EU Boycotts Israel

Lord Kanti said:
The Coup d'etat in Ukraine was lead by the USA.

One could even argue that the USA is directly responsible for the creation of IS when the USA overthrew Saddam and disregarded the Sunni/ Baathist population.

Syria was on it's way to becoming Libya 2.0 before Russia intervened.
Click to expand...

Yeah you only get your news from Russia Today lol. Coup led by the USA? I have two friends from Ukraine who were Maidan activists (played video games with them) and it's super insulting, at least to me and to them, that they had nothing to do with the pro Democracy movement in Ukraine but it was all a "nazi zionist gay CIA fascist junta coup."

ISIS was created in 1999 as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Organization of Monotheism and Jihad) by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to overthrow the Hashemite King of Jordan. Got it? Class dismissed.

As far as your other statement about Hamas' Foreign Minister, many many Palestinians were born in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, and Syria because of the Nakba/1948 Palestinian exodus/ethnic cleansing by Israel. During the 1948 war, after Israeli soldiers massacred 800 Palestinian civilians and POW, and subsequent massacres by the Israeli Army, Haganah, Stern, and Irgun (all considered terrorist organizations by the British by the way) more than 700,000 Palestinians fled or were forced from their homes by either the Israeli Army, the Haganah, Lehi, Irgun, or the Stern. One such example was the Deir Yassin massacre when 160 Israeli fighters attacked the village of Deir Yassin which had no Palestinian military presence. Instead the Yishuv fought their way from house-to-house, throwing grenades into homes with women and children, and afterwards it was found that women and children had also been shot. Other villagers were taken prison and then paraded through West Jerusalem before being executed.

Then there was the 1967 Palestinian exodus when 280,000 to 325,000 Palestinians fled again, or were again forced from their homes and in the years following the 1967 War 21,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes yearly by the Israeli authorities.
 
Last edited:
And how crooked are we lol

the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.

The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead withthe trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.
 
Lord Kanti said:
Apparently Saddam Hussein and Assad didn't have control over their territory in 1999...
Click to expand...

You're completely missing the point and you have no clue about the demographics of Iraq with your previous statement. "The US discounted the Sunni/Ba'athists," this is complete BS because the US wanted Sunni inclusion into the new national government. However, the problem with Iraq was that Saddam was from the Tikriti clan which is Sunni and he favored those of his clan. The problem with this is that Iraq is comprised of a majority of Shia Muslims. So what happens is you have an elite, minority, ruling over an oppressed majority. It certainly doesn't take an even average person of intelligence to figure out what happens when the majority of the population is pissed off at this elite, minority. The same exact thing is happening in Syria but the roles are reversed. Assad is an Alawite, which is a sect of Shia Islam. He favored other Alawites. The majority of Syria are Sunni Muslims.

FFS, do some reading.

Anyways, back on to the topic, I think it's a good idea that the EU is labeling things clearly because the world community saying "Noooo Israel, don't do thaaat," obviously hasn't done a thing.
 
pnwmystery said:
You're completely missing the point and you have no clue about the demographics of Iraq with your previous statement. "The US discounted the Sunni/Ba'athists," this is complete BS because the US wanted Sunni inclusion into the new national government. However, the problem with Iraq was that Saddam was from the Tikriti clan which is Sunni and he favored those of his clan. The problem with this is that Iraq is comprised of a majority of Shia Muslims. So what happens is you have an elite, minority, ruling over an oppressed majority. It certainly doesn't take an even average person of intelligence to figure out what happens when the majority of the population is pissed off at this elite, minority. The same exact thing is happening in Syria but the roles are reversed. Assad is an Alawite, which is a sect of Shia Islam. He favored other Alawites. The majority of Syria are Sunni Muslims.

FFS, do some reading.

Anyways, back on to the topic, I think it's a good idea that the EU is labeling things clearly because the world community saying "Noooo Israel, don't do thaaat," obviously hasn't done a thing.
Click to expand...

And look how well the Shiite government has run Iraq. Into the ground. Saddam kept his house intact. The US foreign policy is specialized in creating power vacuums to be filled by extremists.
 
Lord Kanti said:
And look how well the Shiite government has run Iraq. Into the ground. Saddam kept his house intact. The US foreign policy is specialized in creating power vacuums to be filled by extremists.
Click to expand...

Right and Saddam was Pope John Paul II and an brilliant economist. :roll: The outcome was inevitable, unfortunately. I certainly wasn't a fan of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and even went to protest it in the streets, but you can't deny the reality of it. Either the Kurds would have done another uprising, or the Shiites would've had enough. Saddam was running his country into the ground, just at a slower rate. Within months of us invading Iraq, Zarqawi expanded his operations into Iraq attacking Shiites. In fact, Zarqawi mostly steered clear of coalition forces at first, and the insurgents that were attacking coalition forces were remnants of the Baathists or the Fedayeen Saddam. At first.

Really, stop embarrassing yourself. Saddam after the Gulf War rebranded himself from a secular to a devout Muslim, like when he had a Quran written with 27L of his blood. Domestic suppression also increased steadily after the Gulf War and after Operation Desert Fox. You're also forgetting that Saddam introduced amputation, branding, and the death penalty for things such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion -- except if you were a member of his tribe or family. Or when Saddam made homosexuality a capital offense, or his use of rape as a political tool? Or how about when he started to participate in the UN's Oil-for-food program, shortages in his country still continued because many of the supplies were rerouted to members of the Baath party? What about Saddam's terrible agricultural policies which discouraged domestic production despite historically 50-60% of Iraq's economy was... agriculture. Iraq had huge amounts of arable land, and huge amounts of water resources yet was a net food importer. You're also forgetting that people said that Central Bank of Iraq under Saddam was, "replete with mismanagement, coercive stop-gap measures, and the production of an unstable, unreliable currency which ha[d] not been tradable on the international market for [many] years". Or Saddam did what any other dictator does, he kept printing money so that hyper inflation happened in the 90s exacerbated by the economic sanctions, like when in 1995 $1USD = 3,000 Iraqi denari

Let's go back to the topic?
 
pnwmystery said:
Right and Saddam was Pope John Paul II and an brilliant economist. :roll: The outcome was inevitable, unfortunately. I certainly wasn't a fan of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and even went to protest it in the streets, but you can't deny the reality of it. Either the Kurds would have done another uprising, or the Shiites would've had enough. Saddam was running his country into the ground, just at a slower rate. Within months of us invading Iraq, Zarqawi expanded his operations into Iraq attacking Shiites. In fact, Zarqawi mostly steered clear of coalition forces at first, and the insurgents that were attacking coalition forces were remnants of the Baathists or the Fedayeen Saddam. At first.

Really, stop embarrassing yourself. Saddam after the Gulf War rebranded himself from a secular to a devout Muslim, like when he had a Quran written with 27L of his blood. Domestic suppression also increased steadily after the Gulf War and after Operation Desert Fox. You're also forgetting that Saddam introduced amputation, branding, and the death penalty for things such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion -- except if you were a member of his tribe or family. Or when Saddam made homosexuality a capital offense, or his use of rape as a political tool? Or how about when he started to participate in the UN's Oil-for-food program, shortages in his country still continued because many of the supplies were rerouted to members of the Baath party? What about Saddam's terrible agricultural policies which discouraged domestic production despite historically 50-60% of Iraq's economy was... agriculture. Iraq had huge amounts of arable land, and huge amounts of water resources yet was a net food importer. You're also forgetting that people said that Central Bank of Iraq under Saddam was, "replete with mismanagement, coercive stop-gap measures, and the production of an unstable, unreliable currency which ha[d] not been tradable on the international market for [many] years". Or Saddam did what any other dictator does, he kept printing money so that hyper inflation happened in the 90s exacerbated by the economic sanctions, like when in 1995 $1USD = 3,000 Iraqi denari

Let's go back to the topic?
Click to expand...

And after US intervention the nation was torn into a civil war state of unrest that has only gotten worse. Saddam was no saint, but everything that has filed his void since can hardly be considered progressive. Unless of course a militant Islamic state is consisted progression.
 
