The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11

Have.. you... read.. the.. article...??
Certainly not..


I posted the abstract of article copied directly from NYtimes page.. and highlighted some points..

It's simple, Israel is affected from Terrorism for longer than US.. The same goes with India, so anyone can conclude that (after attacks) US would share the same point of view as these countries.. Even if he said that, he was merely hoping that it would generate a better bounding between both countries as terrorism being common enemy of both. Unlike Palestinians, he wasn't rejoicing and celebrating the attacks..

Your thoughts...

 

He probably means for the United States. Given the placement in the sentence, doesn't that make sense?

 

Ofcourse it does..

And no-one can claim it doesn't, unless he can provide the complete interview with the exact quote...

 

Yep. It seems you need the question that was asked of him and the full response, not this chunk. The () part was added by the writer and may nor may not be in context. I'm not too surprised that people latch onto the altered version. It fits the profile.

 

Whats... the.... argument?

Now that we agree the quote is real, I´m not sure why he would say that it would generate immediate sympathy for America - since yes, we are America and we need so much of it.

Three years ago, on September 12, 2001, Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked how the previous day’s terror attacks in New York and Washington would affect relations between Israel and the United States. “It's very good,” he said. “Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.” The attack, Mr. Netanyahu explained, would “strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we've experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive haemorrhaging of terror.”

Good job tiger - you´ve only done it 3 times already on this thread...lol...

 

No, the quote is not real..

The quote in the article says -

Which is not..

So its mere assumption, that leads to propaganda...

And good job for you too, for ignoring the part that Palestinians were rejoicing and celebrating the attack(For some weird reason that doesn't bother you, somehow). Yet, trying to prove that Israelis were happy about the attack based on an un-sourced Quote and some assumptions..

Really Good job, Watson. You have done it...ummmm...only 6 times in this thread... ha ha ha...

 

It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for puppies)

It's a good game. Let's all have fun

 

Webmaster, you fail.

The point he was trying to express was that now that America has been hit with terror first hand, it will obviously generate more sympathy for Israel from Americans because now Americans truly know what it´s like to experience terror.

 

Does that give you a reason to rejoice, like Palestinians?


The point he was trying to express was attack would generate a better bounding between both countries as terrorism being common enemy for both now...

But you can continue your posting based on assumptions and un-sourced quotes.. Heck! you can even make few quotes in your mind, if that gives you a reason to celebrate and rejoice..


Meanwhile Me and Lorien are praising b00bies and playing 'Fill in the bracket' game....

 

It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy
(for B O O B I E S)

Now that's a quotable quote!

 

True... but I thought we were talking about the sympathy () part?

Quotes were sourced - champagne cork popped.

I will join you on the first one, but you and Lorien can... um.. keep the second one to yourselves...

 

Show the sympathy part in NYtimes, where he is explicitly saying he is seeking sympathy for Israel and I'll accept

Where? on what really happened site?
Ultimate source, Dare I say?

Give up, lets praise b00bies....

 

The edited quote was source. The original, I'm staring at it now, does not include the ()'s so it was added by your referenced site. How does it feel to keep quoting something that was edited to suit an agenda?

 

Not as hot as these -

 

He wasn´t saying he was seeking sympathy.

The question was how would the attack affect relations between Israel and US... His response was the result of the attack would generate immediate sympathy for Israel ("ITS GOOD!") because the US now knows what it feels like to be the target of terrorism, as Israel has for much much longer... Keep in mind he said "its good...." Why would he say that it´s good for America? So they can get sympathy? Yes, we need more of it. lol... No attack is good for us - he simply wasnt referring to America.

If you can´t see that from the quote I will just accept you are blind and discontinue beating the dead horse.

 

Really what is the point, when America in return vowed to get justice ( which some can say means revenge) you cant say Americas weren't rejoicing when they made first contact...

I'ts simply got to the point of tit for tat..

 

You keep repeating the same thing based on a quote that in not sourced, find the interview link or news link that confirms this quote..

It's not in nytimes article...