Iranian uranium

[Deckard]

So Iran has "defied the West" and apparently started the process of enriching uranium to 20%. Technically this is still low-enriched, but it could take as little as six months to convert it to weapons grade.

Israel's PM has just said (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8505426.stm) Iran should now face 'crippling sanctions'.

1) Do you believe Iran's claim that it is only pursuing nuclear energy?
2) In your view, are Iran entitled to develop a nuclear weapons program?
3) Would you be willing to live with a nuclear-armed Iran? (Hans Blix says he would (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8501121.stm))

If diplomacy and sanctions fail, what - if anything - should the rest of the world do about it?

[bas_I_am]

Israel's PM has just said (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8505426.stm) Iran should now face 'crippling sanctions'.
Isreal should face crippling sanctions

1) Do you believe Iran's claim that it is only pursuing nuclear energy?
Why should they have to claim anything?
2) In your view, are Iran entitled to develop a nuclear weapons program?
They are as entitiled as any other country. Any other view is xenophobic.
3) Would you be willing to live with a nuclear-armed Iran? (Hans Blix says he would (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8501121.stm))
As willing to live with any nuclear-armed country.
If diplomacy and sanctions fail, what - if anything - should the rest of the world do about it?
obliterate the zionists!!!

[Sean]

So Iran has "defied the West" and apparently started the process of enriching uranium to 20%. Technically this is still low-enriched, but it could take as little as six months to convert it to weapons grade.

Israel's PM has just said (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8505426.stm) Iran should now face 'crippling sanctions'.

1) Do you believe Iran's claim that it is only pursuing nuclear energy?
2) In your view, are Iran entitled to develop a nuclear weapons program?
3) Would you be willing to live with a nuclear-armed Iran? (Hans Blix says he would (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8501121.stm))

If diplomacy and sanctions fail, what - if anything - should the rest of the world do about it?No, I don't believe they're only pursuing it for energy. Of course that's not based on any kind of decisive fact, but as far as I can tell, most of the signs are pointing that way.

Are they "entitled" to developing them? I guess technically, I'd have to agree with bas_I_am on this, although I personally think it would be best if the entire planet simply eradicated all nuclear weapons.

And I would be extremely uncomfortable with a nuclear armed Iran. Any country that has expressed a desire to wipe another off the face of the planet is obviously serious cause for concern.

And what should the world do about it? I just don't freakin' know.

[Rog]

obliterate the zionists!!!



a very considered reply:rolleyes:

[Rog]

1. I don't believe iran is persuing nuclear energy.....why would they with all that fuckin oil.

2. Who are we (nuclear powers) to say that others can't have them.

3. we will probably have no choice........

If sanctions fail......head for the shelters, as there will more chance of a nuclear war if nutters get the technology

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

O.K., yous guys don't watch television enough, everything is all right dammit!

[Rog]

i feel so much better for that;)

[Deckard]

My own take on this (so far)...

1) Do you believe Iran's claim that it is only pursuing nuclear energy?
I have severe doubts. I think if I was Iran, I'd be pursuing a nuclear deterrent. And fast.

2) Are Iran entitled to develop a nuclear weapons program?
Yes they are.

3) Would you be willing to live with a nuclear-armed Iran?
That's the bottom line. It's all very well acknowledging that Iran has as much right to develop a nuclear weapon as the US or UK or Israel - but should fairness take precedent over safety? I'm seriously freaked by the thought of any theocracy gaining nukes, but especially one that is now a self-admitted 'enemy of the West'. And yes, I accept that being a part of 'the West' myself is bound to colour my opinion.

If diplomacy and sanctions fail, what - if anything - should the rest of the world do about it?
I have a feeling we're a bit fcuked.

If the stand-off escalates into conflict - say 'someone' decides to lob a missile at an installation - then for a start we can look forward to world oil prices tripling. Iran is fortunate to have the Strait of Hormuz, the route of most exported Middle Eastern oil - otherwise known as, the world's balls. I have a fear it would make last year's financial meltdown look like a minor cashflow hiccup.

If things escalate even beyond that, well it doesn't bear thinking about. Iran is no Iraq, for one thing. Perhaps much will depend on the role of China.

Thank goodness we have such a good relationship with them lately. I mean, I don't think I'd be able to sleep at night if we didn't. :)

5 Feb 2010: China to put duties on US chicken imports (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8500016.stm)
4 Feb 2010: China warns against Iran nuclear programme sanctions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8497876.stm)
2 Feb 2010: China warns Obama not to meet Dalai Lama (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8492608.stm)
30 Jan 2010: China furious at $6.4bn weapons sale to Taiwan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8489301.stm)
22 Jan 2010: China condemns 'groundless' US criticism of web control (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8474011.stm)
22 Dec 2009: China rejects UK claims it hindered Copenhagen talks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8425720.stm)

[mmm skyscraper]

Protect and Survive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPOo9mRQbTQ

What to do if someone dies in your fallout room:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKMqphQ67U

[bas_I_am]

a very considered reply:rolleyes:
Extremely considered.

We've been to this movie before. . .

If someone were to say 'Obliterate Nazi's!' you wouldn't think twice.

Zionism is evil - the equvalent of Nazism.

