Tags for this video have been changed from 'Ralph Macchio, guitar, talent' to 'Ralph Macchio, guitar, talent, alla turca, turkish rondo, mozart' - edited by kronosposeidon

Billions of dollars of US tax dollars at work. When are you people going to wake up?


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/5/873135/-Israel-Accidentally-Distributes-Video-Mocking-Flotilla-Dead-

But there's reason to doubt the sincerity of the official statement. For one thing, Caroline Glick, the Deputy Managing Editor at the Jerusalem Post, served as assistant foreign policy adviser to Prime Benjamin Netanyahu in 1997 and 1998. For a former adviser to Netanyahu to create such a timely video which then gets "accidentally" released by a Netanyahu-led Israeli government seems more than a bit suspicious.

As Caroline Glick Wrote on her blog post concerning her video,
"This week at Latma - the Hebrew-language media satire website I edit, we decided to do something new. We produced a clip in English. There we feature the Turkish-Hamas "love boat" captain, crew and passengers in a musical explanation of how they con the world.

We think this is an important Israeli contribution to the discussion of recent events and we hope you distribute it far and wide.

All the best,
Caroline"

Those troublesome Jews

Charles Krauthammer

Friday, June 4, 2010

The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.
This Story

But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.

Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.
ad_icon

Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?

But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.

(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.

Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.

But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.

Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.

(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.

The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.

(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.

But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?

Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.

How dare those turkish nationals in international waters attack our soliders, that were boarding their vessel illegally.

Woe is fucking me.

^Nice copy pasta. Well then I raise you with this:

Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory said that the “ships that were situated in the high seas where freedom of navigation exists, according to the law of the seas” and called for those responsible to "be held criminally accountable for their wrongful acts".[181]

In a legal analysis published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a staff expert on international law explained that countries are not allowed to extend their sovereignty on areas outside of their coastal waters. In a zone extending 24 nautical miles (44 km) from the coast, countries have the right to inspect ships in order to enforce immigration and public health laws and regulations. In international waters, if there is reasonable suspicion of piracy or human trafficking, a country has the right to access foreign ships. If the suspicion remains, it can search the ship. Israeli soldiers have the right to defend themselves. If Israel has used force against the ships without legal justification, the crew members had the right to defend themselves.[text 2]

Robin Churchill, international law professor at the University of Dundee in Scotland, said there was no legal basis for boarding the ships as they were in international waters. [182] Ove Bring, Swedish international law professor, said that Israel had no right to take military action.[183] That was supported by Mark Klamberg at Stockholm University,[184] Hugo Tiberg, maritime law professor[185] and Geir Ulfstein, professor at maritime law at University of Oslo,[186] while Jan Egeland, director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs said that only North Korea behaved in international waters in the same manner as Israel.[187]

Canadian scholar Michael Byers notes that the event would only be legal if the Israeli boarding were necessary and proportionate for the country's self defence. Byers believes that "the action does not appear to have been necessary in that the threat was not imminent."[188] Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies of London, was quoted as saying that the Israeli raid did not appear to have been conducted lawfully under the convention.[189] Anthony D'Amato, international law professor at Northwestern University School of Law, argued that the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force. He said the laws of war do not apply in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, which isn't even a state. He said the law of the Geneva Conventions would apply.[9] Said Mahmoudi, an international law professor, said that boarding a ship on international waters, kill and capture civilians is not in line with the law.[190]

A group of Israeli lawyers, including Avigdor Feldman, petitioned the Israeli High Court charging that Israel had violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by capturing the boats in international waters. [191]

Turkey's foreign minister Ahmet Davutoğlu called the raid "a grave breach of international law and constituted banditry and piracy—it was “murder” conducted by a State, without justification".[22] Prominent Turkish jurists have characterized Israel's actions as a violation of international law and a "war crime."

Turkey's deputy parliament speaker, Guldal Mumcu, said in a declaration that "[t]his attack was an open violation of United Nations rules and international law," and that "Turkey should seek justice against Israel through national and international legal authorities. The parliament expects the Turkish government to revise the political, military and economic relations with Israel, and to take effective measures."[192]
Dr. Turgut Tarhanlı, dean of the Law department of İstanbul Bilgi University,[193] cited the concept of innocent passage, under which vessels are granted safe passage through territorial waters in a manner which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the state.[194] He said that the Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that a coastal state may consider intervention if a ship is engaged in arms and drug smuggling, the slave trade or terrorist activities. However, the case with the aid boats is totally different. They set sail in accordance with the Customs Act and are known to be carrying humanitarian aid, not weapons or ammunition. According to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, Israel was not entitled to launch a military operation against the boats and activists.[195]

They boarded ships, uninvited, in the dead of night, in international waters.

