Pat Buchanan: Israel is Staging Blitzkrieg on its Gaza Concentration camp

32 Comments

1. 

   Abu Noor Al-Irlandee

   January 10, 2009 at 12:51 AM

   I respect Mr. Buchanan for pointing out what everyone can see, but which you’re not supposed to say on tv in America.

   House of Representatives passed a resolution backing Israel’s actions in Gaza: 5 courageous Congresspeople voted against it including Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Nick Rahall of W.Virginia, and Gwen Moore of Wisconsin.

   Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison voted “Present.” (neither yes or no) Muslim Congressman Andre Carson actually voted FOR the resolution backing Israel’s actions in Gaza.

   Reply
2. 

   Hassan

   January 10, 2009 at 1:22 AM

   What the hell that pro-Israeli is saying that hamas should have built beaches and schools and awsome country on Gaza? They were under total blockade and it was matter of survival. This is so stupid argument

   Reply
3. 

   Dawud Israel

   January 10, 2009 at 1:32 AM

   Hamas was created and funded by Israel: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8449

   Fisabilillah right?
   Gimme a break.

   Reply
4. 

   Faiez

   January 10, 2009 at 2:03 AM

   “Our belief cannot be destroyed by missles”

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofgiqfCMyt4

   Reply
5. 

   Khan

   January 10, 2009 at 7:25 AM

   Dawud Israel said:

   Hamas was created and funded by Israel: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8449

   Fisabilillah right?
   Gimme a break

   ______________________________________________________________________________

   Israelians are great liar and great actors they first make west folish and stupid on the name of hollocast and they always portray themselves as the most innocent nation of world even they stole the land of plastine .. west back them specially USA and now when he is killing innocent people in Gaza he still present justifications for that war crime .. .. but for how long time they can be act like this and for how long time USA and their allies will support the Israel brutal acts like this .. and one thing is clear that Israel cannot win war with missles and guns and cluster bombs he lost the war of hearts and mind thats why he is frustrated .. in 2006 a group ( Hizbullah ) defeated them and now Enshallah HAMAS will defeat them. because they have faith in Allah and they are on right and they have courage which could not be defeated by US made weapons .. misslies can cut their bodies kill their children but cannot finish their courage and hunger for success and victory will for those who has truth in their courage .. and whole world knows that people of gaza on truth and the Bloody Isrealians are liear and dogs they can never ever win the war against great courage ……….

   Long live Gaza and Long live HAMAS

   Reply
6. 

   Khan

   January 10, 2009 at 7:34 AM

   USA indirectly involved in killing of innocent people in gaza .. because all weaponry system is provided by USA and the US army general designed this attack for IDF and USA also providing logistic support in sear near Gaza.. .. USA washing the nazi crimes of Israel.

   Reply
7. 

   muhajir

   January 10, 2009 at 10:43 AM

   See what the London folks are saying about Gaza: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21640.htm

   Reply
8. 

   Adnan

   January 10, 2009 at 1:48 PM

   Wow !! Pat Buchanan finally nailed the truth for once on television. I salute you sir for speaking the truth that every single person in this world and in the US knows but won’t dare say it. I hope Obama was watching this and I know as anyone else, the president elect also knows the truth about what’s really going on in Gaza. I just hope he does something differently when he comes into power and not be another Jewish puppet US president. For rockets that did not hurt anything in Israel, how can you justify the killing of thousands of innocent children and families that have nothing to do with Hamas. And also finally, Pat Buchanan is absolutely correct when he says that the more innocent people you kill, their family members have no choice but to become Hamas. What else is Hamas but once innocent people who’ve had their homes and families destroyed by the cruel Israelis over so many years? Let’s hope something changes with the Obama administration….we all have high hopes !!!

   Reply
9. 

   Tauhd Mahmud

   January 10, 2009 at 4:04 PM

   Assalamualaykum Everyone

   I was wondering if anyone knew how the rest of the Muslim world is responding to this. I mean where is the Ummah?

   Reply
10. 

    Matt

    January 10, 2009 at 4:45 PM

    You know Pat Buchanan is a half step from being David Duke? You’re not going to win anyone over by trying to promote him.

    Reply
11. 

    Amad

    January 10, 2009 at 8:16 PM

    Matt, not surprised that you are attacking the man, just like how Carter was crucified and made out to be an anti-Semite. Even if he were racist, what reason does he have to defend Palestinians… are they white? And don’t give me the crap that he is no an anti-Semite. This is the old trick in the hat… accuse anyone who is anti-Israel of being antisemitic. I think its time that the Jewish community of America sees Israel as the terrorist state as it is, and work towards peace by applying pressure on Israel to stop its terrorism. Just like Muslims are expected to condemn and distance ourselves away from Muslim radicals, it is incumbent upon the Jews to distance themselves away from a nation that is build over occupied land, and is now wreaking havoc over what it occupies or blockades.

