Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Bush Endorses Sharon's Plan

  1. #1
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    295
    Post Thanks / Like
    By Endorsing Ariel Sharon's Plan
    George Bush Has Legitimised Terrorism
    By Robert Fisk
    The Independent U.K.

    Friday 16 April 2004

    What better recruiting sergeant could Bin Laden have than the President of the United States?
    So President George Bush tears up the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan and that's okay. Israeli settlements for Jews and Jews only on the West Bank. That's okay. Taking land from Palestinians who have owned that land for generations, that's okay. UN Security Council Resolution 242 says that land cannot be acquired by war. Forget it. That's okay.

    Does President George Bush actually work for al-Qa'ida? What does this mean? That George Bush cares more about his re-election than he does about the Middle East? Or that George Bush is more frightened of the Israeli lobby than he is of his own electorate. Fear not, it is the latter.

    His language, his narrative, his discourse on history, has been such a lie these past three weeks that I wonder why we bother to listen to his boring press conferences. Ariel Sharon, the perpetrator of the Sabra and Shatila massacre (1,700 Palestinian civilians dead) is a "man of peace" - even though the official 1993 Israeli report on the massacre said he was "personally responsible" for it. Now, Mr Bush is praising Mr Sharon's plan to steal yet more Palestinian land as a "historic and courageous act".

    Heaven spare us all. Give up the puny illegal Jewish settlements in Gaza and everything's okay: the theft of land by colonial settlers, the denial of any right of return to Israel by those Palestinians who lived there, that's okay. Mr Bush, who claimed he changed the Middle East by invading Iraq, says he is now changing the world by invading Iraq! Okay! Is there no one to cry "Stop! Enough!"?

    Two nights ago, this most dangerous man, George Bush, talked about "freedom in Iraq". Not "democracy" in Iraq. No, "democracy" was no longer mentioned. "Democracy" was simply left out of the equation. Now it was just "freedom" - freedom from Saddam rather than freedom to have elections. And what is this "freedom" supposed to involve? One group of American-appointed Iraqis will cede power to another group of American-appointed Iraqis. That will be the "historic handover" of Iraqi "sovereignty". Yes, I can well see why George Bush wants to witness a "handover" of sovereignty. "Our boys" must be out of the firing line - let the Iraqis be the sandbags.

    Iraqi history is already being written. In revenge for the brutal killing of four American mercenaries - for that is what they were - US Marines carried out a massacre of hundreds of women and children and guerillas in the Sunni Muslim city of Fallujah. The US military says that the vast majority of the dead were militants. Untrue, say the doctors. But the hundreds of dead, many of whom were indeed civilians, were a shameful reflection on the rabble of American soldiery who conducted these undisciplined attacks on Fallujah. Many Baghdadi Sunnis say that in the "New Iraq" - the Iraqi version, not the Paul Bremer version - Fallujah should be given the status of a new Iraqi capital.

    Vast areas of the Palestinian West Bank will now become Israel, courtesy of President Bush. Land which belongs to people other than Israelis must now be stolen by Israelis because it is "unrealistic" to accept otherwise. Is Mr Bush a thief? Is he a criminal? Can he be charged with abetting a criminal act? Can Iraq now claim to Kuwait that it is "unrealistic" that the Ottoman borders can be changed? Palestinian land once included all of what is now Israel. It is not, apparently, "realistic" to change this, even to two per cent?

    Is Saddam Hussein to be re-bottled and put back in charge of Iraq on the basis that his 1990 invasion of Kuwait was "realistic"? Or that his invasion of Iran - when we helped him try to destroy Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution - was "realistic" because he initially attacked only the Arabic-speaking (and thus "Iraqi") parts of Iran?

    Or, since President Bush now seems to be a history buff, are the Germans to be given back Danzig or the Sudetenland? Or Austria? Or should we perhaps recreate the colonial possessions of the past 100 years? Is it not "realistic" that the French should retake Algeria - or part of Algeria - on the basis that the people all speak French, on the basis that this was once part of the French nation? Or should the British retake Cyprus? Or Aden? Or Egypt? Shouldn't the French be allowed to take back Lebanon and Syria? Why shouldn't the British re-take America and boot out those pesky "terrorists" who oppose the rule of King George's democracy well over 200 years ago?

