IAF: Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran

[truthpusher]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/543087.html

Last Update: 21/02/2005 21:37

IAF: Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran

By Haaretz Staff and The Associated Press

Israel Air Force Commander-in-Chief Major General Eliezer Shakedi said Monday that Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran in light of its nuclear activity.

(snip)

When asked whether Israel has a plan for the Iranian nuclear program, Shakedi replied, "You know that for obvious reasons, I won't say even a word."

But when asked whether he was confident the air force could provide the answer to the Iranian threat, Shakedi replied, "I must be prepared for everything."

(snip)

"We have a job to protect the citizens of Israel," Shakedi said. "I hope that there won't be a war - but you know, no one knows."

Complete story:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/543087.html

[number6]

1. here we go ...

kaboom :nuke: :( :scared:

[sellitman]

3. The last time Israel took out Iran's reactor

It was a surgical strike. If they try it again I hope they are just as lucky this time. I'm sure glad bush the lessers diplomatic efforts have been so successful.What a great leader.
End of sarcasm.

[Coastie for Truth]

9. Iraq's reactor.

[Zerex71]

19. Interesting factoid that most of you probably don't know.

There was an IAF pilot who was instrumental in that strike, one Ilon Ramon, who sadly perished in the Columbia disaster of Feb. 1, 2003.

Mike

[daleo]

24. I believe wreckage was found at a town called Palestine (Texas)

There were many peculiar features of that crash, including the fact that it happened only a few weeks before Bush's ill fated adventure in Iraq. Portentous perhaps - indeed, some might say that somebody was trying to warn Bush.

[Horse with no Name]

26. Actually debris was spread all over East Texas

There was some found in Palestine and many other smaller towns.
From what I remember without looking it up--it started disintegrating over West Texas and the pieces started falling over East Texas/Louisiana.

[daleo]

28. I should have said "some wreckage".

Undoubtedly the wreckage pattern would be far and wide from an event like this. It was just sort of oddly symbolic that the town of Palestine, Texas was the one in most of the news reports at the time, as far as I recall.

[Horse with no Name]

80. duh

I get your significance now,lol.
Blonde moment. Nice pickup.

[Tempest]

23. Iran's reactors are too well protected

And their nuclear facilities are too dispursed.

And it was Iraq's reactors, not Iran's.

[uppityperson]

2. No one knows but Mr.bush.

[truthpusher]

6. Mega-Yikes!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Colorado Blue]

65. Note to Lynn the Dem, and all who think I can't "see":

Lynn - and to all of you who seem to think there is only one side to this argument: I'm not blind, nor are most of the people who love and support Eretz Israel. The opposite in fact is true. We are involved to a far greater degree in the fortunes of this region, and in the welfare and well-being of her people, than you might imagine.

Without going into TOO many details about MY personal life, let us just say this:

I could have chosen a safe, prosperous all-American-type life working at a safe, sane profession. Instead I followed a path of study in and involvement with, the culture of the Mediterranean basin, the Middle East and Central Asia. That has exposed me to great personal risks, financial catastrophe and a tremendous eye-opening. It has forced me to see what you describe but it has also forced me to acknowledge my own roots, as an American, a citizen of the West, as a woman and as a Jew. Only by truly experiencing "the other" can one truly know oneself. And only through those of us who have been willing to enter the world of others, to experience what they experience and know what they know, as SOME of us have been willing to do, can people evolve and grow toward some REAL understanding of each other.

I have worked with and made friends with people from all over that world. The thought of war there makes me ill. Probably to a far greater extent than most of you my personal life has been interwoven with people from the Arab world, from the greater Muslim world, and from Iran. As a dancer - I've been a Middle Eastern dancer for more than 30 years - I made and performed with my own company. My musicians were Arabs, Turks, Greeks and Jews. My dancers were of many ethnicities - black, white, brown. We made art and music TOGETHER. The music and dance and song of the region belies the notion of our separate origins. When you immerse yourself in the music of India, Persia, Central Asia, Iraq, Israel, Greece, Turkey, Spain, the Levant, and North Africa you learn that we are all children of the same mother. Our voices rise above politics and war.

As a student, collector of, and writer about the tribal weavings of Iran, North Africa and Central Asia, I feel that the people who live there are MY people. Our lives are interwoven as surely as those tapestries. They were made of wool from sheep raised by tribal women and dyed with colors made by Jewish dye masters who worked all throughout Persia and along the Silk Road. I have friends from Iran, both Jewish and Muslim. My husband's closest business associate is a Muslim from Karachi. His working companion is a Muslim of African-American descent. My father-in-law flew for the Luftwaffe. My maternal grandparents walked out of Czarist Russia, fleeing the pogroms.

You have NO IDEA what America means for all of us and how hurt we ALL are by what is happening around the world, in our name. And you have NO IDEA what Israel means for the Jewish people of this world. Do you suppose, with our LONG traditions of ethics and law, that we do not see the irony of a state defended by the brutal weapons of the West?

I dated a man whose mother was an Iraqi Jew and whose father was a refugee from Hungary. They were Israelis who'd fled persecution and war in their countries of origin. Their son was a victim of war too, a soldier in the Lebanon conflict. He was as deeply scarred by the experience as any Vietnam veteran. An earlier love of mine is Greek, a singer I worked with. I was beaten by his people for being a dancer, an uppity woman and a Jew.

Only when you put on the veil and get into the skin of a Middle Eastern woman can you begin to comprehend these traditions. They are part of the heritage of Greek, of Israeli, of Turk, of Egyptian. This is not something that a white American can read from a book and pass judgement upon.

Don't for a moment believe that I do not see. I do more than see. My life is interwoven with theirs. We are one and the idea of bombs falling on my people - the people of Israel, of Jordan, of Persia, Iraq, Turkey, Kurdistan and Morocco; the vision of pipelines burning and innocent people being killed and animals slaughtered by helicopters and bombs and green fields being destroyed renders me almost senseless with grief and sorrow and rage.

Now I'm going to ask you again: please try to open your mind. Your position, you say, is hard. Now go experience. When you know something about life you will know something about ambiguity. When you know about ambiguity and the many shades of right and wrong I suspect you will not be so one-sided in your outlook.

Shalom.

[Djinn]

71. then don't assume that this ONLY applies to you

many people who don't support Eretz Israel (frankly if you support the theft of land that other people have worked for generations I think there's little we'd have in common but I digress) ALSO have ties to the area and ones that go a little deeper than having studied persian weaving.

[Colorado Blue]

78. Please re-read my post. I can live without the insults. I'm

trying to explain that I am NOT seeing only one side. In spite of the insults - and that my involvement with the people of the region - ALL the people - has been far from shallow.

What I am BEGGING you to do is try to see that we too are people with a legitimate point of view. This may be difficult if it conflicts with your preconceptions. I have had to overcome preconceptions too. If people would try to see more than one side we would have a legitimate chance to forge a real bond. Without that, without the willingness of BOTH sides to compromise and grow, I am pessimistic.

Right now I am VERY pessimistic. I do NOT seem to be able to get through at all. Perhaps I am not good enough at expressing what I'm trying to say. I hope that is the problem. I will work on my writing.

Take care.

[pelsar]

81. colorado....

your doing fine..and a fascinating write up, no doubt your personal experiences give you insights that many of us would never know about.

as far as many of the readers here "demeaning " your knowledge/experiences or claiming greater knowledge etc...well, i know well the frustration. Take heart in that those of us who have actually been/are involved in the conflict on either side tend to have very interesting and enlightening discussions. Its usually easy to tell by the writing, we tend to explain our points via personal experiences as opposed to general statements of "wrong and right"..also I"ve noticed at least within this discussion group, those who have been are far more tempered as to the complexities of the conflict.

[Colorado Blue]

83. Thank you!!!!! nt

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[pelsar]

89. djnn..

so? tell us about your sources?....isnt the whole point of discussions is to pass on information? make the "other side" see what they are not seeing?

you've hinted more than once that your not just reading from the internet, etc ....tell us, why "hide from us what you know, how you know it?

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[Djinn]

122. I did

but for some reason it was deleted - there was nothing in it that broke the rules but hey whatever.

1. It's none of your fucking business
2. It would mean putting readilly identifiable info about myself and some of my family/friends on the net which I'm not prepared to do
3. I don't actually beleive it gives me any more right to speak or have an opinion on this than anyone else

Could this please be left up so that pelsar can stop posting condescending posts about me and hinting that I don't know what I'm talking about...please?

[lovuian]

4. Will we really make it to June??? I don't think so!!!

Its so sad to see this!!!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. I don't know if we will or not

If we do that means we have a full three months + of this propaganda to have to put up with.

[Gyre]

7. Airstrike may = Tel Aviv + nuke

= smoking hole. That's what worries me. They must have a shit-load of confidence in their intelligence operative in Iran if they try that one. Hope their intelligence is better than ours cause I wouldn't even bet the chicken-coop on our information there.

Gyre

[Clarkie1]

18. They do and it is. n/t

[American Renaissance]

8. uhh... good luck with that,

The sneak attack of the Iraqi reactor isn't going to be quite as easy as attacking the Iranian facilities that are under some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world who are on alert 24/7

[Coastie for Truth]

10. Did you ever think - disinformation, misinformation, chaff ?

Al jazeera has attributed super human powers to Mossad and IAF.

[Minstrel Boy]

12. Not Al Jazeera. Haaretz. n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

13. My point exactly.

Al Jeezra has been describing the IAF and Mossad as super human.

Now the IAF and Mossad are putting out mis-information, or dis-information, or chaff, or whatever to put some kind of psy-ops pressure on Iran.

Makes as much sense as a wild colonel letting loose an attack, or a deliberate attack on Iran.

The Israeli generally require more to pre-empt then the US does under Bush.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

11. I Knew it ! I said before- The U.S. will help ISRAEL nuke Iran-then invade

after Israei actually launches the nuclear strike, U.S. troops move in under the pretense of "relief" effort.

Just watch--see if I'm right !

I believe that the Tsunami was a rehearsal for integrating troops under the guise of being "helpers"...and don't even think for a minute that the U.S. isn't capable of seismic charges so deep under the ocean floor that they're undetectable. it's just a top secret weapon of mass destruction.
We are the dangerous ones with weapons of mass destrukkktion.

[Coastie for Truth]

14. Huh?

1. You posted "I believe that the Tsunami was a rehearsal for integrating troops under the guise of being "helpers"...and don't even think for a minute that the U.S. isn't capable of seismic charges so deep under the ocean floor that they're undetectable. it's just a top secret weapon of mass destruction."

Different seismic signatures - very different. I live in the land of seismologists --- and that idea was shot down on Bernie Ward's show (Bernie never misses a chance to attribute all manner of evil to Israel and the US).

2. You also posted "I Knew it ! I said before- The U.S. will help ISRAEL nuke Iran-then invade" after Israei actually launches the nuclear strike, U.S. troops move in under the pretense of "relief" effort."

Good fiction.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

15. damn straight--

listen to Bernie every weekday.
I believe and I "think" was what I said regarding the manymethods of mass "disruption" possessed by our govt., provable or not --I "believe"-

Bernie's great and I love the show, but he can only deal in "provable" ideas on his show or he loses credibility.
I, being intuitive and having no radio show and no audience, have the ability to say what I "believe"--note that the key words are "I believe"--not fact- so I don't need to prove it.
We can prove facts.
FACT: -->the U.S.has the most extensive destructive weapons programs on the planet.

(Do we know how many ugly dead diseases are currently being cultivated in labs to be
used to kill masses?)

And, Isn't the U.S. the only country to ever actually USE nuclear weapons to kill masses of civilians?.
Fiction?
\nope,
How 'bout the sonic weapon... can render people helpless and in pain.
How 'bout the other hideous killing methods? there are many--Well, take this as FACT-
There ARE worse weapons than the ones that we are aware do exist -they are kept SECRET-

We are in the 21st century and the greatest minds and technologies are being used for destructive ideas with killing in mind. It all stems from greed.
FACT---> IF the U.S. "could" cause earthquakes, there's no imaginary "moral boundary" that would prevent them from being used.

You're damn straight the U.S. would use an earthquake inducer if they could, especially if they thought they could get away with it--look at all the lies they attempt to get away with each day--
These guys would resort to the lowest forms of torture and would kill millions if they thought they could gain in some way-----

Know your enemy--that's someone's quote I think--
I don't have to prove anything-I just know--

[justjones]

16. Some people just can't handle the truth. n/t

[Clarkie1]

17. Israel certainly has a right to self-defense

Iran has said that Israel doesn't even have a right to exist. Certainly it is understandable if they take it upon themselves to eliminate any imminent threat to their security.

Hope it doesn't come to that.

[NNN0LHI]

20. Does that also give Iran the right to fire their missiles into the...

...Dimona Nuclear Reactor which produces the plutonium that the Israelis use to make their illegal nuclear weapons? Certainly it is understandable if they take it upon themselves to eliminate any imminent threat to their security.

Hope it doesn't come to that

Don

[RapidCreek]

34. Well said!

I wonder if any of these assholes has considered the very real possibility that Iran already HAS nuclear weapons? I'd sure as shit keep it under wraps if I were running the show in Iran. The day folks knew for sure whether I had them or not, would be the day they started landing in their front yards.

RC

[hector459]

21. Iran also has a right to self defense I say. All nation's have a right to

self-defense and right now the only nation's threatening any kind of attacks are the US and Israel. Even N. Korea is not threatening an attack. What's wrong with this picture.

War = peace
Lies = truth
Attacks = self-defense

[omulcol]

27. But Iran

maintains it has no nuclear weapons and doesn't intend making any. I see this threat as a continuation of neo-con plans to control the whole of the middle east - and is still all about oil.
It isn't difficult to realise that every country under threat from the Bush regime has copious amounts of oil ... or has access to pipelines for it.

Iran has no fear of USA or Israelli shouting, and heaven help all of us should Iran be attacked.- because they won't sit idly by and watch the destruction of their atomic plants - or their country..

[Djinn]

72. ah OK

who started the nuclear program first? I beleive it was Israel, who has (like Iran) been secretive about it.

Perhaps Iran felt that with Israel's closest ally occupying 2 of their neighbours, the US sabre rattling once more this time in their direction combined with Israel's nuclear abilities, that they weer under threat and should protect themselves.

As for the "right to exist" thing - why did Israel not take up international relations with Arab nations when offered, was it because that deal insisted Israel stay within it's 67 borders? wouldn't an agreement to normalise international relations be worth giving up those settlements?

I guess not so much in Israel's eyes

[anarchy1999]

22. Isn't there another forum for the Israel issues?

I may be banned for this, but I am sick and tired of our (the US) and the evangelical Christians support and the huge dollars we spend to support this agenda.

This is WRONG!

Why is it okay for Israel to have Nukes, paid for by the US, and no one else in the Mid-East can have them?

I'm so sorry for what we (the US, the people) allow to happen and that we perpetuate with "our" dollars. Why? I really want to know why?

[Colorado Blue]

25. Israel has not vowed to destroy her Arab neighbors or Iran.

This is not true of the rhetoric aimed at Israel. Several wars have been launched that nearly destroyed Israel. Terrorists have been funded and supported by Iran and others, who have killed many Israeli citizens. The Yom Kippur war was so terrible it is a miracle that we survived and this is also true of the War of Independence.

If you look at a map maybe you will understand how tiny and vulnerable Israel really is. Everybody thinks Israel is this huge powerful nation but in reality she is hanging by a thread.

Ditto the Jewish population outside Israel. People seem to have this vision lately of hugely powerful and rich Jews, running the world. This is nonsense and IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME MYTH THAT GOT US ALL KILLED BY THE GERMANS.

Now I have a question or two for YOU: why SHOULDN'T the US help a Western democracy, which alone in the entire region is our friend? What would be so terrible if Israel survived? Wouldn't it be good if the Arab/Muslim world started moving forward a little bit? Which could happen if a real dialogue could begin between them and Israel, not just endless rhetoric and war - much of which has been created by the oil industry and the power players in the industrialized world.

On the subject of nukes - I don't think ANYBODY should have them. But in the case of the Middle East and Israel - IF Israel has them, which has never been confirmed or admitted - they are an absolute last resort against being crushed. Period. I don't think it is unreasonable, given the wars that have been fought in the region, not the least between Iraq and Iran in addition to those launched against Israel, that we'd ALL BE BETTER OFF if the these nations had no nukes. Do you really think a nuclear armed fundamentalist theocracy, one which believes in Jihad as an essential feature of the religion, is such a hot idea?

