PDA

View Full Version : Religion "Criticizing Israel is dangerous business."


Direckshun
05-30-2011, 11:03 PM
Absolute insanity.

http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201105270008

How The Lobby Chills Middle East Debate
May 27, 2011 12:58 pm ET — MJ Rosenberg
This week, following that tumultuous reception for Prime Minister Netanyahu at the congressional joint meeting, I want to share a personal recollection of how the Middle East status quo is preserved on Capitol Hill.

It was in 1988 and I was a foreign policy aide to Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). One February day, Levin called me into his office to say that he was disturbed at a quote he saw in that day's New York Times. An article quoted Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir saying that he rejected the idea of withdrawing from any of the land Israel captured in the 1967 war:

Mr. Shamir said in a radio interview, ''It is clear that this expression of territory for peace is not accepted by me.''

Levin instantly understood what Shamir was saying. He was repudiating U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 (which Israel had helped draft) which provided for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent [1967] conflict" in exchange for peace and security. Those resolutions represented official U.S. and international policy then, and they still do.

But, in 1988, Shamir tried to declare them null and void.

Levin asked me to draft a letter to Secretary of State George Shultz stating that it was the view of the Senate that the U.N. Resolutions remained the policy of the U.S. whether Shamir liked it or not. Of course, the letter wasn't written in that kind of language. It was more than polite. Additionally, Levin wanted it addressed to Shultz, not to Shamir, to avoid ruffling too many feathers in Israel.

I wrote the draft. Levin edited and re-edited it. Then he called in the head of AIPAC, Thomas A. Dine, to run the language past him. Tom said it was "great." Levin told Dine that he would not embarass him by revealing that he had approved the letter.

Levin then asked me to deliver it to the Secretary of State but said that first he would try to round up a few other senators to join him in signing it. In an hour he had 30. He probably could have gotten three times as many but it was Friday afternoon and most of the senators had decamped.

I delivered the letter. Because Levin wanted to avoid a brouhaha, the Levin office did no press about it. It was essentially a secret initiative.

But then one of the senators who had the letter gave it to the New York Times. And within minutes the phones started ringing off the hook. Reporters and AIPAC donors (who had no idea Dine had signed off on the letter) were going crazy. Levin was asked to appear on all three Sunday morning talk shows. He declined. In fact, he took off for Moscow, on a long-planned trip.

On Sunday, news of the Levin "Letter of 30" was the lead story in the New York Times.

Thirty United States Senators, including many of Israel's staunchest supporters, have written a letter criticizing Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and his Likud party, suggesting they may be obstructing efforts to reach a peace settlement in the Middle East.

The extraordinary public criticism of Israel was contained in a letter addressed to Secretary of State George P. Shultz, who returned home today after several days in the Middle East. Mr. Shultz has proposed the broad outlines of an interim settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. ...

The senators who signed the letter said they were dismayed at Mr. Shamir's continued resistance to the concept of Israel's ceding some territories it occupies in exchange for peace, a cornerstone of Mr. Shultz's efforts. Although the letter also criticizes Arab states except for Egypt, Congressional aides said it was intended principally to send a message to Mr. Shamir and the Likud bloc.

So significant was the fact that any U.S. senator had criticized any Israeli policy in any way (albeit mildly), that the Sunday Times reprinted the whole text.

On Monday all hell broke loose. Because Levin was in Russia, staffers had to field both the press calls and the threats from outraged donors, constituents, and "pro-Israel" organizations.

Then some real weirdness happened. A top Israeli embassy official came to the office to deliver a protest from Prime Minister Shamir. When Levin's chief of staff, Gordon C. Kerr, told him that it was inappropriate for a foreign official to protest a letter senators had addressed to their own government (i.e., the Secretary of State), the Israeli official insulted Levin and made ugly threats. Kerr then threw him out of the office.

In the meantime, Levin heard from President Ronald Reagan, who thanked him for organizing support for the administration's position. Meanhile, Shamir began calling senators to express "astonishment" that his policies had been criticized.

Then came a moment that was, for me, the most shocking experience I ever had during my years working for the United States government.

William Safire, the most influential New York Times columnist, phoned me in a rage. He told me that he knew for a fact that neither Levin nor I had drafted the letter. He said that he knew that the letter was written by an aide to the leader of the Labor Party opposition in Israel, Shimon Peres. He said that aide, one Yossi Beilin, had hand-delivered the text to me, and that I had convinced Levin to circulate it. He said that my goal was to unseat Shamir and replace him with Peres.

I almost laughed. The very idea that a Senate aide had such power was astounding. But then Safire asked if I thought it was appropriate for a Senate aide to be the agent of a foreign political party, and what would Levin think when he read about that in Safire's column.

That was scary. As a Senate aide, I had sworn allegiance to the United States and the Constitution. I also had a security clearance. This could be serious.

I told Safire that I had written the draft and that Levin had (as is his wont) extensively edited it. I told him I had no idea who Beilin was (which was the truth). Safire then got really nasty and told me that he knew I was lying because he had the story on good authority (Israeli U.N. ambassador Binyamin Netanyahu and AIPAC's number two guy, Steve Rosen, who was subsequently indicted for espionage). I said I didn't care who he heard it from, it was a lie. Additionally, Levin had undertaken the initiative to help Israel because he thought that if Israel ruled out territorial withdrawal, the conflict would never end.

The call concluded with Safire backing down after warning me that if he ever found out I was lying, I would be "finished." He said he would not write the column because — get this — in the end he believed me more than his sources.

And that was that. Nothing more happened with the Letter of 30, except that after the vicious attacks on Levin, few senators have challenged the Israeli government or AIPAC since.

So what's the moral? It is this: Criticizing Israel is dangerous business. On what other issue would a New York Times columnist call a Senate staffer and threaten to destroy his career? None. And why was a New York Times columnist acting as if he was working for the Israeli government? Safire wasn't a journalist that day; he essentially was a representative of the Israeli government.

Accordingly, is it any wonder the whole Congress abased itself the other day by jumping up and down and hurling love at Netanyahu? Who wants to mess with an 800-pound gorilla? Certainly not members of Congress.

There was one happy note that came from the whole affair: Levin backed me 100 percent. The letter did get him in trouble with donors, but he stood by it and by me, and since then he has been re-elected four times. In fact, he told me not long ago that he was proud that he wrote it. Him. Not me.

Mr. Flopnuts
05-30-2011, 11:29 PM
But the Israeli's are our friends! How dare we question their authority! They are our leaders! /Honest Chief Fan

Direckshun
05-31-2011, 12:04 AM
I guess I'm wondering how our relationship with Israel helps the United States.

That's the goal of our foreign policy, is it not?

Our alliance with them creates hell with everybody else in the region simply by occurring, and is exacerbated by Israel's complete lack of interest in a Palestinian state. They constantly interfere with our own government, to the point where neither Democrats or Republicans are able to disagree with them meaningfully in any way.

Et cetera, et cetera.

Our alliance with Israel is important and must be preserved, but this dynamic must change. This is an abusive relationship.

Bewbies
05-31-2011, 12:10 AM
I guess I'm wondering how our relationship with Israel helps the United States.

That's the goal of our foreign policy, is it not?

Our alliance with them creates hell with everybody else in the region simply by occurring, and is exacerbated by Israel's complete lack of interest in a Palestinian state. They constantly interfere with our own government, to the point where neither Democrats or Republicans are able to disagree with them meaningfully in any way.

Et cetera, et cetera.

Our alliance with Israel is important and must be preserved, but this dynamic must change. This is an abusive relationship.

You crack me up.

Direckshun
05-31-2011, 12:40 AM
You crack me up.

What do we get out of our involvement with Israel?

It's messed up -- we should be in a position where there's tons of benefit from our involvement with Israel. But as it stands, Israel gets 95% of the benefit from this relationship.

ClevelandBronco
05-31-2011, 12:45 AM
we should be in a position where there's tons of benefit from our involvement with Israel.

Got a list?

CrazyPhuD
05-31-2011, 12:57 AM
What do we get out of our involvement with Israel?

It's messed up -- we should be in a position where there's tons of benefit from our involvement with Israel. But as it stands, Israel gets 95% of the benefit from this relationship.

Actually you might be really surprised what benefit we get, it's just not as obvious. For instance, Isreal is by FAR target number 1 for any Islamic extremist organization. As long as they are alive and where they are, they will draw tremendous fire that would likely otherwise go to us. Additionally they are an engine for policy actions that we can not politically take in the area but which are a non issue for them. Such as bombing nuclear plants before they become operational. In short you might be surprised the benefit our relationship with Israel provides. It's just not that obvious.

Direckshun
05-31-2011, 01:27 AM
Actually you might be really surprised what benefit we get, it's just not as obvious. For instance, Isreal is by FAR target number 1 for any Islamic extremist organization. As long as they are alive and where they are, they will draw tremendous fire that would likely otherwise go to us.

We don't need an extensive relationship with Israel for us to get this benefit.

Additionally they are an engine for policy actions that we can not politically take in the area but which are a non issue for them. Such as bombing nuclear plants before they become operational.

That's a relatively fair point, but we're already bombing the Middle East nonstop. In addition to Afghanistan and Iraq, we're already launching attacks for our own security into Pakistan and Yemen, as well as attacks into Libya for regime change.

