Discussion:
The most penetrating interview about what's actually going on re our Middle East policy that I've heard yet.
(too old to reply)
HHW
2008-06-09 15:41:40 UTC
Permalink
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1628&updaterx=2008-06-07+03%3A30%3A51

A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.
jgarbuz
2008-06-09 16:12:37 UTC
Permalink
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
Ariadne
2008-06-09 16:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
dsharavi@gmail.com
2008-06-09 16:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.

Deborah
Count 1
2008-06-09 16:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and impress
the less intellectually capable. I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally, possible.
HHW
2008-06-10 05:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and impress
the less intellectually capable. I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran.  Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally,  possible.
Which, pretext or ally?

Let us know what the polls say in Israel about going it alone against
Iran. Then we'll talk about loaning them our Air Force and Navy.
HHW
2008-06-10 05:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.

I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran.  Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally,  possible.
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades. Apparently you want
us to be us to be Israel's blood hungry wolves.
Count 1
2008-06-10 12:53:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.

I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***

Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to respond
to this aggression.

You didn't answer.
HHW
2008-06-11 18:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you, Ratner.

In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.

I denounce any American role in or responsibility for Israel's
"response," i.e., Israel's bombing of Iran. I say, from here forward
Israel is on her own. American support for Israel (read indirect
support for her crimes) simply emboldens the country's criminal
leadership. They commit more and worse crimes when shielded by
America. They've admitted that "they need our help" to attack Iran.
They are whining incessantly about it. It's simple, just don't give it
to them. They won't attack alone. And they will see the handwriting on
the wall as to compromise with the Arab and Muslim World. The refusal
to help Israel commit a crime, the refusal to be an active, complicit,
coconspirator, is by no means a failure to "allow her" to do anything.
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.

Once we've regained a decent global reputation we might even be in a
position to join the civilized world in sanctioning Israel so as to
more speedily change her criminal ways.
Count 1
2008-06-11 20:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***

Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.

***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***

I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening. I could have
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.

***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***

After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
HHW
2008-06-11 22:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening.
Of course it is threatening. The problem is that the Israeli
leadership have created the situation themselves. They have
perpetrated a 40 year illegal and extremely brutal occupation of
another people's country. That is what has engendered the belligerent
speech. Why should it surprise you? And why do you suppose you can
convince us to focus on a symptom, i.e., certain forms of
communication, when you refuse even to discuss the cause?

I could have
Post by HHW
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
Israel sells weapons all over the world. Do her leaders lie awake at
night imagining the misery they will inevitably cause? Has ISRAEL
committed acts of aggression by doing so? Maybe you should express
yourself in musical notation, Richard. The more narrow ambit might
assist in achieving precision.

At this point I'm pasting my post back in here. We know how easily you
are embarrassed and how often you flee from what I say. But there are
times when it needs to be faced:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

HHW:

Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you, Ratner.

In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression
though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.

I denounce any American role in or responsibility for Israel's
"response," i.e., Israel's bombing of Iran. I say, from here forward
Israel is on her own. American support for Israel (read indirect
support for her crimes) simply emboldens the country's criminal
leadership. They commit more and worse crimes when shielded by
America. They've admitted that "they need our help" to attack Iran.
They are whining incessantly about it. It's simple, just don't give
it
to them. They won't attack alone. And they will see the handwriting
on
the wall as to compromise with the Arab and Muslim World. The refusal
to help Israel commit a crime, the refusal to be an active,
complicit,
coconspirator, is by no means a failure to "allow her" to do
anything.
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.

Once we've regained a decent global reputation we might even be in a
position to join the civilized world in sanctioning Israel so as to
more speedily change her criminal ways.

Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you, Ratner.

In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression
though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.

---------------------------------------------------------------


She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
Once we've regained a decent global reputation we might even be in a
position to join the civilized world in sanctioning Israel so as to
more speedily change her criminal ways.


I denounce any American role in or responsibility for Israel's
"response," i.e., Israel's bombing of Iran. I say, from here forward
Israel is on her own. American support for Israel (read indirect
support for her crimes) simply emboldens the country's criminal
leadership. They commit more and worse crimes when shielded by
America. They've admitted that "they need our help" to attack Iran.
They are whining incessantly about it. It's simple, just don't give
it
to them. They won't attack alone. And they will see the handwriting
on
the wall as to compromise with the Arab and Muslim World. The refusal
to help Israel commit a crime, the refusal to be an active,
complicit,
coconspirator, is by no means a failure to "allow her" to do
anything.
Post by HHW
***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Count 1
2008-06-11 22:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening.
***
Of course it is threatening. The problem is that the Israeli
leadership have created the situation themselves.
***

::Sigh::

Yes - I know Hunter. From your perspective it's always going to be Israel's
fault. But since I dismiss your rants as born from ignorance don't bother
expending the energy. I'm simply making sure you understand that Israel is -
in a very real way - under threat by Iran.

Whereas Iran is not under threat by Israel. The Prime Minister of Israel
does not threaten to wipe Iran from the map, and the IDF do not drape their
weapons with banners extolling the virtues of destroying Iran. It simply
doesn't happen, so there is no moral equivalency you can create by pointing
the figure at Israel and making up a bunch of lies about stealing a nation.


I could have
Post by Count 1
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
Israel sells weapons all over the world.
***

That's not an equatable point. Iran is supplying a proxy army in the Gaza
strip. Israel is supplying no proxy army working against Iran. Iran is
clearly the sole aggressor in this relationship.
HHW
2008-06-12 03:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening.
***
Of course it is threatening. The problem is that the Israeli
leadership have created the situation themselves.
***
For the Middle East Arab and Muslim peoples the alternatives are not
pleasant. They are: resist Israeli aggression and occupation, or
abandon the Palestinians to their fate as a stateless, dispossessed
people. The Egyptians and Jordanians excepted, they have chosen
resistance, the more shall we say "manly" of the unattractive options.
When I say that the Israeli leadership have created the problem
themselves, I can't imagine you would deny it. After all those men in
green with the rifles are occupying the West Bank pursuant to orders,
pursuant to governmental policy. That policy began with the
implantation of the first colonial settlement within a few weeks of
the end of the 1967 war. A few years later it matured into a formal
Master Plan. It's detailed in Aronson's book "Creating Facts". The
occupation and and colonization of the West Bank is a situation the
Israeli "leadership have created themselves." Instead of pretending to
"sigh" you could at least attempt to argue their position. You know
better than to do that opposite me out here in the bright light of
day.
Post by HHW
Yes - I know Hunter. From your perspective it's always going to be Israel's
fault.
They could begin atonement for it by withdrawing.

But since I dismiss your rants as born from ignorance don't bother
Post by HHW
expending the energy.
High School debaters are benched for such disingenuous tactics. You
either argue the the proposition and present the evidence supporting
it or you default emitting squiddish billows of ink to obscure a
retreat such as this..


I'm simply making sure you understand that Israel is -
Post by HHW
in a very real way - under threat by Iran.
But wouldn't be if the Palestinian People were not under an illegal
occupation.
Post by HHW
Whereas Iran is not under threat by Israel. The Prime Minister of Israel
does not threaten to wipe Iran from the map,
His hundred and fifty nuclear weapons deliverable by missile, aircraft
and submarine say it for him. And anyhow, Mr. Olmert has the luxury of
having Mr. Moffaz deliver the threats.

and the IDF do not drape their
Post by HHW
weapons with banners extolling the virtues of destroying Iran.
It's worse. They have little girls writing hostile messages on
artillery shells and spread the image all over the world.

It simply
Post by HHW
doesn't happen, so there is no moral equivalency you can create by pointing
the figure at Israel and making up a bunch of lies about stealing a nation.
What is it about the theft of the Palestinian homeland which you don't
understand? I'll be happy to help. There are few secrets about it any
more.

1967 was a brief series of wars of choice by Israel. It's obvious
becuase of what israel has done with the occupied territories that the
motive was primarily expansionist. You just look at what they did as
occupiers, not at what they were saying. Your style of debate is to
avoid addressing the subject.
Post by HHW
 I could have
Post by Count 1
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
Israel sells weapons all over the world. Do her leaders lie awake at
night imagining the misery they will inevitably cause? Has ISRAEL
committed acts of aggression by doing so? Maybe you should express
yourself in musical notation, Richard. The more narrow ambit might
assist in achieving precision.
Post by HHW
***
That's not an equatable point. Iran is supplying a proxy army in the Gaza
strip. Israel is supplying no proxy army working against Iran. Iran is
clearly the sole aggressor in this relationship.
Not so. Israel is working from Kurdistan with Iranian minorities to
subvert and destabilize the regime. IIRC I recently posted an article
about it. Regime change is a fundamentally aggressive policy. And
that's what Ahmadinijad actually threatened Iran with.

And what you are forgetting again is that the resistance from Gaza and
the West bank is a LEGITIMATE struggle for national liberation. Israel
has no cognizable claim whatever to those territories. Did you read
Professor D'Amato's article on the law involved? I posted that too. If
you can't find it I'll get the url for you.
HHW
2008-06-12 04:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening.
***
Of course it is threatening. The problem is that the Israeli
leadership have created the situation themselves.
***
For the Middle East Arab and Muslim peoples the alternatives are not
pleasant. They are: resist Israeli aggression and occupation, or
abandon the Palestinians to their fate as a stateless, dispossessed
people. The Egyptians and Jordanians excepted, they have chosen
resistance, the more shall we say "manly" of the unattractive options.
When I say that the Israeli leadership have created the problem
themselves, I can't imagine you would deny it. After all those men in
green with the rifles are occupying the West Bank pursuant to orders,
pursuant to governmental policy. That policy began with the
implantation of the first colonial settlement within a few weeks of
the end of the 1967 war. A few years later it matured into a formal
Master Plan. It's detailed in Aronson's book "Creating Facts". The
occupation and and colonization of the West Bank is a situation the
Israeli "leadership have created themselves." Instead of pretending to
"sigh" you could at least attempt to argue their position. You know
better than to do that opposite me out here in the bright light of
day.
Post by HHW
Yes - I know Hunter. From your perspective it's always going to be Israel's
fault.
They could begin atonement for it by withdrawing.
 But since I dismiss your rants as born from ignorance don't bother
Post by HHW
expending the energy.
High School debaters are benched for such disingenuous tactics. You
either argue the the proposition and present the evidence supporting
it or you default emitting squiddish billows of ink to obscure a
retreat such as this..
I'm simply making sure you understand that Israel is -
Post by HHW
in a very real way - under threat by Iran.
But wouldn't be if the Palestinian People were not under an illegal
occupation.
Post by HHW
Whereas Iran is not under threat by Israel. The Prime Minister of Israel
does not threaten to wipe Iran from the map,
His hundred and fifty nuclear weapons deliverable by missile, aircraft
and submarine say it for him. And anyhow, Mr. Olmert has the luxury of
having Mr. Moffaz deliver the threats.
 and the IDF do not drape their
Post by HHW
weapons with banners extolling the virtues of destroying Iran.
It's worse. They  have little girls writing hostile messages on
artillery shells and spread the image all over the world.
 It simply
Post by HHW
doesn't happen, so there is no moral equivalency you can create by pointing
the figure at Israel and making up a bunch of lies about stealing a nation.
What is it about the theft of the Palestinian homeland which you don't
understand? I'll be happy to help. There are few secrets about it any
more.
1967 was a brief series of wars of choice by Israel. It's obvious
becuase of what israel has done with the occupied territories that the
motive was primarily expansionist. You just look at what they did as
occupiers, not at what they were saying. Your style of debate is to
avoid addressing the subject.
Post by HHW
 I could have
Post by Count 1
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
Israel sells weapons all over the world. Do her leaders lie awake at
night imagining the misery they will inevitably cause? Has ISRAEL
committed acts of aggression by doing so? Maybe you should express
yourself in musical notation, Richard. The more narrow ambit might
assist in achieving precision.
Post by HHW
***
That's not an equatable point. Iran is supplying a proxy army in the Gaza
strip. Israel is supplying no proxy army working against Iran. Iran is
clearly the sole aggressor in this relationship.
Not so. Israel is working from Kurdistan with Iranian minorities to
subvert and destabilize the regime. IIRC I recently posted an article
about it. Regime change is a fundamentally aggressive policy. And
that's what Ahmadinijad actually threatened Israel
This is posted to correct a transposition in the above sentence.

with.
Post by HHW
And what you are forgetting again is that the resistance from Gaza and
the West bank is a LEGITIMATE struggle for national liberation. Israel
has no cognizable claim whatever to those territories. Did you read
Professor D'Amato's article on the law involved? I posted that too. If
you can't find it I'll get the url for you.
Count 1
2008-06-12 14:09:26 UTC
Permalink
But since I dismiss your rants as born from ignorance don't bother
Post by Count 1
expending the energy.
***
High School debaters are benched for such disingenuous tactics. You
either argue the the proposition and present the evidence supporting
it or you default emitting squiddish billows of ink to obscure a
retreat such as this..
***

Gimme a break. An excellent definition of insanity is repeating the same
thing over and over and expecting a different result. I am fully aware that
no amount of information presented to you disputing your biased
interpretation of current events is going to alter your opinion one iota.
Not being insane, I'm not going to repeat it and hope for something
different.


I'm simply making sure you understand that Israel is -
Post by Count 1
in a very real way - under threat by Iran.
***
But wouldn't be if the Palestinian People were not under an illegal
occupation.
***

Possibly - but they definetely wouldn't be if Iran didn't threaten them.
Post by Count 1
Whereas Iran is not under threat by Israel. The Prime Minister of Israel
does not threaten to wipe Iran from the map,
***
His hundred and fifty nuclear weapons deliverable by missile, aircraft
and submarine say it for him.
***

No they don't. Israel has never used her arsenal as a threat. Her policy of
ambiguity creates deterrence, not an offensive posture.

***
And anyhow, Mr. Olmert has the luxury of
having Mr. Moffaz deliver the threats.
***

About time someone in Israel began to respond to this naked aggression
coming from Iran.


and the IDF do not drape their
Post by Count 1
weapons with banners extolling the virtues of destroying Iran.
***
It's worse. They have little girls writing hostile messages on
artillery shells and spread the image all over the world.
***

LOL - you might wanna check your sources on that one. However a few
pencilled messages on bombs is hardly comparable to military parades -
designed to motivate a whole people towards a goal of genocide.


It simply
Post by Count 1
doesn't happen, so there is no moral equivalency you can create by pointing
the figure at Israel and making up a bunch of lies about stealing a nation.
***
What is it about the theft of the Palestinian homeland which you don't
understand?
***

Please don't ask me to understand your fantasies. Your gross misperception
and propagandizing against Israel isn't something I dont' 'understand' - its
something I don't agree with.
Post by Count 1
I could have
Post by Count 1
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
Israel sells weapons all over the world.
***
That's not an equatable point. Iran is supplying a proxy army in the Gaza
strip. Israel is supplying no proxy army working against Iran. Iran is
clearly the sole aggressor in this relationship.
***
Not so. Israel is working from Kurdistan with Iranian minorities to
subvert and destabilize the regime. IIRC I recently posted an article
about it.
***

LOL. I'm sure whatever third rate hate site you got the article from made
you pant with glee - but I said supplying a proxy army - and you can bet
your bottom dollar Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and a whole host of subnational
groups are working very hard to destabilize Israel. Tit for tat in the
intelligence game.


***
And what you are forgetting again is that the resistance from Gaza and
the West bank is a LEGITIMATE struggle for national liberation.
***

Resistance from Gaza is resistance to peace, resistance to a two state
solution, resistance to normalized relations and acceptance of Israel's
existance. If they want national liberation, they would have take one of the
five deals they've been offered.

What Ghandhi did was legitimate. And it worked. Blowing up people on a bus
is not legitimate, and it isn't working. Launching crudely made and very
inaccurate rockets towards civilians is not legitimate, and it isn't
working.

***
Israel
has no cognizable claim whatever to those territories.
***

LOL. Israel makes almost no claim to those territories. Their most recent
offer included all of Gaza and 91.5% of the WB, with concessions and a piece
of territory for continuity betwen Gaza and WB. It was rejected by the
Palestinians - another deal they've rejected - because they want Israel only
to be allowed 1.8% of WB.

Now lets all hold our collective breath waiting for the Palestinian
negotiating team to make a counter offer that somehow differs from their
previous offers.....
jgarbuz
2008-06-11 23:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with. The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening.
Of course it is threatening. The problem is that the Israeli
leadership have created the situation themselves. They have
perpetrated a 40 year illegal and extremely brutal occupation of
another people's country.<<
Which other people's country? In any case, wars are always followed by
occupations, and occupations end when there is a peace settlement and
treaty, usually favorable to the victor.
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
That is what has engendered the belligerent
speech. Why should it surprise you? And why do you suppose you can
convince us to focus on a symptom, i.e., certain forms of
communication, when you refuse even to discuss the cause?<
What's it Iran's business even if Israel occupied "Palestinian land."
Don't they have their own issues to worry about?
Post by HHW
I could have
Post by HHW
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
Israel sells weapons all over the world. Do her leaders lie awake at
night imagining the misery they will inevitably cause? <
The US and Russia sell much more arms than does Israel, but ISrael is
around number 4 in arms exports.
HHW
2008-06-12 04:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you, I would probably not have
said that.

The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none. I believe the reason lies in the
Zionist political ideology which rests on a criminal premise.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
 You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening.
Of course it is threatening. The problem is that the Israeli
leadership have created the situation themselves. They have
perpetrated a 40 year illegal and extremely brutal occupation of
another people's country.<<
Which other people's country? In any case, wars are always followed by
occupations, and occupations end when there is a peace settlement and
treaty, usually favorable to the victor.
The "victory" has never been consolidated. It is evaporating as we
speak. The Palestinian and, indeed, regional resistance is gaining
ground. And America will soon free itself from the lobby's thrall.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
That is what has engendered the belligerent
speech. Why should it surprise you? And why do you suppose you can
convince us to focus on a symptom, i.e., certain forms of
communication, when you refuse even to discuss the cause?<
What's it Iran's business even if Israel occupied "Palestinian land."
Don't they have their own issues  to worry about?
So Iran is impolite?

Don't you see a parallel in our support for Britain during WWII?
Didn't the Aussies come from the other side of the world to help her
too, twice during the 20th Century? You can't imagine a similar sense
of brotherhood with fellow Muslims arising in the breasts of
"Iranians".
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
 I could have
Post by HHW
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
Israel sells weapons all over the world. Do her leaders lie awake at
night imagining the misery they will inevitably cause? <
The US and Russia sell much more arms than does Israel, but ISrael is
around number 4 in arms exports.
Yes, a population of six million is fourth in world arms exports. I
think that isn't healthy. It reflects a garrison-state mentality. And
though what we do may not as bad per capita, it is still abominable as
policy. It's worse than abominable when we gift them to Israel in a
relationship where we are so supine as to have no effective control
of how they are used. That's a great part of why we are so hated.
B***@isp.com
2008-06-12 05:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you,  I would probably not have
said that.
Were you jewish and a Zionist, you would be living in Israel. Why
jgarbuz prefers living in the U.S.
to living in Israel, he hasn't said, even though he lived there before
moving to the U.S.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none. I believe the reason lies in the
Zionist political ideology which rests on a criminal premise.
Israel was founded by terrorists who had been communists and
anarchists in their own countries
before they moved to Israel. The jews have always
used terrorism to achieve their aims. They killed
several English men, women and even children
in London in the jew East End in 1911. They
too were anarchists.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
 You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to
respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening.
Of course it is threatening. The problem is that the Israeli
leadership have created the situation themselves. They have
perpetrated a 40 year illegal and extremely brutal occupation of
another people's country.<<
Which other people's country? In any case, wars are always followed by
occupations, and occupations end when there is a peace settlement and
treaty, usually favorable to the victor.
The "victory" has never been consolidated. It is evaporating as we
speak. The Palestinian and, indeed, regional resistance is gaining
ground. And America will soon free itself from the lobby's thrall.
But not until American politicians find enough guts
to say "enough is enough".
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
That is what has engendered the belligerent
speech. Why should it surprise you? And why do you suppose you can
convince us to focus on a symptom, i.e., certain forms of
communication, when you refuse even to discuss the cause?<
What's it Iran's business even if Israel occupied "Palestinian land."
Don't they have their own issues  to worry about?
So Iran is impolite?
Don't you see a parallel in our support for Britain during WWII?
Didn't the Aussies come from the other side of the world to help her
too, twice during the 20th Century? You can't imagine a similar sense
of brotherhood with fellow Muslims arising in the breasts of
"Iranians".
The Iranians are Persians not Arabs. and if the
U.S. had not meddled in Iran's internal affairs,
here would be no problems with Iran.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
 I could have
Post by HHW
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
Israel sells weapons all over the world. Do her leaders lie awake at
night imagining the misery they will inevitably cause? <
The US and Russia sell much more arms than does Israel, but ISrael is
around number 4 in arms exports.
Yes, a population of six million is fourth in world arms exports. I
think that isn't healthy. It reflects a garrison-state mentality.  And
though what we do may not as bad per capita, it is still abominable as
policy. It's worse than abominable when we gift them to Israel in a
relationship where we are so supine as to  have no effective control
of how they are used. That's a great part of why we are so hated.
If Israel is so busy exporting arms to other countries, namely China,
then Israel doesn't need U.S.arms do they. What on earth does Israel
do with
that $3 billion+ they get from the U.S. taxpayer every year!!


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
HHW
2008-06-12 23:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you,  I would probably not have
said that.
Were you jewish and a Zionist, you would be living in Israel.  Why
jgarbuz prefers living in the U.S.
to living in Israel, he hasn't said, even though he lived there before
moving to the U.S.
IIRC he moved first from Europe to the US with his parents as a child,
later he made Aliya for ten years or so and then for reasons I don't
fully understand moved back to the US.

Jack is very angry, racist and not remotely objective about the
present situation in the occupied territories. He is, however, on
balance more civil than the rest. I don't know if it will survive this
period in my life, but it's a quality I appreciate.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none. I believe the reason lies in the
Zionist political ideology which rests on a criminal premise.
Israel was founded by terrorists who had been communists and
anarchists in their own countries
before they moved to Israel.  The jews have always
used terrorism to achieve their aims. They killed
several English men, women and even children
in London in the jew East End in 1911. They
too were anarchists.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
 You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to
respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening.
Of course it is threatening. The problem is that the Israeli
leadership have created the situation themselves. They have
perpetrated a 40 year illegal and extremely brutal occupation of
another people's country.<<
Which other people's country? In any case, wars are always followed by
occupations, and occupations end when there is a peace settlement and
treaty, usually favorable to the victor.
The "victory" has never been consolidated. It is evaporating as we
speak. The Palestinian and, indeed, regional resistance is gaining
ground. And America will soon free itself from the lobby's thrall.
But not until American politicians find enough guts
to say "enough is enough".
Sooner or later the geometry of a solution might even be imposed by
American Jews on Israel.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
That is what has engendered the belligerent
speech. Why should it surprise you? And why do you suppose you can
convince us to focus on a symptom, i.e., certain forms of
communication, when you refuse even to discuss the cause?<
What's it Iran's business even if Israel occupied "Palestinian land."
Don't they have their own issues  to worry about?
So Iran is impolite?
Don't you see a parallel in our support for Britain during WWII?
Didn't the Aussies come from the other side of the world to help her
too, twice during the 20th Century? You can't imagine a similar sense
of brotherhood with fellow Muslims arising in the breasts of
"Iranians".
The Iranians are Persians not Arabs. and if the
U.S. had not meddled in Iran's internal affairs,
here would be no problems with Iran.
You liked my posts on that?
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
 I could have
Post by HHW
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
Israel sells weapons all over the world. Do her leaders lie awake at
night imagining the misery they will inevitably cause? <
The US and Russia sell much more arms than does Israel, but ISrael is
around number 4 in arms exports.
Yes, a population of six million is fourth in world arms exports. I
think that isn't healthy. It reflects a garrison-state mentality.  And
though what we do may not as bad per capita, it is still abominable as
policy. It's worse than abominable when we gift them to Israel in a
relationship where we are so supine as to  have no effective control
of how they are used. That's a great part of why we are so hated.
If Israel is so busy exporting arms to other countries, namely China,
then Israel doesn't need U.S.arms do they. What on earth does Israel
do with
that $3 billion+ they get from the U.S. taxpayer every year!!
Build settlements on Palestinian land which is directly contrary to
openly declared, long term American policy.
Eli Grubman
2008-06-13 03:36:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:37:50 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you,  I would probably not have
said that.
Were you jewish and a Zionist, you would be living in Israel.  Why
jgarbuz prefers living in the U.S.
to living in Israel, he hasn't said, even though he lived there before
moving to the U.S.
IIRC he moved first from Europe to the US with his parents as a child,
later he made Aliya for ten years or so and then for reasons I don't
fully understand moved back to the US.
The reason was that Israel has too many jews - even for a jew! LOL

Eli
HHW
2008-06-13 16:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eli Grubman
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:37:50 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you,  I would probably not have
said that.
Were you jewish and a Zionist, you would be living in Israel.  Why
jgarbuz prefers living in the U.S.
to living in Israel, he hasn't said, even though he lived there before
moving to the U.S.
IIRC he moved first from Europe to the US with his parents as a child,
later he made Aliya for ten years or so and then for reasons I don't
fully understand moved back to the US.
The reason was that Israel has too many jews - even for a jew!  LOL
Eli
He said something to the effect that life there was difficult for him
but did not elaborate. Maybe he will here.
Eli Grubman
2008-06-13 17:51:34 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:45:12 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Eli Grubman
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:37:50 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you,  I would probably not have
said that.
Were you jewish and a Zionist, you would be living in Israel.  Why
jgarbuz prefers living in the U.S.
to living in Israel, he hasn't said, even though he lived there before
moving to the U.S.
IIRC he moved first from Europe to the US with his parents as a child,
later he made Aliya for ten years or so and then for reasons I don't
fully understand moved back to the US.
The reason was that Israel has too many jews - even for a jew!  LOL
Eli
He said something to the effect that life there was difficult for him
but did not elaborate. Maybe he will here.
They find it easier to cheat goyim in the diaspora than to cheat each
other.

