We May Have 1,300 Dead or Drowing Passengers: Jews, Don't Help Us Dammit!

Three Dollar Hooker

CAGiversary!
Egyptian cruise ship sinks in Red Sea

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

CAIRO, Egypt

At least twelve bodies of passengers aboard the Egyptian cruise ship Salaam 98, which sank Friday in the Red Sea, have been retrieved, Zaka reported Friday afternoon, adding that Egypt has declined the Israel Navy's offer of search and rescue assistance.

The Salaam 98 sank 40 miles off the Egyptian port of Hurghada, head of the Egyptian Maritime Authority, Mahfouz Taha Marzouk, said Friday.

Four Egyptian frigates have sailed to rescue survivors, Egypt's minister of transport, Mohammed Lutfy Mansour, told CNN shortly before the sinking of the ship was announced.

"The Coast Guard is doing every in its power to try to rescue these people," Mansour said.
Asked about the safety of the ship, Mansour said: "It met safety requirements. The number of passengers on board is less than the maximum number of people."

However, Sky News reported that the number of passengers, 1415, exceeded by some 20% the maximum number allowed on board.

Britain's top naval officer said that he had diverted a warship to the north Red Sea site where the ship had sunk.

"The HMS Bulwark was heading toward the site and will arrive in a day-and-a-half," said Adm. Sir Alan West, Britain's first sea lord, on Friday afternoon.

The ship disappeared from radar screens shortly after sailing from the western Saudi port of Dubah at seven p.m. local time on Thursday night, the maritime officials in Suez said, speaking on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to speak to the press. The ship was due to have arrived at Egypt's port of Safaga at 3 a.m. local time.

Dubah and Safaga lie virtually opposite each other, about 120 miles apart, at the northern end of the Red Sea.

The ship is owned by the Egyptian firm El-Salaam Maritime Transport Co. and was carrying 1,300 passengers, the official added. Some of the passengers are believed to be pilgrims returning from the annual hajj to Mecca, which ended last month.

The company's owner, Mamdouh Ismail, said the ship is more than 25 years old and registered in Panama. He spoke before the sinking was announced and refused to comment further.

A ship owned by the same company, also carrying pilgrims, collided with a cargo ship at the southern entrance to the Suez Canal in October, causing a stampede among passengers trying to escape the sinking ship. Two people were killed and 40 injured.
Jerusalem Post

Oh well, can't say Israel isn't offering humanitarian assitance.

You really have to wonder why someone would rather let people drown or die of exposure than accept help.

To think this is the country Israel actually made peace with too.
 
Is anyone on this board capable of responding to an original topic? Or does it come naturally to just go OT so they can prove a point to a question that hasn't been asked.
 
If you could develop a skill known as "deep" or "inferential" reading, then you might realize that EZB's point is relevant to your topic.

That is this: it is not uncommon for countries to turn down offers of assistance, particularly from countries that are not our closest allies. In the case of Egypt and Israel, they may have made peace, but they are far from being allies.

In addition, there is also the viewpoint that such offers are made cynically; the case of Venezuela's offered aid in the southern United States amounted to a "bluff" in people's minds; there existed no intention of actually following through with it, and the offer was made *with the knowledge* that it would be refused, and subsequently make the US look poor and midguided in its priorities, and Venezuela kind and benevolent in its efforts.

TDH, I know *you* think that this article presents yet further evidence of the watertight case that Irael-good, and not Israel-bad, but the world is far more complex than that, for your information. Just because our responses aren't fawning all over your genius in presenting one perspective of an argument (one you consider to be ultimately infallible) doesn't mean we aren't responding.

Go find a logic text, willya?
 
[quote name='Three Dollar Hooker']Is anyone on this board capable of responding to an original topic? Or does it come naturally to just go OT so they can prove a point to a question that hasn't been asked.[/QUOTE]

Why do you find it abnormal for a country (actually, two, since Egypt AND Saudi Arabia are looking for survivors) to turn down offers of assistance?
 
[quote name='Three Dollar Hooker']So much for that ignore list huh mykevermin.[/QUOTE]

To you I say this: "Is anyone on this board capable of responding to an original topic? Or does it come naturally to just go OT so they can prove a point to a question that hasn't been asked."
 
I fail to see how someone criticizing a government for refusing immediate assistence on the scene of a true life and death situatoin qualifies them as a bigot.

Perhaps you'll enlighten us with your usual one sentence flame bait response?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I fail to see how someone criticizing a government for refusing immediate assistence on the scene of a true life and death situatoin qualifies them as a bigot.

Perhaps you'll enlighten us with your usual one sentence flame bait response?[/QUOTE]

PAD, he openly admitted to being prejudice against arabs in an earlier thread. I posted an article about a recent withdrawal of settlers and focused attention on the comment of one particular israeli legislator. After ranting about me being anti-semitic he confessed his own bigotry.
 
OMG! A Jew prejudiced against Arabs!

STOP THE fuckING PRESS!

Next thing you know you'll be railing against blacks opposed to Klan members!

OH THE HUMANITY!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']OMG! A Jew prejudiced against Arabs!

