She's getting more mainstream exposure and seems to be striking a chord. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mA0FEoz_N4[/youtube]
Yeah she's pretty good. She sold out on Israel though, saying that they shouldn't cut aid/weapons to Israel just because they're attacking civilians/UN buildings... I guess she figures there are some lines she can't cross if she wants to run for president.
Maybe she has a different view on Israel and so hasn't "sold out". I don't accept that Israel is attacking civilians directly. Hamas has been waging a war on Israel from the midst of civilians. U.N sanctuaries, homes, schools, hospitals - they're all useful for waging war from. Israel hits back and Hamas wins because its own supporters become victims before the world media. If the citizens are any less than fervently supportive of being used as shields they get tortured shot and their corpses dragged through town behind motor bikes. If the Palestinians had the will to absorb their historical grievances and make a peace with Israel they would have been a prosperous people by now. A lot of compensation would have come their way. But they wanted nothing less than revenge and victory and have been totally ruthless in their pursuit of it. So they're dead instead.
Politicians here in NSW can be bought with a brown paper bag of cash or a bottle of Grange. Not sure what the current going rate is with so many of them having to resign recently.
Well if you don't see a problem with bombing U.N sanctuaries, homes, schools and hospitals then I seriously doubt there is anything I can say that will change your views on whether free ammunition should be provided to kill civilians. I guess there is no point comparing the 5 Israeli civilian casualties with the 2000 Palestinian because all Palestinians are terrorists anyway.
Israel has expanded it's borders dubiously numerous times since it was granted sanctuary by the west post-WW2 (though this plan was in the works since at least 1917) - at the expense of the previous residents. It has a decent standard of living, and the technology to effectively defend against the Palestinian rockets. How is it lacking in funds? Why is their technology unable to strike verified targets without massively disproportionate civilian casualties? How do people sit on the hill and watch death reign on their neighbors as if it is a fireworks show? Does the potential motivator of offshore gas reserves off the coast of disputed territories get the mention it deserves? If your neighbor's rebellious teenager threw a rock at your car, would you jump the fence and stab everyone in their family? Reasonable force for self defense is a commonly accepted principle. Excessive force leads to esculation and attrition, and should be punished, not funded. Israel sometimes acts as though they are untouchable "because - Hitler". If you don't support them when they clearly don't need or deserve it, you are branded an anti-Semite. The longer they keep this up, the more likely it is that history repeats itself.
Well this sort of discussion goes nowhere does it. You have your sympathies - the Arabs that would casually cut your throat for their cause - I have mine. The Israeli's would have paid up for peace and out of some respect for common justice. They do respect law in the long run. They would have fostered a Palestinian economy I believe. Hamas are liars so no telling how many were civilians or combatants. Israel either fights them in the sensitive locations - meaning civilian deaths - or it doesn't fight them at all. Because that's how Hamas fights. Do you think those residents climb up on the roofs of targeted houses purely voluntarily or do you think possibly that they are directed there by Hamas? Iron Dome not close to 100% effective. Israeli civilian deaths maybe 3 but I read 65 young soldier deaths, every one cherished by Israel. The neighbour's kids throwing stones doesn't seem the right analogy. How really do you expect the Israelis to act when Hamas would blow up a kindegarten if it could and probably every Gazan inhabitant would ululate and let off fire crackers at the news.
Some Israelis might pay for peace. Some Palestinians might not be blood thirsty terrorists. It's the hardline on both sides that perpetuate the BS. Bottom line is that one side massively outguns the other, so it's far from a fair fight. If a Palestinian takes refuge underground during bombing, their bunker is called a terrorist tunnel. The media's manipulation of language does as much harm as anything in justifying atrocities. I have no love for either side, but it is clear that Israel is exonerated and Palestine demonised disproportionately.
I'd actually argue that Israel is demonised more... it's just that American right wing talkshow hosts etc as well as most politicians justify everything they do anyway.
Every government would like to have a constant domestic terror threat. Keep that in mind and the entire situation can be easily figured out and also why it's one endless cycle that will never end. The last thing that the Israeli government wants (with it's giant military and security industrial complex) is for the terror threat to go away.
999/1000 pure BS. the reason its not 100% pure is the last sentence that they are dead and the other guys are not
You can't be serious. That's what comes from a philosophy. Premiss one: Government's sole function is to control people Premiss two: an external enemy and warfare keep the populace dependent on government to protect them. Therefore Israel wants war to control its own populace. Ridiculous.
yea you could call that war or maybe massacre or something similar; when you make a city a prison. Imagine sunshine coast surrounded and nothing can come out or in without premier Newman saying yes and that rest of QLD come and bomb the cr.. out of you and then Newman says: its the mayor's fault since he/she is Labor and these people voted for Labor. And then they bomb your kids school, and then you come and throw a rock (cause its the only way you can resist) at one of us and we say look at that bloody barbarian and then an army guy shoots you or drops a bomb on you. Yea i would be there saying that bloody finicky and the rest of sunshine coast are barbarians that just want war.
Putting aside the situation with Israeli, the observation that politicians utilise nationalism, fear and all manner of enemies in order to maintain power is generally considered accurate and has been a constant since politicians first crawled out of the fetid sewers of antiquity. Plenty has been written on this. Here's something from 1840 by Alexis de Tocqueville on perpetual war in democratic countries: "No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country. Not indeed that after every victory it is to be apprehended that the victorious generals will possess themselves by force of the supreme power, after the manner of Sulla and Caesar; the danger is of another kind. War does not always give over democratic communities to military government, but it must invariably and immeasurably increase the powers of civil government; it must almost compulsorily concentrate the direction of all men and the management of all things in the hands of the administration. If it does not lead to despotism by sudden violence, it prepares men for it more gently by their habits. All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and the shortest means to accomplish it. This is the first axiom of the science."
