Holy gak. This is nuts, and I'm pretty sure that traditional Jews aren't even okay with autopsies, let alone organ harvesting.

Also: the guy's name is Dr. Hiss, and he was in charge of the organ harvesting. That's straight out of cartoons.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/israel-admits-harvesting_n_399623.html

(AP) JERUSALEM - Israel has admitted that in the 1990s, its forensic pathologists harvested organs from dead bodies, including Palestinians, without permission of their families.

The issue emerged with publication of an interview with the then-head of Israel's Abu Kabir forensic institute, Dr. Jehuda Hiss. The interview was conducted in 2000 by an American academic, who released it because of a huge controversy last summer over an allegation by a Swedish newspaper that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to harvest their organs. Israel hotly denied the charge.

Parts of the interview were broadcast on Israel's Channel 2 TV over the weekend. In it, Hiss said, "We started to harvest corneas ... Whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family."

The Channel 2 report said that in the 1990s, forensic specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.

In a response to the TV report, the Israeli military confirmed that the practice took place. "This activity ended a decade ago and does not happen any longer," the military said in a statement quoted by Channel 2.

In the interview, Hiss described how his doctors would mask the removal of corneas from bodies. "We'd glue the eyelid shut," he said. "We wouldn't take corneas from families we knew would open the eyelids."

Many of the details in the interview first came to light in 2004, when Hiss was dismissed as head of the forensic institute because of irregularities over use of organs there. Israel's attorney general dropped criminal charges against him, and Hiss still works as chief pathologist at the institute. He had no comment on the TV report.




Hiss became director of the institute in 1988. He said in the interview that the practice of harvesting organs without permission began in the "early 1990s." However, he also said that military surgeons removed a thin layer of skin from bodies as early as 1987 to treat burn victims. Hiss said he believed that was done with family consent. The harvesting ended in 2000, he said.

Complaints against the institute, where autopsies of dead bodies are performed, at the time of Hiss' dismissal came from relatives of Israeli soldiers and civilians as well as Palestinians. The bodies belonged to people who died from various causes, including diseases, accidents and Israeli-Palestinian violence, but there has been no evidence to back up the claim in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that Israeli soldiers killed Palestinians for their organs. Angry Israeli officials called the report "anti-Semitic."

The academic, Nancy Sheppard-Hughes, a professor of anthropology at the University of California-Berkeley, said she decided to make the interview public in the wake of the Aftonbladet controversy, which raised diplomatic tensions between Israel and Sweden and prompted Sweden's foreign minister to call off a visit to the Jewish state.

Sheppard-Hughes said that while Palestinians were "by a long shot" not the only ones affected by the practice in the 1990s, she felt the interview must be made public now because "the symbolism, you know, of taking skin of the population considered to be the enemy, (is) something, just in terms of its symbolic weight, that has to be reconsidered."

While insisting that all organ harvesting was done with permission, Israel's Health Ministry told Channel 2, "The guidelines at that time were not clear." It added, "For the last 10 years, Abu Kabir has been working according to ethics and Jewish law."

No way the organs can still be viable for transplant......I...I....I....have an incredible urge to go smoke...

 Jihadin wrote:
No way the organs can still be viable for transplant......I...I....I....have an incredible urge to go smoke...

That's what I was thinking, save for using alcohol in place of cigarettes. I was always under the impression that the organs had to be harvested while the body was still technically living. Granted, I'm not a doctor, so I won't pretend that that is the be-all, end-all answer.

I've wondered about compulsory organ donation. Too often organs go to waste because doctors don't want to burden the families with the question. Not wanting to offend people's superstitions about being intact after death is not a valid reason to let people die.

Organ donation: Don't let these myths confuse you

Unsure about donating organs for transplant? Don't let misinformation keep you from saving lives.
By Mayo Clinic staff
Over 100,000 people in the U.S. are waiting for an organ donation. Unfortunately, many may never get the call saying that a suitable donor organ — and a second chance at life — has been found.

It can be hard to think about what's going to happen to your body after you die, let alone donating your organs and tissue. But being an organ donor is a generous and worthwhile decision that can be a lifesaver. If you've never considered organ donation or delayed becoming a donor because of possibly inaccurate information, here are answers to some common organ donation myths and concerns.

Myth: If I agree to donate my organs, the hospital staff won't work as hard to save my life.

Fact: When you go to the hospital for treatment, doctors focus on saving your life — not somebody else's. You'll be seen by a doctor whose specialty most closely matches your particular emergency.

Myth: Maybe I won't really be dead when they sign my death certificate.

Fact: Although it's a popular topic in the tabloids, in reality, people don't start to wiggle their toes after they're declared dead. In fact, people who have agreed to organ donation are given more tests (at no charge to their families) to determine that they're truly dead than are those who haven't agreed to organ donation.

Myth: Organ donation is against my religion.

Fact: Organ donation is consistent with the beliefs of most major religions. This includes Roman Catholicism, Islam, most branches of Judaism and most Protestant faiths. If you're unsure of or uncomfortable with your faith's position on donation, ask a member of your clergy.

Myth: I'm under age 18. I'm too young to make this decision.

Fact: That's true, in a legal sense. But your parents can authorize this decision. You can express to your parents your wish to donate, and your parents can give their consent knowing that it's what you wanted. Children, too, are in need of organ transplants, and they usually need organs smaller than those an adult can provide.

Myth: An open-casket funeral isn't an option for people who have donated organs or tissues.

Fact: Organ and tissue donation doesn't interfere with having an open-casket funeral. The donor's body is clothed for burial, so there are no visible signs of organ or tissue donation. For bone donation, a rod is inserted where bone is removed. With skin donation, a very thin layer of skin similar to a sunburn peel is taken from the donor's back. Because the donor is clothed and lying on his or her back in the casket, no one can see any difference.

Myth: I'm too old to donate. Nobody would want my organs.

Fact: There's no defined cutoff age for donating organs. The decision to use your organs is based on strict medical criteria, not age. Don't disqualify yourself prematurely. Let the doctors decide at your time of death whether your organs and tissues are suitable for transplantation.

Myth: I'm not in the best of health. Nobody would want my organs or tissues.

Fact: Very few medical conditions automatically disqualify you from donating organs. The decision to use an organ is based on strict medical criteria. It may turn out that certain organs are not suitable for transplantation, but other organs and tissues may be fine. Don't disqualify yourself prematurely. Only medical professionals at the time of your death can determine whether your organs are suitable for transplantation.

Myth: I'd like to donate one of my kidneys now, but I wouldn't be allowed to do that unless one of my family members is in need.

Fact: While that used to be the case, it isn't any longer. Whether it's a distant family member, friend or complete stranger you want to help, you can donate a kidney through certain transplant centers. If you decide to become a living donor, you will undergo extensive questioning to ensure that you are aware of the risks and that your decision to donate isn't based on financial gain. You will also undergo testing to determine if your kidneys are in good shape and whether you can live a healthy life with just one kidney.

Myth: Rich and famous people go to the top of the list when they need a donor organ.

Fact: The rich and famous aren't given priority when it comes to allocating organs. It may seem that way because of the amount of publicity generated when celebrities receive a transplant, but they are treated no differently from anyone else. The reality is that celebrity and financial status are not considered in organ allocation.

Myth: My family will be charged if I donate my organs.

Fact: The organ donor's family is never charged for donating. The family is charged for the cost of all final efforts to save your life, and those costs are sometimes misinterpreted as costs related to organ donation. Costs for organ removal go to the transplant recipient

I'm a "Donate my Organs" member.
I'm curious though say that my heart is considered excellent condition (notionaly)......I die of natural causes at 50. How long can "my" heart last if they place it in someone whose 25. A bit of wear in tear in the ole ticker....

 grayshadow87 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
No way the organs can still be viable for transplant......I...I....I....have an incredible urge to go smoke...

That's what I was thinking, save for using alcohol in place of cigarettes. I was always under the impression that the organs had to be harvested while the body was still technically living. Granted, I'm not a doctor, so I won't pretend that that is the be-all, end-all answer.

AFAIK There's a few things you can harvest after death...Not that long admittedly but some...

 purplefood wrote:

 grayshadow87 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
No way the organs can still be viable for transplant......I...I....I....have an incredible urge to go smoke...

That's what I was thinking, save for using alcohol in place of cigarettes. I was always under the impression that the organs had to be harvested while the body was still technically living. Granted, I'm not a doctor, so I won't pretend that that is the be-all, end-all answer.

AFAIK There's a few things you can harvest after death...Not that long admittedly but some...

Everything is harvested after death. It's not a long time though.

Gee, considering how much of a fuzz Israel kicked up about Swedish media being "antisemitic" when they reported on this three years or so ago...

EDIT: Wait, the hell, the link you're linking IS 3 years old!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Gee, considering how much of a fuzz Israel kicked up about Swedish media being "antisemitic" when they reported on this three years or so ago...

EDIT: Wait, the hell, the link you're linking IS 3 years old!

The dogma that criticising Israel is directly equal to anti-Semitism and thus by extension critics of Israel are questionally comperable to fascists and even Holocaust deniers, is perhaps the single most effective point of propaganda in the last fifty years; and it is still hard to challenge.

I don't find it hard to challenge- I just say "Bollocks" whenever someone tries to pull it on me.

Not THAT surprised by this.

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Gee, considering how much of a fuzz Israel kicked up about Swedish media being "antisemitic" when they reported on this three years or so ago...

EDIT: Wait, the hell, the link you're linking IS 3 years old!

The dogma that criticising Israel is directly equal to anti-Semitism and thus by extension critics of Israel are questionally comperable to fascists and even Holocaust deniers, is perhaps the single most effective point of propaganda in the last fifty years; and it is still hard to challenge.

99% of all criticism of Israel is anti Semitic, has an anti Semitic origin, or is being repeated by people who have been drinking anti Semitic Kool-Aid.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Gee, considering how much of a fuzz Israel kicked up about Swedish media being "antisemitic" when they reported on this three years or so ago...

EDIT: Wait, the hell, the link you're linking IS 3 years old!

The dogma that criticising Israel is directly equal to anti-Semitism and thus by extension critics of Israel are questionally comperable to fascists and even Holocaust deniers, is perhaps the single most effective point of propaganda in the last fifty years; and it is still hard to challenge.

99% of all criticism of Israel is anti Semitic, has an anti Semitic origin, or is being repeated by people who have been drinking anti Semitic Kool-Aid.

How the hell do you come up with that twaddle. Been reading propaganda from CAMERA or the ADL?

Is it anti-Semitic to criticise Israel for banning Palestians as a community access to such items as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_allowed_or_banned_for_import_into_Gaza wrote: According to a UN report, importation of lentils, pasta, tomato paste and juice has been restricted.[15] Pasta has since been allowed. Sugar has always been allowed.[14] Soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies and candy are now permitted.[16] Fruit, milk products in small packages and frozen food products are also allowed.[14] Dry food,[17] ginger and chocolate were at one point barred.[18]

Household items. A4 paper,[18] crayons, stationary, soccer balls, and musical instruments have been, at times, banned for import.[17] According to AFP other banned goods include toilet paper,[4] though the BBC lists it as permitted.[3] According to the Haaretz the following items were banned in 2009: books, candles, crayons, clothing, cups, cutlery, crockery, electric appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines, glasses, light bulbs, matches, musical instruments, needles, sheets, blankets, shoes, mattresses, spare machine and car parts, and threads.

