Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Helps Israel Blacklist Air Travellers

Jeremiah Cornelius writes "According to a report by the Associated Press, protesters have been stopped in their tracks after Facebook aided Israel in cracking down on the group of activists from the UK, France, and Belgium who planned their event using the popular social networking site. Facebook allowed government agents to track the activists activities and then create a black-list of people who participated in the planning of the protests. The black-listed group was then forwarded to airlines with instructions to prevent the activists from boarding air flights to Israel. Over 200 activists were prevented from flying after being added to the airlines terrorism watch list, according the the AP report. Was Julian Assange correct, when he warned that Facebook was a giant, 'appalling spy machine'?"

318 of 478 comments (clear)

  1. Its been done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Facebook is in routine use by various "authorities " to profile people. So why not the Israelis?

    And in other news. Bears shit in woods.

    1. Re:Its been done before by cgeys · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's double-standard really. Not just from Facebook, but every other US company from Microsoft to Google too.. When it's against United States/Israel it's "terrorism", when it's against China, Russia or other non-western countries it's "helping activists to spread their message and bring down oppressive governments". Most Americans seem to think the same way, but for others like me who are european both sides seem like oppressive governments with huge amount of problems and most interest mostly being fighting or having wars with each other (yes, Europe too has its history and we're certainly learned from that.. well, the nordic countries at least. And we were originally vikings)

    2. Re:Its been done before by migla · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Europe too has its history and we're certainly learned from that.. well, the nordic countries at least. And we were originally vikings

      We're in Afghanistan, fighting side by side with the bigger "liberators" and when our young die there, headlines proclaim "HEROES".

      We are buying in to the terrorism scare and we are latching onto one side of the sides that one must be for or against, inviting zealots to blow shit up here too.

      Whatever we may have learned, we are forgetting.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    3. Re:Its been done before by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll admit - I have two standards. I've become more aware of it in recent times. Some rogue nation does "x" against it's citizens, and I judge it as terrible. Then the US does something similar, and I judge it as a PITA.

      In this case, I see Israel doing something that I would condemn the US for, but I don't condemn Israel as harshly.

      Hmmm. Why is that? I'm not a Zionist. Could be, my military background. If Israel is to survive, then they had better use everything at their disposal, and use it efficiently. On the other hand, the US isn't fighting for it's very survival, so the same actions would be less forgiveable, I guess.

      Yeah, I have double standards. Unfortunately, a lot of people deny having their own double standards. And, least of all, can they be expected to understand those double standards.

      In reality, we've all admitted that "there's no privacy on the internet". All governments are busy data mining Facebook, and all the rest of the web. This should have been expected. Just like we've discovered that electronically aiding protestors in Arabic countries can, in some instances, expose those protestors to the government. It's to be expected. That doesn't make it right - just expected.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:Its been done before by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So, essentially, you're saying that the people fighting the US in Afghanistan with desperate means like suicide bombers are doing what's justified to fight for the survival of their way of life?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Its been done before by rvw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would say that if Israel is going to survive in the long run they need to get their act together and not be a general pain in the butt for all their neighbors. Especially now since the US has an economic situation that's not very promising. What if the economic aid that the US provides Israel disappears?

      If Israel wants to survive.... I hope they are going to realize that this is not the way to get there. They have stopped 200 activists this one time. Yay!!! Great for them. Do you think these protesters are going to use Facebook again? Will it stop the next group? And do you want to stop those groups?

      Israel has one big problem, and that is not Palestine or Hamas. It is their mindset that they still don't realise that they need to give some space to the Palestinians. And the more they restrict them, the more resistance they will face. Actions like this show that they don't have a real vision where they want to go in the future, if they really want to have a future there.

    6. Re:Its been done before by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, kind of. The Afghans, the Pakis, and the Taliban should be permitted to live in the tenth century, if they so wish. They should be permitted to keep their women barefoot and pregnant, and serving the men. That's all well and good.

      The problem in Afghanistan is, those inbred tribals gave refuge to Al Queda after AQ had attacked the United States.

      Today, we've killed off much of AQ, we've killed off a lot of the Taliban, it's time to come home. Past time. Let those inbreds live their lives as they see fit, and let's get the hell out of their lives.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:Its been done before by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No those inbred tribals gave refuge to Al queda after the CIA helped form Al queda to drive out the Soviets, and then left them there. If we spent a little time and money there rebuilding, and teaching them 30 years ago, then Al Queda wouldn't have turned against us(or wouldn't have had as much local support as they did)

      If you want to bring peace to someone. You have to be prepared to spend 50 years there. We have to stay in Afgahnistan and iraq for another 40 years. Or they will fall into absolute chaos for 10 years.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:Its been done before by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      There are those who believe anarchy and chaos are good things. Personally, I don't give a damn. Those people have been at war with all outsiders for a long damned time. "Outsiders" include most of India, and "a long damn time" predates England and France's interest in the area. They were at war when Alexander the Great decided to take a part in events there, and nothing has changed since.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    9. Re:Its been done before by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      The world has changed a lot since the '50 and '60, do you know? With the exception of Siria and several factions of Libano, Israel is doing very well with the government of its neighbours.

      What could they do? Avoid expansion beyond their recognized borders, finish the apartheid against palestinians. You know, the things everybody has been asking them to do for years (and which they do occasionally comply when they have to good look for a time, but then dismiss).

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    10. Re:Its been done before by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      You could say the same about India, China, Persia. You could not about England of the USA, but only because these are "moden" creation.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    11. Re:Its been done before by jklovanc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "China, Russia or other non-western countries" are not surrounded by countries that have attacked them five times in the last sixty years. They are not bombarded with rockets from a neighbouring country. No country has stated that their goal is to wipe them from the face of the earth. All of these things are happening to Israel.

      Palestinians will get no sympathy from me when with one hand they point at Israel being an oppressive regime and lob rockets with the other. Stop attacking Israel and Israel will stop attacking you. When the West Bank and the Gaza Strip can say they are a peaceful country then I will be for Israel backing off. Until then Israel is fighting for survival. Palestinians are not fighting for survival; they are fighting for the destruction of Israel.

    12. Re:Its been done before by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So leave another country with loose ends? After all, the whole shit is home made. Back when the Ruskies invaded Afghanistan, the CIA actually shipped the fanatics over by the boatload. Back then Ozzy was our best buddy in the far east. Technically, it wasn't those inbred tribals who invited Al Quaida over, we shipped them there. Without asking too much whether they're welcome there. But when Russia decided they don't wanna play cowboys and indians anymore, suddenly the US didn't give half a shit anymore about the people they shipped over and left there. My guess is that the whole 9/11 mess is the fallout from some promise the US gave to Ozzy and his gang and broke. Maybe they were promised something like an "Islamic Israel", kinda like a Muslim state with US backing. But when the USSR faltered and Russia became our buddy now (well, erhm... more or less), that was suddenly a non-issue.

      If this were the case, I could well see how Ozzy would be royally pissed at the US.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Its been done before by FishTankX · · Score: 1

      The issue of 'Apartheid' against the palestinians is a very complicated issue. If Israel allows them Israeli citizenship, they won't take it. The average palestinian probably doesn't want to be an israeli citizen because of what it entails. This is what created the situation in the first place. They didn't want to be Israeli, and when the original war in 1948 began they were expelled as they were on the 'other side' of the israeli arab conflict. You can't annex them, and yet they are non citizens living in your country who are not beyond using terrorism to further their cause. Were you Israel, what would you do?

      This means that they have to have their own country. However, Israel has called for the Palestinians, before agreeing to getting their own country, crack down on terrorism. And very few Palestinians are welcome to that idea.

      The other factor to consider, and this is just what i've heard from people on the Israeli side of the argument, is that alot of the land in israel was purchased by Jews when they got to Israel, before the creation of the state of Israel. Israel worked very hard to make the land productive, by draining swamps and doing alot of land reconstruction projects.

      Alot of the Palestinians originally had homes in Israel, then when the other arab countries attacked Israel, they first warned the palestinians in Israel to flee the country, so they could be safe from the war and come back when the country was in arab hands. Many were also expelled because of the afforementioned issue of sides. However, when they did flee the country on the other countries advice, many of the people were refused (by the governments after being beaten by Israel) citizenship in the countries they fled to. The land, abandoned by the Palestinians,was taken by the Israelis. Now landless and homeless, they were up shit creek and it's created this high tension situation. This isn't something that Israel can fix with a snap of their fingers. Can't give them a country unless they stop blowing your citizens up, but they don't want to live in a country surounded by Israel.

    14. Re:Its been done before by SlowCanuck · · Score: 2

      I would say that if Israel is going to survive in the long run they need to get their act together and not be a general pain in the butt for all their neighbors. Especially now since the US has an economic situation that's not very promising. What if the economic aid that the US provides Israel disappears?

      How are they a pain in the Butt of their neighbors? Oh, that's right they are the only "Liberal Western Type" democracy in the area for a thousand miles each way. They are Jewish in a large pool of Muslim believers, and the only country to believe in Multiculturalism, Human Rights and fairness for all faiths. They are so fair that they even have Christians and Muslims serve in their military. The west has been sold a bill of goods about the plight of the "oppressed" and "occupied" I have a question...... What if Native Americans, or any other aboriginal group decided to go to war and start firing missiles from reserves at populated areas? What if they strapped bombs on their children and taught them that the only good white man is a dead man? What would you do? Give them more land so they stop? Israel is not perfect, they do a lot of mean and selfish things - but I think our double standard in judging comes from a western culture and our Bread and Circuses way of life!! Just appease them and they will listen - not everyone is so easily to stop!!

    15. Re:Its been done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where are you pulling the 50 year statistic from exactly? Democracy is only secured from within, if the people want democracy they will fight for it. If they don't, they won't. Sure there are a ton of shitty governments out there. But it's hard for me to see how country A deploying troops in country B has ever led to anything good. You may not agree with communism for example, however would an invasion of China for 50 years secure democracy? I am somewhat doubtful.

      Te Russian spent a good part of half century in Poland and I didn't see too many people switching to communism. People in any given country want to govern themselves. Otherwise it smells of imperialism. No matter how many troops you deploy, you will always be a foreigner. Patriotism doesn't only happen in democracies. Case point a great deal of Chinese and Vietnamese do not like communism. But at the same time they prefer it over a foreigners coming in to run their country. These people are patriotic, remember patriotism doesn't mean being aligned or misaligned with the type of government.

      Only way you spread democracy is to lead by example. Eventually people will rise up, when they do it will build a foundation that is stronger than the jello the Americans have made in Iraq.

    16. Re:Its been done before by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      If Israel is to survive, then they had better use everything at their disposal, and use it efficiently.

      UMM are we talking about a bunch of terrorists making plans on Facebook to attack Israel or are we talking about people excercising what should be a basic human right to protest against a government they don't like. FTFA

      Israel has not publicized its criteria for denying entry, but has said peaceful visitors will not be deported. The large numbers of people who were blocked indicated that Israel was giving few activists the benefit of the doubt.

      Governments should be able to set up some rules that define who, where and sometimes when people can protest but it looks like Israel is writing the rules as they go along.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    17. Re:Its been done before by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      It's double-standard really. Not just from Facebook, but every other US company from Microsoft to Google too.. When it's against United States/Israel it's "terrorism", when it's against China, Russia or other non-western countries it's "helping activists to spread their message and bring down oppressive governments". Most Americans seem to think the same way, but for others like me who are european both sides seem like oppressive governments with huge amount of problems and most interest mostly being fighting or having wars with each other (yes, Europe too has its history and we're certainly learned from that.. well, the nordic countries at least. And we were originally vikings)

      of course. every guy supports and helps his own country before other countries. how can you be pissed about that?
      its the same as me having a double standard favoring members of my family. if two people are about to die and need my help, and i can help only one person and one of the two people is my brother, OF COURSE i'm gonna have double standards. similarly, us companies will, and should, be in agreement with american policies.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    18. Re:Its been done before by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      these guys are just barbarians. they go someplace, settle down, crush the natives, erase their culture and kill everyone who does not convert to islam. they broke the largest buddha statues in the world. these statues were monuments at the same scale as the egyptian pyramids.
      the muslim invaders came to india, they absolutely destroyed much of the existing heritage and culture. for example, they destroyed "one of the first great universities in recorded history" (from wiki). they burned the library, which had so many books that it burned continuously for 3 months. its called the nalanda university btw, just a bunch of burned ruins now.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    19. Re:Its been done before by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      You could say the same about India, China, Persia.

      how? have india, china been perpetually at war with someone? nope. india has had a few wars with pakistan, but then pakistan is mostly the same as aq.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    20. Re:Its been done before by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      Well, as it was divided between states, they were mostly warrying between them.... If you only use for the state, then it is another modern creation (and with 3-4 wars with pakistan, at least one with China and with guerrillas, it has a pretty good record for 60 years).

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    21. Re:Its been done before by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      That's a very shallow summation of Zionism and the history of Israel. It's very disappointing to have somebody with that level of understanding here in the discussion.

    22. Re:Its been done before by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 2

      I remember a documentary about civil rights activists in the Israeli Army. One of them was formerly commander of a checkpoint, and one day received the new that a friend of hers had been killed. He stopped all palestinians there and made them stand in the sun for hours, just because she wanted to.

      When she finally got to her senses, the most shocking thing to her was that nobody in her platoon did anything to get her back to normal. They all assumed that it was "bussines as usual".

      Also, read how palestinians are evicted from their homes every time a new colony wants a piece of land. I do not know what the books say about the rights of palestinians, but they must not read them often.

      Ah, and since "but there are others worse out there" is a valid defense? "Yes your honour, my client killed all of his family cruelly and in cool blood, but in his behalf I have to say that it is better than killing six millions jews"

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    23. Re:Its been done before by next_ghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China, Russia and many other countries, unlike Israel, were not founded by a bunch of armed immigrants who came to the area less than 30 years before declaring independence. And China, Russia and many other countries, unlike Israel, didn't drive most of the original population out by force. It's interesting how people defend Israel by pointing at attacks against it while conveniently forgetting that it was Israel that started the fight in 1948 without any legitimate claim to the region.

    24. Re:Its been done before by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 1

      these guys are just barbarians. they go someplace, settle down, crush the natives, erase their culture and kill everyone who does not convert to islam

      Hmm.. that sounds familiar.. That's what happened to the Native Americans, the Aborigines.. and the Palestinians? Hmm I wonder who did that....

    25. Re:Its been done before by diewlasing · · Score: 1

      You realize it's not all Palestinians, right? It's Hamas lobbing the rockets as you say. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a long complicated one. But if you decide to journey out of the land of ignorance, you'd see that throughout most of the history, the Palestinians have had their fate decided by everyone but them. It hasn't been until recently that Palestine has started negotiating for itself. And so far, the main leader(s) of Palestine have been inept (Yasser Arafat), likewise with the intransigence of the Israelis. My point is, it's not as simple as you make it out to be. I suggest you read the history before discussing this any further, so you can provide informed positive contributions.

    26. Re:Its been done before by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      "Palestinians" are not a single entity with a single mind. Just like most people in most places, the majority of them simply want to get on with their lives without worrying about their house getting bulldozed. It's not two hands of the same person, it's two groups of people who live in the same area.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    27. Re:Its been done before by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Aggression in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not one-sided. There is also the settlement policy, the actions to drive Palestinians out of Jerusalem, the economic blockades etc.

    28. Re:Its been done before by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      the american natives, or the aborigines or palestinians got killed for not converting to christianity?

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    29. Re:Its been done before by hjrnunes · · Score: 1

      No. They got killed because they were in the way. Converting wouldn't have saved them. In fact, nothing could have save them, except the measure of the extent to which their invaders were civilized.

      Now who's the barbarian?

    30. Re:Its been done before by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Europe too has its history and we're certainly learned from that.. well, the nordic countries at least. And we were originally vikings

      We're in Afghanistan, fighting side by side with the bigger "liberators" and when our young die there, headlines proclaim "HEROES".

      We are buying in to the terrorism scare and we are latching onto one side of the sides that one must be for or against, inviting zealots to blow shit up here too.

      Whatever we may have learned, we are forgetting how to properly quote a post.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    31. Re:Its been done before by Tomji · · Score: 1

      This is a very very one sided "summary" of the issue.
      Also, this is a huge assumption that they "don't want" isreali citzenship. They don't want second or third class citzenship, but I bet even that some of them would take it.

    32. Re:Its been done before by Prikolist · · Score: 1

      No legitimate claim? Go back to your history class. The Kingdom of Israel was in place for centuries before Arabs even came to existence.

      --
      I think Linux isn't better than Windows hence in the slashdot realm I'm a troll
    33. Re:Its been done before by RMingin · · Score: 1

      Is that you, Charlie Wilson? We here at the CIA would like to remind you, there's money to be made fighting the Russians, but there's no money to be made in peace.

      --
      The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
    34. Re:Its been done before by Omestes · · Score: 1

      If Israel decide one day to be the nicest neighbor possible, allow palestinians to return, go back to 1967 borders and disband its military, would you accept military intervention to protect it should the neighboring countries decide to use that opportunity to finish it ?

      That would depend on a lot of things. Obviously. Should we be more willing to protect it than we are any other country in the same circumstance?

