LowerCaseRepublican

I wonder if that's as bad as denying Guardsmen and reservists full medical coverage upon their return like Bush has done. Just saying. They're both whores and we have no real choice. I'm not shilling for Kerry because he voted for damn near everything Bush wanted to do and yet has the balls to call himself the clear alternative. And as for the VVAK. It's a different guy than the one who wrote this piece.

Who is the author of this letter? Cuz I know there is a guy from a Vietnam Vets Against Kerry site and McCain tore that guy a new asshole, IIRC. I dunno if the guy who wrote the letter is the same guy from the VVAK thing or not but if Nuke can provide me the name, I can look into it and see if it's the same.

As the resident "Anti-American, Anti-Semite Semite Loving, Puppy Kicker Terrorist Scumbag Who wants the Genocide of the Jews and Israel in the company of Hitler, Vanunu, and HaCohen", I think they should stay open. Anybody who doesn't want to see doesn't have to read...it's not too difficult.

You obviously haven't seen the parades by the settlers in the occupied territories. It's quite normal for them to march cheering themselves on saying they will never leave and they will take over more Palestinian land while firing Uzis. I've seen the photos and heard the testimonials and seen the video. And those shining beacons of human rights, the IDF high fives them.

Yes, an a Zionist Jew must be a wholly unbiased source as to what is going on there. And if you think the International Red Crescent is a "terrorist" organization as you've said before then the same should hold true for your believe about the Israeli Red Cross since they are essentially the same national organization.

See, I did a little digging... April 19 2004 @ 12:13 PM Here's your quote Future terrorists. So people who hadn't done anything to Israel deserve to be murdered in your eyes. Gee, that's not genocidal at all.

Nah, you just advocated having gunships shoot missiles at them as they had a memorial service for their dead killed in an extrajudicial manner by state sponsored terrorism. You even said yourself that you see Palestinians as "potential terrorists" that need to be dealt with violently.

Seeing how 2 people on the list are Jews (and it's debated that Hitler was a Jew as well seeing how they are not entirely sure about his parental lineage) wouldn't that mean they'd want to commit suicide? There's a difference between critiquing a poor, short sighted policy that obviously hasn't worked and has only bred more violence and wanting the extermination of an entire race of people.

If you think Amnesty is biased, how in the blue f*** can you think that the Jewish World Review is an unbiased source as to what is going on in the Middle East? If you honestly believe that then this is hysterical. And Israel is loyal to the US? HAHAHAHA. Yeah, create a nuke program and hide it from your closest ally (thank you Mordechai Vanunu for exposing it!) And by the way I4E, the 600+ checkpoints in Gaza that prohibit Palestinian farmers and others from getting to work, that just might be why their economy is piss poor...because the IDF thugs don't let them through the checkpoints to get to their job. (Making them wait for hours arbitrarily for no reason) If Israel is so worried about their security how about they pay for it themselves instead over $4 billion in subsidies from the US? Expert economists say that could happen by raising income taxes on Israel's own people just 5% a year. And Hamas is not simply a terrorist organization. It is mostly, if you do any research into the Middle East or speak to people who have been to the region, a social services organization. Yes, it is militant but the vast majority of what they do is provide food, bring kids to schools, etc. It's sort of like the Black Panthers in Chicago. When a group feeds the hungry, gives shelters to the homeless, etc. people will get angry when you blast it's leader...even if it does do military actions. Here's a little piece from Ran HaCohen, a Jew living in Tel Aviv: The Apartheid Wall – the so-called "security fence" – presently being erected deep in occupied Palestinian land has already left about 12.000 Palestinian villagers outside it, trapped between the Wall and the Green Line. All this territory, between the Apartheid Wall and Israel proper, has been termed "the seam zone." The Israeli Army recently issued clear and detailed orders concerning this zone, as reported by Amira Hass of Ha'aretz (14.10.2003): "An individual will not enter the seam zone and will not stay there; An individual found in the seam zone will have to leave it immediately." What about a Palestinian who lives in the seam zone? -Well, he "will be permitted to enter the seam zone and stay there, so long as he bears a permit in writing" issued by the Israeli Army. So if you happened to have your house in the seam zone, and you are aged 12 or older, you have to persuade the Israeli Army to give you a permit to stay at home, or to go home. If you expect a visit, first make sure your guest fills one of the 12 relevant application forms – for an owner of a business in the seam zone; a merchant; an employee; a farmer; a teacher; a student; an employee of the Palestinian Authority; a visitor; an employee of an international organization; an employee of a local authority or infrastructure company; a member of a medical team; or for 'all other objectives' – the Israeli Army thinks of everything. Once your guest has filled out the form, and has been lucky enough to obtain the permit, he is most welcome to visit you. Obviously, the Israeli Army may or may not issue the permit. The Army may limit its validity, withdraw it, or suspend it at will. It may take you several days to get a permit, it may take months. But it may also depend on the applicant: he may be politely asked – in a discrete conversation with an anonymous agent in dark sun-glasses – to keep an open eye on his neighbours or family if he wants to get a permit, or to grant the Israeli intelligence some other service: No free lunch. Obviously, these draconic measures are not really applied to everybody. Some people do not need a permit. These are: "1. A citizen of Israel; 2. A resident of Israel; 3. Anyone entitled to immigrate to Israel according to the Law of Return." So if your mother happened to be Jewish, and you live in Montreal, in Mexico City or in Johannesburg, you need no permit at all to go to the small West Bank village of Salim. But if you are a Palestinian, even if you and your family have been living in Salim for centuries, you cannot stay there without a written permit from Major General Moshe Kaplinski "or someone acting on his behalf", as the order goes. Major General Moshe Kaplinski has not been summoned to the International Criminal Court in the Hague yet for this racist order. I doubt whether he ever will be. But if you ever wondered what the world would have looked like if Hitler had won the War, I think this could give you a pretty good idea.

