel Spieler, Subtitles: The Secret Service silenced me. They've silenced me completely. They told me not to say one word. What can I do? What can I do?
00.24.18 Ariel Spieler, Subtitles: They told me; "You'll end up like Vanunu". How long has he been in prison? 15 years? Do you want me to go to jail? I really wanted to talk. I asked the others but they refused. Nobody wants to talk.
00.24.50 Olenka Frenkiel: It was time to try the others: The doctors, the relatives, the lawyers.
00.24.58 Voice One: Hello?
00.24.59 Olenka Frenkiel: Hello. I just wanted to ask if there would be any possibility of doing an interview with you about the cancer victims and about their case?
00.25.07 Voice One: I'm really reluctant to be interviewed publicly on the media over the story overseas. It's just not appropriate.
00.25.13 Olenka Frenkiel: But why is it so sensitive?
00.25.21 Voice One: Come on now. Any discussion of nuclear issues is sensitive.
00.25.30 Voice Two: I talked to my family. I don't want to participate in this. I don't think it's the right thing to do.
00.25.37 Olenka Frenkiel: Nobody is prepared to talk about it.
00.25.45 Voice Three: There are things that it's not good to talk about, even if you're a lawyer.
00.25.54 Olenka Frenkiel: Are you worried about a sort of Vanunu scenario?
00.25.58 Voice Three: Of course! You think about it.
00.26.03 Olenka Frenkiel: I just don't get it. If this was the Soviet Union or Iraq or North Korea I'd understand why people are so scared to talk.
00.26.11 Olenka Frenkiel: But this is Israel. This is supposed to be a democracy.
00.26.22 Olenka Frenkiel: In Israel today, an invisible power enforces the code of silence - through fear. It comes from one man, whose own identity was itself a secret until two years ago, Yehiyel Horev.
00.26.39 RONEN BERGMAN, Journalist, "Yediot Ahronot": Horev is the smartest, most brilliant official figure in the sense of getting power. He took some kind of very small office and made it the fourth intelligence agency in Israel, with no law, no real scrutiny and monitoring by the Israeli Parliament.
00.27.05 Ronen Bergman: In this sense he is a grave danger to Israeli democracy.
00.27.11 Olenka Frenkiel: For sixteen years Horev has been the faceless guardian of Israel's secrets. His picture has never been published unmasked till now.
00.27.24 Olenka Frenkiel: It's Horev from his office at the Ministry of Defence who is blocking Vanunu's early release.
00.27.35 Olenka Frenkiel: But next year Vanunu's sentence is up. So Horev found a new Vanunu, Brigadier-General Yitzhak Yaakov, known to his friends as Yatsa. In his retirement he wrote a fictionalised memoir and talked on camera about his life.
00.27.54 Olenka Frenkiel: A distinguished soldier and scientist, Yaakov had for years led Israel's top-secret weapons development programme.
00.28.02 Olenka Frenkiel: So eminent was he, he was a candidate for the prestigious Israel Prize.
00.28.07 Olenka Frenkiel: But when he told his life story to a journalist, he broke the rules.
00.28.13 Olenka Frenkiel: The journalist was Ronen Bergman. He showed his article, as all Israelis must, to the censor.
00.28.19 Olenka Frenkiel: It went straight to Horev - who sent in the heavies.
00.28.23 Ronen Bergman: They were deadly deadly serious. My phones were bugged. I was followed by Israeli Secret Service, Yaakov was followed by Israeli Secret Service, and the whole system was surrounding us and following us and stalking us.
00.28.43 Olenka Frenkiel: Yaakov went from hero to zero. He was arrested secretly and charged with treason. He spent two years fighting Horev. Two years of jail, heart disease, bankruptcy and house arrest ended in public disgrace.
00.29.01 Olenka Frenkiel: He was spared prison, but the court found him guilty of betraying Israel's secrets.
00.29.08 Ronen Bergman: Horev was afraid that veterans of the Israeli army, the Israeli intelligence, the Israeli nuclear effort, would try to maintain their footprint in the history of Israel and tell their story.
00.29.26 Ronen Bergman: And he wanted to frighten them. In this sense he was successful.
00.29.33 Olenka Frenkiel: Do you think that there is too much secrecy? The power of somebody like Horev to destroy the life of an individual like this Brigadier-General Yaakov, for example. The man's life had been destroyed and he'd been a very loyal Israeli all his life.
00.29.51 SHIMON PERES, Former Prime Minister: It happens unfortunately in life, of false accusations, and some innocent people are paying the high cost.
00.29.59 Shimon Peres: I cannot see how can it be avoidable.
00.30.04 Olenka Frenkiel: Israel's parliament had never debated Dimona or nuclear weapons, until one MP three years ago forced them onto the agenda for the first time.
00.30.14 Olenka Frenkiel: Issam Makhoul an Israeli Arab broken the taboo - to the outrage of his colleagues.
00.30.21 Issam Makhoul, Subtitles: Vanunu is not the problem. The problem is the Israeli government's policy. A policy that's turned a small territory into a poisonous nuclear waste bin... which could make us all disappear into a nuclear cloud.
00.30.40 Olenka Frenkiel: These words uttered in the heart of Israel's democracy were seen by his fellow MPs as a sacrilege.
00.30.48 Issam Makhoul, Subtitles: The entire world knows that Israel is a vast nuclear, biological... and chemical warehouse that is used as an anchor... for the nuclear arms race in the middle east.
00.31.04 Olenka Frenkiel: He wasn't allowed to finish his speech, but he had made his point.
00.31.16 Olenka Frenkiel: But in his constituency during the recent election campaign it was a different story. Here his audience are - like him - Israeli Arabs.
00.31.23 Issam Makhoul, Subtitles: Why are the Americans looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I can tell them where there are weapons of mass destruction... including nuclear weapons.
00.31.40 Issam Makhoul, Subtitles: They are in Dimona, in Haifa Bay in the Eilabun mountain... and in the area of Sakneen, Yolfhata. Let them send their inspectors to me... and I will lead them by the hand and show them.
00.32.00 Olenka Frenkiel: There is a cry going up which is talking about a double standard. The world has to check Iraq's nuclear installations but not Israel's.
00.32.08 Shimon Peres: How can you compare it? Iraq is a dictatorship. Saddam Hussein is a killer. He killed a hundred thousand Kurds with gas bombs. How can you compare that at all?
00.32.23 Shimon Peres: Just because he calls himself a state? He's not a state - he's a Mafia. He's not a leader - he's a killer. You cannot say that about us.
00.32.34 Olenka Frenkiel: But even in Israel some do. The current Prime Minister Ariel Sharon directed the invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Thousands of innocent civilians were killed.
00.32.49 Olenka Frenkiel: The worst excesses were in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, for which an Israeli enquiry held Sharon personally responsible. In Belgium there are plans to prosecute him for alleged war crimes.
00.33.09 Olenka Frenkiel: While Sharon has been Prime Minister seven hundred Israelis have been killed. But more than two thousand Palestinians have died in attacks by Israeli soldiers.
00.33.21 Olenka Frenkiel: The Israeli army has used new unidentified weapons. In February 2001, a new gas was used in Gaza. A hundred and eighty patients were admitted to hospitals with severe convulsions.
00.33.41 Voiceover: The Israelis say this is tear gas. But this is not tear gas. We have never seen this gas before. We need some medicine for treatment. But it must be the right medicine.
00.33.56 Dr MOHAMMED SALAMA, Director, Palestinian Health Ministry: We asked, what kind of gas? But nobody verified for us the type of gas to give the antidote at that moment. Also we don't know how to check, how to examine, how to send this. We are in occupied area. We are surrounded. It is impossible to send these samples to international lab to test.
00.34.27 Olenka Frenkiel: Israel is outside chemical and biological weapons treaties and still refuses to say what the new gas was.
00.34.44 Olenka Frenkiel: The Eoloffs have still not heard from the prison. Their flight home is tomorrow night and they worry they may have to leave without seeing their adopted son.
00.34.56 Olenka Frenkiel: Today they are having lunch with a small group of activists who for sixteen years have fought in vain for Vanunu's release.
00.35.03 First Israeli activist: They pressurise Iraq about nuclear weapons. What about Israel and nuclear weapons?
00.35.07 Second Israeli activist: Imagine for one moment that Mordechai Vanunu was not an Israeli, that the whole story had happened with a Korean or an Iranian or a Pakistani technician, he would have had the Nobel Peace Prize. He would have been the second Sakharov.
00.35.23 Second Israeli activist: Instead he is a non-person in the West. This tells you what we are dealing with. We're dealing with the number one privileged state on earth.
00.35.34 Third Israeli activist: Counter to the Israeli argument that the whole world is against us, it is the exact opposite. We started the nuclear race in the Middle East. There is no doubt about it.
00.35.53 Third Israeli activist: And there is not even one important state in the Western Hemisphere who is dealing with it seriously.
00.36.00 Rayna Moss: You can talk all we want. We can sit until tomorrow morning and discuss Israel's nuclear policy. We can discuss whatever we want. It's the people who work in those areas, with weapons of mass destruction, the environment, Dimona itself, all these research places.
00.36.16 Rayna Moss: Vanunu is a living warning to them. This is what will happen to you if you speak out. You'll be Vanunu-nised. That's the warning. You will spend ten years in solitary confinement.
00.36.28 Rayna Moss: You will be cut off from all your family. You will be cut off from everyone who knows you. You will be this prisoner without a number and without a name. That's what will happen to you if you speak out.
00.36.41 Olenka Frenkiel: It's the prison on the phone.
00.36.47 Mary Eoloff: Hello? Oh how marvellous! What time? Well, if we come at eleven, can we have an hour and a half? Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. Bye.
00.37.06 Olenka Frenkiel: On their last day the Eoloffs get their visit. After an hour and a half they emerge with a message.
00.37.16 Mary Eoloff: It's just wonderful. We're so excited we don't know what to think. All right, you talk.
00.37.21 Nick Eoloff: It was a marvellous experience. It was the first time we've seen him so high and just anxious to talk about what's going on in his life and what he's looking forward to. Especially the anticipation of getting out.
00.37.33 Nick Eoloff: He's just strong. That was his final word: "Let them know that I'm strong and anxious to get out of here, out of Israel and just start life all over again". And he was just beaming.
00.37.45 Mary Eoloff: And he said the message to world is the message to the world is that I have forgotten the last sixteen years. I'm looking towards the future. I believe in a future of non- violence.
00.37.56 Olenka Frenkiel: So did he say that he'd do it all again?
00.37.58 Mary Eoloff: You know, he did. He said, of course I would. Isn't that incredible?
00.38.12 Olenka Frenkiel: The Eoloffs have gone, and Vanunu is again up for parole. But as usual everything, even the location of the parole hearing, is secret.
00.38.22 Secret filming
00.38.22 Olenka Frenkiel: Apart from me and Peter Hounam, who has come from London, there are no other journalists here.
00.38.27 Peter Hounam: Mordechai Vanunu? Mordechai Vanunu? Is he in there?
00.38.34 Olenka Frenkiel: Mordechai Vanunu is in there? Is that where the case is being held?
00.38.40 PETER HOUNAM, Freelance journalist: He is the most sensitive prisoner that this country has got, and whenever he comes here they block off the windows of his van if they can, or they, in the early days they used to put a crash helmet over him so people couldn't see him.
00.38.54 Peter Hounam: At one point they even had an electronic device that emitted a screeching signal so people couldn't hear him speak.
00.39.02 Olenka Frenkiel: And yet you and I are the only journalists here. The most sensitive prisoner Israel has got, and there's not a single member of the press here apart from you. Why do you keep coming?
00.39.10 Peter Hounam: I keep coming because he's in there because he spoke to me and we published his story on the Sunday Times in 1986, and I feel a sense of responsibility that we should be helping him get out.
00.39.23 Olenka Frenkiel: Three hours later the hearing ended. As usual Vanunu left behind darkened windows. In court Horev's prosecutor had cited the war with Iraq as a new reason for blocking parole.
00.39.38 AVIGDOR FELDMAN, Mordechai Vanunu's lawyer: The prosecutor of course went back to the old argument that Vanunu is a threat to security and she even said that if Vanunu will be released, probably the Americans would leave Iraq and go after Israel and Israel's nuclear weapons, which I found extremely ridiculous.
00.40.11 Olenka Frenkiel: Minnesota, the Peace Bridge and a weekly ritual. Every Wednesday hundreds protest against the war.
00.40.22 Olenka Frenkiel: Mary is there. So of course is Nick. Every week the numbers grow. There is a new generation of peaceniks who were children when Israel's nuclear weapons were exposed.
00.40.38 Olenka Frenkiel: Have any of you guys heard of Mordechai Vanunu?
00.40.42 Protesters: No.
00.40.43 Olenka Frenkiel: You don't know who he is.
00.40.47 Olenka Frenkiel: And if I tell you that he's somebody who exposed Israel's weapons of mass destruction, which nobody knew about until then, what would you say?
00.40.56 Protester: One Why is our media that's supposed to be free and open not telling us and why is our government not letting us know this information if we're living in the home of the free?
00.41.06 Protester Two: I think if our administration was consistent or had any integrity, then he would be held as a hero.
00.41.14 President George W. Bush: We're going to work with the members of the Security Council in the days ahead to make it clear to Saddam that the demands of the world and the United Nations will be enforced.
00.41.26 Olenka Frenkiel: In Washington, which gives Israel more than three billion dollars a year, the talk is only of Iraq. For weeks we've tried to get an interview about Israel's weapons of mass destruction, but no one in this Bush administration wants to talk about Israel.
00.41.41 Olenka Frenkiel: So we've asked for an interview about the military balance of power in the Middle East. And now they've agreed.
00.41.43 Olenka Frenkiel: This morning we've finally been told that we're going to have an interviewee. He's an expert in all matters Israeli. He's an Under Secretary of Defense, and his name is Douglas Feith.
00.42.04 Olenka Frenkiel: The Pentagon has demanded a list of questions in advance. So, it's "The balance of power", "Israel's nuclear ambiguity", "Allegations of a double standard" and "Mordechai Vanunu".
00.42.16 President George W. Bush: The gravest danger facing America and the world is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
00.42.35 Olenka Frenkiel: Yet again the shutters have come down on this story. Our interview with Under Secretary for Defense Douglas Feith was scheduled for four o'clock somewhere in this vast complex of the Pentagon behind me. Yet at the last minute we've heard the interview is cancelled.
00.42.50 Olenka Frenkiel: Questions about Israel, it appears, are strictly off-limits.
00.42.56 Olenka Frenkiel: We'd received this e-mail from the Pentagon.
00.43.00 Voiceover: Subtitles. Ladies: We showed Mr Feith the list of topics for the BBC interview. He is not willing to answer any of the questions you listed... Respectfully request you resubmit your questions as soon as possible this morning. Questions directed towards the current Iraqi situation.
00.43.17 Olenka Frenkiel: On February nineteenth Vanunu was again refused parole. He remains in Ashkelon prison.
00.43.30 Olenka Frenkiel: Horev has let it be known he intends never to let Mordechai Vanunu leave Israel.
00.43.36 End music
00.43.46 Olenka Frenkiel: You can comment on tonight's programme by visiting our web site at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/correspondent
00.43.46 Credits:
Reporter OLENKA FRENKIEL
Camera IAN PERRY
VT Editor BOYD NAGLE
Dubbing Mixer CLIFF JONES
Graphic Design STEVE ENGLAND
Production Team ALEXANDRA CAMERON SARAH EVA MARTHA O'SULLIVAN AGNES TEEK
Production Manager JANE WILLEY
Unit Manager SUSAN CRIGHTON
Film Research NICK DODD
Historical Research AVNER COHEN
Yitzhak Yaakov photos YEDIOT AHRONOT
Research CANDICE TALBERG TOM WATSON
Web Producer ANDREW JEFFREY
Picture Editor JONATHAN COOKE
Produced & Directed by GISELLE PORTENIER
Deputy Editor DAVID BELTON
Editor KAREN O'CONNOR
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1667.shtml
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The below sites many sources including the BBC, a French physician on the scene in Gaza, testimony from American filmographer James B. Longley, and articles from Jonathon Cook writing for Al-Ahram (weekly.ahram.org.eg) and James Brooks for palestinechronicle.com.
The gassing of Palestinians is corroborated by the below video and testimony from a French physician (Dr. Helen Bruzau) and an American filmographer (James B. Longley).
According to James B. Longley those affected reeled in excruciating, unending agony for days, some as long as a month.
This was not reported in the US media which, if it were Arabs doing this to Israelis, you can just imagine the reaction.
French Physician on the scene describes the symptoms:
"The people we saw in the hospital, were mainly young people, exhibiting neurological manifestations: with hypertonic and choreoathetotic crisis in their limbs, spasms causing the body to stiffen, or worse: to go rigid in an arc position. This was followed by episodes of muscle relaxation: Nearly complete paralysis of the limbs, with hypertonia and also digestive pains like cramps and colics, and behavioral distresses; periods of extreme excitation, that kind of trouble."
-Dr. Helen Bruzau
Medecins Sans Frontieres
"As I made my way through the wards of Amal and Nasser Hospitals that day and for many days afterward, I observed many patients that had been brought to the hospitals suffering from these symptoms [from tear gas laced with poison gas]. Room after room, women, children, men. Some were vomiting. Some alternated between a coma-like state and violent convulsions, their entire bodies twisting and arching, members of their families struggling to hold them down on the beds. On and on, for days. One boy, who had inhaled a large amount of the gas in question, suffered in the hospital for an entire month with recurrent convulsions. It is difficult to describe the sensation of sitting in a room for hours and days with people suffering so terribly, and knowing that this was done by human beings."
"The incident went largely unreported. No articles were written in major US newspapers. Fox News and 60 Minutes did not produce special reports. The story gradually grew old and fell through the cracks. Out of sight and out of mind – and who would believe that the Israeli military would do such a thing to civilians in a refugee camp? Olivier Rafowicz, an Israeli Army spokesman, was furious that I even dared to ask him about the gas when I interviewed him in Tel Aviv on April 10, and he repeated the same angry denials. I did not tell him what I had witnessed and filmed. I make these transcripts available in order to set the record straight. I filmed many other interviews with patients, doctors, etc., but the accounts tend to vary only in the details."
-James B. Longley
212-898-0472
james@littleredbutton.com
This was of course totally ignored by our media. Now imagine the reaction if Arabs had done this to Israelis.
Transcript of BBC documentary
00.33.21
Olenka Frenkiel
The Israeli army has used new unidentified weapons. In February 2001 a new gas was used in Gaza. A hundred and eighty patients were admitted to hospitals with severe convulsions.
00.33.41
Voiceover
The Israelis say this is tear gas. But this is not tear gas. We have never seen this gas before. We need some medicine for treatment. But it must be the right medicine.
00.33.56
Aston
Dr MOHAMMED SALAMA
Director, Palestinian Health Ministry We asked, what kind of gas? But nobody verified for us the type of gas to give the antidote at that moment. Also we don't know how to check, how to examine, how to send this. We are in occupied area. We are surrounded. It is impossible to send these samples to international lab to test.
00.34.27
Olenka Frenkiel
Israel is outside chemical and biological weapons treaties and still refuses to say what the new gas was.
!["13-year]()
13-year old Sliman Salah, one of many recent victims of a new Israeli "tear" gas
photo: Antonio Olmos
Jonathan Cook, in the West Bank, investigates evidence of a new war crime
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/528/re3.htm
The school playground in the village of Al-Khader, near Bethlehem, has been a children's battleground for the past six months: pupils finish classes at midday and congregate to throw stones at the Israeli soldiers stationed in the hills around their homes. The confrontation was relatively trouble-free until last month when soldiers fired tear gas into the playground. One canister landed only a few feet from 13-year-old Sliman Salah, enveloping him in a cloud of gas described by witnesses as an unfamiliar, yellow colour. Within a minute he was unconscious.
The following is a history of Israel's use of chemical weapons against civilians from 1948 to the present:
Part I
Part II
The gassing of Palestinians is corroborated by the below video and testimony from a French physician (Dr. Helen Bruzau) and an American filmographer (James B. Longley).
According to James B. Longley those affected reeled in excruciating, unending agony for days, some as long as a month.
This was not reported in the US media which, if it were Arabs doing this to Israelis, you can just imagine the reaction.
VIDEO:
RealAudio metafileFrench Physician on the scene describes the symptoms:
"The people we saw in the hospital, were mainly young people, exhibiting neurological manifestations: with hypertonic and choreoathetotic crisis in their limbs, spasms causing the body to stiffen, or worse: to go rigid in an arc position. This was followed by episodes of muscle relaxation: Nearly complete paralysis of the limbs, with hypertonia and also digestive pains like cramps and colics, and behavioral distresses; periods of extreme excitation, that kind of trouble."
-Dr. Helen Bruzau
Medecins Sans Frontieres
"As I made my way through the wards of Amal and Nasser Hospitals that day and for many days afterward, I observed many patients that had been brought to the hospitals suffering from these symptoms [from tear gas laced with poison gas]. Room after room, women, children, men. Some were vomiting. Some alternated between a coma-like state and violent convulsions, their entire bodies twisting and arching, members of their families struggling to hold them down on the beds. On and on, for days. One boy, who had inhaled a large amount of the gas in question, suffered in the hospital for an entire month with recurrent convulsions. It is difficult to describe the sensation of sitting in a room for hours and days with people suffering so terribly, and knowing that this was done by human beings."
"The incident went largely unreported. No articles were written in major US newspapers. Fox News and 60 Minutes did not produce special reports. The story gradually grew old and fell through the cracks. Out of sight and out of mind – and who would believe that the Israeli military would do such a thing to civilians in a refugee camp? Olivier Rafowicz, an Israeli Army spokesman, was furious that I even dared to ask him about the gas when I interviewed him in Tel Aviv on April 10, and he repeated the same angry denials. I did not tell him what I had witnessed and filmed. I make these transcripts available in order to set the record straight. I filmed many other interviews with patients, doctors, etc., but the accounts tend to vary only in the details."
-James B. Longley
212-898-0472
james@littleredbutton.com
This was of course totally ignored by our media. Now imagine the reaction if Arabs had done this to Israelis.
www.littleredbutton.com/gas_interviews/
www.littleredbutton.com/gas_interviews/interviews.pdf
Transcript of BBC documentary
00.33.21
Olenka Frenkiel
The Israeli army has used new unidentified weapons. In February 2001 a new gas was used in Gaza. A hundred and eighty patients were admitted to hospitals with severe convulsions.
00.33.41
Voiceover
The Israelis say this is tear gas. But this is not tear gas. We have never seen this gas before. We need some medicine for treatment. But it must be the right medicine.
00.33.56
Aston
Dr MOHAMMED SALAMA
Director, Palestinian Health Ministry We asked, what kind of gas? But nobody verified for us the type of gas to give the antidote at that moment. Also we don't know how to check, how to examine, how to send this. We are in occupied area. We are surrounded. It is impossible to send these samples to international lab to test.
00.34.27
Olenka Frenkiel
Israel is outside chemical and biological weapons treaties and still refuses to say what the new gas was.
13-year old Sliman Salah, one of many recent victims of a new Israeli "tear" gas
photo: Antonio Olmos
Vale of tears
Tear or poison gas?
Jonathan Cook, in the West Bank, investigates evidence of a new war crime
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/528/re3.htm
The school playground in the village of Al-Khader, near Bethlehem, has been a children's battleground for the past six months: pupils finish classes at midday and congregate to throw stones at the Israeli soldiers stationed in the hills around their homes. The confrontation was relatively trouble-free until last month when soldiers fired tear gas into the playground. One canister landed only a few feet from 13-year-old Sliman Salah, enveloping him in a cloud of gas described by witnesses as an unfamiliar, yellow colour. Within a minute he was unconscious.
By the time Salah arrived at the private Yamamah hospital, his body was racked by violent spasms and convulsions, his breathing was sporadic and his pupils tightly constricted. The French doctor who admitted him was baffled. Annie Dudin, a paediatrician who has worked in the West Bank for 15 years, has treated dozens of victims of gas inhalation, including many between 1987 and 1993, during the first Intifada, but had never seen symptoms like Salah's before.
Normally, victims recover after a few minutes away from tear gas. In more severe cases, oxygen and an injection of glucose may be needed to stop coughing fits and dry up streaming eyes. Neither treatment worked with Salah. His seizures continued until he was given large doses of anti-convulsants and only slowly did he regain consciousness.
"I have seen nothing like this before," Dudin said. "I would have expected these sorts of symptoms in a case of severe poisoning. But to treat him properly, I needed to know what chemicals he had been exposed to." Later that day, Salah was transferred to Hussein Hospital in nearby Beit Jala, to be put under the care of neurologist Nabir Musleh. Tests suggested that the boy had been poisoned, but doctors again had no idea how to treat him. They told him to shower regularly to wash away any chemical traces on his skin.
Within 24 hours of his release, Salah was having convulsions and had to be readmitted to the Hussein. His symptoms were finally brought under control five days after his exposure to the gas. But Salah's father says the boy is still suffering from stomach pains, vomiting, dizziness and breathing problems.
Salah is just one of a spate of such cases in the Bethlehem area in the past month. Another tear gas victim recently arrived unconscious at the Yamamah having convulsive fits and Hussein Hospital has reported a rapid increase in untreatable patients since the first such case was admitted in late February.
Peter Qumri, the hospital's director, said: "Until a few weeks ago it was simple to help tear gas victims. We gave them oxygen for 10 minutes and then discharged them. Now they arrive having fits, dizzy, sometimes unconscious, having severe problems breathing. Something has definitely changed."
The new cases in Bethlehem follow a pattern first seen in the Gaza Strip in mid-February, when a large crowd was tear-gassed near Khan Younis refugee camp. Ten men were admitted to Nasser Hospital suffering from seizures that doctors could not treat. Many other patients vomited for days afterwards.
Because of Israel's strict blockade of Gaza, the cases were difficult to verify at the time. But local Palestinian doctors raised concerns that Israel might have started using a new, concentrated form of tear gas or combining different gases.
The Israeli Defence Force says it uses only standard CS gas, although it admits that in some clashes it has also used smoke screen gases to protect its soldiers. It believes the victims' complaints are caused by "anxiety." That conclusion has been dismissed by doctors, including one of the few Western medics in the Gaza Strip. Helen Brisco of Médecins Sans Frontières, says the Khan Younis patients she treated were clinically ill and that in the more serious cases, patients had severe muscle paralysis.
Brisco's and Dudin's observations are supported by an investigation carried out by the Palestinian Ministry of Health, which took air samples at Khan Younis as well as blood samples of patients. Its preliminary findings suggest that Israel used a cocktail of gases in much higher concentrations than before.
Dudin is also sceptical of Israel's explanations. "Sliman's condition was certainly not one of anxiety. It is very difficult for me to say what he was exposed to. Without knowing the chemicals involved, I cannot run the necessary tests, but his symptoms were compatible with exposure to a strong poison. This suggests to me that the gas being used by Israel is no longer safe."
The following is a history of Israel's use of chemical weapons against civilians from 1948 to the present:
An article by James Brooks on the use of poison gas on Palestinians by Israel.
Part I
Part II
The following is a history of Israel's use of chemical weapons against civilians from 1948 to the present, based partly on released UN reports:
For more information:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...
Hahahaha, sure thing, "censored secret UN reports."
hahahahah!
I just want to see pictures of the losers who sit around typing up anti-israel lies and frame them as "top secret censored UN reports."
Hahhaa, jackasses.
Israel isn't leaving. Give up your dream of Israel disappearing. Do something productive with your life instead.
hahahahah!
I just want to see pictures of the losers who sit around typing up anti-israel lies and frame them as "top secret censored UN reports."
Hahhaa, jackasses.
Israel isn't leaving. Give up your dream of Israel disappearing. Do something productive with your life instead.
Acre was to be the next Zionist target. The Zionists besieged the city from the land side, and started showering the population with a hail of mortar bombs day and night. Famous for its historical walls, Acre could stand the siege for a long time. The city water supply comes from a nearby village, Kabri, about 10kms to the north, through an aqueduct. The Zionists injected typhoid in the aqueduct at some intermediate point which passes through Zionist settlements. (see map)
The story can now be told, thanks to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) files which have now become available, 50 years after the event. A series of reports, under the reference G59/1/GC, G3/82, sent by ICRC delegate de Meuron from 6 May to about 19 May 1948 describe the conditions of the city population, struck by a sudden typhoid epidemic, and the efforts to combat it.
Of particular importance are the minutes of an emergency conference held at the Lebanese Red Cross Hospital in Acre on 6 May, to deal with the typhoid epidemic. The meeting was attended by: Brigadier Beveridge, Chief of British Medical Services and Colonel Bonnet of the British Army, Dr Maclean of the Medical Services, Mr de Meuron, ICRC delegate in addition to other officials of the city. The minutes stated that there are at least 70 known civilian casualties, others may not be reported. It was determined that the infection is "water borne", not due to crowded or unhygienic conditions as claimed by the Israelis. It was decided that a substitute water supply should now come from artesian wells or from the agricultural station, just north of Acre (see map), not from the aqueduct. Water chlorine solution was applied, inoculation of civil population started, movement of civil population was controlled (lest refugees heading north towards Lebanon will carry the typhoid epidemic with them, as intended by the Zionists).
In his other reports, de Meuron mentioned 55 casualties among British soldiers, who were spirited away to Port Said for hospitalisation. General Stockwell arranged for de Meuron to fly on a military plane to Jerusalem to fetch medicine. The British, who left Palestine in the hands of the Jews, did not want another embarrassing incident to delay their departure.
Brigadier Beveridge told de Meuron that this is "the first time this happened in Palestine". This belies the Israeli story, including that of the Israeli historian Benny Morris, that the epidemic is due to "unhygienic conditions" of the refugees. If that was so, how come there was an almost equal number of casualties among British soldiers? Why did such conditions not cause epidemic in such other concentrations of refugees, under far worse conditions, in Jaffa, Lydda, Nazareth and Gaza?
ICRC delegate, de Meuron admired greatly the heroic efforts of Arab doctors, Al-Dahhan and Al-Araj from the Lebanese Red Cross hospital in Acre, Dr Dabbas from Haifa and Mrs Bahai from Haifa.
The city of Acre, now burdened by the epidemic, fell easy prey to the Zionists. They intensified their bombardment. Trucks carrying loudspeakers proclaimed, "Surrender or commit suicide. We will destroy you to the last man." That was not a figure of speech. Palumbo, in The Palestinian Catastrophe, notes the "typical" case of Mohamed Fayez Soufi. Soufi with friends went to get food from their homes in a new Acre suburb. They were caught by Zionist soldiers and forced at gun point to drink cyanide. Soufi faked swallowing the poison. The others were not so lucky, they died in half an hour.
Lieutenant Petite, a French UN observer, reported that looting was being conducted in a systematic manner by the army, carrying off furniture, clothes and anything useful for the new Jewish immigrants and also part of "a Jewish plan to prevent the return of the refugees." Lieutenant Petite also reported that the Jews had murdered 100 Arab civilians in Acre, particularly those who refused to leave.
More horrors have been reported by de Meuron. He spoke of "a reign of terror" and the case of the rape of a girl by several soldiers and killing her father. He also wrote that all male civilians were taken to concentration camps and considered "prisoners of war" although they were not soldiers. This left many women and children homeless, without protection, subject to many acts of violence. He also notes the absence of water and electricity. He demanded from the Zionists a list of civilians detained as "prisoners of war", demanded to know their whereabouts and permission to visit them. More importantly he asked that Acre be placed under ICRC protection and care. Anyone who reads the familiar dry and matter-of-fact language of ICRC would not fail to notice the tone of abhorrence of Zionist actions in de Meuron reports from Acre.
This episode, which started with poisoning Acre water supply and ended with the collapse of the city, the depopulation of its inhabitants, and its occupation by the Jews, whetted their appetite to try this crime again.
The story can now be told, thanks to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) files which have now become available, 50 years after the event. A series of reports, under the reference G59/1/GC, G3/82, sent by ICRC delegate de Meuron from 6 May to about 19 May 1948 describe the conditions of the city population, struck by a sudden typhoid epidemic, and the efforts to combat it.
Of particular importance are the minutes of an emergency conference held at the Lebanese Red Cross Hospital in Acre on 6 May, to deal with the typhoid epidemic. The meeting was attended by: Brigadier Beveridge, Chief of British Medical Services and Colonel Bonnet of the British Army, Dr Maclean of the Medical Services, Mr de Meuron, ICRC delegate in addition to other officials of the city. The minutes stated that there are at least 70 known civilian casualties, others may not be reported. It was determined that the infection is "water borne", not due to crowded or unhygienic conditions as claimed by the Israelis. It was decided that a substitute water supply should now come from artesian wells or from the agricultural station, just north of Acre (see map), not from the aqueduct. Water chlorine solution was applied, inoculation of civil population started, movement of civil population was controlled (lest refugees heading north towards Lebanon will carry the typhoid epidemic with them, as intended by the Zionists).
