Amazing Vid! George Galloway takes on the right wing media (Middle East Issues)

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Craig234
That's not my understanding of the deal that was offered, and Arafat did provide a reason as I recall.

What was it then?

The movie obsession - well, right-wingers seem to be praising it as the movie that finally demonizes the enemy du jour the way they like, sort of 'Birth of Nations' for the muslims.

You can tell a lot by the two big headlines on the site bragging 'Obsession on Fox!' and 'Obsession on Rush Limbaugh!'

Excellent catch -- if Limbaugh endoresed McDonnald, would you boycott them as well?

That sort of moronic observation only shows that you have no interest in watching it, and it is worth watching just for the sake of raw footage where you see the prime minister saying exactly why Arafat didn't accept the deal. You also denied yourself footage Arafat being questioned by a reported in Greece regarding money sent from the USA for children summer camps, which turned out to be paramilitary training camps for 6-year olds.

Nope, it's fine, don't watch, just because "right-wingers" praise it.

(p.s. for the record, I think that Limbaugh is full of hot air)

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It's a huge list of personalized deaths, exactly what you asked for. But if you want a more recent example then just wait for the next attack on Israel and you'll see stories giving the names of the dead and explaining what they did during their lives as we as who survives them.

Writing anything afte the fact doesn't make much difference; expample: the circus in Qana shifted opinion, or at the very least gave the mallable European politician a reason to call for cease fire.

I contest that writing about the personal details of those people and Qana would have had public opinion calling for more than a cease fire, people would be calling for Halutz in front of the Hauge at the very least.

Originally posted by: dna

Yes I have seen Obsession, twice. What I haven't seen is Israel ever offer the Palestinians a fair two state solution, so it isn't hard to imagine why Arafat would have turned down the deal and be left feeling the only option was to fight.

You can't really ask for a "fair solution" while you have the destruction of Israel in your charter, can you? And you left out all the propaganda, and brainwashing their doing to their children (did you fastforward that part?)

I watched the movie in full both times. Yes I saw that, and I've know about all of what you mention there long before seeing the movie. Again, what Obsession leaves is the oppression the Palestinian people are born into.

Originally posted by: dna

The video doesn't claim the curfew or demolitions came before the terror attacks

No, but it was implied, as the narrator said that "this has led to such anger in some Palestinian that they turned themselves into human bombs" (not word for word).

She said 'this' speaking of the events all the way back to the British Mandate of Palestine in 1922, and children of Palestine grow up under than continuing oppression inflicted by Israel over decades of occupation.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I contest that writing about the personal details of those people and Qana would have had public opinion calling for more than a cease fire, people would be calling for Halutz in front of the Hauge at the very least.

Yeah, comparing a baby beautifully propped up for the cameras appearing on the front page a day after the event, with an editorial some months after the fact -- that's really smart. You know very well that timing play a huge role, right along with placement on the front page.

I watched the movie in full both times. Yes I saw that, and I've know about all of what you mention there long before seeing the movie. Again, what Obsession leaves is the oppression the Palestinian people are born into.
...
She said 'this' speaking of the events all the way back to the British Mandate of Palestine in 1922, and children of Palestine grow up under than continuing oppression inflicted by Israel over decades of occupation.

1922? That's a joke! Why not go all the way back to the first Zionist Congress in 1897?
Besides, what about the centuries of occupation by the Ottoman empire? Shouldn't they be mad at turkey for that?

Anyway, that's just baloney -- a sensational video clip overlaying that women's speech with a bunch of clips, and mixed with some music. Additionally, what does she know about how the suicide bombers operate? Another clueless person making a speech about something they don't know anything about.

I've just stumbled over this interesting piece about suicide bombers, it's a good read, and here's a good quote:

Once the recruiter finds someone who seems like a good candidate, an extensive background check may be carried out. They want to be sure that the person will meet their specific criteria for a suicide terrorist. Furthermore, they want to be sure that they will be physically and mentally reliable to carry out the gruesome task.

Suicide bombing is not a personal outburst of anger, otherwise you'd have plenty of poor people blowing themselves up in the USA, UK, or any other devleoped nation. In order to commit suicide bombing you have to cross the suicide threshold, and for some people that might take years; what the palestinians have done is to create a process which makes crossing the threshold a lot easier; in fact, one could argue they have perfected the process. I recall hearing reports of Israeli soldiers finding books with lists of children -- a catalog, if you will -- which contained information on how likely of a candidate they were to be a suicide bomber.

Got any more nonsensical, sensationalistic clips?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I contest that writing about the personal details of those people and Qana would have had public opinion calling for more than a cease fire, people would be calling for Halutz in front of the Hauge at the very least.

Yeah, comparing a baby beautifully propped up for the cameras appearing on the front page a day after the event, with an editorial some months after the fact -- that's really smart. You know very well that timing play a huge role, right along with placement on the front page.

I watched the movie in full both times. Yes I saw that, and I've know about all of what you mention there long before seeing the movie. Again, what Obsession leaves is the oppression the Palestinian people are born into.
...
She said 'this' speaking of the events all the way back to the British Mandate of Palestine in 1922, and children of Palestine grow up under than continuing oppression inflicted by Israel over decades of occupation.

1922? That's a joke! Why not go all the way back to the first Zionist Congress in 1897?/

We can go as far back as you like, but the fact remains that her "this" referred back to the Palestinian Mandated which mentioned at the begining of that portion of her speech.

Originally posted by: dna
Besides, what about the centuries of occupation by the Ottoman empire? Shouldn't they be mad at turkey for that?

Why would you expect them to be angry over a long past occupation over the one they currently sufffer though?

Originally posted by: dna
Anyway, that's just baloney -- a sensational video clip overlaying that women's speech with a bunch of clips, and mixed with some music. Additionally, what does she know about how the suicide bombers operate? Another clueless person making a speech about something they don't know anything about.

She knows about what the people that made that Obsession movie know about as well but don't bother to talk about but instead like to pretend that our oppression of others does not provoke violent responses.

As for suicide bombers, I recently read about a study on that subject:

Researching my book, which covered all 462 suicide bombings around the globe, I had colleagues scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and biographies of the Hizbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. We were shocked to find that only eight were Islamic fundamentalists; 27 were from leftist political groups such as the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union; three were Christians, including a female secondary school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.

...

There is not the close connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism that many people think. Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist campaigns have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1838199,00.html

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
We can go as far back as you like, but the fact remains that her "this" referred back to the Palestinian Mandated which mentioned at the begining of that portion of her speech.
...
Why would you expect them to be angry over a long past occupation over the one they currently sufffer though?

For the same reason you're blaming the "Israel" for an occupation by the Brits. It's just as convenient to deflect blame to the Ottoman empire.

As for suicide bombers, I recently read about a study on that subject:

And your point is?
There plenty of people that for some reason or another aren't satisfied with their life, thinking that it is meaningless. They are quite malleable in this state, and someone can give them a "calling", which in this case is a suicide bombing mission. HIgher education doesn't shield you from depression, nor does fame and money.

Also, there are plenty of morons in this, like people in the US or UK who are supporting Hezbollah, yet ignore calls by Nasrallah of "Death to America". Their Political Correctness doesn't allow them to see that they are in fact in the crosshairs of these fanatics.

Also, you keep talking about "our opression"; I don't know who you've been opressing lately, but you're definitely ignoring opression in the Arab states themselves. israel is primarily a scapegoat to the neighboring nations, as well as those far away -- have you ever wondered what gripe people in Indonesia have with Israel? Nothing! However, it is a convenient scapegoat for goverments, and way for ambitious clerics to cement their power among the ignorant masses.

 

[imported_dna]

And speaking of opression, here a quote from Khaled Al-Azm, Syria's prime minister after the 1948 war:

?Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees ? while it is we who made them leave?. We brought disaster upon ? Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave?. We have rendered them dispossessed?. We have accustomed them to begging?. We have participated in lowering their moral and social level?. Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ? men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes ?.? - Khaled Al-Azm, Memoirs [Arabic), 3 vols. (AI-Dar al Muttahida Id-Nashr, 1972), vol. 1, pp. 386-87

Just another proof these people were used then, were used by Arafat to line his pockets, and are used these days by Hamas and Hezbollah to justify all their actions. To them, a good Palestinian is a poor, desperate Palestinian, which will attract the world's attention and pity.

 

[LumbergTech]

i can understand the difference in opinion over hezbollah....but to me this seems to have already fostered a more in depth discussion about this issue...

I do think that many of the points the man made are true, i dont trust anyone personally...so im sure he has his own biases as well..but

a decent amount of his points were true, its as if certain countries are evil and others are somehow purely innocent, we need solutions that give everyone what they want, if hezbollah will be destroyed ultimately it must be by reasonable interaction between these countries so that the people will not support hezbollah in the first place..they must be isolated politically and the people must see that they dont necessarily need them

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
We can go as far back as you like, but the fact remains that her "this" referred back to the Palestinian Mandated which mentioned at the begining of that portion of her speech.
...
Why would you expect them to be angry over a long past occupation over the one they currently sufffer though?

For the same reason you're blaming the "Israel" for an occupation by the Brits. It's just as convenient to deflect blame to the Ottoman empire.

There is nothing convenient about the occupation Israel continues to suffer upon Palestine.

Originally posted by: dna

As for suicide bombers, I recently read about a study on that subject:

And your point is?

Occupation provokes terrorism, and many of you who like talking about how evil the Muslims are would surely be shouting 'death to America' if you were born into the other side of this.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: Czar
palestinians would have had
- no control over their water supply
- no control over their borders
- no control over their airspace
- no sollution to the refugee problem
- annexation of all major settlements

basicly it would have been very little from what they have now, not really fair now is it, read up on the subject untill next time

Nor would they have had any of those rights under the rule of Jordan or Egypt.

Also, I doubt there is any water supply in the West Bank, and you can hardly expect them to get control over borders and airspace right from the start, not after the spike in terrorist attacks after they received some control after the agreement in the mid 90s.

Furthermore, what about the refugee problem? Are there any "refugees" left since 1948? That's almost 60 years ago, and you can't expect me to believe that they hadn't settled down by now.

Also, most of the blame (if not all) lies on the neighboring states which initiated the war in 1948; it's not as if Israel kicked them out -- they fled because their firends ultimately lost the war. In sports you'd get labeled as a "bad loser" if you were to exhibit such behaviour.

If after 60 years some of them still live as refugees in tents, then I'd say it's because one of these two reasons:
(1) The have serious personal issues, and can't move on.
(2) They are kept in abject poverty by the powers at be, for the political, and monetary gain

Since I doubt those people are invalids, I'll go with #2. Read about the corruption, and watch the end of this interview where she talks about the PA.

shows the little you know
http://www.arij.org/pub/w-policy/w-policy.htm

Palestinian entitlements for water include the underground water of the West Bank and Gaza aquifers and their rightful shares in the waters of the Jordan River as riparian. However, at present, Israel is utilizing 85 % of the water from the Palestinian groundwater aquifers, and Palestinians are denied access to the waters of the Jordan River. This policy led to a severe water crisis in the Palestinian territory in general and the Gaza Strip in particular.

borders and airspace from the start yes maybe, but that offer barak made was a final offer, there were to be no further talks about anything

about the refugees, its not just the 1948 war but also the 1967 war, it doesnt matter if they have settled down or not, they are entitled the right to return to their homes after the conflict is over under international law.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
There is nothing convenient about the occupation Israel continues to suffer upon Palestine.
...
Occupation provokes terrorism, and many of you who like talking about how evil the Muslims are would surely be shouting 'death to America' if you were born into the other side of this.

Please do tell me about the the "other side" that muslims in Indonesia are experiencing, and how they are opressed by the USA and Israel.

As for as your theory that opression begets terrorism -- the PLO was formed in 1964 from armed anti-Israeli groups with the intention of destroying Israel. Unless you want to revert to the 1922 bullcrap, there's no way you can argue they were "opressed" during the pre-1967 area, when Egypt & Jordan were in control, so you have to wonder where that terror sprung from.

Here's a list of terror attacks pre-1967. I can hardly wait to justify those.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Czar
shows the little you know
http://www.arij.org/pub/w-policy/w-policy.htm

Alright, I'll admit ignorance on this one, however...

borders and airspace from the start yes maybe, but that offer barak made was a final offer, there were to be no further talks about anything

...you don't yield control of any crucial resource to someone who still attacks you, even after you agree to work towards an agreement (Oslo was in 1993). Furthermore, you should know by now that nothing is final in the Middle East, example: Israel returned Sinai, even though it could have served as a buffer zone between it and Egypt.

about the refugees, its not just the 1948 war but also the 1967 war, it doesnt matter if they have settled down or not, they are entitled the right to return to their homes after the conflict is over under international law.

I just love it when hypocrites refer to International Law -- Israel has to respect International Law, while the Arabs never had to recognize the partition plan, and can keep on advocating the destruction of Israel. Yeah, right, Israel will allow return of these "refugees" (more like militants in disguise) when pigs fly.

