Hudson Jones

More long-winded writing, avoiding the facts. Tell me when you'll be able to deal with this: A 2004 report by Friends of the Earth Middle East found that only 6% of Israeli settlements adequately treated their sewage. The settlers account for only 10% of the population of the West Bank, yet produce 25% of sewage pollution, the study found. The group also found that sewage from settlements was polluting the underground water aquifer that serves both Israel and the West Bank. The Israeli Ministry of the Environment which is responsible for enforcing environmental standards in Israeli settlements only took steps against 14 of more than 60 colonies illegally discharging sewage, the FOEME report says.

I ask you again; Did Cameron change his stance on Thatcher's mistakes, as he put it, in regards to her refusal to support pressure on the Apartheid government and for her calling Mandela a terrorist? We have her own party throwing her under the bus for her stance on the Apartheid government, yet, there are still those who are still trying to excuse her.

What are you trying to say? David Cameron changed his mind on Thatcher's stance on Apartheid South Africa since 2006?

Even Britain's Conservative prime minister, David Cameron condemns Thatcher's stance on Apartheid South Africa: Conservative leader David Cameron has condemned Margaret Thatcher's policy on South Africa during apartheid. In what some are already dubbing his clearest breaking of ties with the Thatcher years, he wrote in today's Observer that she had been wrong to label Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC) "terrorists" after controversially refusing to support sanctions against the apartheid regime in the 1980s. Mr Cameron also believes the Conservatives can learn from the mistakes made during Lady Thatcher's era. "The mistakes my party made in the past with respect to relations with the ANC and sanctions on South Africa make it all the more important to listen now," he wrote Link Characteristically, Thatcher never admitted to her mistakes. But at least the Conservative leader of Britain made the right choice to distance himself from Thatcher when it came to Apartheid South Africa and gay rights.

Who cares what one person thinks about you. I'm sure I'm not the only person who appreciates what you bring to this forum. This thread alone has a lot of valuable information. I hope you re-consider and continue to share your thoughts and information with us.

Al Queda or Iranian backed government in Syria? Pick your poison: The al-Nusra Front, one of the major players in the Syrian opposition, and al-Qaeda in Iraq, the hard-line Salafist group responsible for scores of attacks against US forces and international aid groups in Iraq, are essentially one and the same and will begin joint operations under a new name, “The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant,” Reuters reported on Tuesday. “It’s now time to declare in front of the people of the Levant and (the) world that the al-Nusra Front is but an extension of the Islamic State of Iraq and part of it,” said al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Monday, using an alternative name for al-Qaeda in Iraq, according the SITE monitoring service. Link

How do we rectify the situation you ask? How about you start by admitting the discriminatory treatment of Palesitnians by Israel instead of trying to justify them or water them down.

Once again, you're running around, misrepresenting what you said earlier, misrepresenting what I have said and trying your best to change the facts about Israel's discrimination against Palestinians. This was your comment a few posts ago: It is deliberate as shown by the reports. You haven't put a coherent thought together in your long winded posts. All you have tried to do is to blame the situation on circumstances that effects 'everyone' instead of acknowledging the systematic policies that discriminate against Palestinians. The facts are right in there in regards to the discriminatory water allocation between the settlers and the Palestinians in the occupied territories. The facts are right there showing the sewage and garbage dumping on Palestinian land by settlers. Yet, you continue to deny them. Gather the courage to accept these facts. I know you can do it.

Because she was the "first female prime minister". Are you saying this is about sexism? Grow up. “Feminists hate me, don’t they?” she reportedly said. “And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is a poison.”

You have failed again, girlfriend. You're cut off.

The situations were different. The parties were different. The sanctions were different. You can't draw a parallel between them. Saddam was a dictator who had always been a dictator, even during his great friendship with the U.S. Even during the years where it used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians. This dictator suddenly became an enemy because he decided not to be a puppet to the U.S. While the S.A. apartheid government was a colonialist government who practised apartheid against those who it had colonised. Not to mention that the type of sanctions imposed on Iraq were different. They continued to make the oil flow, while they mostly effected the people of the country by starving them of food and depriving them of medicine and common goods. Your superficial comparison doesn't add up and it fails to take attention away from Thatcher being on the wrong side of history. Please back this up with some links. If it was posted in this thread, I must have missed it. Huh? What? Okay. Now answer these questions: Was it okay for Thatcher to support Pinochet? To call him a friend and give him amnesty after being convicted for crimes against humanity? Was it okay for Thatcher to support Ian Smith? Was it okay for Thatcher for supporting Botha?

