Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (711684)	4/24/2013 10:44:46 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1572153

John Kerry’s Pro-Terror Swiftboating ...................................................................... FrontPage Magazine ^ \| April 24, 2013 \| Steven Plaut Leave it to Secretary of State John Kerry to exploit his state visit to Turkey for some pro-terror swiftboating. As reported on the conservative Israel National News web site: Speaking at Istanbul, Turkey, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a jarring comparison between the victims of the Boston Marathon terror bombs and terror activists from the IHH group who were killed when they attacked IDF forces aboard the Mavi Marmara in 2010. Kerry told his hosts in Turkey that he understands the pain of the families whose loved ones were killed aboard the Marmara – and added that he can understand their pain well, having just dealt with the families whose loved ones were slain in Boston. As with so much of what comes out of Kerry’s mouth, his groveling metaphor before the Turks raises questions about just what he thinks and was trying to say. Is he saying that the Chechen bombers of the Boston marathon were as morally high-minded and ethically justified in using force as were the Israeli troops who boarded the Turkish terrorist ship in the Hamas Flotilla trying to break the blockade of Gaza’s Hamastan? For those who do not recall the incident, Turkey sent a ship loaded with Islamofascist terrorists from the so-called IHH movement to challenge Israel’s naval blockade of the Hamas enclave in Gaza. The Turkish terrorists were joined by Western Hamas-philes and even a handful of Israeli radical leftists and Arabs. Israel maintains a naval blockade of Gaza because the Hamas rulers of Gaza have converted it into a launching base to fire thousands of rockets into Israeli civilian zones. Israel is not interested in the terrorists smuggling in more war materiel than they already do and is unwilling to sanction import business-as-usual while the Gaza barbarians engage in war. When Israel sent unarmed troops to board that ship, the “passengers” attempted to murder them. Eventually the Israeli military victims were joined by armed comrades, who dispatched some of the attackers to meet their 72 virgins. These terrorists shot by Israelis are the people whose “pain” Kerry insisted that he understands and feels. Kerry does not feel the pain of any Israeli maimed by the Turkish jihadis who assaulted them on the ship. The Israeli government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just decided on a path of national self-abasement and, in the name of “Realpolitik, ” issued a toady “apology” to the Turks, at Obama’s insistence. Israel even offered to make reparation payments to the families of the Turkish terrorists who got themselves killed while attempting to murder Israeli troops on the Hamas Flotilla ship. As with all such displays of Israeli cowardice and attempts at appeasement, this got Israel nothing. The Turks have simply exploited the Israeli “goodwill gesture” as cover for further demonization and aggression. Naftali Bennett, Israel’s minister of economy and trade, commented: Since the apology was made public, it appears Erdogan is doing everything he can to make Israel regret it, while conducting a personal and vitriolic campaign at the expense of Israel-Turkey relations. Let there be no doubt — no nation is doing Israel a favor by renewing ties with it. It should also be clear to Erdogan that if Israel encounters in the future any terrorism directed against us, our response will be no less severe. Of course, I suppose there are other ways to interpret Kerry’s bon mot expounded in Turkey. Was he trying to compare the pressure cooker bombs left on the street in Boston by the Chechen terrorists to the silly paint guns that Israeli troops held as their only weapons when they boarded the Hamas Flotilla ship to order it to halt? Was he trying to accuse the people running in and cheering on the Boston Marathon as being genocidal fascist terrorists like the IHH members and Hamas? Maybe Kerry was trying to say that, since Israel was entirely justified in using force against the IHH barbarians, the runners in the Boston Marathon must also be barbarians against whom the use of force is appropriate? Kerry seems to have a surprisingly selective sense of pain and sympathy for victims of violence. While he was clowning for the Turks, he never once expressed any pain for the refugees from Famagusta whose property in Cyprus was simply stolen by Turkey and from which they are barred from entering even today. How come Kerry did not demand that Turkey allow a flotilla to enter the port of Famagusta manned by those who support the Cypriot refugees driven from their homes there? How come Kerry can’t seem to feel their pain? And speaking of feeling the pain of others, how come Kerry did not utilize his visit of state to Turkey to add a few words about the pain of the families of the Armenians and Greeks massacred by the Turks during World War I, or the much more recent aggressions and oppressive policies by Turkey against the Kurds? Kerry is a master of the understatement. When Turkish leaders proclaimed that Zionism is a crime against humanity, Kerry responded that such talk is “objectionable.” That is about as inspiring and morally clear as denouncing the Chechens who left the bombs lying about in Boston as being responsible for harming the environment. Curiously, Kerry honored a Turkish citizen, Mustafa Akarsu, who was killed by an Islamist terrorist while on guard duty at the US Embassy in Turkey. Honoring Akarsu was of course entirely proper. But for reasons that are not clear, Kerry did not expand on his moral metaphors and compare the suicide bomber who murdered Akarsu to the victims of al-Qaeda killed in the 9-11 attacks on the US or to the soldiers in Valley Forge. Kerry also honored two other Turkish guards who were injured in that same attack, while failing to demand that the families of these guards apologize to the terrorists and offer to pay them reparations.

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (711684)	4/24/2013 10:52:27 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1572153

Oh, terrorists, we’re so sorry ....................................................................... NY Post ^ \| April 24, 2013 \| MICHAEL GOODWIN

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (711684)	4/24/2013 10:57:51 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572153

Paul tries to walk back drone comments By Steve Benen - Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:35 AM EDT Associated Press Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Fox's Neil Cavuto yesterday that he's comfortable with the executive branch having the authority to use drones on Americans over U.S. soil if an administration perceives an "imminent threat." The senator even went so far as to say, "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him." And since I reported on this yesterday, it's only fair that I note that Paul issued a statement last night, clarifying his position. "My comments [on Tuesday] left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed. Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster. Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets. "Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind." The statement seemed necessary -- many of the Republican's own supporters were outraged and demanded an explanation. I'm not unsympathetic to those who misspeak during media interviews -- it's happened to me, so I know how embarrassing it can be -- and when Paul described using drones to kill a suspect in a liquor-store robbery, he probably didn't mean it. This would certainly fall under the rubric of "normal crime situations." That said, the Kentucky Republican still seems confused about the policy he claims to care so much about. When the senator launched his nearly 13-hour filibuster last month, Paul was primarily focused on opposition to the use of drones over U.S. soil. He specifically wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." The Justice Department answered the question the next day: no, it does not believe it has that authority. Paul was delighted and moved on. But in last night's statement, the Kentucky lawmaker appears to have a slightly different posture: if the executive branch perceives "an ongoing, imminent threat" inside the United States, then the executive branch -- according to Rand Paul -- has the authority to use drones over American soil. *This is what he said on Fox and* what he said in his statement clarifying what he said on Fox.** And who gets to decide if the executive branch is correct about the ongoing, imminent domestic threat? Paul didn't clarify, and his statement was silent on the issue of oversight or checks and balances. Presumably, under this model, an administration could make its own decisions on whether a perceived threat was "imminent" enough to use drones over domestic soil. So, here's the follow-up question for the "Stand with Rand" crowd: does Paul's clarification sound persuasive?