Israel criticized over Gaza flotilla attack

Were you going along with his dumbass comparison or making a joke? I apologize if it's the latter.
 
[quote name='Clak']Were you going along with his dumbass comparison or making a joke? I apologize if it's the latter.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps he was going for a very young Helen Thomas.
 
[quote name='Clak']Were you going along with his dumbass comparison or making a joke? I apologize if it's the latter.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much what FoC said. I just took Helen Thomas' quote about the Jews that so many seemed okay with and replaced it with the Hispanics.
 
That's a terrible comparison. No one is saying that Hispanics displaced indigenous people and forced them to move somewhere else. People like Helen Thomas are making that argument regarding the Middle East situation.
 
[quote name='IRHari']That's a terrible comparison. No one is saying that Hispanics displaced indigenous people and forced them to move somewhere else. People like Helen Thomas are making that argument regarding the Middle East situation.[/QUOTE]

One could argue illegal immigrants are displacing legal citizens in this and several other countries, but America has its history of actually conquering Mexican territory and using Mexicans as replacement slaves. Of course, the latter happens in a lot of European countries with Muslims.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Pretty much what FoC said. I just took Helen Thomas' quote about the Jews that so many seemed okay with and replaced it with the Hispanics.[/QUOTE]
Ah, then I take back the apology, that's a ridiculous statement. Do I really have to explain why? Would it do any good for me to anyway?

No, we both know it wouldn't.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']One could argue illegal immigrants are displacing legal citizens in this and several other countries, but America has its history of actually conquering Mexican territory and using Mexicans as replacement slaves. Of course, the latter happens in a lot of European countries with Muslims.[/QUOTE]
It's ridiculous because they're different issues. You're talking about illegal immigration vs the occupation of territory that didn't belong to Israel in the first place. I don't think most people realize that the U.S. is basically Israel, what they're doing to the Palestinians is basically what we've done to any other people we've encountered who have gotten in our way. Either we take land or we put another country in the position where they know if they don't sell it they'll lose it.

I have to wonder, which side of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would most Native Americans choose?
 
Agreed, I think Bob would've been better served with this quote:

Originally Posted by UncleBob
"Tell the non-Native Americans to get the hell out of America. . . . Go home. Europe. Asia. And Africa and everywhere else." ?
Click to expand...
 
Agreed, the difference in this conflict is that the Palestinians are able to fight back against the Israelis. None of the people we've encountered were really ever able to fight back with any success.
 
[quote name='Clak']Agreed, the difference in this conflict is that the Palestinians are able to fight back against the Israelis. None of the people we've encountered were really ever able to fight back with any success.[/QUOTE]

If the Israelis were to take the Early-American stance on this and just say "fuck you all", do you *really* think the Palestinians could honestly fight back?

I'm not saying Israel deserves a pat on the back for holding back or anything - I'm just saying - if they wanted to - and weren't concerned about international repercussions - I think they have the military power to eliminate the Palestinians with little effort.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If the Israelis were to take the Early-American stance on this and just say "fuck you all", do you *really* think the Palestinians could honestly fight back?

I'm not saying Israel deserves a pat on the back for holding back or anything - I'm just saying - if they wanted to - and weren't concerned about international repercussions - I think they have the military power to eliminate the Palestinians with little effort.[/QUOTE]

I agree, they have the ability to eliminate the Palestinians...to a degree. Many Israeli citizens are Palestinian, so they would need to go door to door, round them up, create concentration camps...oh boy...this is starting to sound familiar.

In all honesty, if Israel made an action that aggressive, even the US as its strongest ally wouldn't be able to hold back to Europeans, or the Iranians, or the Pakistanis. We'd have nuclear war, amazing civilian casualties for Israelis and Palestinians...we'd have a world war. So could the Israelis take steps towards killing off the Palestinians systematically...sure, they could get away with it for awhile, but the repurcussions would likely wipe not just Israel, but most of the territory, off the map.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Because there is a long history of sanctions getting results from other countries with bad behavior.[/QUOTE]
It worked awesome for Libya.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If the Israelis were to take the Early-American stance on this and just say "fuck you all", do you *really* think the Palestinians could honestly fight back?

