bud

HRW has extensive coverage of human rights violations in syria. here is a link to their page: http://www.hrw.org/taxonomy/term/238/all during the july 3rd press briefing, an interesting exchange happened between the government spokeswoman, victoria nuland and reporter matthew lee: *MS. NULAND:* We have no reason to believe that it [Human Rights Watch report on Syria] is not credible. It’s based on eyewitness accounts, and they’re reporting from a broad cross-section of human rights figures inside Syria. *QUESTION:* So the next time Human Rights Watch comes out with a report that’s critical of Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians, I’ll assume that you’re going to be saying the same thing, correct; that you think that the report is credible, it’s based on eyewitness accounts? *MS. NULAND:* As -- *QUESTION:* And you’re not going to say that it’s politically motivated and should be dismissed? *MS. NULAND: *Matt, as you have made clear again and again in this room, we are not always consistent. *QUESTION:* So, in other words, anything that Human Rights Watch says that is critical of someone you don’t like, that’s okay; but once they criticize someone that you do like, then it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on? *MS. NULAND:* Matt, I’m not going to get into colloquy on this one. here is the video. you can see the exchange at the 30 minute mark:

well, you have the israeli government finally listening to you, i don't see why the canadian government wouldn't be all over your genius thoughts and ideas.

i would say the class award goes to whoever thought of the contest: Some criticized the celebration for trivializing a tragedy, a reminder that in Israel the Holocaust is both omnipresent and ever-contentious. Ze’ev Bar-Ilan of Beersheba, himself a survivor, wrote a letter to the newspaper Yediot Aharonot decrying the event as “an attempt to harness and exploit the harshest blood bath in human history for the purposes of entertainment.” Colette Avital, a former Knesset member who was elected on Thursday to head the umbrella group of 54 survivors’ organizations said in an interview, “If it was up to me, I wouldn’t even dream of it.” Such dissent demonstrates the constant struggle over how the Holocaust is handled. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been lampooned for comparing the Iranian nuclear threat to 1939. This week, three ultra-Orthodox men were arrested for tagging Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum, with graffiti saying, “Hitler, the Zionist movement thanks you.” And a great debate erupted six months ago when, during a performance of Yehoshua Sobol’s play “Ghetto,” some high school students cheered on the actor playing a Nazi officer beating a Jew. Avrum Burg, author of the 2009 book “The Holocaust Is Over: We Must Rise From Its Ashes,” said in an interview that “what you see in Haifa is a struggle over the strategy of the memory.” “Will it be permanently victimizing ourselves, and whining, whining, whining? Or will it be something else: the something else is the syntax of life, the vocabulary and the lexicon of the Holocaust survivors saying, ‘Remember us positively.’ ” link

ms. auschwitz crowned ms. gas chamber 2012

it's not just drive-by threads that he starts. he also posts replies in a thread, receives a response dissecting his illogical post, never responds to it, then goes off to another thread and posts something similar.

no. that is what you're saying because you have some warped view that terrorism happens out of thin air. our actions in other parts of the world fan the flames of extremism. this is the lesson that you should take home with you.

right. it was a typo, but it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't change the fact. they DO NOT represent an average muslim. if islam turned people into blood thirsty killing machines, then you'd probably be dead by now, because there are over 1 billion muslims scattered all over the world. i'm just trying to point out how ridiculous of an argument it is to suggest that these people represent so many others. the targets are indiscriminate. otherwise, this wouldn't be happening: The total number of civilians killed by US led forces alone was 9,270. 74% of these deaths (6,882) occurred in the invasion phase up to 1 May 2003. link right there, the u.s. was able to kill more iraqi civilians than u.s. civilians that al quaeda has been responsible for killing. that's just scratching the surface of the number of civilians killed by u.s. you may have a warped and selective view of what is barbaric, but killing civilians with a suicide vest and killing civilians by pressing a button to drop a 1 ton bomb on an area where there are civilians pretty much results in the same thing; civilian casualties. when a child grows up, with the knowledge that his father or mother or brother or sister or cousin or friend was killed by a bomb, then don't be surprised if he wants to kill those who perpetrated and condone the act.

you make a great point jbg. it's not like this has only happened once and it involved only 9 people. we should be free to label all of them as crazy airplane hijackers who fly our planes into buildings. do jets, tanks, helicopters and drones not fit into your equation in how people kill other people? if not, why? do you care about the number of innocent civilians who have been killed by such means? why do these things not register in your thought process?

i love how easily you bunch all iraqis, iranians and muslims into one group. do jets, tanks, helicopters and drones not fit into your equation in how people kill other people? if not, why? there are muslims living all over the world. over 1 billion of them. they live in china, malaysia, indonesia, india, u.s., canada, u.k. and other countries. an overwhelming majority of them are not involved in suicide attacks. you have a problem jbg and this problem is due to your need to propagate for your tribe. the propagation involves putting down another group of people by trying to create an unfavourable image of them. this results in the spread of extreme stereotyping, bigotry and misinformation.