These are attacks that we can launch from anywhere on earth, including throughout the Middle East (Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq, Afghanistan, for starters, as well as keeping an active military force in Saudi Arabia and a huge military fort in Kyrgyzstan).

In short you might be surprised the benefit our relationship with Israel provides. It's just not that obvious.

We do get benefits from Israel (not the least of which is some semblence of leverage in fighting for a two-state solution), but this relationship as it currently stands is a net negative for the United States.

Direckshun
05-31-2011, 01:35 AM
Got a list?

I'm not sure what you're asking me here...

BucEyedPea
05-31-2011, 08:16 AM
Just read the Reagan autobiography on the ME/Israel chapter and see how he got backstabbed by Israeli leadership, when he criticized Israel. It's a real eye opener. He intersperses some of it, including his pull-out of Beirut, by reiterating that he did support Israel but it comes off as if he's trying to defend himself in advance of any attacks (from NeoCons who he alludes to) for a position where he veers from agreeing with them. This is part of the filler, from that quote that is claimed to be a "fabrication."

HonestChieffan
05-31-2011, 08:18 AM
Wonder what other historical factoids can be found in the 1988 file. Lets see:

This is a list of important events the occured during 1988. Exact dates are listed when known.

CDs outsell vinyl for the first time ever.
Soviets leave Afghanistan
Jimmy Swaggart admits to being with prostitutes.
Summer Olympics in Seoul, South-Korea; Ben Johnson caught for steriods after setting a World Record in the 100 meter dash.
Pan Am Flight 103 explodes over Lockerbie, Scotland; Lybian terrorists are suspected of planting the bomb
Earthquake in the USSR
Bobby McFerrin tells everyone "Don't worry, be happy"
Prozac is introduced as an anti-depresent.
US advertising is permitted on Soviet TV
The first plutonium pacemaker is made.
World's longest undersea tunnel is completed. Work begins on the Chunnel which will then become the world's longest undersea tunnel.
Sonny Bono becomes Mayor in Palm Springs.
Robin Givens files for divorce from Mike Tyson
Benazir Bhutto becomes the first woman to head an Islamic nation
Willie Horton ads during the '88 re-election
Dukakis loses to the "Read My Lips" guy, he's never heard from again.
McDonalds in the USSR (might have been 1989)
Long Island beaches close due to medical waste coming ashore July 6th.
Iran-Iraqi war ends in August.
Human Genome project begins.
Soviets withdraw from Afghanastan.
Australia celebrates it's bicentenary
Supreme Court case, California v. Greenwood, tested the Bill of Rights 4th Amendment, addressing search and seizure in trash.
Fires in Yellowstone National Park. The rains didn't come when expected but months later.

Iowanian
05-31-2011, 08:45 AM
Imagine my surprise to learn that someone who is "Green for Iran" or "Purple for Palestine" on a regular basis, would have an anti-Israel view of world affairs.


I couldn't be more shocked if I were hit with a cattle prod with a 110v wire up my butt in a bubble bath full of poprocks.

HonestChieffan
05-31-2011, 09:24 AM
Direk and other anti-semites may find new positions in this....For them, Obama continues to push more funding into the Palestinian hands

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5093

The Palestinian Authority’s ideology is to refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist. The media it owns and controls regularly publish articles that demonize the modern State of Israel and its establishment as a “colonialist plan”.

Recently, the official PA daily went even further, not just maligning the modern State of Israel but also labeling the Jewish/Israelite presence in the land of Judea/Israel 2000 years ago as a “crude form of colonialism”.

The following is the PA daily’s defining ancient Judea/Israel as “colonialism”:

“The Zionists must acknowledge publicly, in front of the world, that the Jews have no connection to the Palestinian Arab land, upon whose ruins arose the colonialist settler Zionist plan that settles and expels, represented by the Israeli apartheid state. That which occurred two thousand years ago (i.e., the Jewish/Israeli presence in the land), assuming that it is true, represents in the book of history nothing more than invention and falsification and a coarse and crude form of colonialism.”

At times, the PA’s denial of Israel’s right to exist serves as the justification for its claim that Israelis should all leave their homes in Israel.

PA TV narrator addresses the Jews of Israel, asking them to leave, because Israel has no right to exist:

“Where are you [Israelis] from? Where are you from? Where are you from? Of course, you’re from Ukraine; of course, you’re from Germany, from Poland, from Russia, from Ethiopia, the Falasha (pejorative for Ethiopian Jews). Why have you stolen my homeland and taken my place? Please, I ask of you, return to your original homeland, so that I can return to my original homeland. This is my homeland; go back to your homeland!”

ClevelandBronco
05-31-2011, 09:43 AM
I'm not sure what you're asking me here...

"Tons of benefit," you said. What tons of benefit should we be getting that we're not getting, in your opinion?

HonestChieffan
05-31-2011, 09:51 AM
Some democrats do understand the benefits of our ties with Israel:

Benefits of US aid to Israel exceed cost
By STEVE ROTHMAN
04/09/2010 09:00

The argument that American military aid to Israel is damaging to the United States is not only erroneous, it hurts the national security interests of this country and threatens the survival of Israel.

US support for Israel is essential, not only for Israel’s national security, but for America’s. Every bit of that support – and more – withstands all reasonable scrutiny.

Under the 2010 US budget, about $75 billion, $65 billion and $3.25 billion will be spent on military operations and aid in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan during this fiscal year, respectively. Israel will receive $3 billion, in military aid only. There is no economic aid to Israel, other than loan guarantees that continue to be repaid in full and on time.

There isn’t enough space here to discuss the relative merits of the expenditures in these other countries, but we already know the critically important return the US gets for helping its oldest, most trusted ally in the strategically important Middle East – the most powerful military force in that region, the pro-US, pro-West and democratic Jewish state of Israel.

Here’s how.

FIRST, IT’S important to remember that about 70 percent of the $3 billion aid must be used by Israel to purchase American military equipment. This provides real support for US high- tech defense jobs and contributes to maintaining our industrial base. This helps the US stay at the very top in the manufacturing of our own cutting-edge military munitions, aircraft, vehicles, missiles and virtually every defensive and offensive weapon in the US arsenal – with the added contribution of Israel’s renowned technical know-how.

Second, the US and Israel are jointly developing state- of-the-art missile defense capabilities in the David’s Sling and Arrow 3 systems. These two technologies build on the already successful Arrow 2, jointly developed by our two countries, which is already providing missile defense security to Israel and US civilians and ground troops throughout the region. The knowledge the US gains from these efforts also has a positive multiplier effect on applications to other US military and non-military uses and US jobs.

Third, given Israel’s strategic location on the Mediterranean, with access to the Red Sea and other vital international shipping and military lanes of commerce and traffic, it is critically important to the US that Israel continues to serve as a port of call for our troops, ships, aircraft and intelligence operations.

Israel also has permitted the US to stockpile arms, fuel, munitions and other supplies on its soil to be accessed whenever America needs them in the region.

Fourth, America’s special relationship with Israel provides the US with real-time, minute-to-minute access to one of the best intelligence services in the world: Israel’s. With Israeli agents gathering intelligence and taking action throughout the Middle East and, literally, around the world, regarding al- Qaida, Hizbullah, Iran and Hamas, among others, the US receives invaluable information about anti-US and terrorist organizations and regimes.

Fifth, imagine the additional terrible cost in US blood, and the hundreds of billions more of American taxpayer dollars, if Saddam Hussein had developed nuclear weapons, or if Syria possessed them.

Then remember that it was Israel that destroyed the almost-completed nuclear reactor at Osirak, Iraq, in 1981 and Syria’s nuclear facility under construction at Deir-ez-Zor in 2007.

And think about the many operations that Israel’s Defense Forces and intelligence agents have undertaken to foil, slow and disrupt Iran’s efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability. A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the region, all of Iran’s Arab neighbors, the world’s largest oil supplies and those who rely on that oil. It also would provide anti-US terrorists with access to the most lethal Iranian technology and probably set off a nuclear arms race in the region.

FOR ABOUT two percent of what the US spends in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan this year, Americans can take pride in the return on our investment in aid to Israel.

And with Israel’s truly invaluable assistance to America’s vital national security, we can take comfort that – in actions seen in Tehran and Damascus and noticed by al-Qaida and other anti-US terrorists everywhere – the US is safer and made more secure because of the mutually dependent and beneficial relationship between the US and Israel.

The writer is a Democratic congressman from New Jersey who serves on the House committees responsible for US military and foreign aid. – Bloomberg News

ForeverChiefs58
05-31-2011, 11:30 AM
What is crazy is wanting to align yourself with someone who uses suicide bombers in markets and cafes full of innocent people and targets school buses full of kids. Someone who teaches children if they want into heaven they will martyr themselves by killing as many as possible. Acting too "western" or associating with jews will get you killed by the gov they elected. They refuse peace. Putting in writing 3 no's: no peace, no recognition, no negotiations with israel. That's a great group your backing direckshun.

Backing ANYONE who is against these pieces of shit scumbag terrorists is essential to our own survival which is why we are allies and donors of aid with other govt's in the ME, africa and around the world that also feel that way.

