[IsraelTimes] Yet the study shines not in the details, but in its sweeping international perspective. In interviewing over 53,000 people in 93 languages across 102 countries and regions, the survey pieces together a global picture of the web of stereotypes and hatreds through which a significant swath of humanity views the Jews. It enables us to go beyond the narrow confines of each nation's politics and prejudices and think more deeply about the phenomenon and the essential question that lies at its root: Why do they hate us?
The question is put into sharp relief by the finding that fully 27% of people who have never met a Jew nevertheless harbor strong prejudices against him. Or, indeed, that a huge majority, 77%, of those who hate Jews have never met one. Even more starkly, the survey found an inverse relationship between the number of Jews in a country and the spread of anti-Semitic attitudes there. As a general rule, the fewer the Jews in a particular country, the more numerous the anti-Semites.
This should not surprise us. We already understood that anti-Semitism is skyrocketing in precisely those parts of the world where Jews fled from or perished in the last century, primarily the Middle East and Eastern Europe. But by giving numbers to these beliefs, the study allows us to think more carefully about the sources of the phenomenon.
#2
Not any Tuvans around here but I don't hold much against them except that damn noise they make, and the yurts, I can't stand a yurt, drive down the property values you see.
#3
Perhaps Americans are less imaginative in their prejudices, or simply have a comparatively benign attitude toward what it means to be American.
Ahhhh NICE! A polite way of saying all non-Jewish Americans are bloody, duck calling headcases and closet anti-semitics. Perhaps it's not that at all. Perhaps American's have just had a bloody snoot full of the cult of victimization. But what do I knowm, I'm the least of all "remarkable."
#4
Ahhhh NICE! A polite way of saying all non-Jewish Americans are bloody, duck calling headcases and closet anti-semitics
Haven't you ever wondered, though, about why all those duck-calling headcases have the heavy beards and the frizzy hair? Maybe they're hiding something?
#5
I thought the article said something very positive about Americans and how they define themselves as inclusive rather than exclusive, Besoeker. The study revealed that the ways that different societies define Jews as different and therefore awful ties to the problems the particular society has, and they therefore externalize that problem onto the Jews... especially if there aren't any Jews around to contradict it by being visibly other-than-defined in real life.
#7
Excellent observation TW. Ill will toward the Jew has been around for quite a long while. Americans on the other hand, are but a microscopic flyspeck on the challah cover of time. Perhaps we are some sort of homogenized cosmic experiment. My plan is to be nice to Jews.... just in case.
#1
----- <--- That is a straw, talk to me about grasping for straws, next you will tell me the earth is flat... you are all past the point of no return, your intellect has left the building and will never return, few will believe you for now on, you are bankrupt. The New Yorker will fold in 1 year and seven months.
Posted by: Au Auric ||
05/17/2014 0:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
SQUIRREL!!!
Yet more battle space preparation by the propagandists of the Democrat party.
#3
I couldn't bear to read more than two lines. So somebody tell me, please - do they want to exhume Reagan and make him testify?
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/17/2014 8:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Or, at this point, what difference does it make?
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/17/2014 8:17 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I remember the barracks bombing in Beirut. The idiot local SOP had guards that were not locked and loaded and unobstructed high speed avenues of approach into the compound. Officers should have seen a courts martial. Still that President went on television and took full responsibility for what happened. The difference between integrity and sniveling.
#6
Classic fallacy and propaganda technique. Tu quoque. Whatever happened in Lebanon 30 does NOT excuse this Administrations lies and coverups. Its like arguing that a mistake in mid WW2 excuses a completely different one in Vietname in the 70's.
Aside from that, the situations were completely different. Among the many differences that break any analogy attempted, Reagan didn't make up some cockamamie story about a movie causing it. He blamed terrorists, plain and simple.
#7
We ought to encourage every liberal publication in the world to write as many comparisons of Obama to Reagan as their pages will accommodate. Go ahead. Make my day.
