START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Arab Fury Invoked Over Obama's UN Palestinian Statehood Speech


World  (tags: obama, obama-administration, politics, government, democrats, republicans, u.s., president-obama, interesting, news, palestinian-statehood, palestine, arab, world, speech, UN, protest, israel, west-bank, middle-east, foreign-policy, conflict, UnitedNations )

PinkMindy
- 1104 days ago - telegraph.co.uk
Barack Obama standing in the Arab world plumbed new depths as protesters in the West Bank furiously denounced his vehement denunciation of their Palestinian Statehood bid.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

PinkMindy Ellinwood (567)
Thursday September 22, 2011, 1:05 pm

Sure, throw a match on an ancient powder-keg and see what happens next!!

President Obama needs new policy guidelines for handling foreign policy-relations and most definitely also needs a new speech writer too and I know most of you will agree with the new speech writer idea.
 

(0)
Thursday September 22, 2011, 2:52 pm
How can someone whose forefathers struggled for civil rights and equality, deny equality and the inalienable right to self determination to a people who were oppressed for over four decades? After Cairo, they waited for change, they watched the President bend over with vaseline in hand, each and every time Bibi spit in the face of his American benefactor. I am hope that Israel's unbreakable bond with the US can protect them for the severed bonds with the States of the Middle East. It is certainly not going to be pretty.

As for speech writer, what speech writer, this just sound like more regurgitated bullshit. If there was a speech writer, he should be FIRED.
 

(0)
Thursday September 22, 2011, 2:52 pm
On this one Mindy, I agree with you 100%.
 

Jerry B. (120)
Thursday September 22, 2011, 10:09 pm
Absolutely I agree also..Noted thanks Mindy!
 

Billie C. (2)
Thursday September 22, 2011, 10:09 pm
if obama hadn't thrown israel under the bus palestine wouldn't have tried for statehood. obama can't do the job and needs to be removed.
obama wrote the speech. he can do it all just ask him. all it does is prove he can't.
 

Walter Firth (45)
Thursday September 22, 2011, 11:43 pm
Arab fury was evident in this country before Obama's speech Recently they have demonstrating in front of Jewish businesses in Sydney and Melbourne.This is something new here.Their hatred for Jews is well evident as their capacity for violence. Given a free state would they accept the state of Israel and live in peace and harmony with it or would they align themselves with Israel's other enemies pledged to its destruction.Now the enemies of Israel and Obama detractors can spit a bit of their usual venom at me.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday September 23, 2011, 4:15 am
Noted.
 

Good H. (3827)
Friday September 23, 2011, 4:28 am
We are ONE... brothers and sisters, in a human family.

How can one brother hate another? The genetic difference is less than 1%.

There is only ONE future, and ONE planet.

Let's learn to live together in PEACE, and LOVE one another.

 

(0)
Friday September 23, 2011, 4:30 am
Kind of hard to invoke love when the object of one's desire is attaining illegal land and the oppression of another people.
 

cecily w. (0)
Friday September 23, 2011, 5:16 am
We (the U.S.) really need to stay out of this conflict. We need to concentrate on fixing our own problems. That said,
American jews, and American citizens or immigrants from Palestine should stay out of it as well.
 

Bob Algeron (47)
Friday September 23, 2011, 5:56 am
Islamic bloc doesn't like when its plans are violated, and reacts visibly, more noise and troubles - the better. Demonstrating in front of Jewish businesses, attacking embassies, interrupting speakers - extremists know that democracies often will let them go and continue stirring troubles.

Good, that Obama shows Iranian and Turkish masters that US still has a say in UN, and abandoning agreements is not something Palestinian Arabs will be allowed to do, even on Turkish and Iranian sponsorship and military protection.
 

Bob Algeron (47)
Friday September 23, 2011, 6:00 am
There is no "Arab Fury" over killing 2,000 protesters in Syria. Why should anyone care about this irrational and full of PR "Arab Fury"?

 

John Gregoire (255)
Friday September 23, 2011, 6:02 am


And we should also. How soon the world forgets that Israel was a state born by UN mandate during a time of Israeli terrorism against the British. The Palestinians deserve a country and Isreal need to withdraw to its 1967 madated borders as well as removing all settlements.
 

. (0)
Friday September 23, 2011, 12:24 pm
I still agree that Palestinians deserve a state of their own. Hopefully then the state of Israel and Palestine can utilize some diplomacy in their actions towards each other.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday September 23, 2011, 1:21 pm
And will the Palestinians stop firing rockets into Israel and will they stop blowing up buses, pizza places, etc.? Israelis don't blow themselves up to inflict damage on others, they don't continuously fire rockets into other countries or threaten to drive the Palestinians into the sea. The Palestinians don't just want the West Bank, they want all of Israel without any Jews left. If Israel can recognize a Palestinian state which they're willing to do, why can't the PA recognize a Jewish state? Every ethnic group in the world wants their own state and the world is behind them but the Jews have to battle everyday for theirs. There was never a country called Palestine or a separate Palestinian people. They're Arabs and notice how no other Arab country will make room for them. And there was no Israeli terrorism against the British, Mr. Gregoire. There were legitimate attacks against military targets. That's not terrorism. That's war.
 

Andrea Connelly (94)
Friday September 23, 2011, 1:29 pm
Obama is just another politician. Lost all faith in the man. He is a political coward, whether it's the environment or foreign policy. He should go back to social work or being a community organizer. On the World stage he just doesn't cut it. But let's please find someone else to replace him from the Dems. I fear the day when the Repugs and/or Teabaggers will take the stage.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday September 23, 2011, 2:06 pm
Shall Israel be made a sitting duck?

NO!

I stand with Israel.
 

(0)
Friday September 23, 2011, 2:36 pm
Bob - As usual, quite the humanitarian. Most normal people would understand that the Syrian population is ruled under a harsh, authoritarian regime. He is claiming that the other Arab population from other States don't care (these people who are also ruled under authoritarian regimes or dictatorships. He also either doesn't know or doesn't acknowledge the fact that people ruled under harsh regimes are revolting. Wouldn't that indicate or support that they are against oppression Bob and stand for human rights? You want to attribute the actions of the ruler to the people he oppresses. Makes a lot of frigging sense Bob. Go back to sleep, the world seems to be managing very well without your trivial commentary.
 

Allan Yorkowitz (453)
Friday September 23, 2011, 3:30 pm
Obama's first actual presidential stance on an international issue may be too little ,too late.His earlier view gave hope to the Palestinians, then he did a shift in view. Welcome to the Obama Presidency....
 

ewoud k. (73)
Friday September 23, 2011, 3:56 pm
Hard to follow the big line in american foreign/middle east policy.

But we all know: higher politics is a dirty affair.

Shouldn't call this hypocitical, it's just politics.

 

(0)
Friday September 23, 2011, 3:59 pm
Well Allan, it is nice to see that AIPAC stands with Netanyahu (but probably will castigate him anyway), yet the majority of the people in Israel, and the majority of the people in the world actually support recognition of a Palestinian state now.
 

Dawn Harvey (23)
Friday September 23, 2011, 4:30 pm
As sad as the state of our country is in, any President we have needs to work on our issues at home and that includes not making more enemies.
 

(0)
Friday September 23, 2011, 4:37 pm
True, Dawn. Whether or not which side one supports, the point of the matter is that the US is making enemies and Israel is not a strategic asset, but actually detrimental to the US's security.
 

Ray M. (0)
Friday September 23, 2011, 4:41 pm
What a shame he can't do what's right for fear of the Jewish vote. Shame on all politicians who choose money, greed, power and votes as a tool for reelection. That's the big problem with this so-called democracy.
 

(0)
Friday September 23, 2011, 4:49 pm
It is sad to see that such a small minority can control US foreign policy which in fact is harmful to the US.
 

Ralph F. (64)
Friday September 23, 2011, 4:56 pm
Actions speak louder than words. American politicians can talk all they want about freedom & independence. When they constantly block the right of the Palestinians to their own independent state for the sake of an ultra-nationalist minority in Israel, they erase all the flowery speeches previously made.
 

(0)
Friday September 23, 2011, 4:58 pm
Very true Ralph, well said.
 

Roger Garin-michaud (63)
Friday September 23, 2011, 5:24 pm
thanks
 

pam w. (191)
Friday September 23, 2011, 5:30 pm
I'm very, VERY tired of Arab/Muslim "fury." It's their lifeblood...they THRIVE on it.
 

(0)
Friday September 23, 2011, 5:35 pm
Really Pam. Non violent protest in Bi'lin on Palestinian land met by IDF rubber bullets/live ammunition, tear gas, arbitrary arrest.
 

(0)
Friday September 23, 2011, 6:22 pm
Sick of Arab rage?

How about this?

US Operation Praying Mantis & Operation Nimble Archer against Iran in which the International Court of Justice stated "the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on October 19, 1987 (Operation Nimble Archer) and April 18, 1988 (Operation Praying Mantis) cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."

July 3, 1988 - Iran Air Flight 655 - US Navy Guided Missle Cruiser shot down an Iranian Commercial Flight which was in Iranian airspace.

Maybe the US should attempt to meet the standards it demands of others. How hypocritical a nation the United States is.
 

Emily Drew (88)
Friday September 23, 2011, 6:58 pm
Noted thank you. Oh Obama...
 

Matloob ul Hasan (81)
Friday September 23, 2011, 7:37 pm
Noted, thanks.
 

Aletta Kraan (146)
Friday September 23, 2011, 7:59 pm
Thanks , noted .
 

Jes De Beer (2)
Friday September 23, 2011, 7:59 pm
I stand with Israel.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday September 23, 2011, 10:24 pm
Did anyone really expect Obama to do anything different? Politics is an expensive business, and it's sponsors expect something in return.

He who pays the piper, calls the tune.
 

Colleen L. (2)
Friday September 23, 2011, 11:56 pm
Politics? Thanks PinkMindy
 

patrica and edw jones (190)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 12:18 am
Killing ad hoc of Syrians, Libyans, Coptic Christians in Egypt - failed to provoke any 'fury' from the Arab states per se. Glad to see Obama made a stand against the Palestinian Statehood bid. If the Palestinians want a state - they must have the guts to stand up against the murderers that rule them with a rod of iron.....and they must also accede to Israel's right of existence. However they roll over like Pavlov's dog and do their masters bidding.
 

Stan B. (123)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 2:10 am
Who in their right mind would want a terrorist state as their neighbour?
The solution to this problem is so easy. The Palestinians unequivocably recognise Israel as a Jewish state and renounce all violence, terror and the right of return and Israel accepts Palestine as its neighbour.
Dead simple.
 

. (0)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 2:47 am
John Gregoire, you state, "And we should also. How soon the world forgets that Israel was a state born by UN mandate during a time of Israeli terrorism against the British."

Since you state the fighters against the British were "terrorists", I assume you don't approve of taking military action against an occupation force (as the British were, in fact, a foreign occupier of the land of Palestine)?
 

Sandra T. (126)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 5:08 am
Margaret,great posts by you on this thread.
 

Sandra T. (126)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 5:09 am
Send a Green Star to Margaret Mayer
Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"
You cannot currently send a star to Margaret because you have done so within the last week.
 

PinkMindy Ellinwood (567)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 5:40 am

President Obama is on the road to 2012 and he needs the Jewish vote, especially after losing a large portion of his Independent Liberal base (lost also important minority Black & Hispanic support recently as well), because I have read several mainstream news articles that support this as being an absolute plausible possibility.

Sad to say!!
 

(0)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 6:39 am
Thank you Lindsey, for your logical input. As always, you still hold the title, the Queen of Logic and Reasonableness.

Global polls show that the majority of the population of virtually every single country support the Palestinian bid for Statehood.

A BBC-GlobeScan poll suggests more people back UN recognition of Palestine as an independent state than oppose it.

The United States and the Philippines both polled 36% against the resolution. But 45% of Americans and 56% of Filipinos backed recognition.

The lowest level of support was in India, with 32% in favour and 25% opposed, with many undecided.

Support was strongest in Egypt, where 90% were in favour and only 9% opposed.

In other Muslim countries, Turkey recorded 60% support, 19% opposition; Pakistan 52% for, 12 against; and Indonesia 51% for, 16% against.

Chinese were among the most enthusiastic supporters, with 56% in favour and just 9% opposed.

Public opinion in the three large European Union member states included in the poll was strikingly similar on the issue: France (54% support, 20% opposition), Germany (53% v 28%) and the UK (53% v 26%).

46 per cent of Canadians support the statehood bid while only 25 per cent oppose it.
(www.bbc.co.uk/world-middle-east-14946179).

The survey, which was carried out online by YouGov in Britain and Germany, and Ifop in France, on behalf of the global political web movement Avaaz - which is conducting an online petition in support of a Palestinian state - shows that in Germany 84% supported Palestinian statehood and 76% believed Germany should act now to recognize; in the U.K. the figures were 71% and 59%; and in France the figures were 82% and 69% respectively. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/leading-eu-countries-support-palestinian-statehood-bid-in-un-poll-says-1.384015)

Israel should accept the decision if the UN recognizes a Palestinian state, about 70 percent of Israelis answered in a recent Hebrew University poll.
The poll, which was conducted jointly by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah, also found that over 80% of the Palestinians support turning to the UN to obtain recognition of a Palestinian state. The survey was supported by the Ford Foundation Cairo office and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Ramallah and Jerusalem. (http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=238855)

The window of opportunity is limited. Israel will not always find itself sitting across the table from Palestinian leaders like Mr. Abbas and the prime minister, Salam Fayyad, who object to terrorism and want peace. Indeed, future Palestinian leaders might abandon the idea of two states and seek a one-state solution, making reconciliation impossible. (Ehud Olmert, NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/opinion/Olmert-peace-now-or-never.html)

American Ambassador to Israel, Ron Prosor, followed Avidgor Liebman (former bouncer, practicing racist and all around thug) and Minister Yuli Edelstein (Head of Minitry of Hasbara, founder of Yisrael BaAliyah) out of the room. Isn't it great to know that the US Ambassador to Israel is willing to associate himself with someone like Lieberman.

Netanyahu is now DEMANDING that the White House to issue as statement distancing itself from Clinton's Statements. WTF? Doesn't anyone other than me, see this as a problem?

Netanyahu now paints Thomas Friedman as the "big devil" even though until very recently, he was considered Bibi's darling.

Netanyahu launched an attack on the UN, which if one recalls "contributed significantly to the creation of the state of Israel."

"Although the Palestinian state was not created at the UN over the weekend – and will probably not be created in the foreseeable future – this was without a doubt a historic event. The cold welcome Netanyahu received stood in stark contrast with the massive support Abbas received from the international community. If anyone still had any doubts – this what a political tsunami looks like, and this is what international isolation feels like."
 

Helle H. (21)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 6:43 am
I guess there's too many rich jew in the US to put a pressure on Obama and the govenment.
 

(0)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 6:43 am
Mindy - it seems that the American leadership's unequivocal support for the State of Israel's continuing brutal, military occupation does not seem to be contained to any political party. It seems that both the Republican and Democratic leaders pledge absolute support to Israel, even if it is contrary to American's self interest. Go figure.
 

Linda Wallace (24)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 6:52 am
Oh gee I guess it is about votes.
 

(0)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 6:58 am
Well it is pretty sad when the United States position demonstrated during Obama's speech puts the political agenda of a foreign country, one which is not a strategic asset to the US before the security of the US itself. Let's just not have any Middle Eastern allies and then wonder "WTF" when we have no access to oil and an escalation in terrorism against the United States.
 

(0)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 7:25 am
This is from US Columnist Thomas Friedman, previous "darling of the Israeli political scene", once Bibi's best friend journalist.

Israel: Adrift at Sea Alone
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: September 17, 2011
RECOMMEND
TWITTER
LINKEDIN
COMMENTS (114)
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
REPRINTS
SHARE

I’VE never been more worried about Israel’s future. The crumbling of key pillars of Israel’s security — the peace with Egypt, the stability of Syria and the friendship of Turkey and Jordan — coupled with the most diplomatically inept and strategically incompetent government in Israel’s history have put Israel in a very dangerous situation.

Josh Haner/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
Go to Columnist Page »
Related

Palestinians See U.N. Bid as Their Most Viable Option (September 18, 2011)
Times Topic: Israel
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (114) »
This has also left the U.S. government fed up with Israel’s leadership but a hostage to its ineptitude, because the powerful pro-Israel lobby in an election season can force the administration to defend Israel at the U.N., even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America’s.

Israel is not responsible for the toppling of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt or for the uprising in Syria or for Turkey’s decision to seek regional leadership by cynically trashing Israel or for the fracturing of the Palestinian national movement between the West Bank and Gaza. What Israel’s prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, is responsible for is failing to put forth a strategy to respond to all of these in a way that protects Israel’s long-term interests.

O.K., Mr. Netanyahu has a strategy: Do nothing vis-à-vis the Palestinians or Turkey that will require him to go against his base, compromise his ideology or antagonize his key coalition partner, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, an extreme right-winger. Then, call on the U.S. to stop Iran’s nuclear program and help Israel out of every pickle, but make sure that President Obama can’t ask for anything in return — like halting Israeli settlements — by mobilizing Republicans in Congress to box in Obama and by encouraging Jewish leaders to suggest that Obama is hostile to Israel and is losing the Jewish vote. And meanwhile, get the Israel lobby to hammer anyone in the administration or Congress who says aloud that maybe Bibi has made some mistakes, not just Barack. There, who says Mr. Netanyahu doesn’t have a strategy?

“The years-long diplomatic effort to integrate Israel as an accepted neighbor in the Middle East collapsed this week, with the expulsion of the Israeli ambassadors from Ankara and Cairo, and the rushed evacuation of the embassy staff from Amman,” wrote Haaretz newspaper’s Aluf Benn. “The region is spewing out the Jewish state, which is increasingly shutting itself off behind fortified walls, under a leadership that refuses any change, movement or reform ... Netanyahu demonstrated utter passivity in the face of the dramatic changes in the region, and allowed his rivals to seize the initiative and set the agenda.”

What could Israel have done? The Palestinian Authority, which has made concrete strides in the past five years at building the institutions and security forces of a state in the West Bank — making life there quieter than ever for Israel — finally said to itself: “Our state-building has not prompted Israel to halt settlements or engage in steps to separate, so all we’re doing is sustaining Israel’s occupation. Let’s go to the U.N., get recognized as a state within the 1967 borders and fight Israel that way.” Once this was clear, Israel should have either put out its own peace plan or tried to shape the U.N. diplomacy with its own resolution that reaffirmed the right of both the Palestinian and the Jewish people to a state in historic Palestine and reignited negotiations.

Mr. Netanyahu did neither. Now the U.S. is scrambling to defuse the crisis, so the U.S. does not have to cast a U.N. veto on a Palestinian state, which could be disastrous in an Arab world increasingly moving toward more popular self-rule.

On Turkey, the Obama team and Mr. Netanyahu’s lawyers worked tirelessly these last two months to resolve the crisis stemming from the killing by Israeli commandos of Turkish civilians in the May 2010 Turkish aid flotilla that recklessly tried to land in Gaza. Turkey was demanding an apology. According to an exhaustive article about the talks by the Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea of the Yediot Aharonot newspaper, the two sides agreed that Israel would apologize only for “operational mistakes” and the Turks would agree to not raise legal claims. Bibi then undercut his own lawyers and rejected the deal, out of national pride and fear that Mr. Lieberman would use it against him. So Turkey threw out the Israeli ambassador.

As for Egypt, stability has left the building there and any new Egyptian government is going to be subjected to more populist pressures on Israel. Some of this is unavoidable, but why not have a strategy to minimize it by Israel putting a real peace map on the table?

I have great sympathy for Israel’s strategic dilemma and no illusions about its enemies. But Israel today is giving its friends — and President Obama’s one of them — nothing to defend it with. Israel can fight with everyone or it can choose not to surrender but to blunt these trends with a peace overture that fair-minded people would recognize as serious, and thereby reduce its isolation.

Unfortunately, Israel today does not have a leader or a cabinet for such subtle diplomacy. One can only hope that the Israeli people will recognize this before this government plunges Israel into deeper global isolation and drags America along with it.
 

David C. (29)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 8:07 am
well sorry guys you cannot have it both ways
 

(0)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 8:36 am
So I ask of Patricia/Edw Jones, Stan, Jessica De Beer, Pam W. and Allan Yorkowicz, how many more dead Palestinians are needed when you finally say enough?

While we are using the term terrorism to justify the denial of the Palestinian state, perhaps we should be honest with ourselves and look at the reality of the situation.

Since September 29, 2000 up to and including Aug. 31, 2011, 12,899 Palestinians have been killed by the IDF. Of that figure, 2,655 have been minors. In addition, 6067 of those 12,899 Palestinans killed were known NOT to have taken part in hostilities. These aren't maybes, these are definitely Palestinians KNOWN TO NOT HAVE TAKEN PART IN HOSTILITIES (this is independent of IDF targeted killings. That is almost half of the people killed that are civilians, not militants, not terrorists, but civilians. There is a whole other category that applies to those where it is UNKNOWN whether they were taking part in hositilites, so either they were or weren't, but no one really knows which is 1,400 Palestinians.

The total amount of Israelis killed during this time (civilians and Israeli security forces) comes to 1,597 Israelis of which 171 were minors. The total amount of 1,597 Israelis killed from September 29, 2000 - August 31, 2011 are less than just the total amount of MINORS killed by the IDF alone.

850 Palestinians were killed during targeted killing during this time period, but 502 were the objects of targeting killing. Thus, 59% of those killed during targeted killing were the object of the killing. What about the other 41% who just happened to be there?

Doesn't anyone see that something is wrong with this? Whose safety should we really be worried about? Is killing off a population where 46% of those killed are definitely NOT TAKING PART in hostilities an acceptable margin of error in the name of battling alleged "terrorism"? We conveniently attribute violent resistance (which I vehemently oppose) to the occupation, the theft of land and the humiliation and collective punishment perpetuated upon the Palestinian people as "terrorism", but have this image of the noble Israeli struggle for statehood when in fact, their actions we no different than that of the Palestinians. Their struggle for the right to self determination, is no different than the struggle of the Palestinians other than the fact that the Palestinians inhibited the land which was fought over in 1948 for the past 1,200 years and the Israeli Jews, for most part, were been absent from this land for almost two thousand years until the recent Zionist enterprise.
 

Sandra T. (126)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 9:57 am
Thank you Margaret
 

(0)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 10:08 am
Welcome Sandra.
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 10:15 am
Hi Margaret,

12,899? Please cite your source on this. It seem to me to be about double the total. Then again, I am using B'Tselem which I suspect may overstate the number killed by Israel (replacing violent deaths by other causes with "Israel killed them" and using Palestinian propaganda for casualty-figures) and IDF estimates from Cast Lead (~1,300 Palestinian casualties).
http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/Casualties.asp?sD=29&sM=09&sY=2000&eD=26&eM=12&eY=2008&filterby=event&oferet_stat=before

Now, you noted that roughly half of the dead Palestinians were known non-combatants. Please give ratios for other cases of urban warfare for comparison. From what I have seen, that number actually implies that Israel set a new world-record in avoiding civilian deaths when possible. Still, you must be basing your comment on something, I guess.

Regarding the numbers of minors, do you have statistics on how many of militants are minors? Last I checked, they comprised over half the Palestinian population and the militant combatants tended to be fairly young. I, and likely many others here, would also appreciate the statistics on deaths of civilian minors in urban warfare elsewhere, though that may be a little tougher to come across.
 

Mary P. (157)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 10:21 am
America is a puppet used by the Zionist Israeli 'SUPERPOWER' to do all its dirty work. The american government has sold its people, their lives, their security, their welfare for political power sponsored by the Jewish Lobbyists. Money talks! Unfortunately Human lives come cheap in today's world.
 

(0)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 10:31 am
Stephen you are absolutely right as I failed to subtract the totals from each period which in fact doubled the numbers. I will correct my post when I get back from the grocery store, but as the Palestinians numbers of casualties will half, so will the Israeli number of casualties leaving the percentages the same.
 

(0)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 1:00 pm
Since September 29, 2000 up to and including Aug. 31, 2011, 6,484 Palestinians have been killed by the IDF. Of that figure, 1,329 have been minors. In addition, 3036 of those 6,484 Palestinans killed were known NOT to have taken part in hostilities. These aren't maybes, these are definitely Palestinians KNOWN TO NOT HAVE TAKEN PART IN HOSTILITIES (this is independent of IDF targeted killings. That is almost half of the people killed that are civilians, not militants, not terrorists, but civilians. There is a whole other category that applies to those where it is UNKNOWN whether they were taking part in hostilities, so either they were or weren't, but no one really knows which is 702 Palestinians.

The total amount of 1,093 Israelis (civilians and IDF) killed from September 29, 2000 - August 31, 2011 are less than just the total amount of the 1,329 MINORS killed by the IDF alone.

425 Palestinians were killed during targeted killing during this time period, but 251 were the objects of targeting killing. Thus, 59% of those killed during targeted killing were the object of the killing. What about the other 41% who just happened to be there?

Doesn't anyone see that something is wrong with this? Whose safety should we really be worried about? Is killing off a population where 46% of those killed are definitely NOT TAKING PART in hostilities an acceptable margin of error in the name of battling alleged "terrorism"? We conveniently attribute violent resistance (which I vehemently oppose) to the occupation, the theft of land and the humiliation and collective punishment perpetuated upon the Palestinian people as "terrorism", but have this image of the noble Israeli struggle for statehood when in fact, their actions we no different than that of the Palestinians. Their struggle for the right to self-determination, is no different than the struggle of the Palestinians other than the fact that the Palestinians inhibited the land which was fought over in 1948 for the past 1,200 years and the Israeli Jews, for most part, were been absent from this land for almost two thousand years until the recent Zionist enterprise.

While I am sure Stephen will castigate me , call me an idiot and infer I was attempting to be dishonest, there was no intent to post incorrect data. I just did not realize that there was a subtotal for every categories I was adding, thus it was adding it in twice and not really paying attention while doing so. The adjusted figures, to me, are still just as horrible, as any violent death is terrible. In addition, the percentage of Palestinians killed v. Israelis killed stays the same, again demonstrating how unequal the conflict actual is. If anyone doubts this data, they certainly can check at the B’TSelem website, www.btselem.org.
 

(0)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 1:03 pm
Also, other than the correction I have made in regard to this, I will not be answering anything from Stephen Amsel as he has proven to attempt to distort and confuse. He will soon be saying fatalities are fungible and I just am not nuanced enough in my understanding of the conflict to recognize this with my sub-human intelligence.
 

Bob Algeron (47)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 7:52 pm
Margaret, are you again bringing fake numbers from Islamist sources to present them as "final truth"? Those numbers, which describe 400 or so Hamas policemen as civilians? Numbers ignoring Arab "friendly fire" as the cause of death for hundreds of Gazans?

And what was that "great insight" you gave me about "Arab Fury"??? So, the people living under dictators can express their "Fury" against "Israeli tyranny", but not against Syrian Tyranny, even though Syrian Tyranny is much worse?

Then call this "Arab Fury" by its name - Propaganda by Arab Dictators - and treat it accordingly.

 

Bob Algeron (47)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 8:03 pm
Mary, don't you think that Islamist terrorists are pushing America more to Israel, than in the opposite direction? Aren't you surprised, that Arab and Islamist Lobbies in US, having huge funding from Iranian and Saudi OIL sources, can achieve so little? They could penetrate some universities and mosques built on their funding, but that was about all they could do.

One AIPAC is counteractiing against powerful CAIR and tens, if not hundreds, other Islamist Lobby groups, yet public opinion strongly favors Israel. Do you think beheading of women or infidels make the difference? Or "Honor" killings? Or spraying women with acid? Child marriages? Or, All of the above while NOT receiving A SOUND CONDEMNATION from the top Muslim scholars and leaders?

 

(0)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 8:31 pm
Bob when have ever supported dictatorships or any kind. Since the US is the greatest propper up of dictatorships, maybe your problem should be with them.

As for fake numbers, why rather than claim it is fake, why not find some credible source to discredit what I am stating Bob?

To call everything I post as Islamic sources is ludicrous, because I have never posted anything from any Islamic source or for that matter any Arab source for that exact reason, for people like you, who for some reason thing that anything that comes from an Arabic publication is automatically non credible. You post continually from Jihadwatch, Palwatch and similar rags, which are site that have no credibility, aren't taken seriously other than people like you who are too lazy to do any research on your own.

You continue to claim that I am posting "fake" data, yet you never seem to be able to disprove it.

Let's talk about posting outright lies.

a)Your claim that the Goldstone report stated that Hamas utilized human shields.

"AIPAC is counteractiing against powerful CAIR". I will respond to this when I stop laughing. You don't seem to understand that people supporting human rights for all people, which includes people of Muslim faith, are supporting the people, not the regimes they live under.

b) Your recent claim of the US contributing 1.3 billion dollars annually to the UNRWA (total aid to the Palestinians hasn't ever even reached 1.3 billion dollars - the one year where it came close was 2009, the year following Operation Cast Lead, but that has been the only year). It has never even been close - aside from that one year - and that is total aid, yet you claim they contribute 1.3 billion dollars to UNRWA alone.

c) Your recent claim of $10 billion dollars contributed to Pakistan in the form of aid.

d) Robert Spencer, librarian, now "Middle East Expert" advises the United States administration.

These are the ones which immediately come to mind, but there are plenty more.

So, why not Bob, prove me incorrect? Post some fact, give us some sources and citation. Show me how incredibly wrong I am.

There is a whole category of Palestinian policemen killed inside of a police station Bob which is aside from the total numbers is completely independent of all other statistics.

Don't you think that the people ruled by dictators and are trying to overthrow their own governments aren't part of the "fury"? In addition, it is really kind of stupid to piss off allies for the blind support of a country which is not a strategic asset in anyway.

Bob,I think Larry Derfner (Israeli Jew) must have meant you when he stated " too fat-headed to understand".
 

Mary P. (157)
Saturday September 24, 2011, 10:10 pm
Thank you Margaret.

Bob you are a deaf, dumb and blind fan of the Brutal Israelii Government and please know
That that government does not represent all the Jews of Israel. The beautiful jewish people
Themselves are brutalized for standing up against this oppressive and evil government.
 

Parvez Zuberi (7)
Sunday September 25, 2011, 11:27 pm
Palestinians have all the right to Statehood and UNO should accept it why this discrimination The rough evil Israel GOVT have been the member of UNO and they have failed to take any action against Israel who has killed innocent people unilaterally created blocked supply of food and medicine and on top of it President Obama says that he will veto it , why looks he is loosing election and looking for support on the other hand his govt is issuing threats to its allay who has been fighting its war on terrorism for over ten years just a prove that Americans have failed miserably and have lost the war and trying to make Pakistan a scape goat that shows he is loosing election and to divert the attention of American people he is creating these crises
 

Bob Algeron (47)
Monday September 26, 2011, 7:08 am
Margaret, CAIR lost a charity status in US after it was proven to support terrorism. CAIR posters openly warned its members not to cooperate with FBI.

Wiki: Spencer received a B.A. in 1983 and an M.A. in 1986 in religious studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His masters thesis was on a Catholic history topic.[6] He has said he has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history on his own since 1980.[1][7] He worked in think tanks for more than 20 years,[3] and in 2002–2003 did a stint as an adjunct fellow with the Free Congress Foundation, an arm of the Heritage Foundation.[8][9] Spencer named Paul Weyrich, also a Melkite Catholic, as a mentor of his writings on Islam. Spencer writes, "Paul Weyrich taught me a great deal, by word and by example – about how to deal both personally and professionally with the slanders and smears that are a daily aspect of this work."[9] Spencer's first book on Islam was published in 2002.

You mixed source of cash going to Palestinians, US AId, Obama handouts, money coming through UN and UNWRA. I showed you a quote about 1.3B of US money going to UNWRA. What else do you want?

And back to square one: "t is really kind of stupid to piss off allies for the blind support of a country which is not a strategic asset in anyway. " So, all the "Arab Fury" is reserved for Israel and America? OK, let them fury, who cares? They don't fury over a cause, they fury against people and life style they are jealous of.
 

Bob Algeron (47)
Monday September 26, 2011, 8:54 am
Money gone to Pakistan: add all the components and announce the total.

LAHORE: Just four-and-a half months after tensions between Washington DC and Islamabad had mounted due to the eventful May 2, 2011 incident in which Osama bin Laden was killed at Abbottabad by US forces, the relationship between Pakistan and US has yet again turned sour, but a peek into the history of the ‘roller coaster’ diplomatic ties between the two countries would reveal that these two key allies in War against Terror have seldom been on the same page since they had ‘befriended’ each other on October 20, 1947.

Here follow the 10 historic facts about the nearly 64-year old “love-hate relationship” between the United States and Pakistan (from more recent to past history):

1) It has been exactly two years since the amended version of the ‘controversial’ Kerry Lugar Bill was unanimously approved by the US senate and an announcement in this context was made by none other than the US President Barack Obama in September 2009, but Pakistan is yet to receive any substantial chunk out of it.

It is noteworthy that in less than a week’s time from now, the on-going American financial year will end and the new fiscal will begin on October 1, but the ‘pledged’ American dollars are no where in sight yet.

A Geo Television report of September 24, 2009, had stated: “US President Barrack Obama Thursday said the US senate has unanimously approved the amended Kerry-Lugar bill. He made the above announcement while addressing the Friends of Democratic Pakistan summit. The US president said under the Kerry-Lugar bill Pakistan will be provided financial aid of 1.5 billion dollars per year for five years. The condition of cooperation with India has been removed from the bill while a new condition of cooperation with the neighbours on war against terrorism has been included in the amended bill. The condition on Dr Abdul Qadir Khan has also been struck out.”

2) Pakistan has so far received over $18 billion in military and economic aid from Washington DC since 9/11, official Congressional documents reveal.

Meanwhile, a Press Trust of India report of February 23, 2010, which was carried by major Indian newspapers like “The Times of India” and “The Hindu” etc, had also quoted the figures from the US Congressional documents.

The Press Trust of India report had stated: “A Congressional compilation of US aid to Pakistan says Islamabad has received $6 billion in civilian aid after the September 11 terrorist attack in New York. The Obama administration in its latest annual budget has proposed $1.6 billion in military assistance and about $1.4 billion as civilian assistance to Pakistan. This takes the total US aid to Pakistan to more than $20.7 billion post 9/11, according to the data compiled from information received from the Departments of Defence, State and Agriculture and US Agency for International Development.

Of the military assistance, the maximum amount $7.345 billion has gone to Pakistan as Coalition Support Fund (CSF), which many do not consider as foreign assistance as this is reimbursement that Pakistan receives for its support of the US military operations in Afghanistan.”

The official Indian news agency had gone on to write in its February 2010 report: “This is followed by $2.164 billion as foreign military assistance. After coming to power, the Obama administration has so far provided $1.1 billion ($400 million in 2009 and $700 million in 2010) for Pakistan Counter-insurgency Fund/Counter-insurgency Capability Fund. For the year 2011, Obama has proposed to the US Congress $1.2 billion for Pakistan under this category.”

3) In October 1999, the American aid to Pakistan was cut off (for the sixth time since the signing of the 1954 defence pact, when the then Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf had staged a bloodless coup, ousting the then Premier Nawaz Sharif. The US government promptly invoked fresh sanctions under Section 508 of the Foreign Appropriations Act, which included restrictions on foreign military financing and economic assistance.

The assistance was thus restricted to refugee and counter-narcotics assistance only. Aid to Pakistan had dropped dramatically from 1991 to 2000 to a dismal $429 million in economic funding and $5.2 million in military assistance.

4) The Pak-US relations had also suffered a serious setback in 1998, after the then Premier Nawaz Sharif opted to test the country’s nukes. A presidential visit scheduled for the first quarter of 1998 was postponed and, under the Glenn Amendment, US sanctions again restricted the provision of credits, military sales and economic assistance to Pakistan.

5) When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1990, US military aid to Pakistan was again suspended under the Larry Pressler Amendment. However, in 1995, the Brown Amendment authorised the delivery of military equipment worth $368 million.

6)) In December 1979, the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and the United States gave $2.19 billion in military assistance to Pakistan between 1980 and 1990 as ‘reward’ for blocking and resisting the raging Soviets. This military aid was in addition to $3.1 billion economic assistance.

7) In April 1979, the United States again severed its military ties with Pakistan due to Washington’s concerns about Islamabad’s nuclear programme and construction of a uranium enrichment facility, though food assistance under the Symington Amendment had remained unaffected.

8) During the 1971 Pakistan-India war, the US again suspended its military aid to Pakistan, but resumed limited financial aid in 1972, after Islamabad had facilitated President Nixon’s tour to China the same year.

9) The first time the US had suspended its military aid to Pakistan was during the 1965 Pak-India war. Ten years down the lane, in 1975, the US arms sales to Pakistan resumed and Islamabad received $50 million in military grants, $19 million in defence support assistance and $5 million in cash or commercial purchases.

10) Both Pakistan and America had first inked a mutual defence accord on May 19, 1954 at Karachi, which had actually facilitated the influx of $2.5 billion economic aid and $700 million military assistance from Washington DC to Islamabad till 1964.

As far as America’s military adventures (both scripted and unscripted) are concerned, the world super power has intruded in the affairs of at least 50 countries of the world over 130 times during the last 121 years.

These numbers were incorporated by this scribe in one of his earlier reports after an in-depth research was conducted with assistance sought from renowned US scholar Dr Zoltan Grossman’s book “From wounded knee to Libya: A Century of US military interventions,” and from celebrated author William Blum’s books “A brief history of US interventions: 1945 to Present” and a best seller “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II.”

A quick glance into the US military history unveils the fact that although the Americans have been in the battle-field since 1775 or the year in which they had gained independence from the British Empire, their spirited quest for supremacy has continued unabated since its first involvement in the affairs of Argentina in 1890.

Moreover, since the September 11, 2001 episode, the US Congress has approved $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy cost and healthcare of the veterans, taking part in the still ongoing War on Terror.

The War on Terror is thus the second costliest American offensive in the country’s 236-year old military history after the World War II, which had cost Washington DC an amount equivalent to $4.1 trillion when converted to current dollars. (Reference: CNN report of July 20, 2010)
 

(0)
Monday September 26, 2011, 6:11 pm

Your claim was "US Aid to PAKISTAN: 10 BILLION a year. That makes it 25M per day." (Palestinians Face Large Cuts in U.S. Aid, Sept. 16, 11:17 am)

"That twisted logic suggests that if only Washington had given Pakistan a few billion more than the $20.7 billion it provided over the past decade" (Reuters - May 13, 2011)

So where do you get 20.7 billion over ten years equate 10 Billion dollars per year? Creative mathematics. The military aid is part of the "war on terror". I myself find this whole thing an oxymoron, but this is what they claim it is for.

From your own article posted on this thread "but Pakistan is yet to receive any substantial chunk out of it. It is noteworthy that in less than a week’s time from now, the on-going American financial year will end and the new fiscal will begin on October 1, but the ‘pledged’ American dollars are no where in sight yet. "
You can pledge all you want, but if you don't hand over the funds, the whole point is moot.
From Foreign Policy July 2011:

U.S. economic aid to Pakistan, which totals over $1.5 billion per year, is a key part of the Obama administration's strategy to strengthen the U.S.-Pakistan strategic partnership. However, most of the aid that was allocated for last year is still in U.S. government coffers.

Only $179.5 million out of $1.51 billion in U.S. civilian aid to Pakistan was actually disbursed in fiscal 2010, the Government Accountability Office stated in a report released last week. Almost all of that money was distributed as part of the Kerry-Lugar aid package passed last year.

$75 million of those funds were transferred to bolster the Benazir Income Support Program, a social development program run by the Pakistani government. Another $45 million was given to the Higher Education Commission to support "centers of excellence" at Pakistani universities; $19.5 million went to support Pakistan's Fulbright Scholarship program; $23.3 million went to flood relief; $1.2 billion remains unspent."

So Bob where is this alleged $10 billion dollars per year????
 

Bob Algeron (47)
Monday September 26, 2011, 7:49 pm
Don't see you counting Coalition Support Fund of over 7 BILLION.

 

Bob Algeron (47)
Monday September 26, 2011, 7:54 pm
Speaking 2010:

7.345 billion has gone to Pakistan as Coalition Support Fund (CSF)" + “This is followed by $2.164 billion as foreign military assistance" + "Obama administration has so far provided $1.1 billion ($400 million in 2009 and $700 million in 2010) for Pakistan Counter-insurgency Fund/Counter-insurgency Capability Fund"

Just add everything.
 

(0)
Monday September 26, 2011, 8:55 pm
Bob:

Do you even understand what you read or do you read one headline and go by that. Do you ever verify or look further into anything before you post it?

The CSF is as follows


2002-04 $3.121 billion
2005 - $964 million
2006 - $862 million
2007 - $731 million
2008 - $967 million
2009 - $700 million
Total from 2002 - 2009 7.345 billion

2010 - $1.570 billion see note * (didn't see the actual amount and can't be bothered looking for it.)
2011 - $1.600 billion see note * (actually gets $1.114 billion see http://www.brecorder.com/component/news/single/599:news.html?id=1180903)

the source for this is the Congressional Research Service, "Direct Overt U.S. Aid and Military Reimbursements to Pakistan, FY2002-FY2011"

This is part of the total of $17.782 billion dollars from fiscal years 2002 through 2009 of Direct Overt US Aid and Military Reimbursements to Pakistan.

*The estimated amount requested at the time of this report was 3.054 of which 1.554 is security related and 1.389 which is economic related.

Your claim of over $7 BILLION DOLLARS IS FROM THE FISCAL YEARS from October 1, 2001 through 2009, not in one year. In addition, the US is hugely in arrears in meeting their commitment to CSF.

"US lawmakers remain undecided on Obama administration’s request for the release of $500 million arrears under the Coalition Support Fund (CSF) to Pakistan before June 30, 2011, and resultantly Pakistan’s budget deficit is expected to jump to Rs 960 billion or 5.3 percent of the GDP for the outgoing fiscal year 2010-11, official sources informed Daily Times on Tuesday.

The Appropriation Committee, comprising US lawmakers, had to take decision on Obama administration’s request for the release of CSF arrears till June 27, 2011. However, no decision has been taken by the committee despite expiry of the deadline, and the matter has dragged on, the official added.

Pakistan has a total claim of $3.8 billion CSF arrears against the US and some $1.8 billion were matured for release to Pakistan from April-June in 2010-11. Pakistan was assured that it might get $300 million to $500 million CSF arrears before June 30, 2011. "

So, no matter how you slice it, it is not anywhere near $10 Billion dollars a year. In addition, it seems the US doesn't pay out what it promises, a little bit of a deadbeat. All reports, each and everyone put the TOTAL AMOUNT OF AID & MILITARY REIMBURSEMENT TO PAKISTAN AT AROUND $21 BILLION DOLLARS FROM OCTOBER 1, 2001 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2011. Do you notice that this includes MILITARY REIMBURSEMENTS in the total figure.

REIMBURSEMENT coming from the verb REIMBURSE is defined as

re·im·burse-[ree-im-burs]
verb (used with object), -bursed, -burs·ing.
1.to make repayment to for expense or loss incurred: The insurance company reimbursed him for his losses in the fire.
2.to pay back; refund; repay.

That is not AID, it is REPAYMENT.

I am not even agreeing with this kind of aid or reimbursement, but I am not going to have you post incorrect information. You post things without even checking to see what it means. The information I have is from the Congressional Research Service, used by Congress to provide research and data for Congressional Reports which are presented to Congress. Don't know how unbiased I can get.

This is all be cross checked with independent, credible sources.
 

(0)
Monday September 26, 2011, 9:01 pm
Bob, again from your own report above - "This takes the total US aid to Pakistan to more than $20.7 billion post 9/11"
 

Bob Algeron (47)
Tuesday September 27, 2011, 1:34 pm
Coalition support fund is not included into 20B - "Of the military assistance, the maximum amount $7.345 billion has gone to Pakistan as Coalition Support Fund (CSF), which many do not consider as foreign assistance as this is reimbursement that Pakistan receives for its support of the US military operations in Afghanistan.”

Where did you get the data that it is accumulated over the years?

REIMBURSEMENT coming from the verb REIMBURSE is defined as

re·im·burse-[ree-im-burs]
verb (used with object), -bursed, -burs·ing.
1.to make repayment to for expense or loss incurred: The insurance company reimbursed him for his losses in the fire.
2.to pay back; refund; repay.

- Good. What reimbursement Israel got for taking out Syrian and Iraqi nuclear reactors done on request from US?Must be worth something too.
 

(0)
Thursday December 22, 2011, 11:37 pm
I missed this or did reply and my post was removed

Bob first of all, above you claimed that "US Aid to PAKISTAN: 10 BILLION a year. That makes it 25M per day." Palestinians Face Large Cuts in U.S. Aid, Sept. 16, 11:17 am).

This is what you stated on another post which is wrong and I posted this in response to your claim that I am making up numbers from Islamic soruces. Unless the US Congressional Research Service LOCATED IN WASHINGTON, DC is Islamic, this is the group that reports to Congress.

From the article you referenced is where I got the accumulated totals which I compared to the Congressional Research Service's numbers which fell in the same range.

You are the one not understaning any of this. You go on to state about the CSF not being part of the $20 billion yet from the article you cited from it clearly states the following:

"The Obama Administration in its latest annual budget has proposed $1.6 billion in military assistance and about $1.4 billion as civilian assistance to Pakistan.

This takes the TOTAL US AID to Pakistan to more than $20.7 billion post 9/11, according to the data compiled from information received from the Departments of Defence, State and Agriculture and US Agency for International Development.

Of the MILITARY ASSISTANCE, the maximum amount $7. 345 billion has gone to Pakistan as COALITION SUPPORT FUND (CSF), which many do not consider as foreign assistance as this is reimbursement that Pakistan receives for its support of the US military operations in Afghanistan.

This is followed by $2.164 billion as foreign military assistance.

Look at the salient facts in the paragraph which has nothing to do with the argument now, but basically is giving a reading lesson.

THIS TAKES TOTAL US AID to Pakistan to more than $20.7 billion post 9/11 (this includes what is posted in the preceding paragragh ""The Obama Administration in its latest annual budget has proposed $1.6 billion in military assistance and about $1.4 billion as civilian assistance to Pakistan.)

Following me?

Now the important part:

"Of the MILITARY ASSISTANCE, the maximum amount $7. 345 billion" (see this is also inclusive to the TOTAL AID GIVEN BY THE US). It then clearly states that the $7.345 is allocated to CSF. This $7.345 billion covers the period from October 1, 2002 to 2009). If you count from 2002 - 2009, you will see that this is a seven year period, not a one year period SEVEN. Then it qualifies their statement by stating that "which many do not consider as foreign assistance as this is reimbursement that Pakistan receives for its support of the US military operations in Afghanistan". They are indicating that SOME, not THEM, but SOME may consider this not to be part of aid. How do we know that they consider it part of the TOTAL AID is because they specifically refer to it as MILITARY AID and also are clear in their inclusion of the $7.345 billion CSR funding within the preceding statement of the "TOTAL US AID to Pakistan to more than $20.7 billion post 9/11" by beginning the statement with the qualifier "OF the ...." indicating it is part of something else which is posted directly above.

Somewhere in your confusion, you told me to "Just add EVERYTHING". So for argument's sake, let's take the $7.345 billion which was incurred over 7 years to the $20.7 billion also occurred since 9/11 plus the latest budget (as at the time the article was written in 2010) of $1.6 billion in military assistance and about $1.4 billion as civilian assistance, you get a total of aid; or if you want to call it aid and CSR, $31.045 billion from post 9/11 to 2010 (when the article was writen). Where is $31.045 billioin over a time period of 8 years (at the time the article was written) come out to your claim from the other post Palestinians Face Large Cuts in U.S. Aid, Sept. 16, 11:17 am in which you stated "US Aid to PAKISTAN: 10 BILLION a year. That makes it 25M per day." (September 16, 2011 @ 11:17 am)? Unless the US spend and additional $10 billion dollars during the fiscal year of 2011 in AID or AID and CSR, it is an impossibility. I will now show you the math:

$31.045 billion / 8 years = $3.88 billion/annum (that means year). So even taking your completely misguided and misunderstood reading of your own article and adding the CSR in after the $20.7 billion, we are still a long way from $10 billion dollars per year which you claimed.

As for your question about if Israel received aid for striking upon the Iranian and Syrian nuclear facilities, what does that have to do with anything. I diidn't support US military aid to Pakistan or any other couintry whether it be through CSR or through gifting $3 billion/year. I was just proving that you post things which you don't even properly read. Anyway you slice it, the figures never come anywhere clost to $10 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. The whole point why I brought this up from the other post at the time I was responding to you, was because you stated "Margaret, only UNWRA such a BILLION bucks from US taxes - forget your simple numbers and omissions" BS" and "argaret, you wanted to prove my numbers wrong? You can't do it by posting fake numbers and writing wallpapers of nonsense", etc. You also, I again noticed, as you are essentially calling me a liar and claiming that I was falsifying information, the error is yours, because you don't even keep track of what you say.

You stated that the US, that is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GAVE ""1.3 BILLION given by US to UNWRA". I told you that the contribution of the UNITED STATES was $247.9 million per year in 2010 based on UNWRA and confirmed against the Congressional Research Service. You contradict yourself so much within this whole thread, no wonder you are so confused on this thread.

Are you so threatened that someone can actually research a topic with credible sources (The Congressional Research Service, Congressional Reports, etc. NOT ISLAMIC numbers which yoiu claim I have used) that you have to resort to these non truths? I cite everything I post and no where is there anything that indicates that I have used dubious sources or have used Ismalic sources. I also cross check each and every fact independently. They are always from sources which are more than at arms length.

I even give you where I got it from so you can confirm where it came from, yet you continually accuse me of using "Islamic numbers" (I assume you are insinuating that Islamic goverments are less truthful than other sources? This is off topic, but I think the biggest liars usually come from the leadership of the State of Israel) because it seems that you are completely incapable of checking it out yourself. Do you really think people read your post which you stick up there daily with nothing to support it and think "That Bob, he is right on the money". The only people that do that are the ones which possess the same simiilar nature as your own and also seem to be incapable of performing even the most basic fundamental research.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.