Humanitarian aid flotilla attacked.... - Page 10

It's really nice for Reuters to hide the flotilla activists' weapons for them.

Hilarious - you don't have $400M but you still want to pay one-third of the TOTAL US foreign-aid budget to Israel which comprises 0 .001 percent of the world's population.

In real terms - ie the money you 'don't have' - this consists of $2.55bn in 2009 set to increase to $3.15bn by 2018.

So the wingnut logic is:

$400M = can't afford

$2.55bn per year and rising = no problem.

This must put the more rabid wingers in a quandary actually... they have to defend this fiscal madness with unthinking obedience as it is headed to Israel but they also have to oppose Obama who is the author of the financial mismanagement.

Maybe a few (a few more I mean) circuits are going to blow. Expect an increase in the record levels of irrationality.

Excellent. What's another half billion of our grandchildren's money?

The way you rationalize and equivocate is truly incredible. Actually, it's somewhat disgusting.

Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations. They launch suicide and other attacks, knowingly directed at civilians. And yes, they also provide aid to their people. They can do this because the official governments are corrupt and ineffective. This gives them support among the populace. It is not, however, their primary goal. Their goal is to destroy Israel. How do we know? Because they say so.

wiki:


Yes sammi...morally equivalent to political leadership in Israel and the US.

Equivocation.....

Interesting word. Because it is what you do all the time...in fact you are doing it now.

launch....other attacks, knowingly directed at civilians.

Israel does this all the time. Yet it is ok.

It even attacked - and killed - civilians on the flotilla as we are discussing in this very thread. All ok. No problems - Israel still purer than pure.

If Israel kills someone - anyone - then that person BECOMES the terrorist or the sub-human just because they were killed by Israel.

Their goal is to destroy Israel. How do we know? Because they say so.

And if they don't say so then we will mistranslate it so they do.

Btw - what is the problem with 'wanting to destroy' Israel a priori ?

Or, put another way, if two countries are at war is it wrong for EITHER to want to destroy the other. I can point to speeches of Churchill that wanted to see Germany destroyed.

Was he wrong?

Or is it just people that are YOUR enemies that it applies to?

I would have thought that - by definition - ALL warring parties want to destroy the other.

But then again, Israel is a special case as we know and NO-ONE is allowed to want to go to war with Israel.

Still haven't found out why so many wingers see Israel as a sacred cow though - my best guess it is a combo of hatred of Islam and Judeo-Xian brainwashing over two millennia.

That's ridiculous. Every attempt is made NOT to kill civilians. It does happen, but it's not the goal..and you know it.


Also ridiculous. Israel retaliates for terror attacks. They go after the people who launch said attacks, and their associates. I don't agree with all of their methods.


Israel instituted a blockade. Ships knew of this blockade and attempted to run it. Israel did what it is legally entitled to do...it boarded the ship once it refused to be stopped. The people that boarded it were attacked. They reacted, and people died. Oh, and don't ascribe motives and beliefs to me. You know I don't believe Israel is "purer than pure." Don't even start with that cheap, strawman garbage.



Not just ridiculous, but absurd, made-up and well....dumb. It's like you just are throwing it out there to see if it sticks.


Can you please FREAKING STOP with that. Please. It's been beat to death. If you cannot accept that fact that much of Iran's leadership, Hezbollah and Hamas want to destroy Israel--regardless of any mistranslations/misinterpretations you may find---then you are simply not worth talking to.


Yes, yes, moral equivalency! See, it's just a good ol' fashioned war! Boys will be boys!

You're suggesting that those who deliberately target civilians with rockets, mortars and suicide vests are the moral equivalent to the legitimate armed forces of a nation-state. It's not just ridiculous, nor just insane-sounding. It's actually sickening.

I really don't.

I don't hink they try not to or try to. I think they just don't care. That is very clear from their MO over the years. There are plenty of times when they didn't have to drive a bulldozer over someone, didn't have to shoot an unarmed kid, didn't have to kill 10 people on a boat.

Many, many occasions when even a very small effort to prevent civilian deaths would have actually done so.


Israel engages in collective punishment.

As to responding to 'terror attacks' they respond to responses to responses to responses. "Terror Attack" is a meaningless buzzword.

Aren't many things more terrifying than having your kids killed by an IDF sniper or being bulldozed by shock troops.


You come across like that...maybe you should adjust it so people don't get you wrong?



I happen to believe it. After deducing it from long observation. If you have something in your eye that blocks your vision on this issue then you might want to get it tested. Or not.