2-0 White Sox! Yes!

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=66687 Way to go Portland Police! :finger

History's mutts? f***, if you read your history you'll find out that Uganda almost became the Jewish homeland. But it was an easier sell to get Jews to come to Israel, so that's why they chose Israel. And read the context of the 1917 Balfour Declaration. The UK, France and the rest of Europe and the US didn't want the Jews in their country (yeah they were the real anti-Semites) so they kicked people out of their countries and gave them the land that Palestinians already had because Europe didn't want the Jews in their lands. Let's get our facts straight, skippy.

I guess rounding people up in ghettos, having military checkpoints forcing people around, beating people for no reason, random gassings of towns. Taking over 88% of the land (when the wall is finished) and compressing millions into an already incredibly dense area where they cannot leave. Gee, that's not Nazi-like at all. The irony of what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians is so striking. You'd figure a group of people who were so badly affected by a police state would not commit the same actions against another group of people...but damn, the Likudniks are some really greedy people.

There weren't any suicide bombers killing Israelis pre-1948 imperialism. For years since the late 19th Century when Jews purchased land there and lived there working...things were peaceful. Only after the UN came in and gave 55% of the land to Israel and then Israel took another 23% of it with 90,000 troops in 1948 is why the Palestinians accessorize with dynamite. If they got millions in aid every day, they could use helicopter gunships too. And obviously some do things independently. Check out the "s***" List (s*** = Self Hating and/or Israel Threatening" Jews) online. And hey, can't forget the hero Mordechai Vanunu and the members of the Sayaret Metkal that refuse to serve in the occupied territories.

I4E, I'd rather read people who aren't apt to lying as Horowitz has been known to do. Hence reading historical documents, reading people like Ran HaCohen who actually is in Tel Aviv and other such people are a lot more accurate than a lying asshat like Horowitz (you should do a nice google search for Horowitz lies and you can come up with a ton) I actually don't read a lot of the mainstream news. Mostly it's Haaretz, Guardian Unlimited and links from a wide variety of non-Zionist sites because Zionism betrayed the Jews during World War II. (read Lenni Brenner's "51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis") Made up information? You're the one claiming photos are doctored for no other reason than the fact that tying a kid to a Hummer is a completely indefensible position. You can't fight back against the Truth and thusly you go towards personal insults and saying stuff is bulls*** yet you give no reason why.

Vile left wing BS yet we're supposed to believe Horowitz and Pipes and Frontpage Magazine. That's pretty laughable there, I4E. Ah but instead of debating the facts introduced you just claim it's left wing and therefore bad instead of disproving their claims.

There is a difference between self defense and taking over more and more territory. And maybe, just maybe, with this arrogance and imperialism...the Israelis are reaping what they've sown.

Gee...methinks, um....THE REST OF THE WORLD OUTSIDE OF ISRAEL would dispute that claim. But I guess that's just one huge anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Even the US recognizes that Palestine has claims to the land that are legit and hence want Israel out of the W. Bank and Gaza even though we never pressure them as much as we could. By the way, I4E, what is your stance on Mordechai Vanunu?

Ah personal attacks...the last bastion of a person who has no argument to make whatsoever. It's quite fun knowing I've already won the debate because you can't dispute any of my points.

