I'm not convinced. It still appears to me to be conspiracy theory hogwash. In my eyes, it would require a SERIOUS loathing of America to assume such a thing is true on a whim. America did not "orchestrate" any Georgian action. That's just ludicrous. They would out us since they're being obliterated at the moment, since we're not helping. You have to assume that America is EVIL in order to assume these things. If a naval move is made at the same time, than it is because America is taking the opportunity that has been laid before them. Prime time for easy action.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It sounds like it, but it isn't...

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=warships%20gulf&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
>> ^Memorare:
read an article today suggesting the aggressive move by Georgia was orchestrated by the US as a strategic diversion to keep Russia busy during a naval blockade of Iran. shrug


Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theory crap to me. Propaganda.

http://horrorshow.videosift.com/talk/Zonbie-just-got-his-250th-brain-star-Meow-Brains

http://geek.videosift.com/talk/Gorgonheap-goes-diamond-still-most-hated-creature-in-galaxy

I'll start with saying I'm glad I misread you -- there are so many people here in the US who repeat these kinds of things out of pure partisanship. What was in that clip was no reasoned debate, condemning Obama's use of fear, it was two propagandists for the right-wing party trying to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about the opposition party's candidate for the Presidency.

I agree with your assessment that the low point of Obama's trip was the Israel leg. He always steps up his rhetoric about Iran, and that makes me nervous. He did the same thing when speaking to AIPAC here in the states (the pro-Israel lobby), and he caught a lot of flak for it from his base.

I think the main thing Europeans have to worry about is the echoes of 9/11 that are still ringing here in this country. They're no longer clearly audible, but it's just below our register, affecting our subconscious. The public in this country will not elect anyone who would not make the appeal to the world to aid us in our so-called "fight against extremism".

However, if you look back at his earlier comments from the beginning of the primary, you'd see he spent a lot of time talking about the need to "change our mindset" and to not act out of fear. That's part of why he's got Hope and/or Change emblazoned on his signs and bumper stickers. Hillary (and the rest of the Democratic field) blasted him for being "weak on terror", and he made a clear turn about a year ago to make sure he kept sounding a tougher line about extremism.

I think he's now in a place where he has to keep the momentum on this going, because he can't win without doing that.

That said, he has made it clear he will listen to our allies more -- so even if he does get carried away, I do think pressure from Europe would affect him. I think if he wins, he will begin the long process of trying to reverse the pervasive fear running through the populace -- fears that Bush amplified for his own purposes.

John McCain on the other hand will happily give Europe the middle finger if they protest an American plan to invade Iran, because many people here think that shows "good leadership" and "independence". He'll also happily continue to perpetuate those fears about terrorism. He has said on many occasions that the "fight against Islamic Extremism is the transcendent challenge of the 21st century."

From what I see, Bush has pushed this country a great distance towards fascism. McCain's a member of the same political party, and it's clear that all the same advisers have gotten their hooks into McCain, because he's gone from a moderate that I actually kinda liked, to being in lock step with Bush, not only on issue positions, but also the combative, disrespectful, fear mongering overtones. He's also got the media propagandists helping him (like the ones in your clip), who dig up ridiculous claims like Obama is a muslim, or a terrorist, or that he wasn't born in the US (which would make him ineligible for the Presidency).

That's why I reacted the way I did to your post.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I hope you're following my line of thinking, I'm brainstorming it all right out in full flow...

To Americans, these events will be soaked in pride, hope and patriotism, there is nothing wrong with that.

But to a British politician or to the Lords who have reign over the politicians, it paints a very different picture. It's one thing when Luther King makes speeches about civil rights in this way, it's another when Obama talks about uniting forces against extremism, and even goes as far as talking about Iranian nukes. That's the language of fear, that's the kicker, that's the alarm bell - and I mean that in the most literal sense, this language of fear is one of the things Winston Churchill warned about in the tomes of books he wrote after WW2, about how the world must avoid the same thing happening again, and how he regretted that Britian didn't move sooner against Germany.

These are very specific things contained in Obama's speeches, and I really don't know what to make of it. I think you should be thankful that at least somebody in American media saw this from a perspective of history. WW2 is very fresh in the minds of people in England, the country is soaked in the history of that war in every town and city and bit of countryside and Obama's words are very potent and a bit scary to be frank in that context.

