Joe Lieberman on "Axis of Evil"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
Funding Israel is supporting terrorism.

Ethnic Clensing = Terrorism.

Supplying the forces that actively engage in it = Funding terrorism.

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 02-14-2002).]

So I suppose we should ignore the fact that Palestinian terroris--sorry, "freedom fighters" are targeting such key military targets as dance clubs and bat mizvahs?

I believe the Israeli-Palenstinian question has only two legitimate perspectives: either both countries are engaging in equal acts of brutality, in which case we must pursue a cease-fire and peace talks - or Palestine is much, much worse.

Considering that when Palestinian terrorists attack, they TARGET civilians, I'd say they're the more egregious combatants. And considering that Israel is the only Western democracy in that part of the world, I'd say it's clear that we should be their allies.

(It's also amazing that the "David and Goliath" analogy has been so twisted that the JEWISH state, a state surrounded by Arab nations that want to see it wiped off the face of the earth, is the "Goliath" harrasing the supposedly innocent Arafat. I can see how that mentality can also lead one to believe that the U.S. is causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children, but the mentality is still terribly wrong.)

In fact, if you look at the death toll and consider Israel's tiny size and population, they've gone through their own 9/11 - and then some. Month by month, more innocent Israelis are killed by acts of terror. The U.S. has been right to meet our terrorists with overwhelming military force; I think that we shouldn't beg Israel to meet their killers at the negotiation table.
 
A-Bubba speeks for those of who wait
smile.gif


100% Bubba, thanx!
 
Bubba does it again! I was about to get into this and then read Bubba's post. Well Done!
 
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Considering that when Palestinian terrorists attack, they TARGET civilians,
Israel just announced a few days ago that they are planning to do this too.
 
Originally posted by Klodomir:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Considering that when Palestinian terrorists attack, they TARGET civilians,
Israel just announced a few days ago that they are planning to do this too.

Source, please. I find that EXTREMELY hard to believe.
 
CNN.dk
http://www.cnn.dk/verden/artikel:aid=119710/

It says:

Israel is prepared to directly attack civilians in the Palestinian areas that Israel has occupied since 1967.

Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said Monday during a meeting in the Israeli parliament Knesset that if the Palestinians continue to fire Kassam-2 rockets at Israel, then it is likely that Israel will attack the civilians in the "territories", as Israel calls the occupied areas.

On Sunday the Palestinians fired a so-called Kassam-2 rocket from Gaza and a couple of kilometers into Israel where it impacted on a field without causing any damage. The radical group Hamas produces the rockets.
 
Until I see multiple sources saying this, I would say its a misprint or the person was misunderstood or words were taken out of context. There is no logical reason to attack civilians. What purpose would that serve except to sever its ties with the USA completely. It won't happen because it waste resources and ruins the countries international position. It accomplishes nothing too. Just moronic. Which most terrorist are.
 
So I suppose we should ignore the fact that Palestinian terroris--sorry, "freedom fighters" are targeting such key military targets as dance clubs and bat mizvahs?

Nope. That was not my intention at all. But the actions of Palestinian terroris does not exuse the war crimes being comitted by Israel on a daily basis.

I believe the Israeli-Palenstinian question has only two legitimate perspectives: either both countries are engaging in equal acts of brutality, in which case we must pursue a cease-fire and peace talks - or Palestine is much, much worse.

I believe it is the former.

Considering that when Palestinian terrorists attack, they TARGET civilians, I'd say they're the more egregious combatants. And considering that Israel is the only Western democracy in that part of the world, I'd say it's clear that we should be their allies.

The ratio of Palestinian deaths to Israeli is something like 5 - 10x greater. And make no mistake, Isreael targets civillans, it's a matter of policy. They impose apartheid-like rules on Arabs - hardly a "democracy"

(It's also amazing that the "David and Goliath" analogy has been so twisted that the JEWISH state, a state surrounded by Arab nations that want to see it wiped off the face of the earth, is the "Goliath" harrasing the supposedly innocent Arafat.

Israel invaded and sized land in violation of international law and has proceeded to subjugate them at gunpoint.

If Israel wants to be treated better by its neighbors, it has to start thinking of Arabs as humans and not as "cancer" and "lice" as they are refferred to by Israeli leaders who see Jews as the chosen people and Arabs as some sort of sub-human speicies.

