Ariel Sharon. Who gives a damn?

Forum posts

• 6 January 2006, 14:44

  Judging from the time and effort you took to write this piece, it is apparent that you do care. Arafat’s illness and death, by the way, was given the same amount of coverage that is being given to Sharon by the MSM.

  • 6 January 2006, 15:35

    Great reply!! What about it Media Honesty? You want to admit, for once, that you might have been wrong in your assessment? After all, why would the U.S. media be concerned about Yasser Arafat — a tired, old, worn-out Arab leader of a tiny country. You want to explain this? I’m all ears.

    Brook D.

  • 6 January 2006, 15:44

    If caring is a function of time & effort than writing 4 paragraphs on a subject constitutes very little caring in my book. You fail to see Media Honesty’s driving point: is Israel, and the social problems that it constitutes, including Palestine, the center of the Universe? Shouldn’t Americans concentrate on problems at home and our immediate sphere of influence, the Western Hemisphere, rather the problems of a Middle Eastern country whose ethnic group represents an exceedingly small proportion of our population? Yes, the mainstream media made a big deal out of another former terrorist/slug, Arafat, but only because the Palestinians remain a thorn on Israel’s side, and for no other reason.
    The mainstream media continue to paint Israel as a strategic asset to the US, yet common sense dictates that this is not so. Israel is very small country with no natural resources to speak of, and whose economy wouldn’t be viable if it weren’t for the US constantly subsidizing it every year. Shouldn’t that money, over $15 billion a year, be put to better use here in the US?
    In a working democracy, the issues of large ethnic groups would be at the top of the priority list of political parties, not the issues of an ethnic group whose proportion of the population is less than 5%. The inordinate attention that the US mainstream media place on Israel is further evidence that our political class’s priorities have nothing to do with the needs and desires of the people they pretend to represent.

  • 6 January 2006, 16:41

    I just love it when redneck Americans jump in and give us the facts. Arafat got as much coverage as Sharon is now? Try Google to see what comes up:

    Sharon – 74,900,000 hits
    Arafat – 6,620,000 hits

    Of course Arafat has been dead for over a year. So try Abbas. (I assume you boys know who that is.)

    Abbas – 7,940,000 hits

    Google the country names:

    Israel – 226,000,000 hits
    Palestine – 33,700,000 hits

    I do remember that Arafat’s death was splashed all over page 23 of my local paper. They highlighted that William Burns, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, represented the US at the funeral. I wonder if the US will send another Assistant something-or-other when Sharon dies. I rather doubt it. Half of D.C. will be there-from Georgie Boy to Hillary Clinton.

  • 6 January 2006, 19:00

    I predict that future generations of your offspring will be born without fingers, since using them on a keyboard serves you and your future progeny no useful purpose. You brainlessly plunk "Sharon" into Google and get "74,900,000" hits, but don’t bother to review the subjects of these hits, which would have revealed many subjects that have nothing to do with Ariel Sharon.

    A few examples, nitwit: Sharon Massachusetts, Sharon Stone, Sharon Isbin, Sharon Osbourne, Sharon Speedway, Sharon Shannon, etc., etc. And, that "local paper" of yours - is that the Buttfuck Daily Gazette? Go back to sleep, you putz.

  • 6 January 2006, 19:26

    I guess that explains the ten-fold increase in hits of Sharon over Arafat. And probably the ten-fold increase in hits of Israel over Palestine. Damn you’re sharp. My apologies to the superior intellect.
    The Nitwit

  • 6 January 2006, 19:44

    "I guess that explains the ten-fold increase in hits of Sharon over Arafat." Yeah, I guess it does. I take back calling you a nitwit. You are not even smart enough to qualify as one. But, you do qualify as a nit - the egg of a louse.

  • 7 January 2006, 03:17

    I say not only good riddance, but great riddance. May he rot in hell. War criminal and racist, fomentor of apartheid and of collective punishment. Has been a terrorist for his entire adult life, a perfect excuse for contraception and abortion. A man of peace, as said by Bush, and a man of "great courage" by Rice? Please. This tells you more about the people who said such crap than anything else.