Any group that believes their theology affords political gain must be stopped - by any means.

Zionism ≠ Judaism

Unfortunately, to express opposition to Zion, is considered antisemetic. Nothing could be further from the truth.

google:

Irgun
Haganah
King David Hotel
Deir Yassin
Al-Kabri
Kafr Qasim

I could go on and on.

Isreal should be wiped from the map, just as Nazi Germany was.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Extremely considered.

We've been to this movie before. . .

If someone were to say 'Obliterate Nazi's!' you wouldn't think twice.

Zionism is evil - the equvalent of Nazism.

Any group that believes their theology affords political gain must be stopped - by any means.

Zionism ≠ Judaism

Unfortunately, to express opposition to Zion, is considered antisemetic. Nothing could be further from the truth.

google:

Irgun
Haganah
King David Hotel
Deir Yassin
Al-Kabri
Kafr Qasim

I could go on and on.

Isreal should be wiped from the map, just as Nazi Germany was.





O.K., but then the other country obliterating another country then becomes the Nazish type thing they are saying they don't like, no? I mean, I really didn't want to comment on this as I don't truely know the entirety of opposing tensions in this region to make a clear comment.

So there is a crazy right in the area. I'm SHOCKED!!! Are you part of the crazy left in the area? Or more center? Or center-right? Or center-left? Or center-center. Oh just forget it all, wanna smoke a joint and go to an Underworld show? And, I mean, don't look at me I don't have any, but hoping you would or something.




*****

AND, NO, I'M NOT WATCHING NO DAMN LAWRENCE OF ARABIA! Just keep posting the google bit you can go on & on & on about . . .

[bas_I_am]

O.K., but then the other country obliterating another country then becomes the Nazish type thing they are saying they don't like, no?

No, a people have a right to defend themselves.
And to take up the fight of the oppressed is noble.

I mean, I really didn't want to comment on this as I don't truely know the entirety of opposing tensions in this region to make a clear comment.

See Lawrence Of Arabia and you will understand the issue.

[Rog]

Isreal should be wiped from the map, just as Nazi Germany was.

I am no lover of Israel but words fail me when i read this........you're just as bad as they are.

[//\/\/]

what happens to non-zionist israelis?

[Rog]

maybe they'll get wiped from the map too..............

[Deckard]

I really didn't want to make this a thread about Israel, but I have to pick up on this...

Isreal [SIC] should be wiped from the map, just as Nazi Germany was

Any group that believes their theology affords political gain must be stopped - by any means.
Go on, keep going...

Given the extreme unlikelihood of a voluntary diaspora, what's the furthest you're willing to go to stop the regime/movement? Carpet bombing populated towns and cities? A ground offensive? Nuking the place?

Or was "by any means" just a bit of keyboard warrior rhetoric?

I'm assuming you have no relatives living over there?

Since you accept that Zionism ≠ Judaism, do you also accept that Israeli ≠ Zionist? And if so, how does that sit with your "by any means"?

[bas_I_am]

Given the extreme unlikelihood of a voluntary diaspora, what's the furthest you're willing to go to stop the regime/movement? Carpet bombing populated towns and cities? A ground offensive? Nuking the place? Or was "by any means" just a bit of keyboard warrior rhetoric?

"Any means" means "Any Means"
google Dresden

I'm assuming you have no relatives living over there?No, I don't. If I did, I would engage them constantly to find out where they stand and compel them to reassess their moral stance.

Since you accept that Zionism ≠ Judaism, do you also accept that Israeli ≠ Zionist? And if so, how does that sit with your "by any means"?

Many Israeli nationals are arab, many are muslim, many are christian, as well as hebrew. An Israeli national is not necessarily a zionist. Many israeli nationals, of all faiths, are anti-zionist and support repatriation of palestine.

Just as there were many Germans who were not Nazis.

[bas_I_am]

Isreal should be wiped from the map, just as Nazi Germany was.
I am no lover of Israel but words fail me when i read this........you're just as bad as they are.

Read the entire sentence. . . and quit drinking the Zionist kool-aid!

The zionists want people to believe when people say "Wipe Israel from the map" it is a call for a holocaust.

"Wipe Israel from the map" . . . REMOVE THE POLITICAL ENTITY THAT IS ISRAEL
"Just as Nazi Germany was" . . . NOWHERE WAS THERE WHOLESALE GENOCIDE OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE!

A map is nothing more than political borders that contain named regions. To "wipe Israel from the map" means, remove the political claim the zionists have made on palestine.

In other words. . .

Destroy the political entity that is Israel just as we destroyed the political entity that was Nazi Germany.

Learn to read.
Learn to think.
Learn to learn.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Oakie-Dokie. We'll just write it off as the crowning jewel in the area of mis-speaking the world has ever seen.

We all feel so much more warm and fuzzier now. I'm gonna put in a smiley too, :). Everyone: Have a Nice Day!

[Strangelet]

1) Do you believe Iran's claim that it is only pursuing nuclear energy?

Yes and then they will hand out nuclear energy to all the poor homeless children of the world and everyone will sing songs.


2) In your view, are Iran entitled to develop a nuclear weapons program?

