# christians take notice



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

Israel Outraged as Vatican Calls Gaza a 'Big Concentration Camp'

Foreign Ministry Says Cardinal's Comments 'Based on Hamas Propaganda'
Posted January 7, 2009 

Echoing Pope Benedict XVI's repeated calls to end the ongoing bloodshed in the Gaza Strip, Vatican Justice and Peace Minister Cardinal Renato Martino urged both the Israeli government and Hamas to show more willingness toward peace talks and for the world to help them come an agreement that would end the ongoing Israeli invasion.

He also expressed concerns about the dire humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, saying "let's look at the conditions in Gaza: these increasingly resemble a big concentration camp."

Israel, as has been so often the case as the international community condemns the situation in Gaza, is outraged. The Foreign Ministry accused the Cardinal of making comments "based on Hamas propaganda" and likewise slammed him for "ignoring its numerous crimes," even though he explicitly called for both sides to end their attacks. He said the Cardinal's comments would not "bring the people closer to truth and peace."

another short read
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/wire.php?view=1575


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gee the Catholic church siding against the jews thats new :roll: Uh kind of like when the ignored the holacaust, the pope is a fool politically speaking and the Catholic Church hirarchy is corrupt.

I am Catholic but not blind


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

i don't see how anyone can support these acts. you're saying its ok with you that the isreali army bombed out a girls school? if anyone else did that they would be called cowardly terrorists. do you not see that, are you that blind? isreal slautered 100 people in that bombing alone and they cannot confirm one hammas casualty. they openly admitted their claims for engaging the girls school were baseless.

Doublethink-"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> you're saying its ok with you that the isreali army bombed out a girls school?


I didn't see anywhere that it said it was a girls school. I'm not sexist though so does that make it worse? I only heard it was a UN run school. Did you hear 350 Hamas were lobbing mortars from the school. Nope, I didn't read that in an Israel paper, I watched a Hamas member being interviewed saying we thought we would be safe there.

I have to be honest, and this isn't personal because I doubt that last paragraph is your own writing, but that thing read as if drug induced. I have heard people talk like that before, but only after a handful of joints, or because they wore their jock to tight for a week and they thought they were a poet.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> i don't see how anyone can support these acts. you're saying its ok with you that the isreali army bombed out a girls school? if anyone else did that they would be called cowardly terrorists. do you not see that, are you that blind? isreal slautered 100 people in that bombing alone and they cannot confirm one hammas casualty. they openly admitted their claims for engaging the girls school were baseless.
> 
> Doublethink-"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."


Hamas and other terrorist outfits operate from these facilities specifically because they are either hoping they won't be bombed because of what they are, or that when they do get blown up the idiots will run into the streets saying OMG they blew up a school.

The facts of the matter that they were lobbing rockets and morters from the school don't matter because of our idiot political correctness out of control. The minute the school allowed rockets and mortars to be placed there, it stopped being a school in any sense and form, and became a target.

For the "poor people" that have allowed these terrorists to knowingly move in under the same roofs with their families, you get what you deserve.


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

the defenition of doublethink is from george orwells 1984 read a book you might learn something

you obviously did not read the other link it's real go ahead read it

and you're ignoring the fact that isreal admitted their claims for hitting the school were baseless that is truly doublethink


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

UN: Israel Admits Claims About Attacked School Baseless
International Outrage Can Safely Resume as Israel Backs off Allegations
Posted January 7, 2009

UN Relief and Works Agency spokesman Chris Gunness reported this evening that the Israeli army is privately briefing diplomats on the fact that its previous claims about their attack on a UN-run girls' school in the Gaza Strip, which caused over 100 civilian casualties, were baseless.

The attack occurred yesterday, when Israeli mortars deliberately fired three shells at the school, which was filled with hundreds of displaced civilians at the time, killing at least 46 and wounding 55 others. As international outrage began to well over the enormous civilian toll of the attack, Israel declared the killings "according to procedures" and claimed Hamas had fired rockets from the school's courtyard, making the attack on hundreds of innocent civilians self-defense.

Much was made of the claim, including reports that Israel was mulling filing a formal complaint to the United Nations about Hamas' use of the facility. But as the United Nations poked holes in the official story, Israel is now backing off those claims.

