FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Back to the SORT deflection again. Those comments had nothing to do with the ABM. Here's what Putin said about that:

Quote:

---

December 13, 2001

The US Administration today announced that it will withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty in six months' time.

The Treaty does indeed allow each of the parties to withdraw from it under exceptional circumstances. The leadership of the United States has spoken about it repeatedly and this step has not come as a surprise to us. But we believe this decision to be mistaken.

As is known, Russia, like the United States and unlike other nuclear powers, has long possessed an effective system to overcome anti-missile defense. So, I can say with full confidence that the decision made by the President of the United States does not pose a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation.

At the same time our country elected not to accept the insistent proposals on the part of the US to jointly withdraw from the ABM Treaty and did everything it could to preserve the Treaty. I still think that this is a correct and valid position. Russia was guided above all by the aim of preserving and strengthening the international legal foundation in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

The ABM Treaty is one of the supporting elements of the legal system in this field. That system was created through joint efforts during the past decades.

It is our conviction that the development of the situation in the present world dictates a certain logic of actions.

Now that the world has been confronted with new threats one cannot allow a legal vacuum to be formed in the sphere of strategic stability. One should not undermine the regimes of non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

I believe that the present level of bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and the US should not only be preserved but should be used for working out a new framework of strategic relations as soon as possible.

Along with the problem of anti-missile defense a particularly important task under these conditions is putting a legal seal on the achieved agreements on further radical, irreversible and verifiable cuts of strategic offensive weapons, in our opinion to the level of 1,500-2,200 nuclear warheads for each side.

In conclusion I would like to note that Russia will continue to adhere firmly to its course in world affairs aimed at strengthening strategic stability and international security.

---

---

Yes, all these statements are just oozing that distrust. We pulled out of ABM for a specific reason having nothing to do with Russia, and put together another agreement to further reduce nuclear arms. It's called realpolitik. You and Sachs are playing revisionist fantasies for the bad American narrative.

I don't even think you understand why ABM was even signed and its deterrent purpose. It's a negative action deterrent, with the outdated concept that if you put up missile defense systems, the other side would be motivated to increase arms to overwhelm it. That becomes unnecessary when you focus on reducing overall arms count, which we weren't keen on in 1972, but late in USSR decline became part of the structure.

---

I understand why we pulled out of the ABM. Bush intended to develop a better national missile defense system. He intended to negotiate a better arms control agreement with Russia. He intended that effective arms reductions would render the ABM obsolete.

The problem is that none of that happened. Instead we triggered a new arms race, and our missile defense is just as ineffective as it was before.

Sachs is also correct that our systems in Eastern Europe are a threat to Russia. They were originally designed to fire Tomahawk missiles. They can be modified for offensive purposes relatively easily, and they are one of our most commonly used systems in that capacity. If they are ever used offensively, Russia will have next to no notice and no way of knowing for certain whether they contain nuclear warheads. Our response to their concerns is "trust us." Meanwhile we're expanding NATO, bombing Yugoslavia, funding color revolutions, etc.

Maybe you think all of this is a good idea. That isn't the point. The point is that it has affected US/Russia relations in the most serious of ways. That is beyond dispute.

---

I'd disagree on the facts, especially since we signed two subsequent more impactful arms control agreements, and your assessment of missile defense tech, not to mention the timing. But even if you obsess over Russia, and say they weren't enough, the geopolitical reality is we went from a bipolar world of a primary threat during the Cold War, to a multipolar one that required us to adjust. Old agreements became antiquated, and we had to reposition. We can certainly argue how effective we have or haven't been in doing so, but it doesn't change the reality of the global change. Reality is we didn't view Russia as an enemy when we pulled out.

And Russia doesn't need to trust us. Our actions are a clear indicator of our intentions. The problem is Putin, and maybe you and Sachs, does not want more Western aligned countries that can function freer and more beneficially economically. He sees the threat to Russia's influence and spins it as a military one to escalate its perceived danger. But it isn't. It's the only way Russia can leverage its one primary strength to coerce these countries and the world into not proceeding. Putin longs for the days of perceived equal import on the global stage that the Soviet Union used to portray. But they've been lapped by the U.S. as well as China, and outside of nuclear arsenal a number of European nations also.

You and Sachs are pushing a pro-Putin agenda, I won't even call it pro Russia because even Medvedev tried something different and was thwarted by him. The one factor that is always absent from these conversations is what the actual threat to Russia is, when in reality it is only what nefarious act it might prevent Russia from doing, or the grip they have over a country. You can say that these actions impacted US/Russia relations, which I agree, but the question based upon global realities is, why shouldn't they have been?

It would be nice for the Russian people to get a fresh perspective for their country after 25 years of a clinching fist over them instead of being forced to be stuck in the past. (No this isn't a veiled regime change threat, just an actual hope for the Russian people)

And the color revolution lie has become a tired trope, but I know the grind will continue.

---

Your first paragraph has some truth to it, but it doesn't change anything that Sachs is saying. It may be true that Bush didn't see Russia as an enemy, but he was surrounded by people who did. Most of them didn't even want the SORT agreement. They were the same ones pushing a unipolar world, war with Iraq, and all of that arrogant nonsense. Even if none of their ideas worked, they at least succeeded in dominating US foreign policy. Bush ultimately failed to enact the verification measures that the Russians wanted, and things went downhill from there.

To your question why our relations with Russia shouldn't have been damaged in this way, the answer is that a return to the Cold War, the arms race, and mutually assured destruction is good for no one. That doesn't mean we should stop at nothing to maintain friendship, but if you don't at least see why these things are to be avoided then I don't know what to tell you.

It was the US and Europe, not Russia, who were obsessed with "aligning" every country on one side or the other. We agreed to neutrality for Ukraine. Ukrainians wanted economic ties with both Russia and the West, to the benefit of all parties -- not just Western banks and oligarchs. It was we who spun an economic rivalry into a military crisis, solely for our own perceived benefit, not Ukraine's.

The nature of the threat to Russia has been explained ad nauseam. I explained the specific threat from our missile installations just now. The idea that Russia doesn't need to trust us is wildly out of touch with any sort of diplomatic reality. Anyone with potentially nuclear-capable missiles on their border is going to be very concerned about trust. We certainly would be. But you know this. You just can't acknowledge any fact that doesn't make America look like the knight in shining armor.

---

The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,

The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.

---

This is such a thorough distortion of history that I won't try to address it all. It's really remarkable, though.

A Normally there would have been serious efforts to resolve any disputes before such a thing was even contemplated. In our case none of that happened.

---

You seem to defend any act they do as a reaction to the US, not their fault, including invading a Nation.

Yet, you just argued that the US honoring the arms agreement and giving the agreed upon notice is horrible. Not contemplated or some nonsense.

ATL Bear is correct, the US had gone above and beyond to assist Russia align more west. After the fall of the USSR I doubt Putin would have been so even handed and fair toward the US. At least they have no history of it when in a position of strength. But that is the US fault too, right?

---

Who said withdrawing from the agreement was horrible?

---

You just went on about how withdrawing from the agreement within the agreed timeline was "bare minimum". You read that paragraph below and it is positive???

"to the topic of arms control, Russia absolutely was surprised and shocked by our sudden withdrawal from the treaties, especially the INF. That we gave bare minimum notice as required by the agreements doesn't change that; in fact it only emphasizes the point."

---

We haven't really argued the merits of the policy yet. In most of these conversations, we never do. I'm still trying to establish the basic historical facts. Then we can decide whether they're positive or negative.

This is an example of how you, ATL, and others do it the other way around. First you decide what's positive for the US, then you choose which facts to accept. If I say "the US is bordered to the south by Mexico," your brains hear "the US is evil." You demand links, maps, expert testimony, etc., and after all that you remain firmly in denial.

