Slashdot Mirror


Technical Glitch Lets Reporters Eavesdrop On Obama, Sarkozy

Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that a technical glitch allowed reporters to listen in on a private conversation between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama, made in a backroom meeting at the G20 summit, treating listeners to a rare insight into the importance of personal relationships in international politics. 'I can't stand him any more,' said Mr. Sarkozy of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 'He's a liar.' Mr. Obama replied: 'You're sick of him. I have to deal with him every day!' According to Reuters, the two presidents were apparently 'unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.' The reporters made 'a group decision... not to report the conversation as it was considered private and off-the-record,' but Arrets Sur Images, a French website that covers current affairs, got wind of the exchange and broke the story."

411 comments

  1. 2 people agreeing is news? by Servaas · · Score: 4, Informative

    2 people agree the another is an ass. What is the news?

    1. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Servaas · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh wait its the Israeli guy their complaining about? Oh shit that is news... Never had a -5 before...

    2. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by joocemann · · Score: 1

      fanboys suck. good luck with your visibility.

    3. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It suggests that even politicians loath politicians and find their company insufferable.

    4. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Agreeing he's an ass is different than an unchallenged assertion a foreign leader is a liar. That's potentially very serious. What's he lying about? Was he lying when he said didn't like frog legs for dinner, or lying when he said he wouldn't build more settlements?

      Just because they think he's an ass doesn't mean their policy goals don't align. Charles De Gaul worked very hard to be a major PITA for the allies, but that was what he needed to do.

      This is bad from both sides of the political spectrum too, to the left, if he's a liar, why are we making agreements with him that he won't follow? And to the right, why are we not standing up for our ally? This is going to send them in wonderful circles because everyone hates the French, (believe me, I'm canadian we *really* hate the French), but Israels status is more... ambiguous.

    5. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Blymie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm Canadian too, and I have no idea what you mean when you say "We really hate the French".

      Perhaps you shouldn't speak for a whole nation, when you're merely speaking for yourself, or your peer group?

      I grew up in Southern Ontario, in a small community without a single Quebecer or French person around for hundreds of miles. I now live in Quebec, and (clearly) have no problem with "the french". I moved here because I live in the Capital region, and I can get an acre of land, 20 minutes from downtown Ottawa, surrounded by farmland, for 1/2 the price of a home on the Ontario side!

      I do have issues with *some* french people, but I also have issues with *some* people from a broad spectrum of society.

      I think what you really hate are 1) mostly quebec politicians and 2) dumbasses that happen to be french.

      Suck it up buddy. #1 and #2 exist in every culture group, and language group, and genetic group, worldwide. ;)

         

    6. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      we're not talking about Steve Jobs here... i think GP will remain visible (though i can't vouch for this post)

    7. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having known quite a few Canadians (mostly from the west) they don't really hate their "french" countrymen so much as find them amusingly ridiculous. But maybe that is how Canadians hate, who knows.

    8. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by jd · · Score: 1

      It's my understanding that if a Canadian hates you, you mysteriously end up in the middle of an Ice Hockey brawl with no protective gear.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by timotten · · Score: 3, Funny

      But you still get free medical care afterwards.

    10. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by 246o1 · · Score: 2

      Agreeing he's an ass is different than an unchallenged assertion a foreign leader is a liar. That's potentially very serious. What's he lying about? Was he lying when he said didn't like frog legs for dinner, or lying when he said he wouldn't build more settlements?

      The second one, if you have read any news.

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    11. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The jews are involved so obviously this is an anti-semetic scandal tantamount to the Holocaust, and both Obama and Sarkozy will be immediately impeached. On the other hand, Helen Thomas must be chuckling to herself.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by diegocg · · Score: 1

      Apparently, everybody is supposed to love and support Israel. At least if you are a US politician.

    13. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Jibekn · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Canadian here as well (born and raised in BC) and I'de take a job in France in a heartbeat, I love their culture and their socialist ways. Please do us all a favor and never speak for another human, ever.

    14. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hell I am French Canadian and even *I* hate French Canadians... which is why I live in Costa Rica.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    15. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Jibekn · · Score: 2

      No, we make you play goal with no mask.

    16. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone in a peace-respecting, legitimate country hates that person.

    17. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All three have nuclear weapons.

    18. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're anyone else you're supposed to abuse and murder their citizens. As usual.

    19. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by mirix · · Score: 2

      This, I'm from western Canada and am seriously thinking about moving to Quebec. Better weather, cheaper real-estate, cuter girls, better food, nicer architecture.

      Of course, I'd have to learn better language than my current cereal-box grade french.

      Quite a few folks here have a fairly strong dislike for quebec... They have probably never been there, though, so it's hardly an informed decision.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    20. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It suggests that even politicians loath politicians and find their company insufferable.

      When Country B is carved from the heart of Country A, and Country B is admitted to the UN, but Country A cannot because they can't learn to be civil with being deprived of their homes, property and liberty. Further, Country B builds settlements in the remaining occupied lands of Country A, despite it being viewed universally as an illegal act. So after a lot of tit for tat and really never getting anywhere with peace talks, Country A decides to press its case for recognition in the same forum which recognises Country B. Country B and its bigger mate, Country C, both get all excited and claim this would not be a good thing and not in the interests of peace talks (which haven't yielded anything in about 30 years.) Country A gets recognised by UNESCO, overwhelmingly and Country B is apoplectic, while its mate, Country C, claims this was a grave error and withdraws its tuppence of support for UNESCO. Country B strikes back by authorising even more settlements in occupied territories claimed by Country A.

      Honestly. Country B and its leader would normally be shunned and subject to many and various sanctions sponsored by Country C, but only if it were any other country in the world, or so it seems. The situation is preposterous and the logic is broken. Sarkozy identified the elephant in the room. Even Obama recognised how problematic it can be. When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    21. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Andrewkov · · Score: 2

      Better weather? Where are you from, Yellowknife?

    22. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      The news is that the reporters are puppets for their respective governments and didn't report it. Notice the only part of the conversation to get made public is the tabloid naughty talk. There was probably all sorts of real news in there, but we're sure as hell not going to hear about that.

    23. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by jd · · Score: 1

      Of course! They've got to train the student doctors on something^Wsomeone.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    24. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Blymie · · Score: 1

      There are many areas of Quebec that are very unilingual friendly. I live in an area that has almost a 50%/50% split of english/french language, and it is very rare to go to a store where you can't get service in english.

      Of course, by some odd and strange course of events, this is also the poorest municipality in Quebec. :P

    25. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      You're going against the flow. Quebec is the leach on the RoC (Rest of Canada). Albertans pay $4,000 per taxpayer per year into the equalization fund, and Quebec sucks out $1,200 per capita (not per taxpayer) from that same fund, because Quebec has spent a generation destroying their economic base.

      It's debt is much higher than any other province, and its tax rates are nuts - someone earning minimum wage pays more in provincial taxes than someone making $50k in Alberta.

      That's what happens when you pass stupid laws encouraging businesses to locate anywhere else. They move, and all the head-office jobs and spin-off jobs (research and development, etc) go with them.

      Last one out turn out the lights ...

    26. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      Oh wait its the Israeli guy their complaining about? Oh shit that is news... Never had a -5 before...

      Acknowledging Netanyahu is a two-faced, backstabber is the news - but do keep in mind, he's only doing what the people behind him want and that % of the population of Israel has been in the majority and more bent than ever upon just taking the whole of Palestine from the Palestinians - their book says it was their's and after hundered of years they've decided to come back and claim it. Quite unapologetic, too.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    27. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by scot4875 · · Score: 3, Informative

      When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?

      Probably never, because any acknowledgment of Israel's dirty deeds is equivalent to anti semitism and means you like Hitler.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    28. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      You're going to have to narrow that down a tad, you just described every nation on the face of the earth, down through history.

      Canaan for the Canaanites!

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    29. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by geekoid · · Score: 0

      You say that like its a bad thing!

      That was a joke. Some people may find it in poor taste, but it's a joke none the less. One that should be sent to Family Guy.

      Yeah, I better post anon... but I won't.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    30. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by jyx · · Score: 2

      When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?

      When you can get more than one person in a room to have a discussion that does not apply words like 'villain' or 'innocent' to either side (both having a long history of inflicting nasty deeds and suffering on the other).

    31. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You really area clueless, clueless person, are't you? Have you ever posted anything that shows you have an understanding of the subject matter?

    32. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ???

      Most people that I've talked to in Canada have absolutely no issues with Quebec (which is beside the point... the article and OP were talking about the French, not the Quebecois... and I can guarantee that Quebec is mostly not self-loathing).

      Let's see... Albertans pay $4,000/yr into the equalization fund, and Quebec sucks out $1,200/capita. Sounds like a good deal; a lot of the fund gets to go to other parts of Canada like the east coast, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Isn't it great living in a Socialist country, where we help each other out?

      Debt/Tax Rates:
      Quebec:
      Income over But not over Rate
      0 $39,060 16%
      $39,060 $78,120 20%

      Ontario:
      5.05% on the first $37,774 of taxable income, +
      9.15% on the next $37,776, +
      11.16% on the amount over $75,550
      $78,120 - 24%

      British Columbia:
      5.06% on the first $36,146 of taxable income, +
      7.7% on the next $36,147, +
      10.5% on the next $10,708, +
      12.29% on the next $17,786, +
      14.7% on the amount over $100,787

      Quebec seems slightly more expensive, but not by much. Alberta is the exception to the tax rules in Canada, as most of the taxes are generated via the Oil industry. Alberta has decided to destroy a portion of the province for profit instead of extracting the money from working citizens. Note also the lax of provincial tax that all other provinces endure.

      Alberta is an anomaly, as it has a flat-rate 10% income tax... this means that someone earning minimum wage in Alberta is paying 2x that of anyone else in the country except Quebec. However, further up the tax chain, Albertans are paying significantly less than anyone else.

      Personally, I'd prefer to preserve bits of our country for our children than to wring all the profit we can out of the land and the people.

      Anyway, what about the French? I feel like they've lost relevance in North America -- even Quebec isn't trying to emulate France anymore. People don't tend to hate those they consider irrelevant. They just dismiss them as not worth thinking about.

    33. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by JDAustin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your logic is flawed as their was never Country A. There was Empire A's mandate under the UN that included land that Country B was formed out of. When Country B was created, all the country's around it decided to try to drive them into the sea rather then work to create separate Country A and Country B. Also add in the Country A's people's traditional homeland was in the western part of Country J, not where Country A / B is. Do forget that Country B's neighbors would rather have Country A's people living without a country as it provides the dictatorships in these countries with issue to inflame their own populace away from the general crappiness of these countries.

      Yea, trying to portray Israel as a villain only works in a vacumn....

    34. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having known quite a few Canadians (mostly from the west) they don't really hate their "french" countrymen so much as find them amusingly ridiculous. But maybe that is how Canadians hate, who knows.

      Amusingly ridiculous in some ways. Horribly privileged in others. It is very hard to get rid of utterly incompetent french Canadians in government--more so than it should be. In addition, you have the fact that many government officials are forced to learn french to pass a certain test *regardless* of how well they do their job or whether they interact fluently with french-speakers in their job. It costs the taxpayer a fortune.

    35. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      destroy a portion of the province for profit.... wring all the profit we can out of the land....

      So... do you drive a car?

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    36. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by billcopc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's right. Some of us have evolved beyond such primitive territorial quarrels. We tend to get annoyed at the societies that are still shedding blood over imaginary lines on a piece of paper.

      Israel, on the other hand, is still living in the past, fighting a tired old war where the only way it could ever end is by having one side completely genocide the other. Winner gets a mound of dirt covered in the rotting dead flesh of their vanquished enemies. Israel vs Palestine, Iran vs Iraq, Sudan vs South Sudan... Brother vs brother. If they can't put in the effort to bury their grandparents' feuds for the greater good, then why should we be putting any effort into helping them ?

      If I were Sarkozy, well I'd probably kill myself for being such a turd. But if I were any other UN member leader, I'd tell the Israeli PM to go fuck himself. We have enough irresponsible leaders in the developed world, we don't need to recruit the morally bankrupt ones.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    37. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      Apparently, everybody is supposed to love and support Israel. At least if you are a US politician.

      Yes. U.S. Politicians aren't "everyone," but you are generally supposed to support Israel if you are one, because you lose a lot of support at home if you do not--there are a lot of American Jews who feel strongly about it, sometimes rationally and sometimes irrationally. Even if you don't get them to vote against you, you will lose their participation in votes for you and in fund-raising for you and in media-coverage for you, all of which hurts. You can take a stand against Israel, but it has to be very carefully done. Or else you need to not need re-election.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    38. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Lots of countries have problems with internal minorities that don't like the dominant ruling group. Mostly the world is indifferent to their internal squabbles. Sure the world pays lip service to the Chinese oppressing Tibet or Nigeria and the Ibo or Iran's mistreatment of its Kurds but no one really does anything.

      Israel has formally annexed parts of the west bank.
      Israel has built and continues to build lots of very expensive permanent infrastructure on the west bank for its people.
      Israel has moved around 10% of its population to the west bank.
      Israel has no intention of giving up the west bank. It is a pipe dream.

      Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated air force, advanced missile technology and advanced IT.
      Israel is a country with a history of attacking first and starting wars when it feels corned or threatened.
      Israel's natural desires are for chaos in the middle east, and damn the consequences for oil production.
      Why would the world want to pick a fight with Israel over them wanting to beat up on an indigenous minority?

    39. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?

      Right about the time the Islamist stop expressing their displeasure by blowing up the olympics, airliners, school buses, and unrelated foreign journalists.

      Right about that time.

    40. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by theVarangian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yea, trying to portray Israel as a villain only works in a vacumn....

      People B left their land for a variety of reasons during Roman times. People A (The ones who stayed behind and are provably very close genetic relatives of People B) continued living there under various foreign rulers for over a thousand years during which they abandoned the religion they shared with people B in favor of Christianity and later Islam. People B come back, after over a thousand years, decide they want 'their land' back, drive people A into concentration camps where they live in squalor and misery. Meanwhile people B live a good life financed by the tax dollars from their good friend country C who also provides them with high tech weapons free of charge.

      White-washing Israel works best in a right wing, christian conservative or jewish zionist delusion.

    41. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Fri13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That same thing happened on 1942 between Hitler and Mannerheim... in that case, it was national radio worker luck that the recorder was on same cabin where they were talking.

      It is only recording where Hitler is speaking in privat. Not even Hitlers bodyguard recognized Hitler on it by first as the voice is calm and rational.
      http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-24880.html
      http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/10807-conversation-between-mannerheim-hitler.html

    42. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by frinkster · · Score: 1

      It suggests that even politicians loath politicians and find their company insufferable.

      Country A gets recognised by UNESCO, overwhelmingly and Country B is apoplectic, while its mate, Country C, claims this was a grave error and withdraws its tuppence of support for UNESCO. Country B strikes back by authorising even more settlements in occupied territories claimed by Country A.

      The United States is prohibited by federal law from providing support to UN groups if that group has member states which are not recognized by the full United Nations body. President Obama warned Sarkozy and the Palestinians to knock it off before the United States is forced to stop providing funds to UN groups that really matter like the International Atomic Energy Agency. You know, the people trying to keep Iran from getting The Bomb.

      To their credit, Sarkozy and the Palestinians now understand the implications and have agreed to stop.

    43. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      I like how you call the Jews the immoral ones, even though you started out with pseudo-equivalence for the "Palestinians." I suppose your solution involves the Jews to stop fighting back when attacked, since they have no "moral right" to self-defense, being as how it's only about "imaginary lines on a piece of paper."

      If these "imaginary lines" don't mean anything, surely you won't mind if I help myself to the stuff you have inside your "imaginary lines."

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    44. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your logic is flawed as their was never Country A.

      There were however people living there. These were arbitrarily deprived of their liberty and their property to assuage the West's blood guilt. Their descendants are still living as displaced people in what little remains of their own homeland (traditional or otherwise) where they are constantly subjected to state violence. Oddly enough, they are not happy.

      Also add in the Country A's people's traditional homeland was in the western part of Country J, not where Country A / B is.

      For that matter Country B's traditional homeland (at least since Roman times) was in countries K to Z. Probably the better solution would have been to give the Jewish people Australia's sparsely populated Northern Territory.

    45. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by tomhudson · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Slightly more? You quoted the tax rates for Quebec, Ontario, and BC. Quebec is 50% higher than next-door neighbor Ontario, (and the tax actually kicks in at a lower rate), and more than 3x the rate of British Columbia.

      Couple that with the lower average income in Quebec, because of 40 years of provincial anti-english sentiment chasing out most of the head offices, and it's a disaster.

      Oh, and the provincial sales taxe, which went up 1% to 8% January 1st, are going up another 1% next January 1st.

      Also, your "omeone earning minimum wage in Alberta is paying 2x that of anyone else in the country " is a flat-out lie, Alberta exempts the first $16,825 of income from ANY provincial income tax.

      Now, when go to spend that money, Alberta's provincial sales tax is 0%. Quebec - as of January 1st, will be 9.975% (because they also tax the 5% federal sales tax - a tax on tax).

      Also, Alberta gives much more generous deductions for people with a disability, or caring for someone at home, etc. Add to that that the average Alberta income is more than 2-1/2 times the average Quebec income, and Quebec sucks.

      Quebec is the most corrupt province in Canada. Where do you think all those scum telemarketers operated from? Quebec - because Quebec's political class has been engaged in economic warfare against its' citizens for almost 40 years..

    46. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by jthill · · Score: 1
      I've been trying to find an open letter written around the time Israel was established. I only dimly remember the body, and I can't remember whether he openly referred to Winston Churchill's speech on the mere prospect, but this man and his country were facing the reality: occupation, unprovoked. He was much less quotably, much more quietly, just as eloquent. The people there had no reason to give a good God Damn for where anybody came from, that had been their home for a thousand years. The man described the situation, in detail and closed with

      What would you do?

      Our answer will be the same.

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    47. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Moryath · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sigh.

      "And this is why we can't have nice things."

