Working on this new server in php7...
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles


View article without comments

THE COST OF ISRAEL TO THE US

by mkj Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 8:57 AM

this is an article that was up on the cs monitor website plz read and leave comments Title: Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US Author: David R. Francis Publisher: The Christian Science Monitor Date: Dec 9, 2002 Copyright © 2002, The Christian Science Monitor

i got this article from the cs monitor website hope they dont get mad maybe this will allieviate their pains

the link to the article is:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

and maybe this will take away even more pain:

Title: Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US
Author: David R. Francis
Publisher: The Christian Science Monitor
Date: Dec 9, 2002
Copyright © 2002, The Christian Science Monitor


Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US

By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.

This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby.

For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.

And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy.

Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.

Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's likely to be passed early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq.
Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years.

Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.
"Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those outlays are part of the total package of support for Israel," argues Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of US Middle East policy, commissioned by the US Army War College, for a recent conference at the University of Maine.

These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would probably say it is money well spent to support a beleagured democracy of some strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if Americans are aware of the full bill for supporting Israel since some costs, if not hidden, are little known.

One huge cost is not secret. It is the higher cost of oil and other economic damage to the US after Israel-Arab wars.

In 1973, for instance, Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to win back territories Israel had conquered in the 1967 war. President Nixon resupplied Israel with US arms, triggering the Arab oil embargo against the US.

That shortfall in oil deliveries kicked off a deep recession. The US lost $420 billion (in 2001 dollars) of output as a result, Stauffer calculates. And a boost in oil prices cost another $450 billion.

Afraid that Arab nations might use their oil clout again, the US set up a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That has since cost, conservatively, $134 billion, Stauffer reckons.

Other US help includes:

• US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the United States economy, says Stauffer.

• The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans to Israel, and $600 million in "housing loans." (See editor's note below.) Stauffer expects the US Treasury to cover these.

• The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel's Lavi fighter and Arrow missile projects.

• Israel buys discounted, serviceable "excess" US military equipment. Stauffer says these discounts amount to "several billion dollars" over recent years.

• Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in military aid, ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to buy Israeli-made hardware. It also has won the right to require the Defense Department or US defense contractors to buy Israeli-made equipment or subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on every defense dollar the US gives to Israel.
US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major weapons supplier. Weapons make up almost half of Israel's manufactured exports. US defense contractors often resent the buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers.

• US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, Stauffer estimates. Not requiring Israel to use its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs.

• Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over 10 years, says Stauffer.

Stauffer's list will be controversial. He's been assisted in this research by a number of mostly retired military or diplomatic officials who do not go public for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic if they criticize America's policies toward Israel.

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


here is what i think

by mkj Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 8:59 AM

now here is what i think of the whole story (not that anyone cares)


i personally think is that the us should stop sending money to israel first of all the united states is not exactly in tip top shape, when the us has no homeless people then it should turn and start giving foreign aide im not talking about emergency relief aide for other countries im talking about israel the 27th richest nation in the world is still recieving aide from the united states and this aide needs to stop we should put that money in other places such as a fund to further research a cure for thye sars virus
well i have to go now i will be finishing my comments up on further posts

thank you all
peace out pplz
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Cost

by Publican Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 10:48 AM

The big cost to NOT supporting Israel would be the moral victory felt by the far left and the "arab street".
In a sense some might say Israel is quite good in that it "calls out" the anti americans. they all run around with banners and things waving flags.

Meanwhile the arab protesters prevent their largely despotic countries from becoming powerful or influential in the world despite their oil and the protesters in the US ensure that their party can not win an election for the next decade or so (by shattering their own parties support with anti american comments).

Net result : republicans and democracy wins...
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Let the Zionists

by Y.A. Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 11:22 AM

be drown in the Meditarranean after we've pushed them into the sea.

Democracy in the Middle East? Over my bloated stinking carcass!*

(*Check my pulse -- I'm bloated and stinking all the time!)
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


wee

by Smarmster Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 11:29 AM

Thank you for your valued comment, Mos Sad, now
go play with yourself for awhile.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Yo Smarmster

by Y.A. Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 11:32 AM

Would you like to suck my 2" pecker?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


This is all fine and good

by fresca Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 6:33 PM

I'd like to remind everyone that "palestine" is a considerable drain on us as well. As the leading financial supporter of that society and as a great deal of our aid to Israel is funneled to "palestine" I feel that it's only fair to consider cutting off this racist and violent leech.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


What synagogue do you attend fascist fresca?

by systemfailure Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 6:40 PM

It's ok to spend 3 billion dollars every year on Israel?
But the President wouldnt sign into law
the prescription drug health care bill for senior citizens....
Veterans benefits will be cut over 28 Billion over
the next ten years......
Lets see 3 billion x 10 years = 30 billion
HEY G.W.
WE DONT HAVE TO CUT VETERANS BENEFITS NOW!!!!!
or sorry
I didnt know it was justified to support the
(now) Top violator of UN resolutions.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Huh

by fresca Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 7:10 PM

Facsist? Where did that come from? Is it "facsist" to not jump on the "palestinain" apaology wagon? Is that all it takes? Or does one need to also ask for a little bit of "palestinian" culpability in the age old situation. Probably a bit of both.
Thank you sheep for illustrating so succinctly how childish the common groupthought is around here.
Facsism is the philosophy of ANYONE who disagrees with us over ANYTHING.
There it is. In a nutshell.

To continue:

"It's ok to spend 3 billion dollars every year on Israel? "

Uh, yes it is. Why? Because they are our allies. And since they are our allies and they comprise a sliver of land in a vast sprawling landscape of hatred and racism it is right to give them aid so that they might defend themselves by whatever means neccessary. Without this aid, there would be true ethnic cleansing and utter genocide. You know it. I know it.
If it ever came to pass (which it hasn't of course, and yet you knowingly posted the untruth that it had) that Vet benefits were cut so drasticly I would be enraged. Yet I would still support ALL aid to Israel while insisting on full Vet benefits.
The oft trotted out logic that somehow these two targets of revenue are in some way related is crazy talk.
You're so fond of floating half truths and outright lies hoping no one will call you on them. Unbelievable.
There is, of course, no reason on Earth to suspend aid to Israel. Not one.
If you can concieve of a good one without your normal fantasy, p[lease let us know.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Oh and BTW

by fresca Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 7:12 PM

As utterly and flatly racist as your comment about my synagogue was I will grace you with an answer.
None. I'm not Jewish.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


wow

by wow Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 7:59 PM

wow
who
cares?
wow
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Hmm......

by systemfailure Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 8:01 PM

I am a racist for asking what synagogue you attend?
Can you point out the racist aspects of this comment.

Actually Fascist Fresca
fascism=1. a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.
2. a member of a fascist movement or party.
3 a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

Now it can be said that Israel (and the US) government are hard line right wingers.
therefore, persons who are right wing nationalists (like you)
or exhibit "blind patriotism" for a nations ideology.
can also be described as "fascist".

How can Israel be our allies?
I thought this government was against violators of UN resolutions? (remember Iraq?)
WHat exactly has Israel done for the United States to ellict
the American taxpayers supporting thier country insted of ours?
Where do you think the money comes from that they send over there?

Can you explain to me why the US supports Israel as opposed to
supporting Palestinians?
Since you are the "expert" on the issue, i'd like to know.

Ethnic cleansing and genocide eh?
Why is Israel the top violatior of UN statutes?
The UN agrees that Israel is the agressor against the Palestinian people
and yet you seem to know more than they do.
We support UN resolutions against Iraq,
Yet do not support UN resolutions against Israel?
Better explain this one to me too.

Did the Israellis need the US help during the 1967 and 1973 wars?
they have the most technological military in the middle east
thanks the the US taxpayer (me and you)
THey have a good economy, so why cant they support themselves?

The matter of veterans benefits and elderly prescription health care plans
that are rejected as the US govt, "not having enough money"
THis was an analogy to describe the economic situation in which
our government will not support our country, yet will give it to a foriegn country.

Here's my one good reason......
Israel is in violation of
over
25
UN security council resolutions.








Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Oh, of course

by fresca Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 8:39 PM

"I am a racist for asking what synagogue you attend?
Can you point out the racist aspects of this comment. "

Asking me, with a tone of incredulity, "what synagogue do I attend" is an obvious implication that only a Jew could be so pro-Israel. And since you obviously believe that all of Israel's supporters are Zionists and therefore, in some way "evil", the conclusion is that all Jews are evil.
This is hardly rocket science. You take no pains in disquising your racism so why be shocked when you drop your guard and illustrate it so clearly. You're simply a racist. Lots of people are. You're one of them. End of story.

