Quote
Israel on Sunday withheld the press credentials of a Swedish newspaper in retaliation for a controversial piece that suggested the Israeli army kidnapped and killed young Palestinians to harvest their organs.
The journalists need the credentials to report from Gaza.
"We have no duty to supply them with press cards immediately; (we) have 90 days to decide about their status," said Danny Siman, the head of the government press office.
The article, "Our sons are being stripped of their organs," appeared Tuesday in Aftonbladet and was an opinion piece written by freelance journalist Donald Bostrom.
Bostrom told CNN he had no proof that Israeli soldiers were stealing organs, and that the purpose of his piece was to call for an investigation into numerous claims in the 1990s that such activity was going on in the West Bank and Gaza.
Even though the Swedish embassy distanced itself from the report, the country's foreign ministry refused to condemn it -- saying Sweden has a "free press."
The refusal has rankled Israel, which said it will submit an official complaint.
"This is an anti-Semitic blood libel against the Jewish people and the Jewish state. The Swedish government cannot remain apathetic," said Israel's Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz.
"We know the origins of these claims. In medieval times, there were claims that the Jews use the blood of Christians to bake their Matzas for Passover. The modern version now is that the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) soldiers use organs of Palestinians to make money."
He continued: "It makes no difference whether this comes from a neo-Nazi organization or from an honorable newspaper. The Swedish government must renounce itself from this anti-Semitic publication."
The article centers around the case of Bilal Ahmed Ghanem, a 19-year-old Palestinian man who was shot and killed in 1992, allegedly by Israeli forces, in the West Bank village of Imatin.
Bostrom, who witnessed the man's killing, said Ghanem was taken away by Israeli forces while he was still mortally wounded. His body was returned five days later with a cut in his midsection that had been stitched up.
Ghanem's family said they believed that his organs had been removed.
After that incident, at least 20 Palestinian families told Bostrom that they suspected the Israeli military had taken the organs of their sons after they had been killed by Israeli forces and their bodies taken away -- presumably for routine autopsies.
Bostrom said he balanced those claims in his article by including a reaction from an Israeli military spokesman who told him that the Israel Defense Forces routinely carries out autopsies on Palestinians killed by their troops.
But, as he stated in his article, Bostrom said he has doubts about the necessity of the procedures if it is clear how the person died.
Last week Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman compared the Swedish Foreign Ministry's hands-off position to the country's neutrality during World War II.
"It's a shame that the Swedish Foreign Ministry fails to intervene in a case of blood libels against Jews," Lieberman told Sweden's ambassador to Israel on Thursday evening. "This is reminiscent of Sweden's stand during World War II, when [it] had failed to intervene as well."
Not to go all Tim but I saw this article and had to post it. Maybe Slargos will move back to Sweden
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2009, 07:50:22 AM
Not to go all Tim but I saw this article and had to post it. Maybe Slargos will move back to Sweden
The Israelies want our government to break our constitution, the part dating from 1766 :rolleyes: It ain't ever going to happen. So fuck off Israelis.
The article itself (I have read it in Swedish) doesn't say what the Israelis claim it to say. The article interviewed some Palestinians that claimed that the IDF was removing organs from Palestinians killed or fatally wounded by the IDF. It never stated that the IDF did steal organs.
Now the newspaper itself (Aftonbladet) has a reputation in Sweden for sensationsalism and socialistic views, not that many Swedish people take them overly seriously. Had the article been published in http://www.dn.se/ (http://www.dn.se/)'Dagens Nyheter' (transl. Daily News) the Swedish public would have taken it a lot more seriously.
What the Israeli government need to learn is that critisizing Israel does not equal anti-semitism, as the definition of that is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews.
Quote from: Ape on August 23, 2009, 08:03:14 AM
The article itself (I have read it in Swedish) doesn't say what the Israelis claim it to say. The article interviewed some Palestinians that claimed that the IDF was removing organs from Palestinians killed or fatally wounded by the IDF. It never stated that the IDF did steal organs.
Does the author not question the need for autopsies in the article?
QuoteWhat the Israeli government need to learn is that critisizing Israel does not equal anti-semitism, as the definition of that is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews.
Saying this is a case of criticizing Israel is like saying references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is criticizing Israel.
Presumably, they could verify the organs were there by means of an autopsy. But, lots of Muslims erroneously believe that autopsies are contra indicated for paradisically motivied Muslims. Oh, irony of ironies.
Put a guard on all churches.
And where in the Swedish government does it say that the government cannot comment on stories in the Swedish press?
I mean where in the Swedish constitution. :blush:
Quote
Ghanem's family said they believed that his organs had been removed.
That's good enough for me
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2009, 08:18:02 AM
And where in the Swedish government does it say that the government cannot comment on stories in the Swedish press?
Comment or condemn?
Anyway I find the swedish argument about freedom of speech hilarious considering that many (if not most) swedes still believe Denmark should apologies to the islamotards for the Mohammed cartoons.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2009, 08:18:02 AM
And where in the Swedish government does it say that the government cannot comment on stories in the Swedish press?
http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6063.aspx (http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6063.aspx)
Quote1 § Med tryckfrihet förstås varje svensk medborgares rätt att, utan några av myndighet eller annat allmänt organ i förväg lagda hinder, utgiva skrifter, att sedermera endast inför laglig domstol kunna tilltalas för deras innehåll, och att icke i annat fall kunna straffas därför, än om detta innehåll strider mot tydlig lag, given att bevara allmänt lugn, utan att återhålla allmän upplysning.
My translation: 1§ By Freedom of Press (snip) ... only before a legal court be spoken to for its contents,
Now I am no laywer, but from what I know if any person within the Government would comment on in a negative way about the press, which might be considered censurship, would be heard by the Committe of the Constitution and might later be prosecuted by the Supreme Court. Something that hasn't happend since the mid 19th century.
Quote from: Ape on August 23, 2009, 08:33:52 AM
Now I am no laywer, but from what I know if any person within the Government would comment on in a negative way about the press, which might be considered censurship, would be heard by the Committe of the Constitution and might later be prosecuted by the Supreme Court. Something that hasn't happend since the mid 19th century.
So if a Swedish newspaper publishes an article claiming that the Prime Minister fucks goats and the cabinet is all taking bribes from Martians no one is allowed to say anything about it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2009, 08:37:32 AM
Quote from: Ape on August 23, 2009, 08:33:52 AM
Now I am no laywer, but from what I know if any person within the Government would comment on in a negative way about the press, which might be considered censurship, would be heard by the Committe of the Constitution and might later be prosecuted by the Supreme Court. Something that hasn't happend since the mid 19th century.
So if a Swedish newspaper publishes an article claiming that the Prime Minister fucks goats and the cabinet is all taking bribes from Martians no one is allowed to say anything about it?
AFAIK they would have to press legal charges.
Edti: Not by the government, other newspapers might and probably would ridicule them
Quote from: Octavian on August 23, 2009, 08:30:05 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2009, 08:18:02 AM
And where in the Swedish government does it say that the government cannot comment on stories in the Swedish press?
Comment or condemn?
Anyway I find the swedish argument about freedom of speech hilarious considering that many (if not most) swedes still believe Denmark should apologies to the islamotards for the Mohammed cartoons.
Ultimately, the Swedish government is right in this case. Of course, they're still a bunch of antisemitic assholes.
Quote from: Ape on August 23, 2009, 08:33:52 AM
Now I am no laywer, but from what I know if any person within the Government would comment on in a negative way about the press, which might be considered censurship, would be heard by the Committe of the Constitution and might later be prosecuted by the Supreme Court. Something that hasn't happend since the mid 19th century.
If that were the case, then the Swedish idea of censorship would in no way resemble actual censorship.
Quote from: Ape on August 23, 2009, 08:39:17 AM
AFAIK they would have to press legal charges.
Edti: Not by the government, other newspapers might and probably would ridicule them
How about an article claiming that AIDS is a myth and everyone should go back to assfucking bareback and sharing heroin needles?
Quote from: Ape on August 23, 2009, 08:39:17 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2009, 08:37:32 AM
Quote from: Ape on August 23, 2009, 08:33:52 AM
Now I am no laywer, but from what I know if any person within the Government would comment on in a negative way about the press, which might be considered censurship, would be heard by the Committe of the Constitution and might later be prosecuted by the Supreme Court. Something that hasn't happend since the mid 19th century.
So if a Swedish newspaper publishes an article claiming that the Prime Minister fucks goats and the cabinet is all taking bribes from Martians no one is allowed to say anything about it?
AFAIK they would have to press legal charges.
Edti: Not by the government, other newspapers might and probably would ridicule them
You know that doesn't make a damn bit of sense? Government officials can't comment on a news story but must wait till another newspaper press charges.
Quote from: Neil on August 23, 2009, 08:42:32 AM
Quote from: Ape on August 23, 2009, 08:33:52 AM
Now I am no laywer, but from what I know if any person within the Government would comment on in a negative way about the press, which might be considered censurship, would be heard by the Committe of the Constitution and might later be prosecuted by the Supreme Court. Something that hasn't happend since the mid 19th century.
If that were the case, then the Swedish idea of censorship would in no way resemble actual censorship.
And apparently the Swedish idea of freedom of expression in no ways resembles actual freedom of expression.
FFS I am no lawyer :ultra:
To keep it simple, Swedish Government is not allowed to interfere with the workings of the Press. Period.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2009, 08:51:22 AM
And apparently the Swedish idea of freedom of expression in no ways resembles actual freedom of expression.
I said Freedom of Press, not Freedom of Expressionhttp://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____6065.aspx (http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____6065.aspx), two completely seperate entries in the Swedish Constitution you dimwit. :contract:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2009, 08:13:55 AM
Saying this is a case of criticizing Israel is like saying references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is criticizing Israel.
:huh: It's an article about Israeli soldiers. If that makes it inherently antisemitic, then how is any criticism of Israel not anti-semitic?
Quote from: Faeelin on August 23, 2009, 09:02:10 AM
:huh: It's an article about Israeli soldiers. If that makes it inherently antisemitic, then how is any criticism of Israel not anti-semitic?
