Israeli Navy Raids Gaza Aid Flotilla, 10 Confirmed Dead

[Argus]

Hello Argus, want to be my new dancer?

I have more of a life than Dancer, thus I don't have his patience for morons.

I pity you. My source for this news is my ass...let me think what you mean by that...use 'ass' to make a point

Okay,

BCMan might not have come out of an ASS, though his head may have, but he definitely pulled his supposed report of the Turkish navy escorting ships out of it.

How's that?

Edited June 7, 2010 by Argus

[BCMan]

I read some of your 5,000 posts, you are not normal. I just hope you don’t go on a violent spree one day because you hate the world you live in.

also, dont say shit about dancer.

I have more of a life than Dancer, thus I don't have his patience for morons.

Okay,

BCMan might not have come out of an ASS, though his head may have, but he definitely pulled his supposed report of the Turkish navy escorting ships out of it.

How's that?

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

Stop the rude banter.

Please post cordial and civilized responses in the discussion forum or do not post at all.

Ch. A.

[bloodyminded]

So Israelis are supposed to just leave the great nation they've built and go elsewhere? Because the local muslims don't like Jews? And if someone doesn't like us do we pick up and move too?

!!!!

No, of course not. Such an idea is preposterous.

I was answering AW's suggestion that the Palestinians should simply move elsewhere.

Edited June 8, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 05 June 2010 - 05:20 AM, said: That's not a comparable question. One doesn't know where a suicide bombing will take place or where a rocket will hit. One cannot escape an unknown. One does know what the living conditions in Gaza are; that's not an unknown.

Yes, but according to Israel's most ardent defenders, one does know what the conditions are for Israelis: constant threat from an irredeemable enemy.

Living with the threat of a terrorist attack is different from living where the living conditions are horrible. As an American/westerner/infidel, I face that threat same as those in the WTC on 9-11 did, or any of the targets of terrorism worldwide, but my "living conditions" are good. There is a big difference.

Also, as I said, the terrorist threat is worldwide, so moving from Israel isn't going to make Israelis safe from terrorism.

If Israel is facing such an "existential threat to its survival" as the conventional piety has it; and if the threat is so great that Israel is justified in its controversial behaviour; ans justified even in the intentional killing of innocent people when they have targeted apartment buildings and so on...well, clearly (according to the standards laid out by Israel's staunchest defenders) life is dangerous and unsettled there, the future grim.

Israel is justified in fighting those who would like to see Israel gone, and Jews along with it. I can't imagine any other nation acting any differently if they were similarly threatened. When it gets right down to it, Israel is looking out for Israel first and foremost. As they should. It's what everyone, every nation, does in the end. If you don't look out for you and yours, who is?

As for their "controversial behavior," such as "targeting apartment buildings," I'll just ask why are they "targeting apartment buildings?" Because they want to kill civilians? Of course not. So it's pretty controversial for soldiers/combatants/whatever-you-want-to-call-them to hide out in apartment buildings. They aren't fighting a traditional war, so Israel has, at times, reacted in non-traditional, ie: controversial, ways. How is one supposed to fight an enemy that doesn't present itself? I don't have an answer.

So why wouldn't you say "they should just leave," as you do for the Palestinians? Hell, on the whole, it would be easier for Israelis to move.

The claim was made that 'it's all Israel's fault' that kids in Gaza are malnourished; so I asked where the parents' responsibility for their kids' well-being comes into play, as they could leave, and their kids' evidently wouldn't be malnourished elsewhere. I pointed out that many impoverished people have left their homes/homelands for a better life, and that many others would have loved the chance to do so, but their governments wouldn't let them. No one is holding anyone in Gaza against their will. If they don't want to leave, that's another story. I never said they should leave. But if they choose to stay, then along with their decision, comes responsibility for the consequences.

Furthermore, the purpose of the blockade is to keep out weapons that would be used against Israeli civilians, while the purpose of a suicide bombing is to kill Israeli citizens. So the intent of both actions is quite different. The intent of Israel isn't to harm Palestinian children, but to protect their own. The intent of the suicide bombers is to harm Israelis, including Israeli children. So how does all the fault lie with Israel? That's been my point.

As for why I don't say Israelis should just leave: I think I pretty well covered that in the first part of my post, but I'll just reiterate again that "conditions" and "living conditions" are not the same, and that the threat of terrorism is worldwide. Moving wouldn't eliminate the threat for Israelis the way moving from Gaza would apparently eliminate the Palestinian's malnourishment.

I'm puzzled as to why it would be so much easier for Israelis to move, though, as I don't see any other Jewish state in existence, while the area seems to be filled with Islamic nations.

Edited June 8, 2010 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

Israel is justified in fighting those who would like to see Israel gone, and Jews along with it. I can't imagine any other nation acting any differently if they were similarly threatened. When it gets right down to it, Israel is looking out for Israel first and foremost. As they should. It's what everyone, every nation, does in the end. If you don't look out for you and yours, who is?

I'm really not sure why you'd think I disagree with any of this; it's all basic truisms, as far as I can tell.

As for their "controversial behavior," such as "targeting apartment buildings," why are they targeting apartment buildings? Because they want to kill civilians? Of course not. So it's pretty controversial for soldiers/combatants/whatever-you-want-to-call-them to hide out in apartment buildings. They aren't fighting a traditional war, so Israel is reacting in non-traditional ways. How is one supposed to fight an enemy that doesn't present itself?

First of all, obviously everybody has reasons for everything everybody ever does. Of course Israel has reasons.

What they could do--and have done many times--is arrest the militants. If they know the militant in question is hiding in a specific apartment complex, they could arrest him.

You say that Israel doesn't "want to kill civilians." Well, ok: The civilians are not the purpose for the attack, that's true; the civilians are not the targets. But they do kill them intentionally, just the same.

I stress all this because it's actually rare for people to even admit what is incontestably true in cases like this.

Furthermore, the purpose of the blockade is to keep out weapons that would be used against Israeli civilians

That's the claim. However, the Israelis couldn't have expected to find any weapons on the flotilla they attacked, for reasons enumerated (though, understandably, ignored, since they're obviously true, and no one likes to enter a debate they know they'll lose) so the matter is somewhat more complicated.

As for why I don't say Israelis should just leave: I think I pretty well covered that in the first part of my post, but I'll just reiterate again that "conditions" and "living conditions" are not the same, and that the threat of terrorism is worldwide.

How many Jews have been targeted by terrorists in the diaspora, as compared to Jews targeted by terrorists in Israel?

I'm puzzled as to why it would be so much easier for Israelis to move, though, as I don't see any other Jewish state in existence, while the area seems to be filled with Islamic nations.

It would be easier because, first of all, many of the Islamic nations have made it abundantly clear that they don't want the Palestinians (a point made repeatedly by Israel's defenders, as if to justify Israel's treatment of them by some bizarre twist of logic).

As one poster here pointed out, with the good graces not to hide the anti-Arab bigotry that pervades these discussions like a plague, few Arab nations are willing to take in huge numbers of these "savages."

Second, because on the whole, Israelis' better conditions, including financial, make moving a far easier prospect.

Which is exactly why so many Palestinians couldn't move even if they wanted to. It's difficult, sometimes impossible, to move without any financial resources.

Edited June 8, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

The Israeli military is being abused also in this case - you use your enforcers properly or not at all -these young men no matter how well they are brain washed, understand that there is a better way than this - let Israel and their neighbors make friends...America and the world should take the Palistinians and Israelis by the ear and force them to make amends - if they can not do this boycott BOTH of them into submission.

[Guest American Woman]

As one poster here pointed out, with the good graces not to hide the anti-Arab bigotry that pervades these discussions like a plague, few Arab nations are willing to take in huge numbers of these "savages."