      It's much, much more complicated than that. The "Palestinians" have had numerous opportunities for statehood from the early 1900's onwards. They've rejected peace option after peace option after peace option, beginning with several offerings from the British (who ruled the Manate of Palestine through 1947) and then launched an all-out war when the original UN partition plan was put into place.

      This was AFTER they were already given the nation of Transjordan, into which no Jews were allowed to emigrate.

      And of course, those who scream about "Palestinian refugees" ignore the fact that the stolen land intended to become the Nation of Palestine in 1948 was taken over, not by Israel, but by the nations of Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Iraq, and Egypt. The "Palestinians" were made "refugees" ON THEIR OWN LAND as a cynical political ploy by the Arab League and the Pan-Arabist factions, nothing more. And they still fail to acknowledge the number of Jews - at least twice the number of so-called "Palestinian refugees" - in Arab states in the years 1948-1955 who were kicked out, their houses and property confiscated, and forced to move "somewhere" (e.g. Israel) by those same Pan-Arabist forces and governments.

      But you probably never did the slightest research into the subject. Because to you, it's all about "one side good, other side bad." The Jews have been kicked around and harassed by just about everyone for the past 2000 years. The "Palestinians" of the region have been abused by their so-called "brethren" the Arab Muslims, turned into a group of impoverished and locked-up people in one of the worst and most inhumane cynical political ploys I've ever seen. Meanwhile, the terrorist forces running the "refugee" region have attacked everyone they could find - tried to assassinate the leaders of Transjordan/Jordan numerous times, attacked the Egyptian government so often that the Egyptians said "fuck this" and put up a wall between themselves and Gaza a long time before the Israelis finally caught on to the wisdom of the idea, and of course waging a bloody-ass civil war in the south of Lebanon for the past two decades.

      For my money? The Arabs - specifically, the Pan-Arabists, the fundamentalist Arab governments especially - are a bunch of fucking assholes. The leaders of the "Palestinian" movement? Likewise. The leaders of Israel? Probably assholes too, but they are tasked with an incredibly hard position, trying to keep a nation of a few million people safe from a group of hundreds of millions of assholes in nations like Iran who are told at Mosque once a week that the Jews will be "destroyed" in the apocalypse and that the Jews aren't even human. So I can cut them a little slack there.

      Oh, and the people stuck in the middle - the few civilians in the "Palestinian territories", the civilians in Israel? Sucks to be them, on both sides.

    48. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Where in CR?

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    49. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Moryath · · Score: 1

      2 assholes agree another guy is also an asshole. What is new?

      There. Fixed that for you.

      Rule #1 of politics: all politicians are assholes.
      Rule #2 of politics: when in doubt, refer to rule #1.

    50. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by billcopc · · Score: 1

      I am French Canadian, and I hate the French! Well, not quite, but I hate the idiocracy of Quebec, with its high taxes, low education, and glut of unemployed teen mothers. They're not unemployed from a lack of available jobs, they're unemployed because it's better to stay on welfare, collecting that baby bonus on top of their welfare cheque while popping babies with that cockroach of a boyfriend in mom's subsidized apartment.

      There is a pervasive culture in Quebec of doing as little as needed to barely get by. It's so sloppy that if I'm dealing with a Quebec company, I immediately assume they're chumps, because any entrepreneur with even half a brain would move his business to a place where taxes are lower and the talent pool is deeper - but that would mean competition, so the lazy stay in Quebec where the contracts are easy and the clients are blood-related :P Every society will have its share of inbred bottom-feeding swine, but the government of Quebec actively encourages it with excessive welfare provisions while sticking everyone else with the bill.

      Myself, I did the opposite of you, I moved to Ottawa from Quebec. Sure, the rent is a bit steep, and people think paying $8 for a beer is somehow normal outside of a strip club, but then I pay nearly $10k less income tax, presumably because this province doesn't spend anywhere near as much on parasitic neanderthal turbo-breeders. I can't think of any good reason to invest in the people who won't even invest in themselves. If rampant welfare is the answer, then Quebec must have asked a really stupid question.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    51. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      If the Palestinians deserve to be collectively punished for their support of the killing of innocents, what makes the rest of the world any different?

      Many nations support, or at least do not condemn the actions of the Israeli government. Therefore, they should be collectively punished.

      And I think the number of civilian casualties from Palestinian terrorists is still lower then the number of Palestinian civilians killed in reprisal.

    52. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your logic is wrong, but even worse - its irrelevant. Country B is about to lay waste to Country A and Country D (Country D is the one that is getting a nuke to take care of pesky country B). So you see it does not matter what country A,C,and E-Z care. B is about to end D. Watch and learn.

    53. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?

      Calling "Israel", a villain is like calling a black-belt a murder. Time for some history. They were there first, and got the boot. We helped them come back in 1948, and took half of what the Arabs, claimed. Rather than accept the new borders, and live in peace, Palestine went ape-shit. Israel happened to win, and to the victor goes the spoils. Rather than accept defeat, like a civilized country, and negotiate peace beneficial to them both, Palestine cries about how unfair life is, and has several more ragefests till now. As a result, Israel gets some massive level grinding done, and becomes even more powerful. Palestine can't figure out when to give up, and starts blowing stuff up like a 5 year old.

      You claim that Israel is the villain, but I don't see Israelites blowing up houses in Gaza. I'm not saying Palestine is evil, because it isn't, but the people of Palestine, as well as radical Islamics, have some serious growing up to do.

    54. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by billcopc · · Score: 0

      That's funny, because from Ontario my impression is that Alberta is undertaxed. Calgary and Edmonton are the D.C. of Canada, where countless corporations and wealthy individuals establish themselves to avoid taxes.

      Quebec's tax rate is actually quite favorable to the poor, compared to Ontario, and extremely punitive to practically anyone above minimum wage. If I were to move about 2 miles north of here, back to Quebec, I'd be paying nearly $10k more in income tax... for nothing. The buildings are older, there's no significant customer base for my professional services, the roads are poorly maintained, and there's exponentially more riff-raff just dying to break into my home and steal my shit. Pretty much the only business worth establishing in Quebec is a freakin' payday loan and pawn shop. Crabs in a bucket.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    55. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your logic I don't understand why the US of A is not working hard to give *all* the land back to the native americans.

    56. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Guachi...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    57. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      What is it, exactly, that you think just happened in Libya? You do realize that most of the 'resistance' came from other countries, and the agenda being pushed in Libya (from outside) isn't exactly one of indigenous familiarity or comfort.

      That whole affair was, hand and foot, sponsored by the UN. Hell, they carried out most of the conquest themselves.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    58. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      We tend to get annoyed at the societies that are still shedding blood over imaginary lines on a piece of paper.

      Do you like it when your neighbor lets himself into your house, shits in your toilet, looks through your wife's/girlfriend's underwear drawer, and helps himself to your coffee?

      Or do you just leave the door unlocked and open so that he and his friends can do that?

      Sorry, boundaries are there for a (good) reason. "Good fences make good neighbors." This is as true as it is between nations as it is between neighbors. Cultures are not intrinsically compatible (in fact, most are not).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    59. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Attacking first? What about the other countries that keep sending rockets into Israel and/or people bombing busses?

    60. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your logic is flawed as their was never Country A. There was Empire A's mandate under the UN that included land that Country B was formed out of.

      So Country A was called "Empire" rather than "Country", and their territorial claims were also backed by a UN mandate? That sounds like it strengthens the case that there was a Country A.

      When Country B was created, all the country's around it decided to try to drive them into the sea rather then work to create separate Country A and Country B.

      Not really relevant. If South Africa, say, had been attacked by its neighbours, it would still have been shunned for apartheid.

      Also add in the Country A's people's traditional homeland was in the western part of Country J, not where Country A / B is.

      Traditional homeland? From however-many-centuries ago? Why should that make a blind bit of difference to people living in the present?

      Do forget that Country B's neighbors would rather have Country A's people living without a country as it provides the dictatorships in these countries with issue to inflame their own populace away from the general crappiness of these countries.

      Not really relevant. To use the South African example again: if some other countries were in support of apartheid, it would still have been wrong.

      Yea, trying to portray Israel as a villain only works in a vacumn....

      Israel? I wrote this entire post without thinking about what "Country A" or "Country B" were.

    61. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Canadian too, and I have no idea what you mean when you say "We really hate the French".

      hmmm. I smell a rant coming.

      I now live in Quebec,

      facepalm
      you almost had me there for a second - well a decisecond anyway.
        In America we don't have this argument.

    62. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you like it when your neighbor lets himself into your house, shits in your toilet, looks through your wife's/girlfriend's underwear drawer, and helps himself to your coffee?

      Isn't that point that Israel has let themselves into Palestine's house, shat in their toilet, etc etc.?

    63. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by rev0lt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, because they have been kicked around and harassed, they have the right to do as they please? And how convenient of you to omit the influx of jews to what now is Israel after they assisted Britain in taking control of the territory in 1917. But when the arabic population revolted against what could have been seen as an "invasion", and the brits imposed restrictions on jewish immigration, they turned on them. During the post-WWII era, the palestinian territories were flooded by holocaust survivors.
      Now think about this - pick a nationality you don't like very much and/or has different values than yours, imagine that suddenly your whole neighbourhood is populated by those guys, and when you complain they tell you "god gave me this land". You call the authorities and the court decides "ok now your whole neighbourhood is a different nation where their law and values are followed - not yours". Would you accept it?
      It is hard to be sympathetic to the Israeli position- they are a nuclear nation, they have as allies some of the more powerful countries in the world, and israeli jewish interests have a lot of weight in international politics - and not necessarily those of the muslim population who also are israeli citizens. Also, the hipocrisy of some Israeli allies is staggering - I'm shure the american right wing would be delighted to have a new nation forced by the UN on their territory, called for example "new new mexico", or "chinazaquistan", as a way to solve their immigration problems.
      I'm not defending the extremism against Israel taken by their neighbours (and religiously I really don't care about muslim or jewish deities, or any kind of deities), but one must be blind to not see the manipulation and hipocrisy of their government, and their seemingly overwelming political and economical influence.

    64. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Except that they also use the "self-defense" excuse to attack without military provocation. Can your colleagues punch you in the face now, because someday you may be an asshole to them? Tought so.
      Given the military capability of Israel, usually their self-defense is like shooting the kids who threw rocks at your window with a laser-guided missile.

    65. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Wait, so who's on first?

    66. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?

      The United States was carved out North America the exact same way. Mass migration and settlement. The only difference between the United States and Israel is that the United States killed most of the Native Americans as they went along.

    67. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Micklat · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be great, then, if Israel bothered to create a boundary between it's 1948 acquisitions, where everybody is a citizen, and its 1967 acquisitions, where almost everybody is a non-citizen (aka in your analogy as a "neighbour")? For some reason the Israeli government and public fail to see the wisdom of "good fences make good neighbours". The most consistent reason they give for this is that they got this land from God and now it's theirs.

    68. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      I said the French, not the Quebecois. The French, as in those bastards (notably De Gaul) who tried to stir up the FLQ into separatism from France. The French, who, in a presidentially election, that has *nothing* to do with Canada pontificate over whether France should support Quebec separatists (or Corsican separatists). The French, who, when we're pushing hard to reduce nuclear weapons in the world, go and test some in the south pacific. The French, who, when we're trying to coordinate a military operation in a foreign country (Libya, Afghanistan) decide they're going to do their own damn thing, and leave the rest of us to sort things out and, we (being gratefully for their help) are trying to not fuck them over in the process.

      You know what, if quebec wants to stay or separate, that's their business, and it's not really my place and an English canadian to judge their experience in this country. But it's not the place of the French to stick their noses in the business of Quebec either.

      Also, it was somewhat tongue in cheek. The French are right on a lot of things, especially in foreign policy - like the Americans, it's how they go about it that's problematic. But there's a classic sterotype of everyone hating the french (which of course is hyperbole).

    69. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I think the number of civilian casualties from Palestinian terrorists is still lower then the number of Palestinian civilians killed in reprisal.

      You THINK???

    70. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?

      Why do you hate Jews?

    71. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      Oh and I didn't mention the whole business with the EU, where the French are, essentially, asking us to get into their trade sphere so we can help bailout the PIIGS. I'm not really sure why we'd want to do this (VIA the EU at least), and loathe as I am to give the conservative government here credit, they managed to avoid being forced to publicly tell the French to go to hell, but they seem to have managed that behind closed doors.

      Oh and they're selling warships to the russians, and well... we and the russians are squabbling over a few things (which might be stupid, but our own allies, selling weapons to our enemies doesn't make them great friends in my book, that worked out so well for the British on the receiving end of exocet missiles in the Falklands).

    72. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your logic I don't understand why the US of A is not working hard to give *all* the land back to the native americans.

      Because we were smart enough to annihilate them.
      The Jews let the Palestinians live so they can feel victimized and use the attacks as an excuse to leech from the US.

    73. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?

      The United States was carved out North America the exact same way. Mass migration and settlement. The only difference between the United States and Israel is that the United States killed most of the Native Americans as they went along.

      Despite years of broken treaties and harsh treatment, the natives do have the full right of suffrage, can hunt and fish according to custom and even get loads of money back from stupid gamblers. Were I a chief I'd advise the patient practice of buying back the land with the revenue of the casinos. Beat the invader using his own rules, sorta thing.

      Can't say the same for the Palestinians, who once outnumbered the Jews & Christians of the region by about 10:1, but now are outnumbered by the Jews, as Israel grants full rights, citizenship and suffrage to anyone with the right bloodline, no matter where their family has lived for untold generations.

      Bit of a difference, really

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    74. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Well, the Israeli guy is head of a government that's oppressing another nation with a blockade and other restrictions, so yeah it's news.

      Now, before you jump for that downvote button... this is the game every country has played the world over. Practically every square meter of livable land has changed hands hundreds of times since humans walked the Earth. Israel is just one of the more recent victors. The issue now is that Israel is treating what remains of Palestine like the Soviet Union treated Poland and other nations they absorbed - like complete and total shit. Either finish conquering their land or leave them the fuck alone.

    75. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Xaositecte · · Score: 2

      Eh, if every other surrounding neighborhood had a culture similar to my own, and felt so strongly about it that they were willing to go to war to try to throw that new incoming nationality out of my neighborhood, only failing because they weren't strong enough to succeed militarily...

      I'd move to one of those surrounding neighborhoods.

    76. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?

      Calling "Israel", a villain is like calling a black-belt a murder. Time for some history. They were there first, and got the boot. We helped them come back in 1948, and took half of what the Arabs, claimed. Rather than accept the new borders, and live in peace, Palestine went ape-shit. Israel happened to win, and to the victor goes the spoils. Rather than accept defeat, like a civilized country, and negotiate peace beneficial to them both, Palestine cries about how unfair life is, and has several more ragefests till now. As a result, Israel gets some massive level grinding done, and becomes even more powerful. Palestine can't figure out when to give up, and starts blowing stuff up like a 5 year old.

      You claim that Israel is the villain, but I don't see Israelites blowing up houses in Gaza. I'm not saying Palestine is evil, because it isn't, but the people of Palestine, as well as radical Islamics, have some serious growing up to do.

      Do a Google Earth of Gaza strip some time, population about 600,000 living in scant square miles of slums. Those people once lived where a lot of those nice Israeli kibutzes are now. Many pushed out at the point of a rife, accompanied by the words, "This was our land and now we're here to take it back. Move!"

      Watching a few prisoner swaps over the years, it seems the exchange rate on lives is one Israeli is worth a few more than a thousand Palestinians. Betrays some truths about how people on either side view the others. There's answers in there if you can figure out the questions correctly.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    77. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      Dude, Genocide worked pretty well for us in America.

      I mean, there are a few natives still out there, but alcoholism is gonna finish'em off in a few more decades.

      I hear wonderful things about what genocide did for the Australians, too.

    78. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Walkingshark · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The real news that everyone seems to be missing is the part where Obama says, "I have to talk to him every day."

      Why is the President of a country as large and powerful as the US talking to the leader of Israel that often? (I'm sure he didn't mean literally every day, but obviously more than once or twice a week)

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    79. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by syousef · · Score: 1

      2 people agree the another is an ass. What is the news?

      It is when those people represent hundreds of millions.

      Heck it's news when a film star or rock star is caught backstabbing another, why wouldn't it be news when it is world leaders???

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    80. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by syousef · · Score: 1

      Guachi...

      I hate people from Guachi, Costa Rica. Every single one of them I've met are racists! :P~~~

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    81. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's much, much more complicated than that

      No this really isn't more complicated than that. If "God" hadn't awarded certain tract to a certain group of people this WOULD HAVE NEVER STARTED! Unfortunately "God" seemed to have awarded it to both and to each exclusivity. If religion wasn't fueling the difference between the sides it WOULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED LONG AGO. Why doesn't this "God" take the time to end all this strife and suffering instead of dicking around superimposing himself on toast?

      The main problem is religion and always has been. Lose or even greatly diminish that force multiplier and suddenly humans become reasonable. At least enough to achieve some type of relatively peaceful secular coexistence.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    82. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Egypt 1954, Egypt 1967, heavy espionage activity in the 1970s, etc...

    83. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by renegadesx · · Score: 1

      Actually Netanyahu leads a minority Government, where his party does not have a majority but he has the confidence of the Parliment (namely his party and other parties in a coalition). Out of a 120 seat parliment, his party only got 12 seats (compared to the current opposition party's 28).

      Bibi is not only held by his own party, but he has to make his coalition partners happy, unfortunatally for many people (particuarly the ones in Tel Aviv) this means pandering to the ultra-orthodox extremists like Shas.

      --
      Make SELinux enforcing again!
    84. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by HJED · · Score: 2

      Actually to US is required by federal law (which can/should be changed) to not support any UN groups that allow Palestine (specifically) to be a member. If the US wanted to play fair and respect human rights they could repeal that law. Furthermore laws that effect a countries diplomatic policy are considered part of its diplomatic policy.
      Saying "sorry we have a law against that" is not a valid reason by itself for doing what the US is doing.

      --
      null
    85. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by HJED · · Score: 1

      You claim that Israel is the villain, but I don't see Israelites blowing up houses in Gaza. I'm not saying Palestine is evil, because it isn't, but the people of Palestine, as well as radical Islamics, have some serious growing up to do.