Here's the quote from Khaled al-Azm again, since you must have missed it:

?Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees ? while it is we who made them leave?. We brought disaster upon ? Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave?. We have rendered them dispossessed?. We have accustomed them to begging?. We have participated in lowering their moral and social level?. Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ? men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes ?.? - Khaled Al-Azm, Memoirs [Arabic), 3 vols. (AI-Dar al Muttahida Id-Nashr, 1972), vol. 1, pp. 386-87

It's time the neighboring coutries owned up to their large part in creating the problem.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
There is nothing convenient about the occupation Israel continues to suffer upon Palestine.
...
Occupation provokes terrorism, and many of you who like talking about how evil the Muslims are would surely be shouting 'death to America' if you were born into the other side of this.

Please do tell me about the the "other side" that muslims in Indonesia are experiencing, and how they are opressed by the USA and Israel.

Here is a CBC report which shows exactly that on an personal level, and it also explains why we don't hear about such things often:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

Originally posted by: dna
As for as your theory that opression begets terrorism -- the PLO was formed in 1964 from armed anti-Israeli groups with the intention of destroying Israel. Unless you want to revert to the 1922 bullcrap, there's no way you can argue they were "opressed" during the pre-1967 area, when Egypt & Jordan were in control, so you have to wonder where that terror sprung from.

Here's a list of terror attacks pre-1967. I can hardly wait to justify those.

There is no reason to justify terrorism now or four decades ago, but the Palestinian refugees were certainly oppressed by Israel's denial of their right to return to their homes, and the oppression inflicted upon Palestinians born since then has gotten far worse with continuing occupation and commandeering of Palestinian land.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: Czar
shows the little you know
http://www.arij.org/pub/w-policy/w-policy.htm

Alright, I'll admit ignorance on this one, however...

borders and airspace from the start yes maybe, but that offer barak made was a final offer, there were to be no further talks about anything

...you don't yield control of any crucial resource to someone who still attacks you, even after you agree to work towards an agreement (Oslo was in 1993).

Yet the vast majorty of the of those "someone"s having their rightful resorces witheld have not attacking anyone.

Originally posted by: dna

about the refugees, its not just the 1948 war but also the 1967 war, it doesnt matter if they have settled down or not, they are entitled the right to return to their homes after the conflict is over under international law.

I just love it when hypocrites refer to International Law -- Israel has to respect International Law, while the Arabs never had to recognize the partition plan, and can keep on advocating the destruction of Israel. Yeah, right, Israel will allow return of these "refugees" (more like militants in disguise) when pigs fly.

The Arab nations aren't occuping Israeli land, and actions speak louder than words, one such action being Israel's decades long violation of the refugees' rights or the ongoing occupation of Palestine.

Originally posted by: dna
Here's the quote from Khaled al-Azm again, since you must have missed it:

?Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees ? while it is we who made them leave?. We brought disaster upon ? Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave?. We have rendered them dispossessed?. We have accustomed them to begging?. We have participated in lowering their moral and social level?. Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ? men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes ?.? - Khaled Al-Azm, Memoirs [Arabic), 3 vols. (AI-Dar al Muttahida Id-Nashr, 1972), vol. 1, pp. 386-87

It's time the neighboring coutries owned up to their large part in creating the problem.

Even overlooking the extensive abriging in that comment, 'look they did wrong' does nothing to justify the wrongs Israel conteues to infict upon the Palestinian people.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Here is a CBC report which shows exactly that on an personal level, and it also explains why we don't hear about such things often:

I see you didn't read it the first time, so let's try it again -- give me something regarding the opression of muslims in Indonesia, done by Israel or the US.

There is no reason to justify terrorism now or four decades ago, but the Palestinian refugees were certainly oppressed by Israel's denial of their right to return to their homes, and the oppression inflicted upon Palestinians born since then has gotten far worse with continuing occupation and commandeering of Palestinian land.

No reason to justify, yet you do in the same paragraph. Also, oppression is defined as "To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny", so Israel could not have oppressed anyone who fled to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, etc.

If you want to read about oppression, then read some more on Arafat's billions; that money could've went a long way in Gaza and the West Bank, but then again -- poor, desperate people are much more malleable.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
The Arab nations aren't occuping Israeli land, and actions speak louder than words, one such action being Israel's decades long violation of the refugees' rights or the ongoing occupation of Palestine.
...
Even overlooking the extensive abriging in that comment, 'look they did wrong' does nothing to justify the wrongs Israel conteues to infict upon the Palestinian people.

Marvelous! "actions speak louder than words" -- so the assault in 1948 by Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Iraq doesn't constitute as action in your little world, does it?

