The murderous Israeli apartheid regime

579 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP

Syria Threatens to 'Strike Tel Aviv Airport' Unless UNSC Acts Against Israel's Impunity

https://on.rt.com/9mt3

"Damascus has threatened to use its legitimate right for self-defense against Israeli aggression and target Tel Aviv airport in a mirror response, unless the UN Security Council puts an end to IDF incursions into Syrian airspace..."

iyraste1313

Maybe we should demand that the NDP take a unambiguous position but which one?  It's pretty obvious that both you and me, NDPP, are choosing the third option but then we don't need to get ourselves elected, and stay elected. I just don't know what else to say?....

The times for opportunistic politics is over! Or should be! Whether of the orange or green variety!
It is time for a politics of truth, whatever the public, brainwashed by the media may think....desperation and war will win them over in the end. It is time for a politics of truth!

montgomery

Ken Burch wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

montgomery wrote:

NDPP wrote:

Damascus sends a hearty 'Fuck You!' to Israel (and vid)

https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1087164449335652353

"All over Damascus, Syrians cheer every time our air defences strike an Israeli missile..."

And much of the rest of the world also!

There are 3 different positions that can be taken on these issues concerning the Israeli apartheid state:

1.Support of Israel.

2. Silence on the issue.

3. Opposition to Israel. 

Maybe we should demand that the NDP take a unambiguous position but which one?  It's pretty obvious that both you and me, NDPP, are choosing the third option but then we don't need to get ourselves elected, and stay elected. I just don't know what else to say?

 

 

The problem is, silence on the issue is the same thing as defending Netanyahu.

Yeah I know Ken, but I was wondering, if it was Jagmeet who needed to make a public statement, what would work for him? I thought that staying silent on the issue could be a workable choice. But I'm anxious to hear of a better one?

Sorry to complicate things but I just thought this board is a good place to sort out some of the answers to the hard questions.

He could say something like THIS "I and my party want both the Jewish and Arab national communities in Palestine to be able to live in peace, freedom and safety, under whatever arrangements are most likely to make this possible.  It is because of this that I denounce the Netanyahu government, its relentless collective punishment of the Palestinian people, and its continued policies of building and expanding the illegal settlements in the West Bank while keeping the people of Gaza under perpetual siege.  It is clear that neither of those policies will ever result in anything remotely resembling peace or justice for anyone living in those lands, and that no one is truly protected from any danger through the use of force to preserve an intrinsically unjust status quo".

 

Sure he could Ken, but that's just another way of rewriting choice #3 isn't it! And no weasel words are going to change that fact. 

And Trudeau wouldn't get away with it either. No, I'm talking about something close to the equivalent of what Chretien did when he refused to support the US war on Iraq. 

And now today there's a piece at RT with Syria saying they are going to bomb Tel Aviv airport if the UN doesn't demand that Israel stop hitting Syrian targets. You see, that's why your creative writing wouldn't work for Jagmeet either.

I think the phrase should be heard before the coronation, regardless of which one of them is being crowned as our P.M. But I'm also practical and understand that a candidate doesn't get forced into committing Hari-Kari before he gets elected.

There's only one solution: Change Canadians' attitude toward accepting US/Zionist propaganda. Period! 

montgomery

iyraste1313 wrote:

Maybe we should demand that the NDP take a unambiguous position but which one?  It's pretty obvious that both you and me, NDPP, are choosing the third option but then we don't need to get ourselves elected, and stay elected. I just don't know what else to say?....

The times for opportunistic politics is over! Or should be! Whether of the orange or green variety!
It is time for a politics of truth, whatever the public, brainwashed by the media may think....desperation and war will win them over in the end. It is time for a politics of truth!

That's what makes losers, but I highly admire your tough stance! It's just that I've been around too long to think it can work. Put the question to the Canadian people on whether or not to support the US/Zionist regime.

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

To be honest about it, one of the finest acts of courage was Chretien keeping us out of the US's phony war on Iraq. When the Cons hated him so much for doing it, he couldn't have been all that bad!

Except that he only said he was not. In fact we did use our navy and our officer corp during that war. Our navy has not left since and is still moored in a dictatorship.

Chretien kept Canada out. You're grasping at straws now and you're so dogmatic on your position that you can't accept that which was the closest to absolute victory of the antiwar movement we've ever come.

Yes, the military are now in Iraq and Syria, but that's after a Harper government and another Liberal government. 

Why not join the Cons in their condemnation of what Chretien did?

Paladin1

montgomery wrote:

Chretien kept Canada out. You're grasping at straws now and you're so dogmatic on your position that you can't accept that which was the closest to absolute victory of the antiwar movement we've ever come.

He's not wrong.

More than 4,000 Canadian Armed Forces members served in the Persian Gulf region in 1990-1991 as part of the international Coalition of countries that came together to drive the invading forces of Iraq out of Kuwait.

Combat soldiers from infantry battalions performed security tasks. Over 500 personal from a field hospital, over 500 personal operating CF18 fighter/attack aircraft squadrons, 2 destroyers, a supply ship and 5 helicopters.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sorry Montg while you rail about our MSM bias you seem to have been sucked in by at least some of it.

montgomery

Paladin1 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Chretien kept Canada out. You're grasping at straws now and you're so dogmatic on your position that you can't accept that which was the closest to absolute victory of the antiwar movement we've ever come.

He's not wrong.

More than 4,000 Canadian Armed Forces members served in the Persian Gulf region in 1990-1991 as part of the international Coalition of countries that came together to drive the invading forces of Iraq out of Kuwait.

Combat soldiers from infantry battalions performed security tasks. Over 500 personal from a field hospital, over 500 personal operating CF18 fighter/attack aircraft squadrons, 2 destroyers, a supply ship and 5 helicopters.

Naw, he's wrong and he was grasping at straws. The Conservative's reaction was the proof of it. We'll have to get around to discussing your contributions later when I have time. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

 You refuse to believe facts and instead attack the messenger. Classy

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

montgomery wrote:

iyraste1313 wrote:

Maybe we should demand that the NDP take a unambiguous position but which one?  It's pretty obvious that both you and me, NDPP, are choosing the third option but then we don't need to get ourselves elected, and stay elected. I just don't know what else to say?....

The times for opportunistic politics is over! Or should be! Whether of the orange or green variety!
It is time for a politics of truth, whatever the public, brainwashed by the media may think....desperation and war will win them over in the end. It is time for a politics of truth!

That's what makes losers, but I highly admire your tough stance! It's just that I've been around too long to think it can work. Put the question to the Canadian people on whether or not to support the US/Zionist regime.

montgomery, for someone who has just started posting here, you're beginning to develop a real condescending streak.  You're not entitled to take that tone here, because nobody who posts here is entitled to take that tone.  

How, exactly, does the NDP "put the question to the people" on this?  What does "put(ting) the question to the people even mean?  

montgomery

Ken Burch wrote:

montgomery wrote:

iyraste1313 wrote:

Maybe we should demand that the NDP take a unambiguous position but which one?  It's pretty obvious that both you and me, NDPP, are choosing the third option but then we don't need to get ourselves elected, and stay elected. I just don't know what else to say?....

The times for opportunistic politics is over! Or should be! Whether of the orange or green variety!
It is time for a politics of truth, whatever the public, brainwashed by the media may think....desperation and war will win them over in the end. It is time for a politics of truth!

That's what makes losers, but I highly admire your tough stance! It's just that I've been around too long to think it can work. Put the question to the Canadian people on whether or not to support the US/Zionist regime.

montgomery, for someone who has just started posting here, you're beginning to develop a real condescending streak.  You're not entitled to take that tone here, because nobody who posts here is entitled to take that tone. 

Oh come on Ken, Kropotkin claimed the label for 'queen of condescention' in one of his first replies to me. You'll have to look that up because it's too ugly to repost again. So I'm condescending to him in kind. Me and him will have to work on fixing that.

I'm not being condescending to you though. It's not that, rather right now it's about Chretien refusing Canada's participation in the second US led phony war on Iraq.

Quote:
How, exactly, does the NDP "put the question to the people" on this?  What does "put(ting) the question to the people even mean?

Really simple Ken. The NDP suggests that Israel is the war criminal apartheid state that has escaped having to live within the laws of humanity because the US vetoes all UNSC resolutions to stop them. And the Liberals could do the same if they're so inclined. Then both parties will disappear from the face of the earth and the Conservatives will make bloody sure the question is never brought up again. 

All political parties are subject to the same rules Ken. It's fine to talk a good line sometimes but don't walk the walk if your party has the power to do something meaningful about the injustice. And when it comes to Israel, you don't even get to talk the talk very much if you want to get elected and stay elected. 

Back to the issue: Kropotkin is wrong about his notion that Chretien didn't keep up out of Iraq. The US, Nato, the Conservatives, and Canada's military is still bellyaching about not getting into the action. Even well after the fact that we now know it was pure US cocked up aggression based on lies. They've even got themselves a line of bullshit to prove the WMD's really, really did exist! 

What did the NDP say about it at the time? I can't remember but I'll try to find the answer on the net. Maybe you can tell me first?

montgomery

montgomery wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

montgomery wrote:

iyraste1313 wrote:

Maybe we should demand that the NDP take a unambiguous position but which one?  It's pretty obvious that both you and me, NDPP, are choosing the third option but then we don't need to get ourselves elected, and stay elected. I just don't know what else to say?....

The times for opportunistic politics is over! Or should be! Whether of the orange or green variety!
It is time for a politics of truth, whatever the public, brainwashed by the media may think....desperation and war will win them over in the end. It is time for a politics of truth!

That's what makes losers, but I highly admire your tough stance! It's just that I've been around too long to think it can work. Put the question to the Canadian people on whether or not to support the US/Zionist regime.

montgomery, for someone who has just started posting here, you're beginning to develop a real condescending streak.  You're not entitled to take that tone here, because nobody who posts here is entitled to take that tone. 

Oh come on Ken, Kropotkin claimed the label for 'queen of condescention' in one of his first replies to me. You'll have to look that up because it's too uglyand vulgar to repost again. So I'm condescending to him in kind. Me and him will have to work on fixing that.

I'm not being condescending to you though. It's not that, rather right now it's about Chretien refusing Canada's participation in the second US led phony war on Iraq.

Quote:
How, exactly, does the NDP "put the question to the people" on this?  What does "put(ting) the question to the people even mean?

Really simple Ken. The NDP suggests that Israel is the war criminal apartheid state that has escaped having to live within the laws of humanity because the US vetoes all UNSC resolutions to stop them. And the Liberals could do the same if they're so inclined. Then both parties will disappear from the face of the earth and the Conservatives will make bloody sure the question is never brought up again. 

All political parties are subject to the same rules Ken. It's fine to talk a good line sometimes but don't walk the walk if your party has the power to do something meaningful about the injustice. And when it comes to Israel, you don't even get to talk the talk very much if you want to get elected and stay elected. 

Back to the issue: Kropotkin is wrong about his notion that Chretien didn't keep up out of Iraq. The US, Nato, the Conservatives, and Canada's military is still bellyaching about not getting into the action. Even well after the fact that we now know it was pure US cocked up aggression based on lies. They've even got themselves a line of bullshit to prove the WMD's really, really did exist! 

What did the NDP say about it at the time? I can't remember but I'll try to find the answer on the net. Maybe you can tell me first?

montgomery

Mulcair said: “Canada would put an end to our participation in the combat mission in Iraq and in Syria immediately. We’ve been clear on that since Day 1.”

That's been discussed on this board before and Canada's participation was put down in easy to understand language. That's what Chretien actually did. 

And fwiw, Trudeau did on Syria too by taking our 6 bombers out. Then he made up for it by replacing them with something else. Or was forced to do so. I'm not sure which. Maybe somebody else is?

My perfect politician would be the guy who took Canada out of the entire ME immediately and completely! I'm not going to live long enough.

Paladin1

montgomery wrote:

Naw, he's wrong and he was grasping at straws. The Conservative's reaction was the proof of it. We'll have to get around to discussing your contributions later when I have time. 

A cursory websearch will quickly indicate your mistake about Canada not being involved in the war. It was also the first time Canada sent women into a war zone in combat roles.

When you get around to my contributions I trust you will lead with the poise I exhibit when I'm shown to be wrong and acknoledge as much.

NDPP

Canada's Covert War in Iraq

http://coat.ncf.ca/articles/Canada_Iraq.htm

Although this Canada-in-Iraq-yes-or-no tangent is drift, the Gulf War was very much about the interests of Israel. As are the current US adventures in Iraq, Syria etc. So now let's return the thread to what it's really about. Further tangential discussion is better suited to the Iraq thread.

NDPP

Israel's Violent Raids on Palestinian Prisoners Biggest in Decade

https://twitter.com/intifada/status/1088204331843809280

"Prisoners warn they will resist Israeli violent crackdown."

Meanwhile 'What BDS?' -  Ballet BC entertains the Apartheid State in Tel Aviv. More Canadian shame supported by Canada's politicians.

 

Malaysian PM Mahathir announced to the public that Israeli athletes are not acceptable to enter his country. Bravo Malaysia! See video...

https://twitter.com/QudsNen/status/1088360402474422272

montgomery

NDPP wrote:

 

 

Malaysian PM Mahathir announced to the public that Israeli athletes are not acceptable to enter his country. Bravo Malaysia! See video...

https://twitter.com/QudsNen/status/1088360402474422272

That's a tangential issue to the topic but I  would agree that it's concerning the topic and so should be allowed to be discussed on this thread. Not to suggest it's my decision to make because I'm new here.

But couldn't you agree that I should be allowed some leeway to talk about other tangential issues in the ME when they are all directly related to US and Zionist aggression?  How about we let the forum participants decide how close to the exact topic we stay, and then I'll abide by their decision?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Naw, he's wrong and he was grasping at straws. The Conservative's reaction was the proof of it. We'll have to get around to discussing your contributions later when I have time. 

A cursory websearch will quickly indicate your mistake about Canada not being involved in the war. It was also the first time Canada sent women into a war zone in combat roles.

When you get around to my contributions I trust you will lead with the poise I exhibit when I'm shown to be wrong and acknoledge as much.

Thank you for supporting the idea that this board should stick to the actual history not the MSM spin. I often disagree with your political viewpoint but I respect your grasp of the military and NATO operations in general.

 

NDPP

Irish Parliament Passes Bill To Ban Israeli Settlement Goods

https://twitter.com/intifada/status/1088503580699574273

"We need to send a signal to apartheid Israel that its policy of murder and occupation can no longer go unhindered under international law,' says Irish lawmaker..."

 

'What Could Be More Malicious Than the Conduct of CIJA?'

https://twitter.com/dimitrilascaris/status/1088459357832994816

"CIJA is a propaganda organ for an apartheid regime which brutalizes Palestinian civilians on a daily basis. Your modus operandi is to silence human rights decisions through character assassination. What could be more malicious than the conduct of CIJA?"

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Naw, he's wrong and he was grasping at straws. The Conservative's reaction was the proof of it. We'll have to get around to discussing your contributions later when I have time. 

A cursory websearch will quickly indicate your mistake about Canada not being involved in the war. It was also the first time Canada sent women into a war zone in combat roles.

When you get around to my contributions I trust you will lead with the poise I exhibit when I'm shown to be wrong and acknoledge as much.

Thank you for supporting the idea that this board should stick to the actual history not the MSM spin. I often disagree with your political viewpoint but I respect your grasp of the military and NATO operations in general.

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/saying-no-to-iraq-war-was-important-deci...

I liked this link because it also makes another worthwhile political statement.

Quote:

Chretien also addressed his visit to Venezuela last week to attend President Hugo Chavez’s funeral.

He said he went because he knew Chavez personally and “never had any problem” with the controversial leader even though he didn’t agree with him “on many things.” He also wanted to show his respect for the people of Venezuela.

“He had support of the people and he was loved by the poor of his country. He was kind of a Robin Hood,” Chretien said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper angered the Venezuelan administration by saying in a statement that he hoped the country can have a “better, brighter future” after Chavez’s death.

Chretien said the Venezuelan authorities were “very, very happy” to see him at the funeral, because they were “very unhappy” with Harper’s remarks.

It's with great pleasure we get to hear CTV choke on sour grapes!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sorry Montg I do not accept the spin from CTV as the truth. If your want to that is your prerogative. It does make for a good narrative for imperialist media. Both Canadian parties that have governed support NATO aggression but one gets to play hawk and the other gets to play a dove. CTV does a good job of fooling low information people into believing the line. No matter which one you vote for you get NATO aggression.

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sorry Montg I do not accept the spin from CTV as the truth. If your want to that is your prerogative. It does make for a good narrative for imperialist media. Both Canadian parties that have governed support NATO aggression but one gets to play hawk and the other gets to play a dove. CTV does a good job of fooling low information people into believing the line. No matter which one you vote for you get NATO aggression.

It was totally out of character for CTV and that's why I liked it. But you didn't get it.

The next time we get one that even makes an effort equal to what Chretien did, let me know. I'm optimistic. Your problem Kropotkin is that you piss on anyone who makes an effort because you want your complete agenda accomplished next morning. It doesn't work that way. 

iyraste1313

Both Canadian parties that have governed support NATO aggression but one gets to play hawk and the other gets to play a dove. CTV does a good job of fooling low information people into believing the line. No matter which one you vote for you get NATO aggression....

Let´s not forget the NDP here, and its role, its silence? Therefore complicity in the matter....This statement is important...and suggestive of the need to build an anti imperialist, (amongst other matters) Party based in the real world, not pandering to a media busy brainwashing the innocent public of Canada.......

(innocent or likewise complicit?)

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I got the CTV "story", as told by Chretien, but that is the problem, it is just a story not the truth.

NDPP

"Head of the extremist anti-Arab organization 'Leharah', rabbi Bentzi Gopstein, stated that Christianity is a form of idolatry that shouldn't be allowed in Israel & that all churches must be burnt. This racist Israeli will be leading his extremist party into the upcoming elections!"

https://twitter.com/QudsNen/status/1088384162581614592

NDPP

"You can now watch all four episodes of the Al Jazeera documentary on the US-Israel lobby..."

https://twitter.com/intifada/status/1059811204628135936

"The foundation that AIPAC sat on is rotting..."

Paladin1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Naw, he's wrong and he was grasping at straws. The Conservative's reaction was the proof of it. We'll have to get around to discussing your contributions later when I have time. 

A cursory websearch will quickly indicate your mistake about Canada not being involved in the war. It was also the first time Canada sent women into a war zone in combat roles.

When you get around to my contributions I trust you will lead with the poise I exhibit when I'm shown to be wrong and acknoledge as much.

