Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
Re: HSIG - PB Carter and B Hussein - Which One Is Worse?
7/4/2009 5:15:58 AM

Hi Geketa,

Thanks for a great post. The break down can go even further since the whole issue for a Jewish Homeland didn't start in 1947/48 but in the 1920s. so it is possible to go much further back without getting into a religious discussion. :)

The short history lesson should be easy for those that don't know to better understand what the issues really are and not the biased stories (not reporting) of the main stream media. The truth is there and all you have to do is read it.

I'll just add a few simple facts to show and in a sense prove that the Palestinians aren't interested in peace and the 2 State solution.

The previous Prime Minister Olmert and his Foreign Minister Livni during peace talks with Abbas from the PA agreed to "return" 97% of Judea And Sameria to the PA. In addition a sort of joint administration of Jerusalem. That does not include of course the Gaza strip since Israel totally withdrew from the Gaza area and left all the Israeli villages and towns (ruining the lives of many Israeli citizens that lived there for many years).

Now the question is this. If the whole Israeli/Palestinian conflict is an issue of land why didn't Abbas quickly sign the agreement??? When asked his reply was the differences are still to great!!! Hmmmmm, 3% is to great.

Geketa, this proves beyond a doubt that the conflict isn't one of land or territory it's way beyond that. They want it all and their charter (PLO/Fatah) and the Hamas charter demand the total annihilation of Israel and the Jews and nothing has changed. By signing a peace agreement they would have denied themselves the right to keep on using terror and showing their true face when they did just that if they had signed a peace agreement.

Shalom,

Peter 

Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
Re: HSIG - PB Carter and B Hussein - Which One Is Worse?
7/4/2009 5:27:13 AM

Hi Helen,

Thanks for the post and no apologies necessary. This thread is open and you can bring up any topic of interest.

I follow the Atlas Shrugs blog and Pamela covers many topics in an excellent manner. I read that article and her example isn't so far fetched as it might seem.

Why do you think B Hussein wants a "private" civilian army??? It's not for the good of the US citizen cos to date the Military did a very good job protecting the US and its people.

B Hussein has alienated the US military and knows they stand for and fight for America and not for him. He wants a private army that will fight and be loyal to him when the people decide enough is enough. Another reason he wants to ban the ownership of weapons to insure they will have nothing to protect themselves with against his thugs.

As I said Pamela's example is not so far fetched.

And the above is in addition to the fact that B Hussein once again sided with the thugs of the world and enemies of the US of A. 

Shalom,

Peter

Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
Re: HSIG - Americs's First Pro-Islamic President. Or First Muslim President?
7/4/2009 5:34:13 AM
Hello Friends,

You all know by now that I believe B Hussein is a "closet" Muslim. His actions and belief structure as he's showing it to the world should make that quite obvious.

One thing for sure though his knowledge of Islam is not very good and his statements and actions are proof of that. His ridiculous Turkey and infamous Cairo speeches are proof of that. The amount of errors and inaccuracies are great and make him look like the fool he is to those that know better especially the Muslims and they are showing that by their actions.

He's shown a double standard in regard to Muslims countries and Israel. He refuses to say anything bad against Iran cos he doesn't want to interfere in their internal policies but has no problem doing that with Israel.

In any case his Muslim policies and agenda are now affecting the USA more and more INTERNALLY and people will have to wake up sooner or later to this danger. It all goes hand in hand with the freedoms that are being eroded more and more with every law passed by Congress at his bidding.

The below article is an excellent one by Melanie Phillips and well worth reading.

Happy Independence Day to all.

Shalom,

Peter





June 26, 2009
Obama’s deadly hand revealed

Jewish Chronicle, 26 June 2009

Among American Jews, a degree of ‘buyers’ remorse’ has been detected recently.

Almost 80 per cent of American Jews voted for Barack Obama as President. Those of us who warned that this man would endanger Israel were scorned.

How could that possibly be, said the secular, liberal American Jews. He’s a Democrat, he’s black and he’s pro-abortion. With this triple-lock of unassailable virtue, how can he be bad for Israel? Now some of them are getting an awful feeling that they may have made the biggest misjudgment of their lives.

As the world watched events unfold in Iran, Obama’s double standard over Israel was illuminated in flashing neon lights. How come he’s saying it is wrong for him to tell the Iranians what to do, people asked themselves, when he is dictating to Israel its policy on settlements?

Why was he so concerned not to antagonise the Iranian regime? Was it because he hopes to reach a Grand Bargain which would allow Iran to develop nuclear capability, provided it promises him ever so nicely it would never turn this into weapons — in exchange for which, Israel would be offered up on a plate?

For the past six months, while Obama has been holding out the hand of friendship to Iran, he has been showing Israel a mailed fist.

Why, people asked themselves, was he singling out Iran’s putative victim for the heavy treatment while soft-soaping Tehran? Why had he torn up the Road Map which requires the Palestinians to dismantle their infrastructure of terror before anything else can happen, telling Israel instead that its stubbornness over the settlements was the main impediment to a Palestinian state?

Why didn’t he acknowledge the blindingly obvious — that the Palestinians’ continuing, explicit refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state was the fatal impediment?

And then there was the Cairo shocker of a speech. Even the American Jews could not ignore this. Obama stated falsely that the Jews’ aspiration for a homeland was rooted in the Holocaust and their tragic history.

