New congresswoman pointing out criticising Israel is not anti semetic and Pelosi caves

So the Dems wanted to chastise a Muslim representative for declaring that our representatives are being loyal to Israel by pretending criticism of that government is anti semetic despite it being the responsibility of our government when dealing with a foreign country who commits acts of war against us, and violates international treaties by launching chemical attacks on innocent people. However, the newest members of congress who are not pandering to conservative values confronted Pelosi and the pro-Israel crowd and stopped them.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/bernie-sanders-condemns-effort-rebuke-214819134.html

About time we had some people stand up and declare that criticism of Israel and their disgusting actions are welcome in a land of free speech, and that they are not akin to being against jews but rather against a corrupt state of violence and acts of war in their region.

Israel has not committed acts of war against the United States nor have they made chemical attacks on innocent people.

Yes, they have fired on the US military and they have killed innocent people repeatedly. But your grasp of history is poor and often incorrect.

If you are talking about the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty (debated endlessly on politicalforum.com by the way) the Israelis claimed the attack was a mistake and the U.S. government accepted that explanation (and compensation). I didn't say Israel hasn't killed innocent people. Innocent people get killed all the time in wars. The U.S. does it all the time in war.

But they have not used chemical weapons. And no tear gas is not a chemical weapon by any reasonable standard.

They launched sulfur based chemical weapons during the Bush years on Gaza. Nice of you to pay attention. Oh, and the attack on the Liberty was not a mistake.

But hey, you really are gullible so why don't you go make up some spacebattle stories where you belong.

sulfur based chemical weapons?

Are you talking about White Phosphorus? Those are not chemical weapons. They are allowed for military use by every international agreement.

And what possible motive would Israel have for attacking the Liberty? none.

So, what's the alternate scenario for the Liberty incident?

Israel deliberately attacks a U.S. warship and relents without sinking it/killing all witnesses, knowing full well they will be identified as the attackers?

Formulate a reasonable plan for me that entails doing that.

Based on the discussion at politicalforum.com they try to claim that

"Israel wanted to sink the Liberty and kill all the crew. But they got scared after beginning the attack and broke off without finishing the job"

Just imagine this being discussed in the IDF HQ...

Gen. Rabin: "We must identify an American ship, and attack it with aircraft at once."

Colonel: "But, sir, is it wise to launch an attack against our most steadfast ally, an ally who is a great military power and whose support is critical to us?"

Gen. Rabin: "That's the beautiful part! They will never see it coming!"

Colonel: "O-kaaay...we will blame the Egyptians for this?"

Gen Rabin: "Yes. That will work."

Colonel: "But...what if we fail to kill all the crew? Or what if they send a radio call? They will say they were attacked by our planes."

Gen. Rabin: "Well, we'll just fall back on the ol' 'accident' excuse."

Colonel: "I see...and what do we gain from this, sir?"

Gen. Rabin: "Isn't it obvious? We give our American friends a kick in the nuts and make them question our relationship!"

More like sending a message to the US military that despite being allies they are not welcome in what Israel has declared their waters. We are only welcome to sell them weapons and to stand in front of them when others are firing at them. We are not welcome to investigate them or potentially stop their attacks on others.

Agreeing with Sybil should cause you to stop and think about how stupid you are, but don't let that stop you.

Which is why the Israelis immediately acknowledged and apologized for their actions?

Wow, that sounds like a good strategy. We should use it. Let's find a British or Japanese ship and strafe the shit out of it, just to keep them on their toes.

Absurd.

What about the alt-right Trump supporters criticizing Israel?

What have these supporters gotten Trump to do with regards to Israel?

I do hate these lies and idiocies from the antisemetic left. Saying anyone who supports Israeli is disloyal to America is NOT a criticism of Israeli policy. It simply claims all Jews as well as anyone else who supports the only true democracy in the middle east is some how a traitor to America. So the Somali goat fucker who spewed her antisemetic filth (for the umpteenth time) can fuck off as can the idiot who wrote the OP.

It was just more of their debased antisemitic filth and even the dems know it which is why they are trying so hard to put distance between themselves and the shit stain Omar.

One argument that I heard was that Israel was trying to frame Egypt for attacking the U.S.S. Liberty.

But the aircraft that launched the air attack on the Liberty of two types NEVER FLOWN by the Egyptians.

The Israelis had at least eight Soviet built Migs (captured or brought to Israel by defectors) of the type that WAS FLOWN by the Egyptians but they didn't use them.

It is not anti-semetic, but thanks for your racist hate.

One argument I have heard is that black and brown people are genetically inferior to white people. Hearing such things does not make them true. Good show of bullshit though.

It is pretty amazing how racist @Dinner can get when confronted with the truth.

So you agree that Isreal used white phosphorous Chemical weapons on people. Just wondering? Do you understand that is a chemical reaction that is occurring, and therefor a chemical bomb? If phosphorous is not too bad then maybe you want to breathe it in? Do you know the gas emmitted from this bombs burns human tissues and that is not a heat burn, it is a chemical burn? I would think a science teacher would understand what chemical burns are, but maybe you are the history teacher today?

It should be noted that Isreal denies the use of these weapons in crowded civilian areas which would be a violation of international law and the US sold them the weapons and failed to admonish them because of the very reasons in the OP about people being accused of anti-Semitism for criticizing Israel in the US.

War crimes and violations of humanitarian international law. Chemical burns from a chemical reaction too.

Are you right about any of this? This is the problem I am speaking of. If the US cannot call out Isreal because of it's allegience to their state and history of claiming critical actions against a foreign government constitute anti semetic actions and not a legitimate concern over the use of chemical weapons banned for certain uses then we have a problem with a huge conflict of interest in American government.

I think I will stand behind my point and perhaps you need something better tha a mail in degree to be conversing on these topics.

Oh, and thanks for falling into the trap. I knew ou would pick up on one single word and try to negate my argument while admitting to the use of these weapons. That saved me the entire argument that Isreal used them and you were unaware of them. Clearly you knew about it and cannot feign ignorance like you always do.

She wasn't criticizing the Israeli government's actions; she was accusing people who advocate close ties with Israel of "dual loyalties," a charge that has been a frequent antisemitic trope for at least 2,000 years.

And while disagreeing with the Israeli government isn't inherently antisemitic, focusing intensely on criticizing Israel while refusing to hold any of its neighbors to the same standards is another matter.

Every weapon used (except bladed one or melee weapons) uses chemical reactions as a trigger. Including nuclear weapons.

Chemical reactions are NOT what makes something a "chemical weapon". By your ignorant standard everything from 22 caliber bullets to Tsar Bomba would be considered a "chemical weapon".

As though a 44 year old sexual pervert drug addict would know anything about weapons...

You can argue that even a sword uses chemical reactions as a trigger if you trace it back far enough ...

Chemical weapons cause chemical burns over incendiary burns you dolt. But that is science and something you know nothing about.

Keep on trying mr. Village idiot, but any time you wish to get into chemistry vs me I will gladly school you on the difference between endothermic Chemical reactions.

Please do not put your ignorant words and assumptions into my mouth and tell me what I am saying.

Oh, and way to ignore that white phos. weapons are considered to make chemical burns on victims and are considered a chemical weapon by world governing organizations. The only reason they are allowed is because they are used for illuminating flares but even those emit a noxious gas and are far more dangerous burning materials than a standard flame. Do us a favor and get a hold of a phosphor smoke bomb or flare and breathe in the smoke to show us just how safe they are. I will accept your lack of response to that as admittance you are well aware of the problems that can cause with your lungs.

Only if you want to look as dumb as Dayton.

Really ? What about nerve gas? Or blood agents.

And knowing how to cook meth or cut cocaine and heroin doesn't make you an expert on chemistry.

Something being dangerous to inhale doesn't make it a chemical weapon.

I guess you're one of those idiots who claim depleted uranium shells are "nuclear weapons".

It's too bad you got banned from PoliticalForum.com. You would fit in well with those idiots who claim stuff like that.

No, but I am far more educated than you are. Actually, nerve gas and blood agents are more a biological weapons than a chemical one, but they do operate on biochemical principles much like chemical burns.

Oh, and cooking meth requires red phosphorous which is different than white, but still dangerous.

Keep on trying to be smart mr. village idiot, but don't say I did not warn you.

I did not say being dangerous to inhale made it a chemical weapon, but nice try to pretend I said that to set up a straw man.

About the depleted uranium, no I did not say that either. Keep trying to make up points you can refute, but I did not make them.

As for politicalforum I am not banned or warned. Nor have I ever been. Your attempt to get me banned failed miserably, and you should be quite aware considering I recently gave you a PM over there. Oh wait, did you lie yet again like when you tried to imply you saved me from being banned here?

You are not very good at this whole thing, are you?