Palestinian suicide bomber kills nine in Tel Aviv

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

A_Wanderer

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
12,518
Location
The Wild West
TEL AVIV (AFP) - Nine people were killed and dozens wounded in Israel's commercial capital Tel Aviv when a Palestinian bomber blew himself up in the deadliest suicide attack of the last 20 months.

The blast took place hours before the swearing in of the new Israeli parliament and prompted a pledge by prime minister designate Ehud Olmert that its perpetrators would not go unpunished.

The bomb went off next to a fast food stand at lunchtime in the southern Neveh Sha'anan district, close to the site of Tel Aviv's old bus station. The area has been the scene of several previous attacks, including one in January.

The blast -- the deadliest since a suicide bombing in August 2004 -- was claimed by the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad, which has been behind all of the most recent bomb attacks in Israel.

Moderate Palestinian Authority president Mahmud Abbas condemned what he called an act of terrorism but the radical Islamist group Hamas, which recently formed a new government, laid the blame at Israel's door for its "aggression".

The lack of condemnation from Hamas drew criticism not only from Washington, which already boycotts its administration, but also from UN chief
Kofi Annan.

"(Annan) calls on the Palestinian Authority to take a clear public stand against such unjustifiable acts of terrorism, noting that president Abbas has done so and regretting that the new government has not," his spokesman Stephane Dujarric said.
link

Perhaps now would be a good time to take the Hamas government to account :|

Incidently here is a list since the Febuary 2005 hudna
• April 17, 2006: A bomber blows himself up at a Tel Aviv restaurant targeted previously, killing eight other people.

• March 30, 2006: A bomber disguised as a Jewish hitchhiker blows himself up in a car outside a West Bank settlement, killing four Israelis who stopped to pick him up. The Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a violent offshoot of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah Party, claims responsibility.

• Jan. 19, 2006: A bomber disguised as a peddler blows himself up at a Tel Aviv felafel restaurant, wounding 20 people.

• Dec. 29, 2005: A bomber explodes at an Israeli army checkpoint in the West Bank, killing an Israeli soldier and two Palestinians.

• Dec. 5, 2005: A bomber blows himself up at a shopping mall in the coastal town of Netanya, killing five.

• Oct. 26, 2005: A bomber blows himself up in Hadera at a food stand, killing five.

• Aug. 28, 2005: A bomber blows himself up in the southern city of Beersheba, killing only himself.

• July 12, 2005: A bomber blows himself up outside a shopping mall in Netanya, killing five.

• Feb. 25, 2005: In the first attack after a truce is declared, a bomber blows himself up near a Tel Aviv nightclub, killing four.
 
Last edited:
just a glimpse of things to come -- even if more elections take place, Iraq will be an Islamist, theocratic, Iran-dominated state, and much of Iraq's oil revenue will be diverted to support Hezbollah and Hamas and others of that ilk, under Iran's influence.
 
Yes, the Shi'ites of Iran can dominate Iraq's Shi'ites. Basically the Iraqi Sunnis could get really screwed--and pissed off. There's a scenario of a terrible civil war getting going. This is scary.
 
Irvine511 said:
just a glimpse of things to come -- even if more elections take place, Iraq will be an Islamist, theocratic, Iran-dominated state, and much of Iraq's oil revenue will be diverted to support Hezbollah and Hamas and others of that ilk, under Iran's influence.

Not a glimse of things to come, but simply the way the situation has been for decades. Revenue from Iraq's oil wealth is currently not flowing to Hezbollah and Hamas, but it was under Saddam. Saddam offered 25,000 dollars to any Palestinian family who's member became a suicide bomber.

The majority of seats in Iraq's parliment are held by Sunni's, Kurds, Secular Shi’ites, and others, not the religious Shi’ites. While they hold more seats than any other single group, they do not have a majority despite all the advantages they have had the past few years, and need coalitions with other groups in order to form a government. As the Sunni's recover and become more involved in politics, its obvious that the Shia position relative to the other ethnic groups will never be stronger than it is currently.