      That said, I don't think anyone wants Israel to disband their military. A military is the right of any sovereign nation, as is self-protection. I would be very happy if Israel was just a nice neighbor, and let the Palestinians have their own land and self-sovereignty/autonomy. Obviously, once things are set up nicely, and Israel can be said to be the "good guy" they have the right to defend themselves.

      Right now, though, neither side has a moral imperative. Neither one of them deserves a shred of support or aid, aside from humanitarian aid if needed.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    35. Re:Its been done before by next_ghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if *you* go back to history class, you might learn that most of the Jews left Judea by 200AD. There was no significant Jewish population in Palestine for 17 centuries. Majority of those 500 000 Jews who lived there in 1948 immigrated after 1920, mostly illegally. But if you insist on playing the "claim from 2000 years ago" card, how about we also return both Americas to Native Americans and most of France, Central Europe and all of British Islands to Celts?

    36. Re:Its been done before by Omestes · · Score: 1

      " To The Victor Goes The Spoils Of War".

      I'm breaking into your house and stealing your television. I won in fair combat. Your television is mine! So the US should be allowed to do whatever we want in any country we conquered? How did that work out for the world after WWI (for the allies)?

        Winning a war doesn't justify immoral actions. If you win a war, and act like an asshat, people should still treat you as such.

      Why do a we always tolerate the religious beliefs of people who do not tolerate our own religious beliefs?

      Because we're better than them? If we act like our enemy, can we truly say we're better than them? Furthermore, all Muslims are not bad Muslims. I very much dislike a lot of Americans (I am American), but that doesn't mean I hate ALL Americans, because most of us are decent folk. I dislike a ton of Christians, but I realize that most Christians are different. Islam is like Christianity, there are hundreds of creeds, philosophies, and sects, only a few of which are "bad guys". Shockingly, this applies to every group of people. There are badly behaved Jews out there, even if the majority of them are benign; there are bad police out there, but a majority of them are doing a job to support their families and perhaps do a bit of good for their community, there are bad politicians, but some of them genuinely think their helping make the world a better place, even if we disagree with them.... I can go on, since this is a universal characteristic of groups.

       

      Why is it that we have to understand them? Why Don't they try to understand us?

      I take it you missed the irony in that statement, right?

      I would not TOLERATE any RELIGION that DOES NOT TOLERATE my RELIGION

      So, if we don't tolerate Islam, then they are fine to not tolerate your religion? I'm an atheist, does this mean I have the right to attack the Christians (or whoever, again, every group has their violent, intolerant, ignorant, morons) who hate us?

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    37. Re:Its been done before by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Were you Israel, what would you do?

      Try my hardest to be decent to my neighbors, and to people in general. Then, I can claim moral high ground when people still act badly towards me. That way I know attacks are "genuine aggression" and not merely a reaction to my own being a bad neighbor.

      (Notice the lack of bias here. I have very little sympathy for either "side", only the innocent people who are pawns to either groups idiotic ideology. As always, the dogmatists profit while the innocent suffer. Also notice the very sad fact that I have to include a disclaimer in the first place)

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    38. Re:Its been done before by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 1

      the american natives, or the aborigines or palestinians got killed for not converting to christianity?

      Nope, They got killed. Period

    39. Re:Its been done before by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's not a double-standard, the difference is this: when an oppressive regime finds your information on Facebook, they throw you in prison for 're-education' or worse. When Israel finds your information on Facebook, they tell you to 'go home,' or not come in the first place. If you can't tell the difference between the two responses, then get your head examined.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    40. Re:Its been done before by crankyspice · · Score: 1

      Facebook is in routine use by various "authorities " to profile people.

      OBtheOnion: http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatically-cut-agencys-cos,19753/

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    41. Re:Its been done before by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      it looks like Israel is writing the rules as they go along.

      Uhhhh - actually, all nations write the rules as they go along. Every time the liberals in the US find something they dislike, they write a new rule, and have it passed as a law. The conservatives answer in kind. It takes weeks, months, even years to get stuff done like that, but it's what is happening right here, right now. So - Israel takes a little bit of a shortcut, and does the same thing more efficiently, and you think that is somehow "wrong"??

      Gimme a break - Israel responded, in a reasonable and restrained manner to people who hoped to embarrass them. Israel would have been entirely justified to have allowed them to land, arrest and imprison them, and make their lives miserable for months or years before "caving in" to pressure to release them. If you're concerned with the "activists" supposed rights, you should praise Israel for not acting as I would have done.

      But, as several people have pointed out already, none of these foreign nationals has any right to enter a sovereign nation for the purpose of disrupting that country's day to day operations.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    42. Re:Its been done before by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      If Israel wants to survive.... I hope they are going to realize that this is not the way to get there. They have stopped 200 activists this one time.

      If anything, this was a step backwards. These people weren't violent. They were protesters. Israelis like to claim that they are the only democracy in the middle east but democracy requires freedom of speech in order to function.

      These people were a threat to the status quo, not to peace.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    43. Re:Its been done before by nbauman · · Score: 1

      " To The Victor Goes The Spoils Of War".

      OK, so the Nazi army invades Poland, confiscates a Jew's apartment house and gives it to a Nazi.

      The Soviet army invades Poland on their way to Berlin and confiscates all the Nazi property.

      The war is over. Who owns the apartment house?

      Answer: The Polish government, and the Soviet government, agreed that it belonged to the Jew. A girl whose family owned an apartment house like that wrote a book about it, and a story on NPR, about it. There have been many legal cases, and they usually find that the Jews owned the property that was lost in war.

      (When the documents are lost or destroyed in war, it can be almost impossible to establish a legal claim, but that's another issue. They've had global settlements to simplify things.)

      Since WWII, international lawyers (many of them Jewish) decided to change the laws and pass treaties to make it clear that "To The Victor Goes The Spoils Of War" is not the law. Even Israel's own lawyers recognize that.

    44. Re:Its been done before by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Were you Israel, what would you do?

      Try my hardest to be decent to my neighbors, and to people in general. /quote>

      We Jews have a saying: That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others.

      Ignore it at your peril.

    45. Re:Its been done before by nbauman · · Score: 1

      So, essentially, you're saying that the people fighting the US in Afghanistan with desperate means like suicide bombers are doing what's justified to fight for the survival of their way of life?

      The Wall Street Journal (pre-Murdoch) interviewed an American soldier who lost his arm to an IED.

      He said he didn't feel any resentment towards them. "If they invaded Texas, I would have done the same thing."

    46. Re:Its been done before by Surt · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, kind of. The Afghans, the Pakis, and the Taliban should be permitted to live in the tenth century, if they so wish. They should be permitted to keep their women barefoot and pregnant, and serving the men.

      Right, because as human beings, we have no responsibility to defend the human rights of those oppressed women.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    47. Re:Its been done before by Surt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you somehow feel that native americans, having driven the US population out couldn't make a legit claim for that being ok?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    48. Re:Its been done before by couchslug · · Score: 1

      ENEMIES compete. The idea for fair standards of dealing with enemies, neutrals, and friendlies is absurd.

      Politics is war, business is war, religion is war.

      The preference for Israel is an unfortunate consequence of the post-Holocaust 'guilt cult', as if the West somehow owed Jews anything more after saving them in WWII.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    49. Re:Its been done before by fredrated · · Score: 1

      So why exactly weren't Eqypt, Morocco, Syria and other oppressive governments given access to the democracy demonstrators as they were organized on the social media sites??

    50. Re:Its been done before by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Facebook is in routine use by various "authorities " to profile people. So why not the Israelis? And in other news. Bears shit in woods.

      If a bear were to shit in the woods I was living in, that would be important news. A social networking site (the woods) that I use gives information (er...) to a government that acts like governments do (the bear)? That's important news to me.

      It seems to me that Big Brother has decided it's far more efficient to solicit donated spying rather than paying for a camera in every house.

    51. Re:Its been done before by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      No legitimate claim? Go back to your history class. The Kingdom of Israel was in place for centuries before Arabs even came to existence.

      A valid point, the first people to settle in an area have a claim to that land regardless of anything that has happened since then. Hey, before I forget, I'll be by sometime next week to get the keys to your house, please have your stuff moved out by Thursday.

      Sincerely,
      Chief Typing Bull

      PS, if you don't happen to be American, insert a relevant name for the peoples your peoples replaced when they set up shop.

    52. Re:Its been done before by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Right, because as human beings, we have no responsibility to defend the human rights of those oppressed women.

      The real question is, how you do it, when the majority of the population of that country (pretty much all males, and a significant proportion of females) support the status quo, and will fight you if you try to change that?

      Heck, remember why Soviet-Afghan war started in the first place? Soviet-backed DRA was not democratic, but it was secular and socially progressive (woman rights, education etc). In the realities of Afghanistan, that stance quickly shifted to anti-Islamic ("against the backwards religious superstitions"), since the reforms were decidedly contrary to the (ultraconservative) local tribal interpretation of Islamic law. Changes to marriage laws were particularly detested. When DRA government tried to intensify reforms, they have faced an Islamist uprising - which they, in the best Soviet tradition, have swiftly and brutally suppressed by force of arms, and followed up with a crackdown on Islamic clergy at large. And that is what ultimately caused country-wide revolts that escalated into the war.

      Now, do you think US/NATO can play progressors better than Soviets did? Because, so far, between the "liberated" Afghanistan officially being an Islamic republic where Sharia supercedes all other laws (per its constitution), and the "new old" misogynist marriage laws, the West isn't even trying.

    53. Re:Its been done before by fnord_uk · · Score: 1

      Politics is war, business is war, religion is war.

      And all four are bullshit!

      --
      In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
    54. Re:Its been done before by ultranova · · Score: 2

      We're in Afghanistan, fighting side by side with the bigger "liberators" and when our young die there, headlines proclaim "HEROES".

      To be fair, the Taliban are not nice people. Whether this justifies overthrowing them or not is a messy and complex moral problem, but you certainly can't overthrow them and then abandon the country you just stripped of its rulers. Once you're in, you're in, and must see it through until order is restored.

      But no, I don't think us Nordic countries should ever have gotten involved in Afghanistan. We are not Great Powers anymore, if we ever were; we should concentrate on solving our economic and social issues, as well as advancing high-tech. It's better for us, and it's likely better for the world as well - I mean, if Sweden can be rehabilitated and turned into a peaceful left-wing social-democratic semi-utopia, any country can, right?

      We are buying in to the terrorism scare and we are latching onto one side of the sides that one must be for or against, inviting zealots to blow shit up here too.

      Isn't it ironic that what finally brought an end to Bin Laden was not war but careful and patient detective work and a small surgical strike team, just like we all knew from the beginning?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    55. Re:Its been done before by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If Israel decide one day to be the nicest neighbor possible, allow palestinians to return, go back to 1967 borders and disband its military, would you accept military intervention to protect it should the neighboring countries decide to use that opportunity to finish it ?

      The "nicest neighbor possible" will keep their military functional, so I don't have to worry about being attacked through their territory.

      "Nice" is not the same as "weak". I have no idea why people keep thinking it is.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    56. Re:Its been done before by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      The CIA did not help form Al Qaeda.

    57. Re:Its been done before by Surt · · Score: 1

      I certainly agree that whether or not we can is an entirely different ball of wax than if we should.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    58. Re:Its been done before by boreddotter · · Score: 1

      If Libya Were to survive... If Yemen were to survive... if Bahrain were to survive... If X were to survive... then they had better use everything in their disposal.

      Double standards are shit, humans are scum, I wish I were a plankton.

    59. Re:Its been done before by Targon · · Score: 1

      If someone were to start launching rockets into the USA from Mexico, don't you expect that the USA would act rather quickly to go after the attackers? Yes, Israel has done some things that deserve condemnation, but at the same time, MOST of the incidents WERE incited by violent actions. Basically, how many times do you poke a bear with a stick before the bear rips your arms off or just kills you for it?

    60. Re:Its been done before by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. The jewish community in Iran goes back to Esther - and have no real restriction to speak of. Many are millionaires, and wouldn't leave Iran - and it's ski slopes or Riviera seaside to go to Israel, where they'd be ghetto-ized by Ashkenazim scum from New Jersey and Gdansk.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    61. Re:Its been done before by migla · · Score: 1

      Yes. The Taliban are bad and it wouldn't seem like ombudsmen could kick their asses. But even if it is the right thing to do to be in there and use force against them, it is a problem going in shoulder to shoulder with the "great devil" (and regardless of if that is a fair characterization) that has pissed off people through various means around the world for decades.

      Anyway, a point I was perhaps mostly thinking I was making in the previous post, is that a discourse of military glory and terrorism boogiemannery has been creeping into Swedish culture, of which the "Heroes" headline was an example of the former.

      And no disrespect to the dead, one of them previously alive just a few kilometers from here. They where heroic young men putting their lives on the line to help oppressed people in Afghanistan (or maybe they were victims of the hype of American freedom-spreading or something. Sad either way.).

      The headline made me think of "rallying for our troops", out of place from what I was used to.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    62. Re:Its been done before by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      Do you think those rockets were fired out of spite? Israel has occupied Palestine for the past 50 years, the movements of Palestinians is restricted within their own country, they often times can't get medical attention because to do so they have to go through IDF checkpoints which won't let them through.
      What do you think would happen if Mexican troops occupied the US and placed similar restrictions placed similar restrictions on you, and you were far outgunned by means of Chinese funding for the Mexican military? And if this had been going on for decades with no end in sight.. That's the Palestinian situation right now, and that's only the West Bank, one can only imagine the situation in Gaza where humanitarian shipments are regularly seized and blocked by Israel...

      I don't condone firing of rockets, by either side. But I understand that they really don't have any other means to fight back anymore, they're desperate.

    63. Re:Its been done before by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      So, how do you feel about Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California all going back to Mexico? How about the European invasion of the North and South American continents?

      At some point, things become "inevitable", and you can't fix the problem without making a new problem.

      Oh, and Israel came into being by international convention, not of its own accord, and as a result of near extinction of the race. Nobody cared about "Palestine" until the Jews started to move back, and then it has been cause celeb for all the Nazi sympathizers, who are still trying to exterminate the "Zionist Pigs" from off the face of the planet by proxy war.

      Nor do people realize that the same international mandate that created Israel for the Jews to have a land for themselves, also created a state for the Palestinians as well. That state, Jordan, exists today, and is largely Palestinian population. Does the world really need TWO Palestinian states?

      The sad thing is, nobody cares about plight of the Palestinians still. The Arabs, Persians and other Muslims of the world aren't doing anything to really help Palestinians build a civilization, because it doesn't support their goals of exterminating the Jews. The fact is, many Palestinians don't want to be productive, they have an image to uphold. Giving them another state isn't going to fix this problem.

      http://digitalirony.blogspot.com/2007/02/like-foxes-through-ruins-rockets-from.html

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    64. Re:Its been done before by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Facebook is in routine use by various "authorities " to profile people. So why not the Israelis?

      Too true - I'd mod you up if you weren't already at 5.

      If Facebook personnel had actively aided the Israelis then this would be a newsworthy story. As it is, the protesters were stupid enough to publicly announce their intentions, and the Israelis were smart enough to monitor Facebook. The outcome was predictable, if the protesters had only given the matter some thought.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    65. Re:Its been done before by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Now, do you think US/NATO can play progressors better than Soviets did? Because, so far, between the "liberated" Afghanistan officially being an Islamic republic where Sharia supercedes all other laws (per its constitution), and the "new old" misogynist marriage laws, the West isn't even trying.

      Yes. They can. We have TVs to rot their minds with. If we can get enough in there and keep their power grid going, we'll have every Afghany dribbling in their cereal bowl as they watch MTV's "Real Burkas", "Llama Wars", and "Musaf Springer".

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    66. Re:Its been done before by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Your sarcasm argues for the logic that a conquering force does have a legitimate claim, simply due to the conquest. So, does Israel have just as much a claim to their land as the US does to the central American lands it occupies?

      When is a conquest legitimate, and when is it not?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    67. Re:Its been done before by victorhooi · · Score: 1

      heya,

      You do realise that Israel has to deal with a neighbouring country who's core tenet is basically that Israel doesn't exist?

      Sorry, but if you apply some basic human logic, that doesn't cut it. The Palestinians basically voted in a known terrorist organisation, who's made it their mandate to destroy Israel at any costs, civilian or otherwise.

      The Israel's are being heavy-handed, sure, but they've had to deal with these sorts of terrorist attacks for the last 50 years. And surprisingly, their techniques usually work. There's a reason other countries go to them for CT expertise - because they've had to cope in one of the most hostile environment, surrounded by Arab nations who've tried numerous occasions to crush them (and failed miserably - e.g. Six Day War), and they've managed to still prosper.

      Cheers,
      Victor

    68. Re:Its been done before by victorhooi · · Score: 1

      heya,

      Yes, but in this case, several countries decided to gang-up and attack Israel. Israel was defending.

      Israel sorely trounced them all, made them look like a bunch of idiotic buffons, and in the process managed to gain some territory. *shrugs*. And they haven't tried to gang up on Israel since 1973.

      Sorry, but if a gang of bullies decides to gang up and beat up some small guy in a school hallway and steal his lunchmoney - and then it suddenly turns out the little guy knows kung-fu, and manages to trounce them all, and take back some of the lunchmoney they stole from others, I have very little sympathy for the bullies.

