Hamas, Fatah slam Obama - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

TheLastBoyScout · #31 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

I would vote for Ralph Nader if I were looking for a candidate who is serious about bringing peace to Palestine...

I was unaware of Nader's progressive position on the ISR/PAL issue.

Perhaps then, it would be more productive for Hamas, Fatah, and Palestinian advocates to sing Nader's praises instead of decrying Obama's non-unique stance.

Frank · #32 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

I was unaware of Nader's progressive position on the ISR/PAL issue.

Perhaps then, it would be more productive for Hamas, Fatah, and Palestinian advocates to sing Nader's praises instead of decrying Obama's non-unique stance.

If they wanted him to win the election; publicly singing his praises is the last thing they would do...

underboss · #33 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny

My thoughts exactly. You don't waltz into AIPAC and say "we are gonna give East Jereusalem to the Palestinians". Thats political suicide.

With all respect, I think you can. It is called being a person of integrity - which Obama clearly has none - he's sold his soul to AIPAC.

Standing up for the right thing takes courage - Obama has none.

What is he afraid of?

What is losing an election or a nomination in front of standing up to what is right? It is a small price to pay for telling the truth.

Obama's a sham....

Ash · #34 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by underboss

What is losing an election or a nomination in front of standing up to what is right?

Unfortunately, almost all politicians pale in comparison when put up next to Dr. Paul's integrity and honesty.

TheLastBoyScout · #35 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

If they wanted him to win the election; publicly singing his praises is the last thing they would do...

If Hamas' praise can be so easily dismissed, then so can their scrutiny.

I suppose I would revise my statement to encourage non-terrorist entities to voice their support for Nader if they want to contribute to Palestinian welfare.

Jason Marcel · #36 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash

Unfortunately, almost all politicians pale in comparison when put up next to Dr. Paul's integrity and honesty.

Ditto. He's the only candidate who spoke the truth on this sitch. Too bad we don't want honesty anymore.

O'Sullivan Bere · #37 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by underboss

Check your facts - it was Israel that attacked Egypt. Today is the 41st anniversary of that attack.

I did. Form over substance often leads to a materially misleading half-truth. Here is what happened:

Quote:

. . . In May 1967, Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula, which had been stationed there since 1957 (following the 1956 Sinai invasion to allow for a free Suez Canal) to provide a peace-keeping buffer zone. In reaction to Israeli-Syrian tensions, Egypt amassed 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, and called for unified Arab action against Israel.[4] In response, on June 5, 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack[5] against Egypt's airforce. . . .

Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Egypt was the aggressor; Israel had no obligation to allow Egypt to inflict its blow--a ganging up punch actually. If one pulls out a knife or gun with the intent to use it, you can shoot pre-emptively in self-defence and the aggressor is blamed for the defensive action.

moon · #38 (**permalink**) 06-06-2008

O'Sullivan Bere;

Quote:

Egypt was the aggressor;

Clearly not;

Quote:

Israel launched a pre-emptive attack[5] against Egypt's airforce. . .

Pre-emption is aggression. The Arabs did not initiate hostilities.
What made Egypt prepare for 'war' ? Was it the aroma of peaceful kibbutz barbeques wafting over the border ?

Hamas and Fatah are preparing to restore internal relations in the face of Abbas's betrayal by his , perceived, Western friends. This betrayal must be all the more evident to even the crawliest of collaborators following Obama's disgraceful rejections of international law yesterday. I believe that Obama is a fully active participant in US plans to control the Middle East permanently, for strategic purposes of war, for the purposes of resource domination, for the furtherment of Zionist ethnic-cleansing doctrine and now for a continuation of the cultural war begun by Guantanamo George. There is no escape for Americans wanting to avoid such a future by means of democracy. All roads of candidature lead to war and American separatism.

Quote:

The intrepid Patrick Cockburn reveals that the White House is more or less blackmailing the Iraqi government into signing a security pact with George W. Bush. At stake is $50 bn. of Iraqi money held in the US Federal Reserve, at least $20 bn. of which could be lost to Iraq if the government of Nuri al-Maliki declines to sign on the dotted line. Cockburn also reveals that the Iraqis wanted to diversify their receipts from oil sales away from dollar holdings into euros, and that the Americans vetoed the move. Bush wants 50 bases in Iraq and the prerogative of the US military to act unilaterally and with impunity inside the country.

http://www.juancole.com/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...al-841407.html

The Oil Bill and permanent military bases are essential tools for pressing a war with Iran, and countries beyond. There is absolutely no intention of brokering any Middle East deals, particularly with Palestine, which might lead to any sort of peace. Peace is the enemy of Zionism and the Zionists are required as war allies.

moon · #39 (**permalink**) 06-07-2008

Quote:

Barack Obama has appeared to soften comments he made on Jerusalem that provoked a wave of anger among Arabs.

The presumptive US Democratic presidential nominee had said during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Council (Aipac), a pro-Israeli US lobby group, Jerusalem "will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided".

But he later told CNN, the US broadcast network, that the Israelis and Palestinians had to negotiate over the future of the city.

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said on Thursday.

Israel has occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem since the 1967 war, a move considered illegal under international law.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...0CEE4DC884.htm

Clearly a hypocrite, a disseminator of lies, an employer of double standards, an aristocrat of inconsistency. America deserves a better President and McCain ain't it.

MattLarson · #40 (**permalink**) 06-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by moon

Clearly a hypocrite, a disseminator of lies, an employer of double standards, an aristocrat of inconsistency. America deserves a better President and McCain ain't it.

You do realize the article you linked was about Obama (as is the thread), not McCain?

Matt

moon · #41 (**permalink**) 06-07-2008

You do realise that such a question displays a total lack of thread comprehension, do you not ?

MattLarson · #42 (**permalink**) 06-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by moon

You do realise that such a question displays a total lack of thread comprehension, do you not ?

Why not just admit it was a typo? I guess that would deprive you of an opportunity to imply an insult, though.

Matt

Rakkasan · #43 (**permalink**) 06-07-2008

goods for obama although he like all presidential candidates will say what the people want to hear, in the end we will see if he goes into appease mode when he takes office.