Why is Israel Important to the US?

Be discrete, man. Zionism has got them into enough trouble as it is.

 

Interesting...
Here's another interesting article showing how Israeli propaganda works...even on its own people...
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/06/an_ambassador_smeared/singleton/

Conservative estimates of the Gypsie slaughter range around the 500,000 mark.
Other estimates don't try to put numbers on the deaths, as gypsies were quite often illiterate and so numbers are unrealistic, so instead they estimate up to 80% of them murdered by gas, gun and/or medical experiments.

There were others too, including the handicapped.

Yet all we ever hear about is the poor poor Heebs.
Hell The Holocaust has come to MEAN the murder of the Jews, conveniently forgetting the millions of others murdered and mutilated.

The Holocaust was a BAD thing. No doubt about it. But:

A. Hitler was NOT the only perpetrator. Hell all he was doing is finishing what Stalin started...as you point out in your article.
B. The Jews WERE NOT the only ones murdered.


So shouldn't the Gypsies be given a country?
Just a small one for all the hardships they've endured.
Maybe a small state in the USA for instance.
Wanna give up YOUR home for the poor poor Gypsies?
Or does the general sentiment only extend to BANKERS?

 

It is like the US in being devoted to racism and ethnic cleansing, and most Americans seem desperately to admire bullies.

 

TO HELL WITH DISCRETION!
A spade is a spade...no matter what PC-friendly tag you prefer to colour it with.

I agree that ZIONISM is a negative force on these people...and indeed all people. But GAWD MAN! Isn't it time to take the kid-gloves off?

Israel has ridden the wave of guilt of the gentile tribes LONG ENOUGH!

They contribute ZERO positive anythings to this world.
They are important...to themselves.
Don't believe me?
Go take a nice walk through a Jewish neighborhood.
You will see tons of signs asking people to donate to Israel.
But tell me...how many signs do you see asking people to donate to the COUNTRY THEY LIVE IN???

ZERO!

 

You were the one claiming Truman was not anti-Semitic, were you not, so don't give me any 'out of context' crap. Sorry that the truth-from Truman's own diary-is so unbearable that you need to pretend it didn't happen. Sweetie.

 

Your pathetic attempts at refutation are getting more and more hysterical. 'Code words'?

 

I don't think that that you can time the afghan withdrawal in such a way as not to embolden extremists the afghan government when left to its own devices will fall and it will be a stroke of luck if the result is not worse than the taliban.

I don't believe that a return to the 67 borders will end terrorism in the region but I think that it is in Israels best interests to stop the settlements and move towards a two state solution, no it won't be popular with the ultra orthodox or hardcore clerics but it is better for every one in the long run.

A two state solution would remove much of the support for extremists in the west bank. And other leaders would be deprived of the scapegoat of Israel. The 67 borders are an attempt to negate the efforts of the ultra orthodox the settlements are as bad as plantation.
.

 

Unfortunately, it is starting to look like that.

If nothing else, this whole alliance idea with the Taliban is better than having them overthrow the government outright.

I think the best solution of all would involve splitting Afghanistan into multiple countries divided by ethnic lines, but that doesn't look very likely.

Ending the settlements will probably be easier than actually having a 2 state resolution. I think even a lot of the more extreme Zionists are beginning to realize that continued settlements just make things worse.

If the 2 state solution actually happens, I hope you're right.

I still don't think that would end the scapegoating, but it would surely decrease tensions and force Israel to approach things differently.

 

This is true, and some Christians are like that too.

Granted, this is also why I distrust some religious people -- particularly the Muslims that fit this description.

I'm not saying you have to be exceptionally loyal to the country you're in. However, if your belief system involves several ideas that go against the principles of your society's laws and rights, you're going to have some problems.

And understandably, when people figure that out about you, they will distrust you.

I have problems with both when it encourages this separatism.

While people should be free to live where they please once they have citizenship, I think immigration policies should take into account which cultures assimilate better into the majority culture.

Immigration should be more restricted from "problem countries."

