Israelis Detain, Beat & Release US Citizen, THEN claim he's a "terrorist"

[Plane]

<<Who DOES desire a two state solution?>>

I know 100% that the Israeli political leadership, regardless of party, does NOT want a two-state solution.  They want the whole ball of wax.  I'll qualify that a little bit - - the Israelis might take a two-state solution as a temporary way-station on the road to a total ethnic cleansing of the entire Gaza Strip and West Bank if the Palestinian state were sufficiently carved up into enclaves so as to be non-viable in the long run (say the next 50 years) and they could count on it falling into their hands within that time frame.

To me, it's a no-brainer that the Israelis, who certainly know how to pay lip-service to the idea of a two-state solution, do not really want it, and will do, as they have done in the past, everything within their power to frustrate it and at the same time maintain the illusion of accepting it. 

The real issue is, do the Palestinians want it?  IMHO, they'd have to be nuts to want it,.....

Wow , very good answer! 150% of what I wanted or expected .

This is something like my thinking and something like my idea of why there is so much theater for our viewing pleasure here in the USA.

We and the Saudis are the financeing of both sides , and the US and the Saudis are practicly a single economic unit with a bifurcated policy re- Isreal vs Palistine.

Yep, I do blame us. 

[BT]

Of course it's not.  If he goes to Baghdad with a group dedicated to acting as human shields to prevent U.S. attacks on buildings in a heavily populated city, then the most logical and the simplest conclusion possible is that he actually did go to Baghdad for that purpose.

Yes. And the bui;ldings he protected were assigned by the Saddam Regime. Do you think he could choose the ones he wanted. Half the shields went home once they realized they were doing the bidding of Saddam, not O'Keefe however. Read a little, don't just make it up as you go along.

To claim that he went there in the hope of promoting a missile strike on Israel because Saddam had struck Israel 13 years previously and was threatening to do so again is first of all probably factually wrong - - where were the threats made by Saddam to strike Israel the second time around?  and more importantly, why even bother to pretend to be a human shield if his real objective was to help Saddam fire rockets at Israel?  Why not just go to Iraq and volunteer for a missile-firing battalion?  Occam's Razor really fucks up your unsubstantiated speculation.

One: i never claimed that is why O'Keefe went to Iraq. If in your thinking i did, please show me the post in context of where you got that idea. Otherwise i will continue thinking you are misrepresenting what i said.


And two: Saddam did promise to widen the war if attacked in 2003. I provided the quote via NPR for all to see.

[Michael Tee]

<<Yes. And the bui;ldings he protected were assigned by the Saddam Regime. >>

As opposed to what regime?  The government of Hungary?  Is this supposed to be some kind of gob-smacking surprise, that the government of Iraq would decide which of its buildings were most in need of human-shield protection?

<<Do you think he could choose the ones he wanted. >>

No, actually nobody would think that.  What is the argument here?  That although he went to Baghdad as a human shield, the fact that the government of Iraq would decide where his services were best employed means that his real purpose had to be to make missile attacks on Israel?  Sorry, maybe that makes sense to you, but I don't buy it.

<<Half the shields went home once they realized they were doing the bidding of Saddam>>

Yes, I can understand their shock, arriving in one of the world's most absolute dictatorships, only to be bossed around by the dictator.  How disillusioning THAT must have been!!!

<< . . .  not O'Keefe however. >>

No, he stayed.  Because where else could he shoot rockets at Israel from?  Cleverly disguised as a human shield no less.

<<Read a little, don't just make it up as you go along.>>

Read a little, read a lot, when I see a bullshit argument, buttressed by a string of irrelevancies strung together into a total absurdity, I don't have to make up anything, I just recognize the bullshit for what it is.  That is not complicated at all.  I don't think your reading helped you one bit.  Your theory was cracked from the beginning, and all your reading seemed to do was provide you with that string of irrelevancies.

<<One: i never claimed that is why O'Keefe went to Iraq. If in your thinking i did, please show me the post in context of where you got that idea. Otherwise i will continue thinking you are misrepresenting what i said.>>

Well that's my recollection of your post - - O'Keefe didn't go to protect Iraq against US missiles, but to aid in missile attacks on Israel.  I can't scroll backwards to earlier pages and then get back from there to here, so I'm just leaving it as what I can recollect.


