Israel to attack Iran to draw in USA?

[Thunder]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920341/site/newsweek/

This is not from Prisonplanet. This is not from Stormfront. This is from Newsweek.

This is identical to the conspiracy claims about the USS Liberty. That Israel attacked the Liberty in order to bring in an American response against Egypt.

If this does occur, or if this was even an actual plan, it would confirm many conspiracists theories about Israel. This would be a very very bad thing.

If the Israeli governmant contemplated or has plans for a limited attack on Iran in order to instigate an Iranian retaliation, therefore provoking a massive American response, then maybe Israel really does not deserve our friendship, aid, defense..of any kind.

[Elind]

If you keep going like this with your wet dreams you are going to be moved over to the other section by the people in the white coats.

[madurobob]

I seriously doubt israel would strike iran with the intention of starting a war. Thats dumb beyond comprehension.

But, I would not be very surprised if they did strike Iran - they've done similar things before. They could strike nuke facilities under the reasonable claim that it is a defensive action intended to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of a sworn enemy. They would not do this with the intention of drawing the USA into war, but they would certainly have the expectation that the US and the rest of the world would protect them from certain retaliation.

[Thunder]

It takes atleast 50,000 nuclear centrifuges to enrich uranium to weapons grade. They supposedly have 3,000 running. The UN thinks this may be an exaggeration.

How exactly is Israel under immediate threat from a nuclear Iran?

Why is it the responsibility of the American people to defend Israel from an Iranian retaliation against an unprovoked pre-emptive strike by Israel? Since when are the American people obliged to defend their "friends" when they act insane?

[Gurdur]

I seriously doubt israel would strike iran with the intention of starting a war. Thats dumb beyond comprehension.

But, I would not be very surprised if they did strike Iran -.....

In the real world, striking a country usually causes a war. Strange, that.

[Elind]

It takes atleast 50,000 nuclear centrifuges to enrich uranium to weapons grade. They supposedly have 3,000 running. The UN thinks this may be an exaggeration.
No.


How exactly is Israel under immediate threat from a nuclear Iran?

You don't read the news much do you? Hint - horse's mouth.

Why is it the responsibility of the American people to defend Israel from an Iranian retaliation against an unprovoked pre-emptive strike by Israel? Since when are the American people obliged to defend their "friends" when they act insane?

Preemptive is considered smart in most rational circles when the alternative is to wait for the inevitable first.

Unprovoked?:eye-poppi

Please read your newspapers, or at least use Google News.

[JoeEllison]

If Israel attacks Iran, shouldn't the rest of the world enact sanctions against Israel? Isn't that what we normally do when one country attacks another without provocation?

[corplinx]

In the real world, striking a country usually causes a war. Strange, that.

I hate to nitpick what you just said, but it may be worth mentioning that this is not the case.

The US has attacked countries and not had it start a war. Israel has attacked Iraq, Syria, etc and not started wars.

It seems the key thing is attacking someone who's military would not stand a fair chance against your own.

In the case of Iran and Israel, Iran is already fighting a proxy war with Israel through terrorism. It would be hard for Iran to fight a conventional war with Israel due to geography.

Destroying Iran nuclear capabilities would probably not provoke a conventional war but may provoke military responses of a smaller nature.

[Elind]

It seems the key thing is attacking someone who's military would not stand a fair chance against your own.


Are you of the opinion that war is a game to be played "fair", or not at all, as in concede?

The key thing is not to attack anyone who will kick your ass. Seems simple enough to me.

[Thunder]

The President of Iran making idle threats against Israel is not a real threat. They will not have the ability to make a nuclear weapon for years. There are those in Israel who prefer to live with the illusion of a threat to justify their way of life.

[plumjam]

If Israel attacks Iran, shouldn't the rest of the world enact sanctions against Israel?
Yes, I agree, the rest of the world should. The rest of the world would, but it will be vetoed at the UN by the USA

Isn't that what we normally do when one country attacks another without provocation?

Only to certain selected countries (read "rogue states"). We're still waiting for the sanctions against the USA and the UK for attacking Iraq without provocation

[Corsair 115]

I hate to nitpick what you just said, but it may be worth mentioning that this is not the case.

The US has attacked countries and not had it start a war. Israel has attacked Iraq, Syria, etc and not started wars.Let me repost Gurdur's statement with the relevant qualifier bolded:

In the real world, striking a country usually causes a war. Strange, that. "Usually" does not mean "always."

[JoeEllison]

The President of Iran making idle threats against Israel is not a real threat.
If Iran's threats against Israel should be taken seriously as an excuse for Israel to strike, then aren't Israel's threats to strike Iran a good reason for Iran to strike first? If it is valid for one, why is it not valid for the other?

I think it is not a valid excuse for EITHER country.

[egslim]

It seems the key thing is attacking someone who's military would not stand a fair chance against your own.
Unless their government can hit you back through other than direct military means. And even if the government doesn't dare, their people are likely to form underground organisations that will.

[Tipush]

Israel attack Iran?

I honestly think we have enough problems without attacking Iran.

So excuse me while I lol....

[yairhol]

The President of Iran making idle threats against Israel is not a real threat. They will not have the ability to make a nuclear weapon for years. There are those in Israel who prefer to live with the illusion of a threat to justify their way of life.

parky76, what do you make of Iran's constant calls for the destruction of Israel? Are you in favor? Are you against? Should Iran keep calling for the destruction of Israel?

Just curious.

Thanks,
Yair

[dudalb]

I am still trying to figure out why lefties hate Israel so much.

[dudalb]

parky76, what do you make of Iran's constant calls for the destruction of Israel? Are you in favor? Are you against? Should Iran keep calling for the destruction of Israel?

Just curious.

Thanks,
Yair

Iran is just blowing off steam with it threats to attack Israel. That seems to be the standard left wing viewpoint..unless it is one of out and out apporval of the destruction of Israel.

[JoeEllison]

I am still trying to figure out why lefties hate Israel so much.

They don't. Why do you think they do?

[yairhol]

That seems to be the standard left wing viewpoint
:D Thanks for the laugh.

Regards,
Yair

[Thunder]

Ahmedinajad is trying to impress the Islamic radicals by yelling about Israel. I believe he has no real intention to attack Israel. Its all PR.

Although, with all the talk about pre-emptive strikes by Israel or the USA, won't Iran soon have the right to attack Israel first to pre-empt the Israeli pre-emptive strike?

There is not real evidence of Iran wanting to make a bomb or having the ability to make a bomb. But there is real evidence that Israel insists this is happening and will attack Iran. Iran, like any other nation, has the right to protect its citizens from a possible attack by another state.

[JoeEllison]

Iran is just blowing off steam with it threats to attack Israel. That seems to be the standard left wing viewpoint..unless it is one of out and out apporval of the destruction of Israel.

That's another strawman. Why do you believe things that just aren't true?

[JoeEllison]

Ahmedinajad is trying to impress the Islamic radicals by yelling about Israel. I believe he has no real intention to attack Israel. Its all PR.

Although, with all the talk about pre-emptive strikes by Israel or the USA, won't Iran soon have the right to attack Israel first to pre-empt the Israeli pre-emptive strike?

There is not real evidence of Iran wanting to make a bomb or having the ability to make a bomb. But there is real evidence that Israel insists this is happening and will attack Iran. Iran, like any other nation, has the right to protect its citizens from a possible attack by another state.

Isn't Israel a much more credible threat, since they actually have nukes?

[yairhol]

Ahmedinajad is trying to impress the Islamic radicals by yelling about Israel. I believe he has no real intention to attack Israel. Its all PR.

Although, with all the talk about pre-emptive strikes by Israel or the USA, won't Iran soon have the right to attack Israel first to pre-empt the Israeli pre-emptive strike?

There is not real evidence of Iran wanting to make a bomb or having the ability to make a bomb. But there is real evidence that Israel insists this is happening and will attack Iran. Iran, like any other nation, has the right to protect its citizens from a possible attack by another state.

Of course, Iran is known to be one of the more peaceful countries in the world. So what if it encourages the Hizbolah terrorists to attack Israel from Lebanon and has done so for many years both financially and with training.
So what if it calls for the destruction of Israel day in and day out.
It's Israel who is the evil one. Why not?

Your words show lack of knowledge and ignorance. Words Words Words but nothing factual to back it up.

Keep it up buddy.

Regards,
Yair

[corplinx]

"Usually" does not mean "always."

I didn't mean to say he meant always, I was disputing "usually" since I wasn't given any math to support this assertion. Its really not worth the time though.

[Oliver]

The President of Iran making idle threats against Israel is not a real threat. They will not have the ability to make a nuclear weapon for years. There are those in Israel who prefer to live with the illusion of a threat to justify their way of life.


Quite frankly, Parky. I really start to think that all of this is
lamentation from Israels side or just straightway paranoia.

There is no reason to Attack Israel with nuclear Weapons,
after all, the Temple Mount is one of Islam's holiest sites as
well since Muslims believe that Muḥammad rise to heaven
in Jerusalem.

So I guess it's rather a question of the nuclear monopoly
in the Middle East for Israel than the "wipe off the map
myth".

But unfortunately, the Woo-Crowd always preferred Woo
over facts. So why not feed them with Propaganda-Myths
and Paranoia for the weak-minded? It worked in Germany
and America as well.

What do you think about that?

[yairhol]

Isn't Israel a much more credible threat, since they actually have nukes?
Sure, along with the united states and the U.K. Those are the three most evil countries aren't they? Poor old Iran, what does the world want from it? We should just let them be.
Such ignorance and naive.

Regards,
Yair

[JoeEllison]

Sure, along with the united states and the U.K. Those are the three most evil countries aren't they? Poor old Iran, what does the world want from it? We should just let them be.
Such ignorance and naive.

Regards,
Yair

Wouldn't it be interesting if, when you quoted someone, you would comment on what they actually post, instead of just making things up? You've repeatedly attributed things to me that I've never said, and would never say. I'm asking you, nicely, to please stop doing that. It is extremely rude, and doesn't contribute to the discussion.

[FireGarden]

Of course, Iran is known to be one of the more peaceful countries in the world. So what if it encourages the Hizbolah terrorists to attack Israel from Lebanon and has done so for many years both financially and with training.

Hezbollah was formed to get Israel out of Lebanon. It's still there because it is popular in Lebanon.

Oh and look... Hezbollah and the MEK/PMOI as a bargaining chip between Washington and Tehran.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/6272661.stm

So what if it calls for the destruction of Israel day in and day out.

The regime occupying Jerusalem will vanish from the page of time.
And that in a speech with the USSR as a comparison. A regime which fell from within. Like the Shah was toppled from within. Like Saddam was brought low by the people who raised him high in the first place.

In that context, it does not even imply an attack -- let alone an attack by Iran.




Evil is self-destructive.
Zionism will go the way of apartheid.

[madurobob]

Isn't Israel a much more credible threat, since they allegedly have nukes?
Fixed that for you. I think the general consensus is that they do have nukes, but they've not admitted it and not allowed inspectors to verify.

Note that I said I would not be surprised if they did launch a strike against nuke sites in Iran. I never said I thought this was the right thing to do. And yes, WW sanctions against Israel would be a sound response.

