# The Israeli raid



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

Did i miss someone mentioning this? I am going to ask a really innocent question, and there is no malice intended. I really have no idea. What triggered America's standing by Israel no matter what they do? I know the Holocaust and all of that, but there have been other countries which have suffered, such as Rwanda, but I have no idea why we are so steadfastly with them. Someone want to shed some light?


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Actually, VM, I thought we were standing AGAINST them until this last incident. An olive branch was held out as a peace offering to Israel's President (don't get me started trying to type his name, lol) very recently, but until then, I have been really confused as to why we were AGAINST them. The whole thing really does confuse me, as well.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

The Jews assisted Great Britain in the conquest of Palestine. The UK helped them establish the state of Israel in return. Their ties with Britain, their Biblical heritage (and the majority Christian culture of the US in former times) and the fact that they were a ready-made ally in the Middle East all contributed to us being on their side.

They remain a staunch US ally, even though the current administration has treated them quite shabbily.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

The US supports Israel because we need an ally in that area of the world. Don't read anything more into it than that. Many liberals do, but the fact is that we need them almost, if not more, than they need us.

It isn't about religion. It's politics...and oil.

They are important because, despite what many would like to believe, we need that oil as long as factions in this country won't let us drill our own wealth.


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

We need an ally in the area, and Israel is the only one available. They are a strong ally, which means that they are not a lap dog, and they look after their own interests first. Israel also realizes that their interests are often ours. Israel often does or does not do things to please us. Can you imagine putting up with rocket attacks for decades? Those rocket attacks by the Palestinians are still going on even though they are not reported on in the US very often. The alliance is mutually beneficial, they need us and we need them for intelligence work and doing things like bombing secret nuclear reactors that we are not willing to do.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Mainly because Israel is the only democratic AND non-Islamic nation in the area. And no matter what people think that area is one of, if not THE most important regions in the world for the US and the free world. Cut the flow of oil and the world as we know it would grind to a halt. 

If you check you will find we support even more strongly a government in the region which only likes us because of the money we give them and whose people would have no real reason to cry if the US was wiped off the fact of the earth. A government which does things no one in the US would stand for from any other nation. That nation is Saudi Arabia.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

vickiesmom said:


> ... innocent question, and there is no malice intended. I really have no idea. What triggered America's standing by Israel *no matter what they do? *


_"No matter what they do?"_ Innocent question? I don't think so.

What did Israel do that should call into question US support for them?


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Israel is a friendly country with Western values in a region where we have few friends. Sometimes we have disagreements... unlike the other countries in the region, where we rarely if ever have agreements.

Like most aspects of life, it's better to be one's friend than one's enemy.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

Quote " Someone want to shed some light?"

You could shed your own light by cracking open a history book or two, or by googling. It's a good idea.


----------



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

JuliaAnn said:


> Quote " Someone want to shed some light?"
> 
> You could shed your own light by cracking open a history book or two, or by googling. It's a good idea.



Oh the trolls are out early on this one. Thank you to all of you who answered my question intelligently. Most of you hit upon the same theme that I had seen, that we do have disagreements with the Israelis quite often, and I wondered what was keeping us their ally. Yes, I think the Bush administration shed a light on the friendship between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. that I don't think most people were aware of. I think after so many years of Jew/Arab conflict I tuned out. I remember in history class in the 70's it dominated the news, and I probably just have tuned out over the years, it gets a bit mundane. It is a bit like having your two kids go back and forth all day every day, after a few years you just want them to


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e105.htm

a little information about the PEACEFUL people bringing 'supplies' to their 'brothers of palestine'.
oh, by the way, Israel TOLD these fools not to come by way of sea......they wanted to be in the news, so they marytered themselves to make Israel look bad.......

So much information can be found, if one looks.


----------



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e105.htm
> 
> a little information about the PEACEFUL people bringing 'supplies' to their 'brothers of palestine'.
> oh, by the way, Israel TOLD these fools not to come by way of sea......they wanted to be in the news, so they marytered themselves to make Israel look bad.......
> ...


If one looks...one would see my question was not about the raid itself, but of the amicable relationship between Israel and the U.S, which I do not always see as equal, but as I have said...if one looks...I have tuned out long about the situation and needed a refresher.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

You are so pleasant.
Interesting timing, all that has transpired in the last few days, that you would "have innocent curiosity". about Israel......

Just thought I would give you what you are really looking for.........;-)


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

This situation, what is going on, what is the Truth ect. This is very important to our country right now.


----------



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> You are so pleasant.
> Interesting timing, all that has transpired in the last few days, that you would "have innocent curiosity". about Israel......
> 
> Just thought I would give you what you are really looking for.........;-)


You seem to be incapable of decent conversation and debate. I am a very pleasant person until i am bombarded by ignorance. I am not Jewish, so I have no idea how they feel about the situation. all Jews are not Israelis and all Israelis are not Jews, so there was an innocent curiosity. 

Your agenda seems to be quite personal, while others seem to be able to keep on topic. so, what is it exactly You are really looking for? If it is a race debate, sorry...that was not my question and I am not buying into it.


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

Vickiesmom, please see that Laura Zone 5 was only trying to respond to the entirety of your post, including the title of The Israeli Raid. If you were referring to a different Israili raid than the one making the news currently, perhaps you could be more specific?


----------



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

megafatcat said:


> Vickiesmom, please see that Laura Zone 5 was only trying to respond to the entirety of your post, including the title of The Israeli Raid. If you were referring to a different Israili raid than the one making the news currently, perhaps you could be more specific?


My question was why is america so steadfastly Israel's friend. The israeli raid was just the latest incident which made me curious. It seems as if everyone else got it, and answered intelligently.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

vickiesmom said:


> My question was why is america so steadfastly Israel's friend. The israeli raid was just the latest incident which made me curious. It seems as if everyone else got it, and answered intelligently.


We need an ally in that area, and Israel is it.
As far as steadfastness, I'd say that if you are friends with someone, you stick by them no matter what.
I'm not sure how our relations with Israel (or any of our other allies) will be when Obama gets done, but hopefully they'll stick by us in the bad times too.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

vickiesmom said:


> Did i miss someone mentioning this? I am going to ask a really innocent question, and there is no malice intended. I really have no idea. What triggered America's standing by Israel no matter what they do? I know the Holocaust and all of that, but there have been other countries which have suffered, such as Rwanda, but I have no idea why we are so steadfastly with them. Someone want to shed some light?


Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and the only successful economy. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that actually places a value on human rights and the rule of law. Though that would be difficult to know given media bias. Israel has been a consistent supporter of the US in most areas and codevelops a lot of military technology with the US. They're not perfect but they are orders of magnitude better than any other Middle Eatern country.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

This can be answered in a paragraph, as has been done, but it could also fill many books.
Everything that has been said is true, but it is so much deeper than that.
Prior to WWII, Germans wanted the Jews out. No other countries would accept them. It was awful what Hitler did to the Jews, but you must understand what led up to this. Germans wanted rid of this group of "money changers" that were taking over the banks and businesses. They couldn't expel them. They couldn't get them to do productive manual labor (see what 2000 years away from a shovel will get you) and eventually they began shooting them. Eventually they developed a speedy efficient method of extermination. Very ugly time in the history of mankind.
Following WWII, most countries refused to accept German Jews. Even liberal Canada kept tight standards for Jewish immigration. But, the good old US of A welcomed them with open arms. It was the right thing to do. The Brits and the US carved out a settlement for them in the heart of Muslim country. 
The Jews have done well in Israel. They keep the Palestine in check at all times. The Jews have done well in this country, too. Many companies are Jewish controlled. 
They have control of our political system. We send Israel more aid than any other country. 
When Jewish companies invest in factories and other businesses in other countries, they depend on the us military to insure their investments remain safe. But when the Dutch invest in S. Africa, we let the natives steal their investments and declare it the fair thing to do. But when US-Jewish or Israel controlled companies are at risk, we protect them.

We have maintained this alliance for a long time. We have benefited from it. But it has earned us some hatred, too. Many people around the world object to our far reaching investments. It is my belief that the WTC was attacked because it represents world trade. Further the Pentagon was attacked because it represents our worldwide protection of companies that exploit the natural resources of those countries.

We have been attacked by Middle East Muslims since 1776, Nice to have the Jews on our side. But we've paid a price for that alliance. Too late to switch sides.

More Catholics died at the hands of Nazi Germany, but we keep being reminded about the Holocaust. It has provided them with a shield of sorts. No one can openly criticize a Jew without being labeled a Nazi.

Read Charlie Wilson&#8217;s War.


----------



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

Thank you everyone. I wish Sr. Frumentia was still alive. She was my current events teacher while so much was going on in the Middle East. I was much more interested in finding the Titanic (yes, it was still missing at that time) than i was in hearing about the middle east, which is why I probably know more about the Titanic than I do about the Middle East. The one thing I remember her saying, 'Watch the news everyday, one day you could wake up and be speaking another language...she was from Poland and she should know.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

When the p;rice of a barrel of crude oil goes up, who benifits?
We all complain about the gas station owners, but they often make more on the snack food than the thin margin in fuel.
The fuel company's refineries also operate on a thin profit.
The folks that drill the wells and put their investments at risk every time they sink a few miles of well casing, this is no get-rich-quick business either.

However, barrels of oil are traided on as a comnmodity. Every oil company has to lock in enough oil to keep their business going. They have to buy contracts well into the future. 
They buy at market prices, but the market goes up and down based on supply and demand.

So, when oil spikes are $100 a barrel, it isn't the oil well owner that profits, it is the holder of that well's future production that profits.

Bob drills a well and hits oil. That allows him to drill more wells. In the end he does fairly well. Joe buys the well and puts the oil up for sale. Saul buys that oil well's production from Joe at $25 a barrel for the next 20 years. Saul sells the oil to Sunoco at $50 a barrel on a million barrel a week contract for the next 6 months. Sunoco refines it and ships to its dealers at $1.00 a gallon for gasoline.

Saul and his New Jeresy friends get together with their Israel buddies and they decide to put a run on oil supplies. They buy up the futures contracts that Joe is offereing, but they don't offer them to Sunoco. So, Sunoco goes looking to fill their needs for next October. But there aren't many barrels of capacity available, so the price goes up. Other oil companies see that the price is going up, so they try to buy farther ahead, too. This runs the price of oil from $25 to $100.
Who made the money? The guy drilling wellls didn't profit. Joe is still fulfilling his contract for $25 a barrel oil. The gas stations are still operating on a thin profit. The refineries are still operating on a thin profit.

The only real change is that the consumers are paying two or three times as much for their fuel and the guys that buy and sell futures contracts are raking in the dough.

But during this spike in fuel prices, no one was critical of the US-Israel investment companies that manipulated this "shortage". And it continues. 

You may be right that we have a government controled news media. But I contend that the government is Israeli controlled.

Anyone with children know that they can't be right all the time. If your child got into a fight every day with the neighbor kid, do you side with your child no matter what? Clearly, your child has to be at fault fromtime to time. Right? Then why is it that when Palestinians are victims of Israeli violence we call it &#8220;retaliation&#8221; and when Israelis are the victims we call it &#8220;aggression&#8221;? It seems we can&#8217;t see both sides to this situation. Can it really be that one sided?
Now, just call me a Nazi and turn on the TV to see what Britiney Spears is doing today.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I have a book that details the war we have been in since 1776 with the middle east. Very interesting. But I can't recall the name of it. It is loaned out right now.
Our US Navy ws formed just because of those aggressive radical Muslim terriorists. I'll try to get a title for you.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

Chuck said:


> The Jews assisted Great Britain in the conquest of Palestine. The UK helped them establish the state of Israel in return. Their ties with Britain, their Biblical heritage (and the majority Christian culture of the US in former times) and the fact that they were a ready-made ally in the Middle East all contributed to us being on their side.
> 
> They remain a staunch US ally, even though the current administration has treated them quite shabbily.


A staunch ally that provides a huge stabilizing force in the region. Also, person for person and platform for platform, one of the strongest and most effective fighting forces on the planet.