We need to remember that just because Iraqi Arab Shi'ites and Iranian Persian Shi'ites share the same religion, that does not automatically make them allies. The majority of the Iraqi's who fought in the Iran-Iraq war against Iran were Shi'ites. Many of them have not forgotten the devestation of that war and what happened to many of their cities and towns along the border with Iran.

We also need to remember that there are deep differences between many Shia groups on policy. In fact, Kenneth Pollack, the Clinton administrations leading expert on Iraq and the Persian Gulf, has said that a civil war between Shia groups is more likely initially, than one between Sunni's and Shia's.
 
STING2 said:


Not a glimse of things to come, but simply the way the situation has been for decades. Revenue from Iraq's oil wealth is currently not flowing to Hezbollah and Hamas, but it was under Saddam. Saddam offered 25,000 dollars to any Palestinian family who's member became a suicide bomber.


and ... so ... Israel remains if anything less secure as when Saddam was in power, and an emboldened nuclearized Iran, with Iraq out of the way and now compliant, will start flexing it's muscle in the region.

on a side note, in the new Iraq, women will have far fewer rights than they had under Hussein; in fact, in large parts of the country their oppression will be total. once the U.S. leaves, as i've said, we'll see much of Iraq's oil revenue will be diverted to support Hezbollah and Hamas with the approval of Iran.

democracy is lovely, but when the Islamist element has all the guns, and the willingness to use them, the moderates will be rendered irrelevant, hatred towards Israel will find new fervor (for any silly justification), and we will live to see them curse the United States as greatly as ever.

i think you overestimate the sense of allegiance to "Iraq," especially as Muslim identity as Shiite or Sunni will become more important as Iraq descendes futher into chaos and anarchy, if not yet outright civil war. that does provide plenty of motivation for the parliment to start to agree upon things, but even the Iraqi parliment of your dreams will still find ways to fund suicide bombings with Iraqi oil. all this death, all this money spent, and Israeil is no safer and will probably grow less safe as the country loses it's last grip on secularism and the religious thugs take over:


[q]Killing, kidnap force Iraq brain drain
BAGHDAD, April 17 (UPI) -- There appears to be a serious brain drain going on in Iraq where intellectuals seem to be a growing target.

At least 182 academics have been reported killed since the 2003 invasion, in addition to kidnappings and murder attempts, the Britain's Telegraph reports.

In the past four months alone, 331 school teachers have been killed and nine medical workers were slain in a single day in the northern city of Mosul last month.

Among the imperiled intelligentsia, those who can move abroad increasingly do so before they or their families join the list of their colleagues killed or kidnapped.

Many say the targeting of professionals is part of an orchestrated campaign, a ridding of individuals capable of independent thought, making it easier for violent men to push their own agenda.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060417-122711-9199r

[/q]
 
Irvine511 said:



and ... so ... Israel remains if anything less secure as when Saddam was in power, and an emboldened nuclearized Iran, with Iraq out of the way and now compliant, will start flexing it's muscle in the region.

on a side note, in the new Iraq, women will have far fewer rights than they had under Hussein; in fact, in large parts of the country their oppression will be total. once the U.S. leaves, as i've said, we'll see much of Iraq's oil revenue will be diverted to support Hezbollah and Hamas with the approval of Iran.

democracy is lovely, but when the Islamist element has all the guns, and the willingness to use them, the moderates will be rendered irrelevant, hatred towards Israel will find new fervor (for any silly justification), and we will live to see them curse the United States as greatly as ever.

i think you overestimate the sense of allegiance to "Iraq," especially as Muslim identity as Shiite or Sunni will become more important as Iraq descendes futher into chaos and anarchy, if not yet outright civil war. that does provide plenty of motivation for the parliment to start to agree upon things, but even the Iraqi parliment of your dreams will still find ways to fund suicide bombings with Iraqi oil. all this death, all this money spent, and Israeil is no safer and will probably grow less safe as the country loses it's last grip on secularism and the religious thugs take over:


[q]Killing, kidnap force Iraq brain drain
BAGHDAD, April 17 (UPI) -- There appears to be a serious brain drain going on in Iraq where intellectuals seem to be a growing target.

At least 182 academics have been reported killed since the 2003 invasion, in addition to kidnappings and murder attempts, the Britain's Telegraph reports.

In the past four months alone, 331 school teachers have been killed and nine medical workers were slain in a single day in the northern city of Mosul last month.

Among the imperiled intelligentsia, those who can move abroad increasingly do so before they or their families join the list of their colleagues killed or kidnapped.

Many say the targeting of professionals is part of an orchestrated campaign, a ridding of individuals capable of independent thought, making it easier for violent men to push their own agenda.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060417-122711-9199r

[/q]

Israel knows something about living in the Middle East and what is best for security. Support for the removal of Saddam was greater in Israel than it was in the United States. Saddam openly launched Ballistic missiles against Israel, Iran has never attacked Israel directly in that way.

How is Iraq compliant with Iran? What has Iran done over the past two years in the region that it never did before Saddam was in power?

I think you overestimate Shia allegience to Iran, if it can be said such an allegience really exist. Its not an estimate that the majority of the Iraqi's that fought and died against Iran were Shia's, its a fact.

Most of the Iraqi parliment is currently not apart of the Shia religious block.

There is no more anarchy and chaos in Iraq today than there was 2 years ago. In fact, I challenge you to look back at the events of April 2004 and hold on to your conclusion that things are now worse. There are serious problems, but progress is being made in solving them. But some people are simply unwilling to aknowledge what has been accomplished.

Iran is still the same distance from Israel that it was prior to the removal of Saddam. It still only has mechanized forces half the size of what Saddam had prior to his removal in 2003. It currently has no WMD capability even close to approaching the level that Saddam at least once had. Israel's security situation in regards to Iran has not changed at all, except for the fact that Israel no longer has to worry about Saddam's capabilities and can concentrate more of its resources on Iran. The same with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The chances of a cross border invasion into Kuwait by another country are more remote now with Saddam gone, then they have been in decades.
 
STING2 said:
There is no more anarchy and chaos in Iraq today than there was 2 years ago. In fact, I challenge you to look back at the events of April 2004 and hold on to your conclusion that things are now worse. There are serious problems, but progress is being made in solving them. But some people are simply unwilling to aknowledge what has been accomplished.


since Iran is big enough for another post, i'll put that aside for the moment, and return to it later.

so, what has happened since 2004?

-- we stand at over $251 billion spent on the war, on money that is not included in the cost of regular defense spending
-- US deaths around 2377
-- civilian deaths, as a result both of the invasion itself and from the Iraqi insurgence are estimated to be between 100,000 and 300,000, and those injured are probably multiple times that
-- infrastructure has been destroyed, large parts of Baghdad go without electricity for large parts of the day
-- while some provinces are generally peaceful, it is the most densely populated areas, especially Baghadad, that stand on the brink of anarchy making Iraq the most dangerous place on earth, and it has been for the past 3 years
-- Iraqi society is the most terrorized society on earth
-- the Iraqis have lost sovereignty of their natural resources
-- various US abuses of human rights have been well documented and done immeasurable damage to the "moral authority" of US forces, most graphically in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay
-- car bombings and suicide bombings increased to unprecedented levels between April and June of 2005; as of June 21, at least 1,617 people had been killed by insurgents since the announcement of the government, including 169 coalition troops, 527 Iraqi troops, and 931 civilians
-- summer of 2005 saw the administration accuse Iran of funding and fueling the insurgency, as well as giving up hope of what they had originally hoped to accomplish:

[q]
... from the washington post
the United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say. "What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion."
[/q]
 
Perhaps we could stay on topic, your assertion that Israel is less secure today doesn't gell with the decrease in successful bombings over the last few years.
 