And while Israel had previously claimed to have had proof to back up its story, Gunness says the military is now conceding that the mortar fire they previously claimed came from the school came from elsewhere in the refugee camp. Though Israel is trying to keep its admission of guilt relatively quiet (far more quiet than its allegations that the killings were justified) it will doubtless pay a further price in the court of international public opinion for having once again deliberately targeted a building full of innocent civilians.


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> I have to be honest, and this isn't personal because I doubt that last paragraph is your own writing, but that thing read as if drug induced. I have heard people talk like that before, but only after a handful of joints, or because they wore their jock to tight for a week and they thought they were a poet.


tell me why you have to resort to charecter assasination

someone should be moderating _you_

im not here to say im right and you're wrong i want an open discussion i want to understand why you think the way you do maybe there is some stuff out there i haven't seen that you could enlighten me about

and i also qoute plainsman

So lets debate our political views, fight our fights, but keep the nasty personal jabs out of it. There are many enemies to freedom around the world. Some may indeed be in Washington D. C., but I have no doubt there are none on this site.

I can't speak for everyone, but those of you who walk afield with gun or bow this fall are worth more to me than all the politicians in Washington. I don't want to put a damper on your debate, just a damper on the personal comments.

My personal feeling is everyone is entitled to an opinion. As I have said before I don't care if your liberal, conservative, male, female, Christian, Muslim, or green and pink doted hermaphrodite gay Martian. I enjoy every post, even the ones that frustrate me. Deep thought would never come if we all agreed. In that light lets give everyone's ideas serious consideration. We need not agree, but give them thought, and give posters respect. Thanks.

that was a great peice of writing you should practice what you preach


----------



## tigerdog (Jan 24, 2008)

swampbuck, I don't think you should be criticizing someone for not reading Orwell, especially after you have just took the liberty of quoting without providing any reference. 
I don't know the details of this story, but it seems to be common practice for Islamic militants to shield themselves in mosques, schools, etc. With today's media the way it is, these terrorists are in a win-win situation. They may find sanctuary in those places; and if they do not, they still win because they now have martyrs and their enemies are portrayed as villains by the media. Why won't the media question terrorists' tactics and lack of ethics in using such facilities?


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

tiger dog I accept your criticizm and you raise a good point. now knowing that is how they fight their wars and knowing their will be heavy casualties of innocent people should we look the other way, when we know our govt sells isreal the weapons. is it in our national interest to be in the middle of this. us support for isreal is one major cause for american resentment around the arab world and cited as a reason for the 9/11 attacks it is what fuels the radicals and gives their positions merrit to the rest of the arab world. the more we meddle in their affairs the more al queda recruitment soars. if anything can unite a country it is a presence of a foreign enemy we know that from experience. the us agression towards iran unites the iranians against america, it undermines the home grown dissidents in iran. freedom and democracy cannot be forced on people through the barrel of a gun. we should do the noble thing and allow the self determination of the arab people to bring about revolution.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Swampbuck you should buy a larger turbin the one your wearing is too tight. What a bunch of hooey! These bastards have been lobbing 3000 missles into civilians targets since the last ceasefire.

Isreal should kill them all and nuke Iran while they are at it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman wrote:


> I have to be honest, and this isn't personal because I doubt that last paragraph is your own writing,


Swampbuck responded:


> tell me why you have to resort to charecter assasination


I still doubt it was your writing. I see when you do copy someones words you don't use the quote option at the top of the text block. Try quoting so we know what you write, and what is someone else's words.

It's very obvious you give the United Nations credability and I give them less than none. I watched the interview of the Hamas militant on television and he said he was in the school along with others from Hamas, that they had fired on Israel, but they thought they would be safe in the school. Now the UN says Israel admits it was baseless. I don't believe it.



> is it in our national interest to be in the middle of this


 Yes. The radical Muslims will not let us ignore them. If Israel ignores them they just keep shooting. 
Example from Bobm:


> These bastards have been lobbing 3000 missiles into civilians targets since the last ceasefire.


Actually Bob the count is up to I believe 11,000 now. For years Israel has watched it's men, women, and children die without responding. How many of us would be willing to watch thousands of missiles and mortars land in our neighborhood killing our neighbors and not respond. I think criticizing Israel is extreme hypocrisy.