[quote]
Can you please FREAKING STOP with that. Please. It's been beat to death. If you cannot accept that fact that much of Iran's leadership, Hezbollah and Hamas want to destroy Israel--regardless of any mistranslations/misinterpretations you may find---then you are simply not worth talking to. [/quote}

You know what? No I can't. I asked you a simple question as to whether the standard you are applying to Israel is a constant and a universal or whether it JUST APPLIES TO ISRAEL and if so why.

If you can't argue your corner and if you think that makes me 'not worth talking to' because I am asking you to support your arguments then it says more about your state of mind than it does me..


Well....there is some sort of 'evil' here granted so it is not 'just a war. Bit like WW2 was not 'just a war'.

More at stake when a group takes things to the next level.


Why?

Support that. I don't see much difference between Israel and the US - what is really sick is the way they deny the equivalence between themselves and those they hate. They're all murderers in my book.

The sort of people who could shoot a kid in the head are sick psychos. The sort of people who can use phosphorous bombs on civilians are sick twisted maniacs. And that's before you get into the quasi-facist politics.

And as for the people who defend the sickos that do it with excuses and justifications.....well.....

The question isis the naval blockade legal?

International positions

United Nations

On January 24, 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council released a statement calling for Israel to lift its siege on the Gaza Strip, allow the continued supply of food, fuel, and medicine, and reopen border crossings. According to the Jerusalem Post, this was the 15th time in less than two years the council condemned Israel for its human rights record regarding the Palestinian territories. The proceedings were boycotted by Israel and the United States.

On December 15, 2008, following a statement in which he described the embargo on Gaza a crime against humanity, United Nations Special Rapporteur Richard A. Falk was prevented from entering the Palestinian territories by Israeli authorities and expelled from the region. The Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Itzhak Levanon said that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur was "hopelessly unbalanced," "redundant at best and malicious at worst."

In August 2009, U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay criticised Israel for the blockade in a 34-page report, calling it a violation of the rules of war.

In March 2010, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon stated that the blockade of Gaza is causing "unacceptable suffering" and that families were living in "unacceptable, unsustainable conditions".

A UN Fact Finding mission lead by South African Judge Richard Goldstone suggested that the blockade was a war crime and possibly a crime against humanity:

"Israeli acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed."The Goldstone report recommended that the matter be referred to the International Criminal Court if the situation has not improved in six months.

In May 2010, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs stated that the formal economy in Gaza has collapsed since the imposition of the blockade.

My position on flotilla ? It reminds me accounts of Dr. Martin Luther King and the Freedom Marchers as they march to the State Capitol the March from Selma to Montgomery. They too, face police with guns and baton, dark caps covering there heavy forehead faces; many marchers beaten and jail. March 7, 1965 known as U2's "Bloody Sunday" when 600 civil rights marchers were attacked by state and local police with billy clubs and tear gas. Although, they too over come.

Yet, I ponder, how little has change.


Here's and article "The Real Threat Aboard the Freedom Flotilla,"

By Noam Chomsky

June 08, 2010 "In These Times" - -Israels violent attack on the Freedom Flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza shocked the world.

Hijacking boats in international waters and killing passengers is, of course, a serious crime.

But the crime is nothing new. For decades, Israel has been hijacking boats between Cyprus and Lebanon and killing or kidnapping passengers, sometimes holding them hostage in Israeli prisons.

Israel assumes that it can commit such crimes with impunity because the United States tolerates them and Europe generally follows the U.S.s lead.

As the editors of The Guardian rightly observed on June 1, If an armed group of Somali pirates had yesterday boarded six vessels on the high seas, killing at least 10 passengers and injuring many more, a NATO task force would today be heading for the Somali coast. In this case, the NATO treaty obligates its members to come to the aid of a fellow NATO countryTurkeyattacked on the high seas.

Israels pretext for the attack was that the Freedom Flotilla was bringing materials that Hamas could use for bunkers to fire rockets into Israel.

The pretext isnt credible. Israel can easily end the threat of rockets by peaceful means.

The background is important. Hamas was designated a major terrorist threat when it won a free election in January 2006. The U.S. and Israel sharply escalated their punishment of Palestinians, now for the crime of voting the wrong way.

The siege of Gaza, including a naval blockade, was a result. The siege intensified sharply in June 2007 after a civil war left Hamas in control of the territory.

What is commonly described as a Hamas military coup was in fact incited by the U.S. and Israel, in a crude attempt to overturn the elections that had brought Hamas to power.

That has been public knowledge at least since April 2008, when David Rose reported in Vanity Fair that George W. Bush, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Elliott Abrams, backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.

