Yes, you heard this right, an Atlanta Newspaper called for a foreign country to put out a hit on the incumbent US President. This, ladies and gentlemen, is something we should all agree is completely and utterly indefensible. Even on its own bizarre merits this "argument" would qualify for one in the sense that dancing naked grabbing your balls and dick in the middle of an artillery barrage makes sense.
http://gawker.com/5877892/newspaper-editor-israel-should-consider-assassinating-obama
Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.
Yes, you read "three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?
Another way of putting "three" in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives...Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?
You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.
Macro-explanation:

And the longer explanation: I believe we can all agree that if the idea is to have the USA fight Israel's battles for it that having the Mossad off the POTUS is exactly the wrong way to go about it, and that if the Israelis did do this their military capacity would be extinct in a week later, tops. I think we can all also agree that this guy in the most optimistic sense was doing an epic trolling, if he's serious he's seriously insane, right?
http://gawker.com/5877892/newspaper-editor-israel-should-consider-assassinating-obama
Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.
Yes, you read "three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?
Another way of putting "three" in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives...Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?
You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.
Macro-explanation:

And the longer explanation: I believe we can all agree that if the idea is to have the USA fight Israel's battles for it that having the Mossad off the POTUS is exactly the wrong way to go about it, and that if the Israelis did do this their military capacity would be extinct in a week later, tops. I think we can all also agree that this guy in the most optimistic sense was doing an epic trolling, if he's serious he's seriously insane, right?
(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 02:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 02:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 02:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 05:30 (UTC)Call me crazy, too, but I read the article and found it to be not much at all - much ado about nothing.
(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 09:09 (UTC)Call me crazy, too, but I read the article and found it to be not much at all - much ado about nothing.
I am calling you crazy, too. There are laws in place against threatening or encouraging threatening the life of the President. If there were any actual incident, there would be public reference to exactly this article and outrage that nothing was done regarding a threat like this, no matter how innocuous you may consider it.
Also, if something like this was published against you or your family, you would be sure that authorities would investigate it. You can be sure that this will be taken seriously by government agencies, as it should.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 13:25 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 21:32 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 02:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 02:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 02:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 03:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 03:23 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 03:52 (UTC)His 'option 3' is one of the few things, if not the only thing, that would keep the US from backing Israel - so on top of it being stupid to print/say out loud, it's also a bad option on it's own.
just look at them and sigh
Date: 28/1/12 03:59 (UTC)Most sane people in GA all kinda wen't "oh, this isn't going to play well in Peoria." But in the end, we just let the wet fuses fizzle, leaving nothing but an interesting odor in it's wake.
On and in before Jooz
(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 05:06 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 12:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 13:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 06:05 (UTC)atlantajewishtimes.com/blog/2012/01/27/ashamed-and-regretful-an-apology/
(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 17:05 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 08:23 (UTC)Versus the "apology":
"...unfortunately poorly planned, hastily written thoughts that I never intended for readers to take as the actual beliefs of myself..."
LOL.
(no subject)
Date: 28/1/12 09:35 (UTC)I am not in favor of this kind of editorializing.
(no subject)
Date: 29/1/12 19:22 (UTC)