"It is not a war. It is murder."

[P F Tinmore]

Oh my gosh---the premiere propaganda-parrot strikes again...you have less than zero credibility Shush! Go away and cash your weekly Hasbara-check!

Aww. Aren't you adorable. I asked for a set of objective criteria for proper moral and legal response to belligerent actions. Got nothing, huh?

It is Israel that is the aggressor.

 

[Shusha]

Oh my gosh---the premiere propaganda-parrot strikes again...you have less than zero credibility Shush! Go away and cash your weekly Hasbara-check!

Aww. Aren't you adorable. I asked for a set of objective criteria for proper moral and legal response to belligerent actions. Got nothing, huh?

It is Israel that is the aggressor.

How do you know that? What is the objective definition of an "aggressor"?

 

[abi]

Shusha

Do you actually use software that creates these scripted responses like he says?

The man made several salient points. Have you responded to any of them in any fair way?

 

[Roudy]

18:46
Chris Hedges on the Gaza Massacre - "It is not a war. It is murder."

evelkidnievel
•
14K views5 years ago

Where do you guys find these scumbags? like flies to shit...

Journalist Chris Hedges disinvited from U. Penn over Israel-ISIS comparison

 

[Roudy]

Chris Hedges on the Gaza Massacre - "It is not a war. It is murder."

Seriously, the lack of responsibility on the part of the Arabs is ASTOUNDING in this video. ASS-TOUNDING. I made the effort to stomach the first five minutes. I have some random thoughts. (Quotes from the clip best I can translate from the really crappy captions).

Its about building a series of Palestinian enclaves where the Israeli military will have the ability to instantly cut off movement of food, medicine, and goods ....

In point of fact, Israel has NEVER cut off the necessities of life to the Gazan people. Ever. Ever. Ever. Further Israel has continued to supply the Gazans with medical care, electricity, water and basic necessities. Compare this with actual facts of any other army or conflict in the world. There is a level of morality here that no other nation in the world can touch with respect to the treatment of her enemy.

Further, the desire and demonstrated ability to minimize human suffering by creating non-lethal economic sanctions rather than a full military response to belligerent actions is absolutely unheard of in the world. There is not another single instance of this level of non-lethal intervention that I am aware of between peoples in conflict.

Objectively, let's ask ourselves what the absolute most morally correct military action would look like. What is the best possible behavior when faced with an attack on your civilians? Is it absolute pacificsm? Is it a measured response? Is it non-lethal economic sanctions? Is it walls? Is it a few random stabbings? A few homicide bombs in pizza parlours or grocery stores? What?

If Catalonia starts lobbing rockets at Spain, sending suicide bombers across the borders -- what, objectively, is the right response?

Oh my gosh---the premiere propaganda-parrot strikes again...you have less than zero credibility Shush! Go away and cash your weekly Hasbara-check!

Oh my gosh...dot dot dot...the Internet jihadi is quoting a piece of shit. Even the radical Left wants nothing to do with him:

In 2012, after the Obama Administration signed the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, Hedges sued members of the U.S. government, claiming that section 1021 of the law unconstitutionally allowed presidential authority for indefinite detention without habeas corpus. He was later joined in the suit, Hedges v. Obama, by activists including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg. In May 2012 Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the Southern District of New York ruled that the counter-terrorism provision of the NDAA is unconstitutional.[56] The Obama administration appealed the decision and it was overturned. Hedges petitioned the US Supreme Court to hear the case,[57] but the Supreme Court denied certiorari in April 2014.[58][59]


Allegations of plagiarism
In 2003, University of Texas classics professor Thomas Palaima wrote an article for the Austin-American Statesman accusing Hedges of plagiarizing Ernest Hemingway in Hedge's 2002 book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning.[60] Palaima said that Hedges had corrected a passage in his first edition of War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning that was close to Hemingway, and he should have cited the paraphrase in all subsequent editions. Hedges' publisher at the time, PublicAffairs, said it did not believe the passage needed to be cited to Hemingway. The New Republic said that Palaima's allegation had resulted in the passage being reworded. But, after posting the article online, the magazine posted a correction box that read:

"In the original version of this article, The New Republic indicated that PublicAffairs changed the text of War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning only after having been alerted by Thomas [Palaima] to the presence of plagiarism. In fact, the wording had been changed months earlier, and an edition with the present language existed at the time of Palaima's e-mail to PublicAffairs. However, there was still no attribution to Hemingway in the new version, despite the obvious similarities in ideas and formulation".[61]

In June 2014, Christopher Ketcham accused Hedges of plagiarism in an article published in The New Republic.[61][62][63] Ketcham claims that Hedges plagiarized many writers over his career, including Matt Katz, Naomi Klein, Neil Postman, Ernest Hemingway, along with Ketcham's wife: Petra Bartosiewicz.[61][64] Hedges, his editors at Truthdig, and his publisher Nation Books denied the claims made by Ketcham.

 

[Shusha]

Shusha

Do you actually use software that creates these scripted responses like he says?

The man made several salient points. Have you responded to any of them in any fair way?

I thought I responded to the first one I pointed out in my first post in a very fair way.

He pointed out that Israel is creating a reality where they can cut off food, medical supplies, and other necessities. I agree. They can. But they don't. Instead, they ensure that the needs of the Gazan people are met. Israel actually does that BETTER than Hamas does.

So the question on the table is: Is there a BETTER way to conduct a conflict or respond to acts of belligerent violence against one's citizens? What is the objective mark we are trying to hit here, with respect to a response to acts of violence?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Fights back?' ROTFLMAO

Waaahhhhh...Israel is mean!
They fight back when we fire rockets at Israeli civilians.
Waaahhhh.

Waaahh....we can't fire rockets at Israeli civilians without Israelis fighting back......waahh.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Waaaahhhhh....Israel fights back.

By your logic, then Palestinians are fighting back against those who stole their land.

When did Palestine have any land?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oh my gosh---the premiere propaganda-parrot strikes again...you have less than zero credibility Shush! Go away and cash your weekly Hasbara-check!

Aww. Aren't you adorable. I asked for a set of objective criteria for proper moral and legal response to belligerent actions. Got nothing, huh?

It is Israel that is the aggressor.

How do you know that? What is the objective definition of an "aggressor"?

Did the Palestinians go to Europe to attack the Zionists?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Waaaahhhhh....Israel fights back.

By your logic, then Palestinians are fighting back against those who stole their land.

When did Palestine have any land?

The Ottomans ceded land to Palestine in the Treaty of Lausanne.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Waaaahhhhh....Israel fights back.

By your logic, then Palestinians are fighting back against those who stole their land.

When did Palestine have any land?

The Ottomans ceded land to Palestine in the Treaty of Lausanne.

That is not true. The Treaty of Lausanne doesn't even mention Palestine.

 

[Ventura77]

Shusha

Do you actually use software that creates these scripted responses like he says?

The man made several salient points. Have you responded to any of them in any fair way?

I thought I responded to the first one I pointed out in my first post in a very fair way.

He pointed out that Israel is creating a reality where they can cut off food, medical supplies, and other necessities. I agree. They can. But they don't. Instead, they ensure that the needs of the Gazan people are met. Israel actually does that BETTER than Hamas does.

So the question on the table is: Is there a BETTER way to conduct a conflict or respond to acts of belligerent violence against one's citizens? What is the objective mark we are trying to hit here, with respect to a response to acts of violence?

Note the insistence here again that 'Israel' defends itself against 'acts of violence?' To even pose such absurdity it becomes necessary to truncate the history of the conflict, the theft of colonial Palestine and the appalling military occupation and its gruesome concomitants...this is textbook Hasbara and this repulsive individual is lifting each response straight from detailed propaganda-software...the signatures are unmistakable!

 

[Ventura77]

Wrong...to the extent that the treaty impacts the former colonies of the Ottoman Empire Palestine cannot be omitted...

 

[Roudy]

Ottoman's never mentioned Palestine or Palestinians in the last 700 years. It is a European name.