Hamas terror included launching rockets into nearby Israeli townscriminal, without a doubt, though only a minute fraction of routine U.S.-Israeli crimes in Gaza.

In June 2008, Israel and Hamas reached a cease-fire agreement. The Israeli government formally acknowledges that until Israel broke the agreement on Nov. 4 of that year, invading Gaza and killing half a dozen Hamas activists, Hamas did not fire a single rocket.

Hamas offered to renew the cease-fire. The Israeli cabinet considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to launch its murderous invasion of Gaza on Dec.27.

Like other states, Israel has the right of self-defense. But did Israel have the right to use force in Gaza in the name of self-defense? International law, including the U.N. Charter, is unambiguous: A nation has such a right only if it has exhausted peaceful means. In this case such means were not even tried, althoughor perhaps becausethere was every reason to suppose that they would succeed.

Thus the invasion was sheer criminal aggression, and the same is true of Israels resorting to force against the flotilla.

The siege is savage, designed to keep the caged animals barely alive so as to fend off international protest, but hardly more than that. It is the latest stage of longstanding Israeli plans, backed by the U.S., to separate Gaza from the West Bank.

The Israeli journalist Amira Hass, a leading specialist on Gaza, outlines the history of the process of separation: The restrictions on Palestinian movement that Israel introduced in January 1991 reversed a process that had been initiated in June 1967.

Back then, and for the first time since 1948, a large portion of the Palestinian people again lived in the open territory of a single country to be sure, one that was occupied, but was nevertheless whole.

Hass concludes: The total separation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank is one of the greatest achievements of Israeli politics, whose overarching objective is to prevent a solution based on international decisions and understandings and instead dictate an arrangement based on Israels military superiority.

The Freedom Flotilla defied that policy and so it must be crushed.

A framework for settling the Arab-Israeli conflict has existed since 1976, when the regional Arab States introduced a Security Council resolution calling for a two-state settlement on the international border, including all the security guarantees of U.N. Resolution 242, adopted after the June War in 1967.

The essential principles are supported by virtually the entire world, including the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran) and relevant non-state actors, including Hamas.

But the U.S. and Israel have led the rejection of such a settlement for three decades, with one crucial and highly informative exception. In President Bill Clintons last month in office, January 2001, he initiated Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in Taba, Egypt, that almost reached an agreement, participants announced, before Israel terminated the negotiations.

Today, the cruel legacy of a failed peace lives on.

International law cannot be enforced against powerful states, except by their own citizens. That is always a difficult task, particularly when articulate opinion declares crime to be legitimate, either explicitly or by tacit adoption of a criminal frameworkwhich is more insidious, because it renders the crimes invisible.

How about getting an international ruling about the legality of the blockade before deciding you think it isn't legal and then running it?

If you think a law is unconstitutional, do you just break it intentionally and hope later they rule in your favor? Don't you think it would be safer to challenge the law first and then do the activity after the law is overturned?

At least they'll know that America cared. That's priceless.

That's not really the issue. My understanding was that you and sego were linking those movements (for lack of a better term) with the current Israeli political leadership (or, recent leadership). But this is not the case. The Stern Gang was actually banned in 1948, and classified a terrorist organization (by Israel). Now, it is true that Yitzak Shamir was one of the groups leaders, and at that time supported their methods (which from all I can gather, were terroristic). But does that equate the Israeli leadership of today with Hamas and Hezbollah? I don't see how.

Keep in mind, I've never believed that Israel is blameless (or has been blameless) in any sense. To say Israel has done plenty wrong would be an understatement. However, I'm looking at the current situation. We have two groups that are dedicated to Israel's destruction. Yet Israel is an internationally recognized nation-state with a democratically elected government and uniformed military. Yes, Israel does things with its military I don't agree with. I've already stated these specifically. But even those mistakes are in retaliation to terrorist acts committed. They don't go out and bulldoze house and launch missiles just for the sake of killing civilians.


A defensive war? Israel's invasion was IN RESPONSE TO the actions of Hezzbollah and others. I can't speak to your hypothetical question. You have your view of the US State Dept, and I wont change that. I do think that Hezzbolah has a snowball's chance in hell of being inactive in a paramilitary sense.

Wait a second. You also mentioned the US, not just Israel. The US makes every attempt not to kill civilians. This is clear. As for Israel, if they didn't care about civilians, wouldn't they just wipe out all of Gaza? They certainly have the power to do it.


Oh my God. No. They respond to terror attacks. Like people blowing themselves on busses. Like mortar and rocket attacks into neighborhoods. If you don't know what terrorism is (or can't admit it), then you really shouldn't have a place int he conversation. Any reasonable, non-polarized person knows what a terrorist attack is.