Is it anti-Semitic to criticise Israel from attacking the flottila trying to import items such as these into the Gaza strip?

Claims of anti-Semitism are repeately made at those who critique Israels appalling human rights record. How does that in any way say the critics hate Jews or are dupes for those who do? We don't need or use Hamas as a source, more neutral groups like Amensty the UN and major news organisations from non Islamic countries make of verify these claims.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Gee, considering how much of a fuzz Israel kicked up about Swedish media being "antisemitic" when they reported on this three years or so ago...

EDIT: Wait, the hell, the link you're linking IS 3 years old!

The dogma that criticising Israel is directly equal to anti-Semitism and thus by extension critics of Israel are questionally comperable to fascists and even Holocaust deniers, is perhaps the single most effective point of propaganda in the last fifty years; and it is still hard to challenge.

99% of all criticism of Israel is anti Semitic, has an anti Semitic origin, or is being repeated by people who have been drinking anti Semitic Kool-Aid.

How the hell do you come up with that twaddle. Been reading propaganda from CAMERA or the ADL?

Is it anti-Semitic to criticise Israel for banning Palestians as a community access to such items as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_allowed_or_banned_for_import_into_Gaza wrote: According to a UN report, importation of lentils, pasta, tomato paste and juice has been restricted.[15] Pasta has since been allowed. Sugar has always been allowed.[14] Soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies and candy are now permitted.[16] Fruit, milk products in small packages and frozen food products are also allowed.[14] Dry food,[17] ginger and chocolate were at one point barred.[18]

Household items. A4 paper,[18] crayons, stationary, soccer balls, and musical instruments have been, at times, banned for import.[17] According to AFP other banned goods include toilet paper,[4] though the BBC lists it as permitted.[3] According to the Haaretz the following items were banned in 2009: books, candles, crayons, clothing, cups, cutlery, crockery, electric appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines, glasses, light bulbs, matches, musical instruments, needles, sheets, blankets, shoes, mattresses, spare machine and car parts, and threads.

Is it anti-Semitic to criticise Israel from attacking the flottila trying to import items such as these into the Gaza strip?

Claims of anti-Semitism are repeately made at those who critique Israels appalling human rights record. How does that in any way say the critics hate Jews or are dupes for those who do? We don't need or use Hamas as a source, more neutral groups like Amensty the UN and major news organisations from non Islamic countries make of verify these claims.

There have been isolated incidents and various heavy handed actions committed by Israel, but the actions by the Palestinians and other terrorist groups have been far worse. Trying to claim that Israel is in the wrong is like trying to claim that the Allies were in the wrong during WWII because there were isolated incidents of crimes by soldiers during occupation.

Anti Israel claims are used as a cover for anti Jewish claims. It's just a proxy argument. I am very familiar with right wing extremists and their arguments. The Anti Israel argument as a cover for Anti Jewish arguments is similar to the Allied warcrimes argument being a cover argument for Holocaust denial arguments, particularly in countries where Holocaust denial is illegal. Please study Antisemitism. Anti-Semites never come out announcing plans to put Jews in gas chambers; it's always more subtle arguments (such as anti Israel nonsense) that are designed to convince people that Jews are bad without having to admit it. The idea that Jews are oppressing Palestinians is no different then the idea that Jews oppressed Germans. How often we shout "never again" but we constantly fail to recognize Antisemitism.

It's simple: Anti Israel = Antisemitism

Your viewpoint is fething absurd.

Grow up.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Your viewpoint is fething absurd.

Grow up.

Explain.

Trying to reason with the insane, is frankly insane. So no.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

It's simple: Anti Israel = Antisemitism

This is the single-most idiotic thing I've read on any forum anywhere, ever.

So Jews who don't agree with Israels actions are anti-semetic too?

If somebody can't mentally separate feeling for the Jewish people from feelings about actionf of the State of Israel then there is no point in talking to them.

It's just as unreasonable as claiming that people who don't agree with any of Obama's policies hate blacks.

Or that people who don't agree with Merkel's policies in Germany are sexists.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Trying to reason with the insane, is frankly insane. So no.

So you don't even have an argument. I understand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So Jews who don't agree with Israels actions are anti-semetic too?

If somebody can't mentally separate feeling for the Jewish people from feelings about actionf of the State of Israel then there is no point in talking to them.

It's just as unreasonable as claiming that people who don't agree with any of Obama's policies hate blacks.

Or that people who don't agree with Merkel's policies in Germany are sexists.

There were thousands of Jewish Nazis during WWII, so yes, there anti-semetic Jews. The idea that someone can't be bigoted against their own group is a fallacy.

Your other arguments are irrelevant. They are unrelated. It has been well established that 99% of anti Israel nonsense is closeted Antisemtism.

Before you bother responding d-usa,



http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2012/02/01/you-cant-argue-with-crazy/

This one's falling fast - I recommend that everyone refresh themselves on the rules of this site before posting anything else in this thread.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Before you bother responding d-usa,



http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2012/02/01/you-cant-argue-with-crazy/

Thanks for exposing yourself as ableist against users on the Autism spectrum!

As an autistic person myself I am offended that you would classify me as merely "crazy" when the correct terminology is "balls-out insane".

 Squigsquasher wrote:
As an autistic person myself I am offended that you would classify me as merely "crazy" when the correct terminology is "balls-out insane".

THAT'S ABLEIST!!!!1!! THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!!11!



Ok, maybe yours is more accurate.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:It's simple: Anti Israel = Antisemitism

*sigh* Someone never pair enough attention in history class.

Anti-Semite = someone who hates Jews.
State of Israel = nation-state.

Do you honestly believe that you cannot be Jewish without being Israeli, or you cannot be Israeli without be Jewish?


Also: Seriously, why not just make Godwining threads your sig?

Nobody posted this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o

Well, some people just don't have the capability to separate disliking a group for their actions (Government of Israel) with disliking a group for no other reason than race (Jews) especially when members of one group are not always a member of the other.

There is really nothing you can do about that level of mental disconnect other than shake your head and walk away.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:It's simple: Anti Israel = Antisemitism

*sigh* Someone never pair enough attention in history class.

Anti-Semite = someone who hates Jews.
State of Israel = nation-state.

Do you honestly believe that you cannot be Jewish without being Israeli, or you cannot be Israeli without be Jewish?


Also: Seriously, why not just make Godwining threads your sig?

There is a difference between those things. However, nearly all of the Anti Israel nonsense out there has Antisemetic roots or is used as a cover for people who are Antisemetic.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:


There is a difference between those things. However, nearly all of the Anti Israel nonsense out there has Antisemetic roots or is used as a cover for people who are Antisemetic.

You know, being an antisemite hiding behind an argument doesn't make an argument non sense. It just means the person making it is a douche. The argument stands or falls on its own. There's a lot of legitimate criticism that can be pointed at Israeli policy, and someone doesn't have to be an antisemite to make them.

If believing that it's wrong to invade a country and then treat the people like gak in said country for 50ish years is anti-semetic, well I'm anti-semetic and proudly so.

I really have no idea how Israel gets away with doing so much crap, there must be a worldwide anti-gentile movement. That's it!

 LordofHats wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:


There is a difference between those things. However, nearly all of the Anti Israel nonsense out there has Antisemetic roots or is used as a cover for people who are Antisemetic.

You know, being an antisemite hiding behind an argument doesn't make an argument non sense. It just means the person making it is a douche. There's a lot of legitimate criticism that can be pointed at Israeli policy, and someone doesn't have to be an antisemite to make them.

Yes, that's true, but the Anti Israel nonsense is heavily exaggerated and one sided.

Is it because the majority if the world is anti-semetic? Or is it because Israel does a lot of stupid gak?

Europe loves to hate on the US.

Is it because we have stupid foreign policies? Or is it because people are anti-WASPic?

I've followed the drama on Wikipedia's Arab-Israel pages for years. There's a lot of exaggeration and nonsense on both sides (go check it out for the sad hilarious truth).

But that's what the conflict has become in Israeli policy and the policy of the powers that be in the PLO. A lot of exaggeration and nonsense. We outside observers simply follow suit.

 LordofHats wrote:
I've followed the drama on Wikipedia's Arab-Israel pages for years. There's a lot of exaggeration and nonsense on both sides (go check it out for the sad hilarious truth).

But that's what the conflict has become in Israeli policy and the policy of the powers that be in the PLO. A lot of exaggeration and nonsense. We outside observers simply follow suit.

Yeah, it's completely exaggerated. The Palestinians give a completely one sided version while many of the Israelis forget to consider that maybe they can be a bit heavy handed and not acting in the interest of Palestinians who aren't trying to blow people up.

UN is not bias...not at all...nope....never....HEY...a pink elephant...Kool

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Gee, considering how much of a fuzz Israel kicked up about Swedish media being "antisemitic" when they reported on this three years or so ago...

EDIT: Wait, the hell, the link you're linking IS 3 years old!

The dogma that criticising Israel is directly equal to anti-Semitism and thus by extension critics of Israel are questionally comperable to fascists and even Holocaust deniers, is perhaps the single most effective point of propaganda in the last fifty years; and it is still hard to challenge.

99% of all criticism of Israel is anti Semitic, has an anti Semitic origin, or is being repeated by people who have been drinking anti Semitic Kool-Aid.

Rum is good. Kool Aid not so much.

Why not both?

 d-usa wrote:
Why not both?

Because rum goes with Coke. Vodka goes with Kool Aid. All hep cats know that.

Because rum goes with Coke. Vodka goes with Kool Aid. All hep cats know that

110% in support of this........No D you are not going to IV me to a bottle

When I'm gone and not around,
Don't bury my body in the ground,
Don't burn me up and spread my ashes,
Instead take my organs and spread some happiness,
Take my kidneys, take my spleen,
Take my liver if it isn't picked green,
Take my eyes and take my skin,
I'm not living so dive right in,
Take my lungs and take my heart,
I'm sure you're dying to make a start,
Take my eyes and my blood red,
It's all For Science! in the end,
If my bits can help to save a life,
Don't wait, don't hesitate, get my corpse under that knife.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Why not both?

Because rum goes with Coke. Vodka goes with Kool Aid. All hep cats know that.

Vodka and artificial juice tastes like total gak. Non 100% cranberry juice, powered pomegranate juice, Hawaiian Punch unless you have so much you can't taste the vodka. By that point you might as well drink beer.

Mix it with Power Aid or Gatorade

 Jihadin wrote:
Mix it with Power Aid or Gatorade

Thanks! I'll try that.

Oh Hell....what have I created.......drink in moderation Inquisitor.....moderation I say.......

Did you even bother to check the date on the article?

Israel's critics are slacking if they have to dredge up news articles from 3 years ago.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I've followed the drama on Wikipedia's Arab-Israel pages for years. There's a lot of exaggeration and nonsense on both sides (go check it out for the sad hilarious truth).

But that's what the conflict has become in Israeli policy and the policy of the powers that be in the PLO. A lot of exaggeration and nonsense. We outside observers simply follow suit.

Yeah, it's completely exaggerated. The Palestinians give a completely one sided version while many of the Israelis forget to consider that maybe they can be a bit heavy handed and not acting in the interest of Palestinians who aren't trying to blow people up.

I shall now begin a comparison of your chosen syntax to determine your own level of bias:

A: "The Palestinians give a completely one sided version "
B: "many of the Israelis forget to consider that maybe they can be a bit heavy handed "

In A, you denote the entirety of the grouping: "The Palestinians", implying all of them. In B, you denote only some of the Israelis, but not all.