Lord Kanti said:
And after US intervention the nation was torn into a civil war state of unrest that has only gotten worse. Saddam was no saint, but everything that has filed his void since can hardly be considered progressive. Unless of course a militant Islamic state is consisted progression.
Click to expand...

Are you just incapable of reading past a few sentences? Should I break my posts down smaller for you?

Saddam was rebranding himself as a devout Muslim
Saddam was reintroducing Sharia law.
Civil war would have happened.
It arguably would have went the way of Syria, just way worse.
There is no militant Islamic state that controls Iraq.
ISIS has been pushed back in Iraq.
The Iraqi Federal Government controls 80% of Iraq now.
Do yourself a favor stop reading the following, or continue to read the following just with a grain of salt in mind: Breitbart, Infowars, and RT.

Is that better? Easier to digest?

Actually the desertion rate during the 2003 invasion, and the looting of military bases by their own soldiers was pretty telling of what would have eventually happened in Iraq.

Let's stop debating this and get back to the topic of the thread? The title of the thread isn't Let's watch PNWM & Kanti discuss conflict, and history of Iraq in regards to ISIS and the current situation. You're correct in the regards of the power vacuum that happened, anybody knows this. What you're failing to understand is that it would have happened despite US involvement, just later rather than sooner. Okay?
 
Last edited:
pnwmystery said:
Are you just incapable of reading past a few sentences? Should I break my posts down smaller for you?

Saddam was rebranding himself as a devout Muslim
Saddam was reintroducing Sharia law.
Civil war would have happened.
It arguably would have went the way of Syria, just way worse.
There is no militant Islamic state that controls Iraq.
ISIS has been pushed back in Iraq.
The Iraqi Federal Government controls 80% of Iraq now.
Do yourself a favor stop reading the following, or continue to read the following just with a grain of salt in mind: Breitbart, Infowars, and RT.

Is that better? Easier to digest?

Actually the desertion rate during the 2003 invasion, and the looting of military bases by their own soldiers was pretty telling of what would have eventually happened in Iraq.

Let's stop debating this and get back to the topic of the thread? The title of the thread isn't Let's watch PNWM & Kanti discuss conflict, and history of Iraq in regards to ISIS and the current situation. You're correct in the regards of the power vacuum that happened, anybody knows this. What you're failing to understand is that it would have happened despite US involvement, just later rather than sooner. Okay?
Click to expand...

That's purely speculation and you know it. Should a super power such as the United States get involved, then it should be for the betterment of a nation, not to expedite it's demise.
 
Lord Kanti said:
That's purely speculation and you know it. Should a super power such as the United States get involved, then it should be for the betterment of a nation, not to expedite it's demise.
Click to expand...

I somehow highly doubt that without putting a conspiracy theorist spin on it that we invaded Iraq with the express purpose to destabilize the nation, and I'm highly skeptical of the tin foil hatters.

No, it's not purely speculation it's called academic research.
 
pnwmystery said:
I somehow highly doubt that without putting a conspiracy theorist spin on it that we invaded Iraq with the express purpose to destabilize the nation, and I'm highly skeptical of the tin foil hatters.

No, it's not purely speculation it's called academic research.
Click to expand...

So now "academic research" can predict the geopolitical future of a nation with compete accuracy? Did they issue text books or crystal balls at your academy?
 
Lord Kanti said:
So now "academic research" can predict the geopolitical future of a nation with compete accuracy? Did they issue text books or crystal balls at your academy?
Click to expand...

No but the overwhelming evidence of how the Middle East has been going over the past few years are huge indicators, and all the other research. You said "pure speculation," which wasn't correct, and I never said "Complete accuracy." However, we can infer from given data, demographics, attitudes, etc. etc.. And you showing your anti-intellectualism just shows how incapable you are of carrying on an intelligent conversation. Also it's a University, not an academy - you could have at least gotten that one correct, but you couldn't.

Anyhow, done with this and I'll just let your idiocy stand without further correction. :)

Back to the topic of the thread.
 
pnwmystery said:
No but the overwhelming evidence of how the Middle East has been going over the past few years are huge indicators, and all the other research. You said "pure speculation," which wasn't correct, and I never said "Complete accuracy." However, we can infer from given data, demographics, attitudes, etc. etc.. And you showing your anti-intellectualism just shows how incapable you are of carrying on an intelligent conversation. Also it's a University, not an academy - you could have at least gotten that one correct, but you couldn't.