      You should watch the news more, you might find your views corrected or is it only bad when it isn't done by a massive military force breaching international law?

      Time for some history. They were there first, and got the boot.

      Yeah in Roman times, most people except that if you have left somewhere with no plans for returning even for a decade you no longer have a claim, never mind several hundred years. Israel exists as compensation for the treatment of the Jews in WW2 and to stop a holocaust occurring again.

      --
      null
    86. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Similar culture"? Just because some of the people in the neighboring countries are of arabian descent too?
      Syria has additionally to the Arabs Kurds, Cherkessians and Armenians, the president of Syria is neither muslim nor christian (like a percentage of the Palestinians), but Nusairian. Lebanon is half christian, half muslim, and in Lebanon, first several christian militias killed between 1000 and 1500 people in Karantina and then the Kata'ib (drusian militia) with the help from the israeli military police killed between 500 and 3000 palestinians in the both camps Sabra and Shatila. Jordan, where most palestinian refugees live, had several conflicts with Israel about water resources, and wishes nothing more than to get finally rid of the state-within-state refugee camps on its territory. 50% of Jordan's population are descendants from palestinian refugees, with most of them living in the both towns Amman and Zarqa (where more than 90% of the population are palestinian), and in the 10 remaining refugee camps. Basicly this means that native Jordanians and Palestinians never mixed - the native Jordanians own the land, and the Palestinians live in the towns and refugee camps.
      The only place where palestinians are land owners and are also the majority are - tada! - the West Bank and Transjordan. And this is the territory Israel cuts through with its settlements, some of them legal (on "state owned" land), some of them illegal, but still protected by the Israelian army.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    87. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I think Obama and Sarkozy did this on purpose. Its a message to Israeli voters. I realize that it is a translation from French, nit the wording is just to careful to be genuinely spontaneous. Didn't Sarkozy think to use any of those wonderful French swear words?

    88. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Builder · · Score: 2

      I think he said deal with him, not talk to him. That doesn't necessarily involve personal contact on a daily basis, but might just mean having to consider his potential reaction when making decisions or dealing with fallout from his issues.

    89. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our PM is not a puppy. He has the interest of our country in mind, and fighting the ignorance in the world, and Arab oil interests in your hypocritical countries, is not an easy task. If that makes him "annoying" to the honorable presidents, well... too bad.

      Unfortunately for me, your knowledge of history is lacking. It's not your fault, I guess you've never actually cared enough to study the matter in depth, gather historical facts that go beyond what you can hear in the media, or a basic course given by your non-objective schools. However, know that your lack of knowledge and understanding, and therefore the opinions you speak, hurt everyone's cause, but mainly that of the people of "Country A", you so much care about. It's a complicated matter, and ignorant simplifications like your own only perpetuate the sufering in these teritories.

      To get things straight, I will mention a few facts. I wish they will at least ignite some skepticism in your false arguments. I know a tldr is expected, please try to give it a shot.

      1. The land of Israel (Palestine / Country A / whatever) was barely populated before the 19th century. It was a desert and wasteland. The area was the slums of a dying Otoman empire, and you cannot claim that in whole it was owned by anyone other than that empire. Defintely not by a handful of residents that covered a negledgible area of it.
      2. During the end of the 19th century, the Jewish people started to populate the unpopulated areas of Palestine. Nobody would imagine they could conqure anything by force at that point. They brought knowledge, they brought money, and they brought a whole lot of work. No one kicked anyone out of any home at this point. As the number of Jewish employers grew, so did the Arab working population. Eventually, hundreds of thousands of Arabs came to Palestine as work immigrants from Egypt to Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.
      3. During WWI, long before the Holocaust, the region was recognised as a resonable place for a Jewish state. It was not instead of anyone. No one was to be kicked out.
      4. During that period, the arabs in the region (not just in Palestine), understood that their plans for dominating the whole region will be sabutauged. This caused the locals to initiate murderous attacks over who used to be their nighbors and employers.
      5. The British mandate came to an end when the UN agreed that Palestine will be separated to two country: JEWISH country, and Arab country. The separation was such that a relatively very small Jewish and Arab population had to move to their matching areas. They Jewish people agreed. The Arabs did not.
      6. Israel was announced, and immediately all the Arab states in the whole region launched a massive attack to exterminate the Jews that were rightfully there. By some miracle, they have failed misurably.
      7. The truth about our war of independance is nothing like to what you seem to claim. No one jumped from the docking ships (but Holocaust survivers) and ran to conqure the region by murdering all the Arabs or driving them away. It was a conflict, started by the Arabs, against the local Jewish population that conqured nobdy, in order to drive us to the sea. And yet the Arabs that stayed in Israel, live the best lives of all Arabs in the region.
      8. Since the establishment of the state of Israel, we are under constant threat. We had to defend ourselves in several wars meant to destroy us. We have never initiated an attack. We have never provoked.
      9. We are constantly under terror attacks by the same group that perpetuates the suffering of the 1948 refugees, instead of building them homes.
      10. A huge amount of these so called refugees are Arabs that came to Palestine just a few decades earlier to work. The UN definition of "refugee" was altered especially for the Palestinians, to grant them this status, so even people that lived only two years in Palestine, would be considered refugees (the normal definition requires their roots to be here).
      11. We are trying to make peace with the Palestinains for decade

    90. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?

      Oh please, EVERYBODY is talking about it.
      Problem is, there's nobody else in the middle east to do business with.

      For all the billions sunk into the Palestinians, what exactly have they shown for it? still broke. still eternal victims. still no infrastructure for an independent state.

    91. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Uncle+Tractor · · Score: 1

      Yea, trying to portray Israel as a villain only works in a vacumn....

      Portraying Israel as the villain works because Israel *is* the villain, or to put it more accurately; the zionists are the villains. This is a lopsided conflict. Israel is a racist state. It was founded as a european colony in an arab part of the world. Even the "founding fathers" of zionism knew that ethnic cleansing was necessary to create a jewish state in a non-jewish part of the world (jews were less than 10% of the population in the area in the mid 1800s, and exactly 0% of them were ashkenazim). And yes, the arabs have done all sorts of stupid things as well.

      Simple question: Where are the borders of Israel? Do they include the WB? If not, why is Israel building all those colonies (plus infrastructure) there? If yes, why aren't the arabs in the WB allowed to vote in israeli elections? After all, we keep hearing that Israel is the "only democracy in the region." When will Israel start acting the part?

    92. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting real bored with this defense. Have you ever considered why country A was called "palestine" before Country B came on stage?

      And this business of "the neighbours driving into the sea". What do you think would happen if suddenly the UN decides that Wyoming will from now on be "regiven to the Indian tribes that used to live there". A large part of the native americans in the US move there, and they declare that they are from now on an independent state. How do you think that it's neighbours Nebrasca, Colorado, Utah and the rest of the US are going to welcome them?

      I appreciate that it is tempting for the Israelis to consider that they were rightfully given a piece of land, but they should have long long long ago realised that the gift they received was not for the giver to give. The longer they continue on this path, the longer they are going to dig their own hole, and the worse will be the final situation for them.

    93. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you like it when your neighbor lets himself into your house, shits in your toilet, looks through your wife's/girlfriend's underwear drawer, and helps himself to your coffee?

      Isn't that point that Israel has let themselves into Palestine's house, shat in their toilet, etc etc.?

      With the major difference that Israel refuses to leave afterwards.

    94. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't even see him use the word 'Jews' - I saw Israel and Israeli.

      Do you have a reading problem or is just harder to pull emotional blackmail without bringing the religious part into it?

      Oh and it wasn't self defence when they carried out a terrorist bombing campaign on the Brits to 'encourage' them to leave in the first place - it was murder plain and simple.

    95. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by FTWinston · · Score: 2

      and suddenly humans become reasonable.

      You do realise this is humans we're talking about? We're never going to be reasonable!

    96. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accept when you actually know Israelis who make it clear they setup machine guns on the wall and gun down innocent Palestinians.

      Defending Israel only works in a vacuum.

    97. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that point that Israel has let themselves into Palestine's house, shat in their toilet, etc etc.?

      Nope, I think they've shat in the kitchen sink tbh.

    98. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and they're selling warships to the russians, and well... we and the russians are squabbling over a few things (which might be stupid, but our own allies, selling weapons to our enemies doesn't make them great friends in my book, that worked out so well for the British on the receiving end of exocet missiles in the Falklands).

      Who exactly is Russia enemies with (apart from those within their own borders :s)? Currently the Russians supply most of Northern Europe's natural gas - they are valuable allies to at least half the countries in Europe and have been for the last 50-60 years.

      I realise that the US had some problems with them - but that was mainly down to an irrational terror of anything left of fascism. The rest of us see little problem with them having French Warships.

    99. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Which is scary in itself because it runs the risk of trivialising precisely that.

      It's precisely the sort of thing that's led to me hearing people more than once in my life only half jokingly coming out with things like "Well maybe Hitler was right about them".

      When people resort to that kind of logic to justify their actions they seem completely oblivious to how self harming and dangerous it is. It's just the same as the continued demonisation of certain words as being offensive being precisely what makes them offensive- they're only offensive because people allow them to be.

      Abuse of the offensive to further your agenda is probably the most self-damaging thing you can do to your agenda in the long run.

    100. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by ameen.ross · · Score: 2

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing#Planning
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin#Jewish_underground
      Terrorist by any standard, right?

      And then suddenly in 1978: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin#Camp_David_accords
      Nobel peace price. WTF?

      I don't feel like pointing out the hypocrisy in other parts of your comment.

      --
      $(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
    101. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Britain "hates" the French in the way that we've got a long history of wars with them, but that if there were ever a problem they faced we'd be first to jump on our warships with them, or turf Germany out their back yard again, or back them up politically in the UN, or sunbathe on their beaches and visit their lovely country on holiday, or buy second homes in their rural areas nowadays.

      I'm concerned that this friendly neighbourhood rivalry between our two countries has spread into something more bitter in our ex-colonies, it's like they didn't get the joke, that when we said "remember, we hate the French" they missed the grin and the wink that went with it, because okay, we say we hate them, but we don't really.

      Though Sarkozy, we do actually really hate him, just not France in general.

    102. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      talk about flawed logic.

      "their was never Country A"

      "... separate Country A and Country B..."

      "Also add in the Country A's people's..."

      "... not where Country A..."

      "... rather have Country A's people..."

      for there never being a country A you seem to talk about it a lot.

    103. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realise this is humans we're talking about? We're never going to be reasonable!

      And we were made the image of God, what does that tell us about divinity?

    104. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by tempmpi · · Score: 2

      I guess that proves you don't have to be religious to fall for overly simplistic answers to complex problems. Religion is part of the problem, but not the main problem.

      --
      Jan
    105. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Complex problems are solved by taking simple steps.

      Religious dogmas aren't negotiable. Take away religions and suddenly almost everything is negotiable. See? One simple step towards a possible solution.

    106. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Gingernads · · Score: 1

      The French language has very few actual swear words. English is the language of choice for swearing in Europe. Fuck is probably the most recognised word across all languages.

      --
      Your optimism strikes me like junkmail addressed to the dead.
    107. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has nothing to do with god. As the guy from the earlier post said, you have no clue.
      The Israeli state and the Zionism are all entirely secular movements, started by Russian socialist jews in the 19th century.
      When my grandfather who was born in Germany in the 30s tried to get into College in Berlin, they told him they have already filled the capacity for jews , and if he still want to pursue an academic career he "should go to palestine, where he and his fellows jews belong". This phrase was common in Europe and even in the US in those days.
      Now, when the jews actually returned to their homeland, the same people who sent them there (and most of the arab nations) want them out.

      The jewish propensity to Israel can't be denied and is documented everywhere and confirmed in countless archaeological findings, and has absolutely nothing to do with religion. However, there is absolutely no record for a Palestinian state or even Palestinian people in the entire historic record. Prior to the foundation of the state of Israel, the local arabs saw themselves as "southern syrian" or "nortern eygptians". The Palestinian national movement began only a few years before Israel's declaration of independence.

    108. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by JackDW · · Score: 1

      Conversely, anyone thinking that Israel's actions are in any way justified is also exactly like Hitler, because Hitler liked war, annexing other countries and oppressing minorities.

      And that is what the Israelis supposedly do, at least according to the incredibly well-informed masses who have somehow found out the Truth, despite the best efforts of the pro-Israeli media and politicians to cover it up.

      So you can't win. If you have any opinion about Israel at all, you are Hitler. And probably if you don't have any opinion, you are still Hitler, because by not being part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

      --
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
    109. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Protosotme · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It has nothing to do with god. As the guy from the earlier post said, you have no clue. The Israeli state and the Zionism are all entirely secular movements, started by Russian socialist jews in the 19th century. When my grandfather who was born in Germany in the 30s tried to get into College in Berlin, they told him they have already filled the capacity for jews , and if he still want to pursue an academic career he "should go to palestine, where he and his fellows jews belong". This phrase was common in Europe and even in the US in those days. Now, when the jews actually returned to their homeland, the same people who sent them there (and most of the arab nations) want them out. The jewish propensity to Israel can't be denied and is documented everywhere and confirmed in countless archaeological findings, and has absolutely nothing to do with religion. However, there is absolutely no record for a Palestinian state or even Palestinian people in the entire historic record. Prior to the foundation of the state of Israel, the local arabs saw themselves as "southern syrian" or "nortern eygptians". The Palestinian national movement began only a few years before Israel's declaration of independence.

    110. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I am probably biased because I get my language lessons from French expat engineers.

    111. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      They were there first? Don't their own histories record that they 'evicted' other tribes from the region when they moved in? So why not have them move back to Egypt - that was their home too? Also, aren't Palestinians close genetic relatives of the Israelies - the people who stayed put instead of emigrating all those thousands of years ago - so what gives the people who LEFT more right to the land then the people who remained?

      And what if we applied your logic to the rest of the world? The population of Europe has changed quite a bit since Roman times, as has the population of the Americas and Australia. Should those regions also be given back to the 'original' populations?

    112. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that sounds reasonably balanced until you realize that the Israelis are still authorizing the building of settlements in the West Bank for ... some stupid reason I don't quite fathom and that is obviously illegal under international law. I mean, seriously, why? What's the fascination with building in occupied areas? There's plenty of mistakes that can be assigned all of the multiple sides.

      I think most reasonable people recognize a simple fact: both sides are assholes. Solution? I wish the whole area was firewalled off so the assholes on the two sides can kill each other all they want without bothering the rest of the world that is collectively more reasonable. Anyone that is reasonable can temporarily leave the disputed zones and live in peace elsewhere in the world until the dust settles, and then move back and live in peace. Well, if the whole zone isn't dangerously radioactive by then.

    113. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Protosotme · · Score: 1

      LOL. all you could raise for Israeli "terrorism" (which are actually plain underground operations, aimed towards British nationals and not towards innocent civilians) are 2 lame wiki articles?... The file of Palestinian terrorism towards innocent civilians encompasses several hundreds of Kilobytes and thousands of incidents with thousands of victims. What are you talking about!? lol http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victims.html

    114. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Protosotme · · Score: 2

      You missed the part where the Palestinians denied several peace offers, sent suicide bombers in a clear intention of blowing up in nightclubs, buses and malls and declaring without shame they want Israel extinct and jews annihilated ?

    115. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      You speak a lot about UN plans for the region, but how many Arab states in the region had veto power for those plans?

      When Israel was announced, were the Arabs still living in the region given the right to vote on the issue? Given the right to be represented in the government? Just like the Jewish immigrants, many of them might have only been living there for a few decades, but why does that give them fewer rights then those of the immigrants?

    116. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by rednip · · Score: 1

      Some of us have evolved beyond such primitive territorial quarrels...If they can't put in the effort to bury their grandparents' feuds for the greater good, then why should we be putting any effort into helping them ?

      Others of us realize that we shouldn't hang a people for the political decisions of a simple majority or less.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    117. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't this "God" take the time to end all this strife and suffering instead of dicking around superimposing himself on toast?

      Like the Palestinians, you greatly underestimate the importance of toast in resolving this whole mess. What will it take to get through to you people?

    118. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      lol. Except there is no such place as "Guachi, Costa Rica". Guachi is something only someone in Costa Rica would understand, it's short for something else: Guachipelín.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    119. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by tempmpi · · Score: 1

      Complex problems are solved by taking simple steps.

      And taking away religions is a simple step? I would rather call it an almost impossible step.

      Religious dogmas aren't negotiable.

      They are pretty negotiable. Just look at history and you will see pretty big changes in religious dogmas. Often dogmas are even the result of negotiations. E.g.: Trinity.

      Take away religions and suddenly almost everything is negotiable. See? One simple step towards a possible solution.

      There are pletty of secular stuff that is almost unnegotiable. Sometimes that is even a good thing, e.g. human rights aren't negotiable.

      --
      Jan
    120. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Attacking first? What about the other countries that keep sending rockets into Israel and/or people bombing busses?

      The liberals just see that as Muslims exercising their freedom of religion.

    121. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by MareLooke · · Score: 1

      Because they were mostly a nomadic people. It's only when their land got taken from under them that they saw the need for a "state" or "identity" as such. You can hardly lay claim on a land you haven't lived in for like 3000years without sounding like a lunatic. Most peoples aren't native to the country they live in, having displaced other peoples or having been displaced by other peoples multiple times in the course of history. The Old Belgians for example got driven quite out a few times and most of them now probably live somewhere way south in Europe (Southern France, Spain, maybe even Turkey), it would be pretty insane if they suddenly tried to reclaim their former land after like 1300 years.

      As usual, two wrongs don't make a right, but enough wrongs make damn sure you keep running in circles. Which seems exactly what is happening here.

    122. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by supercrisp · · Score: 1

      The Palestinians started a war? What about the violence and intimidation tactics--including forcible evacuation--of the Jewish forces in 1948? Many Palestinians fled because of that.... Yes, there were at the times for accommodation of Palestinians in Israel, of a mixed culture. But there were also powerful right-wing planners who wanted the Palestinians cleared out. That may sound bad now, but as a recent article in Slate points out--based on Gershom Gorenberg's new book on Israel--that was common practice in the day, moving around large groups of people based on race/ethnicity/nationality (however you want to slice it). And whatever of that people choose to believe or ignore, it's very clear that the more conservative nationalist types have been doing pretty well in Israel government. None of this is to deny that there's Palestinian violence. But it takes two sides to get to the place where Ireland and England are today, and the UK Parliament had to be encourage and be ready for Sinn Fein's overtures when they came.

