eots
no fly list
who has Afghanistan ever invaded ?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
MHunterB, et al,
I had heard something to this effect when I was in the Middle East. I was having coffee with a Egyptian couple. But I've not seen anything written about it.
As I was told, the Jewish Immigrants and permanent residents in Palestine had been buying up property from the original land owners in Egypt, Jordan, and other countries, and made the property owners rich. That many of those that claim they were evicted did not actually own the property.
Is there any truth to this? I cannot find much on this topic. But many Palestinians claim they owned the land.
Most Respectfully,
R
I had heard something to this effect when I was in the Middle East. I was having coffee with a Egyptian couple. But I've not seen anything written about it.
(HEARSAY)"what would you do if a Canadian or a Mexican came to your door and told you at gun point the house you live in and the land your family has lived on for hundreds of years was now theirs because..your god said so..?"
Thar's entirely inaccurate and inadequare as an analogy for past history. For one thing, many of the 'houses' were not owned by those families - and were legally purchased from their owners. And that 'analogy' is also flawed because it ignores a whole slew of third parties and their actions.
As I was told, the Jewish Immigrants and permanent residents in Palestine had been buying up property from the original land owners in Egypt, Jordan, and other countries, and made the property owners rich. That many of those that claim they were evicted did not actually own the property.
Is there any truth to this? I cannot find much on this topic. But many Palestinians claim they owned the land.
Most Respectfully,
R
eots
no fly list
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urAjTX51ebc]1953 - CIA Overthrow of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq - YouTube[/ame]
eots
no fly list
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbd5CTQCXto]1954, Guatemala - CIA & the United Fruit Company, Jacobo Arbenz - YouTube[/ame]
Rocco, you might want to look up info on JNF, the 'Jewish National Fund' - it may have had another name before the State of Israel was established.
But yes, the earliest kibbutzim, etc were established on land which was bought by groups of Jews who had pooled their funds to set up cooperative farms. The same, incidentally, was done in the US - small groups of people from one town or area basically emigrated to places where they could 'go back to the land'.
I was having some of this disussion earlier with another poster who presumed to inform me that 'Zionism began in the late 19th C'. I would date the beginnings of 'Zionism' to the Babylonian Exile, which period also sees the first hints of 'Rabbinic' Judaism as the Jewish People were forced to find a way to worship YHVH withOUT a Temple and its rites.
Whether the Exile is the beginning of Zionism or not, there certainly was a continual movement by individuals AND small groups of Jews from many places in the Diaspora to return to Zion, to Jerusalem, to Israel.
That is why in the 15th C, the town of Sfat/Safed was a center of Jewish studies - because people came there to resettle in the Holy Land.
But yes, the earliest kibbutzim, etc were established on land which was bought by groups of Jews who had pooled their funds to set up cooperative farms. The same, incidentally, was done in the US - small groups of people from one town or area basically emigrated to places where they could 'go back to the land'.
I was having some of this disussion earlier with another poster who presumed to inform me that 'Zionism began in the late 19th C'. I would date the beginnings of 'Zionism' to the Babylonian Exile, which period also sees the first hints of 'Rabbinic' Judaism as the Jewish People were forced to find a way to worship YHVH withOUT a Temple and its rites.
Whether the Exile is the beginning of Zionism or not, there certainly was a continual movement by individuals AND small groups of Jews from many places in the Diaspora to return to Zion, to Jerusalem, to Israel.
That is why in the 15th C, the town of Sfat/Safed was a center of Jewish studies - because people came there to resettle in the Holy Land.
eots, et al,
I'll be the first to admit that US Foreign Policy and the establishment of the hegemony needs to be straightened-out.
The US needs to leave the Middle East and these little countries like Afghanistan all together. We need to let them sort their own disputes out and choose their own destiny. If they kill themselves off, so be it. And we definitely need to keep our distance with respect to Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and any other country that wants to create another destabilized nationor failed state.
If we are so eager to nation build, we need to start at home; rebuilding our own infrastructure.
We should never Occupy. If we have to retaliate against one of these nations for committing or supporting a terrorist action against US interests, we should have a policy to strike, burn it to the ground, and then immediately leave --- no nation building and no foreign aid.
