I wish we could see pictures of all the Lebanese children that they killed.

Maybe Fox News will spotlight the oil spill that they caused.

Wasn't Walt Disney known for Anti-Semantic opinions?? Kinda ironic how this man accuses Disney company as 'the Jewish company'.

And plus, Tom and Jerry was made by Hanna-Barbera, not Disney. Also, William Hanna and Joseph Barbera both had Lebanese parents...

So.......

Yes, I completely agree with this man. The moment I saw that cat and mouse, I thought 'DAMN! Those sneaky JEWS are EVERYWHERE!!!'

The following report from Human Rights Watch details Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon last summer - http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/ . Similar conclusions were reached by Amnesty International - http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1856587,00.html They have also reported the same indiscriminate attacks on civilians in Palestine http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/02/21/isrlpa271.htm . I of course condemn Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians too - as do Human Rights Watch and Amnesty.

Now you say that the orders didn't come from the top. Lets look at the past careers of some Israeli Prime Ministers. Menachem Begin was the commander of the terrorist group Irgun that blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, killing 96 people. He was Israeli Prime Minister in the '70s and '80s. He once described a massacre as "a splendid act of conquest". Yitzak Shamir was Prime Minister until 1992. He had been a leader of a Jewish group called the Stern Gang which carried out a string of assassinations. One of the most recent Israeli Prime Ministers, Ariel Sharon, has long been involved in terror. In 1983, he was found indirectly, but personally, responsible for a civilian massacre by Lebanese militia in two Palestinian refugee camps. At least 800 innocent men, women and children were murdered in cold blood, most of them Palestinians, after Sharon ordered his men to allow the militiamen access to the camps.

When Israel is under review by the U.N. the USA ensures nothing happens.
The USA sends 10 billion in aid + military equipment to Israel yearly.
The USA models the Iraqi occupation on the Israel occupation. ( this is just a guess)

Gaza strip documentary" is another documentary worth watching.

Are you a christian? Think of what Israel did to millions of Lebanese christians in last year's invasion of Lebanon.

Is this an underground movement? *No.* You will probably hear soon how a drama of Rachel Corrie's death will be banned from your city.

Here in Columbus, Ohio, there were images drawn by Palestinian Children, you know, crayon drawings. These images were banned from the campus.

Polls schmolls, they mean dick....the message being sent by a Speaker who signals division in the face of the enemy is insidious in the extreme. It encourages our foes, undermines the confidence of our friends and demoralizes those we have sent into harm's way.....

...Here's what the Washington post said about her unilateral decision to bop over to Damascus, where she proclaimed, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace."
The paper called the Speaker's statement "ludicrous," noting that her host and purported partner for peace, Syrian dictator Bashir Assad "is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri."

She should stick to looking like a deer in the headlights, raising money for HER cronies, and building her little empire and cult of personality, folks, wanna know just how close she is able to relate to the people of the United States????
The liberal Center for Responsive Politics pegs Pelosi's net worth as being somewhere between $14746108 and $55085000.

Out of touch, cretin, who would not bat a diamond-studded eyelash nor scoff, at paying 45 dollars a gallon for gas, and could give a fiddler's fuck about anything remotely related to democracy......pipe-dreamers all, deceived and happy to be, to think that a change of party control, will stop, curtail, or correct, the clusterfuck that is American government........

I'm the first person to admit that the UN has some great flaws, is sometimes "a forum for politically selective finger-pointing and criticism", and is in need of major reform - including the security council which is a relic of the Cold War.

There are two major causes of the UN's ineffectiveness. The first is the unilateralist attitude adopted by the US - particularly under the current administration. The second is that anytime that the the UN adopts a resolution condemning Israeli action the US will automatically veto the resolution (thanks to the power of AIPAC) regardless of whether the condemnation is justified or not. The un-objective use of the veto by the US in support of oppressive, unjustifiable and illegal Israeli government policies has severely damaged international perceptions of the UN. When Israel illegally steals Palestinian land, subjects the Palestinian people to daily abuse and humiliation, and collectively punishes the Lebanese people for the actions of Hezbollah, the US automatically vetoes any UN resolutions condemning these inexcusable actions. It is not just the Arab or Islamic states that support such resolutions - very often it is only America and Israel who condemn the resolution. The unobjective use of the American veto in favour of Israel is undermining the entire UN. For many people it symbolises the need for UN reform - particularly reform of the security council.