      Cheers,
      Victor

    69. Re:Its been done before by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Do you have any successful examples to show for that claim, in any Islamic country?

    70. Re:Its been done before by barakn · · Score: 1

      "Palestinians are not fighting for survival; they are fighting for the destruction of Israel. -jklovanc" Oh really? So you interviewed every single Palestinian, and each and every single one candidly admitted to you that they are fighting for the destruction of Israel, even those that live peacefully within Israel or are even married to Jews? That seems unlikely to me. What does seem likely is that you have let the actions and statements of a minority color your view of an entire group of people in a way that further augments your preconceived notions and ideology,

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    71. Re:Its been done before by nbauman · · Score: 1

      That's not the law.

      Even Theodor Meron, the legal counsel of Israel's foreign ministry, concluded in 1967 that it would be illegal to place settlements in the conquered territories.

      Germany attacked the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union beat them back. By your logic, the Soviet Union should own all the property in Germany, including private homes, even if they were originally confiscated from Jews. That's not the law.

    72. Re:Its been done before by nbauman · · Score: 1

      That's not the law.

      Even Theodor Meron, the legal counsel of Israel's foreign ministry, concluded in 1967 that it would be illegal to place settlements in the conquered territories.

      Germany attacked the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union trounced them. By your logic, the Soviet Union should own all the property in Germany, including private homes, even if they were originally confiscated from Jews. That's not the law.

    73. Re:Its been done before by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Isn't it ironic that what finally brought an end to Bin Laden was not war but careful and patient detective work and a small surgical strike team,

      He was stuck in that compound for months with three wives, he probably called the seal team himself.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    74. Re:Its been done before by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I have double standards. Unfortunately, a lot of people deny having their own double standards. And, least of all, can they be expected to understand those double standards.

      I wouldn't call that a double standard because you can explain the reasons you have and they make sense.

      Double standards is when you have to engineers of the same age and skill level but Bob gets the promotion because Phil has red hair.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    75. Re:Its been done before by swell · · Score: 1

      "If Israel is to survive..."

      True Israel is a tiny country surrounded by 'enemies'. Perhaps if Israel and the US were better world citizens, some of those enemies would direct their energy elsewhere.

      How many billions of dollars would be saved if a rational relationship between nations could prevail? How many lives saved? How many weapons eliminated? It breaks my heart to see the juvenile attitude of some nationalist leaders. A heart made already brittle by the greed of corporate manipulators involved in the same disputes.

      --
      ...omphaloskepsis often...
    76. Re:Its been done before by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      It would help them a lot to remove those settlements that are outside the borders of Israel. Right now they look like the German extensions right before and at the beginning of WW II. Lebensraum was the term.

      So Israel are very much like the Nazis - way too like to be comfortable. The differences are mostly geographical and the fact that the world actually watches them.

      1. Settlements - Lebensraum.
      2. Lesser people - everyone not born a Jew.
      3. Concentration camp - the whole of Gaza. (OK, they don't go in and gas them, they starve them instead.)

      Think of it as - what if the decision had been to allocate the whole of Florida instead for all Jews and just push away all the residents there to somewhere else without any or very little support.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    77. Re:Its been done before by Omestes · · Score: 1

      You do realise that Israel has to deal with a neighbouring country who's core tenet is basically that Israel doesn't exist?

      Life, and politics, are never simple. The Palestinians (a portion of them) voted for Hamas because Israel's previous actions. Isreal's previous actions (leading to putting Hamas in power) were caused by some of the Palestinians previous actions, which in turn were caused by some of Israels actions, which were caused by... I'm sure you see the point.

      This, obviously, ignores the fact that not all Palestinians want Israel gone, no more than all Israeli's agree with some of the draconian Zionist agendas of their government. This is a story of people letting extremists rule the roost for a very long time, neither group is wholly wrong, or right, and both have their zealots far over-represented.

      The Palestinians basically voted in a known terrorist organisation, who's made it their mandate to destroy Israel at any costs, civilian or otherwise.

      One group of Palestinians voted for a "known terrorist organisation", the other voted for a largely secular organization which, for the most part, supports Israel's right to exist (and even cooperates from time to time). This causes a bit of tension between the various factions of Palestinians as well.

      The Israel's are being heavy-handed, sure, but they've had to deal with these sorts of terrorist attacks for the last 50 years. And surprisingly, their techniques usually work

      I might have spent to much time in philosophy classes, but the ends rarely, if ever, justify the means. That type of logic generally makes things much worse. Further, this conflict has made things much worse for the rest of us. It might be the second most idiotic and internationally damaging ideological kerfuffle since the Cold War. The world would be a much better place if both groups would shut the hell up and act like adults. (don't ask me how to implement that, whoever figures that out deserves all the accolades possible).

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    78. Re:Its been done before by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

      Like in Vietnam where you stayed and supported the oppressive & fake government?

      You do know that after the Soviets left Afghanistan the US supported the Taliban and not the other groups? Maybe the others were to 'communist'?
      Same thing when you put a Bush Oil buddy in charge, who forced the tribes to force their people to vote for him. The agreement was, I will look away on your drug sales (with the token field burning, you know, have to keep the face) and for that I can give all the oil fields to my US and British oil company sponsors.
      Iraq? See above.

      On the back of every Dictator there must be a label: 'Install, topple, repeat'. Yet at the same time claiming to be the fighter for freedom.

      Is it still denial when you get it wrong so many times and still think you can solve the worlds problems?

    79. Re:Its been done before by peragrin · · Score: 1

      WE get it wrong, because we take shortcuts to get out quickly.

      we put saddam in power too. Every single one of those times we got in did some damage, installed a new leader, and left. What is needed in trying to build another nation is to stick around for a full generation to get things moving.

      The other option is to say fuck them and let them kill each other. I like option two. The USA is the only country that can afford to go completely isolationist again. We have the resources to do so. However the last time we went isolationist the rest of the world decsended into not one but two massive wars that you needed us to clean up for you.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    80. Re:Its been done before by ladoga · · Score: 1

      Oh, and Israel came into being by international convention, not of its own accord, and as a result of near extinction of the race.

      Jews are not a race. It's a religion. Though many jews are at least partially of semitic ehtnicity (same as arabs). So basically what you have is two groups that share common ancestry fighting eachother due to slightly different religion.

      Why should any outside power support either one?

    81. Re:Its been done before by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      Citation needed. And even if it were true, it changes nothing about the legitimate claim of those Palestinians who lived there for centuries.

    82. Re:Its been done before by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      At some point, things become "inevitable", and you can't fix the problem without making a new problem.

      I agree. However, that is not the case in Palestine/Israel because the conflict still continues.

      Oh, and Israel came into being by international convention, not of its own accord, and as a result of near extinction of the race.

      Wrong. Israel declared independence *before* the 1947 UN resolution came into effect and both sides of the conflict violate provisions of the resolution.

      Nor do people realize that the same international mandate that created Israel for the Jews to have a land for themselves, also created a state for the Palestinians as well. That state, Jordan, exists today, and is largely Palestinian population. Does the world really need TWO Palestinian states?

      Wrong again. Jordan was founded in 1921 and recognized as independent country in 1946. The 1947 UN resolution was about partitioning Palestine proper. 43% of Palestine proper was allocated for new Arab state, half of which is now within borders of Israel.

    83. Re:Its been done before by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I think it's a corollary of Godwin's Law that in any internet discussion involving Israel, at some point someone will compare Israel to Nazi Germany and think they're being witty and original.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    84. Re:Its been done before by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      but then pakistan is mostly the same as aq.

      It's really refreshing to visit a site where political discussion is informed and crude stereotypes are shunned in favour of proper analysis.

      In the meantime, slashdot is getting more and more like 4chan, just worth visiting for the lulz.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    85. Re:Its been done before by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      However the last time we went isolationist the rest of the world decsended into not one but two massive wars that you needed us to clean up for you.

      While I wouldn't even agree with that analysis for WW2 (it was basically the enormous sacrifice of the Russians that stopped Hitler, at least), it is most certainly not true about WW1, the US had only a modest impact on that conflict.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    86. Re:Its been done before by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, kind of. The Afghans, the Pakis, and the Taliban should be permitted to live in the tenth century, if they so wish. They should be permitted to keep their women barefoot and pregnant, and serving the men.

      Right, because as human beings, we have no responsibility to defend the human rights of those oppressed women.

      That would work if you had the whole world agreeing to such police actions (i.e. if the UN functioned as it should). It is when they are done unilaterally by the US that people get pissed off.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    87. Re:Its been done before by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      UMM are we talking about a bunch of terrorists making plans on Facebook to attack Israel or are we talking about people excercising what should be a basic human right to protest against a government they don't like.

      There is a huge differene between protesting at your own government and going abroad to protest about a foreign government. In the latter case, you have no basic right to visit anywhere if that country doesn't want you. The US will happily bar foreigners with drug arrest records from even visiting.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    88. Re:Its been done before by alexo · · Score: 1

      And if *you* go back to history class, you might learn that most of the Jews left Judea by 200AD.

      s/left/were driven out/

      If I kick you out of your home, populate it with squatters instead and keep you from returning via force of arms, would you say you lost claim to it?

    89. Re:Its been done before by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Nothing witty or original about it.

      Just reality.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    90. Re:Its been done before by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      If I kick you out of your home, populate it with squatters instead and keep you from returning via force of arms, would you say you lost claim to it?

      After 17 centuries? Yes.

    91. Re:Its been done before by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      So... one incident of an Israeli abusing her power means the whole country is under Apartheid?

      No, the fact that Palestinians have been stripped of their lands, forced into walled ghettos, and stripped of almost all rights does that. The behavior of this one soldier is just a symptom of the larger disease.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    92. Re:Its been done before by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      AFAIC remember, Israel doesn't have a written constitution, and have many extremist and ultra religious parties and politicians that would make Le Pen appear like a moderate centrist.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    93. Re:Its been done before by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Here are a couple of facts that refute your arguments;

      1. There was a significant Jewish population in Palestine. From these two documents http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/A-Survey-of-Palestine/Story6582.html and http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story835.html the Jewish population in 1920 was 61,284 vs 486,000 Muslims So 12% is not a significant population?. Yes there was a low point during the Crusades but there has always been a significant presence.

      2. 367,845 Jews legally immigrated to Palestine between 1920 and 1945, http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story835.html. A further 50,000-60,000 immigrated illegally. So you "mostly illegal" statement is false.

      3. Here are a few dates you might look up.
      611AD The Byzantine Emperor, Heraclius, promised to restore Jewish rights and received Jewish help in defeating the Persians,
      Between the 7th and 11th centuries, Jewish scribes, called the Masoretes and located in Galilee and Jerusalem, established the Masoretic Text, the final text of the Hebrew Bible.
      1260AD Baibars banned Jews from worshipping at the Cave of the Patriarchs (the second holiest site in Judaism) until its conquest by Israel 700 years later.
      1834 There was a massacre of Jews in Palestine during Muhammad Ali of Egypt's occupation
      There has been significant continuous Jewish presence in Palestine for a very long time.

      After centuries of genocide and displacement the UN decided that Jews needed a homeland and gave them parts of Palestine. The surrounding Arabs didn't agree and have tried to destroy them ever since.

    94. Re:Its been done before by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      sorry but your timing is off;
      The partition of Israel was ratified by the UN November 29, 1947 and it came into effect at the end of the "Palestine Mandate". May 134, 1948 British troops had withdrawn from Palestine and ended the Palestine Mandate. Since Great Britain would not cooperate with the UN in a proper transition of power there was no body to take over administration of Palestine. Therefore Israel declared independence.

      True, Jordan has nothing to do with the partition of Palestine. The reason parts of what was originally designated Palestinian territory now being part of Israel is a peace treaty signed in 1949. When Israel declared independence all the surrounding Arab countries attacked it. Israel won that war and all parties signed a peace treaty in 1949 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements. The Arab countries attacks, lost the wars and lost some land as a result.

    95. Re:Its been done before by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget that the reason houses are bulldozed is that they belong to the families of suicide bombers.

    96. Re:Its been done before by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I consider the position of an organization voted in by a group of people to be the position of the people doing the voting. The Palestinians in the Gaza Strip voted for and support Hamas, an organization who's mandate is to destroy Israel. I don't see any Palestinian Authority stopping the suicide bombing or rockets attacks on Israel. By not stopping organization withing their borders from attacking Israel the Palestinian authority is aiding them

  2. Facebook is a public forumn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most groups in Facebook are public by default. They are also public to those who belong to the group. So they didn't have to do any super-spy type thing. It's the users of the group who left themselves out in the open.

    1. Re:Facebook is a public forumn by SlashJoel · · Score: 1

      Exactly. From TFA:

      "These people announced on their Internet sites that they planned to come here and cause disruptions, and told their friends. We were able to contact other foreign ministries and simply give them links," Palmor said.

      Facebook, the company, didn't permit Israel to do this. It was Facebook users who don't know how to restrict access to their groups and posts.

    2. Re:Facebook is a public forumn by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      I consider everything I put on facebook "public". Even though I tighten my "privacy" settings, be selective with whom I share stuff with - nevertheless anything posted there I consider "public". That means, only things that I don't really mind anyone knowing I will post there.

      And for more personal matters, phone or e-mail. Using FB to exchange e-mail addresses is acceptable. Then use e-mail to exchange phone numbers, not FB, as I care more about my phone number than my e-mail address.

      FB doesn't exactly have a great track record in keeping things you indicate you want to keep personal, personal. This saga underwrites that again - whatever you say on FB is public. It's a great place for lots of things, but if you want to discuss things you want to keep private, you'd better use a more private communication channel such as e-mail. It may not be perfect but the track record of even webmail providers such as gmail, yahoo, MS is much better than that of FB.

    3. Re:Facebook is a public forumn by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Actually, Facebook gives special admin logins to police departments, so they can browse profiles and see "private" information and groups without a warrant. It's allowed in Facebook's TOS and not really a secret.

    4. Re:Facebook is a public forumn by AceofSpades19 · · Score: 1

      Why is your phone number more personal? if I know your name, I can just look up your phone number in the phone book or any phone book website so its already public information

    5. Re:Facebook is a public forumn by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Only if it is listed.

      I have three mobile numbers and two land line numbers on my name and three land line numbers on my company's name (of which one for fax); one of the mobile numbers (the one I use for business) you will be able to find when you search for my company name, possibly my name, but not in the white pages.

      On top of that I care much more about junk calls and junk SMSes to my phone than I care about junk e-mails. This as the latter is so much easier to filter out (particularly those junk calls are an issue). No need to advertise my phone number any more than it is already.

  3. Oh, big wow. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least they didn't just let the protesters get there and gun them down. This is surprisingly restrained behaviour from the Israeli government.

    1. Re:Oh, big wow. by sosume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seems to me like the Israelis have every right to decide who enters their country.

    2. Re:Oh, big wow. by bjourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except for the parts that isn't "theirs" but stolen in wars of conquest. And not all Israelis are idiots, many of them welcome the international protests.

    3. Re:Oh, big wow. by ponchietto · · Score: 1

      Gandhi.

    4. Re:Oh, big wow. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I'm glad George Washington and his buddies didn't subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Oh, big wow. by jacobsm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then by your logic the Americans should get out of the parts of the country that were won by conquests, which is most of the country including the original 13 colonies.

      I'm not even going to start on the European countries, or the precious Arabs.

      Get over it. Israel won it's wars fair and square. If the Arabs won a single war do you think for a minute that there wouldn't have been a holocaust that would make the Nazi's look like amateurs?

    6. Re:Oh, big wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most countries are made up of parts stolen in wars of conquest. Your point is?

    7. Re:Oh, big wow. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Huh? What? You're saying that George and associates had no weapons? Actually, I think George was rather poorly armed, in comparison with the Brits. But, he was indeed armed, and he made pretty good use of those arms. George and company did NOT stage peaceful sit-ins at the British forts after declaring independence.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:Oh, big wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The country was created and given to them by a UN resolution. Also you neglect to mention that the parts that were "stolen" in wars of conquest, was actually stolen from the "conquestadors"(Jordan, Egypt, Syria). If they hadn't started a war of conquest against Israel, their land would not have been stolen. Unfortunately for them, due to their lame military which could not beat Israel even when they outnumbered, outgunned out surrounded her, they did not gain any territory, but instead lost it. Whining about how the person who's wallet you were intending to steal, instead beat you up, and took your wallet is pretty low.

      (It should perhaps be pointed out that all countries having agreed to a peace treaty have gotten their land back).

    9. Re:Oh, big wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then by your logic Hitler killed all those Jews fair and square. After all they should have fought when the SS first started coming for them instead of being led away like sheep. It certainly shouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to figure out that a very likely outcome of their imprisonment was death.

    10. Re:Oh, big wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At least they didn't just let the protesters get there and gun them down. This is surprisingly restrained behaviour from the Israeli government.

      You mean like an Arab government?

    11. Re:Oh, big wow. by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      And gun them down. Although, come to think of it, most *civilized* nations don't exactly do that with random people stepping from the plane. But hey, it's Israel. We can overlook a few corpses here and there, right?

