bud

because of the israeli (zionist) lobby. a good article on this: What explains Harper’s slavish support for Israel? hypocrisy and again, the strength of the israeli lobby. harper has shown that his foreign policy decisions are rarely debated within his own party and his party seems to accept that they shouldn't challenge his decisions. conservatives only have 1 voice and that's stephen harper's voice. the liberals are majority in-line with the powerful lobby, but there are some who try to show some balance by questioning israel's treatment of palestinians. ignatiaff, if you recall, received a lot of flack for having a moment of honesty and calling israel's actions in gaza a war crime and then quickly he was forced to apologize. the ndp shows the most balance of the other parties, with the exception of mulcaire, whose riding happens to have a large jewish population.

it's not required of them to accept it as a 'jewish' state as according to international law. so it's a moot point. however, palestinians accept the state of israel as according to the 1967 border. they have done this since PLO officially recognized them in 1988 and again reaffirmed it in 1993 at the oslo accord. so what's holding the zionist regime back from accepting a palestinian state? we all know the answer to that; it's not because palestinians do not accept the state of israel (because they do) and it's not because of security reason, because that makes no sense, it's because the zionist vision wants ALL of the land from sea to sea(aka greater israel) to be israel. the longer they drag their feet and have mouthpieces such as you apologizing for them and spreading misinformation, the more land they can steal through the settlements.

netanyahu and barak are only experts at selling. we have generals and former generals on both sides who rely on proof and experience who make these comments. they don't make the comments out of thin air. all you see out of netanyahu and the neo-cons is b.s. with no proof to back their comments. this has been shown time and again. what threat? when all intelligence agencies, including the israeli and u.s. agencies say that iran hasn't even started to make nuclear weapons, then there is no threat. it's not like they can wake up morning and say: "today we will make the weapons and tomorrow we will nuke israel." iran is not an arab country. if anything nuclear weapons have shown is that they deter military strikes from neighbouring countries. look at india, pakistan and israel. no they wouldn't. it would be suicidal for them to try anything. they're surrounded by military bases. there are american submarines with nuclear warheads ready to be launched at iran. and iran is not happy about being surrounded by u.s. military bases. there are a lot of unhappy people. uhm? what world do you live on? did you miss the part where the neo-cons used fake evidence and lied and tried to sell an attack on iraq? iraq continuously denied having nuclear weapons. what's wrong with you? i can see why.

it's either no youtube or censored youtube in those countries. what would you do? i think youtube should not censor the video and people should continue to discuss what has happened. only a small minority consider the creators of the video to be heros. most others find them to be despicable assholes.

i never disagreed with this. i am for 100% freedom of speech and expression. i was just pointing out that there is nothing wrong with asking our fellow humans to show respect for one another.

so what if i have an incorporated company and i don't want my company to deal with a country such as saudi arabia or iran because of their internal human rights records. why shouldn't i have the right to boycott?

came across this video. they're able to get different perspectives from so-called experts and by the average person who live in israel:

what about anti-boycott laws? since boycotting is considered a form of freedom of expression. i put this question to both you and bonam.

no one should be forced, sure. but as a society, there is nothing wrong with saying we should respect one another.

agreed. however, it's too bad that there is no discussion on europe's anti-free speech laws that focus on another group besides muslims, especially by those who so passionately condemn self-censorship when discussing islam.