    As for the US media, Jews are 2-3 percent of the total US population, yet we see how many of them are given jobs in the national media, from reporters to editors to producers, from Hollywood to sports to sitcoms to news. Nepotism? Obviously. Racist social preference based not on talent but on furthering the interests of Zionism, of course. How many talents are wasted because they are not Jewish? How many people of better ability have no access to the media because they just so happen to not be Jewish? How many diverse opinions can we not listen to? Why is the reality of Israel and Palestine whitewashed, and why is the story of Palestinans never told in truth? The "natural selection" of Jews in the media is so obvious to be ridiculous. They control what we see and think. Pathetic.

    This is why we have the Sharon round the clock death watch. A nation of 5 million, out of a world of 6.3 billion, and we get all this coverage? Please. For all you Israel apologizers, denial is not just a river in Egypt. Try living in the real world for a change.

  • 10 January 2006, 21:33

    Sorry but your reply is utter RUBBISH, even here in UK it has been nothing but Ariel sharon on the new, if he farts in his hospital bed it is in the news. tony Banks an MP died also of a heart attack , yet they gave his news last whilst giving updates of Ariel Sharon first on most news channels here in UK.

• 6 January 2006, 18:50

  I wrote and posted a story about Pat Robertson’s remarks concerning Sharon, this story was a reaction to it. Robertson stated that god was serving Sharon justice for giving concessions to the Palestinians. I added that Iran’s leader was also glad and perhaps the fundamentalist Jews that applauded Rabin’s assassination. The point is that the fundamentalist’s Christian, Jews and Muslims would rather celebrate someone’s death than for their to be a true peace in the Middle East. I did not mean to infer that Sharon was a prince of peace, he is not. The intention of the article was not to hold Sharon up as an example of peace but that the fundamentalist religous leaders who applaud his illness are united and motivated by hate, not God. Vox Vobiscum

  • 6 January 2006, 19:47

    Of course. We all should realize that fundamentalist religious leaders are motivated by hate (along with other religious leaders). I was not in any way surprised by the comments made by Pat Robertson. Wasn’t he the same person who blamed the tsunami on the "hethenistic nature" of the people it destroyed? Well, it was him or somebody else, but i’m sure he thought it. Regardless, the real answer to why Sharon has shitloads of media coverage about his possible dying and why Arafat also had wide media coverage of his dying is that, well, it really IS important. It’s important for not only the future of Israel and Palestine, but for the whole region, and world. The middle east is where the end of the world will begin (well, yeah, the U.S. is helping to end the world ASAP, but the nuclear holocaust will begin in the middle east). Also, didn’t many people in the U.S. and Israel celebrate Arafats death? Yeah, so...it’s not just Muslims...people are the same everywhere, if there were people on some other planet, they’d act the same.

    But shit, I think i’ll pander to the right for a second here, in a sense; Why the fuck doesn’t Bush have a stroke? Huh? Give ME something to cheer about. But then again, if you cut his head open, i’m sure all you’ll find in there is an old shoe, and I don’t think those can form blood clots.
    And he doesn’t have a heart...so a heart attack is out of the question...damn....he’ll probably just die of old age.

  • 6 January 2006, 20:15

    Israel has at least 100 + atomic bombs for starters

    I lament that Sharon will never be charged for war crimes of which he has perpetuate many but his greatest monstrosities were at Sabra and Chatila.

