House majority leader: "Legislation that is in any way anti-Israel will not be considered"

Now we know who the boss is.

Do what you are told, don't question anything. Move along, nothing to see here. That's just the way it is, Isreal runs the world, its the best for all of us kid... yessum pappy!!

Israel will bankrupt the first world, overrun it with immigrants and minorities, and lastly lead us into WWIII, thanks a lot for all we have done for you!

[edit on 27-3-2006 by denythestatusquo]

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

How can you say we're not a free country when you haven't experienced the oppression that goes on throughout the world first hand? And no, don't twist that into an American oppresion statement. I mean the oppression of people like Saddam Hussein or the leaders of Iran and several other primarily Islamic nations or the oppression that goes on in Africa.

So... you think that the only countries that oppress ethnic minorities are black and brown?

Well, I see where you're coming from now, and it would be pretty useless for me to argue.

See you around the board.

Originally posted by Odium
Let's be fair, flying a U.S. flag and they acknowledge they shot them. Common sense factor here...

Friendly fire happens. It happened before this incident, it's happened since, and it will happen again.

Also, just because you're spying on them doesn't mean it's fine for them to do the same? What if times change? In fact, paying a U.S. Military Official to spy on them, who is currently in prison, and facing no punishment shows bias to me. If this was an Iranian spy things would be a lot different.

You're right, it probably would be different if it were an Iranian spy. Then again, Iran is considered an enemy to our nation, as where Israel is an ally. I bet it would be the same if it were a British spy.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
So... you think that the only countries that oppress ethnic minorities are black and brown?

Umm... Look at where most of the genocide being committed today and in the recent past has happened. I wasn't isolating any specific group, just pointing out what has been happening and where in the past couple years. Learn your facts.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
So... you think that the only countries that oppress ethnic minorities are black and brown?

Umm... Look at where most of the genocide being committed today and in the recent past has happened. I wasn't isolating any specific group, just pointing out what has been happening and where in the past couple years. Learn your facts.

What is with your condescending attitude?

Umm... Ever heard of the CIA connection to the crack- coc aine epidemic? And before you say, oh, but they weren't forced to use drugs, think about the Opium Wars. That method of defeating an enemy is probably in the NWO Handbook.

And I broke my own rule, because I wasn't gonna respond.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Umm... Ever heard of the CIA connection to the crack- coc aine epidemic? And before you say, oh, but they weren't forced to use drugs, think about the Opium Wars. That method of defeating an enemy is probably in the NWO Handbook.

Do you mean the accusations that the CIA used planes owned by dummy companies to smuggle drugs around the world to help fund their battles? Wasn't that in like the 70s? The Opium Wars? You mean the wars in the mid 1800s? What do either of those things have to do with genocide, much less genocide in the past few years?

Sounds like you're grasping for something here, but it's just out of reach.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Umm... Ever heard of the CIA connection to the crack- coc aine epidemic? And before you say, oh, but they weren't forced to use drugs, think about the Opium Wars. That method of defeating an enemy is probably in the NWO Handbook.

Do you mean the accusations that the CIA used planes owned by dummy companies to smuggle drugs around the world to help fund their battles? Wasn't that in like the 70s? The Opium Wars? You mean the wars in the mid 1800s? What do either of those things have to do with genocide, much less genocide in the past few years?

Yes, that is what I mean. They weren't just smuggling drugs around the world. They also brought them here, to my community, during the late 1970's and the 1980's. An entire generation of formerly productive adults is now dead and dying. Either way, their children have been effectively rendered orphans, by our very own democratic and free government.

Is that genocidal enough for you? Or does the genocide actually have to 'take' for it to count?

The reference to the Opium Wars should have been obvious to a smart guy/girl like you. People of color not going along with the plan? Flood their communities with extrememly addicitive illegal narcotics. Since it's become quite gauche to out-right slaughter an entire population, one could, literally, kill the opposition, with barely a chance at detection.