As a general rule, we should not render any type of aid to any country what so ever, unless they are a proven ally and not just hired allies.
Our US Foreign Policy needs to be so simple, everyone will understand it. It can't be so complicated that it takes a Minister Counsellor to the President to explain it.
Most Respectfully,
R
I'll be the first to admit that US Foreign Policy and the establishment of the hegemony needs to be straightened-out.
(COMMENT)who has Iran ever invaded ?who has Afghanistan ever invaded ?
The US needs to leave the Middle East and these little countries like Afghanistan all together. We need to let them sort their own disputes out and choose their own destiny. If they kill themselves off, so be it. And we definitely need to keep our distance with respect to Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and any other country that wants to create another destabilized nationor failed state.
If we are so eager to nation build, we need to start at home; rebuilding our own infrastructure.
We should never Occupy. If we have to retaliate against one of these nations for committing or supporting a terrorist action against US interests, we should have a policy to strike, burn it to the ground, and then immediately leave --- no nation building and no foreign aid.
As a general rule, we should not render any type of aid to any country what so ever, unless they are a proven ally and not just hired allies.
Our US Foreign Policy needs to be so simple, everyone will understand it. It can't be so complicated that it takes a Minister Counsellor to the President to explain it.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
wow ...what a load of bullshit
Really? What part? That the West Bank belonged to Jordan -- not the Palestinians? Or that King of Jordan essentially washed his hands of the Palestinians after he tired of them disrupting his Kingdom?
Or is it the observation that a Middle East WITHOUT Israel would be anything but peaceful and stable? How many Arabs killed in Iran-Iraq war? The invasion of Kuwait? And that's just the MOST recent history.
All of it is bullshit and spin but especially this..
Seems like instability is inherent in the culture and we will never understand how different the value system is between us and the radical arab populace. They don't value education, stability, and infrastructure or commerce the same way
I quoted directly from the Kings' website. Take it up with Abdullah. I didn't make up official Jordanian history.
You only have to look at recent events in Egypt to SEE the instability that is inherent. They will fight until someone consolidates enough dictatorial power to suppress the insurrections.
Our foreign policy has ALWAYS sucked since I started paying attention. Nothing being discussed here is intended to defend any of that.
eots
no fly list
really? What part? That the west bank belonged to jordan -- not the palestinians? Or that king of jordan essentially washed his hands of the palestinians after he tired of them disrupting his kingdom?
Or is it the observation that a middle east without israel would be anything but peaceful and stable? How many arabs killed in iran-iraq war? The invasion of kuwait? And that's just the most recent history.
all of it is bullshit and spin but especially this..
Seems like instability is inherent in the culture and we will never understand how different the value system is between us and the radical arab populace. They don't value education, stability, and infrastructure or commerce the same way
i quoted directly from the kings' website. Take it up with abdullah. I didn't make up official jordanian history.
You only have to look at recent events in egypt to see the instability that is inherent. They will fight until someone consolidates enough dictatorial power to suppress the insurrections.
our foreign policy has always sucked since i started paying attention. nothing being discussed here is intended to defend any of that.
must be something that is inherent in non-arabs
all of it is bullshit and spin but especially this..
Seems like instability is inherent in the culture and we will never understand how different the value system is between us and the radical arab populace. They don't value education, stability, and infrastructure or commerce the same way
i quoted directly from the kings' website. Take it up with abdullah. I didn't make up official jordanian history.
You only have to look at recent events in egypt to see the instability that is inherent. They will fight until someone consolidates enough dictatorial power to suppress the insurrections.
our foreign policy has always sucked since i started paying attention. nothing being discussed here is intended to defend any of that.
must be something that is inherent in non-arabs
If i was jealous of the superiority of Arab foreign policy --- that might be true.
flacaltenn, eots, et al,
I must say, it is an interesting observation.
First, is there any such thing as Arab Policy (let alone foreign policy)? I'm not sure that the Arab World has a single view or policy that it follows. I believe that, absent an authoritarian government, Arab Policies follow almost small tribal lines.
Yes, looking at Libya, Egypt, Iraq, --- yes and elsewhere --- yes I begin to appreciate the view that: "They will fight until someone consolidates enough dictatorial power to suppress the insurrections." (MAO-A Gene)
Most Respectfully,
R
I must say, it is an interesting observation.