Oh boy...more semantics and twisted logic. "Terror attacks" are not simply defined as "really bad and scary things." We're talking about the deliberate murder of civilians. This cannot be justified, no matter what Israel's response is.


No, you infer that. You do so because it makes your argument easier by painting me as having a polarized view. It's a strawman. Oh, and I've already given multiple examples of my issues with Israel's conduct.

[quote]

I happen to believe it. After deducing it from long observation. If you have something in your eye that blocks your vision on this issue then you might want to get it tested. Or not.


You continue to raise the mistranslation issue. It doesn't seem to matter how many times we discuss it. You've explained clearly that "wiped off the map" is mistranslation. I'm saying fine...but it simply doesn't matter. Iran's leadership has made its views abundantly clear in the past, and continues to do so. Yet, you continue claim that each aggressive statement made is a mistranslation put out their by some super-secret, Neocon group that you refuse to identify. Worse still, you claim that all FUTURE aggressive statements would merely be mistranslated.

In other words, Iran can do no wrong. They don't want to destroy Israel..they're just misunderstood. They don't want nuclear weapons...their faith forbids it. You'll give Iran every last benefit of the doubt, while giving Israel none. It's not a balanced view. It's polarized, which is of course what you are. You want to see Israel destroyed and are 100% on the side of anyone who shares this view. It would be much easier if you would just admit as much.


Let me get this straight: You don't see any difference between the use of a uniformed military that attempts NOT to kill civilians--and groups that deliberately target civilians? We're not talking about military mistakes, or isolated incidents here, Sego. We're talking about policy. It is the POLICY of one group to kill civilians. It is the POLICY of the other to avoid civilian deaths when possible. There is no comparing these two.

Read on. I'm telling you...it's not the issue.

Do they? I don't necessarily accept that. if I did accept it then I would agree with you - but I don't have a vested interest in believing it and thus can look at the situation objectively.

In Israel's case they can't wipe out all of Gaza because they DO care about something else: world opinion.

That is they do not care about it per se but it is essential to the portrayal of 'Israel as the good guy' - they can only go so far and maintain that.


Ok..give them phosphorous bombs and the same military budget from the US - that will stop suicide bombs and 'all will be fair'.

Really it's insane - it's like the Luftwaffe complaining that the enemy are using bows and arrows.


Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is twisted...logic never is twisted actually...it's logic. I think what you mean to say is that you can't follow it.

But, I don't accept that Hamas target civilians anymore than Israel do. they might use a rocket. Israel don't need to. I suggest you look at the list of Palestinian civilian casualties.



Actually no...you've said a few times vaguely that you have 'some issues' but I think that's the extent of it.


It does matter.

Because if he DID NOT SAY IT then you have to ask WHY DO PEOPLE THINK HE DID AND CONTINUALLY REFERENCE IT?

And when you do (if you do) you see that someone is indeed spreading and perpetuating this lie.

And I have identified them. Very clearly and very often. Google 'MEMRI' to get up to speed.

Btw, there are many examples of Israel using propaganda for it's own ends. Very, very many. ANd the Holocaust is even one of them unfortunately - which is a disgrace imo.



President A has stated explicitly - ie not a questionable translation - that he does NOT want to destroy Israel.

My questions to you would be:

a) Why do you believe a lie that he does based on something he did NOT say

b) why do you refuse to accept he does not when he DID say this.

I don't want to see Israel destroyed necessarily. I want to see an end to fascist Zionist oppression in the name of Israel. I don't think Hamas or any Islamist group are the ones to do that though...


I do see a difference: the uniformed State groups have a license and are justified by tradition and ideas of 'bravery', 'heroes' and Nationalism.

Btw, numerous ISRAELI soldiers have objected to the policies of the Israeli army and claim there IS a policy of targeting civilians.

Unfortunately they aren't in a position to take their claims further or subject them to scrutiny as they are in jail.

Ok..I agree. It's not and this is why:

Earlier I was watching the World Cup Opening in South Africa..they were going on about how this was only possible because of that great man Mandela.

Well..maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I don't know.

I do know that all through the heyday of Apartheid to wingers he was a 'terrorist' and 'rightly' in jail.

I do know the ANC and guerilla forces were 'illegal' and 'terror groups' and now they are heroes in a free land.

I think Israel clearly has that military capability. They could be far more aggressive if they truly didn't care about civilians. As for world opinion, can it get much worse? I think they could issue a statement about liking cute little pink bunny rabbits, and they'd be slammed for it.