Or, if that doesn't work, make addiction illegal and arrest the addicts. Either way, problem solved.

There you go. Does it all make sense now?

But now, we're totally off-topic. I was just trying to make the point that other nations (like ours) have committed genocide, and recently. They just don't care to describe it that way. History is written by the victor.

Sounds like you're grasping for something here, but it's just out of reach.

Sounds like people were mean to you in school.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Yes, that is what I mean. ... There you go. Does it all make sense now?

Wow, you're really jumping all over the place!

Your original problem was that I only stated places that were "black and brown" in my list of where genocide is going on today or has been in the past few years... So now you skew to something completely unrelated to genocide in say, the past 10 years. The CIA drug smuggling was only an accusation, so I really don't feel the need to believe it. The Opium Wars were over 150 years ago, so they don't really apply today.

But now, we're totally off-topic.

You're right, we are. Let's get back on topic now.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Your original problem was that I only stated places that were "black and brown" in my list of where genocide is going on today or has been in the past few years... So now you skew to something completely unrelated to genocide in say, the past 10 years.

Your original point was that the US defends Israel on the international stage because Israel is so democratic and free, like the US.

I responded, Ha! If that were the case, the US wouldn't be fit to ally with itself.

You responded, Oh, but look at all those non-white countries who commit genocide in modern times, like Iraq... surely they should be punished.

I responded, If we're against countries that commit genocide against their own ethnic minorities, then the US should definitely be added to the list, due to the CIA's involvement with the crack- coc aine epidemic.

That is definitely related.

I supplied the historical precedent for that methodology of (attempted) genocide, the Opium Wars.

What don't you get?

The CIA drug smuggling was only an accusation, so I really don't feel the need to believe it.

Ooooh, well, in that case, don't let me throw your neat little world off- kilter. Be glad I didn't mention that AIDS theory.

Please, continue to embrace ignorance.

You're right, we are. Let's get back on topic now.

I let you distract me from my point, and that's my fault. I allowed myself to be pulled into a typical ATS discussion: "Israel can do no wrong" vs. "Do you even pretend to be objective?" I apologize to the rest of the thread for this nonsense, but I have an excuse. I'm a newbie.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Israel tried for its freedom in 1948 and was prompty invaded by Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian, and Lebanese forces. It wasn't until 1949 when the UN put an end to the war by backing its status as a free nation. So blame the UN, not the "Allied Forces."

Of course when you start in the middle of the story it makes it seem that the jews have a justifiable "right" to be in Israel. . . which of course they don't. . . .they are a cursed people
who have no religious claim to the land. Furthermore the few jews living in Palestine prior to the zionists arriving lived in relative peace with the arabs. It was only AFTER the arrival of the zionist did bullets start to fly.

"Ahad Ha'am (Ahser Zvi Ginzberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891, published a series of articles in the Hebrew periodical Hamelitz that were sharply critical of the ethnocentricity of political Zionism as well as the exploitation of Palestinian of Palestinian peasantry by Zionist colonists.(9) Ahad Ha'am, who sought to draw attention to the fact that Palestine was not an empty territory and that the presence of another people on the land posed problems., observed that the Zionist “pioneers” believed that “the only language the Arabs understand is that of force.... [They] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency.” He cut to the heart of the matter when he ventured that the colonists' aggressive attitude towards the native peasants stemmed from their anger “towards those who reminded them that there is still another people in the land of Israel that have been living there and does not intend to leave.”(10)
Another early settler, Yitzhaq Epstein, who arrived in Palestine from Russia in 1886, warned not only of the moral implication of Zionist colonization but also of the political dangers inherent in the enterprise. In 1907, at a time when Zionist land purchases in Galilee were stirring opposition among Palestinian peasants forced off the land sold by absentee landlords, Epstein wrote a controversial article entitled “The Hidden Question,” in which he strongly criticized the methods by which Zionists had purchased Arab land. In his view, these methods entailing dispossession of Arab farmers were bound to cause political confrontation in the future.” Reflected in the Zionist establishment's angry response to Epstein's article(12) are two principal features of mainstream Zionist thought: the belief that Jewish acquisition of land took precedence over moral consideration and the advocacy of separatist and exclusionist Yishuv."

Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. Nur Masalha. (Washington, D.C.: 1992) Page 7-8.

mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
EDIT TO ADD: Also, Israel is a democratic, free nation. This is the policy the US dreams to spread around the world. So why wouldn't out government be inclined to support them? We do it for all sorts of nations around the globe. Israel only gets singled out because of the stereotype (see your own post) that all Israeli people are rich and have thier hands in the US government.

hahahahahaaaaaa "democratic" in name only. . . the jews, the 'poster children for civil rights' would never tolerate the US treating the jews like the jews treat the arabs in Israel. It especially funny when the jews state clearly that they WILL have a jewish majority. . . which of course is inherently bigoted. . . . and hypocrisy coming from the poster children for "equal rights". . . .

. . .

An immigrant-absorbing state [Israel] which constitutes a national and spiritual center for all Jews of the world and is a source of attraction for thousands of immigrants each year. Aliyah is the central goal of the State of Israel. This is the country we wish to shape. This is the country where our children will want to live. [color=indigo][What kind of immigrants are they willing to absord. . .jews - aliyah n. pl. a·li·yahs, also a·li·yot (äl-t) The immigration of Jews into Israel.]

www.israelpr.com...
Prime Minister Sharon's Speech at the Herzliya Conference
December 18, 2003

[edit on 29-3-2006 by Shamgar]

mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link

[edit on 30-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

And let's not forget who were the original terrorists in the Middle East. . . .jews. . .

During the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt, the Irgun engaged in 'uninhibited use of terror', 'mass indiscriminate killing of the aged, women and children'; execution of Jews 'suspected of informing, even though some of these persons were totally innocent''; 'attacks against British without any consideration of possible injuries to innocent bystanders, and the murder of British in cold blood'; and so on.

Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. Norman G. Finkelstein. University of California Press. 2005. ISBN: 0-520-24598-9. Page 272.

In order to kill the greatest number of soldiers, without taking risks oneself, nothing could equal electric mines. Made to look like milestones, they contained fifteen kilogrammes of explosives, which we made ourselves from common chemical manure (ammonium nitrate). To this we added five to eight kilogrammes of bolts as shrapnel. A curfew having been established on all roads from nine o'clock on, we left every evening in groups of three to place our mines at the edge of some orange-grove. A wire, fifty yards long, connected the false milestone to a little detonator. A push on the button was enough to blow up a truck.
Leaving aside the fact that they face, and that they had the unpleasant experience of seeing their transport interfered with, the English lost tens of dead, and suffered innumerable wounds, without ever succeeding in capturing one of the girls or boys responsible. Records were set up for losses inflicted with a single mine; I believe it was
held by Lea, the wife of Dov, with thirteen killed.

Avner. “Memoirs of an Assassin: Confessions of a Stern Gang Killer” (New York: 1959)
Page 87.

mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link

[edit on 30-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
What don't you get?

The CIA supposedly selling drugs is not genocide. Sure, if they did it they probably did it in primarily urban areas. Then again, who lives in primarily urban areas. Minorities. If they did it in the subburbs would you be using it as an example?

Ooooh, well, in that case, don't let me throw your neat little world off- kilter. Be glad I didn't mention that AIDS theory.

Please, continue to embrace ignorance.

Have fun believing everything you read on the internet.

Originally posted by Shamgar
Of course when you start in the middle of the story it makes it seem that the jews have a justifiable "right" to be in Israel. . . which of course they don't. . . .they are a cursed people who have no religious claim to the land.

A "cursed people?" Wow, someone is showing their bias against Jewish people.