And Israel would be right to expect the world to step in and protect it from a counter-strike. Just like Iran should expect the world to protect it from a counter-strike should it strike preemptively against Israel. Its in the world's best interest to PREVENT outright war. So, interestingly, whoever has the least to lose from int'l sanctions is more likely to launch a preemptive strike. In my book, thats Israel.

Iran may be years away from nuclear weapons, but if you are convinced they are developing them in order to attack you, why wait until they are 99% there? Again, I by no means support a strike on Iran, but I can understand the logic of fear behind it.

[egslim]

Of course, Iran is known to be one of the more peaceful countries in the world.
How many countries have been invaded by Iran since 1979? Consider the neighbourhood, with Sunni Afghanistan and Pakistan on their east and Iraq on their west. Iran been less agressive than Iraq under Saddam, more democratic than Pakistan under Mubarak and compared with the Taliban Iran is almost secular.

It's Israel who is the evil one.
The situation in the Middle-East is far too complicated to be expressed in "good vs evil" terms. All sides have made their hands dirty.
A better description is in the form of factions based on ethnicity, religion, nationality, beliefs, etc who each pursue their own interests and will ally with or turn against other factions based on convenience. With all the loyalty of a piranha invested toilet bowl, witness Iraq.

[JoeEllison]

Iran may be years away from nuclear weapons, but if you are deluding yourself into believing they are developing them in order to attack you with very little evidence, why wait until they are 99% there? Again, I by no means support a strike on Iran, but I can understand the illogic of fear behind it.
Fixed that for you. :p:eek::jaw-dropp:covereyes

I have a hard time taking any of this seriously, after the Iraq debacle. I say we let the UN and IAEA do their jobs, we abide by the NPT while insisting that Iran do the same, and stop pretending that Iran doesn't have a right to have a non-weapons nuclear program. As long as they stay within the guidelines of international law(and not Bush's idiotic interpretation of it), no country has a right to invade, and the international community has a responsibility to prevent any strikes against Iran.

[Elind]

I am still trying to figure out why lefties hate Israel so much.

Actually it's easy for them to argue that they don't hate Israel, just their government's policies (kind of like they say about the US, particularly if it's their own country).

What is more interesting is why they so consistently make excuses for know terrorist supporting regimes (or pretend they are not).

I'm of the opinion that one should take leaders of countries at their word with regard to their intentions. These people seem to think that that's only valid if it agrees with their position, vague as it may be.

[egslim]

Iran may be years away from nuclear weapons, but if you are convinced they are developing them in order to attack you, why wait until they are 99% there? Again, I by no means support a strike on Iran, but I can understand the logic of fear behind it.
If Israel can attack Iran without fear of sanctions (because the US will veto them in the Security Council) and the US taking most of the heat for the attack because it is seen to support Israel and is geographically easier to hit by Iran, then Israel has little incentive to refrain from attack.

[dudalb]

Evil is self-destructive.
Zionism will go the way of apartheid.

So Israel will just vote itself out of existence?
Boy,are you delusional.
But I will give Firegarden credit for being honest about wanting the destruction of Israel when most people who I think in their hearts of hearts want that dance around the issue.

[madurobob]

Fixed that for you. :p:eek::jaw-dropp:covereyes
:)Paybacks are a*****!

I say we let the UN and IAEA do their jobs, we abide by the NPT while insisting that Iran do the same, and stop pretending that Iran doesn't have a right to have a non-weapons nuclear program. As long as they stay within the guidelines of international law(and not Bush's idiotic interpretation of it), no country has a right to invade, and the international community has a responsibility to prevent any strikes against Iran.
I agree with you 100%. But,I can also understand how Israel can have a different point of view given the rhetoric between the two countries. Nothing gives them a "right" to attack Iran. Still, I would not be surprised if they did given thats what they've done in the past. I may be pissed off, but not surprised.

This whole "Israel" thing really gets people riled up. I think I'll go over and say something about Israel in the Elvis thread.

[JoeEllison]

[QUOTE=JoeEllison;2991399]Fixed that for you. :p:eek::jaw-dropp:covereyes [QUOTE]
:)Paybacks are a*****!


I agree with you 100%. But,I can also understand how Israel can have a different point of view given the rhetoric between the two countries. Nothing gives them a "right" to attack Iran. Still, I would not be surprised if they did given thats what they've done in the past. I may be pissed off, but not surprised.

This whole "Israel" thing really gets people riled up. I think I'll go over and say something about Israel in the Elvis thread.
You go girl!

There IS something weird about the way people react when it comes to Israel... as though all reason flies out the window, and they can't see anything clearly about the situation. Not everything Israel does is perfect and wonderful and justified, and the fact that there are anti-semitic idiots who hate Israel doesn't justify people making equal-but-opposite idiots of themselves in defense of Israel.

Add Elvis into the mix, and someone could die!

[Elind]

Strange that nobody here has yet drawn any parallel with the almost certain reality that Saddam Hussein would have had a nuclear capability by the time of the Invasion of Kuwait, if not during the war with Iran, had Israel not destroyed it in 1981. Terrible thing those nasty Israelis did then, don't the apologists say?

[Thunder]

There is no hard evidence that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. The only hard evidence we have is that they have 3,000 centrifuges running. Ahmedinajad time and time agains says they dont want a nuclear weapon and arent trying to make one. Israel, on the other hand, says that Iran is trying to make a nuke, but provides no evidence. Why exactly should we believe Israel and no Iran?

Without hard evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, Israel has NO RIGHT to attack Iran. If they have evidence, present it to the IAEA and the USA. If they dont..then stop beating the drums of war.

If it becomes clear in the next few months that Israel is about to attack Iran's nuclear facilities based on no evidence, then Iran has every right to strike at Israel's air force to prevent these attacks. Its called pre-emptive self defense.

Once again, what do we have more evidence of? Iran building a nuclear weapon...or Israel's desire to attack Iran over a possible nuclear weapon program?

Cleary we have more evidence of Israel's intention of attacking Iran.

[JoeEllison]

Strange that nobody here has yet drawn any parallel with the almost certain reality that Saddam Hussein would have had a nuclear capability by the time of the Invasion of Kuwait, if not during the war with Iran, had Israel not destroyed it in 1981. Terrible thing those nasty Israelis did then, don't the apologists say?

Nobody is saying that. Can you find a post by anyone in this thread saying that?

In the future, you might try to differentiate between real people and real posts, and the strawmen that you seem to prefer attacking. Thanks in advance! :D

[JoeEllison]

There is no hard evidence that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. The only hard evidence we have is that they have 3,000 centrifuges running. Ahmedinajad time and time agains says they dont want a nuclear weapon and arent trying to make one. Israel, on the other hand, says that Iran is trying to make a nuke, but provides no evidence. Why exactly should we believe Israel and no Iran?

Without hard evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, Israel has NO RIGHT to attack Iran. If they have evidence, present it to the IAEA and the USA. If they dont..then stop beating the drums of war.

If it becomes clear in the next few months that Israel is about to attack Iran's nuclear facilities based on no evidence, then Iran has every right to strike at Israel's air force to prevent these attacks. Its called pre-emptive self defense.

Once again, what do we have more evidence of? Iran building a nuclear weapon...or Israel's desire to attack Iran over a possible nuclear weapon program?

Cleary we have more evidence of Israel's intention of attacking Iran.

Everything you posted seems pretty reasonable to me. The entire world should jump down Iran's throat to prevent them from creating nuclear weapons. However, creating a non-weapon based nuclear program is within Iran's rights, and to attack them for their legal nuclear program is something that the world should also jump to prevent.

The goal should be that no one attacks anyone else... right?

[yairhol]

The amount of ignorance here is overwhelming.
It's like we're living in two different worlds.

1. Iran calls for the destruction of Israel. Is that peaceful?
2. Hezbollah was formed to get Israel out of Lebanon. It's still there because it is popular in Lebanon.
Hezbolah attacked Israel last year in August. You might have forgotten this or didn't know it. It kidnapped an Israeli soldier from within Israel. This is what started the second Lebanon War. Is that peaceful?
3. Iran fainances and trains Hezbolah terrorists which are wrecking hevoc in Lebanon as well and going against its own government forcefully. Is that peaceful?
4. If it weren't for Israel, the whole western world would have needed to deal with a nuclear Iraq today. How about small nuclear bombs in suitcases carried by suicide terrorists into the world trade center? When Iran has this capability, it will do the same and if you think otherwise, well good luck. It'll be too late for "I told you so" when that happens. I admit, Israel will be the first to be struck by Iran but then the rest of the world will be next. Doesn't sound too peacefull does it?
5. Have you seen documentaries on what's happening inside Iran to women? They are like garbage there with basically no rights at all. And what happens to those opposing the government? They dissapear. Have seen the footage. Maybe you guys should too. Sounds peacefull doesn't it?
6. How many countries have been invaded by Iran since 1979? Consider the neighbourhood, with Sunni Afghanistan and Pakistan on their east and Iraq on their west. Iran been less agressive than Iraq under Saddam, more democratic than Pakistan under Mubarak and compared with the Taliban Iran is almost secular.
You make me laugh with your logic. You think that invasion of other countries is the only way to show non peaceful ways? Look at the above 5 statements I wrote.
7. As long as they stay within the guidelines of international law(and not Bush's idiotic interpretation of it), no country has a right to invade, and the international community has a responsibility to prevent any strikes against Iran. I wish that could happen but may I remind you that the internation community HAS already, many times, demanded that Iran stop their nuclear research which at first Iran accepted only to be found guilty of lying to the world and continuing their research. Then they said they would not stop their goal of achieving nuclear weapon. That's a country which you guys so much want to trust.

Oh dear fellow JFERs. I can only comfort you that Israel won't let that happen and hopefully the sane world will not either.

Regards,
Yair

[yairhol]

Strange that nobody here has yet drawn any parallel with the almost certain reality that Saddam Hussein would have had a nuclear capability by the time of the Invasion of Kuwait, if not during the war with Iran, had Israel not destroyed it in 1981. Terrible thing those nasty Israelis did then, don't the apologists say?

I did write about it but in the process you got it first.

Regards,
Yair

[Pardalis]

Does the US even have the means and capacity to attack Iran? I mean, they're already knee-deep in Iraqi mud right now...

[egslim]

What is more interesting is why they so consistently make excuses for know terrorist supporting regimes (or pretend they are not).
I consider myself a rightwing hawk, but it would be delusional to believe the rest of the world is made up of doves.

Therefore if a nation is attacked (militarily, diplomatically or economically) I expect them to retaliate proportionally, in whatever way they can. And of course "proportionally" is subject to interpretation, especially if you believe the most effective response is a tenfold one (to teach 'm).

If you attack a nation that is incapable of effective military, diplomatic or economic retaliation, expect them to respond with terrorist methods. That's reality. Arguing about the morality of it all is pointless, and ignoring it delusional.

[JoeEllison]

I consider myself a rightwing hawk, but it would be delusional to believe the rest of the world is made up of doves.

