Bet TSLA
Active Member
I believe his agenda is truth and journalistic integrity. Of course that may be because I read what he writes rather than attacking the source because I don't like the conclusions.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Israel/Hamas conflict
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
Bet TSLA
Active Member
Sure. It's miraculous how quickly Hamas rebuilt the obliterated hospital, too.
As if we needed anymore evidence of Hamas' barbarity and war crimes as they continue to wage genocidal war while they hide behind civilians.
"Protecting Gazans? Not my problem"
And when the next Hamas rocket fails and blows up in their faces killing more Gazans, the usual suspects in the West will blame the Jews or now even the UN for not protecting them.
"Protecting Gazans? Not my problem"
And when the next Hamas rocket fails and blows up in their faces killing more Gazans, the usual suspects in the West will blame the Jews or now even the UN for not protecting them.
Don't think this guy is open to a 2 State solution.
Why do so many in the West and at the UN totally ignore what people in Hamas, ISIS and Al Qaeda say are their goals?
How do you coexist with this level of RELIGIOUS hatred?
Why do so many in the West and at the UN totally ignore what people in Hamas, ISIS and Al Qaeda say are their goals?
How do you coexist with this level of RELIGIOUS hatred?
Bet TSLA
Active Member
No idea what you're talking about. You know, when you start out with nonsensical ideas it's really hard to make any kind of argument one way or the other. If you want to argue details, it's pretty much all in the piece I sent the link to. Personally, I, like you, know nothing first-hand.Sure. It's miraculous how quickly Hamas rebuilt the obliterated hospital, too.
I have always striven to be a centrist in most things.
"All things in moderation, including moderation."
-- Robert Heinlein
Back when the US politics thread was going I would frequently take flak from both sides. Being a centrist doesn't mean you're wishy washy, it means you don't want to see extremist solutions, which are almost always completely wrong.
There are people who get too wrapped up in both sides-ism and can't come to a conclusion. That isn't centrism as much as indecisiveness.
Terrorists do big attacks on stronger powers because they know that those stronger powers are most likely going to over react and then the terrorist organization gets sympathy from people who they want to support them.
And the people of these stronger powers aren't necessarily behind their government's actions. A lot of Americans were for the invasion of Iraq because the administration lied to them. Once people figured out the lie GW Bush's approval rating went to 25%.
I was on record before the invasion that it was an absolutely terrible idea. Probably the biggest strategic blunder in US history. 20 years later and I haven't changed my mind on whit. The story the administration was telling didn't hang together and it was distracting from the real fight which was rooting out al Qaeda in Afghanistan. In late 2001 the US had the top leadership for al Qaeda trapped in Afghanistan, but they didn't have the troops to close the deal because the administration was siphoning off troops from Afghanistan for the Iraq invasion. If the US had stayed the course in Afghanistan, al Qaeda may have been badly weakened by late 2001.
The US should have gone into Afghanistan, cleaned out al Qaeda, and left and then done nothing with Iraq. But few people were willing to listen to me in the couple of years after 9/11.
I disagree that it's anti-Jewish sentiment. There are anti-Semites in the west, but these days anti-Semitism is much less than it once was. I rarely run across any Americans who care one way or the other about Jewish people.
Most people are not that well informed. What they get het up about is what they get told about. The slaughter in Syria was not reported much in the US. It was more reported in Europe, but it still wasn't a front and center story.
Just like the various wars in Africa. It seems like there is always at least one war going on in Africa, but the US media completely ignores them so people don't get outraged. I remember back in the late 70s or early 80s suddenly the famine in Ethiopia with people dying of starvation was a big story in the US with lots of aid suddenly being raised. But the famine happened in large part because of a war most American still don't know happened.
There was a big deal back in 2012 about Joseph Kony's LRA movement in Uganda. It started on western social media so a lot of people became concerned. The LRA had been around since 1987, but few people in the west heard of it until 2012 and suddenly it became the latest cause celeb.