    123. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that it's very useful to talk in terms of historical facts (whatever they may be) if two sides use different sets of facts or very different interpretations of those facts. What does matter is that both sides have been there long enough to have a right to be there. You don't get out of the conflict by shouting at the other party that their facts are wrong, all they will do is shout the same at you. You get out of the conflict by agreeing on what the future should be like.

      In conflicts like this (Israël vs. Palestinians, Tamils vs. Sinhalese, etc.) within the opposing groups there are hardliners and moderates (and everything in between of course). In the 1970s, if I remember correctly, I saw people from both sides in Israel interviewed on tv who had a hard time understanding why people who had always been good neighbours suddenly had become their enemies. Later I saw exactly the same thing happening in Sri Lanka. What happened is that the hardliners put pressure on the opposing group and on the moderates within their own group, using both rhetoric and violence (the Tamil Tigers killed moderate Tamils). They cause polarization, force a majority into the hardliner position, and that's very difficult to undo. But the hardliners are the ones who create conflicts. The moderates would still be good neighbours if they had been left to themselves. You don't solve conflicts by intensifying them.

      So I look at conflicts like this in terms of hardliners vs. moderates within both sides, and I see the hardliners as the ones who cause the conflict and keep it going. The assholes are in charge on both sides. Sometimes it takes people like Ghandi or Mandela to give the moderates a voice, sometimes the conflict needs to last for so long that everyone's tired of it and the hardliners loose their credibility. That tends to take generations, unfortunately.

    124. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Many nations were borne of terrorism. The US fought the British using "militia" tactics--aka hit and run tactics. Israel got statehood through killing Brits until they left. Why suddenly do these guys need to be peaceful in their quest for statehood?

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    125. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Though Sarkozy, we do actually really hate him, just not France in general.

      No, we mildly dislike him. You need to talk to French people to find someone who really hates him...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    126. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      San Jose, then. I haven't stayed in that city a moment longer than necessary -- between the barbed wire fences and bars on all the windows, it reminded me of a prison.

      I've been relaxing in Puerto Viejo and Bocas del Toro, Panama, and as far as I know I've yet to meet another slashdotter. I can't host travelers, but if you (or anyone else reading this) are planning on being in the area, let me know.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    127. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Interesting. When the BBC carried this story it said 'every week'. I wonder which one is accurate...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    128. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case you're right, but it isn't always religion. Apartheid was racial, Sri Lanka's conflict was ethnic, Belgium has a language conflict. The problem is that people have a strong tendency to identify with groups. People who tend to see the world in black and white terms are relatively likely to see people who are different in a recognisable way as a threat. Religion, race, culture, language, ethnicity, politics, or whatever forms an identifyable distinction, can be the reason for a conflict. But all these reasons have in common that many people need to see themselves as part of a group and aren't always comfortable with people who are not part of that group.

    129. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that the people is this area are subject to murder, kidnapping, torture, and other acts of indiscriminate violence simply because they don't have "statehood", meaning they don't have a centralized group of assholes threatening the rest of the population with violence?

      Isn't that like blaming a victim of rape because they were too pretty? Hey, the bitch was given plenty of chances, right? All she had to do was put up her hair into a bun, put on some glasses and wear some baggy clothes.

      Seriously, I'm sick of people blaming the victims of violent aggression. Don't you notice that you have to say the EXACT OPPOSITE of the truth in order to sound like you're a good person. Hell, even the phrase "peace option" is disgusting Orwellian slang for "obedience to foreign rule". You want to know who the bad guys are? It's REALLY FUCKING EASY - just count how many people have been murdered by who, and once you find the group that does the most killing, there you go. Its' actually not that hard at all.

    130. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by fredrated · · Score: 1

      The thing that saddens me is when the oppressed become the oppressor. That is what has happened to Israel: they have become the fascists.

    131. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Empiric · · Score: 2

      Lose or even greatly diminish that force multiplier and suddenly humans become reasonable.

      Okay, done.

      Let's see...

      Mao Zedong: ~60,000,000 dead of own citizens via genocide

      Jozef Stalin: 23,000,000 dead of own citizens via genocide

      Perhaps you left out a factor?

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    132. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by wtfamidoinghere · · Score: 1

      " The Jews have been kicked around and harassed by just about everyone for the past 2000 years."

      Not being anti-semitic or anything but ... I wonder why?

    133. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since you are going with a standard cut and paste "HURR RELIGION IS BAD" reply here (and getting modded up for it, no doubt), I'll present you with a cut and paste reply from the "How to Troll Athiests" section of Encyclopedia Dramatica:

      Stalin and Mao were both atheists and managed to kill more people in in the span of a few short years than have EVER been killed in the Middle East over religion throughout the entirety of human history.

      But I guess it's fair to say that the main problem was still religion there, as plenty of those killings were carried out because the victim espoused some kind of religion.

      Of course, you will likely do some handwaving and rhetorical gymnastics to try to avoid this point or talk your way around it, just like the religious do when you point out that religion has fueled a great deal of conflict over the centuries. But at least only the truly deluded among them will do something ridiculous like claim "the world would be all peaceful and flowers if ONLY we could eliminate X."

    134. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The Arabs are far better liars then Netanyahu could ever be. When is the last time any Arab leader told the truth about anything? They have been practicing the art of lying for centuries on their own populations so lying to outside world presents no problems at all. And when they are caught lying they can always fall back on their religious indoctrination which validates lying to the infidels.

    135. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by flirno · · Score: 1

      Historically all of those tribal groups could be extremely savage to each other -- this includes ancient palastinians, various arab tribes and ancient israelis. None of them were nice if you were not on their good side/on the good side of their deity.

    136. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Shaman · · Score: 1

      Do you know how to tell a french Canadian from a distance?

      I don't know either, but you can't tell one fuck-all from up close.

      --
      ...Steve
    137. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that saddens me is when the oppressed become the oppressor. That is what has happened to Israel: they have become the fascists.

      That is the viewpoint of most anti-Zionist Jews.

      The state of Israel has always, since the days of the Stern Gang terrorists, used the Jewish faith as a recruiting and propaganda tool. They have corrupted and misguided millions of Jews the world over in a cynical, irreligious pursuit of raw power. The worst thing to ever happen to Judaism was Avraham Stern - he did more to harm religious Jews than the Pharaohs did.

    138. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing#Planning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin#Jewish_underground Terrorist by any standard, right?

      And then suddenly in 1978: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin#Camp_David_accords Nobel peace price. WTF?

      I don't feel like pointing out the hypocrisy in other parts of your comment.

      You could say pretty much the same about Nelson Mandela too, I suppose.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    139. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No this is not right, the law states PLO, not Palestina per se., although I agree it should be changed

    140. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      " The Jews have been kicked around and harassed by just about everyone for the past 2000 years."

      Not being anti-semitic or anything but ... I wonder why?

      They were Europe's main minority group during the period when there were few brown skinned people here to pick on. They had a different religion and (arguably) looked sufficiently different from the majority to be satisfyingly alien. People love having a minority group to blame for things, rather than look at themselves.

      Also, due to a combination of historical and cultural reasons (primarily that they were not prohibited from practising usury) Jews were often rich, which (a) promoted envt and (b) produced a handy bounty if you could grab their money off them, legally or otherwise.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    141. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The French language has very few actual swear words

      It has equivalents for fuck, cunt, prick, shit and so on, how many synonyms for each of them do you actually need?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    142. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That was a joke. Some people may find it in poor taste, but it's a joke none the less

      The only people who wouldn't find it in poor taste would logically be anti-semites and people who love Hitler. So fuck you.
      >
      There is nothing magical about something being framed as a joke that excuses you from criticism. If you tell racist jokes, you can't be surprised if people think you're a racist.

      So if you want people to think of you on the same intellectual level as the GNAA trolls, go right ahead.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    143. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You are conveniently forgetting that from its inception until the 1970s (when it became clear that they could it was always going to win) Israel was, in fact, under constant threat of war by its charming Arab neighbours.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    144. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by slew · · Score: 1

      Can't say the same for the Palestinians, who once outnumbered the Jews & Christians of the region by about 10:1, but now are outnumbered by the Jews, as Israel grants full rights, citizenship and suffrage to anyone with the right bloodline, no matter where their family has lived for untold generations.

      Bit of a difference, really

      I think the british settlers were outnumbered by the native "indians" probably more than 10:1, but since the "american" colonies pretty much allowed anyone to come not-regarding their bloodline, no matter where their family has lived for untold generations, it appears on the face of it that the difference was that israel was more picky about it's immigrants (except maybe for the chinese exclusion act or the japanese internment, but I digress)... You are right that is only a bit of a difference, not a big difference.

      If you read the original US constitution and the 14ths amendment which granted ex-slaves citizienship rights,, "indians" are not counted as citizens of the US at that time (unless they became US citizens by paying federal taxes). This continued until 1924 when the US govt finally granted US citizenship to indians a mere 1924-1789 = 135 years later... I believe israel was founded 2011-1948= 63 years ago... Not that condone thier current actions, nor am I an apologist for the US's history, but it's important to understand history, no?

    145. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the main problem is not God, 'man is the problem'. People blame God for things He never can/should be blamed for. God has the solution for every problem. Does man want to sit back and listen? btw, Israel 'does_not' need america nor France for anything, but i doubt if the jews have realised it

    146. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Thats what happens when outsiders decide to create a country where some other outsiders live, without regard for the people that actually live there, and their neighbours. If the WWII never happened (and the holocaust), do you believe Israel would exist?

    147. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem is, this same thing goes for most of europe, you should check how many of the countries now surrounding hungary were even nations or had any sort of sovereignty before the 1900s

    148. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Yet both of them basically created a religion around themselves, otherwise known as a 'cult of personality'.

      That kind of stuff was expressly against what Marx had written, so don't bother on that angle.

    149. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      To clarify this should not be construed as support of the argument that religion is the cause of all conflict.

      Strong belief in some kind of higher power seems to be the factor. It could be religion, it could be a dictator, it could be the idea that your country is the best there ever was and ever will be and can never be wrong.

    150. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You got the -cide covered there, but you haven't established the geno- at all.

    151. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean by the "DC of Canada".. Washington DC has high taxes (in the context of the US).

      In the US corporations typically go to Delaware to avoid taxes and individuals to a state like Florida (though there are several others).

    152. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody has to deal with his boss every day.

    153. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Well, except that the death tolls that as a matter of certainty were there during the process of evolution, before any religion at all, would dwarf even Mao's and Stalin's.

      So, so far your assertion needs the exceptions of "cults of personality", and contexts without any religion. Probably territorial motivations, wealth, and national self-interest would fit in there somewhere.

      I like to call yours an "argument from the never-existed". Very popular with the Dawkins/Hitchens set, though.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    154. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by pla · · Score: 1

      "Similar culture"? Just because some of the people in the neighboring countries are of arabian descent too?

      Yes, similar culture.

      Most Americans would consider social norms in the Southeast almost diametrically opposed to those of the Northeast; but as crotchety ol' Swamp Yankee from Northern New England,I'd still take Alabama in a heartbeat over living in a Sharia-observing war-zone.

    155. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by x6060 · · Score: 1

      Dont forget that they like to fire unguided rockets at civilian populations and routinely try to kidnap and execute israeli men, women, and children. Hell the Palestinians have bounties placed for israeli soldiers and citizens.

    156. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an oven waiting for you at the end of a nice train ride

    157. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      Yea, trying to portray Israel as a villain only works in a vacumn....

      People B left their land for a variety of reasons during Roman times.

      Throughout history actually, most often against their will. Most after 1948 after being expelled or chased out of neighboring Arab nations.

      People A (The ones who stayed behind and are provably very close genetic relatives of People B) continued living there under various foreign rulers

      And local.

      for over a thousand years during which they abandoned the religion

      *some* abandoned. The population was still 1/6 Jewish as of 1900.

      they shared with people B in favor of Christianity and later Islam. People B come back, after over a thousand years, decide they want 'their land' back,

      After people A attacked people B & C after joining with people D & E to conquer the world.

      drive people A into concentration camps

      That would be people D actually, the Arab states that attacked Israel several times.

      where they live in squalor and misery.

      Desert life sucks, ya. Isolating yourself by way of supporting terrorism and electing world renowned terrorist organizations goes a long way to accomplishing that as well.

      Meanwhile people B live a good life financed by

      their own hard work building a modern, industrialized nation that can compete in the world market in a variety of industries.

      good friend country C who also provides them with high tech weapons free of charge.

      In an effort to continue to oppose countries D,E,F,G, & H that are both supplying and actively supporting organizations and governments trying to annihilate country A.

      White-washing Israel works best in a right wing, christian conservative or jewish zionist delusion.

      "Black-washing" Israel works best for anti-semites.

    158. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      Just because some of the people in the neighboring countries are of arabian descent too?

      Because the leaders of those neighboring countries publicly declare that the Palestinians are their brothers, and lead their countries to war on the Palestinians behalf. Yes, I know those leaders are hypocritical fucks that are just using the Palestinians as political tools instead of being honestly concerned with their welfare, I'd still rather live somewhere where the leadership is paying lip service to the idea of me being an equal to all the other citizens.

      If all the resources that have been spent on attacking Israel were instead spent on providing transportation, housing, and education for Palestinian Refugees, the problem would have been solved by now.

    159. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main problem is assholes desperate for power. Religion is only a tool albeit an extremely powerful one.

    160. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I haven't researched those, but do you have examples more recent than 30+ years ago?

    161. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Black-washing" Israel works best for anti-semites.

      As any discussion on the subject of Israel grows longer the probability of somebody arguing "criticism-of-israel == anti-semitism" approaches 1.

    162. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Moryath · · Score: 1

      ... wow. What could I possible have said to elicit that response?

    163. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      No. The last major drop in Israeli security was under Ford/Carter, regarding settlements and Soviet threats. Since then Israel hasn't had serious threats and has been warmly within the US sphere.

    164. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      I have done plenty of research and I cannot agree with anything you said, though your kind of shilling is expected whenever Israel is criticised.

    165. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Wow according to the list Tom is on the commitee twice. Is there anything that man cant do?....(:

      15X more in fact.

    166. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Sique · · Score: 2

      The leaders of the neighboring countries are providing lip service to the Palestinians, because they want at first the refugee problem solved - e.g. the palestinians out of their respective countries. Syria for instance is propping up Hezbollah, which is a shiite organisation, while most Palestinians are sunnite. Jordan had one civil war because of the Palestinians in the early 1970, which ended in a massacre in the Palestinian refugee camps and Yassir Arafat fleeing from Jordan to Libya, Lebanon had several civil wars already, with the Palestinians either being one of the active parties or the scape goat when the other groups were fighting each other.
      But one have all of the neighboring countries in common: Their proposed solution for the israelian-palestinian conflict has "return of the refugees to Westbank and Transjordan" as a central part, and their support for the "palestinian cause" always includes "the right of the Palestinians to live in Palestina". So would you like to live in a country, where you are either living in a refugee camp or in a slum in the suburb, because the central building block of your country's policy towards you is to get you out of the country as soon as possible?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    167. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by tempmpi · · Score: 1

      But you've fallen into the trap of confusing the individual with the political process. Take away religion from the political process, and suddenly reason can take place.

      Even taking away religion from the political process seems very hard to me, if you don't want to take away democracy at the same time. If most voters are religious, Religion will have influence on the political process.

      You should also not forget that nationalism is also strong in that conflict and will also prevent reason from taking place. Even "reason" can prevent reason: The jacobins killed quite a lot of people during the french revolution in the name of reason.

      --
      Jan
    168. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Sique · · Score: 2

      That's what I was trying to explain to you. Why do you think for instance that Syria is in any way sharia-observing? Bashar al-Assad, the dictator of Syria is not even muslim. And at least 3500 people have died in the last months for not respecting his non-muslim ideas how to govern a state. I know, that this somehow collides with the easy world view, where arab = muslim = terrorist. Reality probably owes you an apology, but that's the way it is.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    169. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by jbp1 · · Score: 1

      2 people agree the another is an ass. What is the news?

      that the liberal media wants the whole world to know that the leader of a country, surrounded by other countries trying to destroy his, is an 'ass'. As opposed to nobama and sarchasmy being little gossip gurly-men

    170. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't a direct quote, Reuters put it as: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you,"

    171. Re:2 people agreeing is news? by billcopc · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right, I was thinking Delaware not Washington. Glad you caught the error :)

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  2. Well.... by theVarangian · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fox News will have a fair and balanced field day with this.

    1. Re:Well.... by alamandrax · · Score: 1

      Grabs popcorn, sits his ass down and waits.

      --
      'tis but a scratch.
    2. Re:Well.... by Quila · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Other news organizations conspire to hide what happened, Fox will delight in showing what happened.

      Bias all around. Did you expect anything else?

    3. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      You prefer the news orgs that chose not to report news because it was embarrassing to a politician they like? Doesn't that scare you a bit?

    4. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bias all around. Did you expect anything else?

      No not really, to me Fox News is an endless source of a amusement so at least I have something to laugh about.

    5. Re:Well.... by Commontwist · · Score: 2

      Who needs Wikileaks to embarrass political leaders when they do just fine themselves?

    6. Re:Well.... by phrostie · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful

    7. Re:Well.... by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      Par for the course. The only thing that ticks me off is that they claim "objectivity" when they hide news like that.

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    8. Re:Well.... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh PLEASE. There is bias that get into a story,even through the best efforts to keep it out, then there is fox news. Upper management literally tells it's people what to say. The espouse to the public that they are a 'News' site, but in court that claim that's onl;ty gfor an hour ro to.

      There is a reason there is no Fox News in Canada.

      FOX news isn't biased, it's a shill.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the only shills work at Fox, I'd suggest reading up on "Journolist".

    10. Re:Well.... by acoustix · · Score: 1

      Fox News will have a fair and balanced field day with this.