i'm not usually a fan of thomas friedman and memri's cherry picking (as i don't fully trust their interpretations), but i thought i'd share this piece which talks about the hypocrisy of the muslim world's leaders who are up in arms and preaching tolerance of religion after the latest incident - i fully agree with friedman's final two paragraphs: ON CHRISTIANS Hasan Rahimpur Azghadi of the Iranian Supreme Council for Cultural Revolution: Christianity is “a reeking corpse, on which you have to constantly pour eau de cologne and perfume, and wash it in order to keep it clean.” http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1528.htm — July 20, 2007. Sheik Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi: It is permissible to spill the blood of the Iraqi Christians — and a duty to wage jihad against them. http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5200.htm — April 14, 2011. Abd al-Aziz Fawzan al-Fawzan, a Saudi professor of Islamic law, calls for “positive hatred” of Christians. Al-Majd TV (Saudi Arabia), http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/992.htm — Dec. 16, 2005. ON SHIITES The Egyptian Cleric Muhammad Hussein Yaaqub: “Muslim Brotherhood Presidential Candidate Mohamed Morsi told me that the Shiites are more dangerous to Islam than the Jews.” www.memritv.org/clip/en/3466.htm — June 13, 2012. The Egyptian Cleric Mazen al-Sirsawi: “If Allah had not created the Shiites as human beings, they would have been donkeys.” http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3101.htm — Aug. 7, 2011. The Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan video series: “The Shiite is a Nasl [Race/Offspring] of Jews.” http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6208.htm — March 21, 2012. ON JEWS Article on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Web site praises jihad against America and the Jews: “The Descendants of Apes and Pigs.” http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6656.htm — Sept. 7, 2012. The Pakistani cleric Muhammad Raza Saqib Mustafai: “When the Jews are wiped out, the world would be purified and the sun of peace would rise on the entire world.” http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6557.htm — Aug. 1, 2012. Dr. Ismail Ali Muhammad, a senior Al-Azhar scholar: The Jews, “a source of evil and harm in all human societies.” http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6086.htm — Feb. 14, 2012. ON SUFIS A shrine venerating a Sufi Muslim saint in Libya has been partly destroyed, the latest in a series of attacks blamed on ultraconservative Salafi Islamists. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19380083 — Aug. 26, 2012. As a Jew who has lived and worked in the Muslim world, I know that these expressions of intolerance are only one side of the story and that there are deeply tolerant views and strains of Islam espoused and practiced there as well. Theirs are complex societies. That’s the point. America is a complex society, too. But let’s cut the nonsense that this is just our problem and the only issue is how we clean up our act. That Cairo protester is right: We should respect the faiths and prophets of others. But that runs both ways. Our president and major newspapers consistently condemn hate speech against other religions. How about yours? link

punked? as a democrat supporter, where do you stand on this issue?

i'm curious how the islamophobe alarmists here feel about the anti-holocaust denial laws in many of the european countries. are you for them or against limiting speech in this instance? american woman? shady? sharkman? jbg? Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries. link

how can anyone take this man and the neo-cons seriously? despite Top Israeli and U.S. officials agree Iran is a rational actor, bibi continues to claim otherwise. he did this at meet the press last sunday, where he was given a platform to continue with his misinformation, totally unchallenged by the host. ironically, it was around 10 years ago when dick cheney went on meet the press to sell lies before the war on iraq. other garbage that came out of bibi was that iran is 6 months away from being....10% away from having a bomb. right. the israeli government has been trying to tell us the dangers of iran for a while. here is an article from salon: Israel on Iran: So wrong for so long The extremely long history of incorrect Israeli predictions about when Iran will obtain a nuclear bomb Officials at the U.S. Department of State, we learned from the secret cables released by WikiLeaks last week, have serious questions about the accuracy — and sincerity — of Israeli predictions about when Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon. As one State official wrote in response to an Israeli general’s November 2009 claim that Iran would have a bomb in one year: “It is unclear if the Israelis firmly believe this or are using worst-case estimates to raise greater urgency from the United States.” So we thought this was as good a time as any to look at the remarkable history of incorrect Israeli predictions about Iran — especially given that the WikiLeaks trove is being used to argue that an attack on Iran is becoming more likely. According to various Israeli government predictions over the years, Iran was going to have a bomb by the mid-90s — or 1998, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2005, and finally 2010. More recent Israeli predictions have put that date at 2011 or 2014.

