Go Israel

Excellent article.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Being the wonderful, kind person that I am ... I'm always willing to help the unfortunate among us.

You have a great deal of difficulty with reading comprehension ... and a very poor memory ... so I'll do the best I can to assist you.

At 8:47pm last night ... that's about 18 hours ago ... I posted extensive details about how ignorant and self-humiliating your posts were (Post #104 on this thread).

At 9:01pm ... you posted again ... but completely avoided any response to what I had posted ... but ... you did say you would respond point-by-point (Post #106).

But ... at 9:27pm ... I told you ... and the world ... right to your face ... that you neither had the fortitude, knowledge, or skills to reply (Post #109). And ... as always ... I was right ... in the nearly 18 hours since ... you haven't replied.

Perhaps you thought everyone else forgot ... or more likely ... given your poor cerebral functions ... you forgot.

But again ... just to show you what a nice guy I am ... I'll repost it now ... and give you one more chance. Do you understand that? You're supposed to read the following words ... and respond to them point-by-point ... just as you said you would 18 hours ago. The post was originally addressed to Dalakhani ... but the person who is referred to as "your boy" is you. Do you really understand that? [Why am I still convinced that he doesn't?]

OK ... here goes ...

"You seem to think that your boy is doing well ... so .. let's look at his record so far on this thread ---

• Says people in small countries are sub-human ... gets slapped down.
• Thinks the Star of David is a religious symbol ... gets humiliated.
• Thinks a country's success depends on "oil" and "minerals" ... another slapdown.
• Doesn't know American values are stated in the Declaration and Constitution ... another humiliation.
• Confronts Dixie ... gets b-slapped.
• Doesn't know the Israeli war is part of the global war on terror ... blatant ignorance.
• Thinks all Israelis are orthodox Jews ... at least he was 10% right.
• Quotes Pat Buchanan ... at least it wasn't David Duke.
• Doesn't know who pays income taxes ... gets slapped down again.
• Thinks terrorists are "freedom fighters" ... still another slapdown.
• Forgot we liberated France, Belgium, and China ... hits the canvas more than Frazier vs. Foreman.
• Doesn't know Iraq has a democratically elected government ... more public ignorance.
• Says oil is "expensive" then says oil is "cheap" ... more self-humiliation.

Hmmm ... if the real Bold Ruler did as well as your boy ... he'd have been gelded and shipped to Nebraska."

Now ... this is your big chance to live up to what you said and respond point-by-point. Do you understand that? Good ... ready ... set .................... GO !!!

I already did in post #145. Do you need that in hebrew? Here the responses are. WHERE IS YOUR ANSWER TO THE TWO QUESTIONS? 1) ARE YOUR LOYALTIES TO AMERICA OR ISRAEL, when their interests don't go hand in hand?

2) ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF FREEING AN ISRAELI SPY LIKE JONATHAN POLLARD, A TRAITOR TO AMERICA, like many israelis?


1) I said the countries are insignifcant, no mention of the people. They are insignificant, nothing would change if they were there or weren't there.
2) American Values are not stated in the Constitution or Declaration. You are a simple minded idiot. There is no such thing as American Values. Why were there slaves and women with no rights for almost 100 years after the constitution and declaration if the "american values" you love to throw around existed.
3) I didn't say all Jews were Ortodox Jews, I just said the religious ones run that country
4) YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT INCOME TAXES. Stop believing everything Rush tells you.
5) Terrorists can be freedom fighters. George Washington was viewed as a terrorist and fought a war similar to what many "terrorist" groups are doing now.
6) I didn't forget who we liberated. I know significantly more about world history than you ever will know.
7) I am well aware Iraq has a democratically elected government, but it is a puppet government that can't even get its own military going after years of training. In WWII the US trained its soldiers in a matter of weeks, but the Iraqi's need years.
8) Oil is more expensive than it should be because of oil traders, but it is still cheaper than it should be in a fair market. You probably don't understand how pricing of oil works, but traders determine the price, based on supply and demand, but if the Arab countries wanted to they could get a ton more for their goods. Their dictators agree to keep the price low in exchange for the US protecting them from the masses.

There are your answers. Now you answer my questions about where your loyalty is and your view on a traitor from your country. I find it odd that a "friend" of the US seems to have an awful lot of spies caught spying on their "friend" the United States.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

I thought this was a fair and balanced article that summarizes where American tax dollars are going as well as offering something other than an uber-Zionist view of the MidEast.


by Jonathan Cook

July 22, 2006



The general surprise that Lebanese civilians are taking the brunt of Israel's onslaught – and the unwillingness in some quarters of the media to report the fact – reflects a poor understanding of Israel's historical use of violence. Since its birth six decades ago, Israel has always been officially "going after the terrorists," but its actions have invariably harmed civilians in an indiscriminate manner.