      I would think that all media outlets would have a field day with this. Can you imagine what would've happened is this were Bush bad mouthing foreign leaders in a private conversation? The liberal media (NBC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, etc) would cream their pants!

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    11. Re:Well.... by judoguy · · Score: 1

      No first amendment type protection that prevents the government from regulating speech "for our own good"? That cure is worse than the disease, as far as I’m concerned.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    12. Re:Well.... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Faux News a shill ?

      * Who's That Hiding In My Fox 5 News Logo?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSAOQuLxSdY

      * Murdoch smacks down Fox News anchor for mentioning hacking scandal
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0nN_snrOtk

      * You don't say ...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

    13. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upper management literally tells it's people what to say.

      And your proof of that is?..

  3. more leaks is good by roman_mir · · Score: 0

    None of what these people do should be secret. They shouldn't be allowed anywhere without a number of cameras and microphones on them always and everything should always be transmitted out to the public.

    1. Re:more leaks is good by Foxhoundz · · Score: 1

      You *really* wouldn't want to see how the sausage is made my friend. Politics, specifically foreign policy, is a dirty that sometimes needs to be done in private.

    2. Re:more leaks is good by theVarangian · · Score: 1

      None of what these people do should be secret. They shouldn't be allowed anywhere without a number of cameras and microphones on them always and everything should always be transmitted out to the public.

      If it's all the same to you I'd like to skip some parts... like for example their trips to the toilet.

    3. Re:more leaks is good by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      No, everything has to be in public. It should be their 'sacrifice' - no privacy while in office.

    4. Re:more leaks is good by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, you know you would like to see Carla Bruni-Sarkozy use the toilet...

    5. Re:more leaks is good by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      I wholeheartedly agree. In theory.

      In practice, getting things done is probably incompatible with continuously being on the air.

    6. Re:more leaks is good by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      I think people are tired of constantly getting the sausage. They should stop eating it.

    7. Re:more leaks is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IN OTHER NEWS! Obama Scratches left nut but not his right nut. Itchy ball? or secret communique to his handlers? We ask the experts tonight at 11.

    8. Re:more leaks is good by steelfood · · Score: 0

      Yeah, let them have cake instead, right?

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    9. Re:more leaks is good by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I was speaking metaphorically, but at least I used my own words. You are borrowing yours and they don't even fit the here.

    10. Re:more leaks is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then it's time to move to Mars and star over again, eh? Leave "this rock" and its evil ways... LOL

    11. Re:more leaks is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, everything has to be in public. It should be their 'sacrifice' - no privacy while in office.

      So your suggestion is that we don't treat them with human dignity, yet we have the right to demand that they act like humans in return?

    12. Re:more leaks is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This so much.

      Government work was never, ever, supposed to be private.
      Governments were elected to make a central authority that answers to the people and enacts their will using collective resources gathered from everyone that were also agreed upon by everyone. (tax, essentially)

      Now?
      They have twisted and bent their position so much that it has lost all meaning now. All these stealth meetings, steal research, spying on citizens, back stabbery and countless other things.
      Every single thing should be on record and accounted for, every spoken word, every single hand shake.
      Taxing everything, not taxing the things they should be taxing, corruption, being paid off. Corrupt Justice, lax laws, terrible lawyers using loose wording on documents to push cases towards things they aren't, laws capable of destroying entire lives EVEN IF FOUND INNOCENT.

      I wouldn't hesitate to wipe every single one of them off the face of the planet. Painfully.
      They don't deserve to live in the now 7 billion strong race we have going. Admittedly that number would drop considerably with all of those cancers of society gone, at least a billion or two.
      Fuck this world. Seriously. Sickens me that these people are allowed to exist.

    13. Re:more leaks is good by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      umad? looking up someone's comment history because you ran out of argument here and now?

    14. Re:more leaks is good by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      NO, they are not treating people they are supposed to be serving with any dignity.

      It's time to return the favor.

    15. Re:more leaks is good by firewrought · · Score: 4, Interesting

      None of what these people do should be secret. They shouldn't be allowed anywhere without a number of cameras and microphones on them always and everything should always be transmitted out to the public.

      It becomes impossible to have effective negotiations if each side must worry about how every sentence will sound to their constituencies. Americans would have flipped had they known that Kennedy agreed to remove some obsolete missile installations in Italy and Turkey to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis, yet by doing so he avoided the very real possibility of nuclear holocaust. Just a thought...

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    16. Re:more leaks is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politics, specifically foreign policy, is a dirty that sometimes needs to be done in private.

      That is exactly why politics should never be done in private.

      If you need to do it in private you're doing something wrong.

    17. Re:more leaks is good by Jibekn · · Score: 1

      Ill help you end the world.

    18. Re:more leaks is good by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Diplomacy often requires tact, but just as often requires that a measure of privacy be afforded for negotiations. Can you imagine attempting to negotiate changes to your mortgage on the sidewalk? Can you imagine negotiating some difficult decision with your spouse in front of your entire extended family?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    19. Re:more leaks is good by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Americans would have flipped?

        Americans would get their chance every 4 years anyway, but during the 4 year period (and we are talking about POTUS and his 4 years, but this should apply to all members of government) everything would be open and on the record.

    20. Re:more leaks is good by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Politics, specifically foreign policy, is a dirty that sometimes needs to be done in private.

      That is exactly why politics should never be done in private.

      If you need to do it in private you're doing something wrong.

      Which is why I always masturbate on the bus.

    21. Re:more leaks is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you are a public official, you should be doing everything in public, but what are you doing on a bus?

    22. Re:more leaks is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody forced them into that work.

      If you spend your time saying "look at what i'm doing" then you only have yourself to blame when people do look.

    23. Re:more leaks is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just looked through your comment history to see if I could find a place where you bashed Wikileaks for harming foreign relations by releasing leaked cables, but amazingly it appears that you aren't that hypocritical.

      However, you are an incredibly angry, overbearing, apparently miserable individual. Or at least come across as one in nearly everything you write.

    24. Re:more leaks is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      if you are a public official, you should be doing everything in public, but what are you doing on a bus?

      Masturbating. Weren't you listening?

    25. Re:more leaks is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have my sword...

    26. Re:more leaks is good by HJED · · Score: 1

      Foreign policy sometimes needs to be done in private, so the other country doesn't get pissed/take advantage of you.

      --
      null
    27. Re:more leaks is good by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      So I take it you like me, going over all of my comments and all? Why don't you also read all of my journal entries while you are at it.

    28. Re:more leaks is good by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      It's hard enough to find good people willing to put up with what it takes to be a politician as it is. I can only imagine the kind of freak shows we'd get if we started imposing those conditions.

    29. Re:more leaks is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't have to imagine. Just head to your local "Occupy" protest camp ;p

      I mean, they're camping out in public spaces that anybody in theory can have a peak in.

      But I think GP hates the occupy people more than he hates politicians and government. Most libertarians don't like other libertarians who don't completely align with themselves. It's both ironic and funny, given how libertarianism is supposed to be about liberty (as in, other people have the liberty to disagree with you)

  4. Glitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... or espionage?

    Journalism becomes espionage when leaders expect privacy and technology is applied to eavesdrop.

    1. Re:Glitch? by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Journalism becomes espionage when leaders expect privacy and technology is applied to eavesdrop.

      Journalism becomes nothing but PR when journalists don't report a story because they overheard something that 'was considered private and off-the-record'.

    2. Re:Glitch? by NoahsMyBro · · Score: 1

      According to the summary, it was Sarkozy who called Netanyahu a liar, not Obama.

    3. Re:Glitch? by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 5, Informative

      The article isn't very clearly written, but it's Sarkozy accusing Netanyahu of being a liar. Edited for clarity:

      Mr. Sarkozy: 'I can't stand him any more. He's a liar.'

      Mr. Obama replied: 'You're sick of him. I have to deal with him every day!'

    4. Re:Glitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: Obama won't prevent a war with Iran.

    5. Re:Glitch? by QuasiSteve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Was this a glitch or was this done on purpose, by the way?

      It's politics - we'll never know!

      The BBC article suggests that reporters were told not to plug headsets into the translation reception devices and, of course, did so anyway.

      Another article (Dutch) suggests that reporters were given the devices and told that they would receive headsets later - some decided to plug in their own (didn't want to wait? didn't want to use other headphones? who knows).

      Regardless, it was apparent that all of the reporters were getting the French translation of the discussion that took place (according to the Dutch article).

      Which of course implies that not only were the microphones in that office open, but translators were active at that time to translate that which was discussed into French.

      What actually transpired? Well, who cares, really.

      At least two world leaders are now somewhat on the record as to their disdain of Netanyahu. On the other hand, that disdain doesn't matter. Berlusconi is still in office (for now, announced he's leaving in 2 weeks) despite having grossly insulted world leaders of pretty much every nation. If they can't even really deal with him, what hope would they have of dealing with the Israelis? If they even wanted to.

    6. Re:Glitch? by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      He will go into war with Iran. He won't allow Congress to declare anything, he will just go into that war.

      He now believes he is a King, no less. He abuses the executive order (he is not using it, he is abusing it for things it is not meant to be used). He is completely corrupted by the power, he is a war monger.

    7. Re:Glitch? by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Journalism becomes nothing but PR when journalists don't report a story because they overheard something that 'was considered private and off-the-record'.

      Disagree strongly, and I have worked as a journalist. A journalist is not a spy. Also, a journalist has a duty to determine what is news and what is simply information that has not been publicly disclosed. I'm sure there are lots of people who would like to know where Nancy Pelosi is on her menstrual cycle every time she makes a speech of votes in Congress, but this type of information simply isn't "fit to print," as the New York Times motto goes.

      And speaking of the Times, here is a passage from that paper's journalistic ethics policy:

      27. Staff members and others on assignment for us must obey the law in the gathering of news. They may not break into buildings, homes, apartments or offices. They may not purloin data, documents or other property, including such electronic property as databases and e-mail or voice-mail messages. They may not tap telephones, invade computer files or otherwise eavesdrop electronically on news sources. In the case of government orders or court directives to disclose a confidential source, journalists will consult with the newsroom management and the legal department on the application of this paragraph.

      (emphasis mine)

      Trust me, you are far better off when responsible journalists develop sources in a fair, honest, professional manner, rather than resorting to tabloid tactics. A journalist who blasts the slightest gaffe in 72-point headlines will quickly cease to hear anything at all.

      It's like the beat cop who hauls everybody down to the precinct for the slightest infraction, versus the one who lets folks slide for the occasional open container or vandalism charge. Of the two, the one with the "zero tolerance policy" is going to have a much tougher time doing his job when something really important comes along.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    8. Re:Glitch? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      There was no 'glitch' either.
      The reporters were told, not to switch on their microphones until told so, but they obviously gave a fuck about that.

    9. Re:Glitch? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Sure he will! Remember, we haven't been at war since World War II. All of those other minor skirmishes don't count...Congress shmongress.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    10. Re:Glitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Just like every other US president.
      We haven't officially declared war on anyone in decades.

      Really, though, the king of abuse of war declaration and executive abuse must be handed to the previous president. Anyone without severe memory loss will remember how he took executive orders and signing statements to all new unheard of heights. Also, two wars for big daddy oil.

        An no, I won't give you any citations when 30 seconds of Googling will offer all the proof you need.

    11. Re:Glitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in french? can't believe an american speaking another language

    12. Re:Glitch? by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Reporters were told not to turn their headsets on until the show began. (Probably a bit silly in that Sarkosky/Obama should have turned their microphones off until they wished to be heard). As the conversation was meant to be private it would have been a serious violation (as in crime under french law) for anyone in attendance that was a French journalist to report on the content of what they illicitly overheard. So a tabloid that wasn't in attendence caught wind of the conversation and reported it. I'd expect that criminal charges will be leveled against whoever peeped.

      But the point here is that under French law (privacy of conversation) they COULDN'T report on what they overheard (or they could be arrested) because they broke the conference rule by turning on their headsets early.

      That's the little bit you won't hear in any of the US reporting.

    13. Re:Glitch? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      "What someone doesn't want you to publish is journalism; all else is publicity. "

      Congrats on outing yourself as a hack. Hope it was worth it.

      Nice strawmen, btw.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    14. Re:Glitch? by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      "What someone doesn't want you to publish is journalism; all else is publicity. "

      I'll bet Netanyahu very much appreciated that little exchange being published. Cui bono? I'll give you a hint, it isn't us.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    15. Re:Glitch? by jd · · Score: 1

      Not before the US election. He wouldn't risk alienating his core voters. He could claim humanitarian reasons for Libya and used NATO as a shield, but that wouldn't be possible with Iran. There's no humanitarian cause (at this time) and NATO won't risk a confrontation with Russia.

      There's a much more plausible explanation: The US public are sick of wars and Obama can now put his opponents on the line. What would they do about Iran if they won? (If they say "nothing", then they lose the Jewish American vote - a very sizable bloc. If they say anything other than nothing, then they lose almost everyone else because there's too much war fatigue right now and no money to spend on such ventures. If they prevaricate, they lose the Tea Party vote because wars are expensive and the Tea Party wants a constitutional cap on total spending.)

      Obama's forays into war had little to do with him thinking he was king. Every one of his ventures can be explained as tactical PR gestures for domestic consumption. In order to anticipate his next move, you have to stop and ask what PR gesture could he possibly want in an election year. By far the simplest explanation is that he wants to put his rivals into a spot where anything they say will alienate too large a percentage of voters for them to win.

      His use of executive orders is interesting but nowhere near as bad as Bush using them to authorize assassination of Americans on US soil, nor as bad as Congress forbidding the US Government from meeting its international legal obligations vis a vis Gitmo. I'd argue that Congress, in ordering the President to commit a crime, has carried out a far worse crime than anything Obama has done. I'd also argue that Bush, using a signing statement to negate a law forbidding torture by declaring that the provisions of the law were to be ignored, again abused power on a massive scale.

      (If you can use a signing statement to edit laws, not merely interpret them, then veto-proof margins can be unconstitutionally ignored. You don't veto the bill, you use a signing statement to say it doesn't apply. Further, even interpreting them is questionable. There's nothing to stop a President from using a signing statement to rewrite a bill completely from the ground up. It would take a while to write, but it could be done and therefore will eventually be done.)

      I'm not saying Obama is innocent of abuse, merely that he's no worse than anyone else and that you should be careful to not ascribe him with motivations that obviously don't apply. Blame him for the right reasons, or the important points you make will be ignored by others.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    16. Re:Glitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tinfoil crackpot, much?

    17. Re:Glitch? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The difference is that nobody really gives a shit what an Italian PM thinks on international matters, but people weigh the words of the US President with great care, and France still has sufficient influence in the world that the opinions of its President are still quite important.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:Glitch? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Bush was a war monger too, but this one actually uses his 'executive order' to go even beyond war. What right does he have to do executive order to basically write off .5 to 1 Trillion USD worth of student debt?

      He is supposed to go to Congress to approve any new spending, and this is a trillion dollars worth of new spending, because this is the money that is guaranteed by the government to the banks and will have to be 'printed' and returned to the banks, because students won't have to.

      In July - August of 2011 they went through a charade of raising the debt ceiling by that much, by 1 Trillion, now he adds that much to the debt with a stroke of a pen.

      He just may push his 'jobs' plan that way too. He thinks he is there to act, when Congress is not acting, completely disregarding the fact that he is not supposed to be acting if Congress is not acting, especially on any new spending.

      Yes, Bush was a war monger. So was Clinton. Bush before him was too. Every POTUS since WWII basically, because the real national agenda of USA is to bomb and to make the military industrial complex richer every day.

    19. Re:Glitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just left a comment, showing that he modified a law with an executive order and with that modification he singlehandedly increased US public debt by 1 Trillion dollars.

      That's much more than the amount that Greece is going to default on, or even Greece's entire debt. They had a fake debt ceiling 'crisis' a few months back, now he adds an amount equal to the amount they were 'debating' back than with an order.

      The guy thinks he is a King. He thinks he is there to do something that Congress won't do and he must do it.

      (oh, and I can't leave comments under my account anymore, blocked again with all the do-gooder moderators.)

    20. Re:Glitch? by Maximus633 · · Score: 1

      I respectfully disagree with your thoughts on this situation and use of the Times Ethics policy.

      First off this wasn't a case where the reporter PURPOSELY went in and "tapped" the line, or even they pushed the button to enable the sound to be sent to that room. The fact is what happened is someone some place pushed the wrong button. When they pushed said button and sound was enabled in that room of the conversation then it became public. Though things sometimes are said in meetings because no one thinks you are being heard doesn't make it right. We all should take responsibility for the things we say.

      I believe that it was newsworthy. Given what was said and in the response it was aimed at makes the US look bad. There is no need for such disrespect towards other countries officials at all. I am sorry but I do not BELIEVE that anyone person should have the right to deem something newsworthy or not.

    21. Re:Glitch? by jd · · Score: 1

      The student loans were never going to get paid back by the students. The entire student loan system should be replaced by government grants. Besides, if the students aren't paying the money back via the loan system, they'll have money to spend on paying their taxes, so the government will get the money back. Further, the money has already been promised and is therefore not new spending. If you want an educated, rational populace, and the loan sharks currently authorized to pay student loans make it impossible to be both educated and rational, the government has to step in somehow. If you want this avoided in future, abolish the loan system.

      The debt ceiling crisis wasn't fake, it was extremely real and the extremists were hijacking the House in an effort to prevent the debts Constitutionally required to be paid from being so. Obama could, technically, have used the Constitution to mandate a raise in the spending limit but he wanted both sides of the House to work together to agree on that. He wanted a consensual, rather than mandated, solution. The Tea Party refused to consent to anything other than its whims and played chicken with the law. The Tea Party won that round, resulting in a second-dip recession being unavoidable for the sole benefit of not having to agree with Democrats.

      Obama, realizing that the Tea Party would wreck the US completely before it agreed to a damn thing with those it sees as rivals, has now chosen to use his Constitutional mandate. Remember, he is sworn to uphold the Constitution and the Constitution FORBIDS unpaid debts. He has no choice. That isn't being the King, that's merely following the law. It is the Tea Party that is the Pretender to the throne, in openly advocating the abolition of Constitutional Amendments without due process for political point-scoring purposes.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    22. Re:Glitch? by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      You're the liar, Obama never said Netanyahu was a liar. He didn't agree with the statement. If he had outright disagreed, it would spoil the relationship with France. I think Obama handled it well.

    23. Re:Glitch? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      You have the actors mixed up, but I think you have the sense of it. By publicly trashing Netanyahu they're preparing the media battle space for a "rogue" Israeli attack on Iran. One story that didn't get wide distribution last week was the delivery of US bunker busters to Israel after years of holdup. Couple that with the latest UN report on the Iranian weapons program and all the pieces are in place for an attack.

    24. Re:Glitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama says Netanyahu is a liar

      That is a lie.

    25. Re:Glitch? by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "What someone doesn't want you to publish is journalism; all else is publicity. "

      I find that statement to be pretty naïve. Good journalism is synonymous with good judgment.

      In this case, even assuming that Obama's and Sarkozy's statements were genuine, they obviously seemed to be personal opinions and had little relevance to actual foreign policy. What if Obama was simply lying about his opinion of Netanyahu to amuse and placate Sarkozy? What's the public benefit to reporting such pleasantries?

      But more importantly, how can you be so sure what the administration "doesn't want you to publish"? What if the statement was meant to be overheard, and even leaked, as a red herring to put pressure on Netanyahu during some upcoming talk? Then the journalist is simply being duped into acting as an indirect mouthpiece of the administration.

      Good journalists don't just print stuff because they think they overheard it. That's why they're called "journalists" and not "tattle-tales."

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    26. Re:Glitch? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      You really are frightfully ignorant of American law and history, aren't you?

    27. Re:Glitch? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      The student loans were never going to be paid back by students. The house mortgages were never going to be paid back by buyers. The government debt is never going to be repaid by tax payers. The SS has no assets of any kind and taxes will have to go higher to pay ever less benefits as fewer people work and they are paid less to work, so that ponzi scheme will also never be funded; the government won't stop sending out the checks of-course, but the debt cannot be repaid. Same with Medicare. The banks cannot repay the bail out money, instead the Treasury monetizes the bad debt.

      All of these things are brought to you by the "counterfeit often, counterfeit big" monetary policy, and they call Madoff a thief.

      I do not want an 'educated/rational populace' in exchange for slavery. I want government out of all economic decisions. We are witnessing right now the global end of the fiat currency and of the socialist state. It's not going to be pretty, as it's going to be replaced with dictatorships (it's already a dictatorship in US and in Europe too, with the dictators meeting in Brussels and in Washington DC.)

      The debt ceiling crisis was fake.

      It was a fake crisis, if the debt wasn't increased the SS/Medicare payments wouldn't have stopped, but government would have had to cut spending in order to actually start living within its pathetic means.

      Debts are not required to be repaid under Constitution, that's a complete misunderstanding of what the word "validity". Just because some debts back in the Civil War were acknowledged to be valid, doesn't make it any more necessary to pay any debts. A valid debt can be valid alright, and it still doesn't have to be paid if there is no money, that's what bankruptcy and restructuring is for.

      Tea Party had no effect on government spending at all, the spending increased this year by at least 5%, it didn't decrease a bit.

      Constitution does NOT forbid unpaid debts, learn to read.

      Obama is being a King by increasing public debt by 1,000,000,000,000 USD without actually asking the people, who are representatives of the tax paying public - do they agree to put this on their books as a liability or not?

      You are a hack, and I unfortunately still can't post under my own fucking nick here.

    28. Re:Glitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what do you know, I could post under my nick.

    29. Re:Glitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am pretty sure I didn't lie even if I misread the quote. Lying on a public forum about an even that is linked to the story is not very useful, is it?

    30. Re:Glitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What someone doesn't want you to publish is journalism; all else is publicity."

      I find that statement to be pretty naive.

      Ignorant of the history of your own profession.
      The author of that quote was far from naive.

      Good journalists don't just print stuff because they think they overheard it.

      I think that the way you just framed this incident makes your latent bias clear.

    31. Re:Glitch? by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      David Simon couldn't have said it better himself. Or maybe he already did. Either way, +1.

    32. Re:Glitch? by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

      I would hope Nancy Pelosi is nowhere on her menstrual cycle, she's 71.

    33. Re:Glitch? by pankajmay · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with PCM2's comments.
      Everyone has a bias - including the journalists.
      Often when one comes across a really effective journalistic piece - it is not simply a report of the facts, but there is a fair bit of investigation and structural thought applied by the journalist.
      By the standards of everyone-out-with-everything-literally standards people would be deluged with way too much information that will be irrelevant; without context (how will you tell whether a person making a remark really meant it or was just doing it for conversation facilitation?) and will lend towards a sound byte that can be effectively damaging outside context.

      If you do not understand this -- then consider yourself in a relatable example -- you perhaps go out with your coworkers to a bar after work to socialize and commisurate by using statements like "Hate my work today" -- would you like the same statement be used against you by your employer? Does that have any bearing to your real feelings about your job in general?

      As long as journalists apply the same judiciousness in their judgement; and meticulously remain vigilant to subtract their bias (as much as possible) -- I think things would be fine.

      It is not so much as a pithy simplistic saying about sausages -- but rather a careful complex interplay of personality interaction and gaining trust that allows things to get done.

    34. Re:Glitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which of course implies that not only were the microphones in that office open, but translators were active at that time to translate that which was discussed into French.

      Why the need to translate to French anyway in this case? I guess they just parleyed in Sarkozy's native language. This isn't Futurama where French died as language.

    35. Re:Glitch? by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      What if Obama was simply lying about his opinion of Netanyahu to amuse and placate Sarkozy?

      ...which seems rather likely to me. Sarkozy strikes me as the kind of guy who is much harder to get along with if you aren't willing to agree with (or at least humor) everything he says.

    36. Re:Glitch? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Wow, you basically just rehashed the comment I replied to and managed to avoid any of the points or accusations I was making. You really are a Journalist!

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    37. Re:Glitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy for anyone to avoid things with little to no substance

      You made three statements

      First was a quote which GP responded to

      The last two were just blind accusations with no elaboration, explanation, or evidence (closest thing to backing them up is your first quote, which again, GP responded to)

    38. Re:Glitch? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 0

      evidence

      All in GP's post. Sorry you missed them.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  5. Just like the movie Naked Gun with Leslie Nieson by HockeyPuck · · Score: 4, Funny

    In the movie, he was on a panel of some press conference and after he spoke, he forgot to take off his wireless microphone and headed off the mensroom whereby the sounds of his visit were broadcast over the PA system.

    The scene

    It's safe for work.

  6. Glitch? by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Was this a glitch or was this done on purpose, by the way?

    Also this shows the insanity - Obama says Netanyahu is a liar (as if Obama or Sarcozy are not liars), and all of these liars are up there, dealing the cards of nations.

    Do you trust any of these people? If you do - you are insane.

    Obama will start a war with Iran. Any other candidate will except for two: Ron Paul (and Gary Johnson probably wouldn't either).

    It's tiring that all these liars are on top and making all these decisions for nations and economies, etc. Take the power back from them.

  7. So the website that leaks.. by microbee · · Score: 2

    soon will lose its access to major credit cards right?

    1. Re:So the website that leaks.. by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      soon will lose its access to major credit cards right?

      The American and French governments don't have that sort of influence. You're thinking of their corporate masters.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    2. Re:So the website that leaks.. by igreaterthanu · · Score: 2

      You're assuming they didn't want this to leak.

      --
      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.
    3. Re:So the website that leaks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming they didn't want this to leak.

      Mod this man insightful. Only a complete fool would expect the reporters to let this opportunity pass. They knew the reporters would listen and tell the world what they heard - but then why? Is it to make people think the US won't unconditionally side with the Jews, or is it a message to tell them to slow down the occupation?

  8. Oh, Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess they are both Nazi's now... /TongueInCheek

  9. Do NOT want to hear Obama in bed by Quila · · Score: 0

    More specifically, I don't want to hear Michelle during any - uh - marital affairs.

    It could turn me off sex for years. I might need counseling. Oh no, just the thought right now is... ewwwww

    1. Re:Do NOT want to hear Obama in bed by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Would you prefer the thought of George HW and Barbara Bush in the throes of passion?

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    2. Re:Do NOT want to hear Obama in bed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone reading Slashdot has sex? *boggle*
      I call shenanigans!

      Everyone knows the closest thing to sex a nerd gets is smooching their hand-built computer in their mother's basement! (and possibly a zap if they didn't ground properly) :P

    3. Re:Do NOT want to hear Obama in bed by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Does anybody have any mental floss?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:Do NOT want to hear Obama in bed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's called a drill

    5. Re:Do NOT want to hear Obama in bed by geekoid · · Score: 1

      So you don't like attractive women? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but yeah, she's hot.
      http://cheezburger.com/View/1977741056

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. Re:Just like the movie Naked Gun with Leslie Nieso by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We once had a college professor who did exactly the same during a break.
    Hilarity ensued.

  11. They're all liars and they all suck by istartedi · · Score: 1

    It's just not polite to say it. Just last night they did this bit on House where the guy goes through a litany of truths about the guys fantasizing about having sex with the hot female doctor. Everybody knows it. It's just not polite to say it. Blah, blah, blah.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  12. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will see how deep our loyalties run next election.

  13. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too easy... 2 minutes later.

    Your pet parasite is neither the embodiment of the Jewish people, nor the nation of Israel.

  14. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a huge difference between being anti semetic and being anti zionist. The Palestinians being ethnically cleansed by Israel are also semetic. Sarkozy was not wrong (in this case).

  15. Nothing to hide, right? by pedrop357 · · Score: 1

    Surely, this is OK. They had nothing to hide and their conversation was taking place in a public place*, so all's fair.

    Definition of "public place" tortured to extend to publically owned buildings as well as places where the public might be allowed.

  16. Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    President Obama should be fine with it, he does support warrantless wiretapping, that's essentially what heppend here.

  17. Re:Just like the movie Naked Gun with Leslie Nieso by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So did I. He wasn't a prof at UBC, was he?

  18. Cameras everywhere idea requires them *everywhere* by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 1

    If it's all the same to you I'd like to skip some parts... like for example their trips to the toilet.

    I hope you realise that any such toilet exception would lead to the bulk of the G20 summit being conducted in the mens toilets. Leaving Germany, Brazil, Argentina and Australia to strike up a bizarre alliance in the women's toilet.

  19. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by fusiongyro · · Score: 1
  20. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by fusiongyro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it's possible to dislike their PM without wanting them destroyed. I disliked Bush, but it didn't make me unamerican.

    Moreover, this is two politicians talking. Why do we assume that they were being honest with each other?

  21. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ethnically cleansed my ass. They're jordanian, with a mix of egyptian and syrian.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  22. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    We're only pretending to support them, but antisemitism is rising and we have a president who thinks his life would be a lot easier if Israel didn't exist. Guess our loyalty doesn't run very deep.

    Were you operating on the misconception that our 'loyalty' to any of our allies is particularly deep(or that of any of our allies to us)?

  23. Re:Just like the movie Naked Gun with Leslie Nieso by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 1

    I actually did exactly that to an actor once at my community college, opps.

    It's very easy to forget to mute a channel on an audio mixer when you often have dozens of them.

  24. Until reality sets in by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

    Fox news has made hardly any mention of it.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    1. Re:Until reality sets in by Caerdwyn · · Score: 1

      Shhh, you're interrupting the synthetic reflexive outrage.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    2. Re:Until reality sets in by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1
      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    3. Re:Until reality sets in by jfengel · · Score: 2

      But it isn't the "Obama hates Israel"-fest one tends to associate with Fox News. How unexpectedly civil of them. But we'll see if that continues.

    4. Re:Until reality sets in by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

      FoxNews(dotcom) regurgitates the same AP stories as all the other news sites. It's the opinion articles that have the bias, and they're under the headline that reads "Opinion".

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    5. Re:Until reality sets in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it isn't the "Obama hates Israel"-fest one tends to associate with Fox News. How unexpectedly civil of them.

      Maybe they don't want to highlight the fact that the exchange occurred when Obama was chiding Sarkozy because the French voted to accept Palestine as a UNESCO member? Doesn't really fit the "Obama hates Israel" narrative too neatly.

      Then again it's not like Fox suffers from an excess of candor when it comes to placing 5 sec grabs into context ... Now if only it had been Obama who called Bibi a LIAR.

    6. Re:Until reality sets in by Nimey · · Score: 2

      ...and NPR had a mention of it today in Morning Edition.

      Let's not let facts get in the way of Quila's faith-based belief that all news orgs are equally biased.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    7. Re:Until reality sets in by geekoid · · Score: 1

      FoxNews inserts their on quotes into AP stories, as well as change the headlines to more alarming phrase.

      For example that changes :
      AP poll: Economic worries pose new snags for Obama
      to:
      AP: Obama Has a Big Problem With White Women

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  25. Question by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why does the president of the U.S. have to talk to the President of Israel literally EVERY DAY? We give them all that military aid and side on them with every issue. We cut out funding for the UN cultural agency just because they allow Palestine to join. And he STILL has to talk to their president every day?

    Shouldn't he be more focused on the affairs of the US? I'm no isolationist, but why does he have to talk to the president of Israel every day? After a while, doesn't Israel have to become a viable nation that doesn't rely on the US for everything? I mean all they really have to do is stop building settlements so the international community will approve of them.

    1. Re:Question by Caerdwyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, Obama does not speak to him every day.

      Do you know what "hyperbole" is? Do you know that "deal with" is not equivalent to "speak with"? Do you know that the Congress is the primary internal-facing Federal body in the US? Do you know that the President is the primary external-facing power in the US? Do you realize that foreign policy IS an affair of the US? Do you believe everything you read in a Slashdot summary, or for that matter, on the Internet at all?

      I don't think you really understand how the presidency operates at all. Or journalists, or politics, or...

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    2. Re:Question by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

      "Do you know that the Congress is the primary internal-facing Federal body in the US? Do you know that the President is the primary external-facing power in the US?"

      I did not know that. In fact, I think you just made that up right now to buttress your point. The Constitution gives the Congress plenty of power over foreign affairs. Likewise, the President has plenty of authority over domestic affairs.

    3. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Obama has to get his marching orders everyday.

    4. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

    5. Re:Question by jd · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The answer to that is simple. The voting bloc Israel represents is huge. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy - in fact, I'm certain that there isn't - but politics is very us-vs-them and Obama has no interest in being one of "them". He wants strategic ambiguity and anything that could be deemed a slight or an insult would break that ambiguity.

      Even in this case, he was reluctant to say anything overt. His brief statement had the air of plausible denial over its meaning. It may let him claim to both camps that he's on their side. That would be very much like Obama.

      Remember, when he wants to be insulting, there's no question about it. Obama has very openly insulted the British on numerous occasions and has made it clear that he sees nothing special about the Anglo-American relationship. Indeed, such was his level of gross abuse on his various visits that it's safe to say Britain ranks about on-par with Pakistan at this point in his eyes. Usable but expendable, with Britain being the more expendable of the two right now.

      The tactics used in this case were much more cleverly crafted, so Obama places a far greater value on Israel and its view of the world. Just as with Britain, though, it's not out of compassion or understanding, it's a calculation. It would not surprise me if this whole stunt was a calculation. But what was he calculating and who was the broadcast really aimed at?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No, Obama does not speak to him every day."

      Wait... don't tell me... you have Obama wire tapped ??

    7. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So naive. Travel to Israel sometime and you will realize the scale of your error. Realize they're surrounded closely on three sides by countries that don't want them there.

      I think Israel should never have been formed in 1946. It was a mistake made out of interest in ending persecution of Jewish people. It did not work as planned.

      That said I despise the muslim countries surrounding them. They are more despicable and have no interest in preserving human rights.

    8. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you weren't aware that the Jewish group are second only to the NRA when it comes to lobbying?

    9. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who deals with international leaders more? Who commands the military (apparently without oversight these days)? Who is the "public face" of the US?

    10. Re:Question by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

      Who has authority to make treaties and declare war? Who proposes healthcare plans and makes speeches about the economy?

    11. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the international community will approve of Israel if they stop building settlements, then you are surely mislead. If it's not the settlements that the community complains about, then it will be something else;
      1) the handling of gross violations of their own borders (hello flotilla's)
      2) the defence of their own national security (hello Gaza strip rockets, hello security fences)
      3) the fact that they still exist (hello Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc etc)

      Unfortunately anti-semitism is still rife and they could do with all the help they can get.

    12. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just out of curiosity, could you elaborate on Obama's disdain for the British?

    13. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read up on AIPAC, the JDL, look at who controls a large portion of the media (no really don't take my word for it look it up) understand that the USA would have little problem with the Middle East if it wasn't for our "support" of Israel, and I would then ask myself "What does Israel do for us?"

      http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

    14. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're just deluding yourself so you can be ignorant about the fact that Israel has so much power over the US and/or vice versa. Face it: Israel is all but a US state, created to fuck up the Arabs and not have the US be blamed for it. And now they are not needed anymore since the US does it itself. So Israel is a bit going crazy on its own.

    15. Re:Question by 51M02 · · Score: 1

      I'm no isolationist, but why does he have to talk to the president of Israel every day?

      One word : Florida :)

      --
      --- Bouh !!! ---
    16. Re:Question by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The President "proposes" health care plans and "talks" about the economy. The Congress however has the power of the purse. Yes congress can make treaties and declare war but the President then executes the war and the treaties alike. In fact, as Commander in Chief the President can carry on a war without Congressional approval. It may not be declared but he can blow hell out of someone while Congress is sleeping. The only real way for Congress to stop him is to either Impeach him or cut off funding until the military runs out of money and can no longer conduct operations. And there are lots of little nest eggs of Billions of dollars that are laying around for the President to tap into making it possible for him to carry on a war for some time. It may be political suicide but often if he can do it quickly and successfully with very little loss of life the American people will actually approve and Congress dare do nothing. Decisive Presidents earn respect. President Obama found this out when the raid into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden succeeded bring him praise even from some right wing pundits. A lot of people are still pissed about 9/11 and want somebody's ass for it. Right or wrong the Muslim extremists are viewed as responsible and generally loathed and Israel, in a enemy of my enemy kind of way is viewed mostly positively. While Europeans may see it differently they don't get to elect US politicians who have to answer to American voters.