Backing these sick fucks that rejoice at the killing of jewish infants, now THAT is absolute insanity and is also dangerous business I might add. I hope they all get their wish of an early death, and I hope they take their supporters with them.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2011, 12:21 PM
Some democrats do understand the benefits of our ties with Israel:


US support for Israel is essential, not only for Israel’s national security, but for America’s. Every bit of that support – and more – withstands all reasonable scrutiny.

LMAO:LOL:LMAO:LOL:


This line is delusional. Part of the reason we've been attacked over there is due to our support of Israel and the way it is done. Leaving troops on Muslim Holy Lands brought them over here.

Under the 2010 US budget, about $75 billion, $65 billion and $3.25 billion will be spent on military operations and aid in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan during this fiscal year, respectively. Israel will receive $3 billion, in military aid only. There is no economic aid to Israel, other than loan guarantees that continue to be repaid in full and on time.
Wel, we never belonged in Iraq, were done in Afghanistan a while ago and what we need is the type of surgical operations that got bin Laden—NOT nation building and invasions of nation states who were not behind 9/11. What a complete waste of human life and money.

There isn’t enough space here to discuss the relative merits of the expenditures in these other countries, but we already know the critically important return the US gets for helping its oldest, most trusted ally in the strategically important Middle East – the most powerful military force in that region, the pro-US, pro-West and democratic Jewish state of Israel.

What? We're not even a democracy and Israel is rigidly socialist. The rest of the ME would have been pro-West had Great Britain and France not betray them during and after WWI. Ignorance of history is NO excuse.

FIRST, IT’S important to remember that about 70 percent of the $3 billion aid must be used by Israel to purchase American military equipment. This provides real support for US high- tech defense jobs and contributes to maintaining our industrial base. This helps the US stay at the very top in the manufacturing of our own cutting-edge military munitions, aircraft, vehicles, missiles and virtually every defensive and offensive weapon in the US arsenal – with the added contribution of Israel’s renowned technical know-how.

LMFAO!

Ayup, this benefits mercantilist interests. We have to have govt spend money to prop up corporations. Otherwise, they are incapable of developing and finding their own markets. As if a private business or our own govt could not purchase technical know-how from some Israeli citizen just like it did when Leo Szilard and Einstein worked on the Manhattan Project. Hamilton would be proud. So much for a true free-enterprise system Republicans claim to support—NOT!

Second, the US and Israel are jointly developing state- of-the-art missile defense capabilities in the David’s Sling and Arrow 3 systems. These two technologies build on the already successful Arrow 2, jointly developed by our two countries, which is already providing missile defense security to Israel and US civilians and ground troops throughout the region. The knowledge the US gains from these efforts also has a positive multiplier effect on applications to other US military and non-military uses and US jobs.
America leads the world in technology. We need Israel for such endeavors, how?
This could be paraphrased as we need govt for technological development. LOL!

Third, given Israel’s strategic location on the Mediterranean, with access to the Red Sea and other vital international shipping and military lanes of commerce and traffic, it is critically important to the US that Israel continues to serve as a port of call for our troops, ships, aircraft and intelligence operations.
Well, we did have Egypt too. And we could have all these things ( except bases and troops) if we're just friendly with the people of this region.

We don't need Israel for international shipping. We need the Suez Canal which is next to Muslim countries. We possibly need Israel for troops and intel but that's only if we're at war with the people of the Levant. We only need the latter because we are now at war with the people of the Levant while we don't have to be we choose to out of support for Israel. What a silly illogical argument to make.

Israel also has permitted the US to stockpile arms, fuel, munitions and other supplies on its soil to be accessed whenever America needs them in the region.
Only if your goal is conquest and hegemony of the region. See above.
We had bases in SA too. BFD!

Fourth, America’s special relationship with Israel provides the US with real-time, minute-to-minute access to one of the best intelligence services in the world: Israel’s. With Israeli agents gathering intelligence and taking action throughout the Middle East and, literally, around the world, regarding al- Qaida, Hizbullah, Iran and Hamas, among others, the US receives invaluable information about anti-US and terrorist organizations and regimes.

Yeah, well...see the last two above again. BTW is this why Pollard spied on us? There was another Israeli spy since 2001 that was swept under the rug. Pentagon employee Larry Franklin worked for Doug Feith, passed the information on to an intelligence officer at the Israeli Embassy. The FBI set up a sting and arrested three men under Espionage Act of 1917. This was followed by a nearly three year long trial where conditions made it impossible for the prosecution to proceed. Meanwhile it was under reported by the US press.


Fifth, imagine the additional terrible cost in US blood, and the hundreds of billions more of American taxpayer dollars, if Saddam Hussein had developed nuclear weapons, or if Syria possessed them.
Whaa? SH worked for our CIA and tried to knock off the guy before him but failed and escaped. So long as he played ball, he would still be our guy. He wasn't even going to stay with the dollar for oil purchases. ( same seems to be true of Libya and Iran unlike an agreement the corrup House of Saud made with the US) Read John Perkins about the actions of govt connected corporations like Halliburton, Bechtel etc. and you'll see the real reasons we support Israel—to gain a permanent foothold in the region. It's the grassroots that support Israel as a homeland for Jews, who are used as pawns. Meanwhile, we give even more aid to the Palestinian side. LOL! That keeps the conflict going to keep the mercantilist foothold in the region.

Then remember that it was Israel that destroyed the almost-completed nuclear reactor at Osirak, Iraq, in 1981 and Syria’s nuclear facility under construction at Deir-ez-Zor in 2007.
Ronald Reagan criticized Israel for this act behind closed doors and was back stabbed by Israel for it.


I could answer the rest of this article but it's not worth spending too much time on Neo Conservative progressive propaganda.

patteeu
05-31-2011, 02:36 PM
I guess I'm wondering how our relationship with Israel helps the United States.

That's the goal of our foreign policy, is it not?

Our alliance with them creates hell with everybody else in the region simply by occurring, and is exacerbated by Israel's complete lack of interest in a Palestinian state. They constantly interfere with our own government, to the point where neither Democrats or Republicans are able to disagree with them meaningfully in any way.

Et cetera, et cetera.

Our alliance with Israel is important and must be preserved, but this dynamic must change. This is an abusive relationship.

1. Isn't it shocking when a liberal politico encounters career threatening blowback from the New York Times? Conservatives have been dealing with that kind of thing over a wide range of issues for a long time now. In fact, instead of "shocking", maybe I should have said "refreshing".

2. Where did you get the false impression that there is a "complete lack of interest" on the part of Israel in a palestinian state? Israel has demonstrated it's willingness to make peace with the palestinians on several occasions and leaders of every major party have embraced a two state solution. The problem is that every time peace seems to be within reach, the palestinians start either lobbing rocks and rockets at Israel or blowing themselves up in Israeli crowds. The segment of palestinian society that may have an interest in peace has never been able to control the dominant segment that has a "complete lack of interest" in a side-by-side peace with a Jewish state.

patteeu
05-31-2011, 02:39 PM
Just read the Reagan autobiography on the ME/Israel chapter and see how he got backstabbed by Israeli leadership, when he criticized Israel. It's a real eye opener. He intersperses some of it, including his pull-out of Beirut, by reiterating that he did support Israel but it comes off as if he's trying to defend himself in advance of any attacks (from NeoCons who he alludes to) for a position where he veers from agreeing with them. This is part of the filler, from that quote that is claimed to be a "fabrication."

Should be:

"...claimed and proven to be a fabrication."

RubberSponge
05-31-2011, 04:49 PM
How do people that support Israel feel about them selling our military technology to China for the past 2 to 3 decades? Technology that has been passed on to countries like Pakistan and Iran, who willing supply arms and other means of support to our enemies while they kill our soldiers.

What can you say? Being god's supposed chosen people must be a great gig.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2011, 05:43 PM
Direk and other anti-semites may find new positions in this....For them, Obama continues to push more funding into the Palestinian hands

Other anti-semites? Oh, yes of course the "debate-shutter-upper" the anti-semite smear, and being used incorrectly at that, because someone criticized another govt when the words mean thinking ill of all the Jewish people. Just like the racist charge gets used by the left. Let's substitute the subject with a logical fallacy such as this strawman.

Meanwhile, some on the RR merely support them because they need "perfecting"—Ann Coulter. If they don't perfect, than these same RR'ers wants Israelis to burn in hell. Who are the real anti-semites now?

Meanwhile both Republican and Democrat administrations have provided aid to the Palestinian side. Yeah....uh huh!

Bewbies
05-31-2011, 06:18 PM
I don't care who our ally is, the one that benefits most from that relationship is always going to be them, not us. Silly boy.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2011, 07:34 PM
I don't care who our ally is, the one that benefits most from that relationship is always going to be them, not us. Silly boy.

:thumb:

KILLER_CLOWN
05-31-2011, 11:13 PM
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Israel prepping to block next Gaza flotilla
Haaretz

On the anniversary of its deadly takeover of the aid flotilla to Gaza, in which nine Turkish activists died in a confrontation with navy commandos, Israel is preparing to block the next flotilla as well.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel prefers a diplomatic move to thwart the flotilla expected at the end of June, but if necessary would exercise force against anyone who tries to disobey the navy’s orders and head to Gaza’s shore.