The conflict between Israel and various Muslim groups always gets coverage in the west. More so than most wars in the developing world. The fact that a Jewish state is one side in the conflicts is part of it. Another part is that Israel is a developed country and it's a developed country involved in a war. That always catches headlines more than two bush league powers attacking one another.
Jewish people are also over represented in the media and entertainment business (not talking conspiracies here, people among that sub-culture tend to gravitate in that direction more than non-Jewish people do). Israel is the home country for a lot of American Jews and they pay more attention to what's going on there than they do many other countries. Just like Irish-Americans may feel an affinity for Ireland. Most Americans feel some connection to the place their ancestors came from.
The plight of the Palestinians is another of those cause celebs. There are people in the west who see the Palestinians as the underdogs. And in some ways they are. Many of those people see the Israelis as the bully in this situation. This isn't an anti-Jewish sentiment, it's a problem with the actions of the Israeli government. These people would be feeling the same if the government was the Vatican or any other religious group.
The Israelis and the pro-Israeli lobby has been very effective in shouting down anyone who criticizes Israel by conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Someone can be perfectly fine with Jewish people, but have a problem with the actions of the Israeli government. This distinction gets lost in all the hype.
Just killing bin Laden during the Clinton administration probably wouldn't have stopped 9/11. Al Qaeda was set up as a distributed command organization. The organization is weak now, but that's only after several generations of leadership at all levels have been taken out. Taking out one leader just dilutes their abilities a little bit, it doesn't kill the beast.
I am very familiar with Seth Abramson. He is an ex-lawyer and currently a college professor and he's been writing about political crimes in the US for several years. He carefully researches everything and lays out his case like a good prosecutor putting together an airtight case.
I was initially skeptical of this summary, but when I saw it was from Seth Abramson the credibility went way up. If he's saying anything about this, he's done his research and he's reporting facts.
Abramson's analysis is based on (poor)journalism and not science. He claims the damage to the hospital parking lot was either caused by an Iron Dome missile or 155mm artillery fired from Israel. One only has to look at the crater size and surrounding damage to realize the absurdity of claiming it could be from a 155mm artillery shell. The crater would be MUCH larger and there would be tremendous shrapnel/explosive damage to the nearby vehicles. What we see is a very small crater with very little percussive damage to nearby vehicles, but a fair amount of fire damage. Like you might expect from a hydrocarbon laden rudimentary rocket that failed upon/very shortly after launch. I'd have to say that Abramson has zero credibility on this matter. I'll take the analysis of numerous western intelligence agencies over some clown who has no expertise in that realm.
Last edited:
Do you mean "lied" or being "wrong"?
There is a HUGE moral and legal difference. Especially when the MAJORITY of your intelligence agencies are saying you are right.
Why would the Bush administration knowingly lie about something like this and not have a plan to at least plant some WMD evidence? 9/11 Truther extremists on the Right and Left all claim 9/11 was a super sophisticated inside job by Bush and the MIC just so America could go to Iraq and steal their oil. Still waiting to see all those pipelines and oil tankers built by America to steal Iraqi oil BTW. But if Bush could orchestrate something as complex as 9/11 without getting caught, how hard would it be to smuggle in several tons of WMD's when the US Military had virtually total control of what was going in and out of Iraq from 2003-08?
Also, as I pointed out earlier today - Bin Laden cited US forces in Saudi Arabia as one of his top reasons for 9/11. Why were US "infidels" in Saudi Arabia? They were there left over after the first Gulf War to enforce No Fly Zones so Saddam wouldn't gas the Iraqi Kurds and Shias again.
So while Iraq was not behind 9/11, neither was Palestine - but extremist radical Muslims connect both situations as justification for 9/11.
I see, there is still some debate over the origin of the rocket. One thing I *think* we can agree on, is that whether Hamas directly fired it (and it mis-fired), or it was shot down as the Geoconfirmed group stated (they are OSINT btw), it occurred because Hamas, not Israel originated the missile from a site near the hospital.Sure. It's miraculous how quickly Hamas rebuilt the obliterated hospital, too.