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    12. Re:Oh, big wow. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ok, then how about Gandhi?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Oh, big wow. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      That would be an interesting point, except for the fact that the countries they took that land from don't want it back (well ok, Syria wants the Golan Heights back, but that's just so they can use it to launch rockets against Israel from it).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    14. Re:Oh, big wow. by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wars of conquest are prosecuted by aggressors. Every war Israel has been involved in has either been started by Arabs (War of Independence, Yom Kippur, War of Attrition), in response to being denied access to the Suez Canal, blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba and attacks from the Gaza Strip(Sinai War, Six day War) . The only reason Israel exists today is due to these defensive wars. The only land they occupy has been used as bases by aggressors.

      The Palestinians started the war after Palestine was partitioned by the UN. They lost the war and are still fighting using terrorist techniques. Hamas does not even recognize Israel's right to exist and one of it's founding tenants is to destroy Israel.

      Yes there are major issues that Israel needs to address; Jewish settlements in the West Bank, return of refugees, etc. On the other hand, suicide bombers and rocket attacks do not garner my sympathy for the Palestinians. The Palestinians in the Gaza Strip voted for Hamas and are getting what they voted for. Peace will only come when Hamas accepts Israel's right to exist and stops terrorist violence.

      Just for your information I am a Gentile from Canada and have no religious reason for supporting Israel. Perhaps you should look at the history of Israel before making baseless assumptions.

    15. Re:Oh, big wow. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1
      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    16. Re:Oh, big wow. by yogalok · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I am not an American, and am not Palestine supporter or even a muslim. Americans did it in the middle ages, when such barbaric acts were common throughout the world. And indeed if anyone attempts such a thing in today's world, where we have more developed morals, then that is barbaric.

    17. Re:Oh, big wow. by jacobsm · · Score: 2

      Middle ages, Huh? What about the Spanish-American and Indian wars of the late 1800's? The middle ages ended in the 1500's, well before the Europeans stole most of the new world from the original occupants.

    18. Re:Oh, big wow. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Oh please, enough of this shit. Practically ever square meter of inhabitable land on this planet was once owned by someone else and stolen.

    19. Re:Oh, big wow. by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      The country was created and given to them by a UN resolution

      This is a common myth, particularly in the US. What actually happened was that contrary to the plans of the UN/UK/US to split Palestine in two, the Jewish Agency (zionists) unilaterally declared indepenence in 1948 and called themselves Israel, which in turn triggered the "war of conquest" with the Arabs. The UN did not recognise Isreal as a legitimate state until 1949, there was no other realistic choice since Israel had already established themselves as a state by winning a war against several Arab states.

      btw; Before the zionists declared independence the area did not belong to the Arabs, it was technically a part of the British empire who conqured it during WW1..

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    20. Re:Oh, big wow. by FishTankX · · Score: 1

      Don't wars of conquest usually require the 'conquerer' to initiate the invasion? If I remember correctly the US and international community forced Israel to abducate much of their gained territory even though the other arab countries initiated hostilities.

    21. Re:Oh, big wow. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      It's not just because that Europe has seen wars virtually non-stop for the last 2000 or so years. The last 60, 70 years are a remarkably peaceful era in European history.

    22. Re:Oh, big wow. by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      what you win in a war is not "stolen" territory. its won.
      and israel has imo behaved in a very humane manner with the palestinians. imagine what the us would have done if some neighboring country regularly sent murders and fired bombs to kill your people.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    23. Re:Oh, big wow. by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      ok, i just want to point out that 'gandhi' is a more accurate spelling of the name.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    24. Re:Oh, big wow. by Lehk228 · · Score: 2

      Why do you think so many americans are israeli apologists, if we acknowledge their actions as evil it leads back to the greater evils we committed against the american indians

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    25. Re:Oh, big wow. by seyyah · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for them, due to their lame military which could not beat Israel even when they outnumbered, outgunned out surrounded her, they did not gain any territory, but instead lost it.

      It is well-established that the Israeli armed forces in the '48 war actually outnumbered and outgunned the Arabs.

      It should perhaps be pointed out that all countries having agreed to a peace treaty have gotten their land back.

      Ah, so Israel would be ready to return the land captured in '67 if the Palestinans agreed to a peace treaty?

    26. Re:Oh, big wow. by seyyah · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wars of conquest are prosecuted by aggressors. Every war Israel has been involved in has either been started by Arabs (War of Independence, Yom Kippur, War of Attrition), in response to being denied access to the Suez Canal, blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba and attacks from the Gaza Strip(Sinai War, Six day War) . The only reason Israel exists today is due to these defensive wars. The only land they occupy has been used as bases by aggressors.

      Who started the 6-day war? Israel.
      Who started the Suez war? Britain-France-Israel.

    27. Re:Oh, big wow. by BZ · · Score: 2

      > Who started the 6-day war? Israel.

      The granparent addressed this, actually. The war started with the first act of war, which was the attacks on Israeli ships in the Gulf of Aquaba.

      Unless you have some really weird definition of "started" here...

    28. Re:Oh, big wow. by bjourne · · Score: 1

      Lol! The hasbara team is out in force today. One would think that even idiots would recognize that there is something wrong with a country that bans peaceful protestors from entering their country by s talking them on facebook. But no, brainwashed brains does not think.

    29. Re:Oh, big wow. by Jiro · · Score: 1

      "The Palestinians" is not a country. I'm sure Israel would be willing to return the land to Jordan and Egypt.

      all countries having agreed to a peace treaty have gotten their land back.

      Of course, Jordan and Egypt don't want it. They're not going to give the Palestinians citizenship and they don't feel like being held officially responsible for attacks by the Palestinians.

    30. Re:Oh, big wow. by Prikolist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean like the governments of Arab nations like Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran..? Were you even watching the news this year?

      --
      I think Linux isn't better than Windows hence in the slashdot realm I'm a troll
    31. Re:Oh, big wow. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      Wars of conquest? Let's see...fighting for independence from Britain...fighting against neighbors who keep invading their country...yup, sounds like "conquest" to me.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    32. Re:Oh, big wow. by Raenex · · Score: 2

      It's common knowledge, even in the United States and in history books, that we fucked over the American Indians. That's not why we support Israel.

    33. Re:Oh, big wow. by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The Jordanians want nothing to do with the Palestinians - trying to overthrow the King put an end to that. The Arabs treat the Palestinians much worse than the Israelis do, with mass expulsions by both Jordan and Kuwait.

    34. Re:Oh, big wow. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Where do you think they learned it from?

    35. Re:Oh, big wow. by Surt · · Score: 1

      They can keep the parts won in wars of defense then?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    36. Re:Oh, big wow. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Seems to me like the Israelis have every right to decide who enters their country.

      Basing it on criminal history, disease, or crowding, yes. Basing it off of imagined security concerns or reserving jobs for current residents, that's somewhat less legitimate to me.

      Basing that off of political views or race (as Israel is doing)? They -can- do it, but I don't think they have a moral -right- to do it.

    37. Re:Oh, big wow. by SpaceCracker · · Score: 2

      This is a common myth, particularly in the US. What actually happened was that contrary to the plans of the UN/UK/US to split Palestine in two...the Jewish Agency (zionists) unilaterally declared indepenence in 1948 and called themselves Israel...

      If you want to stick to the facts, at least get them right and try to actually READ the article you linked to [I wonder who deemed TapeCutter's comment insightful ?!?SC].
      The UN resolution to split this particular piece of land, that was under British mandate at the time, was voted and accepted on November 29th, 1947 ( http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/038/88/IMG/NR003888.pdf?OpenElement ).

      On the day that the last British soldier left for home, May 14 1948, the state of Israel was declared in accordance with this resolution. The UN recognition in the state of Israel in 1949 (General Assembly resolution: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/044/44/IMG/NR004444.pdf?OpenElement based on Security Council's recommendation: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/055/06/IMG/NR005506.pdf?OpenElement) was granted after the war concluded in an armistice and to everyones dismay, Israel remained standing.

      BTW, the palestinians could have declaerd a state back then as well, based on the same 1947 resolution, but all arab nations, including the palestinians themselves rejected a 2 state solution.

      --
      sigo ergo sum
    38. Re:Oh, big wow. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's funny how the article to which you link doesn't say that. What it says is that UN came up with the plan to split Palestine in two parts, and future Israel supported the plan (while Arabs rejected it). With Arab rejection stalling its further development, Israel has unilaterally declared independence, but they haven't claimed any specific borders. The point was rendered moot since immediately after the declaration Israel was attacked by surrounding Arab states, and its borders were eventually determined by 1949 armistice; but it wasn't exactly for the lack of trying from Israeli side - they were not the ones who defied the UN resolution.

    39. Re:Oh, big wow. by kabloom · · Score: 1

      This is not surprisingly restrained behavior from the Israeli government. Israel has always been much more restrained in this regard then her neighbors (for example Syria and Egypt) are. Do you know why? Because Israel is actually a functioning democracy, not like her totalitarian neighbors (Iran comes to mind) who just put on a democratic front sometimes when it's convenient.

    40. Re:Oh, big wow. by Anand7 · · Score: 1

      Wars of conquest are prosecuted by aggressors. Every war Israel has been involved in has either been started by Arabs (War of Independence, Yom Kippur, War of Attrition), in response to being denied access to the Suez Canal, blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba and attacks from the Gaza Strip(Sinai War, Six day War) . The only reason Israel exists today is due to these defensive wars. The only land they occupy has been used as bases by aggressors.

      The Palestinians started the war after Palestine was partitioned by the UN. They lost the war and are still fighting using terrorist techniques. Hamas does not even recognize Israel's right to exist and one of it's founding tenants is to destroy Israel.

      Yes there are major issues that Israel needs to address; Jewish settlements in the West Bank, return of refugees, etc. On the other hand, suicide bombers and rocket attacks do not garner my sympathy for the Palestinians. The Palestinians in the Gaza Strip voted for Hamas and are getting what they voted for. Peace will only come when Hamas accepts Israel's right to exist and stops terrorist violence.

      Just for your information I am a Gentile from Canada and have no religious reason for supporting Israel. Perhaps you should look at the history of Israel before making baseless assumptions.

      I view the Palestinians as equivalent to our First Nations people. Especially the ones in the Canadian west where there were no wars. The same has happened/is happening to the Palestinians as happened to the Natives. And, ultimately, the Palestinians are doing what the Haida, the Squamish, the Nisga'a and all the others didn't--fighting back...largely ineffectively. The Palestinians cannot win by force of arms, just as the Natives could not--even the Haida who were fearsome warriors. But because they try they are condemned as were many of the First Nations people in the United States who resisted being forced off their ancestral land and into reservations.

    41. Re:Oh, big wow. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      > Who started the 6-day war? Israel.

      The granparent addressed this, actually. The war started with the first act of war, which was the attacks on Israeli ships in the Gulf of Aquaba.

      Unless you have some really weird definition of "started" here...

      Israel did take the most aggressive first strikes, but that was because Israel had such good Intel that they knew when the Arabs were going to attack and from where.

      Started does have a strange definition in the six day war. Israel fired the first shot decimating Egyptian air bases but the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians had been building up forces along Israel's borders as well as closing shipping lanes Israel relied on, both of which could easily be considered an act of war.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    42. Re:Oh, big wow. by BZ · · Score: 1

      Closing shipping lanes is generally considered an act of war, yes. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade#Act_of_war

    43. Re:Oh, big wow. by yogalok · · Score: 1

      Middle ages, Huh? What about the Spanish-American and Indian wars of the late 1800's? The middle ages ended in the 1500's, well before the Europeans stole most of the new world from the original occupants.

      So you agree what you are doing is similar to the spanish wars? Simply disgusting..

    44. Re:Oh, big wow. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      At least they didn't just let the protesters get there and gun them down. This is surprisingly restrained behaviour from the Israeli government.

      You appear to be mistaking Israel for one of the oppressive Arab dictatorships that surround them.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    45. Re:Oh, big wow. by alexo · · Score: 1

      Funny. Here was me thinking that they'd been living quite well (19/20th C), side by side in Palestine as it was known back then, until the 1947 declaration.
      Zionists on the other hand, let's not go there.

      Yea, right.

    46. Re:Oh, big wow. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      t is well-established that the Israeli armed forces in the '48 war actually outnumbered and outgunned the Arabs.

      Then maybe it would have been a good idea for those arab states to have thought about it before declaring war on Israel.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    47. Re:Oh, big wow. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      One would think that even idiots would recognize that there is something wrong with a country that bans peaceful protestors from entering their country by s talking them on facebook.

      In the UK we have banned various racists and religious fanatics over the years from entering the country, purely on the basis that they are likely to cause trouble and/or arouse hostility. So it's hardly anything unique that Israel is doing.

      I do not have some god given right to visit any country I feel like if the authorities feel I might cause trouble.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    48. Re:Oh, big wow. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      But they do still gun down protesters, journalists and members of the UN peacekeeping forces when it's convenient.

    49. Re:Oh, big wow. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      They were both started for the same reason; Egypt trying to blockade Israel by denying access to the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aquaba. In the case of the 6 Day War Egypt threw put an UN security force and sent large forces to the Israeli border. Check out this time line, http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/timeline.htm, and decide who really started the 6 Day War.

    50. Re:Oh, big wow. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should read a little more history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#Babylonian.2C_Persian_and_Greek_rule_.28586_BCE_.E2.80.93_2nd_century_BCE.29
      Palestine/Israel has been fought over and ruled by foreign power for most of its history. Israel was Jewish ancestral lands long before they were Palestinian ancestral lands.In fact it was only ruled by Arab Muslims between 636–1099 and Egyptian Mamluk between 13th century and 1517.There has been an Jewish presence in Israel since 1200 BCE. A good example of the is The Dome of the Rock , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock, which was built on the site of the Second Jewish Temple, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple. So who was there first?

      No matter where the Jewish people have been forced to live there was always a connection to Israel through their Holy sites. There was no connection between Europeans and the West Coast until they invaded it.

      A closer comparison between the situation in Israel to that of the West Coast would be if the Jews were seen as First Nations peoples. The Jews were there first. They were conquered by invaders. They were persecuted by the invaders. Their culture was attacked. Only recently through negotiation have they been given back some of their land(the First Nations through land claim treaties, the Jews through a UN resolution).

    51. Re:Oh, big wow. by Anand7 · · Score: 1

      Yeah... Going that far back is probably not wise. We'd have to address things like the Bering land bridge and David's genocidal actions in the Holy Land. As a species, we have lots to leave in the past. My point was made from a more recent position--post WWI.

    52. Re:Oh, big wow. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Considering there were no people in North America before the Bering land bridge that point is moot. In David's time there was no such thing as diplomatic solutions that was only war. Viewing a leaders' actions through today's sensibilities is not valid. I bet if you look hard enough you will find at least one incident of genocide in every culture. Is your point that the claims of a people that have been oppressed long enough are no longer valid? Case in point; since the Europeans invaded the West coast hundreds of years before WW1 does that mean that land claims by First Nations are invalid?

      The main point are;
      - Jews created the first settled civilization in Israel
      - Jewish Holy sites are in Israel
      - Jews from all over the world visit Israel to get in touch with their roots.
      - Many invaders had to deal with Jewish revolts,
      - there has been a continuous presence of Jews in Israel even under the invading armies of many different people.
      Just because it happened over a long period of time does not make it invalid

    53. Re:Oh, big wow. by Anand7 · · Score: 1

      I've always felt that losing land by dint of conquest i.e. where a battle was fought, was valid. Not nice but valid. Losing land by stroke of a pen, invasion by civilians (a whole bunch of us are going to set up camp on your property...don't worry, nothing to see) or by sneakiness (here's some shiny beads...), to me is wrong.

      The Holy Land has seen a lot of conflict but for the most part, Jews, Muslims and Christians were able to work it out because the area is sacred to them all. In my opinion, the problem stems from equating The Holy Land with Israel. Israel is a modern nation with everything that goes along with it; the Holy Land is something completely different and needs to be treated differently. Israel occupies the Holy Land. They do not equate; by way of example, the Mossad is not a holy institution but it is an organisation operating on behalf of the nation. Human beings seek to gain advantage in their dealings...that's why we have courts of law. Palestinians who sold their land made a deal and must live with it; Palestinians who lost their land because they were intimidated or frightened off need to be compensated and offered a dignified solution. Israel needs to understand that if nothing else, the native-born and descended Palestinians are people of that land and have a greater claim than someone who moved from Europe. I may be wrong but I also believe that they have an issue with Israel but not the Holy Land. The leaders of the different faiths can find concord.

