Helen Thomas = Bigot

[Charlemagne]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

…And as far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes…let me sum the whole thing up. About 70 years ago, people that were living on the land for 2000 years were displaced and driven off. Now they are mad and want their land back…
[/quote]

This is why you need a history lesson. You do NOT know what you’re talking about and it’s apparent you haven’t even read the posts on this thread because it has already been discussed several times.

Your ignorance deems you unworthy to engage in this debate. You’re dismissed.
[/quote]

By all means enlighten me then. But I think this sums it up: During World War II Britain, which had been granted a mandate over Palestine by the United Nations, forbade entry into Palestine for European Jews escaping Nazi persecution.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favor of a Partition Plan that created the State of Israel. The British relinquished their mandate over Palestine in 1948. War broke out between the Arabs and Jews soon after. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War, established the state of Israel as an independent state, with the rest of the British Mandate of Palestine split into areas controlled by Egypt and Transjordan.

In 1949, Israel signed separate cease-fire agreements with Egypt on February 24, Lebanon on March 23, Transjordan on April 3, and Syria on July 20. Israel was able to draw its own borders, occupying 70% of Mandatory Palestine, fifty percent more than the UN partition proposal allotted them. These borders have been known after wards as the “Green Line”. The Gaza Strip and West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Transjordan respectively.

While the establishment of the state of Israel was seen by Christian Zionists as a sign that God was fulfilling his promises to Abraham and Jacob, the early political leaders of Israel were primarily secular. David Ben Gurion, Israel’s Prime Minister from the founding of Israel until 1963, represented the secular Ideals of the early Zionists. For practical reasons, Ben Gurion accepted the boundaries that excluded the ancient Jewish lands of Samaria and Judea in the West Bank. The early Israeli leaders also agreed to a divided Jerusalem.

But however it was created, the past is the past. These people are not going to let things go. The Arabs nor the Jews will ever give up in their claims. So the way I see it this: WHY GET INVOLVED?

[joebassin]

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

…And as far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes…let me sum the whole thing up. About 70 years ago, people that were living on the land for 2000 years were displaced and driven off. Now they are mad and want their land back…
[/quote]

This is why you need a history lesson. You do NOT know what you’re talking about and it’s apparent you haven’t even read the posts on this thread because it has already been discussed several times.

Your ignorance deems you unworthy to engage in this debate. You’re dismissed.
[/quote]

By all means enlighten me then. But I think this sums it up: During World War II Britain, which had been granted a mandate over Palestine by the United Nations, forbade entry into Palestine for European Jews escaping Nazi persecution.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favor of a Partition Plan that created the State of Israel. The British relinquished their mandate over Palestine in 1948. War broke out between the Arabs and Jews soon after. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War, established the state of Israel as an independent state, with the rest of the British Mandate of Palestine split into areas controlled by Egypt and Transjordan.

In 1949, Israel signed separate cease-fire agreements with Egypt on February 24, Lebanon on March 23, Transjordan on April 3, and Syria on July 20. Israel was able to draw its own borders, occupying 70% of Mandatory Palestine, fifty percent more than the UN partition proposal allotted them. These borders have been known after wards as the “Green Line”. The Gaza Strip and West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Transjordan respectively.

While the establishment of the state of Israel was seen by Christian Zionists as a sign that God was fulfilling his promises to Abraham and Jacob, the early political leaders of Israel were primarily secular. David Ben Gurion, Israel’s Prime Minister from the founding of Israel until 1963, represented the secular Ideals of the early Zionists. For practical reasons, Ben Gurion accepted the boundaries that excluded the ancient Jewish lands of Samaria and Judea in the West Bank. The early Israeli leaders also agreed to a divided Jerusalem.

But however it was created, the past is the past. These people are not going to let things go. The Arabs nor the Jews will ever give up in their claims. So the way I see it this: WHY GET INVOLVED?

[/quote]

And the answer is : Because Israel is useful to Corporate America. It’s like a US military base in the Middle East.

[pat]

[quote]joebassin wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

…And as far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes…let me sum the whole thing up. About 70 years ago, people that were living on the land for 2000 years were displaced and driven off. Now they are mad and want their land back…
[/quote]

This is why you need a history lesson. You do NOT know what you’re talking about and it’s apparent you haven’t even read the posts on this thread because it has already been discussed several times.

Your ignorance deems you unworthy to engage in this debate. You’re dismissed.
[/quote]

By all means enlighten me then. But I think this sums it up: During World War II Britain, which had been granted a mandate over Palestine by the United Nations, forbade entry into Palestine for European Jews escaping Nazi persecution.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favor of a Partition Plan that created the State of Israel. The British relinquished their mandate over Palestine in 1948. War broke out between the Arabs and Jews soon after. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War, established the state of Israel as an independent state, with the rest of the British Mandate of Palestine split into areas controlled by Egypt and Transjordan.

