• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Israel ready to strike?

Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
161
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

JERUSALEM - Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.

"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said.

His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing tensions with Iran.

Germany's defense minister said in an interview published Saturday that he is hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear program, but argued that "all options" should remain open.

Asked by the Bild am Sonntag weekly whether the threat of a military solution should remain in place, Franz Josef Jung was quoted as responding: "Yes, we need all options."

French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Saturday that Chirac's threats reflect the true intentions of nuclear nations, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

"The French president uncovered the covert intentions of nuclear powers in using this lever (nuclear weapons) to determine political games," IRNA quoted Asefi as saying.

Israel long has identified Iran as its biggest threat and accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic program is peaceful.

Iran broke U.N. seals at a uranium enrichment plant Jan. 10 and said it was resuming nuclear research after a 2 1/2-year freeze. Germany, France and Britain said two days later that talks aimed at halting Iran's nuclear progress were at a dead end and called for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, will meet Feb. 2 to discuss possible referral.

Israel's Mofaz said sanctions and international oversight of Iran's nuclear program stood as the "correct policy at this time."

In Germany, Jung called himself "confident that there will be a diplomatic solution in the case of Iran."

Israeli leaders have also repeatedly said they hope the crisis can be resolved through diplomacy, and they said any military action would have to be part of an international effort. They have denied having plans for a unilateral preventive strike.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Tehran might still agree to Moscow's offer to move its uranium enrichment program to Russia, a step backed by the United States and Europeans as a way to resolve the deadlock.

Israel's concerns about Iran have grown since the election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said last year that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

On Friday, Iran's Students News Agency reported Friday that Central Bank governor Ebrahim Sheibani said Iran had begun moving its foreign currency reserves from European banks and transferring them to an undisclosed location as protection against possible U.N. sanctions.

Sheibani backed away Saturday from his statement that the transfers were already underway, and Iran's Central Bank said there had been no change in its currency policy.

Estimates put Iranian funds in Europe at as much as $50 billion.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
161
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006012...lj7TxMUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

Israel hardens line as pressure on Iran grows 57 minutes ago



HERZLIYA, Israel (AFP) - Israel is taking advantage of the growing international pressure on arch enemy Tehran to dangle the threat of pre-emptive action to stop Iran's nuclear programme in its tracks.

Army chief of staff Dan Halutz became the latest senior defence official to fire a warning shot across Tehran's bows by telling a security conference that Israel would not be "helpless" in the face of Tehran if it acquired nuclear weapons.

His comments followed a pledged by Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz that Israel, widely believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, would not tolerate a "a nuclear option" for Iran while reaffirming his commitment to diplomacy over the escalating crisis.

Israel has come to view the regime in Tehran as its number one enemy, with its fears reinforced by comments from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahamadinejad that the Jewish state should be "wiped off the face of the map."

Questioned about how the defence establishment was preparing itself with the challenge posed by Iran, Halutz refused to give details but nevertheless made clear that he had plans up his sleeve.

"I am not going to deal with the solutions to the Iranian nuclear problem," he said Sunday. "Israel is not helpless -- that it is enough of an answer."

In his speech to the same conference on Saturday, the Iranian-born Mofaz said that Israel "must treat the (Iranian nuclear) threat responsibly and with utmost seriousness."

"We are giving priority at this stage to diplomatic action... but in any case we cannot tolerate a nuclear option for Iran and we must prepare ourselves," Mofaz said.

"We must develop the option of our defence with all that implies," he said without providing further details.

Israel managed to halt Iraq's nuclear programme in 1981 when it carried out an air strike on the Osirak plant.

And while officials have said diplomacy is still the order of the day on Iran, the outgoing head of military intelligence, Aharon Zeevi, said last month that a repeat peformance was "difficult but not impossible".

The hardening in tone has not been universally welcomed in Israel.

"I do not see the point in these sensational declarations," former defence minister Moshe Arens said in an interview with Israeli radio.

"With such a delicate subject, it would be better to act with discretion and public threats don't serve any purpose."

Arens' comments make interesting reading for the leader of his own right-wing Likud party, Benjamin Netanyahu, who said recently Israel needed to confront Iran by "acting in the spirit of Menachem Begin", a reference to the premier who ordered the Osirak strike.