The roll call of dishonor is long indeed, but its highlights include: the massacre of some 200 civilians in Tantura, as well as large-scale massacres in at least a dozen other Palestinian villages, during the 1948 war that established Israel; Ariel Sharon's attack on the village of Qibya in 1953 that killed 70 innocent Palestinians; the Kfar Qassem massacre inside Israel when 49 farm workers were gunned down at an improvised army checkpoint; a massacre in the same year in the refugee camp of Khan Yunis, in Gaza, in which more than 250 civilians were killed; attacks on dozens of Palestinian, Egyptian and Syrian villages during the 1967 war; the killing of six unarmed Arab citizens of Israel in 1976; the massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in the Lebanese refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in 1982; the unremitting use of lethal force by the army against unarmed Palestinians, often women and children, during the first intifada of 1987-93; the aerial bombardment of Qana in south Lebanon in 1996 that killed more than 100 civilians; and the endless "collateral damage" of Palestinian civilians during the second intifada, including a half-ton bomb that killed a husband and wide and their seven children a week ago.



The true reasons for these deaths are concealed from credulous observers by Israel's use of Orwellian language. When it says it is destroying the "infrastructure of terror," Israel means it is crushing all Arab resistance to its territorial ambitions in the region. The "infrastructure" includes most Arab men, women and children because they continue to support – against Israel's wishes – their peoples' rights to self-determination without interference from the Israeli army.



In this sense, and others, there is very little difference between what Israel is doing in Gaza to overturn the democratic wishes of the Palestinian electorate and what it is doing in Lebanon to smash any hopes of a democratic future for its northern neighbor. In Gaza, it wants Hamas destroyed because Hamas is prepared to counter Israel's unilateral policies with its own unilateral agenda; and in Lebanon, Israel wants Hezbollah obliterated because it is the only force capable, possibly, of preventing a repeat of Israel's long invasion and occupation of the 1980s and 1990s.



By rounding up the Palestinian cabinet, Israel is not destroying terror, it is clipping the political wings of Hamas, those in its leadership who are quickly learning the arts of government and searching for a space in which they can negotiate with Israel. Through its rejectionist behavior, Israel is only confirming the doubts of those in the Hamas military wing who argue Israel always acts in bad faith.



Similarly in Lebanon, Israel is holding Hezbollah less to account with its attacks than the Lebanese people and their government, despite the latter's transparently shaky grip on the country. Israel's military strikes polarize opinion in Lebanon, weaken Fouad Siniora and his ministers, and threaten to push Lebanon over the brink into another civil war.



Israel is keen to talk about "changing the balance of power" in Gaza and Lebanon, implying that it is trying to strengthen the "democrats" against the "terrorists." But this impression is entirely false. Israeli actions are destroying what little balance of power exists in Gaza and Lebanon so that the two areas become ungovernable.



In Gaza, Israel has been engineering a debilitating struggle for power between Fatah and Hamas, while in Lebanon whatever hollow shell of national unity has existed till now is in danger of cracking under the strain of the Israeli onslaught.



Superficially at least, this seems self-destructive behavior on Israel's part, given that it has also been striving to detect the fingerprints of outside actors in Gaza and Lebanon.



In the case of Gaza, Israel points to Syria as a safe haven for the exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshal, to Hezbollah and Iran as sponsors of Hamas "terror" and even to a new al-Qaeda presence. In the case of Lebanon, Israel additionally identifies the strong ties between Hezbollah and Damascus and Tehran.



So why would Israel want Lebanon and Gaza to be ravaged by factional fighting of the kind that might make them more vulnerable to this kind of unwelcome interference from outside?



A history lesson or two helps clarify Israel's reasoning.



In the occupied Palestinian territories, Hamas was born during the upheavals of the first intifada and encouraged by Israel as a counterweight to the unifying secular Palestinian nationalism of Yasser Arafat.



In Lebanon, the Shi'ite militia Hezbollah was the inevitable byproduct of Israel's occupation of the south and its establishment of a mostly Christian proxy militia, the South Lebanon Army, against the Muslim majority.