I get the whole post-colonial empathy running around arguing for equal treatment for developing nations. I however think its absurd to apply that template of fairness towards the issue of nuclear weapons. Of course they aren't entitled to nuclear weapons. No one is entitled to nuclear weapons and it makes me uncertain about the wisdom of our species to hear people make playground fairness arguments about something so threatening to our survival.


3) Would you be willing to live with a nuclear-armed Iran? (Hans Blix says he would (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8501121.stm))

As much as I'm willing to live in a world with Sean Hannity and Sara Palin. I mean are you saying I have options? That's exciting.

4) If diplomacy and sanctions fail, what - if anything - should the rest of the world do about it?

Diplomacy and sanctions *will* fail, and it always amazes me how much we still fawn over sanctions. I'm hard pressed to think of one example where economic sanctions achieved a single stated objective, let alone didn't further embolden and unite the target country against us, handing more power to their despotic regime.

However, there simply is no military solution. Its best for government analysts to start redrawing the risk board where in 30 years even countries like Somalia may be buying their uranium enrichment do it yourself kit. What is that world like? How does a free, democratic country defend itself?
Would there be such a thing as a free, democratic country in such an environment? That's what scares the shit out of me.

[Strangelet]

I"d like to add that the U.S. bears a lot of the blame (i know, I know, another liberal traitor squawking) for creating an escalation of wmds in the middle east by giving them to Israel. They aren't entitled to them either. And they certainly don't need them. That's fairness.

[Rog]

obliterate the zionists!!!



this doesn't sound like destroying the political entity..........
and what's all this nazi comparisons bollocks?

Your emotive language does not convey politics - more like violence

I can read
I can think
I can learn.....but perhaps not from you

[Deckard]

Bas compares Zionist-led Israel to the Nazis. Meanwhile prominent Israelis play the same game as him, likening both Hezbollah and Hamas to the Nazis. Several right-leaning US commentators make similar claims about Islamism representing the new Nazism. Palestinians compare the threat of Zionist Israel to the Nazis. And Ahmedinajad notes the irony of Israel's behaviour to the previous suffering of Jews. So that's helpful. We have everyone likening everyone else to the Nazis. In reality, neither Israel nor their current enemies are particularly comparable to the Nazis. You don't have to be a brainwashed apologist for Zionism to reach that conclusion. A bit of history will do.

"Any means" means "Any Means"
google Dresden
We're a bit further along than Dresden, so let's not pretend we're just talking about some jolly old aerial battle. "Any [military] means" nowadays includes rather more. If (hypothetically) a nuke is ultimately the only way to remove 'the Zionist problem' then would you support using it? Yes or no?

[Deckard]

Of course they aren't entitled to nuclear weapons. No one is entitled to nuclear weapons and it makes me uncertain about the wisdom of our species to hear people make playground fairness arguments about something so threatening to our survival.

Bad phrasing on my part. Equality was the issue I was pursuing. "As entitled as any other nation is (or is not) entitled" is what I meant. (In which case of course your answer may still be no, for other legitimate reasons)

Would you be willing to live with a nuclear-armed Iran?
As much as I'm willing to live in a world with Sean Hannity and Sara Palin.

Is "as much" a rhetorical device or do you really feel no more threat from a nuclear-armed Iran than from the existence of Hannity and Palin? (And can I be the first to suggest sanctions in a bid to eradicate the latter two?)


Diplomacy and sanctions *will* fail, and it always amazes me how much we still fawn over sanctions. I'm hard pressed to think of one example where economic sanctions achieved a single stated objective, let alone didn't further embolden and unite the target country against us, handing more power to their despotic regime.

However, there simply is no military solution. Its best for government analysts to start redrawing the risk board where in 30 years even countries like Somalia may be buying their uranium enrichment do it yourself kit. What is that world like? How does a free, democratic country defend itself?
Would there be such a thing as a free, democratic country in such an environment? That's what scares the shit out of me.
I think you've summed up the dilemma well, and it's scary as hell.

[bas_I_am]

and what's all this nazi comparisons bollocks?

They are cut from the same cloth.

They are both nationalist terrorists.
They both use religion as their justification.
Look at Zionist history.

One of my first memories of becoming aware of world events was hearing Menachem Begin and Moysha Dayan expressing disgust with terrorism and vowing to defeat it.

It then occurred to me, "Wait as second. . . these guys were of European descent. . . were born of families that came to palestine based on some religious claim. . . displacing (through violence) thousands of people who had been living there for countless generations. . . given right to the land by a bunch of rich white guys (the league of nations) because their skin color was close to their own, and the people living there were dark skinned. . . and the way they gained their power was through, of all things - terrorism: bombing hotel's, raiding settlements, land seizure, mass murder etc. . ."

The Zionists set the example for successful terrorism.

See "Stern Gang"

[//\/\/]

you can't say 'obliterate israel in the same way that dresden was bombed', and then backtrack and say that you only mean to do away with the notion of israel as a country etc.

but you're doubtless going to try.

[bas_I_am]

you can't say 'obliterate israel in the same way that dresden was bombed'

Don't put words in my mouth

[bas_I_am]

The very notion of an 'Israel' is wrong.