why do 'we' need to blow ourselves up when 'we' can just do the honourable thing and press buttons that shoot missiles from jets, tanks, helicopters and drones?

the real decision makers like khamenei and other thugs who also control the oil and construction industries will find another one. ahmadinejad is a slimy politician who reached his status after agreeing to the rules. i always saw mahmoud, the former mayor of tehran as the rudolph giuliani of iran, except that he found success in his bid for presidency.

this is a good start:

yeah, anyway: survival = increasing illegal government funded settlements survival = not allowing a palestinian state to form survival = keeping thousands of people in an open air prison survival = survival = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY8dPGiOTGs and on and on. those actions are not called survival. those are the actions of an aggressive colonizer who has a PR campaign that include apologists, hypocrites, dissemblers and charlatans who at every opportunity try to paint israel in softer shades.

oh and lol at those still hanging on to the iraq WMD story.

you're in denial old man. israel has a lot more influence over your foreign policy than you would like to admit.

what do you mean by conservative? are you talking about social conservatism or economic conservatism? i like to get this off my chest whenever presidents and conservatism is discussed. because if you are talking about economic conservatism, then which so-called conservative president do you think has actually been conservative? when you compare the presidents from nixon to gwb and government size, both ford and carter did a better job than saint ronald, the demi-god of those who consider themselves conservatives. under ford and carter, government grew by 1.4% while under saint ronald, it increased by 3%. also, saint ronald, raised taxes 7 out of the 8 years while he was in office. how about government spending and national debt under saint ronald? under carter, 27.9% of the national income was spent by the government. the 'conservatives' assaulted carter for his free spending and saint ronald came to power. at the end of saint ronald's presidency, 28.7% of the national income was being spent by the government. there is some true conservatism for you.

your crocodile tears about israel's actions being made due to survival no longer works. many, including younger jews abroad see right through the b.s. survival = increasing illegal government funded settlements survival = not allowing a palestinian state to form survival = keeping thousands of people in an open air prison survival = survival = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY8dPGiOTGs

no doubt? really? it's too bad the experts feel differently about your opinion. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey who described Iran as a "rational actor" link oh and, here is some inconvenient truth: U.S. Rejected 2005 Iranian Offer Ensuring No Nuclear Weapons

it's not a flame bait. it's pointing to the absurdity of the reason some use to claim a land.

i'm generally a patient person, but at the end, putting him on ignore was the best option.

i don't think we have a scenario where the heads of the families meet up once a month, planning their control over the world. there is also the federal reserve and the financial sector that have a huge influence over what happens. i agree, it's right out in the open. all we need to do is to follow the money trail. look at the campaign donations to politicians and look at who ends up becoming advisors to the government.

bible thumping war mongers are funny people.

here is a statement released by the obama campaign in regards to bolton and the neocons' problem with resolving issues and preventing wars: Bolton has made it clear that he’s rooting for American diplomacy to fail and has repeatedly called for a rush to war with Iran. Gov. Romney needs to be clear with the American people: Does he believe there’s still time for diplomacy to work? Or is he ready to take us to war, like his advisor John Bolton is advocating? …If Gov. Romney shares his advisor John Bolton’s views that it is time for the US to go to war with Iran, the American people deserve to know.

France and Germany were prepared in spring 2005 to negotiate on an Iranian proposal to convert all of its enriched uranium to fuel rods, making it impossible to use it for nuclear weapons, but Britain vetoed the deal at the insistence of the United States, according to a new account by a former top Iranian nuclear negotiator. The episode occurred a few months after an agreement between Iran and the British, French and German governments on Nov. 15, 2004 on terms for negotiations on "long-term arrangements", during which Iran agreed to maintain a voluntary suspension of enrichment and other nuclear activities. The agreement to be negotiated was to "provide objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes" as well as "firm guarantees on nuclear, technological and economic cooperation and firm commitments on security issues". But the EU objective in the talks was to demand a complete end to all Iranian enrichment. At the Mar. 23, 2005 meeting in Paris, the EU called for an indefinite suspension of enrichment by Iran, meaning suspension beyond the negotiations themselves. At the same meeting, Iranian negotiators submitted a proposal that included a "policy declaration to convert all enriched uranium to fuel rods" and "committed to getting the Additional Protocol", which would allow the IAEA to make snap inspections on undeclared facilities, ratified by its parliament. link why would u.s. object to this? could it be the neocons and AIPAC who continue to press the government to make sure negotiations do not work? here is a recent comment by josh bolton, romney's newest advisor who makes it clear - neocons WANT talks to fail so they can have iran war. that's why talks are the only way to prevent war. Fortunately, however, the recently concluded Baghdad talks between Iran and the U.N. Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany (P-5+1) produced no substantive agreement. seriously?

not sure why you're bringing up the tragedies of the holocaust when it has nothing to do with the palestinians. it was the nazis who did it. i would call the killing and expelling over 600,000 people from their homes and the destroying of over 500 villages atrocities. i would call the attack on gaza an atrocity.