In both cases it is clear Israel hoped that, by Islamizing its opponents in these regional conflicts, it would delegitimize them in the eyes of Western allies and that it could cultivate sectarianism as a way to further weaken the social cohesiveness of its neighbors.



Recently Israel has encouraged the slide deeper into Islamic extremism through its policies of unilateralism and its refusal to negotiate.



The same set of policies is being continued now in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon: the shattering of these two societies will only deepen the trend toward radical Islam. Islamic movements not only offer the best hope of local resistance to Israel for these weakened societies but they also offer a parallel social infrastructure of health care and welfare services as state institutions collapse.



There is immediate advantage for Israel in this outcome. With secular society crushed and Islamic resistance movements filling the void, Israel will be able to reinforce the impression of many in the West that Israel is on the front line of global "war of terror" being waged by a single implacable enemy, Islam. Israel's ability to persuade the world that this war is being waged against the whole "civilized" Judeo-Christian West will be made that bit easier.



As a result, Israel may be able to drag its paymaster, the United States, deeper into the mire of the Middle East as a junior partner rather than as an honest broker, giving Israel cover while it carves up yet more Palestinian land for annexation, puts further pressure on the Palestinians to leave their homeland, and destabilizes its regional enemies so that they are powerless to offer protest or resistance.



For some time President Bush has found himself in no position to criticize Israeli actions when Tel Aviv claims to be doing no more to the Palestinians than the US is doing to the Iraqis. If the US allows itself to be handcuffed to Israel's even more extreme version of the "war on terror," the consequences will be dire not just for the Palestinians or the region, but for all of us.

That was a fair and balanced article? You have to be joking. All the article did was bash Israel, yet the article was not critical of Hamas or Hezbollah at all. How is that fair and balanced?
If you want to agree with the article, that is fine. But don't tell me that the article is fair and balanced. Fox News and CNN are 1000x more fair and balanced than that article. At least they give you both sides of the story. In addition, they will have guests from both sides so you get to hear the point of view from both sides.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

I thought this was a fair and balanced article that summarizes where American tax dollars are going as well as offering something other than an uber-Zionist view of the MidEast.


by Jonathan Cook

July 22, 2006



The general surprise that Lebanese civilians are taking the brunt of Israel's onslaught – and the unwillingness in some quarters of the media to report the fact – reflects a poor understanding of Israel's historical use of violence. Since its birth six decades ago, Israel has always been officially "going after the terrorists," but its actions have invariably harmed civilians in an indiscriminate

Well he lives and writes based out of Nazereth. His viewpoint seems hardly balanced , but I'm reading a few of his other articles.

Here is his website: http://www.jkcook.net/

Bold Brooklynite can't seem to answer these two questions. One last time

1) ARE YOUR LOYALTIES TO AMERICA OR ISRAEL, when their interests don't go hand in hand?

2) ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF FREEING AN ISRAELI SPY LIKE JONATHAN POLLARD, A TRAITOR TO AMERICA, like many israelis?


Answer please, in english, not hebrew.

Pretty silent for a guy who calls himself Bold Brooklynite.

[SentToStud]

...what really happens in and gets reported out of Gaza....

One early and easy victory for Israel in Gaza has been in its battle to manage the news. Israel's invasion is a very private war against Gaza's population, to which only invited guests -- the representatives of our major media outlets --are being given access....

The restrictions on who can report and what they can tell us explain in part why more than a fortnight after an Israeli soldier was captured, almost every Western reporter is still referring to him as "kidnapped"; why the destruction of vital civilian infrastructure such as Gaza's only power plant is described as "pressure" rather than what it is -- collective punishment, a violation of international law and a war crime; and why the deaths of large numbers of Palestinians, civilians and militants, in the current attacks are receiving far less coverage than the deaths of the two soldiers enforcing the occupation that gave Israel the pretext to launch its invasion.

Gaza -- a giant open-air prison -- could not offer a more perfect environment for an occupier wanting to manage the news. Israel controls the borders and can decide who is allowed in and who is refused access. Freedom of the press is meaningless on these terms.

Israel developed its own "embedding" strategy during the disengagement from Gaza last year. Only journalists from the big news organisations were allowed into the Strip, on special army buses that drove straight to the settlements. Those without accreditation from the main media organisations, and those who had upset Israel with their previous reports, had little hope of gaining entry. Disfavoured journalists were doubtless supposed to take note for next time, and change the tone of their coverage.

The big media organisations have no interest in pointing out why they have special access to Gaza and at what price such privileges were bought...

