Mike L.
I'm sorry, but a lie is a lie is a lie.
During Obama and Netanyahu's joint press conference in Israel, Obama said this:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think the only thing I would add is that our intelligence cooperation on this issue, the consultation between our militaries, our intelligence, is unprecedented. And the -- there is not a lot of light -- a lot of daylight between our countries' assessments in terms of where Iran is right now.
I think that what Bibi alluded to, which is absolutely correct, is each country has to make its own decisions when it comes to the awesome decision to engage in any kind of military action. And Israel is differently situated than the United States, and I would not expect that the prime minister would make a decision about his country's security and defer that to any other country, any more than the United States would defer our decisions about what was important for our national security.Where I come from this is what we call a "lie."
A "lie" is when a person knowingly tells a falsehood. When Barack Obama says that Israel is free to make its own decisions concerning its own defense, it is a lie. We know that it is a lie because recent history clearly demonstrates that the Obama administration is entirely opposed to Israeli self-defense.
The reason that we know that Barack Obama is entirely opposed to Israeli (i.e., Jewish) self-defense is because the historical record shows that on at least two occasions he has thwarted Jewish self-defense. The first example of this particular truth is when Obama sought to prevent Israel from militarily eliminating Iran's nuclear bomb-making capability despite the fact that Iran has made overt genocidal threats toward the Jewish State. The second example was upon the initiation of "Pillar of Defense" when, last November, Hillary Clinton was sent in to stop Israel from retaliating against Hamas. Not only is the Hamas' charter a Nazi-like document in that it calls for the genocide of the Jews but they sought to make good on that threat throughout the entirety of last year, culminating in hundreds of rockets shot toward S'derot and Ashkelon just prior to Clinton's arrival.
Thus the only reasonable conclusion that one can draw is that Obama is lying.
each country has to make its own decisions when it comes to the awesome decision to engage in any kind of military action.
That is the sound of president Barack Obama standing before the world and lying through his teeth.
Now, Barack Obama is going to speak many words while in Jerusalem and Ramallah and most of those words, as I mentioned yesterday, will be what Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. called "hokum and trumpery," which is what I would tend to call "bullshit." But, y'know, we expect bullshit from politicians. Nonetheless, I also think that when politicians maliciously lie directly into our faces it's probably not a terrible idea to note the lie.
I will give Obama some credit, however, which is not something that happens very often in these pages.
To his credit, Obama has not yet caused any serious damage in his trip to Israel and for that I find myself quite grateful.
Let's hope that Obama keeps up the good work. I wouldn't count on it, but we can certainly hope.
Ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteSo you disagree that Clinton came to Jerusalem in order to prevent further Israeli retaliation against Hamas, despite the fact that Hamas' charter calls for the genocide of the Jews?
DeleteDo you honestly believe, Stuart, that historical reality only has meaning to the extent that it comports with your particular political preferences?
It no worky that way.
Face it, dude, you are standing up for a president of the United States that has supported the rise of political Islam.
This is not a matter of opinion, but of historical fact.
Sorry 'bout that.
Historical fact: Israel is a sovereign nation.
DeleteHistorical fact: US is a sovereign nation.
Both make their own decisions. Israel is not a 6 year old child. I'm not sure why you insist on treating it as such. Pretty disrespectful.
I do not decide things based on political persuasion and cannot find that Obama maliciously lied directly into our faces.
DeleteI cannot say, either, that Israel did not itself decide not to go into Gaza last year.
Obama does enough to show that he is behind the sympathies of most Americans when it comes to the conflict, and it's better, in my opinion, to stick with that. Seems the Israelis have their eyes open and will do what they must, and Obama will have no choice but to go along.
Obama Redraws Israel's Borders Past 67 Lines (Mar 20, 2013)
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK0EYtQGvaI
Official Whitehouse map of Whitehouse proposition of the land of Israel presents Israel as being less than the "'67 Lines" size of Israel -- and doesn't include Jerusalem, and, at the narrowest part, is only three miles wide.
Interview with William Langfan, Jewish American veteran of WWII:
A Soldier's Warning: Obama's Latter-Day "Munich" - Israel in the Crosshairs (Mar 13, 2013)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jz4vm__iWU
Obama compares Israel/"Palestinian" conflict to U.S./Canada relationship
Deletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FOc32N5GA
Hat tip to Jihad Watch: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/03/obama-compares-israelpalestinian-conflict-to-uscanada-relationship.html
----
Obama tells Israel: "Peace is the only path to true security"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57575588/obama-tells-israel-peace-is-the-only-path-to-true-security/
Hat tip to Jihad Watch:
Obama tells "Palestinians" to cut out the genocidal jihadist rhetoric and rocket attacks -- no, wait...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/03/obama-tells-palestinians-to-cut-out-the-genocidal-jihadist-rhetoric-and-rocket-attacks----no-wait.html
----
As if the Jewish people in Israel don't want peace, and as if the Jewish people in Israel have not given unprecedented unparalleled unsurpassed, and, in fact, suicidal, offerings to Arab ideologically and intendedly genocidal anti-Jewish racists (the ideologically and intendedly genocidal anti-Jewish organization Fatah-PLO, and Muslim Arab states in the Middle East) in the hope of having peace with those Arab intendedly genocidal anti-Jewish racists.
The 1964 PLO Charter: http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/pid/12363
The 1968 revised, and current, PLO Charter: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp
The Hamas Charter (The Hamas Covenant): http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
----
"Chamberlain tells Czechoslovakia: 'Peace is the only path to true security'"
Stuart,
DeleteObama made a statement.
That statement is either true or it is false.
The statement is this:
each country has to make its own decisions when it comes to the awesome decision to engage in any kind of military action.
The clear and obvious implication of this claim is that as president of the United States Barack Obama will respect Israel's decisions concerning its own self-protection and thus not interfere with those decisions.
I have pointed toward two cases where, on the contrary, the Obama administration did, in fact, interfere with Israeli measures of self-defense.
One case is "Pillar of Defense" in which the Obama administration stepped in to "broker a peace." This may have been a good thing or not, but whether it was good or not, it was a clear case of the American administration stepping in to prevent the Jewish State from any further activity in its own self-defense against the fascist regime in Gaza.
The other case, obviously, is the fact that the Obama administration has done pretty much what it can do (which is considerable) to prevent Israel from militarily taking out the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Neither of these claims are particularly contentious.
Therefore if Barack Obama claims that Israel has full rights to self-defense he is obviously lying since recent history shows that he has sought to hamper and impede Israeli efforts to self-defense.
I suppose what I do not understand, however, is why you cannot face the obvious?
You also claimed that Obama did not support the "Arab Spring" when he, himself, claimed otherwise.
I think that you are a good and decent and intelligent man, but I also think that you are ideologically blinkered because you refuse to acknowledge facts that are clear and obvious.
Obama: Israel makes its own decisions.
DeleteObama: Israel should do X.
There is no lie there. It's an absolutely ridiculous argument. Unless Obama is Israel's parent, and Israel is a six year old child. Neither of those is true. Hence, a ridiculous argument. But not the least bit unexpected.
Correction:
DeleteI wrote:
"Official Whitehouse map of Whitehouse proposition of the land of Israel"
which should be:
"Official White House map of Israel"
----
And:
"...In 1967, the Arab countries neighboring Israel, as they had done in the past, provoked a war whose goal was the extermination of the Israeli Jews. The Arab states lost, and they lost also some territory. The Pentagon – which is to say, the US military – carried out a study in the same year of 1967 in order to examine the situation of the Jewish state. The Pentagon study was not conducted in order to inform Israel. On the contrary, it was kept secret and was not released until the year 1984.
"This study concludes that:
'From a strictly military point of view Israel would require the retention of some captured Arab territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders.'
"Specifically: Israel cannot survive without the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. Israel needs to retain the greater part of the West Bank because,
'This border area [along the West Bank] has traditionally been lightly held by military forces and defenses consist[ing] mainly of small, widely separated outposts and patrols and, therefore, afforded an area where launching of saboteurs and terrorists into Israel was relatively easy...'
"On the Syrian border,
'Israel must hold the commanding terrain east of the boundary of 4 June 1967 which overlooks the Galilee area.'
"This is a reference to the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians had been shelling Israeli farmers in the Galilee.
"As the Pentagon study says:
'During the period January 1965 to February 1967, a total of 28 sabotage and terrorist acts occurred along this border.'
"Concerning Jerusalem, the Pentagon study states that:
'To defend the Jerusalem area would require that the boundary of Israel be positioned to the east of the city to provide for the organization of an adequate defensive position.'
"And about the Gaza strip, the Pentagon study states that,
'The Strip, under Egyptian control, provides a salient into Israel a little less than 30 miles long and from four to eight miles wide. It has served as a training area for the Palestine Liberation Army... Occupation of the Strip by Israel would reduce the hostile border by a factor of five and eliminate a source for raids and training of the Palestine Liberation Army.'
"This document was declassified in 1984, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs published it then: http://www.jinsa.org/articles/print.html?documentid=496
"It was also published by the Journal of Palestine Studies [http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pentagon.pdf] ...
(continued)
(from continued)
Delete"The Pentagon's conclusions are not difficult to understand
"First, find the West Bank Border. Notice that the West Bank is hills, whereas the most populated zone in Israel, Tel Aviv, is a lowland to its side. And Jerusalem is almost completely surrounded by the West Bank. The Israelis are trapped in a lowland between the hills and the sea. And their capital city is surrounded. The situation is better appreciated when you consider the distances, which are really quite small. From the West Bank hills to the sea, in the Tel-Aviv-Yafo area, the most densely populated in Israel, there are no more than 11 miles. Many people who take care of their health jog this distance every morning.
"Analysis:
"Given that the US government determined that Israel cannot survive without the West Bank and Gaza, and that the US government forced Israel to participate in Oslo, whose objective is to wrest the West Bank and Gaza away from Israel, and that this territory is being given to the PLO, an organization created by the top leader of the Nazi anti-Jewish extermination.
"Can it be possible that the US ruling elite, running the world's superpower, is trying to destroy the tiny Jewish state?
"It is possible.
"HIR has produced a book that documents US foreign policy toward the Jewish state from the 1930s until the present. It is practically impossible to find a year in which the foreign policy of the United States was not anti-Jewish [http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm].
"But...
"What about the economic aid that Israel receives from the United States? And does Israel receive so much? But, What about the weapons Israel gets from the United States?
"Let us suppose that a ‘friend’ offers you a million dollars, but on condition that you allow a hired assassin, whose job is to kill you, to live in your own house. Seem like a friendly offer? We have seen already that the financial aid Israel gets from the United States was on condition that Israel bring the PLO (the Nazis) inside. We need also to compare this to what the enemies of Israel get. There is no country in the world that gets more military hardware from the United States than Saudi Arabia, whose king explained to us the importance of destroying Israel. What Israel gets is very little if it is considered in context, against the financial aid that the enemies of Israel receive. For example, Egypt gets only slightly less than Israel from the United States, and all that money goes to buying weapons.
"Don't US officials say all the time that the United States supports Israel? And don’t they explain to everybody that supporting Israel is precisely what defines their foreign policy?
"Of course they do say it, and it is very easy to say. And the repetition of it convinces a lot of people. But think about it: What is the effect of this? If everybody is upset with US foreign policy, then, if they are told that it is all being done for the Jews, what is being promoted is ANTISEMITISM! ..."
-- From:
Will there soon be an anti-Jewish genocide in Israel? -- A slide presentation of crucial evidence, by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/catastrophe_en.pps
The Secret War Against the Jews, by John Loftus and Mark Aarons
Deletehttp://books.google.com/books/about/The_Secret_War_Against_the_Jews.html?id=8n_HVSpOWHcC
"The authors demonstrate that numerous Western countries, especially the United States and Great Britain, have conducted repeated and willful spying missions on Palestine* and later Israel over many decades. While on the surface these two countries and others profess to be ardent allies of Israel, they work, in fact, through their intelligence services to betray Israel's secrets to the Arabs. Their motive: oil and multinational profits, which must be attained at any price through international covert policies. To understand the duplicitous nature of the West's diplomatic relations with Israel, the authors contend that one must understand the history that begins after the end of World War I with the sordid Mideast exploits of a British diplomat, Jack Philby. They then proceed into a detailed discussion of the boardrooms of American and English bankers and lawyers who had strong connections with Nazi leaders and Arab oil tycoons in the 1930s prior to the outbreak of World War II. Particularly intriguing is the information that the writers present to suggest an all-too-cozy financial relationship that existed between the Allied intelligence community and German banks even during the war. One of the authors' chief contentions is that Israel was the unwitting victim of bungled Western spy operations such as Iran-Contra and BCCI, whose true dimensions have never previously been exposed. A consistent theme is that the White House and the British Secret Service have repeatedly run illegal programs, hidden from both the CIA and Congress, and then used the Jews as scapegoats."
America's Nazi Secret: An Insider's History, by John Loftus
http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Nazi-Secret-Insiders-History/dp/1936296047
"Fully revised and expanded, this stirring account reveals how the U.S. government permitted the illegal entry of Nazis into North America in the years following World War II. This extraordinary investigation exposes the secret section of the State Department that began, starting in 1948 and unbeknownst to Congress and the public until recently, to hire members of the puppet wartime government of Byelorussia—a region of the Soviet Union occupied by Nazi Germany. A former Justice Department investigator uncovered this stunning story in the files of several government agencies, and it is now available with a chapter previously banned from release by authorities and a foreword and afterword with recently declassified materials."
John Loftus is a former federal prosecutor with the U.S. Justice Department and had above Top Secret security clearance in the U.S. government.
Note: * "Palestine": The British Mandate of Palestine
It's the (pro-Nazi, anti-Jewish) State Department that's behind all of this. And then add Soviet-legacy-propaganda-indoctrinated pro-Islamic-supremacist anti-Israeli 'Leftists', such as Barack Obama (and his crew), and you have "the perfect storm" -- which is what we have now. And another component of all of this -- and which is the most crucial component of all of this -- is the obliviousness, and Stockholm Syndrome, of Israeli leaders and of Jewish people in general.
DeleteThat's just classic. You diagnosing people you've never met with mental defects.
DeleteStuart,
DeleteDid you read what I posted?
Stuart,
DeleteYou wrote:
"I did. The most crucial part. Your choice of words. Jewish people suffer from a mental defect."
No. My last comment, in which I stated my understanding that Israeli leaders, and Jewish people in general, are oblivious and are experiencing Stockholm Syndrome, and which is what you referred to, was some commentary by me and was a summary of my interpretation of the situation described by the facts that I listed in my previous comments. The facts that I posted in my previous comments are the crucial part of what I posted. I hope you'll read the facts that I posted in my previous comments.
Oh. You're the one that said the mental defects of the Jewish people was the most crucial part. I read the rest. In absence of context, it's not very compelling. "some guy wrote something" doesn't quite rise to the level of "facts" for me. I'm not sure how any of it is responsive to anything I said, nor anything in the original post.
DeleteStuart,
DeleteYou wrote:
"Oh. You're the one that said the mental defects of the Jewish people was the most crucial part."
No. I said that the obliviousness and Stockholm Syndrome of Israeli leaders and of Jewish people in general was the most crucial part of the situation -- the most crucial factor of why the situation is currently the way that it is. I did not say that my saying that the obliviousness and Stockholm Syndrome of Israeli leaders and of Jewish people in general was the most crucial part of what I wrote.
And I'm sorry for writing writing that may have hurt your feelings, and I'm sorry for writing writing that may have hurt other people's feelings. It wasn't my intention to hurt your feelings, and it wasn't my intention to hurt any other people's feelings.
But I'm frustrated and exacerbated by your refusal to acknowledge certain crucial essential facts, and by your refusal to acknowledge the meaning of certain crucial essential facts, and by many other Jewish people's refusal to acknowledge certain crucial essential facts, and by many other Jewish people's refusal to acknowledge the meaning of certain crucial essential facts.
Why have you refused to acknowledge the facts of the situation that are listed in the comments that I posted?
Why have you refused to acknowledge the meaning of the facts of the situation that are listed in the comments that I posted?
And, by the way, again, here are listings of actions done by Obama, and information about Obama's background:
1. http://israel-thrives.blogspot.com/2013/01/if-obama.html?showComment=1359123643559#c5652326613009285870
2. http://israel-thrives.blogspot.com/2013/01/if-obama.html?showComment=1359123664857#c1944180304038061930
3. http://israel-thrives.blogspot.com/2012/09/democrat-legislator-warns-american-jews.html?showComment=1347770746974#c7100543400021937598
(I apologize, again, for my harsh writing in this comment that I've listed. I hope that you'll forgive me for writing the harsh writing that I wrote in this comment that I've listed and I hope that you'll skip to, and read, the facts that I listed in this comment that I've listed.)
What do these facts mean to you?
Why are you so committed to defending Obama?
To oppose "the Conservatives"? To oppose "the Republicans"?
----
“But I am a Zionist!”, by Clemens Heni
"The art of the intellectual is to have his/her finger on the pulse of the times, in terms of both politics and social theory. Peter Viereck (1916-2006), almost forgotten today even in the USA, was such a splendid artist. In 1940, in light of Nazi Germany and World War II, he wrote in a brilliant article: 'But I am a conservative', which became a beacon for conservatives in America, so to speak. In doing so, he decidedly turned against his own father, Sylvester Viereck, an enthusiastic Nazi who was the first foreign journalist to interview Hitler in the early 1920s. Even more, it was a wake-up call in America, against the 'liberals' and 'leftists' who praised the Hitler-Stalin Pact as well as the USSR as a bulwark against war. ..."
http://clemensheni.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/but-i-am-a-zionist/
You're going to have to point to anywhere that I defended Obama from anything other than illogical and baseless accusations. He's not the president I would have designed. He's been far from perfect, on Israel and on almost every other issue. I'm not committed to defending him. Far from it. I am committed to defending logical arguments. There are none in the original post here, and if you've made any supported arguments at all here, I've missed them.
DeleteI interpreted that differently. I thought Obama was telegraphing "You're on your own, don't ask us to help". He appears to be distancing himself from all prior commitments and statements. For example
ReplyDeleteChemical Weapons were a red line in Syria and now they're red-ish, or pink or umber.
No actions are 'off the table' for Iran, except that now, they are and he's running out the clock on a sanctions regime that clearly hasn't been enforced.
"We will find and punish those responsible for Bengazi" - except of course for all the people who are freely walking around in public today.
Obama's foreign policy if one could say there is one, is "throw the keys over the shoulder and leave!" But to his credit, this is somewhat better than the failures he enacted by being engaged in Egypt, Libya and with the PLO. So it's hard to see how this makes it worse. It might be worse, I'm not sure, but it might be worse anyway. So in keeping with his strategic advance to the rear policy he is separating from Israel too. If truth were told, all prior agreements which implied defense of Israel were personal statements by US Presidents not US policy or treaties. Israel isn't part of NATO or any other shared security agreement.
I believe he'd codifying that now - Israel is on her own. The US will for now, provide the $815 million in military aid....
(Wait? What was that? - it's $3.075 billion. Yes but 73% of that HAS to be spent in the US on US companies with US workers. That's $2.26 billion, leaving $815 million as aid to spend, within reason however they wish.)
.... and the US is also sort-of deploying an Antimissile Radar in Israel with a complement of ~35 US military personnel but it's unclear how much of that operational intel they share with Israel
....but overall, the US is leaving the region and leaving Israel to whatever fate is in store. Obama would have loved to prod Israel into doing 'something about Syria and Lebanon but they wisely declined. And in so far as we pretend Iran isn't a nuclear power today, Obama is happy to use the Jews as a sabre rattling exercise knowing full well the Israelis can't stop Iran if they wanted to.
So he spoke, more or less the truth, if you unravel it. "Everyone's free to make their OWN choices..." And the US chooses to sit this one out.
Well, if you are correct, and you may very well be, it means that Obama lied when he said that US policies toward Israel have not changed.
DeleteBoth of these statements cannot be true. Either he is seeking to prevent Israel from attacking Iranian nukes or his policy has changed.
It can only be one or the other.
Nonetheless, if you are right and if Obama has changed his policies toward a more hands-off strategy, that would be very good.
I'd much rather see him do nothing than to make matters worse, which is what he has accomplished up until this point.
If this is the case, however, then what is the point of this trip?
Everybody seems to be scratching their head about just what it is the Obama hopes to accomplish.
Well you know my thoughts on this. All 2nd term Presidents try to 'fix' the Arab problem. They all do it. I think Obama made a trip partly to appease Liberal Democratic Jews in his party and partly to make the long shlep to Jerusalem like all the other Presidents. I mean it's become kind of grungy no? The breaks down, the curtains behind him and Abbas were crooked. Five rockets flew in from Gaza. Some muttering about Syria. It's definitely the end of something.
DeleteThis is an interesting conversation.
ReplyDeleteI think that I do want to emphasize that Obama has not done harm thus far on this trip.
Not yet. Not from what I can tell.
Doodad's quote above demonstrates his general viewpoint, but we know that already, don't we?
Barack Obama is no friend to Israel and tends to view it through lenses created by people like Edward Said and Noam Chomsky and Rashid Khalidi.
My hope and my suspicion is that above everything else Obama is a more a politician than an ideologue.
Trudy is suggesting that Obama may be signalling retreat.
I very much hope that she is right.
Mike,
DeleteI think that Obama is an ideologue *and* a politician. I think that Obama is an ideologue *and* a politician -- in the mold of Saul Alinsky.
----
Stanley Kurtz -- Radical-In-Chief
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IlGD2OABJE
"When I began my research for this book, my inclination was to downplay or dismiss evidence of explicit socialism in Obama’s background. I thought the socialism issue was an un-provable and unnecessary distraction from the broader question of Obama’s ultra liberal inclinations. I was wrong."
----
And please see my comment that I wrote to Jay (and my subsequent follow-up comments containing links to information).
I really don't even know where to start on this one Daniel. Do you know what the word ideologue means? Do you know anything about Saul Alinsky? He wasn't an ideologue. He was a community organizer and tactician. He had no association with Marxists or socialists or Democrats or Republicans. If anything, he was an anti-ideologue.
DeleteAnd you like the quote from Kurtz? Do you even know what socialism is? Maybe you can look up the definition and identify socialist policies that Obama has signed into law, or even promoted, that are a significant shift in US government policy from the previous 10 administrations.
Stuart,
DeleteYou wrote:
"He wasn't an ideologue. He was a community organizer and tactician."
A "community organizer"* and tactician for what?
"He had no association with Marxists or socialists or Democrats or Republicans. If anything, he was an anti-ideologue."
A "community organizer" and tactician for anti-ideology?
"Do you even know what socialism is?"
Yes. And, moreover, I know what are the views and actions of those to whom Kurtz referred to as being socialist.
And the word "socialism" is a multifold word -- a word that has various meanings according to various ideological "groups" of people. And the word "socialism" generally refers to the ideology Marxism and ideologies derivative of Marxism.
"Maybe you can look up the definition and identify socialist policies that Obama has signed into law, or even promoted, that are a significant shift in US government policy from the previous 10 administrations."
Obamacare (which, by the way, includes clauses and policies that have nothing to do with health care).
Bailing out and subsidizing the U.S. private financial institutions whose actions caused the collapse of the U.S. economy.
Buying out a large part of the U.S. automotive industry.
And these are just some few "obvious" examples.
And, Stuart, I'm not hanging on to the word "socialist". It just happens to be the term that was used by someone (Stanley Kurtz) an informative interview with whom to which I linked.
And this issue that I've referred to in the comment that your comment is a reply to is just a part of the whole situation.
I am not driven by an "ideology" -- other than that of wanting to protect the well-being of the U.S. and of Israel and of the whole world.
Why are you so adamant in refusing to look into what I have been trying to communicate?
Your response regarding Alinsky is just silly, not worthy of a response. If you want to put up some evidence he was an ideologue, go ahead.
DeleteObama's healthcare bill is just over 900 pages. I've read it, beginning to end. Show me the socialism.
TARP was a program which passed under Bush, so it fails the test of being substantially different than prior administrations.
Most of the US government's interest in the auto industry will be gone within 12 months. Was it a bail out? Absolutely. Was it socialism? Temporarily maybe? But if Obama was really a socialist, he'd keep it, along with nationalizing the rest of the US auto industry. And it was very similar to the Chrysler bail out 30 years earlier.
I'm not adamant about refusing to look into what you've been trying to communicate. It's just that every time I do, I find ridiculous shit like the "Obama changing the map of Israel", with photoshopped images used to prove the point. And crap like calling Pat Caddell a "democratic pollster and consultant", when I know damn well that Pat Caddell hasn't worked for Democrats in 20 years, and has worked against them during most of that time. And that's just in the last couple days. So when time after time, your posts aren't credible, I don't see any reason to follow them.
Stuart,
DeleteNevermind this issue (this issue of "socialism"), please -- at least for now.
Please see the comments that I wrote to Jay which outline the crucial part of the situation -- comments which contain links to crucial information about the crucial part of the situation.
And, by the way:
you wrote:
"with photoshopped images used to prove the point"
To my knowledge the image of that map that was shown which you're referring to was not photoshopped.
And that video that I listed that included that image was just a small part of what I have presented about the situation; and that map is a just a small part of the situation.
Stuart,
DeleteYou are thinking that others hold views which they don't hold, and, through that lens, you are viewing what those people say as being irrelevant and wrong and dishonest.
And, therein, you are wrongly accusing those people of doing what you are doing.
It's not my intention to "prove that I'm right".
It's my intention to make facts that I know known to others by trying to communicate facts that I know to people who don't know those facts -- because I want to make the situation better, because I want the situation to be better.
It's my hope that you will listen to what I am trying to communicate and that you will look into the information that I have presented.
Daniel, you brought up the socialism. If you want to drop the claim, fine.
DeleteThe photo was obviously photoshopped. The original is in the video. It is nothing like the image with the supposed Israel smaller than it was in 1967. In the original, there is a line around Israel. In the photoshopped version, there is no line around Israel.
Pick a fact that I'm not aware of and share it. Linking to 20 videos isn't compelling.
"Linking to 20 videos isn't compelling."
DeleteI have linked to crucial information.
Whether or not oneself chooses to learn that information is up to oneself.
Stuart,
DeleteYou wrote:
"The photo was obviously photoshopped. The original is in the video. It is nothing like the image with the supposed Israel smaller than it was in 1967. In the original, there is a line around Israel. In the photoshopped version, there is no line around Israel."
I'm not quite sure what you mean.
And the image, or, as what you have said is the case, images, that are in the video are in the video.
And all of the images -- the image, or images -- that are in the video and that are referred to in the video as being presented by the Obama administration clearly display Israel as being, at most, no larger than pre-1967-lines Israel, and to my eyes, as being smaller than pre-1967-lines Israel.
And, again: That map and that video is a just a small part of the situation.
It's my hope that you will listen to what I am trying to communicate and that you will look into the information that I have presented about the most crucial part of the situation.
I explained how it's obvious that image was altered. The original has a borderline around Israel. The altered image does not. Simple as that. Add the lines back, along with lands to the east of those '67 borders, and it appears to me exactly the same as the 1967 borders. If you have a problem with a map of Israel using the 1967 borders, we just have a difference of opinion. That map doesn't bother me.
DeleteThe photoshopped map IS a big part of the situation. It reflects poorly on your credibility.
Pick a fact. Not a link to a comment with 10 other links in it.
"The original has a borderline around Israel. The altered image does not."
DeleteIf I understand correctly what you are referring to, the borderline around Israel was added as part of the presentation to more clearly demonstrate the dimensions of the map.
"it appears to me exactly the same as the 1967 borders."
Well, then we have a difference of physical vision.
"If you have a problem with a map of Israel using the 1967 borders, we just have a difference of opinion."
I have a problem with the U.S. government presenting a map presenting Israel as being smaller than, or equal to, pre-1967-lines Israel. Just as I have a problem with the U.S. government supporting and enabling an ideologically and intendedly genocidal anti-Jewish organization and undermining Israel.
"The photoshopped map IS a big part of the situation. It reflects poorly on your credibility."
There was not deceit intended in the presentation of that map by the people in the video, and there were no essential alterations of that map done by the people in that video, and I have not intended deceit.
I have tried to present only what I have seen to be the case.
What you have written demonstrates your own views and your own actions and the qualities of your own mind.
There is a map at 40 seconds. There is another map at 1:02. They are not the same. The 2nd map has been altered. The first map includes what appears to be the entire Palestine Mandate with Israel outlined. 2nd only includes Israel. Pre '67, at it's The narrowest point, Israel was only 9 miles wide. In the first map, the "borderline" is larger than 9 miles wide. Removing the line makes it misleading. I have no doubt that it was done in order to intentionally deceive. There is no other explanation for altering the original. There is no point to the discussion without the altered map.
DeleteStuart,
DeleteWhat you are describing as being what you are seeing in the video does not correspond with what I am seeing in the video and does not correspond with what I understand to be the case.
And, Stuart, do you understand that the liberal democratic very small sole nation of the Jewish people is under racist global propagandic and diplomatic siege, and is being universally libeled and undermined, and has been under racist intendedly genocidal military and terroristic and diplomatic and propadandic seige by the Arab and Muslim world for over sixty years?
If you understand that, then why are you excusing and verbally defending those who are attacking Israel, and why are you verbally attacking those who are defending Israel?
I invite, and urge, everyone to look at the video.
And again: That map and that video is a just a small part of the situation.
Stuart,
DeleteJust to clarify,
I wrote:
"What you are describing as being what you are seeing in the video does not correspond with what I am seeing in the video and does not correspond with what I understand to be the case."
I don't see an alteration which you have described.
I don't see any essential alteration of the map in the video.
The map is the map. And the parts in the map are the parts in the map.
I love the fact that we have 23 comments here, and at least 24 total discernable opinions within them...
ReplyDelete;)
Also, that I find myself nodding in agreement with (at least parts of) most of these comments...
It's a chat.
DeleteI just hope that Stuart will stick around.
Until my head explodes. Again.
DeleteIt's not personal.
DeleteTrue fact!
DeleteThe internet is the number one cause of head explosions amongst all populations...
Though it is indispensable for foreign cuisine-related research, like by way of a for instance, so I don't go into our planned Olney* Korean food crawl, the first warm weekend here, totally ignorant about what I want to try.
DeleteSo, therein lies the rub**, I guess...
(*A North Philly neighborhood with roughly 4700 Korean restaurants, cafes and groceries)
(**Barbecue pun half-intended)
Stuart,
ReplyDeleteWhen Obama stated that Israel has full rights of self-defense the obvious implication was that the US would back Israel in military endeavors, if such endeavors are needed, or at least not interfere.
The fact that he has twice done the exact opposite in very recent history tells me that your attention is so determined by your ideological preconditioning that you are failing to apprehend the obvious.
I do not know why that is, but I do know that it is.
I suppose the real question, tho, is just what do we stand for?
I believe with all my heart that the Jewish people of the Middle East are persecuted minority who have taken up arms in their own self-defense.
I believe this because it happens to be the case. I also believe that they have morality and right on their side in doing so against an enemy that is both racist and implacable.
You seem to disagree, but it's difficult to tell because you almost never stand up for anything.
You say that you stand for "logical arguments."
That is high ideal. The highest, perhaps, but I see nothing logical in ignoring Jewish history in the Middle East when discussing this issue.
From an ideological standpoint I suspect that we both come out of the same place, which is the New Left. But there has to come a point wherein reality intrudes upon personal ideological tendencies.
I don't see that obvious implication that the right to self-defense is unquestioned support of every endeavor. Nor do I see expressions of US foreign police as interference.
DeleteWhen Obama (or any administration) sees the right path forward exactly the same as you, you call it support. When that path forward is different, you call it interference. They're the same thing. The US is a sovereign country. It should act in the best interest of the US, not necessarily consistent with your wishes, or those of the current Israeli administration. Those two most often align. But they don't have to. That doesn't bother me.
Israel is not a child. It can and does make its own choices. Sometimes those choices are consistent with US administration policies and desires (sitting quiet during Desert Storm, agreeing to the recent cease fire), sometimes it does not (continuation of the sanctioning of expansion in territories beyond the green line).
Our realities are different. Yours is crystal clear. Mine isn't. It is clouded by the realities of living in a world that extends beyond the middle east.
Stuart,
DeleteI don't see that obvious implication that the right to self-defense is unquestioned support of every endeavor.
Nor do I, but what Obama plainly suggested is that he supports the right of Jewish self-defense even as he consistently opposes it.
That's the lie.
When Obama (or any administration) sees the right path forward exactly the same as you, you call it support. When that path forward is different, you call it interference.
I disagree... as I am sure that you will be shocked to learn.
I don't expect Israel and the United States to have identical views on foreign policy.
I don't.
However, I do expect that the president of the United States would not support political Islam. The movement that is rising throughout the Middle East is not only genocidally hostile to the tiny Jewish minority, but also hostile to the United States, itself.
I am of a mind that Jewish people, just like people everywhere else, should not be afraid to stand up for their own interests.
Be real specific please. You keep repeating words and saying there's a lie. I don't see the lie hiding in there anywhere. Except for yours when you claim Obama consistently opposes Israeli self-defense. And that's what it is Michael. It you lying about what Obama has done and what he has not done.
DeleteYou are totally in denial.
DeleteStuart, you are strictly in denial.
DeleteObama made a claim.
This is the claim:
each country has to make its own decisions when it comes to the awesome decision to engage in any kind of military action.
I would submit that this claim has an implication. He did not say it for no reason. It was not as if he was merely noting that the sky is blue or that fish are wet.
He made the claim in order to convey the notion that Israel has autonomy and rights to self-defense.
That is what he said.
At the same time we know that he has sought to prevent Israel from exercising those rights in both Gaza and Iran.
Thus the man is lying.
It couldn't be more obvious or more clear.
Now it may be true that he has changed his policies, as Trudy thinks, but he has not said so explicitly.
In any case, the bottom line is that the Obama administration has favored political Islam and has sought to prevent Israel from defending itself in both Iran and Gaza.
It couldn't be more obvious to those that like to just make shit up because it fits their ideology. But for those of us in the real world, Obama hasn't ever tried to prevent Israel from exercising any rights to self defense.
DeleteThere are many in Israel, even within their own government, who agreed that the cessation of the 2012 conflict was the proper move. Including Benjamin Netanyahu. Is he also opposed to Israel exercising its right to self defense?
Stuart,
DeleteYou wrote:
"It couldn't be more obvious to those that like to just make shit up because it fits their ideology."
What ideology?
You are wrongly accusing others of what you are doing.
"...for those of us in the real world, Obama hasn't ever tried to prevent Israel from exercising any rights to self defense."
Again:
http://israel-thrives.blogspot.com/2013/01/if-obama.html?showComment=1359123643559#c5652326613009285870
and
http://israel-thrives.blogspot.com/2013/01/if-obama.html?showComment=1359123664857#c1944180304038061930
And these are just some few indicative examples of what have been the policies and agenda of the Obama administration toward Israel.
Go ahead, change topics. I don't care to watch and listen to your videos. If you want to address the point I made specifically, have at it.
DeleteObama: Israelis have true peace partner in Abbas.
DeleteAbbas: We have the same policies as Hamas.
Hamas: Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/03/obama-israelis-have-true-peace-partner-in-abbas-abbas-we-have-the-same-policies-as-hamas-hamas-destr.html
Video:
PA (Fatah-PLO) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas: EU Can Remove Hamas from Terror List, No Difference between Our Policies and Theirs, Russia Today TV, March15, 2013
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3774.htm
Stuart,
DeleteYou wrote:
"Go ahead, change topics."
What?
"I don't care to watch and listen to your videos."
That's the problem.
"If you want to address the point I made specifically, have at it."
The videos and articles to which links I have posted address what you have written.
No, they don't. They address what you have written. If you have an idea you want to share, then share it.
DeleteYes they do address what you have written.
DeleteSomeone who has seen them and listened to them and read them would know that.
Someone who hasn't seen them and hasn't listened to them and hasn't read them would not know that.
Pick one and tell me how it addresses anything I've said here.
DeleteStuart,
DeleteOne example is:
You wrote:
"...for those of us in the real world, Obama hasn't ever tried to prevent Israel from exercising any rights to self defense."
And, in response to your writing that, I listed the following links -- which are links to previous comments that I have written which contain a listing of links to articles -- news reports -- that address that which you wrote.
http://israel-thrives.blogspot.com/2013/01/if-obama.html?showComment=1359123643559#c5652326613009285870
and
http://israel-thrives.blogspot.com/2013/01/if-obama.html?showComment=1359123664857#c1944180304038061930
And in response to my listing those links in response to that which you wrote, you wrote: "Go ahead, change the subject."
----
And, Stuart,
You wrote:
"I don't care to watch and listen to your videos."
And you have previously implicitly expressed that you didn't read the majority part of, and what are the crucial parts of, what I have written in a set of comments that I have posted on this post.
----
Again, the link to the set of comments that I wrote to Jay on another post which outline the most crucial part of the situation -- comments which contain links to crucial information about the most crucial part of the situation:
http://israel-thrives.blogspot.com/2013/03/its-not-personal.html?showComment=1364065875142#c5442260482082477677
Forget it Daniel. It's hopeless. I'd like to discuss things with you. I have no desire to discuss things with links. I did read most of them. And they have little to do with anything I said.
DeleteStuart, it is remarkable that you think that the following articles that I linked to in response to your saying "...for those of us in the real world, Obama hasn't ever tried to prevent Israel from exercising any rights to self defense." have little to do with that which you said.
DeleteObama brushes off Israeli pressure over Iran
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hLh3-oJqZe13iA25BfhEtsXkXwUw?docId=CNG.2ac511479ca4adb8ca9427345126ef8d.f1
Barack Obama: "When it comes to our national security decisions -- any pressure that I feel is simply to do what's right for the American people. And I am going to block out -- any noise that's out there."
----
U.S. sees Israel as spy threat (Obama's CIA considers Israel its No. 1 counterintelligence threat in the agency's Near East Division)
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Front%20Page/2012-07-29-USIsraelSpying_ST_U.htm
----
Washington reportedly sends Tehran indirect message saying it will not back Israeli strike on nuclear facilities as long as Iran refrains from attacking American facilities in Persian Gulf (U.S. informs Iran that it will not back Israeli strike; Obama working to curb Israeli offensive against Iran)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4276276,00.html
----
Obama Advisor Visited Israel 'to Stop Iran Attack' (Obama's National Security Advisor went to Israel to convince Israelis not to strike Iran's nuclear facilities)
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/157873#.UANEQnCAGkh
----
Obama offered to reestablish full ties with Iran, Israeli paper reports
Israel was told about and opposed president’s diplomatic incentives package, initiated soon after he took office, and Iran rebuffed it, according to Maariv
http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-offered-to-reestablish-ties-with-iran-paper-reports/
----
Sources: US behind European protest measures (Obama pushed Europeans to recall Israeli ambassadors to protest Israel construction in Jerusalem -- *Jerusalem* -- the capital city of Israel)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4315225,00.html
----
Obama pushed Israel to accept Egyptian cease-fire agreement friendly to Hamas
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/21/obama-pushed-israel-to-accept-egyptian-ceasefire/
----
Official: Obama will make Bibi pay after elections
Israeli security officials say Pentagon's decision to reduce number of US troops it will send to joint drill with Israel not related to growing tensions with Israel; others claim Washington saying 'you will not drag us into Iran war'
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4275749,00.html
----
The Incredible Shrinking U.S.-Israel Security Cooperation (Obama decreasing U.S./Israel security cooperation)
http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/06/27/the-incredible-shrinking-u-s-israel-security-cooperation/
(continued)
(from continued)
DeleteObama picks Salam al-Marayati, Islamic supremacist defender of Hamas and Hizballah, to represent US at human rights conference
Criticism Mounts Over State Envoy Jewish leaders slam appointment of anti-Israel envoy to OSCE conference
http://freebeacon.com/criticism-mounts-over-state-envoy/
----
Obama in Indonesia: Much work needed on Muslim ties (Obama in Indonesia slams Israel, says more work is needed to improve ties with Islamic world)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11334555
----
Obama claims Israelis suspicious of him because his middle name is Hussein
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb7hHz3XDAY
----
Sarkozy, while not knowing mic is on, tells Obama that the Israeli Prime Minister is a "liar", Obama, while also not knowing mic is on, replies to Sarkozy and complains about having to "deal with [the Israeli Prime Minister] even more"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-mideast-netanyahu-sarkozy-idUSTRE7A720120111108
Sarkozy to Obama: "I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar."
Obama to Sarkozy: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you."
Again, the link to the set of comments that I wrote to Jay on another post which outline the most crucial part of the situation -- comments which contain links to crucial information about the most crucial part of the situation:
Deletehttp://israel-thrives.blogspot.com/2013/03/its-not-personal.html?showComment=1364065875142#c5442260482082477677
And, Stuart, I, in the comment that I linked to in which I listed a link to a video of parts of a talk by Pat Caddell, intended to write "A talk by former Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddell", but I, by mistake, instead, wrote "A talk by Pat Caddell, Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddel". I did that unintentionally. I did that by accident, by mistake.
DeleteI have not made that mistake in previous other comments that I have posted in which I have listed that video -- comments such as the following comments:
http://israel-thrives.blogspot.com/2012/10/mastercard-for-muslims-points-way-to.html?showComment=1350447463228#c7490048349875240013
http://israel-thrives.blogspot.com/2012/11/its-not-about-al-qaeda.html?showComment=1352143177375#c1565957978023136643
I think that this article is an accurate one:
ReplyDeleteWhy Conservatives Should be Critical of Obama’s Middle Eastern policy, but No Longer Attack him as an Enemy of Israel
http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/03/22/why-conservatives-should-be-critical-of-obamas-middle-eastern-policy-but-no-longer-attack-him-as-an-enemy-of-israel/
It seems to me that many in the pro-Israel community, including people like Radosh, are signalling a shift in views about Obama.
DeleteThis is because Obama has not done the damage that some of us, including me, expected that he might in his recent visit.
I have to say, tho, I am withholding judgement until I get a better sense of possible consequences, if any, of this visit.
I simply do not trust the man because he has very well earned our distrust.
Radosh writes:
Having set this up to woo Israelis, the president then moved on to tell them to keep working for the Palestinian state that would be in the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians, and which he argued the Palestinians deserved as a matter of justice.
As a matter of justice the Palestinian-Arabs deserve exactly nothing.
I mean, the people whose major contribution to world culture is the suicide bomber deserve exactly nothing.
Nonetheless, if they honestly want a state for themselves in peace next to Israel that would be the way to end the conflict.
Unfortunately, there is nothing to suggest that this is what they want.
What they want, for the most part, is our friend Ziontruth hanging from his ankles.
But that is precisely what they cannot have.
Remember, btw, that only one-third of Palestinian-Arabs polled think that the beheading of the Fogel baby girl was a good thing.
DeleteOnly one third.
I have to say, if I thought for one second that one-third of Jewish people thought that the beheading of an Arab baby girl was a good thing... a proper thing... I wouldn't stop throwing up.
These are different issues. Obama may increasingly discover, despite his predisposition, the Palestinians are not his friends and will screw him as just another enemy.
DeleteThat is not to say he hasn't really screwed up in his policies overall, trying to befriend those that will not be friends.
"This is because Obama has not done the damage that some of us, including me, expected that he might in his recent visit"
DeleteYou are right. Expectations are low. He attacked "settlement activity" (reported in Australia as "expansion of settlements") as a barrier to peace without a word about Abbas demands on the "right of return" or rejection of offers such as Olmert's. He talked about Hamas as if it was a sideshow and not a central actor and not a single word about the genocidal antisemitism. His preachy patronising speech to the students in Jerusalem was full of straw men.
This would have been regarded as hostile not long ago.
I think that the mindset of Obama and people like British FM Hague and much of the rest of the West is that the antisemitism is Israel's fault. That's why they disregard it. They do that because it is easy. Stop oppressing the "Palestinians" and the antisemitism will go away. Israel has brought it on herself and the Jews.
Sure she has. Just as the Nazis were the Jews' fault, the KKK was the result of Afro-American behaviour and rape is the fault of women.
They need to be consistent here. The Islamists are.
For all the good that speech and the trip did him in the Arab world.
DeleteLook at this
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4360042,00.html
This bending over backwards to find a legitimate grievance from the ugly bunch of Islamophobes who rule the "Palestinians" and pretty much all the rest of the Muslim world is counter productive. The Arabs take that as the bottom line and move aggressively on from there.
The bits about "give up greater Israel" and "please see it through their eyes" and let them have a state. Look how bad it is for them and it's within your power to stop it because its your fault.
That has a different sound to it to the ear of Political Islam ideology than it does in the West. To them it just confirmation of their bitter grievances and more reason why to carry on the struggle to rid the land of the abomination.