Israel-bound submarines banned from testing in Norway's waters

[azurnoir]

Israel-bound submarines will no longer be allowed to undergo tests in Norwegian territory, as part of the country's ban on security exports to Israel, Norway has informed a German shipbuilder.

In early 2011, the Israeli navy is due to receive one improved Dolphin submarine built by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW ), a German shipbuilding company based in Kiel. It is scheduled to receive another one in 2012.

HDW leases a Norwegian submarine base to test its new submarines.

The first new Dolphin submarine has begun water trials, supervised by an Israeli team in Germany.

Following Oslo's decision, the German shipbuilder will have to carry out its deep-water testing at another site.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-bound-submarines-banned-from-testing-in-norway-s-waters-1.316518

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

2. Is that what you want to do? Nuke Israel?

[azurnoir]

3. Did you read any of the posts? there was nothing about nuking Israel

the first was about Norway no longer allowing deep water sub testing and the second was about Norway selling Israel heavy water in the late '50's/early '60's so what are you talking about?

[whosinpower]

4. It's Jim....

He sees two things - heavy water and Israel....and ever the thoughtful intellectual,
he can only surmise that one must mean nuke Israel!

One should not expect much more from this individual. That might involve actually hooking up more than two brain cells consecutively and this is simply too strenuous for good old Jimbo.

[oberliner]

8. Did you see the original post?

It included a link to an anti-semitic hate site called "nukeisrael.com"

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

47. Look at the first link under "the links are mine" in post 1

I think that is what the poster is responding to - the url includes "nuke israel".

[azurnoir]

52. google Norway sells Israel heavy water see what you get n/t

[oberliner]

54. answer me this one question honestly

if you saw a post from someone linking to a pdf that was hosted at a site you thought was racist/hateful - wouldn't you point that out?

[azurnoir]

55. probably however to be honest I probably wouldn't check the site

just the pdf

[oberliner]

56. even if the url said "nukepalestine" ?

"nukeisrael" kind of jumps off the page.

[polly7]

58. Nah ........ it doesn't, really. Put it in the front part of that link and

I'd still have clicked on it, only noting the doc. and pdf. part of the link and perhaps subconsciously thinking the nukepalestine referred to Palestine's nukes. (Nonexistent, of course. Unlike Israel's).

[oberliner]

61. You've never been critical of folks for the sources they have used?

I am fairly certain that you have been. Could be wrong, though.

Anyway, the site is bad news - I would discourage it's posting here, even if it's a link to a pdf.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. I don't recall you being critical of pro-Israeli posters who post links to stinky sites...

In fact I'm fairly certain you haven't. Could be wrong, though...

I haven't even bothered clicking on the link, and I saw Az has already alerted on it, so maybe now people can discuss the OP. Feel free to join in...

[oberliner]

67. I know that I've called out folks for linking to Arutz Sheva

In fact, one of the posters I've seen link to that far-right-wing settler websites is you!

[Violet_Crumble]

68. You've never called out pro-Israel posters for linking to anti-Arab/Muslim sites...

Unless yr saying I actually am a pro-Israel poster? Because I don't recall you ever speaking out when pro-Irael posters post links to stinky sites...

[oberliner]

70. I think you are both a pro-Israel and a pro-Palestinian poster

I know that you support both Israelis and Palestinians.

I am pretty positive that I've called out posters across the spectrum for linking to that site (Arutz Sheva).

In any case, I cannot recall an instance where someone posted a link to a site as hateful as this Neo-Nazi site and it went uncommented on by someone and/or deleted.

[azurnoir]

91. 1. I did not link directly to the so called hate site

2 I linked to a pdf which the site it self did not contain a link to

3 I checked the site out myself what I found left me incredulous because it is a single web page with no antisemitic symbols or writings and no indication as to who is responsible for the page itself, nor did have archives

3 n the end if I had checked the site prior to posting the link to the pdf file the only thing I would have questioned was that there was absolutely no link to that file on the site even though it appears to be the source

4 all of the above is true and I tried several ways of linking to the site even the link provided in the list of hate sites here with the same result each time

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

89. Female counterpart?

What the heck are you talking about?

Which vicious sources did you unmask?

Are you accusing me of endorsing views of anti-Muslim hate sites?

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polly7]

65. You're probably wrong.

I'm not that afraid to view 'files' relevant to the topic being discussed.