Posted by: Matt ||
05/17/2014 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I think that we could talk about how the USS Cole was left exposed in Aden since we're on the subject of failures to prepare for terror attacks. That was long after Beirut by which time you might think Bill Clinton should have known better about how Islamic terror works. There were the Khobar towers in Soddy Arabia too and let's not forget the first attack on the World Trade Center.
We are long, long past the point where we should be surprised when muslims come up with new and ever more chickenshit ways to attack us. There isn't any excuse anymore for being unprepared. There is no more reason why we should let students from cat box countries come here to study, no reason to apologize for giving them extra scrutiny when we do. There are fewer and fewer reasons for our people to go over there. And, BTW, what was the ambassador doing in Benghazi?
The article mentions how there was an investigation after the Beirut barracks attack. I'm guessing the White House, Pentagon, State Department and CIA didn't lie, stonewall, redact and point out squirrels during that investigation.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
05/17/2014 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Should have hunted them down and killed them all after 21 December 1988 [Lockebie]. Could have saved ourselves and everyone else a lot of grief and pain.
#10
The one I like is the "During the Bush/Hitler Regime, our embassies were attacked 15 times and 60 people died and the Rethuglicans said nothing" defense.
What the Libtards seem to overlook is that fact that out of the 60 deaths - 17 were terrorists who did the attacks, 41 were security forces/civilians, and 2 were Americans 1 of whom was a diplomat.
I don't get the twisted logic that our lack of outrage that 17 shitheads died is somehow hypocritical when we go after Champ and Hildebeast on Benghazi.
Posted by: Bangkok Billy ||
05/17/2014 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#11
But Jimmie was just as bad, is no defense. I broke my kids of using that excuse than they were four. It's not that the annex was attacked, that will happen to every president. It's that the Obama admin tried to cover it up, blame it on a video, call it a riot, not an attack. They lied to the citizens of the United states about it. That is what was wrong.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
05/17/2014 18:34 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I don't get the twisted logic that our lack of outrage that 17 shitheads died is somehow hypocritical when we go after Champ and Hildebeast on Benghazi.Posted by Bangkok Billy
As for 1998 in Beirut, trust me, we hunted those bastards down like dogs. Difference between Ronnie and empty suit is that Ronnie did it with out a lot of press conferences, chest pounding, or posturing. Ronnie didn't feel the need to prove anything.
Fear is a great deterrent, if you just vanish, are found dead for no apparent reason with no witnesses, or your bones are found in the desert speaks volumes. When the bad guys don't know "who done it" they don't know where to turn.
If you will check the records I bet you will find most of the turbans involved in the planning of the Beirut Marine Barracks bombing died under strange circumstances with a bullet.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
05/17/2014 19:11 Comments ||
Top||
[DAWN] TRANSNATIONAL militancy and the 'war on terror' have thrown up complex legal questions, such as how to deal with those accused of terrorism while respecting their fundamental rights, determining the jurisdiction of different governments etc. However, some men learn by reading. A few learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves... two points appear to be quite clear; all states must be transparent about the individuals they hold in jug while at no time must the accused person's human rights ...which are usually entirely different from personal liberty... be violated. In this regard, the government needs to provide more information about the 10 men who have reportedly been released from the US military's internment facility in Bagram, Afghanistan, recently. As reported on Friday, the Red Thingy says the men have been repatriated to Pakistain. The interior ministry has now confirmed that the men are Pak and in government custody. The state must inform the men's families of the charges -- if any -- they face. The Lahore High Court has ordered the interior ministry to furnish information about the individuals at a hearing scheduled next week. As per the Justice Project Pakistain, the organization representing the men's families, no government -- Afghan, American or Pak -- has ever publicly said what charges the individuals have been held under. Six men were also released from Bagram in November last year but were held by the Pak authorities for around two months before being returned to their families.