Therefore if a nation is attacked (militarily, diplomatically or economically) I expect them to retaliate proportionally, in whatever way they can. And of course "proportionally" is subject to interpretation, especially if you believe the most effective response is a tenfold one (to teach 'm).

If you attack a nation that is incapable of effective military, diplomatic or economic retaliation, expect them to respond with terrorist methods. That's reality. Arguing about the morality of it all is pointless, and ignoring it delusional.
It is also pretty pointless to say "they are EVIL!! They hate us for our freedoms!! Their leaders are madmen who will take over the whole world unless we stop them!!"

Hyperbole and overblown rhetoric don't advance our knowledge or ability to cope with the realities on the ground.

[yairhol]

There is no hard evidence that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. The only hard evidence we have is that they have 3,000 centrifuges running. Ahmedinajad time and time agains says they dont want a nuclear weapon and arent trying to make one. Israel, on the other hand, says that Iran is trying to make a nuke, but provides no evidence. Why exactly should we believe Israel and no Iran?

This reminds me of this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67802
But Ahmedinajad said so, so it must be true. Naive.

So everyone believes that Iran is making a nuclear weapon but you guys don't:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

and from the new yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact

American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html


But he said it, so it must be true...

Even after 9/11 you guys haven't learned anything about world terror. Let us Israelis teach you what we have learned since we need to deal with it everyday. Listen for a change and stop acting in ignorance.
Israel is not as bad as you think it is. You just need to open your eyes and learn from past events.

Regards,
Yair

[Elind]

Nobody is saying that. Can you find a post by anyone in this thread saying that?

In the future, you might try to differentiate between real people and real posts, and the strawmen that you seem to prefer attacking. Thanks in advance! :D

Obviously I was referring to the imaginary people who haven't drawn the analogy, as it seems a reasonably accurate one to me. Clearly you are not imaginary.:D

[egslim]

You make me laugh with your logic. You think that invasion of other countries is the only way to show non peaceful ways? Look at the above 5 statements I wrote.
You failed to define peacefulness, let alone how to measure it. More importantly, I showed Iran behaves better than three of its neighbours. Iran is no Sweden, but neither is it surrounded by Norway, Denmark and Finland.

The Mossad is renowned for its clandistine operations in foreign countries, including assasination. And Iran supports factions that conduct clandestine operations against Israel. Most Middle Eastern countries seem to be involved in clandestine operations, if not the government than through private organizations and persons (Saoudi Arabia).

[David Swidler]

Obviously I was referring to the imaginary people who haven't drawn the analogy, as it seems a reasonably accurate one to me. Clearly you are not imaginary.:D

Who are you talking to?

[Oliver]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920341/site/newsweek/

This is not from Prisonplanet. This is not from Stormfront. This is from Newsweek.

This is identical to the conspiracy claims about the USS Liberty. That Israel attacked the Liberty in order to bring in an American response against Egypt.

If this does occur, or if this was even an actual plan, it would confirm many conspiracists theories about Israel. This would be a very very bad thing.

If the Israeli governmant contemplated or has plans for a limited attack on Iran in order to instigate an Iranian retaliation, therefore provoking a massive American response, then maybe Israel really does not deserve our friendship, aid, defense..of any kind.


Even if this is true...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110746f6db53e8e86.jpg

...I don't think Israel would be dumb enough to do a false flag
operation or something like that. They probably will just destroy
Iran's Nuclear Facility the same way they destroyed Saddam's
Nuclear Power plant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiraq

@Chillzero: Copyrightz by me :p

[egslim]

Even after 9/11 you guys haven't learned anything about world terror.
We have however learned about governments lying about the threat of WMD's as an excuse to start a war.

[Elind]

Everything you posted seems pretty reasonable to me.
Reasonableness is as reasonableness says. Presumably you too think that 911 was inevitable since the US is an evil bully?


The entire world should jump down Iran's throat to prevent them from creating nuclear weapons. However, creating a non-weapon based nuclear program is within Iran's rights, and to attack them for their legal nuclear program is something that the world should also jump to prevent.

It is not their right according to the agreements they have ratified under non proliferation treaties. Ever hear of that? In fact they still maintain that stance, notwithstanding the waiver you give them, not to mention the trust you show.

The goal should be that no one attacks anyone else... right?

No, the goal is defend those being threatened. If you think Israel is making veiled threats against Iran, not to mention the US or (surprisingly) France, just because they want to kick some ass......well, never mind the rest.

[JoeEllison]

We have however learned about governments lying about the threat of WMD's as an excuse to start a war.

Yeah, and we've also learned about the utter non-threat of terrorism to our way of life.

[Pardalis]

Yeah, and we've also learned about the utter non-threat of terrorism to our way of life.

What do you mean?

[JoeEllison]

Reasonableness is as reasonableness says. Presumably you too think that 911 was inevitable since the US is an evil bully?
It is not their right according to the agreements they have ratified under non proliferation treaties. Ever hear of that? In fact they still maintain that stance, notwithstanding the waiver you give them, not to mention the trust you show.
No, the goal is defend those being threatened. If you think Israel is making veiled threats against Iran, not to mention the US or (surprisingly) France, just because they want to kick some ass......well, never mind the rest.

I'm going to also ask you to stop creating falsehoods about what I've posted. In the interest of polite and rational discussion, please limit your comments to what I actually post, and not things that you imagine I must believe.

Seriously, you are doing yourself and everyone else a disservice by refusing to engage this discussion fairly and honestly. Please, can you try to respect that we are all trying to have a civil discussion, whether we agree on the issue or not?

[Elind]

There is no hard evidence that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. The only hard evidence we have is that they have 3,000 centrifuges running.

not to mentioned refined fuel coming from our friends the Russians; but frankly, your expertise doesn't carry too much weight with me on such matters.

Ahmedinajad time and time agains says they dont want a nuclear weapon and arent trying to make one. Israel, on the other hand, says that Iran is trying to make a nuke, but provides no evidence. Why exactly should we believe Israel and no Iran?

You have a highly selective mind, or something in that nature. You accept that little twerp's assurances on this, while ignoring his threats to eliminate Israel eventually?

Without hard evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, Israel has NO RIGHT to attack Iran. If they have evidence, present it to the IAEA and the USA. If they dont..then stop beating the drums of war.

I'll send them a note to make sure to check with your evidence first.:mad:

If it becomes clear in the next few months that Israel is about to attack Iran's nuclear facilities based on no evidence, then Iran has every right to strike at Israel's air force to prevent these attacks. Its called pre-emptive self defense.

Interesting. So you do understand and support the concept of preemptiveness?

Once again, what do we have more evidence of? Iran building a nuclear weapon...or Israel's desire to attack Iran over a possible nuclear weapon program?

Once again. See above.

Cleary we have more evidence of Israel's intention of attacking Iran.

Clearly, as in through a glass, darkly.

[JoeEllison]

What do you mean?

I mean exactly what I said. Terrorism hasn't changed anything significantly for the vast majority of us. 9-11 is the worst they've done on American soil... and if that's what I'm supposed to be afraid of, I'll skip it, and thanks a bunch. It was wrong and horrible and tragic, but it also had no chance of doing any real damage to America as a whole.

The fear and panic and cowardice about terrorism does much more harm that any terrorist has ever done.

[Oliver]

*snip* The fear and panic and cowardice about terrorism does much more harm that any terrorist has ever done.


Exactly what I think as well. Maybe the WooClan will understand
that some day. Otherwise the Terrorists archived their goal to
scare the hell out of people.

[Pardalis]

I mean exactly what I said. Terrorism hasn't changed anything significantly for the vast majority of us. 9-11 is the worst they've done on American soil... and if that's what I'm supposed to be afraid of, I'll skip it, and thanks a bunch. It was wrong and horrible and tragic, but it also had no chance of doing any real damage to America as a whole.

Well I think the increase of security at our airports and at pretty much every place of mass gathering and at our borders is a change in our way of life, created by one attack.

The fear and panic and cowardice about terrorism does much more harm that any terrorist has ever done.Exactly, all of the bolded are the result of terrorism. That's what terrorism does, it creates terror.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Elind http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2991564#post2991564)
Reasonableness is as reasonableness says. Presumably you too think that 911 was inevitable since the US is an evil bully?
It is not their right according to the agreements they have ratified under non proliferation treaties. Ever hear of that? In fact they still maintain that stance, notwithstanding the waiver you give them, not to mention the trust you show.
No, the goal is defend those being threatened. If you think Israel is making veiled threats against Iran, not to mention the US or (surprisingly) France, just because they want to kick some ass......well, never mind the rest.



I'm going to also ask you to stop creating falsehoods about what I've posted. In the interest of polite and rational discussion, please limit your comments to what I actually post, and not things that you imagine I must believe.

Seriously, you are doing yourself and everyone else a disservice by refusing to engage this discussion fairly and honestly. Please, can you try to respect that we are all trying to have a civil discussion, whether we agree on the issue or not?

Which of the above was a falsehood? Address the points and don't get your knickers in a knot because I don't like your analysis. We are debating along with another who does hold that opinion about 911. It sounded like you were of like mind, but if not on that issue, I apologize for the sarcasm on that point.

The other points I made were in direct response to yours and call for a reposte, not a whine.

[JoeEllison]

Which of the above was a falsehood? Address the points and don't get your knickers in a knot because I don't like your analysis. We are debating along with another who does hold that opinion about 911. It sounded like you were of like mind, but if not on that issue, I apologize for the sarcasm on that point.

The other points I made were in direct response to yours and call for a reposte, not a whine.

I'm going to ask one more time that you conduct yourself in an honest and adult manner.

[JoeEllison]

Well I think the increase of security at our airports and at pretty much every place of mass gathering and at our borders is a change in our way of life, created by one attack.

Exactly, all of the bolded are the result of terrorism. That's what terrorism does, it creates terror.Here's the thing: we can choose to react that way, or choose not to react that way. The terrorists have no power over us that we don't give them.

I don't buy the "we can't help it" argument... we can do better, and we SHOULD do better. Otherwise... wait for it... THE TERRORISTS WIN!! :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

Here's the thing: we can choose to react taht way, or choose not to react that way. The terrorists have no power over us that we don't give them.

We regular people can do that, but as far as governments, businesses and transport agencies, they have to take into consideration terrorist attacks now. That's their job. If they didn't increase the security they would be morally reprehensible. That's what 9/11 changed, they cannot deny the possibility anymore. They did change our way of life in a way.

[JoeEllison]

We regular people can do that, but as far as governments, businesses and transport agencies, they have to take into consideration terrorist attacks now. That's their job. If they didn't increase the security they would be morally reprehensible. That's what 9/11 changed, they cannot deny the possibility anymore. They did change our way of life in a way.

Minor increases in security, most of which have been kind of stupid, isn't exactly impressive change... and that's kind of a good thing, don't you think? Politicians being idiots to satiate the needs of cowards to feel the illusion of perfect safety... not such a good thing.

[Oliver]

We regular people can do that, but as far as governments, businesses and transport agencies, they have to take into consideration terrorist attacks now. That's their job. If they didn't increase the security they would be morally reprehensible. That's what 9/11 changed, they cannot deny the possibility anymore. They did change our way of life in a way.


