Ahmadinejad claims US slavery a hoax
| COMMENTS |
Dave Whinebaum
Dave says:
'Lot's of 'facts' are in dispute and are challenged every day in courts of law all over the world. '
(premise 1)
premise 2: All courts are objective
premise 3: Dave disputes/challenges facts
conclusion: When Dave challenge 'facts' he is objective
Assuming you are a court, premise 2 is still not true so neither is the conclusion.
Please try again.
The question (since you missed it the first time) is:
How can opinions be wrong, Dave?
and to follow...If opinions can be wrong, isn't your OP-ed subject to being wrong?
if opinions cannot be wrong, how can we both be right?
If that is too much for you, can you at least admit that this (your) statement cannot be 'backed up'
or 'proven'?
~Obama has shown an amazing animosity toward other long-time US allies~
prove it.
April Lexington
Apparently, democracies can only elect crazy people.....
DRey
"US Slavery a hoax"
If only.....
egannacht
The Irish were always free. We came over on pleasure boats to buy estates in America. We are the
wealthiest families in the world. We are all temperate in our drink. We never fight. And rays of
sunshine eminate from our arse.
stockpirate
This is so untrue, all he needs to do is look at all the slaves we have here NOW, supporting the
Obamanation.
unifox
"US Slavery a hoax"
I guess they haven't heard of our tax system.
bmwcyle
It has been a hoax since the 1960’s.
libh8ter
It was a hoax to get welfare, Affirmative Action and elect Obama president
LOL. And this after Obama went out of his way to be nice to A'jad.
DieHard the Hunter
“Slavery never occurred in the USA . It was a hoax to get welfare, Affirmative Action and elect
Obama president. America is an enemy of Islam! We will wipe you off the map!”
Well, this much can be fairly said of Ahmadinejad: he’s an “Equal-Opportunity Enemy”. White or
black, Jew or Christian, he hates all Americans equally and without prejudice or bigotry. He can
never be accused of Racism because he hates all of you irrespective of color or creed.
No wonder Obama is puzzled by him: the race card — which normally works perfectly — can’t
work against enemies like Ahmadinejad. He cannot be shamed by “White-man Guilt” and he cannot
be co-opted by “the downtrodden masses”, either.
To that extent only, Ahmadinejad is a more honorable man than is Obama. He is a man of
unpragmatic principles whose soul is neither for barter, borrowing or rent. Obama would never
understand him.
Carley
Ha ha ha so much for the one ‘respecting’ Imanutjob.
autumnrain
Satire warning.
Don Corleone
Boy, his meds really got switched around somewhere.
nick carraway
Ha Ha- Obama’s buddy believes what they think Rush Limbaugh believes.
OpEdMunkey
Yeah, I could imagine him saying this with a straight face. The guy’s nuttier than squirrel sh!t
ME-262
It sounds like the president of Iran is pushing our president's buttons.
I must be pure evil because I find this exchange between naive Obama and Iran's delusional despot
to be quite entertaining. Obama gets race baited by a Persian buying time for nuclear weapons he is
building under the entire wold's noses.
I assume it would sound something like this:
Obama: I think you are secretly building nuclear weapons to terrorize the world with and I'd like to
discuss this with you as friends.
Ahmadinejad: Slavery never happened in America, it was just a hoax to get special treatment for
Negros.
Obama: Nuclear weapons in the hands of a madman is bad, but I draw the line when you mock
Black angst. You can deny the holocaust and threaten to exterminate the Jews in a nuclear
cataclysm. but mocking the American Negro's culture of perpetual aggrievement is across the line.
You must come back to America again at once! Forget the UN, this calls for a very sober beer
summit.
Ahmadinejad: Will I get to talk to the White guy in charge at this beer summit?
Obama: OK, You can have the nuclear weapons, but you've got to stop the Black jokes!
Ahmadinejad: What do you call Barack Obama in a white Cadillac?
Obama: I'm warning you for the last time! Don't go there.
AngelesCrestHighway
Dave says:
'Lot's of 'facts' are in dispute and are challenged every day in courts of law all over the world. '
(premise 1)
premise 2: All courts are objective
premise 3: Dave disputes/challenges facts
conclusion: When Dave challenge 'facts' he is objective
Assuming you are a court, premise 2 is still not true so neither is the conclusion.
Please try again.
The question (since you missed it the first time) is:
How can opinions be wrong, Dave?
and to follow...If opinions can be wrong, isn't your OP-ed subject to being wrong?
if opinions cannot be wrong, how can we both be right?
If that is too much for you, can you at least admit that this (your) statement cannot be 'backed up'
or 'proven'?
~Obama has shown an amazing animosity toward other long-time US allies~
prove it.
April Lexington
Apparently, democracies can only elect crazy people.....