As far as fascism goes, I'm not sure what dictionary you got that convenient definition from, but in the few I used, there was no mention of any right or left wing leaanings. Simply an overwhelming intolerance and oppression of differing ideas; sorta exactly like I mentioned earlier.

"How can Israel be our allies?
I thought this government was against violators of UN resolutions? (remember Iraq?)
WHat exactly has Israel done for the United States to ellict
the American taxpayers supporting thier country insted of ours?
Where do you think the money comes from that they send over there? "

They can be our allies for the simple reason that we beleive that they have a right to exist and that supporting them is the right thing to do. What else do you want? What do we specifically get from any of our allies? Why is France our ally by your logic?
And, I'll just pretend you didn't even use such a shining example of an inane and logically unsupportable argument of "supporting them instead of us". You's have to be a clinical imbecile to really believe that this was the actual financial situation we find ourselves in.

"Can you explain to me why the US supports Israel as opposed to
supporting Palestinians?
Since you are the "expert" on the issue, i'd like to know. "

Well, actually, we do support the palestinians. Where the hell do you suppose they recieve most of their financial support? From other arab countries? Think again. From us and you know that as well. We don't give them military support because they have such an affinity for blowing themselves up trying to kill Jews wherever they might be. I suppose we think it's best to limit our support to aid packages.

"The UN agrees that Israel is the agressor against the Palestinian people
and yet you seem to know more than they do.
"

Well, I guess I do. If the UN thinks that this is a one-sided problem and that Israel is the aggressor and that the "poor" palestinians" are simply trying to find peace then, absolutely, I know more then them. Just like I knew more then they id when I scoffed at their ridiculous whinings of 600,000 dead Iraqi civilians within the first 48 hours of the war. Farnkly, SARS could wipe out that whole bunch and I wouldn't bat an eye.

"they have the most technological military in the middle east
thanks the the US taxpayer (me and you)
THey have a good economy, so why cant they support themselves? "

Of course they do. As well they should. Of course having the most technological anything is hardly an accomplishment in an are where toasters are cutting edge.
And as far as their economy goes...actually it's not so good. Somehow I think you knew that. I think you also know that supporting a country that would ultimately be exterminated without our help is only one of a myriad of destinations that our taxes are destined for. I suspect we can find a way to keep it all running.


It still all comes back to this. You so desperately want to deny any responsibility of "palastine" in any of this because you simply hate our government and Israel. You can't accept that maybe it's a bit deeper than that and that maybe your heros the "poor oppressed masses" might have a hand in the problem. You also certainly don't give a fuck about the "poor oppressed palestinians" who had their land taken from them when Jordan was founded and have been subjugated in refugee camps in that country or in Egypt, Lebenon and Syria. You're a phony. You're ONLY argument aginst Israel is always this: since America supports them, then they must be wrong. Plainly put.

Israel does have MUCH to answer for and MUST make some huge scrifices if it wants peace but so then does Palestine.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


OneEyedMan

by KPC Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 8:48 PM

Caducado:"And since you obviously believe that all of Israel's supporters are Zionists and therefore, in some way "evil", the conclusion is that all Jews are evil. This is hardly rocket science. "

Your right! Since your a having such OBVIOUS difficulty with logic, you would REALLY fuck up in rocket science.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Hmm

by fresca Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 8:57 PM

Okay dummy. Read it again and try to work it out agin. You'll get it.
And turns out, I am a rocket scientist.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


OneEyedMan

by KPC Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 9:06 PM

So which did you work on, Challenger or Columbia?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Palestinian Aid

by Luke Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 9:07 PM

Excuse me for interrupting this discussion. Where do we find reliable information on U.S. aid to Palestine, Fresca (or anyone)? I've read some things, mostly by Said and Chomsky, but I haven't run across aid-to-palestine- talk.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Smarmster hurls a harald

by Smarmster Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 9:10 PM

Solid, liquid, tell me more Dr. Fresca
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Fascist fresca

by systemfailure Wednesday, Apr. 30, 2003 at 12:37 AM

Umm.......how can I relate tone in the written text?
I though tone was conveyed by punctuation marks.
WOW...thats a stunning equivocation related to a single sentance.
But sorry....your wrong. Nice try though.
Hmm...I hate Jews eh? You label me a racist?
If I was a racist, wouldnt that equate me to a fascist?
And I am against fascism, so I would be against racism.
LEMME STRUCTURE IT FOR YOU "LOGICALLY

All people who are racist are people that support fascism.
Systemfailure is not a person that supports fascism.
Therefore
Systemfailure is not a racist.
;;;;or symbolic;;
All A are B
C is not B
therefore
C is not A
Thank you thank you.