There's some truth to that, but on the other hand, radicalization happens with or without prejudice.

There is clearly a radical streak in much of the Islamic World that existed before the West got so involved in the Middle East. I'm not saying most Muslims are radical or are "radicals in waiting", but the identity issues you mentioned above lead to a lot of problems when immigration policies are so open.

Western societies should rightfully be more selective in the interests of better assimilation, and yes, orthodox Jews also need to face similar amounts of scrutiny.

Well, this is an interesting juxtaposition. On the one hand, you're saying that extremist Muslims don't commit much of the terror in the world, but on the other, you're saying that our foreign policy leads to terror from Muslims.

If I'm to believe the Europol report, then I would assume that this means that only the craziest people among the Muslims commit terror attacks over foreign policy -- which would also imply that the lack of prevalence in said attacks by Muslims must mean that our policies aren't so bad for our own security.

Islamaphobia is one thing. Being rationally distrustful of people who put their religion ahead of the same rights that they take advantage of themselves is quite another.

 

What's this 'we' crap, Kimosabe? 1) I do not share values with Israel and 2) speak for yourself.

 

"The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated … "as long as the Jews get special treatment." - HS Truman

Good enough for me, by golly.

 

Israel is no strategic ally (it routinely sells US military tech to the Chinese) and it certainly hasn't been a counterweight to Islamic extremism. Those Israeli boys were delighted when the towers came down.

 

So one comment - that could have been taken out of context - defines an entire person's outlook on all jews? WRONG, honey.

He would not have gone into business with jews if he disliked them, nor stood up for the creation of Israel, etc. FAIL.

 

From my reading, I don't think that second generation and later Muslims have any problems with laws and rights...I think their bigger problem is the culture, as assimilation, in our minds, mean doing as we say, living as we live (even if that sometimes equates to being complete ********s in anybody's mind).

To the Muslim, that expectation may mean compromising his/her religious values. That may be a reason why there has been an increase in the wearing of the hijab among young Muslim women, for example..because given the choice between assimilating, or, by their perception, denying their religion, they prefer not to assimilate culturally. And laws obliging them to deny their religion, and thus their self-perceived identity, as have been passed in some European countries, are, by definition, targeting them specifically in an era where every nasty happening in the world is blamed on Muslims.

Why would anybody distrust anyone else because they have a religion (principles) by which they live......unless those principles(religions) have been flagged up by Governments/media as "a problem"?

I have a sister-in-law who is a "Wee Free"..one of the more fundamentalist Protestant churches in Scotland, which is virulently anti-gay and is generally pro-Zionist to a sickening level, imo. I don't distrust her.....or any of those I am aware follow the same religion.....but they do hold views which are legally unacceptable, as well as views I find personally unacceptable..but it does not bother me because I have not, for years, been taught to view "Wee Frees" as a problem to Scottish society.

Do you have problems when the "separatism" is that of American-Chinese, American-Irish, American-Jewish, American-Mormon, American-African, American-Italian etc enclaves.....or is that "acceptable" in your eyes?

If I were desperate enough to emigrate to London,England, before I went, I'd be making bloody sure I tried to get somewhere to live where there were lots of Scots.........why not? Hard enough to go to a foreign country at all, and harder to go somewhere where nobody understands what you are saying.

Which are the "problem" countries? The ones your Government and media tell you are "problem" countries? I see immigration as something undertaken by individuals and families to better themselves or escape persecution......not by countries........and while I have no great objection to the UK setting immigration limits, given the area of the UK....I would be incandescent if they predicated their decisions on the religion/colour/place of origin of the immigrant rather than the benefit they would be to the UK. I'd much rather have dozens of Muslim doctors and nurses etc than dozens of Australian, American etc bar-persons.

I'm not completely convinced it does. Sure, there may be a small minority, like Bin Laden, who had been brought up in a fundamentalist Islamic Regime, taught in schools/colleges set up by that regime...and by the time he had reached adulthood had been thoroughly brainwashed....but radicalisation among those previously unaffected tends to have a reason. It may not necessarily be one we would agree with..but then it isn't down to us to interpret how others think, though it is down to us to make it difficult for them to think the way they do.

And since 9/11 the West has done nothing at all to stop even the most moderate Muslim thinking outrage and anger, have we?

So you are saying that Western societies should select their immigrants according to prejudice.....because, with no other criteria bar country of origin or religion, that would be the sole reason for refusal. Immigration officials would be guilty of the same stereotyping of individuals which has caused problems world-wide.

I don't quite understand how your reading comprehension works...though I may not have made myself as clear as I thought I had...firstly, I said that according to a Europol (which is a poll of Euro Countries...not the world), 0.4 per cent of terrorist attacks between 2007-2009 were committed by extremist Muslims. Following that, I said that the 7/7 attacks in London were conducted by Muslims who explicitly said that their actions were motivated by our government’s foreign policy.

How you managed to extrapolate from a part of the post which was specifically concerned with Europe, anything to do with the world and your Government beats me.

I don't think that, tbh....which is why I also mentioned the statistics regarding the discrimination against/problems faced by Muslims at that time regarding being part of a society which had been taught that they are a problem and not to be trusted, for no reason other than 19 Muslims, and 19 Muslims of a sect which very few in the UK espoused at the time, committed the 9/11 atrocities. That part I agree I did not set out well.

Radicalisation does not occur in a vacuum......just as terrorism itself does not.

So first you have kids who can't get jobs, kids whose fathers can't get jobs, kids who live in overcrowded conditions because of a shortage of decent and affordable housing in the UK , which makes studying difficult, and often results in failing at school, kids who are bullied in playgrounds, because other kids have learned prejudice from their right-wing parents and because they are that terrible thing(this decade)...a Muslim.....kids who daren't even admit to being Muslim......and then you add Afghanistan, which was trashed instead of Saudi Arabia, (which was the country which actually nurtured and financed the terrorists), and provided 15 of them, and Iraq, a country I was against getting involved in and still don't understand the reasons behind it.

Then add to that the one thing I would like immigration policy to stop......the allowing into this country, under any pretext at all, for any time at all, people with radical divisive beliefs...such as Pat Robertson, Geert Wilders, Louis Farrakhan etc and making it a lot easier to get rid of the likes of Abu Hamza al-Masri.

We don't need to alter our immigration policy....what we need to do is rein in our irrational PC policies which allows people from outside to come here and foment racial/religious hatred.

Problem again is perception, I think..and on that yours and mine differ.

I read this forum, and other similar ones, and I do not find that posters on them are rationally distrustful of people who put their religion ahead of the same rights that they take advantage of themselves ....I find they react to the word Muslim with the same complete lack of rational thought as the UK Government did when they passed the "Dangerous Dogs" Act. In fact often they slaver in print like any "dangerous dog".

 

Of course it would be, the clueless or already prejudiced are easily convinced.

 

Nice try sweetie, except your friend moon already said the same thing I did a few posts above. Do try and keep up.

 

Never asked for your opinion, nor would I be interested in it if you stated it.

 

Business is business and you don't have to like who you're making money off. Dumb argument; try again. I have a truly obnoxious guitar student, but he pays for his lessons...

 

Why? Did he ask you to strum Hava Nagila for him?

 

What I gave you was not an opinion. I do not share values with Israel and I ain't "we", pal. Facts.

 

You couldn't pay me enough...

 

Let me give an example that might clear up what I mean.

If I moved to Saudi Arabia, I would assimilate. I wouldn't expect the system there to change just because I'm used to living in a different way. I wouldn't clamor for laws legalizing alcohol just because I like to drink, and I wouldn't have the excuse of hiding behind a religion to push for such a change.

When anyone immigrates to a Western country, they should realize that it is their responsibility to assimilate. If they choose to defy the culture they live in, then they should expect resistance and discrimination.

I would expect the same if I moved to an Islamic country, and you can be sure that I would experience a lot less tolerance over there than they experience in the West.

While I personally disagree with things like hijab bans, I think this willingness to put religion before country is, again, exactly why distrust is warranted towards them.