No. The Woo's changed their lives. I still live exactly in the
same world as it was pre-9/11 in terms of fears or paranoia.

And even if the Governments job includes to protect us, this
also includes wise foreign politics to avoid blowbacks and to
reduce a probable threat of terrorism. Not playing GI-Joe and
making things worse.

But I still don't get your point - I guess you're simply scared.

[Pardalis]

Minor increases in security, most of which have been kind of stupid, isn't exactly impressive change... and that's kind of a good thing, don't you think? Politicians being idiots to satiate the needs of cowards to feel the illusion of perfect safety... not such a good thing.

Well, I wouldn't call the new measures minor, security has been beefed up pretty much everywhere, and money is being spent for it considerably, but yes it's a good thing that things have kept on as usual regardless of these measures.

But if there are more attacks, these measures could become more and more cumbersome, and that's what terrorism is counting on. So yes, terrorism is a threat to our way of life.

I'm not talking about those doomsday scenarios, which are of course highly hypothetical (but still possible) and mostly used by politicians to scare people ...

[Corsair 115]

Does the US even have the means and capacity to attack Iran? I mean, they're already knee-deep in Iraqi mud right now...Conventionally? Sure — if you mean an attack by airpower. If I was in Iran and heard that a large flight of B-2 Stealth Bombers had taken off from the U.S., I'd be very nervous. If you mean a ground assault, then I'd say no, it doesn't look like the U.S. has the additional capacity to mount that kind of operation at present.

[Oliver]

Conventionally? Sure — if you mean an attack by airpower. If I was in Iran and heard that a large flight of B-2 Stealth Bombers had taken off from the U.S., I'd be very nervous. If you mean a ground assault, then I'd say no, it doesn't look like the U.S. has the additional capacity to mount that kind of operation at present.


Funny thing is: What if Iran marches into Iraq after getting
attacked by the US. Or even funnier - marching into Israel if
they attack them? Gee - one must love all these blockheads.

:popcorn2

[Pardalis]

Only you Oliver find this funny.

[Oliver]

Only you Oliver finds this funny.


Why not? It's real life comedy - at it's best. http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/popc%5B1%5D.gif
And this guy sums it up:

9Vaw658Bow8

[egslim]

What if Iran marches into Iraq after getting
attacked by the US.
They would be slaughtered by US airpower in the open. More likely they increase support for the insurgency in Iraq (even if Iran doesn't, the attacks themselves will) and perhaps attack shipping in the Gulf.
If Iraq is not yet a lost cause, it will be if Iran is attacked.

[Undesired Walrus]

No. The Woo's changed their lives. I still live exactly in the
same world as it was pre-9/11 in terms of fears or paranoia.

And even if the Governments job includes to protect us, this
also includes wise foreign politics to avoid blowbacks and to
reduce a probable threat of terrorism. Not playing GI-Joe and
making things worse.

But I still don't get your point - I guess you're simply scared.

I understand you comparing the current situation to something like the 'threat' of communism (Which I presume you are doing), but however exciting and immediatly similar any coincidences may be, they really are not comparable.

The figurehead is an ex-billionare on the run from the most powerful nation on Earth, and the 'threat' of communism happened after the heroic and justified wars against facism, fought in the name of individual freedom. Your average commie had a lot more to stand up to in an ideological sense. After incredibly unpopular ventures like Vietnam and Iraq, both which advocated freedom, I think the threat is entirely different, and a lot stronger.

[Oliver]

I understand you comparing the current situation to something like the 'threat' of communism (Which I presume you are doing), but however exciting and immediatly similar any coincidences may be, they really are not comparable.

The figurehead is an ex-billionare on the run from the most powerful nation on Earth, and the 'threat' of communism happened after the heroic and justified wars against facism, fought in the name of individual freedom. Your average commie had a lot more to stand up to in an ideological sense. After incredibly unpopular ventures like Vietnam and Iraq, both which advocated freedom, I think the threat is entirely different, and a lot stronger.


No, I think the commie-propaganda was exaggerated as well
because the lemmings tend to fall for it and vote in favor of
their fears.

After all - the Islam is a friendly religion and doesn't care about
what race Muslim members are - not even in case of evil Americans
like Malcolm X. And killing of innocent people is a sin within the
Quran - even if some nuts are ignoring this fact and blow them-
selves up.

But if America and Israel somehow manages to make this a
Religious War - and they're both very good at it as far I see
it, then it's going to be a pretty nasty party all over the
World - including Terrorism on a "never seen before" scale.

How on God's green earth did America end up in Iraq - instead
doing something about Al Qaida and go home?

U n f r i g g i n b e l i e v a b l e . . . http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/popc%5B1%5D.gif

[Pardalis]

http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/popc%5B1%5D.gif

At least someone is enjoying the show.

[Oliver]

At least someone is enjoying the show.


Of course I do - what else can someone do about the Idiocy
of the infamous three parties involved whining all day long about
each other.

Sorry, but the Irony is almost hilarious... http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/popc%5B1%5D.gif

[Undesired Walrus]

First of all, Islam is not a religion.



After all - the Koran is a friendly religion

:confused:What is this 'Koran'? Sounds like a great religion to me!

And killing of innocent people is a sin within the
Quran - even if some nuts are ignoring this fact and blow them-
selves up.



Not really. It is all down to interpretation, and you are somewhat arrogant to claim jurisdiction over what it actually meant back in 500AD.

'Innocent' to the Islamists means anyone who is Muslim. Several sources seem to back this up, and you see, any place that is Bilad al-Kufr is deemed as not 'innocent' because it does not subject to the last book of God, and the 6th pillar. Seeing how the Caliphate has gone walkies, the entire world is Bilad al-Kufr, and is thus, declaring war on Islam. Thus, they are legitimate targets by the teachings of the early verse I believe you are quoting.

So no, they are not simplistic 'nuts' and are not ignoring the texts.


How on God's green earth did America end up in Iraq - instead
doing something about Al Qaida and go home?


Your easy going ways about how to get rid of Al Qeada worries me.

[jsiv]

...I don't think Israel would be dumb enough to do a false flag
operation or something like that. They probably will just destroy
Iran's Nuclear Facility the same way they destroyed Saddam's
Nuclear Power plant:


I like how you say "just," as if this would be a walk in the park.

The simple fact that Iran is twice as far away as Iraq means that such an attack would have to involve the US as well. I don't think Israel has anything capable of flying all the way to Iran and back.

Not to mention that their welcome reception would be very different from what they saw in Iraq.

Or what the international reaction to the US condoning (yes, even turning a blind eye counts) an attack like that would be.

[Oliver]

First of all, Islam is not a religion.

:confused:What is this 'Koran'? Sounds like a great religion to me!

Not really. It is all down to interpretation, and you are somewhat arrogant to claim jurisdiction over what it actually meant back in 500AD.

'Innocent' to the Islamists means anyone who is Muslim. Several sources seem to back this up, and you see, any place that is Bilad al-Kufr is deemed as not 'innocent' because it does not subject to the last book of God, and the 6th pillar. Seeing how the Caliphate has gone walkies, the entire world is Bilad al-Kufr, and is thus, declaring war on Islam. Thus, they are legitimate targets by the teachings of the early verse I believe you are quoting.

So no, they are not simplistic 'nuts' and are not ignoring the texts.

Your easy going ways about how to get rid of Al Qeada worries me.


Well - do you believe the good old Al Qaida Gang related
to 9/11 still exists?

Or are we talking about Copycats?

And if we talk about Copycats - how the heck will you
ever be able to fight them unless you create Democracies
all over the Middle-East which would do this Job? (as
successful as in Pakistan, for example)

So how do you create Democracies all over the ME if
people don't really want it in most cases - force them?

Oh man, I really would love to read the US-Strategy-Guides
about "how to safe the world" - especially if Presidents get
their orders from the almighty Crackpot.

[Oliver]

I like how you say "just," as if this would be a walk in the park.

The simple fact that Iran is twice as far away as Iraq means that such an attack would have to involve the US as well. I don't think Israel has anything capable of flying all the way to Iran and back.

Not to mention that their welcome reception would be very different from what they saw in Iraq.

Or what the international reaction to the US condoning (yes, even turning a blind eye counts) an attack like that would be.


I'm sure Israel is trying everything to keep their Monopoly
and they're surely also planning already.

But either way - the results of any intervention could be
fatal. Especially if all this turns into a holy war. You may
remember what happened in the Iraq-Iran war in which
Iranians died in masses with the Quran in their pockets.

In this case people probably should really start to worry,
because this scenario could mean that all hell will break
loose.

Awesome. No Hollywood author could make this stuff up. http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/popc%5B1%5D.gif
(ETA: Okay ... Ron Hubbard could.)

[jsiv]

I'm sure Israel is trying everything to keep their Monopoly
and they're surely also planning already.


Whatever that means, I'd still like to hear more about what you think an Israeli attack would look like.

Since you're so confident that they can pull it off on their own.

[Oliver]

Whatever that means, I'd still like to hear more about what you think an Israeli attack would look like.

Since you're so confident that they can pull it off on their own.


What about this "delivering system" - maybe with
a small nuclear warhead or alternative ingredients?


Jericho III

Jericho III is thought to have been in service since mid-2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005). With a payload of 1,000 - 1,300 kg it has a range of 4,800 km, or 10,800km with a payload of 350kg (one Israeli nuclear warhead). This gives Israel, at least, nuclear strike capability against Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa), Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe), and most of Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia).

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_missile

[Undesired Walrus]

please respond to my comments Oliver.

[jsiv]

What about this "delivering system" - maybe with
a small nuclear warhead or alternative ingredients?


Don't be ridiculous.

[Oliver]

please respond to my comments Oliver.


Which one?

Don't be ridiculous.



What do you mean? That they couldn't equip these
missiles with conventional warheads? :confused:

[egslim]

What about this "delivering system" - maybe with
a small nuclear warhead or alternative ingredients?
Israel is not crazy enough to nuke an Iranian site, because maintaining US popular support is essential for them.

And with a conventional payload the Jericho III is probably not accurate enough.

[Oliver]

Israel is not crazy enough to nuke an Iranian site, because maintaining US popular support is essential for them.

And with a conventional payload the Jericho III is probably not accurate enough.


Well, in this case there is only this solution left: Give up the
occupied land if Iran agrees to stop it's nuclear program or
build a Powerplant which uses low-enriched uranium provided
and controlled by the UN.

[Gurdur]

... which uses low-enriched uranium provided
and controlled by the UN.

The UN does provide inspectors; it does NOT provide uranium of any kind. Try again.

[Undesired Walrus]

Which one?





last post.

[Oliver]

The UN does provide inspectors; it does NOT provide uranium of any kind. Try again.


Oki Doki:

Well, in this case there is only this solution left: Give up the
occupied land if Iran agrees to stop it's nuclear program or
build a Powerplant which uses low-enriched uranium provided
by whoever is trustworthy - controlled by the UN.

@UW: I will do so tomorrow, promised. :)

[Gurdur]

....Well, in this case there is only this solution left:


Wrong again.

[Davo]

Of course, Iran is known to be one of the more peaceful countries in the world. So what if it encourages the Hizbolah terrorists to attack Israel from Lebanon and has done so for many years both financially and with training.
So what if it calls for the destruction of Israel day in and day out.
It's Israel who is the evil one. Why not?