It is the product of Zionism - a european bourne ideology that leverages holocaust guilt in order to subvert and subjugate the land and people of palestine under the guise of legitimacy. Its roots grew from the same racial compost heap that justified Colonialism - a tenet that 'people of color' lack the humanity to control their own destiny. It is as racist as the Ku Klux Klan and as dangerous as the Nazi Party.

Furthermore, it is an insult to the victims of the holocaust as well as the hebrew religion.

Obliterate (remove, erase, excise) the Zionists (and Zionism)! ( that is what I said!!! ) Again, if I said "Remove the Nazi's!!! Erase the KKK!!!" you would be cheering "huzzah!!!"

The political state that is Isreal should,and must, be removed, just as was Nazi Germany. By any means necessary. I used Dresden as a reference because there should be no limit to our resolve to overcome evil.

It has never been in the past.

[Rog]

so bas, being as this was an iran thread rather than an israel thread, what is your considered opinion of the regime in iran and its suppression of the opposition and control of press/tv/etc? we already know about how bad israel can be...............

[bas_I_am]

so bas, being as this was an iran thread rather than an israel thread, what is your considered opinion of the regime in iran and its suppression of the opposition and control of press/tv/etc? we already know about how bad israel can be...............

Its wrong. And needs to be obliterated.

It uses Zionism, just as the Zionist's use the holocaust. A means to justify evil.

I contend, Zionism is the greater evil.

I will give you a few minutes to contemplate the last statement.

[//\/\/]

i stand by my paraphrasing - you suggest using 'any means necessary' to obliterate israel, and then say 'google dresden' when asked what the first statement entails.

what else am i to take away from that?

[Rog]

carpet bombing with incendaries?

well it would sure obliterate them............:eek:

[Rog]

Its wrong. And needs to be obliterated.

It uses Zionism, just as the Zionist's use the holocaust. A means to justify evil.

I contend, Zionism is the greater evil.

I will give you a few minutes to contemplate the last statement.

I don't think either needs to be 'obliterated' however you choose to interpret the word. There are more subtler methods required to ensure there is eventually some sort of non-war settlement in the region. i don't need 'a few minutes to contemplate the last statement' to know that this isn't a pissing game to see who is the most 'evil' - a word you seem to use rather a lot. The whole situation needs very careful approaches to ensure that there is no further deterioration in relations between all the interested parties. There is too much at stake to be bandying round words such as obliteration.

[Eikman]

lol what a crock...who let the extremists in?

[Strangelet]

um. guys I don't know if you've noticed but our bas_i_am is slight unhinged. you're wasting your time.

bas_i_am, fyi, you aren't fooling anyone making incindiary comments and then claiming that they mean something else when anyone challenges you. Its clear what you mean.

I'm no zionist, but you're being creepy.

[Eikman]

and please stop drawing nazi and/or holocaust comparisons. they are totally inappropriate. kthxbye.

[Rog]

amen!

[bas_I_am]

and please stop drawing nazi and/or holocaust comparisons. they are totally inappropriate. kthxbye.
Absolutely not.

[bas_I_am]

Even back in Nazi Germany, the Zionists used Nazism as a means of achieving their own objectives, regardless of the cost in lives of their "less fortunate" Jewish brethren. In many cases, they continued to do business with the Nazis, and even made deals with them which cost many thousands of Jewish lives, to enrich the Jewish elite. And, contrary to all of the propaganda, the model for Israel is closer to Nazism than it is to democracy.

Evil by any other name, is evil.

Tony Greenstein wrote: "As a self-styled `national' movement, Zionism claims to represent all Jews, irrespective of their wishes and wherever they live. Support for the Palestinian national struggle and opposition to Zionism, and its concept of a `Jewish people,' is interpreted as hatred of Jews as Jews, i.e. anti-Semitism. Jewish anti-Zionists are dismissed as `self-haters'". Greenstein observes, "It is a conjuring trick which has mesmerized many an audience, but as with all such illusions has gradually lost its effectiveness. The problem for the Zionist movement is whether the equation of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism can still be useful in intimidating its opponents". The Holocaust itself is used to intimidate opponents to the evil Zionist global agenda, and to silence any opposition to the injustices, oppression, and abuses perpetrated by Israel and the Jews. In the typical modus operandi of evil, the truth is reversed or selectively applied to support further evil.

Israel is the pre-eminent racist, religionist, separatist, apartheid state in the world. By acts of terrorism, massacre, and forcible relocation, it removed hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people from their towns and their land, and denied them any right of return. Whatever villages, towns, homes, farms, and other properties were considered useful were taken over by Jews; everything else was bulldozed and destroyed, all with the US's support and sanction.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/index.cfm

[bas_I_am]

Eikman. . . are you a zionist?

[Eikman]

are you a moron?

[bas_I_am]

fucking racist

[Eikman]

yeah right. quod erat demonstrandum.

also: i'm not fucking racists. do you?

[Strangelet]

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/index.cfm

Yeah nice website. I did a "CNTRL + F" and looked for the words "napalm" or "obliterate", the craziest thing... nothing popped up.

[bas_I_am]

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/modern_judaism/v019/19.1eshkoli.html
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/5200/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

[Eikman]

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/modern_judaism/v019/19.1eshkoli.html
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/5200/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

providing links (some of which are only accessible via an institutional login....which I, in this case, actually have) to an article doesn't prove your point. besides, neither does any of them relate to the topic at hand.

take your agenda out somewhere else.