Just asking.

Honestly you guys can be such hypocrits. On the one hand, just to take ONE example, everybody moans about the condition of women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, nobody wants to help a nation in which women are treated with at least as much respect as we are here. Everybody SAYS they believe in democracy - but it's OK for theocracies and dictatorships to thrive throughout the Arab world and in Iran. You seem to have more trust in and respect for dictatorships, spurious aristocracies and theocracies than you do in the one democracy in the entire region.

Go figure.

[entanglement]

39. Oh yeah, they respect women

That's why they crushed unarmed peaceful protestor Rachel Corrie with a bulldozer. The next time I hear the 'Israel = great chosen only democracy crap' I'm going to puke. :puke: :puke:

[Behind the Aegis]

40. I see the comparison

Millions of women are subjugated to wear burkas, not vote, and can be murdered legally, but the death of one woman (whether murder or an accident) undoes all of the rights and privileges Israeli women have. :eyes:

[entanglement]

41. When did I say Israeli women

don't have privileges? It is those who disagree with Israel, like Palestinian men/women/children or peace activists who bear the brunt of its murderous policies. And the fact that women in Saudi / Iran are treated outrageously has very little to do with supporting Israeli militarism and aggression. Call it a democracy all you will, it's essentially an ethnocentric, theocratic apartheid state with genocidal policies.

[Behind the Aegis]

42. Question for you

"Call it a democracy all you will, it's essentially an ethnocentric, theocratic apartheid state with genocidal policies." Much like the United States, especially in the 'early' days, but that doesn't negate the US's right to defend itself.

I never said you said Israeli women had no privileges. You said: "Oh yeah, they respect women." This implies Israel does NOT respect women. To which I responded that the death of ONE woman doesn't mean Israel lacks respect for women. Perhaps, what you should have said was "It is those who disagree with Israel, like Palestinian men/women/children or peace activists who bear the brunt of its murderous policies." That may have been perceived as more accurate than Oh yeah, they respect women.

Now, answer this: Israel disrespects ...those who disagree with Israel, like Palestinian men/women/children or peace activists who bear the brunt of its murderous policies. Women in many Arab countries are expected to wear burkas, always walk BEHIND their husband, are still considered property, and can be LEGALLY murdered by relatives. All of these women are CITIZENS of their native country. Which country (countries) disrespects women more?

[Jim Sagle]

68. Yes they do and you goddamn well know it.

[Djinn]

73. frankly I'm getting kind of over

your blanket denunciations of everyone on this board who YOU beleive are hypocrites or don't know what they're talking about

"Honestly you guys can be such hypocrits. On the one hand, just to take ONE example, everybody moans about the condition of women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, nobody wants to help a nation in which women are treated with at least as much respect as we are here. Everybody SAYS they believe in democracy - but it's OK for theocracies and dictatorships to thrive throughout the Arab world and in Iran. You seem to have more trust in and respect for dictatorships, spurious aristocracies and theocracies than you do in the one democracy in the entire region. "

Yeah we're all keen on the establishment of an Islamic caliphate because I can't wait to be sent back home to cook and clean :eyes: perhaps many people feel that while the US has a very close relationship with the most oppresive govt that faffing on about Iran (where unlike Saudi women work at ALL levels) is a bit pointless.

Please name ONE person on this board who has said they prefer theocracies and dictatorships to Israel? even one that came close to saynig that, or admit your hyperbole is OTT and quite offensive.

BTW - ALL Muslims believe jihad is a fundamental part of their religion - the meaning of jihad is simply struggle, you struggle to follow God's word, I beleive all Christians do the same they just don't have a word for it.

[Colorado Blue]

82. Djinn - my comments have to do with the amazing reaction

to anything having to with Israel: right away, Israel is planning a nuclear attack on Iran. Israel has no desire for peace. Israel did the tsunami. Israel is a state of thugs. Israel this, Israel that. You think YOU are offended - well, so am I. Beyond that I am afraid. I explain my position regarding fear in another response to you, fear that eventually Israel will simply be destroyed. Indeed I believe that the Christian "Zionists" intend exactly that, so they can bring about The Second Coming and go to heaven, goddess help us all.

Meanwhile, I believe that many responses to the word "Israel" on this board are COMPLETELY unbalanced. I read a comment on the main board the other day - lost the thread because my IP crashed - implying that Israel invented Hamas, and I've read that that so & so's kid died for the dark designs of the Likkud, and that Washington is doing Israel's dirty work; and I've read that the Jewish landlord of the WTC was behind 9/11, crashed the buildings because they weren't profitable, and so on and so forth. Really ugly, dirty stuff, beyond what I would consider the bounds of reason let alone good taste. So I apologize if I have overreacted but I'm very concerned about what appears to be a disturbing trend.

As far as my comments about hypocrisy are concerned, I do believe it is not inappropriate to mention that the liberal/progressive position within America is to defend human rights. Yet, when the author Sharansky appeared on the tube last weekend with Pat Buchanan, one or more poster on the main discussion board referred to him as an "asshole" and delightedly reported that "Buchanan kicked his ass." This referring to, I believe, Buchanan's putdown of Bush for reading the work of, and I quote, "a former Soviet dissident". Buchanan went on to say that one shouldn't be too concerned about encouraging democracy in other states because one can do good business with dictatorships.

Glad as I am to see anybody criticize Bush, for people - DEMOCRATS and LIBERALS and PROGRESSIVES - to have preferred the classic Republican version of realpolitik to the ideal of democracy, to have preferred the PAT BUCHANAN version of foreign relations to the ideal of democracy, strikes me as being really strange. And frankly I was confused that liberals wouldn't respect the courage it took to be a dissident in the Soviet Union. I can't help but feel that some of the reaction against Sharansky is because Bush read his book, #1, but #2, because Sharansky is an Israeli citizen now and a Jew.

So, I'm paranoid?

One of the greatest tragedies of modern Israel has been the ugly conflict between the business of creating and defending a nation-state and the idealism of its creators. No honest person can avoid seeing this. I ask that the pro-Arab/pro-Muslim lobby on this board take the same unflinching look at human rights and especially women's rights, within the context of the modern Arab/Muslim nations.

Finally, I am aware that "jihad" is fundamental to all Muslims. However jihad does not always seem to be interpreted as "struggle" but as war. It was this latter context to which I referred.

[Djinn]

87. I've been here a while now

and I've never seen anyone mention half of the stuff you mention - not without it being deleted quickly - unfortunately there are numnuts on both sides, you should see some of the appallingly vile things that have been said about arabs and muslims here, thankfully the freaks don't tend to last.

implying that Israel invented Hamas

no-one implies they "invented" them but I'm afraid it's a fact that they originally provided them with funding and other support, they were preferable to the growing support (internationally) of PLO, it kinda backfired a bit - Hamas also provided a considerable social program which some will say was the sole reason for Israel's initial support, whatever you believe the reason, the support was there.

that so & so's kid died for the dark designs of the Likkud

can you post a link - seems a little vague to have stuck in your mind so much. On a secondary point you probably wont find too many Likud fans here, what with this being a liberal board. It's strange that Likud should be immune from the criticism most people here have for all conservative parties

Washington is doing Israel's dirty work

again it's hard to respond without seeing the posts you're referring to. I've occasionally seen people pointing out that on many issues the agenda of Israel and the US coincides and that Israel receives a hefty chucnk of tax payer funded support from US citizens for a non third world nation but I've never seen anyone make the suggestion that you imply, ie that Israel controls Washington - Washington isn't controlled by anyone but there are issues where things have been mutually benefical.

The PNAC stuff unfortunately leads many to the "Israel(jews) control the world" theory which I have no time for, PNAC is neo-con not Jewish , every Jew I know (including myself) hates it and many many freaky warmongering Christians are in on it - it's a rightwing bully thing not a Jewish thing. I'd like Israel to stop equating itself with all Jews myself but just because Sharon et al do it doesn't mean the conspiracy heads and (real) anti-semites should as well.

and I've read that the Jewish landlord of the WTC was behind 9/11, crashed the buildings because they weren't profitable

really? you've read that here? and the poster wasn't tombstoned?