Eli
Panta Rhei
2008-06-13 18:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Eli Grabmen, the notorious rabid anti-Semite, aka trolling Jewdas, dumb
Post by Eli Grubman
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:45:12 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Eli Grubman
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:37:50 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you,  I would probably not have
said that.
Were you jewish and a Zionist, you would be living in Israel.  Why
jgarbuz prefers living in the U.S.
to living in Israel, he hasn't said, even though he lived there before
moving to the U.S.
IIRC he moved first from Europe to the US with his parents as a child,
later he made Aliya for ten years or so and then for reasons I don't
fully understand moved back to the US.
The reason was that Israel has too many jews - even for a jew!  LOL
Eli
He said something to the effect that life there was difficult for him
but did not elaborate. Maybe he will here.
They find it easier to cheat goyim in the diaspora than to cheat each
other.
Eli
Time to get your head out of the Jews asses, dumb Rever'nerd! <VBG> Or are
you stuck there? Sure looks like it!
jgarbuz
2008-06-12 05:13:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you, I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.

I believe the reason lies in the
Post by HHW
Zionist political ideology which rests on a criminal premise.<
You're entitled to your misbegotten opinions. I don't agree. I think
the Zionist movement was the most historic liberation movements in
history, perhaps second only to the American revolution. In North
America, the first major democracy was born in revolution, and in the
Middle East, the first Jewish democracy was born.
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to
respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening.
Of course it is threatening. The problem is that the Israeli
leadership have created the situation themselves. They have
perpetrated a 40 year illegal and extremely brutal occupation of
another people's country.<<
Which other people's country? In any case, wars are always followed by
occupations, and occupations end when there is a peace settlement and
treaty, usually favorable to the victor.
The "victory" has never been consolidated. It is evaporating as we
speak. The Palestinian and, indeed, regional resistance is gaining
ground. And America will soon free itself from the lobby's thrall.<
Israel did not set out to defeat anybody. It was attacked many times,
and ISrael is entitled to get back some ancient land from aggressors.
If the aggressors don't pay for their aggression, by losing some land,
why won't they continue their folly? The infintesimal amount of
territory that Israel plans to keep is minute in size. Israel has been
way to generous in allowing itself to give up so much land for nothing
but more terrorism.
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
That is what has engendered the belligerent
speech. Why should it surprise you? And why do you suppose you can
convince us to focus on a symptom, i.e., certain forms of
communication, when you refuse even to discuss the cause?<
What's it Iran's business even if Israel occupied "Palestinian land."
Don't they have their own issues to worry about?
So Iran is impolite?<
It's impertinent.
Post by HHW
Don't you see a parallel in our support for Britain during WWII?<
No.
Post by HHW
Didn't the Aussies come from the other side of the world to help her
too, twice during the 20th Century?<
I thought Australia was part of the British Commonwealth.
Post by HHW
You can't imagine a similar sense
of brotherhood with fellow Muslims arising in the breasts of
"Iranians".<
Uh, I think it's bullshit. Why didn't the Arabs create a state for the
"Palestinians" between 1949 and 1967, when there were no "settlers" or
"settlements," and when East Jerusalem was in Jordanian possession?
The whole thing is bogus.
They just can't accept the idea of a Jewish state, as that somehow
diminishes Islam. FUck'em.
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Israel sells weapons all over the world. Do her leaders lie awake at
night imagining the misery they will inevitably cause? <
The US and Russia sell much more arms than does Israel, but ISrael is
around number 4 in arms exports.
Yes, a population of six million is fourth in world arms exports. I
think that isn't healthy.<
Why? Having a large arms industry strenghtens Israel ability to defend
itself, and is useful in gaining friends who buy those arms. After
all, Israel doesn't produce cars or very heavy machinery, so the
defense industry is ISrael's major manufacturing base. I think it's
great.
Post by HHW
It reflects a garrison-state mentality.<
It has to be a garrison state because it is surrounded by bandits and
cutthroats. When Islam will accept the right of a JEwish state to
exist, there may no longer be the need for such a mentality.

And
Post by HHW
though what we do may not as bad per capita, it is still abominable as
policy. It's worse than abominable when we gift them to Israel in a
relationship where we are so supine as to have no effective control
of how they are used. That's a great part of why we are so hated.<
US military aid only started after the Six Day War. Israel had already
captured all of the territory without much in the way of American
hardware. And the reason why the US gives ISrael military aid is so
that it can sell 2 or 3 times as much military hardware to the Saudis
at full price without opposition from AIPAC. If the US didn't sell the
Arabs two or three times as much military hardware as it gives to
Israel, Israel wouldn't need any aid whatsoever.
As for why Arabs hate? Because they thought that it was their right to
rule the world, and not Britain or America's.
They thought it was Allah's plan for the Arabs to rule over everyone
else, and so when they came under control of Britain and America, and
with the creation of a Jewish state, they felt "humiliated." That's a
favorite Arab word: humiliated.
They can't stand to be humiliated. THey have to destroy Israel and
then defeat the West to overcome their "humiliation."
Well, fuck'em. THey should go back to their tents and camels in the
desert from where they should never have left in the first place. THey
belong their with the other snakes and scorpions. They'll be much
happier if they do.
Eli Grubman
2008-06-12 06:18:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you, I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.

Eli
Panta Rhei
2008-06-12 10:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Eli Grabmen, aka trolling dumb Rever'nerd and stalking Susan, etc. in Jewish
Post by Eli Grubman
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you, I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.
Eli
Look in the mirror, you hilarious, subnormal psycho! LMAO!

F'up to alt.idiots
f***@gmail.com
2008-06-12 11:36:34 UTC
Permalink
You find everything penetrating, don't you Fag?
Post by Eli Grubman
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.
Eli
Eli Grubman
2008-06-12 12:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
You find everything penetrating, don't you Fag?
No, Grik, you do. Especially other Griks!

Eli
Post by f***@gmail.com
Post by Eli Grubman
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.
Eli
Panta Rhei
2008-06-12 12:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Eli Grabmen, aka trolling dumb Rever'nerd and stalking Susan, etc. in Jewish
Post by Eli Grubman
Post by f***@gmail.com
You find everything penetrating, don't you Fag?
No, Grik, you do. Especially other Griks!
Eli
<BG> So why are you strutting around as "Susan" in these groups, you fag?
You seem to be asking everyone for a penetration!

You also seem to be an expert of foreskins!

Do you really not know what's wrong with you, or are you just in your phase
of violent suppression of your true self, Susan, or Rever'nerd, or Grabmen,
or whatever you prefer to be called?

LOL!
jgarbuz
2008-06-12 22:56:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you, I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.<
Eban spoke the Queen's English better than the queen, and so that made
him the darling of the tea-drinking set. Begin was a great freedom
fighter, and admired by others who led legitimate liberation
struggles. Peres is an asshole, but he made Israel a nuclear power, so
I give him credit for that.
Eli Grubman
2008-06-13 03:38:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you, I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.<
Eban spoke the Queen's English better than the queen, and so that made
him the darling of the tea-drinking set.
Yes, I can agree with that.
Post by jgarbuz
Begin was a great freedom
fighter, and admired by others who led legitimate liberation
struggles.
Another word for a terrorist.
Post by jgarbuz
Peres is an asshole, but he made Israel a nuclear power, so
I give him credit for that
This is what will turn out to be Israel's undoing. You'll see.

Eli
jgarbuz
2008-06-13 12:02:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you, I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.<
Eban spoke the Queen's English better than the queen, and so that made
him the darling of the tea-drinking set.
Yes, I can agree with that.
Post by jgarbuz
Begin was a great freedom
fighter, and admired by others who led legitimate liberation
struggles.
Another word for a terrorist.
Post by jgarbuz
Peres is an asshole, but he made Israel a nuclear power, so
I give him credit for that
This is what will turn out to be Israel's undoing. You'll see.<
Why is that? No, nuclear weapons are Israel's salvation, God Bless the
Bomb. They are the only things that can keep Israel alive. But only if
they are used when needed. If you see the enemy trying to make them
too, you nuke em. You don't give them the chance to raise their heads.
Otherwise, they were worthless.
Eli Grubman
2008-06-13 13:35:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:02:54 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you, I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.<
Eban spoke the Queen's English better than the queen, and so that made
him the darling of the tea-drinking set.
Yes, I can agree with that.
Post by jgarbuz
Begin was a great freedom
fighter, and admired by others who led legitimate liberation
struggles.
Another word for a terrorist.
Post by jgarbuz
Peres is an asshole, but he made Israel a nuclear power, so
I give him credit for that
This is what will turn out to be Israel's undoing. You'll see.<
Why is that? No, nuclear weapons are Israel's salvation, God Bless the
Bomb. They are the only things that can keep Israel alive. But only if
they are used when needed. If you see the enemy trying to make them
too, you nuke em. You don't give them the chance to raise their heads.
Otherwise, they were worthless.
Sooner or later there will be a nuclear confrontation between Israel
and the West. And that is one war Israel cannot possibly win. What
happens to its neighbours, a shit I don't give.

Eli
jgarbuz
2008-06-13 14:00:51 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:02:54 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you, I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.<
Eban spoke the Queen's English better than the queen, and so that made
him the darling of the tea-drinking set.
Yes, I can agree with that.
Post by jgarbuz
Begin was a great freedom
fighter, and admired by others who led legitimate liberation
struggles.
Another word for a terrorist.
Post by jgarbuz
Peres is an asshole, but he made Israel a nuclear power, so
I give him credit for that
This is what will turn out to be Israel's undoing. You'll see.<
Why is that? No, nuclear weapons are Israel's salvation, God Bless the
Bomb. They are the only things that can keep Israel alive. But only if
they are used when needed. If you see the enemy trying to make them
too, you nuke em. You don't give them the chance to raise their heads.
Otherwise, they were worthless.
Sooner or later there will be a nuclear confrontation between Israel
and the West. <
Why is that inevitable? How much oil would the West get from Israeli
soil if they wiped out Israel? By contrast, how much oil could be
gotten from Arab soil if the Arab countries were annihilated? Unless
lunatics like you are in charge.
But laying the Arabs low and swiping their oil makes a lot more sense,
especially if the blame can be put on ISrael for it. Israel wipes out
Iran and the Arabs, and the West takes the oil. And blames it on the
Jews. That makes sense.
Eli Grubman
2008-06-13 14:15:44 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:00:51 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:02:54 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you, I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.<
Eban spoke the Queen's English better than the queen, and so that made
him the darling of the tea-drinking set.
Yes, I can agree with that.
Post by jgarbuz
Begin was a great freedom
fighter, and admired by others who led legitimate liberation
struggles.
Another word for a terrorist.
Post by jgarbuz
Peres is an asshole, but he made Israel a nuclear power, so
I give him credit for that
This is what will turn out to be Israel's undoing. You'll see.<
Why is that? No, nuclear weapons are Israel's salvation, God Bless the
Bomb. They are the only things that can keep Israel alive. But only if
they are used when needed. If you see the enemy trying to make them
too, you nuke em. You don't give them the chance to raise their heads.
Otherwise, they were worthless.
Sooner or later there will be a nuclear confrontation between Israel
and the West. <
Why is that inevitable? How much oil would the West get from Israeli
soil if they wiped out Israel? By contrast, how much oil could be
gotten from Arab soil if the Arab countries were annihilated? Unless
lunatics like you are in charge.
It wouldn't be about oil.
Post by jgarbuz
But laying the Arabs low and swiping their oil makes a lot more sense,
especially if the blame can be put on ISrael for it. Israel wipes out
Iran and the Arabs, and the West takes the oil. And blames it on the
Jews. That makes sense.
Who needs radioactive oil?

Eli
jgarbuz
2008-06-13 15:42:38 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:00:51 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:02:54 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you, I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.<
Eban spoke the Queen's English better than the queen, and so that made
him the darling of the tea-drinking set.
Yes, I can agree with that.
Post by jgarbuz
Begin was a great freedom
fighter, and admired by others who led legitimate liberation
struggles.
Another word for a terrorist.
Post by jgarbuz
Peres is an asshole, but he made Israel a nuclear power, so
I give him credit for that
This is what will turn out to be Israel's undoing. You'll see.<
Why is that? No, nuclear weapons are Israel's salvation, God Bless the
Bomb. They are the only things that can keep Israel alive. But only if
they are used when needed. If you see the enemy trying to make them
too, you nuke em. You don't give them the chance to raise their heads.
Otherwise, they were worthless.
Sooner or later there will be a nuclear confrontation between Israel
and the West. <
Why is that inevitable? How much oil would the West get from Israeli
soil if they wiped out Israel? By contrast, how much oil could be
gotten from Arab soil if the Arab countries were annihilated? Unless
lunatics like you are in charge.
It wouldn't be about oil.<
What would it be about?
Post by jgarbuz
But laying the Arabs low and swiping their oil makes a lot more sense,
especially if the blame can be put on ISrael for it. Israel wipes out
Iran and the Arabs, and the West takes the oil. And blames it on the
Jews. That makes sense.
Who needs radioactive oil?<
The bombs need not hit the fields themselves UNLESS Israel were
attacked from the West, as you hope, in which case
spreading a lot of plutonium around the fields would really be one way
of getting back at it. But I don't see anyone from the West attacking
Israel. It would be TOO stupid. Only if a brain damaged moron like you
or your Fuehrer somehow managed to get back on top. Far fetched,
methinks.
Eli Grubman
2008-06-13 16:58:31 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:42:38 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:00:51 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:02:54 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you, I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.<
Eban spoke the Queen's English better than the queen, and so that made
him the darling of the tea-drinking set.
Yes, I can agree with that.
Post by jgarbuz
Begin was a great freedom
fighter, and admired by others who led legitimate liberation
struggles.
Another word for a terrorist.
Post by jgarbuz
Peres is an asshole, but he made Israel a nuclear power, so
I give him credit for that
This is what will turn out to be Israel's undoing. You'll see.<
Why is that? No, nuclear weapons are Israel's salvation, God Bless the
Bomb. They are the only things that can keep Israel alive. But only if
they are used when needed. If you see the enemy trying to make them
too, you nuke em. You don't give them the chance to raise their heads.
Otherwise, they were worthless.
Sooner or later there will be a nuclear confrontation between Israel
and the West. <
Why is that inevitable? How much oil would the West get from Israeli
soil if they wiped out Israel? By contrast, how much oil could be
gotten from Arab soil if the Arab countries were annihilated? Unless
lunatics like you are in charge.
It wouldn't be about oil.<
What would it be about?
The same way any war starts - a trivial incident.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
But laying the Arabs low and swiping their oil makes a lot more sense,
especially if the blame can be put on ISrael for it. Israel wipes out
Iran and the Arabs, and the West takes the oil. And blames it on the
Jews. That makes sense.
Who needs radioactive oil?<
The bombs need not hit the fields themselves UNLESS Israel were
attacked from the West, as you hope, in which case
spreading a lot of plutonium around the fields would really be one way
of getting back at it. But I don't see anyone from the West attacking
Israel. It would be TOO stupid.
No, it would be the (final) solution to all the problems of the Middle
East. I'm surprised nobody in power has suggested it yet!
Post by jgarbuz
Only if a brain damaged moron like you
or your Fuehrer somehow managed to get back on top. Far fetched,
methinks.
Not really. Perhaps Barack Osama will see the light. After expelling
all you jew bastards back there!

Eli
Panta Rhei
2008-06-13 17:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eli Grubman
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:42:38 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:00:51 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:02:54 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you, I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.<
Eban spoke the Queen's English better than the queen, and so that made
him the darling of the tea-drinking set.
Yes, I can agree with that.
Post by jgarbuz
Begin was a great freedom
fighter, and admired by others who led legitimate liberation
struggles.
Another word for a terrorist.
Post by jgarbuz
Peres is an asshole, but he made Israel a nuclear power, so
I give him credit for that
This is what will turn out to be Israel's undoing. You'll see.<
Why is that? No, nuclear weapons are Israel's salvation, God Bless the
Bomb. They are the only things that can keep Israel alive. But only if
they are used when needed. If you see the enemy trying to make them
too, you nuke em. You don't give them the chance to raise their heads.
Otherwise, they were worthless.
Sooner or later there will be a nuclear confrontation between Israel
and the West. <
Why is that inevitable? How much oil would the West get from Israeli
soil if they wiped out Israel? By contrast, how much oil could be
gotten from Arab soil if the Arab countries were annihilated? Unless
lunatics like you are in charge.
It wouldn't be about oil.<
What would it be about?
The same way any war starts - a trivial incident.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
But laying the Arabs low and swiping their oil makes a lot more sense,
especially if the blame can be put on ISrael for it. Israel wipes out
Iran and the Arabs, and the West takes the oil. And blames it on the
Jews. That makes sense.
Who needs radioactive oil?<
The bombs need not hit the fields themselves UNLESS Israel were
attacked from the West, as you hope, in which case
spreading a lot of plutonium around the fields would really be one way
of getting back at it. But I don't see anyone from the West attacking
Israel. It would be TOO stupid.
No, it would be the (final) solution to all the problems of the Middle
East. I'm surprised nobody in power has suggested it yet!
LMAO! Well, go ahead, suggest it to them, coward! You don't even dare to
open your vile racist mouth outside the Usenet!
Post by Eli Grubman
Post by jgarbuz
Only if a brain damaged moron like you
or your Fuehrer somehow managed to get back on top. Far fetched,
methinks.
Not really. Perhaps Barack Osama will see the light. After expelling
all you jew bastards back there!
Eli
LOL! Impotent dreams of a deteriorated psychopath! Nothing else ever coming
from you, dumb Rever'nerd!
Panta Rhei
2008-06-13 16:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eli Grubman
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:00:51 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:02:54 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you, I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.<
Eban spoke the Queen's English better than the queen, and so that made
him the darling of the tea-drinking set.
Yes, I can agree with that.
Post by jgarbuz
Begin was a great freedom
fighter, and admired by others who led legitimate liberation
struggles.
Another word for a terrorist.
Post by jgarbuz
Peres is an asshole, but he made Israel a nuclear power, so
I give him credit for that
This is what will turn out to be Israel's undoing. You'll see.<
Why is that? No, nuclear weapons are Israel's salvation, God Bless the
Bomb. They are the only things that can keep Israel alive. But only if
they are used when needed. If you see the enemy trying to make them
too, you nuke em. You don't give them the chance to raise their heads.
Otherwise, they were worthless.
Sooner or later there will be a nuclear confrontation between Israel
and the West. <
Why is that inevitable? How much oil would the West get from Israeli
soil if they wiped out Israel? By contrast, how much oil could be
gotten from Arab soil if the Arab countries were annihilated? Unless
lunatics like you are in charge.
It wouldn't be about oil.
It certainly would be about you successfully spreading your anti-Semitism
while you are making a complete ass of yourself, Mr Fuehrer, or Grabmen, or
idiot, or whatever you like to be called! LOL

F'up
marika
2008-06-14 19:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eli Grubman
Who needs radioactive oil?
THEY HAVE SUCH A THING? Is that what they use to run nuclear power plants?

That's not really an alternative power source then is it

mk5000

"tomorrow
even there's a reason
it's silver
it's gone"--Pixies
Eli Grubman
2008-06-14 20:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by marika
Post by Eli Grubman
Who needs radioactive oil?
THEY HAVE SUCH A THING? Is that what they use to run nuclear power plants?
That's not really an alternative power source then is it
If some hysterical Izzie pushes the nuclear button then all the
oilfields in the Middle East will become radioactive.

Eli
Panta Rhei
2008-06-14 21:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Eli Grabmen, the notorious rabid anti-Semite, aka trolling Jewdas, dumb
Post by Eli Grubman
Post by marika
Post by Eli Grubman
Who needs radioactive oil?
THEY HAVE SUCH A THING? Is that what they use to run nuclear power plants?
That's not really an alternative power source then is it
If some hysterical Izzie pushes the nuclear button then all the
oilfields in the Middle East will become radioactive.
Eli
You SHOULD tell that the international community, Eli Grabmen!!!! You
SHOULD!

ROTFLOL!!!!

marika
2008-06-14 19:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
Unless
lunatics like you are in charge
.Very interesting . . . and also for the reason that he could be talking
about many of us . . . .


mk5000

"but hey
where
have you
been if you go i will surely die"--pixies
Panta Rhei
2008-06-13 16:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Eli Grabmen, the notorious rabid anti-Semite, aka trolling Jewdas, dumb
Post by Eli Grubman
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:02:54 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you, I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.<
Eban spoke the Queen's English better than the queen, and so that made
him the darling of the tea-drinking set.
Yes, I can agree with that.
Post by jgarbuz
Begin was a great freedom
fighter, and admired by others who led legitimate liberation
struggles.
Another word for a terrorist.
Post by jgarbuz
Peres is an asshole, but he made Israel a nuclear power, so
I give him credit for that
This is what will turn out to be Israel's undoing. You'll see.<
Why is that? No, nuclear weapons are Israel's salvation, God Bless the
Bomb. They are the only things that can keep Israel alive. But only if
they are used when needed. If you see the enemy trying to make them
too, you nuke em. You don't give them the chance to raise their heads.
Otherwise, they were worthless.
Sooner or later there will be a nuclear confrontation between Israel
and the West.
Never, ever! Only in your sick dreams, you degenerate, ridiculous lowlife!
;-)

F'up
marika
2008-06-14 19:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eli Grubman
Sooner or later there will be a nuclear confrontation between Israel
and the West.
thanks


mk5000

"if you want to
missy aggravation
some sacred questions
you stroke my locks"--gouge, pixies
Eli Grubman
2008-06-14 19:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eli Grubman
Sooner or later there will be a nuclear confrontation between Israel
and the West.
thanks
It's inevitable!

Eli
Panta Rhei
2008-06-14 20:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eli Grubman
Post by Eli Grubman
Sooner or later there will be a nuclear confrontation between Israel
and the West.
thanks
It's inevitable!
Eli
ROTFLOL! You won't be able to see it, if it happens, dumb Rever'nerd! You
would first have to get your stupid head out of the Jews' asses! LMAO!

F'up
HHW
2008-06-13 19:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you,  I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.<
Eban spoke the Queen's English better than the queen, and so that made
him the darling of the tea-drinking set.
Yes, I can agree with that.
Post by jgarbuz
Begin was a great freedom
fighter, and admired by others who led legitimate liberation
struggles.
Another word for a terrorist.
Post by jgarbuz
Peres is an asshole, but he made Israel a nuclear power, so
I give him credit for that
This is what will turn out to be Israel's undoing.  You'll see.<
Why is that? No, nuclear weapons are Israel's salvation, God Bless the
Bomb. They are the only things that can keep Israel alive.
The primary reason Israel is in danger today is her arrogant
stubbornness about giving up the occupied territories.

But only if
Post by jgarbuz
they are used when needed. If you see the enemy trying to make them
too, you nuke em. You don't give them the chance to raise their heads.
Otherwise, they were worthless.
You're very naive. There are already Muslim bombs in turbulent
Pakistan. Iran will eventually have them. Because of Israel's policies
of anti Muslim expansionism and brutality all Muslim countries except
perhaps Turkey are israel's enemies. The history of the 20th Century
proves that nuclear weapons are only valuable as a deterrent, if they
are not used.
HHW
2008-06-13 16:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eli Grubman
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you,  I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.<
Eban spoke the Queen's English better than the queen, and so that made
him the darling of the tea-drinking set.
Yes, I can agree with that.  
Post by jgarbuz
Begin was a great freedom
fighter, and admired by others who led legitimate liberation
struggles.
Another word for a terrorist.
Post by jgarbuz
Peres is an asshole, but he made Israel a nuclear power, so
I give him credit for that
This is what will turn out to be Israel's undoing.  You'll see.
Eli
It was a terrible decision. It was obvious to the American experts
involved that it should be resisted. It wasn't. Now that the blow back
is coming, it's not just to Israel but to the United States. As the
danger increases Israeli policy remains the same. And so long as US
policy remains the same this will not change.
B***@isp.com
2008-06-13 00:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eli Grubman
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you,  I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.
The jews needed to attain their financial acumen in order to survive
in a hostile world"
Abba Eban

He didn't say why the world was "hostile" to the jew.

"Acumen" - Shrewdness, quick to grasp.

I see.
Post by Eli Grubman
Eli- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Eli Grubman
2008-06-13 03:39:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by Eli Grubman
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you,  I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.
The jews needed to attain their financial acumen in order to survive
in a hostile world"
Abba Eban
He didn't say why the world was "hostile" to the jew.
"Acumen" - Shrewdness, quick to grasp.
I see.
He is also credited with coining the expression "there's no business
like shoah business."

Eli
HHW
2008-06-13 16:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eli Grubman
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by Eli Grubman
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you,  I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.
The jews needed to attain their financial acumen in order to survive
in a hostile world"
Abba Eban
He didn't say why the world was "hostile" to the jew.
That's a taboo subject which can be discussed only to blame
Babylonians, Romans, Christians and Muslims. Hillel, for example will
not discuss whether anti-semitism has some of its roots in Jewish
culture, Jewish behavior.
Post by Eli Grubman
Post by B***@isp.com
"Acumen" - Shrewdness, quick to grasp.
I see.
He is also credited with coining the expression "there's no business
like shoah business."
Eli
Here is an interesting economic review of "The Holocaust Industry" by
Norman Finkelstein:

A Review of Norman Finkelstein's
The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on
the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering
by James A. Montanye

The suffering of European Jews during the 1930s and 1940s gave rise to
a stock of moral capital that was a measure not of exceptional moral
actions by Jews as a group, but of acts committed by their Nazi
oppressors. The holocaust label evokes that suffering and those acts.
The Holocaust, distinguished by initial capitalization (a distinction
I maintain throughout this review), is an ideology that has grown up
around these interactions. The holocaust created moral capital. A
"Holocaust Industry" exploits it by making a market in the suffering
of "needy holocaust survivors."
The disadvantages of moral capital are that it is less productive than
most other forms of capital and that its value depreciates quickly as
memories fade and the public sense of guilt and compassion wanes. Its
highest value lies in its capacity to be transformed into more
enduring political (rent-seeking) capital. The transformation process
requires entrepreneurship as an input and spawns an industry that
produces entrepreneurial returns for its creators and patrons.

These points are the foundations of historian Norman Finkelstein's
slim volume, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation
of Jewish Suffering. The book complements a short list of recent works
by Jewish scholars (several of which Finkelstein critiques) that
reflect on the upturn of interest in books, movies, and television
documentaries about the holocaust and that ask (some skeptically):
"Why here, and why now?" (See, for example, Peter Novick, The
Holocaust in American Life [Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999].)
Finkelstein argues, against the grain, that this interest is "a
tribute not to Jewish suffering but to Jewish aggrandizement" (p. 8).
He documents economic exploitation by the Holocaust Industry, which he
calls an "outright extortion racket" (p. 89). He also documents the
U.S. role in facilitating the extraction of holocaust rents (which he
inexactly terms "profits"). He argues that the Holocaust Industry
would not exist without international bullying by the United States,
which is why this country is not a target of rent extraction despite
having a record on holocaust issues that is scarcely distinguishable
from that of the recently extorted Swiss.