DRey
"US Slavery a hoax"
If only.....
egannacht
The Irish were always free. We came over on pleasure boats to buy estates in America. We are the
wealthiest families in the world. We are all temperate in our drink. We never fight. And rays of
sunshine eminate from our arse.
stockpirate
This is so untrue, all he needs to do is look at all the slaves we have here NOW, supporting the
Obamanation.
unifox
"US Slavery a hoax"
I guess they haven't heard of our tax system.
bmwcyle
It has been a hoax since the 1960’s.
libh8ter
It was a hoax to get welfare, Affirmative Action and elect Obama president
LOL. And this after Obama went out of his way to be nice to A'jad.
DieHard the Hunter
“Slavery never occurred in the USA . It was a hoax to get welfare, Affirmative Action and elect
Obama president. America is an enemy of Islam! We will wipe you off the map!”
Well, this much can be fairly said of Ahmadinejad: he’s an “Equal-Opportunity Enemy”. White or
black, Jew or Christian, he hates all Americans equally and without prejudice or bigotry. He can
never be accused of Racism because he hates all of you irrespective of color or creed.
No wonder Obama is puzzled by him: the race card — which normally works perfectly — can’t
work against enemies like Ahmadinejad. He cannot be shamed by “White-man Guilt” and he cannot
be co-opted by “the downtrodden masses”, either.
To that extent only, Ahmadinejad is a more honorable man than is Obama. He is a man of
unpragmatic principles whose soul is neither for barter, borrowing or rent. Obama would never
understand him.
Carley
Ha ha ha so much for the one ‘respecting’ Imanutjob.
autumnrain
Satire warning.
Don Corleone
Boy, his meds really got switched around somewhere.
nick carraway
Ha Ha- Obama’s buddy believes what they think Rush Limbaugh believes.
OpEdMunkey
Yeah, I could imagine him saying this with a straight face. The guy’s nuttier than squirrel sh!t
ME-262
It sounds like the president of Iran is pushing our president's buttons.
I must be pure evil because I find this exchange between naive Obama and Iran's delusional despot
to be quite entertaining. Obama gets race baited by a Persian buying time for nuclear weapons he is
building under the entire wold's noses.
I assume it would sound something like this:
Obama: I think you are secretly building nuclear weapons to terrorize the world with and I'd like to
discuss this with you as friends.
Ahmadinejad: Slavery never happened in America, it was just a hoax to get special treatment for
Negros.
Obama: Nuclear weapons in the hands of a madman is bad, but I draw the line when you mock
Black angst. You can deny the holocaust and threaten to exterminate the Jews in a nuclear
cataclysm. but mocking the American Negro's culture of perpetual aggrievement is across the line.
You must come back to America again at once! Forget the UN, this calls for a very sober beer
summit.
Ahmadinejad: Will I get to talk to the White guy in charge at this beer summit?
Obama: OK, You can have the nuclear weapons, but you've got to stop the Black jokes!
Ahmadinejad: What do you call Barack Obama in a white Cadillac?
Obama: I'm warning you for the last time! Don't go there.
AngelesCrestHighway
nifong
History is repeating itself. Anybody remember Jimmy Carter? What a loser.
Dave Weinbaum replies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tifr101lGvQ
Our President throwing Israel under the bus along with Rev. Wright and Granny.
Ugster
Is there a racial or religious catagory that you didn't insult in this opinion article? I normally enjoy
reading your articles, but this one is bad... very bad. This type of hate-mongering is what gives the
rest of us conservatives a bad name/reputation. Thank you for setting us back.
Dave Weinbaum replies:
Ug,
Thank you for your critique. Obviously, I entirely disagree. Guess you didn't get the satire...most
did. Don't see how this is racist, unless you'reof the opinion that ANY criticism of Obama is
inherently racist.
Gonna support McCain again? Let me know how that works out for you.
redsuperman
wish I could leave a comment.
gtm
You might want to talk with a debate coach (or an attorney...we're not all bad) before you go to the
'prove me wrong' defense.
When a statement is made that contradicts accepted fact, it is up to maker of such statements to
prove his point. It's called 'burden of proof' and it is substantiated by the notion that a man is
innocent until proven guity. Therefore, in your earlier citing of the 'world is flat' theory being fact,
it is only because that was the status quo when people began to speculate that the world was,
indeed, round. It was up to the scientists with the conrtadictory theory to prove their hypothesis.
We're not talking about truth. Even Pontius Pilate had trouble with that one (oh, forgive me, you
didn't read that half of the book) Truth and fact are sometimes diametrically opposed.
When you make a statement and challenge people to prove you wrong, you're completely missing
the first rule of debate. No one has to prove you wrong. That's a given. You have to prove you're
right.
nifong
History is repeating itself. Anybody remember Jimmy Carter? What a loser.
Dave Weinbaum replies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tifr101lGvQ
Our President throwing Israel under the bus along with Rev. Wright and Granny.
Dave Whinebaum
Bush's crimes vastly exceed anything attributed to Ahmadinejad, by a huge margin.