The Israel Navy has held takeover drills and mobilized reserve combatants, on the assumption the large number of vessels (about 15 ) planning to take part in the flotilla will require reinforcements. The preparations include intelligence surveillance, based mainly on open communications and Internet sites.

The navy is focusing on riot-control measures this time, saying they will use force as a last resort.

Israeli defense sources said recently that despite addressing flaws in the previous flotilla takeover, there is no alternative to taking over the boats and protesters by force – barring an agreement that would cancel the flotilla.

Former Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi testified before the Turkel committee investigating the flotilla and said that if necessary, sniper fire would be used to take down violent protesters. This would prevent face-to-face clashes that hold a greater risk to soldiers’ lives.

The Turkel committee in February published the first part of its report, which on the whole justifies Israel’s position and conduct. The report upholds Israel’s argument that it was permitted to impose a blockade on Gaza and exercise force to prevent uncoordinated ships’ entry. Two foreign observers took part in writing the report.

The committee is still hearing testimonies regarding the way Israel investigates warfare incidents.

State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss is expected soon to publish his own report on the flotilla. Lindenstrauss examined various aspects, from ministerial and military decisions during the preparations for the flotilla to presenting Israel’s position abroad.

Immediately after the flotilla incident Israel changed its position dramatically regarding the amount and extent of goods allowed into the Gaza Strip. Egypt’s decision to reopen the Rafah border crossing as of last weekend removes the rest of the coordinated siege both states had imposed on Gaza.

http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/2011/05/israel-prepping-to-block-next-gaza.html

Jenson71
06-01-2011, 12:28 AM
Direk and other anti-semites may find new positions in this....

Man asks friend, “Which is preferable, the anti-Semite or the philo-Semite?” Friend answers, “The anti-Semite – at least he isn’t lying”

HonestChieffan
06-01-2011, 05:32 AM
Our World: Where Obama is leading Israel
By CAROLINE B. GLICK
05/30/2011 23:13

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=222888

Our World: Since his policy speech, president has taken a series of steps that only reinforce sense that he is most hostile US leader Jewish state has ever faced.

Talkbacks (68)
In the aftermath of US President Barack Obama’s May 19 speech on the Middle East, his supporters argued that the policy toward Israel and the Palestinians that Obama outlined in that speech was not anti-Israel. As they presented it, Obama’s assertion that peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians must be based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps does not mark a substantive departure from the positions adopted by his predecessors in the Oval Office.

But this claim is exposed as a lie by previous administration statements. On November 25, 2009, in response to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s acceptance of Obama’s demand for a 10-month moratorium on Jewish property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, the State Department issued the following statement: “Today’s announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

In his speech, Obama stated: “The United States believes... the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

That is, he took “the Palestinian goal” and made it the US’s goal. It is hard to imagine a more radically anti-Israel policy shift than that.

And that wasn’t Obama’s only radically anti-Israel policy shift. Until his May 19 speech, the US agreed with Israel that the issue of borders is only one of many – including the Palestinians’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist, their demand to inundate Israel with millions of foreign Arab immigrants, their demand for control over Israel’s water supply and Jerusalem – that have to be sorted out in negotiations. The joint US-Israeli position was that until all of these issues were resolved, none of them were resolved.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, claim that before they will discuss any of these other issues, Israel has to first agree to accept the indefensible 1967 boundaries as its permanent borders. This position allows the Palestinians to essentially maintain their policy of demanding that Israel make unreciprocated concessions that then serve as the starting point for further unreciprocated concessions.

It is a position that is antithetical to peace. And on May 19, by stipulating that Israel must accept the Palestinian position on borders as a precondition for negotiations, Obama adopted it as US policy.

SINCE THAT speech, Obama has taken a series of steps that only reinforce the sense that he is the most hostile US president Israel has ever faced. Indeed, when taken together, these steps raise concern that Obama may actually constitute a grave threat to Israel.

Friday’s Yediot Aharonot reported on the dimensions of the threat Obama may pose to the Jewish state. The paper’s account was based on administration and Congressional sources. The story discussed Obama’s plans to contend with the Palestinian plan to pass a resolution at the UN General Assembly in September endorsing Palestinian statehood in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

According to Yediot, during his meeting with Obama on May 20, Netanyahu argued that in light of the Palestinians’ automatic majority support at the General Assembly, there was no way to avoid the resolution.

Netanyahu reportedly explained that the move would not be a disaster. The General Assembly overwhelmingly endorsed the PLO’s declaration of independence in 1988.

And the sky still hasn’t fallen.

Obama reportedly was unconvinced. For him, it is unacceptable to be in a position of standing alone with Israel voting against the Palestinian resolution. Obama’s distaste for standing with Israel was demonstrated in February when a visibly frustrated US Ambassador Susan Rice was forced by Congressional pressure to veto the Palestinians’ Security Council draft resolution condemning Israel for refusing to prohibit Jews from building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

Yediot’s report asserts that Obama refused to brief Netanyahu on the steps his administration is taking to avert such an unpalatable option. What the paper did report was how George Mitchell – Obama’s Middle East envoy until his resignation last week – recommended Obama proceed on this issue.

According to Yediot, Mitchell recommended that Obama work with the Europeans to draft a series of anti-Israel resolutions for the UN Security Council to pass. Among other things, these resolutions, which Mitchell said would be “painful for Israel,” would include an assertion that Jewish building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria is illegal.

That is, Mitchell recommended that Obama adopt as US policy at the Security Council past Palestinian demands that Congress forced Obama to reject just months ago at the Security Council. The notion is that by doing so, Obama could convince the Palestinians to water down the even more radically anti-Israel positions they are advancing today at the UN General Assembly that Congressional pressure prevents him from supporting.

Since General Assembly resolutions have no legal weight and Security Council resolutions do carry weight, Mitchell’s policy represents the most anti-Israel policy ever raised by a senior US official. Unfortunately Obama’s actions since last week suggest that he has adopted the gist of Mitchell’s policy recommendations.

First there was his speech before AIPAC. Among other things, Obama used the international campaign to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist as a justification for his policies of demanding that Israel capitulate to the Palestinians’ demands, which he has now officially adopted as US policy.

As he put it, “there is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process – or the absence of one. Not just in the Arab world, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitals around the world.”

From AIPAC, Obama moved on to Europe. There he joined forces with European governments in an attempt to gang up on Israel at the G8 meeting.

Obama sought to turn his embrace of the Palestinian negotiating position into the consensus position of the G8. His move was scuttled by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who refused to accept any resolution that made mention of borders without mentioning the Palestinian demand to destroy Israel through Arab immigration, Israel’s right to defensible borders, or the Palestinians’ refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist.

If Harper had not stood by Israel, the G8’s anti-Israel resolution endorsing the Palestinian negotiating position could have formed the basis of a US-sponsored anti-Israel Security Council resolution.

Israelis planning their summer trips should put Canada at the top of their lists.

THE FINAL step Obama has taken to solidify the impression that he does not have Israel’s best interests at heart, is actually something he has not done. Over the past week, Fatah leaders of the US-backed Palestinian Authority have made a series of statements that put paid any thought that they are interested in peace with Israel or differ substantively from their partners in Hamas.

At the Arab League meeting in Qatar on Saturday, PA President Mahmoud Abbas said the Palestinian state “will be free of all Jews.”

Last week the US-supported Abbas denied the Jewish connection to the land of Israel and claimed absurdly that the Palestinians were 9,000 years old.

Equally incriminating, in an interview last week with Aaron Lerner from the IMRA newsgathering website, Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath said that now that Hamas was the co-leader of the PA with Fatah, responsibility for continuing to hold IDF St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit hostage devolved from Hamas to the PA. And the PA would continue to hold him hostage.

Shaath’s statement makes clear that rather than moderating Hamas, the Fatah-Hamas unity deal is transforming Fatah into Hamas.

And yet, Obama has had nothing to say about any of this.

Obama’s now undeniable antipathy for Israel and his apparent willingness to use his power as American president to harm Israel at the UN and elsewhere guarantee that for the duration of his tenure in office, Israel will face unprecedented threats to its security. This disturbing reality ought to focus the attention of all Israelis and of the American Jewish community. With the leader of the free world now openly siding with forces bent on Israel’s destruction, the need for unity has become acute.

MADDENINGLY, HOWEVER, at this time of unprecedented danger we see the Israeli media have joined ranks with Kadima in siding with Obama against Israel in a joint bid to bring down Netanyahu’s government. Yediot Aharonot, Maariv, Haaretz, Channel 2, Channel 10, Army Radio and Israel Radio’s coverage of Netanyahu’s visit and its aftermath was dominated by condemnations of the prime minister, and praise for Obama and opposition leader Tzipi Livni, who called for Netanyahu to resign.

The fact that polling data showed that only 12 percent of Jewish Israelis regard Obama as pro-Israeli and that the overwhelming majority of the public with an opinion believes Netanyahu’s visit was a success made absolutely no impression on the media. The wall-to-wall condemnations of Netanyahu by the Israeli media lend the impression that Israel’s leading reporters and commentators are committed to demoralizing the public into believing that Israel has no option other than surrender.