    54. Re:Oh, big wow. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Funny how you seem to see only the surface of things. I find it astounding that you seem to hold that "might is right". If one country can invade and take over another it's just fine. Here are a few facts that you seem to miss.
      1. The Jewish Immigrants during the British Mandate purchased their lands.
      2. During Partition quite a few Jewish families were forced of their land in the Palestinian areas.
      3. Since you seem to think might(conquest) is right, does that mean that Israel should own the Sinai, South Lebanon, and all Palestinian land since they conquered them by force?
      4. Israel is a country was founded in 66CE so is not a modern nation; it is an ancient nation re-established in modern times.
      5. The Holy Land is a Jewish term for Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Land The Holy Land (Hebrew: ; Eretz HaQodesh) is a term which in Judaism refers to the Kingdom of Israel as defined in the Tanakh. For Jews, the Land's identification of being Holy is defined in Judaism by its differentiation from other lands by virtue of the practice of Judaism often possible only in the Land of Israel.
      6. Palestine was lost to the Palestinians around 1099 during the Crusades. It changes hands until it became a British Mandate after the Ottoman Turks lost WW1. So by your "conquest is OK" stance Palestine should still be British. Israel didn't take lands from the Palestinians it was given land by the UN, as you put it, a valid conqueror.
      7. Modern Israel and modern Palestine were created at the same time when the British mandate ended.

    55. Re:Oh, big wow. by Anand7 · · Score: 1

      I think that we will just have to agree to disagree. Your understanding and scholarship of the history of the region is better than mine. I come at it from a student-of-human-behaviour perspective. Unless Israel works out a viable solution that is acceptable to the Palestinians there will be strife perhaps up to and including human rights violations. Israel has shown that it is not beyond that--witness the Boycott Law foisted on her own people. With power comes responsibility; Israel has the power. I hope that she will choose wisely; Evidence says that she will not. I wish you well and I thank you for what I have learned from this discussion.

    56. Re:Oh, big wow. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The same thing can be said for Hamas. The issue is that the solution must be acceptable to the Israelis as well as the Palestinians. According to the Hamas Charter the only acceptable solution for Palestinians and Palestine is the destruction of Israel. This is not acceptable to Israel and never will be. Until Hamas drops this demand there can be no solution that is acceptable to both sides. Israel does not have the power to make Hamas change its mind; only Hamas can do that. Considering that the Hamas differentiates itself from Fatah over this issue, Fatah accepts the existence of Israel, I doubt very much that Hamas will make this change. Israel is more powerful than the Palestinians but they do not control the actions or objectives of the Palestinians.

      If you want to find a solution to the Palestinian problem you have to look at it from both sides. The Israelis are not without blame but they are willing to negotiate with Palestinians for peace. Hamas is not willing to do that and until there can be negotiations where both sided exist there can be no peace.

      The way I look at the Israeli/Palastinian conflict is like a small dog nipping at the heals of a bull. The small dog does it long enough eventually the bull is going to stomp it. Hamas continually fires rockets at and sends suicide bombers into Israel. Eventually Israel gets pissed off and retaliates by rocket attacks or invasion. Some people see that as an overreaction. Others see it as justified. What do you think Israel should do about the bombings and rocket attacks? Ignoring them is not an option as no party anywhere wouldl be able to hold power while ignoring the death of their citizens.

      Currently the most controversial thing Israel is doing is requiring inspection of all goods going into the Gaza Strip. They are doing this to decrease the amount of rocket making and tunnel building material entering the Gaza Strip and thereby decreasing the number of rockets falling on Israel. The fact that it causes hardship for the people of the Gaza Strip is their own fault as they voted for Hamas and should accept the consequences of their vote. I bet if they voted Hamas out and stopped all rocket attacks on Israel that the borders would be open. Israel does not have the power to do this; only the Palestinians do.

      There is a huge difference between might and power. Israel has the might to oppress the Palestinians and minimize the loss of Israeli lives but the Palestinians have the power to stop it by ceasing attacks on Israel and negotiating in good faith. Who do you think should make the first move?

  4. "Facebook aided"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a difference between facebook actively aiding Israel officials, and those officials viewing the members of a facebook group. Maybe not planning activities in a publicly-viewable setting would have helped these people?

    Police, officials, whatever, viewing publicly-accessible information posted on social media sites is a Good Thing, occasionally. If you don't _want_ it viewed, don't post it publicly [and please note, I don't mean, don't post it online. Some medium of privacy should be expected, and the summary and my [brief] skim of TFA didn't say this was privacy violation in any way].

    1. Re:"Facebook aided"? by yosephi · · Score: 1

      I agree. The wording could be improved to make it clear that "by using Facebook"...

  5. Not surprising by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anything to do with Facebook, Israel and super hidden government agents is going to be bad. For those who have not watched Pilger's film The War you Don't see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ah20IAyYxg

    I know Julian and he is also quite right about facebook being an appalling spying machine. I loathe facebook with a passion, but there again I am a non-conformist, facebook is the sheep following sheep society and if that is not enough, people get emotionally blackmailed into using it. You do not need facebook, you need a life!

    --
    All cows eat grass!
    1. Re:Not surprising by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

      No problem =)

      --
      All cows eat grass!
    2. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You do not need facebook, you need a life!

      I suppose we need to get off your lawn while we're at it.

      Seriously dude, last decade it was "You don't need Myspace, you need a life" before that it was "You don't need email, you need a life" and before that it was "You don't need the internet, you need a life" and before that it was "you don't need AOL, you need a life" and before that it was "you don't need video games, you need a life" and before that it was "you don't need TV, you need a life" and before that it was "You don't need a radio, you need a life" and before that it was "you don't need telegraph, you need a life" and before that it was "you don't need the post office, you need a life" and before that it was "you don't need books, you need a life" and before that it was "you don't need the theater, you need a life" and before that it was...

      We get it. You don't like it, and so you tell everybody who does use it that they "need a life". Here's an idea, how about instead of Trolling the forums, you go out and follow your own advice for a change?

    3. Re:Not surprising by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      And if you are publicly showing your intentions there is no need for espionage.

      A few years ago it was in the news that a drug dealer was arrested after leaving leaflets explaining what he was, what he was offering or how to get to him. Somehow, I doubt that the lawyer claimed that the police had been using its "spying machine".

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    4. Re:Not surprising by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      but there again I am a non-conformist, facebook is the sheep following sheep society and if that is not enough,

      You're so non-conformist. I also hate all those Sheeple around us.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Not surprising by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Anything to do with Facebook, Israel and super hidden government agents is going to be bad. "

      Depends on which SIDE you are on.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:Not surprising by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

      but there again I am a non-conformist, facebook is the sheep following sheep society and if that is not enough,

      You're so non-conformist. I also hate all those Sheeple around us.

      Class phantomfive Thank you for a nice post. Truly that is excellent.

      May the whores be with you... Opps Force.

      --
      All cows eat grass!
  6. Doesn't say that Facebook helped Israel directly. by Kifoth · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The closest it comes to describing what happened is: Israel had tracked the activists on social media sites, compiled a blacklist of more than 300 names and asked airlines to keep those on the list off flights to Israel. and "These people announced on their Internet sites that they planned to come here and cause

    disruptions, and told their friends."

    Sounds like they bragged in public, using their own names. And nothing more.

    It's shit like this, Slashdot...

  7. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe you should look into the work of some Jews like Noam Chomsky, in case you think being a Jew inherently makes you a supporter of Israels policies.

    Equating being a Jew with being pro Israel comes off as racist.

  8. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How come this is not modded informative but -1?

    Since the end of WW2, saying negative things about Jews will get you in trouble. Luckily for him the worst punishment here is a downmod.

  9. Re:Doesn't say that Facebook helped Israel directl by magusxxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "These people announced on their Internet sites that they planned to come here and cause disruptions, and told their friends."

    Sounds like they bragged in public, using their own names. And nothing more.

    What's the difference between this and what happened during the 1960's when people wanted to see Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. speak and were turned away?

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  10. Another misleading story on Slashdot... by GP1911 · · Score: 1, Funny

    The community moderation system here is a failure.

    1. Re:Another misleading story on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      +1 common sense

      How come shitty summaries like the above keep surfacing over and over? I mean, the tone of said summary suggests that facebook had an active role in providing Israeli gov with info on 'subversive' persons. The article only mentions the use of public available information... talk about misleading :(

      Or is it just another 'feed the trolls' type of article? You know what mostly pisses me off? The fact that I wasted my time reading an article that I could have read anywhere on the net. And which I already had fwiw.

      The summary deserves at least a -2 Troll Feeder or -5 Non Story.

  11. Guilty until proven innocent by igreaterthanu · · Score: 2

    So anyone could setup a fake profile with someone else's name, join one of these groups and then that person goes on the terrorism watch list? Sounds fair to me.

    --
    I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
  12. Re:Doesn't say that Facebook helped Israel directl by Kifoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My point wasn't regarding the politics. It was that Slashdot blatantly distorted the article to manufacture a sensationalist headline.

  13. Turning the tables with lawfare by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is a bunch of young Israeli lawyers working round the clock sustained only by Diet Coke, falafel and cigarettes about to pull off the legal equivalent of the Six-Day War? A really good link which you should read. Here is another.

    The Israelis have learned from the last flotilla, and hacked international law to serve their ends. The law firm Shurat HaDin (motto: "Bankrupting Terrorism - One Lawsuit at a Time") has done a bang-up job worthy of admiration, even if you're one of those people who thinks (like Hamas, the recipient of the aid flotilla) that Israel has no right to exist. I really recommend reading the link above, it does a great job of laying out what exactly has been done. They wrote letters to the insurers of the boat, warning them that under international law they would be legally liable for the consequences of helping Hamas. They informed INMARSAT that continuing their service exposed the company to liability. And, most hilariously, the legendary Greek bureaucracy has helped tremendously. Once a complaint is filed and an investigation started, the Greeks aren't exactly known for efficiency. American government is a model of speed compared to this.

    Some more interesting facts: there is no pressing need for the aid flotilla. The last convoy actually succeeded in making the Israelis open up land borders and things are super in Gaza now. If the goal was to actually deliver aid, then the flotilla could dock in Egypt and have the goods delivered overland, permission has already been granted. Of course, this offer was refused because that's not the goal of the flotilla. It exists only to remove Israel's legitimacy as an entity (in other words, the same goal as Hamas). Yeah, yeah, right, you don't believe me. OK, how about what Adam Shapiro, co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement and a board member of the Free Gaza Movement said at a speech at Rutgers (to enormous applause, by the way)

    Free Gaza is but one tactic of a larger strategy, to transform this conflict from one between Israel and the Palestinians, or Israel and the Arab world...to one between the rest of the world and Israel.

    Nobody in the Free Gaza movement gives a shit about being a delivery boy for rice and cooking oil. Journalists should really listen when organizations state their goals in public, but who gives a shit when the facts don't fit the narrative.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Turning the tables with lawfare by jovius · · Score: 4, Informative

      Flotilla is a statement against the Gaza blockade AKA collective punishment on general civilian population. Hamas only slightly won Fatah in the elections, and Hamas got the votes of about 30% of the population. The gazans are suffering because of small number of islamists and their israeli counterparts, who wish to have the palestinian areas fully included in a Greater Israel.

      Polarizing the issue leads the public astray, because the real issue are the palestinians who are exploited by multitude of parties to promote their selfish political agendas. Every single death of any nationality or religion of any of the sides is exhaustively politicized and used as a straw man to polarize the conflict even more.

      If the human rights were universally applied Israel and palestinians would live in either two distinct nations or in one nation of Israel, which by definition would not be a Jewish state. Because of the insistence of having a distinct Jewish state which many say should encompass all palestinian areas too the palestinians are bound to suffer, and because the islamists are promoting their narrow minded ideology the palestinians (of which small number are actually Christians and Jewish) are bound to suffer too.

      The conflict history is full of provocative acts by any of the sides and the real moral high ground is with jewish conscientous objectors and human rights activists as well as their arab counterparts. Sustaining the black&white distinctions is essential for promoting the violent nationalistic objectives of either side, and much of the global cheer is directed for or against the sides (which they both like) instead of directing the energy to protect the civilian populations against the exploitation.

      The conflict is rotten from the core and almost everything in it is totally corrupted including the Flotillas to some extent. Somewhere on the road the civilians continue their suffering and play their part in the charade.

    2. Re:Turning the tables with lawfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      so I find it interesting how you can pretend the Palestinians are evil for not accepting Israel while you promote people from the other side who do not accept the existence of Palestine. Hypocrite.

      Except Israel doesn't bite the hand that feeds them. Every time someone tries to give the Palestinians a place, they get bombed and trashed - by the Palestinians. It's no wonder Israel doesn't want them when everyone else has kicked them out for being troublemakers.

    3. Re:Turning the tables with lawfare by gay358 · · Score: 1

      As far as I have seen, it is usually the Israel who has bombed, bulldozed or otherwise destroyed the health clinics, power plant, toilets etc funded by EU.

    4. Re:Turning the tables with lawfare by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The conflict history is full of provocative acts by any of the sides and the real moral high ground is with jewish conscientous objectors and human rights activists as well as their arab counterparts.

      In other words, the 'real moral high ground' is held by those who agree with you? Real great ideas you have there......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Turning the tables with lawfare by jovius · · Score: 1

      I'll just respond to your point about UNRWA.

      You might be interested to check out what they actually do. They are fully aware of the violent teachings, but the rule is that the hosts provide the main curriculum. What UNRWA people do outside the curriculum is for theirs to decide, and after school activities and camps are organized where students and participants are taught peace and coexistence, non-violent conflict resolving and the things Hamas is not providing.

      The international instititutions in palestinian areas are struggling because of palestinian factions and Israeli politics.

    6. Re:Turning the tables with lawfare by jovius · · Score: 1

      In other words, the 'real moral high ground' is held by those who agree with you? Real great ideas you have there......

      I don't think in nationalistic terms or accuse anyone of anything. We are all victims of the human reality. The ones who die for our "sins" are there in the focal point, often not even aware why there is fighting.

    7. Re:Turning the tables with lawfare by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      We are all victims of the human reality

      But that is pointless, we are all 'victims' of natural reality, which says someday we will all die. It is a great tragedy, but what we do in the interim is up to us, and who is to say what one person does is so much better than another?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Turning the tables with lawfare by jovius · · Score: 1

      False. Israel allows non-military goods to enter Gaza, in large volumes. Egypt opened its border with Gaza quite some time ago

      All Gaza exports are banned. Export businesses cannot function regardless what they think of the Palestinian leaderhsip. These businesses have very much co-operated with Israelis, who act (or better: have acted) as distributors and resellers.

      Lately some exports have been allowed to flow out, but total blockade was effective for at least three years. The allowed exports have for example been flowers and tomatoes and other goods explicitly demanded by European governments.

    9. Re:Turning the tables with lawfare by jovius · · Score: 1

      Natural reality and human reality are altogether different things.

      We are able to shape our reality and its content. If we embark on a journey to find out absolute values we'll soon have a sketch of the universal declaration of human rights. I'm not saying that's something that is best, but humanistic values form the foundation of communicating at a common and equal level. The less there is ignorance the better, and the ignorant are not worse people.

    10. Re:Turning the tables with lawfare by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      Ah, so you base your morality on the universal declaration of human rights? Interesting.

      humanistic values form the foundation of communicating at a common and equal level.

      I am not equal to you. That's an invalid premise.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Turning the tables with lawfare by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Flotilla is a statement against the Gaza blockade AKA collective punishment on general civilian population.

      Nice narrative. It isn't a "collective punishment" at all. And to suggest that it is is, clearly shows that you're biased towards people lobbing bombs and invading Israel again and again until it disappears.

      You' are completely ignoring the gun running that was rampant that led to the blockade. If Palestinians wanted peace, they could have it. They want the destruction of Israel, and continue to promote the same. The blockade is the result of what the Palestinians have done. They have nobody to blame but themselves.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re:Turning the tables with lawfare by jovius · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that we are equal.

      My error was to use term moral high ground, I should have used some other expression.

    13. Re:Turning the tables with lawfare by jovius · · Score: 1

      The blockade is the result of what the Palestinians have done. They have nobody to blame but themselves.

      Most of the voters back then didn't vote for Hamas or for violence. Because of the minority of voters the funds of the Palestinian government were frozen and its functions ceased. The issue should not be polarized, because that plays in the hands of islamist extremists and the extremists in Israeli government.

      The aim of the blockade was to diminish the power of islamist factions. It has failed. Now that Israel is slowly easing the blockade it realizes that. Blockade effectively created Hamas monopoly, because all of the imports/exports was done via smuggling.

      If the aim was to punish the Gazans the blockade has been highly succesful.

    14. Re:Turning the tables with lawfare by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The goal of the blockade was to limit the amount of weapons coming into Gaza from places like Iran, not diminish the power of the radicals. There would be no problems if the shipments went though the authorized ports. The whole blockade problem is a red herring, there is no problem getting goods into Gaza, unless you're a terrorist smuggling weapons from Iran for the proxy war.

      Those protesting the blockade are simply useful idiots for the terrorists.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    15. Re:Turning the tables with lawfare by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol ok, point taken

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  14. Seriously? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    They deserve it. When you post information on the facebook, don't complain when someone reads it.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  15. Not a new problem ... by MacTO · · Score: 1

    Of course, governments have been trying to deny people the opportunity to protest for generations. Sometimes their concerns are legitimate (e.g. riots due to the mob mentality), and sometimes they are not (since some protests are genuinely peaceful).

    Even with the Facebook angle, I'm fairly certain that the situation is not unique. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister of Canada) was barring activists from the opposition due to statements on Facebook months prior to this Israel thing. And if Harper's Conservatives did it, it has probably been done by other people a million times before. There isn't a creative bone in the party's collective body.

