Obama's first pick: Israeli Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff

[crayon]

A day after his historic election to become the first black American president, Barack Obama stepped into the role of president-elect yesterday, inviting Rahm Emanuel to join his administration as White House chief of staff, Democratic officials said.

Emanuel, a former Bill Clinton adviser, is the son of a Jerusalem-born pediatrician who was a member of the Irgun (Etzel or IZL), a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948.

Obama intends to announce key cabinet and staff staff members in the next few days to ensure a swift transition to the White House in January, which would allow him to deal with the global economic crisis as quickly as possible.

If Emanuel accepts, he will return to the White House, where he served as a political and policy adviser to Clinton. Emanuel is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives as the Democratic Caucus chairman.

Emanuel knows Obama from his hometown Chicago and headed the special team that planned the midterm elections in 2006, in which the Democrats recaptured a Congressional majority.

Emanuel also served as inspiration for the fictional character Joshua "Josh" Lyman, the deputy White House chief of staff, played by Bradley Whitford on the television drama "The West Wing."

...................(deleted boring stuff, if you want to read the whole thing it's in the linked article).....

"Obama is a pro-Israeli leader and will be a friend to Israel," he said, adding that he was pleased with Obama's election. He also said his son is the namesake of Rahamim, a Lehi combatant who was killed.

source

Yup..

[The_Prince]

and thats why i didnt vote, there wont be any change at all, very sad that Muslims will still not learn, one Muslim went as far as questioning whether i was a true Muslim for speaking against Obama!

[IbnAbdulHakim]

it was obvious obama would do these things.

He announced , Clearly, his support for zionists before he was even elected.




man... i wonder how the next few years will pass. THe muslims need to get serious

[Izyan]

So because his dad was a member of Irgun that makess him evil? Do you blame Osama Bin Laden on his father? Emanuel was instrumental with helping Clinton push Israel to accept Oslo Accords.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[crayon]

So because his dad was a member of Irgun that makess him evil? Do you blame Osama Bin Laden on his father? Emanuel was instrumental with helping Clinton push Israel to accept Oslo Accords.

No, it doesn't make him evil. But when it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, do you think the decisions made will be unbiased? It's not like they ever are really, but this is just more reason for Palestinians to get a raw deal out of any agreement.

[MSalman]

As-Salamu 'Alaykum

Where did all the Muslim Obama supporters go?

[The_Prince]

So because his dad was a member of Irgun that makess him evil? Do you blame Osama Bin Laden on his father? Emanuel was instrumental with helping Clinton push Israel to accept Oslo Accords.

i knew you would make this argument. so if the dad doesnt matter then why do ppl keep mentioning obamas grandpa as a great influence on him? if someones grandpa can influence and make you who you are, then what about your own terrorist father?!

notice the lovely double standards by these obamians, its seriously funny aint it? obama is a great man and will know true honor bla bla because hes grandpa was a soldier who fought in ww2. but heyyyyyy when emanuels father was a millitia zionist terrorist noooooooooooo that has nothing to do with the son and has no affect at all nahhhhhhhhhhhh noooooooo pshhhhhhhhh.

number 2 this emmanuel terrorist served in the IDF, and is a pro zionist, and very close with AIPAC, newspapers in Israel were claiming he was their man in the white house, Israel in the white house.

[Cabdullahi]

Some muslims were going as far as crying emotionally near the election for obama as if he was finally going to put an end to the oppression and uplift the muslim ummah? just two days into the process of becoming the next president he picks a zionist...COME ON! WE ARE TOO GULLIBLE 'change...yes we can' is another of the many slogans used to win the presidency and after that 'change' disappears and its back to the same old same

[aamirsaab]

As-Salamu 'Alaykum

Where did all the Muslim Obama supporters go?

I only ''supported'' him because he's:
A) African-american
B) Not McCain!

In all fairness, McCain would have been the same if not worse - so it didn't matter much; it was a no-brainer to start with: both are going to continue funding and support Israel, one's just an african american democrat and the other is a caucasian republican.

Also, it is the US we are talking about - they've been funding and supporting Israel for a very long time; one election isn't going to sway them from it, especially considering that if any candidates were to suggest such an action, they'd be branded as a terrorist sympathiser (the media would completely destroy them) - not exactly going to pull in the votes now is it?

P.s; I didn't vote - I live in England, not America :D

[Yanal]

:sl:
Before I give my opinion I tell you I live in Canada. And am to young to vote by 2yrs (14). What do you mean? Obama is the president that you all elected. Mcains worse so be proud that Obama won.

[Woodrow]

The "White House chief of staff" is an interesting posistion, not every President has selected one and it is not a required office to be filled.

Under some presidents it became a very powerful posistion and under others it was more like a head Butler running the household staff, such as the maids, cooks, gardeners and chauffeurs. Until 1946 the job was primarily to be the President's personal secritary. Sort of like a book keeper and running to mundane necessary routine matters like planning dinners, keeping notes, sending out invitations etc.

I wonder what Obama has in mind.

This can be a significant appointment or it can be no more then the hiring of a butler. Depends on what happens and how much power Obama delegates to Israeli Rahm Emanuel.

Today the basic duties of "White House Chief of Staff" seem to be:

History

The difficult duties of the White House Chief of Staff vary greatly from one administration to another. However, the chief of staff has been responsible for overseeing the actions of the White House staff, managing the president's schedule, and deciding who is allowed to meet with the president. Because of these duties, the Chief of Staff has at various times been dubbed "The Gatekeeper" and "The Co-President".

Originally, the duties now performed by the Chief of Staff belonged to the Secretary to the President. In 1946, in response to the rapid growth of the U.S. government's executive branch, the position of Assistant to the President of the United States was established, and charged with the affairs of the White House. In 1961, the president's pre-eminent assistant was designated White House Chief of Staff. "Assistant to the President" became a rank generally shared by the Chief of Staff with such senior aides as Deputy Chiefs of Staff, the White House Counsel, the White House Press Secretary, and others. Prior to the creation of this post, the Chief of Staff's job title was traditionally Appointments Secretary, as with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's aide Edwin "Pa" Watson.

Not every president has had a formal Chief of Staff (e.g., John F. Kennedy did not). Because of the stressful and demanding nature of the job, the average term-of-service for a White House Chief of Staff is a little under 2.5 years. John R. Steelman, under Harry S. Truman, was the last Chief of Staff to serve for an entire presidential administration. Steelman also holds the record for longest-serving Chief of Staff (6 years). Andrew Card and Sherman Adams tie for second-longest (5 years each).

Most White House Chiefs of Staff are former politicians, and many continue their political careers in other senior roles. Richard Nixon's Chief of Staff Alexander Haig became Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan. Gerald Ford's Chief of Staff Dick Cheney became a U.S. Representative for Wyoming, Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush and vice president under George W. Bush. Donald Rumsfeld was another Chief of Staff for the Ford administration and subsequently served as Secretary of Defense in the Ford administration and decades later in the George W. Bush administration.

Job duties

The roles of the Chief of Staff are both managerial and advisory and can include the following duties, depending on the President's style of conducting business:[4]

Managerial

* Select key White House staff and supervise them
* Structure the White House staff system
* Control the flow of people into the Oval Office
* Manage the flow of information

Advisory

* Advise the President on issues of politics, policy and management issues
* Protect the interests of the President
* Negotiate with Congress, other members of the executive branch, and extragovernmental political groups to implement the President's agenda

Some, have suggested that a powerful Chief of Staff with a "hands-off" president (who decides not to become involved in the minutiæ of government), can become a de facto prime minister. Such prime ministers exist in some governmental systems, such as France's and Russia's: The prime minister runs the government (operations-wise), while the president remains somewhat aloof from the political process, but personally handling policy matters. Under Ronald Reagan, Donald Regan was seen by many as a prime minister-style Chief of Staff following James Baker. Howard Baker, who succeeded Regan, was critical of this system and what is sometimes known as the "Imperial Presidency."

By contrast, Andrew Card, President George W. Bush's first Chief of Staff, was not regarded as being as powerful. Some have speculated that this was due to Card being "overshadowed" by the influence of Karl Rove, the Senior Adviser and Deputy Chief of Staff who was "the architect" of Bush's political rise. Similarly, President Bill Clinton's Chiefs of Staff were not particularly powerful. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Chief_of_Staff

The bottom line is we do not know the significance or lack of significance this appointment will have untill after Obama assumes office on Jan. 20th, if he assumes it then, under Federal Law he has until mid March to assume the office. In recent years mid January has been most common.

Also keep in mind that everybody the prez selects for his staff and cabinet needs to be approved by congress. This will be a time to see just how much congressional approval Obama has and how much influence he will actually have over policy.

[Khalil_Allah]

when I saw this, I cringed, but I knew it was coming. From what I understand Obama is a huge AIPAC guy, but you have to be get anywhere in politics in the US. If you are even remotely against any israeli policy, then you get pummeled.

I didn't even bother to register to vote because I think it's all a joke. I began to get politically conscious through the BUSH years, and when you're learning about democracy and philosophy and politics through those years, then you just kind of realize that it's all a big scam.

Any way, I wish the best for this world now that Obama has won. It seems like the world is sort of happy about it.

[Keltoi]

Rahm Emanuel also sat on the board of directors of Freddie Mac. Not a good connection there.

From what is known of Emanuel it is assumed he will have a large role in formulating policy and getting things done at the legislative level. He is known as "Rahmbo" in Washington circles.

[Chuck]

I didn't even bother to register to vote because I think it's all a joke. I began to get politically conscious through the BUSH years, and when you're learning about democracy and philosophy and politics through those years, then you just kind of realize that it's all a big scam.

Could have helped Ron Paul, pushed his popularity higher in the polls? I was disappointed when was out of the race.

[YusufNoor]

The "White House chief of staff" is an interesting posistion, not every President has selected one and it is not a required office to be filled.

Under some presidents it became a very powerful posistion and under others it was more like a head Butler running the household staff, such as the maids, cooks, gardeners and chauffeurs. Until 1946 the job was primarily to be the President's personal secritary. Sort of like a book keeper and running to mundane necessary routine matters like planning dinners, keeping notes, sending out invitations etc.

I wonder what Obama has in mind.

This can be a significant appointment or it can be no more then the hiring of a butler. Depends on what happens and how much power Obama delegates to Israeli Rahm Emanuel.

Today the basic duties of "White House Chief of Staff" seem to be:



The bottom line is we do not know the significance or lack of significance this appointment will have untill after Obama assumes office on Jan. 20th, if he assumes it then, under Federal Law he has until mid March to assume the office. In recent years mid January has been most common.

Also keep in mind that everybody the prez selects for his staff and cabinet needs to be approved by congress. This will be a time to see just how much congressional approval Obama has and how much influence he will actually have over policy.

:sl:

got this from Sheikh Imran this morning:

re:US Election and the transfer of power

Assalaamu \'alaikum!

The financial/monetary summit which is now being arranged is certainly linked to Dajjal\'s phase three. [to wit: transfer of US power to Israel]

It is through a study of events which led to the passage from Dajjal\'s phase one to phase two that we can anticipate and recognize events now unfolding, and soon to unfold in the historical process, which would indicate the passage to phase three. [to wit: transfer of US power to Israel]

We have long anticipated that the creation of a new international monetary system to replace the tottering Bretton Woods Accord would be precisely such a sign.

We must now look carefully to seek to recognize what is still carefully concealed evidence that would confirm the transfer of the world\'s financial capital from Washington to Jerusalem. [<<Phase three]

We must also anticipate that great wars would also erupt in which Israel would display its military superiority over the rest of the world - including UK and USA.

Not only does Obama\'s election as US President now \'whitewash\' a terribly-soiled US image in the world, but it also allows the cabal to exploit his committment to widen the war in Afghanistan to their advantage. It is therefore a black/Obama administration that would be led by the nose to attack Pakistan\'s nuclear facilities (perhaps in concert with an Indian attack on Pakistan) while Israel exploits the opportunity to simultaneously attack Iran\'s nuclear plants. The immediate result of such a war would be the astronomical rise in the price of both oil and gold and the consequent total collapse of the US dollar and the US economy in such wise as would cripple the Democratic Party for decades to come.

John McCain\'s concession speech indicates that he (as well as the leadership of the Republicam Party) are well aware that they have led Obama/Afro-America/the Democratic Party down a path to be sacrificed and slaughtered as a cow. Obama and the Afro-Americans have displayed complete innocence of the fact that they could never have succeeded unless the white cabal had made the choice to have a black man elected as President.

It was not by accident that the present phase of the financial meltdown commenced in early September and immediately impacted on the contest for the White House in a manner that eventually assured victory for Obama. [meh, and i thought it was not by accident that Palin was chosen to lose the election for McCain]

Imran N Hosein

for those unfamiliar with Imran's ROSY scenario: Phase one, a day that is like a year, was Britain as a world power.

Phase two, a day that is like a month, is the US assuming world dominance.

Phase three, a day that is like a week, is Israel becoming the dominant world force.

Phase four is the Dajjal entering our time/dimension as the ruler of Israel and godlike figure to be deemed the Messiah by Christians and Jews, while Muslims will recognize him a what he is, the Anti-Christ!

food for thought,

:w:

[AvarAllahNoor]

Give him a chance before you unsheath your swords. I'm sure he'll be encouraging peaceful means, as apposed to attack.

[Amadeus85]

I think that there are certain american interests that won't change no matter if there is republican or democrate in the White House. Hillary Clinton was a military hawk, her husband sent us troops to Kosovo and Bosnia, another democrate JFK intensified combats in Vietnam. Im pretty sure that AL Gore would invade Afghanistan as well. This is the consensus of american interests that U.S citizens accept.

[Sahabiyaat]

Does anyone watch the pakistani news? (i am forced to when remote is in the custody of dad) , their gullibility was laughable., pakistanis were actually saying obama was going to help pakistan by eliminating terrorism, and creating global peace!!!!!, therefore they were happy if he were to be elected!!

[abdullah_001]

:sl:

I thought Muslims were voting for Ron Paul? At least I would have voted for Ron Paul except that it is very clear there is no way he would have won anyway.

And Obama is an apostate... why would any Muslim vote for an apostate in the first place?

[Keltoi]

:sl:

I thought Muslims were voting for Ron Paul? At least I would have voted for Ron Paul except that it is very clear there is no way he would have won anyway.

And Obama is an apostate... why would any Muslim vote for an apostate in the first place?

Obama isn't Muslim. Obama was never Muslim.

[abdullah_001]

Obama isn't Muslim. Obama was never Muslim.

I was pretty sure I read somewhere that hes an apostate, which if he isn't then I apologize.

Even then though Ron Paul was much better than both Obama or Mccain in my opinion.

[KAding]

Well, in his defense it does say the following on wikipedia about him:

One of his proudest moments during the Clinton administration "was an event that touched his political sensibilities and his personal ties to Israel: the 1993 Rose Garden signing ceremony after the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization ("PLO"). Emanuel directed the details of the ceremony, down to the choreography of the famous handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasser Arafat."[7]

[KAding]

Obama isn't Muslim. Obama was never Muslim.

His father was born in a Muslim family. Maybe that matters to Muslims? Since Islam is sometimes seen as something you inherit, not something you choose for? His father was thus definitely an apostate, what does that mean for his children?

[Keltoi]

His father was born in a Muslim family. Maybe that matters to Muslims? Since Islam is sometimes seen as something you inherit, not something you choose for? His father was thus definitely an apostate, what does that mean for his children?

I'm not sure about how that is viewed in the Islamic prism, but Obama himself was never a Muslim. I don't think he even "had" religion until he joined the Chicago political machine, where associations with people like Jeremiah Wright were important.

[Intisar]

Obama isn't Muslim. Obama was never Muslim.

Exactly, his father was a Muslim, and left the deen of Islam to become an atheist.

I only ''supported'' him because he's:
A) African-american

That's a pretty shallow reason to vote for somebody, because they're African-American? I mean, I'm black too and I didn't vote for him because of that reason. I mean, it's nice that someone like him was/is able to become the most powerful person in the world, but being of a certain race should not come into play when voting somebody to be the head of state.

Also, he's not an ''African-American'' like the ones who's ancestors that were here 300 or so years ago. He knows where he's from in Africa, and he's a first generation American. He's African, yes half Kenyati like moi, but he's not an ''African American''. I just wanted to clear that up. :)

[doorster]

Geez Louise! I can't believe my eyes!!

[BlissfullyJaded]

:sl:

^ Well, he's African and American. :p I think some don't want to refer to him as "black" cuz that comes off as rude to some. :)

Back on topic, totally expected this!

[Intisar]

Yeah, well he is African and he is American, well so I am...but he's not the classic example of one if you understand what I'm saying.

An African-American is a fairly new term used to describe blacks who's ancestors were forcefully brought over from Africa as slaves. What I'm trying to say is, he knows where's from in Africa, African-Americans don't because they've been here for more than 300 years.

Black is not rude, imo, they actually used to call them ''negros'', until Jesse Jackson popularized the term ''African-American''. The term ''African-American'' used to be an insult back in the day, they were referred to and liked to be called ''black American''.

Back to the topic at hand, his becoming president is an inspiration to many.

[Keltoi]

Yeah, well he is African and he is American, well so I am...but he's not the classic example of one if you understand what I'm saying.

An African-American is a fairly new term used to describe blacks who's ancestors were forcefully brought over from Africa as slaves. What I'm trying to say is, he knows where's from in Africa, African-Americans don't because they've been here for more than 300 years.

Black is not rude, imo, they actually used to call them ''negros'', until Jesse Jackson popularized the term ''African-American''. The term ''African-American'' used to be an insult back in the day, they were referred to and liked to be called ''black American''.

Back to the topic at hand, his becoming president is an inspiration to many.

You make a fairly important point there. Barak Obama has very little in common with the bulk of the black population in the U.S., besides skin pigment. That didn't seem to make a difference as black Americans voted for Obama by a 97% to 3% margin.

[maryam87]

His father was born in a Muslim family. Maybe that matters to Muslims? Since Islam is sometimes seen as something you inherit, not something you choose for? His father was thus definitely an apostate, what does that mean for his children?

LOL Islam is not something we inherit from our family. Basically we believe everyone was born a muslim whatever religious background ur parents are from. Then basically when ur older u could choose to stay as a muslim or believe in what u like :thumbs_up

[Liberty]

Also, he's not an ''African-American'' like the ones who's ancestors that were here 300 or so years ago. He knows where he's from in Africa, and he's a first generation American. He's African, yes half Kenyati like moi, but he's not an ''African American''. I just wanted to clear that up. :)

Don't forget, he's half white, a fact which I'm sure was played up to reassure red neck America.

& I hope Obama doesn't disappoint.
We've high expectations of him.
I mean I know it can't happen overnight but a change such as this can only bring good things...for the most part at least.

[KAding]

LOL Islam is not something we inherit from our family. Basically we believe everyone was born a muslim whatever religious background ur parents are from. Then basically when ur older u could choose to stay as a muslim or believe in what u like :thumbs_up

I'm glad to hear that. Though, I don't think that is a majority opinion among Islamic scholars?

[Keltoi]

Don't forget, he's half white, a fact which I'm sure was played up to reassure red neck America.

Race wasn't made an issue at any point in the campaign. From either side.

[north_malaysian]

they actually used to call them ''negros'',

We still use that word in Malaysian language, because of Portuguese influence..

But the media stopped using that word and replaced it with:

1) Orang Kulit Hitam Amerika (Black skin American)
2) Orang Afrika Amerika (African-American)

[Intisar]

Don't forget, he's half white, a fact which I'm sure was played up to reassure red neck America.

& I hope Obama doesn't disappoint.
We've high expectations of him.
I mean I know it can't happen overnight but a change such as this can only bring good things...for the most part at least.

He's black. In America it's called the ''one drop rule'', one drop of black blood and you're black.

Red neck America is racist, so why would they vote for him if they're racist?

[BlissfullyJaded]

:sl:

Why does the race / Islam thing have to always take precedence? I thought the topic is...Rahm Emanuel as the pick. :?

[nocturnal]

So because his dad was a member of Irgun that makess him evil? Do you blame Osama Bin Laden on his father? Emanuel was instrumental with helping Clinton push Israel to accept Oslo Accords.

The Oslo accords would have left the Palestinians will the remnants of what would be a totally fragmentized Palestinian "state". Look at the small print of what the Oslo accords would encompass.

[nocturnal]

By his own admission, Emanuel's father has greatly shaped his political ideology and outlook. That tells you what you need to know about this man, nothwithstanding his active links to AIPAC and other hardliners in the israeli administration.

His father was a militant in the Irgun, this is an organization about as abominable as the Interahamwe of Rwanda during the genocide, or the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia. People talk about his links to folks like Khalid Rashidi, but that is clearly tangential as recent events have corroborated. Obama wants to focus on the economy, and in effect has dropped the international affairs portfolio on the desk of Emanuel. This is about as hawkish an appointment as some of the leading appointments in the Bush administration.

[Keltoi]

By his own admission, Emanuel's father has greatly shaped his political ideology and outlook. That tells you what you need to know about this man, nothwithstanding his active links to AIPAC and other hardliners in the israeli administration.

His father was a militant in the Irgun, this is an organization about as abominable as the Interahamwe of Rwanda during the genocide, or the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia. People talk about his links to folks like Khalid Rashidi, but that is clearly tangential as recent events have corroborated. Obama wants to focus on the economy, and in effect has dropped the international affairs portfolio on the desk of Emanuel. This is about as hawkish an appointment as some of the leading appointments in the Bush administration.

Obama didn't drop international affairs to Emanuel. He hasn't picked the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense. If you want to know who will play a large role in foreign affairs I would look at Joe Biden. Emanuel is the White House Chief-of-Staff, which is important, but not so much in the arena of foreign policy.

[wth1257]

No, it doesn't make him evil. But when it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, do you think the decisions made will be unbiased? It's not like they ever are really, but this is just more reason for Palestinians to get a raw deal out of any agreement.

It could be, but Obama's past suggusts he is likely to be much more sympathatic to the Palistinian side that pevious presidents. His church was big on that and he had ties with people who would be more sympathatic. Ron Emmanuel is not the Sec. of State or Defense. He's been put where he is to get things done. A lot of democrates owe him favors and he can help Obama get close bills pushed through.

Unfortunatly you can't just be neutral on Israel, you have to be a cheerleader. Of course, ironically enough, this means that some of the harshest critics of Israeli policy are American Jews. Acadamics like Chomsky and Finklestein, and comedians like Stewart
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...ndecision-5768

[suffiyan007]

politics are making people insane...so better dont vote anyone!:thumbs_up

[sudais1]

So because his dad was a member of Irgun that makess him evil? Do you blame Osama Bin Laden on his father? Emanuel was instrumental with helping Clinton push Israel to accept Oslo Accords.

What did Oslo accomplish?

The Palestinians are in the same situation if not worse. Never shall Israel accept a peace treaty as they continue to build settlements in which they shall soon claim that they cannot just remove all the jews living there. No worries, Us Muslims are very strong willed people and we have waited longer during the Crusade period for the liberation and unity of Muslims. Then came Saladin who expelled the Christians and united the Muslims into the strongest force in the world. Soon Israel will exist only in the books of history and artifacts

[doorster]

What did Oslo accomplish?

The Palestinians are in the same situation if not worse. Never shall Israel accept a peace treaty as they continue to build settlements in which they shall soon claim that they cannot just remove all the jews living there. No worries, Us Muslims are very strong willed people and we have waited longer during the Crusade period for the liberation and unity of Muslims. Then came Saladin who expelled the Christians and united the Muslims into the strongest force in the world. Soon Israel will exist only in the books of history and artifacts

did Saladin not have the Druze fighting for him (and Jews were not against him either as far as I know both of them despise the current versions of Muslims)?

[nocturnal]

Obama didn't drop international affairs to Emanuel. He hasn't picked the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense. If you want to know who will play a large role in foreign affairs I would look at Joe Biden. Emanuel is the White House Chief-of-Staff, which is important, but not so much in the arena of foreign policy.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the role of White House chief of staff. The Secretary of State and Defense Secretary are tasked with executing foreign policy as crafted by Obama and his advisers in the Oval Office. Rahm Emanuel is key among them, and by virtue of that, he has a direct say on foreign policy.

The secetary of state is there to reiterate government policy to different people in different parts of the world on different issues.

[Gator]

Hi there.

I disagree with you here. The CoS is not going to have a direct say on foreign policy. He may have some input in the process, but there are other senior advisors who will have more sway. The SoS is not just an order taker and will most likely have a much greater role.

Thanks.

[Keltoi]

This is a gross misrepresentation of the role of White House chief of staff. The Secretary of State and Defense Secretary are tasked with executing foreign policy as crafted by Obama and his advisers in the Oval Office. Rahm Emanuel is key among them, and by virtue of that, he has a direct say on foreign policy.

The secetary of state is there to reiterate government policy to different people in different parts of the world on different issues.

I'm not sure where you heard that, but it isn't the case. Rahm Emanuel is the guy who manages day to day White House business. Emanuel will manage the staff, as the name implies, and manage the president's schedule and access to members of Congress.

[nocturnal]

I'm not sure where you heard that, but it isn't the case. Rahm Emanuel is the guy who manages day to day White House business. Emanuel will manage the staff, as the name implies, and manage the president's schedule and access to members of Congress.

The guy is responsible for passing through legislation in congress, he has a reputation for being a bit of a political bruiser. Apart from cheif of staff, read the reasons as to why he was assigned the post. He's been taken on board also to play the dual role of adviser to the president, one of many, but a key strategic adviser nonetheless. There's no point deliberating over the precise remit this guy has when it's obvious to all and also stated by Obama himself that his role extends well beyond "day to day white house business". He's effectively been conferred political carte blanche from the president elect.

[Keltoi]

The guy is responsible for passing through legislation in congress, he has a reputation for being a bit of a political bruiser. Apart from cheif of staff, read the reasons as to why he was assigned the post. He's been taken on board also to play the dual role of adviser to the president, one of many, but a key strategic adviser nonetheless. There's no point deliberating over the precise remit this guy has when it's obvious to all and also stated by Obama himself that his role extends well beyond "day to day white house business". He's effectively been conferred political carte blanche from the president elect.

All that is much different than being responsible for formulating foreign policy, which Emanuel will not do. That isn't his area.

[aadil77]

Does anyone watch the pakistani news? (i am forced to when remote is in the custody of dad) , their gullibility was laughable., pakistanis were actually saying obama was going to help pakistan by eliminating terrorism, and creating global peace!!!!!, therefore they were happy if he were to be elected!!

Yeah they seriously piss me off, every time they mention his name they quote Barack "Hussain" Obama!! Like he's some kind of muslim miracle worker, elected to bring an end to the ummahs problems

backwards idiots, lets see what they say when they get screwed over by him

[Chuck]

Yeah they seriously piss me off, every time they mention his name they quote Barack "Hussain" Obama!! Like he's some kind of muslim miracle worker, elected to bring an end to the ummahs problems

backwards idiots, lets see what they say when they get screwed over by him

They are getting screwed by themselves that is the reason they are diverting pk public to Obama. A country whose leaders are strong and effective they don't look somewhere else.

[nocturnal]

All that is much different than being responsible for formulating foreign policy, which Emanuel will not do. That isn't his area.

He won't formulate it arbitrarily yes, but to suggest definitively that he won't even have a say in it's formulation is wrong.

[Keltoi]

He won't formulate it arbitrarily yes, but to suggest definitively that he won't even have a say in it's formulation is wrong.

Rahm is not a foreign policy minded individual, and that is not why Obama wanted him as chief-of-staff. I don't see him playing any role in formulating foreign policy, but time will tell.

[nocturnal]

Rahm is not a foreign policy minded individual, and that is not why Obama wanted him as chief-of-staff. I don't see him playing any role in formulating foreign policy, but time will tell.

Time will tell, but looking at it in a dispassionate way, if events transpire in the occupied territories and Obama is forced to seek counsel from his advisers, surely you don't expect an outspoken vehement pro-israeli not to take part in discussions about how to deal with such contingencies.

[Keltoi]

Time will tell, but looking at it in a dispassionate way, if events transpire in the occupied territories and Obama is forced to seek counsel from his advisers, surely you don't expect an outspoken vehement pro-israeli not to take part in discussions about how to deal with such contingencies.

Rahm is hardly the only pro-Israel voice in the U.S. government. The vast majority of the government and the American people support Israel.

[nocturnal]

Rahm is hardly the only pro-Israel voice in the U.S. government. The vast majority of the government and the American people support Israel.

True he's not the only one, but his overt association with pro-israeli lobbyists and other aspects of his family history, single him out as someone who will be an integral part of any discussion on israel, iran, lebanon etc and other broader regional issues.

[nocturnal]

By the way, i don't believe that vast majority of the American people support israel. Perhaps in the sense of one nation supporting another, but i think those who are not aware of the histroy of the region, the realities of occupation, the horrors of israel's crimes against the Palestinian people, it's repeated violations of international law etc will adopt very different views of israel, if this were presented to them in an objective manner in the mainstream US media.

[Keltoi]

By the way, i don't believe that vast majority of the American people support israel. Perhaps in the sense of one nation supporting another, but i think those who are not aware of the histroy of the region, the realities of occupation, the horrors of israel's crimes against the Palestinian people, it's repeated violations of international law etc will adopt very different views of israel, if this were presented to them in an objective manner in the mainstream US media.

That might be true if the enemies of Israel weren't so closely linked to the enemies of the United States.

[nocturnal]

That might be true if the enemies of Israel weren't so closely linked to the enemies of the United States.

It doesn't have to be the case. If the nature of israel's strategic relationship with the US is imparted in earnest to the american electorate, we would hear greater calls for reform of foreign policy.

I think the manner in which the "war on terror" was presented in the american media, portrayed the US and it's key client regime of israel as being vicitimized by a vast international syndicate of fanatical zealots who were bent on wreaking havoc on the US and it's allies. This perverted people's judgment about who is cuplable for the international crisis and fomenting a climate of global antagonism that utlimately culminated in the inception of Al Qa'ida. The root of the issue has always been US foreign policy, and the uncondtional support it extends to israel. Unless the inimical effects of such dangerous policies are communicated to the american electorate, and not the opposite, in which the oppressed are portrayed as the aggressors, then only can we have a change in attitude towards israel in the US.

[Gator]

Hi.

The root of the issue has always been ...

The way the Palestinian suckers (population & terrorists) have allowed israel to justify their brutal occupation. If the palestinians wanted the American electorate to change their views, then they would stop the implicit support of the uncivilized and brutal tactics of the small fanatical portion of their population. Every missile lobbed, every suicide boming is a justification for Israel to continue their horrific acts.

No one loves a beat up underdog more than the American people. Unfortunately, the true situation of the Palestinian people continues to be obscured by the actions of a crazed few.

Thank you.

(Palestinians - Worst marketing job ever.)

[جوري]

people are allowed to defend their country by whatever means-- it is really not subject to criticism..
the Amero-Israeli relationship is nothing more than two delusions.. one fundy group thinks once they establish the colonial settler state of Israel, a republican Jesus will descend down on a silver cloud and start a rapture, and the other fools think by establishing their colonial secular state, and digging beneath al Aqsa to build their so-called third temple will hasten the coming of their moshciach .. neither really cares for the casualties in their path (muslims tend to be thought of as non-human)....

a great majority of Americans are just ignorant fools ready to imbue whatever the media dishes out to them, a little patriotism a little flag selling is always good for business until it hits them below the belt and it is actually starting to with current economic crisis, and loss of jobs, perhaps then they can wake up and see where their social security money/ health care money is being funneled to and for what purpose before they show that unwavering allegiance to folks who actually despise them, although I dare say the mockery goes both ways.. but it is the average man in the US that bleeds money for biblical nonsense! and the Average man in palestine that bleeds his life in defense of what is rightfully his!

the best you can do is spectate.. it is a matter of time.. injustice, like debt and corruption has a way of falling on the instigator's head and breaking his neck!

[Keltoi]

It doesn't have to be the case. If the nature of israel's strategic relationship with the US is imparted in earnest to the american electorate, we would hear greater calls for reform of foreign policy.

What change in foreign policy? Are you referring to the U.S./Israeli military partnership? That isn't going to change. The American electorate, those that care about Israel one way or the other, see a democracy in a sea of enemies. Rightly or wrongly, that is the perception. As Gator mentioned, every suicide bomb and rocket directed towards the civilian population of Israel is another nail in the coffin of any sympathy that might exist for the plight of the Palestinian people.

I think the manner in which the "war on terror" was presented in the american media, portrayed the US and it's key client regime of israel as being vicitimized by a vast international syndicate of fanatical zealots who were bent on wreaking havoc on the US and it's allies. This perverted people's judgment about who is cuplable for the international crisis and fomenting a climate of global antagonism that utlimately culminated in the inception of Al Qa'ida. The root of the issue has always been US foreign policy, and the uncondtional support it extends to israel. Unless the inimical effects of such dangerous policies are communicated to the american electorate, and not the opposite, in which the oppressed are portrayed as the aggressors, then only can we have a change in attitude towards israel in the US.

Nice recitation of Al-Qaeda propoganda. No country, U.S. or otherwise, should change foreign policy due to the justifications put forth by a terrorist group. The Palestinians are "portrayed" by what they do. By "they" I am obviously referring to Hamas, which was actually elected to represent the Palestinian people.

[جوري]

Israelis are also portrayed and known to the rest of thinking and discerning world by their terrorist past and present (haganah,irgun, stern gang).. the ones that the media repeatedly fails to mention... enjoy your 'ally' in a sea of 'enemies' the next bombing of the likes of SS liberty or the King David hotel...

still I say a neo con Jesus won't descend on a silver cloud to save bible thumpers, anymore than a moschiach will show for Israel.. two places joined in delusions.. at the price of the average individual's tax money.. Hope folks contemplate that when they find themselves standing in bread lines.. which judging from the repeated cock-and-bull stories peddled repeatedly by media w hores should be pretty soon!

enjoy!

[nocturnal]

Thats the point im making, persons like yourself are susceptible enough to fall for the selective news content that emanates from the region is carefully regulated by US media to portray the israelis as being tormented by rockets from Gaza and suicide bombers and declarations of jihad etc. But what you don't see is the actions perpetrated by the israelis against the Palestinians, the uprooting of the civilians from their homes, the destruction of of their lands which they utilize for subsistence, incessant bulldozing of every piece of infrastructure, recurring incursions. They don't tell you about repeated offers for a treaty from Hamas, which under american tutelage, israel rejects.

That's the single biggest problem, every time i cite facts that substantiate the claims of subjugation, oppression and persecution, you dismiss it nonchalantly as being nothing more than a piece of Al Qai'ida inspired oratory.

[Gator]

Thats the point im making, persons like yourself are susceptible enough to fall for the selective news content that emanates from the region is carefully regulated by US media to portray the israelis as being tormented by rockets from Gaza and suicide bombers and declarations of jihad etc..

You are not getting the point. We understand that the effective violence is against the Palestinians. All you have to do is look at the body counts. But its not the level of violence, its just the fact that terror attacks happen and justifies Israel's actions. I believe, the so called resistence is counter to a goal of a Palestinian state.

But what you don't see is the actions perpetrated by the israelis against the Palestinians, the uprooting of the civilians from their homes, the destruction of of their lands which they utilize for subsistence, incessant bulldozing of every piece of infrastructure, recurring incursions.

Yes we've seen them, but they are given a pro-Israeli context neatly provided by "Le Resistance".

They don't tell you about repeated offers for a treaty from Hamas, which under american tutelage, israel rejects.

Rejects because they knowingly put forth as non-viable. Hamas has reject peace entreaties as well, just because they know they get their strength from a confrontational approach to Israel. That fact that you would bring this up just tells me how naive you are to propaganda.

That's the single biggest problem, every time i cite facts that substantiate the claims of subjugation, oppression and persecution, you dismiss it nonchalantly as being nothing more than a piece of Al Qai'ida inspired oratory.

Because your delivery, blindness to the weakness of the argument of terror/resistance and taking as fact your sides propaganda (just as you think we do) destroys your credibility.

Consider the news based on the video taping of the Jewish settlers beating Palestinians. That was effective because it caught the unjust context of the Palestinians condition. I think from that incident, there started a broader feeling against the Jewish settlers especially the wildcat ones, especially amongst the news media.

They are now creeping up as one of the major roadblocks to peace rather than just the Palestinian terroists. Thats what they need to do to set the stage for a peace plan based on '67 borders.

[sudais1]

You are not getting the point. We understand that the effective violence is against the Palestinians. All you have to do is look at the body counts. But its not the level of violence, its just the fact that terror attacks happen and justifies Israel's actions. I believe, the so called resistence is counter to a goal of a Palestinian state.

Yes we've seen them, but they are given a pro-Israeli context neatly provided by "Le Resistance".

Rejects because they knowingly put forth as non-viable. Hamas has reject peace entreaties as well, just because they know they get their strength from a confrontational approach to Israel. That fact that you would bring this up just tells me how naive you are to propaganda.

Because your delivery, blindness to the weakness of the argument of terror/resistance and taking as fact your sides propaganda (just as you think we do) destroys your credibility.

Consider the news based on the video taping of the Jewish settlers beating Palestinians. That was effective because it caught the unjust context of the Palestinians condition. I think from that incident, there started a broader feeling against the Jewish settlers especially the wildcat ones, especially amongst the news media.

They are now creeping up as one of the major roadblocks to peace rather than just the Palestinian terroists. Thats what they need to do to set the stage for a peace plan based on '67 borders.

we'll never accept peace...over 1967 borders...never. Once the mujahideen overrun Iraq which is not far off, Afghanistan also not far off, and somalia by the new year most likely, then much of the Muslim world, you know who's next? Our brothers in Palestine won't weep much longer. The west has provided no solutions over 60 years and Israel don't want peace because they want to take all of Palestine and build their temple...never will that happen.

[Gator]

we'll never accept peace...over 1967 borders...never. Once the mujahideen overrun Iraq which is not far off, Afghanistan also not far off, and somalia by the new year most likely, ....

LOL!!!! OK, good luck with that.

[Trumble]

we'll never accept peace...over 1967 borders...never.

I'm not quite sure who "we" is supposed to be but the vast majority of real Palestinians would take a settlement based on the 1967 borders like a shot. Not that the Israelis are offering it, of course.

[nocturnal]

Hamas don't derive their strength from a confrontational posture towards Israel. They didn't win a landslide victory against the venal Fatah in 2006 by being confrontational. That's just an absurd over-simplification of the whole issue. They were mandated by the Palestinian people because of their unwavering conviction in the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and for those who were expelled to return to their homeland.

You say resistance is counter-productive to the establishment of a Palestinian state, what do you want? for the entrie populace to place their trust in the likes of Mahmood Abbas and his cronies who are willing to make astonishing concessions to the israelis without obtaining even the most elementary rights of survival for the besieged Palestinians?

Abandoning the resistance equates to abandoning their rights as a nation that was displaced to facilitate an incoming popluation. That is what it means, and Hamas is cognizant of that, that is why they can never relinquish the right to resist the occupation. Hamas has not rejected peace entreaties, quite the contrary, they themselves have called for ceasefires based on principles widely acceptable to the international community. To call for an end of the seige, the right to return of Palestinians, the dismantling of settlements which are a flagrant violation of Palestinan rights? is that so pernicious that they should be shunned and their legitimacy as the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinain people repudiated by israel and it's american benefactor?

It is you who is naive by suggesting that the resistance somehow perversely vindicates the murderous israeli acts against the Palestinians. Oppression justifies resistance. Look at history, every contemporary nation-state that was subjugated and brutalized under the yoke of imperialism won their independence through resistance and armed struggle. If the ANC in South Africa didn't resort to mobilizing forces to engage in armed struggle, then do you suppose the ruling elite in the Apartheid government would simply cede the nation right at the apex of their rule when they had every means to repress the masses at their disposal?

This same scenario has been repeated the world over, and the problem is, folks like yourself don't see apply this same context to the middle east problem. You must recognize this for what it is, an imperalistic enterprise that has endured over 60 years with unabashed western backing and must be brought to an end.

Let me also assert here that, i don't for one second condone suicide bombings, or the launching of rockets into major civlian population centers. But i do supprt the resistance in a broader context, in it's right to resist the attempts to ethnically clease every facet of Palestinian life.

[fouzie]

I have known this for long, no matter who will win the election, there will be the same..

__________________
Khalid Yasin - Islam And America
Khalid Yasin - Islam VS Terrorism

[Gator]

Let me also assert here that, i don't for one second condone suicide bombings, or the launching of rockets into major civlian population centers.

Thanks for agreeing with me that these types of violent resistence is not the answer.

[crayon]

Thanks for agreeing with me that these types of violent resistence is not the answer.

(You do know that pretty much everyone agrees with that, besides like a very small of people that decide to go against islam and it's teachings, right?)

[Suomipoika]

(You do know that pretty much everyone agrees with that, besides like a very small of people that decide to go against islam and it's teachings, right?)

No, quite honestly, I dont believe that. The support for groups that do such things is quite frightening. For example, majority of palestinians voted for group that among other things fires rockets and targets civilians. Hamas does seems to have many supporters outside Palestine, and they arent really the only group that does such, groups which are openly supported by few posters on these forums aswell.

Apart from some rare voices, only time violence done by self-proclaimed muslims is really criticised is when non-muslim speaks about it, whether in media or a poster on some forums, and the main problem then is not the actions of these groups, but that Islam is tied to it by the non-muslim giving negative image about Islam, even tho Islam is tied to the violence by people who claim to be muslims.

[Gator]

The 2006 election has been noted a few times to state that a "majority of palestinians" voted for Hamas that resulted in a "landslide".

Just FYI:

1) The landslide in parlimentary seats was due to the bloc voting system.
2) Hamas won the popular vote by 44.4% to 41.3% for Fatah.

I just think it provides evidence that Hamas wasn't supported by a majority and that the Palestinian people appear to be split just like about every other electorate on the planet.

Just wanted to point that out in case people were'nt aware or had a different ideas on the statistics surrounding the election.

Thanks.

[nocturnal]

The 2006 election has been noted a few times to state that a "majority of palestinians" voted for Hamas that resulted in a "landslide".

Just FYI:

1) The landslide in parlimentary seats was due to the bloc voting system.
2) Hamas won the popular vote by 44.4% to 41.3% for Fatah.

I just think it provides evidence that Hamas wasn't supported by a majority and that the Palestinian people appear to be split just like about every other electorate on the planet.

Just wanted to point that out in case people were'nt aware or had a different ideas on the statistics surrounding the election.

Thanks.

Perhaps what you should be pointing out is the fact that the democratic will of the Palestinian people was repudiated. They went in droves to elect their representatives, to mandate the movement they felt would best further their interests and not erode them, and what did they get for their troubles in this exercise of democracy? a western orchestrated slap in the face, a crippling seige, further expansion and isolation.

[Keltoi]

Perhaps what you should be pointing out is the fact that the democratic will of the Palestinian people was repudiated. They went in droves to elect their representatives, to mandate the movement they felt would best further their interests and not erode them, and what did they get for their troubles in this exercise of democracy? a western orchestrated slap in the face, a crippling seige, further expansion and isolation.

Just because a government is democratically elected doesn't mean other governments should be or will be their friends. Hamas is a terrorist organization, regardless of what other activities they wish to highlight.

[Gator]

I think the Palestinian people elected Hamas because of the their apparently demonstrated civic organization skills and less corruption than Fatah.

I believe the Palestinian people who voted for Hamas were looking for Hamas to be more internally focused and finally get less corrupted functioning government that would help the Palestinian people.

If the Palestinians that voted for Hamas wanted a confrontational no compromise approach to Israel that Hamas expounded then they got what they wanted.

[Suomipoika]

I just think it provides evidence that Hamas wasn't supported by a majority and that the Palestinian people appear to be split just like about every other electorate on the planet.

Point taken, but 44.4% of palestinian people is hardly a tiny number. Even with these numbers, going against the teachings of Islam, as crayon puts it, seems to be quite if not most popular point of view among palestinians.

[nocturnal]

To assert that Hamas is a terrorist organization is the height of ignorance. Hamas is a resistance movement, it will always been seen as such by anyone with an open mind. Yes, some of their methods are questionable, but they are anything but a terrorist organiaztion.

This is not emotional rhetoric, but the biggest terrorist entity in the world is the United States of America, it poses the largest single threat to world peace and stability. Why are you speculating bereft of a sufficent understanding of the realities of the occupied territories as to why those who voted for Hamas did so?

Has the PA, since it's inception done any better, they have made concession after concession to the zionist entity that is israel without obtaining even the most rudimentary rights for a persecuted people. Yes, Hamas's policies may elicit only more hardship for the Palestinian people, but simply because that's how israel reacts to Hamas's election doesn't make Hamas the culprit. Why do you in a unrelenting attitude of total ignorance subscribe to the notion that anything the US and israel define as "evil" to be evil.

The fault is not Hamas's. They have every right under international law to resist, they are doing so. It is the international community that has to shoulder the blame. It is the failure of the world to break free of the hegemonic amercan political sphere in which they have been seemingly permanently incarcerated. When the world steps up, takes concrete steps and makes clear to israel that it's murderous and zealous epoch of annexation, expansion, occupation and massacres must come to an end, or face stringent ramifications, only then can there be a semblance of peace and redress.

israel has for 60 years indulged in unending bloodletting under the aegis of the US, are you telling me that collaborators such as Fatah who have done nothing to stem this pattern, are representative of peace, stability, and Palestinain dignity? you need to look clearly at who is the terrorist here, it is the zionist regime, and it's cohorts in DC. The leaderships of these regimes belong in the dock right next to the likes of Charles Taylor, Karadzic and any other war criminal.

[Keltoi]

To assert that Hamas is a terrorist organization is the height of ignorance. Hamas is a resistance movement, it will always been seen as such by anyone with an open mind. Yes, some of their methods are questionable, but they are anything but a terrorist organiaztion.

This is not emotional rhetoric, but the biggest terrorist entity in the world is the United States of America, it poses the largest single threat to world peace and stability. Why are you speculating bereft of a sufficent understanding of the realities of the occupied territories as to why those who voted for Hamas did so?

Has the PA, since it's inception done any better, they have made concession after concession to the zionist entity that is israel without obtaining even the most rudimentary rights for a persecuted people. Yes, Hamas's policies may elicit only more hardship for the Palestinian people, but simply because that's how israel reacts to Hamas's election doesn't make Hamas the culprit. Why do you in a unrelenting attitude of total ignorance subscribe to the notion that anything the US and israel define as "evil" to be evil.

The fault is not Hamas's. They have every right under international law to resist, they are doing so. It is the international community that has to shoulder the blame. It is the failure of the world to break free of the hegemonic amercan political sphere in which they have been seemingly permanently incarcerated. When the world steps up, takes concrete steps and makes clear to israel that it's murderous and zealous epoch of annexation, expansion, occupation and massacres must come to an end, or face stringent ramifications, only then can there be a semblance of peace and redress.

israel has for 60 years indulged in unending bloodletting under the aegis of the US, are you telling me that collaborators such as Fatah who have done nothing to stem this pattern, are representative of peace, stability, and Palestinain dignity? you need to look clearly at who is the terrorist here, it is the zionist regime, and it's cohorts in DC. The leaderships of these regimes belong in the dock right next to the likes of Charles Taylor, Karadzic and any other war criminal.

When you strap bombs to yourself and blow up women and children you are a terrorist. Your justifications mean nothing.

[nocturnal]

When you strap bombs to yourself and blow up women and children you are a terrorist. Your justifications mean nothing.

When your family has been blown up in front of your eyes, your house bulldozed, your livelihood decimated, you have no weapons to fight with, no forseeable future, nothing more to live for in life, then as a human being, we all are capable of doing irrational things. Look at the underlying reasons, not what they cause.

[Keltoi]

When your family has been blown up in front of your eyes, your house bulldozed, your livelihood decimated, you have no weapons to fight with, no forseeable future, nothing more to live for in life, then as a human being, we all are capable of doing irrational things. Look at the underlying reasons, not what they cause.

I'm afraid the civilians in Israel don't have that luxury. Neither does the U.S., who saw 3,000 citizens die in a terrorist attack. Neither does the U.K, who saw its citizens killed by terrorists, nor Spain...and the list goes on. Terrorism, regardless of the justifications, cannot be condoned or coddled.

[Argamemnon]

So because his dad was a member of Irgun that makess him evil? Do you blame Osama Bin Laden on his father? Emanuel was instrumental with helping Clinton push Israel to accept Oslo Accords.

The Oslo accords were fundamentally unfair to Palestinians. Unfortunately, that's not how it was portrayed in the media. People don't know the details of the accord.

[Argamemnon]

Yes we've seen them, but they are given a pro-Israeli context neatly provided by "Le Resistance".

What do you expect from an unarmed people that is brutally oppressed?

[Argamemnon]

I'm afraid the civilians in Israel don't have that luxury. Neither does the U.S., who saw 3,000 citizens die in a terrorist attack. Neither does the U.K, who saw its citizens killed by terrorists, nor Spain...and the list goes on. Terrorism, regardless of the justifications, cannot be condoned or coddled.

What about Palestinian civilians? What about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians; what about US and Israeli state terrorism?

[Roxy8491]

What about Palestinian civilians? What about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians; what about US and Israeli state terrorism?

What about the millions of Iraqi civilians who were killed by Saddam? I know the US is not innocent, but why is it that America haters on this site never mention or whine about the people killed by Saddam. What about the people raped, murdered, and tortured by his regime? Why is everything ok for everyone as long as they're not American?

At least America doesn't go out and say: let's try and kill some civilians! Let's target women and children! The Muslim terrorists do that. They kill way more Muslims than Americans any day anyways. Why doesn't anyone complain about that?

[Argamemnon]

What about the millions of Iraqi civilians who were killed by Saddam? I know the US is not innocent, but why is it that America haters on this site never mention or whine about the people killed by Saddam. What about the people raped, murdered, and tortured by his regime? Why is everything ok for everyone as long as they're not American?

At least America doesn't go out and say: let's try and kill some civilians! Let's target women and children! The Muslim terrorists do that. They kill way more Muslims than Americans any day anyways. Why doesn't anyone complain about that?

If I was debating with Muslims I would criticize them for this, but I'm debating with non-Muslims who made some bizarre claims (no offense). And let me tell you that you are wrong, if you really think that the Israeli (or US) military never targets innocent people.

[Roxy8491]

If I was debating with Muslims I would criticize them for this, but I'm debating with non-Muslims who made some bizarre claims (no offense). And let me tell you that you are wrong, if you really think that the Israeli (or US) military never targets innocent people.

Argamemnon I got your message but it won't let me respond since I haven't made 50 posts yet. So I'll just respond here.

Yes I am a Muslim but I am a revert.

And finding myself very disturbed at some posts on this site. Not necessarily yours specifically, but at the general trend of a lot of people here to be terrorist sympathizers. I've been looking through some different threads about world affairs and whenever someone criticizes Muslim terrorism, someone attacks the US instead of disowning the terrorism? And yes I think you're wrong if you are suggesting that our foreign policy consists of killing women and children. There may be casualties, and a few kooks in the government, but compare this to Al Qaeda, whose sole purpose is to kill as many civilians as they can.

I'm disappointed in the Ummah on this matter.