Iran brings Israel within missile range

[Herschel]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/weekly/newsnat-7jul2003-58.htm


"The Iranian Foreign Ministry says Iran has conducted a final test of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile.

The move now brings arch-enemy Israel well within range of the Islamic republic's armed forces.

The announcement has sparked immediate alarm in Israel, and comes as Iran's clerical leaders dig in on their refusal to allow tougher UN inspections of their civil nuclear program, seen by the US as a cover for nuclear weapons development.

"The test took place several weeks ago. The range of the missile is what we declared before," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said, adding the test was the final one before the missile was handed over for operation by the country's army."

Iran seems determined to go the way of Iraq

[plurality]

1. Well, I guess it's good for Israel Bush just took over Iraq

Now he just has to move them all east a few hundred miles.

[Herschel]

2. Please explain your comment

I don't understand.

[plurality]

3. as you said

Iran seems determined to go the way of Iraq, and I'm sure Bush will happily oblige them by attacking them sometime in the near future, so I guess everything works out for Israel since they won't have to worry about those rockets after we invade them.

[Herschel]

5. Israel is a close ally of this country

They are joined at the heart. A strong Israel supported by the United States is in the interest of both. When Iran threatens Israel, they threaten our interests.

[mhr]

6. How So?

Israel has no oil or other significant resources that are needed by the US. The US navy can destroy all known Islamic countries within minutes via nuclear ballistic missile submarines. So there is no strategic value to Israel.

[plurality]

7. since we can send our soldiers to fight and die to save Israeli lives

when will they come and die to save American lives? If Cuba started threatening us would the IDF invade Cuba to protect their good pals in the US? What about if Mexico or Canada invaded us, would Israel send an expeditionary force while we sit at home watching TV? I know it's ridiculous to say that Mexico, Canada, or Cuba could ever be a real threat to us. But if Israel is so scared of Iran, maybe it should get off its ass and do something about it itself.

[ex_jew]

8. Our "interests" - such an interesting word

But what does it mean ? I've heard someone say that Israel "protects the southern flank of NATO", which didn't mean much to me. Can you be more specific please ? Does support for Israel help MY/OUR country in some way that you can spell out ? Does it make our water cleaner, our workforce more competitive, our cities safer ? I'd really like something more definite than this "joined at the heart" business ?

[Herschel]

9. All of you listen

Israel stood ready to join the war on Iraq, unlike most of our allies. Israel was asked not to join the fighting! They did so. Most other allies simply refused. Israel is a reliable ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. It is admirable our country will stand behind little Israel.

[plurality]

11. I would just like to know how the relationship benefits America

Because I'm sure the Israeli people are great, and I wish them all the best, but I would like to know what the US gets out of sending money and soldier's lives to protect Israel, because there are plenty of other tiny countries with beautiful people that we throw to the wolves (East Timor for example).

[Herschel]

14. Did you read?

Israel is our country's most reliable ally. Is that worth nothing? Is a country like that worth supporting? If Canada or Britain were threatened, would we act? Would you want to?

[plurality]

15. nations don't have friends, they have interests

Look at France, our country wouldn't exist without them, but the minute they don't support our interests it's down the tubes for them. And then Germany and Japan, we spent the first half of last century kicking the shit out of each other and now we help each other, why? Because we needed them against the Soviets. International politics doesn't work like picking friends in real life where you are best friends with someone because you like the same music and play the same sports. It's a quid pro quo basis. So I know what Israel gets from us, I'd simply like to know what we get from them, and I know it's not because they're such swell people, after all like I said, look at all the other swell people we let the world shit upon. Or do you think Israelis are more deserving of our protection than Rwandans, East Timorese, Acheans, Cambodians, Kashmiris, Congolese, Algerians, Guatamalans, etc, etc, ad infinitum?

[Darranar]

31. What does Israel give us?

A place in the Middle East that is not unstable; a bastion that will not fall to Islamic fundamentalists any time soon. If allying with a country like that isn't worthwhile to or "interests" then tell me what is.
By the way, you're wrong. It is worthwhile to a country's interest to repay our friends. If we don't, they won't help us anymore. France is another example of Bush's bad diplomacy. Since when to you use Bush's diplomacy as a basis for what nations should do on a liberal forum?

[plurality]

35. I don't but all nations define their allies based on support of their inte

edit: last word of subject is interests

We alternated between ally and enemy to both France and Britain during the 19th Century based on how the relationship would benefit both nations. As I said, friends don't exist in international relations, because the world of nations is anarchy Hobbes style. And in the jungle your best friend is often the one who stabs you in the back. Doesn't mean I like it, just that that's the way the world works.

And do you really think Israel keeps the Middle East stable? I beg to differ, in fact I'd venture that Israel is one of the most destabalizing influences in the Middle East. Unless by stability you mean a constant state of paranoia, hatred, and despair for 99% of the regions popularity.

[Darranar]

36. I never said that...

Though that arguement could be made, I don't think it is true. I said that Israel was a stable place in the Middle East.

[plurality]

40. you think a nation in constant fear of...

suicide bombing that occupies the lands of several million hostile people is stable? Sorry it's still a powder keg, in Israel or the entire Middle East. And we supported Israel before the rest of the Middle East disintegrated, I don't believe that's the reason. Also, please read the edited addition and respond to that as well.

[Darranar]

43. It most certainly is stable...

Traffic accidents kill far more people in Israel than do suicide bombings. Its military is top-notch, and, being a democracy, there are few inside it taht would attempt to seize the government with military force.

[plurality]

45. I'm sorry I guess our thoughts on stability differ

to me it's a place where the likelyhood of terrorism is low and the army is within that nation's borders not occupying other territories. So not only would I not call Israel stable I would also withhold that tag from the US. I would say Canada is stable, Switzerland is stable, Norway is stable, hell even Mexico is stable, Israel no, they're on a razor's edge.

[Darranar]

47. They're far from the razor's edge....

Your point about stability is well taken, though. Perhaps relative stability is better.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. Mexico?

Sorry, but Mexico is ANYTHING but stable. Much of their population flees across the border and they had people in open revolution. Sorry, no dice. Israel is stable in that its government and people aren't going to undergo a major change.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. Mexico has had an open revolution?

Sorry, but being on the other side of the world, I didn't hear about this. When did it happen? What was it all about? As for some of the population 'fleeing', I was always under the impression they're trying to get into the US for economic reasons. Instability is things like we see in places like Indonesia, Zimbwabwe, Israel/Palestine etc, where there's things like governments on the verge of collapse, lawlessness on a massive scale, or troops of that nation occupying other territories. I just find it very hard to believe that Mexico would be an unstable nation because the US wouldn't allow it to happen. I think the US has some very good reasons to ensure that it's two closest neighbours, Mexico and Canada remain stable democracies. Whether they're wealthy or not is another totally different matter...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. The revolt

Violet

Here is an article on the Chiapas revolt that might help you.

http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/News/ChiapasRevoltMexico.html

And no matter why those people flee across the border, they do so in great numbers.

As for Israel, it's government is NOT at risk of collapasing. As a democracy, periodically its government does change, but the governmental structures stay the same.

[newyorican]

109. "those people"

:eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

130. Huh

The people who flee are indeed "those people." The people who stay are "those people who do not."

[Aidoneus]

80. zapatistas? *nt*

.

[Gimel]

79. Stability

Stability could relate to many areas:

Political stability: (is a coup likely? - No) Strong

Defensive stability: (Is an invasion from a foreign land likely? - Not likely but not inconceivable) (Would the military be able to defend the nation in case of attack? Yes, very likely) Strong

Economic Stability: (Is galloping inflation or severe depression likely? Not likely, as the economic factors are well monitored and controlled) weakened but still stable

Internal stability: (large gap in social and economic factors. Large disparity in income, social gaps prevelent. Conflict with Palestinians effects inter-cultural relations and social stability. ) Questionable

[Gimel]

188. No US soldiers in Israel

If you mean the Iraq war, and Iran (potential) war, Israel is not the only benefactor. If it were only Israel that was threatened, there would not have been a Gulf War I or II. Many claim the oil was the reason for the war (that leaves out Israel, except that Israel, like other oil consumers could profit by reduced prices).

Israel has not participated in either war, although was targeted by Saddam, as was Kuwait. While the removal of Saddam benefits Israel, as Saddam supported and financed terror against Israel, the region benefited, as did the world. Perhaps that fact isn't evident yet.

How does the US benefit from it's support of Israel? It backs Israel in the UN, blocking many anti-Israel resolutions. It supports Israel with financial and military aid (as it does many nations).

As a world leader, the US supports nations that it recognizes as politically supporting it's own goals and future. A world leader has to foster the political and social systems that benefits the people of the future, the social and economic principle that it believes will bring prosperity and peace.