    It a long, long read but Robert Fisk tells the complete tale of "the bulldozer" at

    http://www.globalecho.org/articles.php?visitID=66016c447174141078f5a7bf4d513621

    cheers, jt

  • 6 January 2006, 20:40

    To the author of Ariel Sharon Who gives a damn: Israel is CRITICAL to the USA and you will note how, (Control in The Middle East) if you check out the zmag interview cited below:

    .."it’s not so much a matter of gaining access to Iraq’s resources, you can get access even if you don’t control a country. I mean the oil market is something of a market. What matters is control, not access. It’s a very big difference. The main theme of US policy since the Second World War has been to control the resources of the Middle East, the energy resources. That would give what George Cannon, one of the early planners, called ’veto power’ over their allies, they wouldn’t get out of line because we’d have our hand on the spicket. " Noam Chomsky

    http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=9404

    Its important to know what questions to ask, in attempting to respond to the subject matter in this interview, you might reconsider some of you comments and adjust your opinions to better reflect the reality for your country and its need for Israel. I do not agree with the US foreign policy or its relationship with Israel but I understand it.

    Cheers, jt

  • 6 January 2006, 20:41

    To the author of Ariel Sharon Who gives a damn: Israel is CRITICAL to the USA and you will note how, (Control in The Middle East) if you check out the zmag interview cited below:

    .."it’s not so much a matter of gaining access to Iraq’s resources, you can get access even if you don’t control a country. I mean the oil market is something of a market. What matters is control, not access. It’s a very big difference. The main theme of US policy since the Second World War has been to control the resources of the Middle East, the energy resources. That would give what George Cannon, one of the early planners, called ’veto power’ over their allies, they wouldn’t get out of line because we’d have our hand on the spicket. " Noam Chomsky

    http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=9404

    Its important to know what questions to ask, in attempting to respond to the subject matter in this interview, you might reconsider some of you comments and adjust your opinions to better reflect the reality for your country and its need for Israel. I do not agree with the US foreign policy or its relationship with Israel but I understand it.

    Cheers, jt

  • 7 January 2006, 04:17

    Media Honesty believes Google sums up the sum of all American media? Unbelievable. I do actually agree with Media on one issue. Try this number on for size: 10 million. That’s the number of Palestinians and Jews (roughly) living in Israel/West Bank/Gaza. This number out of 6.5 billion is a miniscule percentage of the global population and gets far more attention, coverage, and political posturing than it deserves. The Israeli’s are a__holes and the Palestinians are morally bankrupt. There are no white hats in this conflict and we will not see peace there for a long time. Sharon was right on that — he said that Israel was in for a fifty year struggle in the Middle East and that’s probably true. It’ll take that long to turn the tide of Islamafacsism sweeping the region.

  • 7 January 2006, 07:18

    Interesting that one Israeli has 60 x the space that one Palestinian occupies...where did you pick up that peculiar word "Islamafacsism," besides being ridiculous is it the latest Orwellian creation from The American Enterprise Institute. I think the correct spelling for such an idiot concept word is IslamOfascism, like sound bites and throw away words its deviously clever but means nothing. I agree about religious differences sharing the same thing in common "moral bankruptcy" Maybe you should get out of American and see what happening in the world.

    cheers, jt

  • 7 January 2006, 16:29

    JT, Islamic fascism, just to share the definition with you, is the imposition of your Islamic religious beliefs on your fellow citizens whether they like it or not, and the use of brutal and violent force to impose these beliefs on said citizens if they resist.

    A perfect example of this is the Islamic Republic Of Iran. Given your in-depth knowledge of the non-Western world, JT, I don’t have to repeat what’s been happening in that country do I? The assassinations of intellectuals and dissidents (inside and outside the country), the midnight knocks on the door by Iranian security, the unsolved murders of student activists who were clearly killed as a warning to others from the regime. Most recently the government turned helicopter gunships loose on peacefully protesting Iranian Kurds and mowed down a few dozen.

    This, my friend, is Islamofascism, and it is a threat to the peace of the world. The jackboots are marching in Iran. What are you going to do about it?

  • 8 January 2006, 05:18

    ALLRIGHT HAHAHAHAHAHHA thank god that piece of shit is dead, hahhahahahahahhahha mayby he should of went on a diet. what a lard ass hahahahahahahha

  • 8 January 2006, 05:25

    What a bunch of - as Bugs Bunny would say - maroons. First, I didn’t do the Google search. One of the commentors did. Second, the guy who said this was in response to his article - RUBBISH. I don’t even know what article he’s referring to. My point was plain and honest. American and British media give enourmous coverage to Israeli politics, while almost none to South America (Hispanics) or Africa (to be honest, I don’t know what to call them anymore. African-Americans? Negros? Blacks?) Anyhow, Isreali politics doinates because the US is stuck with them as allies via the large, vocal lobby in Washington. Honestly, without support of the US and GB, Israel would not exist in it’s present form. Unfortunately, our future is inexorably tied to theirs, so we’d better hope they find a more civil-minded, reasonable leader than Sharon. I don’t have much hope, as we have botched things in Iraq (on purpose) pretty badly, and the nut in Iran is just begging for someone to bitch-slap him, setting off WW III.

    If you haven’t figured out why all this is happening, remember this in the summer 2008, when we delay our elections because King George has declared martial law and the government begins nationalizing resources and industries. The airlines are almost there, then will be the auto-makers. All part of Bush/Cheney’s plan. Endless war. Lovely world we’ve had since George and Dic took office, isn’t it?

    Media Honesty

  • 8 January 2006, 16:52

    Actually, the average Iranian has and practices his or her freedom as much as any American.

    I have lived both in Iran and the U.S. — the macro view that Iran has less freedoms for the average Iranian than anyone in the West is simply not true.

    The modesty that is encouraged in Iranian peoples is also the modesty that is encouraged in Americans. The desire to establish a foothold in business or social settings is the same. The need for comfort is the same. The level of average expression is the same. The individual’s daily movements are the same. The work and need for appreciation of that work is the same. There are hundreds of parameters that are congruient and or parallel to each other.

    Now with that said, one country has the resources and infrastructure where as the other, with its recent history of external intercentions, has not had the same opportunities to express. Even in simple things like building roads or have access to construct electrical wiring for a house on par.

    Given this, and stepping back some distance, it get easier to concentrate on some of the political and racial illusioins and criticise and magnify the same illisions.

    The differences are only there in the form of smoke, created by the leaders.

    But it matters none for the people who think what they have is the best — And joe-sixpack American cannot begin to see beyond his own limited true physical expression. The freedoms he thinks exist for him, has never been a reality for him. It is all in his mind; momentary and vacuous as his spoken word.

  • 8 January 2006, 23:31

    70/158
    after Ive checked with Pat R, Ashcroft, neocon fellow travellers Paul the Wolf, Richard the Prince of Darkness etc, and god knows how many Zionists within the country, and review "W" plans to giving money to religious groups to relinquish governmental responsibilities I’ll get back to you. I forget to mention I will have to confirm that God told "W" what George said he did...talk about a bunch of religious nuts...the USA has a monopoly..from Salem to today

    cheers, jt

  • 10 January 2006, 02:51

    With all due respect, i don’t believe you’ve lived in Iran. I know what’s going on because half my fiancees family has been wiped out by the regime who felt threaned by them. Two weeks ago Hezbollah thugs broke into a union meeting of bus drivers and broke up the meeting with clubs and chains, even cutting one man’s tongue out.

    What was the crime of these drivers? They were trying to figure out how to respond to the jailing of their UNION LEADERS by the regime — who again felt threatened by a looming union strike. This is the state of labor relations in Iran, and what shocks me is that most of the leftists in America are on the side of the regime — not the workers. The Iranian Socialist Party wrote a letter to Hugo Chavez asking him to stop supporting a regime who exploits the poor and helpless while they help themselves to the enormous oil wealth of the country. What was Chavez response? He goes to Iran and praises the regime that is the most violently anti-socialist regime in the world today. This coming from a man whose whole "revolution" is about empowering the poor — unless that empowerment gets in the way of his anti-American venom — then Chavez switches loyalties quicker than Benedict Arnold.

    Brook