STOP THE fuckING PRESS!

Next thing you know you'll be railing against blacks opposed to Klan members!

OH THE HUMANITY![/QUOTE]

You were wondering what qualified him as a bigot, I explained. Besides, if it's wrong for muslims to hate jews then it's wrong for jews to hate muslims.

Though I don't know why I bother responding, comparing arabs to the KKK is typical, all you want to do is get a reaction.
 
Really?

After the Palestinians elected Hamas and it's platform calling for the elimination of Israel that the analogy of Palestinians to the Klan is more apt than ever. We're now dealing with a firm majority of people who have said, "Why as a matter of fact this terrorist organization really does represent our mainstream point of view.".
 
I wonder if AM23 thinks the Klan could win an overwhelming majority of seats in the U.S. House or Senate.

Well then that makes them much less effective as a racist and terrorist organization than Hamas.

Kind of hard to argue with election results don't you think?

A Klansman couldn't win one seat for federal office in the U.S. (OOOPS! Robert Byrd) okay, a current Klansman couldn't win a seat for federal office.

Contrast that to the Palestinians who not only elected one, or even more than one, but a firm majority of terrorists to represent them as a people.
 
I'm going to quote myself from a previous post as a response:

That's not a good example of muslims supporting terrorism. Electing al qaeda is. To palestinians hamas is a provider of social services (hospitals, schools, orphanages, soup kitchens etc.), something the PA often did/could not provide. They are seen as honest and untainted by corruption, unlike Fatah. Resistence to Israel is seen as legitimate. What brands them as terrorist is one of the methods of resistance that they use. Obviously that criticism is valid, but the organization appears very different to onlookers as it does to people who live where it is active. And, consistent with most countries, when attacked populations often support right wing groups. This is true in Israel, in the u.s., and in palestine.

In palestine many saw a vote for Fatah as a vote for corruption, failure and incompetence.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm going to quote myself from a previous post as a response:[/QUOTE]

So if the Klan were known for building schools, providing medical assistence and offering charitable assistence in addition to its stated mission of wanting blacks to be seperated from "white" America or repatriated to Africa, condeming the Catholic and Jewish faiths you'd think they were just a hunky dory organization?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']So if the Klan were known for building schools, providing medical assistence and offering charitable assistence in addition to its stated mission of wanting blacks to be seperated from "white" America or repatriated to Africa, condeming the Catholic and Jewish faiths you'd think they were just a hunky dory organization?[/QUOTE]

He never said (in that quote) that they were actually a good group, he said the palestinians see them that way. It doesn't matter what the truth is, it only matters what people believe. They're not supporting terrorism if they don't see Hamas as a terrorist organization. I don't know for sure if that's how palestinian's see Hamas, but if it is then that holds true.
 
If the Klan did all those things and wasn't viewed by white protestants as a terrorist or racist organization I don't think that would fly with Catholics, Jews, blacks, Muslims and Asians.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']If the Klan did all those things and wasn't viewed by white protestants as a terrorist or racist organization I don't think that would fly with Catholics, Jews, blacks, Muslims and Asians.[/QUOTE]

Me neither, and it shouldn't. That wouldn't mean that if white protestants voted for the klan to lead their country that they necessarily support terrorism and racism if they thought they were the lesser of two evils or only knew about their good works or just didn't believe the bad things said about them. If Palestinians think the only way to get services they need is to elect hamas then who do you think they're going to elect?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']If the Klan did all those things and wasn't viewed by white protestants as a terrorist or racist organization I don't think that would fly with Catholics, Jews, blacks, Muslims and Asians.[/QUOTE]

Anti-semitism is a part of hamas, but not essential to it. That point is easy to understand unless you wrongly view anti-semitism and anti-zionism as one and the same. It's kind of like how being against gay rights is consistent with many members of the republican party, but is not essential to being republican. It is just commonly associated with its members and their speeches. But there is also a difference between wanting your occupiers out and wanting what the klan wanted. Think of the racism directed at the japanese during WW2 (even ignoring the internment camps), yet we wouldn't suggest that racism was the motive behind all of america's actions. But yet, by supporting the u.s. in WW2, you were indirectly supporting racist policies whether you held them or not.

But, again, there's the whole aspect of resisting occupation, providing services etc. all of which are not necessarily bad things. The methods are the problem with hamas. The methods and almost the entire ideology is the problem with the kkk.

Fighting occupation is not necessarily wrong
Opposing corruption is good
Providing needed services is good

You also have to deal with the reality that palestinians believe (sometimes right, sometimes wrong) that their civilians are targeted by israeli soldiers, israeli settlers and sometimes israel's government itself. Remember it was Rabin himself who once called on the IDF to "break the bones of the demonstrators" when the first intifida was marked by largely peaceful resistance.

That doesn't excuse terrorism, but it makes it more justifiable to palestinians when considering the beneficial side to hamas. But even fatah members voted for it, a similar phenomena was seen in canada recently. The ruling parted needed to be put in its place, to reform itself, so people who didn't agree ideologically with it still voted for the opposing party.
 
bread's done
Back
Top