Israel's system of embedding operates at two levels: it ensures that many potential journalists are not in a position to report from Gaza; and then it imposes a range of pressures on those journalists who are there.

When Israel withdrew its settlers and soldiers from Gaza last August, the windfall was that it gained absolute control over who was allowed in and out of the tiny sliver of land on the Mediterranean coast. The result: just as Palestinians find it all but impossible to get out of Gaza, foreigners find it nearly as difficult to get in.

The hermetic sealing off of Gaza follows a series of steps taken by Israel in the past few years to discourage foreigners from venturing into places where its soldiers prefer to go about their business unobserved.

In late 2002 and 2003 the Israeli army killed two peace activists with the International Solidarity Movement, Tom Hurndall and Rachel Corrie. It was a very effective deterrent to other activists -- as well as freelance journalists who might be mistaken for activists -- considering living in the occupied territories.

Foreigners stopped "embedding" themselves in Palestinian areas, and in consequence there was a rapid loss of the Internet diaries of life under occupation and eyewitness accounts that were creating a fledgling but useful "alternative journalism".

Since then Israel has been on the lookout for anyone at its borders whom it suspects of belonging to peace organisations or being recruited to work in Palestinian organisations. Non-Israelis are held for lengthy questioning and usually deported if Israel suspects them of planning to enter the occupied territories, whether their purposes are legitimate or not.

As a result, the West Bank and Gaza are now sorely deprived of the young idealists and hopeful journalists who once travelled around the occupied territories.

Israel has claimed that its measures are designed to protect these individuals and its own soldiers from unnecessary and dangerous confrontations. But in practice, Israel has ensured that independent witnesses -- including those that were once able to describe at first hand and in their many native tongues the horrors being inflicted on the Palestinians -- are now largely absent from the occupied territories.

Instead "professional" reporters, based in Israel, venture into these areas only to report after the event, when the best they can hope to achieve is to present two conflicting narratives: the Israeli official version and Palestinian eyewitness accounts.

Since the disengagement, the process of isolating Gaza has intensified, ensuring that a far narrower range of voices are being heard -- in practice, only those of professional journalists who have the sensitivities of their news desks back home and their careers to worry about.

With an electronic fence surrounding Gaza on three sides, and the sea on the fourth, the only way into the Strip is through one of several crossing points controlled by the army. Where once journalists could freely roam around the occupied territories, reporting things as they saw them, they are now required to jump through several hoops before they are allowed to cross into Gaza.

So how does Israel's version of embedding work?

First, to get into Gaza a journalist must be in possession of a press card issued by the Israeli Government Press Office (GPO). All other journalist cards -- even international ones -- are worthless in the eyes of the Israeli government.

To be eligible for a GPO card, applicants must have accreditation with a recognised media organisation. Freelance reporters and photographers are considered to be impostors unless they can prove that they have an assignment from just such an accredited organisation.

The problems for freelance journalists are twofold. First, Israel decides which organisations are accredited and is likely to reject any "alternative" media that has been too critical of Israel in the past.

And second, Israel makes it impossible for freelancers to do in Gaza what they would do in any other conflict zone: head off with an open mind to see what is happening on the ground. Now, the freelance journalist must have a specific assignment in mind, and have an agreement in advance with a media organisation to cover that assignment in its name.

These conditions severely limit the freedom of freelance reporters and photographers to find stories that the main media organisations have overlooked. In practice, if a freelance journalist can get such an assignment (in itself a difficult task), it is likely to be for one of the stories the news desk thousands of miles away considers to be important: that is, the same stories the rest of the media pack are already pursuing. Innovation and difference of perspective are excluded from the outset.

Those journalists who do manage to gain a GPO card then have to jump through a second hoop: they must sign a "waiver" form, exonerating Israel of all responsibility if they are injured while in the Gaza Strip, including from the actions of the Israeli army.

The effect of the waiver is to impose a large financial burden on freelance journalists. While media organisations provide their staff with war insurance, an armoured car, and a flak jacket and helmet, they do not feel the same obligation towards freelancers, even those on assignment for them.

This leaves freelance reporters and photographers in Gaza in an unenviable position: either they protect themselves in the Strip at a huge personal cost they are unlikely ever to recoup from their reporting, or they risk injury for which no one can be held accountable and made to pay.

Even if it can be proven that an Israeli soldier took a malicious shot of the kind that in the past killed filmmaker James Miller and UN official Iain Hook and destroyed most of face of activist Brian Avery, freelance journalists and their families will not be entitled to a penny of compensation.