[//\/\/]

bas, you're confusing the shit out of us now; first it's 'israel', then it's 'zionists' - what about non-zionist israelis? and non-jewish isrealis?

[bas_I_am]

providing links (some of which are only accessible via an institutional login....which I, in this case, actually have) to an article doesn't prove your point. besides, neither does any of them relate to the topic at hand.

They relate completely.

You are to stupid to understand.

[Eikman]

probably because i don't speak bullshit.

[bas_I_am]

bas, you're confusing the shit out of us now; first it's 'israel', then it's 'zionists' - what about non-zionist israelis? and non-jewish isrealis?

No, it is always Israel/Zion.

A non-zionist israeli is intent on righting the wrongs of his ancestors.

Non-jewish isrealis? it depends. . . are they zionists?

Simply put, a Zionist believes that being of a particular religious faith gives them claim to land that belongs to someone else. They also believe it is their right to take that land by "any means" because it was given them by God!

Remove the word "Zionist" from the above statement. . .

"Simply put, a [blank] believes that being of a particular religious faith gives them claim to land that belongs to someone else. They also believe it is their right to take that land by 'any means' because it was given them by God!"

Any person with a shred of humanity and compassion, must admit "'blankism' must be stopped!!! We must stand up for the rights of the oppressed!!!"

Now, put the word 'Zionism' back in. . . and someone says " 'Zionism' must be stopped!!! We must stand up for the rights of the oppressed!!!"

People rear up on their heals and say "wait a second!!! thats anti-semetic!!!"

Huh??? Seriously? how can that be? How can a belief be detested in one context, yet defended in another. . . Simply by a subjective alteration?

Please. . . This is utterly irrational!
You guys are bright, I'm open minded. . . Someone explain this to me!

Don't insult me and call me an extremist or a moron.

Now a greater question comes to the forefront. How could such a fallacy come to carry such immense weight in today's world affairs. So much so that it is possibly the one issue that could bring about complete and total annihlation of the the human race, that is Nuclear War (The initial context of this thread, am I wrong???)

It doesn't take much effort realize how it happened.

At the end of World War I, a powerful group of European Zionist's used financial leverage to exploit political confusion as a means to accelerate the manifestation of their goal. Furthermore, leading upto World War II, they played the ascent of the Nazi party and its evil apparatus as a gambit that would ultimately turn western opinion in their favor.

THIS IS BY NO MEANS AN APOLOGY FOR NAZIS! NOR IS IT A CONTENTION THAT ZIONISM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HOLOCAUST.

Not at all. It is simply an accurate account of history.

Again, the sad thing is, to bring this to the attention of people, runs the risk of being branded an anti-semite.

For example, when Eikman snidely says "take your agenda somewhere else" he is implying to you that I am anti-semetic. And that you will write me off as some neo-nazi lunatic and not investigate on your own.

Its about justice.

Zionism is evil. . . Just as the Spanish Inquisition was evil.

Would you brand me a lunatic for believing the Spanish Inquisition was evil.

Evil is simply that. . . Evil

Again. . . Don't call me an extremist or a moron. Or ask me rhetorical questions in the hopes of painting me into a contradiction.

Explain to me where I am wrong in my understanding of history.

[bas_I_am]

probably because i don't speak bullshit.

Is this statement bullshit:

"Zionism is the belief that the land of Palestine belongs to the jewish people because it is the will of God"

[bas_I_am]

Is this statement bullshit:

"Menachem Begin was a member of a terrorist organization and was directly involved in the bombing of the King David Hotel that killed 91 people"

[bas_I_am]

Zionist attempts at Revisionism (From wikipedia) :

60th anniversary controversy

In July 2006, Israelis, including the past and future Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former members of Irgun, attended a 60th anniversary celebration of the bombing, which was organized by the Menachem Begin Centre. The British Ambassador in Tel Aviv and the Consul-General in Jerusalem protested, saying "We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated." They also protested against a plaque that claims that people died because the British ignored warning calls, saying it was untrue and "did not absolve those who planted the bomb." The plaque read "For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated.”To prevent a diplomatic incident, and over the objections of Reuven Rivlin of the Likud Party, who raised the matter in the Knesset, changes were made in the text, though to a greater degree in the English than the Hebrew version. The final English version says, "Warning phone calls has [sic] been made to the hotel, The Palestine Post and the French Consulate, urging the hotel's occupants to leave immediately. The hotel was not evacuated and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded. To the Irgun's regret, 92 persons were killed." The death toll given includes Avraham Abramovitz, the Irgun member who was shot during the attack and died later from his wounds, but only the Hebrew version of the sign makes that clear.

[bas_I_am]

aww c'mon Eikman. . . work with me here. . . Trying to wrap it all up for you so your pea brain can "get it" and see how it all ties together.