So, essentially you're saying that it's too bad that Israelis are having an apartheid Zionist regime? Gee, denying people access to travel, illegal settlements according to international law and taking more land in the W. Bank with the wall...and you have to wonder why people accessorize with dynamite on buses? Deny people rights, their land and kill their kids...they tend to just get a tad bit angry, I4E but as you've said before, the Palestinians are lesser humans so what happens to them doesn't matter...just as long as your little thugs get more land. It's funny that before 1948 when Jews were living in Palestine, they worked side by side fine with the Jews when it was Palestine. Jews lived there in peace with Palestinians. It wasn't until the UN took away over 35% of Palestinian land to create Israel (mainly for the anti-Semitic reason that the US/UK/France didn't want the Jews in their country...check out the history on it) that Palestinians got up in arms saying that it wasn't fair to arbitrarily take their land. So they got angry and tried to fight...so Israel takes more land in self defense? Sorry, that's not self defense. That's imperialism. You have a right to defend yourself...not take another 20% or so of the land.

If attacked, you have a right to self defense, not going and taking more lands. That's like me attacking you, winning and then setting up camp taking over your backyard. It's imperialism. As for the peace accords: One of the most powerful myths propagated in the US media today is that at the Camp David summit in July 2000, then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak made an amazingly generous offer to the Palestinians that Yasir Arafat wantonly spurned, broke off negotiations and then launched a violent uprising against Israel. No element of this, the most cherished of media myths is true. In fact, Barak's offer was anything but generous. It was Israel that broke off the negotiations, and the committee headed by former US Senator George Mitchell found no evidence to back the Israeli claim that the Palestinian Authority had planned or launched the Intifada. This myth was given life in large part by President Clinton who immediately after the Camp David summit broke his promise to Arafat that no side would be blamed for failure, and went on Israeli television declaring that while Barak made bold compromises for peace, Arafat has missed yet another opportunity. Let's go through the evidence bit by bit. Barak's "generous" offer What Barak offered at Camp David was a formula for continued Israeli military occupation under the name of a "state." The proposal would have meant: no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state, no control of its external borders, limited control of its own water resources, and no full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory as required by international law. In addition, the Barak plan would have: included continued Israeli military control over large segments of the West Bank, including almost all of the Jordan Valley; codified the right of Israeli forces to be deployed in the Palestinian state at short notice; meant the continued presence of fortified Israeli settlements and Jewish-only roads in the heart of the Palestinian state; and required nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees to relinquish their fundamental human rights in exchange for compensation to be paid not by Israel but by the "international community." At best, Palestinians could expect a kind of super-autonomy within a "Greater Israel", rather than independence, and the devolution of some municipal functions in the parts of Jerusalem inhabited by Palestinians, under continued overall Israeli control. See maps showing what the Israeli proposals would have looked like in reality at www.electronicIntifada.net/coveragetrends/generous.html. John Mearsheimer, professor in the department of political science at the University of Chicago, recognized the limitations of what Palestinians were being asked to accept as a final settlement, concluding that: "it is hard to imagine the Palestinians accepting such a state. Certainly no other nation in the world has such curtailed sovereignty." [source: "The Impossible Partition," New York Times, January 11, 2001] The reality was far from the wild claims routinely made on the editorial pages of American papers that Barak had offered the Palestinians, 95, 97 or even 100% of the occupied West Bank. Barak himself wrote in a New York Times Op-ed on 24 May 2001 that his vision was for "a gradual process of establishing secure, defensible borders, demarcated so as to encompass more than 80 percent of the Jewish settlers in several settlement blocs over about 15 percent of Judea and Samaria, and to ensure a wide security zone in the Jordan Valley." [source: "Building a Wall Against Terror," New York Times, 24 May 2001]. In other words, if Barak intended to keep 15 percent of "Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank), he could not have offered the Palestinians more than 85 percent. No one can seriously talk about Israel being willing to end its settlement policy if 80 percent of its settlers would have remained in place. Robert Malley who was Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs, participated in the Camp David negotiations. In an important article entitled "Fictions About the Failure At Camp David " published in the New York Times on July 8, 2001, Malley added his own, insider's challenge to the Camp David myth. Not only did he agree that Barak's offer was far from ideal, but made the additional point that Arafat had made far more concessions than anyone gave him credit for. Malley wrote: "Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem -- neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel -- not Anwar el-Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria -- ever came close to even considering such compromises." Malley rightly concluded that, "If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality." The negotiations continued. While it is true that the July 2000 Camp David summit ended without agreement, the negotiations did not end. They restarted and continued until Barak broke them off in January 2001. Since then Israel has refused to enter political negotiations with the Palestinians. On 19 December 2000, six months after Camp David, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators returned to Washington and continued with negotiations. These negotiations were based on a set of proposals by President Clinton which went beyond Barak's offer of July 2000, but still fell short of minimum Palestinian expecations. Nevertheless, the Palestinians went on with the talks. By some accounts these were proving fruitful. The Los Angeles Times reported on 22 December 2000, that: "Amid signs that the two sides appear to be edging toward some sort of compromise on the emotional issue of Jerusalem, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators worked through the start of the Jewish Hanukkah holiday Thursday expressing a rare shared optimism." [source: Los Angeles Times, December 22, 2000. "Hopeful mood fuels talks on Mideast peace; Negotiations: Israelis, Palestinians work through Jewish holiday as signs surface of a compromise."] In January 2001, the talks moved to Taba, Egypt, where they reportedly continued to make progress. They broke off at the end of January, and were due to resume but Barak canceled a planned meeting with Arafat. Shortly thereafter, Barak lost the election to Ariel Sharon, and the talks have never resumed. The New York Times reported on January 28, 2001: "Senior Israeli and Palestinian officials concluded nearly a week of stop-and-start negotiations in Taba, Egypt, tonight by saying jointly that they have "never been closer to reaching" a final peace accord but lacked sufficient time to conclude one before the Israeli elections on Feb. 6..... At a joint news conference in Taba, Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami of Israel called the two-way talks, from which the Americans were conspicuously absent, "the most fruitful, constructive, profound negotiations in this phase of the peace process." He said the two sides hoped to pick up where they left off after the elections -- although his boss, Mr. Barak, is expected to lose." Source: New York Times, January 28, 2001, "Mideast Talks End With Gain But No Accord." So how is it then that all these commentators and Israeli officials continue to deny that talks which the Israeli foreign minister at the time called "the most fruitful, constructive, profound negotiations," never took place? How is it that so many continue to claim that it was the Palestinians who walked away from the bargaining table when it was Israel that stopped the talks and refuses to resume them? And they are occupied territories. Having over 600+ checkpoints in Gaza alone, having constant tanks and military presence there stopping people from going to work, going to their farms, getting hospital care...that's an occupation. Building a wall around cities to make it so there is only one exit and then denying people the opportunity to exit the town. I4E, I'll show you a map before 1948 and the Jewish imperialism and there is a Palestine. Show me an Israel on a non-ancient map pre 1948. Yeah that's what I thought. And hey, I4E, Native Americans had the longest uninterrupted presence here in America...are you fighting for them to gain 100% control of all US land? After all, historically they have the most historic presence in the territories. and Yeah, its difficult to fight a conventional war when one side gets $15 million a day and state of the art military equipment from the US to keep their apartheid supremacist regime in place while the other side can barely get enough food to survive when the IDF won't let farmers go to a field. Desperate times call for desperate measures, just like the sonderkommando did to the SS at the death camps when they revolted. They didn't fight conventionally but it was their only option other than death or being kept in prison camps (which Gaza and the W. Bank are turning into with the wall being built around towns creating prison ghettos) And can you explain to me how 85 Palestinian kids died before the first Israeli kid during the 2nd intifada because reading the causes of death (mostly sniper rifle shots by IDF troops) it seems like Israel just might be targeting kids.