So "few Arab," ie: Islamic, nations are willing to take in huge numbers of Palestinians; few Arab, ie: Islamic, nations are willing to lend a hand to their fellow Muslims; few Arab, ie: Islamic, nations, are willing to help their fellow Muslims improve their lot in life .... yet Israel, and Israel alone, is being blamed for their plight?

I thought the "terrorists" existed because they are so angry at our treatment of "fellow Muslims," yet they are unwilling to take them in; to help them? Impressive.

Yet we, and Israel alone in the ME, are supposed to bear the guilt of their plight. As the "Arab nations" have many, many citizens who are eager to kill innocent civilians, supposedly because of our treatment of Palestinians et al. So they are willing to kill us for their sake, but they aren't willing to take them in; they are fine with leaving them to suffer in their 'hellhole,' from the descriptions that have been posted here.

So where is the harsh criticism of these nations? Why does it seem to be reserved for Israel alone?

Edited June 8, 2010 by American Woman

[naomiglover]

So "few Arab," ie: Islamic, nations are willing to take in huge numbers of Palestinians; few Arab, ie: Islamic, nations are willing to lend a hand to their fellow Muslims; few Arab, ie: Islamic, nations, are willing to help their fellow Muslims improve their lot in life .... yet Israel, and Israel alone, is being blamed for their plight?

I thought the "terrorists" existed because they are so angry at our treatment of "fellow Muslims," yet they are unwilling to take them in; to help them? Impressive.

Yet we, and Israel alone in the ME, are supposed to bear the guilt of their plight. As the "Arab nations" have many, many citizens who are eager to kill innocent civilians, supposedly because of our treatment of Palestinians et al. So they are willing to kill us for their sake, but they aren't willing to take them in; they are fine with leaving them to suffer in their 'hellhole,' from the descriptions that have been posted here.

So where is the harsh criticism of these nations? Why does it seem to be reserved for Israel alone?

Quit trying to equate the treatment of the Palestinians by the Arab world to the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel. They are different.

Israel's treatment of Palestinians is the disease. The Arab world's treatment is just a symptom.

[Bonam]

Israel's treatment of Palestinians is the disease. The Arab world's treatment is just a symptom.

You have it exactly backwards.

[bloodyminded]

So "few Arab," ie: Islamic, nations are willing to take in huge numbers of Palestinians; few Arab, ie: Islamic, nations are willing to lend a hand to their fellow Muslims; few Arab, ie: Islamic, nations, are willing to help their fellow Muslims improve their lot in life .... yet Israel, and Israel alone, is being blamed for their plight?

I thought the "terrorists" existed because they are so angry at our treatment of "fellow Muslims," yet they are unwilling to take them in; to help them? Impressive.

Yet we, and Israel alone in the ME, are supposed to bear the guilt of their plight. As the "Arab nations" have many, many citizens who are eager to kill innocent civilians, supposedly because of our treatment of Palestinians et al. So they are willing to fight us for their sake, but they aren't willing to take them in; they are fine with leaving them to suffer in their 'hellhole,' from the descriptions that have been posted here.

So where is the harsh criticism of these nations? Why does it seem to be reserved for Israel alone?

There is plenty of harsh criticism of this sort of thing, as you must know.

And it isn't some sinister creature called "the Muslims" who don't want the Palestinians. It's the leaders and policymakers of certain countries who don't want them. Including our wonderful close ally, the dictatorship of Egypt. Most Muslims truly do feel sincere sympathy and solidaity with the Palestinians. I"m surprised you'd imply otherwise, as if they're all a bunch of deceptive hypocrites.

And Muslims don't lay all the blame against Israel and the United States. Right Wing reactionary knuckleheads have been screaming this fallacy, and for reasons I don't understand, you take their claims seriously. Muslims complain about their governments and societies all the time. One of Afghans most popular MPs is a feminist liberal who has spent her adult life fighting for democracy, women's rights, the rights of oppressed minorities in Afghanistan, and opposing the Taliban and the Warlords...she currently lives under constant death threats.