In his other reports, de Meuron mentioned 55 casualties among British soldiers, who were spirited away to Port Said for hospitalisation. General Stockwell arranged for de Meuron to fly on a military plane to Jerusalem to fetch medicine. The British, who left Palestine in the hands of the Jews, did not want another embarrassing incident to delay their departure.
Brigadier Beveridge told de Meuron that this is "the first time this happened in Palestine". This belies the Israeli story, including that of the Israeli historian Benny Morris, that the epidemic is due to "unhygienic conditions" of the refugees. If that was so, how come there was an almost equal number of casualties among British soldiers? Why did such conditions not cause epidemic in such other concentrations of refugees, under far worse conditions, in Jaffa, Lydda, Nazareth and Gaza?
ICRC delegate, de Meuron admired greatly the heroic efforts of Arab doctors, Al-Dahhan and Al-Araj from the Lebanese Red Cross hospital in Acre, Dr Dabbas from Haifa and Mrs Bahai from Haifa.
The city of Acre, now burdened by the epidemic, fell easy prey to the Zionists. They intensified their bombardment. Trucks carrying loudspeakers proclaimed, "Surrender or commit suicide. We will destroy you to the last man." That was not a figure of speech. Palumbo, in The Palestinian Catastrophe, notes the "typical" case of Mohamed Fayez Soufi. Soufi with friends went to get food from their homes in a new Acre suburb. They were caught by Zionist soldiers and forced at gun point to drink cyanide. Soufi faked swallowing the poison. The others were not so lucky, they died in half an hour.
Lieutenant Petite, a French UN observer, reported that looting was being conducted in a systematic manner by the army, carrying off furniture, clothes and anything useful for the new Jewish immigrants and also part of "a Jewish plan to prevent the return of the refugees." Lieutenant Petite also reported that the Jews had murdered 100 Arab civilians in Acre, particularly those who refused to leave.
More horrors have been reported by de Meuron. He spoke of "a reign of terror" and the case of the rape of a girl by several soldiers and killing her father. He also wrote that all male civilians were taken to concentration camps and considered "prisoners of war" although they were not soldiers. This left many women and children homeless, without protection, subject to many acts of violence. He also notes the absence of water and electricity. He demanded from the Zionists a list of civilians detained as "prisoners of war", demanded to know their whereabouts and permission to visit them. More importantly he asked that Acre be placed under ICRC protection and care. Anyone who reads the familiar dry and matter-of-fact language of ICRC would not fail to notice the tone of abhorrence of Zionist actions in de Meuron reports from Acre.
This episode, which started with poisoning Acre water supply and ended with the collapse of the city, the depopulation of its inhabitants, and its occupation by the Jews, whetted their appetite to try this crime again.
For more information:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...
the poin tof all this is to alert people of the world to the evil of the state of israel, so eventually it falls by its own hand, a the israels themselve are made to see the evil they are supporting
Nobody wants to see Israel leaving.
On the cintrary, we wish to see it safely situated side by side with a free Palestinian state.
We want you to live in peace with one another not in war.
On the cintrary, we wish to see it safely situated side by side with a free Palestinian state.
We want you to live in peace with one another not in war.
Israeli WMD....Just a Click Away....
CLICK HERE > http://www.msnbc.com/news/wld/graphics/strategic_israel_dw.htm
Peace equals a State for Israel.
And a State for the Palestinian People.
Israel can not continue the occupation and oppression of the Palestinian People and expect Peace.
For a Possible Solution:
CLICK HERE > http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=64554&group=webcast
CLICK HERE > http://www.msnbc.com/news/wld/graphics/strategic_israel_dw.htm
Peace equals a State for Israel.
And a State for the Palestinian People.
Israel can not continue the occupation and oppression of the Palestinian People and expect Peace.
For a Possible Solution:
CLICK HERE > http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=64554&group=webcast
...A free palestinian state led by good palestinians would lead to a peaceful future...
what is a "good" Palestinian person, a leader with the moral fiber of sharon?
the Palestinians are not refugees because of arafat, and they are not starving poor because arafat is a millionair.
The native americans are not living on reserves because their leaders sold their rights for a casino business......
The native americans are not living on reserves because their leaders sold their rights for a casino business......
There is never just one reason for somthing.
I suggest that arafat could at least have encoraged the resettlement of the refugees. but he didnt.
I suggest that arafat could at least have encoraged the resettlement of the refugees. but he didnt.
Stuff "israel" - the occupation of Palestine by the terrorist regime with WMD should end NOW. America needs to stop supporting terrorism (Saddam, Bin Laden, Sharon - what's the difference? NOTHING) ....
For more information:
http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org
The usa is not supporting Israel, it is supporting its geo-political agenda in the region.
Israel is used as a pawn by the USA and the Zionist establishment.
They are sacrificing Jews Muslims and Christians daily to achieve their sinister goal, which is to re establish their zionist empire.
Israel is used as a pawn by the USA and the Zionist establishment.
They are sacrificing Jews Muslims and Christians daily to achieve their sinister goal, which is to re establish their zionist empire.
For more information:
http://roman empire
i think people are deceived are deceived into thinking that a two state soln would promote peace. THis is asuming that israel will restrain its urge to acquire more territory. Anyone familiar with zonist history would have heard of Eretz Israel and the ideas of the like of Ben-gurion, for an expanded israel that would extend as far as the euphrates
""Anyone familiar with zonist history would have heard of Eretz Israel and the ideas of the like of Ben-gurion, for an expanded israel that would extend as far as the euphrates"" (Quoted by brian)
This is why we need more than anything, to get this Palestinian State with Reasonalbe Borders on the Record. Then as long as the Palestinian live in peace inside these Boundaries, Israel will not be able to confiscate the Palestinian land and demolish Palestinian homes without the World knowing that Israel is without a doubt in the wrong.
If Israel with some 5,000,000 or so people can have the State of Israel, The 4,000,000 or so Palestinian People can have the State of Palestine, in the West Bank and Gaza that is only 22% of what is TODAY Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
For a lasting Peace we need a Palestinian State Now, for possible solution:
CLICK HERE > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1618616.php
This is why we need more than anything, to get this Palestinian State with Reasonalbe Borders on the Record. Then as long as the Palestinian live in peace inside these Boundaries, Israel will not be able to confiscate the Palestinian land and demolish Palestinian homes without the World knowing that Israel is without a doubt in the wrong.
If Israel with some 5,000,000 or so people can have the State of Israel, The 4,000,000 or so Palestinian People can have the State of Palestine, in the West Bank and Gaza that is only 22% of what is TODAY Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
For a lasting Peace we need a Palestinian State Now, for possible solution:
CLICK HERE > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1618616.php
Nah brian thinks israel is a problem as long as it exists so he wants to remove it.
probably the same with a few other pesky organizations around the world like "the government".
probably the same with a few other pesky organizations around the world like "the government".
when you are out of argument you bring out the tried and true, antisemitism accusation.
brian never even suggested what you imply...you zionist propogandis
brian never even suggested what you imply...you zionist propogandis
peres replies to the interviewer are particularly rediculous
whenhe answers her questions by telling her that 'she iis talking with herself'.
whenhe answers her questions by telling her that 'she iis talking with herself'.
yawn - dont ,make an idiot of yourself.
I wasn't talking specifically about what he said there I was talking in the context of all of Brians posts on here.
I wasn't talking specifically about what he said there I was talking in the context of all of Brians posts on here.
by the way brian may or may not be anti semetic in a "for the sake of hating jews" way but he does hate israel as an institution. It is funny that you equated that with antisematism.
"by the way brian may or may not be anti semetic"
Let's find out. He's posted his share of URLs from Holocaust denial sites and defended Holocaust denier David Irving. Let's see if he swallowed any of the bilge he's swimming in.
Brian, how many Jews did the Nazis kill in WWII, and how do you arrive at that figure?
@%<
Let's find out. He's posted his share of URLs from Holocaust denial sites and defended Holocaust denier David Irving. Let's see if he swallowed any of the bilge he's swimming in.
Brian, how many Jews did the Nazis kill in WWII, and how do you arrive at that figure?
@%<
How many Palestinians did the Nazis kill since Nineteen forty eight and how did you arrive at that modest figure?
hmm I think he has already "failed" that test perviously but I welcome him to fail it again.
Btw, he may have suggested to drown the Semitic Christian and Muslims since there is barely any room left for mass graves to be dug.
He's dropped some hints that made it pretty clear what his answer would be if he addressed the question directly. I just want to see whether he's capable of addressing it directly.
@%<
@%<
do you reject libermans vision of the extermination of the indigenous Semtic people of the land of Palestine?
That's not what Lieberman said, you whack job.
@%<
@%<
Do you or do you not reject Libermans vision of the Extermination of the Indigenous Semtic People of The land of Palestine?
Transport Minister Avigdor Lieberman
advocated transporting Palestinian prisoners to a
place "whence they will not return"
by drowning them in the dead sea.
advocated transporting Palestinian prisoners to a
place "whence they will not return"
by drowning them in the dead sea.
For more information:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.j...
This is completely OT, but I couldn't find anywhere else to put it.
I can't find anything on IRAN on http://www.indymedia.org. Why Not??? Seems to be one of the largest progressive struggles is going on there this very instant, and I can't find anything.
Am I not looking hard enough? Please someone point me in the right direction, or explain to me why this is missing.
BHB
I can't find anything on IRAN on http://www.indymedia.org. Why Not??? Seems to be one of the largest progressive struggles is going on there this very instant, and I can't find anything.
Am I not looking hard enough? Please someone point me in the right direction, or explain to me why this is missing.
BHB
This is completely OT, but I couldn't find anywhere else to put it.
I can't find anything on IRAN on http://www.indymedia.org. Why Not??? Seems to be one of the largest progressive struggles is going on there this very instant, and I can't find anything.
Am I not looking hard enough? Please someone point me in the right direction, or explain to me why this is missing.
BHB
I can't find anything on IRAN on http://www.indymedia.org. Why Not??? Seems to be one of the largest progressive struggles is going on there this very instant, and I can't find anything.
Am I not looking hard enough? Please someone point me in the right direction, or explain to me why this is missing.
BHB
haha you just showed you were a "wack job"
he was refering to palistinian prisoners. the implication being terrorist palistinian prisoners. note how it says
"How can you suggest transferring thousands of
PALESTINIAN PRISONERS (the oppositions words) to the Dead Sea and drowning them there?" Dahamsha asked in a debate on traffic accidents. Lieberman retorted that MK Dahamsha visited an Arab murdered in
Afula by Palestinian terrorists.
he was refering to palistinian prisoners. the implication being terrorist palistinian prisoners. note how it says
"How can you suggest transferring thousands of
PALESTINIAN PRISONERS (the oppositions words) to the Dead Sea and drowning them there?" Dahamsha asked in a debate on traffic accidents. Lieberman retorted that MK Dahamsha visited an Arab murdered in
Afula by Palestinian terrorists.
Every Palestinian is guilty until proven innocent if he is not drowned first/
Those people in question are already found guilty.. the jury of their peers thing is a US/english thing and it is not nessercary for justice the standard judge system as used elsewhere is adequate (some would say better).
besides guiltyness is just somthing governments use as a convienient excuse todeal with those who must be delt with (such as mass murderers etc etc). Surprisingly my country makes note of that (in a sense) in their law maybe yours does too.
Anyway - I am anti death penalty (probably for different reasons to most) anyway so I dont approve of his statment just saying it is not what it was made out to be.
besides guiltyness is just somthing governments use as a convienient excuse todeal with those who must be delt with (such as mass murderers etc etc). Surprisingly my country makes note of that (in a sense) in their law maybe yours does too.
Anyway - I am anti death penalty (probably for different reasons to most) anyway so I dont approve of his statment just saying it is not what it was made out to be.
What?
Are you saying that -- well, WHAT are you saying?
Perchance that the thousands of Paletinians being held without cause in an Israeli jail network are "guilty"?
If so, of what are they "guiltiy"? Not being Israeli, perhaps?
Are you saying that -- well, WHAT are you saying?
Perchance that the thousands of Paletinians being held without cause in an Israeli jail network are "guilty"?
If so, of what are they "guiltiy"? Not being Israeli, perhaps?
Recently there has been talk of prisoner release and the 400 and some Arab prisoners who have been in Israeli jails for a lengthy period of time.
These have been found guilty (often caught "red handed") while perpetrating attacks on innocent civilians.
What do you think of Hamas, who is against a permanent peace and only for a short-term ceasefire?
|| Hamas, Islamic Jihad turn down Egypt`s request to extend cease-fire to period of six months
Are they trying to regain and regroup their forces and then resume their violence, terrorism and murder?
These have been found guilty (often caught "red handed") while perpetrating attacks on innocent civilians.
What do you think of Hamas, who is against a permanent peace and only for a short-term ceasefire?
|| Hamas, Islamic Jihad turn down Egypt`s request to extend cease-fire to period of six months
Are they trying to regain and regroup their forces and then resume their violence, terrorism and murder?
Hamas does not negotiate in good faith especially after Israel eliminates their Leadership on a consistant basis.
"Paletinians being held without cause"
oh really where did you get that from?
Who are these people? Got some names and events?
and who made you think that either I or the person in question were refering to them anyway?
oh really where did you get that from?
Who are these people? Got some names and events?
and who made you think that either I or the person in question were refering to them anyway?
Are any of the Arab prisoners- held in detention without a proper trial?
You accuse all victims of Zionazism as being criminals without ever providing proof.
You even dared accuse the international solidarity activists of criminal activity when they are clearly a a humaniterian entity!
You accuse all victims of Zionazism as being criminals without ever providing proof.
You even dared accuse the international solidarity activists of criminal activity when they are clearly a a humaniterian entity!
"You even dared accuse the international solidarity activists of criminal activity when they are clearly a a humaniterian entity!"
WOOHOOO if I declare myself a "humanitarian entity" I can go anywhere in the world I want and ignore the local laws !! I am sure that will come in handy. Me and my mates can harbour terrorists and be sedicious and it wont matter because i will have made myself a "humanitarian entity".
I wonder if the israeli settlers have heard of this new law.
"Are any of the Arab prisoners- held in detention without a proper trial?"
that is what I was asking...
You accuse all victims of Zionazism as being criminals without ever providing proof.
- what is zionazism? I dont think that term exists except in your imagination - however if you mean victims of "the intefadah" or somthing like that then no I didnt say that neither even did the guy in question (although I expect he is very far to the right of myself and the others on this board).
WOOHOOO if I declare myself a "humanitarian entity" I can go anywhere in the world I want and ignore the local laws !! I am sure that will come in handy. Me and my mates can harbour terrorists and be sedicious and it wont matter because i will have made myself a "humanitarian entity".
I wonder if the israeli settlers have heard of this new law.
"Are any of the Arab prisoners- held in detention without a proper trial?"
that is what I was asking...
You accuse all victims of Zionazism as being criminals without ever providing proof.
- what is zionazism? I dont think that term exists except in your imagination - however if you mean victims of "the intefadah" or somthing like that then no I didnt say that neither even did the guy in question (although I expect he is very far to the right of myself and the others on this board).
Just a few citations, using one simple search string...
Israel Admits Holding Palestinian Detainees in Secret Dentition Center
Palestine Chronicle
June 30, 2003
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special%20Section/prisoners%20and%20detension/Israel_Admits_Holding_Palestinian_Detainees.htm
Palestinian child arrest figures top 2,000 in 2nd Intifada
DCI-Palestine Section
June 26. 2003
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special%20Section/prisoners%20and%20detension/child_arrest_top_2,000.htm
Israeli government fails to release child detainees - 330 still in custody
Defence for Children International / Palestine Section
7 June, 2003
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special%20Section/prisoners%20and%20detension/Israel_fails_to_release_children.htm
Israelis detain hundreds without trial
Chris McGreal in Deheisheh
The Guardian
January 24, 2003
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special%20Section/prisoners%20and%20detension/israelis_detain_hundreds.htm
Human rights group says Israel holding 1,000 Palestinians without trial
The Associated Press
2 January, 2003
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special%20Section/prisoners%20and%20detension/Israel_holding_1000.htm
...and many more here:
Political prisoners and Detainees in Israel
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special%20Section/prisoners%20and%20detension/articles.htm
Political Prisoners in Israel
by Stephanie Seagren
http://mrs.umn.edu/~hint0049/stephanie.htm
THE APPALLING LOSS OF HUMANITY
15 June 2003 | Gideon Levy | Haaretz
http://www.palestinecampaign.org/archives.asp?xid=1100
PRISONERS OF ZION
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01-6-2000/PRISONERS_OF_ZION.htm
And more than a thousand more citations...
http://www.google.com/search?q=israel+%2Bprisoners+%2B%22without+trial%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&start=0&sa=N
Israel Admits Holding Palestinian Detainees in Secret Dentition Center
Palestine Chronicle
June 30, 2003
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special%20Section/prisoners%20and%20detension/Israel_Admits_Holding_Palestinian_Detainees.htm
Palestinian child arrest figures top 2,000 in 2nd Intifada
DCI-Palestine Section
June 26. 2003
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special%20Section/prisoners%20and%20detension/child_arrest_top_2,000.htm
Israeli government fails to release child detainees - 330 still in custody
Defence for Children International / Palestine Section
7 June, 2003
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special%20Section/prisoners%20and%20detension/Israel_fails_to_release_children.htm
Israelis detain hundreds without trial
Chris McGreal in Deheisheh
The Guardian
January 24, 2003
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special%20Section/prisoners%20and%20detension/israelis_detain_hundreds.htm
Human rights group says Israel holding 1,000 Palestinians without trial
The Associated Press
2 January, 2003
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special%20Section/prisoners%20and%20detension/Israel_holding_1000.htm
...and many more here:
Political prisoners and Detainees in Israel
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special%20Section/prisoners%20and%20detension/articles.htm
Political Prisoners in Israel
by Stephanie Seagren
http://mrs.umn.edu/~hint0049/stephanie.htm
THE APPALLING LOSS OF HUMANITY
15 June 2003 | Gideon Levy | Haaretz
http://www.palestinecampaign.org/archives.asp?xid=1100
PRISONERS OF ZION
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01-6-2000/PRISONERS_OF_ZION.htm
And more than a thousand more citations...
http://www.google.com/search?q=israel+%2Bprisoners+%2B%22without+trial%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&start=0&sa=N
Hmm tut tut.. the ten years guy at least should have had a trial..
interestingly however for him to ACTUALLY be a bargaining chip against hezbolla he almost by definition must be a member.
interestingly however for him to ACTUALLY be a bargaining chip against hezbolla he almost by definition must be a member.
Gehrig, I haven't been on line for a while. I do find it wonderful and it does give me goose bumps that you and your sweet pal Scottie both speak of me in such glowing terms. As to the bilge, I refer you to your white blood cell count. It seems that you have an infection and your body is fighting it fiercely. As to the answer to your endlessly boring and truly insipid question, I have no idea as to the correct answer of how many of the decendents of Jezebel died in WW II.
Holocaust denier Brian, trying hard to sound like he actually amounts to something: "As to the bilge, I refer you to your white blood cell count. It seems that you have an infection and your body is fighting it fiercely."
Thanks for demonstrating again that the most important psychological feature for a Holocaust denier to have is an absolute disconnect with reality. That's the fundamentally reassuring thing about dealing with Holocaust denial; you constantly rediscover the routinely low caliber of the people who defend it. That's because those few antisemites with an IQ greater than a frozen pizza have already figured out that Holocaust denial failed as a recruiting tool, and failed to enter the public consciousness as anything other than dingbattery, and they've moved on to Zionist-bashing instead.
Your little movement sank, without having gained one atom of the academic legitimacy it was trying, fraudulently, to garner for itself. And now it's been abandonded to genius whizbangs like to you defend -- except that you're too scared now to say what you actually think here, because you know I will slice it into Julienne fries.
Some "infection."
But what the hell -- Brian, show us that backbone again. Give us a round number. How many Jews do you think the Final Solution "solved"? I don't need an exact count, just a loose max and min.
@%<
Thanks for demonstrating again that the most important psychological feature for a Holocaust denier to have is an absolute disconnect with reality. That's the fundamentally reassuring thing about dealing with Holocaust denial; you constantly rediscover the routinely low caliber of the people who defend it. That's because those few antisemites with an IQ greater than a frozen pizza have already figured out that Holocaust denial failed as a recruiting tool, and failed to enter the public consciousness as anything other than dingbattery, and they've moved on to Zionist-bashing instead.
Your little movement sank, without having gained one atom of the academic legitimacy it was trying, fraudulently, to garner for itself. And now it's been abandonded to genius whizbangs like to you defend -- except that you're too scared now to say what you actually think here, because you know I will slice it into Julienne fries.
Some "infection."
But what the hell -- Brian, show us that backbone again. Give us a round number. How many Jews do you think the Final Solution "solved"? I don't need an exact count, just a loose max and min.
@%<
Holocaust Denial defined-
Denial :
An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.
Holocaust :
Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.
Denial :
An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.
Holocaust :
Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.
Like any compound noun, the meaning of the phrase "Holocaust denial" is more than the meaning of its individual parts -- especially when you've only chosen one of the possible meanings of each part and ignored the others, as above. In fact, one of the sections of Justice Gray's verdict against Irving was a determination that, yes, there was a generally understood and specific meaning of the term, since it was associated with a particular and standardized set of ideas -- "there were no gas chambers," "the number of Jewish deaths is millions too high," "the Nazis had no genocidal policy," etc. -- which tend to appear together in a coordinated way in the writings of certain antisemites.
Hope this helps. Or was there another point you were trying to make?
@%<
Hope this helps. Or was there another point you were trying to make?
@%<
Denial :
An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.
Holocaust :
Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.
Gehrig, if you deny that israel has been involved in "great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of live" by denying there were any mass graves and claiming that no more then two dozen Palestinians were executed and Zionism has no genocidal policies towards the None Jewish palestinians, than you too, by definition, have partook in a Holocaust denial!
An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.
Holocaust :
Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.
Gehrig, if you deny that israel has been involved in "great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of live" by denying there were any mass graves and claiming that no more then two dozen Palestinians were executed and Zionism has no genocidal policies towards the None Jewish palestinians, than you too, by definition, have partook in a Holocaust denial!
A "mob" of about 100 Palestinian refugees stormed the office of a Ramallah polling organisation yesterday to stop it publishing a survey showing that five times as many refugees would prefer to settle permanently in a Palestinian state than return to their old homes in what is now Israel.
The protesters pelted Khalil Shikaki, the director of the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research, with eggs, smashed computers and assaulted the nine staff members on duty. A female worker was treated in hospital for her injuries. "This is a message for everyone not to tamper with our rights," one of the rioters said.
Dr Shikaki, a leading West Bank political scientist, was undeterred. He said he was still putting the survey results on the centre's website and seeking the widest possible exposure. "These people," he said, "had no idea what the results were. They were sold disinformation."
The poll, conducted among 4,500 refugees in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Jordan, was the first to ask where they would want to live if Israel recognised a right of return.
Only 10 per cent of the refugees chose Israel, even if they were allowed to live there with Palestinian citizenship; 54 per cent opted for the Palestinian state; 17 per cent for Jordan or Lebanon, and 2 per cent for other countries. Another 13 per cent rejected all these options, preferring to sit it out and wait for Israel to disappear, while 2 per cent didn't know.
The future of more than three million refugees is critical to any lasting peace. It was one of the unresolved issues that caused the July 2000 Camp David summit to break down.
• The Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad warned yesterday they would end a truce announced last month if the Palestinian Authority continued to try to disarm them.
Why do you say the survey is unaccountable?
Israel is busy putting pressure the Palestinian Authority to disarm the Palestinian defense forces of Hamas and Islamic Jihad who had warned yesterday that they would end a truce announced last month if the Palestinian Authority continued to try to disarm them.
Anonymouse: "... by definition, have partook in a Holocaust denial!"
Your word games are getting more and more half-assed. It's like saying that if I disagree with my Chinese office mate I'm having "an International War."
On the definition of "Holocaust denial" -- in the words of Justice Gray in the David Irving trial:
8.3 Evans argued that the term is generally understood to denote "the attempt by Nazi Germany, led by Hitler, to exterminate the Jewish population in Europe, which attempt succeeded to the extent of murdering between 5 and 6 million Jews in a variety of ways, including mass gassings in camps built for the purpose". It follows that a "Holocaust denier" is someone who, for one reason or another or for a combination of reasons, repudiates the notion that the above definition of the Holocaust is apt to describe what was sought to be done to the European Jews by the Nazis during World War 2. Evans testified that a characteristic of Holocaust denial is that it involves a politically motivated falsification of history.
8.4 In the opinion of Evans, the views expressed by Holocaust deniers include the following: (i) that Jews were not killed in gas chambers or at least not on any significant scale; (ii) that the Nazis had no policy and made no systematic attempt to exterminate European Jewry and that such deaths as did occur were the consequence of individual excesses unauthorised at senior level; (iii) that the number of Jews murdered did not run into millions and that the true death toll was far lower; (iv) that the Holocaust is largely or entirely a myth invented during the war by Allied propagandists and sustained after the war by Jews in order to obtain financial support for the newly-created state of Israel.
8.5 According to Evans, whilst the expression of those views is typical, Holocaust deniers do not necessarily subscribe to all of them and the views of some deniers may be more extreme than others. Irving made the point that it would be absurd to label a person a Holocaust denier merely because he or she questions the number of Jews killed under the Nazi regime.
13.92 I accept the evidence of Evans, which was not challenged by Irving, that what characterises a "Holocaust denier", in the sense in which that term is used by Lipstadt in Denying the Holocaust , is that he or she holds or expresses some or all of the views which I have listed in paragraph 8.5 above.
Your word games are getting more and more half-assed. It's like saying that if I disagree with my Chinese office mate I'm having "an International War."
On the definition of "Holocaust denial" -- in the words of Justice Gray in the David Irving trial:
8.3 Evans argued that the term is generally understood to denote "the attempt by Nazi Germany, led by Hitler, to exterminate the Jewish population in Europe, which attempt succeeded to the extent of murdering between 5 and 6 million Jews in a variety of ways, including mass gassings in camps built for the purpose". It follows that a "Holocaust denier" is someone who, for one reason or another or for a combination of reasons, repudiates the notion that the above definition of the Holocaust is apt to describe what was sought to be done to the European Jews by the Nazis during World War 2. Evans testified that a characteristic of Holocaust denial is that it involves a politically motivated falsification of history.
8.4 In the opinion of Evans, the views expressed by Holocaust deniers include the following: (i) that Jews were not killed in gas chambers or at least not on any significant scale; (ii) that the Nazis had no policy and made no systematic attempt to exterminate European Jewry and that such deaths as did occur were the consequence of individual excesses unauthorised at senior level; (iii) that the number of Jews murdered did not run into millions and that the true death toll was far lower; (iv) that the Holocaust is largely or entirely a myth invented during the war by Allied propagandists and sustained after the war by Jews in order to obtain financial support for the newly-created state of Israel.
8.5 According to Evans, whilst the expression of those views is typical, Holocaust deniers do not necessarily subscribe to all of them and the views of some deniers may be more extreme than others. Irving made the point that it would be absurd to label a person a Holocaust denier merely because he or she questions the number of Jews killed under the Nazi regime.
13.92 I accept the evidence of Evans, which was not challenged by Irving, that what characterises a "Holocaust denier", in the sense in which that term is used by Lipstadt in Denying the Holocaust , is that he or she holds or expresses some or all of the views which I have listed in paragraph 8.5 above.
What next, the word ‘constipation’ will be used to describe Jews suffering from digestive problems only?
"a characteristic of Holocaust denial is that it involves a politically motivated falsification of history"
you fall under that category easily.
who made 'gray' judge?
"a characteristic of Holocaust denial is that it involves a politically motivated falsification of history"
you fall under that category easily.
who made 'gray' judge?
Why Israel can possess WMD, and especially with U.S. blessing?
because we cant take them off them. (well not without dying like dogs so to speak) and we dont want to get into that sort of a situation with israel anyway.
same is true to a lesser extent for pakistain and may well become true for nth Korea.
Politics is all about getting the best solution that you can as opposed to the ideal solution.
same is true to a lesser extent for pakistain and may well become true for nth Korea.
Politics is all about getting the best solution that you can as opposed to the ideal solution.
So instead the US bombs Iraq who has no WMD.
Are we God to say who hall live and who shall not? Better politics for whom? I know I ain't God. Will the person among us who's God, please show your face?
Quite frankly I find it terribly offensive that a gentile would use a word to describe a condition which inflicted me for so long and caused me excruciating amounts of pain.
If words are in the public domain and are not copyrighted then how can 'constipation' describe a condition of one creed only?
Constipation:
difficult, incomplete, or infrequent evacuation of dry hardened feces from the bowels.
Constipation:
difficult, incomplete, or infrequent evacuation of dry hardened feces from the bowels.
Frankly I am constipated and in severe agony and I don’t much appreciate your anti-Semitic chuckle at my creeds expanse.
Angie
- Are you saying that if you ran canada you would deal with china exactly the same as you would deal with Tonga or some other small place?
If you are saying canada should attack china in order to disarm its WMD then you can expect to not achieve what you want and if your on the west coast to die a very unplesant death.
If you are saying we should never do anything about WMD then you can expect eventually that one day ethiopia and eritrea will be nuking it out and blowing radioactive dust over the rest of africa (amongst other countries).
The US does what it can to stop the spread of WMD balancing up the good and bad parts of each action. if they did not do that you could expect the world to become a radioactive wasteland.
your lack of understanding of how the world works is nothing to laugh at.
Besides that Iraq DID have WMD .even if he didnt have them now. It would probably take a long time for him to acquire Nukes but chem and bio weapons would be quite easy to acquire (you could make your own chemical weapons in your back yard). So the biggest problem is IS he willing to acquire them and store them (yes obviously) and IS he willing ot use them on civilians as a first strike (yes, kurds)
- Are you saying that if you ran canada you would deal with china exactly the same as you would deal with Tonga or some other small place?
If you are saying canada should attack china in order to disarm its WMD then you can expect to not achieve what you want and if your on the west coast to die a very unplesant death.
If you are saying we should never do anything about WMD then you can expect eventually that one day ethiopia and eritrea will be nuking it out and blowing radioactive dust over the rest of africa (amongst other countries).
The US does what it can to stop the spread of WMD balancing up the good and bad parts of each action. if they did not do that you could expect the world to become a radioactive wasteland.
your lack of understanding of how the world works is nothing to laugh at.
Besides that Iraq DID have WMD .even if he didnt have them now. It would probably take a long time for him to acquire Nukes but chem and bio weapons would be quite easy to acquire (you could make your own chemical weapons in your back yard). So the biggest problem is IS he willing to acquire them and store them (yes obviously) and IS he willing ot use them on civilians as a first strike (yes, kurds)
Scottie is fake Jew and traitorous to the cause of constipated world Jewry- (the CWJ) which is not to be confused with the world Jewish congress- WJC, an equally significant organization.
The gassing of the Kurds (as approved and assisted and covered up by the USA) was not a "first strike"
It was part of a war with Iran
Iran had invaded Iraq, though Iraq started the war, and Saddam gassed the areas that had been taken by Iranians and helping the Iranians, though they technically lived in Iraq, it is quite a stretch to say that Saddam "gassed his own civilians" as a "first strike".
In fact, that's patently false.
Much like the things Bush says.
You could get a job in the bush administration quite easily "Scottie"
It was part of a war with Iran
Iran had invaded Iraq, though Iraq started the war, and Saddam gassed the areas that had been taken by Iranians and helping the Iranians, though they technically lived in Iraq, it is quite a stretch to say that Saddam "gassed his own civilians" as a "first strike".
In fact, that's patently false.
Much like the things Bush says.
You could get a job in the bush administration quite easily "Scottie"
What is your opinion on the BBC documentary?
"Scottie is fake Jew and traitorous to the cause of constipated world Jewry- (the CWJ) which is not to be confused with the world Jewish congress- WJC, an equally significant organization."
Nice of you to examine my family history but you seem to have become confused I dont even know any jews personally and It seems pretty unlikely any are in my family history. (If I am wrong please enlighten me)
"The gassing of the Kurds (as approved and assisted and covered up by the USA) was not a "first strike"
It was part of a war with Iran"
- if yo uare going to say it was approved and assisted by the USA plese provide evidence of where the USA said "ok gas those kurds"
I expect you will come up with the old arguments of how some ingredients were sold via third countries from the USA. Just think from the very nature of chemical weapons they are made from other chemicals it isnt all that hard to make some infact you could make them in your back yard. Every country provides just about every country it trades with a possible chemical weapons ingredient every day. so recaping
1) not a chemical weapon in itself
2) jsut about everything is a chemical weapon ingredient
3) it had other possible usages
4) it was sold via a third coutnry and the US did not nesercerily know where it was going
5) owning and using are TOTALLY different things.