They were Israeli's. The ships were Turkish bound for Gaza.

They were commandos, armed to the teeth.

The people on the ships were old ladies and chubby college professors, armed with deck chairs and moral outrage.

The previous message contained zero percent propaganda.

Everybody weep for the poor, victimized Israeli commandos.

Like I mentioned earlier, they could have requested the UNIFIL task force to intercept the flotilla if they had any reasonable suspicion of weapons aboard.

Then again, Turkish officials say each and every person aboard was checked before they set sail, just like the vessels themselves. And now even the UN security council legitimized the convoy in their presidential statement:

The council urges Israel to permit full consular access, to allow the countries concerned to retrieve their deceased and wounded immediately, and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance from the convoy to its destination.

I get what you're saying, but I still think what he's proposing necessarily forces people to make value judgments that are beyond science. While science can find evidence of empathy in the brain it can't tell us whether such empathy is necessarily good or bad. Say there is a society that is more "empathetic" than another society and that first society is more materially well off. You can't jump to the conclusion that empathy is good for survival, because there are hundreds of variables that affect the wealth of a nation and furthermore correlation does not necessarily mean causation. It could very well be the case that being materially well off creates a more empathetic society (or creates the conditions that allow such a society to arise). Or it could just be a total fluke.

That's what I found unclear in his speech--how exactly is science making value judgments? Science is providing facts about the world, but it still requires human consciousness to interpret those facts in a meaningful way. And people will interpret the facts differently and this will lead to conflict (global warming, the various string theories, etc.). How that conflict is resolved (whether with words or guns, for instance) will depend on a lot of things--including the values of those participating in the conflict. So it seems like a Catch-22 to me. You're using science to try to come up with value judgments about things, but in order to do that you have to make value judgments about the data you've collected. You're right back where you started.

Changing topics a bit here, I find his argument about the Muslim dress code frivolous. He is specifically cherry-picking by using Taliban-style extremely fundamentalist Islam as representative of all Islamic beliefs. It is true that certain Islamic governments have created laws to enforce a power divide between men and women but it is equally true that not all Muslims share this view and that Islamic countries vary widely in what is considered appropriate dress. The Koran itself admonishes both men and women to be modest in their dress and actions. Obviously certain Islamic scholars have ignored the "men" part and focused on the women in order to pursue their own agendas and strengthen their own power. Sam Harris blames religion for this but I blame human nature. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about religion, a political ideology, law, or any other organized system--there will be humans in the world who will attempt to twist and exploit it to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of those they don't care about. The crusade against religion that people like Dawkins and Harris are waging is, in my opinion, a waste of time. If you really want to change the world, find a way to change fundamental human nature.

Ironically, I believe this is the true purpose of religion--to encourage us to change our base desires or harness them for use towards a greater good. For me, whether a God or gods actually exist is irrelevant. If religion can help people to overcome their own innate self-destructive or selfish tendencies and work together for the good of humankind, then it is a useful tool. But all tools can equally be used as weapons. That doesn't mean you get rid of the tool, though. The problems of religion that both Harris and Dawkins talk about aren't problems with religion per se but with how certain people have interpreted religion in ways that are self-serving. I don't think religion needs to be destroyed. But I do agree with Sam Harris that we need to be vigilant against those who would use religion--or any other organized system for that matter--in order to pursue their own ends, and we need to be willing to call a spade a spade and not keep silent for fear of being considered ethnocentric. That's why I have no problem criticizing the Taliban's interpretation of the Koran and Islamic law. It seems to me to be a thinly veiled grab for power and dominance that uses religion as its cover. I could say the same thing about the drive to ban gay marriages in the U.S. or a host of other issues. My point is that these things are not representative of religions as a whole but instead are examples of discrete individuals (mis-)using religions to further their own agendas.

Sorry for writing so much. Took me a while to sort out all my thoughts on the matter. If you made it this far, thanks for reading.

>> ^mgittle:


I don't think it's about majority vs. minority happiness the way you make it sound. It's not 51% vs. 49%. If you accept his argument at the end regarding the father killing his gay child out of "love", then you must accept that there exists a type of love/empathy that is healthy for a vast majority of a population.
For example, in Turkish, there are two words for love. One is the type of love one feels for their parents, siblings, close friends/community. The other is more like passion/infatuation and would never be used for family/friends. We lack this basic word-based distinction in English, so the idea of love often gets strangely twisted between the multiple types and sometimes requires convoluted explanations of one's feelings. This distinction is important because I believe the former type requires empathy to feel, and the latter type is more instinctual and does not require empathy.
Therefore, if you can argue that empathy is a good survival trait because it creates a stronger nation/culture/etc, then there must be scientific evidence for empathy in the brain and evidence that certain individuals lack empathetic brains for whatever reason.
I don't think he's arguing that "good for the majority = good for everyone" is something that works 100% of the time. Clearly, personal freedom is important, but when personal freedom/morality encroaches on the freedoms of others (such as his argument that culture forces "voluntary" body covering, or the aforementioned father-killing-gay-son argument) it is no longer a good thing for anyone involved.