Then there is the American Jewish leadership. And at this critical time in US-Israel relations, the American Jewish leadership is either silent or siding with Obama. Right after Obama’s shocking speech on May 19, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement endorsing it. Stand With Us congratulated Obama for his AIPAC speech.

With the notable exceptions of the Zionist Organization of America and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting in America (CAMERA), leaders of American Jewish organizations have refused to condemn Obama’s anti-Israel positions.

Their silence becomes all the more enraging when placed against the massive support Israel receives from rank-and-file American Jews. In a survey of American Jews taken by CAMERA on May 16-17, between 75% and 95% of American Jews supported Israel’s position on defensible borders, Jerusalem, Palestinian “refugees,” Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist and the right of Jews to live in a Palestinian state.

The refusal of most American Jewish leaders, the Israeli media and Kadima to condemn Obama today makes you wonder if there is anything the US president could do to convince them to break ranks and stand with Israel and with the vast majority of their fellow Jews. But it is more than a source of wonder. It is a reason to be frightened. Because Obama’s actions over the past two weeks make clear to anyone willing to see that in the age of Obama, silence is dangerous.

caroline@carolineglick.com

notorious
06-01-2011, 06:19 AM
I don't care who our ally is, the one that benefits most from that relationship is always going to be them, not us. Silly boy.

I thought it was too obvious to state.



Besides, Israel is a free country that needs our help. DO WE NEED ANOTHER REASON? JFC!

BucEyedPea
06-01-2011, 06:49 AM
Our World: Where Obama is leading Israel
By CAROLINE B. GLICK
05/30/2011 23:13

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=222888



When are you going to post your own refutation?

Oh, btw, JP is NC dominated. I prefer Haaretz generally speaking.

HonestChieffan
06-01-2011, 06:54 AM
Refutation of what? I dont feel compelled to attack or try to refute the opinions others may have regarding the ties we have to Israel. There has always been and always will be those who would walk away from the entire ME...

The dangerous path Obama has set us upon at this point, IMO, is not something we can fix. I have no doubt that as a result of his efforts he has set it up for Israel to be faced with a war. Not tomorrow, but some time in the not to distant future.

Some will be pleased I am sure.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-01-2011, 08:41 AM
I thought it was too obvious to state.



Besides, Israel is a free country that needs our help. DO WE NEED ANOTHER REASON? JFC!

In our current financial state, YES!

patteeu
06-01-2011, 08:44 AM
That Caroline Glick column eviscerated the Obama administration's attempt to claim that they haven't substantially changed US policy toward the Israeli/palestinian situation. She's always insightful. Thanks for posting it, HCF.

HonestChieffan
06-01-2011, 08:46 AM
That Caroline Glick column eviscerated the Obama administration's attempt to claim that they haven't substantially changed US policy toward the Israeli/palestinian situation. She's always insightful. Thanks for posting it, HCF.

Take from it what you can. Whats going on in State Department continues to evolve and is a radical shift being done almost as if its no big deal. Unintended consequences of the Obama Experiment will be huge.

Iowanian
06-01-2011, 10:40 AM
Direkshun is a man of action.

He's furiously manipulating a twitter fund raiser to rent a Rider Moving van to send to Israel for them to borrow.

vailpass
06-01-2011, 11:05 AM
Imagine my surprise to learn that someone who is "Green for Iran" or "Purple for Palestine" on a regular basis, would have an anti-Israel view of world affairs.


I couldn't be more shocked if I were hit with a cattle prod with a 110v wire up my butt in a bubble bath full of poprocks.

Bingo.

ForeverChiefs58
06-01-2011, 11:45 AM
Imagine my surprise to learn that someone who is "Green for Iran" or "Purple for Palestine" on a regular basis, would have an anti-Israel view of world affairs.


I couldn't be more shocked if I were hit with a cattle prod with a 110v wire up my butt in a bubble bath full of poprocks.


Ever notice people who are "Green For Iran" or "Purple For Palestine" are also "Coocoo For Cocoa Puffs"

go bowe
06-01-2011, 11:52 AM
Ever notice people who are "Green For Iran" or "Purple For Palestine" are also "Coocoo For Cocoa Puffs"

cocoa puffs?

i prefer cheerios...

go bowe
06-01-2011, 12:07 PM
When are you going to post your own refutation?

Oh, btw, JP is NC dominated. I prefer Haaretz generally speaking.

neocon dominated?

i swear you remind me of the mccarthy days when people saw a commie under every bed...

wrt the jp, it is a strong supporter of likud, isn't it?

as in right wing, no peace with palestinians unless they give in to all of israel's demands and accept the settlements as part of israel?

are there any moderate papers in israel?

Bewbies
06-01-2011, 12:43 PM
neocon dominated?

i swear you remind me of the mccarthy days when people say a commie under every bed...

wrt the jp, it is a strong supporter of likud, isn't it?

as in right wing, no peace with palestinians unless they give in to all of israel's demands and accept the settlements as part of israel?

are there any moderate papers in israel?

McCarthy actually found commies.

go bowe
06-01-2011, 01:06 PM
McCarthy actually found commies.

under every bed too...

LOCOChief
06-01-2011, 01:08 PM
Ever notice people who are "Green For Iran" or "Purple For Palestine" are also "Coocoo For Cocoa Puffs"

Isn't "cocoa puffs" racist?

mnchiefsguy
06-01-2011, 01:31 PM
Isn't "cocoa puffs" racist?

I thought it was a nutritious and delicious breakfast ;)

orange
06-01-2011, 01:42 PM
That Caroline Glick column eviscerated the Obama administration's attempt to claim that they haven't substantially changed US policy toward the Israeli/palestinian situation. She's always insightful. Thanks for posting it, HCF.

No, it simply demonstrated how far out she is. In her own words:

MADDENINGLY, HOWEVER, at this time of unprecedented danger we see the Israeli media have joined ranks with Kadima in siding with Obama against Israel in a joint bid to bring down Netanyahu’s government. Yediot Aharonot, Maariv, Haaretz, Channel 2, Channel 10, Army Radio and Israel Radio’s coverage of Netanyahu’s visit and its aftermath was dominated by condemnations of the prime minister, and praise for Obama and opposition leader Tzipi Livni, who called for Netanyahu to resign.

...

Then there is the American Jewish leadership. And at this critical time in US-Israel relations, the American Jewish leadership is either silent or siding with Obama. Right after Obama’s shocking speech on May 19, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement endorsing it. Stand With Us congratulated Obama for his AIPAC speech.

With the notable exceptions of the Zionist Organization of America and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting in America (CAMERA), leaders of American Jewish organizations have refused to condemn Obama’s anti-Israel positions.

...

The refusal of most American Jewish leaders, the Israeli media and Kadima to condemn Obama today makes you wonder if there is anything the US president could do to convince them to break ranks and stand with Israel and with the vast majority of their fellow Jews.

I know nobody read that far but me - certainly not HCF - so I thought I'd bring it to all your attention.

p.s. HCF - there's that evil word, again. Is Glick a closet anti-Semite?

patteeu
06-01-2011, 02:09 PM
No, it simply demonstrated how far out she is. In her own words:

MADDENINGLY, HOWEVER, at this time of unprecedented danger we see the Israeli media have joined ranks with Kadima in siding with Obama against Israel in a joint bid to bring down Netanyahu’s government. Yediot Aharonot, Maariv, Haaretz, Channel 2, Channel 10, Army Radio and Israel Radio’s coverage of Netanyahu’s visit and its aftermath was dominated by condemnations of the prime minister, and praise for Obama and opposition leader Tzipi Livni, who called for Netanyahu to resign.

...

Then there is the American Jewish leadership. And at this critical time in US-Israel relations, the American Jewish leadership is either silent or siding with Obama. Right after Obama’s shocking speech on May 19, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement endorsing it. Stand With Us congratulated Obama for his AIPAC speech.

With the notable exceptions of the Zionist Organization of America and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting in America (CAMERA), leaders of American Jewish organizations have refused to condemn Obama’s anti-Israel positions.

...

The refusal of most American Jewish leaders, the Israeli media and Kadima to condemn Obama today makes you wonder if there is anything the US president could do to convince them to break ranks and stand with Israel and with the vast majority of their fellow Jews.

I know nobody read that far but me - certainly not HCF - so I thought I'd bring to all your attention.

I read the whole thing and I don't think those passages are particularly moving. American democrats put politics ahead of national interest when the Bush administration decided to take down Saddam Hussein and I don't see why that same type of political self-interest wouldn't explain the actions of Kadima and the liberal, mainstream Israeli media. And there's no surprise when liberal American Jews support their liberal American President.

orange
06-01-2011, 02:15 PM
... I don't see why that same type of political self-interest wouldn't explain the actions of Kadima and the liberal, mainstream Israeli media...

Of course, it's that damned "Jewish-Controlled Liberal Media" again. Please use the full title.

patteeu
06-01-2011, 02:39 PM
Of course, it's that damned "Jewish-Controlled Liberal Media" again. Please use the full title.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
06-02-2011, 10:36 PM
McCarthy actually found commies.

That's correct. KGB opened their files after the Cold War and Voila!
Besides, it's easy to spot most persuasions.