- I meant "first strike of a chemical weapon" as in prior to the other side using WMD as opposed to prior to hostilities. If we are to accept war as a "legitimate activity" it doesnt matter morally if the chemical weapons are used in a state of war or not since irrespective they are an "illigitimate activity"
otherwise the US could start a war with iraq and then use that as justification to nuke iraq.
I know that some of them were helping iran and the many of the rest were sympathisers but that doesnt change the facts. For example the US could gass a "green party" convention and yes they would probably kill alot of people who support comunism and iraq but that would not make it ok. therefor they did "gas their own civilians"
"Much like the things Bush says."
what things? shall we deal with them one at a time?
Nice of you to examine my family history but you seem to have become confused I dont even know any jews personally and It seems pretty unlikely any are in my family history. (If I am wrong please enlighten me)
"The gassing of the Kurds (as approved and assisted and covered up by the USA) was not a "first strike"
It was part of a war with Iran"
- if yo uare going to say it was approved and assisted by the USA plese provide evidence of where the USA said "ok gas those kurds"
I expect you will come up with the old arguments of how some ingredients were sold via third countries from the USA. Just think from the very nature of chemical weapons they are made from other chemicals it isnt all that hard to make some infact you could make them in your back yard. Every country provides just about every country it trades with a possible chemical weapons ingredient every day. so recaping
1) not a chemical weapon in itself
2) jsut about everything is a chemical weapon ingredient
3) it had other possible usages
4) it was sold via a third coutnry and the US did not nesercerily know where it was going
5) owning and using are TOTALLY different things.
- I meant "first strike of a chemical weapon" as in prior to the other side using WMD as opposed to prior to hostilities. If we are to accept war as a "legitimate activity" it doesnt matter morally if the chemical weapons are used in a state of war or not since irrespective they are an "illigitimate activity"
otherwise the US could start a war with iraq and then use that as justification to nuke iraq.
I know that some of them were helping iran and the many of the rest were sympathisers but that doesnt change the facts. For example the US could gass a "green party" convention and yes they would probably kill alot of people who support comunism and iraq but that would not make it ok. therefor they did "gas their own civilians"
"Much like the things Bush says."
what things? shall we deal with them one at a time?
anyway I thought you liked unamerican people
I suffer from indigestion and gentile disregard to my uniquely horrifying situation.
I'll never get time to check out all your comments here this evening as I'm up to my ears, plus my spiel on Jenin is there to be typed, etc. but a quick glance at the comments addressed to me above warrantsan immeidate response.
Whoever "runs Canada" is not into attacking another nation. We fought bravely in WW1 and 2, Korea, and, yes, some in Viet Nam (which, I might add is something GWBush didn't do!)
We believe in peacekeeping and obeying international law, and acting under the auspices of the United Nations. Is there anything wrong with that? The majority of us think not!
If I remember correctly, the Bush administration didn't just think there "may" be WMD. It stated unequivocally that not only had Saddam (as if he had them in his back pocket somewhere) WMD, but this was added to by lackie, Tony Blair, to the degree that within 45 minutes weapons could be turned towards the uS and UK, etc. I mean, PLEASE!
We know that North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel (yes, I wonder why that's so seldom mentioned) the US, the UK, etc., has WMD (and included in this is nuclear capabilities).
But who, amongst the above, has oil???
It's totally hypocritical to turn around now and blame Tenet in the US, or Campbell in the UK, etc. The truth will come out sooner or later, and I can't wait. It didn't matter who said what. Bush was going to have his war! He did, and the world now knows he lied, and lied, and lied!
Meanwhile soldiers are dying in Iraq daily and for what? It sure as hell isn't Iraqi "freedom" or the liberation of Iraq that's for sure.
Whoever "runs Canada" is not into attacking another nation. We fought bravely in WW1 and 2, Korea, and, yes, some in Viet Nam (which, I might add is something GWBush didn't do!)
We believe in peacekeeping and obeying international law, and acting under the auspices of the United Nations. Is there anything wrong with that? The majority of us think not!
If I remember correctly, the Bush administration didn't just think there "may" be WMD. It stated unequivocally that not only had Saddam (as if he had them in his back pocket somewhere) WMD, but this was added to by lackie, Tony Blair, to the degree that within 45 minutes weapons could be turned towards the uS and UK, etc. I mean, PLEASE!
We know that North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel (yes, I wonder why that's so seldom mentioned) the US, the UK, etc., has WMD (and included in this is nuclear capabilities).
But who, amongst the above, has oil???
It's totally hypocritical to turn around now and blame Tenet in the US, or Campbell in the UK, etc. The truth will come out sooner or later, and I can't wait. It didn't matter who said what. Bush was going to have his war! He did, and the world now knows he lied, and lied, and lied!
Meanwhile soldiers are dying in Iraq daily and for what? It sure as hell isn't Iraqi "freedom" or the liberation of Iraq that's for sure.
Constipated Jews Unite against the threats of anti-Semitism.
Gehrig, it does me good that you are so concerned with what I think and with what I believe. I am glad that you have your religion and I have mine. Let us stay that way .You will continue, and I will try to understand the nuances of your dim world.
P.S. a quarter of a million British pounds for impartiality. Fancy that!
P.S. a quarter of a million British pounds for impartiality. Fancy that!
Brian: "Gehrig, it does me good that you are so concerned with what I think and with what I believe. I am glad that you have your religion and I have mine. Let us stay that way ."
Post-modernist indeterminacy -- the last refuge of the pseudohistorian who's lost his argument on the facts. Of course, in the meantime, your comments on Jews and Zionism will carry about as much as a flat earther's declamations about orbital mechanics.
@%<
Post-modernist indeterminacy -- the last refuge of the pseudohistorian who's lost his argument on the facts. Of course, in the meantime, your comments on Jews and Zionism will carry about as much as a flat earther's declamations about orbital mechanics.
@%<
Constipation is a natural condition and should not be held against worldwide Jewry.
So we demand reparations from gentiles who have not accepted this word to describe a unique condition jews alone are afflicted with.
If they’ll pay we will not pursue legal procedures.
So we demand reparations from gentiles who have not accepted this word to describe a unique condition jews alone are afflicted with.
If they’ll pay we will not pursue legal procedures.
Whoever "runs Canada" is not into attacking another nation. We fought bravely in WW1 and 2, Korea, and, yes, some in Viet Nam (which, I might add is something GWBush didn't do!)
- I have no problem with canadas history. Just saying it is lucky they dont follow your policy.
Your point ws that it is funny how the US dealt with Iraq as opposed to a country with lots of nuclear weapons. I brought up canada because maybe you would not care if california became glass from chinese nukes.besides it emphasised the point that politicians HAVE to take power into account. You can afford to ignore it (for the moment) but they can not.
"If I remember correctly, the Bush administration didn't just think there "may" be WMD. It stated unequivocally that not only had Saddam (as if he had them in his back pocket somewhere) WMD, but this was added to by lackie, Tony Blair, to the degree that within 45 minutes weapons could be turned towards the uS and UK, etc. I mean, PLEASE!"
- I understand it said US or UK forces. Ie in cyprus and saudi arabia. If they had said mainland UK and USA (by missiles as opposed to terrorism) they would have been laughed out of the room straight away.
besides that the fact that WMD arent available for 45 minute deployment NOW doesnt mean that they were not THEN. Maybe sadam had a bottle of smallpox on his shelf and he threw it in the sterilizing chamber when he heard the US forces coming.
However If you want me to be clintonian for a minute there is no problem delivering them against the embassies (which are part of the country) actually that would be a fairly pitiful claim since you or I could depoy chemical weapons on US or UK in 45 minuites with a little bit of chemistry knowledge.
"We know that North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel (yes, I wonder why that's so seldom mentioned) the US, the UK, etc., has WMD (and included in this is nuclear capabilities)."
- It is seldom mentioned? gee everyone knows israel has nukes. But israel doesnt keep testing its weapons like nth korea pakistain and india do those tests always start another round of talking because they are inflamatory. Israel china india russia and USA have LOTS of nukes. if you decide to remove those nukes or try to destabilize those countries I want to know so I can live on the opposite side of the planet to you and them.
"But who, amongst the above, has oil???"
- Hmm Iran has oil and is trying to get a nuclear program and the US pays more attention to nth Korea.. (possibly because nth korean spokes people keep threatening to nuke australia or somthing). Congo has oil and the US rarely says anything about it despite the fact it is a MESS.
"Meanwhile soldiers are dying in Iraq daily and for what? It sure as hell isn't Iraqi "freedom" or the liberation of Iraq that's for sure."
- how did you come to that conclusion? evidence please
- I have no problem with canadas history. Just saying it is lucky they dont follow your policy.
Your point ws that it is funny how the US dealt with Iraq as opposed to a country with lots of nuclear weapons. I brought up canada because maybe you would not care if california became glass from chinese nukes.besides it emphasised the point that politicians HAVE to take power into account. You can afford to ignore it (for the moment) but they can not.
"If I remember correctly, the Bush administration didn't just think there "may" be WMD. It stated unequivocally that not only had Saddam (as if he had them in his back pocket somewhere) WMD, but this was added to by lackie, Tony Blair, to the degree that within 45 minutes weapons could be turned towards the uS and UK, etc. I mean, PLEASE!"
- I understand it said US or UK forces. Ie in cyprus and saudi arabia. If they had said mainland UK and USA (by missiles as opposed to terrorism) they would have been laughed out of the room straight away.
besides that the fact that WMD arent available for 45 minute deployment NOW doesnt mean that they were not THEN. Maybe sadam had a bottle of smallpox on his shelf and he threw it in the sterilizing chamber when he heard the US forces coming.
However If you want me to be clintonian for a minute there is no problem delivering them against the embassies (which are part of the country) actually that would be a fairly pitiful claim since you or I could depoy chemical weapons on US or UK in 45 minuites with a little bit of chemistry knowledge.
"We know that North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel (yes, I wonder why that's so seldom mentioned) the US, the UK, etc., has WMD (and included in this is nuclear capabilities)."
- It is seldom mentioned? gee everyone knows israel has nukes. But israel doesnt keep testing its weapons like nth korea pakistain and india do those tests always start another round of talking because they are inflamatory. Israel china india russia and USA have LOTS of nukes. if you decide to remove those nukes or try to destabilize those countries I want to know so I can live on the opposite side of the planet to you and them.
"But who, amongst the above, has oil???"
- Hmm Iran has oil and is trying to get a nuclear program and the US pays more attention to nth Korea.. (possibly because nth korean spokes people keep threatening to nuke australia or somthing). Congo has oil and the US rarely says anything about it despite the fact it is a MESS.
"Meanwhile soldiers are dying in Iraq daily and for what? It sure as hell isn't Iraqi "freedom" or the liberation of Iraq that's for sure."
- how did you come to that conclusion? evidence please
Ok we'll accept an apology from the gentiles and leave it be.
gehrig, I did not give any answers to your insipid query because you failed to answer any questions I asked of you a time ago. As to the flat earth and orbital mechanics, that just proves my point. Scientist, historians and many other learned men of history believed with all of their heart that the earth was flat. We know the outcome of that belief don't we little gehrig?
Go and read some more of Lipstadt and all of your beliefs will be solidified. Slan Abhaile!
Go and read some more of Lipstadt and all of your beliefs will be solidified. Slan Abhaile!
Gehrig stop being so damn pedantic about post-modernist indeterminacy and just go ahead and dispose of Brian's questions that he asked you "a time ago", whatever he means by that. Questions he said you ducked. Sometimes you go on and on without saying much. Then we can make Brian answer your questions. I want to see Brian wiggle out of that! Sometimes you are a little long winded when a simple answer will do. Even Scottie gets a little long winded when he could just get to the point! Scottie stop messing around with Angie and get to the point. Are you trying to get on with real arguments or just trying to impress Angie?
“Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.”
(Yitzhak Shamir, Journal of the LEHI, the Stern Gang, Summer, 1943)
(Yitzhak Shamir, Journal of the LEHI, the Stern Gang, Summer, 1943)
You're the very last person who should call someone long-winded. You go on and on forever. You've never been very effective. Perhaps if your responses wouldn't take up 5 to 10 screenfuls in succession with a tangent in every direction people might actually care to follow what the hell you are saying.
I know that the 2 entries of "mine" directly above are not mine, and thus I suspect that neither is gehrig's.
Look to what levels the "anti-Zionists" have descended -- assuming they weren't there in the first place.
Look to what levels the "anti-Zionists" have descended -- assuming they weren't there in the first place.
hmm I guess it is JA since he threatened before besides he was baiting me to respond.
KL is right, natch -- the post above isn't me. And it oughta be easy to tell why.
@%<
@%<
Brian, dredging up excuses: "gehrig, I did not give any answers to your insipid query because you failed to answer any questions I asked of you a time ago."
A flat out lie, Brian.
Brian, trying to keep from sinking further: "As to the flat earth and orbital mechanics, that just proves my point. Scientist, historians and many other learned men of history believed with all of their heart that the earth was flat. We know the outcome of that belief don't we little gehrig?"
Yep -- they looked at the actual evidence and found that Kepler's laws of orbital motion made more sense than the classic geocentric version with epicycles etc. to explain planetary retrograde motion. That is, the evidence came out 100% in support of one explanation and not the other. Just as the evidence comes out completely in support of the historical fact that the Nazi genocidal program against the Jews claimed around six million victims, many of them in an essentially industrialized process involving mass gassing.
Whereas, the Frankensteinean, contradictory mess that the Holocaust deniers cobble together -- folks like that whizbang Freddy Leuchter -- dissolves on the most rudimentary fact check.
Now, remind -- if David "I call the Judge 'Mein Fuhrer'" Irving _knew_ that TB-47 was likely a forgery, as was demonstrated in court using his own words, then why did he continue to use it as a reliable source? Could it be that he knew folks like _you_ would never be the wiser?
@%<
A flat out lie, Brian.
Brian, trying to keep from sinking further: "As to the flat earth and orbital mechanics, that just proves my point. Scientist, historians and many other learned men of history believed with all of their heart that the earth was flat. We know the outcome of that belief don't we little gehrig?"
Yep -- they looked at the actual evidence and found that Kepler's laws of orbital motion made more sense than the classic geocentric version with epicycles etc. to explain planetary retrograde motion. That is, the evidence came out 100% in support of one explanation and not the other. Just as the evidence comes out completely in support of the historical fact that the Nazi genocidal program against the Jews claimed around six million victims, many of them in an essentially industrialized process involving mass gassing.
Whereas, the Frankensteinean, contradictory mess that the Holocaust deniers cobble together -- folks like that whizbang Freddy Leuchter -- dissolves on the most rudimentary fact check.
Now, remind -- if David "I call the Judge 'Mein Fuhrer'" Irving _knew_ that TB-47 was likely a forgery, as was demonstrated in court using his own words, then why did he continue to use it as a reliable source? Could it be that he knew folks like _you_ would never be the wiser?
@%<
gehrig, Answer me this, in the September 1st 1989 edition of Le Monde newspaper, the figure for the number of deaths at Auschwitz was 1.433.000 millions. Another deliberate lie by those bloody French n'est ce pas? Then there is those dastardly piggish Germans who gave us WWII, in Die Welt the September 27 issue, the figure for Auschwitz is 1 million. Obviously another lie. But in the establiment owned paper of the USA Today of 5-2 1997 the figure is 1,500,000. Liars, deliberate liars. Don't they know that no matter what figure that is given for the total deaths at Auschwitz the figure of 6 million is still the only figure that is real. Fancy that my little prig.
"Answer me this, in the September 1st 1989 edition of Le Monde newspaper, the figure for the number of deaths at Auschwitz was 1.433.000 millions."
(a) Who did the reporter cite as a source for that figure?
(b) Is every time a reporter gets a historical fact wrong automatically evidence of an international conspiracy to defraud the public, as opposed to just sloppiness or stupidity? Or is that only the case when the subject of the historical error is the number of dead at Auschwitz?
(c) Are you going to try to follow this up with the Auschwitz Plaque gambit again? I don't remember if you've tried to pull that one yet. Be my guest.
"Don't they know that no matter what figure that is given for the total deaths at Auschwitz the figure of 6 million is still the only figure that is real."
Take a look at Shermer and Grobman's book _Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?_ for an excellent discussion for non-demographers of just how that number has been verified, including a table of half a dozen studies, each of which was performed independently.
Now tell us why you think Die Welt's figure of one million murdered at Auschwitz is "obviously another lie." Bonus points if you quote Faurisson's "No holes, no Holocaust" or some other standard revisionist bullshit related to the roof of Krema II. Double bonus points if you end up quoting Steady Freddy "forty coffees a day" Leuchter or Germar Rudolf or Germar Rudolf's fraudulent pseudonym, the non-existent "Dr. Ernst Gauss."
@%<
(a) Who did the reporter cite as a source for that figure?
(b) Is every time a reporter gets a historical fact wrong automatically evidence of an international conspiracy to defraud the public, as opposed to just sloppiness or stupidity? Or is that only the case when the subject of the historical error is the number of dead at Auschwitz?
(c) Are you going to try to follow this up with the Auschwitz Plaque gambit again? I don't remember if you've tried to pull that one yet. Be my guest.
"Don't they know that no matter what figure that is given for the total deaths at Auschwitz the figure of 6 million is still the only figure that is real."
Take a look at Shermer and Grobman's book _Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?_ for an excellent discussion for non-demographers of just how that number has been verified, including a table of half a dozen studies, each of which was performed independently.
Now tell us why you think Die Welt's figure of one million murdered at Auschwitz is "obviously another lie." Bonus points if you quote Faurisson's "No holes, no Holocaust" or some other standard revisionist bullshit related to the roof of Krema II. Double bonus points if you end up quoting Steady Freddy "forty coffees a day" Leuchter or Germar Rudolf or Germar Rudolf's fraudulent pseudonym, the non-existent "Dr. Ernst Gauss."
@%<
"Answer me this, in the September 1st 1989 edition of Le Monde newspaper, the figure for the number of deaths at Auschwitz was 1.433.000 millions."
(a) Who did the reporter cite as a source for that figure?
(b) Is every time a reporter gets a historical fact wrong automatically evidence of an international conspiracy to defraud the public, as opposed to just sloppiness or stupidity? Or is that only the case when the subject of the historical error is the number of dead at Auschwitz?
(c) Are you going to try to follow this up with the Auschwitz Plaque gambit again? I don't remember if you've tried to pull that one yet. Be my guest.
"Don't they know that no matter what figure that is given for the total deaths at Auschwitz the figure of 6 million is still the only figure that is real."
Take a look at Shermer and Grobman's book _Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?_ for an excellent discussion for non-demographers of just how that number has been verified, including a table of half a dozen studies, each of which was performed independently.
Now tell us why you think Die Welt's figure of one million murdered at Auschwitz is "obviously another lie." Bonus points if you quote Faurisson's "No holes, no Holocaust" or some other standard revisionist bullshit related to the roof of Krema II. Double bonus points if you end up quoting Steady Freddy "forty coffees a day" Leuchter or Germar Rudolf or Germar Rudolf's fraudulent pseudonym, the non-existent "Dr. Ernst Gauss."
@%<
(a) Who did the reporter cite as a source for that figure?
(b) Is every time a reporter gets a historical fact wrong automatically evidence of an international conspiracy to defraud the public, as opposed to just sloppiness or stupidity? Or is that only the case when the subject of the historical error is the number of dead at Auschwitz?
(c) Are you going to try to follow this up with the Auschwitz Plaque gambit again? I don't remember if you've tried to pull that one yet. Be my guest.
"Don't they know that no matter what figure that is given for the total deaths at Auschwitz the figure of 6 million is still the only figure that is real."
Take a look at Shermer and Grobman's book _Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?_ for an excellent discussion for non-demographers of just how that number has been verified, including a table of half a dozen studies, each of which was performed independently.
Now tell us why you think Die Welt's figure of one million murdered at Auschwitz is "obviously another lie." Bonus points if you quote Faurisson's "No holes, no Holocaust" or some other standard revisionist bullshit related to the roof of Krema II. Double bonus points if you end up quoting Steady Freddy "forty coffees a day" Leuchter or Germar Rudolf or Germar Rudolf's fraudulent pseudonym, the non-existent "Dr. Ernst Gauss."
@%<
... it was not the Germans who gave us WWII, it was the Nazis.
@%<
@%<
The official number of casualties in Jenin was six billion.
to mr by, I totally concur. However let us have a source. Perhaps, the Palestinian on the corner next to the israeli check point talmud alpha. yes, that is the correct response. 6 million, 60 million, 600 million, 6 billion, 60 billion, 600 billion, and the winner is 6 trillion.
Don't forget that web site on Iraqi body count. Which lists estimates of Iraqi civilians killed. They site AP as one of their sources, yet the AP released its estimate, well less than half of the body count's "minimum" number (and very well under the maximum).
Something doesn't add up among terrorist supporters.
Something doesn't add up among terrorist supporters.
Rational, educated people know that Israel won the 1967 war against multiple arab countries, and gained military control of the west bank and gaza strip from Jordan and Egypt. It was not in the control of palestinians.
Rational, educated people know that Israel should and must eventually hand land control over to palestinians on a permanent basis.
BUT, rational, educated people know that much of the arab world and palestinian organizations like hamas and islamic jihad are against israel existing at all, regardless of what Israel does.
That's the problem in this.
For some really sad reason, the "far left" in the US, Canada and around the world have decided to go WAY OVER THE EDGE and have made it their mission to believe virtually everything each and every palestinian says, defend terrorist groups who genuinely seek to murder all jews and pretend that every single one of them is merely against "the occupation," and demonize each and every aspect of zionism.
People who do that either need to examine themselves, or just come out and admit their true feelings, because the far left's lovefest with muslim extremists, devout hatred of israel, and obsession with the israel issue over almost everything else on earth JUST AIN'T KOSHER........ ....... ........ ........ ......
Rational, educated people know that Israel should and must eventually hand land control over to palestinians on a permanent basis.
BUT, rational, educated people know that much of the arab world and palestinian organizations like hamas and islamic jihad are against israel existing at all, regardless of what Israel does.
That's the problem in this.
For some really sad reason, the "far left" in the US, Canada and around the world have decided to go WAY OVER THE EDGE and have made it their mission to believe virtually everything each and every palestinian says, defend terrorist groups who genuinely seek to murder all jews and pretend that every single one of them is merely against "the occupation," and demonize each and every aspect of zionism.
People who do that either need to examine themselves, or just come out and admit their true feelings, because the far left's lovefest with muslim extremists, devout hatred of israel, and obsession with the israel issue over almost everything else on earth JUST AIN'T KOSHER........ ....... ........ ........ ......
Rational intelligent people also know that Israel started the war of 1967.
Angie> Israel started the war of 1967
On May 15th, 1967, Egypt mobilized 1000 tanks and 100,000 troops across the Suez canal and onto Israel's border in the Sinai. Syria did the same.
On May 16th, Nasser evicted UN Peace Keeping troops from the Sinai. (So much for international observers or keeping the peace.)
On May 17th, Cairo Radio (an official organ of the government) declared "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."
On May 18th, after Nasser ordered the UN peace-keeping force to leave the buffer zone between Egypt and Israel: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more... the sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."
That same day Syrian troops amassed in the Golan Heights, in offensive positions poised against Israel's northern border.
On May 20th, Hafez Assad (then Syria's defense minister) proclaimed: "Our forces are now ready... to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."
On May 22nd, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Israel's access to the Indian Ocean was cut-off, contrary to international law governing right of passage on the seas. In and of itself, this was a "casus belli", an act of war against Israel.
On May 27th Nasser stated that "The Arab people want to fight... Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel."
On May 30th Jordan joined the military alliance. Nasser announced: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel... while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world... we have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."
With 250,000 standing troops, 2000 tanks, 700 aircraft ringing Israel (and this before its military superiority was a given), Israel had to call up its reserves and keep them on alert, away from their jobs. (Israel's armed forces are heavily dependent upon reserves, which consists of all its able-bodied men.)
How long can a country endure such hostilities and allow the disruption of normal life? In the face of such aggression, rather than wait for the inevitable attack that would come the moment Israel blinked, Israel had the right (Article 51 of the UN Charter) to respond.
Israel may have launched a pre-emptive attack, but the war was started by the Arab countries involved. They were the aggressors.
Don't just take my word for it. Read King Hussein's account in his book "My War with Israel".
On May 15th, 1967, Egypt mobilized 1000 tanks and 100,000 troops across the Suez canal and onto Israel's border in the Sinai. Syria did the same.
On May 16th, Nasser evicted UN Peace Keeping troops from the Sinai. (So much for international observers or keeping the peace.)
On May 17th, Cairo Radio (an official organ of the government) declared "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."
On May 18th, after Nasser ordered the UN peace-keeping force to leave the buffer zone between Egypt and Israel: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more... the sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."
That same day Syrian troops amassed in the Golan Heights, in offensive positions poised against Israel's northern border.
On May 20th, Hafez Assad (then Syria's defense minister) proclaimed: "Our forces are now ready... to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."
On May 22nd, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Israel's access to the Indian Ocean was cut-off, contrary to international law governing right of passage on the seas. In and of itself, this was a "casus belli", an act of war against Israel.
On May 27th Nasser stated that "The Arab people want to fight... Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel."
On May 30th Jordan joined the military alliance. Nasser announced: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel... while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world... we have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."
With 250,000 standing troops, 2000 tanks, 700 aircraft ringing Israel (and this before its military superiority was a given), Israel had to call up its reserves and keep them on alert, away from their jobs. (Israel's armed forces are heavily dependent upon reserves, which consists of all its able-bodied men.)
How long can a country endure such hostilities and allow the disruption of normal life? In the face of such aggression, rather than wait for the inevitable attack that would come the moment Israel blinked, Israel had the right (Article 51 of the UN Charter) to respond.
Israel may have launched a pre-emptive attack, but the war was started by the Arab countries involved. They were the aggressors.
Don't just take my word for it. Read King Hussein's account in his book "My War with Israel".
Did Israel Want The Six Day War?
http://www.azure.org.il/7-Oren.html
Michael B. Oren
extract
In the academic world, the initiative has come from the social sciences rather than history departments. According to this school, the Six Day War erupted not as a result of Arab belligerency but in reaction to socioeconomic factors within Israel, as a tactic by the nation’s leaders to distract attention from their failed domestic policies. “It is conspicuously anomalous to encounter in the mid-1960s a period of recession and unemployment in the midst of nearly two decades of rapid economic growth...,” writes political economist Michael Shalev. “Beginning in the autumn of 1966, unemployment reached double-digit levels. Recovery began only in the wake of belated expansionary policies initiated in response to growing citizen unrest....”5 Political scientist Yo’av Peled and sociologist Yig’al Levy agree, asserting that “the process of escalation that started in 1964 was ‘not necessary’ in the sense that it did not stem from the exigencies of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The force of Israel’s reactions in those years expressed … a certain strategy ... compensating for the state’s retreat from its social principles....”6
These authors seem to share the belief—which is strongly implied, if not yet openly asserted—that Arab actions had little to do with the outbreak of hostilities in 1967, and that Israel not only failed to prevent war but actively courted it. The massing of Egyptian troops in the Sinai, the expulsion of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and the closing of the Straits of Tiran, the Arab defense pacts and public commitments to eradicate Zionism—all were either provoked or blown out of proportion by Israel for its own purposes of internal cohesion, territorial expansion or other ulterior motives. It is to such motives that Oxford-based Israeli historian Avi Shlaim refers when he asserts that “[Egyptian President] Gamal Abdel Nasser … was perceived by Israeli hard-liners as Israel’s most dangerous enemy. Accordingly, military pressure was used in 1956 and 1967 in vain attempts to engineer his downfall.”7
end of extract***
see also:
The 1967 War and the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem
http://www.wrmea.com/jews_for_justice/1967war.html
Also easily 'findable' on the Internet not to mention the ready availability of dozens of diaries, memoirs, accounts and narrations, are the hundreds of quotes by notables such as David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan, Menahem Begin, Moshe Sharatt all expressing the same point: the 1967 war was not only planned... it was desired.
So who are you gonna believe?
http://www.azure.org.il/7-Oren.html
Michael B. Oren
extract
In the academic world, the initiative has come from the social sciences rather than history departments. According to this school, the Six Day War erupted not as a result of Arab belligerency but in reaction to socioeconomic factors within Israel, as a tactic by the nation’s leaders to distract attention from their failed domestic policies. “It is conspicuously anomalous to encounter in the mid-1960s a period of recession and unemployment in the midst of nearly two decades of rapid economic growth...,” writes political economist Michael Shalev. “Beginning in the autumn of 1966, unemployment reached double-digit levels. Recovery began only in the wake of belated expansionary policies initiated in response to growing citizen unrest....”5 Political scientist Yo’av Peled and sociologist Yig’al Levy agree, asserting that “the process of escalation that started in 1964 was ‘not necessary’ in the sense that it did not stem from the exigencies of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The force of Israel’s reactions in those years expressed … a certain strategy ... compensating for the state’s retreat from its social principles....”6
These authors seem to share the belief—which is strongly implied, if not yet openly asserted—that Arab actions had little to do with the outbreak of hostilities in 1967, and that Israel not only failed to prevent war but actively courted it. The massing of Egyptian troops in the Sinai, the expulsion of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and the closing of the Straits of Tiran, the Arab defense pacts and public commitments to eradicate Zionism—all were either provoked or blown out of proportion by Israel for its own purposes of internal cohesion, territorial expansion or other ulterior motives. It is to such motives that Oxford-based Israeli historian Avi Shlaim refers when he asserts that “[Egyptian President] Gamal Abdel Nasser … was perceived by Israeli hard-liners as Israel’s most dangerous enemy. Accordingly, military pressure was used in 1956 and 1967 in vain attempts to engineer his downfall.”7
end of extract***
see also:
The 1967 War and the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem
http://www.wrmea.com/jews_for_justice/1967war.html
Also easily 'findable' on the Internet not to mention the ready availability of dozens of diaries, memoirs, accounts and narrations, are the hundreds of quotes by notables such as David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan, Menahem Begin, Moshe Sharatt all expressing the same point: the 1967 war was not only planned... it was desired.
So who are you gonna believe?
Angie doesn’t concern herself with acts of war like closing of Israel’s shipping access siege of the country or declarations by presidents that Israel will be destroyed.
In Angies head - no matter what -- Israel is guilty because technically (with cause or not) it began the war with the Arab nations.
And she must remind us of this despite the fact that no one claimed that that was not "technically true" and whether it is technically true or not is not very relevant to what "Defenders" was saying.
In Angies head - no matter what -- Israel is guilty because technically (with cause or not) it began the war with the Arab nations.
And she must remind us of this despite the fact that no one claimed that that was not "technically true" and whether it is technically true or not is not very relevant to what "Defenders" was saying.
poor Israel.
Can't use the Suez canal.
Poor poor Israel.
So alone and vulnerable.
Poor poor Israel.
Had to start a war.
Can't use the Suez canal.
Poor poor Israel.
So alone and vulnerable.
Poor poor Israel.
Had to start a war.
!
It is always easy to find a person who will be willing to suggest a conspiricy theory.
please explain the mechanism by which israel gained control of the countries surrounding it in order to attack itself. and then defeat its own pawns.
Besides that it would be reasonable to say that Pakistain or india are baiting each other and that internal problems may possibly add to tensions through a complex political process. But it would be odd to suddenly say that only the politics of India matter and that tensions are all part of some devious plot by extreme hindus to cause india to become more radical in order to nuke pakistain. Or that a concerted "lets have nuclear war" lobby represents India.
Even if there was a valid argument there it would still not justify pakistain blockading india (if such a thing were possible) and declaring it would destroy india even more so where such action would only be suicidal.
It is always easy to find a person who will be willing to suggest a conspiricy theory.
please explain the mechanism by which israel gained control of the countries surrounding it in order to attack itself. and then defeat its own pawns.
Besides that it would be reasonable to say that Pakistain or india are baiting each other and that internal problems may possibly add to tensions through a complex political process. But it would be odd to suddenly say that only the politics of India matter and that tensions are all part of some devious plot by extreme hindus to cause india to become more radical in order to nuke pakistain. Or that a concerted "lets have nuclear war" lobby represents India.
Even if there was a valid argument there it would still not justify pakistain blockading india (if such a thing were possible) and declaring it would destroy india even more so where such action would only be suicidal.
Too bad you have no life scot. prob. don't even live in usa. in AU WE LAUGH AT YOU!!