Your statement exposes your true feelings. Israel must be driven out. It's just that they need better weapons to drive Israel out. In the meantime, what else are they supposed to do? They HAVE to blow themselves up!


Then you're deluded. Israel responds to terror attacks. Hamas executes those attacks. If the attacks stopped, so would the retaliation. It doesn't work both ways. Israel withdraws and STILL gets attacked. This is due to the ideology of Hamas itself.


No, I've been specific. I've taken issue with bulldozing homes and firing missiles in close proximity to civilians. I've taken issue with their "in and out, in and out" approach. They move in, then move out, only to move in again. I've already stated what I think they should do: Give peace every chance. State that you're totally withdrawing, dismantling settlements, etc. State that you're giving the Palestinians everything they claim to want, and actually do it. Then make one final promise: If the attacks continue after we've held up our end of the bargain, we're going to move in, declare martial law, and stay...forever.


Two reasons "people" repeat it. 1) It's not that far off from the actual statement and 2) Iran is hostile towards Israel and the United States, regardless.


You have not. Not at all. You cannot explain the entire issue through a language barrier, nor through the existence of a secret Neocon cabal.


Oh, by all means...let's have that quote.


Then who is?


They're also legal under international law.


Of course they do. There are always those that express disagreement, especially in a democracy's military. As for targeting claims, let's see them. Please substantiate that.

Get much worse?????????

Virtually the whole world supports Israel... you can't MOVE for Israel supporters. I would say that there are very, very few radicals around now.

This board is a classic barometer. Probably about 3 of us calling Israel on it's crimes while with every new outrage new crops of wingers join the mass chorus of support for whatever the latest outrage is.

I can't believe what I read here sometimes and your comment here is verging on the unbelievable...


My true feeling don't need exposing do they? I think I've always been upfront...no-one could mistake me for a ZIonist I think.


Israel responds to attacks. Because they come from a dispossessed people with not State or army those people are labelled terrorists but the fact is they are part of a cycle of violence on all sides.


Fair enough. Seems a bit dodgy at the end....you disagree with Israel where they don't enforce perpetual martial law?


3) They are uncritical sheep with a vested interest in opposing 'the muzzlims'

4) because they have allowed themselves to be brainwashed

5) and scared shitless by their 'leaders'


Why not? Coupled with a load of brainwashed sheep and a handful of Islamophobe racists and fascists who needs more?

Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being "no need for any measures by the Iranian people". Instead he claimed that "the Zionist regime" in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. "I assure you... there won't be any war in the future," both the BBC and AP quoted him as saying.

And asked if he objected to the government of Israel or Jewish people, he said that "creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish". He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country's parliament.

In a September 2008 interview with Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman on the radio and television program Democracy Now!, Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?" and replied:

If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.

My personal opinion is that the Zionist ideology itself will implode and it's counterpart, Islamic radicalism, will die at the same time in a similar manner to the world-wide fall of Communism.

I think this will come as a result of some sort of velvet-revolution or youth movement which transcends the older generation and their politics and unites people in Israel and the Muslim world and elsewhere who have had enough of violence and 'the way things are'.

It's not imminent. Maybe the leaders of this are about 3 or 4 years old now or not quite born yet.


Of course. They don't have the license. No other differences.


You don't need claims. The Israel media is quite open about it.

We also target civilians

IDF admits targeting civilian areas in Lebanon with cluster bombs

Not judging by the UN, it doesn't. Not judging by international coverage of the flotilla raid.


I don't think you have been upfront, actually. I've come to believe that you're a wingnut of sorts, but a smart one. In other words, nothing would please you more than Israel being destroyed. I think you believe the Israeli's are on Palestinian land, and their entire existence is an illegal and immoral occupation. I think you believe it's just a matter of time until the land is returned to its "rightful" owners.
Hmmm? I mean, we already know you don't think Israel has a right to exist.


No. They're labeled terrorists because they commit acts of terrorism. I'm starting to think you really don't know what terrorism is and is not. An army using harsh tactics, not being as careful as it should be, accidentally killing civilians, occupying Palestinian territory...that's not terrorism. It might be wrong and ineffective, but it's not terrorism. Terrorism is deliberately killing civilians as a matter of policy. Israel does not do this. The United States does not do this. Are there isolated incidents such as tanks running someone over, or a kid getting shot? Yes. They are horrible. But they are not the policy of the "regime" you hold in such contempt.


