One of the things that we teach law students is how to address a jury in understandable terms without talking down to them. It is sometimes a delicate balance in dealing with complex questions or fact patterns. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu showed how not to strike that balance when he took the entire United Nation’s General Assembly through a “this is a bomb, this is a fuse” demonstration that instantly became a mockery around the world. That was a real missed opportunity when following Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who never fails to offer a clownish, absurd performance. It is one of those debates that you win by showing up and just stating your case . . . until you pull out cutout from the Rocky & Bullwinkle Show.
What is odd is that Netanyahu has a strong case about the danger of Iran having a bomb but proceeded in dumbing down the presentation to the point of insulting everyone above the level of a pre-schooler. Did anyone actually watch this presentation in advance? Presumably so given the fact that it was prepared for the event. That leads me to think that people around Netanyahu are either so clueless or enabling that no one bothered to tell Netanyahu that it looked ridiculous. In fairness, one of the aides may have said “Prime Minister, this is a bomb” and Netanyahu might have thought he was suggesting an actual line for the presentation.
The funny thing is that he had me at hello in describing the danger of a sponsor of terrorism with the bomb (though I am against a war as the way of addressing proliferation concerns with Iran). Then he pulled out the cartoonish diagram of a bomb and I actually thought he was making some type of joke. He then continued to explain the bomb with Romper Room delivery to the General Assembly. The only thing that he didn’t do was say “this is Billy the Bomb.”
In my view, it is a great example of losing an audience with you delivery. What do you think?
In the end, I do not know why he didn’t show the actual footage of Ahmadinejad heading out to get the bomb:
I laughed when I saw that last night. He should have labelled it Acme Bomb and had Wiley Coyote dropping it on the Roadrunner.
Kind of Beach Boyish in reverse
that was funny, he is mocking the UN. He has nothing but contempt for the UN and well he should.
From Juan Cole:
It’s Psychological Warfare, Stupid: Why Netanyahu Really wants to Destroy Iran
Israeli squatters, backed by Netanyahu, are attempting to make a Palestinian state impossible. Netanyahu’s plan is to keep the Palestinians (some 12 million strong, 4 million of them in the Occupied Territories) stateless and without citizenship rights forever.
A nuclear bomb with a gunpowder fuse? The impractical physics aside, that had better be a very, very long fuse.
What I found most irritating was the inconsistency of his metaphors.
A round “anarchist’s bomb” with a burning fuse as a metaphor regarding the acquisition of nuclear weapons is confusing to begin with. But if he had stayed in that metaphor and had drawn (maybe not literally with a red pen on the cardboard *rolleyes*) red lines _on_the_fuse_ it wouldn’t have been that bad.
A burning fuse is a relatively common metaphor for a “we have to do something (= disable the fuse) in a given time (= before the flames reach the bomb), or something terrible (= the bomb exploding) will happen.”
But immediately after — explicitly — referring to the fuse, he switched metaphors to “filling this bomb with explosives to several levels.” Which (at least for me) completely broke the metaphor.
And in addition to that the message of “we can not afford inaction” was weakened, because a bomb doesn’t automatically go off after it has been completely filled.
“Jon Stewart has a Wile E. fix for Netanyahu’s United Nations bomb”
http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/28/14137547-jon-stewart-has-a-wile-e-fix-for-netanyahus-united-nations-bomb?lite
Bibi Netanyahu & Batman 66 – This is a bomb
Very amateurish, almost to the point of undermining the seriousness of the issue. But perhaps Bibi has become so frustrated with the apparent lack of appreciation of the threat that a nuclear armed Iran, also with the potential then to export the capability to a non-state actor whose actions are far less predictable/manageable, presents to the world.
The frustration may be warranted given the fact that there are intelligent and highly educated people who think that this issue can be solved with anything less than force (although we have yet to try a friendly sit-down with a charismatic criminal defense attorney).
Whew, lucky Professor said “Billy Bomb” rather than “Mohammed Bomb” or we would have lost another ambassador! Guys, please, BE CAREFUL!
It’s an entitlement thing. Israel is entitled to many nuclear bombs but Iran isn’t entitled to one.
bettykath, I hope you’re not serious but sadly, you probably are.
You base this blog on the picture of a bomb. When the critical point of the speech was what happens when Iran has the bomb and one of the religious nuts decide it’s time for armageddon and causes ww3.
Berliner,
You are so right. The bomb does not go off until Netanyahu lights the fuse. And he is standing there with the match to ignite ca 100 nukes of Israeli (?) making. Made in Israel. Ever seen that on your groceries.
Thought the Bullmoose was so dated: two villains, a little fat man with a mustache and a long skinny woman. Does that say anything. Sorry, OT again.
So why is Israel so excited (and Bibi of course)??
Two things.
—-Israel can have as many bombs as it wants but only two good ones would wipe them out.
—-Israel needs something to take the heat off of their realizing their zealous claims to territory 2000 years after vacating the site.
I say a one-state solution and let the best woman-beater child-producer win.
“Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a thermonuclear war out of my hat . . . ”
It is obvious punchline for setup u-sink moose and squi-Rrel.
Nal,
Thanks for the link … it cut through a great deal of the muck.
Gene,
I highly recommend it if you haven’t already looked at it.
Blouise,
I read it and it is a well thought out, reasoned and presented piece consistent with what I’ve read about all involved. However, there is only one problem with it. It discounts a very real third threat present with any monied ME state today: not the nukes they can build but the nukes they can buy compounded by the law of unintended consequences (especially of talking excessive amounts of smack like Bibi is doing). The irritation from agitation may be and often is tangential.
P.S. Interesting blog find there David. I bookmarked it for future perusal.
NAL
Also a: thank you from me for the link; it’s good to read that there are still some concerned and informed people ready to speak up for the truth and facts.
Iran has not started a war in 100′s of years, but must not be allowed to protect its citizens against Israel’s large nuclear arsenal, history of having already bombed Iran and threats to do so again.
Neither Imperial Washington nor the Kingdom of false flag operations should be allowed to do what they would deny other countries to do — develop a military defense to protect its citizens.
Some of the NPR crowd here should be ashamed of their hypocrisy.
Another piece for history…. Too bad not all of the stupid folks don’t just live in one country anymore…… They too are global….
Iranian news agency duped by Onion story on Obama poll
By Ron Recinto | The Sideshow – 2 hrs 46 mins ago
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/iranian-news-agency-duped-onion-story-obama-poll-180154413.html
(The closest that I could get to Iran without searching for it.)
“Netanyahu’s plan is to keep the Palestinians (some 12 million strong, 4 million of them in the Occupied Territories) stateless and without citizenship rights forever.”
Nal’s link to Juan Cole produced that sentence above. I think that pretty much represents what Likud and Bibi have been trying to do for years. It also is a policy that to me is ridiculous and dangerous to Israel, but the mixture of Likudnik arrogance and stupidity, cross-pollinated by the fanaticism of the Ultra-Orthodox should be a given by now. Just as Bibi’s UN presentation was farcical, so is his policies. The simple fact is that this policy can only work against Israel and the real need is to have the Palestinians in their own state. I’ll be glad to debate Israel’s right to exist, or a “one state” solution with anyone, but at the same time I know that Israel cannot continue to exist with 12 million Palestinians under its aegis.
MikeS,
Just what I implied when I facetiously suggested a one state solution where the ones with the most kids wins. And of course, already they would have a majority. So OK, let Israel have their gated community. But let’s get this fixed without bringing out the nukes.
And if we are worrying about somebody buying them, then let’s remember that Ukraine left the USSR with lots of loose ones and poor Generals rolling around.
And Israel is worried about Iran? Ha!
People who scarify and flagellate themselves yearly to celebrate the death of Mohammed’s nephew are not my cup of tea. But we did screw them for the oil and depossed Mossadegh, which is not Israel’s fault. Just that devil OIL.
I resent the defamation of Rocky and Bullwinkle through any comparison with the Apartheid Zionist Entity and its execrable Prime Moron — a true nut and Yahoo if the world has ever produced one. Instead, I submit that “The Bibi who cried ‘Wolfowitz!’” metaphor best summarizes the current state of worldwide chutzpah fatigue brought about by the American government and its pet pariah parasite themselves.
Oh for the bygone days of President George Herbert Walker Bush whose Secretary of State, James Baker III once said of the Apartheid Zionist Entity and its rabid American lobby, AIPAC: “F*** ‘em. They didn’t vote for us.” My sentiments exactly.
The Netanyaho nut is going to the UN?
The U.S. must’ve let him down hard.
I watched the presentation. The red line was a good idea and done well. Americans have no history, no memory if they were functioning in 1979, of how specious these eyeatolla flockers are. When these Iranians get a nuclear bomb and turn one over to their “students” you will all rue the day when you snubbed the chance to stop these pukers. It may not be Israel where the bomb is set off. Most likely some place like Jersey.
Nox Ninox
1, September 28, 2012 at 11:57 am
A nuclear bomb with a gunpowder fuse? The impractical physics aside, that had better be a very, very long fuse.
======================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idiot%27s_Loop#Over-the-shoulder
aka “the idiots loop”
==========================================================
bruce@2:18pm
are you referring to one of the religious nuts in the US or israel?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu showed how not to strike that balance when he took the entire United Nation’s General Assembly through a “this is a bomb, this is a fuse” demonstration that instantly became a mockery around the world. That was a real missed opportunity when following Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who never fails to offer a clownish, absurd performance. It is one of those debates that you win by showing up and just stating your case . . . until you pull out cutout from the Rocky & Bullwinkle Show.
What is odd is that Netanyahu has a strong case about the danger of Iran having a bomb but proceeded in dumbing down the presentation to the point of insulting everyone above the level of a pre-schooler. Did anyone actually watch this presentation in advance? Presumably so given the fact that it was prepared for the event. That leads me to think that people around Netanyahu are either so clueless or enabling that no one bothered to tell Netanyahu that it looked ridiculous. In fairness, one of the aides may have said “Prime Minister, this is a bomb” and Netanyahu might have thought he was suggesting an actual line for the presentation.
=================================================
Iran doesn’t have a bomb. Saddam was bluffing, and so is Iran.
This cartoon has been gone for a while. But maybe it hasn’t.
https://www.google.com/search?q=rocky+%26+bullwinkle+boris+%26+natasha&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Pk&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=BntmUIjmLcT50gHFy4HgBw&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=665
While not a proponent of his, I think he made a very good case. I had to leave the presentation before he brought out his audio-visusal aids. But to the point where I had to move my attention, he was making a lot of sense.
Nick, I think bettykath IS serious and I agree with her. Israel has a bomb, so just who is protecting Iran? Sauce for the goose…
Michael Murry,
Welcome back. I got a bookmark place with your name on it and it asked about you yesterday. Now it will be happy.
itchin…..
Well, New Jersey is equally appropriate. One sinner is as good as another when looking for someone to stone.
“… until you pull out cutout from the Rocky & Bullwinkle Show…”
Specifically, the Wayback Machine.
It looks like Netman went wayback a lotta years to pull that bomb out of the hat:
(Play Pretend Missile Offense Rejected, quoting Christian Science Monitor). This ruse is boring on steroids.
Dredd,
Pretty much every year CIA et al use this question (does Iran have or not…?) as an excuse to grab a little attention. And their answer alway recently been: “In five years”.
I won’t go OT on how this seems to make State Dept a twin to the cancerous (n growth AND effect) bureauratic mess at CIA.
Repeated stupid messages are still stupid, but do fool new people. It is perhaps the youth segment that they are trying to cover.
idealist707 1, September 29, 2012 at 6:02 am
Dredd,
Pretty much every year CIA et al use this question (does Iran have or not…?) as an excuse to grab a little attention. And their answer alway recently been: “In five years”.
I won’t go OT on how this seems to make State Dept a twin to the cancerous (n growth AND effect) bureauratic mess at CIA.
Repeated stupid messages are still stupid, but do fool new people. It is perhaps the youth segment that they are trying to cover.
==============================================
Yeah.
Mike S writes about “dicks” in his piece today, which fits this Iran propaganda quite well too.
Bomb, bomb, Iran….
I see the Down’s segment has arrived. They love music. And often understand (but not always) the consequences of what they sing.
I believe it was 1993 when this same Bibi assured us Iran was only 2 or 3 years away from having a nuclear bomb. Does “The Boy Who Cried ‘WOLF’” translate into Hebrew?
He probably was justified to speaking as if to 6 year olds though. The talk was not aimed at the UN member states, most of whom are well aware of the Likkud’s plan for the destruction of Israel though stupidity. This talk was aimed at the US and its TV news viewers, most of whom seem to need to be spoken to as 6 year olds, particularly on the activities going on in the Middle East. It worked for the previous President here.
I’m promoting Rachel Maddow for those up to it.
Fasten your seatbelts first. Sorry no subtext or translations.
I think it is a effective contrast to Bibi. Funny, women are like that. Remember Israel’s woman prime minister?
You can skip my sales pitch if you like. But try the program. Hope you have the pause button handy, that and the replay might be handy.
http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/27/14129778-romney-still-silent-on-afghanistan-as-military-report-gives-the-surge-an-f?lite
Somebody badmouthed Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. Said something about not being able to even listen through a whole show.
Well, we’re talking about stupid “women” who text while they are walking near cliffs, So why not introduce one who has respect for her listeners and offers a full hour (?) of rapid-fire factual analysis of the political scene.
The one linked above covers the facts that Mitt won’t touch the war in Afghanistan. He acknoweledges that there are veterans who need help, but won’t say how he is going to fix the problem. And worse of all on the consequences of war, he does not mention that his Repulbican collegues (you know the party he is leading) are blocking a routine yearly bill to increase compensation to widows and children of slain soldiers (cost of living increases). He won’t take the war in his mouth.
We don’t know what the Repubs and Mitt want to do. The convention gave no clue she ssys.
And she is not just pro-Obama, she takes up what the results of the annual stats by our military in Afghanistan per “Enemy initiated attacks” and “IED explosións”. Well, she showed quite thoroughly, with easily understood graphics, that the surge gave results alright. It has given NEGATIVE results. The surge was a riptide effect for us. There are roghtly 30% more events than in the period before the surge began. And we now have 68,000 facing death and maiming every day. What are you gonna do, Mitt? Anybody know?
She cited the longest serving Republican, Mr “Stand Pat” from Florida. What does he ssy?
Take them home immediately, is his answer. No more.
It is not worth risking young men’s lives for.
(My paraphrase)
So you see their are intelligent programs written for adults and delivered by women who can think and TALK even. Of course, she might wander over a cliff if she ever got a chance to put a question to Mitt Romney
“It may not be Israel where the bomb is set off. Most likely some place like Jersey.”
You betcha! Definately not Israel. Just ask the survivors of the USS Liberty. Our so-called allies in Tel Aviv are masters of the false flag op. Even our own intelligence agencies consider them “rogue”. Too bad some eager beaver from a worthless “think tank” spilled the beans recently when calling for (another) false flag to give the neocons their latest phony war. Thankfully, it didn’t make the network news.
At least pretend to do some investigating, S-for-brains media peeps. Y’all were a bit too quick on the draw last time blaming that evil, cave-dwelling, Muslim Mastermind. Sorry, not convincing. Once more . . . with f-e-e-l-i-n-g.
Next time, Anchor Dude, take five, grab a smoke, casually walk back into the studio, clip on your mike, sit down, stare into the camera with your carefully rehearsed, grief-stricken countenance, and read your script: “Them dirty Mooslum terr’ists done it! They hate us for our freedom!”
I watched the video of Netanyahoo on tv and observed many of the delegates there listening. They did not look real bright. I dont see anything wrong with laying out the bright red line with the drawing and the red ink. When the ayatollah gets his nuclear bomb he will lend it off to his Hamas guys or Hezbollah or students. Then you folks who ridicule the Israelis for being red line clear on this issue will wonder why you were so lame. When the bomb goes off in Newark how are you gonna hold anyone accountable when it did not arrive in a plane or missle directly from Tehran?
This will happen and then this blog and the comments will be a nice haunting reference point.
I feel haunted every freaking day. I see KoolAid drinkers . . . EVERYWHERE!
Eddie,
It has many names. Koolaid drinkers is fine. Matrix, Faux democracy. 1984. Democracy’s opium.
Will any name awaken the dreamers?
“The funny thing is that he had me at hello in describing the danger of a sponsor of terrorism with the bomb…”
The US and Israel are even more dangerous because the both currently have nuclear weapons and are sponsors of a terrorist organization, the MEK.
Bibi: “Daddy- Mahmoud is picking on me again. Will you beat him up for me? Please, Please, Please!”
Daddy Barack: “Son, you must learn to fight your own battles. Didn’t I give you all those nice fighter-bombers for your birthday?”
Daddy Barack: “Son, you must learn to fight your own battles. Didn’t I give you all those nice fighter-bombers for your birthday?”
==========================================
What happens if daddy doesn’t come to the rescue? Israel will be dead.
Matt Johnson,
Interesting thought.
Just for the record:
Israel won and took over territory in June 1967.
Israel won and took over territory in 1983, if memory serves me well.
Israel won and did terrible war crimes in Hesbollah territory.
Israel lost the second encounter with Hezbollah.
I’m not taking bets on any future ones.
The risk of escalation with Chinese and Russian involvement for their own interests, not those of client nations, is the biggest danger to humanity.
Like most of the animal world, we tolerate hard radiation poorly.
Matt Johnson-
If Mexico was threatening the United States with a nuclear weapon, would we be asking Israel to bomb Mexico City for us?
One wrong decision and we blow our collective brains out.
Bibi’s included.
Anybody read “On the Beach”?
I guess those younger than me had to hide under their schooldesks at some point as practice. Have we forgotten that?
Bibi is the only one waving nuke-equipped rockets and saying let’s do it. A good occasion for some illegal CIA asssasinations?
Now a joke in bad taste, naw I don’t dare. Will email it to a friend instead. Suffer! Must respect sensitivities.
idealist707 1, September 29, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Like most of the animal world, we tolerate hard radiation poorly.
I think you’ve got some of that in Japan already.
HenMan 1, September 29, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Matt Johnson-
If Mexico was threatening the United States with a nuclear weapon, would we be asking Israel to bomb Mexico City for us?
=====================================
No, we would go down there and kick their as*. We can’t bomb them because we would get the fallout.
Conventional bombs don’t have fallout, just consequences. If Israel were to use nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nuclear weapons, real or imagined, it might wake the world up to the insanity of too many nations armed to the teeth and too many heads of state willing to use those weapons. Or- perhaps the world would just file into the stadiums to cheer- as usual. “Don’t forget to bring the flag, dear”.
“Israel won and took over territory in June 1967.
Israel won and took over territory in 1983, if memory serves me well.
Israel won and did terrible war crimes in Hesbollah territory.
Israel lost the second encounter with Hezbollah.”
ID707,
Israel’s winning in 1967 and 1983 came after they were attacked, if you remember. Also could you specifically refresh my memory on just what “terrible war crimes” Israel committed against Hezbollah and also when they lost their last encounter?
Mike Spindell,
That was meant to give an even-handed history to MattJohnson. He was claiming thet Israel would lose an Arab attack. I wished to disillusion him of that conclusion.
So I was there in the West Bank and Israel in 1967, And I assumed he knew that the Arabs, a fairly large coalistion of nations, attacked Israel.
In 1983, the Yom Kippur, the highest holy days, Syrian, Egypt and Jordan attacked again and lost more territory to Israel.
As a partisan Jew I am sure you are very familiare with the Hesbollah wars. Slaughters of young unarmed men were done in some villages, whether by Israeli troops or like in Bosnia where the Holland troop let the serbs do the massacre, here one explanation says that the Falangist faction did the killing.
Was there an international investigation commission?
Of course most recently Israel did not accept the study of the South African led UN commission. Why?
I don’t know went wrong in the second Hezbollah encounter, but disorderly retreats resulted with many tank losses by the IDF were recorded. It was psychologically an expensive war for Israel, it was claimed by Israelis. One notable animated film was made based on the experiences of a soldier who was there.
Want more?, then perhaps you can correct and enlighten us. I trust you are here only wishing to set the record straight.
“As a partisan Jew I am sure you are very familiare with the Hesbollah wars. Slaughters of young unarmed men were done in some villages, whether by Israeli troops or like in Bosnia where the Holland troop let the serbs do the massacre, here one explanation says that the Falangist faction did the killing.
Was there an international investigation commission?
Of course most recently Israel did not accept the study of the South African led UN commission. Why?”
ID707,
I may be partial to Israel’s existence as a Jew who believes we’ll need a place to go if the sh*t goes down. However, “partisan” in the sense to blindly supporting Israel not so much. The entire experience with Hezbollah in Lebanon is not something that lends itself to great clarity and is one that has had lots of propaganda from the Hezbollah side. You of course are aware of the murkiness in that you quickly try to draw parallels to Bosnia, because you know that the massacre laid to Sharon’s feet, was not committed by Israeli soldiers. The blame was put o Sharon for not stopping the killing, which I think is specious on two counts.
The first count is the question of why Israeli troops should have stepped in to stop the attacks of Lebanese partisans against an armed terrorist organization that was taking over their country with the assistance of the Syrians. This is the fact that many of you who are so quick to claim “war crimes” seemly to conveniently forget. Syria had invaded Lebanon. The Lebanese Civil War, from 1975 to 1990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War was in fact a war where the PLO Hezbollah faction tried to take over their “host” country. This was a curiously PLO theme also in Jordan, when they tried to take over that “host” country as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan Surely you’re sophisticated enough to understand that these are not simple black and white issues to be reduced to a morality that no side shares? Yet you use the words “war crimes” with the intelligent deliberation of a partisan yourself.
The second reason is the most obvious. Lebanon had been a relatively peaceful, democratic and prosperous state until the militancy of their PLO guests broke it asunder, with the backing of at least the Syrians, who coveted their prosperity. The Lebanese were battling against a ruthless, internal enemy, with outside help. As with any civil war there were massacres and evils committed by both the Lebanese ad the PLO/Hezbollah. Now please specifically provide me with a list of the “war crimes” you accuse Israel of, with dates and numbers.
As far as UN impartiality goes, I refer you to the number of Islamic States that reside there and the fact that for many years they have carried the day against Israel in the General Assembly. Now of course perhaps it’s your belief that Israel does no have the right to exist as a Jewish State? Well you are entitled to your opinion, but it would seem that too might be ascribed to your being “partisan”.
idealist707 1, September 30, 2012 at 3:57 am
Mike Spindell,
That was meant to give an even-handed history to MattJohnson. He was claiming thet Israel would lose an Arab attack. I wished to disillusion him of that conclusion.
=============
I was not claiming that Israel would lose an Arab attack. But they would. Without the United States, Israel will cease to exist.
If we bomb the Iranian nuclear production sites with a drone then no child will be left behind and the world will be a better place. Consider that you ….
Mike Spindell,
If you look for enemies you will find one. I am not an enemy of Israel.
It appears to me that you don’t like the use of certain words. For instance “partisan” as a description of you. Why would you not a partisan of the Jews. I find that quite natural and am quite comfortable with your being so. Nor am I one so one-eyed that I have not noticed your positions stated with regard to Israel’s policies, and numerous other posts in the same vein.
SO WHY ASSUME WHEN I CALL YOU A PARTISAN THAT I AM AN ENEMY TO YOU. I mean quite simply that you in toto take Israel’s part. A quite natural position, I feel. And do not feel uncomfortable with you because of that. So don’t feel slurred.
(I must beg your understanding for my language problems, it is a problem, just now I was trying to find a good english word to replace “fientlig”: the word inimical occurred after much thought. So I choose words which come, which not necessarily are appropriate to expressing that which I wish to say, and not being informed after 45 years as a Swedish resident, definitely are not colloqual or idiomatic (whatever they mean). So loosen up and stop getting hung up on words.)
Next you write:
“The first count is the question of why Israeli troops should have stepped in to stop the attacks of Lebanese partisans against an armed terrorist organization that was taking over their country with the assistance of the Syrians. This is the fact that many of you who are so quick to claim “war crimes” seemly (sic?) to conveniently forget.”
What’s with this “you” sh*t. I am not a simple thrower of “war crimes” accusations. Nor do I conveniently forget things. Prove that if you wish. Guilt by coflation, I believe. With whom I associate is none of your business, but it ain’t such types.
I think instead that you should realize the following:
I was not writing a position paper on the jews, existence of Israel. judgements on the existence of war crimes, etc. I WAS SIMPLY CAUTIONING MATTS JOHNSON THAT ISRAEL WOULD NOT THE AN EASY VICTIM IN A WAR AS HE CLAIMED IT WOULD BE.
So why do you go looking for enmity where there is none. I could give you now a more nuanced (?) picture, but not even then a well-informed one. But what would be the purpose of my trying to do that. I am a person who notes, considers sources, tries to note in passing opposing parties POV, etc. And I am definitely not one of thóse who search after “facts” confirmning already held positions. So assuming the worst, then you will find it. A little good will goes a long way too.
You should be sad at using such arguments on why the massacre occured and Israels part in it. I have no knowledge. Why should Israel have defended these people? I don’t even know if they COULD control the battelfield and defend them. Does the action of the Hezbollah justify the killing of women and young boys? You imply that it does, as I read it.
Let us not go into the history of the actions of and in that area. I took an out based on what I read, no Israeli soldiers killed women and children, falangists are said to have done it.
So whether this and that in terms of moral responsibility is for you to ponder. Your concern on that question is a positive characteristic of the Jews, ie to consider their eventual responsibility in the matter. So be pleased with my recongnition of that. How many americans even know that falangists were involved. How many know that war crimes investigation was done? Do you know of the investigations. List them and explain them please?
Tell us also of the war crime investigation which Israel recently put down as partial and defect, led I believe by a renowned jurist from South Africa of jewish faith, to judge by the name.