The problem with this clip is that while there are important objective criticisms to be made of the UNHRC and the UN in general, UN Watch is not actually making them. The speaker carefully disguises pro-Israeli government policy propaganda as objective criticisms of the UNHRC - this is why the Council President rejects the speech as inadmissable.

Man, would I love to see Beyonce and Shakira get Lebanese together.

You're right Farhad - it is a beautiful language!

I agree with his opposition to a British/American power monopoly. And I agree with his support of the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and the Shi'a in Iraq, and in a number of Gulf states. However, this support can be provided without resorting to antisemitism or calling for the destruction of Israel.

I think Iran should have nuclear power if they want it. I hate the West's double standards - they condemn Iran but remain completely silent about Israel's illegal uninspected nuclear arsenal. Iran has a right to defend itself, and if any country in the Middle East is responsible for an arms build-up it is Israel. The international community should be puting enormous pressure on Israel to scrap its nuclear, chemical, and biological arsenal. Unless they do so, other nations will feel threatened and will seek a nuclear deterant of their own. And i get sick of people trying to justify Israel's arsenal and it's aggressive behaviour by reference to the holocaust. The holocaust was a terrible crime - one of the worst in human history - but one crime should not justify others. Israel's continued attempts to steal Palestinian land, to suppress, abuse, and kill the Palestinian people, and to silence all critics in America via AIPAC, only increases animosity and anger in the region - all of which make an arms race more likely. Furthermore their collective punishment of the Lebanese, and the recent disclosure that they had planned to invade Lebanon months before the Israeli soldiers were kidnapped (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BF690E95-D297-45CD-942F-A3D6E18B05D2.htm) also makes all of Israel's regional neighbours scared.

However, if Ahmadinejad had done more to fight corruption and re-distribute oil funds to those who need it - as he promised in his election campaign - then Iran wouldn't need nuclear power for domestic reasons. He also has regional power aspirations - understandable considering the historical persecution of the Shi'a - which this clip does not mention.

"Ban the Burkah, or any such coverings for the women of Islam.....a symbol of species decay, subjugation, and demeaning inhumane treatment."

I agree with banning the Burka - there is nothing in the Qur'an or the hadith which says that women should be completely covered, and the burka is a barbaric and cruel institution. As for the hijab, women should be able to make their own mind up whether they wear it or not. One of the key principles in Islam is that 'there is no compulsion in religion' لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّين (Qur'an 2:256). Unfortunately this is a principle which many reactionary elements choose to forget!

"What is it like for a muslim woman in Afghanistan, as it compares to any country in the western world, that took part in a reformation, and democratic governments, etc? Are they treated equally, with dignity? Are they able to avail themselves of rights and privelidges granted to the men of that country?"

I agree - life for women in Afganistan can be terrible. Since the American invasion they have constitutionally been granted equality - as they should be - but the reality is often a life as oppressed second class citizens. There are some female politicians, and things were improving for women, but the illegal American/British invasion of Iraq, and the continued oppression of the Palestinians and Lebanese has created new support for the hardliners.

I had a conversation with an Afghani refugee in September - a former member of the Taliban - about the situation of women in Afghanistan. I told him that women had been treated barbarically under the Taliban and that there was no excuse for such treatment. His response (and I'm not saying I agree with it - but it's interesting) was this: After years of war Afganistan was a complete mess - the poorest country in the world, ruled by warlords and rival tribal factions. The Taliban brought order to this mess. The number of executions/amputations was exagerated by the Western press and it quickly brought order. As far as women were concerned he said that before the Taliban his sister couldn't go out of the house at all for fear of being raped. After the Taliban came she was safe in a Burka. Now I'm not saying that I support the Taliban - I certainly don't. But I'm saying that the situation is Afganistan is very complex.

"more female Imamas might do the freekin' trick!"

I couldn't agree more and I, and many others in the Islamic community have been pushing for this for years. There is an Islamic female pressure group here in Britain which is attempting to ensure that women have complete equality of access to Britain's mosques. Furthermore, men have traditionally had a monopoly over the interpretation of religious texts in many Islamic countries and this monopoly must be broken.