The point is simply that Russia was surprised and reacted badly to our withdrawal from the treaties. This is an obvious fact, which no one who knows anything about it would deny. We could have mitigated the damage in any number of ways, for example, by not placing missiles in Romania and Poland. There was no real need for them, since even ATL admits our decision to withdraw wasn't a reaction to any Russian threat. But that's another discussion.

---

Why stay in an agreement we do not agree with after we, and our allies, discover that the other side is not honoring. 9M729, Russia was breaking the treaty the US was honoring. Not rocket science. Russia is who scuttled the INF.

---

Because it was an important agreement and there are ways of resolving those issues and verifying compliance. That's the normal approach if you want the agreement, and the overall arms control framework, to be effective.

---

Come on, this was not a 6 month issue, it started under Obama in 2008 and Trump finally pulled out because all it did was put the US in a competitive disadvantage. That is years. There is no reason to stay in an agreement where only one side adheres.

---

Years during which, I would argue, more could have been done to save the treaty. Part of the problem had to do with the Aegis installations in Eastern Europe, as mentioned above. Here's an article from a few years ago describing some of the issues and how they might have been resolved:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-blame-game-begins-over-the-inf-treatys-demise-and-washington-is-losing/

---

That is the problem. The Russians actually built and deployed 9M729. They said "IF" the US put the same type of cruise missile it would be a violation. The US never deployed the offensive capable missiles. The Russian position was always based on hypotheticals, not what actually happened, as opposed to their indiscretions.

---

Russia was claiming that the system was compliant. If we had taken the steps to prove or disprove that claim, we would have found out whether there was a material violation and whether they were willing to remedy it. It's possible that we would have reached an impasse, but I doubt it. All of this is what's supposed to happen before you decide to ditch the agreement.

Good discussion here, thanks.

---

It came down to the US having to prove what Russia did vs the US defending hypotheticals. Most weapon AA systems can be used offensively. Hell the Vulcan was an Anti-Air system that was used for ground support. There is no defense for "you could do it". It was an impasse, both wanted to develop next generations of weapons and wanted out...

---

The irony in all this is that while griping about the Aegis system, Russia was continuing to assist Iran in developing their missile technology. And our radar system for the Aegis was specifically set up in Turkey because of the concern over a potential Middle East rogue attack. If we were intending it toward a Russian missile threat we wouldn't have placed it there.

The_barBEARian said:

---

GHW was a good President but poor politician.

He should have worked something out with Perot like Trump did with Kennedy.

---

You got that right. He told the truth on taxes.

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

GHW was a good President but poor politician.

He should have worked something out with Perot like Trump did with Kennedy.

---

You got that right. He told the truth on taxes.

---

GHW made the hard decisions and Clinton took all the credit.

Dueling Narratives In Amsterdam

What is clear...

Last Thursday, there was a soccer game between Maccabi Tel Aviv and Ajax. A number of Maccabi fans traveled to Amsterdam for the game, I don't know how many.

"Footage circulating on social media showed supporters of the Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer team being chased down and assaulted on Thursday night, with one video geolocated by NBC News to near Amsterdam's central station that showed fighting on the streets between the Israelis and their attackers.

"'Boys on scooters crossed the city in search of Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters,' Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema said. 'It was a hit-and-run. Football fans were beaten and scared, after which the rioters quickly left again, fleeing the police force that was on the move en masse yesterday.;"

After this, Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof decried "antisemitic attacks on Israeli citizens."

So that is what initially hit the news, as an unprovoked attack on Jews in Amsterdam.

However, another narrative seems to have emerged: "A separate video geolocated by NBC News showed Israeli fans taunting pro-Palestinian protesters either before or after Thursday's match by singing "Death to the Arabs" and "Let the IDF win. We will f*** the Arabs," as well as tearing down a Palestinian flag."

The before or after is sort of important here, because it identifies who instigated these post game events. It also calls into question the "innocent spectators attacked" narrative.

Anyone with additional information on this?

(I don't know - I'm not in Amsterdam, I've never been to a soccer game, and soccer registers about as much as foot fungus does on my radar, which is to say not at all...)