I think it should be one or the other. Instead, they occupy, then leave. Then they go through a period of attacks, so they drop the hammer again. It's an endless cycle. What I'm saying is this: Give everything to the peace process. Heck, even apologize for past actions. Take up the cause of humanitarian support. Just completely change course. But make it clear that if the Palestinian's don't control those radicals who will stop at nothing to destroy Israel, the deal is off. If attacks don't stop, make it clear that you will do whatever is necessary to stop the attacks, including making life a living hell for those in the territory.



What is their "vested interest?" Some are brainwashed or ignorant, but you seem to apply that term to anyone with whom you disagree. I don't know about our leaders. Some wish to scare people into supporting an agenda. But that's pretty common. We have a President now who doesn't fit the mold. As we speak, he is attempting to weaken the recent sanctions. He also uses fear to try and push through his quasi-socialist agenda. As I've said to sammi, you're partying like it's 2005. Bush is on his ranch. Who runs the Blow Up Iran desk now?


Here again, "racist Islamophobe fascist" seems to be applied to anyone with whom you disagree, especially those who point out the major problem of Islamic terrorism.


Yes. Peace in our time. Let's ignore everything else Iran does. Has it occurred to you that President A. is a media-savvy politician? He knows he'd never get away with directly calling for Israel's destruction, so he does it indirectly. He'd never get away with blatant anti-semitism, so he throws in a statement about Iranian Jews. You know, it's amazing really: You'll dismiss every word of a Western leader as LIES, but then soak up every morsel of what this man says.

Let me ask, why do you think Iran's motives are "purer than pure?"




I can't agree, because you can't compare what you call Zionism with Islamic radicalism. One is far more extreme. The last time I checked, Zionism didn't call for the extermination of all non-Jews. Just an example.


Man, you LOVE semantics. Most of us live in a certain reality. In that reality, we make a distinction between legitimate armed forces, and terrorist groups. If you choose to live in an alternate universe, that is your choice. The rest of the world knows that the armed forces are not morally equivalent to terrorist groups.



Dude...come on. The byline is "Halutz: My orders were explicit to fire cluster bombs with extreme caution, and to avoid populated areas"

I don't see how one can rely on the first link. The US media say plenty of things that aren't true. We had Moveon.org compare Bush to Adolf Hitler through a user-submitted video. I guess he's Hitler then.

Frustrated yet? I think you have done a fantastic job of stating your position, and it matches mine fairly closely.

Wow, my God...who'd have thunk it??

Unfortunately you don't quite have SDW's turn of phrase so we'll assume he is doing your summation for you and address his points instead...maybe you should stick to applauding his efforts from behind the lines


We must be viewing different media...more than likely I guess.


Wingnuts are never smart. And they are always Right-wing. Can't see how you'd accuse me of that.


It would please me if the oppression of the Palestinians were ended. If Israel has to end to achieve that then I'd settle for that sure. Many things would please me more though....I can think of quite a few

So I wouldn't weep for Israel true, but I don't think it will happen like that and don't expect or particularly want it. I'm not stupid.

It's true I don't think any nation has a RIGHT to exist though.


I have a good idea what terrorism is; it is what enfranchised nations (Israel, US, UK) deem it to be at any given time.

It is not policy of Hamas either. Don't be disingenuous.


Ok.


If you think Obama has a Socialist agenda you are discredited. Period. It demeans almost everything you've ever said and some of it has been insightful.

And he is not weakening anything. If anything he is ramping up. He has to - he is following the script. i wouldn't worry. War is unavoidable...might take a year or two...there need to be channels so people can point to them later in justification when radicals start shouting and stuff about the killing.


Not at all. there are not too many of this breed about thank God so 'anyone' is a bit of a falsehood.

There are some though and I'll point them out if necessary.


What has Iran done then?


Personally I don't like Ahmedinejad. I think he fixed the election and I think he persecutes people who I would support like certain jailed dissidents and exiles.

BUT does that mean I trust the US to even have any involvement? No. All they can offer is death and chaos al la Iraq.

And of course the lies I refer to sometimes are part of the 'ramping up process' to that end.

So, to answer your question; I think Prez A is a bit of a fascist actually but not enough to side with his detractors in the West and Israel as they

a) Lie
b) Intend bad things for the Iranian people

But that is my opinion of Ahmedinejad. You asked my opinion of IRAN. So yes, I do think they have a pure intention and I think that should Ahmedinejad cross the line -as well he might - those with real power will remove him. And I won;t shed a tear about that.


You don't know much about either then do you? Did you check? Really? Or is it just a turn of phrase?


Because they are the forces of a State. Only difference.

What about the WW2 Resistance in France? Terrorists? I think so from a German pov.