Some media reports have indicated that around 20 Paks may still be incarcerated in Bagram. The state needs to ask the Afghan authorities what charges the men are being held under. Did they cross the border to help the Afghan Taliban or any other bad boy group? Or were they peaceful non-combatants living and working in Afghanistan at the time of the Taliban regime's fall? More information in this regard may also help shed further light on the fate of some of the names on the list of 'missing persons' in this country.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/17/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Pakistan
[Ynet] Political correctness is preventing enlightened people like John F. I was in Vietnam, you know Kerry Former Senator-for-Life from Massachussetts, self-defined war hero, speaker of French, owner of a lucky hat, conqueror of Cambodia, and current Secretary of State... from seeing the real cause of radicalization in the Mohammedan world.
In light of the turmoil of the public debate over "who is to blame" for the failed negotiations with the Paleostinians, we should pay attention to another statement made by John Kerry, which points to the American secretary of state's problematic way of thinking.
Kerry spoke about the spreading terror, about Boko Haram ... not to be confused with Procol Harum, Harum Scarum, possibly to be confused with Helter Skelter. The Nigerian version of al-Qaeda and the Taliban rolled together and flavored with a smigeon of distinctly Subsaharan ignorance and brutality... , the Islamist organization which has been slaughtering Nigeria incessantly and about the 276 girls it kidnapped. Why is that happening? It's the poverty, Kerry explained. Is it really? Let's try to put this theory to the test of facts. If the problem is poverty, the solution is just to hand out money. Anything else might call for blood, sweat, tears. Maybe even thought.
First of all, none of the perpetrators of the terror attacks in the United States came from a background of poverty. On the contrary, they were all successful young men, members of the Mohammedan world's elite club. the late Osama bin Laden ... who is no longer with us, and won't be again... , the pope of terror, came from a family of millionaires. The hundreds of young people who arrive from Europe to the jihad organizations in Syria are not members of the disadvantaged class. They are usually academics and students.
Secondly, Kerry says he based his theory on the link between poverty and terror on a series of conversations with African leaders. That's interesting, because Africa has millions of poor Christians alongside millions of poor Mohammedans. According to Kerry's theory, they should have produced an equal amount of terrorism.
But reality is slightly different. And as Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, the former editor-in-chief of London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat, wrote: "Not all Mohammedans are terrorists, but almost all forces of Evil are Mohammedans."
Thirdly, two things happened in the past few decades. According to World Bank figures, from 1990 to 2013 the world's poor population decreased by 50% - an impressive accomplishment for the war on poverty. At the same time, recent decades have seen ups and downs in the level of terrorism, but there is no serious research pointing to a direct link between terror and poverty.
The problem is that Kerry holds a deep faith which characterizes parts of the global left and the Western academia, according to which if all depressed people on earth are treated a bit more pleasantly and generously, it will lead to a regression in hostility -- and young people will anyway not be drawn to terror.
I wish that were true. Instead of commando units for fighting terror, the US should have sent regiments of social workers with deep pockets to every center of poverty in the world. It would have cost billions, but much less that the war on terror.
What leads people to terror? The 250 million Mohammedans in sub-Saharan Africa turned to the school of the moderate Sufi Islam. The change occurred with the Saudi capital, which was used for education according to the Wahhabi school. Afghanistan was once, in the 1960s, a sane country. Women would walk around without a head cover and no one would harass then. At some stage Saudi capital began flowing in, and it was used to establish a network of educational institutions which produced a new generation of jihadists.
In the past decade Saudi capital has been flowing into universities in Britannia too, for the establishment of "Islamic learning centers." The result was similar: Radicalization. In other words, the problem is not lack of capital, the problem is excess capital, which is used for brainwashing and incitement.
For the avoidance of any doubt, most Mohammedans are not terrorists. They are the victims. But there is no need for a majority. There is a need for a terrorizing violent minority.
Most of those who write about radicalization processes influenced by Saudi capital are Mohammedans. What brave Mohammedans are capable of seeing, many enlightened people are having difficulties seeing. The political correctness disrupts their common sense.
The saddest thing is that Kerry has a countless researchers and experts who should have presented him with truthful data. Facts rather than illusions.
