Iran has time and time again said that Israel needs to be wiped off of the map. I take them seriously. I believe them. The only thing that has held Iran back is the means to do so. What should Israel do? Should they allow the Iranian nuke progran to continue and hope that they have been joking all these years? Or believe them and take out the nuke program before Iran takes out Tel-Aviv?
Does Israel have a choice?
Comments
"Iran has time and time again said that Israel needs to be wiped off of the map. "
Could you please provide the quotes, times and places and documentation where these statements were made?
"Iran has time and time again said that Israel needs to be wiped off of the map. "
Could you please provide the quotes, times and places and documentation where these statements were made?
Okay, here is one.
Ahmadinejad repeatedly demonizes the state of Israel and openly calls for its destruction at every opportunity. Most notoriously, he described Israel as a "fake regime" that "must be wiped off the map."
http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm
Another:
“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury,”
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/mahmoud_ahmadinejad/
And the trifecta.
Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.
The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- reported by Islamic Republic News Agency -- coincide with a month-long protest against Israel called "World without Zionism" and with the approach of Jerusalem Day.
World without Zionism is a nationwide event the planners intend to hold annually, and Ahmadinejad made the remarks during a meeting with protesting students at the Interior Ministry.
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-10-26/world/ahmadinejad_1_israel-jerusalem-day-islamic-world?_s=PM:WORLD
World without Zionism day. How cute is that!
Are you okay with these loose cannons pointing nukes at Israel? When they say something, I think we should believe it.
First, looking at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's quotes, and then compare that to the fact that the oldest Jewish community in the world is in Tehran, it doesn't seem real. Clearly, Iran isn't anti Jewish, or anti semite, since they could simply kill all the Jews living in Tehran, who've been there for more than 20 centuries.
Second, wiping Israel from the map, and Zionism; I bet if Israel stopped bulldozing the homes of Palestinians, and then building settlements on their land, and returned to the 1967 borders, that'd end their troubles. Or if the Zionists' designs were something less than expanding their borders, and using American money to do it, then our troubles with most of the Middle East would end.
Third, why do my tax dollars go to support the world's largest concentration camp and Israel's slow extermination of the Palestinians? Why is Israel occupying the West Bank and the Gaza Strip? You want Peace in the Middle East, close the American checkbook. Then, if Israel wants to run a large concentration camp in Palestine, they can pay for it themselves.
Fourth, did we ever get an honest answer for the USS Indianapolis? You can bet if any nation of brown skinned folks murdered a hundred US sailors, we'd go to war. Israel does it, and we still fund their whole military.
..... When they say something, I think we should believe it.
"Iran has time and time again said that Israel needs to be wiped off of the map. "
Could you please provide the quotes, times and places and documentation where these statements were made?
Okay, here is one.
Ahmadinejad repeatedly demonizes the state of Israel and openly calls for its destruction at every opportunity. Most notoriously, he described Israel as a "fake regime" that "must be wiped off the map."
http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm
Another:
“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury,”
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/mahmoud_ahmadinejad/
And the trifecta.
Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.
The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- reported by Islamic Republic News Agency -- coincide with a month-long protest against Israel called "World without Zionism" and with the approach of Jerusalem Day.
World without Zionism is a nationwide event the planners intend to hold annually, and Ahmadinejad made the remarks during a meeting with protesting students at the Interior Ministry.
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-10-26/world/ahmadinejad_1_israel-jerusalem-day-islamic-world?_s=PM:WORLD
World without Zionism day. How cute is that!
Are you okay with these loose cannons pointing nukes at Israel? When they say something, I think we should believe it.
The usual problem with this repetitive and inane nonsense is the lack of recognition that these are merely the barkings of a fearful and caged dog.
Why exactly is Iran regarded as such a colossal threat? The question is rarely discussed, but it is not hard to find a serious answer -- though not, as usual, in the fevered pronouncements. The most authoritative answer is provided by the Pentagon and the intelligence services in their regular reports to Congress on global security. They report that Iran does not pose a military threat. Its military spending is very low even by the standards of the region, minuscule of course in comparison with the U.S.
Iran has little capacity to deploy force. Its strategic doctrines are defensive, designed to deter invasion long enough for diplomacy to set it. If Iran is developing nuclear weapons capability, they report, that would be part of its deterrence strategy. No serious analyst believes that the ruling clerics are eager to see their country and possessions vaporized, the immediate consequence of their coming even close to initiating a nuclear war. And it is hardly necessary to spell out the reasons why any Iranian leadership would be concerned with deterrence, under existing circumstances.