As far as the link you have posted - this is my initial reaction. The clip is from Memri TV - a site which specialises in painting the Islamic world in the worst possible light - it only shows clips of extremists, and those criticising the Islamic world. I agree with the woman that there are problems in the Islamic world and that there needs to be major reform and rethinking in many countries. I agree with the woman that the medieval legal divisions between Muslims and non-Muslims are outdated and innapropriate. Islam teaches لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِين - "To you be your Religion/Way, and to me mine." (Qur'an 109:6). The constitution of Medina - written by the Prophet - guaranteed freedom of religion and worship to Muslims, Jews, Christians and polytheists.

But what I don't agree with is the implication that all Muslims - or indeed a majority of Muslims - hold these beliefs. Nor do I believe that the state of Israel was founded peacefully, or that the Israeli government hasn't continually persecuted the Palestinian people for over fifty years. Unfortunately elements in Islam do attack Christians and other non-Muslims - which I utterly condemn. But if you look at the race riots in India you will see that Hindu militants have attacked mosques and lynched Muslims, much like militant Jewish settlers have attacked Muslims in Palestine.

I condemn all religious extremism and intolerance.

"How about establishing Lebanon as the new Jerusalem, let the Palestinians have a rebuild party with the Lebanese"

How about we keep Jerusalem where it is but have serious negotiations, debates and compromises about its future - it is equally important to Palestinians and Israelis, as it is to all the monotheistic faiths, and any long term solution must reflect these fundamental facts.

How about we let the Palestinians stay on their own lands, with the ability to rule and govern their own borders. How about we stop punishing them for their democratic choice of leadership by cutting the funding which many Palestinians rely on.

And finally, there would be no need for a 'rebuild party' in Palestine or Lebanon if Israel (with America's unqualified support) hadn't done its very best to destroy the infrastructure and the peoples of both countries.


"That Hindu bomb is the best....aishwarya rai..." - couldn't agree more!!!

Farhad

Most people haven't spent as much time in the Gulf watching Lebanese satelite tv as you and I ;-)

*save

That Hindu bomb is the best....aishwarya rai...

Sorries, must say that to expect children to play nice and share, is a tall order.....if space is the real issue with regard to the Palestinians and Israelis, no-one should have to put up with asses and elbows, how about permaculture in the desert? How about establishing Lebanon as the new Jerusalem, let the Palestinians have a rebuild party with the Lebanese, oh and, lose that religious baggage while yer at it...I would personnally have the sentiment, "Never Again" just like the Jews do....Semetic and proud, semetic and loud...

Even the musings here, of some bizzaro, ideal choggie world, are as hair-brained as trying to use logic and reason with regard to culture, and borders, in this seemingly absurd, never-ending drama.

The world will likely snap against the strain of man's collective inhumanity toward fellow mouth-breathers...

Firstly, Syria does not have nuclear weapons - nor are there any signs that it is intending to develop them. Secondly when you say ' Which country in the Middle East hasn't constantly tried to wipe out its neighbors?' you surely aren't referring to Israel. For over fifty years they have attempted to wipe out the Palestinians through land-grabs, military operations, economic sanctions, resource stealing, apartheid walls, etc. Furthermore, they have collectively punished the Lebanese people on numerous occasions by indiscriminately bombing their capital city, major industrial centers, and infrastructure. Thirdly, Israel has a huge undeclared arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which is subject to no outside inspections. They acquired this arsenal by lying to the Americans and the rest of the international community. Iran (and Iraq for that matter) has been a lot more open about its nuclear program than Israel ever has.

While I strongly support the right of Israel to exist it is about time the international community put pressure on Israel to conform to the same international standards that it seems so desperate to impose on the Islamic world. Israel, and America (heavily influenced by AIPAC) are just as responsible for bringing instability to the Middle East as Iran, Syria, and Iraq.

One final point, when Pakistan got the bomb it was referred to by the Western Media as 'the Islamic bomb' - despite the fact that Pakistan was being ruled by a non-Islamic party at the time. However, we never hear Israel's undeclared and illegal nuclear arsenal being referred to as 'the Jewish bomb, or India's as the 'Hindu bomb', or America's as 'the Christian bomb'. This is just another example of the complete double-standards of the Western media.