The conclusion is that all jews are evil?--And since you obviously believe that all of Israel's supporters are Zionists and therefore, in some way "evil", the conclusion is that all Jews are evil.

Hardly.
DId I say that or did you say that?

This is a typical "pro israel" argument that
is known as a "red herring" logical fallacy
This occurs when irrelevancies are introduced to distract our attention to the real issues of the
argument.
=All Jews are NOT Zionists= (that was a pretty stupid comment)
But wait theres MORE>>>>>>>

You also committed the logical fallacy of
Begging the question...
Assuming as a premise somthing that you want to prove.
"All opponents of the Israeli government
are racist"..... and defends her position by claiming
"If he wasnt racist, he wouldnt oppose Israel"
Nice try girl, but (i dont think so)

The definition for fascism that you gave was
"sorta exactly like I mentioned earlier. "
Hmmm.....rocket scientist eh?

"They can be our allies for the simple reason that we beleive that they have a right to exist and that supporting them is the right thing to do. What else do you want?"

WHy is it the right thing to do?
I mean, your so Pro israel and so "rocket scientist"
and so willing to send our hard earned tax dollars overseas....
You should be able to come up with at least 5 examples
or why we support israel.
(please dont answer a question with a question)
it makes you look kind like you were lying about the "rocket scientist" part of the post.....

Where does the financial aid come from? The UNited States?
http://www.geocities.com/acid_talking_2u/Refugees/various_aid.html
PS ---Over 75% of the Palestinian aid comes from Arab countries
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/text2003/0305econ.htm

(you didnt answer my question about why the UN sides with the Palestinians)
you wrote........
Well, I guess I do. If the UN thinks that this is a one-sided problem and that Israel is the aggressor and that the "poor" palestinians" are simply trying to find peace then, absolutely, I know more then them. Just like I knew more then they id when I scoffed at their ridiculous whinings of 600,000 dead Iraqi civilians within the first 48 hours of the war. Farnkly, SARS could wipe out that whole bunch and I wouldn't bat an eye

Lemme see if I get this straight........SInce the UN speculated that possibly 600,000 Iraqis
might die from an American Invasion.......Then all the information that they used
to reprimand and cite Israel for violations of UN security council resolutions...ARE ALL FALSE?
WELL THEN
rocket scientist?....riiiight (austin powers accent)

the whole UN is wrong and YOU (and GW) are right.

ps
didnt you star in the movie "jackass"
oh
not that one
the "farm film" one

later fascist bitch.
now go and douche.............





Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


hmm

by UN israel and palestine Wednesday, Apr. 30, 2003 at 2:21 AM

Hmm I think we have a little bit of confusion here between the "palistinian refugees" (the ones in the camps outside of israel/palestine) and the palistinian government.

You should be able to come up with at least 5 examples or why we support israel.

- come up with the 5 reasons why we shouldn't support them since you posed the question.

however to be fair I will jump in and throw a cynical one up - because Israel tends to vote with the US in the UN (more than the arab states by a wide margin). therefore statistically speaking they are our ally and have similar interests etc etc. a nice general starter

-- the whole UN is wrong and YOU (and GW) are right.

You are projecting your own form of logic onto fresca and then disproving it ermmm I am not sure what you are proving with that.

What would be the more rational extrapolation is "the UN is wrong in a number of cases therefore just because "the UN says so" doesnt make it somthing you can rely on.

In this war the so called "neo-cons" seem to have had a better record of predicting things. therefore it would be irrational to trust the UN over the "neo-cons" next time there is a dispute - unless you want to table some evidence of when they were wrong and the UN was right (on the same issue please).
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


To the above poster

by daveman Wednesday, Apr. 30, 2003 at 2:45 AM

Bend over, assclown.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Stuck your foot in that one

by fresca Wednesday, Apr. 30, 2003 at 6:34 AM

"All people who are racist are people that support fascism.
Systemfailure is not a person that supports fascism. "

Evidently Systemfailure does support fascism.
Given his definition what else can one conclude.
Systemfailure remains a racist and now it would seem, by his own logic, he's been shown to be a facist.
Who cares? Did anyone expect any less?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


fresca

by fresca Wednesday, Apr. 30, 2003 at 7:07 AM

Go fuck yourself, you camel-fucking towelhead.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


The UN and reasons not to support fascist Israel

by systemfailure Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 12:24 AM

First of all there fascist fresca
Im not a fascist, hense not a racist
(suprised at your ignorance thought)
Feel free to post any relevent quotes of mine that might back up your claim.