Israel appears to have been emboldened by the concerted drive by Western powers to bring Iran before the UN Security Council, with the prospect of sanctions.

Iran says its nuclear programme is legal as it is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and merely designed to meet its energy needs.

Israel however is convinced Tehran is on a drive to equip itself with nuclear weapons.

Although Israel has never publicly admitted possessing a nuclear arsenal, it is generally thought it has at least 200 atomic warheads.

Tensions between the two countries are also being stoked by repeated Israeli accusations that Iran is funding attacks by Palestinian militant groups.

Mofaz blamed Iran and its ally Syria for a Palestinian suicide bombing in Tel Aviv Thursday. Iran said the allegations were baseless.

Despite Israel's worries about Ahmadinejad, officials have acknowledged that Iran is still years away from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"Israel is exaggerating the threat and these belligerent comments risk escalating tension instead of lowering it," said the Israeli analyst Dan Pedatzur.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hey Israel, we got your back. :2usflag:
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's quite simple actually.

If America was constantly the victim of terrorist attacks on our soil and we knew that much of the funding for these attacks were coming from Brazil, and they have threatened to wipe us out while they are researching nuclear power.........we would not allow them to gain that sort of weaponry.

If Iran was threatening France, would this even be an issue?

Iran would never launch on Israel or anyone of our other alies. As long as they claim us as big brother...they are protected. This does not mean that some Palestinian or other Muslim terrorists won't drive across the Israeli border with an Iranian Nuke. It's a pity that the morally decrepit of this world would rather recognize a terrorist nation's right to own nukes and dismiss a peaceful nation's right to survival.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
161
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mossad carry out bus bombings to engineer justification for genocide and police brutality directed towards palestinians.

Iran would never launch on Israel or anyone of our other alies. As long as they claim us as big brother...they are protected. This does not mean that some Palestinian or other Muslim terrorists won't drive across the Israeli border with an Iranian Nuke. It's a pity that the morally decrepit of this world would rather recognize a terrorist nation's right to own nukes and dismiss a peaceful nation's right to survival.
In all fairness i don't actually think there is justification for Iran to be called a terrorist state.

To suggest a Muslim terrorist group will be the ones to deliver a nuke is actually quite a logical assumption, the thing is however, no nuclear arms will be obtained from Iran all the time there is a stable government there, certain rogue states are the ones to look out for, states like Iraq where terrorist groups could assume control of the state and therefore Nuclear production.

America only has itself to blame for this, after the pre war years and varioyus expeditions to various countries America has created Unstable governments and states where terrorists could easily obtain Nuclear weapons. south america, Korea,v, at the moment however there is nothing to worry about unless Israel begins throwing her weight around, Iran will definately IMO make first move towards a war with Israel and her cronies:America and Britain.

That said we can't ignore Ahmedinejhad's blatant contempt for Western power and although we should respect his countries right to Nuclear power we must work closely with the UN to ensure the Nuclear program is used for nothing malicious.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mickyjaystoned said:
Mossad carry out bus bombings to engineer justification for genocide and police brutality directed towards palestinians.
Try again. Using Mossad as example of terror acts would be the same as using the CIA, MI6, or any other intelligence agency around the world. Your gross use of the word "genocide" is pathetic.

Mickyjaystoned said:
In all fairness i don't actually think there is justification for Iran to be called a terrorist state.
Funny, the proffessionals and scholar seem to think so. Should I assume you have come to your conclusions through extensive study and a life time of dedication to the region? They have.

"The only change that did occur in Iranian support of terrorism in recent years has essentially been a tactical one. Behind the scenes, Iran took steps to adjust its terrorist policy to the circumstances in the international arena—which is less tolerant of this type of activity—making sure its own actions could not be perceived as international terrorism. Iran replaced the direct involvement of Iranian agents in terrorist acts with that of proxy organizations—the most prominent being Hizballah, a central player in Iran’s terror strategy outside the Middle East as well. Iran also makes use of local terrorist units, (for example in Turkey and Azerbaijan), which it trains and sometimes even commissions to carry out terrorist acts against common enemies."