One of the greatest tragedies of modern Israel has been the ugly conflict between the business of creating and defending a nation-state and the idealism of its creators

is that a poetic way of saying the conflict between creating and defending a state on land that was already settled in the first place? Israel was by no means the first nation to do this, but I guess the Europens had the benefit of being in the only party in their respective fights with guns when they cut a swathe through the nations of the native americans and indigenous australians. Israel was created at a time when the displacd population had access to a bit more fire power than a woomera, and it hasn't worked out that well for anyone

[Colorado Blue]

94. Djinn - most of the nasty stuff is coming off the main...

board, which moves very fast. Here's a link to an example, check out Sephiroth's comment:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3163683

The thing about the landlord lightening has appeared more than once. Many folks, probably most of whom wear aluminum hats, espouse this idea because of WTC7. Engineering buffs are aware that pancaking is not unknown and has occurred spontaneously in UNDAMAGED buildings due to improper placement of rebar in cement and other factors that lead to the phenomenon of punch-shear - forces interacting between floor and column that get out of balance and cause pancake-style collapse of floor and building. However, logic doesn't seem to affect their POV. I saw another post, last night I think, blaming Sharon for involvement in 9/11. Quite a few others insist that Israel offed Hariri, with NO evidence whatsoever. These appear in a thread on this forum.

Incidentally nobody who posts these ideas seems to realize that Israel stands to get creamed should war break out with Iran or Syria. They have serious weapons and this would simply inflame the region to a horrible and perhaps uncontrollable degree.

I will start copying these posts down for future reference and do a separate article, I think.

As far as the Likkud is concerned I think they absolutely deserve criticism. However their POV should not tar the entire state of Israel or its people and I think folks are getting the two confused. On the other hand, I think in many cases they (the Likkud) and Sharon, are reacting out of fear and the experience of terrible violence. This MUST be understood when criticizing them. It isn't like the US, where we are sitting here in almost complete safety. Many posters here seem to forget that the loss of Israeli life is real and it is devastating. Also the necessity to remain armed to the teeth is very bad for the economy.

Having said that I will express my personal opinion: when Sharon marched into that mosque with his security forces I almost fainted. That was an appalling act, guaranteed to cause pain and anger. We'd have felt the same, had somebody marched into a synagogue. Similarly I do not see how any Jew can feel comfortable with people living behind barbed wire. I speak of the camps and of the suffering of the Palestinian people in general. That goes against every principle we stand for and betrays the suffering of our own heritage. On the other hand the surrounding states bear a considerable burden of guilt in this matter. The Palestinian people have been pawns for all sides. This has gone on LONG ENOUGH.

Thank you for explaining the Hamas thing. The aid aspect explains it, if there was support. I think more than one charity, meant to help provide food, shelter, medicine and reparation, has been misued.

As far as nation building on other folk's property: this is, unfortunately, the usual situation. Perhaps we will someday reach a point when borders, nations, aren't a requirement for security.

I wish I had a better idea for the Jewish people, than trying to hold a temporal state. However history has shown us that we are sitting ducks. The neo-Nazi movement is rising in Europe and in the US and it is frightening. There is NO reason to suppose that it will not become violent.

The wall in Israel - it seems we are actually building our own ghetto. A tragedy.

The whole experience of Israel bears a seed of hope, and that is the very public process of the struggle. House by house, death by death, we are seeing this on TV. Perhaps people will become so disgusted and saddened by violence that we will come to reject the whole ugly process forever.

I will live in hope that a flower of non-violence will rise from this swamp.

[Coastie for Truth]

97. An Iranian colleague defined "jihad"

You posted:

"BTW - ALL Muslims believe jihad is a fundamental part of their religion - the meaning of jihad is simply struggle, you struggle to follow God's word, I believe all Christians do the same they just don't have a word for it."

My Iranian colleague defined Jihad thusly:

We are sitting in a bar (he is not strictly observant), and an attractive women sits down alone, and gives him "the eye." His struggle - or jihad - is "Should I hit on her?" This is real struggle.

[LynnTheDem]

29. Israel plans to add to their long list of invasions and occupations and

bombings of other countries and number of UN resolutions against them to be vetoed by the USA.

Poor little victim that Israel is.

[Colorado Blue]

31. All of which have been in response to wars and invasions.

[LynnTheDem]

32. bullshit.

Absolute bullshit.

1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for there immediate return.


1993 to 1995

UNGA Res 50/21 - The Middle East Peace Process (Dec 12, 1995)

UNGA Res 50/22 - The Situation in the Middle East (Dec 12, 1995)

UNGA Res 49/35 - Assistance to Palestinian Refugees (Jan 30 1995) l

UNGA Res 49/36 - Human Rights of Palestinian Refugees (Jan 30 1995)

UNGA Res 49/62 - Question of Palestine (Feb 3 1995)

UNGA Res 49/78 - Nuclear Proliferation in Mideast (Jan 11 1995)

UNGA Res 49/87 - Situation in the Middle East (Feb 7 1995)

UNGA Res 49/88 - The Middle East Peace Process (Feb 7 1995)

UNGA Res 49/149- Palestinian Right- Self-Determination (Feb 7 1995)

UNGA Res 48/213 - Assistance to Palestinian Refugees (Mar 15, 1994)

UNGA Res 48/40 - UNRWA for Palestinian Refugees (Dec 13, 1993)

UNGA Res 48/41 - Human Rights in the Territories (Dec 10 1993)

UNGA Res 48/58 - The Middle East Peace Process (Dec 14 1993)

UNGA Res 48/59 - The Situation in the Middle East (Dec 14 1993)

UNGA Res 48/71 - Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Mideast (Dec 16 1993)

UNGA Res 48/78 - Israeli Nuclear Armanent (Dec 16 1993)

UNGA Res 48/94 - Self-Determination & Independence (Dec 20 1993)

UNGA Res 48/124- Non-interference in Elections (Dec 20 1993)

UNGA Res 48/158- Question of Palestine (Dec 20 1993)

UNGA Res 48/212- Repercussions of Israeli Settlements (Dec 21 1993)

==========+++===========

U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel
(1972-2002)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vetoes: 1972-1982
Subject Date & Meeting US Rep Casting Veto Vote
Palestine: Syrian-Lebanese Complaint. 3 power draft resolution 2/10784 9/10/1972 Bush 13-1, 1
Palestine: Examination of Middle East Situation. 8-power draft resolution (S/10974) 7/2/1973 Scali 13-1, 0 (China not partic.)
Palestine: Egyptian-Lebanese Complaint. 5-power draft power resolution (S/11898) 12/8/1975 Moynihan 13-1, 1
Palestine: Middle East Problem, including Palestinian question. 6-power draft resolution (S/11940) 1/26/1976 Moynihan 9-1,3 (China & Libya not partic.)
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Arab Territories. 5-power draft resolution (S/12022) 3/25/1976 Scranton 14-1,0
Palestine: Report on Committee on Rights of Palestinian People. 4-power draft resolution (S/121119) 6/29/1976 Sherer 10-1,4
Palestine: Palestinian Rights. Tunisian draft resolution. (S/13911) 4/30/1980 McHenry 10-1,4
Palestine: Golan Heights. Jordan draft resolution. (S/14832/Rev. 2) 1/20/1982 Kirkpatrick 9-1,5
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, Jordan draft resolution (S/14943) 4/2/1982 Lichenstein 13-1,1
Palestine: Incident at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. 4-power draft resolution 4/20/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1, 0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. Spain draft resolution. (S/15185) 6/8/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1,0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. France draft resolution. (S/15255/Rev. 2) 6/26/1982 Lichenstein 14-1
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. USSR draft resolution. (S/15347/Rev. 1, as orally amended) 8/6/1982 Lichenstein 11-1,3
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, 20-power draft resolution (S/15895) 8/2/1983 Lichenstein 13-1,1



Security Council Vetoes/Negative voting 1983-present
Subject Date Vote
Occupied Arab Territories: Wholesale condemnation of Israeli settlement policies - not adopted 1983
S. Lebanon: Condemns Israeli action in southern Lebanon. S/16732 9/6/1984 Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK)
Occupied Territories: Deplores "repressive measures" by Israel against Arab population. S/19459. 9/13/1985 Vetoed: 10-1 (U.S.), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK, France)
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17000. 3/12/1985 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)
Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places. S/17769/Rev. 1 1/30/1986 Vetoed: 13-1 (US), with one abstention (Thailand)
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17730/Rev. 2. 1/17/1986 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)
Libya/Israel: Condemns Israeli interception of Libyan plane. S/17796/Rev. 1. 2/6/1986 Vetoed: 10 -1 (US), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, UK)
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored repeated Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and other measures and practices against the civilian population; (S/19434) 1/18/1988 vetoed 13-1 (US), with 1 abstention (UK)
Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory; (S/19868) 5/10/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) 12/14/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention; (S/19466) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; (S/19780) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions. 2/17/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories. 6/9/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied territories. 11/7/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. 5/31/1990 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 5/17/1995 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. 3/7/1997 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories 3/21/1997 Vetoed 13-1,1 (US)
Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza 3/27/2001 Vetoed 9-1 (US),
with four abstentions
(Britain, France, Ireland and Norway)
Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. 12/15/2001 Vetoed 12-1 (US)
with two abstentions (Britain and Norway)

[Colorado Blue]

37. I will try one more time: parsing history line by line you are

missing the forest for the trees. The trees are what you are presenting. The forest is the unremitting warfare against the very existence of Israel.

