Let them destroy the tunnel digging turds

http://nypost.com/2014/07/27/hamas-evil-lurks-beneath-the-surface/

Jew York Post?

One way of elimination abortion Chris.

“They Have To Die”: Israeli Politician Calls For Killing of Palestinian Mothers

By Jonathan Turley

July 17, 2014

"ICH" - The situation in Israel and Palestine continues to grow worse on both sides. First you had the savage murder of three Israeli teens. Then you had the retaliation burning of a Palestinian teenager. Now protests are erupting all over Israel and the world on both sides. Some of the coverage is focusing on statements made by Israeli lawmaker Ayelet Shaked on Facebook that day before three Israeli men went out and picked up Muhammad Abu Khdeir, 16, at random and burned him alive. Shaked’s post calls Palestinians “little snakes” and declares that “the entire Palestinian people is the enemy.” Now comments by Israeli Knesset member Ayelet Shaked has caused an international outcry including contributing to a continuing rift with Turkey. Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has denounced the remarks and denounced Israel in an analogy to the Nazi regime. The situation is clearly getting worse by the day in the region.

Ayelet Shaked is a member of the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home party, which is part of the ruling coalition. She is quoted as calling for the slaughter of Palestinian mothers who give birth to “little snakes.” Shaked posted a screed on Facebook that various critics are denouncing as a call for genocide. Shaked reportedly stated: “They have to die and their houses should be demolished so that they cannot bear any more terrorists . . . are all our enemies and their blood should be on our hands. This also applies to the mothers of the dead terrorists.”

The Facebook posting stated:

“Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.”

Her comments have become the focus of the rising protests over Israel’s response to the killing of the teenagers and later rockets attacks. Turkey’s Prime Minister responded with to the comments and later Israeli retaliatory strikes with a charge that Israel is now engaging state terrorism. He drew an analogy that itself is likely to enrage many Israelis: “An Israeli woman said Palestinian mothers should be killed, too. And she’s a member of the Israeli parliament. What is the difference between this mentality and Hitler’s?”

Shaked holds degree in electrical engineering and computer sciences and she worked in marketing for Texas Instruments. She has past ties to Benjamin Netanyahu. From 2006-2008, she was the office director for the office of Netanyahu. She then established “My Israel” with Naftali Bennet, but in January 2012 she was elected to serve as the coordinator of Likud. She later became a Knesset member for the Jewish Home Party, a successor party to the National Religious Party. The party is committed to a nation governed by Jewish law under the belief that Jews are divinely ordained to rule over the Land of Israel. The party has been active in supporting the expansion of Jewish settlements in Palestinian terrorizes and largely represents Orthodox Jews according to news report.

Here is what has been posted as a full translation of Shaked’s statement:

The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.

And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.

Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. http://jonathanturley.org

Israeli Masters Of Propaganda
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39127.htm

JULY 25-27, 2014

Thinly Veiled Code for Genocide
Israel’s War of Attrition in Gaza

by ROB URIE

Following World War II U.S. General Curtis LeMay, the reported inspiration for the psychotic General Jack Ripper in Stanley Kubrick’s dark comedy Dr. Strangelove, was said to have remarked that had the Allies lost the war he would likely have been hanged as a war criminal for the bombing of Tokyo. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians perished under American bombs in a series of raids on the Japanese city. Separately, the Japanese leadership was widely reported to have been ready to surrender before atomic bombs were dropped on primarily civilian populations in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With this history it seems difficult to remember that upon entering World War I aerial bombardment of a civilian population was widely understood to be a war crime.

As it was applied to the U.S. war on Southeast Asia (Vietnam) the term ‘war of attrition’ was barely veiled code for a racist slaughter, the ‘kill ratio’ of 58,000 U.S. soldiers to 3,500,000 Vietnamese and likely millions more in Cambodia and Laos is evidence of a degree of military mismatch perhaps better called genocide. The theory behind the term is that causing an ‘appropriate’ level of death and destruction against one’s enemies produces two outcomes: it turns people against ‘their own’ governments causing a loss of internal political support for them and it kills so many potential adversaries that there is no ‘will’ (no one) left to fight. The dim socio-pathology of the U.S. strategy in Vietnam can be found in the utter implausibility of the largely agrarian-peasant population having any geopolitical ‘vision’ at all, let alone on the side of ‘their’ enemies for preceding millennia, the Chinese.

When Ronald Reagan launched his war of terror against the people of Nicaragua in the early 1980s the articulated view in his administration was that if U.S. / CIA proxies (Contras) murdered enough people and blew up enough bridges and schools those who had supported the Nicaraguan Revolution just a few years earlier would turn against the revolutionary government (FSLN). Events in Nicaragua came on the heels of the Iranian Revolution that saw the overthrow of the CIA / MI5 installed ‘Shah’ whose brutal ‘rule’ served as a front for Western expropriation of Iranian oil. In the name of ‘freedom’ the Contras carried out a campaign of terror against the people of Nicaragua that included torturing and murdering tens of thousands of civilians, including slaughtering entire villages. The strategy appeared to ‘work’ when in 1990 the terrorized population of Nicaragua voted out the Revolutionary government in favor of one more advantageous to U.S. ‘interests.’ However, once the murders and destruction ended the Sandanistas were voted back into power. Apparently state terrorism can create a stopping point but not an end.