In A you use a very definitive term, "completely", whereas in B, three times you downplay any actions: the ncertainty of "maybe" implies it may not be the case at all. The non-definitive "can" implies it is not necessarily so; and "a bit", implies it is not extreme and is in fact mitigated in scope.


Conclusion: The only way you could express a more obvious bias here would be if you attached to "the Palestinians" the prefix "those dirty goddamn".




Automatically Appended Next Post:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Did you even bother to check the date on the article?

It came across my feed because the article had apparently been updated. In any case, it was news to me.

 d-usa wrote:
Is it because the majority if the world is anti-semetic? Or is it because Israel does a lot of stupid gak?

Europe loves to hate on the US.

Is it because we have stupid foreign policies? Or is it because people are anti-WASPic?

If you can't reach the conclusion that the world hates Jews by looking at this figure, then there is no help for you.



Clearly Israel is worse than North Korea, which starves its people into submission and executes Christians, or Iran, in which homosexuals are hanged.

Do I need to point out that you picked 2006, a year on which Israel participated in a war, or is it pointless?

The issue of Israel and Palestine just makes a lot of people go really nuts. I mean, yeah, there is plenty of anti-semitism, especially in the Middle East, but the idea that almost all criticism of Israel is due to anti-semitism is completely barking mad. I mean, it isn't that incredible an idea that a person could see the absolute poverty in Palestine, see how much of that is driven by incredibly oppressive Israeli measures that have nothing to do with security, and be compelled to say 'Israel should stop doing that stuff, it's causing a great deal of suffering'.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
[If you can't reach the conclusion that the world hates Jews by looking at this figure, then there is no help for you.

Or possibly those people understand how politics and international debate works.

Passing a resolution condemning North Korea means nothing, because no-one defends the regime. Not even North Korea bothers, much of the time.

But there are plenty of defenders of Israel. Forcing a vote in the UN that condemns an Israeli action is an effort to draw out the defenders of Israel, and get them in good conscious to recognise that Israel is doing stuff that decent, humane nations should not be doing. It's an effort to chip away at that absolute, unquestionable defence of Israel that so many people have taken up.

The 2006 Lebanon War, also called the 2006 Israel–Hezbollah War and known in Lebanon as the July War[36] (Arabic: حرب تموز‎, Ḥarb Tammūz) and in Israel as the Second Lebanon War (Hebrew: מלחמת לבנון השנייה‎, Milhemet Levanon HaShniya),[37] was a 34-day military conflict in Lebanon, northern Israel and the Golan Heights. The principal parties were Hezbollah paramilitary forces and the Israeli military. The conflict started on July 12, 2006, and continued until a United Nations-brokered ceasefire went into effect in the morning on August 14, 2006, though it formally ended on September 8, 2006 when Israel lifted its naval blockade of Lebanon. Due to unprecedented Iranian military support to Hezbollah before and during the war, some consider it the first round of the Iran–Israel proxy conflict, rather than a continuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict.[1]

The conflict began when militants from the group Hezbollah fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.[38] The ambush left three soldiers dead. Two additional soldiers, believed to have been killed outright or mortally wounded, were taken by Hezbollah to Lebanon.[38][39] Five more were killed in a failed rescue attempt. Israel responded with airstrikes and artillery fire on targets in Lebanon aimed at Lebanese civilian infrastructure, including Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport,[40] an air and naval blockade,[41] and a ground invasion of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah then launched more rockets into northern Israel and engaged the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in guerrilla warfare from hardened positions.[42]

The conflict is believed to have killed at least 1,191–1,300 Lebanese people,[43][44][45][46] and 165 Israelis.[47] It severely damaged Lebanese civil infrastructure, and displaced approximately one million Lebanese[48] and 300,000–500,000 Israelis.[22][49][50] After the ceasefire, some parts of southern Lebanon remained uninhabitable due to Israeli unexploded cluster bomblets.[51]

On 11 August 2006, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved UN Resolution 1701 in an effort to end the hostilities. The resolution, which was approved by both Lebanese and Israeli governments the following days, called for disarmament of Hezbollah, for withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon, and for the deployment of Lebanese soldiers and an enlarged United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in the south. UNIFIL was given an expanded mandate, including the ability to use force to ensure that their area of operations was not used for hostile activities, and to resist attempts by force to prevent them from discharging their duties.[52] The Lebanese army began deploying in southern Lebanon on 17 August 2006. The blockade was lifted on 8 September 2006.[53] On 1 October 2006, most Israeli troops withdrew from Lebanon, though the last of the troops continued to occupy the border-straddling village of Ghajar.[54] In the time since the enactment of UNSCR 1701 both the Lebanese government and UNIFIL have stated that they will not disarm Hezbollah.[55][56][57] The remains of the two captured soldiers, whose fates were unknown, were returned to Israel on 16 July 2008 as part of a prisoner exchange

Posted it to assist in clarification

 d-usa wrote:
Do I need to point out that you picked 2006, a year on which Israel participated in a war, or is it pointless?

The war was initiated by a Hezbollah ambush. Israel didn't "participate in a war" - it was attacked.

Nuggz. Not going to contradict you or to flame this bit, Clarify a bit. Israel was attacked and they responded in kind by pushing back the threats in an attempt to eliminate them. Think the operation of the Israel military forces was to push back all human threats and launch sites of rockets thereby creating a buffer zone. So in effect to buy Israel enough time to notice a launch, track a missile in flight, and nail it out the sky before impact.

 Jihadin wrote:
Nuggz. Not going to contradict you or to flame this bit, Clarify a bit. Israel was attacked and they responded in kind by pushing back the threats in an attempt to eliminate them. Think the operation of the Israel military forces was to push back all human threats and launch sites of rockets thereby creating a buffer zone. So in effect to buy Israel enough time to notice a launch, track a missile in flight, and nail it out the sky before impact.

Hezbollah conducted a very well planned ambush in 2006, abducting 2 IDF soldiers and killing a number more. This coordinated attack was followed by Katushya rocket attacks on Israel's civilian population as far south as Haifa. They launched rockets from civilian population centers (apartment buildings, schools, etc.) and the IAF released several videos of this, including aborted airstrikes on such targets. It's a lose-lose situation - either you kill the enemy and the civilians, or you let him fire. We chose to let him fire.

The 2006 war was conducted by a Chief of Staff from the Air Force. He thought like an aviator, unfortunately. Any soldier who spends his time fighting on the ground could tell you that tanks are useless in Southern Lebanon.

Contrast the IDF's performance in the more recent Gaza conflict with its performance in Lebanon. Gabi Ashkenazi, Chief of Staff during Cast Lead (Gaza) served in Golani, an infantry brigade. We killed more of each other by accident than Hamas did on purpose. We handed their asses to them. I wish he'd been Ramat Kal in 2006.

 Jihadin wrote:

Organ donation: Don't let these myths confuse you

Unsure about donating organs for transplant? Don't let misinformation keep you from saving lives.
By Mayo Clinic staff
Over 100,000 people in the U.S. are waiting for an organ donation. Unfortunately, many may never get the call saying that a suitable donor organ — and a second chance at life — has been found.

It can be hard to think about what's going to happen to your body after you die, let alone donating your organs and tissue. But being an organ donor is a generous and worthwhile decision that can be a lifesaver. If you've never considered organ donation or delayed becoming a donor because of possibly inaccurate information, here are answers to some common organ donation myths and concerns.

Myth: If I agree to donate my organs, the hospital staff won't work as hard to save my life.

Fact: When you go to the hospital for treatment, doctors focus on saving your life — not somebody else's. You'll be seen by a doctor whose specialty most closely matches your particular emergency.

Myth: Maybe I won't really be dead when they sign my death certificate.

Fact: Although it's a popular topic in the tabloids, in reality, people don't start to wiggle their toes after they're declared dead. In fact, people who have agreed to organ donation are given more tests (at no charge to their families) to determine that they're truly dead than are those who haven't agreed to organ donation.

Myth: Organ donation is against my religion.

Fact: Organ donation is consistent with the beliefs of most major religions. This includes Roman Catholicism, Islam, most branches of Judaism and most Protestant faiths. If you're unsure of or uncomfortable with your faith's position on donation, ask a member of your clergy.

Myth: I'm under age 18. I'm too young to make this decision.

Fact: That's true, in a legal sense. But your parents can authorize this decision. You can express to your parents your wish to donate, and your parents can give their consent knowing that it's what you wanted. Children, too, are in need of organ transplants, and they usually need organs smaller than those an adult can provide.

Myth: An open-casket funeral isn't an option for people who have donated organs or tissues.

Fact: Organ and tissue donation doesn't interfere with having an open-casket funeral. The donor's body is clothed for burial, so there are no visible signs of organ or tissue donation. For bone donation, a rod is inserted where bone is removed. With skin donation, a very thin layer of skin similar to a sunburn peel is taken from the donor's back. Because the donor is clothed and lying on his or her back in the casket, no one can see any difference.

Myth: I'm too old to donate. Nobody would want my organs.

Fact: There's no defined cutoff age for donating organs. The decision to use your organs is based on strict medical criteria, not age. Don't disqualify yourself prematurely. Let the doctors decide at your time of death whether your organs and tissues are suitable for transplantation.

Myth: I'm not in the best of health. Nobody would want my organs or tissues.

Fact: Very few medical conditions automatically disqualify you from donating organs. The decision to use an organ is based on strict medical criteria. It may turn out that certain organs are not suitable for transplantation, but other organs and tissues may be fine. Don't disqualify yourself prematurely. Only medical professionals at the time of your death can determine whether your organs are suitable for transplantation.

Myth: I'd like to donate one of my kidneys now, but I wouldn't be allowed to do that unless one of my family members is in need.

Fact: While that used to be the case, it isn't any longer. Whether it's a distant family member, friend or complete stranger you want to help, you can donate a kidney through certain transplant centers. If you decide to become a living donor, you will undergo extensive questioning to ensure that you are aware of the risks and that your decision to donate isn't based on financial gain. You will also undergo testing to determine if your kidneys are in good shape and whether you can live a healthy life with just one kidney.

Myth: Rich and famous people go to the top of the list when they need a donor organ.

Fact: The rich and famous aren't given priority when it comes to allocating organs. It may seem that way because of the amount of publicity generated when celebrities receive a transplant, but they are treated no differently from anyone else. The reality is that celebrity and financial status are not considered in organ allocation.

Myth: My family will be charged if I donate my organs.

Fact: The organ donor's family is never charged for donating. The family is charged for the cost of all final efforts to save your life, and those costs are sometimes misinterpreted as costs related to organ donation. Costs for organ removal go to the transplant recipient

I'm a "Donate my Organs" member.
I'm curious though say that my heart is considered excellent condition (notionaly)......I die of natural causes at 50. How long can "my" heart last if they place it in someone whose 25. A bit of wear in tear in the ole ticker....

About 10 years, and they will be on anti-rejection medications untill they die.

You may recall there was a bit of a stir when Dick Cheney got a heart transplant not to long ago. The feeling being that a 70 year old man is not going to get as much out of an extra 10 year lease on life (if something else doesn't up and quit on him first) as a younger man might.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Did you even bother to check the date on the article?

Israel's critics are slacking if they have to dredge up news articles from 3 years ago.

It was donated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Is it because the majority if the world is anti-semetic? Or is it because Israel does a lot of stupid gak?

Europe loves to hate on the US.

Is it because we have stupid foreign policies? Or is it because people are anti-WASPic?