I clicked on the link three times tonight and never hit a 'site', but you and your magic computer just carry on. K?:)

[oberliner]

74. Oops - that comment was meant for another poster

I haven't seen you be critical of any sources - sorry about that.

If you clinked on the link three times tonight then you hit a site every time - the site where the document is hosted. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can explain this.

Websites can have folders where they host a variety of different documents. By clicking on the link with the pdf extention - you are going into that web site's document folder and accessing the pdf.

The document has to be hosted somewhere for you to be able to access it by clicking on that link. The somewhere in this case is the aforementioned nukeisrael site.

[polly7]

75. The link takes you to a pdf file, every time.

You must be clicking on one of those that doesn't have 'pdf' at the end. Sorry you're so confused. Not sure how much easier I can explain the difference between clicking on a link ending in .pdf and one ending in .com. And yeah, we've been all over how docs have to be hosted from a site. Do you think you're teaching someone something here? Pretty ridiculous, I thought I'd check in and see if there were comments on the topic, but here you are with more of your ... crap.

[oberliner]

77. And the pdf is located on the hate site

I share your frustration with this lack of understanding. I am sorry that we do not seem to be able to communicate clearly with one another on this.

In any case, since you wrote that you were looking to see if there were any comments on the topic itself, please note that I have posted a response to the OP hoping to get things back on track.

If you would like to discuss the actual article from the OP, please feel free to respond to my comment if you'd like!

[polly7]

78. A site you can only access by manually changing the link contents.

Now, don't you feel silly ....... (and disingenuous?)

I've discussed the actual article thanks and probably will do again, but I don't see anything particularly interesting to respond to in your recent mention of it. Maybe post something else .....

[oberliner]

79. No, you don't need to change anything - you access it every time you click on the pdf link

That is how you are getting to the pdf. By pulling it from the nukeisrael site.

I don't see where there is much interesting to you about the article itself.

Clearly, the nuclear weapons diversion from post #1 is the story that is of interest to you, not the dispute mentioned in the OP (except insomuch as it relates to #1).

[polly7]

80. Sure you do, to get to the host site you have to drop the last part of the

link manually. But like I said ....... you and your magic computer. ;-)

Of course you don't see what is interesting to me in the article, how could you ..... are you a mind-reader? Obviously not .... (or, you're an extremely poor one), which makes your #3 remark clearly just more complete nonsense.

[oberliner]

81. When you click on the link you are getting the document from the host site

Where do you think you are you getting the document from?

It only is reachable via the hate site - I'm not sure where else you think you might be getting the document from.

I am basing my comments on your interest in the OP by the posts you've made in this thread.

Your first post in this thread was in response to my comment about the link to the hate site, not in response to anything mentioned in the article from the OP.

[polly7]

82. I know where the document is from. Don't you read?

It's only reachable by clicking on the pdf link posted.

I never said one way or the other what my 'first' post contained. Point out where I did. Or stop your lying. It's getting sickening.

[azurnoir]

60. it might but then again Palestine does not have nukes nor

is trying to obtain them, however if it said nukeiran or nukeamerica and I had been searching for info on the programs in those or any country that has nukes no it would not

[oberliner]

62. Well, it certainly made me curious enough to check out the site

I am surprised that it didn't for you since I think you have given folks the business for linking to unsavory sites in the past.

[polly7]

66. Blah, blah, blah. nt.

[azurnoir]

69. when the link is directly to the site yes or youtube users

I check those out, but on a pdf no I haven't and on the pdf itself there is nothing as to the site

eta I typed nukeisrael.com into my address bar and what I get is pretty dull maybe it's been toned down but do it I invite you

[Crunchy Frog]

5. Anything critical that is ever said about Israel

means that you want to nuke it. That's the way this thing works.

[oberliner]

7. The poster linked to an anti-semitic hate site called "nukeisrael.com"

That is where the comment came from

[oberliner]

9. What is "nukeisrael.com" ?

Do you know what kind of site you are linking to?

[azurnoir]

26. I have alerted the mods I did not return til now if this si true

they will remove the post and I will repost it without that particular link sorry if it has caused any inconvenience and I apologize for any offense as it was unintentional

[Jim Sagle]

11. 'there was nothing about nuking Israel' except the title of one of the websites linked to:

nukeisrael.com

Reading comprehension is your friend.