I just can't wait for your reply saying that the Jews were oppressing the poor Palestinians right after the Partition Plan was approved.

And don't worry, if I find an unabridged version of the source, you can be sure I'll post it here.

 

[blackllotus]

70% of the people who voted in the poll believe that Galloway is correct. Galloway believes Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. Does this mean that 70% of the voters also believe that (I hope not)?

 

[firewall]

Yes. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

 

[Extelleron]

Well, it provided a few minutes of hilarious video......

But other than that, bothering to listen to that video is the biggest waste of time I've suffered in a long time.

 

[imported_dna]

I found a page with lots of good info about the refugee issue; here's a quote:

The Arab League forbade any Arab country from accepting these refugees or settling them in normal housing, preferring to leave them in squalid camps. Former UNRWA Director Ralph Galloway stated in 1958: "The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die."

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: firewall
Yes. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Two possible views is not the same as two valid views. Yes, "validity" is debatable, however I am surprised that 65% of those polled can honestly classify an organization that fills weapons with metal balls with the sole intent of harming civilians as "freedom fighters". I hope one of the people who actually voted "yes" can explain this to me, and not respond with some stupid ass remark about Israel targeting civilians as well.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Here is a CBC report which shows exactly that on an personal level, and it also explains why we don't hear about such things often:

I see you didn't read it the first time, so let's try it again -- give me something regarding the opression of muslims in Indonesia, done by Israel or the US.

The oppression of being powerless to save their fellow Muslims from all Israel and the US puts them though, such as what is shown in that video I linked.

Originally posted by: dna

There is no reason to justify terrorism now or four decades ago, but the Palestinian refugees were certainly oppressed by Israel's denial of their right to return to their homes, and the oppression inflicted upon Palestinians born since then has gotten far worse with continuing occupation and commandeering of Palestinian land.

No reason to justify, yet you do in the same paragraph. Also, oppression is defined as "To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny", so Israel could not have oppressed anyone who fled to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, etc.

Try looking up justification and note that I never did anything of the sort. I don't justify ever turning to violence to solve problems, but that does nothing to stop me from respecting the legitimate grievances of those who do. And yes, denying the right of refugees to return is done by severe and unjust use of force and authority.

Originally posted by: dna
If you want to read about oppression, then read some more on Arafat's billions; that money could've went a long way in Gaza and the West Bank, but then again -- poor, desperate people are much more malleable.

That doesn't make the oppression Israel inflicts on the Palestinians less unjust.

Originally posted by: dna
Marvelous! "actions speak louder than words" -- so the assault in 1948 by Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Iraq doesn't constitute as action in your little world, does it?

It constitutes six decades old action, while Israels oppression of the Palestinians continues today.

Originally posted by: dna
I just can't wait for your reply saying that the Jews were oppressing the poor Palestinians right after the Partition Plan was approved.

Not "the Jews" but the Zionists who displaced that native population.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
The oppression of being powerless to save their fellow Muslims from all Israel and the US puts them though, such as what is shown in that video I linked.

Funny, they don't seem to have the same concern for those in Iraq who are apparently slaughtering each other, on a daily basis, and in numbers that rival anything that Israel could ever do. Incidently, I don't think that they had any problem when Saddam was in charge, and was taking good "care" of his Shiite "friends".

And yes, denying the right of refugees to return is done by severe and unjust use of force and authority.

Right of return? There is no such thing buddy. Read resolution 194, and you'll see that it does not stipulate of any right, but merely recommends/urgest to resolve the matter. Furthermore, you seem to be forgeting about the Jewish refugees from the Arab countries. The numbers of both groups are roughly the same, so lets call it even.

That doesn't make the oppression Israel inflicts on the Palestinians less unjust.
...
It constitutes six decades old action, while Israels oppression of the Palestinians continues today.

Do you get some sort of a preverted pleasure from the word oppression? You keep using it over and over.

The real oppression is that even after 10 years of control by the PA and billions of dollars, there are still refugee camps in the Gaza strip. Keeping your own people in suqalor -- now that's oppression.

By the way, I must commend you on how avidly you sidestep the corruption issue; no matter what the facts are, it is always Israel's fault. It is almost as if the Palestinian are unable to do anything on their own.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dna
Do you get some sort of a preverted pleasure from the word oppression?

Not at all, I would gladly stop using it the moment you and others stop supporting it.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Not at all, I would gladly stop using it the moment you and others stop supporting it.

There, I stopped.

 

[buggati]

What we need is someone like Malcom X to put an end to the opression.