Israel about to get its ass kicked by piratenews

... fully loaded, safety off...

Can't believe people are arguing over who started it and who did what when. Neither side is inherently evil, but both sides are culpable. Most importantly... both sides hate each other with such a blind passion, one that is as much of their nation's identity as their own religion, that if someone doesn't step in and mediate then genocide will be the only way the violence will end.

Gimme a "B"... Gimme an "A"...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 10:30 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So the Palestinians want the Jews out...but where would they go?

Not here, we've got enough problems without that..

Antarctica?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 10:54 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The reason people are 'arguing over who started it' is because it matters. If Hamas started it, it makes Israel's actions slightly more acceptable (though disproportionate response and targeting civilians are still illegal). If Hamas didn't start it, it makes Israel the aggressor.

I didn't think I'd have to explain something that simple. Even BUSH knows that, which is why he went to such extremes to portray Iraq as a threat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/world/middleeast/05gaza.html?_r=1

Gaza Hospital Fills Up, Mainly With Civilians

A week ago, when Israel began its air assault, hundreds of Hamas militants were taken to the hospital. Yet on Sunday, the day Israeli troops flooded Gaza and ground battles with Hamas began, there appeared not to be a single one.

The casualties at Shifa on Sunday — 18 dead, hospital officials said, among a reported 30 around Gaza — were women, children and men who had been with children.

In recent days, most of those arriving at Shifa appeared to be civilians. On Sunday, there was no trace here of the dozens of Hamas fighters that the Israeli military said its ground forces had hit in the past few hours in exchanges of fire. The exact reason was not clear. Many ambulance drivers refused to go near the fighting. It also seemed possible that Hamas and Israeli fighters were still battling at some less lethal distance. It was difficult to know whether fighters were spread out at other hospitals.

But at Shifa, most of the men who were wounded or killed seemed to have been hit along with relatives near their homes or on the road.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 11:45 AM

Quote:
thing that causes you to loose your own credibility.

I was merely adding information. The claim was that of Donald Rumsfeld, who lacks credibility, but has a certain personal charm. I don't think he was attempting to deceive the public, I think he was genuinely concerned that we were putting landmines into areas and then sending in unarmored vehicles to patrol those areas. That concern was expressed by the Israelis to us.

There is actually a pretty strong debate going on right now in the international war crimes tribunal and the UN about whether or not the random scattering of land mines constitutes a violation of international law. This isn't an obscure piece of information or random piece of evidence, it's a major topic of debate.

I said I wouldn't debate the issue, and I don't care if you believe me. Internet searches suck. I can't find it either. However, I saw the broadcast live, and researched the issue, and it's now an issue my brother has taken up in international treaty law, because he writes stuff like that, so I'm not guessing.

It's a matter about caring about our troops. I praise the Israeli govt. for caring about their own. I hope Obama will do the same for ours.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 11:51 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The reason people are 'arguing over who started it' is because it matters. If Hamas started it, it makes Israel's actions slightly more acceptable (though disproportionate response and targeting civilians are still illegal). If Hamas didn't start it, it makes Israel the aggressor.

I'm confused as usual. Are you saying that one missile attack by Isreal after a thousand in past months by Hamas means Israel started it. Or are you saying that Hamas is in no way involved with the Missile attacks on Israel, but doesn't want the World to know that they can't control their own territory. Are you saying it's like Saddam Hussein denying chemical weapons but really wanting people to think he had them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 11:53 AM

Wulf

I don't think that most palestinians want the Jews gone, so much as to leave them alone. I think that a lot of arabs a little further out like the saudis want the jews gone.

Think about it rationally. If Israel were to end apartheid, it would be a boon to both groups. The jews have a lot of wealth and industry, and the palestinians would represent a cheap labor source.

However, think of it from a Saudi perspective. The Saudis have a dominance which relies on control of a commodity, and not a lot of native industry. A strong regional industrial power poses a threat to their dominance.

So, I'm going to back my jewish friend, the foreign powers want this war. The locals probably don't. Jews chose palestine in agreement with the crown in 1917. They are stuck with it now. Still, I think the Gaza war is a big mistake. Palestine wants sea access. It's one of the major things that wars are fought over. Israel already has sea access. If they take Palestine's, that only means that Palestine will invade them at a later date, when they have a better ally, like China.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 11:56 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
apocryphal means hidden.