(COMMENT)i quoted directly from the kings' website. Take it up with abdullah. I didn't make up official jordanian history.
You only have to look at recent events in egypt to see the instability that is inherent. They will fight until someone consolidates enough dictatorial power to suppress the insurrections.
our foreign policy has always sucked since i started paying attention. nothing being discussed here is intended to defend any of that.
must be something that is inherent in non-arabs
If i was jealous of the superiority of Arab foreign policy --- that might be true.
First, is there any such thing as Arab Policy (let alone foreign policy)? I'm not sure that the Arab World has a single view or policy that it follows. I believe that, absent an authoritarian government, Arab Policies follow almost small tribal lines.
Yes, looking at Libya, Egypt, Iraq, --- yes and elsewhere --- yes I begin to appreciate the view that: "They will fight until someone consolidates enough dictatorial power to suppress the insurrections." (MAO-A Gene)
Most Respectfully,
R
Rocco...
What's your take on the Muslim Brotherhood?
"The complexities of the Arab Spring and the struggle for political freedom throughout the Arab world should not obscure what has now become an absolutely essential understanding for all anti-imperialists: the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the most powerful weapons of the Western ruling class in the Muslim world."
Would you agree?
Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
What's your take on the Muslim Brotherhood?
"The complexities of the Arab Spring and the struggle for political freedom throughout the Arab world should not obscure what has now become an absolutely essential understanding for all anti-imperialists: the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the most powerful weapons of the Western ruling class in the Muslim world."
Would you agree?
Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
Shouldn't one ask what's one's take on 'Counterpunch'?
Mine is that they are promoting a Communist agenda, and doing so by continually distorting and manipulating to present the US and 'capitalism' as actually being fascist like Hitler's Nazis.
The truth, of course, is that there's very little to choose between Fascism and Communism: both are totalitarian rule and inimical to democracy or the US Constitution.
Mine is that they are promoting a Communist agenda, and doing so by continually distorting and manipulating to present the US and 'capitalism' as actually being fascist like Hitler's Nazis.
The truth, of course, is that there's very little to choose between Fascism and Communism: both are totalitarian rule and inimical to democracy or the US Constitution.
georgephillip, MHunterB, et al,
I like to read selected topics from "Counterpunch," but only as a reference. In this case, I tend to think that the analysis is wrong.
The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is a multifacet organization that has components within it that are separate and distinct in character; each one is evolving differently. It is not unlike the evolution of the Hezbollah ("political" vs "armed" wings, & civic works elements) or the Sinn Fein (a serious and legitimate political force today, but often better known or remembered for the once clandestine armed terrorist wing it had, the IRA). And one must remember that the Jewish Independence Movements (Herut/Irgun/Likud have a evolutionary relationship in the same way as Bar-Giora/Hashomer/Haganah). My opinion is that "Counterpunch" it is a bit myopic in it's view of MB and the molecular way in which it is assembled now, and the way it is realigning itself into a new national power of influence. One cannot look at MB as a homogenous organization with a single focus and common voice (if has many facets reflecting back as you look at MB as you would a cut diamond).
MB is potentially a very dangerous option for the Egyptians to choose. While MB has many aspect that are moderate in nature when it comes to Islamic Law, there are elements within the fold that have turn radical. One of the more classic examples is the case of Doctor Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri, formerly a surgeon in the Egyptian Army, an Islamic theologian and current leader of the militant Islamist terrorist organization known as al-Qaeda; --- Dr al-Zawahiri is a product of MB, a member since he was a young teenager. He is not an isolated case. IF (big "IF" yet very important) key members of the government are puppets for the MB, then the security of the Middle East region may be threatened. The Supreme Guide of the MB, has called for a fresh jihad effort on Israel, which is not in the furtherance of peace and regional security. And if this mentality is allowed to entangle the new Egyptian Government, it may actually cause more hardship than the average Egyptian can imagine. They may come to regret the Arab Spring.
Most Respectfully,
R
I like to read selected topics from "Counterpunch," but only as a reference. In this case, I tend to think that the analysis is wrong.
(COMMENT)Shouldn't one ask what's one's take on 'Counterpunch'?Rocco...