I'm not saying Israel deserves a pat on the back for holding back or anything - I'm just saying - if they wanted to - and weren't concerned about international repercussions - I think they have the military power to eliminate the Palestinians with little effort.[/QUOTE]
Having the ability is more about having the necessary fire power. Sure, they could blow them off the map, but then what would happen? Their hands are tied as far as their ability to fight goes. They don't want to do anything that would cause them to lose allies, especially when a country like Iran would love nothing more than to wipe them off the map.

If things like international perceptions mattered during the early days of colonization things may have turned out differently here too, but nobody cared much about perception then.
 
[quote name='Clak']Having the ability is more about having the necessary fire power. Sure, they could blow them off the map, but then what would happen? Their hands are tied as far as their ability to fight goes. They don't want to do anything that would cause them to lose allies, especially when a country like Iran would love nothing more than to wipe them off the map.

If things like international perceptions mattered during the early days of colonization things may have turned out differently here too, but nobody cared much about perception then.[/QUOTE]

Would could Iran possibly do to Israel? Israel has dozens, if not hundreds, of nukes. And elite fighting forces.

Iran... doesn't.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Would could Iran possibly do to Israel? Israel has dozens, if not hundreds, of nukes. And elite fighting forces.

Iran... doesn't.[/QUOTE]

Let's say Iran doesn't have any nukes, which may actually be true. Pakistan does. If Israel starts rounding up and killing Palestinians, even if the Pakistani government doesn't use the nukes, radicals in the country will overthrow the gov. and do it for them. Once you've been hit with your first nuke in an area about the size of a small Northeastern US state, your stockpile of nukes becomes less necessary, and your elite forces are trying to figure out why they glow at night.

I don't think it will happen, but if Israel makes that aggressive of an action, the world community gets involved both with good intentions and bad intentions. Unless Pat Robertson is president, even the US would have trouble backing Israel over internment camps and gas chambers.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Would could Iran possibly do to Israel? Israel has dozens, if not hundreds, of nukes. And elite fighting forces.

Iran... doesn't.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that Israel has ever said exactly how many nuclear weapons they have, if they have I must have missed it. Still doesn't mean the Iranians aren't a threat to them. I doubt really if Israel would even use what nukes they have to be honest. Imagine what that would do to them politically.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Its not only about making life miserable for the people in Gaza... You see, Israel has a little demographics problem. Eventually Jews will be outnumbered by Arabs in Israel, which would make it a little difficult to continue as a Jewish state.

Keeping them at borderline starvation keeps their population levels in check, and reduces the amount of what they call "superfluous young men". They've even discussed limiting or banning neonatal supplies in order to increase infant mortality.

Many of them simply don't see the Palestinians as human beings. Certainly not the radicals in the illegal settlements, with popular slogans such as "Arabs to the gas chambers". Netanyahu panders to these people as Bush did to our religious right.[/QUOTE]

This wouldn't surprise me at all. Isn't it also true that when the settlement terms were drawn up that if you were an Arab Jew and weren't in Jerusalem at the time you were screwed out of being able to free roam the country? I think this happened two times, where you could be an Arab Jew, be in Jerusalem and be certified.
I'd argue there are definitely Jew's in Israel that are prejudiced against Arabs and even Arab Jews because of the color of their skin possibly as well as their culture. We have to remember that Israel was settled by WHITE Jews, European one's.
I really can't stand the way Israel acts at times. I'm not saying the Palestinians are innocent either. They both start shit with each other, only when Israel starts it our media looks at Israel like they're the perfect child, can do no wrong when they're hiding a razor blade in plain sight.
Benjamin Netanyahu is a real asshole too. I remember back in the day, before he was re-elected now, it seemed he always treated the Palestinians like shit, all the while the media seemed to say to me "We love this man.".
Also a big reason I very much dislike, bordering on hate Israel, is they're a hard right state. I think the reason a decent bit of the right, not the Libertarians obviously, love Israel so much is they see a country they wish to emulate. They want this country to be a place where people are stopped at checkpoints throughout big areas like NYC and San Francisco and have their papers checked.
edit: Oh and bmull, as much as you love Israel you should read about Rachel Cory.
 