The simple fact is that the majority of American oil does not come from the Middle East. America gets the vast majority of its oil from Venezuela (and Canada). Although oil was obviously an influential factor in bringing about the illegal invasion of Iraq - and I'm certain that necon elements wanted to construct a new ARAMCO in Iraq - I don't believe it was the only factor. The invasion of Iraq was highly influenced by hawks with strong ties to Israel and AIPAC. It was essentially a decision based on ensuring the security of Israel - the only country within the range of Iraq's missile arsenal (Europe and America were not). The Ironic thing is that Bush and his ilk got so obsessed with the Middle East they took their eyes off what was going on in South America. Before they could do anything about it Chavez had been elected and began nationalising the oil industry. Whatever you think of Chavez, he came to power on a promise to fairly distribute Venezuela's oil revenue. For a long time the Venezuelan people were sick of the huge proportion of the profits from their nation's oil reserves going into the hands of large American oil companies and a corrupt elite. Chavez isn't perfect - and he will probably prove just as ineffective as the people he replaced - but he certainly isn't a 'terrorist'. Yes he is a socialist who nationalised the oil industry; yes he talked to the Iranians and Castro; yes he supports Palestinian independence; and yes he opposes American political/military/economic imperialism. But this isn't enough to label someone a 'terrorist' (a stupid label which is a catch all for people who disagree with American, European, Russian, Israeli, Saudi, Egyptian government policies - whether they employ 'terror' tactics or not). Not buying oil from Venezuela will only bring further hurt to an already impoverished people.

"Terror-Free Oil Initiative is dedicated to encouraging Americans to buy gasoline that originated from countries that do not export or finance terrorism." This is simplistic crap. This organisation does not distinguish between states which support Palestinian and Lebanese resistance to Israeli hostility and occupation, and those that support organisation like Al-Qaeda. It is associated with the unquestiong support of Israeli government policy by the neocons and aims to undermine the financial support of the Palestinians and other organisations that oppose American and Israeli hegemony. Very little money for organisations like Al-Qaeda comes from Middle Eastern states - particularly those with large oil reserves. Al-Qaeda's principle objective is to bring down the House of Saud and establish an Islamic caliphate in Arabia. Consequently the Saudi state doesn't support Al-Qaeda. The same is true for all the small Gulf states. Iran is a Shi'a state, and Al-Qaeda is a militant Sunni organisation that thinks all Shi'a Muslims are heretics. Iran does support Hezbollah in their resistance to Israeli incursions into Palestine and Lebanon - but not Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda are also opposed to the Libyan government - and hence are not supported by Gaddafi.

One further irony is that the oil producing countries need American demand for oil as much as America needs their oil supply. As long as America buys oil from these countries (whose economies are essential built on oil) it has some say in their political systems, and their international allegiances. If oil supplies from these countries are boycotted then this means they will have to look to other countries - China, Russia, North Korea - in order to sell their oil. A boycot of oil from the Gulf will only weaken America's political influence in the Middle East!

Up-vote for potential discussion - not for the ideas or aims of the idiotic 'terror' free oil organisation.

Great post!

I'm afraid that Olbermann has hit the nail on the head - it's guilt by association 'inteligence' - the same lousy type of 'inteligence' that America used to justify its illegal invasion of Iraq. This kind of 'inteligence' is fabricated and politically motivated. In this case it serves a number of purposes. Firstly it aims to direct blame away from the disasterous consequences of American foreign policy. Secondly it makes Iran look hostile and uncompromising - where as in reality they have offered to work with America several times. Thirdly, it serves the cause of the 'Israel lobby'. The majority of American troops have been killed by Sunni insurgents but the Whitehouse is choosing to direct its attention on Iran - Why? The reason that attention is being focused on Iran is because they pose a potential threat to Israel (much like Iraq did). America (and the 'Israel lobby') are trying to further sully the Iran's image so that they can justify future direct military action against them. Iran's crimes? Crime 1: refusing to abandon the development of nuclear power. It seems that America will only let Israel illegally develop nuclear weapons. Crime 2: refusing to stop supporting Palestinian and Lebanese resistence to Israeli aggression. Crime 3: opposition to America's illegal invasion of Iraq.

Just to be clear, I don't support the Iranian regime or its anti-semitic, or anti-Israel views. I just don't want to see Iran being attacked, or its people being killed, because of bullshit 'intelligence' fabricated in order to further a number of political objectives with which I strongly disagree.