A positive economic analysis of this aspect of postwar economic
behavior has yet to emerge. Not even the "revisionist" literature
analyzes the public economic behavior of Zionist groups and other
Jewish factions. This lacuna is puzzling. Economists have tackled
other aspects of religious organization using the positive method of
industrial organization and public choice (see, for example, Robert
Ekelund and others, Sacred Trust: The Medieval Church as an Economic
Firm [New York: Oxford University Press, 1996]). Surely the existence
of Holocaust rents has not entirely escaped the notice of economic
historians and theorists. It may be that the holocaust's enhanced
presence today represents nothing more than market maturation. But
without a positive theory with which to examine the industry's
structure, conduct, and performance, it is impossible to know.

Finkelstein's book will probably disappoint readers hoping for an
economic analysis along the lines of that by Ekelund and others.
Finkelstein uses a historical approach that is like descriptive
political economy. Accordingly, he develops no positive theories whose
implications can be tested against the anecdotal evidence he has
amassed. The result in places is a patchwork of ad hoc explanations
leading to conclusions that are not obviously superior to those he
criticizes. Nevertheless, the book is provocative and brimming with
recent historical detail. With a bit of luck, it will attract the
interest of academic economists.

The gravamen of Finkelstein's argument, which is shared by an
increasing number of Jews and others worldwide, is that "the current
campaign of the Holocaust Industry to extort money from Europe in the
name of 'needy Holocaust victims' has shrunk the moral status of
martyrdom to that of a Monte Carlo casino" (p. 8). Although such
blasphemy would normally be attacked as an anti-Semitic diatribe,
Finkelstein escapes such treatment as the son of Jewish Auschwitz
survivors. Even so, he reports being called a "garbage man," an "anti-
Zionist," and a "notorious ideological opponent of the State of
Israel" (pp. 65-66) at various times in his scholarly career. Critics
disparage his book, however, by associating it with those allegedly
anti-Semitic officials and private individuals who express agreement
with the author's brief. These sympathizers include, among others,
citizens of western European countries who see themselves as being
extorted by the Holocaust Industry, even as the Palestinian victims of
Zionism remain uncompensated for their continuing loss of life, land,
and liberty after decades of subjugation and subordination. Occasional
proposals to compensate Palestinians out of Holocaust Industry rents
wither quickly and die quietly. (Palestinians simply lack the
entrepreneurial skills to press their claims successfully.) The author
reports the fear in some quarters that Holocaust Industry activities
will provoke a dangerous wave of bona fide anti-Semitism.

Finkelstein notes that the threat of indiscriminate, ad hominem
slanders for alleged anti-Semitism has long been an effective
deterrent to the public discussion of Holocaust Industry issues, which
may help to explain the lack of a robust economic literature in this
area. A few countries (Canada, France, and Germany, for example) have
adopted laws that limit or otherwise chill public discussion. Several
U.S. states presently require "approved" holocaust studies in public
schools. The value of these public policies, from the industry's
perspective, lies in preventing uninhibited discussions that would
dissipate Holocaust rents. Holocaust Affairs offices within the White
House and the Departments of Justice and State, staunch political
support in Congress, and U.S. support at the United Nations are
further indicia of successful rent seeking by the Holocaust Industry.

Viewing history through an economic lens shows how "the Holocaust" has
become a proprietary trademark. The murder of between three and six
million Jews (industry estimates usually exceed historical estimates)
was not intrinsically unique to a century that witnessed the wholesale
slaughter of many ethnic groups, including the Nazis' systematic
killing of Gypsies, homosexuals, and physically and mentally disabled
individuals. The twentieth century's body count ran into the hundreds
of millions, with many victims in the latter years being killed by
Israeli-made weapons. Even so, the Holocaust Industry has created a
property right in the "uniqueness" of the holocaust. This right is
defended aggressively. Every application of the Holocaust label to
other large-scale atrocities, most recently to the systematic killing
of Muslims in Kosovo, is actively opposed. (Governments that sponsor
atrocities also oppose the application of this label in order to
soften the public perception of their actions.) Xerox opposes the
generic labeling of document reproduction as xeroxing for exactly the
same reason.

The aggressive defense and maintenance of the Holocaust brand have
been so successful that even a few gentiles have gained wealth and
notoriety by masquerading as Jewish holocaust survivors-an ironic
example of chutzpah. Watchdog groups are alert for outsiders' poaching
Holocaust rents in this fashion. Some Jews also capture Holocaust
rents by masquerading as holocaust survivors, usually winning industry
praise rather than condemnation for their efforts.

Finkelstein singles out Elie Wiesel, a concentration-camp survivor and
celebrity commentator on moral issues, for his role as an industry
insider. He "is the Holocaust" (p. 55), according to Finkelstein. It
was Wiesel who systematically applied the word holocaust to the Jewish
experience. He subsequently gained recognition and fortune by
lecturing about the holocaust, commanding speaking fees that
Finkelstein reports to be upward of $25,000 plus a limousine.
Finkelstein criticizes the fuzzy aphorisms Wiesel uses to characterize
the holocaust — "noncommunicable," "we cannot talk about it," and "the
truth lies in silence" — noting that Wiesel and others have made
personal fortunes by talking and writing about it (p. 45).

The lack of a positive theory to explain industry behavior causes
Finkelstein's analysis occasionally to go astray. He dates the
Holocaust Industry from the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. That date clearly
represents an important point in the industry's development, as he
demonstrates, but it represents a point of inflection rather than a
true beginning. The industry's creation, in the most encompassing
sense, occurred more than twenty years earlier. Holocaust
entrepreneurship and rent seeking played the determining role in
creating the modern state of Israel, a series of events that
Finkelstein dismisses as unrelated to the industry per se. By
contrast, these events were comprehensively documented early on by the
historian Alfred Lilienthal, whose work anticipated the logic of
public-choice analysis (see, for example, What Price Israel? [Chicago:
Henry Regnery, 1953]). Lilienthal, almost uniquely among Jews of that
period, wrote and spoke against the creation of Israel, opposed
charitable U.S. policies toward it, and coined the term
Holocaustomania to characterize the use of Holocaust rhetoric to
stifle public debate. He documented the opportunistic postwar actions
of entrepreneurial Zionist organizers who manipulated, for essentially
private purposes, both the postwar sensitivities of national
governments and the anguish and misery of Jewish concentration-camp
survivors. Lilienthal's scholarly efforts were rewarded with anonymous
death threats and several years of FBI surveillance.

Finkelstein's presentation implies that Zionist goals no longer
motivate the exploitation of holocaust survivors. He argues directly
that today's Holocaust Industry is not truly concerned with obtaining
compensation for "needy holocaust survivors," noting that very little
of the recently extracted "compensation" has reached its nominal
beneficiaries. Instead, the industry's concern today lies with winning
compensation for law firms, consultants, politicians, Holocaust
organizations, and industry elites. "When Jewish elites rob Jewish
survivors no ethical issues arise; it's just about the money" (p. 87).

Finkelstein's focus on 1967 as the creation date of the industry
causes him to overlook the competition for the Jewish vote that
characterized the 1948 Truman-Dewey presidential campaign and other
elections for state and national offices (see, for example, John
Snetsinger, Truman, the Jewish Vote, and The Creation of Israel
[Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 1974]). Incumbents and
challengers competed wildly to outdo each other's campaign promises in
support of Zionism. Politicians at all levels accepted speaking fees
from Zionist and other Jewish groups. Truman summarized his developing
position in 1946 by telling a gathering of diplomats: "I have to
answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of
Zionism; I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my
constituents" (qtd. in William Eddy, FDR Meets Ibn Saud [New York:
American Friends of the Middle East, 1954], p. 37). The concentration
of Jewish voters in a small number of U.S. cities made the political
"collective-action" problem relatively easy to overcome: Lilienthal
reported census data showing that 42 percent of American Jews lived in
the five boroughs of New York City, and 75 percent were concentrated
in just fourteen cities.

A victorious President Truman made good on his campaign promises in
several significant ways: by supporting the creation of modern Israel
over the vehement objection of Secretary of State George Marshall; by
supporting financial aid to Israel that (by Lilienthal's calculation)
was nearly seven times greater per capita in 1952 than the amount
given to Europe under the Marshall Plan; and by authorizing, over
State Department objections, U.S. fund-raising and lobbying visits by
self-confessed Zionist terrorists, including at least one future
Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin.

Finkelstein's book, by comparison, merely documents the methods by
which today's politicians support the industry while in office and
then earn substantial legal and consulting fees by representing its
interests when out of office.

The weakness of Finkelstein's descriptive historical approach is most
apparent in his explanation of the U.S. decision to authorize
construction and federal funding of a Holocaust memorial and museum on
the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The National Mall is a hallowed
piece of ground otherwise reserved for commemorating episodes in U.S.
history. Finkelstein asserts that the memorial's ulterior purpose is
to demonstrate that a holocaust could not occur in the United States,
thereby camouflaging the country's actual treatment of its imported
African and native populations. This explanation may have a satisfying
feel to it, but it lacks a positive foundation and almost certainly is
off the mark. A positive theory in this context would examine the
memorial's presence in terms of its value to the Holocaust Industry,
the process and effect of lobbying by powerful factions, and the
political calculations made by Congress and the Carter White House.
Finkelstein documents each of these considerations, but his conclusion
ignores their significance.

The author clearly is sensitive to the economic aspects of his
subject, even though he does not develop his thesis along positive
lines. However, by documenting the legacy of systematic exploitation,
extortion, and de jure political correctness with regard to the
holocaust, he opens the door to positive analysis of this unique but
culturally and politically sensitive aspect of postwar economic
behavior. In addition to the book's virtues as a provocative and well-
documented case study, this achievement makes The Holocaust Industry
both a worthwhile read and a valuable reference.

James A. Montanye
Falls Church, Virginia
Eli Grubman
2008-06-13 17:52:52 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:54:30 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by Eli Grubman
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you,  I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.
The jews needed to attain their financial acumen in order to survive
in a hostile world"
Abba Eban
He didn't say why the world was "hostile" to the jew.
That's a taboo subject which can be discussed only to blame
Babylonians, Romans, Christians and Muslims. Hillel, for example will
not discuss whether anti-semitism has some of its roots in Jewish
culture, Jewish behavior.
Some of its roots? *ALL* of its roots.

Eli
Panta Rhei
2008-06-13 18:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Eli Grabmen, the notorious rabid anti-Semite, aka trolling Jewdas, dumb
Post by Eli Grubman
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:54:30 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by Eli Grubman
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies.<
Just like everyplace else. Leaders are elected, and then do what they
can away with.
Were I Jewish and a Zionist such as you,  I would probably not have
said that.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship,
Post by jgarbuz
is that under democracy, leaders have to occasionally leave power and
make room for the next one in line. Politicians make promises to get
elected, and then break them. Unfortunately, that's the best we can
do. The alternative is either total chaos or dictatorship.
From among politicians statesmen occasionally arise. Israel's
statesmen have been few to none.<
Really? I think Abba Eban was a statesman. I think Menachem Begin was
a statesman. I think Shimon Peres is a statesman. For a tiny country,
Israel has produced many statesmen in the past, but I agree the rank
politicians have taken over.Israel absolutely does need a statesman
now.
No, Abba Eban was the only one of the three resembling a statesman.
Begin was a terrorist and Peres is an a"h.
The jews needed to attain their financial acumen in order to survive
in a hostile world"
Abba Eban
He didn't say why the world was "hostile" to the jew.
That's a taboo subject which can be discussed only to blame
Babylonians, Romans, Christians and Muslims. Hillel, for example will
not discuss whether anti-semitism has some of its roots in Jewish
culture, Jewish behavior.
Some of its roots? *ALL* of its roots.
Eli
ALL of your psycho's life is in Jewish roots, or better: in the Jews' asses
where you are FOREVER stuck, dumb Rever'nerd! LOL!
dsharavi@gmail.com
2008-06-12 21:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
 I believe the reason lies in the
Zionist political ideology which rests on a criminal premise.<
You're entitled to your misbegotten opinions. I don't agree. I think
the Zionist movement was the most historic liberation movements in
history, perhaps second only to the American revolution. In North
America, the first major democracy was born in revolution, and in the
Middle East, the first Jewish democracy was born.
Humper's merely disgruntled because the Jooooz had a national movement
like other peoples, and Joooooz, in Humper's opinion, aren't entitled
to what other humans are entitled. The Emir Feisal ibn Husayn,
however, believed that the two movements, the Jewish Zionist movement
and the Arab nationalistic movment, complimented each other. As he
stated in a letter of 3rd March 1919:

"The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest
sympathy on the Zionist movement...I hope the Arabs may soon be in a
position to make the Jews some return for their kindness. We are
working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two
movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is national and
not imperialist. Our movement is national and not imperialist, and
there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed I think that neither can be
a real success without the other...We are working together on a
reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complete one
another...The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist; our
movement is national and not imperialist; and there is room in Syria
for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success
without the other."
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Of course it is threatening. The problem is that the Israeli
leadership have created the situation themselves. They have
perpetrated a 40 year illegal and extremely brutal occupation of
another people's country.<<
Which other people's country?
Quite so. What "other people's country"?
Post by jgarbuz
Israel did not set out to defeat anybody. It was attacked many times,
and ISrael is entitled to get back some ancient land from aggressors.
If the aggressors don't pay for their aggression, by losing some land,
why won't they continue their folly? The infintesimal amount of
territory that Israel plans to keep is minute in size. Israel has been
way to generous in allowing itself to give up so much land for nothing
but more terrorism.
Don't you see a parallel in our support for Britain during WWII?<
No.
The notion that there could be any parallel is laughable.
Post by jgarbuz
Didn't the Aussies come from the other side of the world to help her
too, twice during the 20th Century?<
I thought Australia was part of the British Commonwealth.
It is.
Post by jgarbuz
You can't imagine a similar sense
of brotherhood with fellow Muslims arising in the breasts of
"Iranians".<
Uh, I think it's bullshit. Why didn't the Arabs create a state for the
"Palestinians" between 1949 and 1967, when there were no "settlers" or
"settlements," and when East Jerusalem was in Jordanian possession?
Why didn't their Muslim Arab brethren offer half a day's oil revenues
to help our the poor PalArabs?
Post by jgarbuz
The whole thing is bogus.
They just can't accept the idea of a Jewish state, as that somehow
diminishes Islam. FUck'em.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Israel sells weapons all over the world. Do her leaders lie awake at
night imagining the misery they will inevitably cause? <
Do America's? or Russia's? or Germany's? or France's? or the UK's?
They all sell more arms than Israel.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
The US and Russia sell much more arms than does Israel, but ISrael is
around number 4 in arms exports.
Try #11.
Post by jgarbuz
Yes, a population of six million is fourth in world arms exports.
Top 20 Arms Exporters:

USA
Russia
Germany
France
UK
Netherlands
Sweden
Italy
China
Ukraine
Israel
Spain
Canada
Switzerland
Belarus
Poland
South Korea
Uzbekistan
South Africa
Czech Republic
Post by jgarbuz
I think that isn't healthy.<
Why?
Because they are Jooooz. It all seems "healthy" enough for the French
and the Swedes, as well as the others ahead of Israel on the list.
Post by jgarbuz
Having a large arms industry strenghtens Israel ability to defend
itself, and is useful in gaining friends who buy those arms. After
all, Israel doesn't produce cars or very heavy machinery, so the
defense industry is ISrael's major manufacturing base.  I think it's
great.
It reflects a garrison-state mentality.<
So, a "garrison-state mentality" is also reflected by the USA, Russia,
Germany, France, UK, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, China, Ukraine? Or
not, as the case may be, because they're none of them Jews.
Post by jgarbuz
It has to be a garrison state because it is surrounded by bandits and
cutthroats. When Islam will accept the right of a JEwish state to
exist, there may no longer be the need for such a mentality.
  And
though what we do may not as bad per capita, it is still abominable as
policy.
But not so abominable that Humper can't let it slide in favor of his
most beloved bete-noir.
Post by jgarbuz
US military aid only started after the Six Day War.
Thought the military aid started after the Yom Kippur War.

Deborah
Post by jgarbuz
Israel had already
captured all of the territory without much in the way of American
hardware. And the reason why the US gives ISrael military aid is so
that it can sell 2 or 3 times as much military hardware to the Saudis
at full price without opposition from AIPAC. If the US didn't sell the
Arabs two or three times as much military hardware as it gives to
Israel, Israel wouldn't need any aid whatsoever.
As for why Arabs hate? Because they thought that it was their right to
rule the world, and not Britain or America's.
They thought it was Allah's plan for the Arabs to rule over everyone
else, and so when they came under control of Britain and America, and
with the creation of a Jewish state, they felt "humiliated." That's a
favorite Arab word: humiliated.
They can't stand to be humiliated. THey have to destroy Israel and
then defeat the West to overcome their "humiliation."
Well, fuck'em. THey should go back to their tents and camels in the
desert from where they should never have left in the first place. THey
belong their with the other snakes and scorpions. They'll be much
happier if they do.
m***@operamail.com
2008-06-13 01:27:31 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 12, 2:28 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid
8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped
Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.
In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.
Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.
Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.
Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.
Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.
Serves lots of Pallies.

Deborah

http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)

Lots of scathing responses, rosen/slime:
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe/
____________________________________________________________

Mirelle
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
I believe the reason lies in the
Zionist political ideology which rests on a criminal premise.<
You're entitled to your misbegotten opinions. I don't agree. I think
the Zionist movement was the most historic liberation movements in
history, perhaps second only to the American revolution. In North
America, the first major democracy was born in revolution, and in the
Middle East, the first Jewish democracy was born.
Humper's merely disgruntled because the Jooooz had a national movement
like other peoples, and Joooooz, in Humper's opinion, aren't entitled
to what other humans are entitled. The Emir Feisal ibn Husayn,
however, believed that the two movements, the Jewish Zionist movement
and the Arab nationalistic movment, complimented each other. As he
"The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest
sympathy on the Zionist movement...I hope the Arabs may soon be in a
position to make the Jews some return for their kindness. We are
working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two
movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is national and
not imperialist. Our movement is national and not imperialist, and
there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed I think that neither can be
a real success without the other...We are working together on a
reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complete one
another...The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist; our
movement is national and not imperialist; and there is room in Syria
for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success
without the other."
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Of course it is threatening. The problem is that the Israeli
leadership have created the situation themselves. They have
perpetrated a 40 year illegal and extremely brutal occupation of
another people's country.<<
Which other people's country?
Quite so. What "other people's country"?
Post by jgarbuz
Israel did not set out to defeat anybody. It was attacked many times,
and ISrael is entitled to get back some ancient land from aggressors.
If the aggressors don't pay for their aggression, by losing some land,
why won't they continue their folly? The infintesimal amount of
territory that Israel plans to keep is minute in size. Israel has been
way to generous in allowing itself to give up so much land for nothing
but more terrorism.
Post by HHW
Don't you see a parallel in our support for Britain during WWII?<
No.
The notion that there could be any parallel is laughable.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Didn't the Aussies come from the other side of the world to help her
too, twice during the 20th Century?<
I thought Australia was part of the British Commonwealth.
It is.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
You can't imagine a similar sense
of brotherhood with fellow Muslims arising in the breasts of
"Iranians".<
Uh, I think it's bullshit. Why didn't the Arabs create a state for the
"Palestinians" between 1949 and 1967, when there were no "settlers" or
"settlements," and when East Jerusalem was in Jordanian possession?
Why didn't their Muslim Arab brethren offer half a day's oil revenues
to help our the poor PalArabs?
Post by jgarbuz
The whole thing is bogus.
They just can't accept the idea of a Jewish state, as that somehow
diminishes Islam. FUck'em.
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Israel sells weapons all over the world. Do her leaders lie awake at
night imagining the misery they will inevitably cause? <
Do America's? or Russia's? or Germany's? or France's? or the UK's?
They all sell more arms than Israel.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
The US and Russia sell much more arms than does Israel, but ISrael is
around number 4 in arms exports.
Try #11.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Yes, a population of six million is fourth in world arms exports.
USA
Russia
Germany
France
UK
Netherlands
Sweden
Italy
China
Ukraine
Israel
Spain
Canada
Switzerland
Belarus
Poland
South Korea
Uzbekistan
South Africa
Czech Republic
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
I think that isn't healthy.<
Why?
Because they are Jooooz. It all seems "healthy" enough for the French
and the Swedes, as well as the others ahead of Israel on the list.
Post by jgarbuz
Having a large arms industry strenghtens Israel ability to defend
itself, and is useful in gaining friends who buy those arms. After
all, Israel doesn't produce cars or very heavy machinery, so the
defense industry is ISrael's major manufacturing base. I think it's
great.
Post by HHW
It reflects a garrison-state mentality.<
So, a "garrison-state mentality" is also reflected by the USA, Russia,
Germany, France, UK, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, China, Ukraine? Or
not, as the case may be, because they're none of them Jews.
Post by jgarbuz
It has to be a garrison state because it is surrounded by bandits and
cutthroats. When Islam will accept the right of a JEwish state to
exist, there may no longer be the need for such a mentality.
Post by HHW
And
though what we do may not as bad per capita, it is still abominable as
policy.
But not so abominable that Humper can't let it slide in favor of his
most beloved bete-noir.
Post by jgarbuz
US military aid only started after the Six Day War.
Thought the military aid started after the Yom Kippur War.
Deborah
Post by jgarbuz
Israel had already
captured all of the territory without much in the way of American
hardware. And the reason why the US gives ISrael military aid is so
that it can sell 2 or 3 times as much military hardware to the Saudis
at full price without opposition from AIPAC. If the US didn't sell the
Arabs two or three times as much military hardware as it gives to
Israel, Israel wouldn't need any aid whatsoever.
As for why Arabs hate? Because they thought that it was their right to
rule the world, and not Britain or America's.
They thought it was Allah's plan for the Arabs to rule over everyone
else, and so when they came under control of Britain and America, and
with the creation of a Jewish state, they felt "humiliated." That's a
favorite Arab word: humiliated.
They can't stand to be humiliated. THey have to destroy Israel and
then defeat the West to overcome their "humiliation."
Well, fuck'em. THey should go back to their tents and camels in the
desert from where they should never have left in the first place. THey
belong their with the other snakes and scorpions. They'll be much
happier if they do.
marika
2008-06-14 19:47:39 UTC
Permalink
"HHW" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8f087da9-953c-4c99-951f-***@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...


And
though what we do may not as bad per capita, it is still abominable as
policy.
------------------

you know you would think so, but I haven't really checked for it. they did
say it was annual?

don't know if you saw the photo in the article

it's sort of creepy cool

http://www.lahontanvalleynews.com/article/20080614/COMMUNITY/630030102/1050/SPORTS&parentprofile=-1
HHW
2008-06-11 22:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
That characterizes her foreign *policy* since 1947 very nicely. It's
her policies I object to. Yes, they reflect criminal stupidity. But
also greed and duplicity. I could go on. Listen now: every one of your
arguments requires the reader to suppress the underlying reasons for
Arab and Muslim hostility to Israel. Basically what you do is to
assume that everything Israel does is defensive. That is simply false.
You know that. It's no mistake on your part. I see it as a malicious
form of argument.
Post by Count 1
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Not if she is committing crimes. No, indeed. Sovereign nations are
obliged to submit to International Law. They would be denounced. No
more passes for Israel. We strive for the rule of law, not of the
jungle. I want to get America separated from its present essentially
involuntary role as an enabler of Zionist aggression. It's time for
Israel to receive ALL of the blow back generated by her own criminal
stupidity. We've suffered much too much for much too long.

The more I look at this post the more your ignorance becomes apparent.
Attacking Iran will be no walk in the park, no Osirak which was not
even defended. And you don't know the difference between tactical and
strategic strikes.
jgarbuz
2008-06-11 23:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
That characterizes her foreign *policy* since 1947 very nicely. It's
her policies I object to. Yes, they reflect criminal stupidity. But
also greed and duplicity. I could go on. Listen now: every one of your
arguments requires the reader to suppress the underlying reasons for
Arab and Muslim hostility to Israel.<
The "underlying" reason is that the Muslim ARabs will not accept a
Jewish state, or for that matter a Christian state, as Lebanon once
was, on what THEY call "Arab Islamic Land." As if the whole Middle
East is theirs. But in Europe there are a number of Muslim states:
Albania, Turkey, and now Kosovo.
Post by HHW
Basically what you do is to
assume that everything Israel does is defensive. That is simply false.
You know that. It's no mistake on your part. I see it as a malicious
form of argument.
Post by Count 1
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Not if she is committing crimes. No, indeed. Sovereign nations are
obliged to submit to International Law. <
Which "international law?" The League of Nations gave ALL of Mandatory
Palestine west of the Jordan river for a Jewish homeland. You pick
and choose the international laws you want enforced. But not the ones
favorable to Israel.

They would be denounced. No
Post by HHW
more passes for Israel. We strive for the rule of law, not of the
jungle. <
Me too. If you can get the Arab animals on board, the problem will be
solved.

I want to get America separated from its present essentially
Post by HHW
involuntary role as an enabler of Zionist aggression. It's time for
Israel to receive ALL of the blow back generated by her own criminal
stupidity. We've suffered much too much for much too long.
The more I look at this post the more your ignorance becomes apparent.
Attacking Iran will be no walk in the park, no Osirak which was not
even defended. And you don't know the difference between tactical and
strategic strikes.
Count 1
2008-06-12 00:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Basically what you do is to
Post by HHW
assume that everything Israel does is defensive.
I haven't given you enough information for you to make that claim - so far
we are only discussing specifically the Iranian / Israeli situation.

Interestingly enough in the Iranian case defensive is the way to
characterize Israel's actions.

What you do is far worse, you blame the victim.

That is simply false.
Post by HHW
You know that. It's no mistake on your part. I see it as a malicious
form of argument.
What you do is assume Israel is to blame for all the aggression pointed at
her, so if you think it's a mailicous form or argument, stop engaging in it.
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Not if she is committing crimes.
Was bombing Osirak a crime? Wouldn't you agree that Osirak's destruction was
a roundly good thing? Is international law always an absolute? Aren't there
cases where the right thing to do is not necessarily the legal thing to do,
in the context of international law?