Not really. Merriam-Webster defines it as "of doubtful authenticity: Spurious".

Dictionary.com says:
1. of doubtful authorship or authenticity.
2. Ecclesiastical. a. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Apocrypha.
b. of doubtful sanction; uncanonical.
3. false; spurious: He told an apocryphal story about the sword, but the truth was later revealed.

Quote:
I saw the newscast. I'm sure that if you scan press conference on IEDs and cluster munitions around the time, you'll find it. I'm too busy, and don't care enough about winning an argument.

Sorry, but if you make unsubstantiated statements there is no argument for you to win. Nothing you say based on such statements can have any validity.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 12:45 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The reason people are 'arguing over who started it' is because it matters. If Hamas started it, it makes Israel's actions slightly more acceptable (though disproportionate response and targeting civilians are still illegal). If Hamas didn't start it, it makes Israel the aggressor.

I didn't think I'd have to explain something that simple. Even BUSH knows that, which is why he went to such extremes to portray Iraq as a threat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/world/middleeast/05gaza.html?_r=1

Gaza Hospital Fills Up, Mainly With Civilians

A week ago, when Israel began its air assault, hundreds of Hamas militants were taken to the hospital. Yet on Sunday, the day Israeli troops flooded Gaza and ground battles with Hamas began, there appeared not to be a single one.

The casualties at Shifa on Sunday — 18 dead, hospital officials said, among a reported 30 around Gaza — were women, children and men who had been with children.

In recent days, most of those arriving at Shifa appeared to be civilians. On Sunday, there was no trace here of the dozens of Hamas fighters that the Israeli military said its ground forces had hit in the past few hours in exchanges of fire. The exact reason was not clear. Many ambulance drivers refused to go near the fighting. It also seemed possible that Hamas and Israeli fighters were still battling at some less lethal distance. It was difficult to know whether fighters were spread out at other hospitals.

But at Shifa, most of the men who were wounded or killed seemed to have been hit along with relatives near their homes or on the road.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

That IS the point! If it's so simple then what's the answer? Who did the bad thing first? Honestly, google all you want you will not find the answer.

I can't believe you don't see the fruitlessness of trying to find a "first aggressor, that you think such a thing is that black and white. You don't see how this simple thread is a mirror of the kind of arguing and denying that's going on between Hamas and Israel?
You will see the stories and details that support your view, your sensibilities, and others will see what they want. Stalemate, no solution, no resolution, just both sides entrenched and desperate to prove the other side wrong. Do you really believe both sides aren't capable of lying or hiding the truth?

It's possible for there to be 2 sides and for them to be both right and wrong. It's not absolute like chemistry!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 12:48 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But no indication it was Hamas that started it.

I looked very carefully through the news reports. Many said the initial rockets were fired by 'extremists' and 'radicals'. But the ONLY sources claiming they were fired by Hamas were quoting ~~~ can you guess who ? (Hint: the name is Israeli officials.)

Not carefully enough, perhaps.

Oct 9, 2004.
"The offensive followed the killing of two Israeli children by a Hamas rocket in a border town on 29 September."
http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2004/10/200849141647838204.html

April 19, 2008
"The meeting on Friday is said to have addressed Hamas rocket attacks on Israel and prospects for the release of Palestinians held in Israeli jails.
"Carter suggested a truce and that Hamas should stop its rockets against Israel," Mohammed Nazzal, a Hamas leader, said after the five-hour meeting with the former president in Damascus."
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/04/20086142338166413
69.html

Nov. 05, 2008
"Hamas militants fired more than 35 rockets into Israel today, hours after the Israeli army killed six people in the Gaza Strip in the first major exchange of fire since a truce took effect in June.

The violence came after the Israeli army said its forces had uncovered a tunnel 250 metres inside Gaza that it said militants planned to use to abduct Israeli soldiers.

Israel launched airstrikes that killed five people and shot dead a gunman during an incursion into the enclave yesterday, saying it had done so after militants attacked soldiers who had gone to destroy the tunnel.

