11 Lies Netanyahu Told Congress on Iran

[Famine]

My guess it will be returned to the Palestinians, but they never had the land and they never wanted it if Israel exists.

I think it should just be returned to the UK, as the first sovereign nation to have a territorial claim to the region.

Gosh, 24 of my own original words!

You have the right to defend or to resist occupation, but not acquire and populate foreign territory. No matter how the conflict started.

Crikey, an entire post of original sentiment. We might be getting somewhere...

Okay, when British Mandate of Palestine ceased to exist in 1948 a new state of Palestine - dubbed Israel by the majority Jewish community following their de facto victory in the 1947-1948 Civil War between Jewish insurgents, Arab insurgents and British occupying forces. This brand new state of Israel was immediately invaded by the forces of Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq at the exact moment it came into existence, attacking Jewish border settlements and driving the Israel forces towards the Mediterranean (save for pockets around Jerusalem and the Golan Heights).

By the end of this war, Israel had driven the forces back to the original borders - give or take - but there was still Jordanian occupany of the land on the West side of the River Jordan from Golan down to Hebron, and Egyptian occupancy of the land along the Mediterranean coast just North of Egypt.

These two pockets of land acquired and populated during conflict became home to Jordanian Arabs (the West Bank) and Egyptian Arabs (the Gaza Strip). Incidentally it's amusing to note that the Gaza Strip is currently controlled by a group that the original conquering nation - Egypt - classifies as a terrorist organisation. Make of that whatever you wish.


Since you say that you may not acquire or populate foreign territory, would you call for the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be returned to its original owners - the State of Israel at its formation in 1948?

 

[Blitz24]

You have the right to defend or to resist occupation, but not acquire and populate foreign territory. No matter how the conflict started.

Okay, so then if Syria/Jordan/Lebanon/Iran took over half of Israel, would you state that they should give back the land as well?

 

[F1jocker12]

Come on, you can do it.

Hahahahahaha..
You need facts not words...
If you are interested, just read the links... I am a very small fish in the pond. Griding credits with my BSpec Bob sort of thing.

 

[Blitz24]

This is an Opinions section and you have not stated your opinion based on any of the facts at hand, you just keep bringing up sources to "beat around the bush".

 

[Furinkazen]

Hahahahahaha..
You need facts not words...
If you are interested, just read the links... I am a very small fish in the pond. Griding credits with my BSpec Bob sort of thing.

Blind quoting of sources without any actual "opinion" to back them up is pretty much errrr... well you aren't in the right forum are you?

Also Wikipedia as a main source? No.

 

[F1jocker12]

View attachment 326276

Blind quoting of sources without any actual "opinion" to back them up is pretty much errrr... well you aren't in the right forum are you?

Also Wikipedia as a main source? No.

Oh yeah.. I read "Opinions & Current Events" instead of "Opinions on Current Events". If you are interested, read and when you get back here I bet you'll know my opinion ....

 

[Blitz24]

Oh yeah.. I read "Opinions & Current Events" instead of "Opinions on Current Events". If you are interested, read and when you get back here I bet you'll know my opinion ....

Once again, that's not the purpose of this section. If all you are going to do is make us search for your opinion as opposed to constructing one and writing it out then why bother? It's pretty clear you are against Israel in some way, yet you haven't given a solution to the problem, you've just blindly quoted sources and make us do the legwork.

 

[Famine]

Hahahahahaha..
You need facts not words...

You came here with an opinion. I'm not interested in what other people that you agree with think about it, I'm interested in what you think about it. Why should - or would - anyone spend several hours of their life reading blog posts that you like or watching videos to uncover what you think about something that you could explain inside 100 words?


I've asked you several questions and you seem completely unwilling to answer any of them, merely post links and wholesale quotes to other people that, commonly, don't even begin to address the question.

Of course we know why you don't want to answer the questions. You have made your mind up and not only refuse to entertain any alternate thought processes, but actively dismiss them as less intelligent than your own, and developed from propaganda-strewn mainstream media with its pro-whatever agenda - the notion that someone like me who disagrees with you not only doesn't watch any televised news (indeed it would be illegal for me to do so) but hasn't picked up a newspaper in 15 years won't even cross your mind. You want to proselytise, not discuss - the very concept of having your predetermined mindset challenged is anathema to you. You're not even interested when you state facts - removing guns equals reducing victims of violence that involves guns - that are not supported by actual data...


