Re: Iranian uranium
 

are you a moron?

Re: Iranian uranium
 

fucking racist

Re: Iranian uranium
 

yeah right. quod erat demonstrandum.

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

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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

Re: Iranian uranium
 

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journ....1eshkoli.html
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newsw...5200/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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.

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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?

Re: Iranian uranium
 

They relate completely.

You are to stupid to understand.

Re: Iranian uranium
 

probably because i don't speak bullshit.

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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.

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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"

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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"

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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.

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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"

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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

Re: Iranian uranium
 

*yawn*

Re: Iranian uranium
 

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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

Re: Iranian uranium
 

It really is my fault this time, huh?

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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?

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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.

Quote:

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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.

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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.

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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.

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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...

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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.

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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.

Re: Iranian uranium
 

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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?

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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:

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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.

Re: Iranian uranium
 

Good point about Pakistan Strangelet.

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...

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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.


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.

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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?

Re: Iranian uranium
 

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

Re: Iranian uranium
 

totally agree.