That's why I say it's all about persepective, and what makes it frightening is that Obama's speechwriters couldn't have made it any more potent in the context of WW2.

Phew.

I'm all for discussion of it, after all I didn't downvote it. Put me down as taking outright offense to a member of the propaganda arm of the Republican party trying to paint Obama as a Nazi because he's popular.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
http://politics.videosift.com/video/Obamas-Speech-Something-the-Fuehrer-would-have-done

In regards to this, I think it's important that this stuff be posted, sifted, and discussed. I'm not into posting stuff that I personally believe or subscribe to. I'm quite the opposite, I post stuff because I want to know what people think so I can get a big brainstorm of commentary. I don't know what to make of it, but I have an excellent knowledge of WW2 and whether intentional or not this is resonates with that history and is very dangerous ground for Obama and America to be on.

To be absolutely honest with you, I wouldn't be surprised if this and the Israel visit are items for discussion in the House of Lords in the UK.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Is the point here to show how misleading and offensive this is, or to take something mediamatters.org highlighted as misleading and offensive and try to perpetuate it?

Do you really think giving a political speech in front of lots of people makes you a Nazi? Usually acceptance speeches happen before crowds of 20,000 or so. What's the cutoff number for Nazification?

Does that mean Martin Luther King became a Nazi for his I Have a Dream speech, which he gave before 200,000 people?

http://politics.videosift.com/video/Obamas-Speech-Something-the-Fuehrer-would-have-done

In regards to this, I think it's important that this stuff be posted, sifted, and discussed. I'm not into posting stuff that I personally believe or subscribe to. I'm quite the opposite, I post stuff because I want to know what people think so I can get a big brainstorm of commentary. I don't know what to make of it, but I have an excellent knowledge of WW2 and whether intentional or not this is resonates with that history and is very dangerous ground for Obama and America to be on.

To be absolutely honest with you, I wouldn't be surprised if this and the Israel visit are items for discussion in the House of Lords in the UK.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
How do you think this event will be percieved around the world?

Moving the venue to a football ground and filling it with 75,000 'adoring fans' does have the whiff of fanatacism about it.

I'm sure many Europeans will see this event echoing 1930s Germany.

I think it's right that this be raised and discussed. Obama's speech in Israel followed by this event is sending out a very particular type of message.

It's not about what I personally think, it's about the alarm bells that this kind of stunt rings around the rest of the world. It's about perception.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Is the point here to show how misleading and offensive this is, or to take something mediamatters.org highlighted as misleading and offensive and try to perpetuate it?

Do you really think giving a political speech in front of lots of people makes you a Nazi? Usually acceptance speeches happen before crowds of 20,000 or so. What's the cutoff number for Nazification?

Does that mean Martin Luther King became a Nazi for his I Have a Dream speech, which he gave before 200,000 people?

One final point - if you believe that Hamas are created to invade Israel, and you believe that this is possible, you really need to look very hard at Israel, their military, their nuclear weapons (which they have illegally against the non-proliferation treaty which they signed) and ask yourself what would happen if America, UK and the UN recognised this as being the real goal of Hamas.

This is your proof.

Good luck.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
"I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter."
This makes Israeli invasion and occupation legal how? This charter is not denounced by the UN, regardless of its language. It is an extremist charter which, if you understand how culture works in politics, will unite an entire nation against an invading enemy.

It is not "my point" that Israel created Hamas, this is "what happened". Hamas is seen as the 'son of Israel' in the arab world. The majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas. The majority of the world want Israel to negotiate with Hamas. The Jewish people who march on the streets every year want Israel to negotiate with Hamas.

"I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained."
You are completely missing the point - Hamas has a charter but they are willing to negotiate a settlement. Politics takes care of the rest of it PEACEFULLY. If Israel stopped the occupation Hamas would not stay in power for long. This is the solution that Jimmy Carter saw, as well as the Egyptians and Saudis. Hamas will remain in power whilst Israel occupy the land. Just so you know, the Irish republican charter does indeed lay claim to a part of the United Kingdom.

None of this is my opinion, this is the clear facts of the matter.

