Israel murders disabled people... whats next i wonder IDF-Apachefiring missiles on 67yr old civilian in wheelchair- at Sabra mosque inGaza...

wrote in
news:Eo28c.4246$Ct5.3230@edtnps89:

In us.military.army Chad Irby wrote:

Considering that Israel has only killed, since the start of the last
Intifada in 2000, about 2600 Palestinians (most of whom were armed or
standing around people who were armed and shooting) out of a
population of 8.7 million, you're horribly abusing that "ethnic
cleansing" phrase.

You dishonestly restrict the use of the word, both in time, and in
impact. Ethnic cleansing is the only word to describe the concerted
*60 YEAR* effort to drive Palestinians out of their native land

THEIR native land? ISTR a mosque built on Jewish Temple remains.
In fact,the Jews were there before the "Palestinians" ever were invented.
(most of the "Palestinians" are Egyptians,Syrians,Lebanese,or Jordanian.)
Jews have lived in that area for many thousands of years.It's the ARABS who
want to drive the Jews "into the sea",to use their own words.The Israelis
have Palestinians in their GOVERNMENT,and coexist peacefully with them in
the State of Israel,while no Arab country tolerates Jews living among
them,and certainly not allowing them representation in any Arab government.
And the ARABS are the ones who calle dfor Arab resisdents to flee when they
launched the first of several wars to "drive the Jews into the sea".To
exterminate them.

and Jordan is at least 70% "Palestinian",yet no one is calling for Jordan
to be "Palestine",or even part of it.It was even part of the original
"Palestinian Mandate" created after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire,
-another- Arab government that persecuted the Jews living in that area.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Maybe the UN should have a EDA resolution? An Earthlings with Disabilities
Act. And it could be enforced by the WDC, World Disabilities Court, whose
judges would truly be the halt and the blind.

But since that would presumably include developmentally disabled, that would
favor certain countries over others. For example, the EU, Canada,
and NZ would be bringing claims right and left since most of their
populations are thus sorely afflicted, but would that really be equitable?

If you could ever justify eugenics, this scenario would be a prime example!

;-)

As far as the ol' skeik goes, you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

wd

In us.military.army Chad Irby wrote:

Basic feedoms? The you mean the freedom of press, the freedom to vote, the
freedom to have access to water and power, the freedom to walk the streets
without fear?

You mean the freedoms they actually have LESS of than they did under Saddam?

Other than the fact that *everything* in this comment was false, it sure
gives away your priorities... since they had *none* of those things
under Saddam Hussein.

Incorrect. Under Saddam, and before the American-backed embargo, Iraqis
had some of the best infrastructure in the ME, including, but not limited
to, universal health care, universal education, and stability. There were
definitely problems, due to Saddam's heavy hand, but women were able to walk
the streets without fear of rape, and there was clean water.

In any case, I don't need to condemn this dishonest and ill-conceived war -
There are enough of your own officials doing it.


--
.................................................. ............................

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

In article dh88c.2205$wg1.816@edtnps84,
wrote:

In us.military.army Chad Irby wrote:

Basic feedoms? The you mean the freedom of press, the freedom to vote,
the
freedom to have access to water and power, the freedom to walk the streets
without fear?

You mean the freedoms they actually have LESS of than they did under
Saddam?

Other than the fact that *everything* in this comment was false, it sure
gives away your priorities... since they had *none* of those things
under Saddam Hussein.

Incorrect. Under Saddam, and before the American-backed embargo, Iraqis
had some of the best infrastructure in the ME, including, but not limited
to, universal health care, universal education, and stability. There were
definitely problems, due to Saddam's heavy hand, but women were able to walk
the streets without fear of rape, and there was clean water.


Yes, but what about the trains?


--Mike

In article dh88c.2205$wg1.816@edtnps84,
wrote:

In us.military.army Chad Irby wrote:

Basic feedoms? The you mean the freedom of press, the freedom to
vote, the freedom to have access to water and power, the freedom
to walk the streets without fear?

You mean the freedoms they actually have LESS of than they did under
Saddam?

Other than the fact that *everything* in this comment was false, it sure
gives away your priorities... since they had *none* of those things
under Saddam Hussein.

Incorrect. Under Saddam, and before the American-backed embargo, Iraqis
had some of the best infrastructure in the ME, including, but not limited
to, universal health care,

....which was terrible, except for the ruling elites. Most of that
"universal health care" consisted of telling people they couldn't get
any treatment.

universal education,

....as long as it told the students that Saddam was wonderful.

and stability.

The stability that comes with fear.

There were definitely problems, due to Saddam's heavy hand,

"Heavy hand?" Sheesh, you must have broken your euphemism generator
with that bit of text. "Horrible, bloody dictator's hand, with
thousands of murders by the government, topped off with torture" is more
appropriate.

but women were able to walk
the streets without fear of rape,

You're out of your mind.

and there was clean water.