    Incidentally, I am neutral on Israel barring access to their country based upon Facebook shenanigans. I am opposed to people being placed on terrorism watch lists. The former is simply an expression of national sovereignty, even if I think it's foolish. The latter is an assumption of intent that may have far reaching impacts upon innocent lives.

  16. Terrorism wha list? by radio4fan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Where does it say in the article that they were added to the 'terrorism watch list'?

    In fact the Israelis told the airlines that the people on the list would not be allowed to enter Israel, so the airlines prevented them from flying.

    There's no mention of terrorism: the submitter made that bit up.

    1. Re:Terrorism wha list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes except that to NOT be able to enter IsraÃl you need a REASON.

      Ummm, no. Israel, like any sovereign nation, is entitled to determine who enters the country. The applicable law is local law of the nation.

      Many, many countries use a visa system to determine who is allowed to enter.

      Many things will interfere with obtaining a visa. For example, a conviction for car theft will block you from entering the USA, even if you're from a country that doesn't normally require a visa to visit the USA (such as Canada or the UK).

      If you have certain communicable diseases, many countries won't allow you to enter.

      These "activists" publicly announced that they plan to visit Israel and break Israeli law. Many other countries would do the same thing.

      No visa for you.

  17. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately the likely to be pro-Israel raises if you are a Jew and decreases if you are a Muslim.

    But being a Jew doesn't mean that you necessarily agrees with everything that happens in Israel.

    In other words - which other sites can you suffer this on? I suspect that if the FBI comes in they can get a list of whatever they want as soon as they whisper "Terrorism" and "Patriot Act" - even if they are acting outside the US territory because a company owner providing a service in another company certainly doesn't want to end up on the terrorist list - which he/she will do if cooperation isn't provided.

    The Patriot Act and several other items in control by the US government is working well outside the borders of the US.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  18. Re:Rogue state by j35ter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, and this gives them the right to steal land, drive people out of their homes, assassinate activists around the world, secretly stash nukes, turn racism into law... ? Get real: Israel is a military/religious dictatorship with overly racist overtones; exactly the opposite of what the U.S. stands for.

    --
    Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
  19. make the list _the_ protest. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    it's pretty easy if they'd(these protesters) organize just a little bit to make that black list ridiculously big and include too many names that have nothing to do with anything. Israels policies are borderline ridiculous, everyone knows that, hence who the fuck wants to even go there? it's not a good protest to go there and dump money on them by staying over, you would think if more governments were up to scratch they'd recommend for tourists staying the fuck out of Israel and neighboring countries - every year it's the same shit, people oppressing some other people and 100km away it's the other way around and another 100km and it's some other branch of some other religion doing just the same - how the fuck can they receive tourists with an open heart when they can't even bicycle 100km from where they live in peace? so now they could organize those groups to include vast amounts of people and instructing people to copy paste the same threats to the isreali about protesting against them, that way you can make the list hit airlines and the list itself becomes a far larger movement than their pesky little planned excursion to israel(which by the way, wouldn't have mattered at all, they got protests going all year round).

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  20. Some Clarity... by RL78 · · Score: 2, Informative

    This story isn't about Facebook, as a company helping Israel blacklist these activists. This is a story about how Facebook's service was used as a tool to compile this blacklist. Slashdot, nor the linked article mean to imply that FB, the company actively provided any assistance other than what the service already provides, to everyone. When it's said the Facebook aided Israel in spying on the activist, the correct context again is that Israel used Facebook's services which aided in monitoring these individuals, in the same way FB aided the activists in coordinating their efforts.

    1. Re:Some Clarity... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      in itself it's actually a story of how easy it is to waste isrealis budget(and mental health, stasi officers don't enjoy good mental health for long).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  21. Re:Wikileaks says otherwise by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    What goods, exactly, are held back at the Israeli check points? Be specific. Food? No. Medicine? No. Water? No. Luxury goods? Some. Munitions? You bet your ass! Materials from which munitions might be manufactured? A lot.

    Maybe - JUST maybe - if the people in Gaza decided that they would start hanging Palestinians who attempted to build rockets, Israel might be forced to come to reasonable terms with the Palestinians.

    Hey, I resent the "settlers", for starters. But, as long as Palestinians want to fire rockets into Israel, I tend to shrug off the problem with the settlers.

    As I've always said - there are no "good guys" in this mess.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  22. Umm, duh? by Tridus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You mean if you plan things in a publically accessable area on the Internet, other people might read it and plan accordingly?

    Are these people really stupid enough to think this would somehow work? I guess for their next act they'll discuss plans to eat & dash at a restraurant by yelling the plans to each other right outside the restraurant front door?

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    1. Re:Umm, duh? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Are these people really stupid enough to think this would somehow work?

      Depends on what you mean by 'work'. If the Israeli government had just ignored them they'd have gone on a vacation, got a few articles in lefty newspapers and come home. Because the Israelis refused to let them in they now have global media coverage and didn't even have to go to Israel.

  23. Re:Rogue state by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    You mix up the official standpoint of the US and the standpoint by action.

    Look at all the action the US takes these days (actually since the beginning of the Reagan administration) and you see that the gun is what the US lives by in foreign politics, and "freedom" is a freedom from everyone not thinking "The American Way".

    Being an European citizen I remember thinking when Reagan entered office "Oh Shit - WW III is coming.". If the USSR hadn't bent over we may well have had that...

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  24. some clarity... by RL78 · · Score: 2
    I don't think /. or the article mean to imply anything other than what you took it to mean. The headline of the story

    Facebook help Israel Blacklist Air Travelers

    simply means that Facebook, the service helped Israel compile this blacklist, the same way the activists used it to coordinated their efforts. The context of how Facebook is used isn't clear from the headline, which actually makes it a good headline because people will read it. Hopefully they will understand once they do, that they were referring to the service, and not the company when they say Facebook.

  25. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because assholes come in many colors and shapes, tying greed and general antisocial behaviour to a group of people (where its members didn't choose to be part of it) is kinda nonsensical.

    If I'm an asshole to people, I chose to be that way. I didn't choose the color of my skin or the origin, religion or culture of my parents.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  26. Re:Wikileaks says otherwise by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    However - who controls the border to Gaza - even to Egypt?

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the Greece actions in the matter was controlled by a decent bribe - the corruption in Greece isn't unheard of.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  27. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Culturally oblivious ^

  28. Re:Doesn't say that Facebook helped Israel directl by rvw · · Score: 1

    And no it wasn't. (Think about why MLK needed to speak there?!)

  29. Re:Nothing new? by Linzer · · Score: 1

    Placing people on a no-fly list for associating with groups/causes that the state deems "terror-y"?

    I think the proper term is terrorish. At least that's what my grandpa says, and he's over 90.

    --
    Gravitation is a theory, not a fact.
  30. Re:Doesn't say that Facebook helped Israel directl by Pharmboy · · Score: 2

    I didn't get the impression that Facebook had done anything proactively, as you appear to have. Granted, not the clearest summary I have ever seen, but by /. standards, this is pretty clear.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  31. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by erroneus · · Score: 3, Informative

    I can't but the Pacific side of WW2 could have shown you a few.

  32. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by endymion.nz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, because the situation is now hopelessly fscked up and it's almost impossible to establish cause and effect for all the minor incidents that occur, we should all forget that Palestine was invaded, occupied and settled?

    --
    mediocrity rules, man
  33. Boycot Israel now! by gay358 · · Score: 2, Funny

    World and Palestinians have waited far too long. Israel does not want peace, it want's to continue it's ethnic cleansing. It is time for people in free world (not counting USA where this is apparently illegal) to boycott Israel in same way as South Africa was boycotted during Apartheid.

    If you see any product where the numbers on barcode start with 729, don't it! It comes from Apartheid country, that does routinely war crimes, tortures and kills people (including children), does slow motion ethnic cleaning etc.

    And if somebody tries to sell you some Israeli goods (especially if they are from occopied territories), refuse and say that you are opposing Apartheid (again, this might be illegal in USA which doesn't seem to allow this kind of consumer freedom).

    I even refuse meet people from dating sites if they are from Israel (unless they support Noam Chomsky type of thinking). I just say politely, but straight, that I cannot help not to think the extremely poor situation of plastinians if I meet people from Israel. And if I think the situation of palestinians, I cannot get any sleep. Therefore I cannot meet you, sorry.

    1. Re:Boycot Israel now! by Gryle · · Score: 1

      I even refuse meet people from dating sites if they are from Israel

      Well I wasn't convinced, but that statement made me a believer in your righteousness! Your Nobel Peace Prize is already on its way, good sir!

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    2. Re:Boycot Israel now! by gay358 · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is the case. in most (probably in all other TWO countries except USA) boycotting Israel goods is legal. And these anti-boycott laws in USA predate WTO. However, if you do boycotting by your own initiative (and not because urged by Arab league, then I think it is legal even in USA)

      And even if boycotting is not prohibited, the country itself is not boycotting other country (at least if it doesn't ask/require its citizens to boycott).

    3. Re:Boycot Israel now! by gay358 · · Score: 1

      Boycotting Israel in the land of "free", may cause you 10 years prison sentence, so watch out. BTW, it seems that boycotting Israel is illegal also in France, but a Jewish group which USA has classified as a terrorist group and which is illegal even in Israel (but many Jewish semi-terrorist groups are still allowed or even silently encouraged by Israel), is legal in France:

      French Activist summoned to court over Israel Boycott Video

    4. Re:Boycot Israel now! by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      I guess we won't be hearing from you for long then as Intel has a major development center in Israel and AMD is building one as well.

    5. Re:Boycot Israel now! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      While I'm not saying you're wrong, there's a lot of evidence that there are a lot of Palestinians who don't want peace either. And many Israelis do want peace.

      Israel is pretty small, and I don't really see how two groups of people, each of which have large sub-populations who want to exterminate the other, can live together in peace. Every way I've thought of (bar two) looks infeasible. And one of those would be denounced by people from every country in the world. (Collect all children under 5 years of age, and raise them collectively, under new names. As new children are born, collect them. ALL! If any religious indoctrination is done, require that equal amounts be done by every religion, and if any religion refuses, that prevents indoctrination by ALL the others. After 20 years, rethink things.) But I think it would work. Sort of like a super Kibbutz, but without allowing any parents to either know or have contact with their children...at least for 20 years.

      The other way is for one side to just kill everyone on the other side. That would only get about half the world upset with them.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:Boycot Israel now! by gay358 · · Score: 1

      Even if you cannot avoid buying some product made in Israel, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't boycott Israel when buying some other products which have alternative sources.

    7. Re:Boycot Israel now! by gay358 · · Score: 1

      Not building and extending the illegal settlements in occupied territories (which btw is a war crime) would surely help. Illegal settlements aren't needed even for any security purposes, but they make reaching more difficult or even impossible.

      In my opinion, the political leaders in Israel clearly do not want peace, because their actions for building illegal settlements speak louder than empty words. They want grab as much more land as possible and want to force Palestinians out -- which is also know as ethnic cleansing. This is the modus operandi of zionism and Israel was founded by forcing Palestinians out and never letting them back.

    8. Re:Boycot Israel now! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that aggravates things. As does building a wall through where people's houses used to be. But if you go back before that, you don't find peace.

      I'm quite certain that there are large segments on both sides that really DO want peace. Unfortunately, there are also sizable segments on both sides that don't. And one act of violence is a lot more noticeable than 1000 acts of peace.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  34. Re:Doesn't say that Facebook helped Israel directl by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like they bragged in public, using their own names. And nothing more.

    It's shit like this, Slashdot...

    o_O ...And this is is the part where I say you're a moron if you believe I don't use YOUR name, Paul, to brag in public about my anti-copyright protests.

    Well, perhaps I don't use your name; Maybe someone else does, and I use some other's name... In reality, without Facebook's Help, how would they verify that the IP addresses posting as Susan Someone really belongs to Susan, and not Jane?

    Are you suggesting that they just took the names and added them to the no-fly list without identity verification? Is this not even more outrageous?

    Go ahead. Continue to ignore the ease of which I can now use your name online to falsely incriminate you... If you are not outraged now, then maybe you will be when you can't fly, ride a train, get a driver's license, or vote because of something I said or did using your name?

  35. Re:Rogue state by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    A legal state of war... is the the political correct way of saying murder today? Just asking.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  36. Facebook wants your real name by NiklasD · · Score: 1

    I think this a good example why enforcing real names is evil.

    The activists had no other choice than using their real names, otherwise their accounts might have been blocked.

    --

    Don't drink and sudo

  37. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Oh c'mon, don't you learn anything in history these days? How about that one?

    Desperate people will take desperate means to achieve their goals. Regardless of religion.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  38. Re:Nothing new? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    How does this differ from what the US has done since 2001? Placing people on a no-fly list for associating with groups/causes that the state deems "terror-y"?

    A sovereign nation has the right to decide who can enter it. You may or may not agree with it (and for the record, in this case it seems a ludicrous overreaction) but nonetheless it's their border, their decision.

    Restricting movement without a bloody good reason inside someone's own country is a form of repression that, before September 11, was the kind of thing that you associated with the USSR.

    Can I choose my own prize? I'll take the all expenses paid opportunity to call you a fucking retard, thanks. No, don't gift-wrap it, I'll use it right now.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  39. Re:Rogue state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Those protestors in the syria borders actually tried to cross the border, I think that qualify as just cause. you try to cross a border to an enemy state and see what happens.
    On the issue of the flotilla boat last year: well, 8 people were killed, those people(and some others) attacked soldiers that came to arrest them. it got messy. are you THAT sure the soldiers are at fault? are you THAT sure that those 8 were not the aggressors? how come in all the other ships no one was hurt?

  40. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Patriot Act and several other items in control by the US government is working well outside the borders of the US.

    By 'working' do you mean the stripping away of people's civil, moral and legal rights?

    If so, I concur.

  41. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Desperate people will take desperate means to achieve their goals. Regardless of religion.

    I don't disagree, but I'm curious: how were the Japanese "desperate"?

    I'm pretty sure that the connection between Islamist suicide bombers and kamikazes has to do with extremist ideology/religion and not being "desperate".

    Despair is a universal human condition. There are desperate people everywhere. By itself it does not inspire one to mass murder. I have seen the triumphant video suicide notes of terrorist bombers and these men and women do not appear to be overcome with despair.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  42. Facebbook isn't a private forum by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2

    Why does everyone behave like the internet is automatically a private forum? At best, it is semi-private, and generally it is a public forum. These people started a public Facebook event. No spying necessary. Don't want everyone, including the authorities and people who may not like what you are doing, to know what you are doing, don't post it in a public forum.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  43. Re:Doesn't say that Facebook helped Israel directl by demonlapin · · Score: 2

    There is a difference between movement within your own country and being permitted to enter a foreign one, if your purpose is to stir things up. It's not as though they were blacklisted for forming a group of people on Facebook that were going to all meet at a beach party in Eilat.

  44. spy machine? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    its hard to call it a "spy" machine when its public access and you put your data there willingly for all to see. It is not much different if your group puts their pictures and 'hey lets do this' on the bulletin board in their local library or grocery store.

    Its a *voluntary* 'data collection machine'... nothing more, nothing less.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  45. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    In other words - which other sites can you suffer this on? I suspect that if the FBI comes in they can get a list of whatever they want as soon as they whisper "Terrorism" and "Patriot Act"

    Except the people being targeted by Israel using Facebook are not terrorists. They are political activists seeking to engage in non-violent protest.

    Now if you've really had a jeroboam of the kool-aid you could say that merely by supporting Palestine you become a terrorist, but if so you are beyond the reach of this discussion or really, any discussion.

    This is from the article:

    Israel has been jittery about the arrival of foreign activists since a deadly naval raid on an international flotilla that tried to break Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip last year. The incident, in which nine Turkish activists died in clashes with naval commandos, drew heavy international criticism and forced Israel to ease the blockade.

    You can watch footage of the "deadly naval raid" and it consisted of a Israeli commandos descending from attack helicopters firing automatic weapons into unarmed and empty-handed protestors. It was less a "clash" than a massacre.

    Israel's Facebook-spying is about keeping out peaceful protestors for public relations purposes.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  46. Assange was correct. by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    Was Julian Assange correct, when he warned that Facebook was a giant, 'appalling spy machine'?"

    Yes.
    Facebook has the potential for such uses, and we've learned that any such potential will be exploited.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  47. Re:Wikileaks says otherwise by gay358 · · Score: 1

    For example. construction material is not let into Gaza. Most oft he buildings Israel bombed in the latest massacres haven't been rebuild because of this.

    And at least quite recently (not sure if it is the case after the flotilla incident) even school books and shoes where prohibited. And there is constant lack of medicine and fresh water, which forces many of the refugees to drink salty water which damages kidneys and makes them sick.

    But people on Gaza have in some ways better situation than Palestinians in West Bank. In West Bank Israel is constantly making the illegal settlements larger and driving Palestinians away. Maybe the Palestinians in West Bank would be left alone, if they also would shoot rockets. It seems that force in the only language that Israel understands.

  48. Even shoes and clothes have been banned! by gay358 · · Score: 1

    It seems that after the lotilla incident Israel allowed at least once shipment of shoes and clothes in Gaza -- the first one in three years! But maybe shoes and clothes are weapons
    material...