Ahmadinejad has no control over foreign policy, which is in the hands of his superior, the Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Iranians remember something that were not allowed to think about. For over half a century, the
United States has been tormenting the people of Iran without a break. It started in 1953 and
continues today.
Please do some more reading.
How do we react when Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he would offer a possible
promise not to seek 'regime change' in Israel if it stopped its illegal activities in the occupied
territories and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues?
Obama has insisted hat the United States must threaten Iran with attack (the standard phrase is:
'keep all options open'), a violation of the U.N. Charter, if anyone cares. But a large majority of
Americans have disagreed: 75 per cent favour building better relations with Iran, as compared with
22 per cent who favour 'implied threats,' according to PIPA.
Transparently, it is the Palestinians who face by far the most severe security problem, in fact a
problem of survival. But Palestinians are not a 'strong ally.' At most, they might be a very weak
one. Hence their plight merits little concern, in accord with the operative principle that human
rights are largely determined by contributions to power, profit and ideological needs.
Obama does not ignore Palestinians: 'Obama believes that a better life for Palestinian families is
good for both Israelis and Palestinians.' He also adds a reference to two states living side by side
that is vague enough to be unproblematic to U.S. and Israeli hawks.
For Palestinians, there are now two options. One is that the United States and Israel will abandon
their unilateral rejectionism of the past 30 years and accept the international consensus on a two-
state settlement, in accord with international law and, incidentally, in accord with the wishes of a
large majority of Americans. That is not impossible, though the two rejectionist states are working
hard to render it so.
A second possibility is the one that the US-Israel are actually implementing. Palestinians will be
consigned to their Gaza prison and to West Bank cantons, virtually separated from one another by
Israeli settlements and huge infrastructure projects, the whole imprisoned as Israel takes over the
Jordan Valley.
nifong
What would happen if Canada started launching missiles into our country? Probably nothing...........
because our President has no spine.
There are people around the world that simply don't like America. That is just the way it is and
always will be. So why should we change when we have the best country in the world?
craigeryjohn
GTM....VERY well said!
Dave Weinbaum replies:
Whiner,
This is YOUR idea of objectivity?
'Bush's crimes vastly exceed anything attributed to Ahmadinejad, by a huge margin.'
Sonds like you would have been in favor of Hitler in 1938 over the Brits and French as he began to
take out his wrath on Europe and murder all its Jews. Ah'm Mad is not only threatening the lives of
six million Jews in Israel, but is ok with taking out about 3 million Muslims as well. OK with YOU
right?
http://www.mfa.gov.
il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/The+Kingdom+of+David+and+Solomon+-+1077+-
+997+BCE.htm
Above is the map of the original Israel under David and Solomon....massive compared to the
divided land the UN authorized. Yet the two state ream job originally offered Israel was
ACCEPTED by Israel and vehemently DENIED by the Arabs. Then the ARABS, not Israelis took
agressive wars to murder ALL Jews in Israel and take ALL the land. Arabs still, 61 years after the
two state solution was denied by them, are trying to drive Israelis into the sea and murder them any
chance they get.
Israelis and Jews have a RIGHT to survive. It's not their fault Arabs have been killing them for the
last 90 years...yeah that's right 90 years, way BEFORE THE UN VOTED OVERWHEMINGLY
TO GRANT ISRAEL STATEHOOD.
indylindy
The Iranian president is a dangerous fool.
navygal
He must be wearing some sort of rose colored glasses.
BCW
...these guys have nukes - maybe just a few right now - but they got them...Ahmmi wants a fight -
he wants the world to stumble into a conflict for the excuse to use them. He’ll hit Israel first - Saudi
Arabia since they are Sunnis and maybe a European target...he wants this and needs it to stay in
power. They are beating right now that 0bama doesn’t have the minerals to launch a counter-strike...
and once everyone sees what they have - it will only bolster their credibility to the Arab world that
they have struck the Jews and stood up against the Great Satan — it’s coming - really soon...
pnh102
Heh... one must give credit to Ahmadinejad, at least he made his birth records public. :)
Dave Whinebaum
How about I Sesame Street it up for you, Dave:
Bush's invasion of Iraq violated international law. Violating law is called crime. Even if you get
away with it, it is still a crime. Conveniently, you are opposed to big government, but all for
government doing whatever the heck it wants in foreign policy.
The basic principle is that the losers have to confess, not the victors. When they do it, it's a crime.
When we do it, it's not. And more generally, it's the defeated who are tried, not the victors. The
strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must.
Preventive war is the supreme crime condemned at Nuremberg.
In favor of Hitler? Try to stay on topic, Dave. Godwin's Law.
Nice map. So Israel has the right to defend itself with force, but nobody else can?
There are no peaceful alternatives that can be tried? How about Israel can do whatever the hell it
wants, but we stop giving them billions of dollars every year with no strings attached? I get the
feeling that if the cash fire hose dried up, peace would suddenly break out.