Try to stick to historical facts Achmed, not jihadi propaganda.

 

[Roudy]

Shusha

Do you actually use software that creates these scripted responses like he says?

The man made several salient points. Have you responded to any of them in any fair way?

I thought I responded to the first one I pointed out in my first post in a very fair way.

He pointed out that Israel is creating a reality where they can cut off food, medical supplies, and other necessities. I agree. They can. But they don't. Instead, they ensure that the needs of the Gazan people are met. Israel actually does that BETTER than Hamas does.

So the question on the table is: Is there a BETTER way to conduct a conflict or respond to acts of belligerent violence against one's citizens? What is the objective mark we are trying to hit here, with respect to a response to acts of violence?

Note the insistence here again that 'Israel' defends itself against 'acts of violence?' To even pose such absurdity it becomes necessary to truncate the history of the conflict, the theft of colonial Palestine and the appalling military occupation and its gruesome concomitants...this is textbook Hasbara and this repulsive individual is lifting each response straight from detailed propaganda-software...the signatures are unmistakable!

Note the insistence that those being attacked by Muslim animals do not have a right to retaliate or defend themselves. This is textbook Islamist mentality that can be seen in groups like ISIS and Hamas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Waaaahhhhh....Israel fights back.

By your logic, then Palestinians are fighting back against those who stole their land.

When did Palestine have any land?

The Ottomans ceded land to Palestine in the Treaty of Lausanne.

So Palestine was a country on what date?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Shusha

Do you actually use software that creates these scripted responses like he says?

The man made several salient points. Have you responded to any of them in any fair way?

I thought I responded to the first one I pointed out in my first post in a very fair way.

He pointed out that Israel is creating a reality where they can cut off food, medical supplies, and other necessities. I agree. They can. But they don't. Instead, they ensure that the needs of the Gazan people are met. Israel actually does that BETTER than Hamas does.

So the question on the table is: Is there a BETTER way to conduct a conflict or respond to acts of belligerent violence against one's citizens? What is the objective mark we are trying to hit here, with respect to a response to acts of violence?

Note the insistence here again that 'Israel' defends itself against 'acts of violence?' To even pose such absurdity it becomes necessary to truncate the history of the conflict, the theft of colonial Palestine and the appalling military occupation and its gruesome concomitants...this is textbook Hasbara and this repulsive individual is lifting each response straight from detailed propaganda-software...the signatures are unmistakable!

Note the insistence here again that 'Israel' defends itself against 'acts of violence?'

Note the inference that rocket attacks aren't acts of violence.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Waaaahhhhh....Israel fights back.

By your logic, then Palestinians are fighting back against those who stole their land.

When did Palestine have any land?

The Ottomans ceded land to Palestine in the Treaty of Lausanne.

That is not true. The Treaty of Lausanne doesn't even mention Palestine.

It does not mention Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq either, doofus, what is your point?

 

[Shusha]

So the question on the table is: Is there a BETTER way to conduct a conflict or respond to acts of belligerent violence against one's citizens? What is the objective mark we are trying to hit here, with respect to a response to acts of violence?

Note the insistence here again that 'Israel' defends itself against 'acts of violence?' To even pose such absurdity ...

Your claim is that no acts of violence have occurred? That Arab Palestinian individuals have not or do not commit acts of belligerent violence against Israeli citizens? That rockets, mortars, suicide bombs, stabbings, car rammings and tunnels simply don't exist? Or that rockets, mortars, bombs, stabbings, car rammings and tunnels exist but aren't considered acts of violence?

I ask again, what objective measure do you want to use?

 

[Hollie]

Waaaahhhhh....Israel fights back.

By your logic, then Palestinians are fighting back against those who stole their land.

When did Palestine have any land?

The Ottomans ceded land to Palestine in the Treaty of Lausanne.

That is not true. The Treaty of Lausanne doesn't even mention Palestine.

It does not mention Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq either, doofus, what is your point?

I believe the point is that your attempt to re-write history as you attempt to re-write the Treaty of Lausanne is phony and time wasting.