  49. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    When they started the suicide attacks the war was pretty much a lost case for the Japanese. IIRC the first attack happened in the second half of 44 when they already lost most of the areas that provide any meaningful resources. The US had a decisive superiority of ships and planes by that time and shortages were common in Japan. The idea to trade a plane for a ship seemed logical, considering that this had a few advantages over the more conventional bombing/torpedo attacks. First, you conserved fuel (which was desperately short by that time): No reason to fuel the plane for a round trip, one way suffices. The planes could be built much cheaper (no reason for a sturdy landing gear or parts that sustain some damage, if it crashes during descent it's pretty much what it should do) and the chance to hit was a lot higher (the cynic in me would call it the first optical guided weapon).

    This is of course nothing you do if you're not desperate enough to send your people into certain death. Training a good pilot takes time. Suicide attackers rarely get more than a few hours of it. The most difficult operation, landing, can easily be omitted. Still, it doesn't really sit well with your people. Do you think any US soldier would go on a suicide run in whatever war the US is fighting currently, no matter how patriotic? How do you think the public would react to it? Now imagine the US get conquered and the enemy is near the heart of Washington, don't you think it would be a DAMN lot different, with people volunteering to sacrifice themselves for the country, and the public seeing it as a desperate but necessary sacrifice?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  50. Re:Rogue state by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    They SHOT and KILLED 8 protestors on a boat in international waters,

    Who were trying to break a legal blockade and attacked, using axe handles and steel pipes, a boarding party sent to inspect the ship

    they even shot protestors across the border in Syria recently

    who forced their way across in international border, ignored tear gas, verbal warnings and warning shots.

    , so I think these protestors stopped at the airport got off lightly.

    Really, it's just a murderous state,

  51. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by icebraining · · Score: 1

    Tried to invade who, if all the land was theirs in the first place? Palestine was there way before Israel was more than a dream.

  52. Re:Rogue state by Hatta · · Score: 1

    No, that sounds exactly like what the US stands for.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  53. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by LainTouko · · Score: 1

    I remember when words like 'racist', and others such as 'discrimination' were only used against people who were prejudiced, who were acting according to ideas which only existed within their own heads. I'm pretty sure the idea that Jews are more likely to support Israel than non-Jews is actually factual. It's not anything special about Jews; almost all groups of people have a tendency to support the organisations of those similar to them, but it's true nevertheless. And the existence of counterexamples doesn't mean you can't observe a general rule.

    If someone was to make a similar observation about something non-emotive - say, "that guy supporting the American sports team? He's an American citizen. What do you expect?" I doubt anyone would be jumping to point that counterexamples exist and suggesting the observation was racist.

  54. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by aleckais · · Score: 1

    Indeed. Search `Benjamin Freedman Khazars'. By a simple application of empirical induction, one may cast doubts on that rogue state's existence after 2018,19. They dig their own grave, world widely.

  55. You've got your generations and countries mixed up by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Instead of the above it's a fairly recent thing that grew from Pakistani and Saudi involvement. Even the Taliban were the kids that grew up in the refugee camps and came back to apply the harsh "morality" (eg. protect your women and rape any unprotected women) of a refugee camp to an entire country.

  56. Re:Rogue state by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    Steal Land;
    Five times in the last sixty years Israel has been invaded by its neighbours.

    Drive people from their lands
    When Palestine was partitioned Jews in the Palestinian areas were forced from their homes.

    assassinate activists around the world;
    If you consider Nazi scientists, PFLP leaders, PLO leaders, Hamas leaders, Black Sunday terrorists, and other terrorists to be "activists" then I guess they are guilty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations

    Secretly stash nukes;
    For a country surrounded by countries who want to destroy them I would think that nukes might be a great protection.

    Turn racism onto law:
    Here is a quote from the Hamas Charter
    "Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims." That sounds pretty racist to me.

  57. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

    One thing needs to be pointed out that almost always gets ignored is there's a difference between support for Israel and support for the Israeli government. As a concept, Israel as a county represents something important and core to Judaism. The Israeli government doesn't.

    --
    Bark less. Wag more.
  58. Re:Rogue state by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    It is not illegal to stash nukes. And Israel has an Arab/Moslem political party, and there are Arabs in the Knesset. Israel is more democratic than the US and it allows non-Jews to hold positions in government. Try finding an Arab or Moslem country that reciprocates.

  59. Re:Rogue state by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    You forgot that Jews were often locally blamed for bringing on the plague

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  60. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by CrazyDuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I support my favorite football team. I guess that means I'm on the football team.

    I support women's rights. I guess that makes me a woman.

    I support Canada's independence. I guess that makes me Canadian.

    I support the troops. I guess that makes me a soldier.

    Do I need to go on?

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  61. Re:Rogue state by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

    you can't convince 'em trolls. people who side with palestinians do not fully understand the mentality of such religious fanatics.

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  62. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

    It sucks that I need to say this explicitly nowadays, since in the past it would have been implied. But, no, I do not support terrorists, nor their acts. I find the entire issue of controlling people through irrational impulses an anathema.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  63. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Another case of abusing a tragedy after the fact for political purposes, in this case by militant Zionists?

    I don't want to support Palestinian terrorists either, but I'm starting to doubt that the US government should be behind the Israeli government 110%.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  64. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by number11 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Except the people being targeted by Israel using Facebook are not terrorists. They are political activists seeking to engage in non-violent protest.

    A "terrorist" is anyone that any government says is a terrorist. It's arbitrary. There cannot be any objective definition, because such a definition would include groups supported by the same governments (this applies to the US, Israel, France, and probably most other governments). "Terrorist", like "regime", is a word with great emotional content but little objective content. It applies to those a government disapproves of, but not those who it counts as friends or minions.

  65. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by ch0knuti · · Score: 1

    LTTE? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam#Suicide_bombings

    They were the first group to use explosive belts and vests.

  66. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by arisvega · · Score: 1

    How come this is not modded informative but -1?

    Because it was also modded by a Jew.

    --
    The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
  67. Greening the Dessert by Dollyknot · · Score: 1

    One route to sort out the mess in the middle east, is not to fight over useless desert, but to provide water to make much more land usable.

    The founders of Israel had a plan.

        http://discovermagazine.com/1994/nov/bettermedorredth452/

    Why they have not carried it out, baffles me.

    If the Jews set this plan into motion they would attract love and respect from the Arabs and the rest of the world.

    --
    It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
  68. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Jiro · · Score: 1

    People who chain themselves in front of abortion clinics are also "non violent protestors".

    Protests don't magically become harmless because they are "non violent".

  69. Re:Rogue state by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    Israel is a military/religious dictatorship with overly racist overtones; exactly the opposite of what the U.S. stands for.

    How is that the opposite of making the rich richer (which is what the US really stands for)?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  70. Well There's Your Problem by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

    Facebook aided Israel in cracking down on the group of activists from the UK, France, and Belgium who planned their event using the popular social networking site.

    Well there's your problem right there.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    1. Re:Well There's Your Problem by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much what I was thinking. How many times are people going to make this mistake before they finally learn that Facebook is the wrong place to plan these sorts of things?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  71. Re:Doesn't say that Facebook helped Israel directl by ChilyWily · · Score: 1

    Great point!! FarceBook does facilitate this kind of abuse and it is the "so-called authorities" who are now okay with equating suspicion as incriminating evidence and applying summary "justice" to the (unverified) offenders. My question: What good is it to create a list that is bogus and based on hearsay? The country/company end up getting bad publicity, the people on the list get offended (worse a real person with the same name may get harassed or worse) and FarceBook gets free publicity.

  72. Re:Doesn't say that Facebook helped Israel directl by Maestro4k · · Score: 1

    Well, perhaps I don't use your name; Maybe someone else does, and I use some other's name... In reality, without Facebook's Help, how would they verify that the IP addresses posting as Susan Someone really belongs to Susan, and not Jane?

    Are you suggesting that they just took the names and added them to the no-fly list without identity verification? Is this not even more outrageous?

    Well seeing as the people with those names actually did try to go to Israel to protest, yes, I'd say the people were stupid enough to use their own names in public groups to plot their protest and Israel was able to block them from entering the country. Now that it's happened once however, I don't expect it to work again, at least not as well. Next time Israel (or whatever country) will need actual confirmation from Facebook/etc. to get real identities, and they might not be able to get that information.

    And they didn't put them on any kind of general no-fly list, they denied them entry to Israel, which is well within Israel's rights. (They don't have to let anyone enter if they don't want to.) If they'd put them on a general terrorist no-fly list that affected their travel to other countries it would be outrageous, but they didn't do that, so no, it's not more outrageous. Using someone else's name would have had no impact on that person unless that person was also planning to travel to Israel.

    Go ahead. Continue to ignore the ease of which I can now use your name online to falsely incriminate you... If you are not outraged now, then maybe you will be when you can't fly, ride a train, get a driver's license, or vote because of something I said or did using your name?

    I'd be royally pissed off at you, more so than whatever I was blocked from. But that's not the issue here, the block was very specific (only preventing people from being allowed to enter Israel), not blocking them from traveling in any other way. Sure the potential is there, but so far it's not happening. I also don't see many other countries trying this and as I noted above, it's not something that's likely to work effectively a second time.

    I can't say I like this kind of thing, but Israel is within their rights to block entry to anyone they want, and there's no indication Facebook provided any non-public information to Israel in this case. So as much as I don't like it personally, nothing really shady's going on, and one would hope people using false names for something like this would pick a name of someone who was unlikely to be impacted. That is, make sure to use a name of someone unlikely to be traveling to Israel as their cover name for discussing a protest in Israel.

  73. The Right Rights by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    are we talking about people excercising what should be a basic human right to protest against a government they don't like.

    You speak of "rights" as if they are universal. Rights for people exist in different ways in different countries.

    The protestors have the "right" to protest in a lot of places. They could go almost anywhere to protest. Yet they chose Israel...

    Israel, as with any country, has the "right" not to let people into the country they do not want, and that includes those that are vociferous in the assertion Israel should not exist.

    I can't even think of a "right" that would be universal where you would be allowed to come into someones home just to tell them they should not exist. That doesn't sound like a "right". That sounds like a "wrong".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The Right Rights by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I missed this when I rtfa but nowhere do I see it mentioned that these protestors were there to tell Israel that it did not have the right to exist.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    2. Re:The Right Rights by stenWolf · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I missed this when I rtfa but nowhere do I see it mentioned that these protestors were there to tell Israel that it did not have the right to exist.

      You are, of course, correct.
      The protesters are merely there to assert the right of some unnamed third party to tell Israel it does not have the right to exist.
      Enabling someone else to call for a people's demise should not reflect upon your person in any way. I feel wiser.

  74. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    People who chain themselves in front of abortion clinics are also "non violent protestors".

    Yes, and as despicable and creepy as they are, we don't send commandos in to slaughter them. Nor do we track them on Facebook in order to put them on travel blacklists as the Israeli government has done to the protestors from the UK.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  75. So we shouldn't protest against wrong then... by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    The whole notion of the end being used to justify the means was debunked a long time ago. So whether Israel is fighting for it's survival as you imply or not doesn't justify their behaviour (and if Israel is so fragile that 200 foreign protesters could threaten it's survival then...).

    The US repeatedly basis it's support on the 'fact' that Israel is the only true democracy in the region- despite the fact that israel is has much more in common with Iran- both are run by religious fanatics interested more in their own survival that actually adhering to their religion.

    And as to your last point: perhaps if you had been around in the 1960s you'd have been busy telling Dr Martin Luther King Jr that he shouldn't bother protesting or trying to change things because 'there is no racial equality in America"? Or perhaps if you'd been around earlier that century you'd have been telling Emily Pankhurst not to bother fighting for the vote for women because "we've all admitted 'there is no right to vote for women'"? Or perhaps if you'd been around in early 19th century England you'd have been telling Williamn Wilberforce not to bother trying to outlaw slavery because 'there is no freedom for slaves"?

    The whole point of protesting is to get things changed and if that thing is 'bad' -for example pretty much the entire history of the behavious of the Modern Israeli state- then the protest deserves to succeed.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    1. Re:So we shouldn't protest against wrong then... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I alluded to my military background earlier. "Fortune favors the bold", or you can choose any number of variations on that often misquoted quote.

      The main reason I give Israel a break, is they have huge swinging brass balls, and don't apologize for them. And, the main reason I bash Israel is, they have huge swinging brass balls, and don't apologize for them.

      Bottom line is, they have taken on impossible odds, and won so far. To the military mind, that is commendable, even admirable. Now, if I were to discuss the concept of "justice", well - Israel doesn't even rank up there with the "respectable" nations. The concept of "might makes right" was supposed to have died around the time of the Magna Charta. Israel is stuck in the 10th century, right along with Islam, when it comes to "justice".

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:So we shouldn't protest against wrong then... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So whether Israel is fighting for it's survival as you imply or not doesn't justify their behaviour

      Oh yes it fucking does. Just like people, nations have a right to self defence.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  76. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    Show me the non islamic suicide bomber.

    The Tamil Tigers killed the Indian Prime Minister, Sri Lankan President, sunk the SLNS Sagarawardena and blew up the Sri Lankan central bank killing 90+ and injuring 1400+, all with suicide bombers, some of them women.

    In 2010 Andrew Joseph Stack III flew his private plane in to the IRS offices in Austin.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  77. No, you're wrong. by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    You couldn't be more wrong in fact.

    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    1. Re:No, you're wrong. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I didn't see anything there about having a human right to visit a foreign country and cause trouble there.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  78. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by stenWolf · · Score: 1

    Are you referring to Syria, by any chance? You know, the Syria the Palestinians, to date, still embrace wholeheartedly?
    If by any chance, you were referring to the Israelis, please provide some proof to back your allegations. Any of them.

    You claim the Flotilla members were non-violent. That assertion has been proven wrong (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG0EfG8mnAo/).

    You claim the commandos had been sent to slaughter them. That also is false. (same video, note the use of paintball guns)

    You claim you do not put people on travel blacklists if they did not demonstrate willingness to commit violent acts against you, yet you did so. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/08/iranian-officials-travel-blacklist)
    ""The UK is working closely with its partners to prevent a wide range of individuals connected with Iran's nuclear enrichment and weaponisation programmes from entering our countries. These include scientists, engineers and those procuring components," Hague said in a statement."
    scientists and engineers are put on travel blacklist by the British government? A government is exercising it sovereignty against civilians who had done nothing illegal or violent against it? good grief!

    In short, most of your allegations are false. Please provide some shred of logic and facts to support such allegations in the future.

  79. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Surt · · Score: 1

    Nah, racism/discrimination are and always have been applied to those who treat an entire group of people as if they are all the same. For example, just because the average IQ of blacks in America is factually lower than whites does not mean you're not racist if you assume that the current black person you are dealing with is unintelligent as a result, and you're definitely discriminating if you don't hire them for a job for that reason.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  80. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    I don't disagree, but I'm curious: how were the Japanese "desperate"?

    They were desperate in late 1944 which is when they started launching kamikaze attacks. They were NOT using kamikazes in 1942 when they were flying high and winning battles all over the place. In fact they would've laughed in your face if you suggested it.

    I'm pretty sure that the connection between Islamist suicide bombers and kamikazes has to do with extremist ideology/religion and not being "desperate".

    Well you're wrong, and you need to read some history. Suicide attacks are always a desperation measure of last resort. Nobody does them unless they feel there's no other way to retaliate.

    Germans as far as I know don't have an "extremist" religion, and even they resorted to suicide attacks late in the war when all hope seemed lost.

    And Islam was just as an "extremist" back in the Crusader days as it is now. But back then, the Muslims actually had an army that was competitive. So when foreigners invaded their land, they launched a military offensive to kick them out. And they succeeded after a while.

    In 1947 when Israel was created out of Arab land, the Arabs didn't launch suicide bombers. They attacked with their army. Again and again. It is only after they failed for the umpteenth time and realizing they have absolutely no chance of defeating the Israeli/USA alliance, that they started resorting to suicide bombers.

  81. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by stenWolf · · Score: 1

    I am willing to donate up to 20$ to help you buy any credible history book from amazon. You choice. Just please - read it.

    Palestine, to your utter amazement and horror never existed. before the British mandate the Ottoman empire ruled. as a distinctive land it only existed, to my recollection, during the crusades. Would you claim the mamluks were the invaders and the region should be pan-european?

  82. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by couchslug · · Score: 2

    JEWS ARE NOT A RACE.

    Judaism is a superstition like all other religions, which one may adopt or reject at will.

    Your first sentence was fine, but there is ZERO excuse for confusing RACE with RELIGION with ETHNICITY.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  83. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1
    CrazyDuke writes:

    I support the troops. I guess that makes me a soldier.

    Hamas writes:

    "Attacking settlers is a natural thing," al-Rashk told Al-Hayat on Saturday, saying the "Zionist settlers are the occupation's first reserve military force."

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-official-israeli-settlers-are-a-legitimate-military-target-1.312108

    Well guy, I guess your statements ring out the truth for at least one of the players on that team.