President Obama? Extremist muslims hate him because he wore a yarmulke and went to the wailing
wall, extremist Jews hate him because he's willing to talk to Muslim leaders and extremist
Christians think he's a secret-Muslim terrorist commie controlled by the Jews. Oy vey.
Then again, if all the extremists hate him he must be doing something right.
'What right does anybody have to tell us to stop building in the land that was given to us by God?'
'Every part and parcel and hilltop and stone in the Land of Israel is like one of our children. And
we're going to protect it like lionesses.'
How are you going to ever have reasonable debate where the lines are so entrenched?
Can we please agree that disagreeing with the policies of the state of Israel is not the same as being
anti-semitic?
I'm 'pro-not having another Holocaust', but I'm also very much not 'pro-keeping Israel as a Jewish
pseudo-theocracy' either. I'm also not very 'pro-letting Israel get away with stuff because a lot of
Jews got killed 70 years ago'.
Israel lost the right to bitch about the US interfering in its local politics the instant it took billions
of dollars in aid and a crap load of military hardware as 'gifts'. The US doesn't get to run Israel, of
course, but the fact that we're basically propping the nation up gives us a right to not merely an
opinion, but the right to say what we think should be happening. Of course Israel has the right to
say 'get lost, US' and put the flow of military hardware at risk.
But peace threatens the traditional institution of having enemies.
-----
One thing that I always find odd about discussions of Israel is the almost universal acceptance of
the idea of an ethnic or religious 'homeland.' Perhaps it's because I'm an American of mongrel stock,
but I find the notion of drawing borders based on Biblical text or on landmarks constructed
thousands of years ago to be absolutely preposterous. Yet no one talks about it. The elephant in
the room seems to be, 'Why do we treat Israel as a special case?' Obviously it has to do with the
horrific treatment of Jews through history, most notably during the Holocaust. But is that
ultimately enough of a reason? At what point does the raw horror of that event lose its power as
justification for a sovereign nation? At some point these two differing opinions of the land of Israel
need to be resolved: either yes, it is okay to cite centuries old religious texts and historic landmarks
to denote national borders, and the Jews of Israel are the only group of people we will allow to do
so; or, conversely, no, that is not okay, we believe in an ideal that states unequivocally that
countries should have democratically elected leaders and all countries should allow the exercise of
all religions freely.
If you stand on one side of the line, then you deny the rights of hundreds of tribes of Native
Americans from reclaiming sovereignty - indeed, hundreds of thousands of indigenous populations
all over the world - while at the same time allowing Israel to exercise the right of a 'homeland.'
If you stand on the other side of the line, then you implicitly support the fall of the state of Israel
as a Jewish state, as determined by the demographics of the country and the fact that
democratically held elections would presumably, over time, favor the election of Palestinian, Arab,
and Muslim leaders.
Dave Weinbaum replies:
'One thing that I always find odd about discussions of Israel is the almost universal acceptance of
the idea of an ethnic or religious 'homeland.' '
Well good for you, Whiny, you've just taken a stand AGAINST the 57 Muslim countries in the
world. ROFLMAO!!!
Thanks for the laugh.
Now let the Jews live in peace on their little sliver of homeland will ya?
-----
'Jeez, Dave - what's wrong?? Nearly 50 comments on the drunk Newburg mayor article, and only
two here??? It appears Rolla's citizens have their priorities in order. '
Native,
This column has gotten the biggest response I've ever had...approaching 200 in 5 days and STILL
bringing in responses. Let me know how you predict the world series so I can be opposite.
-----
'Bush's invasion of Iraq violated international law. '
No it didn't. We were all ready at war. Saddam signed a ceasefire stating he would destroy Iraq's
WMDS (thus ADMITTING he had them) and ACCOUNT for them. Saddam broke the ceasefire
by not meeting it's conditions. Congress voted overwhelmingly to go to war, including 29 out of 50
Dem Senators.
'President Obama? Extremist muslims hate him because he wore a yarmulke and went to the wailing
wall, extremist Jews hate him because he's willing to talk to Muslim leaders and extremist
Christians think he's a secret-Muslim terrorist commie controlled by the Jews. Oy vey.'
The vast majority of Jews and Muslims voted FOR Obama. He had more Jews of Israel support
him before the election. Now only 4% of Israeli Jews think Obama is being fair with Israel
according to the Jerusalem Post. Also his support amongst American Jews has dropped 20 points
since the election. Hmmmmmmmm. Wonder who won out in THAT ELECTION, Muslims or
Jews.
As to whether the US can 'run' Israel because of the billions in aid, it can't. If the US can't tell
Muslim countries how to behave why do YOU think they can tell Israel? Besides, Israel turns right
around and spends most of that $$$ right here in the good ole' USA. Sure America could cut them
off, but:
1. They're the most reliable ally the USA has had in that region EVER, and they've had them for the
last 61 years.