I never said it was inherently antisemitic. I was responding to Ape's comment that they should stop crying antisemitism every time they are criticized. Actually The Protocols is a bad example because it has been documented that it was written by Tsarist secret police. A better analogy is goy blood in the matzoh balls. AFAIK it has never been definitively proven that no Jew has ever put goy blood in his matzoh balls.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2009, 08:50:19 AM
You know that doesn't make a damn bit of sense? Government officials can't comment on a news story but must wait till another newspaper press charges.
Seems one of us is misinterpreting things. What I read is that government officials can't comment but can press charges. Newspapers can do whatever they want and will probably ridicule other newspapers that print silly articles.
Quote from: Ape on August 23, 2009, 08:03:14 AM
Now the newspaper itself (Aftonbladet) has a reputation in Sweden for sensationsalism and socialistic views, not that many Swedish people take them overly seriously. Had the article been published in http://www.dn.se/ (http://www.dn.se/)'Dagens Nyheter' (transl. Daily News) the Swedish public would have taken it a lot more seriously.
Socialistic? Really?
Last year I was working for them doing a project and I more got the impression they were like The Sun without the tits- just crappy fluff news and celebrities and of course sensationalism. It didn't seem socialist to me.
Anyway...on topic. I agree with the dislike of Israel and its supporters crying anti-semitism to criticism.
I hate North Korea, its a shitty regime. That doesn't mean I'm a anti-Korean racist.
My opinion of Aftonbladet is that everyone working there should be taken out back and shot.
While they are not as obvious as Pravda in their lies, most of what they print has to be sifted for grains of truth among mountains of obfuscation.
That said, I find it hilarious that the kikes would in true arab fashion ask for cencorship and I find it doubly hilarious that whereas the muslims are appeased by the swedish government, the kikes are told to shove off.
Sweden is rotting from the inside. Film at 11.
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 10:16:57 AM
That said, I find it hilarious that the kikes would in true arab fashion ask for cencorship and I find it doubly hilarious that whereas the muslims are appeased by the swedish government, the kikes are told to shove off.
Sweden is rotting from the inside. Film at 11.
They're not asking Sweden to stop them from printing it, they're simply asking them to denounce it. That's not censorship.
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 10:16:57 AMI find it doubly hilarious that whereas the muslims are appeased by the swedish government, the kikes are told to shove off.
Jews are much less likely to spontaneously explode in a crowded restaurant.
Quote
Socialistic? Really?
Last year I was working for them doing a project and I more got the impression they were like The Sun without the tits- just crappy fluff news and celebrities and of course sensationalism. It didn't seem socialist to me.
How long have you been in Sweden, anyway? :huh:
Aftonbladet pushes its very clear political agenda in part through editorials, blogs, and the slant in their articles, and partly through what they choose to report on.
Latest hilarity is the Danish fracas where irakis are being sent back under much condemnation from Aftonbladet. Of course, what Aftonbladet chooses to ignore is that through the work of danish investigative journalim, a large number of cases of welfare fraud have been uncovered, perpetrated by kurdish-iraki members of parliament. They have also revealed that the same thing is going on in Sweden, but not a peep has been printed in Sweden on the subject.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 23, 2009, 10:22:06 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 10:16:57 AMI find it doubly hilarious that whereas the muslims are appeased by the swedish government, the kikes are told to shove off.
Jews are much less likely to spontaneously explode in a crowded restaurant.
You make a good point. :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2009, 10:20:30 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 10:16:57 AM
That said, I find it hilarious that the kikes would in true arab fashion ask for cencorship and I find it doubly hilarious that whereas the muslims are appeased by the swedish government, the kikes are told to shove off.
Sweden is rotting from the inside. Film at 11.
They're not asking Sweden to stop them from printing it, they're simply asking them to denounce it. That's not censorship.
No, it's just ridiculous.
And adding WW2 references only makes it more so.
Most Jews have already left Sweden anyways, what with their complicity in the Holocaust, and whatnot.
Seriously, you retarded assfuckers.
During the mohammed-picture incident, you were all screaming about the need to defend freedom of speech.
Now you're asking the Swedish government to apologize for an article in a Swedish newspaper.
I lack the words to express how disgusted I am right now.
Quote from: Neil on August 23, 2009, 10:33:10 AM
Most Jews have already left Sweden anyways, what with their complicity in the Holocaust, and whatnot.
Actually, the jewish population has never been bigger, at around 18000.
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 10:36:00 AM
Seriously, you retarded assfuckers.
During the mohammed-picture incident, you were all screaming about the need to defend freedom of speech.
Now you're asking the Swedish government to apologize for an article in a Swedish newspaper.
I lack the words to express how disgusted I am right now.
I don't think anyone has asked the Swedish government to apologize for anything. I wouldn't mind seeing the government distance themselves from the article, something like it's a scurrilous, irresponsible and unfounded allegation.
The Momo cartoons were different because they were purely editorial. If Aftonbladet had printed an editorial saying the Israeli occupation of the West Bank sucks ferociously it wouldn't have been worthy of comment. This article wasn't an expression of opinion, it was a statement of fact.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2009, 10:45:57 AM
I don't think anyone has asked the Swedish government to apologize for anything. I wouldn't mind seeing the government distance themselves from the article, something like it's a scurrilous, irresponsible and unfounded allegation.
The Momo cartoons were different because they were purely editorial. If Aftonbladet had printed an editorial saying the Israeli occupation of the West Bank sucks ferociously it wouldn't have been worthy of comment. This article wasn't an expression of opinion, it was a statement of fact.
Eeeh it stated that Palestinians claim that the IDF sell organs of dead Palestinians, nothing else, and asked some pointed questions
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2009, 10:45:57 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 10:36:00 AM
Seriously, you retarded assfuckers.
During the mohammed-picture incident, you were all screaming about the need to defend freedom of speech.
Now you're asking the Swedish government to apologize for an article in a Swedish newspaper.
I lack the words to express how disgusted I am right now.
I don't think anyone has asked the Swedish government to apologize for anything. I wouldn't mind seeing the government distance themselves from the article, something like it's a scurrilous, irresponsible and unfounded allegation.
The Momo cartoons were different because they were purely editorial. If Aftonbladet had printed an editorial saying the Israeli occupation of the West Bank sucks ferociously it wouldn't have been worthy of comment. This article wasn't an expression of opinion, it was a statement of fact.
Have you read the article? Unless you have, how can you state as fact what was stated as fact?
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 10:56:15 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2009, 10:45:57 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 10:36:00 AM
Seriously, you retarded assfuckers.
During the mohammed-picture incident, you were all screaming about the need to defend freedom of speech.
Now you're asking the Swedish government to apologize for an article in a Swedish newspaper.
I lack the words to express how disgusted I am right now.
I don't think anyone has asked the Swedish government to apologize for anything. I wouldn't mind seeing the government distance themselves from the article, something like it's a scurrilous, irresponsible and unfounded allegation.
The Momo cartoons were different because they were purely editorial. If Aftonbladet had printed an editorial saying the Israeli occupation of the West Bank sucks ferociously it wouldn't have been worthy of comment. This article wasn't an expression of opinion, it was a statement of fact.
Have you read the article? Unless you have, how can you state as fact what was stated as fact?
Yes I have read the article
in Swedish, obviously something must have gone missing in the translation into English.
The Author
never stated that the IDF actually sold organs from dead Palestinians. He only stated that Palestinians
claim that the IDF do this.
He then asked some pointed questions in regard to the IDF's policy of performing what the Author considered unecessary autopsies on Palestinians that had obviously been shot.
Quote from: Ape on August 23, 2009, 11:02:45 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 10:56:15 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2009, 10:45:57 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 10:36:00 AM
Seriously, you retarded assfuckers.
During the mohammed-picture incident, you were all screaming about the need to defend freedom of speech.
Now you're asking the Swedish government to apologize for an article in a Swedish newspaper.
I lack the words to express how disgusted I am right now.
I don't think anyone has asked the Swedish government to apologize for anything. I wouldn't mind seeing the government distance themselves from the article, something like it's a scurrilous, irresponsible and unfounded allegation.
The Momo cartoons were different because they were purely editorial. If Aftonbladet had printed an editorial saying the Israeli occupation of the West Bank sucks ferociously it wouldn't have been worthy of comment. This article wasn't an expression of opinion, it was a statement of fact.
Have you read the article? Unless you have, how can you state as fact what was stated as fact?
Yes I have read the article in Swedish, obviously something must have gone missing in the translation into English.
The Author never stated that the IDF actually sold organs from dead Palestinians. He only stated that Palestinians claim that the IDF do this.
He then asked some pointed questions in regard to the IDF's policy of performing what the Author considered unecessary autopsies on Palestinians that had obviously been shot.
I was asking Yi, not Yu. ;)
Frankly, I don't believe there's much merit to the allegations, even with the recent episode of jewish black marketeering of organs in New York.
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 11:10:17 AM
I was asking Yi, not Yu. ;)
Frankly, I don't believe there's much merit to the allegations, even with the recent episode of jewish black marketeering of organs in New York.
Sorry misstook yu for Yi :blush: but then again aren't we all just aspects of Yi?
Wow, another long running arab conspiracy theory makes headlines in sweden.
They are at least 20 years too late.
The arabs have believed for decades that Teh Eviel Zionist Entety harvest organs from the palestinians.
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 11:10:17 AM
Quote from: Ape on August 23, 2009, 11:02:45 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 10:56:15 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2009, 10:45:57 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 10:36:00 AM
Seriously, you retarded assfuckers.
During the mohammed-picture incident, you were all screaming about the need to defend freedom of speech.
Now you're asking the Swedish government to apologize for an article in a Swedish newspaper.
I lack the words to express how disgusted I am right now.
I don't think anyone has asked the Swedish government to apologize for anything. I wouldn't mind seeing the government distance themselves from the article, something like it's a scurrilous, irresponsible and unfounded allegation.