[oberliner]

12. The site is run by a neo-nazi/white supremacist

Very disturbing individual.

[Jim Sagle]

13. I'm SHOCKED, haw haw haw..

[azurnoir]

27. Why is that n/t

[Jim Sagle]

30. Actually I'm not shocked at all. The 'haw haw haw' denotes sarcasm.

Sorry if I was unclear.

[azurnoir]

37. again why are afraid to clearor honest are you calling me an antisemite? n/t

[Jim Sagle]

53. Of course not, that would be a DU rule violation.

Just pointing that you linked to a site called nukeisrael.com. And that I'm not shocked by that.

Your motivation, unless you explain, is left to the audience.

[polly7]

41. What aren't you shocked about? I don't understand either.

The poster explained how the link came about. It's not to any site, it's to a pdf file.

[oberliner]

10. Disgusting that the above poster would like to a website called "nukeisrael"

Scary stuff.

[azurnoir]

28. is it really scary? hmmmmmm

when I google nukeisrael the site i get is a single page that has 2 links both to bbc news stories if you knw somthing more or as you claim who is running the site please share you only say it is a supremacist site and not much more

[oberliner]

31. Yeah - the site is run by Jim Ramm (and Jeff Schoep)

From 2005:

Jim Ramm, shown at the 2004 Aryan Nations parade in Coeur d'Alene, is planning a "whites only" gathering in North Idaho this summer.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=51268

"This summer, unite with the nationalist and show Idaho ZOG that white patriotism is still alive and well in the Northwest," Ramm said on his group's "nuke Israel" Web site.

Edit to add: Also run by Jeff Schoep, also a neo-Nazi.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/jeff-schoep

[azurnoir]

36. where did you get this information?

as I said when I Google nukeisrael I get a single page no names or really much else

[oberliner]

42. From The Hate Directory

The Hate Directory indicates that "nukeisrael" is connected to the National Socialist Movement (Neo-Nazis) - and it mentions Jim Ramm in connection with the site.

[polly7]

39. He / she didn't link to any website.

:scared: :scared: :scared:

[oberliner]

40. Look under "the links are mine" on the post

There are three links there, the first one is from "nukeisrael" and the other two are from Wisconsin Project.

It is the first link that I am referencing.

[polly7]

44. stupid little reindeer games.

The first link is to a pdf file. You'd have to manually delete the last part of the link to get to any site.

[oberliner]

6. You are linking to an anti-semitic hate site called "nukeisrael.com"

That is messed up.

[polly7]

14. It's a 'pdf' file.

Containing copies of letters.

Requesting assurance that Norwegian heavy water requested by Israel was going to be used for peaceful purposes.

No worries ........... it won't take you anywhere near 'a site'.

[oberliner]

15. Hosted at a site run by a neo-nazi/white supremacist

Do we really want to use a site like that as a resource here?

[polly7]

16. Dunno.

I never went to a 'site'.

But there's this:

"Film shows how Israel got heavy water from Norway
ROBINSON FREYTAG
12/07/2005 03:44

"Norweigans suspected the real purpose behind the 1959 purchase was to start nuclear arms program."


http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=6747


I guess the Norwegians were right.

[oberliner]

17. What if the pdf was hosted at stormfront and a similar link was posted?

Would you have any problem with that?

[polly7]

18. The pdf posted contains absolutely nothing but scanned copies of

letters, no links to anywhere, no reference to any site ............ just letters.

[oberliner]

19. In order to get to the pdf, you must click on a link (posted in message #1 here)

That link is taking you to the hate site where the document is hosted.

[polly7]

20. No, the link takes you straight to the pdf file.

You must be screwing around with the link to make it go to any site, I just click and it goes to the file itself.

[oberliner]

21. Yes, it does - It takes you to a pdf file which is hosted at the hate site called "nukeisrael"

Let's say I posed this link:

www.un.org/en/ga/63/generaldebate/pdf/dprkorea_en.pdf

Were you to click on it, it would take you directly to a pdf document. But that document is hosted by the UN website. You are getting that document from the UN site.

Similarly, when you click on the link on the OP that includes the "nukeisrael" url, you are getting the pdf document from that hate site.