If I'm wrong and you actually want to participate, try answering any of the questions I've posed to you, in your own words.

 

[squadops]

You have the right to defend or to resist occupation, but not acquire and populate foreign territory. No matter how the conflict started.

Hmm, when did the territory become Palestine's? We could go way back as Famine suggests but I'd like to point out(using wiki since you like it lol) the areas you keep speaking of belonged to other states until the 60's when Israel got bent and took them, they gave em back though...

The Six-Day War. Israel launched a strike on Egyptian Air Force (June 5), following Egyptiannaval blockade of the Straits of Tiran (May 22) and Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula (May 16), interpreted as acts of war. Attack quickly turned into a regional war, in which Israel defeated the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and their supporters. It captured the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt,East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#1967.E2.80.9373

Oh yeah.. I read "Opinions & Events" instead of "Opinions on Current Events". If you are interested, read and when you get back here I bet you'll know my opinion ....

Well I still don't know it

 

[F1jocker12]

"Once again, that's not the purpose of this section. If all you are going to do is make us search for your opinion as opposed to constructing one and writing it out then why bother? It's pretty clear you are against Israel in some way, yet you haven't given a solution to the problem, you've just blindly quoted sources and make us do the legwork."




Sorry guys, you seem to ignore what you show on the website. "An ampersand is a logogram "&" representing the conjunction word "and". "

Do you want me to have a solution to the problem? Oh, man... I looked at the screen for 5 minutes... Do you understand that whoever claims something like that is not knowing what he is saying?

Besides that, admin was thinking I have an agenda or something... hmmmm...

I feel sorry and all my respect for the victims, dead or wounded people that are irreplaceable. Children, women and men, an all sides.

That is all I can say.

 

[mistersafeway]

"An ampersand is a logogram "&" representing the conjunction word "and". "

Again, typing out irrelevant and condescending stuff when you could just answer questions. Surprisingly, pretty much everyone knows what an ampersand is.

 

[F1jocker12]

Turns out that people are still shooting people dead at the same rate, despite the massive reduction in available weapons...

They say it a lot better than I can ever put it, and reading is always much better than just talking.

You are looking at the wrong data.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/...ss-shootings-in-western-democratic-countries/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/gun-control

" We know that overall, firearm deaths are lower in states with stricter gun-control laws. More recently, we've learned that the expiration of America's assault-weapons ban was responsible for a substantial portion of the subsequent increase in gun deaths in northern Mexico. It's really not terribly shocking that making it harder to get your hands on machines designed to kill people results in fewer people being killed. But we've worked very hard over the past few decades to convince ourselves otherwise."

 

[Famine]

They say it a lot better than I can ever put it

Then how is it your opinion?

You are looking at the wrong data.

You say that banning firearms reduces the number of victims. I show you the example of a country where firearms actually were banned and it made no difference to the number of victims - and you say it's "the wrong data"?

"We know that overall, firearm deaths are lower in states with stricter gun-control laws. More recently, we've learned that the expiration of America's assault-weapons ban was responsible for a substantial portion of the subsequent increase in gun deaths in northern Mexico. It's really not terribly shocking that making it harder to get your hands on machines designed to kill people results in fewer people being killed. But we've worked very hard over the past few decades to convince ourselves otherwise."

Data on different states with different rules is not relevant to your cause-effect statement that banning firearms reduces the number of victims - they haven't banned them, they just have different rules to each other.

Data from a single state that changed its rules and implemented your cause is relevant. It had no overall effect on either overall homicide rate or the firearm homicide rate - though it briefly had the opposite effect to what you say - and you pretended the data meant something else. Now you're pretending it's the wrong kind of data. I wonder why...


We're still waiting on why owning a tool makes you dangerous while behaving dangerously without the tool does not - an opinion that you passed - and your opinion on to whom the land should be 'returned' and by what claim.

 

[Johnnypenso]

" We know that overall, firearm deaths are lower in states with stricter gun-control laws.

Interesting to note that the subtitle of the headline is, "On the state level, mental illness and stress levels don't play a role. Poverty and gun control policies do". Yet the example used in the article is:

There were 10.3 deaths by firearms per 100,000 people in Colorado in 2008, exactly the same as the national average

30 seconds of research tells me that there were 522 total firearm deaths in Colorado in 2008 and with a population hovering around 5 million, the 10.3 figure clearly represents all death by firearms, not just those caused by acts of violence and agression.