The Momo cartoons were different because they were purely editorial. If Aftonbladet had printed an editorial saying the Israeli occupation of the West Bank sucks ferociously it wouldn't have been worthy of comment. This article wasn't an expression of opinion, it was a statement of fact.
Have you read the article? Unless you have, how can you state as fact what was stated as fact?
Yes I have read the article in Swedish, obviously something must have gone missing in the translation into English.
The Author never stated that the IDF actually sold organs from dead Palestinians. He only stated that Palestinians claim that the IDF do this.
He then asked some pointed questions in regard to the IDF's policy of performing what the Author considered unecessary autopsies on Palestinians that had obviously been shot.
Frankly, I don't believe there's much merit to the allegations, even with the recent episode of jewish black marketeering of organs in New York.
:yeahright:
Yeah, that was mob marketing, not simply jewish.
Quote from: PDH on August 23, 2009, 11:24:26 AM
Yeah, that was mob marketing, not simply jewish.
No argument here.
The article, however, drew parallels to the recent case to support the foundation of suspicion, and I noted that even so, I don't believe there is any truth to it.
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 10:36:00 AM
During the mohammed-picture incident, you were all screaming about the need to defend freedom of speech.
Now you're asking the Swedish government to apologize for an article in a Swedish newspaper.
Who is doing that?
It seems to me that everyone is mocking Sweden over its moral cowardice.
Anybody got a link to that article?
found it...
http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article5652583.ab
Having read the article. It is bad journalism. The Swedish Officials were completely correct in refusing to condemn the article or attempt to censor it.
The article however is full of unverified accusations and unchecked "facts". It links the Jewish Mobsters in New Jersey who were illegally selling transplant organs with a Jewish Taboo against organ donation which lead to transplant tourism with a Palestinian dead kid. Then it describes the killing of the Palestinian dead kid as a murder, phrasing it in a manner of how it could have happened. At best it is hideously bad journalism, at worst it is blood libel.
Israel comes badly out of this by calling on Sweden to condemn and by going after the "journalist" in question and the newspaper he was published in.
1. Aftonbladet was once a respected paper. This was 170 years ago.
2. The article is sensationalist and many claims are not supported by named credible sources. However regarding the organ harvesting itself the article only asks questions, it doesn't state that it is true.
3. Points 1 and 2 are irrelevant. By demanding that the Swedish government should "do somefink" over an article that is clearly within the freedom of the press the Israeli government put themselves on the same level as the Arab governments. Shrill official demands for government control of the press doesn't endear Israel to the reasonable public. You want to be Arabs? Fine, be fucking Arabs then. Forget that we thought higher of you. There's a great number of reasons why the Swedish government shoudn't review articles in the press that have nothing at all to do with it. One of them is that if the government had to actively denounce articles or be assumed to support their views the government wouldn't have time to do actual work.
When I researched this post I saw that godhatessweden.com has cleaned up a lot of their more outrageous shit. Boring. :(
Is Sweden still miffed over that whole Bernadotte misunderstanding?
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2009, 12:53:02 PM
Is Sweden still miffed over that whole Bernadotte misunderstanding?
Elaborate.
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2009, 01:38:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2009, 12:53:02 PM
Is Sweden still miffed over that whole Bernadotte misunderstanding?
Elaborate.
y'know, the Irgun assasinating him, that misunderstanding... I'm pretty sure Folke Bernadotte wanted to live.
There is also the struggle between Aftonbladet and Jean Baptiste in the 1830s over freedom of the press. :nerd:
I've changed my mind. I take back what I said about the Swedish government.
The Israelis follow one of two tactics when asked to respect international law or the law of another sovereign nation: cry anti-semitism, or lie.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 23, 2009, 08:28:52 PM
The Israelis follow one of two tactics when asked to respect international law or the law of another sovereign nation: cry anti-semitism, or lie.
:rolleyes:
Funny, I didn't know you were an Israel hater.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2009, 08:35:59 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 23, 2009, 08:28:52 PM
The Israelis follow one of two tactics when asked to respect international law or the law of another sovereign nation: cry anti-semitism, or lie.
:rolleyes:
Funny, I didn't know you were an Israel hater.
He's kind of a good.
International law is a sham anyways. It violates the cardinal principle of law.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 23, 2009, 08:28:52 PM
The Israelis follow one of two tactics when asked to respect international law or the law of another sovereign nation: cry anti-semitism, or lie.
I hope you weren't too attached to your kidneys.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2009, 08:35:59 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 23, 2009, 08:28:52 PM
The Israelis follow one of two tactics when asked to respect international law or the law of another sovereign nation: cry anti-semitism, or lie.
:rolleyes:
Funny, I didn't know you were an Israel hater.
I'm not, and I'll consider taking back the "cry antisemitism" part, as it may be in error. However, Israeli government officials DO about-face on official stories so quickly and often that I wonder if they're insured for whiplash.
Quote from: Ape on August 23, 2009, 11:02:45 AM
He then asked some pointed questions in regard to the IDF's policy of performing what the Author considered unecessary autopsies on Palestinians that had obviously been shot.
I don't know about Isreali law on the subject, but in most jurisdictions in the U.S., an autopsy is legally required on anybody who died by violence.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2009, 08:35:59 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 23, 2009, 08:28:52 PM
The Israelis follow one of two tactics when asked to respect international law or the law of another sovereign nation: cry anti-semitism, or lie.
:rolleyes:
Funny, I didn't know you were an Israel hater.
And per ush, the moment you utter something that could be even remotely construed as negative about israel or israeli conduct, you're an israel-hating nazi.
It's getting pretty boring.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2009, 08:18:02 AM
And where in the Swedish government does it say that the government cannot comment on stories in the Swedish press?
I mean where in the Swedish constitution. :blush:
Come on... would you have said the same in the case of Denmark and the Muhammad cartoons?
Governments must NOT interfere with our freedoms, and freedom of expression and press are very much included. I supported Denmark against muslim pressures, and now I will support Sweden against Israel's pressures if need be.
If Israel's government thinks that the article is so full of lies, then the proper thing to do is a lawsuit.
Later: I see you have changed your mind. Boy, that's not the Languish style(TM)!!!
I will leave my post because I think the comment is still interesting, given the circumstances. Both the cartoons and the article are probably examples of very bad journalism, but pressures against the freedom of expression are a serious danger.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressen.tv%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.1360434%21slot100slotWide75ArticleFull%2F3447786819.jpg&hash=fd5bb607c6668ea8cfb9bf25ba45224978c9b555)
:mmm:
For the matter at hand, the Swedish Government is perfectly right in not acknowledging such rubish.
Quote from: Tyr on August 23, 2009, 09:32:14 AM
Anyway...on topic. I agree with the dislike of Israel and its supporters crying anti-semitism to criticism.
I hate North Korea, its a shitty regime. That doesn't mean I'm a anti-Korean racist.
I dislike people saying criticisms of Israel are anti-semitic. I think it's been too common and I think it weakens the meaning of anti-semitism, in much the same way that constant references to someone being like a fascist dilutes the meaning of fascist until it is, in effect, meaningless. I think that's something that non anti-semites should be concerned with, that and that it's an attempt to shut down debate which then allows the critic to become a martyr - like just condemning the BNP as racist or Islamophobic without detailing the ways and refuting them.
Having said that I think this does seem anti-semitic because it feeds into and from the blood libel. So in this case when supporters of Israel, or critics, cry 'anti-semitism', I think they have a point.
Unlike Yi and others I actually would like to see an apology and retraction from the paper (though not the government) and I think this is the sort of thing over which heads should roll. Though I don't think the government need to get involved.
Quote from: Slargos on August 23, 2009, 10:36:00 AM
Seriously, you retarded assfuckers.
During the mohammed-picture incident, you were all screaming about the need to defend freedom of speech.
Now you're asking the Swedish government to apologize for an article in a Swedish newspaper.
I lack the words to express how disgusted I am right now.
I agree with Slargos. Especially as the article in the Swedish press is information (however wrong or incredible it may be), which puts it a magnitude above satyrical cartoons in the sense of what we should be protecting.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2009, 04:29:13 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 23, 2009, 09:32:14 AM
Anyway...on topic. I agree with the dislike of Israel and its supporters crying anti-semitism to criticism.
I hate North Korea, its a shitty regime. That doesn't mean I'm a anti-Korean racist.
I dislike people saying criticisms of Israel are anti-semitic. I think it's been too common and I think it weakens the meaning of anti-semitism, in much the same way that constant references to someone being like a fascist dilutes the meaning of fascist until it is, in effect, meaningless. I think that's something that non anti-semites should be concerned with, that and that it's an attempt to shut down debate which then allows the critic to become a martyr - like just condemning the BNP as racist or Islamophobic without detailing the ways and refuting them.
Having said that I think this does seem anti-semitic because it feeds into and from the blood libel. So in this case when supporters of Israel, or critics, cry 'anti-semitism', I think they have a point.
Unlike Yi and others I actually would like to see an apology and retraction from the paper (though not the government) and I think this is the sort of thing over which heads should roll. Though I don't think the government need to get involved.
Why is this article a blood libel but an article that would claim a non-Israeli army is doing that (if that article actually claimed that, but it didn't) would not be a blood libel, I assume?
Cries of blood libel (and condemnations thereof) made sense when they were targeted at a unique religious and cultural, powerless minority. They really make no sense when targeted at a full-fledged country with its own army.
In a Free Country(tm), actions over libellous statements should be pursued through the courts and justice system, rather than by the government, no?
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 06:01:15 AM
Why is this article a blood libel but an article that would claim a non-Israeli army is doing that (if that article actually claimed that, but it didn't) would not be a blood libel, I assume?
Cries of blood libel (and condemnations thereof) made sense when they were targeted at a unique religious and cultural, powerless minority. They really make no sense when targeted at a full-fledged country with its own army.
Blood libel is not a generic term for an accusation of wrongdoing, it's specifically related to the charge that Jews secretly kill non-Jews for fun.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 24, 2009, 07:57:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 06:01:15 AM
Why is this article a blood libel but an article that would claim a non-Israeli army is doing that (if that article actually claimed that, but it didn't) would not be a blood libel, I assume?