Your words show lack of knowledge and ignorance. Words Words Words but nothing factual to back it up.

Keep it up buddy.

Regards,
Yair

Do you have any evidence that it is the Iranian government supporting hezbolah not insurgent groups within Iran. An example: Just because the majority of financial support/arms for the former IRA terrorists comes from the US, doesn`t necessarily mean that it is government funded/supported.

[Davo]

Anyone here know what would be the consequences of Israel nuking a nuclear power station, a chernobyl several times over ?

Wold Israel really risk the world condemnation of this potential environmental catastrophy and the loss of so many lives.

[Thunder]

Even after 9/11 you guys haven't learned anything about world terror. Let us Israelis teach you what we have learned since we need to deal with it everyday. Listen for a change and stop acting in ignorance.
Israel is not as bad as you think it is. You just need to open your eyes and learn from past events.

Regards,
Yair

With all do respect, if it wasn't for Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, if it wasn't for Israel's blatant abuse of the Palestinian's human rights, if it wasn't for America's blind support for Israel's policies, maybe..just maybe....9-11 would not have occured.

Keep your lessons about terrorism to yourself. Your lessons have brought us nothing but heart ache and death. $3 billion a year and what do we get back? 1.4 billion Muslims hating us. Thanks a lot, "friend".

[yairhol]

Anyone here know what would be the consequences of Israel nuking a nuclear power station, a chernobyl several times over ?

Wold Israel really risk the world condemnation of this potential environmental catastrophy and the loss of so many lives.

No one who is sane thinks Israel will ever use nuclear power unless its own existence (Israel's) is on the line and that solution would be the last resort against whoever is threatening them.

With all do respect, if it wasn't for Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, if it wasn't for Israel's blatant abuse of the Palestinian's human rights, if it wasn't for America's blind support for Israel's policies, maybe..just maybe....9-11 would not have occured.

Keep your lessons about terrorism to yourself. Your lessons have brought us nothing but heart ache and death. $3 billion a year and what do we get back? 1.4 billion Muslims hating us. Thanks a lot, "friend".

You are a fanatic and I will not have this discussion with you. You blame Israel for the 9/11 tragedy and you accuse Israel of being responsible for the Islamic world terror (9/11 is not the only Islamic terror act as you may know).
Keep your hatred to yourself and stay cacooned up in your little world saying as long as it's not me, I don't care what happens in the rest of the world.

[Oliver]

You are a fanatic and I will not have this discussion with you. You blame Israel for the 9/11 tragedy and you accuse Israel of being responsible for the Islamic world terror (9/11 is not the only Islamic terror act as you may know).
Keep your hatred to yourself and stay cacooned up in your little world saying as long as it's not me, I don't care what happens in the rest of the world.


You're wrong. Read the 9/11 commission report which explains
the connections between US-interventions in the ME, Israels
role as motive for the Attacks and "Blowbacks":

9/11 Commission Chairmen Admit

Whitewashing the Cause of the Attacks
August 7, 2006
Ivan Eland (http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=487)


As both the Bush administration and its client government in Israel, with their invasions of Arab states in Iraq and Lebanon, respectively, make the United States ever more hated in the Islamic world, a new book by the chairmen of the 9/11 commission admits that the commission whitewashed the root cause of the 9/11 attacks—that same interventionist U.S. foreign policy...

Full Story: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1785

ETA: Complete 9/11 Commission Report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf)


Members of the Small Group found themselves unpersuaded
of the merits of rolling attacks. Defense Secretary William Cohen
told us Bin Ladin’s training camps were primitive, built with “rope
ladders”; General Shelton called them “jungle gym” camps. Neither
thought them worthwhile targets for very expensive missiles.

President Clinton and Berger also worried about the Economist’s
point—that attacks that missed Bin Ladin could enhance his stature
and win him new recruits. After the United States launched air
attacks against Iraq at the end of 1998 and against Serbia in 1999,
in each case provoking worldwide criticism, Deputy National Security
Advisor James Steinberg added the argument that attacks in
Afghanistan offered “little benefit, lots of blowback against [a]
bomb-happy U.S.”59
ETA: Bin Ladens Fatwa August, 1996 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html)

"No doubts this is the policy of the American-Israeli alliance as they are the first to benefit from this situation."

"They refused to be played against each others and to be used by the regime as a tool to carry out the policy of the American-Israeli alliance through their agent in our country: the Saudi regime."

"American-Israeli alliance- occupying the country of the two Holy Places and the route of the Apostle (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) to the Furthest Mosque (Al-Aqsa Mosque)."

" 6-Division of the land of the two Holy Places, and annexing of the northerly part of it by Israel. Dividing the land of the two Holy Places is an essential demand of the Zionist-Crusader alliance."

"Your brothers in Palestine and in the land of the two Holy Places are calling upon your help and asking you to take part in fighting against the enemy --your enemy and their enemy-- the Americans and the Israelis. they are asking you to do whatever you can, with one own means and ability, to expel the enemy, humiliated and defeated, out of the sanctities of Islam."

+ 17 additional passages about Zionists/Zionist-Crusaders/Zionism

[yairhol]

ETA: Bin Ladens Fatwa August, 1996 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html)

"No doubts this is the policy of the American-Israeli alliance as they are the first to benefit from this situation."

"They refused to be played against each others and to be used by the regime as a tool to carry out the policy of the American-Israeli alliance through their agent in our country: the Saudi regime."

"American-Israeli alliance- occupying the country of the two Holy Places and the route of the Apostle (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) to the Furthest Mosque (Al-Aqsa Mosque)."

" 6-Division of the land of the two Holy Places, and annexing of the northerly part of it by Israel. Dividing the land of the two Holy Places is an essential demand of the Zionist-Crusader alliance."

"Your brothers in Palestine and in the land of the two Holy Places are calling upon your help and asking you to take part in fighting against the enemy --your enemy and their enemy-- the Americans and the Israelis. they are asking you to do whatever you can, with one own means and ability, to expel the enemy, humiliated and defeated, out of the sanctities of Islam."

+ 17 additional passages about Zionists/Zionist-Crusaders/Zionism

This is a very good source indeed Oliver. You're quoting the number 1 terrorist in the world and taking his words to back up your statements. You've sunk to a new low I would say, and indeed I said it.

[FireGarden]

So Israel will just vote itself out of existence?
Boy,are you delusional.
That people like you think it is delusional was the whole point of Ahmadinejad's speech. He said that people always think such regimes are invulnerable. The Shah could never be toppled, but he was. The Soviet Union was to big and too powerful -- but if you want to see it now, then you have to go look in the library. And what about Saddam? The man talked so arrogantly you'd think he was immortal. But he was brought down by the very people that brought him to power -- America.

So the zionist regime will go the same way.
And that is not the destruction of Israel. It is the rebirth of Israel as something better.

Israel has two futures.
That led by the likes of Avigdor Lieberman, and that led by the likes of the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions.
http://www.icahd.org/eng/news.asp?menu=5&submenu=1&item=483

The vote will take place.
More and more Israelis will want mixed schools (The first mixed school in Israel to host fully integrated classrooms teaching in both Arabic and Hebrew opened in 1997 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4121695.stm)). More will want an Israel which is a state of its citizens, which spends as much on Arab Israelis as on Jewish Israelis -- because they are all Israelis.

It's inevitable.

[FireGarden]

1. Iran calls for the destruction of Israel.

No he did not.

2. Hezbolah attacked Israel last year in August. You might have forgotten this or didn't know it. It kidnapped an Israeli soldier from within Israel. This is what started the second Lebanon War. Is that peaceful?

Compared to bombing (or attempting to bomb) Syria?

3. Iran fainances and trains Hezbolah terrorists which are wrecking hevoc in Lebanon as well and going against its own government forcefully. Is that peaceful?

Compared with arming Fatah?

4. If it weren't for Israel, the whole western world would have needed to deal with a nuclear Iraq today.

The threat of a nuclear bomb might have ended the war with Iran in Iraq's favour at a time when Iraq was pro-American. You know, back when Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand and giving the nod to attacks with chemical weapons.

How about small nuclear bombs in suitcases carried by suicide terrorists into the world trade center? When Iran has this capability, it will do the same and if you think otherwise, well good luck.

You're paranoid.

It'll be too late for "I told you so" when that happens. I admit, Israel will be the first to be struck by Iran but then the rest of the world will be next. Doesn't sound too peacefull does it?

Like I said, it sounds paranoid.
Use of nukes (accept possibly by America) would be suicide.

5. Have you seen documentaries on what's happening inside Iran to women? They are like garbage there with basically no rights at all. And what happens to those opposing the government? They dissapear. Have seen the footage. Maybe you guys should too. Sounds peacefull doesn't it?
6. You make me laugh with your logic. You think that invasion of other countries is the only way to show non peaceful ways? Look at the above 5 statements I wrote.
7. I wish that could happen but may I remind you that the internation community HAS already, many times, demanded that Iran stop their nuclear research which at first Iran accepted only to be found guilty of lying to the world and continuing their research. Then they said they would not stop their goal of achieving nuclear weapon. That's a country which you guys so much want to trust.

Oh dear fellow JFERs. I can only comfort you that Israel won't let that happen and hopefully the sane world will not either.

Regards,
Yair

All the talk of war against Iran slows down social reform. It gives the Iranian government an external enemy. That is one reason why Iranian university students (most of them women) say that "Our struggle is twofold, against internal oppression and external foreign threats."

The other, more vital reason, is they do not want to be "liberated" like Iraq was "liberated". Who would? They can gain their freedoms in better ways.

[plumjam]

First of all, Islam is not a religion.



Blimey, I've heard it all now :rolleyes:

[yairhol]

No he did not.



Compared to bombing (or attempting to bomb) Syria?



Compared with arming Fatah?



The threat of a nuclear bomb might have ended the war with Iran in Iraq's favour at a time when Iraq was pro-American. You know, back when Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand and giving the nod to attacks with chemical weapons.



You're paranoid.



Like I said, it sounds paranoid.
Use of nukes (accept possibly by America) would be suicide.



All the talk of war against Iran slows down social reform. It gives the Iranian government an external enemy. That is one reason why Iranian university students (most of them women) say that "Our struggle is twofold, against internal oppression and external foreign threats."

The other, more vital reason, is they do not want to be "liberated" like Iraq was "liberated". Who would? They can gain their freedoms in better ways.
I don't even know where to start with this one. It's all wrong, top to bottom, twisted to fit your view and out of context all together.
I don't think I have the time to clean up your mess here.

[Undesired Walrus]

You're wrong. Read the 9/11 commission report which explains
the connections between US-interventions in the ME, Israels
role as motive for the Attacks and "Blowbacks":

ETA: Complete 9/11 Commission Report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf)


ETA: Bin Ladens Fatwa August, 1996 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html)

Since when have the 9/11 commission been experts on Islamism?

[Undesired Walrus]

Blimey, I've heard it all now :rolleyes:

Islam is not a religion. Ask any Muslim.

I pity your ignorance.