Anyhow, done with this and I'll just let your idiocy stand without further correction. :)

Back to the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...

Surely no university would push speculation as fact.
 
Lord Kanti said:
Surely no university would push speculation as fact.
Click to expand...

I mean we can do a thought experiment about Iraq if you really really want to, but the outcome is going to be what I predicted would happen, but instead of there being a Sunni insurgency in Iraq it would be a Shiite insurgency followed by a Sunni insurgency. Just saying though that this was an area of study for me: Human rights, societal impacts, ethnic and ethnoreligious conflicts, civil wars, humanitarian law, international relations, and international conflict.

However, I don't really want to derail this thread so let's just leave it at that. You have your opinion, I have my opinion. Also I don't have the time today to write out what would be a really rough essay and I already have my degrees haha. :P
 
Last edited:
schuylaar said:
the right is only 32% of the voting constituency..the left is not interested in their shenanigans and does not support them which is 68% of our constituency.

many things will be changing this next vote and netanyahu can kiss our asses..just another politician that's why establishment loves israel so:finger:
Click to expand...
Is that how they took Congress in the mid terms?

With their 38%?
 
Harrekin said:
Is that how they took Congress in the mid terms?

With their 38%?
Click to expand...

32%

aye, leprechaun..an american tragedy..it's hard to get dem voters out for mid-terms..they show for the presidential though:wink:

a bit of americana that you may not be familiar with is black voters vote after church on sundays as a group..they carpool in vans, buses..it's a huge tradition..it's not done for mid-terms, therefore less votes.
 
If you really break it down saddam was not that bad remember folks he was an american Allie ,,,, although he shared some wealth do not kid your self people had homes , free schooling whats that to say about america ???? what do you get for free from your government except a kick in the ass
but one must ask why did usa want him dead .. many theories include he had bad shit on america no different then wiki leaks etc , or he wanted to change the reserve currency on oil to gold but USA can not have that so plan a Kill him support who ever to throw him out
 
Jimdamick said:
Well, not exactly a boycott, but starting October 1, products manufactured in the disputed land areas in Israel, such as Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan, will have to labeled as such. In other words, almost 40% of the agriculture products sold in EC countries by Israel would be labeled with this distinction, not counting non-agriculture products, such as SodaStream. This has led to a statement by PM Netanyahu, that this action harks back to Germany in the 1930's, with the requirement that Jews had to wear a yellow Star of David, and reeks of anti-Semitism.
Call me an anti-Semite, but if the BDS movement is anti-Semitic ( the Jew's think they are the only Semites), count me in, in the sense that it has more to do with fairness in my opinion.. I personally am sick of the fact that every critic of Israel is tossed back by Israel and Netanyahu specifically, as you only hate Jews, and that is why these actions are implemented. (LMFAO)
Anyway, the point is this
1 - Is the labeling a good thing (why)
2 - Is the labeling a bad thing (why)
3 - Is it anti-Semitic (why or why not)


PS- Netanyahu just went to Russia this week by the way apparently, as reported in the Jerusalem Post, because he felt the US could not be trusted 100% to protect Israel, and wanted to talk to Putin about events in Syria. Does anyone else see a problem here?
Click to expand...


Putin is a rising Star, Obama is a falling Star,....that`s a no brainer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

squarepush3r
Israel Has the Right and Obligation to Defend Its Border with Deadly Force
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
3K
Fogdog
Fogdog
squarepush3r
Tulsi Gabbard Pushes No War Agenda – and the Media Is out to Kill Her Chances
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
hanimmal
hanimmal
vostok
Al Jazeera: Israel seeks to shut offices and take network off air
Replies
7
Views
376
vostok
vostok
Jimdamick
Trump screws the Palestinians and the World at large.
Replies
5
Views
558
SneekyNinja
SneekyNinja
Jimdamick
Anti-Semitism in the EU
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
4K
NoDrama
N
Back
Top