The apology is not enough the families say. They want the end to the siege of Gaza. (Reuters) - Israel's apology to Turkey over the 2010 killing of nine Turks aboard a Gaza-bound aid ship did not go far enough and Israeli soldiers will be pursued in court, survivors of the incident said on Monday. Ahmet Varol, a journalist who was on the Mavi Marmara, said one "formula for a resolution" would be for Israel to provide a timetable for ending the blockade of Gaza, ruled by the Islamist Hamas movement, and make Turkey a monitor of that process. "Our efforts are for the full lifting of the blockade. Nobody wants compensation, and while an apology may have diplomatic meaning, it means nothing to the victims," he said. The apology nonetheless showed Israel had accepted its wrongdoing in the incident, Varol added. Link

Thatcher represented some of the worst of the 21st century colonial power. She supported some of the worst dictators in the past 50 years, ranging from Pinochet, Ian Smith of Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), to Pieter Botha of South Africa. She was instrumental in extending the suffering of millions of people in South Africa and Latin America. She called the worst dictators her friends and freedom fighter like Mandela a terrorist. Why should there be any excuse given to a person who gave Pinochet amnesty? A dictator who was tried and convicted for crimes against humanity? Followers of the late Chilean dictator Augusto Pinocher published two obituaries in the country’s leading newspaper expressing their condolences on the death of the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, whom they describe as “an extraordinary stateswoman” and friend of Chile “in very difficult moments in recent history” Link These diabolic colonialists and their supporters should be pointed out and shamed. Look at what her son was up to less than 10 years ago: Sir Mark Thatcher has left South Africa after pleading guilty over his involvement in an alleged coup plot in Equatorial Guinea. Link It's quite amusing and telling watching people like American Woman try to excuse Thatcher's support for some of the worst dictators in the past 50 years, who created so much human suffering. It is no wonder why American Woman and most other Thatcher supporters also try to excuse Israel's apartheid like behaviour towards the Palestinians.

You are defending a politician by using their words while dismissing their actions. What's next? Defending Tony Blair's decisions in regards to Iraq by using his words? Thatcher did everything to stall the end of Apartheid South Africa and she supported another ugly regime, the Khmer Rouge. There is no way around these facts.

No he did not. All he did was link to a page without any explanation in how she did not support Khmer Rouge. Can any of you Thatcher supporters respond to the following and how you think they are okay: - Thatcher's support for Apartheid South Africa, which included thwarting international efforts to place sanctions on South Africa and gave its white supremacist leadership a veneer of legitimacy - Thatcher called Mandela a terrorist - Thatcher's support for Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet - Thatcher's support for Khmer Rouge

Your opinion of him being a 'leftwing hack' does what to remove the facts that were mentioned? Oh yeah, something that's not mentioned above: She supported Khmer Rouge.

Here is David Corn, bursting the bubble of those who either don't know what they're supporting or support ugly things in the world: "Thatcher was no consensus builder; she was divisive. She set out to crush unions, privatize, undercut the social safety net (where she could), and push free-market policies that led to the deregulatory nightmares of the future. (Just watch Billy Elliot—or listen to the Clash.) She joined with Reagan in support of torturers and human rights abusers around the globe, as long as these folks were opposed to the Soviets. She called Nelson Mandela a "terrorist" and would not join the worldwide crusade against the racist apartheid regime of South Africa. (In 2006, Conservative Party leader David Cameron felt obliged to disown Thatcher's and his party's previous opposition to Mandela and his African National Congress.) She supported Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. Her war in the Falklands struck many as an orchestrated stunt, not an act of necessity—though some have seen that military action as a noble blow against Argentina's fascist junta (which the Reagan administration was supporting)." Link

She called Mandela a terrorist and defended the apartheid regime. Good riddance.

Looking forward to the state funeral being privatized.