Thx for all the gaffaws!
Thx for all the gaffaws!
...by dissing my latest entry, you are now really confirming your near total ignorance!
You really have no idea just who 'http://www.azure.org.il' is, do you?
You really have no idea just who 'http://www.azure.org.il' is, do you?
Everyone should indeed follow the link ! provided.
http://www.azure.org.il/7-Oren.html
They'll see that the article is a refutation of the part quoted by !.
|| These authors seem to share the belief—which is strongly implied, if not yet openly asserted—that Arab actions had little to do with the outbreak of hostilities in 1967, and that Israel not only failed to prevent war but actively courted it. The massing of Egyptian troops in the Sinai, the expulsion of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and the closing of the Straits of Tiran, the Arab defense pacts and public commitments to eradicate Zionism—all were either provoked or blown out of proportion by Israel for its own purposes of internal cohesion
|| But can these conclusions stand up to straightforward historical scrutiny? Can the assertion that Israel wanted the war, did little or nothing to avert it, or even instigated it, be substantiated by Israeli declassified documents from the period, the favored weapons of the new historians? Newly released files from the Israel State Archives—reviewed here as part of a study-in-progress on the war that will eventually incorporate American and British papers as well—reveal a great deal about Israeli policymaking and diplomacy of the time, and about what Israel’s leaders thought, feared and strove for during their three weeks of intense diplomatic efforts leading up to June 5, 1967. But far from even hinting that Israel deliberately brought about the conflict, the record shows that Israel was desperate to avoid war and, up to the eve of battle, pursued every avenue in an effort to avert it—even at great strategic and economic cost to the nation.
And people wonder why I call the "anti-Zionists" dishonest liars?
http://www.azure.org.il/7-Oren.html
They'll see that the article is a refutation of the part quoted by !.
|| These authors seem to share the belief—which is strongly implied, if not yet openly asserted—that Arab actions had little to do with the outbreak of hostilities in 1967, and that Israel not only failed to prevent war but actively courted it. The massing of Egyptian troops in the Sinai, the expulsion of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and the closing of the Straits of Tiran, the Arab defense pacts and public commitments to eradicate Zionism—all were either provoked or blown out of proportion by Israel for its own purposes of internal cohesion
|| But can these conclusions stand up to straightforward historical scrutiny? Can the assertion that Israel wanted the war, did little or nothing to avert it, or even instigated it, be substantiated by Israeli declassified documents from the period, the favored weapons of the new historians? Newly released files from the Israel State Archives—reviewed here as part of a study-in-progress on the war that will eventually incorporate American and British papers as well—reveal a great deal about Israeli policymaking and diplomacy of the time, and about what Israel’s leaders thought, feared and strove for during their three weeks of intense diplomatic efforts leading up to June 5, 1967. But far from even hinting that Israel deliberately brought about the conflict, the record shows that Israel was desperate to avoid war and, up to the eve of battle, pursued every avenue in an effort to avert it—even at great strategic and economic cost to the nation.
And people wonder why I call the "anti-Zionists" dishonest liars?
" The turning point came on May 11, 1967, when the Soviet Union began to furnish Egypt with false intelligence reports of Israeli preparations for war, described as thirteen brigades—40,000 troops, hundreds of tanks—gathered on the northern border. Israel’s objective, Moscow warned, was to topple the Syrian regime."
Hmmm Now I can go and blame the soviets for all the troubles can I ?
Hmmm Now I can go and blame the soviets for all the troubles can I ?
Actually the real turning point occured 4-days prior to the 1967 war, when Meir Amit visited Washington seeking a 'green light' for the planned attack. McNamara has stated unequivocally that neither he nor Johnson gave one. McNamara also believed that Amit was seeking material support, something that Amit has denied.
You seem to have issues with your own resources.
However to adress it - if you think you are going to be attacked (or to attack) you obviously "seek" approval from other countries (as all parties involved presumably did) but that doesnt really make any difference as to whether you will defend yourself or not.
The event you are talking about is clearly an effect more than a cause.
However to adress it - if you think you are going to be attacked (or to attack) you obviously "seek" approval from other countries (as all parties involved presumably did) but that doesnt really make any difference as to whether you will defend yourself or not.
The event you are talking about is clearly an effect more than a cause.
How do you respond to KL's post in this thread, in which he catches you completely inverting the meaning of one of your supposed citations?
It looks quite dishonest. Have you been misinterpreted?
@%<
It looks quite dishonest. Have you been misinterpreted?
@%<
...sorry gehrig, I no longer respond to racists.
And KL is just a little too overt.
BTW:
You do know who Michael B. Oren is?
...and the agenda of Azure?
I think I've made my case... because I've cited him doesn't mean I follow his version of the'facts' or any 'facts' he may try to 'represent'... The point: Example by bad example.
In fact, Michael B. Oren's versions tend to represent the 'points of view' posed by the Camera organization.
And KL is just a little too overt.
BTW:
You do know who Michael B. Oren is?
...and the agenda of Azure?
I think I've made my case... because I've cited him doesn't mean I follow his version of the'facts' or any 'facts' he may try to 'represent'... The point: Example by bad example.
In fact, Michael B. Oren's versions tend to represent the 'points of view' posed by the Camera organization.
" And KL is just a little too overt."
Well, if that is your excuse for withdrawing from discussion with him, so be it. I think the record here will show that the real reason could well be that he simple won too many points off you too easily, something you enable him do when you distort your sources so plainly.
@%<
Well, if that is your excuse for withdrawing from discussion with him, so be it. I think the record here will show that the real reason could well be that he simple won too many points off you too easily, something you enable him do when you distort your sources so plainly.
@%<
I haven't seen KL make any racist statements but I do see ! now trying to disqualify its own source since KL followed the link and showed us that ! wasn't being honest about what this source actually says.
Please do not cease your most interesting and informative posts. I've been reading them with interest. You will note as well that in an earlier note to the Board here, I, too, refused to respond to anything said by the infamous KL, although I note with some amusement the efforts being made to deter me from my "massacre" mission.
I hope to read your stuff here again. It's important that someone of your intelligence be heard by those of us who are here to learn something
Continue to fight the good fight!.
Angie
I hope to read your stuff here again. It's important that someone of your intelligence be heard by those of us who are here to learn something
Continue to fight the good fight!.
Angie
1. Angie would rather ignore me because, like !, she can't address what I say. Thus the smear campaign against the messenger rather than the message.
2. ! provided a source as if it supports him when in fact he quoted it out of context and his source says the exact opposite of what he claimed. As noted above, now he's left attempting to discredit his own witness.
3. Angie doesn't seem to notice, or if she did, she doesn't mind. Just as she wasn't outraged that JA wanted banks to make greater profits to increase tax revenue.
The inescapable conclusion is that these players only focus is on demonizing Israel. If they have to align themselves with right-wing nuts such as Neturei Karta (who oppose feminism, abortion, gay rights, etc.) they do so (as if these religious freaks are on to something because they oppose a state of Israel -- prior to the arrival of the messiah). If they need to rely upon neo-nazi sites, they do. If they need to make Republican arguments (corporate profits are good for the tax base), they do.
What is going on here?
2. ! provided a source as if it supports him when in fact he quoted it out of context and his source says the exact opposite of what he claimed. As noted above, now he's left attempting to discredit his own witness.
3. Angie doesn't seem to notice, or if she did, she doesn't mind. Just as she wasn't outraged that JA wanted banks to make greater profits to increase tax revenue.
The inescapable conclusion is that these players only focus is on demonizing Israel. If they have to align themselves with right-wing nuts such as Neturei Karta (who oppose feminism, abortion, gay rights, etc.) they do so (as if these religious freaks are on to something because they oppose a state of Israel -- prior to the arrival of the messiah). If they need to rely upon neo-nazi sites, they do. If they need to make Republican arguments (corporate profits are good for the tax base), they do.
What is going on here?
Perhaps one of KL's colleagues will explain for the benefit of myself, at least, what damn "smear campaign" there is towards him/her, and if she/he is trying to convince this Board that I'm involved in same, or started same, or anything else. That I would care enough to do so!
Perhaps she/he hasn't glanced around the Board today, the "hate Angie Day on Indymedia? With people coming out of the woodwork?
Whatever makes you happy, I suppose, but let me tell all of you who think you're being so cool by making me feel bad that you're wasting your damn time.
Yes, I am hurt, and, yes, I am foolish to be thus because I do know who I am, whilst none of you know me at all.
I'm just a name here, and if it entertains you to accuse me of being Concerned-Zioinist or Eva Braun and all of the other things scattered about this Board today/tonight, then who am I to spoil your fun?
Nobody on this board is perfect, nor has all the answers, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be responding to an individual who never stops accusing everyone else here (except like-minded individuals, of course) of lying.
And as for my concluding comments over the next day or so re Jenin, if the editors have no problem with same, then I shall finish it.
I may be upset and hurt because I've never been subjected to this sort of treatment before, but let me assure you that I shall forge ahead, undaunted.
So do your level best. I won't be wasting any more of my time responding to such unmitigated garbage.
Perhaps she/he hasn't glanced around the Board today, the "hate Angie Day on Indymedia? With people coming out of the woodwork?
Whatever makes you happy, I suppose, but let me tell all of you who think you're being so cool by making me feel bad that you're wasting your damn time.
Yes, I am hurt, and, yes, I am foolish to be thus because I do know who I am, whilst none of you know me at all.
I'm just a name here, and if it entertains you to accuse me of being Concerned-Zioinist or Eva Braun and all of the other things scattered about this Board today/tonight, then who am I to spoil your fun?
Nobody on this board is perfect, nor has all the answers, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be responding to an individual who never stops accusing everyone else here (except like-minded individuals, of course) of lying.
And as for my concluding comments over the next day or so re Jenin, if the editors have no problem with same, then I shall finish it.
I may be upset and hurt because I've never been subjected to this sort of treatment before, but let me assure you that I shall forge ahead, undaunted.
So do your level best. I won't be wasting any more of my time responding to such unmitigated garbage.
!: " You do know who Michael B. Oren is?"
Sure -- he's the guy who concluded the article you cited as follows:
"The newly released Israeli diplomatic documents from the period leading up to June 5, 1967 offer overwhelming evidence against any suggestion that Israel sought war with the Arabs. Nor do the tens of thousands of papers so far declassified contain a single reference to any desire to divert public opinion from the economic situation, to overthrow Arab rulers or to conquer and occupy the West Bank, the Sinai or the Golan Heights. On the contrary, the picture that emerges is one of a country and leadership deeply fearful of military confrontation, and desperate to avoid one at almost any price. The sole hope of doing so, the Israelis believed, rested with the United States. But the Johnson Administration, though favorably disposed to Israel, was severely limited by domestic political constraints and its all-consuming involvement in Vietnam. These limitations prevented the Americans from taking the measures that might have restored the status quo ante in the Sinai and the Straits of Tiran and stemmed the momentum toward war that Nasser had generated.
Moreover, it cannot be claimed that Israel was wrong in considering the use of force. Confronted with a harsh economic blockade, military pacts between heavily armed neighbors for the express purpose of aggression against Israel, and hundreds of thousands of enemy troops actually massed on its borders, it would have been the height of irresponsibility for Israel’s government not to plan for preemptive action. Nor can Israel be faulted for employing the threat of force to spur the United States to intervene diplomatically. The few measures Johnson did adopt—reiterations of America’s 1957 pledges on Tiran, the Red Sea Regatta proposal, the representations to Arab leaders—were directly attributable to those intimations by Israel. And, in the final analysis, the Israelis held back from acting militarily until the very last opportunity for a diplomatic settlement had passed, even though they knew that every day they waited was costing them dearly in resources, readiness and morale, and was likely to constrict their own maneuverability if war became unavoidable ... "
Thanks for asking. It's provided an interesting opportunity to gauge your honesty.
@%<
Sure -- he's the guy who concluded the article you cited as follows:
"The newly released Israeli diplomatic documents from the period leading up to June 5, 1967 offer overwhelming evidence against any suggestion that Israel sought war with the Arabs. Nor do the tens of thousands of papers so far declassified contain a single reference to any desire to divert public opinion from the economic situation, to overthrow Arab rulers or to conquer and occupy the West Bank, the Sinai or the Golan Heights. On the contrary, the picture that emerges is one of a country and leadership deeply fearful of military confrontation, and desperate to avoid one at almost any price. The sole hope of doing so, the Israelis believed, rested with the United States. But the Johnson Administration, though favorably disposed to Israel, was severely limited by domestic political constraints and its all-consuming involvement in Vietnam. These limitations prevented the Americans from taking the measures that might have restored the status quo ante in the Sinai and the Straits of Tiran and stemmed the momentum toward war that Nasser had generated.
Moreover, it cannot be claimed that Israel was wrong in considering the use of force. Confronted with a harsh economic blockade, military pacts between heavily armed neighbors for the express purpose of aggression against Israel, and hundreds of thousands of enemy troops actually massed on its borders, it would have been the height of irresponsibility for Israel’s government not to plan for preemptive action. Nor can Israel be faulted for employing the threat of force to spur the United States to intervene diplomatically. The few measures Johnson did adopt—reiterations of America’s 1957 pledges on Tiran, the Red Sea Regatta proposal, the representations to Arab leaders—were directly attributable to those intimations by Israel. And, in the final analysis, the Israelis held back from acting militarily until the very last opportunity for a diplomatic settlement had passed, even though they knew that every day they waited was costing them dearly in resources, readiness and morale, and was likely to constrict their own maneuverability if war became unavoidable ... "
Thanks for asking. It's provided an interesting opportunity to gauge your honesty.
@%<
There is a tidal wave of anti semitic rhetoric which has got to be gotten rid of.
if you have facts to back up your allegations than publish them other wise keep you racist and homophobic crap to your kind Nazism is not and shall not be tolerated on this democratic website.
if you have facts to back up your allegations than publish them other wise keep you racist and homophobic crap to your kind Nazism is not and shall not be tolerated on this democratic website.
Listen angie. You're a stupid, ignorant, biased, dishonest piece of shit. That's why people don't like you. Your opinions are one-sided and ignorant, and each time you type lots of text and reveal how your brain works, it reveals that your thought process is that of a retarded poodle.
That's why you are attacked. Not because you're speaking any sort of truth that hurts anyone. You're just a fucking retarded moron, and unfortunately, you seem to have hours each day to spew your idiotic crap on this board.
But the real problem is that it's morons like you who are behind the "peace" movements.
May your mother develop cancer and die.
That's why you are attacked. Not because you're speaking any sort of truth that hurts anyone. You're just a fucking retarded moron, and unfortunately, you seem to have hours each day to spew your idiotic crap on this board.
But the real problem is that it's morons like you who are behind the "peace" movements.
May your mother develop cancer and die.
Are you gainfully employed in the field of sanitation?
I understand you are annoied but we dont know her mother so we should not be wishing ill upon her.
As long as you are called "biased" and a "liar" by none other than Zionists than you know your none-biased and Truthful reporting is affective and irritating to those who shun what your are reporting about.
You're too late with your horrid wish, sir/madam.
My Mom died four years ago.
My Mom died four years ago.
If I was a gramatical symbol I would probably come to the conclusion that we have a troll in our midst.
RE: "to angie", by to angie Monday July 21, 2003 at 08:38 AM.
ONCE AGAIN, A LITTLE GUTTERSNIPE ZZZIONIST, TOO COWARDLY TO EVEN PICK THEIR OWN UNIQUE MONIKER...
LET'S HEAR SOME MORE:
"Listen angie. You're a stupid, ignorant, biased, dishonest piece of shit."
ONCE AGAIN, A *REAL* ZZZIONIST 'INTELLECTUAL' !!
ONCE AGAIN, ANGIE STEALS ALL THE THUNDER FROM ME!!
*I* CALL THESE NUTTTCASE ZZZIONISTS ALL SORTS OF NAMES...:
*SSSTOOOPID*, *ID-DIOTS*, and *FFFOOOLLLS*...,
*I* MAKE FUN OF THEM...,
*I* PAY THEM BACK, RETALIATING AGAINST THEM
:-)
...,
BUT ANGIE GETS ALL THE CREDIT AND HONORS!!!
*WHY* IS *THAT*...!!???
"That's why people don't like you. Your opinions are one-sided and ignorant, and each time you type lots of text and reveal how your brain works"
YO!!! WHAT AM *I*? -- A POTTED PLANT!!!
YOU KNOW, *I* COULD BE A RAVISHING REDHEAD WITH A DEEP INTELLECT AND A SHARP WIT TOO, IF I *WANTED* TO!!
DON'T YOU *ZZZZIONISTS* HAVE ***ANYTHING*** TO SAY ABOUT *MEEE*!!!???
"it reveals that your thought process is that of a retarded poodle."
WAIT A MINUTE!!: I THOUGHT THAT *TONY BLAIR* IS THE POODLE -- AND I'M SURE THAT HE IS A *SUPPORTER* (OH, BUSH'S *SUPPORTER* ALRIGHT!) OF ISRAEL.
"That's why you are attacked. Not because you're speaking any sort of truth that hurts anyone. You're just a fucking retarded moron"
SPEAKING OF FUCKIN' RETARDED, ZZZZZIONIST, *MORONS*....
*I* GET IT!!! YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE FUCKIN' RETARDED NEANDERTHAL *J-D-L* ZZZIONIST TYPES -- LIKE THE RETARDED ONE THAT TRIED TO ATTACK ME NEAR A *PEACE* DEMO!!
WHY IS IT THAT ONLY **ZZZZZIONISTS** BEHAVE THAT WAY?
(YOU KNOW, ANGIE, WHEN I FIRST CAME TO BERKELEY, IT WAS THE **ZZZZZINOISTS** WHO WERE BEHAVING--ESPECIALLY IN MIDEAST CLASSES--THE WAY THEY ALWAYS STEREOTYPED ARABS!!
DAMN ZZZIONISTS WERE ALWAYS RUNNING AROUND TRYING TO INTIMIDATE PEOPLE!--IN CLASS!! AN INSTRUCTOR EVEN ONCE HAD TO CALL THE CAMPUS POLICE ON THEM!!--AND HAVE THEM **REMOVED** FROM THE CLASS!!)
"Not because you're speaking any sort of truth that hurts anyone."
IT *CERTAINLY* APPEARS TO HAVE MADE *YOU*, *ZZZIONIST*, YYYELP!!!
GANDHI:
- FIRST THEY IGNORE YOU [OR YOUR ARGUMENTS];
- THEN THEY LAUGH AT YOU [OR YOUR ARGUMENTS];
- THEN THEY ATTACK YOU [OR YOUR ARGUMENTS];
[DO YOU KNOW WHAT GANDHI SAID EVENTUALLY HAPPENS NEXT, ZZZIONIST?]
"and unfortunately, you seem to have hours each day to spew your idiotic crap on this board."
SPEAKING OF IDIOTIC ZZZIONIST CRAPS...
I SEE THAT ANGIE'S INTELLIGENT WORDS *RRREEEALLLY* *BOTHER* *YOU*, DON'T THEY, ZZZIONIST!! --FOR SOMEONE WHO IS SO 'DISMISSIVE' OF THEM.
But the real problem is that it's morons like you who are behind the "peace" movements.
ISRAEL HAS *REALLY* BEEN BEHIND THE 'PEACE' MOVEMENT: A PIECE OF PALESTINIAN LAND HERE, A PIECE OF PALESTINIAN LAND THERE, MORE AND LARGER PIECES OF PALESTINE, A PIECE OF LEBANON, A PIECE OF SYRIA, A PIECE OF JORDAN, BEFORE THAT A PIECE OF EGYPT (UNTIL THE U.S. BRIBED EGYPT OUT)....
YES, "ISRAEL WANTS PIECE!"--*ALL* THE TIME!!
May your mother develop cancer and die.
THERE IS AN OLD *JEWISH* SAYING, THAT WHEN CERTAIN JEWISH MEN ARGUE, YOU *MISOGYNISTICALLY* HEAR A LOT MORE ABOUT SOMEONE'S ELSE'S *MOTHER*, THAN ABOUT SOMEONE'S ELSE'S ARGUMENTS.
I GATHER THAT YOU, *ZZZZZIONIST*, LONG AGO RAN OUT OF ANYTHING TO EFFECTIVELY RESPOND TO ANGIE'S *ARGUMENTS*.
(ANGIE, DON'T LET ALL THIS ATTENTION GO TO YOUR HEAD!!)
HEY, ZZZZZIONIST GUYS!!: WHAT ABOUT *MEEE*!!??? *I'VE* BEEN *REALLY MEAN* TO YOU!! MAKIN' FUNNN O' YOUS 'N LLLAUGHINNN'...!!!
I came to check out this thread to see if anyone had anything intelligent to say. I see the *ZZZIONISTS* never do.
ONCE AGAIN, A LITTLE GUTTERSNIPE ZZZIONIST, TOO COWARDLY TO EVEN PICK THEIR OWN UNIQUE MONIKER...
LET'S HEAR SOME MORE:
"Listen angie. You're a stupid, ignorant, biased, dishonest piece of shit."
ONCE AGAIN, A *REAL* ZZZIONIST 'INTELLECTUAL' !!
ONCE AGAIN, ANGIE STEALS ALL THE THUNDER FROM ME!!
*I* CALL THESE NUTTTCASE ZZZIONISTS ALL SORTS OF NAMES...:
*SSSTOOOPID*, *ID-DIOTS*, and *FFFOOOLLLS*...,
*I* MAKE FUN OF THEM...,
*I* PAY THEM BACK, RETALIATING AGAINST THEM
:-)
...,
BUT ANGIE GETS ALL THE CREDIT AND HONORS!!!
*WHY* IS *THAT*...!!???
"That's why people don't like you. Your opinions are one-sided and ignorant, and each time you type lots of text and reveal how your brain works"
YO!!! WHAT AM *I*? -- A POTTED PLANT!!!
YOU KNOW, *I* COULD BE A RAVISHING REDHEAD WITH A DEEP INTELLECT AND A SHARP WIT TOO, IF I *WANTED* TO!!
DON'T YOU *ZZZZIONISTS* HAVE ***ANYTHING*** TO SAY ABOUT *MEEE*!!!???
"it reveals that your thought process is that of a retarded poodle."
WAIT A MINUTE!!: I THOUGHT THAT *TONY BLAIR* IS THE POODLE -- AND I'M SURE THAT HE IS A *SUPPORTER* (OH, BUSH'S *SUPPORTER* ALRIGHT!) OF ISRAEL.
"That's why you are attacked. Not because you're speaking any sort of truth that hurts anyone. You're just a fucking retarded moron"
SPEAKING OF FUCKIN' RETARDED, ZZZZZIONIST, *MORONS*....
*I* GET IT!!! YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE FUCKIN' RETARDED NEANDERTHAL *J-D-L* ZZZIONIST TYPES -- LIKE THE RETARDED ONE THAT TRIED TO ATTACK ME NEAR A *PEACE* DEMO!!
WHY IS IT THAT ONLY **ZZZZZIONISTS** BEHAVE THAT WAY?
(YOU KNOW, ANGIE, WHEN I FIRST CAME TO BERKELEY, IT WAS THE **ZZZZZINOISTS** WHO WERE BEHAVING--ESPECIALLY IN MIDEAST CLASSES--THE WAY THEY ALWAYS STEREOTYPED ARABS!!
DAMN ZZZIONISTS WERE ALWAYS RUNNING AROUND TRYING TO INTIMIDATE PEOPLE!--IN CLASS!! AN INSTRUCTOR EVEN ONCE HAD TO CALL THE CAMPUS POLICE ON THEM!!--AND HAVE THEM **REMOVED** FROM THE CLASS!!)
"Not because you're speaking any sort of truth that hurts anyone."
IT *CERTAINLY* APPEARS TO HAVE MADE *YOU*, *ZZZIONIST*, YYYELP!!!
GANDHI:
- FIRST THEY IGNORE YOU [OR YOUR ARGUMENTS];
- THEN THEY LAUGH AT YOU [OR YOUR ARGUMENTS];
- THEN THEY ATTACK YOU [OR YOUR ARGUMENTS];
[DO YOU KNOW WHAT GANDHI SAID EVENTUALLY HAPPENS NEXT, ZZZIONIST?]
"and unfortunately, you seem to have hours each day to spew your idiotic crap on this board."
SPEAKING OF IDIOTIC ZZZIONIST CRAPS...
I SEE THAT ANGIE'S INTELLIGENT WORDS *RRREEEALLLY* *BOTHER* *YOU*, DON'T THEY, ZZZIONIST!! --FOR SOMEONE WHO IS SO 'DISMISSIVE' OF THEM.
But the real problem is that it's morons like you who are behind the "peace" movements.
ISRAEL HAS *REALLY* BEEN BEHIND THE 'PEACE' MOVEMENT: A PIECE OF PALESTINIAN LAND HERE, A PIECE OF PALESTINIAN LAND THERE, MORE AND LARGER PIECES OF PALESTINE, A PIECE OF LEBANON, A PIECE OF SYRIA, A PIECE OF JORDAN, BEFORE THAT A PIECE OF EGYPT (UNTIL THE U.S. BRIBED EGYPT OUT)....
YES, "ISRAEL WANTS PIECE!"--*ALL* THE TIME!!
May your mother develop cancer and die.
THERE IS AN OLD *JEWISH* SAYING, THAT WHEN CERTAIN JEWISH MEN ARGUE, YOU *MISOGYNISTICALLY* HEAR A LOT MORE ABOUT SOMEONE'S ELSE'S *MOTHER*, THAN ABOUT SOMEONE'S ELSE'S ARGUMENTS.
I GATHER THAT YOU, *ZZZZZIONIST*, LONG AGO RAN OUT OF ANYTHING TO EFFECTIVELY RESPOND TO ANGIE'S *ARGUMENTS*.
(ANGIE, DON'T LET ALL THIS ATTENTION GO TO YOUR HEAD!!)
HEY, ZZZZZIONIST GUYS!!: WHAT ABOUT *MEEE*!!??? *I'VE* BEEN *REALLY MEAN* TO YOU!! MAKIN' FUNNN O' YOUS 'N LLLAUGHINNN'...!!!
I came to check out this thread to see if anyone had anything intelligent to say. I see the *ZZZIONISTS* never do.
hmm, by Scottie Monday July 21, 2003 at 05:07 PM:
"I understand you are annoied but we dont know her mother so we should not be wishing ill upon her."
JA: Don't be *too* hard on your misogynist Zionist buddy, scottie. (He's the kind of *trash* that is your Zionist kind.)
AND DON'T, THE REST OF YOU *ZZZIONISTS*, RUSH IN *TOO* FAST TO CONDEMN ONE OF YOUR OWN ILK FOR HIS NASTY, UNFORGIVABLE, MISOGYNIST REMARKS!
(Once again, the DEMONSTRABLE sheer *IRONY* of *ZZZIONISTS* complaining about anti-*Jewish* racism. Yo, *ZZZIONIST*!: After you finish make guttersniping, misogynist remarks about Angie's mother, are you going to call *my* mother a NIGGER next?)
"I understand you are annoied but we dont know her mother so we should not be wishing ill upon her."
JA: Don't be *too* hard on your misogynist Zionist buddy, scottie. (He's the kind of *trash* that is your Zionist kind.)
AND DON'T, THE REST OF YOU *ZZZIONISTS*, RUSH IN *TOO* FAST TO CONDEMN ONE OF YOUR OWN ILK FOR HIS NASTY, UNFORGIVABLE, MISOGYNIST REMARKS!
(Once again, the DEMONSTRABLE sheer *IRONY* of *ZZZIONISTS* complaining about anti-*Jewish* racism. Yo, *ZZZIONIST*!: After you finish make guttersniping, misogynist remarks about Angie's mother, are you going to call *my* mother a NIGGER next?)
No surprises, by KL Sunday July 20, 2003 at 01:24 PM:
"Angie would rather ignore me because..."
JA: **ANY-ONE** WOULD RATHER IGNORE YOU, KL -- JUST LIKE *I* HAVE OFTEN DONE!! -- WELL, AFTER I HAD DISPOSED OF YOU.
"Angie would rather ignore me because..."
JA: **ANY-ONE** WOULD RATHER IGNORE YOU, KL -- JUST LIKE *I* HAVE OFTEN DONE!! -- WELL, AFTER I HAD DISPOSED OF YOU.
KL: "Angie doesn't seem to notice, or if she did, she doesn't mind. Just as she wasn't outraged that JA wanted banks to make greater profits to increase tax revenue."
JA: I ***DO!!!*** : I ***OWN*** ONE!!!
-- ***HAHAHA***...!!!
JA: I ***DO!!!*** : I ***OWN*** ONE!!!
-- ***HAHAHA***...!!!
KL: "The inescapable conclusion is that these players focus is on demonizing Israel."
... AGAINST THE POL POT REGIME AND THE CAMBODIAN HOLOCAUST, THE COLONIALIST RACIST U.S. WAR IN VIETNAM, APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA, THE ANTI-INDIGENOUS GENOCIDE BY U.S.-SUPPORTED DICTATORSHIPS IN LATIN AMERICA, THE JIM CROW SEGREGATIONIST SOUTH, THE ROMA HOLOCAUST, THE ARMENIAN HOLOCAUST AND THE CULTURAL KURDISH GENOCIDE BY TURKEY, THE CONGO BLACK HOLOCAUST BY BELGIUM, AMERICAN SLAVERY, THE NATIVE AMERICAN HOLOCAUST BY THE U.S., ...NAZI GERMANY..., AND NOW NAZI GERMANY'S POLITICAL COUSIN, *ZIONIST ISRAEL*.
ESPECIALLY BEING BLACK, I JUST GOT THIS *THING* AGAINST *RACISM* !!
AND JUST BEING A MORALLY DECENT PERSON, SO DOES ANGIE AND OTHER ANTI-ZIONISTS -- INCLUDING MANY (IF NOT YET ENOUGH) *MORAL* JEWS, ESPECIALLY SOME JEWISH HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS.
... AGAINST THE POL POT REGIME AND THE CAMBODIAN HOLOCAUST, THE COLONIALIST RACIST U.S. WAR IN VIETNAM, APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA, THE ANTI-INDIGENOUS GENOCIDE BY U.S.-SUPPORTED DICTATORSHIPS IN LATIN AMERICA, THE JIM CROW SEGREGATIONIST SOUTH, THE ROMA HOLOCAUST, THE ARMENIAN HOLOCAUST AND THE CULTURAL KURDISH GENOCIDE BY TURKEY, THE CONGO BLACK HOLOCAUST BY BELGIUM, AMERICAN SLAVERY, THE NATIVE AMERICAN HOLOCAUST BY THE U.S., ...NAZI GERMANY..., AND NOW NAZI GERMANY'S POLITICAL COUSIN, *ZIONIST ISRAEL*.
ESPECIALLY BEING BLACK, I JUST GOT THIS *THING* AGAINST *RACISM* !!
AND JUST BEING A MORALLY DECENT PERSON, SO DOES ANGIE AND OTHER ANTI-ZIONISTS -- INCLUDING MANY (IF NOT YET ENOUGH) *MORAL* JEWS, ESPECIALLY SOME JEWISH HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS.
, *really* give it to him, scottie!
"JA: Don't be *too* hard on your misogynist Zionist buddy, scottie. (He's the kind of *trash* that is your Zionist kind.)"
Hmm well two things
A) you dont convince people by making them your enemy. it makes more sense to approach issues politely so that is my first reaction.
Notice that I found your above comment offensive (as I do almost all of your comments) but I still am not "flaming" you.
B) Im not entirely sure if that person is not one of you. Trolling for flames so to speak. So I was reluctant to step into the trap and "flame".
You JA obviously represent an "assistant troll" role where a person attempts to incite extra flames even though the flames are really just detracting from the topic now
"AND DON'T, THE REST OF YOU *ZZZIONISTS*, RUSH IN *TOO* FAST TO CONDEMN ONE OF YOUR OWN ILK FOR HIS NASTY, UNFORGIVABLE, MISOGYNIST REMARKS!"
How many responses to that comment do you want? your not even a troll your an "troll's personal assistant"
"(Once again, the DEMONSTRABLE sheer *IRONY* of *ZZZIONISTS* complaining about anti-*Jewish* racism. "
- he was insulting angie personally not her race. and as i said the usual suspects made their comments
"JA: Don't be *too* hard on your misogynist Zionist buddy, scottie. (He's the kind of *trash* that is your Zionist kind.)"
Hmm well two things
A) you dont convince people by making them your enemy. it makes more sense to approach issues politely so that is my first reaction.
Notice that I found your above comment offensive (as I do almost all of your comments) but I still am not "flaming" you.
B) Im not entirely sure if that person is not one of you. Trolling for flames so to speak. So I was reluctant to step into the trap and "flame".