CrazyPhuD
06-02-2011, 11:10 PM
And think about the many operations that Israel’s Defense Forces and intelligence agents have undertaken to foil, slow and disrupt Iran’s efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability. A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the region, all of Iran’s Arab neighbors, the world’s largest oil supplies and those who rely on that oil. It also would provide anti-US terrorists with access to the most lethal Iranian technology and probably set off a nuclear arms race in the region.


Heh I'd like to re point out this. Mossad is one bad ass set of motherfuckers. Most of you may not know to the degree that Mossad interferes with the iranian nuke program.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2033725,00.html

Pretty much no nuke scientists leave the country now...if they do they are mysteriously found dead....

Would the US have the guts to assassinate scientists in an opposing countries program? Likely not. But it can be damn effective.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-03-2011, 08:25 PM
Heh I'd like to re point out this. Mossad is one bad ass set of mother****ers. Most of you may not know to the degree that Mossad interferes with the iranian nuke program.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2033725,00.html

Pretty much no nuke scientists leave the country now...if they do they are mysteriously found dead....

Would the US have the guts to assassinate scientists in an opposing countries program? Likely not. But it can be damn effective.

Ya sounds like they're psychotic, we need less psychos in the world today.

ForeverChiefs58
06-03-2011, 09:58 PM
Ya sounds like they're psychotic, we need less psychos in the world today.

more like they are the ones who get rid of the psychos.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-03-2011, 10:52 PM
more like they are the ones who get rid of the psychos.

By way of Deception, thou shalt do war.

You can have both sides, I'll take a strong America without the need to fight wars for others.

ForeverChiefs58
06-04-2011, 07:42 AM
By way of Deception, thou shalt do war.

You can have both sides, I'll take a strong America without the need to fight wars for others.

This is what I don't understand. Is it just that it is israel and the jews?

Because we have the backs of all of our allies all over the world. For example, would you also unfriend certain allies that need us for survival such as south korea?

Would you not protect and come to the aid of europe if needed?

Would you give up those areas of the world, and understand they would be quickly replaced by someone that would be more hostle towards the US and now more powerful as you recede?

Have you ever played chess?

ForeverChiefs58
06-04-2011, 07:49 AM
By way of Deception, thou shalt do war.

You can have both sides, I'll take a strong America without the need to fight wars for others.

What about all the people trying to destroy a strong america?

Would you be friends with other countries to be this strong?

Would you try to protect yourself?

Would you protect your friends?

ForeverChiefs58
06-04-2011, 07:51 AM
By way of Deception, thou shalt do war.

You can have both sides, I'll take a strong America without the need to fight wars for others.

What about all the people trying to destroy a strong america?

Would you be friends with other countries to be this strong?

Would you try to protect yourself?

Would you protect your friends?

history much?

KILLER_CLOWN
06-04-2011, 08:42 AM
What about all the people trying to destroy a strong america?

Would you be friends with other countries to be this strong?

Would you try to protect yourself?

Would you protect your friends?

history much?

We're broke and can no longer afford to hand out foreign aid, I do not see either side as a just war. That being said Israel has Nukes and should be able to defend herself without billions from our coffers.

patteeu
06-04-2011, 08:49 AM
We're broke and can no longer afford to hand out foreign aid, I do not see either side as a just war. That being said Israel has Nukes and should be able to defend herself without billions from our coffers.

The way we need to look at our financial situation is that we need to cut back the least important spending first and we need to spend the rest of it in the most efficient way. There are a lot of areas I'd cut before I cut national security. And when it comes to national security, a strong argument can be made that the money we spend on aid to Israel is more effective spending than what we spend on some weapons programs. I'm not saying that aid to Israel is above or below the cut line, but to see it as a handout with no US benefit is not the way to look at it.

JimBaker48.8
06-04-2011, 11:03 AM
Let's face it, in retrospect putting those 5 million Jews smack, dab in the center of the Middle East which is composed of > a quarter billion Arabs
who hate the Jews but also happen to control the global oil supply was one of the most colossal mistakes of the entire 20th century.

patteeu
06-05-2011, 08:19 AM
Let's face it, in retrospect putting those 5 million Jews smack, dab in the center of the Middle East which is composed of > a quarter billion Arabs
who hate the Jews but also happen to control the global oil supply was one of the most colossal mistakes of the entire 20th century.

I think that's a fair assessment. Maybe there was a way to do it that wouldn't have led to so many problems, but this way sure led to a lot of problems.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2011, 09:07 AM
Let's face it, in retrospect putting those 5 million Jews smack, dab in the center of the Middle East which is composed of > a quarter billion Arabs
who hate the Jews but also happen to control the global oil supply was one of the most colossal mistakes of the entire 20th century.

Well, they didn't hate Jews before, these semitic brothers actually got along better than Christians did with Jews. The West spawned this hate of Jews when they interfered in the area. The heart of this conflict is really a land and who will govern dispute than an ethic-religious conflict. It's the same o' same o' as earlier history and migrations.

patteeu
06-05-2011, 11:22 AM
Well, they didn't hate Jews before, these semitic brothers actually got along better than Christians did with Jews. The West spawned this hate of Jews when they interfered in the area. The heart of this conflict is really a land and who will govern dispute than an ethic-religious conflict. It's the same o' same o' as earlier history and migrations.

You'll find a way to blame almost anything on the US or "the West". :shake:

Brock
06-05-2011, 12:25 PM
The way we need to look at our financial situation is that we need to cut back the least important spending first and we need to spend the rest of it in the most efficient way. There are a lot of areas I'd cut before I cut national security. And when it comes to national security, a strong argument can be made that the money we spend on aid to Israel is more effective spending than what we spend on some weapons programs. I'm not saying that aid to Israel is above or below the cut line, but to see it as a handout with no US benefit is not the way to look at it.

What's the benefit?

ForeverChiefs58
06-05-2011, 12:41 PM
Well, they didn't hate Jews before, these semitic brothers actually got along better than Christians did with Jews. The West spawned this hate of Jews when they interfered in the area. The heart of this conflict is really a land and who will govern dispute than an ethic-religious conflict. It's the same o' same o' as earlier history and migrations.

What?

I know you know the facts that they helped hitler, and have been against the jews and have actually been fighting for thousands of years over the same piece of land?

The koran is specific about the feelings for jews.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2011, 03:43 PM
What?

I know you know the facts that they helped hitler, and have been against the jews and have actually been fighting for thousands of years over the same piece of land?

The koran is specific about the feelings for jews.

I've checked the Koran out of the library several years ago. I also read most of A History of the Arab Peoples. They have respect for people of the "Book." I am talking about actual cultural practices. They did have dhimmi for BOTH Jew and Christian but that did not rise to the occasion of how many pogroms took place in Europe. Despite, dhimmi Jews could still do quite well and did because they were very capable. Life under the Ottoman Turks, who had dhimmi, wasn't that good for the Arab peoples there either. Yet, we still traded and did business with the nasty Ottomans while minding our own business.

They helped Hitler? Please document. Do you know about the deal Hitler cut with Zionists called the "Transfer Agreement?"

Lastly, it's Christians and and Arabs that have a long historical vendetta with each other due to years of mistrust and animosity. It's a Thousand Year war between the two. The bottom line still remains that Europe, specifically Christian Europe, has a far worse record of anti-semitism before the ME conflict erupted. Negative views of other religious adherents occur in the scriptures of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Don't let the facts get in your way though.

orange
06-05-2011, 04:54 PM
They helped Hitler? Please document.

How the Eton-educated wartime Aga Khan offered '30,000 armed Arabs' to help Hitler - but still evaded treason trial
Last updated at 18:34 08 March 2008

Britain dropped a secret plan to charge the Aga Khan's grandfather with treason despite evidence that he offered to help Hitler in the war, documents just released reveal.

Ministers shelved the proposed prosecution of Sultan Muhammad Shah ? who was Aga Khan III at the time ? for fear it would inflame Muslims.

The spiritual leader of the world's Zizari Ismaili Muslims was accused of pledging to raise an army of 30,000 Arab troops to back a German occupation of Egypt, Syria and Palestine.

Evidence emerged at the end of the war when the Allies captured German archives and interrogated their intelligence agents.

Details of the case have remained top-secret for more than 60 years and were declassified only last week, with their release by the National Archives at Kew.

In a 1942 memo submitted to the German Foreign Office by a Nazi agent, Aga Khan III expressed admiration for the puppet Vichy government in occupied France.

The Eton-educated racehorse owner then offered to raise troops in the Middle East to fight the Free French, saying: "If you give me ten to 15 days warning, I will have for you 30,000 armed Arabs, amongst my most faithful disciples, who will shoot the Gaullistes in the back."

As he was a British subject, officials concluded he could face treason charges and the death penalty. But it was eventually decided disloyalty by the then Aga Khan, who died in 1957, "could not be proved".

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-528720/How-Eton-educated-wartime-Aga-Khan-offered-30-000-armed-Arabs-help-Hitler--evaded-treason-trial.html#ixzz1ORdcpWRr

Of course, you have to do a little extrapolation to get to his point:

Aga Khan = "the Muslims"
offered = "helped"
shoot the Gaullistes = "kill the Jews"

BucEyedPea
06-05-2011, 05:45 PM
[INDENT]
Aga Khan = "the Muslims"
offered = "helped"
shoot the Gaullistes = "kill the Jews"

One has to wonder if that was blowback to Great Britain, as well as France to a degree, for the betrayal by them to the Arabs who were promised their land back if they would help Britain take down the Ottomans? :hmmm:

I mean that is how this game is played even between the Imperial Powers of the West. That's the only reason why the French King assisted us in our own War for Independence—to get back at Great Britain for it's land losses to it.