Well actually,
The UN is an organization that the US joined and agreed to accept all bylaws
according to Article IV of the US constitution


the UN
and what they have done

Business
http://www.un.org/works/business/business4.html

Children
http://www.un.org/works/children/children3.html

Culture
http://www.un.org/works/culture/culture4.html

Development
http://www.un.org/works/development/development6.html

Emergencies
http://www.un.org/works/emergencies/emergencies5.html

the Environment
http://www.un.org/works/environment/environment1.html

Healthcare
http://www.un.org/works/health/health4.html

For HIV/ AIDS
http://www.un.org/works/aids/aids1.html

For Human Rights
http://www.un.org/works/humanrights/humanrights1.html

For Labor
http://www.un.org/works/labor/labor1.html

For Peace
http://www.un.org/works/peace/peace1.html

For Womens rights
http://www.un.org/works/women/women1.html

REASONS NOT TO SUPPORT ISRAEL
1955-1992:
* * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
* *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
* obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
* states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
* two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
* council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
* by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
* claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
* Palestinian mayors".
* * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
* nuclear facility".
* * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
* Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
* allow food supplies to be brought in".
* * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
* and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
* in attack on PLO headquarters.
* * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
* its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
* at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
* denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
* requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
* at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
* Nations.
* * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
* Palestinians.
* * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
* calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
* and calls for there immediate return.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


But wait theres more........

by systemfailure Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 12:35 AM

because Israel tends to vote with the US in the UN (more than the arab states by a wide margin). therefore statistically speaking they are our ally and have similar interests etc etc. a nice general starter
THis is your answer to support Israel, because they support the US?
Wouldnt that be considered "blind patriotism"?
(and IM the one who dosent argue logically
HAhaHA haha

Sorry I only listed Israels violations of the UN security counsel resolutions til 1992
heres the rest of my reasons

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/resolutions.html
Security Council Resolutions
* Resolution 242    November 22, 1967
     See - Israel's Position on Resolutions 242 and 338 Clarified
             - U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 Explained
             - Stumbling on Resolution 242
          -Statements Clarifying the Meaning of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242
* Resolution 338    October 22, 1973
* Resolution 425   (Lebanon)   March 19, 1978
* Resolution 1322   October 7, 2000
* Resolution 1397   March 12, 2002
* Resolution 1402   March 30, 2002
* Resolution 1403   April 4, 2002
* Resolution 1435   September 24, 2002

Gave my answers
Still waiting for yours......
still waiting,,,,,

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


You mean the same UN that...

by daveman Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 7:27 AM

From Mike Nargizian on LGF: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=6419#c0010
"1) Disbanded the Sudanese liason reporting on the atrocities there after refusing to condemn the mass slavery, torture, murder and atrocities by the Islamist government?

2) Refused to condemn Mugabe who, under the cover or the Iraq Wa,r stepped up his atrocities including - rapes, torture, forced incest and sex, and murder after South Africa petitioned for them to ignore it?

3) Ignored Russian atrocities in Chechnya?

4) Ignored Chinese atrocities in Tibet?

5) Issued 5 condemnations of those Jews in Israel and affirmed "suicide bombings" only in Israel? Of course, I forget the difference for special justification there though, outside of there being J - E - W - S there.

6) Re-elected their Terrorist despot pal, Castro to the Commission,"
when in the last few weeks he has rounded up dozens of dissidents (to inlude that most dangerous kind, librarians) and put them in jail, some with sentences of more than 20 years; executed 3 hijackers for the terrible crim eof wishing to go the the United States; and has not had an election if 40 years.

Now: what about all this makes you think the UN has a shred of credibility? They fall all over themselves condemning the actions of a democratic country whose children are blown up by cowards, yet either do nothing or actively block action against genocide.

Please help me understand why the US should stay in the UN and be responsible for upholding resolutions that serve only to allow more people to be killed.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


OneEyedMan`

by KPC Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 7:28 AM

...you mean like in Iraq?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


And Chechnya and Tibet and Rwanda and Cuba...

by daveman Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 7:42 AM

But since you brought up Iraq...