You wonder why the Arab nations are so hostile?
"Our fathers had reached the frontiers recognized in the partition plan; the Six-Day War generation has managed to reach Suez, Jordan, and the Golan Heights. This is not the end. After the present cease-fire lines, there will be new ones. They will extend beyond Jordan ... to Lebanon and ... to central Syria as well."
-- Moshe Dayan to Zionist youth at a meeting in the Golan Heights July, 1968

I can see how that mentality can also lead one to believe that the U.S. is causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children, but the mentality is still terribly wrong.)

Israel commits crimes.

Israel is called on it.

Israel refuses to comply with calls by every other nation on the face of the planet sans the U.S to cease it's illegal activities.

The U.S bankrolls their further actions.

In Iraq.........................

Saddam pisses off the U.S

Saddam refuses to do what Washington demands.

Sanctions are imposed on NON WEAPON RELATED ITEMS. You see, it's not the ban on items that are designed for killing that is the problem, but the fact the current sanctions are blocking the importation of anything that is considered "dual use". Anything that could possibly in any way be indirectly used to contribute to the manufacture of weapons. So, hospitals are forced to use gasoline in leiu of antiseptic, they are denied vaccines for common illnesses, the water supply is contaminated because they can't get chlorine, and a simply staggering number of everyday items are banned.

500,000 people have died as a direct result of these sanctions. Most of them children. The sanctions TARGET CIVILLIANS. Everyone knows Saddam can get what he needs, but the civillans don't have the same connections. But the U.S is afraid of losing face, they don't want to admit that they are WRONG. That the sanctions are genocidal.

On 60 Minutes, Madeline Albright was asked if the deaths of 500,000 civillans, mostly children was an acceptable price to pay to oust Saddam.

She said "YES"

In my mind, she is in the same league as Osama Bin Laden. She has the same total disregard for human life as he does and is willing to sacrifice anyone to achieve her goals. And she is not alone. Her attitude is shared by many in the U.S government.

3,000 deliberately targeted innocent people die in the U.S and it is worthy of launching a world-wide war.

500,000 deliberately targeted innocent people die in Iraq and it's an acceptable means of achiving foreign policy goals.

We curse the name of Osama Bin Laden when he does the very things that we dismiss as an everyday means of achiving our goals.

In fact, if you look at the death toll and consider Israel's tiny size and population, they've gone through their own 9/11 - and then some. Month by month, more innocent Israelis are killed by acts of terror.

That's too bad, but they have killed far more Palestineans through acts that are just as illegal and immoral as a suicide bombing is.

The U.S. has been right to meet our terrorists with overwhelming military force; I think that we shouldn't beg Israel to meet their killers at the negotiation table.

Israel is the invader, Israel is the occpying force using 3 billion dollars in U.S taxpayer funds to commmit crimes. They are so far from inncocent it sickens me. They cannot claim any moral high ground.

Both sides have their share of killers.

The Palestineans need to realize that Israel considers Jews to be the chosen people, to be better than Arabs - they have come out and said it on countless occasions - and that they have a manifest destiny that makes negotiating extremly difficult. And they have to understand that terrorism will get them nowhere.

The Israelis need to understand that the Palestineans have absolutely nothing to lose thanks to them, and if they give them a reason to you know.......want to live they might be more receptive. The fact Ehud Barak said if he were a Palestinian that he would have become a terrorist is a stunning admission of how bad the situation is.

There is no logical reason to attack civilians.

Because Israel wants to ethnicly cleanse territory, and terrorizing the current population is the best way to go about that. and the Palestinians see no other option.

"... we have no solution, that you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wants to can leave -- and we will see where this process leads? In five years we may have 200,000 less people -- and that is a matter of enorous importance."
-- Moshe Dayan encouraging the transfer of Gaza strip refugees to Jordan (from Noam Chomsky's Deterring Democracy, 1992, p.434, quoted in Nur Masalha's A Land Without A People, 1997 p.92).