No US soldiers fought in any of Israel's wars. The only war that Israel was attacked and didn't retaliate, was the Gulf War I. The US asked Israel not to respond to attack. No US soldiers fought for Israel. No US lives were given for Israel.

What's in it for the US? A reliable ally. A partner in peace. A democracy which promotes economic stability and increases ties with other nations. A county with a democratic future and a strengthening, open economy.

with the new world order, the European Union gaining economic strength, the US interest is promoting peace. Could the US work with the Palestinians or any Arab nation in the ME as effectively as with Israel? Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan with the help of US diplomacy. Israel will make peace with the Palestinians with US brokering. If the US wants peace in the ME, it must work with Israel. Otherwise, peace will not be achieved.

[ex_jew]

17. Israel was ready to take on Iraq ?

In case you haven't noticed, most people on this board see our adventure in Iraq as a BAD thing, and those who pushed for it or stood ready to join an illegal invasion/occupation as part of the problem. Speaking for myself, I see Bush's enablers as enemies of mankind, not someone to be rewarded.

BTW, I AM listening for specifics on what Israel has to do with US interests. So far I've heard nothing.

[plurality]

18. I'd venture to say

That Israel served our interests by being a polarizer for the Arabs to vent their anger and frustration on while we quietly slipped in the back door to suck them dry of oil. But since that wasn't working anymore we had to intervene directly and invade.

[Allah Akbar]

114. Yes, they certainly have

Bin Laden used the Palestinian's treatment as the basis for his Jihad which ended up getting 3000 people killed on 911.

Thanks Israel!

We really need more friends like that, don't we?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

116. however, the much bigger knot...

in Osama's knickers was AMERICAN troops on sacred SAUDI soil...

[The Magistrate]

117. That Is Something Of A Distortion, Mr. Akbar

Bin Laden's leading complaint is the presence of infidels in the Arabian Peninsula; these pollute the sacred sites of Islam there, apparently by breathing the air. Beyond this is his deep conviction the Saudi rulers there are not Moslem but Munafiqun, mere pretenders to Islam who in fact hypocritically follow the way of infidels. Agitation on behalf of Arab Palestinians began rather late in his career, and initially as merely one illustration of the manifold oppressions of Muslims around the globe he feels defines the modern world. As the current U.S. garrisons in Saudi Arabia date from Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, you might as well blame him as anything else, besides Bin Laden himself, for the attacks nearly two years ago on the United States.

[Aidoneus]

123. that is often said

Regarding bin Laden's gaining as of late the habit of mentioning the Palestinian cause in his recruitment pitches, I doubt it is ultimately true that his interest is as opportunistic as it is presented (though it does appear that way in certain respects). That overlooks the figure of his mentor in Afghanistan, the late Dr. Abdallah Azzam, Palestinian Islamic Nationalist by origin, and the inevitable influence of him at a far earlier period than is commonly said. :shrug:

[Darranar]

124. The Palestinian cause...

is a rallying point he uses to gather recruits. His true goal is the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia and the removal of the ruling family.

[The Magistrate]

127. That Is A Sound Point, My Friend

And you are well informed in these matters. It does seem that the origin of his organization was aimed at purifying the peninsula, though. Perhaps he is of the view the road to Jerusalem runs through Riyahd, so to speak: that only if the heartland is made whole will Allah smile sufficiently for victory in Palestine.

[Aidoneus]

129. indeed

For origins, "the base" began as actually just a collection list of names that were involved in the fighting, for the convenience of informating relatives of deaths and such; it later grew to be something of an address book when their plans changed. Indeed the "liberation" of Saudi Arabia rests at the top of their list, followed by the whole matter of Iraq, Palestine, and a growing list of others added/rotated/mentioned from time to time. Of course much of it is the politician's cheap games, "Look at me! I care too! Vote for me!" sort of thing. But yes, for all of their international repuation, more of their attention seems to be devoted to the "homeland", as it were.

One of the more striking examples of what Allah Akbar could have referred to was a sort of "confession video" from one of the hijackers, one of the Hedjazi by origin if I recall correctly, making his statement while wearing the checkered keffiyeh. Subtle way of getting an underlying point across, but effective..

I would say that US support and diplomatic immunity for Israeli actions (which of course go over in their circles even worse than they do here) did have a role in the "why", but would rather attribute a much greater part of the motive in bringing about a higher level on the conflict on every front;--essentially to draw in and tie down the US government/army into as many conflicts as it feels like getting itself into. On this matter the two camps seem to be mutually accomidating as of yet.

[Allah Akbar]

131. Well, I guess you don't know everything Magistrate

Bin Laden gave an interview to an ABC correspondent back in 1998 where he called the US to task for their support of Israel in regards to the Palestinians. So this crap about "he just started using the Palestinians as an excuse" is just that, crap.

He specifically said You are killing muslims by suppplying the Israeli's and therefore we are going to start killing you in return.

Our support of Israel very much has to do with the Jihad that has been declared against us.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims.

[Darranar]

132. What have we been saying?

Bin Laden uses the Palestinians as an excuse. He publicizes that for recruits. I support Israel because they are a democracy, unlike the Muslim countries in the Middle East.
I do not stand against the Palestinians. I stand against suicide bombers. I stand against terrorists who slaughter innocent civilians for no good reason. I stand against the Iraq war, because there is no justification for it, but I do stand in support of Israel defending itself from terrorism.

[GabysPoppy]

133. so Mr. Allah Akbar

"Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims."

Are you saying that you are now preparing your own bomb laden vest to detonate yourself in some city in the US. When can we expect the headline? Or are you prepping the next "Rachel Corrie" to become your martyr.

[Violet_Crumble]

134. It was a quote from the article....

So maybe you should be asking Bin Laden, but good luck finding him. I was a bit confused by those words in the post at first too, due to there being no dit-dits around them, but the comment of Bin Ladens is there about three-quarters of the way down the page that was linked to in the post...

Violet...

[GabysPoppy]

135. Why don't you take your own advice

"Darranar asked me a question and I answered him. Be careful if yr starting to make a habit of following me into sub-threads you haven't been involved in and shrieking accusations of being off-topic at me."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=62&mesg_id=62&page=#578

Aside from the fact you weren't asked the question

[Violet_Crumble]

161. I was pointing out the quote was by Bin Laden...

Oops. Sorry. I was working on the assumption that people here actually do judge people on what they actually say themselves, but it looks yet again like I was wrong. The poster wasn't saying that they themselves supported suicide bombings, and all things considered, I thought someone at least might be interested in knowing that the poster wasn't saying they themselves supported suicide bombings, and that it might avert a flurry of alerts. Sorry if I spoiled the party, but knowing that the poster hadn't said that they supported suicide bombings, yr question was the same as me asking you if you've given up raping little old ladies yet...

Head. Sand. Stick it back in. :)

Violet...

[Allah Akbar]

139. Hmmmmm

Well, if they come into my house and kick me out and then say it doesn't matter because I'm a non-person, I might think about it.

Funny, you deride those who strap a bomb to themselves, do you hold the same derision to those that walk into mosque during worship and open up with an M-16? Does using a gun make them braver and more legitimate?

I don't support either one.

I edited to add that I call myself this nickname because I believe that God IS great and there is no man or people on this earth that speaks in his name, Christian, Muslim, or Jew.

It sickens me that people would claim to be God's chosen people, which flat out means everyone not of that group is below them in regards to humanity. I din't like it when the Nazis espoused it, I won't put up with from a Christian or a Muslim and I'm not going to accept it from someone that happens to be Jewish either.

[GabysPoppy]

142. Your knowledge and understanding of the term "Chosen People"

is amazingly ignorant and I would suggest you do some research into it's actual meaning.
You seem to have accepted the version espoused mainly by anti-semitic people and I am sure you don't want to be associated with them.

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

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

[The Magistrate]

146. You Do Not Think Too Deeply On These Matters, Mr. Akbar, Clearly

You conflate here a number of distinct doctrines.

The Nazi view has nothing in common with others you name, and no connection at all to divinity as generally conceived. The Nazi belief was in an inherent spiritual and physical superiority of the Aryan as opposed to the Jew, with all noble and creative and good inherent in the former, and all base and immitative and evil inherent in the latter. It was not a particularly well-thought out system, with a variety of ad hoc explainations improvised to account for various other peoples seperate from the core schemata; many of these contradict one another on close examination, and make appeal to a variety of pseudo-scientific notions from both biology and occultisms current in the 19th century.