<<And two: Saddam did promise to widen the war if attacked in 2003. I provided the quote via NPR for all to see.>>

Yeah?  Did he promise to hit Israel?  Where'd he do that?

[sirs]

<<And two: Saddam did promise to widen the war if attacked in 2003. I provided the quote via NPR for all to see.>>

Yeah?  Did he promise to hit Israel?  Where'd he do that?

Precedent, Tee.  In Gulf War 1, he attacked a country that sent neither soldiers nor logistics into either Iraq or Kuwait.  That being Israel, with SCUDS.  What the hell did you think he meant in widening the war??   

[BT]

Well that's my recollection of your post - - O'Keefe didn't go to protect Iraq against US missiles, but to aid in missile attacks on Israel.  I can't scroll backwards to earlier pages and then get back from there to here, so I'm just leaving it as what I can recollect.

Then i can do nothing but consider your credibility suspect.

[Michael Tee]

<<O'Keefe has done all in his power to provide aid and comfort to those who launch or launched missiles into Israel, whether it be Iraq or Hamas, all under the guise of peace. >>

Here's the post I was referring to when I wasn't able to access it from my reply.  Looks like I might have erred in interpreting your carefully-worded accusations.  You weren't saying that O'Keefe went to Iraq to facilitate missile attacks on Israel, but only "to provide aid and comfort" to "those who launch . or launched missiles into Israel."

Your conflation of O'Keefe's visit and the launching of missiles into Israel could lure the careless reader (me) into assuming that the launching of missiles into Israel was the main reason for O'Keefe's visit, and you studiously ignored the real and stated reason for his trip (to act as a human shield)  - - in fact, ridiculed it as a fake by portraying it to be "under the guise" of peace" - -  and now whine that you have been misinterpreted.  Your post was disingenuous at best, aimed to create a false impression and yet so carefully constructed that you could back out of having made the accusation if called on it.  As in fact happened.  Normally I apologize for my mistakes, but in a case like this, it was more a matter of falling into a trap than simple misinterpretation, so I don't think any apologies are warranted to the man who laid the trap in the first place.

[BT]

Your half hearted retraction is wholeheartedly accepted.

[Michael Tee]

Nothing half-hearted about the retraction, BT.  I was wrong and I admitted it.

[BT]

Nothing half-hearted about the retraction, BT.  I was wrong and I admitted it.

Nonsense .

You made excuses and attempted to blame me for your error.

[Michael Tee]

<<You made excuses . . . >>

I explained how the error occurred.

<< . . . and attempted to blame me for your error.>>

And correctly accused you of deliberately laying a trap by conflating unrelated issues.

[BT]

And correctly accused you of deliberately laying a trap by conflating unrelated issues.

And you know this is true because ...?

[Michael Tee]

<<And you know this is true because ...?>>

Because I know you could have expressed yourself in a less misleading way had you wanted to.  It wasn't ineptitude.

[BT]

Because I know you could have expressed yourself in a less misleading way had you wanted to.  It wasn't ineptitude.

My sentence was a textbook example of precision and exactitude. You simply just skimmed it.

[Plane]

Of course thate was Mr O'Kefe's little known twin brother.

Who went to Tel Aviv as a human sheild against the scud bombardment .

[Michael Tee]

<<My sentence was a textbook example of precision and exactitude. You simply just skimmed it.>>

Nonsense.  You conflated the giving of aid and comfort (to the inhabitants of a city threatened with massive devastation by the U.S.A.) with the image of missile attacks against Israel (which hadn't happened in thirteen years) to create a false impression of aid and comfort being provided, not to the victims of an imminent U.S. attack, but to the perpetrators of a 13-year-old attack against Israel, as if both were more or less simultaneous and the aid and comfort given was primarily conditional on the recipients' being engaged in attacking Israel with missiles.  False and misleading in the impression you sought to create, but worded carefully enough that a scrupulous parsing would allow you to weasel out of the false impression you had created.  Precision and exactitude, my ass!