There is a concern, just a concern, that that same political correctness is distorting Kerry's sources of information about the Israeli-Paleostinian conflict as well. This is bad news in regards to the performance of the American administration, and even worse news for the chances of peace.
#4
An old Egyptian acquaintance on mine said Terrorism won't just go away because there's too much money to be made. There are lifelong careers to be made at a wage far above the average. Plus in my opinion it also allows those with a touch of sadism in their hearts to flourish.
You wanna take a big bite out of terrorism? Stop the funding.
[IsraelTimes] This week, Shimon Peres visited Norway and was feted by King Harald V. In anticipation of that occasion, Norway's ambassador to Israel, Svein Sevje, gave an interview to the Jerusalem Post highlighting the friendly relations and expanding business and cultural ties between his country and the Jewish state. Moreover, he stressed the Norwegian government's support for Middle East peace based on two states for two peoples, and opposition to poisonous Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns. These deepening connections and rejection of delegitimization are welcome.!
However, alcohol has never solved anybody's problems. But then, neither has milk... despite these strong expressions of support and friendship, the Norwegian government continues to provide tens of millions of kroner to organizations that actively promote BDS, campaign against the right of the Jewish people to self determination, and seek to undermine the Oslo Framework (the international framework originating in Norway, established to lead to the creation of a peaceful Paleostinian state living side by side with Israel). These activities, financed with public money, directly oppose Norwegian policy, damage Norwegian-Israeli ties and damage the prospects for Middle East peace.
A number of Norwegian-funded groups have launched vicious campaigns libeling and harassing companies that do not share their extreme political views. For example, Norwegian People's Aid (NPA) receives more than 200 million NOK from the government, and has played a central role in getting companies excluded from the Norwegian Pension Fund based on tendentious and even false factual and legal claims.
NPA has also called for economic warfare against SodaStream. This Israeli company employs more than 900 Paleostinian workers under conditions far better than they could obtain elsewhere. However, alcohol has never solved anybody's problems. But then, neither has milk... one of its many factories is located just within the West Bank, in an area slated to be part of Israel under any peace deal. In NPA's radical world view, this marginal connection is enough to target the company and its employees, threatening them with financial ruin.
Much of NPA's distorted "research" comes from the organization Who Profits (formerly a project of Coalition of Women for Peace, now they are "sister" organizations), a leading member of the anti-Israel BDS campaign. In addition to intense collaboration with NPA, Who Profits itself currently receives funding via the Fagforbundet Trade Union
Similarly, the Norwegian government funds the Civic Coalition of Paleostinian Rights in Jerusalem (amount unknown) and in 2012, provided more than 8 million NOK to the YMCA-YWCA. These groups are both active in BDS.
In addition to BDS, the Norwegian government supports other forms of political warfare targeting Israel. One such grant involves massive funding provided to the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), which in turn is funneled to local NGOs, in order to flood Israeli courts with hundreds of lawsuits, challenging Israeli illusory sovereignty, and seeking to destroy the Oslo Accords.
Since 2011, the government of Norway, along with the UK and the EU, has provided the NRC with a staggering $20 million in taxpayer funds to wage legal warfare against Israel and the Oslo framework. This funding is directed towards the NRC's "Information Counselling and Legal Assistance" (ICLA) project. According to documents examined by NGO Monitor, the aim of the project is to manipulate Israeli democracy to achieve "changes in Israeli policy and practice" and to provide "evidence and analysis to form the basis for international pressure on Israel."
In practice, NRC has used its millions to finance a flood of lawsuits before Israeli courts and administrative bodies to challenge Israeli illusory sovereignty in Area C, even though such illusory sovereignty is assigned by Oslo. With its government financing, the NRC has funded at least 700 cases in Israeli courts involving some of the most controversial and contentious issues relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including lawsuits intended to deny pre-1948 Jewish property claims in East Jerusalem, the Cliff Hotel case, the route of the security barrier in the Cremisan Valley (near Bethlehem), and the validity of military orders.