Israeli rescue services called the rocket barrage that followed, for which Hamas claimed responsibility, "massive"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians-e
gypt

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 1:38 PM

Geezer,

In that case, I am right, and Merriam-Webster is wrong. Keep looking, you will find that I am right. Since theological discussion is very common here, this is an item that I am in no doubt over. The Britannica can claim that a white tailed doe walks on two legs, but it will not win me over.

Since you like links, this one was easy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

The other matter, don't be an idiot. If I see something on TV, my ability to then locate it on the internet is no better than yours. My statement actually supports your case, and denies Hezbollah its victory over Israel, and thus defeats John's premise heading this thread. You argue against it because it is mine, not because of what it implies. It implies things in your favor. Yet, you are not unique, all of the pro-interventionists oppose me, because I oppose intervention.

I don't expect anyone to research my faith at all, but also, as I have no impetus to prostheletize, I have no reason to tell anyone either. But I should inform you that I cannot win an argument, or persuade others. It's not my function. I am here to gather knowledge, not to promote and propagate it. It's a core religious belief. So, I actually do not care whether you believe me or not. This is why I do not spend time researching to support my arguments. I have no interest in their success.

This may be contrary to your western thinking, but it's quite native to my own. When I stray from the path, I have no one to blame but myself, and sure, I sometimes do.

However, I'm not selfish with knowledge, and when I possess some which may help, I am always willing to share. That's an act of charity, not hostility. It does not mean that I am right, only that I state what I believe to be true, if it might help someone else.

I'm not saying these things to confound you or your argument, I'm saying them because they are true on a deep philosophical level. My enlightenment is my own journey and goal, which puts me in the face of adversity.

To steal from another thread: When I face down men with guns, unarmed, I am victorious, because I learn. If it were the reverse, and I were armed, and they not, I would learn nothing.

Apocrypha, from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφος meaning "hidden"

You are correct about the Webster entry. They, however, are incorrect.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 1:38 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Israel launched airstrikes that killed five people

Indeed they did, and they did so before any of this other stuff happened, you see...

They started bombing, Hamas started shooting, and then they bury the admission in such a way that no one will dare challenge it because of their perpetual victim status.

Not like it matters to the koolaid drinkers anyways.

While not fond of such folk as Hamas, WTF exactly are the Palestinians supposed to do, just roll over and die quietly as the Izzies push them into the sea while taking their land, bulldozing and torching their crops, and shuffling their people into ghettos and concentration camps ?

The current Gov't of Israel reminds me of a horribly abused child that grows up to be a horribly abusive parent - even repeating in form and function the exact abuse delivered unto them, and the rest of the world needs to grow a fucking set and tell them to get over it, cause it's no excuse to render that same genocidal hurt unto another people who didn't have much to do with it.

Even worse, folks talk about the antagonism between Arabs and Jews, but frankly that wasn't always the case - the Arabs historically had a long history of sheltering the Jews against Christian persecutions, and culturally take hospitality and sanctuary far more seriously than us westerners do, and so when the Irgun and other terrorists spat in their face and began to take their land, this guaranteed a blood-grudge over it, especially in light of the fact that useable land is a priceless commodity in the middle east, and the ONLY way to take it from someone else is to kill every living being on it.

Fucking hell folks, if someone rolled into my land, got some collective of other folk to supposedly legitimize it's theft, and then immediately struck out on a campaign of murder and terrorism against not only me, but even their so-called allies (Re: Lavon Incident, King David Hotel, etc) and had over thirty some years destroyed my country, culture, and left most of my people in concentration camps and ghettos, which they bombed on a regular basis on the flimsiest of pretexts, you can bet your ass I'd not want "peace" with the treacherous backstabbing murderers either.

Contrary to what the kool-aid drinkers are shovelled, cause they'll eat any shit shovelled by their petty tin propaganda gods...

People do not strap bombs to themselves and go die for glory, or hate, or zealotry, but rather, it is the death of hope that causes them to do this - when you take away a persons normal life, they'll fight you, in hopes of some day having it back... but if you take away even the HOPE of it, leave no option but death and misery, then what do they really have left but to take revenge as they leave a world so poisonous that it's left them no joy or hope at all ?

You see these guys carrying their dead wives and children after one of the arbitrary shellings or bombings used as collective punishment when Palestine isn't properly subservient ?
The next time you see em, they're gonna be packing an AK or a backpack fulla TNT, cause you done took everything they had away, and because of the nonstop bombing and shelling, left them with no hope whatever of anything but revenge.