> we should do the noble thing and allow the self determination of the arab people to bring about revolution.


We tried that swampbuck, and our soldiers are still finding the mass graves.



> us support for isreal is one major cause for american resentment around the arab world and cited as a reason for the 9/11 attacks


Somewhere you said we can't keep changing allies like socks, but now you want to abandon Israel. Israel has been an ally since 1948. How many other allies do you want to turn your back on? Would you turn your back on all the NATO nations, or only the ones Muslims don't like? What is with your double standard?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Does anyone with half a brain think that if the Canadians were lobbing missles into New York city we wouldn't respond with overwhelming force?

Note this is just an analogy Canadians are way too friendly to start any sheeit, and I love them. :beer: Just incase we have any sensitive ones reading this, we all know how I hate to offend anyone...


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Right on.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> respond with overwhelming force


Your right Bob, but the liberals will tell you that you should respond with measured force. Whatever that means, could be like a pansy, or it could be a nuke, both are measured. 
However, their favorite term is like force. They should respond with like force. In other words equal. Everything has to be fair you know. Wow what a great idea. Wars are won with superior force, but by responding with like force we would never need another war we could make one last forever. :eyeroll:


----------



## bryan_huber (Aug 3, 2008)

good one plainsman.


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> > respond with overwhelming force
> 
> 
> Your right Bob, but the liberals will tell you that you should respond with measured force. Whatever that means, could be like a pansy, or it could be a nuke, both are measured.
> However, their favorite term is like force. They should respond with like force. In other words equal. Everything has to be fair you know. Wow what a great idea. Wars are won with superior force, but by responding with like force we would never need another war we could make one last forever. :eyeroll:


Plainsman bobm I wholheartedly agree with you guys there. here is where i have a problem. the congress relinquished thier power to declare war. instead of having thoughtfull debate and declaring war they signed a resolution for the president to use force. it may seem trivial but i believe the people in congress were afraid of being labeled weak on terrorism if they made a case against war so they passed the buck so if it became a mess it was all the presidents fault.

that said if a war is worth the blood and treasure, take the time to debate/discuss it let the constituents send letters and if war is deemed necessary then declare war and respond with overwhelming force and win it and get it over as quickly as possible.

no vague languaged resolutions about using force declare war d***it look at the wars we've had without declaring it a war. how have they gone the war in iraq can realisticly be called the continuing of the persian gulf war

i don't think we're as different as it may seem


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> it may seem trivial but i believe the people in congress were afraid of being labeled weak on terrorism if they made a case against war so they passed the buck so if it became a mess it was all the presidents fault.


 :beer: Well said I am disgusted with congress on both sides of the aisle, they are all political animals with no regard for the country only for their personal power


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

well im glad we could agree on something


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

*Quote: 
swampbuck
we should do the noble thing and allow the self determination of the arab people to bring about revolution.

plainsman
We tried that swampbuck, and our soldiers are still finding the mass graves. *

i am willing to bet that a great majority of those deaths were from disease that was a result of poor water qaulity wich resulted from sanctions ill post some links you could read about it all day if you like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Halliday

http://www.revcom.us/a/v23/1110-19/1119/iraq_water.htm

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/brown/ ... ean_water/

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles5 ... a_Nagy.htm

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs ... pt_91.html

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp

cnn had it then must've removed it mainstream media megaphone for power 
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.w ... ndex1.html


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> i am willing to bet that a great majority of those deaths were from disease


Actually our soldiers have been led to mass graves by Iraqi people who say these people were killed after the first Gulf War because they tried to stand up to Sadam. We are guilty of encouraging that, and then not backing them at all. We shouldn't talk a big story then leave people to die. Georgia is sort of like that. We talked about letting them into NATO and Russia squashed them. 
Then of course there are the 50,000 gassed Kurds. No, I don't think it was disease.



> it may seem trivial but i believe the people in congress were afraid of being labeled weak on terrorism if they made a case against war so they passed the buck so if it became a mess it was all the presidents fault.


You know sometimes if Bob posts first there is little reason for me to post also, but I wanted to let you know that I also agree with you on the above assessment.