And how do they not have the right to be there? Thousands of years of religious texts seem to be against you there.

hahahahahaaaaaa "democratic" in name only. . . the jews, the 'poster children for civil rights' would never tolerate the US treating the jews like the jews treat the arabs in Israel. It especially funny when the jews state clearly that they WILL have a jewish majority. . . which of course is inherently bigoted. . . . and hypocrisy coming from the poster children for "equal rights".

Oh, okay, and the Palestinians are completely innocent. I must have missed that memo.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkidA "cursed people?" Wow, someone is showing their bias against Jewish people.

And how do they not have the right to be there? Thousands of years of religious texts seem to be against you there.

Let's see . .. you respond with a simple response with no facts. . . but 'backed up " with opinions. . .yeah sounds like a propaganda drone to me who will repeat the same drivel over and over again. . . even after presented with facts. . . . .

"His propaganda [Joseph Goebbels] crusades were based on a simple observation: What the masses term truth is that information which is most familiar. As Goebbels put it:
'The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious. In the long run only he will achieve basic results in influencing public opinion who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form despite the objections of the intellectuals.(5)'"

Pratkanis, Anthony and Aronson, “Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion” (New York: 2001) Page 182.

. . .yeah. . . . cursed. . . .

. . . . Jude 1: 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Psalms 50: 16 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? 17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee. 18 When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers. (hast...: Heb. thy portion was with) 19 Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. (givest: Heb. sendest) 20 Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Oh, okay, and the Palestinians are completely innocent. I must have missed that memo.

. . .it appears the only thing you missed were all the facts so you could propagate your propaganda/ opinions. . . as the jews had no problems with the arbas in Palestine prior to the arrival of the Zionists . . .as indicated a previous post. . .

Two days later, after touring other settlements in the Esdraelon Valley, including Mishmar Ha'emek, [Yosef] Weitz wrote in his diary: 'I am increasingly consumed by despair. The Zionist idea is the answer to the Jewish question in the Land of Israel; only in the Land of Israel, but not that the Arabs should remain a majority. The complete evacuation of the country from its other inhabitants and handing it over to the Jewish people is the answer.' (12)

Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. Nur Masalha. (Washington, D.C.: 1992) Page 132.

When the war ended Israel was not entirely free id Arabs, but the 140,00-1500 who had remained (93) – many of them Christian and Druze, and mainly concentrated in the Galilee and what was known as the Little Triangle – were permitted to remain. The borders of the new state had been pushed through conquest from the 55 percent of the Mandatory Palestine alloted to Jews under partition to 77 percent. The bulk of the land had been acquired ans was now tilled by Jewish settlements, and the size of the Arab minority was apparently considered manageable. It is interesting to note that one of the Transfer Committee's final recommendations submitted to Ben-Gurion on 26 October 1948 was that the Arabs should not exceed 15 percent of the population in mixed cities such as Haifa. Transfer Committee member Ezra Danin later wrote
that the recommendations stipulated that the Arab minority as whole should not be more than 20 percent of the total population of Israel. (94) In 1949, the Arab minority constituted about 17 percent of the state. While the new Jewish state may not have been quite as Jewish as England was English, it was close enough to satisfy the new state's leaders – a miraculous simplification indeed.

Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. Nur Masalha. (Washington, D.C.: 1992) Page 199.

mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link

[edit on 30-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by Shamgar
even after presented with facts. . . . .

Oh, sorry, I didn't know I was supposed to take your anti-Semetic "facts" seriously. You're obviously suffering from the stereotype that all Jewish people are Zionists.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by Shamgar
even after presented with facts. . . . .

Oh, sorry, I didn't know I was supposed to take your anti-Semetic "facts" seriously. You're obviously suffering from the stereotype that all Jewish people are Zionists.

Thanks for your response of the Granfalloon Technique of Proaganda which uses the Emotional Appeal of Logical Fallicies. . .drone . . .btw since Christ was a semite. . .it would be impossible for me to be "antisemitic". . since I do not discriminate against all jews. drone. . . .