I distrust religion and religious people in general when I find that their beliefs conflict with my society's values.

If a cartoon is enough to cause a riot from someone, then yes, I will distrust the rioters. If a person expresses sympathy for the view that converts out of Islam should be executed, I will distrust them.

If a person wishes to have their community live under a separate law system from my own, then I will distrust them whether they are supporting Sharia, Jewish law, or some other system.

So yes, I distrust a lot of people, and it is directly in proportion to how different they are from myself.

Believe it or not, I think you'll find this to be true of most people in general. A lot of Muslims distrust non-Muslims. It's a natural feeling and one not totally unwarranted.

Diversity is a normal part of living in a free and open society, and immigration will only increase with time; however, it is very important for people to remember what the basis for their society actually is.

America has certain core values that should not be violated, and they're primarily in the Constitution. England has some core values of their own as well. I'm sure Scotland does too.

A certain amount of social conservatism is needed to maintain cultural and civil integrity, just like a certain amount of tolerance is needed for societal cohesion. However, I would argue that a lot of Europe has gone too far in the tolerance direction to the point of silencing criticism of Islam.

I would distrust her for holding those views. Just because I tolerate someone doesn't mean I trust them.

I think Teddy Roosevelt was correct in his assessment that we shouldn't have "hyphenated Americans." You're either American, or you're not.

I would feel the same about living in the U.K. Someone from Pakistan is just as capable of being British as a white person, but it does require a certain amount of assimilation.

My argument is that, if you're going to have trouble immigrating somewhere, don't move there.

Either you're ready for the real thing, or you're not.

I have a girlfriend who lives in Portugal currently. Even despite our relationship, I wouldn't move there until I was (*)(*)(*)(*) sure I could speak Portuguese well and could deal with any of the cultural nuances involved.

Thankfully, she speaks English very well and will be moving here instead.

Problem countries would be any country where the cultures involved conflict significantly with that of your own. I think you know which ones would fall into that category, and it's because of more than just "media propaganda."

I disagree with the premise here. I don't think we have a responsibility to change anyone's thoughts. I merely view foreign policy as a matter of strategy.

The War on Terror is about as futile as the War on Drugs. You can't kill an ideology anymore than you can keep people from getting high.

What we can do, however, is insulate our society from the problems of other cultures. That's what immigration control is for.

Our only interactions with the outside world should be driven by trade, scholarly pursuits, and the occasional security concern.

I think we greatly overstate the need for interventionism currently, so I would like the West in general to get less involved in the non-Western world's internal struggles.

However, by extension, I would prefer that immigration trends reflect matters of compatibility. The West should allow immigration from each country in direct proportion to willingness to assimilate.

We don't have these kinds of problems from East Asians, for example.

First of all, stereotypes exist because there is usually some truth to them.

Some people do fit the stereotype. For example, not all Americans are fat, but a lot of us are.

Second, the bar is willingness to assimilate. I've already elaborated a little bit on that above.

I phrased it badly. I realize the scope of Europol isn't the whole world.

What I was saying, however, is that apparently only a small group of Muslims have made it their response to attack us over foreign policy, so I don't see why their craziness should have any bearing on what we (as in both America and the U.K.) do in the world.

I suppose I can agree with you on the part about letting extremists in.

Our freedom of speech makes this a tricky issue here, but we do have laws against inciting riots or violence in general.

As far as the discrimination in employment goes, we have a pretty good system to deal with it here. It sounds like the system needs some reforms over in the U.K.

EDITED to meet character limits per post

 

Convert to Judaism. There is almost no problem in filling the back pocket and getting away with it.

 

It is sad that support for Israel has become so heavily dependent upon Holocaust abuse, relying heavily on the Guilt Complex to accuse everyone of being anti-Semite simply because they are critical of certain Israeli faults. If anything is Jew-hating, then such is your heavy reliance on Holocaust abuse in defense of Israeli politics.

 

Flamebait and personal insult noted, and reported. Enjoy your time off, assuming you are allowed back.