Israel is not perfect. Israel is a nation-state that has been under siege and in fear of its existence since the day of its inception. She is surrounded by enemies, by people who have a completely different mind-set and way of looking at the world. It is also a democracy composed of people from all over the world and representing all kinds of political philosophies. Some of those people are assholes and some of them are just flat scared. A lot of the hardliners have been REACTING. Can you, putting yourself in their shoes, totally blame them? Imagine your child bleeding in your arms. Imagine living EVERY DAY with the fear that getting on a bus will result in an explosion. There are people who are so terrified they believe that no Arab can ever be their friend. Try to understand, many people came to Israel having survived the Holocaust and terrible oppression in other lands - the Soviet Union, the Arab lands - did you know that over 1,000,000 Sephardic Jews were driven from THEIR homes, and others still live until terrible conditions?

It has been difficult to arrive at an understanding.

Hopefully we are moving forward.

I would be extremely grateful if my words can open a small crack in your minds. History is more than words on a page - try and look beyond the surface, try and see that there are two sides to this situation.

[LynnTheDem]

59. Good idea! Why don't you try and see the TWO sides.

Poor little Israel; nukes and $ billions in US weaponry every year and having one of the biggest weapons stockpiles in the world just aren't enough when surrounded by people with rocks.

You're entitled to your opinion, and it is only your opinion. I disagree with your opinion, regardless how many times you "try".

Perhaps you one day will be able to open a small crack in your mind to what so many ofthers have suffered and continue to suffer at the hands of Israel.

[Djinn]

74. be nice if you could do the same

and realise there are many arabs who don't feel they can trust israel, that many palestinians also fled from their nations in fear of their lives etc etc etc instead of ALWAYS seeing Israel as a victim, it's laughable when you compare geo-political weight, finances and military might

[Colorado Blue]

79. I understand that! And it breaks my heart. It SUCKS to see

the violence. It is falling on such innocents as well as the perpetrators of violence - too many people hurt.

As far as geo-political weight, finances, so forth - I think you are overestimating the Israeli position. In the long haul the Arab/Muslim population alone combined with their vast resources, outweigh any temporary military strength or alliances of convenience as might exist. I speak of the Bush administration - frankly I do not think their policies in the region are helpful whatsoever to anybody and will ultimately result in great pain for Israel as well as for Iraq, Afghanistan and whoever else they might decide to play with. And as for the rest of the world - Israel really doesn't mean a whole lot to anybody except a few of us to whom our ties of history and blood mean more than can possibly be expressed. We are expendable and future generations of Americans are already voicing their opinion, as I think you can see from reading carefully this thread.

My hope all along has been that Arab/Israeli ties can be built, that will allow the best EACH has to offer in terms of resources, intellectual development, the realm of philosophy and ideas, to be shared. This way the region can flourish and grow. Arguing against this possibility are the hardened positions of both sides, religious fundamentalism, terrorism and war. It is going to be a challenge but I think with good will we can see each other as family.

It is possible IF we can learn to trust each other and realize that we are ALL victims here, that all our fates have been tied to the power of the industrial West and to centuries of Empire - Roman, Ottoman, British - in the East. If we can do this - if we can get beyond our histories and our mutual fears - we can build a thriving and peaceful Middle East. If not, I suspect that Israel will be destroyed.

[Djinn]

88. Do you think Israel should have accepted

"My hope all along has been that Arab/Israeli ties can be built, that will allow the best EACH has to offer in terms of resources, intellectual development, the realm of philosophy and ideas, to be shared. This way the region can flourish and grow."

the Arab offer of full normalisation of international relations in exchange for returning to the 67 borders? it would have seemed to be a good idea.

I'm not really an optimist about most things and the I/P situation is one of them, I just disagree about which nation (or not quite nation in the case of Palestine) will disappear.

[Colorado Blue]

93. I think in principle the offer of full normalization in exchange

to a return to the 67 borders sounds like a good idea.

Having said that I'm not an expert on the security issues. I have read some opinions that seem to state the '67 borders are not possible to defend as is. In that case perhaps a compromise to beef them up in areas isn't unreasonable.

Is it possible to create sort of a intermeshing zone, wherein Palestinian property and Jewish property coexist? Not a "no-man's land" but an "everyman's land"?

Just a thought:)

[Matilda]

30. Why is Iran's nuclear capability, which hasn't yet been fully developed,

more dangerous to humanity than Israel's, which has been in place
for decades?

Just a little touch of hypocrisy here.

[Colorado Blue]

35. Have you forgotten perhaps the war between Iran and Iraq,

which killed over a million people in the '80's? Perhaps that should be considered a reason?

Also, Iran has funded terrorism for decades; it is a fundamentalist theocracy; that theocracy represents a religion that considers warfare a core value. Perhaps THOSE are reasons why Iran shouldn't have nuclear arms?

Having said that I don't think we should launch an attack. I do not believe in war. I believe in diplomacy and in trying to bring nations together, not divide them. And, as has been said above, all nations should be able to defend themselves. Nuclear proliferation, however, is a frightening thing.

There is another fact which nobody has considered above, and that is simply, Iran has enormous oil reserves. Obviously Bushco is interested in them. As should we all: until we are free of dependence upon fossil fuels, Mideast oil will be key to the well-being of the industrialized world. This includes YOU. This is why I advocate VIGOROUS support of investment in non-petroleum fuel sources and stringest conservation of resources.

Bushco would prefer a different government in Iran. But I do not think they will attack. Iran is no pushover, and an attack would probably start a major war. For one thing Russia would be furious and frightened - and they DO have weapons that could blow us all away. If Bush risks THAT he is either a complete idiot or he wants Armageddon.

Finally, I am NOT being a hypocrit. I stated my beliefs as clearly as I was able, and they are based on long experience. I think that many well-meaning liberals aren't really so liberal when it comes to respecting positions that may be less than fashionable - and one of those, on this board, is support for 1) Israel and 2) America.

Frankly, I would vastly prefer to be a citizen of either than of any Middle Eastern state. If you feel differently I suggest you take a deep breath and think again.

And any unbiased study of history - of FACTS - of a simple map for pity's sake - will support my contention that Israel is far more endangered than any of its neighbors. Israel is trying to do one simple thing: survive. As in, stay alive and on this planet. It is really that desperate a situation. The population of Israel is about 5 million. She is surrounded by an enormous territory of approximately 500 million Arabs. If you can't understand that you are being willfully blind.

Ultimately, it is to everybody's benefit that further wars do not develop. Nobody is praying harder for that than Israel and the Jewish citizens of the United States.

[Djinn]

75. WTF has the Iran/Iraq war got to do with anything???

btw - remember which side "we" were all on in that one??

that theocracy represents a religion that considers warfare a core value

I'm not sure whether you are massively ignorant about Islam as a whole or whether you meant to just refer to certain Iranian clerics but either way it's an ignorant statement.

the US and Israel have been at war (or in a state of war) for much of the last two decades - Iran had one war with it's neighbour who was a US supplied dictator.