This is an exercise in "reductio ad absurdum"

[bas_I_am]

Iran - Radical Theocracy, Terrorist Activities, Revisionism = BAD
Israel - Radical Theocracy, Terrorist Activities, Revisionism = GOOD

Whats the difference???
The color of one's skin (Racism)

QED reductio ad absurdum

[Eikman]

*yawn*

[bas_I_am]

Every murder is an abominable act, but the act before us is more abominable sevenfold, because not only has the accused not expressed regret or sorrow, but he also seeks to show that he is at peace with himself over the act that he perpetrated. He who so calmly cuts short another's life, only proves the depth of wretchedness to which [his] values have fallen, and thus he does not merit any regard whatsoever, except pity, because he has lost his humanity
Yigal Amir Sentencing Decision - March 27- 1996

[Rog]

just fuck off bas-i-am-not

you are really so arrogant! you try to say we are uneducated because we don't prescribe to your bullshit agenda.
i,m glad that i'll never be as blinkered and thick as you

Have a shit life

rog BSc(hons) MSc. AIBiol AVTRW

[Strangelet]

The problem is that even the most outspoken critic of Zionism, if they are at all sane, unbiased, and can produce a single bit of evidence they are house broken, will never call for the obliteration of Israel, but rather strike out to find a solution that allows fail and peaceful cohabitation.

You, on the other hand, need to rethink your sleeping habits

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Just keep posting the google bit you can go on & on & on about . . .


It really is my fault this time, huh?

[bas_I_am]

The problem is that even the most outspoken critic of Zionism, if they are at all sane, unbiased, and can produce a single bit of evidence they are house broken, will never call for the obliteration of Israel, but rather strike out to find a solution that allows fail and peaceful cohabitation.

The problem is . . .

Zionism by definition precludes "peaceful cohabitation."

There is no middle ground.

Again, it is a delusional ideology that contends Palestine is the jewish people's "God Given" promised land. And by divine principle they have the right to take it by any means.

And that . . . is bull shit! is it not?

Israel is the manifestation of the ideology.

The sad thing is, when asked to point out how I have come to incorrect conclusions, or to point out mistruths in the things I have said, I get attacked personally. I am told I have a bullshit "agenda."

Exactly, what do you - Rog, Eikman, believe my agenda to be?

[Strangelet]

Zionism by definition precludes "peaceful cohabitation."
There is no middle ground.


This is a strawman definition and, beyond offensive, is simply wrong. Zionism = evil is the promoted tautology of extremist critics. The origins of the movement meant only to create a national entity in which Jewish diaspora could call home. Period. Loading it up with the eradication of the palestinians is so full of straw its singing if I only had a brain.

And for every example you throw out of some israeli militant meat head who does excuse murder for the cause I can come up with a jewish leader or intellectual who called for peaceful cohabitation.

For example, Albert Einstein was a strong supporter of zionism. he had this to say.


I am, as a human being, an opponent of nationalism. But as a Jew I am from today a supporter of the Jewish Zionist efforts.... One can be internationally minded, without renouncing interest in one's tribal comrades.



The first and most important necessity is the creation of a modus vivendi with the Arab people. Friction is perhaps inevitable, but its evil consequences must be overcome by organised co-operation, so that the inflammable material may not be piled up to the point of danger. The absence of normal contact in every-day life is bound to produce an atmosphere of mutual fear and distrust, which is favourable to such lamentable outbursts of passion as we have witnessed. We Jews must show above all that our own history of suffering has given us sufficient understanding and psychological insight to know how to cope with this problem of psychology and organisation:



I deplore the tragic events of last August not only because they revealed human nature in its lowest aspects, but also because they have deranged the two peoples and have made it temporarily more difficult for them to approach one another. But come together they must, in spite of all.

[Strangelet]

I'm going to conclude my thoughts on your arguments, bas, by the following.

However justified your anger is, the lack of evenhanded thought or clarity in your arguments blunts them to impotence. I'm not trying to give you a lesson in debate, I'm suggesting that you have wrongly started a process in which you're dehumanizing the perpetrators of what you perceive as evil. And dehumanization is the water mark of more evil.

I am deeply angry at the lopsided nature in which our foreign policy and press favor Israel's hardline elements. And I too want to be able to voice that anger without being labeled an anti-semite.

But the above statement is actually probably going to piss off even more people than you have, because its effective. It limits itself to a single problem, one that can't be so easily sidled as extremist froth. Its defensible with recorded policy and actions. But the problem is that when someone like me says it, opponents will hold up to the light someone like you. And that's a problem.

If I were to send a link to this thread to the admins of some of your websites, or if several moderate israelis read this thread, they'd probably agree that you should STFU because you're doing nobody any favors. On either side.

I'll give you your lifetime to think about it.

[bryantm3]

1. no. it's nonsense. they have a huge supply of oil and solar energy. why would they feel the need to pursue nuclear energy?

2. no, they are not. sure, we can go on about fairness and how if we are allowed to develop nuclear weapons, why can't they... etc., but the bottom line of the whole situation is that this is not free speech or rights to basic arms: we're dealing with nuclear weapons that can destroy the whole earth; we don't need to fuck around with political correctness. it's extremely naive to call the US xenophobic because iranian leaders have expressed opinions that are, well, batshit crazy. the president believes the holocaust didn't occur, and while he isn't really the guy in charge, the religious leaders want him there, which is a pretty good sign they believe in similar things (just stating the obvious). they have expressed that they would like to blow israel off of the map. these things alone make it fairly clear that iran has no right to own nuclear weapons. i would say the same thing if there was a fundamentalist christian theocracy that felt they needed access to enriched uranium, but i'm sure you would all be against it if that were the case. extreme religious fundamentalist governments are bad, even if they are muslim.

