Here is an article from CNN, about the first Muslim woman to win the nobel peace prize and her criticism of the United States. You will notice, like most muslims in the spotlight, she mentions the so called "occupation of Palestinian terroritories" (if you buy into that nonsense, I urge you to demand the United States promptly return Texas to the nation of Mexico), and she claims the following:
Don't give me that nonsense...the U.S. has used the war on terror to purposely restrict human rights and basic freedoms? That's a big charge...too bad it's rubbish, and you couldn't point to one thing that would make anyone with any reason to buy into that conspiracy theory. The U.S. has simply done what it needs to do to protect itself and its people- that's the government's mandate by the Constitution...and, it's common sense.
She also said the following:
Why? Maybe because the "occupation" - there is no such thing, Israel won the land in military conflict...military conflict that they DIDN'T start...to claim a nation is occupying land they won in a military battle that they were on the defensive in- well, that's just absurd, but it's just the usual nonsense coming out of the middle east on a regular basis. Again, if this is occupation, then the United States is clearly "occupying" Texas and most of the rest of the nation- don't forget the native americans who were forced off their land.
The UN is very much anti-Israel...since many of the members are middle eastern nations that oppose Israel's very right to exist. In my opinion, it's shameful that a peace prize winner, a so-called human rights proponent, would attack the U.S. and take the all-too-common anti-Israel stance like she has.
I find it laughable that people who use the security council resolutions against Iraq as justification for war can't come up with a more coherent argument for their support of Israel. Keep in mind that there would be many more resolutions condemning Israeli violence and calling for further disengagement of the Gaza Strip had the US not vetoed over 30 of them. Is it not hipocritical to demand Democratic reforms other countries while defending Israel's deplorable actions?
Posted by: shawn at December 12, 2003 06:00 PMisrael's deplorable actions? come on!
who started the war in 1967?
if land is taken in war, then the nation that takes it must always give it back, correct? goodbye USA...most of us should be packing out bags soon...
what deplorable actions by israel?
would you not agree that the UN is usually anti-israel? i remember when they debated the situation in iraq, and every middle eastern nation took their time to change the subject and attack israel. the UN is so anti-israel, its pathetic.
does israel not have the right to protect itself from terrorists? what about from every nation surrounding, all of which have vowed to destroy the nation and its people?
if youre going to call israels actions, "israeli violence," then you have to say the very same thing about the united states...itd be ridiculous, but you have no other choice. israel is on the DEFENSIVE in their own war on terror- a war that has lasted a lot longer than the US war on terror...every nation has a right an obligation to protect its citizens...but, its funny how- when israel does it, its violence against the poor palestinians (lead by a known international terrorist, dont forget- a man the palestinians overwhelmingly support)...
let me send droves of maniacs to your nation to blow themselves up on buses, cafes, discos, etc...then, ill tell you you have no right to defend yourself.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 12, 2003 06:22 PM"palestinians (lead by a known international terrorist, dont forget- a man the palestinians overwhelmingly support"
- Yes, and Ariel Sharon is a war criminal... What's your point?
Posted by: lowdown at December 12, 2003 08:54 PMin whose eyes? sharon is not a terrorist...and hes not actively leading terrorist activites like arafat. i always have to wonder how reasonable people can even try to equate the israelis with the palestinians.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 12, 2003 09:45 PMIsrael did NOT win the land in Military conflict. It was given to them (and taken from the Palistinians) through the 1947 UN Land Partition resolution.
http://www.iap.org/partition.htm
Also, tell me this was a peacefull way of getting the land:
http://www.deiryassin.org/mas.html
http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/
http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac17.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2082/2_63/72435149/print.jhtml
Also, On a side note, when she mentioned the US using the war on terror to restrict freedoms, I believe she was refering to the Patriot Act (something many states in the US oppose) which basically shows your freedoms are only writing on paper, and the government could revoke them in the name of "National Security" at any time...
take a hint...im tired of deleting your comments.
youre clearly a bit slow from that and the fact that you have no idea what ur talking about. were talking about the 6 day war in 1967...youre 20 yrs off.
youre history in 1947 isnt even correct...there was no state there at the time...there has never been a recognized state of palestine.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 13, 2003 12:15 PM"in whose eyes? sharon is not a terrorist"
- Nobody said he was. Maybe if you weren't so busy deleting comments you would have more time to actually read them? Just a thought..