In 1949, Israel signed separate cease-fire agreements with Egypt on February 24, Lebanon on March 23, Transjordan on April 3, and Syria on July 20. Israel was able to draw its own borders, occupying 70% of Mandatory Palestine, fifty percent more than the UN partition proposal allotted them. These borders have been known after wards as the “Green Line”. The Gaza Strip and West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Transjordan respectively.

While the establishment of the state of Israel was seen by Christian Zionists as a sign that God was fulfilling his promises to Abraham and Jacob, the early political leaders of Israel were primarily secular. David Ben Gurion, Israel’s Prime Minister from the founding of Israel until 1963, represented the secular Ideals of the early Zionists. For practical reasons, Ben Gurion accepted the boundaries that excluded the ancient Jewish lands of Samaria and Judea in the West Bank. The early Israeli leaders also agreed to a divided Jerusalem.

But however it was created, the past is the past. These people are not going to let things go. The Arabs nor the Jews will ever give up in their claims. So the way I see it this: WHY GET INVOLVED?

[/quote]

And the answer is : Because Israel is useful to Corporate America. It’s like a US military base in the Middle East. [/quote]

Uh, no. That’s a ding dong theory. Corporations do not dictate foreign policy to that degree.

You think Israel is more beneficial to corporations than Saudi Arabia?

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

…And as far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes…let me sum the whole thing up. About 70 years ago, people that were living on the land for 2000 years were displaced and driven off. Now they are mad and want their land back…
[/quote]

This is why you need a history lesson. You do NOT know what you’re talking about and it’s apparent you haven’t even read the posts on this thread because it has already been discussed several times.

Your ignorance deems you unworthy to engage in this debate. You’re dismissed.
[/quote]

This one just about sums him up.
I suppose some people have a set of principles, and follow them to their ridiculous conclusions. But some people have just conclusions, and find a fantasy to justify them without addressing their underlying prejudice.

So it is with Charlemagne. You will see how manfully he dismisses the “MSM,” and then falls for the hogwash hook, line and sinker. A “fact” is useful only insofar as it shields him from the accusation of bias.

Notice, too, that in Charlemagne’s following post, he elides an inconvenient fact. The UN partitioned the Mandate, not for Israel, but for Israel and for a second Arab state (Transjordan having been ceded to the Hashemites previously). It was not the UN nor Israel who denied the Palestinians a homeland, it was their Arab brothers. Further inconvenient fact: the Green Line was not a border, it was a line of armistice, since no neighboring country would acknowledge the partition into an independent Israel with recognized borders, or for that matter, an independent Palestinian state with any territory.

(His little “America first” speech is simply another deflection. An honest discussion must be based on some understanding of fact, not hyperbole.)

Little does this matter to Charlemagne and other history deniers. Their conclusions are based on solid prejudices, and the only “facts” worthy of note are those that strengthen them.

[joebassin]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]joebassin wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

…And as far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes…let me sum the whole thing up. About 70 years ago, people that were living on the land for 2000 years were displaced and driven off. Now they are mad and want their land back…
[/quote]

This is why you need a history lesson. You do NOT know what you’re talking about and it’s apparent you haven’t even read the posts on this thread because it has already been discussed several times.

Your ignorance deems you unworthy to engage in this debate. You’re dismissed.
[/quote]

By all means enlighten me then. But I think this sums it up: During World War II Britain, which had been granted a mandate over Palestine by the United Nations, forbade entry into Palestine for European Jews escaping Nazi persecution.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favor of a Partition Plan that created the State of Israel. The British relinquished their mandate over Palestine in 1948. War broke out between the Arabs and Jews soon after. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War, established the state of Israel as an independent state, with the rest of the British Mandate of Palestine split into areas controlled by Egypt and Transjordan.

In 1949, Israel signed separate cease-fire agreements with Egypt on February 24, Lebanon on March 23, Transjordan on April 3, and Syria on July 20. Israel was able to draw its own borders, occupying 70% of Mandatory Palestine, fifty percent more than the UN partition proposal allotted them. These borders have been known after wards as the “Green Line”. The Gaza Strip and West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Transjordan respectively.

While the establishment of the state of Israel was seen by Christian Zionists as a sign that God was fulfilling his promises to Abraham and Jacob, the early political leaders of Israel were primarily secular. David Ben Gurion, Israel’s Prime Minister from the founding of Israel until 1963, represented the secular Ideals of the early Zionists. For practical reasons, Ben Gurion accepted the boundaries that excluded the ancient Jewish lands of Samaria and Judea in the West Bank. The early Israeli leaders also agreed to a divided Jerusalem.