Trump's pick for U.S. ambassador to Israel, who has a close relationship with Netanyahu, has previously said that "there's really no such thing as a Palestinian" and argued that land for a future Palestinian state should be taken from other Arab states. https://t.co/oQ9IPLAuIV

— Axios (@axios) November 12, 2024

Realitybites said:

---

Dueling Narratives In Amsterdam

What is clear...

Last Thursday, there was a soccer game between Maccabi Tel Aviv and Ajax. A number of Maccabi fans traveled to Amsterdam for the game, I don't know how many.

"Footage circulating on social media showed supporters of the Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer team being chased down and assaulted on Thursday night, with one video geolocated by NBC News to near Amsterdam's central station that showed fighting on the streets between the Israelis and their attackers.

"'Boys on scooters crossed the city in search of Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters,' Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema said. 'It was a hit-and-run. Football fans were beaten and scared, after which the rioters quickly left again, fleeing the police force that was on the move en masse yesterday.;"

After this, Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof decried "antisemitic attacks on Israeli citizens."

So that is what initially hit the news, as an unprovoked attack on Jews in Amsterdam.

However, another narrative seems to have emerged: "A separate video geolocated by NBC News showed Israeli fans taunting pro-Palestinian protesters either before or after Thursday's match by singing "Death to the Arabs" and "Let the IDF win. We will f*** the Arabs," as well as tearing down a Palestinian flag."

The before or after is sort of important here, because it identifies who instigated these post game events. It also calls into question the "innocent spectators attacked" narrative.

Anyone with additional information on this?

(I don't know - I'm not in Amsterdam, I've never been to a soccer game, and soccer registers about as much as foot fungus does on my radar, which is to say not at all...)

---

So if side A taunts side B, it's ok for side B to conduct search & assault action in the streets against Side A?
Did side A assault anyone?

That's a pretty low threshold for any soccer game.

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Dueling Narratives In Amsterdam

What is clear...

Last Thursday, there was a soccer game between Maccabi Tel Aviv and Ajax. A number of Maccabi fans traveled to Amsterdam for the game, I don't know how many.

"Footage circulating on social media showed supporters of the Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer team being chased down and assaulted on Thursday night, with one video geolocated by NBC News to near Amsterdam's central station that showed fighting on the streets between the Israelis and their attackers.

"'Boys on scooters crossed the city in search of Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters,' Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema said. 'It was a hit-and-run. Football fans were beaten and scared, after which the rioters quickly left again, fleeing the police force that was on the move en masse yesterday.;"

After this, Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof decried "antisemitic attacks on Israeli citizens."

So that is what initially hit the news, as an unprovoked attack on Jews in Amsterdam.

However, another narrative seems to have emerged: "A separate video geolocated by NBC News showed Israeli fans taunting pro-Palestinian protesters either before or after Thursday's match by singing "Death to the Arabs" and "Let the IDF win. We will f*** the Arabs," as well as tearing down a Palestinian flag."

The before or after is sort of important here, because it identifies who instigated these post game events. It also calls into question the "innocent spectators attacked" narrative.

Anyone with additional information on this?

(I don't know - I'm not in Amsterdam, I've never been to a soccer game, and soccer registers about as much as foot fungus does on my radar, which is to say not at all...)

---

So if side A taunts side B, it's ok for side B to conduct search & assault action in the streets against Side A?
Did side A assault anyone?

---

Yes they did but regardless if someone was jumping up and down right in front of you screaming at you that they were going to murder your wife and children what would you do?

Sounds like he has some good ideas

Most people would give them the thrashing the were asking for

If any doubts remained about the motives of the Amsterdam thugs who last week terrorized and assaulted Israeli soccer fans in droves, an investigation in The Wall Street Journal should settle the questions.

It wasn't merely a reaction to provocative behavior by some of those fans. It wasn't just overflowing anger over the war in Gaza. It was something altogether darker.

"Maccabi supporters had traveled to the Dutch capital for a match with local team Ajax on Thursday night," the newspaper reported, referring to the Tel Aviv club. "Little did they know that, earlier in the day, they had become a topic of discussion on popular messaging apps, where users were calling for a Jodenjacht, or 'Jew Hunt.'"