A couple of points that you might (or not) find relevant:

1. Had we (the US) undergone rocket attacks for any period of time, how would we have responded? In case it is difficult for you to come to this on your own, look at the reaction we had to Indian raids back in the day (or English occupation, etc). The Israeli's show an _incredible_ amount of restraint with the Palestinians on a daily basis (some would say far too much).

2. When portrayed on television, you see the screen split in equal parts, Israeli's on one side, Palestinian's on the other with both 'views' being presented. The fact that our media cannot see right and wrong and gives them equal air time _does not mean that they are equally good or right!_ Just looking at the methods used by both sides will show you that the Palestinian's are clearly less principled. Their agenda is less supportable by reasonable human beings either from a social perspective or a religious one. 

I know that it is popular to say that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and that different ideas are just that, 'different'. Folks, there's right and wrong, and just because the intellectual elite have "risen above" the simple concepts of right and wrong doesn't remove the base fact that right and wrong exist. _It just means these elitists don't see it._ I for one am glad that we have an ally in Israel, that they exist and are strong, and after watching the history of their nation; I would be honored to fight alongside any of them.

R


----------



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

Thank God for intelligent debate!! I can see both sides of the issue, as others do. I remember quite a few things Israel has helped us with, wasn't Entebbe one of them, or am I thinking about something else...anyway, I wondered and you guys have clarified it for me. Now, you can lock it before the trolls get started or continue on without me. I just wanted to know and that was all. Thanks.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> You are so pleasant.
> *Interesting timing, all that has transpired in the last few days, that you would "have innocent curiosity". about Israel......*
> 
> Just thought I would give you what you are really looking for.........;-)


That and the fact that the title of this post is " Israeli Raid".. I mean anyone could get confused :shrug: .


----------



## jerzeygurl (Jan 21, 2005)

yeah i was expecting to read about the israeli raid...silly me


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

haypoint said:


> When the p;rice of a barrel of crude oil goes up, who benifits?
> We all complain about the gas station owners, but they often make more on the snack food than the thin margin in fuel.
> The fuel company's refineries also operate on a thin profit.
> The folks that drill the wells and put their investments at risk every time they sink a few miles of well casing, this is no get-rich-quick business either.
> ...



No you are not a Nazi, but you are definitely posting antisemitic drivel. Sounds like the same garbage posted on most any Aryan website.


----------



## Jenn (Nov 9, 2004)

Vickie's mom two other issues not touched on. Noone wanted the Jews- though the US took some- and Israel was carved from the Arabs, someone else the Brits didn't care too much about, to get the Jews away from Europe and end any obligation to them. (Sort of like the Palestinians now but guess the Arabs also want to keep them in trouble so they can be angry at Israel). Next, the american israeli lobby AIPAC spends a lot of money to keep COngress supporting Israel. Not as much as BP probably but they only get ?10% of Israel's defense budget in return for their lobbying.

Me I think as much money as we give Israel they ought to fall in line with us more. But guess that's part of their value to us, the dog we can't fully control nor are we fully responsible for their actions.


----------



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

Jenn said:


> Vickie's mom two other issues not touched on. Noone wanted the Jews- though the US took some- and Israel was carved from the Arabs, someone else the Brits didn't care too much about, to get the Jews away from Europe and end any obligation to them. (Sort of like the Palestinians now but guess the Arabs also want to keep them in trouble so they can be angry at Israel). Next, the american israeli lobby AIPAC spends a lot of money to keep COngress supporting Israel. Not as much as BP probably but they only get ?10% of Israel's defense budget in return for their lobbying.
> 
> Me I think as much money as we give Israel they ought to fall in line with us more. But guess that's part of their value to us, the dog we can't fully control nor are we fully responsible for their actions.


About a hundred years ago when Larry King was on the radio, (I would listen when I was a kid, I loved his voice and the topics), a man called in, and he had just come from Israel. I don't remember what conflict had transpired, but it was about '73 or '74, and the guy was just trying to get on a plane home, and the israeli police or military gave him a hard time, and told him "Americans don't tell us what to do, we tell Americans what to do". I never forgot it, but never paid too much attention to it either. I was much more bothered in later years with the relationship between Bush and Tony Blair. I don't know why, but that really bothered me.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

haypoint said:


> Anyone with children know that they can't be right all the time. If your child got into a fight every day with the neighbor kid, do you side with your child no matter what? Clearly, your child has to be at fault fromtime to time. Right? Then why is it that when Palestinians are victims of Israeli violence we call it âretaliationâ and when Israelis are the victims we call it âaggressionâ? It seems we canât see both sides to this situation. Can it really be that one sided?


 I don't believe that any country can be right ALL of the time. Yet that is the way that Israel is always portrayed. I remember being a kid and watching some of the clashes along the Gaza Strip. There would be children/teens throwing rocks and bottles and the newcasters would refer to it as Palestinian aggression. Meanwhile, the Israelis would respond with real weapons and it was termed as retaliation. When is it appropriate to retaliate against rocks with a rifle?

Alot of the news in the late seventies and early eighties scared the heck out of me... I really tried not to watch it.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

The event you are referring to to occurred on October 6, 1973, It is known as the Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) War, the holiest day on the Jewish religious calendar and one where observant Jews fast from food and water for about a 25 hour period. Egypt and Syria took advantage of optimal circumstances to launch attacks that took Israel by surprise. Israel quickly overcame the surprise attack and the war ended on October 24 in a decisive victory for the Israeli Army.

Then along Carter and the Camp David Accords in 1978 and every since then the USA has actively and openly been trying to dictate to Israel how they are to run their country.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

TheMartianChick said:


> I don't believe that any country can be right ALL of the time. Yet that is the way that Israel is always portrayed. I remember being a kid and watching some of the clashes along the Gaza Strip. There would be children/teens throwing rocks and bottles and the newcasters would refer to it as Palestinian aggression. Meanwhile, the Israelis would respond with real weapons and it was termed as retaliation. When is it appropriate to retaliate against rocks with a rifle?
> 
> Alot of the news in the late seventies and early eighties scared the heck out of me... I really tried not to watch it.


Nope they aren't right all the time, they never should have gone along with the land for peace deals! They certainly didn't reap any sort of peace from doing so. 

As for the "children" throwing rocks and bottles - where were their parents? Don't they care about the well being of their children? Have you seen the children's shows that encourage kids to become martyrs? The whole culture is one of death.


----------



## Linebacker (Sep 11, 2007)

Wags said:


> Nope they aren't right all the time, they never should have gone along with the land for peace deals! They certainly didn't reap any sort of peace from doing so.
> 
> As for the "children" throwing rocks and bottles - where were their parents? Don't they care about the well being of their children? Have you seen the children's shows that encourage kids to become martyrs? The whole culture is one of death.


While in Iraq in 06, we were penned down by sniper fire for over an hour, and lost an American Hero during that time. After the 4 snipers were dispatched the kids/teens whatever they were began to throw rocks at us. We were in a heavly populated residential area with each house being surrounded by a stone wall which allowed the rock throwers to hide. The rock throwing un-nerved (don't even know if that's a word) me more than any other action I have ever been in. They would hit our equipment and vehicles with the exact sound of the sniper bullets. The Lord was watching over me, not only because the snipers never found me in their scope, but I would have lost my religion if I could have gotten my hands on one of those rock throwers.

Brad


----------



## Mike in Ohio (Oct 29, 2002)

Chuck said:


> The Jews assisted Great Britain in the conquest of Palestine. The UK helped them establish the state of Israel in return. Their ties with Britain, their Biblical heritage (and the majority Christian culture of the US in former times) and the fact that they were a ready-made ally in the Middle East all contributed to us being on their side.
> 
> They remain a staunch US ally, even though the current administration has treated them quite shabbily.


I think you need to go back and check your historical facts Chuck. "The Jews" DID NOT assist Great Britain in the conquest of Palestine. There was a "Zionist Mule Corps" formed by the British and later in the war a Jewish Legion was formed by the British. This was designed to counter balance Jews fighting on the side of the Germans.

Great Britain took over Palestine as well as many other portions of the Middle East as a result of WWI and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. I refer you to:
The British Mandate from the League of Nations
The Balfour Declaration
The Sykes Picot Treaty

The overall tilt was in favor of the arabs.

Let's fast forward to WWII timeframe leading up to 1948. 

1939 MacDonald White Paper (Passed by Parliament) restricts Jewish immigration into Palestine. The response of the Zionists was to organize a campaign of illegal immigration. It also led to the formation of the Irgun and subsequent attacks on the British in Palestine, most famously the death sentence on Ralph Kranz who was head of "the Jewish Department" of the British police in Palestine.

Although the Jewish population cooperated with the British during the war, when the war ended the Irgun declared the ceasefire over. Ever hear of the King David Hotel bombing?

When the British walked away from the Mandate, many stores of arms were handed over to the arabs. The British were actually a bit slow off the mark in recognizing Israel. The first country to do so was actually Russia.

In no way shape or form is it a reasonable historical description to say that the British and (zionist) Jews were friendly in the timeframe from WWI up to the declaration of Israel.

Mike


----------



## woodsman (Dec 8, 2008)

mike in ohio said:


> ...there was a "zionist mule corps" formed by the british and later in the war a jewish legion was formed by the british. This was designed to counter balance *jews fighting on the side of the germans*.
> ...


huh???


----------



## woodsman (Dec 8, 2008)

Wags said:


> ...
> 
> Then along Carter and the Camp David Accords in 1978 and every since then the USA has actively and openly been trying to dictate to Israel how they are to run their country.


You takes our money, you says "uncle".


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Linebacker said:


> While in Iraq in 06, we were penned down by sniper fire for over an hour, and lost an American Hero during that time. After the 4 snipers were dispatched the kids/teens whatever they were began to throw rocks at us. We were in a heavly populated residential area with each house being surrounded by a stone wall which allowed the rock throwers to hide. The rock throwing un-nerved (don't even know if that's a word) me more than any other action I have ever been in. They would hit our equipment and vehicles with the exact sound of the sniper bullets. The Lord was watching over me, not only because the snipers never found me in their scope, but I would have lost my religion if I could have gotten my hands on one of those rock throwers.
> 
> Brad


That must have been a horrible experience, Brad. If I've never said it to you before, then I would like to thank you for your service. As for those rock throwers... I think it is perfectly understandable to want to grab those little jokers up and___________ (feel free to fill in the blank!)


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Linebacker said:


> While in Iraq in 06, we were penned down by sniper fire for over an hour, and lost an American Hero during that time. After the 4 snipers were dispatched the kids/teens whatever they were began to throw rocks at us. We were in a heavly populated residential area with each house being surrounded by a stone wall which allowed the rock throwers to hide. The rock throwing un-nerved (don't even know if that's a word) me more than any other action I have ever been in. They would hit our equipment and vehicles with the exact sound of the sniper bullets. The Lord was watching over me, not only because the snipers never found me in their scope, but I would have lost my religion if I could have gotten my hands on one of those rock throwers.
> 
> Brad


Thank you for your service sir!!

I worked with a kid that served in the Army, and was in Iraq. 
He told me that the Israeli Military were some of the most fearless, and ferocious fighters he has ever had the pleasure to serve with.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

Rocks and bottles can cause injuries and even death. And you never know when a "kid" is going to chuck a Molotov cocktail or grenade next. Have you seen the training videos where kids as young as 6 or 7 are being taught how to throw grenades and operate machine guns? It's their version of the "boy scouts".


----------



## Mike in Ohio (Oct 29, 2002)

woodsman said:


> huh???


World War I Woodsman, not World War II. Many Jews fought on the side of the Germans. 

Another little known fact is that one reason the Turks (Ottomans) went into the war on the side of the Germans is because the British decided not to turn over a battleship that the Turks had contracted (and paid for) because the British decided they needed it more.

Mike


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I do not believe in the concept of disproportionate force. You poke a tiger with a toothpick, don't be surprised if you lose your life.

No, Israel is not always right... like someone else mentioned, how's that 'land for peace' working out? 

It's amazing how often the other side is almost always wrong.

I may have a jaded soul, but I tend to side with people that hold the same general views and values that I do. It always amazes me how anyone with a heart, whether they be liberal or conservative (especially liberals, who claim to always root for basic rights), can in any way support the enemies of Israel. The enemies despise what all of us hold dear... basic rights for women, minorities, gays, lesbians, transgendered, the disabled, those that can't take care of themselves... they tend to stone or behead such people.

