1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Israeli Spokeswoman Blurts Out Something Interesting

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Jim, Aug 1, 2006.

  1. Jim

    Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Truth Will Set You Free: CNN anchor takes Israeli spokeswoman to task (video)—WakeUpFromYourSlumber.BlogSpot.com

    This video is just over four minutes long but is worth watching. The way the Israeli woman dodges questions is standard politics, but then she says something worth noting in response to the anchor's comment about the scale of Israeli action compared to that of Hezbollah:

    Is that so? My understanding, according to news reports and government statements, is that there have been many Israeli casualties. After all, that is the rationale for the invasion of Lebanon—Hezbollah's killing of Israeli civilians. If there "haven't been casualties in Israel," then what the hell is going on? Israel has killed hundreds (thousands?) of Lebanese civilians and actually invaded the country on the premise that Israelis were being killed.

    The anchor also brings up the point that Israel has the capability to intercept these rockets, which it does. In fact, Israel has the capability to shoot down much stronger weapons than the wimpy rockets Hezbollah uses. Hezbollah is hardly any kind of threat to Israel, which is armed to the teeth, rigidly organized, and well-funded. With this in mind, it is possible that the Israeli government is permitting Hezbollah's rockets to hit Israeli cities so that it will have a pretense for its continued assault on Lebanon. That's what it seems like, anyway.
     
  2. vicki2

    vicki2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting, but I am not surprised if this should be the case. Israel is itching to fight.
     
  3. Jim

    Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    vicki2: We all know Israel is itching to fight. Anyone who belives that the destruction of Lebanon is self-defense is severely deluded. Assaults of that scale and ferocity simply cannot be defensive measures.

    The issue raised by the Israeli woman's slip brings with it an important question—were those Israeli soldiers really abducted?
     
  4. Word2Action

    Word2Action New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm tired of conflicts in the middle east and I wish they would all just get along. I truly believe that no one wins in a war.
     
  5. palefrost

    palefrost New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ive been wondering about what ive been seeing as well.

    It started with Palestine fighting Israel and then all the sudden we hear about soldiers and into Lebanon they go!! Now a few weeks pass and not one word about Palestine and Israel fighting anymore its ALL about Lebanon!!! What happen with the problem with Palestine?

    What happen to the Soldiers? Did we ever identify the soldiers? Yes its weird and it seems like a premeditated action with some hidden agenda.

    At this moment, im wondering when we declare WW3. How many countries do we need fighting out against each other before we or who decides we have a real problem here.

    I feel like i did when the WMD's were never found in Iraq and the story started slowing changing about what are purpose was in that country.

    I am convinced its a holy war we are fighting. Thinly veiled. The world is gone to hell in a hand basket..i keep clicking my heels but i cant get home! :(
     
  6. Brandon

    Brandon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    373
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I couldn't agree more. I am almost at the point were we should just let Israel handle it's problems without the help of the US.

    I also think if the US removes any aid it gives Israel, it might help sever the link between Israel and the US.
     
  7. Word2Action

    Word2Action New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wait a minute isn't the US threatening that as we speak? How close is the US to that decision if they are planning that at all?
     
  8. Paula62

    Paula62 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I really hope the US stops it's support without question of Israel. The US and Israel make a great team from, Israel's perspective, but from the US perspective if Israel is our only real ally, we are in deep doo doo.
     
  9. Jim

    Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    World War III started the moment the first American soldier landed in Afghanistan. The whole scenario had been planned several years in advance by the people now in power in the White House (and elements in Israel, and some people who are on both sides). Soon enough Iran and Syria will be invaded or otherwise subordinated, and finally Saudi Arabia will come under U.S./Israeli power. At least they planned it that way.

    Israel's stake in it is expansion of the Jewish state into its former (biblical) borders. Hardline Israeli ideologues, some of whom are called Zionists, are hell-bent on annexing neighbor countries for this purpose. It seems like the plan is to expand slowly over several decades, until "buffer zones" and "settlements" stretch farther and farther out and become fully integrated into Israel proper.

    The United States' stake in it is global military pre-eminence and hegemony, a.k.a. world domination. And I'm not kidding or exaggerating...go to the Project for a New American Century Web site and read all about it. The sick bastards documented it all as if it were a legitimate academic study.
     
  10. vicki2

    vicki2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem is, as I understand it, is that the U.S. (nor the U.K. for that matter) can just absolve themselves of some kind of involvement. IN the past, both countries have promised and given aid, and Israel still has some chits outstanding ...like some armaments. So, the missles being sent to Israel from the U.S. are a part of this outstanding aid, and that's why the U.S. is obliging. Sticky wicket.
     
  11. palefrost

    palefrost New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A day ago i would have argued this but i recently read something Tony Bair said in the press recently and its rings close to what you have said.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/01/mideast.blair/

    I have a lot of problems with this on many levels. I dont think "we" should tell the rest of the world how to be. We have become the bad guys here. We are hiding behind democracy. Not every country can handle or even want such a similar system as we have. Only with education over time could people understand democracy. The middle east mentality cant comprehend this. They are used to dictators ruling the masses and now we are coming in and taking over and ruling the masses. I dont think we are any better then Saddam at this point.
     
  12. Brandon

    Brandon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    373
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Didn't World War III start the moment the twin towers were hit? That in itself is an act of war. So wouldn't that be the answer?
     
  13. kokotai

    kokotai New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This doesn't surprise me at all. Nor does a plan by the US and Israel to dominate the region.
     
  14. Jim

    Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not really. I mean, if you want to get very technical, World War III started in 1948 with the creation of Israel and the conflict that started there. The Arabs and Israelis have been warring since the United Nations made that foolish mistake, and the wars happening now are a result of the instability it caused in the Middle East. The same kind of thing can be said about World War II; the conflicts that led up to all-out war started right after World War I. In fact, much of Hitler's motivation for war came from the disastrous consequences of World War I on Germany.

    Sept. 11 was not really an act of war because it was not intended to unseat the government or to rob it of power, which is the basic reason for a war. (The invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Lebanon were committed to oust those countries' governments.) Sept. 11 may have looked like an act of war, but the underlying purpose was different. As for what that purpose actually was, I don't know. I still can't figure it out, because the people who were blamed really didn't stand to gain from it in any measurable way. The only people who really benefited from Sept. 11 were American and Israeli politicians, arms manufacturers, opponents of Islam, unscrupulous investors who had foreknowledge of the attacks, and the Bush gang (who had been planning war on the Middle East since the mid-1990s or earlier).

    With that said, Sept. 11 was a significantly weaker attack than it could have been. Off the top of my head, I can think of many different ways in which four hijacked airplanes in the northeast United States could be used to cause maximum death and damage. Only 3000 dead is a pretty minimal body count for such a grandiose and premeditated act. That many people die every day in the United States of such mundane things as car crashes, drug overdoses, and heart attacks. With better timing and target selection, the events of Sept. 11 could easily have killed tens of thousands of people (if not more) and caused absolute bedlam in New York and Washington, DC (instead of the very contolled damage they did cause).

    Instead, what happened was more of a symbolic act that turned into a nifty reference for Americans to "remember" on the march to war, just like the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the sinking of the USS Maine.
     
  15. Brandon

    Brandon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    373
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The purpose of war is not only to damage or conquer a country but to also kill.

    I think 9/11 did quite a bit of damage. Not only loss of life but property damage. What better way to hurt Americans than to attack the financial district of the most populated city in the US.

    Destroying the Twin Towers halted the markets for about a week. It also may be a reason why America took longer to get out of the dot com recession.

    Hurting a countries economy can do more damage than attacking military posts and buildings.
     
Loading...

Share This Page