[FireGarden]

We have however learned about governments lying about the threat of WMD's as an excuse to start a war.

Well, some of us have.

[plumjam]

Islam is not a religion. Ask any Muslim.

I pity your ignorance.

Seeing as it was you who made the assertion, instead of bothering a Muslim I'll ask you.

How is Islam not a religion?

[Undesired Walrus]

Seeing as it was you who made the assertion, instead of bothering a Muslim I'll ask you.

How is Islam not a religion?

Ask a Muslim. You may learn something.

You seem to think I am some kind of Islamaphobe. Far, far from it. I simply wish for you to understand something more than your limited knowledge already.

[plumjam]

Ask a Muslim. You may learn something.

You seem to think I am some kind of Islamaphobe. Far, far from it. I simply wish for you to understand something more than your limited knowledge already.

I thought so.
You can't substantiate your claims.

[FireGarden]

Islam is not a religion. Ask any Muslim.

I pity your ignorance.

Islam is a religion.
I've asked a Muslim.

Which Muslim did you ask?
Or are we going to get "Islam is submission to the will of God" or some such explanation?

[Undesired Walrus]

I thought so.
You can't substantiate your claims.

I can, but I'm going to give you the chance not to act like such a dim witted chap in the future and find things out for yourself.

Then, you will find my claims backed up.

[WildCat]

An inconsequential preacher in the US says that the US should assasinate Hugo Chavez, and people go ballistic and denounce it for all it's worth. The President of Iran declares that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth while pursuing a nuclear program and people scramble to make excuses for him and criticize Israel for contemplating action, go figure. :rolleyes:

[egslim]

I can, but I'm going to give you the chance not to act like such a dim witted chap in the future and find things out for yourself.

Then, you will find my claims backed up.
Like this? http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FH10Aa01.html
Ali Sina of www.faithfreedom.org. Sina writes: "Islam is not a religion. Considering Islam a religion is a foolish mistake that could cost millions of lives. Islam is a political movement set to conquer the world.

The author by the way disagrees with your assertion that Islam is not a religion.

[JoeEllison]

An inconsequential preacher in the US says that the US should assasinate Hugo Chavez, and people go ballistic and denounce it for all it's worth. The President of Iran declares that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth while pursuing a nuclear program and people scramble to make excuses for him and criticize Israel for contemplating action, go figure. :rolleyes:

The president of Iran didn't say that... but even if he did, your example is meaningless and dishonest.

[yairhol]

Originally Posted by WildCat http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2992915#post2992915)
An inconsequential preacher in the US says that the US should assasinate Hugo Chavez, and people go ballistic and denounce it for all it's worth. The President of Iran declares that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth while pursuing a nuclear program and people scramble to make excuses for him and criticize Israel for contemplating action, go figure. :rolleyes:



The president of Iran didn't say that...
wrong!

Quote:
Ahmadinejad Says Britain, Israel, US To 'Vanish Like The Pharaohs'

from http://www.hyscience.com/archives/20...inejad_say.php (http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/12/ahmadinejad_say.php)


Quote:
Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis

from here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080300629.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html)


Quote:
Ahmadinejad: Israel acting like Hitler

from here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1150886014306 (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1150886014306)


Quote:
Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister

from here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...356154,00.html (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3356154,00.html)


but even if he did, your example is meaningless and dishonest.
I'll help you with that: but even if he did (and he did and does and will continue to) you will still support Iran. You are like the woo believers of this forum. Nothing will ever change their (and your) mind no matter how much counter evidence they (you) are confronted with.
go figure:rolleyes:.

[Undesired Walrus]

Like this? http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FH10Aa01.html


No, not like that.

[plumjam]

I can, but I'm going to give you the chance not to act like such a dim witted chap in the future and find things out for yourself.

Then, you will find my claims backed up.

So you either can't be bothered to, or you realise you're wrong.

Here's an equally crazy claim. I'm the second coming of Jesus Christ.
No, I'm not going to substantiate that. Instead I'm going to give you the opportunity to "find things out for yourself".
That's how you're operating here.

[Undesired Walrus]

So you either can't be bothered to, or you realise you're wrong.

Here's an equally crazy claim. I'm the second coming of Jesus Christ.
No, I'm not going to substantiate that. Instead I'm going to give you the opportunity to "find things out for yourself".
That's how you're operating here.

It is not so much, 'I cant be bothered' but because it is a more complex discussion than one can have between two men who are not speaking to an educated Muslim.

The activity I suggest may also feed you with some fresh air. Trolling the forums night in, night out cannot be healthy.

[JoeEllison]

I'll help you with that: but even if he did (and he did and does and will continue to) you will still support Iran. You are like the woo believers of this forum. Nothing will ever change their (and your) mind no matter how much counter evidence they (you) are confronted with.
go figure:rolleyes:.
I asked you to stop lying about my position. Why can't you do that? I don't "support Iran".

There's plenty of reason to object to Iran's government: piss-poor human rights, links to extremists, etc. But, there's no reason to demonize them in order to object to them.

Your need to create a fantasy world of hatred to support your position is the only thing "woo" here.

[plumjam]

It is not so much, 'I cant be bothered' but because it is a more complex discussion than one can have between two men who are not speaking to an educated Muslim.

So you don't have access to an "educated Muslim", but you still go ahead and conclude that Islam is not a religion. Well done on that.
I don't have access to an educated astronomer or geographer.. so I guess I can conclude that the Earth is flat.

The activity I suggest may also feed you with some fresh air. Trolling the forums night in, night out cannot be healthy.

You could accuse most people here of that, including yourself. How silly.

[yairhol]

I asked you to stop lying about my position. Why can't you do that? I don't "support Iran".

There's plenty of reason to object to Iran's government: piss-poor human rights, links to extremists, etc. But, there's no reason to demonize them in order to object to them.

Your need to create a fantasy world of hatred to support your position is the only thing "woo" here.
I don't make up reality for Iran and I don't need to demonize it. Its beliefs, actions and support speak for itself.

[jsiv]

I asked you to stop lying about my position. Why can't you do that? I don't "support Iran".

There's plenty of reason to object to Iran's government: piss-poor human rights, links to extremists, etc. But, there's no reason to demonize them in order to object to them.

Your need to create a fantasy world of hatred to support your position is the only thing "woo" here.


Are you aware that the Iranian government was displaying banners reading "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" at the big military parade they held the other day?

They most definitively are trying to start a war of sorts against Israel, the US, and the West by trying to drive everyone in the region against us (as well as sponsoring terrorism.) Iran needs to tone down the rhetoric if it's going to be possible to have rational negotiations with them.

[JoeEllison]

Are you aware that the Iranian government was displaying banners reading "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" at the big military parade they held the other day?

They most definitively are trying to start a war of sorts against Israel, the US, and the West by trying to drive everyone in the region against us (as well as sponsoring terrorism.) Iran needs to tone down the rhetoric if it's going to be possible to have rational negotiations with them.Oh no! Banners!! I'm so scared!!!! :rolleyes:

So what? How do we respond to words and protests? I say we need to not respond at all. Rattling our sabers back at them plays right into their hands. If they want to "start a war" by driving Israel or America to launch an unprovoked preemptive strike, then we've again played into their hands.

Don't we need to tone down our rhetoric? Or do we base our actions on Iran? I thought we held ourselves to a higher standard.

[Pardalis]

If they want to "start a war" by driving Israel or America to launch an unprovoked preemptive strike, then we've again played into their hands.

I hope there are people in Iran who are still sane and moderate enough to not want that, and I hope they will soon make Ahmadinejad know and show him the door.

[Darth Rotor]

I hope there are people in Iran who are still sane and moderate enough to not want that, and I hope they will soon make Ahmadinejad know and show him the door.

I does not matter if Mahmoud leaves, the mullahs will find another "electable" stooge to be their front man.

DR

[JoeEllison]

I hope there are people in Iran who are still sane and moderate enough to not want that, and I hope they will soon make Ahmadinejad know and show him the door.
You know what the problem with that is? Moderates are what they are... if they had guns and planned on leading armed insurrections, they would hardly be considered moderates anymore, would they?

[Beerina]

If Israel attacks Iran, shouldn't the rest of the world enact sanctions against Israel? Isn't that what we normally do when one country attacks another without provocation?

If you are an America/Israel hater who puts on blinders to the ambitions of Iran in making nuclear weapons, perhaps.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

[jsiv]

Oh no! Banners!! I'm so scared!!!! :rolleyes:

So what?


So their desire is to see Israel gone, dead, wiped from existence. This isn't even something they deny. In fact, Ahmadinejad continually reminds people of it. It's a stated goal of his. It's not a great secret.

Note that this is not saying that they want to "kill all the Jews." No, they simply want the State of Israel to be dissolved and the people relocated somewhere else, preferably outside of the Middle East.


How do we respond to words and protests? I say we need to not respond at all. Rattling our sabers back at them plays right into their hands.


They aren't content with just empty words and protests though. They do whatever they can to drive others to engage in physical attacks against us (meaning Israel and any western presence in the region.)


If they want to "start a war" by driving Israel or America to launch an unprovoked preemptive strike, then we've again played into their hands.


Their wish is probably not to start a war that involves Iran itself, but rather to get everyone in the region to make us feel so unwelcome that we pack up and leave, giving them a greater opportunity to become a dominating force in the middle east -- without any fighting on their own land. Warfare by proxy.

The problem though, Ellison, is where do you draw the line? When does it cease to be an "unprovoked preemptive strike?" Take Israel. Iran has been shown to be behind attacks on Israel, both indirectly through supporting terrorist groups, and directly through members of the Iranian Guard operating in countries like Lebanon. If you have indisputable evidence of this taking place, would striking back at Iran really be preemptive or unprovoked?

What if Iran decides to increase their activities in the future, after they've obtained even more advanced weaponry, including nuclear warheads? What do you do then? Striking back has just become a lot more risky. This is probably the reason Iran wants nuclear weapons, not because they intend to attack anyone with them "first." They want free reigns to do whatever they want, without the risk of any major repercussions.

That's how I see it, anyway.

The whole thing is a big mess, and I fear that it's inevitably going to escalate beyond the point of no return. It's sad to watch.

[Beerina]

The President of Iran making idle threats against Israel is not a real threat.

I encourage you to try to get elected espousing that position. "The person in the country that hates us is making statements they want to drive us all into the sea and kill us. As your leader, I judge these threats to be idle and meaningless, and to treat it as such."

Would you elect yourself leader?

[JoeEllison]

I encourage you to try to get elected espousing that position. "The person in the country that hates us is making statements they want to drive us all into the sea and kill us. As your leader, I judge these threats to be idle and meaningless, and to treat it as such."

Would you elect yourself leader?

Hey, Bush got (sort of, but not really) elected twice. The ability to get votes isn't an indication of intelligence or insight. The reality is that if you tell too much of the truth, you don't get elected...

[JoeEllison]

The whole thing is a big mess, and I fear that it's inevitably going to escalate beyond the point of no return. It's sad to watch.

I can absolutely agree with you on that.

[Pardalis]

I think this is telling of Iran's intentions:

VZIp0BIRUJs

(although I do not know when this video was taken, but you can clearly see Ali Khamenei)

[Oliver]

Islam is not a religion. Ask any Muslim.