The defeated Islamists, formerly Jordanians, who are under 'occupation', by Israel, would be the richest average (not royal) Muslims in the world, if they'd just abandon their insane mullahs interpretations of their holy book, and make peace with the Jews. OR, they could do what happened in Gaza... run the Jews out, and starve to death (burning down the massive infrastructure that the Jews left behind, greenhouses and other food growing operations).


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

haypoint said:


> They couldn't get them to do productive manual labor (see what 2000 years away from a shovel will get you)


Gaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh....................





haypoint said:


> Following WWII, most countries refused to accept German Jews. Even liberal Canada kept tight standards for Jewish immigration. But, the good old US of A welcomed them with open arms. It was the right thing to do.


Uh....... :stars: There pretty much WERE no German Jews left after WWII.



haypoint said:


> The Brits and the US carved out a settlement for them in the heart of Muslim country.


They had it first, long before there WAS a US or Britain. And I believe they took it back themselves?




haypoint said:


> Many companies are Jewish controlled.
> They have control of our political system. We send Israel more aid than any other country.
> When Jewish companies invest in factories and other businesses in other countries, they depend on the us military to insure their investments remain safe. But when the Dutch invest in S. Africa, we let the natives steal their investments and declare it the fair thing to do. But when US-Jewish or Israel controlled companies are at risk, we protect them.


Gaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh again :stars:




haypoint said:


> We have been attacked by Middle East Muslims since 1776, Nice to have the Jews on our side. But we've paid a price for that alliance. Too late to switch sides.


We have??



haypoint said:


> More Catholics died at the hands of Nazi Germany, but we keep being reminded about the Holocaust. It has provided them with a shield of sorts. No one can openly criticize a Jew without being labeled a Nazi.



Can you provide proof for your statement about the Catholics? I don't buy it.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

I don't usually watch Glen Beck (or any TV for that matter) but a friend passed along a link to Glen's show today where he talks about the history of the region and the flotilla - including those involved. Very interesting to see who the Americans were behind it. http://www.watchglennbeck.com/


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

Wags said:


> I don't usually watch Glen Beck (or any TV for that matter) but a friend passed along a link to Glen's show today where he talks about the history of the region and the flotilla - including those involved. Very interesting to see who the Americans were behind it. http://www.watchglennbeck.com/


Today's show was very interesting.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

........


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

Quote "Folks, there's right and wrong, and just because the intellectual elite have "risen above" the simple concepts of right and wrong doesn't remove the base fact that right and wrong exist. It just means these elitists don't see it"

Very well written!

Excellent, very clearly stated so even the self-proclaimed elite can understand it.

If they choose to. 

Which is very unlikely.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

For those that desire a history leason, please read this book: Power, Faith and Fanicy, written by Michael Oren. ISBN 9780393330304.
After we declared our independence from GB, we lost the protection of the English Navy. The Middle East Muslim pirates were killing our sailors, making slaves out our citizens, stealing our ships. Many other countries simply paid ever higher "protection fees" to these ruthless terriorists.
While the original intent was a small central government, each individual state or colony couldn't fund a navy with the power to be effective. Eventually, we all joined up and after a few failed attempts, we were able to beat back those thugs. Listen to the Marine Corp anthem. Do you know where the shores of Tripoli are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [2] [3]

Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of State John Jay, who submitted the Ambassador's comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks. Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built. The U.S. had just fought an exhausting war, which put the nation deep in debt. Federalist and anti-federalist forces argued over the needs of the country and the burden of taxation. Jefferson's own Democratic-Republicans and anti-navalists believed that the future of the country lay in westward expansion, with Atlantic trade threatening to siphon money and energy away from the new nation on useless wars in the Old World.[4] The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994562,00.html

Most people only know the history of the region and the Jewish people from the early 1940s to the present. We really need to study the Ottoman Empire, going back a few centuries. To understand the troubles the tribes of Abraham have gone through and the reasons so many people have come to hate Jews, you'd need to go back a few thousand years.

Can you accept the fact that most Muslims hate Jews? Do you understand that the US has been a huge supporter of Israel? Do you see how our draining of the world's natural resources and our lavish (by most other country's standards) makes us a target for hate?

You can't really claim that the Jews had Israel first. That war torn region has seen plenty of changes. Didn't they lose their "chosen people" status when they failed to follow God's direction?

You want proof of the overwhelming number of Catholic deaths?

""CATHOLICS AND THE HOLOCAUST 
(People have asked about the number of Catholics who died because of the 
Nazis. The site on the Nuremberg Trials came up with the number of 42,000,000 
for Christian victims of the Nazis. Since most of those were Roman Catholics, 
one can gather that the number was at least quite overwhelming.)" Extracted from the first site given below. At least 3 000 000 Polish Catholics were holocaust victims. Note especially the systematic massacre of the clergy and religious orders.
Source(s):
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/his&#8230;
http://www.buttonproject.com/facts.php
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/h&#8230;
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_&#8230;

Buy it now? 

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ???


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

haypoint said:


> ""CATHOLICS AND THE HOLOCAUST
> (People have asked about the number of Catholics who died because of the
> Nazis. The site on the Nuremberg Trials came up with the number of 42,000,000
> for Christian victims of the Nazis. Since most of those were Roman Catholics,
> ...



No I dont. Every one of your links was a 404 or site not found.
There is no way that 42 MILLION christians were killed by the Nazis since there were approximately 50-70 million deaths TOTAL in World War 2, that counts the pacific theater as well.

Even googling it does not bring up ANYTHING of what you have claimed.


----------



## candyknitter (Apr 23, 2009)

The 42 million figure maybe counting soldiers as well as citizens in the warzones of Europe as the majority of these would have been Christian. As to deaths overall by concerntration camp methods and genocides in villages etc, I do remember learning at school that only half of the people murdered were Jewish, the other half was made up or p.o.w's, political prisoners, gypsies, homosexuals etc. but because the Jews made up the biggest catagory (if that makes sense) over time the Nazi's other victims have become less prominently reported in history lessons. My sons didn't even know that other groups of people were targetted by the Nazi's which I think is really sad because all victims of that horrible time should be equally remembered.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Catholics_were_killed_in_the_Holocaust
It's hard to ascertain exactly, but of the six million Poles that died in the Holocaust, 3 million were Jews and 3 million were Catholics. 50 000 Catholic priests and religious also. See Related Links below this answer. 


http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/lukas.htm
Unlike the Jews, most of whom perished in gas chambers, Christians died in slave labor and concentration camps, were shot to death in individual or group executions, and died of hunger and ill treatment. Years ago, a Polish Catholic who had the unique experience of surviving two internments in Auschwitz, told me, &#8220;Death is death. I don&#8217;t understand why Christian victims of the war are ignored by their own churches.&#8221; In order to find our moral and historical compass in this matter, we Americans should ask ourselves how we would feel if foreign invaders tried to impose a racial reconstruction of our society and after the war was over, witness commemorations of some but not all of our citizens.

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/498/losses.html
More than 2 million Polish Catholics, with special emphasis on eliminating the national elites (Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out of Control, Scribner's 1993, 7-18).

http://www.saveyourheritage.com/world_war_ii_losses.htm
46,156,400 European, Caucasians died in WWII
Of the 450,000 deaths in German Concentration Camps, 60% were Jewish.


Since the predominate religion in Europe is Roman Catholic, We can safely assume that those that were not Jewish were Roman Catholic. While Holocaust deaths are split fairly evenly between Jews and Catholics, the significantly smaller religious group, the Jews, suffered a higher percentage of death camp deaths in WWII. During WWII most Jews lost their lives in the Nazi Death Camps, while millions of Roman Catholic allies were killed by Nazi Germany as soldiers and airmen.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Power, Faith and Fantasy
In Oren's narrative, the present resembles the past. The new American republic was immediately forced to formulate a Middle East policy, and the issues were not very different from the issues America faces in the Middle East today. [2]

In Oren's own words: "[Contemporary] American policy- makers, it will be shown, wrestled with many of the same challenges in the area faced by their . . . predecessors and similarly strove to reconcile their strategic and ideological interests. Mythic images of the Middle East, meanwhile, remained a mainstay of American popular culture. . . . The objective [of this final section] is to enable Americans to read about the fighting in Iraq and hear the echoes of the Barbary wars and Operation Torch [the code name for the American landing in North Africa in World War II] or to follow presidential efforts to mediate between Palestinians and Israelis and see the shadows of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson."[2]

Hillel Halkin, writing in Commentary, finds one aspect of this thesis compelling. He argues, with Oren, that the role of idealism in American foreign policy may be unique. "America alone (or so it can be claimed), in addition to pursuing, sometimes ruthlessly, its national interests like any other country, has frequently acted with the best interests of others in mind. One can compile a long list of major American foreign-policy decisions, by no means all of them regarding the Middle East&#8212;entering World War I, the Marshall Plan, intervening in Bosnia and Kosovo, etc.&#8212;that arguably had, alongside their purely pragmatic calculations, a genuine element of idealism, without which it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to obtain support for them from the American public. More than the citizens of other democracies, Americans really do expect their governments to be a force for good in the world."[2]

Oren argues that with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the American tendency to idealism has been reinforced by Christian feelings about the places in which all the major events of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles happened. Oren points out that the sympathy for Judaism felt by many American Christians is historically unique and goes back to the philo-Semitism of the Puritans, who were themselves influenced by 17th-century English Puritanism, which strongly identified with the Biblical Israelites.[2]


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

texican said:


> I do not believe in the concept of disproportionate force. You poke a tiger with a toothpick, don't be surprised if you lose your life.
> 
> No, Israel is not always right... like someone else mentioned, how's that 'land for peace' working out?
> 
> ...


BANG!
You hit the nail on the head!!
Post of the Day!!


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

TheMartianChick said:


> I don't believe that any country can be right ALL of the time. Yet that is the way that Israel is always portrayed. I remember being a kid and watching some of the clashes along the Gaza Strip. There would be children/teens throwing rocks and bottles and the newcasters would refer to it as Palestinian aggression. Meanwhile, the Israelis would respond with real weapons and it was termed as retaliation. When is it appropriate to retaliate against rocks with a rifle?
> 
> Alot of the news in the late seventies and early eighties scared the heck out of me... I really tried not to watch it.


The old proportional response myth so loved by the media and the left. The twisted logic which says the aggressor gets to dictate the level of response is obviously nonsense. Someone kicking you in the shin doesn't mean you can't punch them in the jaw. A rock in the head will kill you just as dead as a bullet.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> We need an ally in that area, and Israel is it.
> As far as steadfastness, I'd say that if you are friends with someone, you stick by them no matter what.
> I'm not sure how our relations with Israel (or any of our other allies) will be when Obama gets done, but hopefully they'll stick by us in the bad times too.


Picking an ally with lots of enemies, little territory, small population, and that you have to economically subsidize to a great extent isnt the brightest strategy. Why do we need an ally in that area of the world? If half the money spent supporting our oil habit were spent becoming independent of oil, we'd not need an unruly, uncontrollable client state in the middle east. Let them throw rocks and spears at each other. They either figure out cooperation is lot smarter or else one side wipes out the other. Neither the Arabs nor the Jews need our dollars. More money flowing into that part of the world just makes for a bigger conflict.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e105.htm
> 
> a little information about the PEACEFUL people bringing 'supplies' to their 'brothers of palestine'.
> oh, by the way, Israel TOLD these fools not to come by way of sea......they wanted to be in the news, so they marytered themselves to make Israel look bad.......


Absolutely correct. They wanted to be seen as martyrs in order to make Israel's friends turn against them and incite an Islamic war against the nation. Israel has tried to send food and supplies into the area, but hamas stopped them. They are the terroists, not Israel.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Wanderer0101 said:


> A rock in the head will kill you just as dead as a bullet.


David and Goliath? In reverse? LOL 

A rock however doesnt have quite the same muzzle velocity nor is it easy to do an automagic spray of hundreds of rocks per second by one person.... Penetration is bit lacking also. You have to be much closer and much more skilled. There is a reason we beat the native American tribes in our land grab here in North America. We had better weapons and organization. Guns versus bow-arrow or rocks tend to give one quite the advantage. In modern era artillery, air power (furnished by the USA of course), tanks, well you get the idea. Ever see a rock thrown by a child take down an F16 or penetrate an Abrams tank? How about knock out a hardened artillery emplacement several miles away? Boy forget war, those Palestinean kids need to try out for a multimillion dollar baseball contract if they are that good.

