Magox Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 Overlooked in all of this is that the organizers of the "flotilla" got exactly what they wanted: a confrontation in which Israel is embarrassed and international support for Gaza is strengthened. It had nothing to do with "aid". I agree completely.
IDBillzFan Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 This. Stupid rant here, but am I the only one who hates this new response? I have no idea why people found it necessary to use this as a way to agree with a post. Were they having too much trouble typing +1? I thought for sure Obama would cower behind the rest of the world and lapse into an anti-Israel position. I love the Huffington Post. It keeps me entertained in between Robert Gibbs press briefings. When you read their comments section, you'd swear some of those people are batschitt crazy. I mean, yes, the right has its batschitt crazy, too, but they're usually yelling about a birth certificate or yelling something about socialism. The far lefties are downright scary.
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 Stupid rant here, but am I the only one who hates this new response? I have no idea why people found it necessary to use this as a way to agree with a post. Were they having too much trouble typing +1? I love the Huffington Post. It keeps me entertained in between Robert Gibbs press briefings. When you read their comments section, you'd swear some of those people are batschitt crazy. I mean, yes, the right has its batschitt crazy, too, but they're usually yelling about a birth certificate or yelling something about socialism. The far lefties are downright scary. Gibbs is a riot."that will be up to consul" "It's to early to tell" And of course the ever populer "next". This? I agree is to old fashioned, apparently.
meazza Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 Overlooked in all of this is that the organizers of the "flotilla" got exactly what they wanted: a confrontation in which Israel is embarrassed and international support for Gaza is strengthened. It had nothing to do with "aid". This isn't the first time activists have tried to break the blockade. Although much smaller in scale, in the previous attempt, Israel let them dock and well... no one spoke about it. Perhaps acting similarly this time would have been a better decision? http://www.jta.org/news/article/2008/10/28/110907/gazaboat
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 This isn't the first time activists have tried to break the blockade. Although much smaller in scale, in the previous attempt, Israel let them dock and well... no one spoke about it. Perhaps acting similarly this time would have been a better decision? Only if their intent were to get aid into Gaza. I honestly don't think it was. I think their intent was to be confrontational, and they could give a **** about the aid. (Israelis were pretty stupid to play their game, btw.)
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 Stupid rant here, but am I the only one who hates this new response? I have no idea why people found it necessary to use this as a way to agree with a post. Were they having too much trouble typing +1? Concur.
meazza Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 Only if their intent were to get aid into Gaza. I honestly don't think it was. I think their intent was to be confrontational, and they could give a **** about the aid. (Israelis were pretty stupid to play their game, btw.) I think the amount of aid on those boats was small relative to how much is usually smuggled in on a daily basis (read that somewhere). Anyone aside from Conner knows it was simply to stir a confrontation. Had they been allowed to port, those protesters would have accomplished nothing. I wonder why the other boats were boarded so peacefully while this one wasn't.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 I think the amount of aid on those boats was small relative to how much is usually smuggled in on a daily basis (read that somewhere). Anyone aside from Conner knows it was simply to stir a confrontation. Had they been allowed to port, those protesters would have accomplished nothing. I wonder why the other boats were boarded so peacefully while this one wasn't. Because this one had hostile people on board. If you allow the boats to port, then what good is a blockade? It was a lose/lose situation, and the Israelis took the best possible course of action> Pity people got killed, but it is what it is.
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 I think the amount of aid on those boats was small relative to how much is usually smuggled in on a daily basis (read that somewhere). Anyone aside from Conner knows it was simply to stir a confrontation. Would you be surprised to find out that I was specifically thinking of conner when I brought the point up?
meazza Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 Would you be surprised to find out that I was specifically thinking of conner when I brought the point up? lol no not at all
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 Would you be surprised to find out that I was specifically thinking of conner when I brought the point up? Not really. Scary thing is a lot of liberal sheeple out there share his dementia-diminished worldview.