No, indeed. Sovereign nations are
Post by HHW
obliged to submit to International Law. They would be denounced. No
more passes for Israel.
Denounce away. The test will be if they set back the nuclear clock.


We strive for the rule of law, not of the
Post by HHW
jungle. I want to get America separated from its present essentially
involuntary role as an enabler of Zionist aggression.
What about India? What about Germany? They have excellent relations with
Israel and are capable of picking up much of the slack if the US ends all
financial and military support for Israel.

If you don't end relations with them, then the Salafists will still have an
argument to hit you.

Are you beginning to see the problem of acquiescing to the demands of
fanatics?

It's time for
Post by HHW
Israel to receive ALL of the blow back generated by her own criminal
stupidity. We've suffered much too much for much too long.
Ohhhh, so it's no longer her right to exist, to live in security. Now she
has to suffer, predicated on some percieved 'suffering' America has endured.
Bin Laden said he attacked you at least in part for your support of Israel.

So tell me - what parts of US policy shouldn't be altered as a result of
terrorism?
B***@isp.com
2008-06-12 04:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening. I could have
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Israel had no right to bomb Osirak. Iraq had every
right to develop nuclear emergy for her own use.
What would be your position if someoene bombed Israel's nuclear
facilities, or don't they have the
right to do that?


- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
HHW
2008-06-12 23:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the
Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening. I could have
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Israel had no right to bomb Osirak. Iraq had every
right to develop nuclear emergy for her own use.
What would be your position if someoene bombed Israel's nuclear
facilities, or don't they have the
right to do that?
- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
I haven't looked yet but do you think this will be answered by
Zionists>
B***@isp.com
2008-06-13 01:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the
Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening. I could have
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Israel had no right to bomb Osirak. Iraq had every
right to develop nuclear emergy for her own use.
What would be your position if someone bombed Israel's nuclear
facilities, or don't they have the right to do that?
- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
I haven't looked yet but do you think this will be answered by
Zionists.
I would hope that all Zionists lived in Israel. Are you trying to
say that they don't!! Surely, that's the whole idea of Zionism.
1) Move to Israel.
2) Join the IDF
3) Live on a kibbutz.

What would you call someone who claims to be a Zionist and
then continues to live in Brooklyn/Beverly Hills/Shaker Heights/
Grosse Pointe/Long Island etal. Hardly a stalwart defender
of Zionist surely.
Post by HHW
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
HHW
2008-06-13 02:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the
Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to
respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening. I could have
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Israel had no right to bomb Osirak. Iraq had every
right to develop nuclear emergy for her own use.
What would be your position if someone bombed Israel's nuclear
facilities, or don't they have the right to do that?
- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
I haven't looked yet but do you think this will be answered by
Zionists.
I would hope that all Zionists lived in Israel.  Are you trying to
say that they don't!!  Surely, that's the whole idea of Zionism.
1) Move to Israel.
2) Join the IDF
 3) Live on a kibbutz.
What would you call someone who claims to be a Zionist and
then continues to live in Brooklyn/Beverly Hills/Shaker Heights/
Grosse Pointe/Long Island etal.   Hardly a stalwart defender
of Zionist surely.
Post by HHW
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course you're right, but I'd like to describe the Gringos here who
support any crime Israel has ever committed as Zionists. If they
aren't Zionists, what title do they deserve?
Eli Grubman
2008-06-13 03:42:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:40:53 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the
Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to
respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening. I could have
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Israel had no right to bomb Osirak. Iraq had every
right to develop nuclear emergy for her own use.
What would be your position if someone bombed Israel's nuclear
facilities, or don't they have the right to do that?
- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
I haven't looked yet but do you think this will be answered by
Zionists.
I would hope that all Zionists lived in Israel.  Are you trying to
say that they don't!!  Surely, that's the whole idea of Zionism.
1) Move to Israel.
2) Join the IDF
 3) Live on a kibbutz.
What would you call someone who claims to be a Zionist and
then continues to live in Brooklyn/Beverly Hills/Shaker Heights/
Grosse Pointe/Long Island etal.   Hardly a stalwart defender
of Zionist surely.
Post by HHW
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course you're right, but I'd like to describe the Gringos here who
support any crime Israel has ever committed as Zionists. If they
aren't Zionists, what title do they deserve?
"The importance of 'Israel' to any given jew is directly proportional
to the square of the distance between that jew and 'Israel'."
- Fformby-Smythe's Theorem

Eli
jgarbuz
2008-06-13 12:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eli Grubman
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:40:53 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the
Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to
respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening. I could have
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Israel had no right to bomb Osirak. Iraq had every
right to develop nuclear emergy for her own use.
What would be your position if someone bombed Israel's nuclear
facilities, or don't they have the right to do that?
- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
I haven't looked yet but do you think this will be answered by
Zionists.
I would hope that all Zionists lived in Israel. Are you trying to
say that they don't!! Surely, that's the whole idea of Zionism.
1) Move to Israel.
2) Join the IDF
3) Live on a kibbutz.
What would you call someone who claims to be a Zionist and
then continues to live in Brooklyn/Beverly Hills/Shaker Heights/
Grosse Pointe/Long Island etal. Hardly a stalwart defender
of Zionist surely.
Post by HHW
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course you're right, but I'd like to describe the Gringos here who
support any crime Israel has ever committed as Zionists. If they
aren't Zionists, what title do they deserve?
"The importance of 'Israel' to any given jew is directly proportional
to the square of the distance between that jew and 'Israel'."
- Fformby-Smythe's Theorem<
No, it's directly proportional to the square of the distance between
himself and the Gestapo chasing him. The closer the Nazis get, the
exponentially greater the attraction of Israel gets.
Eli Grubman
2008-06-13 13:36:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:07:26 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by Eli Grubman
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:40:53 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the
Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to
respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening. I could have
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Israel had no right to bomb Osirak. Iraq had every
right to develop nuclear emergy for her own use.
What would be your position if someone bombed Israel's nuclear
facilities, or don't they have the right to do that?
- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
I haven't looked yet but do you think this will be answered by
Zionists.
I would hope that all Zionists lived in Israel. Are you trying to
say that they don't!! Surely, that's the whole idea of Zionism.
1) Move to Israel.
2) Join the IDF
3) Live on a kibbutz.
What would you call someone who claims to be a Zionist and
then continues to live in Brooklyn/Beverly Hills/Shaker Heights/
Grosse Pointe/Long Island etal. Hardly a stalwart defender
of Zionist surely.
Post by HHW
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course you're right, but I'd like to describe the Gringos here who
support any crime Israel has ever committed as Zionists. If they
aren't Zionists, what title do they deserve?
"The importance of 'Israel' to any given jew is directly proportional
to the square of the distance between that jew and 'Israel'."
- Fformby-Smythe's Theorem<
No, it's directly proportional to the square of the distance between
himself and the Gestapo chasing him. The closer the Nazis get, the
exponentially greater the attraction of Israel gets.
I hate to tell you this, but the Gestapo ceased to exist in 1945.

Eli
jgarbuz
2008-06-13 14:02:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:07:26 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by Eli Grubman
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:40:53 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the
Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to
respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening. I could have
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Israel had no right to bomb Osirak. Iraq had every
right to develop nuclear emergy for her own use.
What would be your position if someone bombed Israel's nuclear
facilities, or don't they have the right to do that?
- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
I haven't looked yet but do you think this will be answered by
Zionists.
I would hope that all Zionists lived in Israel. Are you trying to
say that they don't!! Surely, that's the whole idea of Zionism.
1) Move to Israel.
2) Join the IDF
3) Live on a kibbutz.
What would you call someone who claims to be a Zionist and
then continues to live in Brooklyn/Beverly Hills/Shaker Heights/
Grosse Pointe/Long Island etal. Hardly a stalwart defender
of Zionist surely.
Post by HHW
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course you're right, but I'd like to describe the Gringos here who
support any crime Israel has ever committed as Zionists. If they
aren't Zionists, what title do they deserve?
"The importance of 'Israel' to any given jew is directly proportional
to the square of the distance between that jew and 'Israel'."
- Fformby-Smythe's Theorem<
No, it's directly proportional to the square of the distance between
himself and the Gestapo chasing him. The closer the Nazis get, the
exponentially greater the attraction of Israel gets.
I hate to tell you this, but the Gestapo ceased to exist in 1945.<
Nah, you all just went into hiding in places like Australia, Canada
and ARgentina., just waiting for your day again.
Eli Grubman
2008-06-13 14:16:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:02:30 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:07:26 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by Eli Grubman
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:40:53 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the
Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to
respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening. I could have
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Israel had no right to bomb Osirak. Iraq had every
right to develop nuclear emergy for her own use.
What would be your position if someone bombed Israel's nuclear
facilities, or don't they have the right to do that?
- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
I haven't looked yet but do you think this will be answered by
Zionists.
I would hope that all Zionists lived in Israel. Are you trying to
say that they don't!! Surely, that's the whole idea of Zionism.
1) Move to Israel.
2) Join the IDF
3) Live on a kibbutz.
What would you call someone who claims to be a Zionist and
then continues to live in Brooklyn/Beverly Hills/Shaker Heights/
Grosse Pointe/Long Island etal. Hardly a stalwart defender
of Zionist surely.
Post by HHW
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course you're right, but I'd like to describe the Gringos here who
support any crime Israel has ever committed as Zionists. If they
aren't Zionists, what title do they deserve?
"The importance of 'Israel' to any given jew is directly proportional
to the square of the distance between that jew and 'Israel'."
- Fformby-Smythe's Theorem<
No, it's directly proportional to the square of the distance between
himself and the Gestapo chasing him. The closer the Nazis get, the
exponentially greater the attraction of Israel gets.
I hate to tell you this, but the Gestapo ceased to exist in 1945.<
Nah, you all just went into hiding in places like Australia, Canada
and ARgentina., just waiting for your day again.
Many such people ended up in...Israel!

Eli
Panta Rhei
2008-06-13 16:28:47 UTC
Permalink
Eli Grabmen, the notorious rabid anti-Semite, aka trolling Jewdas, dumb
Post by Eli Grubman
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:02:30 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:07:26 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by Eli Grubman
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:40:53 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the
Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to
respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening. I could have
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Israel had no right to bomb Osirak. Iraq had every
right to develop nuclear emergy for her own use.
What would be your position if someone bombed Israel's nuclear
facilities, or don't they have the right to do that?
- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
I haven't looked yet but do you think this will be answered by
Zionists.
I would hope that all Zionists lived in Israel. Are you trying to
say that they don't!! Surely, that's the whole idea of Zionism.
1) Move to Israel.
2) Join the IDF
3) Live on a kibbutz.
What would you call someone who claims to be a Zionist and
then continues to live in Brooklyn/Beverly Hills/Shaker Heights/
Grosse Pointe/Long Island etal. Hardly a stalwart defender
of Zionist surely.
Post by HHW
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course you're right, but I'd like to describe the Gringos here who
support any crime Israel has ever committed as Zionists. If they
aren't Zionists, what title do they deserve?
"The importance of 'Israel' to any given jew is directly proportional
to the square of the distance between that jew and 'Israel'."
- Fformby-Smythe's Theorem<
No, it's directly proportional to the square of the distance between
himself and the Gestapo chasing him. The closer the Nazis get, the
exponentially greater the attraction of Israel gets.
I hate to tell you this, but the Gestapo ceased to exist in 1945.<
Nah, you all just went into hiding in places like Australia, Canada
and ARgentina., just waiting for your day again.
Many such people ended up in...Israel!
Eli
Yep, Eichmann ended up there, quite successfully! LMAO!
Panta Rhei
2008-06-13 16:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Eli Grabmen, the notorious rabid anti-Semite, aka trolling Jewdas, dumb
Post by Eli Grubman
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:07:26 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by Eli Grubman
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:40:53 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the
Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to
respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening. I could have
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Israel had no right to bomb Osirak. Iraq had every
right to develop nuclear emergy for her own use.
What would be your position if someone bombed Israel's nuclear
facilities, or don't they have the right to do that?
- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
I haven't looked yet but do you think this will be answered by
Zionists.
I would hope that all Zionists lived in Israel. Are you trying to
say that they don't!! Surely, that's the whole idea of Zionism.
1) Move to Israel.
2) Join the IDF
3) Live on a kibbutz.
What would you call someone who claims to be a Zionist and
then continues to live in Brooklyn/Beverly Hills/Shaker Heights/
Grosse Pointe/Long Island etal. Hardly a stalwart defender
of Zionist surely.
Post by HHW
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course you're right, but I'd like to describe the Gringos here who
support any crime Israel has ever committed as Zionists. If they
aren't Zionists, what title do they deserve?
"The importance of 'Israel' to any given jew is directly proportional
to the square of the distance between that jew and 'Israel'."
- Fformby-Smythe's Theorem<
No, it's directly proportional to the square of the distance between
himself and the Gestapo chasing him. The closer the Nazis get, the
exponentially greater the attraction of Israel gets.
I hate to tell you this, but the Gestapo ceased to exist in 1945.
Eli
Yeah, most got hanged, or hanged or shot themselves, etc. And if they
didn't, they got killed some time later, often by Jewish organizations. So
watch it, you piece of shit! The Mossad might some day be knocking on your
door and have a talk with you. LOL
jgarbuz
2008-06-13 11:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the
Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to
respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening. I could have
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Israel had no right to bomb Osirak. Iraq had every
right to develop nuclear emergy for her own use.
What would be your position if someone bombed Israel's nuclear
facilities, or don't they have the right to do that?
- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
I haven't looked yet but do you think this will be answered by
Zionists.
I would hope that all Zionists lived in Israel. Are you trying to
say that they don't!! Surely, that's the whole idea of Zionism.
1) Move to Israel.
2) Join the IDF
3) Live on a kibbutz.
What would you call someone who claims to be a Zionist and
then continues to live in Brooklyn/Beverly Hills/Shaker Heights/
Grosse Pointe/Long Island etal. Hardly a stalwart defender
of Zionist surely.
Post by HHW
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course you're right, but I'd like to describe the Gringos here who
support any crime Israel has ever committed as Zionists. If they
aren't Zionists, what title do they deserve?<
Israel has committed no crimes, so your argument is fallacious from
the get go. The only "crime" Israel has committed is defending itself.
I suppose, for many the very idea of Jews defending themselves is a
crime.
HHW
2008-06-13 19:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
Post by Count 1
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the
Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and
impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support
a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian
controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard
refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using
any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to
respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening. I could have
added supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.
Israel had no right to bomb Osirak. Iraq had every
right to develop nuclear emergy for her own use.
What would be your position if someone bombed Israel's nuclear
facilities, or don't they have the right to do that?
- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
I haven't looked yet but do you think this will be answered by
Zionists.
I would hope that all Zionists lived in Israel.  Are you trying to
say that they don't!!  Surely, that's the whole idea of Zionism.
1) Move to Israel.
2) Join the IDF
 3) Live on a kibbutz.
What would you call someone who claims to be a Zionist and
then continues to live in Brooklyn/Beverly Hills/Shaker Heights/
Grosse Pointe/Long Island etal.   Hardly a stalwart defender
of Zionist surely.
Post by HHW
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course you're right, but I'd like to describe the Gringos here who
support any crime Israel has ever committed as Zionists. If they
aren't Zionists, what title do they deserve?<
Israel has committed no crimes, so your argument is fallacious from
the get go. The only "crime" Israel has committed is defending itself.
I suppose, for many the very idea of Jews defending themselves is a
crime.
Israel has committed the crime against humanity of ethnic cleansing.
She committed it repeatedly. The conduct of the Occupation has also
contained various crimes against humanity. We hanged Germans for
starting aggressive wars.
dsharavi@gmail.com
2008-06-10 16:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and impress
the less intellectually capable.
Predictable, coming from that corner where most rely on YouTube for
facts.
Post by Count 1
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating.
Unsurprising.
Post by Count 1
Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran.  Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally,  possible.
He does have trouble keeping his lies straight, doesn't he? A problem
when one is as ignorant as he is of the subjects he attempts to
address, but apparently this is a long-standing habit of his.

What I find amusing is how posters can scream "genocide" in one post,
then turn round and post some nonsense about overcrowded condititions
for the poor, freeloading Pallies.

Deborah
4PeaceMirelle
2008-06-10 16:10:39 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 10, 9:03 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid
8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped
Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.
In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.
Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.
Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.
Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.
Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.
Serves lots of Pallies.

Deborah

http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)

23 Responses to “Zionist, Cannibalistic “Recipe””
1. Celeste Sinclair Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:26 am
Vile, intolerable, despicable, evil…
2. Norah Jensen Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:30 am
HORRIFYING!
3. Jerry Edwards Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:39 am
Forgive her Father, she knows not what she does.
Protect the dear children form people like Deborah Sharavi,
precious Lord.
4. Tom Cooper Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:42 am
A monster like this, I have not come across before.
5. Fred Konklin Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:49 am
Rage against such inhumanity!
6. Tara Belisle Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:59 am
This shows the terrorism that is inherent in zionism.
7. Gertrude Verman Says:
June 5, 2008 at 4:26 am
Barren, morally degenerate.
8. Nancy McDougal Says:
June 5, 2008 at 5:22 am
This Deborah Sharavi is not human.
9. Terry Bidak Says:
June 5, 2008 at 5:50 am
This “recipe” is not much different from what Israel is doing
to
Palestinians in Gaza. Killing Palestinians slowly by starving
them to
death.
10. Moss Hollinger Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:03 am
This woman is a danger to herself and others. Someone should
lock her up.
11. Lisa Bergen Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:15 am
When a people view themselves as being “chosen people”, by a
decree from God, this is the outcome.
12. Josh Smith Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:32 am
zionazi criminal.
13. Anne Collins Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:43 am
Reminds me of the Nazis making soap and lampshades from Jews.
14. Becky Polestar Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:51 am
So sad. I have lost all faith in humans. What happened to live
and let live?
15. Rocky Dempster Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:59 am
Zionists=Nazis.
16. Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss Says:
June 5, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Another example of ZIONIST VIOLENCE.
17. Dr. Carolyn DeMarco Says:
June 5, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Distressing.
18. Ted McTavish Says:
June 6, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Man, this is one psycho bitch.
19. Madeline Nekoya Says:
June 8, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Imagine the outrage if someone were to post a cannibalistic
“recipe” about a Jewish child.
20. Brodie Drombolis Says:
June 8, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Deborah Sharavi needs to be reported to the appropriate
authorities for hate crimes.
21. Korina Zack Says:
June 8, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Zionist baby killer.
22. Gill Radcliff Says:
June 9, 2008 at 3:43 am
It’s disappointing that Ariel Sharon is in a coma and can’t be
tried — and found guilty for crimes against humanity.
23. Jennifer Theissen Says:
June 9, 2008 at 3:54 am
I feel sick to my stomach.

http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe/
____________________________________________________________
Mirelle
Post by Count 1
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and impress
the less intellectually capable.
Predictable, coming from that corner where most rely on YouTube for
facts.
Post by Count 1
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating.
Unsurprising.
Post by Count 1
Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran.  Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally,  possible.
He does have trouble keeping his lies straight, doesn't he? A problem
when one is as ignorant as he is of the subjects he attempts to
address, but apparently this is a long-standing habit of his.
What I find amusing is how posters can scream "genocide" in one post,
then turn round and post some nonsense about overcrowded condititions
for the poor, freeloading Pallies.
Deborah
DoD
2008-06-10 17:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by 4PeaceMirelle
Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense.
Are you ever gonna shut up? Fuck, you are as stupid as you are ugly
and that just boggles the mind.
HHW
2008-06-11 20:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by 4PeaceMirelle
Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense.
Are you ever gonna shut up?  Fuck, you are as stupid as you are ugly
and that just boggles the mind.
Every time you open your mouth you drive your reputation further into
the sewer. Mirelle also owns you too.
HHW
2008-06-11 22:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by 4PeaceMirelle
Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense.
Are you ever gonna shut up?  Fuck, you are as stupid as you are ugly
and that just boggles the mind.
Every time you open your mouth you drive your reputation further into
the sewer. Mirelle also owns you.
Filed to eliminate redundancy.
DoD
2008-06-12 05:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by 4PeaceMirelle
Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense.
Are you ever gonna shut up?  Fuck, you are as stupid as you are ugly
and that just boggles the mind.
Every time you open your mouth you drive your reputation further into
the sewer. Mirelle also owns you.
Filed to eliminate redundancy.-
LOL.... To normal people, you are such a turd.
4PeaceMirelle
2008-06-10 16:11:02 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 10, 9:03 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid
8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped
Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.
In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.
Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.
Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.
Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.
Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.
Serves lots of Pallies.

Deborah

http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)

23 Responses to “Zionist, Cannibalistic “Recipe””
1. Celeste Sinclair Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:26 am
Vile, intolerable, despicable, evil…
2. Norah Jensen Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:30 am
HORRIFYING!
3. Jerry Edwards Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:39 am
Forgive her Father, she knows not what she does.
Protect the dear children form people like Deborah Sharavi,
precious Lord.
4. Tom Cooper Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:42 am
A monster like this, I have not come across before.
5. Fred Konklin Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:49 am
Rage against such inhumanity!
6. Tara Belisle Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:59 am
This shows the terrorism that is inherent in zionism.
7. Gertrude Verman Says:
June 5, 2008 at 4:26 am
Barren, morally degenerate.
8. Nancy McDougal Says:
June 5, 2008 at 5:22 am
This Deborah Sharavi is not human.
9. Terry Bidak Says:
June 5, 2008 at 5:50 am
This “recipe” is not much different from what Israel is doing
to
Palestinians in Gaza. Killing Palestinians slowly by starving
them to
death.
10. Moss Hollinger Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:03 am
This woman is a danger to herself and others. Someone should
lock her up.
11. Lisa Bergen Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:15 am
When a people view themselves as being “chosen people”, by a
decree from God, this is the outcome.
12. Josh Smith Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:32 am
zionazi criminal.
13. Anne Collins Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:43 am
Reminds me of the Nazis making soap and lampshades from Jews.
14. Becky Polestar Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:51 am
So sad. I have lost all faith in humans. What happened to live
and let live?
15. Rocky Dempster Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:59 am
Zionists=Nazis.
16. Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss Says:
June 5, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Another example of ZIONIST VIOLENCE.
17. Dr. Carolyn DeMarco Says:
June 5, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Distressing.
18. Ted McTavish Says:
June 6, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Man, this is one psycho bitch.
19. Madeline Nekoya Says:
June 8, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Imagine the outrage if someone were to post a cannibalistic
“recipe” about a Jewish child.
20. Brodie Drombolis Says:
June 8, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Deborah Sharavi needs to be reported to the appropriate
authorities for hate crimes.
21. Korina Zack Says:
June 8, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Zionist baby killer.
22. Gill Radcliff Says:
June 9, 2008 at 3:43 am
It’s disappointing that Ariel Sharon is in a coma and can’t be
tried — and found guilty for crimes against humanity.
23. Jennifer Theissen Says:
June 9, 2008 at 3:54 am
I feel sick to my stomach.

http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe/
____________________________________________________________
Mirelle
Post by Count 1
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and impress
the less intellectually capable.
Predictable, coming from that corner where most rely on YouTube for
facts.
Post by Count 1
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating.
Unsurprising.
Post by Count 1
Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran.  Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally,  possible.
He does have trouble keeping his lies straight, doesn't he? A problem
when one is as ignorant as he is of the subjects he attempts to
address, but apparently this is a long-standing habit of his.
What I find amusing is how posters can scream "genocide" in one post,
then turn round and post some nonsense about overcrowded condititions
for the poor, freeloading Pallies.
Deborah
HHW
2008-06-11 18:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
What I find amusing is how posters can scream "genocide" in one post,
then turn round and post some nonsense about overcrowded condititions
for the poor, freeloading Pallies.
Deborah
Are you awake at present? Overcrowded conditions and genocide are not
mutually exclusive.
jgarbuz
2008-06-09 17:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah<
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel. Your namesake in
the Bible was one of ancient Israel's best judges and leaders. But if
I were a woman, I'd be more like Jael, and just drive a stake through
their fucking brains.
HHW
2008-06-10 05:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah<
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel. Your namesake in
the Bible was one of ancient Israel's best judges and leaders. But if
I were a woman, I'd be more like Jael, and just drive a stake through
their fucking brains.
Sounds like that old time religion in our Old Testament which
Christians would have rejected in the beginning if they'd had any
sense.
DoD
2008-06-10 06:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah<
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel. Your namesake in
the Bible was one of ancient Israel's best judges and leaders. But if
I were a woman, I'd be more like Jael, and just drive a stake through
their fucking brains.
Sounds like that old time religion
**** in our Old Testament*****

::::::Chuckles::::: .. this is why I still read s.c.i... to see weird
shit like this...


which
Post by HHW
Christians would have rejected in the beginning if they'd had any
sense.-
That is why in my church bulletin two weeks ago they had a write up
about how we ***Catholics*** could get a lesson from Jews about
Teffelin... I doubt you know what that even is...

Drunk Jerk...

LOL!!!!!

David
dsharavi@gmail.com
2008-06-10 16:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Sounds like that old time religion in our Old Testament
"YOUR" "Old Testament"?
Post by HHW
which
Christians would have rejected in the beginning if they'd had any
sense.
For starters, the first Christians were all Jews. Secondly, without
the so-called "Old Testament" there wouldn't have been any "New
Testament", and hence, no Christian religion; this applies to Islam as
well.

Deborah
HHW
2008-06-11 19:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by HHW
Sounds like that old time religion in our Old Testament
"YOUR" "Old Testament"?
Post by HHW
which
Christians would have rejected in the beginning if they'd had any
sense.
For starters, the first Christians were all Jews. Secondly, without
the so-called "Old Testament" there wouldn't have been any "New
Testament", and hence, no Christian religion; this applies to Islam as
well.
Deborah
Post by HHW
Sounds like that old time religion in our Old Testament
"YOUR" "Old Testament"?
Post by HHW
which
Christians would have rejected in the beginning if they'd had any
sense.
For starters, the first Christians were all Jews. Secondly, without
the so-called "Old Testament" there wouldn't have been any "New
Testament", and hence, no Christian religion; this applies to Islam as
well.
Deborah
You are a provincial with the mind-set of an ultra orthodox nit
picker.