Now Israelis might try giving the Arabs blankets innoculated with small pox, I hear that is effective to reduce your enemies population at very little cost.


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

Hermitjohn, how would you react to 20 teenagers throwing rocks at YOU and destroying your property if there was no police to call? Would that situation qualify as fearing for your life and therefore justification for deadly force?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mekasmom said:


> Absolutely correct. They wanted to be seen as martyrs in order to make Israel's friends turn against them and incite an Islamic war against the nation. Israel has tried to send food and supplies into the area, but hamas stopped them. They are the terroists, not Israel.


Of course they want to be seen as the martyrs, the oppressed and the downtrodden. Its worked for the Jews for about 3000 years.

Oops, I did it again, talking bad about Jews. When will I learn that the only group in the world that you can't critisize are the Jews?

I've got to remember the rule. Any time Israel attacks it is retaliation. Any time there is a response to those attacks, we call it aggression.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

HermitJohn said:


> Now Israelis might try giving the Arabs blankets innoculated with small pox, I hear that is effective to reduce your enemies population at very little cost.


Another much repeated myth loved by the left. The whole idea comes from a movie with not a shred of historical evidence that anything of the kind ever occurred.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

HermitJohn said:


> David and Goliath? In reverse? LOL
> 
> A rock however doesnt have quite the same muzzle velocity nor is it easy to do an automagic spray of hundreds of rocks per second by one person.... Penetration is bit lacking also. You have to be much closer and much more skilled. There is a reason we beat the native American tribes in our land grab here in North America. We had better weapons and organization. Guns versus bow-arrow or rocks tend to give one quite the advantage. In modern era artillery, air power (furnished by the USA of course), tanks, well you get the idea. Ever see a rock thrown by a child take down an F16 or penetrate an Abrams tank? How about knock out a hardened artillery emplacement several miles away? Boy forget war, those Palestinean kids need to try out for a multimillion dollar baseball contract if they are that good.
> 
> Now Israelis might try giving the Arabs blankets innoculated with small pox, I hear that is effective to reduce your enemies population at very little cost.


Lots of false trails in your little composition. The rock throwers were attacking riflemen, not tanks or aircraft. I'd challenge you to stand up and let a bunch of people throw rocks at you and make a measured assessment of the effect. Frankly I'd say artillery is an appropriate response, why put your people at risk to deal with trouble makers. 

People in the Middle East are well versed in rock throwing, stoning to death is still a much enjoyed custom in the region.


----------



## woodsman (Dec 8, 2008)

Wanderer0101 said:


> Another much repeated myth loved by the left. The whole idea comes from a movie with not a shred of historical evidence that anything of the kind ever occurred.


Are you sure?

This guy doesn't think so. And he's got shreds to prove it.
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html



> All in all, the letters provided here remove all doubt about the validity of the stories about Lord Jeff and germ warfare. The General's own letters sustain the stories.
> 
> As to whether the plans actually were carried out, Parkman has this to say:
> 
> ...


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> No you are not a Nazi, but you are definitely posting antisemitic drivel. Sounds like the same garbage posted on most any Aryan website.


 I was thinking the same thing. Another uncomfortable fact here that you werent taught at PS 13, the US refused most European Jews immigration status up until we entered WWII and thousands died as a result; kind of hard to figure what with Jews supposedly running the government, financial industry, and big business and all eh?. Jews dont know how to do labor or dont know hard work? Are you kidding?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

http://www.shirhadash.org/rabbi/04/09/04/occupations.html
Looks like their hands haven't fit a shovel for a very long time.

I'm pretty sure Hitler and the German population didn't want to expell the Jews because they held a monopoly on ditch digging. They were controling the banking industry, etc.
I think the impact to American politics, news media, world trade and the Fortune 500, came following WWII.

Our Government sends billions of our tax dollars to Israel as aid for what reason?
Like I said earlier, we are in this mess together and it is too late to change directions. 

In my search for Jewish occupations, I found this web site. Not sure if it is accurate.

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-jewishbankingandfinancialmanipulations-folder.html


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

[FONT=verdana, courier new,courier,tahoma,sans-serif]http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-great-flotilla-debate-facts-are-on.html

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg[/ame]
[/FONT]


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Has Washington said anything in condemnation about the activists' goal of breaking the blockade?

Have they said anything in condemnation about the 2nd on-going attempt to break the blockade?

The problem here is that radicals are trying to claim that the blockade is illegal---when in fact, it is not illegal. That makes these 'humanitarian' missions, instead, acts of provocation. BTW, since when were gas masks classed as 'humanitarian aid'? Why did the activists even have gas masks???

Why hasn't Washington condemned these acts?


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly qualifies a blockade as legal?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> In my search for Jewish occupations, I found this web site. Not sure if it is accurate.
> 
> http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-jewishba...ns-folder.html


 All I can say is wow. You really dont get it.


----------



## woodsman (Dec 8, 2008)

NoClue said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly qualifies a blockade as legal?


Don't worry about it, when Israel does anything - it's legal.

When their military boards an unarmed civilian vessel in international waters - it's not piracy.
When they shoot and kill people on the ship they board - they're defending themselves.

And when the Israeli government controls the information and its release, which might shed objective light on their blatant act of piracy at high seas and state sponsored terror resulting in deaths of civilians, their supporters in both Israel and in the US will believe and swallow whatever the Israeli government propaganda and their lobbyists in the US feed them.

I find it intriguing how the same people who wouldn't trust the US government as far as they could spit put so much blind trust in the Israeli government.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Hardly any of you have even the slightest bit of understanding of the present situation or history. In this thread I have seen lies, outright ignorance, supposition, and slander.

Why do you feel qualified to engage in discussions regarding this topic when you know so little about it? I've noticed the more intelligent minds are absent in this thread and I assume it's because they're still gathering information and pulling their thoughts together on the topic.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

woodsman said:


> Don't worry about it, when Israel does anything - it's legal.
> 
> When their military boards an unarmed civilian vessel in international waters - it's not piracy.
> When they shoot and kill people on the ship they board - they're defending themselves.
> ...


Ok, so you discount the video footage released by the IDF. Do you believe the footage taken by the Aljazeera reporter that was broadcasting from the ship?

That footage shows many participants praying to become martyrs before the ship left to run the blockade. It also showed the weapons they had in preparation for the clash they knew would be forth coming. And footage taken on board when the IDF boarded the ship clearly shows that the would be martyrs attacking the IDF.


----------



## woodsman (Dec 8, 2008)

Wags said:


> Ok, so you discount the video footage released by the IDF. Do you believe the footage taken by the Aljazeera reporter that was broadcasting from the ship?
> 
> That footage shows many participants praying to become martyrs before the ship left to run the blockade. It also showed the weapons they had in preparation for the clash they knew would be forth coming. And footage taken on board when the IDF boarded the ship clearly shows that the would be martyrs attacking the IDF.


I'm not discounting or jumping on anything. Any information, even if cleverly edited is a clue that will eventually fit in the puzzle. All recording equipment, cell phones, cameras, etc. were confiscated. Forgive me for not having much faith in what was officially released.

Fact is that the ships were in international waters. IDF had no right to board them and any action from those on board of the ships against the boarding party have to be considered self defense against the attackers - not the other way around. 

Imagine I'm a BATF agent who drops on your house in the middle of the night - would I be in the right to claim self defense when I shot up your family after they attacked me when I kicked the bedroom door in?


----------



## Linebacker (Sep 11, 2007)

Ernie said:


> Hardly any of you have even the slightest bit of understanding of the present situation or history. In this thread I have seen lies, outright ignorance, supposition, and slander.
> 
> Why do you feel qualified to engage in discussions regarding this topic when you know so little about it? I've noticed the more intelligent minds are absent in this thread and I assume it's because they're still gathering information and pulling their thoughts together on the topic.


Outstanding! The pressure of having to make up my own mind about whether I was smart enough to comment on a post was eating me up. So from now on, will you notify me with a P.M. if you think my less intelligent mind could add something to the post?

Brad


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Ernie said:


> Hardly any of you have even the slightest bit of understanding of the present situation or history. In this thread I have seen lies, outright ignorance, supposition, and slander.
> 
> Why do you feel qualified to engage in discussions regarding this topic when you know so little about it? I've noticed the more intelligent minds are absent in this thread and I assume it's because they're still gathering information and pulling their thoughts together on the topic.


Wow, how condescending and rude and self important can you be? What makes you think YOU understand and know all? :grump: 

And talking about fellow posters like they are not WORTHY to talk in a thread, that they are less intelligent than other posters? I happen to think that your threads are full of hot air and paranoia, I guess that makes me less intelligent than you and not worthy to speak in a thread that the Great Ernie speaks in, no? 
Who do you think you are?


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Shygal said:


> Who do you think you are?


Clearly I'm the "Great Ernie".


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Egypt offered to dock the ship and transport the goods to Gaza as did Israel.
Activists are not do-gooders, they have to raise a stink to get on TV, and they did that.
If they were actually wanting to get aid to Gaza, they could have done it, but it wouldn't have made news.
It was a political stunt, Israel called their bluff, the activists got on TV, Israel held their ground, everybody won.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Ernie said:


> Clearly I'm the "Great Ernie".


Its apparent that that is what you think, considering how you put down your fellow posters here. We are all equal here, we all have a right to post and not have to conform to your view of whether someone is intelligent enough to respond to a topic.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

woodsman said:


> I'm not discounting or jumping on anything. Any information, even if cleverly edited is a clue that will eventually fit in the puzzle. All recording equipment, cell phones, cameras, etc. were confiscated. Forgive me for not having much faith in what was officially released.
> 
> Fact is that the ships were in international waters. IDF had no right to board them and any action from those on board of the ships against the boarding party have to be considered self defense against the attackers - not the other way around.
> 
> Imagine I'm a BATF agent who drops on your house in the middle of the night - would I be in the right to claim self defense when I shot up your family after they attacked me when I kicked the bedroom door in?



Apparently you don't know about and haven't seen the AlJazeera videos - they were broadcasting live until they lost their sat link. So what they were broadcasting was not controlled in any way by Israel.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> We are all equal here, *we all have a right to post and not have to conform to your view *of whether someone is intelligent enough to respond to a topic


What an interesting concept.
You should spread the word around


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Ernie said:


> Hardly any of you have even the slightest bit of understanding of the present situation or history. In this thread I have seen lies, outright ignorance, supposition, and slander.
> 
> Why do you feel qualified to engage in discussions regarding this topic when you know so little about it? I've noticed the more intelligent minds are absent in this thread and I assume it's because they're still gathering information and pulling their thoughts together on the topic.


I am not offended one bit by this comment......but help me to understand what you are saying.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I am not offended one bit by this comment......but help me to understand what you are saying.


What I'm saying is that this event _just happened_ and we know so little about it. Mostly what I see here is a regurgitation of the propaganda of both sides. How does that help anyone's understanding of the situation?

Some folks are saying the ship was in international waters when it was boarded. It wasn't. Neither side is claiming that. Large amounts of money and weapons were found on board the ships. Both sides admit to that. There's video of the "peace activists" from Turkey discussing how they wished to go on this trip to become martyrs for Islam. Those videos were released by the anti-Israeli contingent. Israel asked the ships to dock in an Israeli port so they could be inspected, have weapons removed, and then have the aid sent on to Gaza. Israel also allows in hundreds of thousands of tons of humanitarian aid to Gaza each month.

All of those things are known by the international community, but apparently not by some of the posters here. This thread is squarely divided between the "we hate Israel no matter what" crowd and the "we love Israel no matter what" crowd.

There's very little real analysis being done that treats the topic in its real geopolitical context. It's all just rhetoric.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

NoClue said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly qualifies a blockade as legal?


The threat of armed conflict. Read international law.