Posted by: lowdown at December 13, 2003 03:32 PMyou claimed he was a war criminal. i asked you, in whose eyes. you didnt answer. youre trying to equate sharon with arafat...you can deny that youre trying to make them out to be the same sort of people, but anyone can read what you said on this issue or any number of issues about israel.
as for deleting comments...i forgot this was your site. oh wait, its not. its mine...and i wont allow idiots who call me a racist bastard post comments on my site. especially when im not at all racist, and even blacks agree with my opinion on the issue in cincinatti- those black racists who hate themselves...uh huh.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 13, 2003 04:07 PM"you claimed he was a war criminal. i asked you, in whose eyes. you didnt answer"
- I Misunderstood the question. In whose eyes? Well...
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/site_packages/2002/sharon/020430sharon_crime_hist.html
http://www.indictsharon.net/
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/06/isr0622.htm
http://mediamonitors.net/drbenalofs1.html
- Doctors, politicians, and a Human Rights Organization. Or are they part of some anti-isreal conpiracy too?
"i wont allow idiots who call me a racist bastard post comments on my site."
- You don't have to. But if you took the time to read people's posts a little more carefully, and put a little more thought into your replies, maybe the level of discourse wouldn't degenerate to that point.
"and even blacks agree with my opinion on the issue in cincinatti"
- That's never a convincing argument, Josh. If some small segment of african american people believed in slavery, would it make it any less racist?
Posted by: lowdown at December 14, 2003 11:05 AMthats not a convincing argument? so you too want to defend the actions of people who attack police? and its a damned good argument, since its rather odd for black men and women to be racist against themselves. you cant claim racism when none exists- i dont have time for white jesse jacksons and al sharptons.
amnesty international wrote a detailed report about cop killer, mumia abul jamal- convicted on a mountain of evidence...and his list of supporters include hollywood celebs, entire towns in france- where they named streets after him, politicans- like the idiotic charlie rangel who calls for reparations, human rights groups, etc. doesnt make them right.
i dont know what sharon has done and what he hasnt done...but you cannot equate his govt with arafats group. one is the elected offical of a democracy, the other is a terrorist, who is today, in 2003, actively directing terrorist activities to kill innocent men, women and childre, who wouldnt give up power if his life depended on it. a man who was offered 100% of what he asked for and more by the israelis...as an act of obscene appeasement in the early 90's, but then turned around and refused to accept it, which made possible the current situation in israel. like i said, you cannot equate the two men today.
and finally...if i put a little thought into my replies? yeah, i just fire off in a few seconds here without thinking. yup. i said what millions of americans have said about the case in cincinatti, and im attacked as a racist for it...yet IM not thinking about my replies? nice. funny...but, nice.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 14, 2003 03:07 PMWhat the hell? Why did you delete my post?
..Of course you realize, this means war.
Posted by: lowdown at December 15, 2003 08:57 AMI find the arguments from the Zionist right here to be very disturbing. Israel is occupying land that was stolen by them. The only reason the Palestinians cannot get it back is because of Israels "unfair" military advantage, thanks in part to the United States, who is complicit in all of the criminal policies perpetuated by Israel. Anyone who supports Israels criminal, and Illegal occupation is an obvious supporter of State Sponsered Terrorism. You ask why? because what Israel have been practicing for the last 35 years has been State Terror - Collective Murder, Demolition, and Theft of Land. If this is not State Terror, what is it? Defense? Please!!!
Posted by: dcates at August 16, 2004 03:17 PMdcates. congrats...youre a nutjob.
isreal has practiced terrorism for 35 yrs? yeah. like i said...nutjob.
stolen land? the british mandate of palestine present day jordan- tho the leadership in jordan make no effort to let the palestinians have a 'homeland' there. if the land is "stolen," then texas is stolen land - from those darned thieving americans. and florida was stolen from the spanish. defensive wars happen- israel was on the DEFENSE.
youre clearly clueless to history....so, heres a tip- learn something before you spout off crap.
Posted by: Josh at August 16, 2004 06:49 PM