Comments on: Olmert Proposes Iran Naval Blockade

By: Rostam

Rostam — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:58:15 +0000

You’re been reading too many of those apocalyptic Christian End Times novels
Being raised in Iran’s early revolutionary years, I have vivid memories of “existential threats” against everything from the revolution to the country/people/etc. lined up by the government propaganda to justify its many insanities like continuing the war with Iraq, its tough stance against the West, the nobility of cause of “the righteous victims” against “all the evil around”, blah, blah, …
I find it quite amazing the universality of such line of apocalyptic arguments as it is simply enough to exchange a few nouns to reach from one side’s argument to the other. One can hope to change the ignorance who buys such arguments but not the ideology when it is the real cause…

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Thu, 22 May 2008 03:03:41 +0000

@americangoy:

Oh, of course it would be the U.S. Navy. Olmert is happy to have us do Israel’s bidding.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Thu, 22 May 2008 02:58:41 +0000

@Bill Pearlman:

Why is it so hard to believe that the Arabs shot this kid in a propaganda move

Because you believe it, for one. Pretty much anything you believe I know is going to be full of shit, including this. And again, yr characterization of the case & the ruling has absolutely no weight here. Once again, find a reputable journalistic source if you want anyone to take anything you say seriously. If not, you’re just full of hot air.

Mohammed Al Dura is completely off topic in this thread. Staying on topic is one of my comment rules. No further comments on this issue are welcome fr. Pearlman or Bar Kochba.

By: americangoy

americangoy — Thu, 22 May 2008 02:33:07 +0000

And which country’s navy would be employed in this blockade?

The tiny Israeli Navy?

Or would Israel’s dumber, bigger goy friend be employed AGAIN on behalf of Israeli interests?

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 22 May 2008 01:23:09 +0000

Bill Pearlman: I’m not sure that there’s any evidence that a French court would necessarily be a ‘pro-Palestinian’ venue, any more than, say, an American court would be a ‘pro-Israeli’ one. I’d expect that a presumption of even-handedness would hold in both cases, without additional evidence. In any case, this was an appeal of a libel conviction, and the lawyers for France 2 says this decision would, in turn, be appealed. Stay tuned.

Both sides in this conflict seem to be pretty good at shooting kids, so, again, on that basis there’s no a priori reason to exclude one set of possible perpetrators or the other.

By: Bill Pearlman

Bill Pearlman — Thu, 22 May 2008 00:41:25 +0000

Karsenty called Enderlin liar. He sued for libel and he lost. In a French court. Which I’m willing to bet is a pretty pro-palestinian venue. Why is it so hard to believe that the Arabs shot this kid in a propaganda move. Or does that not fit into your world view.

By: Bill Pearlman

Bill Pearlman — Thu, 22 May 2008 00:38:14 +0000

Just waiting for the 12th imam to appear. Look, I know Obama will lay hands and make everything better. The Iranians will melt under his charm, not go for the bomb and there will be no nuclear arms race in the middle east. Got it.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Wed, 21 May 2008 21:42:36 +0000

@Bill Pearlman:

You’re been reading too many of those apocalyptic Christian End Times novels, Bill. Why don’t you try living in the real world where most of the rest of us hang out?

new study

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Wed, 21 May 2008 21:41:13 +0000

@bar_kochba132:

On such a charged issue I’m entirely unwilling to believe yr interpretation of these events esp. since you haven’t provided a link to a reputable journalistic source. When you can do so then you can talk. Till then, sorry Charlie.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 21 May 2008 19:59:55 +0000

bar_kochba132: Actually, that’s not what happened. The court threw out the libel case, saying essentially that Karsenty had not been proven to have libelled Enderlin et al, but the court also said that it did not rule out that the journalists involved had acted responsibly. In other words, it was (quite properly) a pretty limited ruling on a libel case.

I note that now one of the main criticisms of the film is that Muhammad al-Durrah had the temerity to move his body after being shot… apparently that surprises some people.