    17. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, there is a difference between President and Prime Minister.

    18. Re:Question by sbates · · Score: 1

      Not exactly made up. From whitehouse.gov: "The Executive Branch conducts diplomacy with other nations, and the President has the power to negotiate and sign treaties, which also must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate." No other official is the primary diplomat, though Clinton may right now appear so she is merely a proxy for the president.

    19. Re:Question by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

      The president also signs health care plans into law. If he didn't, no one would be that interested in what he thought the best plan would be. My point stands. We have a president and a Congress. They share power in foreign and domestic affairs. The president picks the Secretary of State, Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Agriculture etc.

    20. Re:Question by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

      What is the basis of these paranoid conspiracy theories? That flotillas of food want to come into Palestine and Israel won't let them? That is a sign that everyone wants to destroy is Israel? That people don't believe Israel should starve an entire people to death?

    21. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Obama does not speak to him every day. Do you know what "hyperbole" is?

      The gp obviously knows, and you obviously don't (unless you are being a troll [with bad English communication skills]). Some people can understand political rhetoric, and some people just post for the Flamebait and ad hominem attacks:

      I don't think you really understand how the presidency operates at all. Or journalists, or politics, or...

    22. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I mean all they really have to do is stop building settlements so the international community will approve of them."

      You don't pay much attention to news or history of that area much, do you?

      I'll keep it simple and stick to very recent stuff: Israel completely pulled out of Gaza. What happened next?

      Since you don't know, I'll clue you in: Friendly Citizens of Gaza began lobbing rockets over the Israeli border by the hundreds.

      If it was your country's neighbor lobbing rockets into your town, you'd be the first one stomping around screaming about nuking them.

    23. Re:Question by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      He picks cabinet members but Congress approves them.

    24. Re:Question by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      You might want to re-check your maps. Gaza is not part of Israel, they just have a blocade set up.

  26. Was it really an accident? by MisplacedLonghorn · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What with all the complexities of statecraft, isn't it possible this was no accident? Perhaps it was meant as a bid to get Netanyahu's attention and subtly express French and US government positions on the Israel/Palestine question. Food for thought.

    1. Re:Was it really an accident? by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 2, Funny

      No. For one thing, everyone knows Netanyahu is a lying asshole.

    2. Re:Was it really an accident? by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      I wasn't an accident, this could cost Obama his re-election and maybe even some congressmen their seats.

    3. Re:Was it really an accident? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      No. Not everyone. Enough people believe him to make it impossible for the President to do much about him. I don't know if he's a lying asshole or not but I know that ALL of his enemies are. Knowing that, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    4. Re:Was it really an accident? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. In the big scheme of things this is nothing. Really, what did he say? "I have to deal with him every day!" So frigging what. I remember Dick "fuck you" Cheney and President Bush calling a guy a "real asshole" one time and it blew over in a few days. Then of course the incident where Cheney told the guy "fuck you" and his apolgy later was "I'm sorry you all heard that" and not "sorry I said it." I don't see where this will matter at all.

  27. Re:Cameras everywhere idea requires them *everywhe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Angela Merkel is a woman?!

  28. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

    antisemitism is rising

    The Israeli government is not losing support because they are Jews. They are losing support because of their actions.

    We have a President who thinks his life would be a lot easier if the Israeli government would stop pissing off the international community with shit like the settlements. Then he wouldn't have to tell his ambassadors to exercise their Security Council veto every time the Israeli government engages in an international faux pas.

    Regarding your last point, however, I'm inclined to agree. Look at how quickly the US turned on Gaddafi. Our loyalty does not run deep at all. Not that we should have had any loyalty with Gaddafi to begin with...

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  29. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

    The people of that region yes used to be residents of the nations in question at one time. That doesn't change the fact that they are ethnically Semitic. Apparently you are under the wrong assumption that Semitic = Jewish. It doesn't, in general Semitic means a descendant of Abraham and Arabs (almost all Palestinians are of Arab descent) are descendants of Abraham.

    Now it's true that if you killed every Palestinian you wouldn't have wiped out an entire ethnic group, but ethnic cleansing is by definition trying to remove an entire ethnic group from a region. Genocide is the compete elimination of an ethnic group and the OP didn't say Israel was engaged in genocide, but is in fact arguing Israels (unspoken) intent is to cleanse Israel and the occupied territories of non-Jewish Arab's, hence the correct term ethnic cleansing.

    The OP is also correct in that being anti-zionism is not Anti-Semitic because Palestinians are Semitic as well. To be a true anti-semitic you need to hate both Jews and Arabs. Otherwise you just hate one specific group of the Semitic ethnic group.

  30. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Long live ISRAEL. Long live ZION.

  31. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

    I'm German with a mix of Swedish and Norewgian but damn if anybody is bulldozing my house because of something my brother did.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  32. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Oh crap, do you think there hasn't been any US President since Israel's foundation that hasn't probably muttered similar words? I'll wager it's pretty tame compared to what some Presidents have said.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  33. Simple really by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    The sad part is that Israel has the only rational leadership in the region, they also a flash point to Obama and Co. need to keep tabs on them and to try and keep nudging them one direction.

    The problem is, Obama has never liked them and now its going to be real hard to play nice. Israel won't listen and it has been apparent early on that your only as good for the Administration as to your ability to listen and do what they think should be done. Its a classic textbook ignorance of reality, thinking that just because you say something it becomes something.

    If anything it shows his true thinking which is wholly unprofessional to utter to another world leader. So much for being smart, I guess arrogance got in the way.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Simple really by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They have rational leadership? Is that why apparently everyone thinks he's an asshole? Wouldn't a rational leader try to gain the trust of important world leaders? Is that why he can't establish peace even with the most powerful nation on Earth on his side? And by what definition is a theocracy a form of rational leadership?

      A lot of the leadership in the middle east was installed by the U.S. I mean, I think it's kind of hypocritical for the U.S. to put an insane restaurant owner in charge of Afghanistan and then complain about a lack of rational leadership.

    2. Re:Simple really by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The only way he can gain trust of important world leaders is to give in to their demands. It's plain that ain't happening, Israelis are funny about wanting to survive and feeling that giving Hamas, Syria and Iran what they want would be counter productive to that goal. I think maybe they're too hard line about it but then I don't live there surrounded by people that thing the world would be a better place if all the Jews were dead. I think maybe under that situation I might become paranoid and hard to deal with too.

    3. Re:Simple really by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

      The only way is to give into their demands? No, actually not lying usually goes pretty far on those fronts. If he just said Netanyahu is difficult, you might have a point, he said he's a liar. Are you saying the Sarkozy and the other leaders are part of a conspiracy to destroy Israel for no reason? Palestine is simply not an existential threat to Israel, despite your paranoid hysterics. The Palestinians just want to survive. Israel should just make an agreement with them.

      Most of the international community wants Iran to not have nuclear weapons. Israel should just form a united front with them.

    4. Re:Simple really by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      And what agreement should they make? They managed to make an agreement with Egypt because Egypt met them halfway. Just what is it that will make Hamas and all the other player in the area let them live?

    5. Re:Simple really by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Depends on your definition of 'rational'.

      Trying to exterminate your neighbors and take their land? Applies to Israel as well as most of their neighbors.

      Nuclear weapons? Israel has them, Iran wants them - not much of a difference.

      Oppression? I again don't see much difference between Israel and their neighbors. Sure Israel is a democracy - as long as you are Jewish, with laws being passed to ban Muslim political parties. And what can you call their treatment of the Palestinians other then oppression?

  34. Re:Just like the movie Naked Gun with Leslie Nieso by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    In the movie, he was on a panel of some press conference and after he spoke, he forgot to take off his wireless microphone and headed off the mensroom whereby the sounds of his visit were broadcast over the PA system.

    The scene

    It's safe for work.

    And you've never seen (or heard) anyone on a mobile phone in the bathroom? I'm quite stunned every time I hear someone on their phone in there, like in airports or even at work.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  35. Re:Just like the movie Naked Gun with Leslie Nieso by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had that happen to me recently - the actor had gone to the toilet and I'd turned the volume on the monitor up in anticipation of doing a playback of the scene just shot, just in time to hear horrible whooshing noises that caused me no end of confusion (bad connection? interference?) - until I realised it was the sound of the toilet flushing. Fortunately, nothing else was heard. And nothing was said upon his return.

  36. Red Herring by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    Before Israel it was always Christians vs. everyone else. There is almost no historical tension between Muslims and Jews. The tensions are all the result of Israel's actions, not some ancient Islamic prejudice against Jews.

    1. Re:Red Herring by Nimey · · Score: 2

      Er... Mohammed tried to join forces with the Jews in his day because of the belief that Arabs and Jews shared common descent from Abraham. The Jews told him to fuck off.

      I'm very definitely not a fan of the Israeli government, but let's not forget history entirely.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  37. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by theVarangian · · Score: 1

    The people of that region yes used to be residents of the nations in question at one time. That doesn't change the fact that they are ethnically Semitic. Apparently you are under the wrong assumption that Semitic = Jewish. It doesn't, in general Semitic means a descendant of Abraham and Arabs (almost all Palestinians are of Arab descent) are descendants of Abraham.

    The assumption that one population replaces another is erroneous. What usually happens is that they merge. Genetic analysis shows that the Palestinian 'Arabs' of the Levant are actually to a large extent descended from Jewish ancestors who in turn probably got a large genetic contribution from Persia, the Hellenic world Africa and, especially during Roman times, from Western Euorpe. The Palestinians may not practice the Jewish religion but genetically they are quite Jewish. The genetic ancestry of most human groups, tribes, nations, etc. is way more complex than most people realize.

  38. Big whoop by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Oh you bunch of cry babies..."the one" said something off mic, and you libs get all bent out of shape saying not fair....I sure don't remember you crying your eyes out when Reagan's mic was on when he said "I've outlawed the USSR, the bombing begins in 10 minutes". You idiots cried that he's a war monger, his finger on the button bla bla bla...Get over it.

    1. Re:Big whoop by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I damn near died laughing. I loved Ronbo's warped sense of humor. That was back when politics was still fun.

    2. Re:Big whoop by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      There was a video out a while back of all of Reagan's jokes edited together. It was actually pretty amusing.

  39. Deal with him everyday? by koan · · Score: 2

    Why?
    Oh this reason...
    http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Deal with him everyday? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      He has to keep telling him not to nuke Iran.

    2. Re:Deal with him everyday? by koan · · Score: 1

      Israel wouldn't be the one fighting Iran if they did, it would be the US, and that's the problem, with the US as a shield/big brother Israel can act as it pleases, if our support stopped...

      This is why AIPAC is the most powerful lobby.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  40. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by chrb · · Score: 1
    You confuse nationality and ethnicity. Jordan, Egypt and Syria are nation states not ethnic groups.

    In actual fact, Arabs and Jews are genetically the same people:

    " What they revealed was that Arabs and Jews are essentially a single population, and that Palestinians are slap bang in the middle of the different Jewish populations (as shown in this figure)." http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html?m=1

  41. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Jewish is not an ethnicity. Semitic is the ethnicity Jews derive from. Arabs are also Semitic. I'm not even sure how you went off on this tangent, as you appear to be arguing that Jewish is a separate ethnicity, its not, it's a religion not ethnic origin. Jews and Arabs are from the same ethnic group, the only real difference between the groups is the religion, which has nothing to do with genetic ethnicity. Palestinians aren't ethnically Jewish because Jewish isn't an ethnicity.

    That would be like saying anglo-saxons are ethnically Christian. It's nonsense. You appear to need to study what ethnicity is and how ethnic groups are divided. Let me give you a hint, it's not dictated by the religion they choose.

  42. May not have been an accident by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 0

    Elections are coming within a year for Obama, he needs to look like a descent person. Complaining about Netanyahu makes him look like he does not want to supply the weapons that are killing women and children in Palestine. But deep inside, he does not care

  43. Why is it "private"? by devent · · Score: 1

    There are elected presidents of two countries and not two buddies in the pub. What they are talking and what they decide, will shape the future not only of their countries, but of the world. It would be "private" if Obama or Sarkozy would talk to his wife or his children, but not if one official is talking to another official.

    Such talks should not be private in any sense. Actually, everything our leaders talk and do should be recorded for public review.

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  44. Is it real news? by MYakus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is it real news that Obama and the Frenchman don't like an Israeli? We haven't treated enemies as badly as Netanyahu was treated when he visited the White House.

    1. Re:Is it real news? by aiken_d · · Score: 2

      Nice work on the anti-semitism, there. Classy.

      Netanyahu has done more harm to American interests than most of our enemies. So I guess it's appropriate to treat him badly. He's sabotaging U.S. *and* Israeli interests in the name of testosterone and machismo. There's no rule that says we have to treat him as if he were a legitimate ally when he's not living up to his side of the bargain.

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    2. Re:Is it real news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whadayamean ?

      USA :
      * nuked hiroshima
      * desintegrated Dresden
      * reverted North Korea to stone age
      * wiped all vegetation from part of Vietnam
      * collapsed USSR
      * bombed serbia
      * killed 200k in Afghanistan
      * invaded and occupied Iraq
      * oragnized terrosist ops in South America
      * covered torture in Chile
      * financed African warlords to wipe french influence out
      * sponsored drug cartels rampaging Mexico
      * created and funded Al Qaida
      * ...
      * expressed mild discontent @ Netanyahou

      Do you really think he was treated worse than an ennemy

    3. Re:Is it real news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They talked about Netanyahu, not Israel. They don't like Netanyahu. Israel isn't mentioned.

    4. Re:Is it real news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying you abducted him from the White House, flew him to a middle eastern dictatorship to be tortured, then stripped him naked and made him pose for degrading photographs with your soldiers, before finally sending him off to rot indefinitely in a prison camp without even charging him of a crime, let alone offering him any form of trial..?

      Oh no wait, you said you treated him worse than that. What exactly did you do?

    5. Re:Is it real news? by m50d · · Score: 1

      Snappy quote, but is it true? Any number of unarmed Arab civilians living in palestine get their homes bulldozed every day to make way for Israeli settlements; I see no evidence that would stop if the rest of the Arabs disarmed.

      --
      I am trolling
  45. Life Imitates Art by pz · · Score: 1

    Anyone else reminded of the episode of The West Wing where President Bartlet speaks candidly after an interview is supposedly over but the cameras are still rolling? In that fictional case his staff went apoplectic trying to put spin on how it was a mistake, etc., when in reality it was a calculated and savvy move where the President acted in full knowledge that the camera was still on.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  46. Re:Nothing like........ by amiga3D · · Score: 0

    Get over it you swastika wearing KKK nut job racist.

  47. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    I disliked Bush

    You like him now?

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  48. simultaneous translation by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

    what is a simultaneous translation? do these guys have realtime voice to voice translation software?? that really works?

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    1. Re:simultaneous translation by vilms · · Score: 1

      In this case it's more 'wetware'. Simultaneous translators are people with the talent to do on-the-fly translation. HTH.

      (unless this is a really obscure set up for a WHOOOOSHing?)

  49. Re:Just like the movie Naked Gun with Leslie Nieso by mkiwi · · Score: 1

    I know a particular professor who did this teaching sophomore-level Java programming. Unfortunately, I was not at the lecture and heard about it later. All I'll say is that we're a big engineering school in a midwestern state.

  50. Human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, leaders of the free world are actually human beings with personal opinions... ...And people thought those opinions were reflected in their policy. Kinda reinforces the idea that their policy is driven by the moral majority they belong to.

  51. Israel is not liked by Cherubim1 · · Score: 1

    Not too many world leaders like Nitwityahoo but one must remember that Israel has the US by the nuts. It's their proxy war and financial machine which they have now almost wrecked beyond recognition.

  52. You don't see bias because it is for your side by Quila · · Score: 0

    Most liberals still thought Rather was an unbiased source even after the Memogate scandal.

    At least I admit Fox is biased. At least of what I see of it, which is rarely, since it's never turned on in my house.

    1. Re:You don't see bias because it is for your side by Nimey · · Score: 1

      MOVING GOAL POST DETECTED

      I'm quite capable of seeing bias, thanks much; the point that you're not wanting to admit is that you were wrong about "other news organizations", and you're compounding it by stereotyping liberals.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:You don't see bias because it is for your side by Quila · · Score: 1

      You say you're capable of seeing bias, but you won't admit other news organizations have it?

      CBS defended itself and Rather over the Killian documents story, and even created news stories in its defense and had 60 minutes do a defense piece, until their attempted smear was too obvious for the public to ignore. Even worse, they had coordinated the story with the Kerry campaign prior to publication, and even then the most their "independent" review panel could admit to was the "appearance of a political bias."

      Do you have an equivalent that Fox has done?

    3. Re:You don't see bias because it is for your side by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I never said that other news orgs aren't biased. I'm saying that you're moving the goal posts to defend Fox ("everyone else is biased! Therefore it's OK that Fox is REALLY REALLY BIASED!").

      In case you missed it, I can tell that you're politically motivated.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  53. Eeeewww by Quila · · Score: 1

    Honestly, I thought that was his mother the first time I saw them together.

  54. Ha Ha ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nigger-li Obama-ber caught sucking whitey dick.

  55. Hot? Not. by Quila · · Score: 1

    Being in shape doesn't cure ugly.

    If you wanted a hot first lady, we should have elected Fred Thompson.

    1. Re:Hot? Not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You find Jeri Kehn Thompson to be attractive? yuk.

  56. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Despite the complexities of Jewish migrations during the diaspora, Jewish communities have generally not intermixed with non-Jewish populations. This gives Jews a distinct genetic identity. Palestinian Arabs in the Levant are more closely related to Jews than they are to many other peoples in some surrounding countries who have traditionally been labeled 'arabs'. Genetic science doesn't care about ethnic labels or religious groupings. It maps genetic relationships between human populations and some people find that uncomfortable.

  57. Re:Just like the movie Naked Gun with Leslie Nieso by tragedy · · Score: 1

    There's a good list of real life occurrences of this on tvtropes. Just scroll down and look for the Real Life section.