The regime is doubtless a serious threat to much of its own population -- and regrettably, is hardly unique on that score. But the primary threat to the U.S. and Israel is that Iran might deter their free exercise of violence. A further threat is that the Iranians clearly seek to extend their influence to neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and beyond as well. Those “illegitimate” acts are called “destabilizing” (or worse). In contrast, forceful imposition of U.S. influence halfway around the world contributes to “stability” and order, in accord with traditional doctrine about who owns the world.
It makes very good sense to try to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear weapons states, including the three that have refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- Israel, India, and Pakistan, all of which have been assisted in developing nuclear weapons by the U.S., and are still being assisted by them. It is not impossible to approach that goal by peaceful diplomatic means. One approach, which enjoys overwhelming international support, is to undertake meaningful steps towards establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East, including Iran and Israel (and applying as well to U.S. forces deployed there), better still extending to South Asia.
(Source: Imperial Way: American Decline in Perspective, Part 2]
The idea that Iran gaining "da bomb" means the end of the world as we know it is absurd. We have rejected every responsible initiative they have offered and conducted a very aggressive policy that they have every right to regard as theatening. We have also made Iranian politics radical by this hostile and largely rhetorical nonsense. Cheney lurks in the evil record, but the Israel Lobby in America is toxic.
Bashing Israel is good red meat for Iraninan hardliners, just as bashing Iran is good red meat for ours.
Having to discuss how to keep Israel from screwing up the Middle East worse than it is ought ot be its own wake up call. Israel's domestic political discourse is far broader than ours about Israel. Those who want another war with a country beginning with I in four letters, need to stick to crossword puzzles.
How frightened do you have to be to ignore the contradiction in the phrase, they had to strike first to prevent war? How upside down does one's moral view have to be for the Iranian people to deserve to absorb the brunt of western insecurity? How fucking sickening is the thirst for arab oil and blood. If there is a single pro-lifer in the room, let them speak now on behalf of real children.
These debates are the real battle for our species' moral future. As usual, the scaredy-cat cons support the ballistic solution to another problem.
Israel can only afford to wait. It can only afford to make peace. It can only afford to get out of the Rightwing bully mode and grow up. Israeli citizens talk about a far saner range of public policy than we do here. War is the failure of politics, and will be fatal to Israel at some point.
Within the context of the Arab Spring and a non-Republican US President, the Israeli people have their best chance in decades to make some positive steps towards a lasting peace. Then again, the short term satisfaction of bombing the shit out of Iran might be the preferred choice of the Israeli government. I am hopeful for the former on the grounds of pro-life. Can Rigel claim to be for the latter on the grounds of pro-life? Whose lives would you be preserving Rigel? What makes you the ultimate arbiter of which lives are more worthy? I see much hope in a seemingly hopeless situation. Is it your hope (Rigel) that the bombs will fly and the kids will die which will lead to stability and safety? Heeding the "turn the other cheek" advice from another Israeli man from 2000 years ago might be Israel's wisest choice.
The idea that Israel must strike against Iran to keep them from getting "da bomb" is paranoia, but that does not mean that it will be rejected by their Righties or our Cult. What Israel does need is a big narrative shift and connection with those in neighbor nations who are not part of the old generation. It could also tell AIPAC to get out of the way.
First, looking at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's quotes, and then compare that to the fact that the oldest Jewish community in the world is in Tehran, it doesn't seem real. Clearly, Iran isn't anti Jewish, or anti semite, since they could simply kill all the Jews living in Tehran, who've been there for more than 20 centuries.
Second, wiping Israel from the map, and Zionism; I bet if Israel stopped bulldozing the homes of Palestinians, and then building settlements on their land, and returned to the 1967 borders, that'd end their troubles. Or if the Zionists' designs were something less than expanding their borders, and using American money to do it, then our troubles with most of the Middle East would end.
Third, why do my tax dollars go to support the world's largest concentration camp and Israel's slow extermination of the Palestinians? Why is Israel occupying the West Bank and the Gaza Strip? You want Peace in the Middle East, close the American checkbook. Then, if Israel wants to run a large concentration camp in Palestine, they can pay for it themselves.
Fourth, did we ever get an honest answer for the USS Indianapolis? You can bet if any nation of brown skinned folks murdered a hundred US sailors, we'd go to war. Israel does it, and we still fund their whole military.