What's your take on the Muslim Brotherhood?
"The complexities of the Arab Spring and the struggle for political freedom throughout the Arab world should not obscure what has now become an absolutely essential understanding for all anti-imperialists: the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the most powerful weapons of the Western ruling class in the Muslim world."
Would you agree?
Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
Mine is that they are promoting a Communist agenda, and doing so by continually distorting and manipulating to present the US and 'capitalism' as actually being fascist like Hitler's Nazis.
The truth, of course, is that there's very little to choose between Fascism and Communism: both are totalitarian rule and inimical to democracy or the US Constitution.
The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is a multifacet organization that has components within it that are separate and distinct in character; each one is evolving differently. It is not unlike the evolution of the Hezbollah ("political" vs "armed" wings, & civic works elements) or the Sinn Fein (a serious and legitimate political force today, but often better known or remembered for the once clandestine armed terrorist wing it had, the IRA). And one must remember that the Jewish Independence Movements (Herut/Irgun/Likud have a evolutionary relationship in the same way as Bar-Giora/Hashomer/Haganah). My opinion is that "Counterpunch" it is a bit myopic in it's view of MB and the molecular way in which it is assembled now, and the way it is realigning itself into a new national power of influence. One cannot look at MB as a homogenous organization with a single focus and common voice (if has many facets reflecting back as you look at MB as you would a cut diamond).
"Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."
MB is potentially a very dangerous option for the Egyptians to choose. While MB has many aspect that are moderate in nature when it comes to Islamic Law, there are elements within the fold that have turn radical. One of the more classic examples is the case of Doctor Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri, formerly a surgeon in the Egyptian Army, an Islamic theologian and current leader of the militant Islamist terrorist organization known as al-Qaeda; --- Dr al-Zawahiri is a product of MB, a member since he was a young teenager. He is not an isolated case. IF (big "IF" yet very important) key members of the government are puppets for the MB, then the security of the Middle East region may be threatened. The Supreme Guide of the MB, has called for a fresh jihad effort on Israel, which is not in the furtherance of peace and regional security. And if this mentality is allowed to entangle the new Egyptian Government, it may actually cause more hardship than the average Egyptian can imagine. They may come to regret the Arab Spring.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
Shouldn't one ask what's one's take on 'Counterpunch'?
Mine is that they are promoting a Communist agenda, and doing so by continually distorting and manipulating to present the US and 'capitalism' as actually being fascist like Hitler's Nazis.
The truth, of course, is that there's very little to choose between Fascism and Communism: both are totalitarian rule and inimical to democracy or the US Constitution.
Israel is quasi-communist/fascist country.
State funded abortion, compulsory slavery to the military (unless you are a member of the elite), and clearly ethnocentric... Not exactly the land of the free.
Sounds more like a pinko paradise.
'Not saying that we should "switch sides". We shouldn't be on any side to begin with!
America should be on it's own side.
Last edited:
Do you believe American government should side with the richest 1% or the majority of humanity?
georgephillip, et al,
Many would argue that this is already a description of the US; whether you look at it domestically (the influence and treatment of the upper 1% of Americans, or the connection is has with the global affluent population).
Technically the US is geared to accomodate those that have access to the the Power Broker; which is the upper 1% of the affluent in America. And (as a general rule) the affluent do not mingle with the members of the poor, the struggling, or those of a lower social status unless there is some higher agenda to be served.
The majority of humanity - are people still in the lower rungs of Maslow's Ladder. There day to day issues have virtually nothing in common with the affluent class (less issues of the heart, love and family). The affluent don't buy a car based on its utility to the family, it milage, and the cost of insurance and maintenance. These are not their concerns. They don't worry about their next paycheck and their credit rating.
In the global arena, regional security is often influenced by the control exerted by the rich, powerful, and influential; which is especially true of the Middle East. US Foreign Policy is often set to exploit these conditions. Thus the interventionist style of diplomacy. Unfortunately, the US connection to the Middle Eastern world (but not exclusively to that region), built on exploitation, does not foster a mutual friendship between the non-influential class of people organic to the region. It is a decision made by the influential of the US to gain and maintain more influence; and not based on providing support to the regional lower/middle class. And because it generally disregards the impact on the regional lower/middle class, there grows an association (as perceived by the view from the bottom) between the US and the various dictatorships, princes and potentates that are prominent throughout the land.