The conservative wet dream is a Christian government, they barely even hide it any more. Of course they don't see this as a bad thing, despite the way most non-secular governments seem to operate, because Christianity is apparently somehow different.

For a people so in love with the ideals of the American revolution, they sure love to ignore parts of it.
 
[quote name='Clak']The conservative wet dream is a Christian government, they barely even hide it any more. Of course they don't see this as a bad thing, despite the way most non-secular governments seem to operate, because Christianity is apparently somehow different.

For a people so in love with the ideals of the American revolution, they sure love to ignore parts of it.[/QUOTE]

? what the hell are you talking about?

How is exactly is the conservative wet dream a christian government? I am dieing to hear this.
 
[quote name='Clak']The conservative wet dream is a Christian government, they barely even hide it any more. Of course they don't see this as a bad thing, despite the way most non-secular governments seem to operate, because Christianity is apparently somehow different.

For a people so in love with the ideals of the American revolution, they sure love to ignore parts of it.[/QUOTE]

It's funny, because that vision is a country overrun with zealots ruining the lives of everyone by installing a radically backward system of rule.

See also: The Middle East
See also: North Korea

It's like the Christians think they'll do it better than everyone else because no one has to wear a face veil.
 
[quote name='Strell']It's funny, because that vision is a country overrun with zealots ruining the lives of everyone by installing a radically backward system of rule.

See also: The Middle East
See also: North Korea

It's like the Christians think they'll do it better than everyone else because no one has to wear a face veil.[/QUOTE]

What happened to:

See also: Utah

Ninja Edit?
 
[quote name='Knoell']? what the hell are you talking about?

How is exactly is the conservative wet dream a christian government? I am dieing to hear this.[/QUOTE]
Oh come off it man, you think the Christian fundies like the progressive way the U.S. is going? You think they wouldn't love to impose their "Christian values" on everyone by law? It's an issue of if they could, they would.
 
[quote name='Clak']Oh come off it man, you think the Christian fundies like the progressive way the U.S. is going? You think they wouldn't love to impose their "Christian values" on everyone by law? It's an issue of if they could, they would.[/QUOTE]

what christian values are you taking issue with? Gay marriage and abortion? Is it just christians against those things? I forget...
 
[quote name='Clak']Willful ignorance blows my mind. You know exactly who I mean, but you continue the bullshit.[/QUOTE]

surprise, surprise I want you to elaborate on your posts, and you decline...again.
 
I hope Clak doesn't think all Conservatives are part of the Religious Reich. They're just the part the Republicans embraced because they're a big, steady voting block.
Barry Goldwater sure didn't like em'. I consider myself an old school Libertarian for the most part but then that means I'm very much for the old values of this country. When I say that I mean Corporations have to exist for the public good and that doesn't just mean being narrowly defined as a shareholder's profits. Also Corporations can only exist for a limited amount of time, at most 30 years, unless they're working on a Public Works project at the time, then it can be extended to 35.
 
Corporations have never existed for the good of anyone but those with a stake in the company. With the exception of non-profits of course.

What exactly do you mean by old values of the country? Tell me you don't have some Leave it to Beaver idea of the past.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Let's say Iran doesn't have any nukes, which may actually be true. Pakistan does. If Israel starts rounding up and killing Palestinians, even if the Pakistani government doesn't use the nukes, radicals in the country will overthrow the gov. and do it for them. Once you've been hit with your first nuke in an area about the size of a small Northeastern US state, your stockpile of nukes becomes less necessary, and your elite forces are trying to figure out why they glow at night.

I don't think it will happen, but if Israel makes that aggressive of an action, the world community gets involved both with good intentions and bad intentions. Unless Pat Robertson is president, even the US would have trouble backing Israel over internment camps and gas chambers.[/QUOTE]

So, if Israel goes off the deep end, Pakistan may become more unstable than it already is, and radical groups in that country may take over, and may decide to use a nuclear weapon against Israel?