Irvine511 said:



since Iran is big enough for another post, i'll put that aside for the moment, and return to it later.

so, what has happened since 2004?

-- we stand at over $251 billion spent on the war, on money that is not included in the cost of regular defense spending
-- US deaths around 2377
-- civilian deaths, as a result both of the invasion itself and from the Iraqi insurgence are estimated to be between 100,000 and 300,000, and those injured are probably multiple times that
-- infrastructure has been destroyed, large parts of Baghdad go without electricity for large parts of the day
-- while some provinces are generally peaceful, it is the most densely populated areas, especially Baghadad, that stand on the brink of anarchy making Iraq the most dangerous place on earth, and it has been for the past 3 years
-- Iraqi society is the most terrorized society on earth
-- the Iraqis have lost sovereignty of their natural resources
-- various US abuses of human rights have been well documented and done immeasurable damage to the "moral authority" of US forces, most graphically in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay
-- car bombings and suicide bombings increased to unprecedented levels between April and June of 2005; as of June 21, at least 1,617 people had been killed by insurgents since the announcement of the government, including 169 coalition troops, 527 Iraqi troops, and 931 civilians
-- summer of 2005 saw the administration accuse Iran of funding and fueling the insurgency, as well as giving up hope of what they had originally hoped to accomplish:

[q]
... from the washington post
the United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say. "What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion."
[/q]

---add the money from normal defense spending plus additional spending as well as non-military spending on both Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is still a smaller percentage of annual USA GDP than what the United States spent on Defense in the 1980s during peacetime.

--the United States has lost 2,377 troops since 2003 when the war began, NOT April of 2004.

--the average monthly US casualty rate in Iraq has not grown at all since April of 2004. Certainly NOT a sign of a "rising insurgency" with "more chaos and anarchy than ever".

--even the ultra liberal Iraqibodycounty group estimates deaths at between 30 and 40 thousand. Figures of 100,000 to 300,000 are not supported by any credible documented evidence. Where are the names, forensic analysis of the bodies carefully showing how the person died, and other information to support such figures? It does not exist and the figures are the creation of liberals bent on saying and doing anything to criticize the war.

--the above figures remind me of the Israely incursion into Jenin in the Palestinian Occupied territories. Palestinian groups and their surporters claimed over 7,000 civilians were murdered. When UN forensic teams went in to check and analyze what happened, they only discovered 49 civilians that had been killed, all as a result of accidents.

--infrustructure has been destroyed, but it has also been rebuilt in many area's. Large parts of Baghdad are now without power, because the power is more evenly distributed throughout the country unlike the way it was used before Saddam was in power!

---Yet, in this most dangerous place on earth that you say is Baghdad, people every day go about their business, with their jobs, prayer, lining up to join the military, childern go to school, all things that were not happening during much of 2003. As far as being the most dangerous place on earth, there are many people who live in many parts of Africa who would tell you that is not so.

--the Iraqi's have not lost any sovereignty of their natural resources, which have been protected and are being used to help rebuild the country from decades of misuse by Saddam.

--the only people who have damaged US moral authority are those that have blown out of proportion what small number of US troops did without recognizing what the vast majority of American servicemen and servicewomen have been doing in Iraq.
 
STING2 said:




We need to remember that just because Iraqi Arab Shi'ites and Iranian Persian Shi'ites share the same religion, that does not automatically make them allies. The majority of the Iraqi's who fought in the Iran-Iraq war against Iran were Shi'ites. Many of them have not forgotten the devestation of that war and what happened to many of their cities and towns along the border with Iran.




do you really believe this nonsense??

it was put out there by the administration

for uninformed people to swallow, hook line and sinker.


Don't think for one minute that the shia are not with the Iranians


saddam's trial is about him having shia killed
for trying to take him out

Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani was born in Iran
He is the most influential Iman in Iraq
 
A_Wanderer said:
Perhaps we could stay on topic, your assertion that Israel is less secure today doesn't gell with the decrease in successful bombings over the last few years.



no.

my assertion is that the invasion of Iraq has not increased Israel's security, and that whatever form the new Iraqi government takes, oil money will still be used to fund Hamas and Hezbollah.

this is another failure of the occupation.

in the interest of staying on topic, i'll ignore STING's response, though his claims about Abu Ghraib astonish me.
 
Last edited:
deep said:




do you really believe this nonsense??

it was put out there by the administration

for uninformed people to swallow, hook line and sinker.


Don't think for one minute that the shia are not with the Iranians


saddam's trial is about him having shia killed
for trying to take him out

Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani was born in Iran
He is the most influential Iman in Iraq

Its not non-sense but a fact most that most people who have taken the time to actually study the Iran-Iraq war have known long before Clinton was even elected to office let alone Bush Jr.

Saddam had members of EVERY ethnic group murdered for trying to remove him from power at one time or another.

The uninformed believe all the worlds problems started with Bush or somehow can be linked to Bush in someway. Anything that does fit their preconcieved notion of Iraq and Bush's "failure" there is seen as "propoganda" from the administration.

Sorry, but the history of Iraq was not written by the Bush administration.
 
Irvine511 said:




no.

my assertion is that the invasion of Iraq has not increased Israel's security, and that whatever form the new Iraqi government takes, oil money will still be used to fund Hamas and Hezbollah.

this is another failure of the occupation.

in the interest of staying on topic, i'll ignore STING's response, though his claims about Abu Ghraib astonish me.

Israel knows a thing or two about security. They have survived for 60 years surounded by hostile forces on all sides. Their experts consider the removal of Saddam to be a benefit to their security. You will not find stronger support around the world for the Bush administrations removal of Saddam than you will find in Israel.

Whats astonishing is that so many Americans will never understand what the US military has done for most Iraqi prisoners. They have given them the best medical care in the world and rushed to save the lives of people who only moments before were trying to murder them. The numbers of such cases are in the thousands, but you don't here about them in the mainstream press. Such facts don't serve the liberal agenda.
 
STING2 said:
The numbers of such cases are in the thousands, but you don't here about them in the mainstream press. Such facts don't serve the liberal agenda.



:lmao:



yes, exposing the abuses at Abu Ghraib and revealing the White House sanctioned torture is really just part of the liberal agenda.
 
Irvine511 said:




:lmao:



yes, exposing the abuses at Abu Ghraib and revealing the White House sanctioned torture is really just part of the liberal agenda.

Considering how small the number of abuses were relative to the entire operation in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the only reason to expose and publicise the abuses on the level that they were, were for political reasons.

My best friend noted that no one bothered to report the fact that he flew down to Abu Ghraib in his Cobra Helicopter Gunship to fly escort to a medical helicopter transporting a terrorist to Baghdad for life saving medical treatment. "Johnny Jihad" likes to fire at the medical helicopters except when their being escorted by Cobra Helicopter Gunships.
 
STING2 said:


Considering how small the number of abuses were relative to the entire operation in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the only reason to expose and publicise the abuses on the level that they were, were for political reasons.


i'm amazed at your myopia and your willingness to believe the worst in people who disagree with you.

could it be that decent people were shocked and horrified not just at the abuse and torture, but by the failure of the military leadership to hold themselves accountable for such horrific abuses of prisoners, either the degredation of Abu Ghraib or things like "water boarding," and they felt it was necessary to make sure that these things don't happen in our name and also because they felt that such abuses undermined our credibility and whatever moral authority we had left to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq? that the only way to get it back was to publicly atone for our crimes? that because they actually believed in the mission, the best thing to do was clean out the closet, send the guilty to jail, have Rumsfeld resign since this happened under his watch, and then, maybe then, we could regain an ounce of the credibility we have lost?

and those are just the responsible Republicans.
 
I just don't get this Israeli/Palestinian dispute.

The Israelis use their super hi-tech fighter-planes and guided missiles and its reported as an act of self-defence. Meanwhile the Palestinians use suicide bombers and it's reported as an act of terrorism.

Anyone ever considered that the Palestinians just want the occupied land back in their rightful ownership and that they are actually using the most effective methods open to them given the obvious mismatch in military capability?

Given the significant Jewish population in the US, it is quite understandable why successive governments have maintained close ties with Israel, and and wholly conceivable therefore that the Palestinian side of the dispute has not been accurately or fully reported. No wonder then that the Palestinians celebrated in the streets on 9/11.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but centuries ago wasn't Palestine occupied by the Jew's, or am I wrong?
 
Irvine511 said:



i'm amazed at your myopia and your willingness to believe the worst in people who disagree with you.

could it be that decent people were shocked and horrified not just at the abuse and torture, but by the failure of the military leadership to hold themselves accountable for such horrific abuses of prisoners, either the degredation of Abu Ghraib or things like "water boarding," and they felt it was necessary to make sure that these things don't happen in our name and also because they felt that such abuses undermined our credibility and whatever moral authority we had left to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq? that the only way to get it back was to publicly atone for our crimes? that because they actually believed in the mission, the best thing to do was clean out the closet, send the guilty to jail, have Rumsfeld resign since this happened under his watch, and then, maybe then, we could regain an ounce of the credibility we have lost?

and those are just the responsible Republicans.

No one ever claimed that some of the events that happened at Abu Ghraib were not wrong. The problem is when people take a few isolated cases, and yes they are isolated when compared to the entire military, and blow them up into this image where every US soldier or marine is abusing and conducting such actions, which is the opposite of what really is happening. The standard that many liberals and those in the media hold the military to is an impossible one. If any of the 2.6 million men and women commit such actions seen at Abu Ghraib, then there is suddenly a massive problem through out the entire military and suddenly, all prisoners held by the US military are considered to be treated like this. What really happens to your average prisoner is not reported, only what has happened to the small number who were abused, and then this extropolated as being typically what happens to all prisoners. Such inaccurate reporting is often really someone pushing their political agenda.

Can you name a war that the United States has fought in where there was not a single case of abuse on the level of Abu Ghraib or higher? As for the type of abuses that went on at Abu Ghraib, In World War II, there were times when US soldiers killed unarmed German soldiers attempting to surrender. Definitely a war crime, but no one labeled the entire US military as a bunch of murderers or claimed that the United States, the US military or FDR had lost their moral authority or their credibility because of the actions of a few people.
 
adrball said:
I just don't get this Israeli/Palestinian dispute.

The Israelis use their super hi-tech fighter-planes and guided missiles and its reported as an act of self-defence. Meanwhile the Palestinians use suicide bombers and it's reported as an act of terrorism.

Anyone ever considered that the Palestinians just want the occupied land back in their rightful ownership and that they are actually using the most effective methods open to them given the obvious mismatch in military capability?

Given the significant Jewish population in the US, it is quite understandable why successive governments have maintained close ties with Israel, and and wholly conceivable therefore that the Palestinian side of the dispute has not been accurately or fully reported. No wonder then that the Palestinians celebrated in the streets on 9/11.

The Israelis use the military forces to find, target, and kill or capture terrorist. The Palestinian terrorist use their weapons to find, target, and kill the largest number of Israely civilians packed into a small area to assure the highest death rate possible.

If the Palestinian cause is really about self defense, why don't their suicide bombers attempt to go after IDF forces in the occupied territories? Why do they run from police or soldiers towards where innocent civilians are? How can entering a disco or a bar where teenagers are listening to music, perhaps U2, and then setting off a bomb to kill these people be consider self defense?