here is a good article that covers everything from eye-witnesses, to the bulldozer driver's testimony, to international law. the information rips apart the shammed ruling of the israeli court and its apologists. it discusses the pattern of impunity for Israeli military violations against civilians and human rights defenders in the Occupied Palestinian Territories: link

this is why we saw the protests in iran and the successful arab spring in tunisia and egypt. there are also protests in bahrain and saudi arabia which we don't hear about.

i don't agree with shady often, if ever, but he has a point. of course, he's going to blame the democrats and pretend the republicans are not the same, if not worse. we need to get past this dems vs republicans crap and call the situation what it is. most of congress and senate, whether republican or democrats are being lobbied by the same interest groups. that said, the obama administration is the administration that has appealed the judge’s decision to block a controversial statute that gave the government the power to carry out indefinite detention. this has nothing to do with congress or senate.

the democrats criticized bush for suspension of civil liberties and guaranteed them in their 2008 platform. in their 2012 platform, those guarantees have all been erased. trevor trimm For eight years under George W Bush, Democrats excoriated the former President and his administration for their brazen dismissal of many basic constitutional rights, and for much of Bush's second term, it was often Barack Obama who was leading the charge. Instead, Obama has re-enforced many of them, and in the 2012 Democratic platform, most of the party's previous positions were erased all together.

this is more than a film about islam or the burning of a book. these disrespectful actions trigger these reactions by boiling societies who have been experiencing everything from the west's support for puppet dictators to hundreds of thousands of deaths that have occurred due to military actions and sanctions.

read a good article by stephen walt who puts it in perspective. we all know about the west's adventures, specifically america's adventures in the middle east and the muslim world. Why they hate us (II): How many Muslims has the U.S. killed in the past 30 years? link here is a conservative look at the number of deaths experienced by america and the muslim world. image i'd hate us too.

this might be of interest to some of you; an article from another former GOP insider: Leslie Thatcher for Truthout: Mike, in the title of your book, you describe the Republicans as "crazy," but in articles and interviews here and elsewhere, you've described their tactics as deliberate political terrorism. How are those policies crazy for the super-funders who determine GOP policy? Mike Lofgren: That is an interesting question that goes to the heart of a paradoxical aspect of the GOP. Of course people like the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson are engaging in a rational exercise to maximize their wealth. Their contributions will come back manifold in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, and exclusive franchises. The primary purpose of the GOP these days is to provide tax breaks and other financial advantages (such as not regulating pollution and other socially costly externalities) to their wealthy donor base. All the rest of their platform, all the culture wars stuff, is simply rube bait. One cannot get a majority of voters - who are decidedly non-rich - to knowingly pull the lever for a party that nakedly says "our platform is further enrichment of the wealthy, and, oh, by the way, we're also going to make your retirement benefits take a hit." That's where deep psychological insight comes into play. Most people, even when they have a sneaking suspicion that they are being shafted economically, are not well attuned to the complexities of credit default swaps, the London Interbank Offered Rate, or quantitative easing. And the media are definitely not interested in wising them up, especially when they can instead supply celebrity interviews, singing contests, or commercialized orgies like the opening ceremonies of the Olympics link

the military industrial complex and the 'rebuilding' companies such as halliburton are thinking the same thing.

you're so consumed with this right/left, republicans/democrats bs that you can't comprehend that there are people who condemn actions done by different groups.

including the 5, why should we pretend israel, pakistan and india do not have nuclear weapons? either no one can have it or everyone can. who the fuck are you or me to say someone can't have something that we can have?

i think this is being blown out of proportion again. i don't have any scientific data behind my opinion, but i do believe that the people we keep seeing on tv are just a small percentage of muslim arabs who would use any excuse to get angry. the killings of the americans (and the 10 libyans) at the compound, from what is being said were most likely done by al qaeda who used the opportunity to attack. any of you seeing libyans' response and their coming out in support of the victims? if not, check this out: http://www.facebook.com/TheSorryProject photos from libya: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI what i'm disappointed about is morsi's response to the attack of the embassy in egypt.