"In strategic terms, the settlements (in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza) are of no importance." What makes them important, he added, was that "they constitute an obstacle, an unsurmountable obstacle to the establishment of an independent Arab State west of the river Jordan."
--Binyamin Begin, (son of the late Menahem Begin and a prominent voice in the Likud party writing in 1991, Quoted on page 159 of Findley's Deliberate Deceptions)

"We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country .... expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."
-- Theodore Herzl (from Rafael Patai, Ed. The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Vol I)

"... it is the duty of the [Israeli] leadership to explain to the public a number of truths. One truth is that there is no Zionism, no settlement, and no Jewish state without evacuating Arabs, and without expropriating lands and their fencing off."
-- Yesha'ayahu Ben-Porat, (Yedi'ot Aharonot 07/14/1972) responding to public controversy regarding the Israeli evictions of Palestinians in Rafah, Gaza, in 1972. (Cited in Nur Masalha's "A Land Without A People" 1997, p.98)


"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel.... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours ... When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do will be to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle."
-- Israeli Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan (Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 4/13/83, NYTimes 4/14/83)

"In our country there is room only for the Jews. We shall say to the Arabs: Get out! If they don't agree, if they resist, we shall drive them out by force."
--Professor Ben-Zion Dinur Israel's First Minister of Education, 1954 from History of the Haganah

"I have learned that the state of Israel cannot be ruled in our generation without deceit and adventurism."
-- Moshe Sharett, Israel's first Foreign Minister and later a Prime Minister (p.51 Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel", 1987).

"Israeli forces occupied [the Golan Heights] during the 1967 war. With its occupation of the Golan Heights, Israel expelled over 120,000 inhabitants - mostly Syrians but also several thousand Palestinian refugees. At the same time, Israel destroyed two cities, 133 villages and 61 farms. After this devastation, only 6,396 inhabitants remained in the six villages left standing. On December 14, 1981, the Israeli Knesset unilaterally annexed the Golan Heights in clear contravention of international law. The UN Security Council subsequently declared the annexation illegal and, to date, not a single state has recognized it. Israel has so far built more than 40 settlements, housing over 15,000 settlers in the Golan Heights."
-- New Yorkers for a Just Middle East Peace (NYJMEP) from a letter dating 08/13/1998 sent to Perry Odak, Chief Executive Officer of Ben and Jerry's, protesting a reported agreement between the popular ice cream company and Eden Springs water company, based on the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. ... Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice."
-- David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

Some democracy.

If you are a U.S taxpayer, this is what you are paying for. And this is why people hate you.

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 02-17-2002).]
 
In Iraq.........................

Saddam pisses off the U.S

Saddam refuses to do what Washington demands.

Sanctions are imposed on NON WEAPON RELATED ITEMS. You see, it's not the ban on items that are designed for killing that is the problem, but the fact the current sanctions are blocking the importation of anything that is considered "dual use". Anything that could possibly in any way be indirectly used to contribute to the manufacture of weapons. So, hospitals are forced to use gasoline in leiu of antiseptic, they are denied vaccines for common illnesses, the water supply is contaminated because they can't get chlorine, and a simply staggering number of everyday items are banned.

500,000 people have died as a direct result of these sanctions. Most of them children. The sanctions TARGET CIVILLIANS. Everyone knows Saddam can get what he needs, but the civillans don't have the same connections. But the U.S is afraid of losing face, they don't want to admit that they are WRONG. That the sanctions are genocidal.

On 60 Minutes, Madeline Albright was asked if the deaths of 500,000 civillans, mostly children was an acceptable price to pay to oust Saddam.

She said "YES"

In my mind, she is in the same league as Osama Bin Laden. She has the same total disregard for human life as he does and is willing to sacrifice anyone to achieve her goals. And she is not alone. Her attitude is shared by many in the U.S government.

3,000 deliberately targeted innocent people die in the U.S and it is worthy of launching a world-wide war.

500,000 deliberately targeted innocent people die in Iraq and it's an acceptable means of achiving foreign policy goals.

We curse the name of Osama Bin Laden when he does the very things that we dismiss as an everyday means of achiving our goals.



I notice three things.

First, I find the terribly predictable implication that Iraq is suffering because of "U.S." sanctions, Hussein refusing to do "what Washington demands." Last time I checked, the sanctions were the doing of the United Nations; if what you say is true, the same U.N. that's bravely condemning Israel for targeting Arab civilians is also causing the deaths of a half-million other Arab civilians.