Adam Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 The naivete is just absurd, even for you. These "activsts" were SO concerned about delivering the humanitarian aid that they refused to dock in ashkelon to undergo inspection of cargo. They refused to deliver the aid through the UN or the Red Cross. They INSISTED on doing it themselves. The Israelis were willing to allow them through once the cargo was inspected. But again, the "activists" refused. "Why?" you may ask. BECAUSE THEY HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE AND AN AGENDA OF PROVOCATION. Theirs was a mission of publicity and aggression, not of humanitarianism. You're a tool, conner. You even give liberal suckers a bad name with your simpleminded worldview. People like you are how terrorists, murderers and warmongers gain control. Unfortunately, there are millions of people just like you all over the world who share such a simpleton's outlook. It is a naive outlook, but I wouldn't call him a simpleton. It isn't wrong to want to trust people, but we live in a bad world right now. You just can't trust people- no matter how well intentioned they seem. Maybe his outlook is better than mine- isn't the goal of the terrorists to foster a ton of fear and mistrust, making it easier to push their agenda and recruit. Conner's outlook might leave people more vulnerable than ours, but it takes a heck of a lot of guts. Sometimes I wish I was more like that.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 It is a naive outlook, but I wouldn't call him a simpleton. It isn't wrong to want to trust people, but we live in a bad world right now. You just can't trust people- no matter how well intentioned they seem. Maybe his outlook is better than mine- isn't the goal of the terrorists to foster a ton of fear and mistrust, making it easier to push their agenda and recruit. Conner's outlook might leave people more vulnerable than ours, but it takes a heck of a lot of guts. Sometimes I wish I was more like that. Guts? Really? What was the "more gutsy" position in 1936? To have opposed and fought the Nazis as they remilitarized the rhineland or to sit back and let it happen, hoping all the while that people are really "good" and "nice" and not out to harm anyone? Hamas is directly responsible for rocket attacks against the south of Israel. That's the reason for the blockade, is it not?
meazza Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 Guts? Really? What was the "more gutsy" position in 1936? To have opposed and fought the Nazis as they remilitarized the rhineland or to sit back and let it happen, hoping all the while that people are really "good" and "nice" and not out to harm anyone? Hamas is directly responsible for rocket attacks against the south of Israel. That's the reason for the blockade, is it not? Of course a counter argument for that is that Gaza is illegally occupied therefore a justified resistance. That's not my point of view, that's the point of view some take. It's a sketchy situation at best and the arguments could go in circles for centuries.
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 Of course a counter argument for that is that Gaza is illegally occupied therefore a justified resistance. That's not my point of view, that's the point of view some take. It's a sketchy situation at best and the arguments could go in circles for centuries. Hasn't Israel withdrawn from Gaza?
chicot Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 Guts? Really? What was the "more gutsy" position in 1936? To have opposed and fought the Nazis as they remilitarized the rhineland or to sit back and let it happen, hoping all the while that people are really "good" and "nice" and not out to harm anyone? Hamas is directly responsible for rocket attacks against the south of Israel. That's the reason for the blockade, is it not? The reason for the blockade is collective punishment for the entire population of Gaza. As I'm sure you're aware of (and probably approve) the blockade goes well beyond simply stopping arms from reaching Gaza and is intended to make the lives of the Gazans as harsh as possible in order to get them to turn against Hamas. That the policy is completely counter-productive in that regard is one reason why most of the world and quite a few Israelis are against the blockade. Amoz Oz in the friggin Guardian
chicot Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 Hasn't Israel withdrawn from Gaza? Do you end resistance when an occupier vacates part of the territory it illegally occupies? Should the French resistance have stopped fighting if the Germans withdrew from 20% of France?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 The reason for the blockade is collective punishment for the entire population of Gaza. As I'm sure you're aware of (and probably approve) the blockade goes well beyond simply stopping arms from reaching Gaza and is intended to make the lives of the Gazans as harsh as possible in order to get them to turn against Hamas. That the policy is completely counter-productive in that regard is one reason why most of the world and quite a few Israelis are against the blockade. Amoz Oz in the friggin Guardian Its primary goal is the ending of rocket attacks from Gaza. Its secondary goal is to hasten the ejection of Hamas. The first goal has been a success more or less, and the second, not so much. Hamas is incorrigible, unreliabe and undeniably evil.
Recommended Posts