2. If the USA abandoned them, Israel could fall in with 'other' major countries, not exactly friendly
with the USA.
If you run our foreign policy, let me know in advance.
I'm moving to New Zealand.
Dave Whinebaum
This New Zealand thing, that's a promise, right?
For those of you keeping score at home, I make a valid point and Dave rolls on the floor laughing in
response. Dave, you can laugh all you want. Alas for you, I'm quite calm and happy to supply
rational arguments in an interesting discussion.
For the record, Dave, you deny the rights of hundreds of tribes of Native Americans from
reclaiming sovereignty? Again, convenient and selective rules. You admit treating Native Americans
as second class.
The invasion as a violation of international law:
Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution states that treaties, which this country has signed and
ratified, are the 'supreme law of the land.'
The U.N. Charter is such a treaty, and it was created in large part because of the efforts of this
country following World War II. For this country to so egregiously transgress the charter's
prohibition on the use of force is not only a violation of international law, it is a violation of our
Constitution and a repudiation of much of what this country stands for.
As a signatory to the UN Charter, the United States is bound by the Charter's requirements. Article
39 specifically gives the UN Security Council, not individual nations, the authority to determine
'the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression', and the authority
to 'decide what measures shall be taken ... to maintain or restore international peace and security.'
Frankly, I don't care if all 50 senators voted; I'm talking about international law.
Here's a double standard for you:
Israel is in violation of, at a very conservative count, over 30 resolutions, pertaining among other
things to the very substantive issue of the continuing illegal occupation of another people, along
with violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention through steady encroachment on and effective
annexation of that land.
Back to Iraq: the continued possession and development of weapons of mass destruction and active
links to al Qaeda have been found to be false, according to all official reports.
----
Dave said:
1. They're the most reliable ally the USA has had in that region EVER, and they've had them for the
last 61 years.
2. If the USA abandoned them, Israel could fall in with 'other' major countries, not exactly friendly
with the USA.
1 - why are they allies again? Oh, that's right, because we give them money.
2 - if we quit giving them money, they wouldn't be allies
Thanks for helping me make my point (again):
The US doesn't get to run Israel, of course, but the fact that we're basically propping the nation up
gives us a right to not merely an opinion, but the right to say what we think should be happening.
At least we agree that the US can't run Israel. Because it is a fragile alliance.
50sDad
White Americans acknowledge slavery was bad, are sorry it happened (even if they think it is a
stupid idea to pay reparations), and generally have a good opinion of black people as a whole. For
this, our President silently hates us, and America, to the point that he would sit, smiling, in a pew
for twenty years and listen to a racist.
Mr. Dinnerjacket thinks Slavery was made up to get welfare, hates jews, must hate blacks, and
probably thinks the President is a wussy, weak, scheming, evil American. For this, the President
approaches him as a fawning, weak little surrendur monkey with a credit card.
x_plus_one
Poor guy doesn't understand that it doesn't take a ruse or a conspiracy or anything else to get
welfare in the USA. All it takes is bleeding heart liberals and fifth column progressives. ACORN
should infiltrate IRAN.
Safrguns
I sense satire
Confirmation?
RowdyFFC
Funny piece of satire...but if Aham’jad really did say that about slavery he could be right. Slavery
had been over for almost 100 years when LBJ’s Great Society used it as an excuse to re-distribute
the wealth.
You know it still behooves me that ‘The Once’ has never apologized for his Luo muslim ancestors
selling indigenous black Africans on the slave markets on the road to Mombassa.
We KNOW so far he’s scored an “F” on world history, but surely his ‘dreams of his father’ (snort)
would’ve led him to take History of the African Continent 101?
Does he just have lying thunder lips? Is he just a con-man? Or do his history revisionist delusions
just write that part of history out of his tiny mind? Or is he just STUPID?
cranked
Yes, the chains, the whips, the plantations, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, etc. were all a hoax. You
one smart cat, Ahmanutjob. Bet.
History is repeating itself. Anybody remember Jimmy Carter? What a loser.
Dave Weinbaum replies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tifr101lGvQ
Our President throwing Israel under the bus along with Rev. Wright and Granny.
Ugster
Is there a racial or religious catagory that you didn't insult in this opinion article? I normally enjoy
reading your articles, but this one is bad... very bad. This type of hate-mongering is what gives the
rest of us conservatives a bad name/reputation. Thank you for setting us back.
Dave Weinbaum replies:
Ug,
Thank you for your critique. Obviously, I entirely disagree. Guess you didn't get the satire...most
did. Don't see how this is racist, unless you'reof the opinion that ANY criticism of Obama is
inherently racist.
Gonna support McCain again? Let me know how that works out for you.
redsuperman
wish I could leave a comment.
gtm
You might want to talk with a debate coach (or an attorney...we're not all bad) before you go to the
'prove me wrong' defense.