3. would i be willing to live with a nuclear armed iran? i suppose the real question is "would they be willing to live with me?" with such a volatile country in possession of nuclear weapons, we'd be at their mercy, we'd be on constant guard. imagine how much capital would have to be allocated to defense and intelligence dedicated to the threat of iran alone; it'd be a second cold war, except even the USSR had some self control. if iran were to acquire nuclear weapons and build methods of transportation for these weapons, we (the UN) would be forced to go beyond sanctions in the name of self defence.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Where the hell have you been? Don't know why, but I was a bit concerned.

[bryantm3]

i read bas_i_am's post a couple of days ago and it upset me so much that i didn't even reply.

[bas_I_am]

However justified your anger is, the lack of evenhanded thought or clarity in your arguments blunts them to impotence. I'm not trying to give you a lesson in debate, I'm suggesting that you have wrongly started a process in which you're dehumanizing the perpetrators of what you perceive as evil. And dehumanization is the water mark of more evil.

There is nothing unclear in my arguments. There is no such thing as a "moderate zionist" as there is nothing moderate about Zionist ideology. Zionist and non-zionist are discrete states. Would you say there are "moderate" racists? What you are refering to are "Assimilists." Zionists are adamately anti-assimilist.

I am an assimilist.

There is nothing "unevenhanded" in my thought. You either believe that there is a divine privilege to the "promised land" and aggression is blessed for its manifestation. . . or you don't.

I dehumanize no one. A Zionist is no more human/inhuman than a Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard or an Afrikaner Nationalist.

What is sickening is the legitimization of Zionism. Einstein may have believed in Zionism, it wouldn't be the first thing about which he was wrong (see quantum theory.)

Zionism is evil. Any ideology that advocates violence as a means to manifest a divine right is evil. It must be confronted and wiped out.

Furthermore, it exploits western culture's predeliction to xenophobia to gain traction and relies on "holocaust guilt" in order to escape scrutiny.

It is dispicable.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

. . . And dehumanization is the water mark of more evil.

. . .

Interesting point you make there.


**************

On a side note: Who ever's running the show over at Comics.com are running Nazi show and don't even know it. HEY! It works now. Ya see, I wasn't able to post a reply to a certain cartoon. First the message said I wasn't a member, then told to resign on, then told me I was already a member, then the loop continued. But it works now, so I guess they're not Nazish or something. Just history repeating itself...

[Deckard]

I'm going to wipe my post about Zionism off the map, and stick to Iran.

bryant - I think you summed up pretty much where I'm at on this.

Extreme religious fundamentalist governments worry me, of whatever flavour. With nukes, considerably moreso. I get completely what you're saying about safety trumping fairness.

One small problem - whichever way you look at it, we seem to be screwed.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Just watch what happens to the money market in the next month or so . . .

This was well coordinated mind you. Don't believe for one second it was a random happening.

[bas_I_am]

http://racismandnationalconsciousnessnews.files.wordpress .com/2009/02/israeli-nukes1.jpg

[Deckard]

Well yeah, that's the fairness thing with which we're probably all already familiar. Hypocritical Israel, illegitimately created, imperial outpost of the US/UK, blah blah blah... and I may agree with some or all of that.

But when it comes to security, do you honestly feel no less safe at the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons compared with the status quo of Israel possessing them?

Does the fact that one is a pro-western Parliamentary democracy and the other an anti-western Islamic theocracy-cum-democracy not give you any cause for concern? Are you yourself a westerner?

[Deckard]

Still on Iran... One thing I will admit to is a nagging suspicion about how everything has turned out (or seems to be heading) given that some of us were chattering about Iran and Syria being next on the list back in 2003-4 following the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Back then I was seriously convinced the whole war on terror was a pretext for a longer term plan to rebuild the Middle East in a way more favourable to US and UK interests. I distinctly remember thinking 'look out for the casus belli on Iran in the coming years....'

What's disconcerting (and I'm making claims no more concrete than that) is that this suspicion about Iran was at least 18 months before a hardline but relatively unknown figure called Ahmadinejad entered the presidential campaign and emerged the winner.

No doubt being cast as a member state of the Axis of Evil led in no small part to that victory. :rolleyes:

[Strangelet]

i need it explained why pakistan doesn't pose a bigger threat to the US before I would ever consider supporting military action in Iran. It just isn't possible to effectively strike Iran and it consequently not take focus off Pakistan. We've seen this before with the Iraq war. Afghanistan would be the 51st state by now if it we hadn't invaded Iraq. That's the deal breaker and it boils down to that simple truth. A vastly less stable regime with nuclear war heads that actually exist, dealing with its own internal civil war, filled to the brim with the crazies that escaped from Afghanistan, the same people that trained and supported the 9/11 terrorists? Do we even need to think about this?

And this is where I really do have trouble with the whole Israel thing. Saddam was not a threat to the US or Europe. Iraq was a threat to Israel. A nuclear Iran is not a threat to the US and Europe nearly as much as it is a threat to Israel. Can we speak of these things and keep them in the realm of geopolitical strategy? I hope so, because its a mathematical truth.