And that's really all there is: point of view and whose side you support.


Well..it would be wouldn't it?


I think he could have potentially been a Hitler given different circumstances. You never know.

People say that it would have been ok to assassinate Hitler in 39 - but then they would never have known he was 'evil'. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

What I don't have is his patience for sure. Or his ability to ignore the little digs. I do have the ability to know when someone has put forth an excellent position and the wherewithal to let them know said fact. Must be the sinister side of me...

I honestly don't have the time to deal with you in the manner you think you deserve.

You mean if reality were not what it is?

You prefer the term 'anti-Jew?'

Some on the right here will be up in arms but for everyone else Israel's blockade update will be very welcome news-

"Israel's government decided Sunday to draw up a list of items banned from Gaza limited to weapons and materials deemed to have military uses and said the easing of the three-year-old blockade of the Palestinian territory would be implemented immediately.

The list of banned goods replaces an old list of allowed items that permitted only basic humanitarian supplies for the 1.5 million Gazans. Under the new system, the government said practically all non-military items can enter Gaza freely.

"From now on, there is a green light of approval for all goods to enter Gaza except for military items and materials that can strengthen Hamas' military machine," Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said.

Israel decided on Thursday to ease the blockade under intense international pressure after its raid on a blockade-busting international flotilla bound for Gaza killed nine pro-Palestinian activists."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_618716.html

So..you're saying that the media is taking Israel's side in this? You're kidding me, right?


False. They are often extremely intelligent.


That's just hilarious.


Notice I said "wing nut of sorts." You have an extreme position that you are masking as mainstream.


Yes, but you wouldn't mind, either. I think that's a huge problem in itself. If we're living next to each other and I say "I wouldn't mind if my neighbor's house blew up and everyone inside died," you'd find that pretty extreme. Or so I'm guessing.


You've posted that before and I have to say I really don't know what it means. Are you arguing for nothing more than "might is right?" Frankly, I'm not even sure you believe your statement. I think it's cover for your real feelings, which are "Israel doesn't have a right to exist."


Then you really don't know.


No, no. Not a policy of Hamas. Jesus. It's like we're in the twilight zone.


I've already explained what I view as Obama's agenda. It is not socialism per se, but it is far closer to it than anything we've had in this country since FDR, and possibly before. He favors several tenants of socialism, including redistribution of wealth, nationalized healthcare, increased regulation and government created prosperity through Keynesian spending polices. By the way, I live here. How the hell do you know?


What is he ramping up, specifically? Who wrote the script...the secret Neocon Cabal that you refuse to identify? As for "not worrying," I'll ignore the dig. See Noah...it can be done!


Excellent. Please do so and provide supporting evidence.


I was pretty specific in that regard.


Fair enough.


Again, please provide evidence of the US "ramping up" for war. It's non-existent.


Examples, please.


But why accept him at his word, while giving Western leaders no benefit of the doubt?


Turn of phrase. However, am I wrong?


No, not the only difference, but the forces of a State do matter--especially if we're dealing witha democratically elected government.


Did they target German civilians? I don't think so. In any case, they were a sovereign nation invaded by another. Palestine is not a recognized country. It's a poor comparison.


There is much more than that. There is the moral absolute of what terrorism is, and what it's not.


I don't understand that comment. Please explain.


That's just dumb.


Any comparison between Bush and Hitler disqualifies from you the discussion.

I select some of the choice bits here....not all areof equal weight so to say:


Depends on the context doesn't it?

If we were living next to each other and you came round for tea and we watched the cricket while slapping each other on the back then that's one thing.

If you kept trying to steal bits of my garden, sent hit squads into my home at night and every time I phoned the police they came round and beat me up I might feel a little different.


I am saying that countries take over other countries and, depending on their established wealth, prospects and alliances, they are 'recognized' or 'opposed' by 'the international community'.

That's how empires are built. It's the way it works.

I don't accept that this way is 'Hoy Writ' nor do I pay any respect to it. So no, no country has a RIGHT to exist. If they behave then ok. If they are rabid dogs running wild then they come into the spotlight.


Presumably then, given that Hamas have a charter of their policies, you'll be able to quote the relevant passage?

I've always thought we were in the Twilight Zone btw - it's merely a question of which side of the fence is the reality


Not Socialism - thank you. I sincerely hope that means we don't have to hear this insult to the intelligence again.

As to how I know, having lived in the US on two separate occasions in NYC and having lived through the UK 'Winter of Discontent' and in several of the most rabidly Socialist countries in the EU before the fall of Communism as well as after I think I have a pretty sound grasp of what Socialism is andit isn't anywhere on the globe.