Cries of blood libel (and condemnations thereof) made sense when they were targeted at a unique religious and cultural, powerless minority. They really make no sense when targeted at a full-fledged country with its own army.
Blood libel is not a generic term for an accusation of wrongdoing, it's specifically related to the charge that Jews secretly kill non-Jews for fun.
I realize that. I just think it is another term that is being over-used, especially in the context of a nation with its own state, army and government.
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 12:27:37 AM
And per ush, the moment you utter something that could be even remotely construed as negative about israel or israeli conduct, you're an israel-hating nazi.
It's getting pretty boring.
No it is usually when it is something like 'Israelis kill arabs to harvest organs!'. How that could be considered something "remotely construed" as negative I don't know.
But we have been over this before.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 08:00:36 AM
I realize that. I just think it is another term that is being over-used, especially in the context of a nation with its own state, army and government.
I guess I don't see how that context makes any difference. Why couldn't a people with a state, army, and government be accused of killing people for fun? Heck we Americans get accused to starting wars just to kill brown people all the time, because we find it fun.
Just because people have a state, army, and government you can then accuse them of killing people for fun and it is ok?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2009, 10:20:30 AM
They're not asking Sweden to stop them from printing it, they're simply asking them to denounce it. That's not censorship.
It really is not necessary for the Swedish government to denounce that article. It's idiocy is self-evident and makes that paper look like a conspiracy theory nutbag rag.
If the United States government had to denounce every stupid, ill-informed, poorly researched, prejudiced, and bigoted article published in over here they would be doing nothing but.
The only reason the Israeli government would even make such a request only indicates they are making excellent progress in becoming a full fledged Middle Eastern country.
Oh that was like anti-semitic and anti-Arab at the same time! Go me!
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2009, 04:29:13 AM
Unlike Yi and others I actually would like to see an apology and retraction from the paper (though not the government) and I think this is the sort of thing over which heads should roll. Though I don't think the government need to get involved.
Again, have we actually seen a direct quote showing condemnation or are we just taking it as a matter of faith that the article doesn't simply reference accusations by the families?
Here's a different way of looking at it from a diplomatic standpoint- if Israel ever hopes to wind things down over there, they're going to need to win people's trust. If I was an Israeli functionary, I would be upset that these accusations are being leveled, but I would view it as an important barometer and a chance to dispel some of the myths; simply screaming "that's not true!" tends to fuel hysteria, not curb it.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 08:03:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 08:00:36 AM
I realize that. I just think it is another term that is being over-used, especially in the context of a nation with its own state, army and government.
I guess I don't see how that context makes any difference. Why couldn't a people with a state, army, and government be accused of killing people for fun? Heck we Americans get accused to starting wars just to kill brown people all the time, because we find it fun.
Just because people have a state, army, and government you can then accuse them of killing people for fun and it is ok?
Ok, let me explain what I meant because I think I am not making myself clear.
To me "blood libel" is an expression used to make such accusations look particularly heinous and dangerous, because they are targeted at a vulnerable minority; in this context, blood libel was often used as a prelude to pogroms. As such they have a very strong negative connotation in Western culture.
In this context, using the term "blood libel" to describe such accusations being leveled against the Israeli state (which, as you yourself point out, could and are sometimes used against other countries as well) is a semantic/intellectual dishonesty, in the same vein as labeling anyone who criticises Israel as an "antisemite".
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 24, 2009, 08:22:59 AM
Again, have we actually seen a direct quote showing condemnation or are we just taking it as a matter of faith that the article doesn't simply reference accusations by the families?
If I print 'Tibet families claim China runs secret camps to harvet Tibetan organs' I bet the Chinese would probably think it was more than just reporting there are crazy Tibetans out there also. Typically you don't just start reporting conspiracy theories in a paper, just you know, to catalogue all the conspiracy theories out there.
QuoteHere's a different way of looking at it from a diplomatic standpoint- if Israel ever hopes to wind things down over there, they're going to need to win people's trust. If I was an Israeli functionary, I would be upset that these accusations are being leveled, but I would view it as an important barometer and a chance to dispel some of the myths; simply screaming "that's not true!" tends to fuel hysteria, not curb it.
I don't understand what you are babbling about. Random accusations about bullshit are not a chance to dispel anything. You can never prove you are NOT doing something it is impossible and a waste of time.
Furthermore the reason Israel has problems has nothing to do with winning people's trust. It has to do with the international community not giving a flying shit about the Palestinians, and how that population is cynically being used to attack the Israeli state, and finally Israel's own nutcases taking advantage of the situation to advance their own agenda. The situation is not going to improve without outside interference and the international community has nobody to blame but themselves if they were being honest about the situation. But nobody wants to.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 08:25:15 AM
To me "blood libel" is an expression used to make such accusations look particularly heinous and dangerous, because they are targeted at a vulnerable minority; in this context, blood libel was often used as a prelude to pogroms. As such they have a very strong negative connotation in Western culture.
In this context, using the term "blood libel" to describe such accusations being leveled against the Israeli state (which, as you yourself point out, could and are sometimes used against other countries as well) is a semantic/intellectual dishonesty, in the same vein as labeling anyone who criticises Israel as an "antisemite".
Well I think the context of using this sort of thing is attempting to justify terrorism and attacks on the Israeli state, property, and people so I sort of view it rather intellectually honest rather than dishonest. Likewise similar accusations against the United States are used for exactly the same purposes.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 08:25:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 08:03:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 08:00:36 AM
I realize that. I just think it is another term that is being over-used, especially in the context of a nation with its own state, army and government.
I guess I don't see how that context makes any difference. Why couldn't a people with a state, army, and government be accused of killing people for fun? Heck we Americans get accused to starting wars just to kill brown people all the time, because we find it fun.
Just because people have a state, army, and government you can then accuse them of killing people for fun and it is ok?
Ok, let me explain what I meant because I think I am not making myself clear.
To me "blood libel" is an expression used to make such accusations look particularly heinous and dangerous, because they are targeted at a vulnerable minority; in this context, blood libel was often used as a prelude to pogroms. As such they have a very strong negative connotation in Western culture.
In this context, using the term "blood libel" to describe such accusations being leveled against the Israeli state (which, as you yourself point out, could and are sometimes used against other countries as well) is a semantic/intellectual dishonesty, in the same vein as labeling anyone who criticises Israel as an "antisemite".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the article draws parallels between what is alleged to happen in Israeli with the recent case of organ-heisting is New Jersey in which some Jews were involved - which presumably elides the distinction between "Israeli" and "Jew", and the notion that all Jews are more or less interchangable/involved in a conspiracy together. This feeds
directly on the "blood libel" mythology, which most Jews are rather adverse to (not me though - I'm rather looking forward to recycling Slargos for his
useful* organs).
That being said, I certainly don't think it is the government's business to get involved in such things; but the blame isn't all on Israel's side - I understand that the Swedish ambassador in Israel in fact *did* condem the article, and Israel merely got angry when the Swedish "home gov't" failed to reaffirm it. It doesn't lie is Swedish mouths to get pissed at their
own diplomatic failure. If it is against Swedish constitutional law to denounce newspaper articles, their abassador should not have - denounced the article.
*Not brain. That gets thrown out. Not genitalia either. :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 24, 2009, 08:22:59 AM
Again, have we actually seen a direct quote showing condemnation or are we just taking it as a matter of faith that the article doesn't simply reference accusations by the families?
There is the author's comment that since the people were obviously shot he doesn't see the need for an autopsy.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 08:34:36 AM
Well I think the context of using this sort of thing is attempting to justify terrorism and attacks on the Israeli state, property, and people so I sort of view it rather intellectually honest rather than dishonest. Likewise similar accusations against the United States are used for exactly the same purposes.
Donations to Hamas, bans on Israeli academics, safe haven for terrorists, trade embargoes, etc.
It's a little ironic that Marty's qualifications for people you're not allowed to throw unsubstantiated allegations at excludes...gays!
It's also a little ironic that Marty, who's every third word is homophobe when the topic is gays, is so quick to denounce the term antisemite.
Quote from: Neil on August 23, 2009, 08:40:25 AM
Quote from: Octavian on August 23, 2009, 08:30:05 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2009, 08:18:02 AM
And where in the Swedish government does it say that the government cannot comment on stories in the Swedish press?
Comment or condemn?
Anyway I find the swedish argument about freedom of speech hilarious considering that many (if not most) swedes still believe Denmark should apologies to the islamotards for the Mohammed cartoons.
Ultimately, the Swedish government is right in this case. Of course, they're still a bunch of antisemitic assholes.
I agree
The story should be easy to verify one way or another. It's very difficult to steal organs without anyone noticing. A single large pipe can get up to 1000 pounds.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 08:34:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 08:25:15 AM
To me "blood libel" is an expression used to make such accusations look particularly heinous and dangerous, because they are targeted at a vulnerable minority; in this context, blood libel was often used as a prelude to pogroms. As such they have a very strong negative connotation in Western culture.
In this context, using the term "blood libel" to describe such accusations being leveled against the Israeli state (which, as you yourself point out, could and are sometimes used against other countries as well) is a semantic/intellectual dishonesty, in the same vein as labeling anyone who criticises Israel as an "antisemite".
Well I think the context of using this sort of thing is attempting to justify terrorism and attacks on the Israeli state, property, and people so I sort of view it rather intellectually honest rather than dishonest. Likewise similar accusations against the United States are used for exactly the same purposes.
I don't believe many Swedes (Slargos excepted) will join the ranks of terrorists after reading this story.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 24, 2009, 09:03:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 08:34:36 AM
Well I think the context of using this sort of thing is attempting to justify terrorism and attacks on the Israeli state, property, and people so I sort of view it rather intellectually honest rather than dishonest. Likewise similar accusations against the United States are used for exactly the same purposes.
Donations to Hamas, bans on Israeli academics, safe haven for terrorists, trade embargoes, etc.
It's a little ironic that Marty's qualifications for people you're not allowed to throw unsubstantiated allegations at excludes...gays!
