Unmitigated Slaugher in Congo - World Condemns Israel

[Oleg Bach]

Sorry...no "Jew bashing fun" in that. SubSaharan Africans can rot by the millions as far as they are concerned.

What a jerk and BC is a highly educated black man. I am a bit shocked that he seems to think that sub-saharan Africans are sub-human...perhaps BC is an honorary Zionist - give a man a nice house and a care and some cash in the bank and he turns his back on his own...much like Oprah....who sold her own people into deeper oppression under the guise of benevolence.

[naomiglover]

Does U.S. give $3 billion a year in military funds and unconditional political backing to those committing the slaughtering in Congo?

If so, then this thread would make sense.

[M.Dancer]

Does U.S. give $3 billion a year in military funds and unconditional political backing to those committing the slaughtering in Congo?

If so, then this thread would make sense.

Does the US give anyone unconditional political backing?

only in the minds of terrorist apologists...

[naomiglover]

Does the US give anyone unconditional political backing?

only in the minds of terrorist apologists...

To Israel.

Doesn't matter what Israel does, the U.S. will continue to give them the money and political backing.

Didn't Israel kick Biden in the teeth during his visit to Israel? How did U.S. respond?

[M.Dancer]

Didn't Israel kick Biden in the teeth during his visit to Israel? How did U.S. respond?

No they didn't. But I can certainly see how a partisan hack like yourself would describe it that way....didn't Obama just say the situation in the Gaza was unstainable?...I guess he must of kicked Israel in the teeth, using your criteria...

[naomiglover]

No they didn't. But I can certainly see how a partisan hack like yourself would describe it that way....didn't Obama just say the situation in the Gaza was unstainable?...I guess he must of kicked Israel in the teeth, using your criteria...

Obama has become good at talking.

Actions speak louder than words.

Didn't the U.S. just sign a huge military deal with Israel? Didn't U.S. back down from the condition of the settlement freeze?

[M.Dancer]

Didn't the U.S. just sign a huge military deal with Israel? Didn't U.S. back down from the condition of the settlement freeze?

If you call 3 Hercules a massive deal, how do you describe canada's purchase of 65 F 35s?

[naomiglover]

If you call 3 Hercules a massive deal, how do you describe canada's purchase of 65 F 35s?

What does Canada's purchase of US planes have anything to do with Israel's violations of international law and U.S. unconditional support for them?

One interesting thing about the 2 deals though: The US has 'given' Israel these aircrafts, while Canada has purchased theirs. This, while Israel continues to build the illegal settlements and against U.S.'s former wishes.

If only the US taxpayers knew.

Edited June 10, 2010 by naomiglover

[M.Dancer]

One interesting thing about the 2 deals though: The US has 'given' Israel these aircrafts, while Canada has purchased theirs. This, while Israel continues to build the illegal settlements and against U.S.'s former wishes.

Intersting thing is how you can dishonestly call them given...

According to the deal, Israel will purchase three new Hercules C-130J airplanes. The deal for the three aircrafts, designed by Lockheed Martin, is worth roughly a quarter billion dollars. Each aircraft costs $70 million

.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/exclusive-despite-row-u-s-and-israel-sign-massive-arms-deal-1.266650

[dizzy]

I think a lot of leftists (and I count myself as a leftist not agreeing with most of the Left on this) unconsciously oppose any Western interest when it comes into conflict with a non-Western interest, no matter how harmful to leftist causes or the West. Why would the leftists have supported the Iranian fundamentalists over the Shah, who at least wanted equal rights for women? Are Muslims pro-gay or pro-feminist?

Agreed on this point. Most leftists won't identify easily with ethnic nationalism when it is centered upon a white and western population. Call it post-colonial guilt.

[bush_cheney2004]

....One interesting thing about the 2 deals though: The US has 'given' Israel these aircrafts, while Canada has purchased theirs. This, while Israel continues to build the illegal settlements and against U.S.'s former wishes.

If only the US taxpayers knew.

The US taxpayers already know. If Canada wants the right to say "No", then Canada can always pay full price for their American made war machines.

[eyeball]

Why would the leftists have supported the Iranian fundamentalists over the Shah...?