I love this. Israel is the size of a postage stamp on a driveway. Every country around them wants them gone. The Palestinians claim that if we only tore that postage stamp in half and gave half to them they would be happy. But Israel is the bully. That sounds like an offensive lineman complaining that he is being picked on by the kicker. Absurd. If someone told me that they were going to shoot me as soon as they got a gun, I might try to keep them from getting a gun or shoot them first.
And we do know what happened to the Indy. It got torpedoed by a Japanese sub. There was a war going on.
Who has the money, the guns and "da bomb" in this picture? Who has the Big Bully backing them? Who kicked the residents out and claimed a holy land title based in "their" Scriptures? Who has put the Palestinians into an occupation generally recognized as "apartheid" in nature? Who has lost a lot more lives to authorized violenc? Finally, who could change things by doing what a lot of their own citizens would prefer to the idiocy and suicidal course of the hardliners?
How long do you think Israel can hang on and depend upon the American military empire and Western money to make it stronger than its neighbors? Had Israel been serious about developing good economic relationships and partnering in the development of a prosperous Middle East, they could have isolated the religious fanatics and made the old grudges minimal to the attraction of a better future. Didn't do it. Didn't even try. So much self-righteousness and special Holocaust status nonsense which plays great in America but just offends those who were not part of the European evil.
The biggest problem is that Israel is European in prejudice against the Semites while claiming that any criticism is "anti-semitic." Some of the ugliest racism I have ever heard comes from Israelis I have known. It is deeply tragic and totally uneccessary and unproductive.
Within the context of the Arab Spring and a non-Republican US President, the Israeli people have their best chance in decades to make some positive steps towards a lasting peace. Then again, the short term satisfaction of bombing the shit out of Iran might be the preferred choice of the Israeli government. I am hopeful for the former on the grounds of pro-life. Can Rigel claim to be for the latter on the grounds of pro-life? Whose lives would you be preserving Rigel? What makes you the ultimate arbiter of which lives are more worthy? I see much hope in a seemingly hopeless situation. Is it your hope (Rigel) that the bombs will fly and the kids will die which will lead to stability and safety? Heeding the "turn the other cheek" advice from another Israeli man from 2000 years ago might be Israel's wisest choice.
It's a very difficult situation labor, I will agree. But many people are convinced with good reason that Iran will destroy Tel-Aviv just as soon as they possibly can. If israel waits to be struck it will be all over for them and the U.S will be forced into retalliation. They cannot turn the other cheek because both cheeks will be incenerated. You see hope in a hopeless situation. I don't rely on hope. I rely on facts. The Iranian regime is the most dangerous on the planet. I have seen no indication that they are interested in peace. Give them the ability to destroy Israel and I have no reason to believe that they won't. Listen to what they say and believe it.
Two things we should not do:
1) Give guns to monkeys
2) Give nukes to Iran.
Ron Paul: If Iran Attacks Israel, Israel Should Deal With It
The most-ignored presidential candidate of the Republican field took a lot of heat from Middle East hawks for implying during the recent GOP debate that the threat from Iran was grossly exaggerated. Today on Fox News, he doubled down on that position.
But when pressed on his views by Fox host Megyn Kelly, Paul went even further, declaring that if Iran ever gets a nuclear weapon and attacks Israel, the United States should let Israel respond. Paul noted, however, that Iran probably wouldn’t attack Israel in this scenario because of the latter’s nuclear arsenal. “They’re not suicidal,” Paul said of the Iranians. Here’s the exchange:
KELLY: If you were President Paul and it turned out you were wrong — that it turned out that Iran did have the bomb and it attacked Israel – would you step in?
PAUL: No. I’d let Israel take care of ‘em. Why should we interfere with Israel? We’re always interfering with Israel when they wanna deal with their neighbors. We undermine their national sovereignty. We shouldn’t tell them how to manage their borders. I defended Israel when they took out the nukes in Iraq many many years ago.
Israel has 300 [nukes]. [...] There’s a lot of problems in Iran. There’s no doubt about it. But I tell you what: They’re not suicidal.
Ron Paul: Let Iran Have the Bomb
Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear bomb, Republican candidate Ron Paul suggested during Thursday’s presidential debate.
The maverick Texas Congressman also said it was time to stop the half-century old embargo on Cuba and all troops should be brought home.