Resistance Forces did not target German civilians because there were none in the occupied countries.

The did target civilians as a matter of course: The Dambusters raids for example were no military target and called mass civilian casualties and the bombing of Dresden by the right-wing psychopath Bomber Harris is well known.


Moral absolutes are culturally conditioned. Set by the society you live in. Your belief in moral absolutes and what they are corresponds to the current US model for example.

The only way round this is to be an 'Outsider' and if you do that you'll get the guardians of the one you are in - you for example - telling you about how you do not conform to 'Moral Absolutes' and thus are not valid.

It's a filter system in short.

And it relies on the idea that your values are better than the values in the country across the world.


First it's not a comparison....read it again. Second who says it disqualifies me? Is there a judge somewhere? A book of rules?

Anyone can become a Hitler. Well, any right-wing (check), war-loving (check), power-mad (check), believer that other races or cultures are somehow 'evil' (check).

I also notice you side-stepped the philosophical issue about the assassination which I think is interesting.

Has Israel attacked you personally, then? The truth is you HATE Israel's leadership and would not be upset if Israel just went way completely. And if millions of Jews dies in the process...eh. Oh well.


Who's talking about empires? The international community (i.e. the other people on the planet) recognize nations. That's the way it works. You seem to be arguing for chaos or perhaps geopolitical darwinism.


So, Hamas does not target civilians, right? OK. I just want to make sure you're actually claiming that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uicide_attacks



When you cannot define terrorism, one wonders what side of that fence you live on.


He we go again. You've done this before. You are using your own super-secret definition of socialism with seemingly very narrow criteria. You won't define it for others...you just get to deny anything meets or comes close to the definition. Whatever. I say again: Obama is the closest thing we've had to socialism in this country since FDR. That's why I called it
quasi-socialism.


So the analogy is crap, then.


Oh stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise




I'm not going to get into a debate on culture and moral absolutes in general. I do know that terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians. That much is certain.


See, right there--that implication of Bush---that's where you show your delusional tendencies. And no, not "anyone" could become Hitler, just like not "anyone" could become Babe Ruth.




It's really a useless academic exercise to me. In 1939, he hadn't yet started to...you know...dominate the world and kill 6,000,000 Jews. Your argument is that had Bush remained in power, he very well might have done something similar. But that's a silly analogy in just so many ways. Do I really need to point out the differences?

Woah.....bit strong.

This is bad grammar btw...thought you'd want to know... it's "Jews DIE"....no plural


You and I are talking about them....try to keep up. It's the same process...call it nation-building or what you will.

Who rattled your cage today btw? You seem out of sorts...did your wife burn the toast again? Or is something more weighty on your mind?


Good idea to make sure...seeing as you made-up the contention and it's totally in your own mind

You've got to stop doing that btw...you don't actually need to make it up...I can give you enough TRUE ammo to keep you going for years...


It's probably safe to assume we are on opposite sides of it. I think we can agree on that.


Maybe he is the closest thing you've had since FDR. I don't deny that.

Put him in Europe and he'd be the closest thing WE'VE had to Ghenghis Khan since Heinrich Himmler or Margaret Thatcher.


In so far as you are incapable of understanding it and it is therefore some sort of waste-product to you then I suppose you could say that yes...


And your point is?


Very wise. You are learning Grasshopper.


Which I suppose is why you have to deny that the UK, US and Israel actually do it...makes sense...


Babe Ruth is a pinnacle that depends on many things...rising yourself up, genetics, practice.

Hitler is a depth. Doesn't take much. All you need to do is keep plumbing new depths in freefall,

There is no upward equivalent of freefall.


I think the question is not really do you need to...I would see it more as 'can you'

This is pure irrationalism btw. I'll make it simpler...

If Hitler had been stopped in 1939 he would not have killed any Jews.

But he would still be someone capable of killing millions of Jews.

But if I said that in 1939 and you were around too in downtown Berlin then you would have castigated me just the same for comparing him to Ghenghis Khan and being 'delusional'

You see that's the difference between you and me SDW - very much like the atheists you need 'proof'.

If a Hitler has not done what a Hitler does then...oh, well..he's a good guy (except if he's Iranian or Iraqi obviously - then it works the other way round and they are bad if they've done nothing...same principle though) ...you see you really need 'THE PROOF' just like our friends in that other very entertaining thread.

What is in the heart doesn't matter at all..... Jack the Ripper is flavour of the month as long as he keeps the knife in the medical bag or unless you have a good reason after the fact to excise his behaviour.