If you still disagree, rather than emailing me back, please get in touch with Respect or the UK MP George Galloway who will be more than happy to address your points.

http://www.georgegalloway.com/
http://www.respectcoalition.org/


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

You are suggesting that Israel's justification for invading Palestine is Hamas' charter.


No, I'm saying that the checkpoints and refusing 'right of return' are an ugly necessity because of groups like Hamas' with stated goals of reclaiming all of Israel as a single Palestinian state.


...All of this is IN RESPONSE to occupation and oppression.
IN RESPONSE...

...Hamas was created IN RESPONSE to the Israeli occupation...

...the occupation LED to Hamas being elected by creating the conditions for an extremist Palestinian government...


I understand your point about Hamas forming out of the palestinian people's blight, and I even agree fully with you, but previously you stated:

Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount...


If you want to defend Hamas on the historical context of the Israeli occupation of the surrounding land, then the historical context of that occupation becomes relevant as well. Israel's occuption outside it's '68 borders is the direct result of the aggression of the surrounding Arab nations AGAINST Israel. Even many arab scholars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are quick to point out that their own nations role in the Palestinian people's blight must not be ignored.

But I again agreed with your earlier statement that historical context leads to endless finger pointing, and the will of the people today is paramount.


If you are suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel you are wrong.


I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter. That is were the will of the people, currently, is paramount. Regardless of what has led up to Hamas growth, in it's current nature it is a divisive and militant organization when real negotiation is needed. The Palestinian Authority and Israel are getting along much better, and in an ideal world the PA would see growing support across Palestine as Israel worked with it. Supporting Hamas though is in direct contradiction to that and just keeps the circle of violence going.


All of the criticisms you lay against Hamas can also be said of Nelson Mandella, the Irish Republicans, and the ANC.


I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained.

You are suggesting that Israel's justification for invading Palestine is Hamas' charter.


No, I'm saying that the checkpoints and refusing 'right of return' are an ugly necessity because of groups like Hamas' with stated goals of reclaiming all of Israel as a single Palestinian state.


...All of this is IN RESPONSE to occupation and oppression.
IN RESPONSE...

...Hamas was created IN RESPONSE to the Israeli occupation...

...the occupation LED to Hamas being elected by creating the conditions for an extremist Palestinian government...


I understand your point about Hamas forming out of the palestinian people's blight, and I even agree fully with you, but previously you stated:

Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount...


If you want to defend Hamas on the historical context of the Israeli occupation of the surrounding land, then the historical context of that occupation becomes relevant as well. Israel's occuption outside it's '68 borders is the direct result of the aggression of the surrounding Arab nations AGAINST Israel. Even many arab scholars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are quick to point out that their own nations role in the Palestinian people's blight must not be ignored.

But I again agreed with your earlier statement that historical context leads to endless finger pointing, and the will of the people today is paramount.


If you are suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel you are wrong.


I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter. That is were the will of the people, currently, is paramount. Regardless of what has led up to Hamas growth, in it's current nature it is a divisive and militant organization when real negotiation is needed. The Palestinian Authority and Israel are getting along much better, and in an ideal world the PA would see growing support across Palestine as Israel worked with it. Supporting Hamas though is in direct contradiction to that and just keeps the circle of violence going.


All of the criticisms you lay against Hamas can also be said of Nelson Mandella, the Irish Republicans, and the ANC.


I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained.

Hezbollah was set up to drive Israeli occupying forces from Lebanon (and it drove MOST but not all of them out in 2000).


More or less, and their mandate is certainly far better than that of Hamas. Israel was only occupying Southern Lebanon to stop PLO attacks on Israel. I'd say that gives some valid reason for being there, but I'd still agree it was wrong. Before you judge Israel alone though, remember the better part of the PLO army in southern Lebanon was there because Jordanian forces had already chased them out of Jordan. Hezbollah has since continued to use southern Lebanon to launch attacks deeper into Israel. Given Hezbollah's strong ties to Syria and Iran though, I think Israel does have legitimate security concerns about just watching Hezbollah build up forces on the border. But more to the point, we were talking about Hamas...


Hamas was set up to drive occupying forces from Palestine.