You JA obviously represent an "assistant troll" role where a person attempts to incite extra flames even though the flames are really just detracting from the topic now
"AND DON'T, THE REST OF YOU *ZZZIONISTS*, RUSH IN *TOO* FAST TO CONDEMN ONE OF YOUR OWN ILK FOR HIS NASTY, UNFORGIVABLE, MISOGYNIST REMARKS!"
How many responses to that comment do you want? your not even a troll your an "troll's personal assistant"
"(Once again, the DEMONSTRABLE sheer *IRONY* of *ZZZIONISTS* complaining about anti-*Jewish* racism. "
- he was insulting angie personally not her race. and as i said the usual suspects made their comments
For the record
by = Sunday July 20, 2003 at 08:55 AM:
I haven't seen KL make any racist statements.
JA: And besides... ZIONISM *IS* RACISM.
by = Sunday July 20, 2003 at 08:55 AM:
I haven't seen KL make any racist statements.
JA: And besides... ZIONISM *IS* RACISM.
scotttie: "Hmm well two things
A) you dont convince people by making them your enemy."
JA: *Nooo*..., you *wouldn't* want to *risk* making an enemy of someone who would say that they wanted someone else's mother TO GET CANCER AND DIE!!
scottie: "it makes more sense to approach issues politely so that is my first reaction."
JA: Yep, that's how I always approach people--very "politely"--who say that they want someone's mother TO GET CANCER AND DIE!! As much as Angie has put up with you in dialogue, you could show her a little more respect. But, you're too *borrring* to have any respect for anyone who would politely put up with you in dialogue, aren't you?
(I recall, in some other thread, Angie saying something about nasty--if not *quite* as nasty--remarks that you were making to her. I meant to trace them down, but forgot to. I had known you to be *borrring* before, but not nasty. I guess that Zionists don't all fall too far from the nasty Zionist tree, do they?)
scottie: "Notice that I found your above comment offensive"
JA: Oh, that I think the Zionist *PSYCHO* guy is *trash*?
scottie: "Notice that I found your above comment offensive (as I do almost all of your comments) but I still am not "flaming" you."
JA: Did I *ever* say to you--or to anyone else that you know of here--that I wanted your mother TO GET CANCER AND DIE!!!???
scottie: "Im not entirely sure if that person is not one of you."
JA: *You* *know* very well that THAT unforgivably offensive remark sounds just like one of your Zionist **PSYCHO** friends!! --LIKE THOSE ZZZIONISTS PSYCHOS WHO INSULTED ANGIE IN THAT OTHER THREAD. THEY THINK THEY'RE IN *ISRAEL* WHERE THEY CAN SAY AND ACT ANY WAY THEY WANT TO TO NON-JEWS!!
Anti-Zionists (anti-racists) oppose misogyny (a form of gender racism, since it too is based on genetics) as much as they oppose racism, including racism and misogyny *against* or *BY* Jews, if that be the case. And *why* would a supposed anti-Zionist ally say something so *hurtful* to another anti-Zionist in order to demonstrate out just how nasty Zionists are, when Zinoists do so well by themselves--and set such a prime example in their own nation, Israel!?
scottie: "You JA obviously represent an "assistant troll" role where a person attempts to incite extra flames"
JA: Yeah, I would "obviously" be a collaborating "assistant" to someone who would say such a nasty, hurtful thing about Angie's mom.
scottie: "your not even a troll your an "troll's personal assistant" "
JA: And you're fucked up -- which is another reason I find you so borrring.
scottie: "he was insulting angie personally not her race."
JA: This is just how *ssslowww* and *obtussse* you *are*, scottie: So it's okay for a Zionist racist (a redundant term, I realize) to be a nasty insulting *misogynist*, as long as he isn't a nasty insulting racist!?
I **TOLD** YOU ABOUT THE ZIONIST **PSYCHOS** IN THESE THREADS, ANGIE.
IF ANY OF THEM EVER SAY ANTHING LIKE THAT AGAIN, ANGIE, I WOULD JUST IGNORE THEM--FOREVER.
(This is why people are careful about not revealing exactly who, or sometimes even where, they are: they are not afraid of Arab terrorists, they are afraid of domestic ZIONIST ADL/JDL ***PSYCHOS***!!!)
WHAT *YOU* GOT TO SAY, GEHRIG: YOU ALWAYS RUNNIN' YOUR MOUTH FOR REAMS ABOUT EVERYTHING *ELSE*!?
(I WON'T EVEN *BOTHER* TO ASK KL.)
A) you dont convince people by making them your enemy."
JA: *Nooo*..., you *wouldn't* want to *risk* making an enemy of someone who would say that they wanted someone else's mother TO GET CANCER AND DIE!!
scottie: "it makes more sense to approach issues politely so that is my first reaction."
JA: Yep, that's how I always approach people--very "politely"--who say that they want someone's mother TO GET CANCER AND DIE!! As much as Angie has put up with you in dialogue, you could show her a little more respect. But, you're too *borrring* to have any respect for anyone who would politely put up with you in dialogue, aren't you?
(I recall, in some other thread, Angie saying something about nasty--if not *quite* as nasty--remarks that you were making to her. I meant to trace them down, but forgot to. I had known you to be *borrring* before, but not nasty. I guess that Zionists don't all fall too far from the nasty Zionist tree, do they?)
scottie: "Notice that I found your above comment offensive"
JA: Oh, that I think the Zionist *PSYCHO* guy is *trash*?
scottie: "Notice that I found your above comment offensive (as I do almost all of your comments) but I still am not "flaming" you."
JA: Did I *ever* say to you--or to anyone else that you know of here--that I wanted your mother TO GET CANCER AND DIE!!!???
scottie: "Im not entirely sure if that person is not one of you."
JA: *You* *know* very well that THAT unforgivably offensive remark sounds just like one of your Zionist **PSYCHO** friends!! --LIKE THOSE ZZZIONISTS PSYCHOS WHO INSULTED ANGIE IN THAT OTHER THREAD. THEY THINK THEY'RE IN *ISRAEL* WHERE THEY CAN SAY AND ACT ANY WAY THEY WANT TO TO NON-JEWS!!
Anti-Zionists (anti-racists) oppose misogyny (a form of gender racism, since it too is based on genetics) as much as they oppose racism, including racism and misogyny *against* or *BY* Jews, if that be the case. And *why* would a supposed anti-Zionist ally say something so *hurtful* to another anti-Zionist in order to demonstrate out just how nasty Zionists are, when Zinoists do so well by themselves--and set such a prime example in their own nation, Israel!?
scottie: "You JA obviously represent an "assistant troll" role where a person attempts to incite extra flames"
JA: Yeah, I would "obviously" be a collaborating "assistant" to someone who would say such a nasty, hurtful thing about Angie's mom.
scottie: "your not even a troll your an "troll's personal assistant" "
JA: And you're fucked up -- which is another reason I find you so borrring.
scottie: "he was insulting angie personally not her race."
JA: This is just how *ssslowww* and *obtussse* you *are*, scottie: So it's okay for a Zionist racist (a redundant term, I realize) to be a nasty insulting *misogynist*, as long as he isn't a nasty insulting racist!?
I **TOLD** YOU ABOUT THE ZIONIST **PSYCHOS** IN THESE THREADS, ANGIE.
IF ANY OF THEM EVER SAY ANTHING LIKE THAT AGAIN, ANGIE, I WOULD JUST IGNORE THEM--FOREVER.
(This is why people are careful about not revealing exactly who, or sometimes even where, they are: they are not afraid of Arab terrorists, they are afraid of domestic ZIONIST ADL/JDL ***PSYCHOS***!!!)
WHAT *YOU* GOT TO SAY, GEHRIG: YOU ALWAYS RUNNIN' YOUR MOUTH FOR REAMS ABOUT EVERYTHING *ELSE*!?
(I WON'T EVEN *BOTHER* TO ASK KL.)
front up with them then...
if you can't remember where they were then search on the net for the words and the site sf.indymedia.org.
If you cant produce them then we will assume you are just making them up.
and this "ZIONISM *IS* RACISM." is the equivilent of "finding fault in israel is antisematism"
if you can't remember where they were then search on the net for the words and the site sf.indymedia.org.
If you cant produce them then we will assume you are just making them up.
and this "ZIONISM *IS* RACISM." is the equivilent of "finding fault in israel is antisematism"
Who started the Six Day War?
The traditional view: “It wasn’t me!”
A combination of bellicose Arab rhetoric, threatening behavior and, ultimately, an act of war left Israel no choice but preemptive action. To do this successfully, Israel needed the element of surprise. Had it waited for an Arab invasion, Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage. (my irony emphasis)
Jewish Virtual Library
The alternative view: “It think it was me!”
"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"
- Menachim Begin (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982)"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."
- General Matityahu Peled (Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972)I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it"
- General Rabin IDF Chief of Staff in 1967 (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).
The cynical view: (kee betachbulot ta'ase lecha milchama)
"And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.
And he looked this way
and that way
and when he saw that there was no man
he slew the Egyptian,
and hid him in the sand."
scottie: " this "ZIONISM *IS* RACISM." is the equivilent of "finding fault in israel is antisematism" "
JA: That's why when I *challenged* any one of you Zionists--especially KL--in that other thread to deny any of the (implicitly racist) words (like a *superior*, *inherent*, *automatic*, *natural-born*, and many Zionists believe *God-given* *right* to *most/all* of the land in Palestine over the rights of the Palestinians) in the true definition of Zionism--*NONE* of you Zionists could do it. Not *YOU*, not *KL*, not "lad* (wherever he is), and not even the 'illustrious' *GEHRIG* !!
Ole KL couldn't even see my challenge in CAPS!! So much for him...
(Okay, scottie, I'm done dealing with you for the night.)
JA: That's why when I *challenged* any one of you Zionists--especially KL--in that other thread to deny any of the (implicitly racist) words (like a *superior*, *inherent*, *automatic*, *natural-born*, and many Zionists believe *God-given* *right* to *most/all* of the land in Palestine over the rights of the Palestinians) in the true definition of Zionism--*NONE* of you Zionists could do it. Not *YOU*, not *KL*, not "lad* (wherever he is), and not even the 'illustrious' *GEHRIG* !!
Ole KL couldn't even see my challenge in CAPS!! So much for him...
(Okay, scottie, I'm done dealing with you for the night.)
JA are you trying to argue againtst yourself?
I guess that will protect your self esteeme.
But for the rest of us it just makes you look like an idiot
I guess that will protect your self esteeme.
But for the rest of us it just makes you look like an idiot
Oh, scottie....
If I check back here, tomorrow, maybe you'll have something more to say about what I said to *YOU* about your PSYCHO ZIONIST FRIEND, instead of something I said to someone else.
If I check back here, tomorrow, maybe you'll have something more to say about what I said to *YOU* about your PSYCHO ZIONIST FRIEND, instead of something I said to someone else.
You are brave to take such a firm stance in favor of hypocrisy
Besides that I addressed your caps... However your "challenges" are the equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife?" The challenge itself is usually based on false assumptions
JA: That's why when I *challenged* any one of you Zionists--especially KL--in that other thread to deny any of the (implicitly racist) words (like a *superior*, *inherent*, *automatic*, *natural-born*, and many Zionists believe *God-given* *right* to *most/all* of the land in Palestine over the rights of the Palestinians) in the true definition of Zionism--
*NONE* of you Zionists could do it.
Since you seem to have defined all of us as Zionists including myself I would say from my knowledge that your argument is nonsense. My relative support for Israel has nothing to do with their religion or race.
"JA: *Nooo*..., you *wouldn't* want to *risk* making an enemy of someone who would say that they wanted someone else's mother TO GET CANCER AND DIE!!"
People who say that tend not to mean it besides that you are using a logical fallacy.
JA: As much as Angie has put up with you in dialogue, you could show her a little more respect.
Ha-ha you accuse me of having the same characteristics of Angie and then say they are good on her and bad on me... You are again brave to stand for hypocrisy so clearly.
"(I recall, in some other thread, Angie saying something about nasty--if not *quite* as nasty--remarks that you were making to her."
- Angie took offense to what Aaron said too... angie is sensitive. If you were her opponent she would be crying all the time. I doubt I said anything as bad as you say pretty much every post.
“I meant to trace them down, but forgot to.”
- Sucker, oh yeah and they aren’t anything useful enough to make a decent quote anyway.
"JA: Oh, that I think the Zionist *PSYCHO* guy is *trash*?"
NO, but the way you translated your own point to no longer be relevant shows you know what I am talking about.
Anti-Zionists (anti-racists)
A) Generally speaking that is incorrect. You are Naive or dishonest.
"And *why* would a supposed anti-Zionist ally ...."
Are you trying to say "why does concerned Zionist exist when Zionists are so radical already?" If so you should argue that one out with him.
"JA: Yeah, I would "obviously" be a collaborating "assistant" "
- You have been employed before. Maybe one day you will graduate and become a full troll yourself. In the mean time you will just have to try to increase the wastage of board space created by others.
JA: And you're fucked up -- which is another reason I find you so borrring.
- Oh really so what do you mean by "fucked up"?
"JA: This is just how *ssslowww* and *obtussse* you *are*, scottie: So it's okay for a Zionist racist (a redundant term, I realize) to be a nasty insulting *misogynist*, as long as he isn't a nasty insulting racist!?"
Haha I said personally. The difference between a personal insult and a race related one is that race and politics are on topic and things that might need to be dealt with.
"(This is why people are careful about not revealing exactly who, or sometimes even where, they are: they are not afraid of Arab terrorists, they are afraid of domestic ZIONIST ADL/JDL ***PSYCHOS***!!!)"
I think they might be scared of you guys. On this site the only people I have seen calling others to meet up for a confrontation are the liberals.
Besides that I addressed your caps... However your "challenges" are the equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife?" The challenge itself is usually based on false assumptions
JA: That's why when I *challenged* any one of you Zionists--especially KL--in that other thread to deny any of the (implicitly racist) words (like a *superior*, *inherent*, *automatic*, *natural-born*, and many Zionists believe *God-given* *right* to *most/all* of the land in Palestine over the rights of the Palestinians) in the true definition of Zionism--
*NONE* of you Zionists could do it.
Since you seem to have defined all of us as Zionists including myself I would say from my knowledge that your argument is nonsense. My relative support for Israel has nothing to do with their religion or race.
"JA: *Nooo*..., you *wouldn't* want to *risk* making an enemy of someone who would say that they wanted someone else's mother TO GET CANCER AND DIE!!"
People who say that tend not to mean it besides that you are using a logical fallacy.
JA: As much as Angie has put up with you in dialogue, you could show her a little more respect.
Ha-ha you accuse me of having the same characteristics of Angie and then say they are good on her and bad on me... You are again brave to stand for hypocrisy so clearly.
"(I recall, in some other thread, Angie saying something about nasty--if not *quite* as nasty--remarks that you were making to her."
- Angie took offense to what Aaron said too... angie is sensitive. If you were her opponent she would be crying all the time. I doubt I said anything as bad as you say pretty much every post.
“I meant to trace them down, but forgot to.”
- Sucker, oh yeah and they aren’t anything useful enough to make a decent quote anyway.
"JA: Oh, that I think the Zionist *PSYCHO* guy is *trash*?"
NO, but the way you translated your own point to no longer be relevant shows you know what I am talking about.
Anti-Zionists (anti-racists)
A) Generally speaking that is incorrect. You are Naive or dishonest.
"And *why* would a supposed anti-Zionist ally ...."
Are you trying to say "why does concerned Zionist exist when Zionists are so radical already?" If so you should argue that one out with him.
"JA: Yeah, I would "obviously" be a collaborating "assistant" "
- You have been employed before. Maybe one day you will graduate and become a full troll yourself. In the mean time you will just have to try to increase the wastage of board space created by others.
JA: And you're fucked up -- which is another reason I find you so borrring.
- Oh really so what do you mean by "fucked up"?
"JA: This is just how *ssslowww* and *obtussse* you *are*, scottie: So it's okay for a Zionist racist (a redundant term, I realize) to be a nasty insulting *misogynist*, as long as he isn't a nasty insulting racist!?"
Haha I said personally. The difference between a personal insult and a race related one is that race and politics are on topic and things that might need to be dealt with.
"(This is why people are careful about not revealing exactly who, or sometimes even where, they are: they are not afraid of Arab terrorists, they are afraid of domestic ZIONIST ADL/JDL ***PSYCHOS***!!!)"
I think they might be scared of you guys. On this site the only people I have seen calling others to meet up for a confrontation are the liberals.
scot: "Besides that I addressed your caps... "
JA: *WHERE*!!
scot: " However your "challenges" are the equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife?" "
JA: "when did you stop beating your wife?," is a circular argument. Where is the circularity in my challenge?
scot: "The challenge itself is usually based on false assumptions"
JA: Gee, do I have to hold you by the hand like a little kid? *Don't* you know how to assert a logical argument? WHAT are the FALSE ASSUMPTIONS, DAMNIT?
(I can't stand slowww, borrring people.)
scot: "I would say from my knowledge "
JA: Well, I'm not accusing you of having *any* knowledge, but if you did, then what would that be pertinent to your vague claim?
scot: "My relative support for Israel..."
JA: That makes you a relative ZZZIONIST.
scot: "My relative support for Israel has nothing to do with their religion or race."
JA: SO *WHAT* DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH? AGAIN..., *DON'T* YOU KNOW HOW TO ASSERT A LOGICAL ARGUMENT?
scot: "PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT TEND NOT TO MEAN IT"[!!! -- CAPS MINE.]
JA: WELL *THAT* MAKES IT ALRIGHT!!
Your excuse-making is *COMTEMPTIBLE*!!!
It would have been better for you to keep your wimpy-ass, cowardly mouth shut to begin with. If I were Angie, I woudn't even bother to dialogue with you again. You ZZZIONISTS would have looked better if at least *ONE* of you condemned such a remark, rather than one of you give a *CONTEMPTIBLE* defense of your *PSYCHO* ZZZIONIST *SCUMBAG* friend.
Going back to what you said...:
scot: "Im not entirely sure if that person is not one of you... So I was reluctant to step into the trap"
JA: It's not like someone used KL, gehrig, "lad", Dave, or one of your other ZZZIONIST friends' name/moniker, as a possible forgery, and it is not likely anyone is going to use "to angie" as their regular name/moniker. Have you ever known anyone to use "to angie" as their regular moniker? YOU'RE JUST A CONTEMPTIBLE APOLOGIST. If you were so *ILLOGICALLY* afraid of that, then it would have been better for you not to have made such a timid statement and such a COWARDLY excuse in the first place.
scot: "Ha-ha you accuse me of having the same characteristics of Angie"
JA: NO, I WOULD *NEVER* ACCUSE YOU OF BEING A DEEPLY INTELLIGENT, INCISIVE, ARTICULATE, AND WITTY, MORAL HUMAN BEING
-- AND CERTAINLY NOT ONE IN FAVOR OF AN APPRECIATIVELY MULTICULTURAL WORLD WHERE EVERYONE'S DIGNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS ARE EQUALLY RESPECTED AND APPRECIATED, A WORLD THAT ABOLISHES ETHNIC AND GENDER SUPREMACY, AND A WORLD WHERE WE DON'T LITERALLY BUILD 'WARSAW GHETTO' *WALLS* TO SEPARATE PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF RACE.
scot: "angie is sensitive"
JA: MOST *REALLY, REALLY* INTELLIGENT PEOPLE *ARE*! THEY DON'T USUALLY DEBATE WITH -- OR HANG AROUND -- **DUM** FUCKS
-- SO THE VERY VERY INTELLIGENT ANGIES OF THE WORLD AREN'T USED TO DEALING WITH DUM FUCK ZIONISTS CONTEMPTIBLE REMARKS AND THEIR OTHER HIGHLY PERSONAL, HIGHLY GRATUITOUS, GUTTERSNIPE ATTACKS!
(NOT EVEN *I* COULDN'T DEAL WITH THE SARCASTIC, CONTEMPTIBLE REMARKS IN THE RACHEL CORRIE THREADS, AGAINST RACHEL. THAT WAS A NEW *LOW* THAT I WAS NOT USED TO, EVEN BY *ZZZIONISTS*.
YOU'VE NOT HEARD ONE, SINGLE ANTI-ZIONIST MAKE FUN OF A SUICIDE BOMBER'S VICTIMS -- OR PUBLISH CARTOONS DOING SO.)
YES, IT'S MIGHTY "SENSITIVE" OF SOMEONE TO TAKE DEEP OFFENSE TO ONE OFYOU ZZZIONISTS SAYING THAT YOU WISHED HER MOTHER WOULD GET CANCER AND DIE!!
SOME PEOPLE -- MOST SINCERE, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE -- ARE JUST NOT USED TO HOW *SLIMEY* AND HOW ***PSYCHO*** YOU ZIONISTS CAN BE!
I GIVE HER *MUCH* CREDIT FOR EVER HANGIN' IN THERE WITH YOU ZIONISTS EVERY DAY. *ME*, I GOTTA TAKE A REGULAR BREAK FROM YOU ZIONISTS RACIST IDIOCY.
Yes, thank goodness that angie is a sensitive human being. If there could only be more people in the world like her. WELL, NO ONE WOULD EVER ACCUSE YOU ZIONISTS OF BEING SENSITIVE -- MORE LIKE YOUR IDEOLOGICAL RACIAL SUPREMACIST NAZI COUSINS!!
scot: "...I doubt I said anything as bad as you say pretty much every post."
JA: Well, *WHAT* did *YOU* say that Angie thought was so nasty?
I CHALLENGE YOU **AGAIN**: WHERE HAVE I EVER SAID **ANYTHING** -- LET ALONE WHAT WAS SAID BY THAT CONTEMPTIBLE PIECE OF ZZZIONIST -- ABOUT SOMEONE'S MOM!?
I've just said that I've thought that some of you Zionists that I demolished in your arguments (like the U.S. supporting *every* country on earth, or that no field slave ever insurrected, etc.) were *ID-DIOTS*, *FFFOOOLLLSSS*, and *SSSTOOOPID*!! -- AND I *STILL* THINK SO!!
And now I *explicitly* add *CONTEMPTIBLE* to the list for your defense of your PSCYHO Zionist buddy. (Oh, I *have* used the word *PSYCHO* before, too, haven't I?)
scot: "Sucker, oh yeah and they aren’t anything useful enough to make a decent quote anyway."
JA: Lately, I just had better and more important things than to go back and track down some squiggly statement you made in a thread I couldn't recall. You may have notice the article of mine that NYC-IMC quoted and referenced in A FEATURE ARTICLE ON THEIR MAIN PAGE!!
scot: "NO
JA: Scot doesn't think his contemptible Zionist buddy is "trash" for his mother remarks against Angie. That speaks for itself.
scot: "Anti-Zionists (anti-racists)
A) Generally speaking that is incorrect. You are Naive or dishonest."
JA: So, what *are* anti-Zionists, "generally speaking". AGAIN, do you know how to make a structured logical argument??? [--I ask *rhetorically*.]
scot: "Maybe one day you will graduate and become a full troll yourself."
JA: Maybe one day you will graduate to becoming a full asshole yourself.
scot: "If so you should argue that one out with him."
JA: I don't know what you're babbling about, nonetheless I'm talking to *YOU*!
scot: " ...- Oh really so what do you mean by "fucked up"? "
JA: Just refresh your memory and go back and reread in one sitting all the most recent posts I directed to you (and all your usual *DODGES*/EXCUSES) above. If you don't get it then, you *never* will.
scot: "Haha I said personally. The difference between a personal insult and a race related one..."
JA: I bet that even among the other Zionists here -- well, I ought to be more careful, I might *lose* that bet over-estimating a ZZZIONIST on anything moral -- you're the only one that keeps *missing* even my *restated* point. Is that because you don't know what *misogyny* is?
ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE CONTEMPTIBLY EXCUSING A CONTEMPTIBLE STATEMENT.
scot: "On this site the only people I have seen calling others to meet up for a confrontation are the liberals."
JA: And I see that -- as usual -- you have backed up your assertion/accusation! Just as I have pointed out in the other thread where Angie said you were getting a little "nasty", one reason you are so *ssslllowww* and *borrring* is because you *DON'T* know how to make an even casual structured argument -- where you not only make assertions, you back them up(!) -- you only how to speak in generalities.
Scottie, try not to *BORRRE* me anymore with too long a response. It really is, after all, a waste of my time to read them.
I STILL SAY: THE ONE ON THE ENTERPRISE WAS LIGHT YEARS BRIGHTER!!!
JA: *WHERE*!!
scot: " However your "challenges" are the equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife?" "
JA: "when did you stop beating your wife?," is a circular argument. Where is the circularity in my challenge?
scot: "The challenge itself is usually based on false assumptions"
JA: Gee, do I have to hold you by the hand like a little kid? *Don't* you know how to assert a logical argument? WHAT are the FALSE ASSUMPTIONS, DAMNIT?
(I can't stand slowww, borrring people.)
scot: "I would say from my knowledge "
JA: Well, I'm not accusing you of having *any* knowledge, but if you did, then what would that be pertinent to your vague claim?
scot: "My relative support for Israel..."
JA: That makes you a relative ZZZIONIST.
scot: "My relative support for Israel has nothing to do with their religion or race."
JA: SO *WHAT* DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH? AGAIN..., *DON'T* YOU KNOW HOW TO ASSERT A LOGICAL ARGUMENT?
scot: "PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT TEND NOT TO MEAN IT"[!!! -- CAPS MINE.]
JA: WELL *THAT* MAKES IT ALRIGHT!!
Your excuse-making is *COMTEMPTIBLE*!!!
It would have been better for you to keep your wimpy-ass, cowardly mouth shut to begin with. If I were Angie, I woudn't even bother to dialogue with you again. You ZZZIONISTS would have looked better if at least *ONE* of you condemned such a remark, rather than one of you give a *CONTEMPTIBLE* defense of your *PSYCHO* ZZZIONIST *SCUMBAG* friend.
Going back to what you said...:
scot: "Im not entirely sure if that person is not one of you... So I was reluctant to step into the trap"
JA: It's not like someone used KL, gehrig, "lad", Dave, or one of your other ZZZIONIST friends' name/moniker, as a possible forgery, and it is not likely anyone is going to use "to angie" as their regular name/moniker. Have you ever known anyone to use "to angie" as their regular moniker? YOU'RE JUST A CONTEMPTIBLE APOLOGIST. If you were so *ILLOGICALLY* afraid of that, then it would have been better for you not to have made such a timid statement and such a COWARDLY excuse in the first place.
scot: "Ha-ha you accuse me of having the same characteristics of Angie"
JA: NO, I WOULD *NEVER* ACCUSE YOU OF BEING A DEEPLY INTELLIGENT, INCISIVE, ARTICULATE, AND WITTY, MORAL HUMAN BEING
-- AND CERTAINLY NOT ONE IN FAVOR OF AN APPRECIATIVELY MULTICULTURAL WORLD WHERE EVERYONE'S DIGNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS ARE EQUALLY RESPECTED AND APPRECIATED, A WORLD THAT ABOLISHES ETHNIC AND GENDER SUPREMACY, AND A WORLD WHERE WE DON'T LITERALLY BUILD 'WARSAW GHETTO' *WALLS* TO SEPARATE PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF RACE.
scot: "angie is sensitive"
JA: MOST *REALLY, REALLY* INTELLIGENT PEOPLE *ARE*! THEY DON'T USUALLY DEBATE WITH -- OR HANG AROUND -- **DUM** FUCKS
-- SO THE VERY VERY INTELLIGENT ANGIES OF THE WORLD AREN'T USED TO DEALING WITH DUM FUCK ZIONISTS CONTEMPTIBLE REMARKS AND THEIR OTHER HIGHLY PERSONAL, HIGHLY GRATUITOUS, GUTTERSNIPE ATTACKS!
(NOT EVEN *I* COULDN'T DEAL WITH THE SARCASTIC, CONTEMPTIBLE REMARKS IN THE RACHEL CORRIE THREADS, AGAINST RACHEL. THAT WAS A NEW *LOW* THAT I WAS NOT USED TO, EVEN BY *ZZZIONISTS*.
YOU'VE NOT HEARD ONE, SINGLE ANTI-ZIONIST MAKE FUN OF A SUICIDE BOMBER'S VICTIMS -- OR PUBLISH CARTOONS DOING SO.)
YES, IT'S MIGHTY "SENSITIVE" OF SOMEONE TO TAKE DEEP OFFENSE TO ONE OFYOU ZZZIONISTS SAYING THAT YOU WISHED HER MOTHER WOULD GET CANCER AND DIE!!
SOME PEOPLE -- MOST SINCERE, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE -- ARE JUST NOT USED TO HOW *SLIMEY* AND HOW ***PSYCHO*** YOU ZIONISTS CAN BE!
I GIVE HER *MUCH* CREDIT FOR EVER HANGIN' IN THERE WITH YOU ZIONISTS EVERY DAY. *ME*, I GOTTA TAKE A REGULAR BREAK FROM YOU ZIONISTS RACIST IDIOCY.
Yes, thank goodness that angie is a sensitive human being. If there could only be more people in the world like her. WELL, NO ONE WOULD EVER ACCUSE YOU ZIONISTS OF BEING SENSITIVE -- MORE LIKE YOUR IDEOLOGICAL RACIAL SUPREMACIST NAZI COUSINS!!
scot: "...I doubt I said anything as bad as you say pretty much every post."
JA: Well, *WHAT* did *YOU* say that Angie thought was so nasty?
I CHALLENGE YOU **AGAIN**: WHERE HAVE I EVER SAID **ANYTHING** -- LET ALONE WHAT WAS SAID BY THAT CONTEMPTIBLE PIECE OF ZZZIONIST -- ABOUT SOMEONE'S MOM!?
I've just said that I've thought that some of you Zionists that I demolished in your arguments (like the U.S. supporting *every* country on earth, or that no field slave ever insurrected, etc.) were *ID-DIOTS*, *FFFOOOLLLSSS*, and *SSSTOOOPID*!! -- AND I *STILL* THINK SO!!
And now I *explicitly* add *CONTEMPTIBLE* to the list for your defense of your PSCYHO Zionist buddy. (Oh, I *have* used the word *PSYCHO* before, too, haven't I?)
scot: "Sucker, oh yeah and they aren’t anything useful enough to make a decent quote anyway."
JA: Lately, I just had better and more important things than to go back and track down some squiggly statement you made in a thread I couldn't recall. You may have notice the article of mine that NYC-IMC quoted and referenced in A FEATURE ARTICLE ON THEIR MAIN PAGE!!
scot: "NO
JA: Scot doesn't think his contemptible Zionist buddy is "trash" for his mother remarks against Angie. That speaks for itself.
scot: "Anti-Zionists (anti-racists)
A) Generally speaking that is incorrect. You are Naive or dishonest."
JA: So, what *are* anti-Zionists, "generally speaking". AGAIN, do you know how to make a structured logical argument??? [--I ask *rhetorically*.]
scot: "Maybe one day you will graduate and become a full troll yourself."
JA: Maybe one day you will graduate to becoming a full asshole yourself.
scot: "If so you should argue that one out with him."
JA: I don't know what you're babbling about, nonetheless I'm talking to *YOU*!
scot: " ...- Oh really so what do you mean by "fucked up"? "
JA: Just refresh your memory and go back and reread in one sitting all the most recent posts I directed to you (and all your usual *DODGES*/EXCUSES) above. If you don't get it then, you *never* will.
scot: "Haha I said personally. The difference between a personal insult and a race related one..."
JA: I bet that even among the other Zionists here -- well, I ought to be more careful, I might *lose* that bet over-estimating a ZZZIONIST on anything moral -- you're the only one that keeps *missing* even my *restated* point. Is that because you don't know what *misogyny* is?
ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE CONTEMPTIBLY EXCUSING A CONTEMPTIBLE STATEMENT.
scot: "On this site the only people I have seen calling others to meet up for a confrontation are the liberals."
JA: And I see that -- as usual -- you have backed up your assertion/accusation! Just as I have pointed out in the other thread where Angie said you were getting a little "nasty", one reason you are so *ssslllowww* and *borrring* is because you *DON'T* know how to make an even casual structured argument -- where you not only make assertions, you back them up(!) -- you only how to speak in generalities.
Scottie, try not to *BORRRE* me anymore with too long a response. It really is, after all, a waste of my time to read them.
I STILL SAY: THE ONE ON THE ENTERPRISE WAS LIGHT YEARS BRIGHTER!!!
Thank you, my friend.
I can accept the hatred directed at me, but to read that dispicable line about my Mom was more than I could stomach.
My Mom was a marvellous individual, we loved her dearly, and were shocked by her unexpected death. She would have been most pleased to know that a most decent, caring, honest human being named JA exists out there in SF Indymedia land! And I'm sure she looking down and cheering you on in your fight for goodness and justice in this world.
