Author Topic: Israelis Detain, Beat & Release US Citizen, THEN claim he's a "terrorist"  (Read 5517 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
<<My statement dealt with O'Keefe, I don't know anything about the history of the other participants. >>

If I understood you correctly, your statement boiled down to O'Keefe couldn't be innocent because he had chosen a side in the conflict.

The logic of that statement, applied to the Israelis and the relief workers , would mean that none were innocent because all were on one side or the other.  More widely applied to all the participants in WWII, since all had chosen one side or the other, none were innocent

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Quote
If I understood you correctly

You didn't.

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.

Now if you want to extrapolate the statement above to some ridiculous if then scenario and make my statement mean what it does not mean, you are free to do so, but you would be wrong.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
<<You didn't [understand me correctly].

<<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.>>

Looks to me like you are attempting to re-write reality into another Zio-Nazi fantasy. 

O'Keefe went to Iraq, not to aid the launching of missiles into Israel, but in a vain attempt to prevent the U.S. from launching missiles into Iraq.   He sailed on the Mavi Marmara not to assist in firing rockets into Israel (there wasn't an offensive weapon found in the entire flotilla) but to try to break an illegal and criminal blockade of 1.5 million civilians that is causing inhuman suffering to the children of Gaza as we speak.

In true Zio-Nazi fashion, you are attempting to portray the inhuman and criminal blockade as a response to the rockets fired from Gaza into Israel, but there is no necessary connection between the two, any more than there is a necessary connection between humanitarian relief to the victims of the criminal blockade and Hamas.  In tracing the source of the problem all the way back to Hamas and stopping there, you are deliberately attempting to cover up causes behind Hamas and its rocket attacks - - the root cause of the whole thing is the Zio-Nazi occupation of Arab lands and the dispossession of the inhabitants and the 43-year military occupation of the West Bank.  THAT is why there are Hamas resistance forces, that is why there are targeted assassinations of militants, killing many civilians, that is why Hamas responds with rockets, that is why there is a blockade (not to stop rockets which get in anyway, but to make the people suffer till they reject their duly elected Hamas government) and that is why there are relief efforts and that is why there was a massacre on the high seas.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Quote
Looks to me like you are attempting to re-write reality into another Zio-Nazi fantasy.

Looks to me like you are being deliberately dishonest.

Quote
O'Keefe went to Iraq, not to aid the launching of missiles into Israel, but in a vain attempt to prevent the U.S. from launching missiles into Iraq.

Did Saddam fire missiles into Israel, as i claimed. I believe the answer is yes.

Did O'Keefe vainly attempt to protect Iraq from US missiles, again the answer is yes.

Delusion that.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
<<Looks to me like you are being deliberately dishonest.

<<Did Saddam fire missiles into Israel, as i claimed. I believe the answer is yes.

<<Did O'Keefe vainly attempt to protect Iraq from US missiles, again the answer is yes.>>

Look who's being deliberately dishonest!  When O'Keefe went to Baghdad to prevent a US missile attack on the city, Iraq was not firing missiles at Israel.  There had been no missiles fired at Israel from Iraq since the First Gulf War.  The intent and purpose of O'Keefe's (and others') trip to Iraq was purely defensive in nature and you know that.


BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Quote
Look who's being deliberately dishonest!  When O'Keefe went to Baghdad to prevent a US missile attack on the city, Iraq was not firing missiles at Israel.  There had been no missiles fired at Israel from Iraq since the First Gulf War.
"When the enemy starts a large-scale battle, he must realize that the battle between us will be open wherever there is sky, land and water in the entire world,"

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/diplomacyend_03-17-03.html

Not only had he fired missiles at Israel but he threatened to do it again.


sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
And notice how Bt called Tee on his less than truthfullness, yet Tee seems to be responding to him.  Intriguing, isn't it
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
To date, only 28 people have been killed by the infamous rockets.
The Israelis killed hundreds, including women, children and other combatants when they invaded Gaza in 2009.

The Netanyahu government does not want a two-state solution. They do not want an independent Palestine, and their goal is simply to APPEAR that they are doing all they can to get along with all those nasty Arabs without having to give up a single colony in the West Bank, or the even more important water rights.

Both sides are too intractable, but my taxes do not actually support the goddamned Zionists. I don't believe that this is in any way just. The ignorance of sirs, Kramer and CU4 about almost every aspect of this situation is abysmal, and simply proof that AIPAC has done its job far too well.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Sorry to say, but the ignorance on grand display here, would be by messers Tee & Xo, especially as it relates to who wants what.
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
outside the US



Who DOES desire a two state solution?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
<<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, although, like the Israelis, they feel they have to pay lip-service to the idea of it.  In real life, any Palestinian state that emerges alongside the State of Israel, would be so hemmed in by restrictions on its sovereignty (much like Gaza would be even if the blockade were lifted tomorrow) that it would simply never achieve viability.  It would always be dependent on Israel for its most basic needs.  In order for a Palestinian state to exist as a viable entity, it would have to include the land of the present State of Israel.  Nevertheless, I'd guess that the Palestinians are truly divided on the issue - - some are so traumatized and demoralized by the current occupation that they probably would be willing to accept less than the full loaf that they'd receive in any realistic approximation of a two-state solution.  Others, recognizing the unworkability of the project, but nevertheless seeing it as a tactical victory and a way-station in the long struggle for a fully independent Arab Palestine, would hold their noses and pretend to be also in favour of two states.  I don't think in the long run the Palestinians would be content with a two-state solution.

Another factor to consider is the "demographic time bomb," i.e. a much faster natural rate of increase among the Palestinians and the Israeli Arabs than among the Israeli Jews.  Effectively the DTB puts time on the side of the Palestinians and is a strong disincentive towards acceptance of a two-state solution as anything other than a temporary tactical struggle in their Long War for an all-Arab Palestine.

The only actors who really would favour a two-state solution, as far as I can see, are the American puppet states in the Middle East, specifially Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.  They don't really give a shit about the Palestinians or what's viable or non-viable for them, and they'd like to see an immediate resolution of the Palestinian claims.  The longer the dispute goes on, the more their public demands action, which would bring them into conflict with the wishes of their American bosses.  The longer they delay the action their population demands, the shakier their hold on power becomes.  So they're faced with an on-going dog-fight but have no dog i n the fight; all they know is that they have nothing to gain from the fight going on and a lot to lose if it never stops.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
<<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. 

I know 100% that the Palestinian political leadership, regardless of party, does NOT want a two-state soloution

Now what?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
<<"When the enemy starts a large-scale battle, he must realize that the battle between us will be open wherever there is sky, land and water in the entire world,">>

In other words, because Saddam fired rockets at Israel thirteen years previously, O'Keefe went to Baghdad thirteen years later, not to prevent U.S. missile strikes on the City of Baghdad as he claimed, but in the hope that his presence there would somehow encourage Saddam to shoot some more rockets at Israel.

Most improbable explanation I've ever seen of his actions, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion and to proclaim it wherever and whenever you see fit.  With any luck, the Zio-Nazi bullshit machine will see it and invite you to join their fine stable of BS writers.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Quote
Most improbable explanation I've ever seen of his actions

I never said that was what motivated him. You continue to misrepresent.

The net result is he aided Saddam , this according to the Human Rights Watch, who not only had launched missiles at Israel previously but had threatened to do it again.

It really is not that complicated.


Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
<<The net result is he aided Saddam , this according to the Human Rights Watch, who not only had launched missiles at Israel previously but had threatened to do it again.

<<It really is not that complicated. >>

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.

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.