Second, I notice the utter absense of any blame whatsover on the part of Saddam Hussein for the conditions in Iraq: no mention of the attempts to build weapons of mass destruction, the root cause of the sanctions, many of which do indeed restrict military goods. No word either about the funneling of money earmarked for feeding the people into projects to build these weapons. No mention of the oppression of the Kurds and Shiites, nor the use of chemical weapons on his own people. Compared to the damning comments about the U.S., I'd say that the lack of outrage toward Hussein is either an implict condoning of his actions or the sign of complete and utter denial about them.

Third, there is this comment, which bears repeating still:


3,000 deliberately targeted innocent people die in the U.S and it is worthy of launching a world-wide war.

500,000 deliberately targeted innocent people die in Iraq and it's an acceptable means of achiving foreign policy goals.

We curse the name of Osama Bin Laden when he does the very things that we dismiss as an everyday means of achiving our goals.



I can only infer one thing: that DoctorGonzo honestly believes that the United States and its leaders are in fact FAR WORSE than al Queda and Osama bin Ladin.

In the midst of these accusations, I get the sense that Gonzo feels the U.S. got what it deserved - that justice was served - on September 11th, 2001.

Since that day, I have been accused of going too far in disagreeing with dissenters, of being arrogant, and of calling people names undeserved. In particular, I was criticized for declaring that certain sentiments and statements were anti-American.

I may have been wrong then, though I still stand by a few of my statements; either way, I may have overstepped common courtesy once or twice.

But surely there must be statements that are clearly anti-American. Surely these sentiments exist.

To all who read this I now ask, if DoctorGonzo's comments above are not anti-American, what comments are?

And if these comments are indeed anti-American, how am I wrong to say so?

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 02-17-2002).]
 
I can only comment that I agree with you Bubba, and I will not say anything else. You are probably aware of my past, and realize comments made by DGonzo and others are a direct slap in my face if I bother to read them and take them literally. Having said that, I will go the heck back to a forum that will not get me "fired up", but I wanted to say "thanks" to you.
 
Dr. Gonzo,
This figure of 500,000 dead because of sanctions in Iraq is inaccurate and unverifiable. Iraq is a Police State, and no organization would be able to accurately verify such a statistic. The Oil For Food program allows for 18 billion dollars of oil to be sold to buy what ever Iraq needs or humanitarian concerns are. Do you have any Idea how many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa would like to have their hands on 18 Billion dollars a year in Oil Revenue. Despite Sanctions, Iraq has a GDP per capita higher than 72 other countries and about the same as their neighbor Syria. Iraq is 117 on the list, not far behind "Modern China" at #88.
Massive smuggling occurs on all of Iraqs borders. You can even buy high definition TVs in downtown Baghdad.
I find it strange you would side with Bin Ladin's sick twisted logic. 500,000 is an overestimate of deaths in Iraq since 1991. Any deaths that have occured or by an large the resposibility of the regime in power and not sanctions. Of course, the forces that had large business interest in Iraq before 1990, mainly the Russia and China and to a lesser degree France, are pushing for the lifting of Sanctions. Much of Iraq's 1990 debt of 80 Billion dollars is owed to the former Soviet Union.
Yes the USA bankrolls Israel, the only true democracy in the middle east. The Arabs that hate us, hate us because they know, as long as we support Israel all their pathetic attempts at destroying Israel will never work. Oh, and Bin Ladin uses this as a political arguement for his attack on the USA, yet his attack is based on his own sick and stupid greed of overthrowing moderate Arab governments and elevating his position and influence in the Middle East, he could care less about people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
It behooves the PLO to get a leader that wants to make peace and would have accepted the agreement put together with Clintons help. It is their rejection of that effort that has caused the problems of the past year and a half.
 
First, I find the terribly predictable implication that Iraq is suffering because of "U.S." sanctions, Hussein refusing to do "what Washington demands." Last time I checked, the sanctions were the doing of the United Nations; if what you say is true, the same U.N. that's bravely condemning Israel for targeting Arab civilians is also causing the deaths of a half-million other Arab civilians.

The U.S has blocked every attempt by the U.N to lift the sanctions. So, the sanctions are their fault.