Given that suicides account for 76% of firearm deaths, it seems more than just a little misleading to say that mental illness and stress levels don't play a role in firearm deaths, when 3/4 of the data used in Colorado's case, is suicide by gun.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I have to disagree with you on this one... In that region, Israel is the main threat... Let me ask you this - Who do you consider dangerous, the side with nuclear weapons, or the side without? You will need to detach a little from what the corporate media is telling you and analyze the facts. Israeli officials are the ones trying to stop the peace process, not the arabs or the persians (iranians). Again, I very well know what corporate media is telling you, but the truth is different.

If you have the time, read these:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20141002.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20131204.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20130902.htm

and this

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf

Goldstone report as well, about Israel's aggression in Gaza Strip.

The point is not to live in Israel, but to live in one of the countries Israel is threatening, to understand the reality...

Well considering if you believe the Vela Incident, I'd say I trust the side with the nuclear arms for the past 30 going on 35 years now. Since they have done the best job hiding the fact they have them and haven't done any penis waving about who or what they'll destroy with them because of some religious ideal or some ideal of being more worthy of certain resources and or on and on. You know it's nice to sound like the hipster that isn't clouded in bias from mainstream media, and somehow lives above it in the clouds, but even the stuff you seem to promote has it's on bias. You should take both spectrum and then extrapolate the things they both agree on to get the truth, and even then it wont fully be known.

However, yes belittle people like some Freshmen college student that just figured out how to change the news stations his/her parent watched. There are plenty of people on here that do research into the crap that is being discussed all the time in media and beyond it, your not special.

Also the Gaza strip talk has been fully discusses on that thread and insight to it has been given by both sides how how both parties are in the wrong for what they've done. However, you show a partiality against Israel from the onset so not sure what you expect to gain with that bias.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sorry guys, you seem to ignore what you show on the website. "An ampersand is a logogram "&" representing the conjunction word "and". "

Oh grow up... and then explain the difference between "and" and "or".

 

[F1jocker12]

Speaking about my opinion:

Well I still don't know it

Admin knows it, so it's in the thread. All I asked everybody is to pay attention, in case you want to find out or learn something:

You came here with an opinion.

Like I said about copy/paste ridiculous sarcasm, I will say about my opinion as well. It is not relevant. All that matters is if the subject of the thread is right or wrong, true or false. That can open a discussion, not an interrogation my friends.
The intimidating tactics are more complex and require special knowledge to make them effective, or weak subjects to give up under inexistent pressure.

30 seconds of research tells me that there were 522 total firearm deaths in Colorado in 2008 and with a population hovering around 5 million, the 10.3 figure clearly represents all death by firearms, not just those caused by acts of violence and agression.

Given that suicides account for 76% of firearm deaths, it seems more than just a little misleading to say that mental illness and stress levels don't play a role in firearm deaths, when 3/4 of the data used in Colorado's case, is suicide by gun.

Like I told you, even in private, I love you curiosity and determination. Those are the main qualities that will make you find answers. I've seen your likes on the comments and is great you are following the thread. You say is misleading to say that mental illness and stress levels don't play a role in firearms deaths. Can you show a quote out of this thread that makes your statement valid? Or in other words, have I, or anybody else on this thread said otherwise?
It is great you try to do the research. 30 seconds can make the difference.

Since they have done the best job hiding the fact they have them and haven't done any penis waving about who or what they'll destroy with them

They don't wanna brag about their circumcisions... and you are a poet.

You should take both spectrum and then extrapolate the things they both agree on to get the truth, and even then it wont fully be known.

I totally agree with both sides, that's why I've attached the video to the main post. Actually, there are more sides ... Israel, Iran, U.S. and the media, to be correct, and also the U.S. and media are divided. We are not supposed to discuss about Gaza here, but out of respect for the curious commentators, I've taken the risk to derail a little.

Thank you for your input and ignore my humor.

 

[Famine]

Like I said about copy/paste ridiculous sarcasm, I will say about my opinion as well. It is not relevant.

That's odd, as you've posted at least two (as yet unsupported) opinions...

All that matters is if the subject of the thread is right or wrong, true or false.

And which do you think it is?

That can open a discussion

Nope.

There is no discussion about facts. There are just facts - and it doesn't matter how much you discuss them, they will not change from right or wrong, true or false.