If you can't reach the conclusion that the world hates Jews by looking at this figure, then there is no help for you.



Clearly Israel is worse than North Korea, which starves its people into submission and executes Christians, or Iran, in which homosexuals are hanged.

It's been long prophesied that the world would be against Israel.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Is it because the majority if the world is anti-semetic? Or is it because Israel does a lot of stupid gak?

Europe loves to hate on the US.

Is it because we have stupid foreign policies? Or is it because people are anti-WASPic?

If you can't reach the conclusion that the world hates Jews by looking at this figure, then there is no help for you.



Clearly Israel is worse than North Korea, which starves its people into submission and executes Christians, or Iran, in which homosexuals are hanged.

And you completely ignore the fact that there were more against Palestine than Israel.

The simple fact is that neither side is 100% right, and that both sides would benefit allot by being willing to talk to each other and drop the dogmatic refusal to agree with the other. Seriously, its like watching Congress or the House of Commons, but with guns.

Anti semitism has nothing to do with it. It's amazing how fast people are to pull that argument out whenever anyone criticizes Israel.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:


There have been isolated incidents and various heavy handed actions committed by Israel, but the actions by the Palestinians and other terrorist groups have been far worse. Trying to claim that Israel is in the wrong is like trying to claim that the Allies were in the wrong during WWII because there were isolated incidents of crimes by soldiers during occupation.

One Jew gets killed by a rocket attack. Dozens of Palestinians die from artillery and airstrikes.
And an iorder is not specified. Israel has bombed in 'retaliation' and also because they find a target. Time and again they have shown no compulsion about using a missile attack on a crowded street to get rid of someone they dont like.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

Anti Israel claims are used as a cover for anti Jewish claims. It's just a proxy argument.

Bollocks.
If I asked a random bod on the street is it ok (for example) for a government to restrict access to a community to goods on account of their race practically everyone will say no.
If I then told them the government in question was Israel and that if they didnt change their minds on the subject they were proven to be anti-Semitic how do you think they would react.

Most people who oppose Israel do so because the Israeli government does reprehensible things, not because they hate Jews. Clear exception can be made for many radical Islamists.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

I am very familiar with right wing extremists and their arguments.

Judgeing from this thread, you ought to be, or you would not be self aware.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

The Anti Israel argument as a cover for Anti Jewish arguments is similar to the Allied warcrimes argument being a cover argument for Holocaust denial arguments, particularly in countries where Holocaust denial is illegal.

First they are not at connected.
Anti-Israeli arguments are logically and morally distinct to Anti-Jewish arguments. The former is a just concern at well recorded instances of extreme bigotry, extortion and race crimes, the latter is in itself bigoted.

Allies committed war crimes and got away with it. What has that got to do with the Holocaust or either type of Holocaust denier.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

Please study Antisemitism. Anti-Semites never come out announcing plans to put Jews in gas chambers; it's always more subtle arguments (such as anti Israel nonsense) that are designed to convince people that Jews are bad without having to admit it.

You get two types of anti-Semitism
The first is anti-religious either from a fundamentalist or communist atheist dogma that wants to wipe out Jews.
The second is a reaction to exploitation, especially in the financial industries. This can be at least partly the fault of Jews themselves.

The UK had an amicable solution to this centuries ago that still works. Let Jews have free reign over certain industries, notably the diamond trade, merchant and investment banking and allow them to build any kind of business in their own community, but to restrict them from domestic banking and insurance. This is why the UK has a large stable Jewish population, the problems that occurred in Germany in WW1 cant occur here and the return concessions are acceptable to the Jewish community.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

The idea that Jews are oppressing Palestinians is no different then the idea that Jews oppressed Germans. How often we shout "never again" but we constantly fail to recognize Antisemitism.
It's simple: Anti Israel = Antisemitism

Your conclusions are a complete non sequitor.

If I chose to hate the guy down the street because he had black clothes a hat and wiggly side hair I would be a racist feth.
If I choose to hate that Palestinians are kicked off their farms to make way for settlements because they are not the 'chosen people' I would be right thinking.
You can have one without the other.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Is it because the majority if the world is anti-semetic? Or is it because Israel does a lot of stupid gak?

Europe loves to hate on the US.

Is it because we have stupid foreign policies? Or is it because people are anti-WASPic?

If you can't reach the conclusion that the world hates Jews by looking at this figure, then there is no help for you.



Clearly Israel is worse than North Korea, which starves its people into submission and executes Christians, or Iran, in which homosexuals are hanged.

You only need one or two resolutions against North Korea, because they are allowed to stick.
You need a zillion resolutions against Israel because the US keeps vetoing them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:


And you completely ignore the fact that there were more against Palestine than Israel.

These figures are on what the Resolutions are about, not who they are against.

Some of the resolutions regarding Israel are against the October 73 war and other acts of agression against Israel, others are about activities caused by the Israeli government within their borders.
Those on the Palestinians are almost always about their lack of access to basic rights, statehood and raw materials, but again some address the Infitada.

 Orlanth wrote:

The UK had an amicable solution to this centuries ago that still works. Let Jews have free reign over certain industries, notably the diamond trade, merchant and investment banking and allow them to build any kind of business in their own community, but to restrict them from domestic banking and insurance. This is why the UK has a large stable Jewish population, the problems that occurred in Germany in WW1 cant occur here and the return concessions are acceptable to the Jewish community.

Or, you know, you let Jewish people do the same things as everyone else?


To get back on topic, I'll just leave this here. Massive allegations of "anti-semitism" and condemnations from all over the place. Too bad they were telling the truth. I guess real-world must be anti-semitic.

My main beef with Israel is that they take it upon themselves to speak for all Jews as though they were some sort of universally accepted pan-Jewish government. They're not, though, they're just a state which happens to be Jewish, just as the Vatican isn't a pan-Christian government or the Dalai Lama a pan-Buddhist Overlord. They're actively working to make Israel irreversibly linked to Judaism and vice versa, as evidenced by the allegations of anti-Semisism as the go-to attack on people of differing views. As someone who strongly feels that religion should have nothing to do with government, I'm opposed to this. I have no problem with Jews or people from Israel, they're humans like everyone else except Frazzled, but I DO have problems with the state of Israel. The State and its People are not 100% the same.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Do I need to point out that you picked 2006, a year on which Israel participated in a war, or is it pointless?

The war was initiated by a Hezbollah ambush. Israel didn't "participate in a war" - it was attacked.

Has anyone else noticed that as soon as things seem to be calming down in israel/gaza/west bank some militant gets assasinated , the militants start doing ambushes and getting much more rocket happy and israel responds with an incusion. May be just my tin foil hat talking , but it seems to happen often.

I can't say I blame Israel for reacting though, it's just that the way they do it in is a bit overdone, to say the least. Stuff like firing white phosphorus shells in populated areas in direct violation of international law hurts Israel's credibility quite a bit when they say that they've done "everything they can" to keep casualties down.

I rather like the Iron Dome program though, it's an elegant solution to the whole rocked business. Shoot them down and you don't have to bomb civilians in Gaza to stop the rockets. It's a win-win solution.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I rather like the Iron Dome program though, it's an elegant solution to the whole rocked business. Shoot them down and you don't have to bomb civilians in Gaza to stop the rockets. It's a win-win solution.

That's a bit like saying as long as you've got a bulletproof vest, you don't need to try to get the shooting at you to stop.

 Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I rather like the Iron Dome program though, it's an elegant solution to the whole rocked business. Shoot them down and you don't have to bomb civilians in Gaza to stop the rockets. It's a win-win solution.

That's a bit like saying as long as you've got a bulletproof vest, you don't need to try to get the shooting at you to stop.

If the bullet proof vest had a 99% protection rate and covered your whole body you might not want to go after the guy with a gun with your GAU10 gatling cannon.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

The UK had an amicable solution to this centuries ago that still works. Let Jews have free reign over certain industries, notably the diamond trade, merchant and investment banking and allow them to build any kind of business in their own community, but to restrict them from domestic banking and insurance. This is why the UK has a large stable Jewish population, the problems that occurred in Germany in WW1 cant occur here and the return concessions are acceptable to the Jewish community.

Or, you know, you let Jewish people do the same things as everyone else?

That sounds right thinking, but actually doesn't work so well, as the Germans found out.
Bear with me while I explain why.

1. People network with their own community and Jews have had a global community, even when there was no global community.
People stick with their own kind, its human nature, so Jews give the best deals to other Jews, just as the cliche of the 'Englishman abroad' who forms a club if he finds two other Englishmen. The concept behind this is based on logical observation, people network with their own. We all do it, but Jews have an advantage, being a race, a culture and a religion prascticing seperate living, the grouping is cohesive has a common ethos which is already business orientated though its spiritual teachings and common history and can network frankly far better than anyone else.
So Jews network more and tend to get rich quicker. This isn't a problem, though it can cause resentment of the left wing kind due to envy that of itself is not the fault of the Jews.

2. So where is the problem then?
Where the problems begin is when banking is involved. If the bankers are Jewish they give better deals and more lenient settlement terms to their own kind, which causers resentment and division. Furthermore if a company (likely a Gentile debtor) is foreclosed on the assets go to the creditors, and thus auctioned off to fellow Jews. Now the new management of the old company is Jewish and from then on being Jewish is largely necessary in order to be promoted, thus Jews take over the industry that was previously foreclosed on. This turns into a nasty vicious circle.
At this point claims of 'Jewish conspiracy' arise, and is the source of that theory, even though all we see is open business networking and the conspiracy angle is mostly myth. I say mostly because Jewish business is largely aware of what is going on, but networks as normal, because networking with our own kind is what humans do and Jews cannot be blamed for what is part of essential human nature.
England had this problem earlier than most of Europe as the towns were broadly more fair and there were fewer wars reaching the urban areas, also as an island it was easier to establish a cordon. Thus to combat this trend all Jews were expelled from England in the 13th century. Because we had our over-reaction over and done back in a time when harsh reaction to social conditions was morally acceptable we could also reflect and rebuild a relationship with the Jewish community early.
It was Cromwell who let the Jews return, but there were caveats that work from then to this day, so thwe working relationship with Jews is four centuries old and was built on a common understanding of economic and political realities that are still true today.

3. How does this work and why is it fair?
By limiting Jews from domestic banking the above problems which were major economic bugbears and the direct fuel for the rise of Nazism were curtailed. Its easy to write off Hitlers opinions as just the ravings of a sick feth, but they wouldn't have had any bite unless there was a veneer of truth to them. In the First World War the European economies were squeezed, however where there was partisan banking some people (Jews) would be given concessions, others would be foreclosed on (non Jews with assets sold to other Jews). While this is a gross oversimplification it occurred often enough to cause resentment and help pave the way for German defeat.

4. Ok, but even if that is so tthat deosnt make it right.
Up to a point, but the return concessions were and still are major. We live in a land of equal opportunities legislation, and companies can and are censured as racist if they fail to hire percentages of ethnic workers, or offer equal opportunities to promotion. However there are exceptions, Tescos and Sainsburys are amongst the largest employers in the UK but there is a clean demographic between store workers and head office workers. Jews enter at head office level while non Jews with some token exceptions have a glass ceiling at store manager level, and store managers don't get the same pay as managers with oversight over the quantity of staff you would find in other industries.
I remember a quote given to me from 1999, the height of New Labour and the politically correct move to ethnically equalise the workforce: 'shop level staff is not a profile job for Jews'. Not a profile job could be taken to mean gross discrimination is in place, but isn't, this Status Quo remains intact even when other companies were being censured for not having enough women or ethnics in management.