It's also a little ironic that Marty, who's every third word is homophobe when the topic is gays, is so quick to denounce the term antisemite.
Really? I don't think you have ever seen me calling for the US government to make an official statement denouncing every publication made in the US that presents gays in a bad light through baseless allegations. :huh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 24, 2009, 09:14:49 AM
The story should be easy to verify one way or another. It's very difficult to steal organs without anyone noticing. A single large pipe can get up to 1000 pounds.
They ignored our church organ jokes.
Quote from: Alatriste on August 24, 2009, 12:48:54 AM
Come on... would you have said the same in the case of Denmark and the Muhammad cartoons?
Governments must NOT interfere with our freedoms, and freedom of expression and press are very much included. I supported Denmark against muslim pressures, and now I will support Sweden against Israel's pressures if need be.
If Israel's government thinks that the article is so full of lies, then the proper thing to do is a lawsuit.
Later: I see you have changed your mind. Boy, that's not the Languish style(TM)!!!
I will leave my post because I think the comment is still interesting, given the circumstances. Both the cartoons and the article are probably examples of very bad journalism, but pressures against the freedom of expression are a serious danger.
I haven't changed my mind. Condemnation is not the same as censorship. While I wouldn't agree with them, if the government of Denmark had condemned the cartoons, there wouldn't be anything wrong with that. It's only censorship if the government attempts to prevent a newspaper from publishing. American government officials condemn inaccurate stories all the time and freedom of the press is in no way threatened by it.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 09:24:56 AM
I don't believe many Swedes (Slargos excepted) will join the ranks of terrorists after reading this story.
The article isn't going to be read only by Swedes. In the Arab world, this sort of conspiracy stuff will read like gospel.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 08:11:20 AM
...
Oh that was like anti-semitic and anti-Arab at the same time! Go me!
:lol: Technically both ethic groups are semitic, so you're right on the money.
G.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 09:27:03 AM
Really? I don't think you have ever seen me calling for the US government to make an official statement denouncing every publication made in the US that presents gays in a bad light through baseless allegations. :huh:
Which is different from saying a blood libel is, in fact, not a blood libel because Israel exists as a state. It is a blood libel and it serves the exact same purposes they always did: to encourage attacks on Jews.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 09:36:22 AM
The article isn't going to be read only by Swedes. In the Arab world, this sort of conspiracy stuff will read like gospel.
While I am not hanging around in the Arab world, it sure seems like it.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 09:24:56 AM
I don't believe many Swedes (Slargos excepted) will join the ranks of terrorists after reading this story.
If I publish an article encouraging the murder of gays, does it mean my article does in fact not encourage the murder of gays if no gays are murdered?
It never occured to me to judge articles entirely on their outcomes and not their substance.
Quote from: Grallon on August 24, 2009, 09:43:42 AM
:lol: Technically both ethic groups are semitic, so you're right on the money.
:yeah:
Israeli ambassador to Sweden 2002-04 Zvi Mazel says there is a huge anti-Israel conspiracy in Swedish media. "There is no press freedom in Sweden." In Sweden he is most well known for personally destroying an installation in a Stockholm museum in 2004.
Too bad the ambassadors don't simply cancel out and disappear. :bleeding:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418677847&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Quote from: The Brain on August 24, 2009, 10:00:15 AM
Israeli ambassador to Sweden 2002-04 Zvi Mazel says there is a huge anti-Israel conspiracy in Swedish media. "There is no press freedom in Sweden." In Sweden he is most well known for personally destroying an installation in a Stockholm museum in 2004.
I think decades of siege mentality is starting to drive the Israelis steadily insane. Either that or decades of exposure to the crucible of crazy that is the Middle East. Israel/Palestine will somebody be the world's largest loony bin.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 09:36:22 AM
The article isn't going to be read only by Swedes. In the Arab world, this sort of conspiracy stuff will read like gospel.
These organ theft stories have been around for decades and have been aimed at virtually every country, and seem to be taken as truth almost everywhere. Americans doing aid work Latin America have been been attacked by locals who thought they were scouting out which organs to steal. The US even has an official who's job is to counter organ theft rumors. Of course, I don't think a similar Israeli official would have much success at that job...
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 24, 2009, 10:05:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 09:36:22 AM
The article isn't going to be read only by Swedes. In the Arab world, this sort of conspiracy stuff will read like gospel.
These organ theft stories have been around for decades and have been aimed at virtually every country, and seem to be taken as truth almost everywhere. Americans doing aid work Latin America have been been attacked by locals who thought they were scouting out which organs to steal. The US even has an official who's job is to counter organ theft rumors. Of course, I don't think a similar Israeli official would have much success at that job...
Having an official whose job it is to deny the rumours is simply proof that the rumours are true.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 08:02:42 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 12:27:37 AM
And per ush, the moment you utter something that could be even remotely construed as negative about israel or israeli conduct, you're an israel-hating nazi.
It's getting pretty boring.
No it is usually when it is something like 'Israelis kill arabs to harvest organs!'. How that could be considered something "remotely construed" as negative I don't know.
But we have been over this before.
If you'd cared to actually read my post instead of attacking your comfortable strawman, you will note that what I was talking about was the attack against DSB when he claimed that Israel has two basic responses when not getting their way.
Really. Don't bother reading. It's much more fun making nonsensical attacks.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 24, 2009, 08:22:59 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2009, 04:29:13 AM
Unlike Yi and others I actually would like to see an apology and retraction from the paper (though not the government) and I think this is the sort of thing over which heads should roll. Though I don't think the government need to get involved.
Again, have we actually seen a direct quote showing condemnation or are we just taking it as a matter of faith that the article doesn't simply reference accusations by the families?
Here's a different way of looking at it from a diplomatic standpoint- if Israel ever hopes to wind things down over there, they're going to need to win people's trust. If I was an Israeli functionary, I would be upset that these accusations are being leveled, but I would view it as an important barometer and a chance to dispel some of the myths; simply screaming "that's not true!" tends to fuel hysteria, not curb it.
Aftonbladet thrives on "opinion pieces" where they can insinuate but not state outright what they really mean.
No, there was no claim that organ harvesting was actually taking place. It was simply written in such a fashion that the gullible reader (and this piece is intended for national consumption where a sad majority infact seem to be borderline retarded) would assume that it is actually going on no matter the lack of evidence to support it.
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 10:53:11 AM
If you'd cared to actually read my post instead of attacking your comfortable strawman, you will note that what I was talking about was the attack against DSB when he claimed that Israel has two basic responses when not getting their way.
I was speaking generally. I attack Israel all the time and nobody has ever attacked me as an anti-semite because, you know, I don't say stupid anti-semitic shit.
But DSB basically implied Israel is always breaking international law and are lying about it or ignoring it to cover their dastardly deeds...so yeah. I didn't feel the need to address such a retarded statement but whatever.
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 10:53:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 08:02:42 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 12:27:37 AM
And per ush, the moment you utter something that could be even remotely construed as negative about israel or israeli conduct, you're an israel-hating nazi.
It's getting pretty boring.
No it is usually when it is something like 'Israelis kill arabs to harvest organs!'. How that could be considered something "remotely construed" as negative I don't know.
But we have been over this before.
If you'd cared to actually read my post instead of attacking your comfortable strawman, you will note that what I was talking about was the attack against DSB when he claimed that Israel has two basic responses when not getting their way.
Really. Don't bother reading. It's much more fun making nonsensical attacks.
Hey, we all think you are a Jew-hating Nazi even
before you say anything about Israel. :D
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 10:56:15 AM
Aftonbladet thrives on "opinion pieces" where they can insinuate but not state outright what they really mean.
No, there was no claim that organ harvesting was actually taking place. It was simply written in such a fashion that the gullible reader (and this piece is intended for national consumption where a sad majority infact seem to be borderline retarded) would assume that it is actually going on no matter the lack of evidence to support it.
Great. I bet they spew all sorts of hateful un-substantiated shit against the United States as well. What a great paper.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 08:56:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 08:25:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 08:03:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 08:00:36 AM
I realize that. I just think it is another term that is being over-used, especially in the context of a nation with its own state, army and government.
I guess I don't see how that context makes any difference. Why couldn't a people with a state, army, and government be accused of killing people for fun? Heck we Americans get accused to starting wars just to kill brown people all the time, because we find it fun.
Just because people have a state, army, and government you can then accuse them of killing people for fun and it is ok?
Ok, let me explain what I meant because I think I am not making myself clear.
To me "blood libel" is an expression used to make such accusations look particularly heinous and dangerous, because they are targeted at a vulnerable minority; in this context, blood libel was often used as a prelude to pogroms. As such they have a very strong negative connotation in Western culture.
In this context, using the term "blood libel" to describe such accusations being leveled against the Israeli state (which, as you yourself point out, could and are sometimes used against other countries as well) is a semantic/intellectual dishonesty, in the same vein as labeling anyone who criticises Israel as an "antisemite".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the article draws parallels between what is alleged to happen in Israeli with the recent case of organ-heisting is New Jersey in which some Jews were involved - which presumably elides the distinction between "Israeli" and "Jew", and the notion that all Jews are more or less interchangable/involved in a conspiracy together. This feeds directly on the "blood libel" mythology, which most Jews are rather adverse to (not me though - I'm rather looking forward to recycling Slargos for his useful* organs).
That being said, I certainly don't think it is the government's business to get involved in such things; but the blame isn't all on Israel's side - I understand that the Swedish ambassador in Israel in fact *did* condem the article, and Israel merely got angry when the Swedish "home gov't" failed to reaffirm it. It doesn't lie is Swedish mouths to get pissed at their own diplomatic failure. If it is against Swedish constitutional law to denounce newspaper articles, their abassador should not have - denounced the article.
*Not brain. That gets thrown out. Not genitalia either. :P
That a jewish-swedish ambassador to Israel would haste to make an ass of herself in this question is certainly no big surprise.
The pertinence of appointing a jew as ambassador to Israel is an entirely different question.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 10:58:04 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 10:53:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 08:02:42 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 12:27:37 AM
And per ush, the moment you utter something that could be even remotely construed as negative about israel or israeli conduct, you're an israel-hating nazi.
It's getting pretty boring.
No it is usually when it is something like 'Israelis kill arabs to harvest organs!'. How that could be considered something "remotely construed" as negative I don't know.
But we have been over this before.
If you'd cared to actually read my post instead of attacking your comfortable strawman, you will note that what I was talking about was the attack against DSB when he claimed that Israel has two basic responses when not getting their way.
Really. Don't bother reading. It's much more fun making nonsensical attacks.
Hey, we all think you are a Jew-hating Nazi even before you say anything about Israel. :D
:rolleyes:
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: Israel is a shining beacon of light in an otherwise dark sub-continent.
Infact, if I could help
all jews move there, I would graciously do so. :goodboy:
It's only sad that they revert to behaving like arabs all the fucking time.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 08:32:38 AM
If I print 'Tibet families claim China runs secret camps to harvet Tibetan organs' I bet the Chinese would probably think it was more than just reporting there are crazy Tibetans out there also. Typically you don't just start reporting conspiracy theories in a paper, just you know, to catalogue all the conspiracy theories out there.
Well, in a similar case, the chinese did say
QuoteA Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman rejected the claims about Sujiatun as a "lie... not worth refuting."
however, Israel's usual bane, Amnesty international did get involved
QuoteAmnesty International stated that it considers the Chinese government's statements to be "at odds with the facts in view of the widely documented practice of the buying and selling of organs of death penalty prisoners in China."
The (wiki) link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
The charge is prisons selling the organs of executed prisoners.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 10:58:34 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 10:56:15 AM
Aftonbladet thrives on "opinion pieces" where they can insinuate but not state outright what they really mean.
No, there was no claim that organ harvesting was actually taking place. It was simply written in such a fashion that the gullible reader (and this piece is intended for national consumption where a sad majority infact seem to be borderline retarded) would assume that it is actually going on no matter the lack of evidence to support it.
Great. I bet they spew all sorts of hateful un-substantiated shit against the United States as well. What a great paper.
Yes they do. Their newsreporting is built on lies, half-truths and obfuscation.
Seriously, I know I whine a lot about the state of Sweden today, but if you guys could only get a minute glimpse of the efficiency of the propaganda machine they're running, you would be horrified.
I think the prize for most ironic swedish statement of the 20th century is when our minister of finance called
Norway "the last soviet state".
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 10:57:04 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 10:53:11 AM
If you'd cared to actually read my post instead of attacking your comfortable strawman, you will note that what I was talking about was the attack against DSB when he claimed that Israel has two basic responses when not getting their way.
I was speaking generally. I attack Israel all the time and nobody has ever attacked me as an anti-semite because, you know, I don't say stupid anti-semitic shit.
But DSB basically implied Israel is always breaking international law and are lying about it or ignoring it to cover their dastardly deeds...so yeah. I didn't feel the need to address such a retarded statement but whatever.
So implying that I was trivializing the allegations of organ theft was just a mistake on your part then? Slip of the fingers? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Viking on August 24, 2009, 11:03:08 AM
The charge is prisons selling the organs of executed prisoners.
Seems to me a world of difference between selling the organs of condemned prisoners and selling the organs of those killed fighting with Israeli troops.
For one, the army of Israel is a conscript army, in a very fractious democracy. How would a large-scale program of "harvesting" work - and not get noticed?
Second, the conditions for "harvesting" are likely not ideal when someone has been shot to death and left lying in the Judean sun for a while.
Contrast that with excecuted prisoners in a dictatorship.
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 11:07:08 AM
So implying that I was trivializing the allegations of organ theft was just a mistake on your part then? Slip of the fingers? :rolleyes:
If you like.
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 10:58:58 AM
That a jewish-swedish ambassador to Israel would haste to make an ass of herself in this question is certainly no big surprise.
The pertinence of appointing a jew as ambassador to Israel is an entirely different question.
Appointing a
Jew. And a
woman, too.
What
were they thinking, eh? ;)
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 11:04:54 AM
Yes they do. Their newsreporting is built on lies, half-truths and obfuscation.
Seriously, I know I whine a lot about the state of Sweden today, but if you guys could only get a minute glimpse of the efficiency of the propaganda machine they're running, you would be horrified.
I think the prize for most ironic swedish statement of the 20th century is when our minister of finance called Norway "the last soviet state".
So really this article is just par for the course then. Israel is being rather foolish to draw so much attention to it.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 11:08:28 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 24, 2009, 11:03:08 AM
The charge is prisons selling the organs of executed prisoners.
Seems to me a world of difference between selling the organs of condemned prisoners and selling the organs of those killed fighting with Israeli troops.
For one, the army of Israel is a conscript army, in a very fractious democracy. How would a large-scale program of "harvesting" work - and not get noticed?
Second, the conditions for "harvesting" are likely not ideal when someone has been shot to death and left lying in the Judean sun for a while.
Contrast that with excecuted prisoners in a dictatorship.
Why would the program need to be large-scale?
Why wouldn't they simply use the scatter gun approach and eventually wind up with healthy organs. There's enough dead pallys to go around, after all.
Why do you assume we believe the ridiculous assertion that not all jews are able to keep up the Jewsquerade? :P
"Fractitious" country
indeed. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 11:09:59 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 10:58:58 AM
That a jewish-swedish ambassador to Israel would haste to make an ass of herself in this question is certainly no big surprise.
The pertinence of appointing a jew as ambassador to Israel is an entirely different question.
Appointing a Jew. And a woman, too.
What were they thinking, eh? ;)
She was quite clearly not able to stay objective and do her job.
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 11:12:35 AM
Why would the program need to be large-scale?
Why wouldn't they simply use the scatter gun approach and eventually wind up with healthy organs. There's enough dead pallys to go around, after all.
Why do you assume we believe the ridiculous assertion that not all jews are able to keep up the Jewsquerade? :P
"Fractitious" country indeed. ;)
Because risking the near inevitability of a hideous outcry for the benefit of snatching the occasional organ makes no fucking sense, perhaps?
Apply my handy guide to conspiracy theories:
- Does it require the baddies to use an improbable method that requires them to be
at the same time fiendishly clever
and incredibly moronic, to achive a tiny insignificant "benefit"?
- Does it more or less replicate an already-existing conspiracy theory involving the very same group?
- Is there some history of animosity which predisposes people to believing the most outlandish conspiracies about this particular group?
Answer "yes" to all three and, sir, it looks like a "conspiracy theory".
Of course Arabs (and I guess Swedes) are predisposed to believing such trash. :D
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 11:14:03 AM
She was quite clearly not able to stay objective and do her job.
Or she was correct
then and the Swedish gov't is wrong
now.
Quote from: Warspite on August 24, 2009, 06:18:36 AM
In a Free Country(tm), actions over libellous statements should be pursued through the courts and justice system, rather than by the government, no?
Yes, absolutely.
QuoteWhy is this article a blood libel but an article that would claim a non-Israeli army is doing that (if that article actually claimed that, but it didn't) would not be a blood libel, I assume?
No, because there's a specific cultural heritage of accusations that Jews kill non-Jews to sort of use or harvest the body. Because of that it seems to feed from anti-semitic allegations against Jews as a religion or people, as much as it is of Israeli troops.
It's for that reason I'm particularly concerned by an article about allegations that the Israeli army steals Arab organs. If this was reported as a serious concern and not debunked in the article, or not as a feature on 'Middle Eastern conspiracies' or something similar then I'd consider it as irresponsible as a paper seriously reporting the story of William of Norwich without detailing that it's highly, highly unlikely.
QuoteAgain, have we actually seen a direct quote showing condemnation or are we just taking it as a matter of faith that the article doesn't simply reference accusations by the families?
That doesn't matter. Articles that simply print accusations without providing context or trying to further investigate those allegations are just engaged in irresponsible journalism. This isn't, of course, an issue for government to be involved in. It's one of editorial standards and sensitivity.
According to 'diplomats' who spoke to a Spectator journalist the reason Israel condemned this article (why this article of all the unpleasant articles written about Israel?) is that the Swedes are EU Presidents at the minute. The Israelis are expecting Obama's administration to have a Mitchell peace proposal in October that the Israelis won't like. After such a public spat with the Swedes the Israelis will be able to downplay their (and by extension the EU's) support for the Mitchell proposal.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 11:21:29 AM
Of course Arabs (and I guess Swedes) are predisposed to believing such trash. :D
Have I succeeded in becoming such a heinous caricature that you completely miss it when I'm being facetious? :lol:
Sadly, a lot of Swedes do buy into this sort of propaganda.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 11:22:47 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 11:14:03 AM
She was quite clearly not able to stay objective and do her job.
Or she was correct then and the Swedish gov't is wrong now.
I think we've quite clearly established that it's not the job of the Swedish (or any) government to denounce individual journalists or papers for printing trash.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2009, 11:45:51 AM
According to 'diplomats' who spoke to a Spectator journalist the reason Israel condemned this article (why this article of all the unpleasant articles written about Israel?) is that the Swedes are EU Presidents at the minute. The Israelis are expecting Obama's administration to have a Mitchell peace proposal in October that the Israelis won't like. After such a public spat with the Swedes the Israelis will be able to downplay their (and by extension the EU's) support for the Mitchell proposal.
I rather suspect that this has nothing to do with it - the anger seems to be a genuine public reaction.
Rather it is the misfortune of having the Swedish gov't do an apparent double-take: condemning the article first and then retracting the condemnation, which drew the issue to public attention.
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 11:47:21 AM
I think we've quite clearly established that it's not the job of the Swedish (or any) government to denounce individual journalists or papers for printing trash.
That is neither here nor there: the issue is that the Swedes are apparently claiming they
can't denounce something like this. If this isn't true, it makes them look very foolish to have denounced the article then retracted. Allegedly, the issue has gone to some sort of swedish constitutional committee ...
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 12:08:03 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 11:47:21 AM
I think we've quite clearly established that it's not the job of the Swedish (or any) government to denounce individual journalists or papers for printing trash.
That is neither here nor there: the issue is that the Swedes are apparently claiming they can't denounce something like this. If this isn't true, it makes them look very foolish to have denounced the article then retracted. Allegedly, the issue has gone to some sort of swedish constitutional committee ...
Yes, technically speaking the ambassador is the voice of the government. :rolleyes:
:lol:
Israelis are boycotting IKEA over this.
Congratulations on joining your semitic brothers in hypersensitive overreaction. :lol:
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 12:28:27 PM
:lol:
Israelis are boycotting IKEA over this.
Congratulations on joining your semitic brothers in hypersensitive overreaction. :lol:
As I said: the ME insanity is slowly filtering into the Israeli mind.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 11:12:09 AM
So really this article is just par for the course then. Israel is being rather foolish to draw so much attention to it.
Maybe so, but when it's some other government it's much easier for them to ignore ridiculous organ theft conspiracies. Given that there is a long history of accusing Jews of eating people I can understand why they'd take it more seriously.
I didn't read this story until after the Israeli government complained. Was it in being picked up by other papers before that?
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 12:30:23 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 12:28:27 PM
:lol:
Israelis are boycotting IKEA over this.
Congratulations on joining your semitic brothers in hypersensitive overreaction. :lol:
As I said: the ME insanity is slowly filtering into the Israeli mind.
They should have moved to Madagascar instead, when they had the chance. :P
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 12:08:03 PM
Allegedly, the issue has gone to some sort of swedish constitutional committee ...
Quite. From what I've discerned so far, the social democratic party has filed a formal complaint to the constitutional committee against the ministry of foreign affairs over the ambassador's faux pas.
It's political manoeuvring as usual of course, but I can't help but feel good that for once they're actually doing the right thing, even if it's for the wrong reasons. :P
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 12:08:03 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 11:47:21 AM
I think we've quite clearly established that it's not the job of the Swedish (or any) government to denounce individual journalists or papers for printing trash.
That is neither here nor there: the issue is that the Swedes are apparently claiming they can't denounce something like this. If this isn't true, it makes them look very foolish to have denounced the article then retracted. Allegedly, the issue has gone to some sort of swedish constitutional committee ...
A rogue ambassador who has been chastised is not "they". But I suspect you know this.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 24, 2009, 12:31:22 PM
I didn't read this story until after the Israeli government complained. Was it in being picked up by other papers before that?
Ofc not. Stuff like this is sometimes printed by this rag to remind people they are a leftist mag and not only a gossip column. Remember that the left hates Israel by proxy since its involved with the great satan of the west or at least thats the general message one tends to pick up when you cut through all the bullshit. Anyho everyone pretty much ignored it per usual when the Israeli goverment started to beat on the big propaganda drum (for domestic consumption I guess) and the whole thing turned into a "OMG they are trying to take away our FREEDOM OF PRESS/SPEACH" thing. Ofc the rag in question loved this since it meant extra numbers sold. This is also when the other papers picked it up, how could they not since it had turned into a international incident. Somewhere along the line the ambassador in israel managed to make a fool of herself as well, dont care about the matter enough to find out exactly when.
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 12:27:20 PM
Yes, technically speaking the ambassador is the voice of the government. :rolleyes:
Why does that rate a " :rolleyes: "?
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 01:21:04 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 12:27:20 PM
Yes, technically speaking the ambassador is the voice of the government. :rolleyes:
Why does that rate a " :rolleyes: "?
By the same token jews HAVE recently been discovered to be involved in organ trafficking. Where there's smoke, there's fire.
If you want to take the hair-splitting route.
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 01:51:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 01:21:04 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 12:27:20 PM
Yes, technically speaking the ambassador is the voice of the government. :rolleyes:
Why does that rate a " :rolleyes: "?
By the same token jews HAVE recently been discovered to be involved in organ trafficking. Where there's smoke, there's fire.
If you want to take the hair-splitting route.
See, this is why Jews are somewhat particular about the Blood Libel type conspiracy accusations. Confirmation bias.
It is like if some Gay guy happened to kill someone, and a year later some totally unrelated gay guy killed someone else, and the headlines scream "Gays Murder Again!". Yes it is sort of true, but the implication of commonality and conspiracy is totally - not. :lol:
There is no "splitting hairs" with an ambassador - they are the countries' representative.
Norway has the Norwegian Press Association which does rule on complaints with regards to the Norwegian Ethical Code of Practice for the Press. If the Norwegian code of practice applies in Sweden the Israeli Embassy might apply to the equivalent Swedish body and complain on the grounds of lacking source material and a right of reply to accusations.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 02:03:09 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 01:51:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 01:21:04 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 12:27:20 PM
Yes, technically speaking the ambassador is the voice of the government. :rolleyes:
Why does that rate a " :rolleyes: "?
By the same token jews HAVE recently been discovered to be involved in organ trafficking. Where there's smoke, there's fire.
If you want to take the hair-splitting route.
See, this is why Jews are somewhat particular about the Blood Libel type conspiracy accusations. Confirmation bias.
It is like if some Gay guy happened to kill someone, and a year later some totally unrelated gay guy killed someone else, and the headlines scream "Gays Murder Again!". Yes it is sort of true, but the implication of commonality and conspiracy is totally - not. :lol:
There is no "splitting hairs" with an ambassador - they are the countries' representative.
Indeed. And the JEWISH ambassador did a better job representing ISRAEL than "her own" country for which she was chastised.
Only in the strictly theoretical and highly temporary sense was this the swedish government's position, and I don't see how it's relevant.
Quote from: Warspite on August 24, 2009, 06:18:36 AM
In a Free Country(tm), actions over libellous statements should be pursued through the courts and justice system, rather than by the government, no?
In a Free Country(tm), actions over libellous statements should be pursued through the courts and justice system, which should ensure that in the most cases (including this one), such complaints are dismissed outright as inconsistent with a free society.
In a Decent Country(tm), a story running such as this should lead to a crushing popular backlash againt the publisher resulting in the Sheilbh solution of the writer and editor being canned and an apology + retraction being written.
So far, this is the best response:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3766042,00.html
:D
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 02:08:48 PM
Only in the strictly theoretical and highly temporary sense was this the swedish government's position, and I don't see how it's relevant.
Yes, but we won't hold your ignorance against you. :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 24, 2009, 02:11:32 PM
Quote from: Warspite on August 24, 2009, 06:18:36 AM
In a Free Country(tm), actions over libellous statements should be pursued through the courts and justice system, rather than by the government, no?
In a Free Country(tm), actions over libellous statements should be pursued through the courts and justice system, which should ensure that in the most cases (including this one), such complaints are dismissed outright as inconsistent with a free society.
In a Decent Country(tm), a story running such as this should lead to a crushing popular backlash againt the publisher resulting in the Sheilbh solution of the writer and editor being canned and an apology + retraction being written.
That is utter fucking bullshit.
In a Decent Country, the public should be free to make up their own minds about the paper, and the owners should be free to do fire the editor as they wish.
Did you know the paper in question is owned by a jewish family by the way?
I will admit that the fact that this is the country's largest paper is a damning indictment of the swedish population.
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 02:15:43 PM
In a Decent Country, the public should be free to make up their own minds about the paper, and the owners should be free to do fire the editor as they wish.
They are and everyone else in the world is free to judge them on the basis of how they (re)act. Just as I have done.
QuoteDid you know the paper in question is owned by a jewish family by the way?
Everyone knows the self-haters are the worse anti-semites. :)
Fine. I give up.
The actions of a bunch of leftist throwbacks to the '68 era clearly show that the entire swedish population are anti-semites.
That entire generations have been successfully indoctrinated by a very methodical socialist apparatus not to question The Word does not explain anything.
Nuke from orbit is the only way to be sure.
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 02:49:46 PM
Nuke from orbit is the only way to be sure.
Sure - otherwise what's to stop Sweden from turning over copious quantities of iron ore to any passing Nazi-type who shouts loudly enough?
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 02:13:50 PM
So far, this is the best response:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3766042,00.html
:D
I all for ridiculing swedes but that was lame
3/10
Quote from: Octavian on August 24, 2009, 03:20:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 02:13:50 PM
So far, this is the best response:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3766042,00.html
:D
I all for ridiculing swedes but that was lame
3/10
My reaction was : Wut?
No exactly what they were trawling for I guess.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 02:13:50 PM
So far, this is the best response:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3766042,00.html
:D
Is the ridicule of the Israeli government intentional?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 24, 2009, 02:11:32 PM
Quote from: Warspite on August 24, 2009, 06:18:36 AM
In a Free Country(tm), actions over libellous statements should be pursued through the courts and justice system, rather than by the government, no?
In a Free Country(tm), actions over libellous statements should be pursued through the courts and justice system, which should ensure that in the most cases (including this one), such complaints are dismissed outright as inconsistent with a free society.
In a Decent Country(tm), a story running such as this should lead to a crushing popular backlash againt the publisher resulting in the Sheilbh solution of the writer and editor being canned and an apology + retraction being written.
I can roll with this.
Quote from: Octavian on August 24, 2009, 03:20:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 02:13:50 PM
So far, this is the best response:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3766042,00.html
:D
I all for ridiculing swedes but that was lame
3/10
:huh:
I thought it was ridiculing the
Israelis.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 03:29:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 02:13:50 PM
So far, this is the best response:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3766042,00.html
:D
Is the ridicule of the Israeli government intentional?
I sort of assumed that was the very point.
http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/178/presumed-guilty
QuoteUniversity of Glasgow pathologists, who did an autopsy at the request of Sinclair's family, found that it had been returned without a heart (which they suspect was used for a transplant) and without the crucial bone needed to confirm the claim that he died from hanging.
What do you have to say for your defense, Malty? :P
Cat's out of the bag now. :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 08:11:20 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2009, 10:20:30 AM
They're not asking Sweden to stop them from printing it, they're simply asking them to denounce it. That's not censorship.
It really is not necessary for the Swedish government to denounce that article. It's idiocy is self-evident and makes that paper look like a conspiracy theory nutbag rag.
If the United States government had to denounce every stupid, ill-informed, poorly researched, prejudiced, and bigoted article published in over here they would be doing nothing but.
The only reason the Israeli government would even make such a request only indicates they are making excellent progress in becoming a full fledged Middle Eastern country.
Oh that was like anti-semitic and anti-Arab at the same time! Go me!
I admire you.
You are my half-anti-hero.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 11:09:59 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 24, 2009, 10:58:58 AM
That a jewish-swedish ambassador to Israel would haste to make an ass of herself in this question is certainly no big surprise.
The pertinence of appointing a jew as ambassador to Israel is an entirely different question.
Appointing a Jew. And a woman, too.
What were they thinking, eh? ;)
:lol:
From Slargos's article:
QuoteLast November, a local Tel Aviv paper Ha'ir ran a 12-page expose of Abu Kabir and revealed how the national lab allows medical students to practice on bodies sent there for autopsies, and transfers body parts for transplants without permission from the family of the deceased.
The family of Alastair Sinclair, a Scottish tourist, who, hanged himself in an Israeli jail, was forced to bring suit for the return of missing body parts.
University of Glasgow pathologists, who did an autopsy at the request of Sinclair's family, found that it had been returned without a heart (which they suspect was used for a transplant) and without the crucial bone needed to confirm the claim that he died from hanging.
WTF. Israeli government should demand that Israeli government denounces this vicious lie.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 03:45:49 PM
Quote from: Octavian on August 24, 2009, 03:20:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 02:13:50 PM
So far, this is the best response:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3766042,00.html
:D
I all for ridiculing swedes but that was lame
3/10
:huh:
I thought it was ridiculing the Israelis.
:lol: I only read the first few lines and since I was bored with them I assumed the rest sucked. I naturally also assumed that it ridiculed the Swedes
:blush:
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2009, 02:03:04 AM
From Slargos's article:
QuoteLast November, a local Tel Aviv paper Ha'ir ran a 12-page expose of Abu Kabir and revealed how the national lab allows medical students to practice on bodies sent there for autopsies, and transfers body parts for transplants without permission from the family of the deceased.
The family of Alastair Sinclair, a Scottish tourist, who, hanged himself in an Israeli jail, was forced to bring suit for the return of missing body parts.
University of Glasgow pathologists, who did an autopsy at the request of Sinclair's family, found that it had been returned without a heart (which they suspect was used for a transplant) and without the crucial bone needed to confirm the claim that he died from hanging.
WTF. Israeli government should demand that Israeli government denounces this vicious lie.
Some person claims that a body was returned without parts, including the hyoid bone and the heart - which, without the slightest shred of proof, they believe was used for a transplant. They then sue and get the parts
back, allegedly.
Presumably, after ripping it out of the poor person whom it was implanted in? Those dastardly Israelis will stoop at nothing to commit their crimes ... ? :huh:
In any event, a quick google turns up plenty of such "cases". Have fun!
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-21815.html
QuoteReturned from foreign labor ... without his heart." Underneath such a
headline, this newspaper relates that, reduced to despair by extreme
material straits, a 39-year-old Khmelnytsky resident took a job in Israel.
However, the terrible news shortly arrived that he had died there of
poisoning by a tainted alcoholic beverage (even though all domestic sources
insist that he never drank!). The body of the unfortunate worker was
returned to Ukraine for burial. However, medical experts discovered that he
was missing ... his heart! At the moment, this dreadfully-inhuman affair is
being investigated with the help of Interpol.... (Ukrinform, 23 November).
WERE Ukrainians KILLED SO THAT A JEW MIGHT LIVE?
A Ukrainian who never drank? That part is hard to believe. :lol: Not so hard to believe, unfortunately, that you guys are being taken in by an urban myth.
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2009, 08:49:13 AM
A Ukrainian who never drank? That part is hard to believe. :lol:
:lol: You'd they would learn some subtlety over the centuries.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2009, 02:03:04 AM
From Slargos's article:
QuoteLast November, a local Tel Aviv paper Ha'ir ran a 12-page expose of Abu Kabir and revealed how the national lab allows medical students to practice on bodies sent there for autopsies, and transfers body parts for transplants without permission from the family of the deceased.
The family of Alastair Sinclair, a Scottish tourist, who, hanged himself in an Israeli jail, was forced to bring suit for the return of missing body parts.
University of Glasgow pathologists, who did an autopsy at the request of Sinclair's family, found that it had been returned without a heart (which they suspect was used for a transplant) and without the crucial bone needed to confirm the claim that he died from hanging.
WTF. Israeli government should demand that Israeli government denounces this vicious lie.
Alright Marty is starting to scare me.
Slargos and Marty must really think we are gullible. As if Scotsmen actually had hearts, instead cold, hard stones inside their chests. :rolleyes:
Now here's a country we know kills people for their organs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32563370/ns/world_news-asiapacific/
QuoteChina: Death row provides most organ donors
Critics say country's transplant trade is opaque, profit-driven and unethical
updated 2 hours, 17 minutes ago
BEIJING - The majority of transplanted organs in China come from executed prisoners, state media reported Wednesday in a rare disclosure about an industry often criticized for being opaque and unethical.
The country's Health Ministry and the Red Cross Society of China this week launched a national organ donation system to reduce the reliance on death row inmates and encourage donations from the public, the China Daily newspaper reported.
Condemned prisoners are "definitely not a proper source for organ transplants," the report quoted Vice Health Minister Huang Jiefu as saying. He has publicly acknowledged that most transplant organs are taken from executed prisoners, but only with prior consent.
Foreign medical and human rights groups have long criticized China's organ transplant trade as being opaque, profit-driven and unethical. Critics say death row prisoners may feel compelled to become donors.
Cultural bias
Voluntary donations in China remain far below demand, partly because of cultural bias against organ removal before burial. About 1.5 million people in China need transplants, but only some 10,000 operations are performed annually, Chinese health officials say.
China has acknowledged that kidneys, livers, corneas and other organs are routinely removed from prisoners sentenced to death, but gave no details. Chinese transplant specialists estimate at least 90 percent of transplanted organs come from executed prisoners, human rights groups say.
The China Daily said more than 65 percent of organ donations come from death row, citing unnamed "experts."
China puts to death more people than any other country. Earlier this year, Amnesty International said China executed at least 1,718 people in 2008. The exact number is not known.
The new donor system, launched Tuesday, will link possible donors with recipients and make public a waiting list of patients to increase transparency in allocating organs. The Red Cross will also encourage post-public donations.
The new system is China's latest step to better regulate organ transplants. In 2007, medical officials agreed not to transplant organs from prisoners or others in custody, except into members of their immediate families.
Also, regulations introduced in 2007 bar donations from living people who are not related to or emotionally connected to the transplant patient.
The Health Ministry said it could not provide more information on the new donor system as staffers were busy. The Red Cross would not take questions by phone and did not immediately respond to a faxed request for comment.
The system was initially being launched in 10 provinces and cities including Shanghai, Tianjin and Xiamen and will eventually be rolled out across the country, the China Daily said.
The scarcity of available organs has also led to a black market, with brokers able to arrange transplants within weeks for Chinese and foreigners willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars. The transplants are also hugely profitable for hospitals.
The China Daily said traffickers have been selling organs from people pressured or forced into donating to people unrelated to them since the tighter regulations went into effect in 2007.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
That's why they needed all those organs
QuoteIsraeli researchers make dramatic breakthrough in treating heart disease
Israeli researchers have made a dramatic breakthrough in treating heart disease, growing heart muscle in rats' abdomens and using it to patch the hearts of rats that suffered heart attacks.
The experiment, whose results were published this week in an American journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the first to demonstrate the possibility of rejuvenating the heart after a heart attack. While many researchers have tried to develop heart patches, until now, none of the tissue patches have survived implantation into the heart.
The Israeli researchers were led by Dr. Tal Dvir, who developed the new method for his Ph.D. thesis at Ben-Gurion University and is now at MIT. The researchers planted cardiac cells taken from newborn rats on a laboratory "scaffold" and seeded them with growth agents. Once the cells had grown sufficiently, the entire scaffold was implanted in the rat's abdomen, where the tissue continued to grow and developed a network of blood vessels. A week later, the new tissue was removed from the abdomen and transplanted into the damaged heart.
After 28 days, the blood vessels in the patch had linked up with the damaged heart's own blood vessels. This, Dvir said, prevented it from dying of lack of oxygen, as previous bioengineered patches have.
Moreover, the patch appeared to actually improve the damaged heart. A heart attack leaves a scar that usually tightens over time and exerts pressure on the heart wall, which often leads to another heart attack. The tissue patch prevented this deterioration.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on August 26, 2009, 09:18:10 AM
That's why they needed all those organs
QuoteIsraeli researchers make dramatic breakthrough in treating heart disease
Israeli researchers have made a dramatic breakthrough in treating heart disease, growing heart muscle in rats' abdomens and using it to patch the hearts of rats that suffered heart attacks.
The experiment, whose results were published this week in an American journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the first to demonstrate the possibility of rejuvenating the heart after a heart attack. While many researchers have tried to develop heart patches, until now, none of the tissue patches have survived implantation into the heart.
The Israeli researchers were led by Dr. Tal Dvir, who developed the new method for his Ph.D. thesis at Ben-Gurion University and is now at MIT. The researchers planted cardiac cells taken from newborn rats on a laboratory "scaffold" and seeded them with growth agents. Once the cells had grown sufficiently, the entire scaffold was implanted in the rat's abdomen, where the tissue continued to grow and developed a network of blood vessels. A week later, the new tissue was removed from the abdomen and transplanted into the damaged heart.
After 28 days, the blood vessels in the patch had linked up with the damaged heart's own blood vessels. This, Dvir said, prevented it from dying of lack of oxygen, as previous bioengineered patches have.
Moreover, the patch appeared to actually improve the damaged heart. A heart attack leaves a scar that usually tightens over time and exerts pressure on the heart wall, which often leads to another heart attack. The tissue patch prevented this deterioration.
Heh assuming they were trying to save those shot Palistinians. The heart patches use your *own* tissue. ;)