Palestinians started the 2nd intifada...but you can't blame them when you've got an occupying force that took their land. Palestinians were given 45% of the land and are now down to 22% due to land grabs. So gee, I wonder why people would be angry. As for aggressors...gee, you know...taking land in 1948 with 90,000 troops...taking land in 1967...taking land with the wall. Who are the aggressors again? And hey, how is tear gassing kids and shooting kids on playgrounds self defense? As for the Oslo accords, if you read the historical record, it was actually Israel that backed out...not Palestine. But who needs facts when you've got reactionism and the ability to call anybody who is against you an anti-Semite because they see grave human rights abuses being perpetrated by the Israeli "Defense" Force.

I actually have worked a lot. Yes, and when the picture is taken by a UK newspaper (remember, it was the UK who created the Balfour Declaration) and not by Palestinians at all, I'm sure the Palestinians doctored the photo. Actually, AI has taken stances against Palestinian suicide bombers and just because they go after Israel in the wrong does not make them an anti-Israel organization as you would like to assume. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to talk to a person who has extensively been in Israel. He went all over as part of a Mid East Children's coalition. In his experience, the first night there he discussed how the illegal settlers came out with submachine guns chanting in Hebrew how they were not going anywhere despite the declarations of international law. Oh yeah, they were marching and firing uzis in their march...and got high 5'ed by the IDF. Palestinians cannot use roads. The West Bank and Gaza are being split into 3 parts and it is damn near impossible to get through the checkpoints for anyone. (Even he and his human rights delegation were forced to wait for hours for no reason) The wall being built in Israel is 4 times the length of the Berlin Wall. It annexes 56% of the West Bank into Israel so it's not even being built on the Green Line. This wall annexation takes a lot of the agricultural land and most of the aquifers from the Palestinians. In many cities, they are surrounded by the wall with only 1 checkpoint as an exit. Talk about creating ghettos. Farmers are kept from their fields because Israel gives them passes as to when they can do agricultural work. So their crops consistently die and they get no food from their crops. Even the Balfour Declaration, reading the historical context of it, its easy to see that it is an anti-Semitic document. The Brits didn't want Jews in their country so they gave them what they gave them in the Balfour Declaration. Before the UN created the 55%-45% land distribution in favor of Israel, Jews and Palestinians lived in Palestine quite peacefully cuz the Jews got the security they wanted (and it was a better trip than going to Uganda like they were talking about) In 1948, they took 78% of the land and uprooted almost all the rest in 1967. Gaza's settlements are the most densely populated areas in the entire world. With Israel's wall implementation, Israel gains more land in Gaza and the W. Bank, even if they give back Gaza to the Palestinians. It's a net land gain for the Israelis. If the wall with the checkpoints and everything goes through, it will mean 88% of the land for Israelis and 12% for Palestinians. Displacing peoples' homes to make room for the wall and destroying an entire community's olive groves for the actions of one member of the town...gee, I wonder why people would be angry at the Israelis. And according to the UN, who created Israel...when there is an occupying force in a nation, the inhabitants are well within their legal rights to fight back against the occupying force. I'm sure you've heard the stories about the illegal settlers sniping Palestinian kids at playgrounds...because I've met quite a few people who have lived and extensively been to Palestine and seen it with their own eyes. Prove me wrong, I4E. Show me that it's not the occupation and the illegal land grab of the Wall and the 1967 occupation that is the cause of the violence. You can't prove anything I wrote wrong so you go towards your knee jerk "It's anti-Semitic" instead of debating the actual facts. You can't stand it that the nephew of Netanyahu is against the occupation. You can't stand it that the thuggery of the IDF against children and innocent Palestinians that are collateral damage just might be the root cause as to why people throw rocks and blow themselves up to get back at Israelis. You can't stand it that the Sayaret Metkal is against the occupation and refuses to serve. Oh and by the way, I'm not from an affluent suburb. I'm from a rural farming town and I've had to work quite a lot. But not that I have to justify myself to you. And by the way, my background doesn't change the facts that are being posted that you refuse to refute.

Chuck D from Public Enemy was recently on campus giving a lecture about this subject. He railed about hip hop originally being used as a means to describe the problems facing the inner city re: drugs, guns in school, police brutality etc. but now it's become 50 Cent and Ja Rule bulls*** to sell records and keep the "hip hop" image which has become smoking weed and having giant pink SUV's and having guns being in gangs, etc. Gimme "Fear of a Black Planet" over anything hip hop related that has come out by the "big name" artists.

It is comic writing Alan Moore whose is quoted in the sig. As for I4E, he doesn't dispute the claim that is goes on but as long as the kid isn't struggling to get free it's alright? What the f*** sort of logic is that? And could he not be struggling because there are a bunch of thugs with M16s around him ready to kick his ass...maybe that's the reason. "According to Amnesty International, more than 50 children under the age of 12 have been killed by Israeli army fire, during the first seven months of 2002 alone. You have not sentenced even one of the perpetrators of these crimes. But you're sentencing me...just because I refuse to take part in such activities." That quote was from Jonathan Ben Artzi, a reservist refusing to serve in the occupied territories, addressing the IDF. He is also known as the nephew of Israeli Foreign Minister and former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. But I guess that's just another anti-Semitic HAMAS lover, huh. And a quote from Amnesty International from Sept. 30, 2002: "In 2002 the majority were those children killed when the IDF randomly opened fire, or shelled or bombarded residential neighborhoods in Palestinian towns and villages. Most of these children were killed when there was no exchange of fire and in circumstances in which the lives of the soldiers were not at risk." Or how about a quote from an Israeli father (Rami Elhanan) who lost his child to a suicide bomber in 1997: "Our daughter was killed because of the terror of the Israeli occupation. Every innocent victim from both sides is a victim of the occupation. The occupation is the cancer feeding Palestinian terror." (from the June 29, 2002 newspaper "The Mirror")