Say what?

You're falling into the same old conclusion trap righties do when they misconstrue a lefties understanding of cause and effect for support.

[eyeball]

No they don't. But they oppose any efforts to overthrow them.

Only because the efforts to replace them usually wind up spawning even worst tyrants.

Then its damned if you do damned if you don't. These countries aren't going to have Jeffersonian democrats as leaders.

In that case their countries will remain behind the times and present little if any threat to anyone.

Why are we damned if we just mind our own business?

[jbg]

Only because the efforts to replace them usually wind up spawning even worst tyrants.

In that case their countries will remain behind the times and present little if any threat to anyone.

Why are we damned if we just mind our own business?

Unless they wind up as "failed states" such as Somalia where the terrorists use the land as the base, subsisting off whatever U.N. aid makes it in.

[eyeball]

Unless they wind up as "failed states" such as Somalia where the terrorists use the land as the base, subsisting off whatever U.N. aid makes it in.

Terrorists aren't the only one's taking advantage of the situation. Consider the illegal dumping of toxic wastes and the rapacious poaching of fish stocks that other countries and allies of ours have been committing in Somali waters. It's no wonder Somali fishermen have turned to piracy. In the midst of all sorts of high-falutin' talk about the need for a war on piracy what about a war on those nations that have been exploiting the situation, the environment and Somalia's heritage?

If the law abiding states of the world expect failed states to return to the rule of law they should start practicing what they preach.

[naomiglover]

Intersting thing is how you can dishonestly call them given...

.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/exclusive-despite-row-u-s-and-israel-sign-massive-arms-deal-1.266650

What?

It's a pretty short article. Did you seriously miss this part in the article you, yourself have posted?

The deal will be covered by American foreign assistance funds. The Pentagon will issue a formal announcement on the matter on Thursday evening.

In case you missed it:

The deal will be covered by American foreign assistance funds.

[Borg]

Who cares?

Obviously these people do not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=uhWgZu6tcZU&feature=related

Borg

[Bonam]

Who cares?

Obviously these people do not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=uhWgZu6tcZU&feature=related

Borg

Excellent speech, gets the point across perfectly. Yet naomi/dub will keep championing the condemnation of Israel based on the conclusions ramblings of these brutal dictators.

Also gotta love how after the speech, that dude basically said "you weren't polite enough and will be ignored and may not speak again" and of course completely failed to address any of the points made.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

Right, but why are they motivated to do so? Why is their concern entirely with the supposed misdeeds of one specific nation, and not the misdeeds of so many other nations? They may claim that it is because no one would bother defending the deeds of other nations (as dub/naomi does above), but that is not the case, there are many nations whose misdeeds are a source of some debate, whether it is, say, China, or Turkey (in regards to the Armenian genocide) or even Canada and the US (in regards to treatment of natives), or many others.

What kind of stupid question is this? A 5 yearold could see through this fallacy.

You could ask the exact same thing of Israeli supporters... what motivates them to support Israel and why dont they give equal time advocating for other countries in that position.

The entire premise is literally dripping with both intellectual dishonesty and stupidity.

People become attached to certain causes for a whole variety of reasons. The Israeli/Palestine conflict is popular on most western online forums with enthusiastic advocates for BOTH sides.

[jbg]

Also gotta love how after the speech, that dude basically said "you weren't polite enough and will be ignored and may not speak again" and of course completely failed to address any of the points made.

This makes the point of my opening post. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

[Guest American Woman]

Thought you might find this article interesting, as it basically is saying exactly what you are saying:

"When Israel boarded another ship bound for Gaza last weekend and escorted it to an Israeli port without incident, it demonstrated to me that both sides, Israel and the activists, hold blame for the aid-ship melee the week before.

But you can't tell that from the continuing accusations and debate - exposing rank hypocrisy of a scale seldom seen in modern world affairs. Consider a co-incident on May 31, the day activists assaulted Israeli troops as they boarded the Mavi Marmara, prompting the Israelis to shoot and kill nine of them.