If supermarkets were unequal employers they have nothing on the diamond trade. You cant even get a job at all unless you are Jewish, and more restrictive than that you need a recommendation. This is discrimination in spades, but is allowed to continue, is even in fact encouraged because the diamond industry deals with small transportable, non detectable high value goods. For a Jew to steal from his employer would be to fly in the face of his own culture and community and thus Jews make more stable and trustworthy employees for the diamond trade.
This might sound like a wise general principle, but be assured it is an exception. There was an expose on BBC Radio of all places about how Chinese agents infiltrated companies and stole their data purely because it was not permissible not to employee them due to underrepresentation of Chinese ethnicity in the workplace, and sensitivity of information was not considered an excuse. The Equal Opportunities dogmas are exceptionally prevalent, but have been continually bypassed by the Jewish community even though evidence 'discrimination' is more clearly prevalent than in other industries to to its extremity or the size of the organisation involved.

5. The end result.
All this doesn't concern me in the least because its part of a wider deal which in the long term is best for everyone in the UK economy, Jewish and non Jewish. Jews get to run thing their way in niche industries but cannot dictate her destiny of the economy at large. They are happy, we are happy and anti-Semitism is a problem only amongst the Islamic community. For this centuries old agreement to have survived the cultural fethstorm that was New Labour is saying something, a lot of what was done in the UK was built on time tested common sense principles, and all too many of those principles were removed due to doctrinal expediency over the last decade and a half..

That post certainly is different.

If you cannot post without insulting other forum members, then it's best you don't post.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I rather like the Iron Dome program though, it's an elegant solution to the whole rocked business. Shoot them down and you don't have to bomb civilians in Gaza to stop the rockets. It's a win-win solution.

That's a bit like saying as long as you've got a bulletproof vest, you don't need to try to get the shooting at you to stop.

If the bullet proof vest had a 99% protection rate and covered your whole body you might not want to go after the guy with a gun with your GAU10 gatling cannon.

As someone intimately familiar with the use of the M61 on guys with guns, I beg to differ. That sounds like the exact right response.

I'd proffer if I'm wearing a bullet proof vest and someone is shooting at me, my first thought would be "HOLY CRAP SOMEONE IS SHOOTING AT ME!"

 Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I rather like the Iron Dome program though, it's an elegant solution to the whole rocked business. Shoot them down and you don't have to bomb civilians in Gaza to stop the rockets. It's a win-win solution.

That's a bit like saying as long as you've got a bulletproof vest, you don't need to try to get the shooting at you to stop.

If the bullet proof vest had a 99% protection rate and covered your whole body you might not want to go after the guy with a gun with your GAU10 gatling cannon.

As someone intimately familiar with the use of the M61 on guys with guns, I beg to differ. That sounds like the exact right response.

Fine, let me rephrase:

If you've got body armour that protects your entire body with 99% efficiency and someone starts shooting at you in a crowded street, the best response might not be to open fire with a GAU10 in his general direction.

That depends. Can you call in a napalm strike? Is yes, then you're right that is not the best option. If no then its GAU10 time. FREEEEEEEEEEEEEMMMMMMMMMMM!

Clearly any criticism of Israel is merely far right propaganda perpetrated by exiled Nazi's who hate Jews. Israel is the bestest ever country in the world. We should all submit to their only ever good and never bad rule and become provinces of Israel.

 purplefood wrote:
Clearly any criticism of Texas is merely far leftt propaganda perpetrated by California girly boys and other cat lovers who hate all that is good and just. Texas is the bestest ever country in the world. We should all submit to their only ever good and never bad rule and become provinces of Tejas!

Corrected your typo.

 Frazzled wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Clearly any CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT of CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT is merely CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT propaganda perpetrated by CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT who aren't CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT and CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT people. CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT is the craziest ever CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT in the world. We should all just CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT

CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT your CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT.

I CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT'ed your correction

 Orlanth wrote:

That sounds right thinking, but actually doesn't work so well, as the Germans found out.
Bear with me while I explain why.

...

What the feth was that? I have no words. Yeah, criticism of Israel is not automatically anti-semitism, the sort of drivel you wrote is.

---

As for the actual situation of Israel and Palestine, while I don't condone terrorism, Palestinians are really oppressed and they've no way out from the situation, it is no wonder some of them snap and take extreme measures. Israel is in position to end this gak, they should let Palestinians to have their own state (and yes, there would still be some crazy islamists that would still want to destroy Israel, but they'd lose wide public support and legitimacy.)

Seriously though, why don't they* get on a ship and just move to Brownsville? Its as hot but the TexMex is so much more awesome. Texas will be bring peace to the ME. Just come here. As long as you're down with Second Amendment of course, else California awaits!

*They being both Israelis and Palestinians

 Frazzled wrote:
Seriously though, why don't they* get on a ship and just move to Brownsville? Its as hot but the TexMex is so much more awesome. Texas will be bring peace to the ME. Just come here. As long as you're down with Second Amendment of course, else California awaits!

*They being both Israelis and Palestinians

With all the shootin' going on over there, I'd say Second Ammendment detractors would be the least of problems!

 Crimson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

That sounds right thinking, but actually doesn't work so well, as the Germans found out.
Bear with me while I explain why.

...

What the feth was that? I have no words. Yeah, criticism of Israel is not automatically anti-semitism, the sort of drivel you wrote is.

How would an mutually beneficial agreement with the Jews be anti-Semitic.
There wasn't any anti-Semitism in the post, and the had to be explained comprehensively to show there was not.
There is a lot of realpolitik based on an understanding of human social psychology which I put pains to point out applies to everyone and doesn't single out culpability on Jews.

Logic will be wasted on some here though. Besides what would you want done about it, force the diamond industry to open up? Even if it would work would the Jews you are trying to 'help' appreciate your assistance?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

That sounds right thinking, but actually doesn't work so well, as the Germans found out.
Bear with me while I explain why.

...

What the feth was that? I have no words. Yeah, criticism of Israel is not automatically anti-semitism, the sort of drivel you wrote is.

How would an mutually beneficial agreement with the Jews be anti-Semitic.
There wasn't any anti-Semitism in the post, and the had to be explained comprehensively to show there was not.
There is a lot of realpolitik based on an understanding of human social psychology which I put pains to point out applies to everyone and doesn't single out culpability on Jews.

Logic will be wasted on some here though. Besides what would you want done about it, force the diamond industry to open up? Even if it would work would the Jews you are trying to 'help' appreciate your assistance?

Are you saying that in the UK, Jews are restricted from certain businesses? I read the rather lengthy post that seems to defend that, but I just want to be sure I understood correctly.

Relapse wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

That sounds right thinking, but actually doesn't work so well, as the Germans found out.
Bear with me while I explain why.

...

What the feth was that? I have no words. Yeah, criticism of Israel is not automatically anti-semitism, the sort of drivel you wrote is.

How would an mutually beneficial agreement with the Jews be anti-Semitic.
There wasn't any anti-Semitism in the post, and the had to be explained comprehensively to show there was not.
There is a lot of realpolitik based on an understanding of human social psychology which I put pains to point out applies to everyone and doesn't single out culpability on Jews.

Logic will be wasted on some here though. Besides what would you want done about it, force the diamond industry to open up? Even if it would work would the Jews you are trying to 'help' appreciate your assistance?

Are you saying that in the UK, Jews are restricted from certain businesses? I read the rather lengthy post that seems to defend that, but I just want to be sure I understood correctly.

Not to the best of my knowledge...

Relapse wrote:

Are you saying that in the UK, Jews are restricted from certain businesses? I read the rather lengthy post that seems to defend that, but I just want to be sure I understood correctly.

I'm certain this has not been the case for ages. However he seems to be defending such discriminatory practices and fails to see why that would be a problem.

Relapse wrote:

Are you saying that in the UK, Jews are restricted from certain businesses? I read the rather lengthy post that seems to defend that, but I just want to be sure I understood correctly.

You understood half correctly, the other half is that in other business areas restrictions that commonly apply are overlooked exclusively for Jews..
It's an agreed to and mutually acceptable trade off.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

That sounds right thinking, but actually doesn't work so well, as the Germans found out.
Bear with me while I explain why.

...

What the feth was that? I have no words. Yeah, criticism of Israel is not automatically anti-semitism, the sort of drivel you wrote is.

How would an mutually beneficial agreement with the Jews be anti-Semitic.
There wasn't any anti-Semitism in the post, and the had to be explained comprehensively to show there was not.
There is a lot of realpolitik based on an understanding of human social psychology which I put pains to point out applies to everyone and doesn't single out culpability on Jews.

Logic will be wasted on some here though. Besides what would you want done about it, force the diamond industry to open up? Even if it would work would the Jews you are trying to 'help' appreciate your assistance?

Are you saying that in the UK, Jews are restricted from certain businesses? I read the rather lengthy post that seems to defend that, but I just want to be sure I understood correctly.

Not to the best of my knowledge...

Ok. The post seemed to imply there were restrictions and the bit about the Germanswas a tad troubling. Orlanth, is a poster I often view as fairly grounded even when I disagree with him, so I just need some clarification on his points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Are you saying that in the UK, Jews are restricted from certain businesses? I read the rather lengthy post that seems to defend that, but I just want to be sure I understood correctly.

You understood half correctly, the other half is that in other business areas restrictions that commonly apply are overlooked exclusively for Jews..
It's an agreed to and mutually acceptable trade off.

So what you are saying is that there are restrictions specifically on Jews in banking, but in the area of diamonds, etc. Jews are given free reign?

 Crimson wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Are you saying that in the UK, Jews are restricted from certain businesses? I read the rather lengthy post that seems to defend that, but I just want to be sure I understood correctly.

I'm certain this has not been the case for ages. However he seems to be defending such discriminatory practices and fails to see why that would be a problem.

 Crimson wrote:

I'm certain this has not been the case for ages.

Still the case today, most certainly true from my sources, Jewish and otherwise, though it might be becoming more one sided. Sainsburys has started in domestic banking, but I am not sure they can offer all normal banking services.

 Crimson wrote:

However he seems to be defending such discriminatory practices .

And no one is complaining. Jews are happy and run their own communities their way, non-Jews are happy, society is stable.
It even survived a two terms of a dogmatic government that got rid of most of the old wisdom.

 Crimson wrote:
and fails to see why that would be a problem.

I see the problem, perhaps you dont. Ask yourself why the US government cannot go against Israel.

We don't have anything like the level of lobbying in the UK because we have the long established mutual agreements that steered Jewish sector of the economy harmlessly into making monies for themselves and not controlling anyone else.
Jews make up a tiny percentage of the US population, but even you must appreciate that their influence on US policy is wholely disproportionate to their numbers. Continental Europe doesn't have many Jews due to Nazisim, but there is still a large established and stable community in the UK, a larger percentage than in the US but while there are many influential Jews they don't have influence over UK government like they do in the US, and we dont have problems with anti-Semitism either.

There isn't a problem, we have a four century old solution and it works.

 Orlanth wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Are you saying that in the UK, Jews are restricted from certain businesses? I read the rather lengthy post that seems to defend that, but I just want to be sure I understood correctly.

You understood half correctly, the other half is that in other business areas restrictions that commonly apply are overlooked exclusively for Jews..
It's an agreed to and mutually acceptable trade off.

The Poles had a good word for that.

Ghetto.