The Jewish view is that the diety chose them to be the subjects of divine law for no real reason save a demonstration of the diety's willfullness and power, specifically excluding any idea that it was the result of any particular merit inherent to the people selected for the fate. Their obedience to divine law, and the resultant divine favor that would be shown them, was to serve as an example to all other peoples of the diety's power, and eventually, of the claim there was no other diety save that one. The punishments inflicted on the people for disobedience to divine law were to serve as a similar example of the diety's power, and of there being no other diety save that one.

The Christian view is that those who choose to believe in the divinity of the diety's begotten son and the sacrifice of same for their sins are in turn chosen by the diety for salvation. A variety of sects believe various ramifications of this core belief, differing in such matters as to whether such favor is shown only after death, or reflected in life in this world, or in whether those who will so believe and be saved are preordained to do so, and those who will not so believe and be damned are similarly predestined. It is very difficult to winkle out from the hodge-podge any coherent idea of superiority or constituting a chosen people, save in the sense that the faith claims to be in exclusive possession of the truth concerning diety and the purpose of that diety.

As every Islamic cleric who issues a fatwa claims to be speaking on behalf of diety, as do the various radicals such as Bin Laden, your denunciations of these pretensions is eagerly awaited.

[Allah Akbar]

172. Yeah, I get your whole MO, Mr Magistrate Sir

I'm not a deep thinker like you.

Just kill all those radical wretches already so we can concentrate on cleaning out this shithouse we currently call the United States of America.

[Gimel]

170. Please clarify

Well, if they come into my house and kick me out and then say it doesn't matter because I'm a non-person, I might think about it.

It sickens me that people would claim to be God's chosen people, which flat out means everyone not of that group is below them in regards to humanity. I din't like it when the Nazis espoused it, I won't put up with from a Christian or a Muslim and I'm not going to accept it from someone that happens to be Jewish either.

You have chosen to use frequent misinterpretations of the fact. In the first case, I believe it is over all incorrect. During conflict that was imposed, some Arab Moslems were forcefully evicted from the Jewish portion of the partition. Alluding to Baruch Goldstein's acts as representative of Israel is also taking a biased view.

In the second statement, you are refering to a referance that was attributed to G-d in what Christians call the Old Testament. As G-d's chosen people, Jews are obliged to follow a difficult religious path, and it does not mean that they are above other people. The egotistic interpretation is forbidden by Jewish principles.

[Allah Akbar]

171. I don't believe I have

and right back at you.

I did not IMPUNE that Goldstein's actions were representative of all Jews. Nice attempt to put words in mouth to make me appear "racist". I hope you don't think a suicide bomber is representative of all Arabs, but judging by many of the Pro-Israel posters I think that that is indeed the case, hence my distaste over comments about "radical wrtches".

In the second statement, you are refering to a referance that was attributed to G-d in what Christians call the Old Testament. As G-d's chosen people, Jews are obliged to follow a difficult religious path, and it does not mean that they are above other people. The egotistic interpretation is forbidden by Jewish principles.

blah, blah, blah I guess what is why Sephardic Jews in Israel even complain about how they are discriminated against. How the Palistinians are treated shouldn't even have to be brought up.

Oh, that's right, I forget, there was never any such place as Palistine, hence Palistinians don't exist, hence my statement Well, if they come into my house and kick me out and then say it doesn't matter because I'm a non-person, I might think about it.

[The Magistrate]

136. The Statement Is A Mere Pretext, Mr. Akbar

At the time it was made, matters were relatively peaceful in regards to Israel v. Palestine: indeed, an outbreak of peace would be fatal to these radical wretches.

Political figures, Mr. Akbar, including revolutionists and anti-imperialists and self-proclaimed holy men, lie like dogs on a rug. It is the essential tool of the trade; the lie is to the politico what the rifle is to the soldier. It is only by actions you can track intent. There has certainly been no direct action by Al Queda in support of Arab Palestine: no attack on Israel, no significant monetary or other support to any armed body of Arab Palestinians. The principal efforts of the body were expended in Kashmir and Afghanistan; other attacks were executed in East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Only after the attacks on New York and D.C. were there any attacks on Jews or travelling Israelis, even.

Do you, by the way, Mr. Akbar, agree with the sentiments you have quoted above?

[Allah Akbar]

137. Um, I believe those are Bin Laden's words

from the link directly over the words. Given in respose to your claim that Bin Laden is just using the Palistinians as an "excuse". He has been saying this very thing for many years. Believe it or not, killing Muslims might kind of piss other Muslims off, even if they aren't sending them cash.

I guess you are just so smart that you just KNOW that Bin Laden is just using the Palistinians as an excuse. Is your last name Kreskin, perchance?

So he only REALLY feels that way about the Palistinians if he is sending them money? Carrying on with your "logic", if only thing that proves a person supports something is if they are sending them money, that means that we (the USA) truly DO support the Israeli's in their killing of Palistinians.

Yes, I agree with you, "an outbreak of peace would be fatal to these radical wretches". Nice "sentiments" on you part. It would be fatal to the "radical wretches" that happen to reside in Israel as well. That you could even utter a statement like that shows that you are not the unbiased person you hold yourself out to be.

As for my own personal sentiments:

Yes, I DO believe the US government is the largest terrorist organization in the world, and, among their many terrorist endeavors, support a repressive regime in Israel.

Do you have a problem with that? Do I need to watch what I say, Mr Fliescher? It may be against the law to be against Israeli policy everywhere else in the world, but they haven't gotten that law passed here yet. Not for lack of their trying, to give them credit.

Zionism and Israel is not Judaism in my opinion. Judaism is a religion. Israel is a COUNTRY, NO BETTER than any other and certainly no worse than many others, like our own country for example.

Is this acceptable? I hope so, because I'm sure not changing my opinions, even if they pass a law that says you cannot think that Israel is wrong in what they do.

[The Magistrate]

156. The Koran-Wrapped Swine Speaks To A Journalist, Mr. Akbar

He says something he thinks will enhance his recruiting appeal when he does: so what? Do you feel this wretched pig speaks truth whenever he opens his jaws? 1998 is rather late in his career of religious insurrectionism. This, once the matter of Soviets in Afghanistan concluded, took for its focus the Arabian peninsula, his homeland. This remains his focus, it seems.

Your attempt at refutation selects but one of the mentioned elements serving to me to demonstrate real intent, and leaves out the other two elements of direct attack on Israel or provision of weapons to those who do. Neither of these things has been provided by Bin Laden to the various armed bodies of Arab Palestine, anymore than money has. In fine, no material assistance whatever has been provided by Bin Laden to the fighting bodies of Arab Palestine against Israel, not even trained personnel. That posturing against Israel is useful to such a wretch in his current career is beyond doubt, but he has done nothing practical to assist that struggle, and therefore it cannot be too high a priority of the pig's.

Your sense of personal persecution in this matter is sad, Sir. As near as your comments can be reduced to sense, you seem to expect to say whatever you please and find in response nothing but agreement and praise for your fervid perspicacity. Any disagreement with you, you seem to feel stifles and prevents your expression, and is likely to originate from government functionaries, or to reflect a desire that you be gaoled for the cut and paste sloganeerings you spout. You will not find an "amen corner" here, Mr. Akbar: quite the contrary.

You have also evaded the direct question you were asked. The statement you quoted contained a number of particulars, most noteably a claim that in attack against his enemies, this pig admitted no obligation to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, that anyone could be freely killed by the righteous in his jihad. Do you agree with the sentiments expressed by Bin Laden, Mr. Akbar? Do you think he has done well to do what he did; do you think he was right to do it?

[Violet_Crumble]

163. A question...

If I quote someone like Bin Laden etc, is it then going to be demanded of me to say whether I agree with them or not? I didn't realise that producing quotes from someone (in this case it was to show that Bin Laden had been talking about the Palestinians much earlier than what I'd thought) would mean that one gets barraged with questions about whether someone agrees with the sentiment no matter how vile it is. Bugger that for a joke. I guess in future to be safe, I either won't quote anyone on anything or give up on this forum altogether. Right now option #2 is looking really attractive, because I didn't realise when I came somewhere in hopes that there'd be genuine and constructive discussion that people would be hounded not on what they personally think, but what on other people (in this case Bin Laden) say. I'm seriously dissillusioned right now...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

166. He answered the question several hours before you posted that...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=96&mesg_id=96&page=#768

So of course he didn't evade the direct question he was asked....

[The Magistrate]

167. Mr. Akbar, Ma'am

Referenced only one portion of a rather feotid chunk: he indicated his agreement that the U.S. government is the greatest terrorist organization in the world. That is a trifle many here believe. The meat of the morsel out of Bin Laden's mouth was left untouched; he left unclear whether in consequence of this, he agreed with the remainder, namely the claim that in fighting this U.S. terrorism, no distinction needed to be made between civilian and military, and further, that such indiscriminant killing should be considered a religious duty. These seem to me points of at least equal stature with the first: indeed, a man of spirit who agreed with the first might well be driven to agreement with the second, or what is his detestation of such a tremendous terrorist enterprise as the U.S. government worth? The question of whether or not it is a religious duty is also pertinent, particularly where someone has spoken disparagingly of those who say they speak for the diety.