Less than now, actually. Along with power. Although they're starting
to have power problems, because non-government people are able to get
such luxuries as refrigerators and air conditioners without having to
bribe someone in charge. Iraqis are buying more cars per *month* than
they used to buy in a *year*. TV and satellite dish sales are
skyrocketing (you couldn't get those before the war, either).

In any case, I don't need to condemn this dishonest and ill-conceived war -
There are enough of your own officials doing it.

Take it up with the Iraqis. About 2/3 of *them* think it was a good
thing, and most of the rest are neutral about it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

wrote in message
news:dh88c.2205$wg1.816@edtnps84...
In us.military.army Chad Irby wrote:

There were
definitely problems, due to Saddam's heavy hand, but women were able to
walk
the streets without fear of rape,

Aren't you overlooking Uday Husseins well documented love of rape? But
otherwise I'm sure it was a lovely place to live.

Jarg

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:22:00 +1100, Aerophotos
wrote:

Its called a low scum act killing people anyone with a disability, but
dont expect any brains from anyone from the side who killed him.. people
with disabilities have been trodden on for years... go and research it
if your not sure information is freely available.

I think its opened not only the gate of hell which Israel deserves - for
the fact alone he was disabled... but a serious case for legal action on
the issue of murdering a severely disabled person with no reason for it.

I wonder what will Israel think of its its blind/hearing impaired and
wheelchair bound citizens been killed next is like.. unfair?.. sick?...
horrible?.... too bad they stupidly have now set a sickening low scum
precedent.. let them suffer i say... even a World Court trial at the
Hague would be good to see.


O

Point of order-- being disabled doesn't give you a free ride,
especially when you're the head of an illegal organization that is
engaged in A. using suicide bombs against Isreal, and B. hiding behind
civilians hoping that any collateral damage will cause a PR problem.
Isreal made an error-- I think the palestinain rage and
energization will cost them more than leaving a fellow alive who
wasn't overly involved in the tactical end of things, but as for being
"wrong"-- well no.

In article ,
Charles Gray wrote:

Isreal made an error-- I think the palestinain rage and
energization will cost them more than leaving a fellow alive who
wasn't overly involved in the tactical end of things, but as for being
"wrong"-- well no.

People have said that a lot, since the start of the current "second
Intifada," but facts don't bear it out. Israel started targeting Hamas
and other leaders early last year, and the result has been a *reduction*
in attacks by Palestinians, a reduction in deaths of Israelis, and a
reduction in deaths of Palestinians.

"Common wisdom" says that we should have seen a massive increase in
attacks over the last year.

Practical warmaking says that killing the leaders of an organization
that wants to kill you is a smart move, since it makes them less
effective and puts the enemy in the position of trying to fight you
while being run by the less-talented second-raters.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
Charles Gray wrote:

Isreal made an error-- I think the palestinain rage and
energization will cost them more than leaving a fellow alive who
wasn't overly involved in the tactical end of things, but as for being
"wrong"-- well no.

People have said that a lot, since the start of the current "second
Intifada," but facts don't bear it out. Israel started targeting Hamas
and other leaders early last year, and the result has been a *reduction*
in attacks by Palestinians, a reduction in deaths of Israelis, and a
reduction in deaths of Palestinians.

"Common wisdom" says that we should have seen a massive increase in
attacks over the last year.

Practical warmaking says that killing the leaders of an organization
that wants to kill you is a smart move, since it makes them less
effective and puts the enemy in the position of trying to fight you
while being run by the less-talented second-raters.


In the short run, that may be true, but it gets kinda old after the first
few generations.

Unless you're claiming that ONLY the current generation of Palestinians are
going to demand reprisals.

In article .net,
"LawsonE" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...

Practical warmaking says that killing the leaders of an organization
that wants to kill you is a smart move, since it makes them less
effective and puts the enemy in the position of trying to fight you
while being run by the less-talented second-raters.

In the short run, that may be true, but it gets kinda old after the first
few generations.

Well, a 30% to 50% drop in terror ops and deaths on both sides in one
*year* seems like a lot better trend than letting the real bad guys keep
on living and talking the young idiots into doing stupid things.

The medium-dumb ones already got the message. They're sending in 10 and
16 year old boys with bombs strapped to them now. With a corresponding
lack of success (the kids aren't happy with it and don't really
cooperate). *MAJOR* PR failure among their own people.

Unless you're claiming that ONLY the current generation of Palestinians are
going to demand reprisals.

Like this has only been going on for a year? The people who are calling
for "reprisals" are the guys who, whenever there's a chance for peace,
send out the bomb-toting morons. Kill off the bosses, and you get less
terrorism.

We're in something like the fourth generation of idiots in Gaza... and
when you kill off the mean smart ones who have been running things, the
nice smart ones get a chance to come to the top over the mean dumb ones.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.