Because our allies in Afghanistan want her dead. Which is why we don't hear about her.

See, like many, many muslims, she shares a lot, philosophically, with Western liberalism. However, also like many Muslims, she ALSO is very harsh about the the West, particularly the US, and about Israel.

(So maybe that's why we don't hear much about her...wrong narrative. We like the stories about what glorious heroes we are, in the face of an ungrateful world.)

The people who live under the guns often have a different view of the West than those of us delicate about criticism of our nations, and hostile to Muslims' criticism.

Now, if you're referring to me as someone insufficiently harsh towards the Western nations: I hold to the radical, crazy, irresponsible crackpot idea that the behaviour of us and our allies is of far, far more serious moment than the behaviour of others. I mean, this is one of the lynchpins of every moral philosophy worth its salt; but I guess I should expend my energy doing the easiest of all things: denouncing Muslim nations.

Further, I would contend that a lot of policies of the powerful Western nations and of Israel serve precisely to exacerbate the very terror which we're ostensibly eager to eliminate. And whether or not you agree with this, it is my thought, and it quite directly answers your question, I should think.

Edited June 8, 2010 by bloodyminded

[naomiglover]

You have it exactly backwards.

You mean to tell me that it's the Arab world who is annexing land, bulldozing Palestinian homes, killing Palestinian women and children and committing war crimes against the Palestinians?

[Bonam]

You mean to tell me that it's the Arab world who is annexing land, bulldozing Palestinian homes, killing Palestinian women and children and committing war crimes against the Palestinians?

No what I mean to tell you is that the opposite of your statement which I quoted is true. Specifically:

Israel's treatment of Palestinians is just the symptom. The Arab world's treatment is the disease.

The Arab world used the West Bank and Gaza to invade Israel, repeatedly. After they lost, they abandoned those territories and the people living within them. Those who fled the West Bank and Gaza, instead of being welcomed as brothers in the Arab nations which they used to be part of, were relegated to refugee camps for generations. Egypt and Jordan show no interest in reuniting with their Palestinian brothers.

As a result of all of this, and the Palestinians continued rocket attacks on Israel, Israel is forced to do what is does. [

[Guest American Woman]

There is plenty of harsh criticism of this sort of thing, as you must know.

Sure there is; just not from those whose one-sided support is for Palestine.

And it isn't some sinister creature called "the Muslims" who don't want the Palestinians. It's the leaders and policymakers of certain countries who don't want them.

I never implied that it was "some sinister creature called 'the Muslims,'" which is why I referred to "Islamic nations," not "the Muslims."

Including our wonderful close ally, the dictatorship of Egypt. Most Muslims truly do feel sincere sympathy and solidaity with the Palestinians. I"m surprised you'd imply otherwise, as if they're all a bunch of deceptive hypocrites.

I never "implied" anything; simply stated the truth of the matter. In other words, I pointed out how their "feel[ing] sincere sympathy and solidarity with the Palestinians" is at odds with the unwillingness of their nations to take them in. Unless they've been protesting against their leaders and policymakers in this regard and I've just missed the mass protests?

And Muslims don't lay all the blame against Israel and the United States. Right Wing reactionary knuckleheads have been screaming this fallacy, and for reasons I don't understand, you take their claims seriously.

I never said they did. I was responding to the "reactionary knucklehead" on this board that lays all the blame against Israel and the United States. I was also speaking of the "terrorists" who lay all the blame against Israel and the United States. No where did I say "Muslims" did any such thing.

Muslims complain about their governments and societies all the time. One of Afghans most popular MPs is a feminist liberal who has spent her adult life fighting for democracy, women's rights, the rights of oppressed minorities in Afghanistan, and opposing the Taliban and the Warlords...she currently lives under constant death threats. See, like many, many muslims, she shares a lot, philosophically, with Western liberalism. However, also like many muslims, she ALSO is very harsh about the the West, particularly the US, and about Israel.