Jew hunt: Grotesque as the phrase is, it can no longer surprise.

It is what the graffiti on a wall in an Oslo metro station promises: "Hitler started it. We finis[h]ed it."

Osodecentx said:

---

If any doubts remained about the motives of the Amsterdam thugs who last week terrorized and assaulted Israeli soccer fans in droves, an investigation in The Wall Street Journal should settle the questions.

It wasn't merely a reaction to provocative behavior by some of those fans. It wasn't just overflowing anger over the war in Gaza. It was something altogether darker.

"Maccabi supporters had traveled to the Dutch capital for a match with local team Ajax on Thursday night," the newspaper reported, referring to the Tel Aviv club. "Little did they know that, earlier in the day, they had become a topic of discussion on popular messaging apps, where users were calling for a Jodenjacht, or 'Jew Hunt.'"

Jew hunt: Grotesque as the phrase is, it can no longer surprise.

It is what the graffiti on a wall in an Oslo metro station promises: "Hitler started it. We finis[h]ed it."

---

Both sides are trash.

My only sympathies are for the native European Dutch population who inexplicably have to deal with roaming mobs of Arabs and Jews disturbing the peace and creating mayhem.

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Dueling Narratives In Amsterdam

What is clear...

Last Thursday, there was a soccer game between Maccabi Tel Aviv and Ajax. A number of Maccabi fans traveled to Amsterdam for the game, I don't know how many.

"Footage circulating on social media showed supporters of the Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer team being chased down and assaulted on Thursday night, with one video geolocated by NBC News to near Amsterdam's central station that showed fighting on the streets between the Israelis and their attackers.

"'Boys on scooters crossed the city in search of Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters,' Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema said. 'It was a hit-and-run. Football fans were beaten and scared, after which the rioters quickly left again, fleeing the police force that was on the move en masse yesterday.;"

After this, Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof decried "antisemitic attacks on Israeli citizens."

So that is what initially hit the news, as an unprovoked attack on Jews in Amsterdam.

However, another narrative seems to have emerged: "A separate video geolocated by NBC News showed Israeli fans taunting pro-Palestinian protesters either before or after Thursday's match by singing "Death to the Arabs" and "Let the IDF win. We will f*** the Arabs," as well as tearing down a Palestinian flag."

The before or after is sort of important here, because it identifies who instigated these post game events. It also calls into question the "innocent spectators attacked" narrative.

Anyone with additional information on this?

(I don't know - I'm not in Amsterdam, I've never been to a soccer game, and soccer registers about as much as foot fungus does on my radar, which is to say not at all...)

---

So if side A taunts side B, it's ok for side B to conduct search & assault action in the streets against Side A?
Did side A assault anyone?

---

Yes they did but regardless if someone was jumping up and down right in front of you screaming at you that they were going to murder your wife and children what would you do?

---

I would extricate my family from the situation, not launch off on a search and destroy mission thru the town all night looking for anyone of the same faith as those who insulted them.

What is wrong with you?

---

You should be asking what is wrong with Israelis?

Who flies to another country, forms a mob, and starts threatening violence against people?

I don't know why it's so difficult for you and others here to condemn evil?

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Dueling Narratives In Amsterdam

What is clear...

Last Thursday, there was a soccer game between Maccabi Tel Aviv and Ajax. A number of Maccabi fans traveled to Amsterdam for the game, I don't know how many.

"Footage circulating on social media showed supporters of the Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer team being chased down and assaulted on Thursday night, with one video geolocated by NBC News to near Amsterdam's central station that showed fighting on the streets between the Israelis and their attackers.

"'Boys on scooters crossed the city in search of Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters,' Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema said. 'It was a hit-and-run. Football fans were beaten and scared, after which the rioters quickly left again, fleeing the police force that was on the move en masse yesterday.;"

After this, Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof decried "antisemitic attacks on Israeli citizens."

So that is what initially hit the news, as an unprovoked attack on Jews in Amsterdam.

However, another narrative seems to have emerged: "A separate video geolocated by NBC News showed Israeli fans taunting pro-Palestinian protesters either before or after Thursday's match by singing "Death to the Arabs" and "Let the IDF win. We will f*** the Arabs," as well as tearing down a Palestinian flag."

The before or after is sort of important here, because it identifies who instigated these post game events. It also calls into question the "innocent spectators attacked" narrative.

Anyone with additional information on this?

(I don't know - I'm not in Amsterdam, I've never been to a soccer game, and soccer registers about as much as foot fungus does on my radar, which is to say not at all...)

---

So if side A taunts side B, it's ok for side B to conduct search & assault action in the streets against Side A?
Did side A assault anyone?

---

Yes they did but regardless if someone was jumping up and down right in front of you screaming at you that they were going to murder your wife and children what would you do?

---

I would extricate my family from the situation, not launch off on a search and destroy mission thru the town all night looking for anyone of the same faith as those who insulted them.

What is wrong with you?

---

I believe the term is antisemite

anti-Semite
noun
noun: antisemite
a person who is hostile to or prejudiced against Jewish people.
"he was not just a bigot, but also an anti-Semite"

I could be wrong but the evidence presented certainly indicates this.

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Dueling Narratives In Amsterdam

What is clear...

Last Thursday, there was a soccer game between Maccabi Tel Aviv and Ajax. A number of Maccabi fans traveled to Amsterdam for the game, I don't know how many.

"Footage circulating on social media showed supporters of the Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer team being chased down and assaulted on Thursday night, with one video geolocated by NBC News to near Amsterdam's central station that showed fighting on the streets between the Israelis and their attackers.

"'Boys on scooters crossed the city in search of Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters,' Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema said. 'It was a hit-and-run. Football fans were beaten and scared, after which the rioters quickly left again, fleeing the police force that was on the move en masse yesterday.;"

After this, Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof decried "antisemitic attacks on Israeli citizens."

So that is what initially hit the news, as an unprovoked attack on Jews in Amsterdam.

However, another narrative seems to have emerged: "A separate video geolocated by NBC News showed Israeli fans taunting pro-Palestinian protesters either before or after Thursday's match by singing "Death to the Arabs" and "Let the IDF win. We will f*** the Arabs," as well as tearing down a Palestinian flag."

The before or after is sort of important here, because it identifies who instigated these post game events. It also calls into question the "innocent spectators attacked" narrative.

Anyone with additional information on this?

(I don't know - I'm not in Amsterdam, I've never been to a soccer game, and soccer registers about as much as foot fungus does on my radar, which is to say not at all...)

---

So if side A taunts side B, it's ok for side B to conduct search & assault action in the streets against Side A?
Did side A assault anyone?

---

Yes they did but regardless if someone was jumping up and down right in front of you screaming at you that they were going to murder your wife and children what would you do?

---

I would extricate my family from the situation, not launch off on a search and destroy mission thru the town all night looking for anyone of the same faith as those who insulted them.

What is wrong with you?

---

You should be asking what is wrong with Israelis?

Who flies to another country, forms a mob, and starts threatening violence against people?

I don't know why it's so difficult for you and others here to condemn evil?

---

Soccer hooligans. They come in a variety of nationalities

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Dueling Narratives In Amsterdam

What is clear...

Last Thursday, there was a soccer game between Maccabi Tel Aviv and Ajax. A number of Maccabi fans traveled to Amsterdam for the game, I don't know how many.

"Footage circulating on social media showed supporters of the Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer team being chased down and assaulted on Thursday night, with one video geolocated by NBC News to near Amsterdam's central station that showed fighting on the streets between the Israelis and their attackers.

"'Boys on scooters crossed the city in search of Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters,' Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema said. 'It was a hit-and-run. Football fans were beaten and scared, after which the rioters quickly left again, fleeing the police force that was on the move en masse yesterday.;"

After this, Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof decried "antisemitic attacks on Israeli citizens."

So that is what initially hit the news, as an unprovoked attack on Jews in Amsterdam.

However, another narrative seems to have emerged: "A separate video geolocated by NBC News showed Israeli fans taunting pro-Palestinian protesters either before or after Thursday's match by singing "Death to the Arabs" and "Let the IDF win. We will f*** the Arabs," as well as tearing down a Palestinian flag."

The before or after is sort of important here, because it identifies who instigated these post game events. It also calls into question the "innocent spectators attacked" narrative.

Anyone with additional information on this?

(I don't know - I'm not in Amsterdam, I've never been to a soccer game, and soccer registers about as much as foot fungus does on my radar, which is to say not at all...)

---

So if side A taunts side B, it's ok for side B to conduct search & assault action in the streets against Side A?
Did side A assault anyone?

---

Yes they did but regardless if someone was jumping up and down right in front of you screaming at you that they were going to murder your wife and children what would you do?

---

I would extricate my family from the situation, not launch off on a search and destroy mission thru the town all night looking for anyone of the same faith as those who insulted them.

What is wrong with you?

---

I believe the term is antisemite

anti-Semite
noun
noun: antisemite
a person who is hostile to or prejudiced against Jewish people.
"he was not just a bigot, but also an anti-Semite"

I could be wrong but the evidence presented certainly indicates this.

---

You guys are incredible!

You want to gaslight me as the bad guy for pointing out violent, foreign mobs running around with lead pipes, vandalizing property, and threatening people's lives are evil.

I believe the term for you all is Boomercon.

"A boomer conservative. Calls them self a conservative but doesn't conserve anything but the state of Israel. Just a progressive going the speed limit. Whatever the opposition advocates for they end up adopting that as their own stances eventually. A spineless coward with no real convictions.


Normal person: Man, I think we need to cut foreign funding and invest it in our own country more.

Boomercon: What are you an anti-semite? What about muh greatest ally, Israel? "

historian said:

---

Only antisemites reflexively blame Jews every time they are attacked by someone else. Antisemites have been using such lame excuses for millennia. It is no more true today as it was in 1930s Germany, 1880s Russia, or ancient times.

---

Only Christian Zionists reflexively blame gentiles every time they are attacked by Jewish Supremacists. Christian Zionists have been using such lame excuses for 80 years. It is no more true today than it was with the IDF soldiers raping English teens while on holiday in Malta, Epstein's predominately Jewish pedophile ring, or the USS Liberty.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Only antisemites reflexively blame Jews every time they are attacked by someone else. Antisemites have been using such lame excuses for millennia. It is no more true today as it was in 1930s Germany, 1880s Russia, or ancient times.

---

Only Christian Zionists reflexively blame gentiles every time they are attacked by Jewish Supremacists. Christian Zionists have been using such lame excuses for 80 years. It is no more true today than it was with the IDF soldiers raping English teens while on holiday in Malta, Epstein's predominately Jewish pedophile ring, or the USS Liberty.

---

none are so blind

You see Jews where others see soccer hooligans.

You speak of automatically blaming Christian Zionist when your the one that blames Jews for killing Christ. That's a foolish view from both the Christian POV and the secular POV.

Nobody is claiming that Israel is perfect but, only you and a couple others are viewing them through antisemitic glasses.

---

The majority of this post is a non-sequitur, but I will respond to the little actually relates by saying Jews were very clearly a mutual party to the verbal and physical antagonism that occurred during this event in the Netherlands and it is disturbing how inculcated many of you are to defend a specific group of people by immediately and aggressively attacking those who are simply attempting to repudiate bad behavior on ALL sides.

The_barBEARian said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Only antisemites reflexively blame Jews every time they are attacked by someone else. Antisemites have been using such lame excuses for millennia. It is no more true today as it was in 1930s Germany, 1880s Russia, or ancient times.

---

Only Christian Zionists reflexively blame gentiles every time they are attacked by Jewish Supremacists. Christian Zionists have been using such lame excuses for 80 years. It is no more true today than it was with the IDF soldiers raping English teens while on holiday in Malta, Epstein's predominately Jewish pedophile ring, or the USS Liberty.

---

none are so blind

You see Jews where others see soccer hooligans.

You speak of automatically blaming Christian Zionist when your the one that blames Jews for killing Christ. That's a foolish view from both the Christian POV and the secular POV.

Nobody is claiming that Israel is perfect but, only you and a couple others are viewing them through antisemitic glasses.

---

The majority of this post is a non-sequitur, but I will respond to the little actually relates by saying Jews were very clearly a mutual party to the verbal and physical antagonism that occurred during this event in the Netherlands and it is disturbing how inculcated many of you are to defend a specific group of people by immediately and aggressively attacking those who are simply attempting to repudiate bad behavior on ALL sides.

---

I must have missed your blurb about gentiles killing Christ.

Say, you're a gentile aren't you?

Maybe I am a little late to the Convo.

Why are ther jews and arabs in a Dutch city anyway?

Don't they have their own countries?

Should they not take their vicious ethnic warfare back home?

Quote:

---

So if side A taunts side B, it's ok for side B to conduct search & assault action in the streets against Side A?

Did side A assault anyone?

---

"For at the window of my house
I have looked out through my lattice,
and I have seen among the simple,
I have perceived among the youths,
a young man lacking sense,
passing along the street near her corner,
taking the road to her house
in the twilight, in the evening,
at the time of night and darkness."

Proverbs 7

We all killed Christ. He died for everyone's sins, willingly, so we are all responsible. Each of us nailed Him to the cross.

historian said:

---

We all killed Christ. He died for everyone's sins, willingly, so we are all responsible. Each of us nailed Him to the cross.

---

You and I understand that but, our resident antisemite made a post the other day about the Jews killing Christ

Antisemite "Christian's" have been saying that for decades if not centuries. It was wrong when the Nazis said it and it's wrong now.

Some people seem to forget that Jesus was Himself a Jew.

whiterock said:

---

words are not violence.
words do not justify violence.

---

No, they do not.

But it does move the whole event from the category of a "young black man minding his own business eating Skittles when he was viciously and needlessly shot by a white hispanic" category to the "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" category.

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

words are not violence.
words do not justify violence.

---

No, they do not.

But it does move the whole event from the category of a "young black man minding his own business eating Skittles when he was viciously and needlessly shot by a white hispanic" category to the "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" category.

---

Not a persuasive scenario to suggest that two days of pogrom is justified by a few minutes of blue language by loud-mouthed fans.

Very unserious......

Calling this a "pogram" is also extremely unserious when both sides were committing incendiary acts and neither side was a victim.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Calling this a "pogram" is also extremely unserious when both sides were committing incendiary acts and neither side was a victim.

---

Typically unserious response wildly out of touch with what actually happened.

https://www.reuters.com/world/israels-pm-aware-very-violent-incident-against-israelis-amsterdam-his-office-2024-11-08/

"A Dutch city councilor stated that Israeli hooligans among the Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters instigated the violence in Amsterdam before, during and after the football match against Amsterdam's Ajax. Jazie Veldhuyzen, a senior city councilor, said the Dutch government and the Amsterdam municipality initially described the incident as 'antisemitic.' Veldhuyzen stressed the need for a thorough and objective examination of the facts."

Sam Lowry said:

---

"A Dutch city councilor stated that Israeli hooligans among the Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters instigated the violence in Amsterdam before, during and after the football match against Amsterdam's Ajax. Jazie Veldhuyzen, a senior city councilor, said the Dutch government and the Amsterdam municipality initially described the incident as 'antisemitic.' Veldhuyzen stressed the need for a thorough and objective examination of the facts."

---

Is Veldhuyzen any relation to Arnold van den Bergh?

BREAKING: Today, the United Nations voted 170-6 on "The Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination".

Those voting against:

🇺🇸United States
🇮🇱Israel
🇦🇷Argentina
🇵🇾Paraguay
🇫🇲Micronesia
🇳🇷Nauru pic.twitter.com/VpKEiWKnFG

— Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) November 14, 2024