Log in

View Full Version : A play sponsored and produced by the state



redmafiosi
18th August 2005, 15:25
Was just watching it on the T.V.
Those youth trained to do what the state taught them.
Cant even imagine the way there conscience is degraded.
Have they evr thought of the plight when there military forcibly vacated the land driving out the arabs?

That time it was not the unarmed soldiers. And the Hughana and the northern gang was also involved.

bolshevik butcher
18th August 2005, 16:27
I do have some sympathy with ordinary people being mvoed out of their homes, even though i do think this was something that had to happen.

*Exodus
18th August 2005, 23:18
Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 18 2005, 03:45 PM
I do have some sympathy with ordinary people being mvoed out of their homes, even though i do think this was something that had to happen.
I completely agree with you, It isn't right to push people out of there homes, but I think this is the only way.

Pukuotas
19th August 2005, 09:51
yeah... i just hear on tv how old plaestinian man says:
"...i'm happy that they is going out from the lands of our fathers and grandfathers. But i'm sorry that they have to feel same that our brothers and sisters felt in 1948... "

the situasion in middle east is realy nonsense. <_<

Leif
19th August 2005, 10:20
It (the middle eastern situation) all makes sense, but when you look at all of the facts it&#39;s all rather depressing.

redmafiosi
19th August 2005, 16:38
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:09 AM


the situasion in middle east is realy nonsense. <_<
On the contrary it makes complete sense. Every thing was planned long long ago- by the allied power- during the the last stage of the 2nd world war. The turbulence in the middle east is required for a faction of the capitalist world to maintain it&#39;s control over the huge oil resources there. The Jews are yet again serving in a concentration camp in disguise. The only difference is that they dont know that this time they are serving to make the american economy and military secured and powerful enough for a economic cleansing.They are the true victim of the capitalistic greed.
Worst of it is that this time they are becoming sand bag to hide the real fascists.

Intifada
19th August 2005, 16:45
Anybody notice how the Western media is portraying the evacuation of these illegal settlers?

It is beyond belief that the illegal settlers be given such coverage of their "agony" and "anguish."

When Palestinians are regularly evicted from their homes, they are given five minutes to get out with as many belongings they can fetch, before the Israeli occupiers blow up or demolish their homes. The Western media paints these house demolitions as pictures of self-defence on behalf of the Israeli occupiers.

The grief of the Palestinian is never shown.

Then, when a Palestinian decides to resort to legitimate resistance (excluding the suicide bombings of innocent Israelis), he/she is immediately labeled "terrorist" and "extremist."

The Israeli settler that killed four Palestinians in the West Bank was excused from such labels.

Enragé
19th August 2005, 18:53
http://www.jsalloum.org/meenerhabedam3.wmv

"Who&#39;s the terrorist?"

fuck israel

redmafiosi
20th August 2005, 14:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 04:03 PM

When Palestinians are regularly evicted from their homes, they are given five minutes to get out with as many belongings they can fetch, before the Israeli occupiers blow up or demolish their homes. The Western media paints these house demolitions as pictures of self-defence on behalf of the Israeli occupiers.

The grief of the Palestinian is never shown.

Then, when a Palestinian decides to resort to legitimate resistance (excluding the suicide bombings of innocent Israelis), he/she is immediately labeled "terrorist" and "extremist."

The Israeli settler that killed four Palestinians in the West Bank was excused from such labels.
Anyway an evacuation is an evacuation is an evacuation.As I mentioned earlier- any suffering of the common mass is a suffering of our class. The point is the entire situation is servicing the capitalists. They just dont want a peaceful environment in the middle east. As long as there will be the tension regarding the Israile- Arab conflict the real workers movement against the american interest and against the local puppet emires will never be able to conglomerete. I think it&#39;s time to make a new concept of international resistance including the progressive jews against the capitalists. Peace in the middle east is a prerequisite of the middle east socialist revolution.

Severian
21st August 2005, 13:40
Originally posted by Intifad[email protected] 19 2005, 10:03 AM
Anybody notice how the Western media is portraying the evacuation of these illegal settlers?

It is beyond belief that the illegal settlers be given such coverage of their "agony" and "anguish."

When Palestinians are regularly evicted from their homes, they are given five minutes to get out with as many belongings they can fetch, before the Israeli occupiers blow up or demolish their homes. The Western media paints these house demolitions as pictures of self-defence on behalf of the Israeli occupiers.
Yeah, I agree. And the ultrarightist protestors are being treated with kid gloves, certainly compared to how Palestinians nonviolently protesting the construction of the separation wall are treated. (Shot with less-lethal rubber-coated steel pellets, euphemistically called nonlethal rubber bullets.)

A sizable minority of these settlers, especially in Gaza, are not "common mass"...they are conscious ultrarightist scum, who&#39;ve come to the occupied territories with the intent of disposessing Palestinians, claiming the land for Israel, and terrorizing Palestinians with armed gangs. Their anguish is the anguish of seeing the death of the dream of a "greater Israel" in the whole of the "Holy Land"....that&#39;s not an anguish anyone should sympathize with.

Others come for economic motives, the settlements are heavily subsidized by the government so it&#39;s easy to achieve a comfortable middle-class suburban-style life on land stolen from Palestinians...but how "common mass" is that, either?