It can be assumed that this measure alone has been a serious deterrence for many freelance journalists who might otherwise have considered making a name for themselves by reporting from the Gazan frontline.

And then there is the third and most problematic hoop of all. Reporters who receive a GPO card must agree to submit any reports that touch on "defence and security" matters to Israel's military censor. Although in practice few Western reporters refer to the censor, the knowledge that they are breaking the terms of their agreement -- and could have their privileges withdrawn -- is intended to encourage "self- restraint" on their part.

As long as the journalists' reports don't attract too much attention from the Israeli authorities, this term of their contract with the army is unlikely to be enforced. If they keep their heads down, and stay within the pack, there is no danger they will be "picked off". By contrast, distinctiveness and daring from journalists is a recipe for incurring the wrath of the Israeli Press Office and complaints to the reporters' editors.

The most shocking aspect to this embedding of the media with the Israeli army is the silence from the journalists themselves, from their employers and from their professional federations. None has tried to challenge the restrictions imposed by Israel on those wishing to report from the occupied territories.

The generally dismal standard of reporting during the invasion of Gaza has proven just how much a cosy club of well-paid journalists are being protected by these arrangements and what little incentive they have to rock the boat with either Israel or their news editors. As a result, Israel's language and agenda have come to dominate the coverage.

Israel's invasion of Gaza is not the end of this story of media complicity. As the West Bank wall nears completion, Israel's reach in managing the news will soon extend there too. And with it, doubtless, we will have yet more craven reporting from our embedded media

Originally Posted by boldruler

Bold Brooklynite can't seem to answer these two questions. One last time

1) ARE YOUR LOYALTIES TO AMERICA OR ISRAEL, when their interests don't go hand in hand?

2) ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF FREEING AN ISRAELI SPY LIKE JONATHAN POLLARD, A TRAITOR TO AMERICA, like many israelis?


Answer please, in english, not hebrew.

Silence to these questions can only mean one thing. Bold Brooklynite, the guy ripping us Real Americans, isn't even a real american and he favors releasing a traitor to our country. Pathetic. He has avoided these questions like the COWARD that he is.

Originally Posted by boldruler

I already did in post #145. Do you need that in hebrew? Here the responses are. WHERE IS YOUR ANSWER TO THE TWO QUESTIONS? 1) ARE YOUR LOYALTIES TO AMERICA OR ISRAEL, when their interests don't go hand in hand?

2) ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF FREEING AN ISRAELI SPY LIKE JONATHAN POLLARD, A TRAITOR TO AMERICA, like many israelis?


1) I said the countries are insignifcant, no mention of the people. They are insignificant, nothing would change if they were there or weren't there.
2) American Values are not stated in the Constitution or Declaration. You are a simple minded idiot. There is no such thing as American Values. Why were there slaves and women with no rights for almost 100 years after the constitution and declaration if the "american values" you love to throw around existed.
3) I didn't say all Jews were Ortodox Jews, I just said the religious ones run that country
4) YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT INCOME TAXES. Stop believing everything Rush tells you.
5) Terrorists can be freedom fighters. George Washington was viewed as a terrorist and fought a war similar to what many "terrorist" groups are doing now.
6) I didn't forget who we liberated. I know significantly more about world history than you ever will know.
7) I am well aware Iraq has a democratically elected government, but it is a puppet government that can't even get its own military going after years of training. In WWII the US trained its soldiers in a matter of weeks, but the Iraqi's need years.
8) Oil is more expensive than it should be because of oil traders, but it is still cheaper than it should be in a fair market. You probably don't understand how pricing of oil works, but traders determine the price, based on supply and demand, but if the Arab countries wanted to they could get a ton more for their goods. Their dictators agree to keep the price low in exchange for the US protecting them from the masses.

There are your answers. Now you answer my questions about where your loyalty is and your view on a traitor from your country. I find it odd that a "friend" of the US seems to have an awful lot of spies caught spying on their "friend" the United States.

Ahhh ... I've just returned from another sumptuous prandial experience ... courtesy of Mrs. Brooklynite ...

... and I'm happily restored to my robust self.

Now where were we? Oh ... I see that our intellectually challenged and memory deprived friend pretended to do a point-by-point response ... but came up woefully short.

Hello, sir ... there were 13 points in my post ... and you made a weak effort at only 8. Even if they were good responses ... which I can assure you they weren't ... that would only get you a 61 ... which is barely a "D."