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> > i am willing to bet that a great majority of those deaths were from disease
> 
> 
> *Actually our soldiers have been led to mass graves by Iraqi people who say these people were killed after the first Gulf War because they tried to stand up to Sadam. We are guilty of encouraging that, and then not backing them at all. We shouldn't talk a big story then leave people to die. Georgia is sort of like that. We talked about letting them into NATO and Russia squashed them. *
> ...


i do not doubt this at all, but you can't look at some parts of history and ignore others

http://www.revcom.us/a/v23/1110-19/1119/iraq_water.htm
These sanctions have inflicted death, disease, and suffering on an enormous scale. In 1997 the UN reported that over 1.2 million Iraqis had died since the Gulf War as a result of medical shortages caused by the war and sanctions, including 750,000 children below the age of five. In 1999, UNICEF, the UN organization focusing on children, reported that Iraqi kids under five are dying at twice the rate they were before the sanctions began, now estimated to be 5,000 deaths per month. Much of this suffering can be traced to the U.S. coalition's destruction of Iraq's water system. Eight out of every ten instances of disease in Iraq today results from contaminated water, and Iraqi children are dying from the diseases of impure water--like diarrhea.

there are numerous sources in the earlier post you can't ignore things because they are inconvenient and you cannot argue the brutality of sadaam without the facts that we funded him an propped up his regime in the beginning and we supplied the weapons these are the fundamental problems with interventionism and military adventurism


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp

George Washington University professor Thomas Nagy, who marshaled the preceding reports in an analysis in the September 2001 issue of The Progressive, concluded, The United States knew it had the capacity to devastate the water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what the consequences would be: increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality. And it was more concerned about the public relations nightmare for Washington than the actual nightmare that the sanctions created for innocent Iraqis.

A Washington Post analysis published on June 23, 1991, noted that Pentagon officials admitted that, rather than concentrating solely on military targets, the U.S. bombing campaign "sought to achieve some of their military objectives in the Persian Gulf War by disabling Iraqi society at large" and "deliberately did great harm to Iraq's ability to support itself as an industrial society."

The bombing campaign targeted Iraq's electrical power system, thereby destroying the country's ability to operate its water-treatment plants. One Pentagon official who helped plan the bombing campaign observed,

People say, "You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage." Well, what were we trying to do with sanctions - help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of the sanctions

*sanctions against iraq resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths by disease cited as a reason the radicals attacked us here are madeline albrights comments on the sanctions and deaths*

We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? 
Albright answered,

I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it. 
Albright's words echoed like thunder through the Arab world in the following years.
*
talk about american arrogance, what if the arabs did that kind of thing to us you'd bet that would enflame some radical behavior we'd retaliate any way possible! these are bad policies we need to get back to non intervention peace and friendship with all nations entangling alliances with none. and foremostly the constitution. i hear talk of following the lead sheep over the cliff, im the one here going against the flock while the rest march into oblivian!! AMERICA DOES NOT HAVE THE WISDOM TO BRING THE FORM OF GOVT THAT WILL SUIT THE IRAQIS ONLY THE IRAQIS KNOW THAT ANSWER AND AS LONG AS WE FORCE THEM TO BE LIKE US THERE WILL BE RADICALS WILLING TO BLOW THEMSELVES UP!!!!!*


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

i am not excusing the violent acts of terror, but for cryin out loud walk in another mans shoes ya know


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Your source is biased and I believe wrong

First 
you nor anyone else knows how Iraq is going to end up, I'm not going to waste my time arguing about it do a search on here its been rehashed repeatedly

second
if you wage war you should crush the enemy into submission with whatever means availble make it quick and decisive that is what will save american lives.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> if you wage war you should crush the enemy into submission with whatever means availble make it quick and decisive that is what will save american lives.


Heck that even saves the lives of the enemy. Responding with like force like the liberals always spout only drags out war and kills many more people. They somehow think everything has to be fair and equal including war. If all our generals were liberal we could make Iraq last a couple thousand years. 
Even Vietnam was a democrat screw up. The ones in Washington made soldiers stand on guard duty with empty weapons L(one of only many stupid things), and the ones not in office marched in the streets with Hanoi Jane.


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

*


Bobm said:



Your source is biased and I believe wrong

Click to expand...

*


Bobm said:


> quote]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Halliday
> 
> ...


----------