And I've already told you that Hamas defines Palestine as not just the occupied territories beyond the '68 borders, and not even just the territory outside the '48 borders, but also the entirety of Israel. If you refuse to believe it go read Hamas Charter, and if you still refuse to recognize this I don't see us getting any where.


Israel has refused time and time again to respond to the offer of a ceasefire in return for removing their forces from occupied territory.


The only thing Israel has refused is the 'right of return', they have offered themselves to return back to the '68 borders. Is it really Israel's fault a ceasefire fails when it is most often broken by attacks on Israeli checkpoints or cities?


Amnesty International has even condemned the killings of civilians by Israeli armed forces, and that is a good place to start to learn about what is really going on.


Thanks, others have pointed me to the same report before. You really should go read it, it seems to make it very clear that the vast majority of atrocities committed in Palestinian territory are the result of factional fighting between groups like Fatah and ... Hamas. Amnesty International has also repeatedly condemned Hamas and Hezbollah for using human shields in their tactics. That aught to take out some of the fire in condemning Israel for collateral damages, no?

Hamas' charter calls for a withdrawal from all land occupied by Isreal since 1967, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.


No, it doesn't:
Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences:
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad...

Plainly Hamas Charter defines Palestine as all of modern Israel in addition to the occupied territories.


That is their legitimate goal and attacks sanctioned by Hamas are against military targets on occupied Palestinian territory. Attacks inside Isreal are not sanctioned by Hamas and are condemned by Hamas.


And yet the most recent school shooting inside Israel was praised by Hamas. That is of course consistent with their Charter since all of Israel is rightfully part of Palestine in their view.

I'll walk through the various truce offers made when I've got time make sure I have the correct sources. I clearly recall Hamas' stance on the 10 year truce to be that it was only acceptable as an interim step to re-claiming all of Palestine. None the less, that's a good step but a lot more went into each effort falling apart.

Hamas does not exist to stir retaliatory strikes from Isreal, that is American propoganda and is completely untrue. Hamas wants to liberate their country which has been illegally occupied by Isreal and wants to reassemble their nation which is an entirely legal and legitimate goal.

By Hamas own charter, they define the illegally occupied country as the ENTIRETY of Israel. If taking that 'back' is a legal and legitimate goal I'm content to disagree.


Isreal is circling and taking over Palestinian land, the idea that they are encouraging any kind of withdrawal is laughable and untrue.


Israel took the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights after the six-day war from, not the Palestinian people, but from Jordan and Syria. Israel was not concerned with circling the Palestinians, as they were not in control of those regions, they were concerned with the armies that Egypt, Syria and Jordan were massing on their borders.

As for withdrawal, have the Palestinians put forward anything similar to Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan? I'd think that, at the least, somewhat qualifies as encouraging withdrawal.

Hamas is not a splinter group, it has a political mandate and the people put Hamas in power. It is more than an analogy I use, there are Palestinian flags flying in the streets of Belfast right now. The Irish republican parties do not recognise Northern Ireland as being British, that is a political position with democratic support.


I call Hamas a splinter group in the sense of operating through suicide bombers and operating on a mandate to remove all Jews from the region because they are Jewws. In Hamas' sick and twisted version of Islam, that's every good muslim's duty. Did you not even look at the quotes I gave you, go read the whole charter and see for yourselft. That they managed to get a political mandate just makes them all the worse. The extremists in the world need to be marginalized, not dignified by negotiating with them. I'd say negotiating with Fatah and refusing to recognize Hamas until they change their mandate is the proper course.


It is not the moderates who have to be negotiated with, no political struggle has ever been resolved by moderates, it is the extremists who need to negotiate.


And few political struggles with extremists have been resolved through negotiating, that's why history is littered with assassinations, coups, and wars. I'd rather see negotiations with the reasonable elements than lending any strength or dignity to extremists.


Hamas recognising Isreal's right to exist would loose the support of the people who put them in power and is political suicide, no government of Palestine, not Hamas nor anyone else put there by those people can ever do that. If it were not for Hamas Palestine would have been wiped off the map, Isreali troops have been beaten back time and time again by Palestinian forces.