Remember the Cuban missile crisis and subsequent US blockade of Cuba? Same scenario.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Chuck said:


> The Jews assisted Great Britain in the conquest of Palestine. The UK helped them establish the state of Israel in return. Their ties with Britain, their Biblical heritage (and the majority Christian culture of the US in former times) and the fact that they were a ready-made ally in the Middle East all contributed to us being on their side.


Here's how it really went.

During WWI the Turks (Ottoman Empire) were driven from the middle east by Britain (see the film Lawrence of Arabia to get an idea of how that went). That region was then carved-up into the countries we're used to seeing on the map today, more or less.

As the conqueror, Britain was obligated under international law to look after the area is its protectorate until the region was stabilized. That required manpower and other resources. Fortunately for Britain, tribe and gang leaders in most of the various middle east countries stepped-up and asked for autonomy, which Britain was delighted to grant.

However, Palestine never stepped-up to request autonomy, so Britain was stuck taking care of Palestine as its protectorate. Palestine seemed content with the protectorate arrangement, but Britain was growing weary of the obligation by the mid-1940s.

That's when Jewish settlers in Palestine saw the opportunity to accept autonomy on behalf of the region. Britain was agreeable because it let them off the hook, Jewish settlers were agreeable because they would control Palestine (and even rename it "Israel"), and the Palestinians seemed to have been completely blindsided.

So you see, the only "conquest" that was necessary in the 1940s was a political conquest.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Txsteader said:


> The threat of armed conflict. Read international law.
> 
> Remember the Cuban missile crisis and subsequent US blockade of Cuba? Same scenario.


After I posed the question, I did some research on the matter, both this specific blockade, and blockades in general. I posed the question here, mostly to see what answers I would get - not something I normally do, but I was curious.

Israel's contention that it is conducting a legal blockade is somewhat questionable. The best argument that it is legal seems to be based on the fact that Egypt is also taking part in enforcing the blockade. The blockade does not have the blessing of the broader international community however, including the UN. That's not really relevant though - the UN is a fickle body and doesn't have a history of either consistency or effectiveness.

The basic question, as I see it, is that, if Israel and Egypt can declare, unilaterally, a blockade of Gaza, what if any legal obligation do Gazans or any other nations have to acknowledge and respect the blockade? Historically, running a blockade is only illegal in terms of the laws of the country (ies) cunducting the blockade, not in terms of international law, and outside parties either acknowledge or fail to acknowledge a blockade based on their respective politics. In short, blockades appear to only be legal to the extent that the nations involved are capable of enforcing them, and no one other than the nations conducting the blockade are required to acknowledge the blockade. Running a blockade, essentially, is legal if you get away with it, and illegal if you get caught. The exceptions to this are when a nation openly and legally declares itself to be on the side of the nation(s) conducting the blockade.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Here's how it really went.
> 
> During WWI the Turks (Ottoman Empire) were driven from the middle east by Britain (see the film Lawrence of Arabia to get an idea of how that went). That region was then carved-up into the countries we're used to seeing on the map today, more or less.
> 
> ...


Uh no, thats not exactly what happened.

1882-1903 Large scale immigration to the land from Jews in Russia

1897 - The first Zionist congress convened 

1904-14 Second large scale immigration from Russia and Poland

1909 - First modern all-Jewish city, Tel Aviv, founded.

*1917* - Balfour Declaration was issued which said in part: 

"_His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object"_

1919-23 Third large scale immigration again mostly from Russia

*1922* - Britain granted Mandate for Palestine (Land of Israel) by League of Nations; Transjordan set up on three-fourths of the area, leaving one fourth for the Jewish national home.
Jewish Agency representing Jewish community vis-a-vis Mandate authorities set up.

1924-39 Immigration continues mainly from Poland & Germany

1939 Jewish immigration severely limited by British White Paper.

1939-45 World War II; Holocaust in Europe.

*1947* UN proposes the establishment of Arab and Jewish states in the Land.

*1948* - May 14 Israel declares Independence, May 15 Israel is invaded by 5 Arab states. Though vastly outnumbered Israel wins.


----------



## woodsman (Dec 8, 2008)

Ernie said:


> ...
> Some folks are saying the ship was in international waters when it was boarded. It wasn't. ...


What exactly is the basis of your claim that the ships sailing over 70 miles from the shore are not in international water?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wags said:


> Uh no, thats not exactly what happened.
> 
> 1882-1903 Large scale immigration to the land from Jews in Russia
> 
> ...


I don't see where your list of facts refute anything I said.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

woodsman said:


> What exactly is the basis of your claim that the ships sailing over 70 miles from the shore are not in international water?


Only what the Israeli government has released. I cannot say with complete certainty. However neither can you disprove the statement. An article from Aljazeera or Huffpo does not constitute proof.


----------



## woodsman (Dec 8, 2008)

Ernie said:


> Only what the Israeli government has released. I cannot say with complete certainty. However neither can you disprove the statement. An article from Aljazeera or Huffpo does not constitute proof.



Although the distance of ships from the coast vary in different reports, which isn't surprising as the convoy was moving and operation took a considerable time to complete in addition to possible mistakes made by news organizations converting miles to/from kilometers and nautical miles there isn't a single report that places the ships during the attack within 12 mile (nautical) zone of territorial waters.

By definition international waters are open seas outside the territorial waters, which makes the statement that the attack didn't happen in international waters false.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

One day this week, NPR's ATC had two maritime lawyers on, to discuss the blockade... of course one was conservative and one liberal... they both agreed both sides were partially right and partially wrong.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Ernie said:


> What I'm saying is that this event _just happened_ and we know so little about it. Mostly what I see here is a regurgitation of the propaganda of both sides. How does that help anyone's understanding of the situation?* (1)*
> 
> Some folks are saying the ship was in international waters when it was boarded. It wasn't. Neither side is claiming that. Large amounts of money and weapons were found on board the ships. Both sides admit to that. There's video of the "peace activists" from Turkey discussing how they wished to go on this trip to become martyrs for Islam. Those videos were released by the anti-Israeli contingent. Israel asked the ships to dock in an Israeli port so they could be inspected, have weapons removed, and then have the aid sent on to Gaza. Israel also allows in hundreds of thousands of tons of humanitarian aid to Gaza each month.*(2)*
> 
> ...



(1) Agree.
(2) True. Not only does Israel allow tons of aid, they provide aid themselves. Unfortunately, they (those occupying Gaza) destroy anything that the Israeli's give them. I have proof of this, as I have a friend that lives in Israel, and has seen it and photographed it herself. When the land was given to them, they destroyed everything because The Jews built it. Destroyed buildings, roads, bridges, homes, crops, irrigation systems (kinda needs those in the desert). 
Now they sit in the mess they made with their hands out begging for food. They manage to come up with the money to lob rockets into Israeli neighborhoods, but can't seem to feed themselves? The are reaping what they have sown.
(3) Agree. Those who hate the The Jewish people and Israel herself, will hear nothing positive, no matter what. Their minds and hearts are seared shut from Truth. Those who 'blindly' agree with everything The Jewish people and Israel do, forget, they are humans Created in the Image of God, Chosen, but are fallen, and sin is.....well a very real and human disease.

That's kinda how I see it.

I stand with the Jews, because the Lord said, He would bless those, who bless them, and curse those who curse them. And honestly, I am more fearful of God than anything, any man (or woman) can do.

Ernie, I appreciate your answer! Thanks!!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Agree. Those who hate the The Jewish people and Israel herself, will hear nothing positive, no matter what. Their minds and hearts are seared shut from Truth.


I haven't see any indication than people in GC hate Jews. I have a number of Jewish friends, I have Jewish colleges, and I've dated several Jewish girls. Why would I hate Jews? 



Laura Zone 5 said:


> I stand with the Jews, because the Lord said, He would bless those, who bless them, and curse those who curse them. And honestly, I am more fearful of God than anything, any man (or woman) can do.


Maybe so, but who are "they"? There is a clear distinction between Israelis and Israelites. The Bible was referring to Israelites, not Israelis.

The term "Israeli" does not describe people of a particular tribe or race; or even people with a common belief (there are many Muslim & Christian Israelis). The term "Israeli" refers only to a citizen of the political region now known as Israel. To use the terms "Jew" and "Israeli" synonymously the way you do is misleading.

As I suggested once in the past; if I named my homestead "Israel" would I be deserving of Biblical consideration? I think not.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I haven't see any indication than people in GC hate Jews. I have a number of Jewish friends, I have Jewish colleges, and I've dated several Jewish girls. Why would I hate Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, but if you had muslim neighbors you'd be forced to defend yourself on a daily basis.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

haypoint said:


> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Catholics_were_killed_in_the_Holocaust
> It's hard to ascertain exactly, but of the six million Poles that died in the Holocaust, 3 million were Jews and 3 million were Catholics. 50 000 Catholic priests and religious also. See Related Links below this answer.
> 
> 
> .


well..poland and france are Catholic..so it does make sense...but to say they were targeted for their religon?


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I don't see where your list of facts refute anything I said.


You said _"However, Palestine never stepped-up to request autonomy, so Britain was stuck taking care of Palestine as its protectorate. Palestine seemed content with the protectorate arrangement, but Britain was growing weary of the obligation by the mid-1940s.

That's when Jewish settlers in Palestine saw the opportunity to accept autonomy on behalf of the region. Britain was agreeable because it let them off the hook, Jewish settlers were agreeable because they would control Palestine (and even rename it "Israel"), and the Palestinians seemed to have been completely blindsided."_

The Balfour declaration was in 1917 - it promised a homeland to the Jews. That was reaffirmed in 1922 when 3/4 of the land designated for Israel was given to create a Palestinian state called Trans-Jordan. So the Palestinians were hardly "blindsided" by Israel becoming an Independent country in 1948. 

And Brittan didn't agree because they had grown weary or because it let them off the hook The intent was there 30 YEARS before Israel became a state.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I haven't see any indication than people in GC hate Jews.



Then you haven't been paying attention. There are several people in GC that regularly post myths and lies about Jews. They even post links to neo-nazi type websites to back up their hate.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wags said:


> The Balfour declaration was in 1917 - it promised a homeland to the Jews.


_The name Balfour Declaration is applied to two key British government policy statements associated with Conservative statesman and former Prime Minister Arthur Balfour.

* The first is the Balfour Declaration of 1917: An official letter from the British Foreign Office headed by Lord Arthur Balfour, the UK's Foreign Secretary (from December 1916 to October 1919), to Baron Rothschild, who was seen as a representative of the Jewish people. The letter stated that the British government "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

* The second is the Balfour Declaration of 1926, recognizing the self-governing Dominions of the British Empire as fully autonomous states._
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
******

So you see, they didn't promise anyone anything. The creation of a Jewish state may have been British policy, but there was nothing binding about that policy. But note that it was to be_ "clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."_ Does Israel respect that provision?

But I still contend that the Palestinians could have accepted autonomy at any time and Britain would have jumped at the chance to give it to them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> No, but if you had muslim neighbors you'd be forced to defend yourself on a daily basis.


Why? If I didn't bother them they would have no reason to bother me.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I hope I don't get the boot for this. 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg[/ame]


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Cornhusker said:


> No, but if you had muslim neighbors you'd be forced to defend yourself on a daily basis.


Hmm, so I was defending myself when I was living in Morocco? Interesting, an American Marine, who happened to be Jewish, was always invited to Muslim homes, always welcomed and respected.......funny, your statement does not hold true when applied to my "been there, done that' life.

Truthfully, spent more time in the homes of the locals than anywhere else, always felt safe and secure, even had religious discussions with everyone, from aging grand-ma to 12 year old, and never once was dis-respected or belittled.

Invited into Mosques, celebrated weddings, even to a few funerals...... never had to defend myself. 

But then again, that is just personal experience, so I guess it ebbs and flows...... others may have had worse, but for me and my experience, I never had to defend myself....


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Why? If I didn't bother them they would have no reason to bother me.


Because the arabs are hateful people.
I should say the muslims in Palestine are hateful and they hate the Israelis.
They constantly launch missles into Israel and you Obamabats think Israel should judt take it.
Your anti Semite "president" is in the wrong and he's an idiot.
But you know that.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

joseph97297 said:


> Hmm, so I was defending myself when I was living in Morocco? Interesting, an American Marine, who happened to be Jewish, was always invited to Muslim homes, always welcomed and respected.......funny, your statement does not hold true when applied to my "been there, done that' life.
> 
> Truthfully, spent more time in the homes of the locals than anywhere else, always felt safe and secure, even had religious discussions with everyone, from aging grand-ma to 12 year old, and never once was dis-respected or belittled.
> 
> ...