    Reply
12. 

    sincethestorm

    January 11, 2009 at 1:55 AM

    Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison voted “Present.” (neither yes or no) Muslim Congressman Andre Carson actually voted FOR the resolution backing Israel’s actions in Gaza.

    I hope there is some explanation for the above. I hope everyone tries to send a letter to the 5 congressman who voted against the resolution and also sends a letter to their own congressman as well.

    Reply
13. 

    Matt

    January 11, 2009 at 4:19 AM

    No, seriously, Amad. Buchanan is not who you want to hitch your wagon to.

    Reply
14. 

    Abu Umar

    January 11, 2009 at 11:49 AM

    The comparison of Pat Buchanan to David Duke is beyond ridiculous and one of the intellectually bankrupt talking points of the cultural left (who are the sworn enemies of Buchanan). Any honest person familiar with the writings of Buchanan and those of David Duke would know how completely different the two men are. Also, why would the liberal, pro-Obama MSNBC have Mr. Buchanan on as a regular if he is a supposed racist or closet Nazi?

    Reply
15. 

    abu abdAllah, the Houstonian

    January 11, 2009 at 3:17 PM

    bismillah. actually, Matt’s point about Pat Buchanan is well-taken.

    way back in the day, Buchanan was a thorn in W’s father’s election campaign. i was a volunteer then at the Republican National Convention in Houston. and i remember hearing Buchanan’s speech: it was a blessing for Muslims in America that he was not elected. for all immigrants, too. but Buchanan’s campaign then was just like the most-bigoted conservative campaigns of Europe. all those parties in Europe that want to ban minarets and restrict the opening of masajid? he sounded just like them but not aimed directly at us because we were then too insignificant a community. he had bigger fish to fry, and he did his worst against them.

    i do not know if Buchanan today is the same man he was then. i welcome his criticism of Israeli aggression because it is well-founded. but i take everything he does with a grain of salt.

    as for why he has a media outlet? seriously? you ask that question despite the Rush Limbaughs of the world? you ask that question when Oliver North got a media outlet after Iran-Contra? people who hate are often contentious, contentious hosts sell modern-so-called news in America, and articulate contentious hosts who hate know how to cover themselves with rhetoric.

    Reply
16. 

    Abu Noor Al-Irlandee

    January 11, 2009 at 3:25 PM

    First off brothers and sisters, ignore Matt. He is not seriously interested in any discussion but he is just interested in spouting off pro-Israel talking points. It is a waste of time to engage with him.

    Second, my fellow Irishman Pat Buchanan is indeed arch-conservative and is well known to be anti-immigrant. I don’t think anyone is calling for us to embrace Pat Buchanan as our spokesman. But he did take the more honorable and noble and moral position on this issue (Israel’s massacre in Gaza) and we can say he is correct on that.

    And when Pat Buchanan with all his shortcomings, is more moral than you Matt, you should know that you are in trouble.

    Reply
17. 

    abu abdAllah, the Houstonian

    January 11, 2009 at 3:55 PM

    bismillah. i agree, as i indicated, that Buchanan’s criticism of Israeli aggression should be welcomed. why? because it is well-founded. because the murder of Gazans by Israelis should shock the conscience of every honest American, and sadly most of those consciences remain silent.

    but i also remember the speech i heard Buchanan make. the man is nothing if he is not a politician, in the worst sense of self-interest that the word connotes. i know nothing about Matt, but i know that the expressions of support for Buchanan’s words should be tempered by an understanding of his other views.

    mashaAllah, Buchanan speaks words of justice and high morality today, good. just remember that we have not yet witnessed tomorrow.

    Reply
18. 

    Abu Noor Al-Irlandee

    January 11, 2009 at 4:02 PM

    Abu AbdAllaah,

    I’m sure we agree in our distaste for many of Buchanan’s positions, yet I disagree that he is mainly a politician. He is perhaps a conservative idealogue, perhaps an entertainer, actually a mixture of both. To me suggesting he is above all a politician would mean that he is somehow seeking support from some group by pretending to back the Palestinians in Gaza– whose support do you think he is seeking? He certainly is not trying to get the support of Muslims or Arabs. If anything, he is similar to Ron Paul in his “America first” views and he is trying to be a part of the movement to get rid of the notion that the U.S. must back Israel no matter what and permanently involve itself in overseas conflicts.

    Still, it is good to point out that Buchanan has many distasteful views, and we should hardly become supporters of him, but I hardly thought it was necessary to say that about a conservative who is most famous for having worked for Nixon.