They were going to go in with humanitarian aid. Get the guns out! Humanitarian aid is coming to help people in need! You need to pay attention to the information I have given you. The UN has had a few different reports. Most of them say that the blockade is illegal. It's cute to see you are finally agree with one thing that the UN has said and tightly holding onto the only 'view' which says it's legal, while dismissing and pretending all the other conclusions which say that the blockade is illegal and a violation of international. Are you going to deny that majority of the conclusions by the expert panels say that the blockade is illegal? I can compare it since Israel had no authority to invade the ship. The ships were not trespassing, since they were in international waters and approaching a blockade deemed illegal by most expert panels. I don't care what you doubt. Israel has already admitted that it has made mistakes. Even the report that you are holding onto recognizes the mistakes Israel has made. "Your honour. Please accept my explanation that I shot and killed the people after I invaded their ships with guns and they tried to resist our piracy. Oh and I had to assassinate some of them by emptying bullets into their bodies from close range." Glossing over is the fact that most of the UN conclusions say that the blockade is "illegal". There you go again. Most of the conclusions say that the blockade is illegal. Yes, I have to keep reminding you. Their actions did not warrant having bullets emptied into them from close range. Even this extremely biased and worthless report acknowledges that the Israeli soldiers used "excessive and unreasonable force" and the loss of life is "unacceptable". Do you deny that the Palmer report says this?

So what? They were still in international waters when it happened. Let's back up. Lets look at what has been said about the blockade. Red says that the blockade is illegal, and green says that blockade is legal: In August 2009, U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay criticised Israel for the blockade in a 34-page report, calling it a violation of the rules of war.[167] A UN Fact Finding mission in September 2009 led by South African Judge Richard Goldstone (the Goldstone report) concluded that the blockade was possibly a crime against humanity, and recommended that the matter be referred to the International Criminal Court if the situation has not improved in six months. In May 2010, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs stated that the formal economy in Gaza has collapsed since the imposition of the blockade.[169] They also stated that the "restrictions imposed on the civilian population by the continuing blockade of the Gaza Strip amount to collective punishment, a violation of international humanitarian law."[170] In June 2010, United Nations envoy to the Middle East and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that "The policy of Gaza is counter-productive and what [israel] should be doing is allow material in to rebuild homes and sanitation and power and water systems and allow business to flourish. Nor do we in fact do damage to the position of Hamas by harming people in Gaza. People are harmed when the quality of service is poor and people cannot work." He also called for Hamas to stop the "terrorism coming out of Gaza".[171] In the same month, Robert Serry, the UN special envoy for Middle East peace process, also said that "The flotilla crisis is the latest symptom of a failed policy. The situation in Gaza is unsustainable and the current policy is unacceptable and counter-productive, and requires a different, more positive strategy. The closure and blockade of the Gaza Strip needs to come to an end. There is now a welcome international consensus on Gaza."[172] In the September 2011 Palmer Report, the UN investigative committee for the 2010 Flotilla to Gaza said that the Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is legal under international law, but that "the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view."[19][20] Try again. I have a bat in my house and I'm prepared to fight any intruder who tries to enter my home. They didn't board the other ships like they did with the Mavi. They entered this particular ship because they knew who was on board. They had a list of names and were going after them. When the Israelis noticed that people were resisting the invasion of their ship, they did what Israeli does best: Kill. Thanks for your opinion. You make funny comments. The pirates were defending themselves with guns against the people on a ship they were invading in international waters. You apparently do not know. Look above in regards to the legality of Israel's blockade. Most expert opinions and reports have called the blockade illegal. Israel invaded the ship in international waters. If you think the people on the ship had to stand by and take being invaded, think again. Israel made mistakes and they finally admitted to it. Their admission included apologizing for the mistakes and paying compensation to the families of the people who they killed. One day you will have to face these facts.

They could have layed down and accepted the piracy in international waters. Then it's 'possible' that they would not have been killed. It's like a home owner who is being robbed; He has a choice of accepting thieves entering his home and not do anything or show resistance. So, was their resistance to invaders justified? Of course it was. Were they at fault that they were killed by trigger happy Israeli soldiers, who admittedly, made operational mistakes? Of course not.

What's your point for bringing up the Armenian genocide from a century ago? Like somehow it cancels Israel's continuous atrocities? Of course it's a good thing that Israel apologized and is paying compensation for the people it killed. It's newsworthy because it's an admission by Israel that it made a mistake. It's also a chance to look into the reasons why this apology and admission was made and each side's positions and strategies around the issue.

What do you mean so what? You are asking me to compare something that happened a century ago to something that is happening now. What's next? Compare Israel's actions towards Palestinians to Germany's actions towards the Jews? I have a feeling that you didn't even know the Armenian genocide happened a century ago until today.

Two different topics in two different centuries. Israel wasn't even in existence when the Armenian genocide happened under the Ottomans.