Abramson's analysis is based on (poor)journalism and not science. He claims the damage to the hospital parking lot was either caused by an Iron Dome missile or 155mm artillery fired from Israel. One only has to look at the crater size and surrounding damage to realize the absurdity of claiming it could be from a 155mm artillery shell. The crater would be MUCH larger and there would be tremendous shrapnel/explosive damage to the nearby vehicles. What we see is a very small crater with very little percussive damage to nearby vehicles, but a fair amount of fire damage. Like you might expect from a hydrocarbon laden rudimentary rocket that failed upon/very shortly after launch. I'd have to say that Abramson has zero credibility on this matter. I'll take the analysis of numerous western intelligence agencies over some clown who has no expertise in that realm.
A ground strike 155mm is out, it would create too large a crater, but there are 155mm shells that do an air burst, but everything would be peppered with shrapnel.
I think it is possible that an Iron Dome missile that was intercepting one of the Hamas missiles may have had a partial kill that caused both missiles to fall into the parking lot.
I talked to my partner about Abramson. She has seen him do his homework like I said on legal issues, but she thinks sometimes he gets a little blinded on Israel/Jewish issues. Nobody is perfect.
He is more of an expert on US law than on military matters.
Richard Clark wrote in his book that the Bush White House was trying to get him to blame 9/11 on the Iraqis before the fires were out at the World Trade Center. The warhawks within the Bush administration wanted an excuse to invade Iraq from the day they entered office. Most of those guys were PNAC guys who were talking about this all through the Clinton administration.
PNAC believed that the US as the world's only remaining super power could go and do as it pleased on the world stage, invading any country it wanted, doing a regime change, and somehow democracy and prosperity would blossom there. Iraq was their proof of concept and it failed miserably.
I never believed that the US had any intention of stealing Iraq's oil. They were in league with the oil companies who moved in to set up nice deals to buy the oil. And this was supposed to fund the rebuilding of Iraq.
The US had intelligence failures, but the administration cherry picked the murky intelligence to paint the picture they wanted and went with that. I recall looking at the publicly available information at the time and thinking it was iffy at best.
Jigglypuff
Member
Because of Musk's behavior and comments, I have canceled my Starlink service. I was going to pay the fee to renew my Model Y's internet access, but I can't stand to give this guy more of my money.
Four Powerwalls, a Model Y, and Starlink, and I'll never be a Musk customer again.
Four Powerwalls, a Model Y, and Starlink, and I'll never be a Musk customer again.
Tam
Well-Known Member
He is pro-humanitarian by planning to provide those internationally recognized organizations with Starlink communication.
He's also pro-Israel by going through Israel’s Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) Ronen Bar in so doing.
Excellent arrangement for Shin Bet to assassinate a target with satellite technology.
And some of those “internationally recognized organizations” are either directly run by Hamas, or are infiltrated by them. And Starlink will be used by Hamas to continue attacking Israel. So, how is that preventable otherwise?
Simple question - how does Israel stop future barbaric attacks on its citizens from Hamas?
Btw, there is still rampant denial of the barbarism. I just saw a post on X that showed the Yale University daily newspaper, with a retraction denying it. I won’t post the X link; although it doesn’t show graphic atrocities, it does include a link to a National Review article entitled, “
Israel Screens Horrific Footage from Hamas Attacks for U.S. Media: What We Saw”
You can search for that in X if you want.If my point isn’t clear enough, I will restate it. How do you uphold “humanitarian efforts,” when you are trying to not facilitate barbarism? I think Elon made the right call.
Screenshot of Yale daily below:
Tam
Well-Known Member
It's clear enough for Israel to inspect and allow those organizations' trucks to go into Gaza.
In addition, it's Shin Bet's advantage to use satellite technology to hunt down targets with Sattelite access.
In 1996, keeping Gaza cell signals alive was essential to assassinate Hamas "engineer" Yahya Ayyash.
Ukraine took the same cell phone technology to kill Russians:
Ukraine war: Mobile networks being weaponised to target troops on both sides of conflict
In the first days of 2023, a Ukrainian missile strike in Makiivka killed perhaps hundreds of servicemen - and Russia is blaming it on mobile phone use by its soldiers.
news.sky.com