I never said "many, many Muslims" didn't share a lot, philosophically with Western liberalism. I simply commented on the fact that the Islamic nations are not willing to take in Palestinians, which is what you pointed out. I also pointed out that many, many Muslims are eager to kill westerners, while apparently not eager to take in the Palestinians. At least not with nearly the same passion.

The people who live under the guns often have a different view of the West than those of us delicate about criticism of our nations, and hostile to Muslims' criticism.

If you think I'm "delicate" about criticism of my nation, think again. I'm as critical as the next person. And yes, I'm sure "people living under the guns often have a different view of the west" than those of us living here, but that doesn't make them totally right, either. And it seems as if that's what we are to believe; our take is just plain wrong, while their take is totally right.

Now, if you're referring to me as someone insufficiently harsh towards the Western nations: I hold to the radical, crazy, irresponsible crackpot idea that the behaviour of us and our allies is of far, far more serious moment than the behaviour of others. I mean, this is one of the lynchpins of every moral philosophy worth its salt; but I guess I should expend my energy doing the easiest of all things: denouncing Muslim nations.

Yes, because that's exactly what I was implying.

So you extend your energy being harsh towards western nations, believing our behavior is more serious than the behavior of others. As you criticize others for being "one sided." I, however, believe it's the total picture that's important, and that includes others' behaviors, too. I happen to believe that the behavior of the "terrorists" who have purposely targeted and killed thousands of innocent civilians worldwide is every bit as serious as our behavior. I happen to believe that suicide bombers killing innocent Israelis is every bit as serious as Israel's behavior. I happen to believe that the behavior of those who would like to see Israel cease to exist is just as serious as our behavior.

Further, I would contend that a lot of policies of the powerful Western nations and of Israel serve precisely to exacerbate the very terror which we're ostensibly eager to eliminate. And whether or not you agree with this, it is my thought, and it quite directly answers your question, I should think.

It answers the question in regards to where you are coming from; and in response, I will say, whether you agree with it or not, that you are seeing it very one-sided. It's good to recognize the policies of powerful western nations, but it's not so good not to look beyond it. It's not black and white, and to look only at our policies, to blame only our policies, is to totally not see one side; and in doing so, one tends to give a free pass to the other side. I'm sure they'd love for everyone to be convinced that it's all us, all our policies. If we would only lay over and play dead, and give them the power, the world would be a much better place.

I'm wondering how serious you'd think their actions were then, or do you honestly believe they'd be "good guys" vs. us "bad guys?"

[bloodyminded]

Sure there is; just not from those whose one-sided support is for Palestine.

Right. Unlike, of course, those who here are most staunchly defending Israel. They're very amenable to looking at other points of view, and to recognizing what Israel has been doing wrong, haven't they?

Where are your posts criticizing Israel, and defending the Palestinians?

Since, unlike, say, naomiglover, you are not one-sided on this issue...you can cite this, and show us where you have behaved better than one-sided on discussions about Israel and Palestine.

I never "implied" anything; simply stated the truth of the matter. In other words, I pointed out how their "feel[ing] sincere sympathy and solidarity with the Palestinians" is at odds with the unwillingness of their nations to take them in. Unless they've been protesting against their leaders and policymakers in this regard and I've just missed the mass protests?

They have a lot to protest against, not just that issue; and it's often somewhat dangerous to do so anyway.

I never said "many, many Muslims" didn't share a lot, philosophically with Western liberalism. I simply commented on the fact that the Islamic nations are not willing to take in Palestinians, which is what you pointed out. I also pointed out that many, many Muslims are eager to kill westerners, while apparently not eager to take in the Palestinians. At least not with nearly the same passion.

They can't take them in without permission of their governments. Obviously.