[Deckard]

Good point about Pakistan Strangelet.

That's the deal breaker and it boils down to that simple truth. [Pakistan is a] vastly less stable regime with nuclear war heads that actually exist, dealing with its own internal civil war, filled to the brim with the crazies that escaped from Afghanistan, the same people that trained and supported the 9/11 terrorists?

I've asked myself the same thing, and presume these things don't have a single answer, but rather the case is made by the weight of several factors (same with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan)

Pakistan is quite clearly less stable, but do their leader and our leaders have a certain understanding (be it on security, trade, whatever) the details of which would shed light on those reasons for the softly softly approach? A problem there is that the fraught relationship between ourselves and the Iranian leader appears to be a consequence of our pre-existing attitude to Iran rather than a cause of it - though these things quickly become feedback loops.

Is it a strategic move to tread gently with Pakistan by virtue of the fact that it is so potentially, and literally, explosive? That they already have the weapons and/or have already reached a level of instability? After all, treading carefully may not sound like the style of the Bush administration, but they were willing to do it with North Korea. (Or maybe not, since NK was added to the axis of evil, while Pakistan - to my recollection - wasn't.)

Is it a factor that Pakistan is the country of origin of the bulk of the UK's (and Europe's?) Muslim immigrants, many of whom have families living there or shuttling back and forth all the time - and going to war with that country (or rhetoric leading to it) would pose a serious threat to the stability of much of Western Europe? You go to war with a country, a million of whose relatives are living in your own country - that doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Not saying I believe these to be the reasons - just ideas.

And for the record, the conspiraloon in me still wonders about the relationship between our intelligence agencies, their intelligence agency, and al Qaeda - particularly with regard to the killing of Daniel Pearl and the funding of 9/11 - but time has dampened my appetite to get back into any of that stuff.

Does Iran pose a bigger threat to the stability of western economies given its significant role in the export of oil? Maybe that's another one that shifts the balance...

[Strangelet]

Is it a strategic move to tread gently with Pakistan by virtue of the fact that it is so potentially, and literally, explosive? That they already have the weapons and/or have already reached a level of instability? After all, treading carefully may not sound like the style of the Bush administration, but they were willing to do it with North Korea. (Or maybe not, since NK was added to the axis of evil, while Pakistan - to my recollection - wasn't.)


Its fun to pretend CIA analyst so let me give this a shot. The upshot about the pakistan situation is we can work with their government, a recent example being the 15,000 strong joint operations in the tribal regions currently underway. But we talk about the pakistani government as a monolithic entity at our peril. We might route the taliban only to be outflanked by a coup. At which point it will be softly softly, because there seems to be a process of different stages of agression and we are much more willing to invade/bomb countries before getting the bomb than after.



Does Iran pose a bigger threat to the stability of western economies given its significant role in the export of oil? Maybe that's another one that shifts the balance...

I don't think it does in this respect. If Iran were to choke all oil exports, it would probably only mean that american corporations take a vacation from leaching off iraqi oil fields and actually develop them.

The problem, I think, is centered around the bomb, not oil. Use 9/11 as a template. You have a country that is hostile to the west, but doesn't have the means or will to attack, it does however, have the resources and inhabitants who do have the will to attack. And, because being able to deliver a bomb successfully is luckily so difficult, they are going to want to blow their wad on target #1. For Iran that simply isn't Europe or the US. Its Tel Aviv. For the fucktards in pakistan, its New York.

Its not so much that I resent America fighting Israel's wars for it, mostly I just resent the way its portrayed in the media. The Bush administration did a great job billing Iraq as an "existential threat" to the U.S. and it simply a case of projecting Israeli strategy onto our own. And the reason I don't resent fighting Israel's wars is because after establishing that Iran poses no threat to the US you start to wonder what threat it poses to Israel.

Israel bombed Syria's nuclear reactor in 2007. No response. Was it because the Syrians just had an aw shucks attitude and decided to start a camel polo league instead? Or is it because they know they can simply get the bomb later from papa yabadabadoo over in Iran. If you're Israeli intelligence you basically have to assume that if Iran gets the bomb, then Syria gets the bomb. And if Syria gets the bomb, then Hizbollah gets the bomb. And that means there's an ominous looking box the size of a fridge 60 miles from tel aviv.

That is, to wit, an existential threat. They'll have finally found themselves in a situation where their expression finally, truly, applies.

[//\/\/]

pakistan - population 180,000,000 - genie already out of the bottle as far as nukes are concerned - far too big a country to take on - too big a regional player to put offside (see genie)

iran - population 70,000,000, smaller country, not nuclear-armed (yet) so no need to fear the genie.

you do the maths... if "we" can't successfully invade iraq - a desert state - then what form is action against pakistan supposed to take?

[Strangelet]

you do the maths... if "we" can't successfully invade iraq - a desert state - then what form is action against pakistan supposed to take?

this sounds like you think I'm arguing we should take military action against pakistan. we *are* taking military action against pakistan, at least a portion of it, in accordance to another portion of it. if that accord withers, however, then no, its not possible. I'm just saying we should stop acting like we're saving the world beating up Iran

[//\/\/]

totally agree.