That's a lot of assumptions, and as horribly as Israel has handled the Palestinian issue/several other foreign policy decisions, to speculate that they will channel Nazi Germany and set up gas chambers and death camps is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Clak:

You didn't answer the question:

How is Iran a threat to Israel? How will they wipe them off the map (furthermore, did he actually say that? I've read several reports that argue that he didn't)?

US and world intelligence has pegged Israel as having at least 60 nuclear weapons as far back as the mid 80s. Estimates these days put them at upwards of 175-200, lower end estimates put them at having 75.
 
[quote name='Knoell']surprise, surprise I want you to elaborate on your posts, and you decline...again.[/QUOTE]
I'm declining to get into another idiotic "argument" with you. It's willful ignorance like I've said before.
 
[quote name='Clak']If I can hurt you, I'm a threat, it doesn't matter if you're bigger and can hurt me more.

I don't know, interpret this how you want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q[/QUOTE]

I know about the video, and many news reports that are similar. I've read many accounts of the translation being errant - that he was referring to the government of Israel (specifically using the word "rezhim-e," regime in English) vanishing from the history of time, not necessarily the people or country of Israel getting destroyed.

How could Iran hurt Israel?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']So, if Israel goes off the deep end, Pakistan may become more unstable than it already is, and radical groups in that country may take over, and may decide to use a nuclear weapon against Israel?

That's a lot of assumptions, and as horribly as Israel has handled the Palestinian issue/several other foreign policy decisions, to speculate that they will channel Nazi Germany and set up gas chambers and death camps is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Clak:

You didn't answer the question:

How is Iran a threat to Israel? How will they wipe them off the map (furthermore, did he actually say that? I've read several reports that argue that he didn't)?

US and world intelligence has pegged Israel as having at least 60 nuclear weapons as far back as the mid 80s. Estimates these days put them at upwards of 175-200, lower end estimates put them at having 75.[/QUOTE]

We were already talking in insane hypotheticals, like Israel killing off all the Palestinians. I think I followed it up with an equally far-fetched series of potential events. It's not like I was sitting down for my morning cup of coffee and started suggesting insane future events. I was replying to yours. (EDIT: Correction, looks like Uncle Bob was saying that Israel could wipe out the Palestinians if they wanted to)
 
You're right, Iran has only sticks and stones for weapons, they couldn't hurt Israeli now or later.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/29/world/fg-iran-missiles29

Anyway.....

We need a mall, you'll have to move.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_israel_palestinians

The plan calls for the construction of shops, restaurants, art galleries and a large community center on the site where some say the biblical King David wrote his psalms. The 22 displaced families would be allowed to build homes elsewhere in the neighborhood, though it is not clear who would pay for them.
Click to expand...
 
Except at this point, one nation has the capability to attack its neighboring nations and wipe them from the face of the earth. All in the name of defense, all in the name of survival.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I know about the video, and many news reports that are similar. I've read many accounts of the translation being errant - that he was referring to the government of Israel (specifically using the word "rezhim-e," regime in English) vanishing from the history of time, not necessarily the people or country of Israel getting destroyed.

How could Iran hurt Israel?[/QUOTE]

You are right on Seth. Here is an article that cover's this mistranslation that was echoed for political advantage by US pro-Israel propaganda.

Media Misquotes Threat From Iran’s President


http://www.projectcensored.org/articles/story/24-media-misquotes-threat-from-irans-president/

And a copy on Google books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hg...&resnum=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
I can believe that, things certainly get mistranslated. I still wouldn't say Iran isn't a potential threat, but hardly an imminent one. Can't blame the misunderstanding solely on western media though when their own news service mistranslated it originally.
 
[quote name='Clak']I can believe that, things certainly get mistranslated. I still wouldn't say Iran isn't a potential threat, but hardly an imminent one. Can't blame the misunderstanding solely on western media though when their own news service mistranslated it originally.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, its ironic that they mistranslated it themselves. BUT, just demonstrates how little fact checking we do. Our media does less and less research. If you are going to report such a strong line from another language it behooves responsible journalism to verify it. All "journalists" do today is re-report wire service news and regurgitate official press releases.
 