But however it was created, the past is the past. These people are not going to let things go. The Arabs nor the Jews will ever give up in their claims. So the way I see it this: WHY GET INVOLVED?

[/quote]

And the answer is : Because Israel is useful to Corporate America. It’s like a US military base in the Middle East. [/quote]

Uh, no. That’s a ding dong theory. Corporations do not dictate foreign policy to that degree.

You think Israel is more beneficial to corporations than Saudi Arabia?[/quote]

It’s because they have common interest in supporting each other (I am talking here about why the US protect and give a lot of money to Israel). Saudi Arabia is a US friend and is also very important. The US do not give money to everyone that is important, they give were it’s more useful. And yes corporations dictate foreign policy.

[Charlemagne]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

…And as far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes…let me sum the whole thing up. About 70 years ago, people that were living on the land for 2000 years were displaced and driven off. Now they are mad and want their land back…
[/quote]

This is why you need a history lesson. You do NOT know what you’re talking about and it’s apparent you haven’t even read the posts on this thread because it has already been discussed several times.

Your ignorance deems you unworthy to engage in this debate. You’re dismissed.
[/quote]

This one just about sums him up.
I suppose some people have a set of principles, and follow them to their ridiculous conclusions. But some people have just conclusions, and find a fantasy to justify them without addressing their underlying prejudice.

So it is with Charlemagne. You will see how manfully he dismisses the “MSM,” and then falls for the hogwash hook, line and sinker. A “fact” is useful only insofar as it shields him from the accusation of bias.

Notice, too, that in Charlemagne’s following post, he elides an inconvenient fact. The UN partitioned the Mandate, not for Israel, but for Israel and for a second Arab state (Transjordan having been ceded to the Hashemites previously). It was not the UN nor Israel who denied the Palestinians a homeland, it was their Arab brothers.

Further inconvenient fact: the Green Line was not a border, it was a line of armistice, since no neighboring country would acknowledge the partition into an independent Israel with recognized borders, or for that matter, an independent Palestinian state with any territory.

(His little “America first” speech is simply another deflection. An honest discussion must be based on some understanding of fact, not hyperbole.)

Little does this matter to Charlemagne and other history deniers. Their conclusions are based on solid prejudices, and the only “facts” worthy of note are those that strengthen them.
[/quote]

Now I am prejudiced because I DON’T SUPPORT a state that in itself supports prejudice policies. Classic ploy used by Zionists the world over. If you don’t support every single thing that Israel does, you must be an antisemite right?

Read the book by Walt and Mersheimer “The Israel Lobby”. It explains everything down to smallest detail as to why American politicians support Israel in whatever it does.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

Now I am prejudiced…
[/quote]

It’s not so much that you’re prejudiced but rather that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ve been caught with your history pants down around your ankles.[/quote]

If Charlemagne manfully denies that he is a prejudiced antisemite, he does so on his own dime. I was calling him for what he is: a spoon-fed anhistorical naif with “opinions” that preclude further thought and reflection–prejudices–which is, after all, the theme of this thread.

If he is foolish enough to cite Mearsheimer–whose work is an embarrassment to anyone who takes sociologic method seriously–he finds himself in company with others who have ready-made conclusions and seek pseudo-scientific justifications only later.
And, if he sees a world-wide Zionist conspiracy directed at poor Charlemagne, to stop him from speaking “The Truth,” he simply lets slip the thinnest veil of all.

[John_S1]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
quote]

Good grief, a conservative, isolationist libertarian that doesn’t understand the shortcomings and the absolute utter stupidity of suggesting the state of Israel put its security in the hands of the UN.

John, I’m going to leave you alone. You’re not even worth scolding. Someone else can spank the dumb out of you.[/quote]

I think I just suggested leaving the UN and that Israel should take out Palistine because they(Israel) where attacked and they have every right to defend themselves.

[John_S1]

[quote]phaethon wrote:

Ok I will bite. North Korea has enough mobile artillery pointed at Seoul to wipe it from the face of the earth. The artillery is sitting within spitting distance of Seoul, but is also mobile and in mountainous terrain. As such there is no easy way to counter it.

So yes the US could easily wipe out North Korea. However, a good 10 million South Koreans would be killed in the opening volleys.[/quote]

What if we loaded up South Korea with weapons and they used mutually assured distruction, that would put an end to this problem really fast wouldn’t it.