Whether they were Jews is of marginal relevance, a curiosity. They
became Christians. Christ was a sublime radical, a revolutionary.
What counts began afresh with him. What he could have meant to the
world far transcended Judaism. Christianity as a social philosophy is
not Judaism by any means. It's not tribal. Its great beauty lies in
that difference. And Christianity was destined to have a far greater
impact. It is tragic that the decision was made to incorporate
Babylonian myth and Middle Eastern nomadic savagery into what became
Christianity. Grafting a Middle Eastern mentality onto Europe was a
great error. Mistakes are made by men, not Gods.

Said again: As the Old Testament was out of copyright. Early
Christians made the mistake of adopting it as part of our "old time
religion". When you adopt such a thing it's yours. You commit to it.
Overall this move was an obscurantist disaster. It had the effect of
embedding a savage, nomadic Middle Eastern world view in Europe. It
wouldn't have been necessary to do that to buy into Christ's social
philosophy.
B***@isp.com
2008-06-13 01:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by HHW
Sounds like that old time religion in our Old Testament
"YOUR" "Old Testament"?
Post by HHW
which
Christians would have rejected in the beginning if they'd had any
sense.
For starters, the first Christians were all Jews. Secondly, without
the so-called "Old Testament" there wouldn't have been any "New
Testament", and hence, no Christian religion; this applies to Islam as
well.
Deborah
Post by HHW
Sounds like that old time religion in our Old Testament
"YOUR" "Old Testament"?
Post by HHW
which
Christians would have rejected in the beginning if they'd had any
sense.
For starters, the first Christians were all Jews. Secondly, without
the so-called "Old Testament" there wouldn't have been any "New
Testament", and hence, no Christian religion; this applies to Islam as
well.
Deborah
You are a provincial with the mind-set of an ultra orthodox nit
picker.
Whether they were Jews is of marginal relevance, a curiosity. They
became Christians.  Christ was a sublime radical, a revolutionary.
What counts began afresh with him. What he could have meant to the
world far transcended Judaism. Christianity as a social philosophy is
not Judaism by any means. It's not tribal. Its great beauty lies in
that difference. And Christianity was destined to have a far greater
impact. It is tragic that the decision was made to incorporate
Babylonian myth and Middle Eastern nomadic savagery into what became
Christianity. Grafting a Middle Eastern mentality onto Europe was a
great error. Mistakes are made by men, not Gods.
Said again: As the Old Testament was out of copyright. Early
Christians made the mistake of adopting it as part of our "old time
religion".  When you adopt such a thing it's yours.  You commit to it.
Overall this move was an obscurantist disaster. It had the effect of
embedding a savage, nomadic Middle Eastern world view in Europe. It
wouldn't have been necessary to do that to buy into Christ's social philosophy.
You are assuming that those on the planet today who call
themselves "jews" are related to the Tribe of Judah from the
O.T. There were 3 Tribes in the N.T. Judah, the tribe of Christ,
Benjamin, the tribe of Paul and Levy, the ribe from which the
Priests were chosen. After the Romans chucked them out,
they scattered in all directions. Whether or not those who are
today's "jews" are descended from them is debatable.
Christ called some of them "Offspring of Satan" and a
"Generation of vipers". (snakes). Christ was not known for name-
calling, when He said something he meant it literally.

"The serpent beguiled (seduced) me and I did eat".
Eve.

Perhaps the Mark of Cain was a physical mark, clearly
seen by everyone. Any idea what it was?



- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
jgarbuz
2008-06-13 03:40:57 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by ***@gmail.com
For starters, the first Christians were all Jews. Secondly, without
the so-called "Old Testament" there wouldn't have been any "New
Testament", and hence, no Christian religion; this applies to Islam as
well.
Deborah
You are a provincial with the mind-set of an ultra orthodox nit
picker.
Whether they were Jews is of marginal relevance, a curiosity. They
became Christians. Christ was a sublime radical, a revolutionary.
What counts began afresh with him. What he could have meant to the
world far transcended Judaism. Christianity as a social philosophy is
not Judaism by any means. It's not tribal. Its great beauty lies in
that difference. And Christianity was destined to have a far greater
impact. It is tragic that the decision was made to incorporate
Babylonian myth and Middle Eastern nomadic savagery into what became
Christianity. Grafting a Middle Eastern mentality onto Europe was a
great error. Mistakes are made by men, not Gods.<<
We Jews get along much better with Buddhists and Hindus and others
whose religions and philosophies had nothing to do with Judaism, and
hence there is no basis for conflict, where one religion tries to
usurp or transcend the other, and
belittles it. As for savagery, the European were as savage as any
other on the planet. Even the great civilization of Rome revelled in
blood and watching men murdering each other in sports arenas, and even
eaten by animals to the great delight of the onlookers. For any
European to believe himself to be from less savage roots than Jews is
ludicrous.
White Europeans were among the most savage of peoples on earth,
despite the much high level of technology and artistic accomplishment.
As for the root of European antisemitsm the Talmud said it centuries
ago: "Esau HATES Jacob." Our sages considered Rome as an offshoot of
Esau, and Esau hates Jacob. It's inherent.
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Said again: As the Old Testament was out of copyright. Early
Christians made the mistake of adopting it as part of our "old time
religion". When you adopt such a thing it's yours. You commit to it.
Overall this move was an obscurantist disaster. It had the effect of
embedding a savage, nomadic Middle Eastern world view in Europe. It
wouldn't have been necessary to do that to buy into Christ's social philosophy.
You are assuming that those on the planet today who call
themselves "jews" are related to the Tribe of Judah from the
O.T.<
Can you prove otherwise? Bring your genetic evidence to disprove that
the majority of Jews are genetically the descendants of Israelites.
Take all the JEwish blood you want, and compare the DNA to that of
other peoples, and if you find that most Jews are closer to Europeans
or other non-Middle Eastern people, then you can make a case.
Scientists working in the fields now seem to believe that at least 50%
of Jews today are of Israelite origins. But if you or Cramer or
anybody bring in scientific evidence to the contrary, I say, bring it
on. I agree that if the majority of Jews are not of Israelite blood,
their claim to the land is greatly diminished. Still much greater than
the claim of people whose origins is of those British isles over
Indian lands, but greatly diminished nonetheless. LEt me ask you this
question:If the majority of scientists came to agree that the majority
of Jews today are of Israelite blood, would you then change your
stance? Would you then acclaim that the Land of Israel ("Palestine")
rightfully belongs to the JEws, or not?
Post by B***@isp.com
There were 3 Tribes in the N.T. Judah, the tribe of Christ,
Benjamin, the tribe of Paul and Levy, the ribe from which the
Priests were chosen. After the Romans chucked them out,
they scattered in all directions. Whether or not those who are
today's "jews" are descended from them is debatable.<
Only debatable amongst those who chose to ignore science. You might as
well debate whether the earth is round or flat, or the existence of
UFOs.
Post by B***@isp.com
Christ called some of them "Offspring of Satan" and a
"Generation of vipers". (snakes). Christ was not known for name-
calling, when He said something he meant it literally.<
Jesus said nothing of the sort. And if he did, then fuck him. If that
is the case, then all he was was the spawn of a Roman soldier who
knocked up a young Jewish girl in Judea. Maybe it's the blood of Esau
(Rome) in Jesus's veins that might have made him say that. But I don't
think the NT says that Jesus said that.
HHW
2008-06-13 18:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by ***@gmail.com
For starters, the first Christians were all Jews. Secondly, without
the so-called "Old Testament" there wouldn't have been any "New
Testament", and hence, no Christian religion; this applies to Islam as
well.
Deborah
You are a provincial with the mind-set of an ultra orthodox nit
picker.
Whether they were Jews is of marginal relevance, a curiosity. They
became Christians. Christ was a sublime radical, a revolutionary.
What counts began afresh with him. What he could have meant to the
world far transcended Judaism. Christianity as a social philosophy is
not Judaism by any means. It's not tribal. Its great beauty lies in
that difference. And Christianity was destined to have a far greater
impact. It is tragic that the decision was made to incorporate
Babylonian myth and Middle Eastern nomadic savagery into what became
Christianity. Grafting a Middle Eastern mentality onto Europe was a
great error. Mistakes are made by men, not Gods.<<
We Jews get along much better with Buddhists and Hindus and others
whose religions and philosophies had nothing to do with Judaism, and
hence there is no basis for conflict, where one religion tries to
usurp or transcend the other, and
belittles it.
Christians too seem to get along with Buddhists and Hindus. We got
along well enough with Arabs too from early in our national history
(Jefferson's time) to after WW II. I think it's because we minded our
own business in the region---exactly what we are NOT doing now.


As for savagery, the European were as savage as any
Post by jgarbuz
other on the planet
Of course. But "he" had not written pseudo-divine "scriptures" about
Heavenly approved mass murders in his past either. The Thor/Woden
stuff was oral tradition, easily forgettable in a generation or two if
not reinforced.

The equation of God with endless vindictive violence, "wrath," and
damnation for picayune violations of man-made codes was imported as
sacred writings to Europe for God-ordained use by the the Church. Lay
people, the masses, had almost no access to the Bible itself. The
priesthood was intercessory and maintained a monopoly on that until
the time of Luther and Guttenberg. And Luther was still throwing
inkpots at devils in that era. It was a very great flaw in the
original Evangelical scheme. It was a diversion from the humanistic
message of Christ.

There are little islands of great beauty and moral clarity in the Old
Testament. It is tragic that it wasn't limited to that. In the Judaic
tradition God was reduced to an actor on the human stage and was
tainted by human characteristics. As I say, wrath, vindictiveness,
violence, belief in magic, etc.

Did you know that Thomas Jefferson edited the New Testament so as to
eliminate all traces of supernaturalism? It vastly improved it.


. Even the great civilization of Rome revelled in
Post by jgarbuz
blood and watching men murdering each other in sports arenas, and even
eaten by animals to the great delight of the onlookers. For any
European to believe himself to be from less savage roots than Jews is
ludicrous.
That's true but the Old Testament nevertheless exercised a baleful
influence on Christianity. Look, I'm talking about OUR history, Jack,
not yours.
Post by jgarbuz
White Europeans were among the most savage of peoples on earth,
despite the much high level of technology and artistic accomplishment.
As for the root of European antisemitsm the Talmud said it centuries
ago: "Esau HATES Jacob." Our sages considered Rome as an offshoot of
Esau, and Esau hates Jacob. It's inherent.
That's a racist myth. No myth is "inherent". They are created to be
used, mostly politically.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Said again: As the Old Testament was out of copyright. Early
Christians made the mistake of adopting it as part of our "old time
religion". When you adopt such a thing it's yours. You commit to it.
Overall this move was an obscurantist disaster. It had the effect of
embedding a savage, nomadic Middle Eastern world view in Europe. It
wouldn't have been necessary to do that to buy into Christ's social philosophy.
You are assuming that those on the planet today who call
themselves "jews" are related to the Tribe of Judah from the
O.T.<
Can you prove otherwise? Bring your genetic evidence to disprove that
the majority of Jews are genetically the descendants of Israelites.
Why should you care, Jack? Is it required somehow for chosen people?
Post by jgarbuz
Take all the JEwish blood you want, and compare the DNA to that of
other peoples, and if you find that most Jews are closer to Europeans
or other non-Middle Eastern people, then you can make a case.
Why would anyone want to make the case?
Post by jgarbuz
Scientists working in the fields now seem to believe that at least 50%
of Jews today are of Israelite origins. But if you or Cramer or
anybody bring in scientific evidence to the contrary, I say, bring it
on.
How did we get on the subject of Jewish racism, this exceptionalism
you guys display?

I agree that if the majority of Jews are not of Israelite blood,
Post by jgarbuz
their claim to the land is greatly diminished.
What does "blood" have to do with *national* claims to land? In the
law it's only meaningful in terms of familial descent. And there are
great restraints on that such as the Rule Against Perpetuities. Not
once in the history of mankind has it been used to *legally* vindicate
claims stale for 2,000 years. If it were a right cognizable at law you
wouldn't be the first in history to file suit.


Still much greater than
Post by jgarbuz
the claim of people whose origins is of those British isles over
Indian lands, but greatly diminished nonetheless. LEt me ask you this
question:If the majority of scientists came to agree that the majority
of Jews today are of Israelite blood, would you then change your
stance? Would you then acclaim that the Land of Israel ("Palestine")
rightfully belongs to the JEws, or not?
No, of course not. Especially from a lawyer's point of view that sort
of romantic claim must *not* become precedent. The law works toward
stability, not chaos. The number of irredentist claims would mushroom.
Most would be more credible than yours because they are more recent.
Once the principle you strive for were to be enshrined in the law and
public consciousness it would stimulate increased warfare, just as the
militarization of your irredentist claim has done in Palestine.
Actually the trend of international law since WW II is exactly in the
opposite direction. No expansion by warfare is permissible. Ethnic
Cleansings are forbidden, even within a state. Occupations are
severely constrained. All of these reforms are inconsistent with
irredentism. They are so for the purpose I state above.

Israel has an opportunity NOW to consolidate her title to the nearly
80% of Palestine lying within the Green Line, to settle her problems
resulting from the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and to have an
international stamp of approval put on her final boundaries. This
*can* be done by international agreement, but they can not be imposed
by war. Through the use of force as her only tool, Israel buys herself
perpetual strife in an ever increasingly dangerous environment. You
need to think outside the box, Jack. The Israeli people need American
Jews to help them, but that can't be done by supporting Israel's self-
defeating policies. For that matter the fact that the Lobby is
insisting on it and has Congress by the balls is leading to a crisis
here which is going to be ugly at best.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by B***@isp.com
There were 3 Tribes in the N.T. Judah, the tribe of Christ,
Benjamin, the tribe of Paul and Levy, the ribe from which the
Priests were chosen. After the Romans chucked them out,
they scattered in all directions. Whether or not those who are
today's "jews" are descended from them is debatable.<
Only debatable amongst those who chose to ignore science. You might as
well debate whether the earth is round or flat, or the existence of
UFOs.
It's not debatable because it's a non-sequitur. It's a non-sequitur
because the conclusion you draw from the relationship is irrational as
a matter of policy. It must be rejected. Read again what I said above.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by B***@isp.com
Christ called some of them "Offspring of Satan" and a
"Generation of vipers". (snakes). Christ was not known for name-
calling, when He said something he meant it literally.<
Jesus said nothing of the sort. And if he did, then fuck him. If that
is the case, then all he was was the spawn of a Roman soldier who
knocked up a young Jewish girl in Judea. Maybe it's the blood of Esau
(Rome) in Jesus's veins that might have made him say that. But I don't
think the NT says that Jesus said that.
This sort of ethno-centric fury clouds the mind. You won't help
Israelis that way. They need to confront the Dayan and Golda Meir
types who are still running Israeli policy, still making mistake after
mistake. Did you know that Dayan had been against invading the Golan
up until day four of the '67 War and then changed his mind? Do you
know why? It's in Avi Shlaim's "Iron Wall".
HHW
2008-06-13 16:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by HHW
Sounds like that old time religion in our Old Testament
"YOUR" "Old Testament"?
Post by HHW
which
Christians would have rejected in the beginning if they'd had any
sense.
For starters, the first Christians were all Jews. Secondly, without
the so-called "Old Testament" there wouldn't have been any "New
Testament", and hence, no Christian religion; this applies to Islam as
well.
Deborah
Post by HHW
Sounds like that old time religion in our Old Testament
"YOUR" "Old Testament"?
Post by HHW
which
Christians would have rejected in the beginning if they'd had any
sense.
For starters, the first Christians were all Jews. Secondly, without
the so-called "Old Testament" there wouldn't have been any "New
Testament", and hence, no Christian religion; this applies to Islam as
well.
Deborah
You are a provincial with the mind-set of an ultra orthodox nit
picker.
Whether they were Jews is of marginal relevance, a curiosity. They
became Christians.  Christ was a sublime radical, a revolutionary.
What counts began afresh with him. What he could have meant to the
world far transcended Judaism. Christianity as a social philosophy is
not Judaism by any means. It's not tribal. Its great beauty lies in
that difference. And Christianity was destined to have a far greater
impact. It is tragic that the decision was made to incorporate
Babylonian myth and Middle Eastern nomadic savagery into what became
Christianity. Grafting a Middle Eastern mentality onto Europe was a
great error. Mistakes are made by men, not Gods.
Said again: As the Old Testament was out of copyright. Early
Christians made the mistake of adopting it as part of our "old time
religion".  When you adopt such a thing it's yours.  You commit to it.
Overall this move was an obscurantist disaster. It had the effect of
embedding a savage, nomadic Middle Eastern world view in Europe. It
wouldn't have been necessary to do that to buy into Christ's social philosophy.
You are assuming that those on the planet today who call
themselves "jews" are related to the Tribe of Judah from the
O.T.  There were 3 Tribes in the N.T. Judah, the tribe of Christ,
Benjamin, the tribe of Paul and Levy, the ribe from which the
Priests were chosen.   After the Romans chucked them out,
they scattered in all directions.  Whether or not those who are
today's "jews" are descended from them is debatable.
Christ called some of them "Offspring of Satan" and a
"Generation of vipers". (snakes). Christ was not known for name-
calling, when He said something he meant it literally.
"The serpent beguiled (seduced) me and I did eat".
Eve.
Perhaps the Mark of Cain  was  a physical mark, clearly
seen by everyone.  Any idea what it was?
- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It may surprise you a bit after my paragraphs above, but I'm an
agnostic. Nevertheless I consider myself a Christian in the overall
cultural sense. It's a part of the western heritage in which one
doesn't have to be a supernaturalist to believe.
B.H. Cramer
2008-06-10 07:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah<
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel.
Why not. She's fit right in. I mean - they've all been corrupt, lying,
terrorist arseholes.
dsharavi@gmail.com
2008-06-10 16:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah<
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel. Your namesake in
the Bible was one of ancient Israel's best judges and leaders.
Thanks for the compliment, but I'd settle for getting my kids to
listen to me now and then.
Post by jgarbuz
But if
I were a woman, I'd be more like Jael, and just drive a stake through
their fucking brains.
No doubt, lol. It would save time, though.

Deborah
HHW
2008-06-10 16:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah<
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel. Your namesake in
the Bible was one of ancient Israel's best judges and leaders. But if
I were a woman, I'd be more like Jael, and just drive a stake through
their fucking brains.
The primitive lore of 2,000 BCE rears its ugly head.
B***@isp.com
2008-06-13 01:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah<
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel. Your namesake in
the Bible was one of ancient Israel's best judges and leaders. But if
I were a woman, I'd be more like Jael, and just drive a stake through
their fucking brains.
The primitive lore of 2,000 BCE rears its ugly head.
I find it amusing that jews today are so opposed to capital
punishment, especially when the victim is white and the murderer non-
white. The ACLU and its cadre of jew lawyers sweat blood in their
attempt to overturn every death sentence in the U.S. Apparently it's
only when jews are victims that they
are strangely quiet.



- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
HHW
2008-06-13 03:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah<
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel. Your namesake in
the Bible was one of ancient Israel's best judges and leaders. But if
I were a woman, I'd be more like Jael, and just drive a stake through
their fucking brains.
The primitive lore of 2,000 BCE rears its ugly head.
I find it amusing that jews today are so opposed to capital
punishment, especially when the victim is white and the murderer non-
white.  The ACLU and its cadre of jew lawyers sweat blood in their
attempt to overturn every death sentence in the U.S.  Apparently it's
only when jews are victims that they
are strangely quiet.
- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
I am a supporter of the ACLU and I have great respect for the young
Jewish professionals who work and pay their dues there. It is one of
the institutions most responsible for protecting our liberties during
the last century. Make a donation. They will not waste it.
jgarbuz
2008-06-13 03:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
-
I am a supporter of the ACLU and I have great respect for the young
Jewish professionals who work and pay their dues there. It is one of
the institutions most responsible for protecting our liberties during
the last century. Make a donation. They will not waste it.<
You are then living proof that the ACLU does NOT represent Judaism and
its teachings. It represents extreme LIBERALISM which many Jews have
taken up as a false Golden Calf to worship. It is a perversion of
Jewish teachings.
HHW
2008-06-13 19:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
Post by HHW
-
I am a supporter of the ACLU and I have great respect for the young
Jewish professionals who work and pay their dues there. It is one of
the institutions most responsible for protecting our liberties during
the last century. Make a donation. They will not waste it.<
You are then living proof that the ACLU does NOT represent Judaism and
its teachings. It represents extreme LIBERALISM which many Jews have
taken up as a false Golden Calf to worship.  It is a perversion of
Jewish teachings.
This post is repetitive. I answered it in my last post of a couple of
minutes ago.
jgarbuz
2008-06-13 03:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by jgarbuz
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel. Your namesake in
the Bible was one of ancient Israel's best judges and leaders. But if
I were a woman, I'd be more like Jael, and just drive a stake through
their fucking brains.
The primitive lore of 2,000 BCE rears its ugly head.<
A white savage of the British Isles calls the Jew the savage.It would
be funny if it were not so ludicrous.
Post by B***@isp.com
I find it amusing that jews today are so opposed to capital
punishment, especially when the victim is white and the murderer non-
white.<
The Bible is PRO-capital punishment, if the law can prove the case.

. The ACLU and its cadre of jew lawyers sweat blood in their
Post by B***@isp.com
attempt to overturn every death sentence in the U.S. Apparently it's
only when jews are victims that they
are strangely quiet.,
The ACLU does not represent Jews. It represents liberalism, which I
admit many JEws took up as a substitute for Judaism.
Eli Grubman
2008-06-13 05:37:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:45:18 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel. Your namesake in
the Bible was one of ancient Israel's best judges and leaders. But if
I were a woman, I'd be more like Jael, and just drive a stake through
their fucking brains.
The primitive lore of 2,000 BCE rears its ugly head.<
A white savage of the British Isles calls the Jew the savage.It would
be funny if it were not so ludicrous.
Why should a jew savage find this funny/ludicrous?

Eli
Panta Rhei
2008-06-13 11:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Eli Grabmen, aka trolling dumb Rever'nerd and stalking Susan, etc. in Jewish
Post by Eli Grubman
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:45:18 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel. Your namesake in
the Bible was one of ancient Israel's best judges and leaders. But if
I were a woman, I'd be more like Jael, and just drive a stake through
their fucking brains.
The primitive lore of 2,000 BCE rears its ugly head.<
A white savage of the British Isles calls the Jew the savage.It would
be funny if it were not so ludicrous.
Why should a jew savage find this funny/ludicrous?
Eli
Eli Grabmen sees his big chance to SHINE with his unique retardation! LMAO!

F'up
jgarbuz
2008-06-13 12:15:08 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:45:18 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel. Your namesake in
the Bible was one of ancient Israel's best judges and leaders. But if
I were a woman, I'd be more like Jael, and just drive a stake through
their fucking brains.
The primitive lore of 2,000 BCE rears its ugly head.<
A white savage of the British Isles calls the Jew the savage.It would
be funny if it were not so ludicrous.
Why should a jew savage find this funny/ludicrous?<
I would take a white savage like yourself as a perfect example. You
invade Jewish newsgroups to savage the denizens who otherwise would be
peacefully engaged in their own internal talmudic debates. You barge
in uninvited to shoot your mouth off with with lies, libels and
slanders. Do you see many Jews invading Irish or Scottish or other
newsgroups when those people there are minding their own business
and not engaged in Jew-baiting? You are the savage aggressor. You're
the instigator and merciless liar who by his own admission has stated
that he is nothing but a provocateur. You are the savage.
Eli Grubman
2008-06-13 13:32:58 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:15:08 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:45:18 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel. Your namesake in
the Bible was one of ancient Israel's best judges and leaders. But if
I were a woman, I'd be more like Jael, and just drive a stake through
their fucking brains.
The primitive lore of 2,000 BCE rears its ugly head.<
A white savage of the British Isles calls the Jew the savage.It would
be funny if it were not so ludicrous.
Why should a jew savage find this funny/ludicrous?<
I would take a white savage like yourself as a perfect example.
Who are you to call *anyone* a savage, you primitive jew savage?
Post by jgarbuz
You
invade Jewish newsgroups to savage the denizens who otherwise would be
peacefully engaged in their own internal talmudic debates. You barge
in uninvited to shoot your mouth off with with lies, libels and
slanders.
Lies/libels/slanders??? Name just one!
Post by jgarbuz
Do you see many Jews invading Irish or Scottish or other
newsgroups when those people there are minding their own business
and not engaged in Jew-baiting? You are the savage aggressor. You're
the instigator and merciless liar who by his own admission has stated
that he is nothing but a provocateur. You are the savage.
No, you are the jew therefore you are the savage.

Eli
Panta Rhei
2008-06-13 16:28:47 UTC
Permalink
Eli Grabmen, the notorious rabid anti-Semite, aka trolling Jewdas, dumb
Post by Eli Grubman
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:15:08 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:45:18 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Post by jgarbuz
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel. Your namesake in
the Bible was one of ancient Israel's best judges and leaders. But if
I were a woman, I'd be more like Jael, and just drive a stake through
their fucking brains.
The primitive lore of 2,000 BCE rears its ugly head.<
A white savage of the British Isles calls the Jew the savage.It would
be funny if it were not so ludicrous.
Why should a jew savage find this funny/ludicrous?<
I would take a white savage like yourself as a perfect example.
Who are you to call *anyone* a savage, you primitive jew savage?
Post by jgarbuz
You
invade Jewish newsgroups to savage the denizens who otherwise would be
peacefully engaged in their own internal talmudic debates. You barge
in uninvited to shoot your mouth off with with lies, libels and
slanders.
Lies/libels/slanders??? Name just one!
Post by jgarbuz
Do you see many Jews invading Irish or Scottish or other
newsgroups when those people there are minding their own business
and not engaged in Jew-baiting? You are the savage aggressor. You're
the instigator and merciless liar who by his own admission has stated
that he is nothing but a provocateur. You are the savage.
No, you are the jew therefore you are the savage.
Eli
Amazing, to see a degenerate racist pig like you calling someone ELSE
savage! LMAO!