If you think I'm "delicate" about criticism of my nation, think again. I'm as critical as the next person. And yes, I'm sure "people living under the guns often have a different view of the west" than those of us living here, but that doesn't make them totally right, either. And it seems as if that's what we are to believe; our take is just plain wrong, while their take is totally right.

Not at all. You show me where these self-styled "pro-Israeli" posters have ANY criticism of Israel or the West, aside from "we're too soft; we're too easy on the enemy" and other bits of self-adoring nonsense.

So you extend your energy being harsh towards western nations, believing our behavior is more serious than the behavior of others.

It's not my belief; it's a fundamental moral tenet that we teach our children, rightly so.

As you criticize others for being "one sided." I, however, believe it's the total picture that's important, and that includes others' behaviors, too. I happen to believe that the behavior of the "terrorists" who have purposely targeted and killed thousands of innocent civilians worldwide is every bit as serious as our behavior. I happen to believe that suicide bombers killing innocent Israelis is every bit as serious as Israel's behavior. I happen to believe that the behavior of those who would like to see Israel cease to exist is just as serious as our behavior.

It's very serious. Until recently, I took it as a given that when I say "terrorism is bad," I'm talking about all terrorism.

(Of course, the "West is Awesome" crowd don't feel the same way; they will openly support terrorism, so long as its a Western power supporting or funding terrorism, to fight the "Cold War", sicne the term is magical and justifies everything.)

I don't see any need to preface every post with my remarks about terrorism, about Hamas themselves, of which I've never said one nice thing, and several bad things.

It answers the question in regards to where you are coming from; and in response, I will say, whether you agree with it or not, that you are seeing it very one-sided. It's good to recognize the policies of powerful western nations, but it's not so good not to look beyond it. It's not black and white, and to look only at our policies, to blame only our policies, is to totally not see one side; and in doing so, one tends to give a free pass to the other side.

nonsense. I have unequivocally said that Hamas is a bad actor, bad for the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Again: where are your harsh criticisms of Israel, and your support for the Palestinians? They must be available.

[Guest American Woman]

Right. Unlike, of course, those who here are most staunchly defending Israel. They're very amenable to looking at other points of view, and to recognizing what Israel has been doing wrong, haven't they?

Where are your posts criticizing Israel, and defending the Palestinians?

Since, unlike, say, naomiglover, you are not one-sided on this issue...you can cite this, and show us where you have behaved better than one-sided on discussions about Israel and Palestine.

For starters, unlike naomiglover, I haven't started a bajillion threads denouncing Palestine. In fact, I've started zero.

And when there are a series of threads started by one person denouncing Muslims, for example, I speak out against that. You'll have to pardon me if I don't continue to do it until the end of time. My answer, which works for me, is to largely ignore such posts after I've had my say to those involved. I only care to spend so much time on this board, and I'd rather spend it productively.

Furthermore, when I feel someone is being crass, and that includes regarding Palestine, I point it out. When I feel someone is being nothing but a cheerleader for the U.S., I point it out.

Take a look at the threads in "the rest of the world" and tell me what you see. If my posts seem totally "pro-Israel," perhaps it's because the threads are totally "anti-Israel."

And after you've done that, go back and read all of my posts, since you are a recent member, and then criticize me for my "behavior." At least then your criticism will be accurate and deserving.

And when you're done, go give naomiglover another 'high five' as you tell yet another person you see as 'pro-Israel' that they are totally one-sided.

[BCMan]

Americanwoman is not one of the brainwashed members of this forum who is supporting Israel because she hates Muslims or because Muslim countries don’t have gay rights or many of the other unrelated to topic issues/believes other members hold.

I don’t totally agree with her, but she has a fair judgement and her responses make some sense.

For starters, unlike naomiglover, I haven't started a bajillion threads denouncing Palestine. In fact, I've started zero.

And when there are a series of threads started by one person denouncing Muslims, for example, I speak out against that. You'll have to pardon me if I don't continue to do it until the end of time. My answer, which works for me, is to largely ignore such posts after I've had my say to those involved. I only care to spend so much time on this board, and I'd rather spend it productively.