Moreover, statements made by those associated with the NRC program suggest another more nefarious goal of the project. In a public presentation, an NRC-affiliated lawyer commented that the strategy behind the project is to undertake "every possible legal measure to disrupt the Israeli judicial system... to increase the workload of the courts and the Supreme Court to such an extent that there will be a blockage." In other words, the objective is to sabotage the Israeli justice system.
The visit of President Peres to Oslo and the statements by Ambassador Sevje suggest that Norwegian-Israeli relations are about to enter a new phase of increased friendship and cooperation. Ending counterproductive funding to groups that seek to damage these relations would be a good beginning.
Rand Simberg, writing @ USA Today
For the past two decades, NASA has partnered with the Russians on the International Space Station, as a result of the decision by the early Clinton administration to make it a joint venture after what was thought to be the end of the Cold War. The idea was to give Russian space engineers an alternative to selling their services to bad actors such as North Korea and Iran (some wags called it "Midnight Basketball for the Russians").
The initial cooperation was in building the facility itself (the Russians provided the initial module for construction in the late nineties). But during the two-and-a-half year gap in Shuttle operations after the loss of the Columbia in 2003, and now with the retirement of the Shuttle fleet itself almost three years ago, we have been totally dependent on their Soyuz launch system and capsule for astronaut access to and from it, and lifeboat services in the event of an emergency.
Since the Russian intervention in Ukraine began weeks ago, the nation's space agency has been whistling past the graveyard of potential implications for human spaceflight. In a news conference back on March 4, NASA administrator Charles Bolden declared: "I think people lose track of the fact that we have occupied the International Space Station now for 13 consecutive years uninterrupted, and that has been through multiple international crises," implying that this one would be no different. Both the U.S. (and Japanese and European) crews and the Russian crews are dependent on each other for the system to function. NASA has comforted themselves with the knowledge of how much pride Russia has historically taken in its space activities. The agency has repeatedly insisted that deteriorating relations on the ground wouldn't extend into orbit, and reportedly, they haven't done so yet.
But events took a turn for the worse on April 29th, when Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin made a veiled threat to cut off ISS access to the U.S., following the announcement of new State Department sanctions against Russia, including the potential cut off of satellite exports for them to launch. It wasn't a formal warning, but rather a tweet that NASA might want to consider using "a trampoline" to get its crews to the station. On Tuesday, he upped the ante, declaring that Russia would end the ISS partnership in 2020, which could effectively end the program, though NASA had previously announced an extension of it to 2024.
Rogozin, an unrepentant Stalinist (he reputedly once hung a picture of "Uncle Joe" on his office wall), oversees the Russian space program. He is considered by many to be an attack dog for Vladimir Putin. It may be bluster, or it may be a real threat. If it's the latter, it's not one that we should have to tolerate, except for ongoing bipartisan fecklessness from Congress.
There is only one realistic way to end our dependence on the Russians for space transportation: accelerate the Commercial Crew Program established by the Obama administration as a follow-on to the successful Cargo Resupply Services contracts initiated in the Bush administration (a CRS flight launched a couple weeks ago and is at the ISS currently). For over four years, the administration has been requesting the funding needed to get at least one, and preferably more than one provider capable of delivering crew to and from orbit. Every year, Congress has refused to adequately fund the program, instead diverting funds to the Space Launch System, a rocket with no defined mission other than keeping some of what remains of the former Shuttle work force employed. As administrator Bolden lectured them a few weeks ago in hearings on the Hill, their failure to provide requested funds has slipped the operational date from what would have been next year, out to at least 2017.
Instead, Congress continues to tell NASA to "save money" by narrowing down from three competitors to a single one immediately, using typical socialist arguments (from Republicans and Democrats alike) of the "inefficiency" of multiple providers. This, of course, ignores the fact that twice during the Shuttle program we were unable to get astronauts to orbit for over two years, because there was no backup to it after the Challenger and Columbia accidents, and that cost reduction comes only from ongoing competition.
But even that funding level wouldn't be necessary if Congress didn't have such skewed priorities. It is needed because of congressional insistence on changing from the successful CRS program model, which provided results at much lower costthan traditional NASA procurements, to go back to the standard NASA procedures that increase costs and delay schedule, ostensibly in the name of "safety" (despite the fact that those procedures themselves resulted in the loss of two orbiters and the deaths of 14 astronauts in the Shuttle program). In fact, in the NASA authorization bill marked up by the House space subcommittee on the same day as Rogozin's initial threat about trampolines, the phrase "safety is the highest priority" explicitly appears in reference to commercial crew. That implies, of course, that actually getting crew to orbit is a lower one, and that the priority can be achieved by not flying at all. Had it been the motto in the sixties, we'd have never gone to the moon.
There's an old story about a man who arrives late at a hotel, and is informed by the desk clerk that there are no rooms available. "Well," he asks,"what if I were the president? What would you do then?" The clerk avers that, in that circumstance, he might be able to accommodate him. "OK, then give me the room you'd give him."
Astronauts are paid to risk their lives. They accept it as part of the job. We have invested decades and many tens of billions of dollars in a space station that we cannot currently get to without buying rides from an adversary in a renewed Cold War with temperature rising. If it were really important to end our dependence on them, you can bet that NASA would figure out a way to do it and quickly, by rapidly modifying a SpaceX Dragon like that currently at the ISS. And in fact, on the same day that Rogozin tweeted his threat, Elon Musk of SpaceX responded with his own: "Sounds like this might be a good time to unveil the new Dragon Mk 2 spaceship that @SpaceX has been working on w @NASA. No trampoline needed." He announced that he will do so at the end of May.
But in its actions, Congress sends a clear message that it is not important. They could fix that, though, with a simple amendment to that bill when it gets to the House floor. Replace the word "safety" in that absurd phrase, and make it "having multiple means of getting Americans to orbit on American launch systems is the highest priority." And tell Rogozin to get his own trampoline.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain ||
05/17/2014 11:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wehave invested decades and many tens of billions of dollars in a space station that we cannot currently get to without buying rides from an adversary in a renewed Cold War with temperature rising.
And who's fault is that? Naďve, feckless politicians, and communist apologists that's who. Birds home to roost! Enjoy.
#2
SpaceX could go there this year using a manned capsule with just a tiny bit more money allocate by the idiots in both houses of Congress.
The Russian segments of the ISS could be replaced with some fresh thinking in NASA and the gov.
Oh and throwing out the endless multiyear studies for each nut bolt and stick of chewing gum used.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/17/2014 20:10 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Time to reactivate Peenemünde ;-)
Posted by: European Conservative ||
05/17/2014 20:11 Comments ||
Top||
#10
So an entity becomes a monopoly in a valued trade and leverages that power to gain locally? Not just Russia, but doesn't everyone in the history of history do that shit? Why is this a surprise?
Why are we not at this moment docking a re-entry vehicle made in EU, or India, or Japan, just not USA - and I don't care if its an exact copy of a soyuz except it has a martini maker inside; mix it up, ride the comet down, land and enjoy - using our emergency space shuttle and tucking that flag Russia planted underneath the Arctic into their soyuz and sending it packing to wherever it would land to be hilarious yet stern?
Have we become so socialist we can't Bruce Willis some shit? *pounds on table* Have we become so lame? I Am Tired of the lameness of pondering ineptitude. How is our outreach of NASA to Islam trucking about, or are we still focused grouped on whether mooselimbs in space pray 5 times every 24 hours, or 5 times per orbit.
#11
Redneck Jim - so you would select the CST-100 on a Delta IV heavy first.
That's okay.
Make NASA certify the Delta IV for human flight ASAP.
That would be an all Boeing solution.
#12
Nixon worked with Chinese. Perhaps we should as well. I prefer Space X as the real plan but sending high level NASA guys to talk to China would give Putin a bit of heartburn.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
IMA putting her on notice! I wanna-be a president too! She'll have me to contend with in primaries... oh wait. 