Orlanth, no such legislation exists. You're detached from reality. Also, if you don't see why restricting what sort of business you can do based on your ethnicity/religion is wrong, I don't know what to tell you.

 Frazzled wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Clearly any criticism of Texas is merely far leftt propaganda perpetrated by California girly boys and other cat lovers who hate all that is good and just. Texas is the bestest ever country in the world. We should all submit to their only ever good and never bad rule and become provinces of Tejas!

Corrected your typo.

Yes all hail the mighty Tejas

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Fine, let me rephrase:

If you've got body armour that protects your entire body with 99% efficiency and someone starts shooting at you in a crowded street, the best response might not be to open fire with a GAU10 in his general direction.

Now we're getting into, "That depends," territory.

Is this gunman shooting at me from within a crowd that actively supports him shooting me?

I think we've discussed all that can be discussed.

Lock maybe?

 Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Fine, let me rephrase:

If you've got body armour that protects your entire body with 99% efficiency and someone starts shooting at you in a crowded street, the best response might not be to open fire with a GAU10 in his general direction.

Now we're getting into, "That depends," territory.

Is this gunman shooting at me from within a crowd that actively supports him shooting me?

The question then would be, "why do they want him to shoot me". And, for that matter, how do you know they support him in the first place?

Relapse wrote:


Ok. The post seemed to imply there were restrictions and the bit about the Germanswas a tad troubling. Orlanth, is a poster I often view as fairly grounded even when I disagree with him, so I just need some clarification on his points.

Ahnd you are right to ask for clarification. Which is why the initial post was long.
Bottom line:

There is a mutual agreement between the British government and the UK's Jews going back four centuries for the mutual advancement of the UK's Jewish community and the British people.

It cant be any less sinister than that. However like a lot of things that are based on a deeper wisdom it can appear different at face value. I remember I young Jewish friend in his twenties who wanted to set up in the commercial insurance industry and was puzzled as to why the central synagogue was saying he shouldn't do so. Later it became more understandable why.

As fro the Germans, the idea of 'Jewish usuary' is a bugbear going back centuries and it fueled pogroms starting in IIRC 12th century Cologne that spread across Europe. One catalyst for that was money lending practices, though it would be unfair to limit it to one source. It is not relevant how much truth or lack of truth there is to the claims, all that is relevant is an understanding of how such hatred begin and fester I explained how the concept of 'Jewish conspiracy' comes about, magnified by a present number of genuine cases, most likely incidental that back up the myth that such a conspiracy exists.
When Hitler invaded Poland many Poles pointed out the Jews for persecution, they did not defend them as fellow Poles.

Ask yourself why people go so far and hate so much, the argument that they are just mad on anti-Semitism is an unsatisfactory answer.

Jews themselves know there is a problem and have had cause to fear persecution. However there has been no persecution of Jews in the UK for eight hundred years, nor any large scale resentment. We get 'standard' racist commentaries because people can be dicks to individuals of a different culture, exactly the same as calling people 'p*ki' or 'n*gger'. However with those individual retards excepted, and the Islamic minority we have let fester, we have never seen any large scale anti-Jewish sentiment in the UK in all this time. With known exception of a single backlash violence in 1947, which the police quickly put down and prevented from continuing, which was started after news broke that a British soldier serving in Palestine Mandate Territories was kidnapped and tortured to death by the Irgun and his body was strung up and booby trapped.


Think what might have happened if such an arrangement existed in 19th century conteinental Europe and there was no excuse for an anti-Semitic movement there?

I honestly think its working.

Relapse wrote:

So what you are saying is that there are restrictions specifically on Jews in banking, but in the area of diamonds, etc. Jews are given free reign?

Especially the diamond industry.
Jews can also perform any service, including banking for their own community.
There are Jewish domestic financiers in the UK, but they only lend money to the Jewish community, or are foreign investment/merchant bankers ( including very big ones like Rothschildes). You might ask why would they turn down domestic custom?

I find the idea of there being "the Jewish community" and "The British community" ridiculous. If you live in the UK, you're part of the British community, regardless of whether you're a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist or (as in my case) a Slaanesh worshipper.

Judaism isn't even a race, it's a religion.

If Mr Abraham Bagel and his family want to go into banking then let them.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
I find the idea of there being "the Jewish community" and "The British community" ridiculous. If you live in the UK, you're part of the British community, regardless of whether you're a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist or (as in my case) a Slaanesh worshipper.

Judaism isn't even a race, it's a religion.

If Mr Abraham Bagel and his family want to go into banking then let them.

Good reason its been left to wiser heads then.

Judaism is a race and a religion and a cultural group and also now potentially a nationality under the Right of Return to become citizens of Israel.

Mr Bagel can also go into banking, in the Jewish community or into investment banking, he could also get a non executive job in a domestic bank without discrimination. Can't buy out a High Street bank though, it would be blocked.

Which British financial institutions are private?

 Orlanth wrote:
[Can't buy out a High Street bank though, it would be blocked.

I hate to do this but: citation needed.

 Crimson wrote:
Orlanth, no such legislation exists. You're detached from reality.

I made no comment or inference that there was any legislation.
There is an agreement, not a law restricting Jews.
Such a law is unnecessary anyway. To buy into a major industry you have to seek government approval. Say for example you had the billions needed to buy a British bank, you cant simply buy the bank, even if the owners sell you the shares. You also have to see Whitehall approval before you can even own the shares. Other countries have similar procedures and for similar reasons, to prevent partisan ownership of important industries.
Ask yourself this,l can a Russian billionarie buy a major US armanents industry. The answer is no, because he is a Russian.
With banking its the same thing, only a little less obvious.
Even so the Bank of England is run by government appouinted personnel and rthey regulate the banking industry. The matter is well at hand without passing any discriminatory laws or restricting Brtish Jews from making business..

 Crimson wrote:

Also, if you don't see why restricting what sort of business you can do based on your ethnicity/religion is wrong, I don't know what to tell you.

Again I lead you back to the analogy of a Russian billionaire trying to buy a US armaments industry. Would you be so full of dogma that you think such a sale can never be opposed because it might offend equal opportunities sensibilities? I really hope you can think better than that.
Banking is no different really. You can feth over somewhere with banks just as much as you can with bombs. Bankers are bad enough when greedy and lazy, at least we shouldn't have to worry if they are playing for another team.

Besides if you think that ethnically run industries are always ethically run industries offering equality of services and opportunities for all then you have no reason to call anyone else detached from reality.

So what Britsh banks are privately owned?

 Frazzled wrote:
Which British financial institutions are private?

All of them except Bank of England Frazzie. Though some have been bought back by the government when they collapsed. RBS for example.

RBS is still run as a private bank, its just a private bank unwritten by the tax payer, and the tax payer isn't happy.

 Crimson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
[Can't buy out a High Street bank though, it would be blocked.

I hate to do this but: citation needed.

Don't be lazy. Look up any very large scale control of business transfer and you will find it has to be signed off by the government.
The one that comes immediately to mind is the buy out of Manchester United, it comes to mind because Gordon Brown should have said no, they deal was too dodgy. He could and should have blocked the sale cold because of the transfered debt.
Now Manchester United is not a bank, but it doesn't have to be, banks are included alongside any other industry in a common procedure.

RBS is public
Barclays is public
HSBC is public

Those are the only British banks I interact with that I am aware of.

 Orlanth wrote:

Ask yourself this,l can a Russian billionarie buy a major US armanents industry. The answer is no, because he is a Russian.

Indeed, because he is a foreign national, unlike the Jews we are talking about here!

 Frazzled wrote:
RBS is public
Barclays is public
HSBC is public

Those are the only British banks I interact with that I am aware of.

As good a way to list them as any:

http://www.uknetguide.co.uk/finance/banks_and_banking/high_street_banks.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Ask yourself this,l can a Russian billionarie buy a major US armanents industry. The answer is no, because he is a Russian.

Indeed, because he is a foreign national, unlike the Jews we are talking about here!

Foreign nationals can buy US industries.

But not deemed a part of National Security.

Well he could probably buy a minority interest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Watch that list Orlanth. It includes Santander. Thats a Spanish bank.

 Frazzled wrote:

Watch that list Orlanth. It includes Santander. Thats a Spanish bank.

I don't like Santander much, but its the same as most others. Spanish ownership of a UK bank cannot be blocked due to EU free trade laws.

I bank with the Cooperative Bank, and would recommend it to anyone.

I meant more that, thats not a British only list my man. Santander's not a bad bank. Good competitors in Latin America.

No its isn't British only, was until fairly recently IIRC.
I see what you are getting at, foreign banks could be owned by anyone, and I don't know what the answer is to that.

Anyway this threadjack must end, we are so far off the OP.

Sanander's always been Spanish.
My point on the three I mentioned was that they were public. After 2008 they were pretty much govenrment owned.

Not seeing how the cabal works when they are public entities.

 Orlanth wrote:

I see what you are getting at, foreign banks could be owned by anyone, and I don't know what the answer is to that.

Yes, even by Jews! (Oh the horror!) How is your reptoid-controlled government gonna stop that! Hah!

 Crimson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

I see what you are getting at, foreign banks could be owned by anyone, and I don't know what the answer is to that.

Yes, even by Jews! (Oh the horror!) How is your reptoid-controlled government gonna stop that! Hah!

The same way they're gonna ban porn, I suppose.

The bastards.

purplefood wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Clearly any CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT of CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT is merely CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT propaganda perpetrated by CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT who aren't CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT and CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT people. CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT is the craziest ever CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT in the world. We should all just CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT

CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT your CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT.

I CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT'ed your correction

I would just like to point out that this is the single best comment I've ever seen posted in any of the myriad threads relating to Israel/Palestine.

Exalted.

Bullockist wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Do I need to point out that you picked 2006, a year on which Israel participated in a war, or is it pointless?

The war was initiated by a Hezbollah ambush. Israel didn't "participate in a war" - it was attacked.

Has anyone else noticed that as soon as things seem to be calming down in israel/gaza/west bank some militant gets assasinated , the militants start doing ambushes and getting much more rocket happy and israel responds with an incusion. May be just my tin foil hat talking , but it seems to happen often.

Nothing sells the Palestinian victim narrative better than dead kids. Nothing gets dead kids faster than firing rockets from civilian areas and waiting for the counter battery fire to hit. Kind of sad that their tactical policies are specifically designed to maximize civilian casualties on their own side...

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

The UK had an amicable solution to this centuries ago that still works. Let Jews have free reign over certain industries, notably the diamond trade, merchant and investment banking and allow them to build any kind of business in their own community, but to restrict them from domestic banking and insurance. This is why the UK has a large stable Jewish population, the problems that occurred in Germany in WW1 cant occur here and the return concessions are acceptable to the Jewish community.

Or, you know, you let Jewish people do the same things as everyone else?

That sounds right thinking, but actually doesn't work so well, as the Germans found out.
Bear with me while I explain why.

1. People network with their own community and Jews have had a global community, even when there was no global community.
People stick with their own kind, its human nature, so Jews give the best deals to other Jews, just as the cliche of the 'Englishman abroad' who forms a club if he finds two other Englishmen. The concept behind this is based on logical observation, people network with their own. We all do it, but Jews have an advantage, being a race, a culture and a religion prascticing seperate living, the grouping is cohesive has a common ethos which is already business orientated though its spiritual teachings and common history and can network frankly far better than anyone else.
So Jews network more and tend to get rich quicker. This isn't a problem, though it can cause resentment of the left wing kind due to envy that of itself is not the fault of the Jews.