[polly7]

22. LOL Really, it's alright ......... I actually know the difference between

a link ending with '.pdf' and one with '.com' (which would actually be a 'site'), sorta like hitting a link to a jpeg file would get me a picture, and not a 'site'.

Let's say I click on a pdf file and end up seeing a pdf file, should I be surprised??



Are you upset that Norway, despite never receiving reassurance from Israel all those years ago that its heavy water would be used only for peaceful purposes, is now banning Israel from testing in Norway's own waters?? I think it's great!


And no .............. clicking on the link takes you to the pdf, not a site. Absolutely no way to get to any site from that link unless you change the link itself, manually.

[oberliner]

23. When you click on the link, you are accessing information hosted on another site

Since the link ends in pdf, then that just means that you are going directly to the pdf file that is hosted on the site which is also included in the same link.

Note that the link in the message has a ".com" in it. That is what indicates what site you are going to get the pdf. In this case, "nukeisrael".

After the ".com" there is a backslash and then the word "docs" - this means that you are going to the place where the site hosts documents.

After that you see another backslash and then the name of a pdf file. That is the particular document on that site that you are accessing.

Thus, when you click in the link in the message you are going to the documents folder of the "nukeisrael" website and opening/saving a document that is hosted there.

[polly7]

24. No sh*!!!

That's what I've just said about 3 times, you're going directly to the PDF file.

And yeah, that's what you'd have to do to get to the site you're crying about - change it manually. Like I just said.


I don't think Israel's secret nuke program is much of a secret anymore, so I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to have the pdf file removed. ???

[oberliner]

29. If "nukeisrael" took the document out of its library, you wouldn't be able to access it anymore

If the site went down, you couldn’t click to the link and get to the document.

I just don't see how one would be comfortable getting a document from a site of this nature.

I don't think the pdf file should be removed, I just think sites like "nukeisrael" are pretty disgusting.

If someone wishes to share the information contained in the pdf, I would think that there would be someplace that isn't a white supremacist/neo-nazi run hate site to get the file from.

[azurnoir]

32. the site is not on the list of hate sites in the I/P forum rules

[oberliner]

33. Yes it is

It's in The Hate Directory linked to in the I/P forum rules.

[azurnoir]

35. I have just checked twice it is not

it not in the April 2010 edition not under urls or any of the user groups such as yahoo ect

[oberliner]

38. Yes it is. Check again - pages 83, 84, 93, 142.

[azurnoir]

43. it is not listed seperately under the name nukeisrael

as I said the sites that re listed as being sourced from that one do not appear on the page I accessed now are you accusing me of purposely and knowingly posting from a neonazi site?

[oberliner]

48. Were you able to find it in The Hate Directory?

I don't think you purposely and knowingly posted from a neonazi site, but I would think that seeing "nukeisrael.com" in the url might have given you some pause.

[azurnoir]

50. not really as I was looking for info on Israel's nuke program

and took it as that a site about Israels nuke program and to be honest did not really give it much thought

and yes I did find it in the middle column as a source or url but not under site names

[polly7]

34. Yeah, once again. No sh*.

Still not one word about the actual thread topic.

Telling.

[azurnoir]

49. I Googled

Norway sells Israel heavy water and the pdf is the first one up I did not look at the site, just the pdf

[polly7]

51. I didn't make note of the first part of the link myself

until that poster brought it up. I've done it too, posted the first file I found not noting the host site. I wouldn't worry, the moderators will take care of it. You stated you didn't do it intentionally.

[Celtic Merlin]

57. When defending Israel . . .

. . . obfuscation and misdirection from the topic is a vitally important tactic. If nobody discusses the distasteful events, fewer people will learn about those events. Don't fall for it next time.

By focusing upon that one and wholly unintentional problem with the link itself and completely ignoring the factual documents it presented, discussion revolved around the ass running the linked-to website instead of the facts presented not only on that website but in the rest of the author's message. When you jack the discussion away from the facts you don't want people to learn about, the "problem" being discussed evaporates and everybody focuses instead on the dork who runs the website.

Simple but very effective tactic. The problem could have been pointed out simply and thoroughly, citing facts up front. By making the ugly accusation without supporting it, you get to draw out the reveal to a much later time - the "reveal" being the provision of the supporting facts of who runs the website and what kind of horrible person he really is.