So, it becomes a matter of US Foreign Policy (mostly a mystery to the average American) crafted by the rich, powerful and influential, as to how the US will interact and respond.
Most Respectfully,
R
Many would argue that this is already a description of the US; whether you look at it domestically (the influence and treatment of the upper 1% of Americans, or the connection is has with the global affluent population).
(COMMENT)Do you believe American government should side with the richest 1% or the majority of humanity?
Technically the US is geared to accomodate those that have access to the the Power Broker; which is the upper 1% of the affluent in America. And (as a general rule) the affluent do not mingle with the members of the poor, the struggling, or those of a lower social status unless there is some higher agenda to be served.
The majority of humanity - are people still in the lower rungs of Maslow's Ladder. There day to day issues have virtually nothing in common with the affluent class (less issues of the heart, love and family). The affluent don't buy a car based on its utility to the family, it milage, and the cost of insurance and maintenance. These are not their concerns. They don't worry about their next paycheck and their credit rating.
In the global arena, regional security is often influenced by the control exerted by the rich, powerful, and influential; which is especially true of the Middle East. US Foreign Policy is often set to exploit these conditions. Thus the interventionist style of diplomacy. Unfortunately, the US connection to the Middle Eastern world (but not exclusively to that region), built on exploitation, does not foster a mutual friendship between the non-influential class of people organic to the region. It is a decision made by the influential of the US to gain and maintain more influence; and not based on providing support to the regional lower/middle class. And because it generally disregards the impact on the regional lower/middle class, there grows an association (as perceived by the view from the bottom) between the US and the various dictatorships, princes and potentates that are prominent throughout the land.
So, it becomes a matter of US Foreign Policy (mostly a mystery to the average American) crafted by the rich, powerful and influential, as to how the US will interact and respond.
Most Respectfully,
R
Mlitary service in Israel is *not* compulsory.
Nor does state-funded abortion make it 'communist' or 'fascist'.
As for the 'clearly ehnocentric' - Israel is the only nation in the ME where the Christian population is INcreasing. And it has taken in immigrants AND refugees from virtually every other nation in the world - including many from Africa.
Since 'arKangel's' comments are so ill-informed, I don't put much stock in its opinions.
Nor does state-funded abortion make it 'communist' or 'fascist'.
As for the 'clearly ehnocentric' - Israel is the only nation in the ME where the Christian population is INcreasing. And it has taken in immigrants AND refugees from virtually every other nation in the world - including many from Africa.
Since 'arKangel's' comments are so ill-informed, I don't put much stock in its opinions.
Mlitary service in Israel is *not* compulsory.
Nor does state-funded abortion make it 'communist' or 'fascist'.
As for the 'clearly ehnocentric' - Israel is the only nation in the ME where the Christian population is INcreasing. And it has taken in immigrants AND refugees from virtually every other nation in the world - including many from Africa.
Since 'arKangel's' comments are so ill-informed, I don't put much stock in its opinions.
Compulsary military service in Israel:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2024.html
Israel: 18 years of age for compulsory and voluntary military service; both sexes are obligated to military service
As for abortion, you do realize which country first mandated state funded abortion don't you?
It was the Soviet Union.
Abortion has been a goal of pinko scum since the get go.
BTW,
Any of you so-called "Libertarians" who support the "right to choose...to kill babies" rhetoric do realize you are supporting communist propaganda right?
Ethnocentric Israel:
Vatican official says Israel fostering intolerance of Christianity - Telegraph
Police inaction and an educational culture that encourages Jewish children to treat Christians with "contempt" has made life increasingly "intolerable" for many,
Franciscan official laments discrimination against Christians in Israel : News Headlines - Catholic Culture
It's an unjust law because in the Middle East, as also in Israel, the separation of state and Church doesnt exist, and then in this very intricate identity complex it creates very strong and also unjust hardships, because its an injustice to make someone who is not a Jew declare fidelity to Jewish principles,.
Oh you zio-nutters, always telling fibs.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 137
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 152
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 159
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 697
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 17
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 263
- Replies
- 89
- Views
- 684
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-