[Violet_Crumble]

168. The question WAS answered...

And as I told you elsewhere, what I saw being done to Mr. Akbar was a case of hounding. If you want to take the author of a comment to task, then go find Bin Laden and do it, but don't pretend that those comments are the thoughts of someone posting a quote and treat them accordingly...

[Allah Akbar]

174. You don't want to practice what you preach

he agreed with the remainder, namely the claim that in fighting this U.S. terrorism, no distinction needed to be made between civilian and military, and further, that such indiscriminant killing should be considered a religious duty.

Do the bombs, planes and tanks we give to the Israelis only hit military objectives then? Do no granmothers and children get killed from these weapons?

Here's an idea; just call the civilians killed by Bin Laden "collatoral damage", then it will be ok for ya.

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

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

[Gimel]

144. Quite...

the alternative explanation. Does it explain how bin Laden became wealthy enough to buy the Taliban?

:crazy:

It doesn't explain how the Saudis became rich the Princes who own several million dollars worth of assets in NYC. (Even tried to buy off Guiliani). According to this theory, if it wasn't for Israel, the Iraqis would have kept their oil. But they wouldn't have many cars to drive.

[Herschel]

22. So

A powerful and dependable ally in a dangerous region of the world is of no use? A friend that stands behind us means nothing? Tell me, what is it Israel should be doing to qualify itself as a worthy ally?

[ex_jew]

23. What should Israel do ?

They could return to the pre-67 borders, thereby defusing a long-standing grievance. That would really be useful.

[Herschel]

24. That may be negotiated

In good time.

[Darranar]

38. They could...

And abandon East Jerusalem and other holy sites to desecration. Hmmm, I wonder why Israel would never accept?

[plurality]

42. those holy site managed to escape desecration

for 19 years before Israel captured them, not to mention the other 1900 years Arabs controlled, so I think their fears on that matter are baseless.

[Darranar]

48. Excuse me...

I guess you are NOT aware of panels from old synagogues being driven into the sidewalk during the Jordanian occupation of East Jerusalem? Nor of the actions, even during Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank, to desecrate Jewish holy sites all throughout the West Bank? Anyway, don't Jews deserve access to the holy sites in the West Bank, Palestinian state or not?
Whatever else you can say about Israel, it has always granted access to Muslim holy sites to Muslims and it has treated them with respect. That respect is guaranteed by Israel's declaration of independence.

[plurality]

49. no I was not aware of that

I assumed that if they were going to desecrate the sites they would have destroyed them completely, and yes I do think that Jews deserve access to the site. I imagine this would be a precondition before Israel would give up control over the area. Of course in reality the city should be under international control to ensure all relgions have access to their respective sites.

[Darranar]

50. I agree with you...

East Jerusalem should really be under just international control. In that case, however, no one should be moved. Free access to all holy sites should be granted to everyone, including Jews, Muslims, and Christians, and the Temple Mount should no longer be as closed off as it is now.

[Gimel]

118. Yes and Joseph's tomb should be...

The Jewish holy sites such as Racheal's tomb, which is currently in danger, and Joseph's tomb which has not only been desecrated, but all but obliterated as well, should be assessable, as should the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron.

Joseph, son of Patriarch Jacob and Matriarch Rachel, was buried outside the Biblical city of Shechem, and his gravesite remained outside the city for about 3,500 years. However, creeping Arab construction in the past three decades gradually led to the creation of an Arab neighborhood in Shechem around the site. Despite this, a yeshiva - Yeshivat Od Yosef Chai - was founded and operated there with dozens of students until almost three years ago.

Israeli rights to enter the small compound were guaranteed under the Oslo Accords, even though Shechem was to be under control of the PA. However, in a battle during the first days of the Oslo War, in October 2000, the IDF retreated from the site - and has not been in control since. Border Guard policeman Madhat Yusuf bled to death during that battle, leading to accusations that the IDF had abandoned a wounded soldier.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=45894

[Classical_Liberal]

148. I see you have contructed a strawman

when nobody was talking about denying them access to these sites in the first place.

[Darranar]

159. I think that...

desecrating them counts as denying access to them.

[GabysPoppy]

51. You are incorrect about this

I saw the devestation of many holy places myself right after the 1967 war. Jordan was not a model keeper of the holy places.

[plurality]

52. yes Darranar already mentioned this

I was unaware this occured.

[sabbat hunter]

86. desecration

those holy sites did NOT escape desecration before israel captured them.

jordan refused entry of jews into the old city between 1948-1967 and had homes and shops built on the site of the western wall, those were torn down to allow prayers when israel captured the old city in 1967.

one could even argue they descecrated it even earlier by building mosques on top of the ruins of the temples.

imagine if an mosque was ruined and someone tried to build a church or synagogue on top of it today.

peace
david
:hippie:

[newyorican]

111. bring on the red heifer!

Where did I put that darn cornerstone??

"imagine if an mosque was ruined and someone tried to build a church or synagogue on top of it today."

Hmmm, why imagine?

[The Magistrate]

113. The 'Red Heifer', Sir

Is a red herring in this context. Jews have as much right as anyone to worship at sites they feel sacred. Moslem authority in this place is exerted by no more right than that of antient conquest, which succeeding conquerors have felt it too much trouble to overthrow.

The existence of a clique of fanatic Jews and Christians cannot be used as an excuse to bar Jews from the remnant of the Temple, and the Al Aksa mosque, after all, is hardly ruined today.

[Allah Akbar]

138. Again, more selective ignoring of what doesn't support your POV

http://www.templemountfaithful.org/obj.htm

Long Term Objectives

Liberating the Temple Mount from Arab (Islamic) occupation. The Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque were placed on this Jewish or Biblical holy site as a specific sign of Islamic conquest and domination. The Temple Mount can never be consecrated to the Name of G-d without removing these pagan shrines. It has been suggested that they be removed, transferred to and rebuilt at Mecca.

Consecrating the Temple Mount to the Name of G-d so that it can become the moral and spiritual center of Israel, of the Jewish people and of the entire world according to the words of all the Hebrew prophets. It is envisioned that the consecration of the Temple Mount and the Temple itself will focus Israel on (a) fulfilling the vision and mission given at Mt. Sinai for Israel to be a chosen people separate unto G-d, a holy nation, and a nation of priests, and (b) becoming a light unto all the nations so that the Name of G-d may be revered by all nations and the Biblical way of life may be propagated throughout the world.

Rebuilding the Third Temple in accordance with the words of all the Hebrew prophets. This temple will be a house of prayer for the people of Israel and all nations.

Providing a Biblical point of assembly in order that all Israel may fulfill the commandment to assemble three times annually at the times of G-d's festivals and at the place where G-d established His Name forever.

Making Biblical Jerusalem the real, undivided capital of the state of Israel.

Rejecting false "peace talks" which will result in the dividing of Israel and the breaking of G-d's covenant. G-d promised to Abraham and to his seed that the land and the borders of Israel are eternal and cannot be divided and given to other people and nations.

Supporting the settlements in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the Golan Heights as they are holy. No one is allowed to break the Word and the Will of G-d by commanding the settlers to leave. In the Biblical era, G-d commanded the people of Israel to settle the land completely. This command is applicable today. The holy connection and covenant between G-d, the People of Israel and the Land of Israel is eternal.

It's just a red herring though, I forgot.

[The Magistrate]

143. Certainly There Are Fanatics Who Desire This

They lack any power to put their dream into motion, and you are well aware of that. There are small cliques in the United Staes who dream of shipping various minority groups back to their ancestral continents, and publish detailed manifestoes on the topic: they bear a little watching, but no one imagines the prospect of such actions looms likely tomorrow.

You leave unaddressed the question of whether or not Jews ought to have free access to a place they consider holy. You leave unaddressed the question of what right believers in Islam have to take such umbrage at others exercising their own religious faiths in proximity to a site sacred to themselves. Leave alone the question of what makes valid the authority of the Wafq in this locale.

[Allah Akbar]

176. No, I am not well aware of that

In fact I am aware that these very people are quite powerful and influencial and that is one of the main causes of the unrest that exists there today.

If they were such a fringe group they would not be traveling around the world in official GOI vehicles with flags on the fenders bringing home "The Lost Tribes" to settle on Palistinian land.

[Classical_Liberal]

149. well then you should also be offended the muslim sites are spoken

of as desecration. The muslims didn't kick the jews out of the holy land. It was the Romans.