    Because this is what George Bush's lunacy and weakness can lead to. We all have lands that "God" gave us. Didn't Queen Mary die with "Calais" engraved on her heart? Doesn't Spain have a legitimate right to the Netherlands? Or Sweden the right to Norway and Denmark? Every colonial power, including Israel can put forward these preposterous demands.

    What Bush has actually done is give way to the crazed world of Christian Zionism. The fundamentalist Christians who support Israel's theft of the West Bank on the grounds that the state of Israel must exist there according to God's law until the second coming, believe that Jesus will return to earth and the Israelis - for this is the Bush "Christian Sundie" belief - will then have to convert to Christianity or die in the battle of Amargeddon.

    I kid thee not. This is the Christian fundamentalist belief, which even the Israeli embassy in Washington go along with - without comment, of course - in their weekly Christian Zionist prayer meetings. Every claim by Osama bin Laden, every statement that the United States represents Zionism and supports the theft of Arab lands will now have been proved true to millions of Arabs, even those who had no time for Bin Laden. What better recruiting sergeant could Bin Laden have than George Bush. Doesn't he realise what this means for young American soldiers in Iraq or are Israelis more important than American lives in Mesopotamia?

    Everything the US government has done to preserve its name as a "middle-man" in the Middle East has now been thrown away by this gutless, cowardly US President, George W Bush. That it will place his soldiers at greater risk doesn't worry him - anyway, he doesn't do funerals. That it goes against natural justice doesn't worry him. That his statements are against international law is of no consequence.

    And still we have to cow-tow to this man. If we are struck by al-Qa'ida it is our fault. And if 90 per cent of the population of Spain point out that they opposed the war, then they are pro-terrorists to complain that 200 of their civilians were killed by al-Qa'ida. First the Spanish complain about the war, then they are made to suffer for it - and then they are condemned as "appeasers" by the Bush regime and its craven journalists when they complain that their husbands and wives and sons did not deserve to die.

    If this is to be their fate, excuse me, but I would like to have a Spanish passport so that I can share the Spanish people's "cowardice"! If Mr Sharon is "historic" and "courageous", then the murderers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad will be able to claim the same. Mr Bush legitimised "terrorism" this week - and everyone who loses a limb or a life can thank him for his yellow streak. And, I fear, they can thank Mr Blair for his cowardice too.

    -------

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    So lets get this straight, tailgators, osama is happy that Israel is picking off hamas terrorists.

    That means that osama is unhappy when the surviving terrorists blow up innocent Israeli citizens?

    I hear osama actually accepted ME peace, before he advised against it.

  3. #3
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    295
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Apr 17 2004, 11:01 PM
    [b] So lets get this straight, tailgators, osama is happy that Israel is picking off hamas terrorists.

    That means that osama is unhappy when the surviving terrorists blow up innocent Israeli citizens?

    I hear osama actually accepted ME peace, before he advised against it. [/b][/quote]
    First of all I am not Tailgator....

    Secondly, if you think this doesn't make Bin Laden's recruiting efforts easier you are not paying attention. This policy will breed more terrorism not less and not just against Israel.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by NYJet94[/i]@Apr 18 2004, 05:34 PM
    [b] First of all I am not Tailgator....

    Secondly, if you think this doesn't make Bin Laden's recruiting efforts easier you are not paying attention. This policy will breed more terrorism not less and not just against Israel. [/b][/quote]
    Really? Your posts look an awful lot like tailgators and it's funny how tailgators disappears and you start posting just like him.

    If you think sitting around doing nothing for 10 more years is going to disappate this anger that radical islam has for America, then you are blind. President Bush has decided to take the war against them before they determine to accelerate the war against us. When they have a chance to really overwhelm us because we're caught offguard again.

    Your 9-11 posts seem to critizise this administration for not preempting the event. Afghansistan is the defensive war and Iraq is the offensive one.