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/artic...?articleid=362

In spite of its undercover nature, Iran’s worldwide involvement in international terrorism cannot always be concealed. Occasionally, events come to light that are proof of Iranian government's involvement in terrorist activities. For instance, the March 1996 discovery, in Belgium, of a specially-built Howitzer canon sent by ship from Iran to Germany to be used in a terrorist attack; or the involvement of the highest Iranian officials in the assassination of Kurdish leaders in Germany, the so-called “Mikonos Affair”.

The Islamic regime’s determination to continue supporting terrorism, in conflict with normal international behavior, has forced the Iranian Foreign Ministry to strive, under extreme international pressure, to offset the damage caused by this policy to Tehran’s economic and political ties. Iran does not deny its adherence to Khomeini’s "Islamic revolutionary ideology”, which supports all radical Islamic movements worldwide, but stresses that Iranian assistance is merely cultural, moral and humanitarian in nature.


http://mehr.org/iran_terrorism.htm

"After a bombing killed 19 U.S. airmen at a barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the Clinton administration struck back by unmasking Iranian intelligence officers around the world, significantly disrupting Iranian-backed terrorism, according to a high-level U.S. official and a former top official who was serving at the time of the operation."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ire-usat_x.htm

Let's hear about your study.



Mickyjaystoned said:
To suggest a Muslim terrorist group will be the ones to deliver a nuke is actually quite a logical assumption, the thing is however, no nuclear arms will be obtained from Iran all the time there is a stable government there, certain rogue states are the ones to look out for, states like Iraq where terrorist groups could assume control of the state and therefore Nuclear production.
You seem to lack knowledge on this country's stable government.
Mickyjaystoned said:
America only has itself to blame for this, after the pre war years and varioyus expeditions to various countries America has created Unstable governments and states where terrorists could easily obtain Nuclear weapons. south america, Korea,v, at the moment however there is nothing to worry about unless Israel begins throwing her weight around, Iran will definately IMO make first move towards a war with Israel and her cronies:America and Britain.
....and of course, the Global Left are fond of blaming it all on the U.S. When exactly has Israel thrown it's weight around? Seems to me history has shown that Israel has been on the defense since 1949.

Mickyjaystoned said:
That said we can't ignore Ahmedinejhad's blatant contempt for Western power and although we should respect his countries right to Nuclear power we must work closely with the UN to ensure the Nuclear program is used for nothing malicious.

Life's not that simple is it? You are willing to take a chance that the current government and their controlling Radical Mullahs are sweet natured and are on a quest to embrace everyone under a cloud of happiness. Israel is their target and Israel is not willing to take that chance. Neither are we. You should be thankful. It's only a matter of time before the Radical element in Europe begins accepting Iran's support. What will you think about their nuke program then?
 
Last edited:

Touchmaster

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
GySgt said:
This does not mean that some Palestinian or other Muslim terrorists won't drive across the Israeli border with an Iranian Nuke.
Exactly how easy do you think smuggling a nuclear warhead into Israel would be? And may I see some non-Israeli links regarding Iranian terrorism, as I believe they may be tainted a little by vested interests (Iran being the only state left in the Middle East approaching Israel's power)?

Dont get me wrong, I despise the Iranian government, although human rights abuses under its reign are certainly no worse than the Shah's, but I think it my duty to myself as a curious person to look beyond the propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Touchmaster said:
Exactly how easy do you think smuggling a nuclear warhead into Israel would be?
Probably as easy as it was to sneak them out of Iraq.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Touchmaster said:
Exactly how easy do you think smuggling a nuclear warhead into Israel would be? And may I see some non-Israeli links regarding Iranian terrorism, as I believe they may be tainted a little by vested interests (Iran being the only state left in the Middle East approaching Israel's power)?

Dont get me wrong, I despise the Iranian government, although human rights abuses under its reign are certainly no worse than the Shah's, but I think it my duty to myself as a curious person to look beyond the propaganda.

Are you serious? It's not the point of how hard it would be to sneak a nuke across a border. It's the point of giving a terrorist sponsering nation the capability to attempt it. If you were really curious, you would have already studied this common sense and common knowledge for yourself. Since the real world exists on Internet links, I'll provide some from different sources.

USAToday....