His comments brought scorn from rival candidates. Michele Bachmann said she would do everything in her power to prevent Iran becoming nuclear.
Rick Santorum said “Iran is not Iceland, Ron. “It’s been at war with us since 1979.
“Anyone who suggests Iran is not a threat to this country is not seeing the world very clearly.”
Paul said it is natural for Iran to want a bomb as it is surrounded by countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel which all have one and with China, the United States and Russia all involved in the region. He said the U.S. should not get involved in the country’s internal affairs.
He also said that during the Cold War we still spoke to the Soviet Union, and we should have dialogue with the mullahs too. “This is likely to lead to a sixth war,” said Paul. “Yes they have some militants in Iran, but they are all around the world. Iran can’t reach America, they don’t even have an air force. Iran can’t even make enough gasoline for itself.”
He accused the other candidates of warmongering. “They are building this case just like they did in Iraq, with war propaganda. There was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I bet you supported that too,” he said, as Santorum nodded, agreeing he had.
“It’s time to quit this” added Paul. “It’s trillions of dollars we are spending.”
He also attacked his rivals – “all these free-traders” – for wanting to continue the embargo on Cuba.
I am not sure who the monkeys are, but I generally oppose our being the world's biggest gun salesman. I also think fears of Iranian attacks on Israel are on a par with Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and the rhetoric of 'mushroom clouds' that sold the tragedy we perpetrated on Iraq. This kind of rhetoric could convince Iranian hard-liners that Israel poses an immediate threat, so it is counter-productive at best.
I include paranoia about Iran getting 'da bomb' being catastrophic. I would like to see nukes reduced and eliminated, and that means Israel too. As a symbol of being a real power and being taken seriously, it is not hard to see why some Iranians want the nukes. But, their religious leaders have serious theological reservations about its morality that we ignore. This is just red meat for the warmongers on the Right. Stop hanging out with the wrong people. It makes your arguments weak.
Sorry, didn't mean USS Indianapolis. USS Liberty I think was the one the Israelis attacked. For comparison, how many were killed at Pearl Harbor, and how many were killed in the Israeli unprovoked attack on the US? How did we retaliate to both?
Fair enough. Easy mistake.
I can't explain that attack. But it was decades ago and most of the people who were involved are dead. We no longer have to deal with them.
Fair enough. Easy mistake.
I can't explain that attack. But it was decades ago and most of the people who were involved are dead. We no longer have to deal with them.
True, they are now mostly dead. Most of the Americans were killed by the Israelis.
But, everyone involved in planning and executing Pearl Harbor are dead now too, or nearly so.
My question was how many Americans were killled in the 2 seperate incidents?, and what was the 2 seperate responses?
Fair enough. Easy mistake.
I can't explain that attack. But it was decades ago and most of the people who were involved are dead. We no longer have to deal with them.
True, they are now mostly dead. Most of the Americans were killed by the Israelis.
But, everyone involved in planning and executing Pearl Harbor are dead now too, or nearly so.
My question was how many Americans were killled in the 2 seperate incidents?, and what was the 2 seperate responses?
I don't know if we will ever know the motivation. But times have changed. This would never happen today.
We also have to consider the machinations of the CIA. Criminals in Action. Their is no logical reason Iran would want to entice Israel and the US to invade. It would be insane and these people are no more insane than we are. It could be that Amadinejad is being controlled by the CIA just as Osama Bin Laden was. That boogey man was hiding out in Afghanistan, coincidently, the country where the Taliban was holding up the Centgas Pipeline that was being pushed by Unocal and the Bin Laden family and other Saudis. We now have many military bases in proximity to the pipeline and Hamid Karzai, the puppet dictator we installed in Afghanistan, was a Unocal consultant just as was his mentor, Zalmay Khalizad. Look both up and you will see them all over the run up to the wars.
Rick Steves the TV personality that shows us European travel, went to Iran last year and showed the world that these people are not radical, they are just like people everywhere and they like Americans, just not our imperialistic/interventionist policies.
Another motivation for Israel is oil. Of course, it's always oil. Where does Israel get their oil? They don't produce squat. Look it up, mainly from Russia and Islamic countries. Britian occupied Basra in Iraq and now BP is drilling in the Ramallah oil fields near Basra, hmm. James Baker, the Bush family lawywer, brokered an oil deal between Hunt Oil of Texas and the Kurds in northern Iraq, hmm.