I suggest everyone treat you sicko just as their punching bag, like I will
do always! <G>
HHW
2008-06-13 19:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by jgarbuz
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel. Your namesake in
the Bible was one of ancient Israel's best judges and leaders. But if
I were a woman, I'd be more like Jael, and just drive a stake through
their fucking brains.
The primitive lore of 2,000 BCE rears its ugly head.<
A white savage of the British Isles calls the Jew the savage.It would
be funny if it were not so ludicrous.
I just posted my explanation for this type of comment about five
minutes ago. I don't call "The Jew" anything. I'm speaking of the Old
Testament.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by B***@isp.com
I find it amusing that jews today are so opposed to capital
punishment, especially when the victim is white and the murderer non-
white.<
The Bible is PRO-capital punishment, if the law can prove the case.
Of course, which is evidence for my thesis in the previous post.
Post by jgarbuz
.  The ACLU and its cadre of jew lawyers sweat blood in their
Post by B***@isp.com
attempt to overturn every death sentence in the U.S.  Apparently it's
only when jews are victims that they
are strangely quiet.,
The ACLU does not represent Jews. It represents liberalism, which I
admit many JEws took up as a substitute for Judaism.
The ACLU is in the trenches of the war against creeping
authoritarianism in this country. The Bush regime is a cardinal
example of that dangerous pattern. Were it not for the ACLU America
would be a different country today. Maybe a law degree sensitizes one
to such matters, but Bush and Cheney are not conservatives.
Conservatives seek to conserve our rights as individuals, rights as
*against* state power. Radicals would diminish or destroy them so as
to enhance and centralize state power over the individual. Government
is the most dangerous institution ever devised by man. With your
personal history, Jack, I should think you would be closely attuned to
the dangers that poses. Why do you suppose that America was a safe
place for European Jews to live and prosper after WW II? Why do you
suppose young Jewish lawyers are still willing to give years of their
lives for peanuts to protect those liberties?
marika
2008-06-14 19:08:43 UTC
Permalink
"HHW" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:6113a905-9d83-453c-8cb1-***@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 12, 10:45 pm, jgarbuz <***@netzero.com> wrote:
The ACLU is in the trenches of the war against creeping
authoritarianism in this country. The Bush regime is a cardinal
example of that dangerous pattern. Were it not for the ACLU America
would be a different country today. Maybe a law degree sensitizes one
to such matters, but Bush and Cheney are not conservatives.
Conservatives seek to conserve our rights as individuals, rights as
*against* state power. Radicals would diminish or destroy them so as
to enhance and centralize state power over the individual. Government
is the most dangerous institution ever devised by man. With your
personal history, Jack, I should think you would be closely attuned to
the dangers that poses. Why do you suppose that America was a safe
place for European Jews to live and prosper after WW II? Why do you
suppose young Jewish lawyers are still willing to give years of their
lives for peanuts to protect those liberties?
-----------

Bush is a puppet and Cheney is his string puller





----- Original Message -----
From: "marika" <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.gothic,alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: alt.gothic wiki
Also Special:Upload has been turned on for inclusion of incriminating
evidence.
??
Weirdness
whose division is Special Upload.
mk5000
----- Original Message -----
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing,alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Basso admits signing attempted contract
Upon reflection I don't think Marika has a Kunich base. Marika
seems more like Serdar Argic to me. Argic was written in AWK,
which explains a lot.
http://www.jaedworks.com/shoebox/zumabot.html
'cept I don't dwell on Turkey, as that's Nato's job.
----- Original Message -----
Newsgroups: alt.revrend-jed88,alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley,alt.rf
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: rhythm world
Three Faces of Infantilism: NATO's Bucharest Summit
by Anatol Lieven
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=17298
04.04.2008
The Bush administration's push for an immediate offer of a NATO
membership
action plan to Georgia and Ukraine at the NATO summit in Bucharest has
been blocked, which is good. Not so good is the fact that this was only
thanks to the opposition of Germany and France; that NATO leaders like
the
organization's Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer continue to
insist
that an offer in the fairly near future is inevitable; that since both
the
U.S. parties and all the U.S. presidential candidates favor this course,
they may well be right; and that in the United States and most of
Europe,
a question of immense importance for the security of the West was not
even
seriously debated in public.
What was also not so good-no, why engage in diplospeak? What was
virtually
criminal in its strategic irresponsibility and intellectual fatuity was
the fact that this push took place against the background of three
developments, any one of which should have counseled the greatest
caution
in assuming new and dangerous responsibilities.
The first is obviously NATO's and America's growing difficulties in
Afghanistan, which provided the other major issue at the summit. And
what
a success the summit was! What a tribute to NATO's commitment to the
common effort in Afghanistan, and spirit of collective self-sacrifice!
France came up with 700 new soldiers, which makes approximately one for
every 400 square miles of Afghan territory or for every 40,000 Afghans.
The richest group of countries on earth came up with 18 new helicopters
for Afghanistan; a fraction of the numbers it takes to ferry
millionaires
to their European ski resorts on any given day.
The way things are going, NATO will either have to fight on in
Afghanistan
for a decade and possibly a generation, or the war there will be lost;
and
if it is lost, what credibility will the alliance retain when it comes
to
guaranteeing anyone else's security? And can anyone guarantee on today's
evidence that the Canadians or Europeans will in fact have the will to
go
on fighting there indefinitely?
Secondly, there was the new crisis in Iraq, and especially in Basra,
which
appears to have been brought to an end in a draw largely thanks to
Iranian
influence. This casts severe doubt on the lasting success of the Bush
administration's "surge" strategy and rips to shreds whatever was left
of
the ludicrous British claim that we are withdrawing from southern Iraq
because we have succeeded in stabilizing that area.
However, quite apart from the hostility of British public opinion to the
entire Iraqi operation, Britain simply had to withdraw most of its
troops
from Iraq if it was to increase its essential troop presence in
Afghanistan. In Britain as in the United States, there is now nothing
left
for any other new and sustained military deployment. So: a U.S. and
British force to defend Georgia, anyone? From where exactly? The cast of
Dad's Army?
Finally, there is the global economic downturn. We do not know how deep
this will go, and must hope for the best. Some of the predictions from
sober and reliable experts are however very gloomy indeed; and
already-impeccably free-market commentators like Martin Wolf of the
Financial Times are writing that some of the key economic ideas that
have
guided Western policy in the past 20 years will have to be abandoned or
radically changed.
It is not just that such an economic situation cries out for caution
when
it comes to the assumption of new and possibly very costly
responsibilities; it is that if God forbid we end up in a really severe
global recession, many of the political and cultural assumptions that
have
underlain Western policy, and EU and NATO enlargement, may come into
question, not forever, but for a critical few years. Chief among these
is
that democracy too is on a fixed and inevitable path of expansion.
In circumstances of sharp economic decline, I wouldn't give ten cents
for
the survival of democracy in Georgia or Ukraine. If these countries have
been made members of NATO, we will all be faced with a horrible
embarrassment-something that may already be around the corner in Turkey,
if the military establishment, via the courts, presses ahead with its
apparent desire to ban and disempower the ruling Islamist party. Indeed,
if living standards worsen drastically, democracy in parts of Eastern
Europe, relations with immigrant communities in Western Europe, and the
attraction of the entire Western democratic model could be called into
question, at least for a while.
In these circumstances, it is hard to see what conceivable rational
calculation could support the extension of NATO membership to two new
countries, one of them (Georgia) involved in unsolved civil war, and the
other (Ukraine) with a population a large majority of which opposes NATO
membership. And this is called "spreading democracy"?
Leaving aside domestic political calculations in the United States, what
this whole process reflects is the profound infantilism of many of the
Western attitudes concerned. In the United States, the infantile
illusion
of omnipotence, whereby it doesn't matter how many commitments the
United
States has made elsewhere-in the last resort, the United States can
always
do what it likes; in much of Western Europe, the infantile syndrome of
dependence on the United States, nurtured by a profound desire not to
have
to think and act in an adult fashion concerning the needs and costs of
European defense; and in Eastern Europe, an infantile obsession with
historical grudges against Russia.
If this process continues, then we will find ourselves in a situation
where NATO has made an Article 5 commitment to fight if necessary for a
Georgian Abkhazia and a Ukrainian Sevastopol. Mr de Hoop Scheffer has
been
urging NATO expansion to these countries, and has
even-unconscionably-sought to preempt democratic debate within the
organization of which he is supposed to be the servant by declaring that
the discussion is over and that Ukraine and Georgia will definitely be
admitted soon whatever happens. Scheffer is Dutch. Is he suggesting that
the Dutch army-to give it that name-would fight to defend Ukraine or
Georgia? Having given the absolutely obvious answer to that question,
does
anything more really need to be said?
Onward the Revolution!
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Having cheerfully confessed he knows little about economics, John
McCain is advancing himself as a foreign-policy president, a
"realistic idealist," he told the World Affairs Council of Los
Angeles.
But judging from the content of his speech, McCain is no more a
realist than he is a reflective man.
Speaking of our five-year war in Iraq, McCain declares, "It would
be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a
nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign
them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possible
genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible and premature
withdrawal."
Fair point. There is surely a great risk in a too-rapid withdrawal.
But if a U.S. withdrawal, after 4,000 dead and 33,000 wounded, and
a trillion dollars sunk, runs the risk of a genocidal calamity,
what does that tell us about the wisdom of those who marched us
into this war?
What threat did Saddam ever pose comparable to the cataclysm McCain
says we face if we pull out? Who, Senator, put American on the
horns of so horrible a dilemma?
"Whether they were in Iraq before is immaterial," McCain warns,
"al-Qaida is there now." And that is surely true.
But if al-Qaida was not in Iraq before we invaded, why did we
invade? And if al-Qaida is there now, what was the magnet that drew
them in, if not the U.S. occupation McCain himself championed?
Like Condi Rice, who regularly disparages the policies of every
president from FDR to Bill Clinton, McCain enjoys parading the
higher morality of his devotion to democracy-uber-alles.
"For decades in the Middle East we had a strategy of relying upon
autocrats to provide order and stability. We relied on the Shah,
the autocratic rulers of Egypt, the generals of Pakistan, the Saudi
royal family. ... We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on
these outdated autocrats is the safest bet."
Speaking of self-delusion, does McCain believe the "democrats"
lately elected in Pakistan will be tougher on al-Qaida and the
Taliban than Pervez Musharraf, who has twice escaped assassination
for having sided with us?
Does McCain think this new crowd in Islamabad will be more
pro-American than the general, when the people who voted them in
are among the most anti-American in the Islamic world?
From Richard Nixon to George Bush I, we expelled Moscow from Egypt,
won the Cold War, brought peace between Egypt and Israel, and
created a worldwide alliance, including Hafez al-Assad of Syria,
that drove Saddam's army out of Kuwait.
What has the Bush-McCain democracy crusade produced, save electoral
victories for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Hamas? And if
we dump the sultan of Oman, President Mubarak, and the king of
Saudi Arabia, who does McCain think will replace them?
If undermining Arab autocrats is good for America, why is that also
the goal of Osama bin Laden?
McCain proposes a "League of Democracies" to unite a hundred
nations for peace and freedom. "Revanchist Russia," however, is to
be black-balled from McCain's league and thrown out of the G-8.
What would this accomplish other than undoing the work of Reagan in
bringing Moscow in from the cold, driving Russia into the arms of
China, restarting the Cold War and recreating the Beijing-Moscow
axis it was Nixon's great achievement to break up?
What McCain is proposing is a re-division of the world into the
forces of light and the forces of darkness. Moral clarity at last!
Has he forgotten the fate of that earlier rabbit warren of the
righteous, the League of Nations?
Does our "realistic idealist" think a NATO of 25 nations that has
mustered a piddling 16,000 soldiers, most of them noncombatants, to
stand beside us in Afghanistan is going to confront a nuclear-armed
Russia?
"Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only
permanent interests," said Lord Palmerston.
What is critical, especially in wartime, is not whether a regime is
autocratic or democratic, but whether it is hostile or friendly.
Gen. Washington, at war with democratic Great Britain, is said to
have danced a jig when he heard we had Louis XVI as an ally. During
our Civil War, Britain built blockade-runners for the Confederacy,
while the czar docked his ships in Union harbors. Russia "was our
friend/When the world was our foe," wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes.
When Nixon launched his airlift to save Israel in the Yom Kippur
War, autocratic Portugal let us use the Azores. Democratic France
denied Reagan over-flight permission in the 1986 raid on Libya. Two
brave U.S. pilots died as a result.
When McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton, British and French ships were
unloading goods in Haiphong, while Ferdinand Marcos and the South
Korean generals sent troops to stand with us and fight beside us.
To root one's attitude toward nations based upon their internal
politics rather than their foreign policies is ideology. And
policies rooted in ideologies, from Trotskyism to democratism, end
up on the Great Barrier Reef of reality.
http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=7wT4Z&m=1Zk3O0SBS1xN9f&b=OOY0k3LCNjAyUG_4ek_2og
HHW
2008-06-10 17:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah<
Deborah, I nominate you for prime minister of Israel. Your namesake in
the Bible was one of ancient Israel's best judges and leaders. But if
I were a woman, I'd be more like Jael, and just drive a stake through
their fucking brains.
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe/
4PeaceMirelle
2008-06-09 18:56:26 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 9, 9:30 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.

Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Pallies.

Deborah

http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)

23 Responses to “Zionist, Cannibalistic “Recipe””

1. Celeste Sinclair Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:26 am

Vile, intolerable, despicable, evil…
2. Norah Jensen Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:30 am

HORRIFYING!
3. Jerry Edwards Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:39 am

Forgive her Father, she knows not what she does.
Protect the dear children form people like Deborah Sharavi,
precious Lord.
4. Tom Cooper Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:42 am

A monster like this, I have not come across before.
5. Fred Konklin Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:49 am

Rage against such inhumanity!
6. Tara Belisle Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:59 am

This shows the terrorism that is inherent in zionism.
7. Gertrude Verman Says:
June 5, 2008 at 4:26 am

Barren, morally degenerate.
8. Nancy McDougal Says:
June 5, 2008 at 5:22 am

This Deborah Sharavi is not human.
9. Terry Bidak Says:
June 5, 2008 at 5:50 am

This “recipe” is not much different from what Israel is doing to
Palestinians in Gaza. Killing Palestinians slowly by starving them to
death.
10. Moss Hollinger Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:03 am

This woman is a danger to herself and others. Someone should
lock her up.
11. Lisa Bergen Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:15 am

When a people view themselves as being “chosen people”, by a
decree from God, this is the outcome.
12. Josh Smith Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:32 am

zionazi criminal.
13. Anne Collins Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:43 am

Reminds me of the Nazis making soap and lampshades from Jews.
14. Becky Polestar Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:51 am

So sad. I have lost all faith in humans. What happened to live
and let live?
15. Rocky Dempster Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:59 am

Zionists=Nazis.
16. Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss Says:
June 5, 2008 at 8:55 pm

Another example of ZIONIST VIOLENCE.
17. Dr. Carolyn DeMarco Says:
June 5, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Distressing.
18. Ted McTavish Says:
June 6, 2008 at 7:18 pm

Man, this is one psycho bitch.
19. Madeline Nekoya Says:
June 8, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Imagine the outrage if someone were to post a cannibalistic
“recipe” about a Jewish child.
20. Brodie Drombolis Says:
June 8, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Deborah Sharavi needs to be reported to the appropriate
authorities for hate crimes.
21. Korina Zack Says:
June 8, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Zionist baby killer.
22. Gill Radcliff Says:
June 9, 2008 at 3:43 am

It’s disappointing that Ariel Sharon is in a coma and can’t be
tried — and found guilty for crimes against humanity.
23. Jennifer Theissen Says:
June 9, 2008 at 3:54 am

I feel sick to my stomach.

http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe/

____________________________________________________________

Mirelle
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah
HHW
2008-06-10 17:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by 4PeaceMirelle
Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid
8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped
Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.
In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.
Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.
Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.
Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.
Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.
Serves lots of Pallies.
Deborah
http://tinyurl.com/ddkek(8th post)
23 Responses to “Zionist, Cannibalistic “Recipe””
      June 5, 2008 at 3:26 am
      Vile, intolerable, despicable, evil…
      June 5, 2008 at 3:30 am
      HORRIFYING!
      June 5, 2008 at 3:39 am
      Forgive her Father, she knows not what she does.
      Protect the dear children form people like Deborah Sharavi,
precious Lord.
      June 5, 2008 at 3:42 am
      A monster like this, I have not come across before.
      June 5, 2008 at 3:49 am
      Rage against such inhumanity!
      June 5, 2008 at 3:59 am
      This shows the terrorism that is inherent in zionism.
      June 5, 2008 at 4:26 am
      Barren, morally degenerate.
      June 5, 2008 at 5:22 am
      This Deborah Sharavi is not human.
      June 5, 2008 at 5:50 am
      This “recipe” is not much different from what Israel is doing to
Palestinians in Gaza. Killing Palestinians slowly by starving them to
death.
      June 5, 2008 at 6:03 am
      This woman is a danger to herself and others. Someone should
lock her up.
      June 5, 2008 at 6:15 am
      When a people view themselves as being “chosen people”, by a
decree from God, this is the outcome.
      June 5, 2008 at 6:32 am
      zionazi criminal.
      June 5, 2008 at 6:43 am
      Reminds me of the Nazis making soap and lampshades from Jews.
      June 5, 2008 at 6:51 am
      So sad. I have lost all faith in humans. What happened to live
and let live?
      June 5, 2008 at 6:59 am
      Zionists=Nazis.
      June 5, 2008 at 8:55 pm
      Another example of ZIONIST VIOLENCE.
      June 5, 2008 at 11:52 pm
      Distressing.
      June 6, 2008 at 7:18 pm
      Man, this is one psycho bitch.
      June 8, 2008 at 2:59 pm
      Imagine the outrage if someone were to post a cannibalistic
“recipe” about a Jewish child.
      June 8, 2008 at 3:09 pm
      Deborah Sharavi needs to be reported to the appropriate
authorities for hate crimes.
      June 8, 2008 at 4:22 pm
      Zionist baby killer.
      June 9, 2008 at 3:43 am
      It’s disappointing that Ariel Sharon is in a coma and can’t be
tried — and found guilty for crimes against humanity.
      June 9, 2008 at 3:54 am
      I feel sick to my stomach.
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe/
____________________________________________________________
Mirelle
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah
Have you all actually gone to the url on Mirelle's post?
HHW
2008-06-10 05:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah
What did you think about what the the man said, Rosen?
dsharavi@gmail.com
2008-06-10 16:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by ***@gmail.com
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah
What did you think about what the the man said, Rosen?
I think you should stop porking little Mexican kiddies, Humper.

Deborah
HHW
2008-06-11 19:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by ***@gmail.com
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah
What did you think about what the the man said, Rosen?
I think I'll whip up a batch of Palestinian kid this afternoon.
Deborah
HHW
2008-06-10 16:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah
See my response to Ariadne a minute ago, Rosen. Respond to that. It's
on point.
HHW
2008-06-10 17:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe/
4PeaceMirelle
2008-06-14 19:16:22 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 9, 9:30 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Pallies.

Deborah

http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)

43 Responses to “Zionist, Cannibalistic “Recipe””

Celeste Sinclair Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:26 am
Vile, intolerable, despicable, evil…

Norah Jensen Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:30 am
HORRIFYING!

Jerry Edwards Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:39 am
Forgive her Father, she knows not what she does.
Protect the dear children form people like Deborah Sharavi, precious
Lord.

Tom Cooper Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:42 am
A monster like this, I have not come across before.

Fred Konklin Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:49 am
Rage against such inhumanity!

Tara Belisle Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:59 am
This shows the terrorism that is inherent in zionism.

Gertrude Verman Says:
June 5, 2008 at 4:26 am
Barren, morally degenerate.

Nancy McDougal Says:
June 5, 2008 at 5:22 am
This Deborah Sharavi is not human.

Terry Bidak Says:
June 5, 2008 at 5:50 am
This “recipe” is not much different from what Israel is doing to
Palestinians in Gaza. Killing Palestinians slowly by starving them to
death.

Moss Hollinger Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:03 am
This woman is a danger to herself and others. Someone should lock her
up.

Lisa Bergen Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:15 am
When a people view themselves as being “chosen people”, by a decree
from God, this is the outcome.

Josh Smith Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:32 am
zionazi criminal.

Anne Collins Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:43 am
Reminds me of the Nazis making soap and lampshades from Jews.

Becky Polestar Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:51 am
So sad. I have lost all faith in humans. What happened to live and let
live?

Rocky Dempster Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:59 am
Zionists=Nazis.

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss Says:
June 5, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Another example of ZIONIST VIOLENCE.

Dr. Carolyn DeMarco Says:
June 5, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Distressing.

Ted McTavish Says:
June 6, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Man, this is one psycho bitch.

Madeline Nekoya Says:
June 8, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Imagine the outrage if someone were to post a cannibalistic “recipe”
about a Jewish child.

Brodie Drombolis Says:
June 8, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Deborah Sharavi needs to be reported to the appropriate authorities
for hate crimes.

Korina Zack Says:
June 8, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Zionist baby killer.

Gill Radcliff Says:
June 9, 2008 at 3:43 am
It’s disappointing that Ariel Sharon is in a coma and can’t be tried —
and found guilty for crimes against humanity.

Jennifer Theissen Says:
June 9, 2008 at 3:54 am
I feel sick to my stomach.

Hunter Watson Says:
June 10, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Unite against the attack on Iran! Israel will soon have no choice but
to withdraw from the occupied territories. Stand up, Americans!

Manuel Valenzuela Says:
June 10, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Indeed, Hunter Watson. Not only must Americans stand up against an
attack on Iran, so must all people. I live in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez,
has stated that if Iran is attacked, there will be no more oil sold
from Venezuela to America. This will destroy the economy in America.
Venezuela supplies about 1.5 million barrels per day of crude oil and
refined petroleum products to the U.S. market, according to the EIA.
Venezuelan oil comprises about 11 percent of U.S. crude oil imports.
Venezuela and Iran made agreements in August 2006 to build joint oil
refineries in Indonesia, Syria, and Venezuela. In addition, Iran’s
state-owned oil company Petropars has begun to invest in oil
exploration and development in the Orinoco belt in Venezuela.

Mieko Fujimoto Says:
June 10, 2008 at 6:45 pm
My parents remember the horror of when Japan was bombed twice with
nuclear weapons. If Iran is attacked it will be a nuclear winter.

Ida Fletcher Says:
June 10, 2008 at 7:28 pm
The USA is already so far under water with the wars it is involved in,
an attack on Iran would be financial suicide.

Junko Takahashi Says:
June 10, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Bush has said… “I am not finished yet.” An attack on Iran appears
immanent. Make your voices heard!

Lila Baker Says:
June 10, 2008 at 8:52 pm
America, a once great nation, now, subservient to Israel. Surely, this
dangerous alliance will not last.

Andrés Espéndola Says:
June 10, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Is not good Israel want America go to war in Iran. Stupid Yankees pay
attention. Who benefits? Who pays?

Marsha Spicer Says:
June 11, 2008 at 4:41 am
Malicious, deceitful, false, smacking of every sin that has a name,
this filthy, vile “‘Recipe.” Only a fiend could write such utter
depravity.

Hunter Watson Says:
June 11, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Thank you Mr. Valenzuela (#25). Of course, the problem America and
Israel represent in the Middle East is global. It’s ironic that a
Venezuelan reminds me of it. Venezuela has been the subject of a great
deal of American meddling, especially since Mr. Chavez came to power.
We Americans are not accustomed to this. We DO the meddling and almost
never experience it, with one cardinal exception: tiny Israel through
it’s domestic American lobby has now so corrupted our Congress that it
writes the legislation relating to Israel itself. Our legislators so
fear these people that all but a few have completely lost their
independence.

Your Mr. Chavez is doing both America and Israel a favor for deterring
a new war.

Franklin Brown Says:
June 12, 2008 at 12:51 am
What nonsense!

The posting clearly states that it’s a Palestinian recipe, NOT Israeli
or Zionist. And everyone knows that a kid is a baby goat.

Why you people have to twist every single thing into something
sinister is beyond me. You are just a bunch of opportunistic racists,
nothing more, nothing less.

Hannah Steffield Says:
June 12, 2008 at 2:02 am
A zionazi apologist, you — franklin brown.

Manuel Valenzuela Says:
June 12, 2008 at 2:24 am
Hunter Watson, did you know that Hugo Chavez stopped permitting
Israelis to obtain visas to visit Venezuela? Also, Venezuela no longer
does any trade with Israel and boycotts all Israeli products. Viva
Chavez!

Hunter Watson Says:
June 12, 2008 at 4:22 am
Mr. Valenzuela,

I did not know that. It is encouraging to hear it. Other countries are
now working on boycotts. The Israelis are very stubborn but will
eventually have to change the underlying policy of aggression and
annexation. They are international pariahs. It isn’t caused by anti-
semitism. It’s caused by their behavior. Viva Chavez y viva Venezuela!

Manuel Valenzuela Says:
June 12, 2008 at 8:14 am
Indeed, it is not anti-semitic to denounce the probability of an
attack upon Iran.
The same play-book once used to cajole us into the Iraq debacle has
been taken out of the closet, wiped free of dust, and implemented
throughout the neocon world. They will resort to their nests in think
tanks and lobbying offices, along with their vast power in the
corporatist media, to sell, convince, connive and foment a war between
Iran and the conjoined twins– America and Israel.
Boycotts, protests, petitions, blogging and using the internet to by-
pass the Zionist media may make the difference between war in Iran or
no war there — as well as a withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
When Hugo Chavez was arrested, the people of Venezuela shut down the
country and came out into the streets with knives, guns, even pieces
of glass demanding he be released — and he was. One of the first
things he did was throw out the Zionists. There were plane loads of
them who left for Miami. He has no problems with Jews, it is the
Zionists that are the problem, so, he had them leave peacefully, going
so far as to provide the planes to fly them to Miami — one way
tickets! The Jews who stayed are part of the diverse and colorful
culture here.

Lorne Thorp Says:
June 12, 2008 at 11:52 pm
I don’t believe in God, but since I came across the person who wrote
this “Recipe”, I believe in the Devil.

Hunter Watson Says:
June 13, 2008 at 3:04 am
Mr. Valenzuela,

WIthout question the alternative media is having a great impact. But
most of us still read the compromised “mainstream” media too even
though we no longer trust it.

Going elsewhere puts a great burden on those who search for the truth.
There are many, many scams and many incompetent poseurs. One simply
must read as widely as possible and use his own judgment.

Diverse and colorful I know it is, from reading and a fertile
imagination. I long to travel South America. Soon, perhaps.

Manuel Valenzuela Says:
June 13, 2008 at 6:11 am
Agreed, Mr. Watson. Whatever the source of news, one must use
discernment. Within the alternative media there are as many scams and
incompetent babblers with no content whatsoever, as there are in the
mainstream news. My point was that the internet has the possibility of
networking for change and passing of information that is not possible
in the stranglehold of the Zionist run media. Of course this is not
the case in Venezuela, where we have our own television network that
is broadcast throughout South America. I travel in my work as an
attorney and writer so I am exposed to the mainstream Western media
frequently. Discernment, is a knee jerk reaction I have in my work and
with information obtained via various news sources. I have attempted
to bottom line the situation in the Middle East to a couple of
paragraphs. (This is not something I do frequently, since it is
extremely complex).