The Arab and Palestinian tactics of military invasion and terrorism conducted from the day Israel was founded in 1948 have primarily hurt one group of people, the Palestinians. Over the past 60 years Israel has grown into a modern society with one of the highest standards of living in the world, while the Palestinians live in an area less than half the size of the territory they would have received if they had agreed to the UN peace plan in 1948 which divided the land equally and provided for a Palestinian State.

Until Palestinian leaders realize their tactics of the past 60 years have failed and adopt a non-violent approach to address their problems, the Palestinian people will continue to suffer the consequenses. Even if military action were justified, it will never work. Israel is a democracy and it is susceptible to non-violent action unlike a strong military dictatorship. People don't see you as the victim when your walking into disco's setting off bombs killing teenagers listening to music.
 
STING2 said:
Over the past 60 years Israel has grown into a modern society with one of the highest standards of living in the world,

Israel's living standards are only maintained due to subventions from the US taxpayer.

The IDF have a very poor record.

Gerard Kaufman, the respected British MP (who is Jewish incidentally) has written about being hassled by them on a recent visit.

In general the US media is biased against the Palestinians and correspondingly biased in favour of Israel and accordingly Americans often end up with a distorted view of the conflict.
 
financeguy said:


Israel's living standards are only maintained due to subventions from the US taxpayer.

The IDF have a very poor record.

Gerard Kaufman, the respected British MP (who is Jewish incidentally) has written about being hassled by them on a recent visit.

In general the US media is biased against the Palestinians and correspondingly biased in favour of Israel and accordingly Americans often end up with a distorted view of the conflict.

true

true

?

and
true
 
financeguy said:


Israel's living standards are only maintained due to subventions from the US taxpayer.

The IDF have a very poor record.

Gerard Kaufman, the respected British MP (who is Jewish incidentally) has written about being hassled by them on a recent visit.

In general the US media is biased against the Palestinians and correspondingly biased in favour of Israel and accordingly Americans often end up with a distorted view of the conflict.

Considering what the Europeans did to the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s, its rather shocking to see their gross bias toward the Palestinians over the past 60 years.

Israels living standards are only partially maintained from US foreign Aid, which is primarily military assistence. Egypt receives just as much US foreign aid, not something you'll hear from European media sources, but their standard of living is worse than the Occupied Palestinian territories according to the latest UN Human Development Report.

Notice that U2 has played Israel and not their neighbors. :wink:

The IDF have an excellant record and are considered one of the finest military forces in the world. It would only take the IDF a few weeks to murder everyone on the Westbank, so these crazy assertions that they are out to kill innocent civilians are baseless.

Sorry that Gerard Kaufman was hassled. What police or security force on the planet has never been accused of hassling someone at some point?
 
Speaking of Jews controlling the media
In 1989, Olmert visited his friend, movie producer Arnon Milchan, in Hollywood. The two sat at a Warner Brothers' sound studio with the film's director Gary Marshall and listened to the soundtrack for a new romantic comedy starring a 23 year-old unknown actress (Roberts) and a movie star whose fame has already began to fade (Richard Gere).

After about half-an-hour of listening to the soundtrack, an old song by Roy Orbison called "Pretty Woman' started playing. Olmert, who was listening to the music with his eyes half-shut, suddenly turned to Milchan and Marshall and said: "Listen, I have an idea for you – why don't you call the movie 'Pretty Woman,' after the song?"

"Forget it," Marshall replied, "it's too kitschy." Milchan, on his part, also had his doubts. But Olmert, already an experienced politician, managed to convince the two his idea was not so bad.

The rest, as everyone knows, is history. 'Pretty Woman,' which debuted in 1990, earned USD 463 million across the world and marked the starting point for Roberts' meteoric rise to stardom. Gere, an actor who seemed to have had his days of fame behind him before the movie was released, also received a boost to his then faltering career.
link
 
Back
Top Bottom