Why won't the UN lift the sanctions? They were approved by the entire UN (not just the US) and designed to punish one man, who is now either dead or fled. So why not lift the sanctions?

For once, you guys are right...it IS about the oil. The oil that the UN got rich selling for Iraq, the oil that allowed Saddam to starve his people while building palaces that Tammy Faye Bakker would describe as "tacky". No more sanctions = no more cash for Kofi.

So: You've got Iraq chairing the Disarmament Commission, Libya chairing the Human Rights Commission with their ol' buddy Fidel on board.

This makes sense how, exactly?

We need to get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of New York.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


It was always and only...

by Diogenes Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 7:50 AM

...about the Oil, Oil Money, and Oil Power. The people you support davedeath are evil and the causes you support are evil. But then I'm sure as long as your paycheck still cashes you don't care.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


I'm but a mere...

by daveman Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 8:25 AM

...asshatted clown who mindlessly repeats everything Ari Fleischer says in his daily briefings.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


But Downonhisknees...

by daveman Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 8:29 AM

...as long as you object to the war, the blood of the Iraqis whom Saddam would have gone on torturing, raping, and killing would have been on your hands.

Whether you think so or not.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


The continued lie...

by Diogenes Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 8:36 AM

...this War wasNEVER about "helping" the Iraqi People. It was about the OIL, the MONEY, and the POWER.

More Iraqi people die each day as the intentional chaos brought by a brutal invasion and occupation continue.

The harvest of death will continue unabated and probably expand. The lingering death of Powdered DU and the repressive measures that will be neccessary to keep the Iraqi People "under control" as they are slowly liquidated to prevent them from being a problem for the Oil Companies or Israel. We can rely upon the compliant "maintream" Presstitutes to continue selling the party line. However, anyone who thinks and looks at the history of this morass can come to no other conclusion and still be intellectually honest.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


I did not post that.

by Diogenes Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 8:54 AM

Bogus post above. Wasn't me.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Wow.

by daveman Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 8:55 AM

That is so old, Downonhisknees.

Can't you at least make up something new?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


The Shills are getting...

by Diogenes Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 8:55 AM

...inventive. NOT!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Have you seen my...

by daveman Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 9:03 AM

...W-2?

Then how do you know I'm a shill?

Ahhh...because I dare to disagree with you.

Gotcha.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Diogenes did not post the above.

by Sheepdog Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 9:04 AM

It was Eric.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


GASP!

by daveman Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 9:06 AM

You mean there are people on Indymedia, the Last Bastion of Truth, Freedom, and the American Way who would LIE?

I'm shocked...SHOCKED, I tell you...and saddened.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Okay, it's not a lie...

by daveman Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 9:17 AM

...but it is pretty cowardly.

If you have something to say, use your own name. if you use someone else's, you're just admitting your post isn't worth standing behind.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


you didn't read my post

by daveman Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 9:30 AM

It's pointless to assign an existence to a nickname on IMC. There's an idiot on here that wants to harass and haze and dribble, and he's using everyone else's name to do it. It's not the name that matters anyway. It's the comment. Expressing ownership of a name is a sign of vanity. So screw it. Just read my words from now on. I refuse to continue to use my own name. I'm going to use all of yours.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Yes, I read your post.

by daveman Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 9:35 AM

And I'd like to say:

Don't stoop to their level.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


magic button

by mkj Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 9:39 AM

error
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


oh, davey boy......

by systemfailure Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 2:18 PM

Lemme get this straight

You argue on and on.... about how the US is enforcing UN security council resolutions
because the UN wont.

NOW
IF you dont support the UN, then why would you argue that the US needs to be in Iraq?
Oil you say....?
I guess you have learned somthing from Indymedia then.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


completefailure

by daveman Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 12:08 AM

"...why would you argue that the US needs to be in Iraq?"

Because, oh, maybe, it's the right thing to do?

Oil is the reason the Axis of Weasels (tm) opposed military action to remove Saddam.

Not that you and your kind will ever believe any reason given by the administration; if it comes out of Washington, it's by definition a lie.

No, you'll just keep on yelling "Bush is Hitler!" and "It's all about the oil!" no matter what evidence is found (which you will claim is fabricated or planted). Then you will congratulate yourselves that you have done your part in saving the world, when in fact you will have accomplished and contributed nothing. In all actuality, had you gotten your way, Saddam would have kept on murdering, raping, and torturing the Iraqi people you claim to care so much about.