‘War of attrition’ completes the shift from armies meeting on battlefields to kill and maim one another to the explicit targeting of civilian populations in wars of state terror. Historically, the specific targeting of civilian populations was ancillary and direct— before aerial bombardment and long-range missiles the capacity for modern technocratic slaughter from a ‘safe’ distance was limited. Fighter pilots in WWII faced real risk of death. By the time of the American war on South East Asia bomber pilots flew five miles high to release bombs that killed people they never had contact with. Likewise, the Israeli pilots bombing Gaza today do so from safe distances and can tell themselves that they are bombing ‘targets’ rather than human beings. Left unsaid is that killing and maiming a civilian population to affect a political outcome is the definition of terrorism. This is the ‘practical’ purpose of the Israeli ‘human shield’ charge against Hamas— to shift culpability for terrorist violence onto its (Israel’s) victims.

By the mid-2000s the improbable term ‘democratization’ was being tossed around as George W. Bush scrambled for a plausible justification of the U.S. war on Iraq in the absence of having found WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). In contrast to the reasonably inferred ‘planned chaos’ explanation of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, a number of the neo-cons Mr. Bush surrounded himself with appeared so arrogant and dimly ideological that they believed the ‘democratization’ storyline. Mr. Bush was reported to have supported the elections in Gaza and he even ‘allowed’ Hamas to challenge Fatah in them. When Hamas won the election was quickly re-framed by Israel and the U.S. as a ‘coup.’ At the time the cognitive dissonance between Bush-Cheney-neo-con blather about ‘democracy’ and the near instantaneous collective punishment inflicted on the citizens of Gaza for acting ‘democratically’ seemed too conspicuous to be readily overcome. As history had it, the received distance in the West between ‘democracy’ and the slaughter of the captive Palestinian population to affect a political outcome is less than one might imagine.

The current storyline from Israel of ‘defensive’ aerial bombardment and ‘precision targeting’ in Gaza is met with the facts of Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ missile defense system (built with the U.S.) that renders rockets fired from Gaza ineffectual, the hugely asymmetrical ‘kill ratio’ of Palestinians to Israelis slaughtered and the conspicuous targeting of civilian houses, schools, hospitals and critical infrastructure by Israel. Conversely, if Israel’s bombardment is precise and those killed are overwhelmingly civilians then civilians are the precise targets of Israeli bombs. Israel’s strategy is clearly a war of attrition: slaughter a captive civilian population to force repudiation of their democratically elected political representatives without addressing the circumstances that led to the choice of Hamas over more ‘palatable’ (to Israel) political leadership. The implicit choice from the election is that Palestinian capitulation to the Israeli siege and occupation is not an option.

The reason for keeping solid focus on the U.S. in what can be more narrowly explained as a regional (or even ‘internal’ if you assume away the history of Palestine) conflict is that Israel’s capacity to act as ‘it’ does toward the Palestinians and across the Middle East depends upon the might of the U.S. military to back it up. This is to grant that narrower explanations have descriptive power but to aggressively reject the eternal slander that opposition to Israel’s state policies derives from nationalist / religionist differences rather than as stated— objection to Israel’s state policies. The U.S. provides Israel with the arms, intelligence and military support that facilitate siege, occupation, irresolution of political difference and a hardening antipathy that is as socially destructive as it is unjust. And the history of the U.S. acting as dishonest broker in Israeli-Palestinian ‘negotiations’ (always on the side of Israel) combined with the use of Israel as regional proxy for U.S. ‘interests’ places the plight of the Palestinians in an international context. Without the U.S. (and Britain and France) in the picture negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians would proceed from a wholly different set of premises.

The relevance here of the U.S. ‘experience’ in Iran (1953 – 1979) is that installation of a puppet dictator (the ‘Shah’) was preferred to direct instigation of regional chaos. Likewise the U.S. (CIA) installed Saddam Hussein in Iraq until he was ‘uninstalled’ in the recent U.S. war. When considered with (George W) Bush’s catastrophe in Iraq and his apparent sincerely held, if only superficially considered, belief in the possibility of creating ‘democracy’ across the Middle East, it would seem that American stupidity and arrogance are at least as likely an explanation for widespread chaos as some well-conceived plot to prevent competing interests from arising (the theorized goal of planned chaos). This is no doubt a roundabout way of backing into the contention that in addition to being outright evil Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is shortsighted bordering on radically self-destructive. Tying Israel’s future to the Jeb Bush / Hillary Clinton / John McCain / Lindsey Graham school of foreign policy is certainly a nod in the direction of human folly.

The intractability of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies with Israel and the U.S. If the goal of war of attrition is to affect a political outcome then that political outcome has to be possible or it isn’t an outcome, it is a slaughter. Today Nicaragua is relatively stable while other ‘beneficiaries’ of American ‘largesse’ in Central America— Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, are gangster states so violent and corrupt that their children are willing to risk being treated as criminals in the U.S. for the chance to live a little while longer. The Nicaraguan people waited for U.S. proxies to stop murdering them and then rejected direct American governance. The Palestinian people have no such option. The election of Hamas can only be seen as destructive to Palestinian interests if there was a better option. The Israeli and American view is that if siege and occupation don’t force fealty then adding slaughter and wholesale destruction will accomplish this goal. At this point Israel’s war of attrition against the Palestinian people is evident for what it has always been, thinly veiled code for racist genocide.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/25/israels-war-of-attrition-in-gaza/

When the Islamists are throwing rockets into your yard, and when it is YOUR kids they kidnap, torture and dump, maybe you might see the wisdom of killing those bastards.

PS....as has been repeatedly explained to you, there is no such thing as a Palestinian....

CTChris wrote:When the Islamists are throwing rockets into your yard, and when it is YOUR kids they kidnap, torture and dump, maybe you might see the wisdom of killing those bastards.  

PS....as has been repeatedly explained to you, there is no such thing as a Palestinian....

Chris, You know I like to stir the Shit-Pot.

Just don't ask me to lick the spoon.

http://www.thenation.com/article/180783/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked#

saying it does not make it true. Israel has shown more restraint than I would. Hamas has majority support in Gaza. Level the place and let them live in tents. The ones that live through it anyway....

DonMatzeder wrote:saying it does not make it true.  Israel has shown more restraint than I would.  Hamas has majority support in Gaza.  Level the place and let them live in tents.  The ones that live through it anyway....

Actually Don, I don't give a fuck about what is happening over there.

Let them cannibalise each other for all I care.

It's this brown cock-sucker over here that we need to focus on, Flushing him where he belongs.

Mike...

Do you not understand that in the first world war, planes were an entirely new form of war machine??? Think clearly for the briefest of moments and realize that to the people of that era, the idea of passing over vast land masses and seeing it all from above would seem like precision tactics by the lesser minded who couldn't think clearly, in their own time?

A bomb is a bomb. An imprecise wrap of explosives flung away from you to somewhere over there. People were grateful to have the new technology but that doesn't mean planes with mostly gravity fed carburators (tilt something with a gravity filled carb and see how long it stays running-now imagine the thought process and likely desperation to gain the upper hand in the first war by the military "experts" of the day risking their charges' lives to fly those death birds), were safe for our side to even use. And men with more heroism than sense answered the call.

Long before you found that idiot site you get "support" for your racist views from, their own idiots looked high and low to support views which don't stand up under standard logical questioning. Are you as dumb as they are?

Harv

http://www.conservativehq.com/article/17846-kristallnacht-america

CTChris wrote:When the Islamists are throwing rockets into your yard, and when it is YOUR kids they kidnap, torture and dump, maybe you might see the wisdom of killing those bastards.  

PS....as has been repeatedly explained to you, there is no such thing as a Palestinian....

I didn't much care for these:



Being lobbed at me by:



But, At least I'll get my name on this in October:

Harvey wrote:Mike...

Do you not understand that in the first world war, planes were an entirely new form of war machine???  Think clearly for the briefest of moments and realize that to the people of that era, the idea of passing over vast land masses and seeing it all from above would seem like precision tactics by the lesser minded who couldn't think clearly, in their own time?

A bomb is a bomb.   An imprecise wrap of explosives flung away from you to somewhere over there.   People were grateful to have the new technology but that doesn't mean planes with mostly gravity fed carburators  (tilt something with a gravity filled carb and see how long it stays running-now imagine the thought process and likely desperation to gain the upper hand in the first war by the military "experts" of the day risking their charges' lives to fly those death birds), were safe for our side to even use.  And men with more heroism than sense answered the call.

Long before you found that idiot site you get "support" for your racist views from, their own idiots looked high and low to support views which don't stand up under standard logical questioning.  Are you as dumb as they are?

Harv

Really?

http://natocouncil.ca/guerillas-of-the-mist-the-character-of-asymmetric-warfare/


"Long before you found that idiot site you get "support" for your racist views from"

What are you typing about?

DonMatzeder wrote:saying it does not make it true.  Israel has shown more restraint than I would.  Hamas has majority support in Gaza.  Level the place and let them live in tents.  The ones that live through it anyway....

"Your kink is pure crap"

Specifically Don, What part or parts do you consider "pure crap"?

Inform me as such.