>> ^SDGundamX:
His answer is that you have to think about the majority and not an individual case. But isn't that a moral judgment right there? Once you take that step you're no longer relying on science but on an arbitrary proposition that what is good for the majority must be good for everyone.



I don't think it's about majority vs. minority happiness the way you make it sound. It's not 51% vs. 49%. If you accept his argument at the end regarding the father killing his gay child out of "love", then you must accept that there exists a type of love/empathy that is healthy for a vast majority of a population.

For example, in Turkish, there are two words for love. One is the type of love one feels for their parents, siblings, close friends/community. The other is more like passion/infatuation and would never be used for family/friends. We lack this basic word-based distinction in English, so the idea of love often gets strangely twisted between the multiple types and sometimes requires convoluted explanations of one's feelings. This distinction is important because I believe the former type requires empathy to feel, and the latter type is more instinctual and does not require empathy.

Therefore, if you can argue that empathy is a good survival trait because it creates a stronger nation/culture/etc, then there must be scientific evidence for empathy in the brain and evidence that certain individuals lack empathetic brains for whatever reason.

I don't think he's arguing that "good for the majority = good for everyone" is something that works 100% of the time. Clearly, personal freedom is important, but when personal freedom/morality encroaches on the freedoms of others (such as his argument that culture forces "voluntary" body covering, or the aforementioned father-killing-gay-son argument) it is no longer a good thing for anyone involved.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

There's just so much choice that I haven't settled down yet. I bop around to the places I've lived in my life- mainly for nostalgia's sake- then just look for random stuff. LA talk radio, over to Japan for some J-Pop. Was listening to some Turkish stations the other day. A bit of Hawaiian music. I'm sure I'll settle on some favorites eventually. >> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
What stations do you listen to?

The only "sport" more Gay-friendly than Pro Wrestling is Turkish Oiled-Balls Fondling. And just barely at that.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Reality, Show, Convert, Atheist, Young Turks, YT, Religion' to 'Reality, Show, Convert, Atheist, Young Turks, YT, Religion, turkey, turkish' - edited by kronosposeidon

>> ^EndAll:
I at least contributed more than an "Exactly." and offered my opinions and perspective in a respectable manner, while you go the route of mocking me with snarky sarcasm and evade any real response to what I said.


Because I don't generally see any point in debating empty rhetoric with anything other than snark. Otherwise I'd be on LGF all day trying to convince people that Obama isn't a secret muslim, and Soros doesn't control the media.

This flourish of "the worlds wealthiest and most powerful people" is either misinformed, or just empty rhetoric. It's so easy to be willfully ignorant of actual achievements people make when you already hate them.

Here's a few things Obama has done thus far, that I'm not sure how they benefit the "most powerful":

• $19billion for electronic medical records
• Stopped the anti-missile defense plan in Poland
• The Obama administration and Russia announced plans to begin talks on a new START treaty to reduce nuclear arsenals to approximately 1,500.
• Signed an executive order to close CIA secret prisons.
• Signed an executive order to ban torture and subject all interrogations to Army Field Manual Standards that conform to the Geneva Conventions.
• $2,500.00 tax credit for college students
• $2billion for advanced car battery R&D
• $2 billion for Byrne Grants, which funds anti-gang and anti-gun task forces.
• Public Land Management Act of 2009 has put under federal protection more than two million acres of wilderness, thousands of miles of river and a host of national trails and parks. The conservation effort - the largest in the last 15 years - came with the stroke of a pen
• Obama's meetings with Turkish and Armenian officials, Turkey and Armenia announced plans to normalize relations.
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended Gaza aid conference, pledging $900 million in aid in order to "foster conditions in which a Palestinian state can be fully realized."


There's more, but it apparently doesn't matter to a lot of people. Unless he's ended both invasions/occupations of Afgh/Iraq, personally kidnapped and murdered those responsible for the economic clusterfuck, landed Bush/Cheney in the Hague for war crimes, and given everyone a beautiful pony, he hasn't done shit!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tarkan, turkish, pop, music, video, cgi, istanbul' to 'tarkan, turkish, pop, music, video, cgi, istanbul, popularity, media, 00s, screen' - edited by Eklek

>> ^volumptuous:
Sausage Fest '09


Um, yeah, unfortunate. Though there were friendly dancing girlies nearby. I hope the pics from our visit to the Turkish sauna come out ok.