Please complete your chores ... or you don't get that nice big plate of chocolate chip ice cream.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Ahhh ... I've just returned from another sumptuous prandial experience ... courtesy of Mrs. Brooklynite ...

... and I'm happily restored to my robust self.

Now where were we? Oh ... I see that our intellectually challenged and memory deprived friend pretended to do a point-by-point response ... but came up woefully short.

Hello, sir ... there were 13 points in my post ... and you made a weak effort at only 8. Even if they were good responses ... which I can assure you they weren't ... that would only get you a 61 ... which is barely a "D."

Please complete your chores ... or you don't get that nice big plate of chocolate chip ice cream.

Fine for the sake of argument you were right on those other points. Now it is your turn, Why can't you answer two simple little questions? Is it because we already know the real answer and it is obvious your allegiance is to Israel. If so, please DON'T EVER CRITICIZE US REAL AMERICANS. IT IS OUR GOVERNMENT, NOT YOUR GOVERNMENT, and we can say whatever we want. Your country is in the Middle East, not here in the greatest country in the world. God Bless America.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by boldruler

Fine for the sake of argument you were right on those other points. Now it is your turn, Why can't you answer two simple little questions? Is it because we already know the real answer and it is obvious your allegiance is to Israel. If so, please DON'T EVER CRITICIZE US REAL AMERICANS. IT IS OUR GOVERNMENT, NOT YOUR GOVERNMENT, and we can say whatever we want. Your country is in the Middle East, not here in the greatest country in the world. God Bless America.

Him answer?

Nah... Can't and won't.

He's still in shock that some people see the world for what it is. Not support Israel? Oh my, we all must be jewish haters. The simple fact is Israel does not want a free democratic nation in Lebanon as they do not want it in Gaza. This would disrupt the Israeli myth of "instability in the region" upon which their receipt of billions in U.S. aid is based. Slow and sure, world sentiment is turning as people everywhere are disabused of these misconceptions.

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Him answer?

Nah... Can't and won't.

He's still in shock that some people see the world for what it is. Not support Israel? Oh my, we all must be jewish haters. The simple fact is Israel does not want a free democratic nation in Lebanon as they do not want it in Gaza. This would disrupt the Israeli myth of "instability in the region" upon which their receipt of billions in U.S. aid is based. Slow and sure, world sentiment is turning as people everywhere are disabused of these misconceptions.

Supporting Israel is just a liability to the US with the rest of the world. We get nothing out of it.

Bold Brooklynite is one of those dangerous people that have an allegiance to another country. I don't want any Arabs or Jews having dual citizenship. The interests of these groups often puts the US at risk. I am all for Arab Americans or Jewish Americans, just not those that seem to make American their number 2 priority. I have the same problem with these Mexican protesters and any other group, Irish, Italian, German, that doesn't have an allegiance to this country first. It just seems this is a huge problem with Jewish people because they view God and Israel as the same thing thus putting it before America. Can't have that.

Originally Posted by boldruler

Fine for the sake of argument you were right on those other points. Now it is your turn, Why can't you answer two simple little questions? Is it because we already know the real answer and it is obvious your allegiance is to Israel. If so, please DON'T EVER CRITICIZE US REAL AMERICANS. IT IS OUR GOVERNMENT, NOT YOUR GOVERNMENT, and we can say whatever we want. Your country is in the Middle East, not here in the greatest country in the world. God Bless America.

I'll answer your questions ... but first ...

... I'll answer your answers ...

1) I said the countries are insignifcant, no mention of the people. They are insignificant, nothing would change if they were there or weren't there. So ... if Israel is so insignificant ... and it wouldn't matter if it vanished ... why is the entire Arab world in an uproar over it's existence?

2) American Values are not stated in the Constitution or Declaration. You are a simple minded idiot. There is no such thing as American Values. Why were there slaves and women with no rights for almost 100 years after the constitution and declaration if the "american values" you love to throw around existed. Sorry ... but I always thought that "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" was a statement of values. Ooops ... silly me. As to slavery ... you're once again ... and how many times is this going to happen? ... confusing objectives and strategies. The objective was to eliminate slavery and the strategy was to allow it for a time in order to get the Union established ... then eliminate it. And guess what ... the strategy worked! Slavery was eliminated 143 years ago ... or hadn't you heard?

3) I didn't say all Jews were Ortodox Jews, I just said the religious ones run that country And you were wrong in both instances.

4) YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT INCOME TAXES. Stop believing everything Rush tells you. Again ... you say that my income tax distribution statistics are incorrect ... but you don't supply the "correct" ones. But ... nah, nah, nah, nah ... we all know why you don't ... because mine happen to be correct ... and the only thing you can do to challenge them is to once again display your inordinate fear of radio entertainers.

5) Terrorists can be freedom fighters. George Washington was viewed as a terrorist and fought a war similar to what many "terrorist" groups are doing now. A terrorist is never a freedom fighter. Terrorists ... by definition ... indiscriminately murder the innocent ... something George Washington never did ... and your mouth ... or your hands ... should be washed with soap for even typing that.

6) I didn't forget who we liberated. I know significantly more about world history than you ever will know. I'm sure you do ... and I meant to ask you ... whatever happend to Aberada .. you know ... Robert Guiscard's first wife ... what became of her?

7) I am well aware Iraq has a democratically elected government, but it is a puppet government that can't even get its own military going after years of training. In WWII the US trained its soldiers in a matter of weeks, but the Iraqi's need years. Do you have any idea how silly you appear when you compare a newborn democracy to the U.S. ... which by the 1940's had been functioning for over 150 years? And though you proclaim your knowledge of "world history" ... you seem to be completely unaware that the first two years of WWII saw devastating defeats for the U.S. forces. It wasn't until late 1943 that we finally got competent fighting forces on the ground ... and were able to start turning the tide.

8) Oil is more expensive than it should be because of oil traders, but it is still cheaper than it should be in a fair market. You probably don't understand how pricing of oil works, but traders determine the price, based on supply and demand, but if the Arab countries wanted to they could get a ton more for their goods. Their dictators agree to keep the price low in exchange for the US protecting them from the masses. There are so many internal contradictions in that statement ... it's almost impossible to know where to start. It's more expensive ... it's cheaper ... there is a fair market ... there isn't a fair market ... traders determine the price ... dictators determine the price ... say what? You seem to know as much about economics as you do about history. And please ... please challenge me on this one.

So ... let's see how you did. If each of the eight responses was worth 12.5 points ... you'd get 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 8, 4, and 0 ... for a total of 12 out of 100.

Hmmm ... I don't think you did as well as your friend said you did ... don't you agree? You'd better brush up your Shakespeare ... to say the least.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I'll answer your questions ... but first ...

... I'll answer your answers ...

1) I said the countries are insignifcant, no mention of the people. They are insignificant, nothing would change if they were there or weren't there. So ... if Israel is so insignificant ... and it wouldn't matter if it vanished ... why is the entire Arab world in an uproar over it's existence?

2) American Values are not stated in the Constitution or Declaration. You are a simple minded idiot. There is no such thing as American Values. Why were there slaves and women with no rights for almost 100 years after the constitution and declaration if the "american values" you love to throw around existed. Sorry ... but I always thought that "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" was a statement of values. Ooops ... silly me. As to slavery ... you're once again ... and how many times is this going to happen? ... confusing objectives and strategies. The objective was to eliminate slavery and the strategy was to allow it for a time in order to get the Union established ... then eliminate it. And guess what ... the strategy worked! Slavery was eliminated 143 years ago ... or hadn't you heard?

3) I didn't say all Jews were Ortodox Jews, I just said the religious ones run that country And you were wrong in both instances.

4) YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT INCOME TAXES. Stop believing everything Rush tells you. Again ... you say that my income tax distribution statistics are incorrect ... but you don't supply the "correct" ones. But ... nah, nah, nah, nah ... we all know why you don't ... because mine happen to be correct ... and the only thing you can do to challenge them is to once again display your inordinate fear of radio entertainers.

5) Terrorists can be freedom fighters. George Washington was viewed as a terrorist and fought a war similar to what many "terrorist" groups are doing now. A terrorist is never a freedom fighter. Terrorists ... by definition ... indiscriminately murder the innocent ... something George Washington never did ... and your mouth ... or your hands ... should be washed with soap for even typing that.

6) I didn't forget who we liberated. I know significantly more about world history than you ever will know. I'm sure you do ... and I meant to ask you ... whatever happend to Aberada .. you know ... Robert Guiscard's first wife ... what became of her?

7) I am well aware Iraq has a democratically elected government, but it is a puppet government that can't even get its own military going after years of training. In WWII the US trained its soldiers in a matter of weeks, but the Iraqi's need years. Do you have any idea how silly you appear when you compare a newborn democracy to the U.S. ... which by the 1940's had been functioning for over 150 years? And though you proclaim your knowledge of "world history" ... you seem to be completely unaware that the first two years of WWII saw devastating defeats for the U.S. forces. It wasn't until late 1943 that we finally got competent fighting forces on the ground ... and were able to start turning the tide.