No, Hamas ain't nice folk, they're downright murderous terrorist bastards, but what the hell do you expect when they're facing an evil, overpowering empire playing the victim card while the entire rest of the planet slobbers at their feet and gives them all the resources they need while offering you only sanction and boycott, eh ?

Believe me, they're *nice people* compared to what me and mine would do if put on the same situation.

And it sure doesn't help them damn Izzie bastards be any less offensive to me that my tax dollars are robbed from me at threat of violence/incarceration to finance their fucking genocidal hate campaign against everyone who isn't them, oh no it doesn't at all.

I ain't gonna tippytoe about it, I call em like I see em, and while they're both murderous bastards, one side lost any REASON to be about thirty years ago, so what *excuse* do they have for it, other than being evil pricks ?

How dare those Palestinians defend thier land and people against the chosen sons of god, right ?

Sometimes humanity disgusts me.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 1:55 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey Pizmo,

I understand that it has gotten to be like the Clampetts and McCoys and I'm not looking for who is ultimately responsible. B/c, if you believe such things, it would be Adam, or Eve, or the sperpent, or god, depending on how far back you want to go.

I'm just talking about THIS instance.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 2:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer

There was a truce between Hamas and Israel starting in June.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7459200.stm
Wednesday, 18 June 2008 05:43 UK Israel and Hamas 'agree truce'.

The truce was broken BY ISRAEL in November.
Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians

In the meantime Islamic Jihad (note: NOT Hamas) has claimed responsibility for various rocket attacks on Israel, including the ones in December that seemed to have sparked Israeli retaliation.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/21/content_10532867.htm
Islamic Jihad claims responsibility for rocket attacks on Israel

I stand by what I posted. "Many said the initial rockets were fired by 'extremists' and 'radicals'. But the ONLY sources claiming they were fired by Hamas were quoting ~~~ can you guess who ? (Hint: the name is Israeli officials.)"

And you apparently are merely interested in deception, which seems to be your stock in trade.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 2:14 PM

Frem,

You and I have a communication problem. Not with each other, but in general. We seem to feel an urgent driving need to fully explain ourselves. It wastes our own time more than anyone else's, as those stone walls we wish to move probably don't really read the posts.

I'm intersted in any insights you and anyone else have to say on this matter.

Observing the above, wouldn't

Quote:
While not fond of such folk as Hamas, WTF exactly are the Palestinians supposed to do, just roll over and die quietly as the Izzies push them into the sea while taking their land, bulldozing and torching their crops, and shuffling their people into ghettos and concentration camps ?

By itself, sort of say it all?

Rue, Some obscure beverly hillbillies ref I didn't get?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 2:16 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Geezer,

In that case, I am right, and Merriam-Webster is wrong.

All I needed to hear.

“When I use a word,” – said Humpty Dumpty, - “it means what I want it to mean.”

No chance of rational discussion with such a person. Have a nice delusion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 2:29 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Geezer,

In that case, I am right, and Merriam-Webster is wrong.

All I needed to hear.

“When I use a word,” – said Humpty Dumpty, - “it means what I want it to mean.”

No chance of rational discussion with such a person. Have a nice delusion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

My wife just walked in the house and thought I'd gone "Mad as a Hatter' because the first thing she heard was me alone laughing hysterically.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 2:31 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
By itself, sort of say it all?

It does, the rest of it's just venting so that folk who also feel that way but don't dare post know they're not alone.

Quote:
Rue, Some obscure beverly hillbillies ref I didn't get?

Naw, an actual hillbilly reference, only it was the Hatfields and the McCoys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield-McCoy_feud

<-Is a direct descendant of ole Devil hisself, so I know this stuff...

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 2:36 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I stand by what I posted. "Many said the initial rockets were fired by 'extremists' and 'radicals'. But the ONLY sources claiming they were fired by Hamas were quoting ~~~ can you guess who ? (Hint: the name is Israeli officials.)"

Rue, your Guardian cite includes the statement that "In Gaza, a Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, said the group had fired rockets out of Gaza as a "response to Israel's massive breach of the truce".