    You liberals insist that if we stop buying all oil, send all our troops in the ME home, stop supporting Israel and just disengage from the whole world, Al Queda and the rest of this scum will just leave us alone.

    In other words, do what they want and nobody gets hurt -- until something else pisses them off. The next thing will be our religion. And then our "poisionous" culture. And then that our version of football is not soccer. And then that the Jets are green -- the color of Islam. And then...

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,689
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here it is again. The same ol' liberal thinking. If we just do as the terrorists want they'll leave us alone. I'm not surprised you quoted a left wing liberal European rag. You sir are a Neville Chamberlain Appeaser!

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    So, in simple terms, AQ and Hamas are justifed in using force to acheive their goals, but the USA and Britain are not?

    Got it. Makes sense.


    [b]94 - WHAT IS YOUR STRATEGY FOR DEALING WITH THE THREAT OF TERRORISM? [/b](Please post original thoghts, and not some op-ed)

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    711
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fact - The Isrealis are on land that does not belong to them and they continue to bulldoze villages and build over them. Fatass Sharon will get up on TV and talk about the road map to piece yet he will still continue to breed terror by bulldozing villages and encouraging more and more young palestinian men to become terrorists.

    Fact - American religious Jews are treated like s**t by the Isrealis. Furthermore, the Isrealis pawn their own kind for global sympathy by building those religious settlements over bulldozed Palestinian villages.

    Fact - Isreal laughs at us daily to see what else they can get away with. Try voting in Isreal if you are not a Jew. That's democratic! Try owning a business and being told that you can only operate during non peak hours so you won't compete with Jewish businesses. We in America have been brainwashed by the holocaust and the horror stories but it is about time people wake up and smell the coffee. Remember, Isreal is the same ****ty country that knowingly attacked and killed our guys on the USS Liberty, sold our military secrets to then communist Russia and continues to sell our military secrets to Red China.

    Fact - Isreal is an expense and a headache to maintain and not worth the trouble. What has Isreal done for anybody lately besides take a portion of our budget each year for the past 60 years or so?

    Fact - If our politicians and the new KKK, Kristian Kompassionate Konservative stayed the f**k out of the Arab world then we would not have terrorism. The Arab countries would live life the way they know it over there and we could bribe who we had to get our oil. Furthermore, oil would be super cheap.

    Fact - the palestinians and religious Isrealis are pawns amongst their own people. The Isrealis sacrifice their own by encouraging terror so as to continue to gather monetary support and the Arabs and Big Oil encourage Palestinian suicide efforts as a way to maintain friction and to prop up oil prices when needed.

    Sorry dude but if you want true peace in that region then we should take back our weapons from Isreal and force the Arab countries to not interefere and let them kill each other the biblical way. You know with sticks and rocks. Hell you could broadcast it pay per view and actually make money on it. Instead of wasting my tax dollars so that some fat ****s like Sharon and the Saudi Prince can continue to live at the expense of the American taxpayer. If we did that then who would scumbags like binLaden recruit and where would they go. They would go to Isreal and that would be fine with me.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Outsider - what color is the sky in your world? ;)

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    711
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Apr 20 2004, 08:52 AM
    [b] Outsider - what color is the sky in your world? ;) [/b][/quote]
    Depends on the weather.

  10. #10
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    295
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Apr 19 2004, 03:28 PM
    [b] So, in simple terms, AQ and Hamas are justifed in using force to acheive their goals, but the USA and Britain are not?

    Got it. Makes sense.


    [b]94 - WHAT IS YOUR STRATEGY FOR DEALING WITH THE THREAT OF TERRORISM? [/b](Please post original thoghts, and not some op-ed) [/b][/quote]

    It is because this simplistic response that I don't waste my time explaining "my strategy for dealing with terrorism". I mean why bother, you guys have all the answers.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Apr 17 2004, 09:01 PM
    [b] So lets get this straight, tailgators, [/b][/quote]
    You mean he's not [i]really[/i] a 48 YO black man?

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us