Thank you for supporting the idea that this board should stick to the actual history not the MSM spin. I often disagree with your political viewpoint but I respect your grasp of the military and NATO operations in general.

 

 

Thank you I appreciate that. I try to offer what I hope is an unbiased perspective of NATO that might not be apparent to someone from the outside looking in (oddly enough, I'm in Iraq right now under NATO). I don't consider myself a NATO fanboy by any stretch of the imagination.  I like to think I've been able to break away from falling for the MSM spin, being introduced to a number of alternate news sources.

Really I think the MSM is more entertainment and consumer based than news reporting these days.

montgomery

Paladin1 wrote:

..................... (oddly enough, I'm in Iraq right now under NATO).

Say no more. No bloody wonder you try to exaggerate Canada's role in the Iraq war. But tell me, if you can risk it, did Nato attempt to do the same as it did in the 99 Serbia war when the UN didn't buy into it?

In order to frame this debate correctly, allow me to suggest to you that Nato serves no purpose to Canada and is nothing more than a tool of US aggression. That should provide lots of grist for the mill!

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

montgomery wrote:

In order to frame this debate correctly, allow me to suggest to you that Nato serves no purpose to Canada and is nothing more than a tool of US aggression. That should provide lots of grist for the mill!

Interesting statement for a resident of the rich provinces of the empire. Imperial privilege, that doesn't benefit Canada?

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

In order to frame this debate correctly, allow me to suggest to you that Nato serves no purpose to Canada and is nothing more than a tool of US aggression. That should provide lots of grist for the mill!

Interesting statement for a resident of the rich provinces of the empire. Imperial privilege, that doesn't benefit Canada?

I was hoping it would grab some interest and raise some hackles Kropotkin. Do you disagree? Are you just being snarky because you didn't say it first?

Or if it doesn't interest you then just go back to pulling the wings off of your houseflies.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

In order to frame this debate correctly, allow me to suggest to you that Nato serves no purpose to Canada and is nothing more than a tool of US aggression. That should provide lots of grist for the mill!

Interesting statement for a resident of the rich provinces of the empire. Imperial privilege, that doesn't benefit Canada?

I was hoping it would grab some interest and raise some hackles Kropotkin. Do you disagree? Are you just being snarky because you didn't say it first?

Or if it doesn't interest you then just go back to pulling the wings off of your houseflies.

Once again you attacking someone who has been here 293 times the length of time you have been.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

In order to frame this debate correctly, allow me to suggest to you that Nato serves no purpose to Canada and is nothing more than a tool of US aggression. That should provide lots of grist for the mill!

Interesting statement for a resident of the rich provinces of the empire. Imperial privilege, that doesn't benefit Canada?

I was hoping it would grab some interest and raise some hackles Kropotkin. Do you disagree? Are you just being snarky because you didn't say it first?

Or if it doesn't interest you then just go back to pulling the wings off of your houseflies.

Once again you attacking someone who has been here 293 times the length of time you have been.

Sean, it doesn't make a lick of difference somebody has been posting on this board. And if it did then it did then it would be in favour of the newcomer because a fresh voice is always going to be more inclusive of bringing in outsiders who are likely to be more tolerant.

It's unfortunate but we are stuck with a difficult situation of our most profoundly importnat ideals on international poltics alone are anti-Conservative and are common to some Liberal ideas. So I'm more than happy to argue against pretty much anything the  Conservative party promotes. And I hope it's the NDP that has led the charge against it! 

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

In order to frame this debate correctly, allow me to suggest to you that Nato serves no purpose to Canada and is nothing more than a tool of US aggression. That should provide lots of grist for the mill!

Interesting statement for a resident of the rich provinces of the empire. Imperial privilege, that doesn't benefit Canada?

I was hoping it would grab some interest and raise some hackles Kropotkin. Do you disagree? Are you just being snarky because you didn't say it first?

Or if it doesn't interest you then just go back to pulling the wings off of your houseflies.

Once again you attacking someone who has been here 293 times the length of time you have been.

Sean, it doesn't make a lick of difference somebody has been posting on this board. And if it did then it did then it would be in favour of the newcomer because a fresh voice is always going to be more inclusive of bringing in outsiders who are likely to be more tolerant.

It's unfortunate but we are stuck with a difficult situation of our most profoundly importnat ideals on international poltics alone are anti-Conservative and are common to some Liberal ideas. So I'm more than happy to argue against pretty much anything the  Conservative party promotes. And I hope it's the NDP that has led the charge against it! 