When a statement is made that contradicts accepted fact, it is up to maker of such statements to
prove his point. It's called 'burden of proof' and it is substantiated by the notion that a man is
innocent until proven guity. Therefore, in your earlier citing of the 'world is flat' theory being fact,
it is only because that was the status quo when people began to speculate that the world was,
indeed, round. It was up to the scientists with the conrtadictory theory to prove their hypothesis.
We're not talking about truth. Even Pontius Pilate had trouble with that one (oh, forgive me, you
didn't read that half of the book) Truth and fact are sometimes diametrically opposed.
When you make a statement and challenge people to prove you wrong, you're completely missing
the first rule of debate. No one has to prove you wrong. That's a given. You have to prove you're
right.
nifong
History is repeating itself. Anybody remember Jimmy Carter? What a loser.
Dave Weinbaum replies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tifr101lGvQ
Our President throwing Israel under the bus along with Rev. Wright and Granny.
Dave Whinebaum
Bush's crimes vastly exceed anything attributed to Ahmadinejad, by a huge margin.
Ahmadinejad has no control over foreign policy, which is in the hands of his superior, the Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Iranians remember something that were not allowed to think about. For over half a century, the
United States has been tormenting the people of Iran without a break. It started in 1953 and
continues today.
Please do some more reading.
How do we react when Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he would offer a possible
promise not to seek 'regime change' in Israel if it stopped its illegal activities in the occupied
territories and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues?
Obama has insisted hat the United States must threaten Iran with attack (the standard phrase is:
'keep all options open'), a violation of the U.N. Charter, if anyone cares. But a large majority of
Americans have disagreed: 75 per cent favour building better relations with Iran, as compared with
22 per cent who favour 'implied threats,' according to PIPA.
Transparently, it is the Palestinians who face by far the most severe security problem, in fact a
problem of survival. But Palestinians are not a 'strong ally.' At most, they might be a very weak
one. Hence their plight merits little concern, in accord with the operative principle that human
rights are largely determined by contributions to power, profit and ideological needs.
Obama does not ignore Palestinians: 'Obama believes that a better life for Palestinian families is
good for both Israelis and Palestinians.' He also adds a reference to two states living side by side
that is vague enough to be unproblematic to U.S. and Israeli hawks.
For Palestinians, there are now two options. One is that the United States and Israel will abandon
their unilateral rejectionism of the past 30 years and accept the international consensus on a two-
state settlement, in accord with international law and, incidentally, in accord with the wishes of a
large majority of Americans. That is not impossible, though the two rejectionist states are working
hard to render it so.
A second possibility is the one that the US-Israel are actually implementing. Palestinians will be
consigned to their Gaza prison and to West Bank cantons, virtually separated from one another by
Israeli settlements and huge infrastructure projects, the whole imprisoned as Israel takes over the
Jordan Valley.
nifong
What would happen if Canada started launching missiles into our country? Probably nothing...........
because our President has no spine.
There are people around the world that simply don't like America. That is just the way it is and
always will be. So why should we change when we have the best country in the world?
craigeryjohn
GTM....VERY well said!
Dave Weinbaum replies:
Whiner,
This is YOUR idea of objectivity?
'Bush's crimes vastly exceed anything attributed to Ahmadinejad, by a huge margin.'
Sonds like you would have been in favor of Hitler in 1938 over the Brits and French as he began to
take out his wrath on Europe and murder all its Jews. Ah'm Mad is not only threatening the lives of
six million Jews in Israel, but is ok with taking out about 3 million Muslims as well. OK with YOU
right?
http://www.mfa.gov.
il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/The+Kingdom+of+David+and+Solomon+-+1077+-
+997+BCE.htm
Above is the map of the original Israel under David and Solomon....massive compared to the
divided land the UN authorized. Yet the two state ream job originally offered Israel was
ACCEPTED by Israel and vehemently DENIED by the Arabs. Then the ARABS, not Israelis took
agressive wars to murder ALL Jews in Israel and take ALL the land. Arabs still, 61 years after the
two state solution was denied by them, are trying to drive Israelis into the sea and murder them any
chance they get.
Israelis and Jews have a RIGHT to survive. It's not their fault Arabs have been killing them for the
last 90 years...yeah that's right 90 years, way BEFORE THE UN VOTED OVERWHEMINGLY
TO GRANT ISRAEL STATEHOOD.
indylindy
The Iranian president is a dangerous fool.
navygal
He must be wearing some sort of rose colored glasses.
BCW
...these guys have nukes - maybe just a few right now - but they got them...Ahmmi wants a fight -
he wants the world to stumble into a conflict for the excuse to use them. He’ll hit Israel first - Saudi
Arabia since they are Sunnis and maybe a European target...he wants this and needs it to stay in
power. They are beating right now that 0bama doesn’t have the minerals to launch a counter-strike...
and once everyone sees what they have - it will only bolster their credibility to the Arab world that
they have struck the Jews and stood up against the Great Satan — it’s coming - really soon...
pnh102
Heh... one must give credit to Ahmadinejad, at least he made his birth records public. :)
Dave Whinebaum
How about I Sesame Street it up for you, Dave:
Bush's invasion of Iraq violated international law. Violating law is called crime. Even if you get
away with it, it is still a crime. Conveniently, you are opposed to big government, but all for
government doing whatever the heck it wants in foreign policy.
