Israel's 'modesty buses' draw fire

[*jr]

Women sit separately from men on Israel's "modesty buses".

By Katya Adler
BBC News, Jerusalem

The other day I was waiting for a bus in downtown Jerusalem. I was in the bustling orthodox Jewish neighbourhood of Mea Sharim and the bus stop was extremely crowded.

When the Number 40 bus arrived, the most curious thing happened. Husbands left heavily pregnant wives or spouses struggling with prams and pushchairs to fend for themselves as they and all other male passengers got on at the front of the bus.

Women moved towards the rear door to get on at the back.

When on the bus, I tried to buck the system, moving my way towards the driver but was pushed back towards the other women.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6584661.stm

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Focking idiots. While we are busa killing the Islamic extremists we should kill the Jewish extremists too. They are all revolting pieces of shit.

[Padishah]

Dear God! He's an anti-semite. *shudder*

As an anti-semite, would you find the following reprehensible?

http://www.ussliberty.org/

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

I'm not an anti-semite. I'm anti-religion. Religion belongs in the sphere of the private. NEVER in the sphere of the public. No religious fock is going to tell me what to do. Not what bus to get on, not who I can or can not fock, not what I drink, eat.....nada. Period.

The Liberty incident is well known. What's your question?

[Padishah]

What do you think of the deliberate attack of an American Warship by Israeli planes during the 1967 war?

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

I don't think about it. Do you mean, what do I think the US should have done as a policy decision as a result of this attack?

[Padishah]

Why don't you think about it? And yes, the policy angle was why I asked.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

This was a difficult policy question, and frankly, I am glad I was not the one that had to deal with it.

On the one hand, I honestly believe it was a deliberate move. Who authorized it would be difficult to say. What the motive was would also be difficult to determine. I would have been disinclined to accept it as a accident. I think the US should have pressed for accountability and a handing over of the guilty parties, with a cessation of all military aide until that end was achieved (and I guarantee you, that would have quickly achieved the desired end). Of course, once that end was achieved, we would have to accept the fact that perhaps it really was an accident.

There is, of course, the possibility that the attack on the Liberty was done because of its proximity to the killing of a number of Arab POWs. This theory has never been proven, but certainly can not be discounted. However, it would seem unlikely that the Israeli government would authorize such a killing or authorize the attack on the Liberty to cover it up. To what end? If killing POWs becomes a matter of policy, then kill them all, or don't kill any. Killing a few, and hiding it, has no possible positive outcomes and lots of negative ones. Therefore it makes no sense from a policy perspective.

On top of all this, we have a powerful Jewish Lobby which is certainly going to work hard to influence American political decisions regarding how this was handled. If you are going to cross that Lobby, and some presidents like Nixon have, you have to be well armed to do so. Of course, were this a deliberate attack, that would have constited well armed.

The bottom line is this: WE (you and I) lack sufficient facts to draw conclusions on this. There are good reasons to believe it really was an accident, there are good reasons to believe it was not. Where I president (and I obviously was not) my decisions would revolve around the hard facts. I am NOT a conspiratorial theorist, like most Muslims tend to be. It does appear to have been a one-off event.

[Padishah]

Alright.

What would have been policy for the Lavon Affair?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lavon.html
http://www.mideastweb.org/lavon.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

[Bagamundo]

"We won't get fooled again" Yes indeed, you were born to be fooled again and again.

[Padishah]

Mad Mac, where'd you go?

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

I went to lunch

OK this is PATENTLY FALSE:

"This is not the only example of a "False Flag" operation designed to trick the United States into attacking Israel's enemies. According to Victor Ostrovsky, a Mossad defector now living in Canada, Ronald Reagan was tricked into bombing Libya by means of a radio transmitter smuggled into Tripoli by the Mossad, which broadcast messages designed to fool the United States into thinking Libya was about to launch a massive terror attack on the west. On the basis of this fake evidence, the US bombed Libya, killing Khadaffi's daughter."

The bombing was a direct reaction to the Pan Am bombing, which a LOT of evidence directly traced to Libyan agents. There is little doubt that Libya was behind it, or certainly representatives from Libya. There was discussion earlier that it might have been Syrian, but that appears to have been debunked.

The author also ruins his credbility when he takes small events and then extrapolates them to large events. Furthermore, the evidence that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated by Islamic Extremists is so overwhelming, as to be beyond any doubt. All of those who try and paint it in conspiratorial themes always use rehashed thesis that have been completely disproven.

[Padishah]

I asked about the Lavon Affair; everything else is peripheral.

And I haven't come across any proof of Bin Laden's culpability, other than his claiming to have done it.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

I have. Of course, I work in the intel field and had lots of access to non-public information. It was definately the work of AQ.

False flag operations are VERY risky. I fundamentally DO NOT BELIEVE that Israel is engaging in violent acts against the US under false flag pretense in order to use US power to further an Israeli political objectives. Risk isn't worth the gain.

[Padishah]

They seem to have done just that during the Lavon Affair, planning to blow up American and British interests. Care to explain how this wasn't worth the risk?

Since you work in Intelligence, care to explain this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONnR-oCS5s