Newcomers who show an interest in engaging at the same level as others can be interesting. Narcissists who just got here and are asking the entire board to defer to their superiority not so much. You claim to be capable of teaching. The one thing we know about you is that this is absolutely not true given your approach contradicts that possibility. Your claim to knowledge is probably equally bogus.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

In order to frame this debate correctly, allow me to suggest to you that Nato serves no purpose to Canada and is nothing more than a tool of US aggression. That should provide lots of grist for the mill!

Interesting statement for a resident of the rich provinces of the empire. Imperial privilege, that doesn't benefit Canada?

I was hoping it would grab some interest and raise some hackles Kropotkin. Do you disagree? Are you just being snarky because you didn't say it first?

Or if it doesn't interest you then just go back to pulling the wings off of your houseflies.

Once again you attacking someone who has been here 293 times the length of time you have been.

Sean, it doesn't make a lick of difference somebody has been posting on this board. And if it did then it did then it would be in favour of the newcomer because a fresh voice is always going to be more inclusive of bringing in outsiders who are likely to be more tolerant.

It's unfortunate but we are stuck with a difficult situation of our most profoundly importnat ideals on international poltics alone are anti-Conservative and are common to some Liberal ideas. So I'm more than happy to argue against pretty much anything the  Conservative party promotes. And I hope it's the NDP that has led the charge against it! 

Newcomers who show an interest in engaging at the same level as others can be interesting. Narcissists who just got here and are asking the entire board to defer to their superiority not so much. You claim to be capable of teaching. The one thing we know about you is that this is absolutely not true given your approach contradicts that possibility. Your claim to knowledge is probably equally bogus.

Sean please! Your insistence of staying on this petty gripe of yours is getting disruptive. Take it to a p.m. if you think you have a point. And I can be maybe a bit more forthwith with you if you do. 

I'm stopping it now so that it's going to be your fault and you won't be able to blame me for the off-topic shit.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

montgomery wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

In order to frame this debate correctly, allow me to suggest to you that Nato serves no purpose to Canada and is nothing more than a tool of US aggression. That should provide lots of grist for the mill!

Interesting statement for a resident of the rich provinces of the empire. Imperial privilege, that doesn't benefit Canada?

I was hoping it would grab some interest and raise some hackles Kropotkin. Do you disagree? Are you just being snarky because you didn't say it first?

Or if it doesn't interest you then just go back to pulling the wings off of your houseflies.

Of course I don't agree with your facile statement. Canadian society and economic well being have always been underpinned by being Ready Aye Ready to serve the empire. NATO aggression directly benefits Canadians so your idea that it serves no purpose for us is rather lame. Its like a man saying that patriarchy serves no purpose to him or a white Canadian saying that racism serves no purpose to us.

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

In order to frame this debate correctly, allow me to suggest to you that Nato serves no purpose to Canada and is nothing more than a tool of US aggression. That should provide lots of grist for the mill!

Interesting statement for a resident of the rich provinces of the empire. Imperial privilege, that doesn't benefit Canada?

I was hoping it would grab some interest and raise some hackles Kropotkin. Do you disagree? Are you just being snarky because you didn't say it first?

Or if it doesn't interest you then just go back to pulling the wings off of your houseflies.

Of course I don't agree with your facile statement. Canadian society and economic well being have always been underpinned by being Ready Aye Ready to serve the empire. NATO aggression directly benefits Canadians so your idea that it serves no purpose for us is rather lame. Its like a man saying that patriarchy serves no purpose to him or a white Canadian saying that racism serves no purpose to us.

Your point is out of context, uninformed, and most likely and attempt to mislead on the issue of Nato.

Kropotkin, I'm going to end this bickering with you on your petty issues, in the interest of taking away your opportunity to accuse me of being the one who is responsible for the disruptions on this board. If you have anything further to say, make it via p.m. 

NDPP

Canada Continues to Expand Cyber Relations with Israel

https://twitter.com/CanEmbIsrael/status/1090593791134838784

Come spy with me...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

montgomery wrote:

Your point is out of context, uninformed, and most likely and attempt to mislead on the issue of Nato.

Kropotkin, I'm going to end this bickering with you on your petty issues, in the interest of taking away your opportunity to accuse me of being the one who is responsible for the disruptions on this board. If you have anything further to say, make it via p.m. 

Monto this board's posters have seen people like you come and go many times. I am in awe of the depth of your claims to knowledge. I have no problem leaving the judgement of who is uninformed up to my peers who post here.

NDPP

Israel's New Commander in Chief (and vid)

https://therealnews.com/stories/israels-new-commander-in-chief-well-crea...

"We'll create a deadlier army."

An army openly permitted to recruit in Canada.

NDPP

UN Rapporteur Michael Lynk to Speak in Hamilton, Ontario

https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/un-anti-israel-rapporteur-michael-lyn....

"Jewish community leaders are expressing anger at a scheduled talk by a United Nations special representative with a reputation for bias against Israel..."