Second, I notice the utter absense of any blame whatsover on the part of Saddam Hussein for the conditions in Iraq: no mention of the attempts to build weapons of mass destruction, the root cause of the sanctions, many of which do indeed restrict military goods.

You of all people should be aware that the actions of a nation's leaders do not give another party carte blanche to target their civillian population.

No word either about the funneling of money earmarked for feeding the people into projects to build these weapons. No mention of the oppression of the Kurds and Shiites, nor the use of chemical weapons on his own people.

Guess who kept supporting Saddam after he gassed his own people?

The U.S of course.

Compared to the damning comments about the U.S., I'd say that the lack of outrage toward Hussein is either an implict condoning of his actions or the sign of complete and utter denial about them.

Nice attempt to smear me, but you failed.

Saddam's actions are irrelevant in my example because I was pointing out that people like Osama are rightfully condemded for targeting innocents because they hate a particular government, but when we target civillians to make a government suffer it's considered OK.

I can only infer one thing: that DoctorGonzo honestly believes that the United States and its leaders are in fact FAR WORSE than al Queda and Osama bin Ladin.

I conclude the U.S has no moral high ground to take because it has no problem killing cvillians for its own ends.

In the midst of these accusations, I get the sense that Gonzo feels the U.S. got what it deserved - that justice was served - on September 11th, 2001.

You are a diseased cunt who should rot in hell for such mindless slander.

But surely there must be statements that are clearly anti-American. Surely these sentiments exist.

To all who read this I now ask, if DoctorGonzo's comments above are not anti-American, what comments are?

I am simply holding the U.S to the same standards it holds the rest of the world. I know it must be tough to actually get some criticsm, but deal with it.

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 02-18-2002).]
 
Originally posted by TylerDurden:
Fuck, alot of people here can't read.
I think a lot of people here only read their own posts + some things they want to see

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[This message has been edited by Salome (edited 02-18-2002).]
 
You are a diseased cunt who should rot in hell for such mindless slander.


Hate speech aside, it isn't slander, and it isn't mindless.

I will remind you of your own words (emphasis mine):


In my mind, (Albright) is in the same league as Osama Bin Laden. She has the same total disregard for human life as he does and is willing to sacrifice anyone to achieve her goals. And she is not alone. Her attitude is shared by many in the U.S government.

3,000 deliberately targeted innocent people die in the U.S and it is worthy of launching a world-wide war.

500,000 deliberately targeted innocent people die in Iraq and it's an acceptable means of achiving foreign policy goals.

We curse the name of Osama Bin Laden when he does the very things that we dismiss as an everyday means of achiving our goals.

...

If you are a U.S taxpayer, (ethnic cleansing) is what you are paying for. And this is why people hate you.



You accuse the United States of killing civilians on a scale that dwarfs the acts of bin Ladin. You accuse the United States of funding and condoning Israel's so-called ethnic cleasning that you believe also dwarfs the death toll caused by Palestinian terrorists. Moreover, you suggest that the U.S. does this as a matter of course, as our modus operandi.

You not only suggest that the United States "has no moral high ground", you also indisputably imply that the United States is much, much worse than its enemies.

Now, let's look at Palestinian terrorism. Sure, you believe they should realize that "terrorism will get them nowhere", but you don't outright condemn the terrorism. Rather, you ignore the existence of the attitude held by many Palestinians and other Arabs that Israel should be driven into the sea - and you claim that "the ratio of Palestinian deaths to Israeli is something like 5 - 10x greater."

You seem to be excusing the behavior of the Palestinian terrorists, and it seems that outright justification of that behavior isn't far off.

The only alternative to justifying their behavior is condemning it. Between the two, your post is much, much closer to justifying Palestinian terrorism.

Likewise, I could look at your post and infer that you think that America is the evil oppressor (or, as others say, "Great Satan") that engages in genocide on a regular basis - but that 9/11 was still an act that is impossible to justify.

I could infer that, but I don't see anything that actually suggests that. It seems far easier to read your entire post and come to the conclusion that you think America got what it had coming to it.

It cannot be directly inferred, truly. But, for that reason, I said that "I get the sense that Gonzo feels the U.S. got what it deserved."

But I still get that sense, and it isn't mindless slander...

...unlike calling someone a "diseased cunt who should rot in hell."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom