France to back Palestinian bid for observer status at UN Assembly

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


Ah, conspiracy theories.

The crutch of the layman.




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


Ah, conspiracy theories.

The crutch of the layman.


Ah, conspiracy facts.

The proverbial slap in the face of those who deny reality.
edit on 11/28/2012 by Corruption Exposed because: thank you kindly dontreally for the grammar lesson :-)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Denounce it as a conspiracy, the propagandist's last resort.

I have one more for you.


Mehran Kamrava says Israeli sources often cite Jewish acceptance and Arab rejection of the U.N. partition plan as an example of the Zionists' desire for peaceful diplomacy and the Arabs' determination to wage war on the Jews.

But he notes that more recent documentary analysis and interpretation of events leading up to and following the creation of the state of Israel fundamentally challenged many of the "myths" of what had actually happened in 1947 and 1948." Simha Flapan wrote that it was a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace, and that it was also a myth that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war.

source



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Well, as expected the U.S. will vote AGAINST, no surprise there then



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Whatever you want to think...

They've been working in lockstep on all of these actions. I used to think they just blundered into these things and had them blow up in their faces, but considering they are using the same play-book and the same players over and over, it can't be accidental or unintended.

I think it's more to keep the radical Islamists around, to keep the war machine going and keep the money for it pouring in. You know, the old 'provide the threat, then provide the solution' strategy. The well being of the Israeli or US citizens, not to mention the citizens of Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc, don't factor into the equation at all.

They are duping the citizens to contribute to the destabilization of their own countries in the name of 'democracy and freedom' and it has been quite successful. That the country's are now in complete chaos, and the people are worse off, not better, doesn't get reported on in the MSM, and they move on to the next target.

I don't know who's worse - them, or the people who cheerlead for them and continue, despite the obvious reality, to assign them motives of altruism, give their illegal actions legitimacy and label other country's/people's justified resistance as 'terrorism' and 'insurgency'.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


It's spelled proverbial, as in "a proverb"

edit on 28-11-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
'Deception'
edit on 28-11-2012 by L.J.C because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 




For instance, its a proverb around here that you are a unscrupulous propagandist.


Name calling, the last resort of someone who has exhausted all their efforts.

I have alerted the mods about your personal attack, let's see if they allow it to remain.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by curiouscanadian777
 





Whatever you want to think...


It's the actual issues confronting Israeli' policy decisions. Of Hezbollah gets weapons through Iran, would it or would it not be in Israel's interest to get rid of the Shia aligned Assad regime from power? I think that's how you should be assessing this situation. Israel has two possibilities before them: status qua, which only hurts them, or a gambit: support the secular aspects of the Free Syrian Army in hopes of improving relations between Israel and Syria, and severing a logistic conduit between Hezbollah and Iran.

Educated political theorists understand this as the core subject. You, for some odd reason, choose to ignore this and instead proffer the notion that Israel is deliberately engineering situations, this, despite the fact that Israel exists in an extremely violent and hostile region; this, despite the fact that Israels support worldwide is waning; this, despite the fact that the Obama administration has been luke warm towards Israel, leading many to believe that Israel and America are no longer on the same page.

So what evidence do you really have in support of that absurd conspiracy theory that Israel strengthens Islamists to advance another conspiracy: a "greater Israel". I find it hilarious that while many of you are willing to accord political pragmatism to Islamists, none of you are willing to do the same with Israel. Instead, the world is turned upside down: religious fundamentalists can be trusted with political power and are expected not to pursue religious goals with it, where a secular liberal democracy like Israel is imagined to be pursuing religious goals that more properly belong to religious fundamentalists.



They've been working in lockstep on all of these actions. I used to think they just blundered into these things and had them blow up in their faces, but considering they are using the same play-book and the same players over and over, it can't be accidental or unintended.


And this is in reference to?





I think it's more to keep the radical Islamists around, to keep the war machine going and keep the money for it pouring in. You know, the old 'provide the threat, then provide the solution' strategy. The well being of the Israeli or US citizens, not to mention the citizens of Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc, don't factor into the equation at all.


They aren't providing the threat. Are you serious? So you think Israel is behind the existence of Islamism? Israel is somewhere in the wings, developing the Muslim Brotherhood? Did they create the salafist ideology which the brotherhood bases its ideology upon? Or did Jews create Islam?
..How far are you willing to go with this conspiracy theory?

At some point, you should understand that it's stupid, untenable, and should be dropped for something more practical and reasonable.

Sometimes peoples butt heads. This is what were seeing between Zionism and Islamism. Too, very intractable ideologies. One, far more understandably - since it is in sync with modern trends - can coexist with the world, contribute to the world (as Israel does more than the Islamic world COMBINED); the other has numbers, has oil, but, has a political ideology that hopes to impose is medieval belief system on the entire world. It still has yet to come into the modern era. Soooooooooooo, the mandates of Islam are being challenged by the existence of Zionism, a Jewish state, thus, we got a problem.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by dontreally
 




For instance, its a proverb around here that you are a unscrupulous propagandist.


Name calling, the last resort of someone who has exhausted all their efforts.

I have alerted the mods about your personal attack, let's see if they allow it to remain.


Oh, indeed. I shall search for every post where you call me a propagandist.

By the way, I could care less, corruption. I'll do it for you.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
This article here:

"Al Qaeda "Virtue Police" Show up Along NATO Protected Turkish-Syrian Border -
NATO-backed terrorists along Turkish-Syrian border establish Al Qaeda-style "Virtue & Vice Police," heralding the West's true designs for Syria."

www.landdestroyer.blogspot.ca...


When violence flared up in 2011, it was clear to many geopolitical analysts that it was the result of Al Qaeda, not "pro-democracy protesters." The US government, its allies, and a complicit Western press, willfully lied to the public, misrepresented its case to the United Nations and intervened in Libya on behalf of international terrorists, overthrowing a sovereign government, and granting an entire nation as a base of operations for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

A similar scenario is now playing out in Syria, where the West, despite acknowledging the existence of Al Qaeda in Benghazi, Libya, is using these militants, and the exact same networks used to send fighters to Iraq, to flood into and overrun Syria. This, after these very same Libyan militants were implicated in an attack that left a US ambassador dead on September 11, 2012.


You go on and keep pretending that 2 of the world's best intelligence agency's have no idea what's going on, or who they're supporting, even as they write and publish reports to the contrary.

This article refers to the US's own reports on who the 'rebels' in Libya were/are, and whom they're now supporting in Syria. That they hope the 'secular' rebels win out is just absurd. If that was the case, they'd be supporting a political solution instead of arming groups they themselves have declared to be terrorists.
edit on 28-11-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: correction



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by curiouscanadian777
 


Thank you again for ignoring my points. Unlike you, I will address each of your points:

But just to be clear: whats your contention? Do America/Israel/Europe (since you mention NATO, and Israel isn't a member of NATO, though you seem to be tagging them along with them) engineer wars for profit? for regional hegemony? or do you believe Israel has goals of a "greater Israel"?

In any case, you obviously think Israel can afford to play these games. Which means you imagine Israel - despite it's being a proportional parliament - which means, there isn't "one" animating ideology, but several, occupying government positions, still, despite this evidence, you consider it plausible that Israel is pursuing a messianic policy, as if Jews, who are generally thought to be the most critical of people, wouldn't criticize such an unreasonable and frankly insane foreign policy.

Let me tell you what Israel considers far more likely: a belligerent policy with neighboring nations, or even worse, having to deal with Islamists, threatens their nations existence. Israel is not inoculated from being destroyed; Europe's Jews were exterminated 70 years ago. It happened. God does not seem to intervene for his chosen people. Thus, it is far more plausible that Israeli policy is led by pragmatism that serves their national interest of survival, rather than a policy that seeks to start wars, whether for filling the coffers of interested parties, or seeking a larger territory.

What I'm trying to stress most of all is this: Israel is surrounded by dangerous people. Israel ransacked, and possibly eliminated, in a nuclear attack, or a military invasion, is a very plausible reality - just as plausible as the systematized extermination of Europe's Jews.

Why you level these accusations at them, regardless of contrary evidence, only shows that you're only interested in parading your conspiracy theory for egotistical reasons.




This article refers to the US's own reports on who the 'rebels' in Libya were/are, and whom they're now supporting in Syria. That they hope the 'secular' rebels win out is just absurd. If that was the case, they'd be supporting a political solution instead of arming groups they themselves have declared to be terrorists.


Why are you tying in Israel with US policy? They're two different countries. What do you think the myriad of right pundits are complaining about Obama about? It's these policies: their support of Islamist factions in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria.

Israel has a pragmatic interest in taking Al Assad out of power. That is the only reason why their helping the rebels. The US is acting for different reasons, clearly, since they've been supporting Islamists in 4 different countries now.

If anything, Israel is likely to be the one to suffer from US actions.
edit on 28-11-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
You're the one who refuses to see reality.

The right-wing pundits, and you, refuse to acknowledge that Bibi's good friend Romney supports and has the same stance on all these issues.

The idea that Obama is 'weak on Israel support' is a myth.

These aren't conspiracy theories, they are documented actions and published reports by US and pro-Israel think-tanks and organizations. You can't be suggesting that these actions are then not in their best interests and that they don't support them, can you?

Ever heard of the "Which Path to Persia" report by the Brookings Institute? landdestroyer.blogspot.ca...

Though I hate to use Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...


Think tanks
Mearsheimer and Walt state that “pro-Israel figures have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. These think tanks are all decidedly pro-Israel and include few, if any, critics of US support for the Jewish state.”[49]
In 2002, the Brookings Institution founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, named after Haim Saban, an Israeli-American media proprietor, who donated $13 million toward its establishment.[50] Saban has stated of himself, “I’m a one issue guy, and my issue is Israel”,[51] and was described by the New York Times as a “tireless cheerleader for Israel.”[51] The Centre is directed by AIPAC’s former deputy director of research, Martin Indyk.
Frontline, an Indian current affairs magazine, asked rhetorically why the administration of George W Bush that seemed "so eager to please [Bush's] Gulf allies, particularly the Saudis, go out of its way to take the side of Ariel Sharon's Israel? Two public policy organizations give us a sense of an answer: the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)."[52] Frontline reported that "WINEP tended to toe the line of whatever party came to power in Israel" while "JINSA was the U.S. offshoot of the right-wing Likud Party."[52] According to Frontline, JINSA had close ties to the administration of George W Bush in that it "draws from the most conservative hawks in the U.S. establishment for its board of directors"[52] including Vice-President Richard Cheney, and Bush administration appointees John Bolton, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Armitage and Elliott Abrams. Jason Vest, writing in the The Nation,[53] alleges that both the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and the Center for Security Policy thinktanks are "underwritten by far-right American Zionists" and that they both "effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East – a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action."


This isn't just me plucking this out of my ass.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
The arab palestinians are not even asking for official statehood, YET here we have germany, uk and usa(all right wing elected governments) shilling for israel, so that the secular jewish government of israel can continue to get its way way with its heavy handed tactics against hamas and the fatah party.

Conservatives disgust the hell out of me, not because they support israel, but because they support it uncondiontionally, rain or shine, genocide or no genocide. Why the hell is israel given so much leeway by conservatives? What do conservatives get in return?

I am actually neutral with israel-palestine and think both religious groups belong in the general area. The best they could do is sit down and work things out peacefully. Netanyahu is just as fanatic as hamas is, yet he is generally given carte blanche welcome.

Since jews and arabs hate each other, and both belong there since antiquity, then both deserve their own nations. The land does not have to come from israel exclusively, I think jordan and syria should give land to the palestinians as well. Many sides have been arrogant and using the palestinian crisis as cannon fodder for their own political failures.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
So, who's the propagandist here, really?

One who condemns all lying and hypocritcal govts and their equally despicable and self-interested actions?

Or one who decries the actions of some yet shields or denies the actions of others?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by curiouscanadian777
 


You desperately need to buy and read books on these subjects.

Here's a few good ones I just finished reading which you could learn something from:

Obama and the Middle East: The End of America's Moment? by Fawaz A. Gerges Link
Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power. by David E Sanger
Link



This isn't just me plucking this out of my ass.


Yes, but you clearly don't know how to present a proper argument. What is your thesis, and what is your conclusion from the data submitted? You're leaving much to be desired.

And if you wanted to be treated respectably, you should acknowledge the points others make, instead of repeatedly side stepping them. My issue with your contention - which you can't help but forward me to blog sites to read someone else's opinion (mostly conspiracy theorists, besides the brookings report) - is the logic you're using to defend your premise, which by now has been concealed by your inveterate recourse to "you just refuse to see the truth"



The idea that Obama is 'weak on Israel support' is a myth.


Propping up Islamists and bringing them into government - in Egypt and Tunisia - is not in Israel's interest. Both the right and the left in Israel can agree on this.

I'd like to continue this conversation, but first I'd like you clarify your thesis with regard to Israel: what do you think Israel's ambitions are?
edit on 28-11-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I all ready picked up on the fact that you and Newt Gingrich read the same books.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally



The idea that Obama is 'weak on Israel support' is a myth.


Propping up Islamists and bringing them into government - in Egypt and Tunisia - is not in Israel's interest. Both the right and the left in Israel can agree on this.


I agree but if obama had a hardcore muslim agenda don't you think he would be the first to press sanctions on israel for all their heavy handed tactics against the palestinians and for accusing iran of trying to develop nukes WITH NO PROOF??


I'd like to continue this conversation, but first I'd like you clarify your thesis with regard to Israel: what do you think Israel's ambitions are?
edit on 28-11-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)


To frustrate the palestinians and make them leave voluntarily. A little land and a few homes each day, week, month that passes and another 15 years from now.......no palestine! Then israeli government forces palestinians to get israeli citizenship or leave! More likely....to leave!

They are too cunning for their own good. Of course all the arab countries of the middle east themselves are using the palestinian issue as cannon fodder and share much of the responsibility of creating unnecessary tensions.

Syria, jordan and egypt have been bad boys!



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
The report was written by a pro-Israel think-tank.

I don't need to refute your points one by one, b/c the fact that pro-Israel think-tanks helped to or completely devised these schemes, and we are seeing them being played out, and you refuse to admit that it benefits Israel in any way or that they support these actions, tells me all I need to know.

"You are in denial" really does sum it all up.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by curiouscanadian777
 


Fawaz A. Gerges is currently a Professor of Middle East Politics and International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He also holds the Emirates Chair of the Contemporary Middle East at the LSE and is the inaugural Director of the LSE Middle East Centre.

David E. Sanger is the Chief Washington Correspondent for The New York Times.

Neither of these guys are "right pundits". I read all the literature available and make up my mind on my own.

I don't pick and choose who I want to read and learn from like you do. ... in order to support my pre-made conclusions.





top topics
 
27
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join