Discussion only occurs about the premises and conclusions. You have drawn several bad conclusions based on bad premises and are simply shutting down any questioning of them, not only refusing to answer but refusing to even acknowledge there was a question for you to answer. I guess you don't want to critically analyse what you know to be true. We often refer to such a position as "belief"...

 

[F1jocker12]

That's odd, as you've posted at least two (as yet unsupported) opinions...And which do you think it is?Nope.

There is no discussion about facts. There are just facts - and it doesn't matter how much you discuss them, they will not change from right or wrong, true or false.

Discussion only occurs about the premises and conclusions. You have drawn several bad conclusions based on bad premises and are simply shutting down any questioning of them, not only refusing to answer but refusing to even acknowledge there was a question for you to answer. I guess you don't want to critically analyse what you know to be true. We often refer to such a position as "belief"...

My opinion on Iran-Israel-nuclear programs, even if it obvious (Netanyahu is lying isolating Israel from it's best and old allies - which you won't believe I am to affected for considering the way I approach the "occupied territories" tragedy) doesn't matter. What's odd? That I say that?

There are two options... Can or can not open a discussion. In theory, you can open a discussion about anything, slight problem is with engaging in the right direction. Notice, I didn't say debate or argument. It is also an opportunity to learn - if you agree, more about the subject; - if you disagree, what is the "other side's" position. Without trying to change or hijack the subject, without trying to patronize, intimidate or hurt (in any way) other participants. And you as an admin should be the first to maintain that.

You are right, there are only facts, but there are so many different angles to look at them. History you've learned (cause the one I've learned is rubbish) is full of them. Problem is with the innocent and unnecessary victims on all the sides. Every single british or american soldier that lost his life in Iraq, to give an example, was the victim on the Weapons of Mass Destruction lie. Your son, daughter, cousin, or friend can be next. Every single israeli soldier that dies in mission, is a victim of his country politicians lies (evidently if you consider the general context, not only the square mile context).

I hope the majority of the israeli citizens will show the whole world how they disagree with Netanyahu. It is called elections.

 

[Famine]

My opinion on Iran-Israel-nuclear programs, even if it obvious (Netanyahu is lying isolating Israel from it's best and old allies - which you won't believe I am to affected for considering the way I approach the "occupied territories" tragedy) doesn't matter. What's odd? That I say that?

No, that you'd say your opinion isn't relevant but give it anyway...

There are two options... Can or can not open a discussion. In theory, you can open a discussion about anything, slight problem is with engaging in the right direction. Notice, I didn't say debate or argument. It is also an opportunity to learn - if you agree, more about the subject; - if you disagree, what is the "other side's" position. Without trying to change or hijack the subject, without trying to patronize, intimidate or hurt (in any way) other participants. And you as an admin should be the first to maintain that.

When I post as an admin you'll be made acutely aware of it. However I'm primarily a member and when I see absolute rubbish posted as fact in lieu of an opinion I will challenge it.

And I expect my opinion to be challenged back. I welcome being shown that I am wrong because it means I learn more. You've suggested above that you only learn more about the subject if you agree with what someone says - we call that "confirmation bias", or the act of only accepting viewpoints or data interpretations that concur with your own. The reality is that you learn far more from disagreement - which is why all objective knowledge is acquired by people who design tests to prove that they are wrong and keep on doing so until they have run out of ways to be wrong.


Still, in all of this, you haven't answer my questions about the two opinions you've posted. I will ask them yet again and hold out no hope that you will actually answer them this time - call it a test I've designed to prove myself wrong...

• Why does ownership of a tool makes you dangerous, but behaving dangerously without the tool not make you dangerous?
• To whom should the land within the borders of Israel, including the Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza Strip, be 'returned' and by what claim?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Like I told you, even in private, I love you curiosity and determination. Those are the main qualities that will make you find answers. I've seen your likes on the comments and is great you are following the thread. You say is misleading to say that mental illness and stress levels don't play a role in firearms deaths. Can you show a quote out of this thread that makes your statement valid? Or in other words, have I, or anybody else on this thread said otherwise?
It is great you try to do the research. 30 seconds can make the difference.

I already laid it all out for you here. Curiously, you quoted my entire post, except that part at the top, which is the answer to your question.

Have you figured out your position on the Holocaust yet?

 

[squadops]

It's possible to question a source's motive or accuracy without pretending someone posted something that wasn't.

I'd question that source too as it's valid to do so.

 

[montez34]

Netanyahu isn't lying, you are just misinterpreting what he said.