But, the misdirection begins with a direct attack upon the author, using the words, "anti-semitic hate site" to put him on the defensive. No links to proof of the claim, just the accusation. True or not, no links were provided to support the claim and the poor author is left trying to prove that he innocently linked to a document supporting his claim with no knowledge of who runs the stupid website. Genuine proof of the claim isn't presented until more than six hours after the offending link was provided - in message number 31, which occurred two-and-a-half hours after the original complaint about the link was made.

Discussion of the topic at hand? Effectively non-existent. Problem of people learning about the events themselves - now solved. See how well it worked?

Like I said - don't fall for it next time. Stay on topic.

Oh, and while we're actually ON the topic . . .
The are probably no more than about a dozen people left on this earth who DON'T know about Israel's nuclear arms stockpile. They're likely just simple Polynesian fishermen living a quiet and idyllic life in the South Pacific.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[oberliner]

59. There is no defense of Israel being made here

Just a repudiation of the use of sites like the one cited.

Take two seconds to check out what a site is before posting it and this whole matter would have been avoided.

No one is "jacking the discussion away" from anything - I encourage people to feel free to discuss Israel and nuclear weapons - a very important topic.

I make no attack against the author of the post - someone I have pleasantly and respectfully sparred with on a few occasions (and a poster whom, I might add, has attacked folks for posting from unsavory sites - and justifiably so).

I would think the fact that the site is called "nukeisrael" would be enough to make someone at least want to do a little bit of checking in.

The "geniune proof of the claim" that the site is anti-semitic ought to be self-evident to anyone who goes there.

I certainly don't think a link would be necessary to demonstrate that it's an anti-semitic hate site. Just a cursory glance at the site itself ought to suffice.

[Jim Sagle]

71. OK, let's discuss Israel's nukes.

They're peace nukes, making the world a better place.

See, that was easy.

[oberliner]

73. The actual thread topic has nothing to do with nuclear weapons

That was a side topic introduced in post #1.

[lumpy]

85. You are right. Clicking the link took me to the pdf file, regarding

sales from Norway/Israel, not to a hate site. However you can access a hate site by the name nukeisrael by typing in at the address bar. I don't know why the guy keeps insisting that the posted link goes to a site. Just likes to argue a point I guess. Must be those documents were obtained from the hate site; alltogether probably easily obtained.

[azurnoir]

25. this is the first I have returned and on the Google search I used

only the pdf came up no site any link to a hate is completely unknown to me and was not my intent in posting as wasseeking information about Norway's sale of heavy water to Israel any link to a hate site was unintentional

[ProgressiveMajority]

45. Interesting

So that means that despite not singing the NPT, Israel is actually in violation of international agreements. In other words, their nuclear weapons are in fact illegal. I guess that shouldn't surprise me.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Sounds reasonable enough to me n/t

[polly7]

76. Me too, I just wish it hadn't taken them so long.

Actually, I'm surprised, in light of Israel's double-speak with it's nuclear weapons program and non-signing of the NPT, Norway allowed any them any usage of its waters at all.

[oberliner]

72. Does anyone have any thoughts on this OP?

I would like to do my best to refocus the discussion on the article itself since the subthread about the link presented in post #1 was a lot more epic than I thought it would be.

Does this mean that Norway is anticipating that a war involving Israel is imminent or that they are already engaged in one?

Per these remarks:

"We have extremely rigorous restrictions on exporting security goods and services ... we don't export materials or services to states at war or in which there is a danger of war."

[whosinpower]

83. Israel is not at war?

The peace talks would be indicative that Israel is currently in a state of war....or else peace talks would not be necessary.

But, this too is sidetracking the case in point.....Israel signed a contract with Norway in regards to the use of its heavy water - FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES, and instead used it to build nuclear weapons. It broke the contract, and betrayed the trust that Norway had placed upon it.

I do not blame Norway for refusing to accomodate Israel anymore.....there is a saying...fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice.....

[oberliner]

84. Who is Israel at war with?

Would you say that the Israelis and Palestinians are in a state of war? There can be peace talks without being at war - some might use the term conflict instead.

I agree that Norway has the right to take the steps they are taking here.

[azurnoir]

87. who is Israel at war with , the Palestinians

according to at least this according to this poster who claims that an ongoing state of war has exixted between Israel and the Palestinians from 1948 till today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=330197#330202

[azurnoir]

86. self delete wrong place