  84. Re:Rogue state by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Israel requires perpetual war to survive. I don't care about Jews or Muslims (or superstitionists of any sort!), but existential struggles logically trump "morality" which is merely something to be invoked against enemies. Because an enemy doesn't use violence is not a _logical_ reason not to use violence on them.

    The idea of distinguishing between peaceful existential war and violent existential war is silly for Israel. Kill Muslims or be destroyed. There is obviously no alternative, and the casualties are so tiny that the rate can be maintained forever by BOTH sides. They do.

    The US supports Israel because Christians demand it, and because Islam in its current form is the enemy of modern secular civilization.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  85. Re:Rogue state by couchslug · · Score: 1

    The US doesn't stand for anything except own advantage, just like other countries.

    I could actually care less about Israel or its competitors.

    The ideal outcome would be a Middle Eastern nuclear war where all these backward superstitionists destroy each others "Holy Places" so humanity can laugh at their imaginary friends as we do other "dead deities". Religious belief is so contemptible and so backward that its adherents destroying each other is just dandy.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  86. Re:Israel = the new Nazi Germany by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Corrie asked for it.

    In an existential struggle there is zero reason not to kill your enemies. The ideal set that says "exalt your enemies above yourself and yield to them" is absurd.

    BTW
    Judaism is the cause of Jew hatred world wide. Insert ANY superstition and that diagnosis fits.

    You can, instantly, stop being a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian or cease to adhere to ANY superstition.

    Your superstition isn't a biological trait and it's not a race, It's a CHOICE.

    It's only a SUPERSTITION JUST LIKE ALL RELIGION. Walk away from the nonsense. It's no better than Scientology.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  87. Re:Doesn't say that Facebook helped Israel directl by houghi · · Score: 1

    Not only Facebooks help, but also the ISPs help. In Belgium that would mean that either the ISP has broken the privacy law that says that NO information may be given, unless given by a court order. Not even a policeman in uniform will be allowed to get it.

    In three different companies I have policemen said to get out and come back with a court order. I also said that I would already do the investigations requested and put it aside for when they would come back.

    Somehow I don't believe that that has happened. If that would be the case, those people could at least sue the ISPs and perhaps even the state, depending on what comes up. And they would win.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  88. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Jews and Muslims, are, after all, enemies in that Judaism and Islam are competing exclusive superstitions.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  89. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are a victim of the Terry Gilliamesque, "Brazil"-style coverage of world events.

    Suicide bombing in, the modern era, was introduced and maintained for a couple decades by Hindu Tamil separatists, in Sri Lanka.

    The "suicide belt" and "suicide vest" - as well as the use of young women as bombers and blast decoys originate here, and are far more institutionalised and part of ongoing strategy by the Tamil Tigers.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  90. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Well you're wrong, and you need to read some history. Suicide attacks are always a desperation measure of last resort.

    In what way were the attacks of 9/11 a "desperation measure of last resort" rather than an offensive attack? A "desperation measure" suggests they had no other option. There was a world full of targets of opportunity. Just the fact that there were (and are) so many soft targets indicates very specifically that 9/11 was not a "desperation measure of last resort". How were the London subway bombings a "desperation measure of last resort"? The attackers were comfortable middle class muslims.

    Germans as far as I know don't have an "extremist" religion, and even they resorted to suicide attacks late in the war when all hope seemed lost.

    I'm not sure which history you're reading, but suicide bombings were never a strategy for the Germans. There may well have been some individual German troops or commanders, but it was never seen as a means to an end the way it was with the Kamikaze and the way it is for extremist muslims today.

    There is no widespread strategy of suicide bombing without extremist ideology or religion.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  91. This just in by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Today's news: âFreedom Flotillaâ(TM) Organizer says Jews Are âPigsâ(TM).. Right there in his own fucking words. Speaking to a sympathetic audience in his own language - who would have thought someone would translate it?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  92. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Well guy, I guess your statements ring out the truth for at least one of the players on that team.

    No, the most you can guess from the story at that link is that the Israeli press is promoting a particular perspective on the Palestinians.

    The mainstream Israeli press is even more a tool of powerful groups with a particular ideological bent than the US press. Compared to the mainstream news media in the US and Israel, Soviet-era TASS is a piker.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  93. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    You can watch footage of the "deadly naval raid" and it consisted of a Israeli commandos descending from attack helicopters firing automatic weapons into unarmed and empty-handed protestors.

    Biased much?

    (yes, I've seen the videos - they're nothing like what you just described - but unlike you, I will simply suggest that people look them up and make their own mind)

  94. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    Any sources other than the Old Testament?

  95. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    Tamil Tigers were, they invented the suicide vest.

    http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/january/tamil_tigers011008

  96. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2
  97. More got in than was expected by DSS11Q13 · · Score: 1

    I happened to be in Palestine this past week when the protests happened and have lived there in the past. Because people were saying, upon their entry interview, that they were coming to protest human rights offenses, they were expecting Israel to turn them right around. I don't know the percentages of course, but there was a very sizable group of foreigners (a couple hundred I would guess), that seemed to make it in and do their protests. As someone with tons of Palestinian contacts, and who travels to Israel (and the occupied territories) frequently, I make a habit of disabling any social media for crossing airport security.

    *awaits slashdot to give up my personal date to Israel in order to blacklist me*

  98. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by WNight · · Score: 1

    We need to realize that terrorist is an objective term, and our soldiers are terrorists by all rational standards.

    "Shock and Awe"

  99. Re:Rogue state by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Israel is a military/religious dictatorship

    Last I checked, Israel has free and fair elections.

  100. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    A total of 13 such attacks.

    Either way, you could certainly say that an extremist ideology/religion was the impetus for these attacks.

    My point stands. In the absence of such extremist ideology or religion, there is no suicide bomber. They are the strategy of insanity, not of despair.

    Find me a suicide bomber that was not an extremist religious or ideological freak.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  101. Re:Israel = the new Nazi Germany by aleckais · · Score: 1

    Have a look at this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/7961211/Hitler-had-Jewish-and-African-roots-DNA-tests-show.html Note that by Ashkenazi (!) is meant a people of non-semitic ancestry: just like the vast majority of Talmudists and Palestine's post 1948,9 colonizers: eastern Europe's Khazar descendants, phallus-worshiping mongoloids Talmudized somewhere in the 8th or 9th century after Christ. The anti-Semite myth is quite pervert: the accusers do convict their own self. Ask yourself why on earth the Yiddish tongue has almost nothing in common with Hebrew, except symbols, that is.

  102. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3

    "paintball guns"? Are you shitting me?

    That "analysis" is just ridiculous. We've got Israeli commandos descending from ropes with automatic rifles onto the deck of a civilian ship in international water and then complaining because the unarmed occupants of the ship defended themselves.

    The effort made by the western media to make Israel appear to be the "victim" in this is unbelievable. They kill 9 civilians and then complain that they're the victim. Claiming that "shaking the rope" that they're using to board a civilian ship is an excuse for slaughter.

    It's getting harder and harder to support Israel without asking some serious questions about how their own behavior has contributed to the problem. This conflict has been going on for more than a half-century. They are not winning any new friends and are losing some of the current ones. When your existence depends upon powerful benefactors, petulance does not help.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  103. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    yes, I've seen the videos - they're nothing like what you just described

    I described the incident as "Israeli commandos descending from attack helicopters firing automatic weapons into unarmed and empty-handed protestors".

    Were they Israeli commandos? Did they descend from attack helicopters? Did they fire automatic weapons? Were the protestors armed? Did the commandos kill 9 of them?

    Maybe you could point out where I'm wrong. There is a straightforward video of the incident.

    I am inclined to be on the side of people who have built an impressive country in the middle of the desert after having a very horrible history throughout the world. For a lot of years I could accept that they were the victims of unprovoked attacks and that was the entirety of the story. in 2007 on a visit to Israel I spent some time in Gaza, met some people, saw some things. Saw the settlements going up. Saw bulldozers destroying the homes of Palestinians just trying to make a living, feed their families. It's not such a black and white issue to me any more. There is blame to spread around. After more than a half-century, hostilities do not continue unless both sides are culpable to a certain extent. Israel is not blameless.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  104. Terrorism watch list? by random_ID · · Score: 1

    Interesting that peaceful activists would be added to the terrorism watch lists, no?

    1. Re:Terrorism watch list? by random_ID · · Score: 1

      Oh, and now that I've RTFA, I see no mention is made of terrorism watch lists... bad summary is bad.

  105. TP by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You couldn't be more wrong in fact.

    Ask the Chinese how well that applies.

    I can post a story too saying we all have a right to ice cream, but it doesn't mean I'll be coming home with a cone. The reality is that countries have different rights.

    Also, did you check to see if the protestors rights are covered in the fantasy document you posted? Wouldn't it be funny if you made such a glaring mistake?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  106. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    I assume you refer to the Mavi Marmara boarding; if not, please correct me.

    Can you link to a video that shows Israeli commandos descending from a helicopter ("Black Hawk" is not an attack helicopter, by the way, it's a transport) and immediately firing into unarmed protesters? Because the videos I've seen show commandos descending one by one, not firing, and being mauled by the crowd ("unarmed" only in a sense that they didn't have firearms; but plenty of blunt melee weapons, and there are documented knife wounds on IDF soldiers) waiting for them on the deck.

    FWIW, the commandos they didn't even have any automatic weapons - when it came to the fight, they used their backup pistols, since their primary weapons - paintball guns - were non-lethal and highly ineffective. Even then, they had only started using firearms after the first batch was subdued, and their arms removed from them by the passengers and used to arm themselves.

    There is some claim that there was fire from the chopper before boarding; however, I'm not aware of any evidence presented to that effect. All previous boarding attempts (which were caught on video) - from boats - show the use of stun grenades and paintball guns; the soldiers descending on the deck also had paintball guns. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to fire live rounds from the chopper, and then send troops with non-lethal weaponry to mop up. UNHRC report which makes this claim (and which seems the primary source for it) is light on facts in that regard - it pretty much admits that it is based on witness reports (from those on the ship, hardly an impartial party), and the fact that most gunshot wounds on the victim were in the upper half of the torso. Considering the present membership of UNHRC, I'm inclined to assume significant bias on behalf of that body, and so I would need more evidence to be convinced on this point.

    One other reason why I believe that sequence of events to be highly unlikely is because it only happened on one ship. On other ships - where the passengers did not try to put up violent resistance - there were no live rounds fired, and no casualties. This is consistent with Israeli claims that boarding parties were given rules of engagement that only authorized the use of lethal weaponry in case of imminent threat of death or bodily harm - which is what they encountered on board of Mavi Marmara. If commandos were authorized to use live rounds from the get go, before or during the initial boarding, why didn't they do so on all other ships?

  107. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    Friendly fire. Then the cover-up.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  108. Missing the point somewhat by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

    Surely the point is that exercising freedom of expression in a democracy (UK) resulted in people being placed on a terrorism watch-list with the cooperation of western companies (airlines)?

    Assuming that the story is accurate in that respect...

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:Missing the point somewhat by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Surely the point is that exercising freedom of expression in a democracy (UK) resulted in people being placed on a terrorism watch-list with the cooperation of western companies (airlines)?

      Assuming that the story is accurate in that respect...

      Israel hasn't stopped anyone in the UK exercising their freedom of expression in the UK. Israel is not obliged to let potentially troublesome people enter their country.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Missing the point somewhat by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      Surely the point is that exercising freedom of expression in a democracy (UK) resulted in people being placed on a terrorism watch-list with the cooperation of western companies (airlines)?

      Assuming that the story is accurate in that respect...

      Israel hasn't stopped anyone in the UK exercising their freedom of expression in the UK. Israel is not obliged to let potentially troublesome people enter their country.

      Wow, are you a government spokesperson - "potentially troublesome".

      That as it may be, in what possible universe should these people be on a terror watch list?

      --
      Read Pynchon.
  109. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    On other ships - where the passengers did not try to put up violent resistance - there were no live rounds fired, and no casualties.

    "Violent resistance". What kind of resistance do you put up to someone boarding a ship in international water?

    Why were they boarding, exactly? By what authority? They weren't on their way to Israel, they were on their way to Palestine, and the ship was not in Israeli water?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  110. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Dude, you really must not be familiar with Haaretz. It is a left-leaning pro-peace paper.

    The same way that the New York Times and the Washington Post and ABC, NBC and CBS are "left-leaning"?

    Maybe the way The New Republic is "left-leaning"?

    People say the New York Times is a liberal, "left-leaning" publication but they still enabled the Bush Administration to lie us into two wars. The Washington Post is said to be "left-leaning" but consistently puts forth a very distorted, corporatist view of events and issues.

    You don't have to be a right-wing outfit like Fox News to have a particular agenda that does not fit with the honest description of events and issues.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  111. do other bears video tape them doing it? by decora · · Score: 1

    just wondering.

  112. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    According to the customary law of the sea as it stands, it is legal to attack and/or board ships in neutral waters that "are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and if after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture" (per San Remo Manual summary of the law). The ships in question had a publicly declared goal of breaching the blockade, so it would seem to apply. To the best of my knowledge, no-one disputes that the boarding itself was legal if the blockade is legal. The legality of the latter is disputed, but at that point we are into very murky territory, since it hinges on whether "the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade", and in particular if it "has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival" - and both are very subjective measurements which are easy to reinterpret according to one's biases.

    Anyway, my point was not to debate the legality of the boarding in the first place, but rather to dispute your account that IDF went in guns blazing. All in all, I think that soldiers at the scene had shown remarkable restraint to use lethal force (compared to e.g. US police - consider how long it would take a cop to decide to draw out a gun if he sees someone swinging a metal pipe at his partner).

  113. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    The Tamil Tigers. Nationalists, not religious or ideological freaks.

    Suicide bombers for Fatah, also not religious or ideological freaks, just plain old nationalists.

  114. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Why did 9/11 happen at all, hmm? It's interesting that nobody ever asked this question, why the attack on the US? Israel? C'mon, not enough of a hassle, especially since Ozzy was not only the CIA's lapdog for the longest time but also because he had little, if any, involvement with the anti-Israel attacks from Palestinians.

    Personally, I think it was retaliation for something. An attack this size ain't something you do unprovoked. "Hey, it's Tuesday, let's bomb the US", that's not really a motivation. There's lots of other, more "sensible" targets for an Islamic terrorist. Even aside of Israel. They could have turned on Iraq for suppressing the more radical Muslims (well, the US took care of that now). Or on India to support Pakistan, which would have been heaps closer to home. Attacking the US was strategically very insensible, so the only reason can be that the US somehow managed to piss Ozzy off enough that he wanted to retaliate, and retaliate hard. And somehow I doubt it's Israel. Else, he would certainly not have accepted US support to get shipped to Afghanistan and fight Russia instead of sending his suicide dummies simply across the border.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  115. Re:Facebook - Owned By A Jew. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Very good points, Opportunist.

    I get the feeling that if you're right, whatever set off the "insensible" retaliatory direct attack on the US happened in Afghanistan, possibly in the last years of the Soviet quagmire.

    That would put it during the Reagan Administration, which makes perfect sense. Evil begets evil.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  116. Reading comprehension by alexo · · Score: 1

    This is a common myth, particularly in the US. What actually happened was that contrary to the plans of the UN/UK/US to split Palestine in two, the Jewish Agency (zionists) unilaterally declared indepenence in 1948 and called themselves Israel

    Actually *reading* the page you linked to:

    "The Jewish community accepted the plan, but the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee of Palestine rejected it. On December 1, 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and Arab bands began attacking Jewish targets."

    which in turn triggered the "war of conquest" with the Arabs

    And again:

    "On May 14, 1948, the day before the expiration of the British Mandate, the Jewish Agency proclaimed independence, naming the country Israel. The following day, the armies of four Arab countries â"Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq â" attacked Israel, launching the 1948 Arabâ"Israeli War; Saudi Arabia sent a military contingent to operate under Egyptian command; Yemen declared war but did not take military action. After a year of fighting, a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders, known as the Green Line, were established. Jordan annexed what became known as the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip."

  117. Re:Doesn't say that Facebook helped Israel directl by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    Regardless of what HAS happened, it's important to note what CAN. Or are you truly a Fool?

    Also, This is illogical:

    one would hope people using false names for something like this would pick a name of someone who was unlikely to be impacted. That is, make sure to use a name of someone unlikely to be traveling to Israel as their cover name for discussing a protest in Israel.

    If you think I'm NOT going to use false names of people who will be MORE likely to be unjustly wronged by the system that I am protesting against, you are sadly mistaken.

    Logically, which makes more of an impact? -- Using false names that get hunted down a dead end path, or using real names that further draw attention to the issue I'm protesting when the oppressors inconvenience others needlessly?

    ITT: Fools remaining fools, despite their "enlightenment". A fool learns from their mistakes; A wise man learns from the mistakes of others -- I put it to you that a wiser man need not wait for the foolish mistake to be made at all.

  118. Israel got it right by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    Instead of submitting everyone who enters their country to electronic groping (or physical), they do _detective work_ to identify the threat even before it gets to them. I recall, but cba to find and link, the article about airport security in Israel and how they profile people from when they reach the front door, and have intelligence agencies dedicated to finding and stopping potential terrorists _before_ they get to the airport.

    America (the TSA) could learn a lot from them.