The Iranian people are not suicidal. This is another false flag. An invasion of Iran will overflow into Syria and Russia and China will likely not stand for it so that infamous Bible prophecy of Armegeddon might come true and will likely be instigated by Israel and the US.
Also remember that GW Bush chased out Ritter and the rest of the UN inspectors in Iraq before their inspections were through because they had found no WMDs. Then we invaded and now we and others are in their oil fields. Look it up.
FALSE FLAG, FALSE FLAG, FALSE FLAG
Apartheid has a bad rep. so the folks running the show in Israel lately are very careful planners.
Everything they do is carefully orchestrated and quite often one thing is done to distract from another.
One recent example of this is shown with Khader Adnan, held under "administrative detention" until he went on a hunger strike for 67 days. When Israel finally seemed to give into wordwide pressure - they didn't release him, no - they looked at their calendar and scheduled his release for a couple of months later (April 17, 2012).
It remains to be seen whether an excuse to change the date will materialize in the meantime as we have seen with the "settlement" cessation promises they make and then create rationale to break their agreements and try to put the blame for their untrustworthiness on others.
Another political prisoner, Hana Yahya Al-Shalabi (she was held without charge for over two years and then released as part of the Shalit prisoner swap last October) has once again been illegally detained by Israel.
She has been refusing food since her recapture a couple of weeks ago.
So I don't think it's a matter of "can they afford to wait" (which is part of the P.R. campaign, like it's dependent on some sort of trigger outside of their control) so much as it's scheduled for a later date, which they of course aren't sharing - but seriously interested folks with all the right access have probably already figured it out.
rigel, if you are trying to say that Israel has become sane and restrained in their treatment of dissenters, you are sadly mistaken. Thuggery is sop. Intimidation is the only thing they have because they have no moral argument left. This stuff plays well in the US, but US citizens who protest get beaten up because America will not stand up for them. It is ugly and suicidal for Israel. What Israel cannot "afford" to do is continue on this path. Make peace, not war.
The Israeli state IS illegitimate and it IS a state that creates a lot of international strife. Where is the up side of the Israeli state, except in the Christian dream and goal of the end of the world. What does Isreal offer the planet in terms of an example of peacefully existing with one's neighbors? Nothing.
Here is a 15 minute video that features interviews with Gen. Martin Dempsey and journalist Max Blumenthal under the title "US General: "Iran is a Rational Actor" but is US one?"
The final conclusion was that no, the US is completely "irrational" to maintain the claim that they are imposing sanctions because of the "threat" that Israel is whinning about, as they actually know that Iran is not planning to build nuclear weapons. The real reason that they are imposing sanctions is to force a regime change in Iran, yet Obama's White House will not admit to this. However, according to the discussion in the interview w/ Blumenthal, if a Republican was in the White House, he would have no problem admitting that he is just bullying Iran to comply with what is being planned for them.
The Israeli state IS illegitimate and it IS a state that creates a lot of international strife. Where is the up side of the Israeli state, except in the Christian dream and goal of the end of the world. What does Isreal offer the planet in terms of an example of peacefully existing with one's neighbors? Nothing.
Here is the upside that you asked for.
Israel is the ONLY state in the middle east where Christians, Jews, women and gays have nothing to fear. They won't be killed or be considered property. You gotta love that!
Oh by the way. What church do you attend? I have attended many churches and this "Christian end of the world dream goal" is not mentioned. We don't have these types of goals. The world will end on God's terms not ours. We need God's help. He does not need ours. What mainstream church teaches this crap? Or did you just make it up?
Should there be a DEATH PENATLY for the CEOs of any company that ends up owning the Iranian People’s Oil in the coming War with IRAN?
Should there be a DEATH PENATLY for the CEOs of any company that ends up owning the Iranian People’s Oil in the coming War with IRAN?
I'm not much of a death penalty proponent. I'm a little luke warm on the issue.
The Iranian people have no oil. The regime does. The people tried to rise up and were shot down in the streets. No country is perfect. We all have serious issues. But anyone who supports one of the most repressive, abusive, ruthless regimes on Earth should be held to account. Any money earned through transactions with Iran should be siezed. And the individuals should be fined and imprisoned.
Maybe we should send all of the OWS folks to Iran for an occupy Tehran session. How do you think that might end? I'm thinking it won't involve pepper spray.
To understand why Iran has a reactionary regime would require learning something rigel. I know this is hard, but it might just be because the Cheney swatted their attempt to reconcile away and labled them as part of the axis of evil while he also got our military involved in aggression all around them. They would have helped us get al Qaeda.