Airbrushing out both the Jews 3,500-year connection to their ancient homeland and the central place of Jerusalem within the religion, he thus effectively denied that Jews are in Israel as of right.

Sanitising Islam through false claims about its historic achievements and selective and misleading quotation from the Koran, he declared that it was part of his responsibility to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

Why? Did this mean therefore that he would fight against any condemnation of the theologically based Jew-hatred pouring out of the Islamic world, not least in Egypt where he was making this speech?

Did he not have a similar responsibility to fight against the negative stereotypes of Jews or Zionists that are inciting terrorism, war and genocide in the Muslim world?

Through the use of a Koranic reference, he also subtly implied that Jerusalem would become Muslim while stating that it should be home equally to Christians, Muslims and Jews.

And he referred to the region as being where Islam was first revealed. This was a revealing word to choose, implying acknowledgement of divine revelation. ‘Revealed’ is the language of a believer.

None of this proves Obama is really a Muslim. But it does all suggest that America has a pro-Islamist President.

Doubtless as a result of his constant sniping at Israel, the percentage of American voters who say they support Israel has plummeted, according to the Israel Project, from 69 per cent last September to 49 per cent this month.

The US and Israel could be heading for the greatest disagreement between the two countries in the history of their relationship, as Middle East expert Robert Satloff recently told Newsweek.

Even now, though, despite the outbreak of buyers’ remorse, most American Jews still don’t realise what they have done — and probably never will.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=671

Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
Re: HSIG - BHO To Block Proposed Sanctions At The G8 Summit!
7/4/2009 9:54:53 AM

Hello Friends,

This morning I read an article that disgusted me but didn't surprise me. B Hussein is opposed to sanctions against Iran.

The majority of the G8 nations want to enact new economic sanctions against Iran but the great pretender B Hussein is against these steps.

The European leaders haven't got a very favorable opinion about the great pretender and now they'll think even less then before.

As I said in previous posts his Islamic agenda won't allow him to be a partner to actually doing something against this despotic regime.

Shalom,

Peter



Last update - 01:53 04/07/2009
Report: U.S. to block Iran sanctions at G8 summit
By Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz Correspondent
The United States is opposed to enacting a new set of financial sanctions against Iran that are due to be discussed in the G8 summit next week, diplomatic officials in New York reported Friday.

According to officials, sanctions against Iran are expected to top the G8's agenda. Sources are also predicting a pointed debate between the heads of the industrialized nations over an appropriate response to Iranian authorities' suppression of reformist demonstrations in Iran led by Mir Hossein Mousavi and other Iranian opposition leaders.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi hinted in a newspaper interview earlier in the week that the G8 is due to decide on new financial sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Berlusconi disclosed that he had spoken with the heads of the G8 nations and has discussed such steps with them.

According to the Italian prime minister, "the general leaning [among G8 leaders] is toward sanctions."

However, diplomatic sources in New York reported that American officials are working behind the scenes to prevent new sanctions from being imposed against Iran.

U.S. officials claimed that a tough stance toward Iran could backfire, bringing about an opposite outcome to that desired by those who support such measures.

The Obama administration, according to the diplomatic sources, has discarded the notion of direct talks with Iran. However, the United States is still interested in re-engaging Iran through the renewed discussion of its nuclear program through the five permanent United Nations Security Council members and Germany.

American officials expressed concern that a decision to enact harsh steps against Iran during the G8 meeting could badly hurt the prospect of Tehran agreeing to renew negotiations with the permanent Security Council members.

In addition to U.S. reluctance to enact fresh sanctions, G8 members Russia and China have been known to oppose any punitive steps against Tehran.

The Security Council has already imposed several rounds of sanctions against Iran, including a weapons embargo and a ban on supplying Iran any materials which could be used to advance its disputed nuclear program.

New sanctions could include forbidding western oil companies from maintaining commercial ties with Iran.
Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
Re: HSIG - Censoring And More Censoring Is BHO's Solution
7/6/2009 3:42:00 AM

Hello Friends,

I just read an interesting post at Atlas Shrugs.

It appears that B Hussein's censoring is becoming more evident and obvious as each day goes by. A press conference that wasn't "beneficial" to the regime was removed from the governments youtube channel.

The question is why? Once again it raised the transparency of the Town Hall fiascoes that B Hussein holds in question. Pre approved questions and participants of the meetings and the "screening" (censoring) of unwanted questions are well known. The press secretary had no answers and tried to laugh it off but didn't succeed. So the obvious solution is to censor the youtube channel and remove the video from the list so that the public won't be aware of their ineptness and  screening of unwanted questions at the Town Hall interactive meetings. Watch the short video and see for yourselves.

((youtube id="gpI4vCMTuFQ&feature"))((/youtube))

Another form of censorship is the delete button or to simply ignore the issue as B Hussein did with the Iranian protest movement and revolution. Dry Bones shows this very well as usual in today's issue.  

Shalom,

Peter



The digital world has opened up a flood of people to people communications. Blogs, which were cutting edge last week now seem almost staid and old-fashioned. And if there's a tsunami of info, how easy to delete stuff with a click of the mouse.

You'd think that Barack Obama, America's first "digital" President would have found a way to respond to the pitiful Internet calls for justice coming out of Iran ...other than hitting the delete key, that is.

-Dry Bones- Israel's Political Comic Strip Since 1973
Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!