    Reply
19. 

    abu abdAllah, the Houstonian

    January 11, 2009 at 8:29 PM

    bismillah.

    but I hardly thought it was necessary to say that about a conservative who is most famous for having worked for Nixon.

    LOL, i love you for the sake of Allah, abu Noor. :) if we quizzed readers regarding the significance of Buchanan’s resume, what percentage would score highly on that entry?

    still, it may be overreaching to declare that Buchanan is motivated only by self-interest — because only Allah Knows what is in his heart. and on that basis, i pray that Allah Guides Buchanan to what is right. (though Buchanan would likely construe that particular word differently than you or i.)

    when it comes to Israel’s war on the civilian population of Palestine, and America’s war on non-terrorists, Buchanan scores remarkably well for an American who has had the public eye for so many years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan — it’s only a wiki, but it also offers a lot of links to his speeches and articles. interestingly the link to the 1992 speech that i heard live — that link does not appear to be working anymore.

    Reply
20. 

    Matt

    January 12, 2009 at 12:01 AM

    “He is not seriously interested in any discussion but he is just interested in spouting off pro-Israel talking points. It is a waste of time to engage with him… And when Pat Buchanan with all his shortcomings, is more moral than you Matt, you should know that you are in trouble.”

    And yet what I’ve pointed out is the very obvious truth that Buchanan is a bigot. Perhaps I’m not the one uninterested in discussion.

    Reply
21. 

    Abu Noor Al-Irlandee

    January 12, 2009 at 12:10 AM

    Matt,

    We’ve acknowledged Pat Buchanan is a bigot…that is not the point of the post. The point of the post is that Pat Buchanan sees the reality of what is happening in Gaza and acknowledges it is wrong, despite the fact he has no love for Muslims and Arabs. You, on the other hand, are interested in defending what Israel is doing in Gaza and it seems to me from our discussion on another site that you do so in a disingenuous way. Perhaps I am wrong about you. If I am wrong and you are sincere, then as I suggested above you should be worried that Pat Buchanan is taking more or a moral high ground than you are. And if we agree that he is a bigot, than what does that say about you?

    If all you wanted to say was that Buchanan is a bigot and should not be our spokesman, but you agree with him that occupation and slaughtering of civilians is wrong than we are in agreement and I apologize for misunderstanding you.

    Reply
22. 

    Matt

    January 12, 2009 at 6:46 AM

    Actually, I’m opposed to Israel’s current actions in Gaza. I thought you said you looked at my blog?! If you can’t even manage a discussion with me without insisting that I’m disingenuous, then you really should reevaluate your interest in discussion.

    And you (plural, unless you meant the royal “we”) have “acknowledged” that Buchanan’s a bigot? Take a look again at what’s written here. And note that I wasn’t exaggerating when I said he’s a half step from David Duke. The difference is just that Duke’s more honest.

    Reply
23. 

    Abu Noor Al-Irlandee

    January 12, 2009 at 9:26 AM

    Matt, my observations about you are based on my experience with you….not whether I have a sincere interest in discussing things with anyone. Of course, I’m only a human and I could be wrong…as I said if you oppose occupation and slaughtering of civilians then we are in agreement and myself and Abu Abd Allaah have said repeatedly in this thread that Buchanan is a bigot.

    Reply
24. 

    mulsimah

    January 12, 2009 at 12:36 PM

    ARE YOU SEROUS!!!!!!!!

    Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison voted “Present.” (neither yes or no) Muslim Congressman Andre Carson actually voted FOR the resolution backing Israel’s actions in Gaza.

    I cant believe that!!!!!! Im disgusted.. their muslim brothes and sisters are dying in pain.. mentally, physically.. how could they BOTH do that?!

    Reply
25. 

    Miako

    January 12, 2009 at 3:59 PM

    Yeah, I think whoever edits this blog should toss up a disclaimer saying that “That notorious bigot, anti-semite (in all senses of the term) Buchanan” says something RIGHT for once.

    Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

    Like many Jews, I am horrified and quite frankly enraged at Israel’s conduct.
    However, that will not stop me from kvetching when you quote BUCHANAN. I spit on Buchanan, his words are filth, no matter what he says.

    You’d do better quoting Jon Stewart, who I believe had a piece on the conflict. Yes, he’s a comic. And a Jew. But his words are insightful.

    Reply
26. 

    Mr. ptg

    January 16, 2009 at 8:51 AM

    Hello everyone. I’m the uploader of this video.