Don't they all? Poor Israel. Anti Semites are everywhere...
 

Paladin1

montgomery wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

..................... (oddly enough, I'm in Iraq right now under NATO).

Say no more. No bloody wonder you try to exaggerate Canada's role in the Iraq war.

You're still clinging to the notion that you're right about Canadas involvement in the Iraq war. I don't know if it's ego or you legitimately don't see the facts.  It's not a matter of my opinion vs your opinion, there is just the truth. If you conduct a quick internet search you'll see the truth of the matter and that is Canada was involved in the Gulf war. Quite heavily. Perhaps not in the same exact manner as Afghanistan but at our high point we had just as many military members "in country" supporting the Gulf war as we did during the Afghanistan war. (Around 2700 or so?)

I have no vested interest in being right and I'm not trying to push some type of political agenda or make some kind of political point as I believe you are. Truth be told when I was younger I was dismayed at the lack of fighting we did in evil Iraq. Now that I'm older it's the opposite. Knowing what I do now, and with a healthy dose of hindsight, I wish we wouldn't have had a single solider involved.

Quote:

But tell me, if you can risk it, did Nato attempt to do the same as it did in the 99 Serbia war when the UN didn't buy into it?

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The UN is a toothless dragon that likes to flex but when the USA tells them to STFU and do what they're told the UN obeys.

Quote:
In order to frame this debate correctly, allow me to suggest to you that Nato serves no purpose to Canada and is nothing more than a tool of US aggression.

The spirit of NATO may still serve a purpose to Canada. Russia can still be considered a threat, Ukraine and a few other places are ample proof they're not afraid to resort to violence to get what they want.

Does Canada have to worry about a Red Dawn Russian paratroopers attacking us over the Arctic? Doubt it. With some of the recent additions to NATOs all star lineup I think it's time we take a long hard look at the organization. I can tell you that there are alot of European countries that may happily talk shit about the USA but the real-time threat of the US withdrawing forces and leaving them facing off against Russia alone has them changing their tune.

montgomery

Paladin1 wrote:

There are many areas of disagreement with me on what you've said, and I'll happily entertain all of them in due course if you wish. But I've narrowed it down to one statement by you that I'm going to highlight right now. I want our fellow NDP'ers to take close notice of it and examine it's credibility.

Quote:
The spirit of NATO may still serve a purpose to Canada. Russia can still be considered a threat, Ukraine and a few other places are ample proof they're not afraid to resort to violence to get what they want.

First off you say 'may serve a purpose, and then you suggest a few other places. You display a lack of conviction.

On the Ukraine specifically, it doesn't fit as an example because it was a clear case of the US fomenting revolution against a duly elected government. And there's ample evidence to show that the US was actively involved. This is once again, a clear example of US attempts to infringe on Russia's borders. Not at all unlike Georgia and very similar to the US purpose of it's 99 Kosovo war.

Russia now stands in defiance of Nato in the Eastern Ukraine, in order to defend it's border. And with the support of the Ukrainian people, as is also true in the Crimea.

And I'll expand the issue a little to the Crimea. It was so patently obvious that Russia couldn't allow the Crimea to fall into Nato hands, because of it's strategic importance to Russia. 

Are you honestly and truly prepared to argue the talking points for Nato? My primary interest in this thread at the moment will be to hear the reactions from the oldtime NDP members of this board. Or lack of? That will be my learning experience out of this debate! 

montgomery

Both my and Paladin's posts are off-topic. I ask for the indulgence of the audience and of the moderator until we find agreement between us to start another thread on the topic of Nato.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The Israeli influenced US government continues to outrage.

The decision announced on Friday was linked to a January 31 deadline set by new US legislation under which foreign aid recipients would be more exposed to anti-terrorism lawsuits.

The deadline also sees the end of about $60m in US aid for the Palestinian security forces, whose cooperation with Israeli forces helps maintain relative quiet in the West Bank.

Congress's Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act (ATCA) empowers Americans to sue foreign aid recipients in US courts over alleged complicity in "acts of war".

The Palestinian Authority declined further US funding over worries about its potential legal exposure, although it denies Israeli accusations that it encourages armed attacks.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/usaid-ceases-assistance-west-bank...

 

Paladin1

montgomery wrote:

 You display a lack of conviction.

About NATO? Yup you bet. I'm not so bold as to think or suggest I'm 100% right about something as tangable complex and fluid as NATO. It's not a matter of math as it is in the Canada in Iraq case. I'm open to being wrong and it doesn't hurt my ego when I am.

Quote:
On the Ukraine specifically, it doesn't fit as an example because it was a clear case of the US fomenting revolution against a duly elected government. And there's ample evidence to show that the US was actively involved. This is once again, a clear example of US attempts to infringe on Russia's borders. Not at all unlike Georgia and very similar to the US purpose of it's 99 Kosovo war.

Russia and the USA like fucking with each other. USA will make up bullshit reasons to get involved in the affairs of other countries and so will Russia. USA assassinates people with drones and democracy, Russia uses poison tipped umbrellas.  Russia went on the record denying they had any soldiers in the Ukraine, then a Russian sgt forgot to take off the geotag on one of his selfies which placed his unit clearly inside Ukraine borders. Whoops.

The 1973 Yom Kippur war between Egypt and Syria against Israel? That was a big wargame by the US and Russia pitting Western and Eastern bloc vehicles, equipment, tactics and doctrine against each other.

Quote:

Are you honestly and truly prepared to argue the talking points for Nato?

Sure.

Paladin1

montgomery wrote:

Both my and Paladin's posts are off-topic. I ask for the indulgence of the audience and of the moderator until we find agreement between us to start another thread on the topic of Nato.

Well, I circled it back and quite cleverly ended with a segue to Israel but you can also start a new thread  named NATO 2019.

Easy Peasy.

montgomery

Paladin1 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

 You display a lack of conviction.

About NATO? Yup you bet. I'm not so bold as to think or suggest I'm 100% right about something as tangable complex and fluid as NATO. It's not a matter of math as it is in the Canada in Iraq case. I'm open to being wrong and it doesn't hurt my ego when I am.

Quote:
On the Ukraine specifically, it doesn't fit as an example because it was a clear case of the US fomenting revolution against a duly elected government. And there's ample evidence to show that the US was actively involved. This is once again, a clear example of US attempts to infringe on Russia's borders. Not at all unlike Georgia and very similar to the US purpose of it's 99 Kosovo war.

Russia and the USA like fucking with each other. USA will make up bullshit reasons to get involved in the affairs of other countries and so will Russia. USA assassinates people with drones and democracy, Russia uses poison tipped umbrellas.  Russia went on the record denying they had any soldiers in the Ukraine, then a Russian sgt forgot to take off the geotag on one of his selfies which placed his unit clearly inside Ukraine borders. Whoops.

The 1973 Yom Kippur war between Egypt and Syria against Israel? That was a big wargame by the US and Russia pitting Western and Eastern bloc vehicles, equipment, tactics and doctrine against each other.

Quote:

Are you honestly and truly prepared to argue the talking points for Nato?

Sure.

You've waffled on the question. The question is clearly on the US being on the side of wrong and it being the aggressor. I contend that Russia is now on the side of right and has been since the fall of the Soviet Union. (and on a thread for the specific topic, indeed before the fall of the S.U.)

Fwiw, you are totally bereft of knowledge on the topic of the Ukraine situation. It has to be that or you have been propagandized into supporting Nato. I could back up my accusations but that's not the tactic I'm going to choose to use. I'm not going to be able to make my point with you. 

But the value in having the debate is to draw the others into it and then begin to expand on the talking points. I have support for my opinion and you have some too. But where the rubber truly does meet the road is in hearing the hearts and minds of some very committed NDP'ers.

Shall we take it to a thread on Nato exclulsively before we are at the point of losing everything we've said so far? Or will this topic be tolerated here? 

montgomery

It would be naive to think that this topic isn't too sensitive for this board. If so then the moderation of the board can treat it accordingly. If not, then I'm calling the question on Nato for NDP members who are well informed enough to take part in the conversation.

Is it time?

NDPP

montgomery wrote:

Both my and Paladin's posts are off-topic. I ask for the indulgence of the audience and of the moderator until we find agreement between us to start another thread on the topic of Nato.

NDPP wrote:

There is a NATO thread. Why not take it there? Or perhaps you wish us to avert our eyes from the issue of Israel?

montgomery

NDPP wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Both my and Paladin's posts are off-topic. I ask for the indulgence of the audience and of the moderator until we find agreement between us to start another thread on the topic of Nato.

NDPP wrote:

There is a NATO thread. Why not take it there? Or perhaps you wish us to avert our eyes from the issue of Israel?

Let's see if it can be tolerated here on this thread? So far nobody has chimed in to support either side's contention. I'm going to pursue having you harden up your contentions for Nato but I'm not going to talk to a brick wall. The opinions and participation of the others is essential to my purpose here. 

Fwiw, I'm completely and totallly opposed to Nato because I firmly believe it's nothing more than a tool of US aggression. And of course it serves no purpose for Canada whatsoever because Russia is not a threat. (neither is China)

As to the Zionist regime? I am absolutely on the side of the Palestinian people and I firmly believe that apartheid should be pushed into the sea and drowned forever. And if that's what Ahmadinejad actually said, then he got it right.

How dare you try to demonize me by purposely deflecting to the suggestion that I would be supportive of that evil Zionist regime.

Have I made my point? 

Pages