And, as has been said above, all nations should be able to defend themselves

yep and that means if nation A can have weapons so can nation B - good to see you're getting it

I think that many well-meaning liberals aren't really so liberal when it comes to respecting positions that may be less than fashionable - and one of those, on this board, is support for 1) Israel and 2) America.

hahahahahaha I'm sorry but the only liberal position in the US that can be considered official is one that is VERY sympathetic to Israel, things that are considered middle of the road statements ANYWHERE else in the world are considered rabidly anti-semitic within the US, beleive me the "fashionable" position is with Israel, it sure as shit isn't with ANY arabs right now.

The population of Israel is about 5 million. She is surrounded by an enormous territory of approximately 500 million Arabs. If you can't understand that you are being willfully blind.

sorry this is just stupid - look at a map of the UK (and it's population) then look at a map of India (add in Bangladesh and Pakistan) - then remind yourself which of those two nations controlled the other for a few hundred years? It has NOTHING to do with size and population and everything to do with money and resources.

[Colorado Blue]

84. Yes - "WE" supported ol' Saddam. Although I understand

"we" also supported Iran sometimes, depending. Again, another stunning example of The Great Game in action.

The point I was trying to make, however, is that the mullahs haven't always hesitated to use force. Therefore I can understand why certain parties wouldn't want them to develop nuclear weapons.

Having said that I think everybody has a right to develop nuclear ENERGY. I hate oil. It is fucking up the entire planet and warping the geopolitical situation all out of whack and putting enormous pressure on the Middle Eastern states.

Have you read Friedman's ideas on "geo-Green"? To me they make sense. I gave up my car in 1977. You? Anyhow -

Down with oil. And while we're on the subject - down with killing people's horses and their flocks and trying to force the entire planet into the service of industrialism. Down with trying to make everybody the same. Up with the intelligent use of marginal land developed over millenia by the pastoral nomads.

But I digress.

I think a lot of people especially in Universities are becoming pro-Palestinian if not pro-Arab in general. Europe has always been pro-Arab in the sense of having romanticized Arabian people on the one hand while colonizing them on the other. Hypocritical in the extreme, I think.

I have no problem with anybody being pro-Arab as long as they are not anti-Jewish. Frequently, alas, pro-Arab means anti-Jewish. Among the intelligentsia of Europe and the US you will see decades, centuries of anti-Jewish thought and behavior.

If you will read my posts you again you will please glean the information that I have spent my life learning about the cultures of the Middle East and frequently get into huge arguments with people who think that no valid culture exists east of Ancient Greece.

So - pro-Arab/pro-Palestinian - this is fine with me. What worries me is antisemitism and knee-jerk anti-Israelism. I hesitate to even use the word "Zionism" anymore, it seems to have such evil connotations.

Finally - if you are worried about who would like to be controlling the Middle East - it is not Israel. It is the commercial interests, primarily the oil interests, of the industrial world. It is, in other words, US. Or more grammatically it is we who are guilty, we who drive around in bigass SUVs and prize stuff more than we prize art, music, animals, people - more than we prize life itself. The key is HERE. Only WE can change this ruthlessly materialistic and increasingly militaristic culture we live in. Blaming Israel for all the ills of the Middle East is totally counterproductive when we are ALL part of the problem.

[Djinn]

90. you don't think the mullahs

had every right to defend themselves against Saddam? you don't think thhe entire purpose of that war was to destabilise Iran?

To be honest I think you make a fair amount of generalisations about what people think (btw I'm not a student and as soon as I work out how to cover roughly 100k's a dy on short notice I'll happilly give up my car) and why they think that.

Europe has not always been "pro-palestinian" and they're not that way now because of any romanticized view of arab life - it may have something to do with a bunch of refugees fleeing the Nakba and the ongoing occupation, do you think that may atleast play a small part over and above any ali baba fantasies?

The hypocrisy of former colonial masters telling other people not to build colonies might seem glaring to you, but personally I'd expect the US to condemn slavery these days, I'd expect my government to condemn the removal of indigenous kids from their families - just because some nations have done things in the past doesn't mean future nations get a free go at it too. The Holocaust wasn't a lesser horror because the Ottoman Turks had attempted to kill their Armenian population 40 years before, Pol Pot's wholesale slaughter wasn't lessened by the fact that "the germans did it first" Injustice is injustice whenever and wherever it happens

[Colorado Blue]

95. I do think the mullahs had every right to defend themselves.

Let me rephrase and put it this way, with the full understanding that much of the violence in the Middle East has been stirred up by the former colonial powers, now known as Oil Companies:

given that violence CAN be stirred up should people have these weapons?

I really don't know the answer to that. Personally I think we should all disarm. There is NO EXCUSE for having weapons that can destroy the damn planet. This is against all common sense. Nobody who has ANY respect for life should have these weapons and that includes the US.

As it stands, however, the tribal warfare, stress between religious groups, the fact that nation-states were created by fiat - it's a volatile situation throughout the region. It is my belief that the Russians and the Western powers like to keep control of their "empires" by setting one off against the other. The potential for loss of life not to mention radioactive oil reserves (gasp) would argue against promoting the presence of nukes.

Having said that I think the people in the region have survived for thousands of years. I think they have common sense. I think we should trust them to make wise decisions and STAY THE F OUT OF THERE.

Certainly one can't bring around peace by starting preemptive wars.

Does this make my position clearer? Sometimes I do try to argue the devil's corner.

PS - I understand we can't all throw our cars away. BUT we can start working HARD to conserve energy, to try and push for sustainable energy sources, if we have money we can try and invest in companies that are doing research in this area. We can bug our Congresspeople relentlessly. The Environment and the wastage of polluting, geo-politically destructive energy sources must be a primary concern and it's frustrating to me that the MSM barely covers it and even on this board there doesn't seem to be the enthusiam for these causes that there should be.

Later!

[Jim Sagle]

69. No, just a touch of common sense.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Colorado Blue]

36. It is to laugh!

[GetTheRightVote]

38. I believe that both sides are at fault and hopefully will end

Their differences one day in a peaceful manner. There is no excuse from either side that would support a wrong on top of another wrong in my own humble opinion. The Muslims deserve peace just as much as the Jewish settlers. I only wish the US would keep their noses out of it just long enough for a real chance for peace between them to be created and to be supported between these two countries without some kind of blood shed by either one of them or the USA.

:kick:

[rainbow4321]

43. Israel prepared to strike Iran: (Israeli) air chief

http://www.eians.com/stories/2005/02/22/22air.shtml

Israel is prepared for an air strike to knock out Iran's nuclear capability, the country's air chief has said.

"I must be prepared for everything," Xinhua quoted Major General Eliezer Shakedi as saying on the Ha'aretz newspaper website.

He was responding to a question whether the Israeli Air Force could neutralise the Iranian threat.

Shakedi, however, declined to say if he thought Israel was capable of carrying out such a mission on its own.

[leftchick]

44. nice...

right after their earthquake too? :eyes:

[TomClash]

45. Key Phrase

"Shakedi, however, declined to say if he thought Israel was capable of carrying out such a mission on its own."

That's because they can't do with 25 F-15Is.

[teryang]

48. Right

They can't do it without flying through airspace controlled by US Armed Forces.

[drdon326]

46. Good !!

As well they should.

Iran , the most reactionary thugocrasy on earth , has made it clear that it will not hesitate to use nukes on israel ....or worse , sell it to a bunch of psycho-terrorist freakazoids.

HOPEFULLY , Israel wont have too....but the handwriting is on the wall.

[Nihil]

47. Hmmm ... nice objective post there ...

The worst bunch of psycho-terrorist freakazoids happen to be running
the USA (though they have a fair number of imitators around the world).

I still question the sanity of a person who thinks that bombing anyone's
alleged nuclear plants is "Good !!".

[drdon326]

49. Question away.

I dont suck up to reactionary regimes that are one of the , if not #1, supporter of terrorism worldwide. But dont let me stop you.

Oh...btw....i like that "alleged"......i guess the IAEA is negotiating these "alleged" nuclear plants.:eyes:

[Forever Free]

50. I totally agree with ya!

Being liberal doesn't mean you have to appease or tolerate totalitarian and terrorist regimes. These governments stand against everything that liberals and progressives are for. We are right to oppose them.

[drdon326]

51. Reactionary thugocracy's......

are the very antithesis of liberalism.

Sad that some people want want to "bend over" to a bunch of hate filled terrorist supporting pseudo-religious psychos.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Raster]

56. so how do you feel about the reactionary thugocracy running

the united states? any issues with that?