Neither she, nor I, nor my brother and sister would ever in a million years understand the motivation behind such a hateful comment. It is totally foreign to us. Blessedly there is a higher power!
Once again, JA, bless you!
Later, my friend
Angie
I can accept the hatred directed at me, but to read that dispicable line about my Mom was more than I could stomach.
My Mom was a marvellous individual, we loved her dearly, and were shocked by her unexpected death. She would have been most pleased to know that a most decent, caring, honest human being named JA exists out there in SF Indymedia land! And I'm sure she looking down and cheering you on in your fight for goodness and justice in this world.
Neither she, nor I, nor my brother and sister would ever in a million years understand the motivation behind such a hateful comment. It is totally foreign to us. Blessedly there is a higher power!
Once again, JA, bless you!
Later, my friend
Angie
JA: *WHERE*!!
- Blind too?
WHAT are the FALSE ASSUMPTIONS, DAMNIT?
- Maybe you can’t grasp when some one is talking about a pattern or a specific event. I am talking about a pattern.
Therefore your question is irrelevant. However if you say "do you deny that "Zionists are *some miscellaneous insult*" or something like that I might say I dispute your definition of Zionist and your definition of the insult. It would make no sense to try to answer a question where we did not even agree on the ground rules. To dispute part of it would seem to imply acceptance of other parts of it as in the beat your wife comment.
JA: Well, I'm not accusing you of having *any* knowledge, but if you did, then what would that be pertinent to your vague claim?
- You said that Zionists are something and I am a Zionist. Since I am not those things that you mentioned from my knowledge (which is far better than anything you could know) then either I am not a Zionist or Zionists are not just like you say.
Why could you not figure that out?
I don’t think you are much of a debater. In fact some might say you are BOORING.
"JA: SO *WHAT* DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH?”
JA you are "pulling an angie" here. I explain my position a hundred times earlier on this site in great detail (many of which you have read) and you get all upset when I don’t explain it again in my last post. If you don’t tolerate stupidity in others you should also not tolerate it in yourself.
"JA: WELL *THAT* MAKES IT ALRIGHT!!"
- We are not talking about what is "alright" we are talking about what is worthy of talking about. But of course I wouldn’t expect for you to deal with things on a meaningful or practical level.
Besides that it was not a "defence" It was not a comment to you guys no need to make an idiot out of yourself by indicating you think it was.
JA
The rest of your logic doesn’t follow. Please refer to logic for dummies.
"JA: NO, I WOULD *NEVER* ACCUSE YOU OF BEING A DEEPLY INTELLIGENT, INCISIVE, ARTICULATE, AND WITTY, MORAL HUMAN BEING"
JA That only reflects your personal prejudice and very prejudiced they are.
"-- AND CERTAINLY NOT ONE IN FAVOR OF AN APPRECIATIVELY MULTICULTURAL WORLD WHERE EVERYONE'S DIGNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS ARE EQUALLY RESPECTED AND APPRECIATED, A WORLD THAT ABOLISHES ETHNIC AND GENDER SUPREMACY, AND A WORLD WHERE WE DON'T LITERALLY BUILD 'WARSAW GHETTO' *WALLS* TO SEPARATE PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF RACE."
I do more so than you and more so than Angie. As much as you two think that your point of view is the only truly non racist point of view - I think that you will always stand in the way of a true abolition of racism in all of its forms.
So in reality I look down on you in exactly the same way that you think you are looking down on me.
"YOU'VE NOT HEARD ONE, SINGLE ANTI-ZIONIST MAKE FUN OF A SUICIDE BOMBER'S VICTIMS -- OR PUBLISH CARTOONS DOING SO.)"
- I have heard of them wishing that their debating opponents might be "hit by a bus" and similar comments so there is no need for you to go on making a fool of yourself on this topic.
"JA: Well, *WHAT* did *YOU* say that Angie thought was so nasty?"
- You are asking the wrong person that question. Why don’t you read your own question and redirect it to the correct person.
JA: Scot doesn't think his contemptible Zionist buddy is "trash"
I don't lower the status of human beings to the level of non living objects. Sure that sounds a little profound for me to use in a debate with a "JA" but the point is a basic respect for humans. The way you would treat "trash" is different from how you would treat even the evilest person. The fact that you fail to make the distinction is troubling but it is probably just because you don’t think and don’t mean what you say.
"JA: So, what *are* anti-Zionists, "generally speaking".”
Figure it out yourself. Am I your primary school teacher here?
"Scot: "Maybe one day you will graduate and become a full troll yourself."
JA: Maybe one day you will graduate to becoming a full asshole yourself."
What a great comeback and so backed up with evidence... wow I mean really wow...
“Is that because you don't know what *misogyny* is?"
It is irrelevant. I tend not to deal with irrelevant points.
"JA-- where you not only make assertions, you back them up (!) -- you only how to speak in generalities."
As if you do. Yes I could in fact I had references but I could not be bothered getting into that sort of depth on such a side issue. All this from the JA who doesn’t have time to back up his own accusations about me.
Dare I say hypocrite?
- Blind too?
WHAT are the FALSE ASSUMPTIONS, DAMNIT?
- Maybe you can’t grasp when some one is talking about a pattern or a specific event. I am talking about a pattern.
Therefore your question is irrelevant. However if you say "do you deny that "Zionists are *some miscellaneous insult*" or something like that I might say I dispute your definition of Zionist and your definition of the insult. It would make no sense to try to answer a question where we did not even agree on the ground rules. To dispute part of it would seem to imply acceptance of other parts of it as in the beat your wife comment.
JA: Well, I'm not accusing you of having *any* knowledge, but if you did, then what would that be pertinent to your vague claim?
- You said that Zionists are something and I am a Zionist. Since I am not those things that you mentioned from my knowledge (which is far better than anything you could know) then either I am not a Zionist or Zionists are not just like you say.
Why could you not figure that out?
I don’t think you are much of a debater. In fact some might say you are BOORING.
"JA: SO *WHAT* DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH?”
JA you are "pulling an angie" here. I explain my position a hundred times earlier on this site in great detail (many of which you have read) and you get all upset when I don’t explain it again in my last post. If you don’t tolerate stupidity in others you should also not tolerate it in yourself.
"JA: WELL *THAT* MAKES IT ALRIGHT!!"
- We are not talking about what is "alright" we are talking about what is worthy of talking about. But of course I wouldn’t expect for you to deal with things on a meaningful or practical level.
Besides that it was not a "defence" It was not a comment to you guys no need to make an idiot out of yourself by indicating you think it was.
JA
The rest of your logic doesn’t follow. Please refer to logic for dummies.
"JA: NO, I WOULD *NEVER* ACCUSE YOU OF BEING A DEEPLY INTELLIGENT, INCISIVE, ARTICULATE, AND WITTY, MORAL HUMAN BEING"
JA That only reflects your personal prejudice and very prejudiced they are.
"-- AND CERTAINLY NOT ONE IN FAVOR OF AN APPRECIATIVELY MULTICULTURAL WORLD WHERE EVERYONE'S DIGNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS ARE EQUALLY RESPECTED AND APPRECIATED, A WORLD THAT ABOLISHES ETHNIC AND GENDER SUPREMACY, AND A WORLD WHERE WE DON'T LITERALLY BUILD 'WARSAW GHETTO' *WALLS* TO SEPARATE PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF RACE."
I do more so than you and more so than Angie. As much as you two think that your point of view is the only truly non racist point of view - I think that you will always stand in the way of a true abolition of racism in all of its forms.
So in reality I look down on you in exactly the same way that you think you are looking down on me.
"YOU'VE NOT HEARD ONE, SINGLE ANTI-ZIONIST MAKE FUN OF A SUICIDE BOMBER'S VICTIMS -- OR PUBLISH CARTOONS DOING SO.)"
- I have heard of them wishing that their debating opponents might be "hit by a bus" and similar comments so there is no need for you to go on making a fool of yourself on this topic.
"JA: Well, *WHAT* did *YOU* say that Angie thought was so nasty?"
- You are asking the wrong person that question. Why don’t you read your own question and redirect it to the correct person.
JA: Scot doesn't think his contemptible Zionist buddy is "trash"
I don't lower the status of human beings to the level of non living objects. Sure that sounds a little profound for me to use in a debate with a "JA" but the point is a basic respect for humans. The way you would treat "trash" is different from how you would treat even the evilest person. The fact that you fail to make the distinction is troubling but it is probably just because you don’t think and don’t mean what you say.
"JA: So, what *are* anti-Zionists, "generally speaking".”
Figure it out yourself. Am I your primary school teacher here?
"Scot: "Maybe one day you will graduate and become a full troll yourself."
JA: Maybe one day you will graduate to becoming a full asshole yourself."
What a great comeback and so backed up with evidence... wow I mean really wow...
“Is that because you don't know what *misogyny* is?"
It is irrelevant. I tend not to deal with irrelevant points.
"JA-- where you not only make assertions, you back them up (!) -- you only how to speak in generalities."
As if you do. Yes I could in fact I had references but I could not be bothered getting into that sort of depth on such a side issue. All this from the JA who doesn’t have time to back up his own accusations about me.
Dare I say hypocrite?
scottie is betting on the rapture occuring in his lifetime.
azerty?
where did that comment come from?
where did that comment come from?
JA
If you want an example of an "anti-zionist" take angry_manc for example (Good example since even the editors here don’t seem to like him and his current post is getting famous). He wished that millions of mothers die by wishing that there was a nuclear strike on Washington (amongst a number of other things) just in one post let alone what he has said elsewhere. Since the editors have reprimanded you for sounding like angry_manc I expect you are well aware of him and his problem.
Of course who was ever in any doubt that you were talking out of a hole in your head.
If you want an example of an "anti-zionist" take angry_manc for example (Good example since even the editors here don’t seem to like him and his current post is getting famous). He wished that millions of mothers die by wishing that there was a nuclear strike on Washington (amongst a number of other things) just in one post let alone what he has said elsewhere. Since the editors have reprimanded you for sounding like angry_manc I expect you are well aware of him and his problem.
Of course who was ever in any doubt that you were talking out of a hole in your head.
scot, I hardly even know what you're babbling about in your last to posts to me, but thankfully, it was even slightly mo' borrring that your other stuff -- and a lot more abstract! I say thankfully, because since it doesn't contain a single *cogent* 'thought', I don't have to waste my time answering you. I thank you for that much.
(Did you ever think of teaching some abstract metaphysics class? You could call it "scottieism": "If I were a chair I would *not*..., but if I *were* I *would*..., but if I *would* I *weren't*..., but if I *wouldn't* I *were*...)
scto: "Since the editors have reprimanded you for sounding like angry_manc..."
JA: I don't know the "reprimand"; I don't know the reference for "the editors"; I don't know "angry_manc" (sorry, never heard of him). And since, as usual, you don't provide any *specifics*/*documentation*, I don't know *what* the **hhhellll** you're talking about.
Just makes it that much easier for me to *NOT* respond to you.
Good riddance!!!
I STILL SAY THE ONE ON THE ENTERPRISE WAS LIGHT YEARS ***MUCH*** BRIGHTER!!!
(Did you ever think of teaching some abstract metaphysics class? You could call it "scottieism": "If I were a chair I would *not*..., but if I *were* I *would*..., but if I *would* I *weren't*..., but if I *wouldn't* I *were*...)
scto: "Since the editors have reprimanded you for sounding like angry_manc..."
JA: I don't know the "reprimand"; I don't know the reference for "the editors"; I don't know "angry_manc" (sorry, never heard of him). And since, as usual, you don't provide any *specifics*/*documentation*, I don't know *what* the **hhhellll** you're talking about.
Just makes it that much easier for me to *NOT* respond to you.
Good riddance!!!
I STILL SAY THE ONE ON THE ENTERPRISE WAS LIGHT YEARS ***MUCH*** BRIGHTER!!!
Scottie, I don't give a good tinker's damn about your shit --NOT A FAT RAT'S ASS!! You don't know what you're talking about 99.99% of the time--IF AT ALL!!
AND *THAT'S* THE **GOOD** THING I CAN SAY ABOUT YOU!!!
At one time sf.indymedia had some internal conflict over what was considered anti-Semitic. *Some* of the editors had to be enlightened along with everyone else who was--TRICKED BY ZIONISTS--not politically, intellectually, and morally up to speed on the subject of Zionist racism and Palestine. In fact, some editors used to, willy-nilly, delete almost anything that, indeed, pointed out that, indeed, ZIONISM IS RACISM.
Some editors, too, did not know that neither Zionism nor Israel was *NOT* equivalent to Judaism--neither to the culture, nor to the religion, nor to the people--AS ZIONISTS WOULD *MANIPULATIVELY* AND *FALSELY* HAVE US BELIEVE.
It had to be explained that one could OPPOSE the apartheid state of Israel, just as one OPPOSED the apartheid state of South Africa, just as one coud have OPPOSED the apartheid "Jim Crow" nation of the U.S., just as one could have OPPOSED the Stalinist state of the USSR, or just as one could have OPPOSED, back then, the Nazi state of Germany, just as one could OPPOSE *ANY* oppressive state--especially one based on race, ethnicity, religion, or gender. --And that to *POLITICALLY* OPPOSE--or even verbally BASH--these states, or their state/national ideologies, is NOT the same as being an anti-white racist or an anti-Jewish racist or an anti-male sexist.
Different editors might not all have been at the same place in their understanding, and used different personal dispositions as to what they would delete or put under hidden status. So, when my posts were deleted--at least by an editor, IF NOT DELETED BY A ZIONIST HACKER--or unjustifiably put under hidden status, I would respond by either constantly replacing my posts from the copy I retained on my disk for just such a contingency, or by putting them in several different indirectly related places to Israel/Palestine. This, so that the *less* judicious editors--OR ZIONIST HACKERS--would know that I was not going to just roll over, and so that the *more* judicious editors could bring the *less* judicious ones up to ethical speed--OR SO THAT THE ZIONIST HACKERS WOULD REALIZE THAT MY POSTS WEREN'T GOING AWAY!
*NOW*!!!: THAT IS ***NOTHING*** COMPARED TO YOUR *****PSYCHO***** ZIONIST ILK POSTING --MEGASPAMMING-- FIFTY OR MORE *****PSYCHO***** SPAM ARTICLES --A FORM OF DENIAL OF SERVICE-- TO INDYMEDIA !!
--AS WELL AS OTHER *****PSYCHO ZIONIST***** ATTACKS ON INDYMEDIA !!
--AS WELL AS HIGHER-UP HARDCORE ARCH-ZIONISTS IN THE CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT OR MEDIA ATTEMPTING TO CENSOR INDYMEDIA FROM YAHOO/GOOGLE, ETC., SEARCH ENGINES, BECAUSE INDYMEDIA IS THE ONLY NATIONAL MEDIA IN THE U.S. WHERE THE (IM)MORALITY OF ZIONISM GETS A THOROUGH INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL AIRING.
SO, LIKE KIRK KICKING KAHN(?) OFF THE CLIFF ON THE DISINTEGRATING ALIEN PLANET..., KIRK STOMPING KAHN'S(?--OR WAS IT AN ENEMY KLINGON'S?) HAND GRIP AWAY FROM AROUND HIS ANKLE WITH EACH WORD..., LET ME KICK *YOU* AWAY:
-- *I* -- AM -- *SICK* -- AND -- *TIRED* -- OF -- **YOU** !!!
*****BEGONE!!!!!*****
SCOTTIE TAKE YOUR *WIMP* ASS SOMEWHERE *ELSE* AND STOP *****BORRRRRINNNNNGGGG* ME !!!!!
I WILL *IGNORE* YOU UNTIL AND UNLESS--IF *EVER*--YOU SAY ANYTHING *ELSE* WORTH MY TIME AND WORTH MY *DEMOLISHING*!!!
AND *THAT'S* THE **GOOD** THING I CAN SAY ABOUT YOU!!!
At one time sf.indymedia had some internal conflict over what was considered anti-Semitic. *Some* of the editors had to be enlightened along with everyone else who was--TRICKED BY ZIONISTS--not politically, intellectually, and morally up to speed on the subject of Zionist racism and Palestine. In fact, some editors used to, willy-nilly, delete almost anything that, indeed, pointed out that, indeed, ZIONISM IS RACISM.
Some editors, too, did not know that neither Zionism nor Israel was *NOT* equivalent to Judaism--neither to the culture, nor to the religion, nor to the people--AS ZIONISTS WOULD *MANIPULATIVELY* AND *FALSELY* HAVE US BELIEVE.
It had to be explained that one could OPPOSE the apartheid state of Israel, just as one OPPOSED the apartheid state of South Africa, just as one coud have OPPOSED the apartheid "Jim Crow" nation of the U.S., just as one could have OPPOSED the Stalinist state of the USSR, or just as one could have OPPOSED, back then, the Nazi state of Germany, just as one could OPPOSE *ANY* oppressive state--especially one based on race, ethnicity, religion, or gender. --And that to *POLITICALLY* OPPOSE--or even verbally BASH--these states, or their state/national ideologies, is NOT the same as being an anti-white racist or an anti-Jewish racist or an anti-male sexist.
Different editors might not all have been at the same place in their understanding, and used different personal dispositions as to what they would delete or put under hidden status. So, when my posts were deleted--at least by an editor, IF NOT DELETED BY A ZIONIST HACKER--or unjustifiably put under hidden status, I would respond by either constantly replacing my posts from the copy I retained on my disk for just such a contingency, or by putting them in several different indirectly related places to Israel/Palestine. This, so that the *less* judicious editors--OR ZIONIST HACKERS--would know that I was not going to just roll over, and so that the *more* judicious editors could bring the *less* judicious ones up to ethical speed--OR SO THAT THE ZIONIST HACKERS WOULD REALIZE THAT MY POSTS WEREN'T GOING AWAY!
*NOW*!!!: THAT IS ***NOTHING*** COMPARED TO YOUR *****PSYCHO***** ZIONIST ILK POSTING --MEGASPAMMING-- FIFTY OR MORE *****PSYCHO***** SPAM ARTICLES --A FORM OF DENIAL OF SERVICE-- TO INDYMEDIA !!
--AS WELL AS OTHER *****PSYCHO ZIONIST***** ATTACKS ON INDYMEDIA !!
--AS WELL AS HIGHER-UP HARDCORE ARCH-ZIONISTS IN THE CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT OR MEDIA ATTEMPTING TO CENSOR INDYMEDIA FROM YAHOO/GOOGLE, ETC., SEARCH ENGINES, BECAUSE INDYMEDIA IS THE ONLY NATIONAL MEDIA IN THE U.S. WHERE THE (IM)MORALITY OF ZIONISM GETS A THOROUGH INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL AIRING.
SO, LIKE KIRK KICKING KAHN(?) OFF THE CLIFF ON THE DISINTEGRATING ALIEN PLANET..., KIRK STOMPING KAHN'S(?--OR WAS IT AN ENEMY KLINGON'S?) HAND GRIP AWAY FROM AROUND HIS ANKLE WITH EACH WORD..., LET ME KICK *YOU* AWAY:
-- *I* -- AM -- *SICK* -- AND -- *TIRED* -- OF -- **YOU** !!!
*****BEGONE!!!!!*****
SCOTTIE TAKE YOUR *WIMP* ASS SOMEWHERE *ELSE* AND STOP *****BORRRRRINNNNNGGGG* ME !!!!!
I WILL *IGNORE* YOU UNTIL AND UNLESS--IF *EVER*--YOU SAY ANYTHING *ELSE* WORTH MY TIME AND WORTH MY *DEMOLISHING*!!!
My last post above was in response to some blathering post of scotties just above it. I don't know what happened to scot's post. Now *he* may know what it's like to be deleted or put under hidden status. We'll see.
JA - your defence is clearly inadequate. I dont know why you bothered to post it
And your millionth time "threat" to ignore me again fails to do anything other than make you look like someone in self denial.
And your millionth time "threat" to ignore me again fails to do anything other than make you look like someone in self denial.
scot: "JA - your defence is clearly inadequate."
JA: Rrrrright....
soct: "I dont know why you bothered to post it"
JA: To make you look like the slow-witted yutz that you are.
JA: Rrrrright....
soct: "I dont know why you bothered to post it"
JA: To make you look like the slow-witted yutz that you are.
That you think so only points out that your opinions are unconsidered.
you're sooooo strong
Yo scot!
You know, when one of you crazy or even psycho Zionists visciously attacks/insults Angie, she's got good indymedia friends here that come help to support/defend her. But, I have CONSPICUOSLY NOTICED that **NONE** of your Zionist friends see you worthwhile enough to have typed a *single* word to support *you*! Where *are* all your Zionist friends!? They just left you ass out in the wind! HaHaHa!
Oh, I *forgot*!: You don't have any friends! That's why you have such low self-esteem that you're always on my jock, even after I repeatedly insult you and tell you to go away!! HA!
You know, when one of you crazy or even psycho Zionists visciously attacks/insults Angie, she's got good indymedia friends here that come help to support/defend her. But, I have CONSPICUOSLY NOTICED that **NONE** of your Zionist friends see you worthwhile enough to have typed a *single* word to support *you*! Where *are* all your Zionist friends!? They just left you ass out in the wind! HaHaHa!
Oh, I *forgot*!: You don't have any friends! That's why you have such low self-esteem that you're always on my jock, even after I repeatedly insult you and tell you to go away!! HA!
Did you not say you use aliases there, Hi? Or was it Uuh? Or Ugh? Whatever.
Attacking the person and not the issue is what you do best.
If you had one iota of the intellect JA has, you'd be blessed. But that is not something we have to be concerned with in your case.
Are you a settler? Just wondered, you know, the fanaticism, etc.
Attacking the person and not the issue is what you do best.
If you had one iota of the intellect JA has, you'd be blessed. But that is not something we have to be concerned with in your case.
Are you a settler? Just wondered, you know, the fanaticism, etc.
uhh: "Most "zionists" are too busy living normal, productive lives ...
JA: LIKE *YOU*? ...Hahaha!
uhh: "...to have the time to respond to all the retarded bullshit you crazed anti-israel freaks come up with."
JA: ummm-hummm...?
(uhh..., is that your preliterate name? Hahaha!)
JA: LIKE *YOU*? ...Hahaha!
uhh: "...to have the time to respond to all the retarded bullshit you crazed anti-israel freaks come up with."
JA: ummm-hummm...?
(uhh..., is that your preliterate name? Hahaha!)
"hi": "JA is a fucking freak!!"
JA: I was wrong, scottie: you see, when I poke a stick into a pack o' pigs..., the one it jabs will squeeeel!! Hahaha!
Oh..., "hi"..., you've cut me to the *quick*...! [Haha!!] However shall I go on...!!?? [Hahaha!!]
"hi": " Saddam, osama, hamas, arafat, islamic jihad, the kkk, white supremecists, david duke and other scumbags of earth are "anti-zionist" "
JA: You see!!!: There's a little good in almost *everyone*!!! Hahaha...!!!
(Are you an anti-Zionist--at *all*--"hi"? Just an inksy-winsky bit?? Haha-hahaha...! I like to see a *little* good in almost *anyone*!! Hahaha...!)
I'll tell you who *WAS* a ZZZIONIST!!: ***HITLER***!!!
(Ref.: "51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With The Nazis," by Lenni Brenner, 2002)
To quote my favorite Zionist ***PSYCHO***: "I guess you're with [him], eh?"
(HA!!: YOU MAKE IT **TOO** EASY, "hi"!!!)
JA: I was wrong, scottie: you see, when I poke a stick into a pack o' pigs..., the one it jabs will squeeeel!! Hahaha!
Oh..., "hi"..., you've cut me to the *quick*...! [Haha!!] However shall I go on...!!?? [Hahaha!!]
"hi": " Saddam, osama, hamas, arafat, islamic jihad, the kkk, white supremecists, david duke and other scumbags of earth are "anti-zionist" "
JA: You see!!!: There's a little good in almost *everyone*!!! Hahaha...!!!
(Are you an anti-Zionist--at *all*--"hi"? Just an inksy-winsky bit?? Haha-hahaha...! I like to see a *little* good in almost *anyone*!! Hahaha...!)
I'll tell you who *WAS* a ZZZIONIST!!: ***HITLER***!!!
(Ref.: "51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With The Nazis," by Lenni Brenner, 2002)
To quote my favorite Zionist ***PSYCHO***: "I guess you're with [him], eh?"
(HA!!: YOU MAKE IT **TOO** EASY, "hi"!!!)
Angie: "Are you a settler ["hi"]? Just wondered, you know, the fanaticism, etc."
JA: Ahhh, Angie...!! I see that your wit is back in *FINE* form!! First the quiet, unsuspecting, compositional 'sssss.....', and then, before one knows what hit 'im, the sudden rhetorical *REPPPORTTT* at the end!!!
*WELL* done, Angie, and HIGH FIVES!!!
Welcome back, indeed!!
A great way to end the night!
I'll snuggle up in my blanket and fall asleep mentally savoring that line! Hee-hee-hee...!
Nighty-night, Angie!
JA
JA: Ahhh, Angie...!! I see that your wit is back in *FINE* form!! First the quiet, unsuspecting, compositional 'sssss.....', and then, before one knows what hit 'im, the sudden rhetorical *REPPPORTTT* at the end!!!
*WELL* done, Angie, and HIGH FIVES!!!
Welcome back, indeed!!
A great way to end the night!
I'll snuggle up in my blanket and fall asleep mentally savoring that line! Hee-hee-hee...!
Nighty-night, Angie!
JA
"Attacking the person and not the issue is what you do best."
Yup thats JA alright.. oh wait nope he is not very good at attacking the person either..
JA
" You see!!!: There's a little good in almost *everyone*!!! Hahaha...!!!"
That comment is why we are laughing at you. to keep on making a fool of yourself after we are finished laughing is just asylum material.
"I'll tell you who *WAS* a ZZZIONIST!!: ***HITLER***!!!"
How stupid are you JA?
That is a simple one to deal with conceptually.
Let us get REALLY simple step by step for you....
Was Hitler going to control palestine if he won WWII? And if he did then what was he going to do in that country? ...........OK before you say somthing stupid Ill answer that.
Just the same as he did everywhere else. that means There was no room within his plan for him to be zionist.
Doesnt matter what evidence you can bring up unless you can refute the existance of WWII.
Yup thats JA alright.. oh wait nope he is not very good at attacking the person either..
JA
" You see!!!: There's a little good in almost *everyone*!!! Hahaha...!!!"
That comment is why we are laughing at you. to keep on making a fool of yourself after we are finished laughing is just asylum material.
"I'll tell you who *WAS* a ZZZIONIST!!: ***HITLER***!!!"
How stupid are you JA?
That is a simple one to deal with conceptually.
Let us get REALLY simple step by step for you....
Was Hitler going to control palestine if he won WWII? And if he did then what was he going to do in that country? ...........OK before you say somthing stupid Ill answer that.
Just the same as he did everywhere else. that means There was no room within his plan for him to be zionist.
Doesnt matter what evidence you can bring up unless you can refute the existance of WWII.
...Scottie, just what were the 'reasons' for WW II?
...and yes, there is in 'principle' just one 'main reason' although three reasons may be combined to support the main reason.
Hint: The main reason isn't 'taught' in any of 'today's schools'.
...and yes, there is in 'principle' just one 'main reason' although three reasons may be combined to support the main reason.
Hint: The main reason isn't 'taught' in any of 'today's schools'.
ahah
by Scottie Friday July 25, 2003 at 04:50 AM.
JA: That's *scottie*! Still on my jock!
by Scottie Friday July 25, 2003 at 04:50 AM.
JA: That's *scottie*! Still on my jock!
...that I'm not interested in debating *you* at *all*!
Reality check
Not to be nit picking but
"..and yes, there is in 'principle' just one 'main reason' "
Well For example one could say "germany existed" is a main reason for WWII Or "hitler" or "WWI".
One can easily structure an argument around anything it depends on what types of answers you are looking for. You have to structure your question defining what type of "reasons" are acceptible otherwise there is no proper answer to "what are the three main reasons"
Just about any event prior to WWII is a contributory cause and many are nessercary but not sufficient causes.
so go on tell me what you are getting at?
Not to be nit picking but
"..and yes, there is in 'principle' just one 'main reason' "
Well For example one could say "germany existed" is a main reason for WWII Or "hitler" or "WWI".
One can easily structure an argument around anything it depends on what types of answers you are looking for. You have to structure your question defining what type of "reasons" are acceptible otherwise there is no proper answer to "what are the three main reasons"
Just about any event prior to WWII is a contributory cause and many are nessercary but not sufficient causes.
so go on tell me what you are getting at?
'scottie' wrote:
>Not to be nit picking but
>"..and yes, there is in 'principle' just one 'main reason' "
>Well For example one could say "germany existed" is a main reason for WWII Or "hitler" or "WWI".
>One can easily structure an argument around anything it depends on what types of answers you are looking for. You have to structure your question defining what type of "reasons" are acceptible otherwise there is no proper answer to "what are the three main reasons"
Just about any event prior to WWII is a contributory cause and many are nessercary but not sufficient causes.
>so go on tell me what you are getting at?
...well scottie, you show your 'questionable' 'intelligence' perfectly in your statement: "Well For example one could say "germany existed" is a main reason for WWII Or "hitler" or "WWI"."
This also shows us that you really have'nt a clue as to just what is happening in the world today. Germany, and 'things'-German, had nothing to do with the cause or causation of WW II, other than the fact that 'they' were 'one of the players'.
No - the 'actual' cause was:
Ideology and the expansion of 'Zones of Influence'.
And, it is more than apparant that it is still ongoing today.
Actually scottie, it was a 'trick question' to show what a stupid f*ck you really are, and you took the bait perfectly.
What you are doing is asking a question where you have already defined what "WWII" is and what an acceptible "cause" is.
For example your argument above suggests that to you if WWII had been between the USA and russia or any other pair ouf countries (as long as they had different ideologies) you would have considered it to still be "WWII". That is an unusual definition of "WWII". When other people ask the above question they dont mean it that way and so it is upon you to explain that is how you define "WWII".
Also you when you look for an explination you keep on looking until you find ideology at the root and then you stop asking the question "but what caused that"
It is easy to see how this method will always result in you finding the answer you are looking for and nothing else.
"No - the 'actual' cause was:
Ideology and the expansion of 'Zones of Influence'."
And there you are...
but I think you have been taking the simplifications of some leftist history professor a little too seriously.
To give you the rest of the lesson as I implied above you need to realize that "zones of influence" is just a tool for trying to see patterns in what happens in the world. It is not "what is actually happening" any more than any other framework.
"And, it is more than apparant that it is still ongoing today."
ideology "zones of influence" is not a useless framework But if you are going to say that you may as well front up and point out whee that effect is.
Because the most pathetic use of a framework is to say "here it is" make a value judgement like "the class struggle" one and then not adress how you are interpreting the world to fit that framework probably because you plan on doing that in multiple contradictory ways or ways that are challlengable with the evidence.
"Actually scottie, it was a 'trick question' to show what a stupid f*ck you really are, and you took the bait perfectly"
Hmm so says the person who quotes a theory says a few swear-words and thinks he is suddenly an academic. I think you need to try a little harder.
For example your argument above suggests that to you if WWII had been between the USA and russia or any other pair ouf countries (as long as they had different ideologies) you would have considered it to still be "WWII". That is an unusual definition of "WWII". When other people ask the above question they dont mean it that way and so it is upon you to explain that is how you define "WWII".
Also you when you look for an explination you keep on looking until you find ideology at the root and then you stop asking the question "but what caused that"
It is easy to see how this method will always result in you finding the answer you are looking for and nothing else.
"No - the 'actual' cause was:
Ideology and the expansion of 'Zones of Influence'."
And there you are...
but I think you have been taking the simplifications of some leftist history professor a little too seriously.
To give you the rest of the lesson as I implied above you need to realize that "zones of influence" is just a tool for trying to see patterns in what happens in the world. It is not "what is actually happening" any more than any other framework.
"And, it is more than apparant that it is still ongoing today."
ideology "zones of influence" is not a useless framework But if you are going to say that you may as well front up and point out whee that effect is.
Because the most pathetic use of a framework is to say "here it is" make a value judgement like "the class struggle" one and then not adress how you are interpreting the world to fit that framework probably because you plan on doing that in multiple contradictory ways or ways that are challlengable with the evidence.
"Actually scottie, it was a 'trick question' to show what a stupid f*ck you really are, and you took the bait perfectly"
Hmm so says the person who quotes a theory says a few swear-words and thinks he is suddenly an academic. I think you need to try a little harder.
oooooh scottie... you're soooo... academic
Gee, Scottie, I'm having trouble figuring out whether you've got one IMC stalker or two...