8) Oil is more expensive than it should be because of oil traders, but it is still cheaper than it should be in a fair market. You probably don't understand how pricing of oil works, but traders determine the price, based on supply and demand, but if the Arab countries wanted to they could get a ton more for their goods. Their dictators agree to keep the price low in exchange for the US protecting them from the masses. There are so many internal contradictions in that statement ... it's almost impossible to know where to start. It's more expensive ... it's cheaper ... there is a fair market ... there isn't a fair market ... traders determine the price ... dictators determine the price ... say what? You seem to know as much about economics as you do about history. And please ... please challenge me on this one.

So ... let's see how you did. If each of the eight responses was worth 12.5 points ... you'd get 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 8, 4, and 0 ... for a total of 12 out of 100.

Hmmm ... I don't think you did as well as your friend said you did ... don't you agree? You'd better brush up your Shakespeare ... to say the least.

All of that and you still didn't answer the questions, although this time you said you would and you didn't. So now you are

1) Not a real American, but feels free to attack us Real Americans
2) A lover of traitors to America.
3) Incapable of answering questions
4) and now you can add LIAR who says he will answer two questions but doesn't.

What a winner you are.

OK ... now let's anwer your question ... where does my loyalty lie?

Well .. if you were clever ... which we know you aren't ... you could've saved yourself hours and hours of harrumphing and hyperventilating ... and all those boldface and all-caps sentences ...

... simply by going to the Members List of this forum ... clicking on my name ... and looking at the photo ... which tells you everything you'd ever need to know about my loyalty.

See? See how easy it would have been ... if only you knew how to think?

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

OK ... now let's anwer your question ... where does my loyalty lie?

Well .. if you were clever ... which we know you aren't ... you could've saved yourself hours and hours of harrumphing and hyperventilating ... and all those boldface and all-caps sentences ...

... simply by going to the Members List of this forum ... clicking on my name ... and looking at the photo ... which tells you everything you'd ever need to know about my loyalty.

See? See how easy it would have been ... if only you knew how to think?

Still no real answer. What a surprise.

Here are the questions for the 50th time

ARE YOUR LOYALTIES TO AMERICA OR ISRAEL, when their interests don't go hand in hand?

ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF FREEING AN ISRAELI SPY LIKE JONATHAN POLLARD, A TRAITOR TO AMERICA, like many israelis?


Now because you are a little slow I will explain how your answers should read. Ok. Pay attention.

your response should be either, my loyalties are to america or my loyalites are to Israel.

I am in favor of freeing Jonathan Pollard, a traitor to america, or I am not in favor of freeing Jonathan Pollard.

Is that too difficult for you?

Originally Posted by boldruler

All of that and you still didn't answer the questions, although this time you said you would and you didn't. So now you are

1) Not a real American, but feels free to attack us Real Americans
2) A lover of traitors to America.
3) Incapable of answering questions
4) and now you can add LIAR who says he will answer two questions but doesn't.

What a winner you are.

Well ... I'm glad you didn't dispute the "12" I gave you. I think it was pretty fair ... perhaps a bit generous ... but I always gave out better grades when I knew one of my students was interested in thoroughbred racing.

Originally Posted by boldruler

Still no real answer.

Yes ... yes it is ... don't you understand ... have you no imagination .. have you no capacity for deductive reasoning ... do you know who is in the photo ... and what he represents?

[See, folks ... do you see what I'm up against? I think I'd have better luck working with Koko The Gorilla ... don't you?]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Well ... I'm glad you didn't dispute the "12" I gave you. I think it was pretty fair ... perhaps a bit generous ... but I always gave out better grades when I knew one of my students was interested in thoroughbred racing.

Just another post without answering the questions. What a surprise. Any Real American is proud to say their allegiance is always to America. I guess you aren't a Real American. Do you kids pledge allegiance to the American flag or the Israeli flag?

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Yes ... yes it is ... don't you understand ... have you no imagination .. have you no capacity for deductive reasoning ... do you know who is in the photo ... and what he represents?

[See, folks ... do you see what I'm up against? I think I'd have better luck working with Koko The Gorilla ... don't you?]

I know JR when I see him. Doesn't mean anything. You could still have allegiance to Israeli before America and like JR.

Just say it. My allegiance is to America before Israel. Not too difficult.