I pity your ignorance.


Oh really? Who made this one up? Qutb? :confused:

www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/
http://www.islamworld.net/true.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

[dudalb]

An inconsequential preacher in the US says that the US should assasinate Hugo Chavez, and people go ballistic and denounce it for all it's worth. The President of Iran declares that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth while pursuing a nuclear program and people scramble to make excuses for him and criticize Israel for contemplating action, go figure. :rolleyes:

That kind of nonsense is a major reason why I am not on the Political Left,as opposed to the nonsense which keeps me from being on the political right.
Blaming Israel indirectily for 9/11 is wack.

[dudalb]

Oh no! Banners!! I'm so scared!!!! :rolleyes:

So what? How do we respond to words and protests? I say we need to not respond at all. Rattling our sabers back at them plays right into their hands. If they want to "start a war" by driving Israel or America to launch an unprovoked preemptive strike, then we've again played into their hands.

Don't we need to tone down our rhetoric? Or do we base our actions on Iran? I thought we held ourselves to a higher standard.

I love your "if we just ignore Militant Islam it will go away " attitude.

[JoeEllison]

I love your "if we just ignore Militant Islam it will go away " attitude.
I love your "I understand the issues on a child's level, so I'll misrepresent the positions of cooler heads" attitude.

[dudalb]

I love your "I understand the issues on a child's level, so I'll misrepresent the positions of cooler heads" attitude.

I would love to know what you would have done on 9/12,2001,since "cooler Heads" probably means "do nothing beyond a few symbolic UN Resolutions".

[Elind]

I'm going to ask one more time that you conduct yourself in an honest and adult manner.

OK.

Which of the above was a falsehood? Address the points and don't get your knickers in a knot because I don't like your analysis. We are debating along with another who does hold that opinion about 911. It sounded like you were of like mind, but if not on that issue, I apologize for the sarcasm on that point.

The other points I made were in direct response to yours and call for a reposte, not a whine.

[FireGarden]

wrong!

Quote:
Ahmadinejad Says Britain, Israel, US To 'Vanish Like The Pharaohs'

from http://www.hyscience.com/archives/20...inejad_say.php (http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/12/ahmadinejad_say.php)

And you think America et al will last for ever?
The American economy is in trouble. This is the Chinese century, not the American. And although a war against Iran may delay that, or speed it up, it will not change it.

Quote:
Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis

from here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080300629.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html)

And that article quotes Ahmadinejad saying: "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

So, again, it is regime change.
Just like ending Apartheid was regime change. The Apartheid regime of South Africa has been eliminated. Did you oppose that too?

[yairhol]

And that article quotes Ahmadinejad saying: "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

At this stage Iran wants a cease-fire because it wants its nuclear research to mature and does not not need another battle on their hands. The international community will destroy their nuclear achievements to date if they started a war with Israel. But don't worry, I'm sure that as soon as they have nuclear capabilities Israel wil be the first to taste it and America probably second, third or fourth. Wait your turn, we're first. You'll taste the fruits of your ignorance after us.

You will sometime (and I hope it will be soon) have to realize that what Iran says to the international community is made up of many many lies: The recent ones I can remember:
1. Iran has no homosexuals like you have in the U.S.
2. Iran does not support terror.
3. Women are very highly regarded in Iran. They are honored more than the men.

Those are just 3 examples that have been prooven to be lies.

[WildCat]

So, again, it is regime change.
Just like ending Apartheid was regime change. The Apartheid regime of South Africa has been eliminated. Did you oppose that too?
Even if you were correect, Ahmadinejad wishes to replace a democratic government with an Islamic theocracy. The South African analogy would be accurate if you were advocating the current regime be ousted in favor of an apartheid regime.

How many Jews live in the Palestinian-controlled West Bank and Gaza? How many Christians? How many Buddhists?

[FireGarden]

I would love to know what you would have done on 9/12,2001,since "cooler Heads" probably means "do nothing beyond a few symbolic UN Resolutions".


The trials for Lockerbie didn't take place in Scotland or America. The Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over to Pakistan:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/04/wpak04.xml

I would have put more pressure on Pakistan to accept the offer. Or I would put forward an offer of trial in another location. Demanding that bin Laden be handed over to America directly, before trial, turned out not to work.

Of course, Clinton missed a similar chance when Sudan offered to hand bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia.

[FireGarden]

At this stage Iran wants a cease-fire because it wants its nuclear research to mature and does not not need another battle on their hands.
They're talking about the war in Lebanon. That was the ceasefire referred to.

The international community will destroy their nuclear achievements to date if they started a war with Israel. But don't worry, I'm sure that as soon as they have nuclear capabilities Israel wil be the first to taste it and America probably second, third or fourth. Wait your turn, we're first. You'll taste the fruits of your ignorance after us.

Paranoia, again.
As someone said, above. If Iran wants nukes, it's to deter attack. That will give them more influence in the region, etc. Given the examples of North Korea and Iraq, it would seem sensible. But the IAEA has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme.

You will sometime (and I hope it will be soon) have to realize that what Iran says to the international community is made up of many many lies: The recent ones I can remember:
1. Iran has no homosexuals like you have in the U.S.
2. Iran does not support terror.
3. Women are very highly regarded in Iran. They are honored more than the men.

Those are just 3 examples that have been prooven to be lies.

There are plenty of lies from Bush, too.

[yairhol]

Paranoia, again.
As someone said, above. If Iran wants nukes, it's to deter attack. That will give them more influence in the region, etc. Given the examples of North Korea and Iraq, it would seem sensible. But the IAEA has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme.

Paranoia, right. I would rather be paranoid and not have to deal with a nuclear Iran than to turn my back and do nothing now and taste a nuclear stew later.
Is there a probability that even with nukes, Iran will persue peace in the middle east and use its nuclear knowledge for energy alternatives only? I guess there is a small possibility for that but I'm not willing to take the chance.

Let's see: nuclear capabilities and the possible destruction (or near destruction) of Israel on one hand or non nuclear Iran and be called unfair by some on the other hand. The choice is difficult but I'll take what's behind curtain #1. thank you.

Yair

[FireGarden]

Even if you were correect, Ahmadinejad wishes to replace a democratic government with an Islamic theocracy. The South African analogy would be accurate if you were advocating the current regime be ousted in favor of an apartheid regime.

No he does not. He has specifically said he wants people in the region to have a vote.

The citizens of Gaza and the West Bank have their lives controlled by a government they cannot vote for. This has been the case for a very long time.

If Israel's control of Palestinian areas is an occupation, then the settlements (all of them) are illegal. If it is an annexation, then the situation is one of Apartheid -- as Jimmy Carter says.

Is that the "democracy" you want to protect?

How many Jews live in the Palestinian-controlled West Bank and Gaza? How many Christians? How many Buddhists?

The Christians, being richer, left. Most of them, anyway. Many Muslim Palestinians have left, too.

Hanan Ashrawi is Christian. Her father was a founder member of the PLO. Yasser Arafat's wife was Christian.

There have been many famous Palestinian Christians, including Edward Said who was a critic of Arafat. When did Said talk about descrimination of Palestinian Christians?

[WildCat]

As someone said, above. If Iran wants nukes, it's to deter attack. That will give them more influence in the region, etc. Given the examples of North Korea
Yes, I remember pre-nuclear N. Korea. Nearly every year the US would attack it. But now we don't since the Dear Leader single-handedly created a bomb.

[yairhol]

There are plenty of lies from Bush, too.
a comparison between Bush and Ahmadinejad is not worth commenting on.
Why?
I leave that to you.
Hint: It does not have anything to do whether I support Bush's administration or not.

[yairhol]

The citizens of Gaza and the West Bank have their lives controlled by a government they cannot vote for. This has been the case for a very long time.

you have your facts wrong. The palestinians have voted the Hammas for their leadership.

[FireGarden]

Yes, I remember pre-nuclear N. Korea. Nearly every year the US would attack it. But now we don't since the Dear Leader single-handedly created a bomb.

The fear of attack counts for a lot.
How do you think Dear Leader got to fund a nuclear programme while his people starved?

N Korea got a much better deal than Iraq. Why do you suppose that is?

[FireGarden]

you have your facts wrong. The palestinians have voted the Hammas for their leadership.

Hamas does not control their lives.
Hamas does not control borders; it does not control the import of essentials like food, fuel and electricity.

Having local leadership does not mean having control of the government that controls your life.

[WildCat]

No he does not. He has specifically said he wants people in the region to have a vote.
He wants one country to have the "right' to vote another out of existence. This would be like letting the citizens of the US, Canada, and Mexico vote to see which country gets to survive. Hey, looks like the USA just expanded peacefully! :rolleyes:

The citizens of Gaza and the West Bank have their lives controlled by a government they cannot vote for. This has been the case for a very long time.
Yes, it's tragic that they can only vote for one terrorist group over another. Hamas or Islamic Jihad or Fatah? Tough choice...

If Israel's control of Palestinian areas is an occupation, then the settlements (all of them) are illegal.
Since when? Jordan and Egypt used those areas to attack Israel, they lost the war and the territory. The West Bank and Gaza would stillbe part of those respective countries if they hadn't decided to get rid of those money-grubbing, Allah-dissin' Jews.

If it is an annexation, then the situation is one of Apartheid -- as Jimmy Carter says.
No, it's one of holding territory gained in a war.

Is that the "democracy" you want to protect?
Given the alternative, which we see now in Jew-free Gaza and other middle east countries, absolutely!

The Christians, being richer, left. Most of them, anyway. Many Muslim Palestinians have left, too.
Wonder why that was?

Hanan Ashrawi is Christian. Her father was a founder member of the PLO. Yasser Arafat's wife was Christian.

There have been many famous Palestinian Christians, including Edward Said who was a critic of Arafat. When did Said talk about descrimination of Palestinian Christians?
Doesn't matter what the past was. The current Palestinian state is for Muslims only, and they're fighting each other over which particular sect gets to be allowed to stay there. Sounds like a hellhole to me, but you have those rose-colored glasses on again.

[WildCat]

The fear of attack counts for a lot.
How do you think Dear Leader got to fund a nuclear programme while his people starved?
Because Dear Leader doesn't give a damn about the welfare of his people.

N Korea got a much better deal than Iraq. Why do you suppose that is?
N. Korea managed to go over 50 years without invading one of its neighbors, mainly because of the presence of US troops in S. Korea.

[FireGarden]

He wants one country to have the "right' to vote another out of existence. This would be like letting the citizens of the US, Canada, and Mexico vote to see which country gets to survive. Hey, looks like the USA just expanded peacefully! :rolleyes:

So there is something wrong with nations voting for independence/federalism/unity?

Yes, it's tragic that they can only vote for one terrorist group over another. Hamas or Islamic Jihad or Fatah? Tough choice...

None of which will have as much control of the lives of Palestinians as the Israeli government has. That's the point.


Since when? Jordan and Egypt used those areas to attack Israel, they lost the war and the territory. The West Bank and Gaza would stillbe part of those respective countries if they hadn't decided to get rid of those money-grubbing, Allah-dissin' Jews.