@%<
@%<
To sustain a fundamental lie over the long term, a propagandist must do more than disseminate false or misleading information; he must also wage a perpetual war against truth.
No lie can long survive without frequent censorship and intimidation of critics, because lies are like radioactive atoms—highly unstable.
When no amount of censorship can prevent the release of uncomfortable truths, the fundamental lie implodes, and the credibility of everyone associated with it gets sucked into the resulting black hole.
More Here:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/gregfelton10.html
No lie can long survive without frequent censorship and intimidation of critics, because lies are like radioactive atoms—highly unstable.
When no amount of censorship can prevent the release of uncomfortable truths, the fundamental lie implodes, and the credibility of everyone associated with it gets sucked into the resulting black hole.
More Here:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/gregfelton10.html
It wasn't only BBC who was crucified for showing the brilliant Fergal Keane documentary, The Accused.
Canada's own CBC was also duly (giggle) criticized by, first of all, the Israeli ambassador to Canada, who had a tongue lashing piece sent to the network prior to the showing, and which the good folk at CBC scrolled down the screen for us at home to read along with them. Some of us still dig out the video and chuckle at the audacity!
I agree wholeheartedly with your post above. Thanks!
Canada's own CBC was also duly (giggle) criticized by, first of all, the Israeli ambassador to Canada, who had a tongue lashing piece sent to the network prior to the showing, and which the good folk at CBC scrolled down the screen for us at home to read along with them. Some of us still dig out the video and chuckle at the audacity!
I agree wholeheartedly with your post above. Thanks!
...that I'm not interested in debating *you* at *all*!
then why are you here?
why do you take up cyberspace with these indefensible, ridicules opinions, and propaganda. (boring propagandaat that)
then why are you here?
why do you take up cyberspace with these indefensible, ridicules opinions, and propaganda. (boring propagandaat that)
Your opinions are of value. Every single anti-israel accusation, you believe, promote and exaggerate. Every single anti-palestinians accusation you either shoot down or you change the subject.
Guess some one out there doesn't have a life, nor an intellect either. Do the best you bloody well can, but don't think for a moment that I'm going to spend my time denying your crap. If people here don't know my style by now, they never will; and if they don't, well, does it really matter?
No, it doesn't. Not to me. Hell, I feel sorry for vacant heads on vacant bodies with nothing in between but a vacuum.
I didn't realize there were so many out there.
No, it doesn't. Not to me. Hell, I feel sorry for vacant heads on vacant bodies with nothing in between but a vacuum.
I didn't realize there were so many out there.
So how are you all doing tonight, Ugh? Did you leave Hello, Hi, and whoever else you write under elsewhere?
I take it you didn't go along with my suggestion to you yesterday about getting one name and sticking with it? In fact --- oops, that little spiel was addressed to Hi. Maybe Hi never saw it, hmm? Why don't you call yourself Christopher or Stephen, nice names I've always been partial to.
In any event, I take it you've seen the documentary, The Accused? Or maybe you're old enough to have watched the news clippings from '82? Or are you saying that the massacre (oh, there's that word again, help!) at Sabra and Shatila never happened either?
If you didn't see the CBC programme I was referring to, then how can you agree or disagree or make any comment, pray?
I take it you didn't go along with my suggestion to you yesterday about getting one name and sticking with it? In fact --- oops, that little spiel was addressed to Hi. Maybe Hi never saw it, hmm? Why don't you call yourself Christopher or Stephen, nice names I've always been partial to.
In any event, I take it you've seen the documentary, The Accused? Or maybe you're old enough to have watched the news clippings from '82? Or are you saying that the massacre (oh, there's that word again, help!) at Sabra and Shatila never happened either?
If you didn't see the CBC programme I was referring to, then how can you agree or disagree or make any comment, pray?
The holocaust is the single event in history that is worthy of being brought up as often as some actually ask
"how you doing fools"?
"how you doing fools"?
If anyone here is on drugs or acid, it's not likely to be me, Hi and Co. I thought I addressed my lastest post to Ugh? Oh, well. Whatever.
Why are you so concerned about the fact that Sabra and Shatila happened twenty one years ago? Does that make it any less horrific? The victims are still dead, aren't they? The injured are still walking wounded. No one has offered them any financial help to try and repair their shattered lives. Why the damn hell should they be forgotten as if they never were?
The holacaust happened over fifty years ago, and it's talked about constantly. Do you have a problem with that?
Why don't you actually read what people are posting here before you hit the "publish" button? Get a grip, man.
I was responding to the Greg Felton post. In the link he provided he made reference to "The Accused". I merely responded to that. Did you even read the Felton post?
You really have a major problem, Hi and Co. I'll ask you again, are you perchance a settler?
Aw, what the hell! What's one more fanatic?
Why are you so concerned about the fact that Sabra and Shatila happened twenty one years ago? Does that make it any less horrific? The victims are still dead, aren't they? The injured are still walking wounded. No one has offered them any financial help to try and repair their shattered lives. Why the damn hell should they be forgotten as if they never were?
The holacaust happened over fifty years ago, and it's talked about constantly. Do you have a problem with that?
Why don't you actually read what people are posting here before you hit the "publish" button? Get a grip, man.
I was responding to the Greg Felton post. In the link he provided he made reference to "The Accused". I merely responded to that. Did you even read the Felton post?
You really have a major problem, Hi and Co. I'll ask you again, are you perchance a settler?
Aw, what the hell! What's one more fanatic?
I see... so you want us to reject antizionists by associations...
how desperate of you.
well how about rejecting zionism because the major advocates of zionism are former nazis...
for instance: walt disney, henry ford, prescott b., and the david ben gurion who hired a nazi troop ,kastner, as his assistant...
do you need more proof that zionists were nazis and vica versa?
how desperate of you.
well how about rejecting zionism because the major advocates of zionism are former nazis...
for instance: walt disney, henry ford, prescott b., and the david ben gurion who hired a nazi troop ,kastner, as his assistant...
do you need more proof that zionists were nazis and vica versa?
Do you ever pause to read what you say yourself? You're accusing me of criticizing Israel, and you never stop criticizing Palestinians/Arabs. There's something very wrong here, isn't it?
No one here is any better than anyone else, man. Let there be no doubt ever about that.
I don't give much of a damn if you're an Israeli or a Palestinian or any other nationality. No one is "better". If you blow up an Israeli, he or she dies. If you gun down a Palestinian, he or she dies. And dead is dead is dead.
Your often frenzied attacks on me have caused me to wonder if you were a settler. Nothing moronic about it.
No one here is any better than anyone else, man. Let there be no doubt ever about that.
I don't give much of a damn if you're an Israeli or a Palestinian or any other nationality. No one is "better". If you blow up an Israeli, he or she dies. If you gun down a Palestinian, he or she dies. And dead is dead is dead.
Your often frenzied attacks on me have caused me to wonder if you were a settler. Nothing moronic about it.
It's 2:30 a.m. here. I've glanced over your note, and I will talk with you tomorrow.
Oh, dear! I suppose by then you'll have read another of my posts submitted earlier, and I'll be crucified again.
Sorry, Hi, but Ariel Sharon -- I get physically ill just seeing him on TV news.
However, it's obvious we have to find some common ground because I'm not going anywhere, and I can assume correctly you're not either.
And it's not up to me. It's up to you as well. I'll check back here tomorrow and give your note the attention it deserves. Right now I'm nodding off at the computer here which is not a good thing.
Goodnight.
Oh, dear! I suppose by then you'll have read another of my posts submitted earlier, and I'll be crucified again.
Sorry, Hi, but Ariel Sharon -- I get physically ill just seeing him on TV news.
However, it's obvious we have to find some common ground because I'm not going anywhere, and I can assume correctly you're not either.
And it's not up to me. It's up to you as well. I'll check back here tomorrow and give your note the attention it deserves. Right now I'm nodding off at the computer here which is not a good thing.
Goodnight.
Angie, hi makes a well point.
Sometimes the commentary seems to come not from a pro human rights agenda but an antisemitic one.
i may be misreading the posts, but thats how at times you do come across.
Sometimes the commentary seems to come not from a pro human rights agenda but an antisemitic one.
i may be misreading the posts, but thats how at times you do come across.
By all means throw out the "anti semitic" label.
It used to be the most effective way of shutting up those of us who dare speak out against Israel.
Let me tell you here and now you're wasting your time.
I care not a twiddly wink if I'm labelled "anti semitic" or not by you or your ilk. We here laugh at the stupidity of it all, the common pattern, that, when all else fails, there it is! Hey, you're anti-semitic. Who the dam hell cares? Not me. Do your level best.
If you cannot disprove anything I've said, that's the first thing you do. Then there's the character assassination, the ddeath threats. We're all familiar with the routine.
I'm happy to say it doesn't bother me one little bit.
I know what I am, my friends and family know what I am, and as for what you and your friends may think, I CARE NOT!
It used to be the most effective way of shutting up those of us who dare speak out against Israel.
Let me tell you here and now you're wasting your time.
I care not a twiddly wink if I'm labelled "anti semitic" or not by you or your ilk. We here laugh at the stupidity of it all, the common pattern, that, when all else fails, there it is! Hey, you're anti-semitic. Who the dam hell cares? Not me. Do your level best.
If you cannot disprove anything I've said, that's the first thing you do. Then there's the character assassination, the ddeath threats. We're all familiar with the routine.
I'm happy to say it doesn't bother me one little bit.
I know what I am, my friends and family know what I am, and as for what you and your friends may think, I CARE NOT!
Really, Angie doesn't care.
She really doesn't care.
No, really, she doesn't care. Really.
She really, really, really doesn't care.
Really. Look at how much she doesn't care. She really, really, really doesn't care. Really. I mean it.
She REALLY REALLY REALLY doesn't care. Really.
She _still_ really doesn't care.
Really.
@%<
She really doesn't care.
No, really, she doesn't care. Really.
She really, really, really doesn't care.
Really. Look at how much she doesn't care. She really, really, really doesn't care. Really. I mean it.
She REALLY REALLY REALLY doesn't care. Really.
She _still_ really doesn't care.
Really.
@%<
Glad to see you are kind enough to emphatically repeat a part of my post in your own particular, indescribable manner, but, shucks, you didn't have to. I'm sure you're very busy, etc.., etc., etc.
Oh, by the way, did I ever admit that when I first dropped by here I was frightened to death of you??? Oh, yes, sir. Every time I saw your name anywhere near something I posted, it was, like, oh, my God! Gulp . . .
Of course, it was only a few weeks ago that I realized my fears had been baseless when you admitted my posts were "too boring" to read. Damm! All that time waiting for a roar from Mr. Gehrig, and, lo, there I was SAFE! You never read a post. To think I worried about nil!
Actually I thought you were an editor or something or other of note, but I am from Canada, you know, and knew nil about SF Indymedia until during a John Pilger search on Yahoo, I landed here. I like it, thank you, and I'll stay until whenever.
(My apologizes to the editors for my misplaced thinking there!)
So now perhaps participants on this board who feel I'm going to run away and hide because I'm called "anti-semitic" (excuse me, maintaining a straight face here is difficult so I 'll allow a wee grin) will have to come up with something else.
This must be a really slow day for you, Mr. Gehrig.
Ooops! Hope you're not offended by my calling you "Mr." You sound like you're a Mr., and, of course, we, in Canada, are nothing if not polite to our elders.
Oh, by the way, did I ever admit that when I first dropped by here I was frightened to death of you??? Oh, yes, sir. Every time I saw your name anywhere near something I posted, it was, like, oh, my God! Gulp . . .
Of course, it was only a few weeks ago that I realized my fears had been baseless when you admitted my posts were "too boring" to read. Damm! All that time waiting for a roar from Mr. Gehrig, and, lo, there I was SAFE! You never read a post. To think I worried about nil!
Actually I thought you were an editor or something or other of note, but I am from Canada, you know, and knew nil about SF Indymedia until during a John Pilger search on Yahoo, I landed here. I like it, thank you, and I'll stay until whenever.
(My apologizes to the editors for my misplaced thinking there!)
So now perhaps participants on this board who feel I'm going to run away and hide because I'm called "anti-semitic" (excuse me, maintaining a straight face here is difficult so I 'll allow a wee grin) will have to come up with something else.
This must be a really slow day for you, Mr. Gehrig.
Ooops! Hope you're not offended by my calling you "Mr." You sound like you're a Mr., and, of course, we, in Canada, are nothing if not polite to our elders.
To Hi, Hello et al
by Angie Wednesday July 30, 2003 at 09:53 PM
Sorry, Hi, but Ariel Sharon -- I get physically ill just seeing him on TV news.
----------------
See, this is what I mean when I say hate is unhealthy.
Get well soon.
by Angie Wednesday July 30, 2003 at 09:53 PM
Sorry, Hi, but Ariel Sharon -- I get physically ill just seeing him on TV news.
----------------
See, this is what I mean when I say hate is unhealthy.
Get well soon.
Angie is the most antizionist person I have ever met on this board!
Her defence of human rights, equality and justice endangers our Zionist ideals and aspirations! She has no respect for our ideological pillars: murder, theft, lies and destruction. Angie may not be an antisemite but she is a fierce and dangerous antizionist!
Antizionism is a form of racism. We Zionists are a very distinct group of people. No one else exploits the tragedy of the Holocaust and pilches cash from George Bush's coffers better than we do, nobody! We form our own race, because every one else (especially these Jews) is disgusted whenever they look on our campaign of repression against the Palestinians. They don't understand that we Zionists have to do what we do, because- well, because we are Zionists and you better not have a problem with it or we will label you an antisemite and a Nazi.
Watch out for Angie. Watch out for everyone else who defends justice and human rights. These fanatics will not stop until they bring out the end of Zionism- true peace and justice in the Middle East.
Brother Zionists, we must continue our smear campaign against Angie and all others who disagree with us. Do what every good Zionist would do when faced with such an opponent. Twist her words, insult her, make up outrageous claims, 'spoof' her posts, and attempt to discredit her in every way that is possible. Just don't attempt to debate with her, because her arguments come from a healthy conscience, real information sources, and a strong sense of compassion form those who we deprive of justice and human rights. Sadly, these are all things we Zionists lack. Our arguments come from the Knesset, which is much better financed than she is, and has more bulldozers than she could ever dream of having.
That's right Angie, we have bulldozers and you don't.
Doesn't that prove to you how superior we are?
Heil Sharon!
- A concerned Zionist
Her defence of human rights, equality and justice endangers our Zionist ideals and aspirations! She has no respect for our ideological pillars: murder, theft, lies and destruction. Angie may not be an antisemite but she is a fierce and dangerous antizionist!
Antizionism is a form of racism. We Zionists are a very distinct group of people. No one else exploits the tragedy of the Holocaust and pilches cash from George Bush's coffers better than we do, nobody! We form our own race, because every one else (especially these Jews) is disgusted whenever they look on our campaign of repression against the Palestinians. They don't understand that we Zionists have to do what we do, because- well, because we are Zionists and you better not have a problem with it or we will label you an antisemite and a Nazi.
Watch out for Angie. Watch out for everyone else who defends justice and human rights. These fanatics will not stop until they bring out the end of Zionism- true peace and justice in the Middle East.
Brother Zionists, we must continue our smear campaign against Angie and all others who disagree with us. Do what every good Zionist would do when faced with such an opponent. Twist her words, insult her, make up outrageous claims, 'spoof' her posts, and attempt to discredit her in every way that is possible. Just don't attempt to debate with her, because her arguments come from a healthy conscience, real information sources, and a strong sense of compassion form those who we deprive of justice and human rights. Sadly, these are all things we Zionists lack. Our arguments come from the Knesset, which is much better financed than she is, and has more bulldozers than she could ever dream of having.
That's right Angie, we have bulldozers and you don't.
Doesn't that prove to you how superior we are?
Heil Sharon!
- A concerned Zionist
. . . that I get sick to my stomach whenever I see any blatant liar and war criminal masquarading as everyone's favourite grandpa?
However, I will ask my GP if there is any connection between my utter dislike of Sharon and my nausea whenever I see him on the news, which is not often, I assure you..
And could you also tell LAD that "hate" is not a synomym for nausea? You see, I'm not directing any further posts to him, so unless he reads these, someone will have to point them out to him, poor soul.
I think he and I had a similar conversation once before wherein I admitted I refused to eat green peas; and LAD accused me of causing grief to those farmers who grow same.
Sorry, it is but to laugh, really. It is but to laugh.
However, I will ask my GP if there is any connection between my utter dislike of Sharon and my nausea whenever I see him on the news, which is not often, I assure you..
And could you also tell LAD that "hate" is not a synomym for nausea? You see, I'm not directing any further posts to him, so unless he reads these, someone will have to point them out to him, poor soul.
I think he and I had a similar conversation once before wherein I admitted I refused to eat green peas; and LAD accused me of causing grief to those farmers who grow same.
Sorry, it is but to laugh, really. It is but to laugh.
What are you doing out of the kitchen, little lady?
My dear Concerned Zionist
Until I landed here on this much beloved SF Indymedia Board I was just a wee lass from my beloved Canada, and the phrase "anti-zionist" or - gasp - "zionist" had never crossed my pathway except in libraries, but what do they know, hey?
It wasn't like we were meeting after work on Fridays in our distinguished groups of zionists and anti-zionists, spreading our doctrines (or whatever such practices are, or are not, called) around the City.
And how did it come to pass, pray tell, that here I am today the most god awful anti-zionist my dear concerned zionist has ever met on this Board? Not only that, but you're there bragging about having more bulldozers than myself -- well, that's true. I don't have any. Sigh.
I love your stuff. I love it, my friend. Keep up the good fight! If anyone has a problem with your posts, it's because he or she is already a problem.
Still grinning,
Angie
PS Loved the diagram of the wee lad sitting at his desk in the Knesset. Do I take it from that work of art that you have red hair too?
Until I landed here on this much beloved SF Indymedia Board I was just a wee lass from my beloved Canada, and the phrase "anti-zionist" or - gasp - "zionist" had never crossed my pathway except in libraries, but what do they know, hey?
It wasn't like we were meeting after work on Fridays in our distinguished groups of zionists and anti-zionists, spreading our doctrines (or whatever such practices are, or are not, called) around the City.
And how did it come to pass, pray tell, that here I am today the most god awful anti-zionist my dear concerned zionist has ever met on this Board? Not only that, but you're there bragging about having more bulldozers than myself -- well, that's true. I don't have any. Sigh.
I love your stuff. I love it, my friend. Keep up the good fight! If anyone has a problem with your posts, it's because he or she is already a problem.
Still grinning,
Angie
PS Loved the diagram of the wee lad sitting at his desk in the Knesset. Do I take it from that work of art that you have red hair too?
You misquote yourself. I believe what you said is you hate green peas. Then you equated your hate of certain vegetables with the hate that exists in the middle east right now. Which led me to the conclusion that you do not know what hate really is. Other words you have trouble with include anti-semitism (not that you care about that word), terror, suffering, massacre, compromise, and justice.
I know people who get sick when they see Sharon on TV. When his face appears on the tube, they say fucking asshole at the TV, spit, and have other knee-jerk reactions. I can't blame a person who as a school child was made to chant death to america, death to israel, death to france, etc every day at morning assembly. I'm only speaking from personal experience here. This doesn't come from anything I've read or seen on TV. You may not know it, but it is the seeds of hate making you ill.
Believe me, there are people on the othe side of the conflict which I could have the same reaction to, but I work hard not to. I don't get physically ill when I see the ayatollahs of Iran, despite certain past history which I will not get into. Given the choice, I would feel sadness, not hate. And I feel I have that choice as a free person.
So sorry you're not talking to me. Maybe I'm not being nice, but day before yesterday I learned several members of a friend's family were beheaded. At least two of them got on a plane in time, but damn that fucking sucks.
I know people who get sick when they see Sharon on TV. When his face appears on the tube, they say fucking asshole at the TV, spit, and have other knee-jerk reactions. I can't blame a person who as a school child was made to chant death to america, death to israel, death to france, etc every day at morning assembly. I'm only speaking from personal experience here. This doesn't come from anything I've read or seen on TV. You may not know it, but it is the seeds of hate making you ill.
Believe me, there are people on the othe side of the conflict which I could have the same reaction to, but I work hard not to. I don't get physically ill when I see the ayatollahs of Iran, despite certain past history which I will not get into. Given the choice, I would feel sadness, not hate. And I feel I have that choice as a free person.
So sorry you're not talking to me. Maybe I'm not being nice, but day before yesterday I learned several members of a friend's family were beheaded. At least two of them got on a plane in time, but damn that fucking sucks.
Anti-zionists are people who want to take *some* land away from *some* Jews. Jews who came by their land honestly have as much right to live on it as does anybody else who came by their land honestly. Jews who came by their land by looting the corpses of Arabs do not.
How does one "come by land honestly", pray tell? Please name any society in existence presently that came by it's land "honestly" and then explain to us why this is unequivocably true for this denoted society.
Thanks nessie.
Thanks nessie.
I remember you saying you hated green peas.
Also and the kitchen comment was not me.
Incidentally wife is a chef (and loves it) so actually it would be hard to keep her out of it.
Also and the kitchen comment was not me.
Incidentally wife is a chef (and loves it) so actually it would be hard to keep her out of it.
We have just learned that Israel has now (today) voted that in the event of an Israeli marrying each other they have (get this!) the choice of living separate lives OR moving out of Israel. Israel cited it's favourite word "terror" as the reason.
Ye'ah, this is the truly democratic state, all right. And who was it on this Board that keeps insisting all peoples in Israel have equal rights? That takes care of that myth!
Ye'ah, this is the truly democratic state, all right. And who was it on this Board that keeps insisting all peoples in Israel have equal rights? That takes care of that myth!
I hate thunderstorms too!
It doesn't mean that because I can't stomach green peas and am terrified of thunderstorms that I'm this wicked person or anything. Nor am I a cook, though sometimes I surprise myself.
It doesn't mean that because I can't stomach green peas and am terrified of thunderstorms that I'm this wicked person or anything. Nor am I a cook, though sometimes I surprise myself.
That should be in the event of an Israeli and a Palestinian marrying.
Guess the shock of seeing that this evening on the news shocked me to the point that I forgot to add marrying a Palestinian.
Guess the shock of seeing that this evening on the news shocked me to the point that I forgot to add marrying a Palestinian.
You're not being very truthful here, are you?
Number one, I have no desire to see the end of Israel nor did I ever think about it. I feel that's just a detractor tossed at those of us who want to see justice for the Palestinians peoples.
I have no problem with coming on SF Indymedia. Yes, I know there's a few outrageous folk out there who'll visit from time to time, shall we say, but the beliefs that I bring forth here are ones I've had since I was old enough to make my own judgments about international affairs.
In fact, I've learned a lot by checking out SF Indymedia, and I'm still learning, not just about the 'conflict" but about the rest of the world as well.
About the most radical thing I've ever done is marched against the attack on Iraq and attend peace vigils re same. I used to also be a member of Amnesty International until I had to cease attending meetings because of time constraints. During that period of time the main issue was Africa, and that was horrific enough.
Number one, I have no desire to see the end of Israel nor did I ever think about it. I feel that's just a detractor tossed at those of us who want to see justice for the Palestinians peoples.
I have no problem with coming on SF Indymedia. Yes, I know there's a few outrageous folk out there who'll visit from time to time, shall we say, but the beliefs that I bring forth here are ones I've had since I was old enough to make my own judgments about international affairs.
In fact, I've learned a lot by checking out SF Indymedia, and I'm still learning, not just about the 'conflict" but about the rest of the world as well.
About the most radical thing I've ever done is marched against the attack on Iraq and attend peace vigils re same. I used to also be a member of Amnesty International until I had to cease attending meetings because of time constraints. During that period of time the main issue was Africa, and that was horrific enough.
Angie -
I would like to see that news article regarding the marrage. Im not sure if you have explained it properly .... there may well be alot of information lost.
I would like to see that news article regarding the marrage. Im not sure if you have explained it properly .... there may well be alot of information lost.
This is the direct quote:
"Israel's parliament passed a measure today that would force Palestinians and Israelis who marry each other to live separate lives or leave Israel. The Government said the law was intended to prevent terror attacks".
This issue was brought up before here and was dismissed by Israeli supporters as being untrue.
Well, there you have it.
"Israel's parliament passed a measure today that would force Palestinians and Israelis who marry each other to live separate lives or leave Israel. The Government said the law was intended to prevent terror attacks".
This issue was brought up before here and was dismissed by Israeli supporters as being untrue.
Well, there you have it.
I'm searching for that thread re the "green peas" bit. I can see it in my mind as clear as day, but which thread! Oh, well, it will come to me.
Yes, I said I wasn't going to talk to you any more a few days ago because I had the horrid feeling from your post on that date that you were more or less warning me or, as I stated, threatening me, neither of which struck me as being any fun.
However, your comment about a friend's family being beheaded sent me into a state of shock. I can assume correctly, I dare say, can I, that this didn't happen in America? I thought beheadings were a thing of the past in some long ago forgotten era. I guess not.
I don't know these people or you for that matter, but, hell, I offer my sympathy in all sincerety. It's so awful the mind recoils in disbelief. Humankind will never learn.
Yes, I said I wasn't going to talk to you any more a few days ago because I had the horrid feeling from your post on that date that you were more or less warning me or, as I stated, threatening me, neither of which struck me as being any fun.
However, your comment about a friend's family being beheaded sent me into a state of shock. I can assume correctly, I dare say, can I, that this didn't happen in America? I thought beheadings were a thing of the past in some long ago forgotten era. I guess not.
I don't know these people or you for that matter, but, hell, I offer my sympathy in all sincerety. It's so awful the mind recoils in disbelief. Humankind will never learn.
Yeah, and?
A great many homes that jews built with their own hands in arab countries were taken away, or jews were forced to leave and unable to sell them, too. What's your point?
My point is that you, and others like you, single the jews of israel out, and spend an overwhelming amount of your time demonizing israel and the jews there while NOT applying equal treatment to arabs, muslims and other countries who did the same thing or more.
A great many homes that jews built with their own hands in arab countries were taken away, or jews were forced to leave and unable to sell them, too. What's your point?
My point is that you, and others like you, single the jews of israel out, and spend an overwhelming amount of your time demonizing israel and the jews there while NOT applying equal treatment to arabs, muslims and other countries who did the same thing or more.
Scottie,
There is a full story in today's Independent with respect to the new Israeli law respecting marriages between Israelis and Palestinians. I checked the Net, and you can find it at:
http://www.independent.co.uk/
I hope you can obtain it from the above. I receive the newspaper, itself..
“Gift, purchase, inheritance and trade come to mind first, but any transaction that is consensual, transparent and non exploitive would qualify .”
So if I steal my land from someone else, and the give it to you, or bequeath it to you, you got it “honestly”? Okay, I see how it works. Thanks for clearing that up.
“So what “ownership” means, at least as far as land goes, is actually only a very temporary, and limited, control. “
Well now it sounds like your contradicting yourself to me. First you said coming by land through inheritance constitutes honest “ownership”. So I’d deduce from that statement that if I beqweath my land to my son, and he to his etc. that we (my sons and I) could own our land forever and always, as long as we have a traceable bloodline and legitimate heir. This was essentially what you initially said, correct?
In the following statement it seems you’re saying that an individual’s “ownership” of land is “temporary, limited control”. This begs the question nessie, if you’d be so kind to answer, of who or what entity determines the timeframe or the stipulations or the limitations on the ownership of my family’s land, that which we “honestly” came by? Thanks in advance for answering this question.
>Please name any society in existence presently that came by it's land "honestly" and then explain to us why this is unequivocally true for this denoted society.
”You’re talking about two different things, here. Let’s not get confused. “
I don’t think I am. I think we are discussing the exact same thing, that being “ownership” of land. I am discussing from the macroscopic and you from the microscopic.
The point being, you can’t legitimately claim, as you previously did, that the Zionists did not come by their land “honestly”, and then define “honest ownership” in terms of individual land owners. Apples and oranges. Like a wet cardboard box filled with bowling balls, your argument thusly collapses, and your premises of prevarication and degenerations fall to the floor.
“But if you or I were to go to Japan and purchase a lot with a house on it, pay an fair and agreed upon price, that would be honest. “
So if a Jew goes to Israel and buys a parcel of land (that someone else stole from a Palestinian which he murdered, the first Jew is now an honest resident of the state of Israel? This is the argument you’ve just made.
“Is that clear enough? “
I think I have shown that it is indeed, not clear enough.
“If so, let’s then examine what this means in Israel. A great many individuals in present day Israel live under roofs that originally belonged, both on paper and in fact, to Palestinians, who in many case had built them with their own hands, or whose own, personal, direct ancestors built by hand and left to them in their wills.”
What evidence is there of any of that? I’d say if it were true, it would make a great legal case, but even still, by your definition of “ownership” you basically said that these Palestinians didn’t really own the land, just a symbolic piece of paper. You even have said that their symbolic “ownership” of the land was temporary and limited. I think a lot of your argument hinges upon how you answer my first question. That question being who or what entity determines the restraints, limitations, durations, etc. imposed upon the “symbolic ownership” of a land-owner?
“In a few cases, honest deals were made, the houses were sold for a price agreed upon by all participants and everyone left the deal happy.”
So if I buy something and then later find out that I paid far too much, do I get to renege simply because I am unhappy? I don’t think that’s how it works. Maybe in Utopia, but not in the real world. I’m sure we all wish that humanity lived in Utopia, but it does not now and never has.
And while it is idealistic and respectable to believe that only equitable and fair trades are legitimate trades, this is a naïve position to take. There are too many variables and “human factors” that go into the topic which precludes from simplifying to “everyone must be ultimately happy” with a trade in order for it to be an “honest” trade.
“There are houses like that. But in the vast, overwhelming majority of such cases, the legitimate owners fled for their lives, got not one shekel for their property, and are physically restrained, under pain of death, from returning. No, this is not honest.”
You jump from the micro to the macro.
You rambled on and on and now we are back to my original question in my first post. The conversation has come full circle, and as you should be able to clearly see, I was thinking ahead of you.
So it seems like a good time to ask, since now we are clearly talking about the same thing.
Please name any society in existence presently that came by it's land "honestly" and then explain to us why this is unequivocably true for this denoted society.
You are generalizing and claiming that “in the vast, overwhelming majority of such cases,” Zionists (spoken: “Israeli Jewish society”) did not come by their (its) land honestly.
“This has been an ongoing process (since 1948).”
I think you need a little history lesson. Here you go:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/israel.htm
I’m not Jewish. And I have no stake in the well being of Israel. Frankly, I could not care less about the goings on over there. It’s a pointless argument to me, and I choose not to waste my time justifying the actions of either the Palestinians or the Zionists.
FWIW, my opinion is that Israel is a recognized nation. Palestine is not. Nations are taken by force and controlled and protected by force. Aggression and selfishness are steeped in survival. Survival instinct is human nature. Being nice is not. Israel was given to the Jews by Britain after WWII plain and simply because Hitler and his merry band of Nazis wanted, for some unknown reason, to kill every last one of them. This has been a reoccurring theme in the history of the world. There have been societies that desired nothing more that to kill or enslave all Jews. This is unquestionably true in my opinion. Boatloads of Jewish refuges were sent back to Hitler’s ovens, gas chambers, and potter’s graves, because Jews had no nation of their own to run to. If I were Jewish, I would care less what YOU think about my “honest” ownership of land, nessie. I would tell you to go screw yourself. I would take a piece of land, by force if necessary, and I would amass stockpiles of arms and artillery and nuclear weapons if necessary, and I would tell you nessie, if you don’t like it, then come try and take my land from me. Balk and scoff and protest all you like. But if you want to come throw my children in the ovens then take your best shot.
But I’m not Jewish, so what do I know?
So if I steal my land from someone else, and the give it to you, or bequeath it to you, you got it “honestly”? Okay, I see how it works. Thanks for clearing that up.
“So what “ownership” means, at least as far as land goes, is actually only a very temporary, and limited, control. “
Well now it sounds like your contradicting yourself to me. First you said coming by land through inheritance constitutes honest “ownership”. So I’d deduce from that statement that if I beqweath my land to my son, and he to his etc. that we (my sons and I) could own our land forever and always, as long as we have a traceable bloodline and legitimate heir. This was essentially what you initially said, correct?
In the following statement it seems you’re saying that an individual’s “ownership” of land is “temporary, limited control”. This begs the question nessie, if you’d be so kind to answer, of who or what entity determines the timeframe or the stipulations or the limitations on the ownership of my family’s land, that which we “honestly” came by? Thanks in advance for answering this question.
>Please name any society in existence presently that came by it's land "honestly" and then explain to us why this is unequivocally true for this denoted society.
”You’re talking about two different things, here. Let’s not get confused. “
I don’t think I am. I think we are discussing the exact same thing, that being “ownership” of land. I am discussing from the macroscopic and you from the microscopic.