Sigh! Human nature never changes.

banyon
06-05-2011, 05:46 PM
How the Eton-educated wartime Aga Khan offered '30,000 armed Arabs' to help Hitler - but still evaded treason trial
Last updated at 18:34 08 March 2008

Britain dropped a secret plan to charge the Aga Khan's grandfather with treason despite evidence that he offered to help Hitler in the war, documents just released reveal.

Ministers shelved the proposed prosecution of Sultan Muhammad Shah ? who was Aga Khan III at the time ? for fear it would inflame Muslims.

The spiritual leader of the world's Zizari Ismaili Muslims was accused of pledging to raise an army of 30,000 Arab troops to back a German occupation of Egypt, Syria and Palestine.

Evidence emerged at the end of the war when the Allies captured German archives and interrogated their intelligence agents.

Details of the case have remained top-secret for more than 60 years and were declassified only last week, with their release by the National Archives at Kew.

In a 1942 memo submitted to the German Foreign Office by a Nazi agent, Aga Khan III expressed admiration for the puppet Vichy government in occupied France.

The Eton-educated racehorse owner then offered to raise troops in the Middle East to fight the Free French, saying: "If you give me ten to 15 days warning, I will have for you 30,000 armed Arabs, amongst my most faithful disciples, who will shoot the Gaullistes in the back."

As he was a British subject, officials concluded he could face treason charges and the death penalty. But it was eventually decided disloyalty by the then Aga Khan, who died in 1957, "could not be proved".

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-528720/How-Eton-educated-wartime-Aga-Khan-offered-30-000-armed-Arabs-help-Hitler--evaded-treason-trial.html#ixzz1ORdcpWRr

Of course, you have to do a little extrapolation to get to his point:

Aga Khan = "the Muslims"
offered = "helped"
shoot the Gaullistes = "kill the Jews"

"Gaullistes" = Frenchies, no?

BucEyedPea
06-05-2011, 05:51 PM
"Islam is the only non-Christian religion to honor Jesus and His Virgin Mother."~ Lew Rockwell

ForeverChiefs58
06-05-2011, 07:59 PM
How the Eton-educated wartime Aga Khan offered '30,000 armed Arabs' to help Hitler - but still evaded treason trial
Last updated at 18:34 08 March 2008

Britain dropped a secret plan to charge the Aga Khan's grandfather with treason despite evidence that he offered to help Hitler in the war, documents just released reveal.

Ministers shelved the proposed prosecution of Sultan Muhammad Shah ? who was Aga Khan III at the time ? for fear it would inflame Muslims.

The spiritual leader of the world's Zizari Ismaili Muslims was accused of pledging to raise an army of 30,000 Arab troops to back a German occupation of Egypt, Syria and Palestine.

Evidence emerged at the end of the war when the Allies captured German archives and interrogated their intelligence agents.

Details of the case have remained top-secret for more than 60 years and were declassified only last week, with their release by the National Archives at Kew.

In a 1942 memo submitted to the German Foreign Office by a Nazi agent, Aga Khan III expressed admiration for the puppet Vichy government in occupied France.

The Eton-educated racehorse owner then offered to raise troops in the Middle East to fight the Free French, saying: "If you give me ten to 15 days warning, I will have for you 30,000 armed Arabs, amongst my most faithful disciples, who will shoot the Gaullistes in the back."

As he was a British subject, officials concluded he could face treason charges and the death penalty. But it was eventually decided disloyalty by the then Aga Khan, who died in 1957, "could not be proved".

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-528720/How-Eton-educated-wartime-Aga-Khan-offered-30-000-armed-Arabs-help-Hitler--evaded-treason-trial.html#ixzz1ORdcpWRr

Of course, you have to do a little extrapolation to get to his point:

Aga Khan = "the Muslims"
offered = "helped"
shoot the Gaullistes = "kill the Jews"



I was refering to Mohammad Amin al-Husayni.

"October 11, 1941. The Arab Palestinian leader Mohammad Amin al-Husayni arrives to Rome with an attempt to form close ties with the Axis powers. Al-Husayni meets Benito Mussolini, and arrives to Germany for a meeting with Adolf Hitler on November 27. Al-Husayni would remain in Berlin until the end of the war, playing a major role in formation of Muslim Waffen SS units and active work preventing thousands of jewish refugees to escape the Nazis and reach Palestine."


"Summer 1944. From Berlin, Palestinian Arab leader Amin al-Husayni plans a large scale genocide of Jews in Palestine. A joint German-Arab commando unit was dispatched into Palestine with chemical weapons to kill 250,000 Jews in what is known as operation "Atlas". The parachutists' team members with the poison were caught near Jericho by Jordanian and British Police forces."

"1936 — March 1939 violent rebellion, known as the Arab Revolt, that lasts for three years. ...Thousands killed."

"August 23, 1929. In the 1929 Hebron massacre 67 Jews are killed, all but 8 of them foreign students from the local yeshiva. The British order the Jewish communities to evacuate in Hebron and Gaza "to prevent another massacre", ending the ancient Jewish presence in the cities. Both communities would resume after the 1967 War."

"Summer 1929. The 1929 Palestine riots erupt due to a dispute between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall. 133 Jews killed and 339 wounded (mostly by Arabs); 116 Arabs killed and 232 wounded (mostly by British-commanded police and soldiers)."

"April 4–7, 1920. 1920 Palestine riots: The violent 4-day riot against the Jews in Jerusalem's Old City prompts the establishment of Haganah on June 12, 1920. Muhammad Amin Al-Husayni was charged with inciting the Arab crowds with an inflammatory speech and sentenced by military court held in camera (private) to ten years imprisonment in absentia, since he had already violated his bail by fleeing to Transjordan to avoid arrest.

"May 1–7, 1921. Jaffa riots resulted in the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs, with 146 Jews and 73 Arabs being wounded. Most Arab casualties resulted from clashes with British forces attempting to restore order. Thousands of Jewish residents of Jaffa fled for Tel Aviv and were temporarily housed in tent camps on the beach."

"March 1, 1920. Jewish settlements in the Upper Galilee were attacked by Arab forces. Joseph Trumpeldor was among 8 who died defending Tel Hai."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

ForeverChiefs58
06-05-2011, 08:18 PM
I've checked the Koran out of the library several years ago. I also read most of A History of the Arab Peoples. They have respect for people of the "Book." I am talking about actual cultural practices. They did have dhimmi for BOTH Jew and Christian but that did not rise to the occasion of how many pogroms took place in Europe. Despite, dhimmi Jews could still do quite well and did because they were very capable. Life under the Ottoman Turks, who had dhimmi, wasn't that good for the Arab peoples there either. Yet, we still traded and did business with the nasty Ottomans while minding our own business.

They helped Hitler? Please document. Do you know about the deal Hitler cut with Zionists called the "Transfer Agreement?"

Lastly, it's Christians and and Arabs that have a long historical vendetta with each other due to years of mistrust and animosity. It's a Thousand Year war between the two. The bottom line still remains that Europe, specifically Christian Europe, has a far worse record of anti-semitism before the ME conflict erupted. Negative views of other religious adherents occur in the scriptures of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Don't let the facts get in your way though.

Jewish, Muslim and Christian groups invoke religious arguments for their uncompromising positions. Contemporary history of the Arab–Israeli conflict is very much affected by Christian and Muslim religious beliefs and their interpretations of the idea of the chosen people in their policies with regard to the "Promised Land" and the "Chosen City" of Jerusalem.

The Land of Canaan or Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel) was, according to the Torah (and the Koran, The Table 5:23), promised by God to the Children of Israel. According to biblical studies, the Israelites ruled that land from the 13th or 14th century BCE to the 1st century BCE (with short periods of foreign rule), remaining an ethnic majority of the population in the area until the 7th century CE.

In his 1896 manifesto, The Jewish State, Theodor Herzl repeatedly refers to the Biblical Promised land concept. The Likud is currently the most prominent Israeli political party to include the Biblical claim to the Land of Israel in its platform.

Muslims also claim rights to that land in accordance with the Quran. Contrary to the Jewish claim that this land was promised only to the descendants of Abraham's younger son Isaac, they argue that the Land of Canaan was promised to all descendants of Abraham, including his elder son Ishmael, from whom Arabs claim descent. Additionally, Muslims also revere many sites holy for Biblical Israelites, such as The Cave of the Patriarchs and the Temple Mount, and in the past 1,400 years have constructed Islamic landmarks on these ancient Israelite sites, such as the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Muslims also believe that Muhammad passed through Jerusalem on his first journey to heaven. Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, claims that all of the land of Palestine (the current Israel and Palestinian territories) is an Islamic waqf that must be governed by Muslims.

Christian support Israel because they recognize an ancestral right of Jews to this land, as suggested, for instance, by Paul in Romans 11. Some also believe that the return of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Christ.