    I want to say that Buchanan is not a bigot at all. What he is, is a nationalist. He wants America to go back to its Christian roots. I see nothing wrong with that. Nothig bigoted about it. We live in an age of abortion on demand and homosexual marriage being forced upon us. We live in an age when Federal funds are used through the National Endowment for the Arts to pay for “art pieces” like “Piss Christ” — a crucifix submerged in a jar of real human urine. We live in an age when children are told on Mtv that it is okay to show your body parts. We live in an age when it’s almost a crime to say you are a Christian. America, while never a theocracy, and not always perfect, has had a general sense of biblical morality. That has been assaulted by the liberals non-stop, despite the fact that a sizable majority of Americans still have traditional values.

    As for his imigration stuff. Well, again, he’s not racist at all. He simply states that America’s progressive system of democratic governance, and its very culture were founded by western Europeans. Too drastic or precipitious of a demographic shift could radically change society. Theres nothing racist about wanting to preserve your culture through careful immigration policies, allowing immigrants to filter in and adapt, as opposed to opening a floodgate. I can’t imagine Egyptians or Lybians allowing millions of European Christians to set up shop and change the culture. We hd that last century, it was called colonialism. And JUSTIFIABLY, the natives resited. No one would call Egyptians or Libyans racist for wanting to preserve their own culture.

    As for Matt, well he’s Jewish. I find it rather puzzling how Jews want to preserve Israel as ethnically Jewish, yet they complain when us Western Christians want to do the same.

    Buchanan speaks the truth vis a vis the Mid East and Israel and American policy. He was against the first gulf war, he warned in 2002 about the second Iraq war, and he’s been consistently right on when it comes to the Israeli occupation.

    Buchanan has Jews, Blacks, and others write for his bi-weekly magazine. He’s not racist. And before anyone here thinks I am, I am not. I actually love Arabic culture. Wa ana bhebu Falasteen!

    Reply
27. 

    Mr. ptg

    January 16, 2009 at 9:06 AM

    And one more thing. Lately American Muslims have seemed to move toward the liberal politicians. And understandably so. The rise of the beligerent so-called “neocons” has no doubt disenfranchised the American Muslim and Arab community. But traditional American conservatism is not the same. Traditionally American conservatism has been non-interventionist, and respectful of other nations, and extremely weary of an American empire. The neocons came in (from the left wing) and radically changed the predominant discourse.

    But when it comes down to it, Muslims have more in common with conservative Christians than they do with Liberals. Like us, they too don’t want their children taught in public school that Bobby has two daddies. And as for recent US foreign policy, if you think about it, its actually a very liberal, a radically globalist, left wing idea to “spead democracy” by ballot or bullet. Isn’t that what the communists did? A conservative approach is mind your own business.

    In fact was it not Clinton who unloaded tons of bombs on Iraq? And was it not his secretary of state who said the sanctions were worth the thousands of dead Iraqi children? During this time, Buchanan was condeming it all. Any Muslim who thinks just because you’re a democrat means you’re a dove is mistaken.

    Indeed Muslims have a better friend in politicians like Buchanan or Ron Paul than they do in Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi.

    Reply
    • 

      Amad

      January 16, 2009 at 9:35 PM

      Mr. ptg, thanks for the video, the comments, and your support for the victims of the Israeli massacre.

      Reply
28. 

    gess

    January 16, 2009 at 10:31 AM

    As’salamu Aleikum

    I my opinion, I think it is wrong to use any material from Pat Buchanan. He is a racist son of bitch, a Nazi and worst kind of bigot there ever existed and boot licker opportunist. I don’t know why Amad what you wanted to use him. What are you trying to achieve? That some right wing politicians oppose Zionist mass murder nation? For your information, more Democrats are in bed with AIPAC than the Republics. If I was you, I would be more careful what the so-called Progressive leftists bring than people from frontpage.

    Wa’aleikum salaam.

    Reply
29. 

    gess

    January 16, 2009 at 11:21 AM

    ^ I meant “Republicans”.

    Reply
30. 

    Mr. ptg

    January 17, 2009 at 12:03 AM

    Ya Ahmad, inta Arabi? If so, then afwan. The pleasure is all mine. Don’t be fooled by my conservatism, Palestine is an issue I’m very interested in. I’ve studied it thoroughly. I own a shelf of books on the topic from a wide range of authors.

    And let me clear one more thing up. It was said here that Buchanan “hates” you Muslims. That as well is not true. Read this article he wrote about the Mohammed cartoons for his magazine. He titled it “Cultural Warmongers.”

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/mar/13/00009/

    In it, he asks if the cartoons are more than simple anti-Muslim bigotry, but rather atheist Europe’s overall disdain for religion in general. It’s a good piece I implore all Muslims on this thread to read it.

    Reply

31. Pingback: Ferdinand Bardamu versus his critics