Now you will insult me, call me a shill, and strut around like you are a more evolved superior intellect.

Whatever gets you through the day, Slappy.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


oh davie boy

by systemfailure Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 2:02 AM

Because its the rights thing to do?
Thats your answer?
I hope you are kidding me.
No explainations from the top military pundit of the Indymedia?
Please expand on this answer.
Please detail why it is the "right" thing to do.
Bearing in mind that you do not support the UN in anyway.
and
Iraq has never attacked the United States.
fucking amazing............
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


And what would be the point?

by daveman Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 2:14 AM

You know my position. But you know all the answers, though, don't you?

I don't have to defend my opinions to you or anyone else.

There are shades of gray in the world, which the left is so fond of using instead of morality, but that does not preclude the existence of black and white. Moral equivalence is morally bankrupt.

If you can't recognize evil when you see it (outside of D.C., that is), then you too are morally bankrupt.

Excuse us while we try to remove that evil from the world.

Now go have a protest or something equally useless.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Gee systemfailure, we thought you were the top military pundit on indymedia.

by boot sector virus Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 2:14 AM

"The right thing to do" because:

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


eat shit and die you fucking pogue

by systemfailure Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 2:35 AM

WHatever daveman.
You justify wasting the working middle class hard earned
tax dollars to wage a war for the rich.
Killing and wounding patriotic american soldiers
and all you have to say is

"I don't have to defend my opinions to you or anyone else."

Your a disgrace.

To "boot lickin virus scrub"
you aint foolin nobody,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
HEehAHaheHee
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


"Your a disgrace."

by Melissa Virus Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 2:41 AM

It's "you're" not your you dullard.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Exactly why should I...

by daveman Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 2:45 AM

...defend my opinions to you?

Because you're a taxpayer?

Nope. My opinions are my own; they are not issued equipment.

The Constitution I swore to defend with my life guarantees me the same rights as you. Sorry; fact of life. Deal with it.

I'm a disgrace, am I? Why, exactly? Because my opinions don't line up with yours? Because I express them? Because I don't fall for the lefty rhetoric, with all its "good feelings" and moral equivalence? If those are your reasons, I will gladly accept the label "disgrace".

"You justify wasting the working middle class hard earned
tax dollars to wage a war for the rich."
Nice; straight out of the Democratic Party playbook (with a footnote crediting Marx).

So what would you have your tax dollars spent on? Professional welfare mothers? Tofu for everybody? I know! How about cleaning crap and puke off public streets after a "peace" rally? Oh, wait...that's already been done.

Looks like I made widdle sissiefailure mad.

Awwww.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


mad? Never.

by systemfailure Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 3:04 AM

mad? Never....
may1st.jpgryuhun.jpg, image/jpeg, 675x449

oh davy
i just love shutting down your arguments
it just great...
Shutting down fascists here on Indymedia
is
almost as good
as
hacking the fuck out of thier harddrives.

you uphold the constitution?
ever read it?
ever read the history of the united states?
ever read the federalist papers?

didnt think so..........
ps
to the polesmoking
wannabe "virus"
thats good at proofreading
and
bad at engaging
in arguments...................
EaTaDIcK
hahaahhahhahahhahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahahahhahahhahhahahahahhahahahhahhahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahhaha
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


That's funny...

by daveman Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 3:13 AM

...I don't seem to have been shut down.

Hmmm.

Maybe you're speaking of such pearls of wisdom as "SHUT UP NEO---and daveboy 5 (inches)"

and "Eric,,,,if you had a brain youd be dangerous
now go home and finish fucking your mother."

and "I did "pole" your wife".

Yes, you really got me with that 4th grade debate style.

And your political commentary is as scintillating as your interpersonal conversations.

sissiefailure, you believe what you want. Whatever it takes to get you through your day.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


boot sector virus

by Einstein Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 6:27 AM

The chemical attack on Halabja happened when Saddam was our ALLY, you imbecile. Please go buy yourself a brain.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


"The chemical attack on Halabja happened when Saddam was our ALLY"

by boot sector Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 6:51 AM

What does that unsubstantiated allegation have to do with the discussion?

First of all, Saddam was NEVER an ally of the USA. Please feel free to prove to me otherwise.

Secondly, NOTHING justifies the massacre of 10,000 people in two days. No matter how you spin it, you can't deny the evil of the act.

