Dwarven Pirate

Unilateral support of everything Israel continues with Bush and company. On top of the purely political support, there is his fundamentalist Christian WW3-Armagedon tripe that seems to permeate his decisions.

He seems entirely pro-Israel beyond anything rational, if you ask me.

That is one side of it. The other side of it is the things done by his administration which caused the people above to roll their eyes at my post. I'll be happy to let them extrapolate on that.

Dwarven Pirate

No. Don't you have something useful to say or can you only toss insulting comments about like a child?

Parihaka

Business as usual for the last 30 years or so thenExamples?Examples?

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Parihaka

As an aside, could you not throw poo at each other please. If I wanted mindless insult-filled threads I'd hang out on a liberal forum.

Bigfella

Or the conservative Strategy Page. I'm afraid liberals don't have a mortgage on childish insults.

Bigfella

Before we launch into this, a couple of things:
1) I haven't read the Fisk article, so it isn't pertinent to my comments.
2) This isn't a 'Bush' thing. I'd write the same about any administration tacitly supporting Turkey's policy of denial.

On the topic at hand, I apply Bigfella's handy all-purpose racism/bigotry detector (also useable for holocaust deniers, etc.).

I simply substitue 'Jew' or the relevant example from the apalling history of anti-Jewish discrimination for whatever the questionable opinion de jour happens to be. If a statement would sound racist to me if directed at Jews, I am happy to classify it as racist.

This case is a no-brainer. Lets try to imagine what America's leaders would do if a major ally led a campaign to deny the holocaust, including persecution (and prosecution) of those who claimed it happened. Would they support the deniers because they were trusted allies? Like hell. And neither should they.

Lets take another example. A Japanese government decids to launch a campaign to 'prove' that there were no atrocities against Allied POWs. Authors publishing books claiming the contrary are persecuted (and prosecuted). American & Allied veterans are labelled liars. The US Congress moves to pass a motion stating that atrocities did indeed take place. Can anyone seriously tell me that it would be fine for an administration to oppose that for reasons of 'realpolitik'?

Israel's behaviour in this is no better. The excuse that Israel can act in a totally amoral way because its security is threatened has never cut much ice with me. Even less so here. One can only wonder what the remaining survivors of the Shoah think of a government that sides with people who deny genocide.

I understand the importance of Turkey as a secular, modern Muslim nation. I accept the need for a degree of sensitivity with some issues (the Kurds spring to mind). I do not, however, accept the right of anyone to hold historical truth to ransom for short term political ends.

Dwarven Pirate

Bush is certainly and by far the most pro-Israel president we have had since, hmmm, Truman probably. Surpassing Reagan, tho I admit that is debateable. Even Bush the first was more objective than those two in his treatment of Israel-Palestine and the greater picture.

He may now be moving toward a middle position, tho with his rhetoric on Iran I think that's doubtful overall.

Another thing you can look at is something I posted a while ago here on these boards. Personally I believe it; you may not. Here is a link:

Un petit scoop sur Bush, Chirac, Dieu, Gog et Magog | Rue89 and Le Matin Online > Quand George W. Bush voit les prophéties bibliques s'accomplir - Actu > Monde

There is a translation posted here in a thread titled Religious extremists are ubiquitous.

More on this from Jewish source, very recent, amazingly enough: Israeli news evokes 'Gog and Magog' scenario

Granted this stuff is far out in the wilderness, but that is where Christian fundamentalism lives.

Here is some more on Bush and christianity/God:

Now, given his support of Israel, which you may or may not think is just plain old business as usual, I find it impossible to believe that he has ever denied that 6 million Jews were killed by Nazi Germany, which is such an emotional topic that laws criminalizing the questioning of it have been enacted in some nations. To me this entire scenario is inter-related.

So, there you go.

Now, please explain to me why you've 'rolled your eyes' at my post and what caused you to suspect whatever motive it is you ascribed to me.

EDIT: Read this in an article about a christian singer that performs for the military often. Not entirely pertinent, but it made me laugh

Ucar

Please consider my question as it is; that is without correlating it with any genocide debates.

Do you accept the right of anyone to reveal historical truth to ransom for short term political ends ?

Now please reflect this question into the Armenian Genocide issue.

We need to admit that the issue still has pros and cons and being argued from both sides of the "There was a Genocide" and "You can not call these deaths Genocide" argument. Turkey has a policy of denial, and Armenia has a policy of acceptance.

Continuing along this reasoning, do any of these two countries have a right to reveal historical truth -as each side can and will provide "truth"- to ransom for short term political ends ?

I am not arguing from a pro or con genocide point of view in this reply. I am only trying to point out that, history as well as any other means available has, can and will be used for political gains.

Dwarven Pirate

Anyhow, to respond to the OP: I think that while he may go off the deep end in condemning Bush as the David Irving of the White House, he is essentially correct. But so was Bush. Bush has responsibilities to our nation and its troops that have to come before international condemnations and reprisals or what-have-you. Bush has a job to do, like it or not, and if it was pragmatic to backtrack on this matter at this time, well, that's what we pay him for. I am saying that, as unfortunate as it might be, the President of the United States' opinions on humanity play second fiddle to what is right for the country.

I dont know if Bush was/is right or wrong. What I do know is that he wouldn't change his mind about anything if there wasn't a very good reason (very good reason to his mind, of course).

Mobbme

Isn't Isreal still "on the map" because of BUSH alone? Bush = America.

Remember the war between a group called Hezbollah vs Isreal? What if Iran and other Muslim countries attacked Isreal? Bush/America would Annihilate them.

If Bush denied Holocaust, he'd be like the Iranian guy Ahmeajama (I'm-A-Jam-ah) -however you spell his name - then why would he support Isreal?

Bush and Americans are allies with Israel = End Of Story.

Mobbme

Sorry... After reading the first article posted I realized the "holocaust" was not the one of the Nazis. My mistake. I don't know anything about the Turkey one, so I shall leave it at that.

Parihaka

We'll that's true but my own 'evangelical' crusade leads me to the liberal ones

Kansas Bear

Actually, France built the nuclear reactor for Israel and supplied them with nuclear fuel to run it. Isn't that why Israel is still "on the map"?

Nuclear Weapons - Israel


FYI: May 15, 1948.

Dwarven Pirate

from Haaretz `Road map is a life saver for us,' PM Abbas tells Hamas - Haaretz - Israel News

Also the meeting with the Amish quilters where he said "God speaks through me".

Do you even care? Why ask for evidence if you dont care. It wastes space and my time in trying to educate you.

Parihaka

LOL, you think you're educating us when you say
When all you can support it with is a bunch of hearsay and inuendo about his religious beliefs (or lack of them) and a policy toward Israel that is virtually identical to all the administrations for the past thirty years.

You have a severe case of BDS I'm afraid.