Control of the Middle East, while signifying control of its resources,
also means control of the spigot, of the pipelines feeding and fueling
economies, of access to these same resources by other nations, as well
as control of the waterways granting passage to tankers headed to all
corners of the globe. Control the Middle East’s oil fields and you
control the world. Controlling the Middle East, especially having a
firm grip on those lands where oil and gas abound, virtually
guarantees that the oil and gas companies, today gorging on the
profits that war, insecurity and control engender, will assume major
investments in, and the enormous profits from, extracting, refining,
transporting and selling the Middle East’s resources. It guarantees
the continued plunder of the Middle East’s oil by Zionist and American
energy giants.

With a government saturated with corporate executives, lawyers and
lobbyists, many from the energy and defense industries, and a
revolving door of opportunity between the halls of power and the halls
of profit that never seems to stop and in fact only continues to gain
momentum, it is easy to see why America’s foreign policy in many ways
mirrors the interests of Israel, especially those of the energy-
industrial complex. It is easy, too, to foresee where Israel and
America will be focusing their muscles and might in the near future,
for one simply needs to follow the trail of black gold, the trail of
greed and money.

Chit Chat Zionist Says:
June 14, 2008 at 12:15 am
A “Recipe” concocted by a person from the SINagogue of Satan.

Kane Says:
June 14, 2008 at 12:24 am
If those two biggest international terrorists, mass murdering,
warmongering, pariah rogue states known as america and israel
(terrorists always stick together) try another one of their war crimes
(on Iran), it will spell the end of both of those evil tumors of
earth.

Amen.

Rise Again Says:
June 14, 2008 at 2:26 am
Blood-thirsty God who wants first born, boy-children killed, and
demands sexual mutilation/circumcision as a show of “Love” for “Him”,
it therefore comes as no surprise to see cannibalism as the result of
worshiping a blood-thirsty God.

http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe/
____________________________________________________________

Mirelle
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
The "most penetrating interview re what's actually going on...I've
read" part was pretty funny, too. I read the rest only because you and
Jack did. Then I ran into the Colon Powell part. Too much.
Deborah
marika
2008-06-10 00:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
while a colon is one of the punctuation marks that designates a pause, it
certainly does't signify that you should stop reading altogether


mk5000

"the questions are the answers to questions in themselves
ask me if i really need it
ask me if you want to get hit
hit it"--angel carver blues, pavement
HHW
2008-06-10 06:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by marika
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
while a colon is one of the punctuation marks that designates a pause, it
certainly does't signify that you should stop reading altogether
mk5000
"the questions are the answers to questions in themselves
ask me if i really need it
ask me if you want to get hit
hit it"--angel carver blues, pavement
Yeah, and anyone has the right to spell his name phonetically. Powell
has only himself to blame. He's been Colon Powell forever.
Eli Grubman
2008-06-10 06:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by marika
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
while a colon is one of the punctuation marks that designates a pause, it
certainly does't signify that you should stop reading altogether
mk5000
"the questions are the answers to questions in themselves
ask me if i really need it
ask me if you want to get hit
hit it"--angel carver blues, pavement
Yeah, and anyone has the right to spell his name phonetically. Powell
has only himself to blame. He's been Colon Powell forever.
That should be analysed and rectified!

Eli
Panta Rhei
2008-06-10 10:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Eli Grabmen, aka trolling dumb Rever'nerd and stalking Susan, etc. in Jewish
Post by Eli Grubman
Post by HHW
Post by marika
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
while a colon is one of the punctuation marks that designates a pause, it
certainly does't signify that you should stop reading altogether
mk5000
"the questions are the answers to questions in themselves
ask me if i really need it
ask me if you want to get hit
hit it"--angel carver blues, pavement
Yeah, and anyone has the right to spell his name phonetically. Powell
has only himself to blame. He's been Colon Powell forever.
That should be analysed and rectified!
Eli
Chances are that you degenerate swine will be appointed for that task! Maybe
apply for the job, my punching bag! <BG>
marika
2008-06-11 00:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Panta Rhei
Post by Eli Grubman
Post by HHW
Yeah, and anyone has the right to spell his name phonetically. Powell
has only himself to blame. He's been Colon Powell forever.
That should be analysed and rectified!
Eli
Chances are that you degenerate swine will be appointed for that task! Maybe
apply for the job, my punching bag! <BG>
Pardon me but am I speaking to Ponto Rhio? LOL


must be your software it's coming up ok here


Graphjam: popculture for people in cubicles

they propose several excel or microsoft type charts and graphs
On one page: boys brought to the yard by each milkshake graphed according
to my milkshake and other milkshakes

on another page lyrics to "everybody plays the fool sometime"

this one is a pie chart with everybody as 100 percent of the pie chart
exceptions: none

and so on, they keep graphing and charting lyrics

it's a great concept very dilbertian

mk5000

Chorus:
My Milkshake brings all the boys to the yard,
And their like "It's better than yours"
Damn right, It's better than yours,
I can teach you, but I have to charge (2x)

Vrs1:
I know you want it...
The thing that makes me,
What the guys go crazy for,
They lose their minds, The way I wind,
I think it's time...

Vamp:
(La-La-La-La-la)
Warm it up,
(La-La-La-La-la)
The boys are waiting,
(La-La-La-La-la)
Warm it up,
(La-La-La-La-la)
The boys are waiting,

Chorus:
My Milkshake brings all the boys to the yard,
And their like "It's better than yours"
Damn right, It's better than yours,
I can teach you, but I have to charge (2x)

Vrs2:
I can see you're on it...
You want me to teach thee,
Technics that freaks these boys,
It can't be bought,
Just don't please get caught,
Watch if you're smart,

Vamp:
(La-La-La-La-la)
Warm it up,
(La-La-La-La-la)
The boys are waiting,
(La-La-La-La-la)
Warm it up,
(La-La-La-La-la)
The boys are waiting,

Chorus:
My Milkshake brings all the boys to the yard,
And their like "It's better than yours"
Damn right, It's better than yours,
I can teach you, but I have to charge (2x)

Bridge:
Oh, Once you get involved,
Everyone will look this way so,
You must maintain your charm,
Sametime maintain your halo,
Just get the perfect lense,
Then switch it up and then,

Spoken:
Then next his eyes are squint,
Then he's picked up your scent,

Vamp:
(La-La-La-La-la)
Warm it up,
(La-La-La-La-la)
The boys are waiting,
(La-La-La-La-la)
Warm it up,
(La-La-La-La-la)
The boys are waiting,

Chorus:
My Milkshake brings all the boys to the yard,
And their like "It's better than yours"
Damn right, It's better than yours,
I can teach you, but I have to charge
Count 1
2008-06-10 12:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eli Grubman
Post by HHW
Post by marika
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
while a colon is one of the punctuation marks that designates a pause, it
certainly does't signify that you should stop reading altogether
mk5000
"the questions are the answers to questions in themselves
ask me if i really need it
ask me if you want to get hit
hit it"--angel carver blues, pavement
Yeah, and anyone has the right to spell his name phonetically. Powell
has only himself to blame. He's been Colon Powell forever.
That should be analysed and rectified!
Eli
<::groan::>
marika
2008-06-11 01:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
Post by Eli Grubman
Post by HHW
Yeah, and anyone has the right to spell his name phonetically. Powell
has only himself to blame. He's been Colon Powell forever.
That should be analysed and rectified!
Eli
<::groan::>
i have a feeling you might not be familiar with this song but i think it's
a hoot

clip of song available on site in case you don't know it

mk5000

http://graphjam.com/2008/04/03/funny-graphs-kelis-milkshake/
HHW
2008-06-10 16:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ariadne
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, who was an aide to former Secretary of State Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I wasn't able to read past that "Colon".
That's probably best for you. You wouldn't be able respond to what the
man says anyway. Why lie awake at night stricken by the realization
that America might not attack Iran for Israel after all? Did you see
the article about the Pentagon's thwarting of Cheney's plan to attack
Iran last summer? In last analysis who did that? It was Secretary of
Defense Gates, a Bush appointee, who is no maverick. Is one to
conclude that he did not consult with his Commander in Chief? Think
now, Ariadne, what might this mean? What could it mean for the U/Os'
West Bank Zion? You see what this struggle is about don't you? If Iran
is NOT attacked Israel will HAVE TO settle with the Palestinians.
Strange, isn't it?

Thank God (just a figure of speech, Ariadne) it was an *American* in a
pro-Israel think tank which blew the administration's cover. I
nominate him as patriot of the month. I wonder how his in-house
Zionist colleagues reacted. Do you suppose they have tenure in think
tanks? Will he be another Norman Finkelstein?
Mavisbeacon
2008-06-09 17:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb,
What atomic bomb?
Post by jgarbuz
and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
What nuclear threat?
snakehawk
2008-06-09 17:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb,
What atomic bomb?
Post by jgarbuz
and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
What nuclear threat?
Hell, Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to whip the crap out of
Israel. All Iran has to do is furnish the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters
with small-arms ammunition and a few old bazookas.

Look at what happened the last time Hezbollah spanked Israel's so-
highly-touted ground forces. Israel sent thousands of ground troops
supported by tank divisions, helicopter gunships and high-tech fighter
jets to attack Lebanon. About 1500 barefooted Hezbollah freedom
fighters wiped the floor with the inept Israeli military.

Israelis are still basking in their glorious sneak attack on Saddam's
nuclear power plants at a time when Iraq was so weak it couldn't
respond. The Israelis are now bragging about destroying the
completely undefended nuclear power plant in Gaza that supplied power
to millions of Palestinians. Again the victim couldn't strike back.

Well, Iran can--and certainly would--strike back. At the same time,
the people of the United States are getting a little tired of watching
their sons and daughters get killed and maimed protecting Israel's ass
in the middle east. If the Israelis launch an attack on Iran, Israel
will see what it's like to have their cities destroyed by high-flying
bombers and land-launched missiles.

And the Jews will be on their own: the American people will rebel
against sending more young Americans to fight Israel's wars.
a***@gmail.com
2008-06-09 18:08:25 UTC
Permalink
All the zionist turds are capable is shooting toddler in their
concentration camps. Iranians should wake up and turn Esther's tomb to
a lavatory and crap on their Yahweh. The zionist days based on the
lies of hollow-hoax. are numbered.
Post by snakehawk
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb,
What atomic bomb?
Post by jgarbuz
and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
What nuclear threat?
Hell, Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to whip the crap out of
Israel.  All Iran has to do is furnish the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters
with small-arms ammunition and a few old bazookas.
Look at what happened the last time Hezbollah spanked Israel's so-
highly-touted ground forces.  Israel sent thousands of ground troops
supported by tank divisions, helicopter gunships and high-tech fighter
jets to attack Lebanon.  About 1500 barefooted Hezbollah freedom
fighters wiped the floor with the inept Israeli military.
Israelis are still basking in their glorious sneak attack on Saddam's
nuclear power plants at a time when Iraq was so weak it couldn't
respond.  The Israelis are now bragging about destroying the
completely undefended nuclear power plant in Gaza that supplied power
to millions of Palestinians.  Again the victim couldn't strike back.
Well, Iran can--and certainly would--strike back.  At the same time,
the people of the United States are getting a little tired of watching
their sons and daughters get killed and maimed protecting Israel's ass
in the middle east.  If the Israelis launch an attack on Iran, Israel
will see what it's like to have their cities destroyed by high-flying
bombers and land-launched missiles.
And the Jews will be on their own:  the American people will rebel
against sending more young Americans to fight Israel's wars.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Frank Arthur
2008-06-09 19:11:39 UTC
Permalink
<***@gmail.com>
There are some 90 internet sites dedicated to destruction of law and
order, inciting to violence, support for
Islamic extremism and terrorism, helping end Western civilization and
hatred of Americans and their allies.
Most of them are also rabid Jew haters, White supremecists, White
nationalists and viscious in their hatred of diatribes against us as
Blacks,Asians,Latinos or anyone other than their twisted vision of
superior albinism.
They admire strong dictators like Adolf Hitler, or current Ayatolahs
and are as honest as Ahmedinajad with his Holocaust denial and rants
of "wiping Israel off the map". They support terrorists in Afghanistan
and Iraq and help kill American troops.
Their names often belie their hatred, but not always. They sometimes
try to seem legitimate. You know some already like
aryan88,aryan-nations,codoh,compuserb,Freedomsite,hitlerisgod,holywar,ihr,jewatch,KuKluxKlan,natall,natvan,nazi.or,nswpp,ostara,panzerfaust,
radio-islam,
revisionists,rahowa,stormfront,ukar,vanguardnews,whitepower,whitepride
and as many sick and degenerates that infest our cities & towns.
Don't join the haters. Don't support racists. Don't support Islamist
extremists.
DoD
2008-06-09 18:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by snakehawk
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb,
What atomic bomb?
Post by jgarbuz
and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
What nuclear threat?
Hell, Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to whip the crap out of
Israel.  All Iran has to do is furnish the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters
with small-arms ammunition and a few old bazookas.
If Israel would have fought the way it could, then you pieces of shit
would have been bitching about those big bad Jooooze...just like you
do with palarabs...
You people take the cake with hypocrisy.
B.H. Cramer
2008-06-10 09:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by snakehawk
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb,
What atomic bomb?
Post by jgarbuz
and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
What nuclear threat?
Hell, Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to whip the crap out of
Israel. All Iran has to do is furnish the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters
with small-arms ammunition and a few old bazookas.
If Israel would have fought the way it could,


BBBWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

We saw Ersatz israel fighting "the way it could" in July 2006, fuckwit. They
were whupped by a couple thousand rag-tag, part time militia ferchrissake.
And who can ever forget the images of the big, brave Golani coming home, one
day into a 4 day patrol, crying their goddamned eyes out.

Fuck orf with your bullshit, doodoo.
HHW
2008-06-10 17:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by DoD
Post by snakehawk
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb,
What atomic bomb?
Post by jgarbuz
and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
What nuclear threat?
Hell, Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to whip the crap out of
Israel.  All Iran has to do is furnish the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters
with small-arms ammunition and a few old bazookas.
If Israel would have fought the way it could, then you pieces of shit
would have been bitching about those big bad Jooooze...just like you
do with palarabs...
You people take the cake with hypocrisy.
Israel fought "the way it could". What was missing, David? Nukes
against refugees?

You're too stupid to indulge hypocrisy. That involves two lines of
thought simultaneously.
DoD
2008-06-10 17:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by DoD
Post by snakehawk
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb,
What atomic bomb?
Post by jgarbuz
and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
What nuclear threat?
Hell, Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to whip the crap out of
Israel.  All Iran has to do is furnish the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters
with small-arms ammunition and a few old bazookas.
If Israel would have fought the way it could, then you pieces of shit
would have been bitching about those big bad Jooooze...just like you
do with palarabs...
You people take the cake with hypocrisy.
Israel fought "the way it could". What was missing, David?
Battle plans, you stupid old drunk.
HHW
2008-06-11 21:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by DoD
Post by HHW
Post by DoD
Post by snakehawk
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb,
What atomic bomb?
Post by jgarbuz
and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
What nuclear threat?
Hell, Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to whip the crap out of
Israel.  All Iran has to do is furnish the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters
with small-arms ammunition and a few old bazookas.
If Israel would have fought the way it could, then you pieces of shit
would have been bitching about those big bad Jooooze...just like you
do with palarabs...
You people take the cake with hypocrisy.
Israel fought "the way it could". What was missing, David?
Battle plans, you stupid old drunk.
I'm glad you mentioned that part of the debacle, David. An effective
army requires good leadership. They don't have that either.

By the way, you could benefit here on the newsgroups with a little
forethought and planning. Are you capable of it?
DoD
2008-06-12 16:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by DoD
Post by HHW
Post by DoD
Post by snakehawk
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb,
What atomic bomb?
Post by jgarbuz
and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
What nuclear threat?
Hell, Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to whip the crap out of
Israel.  All Iran has to do is furnish the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters
with small-arms ammunition and a few old bazookas.
If Israel would have fought the way it could, then you pieces of shit
would have been bitching about those big bad Jooooze...just like you
do with palarabs...
You people take the cake with hypocrisy.
Israel fought "the way it could". What was missing, David?
Battle plans, you stupid old drunk.
I'm glad you mentioned that part of the debacle, David. An effective
army requires good leadership. They don't have that either.
Well, duh.....not at that point in time. What the fuck is your point?
Why are you so stupid? How did you get through school? I don't think I
have met anyone as stupid or obtuse as you... You really take the
cake. Did you actually have a freakin point or were you just talking
to demonstrate once again that you are anti-semitic? Fer petes sake
guy....get a bleeping clue.
Frank Arthur
2008-06-09 19:10:57 UTC
Permalink
"snakehawk" <***@mailandnews.com>
There are some 90 internet sites dedicated to destruction of law and
order, inciting to violence, support for
Islamic extremism and terrorism, helping end Western civilization and
hatred of Americans and their allies.
Most of them are also rabid Jew haters, White supremecists, White
nationalists and viscious in their hatred of diatribes against us as
Blacks,Asians,Latinos or anyone other than their twisted vision of
superior albinism.
They admire strong dictators like Adolf Hitler, or current Ayatolahs
and are as honest as Ahmedinajad with his Holocaust denial and rants
of "wiping Israel off the map". They support terrorists in Afghanistan
and Iraq and help kill American troops.
Their names often belie their hatred, but not always. They sometimes
try to seem legitimate. You know some already like
aryan88,aryan-nations,codoh,compuserb,Freedomsite,hitlerisgod,holywar,ihr,jewatch,KuKluxKlan,natall,natvan,nazi.or,nswpp,ostara,panzerfaust,
radio-islam,
revisionists,rahowa,stormfront,ukar,vanguardnews,whitepower,whitepride
and as many sick and degenerates that infest our cities & towns.
Don't join the haters. Don't support racists. Don't support Islamist
extremists.
snakehawk
2008-06-09 20:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Arthur
There are some 90 internet sites dedicated to destruction of law and
order, inciting to violence, support for
Islamic extremism and terrorism, helping end Western civilization and
hatred of Americans and their allies.
There are hundreds of internet sites dedicated to the United States,
aimed at encouraging U.S. citizens to cherish the centuries-old policy
of the United States initiated by the founding fathers to avoid
foreign entanglements. These sites promote the interests of the
United States over foreigners, like the Israelis, for instance, whose
interests conflict with the interests of the United States of America.

The internet sites express admiration for leaders whose allegiances
are not diluted by maudlin sentimentality for other fabled
"homelands," whose loyalties are centered on their own country, the
United States, and whose energies are directed at furthering the
welfare of the citizens of those United States. Or as John Quincy
Adams said, "America . . . is well-wisher to the freedom and
independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her
own." Or as Thomas Jefferson counseled, "Peace, commerce, and honest
friendship, with all nations -entangling alliances with none."

The internet sites deplore foreign militant murderers operating
outside of the United States and the supporters of those murderers who
justify crimes against whole nations of people based on questionable
historical interpretations, or religious affiliations, or ethnic
heritage. The sites seek and promote solutions that do not include
violence for convenience and urge condemnation of those who resort to
violence to gain political ends.

People who relentlessly pursue a program of vilification of some
religious group or sect, whether the targets are Christians, Muslims,
Hindus ( or even non-Israeli Jews ) will find that their bigotry is
not welcome. Haters, particularly the Muslim haters, and especially
the Israeli-Jewish Muslim haters who daily spew their hatred of Islam
all over the internet, will find their venom neutralized by loyal
Americans who put their country--the United States--first.

Don't support the ambitions of foreigners who would use up and consume
the United States for their claimed ethnic homeland. Don't support
the haters. Don't support the bigots. Don't support Jewish
extremists who would even sacrifice America for their mythical
homeland.
Frank Arthur
2008-06-09 21:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Arthur
There are some 90 internet sites dedicated to destruction of law and
order, inciting to violence, support for
Islamic extremism and terrorism, helping end Western civilization and
hatred of Americans and their allies.
There are hundreds of internet sites dedicated to the United States,
aimed at encouraging U.S. citizens to cherish the centuries-old policy
of the United States initiated by the founding fathers to avoid
foreign entanglements. These sites promote the interests of the
United States over foreigners, like the Israelis, for instance, whose
interests conflict with the interests of the United States of America.

The internet sites express admiration for leaders whose allegiances
are not diluted by maudlin sentimentality for other fabled
"homelands," whose loyalties are centered on their own country, the
United States, and whose energies are directed at furthering the
welfare of the citizens of those United States. Or as John Quincy
Adams said, "America . . . is well-wisher to the freedom and
independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her
own." Or as Thomas Jefferson counseled, "Peace, commerce, and honest
friendship, with all nations -entangling alliances with none."

The internet sites deplore foreign militant murderers operating
outside of the United States and the supporters of those murderers who
justify crimes against whole nations of people based on questionable
historical interpretations, or religious affiliations, or ethnic
heritage. The sites seek and promote solutions that do not include
violence for convenience and urge condemnation of those who resort to
violence to gain political ends.

People who relentlessly pursue a program of vilification of some
religious group or sect, whether the targets are Christians, Muslims,
Hindus ( or even non-Israeli Jews ) will find that their bigotry is
not welcome. Haters, particularly the Muslim haters, and especially
the Israeli-Jewish Muslim haters who daily spew their hatred of Islam
all over the internet, will find their venom neutralized by loyal
Americans who put their country--the United States--first.

Don't support the ambitions of foreigners who would use up and consume
the United States for their claimed ethnic homeland. Don't support
the haters. Don't support the bigots. Don't support Jewish
extremists who would even sacrifice America for their mythical
homeland.


It was not Jewish extremists who attacked the WTC and Pentagon killing
3,000 Americans on 9/11 but Muslim terrorists mostly from Saudi
Arabia.
Every American President since the inception and establishment of the
legal State of Israel found Israel to be a loyal dedicated supporter
of the United States since 1948. To this present day Israel is the
only democracy in the Middle east.
snakehawk
2008-06-09 23:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by snakehawk
Don't support the ambitions of foreigners who would use up and consume
the United States for their claimed ethnic homeland.  Don't support
the haters.  Don't support the bigots.  Don't support Jewish
extremists who would even sacrifice America for their mythical
homeland.
It was not Jewish extremists who attacked the WTC and Pentagon killing
3,000 Americans on 9/11 but Muslim terrorists mostly from Saudi
Arabia.
We're not too certain about that: it was Israeli-Jewish extremists who
danced with joy on the top of a van in a New Jersey parking lot at the
moment of the attack on 9/11.

But even if some Muslim young men were the guilty parties, it is
blatant bigotry to condemn all Muslims for the crimes of a few
fanatics. And that is what you are guilty of--blatant bigotry
occompanied by a relentless hate campaign against all Muslims.
Post by snakehawk
Every American President since the inception and establishment of the
legal State of Israel found Israel to be a loyal dedicated supporter
of the United States since 1948.
Good. Then let the Israelis conduct themselves in such a way that the
United States will not be involved in assassination, murder, torture,
and theft.

If the Israelis are loyal and dedicated supporters of the United
States, then they should support the lawful wishes of the people of
the United States and withdraw to the legal borders of Israel as
created by the U.N., lay down their murder weapons, cease and desist
from illegally trespassing on land, diverting water, appropriating
revenues, stripping banks, bulldozing homes and farms, and killing
women and children living in the neighboring countries.

If Israel supports the United States, then it must support the
sovereignty, the freedom, and the independence of the Arab State
created in Palestine by the U.N. in resolution 181.

To this present day Israel is the
Post by snakehawk
only democracy in the Middle east.
Obviously, there are two types of democracies. One grants equal
rights to all citizens within its borders, protects the rights of all
citizens to speak out, to travel freely, to run a business, to own and
cultivate land, and to be safe and secure in their homes.

And then there is present day Israel: a "democracy" where religious
and tribal affiliation determines the status of the citizenry, with
one group granted the exclusive right to hold high office, to rise in
the ranks of the military, to own and occupy property, to be appointed
to executive positions, and to freely move around the country.