But you also might go back to the Shah and why we helped the Brits keep their oil contracts when the Iranian people wanted to own their own oil. You also have to get out of the AIPAC cloud to see how Israel figures in this bad equation. Were we not playing the Great Satan, the radicals in Iran would have no ability to scare any of their people into letting the Right rule.
Their fundamentalists and our fundamentalists play a game of mutual support. Neither would have a chance without the other. The idea of war with Iran is insane. That is why it is popular on the Right because insanity is never enough for them.
To understand why Iran has a reactionary regime would require learning something rigel. I know this is hard, but it might just be because the Cheney swatted their attempt to reconcile away and labled them as part of the axis of evil while he also got our military involved in aggression all around them. They would have helped us get al Qaeda.
But you also might go back to the Shah and why we helped the Brits keep their oil contracts when the Iranian people wanted to own their own oil. You also have to get out of the AIPAC cloud to see how Israel figures in this bad equation. Were we not playing the Great Satan, the radicals in Iran would have no ability to scare any of their people into letting the Right rule.
Their fundamentalists and our fundamentalists play a game of mutual support. Neither would have a chance without the other. The idea of war with Iran is insane. That is why it is popular on the Right because insanity is never enough for them.
Now I get it!!!
We forced them to use their own children to clear mine fields. They had to shoot down hundreds of students in the street. The great Satan made them do it. If it wasn't for the U.S. nobody in Iran would be on death row for leaving Islam. Being gay will get you hung in Iran because of Dick Cheney. Women are treated as property and are punished if they are raped and it's George Bush's fault.
Iran is perfectly capable of being evil all by their little selves. Now before you start blaming Rigel for all this, I must tell you that the info is not mine. It comes from Organizations such as Amnesty international. So your beef is with them, not me. See the link below.
The report is sickening but fails to mention Bush, Cheney, Obama or big oil.
http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/8753
The Israeli state IS illegitimate and it IS a state that creates a lot of international strife. Where is the up side of the Israeli state, except in the Christian dream and goal of the end of the world. What does Isreal offer the planet in terms of an example of peacefully existing with one's neighbors? Nothing.
Here is the upside that you asked for.
Israel is the ONLY state in the middle east where Christians, Jews, women and gays have nothing to fear. They won't be killed or be considered property. You gotta love that!
Everybody in Isreal and the rest of the world, no matter what their religion, gender or sexual orientation have something to fear. Namely, that their leadership in a fit of old testament justification, and aided by christian American zionist weapons, will start world war three.
The "church" of atheism. When some religious person on this planet blows up a bunch of people I, and those like me, are the only ones who DON'T share the blame. The religious will condemn religious violence but only with the caviat that the evil doer could not have possibly been a real believer in the "real" god, essentially implying that anyone who does violence must be an atheist.
Bullshit! You cloud worshipers get all the credit for your own violence from now on. If you believe in sky fairies, you get lumped in with the ones who kill for no good reason. Your reasoning is not reasonable either way if you are willing to outsource your moral code to another dimension. Whether you believe in killing or not, if you believe in the invisible, you are complicit in acts of violence originating from the perpetuation of such beliefs.
Vomit! You confirm my accusation by saying we have no control over the fate of the planet. Great defeatest, christian attitude, Rigel1.
Ummm...have you heard of Revelations? I didn't invent that horseshit, YOU guys did. Furthermore, there are millions of American morons who believe that when the Earth has been sufficiently turned into a disaster area, Jesus will return, flying down from the heavens and making the Earth whole again. Now, do you care to re-phrase your questions or not, given the ignorance of someone who claims to go to church but hasn't heard of the New Testament?
Its always strange seeing conservatives/libertarians pushing the idea of prevention, since prevention is otherwise absent from their platform. They dont want regulations stopping companies from doing __, they want the damage to happen and then litigation after those deaths. They want sick care instead of health care. But in this one avenue, they not only want prevention, they want it from the government.
:D ahahahahahaha! just saw net an yahoo on tv.... he said "nucULAR!" Ahahaa ... wonder where he learned that?
You are right rigel, in the small sense that Iran's insanity is their thing, even if we are deeply co-dependent with them. Our insanity is our problem, and our evil is ours, not something we can lay off on the "threat" that Iran may join the "Nucular Club." Israel's insanity is theirs, but the problem is that we and Israel have a better chance of doing something global than do any of the previous "axes of evil." Being the Great Satan to Israel's Lesser Satan is still not a great role for us to be playing.
