IDIOTI UTILI marelui Israel

Yahve a fost generos cu poporul ales,ales bules …si idiotii ii aduc servicii .

11 răspunsuri to “IDIOTI UTILI marelui Israel”

  1. JOKER 2009 Says:

    februarie 1, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    Huckabee: No Palestinian State In West Bank
    hi
    JERUSALEM — Potential 2012 U.S. presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said Tuesday that if Palestinians want an independent state, they should seek it from Arabs – not Israel. The evangelical minister and Fox News host said Jews should be allowed to settle anywhere throughout the biblical Land of Israel – an area that includes the West Bank and east Jerusalem.SURSA

    Răspunde
  2. foame-n gat Says:

    februarie 1, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    AMB. JOHN BOLTON: Is Democracy Coming to Egypt at Last?

    aici

    Răspunde
  3. fabio Says:

    mai 27, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    Where Netanyahu fails himself and Israel
    he path to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been clear for 20 years. Israel would cede most of the land it conquered in the 1967 war to a Palestinian state, keeping the major settlement blocks. In return, it would get a series of measures designed to protect its security. That’s why the process is called land for peace. The problem is that Netanyahu has never believed in land for peace. His strategy has been to put up obstacles, create confusion and wait it out. But one day there will be peace, along the lines that people have talked about for 20 years. And Netanyahu will be remembered only as a person before the person who made peace, a comma in history.Bibi o biata virgula in istorie

    Răspunde
  5. mihaibeltechi Says:

    august 2, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    Pamela Geller
    SUMMER CAMP? ANTISEMITIC INDOCTRINATION TRAINING CENTER
    AICI

    Răspunde
  6. mihaibeltechi Says:

    septembrie 11, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Rabbi allies with Yahweh against Turkey
    hi

    AICI

    Răspunde
  8. mihaibeltechi Says:

    ianuarie 2, 2012 at 8:23 am

    Iran & Iran

    Iran & Iran

    Răspunde
  9. mihaibeltechi Says:

    ianuarie 6, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer-Neocon Hysteria Over Defense Cuts Falls Flat

    Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer have been sort of doleful in their appearances on FOX News lately, looking like their hearts are just not in it. Not hard to see why: it looks like cardboard cut-out and moderate Republican Mitt Romney will be their party’s presidential nominee. On the national security front, it’s been difficult to stake a strident position against a president who has put the former administration’s drone program to shame, bombed more countries and killed more Pakistanis in the last three years than they probably thought possible. Gitmo’s still open for business and it could be expanding its capacity, thanks to new detention provisions in the NDAA.
    Meanwhile, the exit from Afghanistan looks like it’s going to be a really slow one, and Iraq … well, all Krauthammer’s fulminations about President Obama “losing” the war have largely fallen on deaf ears. Americans have heard enough — most everyone wanted to come home, even the troops, who Kristol and Krauthammer and the rest of the American Enterprise Institute brain trust claimed they were speaking for all along. As for Iran, it seems it’s going to take a lot more than puffed-up rhetoric to drag the people behind yet another war.
    But it’s obvious these two soldiers of truth were keeping their powder dry for the next fight. Maybe too dry. When President Obama announced yesterday that he wants to cut $500 billion from the Pentagon budget over the next decade, it cast a spark that immediately set their collective hair aflame.
    “It would decimate the country. It would weaken the United States of America,” charged Kristol, who looked personally offended by the president on FOX News Special Report last night.
    Krauthammer enjoined with his ever lugubrious intonations, “It is a road map to America’s decline.”
    Obama proposes most of the cuts in three broad areas: non-retirement personnel benefits that haven’t been reformed in decades, cutting ground forces eventually back to 1990′s levels, pulling back from overseas bases and putting the brakes on expensive and controversial programs, like the F-35 joint strike fighter. The budget strategy would instead focus on perceived future interests, involving more Special Forces, counter-terrorism capabilities, cyber-warfare, missile defense and beefing up Navy and Air Force platforms.
    Krauthammer and Kristol, who have no military backgrounds, seemed particularly perturbed that Army and Marine forces would be cut, which is not surprising since the two men have been advocating invasions and regime changes since the 1990′s.
    “Sometimes a Pearl Harbor happens or a south Korea or a 9/11, where a ground war is thrust upon you — you have no choice,” strained Krauthammer. The editors of National Review added their own knee-jerky response this morning.
    Funny, the folks over at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) — a think tank that is so well-connected to the military it is practically a civilian appendage — didn’t take it so hard. That’s probably because when it was weighing the worst case scenarios for budget cuts back in October, $500 billon was considered all right.
    “The risks associated with this scenario are significant but acceptable,” read CNAS’s October report, “Hard Choices: Responsible Defense on an Age of Austerity,” considering $501.7 billion in cutbacks over 10 years.
    “This scenario prioritizes areas where vital US interests are at stake, and takes risks in other parts of the world. It focuses on sustaining U.S military power across the Pacific Rim while protecting U.S interests in the Middle East, and it maintains substantial power projection and ground force capabilities as a hedge against unexpected threats.”
    Doesn’t sound to me like the republic’s crumbling anytime soon.
    CNAS was co-founded by Michele Flournoy, a supporter of the Democrats in the last presidential campaign who is now Under Secretary of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon, Doug Feith’s old job. In fact, many CNAS alums have gone to work for the Pentagon, and the military has sent many of its officers to work for CNAS, as active duty fellows and as retirees looking to stay connected to the beltway machine. Other than ostensibly supporting the administration, CNAS has no other visible interest in seeing the Pentagon budget shrink.
    That said, when CNAS’s top people weighed in on the President’s announcement today, comments reflected not the political hysteria offered up by Kristol & Co., but cautious optimism. While warning against further cuts (hey, they know where their bread is buttered!), most thought the strategy proposed this week was, well, sound:
    “Today’s report frames a realistic strategy for maintaining the United States as a global superpower, with constrained resources; but further cuts, especially approaching levels required by sequestration, would put this new paradigm at serious risk.” –Lieutenant General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.) , Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow and co-author of Hard Choices: Responsible Defense in an Age of Austerity
    “The new strategic guidance nicely balances the demands for continued U.S. global leadership with the reality of fiscal constraints. It correctly reorients U.S. military forces towards Asia, while simultaneously preparing for potential threats from the Middle East. Unlike previous strategy documents, it prioritizes among the missions that U.S. forces will be expected to conduct. Most importantly, the new strategy clearly acknowledges that predictions about the future are rarely correct, and therefore emphasizes the importance of expandability – the ability to regenerate capabilities quickly if the strategic environment changes rapidly.”- Dr. Nora Bensahel, Deputy Director of Studies and Senior Fellow and co-author of Hard Choices: Responsible Defense in an Age of Austerity
    “America’s allies in the Persian Gulf are worried by a potential U.S. strategic shift to East Asia. They fret the United States will abandon security partnerships in the Middle East as it sees more important priorities elsewhere amidst a resource-constrained environment. Those allies in the Persian Gulf should rest easier after today’s press conference, in which the president and the secretary of defense reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to the security of the Persian Gulf. Europe, not the Middle East, looks to be the big loser in the U.S. defense realignment. But it will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the Middle East, which still going through so much turmoil. ” – Dr. Andrew Exum , Senior Fellow.
    As always, Exum, who is still atoning for his role as COIN spokesman circa 2009, does not take a strong stand either way, but his blog posting on the budget announcement indicates overall support for the Obama plan. Absolutely no skies falling here.
    So the military surrogates seem to be breathing a sigh of relief, while the shopworn hawks try to rev up for another political cage match.
    But let’s face it — voters are cash-strapped and war-weary. Ron Paul, for a second presidential race in a row, is vacuuming up anti-war/limited government votes wherever he goes, doubling his votes in Iowa as a result. And AEI war harpies have been largely discredited, even from inside the military community. Taking aim at their recent pitch for staying in Iraq, Iraq War vet and milblogger Carl Prine called AEI’s Kim and Fred Kagan, “a double-shot of intellectual cancer designed apparently to make anyone who reads their historically-challenged agitprop dumber by the word.” Ouch.
    So, Kristol and Krauthammer are on fire, but does anyone aside from Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum — who will no doubt deploy these criticisms, to dubious effect, against Obama in upcoming debates — still care? The upcoming elections may yet bear them out, but it would seem these hawks’ hyperbolic efforts at igniting a wider audience over 10-year cuts in an already bloated Pentagon budget are all wet.
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2012/01/06/neocon-hysteria-over-defense-cuts-falls-flat/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=neocon-hysteria-over-defense-cuts-falls-flat

    Răspunde
  10. Fabio Says:

    mai 1, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    Israel propagandist David Horowitz and the art of slander
    By Lawrence Davidson

    Lawrence Davidson examines the use of slander by US conservative writer David Horowitz to damn the boycott Israel campaign. He argues that Horowitz “displays the prejudice of a fanatic and tries to pass it off as reason” but that he “may well have overstepped and made himself the subject of critical attention rather than those he rails against”.

    Slander

    On 24 April 2012 the New York Times (NYT) lent its editorial page to the propaganda of right-wing Zionist David Horowitz, thereby taking the “newspaper of record” down into the gutter for only the price of a quarter-page advertisement. The advertisement, which was placed “as a public service” by the David Horowitz Freedom Centre, told the following libellous story:

    The Holocaust began with boycotts of Jewish stores and ended with death camps. The calls for a new Holocaust can be heard throughout the Middle East and Europe as well. In the wake of the murders of a rabbi and three children in Toulouse, it is time for the supporters of the Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel movement (BDS) to ask themselves what they did to contribute to the atmosphere of hate that spawned these and other murders of Jews.

    What is wrong with this story?

    “If you want a proper analogy to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Israel, it is the effort by Jewish and other groups before and during World War II to organize boycotts of Nazi Germany.”

    1. The analogy of BDS with “boycotts of Jewish stores” is (no doubt purposely) misleading. The BDS movement is directed against Israel as a racist state and the economic and social agents (Jewish and non-Jewish) who support it. If you want a proper analogy to BDS, it is the effort by Jewish and other groups before and during World War II to organize boycotts of Nazi Germany. The notion that the BDS boycotts lead to death camps is fantasy. Whatever the crazy logic of the Nazis on the one hand and David Horowitz on the other, the BDS movement is an effort to prevent persecution and not to promote it.

    2. The notion that the BDS movement either “calls for a new Holocaust” or is associated with those supposedly doing so, is nonsense. In reality it is the right-wing Israeli fanatics who are not only calling for, but actually carrying out their own version of a holocaust against the Palestinians. In the place of concentration camps they have created ghettos and bantustans. In place of gas chambers they have promoted homelessness, cultural genocide and periodic pogroms. Indeed, the same week Mr Horowitz placed his advertisement, Israel launched 57 military raids into Palestinian territory, resulting in multiple injuries and death, destroyed at least 13 Palestinian shelters while beginning construction on 20 illegal settler houses. Yet the perpetrators of these crimes persist in portraying themselves as victims because once, under completely different historical circumstances, their ancestors were victims. But that was in the past. In the present the Zionists are the culprits and BDS seeks to bring out this tragic and ironic fact.

    3. It is a gross misrepresentation to accuse those supporting BDS of contributing to “the atmosphere of hate that spawned… murder of Jews.” The BDS campaign has nothing to do with this atmosphere, but the actions of the Israeli leadership has everything to do with it. With the Zionist persecution of the Palestinians on-going, one needs no boycott movement to explain the upswing of anger. Some may unfortunately fail to make the proper distinction between political Zionists and Jews in general, just like Horowitz and his ilk fail to make the distinction between terrorists and Palestinians in general. Yet, if the Israeli leaders and their supporters want to know where this anger is coming from, they need look no further than their own behaviour.

    However, they refuse to look. Instead, they attempt to confuse matters and shift the blame from fanatic Zionist settlers and racist Israeli politicians onto those who would publicly expose the viciousness of Israeli policies. That is the aim of the Horowitz advertisement in the New York Times and it pursues it in very specific ad hominem fashion. When in November 1938 the Nazis launched the pogroms which became known as Kristallnacht, they painted Jewish stars on the sites to be attacked. In a similar way Horowitz seeks to identify and label those he wishes to be “publicly shamed and condemned”. What does that mean? Should they lose their jobs just like the Jews who were forced from their occupations by the Nazis? Should they be segregated out and impoverished like Palestinians? Perhaps Mr Horowitz would applaud physical attacks? Just how Nazi-like does he wish the situation to get?

    The New York Times

    William Thomson of the University of Michigan, one of 14 academics slandered by the Horowitz advertisement, notes that “groups and individuals will resort to unfounded character assassination and ad hominem attacks when reasoned discussion is beyond their abilities”. However, the country’s major national newspaper is not supposed to be an accomplice in such attacks. Yet, that is the case.

    Ali Abunimah has pointed out that the New York Times has “advertising acceptability guidelines” which require advertisements to “comply with its [the NYT’s] standards of decency and dignity” and not be “misleading, inaccurate or fraudulent”. Horowitz’s offering is blatantly all of this. Yet there it was, in the 24 April edition of the “paper of record”. Of course, Horowitz’s propaganda was placed on the editorial page and not identified as an advertisement. What are we to make of this? It seems clear that the editors actually believe that the piece passes their standards of acceptability. But is the NYT also telling us that this libel is an acceptable editorial? The entire affair calls into question (not for the first time) the judgment of the people who run this famous newspaper.

    Conclusion

    David Horowitz probably wrote this propaganda piece not only to shift blame, but also to scare people – to frighten those named and scare off others from getting involved in the BDS movement. Yet he may well have overstepped and made himself the subject of critical attention rather than those he rails against. That is what happens when your message reflects a viewpoint that is ideologically driven and fanatical. Cast this viewpoint in a more normal light and it looks weird and distorted.

    The 19th century English essayist William Hazlitt once remarked that “prejudice is never easy unless it can pass itself off for reason”. That is also what David Horowitz tries to do here. He displays the prejudice of a fanatic and tries to pass it off as reason. Hopefully, when it comes to Israel/Palestine, it is too late for that sort of gambit to work.
    http://www.redress.cc/americas/ldavidson20120501

    Răspunde

Lasă un răspuns către Fabio Anulează răspunsul