This "massive breach" wasn't in response to rockets, but reportedly to a Hamas tunnel potentially for use in kidnapping Israeli soldiers. If you'll read the entire Guardian article, you'll see:
"Israeli troops crossed into the Gaza Strip late last night near the town of Deir al-Balah. The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away. Four Israeli soldiers were injured in the operation, two moderately and two lightly, the military said.

One Hamas gunman was killed and Palestinians launched a volley of mortars at the Israeli military. An Israeli air strike then killed five more Hamas fighters. In response, Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel, one reaching the city of Ashkelon."
So Hamas, not 'extremists' or 'radicals', were the first to fire rockets at Israel in violation of the cease-fire.

Quote:
And you apparently are merely interested in deception, which seems to be your stock in trade.

You're the one claiming Hamas didn't fire any rockets, just 'extremists' or 'radicals'.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Show me that that it's Hamas. Then we can talk.

I've shown you it's Hamas, and all you do is resort to insult.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 2:41 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hey Pizmo,

I understand that it has gotten to be like the Clampetts and McCoys and I'm not looking for who is ultimately responsible. B/c, if you believe such things, it would be Adam, or Eve, or the sperpent, or god, depending on how far back you want to go.

I'm just talking about THIS instance.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Rue - I'm talking about this instance too. It's interwoven with so many other instances of violence though, from both sides, that how can you separate it?
If you get to the place where it's not about the individual conflict but about the history of both sides behaving badly you just might start chipping away at the possibility of finding a lasting resolution. At the very least you might uncover the darker intentions of one of the sides, "we can't compromise, genocide."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 2:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer

"... Israel's massive breach of the truce ..."

Which they did, and it was. "... after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory ..."

"The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away."

The Israeli government (and only the Israeli government) also said the round of rockets in this most recent flare-up came from Hamas. You can't take what the government says as fact. (In fact, those rockets came from Islamic Jihad.)

To have a point about what came first, second, third, and so on, you have to get your timelines in order. You've confused April with November by accusing Hamas of breaking a truce in November that didn't exist until June with rocket attacks in April; confused early November rocket attacks with late December ones; and so on. It doesn't help your argument.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 2:50 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away.

And I am supposed to believe this... why ?

Consider that Palestinians were using breaches blown in the border security of Egypt to smuggle food, water and medical supplies in pure desperate need not so very long ago, something that *should* offend anyone with a spark of humanity left, that they feel the need to risk their lives smuggling such mundane items as we take for granted...

And so I question the word of a source known to lie almost exclusively, concerning the tunnels purpose.

Common sense, Occams Razor, and this rationale falls instantly to pieces as just more self-justifying bullshit.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 3:01 PM

Frem

Quote:
Hatfields and the McCoys

I was of course aware of this, I was giving Rue the benefit of the doubt in case she was being too clever and I was missing it.

Quote:
GEEZER

“When I use a word,” – said Humpty Dumpty, - “it means what I want it to mean.”

This will make Geezer a completely impossible person to communicate.

The word is greek, borrowed from the greek, into english, from the greek "apocrypha," meaning "hidden." As I said. That's carved in stone, it's not an opinion.

Webster is not an infallible god. They are, in this case, wrong. Much of what is written by scholars and experts is wrong

A recent study proved that a year of undisciplined access to the internet was equal to a year of education. That's sobering.

Here's a factoid I posted recently elsewhere: Pfizer designed and manufactures Prozac, and details the chemistry of it in its literature, and on its website. They have the additional benefit of twenty years of study on the subject. They are the absolute experts on their own product, the undisputed kings of the keys to its secrets. They detail its chemistry, and mechanisms of action, withdrawal effects, contraindications, everything about the drug which is a multi-million if not billion dollar industry in itself. About the very nature, and the corresponding effects, they happen to be wrong. They were proven conclusively wrong by some Japanese scientists with no financial interest in the matter, and simply access to the chemical, and the internet.

I also mentioned earlier that I've watch harvard yale and princeton PhDs admit defeat in arguments on murine senescence forums to random villagers in Kenya with no education, but access to mice, and the internet.

You, gentlemen, are welcome to your ignorance. Enjoy it. I here it is bliss.

Everyone:

Notice the pile on effect. It always does a disservice to those who pile on. Kirkules was the fool to jump on this one. He was eager to join in Geezer's lack of knowledge of language.

