ALARMINGNEWS_1_1.jpg

May 13, 2008

Palestinians in Gaza phonebanking for Obama

This is not a joke.

If you think Hamas is not involved, I've got numerous lovely bridges to sell you.

Posted by Karol at May 13, 2008 02:07 PM | TrackBack
Technorati Tags:
Comments

On a tangent, did anyone see that op-ed by Luttwak in yesterday's NYT?

Posted by: Shawn at May 13, 2008 02:36 PM

There has been some speculation that Hamas would recognise Israel if given aid. Policy seems to be not to talk to them at all. Perhaps this might be called the cuban approach?

Posted by: bryan at May 13, 2008 04:05 PM

Again, bryan, I can get you a good deal on a nice bridge.

Posted by: Karol at May 13, 2008 06:56 PM

I have forwarded the link to a discussion group of several dozen people. I may be one of two Jewish Republicans in that group.

The Al-Jazeera clip begs a question - why hasn't Obama distanced himself from the (unsolicited) endorsement by Hamas?

chsw

Posted by: chsw at May 13, 2008 07:18 PM

Obama's problem is that himself and his campaign organization (Axelrod's statements that he thought Hamas's view of Obama as JFK were neat-o) along with his campaign supporters all like Hamas very much, thank you.

What's not to like? Jihadi terrorists blowing up Jews who hate Americans also? They're down with that. Heck they'd burn the flag with them.

In an election trending Democratic, Dems have picked the worst possible candidate. McCain's to lose. Though I'm sure Mav will try.

Posted by: Jim Rockford at May 13, 2008 07:26 PM

I can't stand Obama, but there was just something about those Palestinians that was inoffensive to me.

He just seemed like a guy with some computers and an internet connection making use of Obama's "Make a Call" feature on the campaign's website.

I think making links to Hamas, without a shred of evidence, is a bit on the rotten side. Could it be some nefarious group behind it?

Yes.

Could it equally be an enterprising student making interesting use of a school's computer lab?

Yes.

I dunno. The guy they interviewed seemed like any one of Obama's local legions of young, start-struck liberals.

I'm sure Hamas would approve if they heard about him, but there's no need to unnecessarily say Hamas is actively phone-banking for Obama, when a far less sinister scenario is more likely.

Posted by: Sean at May 13, 2008 08:15 PM

I forgot to add: if Hamas WAS phone-banking for Obama, I can GUARANTEE you we wouldn't see it on Al Jazeera or anywhere else.

I'm sure they're savvy enough to know that it wouldn't be helping Obama if word had gotten out.

Posted by: Sean at May 13, 2008 08:16 PM

Don't you hate it when people from the Middle East try to mess in American politics? I don't care if it's Hamas or the likes of Rosen and Weisman from the American Iscariot Pollard Action Committee. If you're not an American, stay out of American politics.

Posted by: Von Bek at May 13, 2008 08:28 PM

Well, you're just a racist for promoting distractions from the real issues.

Posted by: it's vintage, duh at May 13, 2008 08:43 PM

I'm with you, Sean. And not to be selfish, I agree with Von Bek -- it's our election. Butt out.

Chsw:

My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and Iíve repeatedly condemned them. Iíve repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.
-- Barack Obama from this blog post.

Posted by: Shawn at May 13, 2008 10:17 PM

There has been some speculation that Hamas would recognise Israel if given aid.

Wow! You really are dumber than a sack of dirt! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 13, 2008 10:34 PM

Why doesn't the Petain-Obama Doctrine apply to Hamas, which is the governing authority in the Gaza Strip?

BTW, Obama's statement about the Hezbollah-led, Syrian-Iranian coup in Lebanon isn't any more comforting.

Let's Do Lunch

Scroll about halfway down the screen to the paragraph that begins The relative moderates...

Posted by: Gerard at May 13, 2008 10:38 PM

Von Bek,

Not that you could understand the difference, but
1) AIPAC is an American organization.
2) HAMAS is a foreign Islamist Terrorist group.

Your relativism on is o so leftist. You just can't see it.

Posted by: RonL at May 13, 2008 11:35 PM

I'm dumb for suggesting the Ronald Reagan approach: namely, talk to your enemies and by doing same, defeat them. Was Reagan dumb too?

Posted by: bryan at May 14, 2008 03:28 AM

Yeah Ron. The treason of Rosen and Weissman is as American as apple pie. If you insist on putting the flag with the Star of David over the flag with the Stars and Stripes, then get the hell of the USA. These fellow travelers and fifth columnists have the right of return and support the right of return and the odious doctrine of "dual citizenship." We should recognize it and give them the exile they deserve.