[The Magistrate]

154. Your Meaning Is Unclear, Sir

"Are spoken of as desecration"?

If you mean, is agitation to destroy the Al Aksa acceptable, then, no, it is not. You know perfectly well, having been long active here, that fundamentalists of any stripe are anathema to me. But that is not the question that has arisen. What tolerance is to be shown for barring of Jews from worship at sites they hold sacred is the question. This was routinely done during the Jordanian occupation of East Jerusalem, and such worship is even today limited by the chimerical authority of the Wafq, backed by disinclination to deal with mobs that can be counted on to arise if this is ignored. What, Sir, is your view in that matter?

[Classical_Liberal]

157. NewYorken said "Bring on the Red Hiefer" in responce to a person

who said "one could even argue they descecrated it even earlier by building mosques on top of the ruins of the temples.

imagine if an mosque was ruined and someone tried to build a church or synagogue on top of it today."

That seemed a appropriate responce to this statement, and you called it a "red herring"

If very much looked like sympathy for the temple institute.

My view is that israeli apologist are completely blind the fanatics in their own camp. The policies of israel are the policies of the fanatics, but they are denied.

[The Magistrate]

158. A Jew, Sir

Might well feel the building of a mosque at that spot desecrated the remnant of their ancient structure.

When an existing tradition is appropriated, as Islam has done, these situations are bound to arise.

Mr. Darranar seemed to me to be proposing a mere thought experiment to demonstrate this point, not expressing support for the fanatic clique referenced: it seemed quite clear he expected the answer to be along the lines of "of course that would be viewed as desecration."

The existence of this particular fanatic group has no relevance to a discussion of the freedom of Jews to worship at places they deem holy.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

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

[Classical_Liberal]

147. Desecration? Why would the muslims desecrate their own

sites. They are an abrahamic faith like the Jews and the Christians.

[Darranar]

160. Not all...

of those sites are Abrahamic. Joseph's tomb is not, and none of the old synagogues in Jerusalem are.

[Classical_Liberal]

180. Most of the heros in the bible including Joseph are also

spoken of in the Koran.

[Gimel]

192. Which Joseph

There is a Joseph who appears in the Christian Bible, and there is a Joseph, son of Jacob and Rachel, who was sold into slavery and became powerful in the reign of an Egytian Pharoh.

Perhaps it is the Joseph, father of Jesus that is mentioned in the Koran.

Joseph, son of Jacob (Israel) buried in the tomb that I was speaking of, now in the Palestinian West Bank. His body was brought for burial by his descendants, as noted in the Torah.

[Classical_Liberal]

145. They don't stand behind us. They solicite us for foriegn aid

and make us targets by using it for settlements. I could live very easily without that. We stand behind them primarily because of their lobbying power here in America.

[Gimel]

27. Israel took out

Iraq's nuclear power reactor in 1981, Of course that was not under US direction, so maybe it doesn't count as assistence.

Israel sent a medical and disaster relief team to the LA earthquake, also to quakes in Mexico and Guatamala. Israel offered to help with the search and rescure at the WTC after 9/11 but the offer was refused. Other humanitarian efforts have been undertaken by Israel, such as disaster relief in India after the earthquake there, and the flooding in Mozambique.

"In all, over 140 countries/authorities have benefited from the State of Israel's international humanitarian aid.

"In the mid-1990s, having provided emergency aid to disaster victims in Argentina, Armenia, Russia, Rwanda, Bosnia and other nations, the need arose for Israel to establish a permanent humanitarian and emergency aid unit. In July 1995, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Israel Defense Forces formally established such a unit. Since then, the unit has carried out operations in Kenya, Albania, Macedonia, Mexico, Afghanistan, Poland, Congo, Vietnam and many other countries."
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0mgv0

[plurality]

29. Thank you

This information goes does a lot more to win an argument than 'joined at the heart'.

[Aidoneus]

73. OSIRAK, you mean

Just off hand, do you know how many nuclear bombs they could've put together out of that place? It's a nice round figure. That has to do with the model of the plant itself and the difference between light-water and heavy-water/graphite-moderated reactors; OSIRAK being the former, and Dimona (to my knowledge never inspected except by a deceived US crew a loooong time ago) and the original Indian reactor built by the French(Dimona) & Canadians(Indian) being the latter. Hypocrisy much?

[sabbat hunter]

85. 1982

dont forget that in 1982 or so israel attacked and destroyed a nuclear facility being built in iraq.
at the time iraq was a US "ally" so we condemned it. if israel hadnt done that, iraq truly would have had WMD, instead of the fabricated ones that * made up.

i believe that if israel was truly worried about iran having a nuclear bomb,they would have attacked them as well.

peace
david
:hippie:

[newyorican]

110. don't forget the featherless chicken...

that alone... :shrug:

[Aidoneus]

19. like that's a good thing?

That they would be a party to that aggression is an argument against them, not for.

[Herschel]

20. Israel stood beside us

If some opposed the war, that is their opinion. Other so called allies refused, yet no one here will question our alliance with them. Why is it Israel supports us, and is scorned here, then France, that opposed us, is defended?

[plurality]

21. because France was RIGHT to oppose the war

my scorn is not limited to only Israel on this matter. There is no shortage of scorn from me for the likes of Tony Blair, Aznar, whoever the leader of Poland is, and any other toady that supported that idiotic venture.

[Aidoneus]

26. a bit confused on this "us"..

but that's a whole other story..

...no one here will question our alliance with them...

On the contrary, I would question anyone who allies themselves to the US government--head of a world order typically composed of the most desperate collection of dictators and clowns gathered together under one banner since the Romans, today and yesterday no exception (and probably tomorrow as well unless something is seriously altered). I suppose my approach turns your question around.

...then France . . . is defended...

Though they were more or less generally correct during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq (their toothless opposition all the same accomplished nothing, for all of the sound and fury it gets for it), you will rarely see me defending the French government (though their occasional/temporary independent streaks are something I like about them). Paris is one of the coolest cities in the world, however, and unlike the more easily manipulated of my countrymen I have no problems with the French.

As for your last question, I guess it is just so that a campaign of lies, aggression, and murder is seen by some as something to oppose, and from others as something to support. In my opinion, the latter warrant more suspicion.. :shrug:

[Herschel]

28. I overstepped

When I said no one. I should have said criticism of Israel is far more prevelant than France, when it is Israel that supported us. Us being the United States.

[Aidoneus]

30. well, this "us" a lot of things.

In some other places (online or whatever), you will see only the most virulent hatred of the French and blind praise of Israel. Generalizations like this don't work..

Here, for instance, things that Israel supports "us" on (and vise versa) are not too popular, thus you see a fair bit of criticism for it. The French state itself isn't as destructively active in the world as of the last couple decades (with a couple notable exceptions), unlike "us & Israel", and are thus treated differently.

[Herschel]

56. I should be more clear

When I mourned the lack of support for Israel as opposed to France, I was referring to this discussion board.

[Aidoneus]

58. ok

I basically got what you meant there, but I broadened the topic to hint at the idea that because people are different they tend to think differently about various things. In response to your other post, I think you should stay here. Such disagreements are a) not something to be disturbed by, b) not something one should be driven off by. :shrug:

[Herschel]

59. Different opinions are different opinions

But when I am told such things as homicide bombers are heroes, I am truly repulsed.

[Aidoneus]

60. that's one person

I hear a lot of people calling the US soldiers running around Iraq "heroes", but I'm not about to move to Finland about it (though I wouldn't mind moving there for other reasons, but that's neither here nor there).. :shrug:

[Darranar]

61. US soldiers and suicide bombers...

are far from morally equivalent. Must I say more?

[Aidoneus]

62. You're totally right there.

They are certainly not equivalent:--US soldiers in Iraq in the last few months have killed 10x the amount of civilians than all of the Palestinian human bomb assaults, and have done so in a fraction of the time period. They are in no way equivalent on those regards.

[Darranar]

63. Yet...

A US soldier who fights in Iraq and helps people is not morally equivalent to a suicide bomber who walks onto a bus, blows himself up, and kills a dozen people.
There are plenty of both.

[Aidoneus]

64. and helps people?!

helps them into their grave, perhaps--and as I pointed out a few minutes previous, filling graves much quicker than Sheikh Yassin's motley crew can. The air force has bombed busses and markets too, don't they deserve the same reaction?

And anyway, I never brought the concept of morality into this, but rather the ultimately analogous comparison of actions (motives differ, however, due to the situations themselves not being similar).

[Darranar]

66. So, you are saying...

that every American soldier that went to Iraq kills innocent civilians mercilessly and enjoys doing it? Not supporting the war is justified, but hating the veterans who participate in it is going too far.