Did they know you were Jewish?
You think Hamas is the good guys here?
You think alQuaeda is the good guys?
I don't think even if you love Obama you can be that far off.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Why? If I didn't bother them they would have no reason to bother me.


Then you must be muslim. They have a very real reason to "bother you" - it's called the Koran.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Because the arabs are hateful people.


And you know this how?


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Did they know you were Jewish?
> You think Hamas is the good guys here?
> You think alQuaeda is the good guys?
> I don't think even if you love Obama you can be that far off.


What self respecting Jew would consider going into a mosque? There are certain "requirements" for entering a muslim mosque.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> And you know this how?


Let's see...........
They send rockets and mortars into Israel on a daily basis, they are constantly bombing, beheading, attacking, killing................
I dunno, maybe you are right, they are sweet people.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Let's see...........
> They send rockets and mortars into Israel on a daily basis, they are constantly bombing, beheading, attacking, killing................
> I dunno, maybe you are right, they are sweet people.


Funny, I lived in the middle east among Arabs and didn't observe that. Can you guess why?


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Nevada said:


> And you know this how?


Stonings, honor killings, beheadings of infidels, legalized murder of homosexuals, etc., etc. But then, you know that - hey, you've spent a lot of time with these warm and fuzzy people ... and lived.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Funny, I lived in the middle east among Arabs and didn't observe that. Can you guess why?


WAG
Uh, you're muslim.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Funny, I lived in the middle east among Arabs and didn't observe that. Can you guess why?


They love you guys who bash America.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> They love you guys who bash America.


How was that an America bash?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Funny, I lived in the middle east among Arabs and didn't observe that. Can you guess why?


Because you stayed where they wanted you to and only saw what they wanted you to see


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because you stayed where they wanted you to and only saw what they wanted you to see


Maybe it's because Israel and Palestine are at war.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Cornhusker said:


> Did they know you were Jewish?*1*
> You think Hamas is the good guys here?*2*
> You think alQuaeda is the good guys?*3*
> I don't think even if you love Obama you can be that far off.*4*


1. Yes, they knew. Those are the discussions that we had, mostly, about our faiths.

2. Where did I say that? You made a statement, I related it to my personal experience and discussed it. Please, stop trying to stuff words and thoughts into my mouth, it hurts......

3. Once again, where did I say that? If you can quote me on that then go ahead, but again, please refrain from putting words into my mouth.

4. I try to love everyone, it is a simple thing, but I love Obama no more or less than I love you, but what does that have to do with my personal and professional life, back when Clinton was President? Or was the thread going on to long without an Obama reference to keep you all on your toes? oh, ok, I see...... Obama withdraws.....

You made a statement, I related it to my personal and professional life, said nothing of what you tried to insinuate, but hey.....go ahead, throw more words into my mouth.......


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Gercarson said:


> What self respecting Jew would consider going into a mosque? There are certain "requirements" for entering a muslim mosque.


Actually, us Jews are not forbidden to enter into a Mosque, unless I am mistaken, but if you are knowledgeable, please point out where it states that.

I did nothing more to enter the Mosque than remove my shoes. And the lady friend I was with did nothing more than make sure she had a head covering on, as is the way any how. Heck, I even take my shoes off at my neighbors house, but that is only because he got new carpet. As for the long pants, well, I never really wore shorts over in Morocco, mostly long pants, all day every day...., and honestly, I would have no problem entering a Mosque today, it isn't like I went to convert or smething.

What other requirements are you referencing? 

And the comment "self-respecting" cuts both ways. There are several things to be said about followers of all religions, but I will wait to see which requirements you assumed I must have taken before bashing you and your religious overtures and acts of life. Geesh, what a concept......

But hey, why don't you tell me what I "must have done" to enter the Mosque, although I did not see you there in person, surely your spirit must have been there...... or did you see a 'revelation' concerning it?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> How was that an America bash?


it wasn't
I'm speaking of your Siding with all who hate America (Obama and others)


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

joseph97297 said:


> 1. Yes, they knew. Those are the discussions that we had, mostly, about our faiths.
> 
> 2. Where did I say that? You made a statement, I related it to my personal experience and discussed it. Please, stop trying to stuff words and thoughts into my mouth, it hurts......
> 
> ...


Not trying to throw words in your mouth, but isn't this the thread about Israel and the blockade?
You and others are apparently saying Israel is wrong to stop ships trying to run their blockade.
Those ships have nothing to do with humanitarian aid, it's just a political statement trying to get Israel to drop their defenses.
The Israeli soldiers were attacked, they responded.
W?ho is dumb enough to not take the Israelis serious when they say they'll take you out?
They think they are dealing with us or what?
Israel is serious about defense.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> The Israeli soldiers were attacked, they responded.


I'm hearing reports that the journalists aboard the ship claim that the Israelis shot before they were attacked. Of course this could be resolved easily if the Israelis would release the film footage, but they're refusing to do that.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Cornhusker said:


> Not trying to throw words in your mouth, but isn't this the thread about Israel and the blockade?
> You and others are apparently saying Israel is wrong to stop ships trying to run their blockade.
> Those ships have nothing to do with humanitarian aid, it's just a political statement trying to get Israel to drop their defenses.
> The Israeli soldiers were attacked, they responded.
> ...


I referenced your post in which you mentioned that with Muslim Neighbors you would need to defend yourself daily. I wrote what I have lived, showing that not to be the case in my experience. And you did throw words in my mouth. I answered a post in the thread, and then get accused of being a hamas sympathizer or Al-Qaeda one....funny how that works isn't it?

Is Israel in the right here? I don't have a problem with them stopping the ships running the blockade. As long as they are within the boundaries of that blockade, but from what is being put out, they were out in international waters, so little hazy there.

But if the distances being thrown out are true, then does that not start a precedent on boarding ships in International Waters? I agree, the ships were not for humanitarian need only, there was more than a little politics here and a lot of video to drum up the anger in the "Anti-Israel" world. 


But why not wait until they are well within the boundary? It is the international water thing that has me questioning. Other than that, a Nation needs to do what it needs to do in order to protect and survive, period.

But I am sure that will just come off as another assumption on the part of some that mean I am a "Liberal Muslim Loving Leftie"...or something........

oh, and if this thread is about the Israeli raid and the ships, why did you need to bring up Obama? Got a crush on him or something? What is that saying.......Something about a splinter in my eye, a whole friggin tree in yours.......


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

joseph97297 said:


> Is Israel in the right here? I don't have a problem with them stopping the ships running the blockade. As long as they are within the boundaries of that blockade, but from what is being put out, they were out in international waters, so little hazy there.


Justification for shooting is where my problem is. I don't know if Israel is in the right or not on that, since I'm hearing conflicting reports. I don't think that listening to the Israelis or the people on the ship will tell a clear story, since they both have a slanted opinion of what went on. I want to see more film footage before deciding.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I'm hearing reports that the journalists aboard the ship claim that the Israelis shot before they were attacked. Of course this could be resolved easily if the Israelis would release the film footage, but they're refusing to do that.


That's what you get for reading the Daily Kos. Israel already said they fired WARNING SHOTS before they raided the ship. That is standard procedure. To portray the warning shots as something more sinister only shows ignorance. If Israel has seriously fired on the ship, the death toll would have been much higher and you know it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> That's what you get for reading the Daily Kos. Israel already said they fired WARNING SHOTS before they raided the ship. That is standard procedure. To portray the warning shots as something more sinister only shows ignorance. If Israel has seriously fired on the ship, the death toll would have been much higher and you know it.


One of the "warning shots" hit a journalist in the head. I know what Israel says, but I heard an interview with a journalist who was there. I'm not taking his word for it either, so I want to learn more by viewing films.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Of course this could be resolved easily if the Israelis would release the film footage, but they're refusing to do that.


Then what was the footage shown on CBS last night?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then what was the footage shown on CBS last night?


A few selected clips confiscated by the Israeli troops were released. I don't dispute that they fought the Israelis, but we didn't see enough to determine if it was in self-defense or not.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> One of the "warning shots" hit a journalist in the head. I know what Israel says, but I heard an interview with a journalist who was there. I'm not taking his word for it either, so I want to learn more by viewing films.



Where was the journalist you heard from? They also said a member of the Israeli Knesset was on the ship and confirmed the shooting. That person is a PALESTINIAN member of the Knesset. Yes, Israel has palestinians in their parliament. Wonder how many Israelis sit on the government of Hamas?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

When those fools boarded the ship to go to Gaza they knew what they were doing . What part of don't did they not understand . Best to stop them at the fastest and easiest point . 

Should of sunk the darn thing then maybe the next bunch of fools will go in the gate like they were told . :bow:

Same with OUR BORDERS there is a right way an a wrong way to git in other country's . :lookout:


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I'm hearing reports that the journalists aboard the ship claim that the Israelis shot before they were attacked. Of course this could be resolved easily if the Israelis would release the film footage, but they're refusing to do that.


Hmmm....you'd think the _journalists_ would have some film footage of their own, wouldn't ya? 

I wonder why the 'peace' activists had gas masks on their ship? Why were there weapons on board the ship?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> A few selected clips confiscated by the Israeli troops were released. I don't dispute that they fought the Israelis, but we didn't see enough to determine if it was in self-defense or not.


Self-defense, my foot. The activists made their intentions known before they left port and were warned by Israel *before they left port*. 

The activists were the provocateurs!!!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Ernie said:


> Hardly any of you have even the slightest bit of understanding of the present situation or history. In this thread I have seen lies, outright ignorance, supposition, and slander.
> 
> Why do you feel qualified to engage in discussions regarding this topic when you know so little about it? I've noticed the more intelligent minds are absent in this thread and I assume it's because they're still gathering information and pulling their thoughts together on the topic.



Totally get what you are saying.........


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Justification for shooting is where my problem is. I don't know if Israel is in the right or not on that, since I'm hearing conflicting reports. I don't think that listening to the Israelis or the people on the ship will tell a clear story, since they both have a slanted opinion of what went on. I want to see more film footage before deciding.


Thank God the decision is up to Netanyahu, and the opinions of "others" doesn't mean squat.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Hmmm....you'd think the _journalists_ would have some film footage of their own, wouldn't ya?


Not when the Israelis confiscated their cameras.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Gercarson said:


> Thank God the decision is up to Netanyahu, and the opinions of "others" doesn't mean squat.


You are correct, we can't compel Israel to release the footage. But not releasing the footage makes them look bad. If they don't release it then we have to assume that whatever is on that video isn't good for Israel.

But why do you say "[t]hank God the decision is up to Netanyahu"? Do you think it's a good thing for Israel to confiscate cameras and refuse to release video?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

What about the footage showing the activists _preparing_ to attack the IDF soldiers? This isn't Israeli footage, but footage from the ship *before the soldiers boarded*. Note the handy gas masks.

http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/10/06/0402.htm


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> What about the footage showing the activists _preparing_ to attack the IDF soldiers? This isn't Israeli footage, but footage from the ship *before the soldiers boarded*. Note the handy gas masks.
> 
> http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/10/06/0402.htm


Interesting clip, but it looks defensive. They weren't going after the Israelis, they were staying where they were. From the ducking I'm seeing early on, it's evident that the Israelis opened fire on a group of people in a defensive posture. Without more footage to review, it appears to be murder.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Interesting clip, but it looks defensive. They weren't going after the Israelis, they were staying where they were. From the ducking I'm seeing early on, it's evident that the Israelis opened fire on a group of people in a defensive posture. Without more footage to review, it appears to be murder.


Huh? They were arming themselves before they spotted the Israeli ship. As for the ducking - I guess they didn't want to be martyrs so badly afterall. But seriously do you know nothing of self preservation? You don't just stand up and start chucking things at a superior force and not expect retaliation. So you chuck and duck - sheesh even a 5 yr old in the middle of a snowball fight knows that. 