Undisclosed until now, Operation Sapphire took place in 1997. Though the bombers who struck the Khobar Towers barracks were mostly Saudis, U.S. investigators quickly determined that Iranian intelligence officials had trained and organized the plotters. The former U.S. official said Iran was intimidated enough by the U.S. counterspy operation that it stopped targeting Americans after the bombing.

Early on, U.S. officials suspected Iran of organizing the Khobar Towers plot by members of an Iranian-trained group called Saudi Hezbollah. But the Clinton administration had difficulty proving the charge because almost all the suspects were in Saudi hands. Only in 1999 did the Saudis allow FBI officers to observe interrogations and suggest questions.

In June 2001, nearly five years after the bombing, a federal grand jury indicted 13 Saudis and a Lebanese for planting an explosives-laden fuel-tanker truck outside the barracks. In announcing the indictment, Attorney General John Ashcroft said that "elements of the Iranian government inspired, supported and supervised" the attack. Of those indicted, 10 were in Saudi custody, and the others were at large, possibly in Iran. No public trial has ever been held.

The Khobar Towers case capped more than a decade of anti-U.S. terror by Iranians and Iran-backed groups. Iranian radicals seized the U.S. Embassy in 1979 and held Americans hostage for 444 days. Iran was believed to have backed the bombers who attacked the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 Americans. Iran-backed terrorists in 1985 hijacked a TWA flight on which a U.S. Navy diver was murdered and also kidnapped American journalists and academics in Beirut throughout the 1980s.


The Mission for Establishment of Human Rights (MEHR). The officers of this Foundation consist of:
1. President: Mohammad Parvin, Ph.D. (California State University Professor and a former Muslim from Iran)
2. Secretary: Zohreh Shisheh
3. Treasurer: Abdi Majlsi, Ph.D.

During the 1980s, Iranian and pro-Iranian agencies were involved in the planning and execution of attacks against Western targets, particularly in Lebanon.

The Hizballah organization is the spearhead for Iran in its use of terrorism in general, and in its fight against Israel in particular. The organization began its large-scale terror acts in 1982, when its militants blew up the American Embassy in Beirut, killing 61 people and wounding more than 120. Later, it was behind a series of terror attacks against Western targets, among them: the suicide bombing of the Marines Headquarters in Beirut (23 October 1983) and the French Military Headquarters in Beirut, in which 241 Americans and 56 French soldiers were killed. In the 1980s, Hizballah activists were involved in the kidnapping of Western citizens in Lebanon whom they held as hostages. In some cases, this was done on Iranian orders, for the purpose of obtaining economic or political concessions from Western governments, such as the release of Iranian or Lebanese terrorists imprisoned in Western Europe.

Iran provides financial assistance on a large scale to Hizballah, reaching, according to some estimates, millions of dollars a year. It also gives tactical assistance in terror attacks against Israel, through the Guardians of the Revolution units posted in the Baka’a Valley. The Hizballah General Secretary, Hassan Nasrallah, made public Iranian support in an interview given to al-Wast (11 March 1996), where he stated that his organization receives financial and political assistance to continue, in his words, "the legitimate struggle against Israel".


http://mehr.org/iran_terrorism.htm

Professor Avner Yaniv at the Department of Political Science, Haifa University. This particular study pulled from twenty different listed sources of multi diversity.

Contrary to the Palestinian and Arab international terrorism of the 1970s and 1980s, which stemmed mostly from strategic constraints and operational necessities, the Iranian terrorism has a strong ideological basis and receives its legitimacy from the revolutionary Islamic dogma itself. Terror is seen as a legitimate tool in internal politics and for the conduct of foreign policy. Terrorism is no longer the business of outlawed terrorist organizations or of aggressive intelligence services, but the outcome of policies formulated and decided upon at the highest religious and governmental echelons.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=47

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
1995 APRIL: PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM, 1994
Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Philip C. Wilcox, Jr.

"Iran is still the most active state sponsor of international terrorism and continues to be directly involved in planning and executing terrorist acts."

http://www.hri.org/docs/USSD-Terror/94/statespon.html#Iran

Who is Ahmadinejad?

http://www.no2ahmadinejad.com/AboutAhmadiNejad.html

History of Iran

http://www.dayan.org/mel/lewis.html


Michael Ledeen is a Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute. He is also an NRO contributing editor and is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. A book full of information.