[Jim Sagle]

70. Wonder why that is?

[Djinn]

77. the regime isn't likely to be killed by an errant bomb though don

civilians on the other hand ARE. I can not beleive you can cheer on war and destruction and call yourself a doctor, once again your taking joy in the prospect of a bunch of dead muslims...well done

[BikeWriter]

53. It was Sharon who backed Begin in 1981...

it was Sharon who backed Begin in 1981 when they took out the Osirak nuclear center in Baghdad, Iraq. I would put nothing past him, including complicity in 911.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[drdon326]

57. Un.believe.able.

.

[drdon326]

58. OMT...Let me guess....

anti-zionism, right?

[LynnTheDem]

60. Why is it that every time someone doesn't agree with terrorist Sharon

or govt policies of Israel, they're immediately labelled "anti-zionist"?

That makes the vast majority of the entire world "anti-zionists"...including a very large number of Jews.

Just gotta stick sweeping generalized labels on people who disagree.

:eyes:

[drdon326]

62. Do you know what I was responding to ??

.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[Djinn]

76. how many innocent Iranian kids are you willing to kill drdon

do you like Maddie Albright have an "acceptable" number.

[Colorado Blue]

85. Djinn - I don't think WE - people in the US or in Israel -

want to kill ANYBODY.

Bushco is on a rampage. I think most of us are absolutely terrified that he/they are going to drag us into a really horrible situation. As if the past 4 years haven't been bad enough - heaven knows if he's bluffing or how far he will go to implement his "ideas".

This is a VERY dangerous time. Let us all - all people of reason - try to get through it together.

[Djinn]

91. that was a very specific reference

to a single poster who lets just say hasn't convinced me of his love for his arab neighbours.

[Colorado Blue]

92. Gotcha! Thanks.

[hadrons]

52. the article is a bit leading ....

Israel is prepared for an air strike to knock out Iran's nuclear capability, the country's air chief has said.

"I must be prepared for everything," Xinhua quoted Major General Eliezer Shakedi as saying on the Ha'aretz newspaper website.

"I must be prepared for everything" is a pretty broad and blanket statement ... I mean the guy is just saying that all options are on the table

[leftynyc]

61. Shhh - don't speak with reason

This isn't the forum to, in any way, make Israel seem rational. Much better to align ourselves with countries that treat fully half their citizens worse than you'd treat your dogs or cats.

[Coastie for Truth]

66. HOW MANY DEMS BESIDES KERRY AND CLELAND AND HARKINS ...

have ever been in the military (being facetious).

The job of "military planners" is to "prepare for ANY EVENTUALITY" - even an attack on Watertown NY or Burlington VT by militant Parti Quebecois Terrorists. No matter how low the probability.

We lost 3000 of our fellow citizens because Bush - or Cheney - or Condi - or NORAD did not prepare for the eventuality that somebody might hijack four jet liners and use them as guided missiles.

Given what the Mullahs have been saying for 26 years - it would be suicidal not "prepare for ANY EVENTUALITY".

To act preemptively is another question. Don't conflate the two.

[Colorado Blue]

67. Amen. nt

[reprehensor]

64. Coincides with Scott Ritter's revelations about...

'orders' that Shrub has supposedly signed off on to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

NEWS: Scott Ritter says US attack on Iran planned for June

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

Israel DOES have the ability to physically travel to Iran and back now with the latest version of the Lockheed Martin F-16-I, and they have a lot more than 25;

The new F-16-I, named Sufah (Thunderstorm) in Hebrew, will strengthen the IAF's long reach, enabling it to reach nations such as Iran and Libya. It can fly a round trip of over 1,600 kilometers without refueling.

As long as the jets can get back over Iraq airspace, they will be able to refuel, presumably mid-air, with no ground fire to worry about from Iraqi ground forces.

Uri Avnery seems to have a clear perspective on what is going on;

This week, President George Bush repeated this threat. If he were the leader of Israel, he declared, he would have been feeling threatened by Iran. He reminded those who are a little slow that the United States has undertaken to defend Israel if there is a threat to its security.

All this adds up to a clear warning: if Iran does not submit to the orders of the US (and, perhaps, even if it does) Israel will attack it with American help, much as it attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor some 24 years ago.

The same week, something quite unexpected happened: Ariel Sharon sent the Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya’alon, packing. His successor will most probably be General Dan Halutz.

Halutz is, of course, a pilot, and one who played his part in the 1981 attack on the Iraqi reactor. If he succeeds Ya’alon, it will be the first time in the annals of the Israel Defense Forces that an airman is appointed Chief-of-Staff. That is rather curious. In the coming year, the army will be called upon to carry out a very difficult operation on land: the evacuation of the Gaza Strip settlements. The appointment of an Air Force general as Chief-of-Staff may hint that the IDF is planning something even more important in the air.

On AirAmerica radio yesterday, Ritter said the bombing orders date back to Oct. 04. Ritter hasn't been wrong yet. I don't think he's wrong about this, either. I just don't think he was tipped off about working with the IAF on a support mission.

[centristo]

96. for those who defend Iran's right to defend itself

with nuclear weapons:

are there situations in which a soverign nation-state should not have access to these doomsday devices? If Iran should be allowed to build and maintain nuclear facilities, should North Korea? Right now the info is murky on both nuclear programs and I certainly won't be the first to believe either country's spokespersons.

Don't we (America and its allies) have some kind of obligation to keep mass murderer's from having weapons of mass destruction (ahem, REAL ones)?

Please don't deflect this question by blathering on about what Israel does or does not do. Answer the question about Iran and North Korea, if you truly believe they should have access to these dangerous materials.

[newyorican]

98. Whether anyone likes it or not...

the only insurance against having the 82nd Airborne land on your doorstep is to maintain sufficient deterent. That is the reality in the 21st Century, brought to you by PNAC & Co.

It is a logical reaction to the action of invading Iraq on a pack of lies. The US provided enormous motivation to the countries dubbed, "the axis of evil" to develop these weapons.

As I said, like it or not.

[pelsar]

99. newyorican...

thats way too simplistic....both for korea and irans nuclear weapons programs were started way before bush and co. were elected.

Granted given todays climate they are now more overt about it, and are receiving support from americans and other peoples for their programs...but their programs were started it appears during previous presidencies (clinton? carter? reagan?).

Whether or not diplomacy could/would/did or didnt make a difference in their programs is pure speculation of which I doublt anybody has a real answer. But Irans supports the elimination of israel both overtly and subtly, korea-well, I know less about, but a country that is starving its own population cant be relied upon for sensible (i.e. western) decisions.

Nbombs in the hands of religous fanatics or cult dictators is a far more unstable scenario than a western democracy with them.

Motivation yes....but even the slightest "support" for them strikes me as insane.

[newyorican]

100. Well...

I did say, "Like it or not".

But often, the simple explanation is the most correct.

Given todays climate, Iran will have a nuke by the summer (if they don't already). If they don't, they have a death wish because the 82nd will drop in on their heads or the IAF will start bombing away. They have been provided with the ultimate motivation, self-preservation.

N. Korea already has a few, and the response from the US has been, "Let's talk". All discussion of military action has been taken off the table. This scenario is evident for the whole world to see, and it is very simplistic. Get nukes and negotiate, or don't get nukes and get invaded.

This is a classic case of action and reaction.

Now, once Iran has nukes, will they actually use them? Who knows, but it would be a country-sized suicide attack if Iran ever did use them. But this is a series of events the neocons have launched into motion in high gear. MAD is spreading whether anyone likes it or not. Placing the blame on one party or the other is futile at this point, it does take 2 to tango, and the (last?) dance has started.

Personally, I don't like it one bit. We are all closer, everyday, to kissing it all good-bye with tinker toys like this proliferating all over the place.

[pelsar]

101. like it?

neither do I...scares the "beegess out of me". Especially since I am probably on the receiving end. With Russia and the US at least the cultures were such that they understood one another.

that song constantly pops in my head: "I hope the russians love their children too"....I dont see that with iran (who has used kids as minesweepers) or N. korea.

whether n.korea is just playing a game or not? who knows. Iran though I am sure that this was their plan since khomeni took over, no matter who was the US president. Religious fanatisism is a impossible mind set, though eventually i'm assuming that they will implode (btw the irony is that, i read somewhere that bushes greatest supporters are the iranian population)

on the bright side?...after were gone perhaps a new form of life will take over the earth, one that treats it better.....

