Reply With Quote
the Israeli press buries the destruction in the back pages and denounces war critics as traitors, the international press plays up the human cost. both are biased.
the Israeli press buries the destruction in the back pages and denounces war critics as traitors, the international press plays up the human cost. both are biased.
Here is a codified list of the more than fifty laws which cons ute Israel’s equivalent of Jim Crow, granting exorbitant privilege to the 80% majority and second-class citizenship to the 20% minority:
Discriminatory Laws in Israel -- more -->>
There are more than 50 Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel in all areas of life, including their rights to political participation, access to land, education, state budget resources, and criminal procedures. Some of the laws also violate the rights of Palestinians living in the 1967 OPT and Palestinian refugees.
Greenwald: US Intelligence Supports Israeli attacks
Glen Greenwald reveals that new Snowden do ents show that American hands are in every war launched by Israel against Palestinians
Transcipt -->>
sucks for Arab-Israelis. the US helped. not exactly news.
do you have a point?
What paragraph says that Bush pushed for Hamas to be in the election process?
Nope. It's black and white. If you disagree with what Israel is going you must be a Hamas loving terrorist supporter. That's the way these debates function.
I feel like I read about Bush and his administration helping militants take over Gaza and push Fatah out because he/they didn't trust Abbas.
lol
Do you really think that? Really?
if jesus told nat to stop, he would probably laugh in jesus face....we created you, a non fictional character, gtfo
Not in form, no, but in function, yes. If Hamas had the military ability they would likely be very terrible, although I have to think if they did anything on that scale it would bring a lot of other powers into the region.
As it stands though, the acts the Israeli government has been carrying out for the past decade is as bad, if not worse, than Hamas. Illegal settlements, routinely ramping up tensions and using it as an excuse to attack, to say nothing of the wretched conditions they have imposed upon innocent people who are literally starving to death.
I suppose you are just going to put that out there without understanding the cultural reasons as to why...
Consider that anything that requires Sharia law, will be illegal in Israel.
"They hate us for our freedom"
Illustrates the USA (and UK/France) main objective is destabilizing the region. Have absolutely no issue with Muslims targeting civilians in rebuttal within these nations.
Your point was still a stupid one. I can guarantee that the US does have a problem with it. What's with the cynicism? There's actual legitimate reasons why the US didn't militarily intervene in Syria despite civilian deaths. One is, if you're talking about actual direct military aid, our military was just coming off of a decades long war(s) (which, wait for it...was supposed help the average Iraqi/Afgan overcome terrorist and tyranny. Which didn't pay off one bit as has been clear). Two is military subsidization to a destable region such as that is risky as weaponry can get into the wrong hands (Libyan weaponry was looted by terrorists eg. Hamas), and three a good number of the Syrians we would have been helping (estimated 25%) had extremist views themselves against the West and particularly Israel. Those are three obstacles, but there are more.
Last edited by mingus; 08-06-2014 at 02:56 PM.
http://io9.com/the-biggest-source-of.../+laceydonohueLotan also expresses concern over the dilemma that the more we engage online media, the more it personalizes itself to fit our political outlooks. He suggests an experiment: Facebook's trending pages aggregate content that are heavily shared across the platform. If you're already logged into Facebook, you'll see a personalized view of the trend, highlighting your friends and their views on the trend. Next, open a separate browser window in "incognito mode" and navigate to the same page. Since the browser has no idea who you are on Facebook, you'll get the raw, unpersonalized feed. See how many differences you notice.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28688179
An analysis by the New York Times looked at the names of 1,431 casualties and found that "the population most likely to be militants, men ages 20 to 29, is also the most overrepresented in the death toll. They are 9% of Gaza's 1.7 million residents, but 34% of those killed whose ages were provided."
"At the same time, women and children under 15, the least likely to be legitimate targets, were the most underrepresented, making up 71% of the population and 33% of the known-age casualties."
Another important note:
"It's important to bear in mind that in Operation Cast Lead [the last Israeli ground offensive in December 2008-January 2009], Hamas and Gaza-based organisations claimed that only 50 combatants were killed, admitting years later the number was between 600-700, a figure nearly identical to the figure claimed by the IDF."
And, Hamas resumes firing rockets.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0G70JY20140808
your hobby horse speaks for itself.
2nd grade fireworks that can't hurt anyone vs. military-grade bombs that kill everyone in their purview.
How do you defend/explain 2000 vs 68?
And youre a racist warmonger that celebrates child death as long as it is browned-skinned
They actually injured two Israelis and previous rockets have killed Israeli citizens. It's a rocket. If it lands near you, you are injured or killed. Not sure why there has to be a comparison of munitions.
No defending it. What are your suggestions? Israel should do nothing? Hamas should do more to kill people?How do you defend/explain 2000 vs 68?
It's a religion issue -- not a skin color issue. Almost everywhere the "religion of peace" is practiced, there's no peace.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions