"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Dan J.S. wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex trade
and no one seems to really care.
Slave sex trade???


It's HUGE. Israel is one of the leaders in that space. They have huge sex
slaves rings that take women from former Russian states and sell them all
over the world, and the Israeli government is doing very little about it.
There were some arrests recently when there was some UN pressures along
with some U.S. concerns.




You mean the Russians who have emigrated to Israel. They're the ones
running the sex trades in that country.


Yes, with the Israeli government turning their heads to the problem because
per capita, Israeli men use more prostitutes than any other group. BTW -
most of Israeli population are people who emigrated to Israel from Russia
and Poland.

The sex slave actually affected a family friend, so we have been tracking
this for a long time. My sister, a lawyer, is very involved in working with
the UN (yes - the enemy) and lobby groups to put pressure on Israel and
other nations, like Mexico who apparently buys a lot of these women from
Israel.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a
problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex trade
and
no one seems to really care.

Slave sex trade???



I've never heard anything about the prowess of Israel in the slave sex
trade.

Really? Are you BLIND??? Here's a place to start, then do a google
search. Try Israel sex slave.

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/israel.htm

Your link says that as many as 1000 women are brought into Israel each
year.

I can find statistics that show that anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000 women
are brought into the US each.

So Dan's statement that Israel "leads the World in slave sex trade" is a
bit far-fetched, no?



Who do you think brings them? A lot are from China, but now its mostly
Russian women coming through Israel.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:39:05 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I can find statistics that show that anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000
women
are brought into the US each.

What's interesting to note, is that human trafficking has replaced the
drug trade as the world's largest illegal business. A large part of that
business, is slavery, including sex slavery. It's disgraceful in this
day
and age.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/2056662.stm

So does Israel "lead the World in sex slave trade" as Dan posited?


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...062297,00.html


The report, issued annually, said some 10,000 such women currently reside in
about 300 to 400 brothels throughout the country. They are traded for about
USD 8,000 - USD 10,000, the committee said.

The U.S. State Department ranks Israel in the second tier of human
trafficking around the world, saying the Jewish State does not maintain
minimal conditions regarding the issue but is working to improve them.

Israel passed a law in 2003 that would allow the state to confiscate the
profits of traffickers, but watchdog groups say it is rarely enforced.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
Hehehe. I suppose that same "careful intel work" led Clinton's military
chief of staff to testify in 1998 that N. Korea did not have an active
ballistic missile program...one week before they launched a Taepodong-1
missile over Japan and into the Pacific.

Well, everybody has their off days.


That's hardly an "off day". Intel said that N. Korea didn't have an active
ballistic missile program...and they couldn't have been more wrong. That
intel was provided by the same folks that you cited for your "proof" that N.
Korea didn't have an active nuclear program under Clinton. If they were
wrong on the missile issue, then they were most likely wrong on the nuke
issue. Of course, guys like you wouldn't believe it until a mushroom cloud
appeared. So when everybody started screaming and questioning about how
there could be such a huge failure in intel, you'd shrug and say "well,
everybody has their off days"?



Like Rummy firing all the generals who said we need more force to occupy
Iraq, and that it would take years to pacify. Or Cheney's announcement
that the Iraq insurgency is on it's last legs.

I think a more apt analogy is how the same folks providing the poor intel to
Clinton also provided poor intel to Bush on the WMD issue in Iraq. "Oh
well, everybody has an off day".


Radiation is hard to hide. Spotting radioactive tailings is one of the few
things satellite spy-eyes are very good at.

You've been reading too much Popular Science. If it were so easy to spot
"radioactive tailings" on a bomb that's never been detonated, then why all
the fear about a suitcase nuke being smuggled into out ports? Afterall, the
satellite spy-eyes are very good at spotting them.



Most sources show that the N. Koreans already had a nuke or two in the
early to mid 90's.

Really? Like what soources?

How about Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin...in a letter they wrote to the
Washington Post:

"Porter Goss, the director of central intelligence, has reported to the
Senate Armed Services Committee (on March 17) that the number of nuclear
weapons North Korea possesses has increased and that there is now "a range"
of estimates above the one or two weapons that may have been produced in the
early 1990s. "

One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe that
Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4 billion and
asked "please"?

Hillary wrote this piece to pre-empt the almost certain criticism that her
husband will face should a N. Korean nuke ever hit US soil. But in the
article, she admitted that they already had developed nukes under her
husband's watch.

And if that's true, then it's Reagan and Bush Sr's fault, not Clintons.


Whoa. Wait a minute. If N. Korea developed a nuke in the early 90's during
Clinton's watch, and that was Reagan and Bush Sr.'s fault, then why aren't
nukes built in 2003 (Bush's first term) the fault of the administration that
preceded Bush? You're being quite the hypocrite here, Doug.

Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...

Disgraced? Why?


Because our forces weren't given the chance to finish what they started.
Their CIC pulled them out too soon.

WHAT?!? The only outcome of not pulling out would have been a massacre.

Yes...a massacre of the Somali warlords and their followers. We could have
and should have gone in with armored vehicles and decimated the population
in that region.



The premature withdrawal was a disgrace.


And you say you "support our troops?" Nice.


Our "troops" didn't make the decision to pull out.

No, the theatre command did.

The commander pulled back, not out. Clinton totally withdrew the troops
from the region.

Do you have the slightest clue about C-3 and TO? Don't feel bad, most
civilians don't. But you're criticising actions you don't have the foggiest
idea about.

Let me ask you this:
If the Chief of Staff at Defense Headquarters decides to pull completely out
of Iraq tomorrow, could he do it without the President's consent? No.



To leave those troops in Mogadishu longer would have meant more deaths,
possibly a total loss... a military castrophe unparalleled even by Pearl
Harbor... great leadership, eh NOBBY?


Those troops weren't in danger once they pulled back. They were in danger
because we sent light infantry into a enemy city that had heavily prepared
positions. There was no need to leave the country to protect the men who
made it out of Mogadishu. We could have gone back in with a more
heavily-armored mechanized infantry force and probably not lost a single
man.






... and consequently appeared impotent and weak to the Muslim world.

We've appeared impotent & weak, militarily, to most of the world since
Viet Nam. Appearances aren't everything, fortunately.


Nawww. I think the rest of the World stood up and took notice how
quickly and easily we destroyed the World's 4th largest army in 1991.

And left a brutal, genocidal, terrorist-harboring dictator in place.


That what a huge policy mistake on Bush's part. Of course, the people who
criticized Bush Sr. for stopping short of Baghdad are the same people who
are now criticizing his son for going there.




If the fundamentalist Muslim really thinks we're so weak, why don't they
attack us with military force against military force?


They meant "weak" in the sense that we don't have the guts to finish what
we start once the casualties start to mount.


Casualties are not the goal of a military operation, unless you're a
worshipper of Stonewall Jackson.

Inflicting casualties is most certainly a goal of any force that squares off
against the US military. Here's why, in the words of Dr. Kenneth Allard,
Colonel, US Army (Ret.), and author of "Somalia Operations: Lessons
Learned""



"One of the things that the Taliban have been absolutely blunt in saying to
us was that they, at least, had absorbed the lessons from Somalia. They
understood that the United States lacked staying power. They understood that
the United States substituted technology for courage. They were the ones
that understood how the United States would simply fire Cruise missiles and
then declare a press conference, but when push came to shove, would cut and
run.

The great tragedy of Somalia is that it was, given what those Rangers did,
one of the great feats of arms in American military history. Two
congressional Medals of Honor that were given out as a result of that --
guys that gave their lives, laid down their lives willingly; 82 more that
were wounded.

That is a classic definition of American courage. It is a classic example of
what the American fighting man is capable of doing. Because we withdrew
those troops under pressure, the lesson that was given to the rest of the
world was that the United States can be had. All you need to do is to shed
their blood. And if you do that, they'll cut and run."



(bin Laden, himself, confirmed that this was the case in the 1996 Fatwah
that I've reposted here several times).

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:48:24 -0400, NOYB wrote:


So does Israel "lead the World in sex slave trade" as Dan posited?

Perhaps on a per capita basis ;-) Seriously, I don't know the answer to
that question. There are quite a few articles on Israel's involvement
with sexual slavery, but the big numbers, at least in total dollars, are
in the US and Europe. There is a pie-chart in this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4532617.stm

The pie-chart seems to indicate that Dan's assertion isn't correct.

As always, though, I'm sure the stats can be manipulated to read "per
capita" or "as a percentage of GDP"...and make it look like Israel is near
the top.

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

per capita, Israeli men use more prostitutes than any other group.

I knew there was a statistical loophole to your original statement!

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a
problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex trade
and
no one seems to really care.

Slave sex trade???



I've never heard anything about the prowess of Israel in the slave sex
trade.

Really? Are you BLIND??? Here's a place to start, then do a google
search. Try Israel sex slave.

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/israel.htm

Your link says that as many as 1000 women are brought into Israel each
year.

I can find statistics that show that anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000 women
are brought into the US each.

So Dan's statement that Israel "leads the World in slave sex trade" is a
bit far-fetched, no?



Who do you think brings them?

You mean after you place your order on the internet?

http://www.volgagirl.com/

I suppose it could be DHL, UPS, or Airborne.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:48:24 -0400, NOYB wrote:


So does Israel "lead the World in sex slave trade" as Dan posited?
Perhaps on a per capita basis ;-) Seriously, I don't know the answer to
that question. There are quite a few articles on Israel's involvement
with sexual slavery, but the big numbers, at least in total dollars, are
in the US and Europe. There is a pie-chart in this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4532617.stm

The pie-chart seems to indicate that Dan's assertion isn't correct.

As always, though, I'm sure the stats can be manipulated to read "per
capita" or "as a percentage of GDP"...and make it look like Israel is
near the top.



Methinks Dan and a few others have a hard-on for Israel.

More fuel for the anti-Semetic fire...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a
problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex
trade and
no one seems to really care.

Slave sex trade???



I've never heard anything about the prowess of Israel in the slave sex
trade.

Really? Are you BLIND??? Here's a place to start, then do a google
search. Try Israel sex slave.

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/israel.htm

Your link says that as many as 1000 women are brought into Israel each
year.

I can find statistics that show that anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000
women are brought into the US each.

So Dan's statement that Israel "leads the World in slave sex trade" is a
bit far-fetched, no?



Who do you think brings them?

You mean after you place your order on the internet?

http://www.volgagirl.com/

I suppose it could be DHL, UPS, or Airborne.

I'll take Luisa, please.

NOYB wrote:
... Intel said that N. Korea didn't have an active
ballistic missile program...and they couldn't have been more wrong. That
intel was provided by the same folks that you cited for your "proof" that N.
Korea didn't have an active nuclear program under Clinton.

So? Nobody has a perfect record. If you want to make a big deal of this,
let's list all the major policy blunders committed by President Clinton
due to bad intel (or wilfully ignoring intel that didn't agree with his
preconceptions); and stack them up next to President Bush's.

My advice to you is to be a little more quiet on this subject.



Radiation is hard to hide. Spotting radioactive tailings is one of the few
things satellite spy-eyes are very good at.


You've been reading too much Popular Science. If it were so easy to spot
"radioactive tailings" on a bomb that's never been detonated, then why all
the fear about a suitcase nuke being smuggled into out ports? Afterall, the
satellite spy-eyes are very good at spotting them.

No, the spy-eye is good at spotting the rasioactive plume emitted as
fuel is enriched. You really know nothing about science, do you?

An already-built bomb does not leave a plume of radioactive tailings and
can be shielded from a geiger counter.



One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe that
Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4 billion and
asked "please"?

Umm, not exactly. Perhaps if you gave up on lies & distortion, you might
realize how sensible the program was... if the Clinton Administration
believed that the North Koreans had already built nukes on Reagan and
Bush Sr's watches, then the options were either 1- a premptive strike to
take them away or 2- give solid incentive to get back on the
Non-Proliferation bandwagon.

The money was to be handed over in smaller sums, over a period of years,
subject to verification that the N. Koreans were abiding by the
Non-Proliferation rules.



Whoa. Wait a minute. If N. Korea developed a nuke in the early 90's during
Clinton's watch, and that was Reagan and Bush Sr.'s fault, then why aren't
nukes built in 2003 (Bush's first term) the fault of the administration that
preceded Bush? You're being quite the hypocrite here, Doug.

Not at all. First of all, N. Korea only announced that they were
re-activating their nuke program after Bush Jr had been in office for
some time, and given them a ration of ****. Bush Jr has been in office
now going on five years... if the N. Koreans had nukes in 1993, then
Clinton had been in office less than a year.

I guess there's no difference between less than one year and more than 4
1/2 years, is there? I guess there's no difference between "might have
had nukes, which were clearly developed & built while under the eye of
the last administration, and announcing DURING one administration that
they plan to start building, activating enrichment plants, and then
claiming (with credibility) to have active nuclear warheads.

No, those two things are pretty much the same, arent't they?

There is a lot of hypocrisy here, but it's all coming from your side of
the fence. 100% lies, distortion, and hypocrisy... don't you ever stop
to think that it might be nice to believe in something that will stand
up to the truth?





Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...

Disgraced? Why?


Because our forces weren't given the chance to finish what they started.
Their CIC pulled them out too soon.

WHAT?!? The only outcome of not pulling out would have been a massacre.


Yes...a massacre of the Somali warlords and their followers. We could have
and should have gone in with armored vehicles and decimated the population
in that region.

But we didn't. The force in place had to be evacuated or left to be
massacred.

One problem you seem to consistantly have, wishful thinking versus
dealing with the facts as they exist. It's great to daydream about using
overwhelming force, but that force was not in place at the time.



Casualties are not the goal of a military operation, unless you're a
worshipper of Stonewall Jackson.


Inflicting casualties is most certainly a goal of any force that squares off
against the US military.

That is because we are in the lucky position of having unbeatable
logistic & technological resources, provided from an (almost)
unassailable economic base.

Does this mean that you support the 'body count' concept of going after
'terrorists' and feel that as long as we're killing them faster than
they're killing us, we're winning? That seems to be the prevalent
strategic concept in place now.

DSK