JimBaker48.8
06-06-2011, 10:52 AM
Anybody else see "60 minutes" last night ? Israel is taking a real azz-thumpin on this whole set of issues related to the Settlements. Even the "60 minutes" Heb-dominated crew, led by Leslie Stahl who reported on this subject last nights, are giving it to them big-time and their PR is going down in a blaze.

go bowe
06-06-2011, 10:56 AM
Anybody else see "60 minutes" last night ? Israel is taking a real azz-thumpin on this whole set of issues related to the Settlements. Even the "60 minutes" Heb-dominated crew, led by Leslie Stahl who reported on this subject last nights, are giving it to them big-time and their PR is going down in a blaze.

heb-dominated?

did you know that most racial/ethnic slurs are not tolerated on this website, unless you're attacking frankie?

not even here in dc...

just ask the mad crapper...

patteeu
06-06-2011, 12:43 PM
What's the benefit?

There are all kinds of potential benefits, most of which are speculative. If it's helped us avoid getting involved in a war or helps us avoid getting into one in the future, that's a big benefit. If it helped us to win the cold war, that's a benefit. If it prevents a massive refugee problem that we would feel compelled to alleviate, that's a benefit. If it's created an environment that's allowed the Suez Canal to be open more than it otherwise would have been, that's a benefit. If it's helped to keep oil flowing from the region by preventing conflict or by deterring someone who would cut the west off from that oil from seizing the oil fields (or buying influence over the oil fields), that's a benefit.

One concrete benefit is that it motivated the Saudis to buy American military hardware to keep up with the Israelis. Another is that much of the aid to the Israelis is offerred under the condition that it be spent on US military hardware, thereby helping to keep the US military hardware industry in business and on the cutting edge.

An example of how aid helped us can be found next door in Egypt. The aid we gave to Egypt starting in the early 70's, got them to kick the Soviets out of their country and kept the Soviets out. The Suez Canal could have easily been subject to Soviet defacto control if we hadn't turned the Egyptians. It also helped prevent another war between Egypt and Israel.

patteeu
06-06-2011, 12:51 PM
Anybody else see "60 minutes" last night ? Israel is taking a real azz-thumpin on this whole set of issues related to the Settlements. Even the "60 minutes" Heb-dominated crew, led by Leslie Stahl who reported on this subject last nights, are giving it to them big-time and their PR is going down in a blaze.

LOL @ the premise that the "Heb-dominated crew" at 60 minutes could be expected to side with Israel and are therefore shocking us with this "real azz-thumpin".

Brock
06-06-2011, 12:51 PM
Those seem very iffy on the speculative ones, and nothing we couldn't live without on the supposed concrete one.

Brock
06-06-2011, 12:54 PM
It seems to me that the only real reason we give so much aid to Israel is because it's a political third rail for some reason and nobody wants to say no.

patteeu
06-06-2011, 01:26 PM
Those seem very iffy on the speculative ones, and nothing we couldn't live without on the supposed concrete one.

Of course the speculative ones are iffy. That's what speculative means. But you don't have to bank many of the benefits to justify the relatively small amount of money we've spent on aid to Israel (and Egypt). Knocking the Soviets out of Egypt and keeping them out alone (not to mention the lasting peace between Egypt and Israel) was well worth the money we've spent on Egypt, IMO. But if you disagree, that's fine. My only point was that you should evaluate that spending in terms of cost/benefit rather than as charity.

vailpass
06-06-2011, 01:29 PM
heb-dominated?

did you know that most racial/ethnic slurs are not tolerated on this website, unless you're attacking frankie?

not even here in dc...

just ask the mad crapper...

hebrew(heb) is a slur? Really?
No.

go bowe
06-06-2011, 02:13 PM
hebrew(heb) is a slur? Really?
No.

yes, absolutely...

oh, wait...

ForeverChiefs58
06-06-2011, 03:02 PM
It seems to me that the only real reason we give so much aid to Israel is because it's a political third rail for some reason and nobody wants to say no.


Bullshit. This statement is so full of stupid. What are you even talking about? Why wouldn't you give to israel they are our ally? We give to other countries who are much closer to being an enemy than being friendly with the west. Is there a reason your not bitching about any of the money and aid we send to other counties?
If you are just against jews there is no point even trying to have a rational conversation because you will always be against them in any senerio.

Do you see the benefit of giving to an ally that fights against terrorists who also cheer US casualties and kill their own people for even acting or associating with us?

patteeu
06-06-2011, 03:15 PM
Bullshit. This statement is so full of stupid. What are you even talking about? Why wouldn't you give to israel they are our ally? We give to other countries who are much closer to being an enemy than being friendly with the west. Is there a reason your not bitching about any of the money and aid we send to other counties?
If you are just against jews there is no point even trying to have a rational conversation because you will always be against them in any senerio.

Do you see the benefit of giving to an ally that fights against terrorists who also cheer US casualties and kill their own people for even acting or associating with us?

I don't think it's a case of being against Jews with Brock. In fact, I've assumed that Brock is Jewish for quite a while based on his posts. I don't know if he's ever said so though.

Jenson71
06-06-2011, 03:18 PM
If you are just against jews there is no point even trying to have a rational conversation because you will always be against them in any senerio.

LMAO

Brock is anti-semitic!!!

vailpass
06-06-2011, 03:19 PM
yes, absolutely...

oh, wait...

LMAO

ForeverChiefs58
06-06-2011, 04:10 PM
LMAO

Brock is anti-semitic!!!

Either that or him and jim baker drink from the same cup of stupid. Either one doesn't take the ass out of his assinine statement.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-06-2011, 04:13 PM
Why wouldn't you give to israel they are our ally? We give to other countries who are much closer to being an enemy than being friendly with the west.

Fine by me, cut them all off and start taking care of THIS country.

Brock
06-06-2011, 06:31 PM
Bullshit. This statement is so full of stupid. What are you even talking about? Why wouldn't you give to israel they are our ally? We give to other countries who are much closer to being an enemy than being friendly with the west. Is there a reason your not bitching about any of the money and aid we send to other counties?
If you are just against jews there is no point even trying to have a rational conversation because you will always be against them in any senerio.

Do you see the benefit of giving to an ally that fights against terrorists who also cheer US casualties and kill their own people for even acting or associating with us?

You are an incredible nincompoop that sees only black and white. When the Israelis were blowing up British citizens to get them to leave, who was the terrorist? Israel has never done anything for us, except take our money and steal our secrets.

patteeu
06-06-2011, 07:13 PM
You are an incredible nincompoop that sees only black and white. When the Israelis were blowing up British citizens to get them to leave, who was the terrorist? Israel has never done anything for us, except take our money and steal our secrets.

Apparently, he's not the only one who sees nothing but black and white.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2011, 07:44 PM
Christian support Israel because they recognize an ancestral right of Jews to this land, as suggested, for instance, by Paul in Romans 11. Some also believe that the return of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Christ.

Not all of them support it for that reason. Many support it for eschatological reasons because they want to perfect Jews aka have them accept Jesus as the Messiah which converts them as part of prophecy which results in God's Kingdom here on earth.

If you support the idea of an ancestral right of return then you have to also accept it for Palestinians, Native American Indians and Mexicans most of which also believe in this right too. If we really get right down to it let's retrace all the migrations of man including the Indo-European race, the Huns etc. etc and watch whatta mess that would make in modern times. It creates conflict. Always has.

I think a better way of saying you support Israel is that Jews need a homeland to go to due to centuries long persecutions against them on and off during the diaspora.

Brock
06-06-2011, 07:46 PM
Apparently, he's not the only one who sees nothing but black and white.

At least my opinions are borne out of real observation and not what the old magic book says.

patteeu
06-06-2011, 07:50 PM
At least my opinions are borne out of real observation and not what the old magic book says.

I'm not sure what difference it makes if they're as cartoonish as that.

Brock
06-06-2011, 07:55 PM
I'm not sure what difference it makes if they're as cartoonish as that.

What difference it makes is under one scenario we're not pumping billions of dollars in and getting nothing but attitude and trouble back. But there's really no effective argument for the idiots who think God wants us to do that.

patteeu
06-06-2011, 08:06 PM
What difference it makes is under one scenario we're not pumping billions of dollars in and getting nothing but attitude and trouble back. But there's really no effective argument for the idiots who think God wants us to do that.

I meant that I don't know what difference it makes if you get your cartoonish views from observation or from a magic book. Either way, their still cartoonish views.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2011, 05:30 AM
I'll ask you FC58, who was living where Israel was in the past before they got there? How did the ancient Israelites get them out? Do they have a right of return too?

JimBaker48.8
06-07-2011, 10:58 AM
LOL @ the premise that the "Heb-dominated crew" at 60 minutes could be expected to side with Israel and are therefore shocking us with this "real azz-thumpin".
Let me ask you a question: do you think Mormons are treated the same/equally by the media in this country as Jewish people are, or would you say there's a difference in the way the 2 groups are treated ?

patteeu
06-07-2011, 11:07 AM
Let me ask you a question: do you think Mormons are treated the same/equally by the media in this country as Jewish people are, or would you say there's a difference in the way the 2 groups are treated ?

I would think there would be a difference but I can't think of any specific examples of Mormon treatment. I don't see much relevance though.