[bemildred]

69. Remove the "every" and you've got it. nt

.

[Aidoneus]

70. um

on edit: wrong place to comment on this, but I just noticed that you can edit subject headers now!!

Do focus on what I have, in fact, said--re-read it if you have to. (I would think that what I do say at such times is notable enough without the need to fictionalize..) You're in partially the right direction, I suppose, but I'm sucker for exacts when it comes to my own words and there are things you say that I did not. Maybe some of them enjoy it, one notable dude has come to see himself as chemotherapy and that murder cures what he sees as national cancer, and other such demented things.

Ultimately, on the one hand they are there to ensure that the lands and people of Iraq (and perhaps some of the neighboring countries in a couple years) are under the directing control of the US government and to mold its future status in a way that serves our government and business sectors, and on the other hand to psychologically and violently strike at a portion of those who aren't in favour of that goal. I say a portion, so as to convince the rest who live to back off--standard tactics of what is referred to as "terrorism" or war in the past and ultimately has a 0% success rate in the long run of any event in world history that does not end in genocide.

I don't think that's noble, they're a willing party to a violent aggression without any motive other than greed and opportunistic political diversion. (and yes, I know the patriotic slogans and politicians suggest otherwise, but I'll delight in popping that little bubble..) I don't hate them for it--that was your phrase, not mine--, but I won't call what they're doing noble or them heroes as so many others do. The point I was making there was that one will often run into things they disagree with, people should not assume that their view is to be the centre of all and run away at the deviation of opinions. If you disagree on something, ok, and since this is a "discussion" board that's an easy thing to start a discussion on.

True the situation in Palestine is different, but ultimately the acts are the same:--killing because somebody who you take orders from says so. That's what IDF soldiers do as well, but they also managed to leave shit in the fax machines once (macabre brownie points for that). That anyone would put themselves in the position of signing their will away to a hierarchy is something I can not respect and I don't really differentiate between the ultimately analogous groups that do ultimately analogous acts (the flags and slogans may be slightly different from case to case). I believe it was Herschel who said on DU1 a day or two back that "murder is murder and it should be condemned no matter what the Cause is" (I mangled that paraphrase, but the basic message is the same).

[Darranar]

76. They do what they are told...

and they fight for the US. Some kill innocents by accident, others on purpose, but the great majority of them have never killed anybody, innocent civilian or no.

[Aidoneus]

115. Yes, I covered "they do what they are told" before

On that note, "I was just following orders" didn't play off too well when it was tried a time or two back, but that's another story.

It's somewhat disheartening to write out a series of 4-5 paragraph posts to get 1-2 liners in response..




this happened by accident, I'm sure. (probably mangled that image, for it was 3 links to line up, but..)

[Darranar]

119. I meant...

that you cannot blame the soldiers for following orders in the confusion of battle. Many civilians have died, yes. But you cannot blame every soldier for the death of every civilian. Plenty have never fired their guns, and many others have never killed anyone.

If you blame the entity of the US military as a whole for the actions of their commanders or the actions of a few people, then why can you not blame the Palestinians for the actions of their crooked leaders and suicide bombers? The war was wrong, but that does not mean the soldiers are evil.

[Gimel]

189. Really?

Since the number or Israelis killed by suicide bomb attacks stands today at 349, that would mean that by your account more that 3,490 or about 3,500 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the opening of the war in Iraq.

570 Israeli civilians in all attacks have died since September 29, 2000.

[Aidoneus]

190. actually it's possibly twice that.

570 in 35 months, between 6058->7711 in 7 months. Not coincidentally, I place greater weight the latter, for on the one hand it is both funded by my dime and far greater in scale and destructive effect, and then receives support and/or praise from many--even here.

[Gimel]

191. The innocent deaths

are not to be flaunted. Israel's deaths were not incurred with fighting, not he victims of these attacks. The total number of victims is about 750. And thre times maybe on the Palestinian side. But were talking about a smaller scale conflict. It's just magnified in the public's eye. Often one incident gets retold over and over, turning it into something three times what it is.

There are also the many more injured who will be disable for the rest of their lives.

How much greater it would be if there was peace, people could get along, where ever they are. Not saying "hey, you're in my territory! Get out!"

[tinnypriv]

194. It would be great

"How much greater it would be if there was peace, people could get along, where ever they are. Not saying "hey, you're in my territory! Get out!"

Shame that was virtually the policy of the Zionist organisations in 1948 wasn't it?

[The Stranger]

34. Herschel, do stick around.

Your posts are entertaining. Perhaps trying to portray the world's fourth or fifth most powerful nuclear power and nation as a "little" victim on these boards would be foolhardy, if only it rose to that level.

[Darranar]

41. Herschel...

knows what he's talking about. Contrary to finding his posts "amusing," I find them enlightening. They are reasonable and have thought behind them... Unlike the posts of a few people I could name.

[The Stranger]

81. Whatever. Sticking around will be good for him.

We'll educate him. Then maybe he'll take it upon himself to go see how the other half lives.

[Herschel]

57. I would like to stay

But the anti-Israel sentiment here is surprising and disappointing.

[Andromeda]

72. There is strong anti-Israel sentiment

on this forum, Herschel, but that is why we need your comments. You bring a balance that is so badly needed here.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. Yeah, Hershel! What Andromeda said and more!

Love ya, babe! Don't you ever stop yr speaking of the truth against those progressive anti-Israel, anti-American, anti-whatever naysayers who think that they can get away with legitimate criticisms of hardline right-wing governments!!

btw, I've got a little Hail To The Men'o'Peace Bush and Sharon drinking session happening tonight. Wanna join?

Violet...

[The Stranger]

82. Exactly wrong. It actually isn't "Anti-Israeli" sentiment.

Any more than criticism of George W. Bush is "Anti-American" sentiment. People criticize a nation in order to make it better, especially when it has so strayed from its course. Others use phrases like "Anti-Israeli" or "Anti-American" to try to railroad dissenters and coerce conformity.

[Muddleoftheroad]

83. In order to make it better?

Not likely. Several posters here have made it clear that they don't even believe Israel should exist in its current form. That's not making it better, that's unmaking it.

[The Stranger]

84. No, actually "several posters" have not "made it clear they don't believe

Israel should even exist." That is more Sharon and Likud victim propaganda used to justify killing, occupation, maiming, mutilation, rape, hatred and destruction.

Claiming people want to "unmake" the fourth most powerful nation in the world, not only looks silly, it is actually illustrating my point in the post above. Thanks nevertheless.

[Muddleoftheroad]

88. Wrong again on multiple counts

Several posters have indeed said Israel should not exist in its current form. They want a one state solution here that is a dangerous fantasy. THAT is unmaking Israel. Oh, and it's not the fourth most powerful nation in the world, no matter how much you bluster about it. But we've done this one.

[The Stranger]

91. Whoa there. A one-state solution is "unmaking Israel?"

You basically support an Apartheid regime like South Africa? Not only is that never going to last (thank God), that is really twisting the meaning of "unmaking."

[The Magistrate]

97. Certainly It Is, Mr. Stranger

The matter is academic in any case: there will not be such a unitary state imposed; discussing it is a waste of time.

[Muddleoftheroad]

106. Not only

Would that be unmaking Israel, but read my previous post where I made it clear that several posters oppose the existence of Israel in its current form.

[Classical_Liberal]

155. The one state solution is Israel's present form

only with Apartied Government. It will stay that way as long as Sharon and his Likudites are in power, and if the settlements continue it will be impossible to create two states. That happens, the one state solution multicultural solution is inevitable, whether you like it or not. By not facing this reality and continuing the settlement policy through peace, because not enough pressure is applied or through war(terrorirism) the apoligists are doing more for the cause of the one state solution than any of it's advocates.

[Darranar]

89. Rape?

I'm in a picky mood today. When have Israeli soldiers under Sharon raped people?

[The Stranger]

92. Picky?

When have Israeli soldiers under Sharon raped people?

Ah, so you admit that Israel has tried to justify killing, occupation, maiming, mutilation, hatred and destruction.

[Darranar]

95. I admit...

that if I contest any of the other claims someone will come up with a whole lot of "evidence" from conspiracy sights that "prove" the statements. I think that rape is less "provable."

Seriously, no, I don't contest any of those things. What I said above was an exxageration.

[Tinoire]

10. Just how many countries do we need to neutralize

in order to keep Sharon safe and happy? The problem is not Israel- the problem is the war-mongering right-wing Likud government in power now- you know the Likudniks who fit so well with vile swine like Bush and Perle and Cheney and Wolfowitz.

Sharon can stuff it. If he's afraid of Iran, let him drive his little bull-dozers up there and see how far he gets.