Schlomo Lavi, who had already voiced his support for transfer at the Ihud Po'alei Tzion Convention in 1937, said that “the...transfer of Arabs out of the country in my eyes is one of the most just, moral and correct things that can be done. I have thought this for many years. This was seconded by Avraham Katnelson, another influential Mapai leader, who opined that there was nothing “more moral, from the viewpoint of universal human ethic, than the emptying of the Jewish state of Arabs and their transfer elsewhere....This requires [the use of] force.”(62)

Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. Nur Masalha. (Washington, D.C.: 1992) Page 129.

mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link

[edit on 30-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

You're calling me a drone, yet all you're doing is spewing anti-Israel propaganda yourself. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm curious about a few things...You're stating that Israel was ok with Arabs living there until the Zionists came to town. Was it a Zionist conspiracy that caused the Egyptian government to kick the Palestinians out of Egypt and sent them into Israel? Also, how is it that Israel kicks all Arabs out of the state, yet anybody, regardless of faith or nationality, can become full citizens of Israel?

Yes, the Jews maintain a separateness from other cultures. That is why the Jewish culture has survived for 5,000 years, though they were often conquered by other nations, while other cultures and nations simply disappeared. However, Israel is a secular state, not a theocracy. The Jews will retain their culture no matter what the world says, but Israel accepts whomever.

Ha!

Thomas Crowne wants to warn me because I tell the truth about Israel? That just adds more evidence to my suspicions about Israel and the relationship between Israel and the US.

Get ready to warn me again. I'm taking the gloves off. I'm gonna expose Israel for what it really is. Be on the lookout for a thread on this...

Originally posted by Herman
Why would the U.S consider anti-*any country that's not our enemy* policies in the first place? I think all he was saying is that we won't shun Israel.

Exactly. After all, he was speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference. What would you expect him to say?

Would there be the same brouhaha if he would have said the same about anti Aussie, Canadian, or British legislation? I think not.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
You're calling me a drone, yet all you're doing is spewing anti-Israel propaganda yourself. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

"wow" I am "stunned" by your response. . . you have thrown me off my game. . . there is "no" way I can match wits with your "razor sharp" mind. . . . it must happen when you don't clutter your mind up with facts. . .you can "overcome" any opponent in a debate that way. . . .hahahahahaa

Research generally finds that the more informed the members of the audience, the less likely they are to be persuaded by a one-sided argument and the more likely they are to be persuaded by an argument that brings out th important opposing arguments and then attempts to refute them. (7) This makes sense: A well informed person is more likely to know some of the counterarguments; when the communicator avoids mentioning these, the knowledgeable members of the audience are likely to conclude that the communicator is either unfair or unable to refute such arguments. On the other hand, an uninformed person is less apt to know of the existence of opposing arguments. If the counterargument is ignored, the less informed members of the audience are persuaded; if the counterargument is presented, they might get confused.
Pratkanis, Anthony and Aronson, “Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion” (New York: 2001) Page 201.

. . . An immigrant-absorbing state [Israel] which constitutes a national and spiritual center for all Jews of the world and is a source of attraction for thousands of immigrants each year. Aliyah is the central goal of the State of Israel. This is the country we wish to shape. This is the country where our children will want to live.
www.israelpr.com...
Prime Minister Sharon's Speech at the Herzliya Conference
December 18, 2003

[What kind of immigrants are they willing to absord. . .jews - aliyah n. pl. a·li·yahs, also a·li·yot (äl-t) The immigration of Jews into Israel.]









[edit on 31-3-2006 by Shamgar]

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Shamgar]

Shamgar

I fail to understand what any of that has to do with the topic at hand.

Maybe you should include some of your own thoughts (if any) about those extrenal sources instead of just propping them up and saying, "Lookie what I found, guys! "