 

[squadops]

Netanyahu isn't lying, you are just misinterpreting what he said.

Do you mean the author of the op? Her name is Lara Friedman and imo a liberal wack job zionist. Check out this piece she wrote a few years back.

http://forward.com/articles/152079/jerusalem-isnt-just-for-arabs-either/?

 

[F1jocker12]

Netanyahu isn't lying, you are just misinterpreting what he said.

Netanyahu is lying..

 

[Johnnypenso]

Netanyahu is lying..

Something a little more current...

It seems to me,” said Aharon Zeevi Farkash, former head of IDF military intelligence, “that [an Israeli attack] could come in the near future… that is, in weeks or a couple of months.”

Farkash, also interviewed on Channel 2, added that “the Iranians have to understand” that if they don’t halt their nuclear drive, “they will ultimately have to absorb a blow to their main military sites, from an international coalition, or from the US or perhaps from Israel.”

Personally, Farkash added, he did not think the time was yet right for Israel to resort to military action. The decision-makers should “think twice,” he said.

Apparently Gen. Farkash now believe the Iranians are on a "nuclear drive".

 

[F1jocker12]

Something a little more current...

Apparently Gen. Farkash now believe the Iranians are on a "nuclear drive".

Jan 18 2012 Haaretz

"Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Wednesday that Israel was "very far off" from a decision about an attack on Iran over its nuclear program."
"The Israeli view is that while Iran continues to improve its nuclear capabilities, it has not yet decided whether to translate these capabilities into a nuclear weapon - or, more specifically, a nuclear warhead mounted atop a missile. Nor is it clear when Iran might make such a decision."

source #71 in the first segment
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...far-off-from-decision-on-iran-attack-1.407953

Better positioned sources - Defense Minister - at the time of the statement. In 2012, former Gen Farkash was already 4 years in his retirement. Still have access to intel, but not comparable to the defense minister.

Something a little more current...



Apparently Gen. Farkash now believe the Iranians are on a "nuclear drive".

And source #72

Apr 25 2012

IDF chief to Haaretz: I do not believe Iran will decide to develop nuclear weapons

 

[Johnnypenso]

Jan 18 2012 Haaretz

"Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Wednesday that Israel was "very far off" from a decision about an attack on Iran over its nuclear program."
"The Israeli view is that while Iran continues to improve its nuclear capabilities, it has not yet decided whether to translate these capabilities into a nuclear weapon - or, more specifically, a nuclear warhead mounted atop a missile. Nor is it clear when Iran might make such a decision."

source #71 in the first segment
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...far-off-from-decision-on-iran-attack-1.407953

Better positioned sources - Defense Minister - at the time of the statement. In 2012, former Gen Farkash was already 4 years in his retirement. Still have access to intel, but not comparable to the defense minister.


And source #72

Apr 25 2012

IDF chief to Haaretz: I do not believe Iran will decide to develop nuclear weapons

So are you saying you cherry picked the article about Farkash without thoroughly vetting his position and now you're denouncing him because he doesn't have access to intel? Will you eventually say the same about Barak since he hasn't been in the government for 2 years? The article from the IDF Chief is also 3 years old, perhaps it's out of date as well. Would you like to thoroughly research your positions first or shall I continue to do it for you?

 

[F1jocker12]

So are you saying you cherry picked the article about Farkash without thoroughly vetting his position and now you're denouncing him because he doesn't have access to intel? Will you eventually say the same about Barak since he hasn't been in the government for 2 years? The article from the IDF Chief is also 3 years old, perhaps it's out of date as well. Would you like to thoroughly research your positions first or shall I continue to do it for you?

Hahahahaha.... nice try!
Your article is from 2012... The initial source quoted Maj Gen Farkash statements from 2009. He was head of Mossad 'til 2006.
What I'm telling is about the timeline in correlation with his position inside the Government which is synonym with him having access to the intel. The more you go further in time (2006, 2007, 2008.... 2012, 2013... 2015), the more chances are the individual has less access to updated intel, in case he is not holding the same position inside the Government - so his opinions are not based on the latest information.
Does that makes sense to you?

All the other sources were holding government positions at the time of their statements, so they had access to the updated information.

This is about Bibi pretending Iran was a potential threat during the last 15 years, while Israeli officials were saying something else.

 

[F1jocker12]

It’s Official: The Pentagon Finally Admitted That Israel Has Nuclear Weapons, Too