These people have been treated as pawns, their lives endangered and sacrificed by the Israeli state for its territorial ambitions. If you want to sympathize with their suffering, sympathize with the suffering that they were left in the war zone for so long&#33;

The Israeli state encouraged them to move to the occupied territories, subsidized their home purchases...then their homeownership tied &#39;em there&#33; And the Israeli government refused to buy &#39;em out and let &#39;em move back to Israel as Palestinian resistance grew...that&#39;s still the case for the many tens of thousands of settlers in the West Bank which Israel intends to keep there. It&#39;s like a real-life "Amityville Horror" on a larger scale....

Israeli columnist Ran HaCohen points out:

The "poor settlers" image dominates the Israeli media not because it is in love with the settlers, but because it is obedient. Prime Minister Sharon wants the eviction to be portrayed as a huge national trauma – as a means against any future withdrawals – so that&#39;s what the media is doing. ....
There are other stories, other perspectives the media could choose. Take the story of Dugit. The small settlement on the northern coast of Gaza is represented just as any other: "uprooting," tears and all. Nobody seems to remember that 10 years ago the settlers of Dugit went to demonstrate in front of PM Rabin&#39;s office in Jerusalem, demanding to get a piece of coast inside Israel and get out of Gaza. It&#39;s time for peace now, they said, let us out. The government refused. I&#39;d love to hear their perspective: how many of them were killed or injured in Palestinian terror attacks since? What do they think of the dirty game played with them? Not a word of it in the media.
Stop Your Sobbing (http://antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=7007)

One of his old columns explaining how many settlers wanted to leave and suggesting that those who want to help them, raise money to help them leave. (http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h061702.html)

Phalanx
23rd August 2005, 00:34
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 06:11 PM
"Who&#39;s the terrorist?"


The suicide bomber, fuckface.

Ownthink
23rd August 2005, 01:05
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 02:11 PM
http://www.jsalloum.org/meenerhabedam3.wmv

"Who&#39;s the terrorist?"

fuck israel
Fuck Israel.

Intifada
23rd August 2005, 14:12
The suicide bomber, fuckface.

True.

The fact remains, however, that the act of murder perpetrated by the suicide bomber is a direct result of decades of Israeli terrorism.

Dark Exodus
23rd August 2005, 18:28
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:30 PM

The suicide bomber, fuckface.

True.

The fact remains, however, that the act of murder perpetrated by the suicide bomber is a direct result of decades of Israeli terrorism.
I agree with what you are saying but terrorism by definition has to be a non-governmental activity.

Intifada
23rd August 2005, 21:57
Yes, but that definition is bullshit, and used in order to demonise the weak and poor, while justify the more disgusting acts of the powerful state.

There is simply no difference between the use of a helicopter gunship and a bomb attached to somebody&#39;s chest.

Both strike fear into the hearts of the innocent people affected.

papi
24th August 2005, 00:15
I support all violent Palestinian action. Anyone who resides in Israel is by default complicit with the crimes it commits. If any Israeli truly believed in human rights for Palestinians it would either revolt against it&#39;s own state or leave it, knowing full well it&#39;s criminal nature. If this is not done they are condoning all crimes against Palestinians. If they remain under the conditions of religious ideology and the return to a biblical holy land, they are advocating manifest destiny. If they remain under the idea that they are escaping persecution, they are blind to the persecution of all humanity. If they remain under the rational argument that dismantling the state would be ridiculous at this point, they would seize control of the government and violently fight for the human rights of Palestinians and abandon the idea of the Jewish state. They will in no way drive towards this goal, and hence their lives are forfeit to me.

One must be prepared to be hardlined. Ghandi has no place in a revolution.

Dark Exodus
24th August 2005, 01:23
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 09:15 PM
Yes, but that definition is bullshit, and used in order to demonise the weak and poor, while justify the more disgusting acts of the powerful state.

There is simply no difference between the use of a helicopter gunship and a bomb attached to somebody&#39;s chest.

Both strike fear into the hearts of the innocent people affected.

Nope, we have state-terrorism for gunships.

The only reason it matters is because the word is given to much weight and is thrown around far too much nowadays.

papi
24th August 2005, 05:18
And it is your fear of supporting "terrorists" that gives the word power.
I know I support the terrorists. Anyone residing under Israeli protection is an enemy combatant.

Severian
24th August 2005, 09:00
Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 23 2005, 11:46 AM
I agree with what you are saying but terrorism by definition has to be a non-governmental activity.
Why? A crime remains the same whether it is committed by a state or someone else.

Nor is there a wall between what is a state and what is a non-state actor; revolutionary forces become more and more state-like as they gain power, may administer much of a country&#39;s territory for years before taking full power and being officially recognized as a state. Or rebel/exile groups controlling little or no territory may be the internationally recognized government. (Northern Alliance, late 90s Afghanistan; Khmer Rouge, 1980s Cambodia.)

Even the U.S. State Department&#39;s definition admits that covert governmental actions can be terrorism. Otherwise they&#39;d have to say the Lockerbie airline bombing, allegedly carried out by Libyan intelligence agents, was not terrorism.

So they open the door for CIA, Mossad, Shin Bet, etc covert ops to be terrorism even by their own definition.

And logically, why the covert-overt distinction, either? Why does terrorism cease to be terrorism if it&#39;s done openly?