I doubt it, but have any of you seen this documentary? All I can say is that it is earth shattering. It gives you a view that you would never see into why the fear of anti-semitism exists. Just check out the first 10 minutes and you'll be interested. Watch it ASAP as there is a concerted effort to keep it from the public.

http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=7208
 
So you guys are saying that given the opportunity, Ahmadinejad really wouldn't wipe out Israel? He wouldn't attempt to "liberate" the muslims in jerusalem? What do you think he would do with the Jews if he occupied Israel? Peacefully coexist? Are you guys really insisting that Ahmadinejad is just a victim of the media and is really a great guy?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Because they are fighting a PR battle now. It is much easier for them to call the people on the flotilla "murderous mercenaries" "terrorists" "ex-military", release false facts and false audio while media attention is at it's highest while slowly issuing retractions in the weeks/months to come when nobody is paying attention and the media is barely reporting.
[/QUOTE]

Who called that shit?

Flawed intelligence-gathering and planning led to Israel's botched and deadly raid on a Gaza-bound protest flotilla, with security forces underestimating the potential for violence, said the official report released Monday.

The report, however, praised the commandos who took part in the operation, saying they were justified in opening fire and killing nine after being confronted by violent pro-Palestinian activists on board one of the ships.

The report concluded that intelligence-gathering was deficient and that various intelligence units did not communicate properly with each other. It criticized the operation's planners for not having a backup plan in the event of violence.

It did not recommend any dismissals, though it is possible that some senior officers will be ousted or demoted in an ensuing shake-up.

"We found that there were some professional mistakes regarding both the intelligence and the decision-making process and some operational mistakes," the report's author, retired general Giora Eiland, told reporters at a Defense Ministry briefing where declassified sections of the report were discussed.

Some of the mistakes took place at fairly high levels of command, he added, giving few details. The report itself was not made public.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100712/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gaza_blockade

But it's been over a month so who cares? :bouncy:
 
Knoell, he claimed that Israel would admit to mistakes when people stopped paying attention. That is exactly what happened.

Anyone see Netanyahu on Larry King Live? He was actually pretty reasonable.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/13/thiessen

Related note, Bill Kristol's new Israel PAC attacked Joe Sestak (my congressman) in a new ad.
"The ad attacks Sestak for signing a letter criticizing Israel’s blockade of Gaza while not signing a defense of Israel circulated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and for appearing at a fundraiser for the Council on American Islamic Relations, which it describes as an “anti-Israel organization the FBI called a ‘front group for Hamas.’”
Click to expand...
 
How did Israel admit to the mistake you guys are claiming they are? All I see in the article is that they admitted that they made a tactical mistake, and underestimated the capability of violence of the "humanitarians". That is hardly something that they would want to hide as you guys are implying they wanted to. Show me something that says they admit that boarding the craft was a mistake and they should not have done it.

TEL AVIV, Israel – Flawed intelligence-gathering and planning led to Israel's botched and deadly raid on a Gaza-bound protest flotilla, with security forces underestimating the potential for violence, said the official report released Monday.
The report, however, praised the commandos who took part in the operation, saying they were justified in opening fire and killing nine after being confronted by violent pro-Palestinian activists on board one of the ships.
The report concluded that intelligence-gathering was deficient and that various intelligence units did not communicate properly with each other. It criticized the operation's planners for not having a backup plan in the event of violence.
Click to expand...

[quote name='Msut77']Does someone want to explain the obvious to knoell?

I don't have the patience for running the pre-school today.[/QUOTE]

I quoted the article so you could read the parts that were most relavent to this conversation (ie the first three paragraghs), as you obviously couldn't be bothered to read it yourself before bashing me. Preschool indeed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Knoell, do you understand sources can be biased?[/QUOTE]

Do you understand that it wasnt my source? he cited it as proof of his prediction, and in all reality it isnt. Then certain people went on to bash me without even looking at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top