As for going after the Israelis they would have had to have left the ship. Any idea how they could have done that - maybe the life boats? They waited and attacked the boarding party.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wags said:


> Huh? They were arming themselves before they spotted the Israeli ship. As for the ducking - I guess they didn't want to be martyrs so badly afterall. But seriously do you know nothing of self preservation? You don't just stand up and start chucking things at a superior force and not expect retaliation. So you chuck and duck - sheesh even a 5 yr old in the middle of a snowball fight knows that.


Hold-on there, I didn't see any "chucking" before the shooting started and I don't know that they were arming themselves before they spotted the Israeli ship. I think you're making assumptions that go beyond the evidence.

Moreover, the Israelis claim that the shooting didn't start until two Israeli troops had their weapons taken from them. That appears to not be true, since the shooting clearly started before the Israelis boarded the ship, which is what the journalists in the ship have been claiming all along. In other words, the Israelis have lied to us about the incident.

Lying and refusing to release video isn't a good way to garner support.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Interesting clip, but it looks defensive. They weren't going after the Israelis, they were staying where they were. From the ducking I'm seeing early on, it's evident that the Israelis opened fire on a group of people in a defensive posture. Without more footage to review, it appears to be murder.


Notice the time stamp @ the top of the clip. They were handing out metal rods *6 hours* before the actual confrontation, before they even spotted the Israelis. 

And of course if was defensive. They _knew_ they were provoking/defying Israel's warnings. They _knew_ there would be a confrontation and clearly planned for it. It was their intention.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Notice the time stamp @ the top of the clip. They were handing out metal rods *6 hours* before the actual confrontation, before they even spotted the Israelis.
> 
> And of course if was defensive. They _knew_ they were provoking/defying Israel's warnings. They _knew_ there would be a confrontation and clearly planned for it. It was their intention.


Look at it this way; they were purportedly running a blockade to bring humanitarian aid. While they could expect trouble for that if they were caught, they wouldn't have anticipated gunfire because that would have been excessive force.

You seem to consider what they did as not smart, while others might consider it bravery. In any case, those people didn't go there looking for a fight.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Hold-on there, I didn't see any "chucking" before the shooting started and I don't know that they were arming themselves before they spotted the Israeli ship. I think you're making assumptions that go beyond the evidence.
> 
> Moreover, the Israelis claim that the shooting didn't start until two Israeli troops had their weapons taken from them. That appears to not be true, since the shooting clearly started before the Israelis boarded the ship, which is what the journalists in the ship have been claiming all along. In other words, the Israelis have lied to us about the incident.
> 
> Lying and refusing to release video isn't a good way to garner support.


You are talking nonsense again. There was no reason for anyone to die. The agitators planned to cause it and got their way. Notice this last ship Israel boarded. No one was injured because no one on the ship resisted. Israel has a blockade. Try to run it and you can expect Israel to respond to anything you do. These idiots decided to resist because it was their plan all along.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Look at it this way; they were purportedly running a blockade to bring humanitarian aid. While they could expect trouble for that if they were caught, they wouldn't have anticipated gunfire because that would have been excessive force.
> 
> You seem to consider what they did as not smart, while others might consider it bravery. In any case, those people didn't go there looking for a fight.


It was IGNORANT. Israel told them to bring the ships into port hours before they boarded them. The ships ignored Israel's orders and got what they deserved and asked for.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

poppy said:


> It was IGNORANT. Israel told them to bring the ships into port hours before they boarded them. The ships ignored Israel's orders and got what they deserved and asked for.


poppy, as I mentioned above - it isn't necessary to convince the muslims here on GC that Israel is doing what is necessary and proper - Netenyahu has it all under control. If he let this ilk even make suggestions, Israel would never exist and certainly would never have lasted more than the first six months. So, relax and wait for the ending and let the "we hate Jews" keep trying to make them the bad guys - it won't work.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

well, while relaxing, care to enlighten me on the steps I had to take...still waiting for that one.....no self-respecting person making a statement as you did would leave a post unanswered would they?


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

Nevada said:


> In any case, those people didn't go there looking for a fight.


They most certainly went spoiling for a fight and praying to become martyrs. (clips of that have already been posted)


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

joseph97297 said:


> well, while relaxing, care to enlighten me on the steps I had to take...still waiting for that one.....no self-respecting person making a statement as you did would leave a post unanswered would they?


Uh, didn't you explain what "steps" you - as a Jew (or as muslims refer to you "monkeys and pigs") - took to enter an Islamic house of worship? You didn't just say "okay, now is the time to worship Allah the moon god" and slip in and start intoning some mystical prayer on how to behead the infidels - did you? Hmmm ... maybe YOU did.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Why yes I did (explain about the 'steps' I took) but I was curious as to what you _ass_umed I had to do, as in your opinion, no self-respecting Jew would enter a Mosque, I was just wanting to her you elaborate on the reasons why, since you seemed to indicate that "i had to meet certain 'requirements" that you insinuated would be insulting to a self-respecting Jew.....

care to wax as eloquently as you can in greater detail?

And I have to say again, I was never referred to as a monkey or a pig by the Muslims I encountered. In my experience, I was not ever disrespected in that way or any other, but hey, if it helps to sleep at night.... honestly, I have been referred to as a **** Boy, but that wasn't by any Muslim....nope....

And no, I didn't slip into intoning a mystical prayer, only an individual who had obtained the highest level of idiocy would _ass_ume or imply that.....maybe YOU did?

But hey, let's hear your personal experiences of living in a Muslim country, or your experiences in dealing with Muslims day in and day out...... after all, first hand experience and knowledge of those who have done it holds a little more sway than those who have read/listened/or been told about it yet removed by so many personal levels.......... no?


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

joseph97297 said:


> Why yes I did (explain about the 'steps' I took) but I was curious as to what you _ass_umed I had to do, as in your opinion, no self-respecting Jew would enter a Mosque, I was just wanting to her you elaborate on the reasons why, since you seemed to indicate that "i had to meet certain 'requirements" that you insinuated would be insulting to a self-respecting Jew.....
> 
> care to wax as eloquently as you can in greater detail?
> 
> ...


No, I've never had cancer either yet I am totally aware of the devastation it brings. Sort of like the Islamic theocracy that you embrace as a peace loving religion - I HAVE spent a great deal of time studing the Koran. The Book that ALL sects of Islam embrace. To NOT follow the Koran means you are NOT a muslim. If you have spent so "much" time in the muslim countries surely you have also studied the Koran - you then know what Daniel Pearl learned the hard way. But then, you also know that the end justifies the methods. Your personal experiences mean nothing to the 3000 people who learned the hard way - who were NOT removed on personal levels, but by planes...no! 
I am going to assume that perhaps the highest level of idiocy has been reached - congratulations!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Gercarson said:


> To NOT follow the Koran means you are NOT a muslim.


Likewise, to not follow the Bible means that you aren't Christian. Consider the following clip:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs[/ame]

And please, don't give me any "the OT doesn't count" nonsense. Christians quote the OT all the time when it's to their political advantage.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Likewise, to not follow the Bible means that you aren't Christian. Consider the following clip:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs
> 
> And please, don't give me any "the OT doesn't count" nonsense. Christians quote the OT all the time when it's to their political advantage.


Those who do not follow the New Testament are NOT Christian - the "OT" does "count" but you cannot BE a Christian until you get to the CHRIST part - you will of course, be able to provide a great deal of "data" to prove otherwise - talk about nonsense - that's the typical example - that and Timothy Mc Veigh.

(Apparently some sort of relatively aggressive virus is affecting certain embedded YouTube videos. So, no thanks)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Gercarson said:


> Apparently some sort of relatively aggressive virus is affecting certain embedded YouTube videos. So, no thanks


Okay. But I didn't send you to an embedded youtube video, I sent you directly to the clip at youtube.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Gercarson said:


> No, I've never had cancer either yet I am totally aware of the devastation it brings. Sort of like the Islamic theocracy that you embrace as a peace loving religion - I HAVE spent a great deal of time studing the Koran. The Book that ALL sects of Islam embrace. To NOT follow the Koran means you are NOT a muslim. If you have spent so "much" time in the muslim countries surely you have also studied the Koran - you then know what Daniel Pearl learned the hard way. But then, you also know that the end justifies the methods. Your personal experiences mean nothing to the 3000 people who learned the hard way - who were NOT removed on personal levels, but by planes...no!
> I am going to assume that perhaps the highest level of idiocy has been reached - congratulations!


It is true that the Koran is the holy book to all of Islam, but it is completely incorrect to assume that the Koran means the same thing to Muslims that the Bible means to Christians. Islam just doesn't work that way. Most muslims can't even read the Koran, because in the practice of Islam, it is never translated out of the Arabic and a significant percentage - maybe most (I don't have the numbers available at the moment) aren't Arabs.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

NoClue said:


> It is true that the Koran is the holy book to all of Islam, but it is completely incorrect to assume that the Koran means the same thing to Muslims that the Bible means to Christians. Islam just doesn't work that way. Most muslims can't even read the Koran, because in the practice of Islam, it is never translated out of the Arabic and a significant percentage - maybe most (I don't have the numbers available at the moment) aren't Arabs.


Islam takes a great deal of pride in the fact that the Koran has not changed - and the Bible and Torah have - still, in the same way that Christians have many different sects they must all rely on the "core" of the New Testament - like ALL muslims must rely on the core of the Koran. One must start at the beginning and that beginning for all muslim sects IS the Koran. Islam permeates every atom of a muslim - hence the theocracy that they live and breath. I recommend everyone read âEurabia: The Euro-Arab Axisâ, and realize that America is no longer a subtle part of the world-wide jihad that is taking place. 
I quote Giselle Littman whose pseudonym is Bat Yeâor:
During the process of Islamization of âpowerful Christain civiliazation spread over the Middle East, North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, Anatolia, and Southeastern Europe,â three important factors emerge as fixed components of jihad policy, says Littman, as follows:
1. âThe gradual erosion of resistance within the societies targeted but not yet conquered by jihad, concurring with their growing economic weakness due to the tribute required for the Muslim overlordsâ renewal of the truce. During and after their subjugation , their demographic decline followed as a result of warfare, massacres, slavery, abduction of women and children, and deportation, until the situation stabilized;
2. The insecurity caused by the constant mass immigration of foreign populations and the subsequent process of alteration and substitution of one civilization by another, hostile to the indigenous inhabitants;
3. The emergence of powerful collaborationist parties economically and politically linked with Muslim rulers.â
With Barack Hussein Obama in the white house, we are now submitting to jihad without a whimper.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

In countries where Arabic is not the dominant language, many Muslims take classes to learn it so that they can read the words of the Quoran for themselves. A couple of the local mosques and masjids offer classes in the evening. In our area, they also have a couple of Muslim schools where the children learn Arabic as part of their studies in much the same way that public schools would offer Spanish or French classes.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

TheMartianChick said:


> In countries where Arabic is not the dominant language, many Muslims take classes to learn it so that they can read the words of the Quoran for themselves. A couple of the local mosques and masjids offer classes in the evening. In our area, they also have a couple of Muslim schools where the children learn Arabic as part of their studies in much the same way that public schools would offer Spanish or French classes.


This is true - all muslims are encouraged to learn Arabic, just as all Catholics are (or used to be) encouraged to learn Latin. Few however, if they aren't Arabic, are actually proficient enough to read the Koran independently.

Again, while the Koran may be one of the foundations of Islam, it does not have the primacy in Islamic practice that the Bible has in Christianity. Far more important than the words of the Koran are the haditha passed down, and these vary greatly by geography, race, culture, and sect.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

NoClue said:


> This is true - all muslims are encouraged to learn Arabic, just as all Catholics are (or used to be) encouraged to learn Latin. Few however, if they aren't Arabic, are actually proficient enough to read the Koran independently.
> 
> Again, while the Koran may be one of the foundations of Islam, it does not have the primacy in Islamic practice that the Bible has in Christianity. Far more important than the words of the Koran are the haditha passed down, and these vary greatly by geography, race, culture, and sect.