Posted by: Von Bek at May 14, 2008 06:17 AM

I'm dumb for suggesting the Ronald Reagan approach: namely, talk to your enemies and by doing same, defeat them.

bryan - you want us to send Ollie North to Hamas with a Bible and a chocolate cake? That didn't work out too well the last time.

Posted by: Mary at May 14, 2008 08:03 AM

Bryan, I swear I'm only indulging this because you're a regular commenter:

Hamas has specifically called for the destruction of Israel every single time it has had a chance. They are not secretive about their position that they will NEVER accept Israel. Giving them "aid" will only fuel more terrorism and make them stronger. Talking to your enemies is one thing. Giving them money so they could kill you or your allies is quite another.

Posted by: Karol at May 14, 2008 11:56 AM

Von Bek,

Weissman and Rosen did not commit treason. They did not help an enemy of the United States in time of War. Nor are they spies for any country.
They passed on a verbal summary of intel they were never given. Neither gave classified documents to Israel. They never even saw such documents; rather they are accused of having passed on information that they had heard by word of mouth that their informants allegedly learned from such documents.

They did nothing that the NY Times and other papers have not done. The only difference is that the NY Times has done worse in order to ensure American defeat.

The prosecution was an effort by the State Department to silence anyone opposing their Islamophillic policies.

Try again.


On the other hand Nada Nadim Prouty helps Hizbullah while working for the FBI and then CIA and she is given a fine of $750.

Posted by: RonL at May 14, 2008 02:46 PM

Ah Ron. Why am I not shocked you are putting the Star of David over the Stars and Stripes, even trying to spin the actions of Rosen and Weissman. Of course it's all the State Department's fault. You are blaming America first instead of putting America first. And you accuse me of being the liberal...

But hey. I mean it's only intelligence they passed off. I mean it's like Julius and Ethel. They only passed off intelligence to the Soviets and we weren't at war with the USSR.....

I eagerly await your defenses of Josephus, Judas Iscariot, Gen. B. Arnold of Connecticut, Pollard, Larry Franklin, Ben-Ami Kadish and Quissling.

Posted by: Von Bek at May 14, 2008 06:14 PM

Von Bek,

Obviously, we are seeing different cases. Rosen and Weissman actually passed on no concrete information but a second-hand summary. Unless you want most American papers held to this standard, it seem sot me taht you only see "Jew and "Israel" and posit guilty.
Comparing them to traitors like the Rosenberg's is obscene.
And where is your defence or aknowledgmenet of the CIA, FBI and State Department's submission to Islam.

"I eagerly await your defenses of Josephus, Judas Iscariot, Gen. B. Arnold of Connecticut, Pollard, Larry Franklin, Ben-Ami Kadish and Quissling."

Josephus surendered to Vespasian and then tried to save as many Jews as possible. No treason.

Judas Iscariot. In so far as he sold out a false prophet, there was no treason. In so far as he was aiding and abetting Roman occupation, he was traitor.

"Gen. B. Arnold of Connecticut",
The leg he lost at Saratoga was that of a Patriot. As for the rest, his name is synonymous with traitor for a reason.

"Pollard"
He is where he belongs. To bad the CIA and FBI tried to pin the treason of Aldrich Ames on Pollard, imagining that he passed on information to which he was not privy, rather than dealing with communist subversion. Blaming the Jew or Israel over looking at the real mess. Just your cup of tea, Von Bek.

"Larry Franklin" passed on classified intelligence regarding near treasonous State Department policy towards Iran. He was rightly prosecuted, but the traitors at Foggy Bottom remain.

"Ben-Ami Kadish" should share a cell with Pollard so long as they both live.

"Quissling" Vidkun Quisling was a pre-invasion fifth columnist, traitor during the invasion of Norway, and occupational governor. His was the worst treason in European history this side of the Eurabia conspiracy, except, perhaps Vortigern of Briton.


Posted by: RonL at May 14, 2008 10:34 PM

Von Bek,

"Why am I not shocked you are putting the Star of David over the Stars and Stripes"
Because you would see anything short of full support for State Department Arabism and Islamophilia as this.


Obviously, we are seeing different cases. Rosen and Weissman actually passed on no concrete information but a second-hand summary. Unless you want most American papers held to this standard, it seem sot me that you only see "Jew and "Israel" and posit guilty.
Comparing them to traitors like the Rosenberg's is obscene.
And where is your defence or aknowledgmenet of the CIA, FBI and State Department's submission to Islam.