Now your listening too closely to Hamas' propaganda. Hamas runs out of Syria, they are primarily an engine to stir retaliatory strikes from Israel. Syria provides the funding, training, and rockets so Hamas can attack Israeli civilians. Then the Hamas militants hide in civilian homes and mosques and wait to see if Israel will come after them. All the while Syria hopes for as many dead Palestinians as possible to rally more anti-Israeli sentiment. Hamas lacks any real military strength to 'beat back' Israeli forces. Israel has always mantained a policy of short and quick military operations. The only goal they have is to defend their civilians from attack. Taking land is not a goal so there is no invasion for Hamas to even try to beat down.


Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount, this is the very essence of democracy and it is the only way all of these conflict historically have been resolved. The Isreali and Palestinian people are sick of the bloodshed, but only the Palestinians have taken the political steps. This is exactly how it happened in Ireland.


And what political steps are you proposing Palestinians have taken? Electing Hamas, seems to me to be making things worse and giving a mandate of more war and bloodshed, not less. For Israel's part, their political process has continued to encourage withdrawal from expanded settlements and encouraged the handover of land taken in previous wars over to the Palestinian Authority.

The problem with your analogy is that Hamas IS the rogue splinter group. Here are some quotes from it's own founding charter:
"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."
"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims."
"Leaving the circle of conflict with Israel is a major act of treason and it will bring curse on its perpetrators."

Once again, if you want to go back to Israel's declaration of independence I don't think it's needed to go find any quotes from Arab nations about wiping anyone off the map. The formerly Iraq,Syria,Lebanon,Jordan and Exgypt sent nazi trained armies against Israel to destroy it, urging the Palestinian people to flee and return a few days later after the presumed victory. When Israel managed to win, the mess we see today began in full. The Arab nations failed to provide for the Palestinian people they'd encouraged to flee, and Israel was stuck with serious security problems with letting everyone simply return. The constant run of wars since has shown those security concerns to be undeniably valid.

A political solution would be great, and your right in spirit about negotiating with moderates to remove borders. The 2 problems are that Hamas is not the moderate group to negotiate with until it recognizes Israel's right to exist, and that surrounding Arab nations like Iran and Syria keep encouraging the rogue extremists with funding, training and weapons.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The attacks are in response to Isreali oppression just as Irish Republican attacks in the 70s were in response to British oppression.

The longer the oppression exists, the less grip Hamas will have over splinter groups just as the political wing of the Irish Republican Army has no control over rogue elements and splinter groups.

Arab nations did not say they wanted to wipe Isreal off the map, they refused to recognise its sovereignty and there are political and historical reasons for this. This is a quote also attributed to Ahmadinejad as well, it is incorrect and is bandied around in American media all the time. Neither Iran nor any Arab nation has claimed to want to attack Isreal or wipe it off the map.

Removing borders will not stop splinter groups attacking Isreal, but doing it in conjunction with a political process with Hamas WILL, just as it has in Ireland.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
If you want to go back to 1948 then you need to blame the Arab nations for abandoning the Palestinian people when they bid to wipe Israel out upon declaring it's independence.

The settlement policy of territory outside the '68 borders is criminal. But so are Syrian and Iranian rockets being launched by Hamas against Isreali civilians. Comparing atrocities though doesn't fix anything.

Despite knowing that removing the borders and checkpoints would create much good will, Israel can't ignore that Hamas agents would also take advantage of that to launch rockets into Jerusalem. When an Israeli checkpoint keeps a suicide bomber out, and saves a 14 year-old life, it is doing something good.

If you want to go back to 1948 then you need to blame the Arab nations for abandoning the Palestinian people when they bid to wipe Israel out upon declaring it's independence.

The settlement policy of territory outside the '68 borders is criminal. But so are Syrian and Iranian rockets being launched by Hamas against Isreali civilians. Comparing atrocities though doesn't fix anything.

Despite knowing that removing the borders and checkpoints would create much good will, Israel can't ignore that Hamas agents would also take advantage of that to launch rockets into Jerusalem. When an Israeli checkpoint keeps a suicide bomber out, and saves a 14 year-old life, it is doing something good.

Well said Irish.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Lack of challenge and progess for the top dogs?
What is this, World of Warcraft?

I don't care about points
or an avatar
or stars
or upvotes or downvotes
I just post and watch videos and occasionally start a ruck in the comments.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the site or its mechanics. You're all just getting a little bit egocentric.