2. So where is the problem then?
Where the problems begin is when banking is involved. If the bankers are Jewish they give better deals and more lenient settlement terms to their own kind, which causers resentment and division. Furthermore if a company (likely a Gentile debtor) is foreclosed on the assets go to the creditors, and thus auctioned off to fellow Jews. Now the new management of the old company is Jewish and from then on being Jewish is largely necessary in order to be promoted, thus Jews take over the industry that was previously foreclosed on. This turns into a nasty vicious circle.
At this point claims of 'Jewish conspiracy' arise, and is the source of that theory, even though all we see is open business networking and the conspiracy angle is mostly myth. I say mostly because Jewish business is largely aware of what is going on, but networks as normal, because networking with our own kind is what humans do and Jews cannot be blamed for what is part of essential human nature.
England had this problem earlier than most of Europe as the towns were broadly more fair and there were fewer wars reaching the urban areas, also as an island it was easier to establish a cordon. Thus to combat this trend all Jews were expelled from England in the 13th century. Because we had our over-reaction over and done back in a time when harsh reaction to social conditions was morally acceptable we could also reflect and rebuild a relationship with the Jewish community early.
It was Cromwell who let the Jews return, but there were caveats that work from then to this day, so thwe working relationship with Jews is four centuries old and was built on a common understanding of economic and political realities that are still true today.

3. How does this work and why is it fair?
By limiting Jews from domestic banking the above problems which were major economic bugbears and the direct fuel for the rise of Nazism were curtailed. Its easy to write off Hitlers opinions as just the ravings of a sick feth, but they wouldn't have had any bite unless there was a veneer of truth to them. In the First World War the European economies were squeezed, however where there was partisan banking some people (Jews) would be given concessions, others would be foreclosed on (non Jews with assets sold to other Jews). While this is a gross oversimplification it occurred often enough to cause resentment and help pave the way for German defeat.

4. Ok, but even if that is so tthat deosnt make it right.
Up to a point, but the return concessions were and still are major. We live in a land of equal opportunities legislation, and companies can and are censured as racist if they fail to hire percentages of ethnic workers, or offer equal opportunities to promotion. However there are exceptions, Tescos and Sainsburys are amongst the largest employers in the UK but there is a clean demographic between store workers and head office workers. Jews enter at head office level while non Jews with some token exceptions have a glass ceiling at store manager level, and store managers don't get the same pay as managers with oversight over the quantity of staff you would find in other industries.
I remember a quote given to me from 1999, the height of New Labour and the politically correct move to ethnically equalise the workforce: 'shop level staff is not a profile job for Jews'. Not a profile job could be taken to mean gross discrimination is in place, but isn't, this Status Quo remains intact even when other companies were being censured for not having enough women or ethnics in management.

If supermarkets were unequal employers they have nothing on the diamond trade. You cant even get a job at all unless you are Jewish, and more restrictive than that you need a recommendation. This is discrimination in spades, but is allowed to continue, is even in fact encouraged because the diamond industry deals with small transportable, non detectable high value goods. For a Jew to steal from his employer would be to fly in the face of his own culture and community and thus Jews make more stable and trustworthy employees for the diamond trade.
This might sound like a wise general principle, but be assured it is an exception. There was an expose on BBC Radio of all places about how Chinese agents infiltrated companies and stole their data purely because it was not permissible not to employee them due to underrepresentation of Chinese ethnicity in the workplace, and sensitivity of information was not considered an excuse. The Equal Opportunities dogmas are exceptionally prevalent, but have been continually bypassed by the Jewish community even though evidence 'discrimination' is more clearly prevalent than in other industries to to its extremity or the size of the organisation involved.

5. The end result.
All this doesn't concern me in the least because its part of a wider deal which in the long term is best for everyone in the UK economy, Jewish and non Jewish. Jews get to run thing their way in niche industries but cannot dictate her destiny of the economy at large. They are happy, we are happy and anti-Semitism is a problem only amongst the Islamic community. For this centuries old agreement to have survived the cultural fethstorm that was New Labour is saying something, a lot of what was done in the UK was built on time tested common sense principles, and all too many of those principles were removed due to doctrinal expediency over the last decade and a half..

What a load of fething crap. Are you serious?

People are free to hire whoever they want. There's no global Jewish conspiracy to hire other Jews. Are you really suggesting that Jews help Jews any more than Blacks help Blacks?

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Bullockist wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Do I need to point out that you picked 2006, a year on which Israel participated in a war, or is it pointless?

The war was initiated by a Hezbollah ambush. Israel didn't "participate in a war" - it was attacked.

Has anyone else noticed that as soon as things seem to be calming down in israel/gaza/west bank some militant gets assasinated , the militants start doing ambushes and getting much more rocket happy and israel responds with an incusion. May be just my tin foil hat talking , but it seems to happen often.

Nothing sells the Palestinian victim narrative better than dead kids. Nothing gets dead kids faster than firing rockets from civilian areas and waiting for the counter battery fire to hit. Kind of sad that their tactical policies are specifically designed to maximize civilian casualties on their own side...

That's one way to look at it. Another way, however, is to view it as a few monsters and fiends using civilian populations to act as human shields, because they are unaware that the other monsters and fiends which they are assaulting are perfectly willing to kill their way through those human shields to get to them.


TL;DR launching rockets at or near civilians makes you a douche.

 azazel the cat wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Bullockist wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Do I need to point out that you picked 2006, a year on which Israel participated in a war, or is it pointless?

The war was initiated by a Hezbollah ambush. Israel didn't "participate in a war" - it was attacked.

Has anyone else noticed that as soon as things seem to be calming down in israel/gaza/west bank some militant gets assasinated , the militants start doing ambushes and getting much more rocket happy and israel responds with an incusion. May be just my tin foil hat talking , but it seems to happen often.

Nothing sells the Palestinian victim narrative better than dead kids. Nothing gets dead kids faster than firing rockets from civilian areas and waiting for the counter battery fire to hit. Kind of sad that their tactical policies are specifically designed to maximize civilian casualties on their own side...

That's one way to look at it. Another way, however, is to view it as a few monsters and fiends using civilian populations to act as human shields, because they are unaware that the other monsters and fiends which they are assaulting are perfectly willing to kill their way through those human shields to get to them.


TL;DR launching rockets at or near civilians makes you a douche.

That's interesting...except that's not how it works. The IAF released scores of videos during Cast Lead of JDAM strikes averted because the target drove his launcher into a populated area. Whenever possible, we tried to minimize casualties. It's not "douchey" to defend yourself against an Islamic death cultist firing rockets at you if he's going to hide behind civilians. If it's him or me, it's going to be him every single time. You wouldn't understand that because you've never been in that situation.

Civilians die in war time. That's just how it is. Look at the civilian death tolls in Iraq. Arabs are knocking each other off in Syria like it's going out of style, yet for some reason, everyone focuses on Israel. Hmmmm...

NuggzTheNinja wrote: Arabs are knocking each other off in Syria like it's going out of style, yet for some reason, everyone focuses on Israel. Hmmmm...

What a lovely colonial perspective. Perhaps next, you can tell me about your White Man's Burden.

 Orlanth wrote:


Judaism is a race and a religion and a cultural group and also now potentially a nationality under the Right of Return to become citizens of Israel.

Wouldn't the race be Semite, and thus also include quite a few non-jewish people from around Northen-Africa, Ethiopia and the Middle-East?

I'd actually argue that 'Semite' as a descriptor is rather distant at this point. It's really only useful now for identifying the language family that makes up much of the Middle East and ancient cultures. Less so for other things. Besides, if I walked up to someone and asked what they thought of Semitic culture they'd just assume I was talking about Jews anyway. The term is too loaded these days to have general use.

Granted, getting modern Israelis and Palestinians to acknowledge a common historical origin may be a useful tool in the future to bring peace back to the region imo.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd actually argue that 'Semite' as a descriptor is rather distant at this point. It's really only useful now for identifying the language family that makes up much of the Middle East and ancient cultures. Less so for other things.

Well, isn't that the case for every racial denominators? ''Caucasian'' initially meant ''who'se not Mongolian'', and vice versa, and Semites were Caucasians...

Pretty much. Thanks 19th century social Darwinists!

EDIT: Though I'd also argue terms like Caucasian and Hispanic are no where near as butchered as the term Semetic which in general use has been cut down to referring to one comparatively small ethnic group. Caucasian is a good second though.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


That's interesting...except that's not how it works. The IAF released scores of videos during Cast Lead of JDAM strikes averted because the target drove his launcher into a populated area. Whenever possible, we tried to minimize casualties. It's not "douchey" to defend yourself against an Islamic death cultist firing rockets at you if he's going to hide behind civilians. If it's him or me, it's going to be him every single time. You wouldn't understand that because you've never been in that situation.

Civilians die in war time. That's just how it is. Look at the civilian death tolls in Iraq. Arabs are knocking each other off in Syria like it's going out of style, yet for some reason, everyone focuses on Israel. Hmmmm...

If a country hasn't been pacified in 50 years maybe it's time to GTFO ? Or optionally actually approach the peace process in a serious manner and not just as a stalling method so more settlements can be placed.

Reservations getting smaller and smaller over there...they need to open up casino's....

OH they do run casinos now jihadin. The militants offer odds on the chances of surviving a rocket attack and the Israelis take the odds.

Bullockist wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


That's interesting...except that's not how it works. The IAF released scores of videos during Cast Lead of JDAM strikes averted because the target drove his launcher into a populated area. Whenever possible, we tried to minimize casualties. It's not "douchey" to defend yourself against an Islamic death cultist firing rockets at you if he's going to hide behind civilians. If it's him or me, it's going to be him every single time. You wouldn't understand that because you've never been in that situation.

Civilians die in war time. That's just how it is. Look at the civilian death tolls in Iraq. Arabs are knocking each other off in Syria like it's going out of style, yet for some reason, everyone focuses on Israel. Hmmmm...

If a country hasn't been pacified in 50 years maybe it's time to GTFO ? Or optionally actually approach the peace process in a serious manner and not just as a stalling method so more settlements can be placed.

50 years? That country hasn't been pacified for 2,000 years!

Correction. That country has been pacified, unpacified, pacified again so on and so forth for 2000 years

 LordofHats wrote:
Correction. That country has been pacified, unpacified, pacified again so on and so forth for 2000 years

Countries didn't exist 2000 years ago.

Sure it did... A country doesn't just pop out of then air. Or is the geographical location of Israel/Palestine/the Levant as a distinct geo-political region just a figment of my hyperactive imagination @_@

 Cheesecat wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Correction. That country has been pacified, unpacified, pacified again so on and so forth for 2000 years

Countries didn't exist 2000 years ago.

Let's say area then.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
That's interesting...except that's not how it works. The IAF released scores of videos during Cast Lead of JDAM strikes averted because the target drove his launcher into a populated area. Whenever possible, we tried to minimize casualties. It's not "douchey" to defend yourself against an Islamic death cultist firing rockets at you if he's going to hide behind civilians. If it's him or me, it's going to be him every single time. You wouldn't understand that because you've never been in that situation.

Civilians die in war time. That's just how it is. Look at the civilian death tolls in Iraq. Arabs are knocking each other off in Syria like it's going out of style, yet for some reason, everyone focuses on Israel. Hmmmm...

I find your refusal to partake in childish naivete regarding how much better everything would be if we just adopted the peacenik plan of letting Palestine wage an unrestricted, uncontested terror campaign against Israel to have no place in this thread.