First Iraq, now Iran, and then Syria. Do you think this is helping stabilize the region or conducive to world peace?

[Herschel]

12. In order to keep Israel safe and happy

Sharon is it's elected leader, as Bush is ours. We may object to the leadership, but the countries remain joined. Many Democrats favored the war on Iraq, like me. It is up to Syria and Iran to determine their own fate. Removing dictators like Sadaam is conducive to world peace.

[Darranar]

53. What have we really accomplished...

by attacking Iraq? I personally believe that we have not helped Israel, nor have we helped peace in the region. There are no WMD, and the place is in chaos.

From a pure pro-Israel standpoint, which I believe you are refering to here, extremists in this country and throughout the Middle East view the war as a "Zionist" attack, with the US as a tool of the Zionists. It has caused more hatred of Israel and more planned actions of terror within Israel.

[Classical_Liberal]

150. There is know way we can know whether you are really a dem

.

[Herschel]

187. I resent this

I stated I am a Democrat. Perhaps not the same type as you are accustomed to, yet a Democrat. Take me at my word.

[Darranar]

195. And?

There is no way that we can know that you are really a democrat. Everything you are saying could be a lie.

[Cassandra]

13. Do you think it makes a difference to the Iranian government...

which party is in charge of the government in Israel? If it wasn't Sharon, would Iran hate Israelis any less?
Have Iraq, Iran and Syria's governments been that conducive to world peace? If the stability of the dictator looks good to you, OK. The instability we have caused in Iraq is not an improvement, but don't romanticize the rule of dictators.

[Allah Akbar]

140. Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence

Why don't you put up some examples of "Iran's hate of Israel".

I have never seen anything put out by Iran against Israel, but I have seen several things from Israel (and their minions working in our government) that flat out call Iran the enemy of Israel.

[Cassandra]

164. How about these?

http://www.islamicdigest.net/id5/print.php?sid=1387
http://members.tripod.com/~islamscience/wise.html
http://www.iranexpert.com/2002/iranheaded14september.htm
http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2002/jan/b1.htm
" What it is that Israel must do became clear after listening to the sermon delivered on December 14 at Tehran University by Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, Chairman of the Expediency Council. In his speech the Iranian ex-president clearly explained why the Arab world hates Israel. They hate Israel because for them it is a bridgehead of the colonialist and imperialist West."
I don't know how to judge this sites

[Darranar]

32. No, but...

Acccording to you, we are supposed to sit back and watch as our allies-and that, by the way, is what they are-get struck by missiles? It is rather clear that this will soon happen. If the Iranians are willing to strike at Israel, will they not be willing to strike at other nations that hate them? They can easily become a real danger to the region.

[bemildred]

71. I doubt it.

Iran is not so fond of the Palestinians that they will bring
down nuclear destruction on themselves on that account. The
missiles and the nukes (if they get them) are intended to be
deterrents. That is why they annoy the USA and the GOI. They
will make it harder to bully the Iranians. Observe the situation
with respect to N. Korea if you want to see an effective deterrent
in action.

It is true that Israel is small in territory, and Iran is large,
and so Israel can be more easily rubbed out. The net effect is
to make everybody more endangered, to make the hair-trigger more
sensitive. But the proper solution is a negotiated settlement
taking into account fairly the grievances of all living persons.
This is possible now, it would be stupid for Israel not to take the
chance. Aggression leads only to death.

[Darranar]

87. How do you know?

though I think that Iran in the current situation would not use nukes, I do not see it as a "never." Remmeber that Iran is run by religious fanatics who have little care for lives.

I do think Iran will be perfectly willing to use its missiles with conventional warheads-on Israel and possibly even on US interests in the region. Israel will not be able to respond, judging by the distance.

[bemildred]

90. Come on, you are smarter than that.

I didn't say I know, I said I doubt it.
I didn't say they would never be used, I said they would only
be used as a deterrent, or perhaps in a war already begun.
What would Iran gain by attacking Israel out of the blue
besides return fire? Do you think they could conquer Israel?
How would they get their troops over there?
Your so-called fanatics have been quite careful to look out for
themselves so far. The fact that they hate Israel doesn't mean they
are self-destructive.

[Darranar]

93. How could Israel harm them...

If they launched ICBMs? Israel has none. They have nukes, but no ICBMs.

[bemildred]

94. Jet fighter-bombers?

IIRC Israel has a missile subs too.
And I'm pretty sure they have intermediate range missiles.

If you are interested, I have read apparently informed opinion
here that Syria could clobber Israel pretty hard using missiles.

But like I said, they aren't nuts just because they don't like you.
The fact that some kids in Gaza think suicide is cool doesn't mean
that the governments of Syria or Iran do. Iraq held their fire
this time, too, they knew it was just a losing proposition.

[Darranar]

96. Missile subs?

Perhaps, but the fact is that it would be very hard to hit Iran. Iran now has the ability to strike Israel at will.

[bemildred]

98. The fact is they both now have the ability to hit each other at will.

Israel is far more capable militarily than Iran.

[Darranar]

99. Not at that range...

another fact. I am not speaking of a military invasion of Iran.

[bemildred]

100. Good, glad to hear that.

Neither was I.
This seems to be another futile discussion.

[bemildred]

101. Here:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/sub/internatl1.html

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/missile/index.html

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/index.html

Make what you will of it.

[Darranar]

102. Israeli nukes...

are a DETTERENT. So are, according to you, Iranian nukes. I am discussing missiles carrying CONVENTIONAL warheads. Are you?

[bemildred]

103. Iran does not have nukes.

Yet.

[Darranar]

104. I did indeed imply...

that they did; I misstated by point. I should have said that Iranian nukes WILL be for detterence, according to you.

[bemildred]

105. Fine.

I was talking about what they (Iran) have now, and
what Israel has now. The fact stated is that Israel has the
capability to hit anything within at least 4000 Km with nukes.
The availablity of a missile more competent than a SCUD to
Iran merely guarantees, at this point, that they can hit
back. The submarine info seems to imply that anything within
200Km of the coast can be hit with a cruise missile, if they (Israel)
can get the sub to the locality safely.

[Darranar]

107. There is an important distinction:

Israel WON'T use nukes, and they WON'T begin an exchange of missiles. ThougH Iran cannot currently do the former, there is considerable evidence taht tehy may do the latter.

[bemildred]

108. Sigh

"Israel WON'T use nukes" -- Bullshit.

"and they WON'T begin an exchange of missiles" -- Probably true,
for a number of reasons.

"Though Iran cannot currently do the former, there is considerable evidence that they may do the latter" -- Please cite such evidence,
I don't believe it, and it better be better than "they hate Israel."
This should be easy since it is "considerable".

[Darranar]

120. "Israel won't use nukes"

Is bullshit, is it? Well, cite evidence to suggest that it would. Only if it was on the brink of destruction would it use nukes; a situation impossible in our current time.

Anyway, did you read the article? It clearly showed that the Iranian government DOES hate Israel and that the Israelis ARE their enemy. If they feel the slightest bit threatened, they will use missiles on Israel. They, unlike secular dictators like Saddam, don't care so much about their personal survival.

[bemildred]

121. My evidence:

"Only if it was on the brink of destruction would it use nukes"

But I asked for evidence first, and you ducked.
I think this is a waste of time.
Goodbye.

[Darranar]

122. Evidence?

Israel has NEVER attacked another country before it was attacked itself. Even in the Six Day War, Nasser closed off the Red Sea from Israeli ships, which counts as a reason for war.

[Classical_Liberal]

152. Israel invented the pre-emptive strick policy when it hit Iraq

.

[Classical_Liberal]

151. The hatred is mutual and I am sure Iranians think they are defending

themselves as well.

[tinnypriv]

193. Israel has bombers...

..and fighter aircraft stationed in eastern Turkey. There are credible reports that Israel is flying sorties at the Iranian border with those aircraft.

Israel has the capability to tomorrow:

1) Hit Iran with missiles
2) Bomb Tehran with IAF aircraft

I would advise against speaking authoritively about a subject you clearly know absolutely nothing about.

[Allah Akbar]

141. Remember

Israel is run by fanatics (who claim to be religous but really aren't) and they seem to have little care for lives, ie look at the lives of the Palistinians in the occupied territories.

The pot should not calle the kettle black.

[Darranar]

162. Remember

The PA is run by fanatics (who claim to be religious but really aren't) and they seem to have little care for lives, ie look at the lives of innocent Israelis devastated by suicide bombings.

Israel is not directly responsible for the actions of every soldier in the West Bank. Neither is the PA responsible for every suicide bomber who slaughters innocent people.