Al-Qiyamah
"The Holy Quran is the final and highest authority for Muslims on all matters. It is the fundamental source of the teachings of Islam. When determining whether a certain belief or practice is a part of Islam or not, the verdict of the Quran has the highest priority and must be accepted even if it goes against common practice or one's own wishes. If a Muslim differs with us regarding the meaning of a verse of the Quran, we must still respect his views if he gives arguments from the Holy Book in his support."
Hadith (Islam) the way of life prescribed as normative for Muslims on the basis of the teachings and practices of Muhammad and interpretations of the Koran


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

I'm not sure what the reference to the 'Day of Resurrection' (Al Qiyamah) was supposed to refer to (Al Qiyamah). Were you quoting something?

You and I have been over this and the past, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind. You've read some books about Islam and think that makes you an authority. I've read plenty of books about Islam too, some of the same that you've read, but I don't think that makes me an expert. Knowing about something is not the same thing as understanding it. To understand something to which you are an outsider, you have to get insight from those who are on the inside and understand that as long as you remain on the outside, you will _never_ truly understand. Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice that level of understanding when it comes to Islam, but I don't pretend to understand what I don't.

What I do know is this: You cannot even begin to understand Islam working on the assumption that it is 'Christianity' with different names and rules - with Allah instead of God, Mohammed instead of Jesus, The Koran instead of the Bible, and the four pillars instead of the Ten Commandments. The Islamic approach to religion is fundamentally different than the Christian approach, and neither starts nor ends in the same place. In my researches, I've seen Muslim websites that try to disprove Christianity or the innate hostility of Chrisitians through analysis of the Bible. As proud of their results as they are, as a Christian, I find their analysis as laughable and entirely missing the point as they do reading Christian analysis of the Koran.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

NoClue said:


> I'm not sure what the reference to the 'Day of Resurrection' (Al Qiyamah) was supposed to refer to (Al Qiyamah). Were you quoting something?
> 
> You and I have been over this and the past, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind. You've read some books about Islam and think that makes you an authority. I've read plenty of books about Islam too, some of the same that you've read, but I don't think that makes me an expert. Knowing about something is not the same thing as understanding it. To understand something to which you are an outsider, you have to get insight from those who are on the inside and understand that as long as you remain on the outside, you will _never_ truly understand. Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice that level of understanding when it comes to Islam, but I don't pretend to understand what I don't.
> 
> What I do know is this: You cannot even begin to understand Islam working on the assumption that it is 'Christianity' with different names and rules - with Allah instead of God, Mohammed instead of Jesus, The Koran instead of the Bible, and the four pillars instead of the Ten Commandments. The Islamic approach to religion is fundamentally different than the Christian approach, and neither starts nor ends in the same place. In my researches, I've seen Muslim websites that try to disprove Christianity or the innate hostility of Chrisitians through analysis of the Bible. As proud of their results as they are, as a Christian, I find their analysis as laughable and entirely missing the point as they do reading Christian analysis of the Koran.


I know that I cannot fathom Islam - I do not even try. I do not even attempt to equate the Koran to the Bible nor do I attempt to juxtaposition Christianity to Islam - it cannot be done. Please don't think I am even trying to equate Islam - in any way - to Christianity. I KNOW that the differences are beyond description. What I do know - and you may try to minimize this in any way you wish, like you said, it won't change - is that Islam's mission is to eradicate ALL OTHER religions and dominate ALL PHASES of humanity via the Koran's "pillars". Now that doesn't (as you attempt to do) make Islam a superior religion and completely "unknowable" to the infidels - it just makes humanity a joke. You are right, I will never understand the "inner workings" of Islam like the muslim whose first words heard were from the Koran. Just like you will never understand Christianity (many, many Christians do not understand Christianity). BUT - no Christian will kill you if they don't convert you - nor do Christians believe that any means is completely acceptable to bring you to God. Terrorism is an aberration for a Christian, but is a way of life for muslims. Islam demands a culture change and is well on the way to achieving that goal - to make the Koran the law of the earth. I will not go silently into that abyss of dehumanizing theocracy. I have already chosen the "side" I will be on when good triumphs over evil - as you have.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

I think you've illustrated my point perfectly by declaring your own superior knowledge of what I (personally) believe.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Look at it this way; they were purportedly running a blockade to bring humanitarian aid. While they could expect trouble for that if they were caught, they wouldn't have anticipated gunfire because that would have been excessive force.
> 
> You seem to consider what they did as not smart, while others might consider it bravery. In any case, those people didn't go there looking for a fight.


I disagree. The people on this ship WERE clearly looking for a fight. They were just surprised at the fight they got. Its like a bunch of bikers going into a bar and getting rowdy only to find out there's a group of mixed martial arts fighters at the bar.

They were expecting to be facing pepper spray or CS (notice the gas masks) and batons. They did NOT expect to be on the receiving end of live ammo. I think they were planning on swarming the first group of people and using them as hostages to force the Israeli government to let them dock. Things got out of hand when the Israelis didn't play by the rules set down by the protesters. Note the fact someone on the PA system called for the protesters to stand down because of the use of live ammo.

If they were not looking for a fight then why was it only one ship which was prepared to and did fight?

To me it was bad planning on the part of Israel. What they should have done was foul the screws of each vessel than stood down until the people on board agreed to be towed into port. At which time the each captain and crew would have been arrested, each ship and its cargo confiscated and the registered owners fined for violating the law. If the owners failed to pay the fine the ships and cargo would have then been sold.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Likewise, to not follow the Bible means that you aren't Christian. Consider the following clip:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs
> 
> And please, don't give me any "the OT doesn't count" nonsense. Christians quote the OT all the time when it's to their political advantage.


Good try at confusing the issues but still a miss. If you know the Bible you know that the laws used in this clip were to be followed by those before the law has been fulfilled. Christ was the fulfillment of the law rendering the old Mosaic laws no longer valid for those who accepted Christ. The only ones who were expected to follow these laws are those who believe in the God of Abraham before Christ. Trying to use the Mosaic laws to invalidate the rest of God's teaching in the Old Testament is like saying its illegal to sell alcohol because of the 18th amendment because you refuse to read the 21st amendment.

The example used in the clip of homosexuality as being an abomination is not a law given to Mose as for how the Israelites were to live. It was a statement of fact of how God views the act. The fact that we, as Christians, are no longer required to stone adulterers does not mean adultery is no longer a sin in the eyes of God and therefore OK.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

NoClue said:


> I think you've illustrated my point perfectly by declaring your own superior knowledge of what I (personally) believe.


I'm flattered - your confusing statement probably does show "something" that could very easily be picked up on. I do encourage you to stay on the path and go toward the Light.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Gercarson said:


> I'm flattered - your confusing statement probably does show "something" that could very easily be picked up on. I do encourage you to stay on the path and go toward the Light.


You seem repeatedly to confuse my refusal to equate Islam with Evil as an endorsement of both evil and Islam. For the record, I endorse neither. Personally, I believe that muslims are lost souls who need salvation. I do not however believe that Islam makes otherwise normal human beings evil. I have personally known a great number of muslims - some of them were outrageous, obnoxious jerks, and some of the were the kindest, most generous people I've ever known. Two, in particular, probably saved my life - none of them ever tried to kill or convert me (one of them did fire me, the only time I've ever been fired from a job in my life, but honestly, I deserved it). One of them (actually it was an elderly couple, but it was the she who actually called the shots), when I was in a particularly bad spot, actually opened a new business so they could give me a job.

During my time in the Navy, I made seven deployments to the Persian Gulf and made numerous port calls to Arab Gulf States: UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and I'm well aware that most Arabs don't like Americans. Here's something you probably didn't know: You can ask them and find out why! I did ask several regular Joe Arabs (taxi drivers, restraunt owners, shop keepers, etc) and got an earful in answerevery time, and you know what? Not a single one of them ever included in their quiet lengthy answers that it was because we were infidels.

This why we disagree: Your 'knowledge' contradicts my actual experience.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

NoClue said:


> This why we disagree: Your 'knowledge' contradicts my actual experience.


World Trade Center Death Toll to 2801 - Army psychiatrist who opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 12 people and wounding 31 others = my knowledge trumps your "actual" experience.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Gercarson said:


> World Trade Center Death Toll to 2801 - Army psychiatrist who opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 12 people and wounding 31 others = my knowledge trumps your "actual" experience.


Yep. The facts are impossible to refute. Of all the shooting conflicts going on in the world, muslims are involved in virtually all of them. Last I heard there were a little over a hundred conflicts going on and only 2 did not involve muslims. Also, if you hear of a bombing or act of terror anywhere in the world, odds are very high that muslims are behind it. Those things cannot be said of any other group. Islam is an inherently violent religion.


----------



## woodsman (Dec 8, 2008)

Gercarson said:


> World Trade Center Death Toll to 2801 - Army psychiatrist who opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 12 people and wounding 31 others = my knowledge trumps your "actual" experience.


How many non-combatants did we kill in Iraq?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

woodsman said:


> How many non-combatants did we kill in Iraq?



Red herring argument. We NEVER target non combatants like the terrorists do. The number we actually killed as collateral damage while fighting the enemy is anyone's guess. I have seen some pretty low numbers and some pretty high ones.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

poppy said:


> Red herring argument. We NEVER target non combatants like the terrorists do. The number we actually killed as collateral damage while fighting the enemy is anyone's guess. I have seen some pretty low numbers and some pretty high ones.


So maybe the people in the twin towers and on the planes were just collateral damage. Maybe those hijacking the planes just hate tall buildings? Hey if they just hate tall buildings cant blame them for any civilians that just got in the way huh? thats the same collateral damage argument you are making for our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Shrubbie just got a hard on for Sadaam and few hundred thousand innocent civilians got in the way, well its not our fault.....

I believe the actual number of Iraqi civilians killed as result of our invasion and occupation is officially little under 100,000. Unofficially its closer to a million. And this in a country that wasnt even involved with the attack on the two towers. But hey Haliburton made some good profits and sure Exxon and BP and such got some good oil contracts. And we got Sadaams head on a platter. So whats a few civilian lives if somebody makes good money out of the deal? Win-win! right?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Red herring argument. We NEVER target non combatants like the terrorists do. The number we actually killed as collateral damage while fighting the enemy is anyone's guess. I have seen some pretty low numbers and some pretty high ones.


Even with the lowest collateral damage estimates, they're getting the short end of the stick for sure.


----------



## woodsman (Dec 8, 2008)

poppy said:


> Red herring argument. We NEVER target non combatants like the terrorists do. The number we actually killed as collateral damage while fighting the enemy is anyone's guess. I have seen some pretty low numbers and some pretty high ones.


Just because we set our own little rules and put ourselves on the moral high ground doesn't mean that anybody besides us cares how we rationalize killing innocent people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And this in a country that wasnt even involved with the attack on the two towers


.

The invasion had nothing to do with 9/11 
And neither does this thread


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

woodsman said:


> How many non-combatants did we kill in Iraq?



Gosh, you must ask an offical score keeper concerning that number. Now, what emperical number of Iraqi's did Iraq kill - Kurds, etc.?


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

woodsman said:


> Just because we set our own little rules and put ourselves on the moral high ground doesn't mean that anybody besides us cares how we rationalize killing innocent people.


The entire world cares - save religioius terrorists who often kill themselves - about the innocent lives taken during struggles of perceived "moral high ground" - no one should have to sacrifice their lives so a despot can remain in power. Most people want to live their lives quitely and with substance - AND without interference from anyone who feels a compelling need to control that life - especially a religious/political control. Our constitution comes closest to achieving that quest of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - sad to say, many do not agree.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The invasion had nothing to do with 9/11


Many Americans believe that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. They believe that because they were told by the president and vice president that Saddam had a relationship with Al Qaeda, and that Saddam was active in La Qaeda terrorist activities.

******
_President Bush, in an October 2002 speech in Cincinnati, said the United States had âlearned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and gas.â

And Vice President Cheney, in a September 2003 appearance on NBC's âMeet the Press,â alleged there was âa relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the â90s.â_
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10164478
******

But Bush was told that there was no evidence of that.

******
_Ten days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush was advised that U.S. intelligence found no credible connection linking the attacks to the regime of Saddam Hussein, or evidence suggesting linkage between Saddam and the al-Qaida terrorist network, according to a published report._
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10164478
******

So why do you suppose the president and vice president would say those things?


----------