No, it's one of holding territory gained in a war.

Hold the territory. Israel is welcome to it as far as I'm concerned.

The issue is one of not giving citizens a right to vote on the government that controls their lives. That is not democracy.

If the West Bank and Gaza belong to Israel, then Israel operates a system of Apartheid. If those areas do not, then the remaining settlements are all illegal.

Doesn't matter what the past was. The current Palestinian state is for Muslims only, and they're fighting each other over which particular sect gets to be allowed to stay there. Sounds like a hellhole to me, but you have those rose-colored glasses on again.

The past does matter.
Especially if you want a solution to the current problem rather than sling mud and demonise.

[yairhol]

Hamas does not control their lives.
Yes they do. They people pay taxes to the Hammas government. What this money is being used for is Hammas' to decide. Can you guess what's it used for?
If you guessed correctly you would know why Israel stopped transferring humaniterian money to the Hammas and instead gives it to the Fatah which has Abbas as its leader and seems to want to take steps towards peace. (we can only hope so).


Hamas does not control borders; it does not control the import of essentials like food, fuel and electricity.

Palestinians do not have a state of their own since they have not proven they can maintain any kind of agreement between themselves. They fight eachother over who rules the territory. Then they increase the number of rockets fired to Israel. Would you give them a country so that Iran II can rise?

[yairhol]

FireGarden, you see the Palestinians as citizens of Israel and so must have the right to vote if Israel is a democracy. But they are NOT citizens of Israel. They are an ethnic group who want independence which Israel and the internation community want them to have. But this will happen IF and only IF they can prove that they are willing to settle down peacefully and not attack Israel with rockets and suicide bombers on a daily basis which forces Israel to retaliate (no country will sit quietly while its people are being targeted and murdered). This is the circle of death which has been going on for so long. And why don't they stop firing at Israel? Because they want the land that Israel resides on too. Hammas and Iran are the same in that they both want in the termination of Israel.
Do you know what poverty goes on in the Palestinian territories? Do you think it's because the world doesn't give them money to take care of themselves? The international community provides them with million and millions of dollars each year but that money is spent on weapons and war against eachother and against Israel.
Arafat has been known to have 100 million dollars in his bank account in Swiss (which his wife now has). He took large parts of the money given to the Palestinians to his own bank account because he did not really care about his people. The same is continuing now after he's gone.
I beg you to comprehend this. It is very sad and gives no hope to the region but those are facts and it's a reality.

[marksman]

Would you give them a country so that Iran II can rise?

If I thought they were only going to be as bad as Iran? Sure. Iran hated Iraq but never spent its free time and capital lobbing missiles into Iraq just to see who they could kill.

[FireGarden]

yairhol,
Luckily, there are Israelis who can see the truth of what is going on:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/press_releases/1190230043/

“With our own hands we are uniting a million and half people against us, in bitterness and hatred” says Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Bloc). “The inhabitants of the Gaza Strip are completely dependent on Israel for their most basic livelihood. This complete dependence was created, consciously and deliberately, by all governments of Israel since 1967. The state of Israel cannot now just shrug off its responsibility for the fate of the inhabitants of Gaza.”

I guess they meant morally, for that last, because in practise Israel does seem to be getting away with it.

[Darth Rotor]

yairhol,
Luckily, there are Israelis who can see the truth of what is going on:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/press_releases/1190230043/

I guess they meant morally, for that last, because in practise Israel does seem to be getting away with it.
FireGarden.

Somewhat OT, but what is a FireGarden? Garden, or Garten in German, is sort of like a yard, or a back yard, in American usage.

Fire Garden implies a yard or garden where one burns things. ( I looked up the Steve Vai album, and not being familiar with the music, don't get the ref.) Type is shown as progressive rather than metal, so nothing to see there.

What do you burn in your garden?

DR

[Gurdur]

FireGarden.
......What do you burn in your garden?


Probably raked-up leaves. You left out Azerbajain, which comes from the ancient Persian (Farsi) compound noun meaning "garden of burning flowers", a name resulting from the pre-1905 common spontaneous combustion of ever-released natural gas and oil fumes throught Azerbajain

[Darth Rotor]

Probably raked-up leaves. You left out Azerbajain, which comes from the ancient Persian (Farsi) compound noun meaning "garden of burning flowers", a name resulting from the pre-1905 common spontaneous combustion of ever-released natural gas and oil fumes throught Azerbajain

Cool! Thanks, Gurdur, for putting the E into JREF.

Azerbaijan is the original fire garden, if I understand you correctly. Did I get that right?

DR

[yairhol]

Azerbaijan is the original fire garden, if I understand you correctly. Did I get that right?

Thanks for staying on topic. :D

[Gurdur]

....Azerbaijan is the original fire garden, if I understand you correctly. Did I get that right?

In the world, yes. I don't know if FireGarden meant that or not.

Azerbaijan was a sacred land to the Zoroastrians of Persia and the Parsees of India because of that (huge amounts of vented natural gas spontaneously combusting all the time).

Of interest, Zoroastrian monasteries in Azerbaijan often had beds made out of hard-packed earth at least 4 feet high above ground, to stop the sleeper being asphyxiated by natural gas venting from the ground.

Azerbaijan is a weird place, and often full of angry dildos. However, Azerbaijani women and coffee are often simply beautiful.

[Darth Rotor]

Thanks for staying on topic. :D

Somewhat OT, but what is a FireGarden? Garden, or Garten in German, is sort of like a yard, or a back yard, in American usage.
I was trying to get a grip on relationship between handle and views on Israel, but seem to have gotten side tracked.

DR

[Gurdur]

see post just above yours, last one on last page (page 4).

[FireGarden]

You left out Azerbajain, which comes from the ancient Persian (Farsi) compound noun meaning "garden of burning flowers", a name resulting from the pre-1905 common spontaneous combustion of ever-released natural gas and oil fumes throught Azerbajain

That's interesting!
And no, nothing to do with why I chose the name.

Darth got that right with the Steve Vai reference.
I don't know why Vai chose the title for the album. The "concept" of the album is kind of like an autobiography -- the first track ends with a computerised whisper: "Hey. There are some things about me I think you should know. Now close your eyes and listen carefully." Then throughout the album Vai references various influences; even Prince at one point, which surprised me (track 13, btw "I want to tell you my secret... It's bad. Very, very bad.").

The FireGarden suite on the album is instrumental, and segues from Tim Rice's "Bangkok". Some of it sounds Indian, some heavy metal, and one part has a strummy piano -- possibly done by MIDI.

[JoeEllison]

That's interesting!
And no, nothing to do with why I chose the name.

Darth got that right with the Steve Vai reference.
I don't know why Vai chose the title for the album. The "concept" of the album is kind of like an autobiography -- the first track ends with a computerised whisper: "Hey. There are some things about me I think you should know. Now close your eyes and listen carefully." Then throughout the album Vai references various influences; even Prince at one point, which surprised me (track 13, btw "I want to tell you my secret... It's bad. Very, very bad.").

The FireGarden suite on the album is instrumental, and segues from Tim Rice's "Bangkok". Some of it sounds Indian, some heavy metal, and one part has a strummy piano -- possibly done by MIDI.
I had a feeling it was that...

[WildCat]

So there is something wrong with nations voting for independence/federalism/unity?
Yes or no: Should the citizens of the US, Canada, and Mexico be allowed to vote on whether or not all the oil in those 3 countries actually belongs entirely to the US? I vote yes! But can you see a problem here?

None of which will have as much control of the lives of Palestinians as the Israeli government has. That's the point.
Perhaps when the rockets stop flying and the bombs stop exploding in buses and cafes Israel won't feel so compelled to "control" them.

The issue is one of not giving citizens a right to vote on the government that controls their lives. That is not democracy.
Finally we agree! Since the Palestinians are not citizens of Israel they do not get to vote in Israeli elections.

If the West Bank and Gaza belong to Israel, then Israel operates a system of Apartheid. If those areas do not, then the remaining settlements are all illegal.
Nope. It is an occupied territory seized during a war, and is governed as such. And once the Palestinians decide to start acting like a civilized people instead of the large-scale Lord of the Flies scenario they're currently involved in they can live in their own prosperous state.

The past does matter.
Especially if you want a solution to the current problem rather than sling mud and demonise.
Big problem: The Palestinians want all of Israel. They'd be wise to take what they got (Gaza and the West Bank), but they apparently prefer endless war and suffocating poverty to living peacefully alongside Israel.

[gtc]

Yes or no: Should the citizens of the US, Canada, and Mexico be allowed to vote on whether or not all the oil in those 3 countries actually belongs entirely to the US? I vote yes! But can you see a problem here?

I want to emphasise this post.

In 1901 the seperate colonies in Australia united to form a single country after each colony voted in seperate referendums to join.

[FireGarden]

Yes or no: Should the citizens of the US, Canada, and Mexico be allowed to vote on whether or not all the oil in those 3 countries actually belongs entirely to the US? I vote yes! But can you see a problem here?

The thing your forgetting is that the US does not currently control the lives of Canadians and Mexicans. Israel has controlled the lives of Palestinians for 40 years without ever giving them a meaningful vote.

Nope. It is an occupied territory seized during a war, and is governed as such.

If it is an occupied territory, then the settlements are illegal.

[WildCat]

The thing your forgetting is that the US does not currently control the lives of Canadians and Mexicans. Israel has controlled the lives of Palestinians for 40 years without ever giving them a meaningful vote.
Funny, the US has controlled Puerto Rico for much longer than that, and they can't vote in US elections even though they're US citizens...

If it is an occupied territory, then the settlements are illegal.
I'm not a fan of the settlements, but Israel pulled 100% of the settlers from Gaza and if anything the attacks from Gaza increased. Why should they think it would be any different if they pulled the settlers from the West Bank?

[FireGarden]

Funny, the US has controlled Puerto Rico for much longer than that, and they can't vote in US elections even though they're US citizens...

I hadn't heard of Puerto Rico before.
But according to wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico#Political_status_within_the_United_Sta tes

Because it is not a state of the Union, federal elections are not held on the island, but everyone born in Puerto Rico is a US citizen and may vote in federal elections held in any state or incorporated territory as long as the citizen can claim residence in said state or incorporated territory.

Puerto Rico does participate in the internal political process of both the Democratic and Republican Parties in the United States, and delegates from the island vote in each party's national convention.

Not only that, they have a good deal more independence than the Palestinians.

I'm not a fan of the settlements, but Israel pulled 100% of the settlers from Gaza and if anything the attacks from Gaza increased. Why should they think it would be any different if they pulled the settlers from the West Bank?

You can hardly say that Gaza gained independence at that point. The international community doesn't regard the occupation as over:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5122404.stm

In 2005, Israel pulled out the troops occupying Gaza, along with thousands of Jews who had settled in the territory. As far as Israel was concerned that was the end of the occupation.

However, that has not been accepted internationally as Israel still exercises exclusive control over most of Gaza's land borders, as well as its territorial waters and airspace.

Not to mention that Israel didn't even attempt to make it look like the pullout was a concession to Abbas. No attempt to make it look like negotiation had worked.

Not surprising, then, that some saw it as a victory for armed resistance.