How do you handle somebody who is paranoid? I don't think giving them reasons to believe their paranoia is the best response. Provocative taunting is crazier than the crazy person. Even were you right, you would still be wrong. Get real.
You are right rigel, in the small sense that Iran's insanity is their thing, even if we are deeply co-dependent with them. Our insanity is our problem, and our evil is ours, not something we can lay off on the "threat" that Iran may join the "Nucular Club." Israel's insanity is theirs, but the problem is that we and Israel have a better chance of doing something global than do any of the previous "axes of evil." Being the Great Satan to Israel's Lesser Satan is still not a great role for us to be playing.
How do you handle somebody who is paranoid? I don't think giving them reasons to believe their paranoia is the best response. Provocative taunting is crazier than the crazy person. Even were you right, you would still be wrong. Get real.
Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean we're not out to get them. Same with the Israelis. Same with us.
The problem, as I see it, is that neither side's leadership wants the peace that many of the individual citizens they represent want. People all over the world want to get along but there's no money in peace. There's no profit margin in peace. There's no reason to seek vengeance for peace. Peace is not the political motivator that religion and justice-seeking are. So, to keep the profitable instability in place, both sides lie. Their biggest lie, and perhaps the best seller, is that there is a god who prefers they destroy each other. That narrative is being exercised in the Christian as well as the Islam camps.
I would prefer to exist outside the sphere of influence of both camps. However, I am unfortunately geographically situated on a land mass that was conquered by Jesus freaks- a seeming contradiction, I know- so my fate is inexorably tied to the Jesus camp. I'm sure there are atheist middle easterners who are in a similarly helpless position. They too are powerless to convince their countrymen that their future is a only pre-death concern. Once you're in the past, you have no future.
The real bitch of it is, telling either side that I'm an atheist and, thus, desire to stay out of all things related to holy war, would get me no where. In fact, both sides would be as willing to kill me for atheism as for being of the "wrong" religion. Don't get me wrong, if representatives of each religion want to meet somewhere and kill each other, I have no moral objection. It seems like the kind of activity that would be called an evolutionary self-defeating mechanism. Any genetic variant that evolves to be that hostile to itself SHOULD be wiped out.
There is an underlying layer of crazy in all of the effected cultures that must be overcome before peace is a realistic dream. Until we can agree that the affairs of the temporary planet called "Earth" have more meaning than our fantasies about eternity, we're screwed.
In fact, both sides would be as willing to kill me for atheism as for being of the "wrong" religion. Don't get me wrong, if representatives of each religion want to meet somewhere and kill each other, I have no moral objection. It seems like the kind of activity that would be called an evolutionary self-defeating mechanism. Any genetic variant that evolves to be that hostile to itself SHOULD be wiped out.
I like it. A religious crazies cage match to the death out in the middle of the Sahara. Perhaps maybe the remaining peaceniks of either religion might be able to pass on some more peaceful genes and work cooperatively to build a gulag for the remaining crazies that survive cage match. Kumbaya.
Israel is second only to the US in being the largest purveyor of violence and state sponsored terrorism the world has ever seen. Making the world safe for corrupt, crony, criminal capitalism by destroying democracies wherever they are found... and anyone else who gets in there way... especially if they be so foolish as to put the lives of their own people ahead of US and transnational corporatations bottom line...
"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.
"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
-- Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.
"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
-- Moshe Dayan, April 1969, Ha'aretz; quoted in Edward Said, 'Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Victims', Social Text, Volume 1, 1979, 7-58.
"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
"If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel."
-- David Ben-Gurion (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth's Ben-Gurion in a slightly different translation).
"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
-- Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.
"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
-- Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.
"Any one who speaks in favor of bringing the Arab refugees back must also say how he expects to take the responsibility for it, if he is interested in the state of Israel. It is better that things are stated clearly and plainly: We shall not let this happen."
-- Golda Meir, 1961, in a speech to the Knesset, reported in Ner, October 1961
"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."
-- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971
"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.
"[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat."
-- Yitzhak Rabin (a "Prince of Peace" by Clinton's standards), explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen's remarks to the Knesset's foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)
"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25, 1982.
"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.
"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country."
-- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.
"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple."
-- Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997.
"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
-- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.
"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more"....
-- Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000
"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force...."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.
"I would have joined a terrorist organization."
-- Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.
"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online