[madrchsod]

16. tell that to

the dead and the surviors of the us ship the idf shot up in 68. or all the spys the idf has placed in the us. or all the 100`s of billions the taxpayers have given israel over the years... the right wing of this country is not "joined at the heart" with israel ,that`s for dam sure..the left has been the strongest backer of israel but it seems that is even wearing thin...maybe the israeli people should wake the hell up and tell the thugs to stop destoying their country...the real terrorism is from their own leaders for refusing to change and really settle for peace..of course the other side is almost as bad....

[Gimel]

169. Axis of evil

Iran has had that stamp on it for a couple of years. Israel has been named the enemy of the state of Iran, and currently a dozen or more Jewish Iranian citizens are still serving prison terms (death sentence commuted) for "spying for Israel," including a teen-ager. Some have been released. Contacting a pro-Israel web site on the Internet would be sufficient cause for this sentence. They were charged about 5 years ago, so that pre-dates Bush and his Axis of Evil speech.

[BOSSHOG]

4. Does Israel have the capability of striking Iran?

Are only certain "approved" countries "allowed" to have offensive weapons?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Darranar]

33. It does...

but it does not threaten to use them. It would only use them in a situation that would save them from destruction. If the USA, with all its weapons declared, was at the brink of destruction, do you seriously think it would not use nukes, if they would save it? Any US government would, Republican or Democratic or Independent or Green or whatever.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Darranar]

39. Well...

I think Israel is afraid in regard to its WMD. They are afraid that they will not be viewed as "reliable" and be forced to remove them. I'm not saying that tehy are right, I am simply saying why they don't.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Darranar]

46. Link doesn't work...

Anyway, I doubt I can trust its source...

[Tinoire]

126. The trustworthiness of that site is in the eye of the beholder

Masada 2000- Militant Jewish JDL-type hate site.

Here's the link: http://www.masada2000.org/sharepain.html

These guys are pure scum- they make the Kahane sites look like nice ones. Not sure you even want to look at the kind of crap they post.

[Tinoire]

125. Now THAT is SCARY!

Here's the fixed link: http://www.masada2000.org/sharepain.html

Martin Van Crevel, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, recently put it this way... “Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. Israel has the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under.”

Scary pictures. Scary site. Scary JDL types. No love in the heart or road-map to peace there!

[Darranar]

128. Luckily...

they are NOT in control. They are such a minority that they will never have a chance to put forward their ideas.

[Classical_Liberal]

153. Israel was threatening in Gulf War I

.

[Darranar]

165. To use nukes?

I doubt it.

[Classical_Liberal]

181. Yes, it was in retaliation for scuds even though the scuds weren't

nukes.

[Gimel]

186. Never threatened

Israel never struck back with anything. How can you make that claim? It was discussed and even accused, but never threatened.

[kalian]

112. Yes, their "Jericho II" missiles

Have enough range to hit any ME capital...what's more, they can
hit European nations as well.

[IndianaGreen]

54. Too bad Israel

You already used your INVADE COUNTRY card on Iraq. I don't think the American people are in the mood of invading another country.

We told you so!

We did say that Iran was a bigger threat than Saddam, but Nooooooo! The Israel lobby had to play into the hands of the PNAC gang.

Too bad Israel, you don't get another play!

[Darranar]

55. Excuse me...

There are plenty of pro-Israel people, such as myself, who hate the war in Iraq.

[IndianaGreen]

65. AIPAC supported the invasion of Iraq

They played right into the hands of the PNAC neocons.

[Darranar]

67. AIPAC did...

They are not the only force for the pro-Israel lobby. Anyway, what do you consider the pro-Israel lobby?

[StandWatie]

68. so?

Watching the television lately makes me wonder what planet I live on.

Apparently we didn't care what the hell Iran could hit in Iraq whom they have warred with since the Persian Empire or late coming regional rival Saudi Arabia who they have far less than warm relationships with.

Now it's a crisis if Israeli people could be hit with these weapons?

Just remember. They hate us because of our freedom and not because we are crazy religious/oil capitalist crusaders.

[Allah Akbar]

178. Iran seems determined to go the way of Iraq

Ya hear that America!?

Hop to it.

They say jump, we ask "How high?"

[tinnypriv]

179. Replies to #87, #89, #93, #122, #125, #165

It takes way too much time to reply to each one threaded, so I condensed this. :)

------- Post #89: (Darranar, 'cases of rape')

While I couldn't say for sure whether or not Israeli soldiers have carried out rapes under the government of Sharon (there are credible reports), certainly some elements of the IDF have a history of doing just that. For instance, to quote a RW Israeli historian, "During the period 1949-56, from time to time soldiers committed atrocities, among them gang rape and murder (for the most part) against innocent civilians" (Benny Morris, Israel's Border Wars: 1949-56, p.412-16)

------- Post #87: (Darranar, 'Israel's ability to respond')

Israel is "the most capable military power in the region" ('Ballistic Missile Capabilities in the Middle East', Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 2002). It has both a short-range Jericho I (500 kilometer with a 500 kilogram payload) and a medium-range Jericho II (1,500 kilometer) missile (ibid). Israel has "little need to develop a longer-range missile system (because) its current capabilities are adequate to provide a strike capability to its potential adversaries" (ibid). For ICBM capability, see my reply to #93, below.

------- Post #93: (Darranar, 'ICBM's')

Israel has the ability to launch satellites with the Shavit SLV missile. Therefore it has the ability to "quickly develop missile platforms" (ibid, above), with ICBM technology - "we are talking about the laws of physics" (Moshe Gelman, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology). True it doesn't have an ICBM yet, but that is only because it doesn't need one, as the citation above amply demonstrates.

------- Post #122: (Darranar, 'Israel has never attacked/Straits of Tiran was causus belli')

Closing the Straits doesn't count as a reason for war. Three refutations:

• "(The straits of Tiran) were murky legal waters" (Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War, p.141)



• "The actual documentary record shows that Israel (only had) the right to 'free and innocent' passage through the Straits, and that the US called for 'any recurrence of hostilties or violation by any party' to be referred back to the UN" (Norman G. Finklestein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, p.190 and sources cited)



• "Egypt's exercising (of) belligerent rights in relation to Israeli shipping (in the Straits), consitute(d) no justification for the armed invasion of Egypt by Israel" (U.S. President Eisenhower, cited in The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Vol. III: Documents, John Norton Moore, (ed.) p.649).

As for your "NEVER attacked!" flight of fancy, I direct you to the invasion of Lebanon, 1982 and the invasion of Egypt, 1956 (to name two of many examples).

------- Post #125: (Tinoire, 'Creveld quote')

That site may be disgusting, but the quote they use isn't true. Martin Van Creveld (they give the wrong name), is a military historian at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, but that quote is false. It was invented (now this is amusing), by a Pro-Hamas website a year or so back. Hilariously, that means the wackos behind this site are using anti-semites to further their arguments, and essentially quoting Hamas. I'm sure that isn't their intention :D

------- Post #165: (Darranar, 'Israel's threat to use nukes')

True, Israel didn't threaten to use nukes in the Gulf War directly, but it didn't have to, since its patron (the U.S.) did so for them. Israel has, however, implicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons several times - in one extreme case simply to ward off a regional peace plan (the Fahd plan of Aug 1981). In that instance, Israel flew F-14s over the Saudi oil fields as a direct threat to the U.S. (i.e., call off this plan, or we will bomb these oil fields). The Israeli press reported that after the case of the Iraqi reactor, "Israel is thought capable of such acts" (Daniel Bloch, Davar, November 13, 1981). Israel was under no national security threat at the time.

-------

[Darranar]

182. Well, first of all...

Egypt had no right to block the straits, international waters or not.
Second of all, there was a huge military buildup against Israel in 1967, and I believe that their pre-emptive strike was completely justified. Addtionally, the Syrians were bombarding Northern Israel from the Golan Heights.

Third of all, Lebanon was a base for terrorists. Though that war, in my opinion and probably in yours, was not the right thing to do, there was some justification.

Fourth of all, in 1956 Egypt sent terrorists into Israel who killed innocent Israelis. Israel's military action was in response to that and other actions against Israelis.

Finally, in every example you gave that Israel threatened to use nukes, they did not. They threatened to use conventional weaponry, which is something else entriely.

[tinnypriv]

183. Riiiight

Look, every single point of fact you have there can be utterly, totally debunked as either fraud or distortion of the facts.

But since you cite no sources to back them up (because you have none, I suspect), I won't waste my time doing so.

I would offer some advice though - get away from the websites and read some of the literature. Any of it.

[Darranar]

184. I don't offer sources...

because I can't remember where I've read it. I do not get my information from pro-Israel websites, by the way.
Anyway, the same point can be said about any of your points.

[tinnypriv]

185. The facts can be challenged?

I'd like to see it.

My interpretation of them is, however fair game.