The basic principle is that the losers have to confess, not the victors. When they do it, it's a crime.
When we do it, it's not. And more generally, it's the defeated who are tried, not the victors. The
strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must.
Preventive war is the supreme crime condemned at Nuremberg.
In favor of Hitler? Try to stay on topic, Dave. Godwin's Law.
Nice map. So Israel has the right to defend itself with force, but nobody else can?
There are no peaceful alternatives that can be tried? How about Israel can do whatever the hell it
wants, but we stop giving them billions of dollars every year with no strings attached? I get the
feeling that if the cash fire hose dried up, peace would suddenly break out.
President Obama? Extremist muslims hate him because he wore a yarmulke and went to the wailing
wall, extremist Jews hate him because he's willing to talk to Muslim leaders and extremist
Christians think he's a secret-Muslim terrorist commie controlled by the Jews. Oy vey.
Then again, if all the extremists hate him he must be doing something right.
'What right does anybody have to tell us to stop building in the land that was given to us by God?'
'Every part and parcel and hilltop and stone in the Land of Israel is like one of our children. And
we're going to protect it like lionesses.'
How are you going to ever have reasonable debate where the lines are so entrenched?
Can we please agree that disagreeing with the policies of the state of Israel is not the same as being
anti-semitic?
I'm 'pro-not having another Holocaust', but I'm also very much not 'pro-keeping Israel as a Jewish
pseudo-theocracy' either. I'm also not very 'pro-letting Israel get away with stuff because a lot of
Jews got killed 70 years ago'.
Israel lost the right to bitch about the US interfering in its local politics the instant it took billions
of dollars in aid and a crap load of military hardware as 'gifts'. The US doesn't get to run Israel, of
course, but the fact that we're basically propping the nation up gives us a right to not merely an
opinion, but the right to say what we think should be happening. Of course Israel has the right to
say 'get lost, US' and put the flow of military hardware at risk.
But peace threatens the traditional institution of having enemies.
-----
One thing that I always find odd about discussions of Israel is the almost universal acceptance of
the idea of an ethnic or religious 'homeland.' Perhaps it's because I'm an American of mongrel stock,
but I find the notion of drawing borders based on Biblical text or on landmarks constructed
thousands of years ago to be absolutely preposterous. Yet no one talks about it. The elephant in
the room seems to be, 'Why do we treat Israel as a special case?' Obviously it has to do with the
horrific treatment of Jews through history, most notably during the Holocaust. But is that
ultimately enough of a reason? At what point does the raw horror of that event lose its power as
justification for a sovereign nation? At some point these two differing opinions of the land of Israel
need to be resolved: either yes, it is okay to cite centuries old religious texts and historic landmarks
to denote national borders, and the Jews of Israel are the only group of people we will allow to do
so; or, conversely, no, that is not okay, we believe in an ideal that states unequivocally that
countries should have democratically elected leaders and all countries should allow the exercise of
all religions freely.
If you stand on one side of the line, then you deny the rights of hundreds of tribes of Native
Americans from reclaiming sovereignty - indeed, hundreds of thousands of indigenous populations
all over the world - while at the same time allowing Israel to exercise the right of a 'homeland.'
If you stand on the other side of the line, then you implicitly support the fall of the state of Israel
as a Jewish state, as determined by the demographics of the country and the fact that
democratically held elections would presumably, over time, favor the election of Palestinian, Arab,
and Muslim leaders.
Dave Weinbaum replies:
'One thing that I always find odd about discussions of Israel is the almost universal acceptance of
the idea of an ethnic or religious 'homeland.' '
Well good for you, Whiny, you've just taken a stand AGAINST the 57 Muslim countries in the
world. ROFLMAO!!!
Thanks for the laugh.
Now let the Jews live in peace on their little sliver of homeland will ya?
-----
'Jeez, Dave - what's wrong?? Nearly 50 comments on the drunk Newburg mayor article, and only
two here??? It appears Rolla's citizens have their priorities in order. '
Native,
This column has gotten the biggest response I've ever had...approaching 200 in 5 days and STILL
bringing in responses. Let me know how you predict the world series so I can be opposite.
-----
'Bush's invasion of Iraq violated international law. '
No it didn't. We were all ready at war. Saddam signed a ceasefire stating he would destroy Iraq's
WMDS (thus ADMITTING he had them) and ACCOUNT for them. Saddam broke the ceasefire
by not meeting it's conditions. Congress voted overwhelmingly to go to war, including 29 out of 50
Dem Senators.