    WARNING!!! This is a link to tvtropes.org. While there, don't click on any links to any other sections of tvtropes. Tvtropes is a trap! I say again, it is a trap! Start following links there, and next thing you know it will be a week from now and you'll have a thousand tabs open and still be reading. You have been warned!

  58. At least some had professionalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to give a kudos to the professionalism of the reporters (or most) who made the decision to not report it. Now I'd like to know "Arrets Sur Images, a French website that covers current affairs, got wind of the exchange".

  59. Happens in every workplace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The unempowered employees badmouthing their boss behind his back.

  60. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

    Jews are ethnically Semitic, just like Arabs. Stop trying to argue the jewish religion is a fucking ethnic group, it's not and it's a god damned silly argument. I can't believe you are persisting in attempting to argue that a religion defines an ethnic group.

    So what are the other ethnic groups according to you? Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Mormon and Lutheran to name a few?

  61. Sieg Heil! by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 0

    Sieg Heil!

  62. Sarkozy is (was) very pro-Israel. by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    When he gained the presidency he got rid of the more pro-Arab foreign service hired by his predecessor. He bowed to all US desideratas he could get away with without angering the local populace too much. His early career in Neuilly was largely started through his good relations with the strong Lubavitch community there. He also happens to have Jewish ancestors.

    In other words, yes, it's real news if you know the slightest thing about Sarkozy. Here's a hint, if you want to know things, Fox News is probably not the way to go.

  63. Yo Blair! by DJRikki · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of Geo Bushwhacker II and his "Yo Blair!"

  64. Re:Just like the movie Naked Gun with Leslie Nieso by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

    WARNING!!! This is a link to tvtropes.org. While there, don't click on any links to any other sections of tvtropes. Tvtropes is a trap! I say again, it is a trap! Start following links there, and next thing you know it will be a week from now and you'll have a thousand tabs open and still be reading. You have been warned

    That just gave me a brilliant idea for a grease monkey script, it would disable all URLs on the page making it safe to visit.

  65. are you for real? by 1800maxim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really? The standing ovation of Congress was bad treatment? The Congress applauds Netanyahu more than its own president.

    While you're at it, you conveniently leave out Joe Biden's visit to Israel and what a slap in the face to the US that was!

    You're either extremely ignorant, or extremely biased. The end result is the same.

    The big question is, why is there a dislike of Netanyahu? Nothing happens without reason.

  66. Re:Just like the movie Naked Gun with Leslie Nieso by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Had this happen during a 3-way phone call. They forgot they were still on the phone, had the phone in the pocket...

  67. Re:Just like the movie Naked Gun with Leslie Nieso by omnichad · · Score: 1

    The web site that grew so large as to become self-aware, and then get an acting gig on NBC's community.

  68. Israel news papers say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Israel news papers say that this happened while Pres Obama was giving Pres Sarkozy grief for voting against American & Israel's wishes.
    But none of the American media seem to be noticing that.
    Still trying to figure out how it is news that someone said a politician lies.

  69. The pot calling the keddle black by cowwoc2001 · · Score: 1

    Let's be honest: all politicians lie. The question is who gets caught.

  70. The Ottomans were letting the Jews back in by Quila · · Score: 1

    It started in the late 1800s, not 1917.

    1. Re:The Ottomans were letting the Jews back in by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the date Britain took control of the territory, aided by the Jewish Legion.

    2. Re:The Ottomans were letting the Jews back in by Quila · · Score: 1

      And I was talking about when Jews started coming back in large numbers.

      Interesing you mention their economic influence though. Jews coming back into the region greatly increased its economic development.

    3. Re:The Ottomans were letting the Jews back in by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Apparently the numbers were only high enough to cause an uproar after the start of persecution of jews in Germany, some year before WWII.
      It is easy to have a prosperous nation when you have wealth (from all those fleeding immigrants) and access to unlimited credit. In many regions of the world minorities are slaughtered before they can afford to flee the country they live in, so yes, I'm talking about jewish wealth. If I was one of the minorities being persecuted in Germany and had the choice to leave the country, I'd do it in a hearbeat. But while the jews are no different from other minorities, such as tutsi in Rwanda, the victims of serbian ethnic cleansing, the curds in Iraq (and during Allied supervision of the post gulf war), etc.
      Israel allies don't really care for justice or amend of past mistakes - they only care about money. They are the same that overthrown gadaffi -a merciless dictactor, but with a stable country - but in Syria the bodies keep piling and they don't care. If Syria was a major oil and gas producer, they'd sing a different tune. Or maybe if they were jews, they could aspire to have first-class treatment.

    4. Re:The Ottomans were letting the Jews back in by Quila · · Score: 1

      Apparently the numbers were only high enough to cause an uproar after the start of persecution of jews in Germany, some year before WWII.

      Arabs were attacking the Jews before 1920, when the Haganah was created to protect against them. This is not long after the Ottomans lost control, and barely after Hitler had joined the DAP, about the time the name was changed to the NSDAP, and about five years before Mein Kampf.

      The Ottomans demanded everybody live together in peace, and the local Muslims were bound to obey the Caliphate. The British didn't care, and they had no authority under Islam, so the Muslims were free to attack the Jews after WWI. The later influx from Nazi-run Europe just gave them more Jews to attack.

  71. The devil must be putting on a sweater... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    as it must be a cold day in hell that not only one, but two politicians actually spoke the truth.

  72. Re:Israel is running out of allies... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    The point I was actually making is that you can dislike and even hate the Zionist state of Israel without being anti-semetic. And in fact, the Zionist state of Israel is earning that dislike and hate very legitimately. They are ethnically cleansing their cousins the Palestinians. They break every promise made in the peace process and disregard international law on a whim. The only reason the US supports their tyranny is that a significant minority of the US voting public believes that a Jewish State centered on Jerusalem is a prerequisite for the apocalypse that they pray for.

  73. Yonder lies the 4thEstate,more servile than'em all by D4C5CE · · Score: 1
    As Edmund Burke would probably have to say these days, while long gone seem those of:

    It is a newspaper's duty to print the news and raise hell

    Wilbur F. Storey tourne dans sa tombe...

  74. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  75. No moving goalposts here by Quila · · Score: 1

    Simply they're all biased. It does help to remind those who think only Fox is biased. None of it is OK, it's just the way things are.

    everyone else is biased! Therefore it's OK that Fox is REALLY REALLY BIASED

    Well, there you go. I just showed where CBS coordinated a falsified attack story on Bush with the opposing Kerry campaign, directly attempting to influence a presidential election for the liberal candidate, and that's just "biased" to you. And that's what was labeled NEWS. It wasn't commentary or opinion.

    One ABC news producer said about ABC, "The planning meetings have little political diversity. Everyone is left of center and at ease with their liberal ideals. The other viewpoint is rarely raised and never fully represented." I still find it funny that ABS's bio of their top (liberal, of course) journalist, Claire Shipman, fails to mention that her husband is Obama's press secretary. While Fox hires Dana Perino as a political commentator, Clinton insider George Stephanopoulos is portrayed by ABC as a straight journalist. This is just "biased" to you.

    Yet Fox execs directing stories along their ideological lines is "REALLY REALLY BIASED". Political motivation on your part? Don't say!

    In case you missed it, I can tell that you're politically motivated.

    If you're talking about the CBS fiasco you pretend didn't happen, I was never a Bush supporter. In fact, I agree with the general theme of the faked CBS story, that Bush did his best to get out of service during Vietnam using family connections. His supposed business career was equally deplorable.

  76. nothing technical in "technical glitch" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a technical glitch. There was no malfunction technically in the equipment.

  77. Plenty more examples, but not on Israel fan sites by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    Intersting how you miss the most relevant fact-that 15X the number of Palestinians have been killed by israel that vice versa. Israel is a nation formed, created and sustained on terrorist acts.

  78. Ah, hasbara by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    Anti-semitism is simply an excuse to invalidate criticsm of Israel, it is very good to see so many posters are finally seeing the true story of Israels many war crimes. To me it makes no difference if someone is killed by terrorists or an official army. Its clear Israel has killed 15X more Pals then vice cersa.

    1. Re:Ah, hasbara by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      Anti-semitism is simply an excuse to invalidate criticsm of Israel

      Criticism concerns facts. What he was posting were lies by omission and misdirection, probably through ignorance, that served no purpose other to inflame a dislike of Israel or Jews or both. No doubt there are different views of the situation there and how all sides should be handling it, but that is not the same as misrepresenting or distorting facts.

      , it is very good to see so many posters are finally seeing the true story of Israels many war crimes. To me it makes no difference if someone is killed by terrorists or an official army. Its clear Israel has killed 15X more Pals then vice cersa.

      So in absence of a way to stop either, you blame the Jews?

      Their shit has been going on for a very long time, and there is plenty of blame to go to both sides, but it is being laid far more at the feet of Israel. In all the criticism that goes on, nobody seems able or willing to suggest a viable way to stop the attacks on Israel. How to stop Israel's aggression is easy: stop threatening & attacking them, if they continue their thuggery they will have nothing to say when the world thumps them the way they've done to Saddam and others.

      Israel has had a gun to their heads since 1948. The trigger has been pulled several times. So, what should they do? Without some workable solution it is just worthless, inflaming, criticism. With the world's history of "blame the jew", and the current proliferation of hatred, it looks like plain old anti-semitism.

    2. Re:Ah, hasbara by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      It is Israels behaviour that has brought on the current criticism. I was once a supporter but Israels own actions have changed my view. I am sick to death of the pathetic wolf cry of anti-semitism being used EVERY time Israel is criticised. The land was not the Un's to give away in 48, and in my view is stolen from its owners. There is no pssible justification for Israel killing 15X the pals than their own as killed, and such sycophantic support as you give is frankly disgusting.

    3. Re:Ah, hasbara by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      It is Israels behaviour that has brought on the current criticism.

      Again, criticism is fine. Blindly saying Israel is bad and Arab Palestinians should get everything they demand while the Jewish Palestinians should just eat a cock and die is ... anti-semitic.

      I was once a supporter but Israels own actions have changed my view.

      Yes I know. Anti-semites often get upset when Jews defend themselves.

      I am sick to death of the pathetic wolf cry of anti-semitism being used EVERY time Israel is criticised.

      I'm sick of every time somebody points out lies and omissions people say they're sick of the cry-wolf anti-semitism complaints. Either use facts in your arguments, or be prepared to be denounced as the anti-semite you are.

      The land was not the Un's to give away in 48, and in my view is stolen from its owners.

      So you are woefully ignorant of history. Great. Pretty typical of most anti-semites. The UN didn't even exist when Israel was formed, along with Jordan, by Britain, with the approval of the League of Nations. And since its owner was the Ottoman Empire before that, which ceased to exist right about the same time the Mandate for Palestine was enacted, you don't get any points for your guess.

      There is no pssible justification for Israel killing 15X the pals than their own as killed,

      If 15 people kill my kid, and I want to stop those 15 from killing my other kids, that is perfect justification for a 15:1 kill ratio. Other items that affect such justification include murderers hiding amongst "innocent" civilians. I say "innocent" because those "innocent" civilians that you cry about are actively aiding said terrorists. Hell, they even voted those terrorists in to run their government. They are no different than the army support infrastructure we bombed in Germany.

      and such sycophantic support as you give is frankly disgusting.

      How is "there is plenty of blame to go to both sides" sycophantic support? How is pointing out the obvious factual lies in a post "sycophantic" support? You make claims such as "there is no possible justification" for Israel's actions, while I claim both sides are at fault, but my comment is "sycophantic support"?
      Nah, you're an anti-semite who's only solution for the entire situation is "let the Jews die". Or, you can prove you're not by offering a workable solution that keeps the Jews alive... Oh, and don't forget about the NATIVE Jewish Palestinians that you "Palestinian homeland" anti-semitic fools always conveniently ignore.

  79. Re:Plenty more examples, but not on Israel fan sit by Protosotme · · Score: 1

    This is not a relevant fact. The relevant fact is that Palestinian terrorists are firing from densely populated areas so that the IDF will retaliate and kill as many civilians as possible, making the international community denounce Israel.
    Israel has taken countless measures to prevent casualties among civilian population, dropping leaflets and sending text messages in order to warn citizens. What did Hamas do in that aspect?
    Futhermore, the number of hospitals in the Gaza metropolitan can be counted on one hand, so people are not treated properly. It's not that the Palestinians don't have the cash to build new hospitals. (They are getting plenty from the US, EU and UN) They just rather spending it on ammo, explosives (and corruption) and not on medical care for their own people.

  80. Re:Just like the movie Naked Gun with Leslie Nieso by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why look to fiction when there are plenty of good real-life examples. You'd think they'd learn from history and manually turn off their mics.

  81. Re:Plenty more examples, but not on Israel fan sit by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    Ah so killed Palestinians is NOT a revlevant fact eh? Shows exactly what your mindset is. If the human shields were so succesfull why do they keep using them? Israel's time in the ICC will come, and I hope to see many of the Israeli criminal convicted and jailed. As to hospitals, they seem to get a remarkable ammount od collateral damage when Israel attacks.

    Ii was once a supporter of Israel but thier own actions ahve changed my mind, they are as bad of worse than the freedom fighters (I no longer fall for the false "terrorists label, especially as terrorism was central to the formation of Israel in the first place). What is good for the goose...

  82. Re:Ah, hasbara, then more hasbara by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    Ah, another one sided biased rant trying desperately to deflect crticism of Israel, a nation who are nothing more than thieves who used terrorism to achevie their aims. You can rant all you like but I do not have any problem with jews, and I never have, its Israel actions that is the issue and its muderous behaviour. I was a supporter for 20 years but as I said, it was Israel own muderous killing of CIVILLIANS at 15 to 1 rate, murder of rachel Corrie, US Liberty, and welll known use of collective punshment of families the brought my change of mind.

    The world is no longer listening to your pathetic anti semitism wolf cry mate, or Israel's constant spin and lies. You can repeat the false accusation over and over but its worn thin for thinking people.

    You can spin disemmble and lie all you like, but people are awake to the guilt trip now and soon
    Israel will pay the price for its arrogance, theivery and dishonesty.

    Its hillarious how you ignore the fact that the jews in the west bank are living on stolen land and far more Palestinians are in refugee camps. They should get all their land back that was stolen by Israeli terror in 1948, which was also the year jewish terroists murdered the UN representative for attempting to reverse the ethnic cleansing they were conducting. There are countless other examples of such Israeli terrorism, one only has to look. Doesnt one of those silly old books say something like "what you sow you reap" that is exactly the case for Israel.
    Ironically they bleat when their own tactics are used against them. It was jewish terrorists who invented the idea of targetting medical responders, when the bodies of 2 british soldiers were hung in the street and bobby trapped to kill the paramedics.

    As far as I am concerned these days Palestinians are freedom fighters, and their tactics kill far less civillians than Israels (which should be called occupied Palestine) do.

    How about I come over and throw you out of your house and live in it whilst torturing and killing your family, and see how you react.

    Pathetic people like you are just blind to anything that does not support your beloved Israel.

  83. Re:Ah, hasbara, then more hasbara by Yakasha · · Score: 1

    Ah, another one sided biased rant trying desperately to deflect crticism of Israel,

    No, I asked you 3 times I believe for a workable solution. But you're too busy telling me I'm crying wolf and saying Israel is evil.

    a nation who are nothing more than thieves who used terrorism to achevie their aims.

    And here I was thinking they formed their own brigade and offered assistance to the British government in fighting the Ottoman Empire in return for land owned by the Brits. But then, I read history books.

    You can rant all you like but I do not have any problem with jews, and I never have, its Israel actions that is the issue and its muderous behaviour.

    You claim you have no problems with Jews. Your actions however speak differently. Stop talking like an anti-semite and start acting like somebody that actually wants to fix the situation. Criticizing only 1 side of a conflict that has problems on both sides, but refusing to try and fix the situation, is simply showing your bias by refusing to admit the atrocities on the other side.

    US Liberty

    Well here is a great example. Mistakes happen during wartime. Both the US and Israel researched the incident and found out it was an ACCIDENT due to misidentification. Yet anti-semites ignore that fact and call Israel evil for a mistake. Wouldn't it be a shame if some Arab Palestinians accidentally killed some innocent Jews? Wouldn't it be a shame if some Arab Palestinians purposefully promised to kill every innocent Jew? No I guess not. Damn Israel to hell!

    The world is no longer listening to your pathetic anti semitism wolf cry mate

    They haven't been listening for thousands of years, that is probably why the Jews keep getting shafted by people like you.

    , or Israel's constant spin and lies. You can repeat the false accusation over and over but its worn thin for thinking people.

    You can spin disemmble and lie all you like, but people are awake to the guilt trip now and soon

    And which lie would you be talking about? Please be specific. Don't act like an anti-semite and paint me a liar without addressing specific "lies" the way you avoid discussing a workable solution to the situation so you can criticize Israel.

    Israel will pay the price for its arrogance, theivery and dishonesty.

    Oh there is that thievery thing again. Did Britain defeat the Ottoman's with Jewish and Arab help? Were they granted "ownership" of the area as restitution for the Ottoman's attempt to conquer the world? Did they agree to split it into 3 countries: 2 Arab, 1 Jewish, as a thank you to the helpers? At which point did they "steal" the land?

    Its hillarious how you ignore the fact that the jews in the west bank are living on stolen land and far more Palestinians are in refugee camps.

    When did I ignore it? Never. You probably think I'm some dumb Jew ignoring facts and blindly defending Israel. The only thing I've ever stated is my desire that people only use facts in their arguments and not be so bigoted towards opposing interpretations of the facts. The only ignoring being done here is you of the NATIVE JEWISH PALESTINIANS. They've been living on stolen land for 2000 years? Oh yea, kick them out.

    They should get all their land back that was stolen by Israeli terror in 1948, which was also the year jewish terroists murdered the UN representative for attempting to reverse the ethnic cleansing they were conducting.

    Wow, that is creative. They "earned" the land between 1915 and 1917 by fighting and dieing for the British against the Ottomans. The terrorist acts you're speaking of started much sooner than 1948 AGAINST the Jews by the Arabs. The Haganah was formed because the Brits were not protecting the isolated Jewish settlements. Sh