You are asking the wrong question. Why is a military organization putting their own civilians in harms way to target a few civilians? The way you framed the question shows a very strong bias.
Exactly! A known terror group having a convention in our country and the guest speaker is our NYJ. Cmon, Santa Claus sounds more believable.
No, the Constitution is important to me. He has a right to speak his mind if he so chooses. You may not agree with it and for all we know the Jets might not either which is why they could terminate his employment as that isn't protected under the Constitution. I also take issue with you labeling most of us as "anti Israel" like you did in another post. I've been fortunate enough that my travels took me to Israel and the Holy Land. I'm not anti anything but I am for a two state solution. That doesn't make me anti Israel or anti Jew. That makes me practical. Until you can prove that Aboushi actually stated something anti semetical or has given money to a group such as Hamas you're grasping at straws. Like I said 3 pages ago, Tebow spoke at a church here in Vegas where the pastor has been known to support Joseph Kony and speak highly of a man who has kidnapped, raped and murdered people in the name of God. Should I jump to the conclusion that Tebow supports murdering gays? Of course not so regardless of if people associated with this conference support Hamas or Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade that doesn't exactly mean that Aboushi does. This is nothing but some radical Israeli blog and has no actual quotes to prove Aboushi supports one thing or another. For all we know he could have gotten up there and said something along the lines of terrorism isn't the answer and my story proves you can be Palestinian and be succesful in life but of course that wouldn't have made this guys "op ed nonsense"
A lot of people would argue that the United States goveurnment is a terrorist organization and that Bush is a war criminal. That's the most interesting part about war, one sides freedom fighter is the other sides terrorist. it's all about perspective. I apoloigze in advance because i know i created a shit storm but the point i AM making is that he has ties to a conflict that is far more complicated then i assume anyone in this forum is qualified as an authority of. And to bring up the Hamas connection as the be all end all, many "good christian groups" were supported by the KKK while trying to keep the civil rights movement down and it was the U.S. that armed the Taliban. final point, politics are messy and no one is innocent so let's end this ridiculous squabble and get back to football.
Yeah, it means nothing to you that in the late 40s Israel was attacked by ALL of her neighbors. Ah, but that doesn't matter to you, because it was just a bunch of Jews getting attacked. No problem with suicide bombers. No problem with rockets shot purposefully at civilian Jewish neighborhoods. To you it's no problem at all. They're just poor Palestinians getting back at those big bad Jews. Thankfully most Americans don't feel the way you do. I bet, after 9/11, you started making excuses for the attackers.
Seriously speaking, it was thousands of rockets that were fired before Israel took any action. Imagine if someone were firing thousands of rockets into New York City. Don't you think NY would respond in a big way? Yet you criticize Israel for responding. Should the Jews just ignore the rockets? Make like they aren't coming down on their houses or children's schools? No, you protect your people, and you do it in a BIG way.
Santa Claus is fake. The reality was that a terror leader from the PFLP was speaking at one of this group's conferences, announced as a leader of the PFLP. You can find proof of that in a link from the article. Go read it and put away your childish Santa comment.
I don't think anyone said that Aboushi didn't have a right to speak at this event. It's a free country. He has the right to speak at any conference he wants. However, this particular conference was put on by a group associated with hate and terror. As the article shows, Aboushi clearly buys into the anti-Israel talk and pals around with terror-supporters. So while he has a right to speak there, the Jets have every right to dump him. Oh, by the way, you are anti-Israel.
This seems a non-story. The writer's 'credentials' seem very Fox News to me. Wouldn't put any value in his conclusions whatsoever.
That's a pretty big accusation there. I enjoyed my time in Isreal and was hit with how real terror attacks are as almost a month to the day after I was there the nightclub (Dolphin) across the street from my hotel (The David Intercontinental) and a place I visited twice on my trip was attacked and about 20 young Israeli's were killed, some of who I may have mingled or interacted with so your accusation is baseless. Once again until you can somehow prove that Aboushi was in your words paling around with these guys you've got no valid point. Like has been said Tebow spoke at a church that supported the kidnappings, rapes and murders in Uganda. Does that mean Tebow supported Kony as well?
The Jets have a right to dump any player based on the way contracts are written. Are you actually making the argument that this player speaking at a convention is somehow in violation of the his contract? The holocaust itself was essentially guilt by association taken to the extreme. The entire point of free speech, free association, and freedom in general is based on competition of ideas in a none intimidating free atmosphere of competition. You might do better to engage what was actually said by this young man and dispute it on it's merits rather than use an article written by an extremist who is attacking ideas based merely on loose associations. Character assassination is a very poor way to debate ideas. I have gone to listen to 2 Israeli Prime ministers at a Temple in NYC. These same Prime Ministers were the leaders of a harsh occupation. I was able to listen to their arguments and ask questions of them in an open forum. I didn't reject or accept what they said based on the fact that they were engaged in a harsh occupation. I left with a better understanding of why they were imposing this occupation. To expect a proud Palestinian American to be pro-Israel when Israel is imposing a harsh occupations on his people, even if it's fully justified, is absurd.
I don't see where the bias comes in. i admitted that both parties are wrong and both kill civilians. The fact that you wouldn't even consider the question shows bias on your part. The point was that the original action doesn't justify the huge over reaction. This makes Israel just as wrong as the dude who fires a rocket, if not worse because the civilian casualty levels are much MUCH higher and Israel is knowingly bombing entire building complexes in search of a terrorist that already fired his weapon and left the area. They know this happens, yet blow them all to hell, regardless, very often not killing a single hezbola member. When McVeigh bombed the OKC building you didn't see the US dropping a bomb on his home town killing everyone else in the area.
Thousands of rockets, but how many casualties? Those rockets have been for the most part, ineffective. You can try to rationalize all you want, but responding by obliterating tons of innocents is not something that anybody should do, especially not from the one claiming moral superiority and justification. If some terrorist was in Hoboken, NJ and fired rockets into NYC, the government absolutely would NOT respond by bombing the entire block the missiles were fired from because the people who live there aren't the ones committing the acts. If the KKK fired a missile from Mexico, should the US respond by leveling an entire city block full of people that had nothing to do with the attack? I don't criticize Israel for responding. I criticize them for HOW they respond, which is the opposite of what their religion preaches. It's more about zionists in power, than actual Jewish people. They are fake Jews riding the coat tails of a religion that they don't even follow, yet preach they are the chosen ones. It's mind boggling to me and what's worse is the folks that turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by them, yet condemn others for similar actions.
The arguing about whether or not Hamas is a terrorist group or whether the harm they inflict is substantial is a stupid argument. Of course they're a terrorist group and of course the harm they inflict is substantial. None of that matters at all in terms of the issue we are addressing, which is whether or not it is ok for a Palestinian American to address a pro-Palestinian networking and business conference, which of course it is.
Again the terrorists know all of this also yet they continue to use their own civilians as human shields to attack civilians. If McVeigh, acting for a political organization, was firing rockets on US civilian populations from a foreign country I would expect the US government to respond to the target with lethal force. I have no issue with Israel vaporizing militia groups targeting civilians. If they had rockets that could vaporize a town they would use them. The only reason they don't is Israel intercepts much of the arms shipments. Your complaining about the wrong thing. Responding to random rocket attacks is not just defensible it's sensible. There's plenty of things to complain about regarding Israel's treatment of the occupied territories. Protecting their citizens from rocket attacks isn't one of them.
I am the only one who noted the source as "Islamic Militant Monitor"...what is that, a Pamela Geller offspring? The entire article is typical of the far-right Islam bashing genre: low on citations, high on generalizations. Also, anyone who expresses pride in being Palestinian or Muslim is questioned, but pride in Israel is always acceptable. Meanwhile, American politicians and many American and other Western Jews, among the rest of the populace, are forbidden from questioning Israel's very questionable human rights record or anything Israel does. Sad that anyone believes anything from any of these sources. Even ESPN won't touch it- that's the level of journalism in the article. Telling.