"I eagerly await your defenses of Josephus, Judas Iscariot, Gen. B. Arnold of Connecticut, Pollard, Larry Franklin, Ben-Ami Kadish and Quissling."

Josephus surendered to Vespasian and then tried to save as many Jews as possible. No treason.

Judas Iscariot. In so far as he sold out a false prophet, there was no treason. In so far as he was aiding and abetting Roman occupation, he was traitor.

"Gen. B. Arnold of Connecticut",
The leg he lost at Saratoga was that of a Patriot. As for the rest, his name is synonymous with traitor for a reason.

"Pollard"
He is where he belongs. To bad the CIA and FBI tried to pin the treason of Aldrich Ames on Pollard, imagining that he passed on information to which he was not privy, rather than dealing with communist subversion. Blaming the Jew or Israel over looking at the real mess. Just your cup of tea, Von Bek.

"Larry Franklin" passed on classified intelligence regarding near treasonous State Department policy towards Iran. He was rightly prosecuted, but the traitors at Foggy Bottom remain.

"Ben-Ami Kadish" should share a cell with Pollard so long as they both live.

"Quissling" Vidkun Quisling was a pre-invasion fifth columnist, traitor during the invasion of Norway, and occupational governor. His was the worst treason in European history this side of the Eurabia conspiracy, except, perhaps Vortigern of Briton.


Posted by: RonL at May 14, 2008 10:35 PM

Ah Ron you make me laugh. You call the faith that I hold (not to mention the overwhelming majority of our fellow Americans) "false" and yet seem to think I am the one with hate in my heart.

We are seeing the case through different eyes Rosen and Weissman passed on classified information to Israel. Perhaps they don't like most Americans since most of us goyim follow to use your phrase a "false prophet" and that kind of treason is a-ok in your book.

As for supporting Arabs and Islam....uhm no. I think we should have nothing to do with them in general. I don't want my money as an American taxpayer going to Palestine or Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in that part of the world. I think without the foundations of the West, I think any attempts to spread democracy to them are silly despite what the good followers of Woodrow Wilson and Comrade Trotsky over at AEI and the Weekly Standard seem to think.

I actually agree with you on most of the traitors I mention with some exceptions. Jospehus gave intelligence to the Romans not to mention the entire "get my men to kill themselves and I'll be the last one standing and turn myself in" plot.

I am sorry that you feel the need to defend Judas and that you think Jesus was "a false prophet." I say this as someone who honestly hopes for universal salvation/universal reconciliation (though this is more a hope than a belief). It must be galling if you accept the Old Testament idea that God acts in history (such as raising His people up and, when they turn their back on Him, He lowers them-the Red Sea, the Exodus, the rise of Saul and David, the fall of Israel and Judah, the exile in Babylon) and believe Christianity to honor a "false prophet", to see that faith rise, flourish and shape the world while the faith from which it springs sees its Temple fall (hey didn't that "false prophet" talk about that?), its people scattered, its people almost wiped out, its adherents driven out of nations and to have nowhere near the role of shaping the world as its younger offspring.....well if you believe that God acts in such a way, no wonder the likes of Pollard are so bitter. The likes of Pollard would find that he is one of the people of God and God does not seem to have gotten the memo.

Having said that, I generally am loathe to think that God acts in such a way these days despite what the Puritans and way too many Civil War figures say (both North and South-way too many paleocons and neoConfederates seem to think that only the abolitionists thought in such a way when anyone who knows anything about say Stringfellow, John Gordon, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee sees they thought the same thing).

As long as we are on the subject of treason, I remember watching something on WW2 when I was in third grade or so and thinking that Lord Haw Haw was Lord Hee Haw. Part of me still wonders if Roy Clark is a secret Nazi. Maybe if we play "Yesterday when I was Young" backwards we'll really get the scoop on what the hell Rudolf Hess was up to on his flight.

Posted by: Von Bek at May 15, 2008 06:58 PM

Sorry, Karol, I did reply to your post, but I must've messed it up. I said that Carter asked Hamas would they recognise Israel for aid, and they said they would. However, I can understand your scepticism, but McCain said that we should deal with Hamas as well "one way or another". Now, unless we develop cyborg soldiers who don't die or get injured, this is inevitably going to involve diplomacy. Not appeasement, just talk, because Israel is not the Sudetenland, and because the USA will insist that the recognition of Israel is condition number one.
Reagan did this with communism, We did it with the IRA. Isn't it worth a shot?

Posted by: bryan at May 16, 2008 03:56 PM

We would be happy to propose you custom essay writing and supreme outcome about this topic or you even would get stuff about home like a free information.

Posted by: UcOlivia at January 18, 2010 10:05 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?