The point being, you can’t legitimately claim, as you previously did, that the Zionists did not come by their land “honestly”, and then define “honest ownership” in terms of individual land owners. Apples and oranges. Like a wet cardboard box filled with bowling balls, your argument thusly collapses, and your premises of prevarication and degenerations fall to the floor.
“But if you or I were to go to Japan and purchase a lot with a house on it, pay an fair and agreed upon price, that would be honest. “
So if a Jew goes to Israel and buys a parcel of land (that someone else stole from a Palestinian which he murdered, the first Jew is now an honest resident of the state of Israel? This is the argument you’ve just made.
“Is that clear enough? “
I think I have shown that it is indeed, not clear enough.
“If so, let’s then examine what this means in Israel. A great many individuals in present day Israel live under roofs that originally belonged, both on paper and in fact, to Palestinians, who in many case had built them with their own hands, or whose own, personal, direct ancestors built by hand and left to them in their wills.”
What evidence is there of any of that? I’d say if it were true, it would make a great legal case, but even still, by your definition of “ownership” you basically said that these Palestinians didn’t really own the land, just a symbolic piece of paper. You even have said that their symbolic “ownership” of the land was temporary and limited. I think a lot of your argument hinges upon how you answer my first question. That question being who or what entity determines the restraints, limitations, durations, etc. imposed upon the “symbolic ownership” of a land-owner?
“In a few cases, honest deals were made, the houses were sold for a price agreed upon by all participants and everyone left the deal happy.”
So if I buy something and then later find out that I paid far too much, do I get to renege simply because I am unhappy? I don’t think that’s how it works. Maybe in Utopia, but not in the real world. I’m sure we all wish that humanity lived in Utopia, but it does not now and never has.
And while it is idealistic and respectable to believe that only equitable and fair trades are legitimate trades, this is a naïve position to take. There are too many variables and “human factors” that go into the topic which precludes from simplifying to “everyone must be ultimately happy” with a trade in order for it to be an “honest” trade.
“There are houses like that. But in the vast, overwhelming majority of such cases, the legitimate owners fled for their lives, got not one shekel for their property, and are physically restrained, under pain of death, from returning. No, this is not honest.”
You jump from the micro to the macro.
You rambled on and on and now we are back to my original question in my first post. The conversation has come full circle, and as you should be able to clearly see, I was thinking ahead of you.
So it seems like a good time to ask, since now we are clearly talking about the same thing.
Please name any society in existence presently that came by it's land "honestly" and then explain to us why this is unequivocably true for this denoted society.
You are generalizing and claiming that “in the vast, overwhelming majority of such cases,” Zionists (spoken: “Israeli Jewish society”) did not come by their (its) land honestly.
“This has been an ongoing process (since 1948).”
I think you need a little history lesson. Here you go:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/israel.htm
I’m not Jewish. And I have no stake in the well being of Israel. Frankly, I could not care less about the goings on over there. It’s a pointless argument to me, and I choose not to waste my time justifying the actions of either the Palestinians or the Zionists.
FWIW, my opinion is that Israel is a recognized nation. Palestine is not. Nations are taken by force and controlled and protected by force. Aggression and selfishness are steeped in survival. Survival instinct is human nature. Being nice is not. Israel was given to the Jews by Britain after WWII plain and simply because Hitler and his merry band of Nazis wanted, for some unknown reason, to kill every last one of them. This has been a reoccurring theme in the history of the world. There have been societies that desired nothing more that to kill or enslave all Jews. This is unquestionably true in my opinion. Boatloads of Jewish refuges were sent back to Hitler’s ovens, gas chambers, and potter’s graves, because Jews had no nation of their own to run to. If I were Jewish, I would care less what YOU think about my “honest” ownership of land, nessie. I would tell you to go screw yourself. I would take a piece of land, by force if necessary, and I would amass stockpiles of arms and artillery and nuclear weapons if necessary, and I would tell you nessie, if you don’t like it, then come try and take my land from me. Balk and scoff and protest all you like. But if you want to come throw my children in the ovens then take your best shot.
But I’m not Jewish, so what do I know?
It's the Rachel Corrie (Video) thread wherein I stated I hated green peas. It was in a response to one of your posts, and it appears we had a rather - shall we say? - nasty exchange there about that.
But we've had a lot of such exchanges.
Hope you're improving a bit. Time always heals so we're told. I wish I could believe that sometimes.
But we've had a lot of such exchanges.
Hope you're improving a bit. Time always heals so we're told. I wish I could believe that sometimes.
It is racist to label Israel's racist laws as being a form of racism. Unlike all of these other evil Arabic countries out there, we Zionists have the right to discriminate against Palestinians and Arabs as we see fit, because, well, because we are Zionists. And we have more bulldozers.
Discrimination against Arabs and Palestinians is being comitted by the democratic state of Israel, so how dare you call it anything other than perfect and just? Critics of our racist policies should not forget that discriminatory measures against Arabs and Palestinians are not disapproved of neither by the Yad Vashem, the Knesset, or the the Israeli Defence Forces. If Israel says it's OK, then don't you see that it is quite all right? Don't you know that Israel is perfect?
You should, if you don't want us to label you as a terrorist or a fascist.
Heil Sharon!
- A concerned Zionist
Discrimination against Arabs and Palestinians is being comitted by the democratic state of Israel, so how dare you call it anything other than perfect and just? Critics of our racist policies should not forget that discriminatory measures against Arabs and Palestinians are not disapproved of neither by the Yad Vashem, the Knesset, or the the Israeli Defence Forces. If Israel says it's OK, then don't you see that it is quite all right? Don't you know that Israel is perfect?
You should, if you don't want us to label you as a terrorist or a fascist.
Heil Sharon!
- A concerned Zionist
I appreciate the sympathy. What can I say. Of course it did not happen in America. It happened in an Islamic country which happens to be a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause, and major weapons supplier. In fact, if you read the official news there, you never actually see the word Israel, instead you read about "the Zionist entity in Palestine."
But my friends are not Jewish, they are Christian, and they were a little too public about their religion. Corrupt governments are funny that way. You can get permits and official sanction, have all your paperwork straight, then someone from the virtue/vice squad overhears you talking about Christ and suddenly you're on a secret hit list. If not for some friends in government (who oversaw the drafting of arrest papers) it would have been worse, and I wouldn't know anything about it today. As it is, two got on a plane with hours to spare, and from them I heard the news. At least two we know were not so lucky. Not sure about the rest. I'll probably talk to them again next week and find out more.
I'm a little surprised if you thought beheadings were a thing of the past, as much as you read. Myself, I didn't see anything about this particular incident in any news. Yes, this story was ignored by both corporate and indy media. Do I blame them? No. This sort of thing just isn't news any more, doesn't have the tabloid appeal of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But have you not heard about blasphemy laws? They are very common throughout the middle east. Some places obviously worse than others. It's still weird when it actually happens to someone you know. What can I say when my friend is crying, describing her home as the heart of darkness, and wishing American troops would come and destroy her government? Thing is, it used to be a real decent place to live. I was lucky to get out when I did. Everyone who got out feels lucky, even my other friend who hasn't seen his father in 15 years.
So that's what I call being a second-class citizen. You just have to be real careful. You should see what happens when people get the idea of reform in their heads. The last time people spoke out 2,000 were arrested in an afternoon and that doesn't begin to describe the brutality of the government and their thugs. Beaten to death? File a complaint if you dare. Tell you one thing, there hasn't been public assembly or banner raised against the government since that day. I would definitely advise against ISM-style activism in that country! You are much safer protesting against Israel, for sure.
Just another fucked up day in theocracyland. And nobody cares. Really blows my mind. Instead everyone is bitching about rubber bullets and some fucking wall.
Doesn't matter anyway. I get the impression we're not really talking about anything but the personal problems of some Americans and Canadians here, and the constant reference to debate rules just cracks me right the fuck up. This web site is useless. I hope you all realize that.
But my friends are not Jewish, they are Christian, and they were a little too public about their religion. Corrupt governments are funny that way. You can get permits and official sanction, have all your paperwork straight, then someone from the virtue/vice squad overhears you talking about Christ and suddenly you're on a secret hit list. If not for some friends in government (who oversaw the drafting of arrest papers) it would have been worse, and I wouldn't know anything about it today. As it is, two got on a plane with hours to spare, and from them I heard the news. At least two we know were not so lucky. Not sure about the rest. I'll probably talk to them again next week and find out more.
I'm a little surprised if you thought beheadings were a thing of the past, as much as you read. Myself, I didn't see anything about this particular incident in any news. Yes, this story was ignored by both corporate and indy media. Do I blame them? No. This sort of thing just isn't news any more, doesn't have the tabloid appeal of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But have you not heard about blasphemy laws? They are very common throughout the middle east. Some places obviously worse than others. It's still weird when it actually happens to someone you know. What can I say when my friend is crying, describing her home as the heart of darkness, and wishing American troops would come and destroy her government? Thing is, it used to be a real decent place to live. I was lucky to get out when I did. Everyone who got out feels lucky, even my other friend who hasn't seen his father in 15 years.
So that's what I call being a second-class citizen. You just have to be real careful. You should see what happens when people get the idea of reform in their heads. The last time people spoke out 2,000 were arrested in an afternoon and that doesn't begin to describe the brutality of the government and their thugs. Beaten to death? File a complaint if you dare. Tell you one thing, there hasn't been public assembly or banner raised against the government since that day. I would definitely advise against ISM-style activism in that country! You are much safer protesting against Israel, for sure.
Just another fucked up day in theocracyland. And nobody cares. Really blows my mind. Instead everyone is bitching about rubber bullets and some fucking wall.
Doesn't matter anyway. I get the impression we're not really talking about anything but the personal problems of some Americans and Canadians here, and the constant reference to debate rules just cracks me right the fuck up. This web site is useless. I hope you all realize that.
I'm sorry.
>A great many homes that jews built with their own hands in arab countries were taken away, or jews were forced to leave and unable to sell them, too.
If "Other people do it, too" wrere a valid excuse, then Hitler would have been justified in kuilling six million Jews because Stalin killed six million Ukrainians.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Nothing that has ever been done to any Jew, any time, any where, by anyone, justifies what Israelis are doing to Palestinians today.
And vice versa. Nothing the IDF does, much of which differs from what the Nazis did only in degree, justifies the killing of a single Jewish non combatant.
If "Other people do it, too" wrere a valid excuse, then Hitler would have been justified in kuilling six million Jews because Stalin killed six million Ukrainians.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Nothing that has ever been done to any Jew, any time, any where, by anyone, justifies what Israelis are doing to Palestinians today.
And vice versa. Nothing the IDF does, much of which differs from what the Nazis did only in degree, justifies the killing of a single Jewish non combatant.
David Duke's lying propaganda is crude and silly. The Israeli lying propaganda that you so skillfully regurgitate is much more convincing. Luckily for you and me and every Zionist out there, Dave doesn't receive 3 billion dollars from George W. Bush for lying like we do, eh?
Heil Sharon!
- A concerned Zionist
Heil Sharon!
- A concerned Zionist
Hey, what is this? A whole two days and no thought provoking commentary? Guess you're busy, hmm?
From where I stand by the time there is a Palestine "state" there won't be anywhere to put it.
When you have peace and a state you can then worry about using the UN or whoever to get back specific areas of land over time.
Just give up on disbanding israel take the 95% or so of a state (or whatever % you think it is) and stop the killing and then allow for a very slow return of the other 5% (and some land swaps etc to avoid having to move whole cities etc).
the palistinians keep making the odd choice to reject 95% and take 0% reject peace and take "getting their heads smashed together by a much stronger country".
Just give up on disbanding israel take the 95% or so of a state (or whatever % you think it is) and stop the killing and then allow for a very slow return of the other 5% (and some land swaps etc to avoid having to move whole cities etc).
the palistinians keep making the odd choice to reject 95% and take 0% reject peace and take "getting their heads smashed together by a much stronger country".
Dear Angie,
I was away camping for the weekend, training no doubt to be an IDF power ranger. I did not have my computer with me in my tent, otherwise I would have been there to protect my dear Zionist friends from humanity-oriented antizionist villains like you.
I hope my Zionist cybertroopers are OK, they have not had my friendship and help for a while. You antizionists have been getting away with too much mischief, opposing our apartheid ways.
Well, this has got to stop.
The concerned Zionist is back.
Heil Sharon!
- A concerned Zionist
I was away camping for the weekend, training no doubt to be an IDF power ranger. I did not have my computer with me in my tent, otherwise I would have been there to protect my dear Zionist friends from humanity-oriented antizionist villains like you.
I hope my Zionist cybertroopers are OK, they have not had my friendship and help for a while. You antizionists have been getting away with too much mischief, opposing our apartheid ways.
Well, this has got to stop.
The concerned Zionist is back.
Heil Sharon!
- A concerned Zionist
<<the palistinians keep making the odd choice to reject 95% and take 0% reject peace and take "getting their heads smashed together by a much stronger country".>>
the last offer the Israeli state made to the Palestineans was a bantustan statelet consisting of non-contiguous cantons segmented off by military check-points and Israeli-only roads. to suggest that the Palestineans have sacrificed some great deal on the alter of ideology and hatred is total bullshit.
time to familiarize yourself with reality, scottie.
the last offer the Israeli state made to the Palestineans was a bantustan statelet consisting of non-contiguous cantons segmented off by military check-points and Israeli-only roads. to suggest that the Palestineans have sacrificed some great deal on the alter of ideology and hatred is total bullshit.
time to familiarize yourself with reality, scottie.
Dear Concerned Zionist,
As long as you were simply enjoying a camping trip!!!
Whew! Thought you might have been driving that bulldozer hither and yon and forgot to return!
Cheers 'til next time
Angie
As long as you were simply enjoying a camping trip!!!
Whew! Thought you might have been driving that bulldozer hither and yon and forgot to return!
Cheers 'til next time
Angie
aaron
"the last offer the Israeli state made to the Palestineans was a bantustan statelet consisting of non-contiguous cantons segmented off by military check-points and Israeli-only roads."
You miss my point. You see the Palistinians dont have to keep any of their promises. They are after all using terrorism as their bargaining chip. if they offer a little peace and get a state they can restart their terrorism and renegotiate the deal to get more in a few years AND have their state. One does not preclude the other as much as we might wish that it does. The precident is well established.
The current situation is like a mugger attacking people on the street and refusing to take their 50 dollar notes because they want $100.. Its not just bad its STUPID!
"to suggest that the Palestineans have sacrificed some great deal on the alter of ideology and hatred is total bullshit."
- as I said .. no sacrifice. what are they sacrificing?? It is the inherit problem when one side offers real things like land and he other offers whatever it is the palistinians are offering.
"time to familiarize yourself with reality, scottie. "
- There is a serious case of realism in my comments above.
"the last offer the Israeli state made to the Palestineans was a bantustan statelet consisting of non-contiguous cantons segmented off by military check-points and Israeli-only roads."
You miss my point. You see the Palistinians dont have to keep any of their promises. They are after all using terrorism as their bargaining chip. if they offer a little peace and get a state they can restart their terrorism and renegotiate the deal to get more in a few years AND have their state. One does not preclude the other as much as we might wish that it does. The precident is well established.
The current situation is like a mugger attacking people on the street and refusing to take their 50 dollar notes because they want $100.. Its not just bad its STUPID!
"to suggest that the Palestineans have sacrificed some great deal on the alter of ideology and hatred is total bullshit."
- as I said .. no sacrifice. what are they sacrificing?? It is the inherit problem when one side offers real things like land and he other offers whatever it is the palistinians are offering.
"time to familiarize yourself with reality, scottie. "
- There is a serious case of realism in my comments above.
Aaron is quite correct in his assessment above.
Uri Avnery, in his article entitled "The Evil Wall", dated 3 May 2003, likened the building of the "wall" to Apartheid South Africia. He states:
"The racist government set up several black "homelands" nicknamed Bantustans, ostensibly self governing territories whose black leaders were appointed by the white government. Each Bantustan was completely surrounded by the territory of the racist state, cut off from the rest of the world".
Mr. Avnery continues:
"This is exactly what Sharon has in mind when he speaks of a "Palestinian state''. It will consist of several enclaves, each one surrounded by Israeli territory, without an external border with Jordan and Egypt. Sharon has been working on this plan for decades, setting up dozens of settlements according to its map".
Mr. Avnery agrees with my definite belief that the wall has nothing to do with "security". Because if it did, he says, it would have been built directly along the Green Line with all of Israel (except the settlers) on the weatern side, all the Palestinians on the other, with the line being as straight and short as possible.
But, of course, this is not what is happening. We have a wall meandering through Palestinian lands, effectively turning them into ghost towns, virtual prisons.
Mr. Avnery states emphatically:
"Indeed the foul smell of "transfer" hovers over the wall. Its location leaves whole Palestinian villages on the western side trapped between the wall and the Green Line. The inhabitants will not be able to move, to find a livelihood, to breathe. Other villages, like Mas'ha, will remain on the eastern side of the wall, but their land, on which their livelihood depends, will be on the other side".
He goes on:
"There are places like the town of Kalkiliya, which will be almost completely surrounded by a loop of the wall, leaving only a small opening to the West Bank. One of the purposes of the wall is, without a doubt, to make the lives of the inhabitants hell, in order to convince them by and by to 'go away'. It is a kind of creeping transfer".
So here we have Israel talking about the road map whilst at the same time creating 'facts on the ground', just as it has done for the past 50 plus years.
As I stated in another post last night by the time the Palestinians get their "state" there won't be any place left to put it.
Meanwhile, the world sits back watching the continued ethnic cleansing of a people who has suffered way too much already. it doesn't say much for the rest of the world, does it? Bloody hell!
Uri Avnery, in his article entitled "The Evil Wall", dated 3 May 2003, likened the building of the "wall" to Apartheid South Africia. He states:
"The racist government set up several black "homelands" nicknamed Bantustans, ostensibly self governing territories whose black leaders were appointed by the white government. Each Bantustan was completely surrounded by the territory of the racist state, cut off from the rest of the world".
Mr. Avnery continues:
"This is exactly what Sharon has in mind when he speaks of a "Palestinian state''. It will consist of several enclaves, each one surrounded by Israeli territory, without an external border with Jordan and Egypt. Sharon has been working on this plan for decades, setting up dozens of settlements according to its map".
Mr. Avnery agrees with my definite belief that the wall has nothing to do with "security". Because if it did, he says, it would have been built directly along the Green Line with all of Israel (except the settlers) on the weatern side, all the Palestinians on the other, with the line being as straight and short as possible.
But, of course, this is not what is happening. We have a wall meandering through Palestinian lands, effectively turning them into ghost towns, virtual prisons.
Mr. Avnery states emphatically:
"Indeed the foul smell of "transfer" hovers over the wall. Its location leaves whole Palestinian villages on the western side trapped between the wall and the Green Line. The inhabitants will not be able to move, to find a livelihood, to breathe. Other villages, like Mas'ha, will remain on the eastern side of the wall, but their land, on which their livelihood depends, will be on the other side".
He goes on:
"There are places like the town of Kalkiliya, which will be almost completely surrounded by a loop of the wall, leaving only a small opening to the West Bank. One of the purposes of the wall is, without a doubt, to make the lives of the inhabitants hell, in order to convince them by and by to 'go away'. It is a kind of creeping transfer".
So here we have Israel talking about the road map whilst at the same time creating 'facts on the ground', just as it has done for the past 50 plus years.
As I stated in another post last night by the time the Palestinians get their "state" there won't be any place left to put it.
Meanwhile, the world sits back watching the continued ethnic cleansing of a people who has suffered way too much already. it doesn't say much for the rest of the world, does it? Bloody hell!
I have written our Prime Minister to find out the official Canadian view of the erection of this horrid wall.
It may be a good thing for all of us with a sense of decency and fair play, who believe in freedom and justice for all humanity, to contact our government representatives and demand they put pressure on Israel to cease the erection of this "evil wall" as Uri Avnery calls it.
If not, impose sanctions.
It may be a good thing for all of us with a sense of decency and fair play, who believe in freedom and justice for all humanity, to contact our government representatives and demand they put pressure on Israel to cease the erection of this "evil wall" as Uri Avnery calls it.
If not, impose sanctions.
"As I stated in another post last night by the time the Palestinians get their "state" there won't be any place left to put it. "
And why should there be?
In as much as any state is a direct reward for decades of terrorism and murder and considering that there was no "palestinian" land to begin with (it was all Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian) why should the size of the gift of land from Israel be of any concern.
ANY land the newly discovered "palestinians" recieve will be 100% more then they ever had.
And why should there be?
In as much as any state is a direct reward for decades of terrorism and murder and considering that there was no "palestinian" land to begin with (it was all Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian) why should the size of the gift of land from Israel be of any concern.
ANY land the newly discovered "palestinians" recieve will be 100% more then they ever had.
With an attitude like that you should fit right in with the Israeli penchant for stealing lands, shooting civilians, demolishing homes, internment. Need I go on?
Tragic how, in your attempt to portray Israel as this oh, so wonderful place, you never mention anything about the atrocities it's committed over the past 50 plus years. Only thing you can do is blame everything on the Palestinians. We don't buy that, sir. Nope, we don't buy that at all.
Well, you can say whatever nasty thing you want, of course, but on this Board your comments will not go unchallanged, at least not while I'm around, and I plan on being around for a long time.
And there are plenty of others out there who have enough intelligence to know the truth.
Tragic how, in your attempt to portray Israel as this oh, so wonderful place, you never mention anything about the atrocities it's committed over the past 50 plus years. Only thing you can do is blame everything on the Palestinians. We don't buy that, sir. Nope, we don't buy that at all.
Well, you can say whatever nasty thing you want, of course, but on this Board your comments will not go unchallanged, at least not while I'm around, and I plan on being around for a long time.
And there are plenty of others out there who have enough intelligence to know the truth.
That's how the Israelis got their state.
Giving a state to the evil Palestinians will only be a reward for their inexcusable terrorism against a benevolent nation like our little Israel which is so lovingly occupying their homeland. The Palestinians would be rewarded with more land than they already have, that is truly terrible. They are so greedy- how can they even dream of something better than the refugee camps in which the IDF placed them in? Don't they know that they must be happy with whatever makes Israel pleased?
Luckily our reward is greater than what the Palestinians have a chance of getting if there is ever to be justice in the Middle East- and rest assured that we Zionists will do everything in our power for this not to happen!
We get 3 billion big bucks from our lapdog George Bush every year to continue our own ( and since we do it, it's OK!) terrorist campaign against the men, women and children of Palestine. Unlike primitive Palestinian suicide bombers, we use advanced tanks, helicopters and bulldozers to murder and terrify those who oppose us. Bought from USA.
Palestinian terrorism is inhuman, inexcusable, and wrong. Our terrorism is financed with American taxpayers' money, so there is nothing wrong with it.
To all of you antizionists out there, you should truly be ashamed of yourselves. How can you dare to support human rights if Israel chooses to abuse them with American money? Don't you know that money makes everything OK if it comes from the right place? We Zionists are prepared to do anything for money.
Now give us some of yours.
Heil Sharon!
- A concerned Zionist
Luckily our reward is greater than what the Palestinians have a chance of getting if there is ever to be justice in the Middle East- and rest assured that we Zionists will do everything in our power for this not to happen!
We get 3 billion big bucks from our lapdog George Bush every year to continue our own ( and since we do it, it's OK!) terrorist campaign against the men, women and children of Palestine. Unlike primitive Palestinian suicide bombers, we use advanced tanks, helicopters and bulldozers to murder and terrify those who oppose us. Bought from USA.
Palestinian terrorism is inhuman, inexcusable, and wrong. Our terrorism is financed with American taxpayers' money, so there is nothing wrong with it.
To all of you antizionists out there, you should truly be ashamed of yourselves. How can you dare to support human rights if Israel chooses to abuse them with American money? Don't you know that money makes everything OK if it comes from the right place? We Zionists are prepared to do anything for money.
Now give us some of yours.
Heil Sharon!
- A concerned Zionist
"Mr. Avnery agrees with my definite belief that the wall has nothing to do with "security". Because if it did, he says, it would have been built directly along the Green Line with all of Israel (except the settlers) on the weatern side."
If it was about security then the wall would be built in such a way as to include as many settlers as possible. you are confusing "security" with "division if states along the green line".
"The inhabitants will not be able to move, to find a livelihood, to breathe."
Yes I'd expect the wall aint a very nice thing.
"Meanwhile, the world sits back watching the continued ethnic cleansing of a people who has suffered way too much already. it doesn't say much for the rest of the world, does it? Bloody hell!"
What do you want us to do and will it make any productive difference?
"If not, impose sanctions. "
Ahh here we go... Note nth korea has been in the bad books for a long time and it hasnt exactly surrendered.
how about saddam? did he surrender due to sanctions? did the kurds overthrow his government due to sanctions? who suffered the worst under sanctions, saddam? or the poor people?
Also why are you not concerned about putting sanctions on the ocuntries that are worse than israel? could it be because of the above reasons?
"I have written our Prime Minister to find out the official Canadian view of the erection of this horrid wall. "
I know its probably "it sux but what ya gonna do?"
"you never mention anything about the atrocities it's committed over the past 50 plus years. "
Was that the palistinian organizations that you were talking about there.. oh no your talking about israel AGAIN! dont you feel hypocritical when you say that?
HB
"That's how the Israelis got their state. "
hmmm.... *Dissapproving of that aspect of it also*
your point being...?
If it was about security then the wall would be built in such a way as to include as many settlers as possible. you are confusing "security" with "division if states along the green line".
"The inhabitants will not be able to move, to find a livelihood, to breathe."
Yes I'd expect the wall aint a very nice thing.
"Meanwhile, the world sits back watching the continued ethnic cleansing of a people who has suffered way too much already. it doesn't say much for the rest of the world, does it? Bloody hell!"
What do you want us to do and will it make any productive difference?
"If not, impose sanctions. "
Ahh here we go... Note nth korea has been in the bad books for a long time and it hasnt exactly surrendered.
how about saddam? did he surrender due to sanctions? did the kurds overthrow his government due to sanctions? who suffered the worst under sanctions, saddam? or the poor people?
Also why are you not concerned about putting sanctions on the ocuntries that are worse than israel? could it be because of the above reasons?
"I have written our Prime Minister to find out the official Canadian view of the erection of this horrid wall. "
I know its probably "it sux but what ya gonna do?"
"you never mention anything about the atrocities it's committed over the past 50 plus years. "
Was that the palistinian organizations that you were talking about there.. oh no your talking about israel AGAIN! dont you feel hypocritical when you say that?
HB
"That's how the Israelis got their state. "
hmmm.... *Dissapproving of that aspect of it also*
your point being...?
I simply cannot, and will not, respond to anything else Scottie has to say. I simply cannot do it. There is simply nothing to say. Nothing!. Nothing! Nothing!Nothing! I've tried, and tried, and tried, and now I'm just too tired to bother with him any longer.
I'll just leave my dear Concerned Zionist or someone with more patience to deal with him - or not.
You rarely do respond to what i say anyway so it will be little change.
usually you talk at cross purposes to me.
someone makes a post you make a comment that is untrue I correct it and you assume that I disagree with the origional post when actually I only disagree with your untruth. So you accuse me of having a certain point of view and I refer you to the fact that I have the opposite point of view. As JA has done you end up arguing with an imaginarry person. I am saying that you are making some logical errors in your discussion and you are attacking what you THINK my point of view might be.
For a bit of background to that keep in mind that I am a bit of an academic in academia you pick up on people when they say somthing which is untrue even if you afgree with their general point. To allow your argument to be built on a lie (even if it is your own) is to build it on sand.
I also react to when you apply a double standard to israel or you create a definition or a theory and then hypocritically do not apply it to yourself or your own country or fail to realise the impossibility of a solution that you suggest.
Hmm you have lots of systematic biases. I guess the best you could come up with is the often uses
"tireless defender of the (capitalist, anglo saxon, jewish, ___ fill in the blank) establishment"
or somthing like that.
A) boring and recycled
B)I've laid critisism on israel and western countries quite enough in the last few posts dont you think?
Oh wait you dont really read my posts do you? so I guess you would not know
usually you talk at cross purposes to me.
someone makes a post you make a comment that is untrue I correct it and you assume that I disagree with the origional post when actually I only disagree with your untruth. So you accuse me of having a certain point of view and I refer you to the fact that I have the opposite point of view. As JA has done you end up arguing with an imaginarry person. I am saying that you are making some logical errors in your discussion and you are attacking what you THINK my point of view might be.
For a bit of background to that keep in mind that I am a bit of an academic in academia you pick up on people when they say somthing which is untrue even if you afgree with their general point. To allow your argument to be built on a lie (even if it is your own) is to build it on sand.
I also react to when you apply a double standard to israel or you create a definition or a theory and then hypocritically do not apply it to yourself or your own country or fail to realise the impossibility of a solution that you suggest.
Hmm you have lots of systematic biases. I guess the best you could come up with is the often uses
"tireless defender of the (capitalist, anglo saxon, jewish, ___ fill in the blank) establishment"
or somthing like that.
A) boring and recycled
B)I've laid critisism on israel and western countries quite enough in the last few posts dont you think?
Oh wait you dont really read my posts do you? so I guess you would not know
Just a wee note to let you know I'm out and about and away from home (sigh) for the past week and into next.
I sincerely hope that you are continuing the battle in my absence. I'm looking forward to catching up on all your posts when I return.
Stand tall, "oh, fun one"!
Angie
I sincerely hope that you are continuing the battle in my absence. I'm looking forward to catching up on all your posts when I return.
Stand tall, "oh, fun one"!
Angie
Dear Angie,
The concerned Zionist continues his struggle against evil human rights defenders and anti-Zionists lurking on the web and trying to strike a blow for humanity. I met some new Zionist friends on
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1633750_comment.php#1634235
Critical Thinker and hi ( my 2 buds in bulldozers) have taken a liking to me, so we discuss our Zionist policies there. Hi hasn't threatened to kill me yet, so that must mean he likes me, although he seems to be a bit shy to express his comradeship for a Zionist warrior like myself.
I dare you to try spreading your humanity-oriented propaganda to hi or Critical Thinker. They are hard core Zionists- humanity is something alien to them.
I am so proud of these loyal skullheads of mine.
I am going to be gone for the next 2 weeks, so I won't be able to defend my bulldozer loving Zionist brethren against nasty unZionist humane people like you.
You don't have to 'stand tall' if you don't want to, but please just promise me you won't stoop down to our Zionist level.
See you around,
- A concerned Zionist
The concerned Zionist continues his struggle against evil human rights defenders and anti-Zionists lurking on the web and trying to strike a blow for humanity. I met some new Zionist friends on
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1633750_comment.php#1634235
Critical Thinker and hi ( my 2 buds in bulldozers) have taken a liking to me, so we discuss our Zionist policies there. Hi hasn't threatened to kill me yet, so that must mean he likes me, although he seems to be a bit shy to express his comradeship for a Zionist warrior like myself.
I dare you to try spreading your humanity-oriented propaganda to hi or Critical Thinker. They are hard core Zionists- humanity is something alien to them.
I am so proud of these loyal skullheads of mine.
I am going to be gone for the next 2 weeks, so I won't be able to defend my bulldozer loving Zionist brethren against nasty unZionist humane people like you.
You don't have to 'stand tall' if you don't want to, but please just promise me you won't stoop down to our Zionist level.
See you around,
- A concerned Zionist
My dear concerned zionist,
I just dropped by a library to check the Board and see what's been happening in my absence. I note you've been busy in another thread (to which I responded) and despite covering my face with my hands to keep from laughing out loud, it didn't help. There were the curious glances from those seated close to me, and I received a GLOWER from the staff member. (However, he didn't scare me!!! I'll laugh if I want to, so there, hey? I wanted to, and I did, so he can GLOWER all he wants!!)
Enjoy your time away, will miss you, and in the meantime, when I get back to my own computer next week, I'll check out what is going on and respond as per the norm, grin!
And, no, my dear Concerned Zionist, I will not stoop to that level - ever! I promise!!
Angie
I just dropped by a library to check the Board and see what's been happening in my absence. I note you've been busy in another thread (to which I responded) and despite covering my face with my hands to keep from laughing out loud, it didn't help. There were the curious glances from those seated close to me, and I received a GLOWER from the staff member. (However, he didn't scare me!!! I'll laugh if I want to, so there, hey? I wanted to, and I did, so he can GLOWER all he wants!!)
Enjoy your time away, will miss you, and in the meantime, when I get back to my own computer next week, I'll check out what is going on and respond as per the norm, grin!
And, no, my dear Concerned Zionist, I will not stoop to that level - ever! I promise!!
Angie
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$55.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network