Thirdly, with this single act on his record, and after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, any action against this dictator is justified. Period. He's proven that he's capable of genocide. And we've proven that we won't allow it.

Fourthly, in the coming months it will become clear that this dictator had undeniable ties to Al Quaeda, stockpiles of chemical weapons, and that most probably France and Russia were in cahoots as well.

Real life IS definately stranger than fiction.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


boot sector (KKKOBE fascist)

by Einstein Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 7:01 AM

"He's proven that he's capable of genocide. "

And we've proven that we'll support it, as long as the dictator in question is looking out for US corporations' interests.

"Fourthly, in the coming months it will become clear that this dictator had undeniable ties to Al Quaeda, stockpiles of chemical weapons, and that most probably France and Russia were in cahoots as well."

So tell me, you psychic wonder, what the next winning lottery numbers will be.

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


unsubstantiated allegation

by boot sector Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 7:04 AM

Please feel free to justify with facts any time.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


boot sector

by Einstein Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 7:07 AM

If you don't already know that Saddam was our ally in the Iran/Iraq war, you have your head up your ass. Facts won't help you. You are a conservative. Go change Reagan's diapers, you idiot.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Who fought in that war?

by boot sector Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 7:22 AM

It was like the "Spanish-American" war, right? We sent troops over to help out our ally, of course? American blood was spilled in the "Iran/Iraq" war? That's usually how we help our allies out, isn't it?

No, we sent both sides weapons. That's about it.

You can't spin the Iran/Iraq war to anyone who was old enough to remember the hostage crisis. Anyone of middle age and moderate intelligence knows quite well we've never been allies of either Iran or Iraq. All we did was sell them a few weapons to go kill themselves with. Nothing that Russia, China, or France hasn't done. Wouldn't exactly say that made Hussein an ally. More like a dupe.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


bootie sector

by Ronald Reagan Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 7:24 AM

"No, we sent both sides weapons."

Oh yeah, now I remember. It was called the IRAN CONTRA SCANDAL. I love that Ollie North.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


"Love that Ollie North"

by boot sector Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 7:30 AM

Glad to hear it. So do I, in fact. A true American patriot.

You can catch him week nights on Fox News as a war correspondent, and on weekends hosting "War Stories - with Ollie North".

Add it to the list.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


bootie sector

by Ronald Reagan Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 7:32 AM

Yeah, he's a shady character just like me. I only like people who are like me. That's why I hate coloreds. I'm a conservative.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


they're not "coloreds", they're "African-Americans"

by Sen. Byrd Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 7:37 AM

Get it right and quit disrespecting them. It's the new millennium. Hyphenate. You know you want to. Everyone's doing it.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


"shady character"

by boot sector Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 7:39 AM

That's how I describe the idiots that run this website and run around preaching about COINTELPRO and "the Feds are monitoring our forum dude."
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


"shady character(s)"

by ISI Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 7:41 AM

That's how I describe the anti-Muslim cyberterrorists known as KOBE. Those idiots don't even know how close they are to federal prison. I hope they don't bend over in the shower!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


daveman

by mkj Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 9:54 AM

daveman...
mgf7.gifmfewln.gif, image/png, 241x205

i dont think that last post was yours because i know your more mature than that plus mkj is spelled mjk and i dont think you would say that about me or would you?

ithe truth is i love you daveman but i just cant express myself it always runs off in a bad way but now ill comeout the closet and say it i love you daveman i like anyname with dave in it dave is always somehow linked to a jewish person i love jews but i hate their government i hate debbie schlussle because she hates arabs shes the one that threw the blanket over arabs first im sorry if i ever offended you daveman i swear look all you want their is no hidden message in this post like i did to simon i swear after looking at a couple more of your post i seem to disagree with some of the stuff you say but other than that were cool right? this is a suck up and apoligy i swear i wont post another post under this name if you do not see where i am coming from i mean you read that article by debbie schlussel the story of the sauidi guy demanding that their be no women in the control tower that a whole bunch of bullshit you know it and i know it and all the other stuff debbie does i just fucking hate her have you ever seen or heard someone for the first time and felt like something just didint "click in" well thats how i felt when i heard that bitch for the first time

i do not hate all jews and i never threw the zionist blanket at the jewish people i was always oipen and willing to accept other peoples ideas

well like i said this will be my last post underr the name mkj if you do not see where im coming from

ill post this up a couple more times to make sure you get it

peace out daveman and ppplz
mkj
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy