Amos Yadlin + why bombing Damascus is important to Israel.

So y9ou deny waving around the goldstone report on more than one occasion? Of course not
Do you deny that you dimissed the goldstone report in this thread? You dismissed the report that was referred to in the post you were replying to, or does rabid anti-zionism simply knee jerk answers that cannot later be recalled?

Apparently you think that cherry picking and being disengenuous is funny. Me, not so much.

Yes, putting a parliamentary special interest group on par with all the others. As for influence, why am I not surprised that you continuously ascribe supernatural powers of mind control to jews - its almost like you want to blame them for all the bad things in both the world's and your existence.

Actually I merely pointed out how your fixation with jews and Israel and your constantly applying a hugely variable double standard to their behaviour, actions, politics and heritage is the very definition of bigotry.

Either way, it is always revealing when a person attempt to use humour to deflect the most obvious and mundane of critcisms of their attitudes and positions.

Chuckles would be mortified.

 

Blah, blah, yammer, yammer..

These are the facts of the matter.


1) It is is a fact that you (more than once), claimed that I was 'waving the Goldstone Report' around on a thread. When challenged to find ONE post in which I even mentioned it, let alone 'waved it around', we got crickets. Not so long after, your claims of my ''waving the Goldstone Report' became... 'something you recalled about a year ago'.

2) You gave myself and everyone here a good old hoot when I told you outright about the Jewish lobby and subversion of British politics. Off you ran to Google and cut and pasted a long list of lobby groups that you were putting on a par with Jewish influence. On this list were belters like the 'video game lobby'.


3) But you saved the best until last.

At the very height of the organised Jewish war mongering for the US to strike Syria, when called out on this, your suggestion is that any time we hold Jewry and Israel to account, we should always add some sort of caveat that covers the Westboro Baptist Chuch.


Now you want to do a big hokey cokey and turn around....

Lol.



Anyway..

Do you have anything to say on the matter of Amos Yadlin + why bombing Damascus is important to Israel.?

 

Could it be you were waiving it in the air while sitting at your computer composing posts, and he was watching you on skype?

 

It must be.

 

Why am I not surprised that you refuse to recognize the contradictions of your position. You can yammer all you want, but it won't change the facts that you have waved the goldstone report around when it was au currant on numerous threads. For a while there it was one of your favourite thread hijacks. Either you have a lousy memory or you are merely playing to your BLTs.

Oooh. I guess goys are simply too simply minded to defend themselves agains the evil jews nefarious mind control techniques.
Its a seriously warped world view to think that a couple dozen jewiosh parliamentarians can control the UK government simply by forming a special interest club. The same kind of club that gets together for a spot of tea and a few rounds of retro donkey kong.

Like I pointed out before, it seems a lot simply goes far above your head. this self created myopic and narrow perspective is the very definition of bigotry. that is the best for last. Its easy when one can use your very own words to demonstrate the character of your posts.

Its hokey pokey then you turn it all around.

I have stated it. He's right. Israel does have an important self interest in what is happening in Syria. Israel want's to ensure that any actual use of chemical weapons is not allowed to go unpunished - regardless of who uses them.

If you think for a moment that should it turn out to be a victorious Free Syrian Army that used them, that Israel would somehow think that's okay, you are living in .....oh never mind.

Funny how bigotry can obfuscate the perfectly obvious and reasonable.

 

Do you believe Israel in a position to take a moral high ground?

 

It's not a moral high ground. It's common sense. I've said before, Damascus is about 130 miles from Tel Aviv, and it's only 25-50 miles or so from other areas of Israel. Anyone could imagine CW's being used that close to their home town and immediately realize that your repeated statements of Israeli muddling or implications that they have no interest in the event are outrageous claims. That distance is like a 30min to 1 hour drive away, you can't tell me I wouldn't have an interest in the event if it happened near my home. The real question is why are you trying to imply that this CW attack should be of no concern to Israelis?

 

Assad had those chemical weapons for years, and Israel knew that Assad wouldn't use them. When the war started Israel's only concern was not to have them fall into the wrong hands. Russia to ease Israel's concern, assured the U.S. that it was watching over them.

When Turkey started interfering in Syria and began training and helping the rebels, Assad decided to retaliate and gave the Kurds the part of Syria bordering Turkey. Since many Turks living near the border are also Kurds, this became a threat to the integrity of Turkey. In order to fight this threat, they had Chechnyian and Dagestani terrorists enter Syria through Turkey to fight the Kurds.. It is these terrorists, together with Turkish mercenaries who are committing atrocities against the Christians.

The rebels in Syria were winning the war, so in desperation Assad accepted help from Hezbollah. This is when Israel became concerned since it was now caught between the devil and the deep blue sea...as the saying goes. Israel doesn't want either Assad to win or the Al Nusra terrorists and would like to see them killing one another off. Kerry said he wanted to bomb Assad's troops to even out the playing field. That's fine, but what about the Christians, Alawites and other minorities whose only protection and means of survival is Assad?

As for punishing Assad, for what? Up until now it hasn't been proven that he used the chemical weapons. Besides who gave Obama and his ilk the right to bomb and judge others? .

 

What proof would be acceptable to you that he or the rebels used them?

 

The proof will be the decision of the U.N. after it has heard the testimonies from reliable sources and after it has read and studied all the facts. All we know now is what our media is telling us with a forceful 'certainty' which would make Goebbels proud.

 

That is not proof. That is somebody telling you something.

What proof would be acceptable to you? The UN does not like to take sides and so will do everything in it's power not to place blame which could jeopardize negotiations so it is very unlikely that they will bother to investigate further than confirming CW was used.

 

What about Israel's WMD?

It's 'common sense' for them to be a great concern for the rest of the World, including the US if they had control of their own Gov again.

Somehow I feel you are going to make an *exception*

 

I don't like the fact that anyone has WMD's pal. And I don't like Israel's. But that's not under discussion here, it's the fact that WMD's are being used in Syria that is under discussion. And that WMD use in Syria has nothing to do with Israel's WMD's. I can see how Israel's WMD's may have led to Syria acquiring the weapons in self defense, but not using them in this civil war. I think you would be surprised at my WMD stance, even in the US. If I were pres, I'd unilaterally destroy all but a handful of US nukes right off the bat to make a statement to the world.

 

Nor me.

But you don't seem to understand.

I am concerned about what they DO have.

And they want US to be concerned about what other nations do NOT have. Like Iran. Like Iraq. Therefore, they warmonger based on total lies and stunning hypocrisy.

Thus it is time the entire world asked them to concede with WMD's.

- - - Updated - - -

Ironically I agree. I cannot see the Syrian Gov using them in this 'civil war' either.

On the contrary, using them is the LAST logical thing they would have done.

 

WMD's are useless to all modern govts. They can be used by insane dictators or terrorists. They can only be used when one doesn't care about the world's response to that use. This leads to WMD's being a weapon that intact rational govts can never use, but chaotic irrational individuals CAN use without repercussions. WMD's are already obsolete for state use, their use cannot serve any state interest or objective.

So I am for non-proliferation at any cost, including war. Now what to do when a country already possesses WMD's is trickier. We can't just invade them all and take them. But something must be done for sure. But doing nothing while a country that possesses WMD's is in anarchy, war, or other collapse of security is akin to standing by while proliferation of WMD's occurs imo. Especially when the WMD's are being used! It doesn't really matter to me who used them. It still reflects that the situation is dangerous to all the world, and needs to be addressed.

 

Here is my position.

Nuclear weapons are a crime against scientific genius.

They are an abomination of science, and the manifestation of sick minds. To manufacture, stockpile, and hold them is a crime against nature and humanity, no matter who it is. No matter what reasons they may give to BS you about keeping them(while lecturing that others must NOT) have them.

My position cannot be more clear. If I were head of a united Europe, I would abolish all nukes on the grounds of them being an abomination. However, before doing this, long before doing this, I would call Israel to account, not only for the nukes it has and will NOT declare, but also for the condition of their plant at Dimora, and also for any other chemical and bio weapons that they have(which are going to be many).

I would wish to map out precisely what they have, and who they have them pointed at. I ask you to familiarise yourself with Van Creveld(sp?).

If their position was a potentially dangerous and hostile one to us here, which I believe it to be, then I would take things to an appropriate, logical, common sense(sic) level of self preservation.

 

Uh...as of today Syria has committed to getting rid of ALL it's WMD's and denies ever using them in the first place. Neither they nor the rebels nor anybody else (I'm expecting one or another of you to suggest that the Bilderbergers fired the rockets from one of their Mercedes, acting on orders from the Illuminati, obeying their Freemason masters after the last Lizard People meeting) has used Chemicals since the last attack, and Syria's main and only ally, Russia, supports this move by Syria to the point that they want credit for the idea.

I'm really expecting Obama to put on a flight suit and have himself carried by fighter jet out to an Aircraft Carrier with a big "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" sign hanging on it any day now. That's if the government isn't shut down by then.

 

Typo. I meants "waving" not "waiving." Too much time spent lawyering.

 

That is a lie across the board.

i hate the oppression for the zionist' intent of the mount (tel megiddo). Real 'jews' know better.

what 'people'? Each are equal.

Then quit dividing the people. "jew" is not a race.

It never has been! Only idiots believe that a religious belief is what makes a race. The BIGOT, divides people based on beliefs.

It is like a little 'Nazi Hitler' to divide people based on a religious designation.

 

The thread is on 'why bombing ' a sovereign country is good for the swine called 'israel'?

No israel, and 1 less reason to murder people in syria. That's would be good, right?

or which face to wear?

 

What a ridiculous question. It has to do with very pragmatic and very real Israeli national security threats.

It has nothing to do with "moral high ground".

Attempting to establish false moral equivalency as an argument or criticism in this case is naive and rather lame. Especialy when at least three of five bordering neighbours of Israel are experiencing substantive political turmoil including a full blown civil war in their worst regional enemy.

But as to your stupid question.
Yes, in this instance Israel can take the "moral high ground" (regardless of altitude) since they have not used any of their (suspected)chemical weapons against their enemies. The specious comparison between sarin and wp nothwithstanding.

 

Actually, its about why the raging civil war and the potential bombing of Syrian installations as punishment for use of sarin nerve gas directly benefits Syria's sworn enemy Israel.

Seems there are some military strategists around here that learned their military strategies from playing with GI Joe dolls and watching old WW2 movies.

Seems there are some analysts around here that learned their geopolitical analysis skills in their elementary school yard.

And then there are some intransigently ignorant bigots around here who learned that hatred doesn't hurt nearly as much as love.

No Islam and one less reason to murder people all over the world. That would be good, right?

I would venture to speculate that it is a tough decision for you every morning.

 

I see.

Well, based on that measure, then ALL OF THE WORLD should now apply their attention and focus to Israel's WMD.

Why?

Pragmatism.

Common sense.

And the security of all other nations.

How about that?

Or do you now wish to *create* an exception.

 

what civil war?

Punish who?

Who swore israel is an enemy?

"Hate doesnt hurt as much as Love" that could be a song. Perhaps a theme for an album?

Only truth will wipe the stupids off the map. No matter the flavor.

But force cant remove what islame or what is real, just make it inhabitable.

truth is easier, even if politically incorrect


.

 

As a matter of fact, I do believe that with Syria signing (and ratifying) the chemical weapons treaty, then it is incumbent on Israel to do the same, since their rationale for not signing it was that their bitter enemy didn't.

As for their Nukes, I do not recall any nation once having created their own nuclear weapons that have given them up either voluntarily or forcefully.

If you would were to say that the world should focus on N.Korea, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, France, Britain and the US as well as Israel, then I'd be all for universal nuclear disarmament. OTOH, I do not believe such an effort would yield any meaningful result other than perhaps having intelligence agencies create even more extensive "watch lists".

From a geo-political standpoint I'd have to say that Pakistan, India and North Korea are far more of a global nuclear threat than Israel.