In Lahor, Pakistan, that same day, gunmen stormed into a hospital, where they shot and killed 12 badly wounded patients lying in their beds. Those victims were survivors of murderous attacks on two mosques a few days earlier, when 93 worshipers were killed.

One hundred and five people shot and killed in a hospital and two mosques. Didn't that warrant even a nodding acknowledgment? No, Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said almost nothing about the dead Pakistanis but did manage to declaim: "I unequivocally condemn what appears to be disproportionate use of force, resulting in the killing and wounding of so many people attempting to bring much needed aid to the people of Gaza."

There's no question that Israel erred. A trap had been set, and Israeli commandos walked right into it. Dropping special-operations troops on deck in the middle of the night was foretold to result in violence. In widely reported remarks just before the ships left Cyprus, Bulent Yildirim, leader of a Turkish group on board, declared: "We do not even have a jackknife, but we will not let Israeli soldiers on board this ship."

I have no connection to either side in this debate - except that I have spent five of the last 20 years working, reporting, in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Like so many correspondents, I left the region after my first tour there weary of writing about hatred and violent anger. Pox on both their houses! I thought.

But the current debate is surreal. The week before the aid-flotilla incident, international discussion centered on North Korea and its attack on a South Korean naval vessel. A torpedo sank the ship, killing 46 sailors. The U.N. Security Council was to begin discussion of possible action against North Korea. But then a few days ago, council members made it clear they were going to drop the North Korea matter and take up a resolution condemning Israel first.

At the same time, all of the blame for the sad state of affairs in Gaza falls on Israel, even though Egypt usually keeps its gates to Gaza tightly locked, too - Egypt, which styles itself as the Palestinians' greatest friend and benefactor.

Imagine for a moment that the activists had decided to storm Egypt's gates to Gaza instead and, when Egyptian troops tried to stop the aid caravan, activists assaulted the soldiers with iron rods and knives. If the Egyptians shot and killed nine people in the ensuing melee, do you think the U.N. Security Council would be dropping everything right now to rush through a resolution condemning Egypt? Certainly not."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/12/IN281DSQ0L.DTL#ixzz0qgnjlPpu

Edited June 12, 2010 by American Woman

[jbg]

Thought you might find this article interesting, as it basically is saying exactly what you are saying:

Great article!

[bloodyminded]

Great article!

Is it?

Then perhaps you and American Woman could address this point from the article:

"When Israel boarded another ship bound for Gaza last weekend and escorted it to an Israeli port without incident, it demonstrated to me that both sides, Israel and the activists, hold blame for the aid-ship melee the week before.

So perhaps some clarification is in order:

What, exactly what, is Israel's part of the blame for this incident?

[jbg]

Is it?

Then perhaps you and American Woman could address this point from the article:

So perhaps some clarification is in order:

What, exactly what, is Israel's part of the blame for this incident?

Overall it's a great article. For whatever reason people see the need for "balance" on these matters. What's in that article in terms of unneeded balance is mild compared to other more vituperative articles attacking Israel.

[sharkman]

But the current debate is surreal. The week before the aid-flotilla incident, international discussion centered on North Korea and its attack on a South Korean naval vessel. A torpedo sank the ship, killing 46 sailors. The U.N. Security Council was to begin discussion of possible action against North Korea. But then a few days ago, council members made it clear they were going to drop the North Korea matter and take up a resolution condemning Israel first.

At the same time, all of the blame for the sad state of affairs in Gaza falls on Israel, even though Egypt usually keeps its gates to Gaza tightly locked, too - Egypt, which styles itself as the Palestinians' greatest friend and benefactor.

Imagine for a moment that the activists had decided to storm Egypt's gates to Gaza instead and, when Egyptian troops tried to stop the aid caravan, activists assaulted the soldiers with iron rods and knives. If the Egyptians shot and killed nine people in the ensuing melee, do you think the U.N. Security Council would be dropping everything right now to rush through a resolution condemning Egypt? Certainly not."

This part of the article, which outlines the UN's actions, reveals the bias at the UN. 46 sailors die in a torpedo attack that could start an all out war, but that issue gets dropped in favor of an incident in which 9 deaths occur. Just another in a long line of such blatant moves by the UN.