To not know the word apocrypha is a handicap in genre fiction, as well as philosophic, theologic, and historic study. Self imposed, of course.

In slang terms, of course, the word has often been misused in the sense that Geezer has done. Of course, many people have refered to a monitor as a TV, or even a computer, it doesn't make them right.

I find it Ironic that there are people here who undoubtedly consider themselves educated, and yet are so ill-informed.

When I'm wrong, as you know, I freely admit it. Anyone could have looked up the word. In fact, everyone should look things up before posting, and definitely before arguing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 3:04 PM

Oh, and because you've done it 100s of times:
cite vs. site. get it right, also vs. rite, which I've also seen you do, to illiterate geezer is all

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 5, 2009 3:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh, before I go for good

Hatfields and McCoys - I got it scrambled but you got it anyway. All hail the power of the intelligent reader !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 3:44 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The Israeli government (and only the Israeli government) also said the round of rockets in this most recent flare-up came from Hamas. You can't take what the government says as fact. (In fact, those rockets came from Islamic Jihad.)

Once again, the Guardian article states:

"In Gaza, a Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, said the group had fired rockets out of Gaza as a "response to Israel's massive breach of the truce"."

I'm not trying to make this recent breach of the truce any one side's fault, since there's plenty of fault to go around. I'm just pointing out that, contrary to your assertions, Hamas fired rockets into Israel early in the conflict, and has stated such. Other articles I cited show that they have also fired rockets into Israel from Gaza in the past, up to at least five years ago, so it's not a new thing.

If you don't want to believe that Hamas fires rockets at israel, that's your choice, but it flies in the face of the organization's own statements.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 3:55 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away.

And I am supposed to believe this... why ?

I don't vouch for it's validity myself. It was just in the article I quoted to try to prove to Rue that Hamas fired rockets into Israel early in the recent conflict.

Either Hamas or the hawks in the Israeli government could have engineered the latest breach of the truce, since it's in both their perceived best interests to keep the pot boiling. If it wasn't for the innocent folk getting killed on both sides, I'd prefer that the world back off and let them grind each other to dust.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 4:18 AM

PIRATECAT

Israel has 100 percent right to protect their borders. Now when they go into Iran which will happen thats gonna be everybody's problem. Iran with their silkworm missiles will take out half the world's oil supply overnight. The tankers in the gulf will be lit up along with the refineries in Saudi. It will take less than thirty minutes after the first star of david flys over persia. Iran is a quasi empire exporting isalmic terrorism. So when WW3 comes persia will be no more they know this. So Iran better get on the phone and tell hamas to knock it off. Or China, Russia, and the USA will go in for their oil. Now I do think the frisco lib Robert Baer ex cia dude who has a book out now called the devil we know touches on this. Not that I agree with everything in it. So I am eating as much as I can in case we run out of food.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 5:53 AM

Not completely agreeing or disagreeing.

Israel's borders are a subject of much debate. It's true that no one thinks that they include Iran.

Iran will be very hard to defeat. I suspect they have an anti-missile system. I don't think they export terrorism, they do support Hezbollah, but it's not the same as Al Qaeda or even Hamas of yore.

It's not conspiracy theory to say that China and Russia will both back Iran. Both superpowers are very worried at the prospect of a western controlled central asia. China announced in 2001, very publically that it would defend Iran if she were attacked. They stopped short of saying that they would send chinese troops, or provide nuclear missiles to Iran, but I suspect the Iranians already have the nukes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 5:58 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:

The truce was broken BY ISRAEL in November.
Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians

You don't consider a 250m tunnel going into israel, designed to capture israeli soldiers an act of agression?

It's true though, Israel's attack on this tunnel really kicked things off, numerous rocket and mortar attacks on israel in the weeks following, and occasional Israeli retalliations of course. One can see a real lull and slowdown in hostilities in the months before this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Isra
el_in_2008

See the month of october - only one rocket fired into israel with no civilian injuries or deaths.

But then israel kills 6 hamas fighters (arguably engaged in an act of war), and hundreds of rocket attacks on israel ensue. You still accredit no complicity to hamas in these attacks rue?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 6:17 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"You still accredit no complicity to hamas in these attacks rue?"

No.