'President Obama? Extremist muslims hate him because he wore a yarmulke and went to the wailing
wall, extremist Jews hate him because he's willing to talk to Muslim leaders and extremist
Christians think he's a secret-Muslim terrorist commie controlled by the Jews. Oy vey.'
The vast majority of Jews and Muslims voted FOR Obama. He had more Jews of Israel support
him before the election. Now only 4% of Israeli Jews think Obama is being fair with Israel
according to the Jerusalem Post. Also his support amongst American Jews has dropped 20 points
since the election. Hmmmmmmmm. Wonder who won out in THAT ELECTION, Muslims or
Jews.
As to whether the US can 'run' Israel because of the billions in aid, it can't. If the US can't tell
Muslim countries how to behave why do YOU think they can tell Israel? Besides, Israel turns right
around and spends most of that $$$ right here in the good ole' USA. Sure America could cut them
off, but:
1. They're the most reliable ally the USA has had in that region EVER, and they've had them for the
last 61 years.
2. If the USA abandoned them, Israel could fall in with 'other' major countries, not exactly friendly
with the USA.
If you run our foreign policy, let me know in advance.
I'm moving to New Zealand.
Dave Whinebaum
This New Zealand thing, that's a promise, right?
For those of you keeping score at home, I make a valid point and Dave rolls on the floor laughing in
response. Dave, you can laugh all you want. Alas for you, I'm quite calm and happy to supply
rational arguments in an interesting discussion.
For the record, Dave, you deny the rights of hundreds of tribes of Native Americans from
reclaiming sovereignty? Again, convenient and selective rules. You admit treating Native Americans
as second class.
The invasion as a violation of international law:
Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution states that treaties, which this country has signed and
ratified, are the 'supreme law of the land.'
The U.N. Charter is such a treaty, and it was created in large part because of the efforts of this
country following World War II. For this country to so egregiously transgress the charter's
prohibition on the use of force is not only a violation of international law, it is a violation of our
Constitution and a repudiation of much of what this country stands for.
As a signatory to the UN Charter, the United States is bound by the Charter's requirements. Article
39 specifically gives the UN Security Council, not individual nations, the authority to determine
'the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression', and the authority
to 'decide what measures shall be taken ... to maintain or restore international peace and security.'
Frankly, I don't care if all 50 senators voted; I'm talking about international law.
Here's a double standard for you:
Israel is in violation of, at a very conservative count, over 30 resolutions, pertaining among other
things to the very substantive issue of the continuing illegal occupation of another people, along
with violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention through steady encroachment on and effective
annexation of that land.
Back to Iraq: the continued possession and development of weapons of mass destruction and active
links to al Qaeda have been found to be false, according to all official reports.
----
Dave said:
1. They're the most reliable ally the USA has had in that region EVER, and they've had them for the
last 61 years.
2. If the USA abandoned them, Israel could fall in with 'other' major countries, not exactly friendly
with the USA.
1 - why are they allies again? Oh, that's right, because we give them money.
2 - if we quit giving them money, they wouldn't be allies
Thanks for helping me make my point (again):
The US doesn't get to run Israel, of course, but the fact that we're basically propping the nation up
gives us a right to not merely an opinion, but the right to say what we think should be happening.
At least we agree that the US can't run Israel. Because it is a fragile alliance.
50sDad
White Americans acknowledge slavery was bad, are sorry it happened (even if they think it is a
stupid idea to pay reparations), and generally have a good opinion of black people as a whole. For
this, our President silently hates us, and America, to the point that he would sit, smiling, in a pew
for twenty years and listen to a racist.
Mr. Dinnerjacket thinks Slavery was made up to get welfare, hates jews, must hate blacks, and
probably thinks the President is a wussy, weak, scheming, evil American. For this, the President
approaches him as a fawning, weak little surrendur monkey with a credit card.
x_plus_one
Poor guy doesn't understand that it doesn't take a ruse or a conspiracy or anything else to get
welfare in the USA. All it takes is bleeding heart liberals and fifth column progressives. ACORN
should infiltrate IRAN.
Safrguns
I sense satire
Confirmation?
RowdyFFC
Funny piece of satire...but if Aham’jad really did say that about slavery he could be right. Slavery
had been over for almost 100 years when LBJ’s Great Society used it as an excuse to re-distribute
the wealth.
You know it still behooves me that ‘The Once’ has never apologized for his Luo muslim ancestors
selling indigenous black Africans on the slave markets on the road to Mombassa.
We KNOW so far he’s scored an “F” on world history, but surely his ‘dreams of his father’ (snort)
would’ve led him to take History of the African Continent 101?
Does he just have lying thunder lips? Is he just a con-man? Or do his history revisionist delusions
just write that part of history out of his tiny mind? Or is he just STUPID?
cranked
Yes, the chains, the whips, the plantations, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, etc. were all a hoax. You
one smart cat, Ahmanutjob. Bet.