If you want to expand the discussion, fine, but I get to suggest subjects also.
Since you are the better informed, without doubt, as to accusations of war crimes and the result of investigation, who did the investigation at whose instance, findings, eventual sanctions, etc. then it is only fair to say that you should do the investigation to clarify thie matter of “terrible war crimes”. Terrible, aren’t all war crimes “terrible” by definition.
Or for that matter offensive war should be and is a crime itself.
Do you really think that I am against the state of israel. Not per se. I have opinions on it being a jewish state, but that is their privilege. And I respect that choice. They are surrounded by muslim countries where tolerance for other religions is deplorable, and their actions criminal in my eyes. Resident Israelis, on the other hand, write stories of persecution or discrimination of israeli arabs. Myself I note but have no view. No studies read, etc.
So the right of Israel to exist is secure with me. Never been otherwise.
But as to war crimes, which was NOT the point of my comment, I would be quite interested in hearing or getting links to Israeli govennment or IDF studies on specific incidents. You could start with the first Hezbollah war. And then we could see what any international investigation might have found.
As to Arab dominance and giving Israel trouble in the UN general assembly. I can only say that there is where these conflicts are supposed to be handled. And the Arabs and allied nations surely don’t have a majority of the nation votes. Or do they?
I feel that you came looking for trouble. Why, only you know. Do tell. And please drop the adversary position, it is not necessary when discussing things with me.
Perhaps you know more about the etymnology of the word “partisan”. But to me partisans are people are people I respect, not least for their role in fighting the Nazis in WW2. So that is how I use it. How you use it is up to you. It is not pejoratively meant in my mouth.
Home
Expand & Learn
Look Up & Learn
Invest & Grow
Contact Us
“HOME > LOOK UP & LEARN
V2 Vocabulary Building Dictionary
partisan
noun, adjective
Definition: (n.) 1. a strong supporter of a group, person, or cause; 2. a member of an unofficial military; (adj.) 1. biased and unwilling to listen to other opinions when supporting a particular person, group, or cause; 2. devoted to a group or cause
Synonyms: (n.) defender, supporter, patron, adherent, guerrilla, (adj.) biased, prejudiced, partial
Antonyms: (adj.) non-partisan, open-minded, tolerant, unbiased
Tips: Although partisan has many definitions, it is most commonly used to describe someone with one-sided political beliefs (liberal or conservative). Think of the word party and its meaning of “political organization.” A partisan person is partial to one political party. The related word partisanship also denotes a bias toward one thing over another.”
Usage Examples:
The dinner was held for partisan supporters of the President. (adherent, biased) adjective
Washington DC has become too partisan and neither side is willing to work with the other. (biased, entrenched) adjective”
ID707,
I understand and have seen from your writings that English may have become your second language, therefore I’ve supplied a definition of “partisan”. I draw your attention to its use as an adjective (1).
“SO WHY ASSUME WHEN I CALL YOU A PARTISAN THAT I AM AN ENEMY TO YOU”
Why do you assume that because I disagree with you and present what I see as the facts of the matter, that I consider you a enemy? That seems a common theme with you and it is silly. I look at your contributions here quite positively and welcome the fact that you have become a regular. I respect your opinions, which usually try to supply reasoned arguments. However, at time you take disagreement for umbrage which is not meant. That tendency is more your paranoia, than it is a reflection of an others comments.
“Do you really think that I am against the state of israel. Not per se. I have opinions on it being a jewish state, but that is their privilege. And I respect that choice.”
You have stated that your preference is for a one state solution and in the context of discussing Israel that would mean it would no longer be a Jewish State. You have the right to your opinion, however, I disagree with it. Not in anger, nor without an understanding of how you may believe this validly.
Please stop finding battles, when the reality is that it is a discussion. and a disagreement on some matter.
MikeS,
Let me correct one thing which I have already corrected.
Immediately after I suggested the one state solution IN JEST, Í returned to say emphasize that it was in jest. Your post, before my second one, made clear that they were 12 million Palestinians.
How can I prove mine was said in jest. Because in the comment about a one state solution being preferable, I also joked by saying that then we can let the best wife-beater and child-creator win. Meaning it might be a close match. So read that one again. and my following one where I said that if the game was already over in terms of numbers then there was no match. So a proponent of one-state I am not.
Actually I think it was fine they got some land. JOKE FOLLOWS: About time. No more of this “next year Jerusalem”. Now they have got it.!!!! And that again was an ignorant joke. Ignorant, because I don’t know what the “next year” says to a jew.
Just a little news: I have NO native tongue. When you are ostracised from 3 years, the only sources are books, newspapers, etc. So I have two languages which I do not speak as a “usual” person does.
As I have successfully made contacts more often in spontaneous opportunities the last few months, the swedish has become more colloquial.
When speaking English in America, I strove to speak using the “correct” word, not the words used by others.
I did not know what others used.
This is not seeking a victim position or looking for sympathy. It is facts. And what I work with daily.
So if it is weird or offending words, don’t look for mean spiritedness. Just say: hello, did you know….!
Enough. It will be a tough exercise learning. Language use changes over time.
As for paranoia, IRL goes rather well now. But when chastised by you and others who’ve kicked me before, then I may misinterpret intent.
Glad for the correction. I’ll attempt to start over with you.
“This is a bomb….! if taken seriously in with another viewpoint makes it clear that we are capable of annihilating ourselves today.
We fight and negotiate using the same tools used 8,000 years ago. We rule with generally the same tools those under us. Our capability to “other” your neighbors is extraordinary, and of no little effect.
Witness the Shía versus Sunni slaughters that went on weekly in Iraq, and presumably do today.
These problems are highlighted by the speechs made at the UN. Was enforced peace under the threat of arms so bad as under the British protectorate to take one example of many.
The problem is, as we know, that strife between neighbors is not the problem today. It is world hegemony and resources, whether it is solar panels or oil.
And so long those driving factors exist, we will be encouraged in our rages to continue to be pawns.
Seems I have heard that word before.
Well an imposed uncomfortable peace may be best for all. By that I DO NOT mean an American one. But lacking an alien from space to impose it, I wonder if the American one is the only alternative, or the Chinese, or the Israeli….in all seriousness. But that is another story.
I’ll close by saying what I did in a comment recently.
We ARE heading towards and imperial presidency, and an imperial position internationally. For the same reason that Rome left the democratic Senate (with the terrible reality behind that), and embraced the imperial Caesars who became divine. Why. Democracy is too slow in reacting. Military discipline, not exploding bureaucracy.
Where is the space for the individual. I think we will have to begin to study that problem again.
Meanwhile we must admit we are up against tyranny, corporate tyranny of the most inhumane kind. The rape of the pension systems and replacement with 401Ks, reduced benefits, withdrawal of health care……all paid in advance, fully funded, and capable of siphoning off into—guess—executive salaries and feeding into the corporate budget as earnings. I diverge. But check out the Ellen Schultz links given yesterday. Both the radio interview and the recorded address by her are excellent.
So we know who the enemy is: the “job creators”; we know how they work: using “money” to purchase laws, contracts, prevention of enacted regulation, etc.
“So, whatta you gonna do? says the demonstration leader.
They are rapidly equipping themselves and organizing against unruly citizens who oppose. The longer we wait the more difficult it will be to effect a change.
Ellsberg calls for massive civil disobedience.
http://www.refuseandresist.org/article-print.php?aid=2459
Any better ideas. The corporations control so much, that a list would frighten the most hardened.
Food, fuel, minerals, money, etc. They can make life difficult for the USA. Clinton said to Jon Stewart, that if you don’t know what the money market and our national debt means, then you want survive. (my paraphrase—-the interview is recommended)
So not wisdom here, just a few observations on where we stand. None originates with me. Much picked up here.
As some say, our only media sources of truth are the comedy shows, like Stewart and Colbert.
ID707,
I think instead that you should realize the following:
I was not writing a position paper on the jews, existence of Israel. judgements on the existence of war crimes, etc. I WAS SIMPLY CAUTIONING MATTS JOHNSON THAT ISRAEL WOULD NOT THE AN EASY VICTIM IN A WAR AS HE CLAIMED IT WOULD BE.
============================================
Don’t tell me what I’m claiming. It’s obvious they wouldn’t be an easy victim, but they’re surrounded. Without U.S. support they’re toast.
The enormous increase of population will create many problems.I’m your lucky fellow then.She was totally exhausted.And now medical care helps to keep people alive longer.How are you recently? The enormous increase of population will create many problems.The enormous increase of population will create many problems.I’m your lucky fellow then.She was totally exhausted.And now medical care helps to keep people alive longer.
burberry http://logr.org/burberry2012/2012/10/26/hello-world/