Furthermore, when I feel someone is being crass, and that includes regarding Palestine, I point it out. When I feel someone is being nothing but a cheerleader for the U.S., I point it out.

Take a look at the threads in "the rest of the world" and tell me what you see. If my posts seem totally "pro-Israel," perhaps it's because the threads are totally "anti-Israel."

And after you've done that, go back and read all of my posts, since you are a recent member, and then criticize me for my "behavior." At least then your criticism will be accurate and deserving.

And when you're done, go give naomiglover another 'high five' as you tell yet another person you see as 'pro-Israel' that they are totally one-sided.

[bloodyminded]

For starters, unlike naomiglover, I haven't started a bajillion threads denouncing Palestine. In fact, I've started zero.

Me too.

And when there are a series of threads started by one person denouncing Muslims, for example, I speak out against that. You'll have to pardon me if I don't continue to do it until the end of time. My answer, which works for me, is to largely ignore such posts after I've had my say to those involved. I only care to spend so much time on this board, and I'd rather spend it productively.

Furthermore, when I feel someone is being crass, and that includes regarding Palestine, I point it out. When I feel someone is being nothing but a cheerleader for the U.S., I point it out.

Take a look at the threads in "the rest of the world" and tell me what you see. If my posts seem totally "pro-Israel," perhaps it's because the threads are totally "anti-Israel."

And after you've done that, go back and read all of my posts, since you are a recent member, and then criticize me for my "behavior." At least then your criticism will be accurate and deserving.

And when you're done, go give naomiglover another 'high five' as you tell yet another person you see as 'pro-Israel' that they are totally one-sided.

Excuse me...you're the one accusing me of being one-sided...I was responding to that.

Why don't you go back through my posts, and then criticize me for my behaviour? Like I said, you WILL find me condemning terrorism, and specifcially condemning Hamas.

So how can that be one-sided...especially when you refuse to cite any instances of your harsh condemnation of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians?

You're trying to hold me to a standard that you refuse for yourself. Why?

Edited June 9, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Americanwoman is not one of the brainwashed members of this forum who is supporting Israel because she hates Muslims or because Muslim countries dont have gay rights or many of the other unrelated to topic issues/believes other members hold.

I dont totally agree with her, but she has a fair judgement and her responses make some sense.

I agree with you about AW on every point here.

But that doesn't mean I agree with her admonition about my simpleton view of the world, compared to her wise and fair view of the world.

Edited June 9, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Army Guy]

Quit trying to equate the treatment of the Palestinians by the Arab world to the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel. They are different.

Israel's treatment of Palestinians is the disease. The Arab world's treatment is just a symptom.

Have you even read the history of the area....The arabs have been trying to push israel into the sea since 48 including those nice palestinians, we all love to talk about....Thats the disease...the symptoms are Israel is running out of options....

[GostHacked]

So Israelis are supposed to just leave the great nation they've built and go elsewhere? Because the local muslims don't like Jews? And if someone doesn't like us do we pick up and move too?

I guess it might be a matter of the Jews having no where else to go. Who wants to take them in!!????? If you are A and move to an area where B does not like A. What do you think will eventually happen?

Given the Palestinians have built NOTHING in their territory, it should actually be easy for them to move, especially since they are identical in language, religion, ethnic makeup and culture to the people of neighboring states. Egypt could absorb the people of the Gaza strip - or for that matter - the gaza strip - and not even notice it.

Considering most building materials are prevented from getting to Gaza, how the hell do you expect them to build anything? Not to mention entire blocks of housing gets bulldozed by Israel.

Edited June 9, 2010 by GostHacked

[scribblet]

----

Considering most building materials are prevented from getting to Gaza, how the hell do you expect them to build anything? Not to mention entire blocks of housing gets bulldozed by Israel.