[eyl]

102. You're overestimating, I think,

the deterrent effects of nuclear weapons. The US start discussion once North Korea had nukes (assuming it has them now), but years before that. The deterrence to attacking NK is the proximity of their conventional weaponry to Seoul. Iran does not have any neighbors in such proximity it can threaten as such a deterrent, other than Israel. However, even if Iran acquires nukes, it still needs to get them to Israel; nuclear missile warheads (not to mention "suitcase nukes") are considerably more complicated than a "simple" bomb. And in any case, if Iran is using an attack on Israel as a deterrent, it justifies an Israeli strike, particularly since a) Iran has openly threatened to use nukes on Israel and b) Iran has sponsered and supported attacks in Israel for years.

There's also a large issue here, which is the whole issue of nonproliferation. Unlike Israel, Iran voluntarily forfeited its right to posess nuclear weapons and declared it wouldn't seek them by its signature of the NPT. If Iran does successfully attain nukes despite that, it will effectively void the entire non-proliferation regime. Stopping that does not necessarily require military force, but it does have to be done one way or another.

[newyorican]

105. Not Correct...

Iran does not have any neighbors in such proximity it can threaten as such a deterrent, other than Israel.

An Israeli-centric view has left you with less than 20/20 in this case. There are 2 neighbors to Iran (Israel is not a neighbor as it shares no border) that are currently puppet US governments, at best.

[eyl]

108. Yeah, except that both are Muslim

and Iran would face a significant backlash among its fellow Muslim states if it threatened them with nukes. That doesn't preclude threats against them, but it makes them less likely. And Israel is a "neighbor" for purposes of this discussion since it is (at least theoretically) wihtin Iranian missile range.

[newyorican]

110. Once again...

the armies in these "Muslim" countries are predominately US soldiers. One could argue with little effort that there are about 200,000 US troops on Iran's borders.

I'm not sure if you are intentionally not seeing the obvious, or if you really cannot grasp the situation. The government of Iran feels the presence of those troops in particular are a threat that requires deterrence.

[eyl]

111. And once again

my point is that as a deterrent, nukes are mainly effective when you can strike the enemy's civilians. They're much less effective (relatively speaking) against military objectives, since those are prepared to deal with bombs (a nuke is of course a very big bomb, but against military targets it's a difference of degree rather than kind).

[Darranar]

103. I think the morality of the governments in question is irrelevant...

the vast majority of states care for one thing above all, their own interests, and this tends to hold true for both those ruled by extreme theocracies and secular democracies.

The result is that I doubt even a nation like Iran would use nuclear weapons on the US; it would be a monumentally stupid idea, since it would result in its annihilation.

There is a reason, however, for keeping nuclear weapons from all the nations the neocons may be planning to invade. If those governments feel severely threatened, if they think that their only escape is through nukes, they will be used, and the result will be a global catastrophe of immense proportions.

[centristo]

104. the "morality" of the nation is the entire core

of what I'm talking about. What if "their interests" involve genocide or the terrorism of enemy states? Iran need not use the weapons against the US or Israel. They could sell or give nuclear weapons or just the materials to any number of unfriendly terrorist entities.

Surely Nazi Germany should have been prevented, at all costs, from building such weapons fifty years ago. And today there are regimes just as evil that should be blocked from having these weapons. Sudan, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran are just a few.

Does the United States have the moral superiority to determine who should and should not develop these weapons? Well, I would defer to the United Nations but the US should be leading movements to get these regimes under control. At the least we should all agree that Iran should have strict regulatory oversight by the IAEA at all nuclear facilities.

Here is some good info from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/Iran/perkovich_manzanero.pdf
http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/countries/country.asp?ID=2&country=Iran

[Darranar]

106. And who will keep the US government under control?

You know, the nuclear power at least partially responsible for a large number of incidents of mass murder?

Or does this sort of logic only apply to "enemy states"?

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[centristo]

121. there is also this...

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=Announcement1805

...regarding Iran and its media.

[Jackie97]

107. Hmmmm

I'm sure Iraelis wouldn't take it well if it was decided that they should be bombed for having nukes for the so called protection of others. Iran hasn't even been proven to have things yet.

[Colorado Blue]

109. Jackie - I don't think Israel has anything to do with this. The

general's DUTY is to be prepared for all contingencies. IMO the US is pressuring Israel on this matter and I hope they dig in their heels and say NO WAY are we going to get involved in this matter. IMO it would be TERRIBLE for Israel to launch a strike against Iran. We are just getting to a good place, a possible peace with the Palestinians, that would mean the world to the people of I/P.

Moreover, Israel is a part of the ME and killing innocents on the ground in Iran would have a devastating impact on her future relationships with the people of the region. I'm sure the Israelis know this and empathize; they've been victims also and know at first hand what bombs and modern weapons do to innocent people.

Anyhow this whole mess is down to Bushco, ignoring the situation in Iran all these years when they should have been CONCENTRATING on diplomacy with Iran and North Korea instead of chasing red herrings in Iraq. And I mean diplomacy as in talking, not as in dropping bombs. At this point their programs are much farther along and who knows what they have developed - or where they ARE for that matter.

I don't trust Bushco at all. They are playing a deadly game of some kind, I do not understand if it is a reaction to terror, simply a play to make lots of money for contractors, an attempt to stabilize a route for a pipeline from Turkmenistan, religious bigotry, preparation for Armageddon, or what. And I truly do NOT understand, if what Korea wants is a conversation, why they don't start a conversation. Starving N. Korea is asking for trouble - history proves that wars start for lesser reasons. And treating Iran like a perpetual pariah isn't going to help either.

I sincerely hope Bushco doesn't intend to "bring democracy" to Iran. And I don't see why they can't just TALK about things instead of sending mysterious conflicting signals. It's brinksmanship and it's frightening. IMO the terrorism, the threat, is THERE. The idea of terrorists with nukes is - well - terrifying. And there's a big difference between Israel, which is our ally and a Western style democracy, and a state which paints "Death to America" on its aircraft and has been known to funnel large sums of money to terrorists.

But it doesn't make sense to isolate people and treat them like pariahs. It is IMO far less likely that a catastrophe will occur in a world in which all have respect and all have a stake.

[Coastie for Truth]

113. Israel did NOT even use nukes in the 1973 Yom Kippur War

...which shows their restraint. If Israel was going to use Nukes aggressively - they certainly would have used them defensively in 1973, when they were the "victims" of a surprise, unprovoked attack. No doubt about that.

Strange as it may seem to some younger Progressives -- sometimes Israel is a victim, and sometimes even Jews are victims. I know that is not the Berkeley Neo-Lib dogma. But it is a FACT.

(Yes - I am a veteran of VietNam. Yes - I was a commissioned officer. Yes I was a "volunteer" - albeit a conscription motivated volunteer)

[justy387]

114. Israel is a democracy-

a democracy that provides freedom for all people- Arabs, Christians, and Jews.

Iran is a force of evil that punishes Jews, Christians, Westerners, and other non-Muslims.

There are no absolutely pure nations or absolutely evil nations- however Israel comes much closer to the former, and Iran is much, much closer to the latter.

[number6]

115. False

nt

[drdon326]

116. Compelling argument.

I'm sold.

[number6]

117. are your folowing me around DU, I'm flatered

"a democracy that provides freedom for all people- Arabs, Christians, and Jews." Arabs, Christians are second class Citizens,
Palestinians are in pure misery

"Iran is a force of evil that punishes Jews, Christians, Westerners, and other non-Muslims." one might say those fundie Mulah's are
no fun, "Iran is a force of evil" is Bush running Iran ?

light-en up drdon visit the DU lounge once in a while ;)

[Spinoza]

118. Israel was psychically born

in the gas-chambers of the Holocaust. Even today, there are still millions of Israelis with a direct family connection to the Holocaust. No Israeli government could last one day if it claimed that they were NOT "prepared for everything". Nukes in the hands of the "mad mullahs" of Iran evokes deep, deep fears of ANOTHER mass annihilation. Shakedi is simply stating the obvious that Israel is getting ready for a first-strike if the U.S. and/or Europe do not succeed in their efforts to stop the Iranian development. If push comes to shove, nothing will stop Israel from acting. This is not news. Everyone knows this.