Relapse wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Correction. That country has been pacified, unpacified, pacified again so on and so forth for 2000 years

Countries didn't exist 2000 years ago.

Let's say area then.

I know what you meant I'm just being a smart ass.

 Seaward wrote:

I find your refusal to partake in childish naivete regarding how much better everything would be if we just adopted the peacenik plan of letting Palestine wage an unrestricted, uncontested terror campaign against Israel to have no place in this thread.

If someone invaded my country , occupied it and then imposed harsh terms on my country I'm pretty sure I'd be launching rockets too. Lets not forget the refused partition of palestine that was offered by Fatah and refused by Israel and people wonder how Hamas got into power.

Unrestricted terrorism , pffft, it's called defending your country.

Bullockist wrote:
Unrestricted terrorism , pffft, it's called defending your country.

Nah. Getting idiots to strap bombs to themselves and walk into pizza parlors or get on buses is terrorism.

Also, if you've been "defending your country" for fifty straight years and have lost far more than you've gained, you're terrible at it and should give up.

Bullockist wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


That's interesting...except that's not how it works. The IAF released scores of videos during Cast Lead of JDAM strikes averted because the target drove his launcher into a populated area. Whenever possible, we tried to minimize casualties. It's not "douchey" to defend yourself against an Islamic death cultist firing rockets at you if he's going to hide behind civilians. If it's him or me, it's going to be him every single time. You wouldn't understand that because you've never been in that situation.

Civilians die in war time. That's just how it is. Look at the civilian death tolls in Iraq. Arabs are knocking each other off in Syria like it's going out of style, yet for some reason, everyone focuses on Israel. Hmmmm...

If a country hasn't been pacified in 50 years maybe it's time to GTFO ? Or optionally actually approach the peace process in a serious manner and not just as a stalling method so more settlements can be placed.

To where? Israel isn't a colony. Israelis fought and died for that land. They have as much right to be there as every American in the United States.

out of Gaza and the west bank

Bullockist wrote:
out of Gaza and the west bank

You think that'll magically make the Palestinians stop?

Bullockist wrote:
out of Gaza and the west bank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel

We are supposed to reward terrorism? They're lucky we don't push them into Egypt.

What do you think the United States would do if Mexicans fired 1,000 rockets annually into US border towns?

I think it will go a long way to reducing it. Have you ever looked at the conditions the Palestinians live under? It's making things worse currently and always has.
Do you realize how many people are living without freedom of movement in the Gaza area, and how many are refugees?

You realise just how often Israel has ended or stalled the negotiating for peace all the while getting more settlers in the west bank.

Bullockist wrote:
I think it will go a long way to reducing it. Have you ever looked at the conditions the Palestinians live under? It's making things worse currently and always has.
Do you realize how many people are living without freedom of movement in the Gaza area, and how many are refugees?

You realise just how often Israel has ended or stalled the negotiating for peace all the while getting more settlers in the west bank.

You have a problem with settlers?

Wait...so a Jew can't live on Arab land, but Arabs deserve to live in Israel? Please tell me more.

Gaza is not Israel, neither is the west bank. These rocket attacks started according to that entry in wiki in 2001, which is a long while after the occupation.

Bullockist wrote:
Gaza is not Israel, neither is the west bank. These rocket attacks started according to that entry in wiki in 2001, which is a long while after the occupation.

So wait a minute. Palestinians weren't waging terror campaigns against Israel prior to the occupation?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
I think it will go a long way to reducing it. Have you ever looked at the conditions the Palestinians live under? It's making things worse currently and always has.
Do you realize how many people are living without freedom of movement in the Gaza area, and how many are refugees?

You realise just how often Israel has ended or stalled the negotiating for peace all the while getting more settlers in the west bank.

You have a problem with settlers?

Wait...so a Jew can't live on Arab land, but Arabs deserve to live in Israel? Please tell me more.

The Arabs in Israel are descendents of Arabs living in Israel since before it was founded. You can bet that Israel doesn't allow Arab immigration after all.
Meanwhile Israel conquers arab land kciks off Arabs and imports settlers, big difference.

 Orlanth wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
I think it will go a long way to reducing it. Have you ever looked at the conditions the Palestinians live under? It's making things worse currently and always has.
Do you realize how many people are living without freedom of movement in the Gaza area, and how many are refugees?

You realise just how often Israel has ended or stalled the negotiating for peace all the while getting more settlers in the west bank.

You have a problem with settlers?

Wait...so a Jew can't live on Arab land, but Arabs deserve to live in Israel? Please tell me more.

The Arabs in Israel are descendents of Arabs living in Israel since before it was founded. You can bet that Israel doesn't allow Arab immigration after all.
Meanwhile Israel conquers arab land kciks off Arabs and imports settlers, big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel

Arabs are 20% of the Israeli population. You don't really know very much about this conflict. The families that left did so voluntarily in 1948 to make way for the Arab armies intent on massacring the Jews there.

 Seaward wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
Gaza is not Israel, neither is the west bank. These rocket attacks started according to that entry in wiki in 2001, which is a long while after the occupation.

So wait a minute. Palestinians weren't waging terror campaigns against Israel prior to the occupation?

I was just quoting the article. The Palestinians just want their own state, an entirely justified notion in my mind. There have been Palestinian terror attacks since the British occupation of Palestine (Jewish terror attacks at this time too) and probably before then under the Ottomans. The longer settlements go on the less chance there is of that happening which is one of the reasons that peace negotiations get stalled , every single time.
The best proposal put forward by the Palestinians was under Fatah which basically gave Israel everything they wanted (including an unpartitioned Jerusalem - Palestinian capital would have been a suburb on the outskirts of Jerusalem) which was rejected by Israel. This lead to a loss of faith in Fatah eventually leading to Hamas gaining increasing power.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

What a load of fething crap. Are you serious?

Yes, excerpt its not crap.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

People are free to hire whoever they want.

Yes they are, we agree on this, including Jews, non Jews anyone.
Never said otherwise.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

There's no global Jewish conspiracy to hire other Jews.

I was careful to point out, repeatedly, that there was no 'Jewish conspiracy', only natural networking, which would inevitably occur that allow complaints of Jewish conspiracy to happen which in turn leads to large scale discontentment.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Are you really suggesting that Jews help Jews any more than Blacks help Blacks?

Another point I made if you look. You should read more and panic less.

However who networks more, the Jews or the Blacks?
If that question is difficult ask which group has more successful lobbying power in proportion to its population. Ask why that is.

Bullockist wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
Gaza is not Israel, neither is the west bank. These rocket attacks started according to that entry in wiki in 2001, which is a long while after the occupation.

So wait a minute. Palestinians weren't waging terror campaigns against Israel prior to the occupation?

I was just quoting the article. The Palestinians just want their own state, an entirely justified notion in my mind. There have been Palestinian terror attacks since the British occupation of Palestine (Jewish terror attacks at this time too) and probably before then under the Ottomans. The longer settlements go on the less chance there is of that happening which is one of the reasons that peace negotiations get stalled , every single time.
The best proposal put forward by the Palestinians was under Fatah which basically gave Israel everything they wanted (including an unpartitioned Jerusalem - Palestinian capital would have been a suburb on the outskirts of Jerusalem) which was rejected by Israel. This lead to a loss of faith in Fatah eventually leading to Hamas gaining increasing power.

They have a state. It's called Jordan. They fought to win the whole thing and lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:


However who networks more, the Jews or the Blacks?
If that question is difficult ask which group has more successful lobbying power in proportion to its population. Ask why that is.

Why is it? Tell me more.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


The Arabs in Israel are descendents of Arabs living in Israel since before it was founded. You can bet that Israel doesn't allow Arab immigration after all.
Meanwhile Israel conquers arab land kciks off Arabs and imports settlers, big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel

Arabs are 20% of the Israeli population. You don't really know very much about this conflict.

The two pieces of information highlighted are connected.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

The families that left did so voluntarily in 1948 to make way for the Arab armies intent on massacring the Jews there.

That's total bollocks and very one sided, stop drinking the Kool Aid.

There were many Arab families were kicked off land or even massacred by Jews.
An example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:



However who networks more, the Jews or the Blacks?
If that question is difficult ask which group has more successful lobbying power in proportion to its population. Ask why that is.

Why is it? Tell me more.

I did, not thast I needed to, its should be obvious to anyone.
The question has rhetorical.

 Orlanth wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


The Arabs in Israel are descendents of Arabs living in Israel since before it was founded. You can bet that Israel doesn't allow Arab immigration after all.
Meanwhile Israel conquers arab land kciks off Arabs and imports settlers, big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel

Arabs are 20% of the Israeli population. You don't really know very much about this conflict.

The two pieces of information highlighted are connected.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

The families that left did so voluntarily in 1948 to make way for the Arab armies intent on massacring the Jews there.

That's total bollocks and very one sided, stop drinking the Kool Aid.

There were many Arab families were kicked off land or even massacred by Jews.
An example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:



However who networks more, the Jews or the Blacks?
If that question is difficult ask which group has more successful lobbying power in proportion to its population. Ask why that is.

Why is it? Tell me more.

I did, not thast I needed to, its should be obvious to anyone.
The question has rhetorical.

It warrants an explanation. You're drawing a conclusion about an entire religion, so please make it good.

ENOUGH.

Guess what? You're all off-topic. Next post that isn't about the original topic earns the poster a ban from the OT forum.

Thank you.

You know, I'm wondering what they're actually using these organs for. If they're from dead soldiers they can't be much use for transplant-soldiers don't just drop down dead without significant bodily harm, and I imagine any useful organs would be ruined by the hail of bullets/burst of shrapnel/bits of rocket that killed them in the first place. And essentially being left in the blazing hot desert before having their organs harvested...

Unless they're using them as rations (which I sincerely hope they're not) I can't see what use they'd have with them.

It really depends on what they are actually using.

There are many parts of a body that can be used for a while after death. Bones, arteries, tissues, corneas. You don't have to take them out as soon as somebody dies, that's how certain funeral homes got away with harvesting all these before burying people.

Bullockist wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

I find your refusal to partake in childish naivete regarding how much better everything would be if we just adopted the peacenik plan of letting Palestine wage an unrestricted, uncontested terror campaign against Israel to have no place in this thread.

If someone invaded my country , occupied it and then imposed harsh terms on my country I'm pretty sure I'd be launching rockets too. Lets not forget the refused partition of palestine that was offered by Fatah and refused by Israel and people wonder how Hamas got into power.

Unrestricted terrorism , pffft, it's called defending your country.

You mean like Germany after WWII, or the Ottoman Empire after the British conquered it in WWI?

edited

Just saw Janth's post.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Thank you.

You know, I'm wondering what they're actually using these organs for. If they're from dead soldiers they can't be much use for transplant-soldiers don't just drop down dead without significant bodily harm, and I imagine any useful organs would be ruined by the hail of bullets/burst of shrapnel/bits of rocket that killed them in the first place. And essentially being left in the blazing hot desert before having their organs harvested...

Unless they're using them as rations (which I sincerely hope they're not) I can't see what use they'd have with them.

Probably for civilians. Israeli soldiers don't deploy outside of the country generally, and the country is very small. Many soldiers are treated for injuries at civilian hospitals.

To answer your other point, during war time, most soldiers wear armor during operations that covers most vital organs. Many soldiers die from extremity wounds or head injuries. If these soldiers were evacuated for medical care and died either en-route or in the hospital, the organs could easily be recovered.