Or if that's not clear enough - not in the least.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 6:23 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer

You can't accuse Hamas of breaking a truce in April when it didn't exist until June. Furthermore, the truce agreed to in June was broken in BY ISRAEL, which is a fact. Finally, Israel is not claiming they are responding to what happened in April, which makes that a moot point.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 6:56 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

You can't accuse Hamas of breaking a truce in April when it didn't exist until June.

But I'm not, just noting that Hamas has fired rockets into Israel prior to the June truce. I don't particularly care who broke the truce, since both sides have broken truces at will, and will probably continue to do so.

I'm saying that Hamas started firing rockets into Israel early in the latest conflict. I have provided a quote by a Hamas spokesman verifying this, which should make it pretty much indisputable. For some reason you continue to ignore this statement and insist that Hamas has fired no rockets.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You still accredit no complicity to hamas in these attacks rue?"

No.

Or if that's not clear enough - not in the least.

"In Gaza, a Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, said the group had fired rockets out of Gaza as a "response to Israel's massive breach of the truce"."

Do you not believe the Hamas spokesman?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:00 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer - the question is who broke the truce. The answer was that it was Israel. What happened before the truce was in place, or after Israel broke it is not the issue.

Hamas is allowed to defend itself from Israeli aggression.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:01 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You still accredit no complicity to hamas in these attacks rue?"

No.

Or if that's not clear enough - not in the least.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

I am very surprised by that - that seems more "Rueptor" than Rue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Rue - I'm talking about this instance too. It's interwoven with so many other instances of violence though, from both sides, that how can you separate it?"

In the question of international response, one has to make determinations. There was a truce in place. Israel broke it. Hamas responded to that breach. Israel cannot NOW claim self-defense, b/c, as childish as this sounds, they started it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:10 AM

RIVERLOVE

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hamas is allowed to defend itself from Israeli aggression.

It's only January 6th, but RUE has already secured the MOST USEFUL IDIOT OF THE YEAR award with that comment. Admit it, yer just a good ole' fashioned Jew Hater...right? Swappin e-mails with Mel Gibson much lately?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:12 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I don't hate Jews. I don't hate Palestinians.

Israel broke the truce. That is aggression. Deal with it. Or not. I really don't care about you or what you think.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:13 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer - the question is who broke the truce. The answer was that it was Israel. What happened before the truce was in place, or after Israel broke it is not the issue.

Hamas is allowed to defend itself from Israeli aggression.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Let me ask again:

You don't consider a 250m tunnel going into israel, designed to capture israeli soldiers an act of agression?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:17 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hamas is allowed to defend itself from Israeli aggression.

And evidently allowed to attack Israel with no repercussions, because anytime they attack Israel, it’s not Hamas, just someone else. That’s a pretty big advantage you’ve given to Hamas.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:27 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... a 250m tunnel going into israel, designed to capture israeli soldiers ..."

That is an assumption put forth by Israel as justification for their actions, not a fact.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... because anytime they attack Israel, it’s not Hamas, just someone else ..."

When someone else claims responsibility, the blame should not go to Hamas.

In this case, Hamas did not break the truce. Nor did they fire any rockets or mortars until AFTER Israel broke the truce.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:32 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
When someone else claims responsibility, the blame should not go to Hamas.

In this case, Hamas did not break the truce. Nor did they fire any rockets or mortars until AFTER Israel broke the truce.

Of course, rue. Hamas is warm and fuzzy. They could never be responsible for any action that would put Jews in danger.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:33 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Of course, rue. Hamas is warm and fuzzy. They could never be responsible for any action that would put Jews in danger."

I never posted that.

If you would actually read what I post instead of arguing with the voices in your head, it would be very helpful.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:39 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Of course, rue. Hamas is warm and fuzzy. They could never be responsible for any action that would put Jews in danger."

I never posted that.

If you would actually read what I post instead of arguing with the voices in your head, it would be very helpful.

If Hamas fires missile into Isreal, it’s someone else, not Hamas. Hamas isn’t even responsible as the government of the Gaza Strip. This is your argument. This is what you have posted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:41 AM

RIVERLOVE

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Israel broke the truce. That is aggression. Deal with it. Or not. I really don't care about you or what you think.

You care. Of course you care, why else do you rush to answer me? You actually care very much, it's just that your head is all fucked up. You're usually a pretty smart person, but on this you're embarrassing yourself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:43 AM