[John_S1]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

That was pretty bad John. I am not the unconditional fan of Israel that many conservatives are, but neither would I deny them the right to defend themselves and apart from maybe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the very last place on Earth I would send them for security would be the UN. On a bad day they’re practically the same thing.

[/quote]

What I said went over your head.

[Neuromancer]

The ‘Palestinians’ are just the Arab world’s agent provocateurs against Israel.The rest of the Arabic world doesn’t give a fuck for them,their future,land, or anything else to do with them.They will,and do, get more sympathy from Israelis than they will from their supposed brethren.

[phaethon]

[quote]John S. wrote:
What if we loaded up South Korea with weapons and they used mutually assured distruction, that would put an end to this problem really fast wouldn’t it.[/quote]

There is already mutually assured destruction.

The problem is the leader of NK is mad. Like I don’t care if 90% of my countrymen die as long as I can have a laugh kind of mad. I don’t think MAD bothers him. He is simply happy being insane in NK at the moment.

They are a huge threat and to pretend otherwise is naive. On the other hand not much can be done about it so I don’t see any need to worry.

[Charlemagne]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

Now I am prejudiced…
[/quote]

It’s not so much that you’re prejudiced but rather that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ve been caught with your history pants down around your ankles.[/quote]

If Charlemagne manfully denies that he is a prejudiced antisemite, he does so on his own dime. I was calling him for what he is: a spoon-fed anhistorical naif with “opinions” that preclude further thought and reflection–prejudices–which is, after all, the theme of this thread.
If he is foolish enough to cite Mearsheimer–whose work is an embarrassment to anyone who takes sociologic method seriously–he finds himself in company with others who have ready-made conclusions and seek pseudo-scientific justifications only later.
And, if he sees a world-wide Zionist conspiracy directed at poor Charlemagne, to stop him from speaking “The Truth,” he simply lets slip the thinnest veil of all.[/quote]

Are you kidding me? “The Israel Lobby” is one the most fully encompassing works ever written on the subject. It was painstakingly researched and documented. The writers have impeccable credentials. The conclusions that they draw that Israel provides neither a “strategic asset” or “shared values” to America brings everything to a logical conclusion. Why do we support them? The power of the Israeli Lobby.

I even went so far as to read Abe Foxman’s retort to the book, “The Deadliest Lies”. A poorly written diatrabe by a man consumed by his insecurities and his hate. It didn’t even address the fundamental question of why America supports Israel. It even went so far as to deny that the Israeli Lobby exists! His logical conclusion was the same as any other member of the Israeli Lobby, to not support Israel in everything it does means you are an antisemite.

And one other thing I would like to point out. I have said this over and over. If individuals want to support Israel, go right ahead. That’s your business and your right. By all means write your checks to Israel or pick up a rifle, put on some combat gear and show us all how it’s done. But don’t expect all Americans to have to go along with it.

[joebassin]

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

Now I am prejudiced…
[/quote]

It’s not so much that you’re prejudiced but rather that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ve been caught with your history pants down around your ankles.[/quote]

If Charlemagne manfully denies that he is a prejudiced antisemite, he does so on his own dime. I was calling him for what he is: a spoon-fed anhistorical naif with “opinions” that preclude further thought and reflection–prejudices–which is, after all, the theme of this thread.
If he is foolish enough to cite Mearsheimer–whose work is an embarrassment to anyone who takes sociologic method seriously–he finds himself in company with others who have ready-made conclusions and seek pseudo-scientific justifications only later.
And, if he sees a world-wide Zionist conspiracy directed at poor Charlemagne, to stop him from speaking “The Truth,” he simply lets slip the thinnest veil of all.[/quote]

Are you kidding me? “The Israel Lobby” is one the most fully encompassing works ever written on the subject. It was painstakingly researched and documented. The writers have impeccable credentials. The conclusions that they draw that Israel provides neither a “strategic asset” or “shared values” to America brings everything to a logical conclusion. Why do we support them? The power of the Israeli Lobby.

I even went so far as to read Abe Foxman’s retort to the book, “The Deadliest Lies”. A poorly written diatrabe by a man consumed by his insecurities and his hate. It didn’t even address the fundamental question of why America supports Israel. It even went so far as to deny that the Israeli Lobby exists! His logical conclusion was the same as any other member of the Israeli Lobby, to not support Israel in everything it does means you are an antisemite.

And one other thing I would like to point out. I have said this over and over. If individuals want to support Israel, go right ahead. That’s your business and your right. By all means write your checks to Israel or pick up a rifle, put on some combat gear and show us all how it’s done. But don’t expect all Americans to have to go along with it.

[/quote]

What are you talking about Israel is a strategic asset.