The other group was just not fortunate enough to be born of the magic
tribe. They must abide by the wishes of the favored group or suffer
eviction, empoverishment, imprisonment, and even death. Ah, yes, what
a wonderful democracy that present-day Israel is.
Dr. Lippschitz
2008-06-10 18:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by snakehawk
Post by Frank Arthur
There are some 90 internet sites dedicated to destruction of law and
order, inciting to violence, support for
Islamic extremism and terrorism, helping end Western civilization and
hatred of Americans and their allies.
There are hundreds of internet sites dedicated to the United States,
aimed at encouraging U.S. citizens to cherish the centuries-old policy
of the United States initiated by the founding fathers to avoid
foreign entanglements. These sites promote the interests of the
United States over foreigners, like the Israelis, for instance, whose
interests conflict with the interests of the United States of America.
The internet sites express admiration for leaders whose allegiances
are not diluted by maudlin sentimentality for other fabled
"homelands," whose loyalties are centered on their own country, the
United States, and whose energies are directed at furthering the
welfare of the citizens of those United States. Or as John Quincy
Adams said, "America . . . is well-wisher to the freedom and
independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her
own." Or as Thomas Jefferson counseled, "Peace, commerce, and honest
friendship, with all nations -entangling alliances with none."
The internet sites deplore foreign militant murderers operating
outside of the United States and the supporters of those murderers who
justify crimes against whole nations of people based on questionable
historical interpretations, or religious affiliations, or ethnic
heritage. The sites seek and promote solutions that do not include
violence for convenience and urge condemnation of those who resort to
violence to gain political ends.
People who relentlessly pursue a program of vilification of some
religious group or sect, whether the targets are Christians, Muslims,
Hindus ( or even non-Israeli Jews ) will find that their bigotry is
not welcome. Haters, particularly the Muslim haters, and especially
the Israeli-Jewish Muslim haters who daily spew their hatred of Islam
all over the internet, will find their venom neutralized by loyal
Americans who put their country--the United States--first.
Don't support the ambitions of foreigners who would use up and consume
the United States for their claimed ethnic homeland. Don't support
the haters. Don't support the bigots. Don't support Jewish
extremists who would even sacrifice America for their mythical
homeland.
It was not Jewish extremists who attacked the WTC and Pentagon killing
3,000 Americans on 9/11 but Muslim terrorists mostly from Saudi Arabia.
A few thousand people is really a speck compared to what the jews will do to
the US if they had their way.
Post by snakehawk
Every American President since the inception and establishment of the
legal State of Israel found Israel to be a loyal dedicated supporter of
the United States since 1948. To this present day Israel is the only
democracy in the Middle east.
That's bullshit and you know it. Democracy is a joke anyway.
B***@isp.com
2008-06-13 01:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by snakehawk
Post by Frank Arthur
There are some 90 internet sites dedicated to destruction of law and
order, inciting to violence, support for
Islamic extremism and terrorism, helping end Western civilization and
hatred of Americans and their allies.
There are hundreds of internet sites dedicated to the United States,
aimed at encouraging U.S. citizens to cherish the centuries-old policy
of the United States initiated by the founding fathers to avoid
foreign entanglements.  These sites promote the interests of the
United States over foreigners, like the Israelis, for instance, whose
interests conflict with the interests of the United States of America.
The internet sites express admiration for leaders whose allegiances
are not diluted by maudlin sentimentality for other fabled
"homelands," whose loyalties are centered on their own country, the
United States, and whose energies are directed at furthering the
welfare of the citizens of those United States.  Or as John Quincy
Adams said, "America . . . is well-wisher to the freedom and
independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her
own." Or as Thomas Jefferson counseled,  "Peace, commerce, and honest
friendship, with all nations -entangling alliances with none."
The internet sites deplore foreign militant murderers operating
outside of the United States and the supporters of those murderers who
justify crimes against whole nations of people based on questionable
historical interpretations, or religious affiliations, or ethnic
heritage.  The sites seek and promote solutions that do not include
violence for convenience and urge condemnation of those who resort to
violence to gain political ends.
People who relentlessly pursue a program of vilification of some
religious group or sect, whether the targets are Christians, Muslims,
Hindus ( or even non-Israeli Jews ) will find that their bigotry is
not welcome.  Haters, particularly the Muslim haters, and especially
the Israeli-Jewish Muslim haters who daily spew their hatred of Islam
all over the internet, will find their venom neutralized by loyal
Americans who put their country--the United States--first.
Don't support the ambitions of foreigners who would use up and consume
the United States for their claimed ethnic homeland.  Don't support
the haters.  Don't support the bigots.  Don't support Jewish
extremists who would even sacrifice America for their mythical
homeland.
It was not Jewish extremists who attacked the WTC and Pentagon killing
3,000 Americans on 9/11 but Muslim terrorists mostly from Saudi
Arabia.
Then IMO it would have been Saudi Arabia that should have been
invaded, *not* Iraq, so do tell us, why no-one
invaded Saudi Arabia.
Post by snakehawk
Every American President since the inception and establishment of the legal State of Israel found Israel to be a loyal dedicated supporter of the United States since 1948.
Give me $3 billion a year for over 60 years and I'll be the best
friend you ever had.

As for "every American President"........... God help
the first one who doesn;t toe the jew line, he'll be a goner
in no time.
HHW
2008-06-13 03:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by snakehawk
Post by Frank Arthur
There are some 90 internet sites dedicated to destruction of law and
order, inciting to violence, support for
Islamic extremism and terrorism, helping end Western civilization and
hatred of Americans and their allies.
There are hundreds of internet sites dedicated to the United States,
aimed at encouraging U.S. citizens to cherish the centuries-old policy
of the United States initiated by the founding fathers to avoid
foreign entanglements.  These sites promote the interests of the
United States over foreigners, like the Israelis, for instance, whose
interests conflict with the interests of the United States of America.
The internet sites express admiration for leaders whose allegiances
are not diluted by maudlin sentimentality for other fabled
"homelands," whose loyalties are centered on their own country, the
United States, and whose energies are directed at furthering the
welfare of the citizens of those United States.  Or as John Quincy
Adams said, "America . . . is well-wisher to the freedom and
independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her
own." Or as Thomas Jefferson counseled,  "Peace, commerce, and honest
friendship, with all nations -entangling alliances with none."
The internet sites deplore foreign militant murderers operating
outside of the United States and the supporters of those murderers who
justify crimes against whole nations of people based on questionable
historical interpretations, or religious affiliations, or ethnic
heritage.  The sites seek and promote solutions that do not include
violence for convenience and urge condemnation of those who resort to
violence to gain political ends.
People who relentlessly pursue a program of vilification of some
religious group or sect, whether the targets are Christians, Muslims,
Hindus ( or even non-Israeli Jews ) will find that their bigotry is
not welcome.  Haters, particularly the Muslim haters, and especially
the Israeli-Jewish Muslim haters who daily spew their hatred of Islam
all over the internet, will find their venom neutralized by loyal
Americans who put their country--the United States--first.
Don't support the ambitions of foreigners who would use up and consume
the United States for their claimed ethnic homeland.  Don't support
the haters.  Don't support the bigots.  Don't support Jewish
extremists who would even sacrifice America for their mythical
homeland.
It was not Jewish extremists who attacked the WTC and Pentagon killing
3,000 Americans on 9/11 but Muslim terrorists mostly from Saudi
Arabia.
Then IMO it would have been Saudi Arabia that should have been
invaded, *not* Iraq, so do tell us, why no-one
invaded Saudi Arabia.
Post by snakehawk
Every American President since the inception and establishment of the legal State of Israel found Israel to be a loyal dedicated supporter of the United States since 1948.
Give me $3 billion a year for over 60 years and I'll be the best
friend you ever had.
Haha. Surely not! Well, maybe, eh?

Wouldn't it be nice if the three billion at least bought freedom from
Israeli spies?
Post by B***@isp.com
As for "every American President"........... God help
the first one who doesn;t toe the jew line, he'll be a goner
in no time.
There is a statesmanship stimulating solution. Amend the Constitution
to provide that we have a single six year term. And every President is
a lame duck the moment he is sworn in. There are other reforms which
would help.
HHW
2008-06-10 06:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by snakehawk
Post by Frank Arthur
There are some 90 internet sites dedicated to destruction of law and
order, inciting to violence, support for
Islamic extremism and terrorism, helping end Western civilization and
hatred of Americans and their allies.
There are hundreds of internet sites dedicated to the United States,
aimed at encouraging U.S. citizens to cherish the centuries-old policy
of the United States initiated by the founding fathers to avoid
foreign entanglements.  These sites promote the interests of the
United States over foreigners, like the Israelis, for instance, whose
interests conflict with the interests of the United States of America.
The internet sites express admiration for leaders whose allegiances
are not diluted by maudlin sentimentality for other fabled
"homelands," whose loyalties are centered on their own country, the
United States, and whose energies are directed at furthering the
welfare of the citizens of those United States.  Or as John Quincy
Adams said, "America . . . is well-wisher to the freedom and
independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her
own." Or as Thomas Jefferson counseled,  "Peace, commerce, and honest
friendship, with all nations -entangling alliances with none."
The internet sites deplore foreign militant murderers operating
outside of the United States and the supporters of those murderers who
justify crimes against whole nations of people based on questionable
historical interpretations, or religious affiliations, or ethnic
heritage.  The sites seek and promote solutions that do not include
violence for convenience and urge condemnation of those who resort to
violence to gain political ends.
People who relentlessly pursue a program of vilification of some
religious group or sect, whether the targets are Christians, Muslims,
Hindus ( or even non-Israeli Jews ) will find that their bigotry is
not welcome.  Haters, particularly the Muslim haters, and especially
the Israeli-Jewish Muslim haters who daily spew their hatred of Islam
all over the internet, will find their venom neutralized by loyal
Americans who put their country--the United States--first.
Don't support the ambitions of foreigners who would use up and consume
the United States for their claimed ethnic homeland.  Don't support
the haters.  Don't support the bigots.  Don't support Jewish
extremists who would even sacrifice America for their mythical
homeland.
Rosen, Ratner, DoD, Ariadne, Arthur et al., have at it.
HHW
2008-06-10 05:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Arthur
There are some 90 internet sites dedicated to destruction of law and
order, inciting to violence, support for
Islamic extremism and terrorism, helping end Western civilization and
hatred of Americans and their allies.
Most of them are also rabid Jew haters, White supremecists, White
nationalists and viscious in their hatred of diatribes against us as
Blacks,Asians,Latinos or anyone other than their twisted vision of
superior albinism.
They admire strong dictators like Adolf Hitler, or current Ayatolahs
and are as honest as Ahmedinajad with his Holocaust denial and rants
of "wiping Israel off the map". They support terrorists in Afghanistan
and Iraq and help kill American troops.
Their names often belie their hatred, but not always. They sometimes
try to seem legitimate. You know some already like
aryan88,aryan-nations,codoh,compuserb,Freedomsite,hitlerisgod,holywar,ihr,j ewatch,KuKluxKlan,natall,natvan,nazi.or,nswpp,ostara,panzerfaust,
radio-islam,
revisionists,rahowa,stormfront,ukar,vanguardnews,whitepower,whitepride
and as many sick and degenerates that infest our cities & towns.
Don't join the haters. Don't support racists. Don't support Islamist
extremists.
How about Israeli ethnic cleansers? Should we support them?
Dr. Lippschitz
2008-06-10 18:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Arthur
There are some 90 internet sites dedicated to destruction of law and
order, inciting to violence, support for
Islamic extremism and terrorism, helping end Western civilization and
hatred of Americans and their allies.
That will never happen. The White race is too strong and intelligent. What
you're really afraid of is that the jews will be destroyed and frankly it
doesn't matter. They've been hanging on by the skin of their teeth and by
the charity of their betters for a long time. In this modern age it's time
to rid ourselves of these genetic mutants and create a new world order :o)
Post by Frank Arthur
Most of them are also rabid Jew haters,
Face it Frank, most people don't like jews. Some are just more vocal about
it. The only friends you have are the wacko fundy christians who want to
wait in Jerusalem for the rapture which is the only reason they want israel
around. After they are sucked up to heaven when Jesus returns, the jews and
israel will be holocauted. And these are your friends hahaha



White supremecists, White
Post by Frank Arthur
nationalists and viscious in their hatred of diatribes against us as
Blacks,Asians,Latinos or anyone other than their twisted vision of
superior albinism.
You're insane Frank. Those people are only a fraction of the 1% that are
visable. All the others may say nothing but if they are sane will believe in
the preservation of their race above all others. They don't like jews or
their so called culture and don't want jews around them which is why they
gave them Palestine. Next, they will rid Europe of the other mid east and
muslim people who only ended up in Europe as a result of a labour shortage
caused by jew incited WWII. Holocaust? Who cares? We're looking out for
ourselves first in the future. No more Mr. Nice Guy. We won't even keep the
jews around as slaves because they can never be trusted.
Post by Frank Arthur
They admire strong dictators like Adolf Hitler, or current Ayatolahs and
are as honest as Ahmedinajad with his Holocaust denial and rants of
"wiping Israel off the map". They support terrorists in Afghanistan and
Iraq and help kill American troops.
Bullshit.
Post by Frank Arthur
Their names often belie their hatred, but not always. They sometimes try
to seem legitimate. You know some already like
aryan88,aryan-nations,codoh,compuserb,Freedomsite,hitlerisgod,holywar,ihr,jewatch,KuKluxKlan,natall,natvan,nazi.or,nswpp,ostara,panzerfaust,
radio-islam,
revisionists,rahowa,stormfront,ukar,vanguardnews,whitepower,whitepride and
as many sick and degenerates that infest our cities & towns.
Don't join the haters. Don't support racists. Don't support Islamist
extremists.
Nothing wrong with being a racist.
HHW
2008-06-10 16:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by snakehawk
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb,
What atomic bomb?
Post by jgarbuz
and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
What nuclear threat?
Hell, Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to whip the crap out of
Israel.  All Iran has to do is furnish the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters
with small-arms ammunition and a few old bazookas.
Look at what happened the last time Hezbollah spanked Israel's so-
highly-touted ground forces.  Israel sent thousands of ground troops
supported by tank divisions, helicopter gunships and high-tech fighter
jets to attack Lebanon.  About 1500 barefooted Hezbollah freedom
fighters wiped the floor with the inept Israeli military.
Israelis are still basking in their glorious sneak attack on Saddam's
nuclear power plants at a time when Iraq was so weak it couldn't
respond.  The Israelis are now bragging about destroying the
completely undefended nuclear power plant in Gaza that supplied power
to millions of Palestinians.  Again the victim couldn't strike back.
Well, Iran can--and certainly would--strike back.  At the same time,
the people of the United States are getting a little tired of watching
their sons and daughters get killed and maimed protecting Israel's ass
in the middle east.  If the Israelis launch an attack on Iran, Israel
will see what it's like to have their cities destroyed by high-flying
bombers and land-launched missiles.
And the Jews will be on their own:  the American people will rebel
against sending more young Americans to fight Israel's wars.
This would be an excellent time for the Democratic Congress to say
"NO" to the sale of the new F-35 to Israel. There would certainly be a
message in that even though the Ariadne's of the word would have
trouble parsing it. Good post, Hawk.
B***@isp.com
2008-06-13 01:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by snakehawk
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb,
What atomic bomb?
Post by jgarbuz
and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
What nuclear threat?
Hell, Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to whip the crap out of
Israel.  All Iran has to do is furnish the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters
with small-arms ammunition and a few old bazookas.
Look at what happened the last time Hezbollah spanked Israel's so-
highly-touted ground forces.  Israel sent thousands of ground troops
supported by tank divisions, helicopter gunships and high-tech fighter
jets to attack Lebanon.  About 1500 barefooted Hezbollah freedom
fighters wiped the floor with the inept Israeli military.
Israelis are still basking in their glorious sneak attack on Saddam's
nuclear power plants at a time when Iraq was so weak it couldn't
respond.  The Israelis are now bragging about destroying the
completely undefended nuclear power plant in Gaza that supplied power
to millions of Palestinians.  Again the victim couldn't strike back.
Well, Iran can--and certainly would--strike back.  At the same time,
the people of the United States are getting a little tired of watching
their sons and daughters get killed and maimed protecting Israel's ass
in the middle east.  If the Israelis launch an attack on Iran, Israel
will see what it's like to have their cities destroyed by high-flying
bombers and land-launched missiles.
And the Jews will be on their own:  the American people will rebel
against sending more young Americans to fight Israel's wars.
This would be an excellent time for the Democratic Congress to say
"NO" to the sale of the new F-35 to Israel.
"Sale" !! You mean they are going to pay for them!!

There would certainly be a
Post by HHW
message in that even though the Ariadne's of the word would have
trouble parsing it. Good post, Hawk
Ariadne is an idiot. Case closed..- Hide quoted text -
Post by HHW
- Show quoted text -
HHW
2008-06-13 03:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by HHW
Post by snakehawk
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb,
What atomic bomb?
Post by jgarbuz
and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
What nuclear threat?
Hell, Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to whip the crap out of
Israel.  All Iran has to do is furnish the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters
with small-arms ammunition and a few old bazookas.
Look at what happened the last time Hezbollah spanked Israel's so-
highly-touted ground forces.  Israel sent thousands of ground troops
supported by tank divisions, helicopter gunships and high-tech fighter
jets to attack Lebanon.  About 1500 barefooted Hezbollah freedom
fighters wiped the floor with the inept Israeli military.
Israelis are still basking in their glorious sneak attack on Saddam's
nuclear power plants at a time when Iraq was so weak it couldn't
respond.  The Israelis are now bragging about destroying the
completely undefended nuclear power plant in Gaza that supplied power
to millions of Palestinians.  Again the victim couldn't strike back.
Well, Iran can--and certainly would--strike back.  At the same time,
the people of the United States are getting a little tired of watching
their sons and daughters get killed and maimed protecting Israel's ass
in the middle east.  If the Israelis launch an attack on Iran, Israel
will see what it's like to have their cities destroyed by high-flying
bombers and land-launched missiles.
And the Jews will be on their own:  the American people will rebel
against sending more young Americans to fight Israel's wars.
This would be an excellent time for the Democratic Congress to say
"NO" to the sale of the new F-35 to Israel.
"Sale" !! You mean they are going to pay for them!!
Of course not. They are gifted. If they are sold it is on credit and
then the debt is "forgiven" by previous agreement so the the American
people are bamboozled.
Post by B***@isp.com
There would certainly be a
Post by HHW
message in that even though the Ariadne's of the word would have
trouble parsing it. Good post, Hawk
Ariadne is an idiot. Case closed..- Hide quoted text -
I'm afraid so.
HHW
2008-06-10 05:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb,
What atomic bomb?
Post by jgarbuz
and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
What nuclear threat?
Precisely.
HHW
2008-06-10 16:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb,
What atomic bomb?
Post by jgarbuz
and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
What nuclear threat?
The best questions are always easy to understand.
HHW
2008-06-10 05:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
No. And no. Just give us an opportunity to retire gracefully prior
thereto so we can prove there is no complicity.
DoD
2008-06-10 06:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
No. And no. Just give us an opportunity to retire gracefully prior
thereto so we can prove there is no complicity.
Good gawd almighty... someone spare us from this candidate for
TMZ..!!!!
B.H. Cramer
2008-06-10 07:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
Why would Iran whack Ersatz israel with an atomic weapon, garbageguz?

They're achieving remarkable things now.
HHW
2008-06-11 17:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by B.H. Cramer
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
Why would Iran whack Ersatz israel with an atomic weapon, garbageguz?
The simplest questions are the best. Not one of these creatures will
touch it. The real reason is this: Iran has become dangerous too soon.
Israel has not yet succeeded in defeating the Resistance and
consolidating its grip on the West Bank. She wants America's Navy and
Airforce to set the Iranians back a generation or so to give them time
to complete the crimes in process but not yet complete.
Post by B.H. Cramer
They're achieving remarkable things now.
4PeaceMirelle
2008-06-11 19:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Iran has become dangerous too soon.
Iran is not dangerous.
The idiot zionists say it is because they want the oil and their
"Greater Israel" expansionist/imperialist plans moving along.


Mirelle
Post by HHW
Post by B.H. Cramer
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
Why would Iran whack Ersatz israel with an atomic weapon, garbageguz?
The simplest questions are the best. Not one of these creatures will
touch it. The real reason is this: Iran has become dangerous too soon.
Israel has not yet succeeded in defeating the Resistance and
consolidating its grip on the West Bank. She wants America's Navy and
Airforce to set the Iranians back a generation or so to give them time
to complete the crimes in process but not yet complete.
Post by B.H. Cramer
They're achieving remarkable things now.
HHW
2008-06-12 02:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by 4PeaceMirelle
Iran has become arguably "dangerous" too soon.
Iran is not dangerous.
The idiot zionists say it is because they want the oil and their
"Greater Israel" expansionist/imperialist plans moving along.
I added one word and a set of quotation marks. You're right, my
comment was too categorical.
Post by 4PeaceMirelle
Mirelle
Post by B.H. Cramer
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
Why would Iran whack Ersatz israel with an atomic weapon, garbageguz?
The simplest questions are the best. Not one of these creatures will
touch it. The real reason is this: Iran has become dangerous too soon.
Israel has not yet succeeded in defeating the Resistance and
consolidating its grip on the West Bank. She wants America's Navy and
Airforce to set the Iranians back a generation or so to give them time
to complete the crimes in process but not yet complete.
Post by B.H. Cramer
They're achieving remarkable things now.
Dr. Lippschitz
2008-06-10 17:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
First of all. Iran would destroy israel in 10 minutes. Second, it's better
to sacrifice the 5m jews in Palestine rather than cause the death of a 100k
humans.
a***@hotmail.com
2008-06-11 23:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
You are saying that Israel's neighbors have to live with the real
Israeli nuclear threat in perpetuity whereas Israel has the right to
"wipe out" the potential Iranian nuclear threat without provocation
(purely verbal rhetoric doen't count and please don't give us any crap
about "responsible" Israelis and irresponsible Muslims - Israel's
leaders are on record with apocalyptic talk about taking the region
with them if faced with defeat).

Israelis are people as are its neighbors and such an asymmetric view
of two peoples is only consistent with a world-view that Israelis of
all people shuld find abhorrent - ubermenchen and untermenchen.
jgarbuz
2008-06-12 00:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
You are saying that Israel's neighbors have to live with the real
Israeli nuclear threat in perpetuity<
Sure, just like Mexico, Venezuela and Cuba do. Or would you like see
them violate the NPT and get nukes too?
Post by a***@hotmail.com
whereas Israel has the right to
"wipe out" the potential Iranian nuclear threat without provocation
(purely verbal rhetoric doen't count <
It has not been purely verbal. Hezbollah was created and trained by
Iran, and they have killed plenty of Israelis. And Iranian missiles
have falled on Israel during the Lebanese war. If that isn't
provocation, I don't know what is.
Post by a***@hotmail.com
and please don't give us any crap
about "responsible" Israelis and irresponsible Muslims - Israel's
leaders are on record with apocalyptic talk about taking the region
with them if faced with defeat).<
What's wrong with that?
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Israelis are people as are its neighbors and such an asymmetric view
of two peoples is only consistent with a world-view that Israelis of
all people shuld find abhorrent - ubermenchen and untermenchen.<
If the Arabs minded their own fucking business, and didn't make war
and cause trouble for the Jewish state, there would be no problems.
a***@hotmail.com
2008-06-12 01:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
You are saying that Israel's neighbors have to live with the real
Israeli nuclear threat in perpetuity<
Sure, just like Mexico, Venezuela and Cuba do. Or would you like see
them violate the NPT and get nukes too?
So you are saying that just as Mexico Venezuela and Cuba live without
a nuclear or (for that matter any other) deterrent against the US,
Egypt, Syria, Iran and Iraq (I am not incuding U S sponsored puppet
regimes in West Asia) have no other choice but to live without a
nuclear deterrent against Israel ?

Actually Cuba "borowed" a nuclear deterrent against the US and
although they had to give it up they at least got a US pledge not to
attack themt out of it.

The analogy doesn't really hold and at any rate citing one unfair and
unjust situtaion is not an argument in favor of another unfair and
unjust situation.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by a***@hotmail.com
whereas Israel has the right to
"wipe out" the potential Iranian nuclear threat without provocation
(purely verbal rhetoric doen't count <
It has not been purely verbal. Hezbollah was created and trained by
Iran, and they have killed plenty of Israelis. And Iranian missiles
have falled on Israel during the Lebanese war. If that isn't
provocation, I don't know what is.
It is provocation and belligerance because Arab/Muslim states (endowed
with a spine - not counting the Jordans Saudi Arabias etc.)will not
tolerate a state that behaves like Israel does in their midst.

If Israel wants to impose its will by raw uncivilized force - thats
fine - but they shouldn't whine about non-existent nuclear threats
when they have probably the world's 4th or 5th largest nuclear force
with a triad of delivery systems - missiles, planes and submarines.

If Israel wants to be the sole possessor of the option of nuclear
escalation - it is simply too grotesque a demand to be made upon the
world community. The U.S. backing for this absurd demand is what is
keeping Western mainstream media from writing about it objectively.
Post by jgarbuz
Post by a***@hotmail.com
and please don't give us any crap
about "responsible" Israelis and irresponsible Muslims - Israel's
leaders are on record with apocalyptic talk about taking the region
with them if faced with defeat).<
What's wrong with that?
"Is Paris burning?" aren't you uncomfortable how exactly present day
Israel's behavior mirrors a certain German regime in the recent past?
Post by jgarbuz
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Israelis are people as are its neighbors and such an asymmetric view
of two peoples is only consistent with a world-view that Israelis of
all people shuld find abhorrent - ubermenchen and untermenchen.<
If the Arabs minded their own fucking business, and didn't make war
and cause trouble for the Jewish state, there would be no problems.-
Let Arabs try to fuck Israel and let Israel try to fuck Arabs - we are
all imperfect human beings burdened with competitiveness, a will to
dominate etc. There are many countries with borders that are far from
peaceful - and they all live with neighbors they dislike/hate/
tolerate.

Israel cannot claim exemption from the laws that govern human nature.
If its existence can only be guaranteed by the strategic nuclear
asymmetry then it will cease to exist in the fairly near future.

Hide quoted text -
Post by jgarbuz
- Show quoted text -
HHW
2008-06-12 03:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
You are saying that Israel's neighbors have to live with the real
Israeli nuclear threat in perpetuity whereas Israel has the right to
"wipe out" the potential Iranian nuclear threat without provocation
(purely verbal rhetoric doen't count and please don't give us any crap
about "responsible" Israelis and irresponsible Muslims - Israel's
leaders are on record with apocalyptic talk about taking the region
with them if faced with defeat).
Israelis are people as are its neighbors and such an asymmetric view
of two peoples is only consistent with a world-view that Israelis of
all people shuld find abhorrent - ubermenchen and untermenchen.
Almost all the Zionist arguments here are based on suppressed premises
and fallacy. You've uncovered that pattern deftly. Israeli bombs are
good, defensive bombs made by "sweet Jews" for all the right reasons.
Any Muslim bombs must be bad, aggressive bombs. This racism is built
into the whole colonial exercise.
jgarbuz
2008-06-12 04:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by jgarbuz
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
You are saying that Israel's neighbors have to live with the real
Israeli nuclear threat in perpetuity whereas Israel has the right to
"wipe out" the potential Iranian nuclear threat without provocation
(purely verbal rhetoric doen't count and please don't give us any crap
about "responsible" Israelis and irresponsible Muslims - Israel's
leaders are on record with apocalyptic talk about taking the region
with them if faced with defeat).
Israelis are people as are its neighbors and such an asymmetric view
of two peoples is only consistent with a world-view that Israelis of
all people shuld find abhorrent - ubermenchen and untermenchen.
Almost all the Zionist arguments here are based on suppressed premises
and fallacy. You've uncovered that pattern deftly. Israeli bombs are
good, defensive bombs made by "sweet Jews" for all the right reasons.
Any Muslim bombs must be bad, aggressive bombs. This racism is built
into the whole colonial exercise.<
Defending yourself is racism? When some black kids would occasionally
rob or beat me up, was my trying to defend myself racism? Actually, I
couldn't defend myself being the only white, Jewish kid in those
Projects at that time.
And Jewish kids were taught not to defend themselves, as struggle was
useless and would only invite more of the same. But in Israel, where
Jewish kids ARE taught to defend themselves, that is racist. For the
first time in 2,000 years, Jews are finally defending their existence
but antisemites call that "racism." Unbelievable.
Al Nakba
2008-06-12 02:32:56 UTC
Permalink
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you want to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.
I'll bet you found the effendis penatrating..
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...