If no building materials at all are allowed in, how did they build that Olympic pool? In fact, Israel did allow 30 tons of building material in back in May. They are also allowing materials in for projects by UNRWA.

[bloodyminded]

If no building materials at all are allowed in, how did they build that Olympic pool? In fact, Israel did allow 30 tons of building material in back in May. They are also allowing materials in for projects by UNRWA.

Leaving aside the way you guys are awfully giddy with the meaningless propaganda of one fucking pool--it is well-established that building materials allowed in are woefully insufficient.

But even more devastating is the arbitrary and lethal withholding of important medical supplies:

The various challenges posed by the siege that impact on the health situation, and delivery of health care in Gaza, include:

The inability for medical staff to leave Gaza for training impacts greatly on the level of health care available for Gazans. Similarly, medical technicians are often unable to acquire the latest expertise to maintain hospital equipment, much of which falls into disrepair due to spare parts not being available. This results in the costly purchase of new equipment.

The private sector which supplies and maintains equipment must operate with some degree of efficiency, particularly by being able to get staff and equipment in and out of Gaza.

Most medical equipment must be tested regularly for safety, for example defibrillators must be tested twice a year. The instruments needed for checking must be recalibrated annually in specialized laboratories outside Gaza. But the inability to send such equipment outside the Strip means it has not been possible to conduct such tests to ensure the safety of equipment.

"Such disruptions and the fragmented supply chain brings an unpredictability in scheduling life-saving procedures at a time and place when they are needed to save lives," Mr Laurance says.

Disrupted power, water and sanitation services greatly impact on the delivery of healthcare and consequent health conditions for Gazans. Gaza's second biggest hospital, the Gaza-European Hospital, operates without 2 out of its 3 elevators not functioning due to disrepair. All hospitals have been waiting for over 6 months to get spare parts to repair their main sterilizers.

Spare parts needed for the cardiac catheterization laboratories in the Gaza-European Hospital have been waiting to enter for 6 months. There are often shortages essential medicines, with 15%20% of such drugs commonly out of stock.

Many specialized treatments (e.g. for complex heart surgery and certain types of cancer) are unavailable in the Gaza Strip. Many patients who are referred for treatment to hospitals outside Gaza have had their applications for exit permits denied or delayed by Israeli authorities and have missed their appointments. Several have died while waiting for referral.

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/47d4e277b48d9d3685256ddc00612265/5cb77aa2e839149c852577350061b340?OpenDocument

(Incidentally, life-threatening, weapons-grade material such as notebooks and...coriander....are not allowed in either, which begs the question about weapons being the purpose of the blockade.)

Edited June 9, 2010 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

If no building materials at all are allowed in, how did they build that Olympic pool? In fact, Israel did allow 30 tons of building material in back in May. They are also allowing materials in for projects by UNRWA.

Why is a pool important? And 30 tons is a very small amount of materials. That could build you one home. One.

[Guest American Woman]

Excuse me...you're the one accusing me of being one-sided...I was responding to that.

What I was actually pointing out is the irony of your all but 'high-fiving' posters who are so obviously one-sided it's annoying, as you admonish others for being 'one sided.' I doubt if I'm alone when I say it's extremely annoying when a poster does nothing but start thread after thread about one topic and only one topic. In this instance, it's anti-Israel threads. But if you see that as enlightened thinking as you point out the one-sided views of those who support Israel, yet haven't started a bajillion threads denouncing Palestine, so be it. I'll just continue to see it as ironic.

You're trying to hold me to a standard that you refuse for yourself. Why?

No, I'm not holding you to a standard I refuse myself, and I've already explained why.

When you criticize someone who has started a bajillion 'anti Israel' threads for being one-sided rather than high-fiving them, or when you at least don't criticize the 'pro Israel' posters for being one-sided, then I'll change my opinion.

In the meantime, telling posters such as naomiglover that others are one-sided, as if she's 'fair and balanced,' is a joke.

Edited June 9, 2010 by American Woman