News stories on Sunday reminded readers that Richard Clarke had written that there was considerable evidence of collusion between Osama and the mullahs, and Asharq al-Awsat reported on the 15th that "more than 384 members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are present in Iran, including 18 senior leaders of Osama bin Laden's network." These terrorists were not, as the Iranians were quick to pretend, under arrest. Nor, as Iranian officials put it the day after, had the al Qaeda groups been destroyed. Many were living in villas near Chalous on the Caspian Sea, while others were in Lavizan, either in or near a big military base.

As luck would have it (and for this information I am indebted to the redoubtable Dan Darling), Chalous is the locus of a major underground nuclear facility that has been heavily reinforced of late, while Lavizan houses the Shiyan Technical Research Facility within one of the largest Revolutionary Guards bases in the Central Province.

What a surprise! Terrorists at Iranian military bases! Who ever would have imagined such a thing?"


http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200407190838.asp




I could go on and on and on and on and on.........
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
161
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yeah whatever GYsgt by all means attack me personally but it is quite obvious that your reality as you call it has completely blinded you to both sides of the Argument.

You have in this post as in many others pledged your allegiance to the state of Israel.

Might i suggest getting financial backing and running for president, i don't even think Bush Jr has had as much to say in defense of his zionist paymasters.

You obviously care so much about Israel that you are willing to call me pathetic and in essence a terrorist because i quite simply do not just accept and regurgitate what Zionist mainstream media tells me.

You are a victim of Jewish Brainwashing, sorry but in your eagerness to defend their every move this is the conclusion i come up with.

Anyway America has created more unstable governments than the one in Iran.

The Iranian government has been reasonably stable despite being the only opposition to American and Israeli invasion of the East, the only thing Iran has done wrong is voice it's disgust at the Zionists, and say what many people think; that Israel as it is should be wiped off the map.

I think Israel needent have made a state so far east after the 2nd war, but hety it's obviously strategic military planning, i well aimed Nuke from Israel could obliterate Islam as we know it.

You pledge allegiance to Israels and Americas agenda, but you don't even know the truth, and you call me pathetic?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mickyjaystoned said:
Yeah whatever GYsgt by all means attack me personally but it is quite obvious that your reality as you call it has completely blinded you to both sides of the Argument.

You have in this post as in many others pledged your allegiance to the state of Israel.

Might i suggest getting financial backing and running for president, i don't even think Bush Jr has had as much to say in defense of his zionist paymasters.

You obviously care so much about Israel that you are willing to call me pathetic and in essence a terrorist because i quite simply do not just accept and regurgitate what Zionist mainstream media tells me.

You are a victim of Jewish Brainwashing, sorry but in your eagerness to defend their every move this is the conclusion i come up with.

Anyway America has created more unstable governments than the one in Iran.

The Iranian government has been reasonably stable despite being the only opposition to American and Israeli invasion of the East, the only thing Iran has done wrong is voice it's disgust at the Zionists, and say what many people think; that Israel as it is should be wiped off the map.

I think Israel needent have made a state so far east after the 2nd war, but hety it's obviously strategic military planning, i well aimed Nuke from Israel could obliterate Islam as we know it.

You pledge allegiance to Israels and Americas agenda, but you don't even know the truth, and you call me pathetic?

This from the guy accusing me of being a bigot and Islamic religious hater. :roll: Thanks for the laugh. You should learn about the religions, political positions, and social issues invloved with the Middle East instead of racing to support anyhting anti- "Zion." You don't know much about Islam and you don't know much about reality. Israel and any other of America's allies are not prepared to sneak a nuke into any Muslim country. I assure you that Iran would have no problem "losing" a nuke to a Radical group claiming "God" as their rock. The religious perversion going on is from within Islam....not Jew...not Christianity....and not Hindu.

So in your views...America should "pledge allegiance" to countries like France, Britian, Japan, Taiwan, and other countries....just long as there aren't any "Zionist" countries in that allegiance. Tell me, why does Israel rate any less friendship than Europe or Jordan? What makes them so special? Especially Europe?

It seems like you are quickly displaying to the masses what you are. Do you have a swastica banner in your house or Islamic Radical script? They both believe in the same thing..
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
161
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You should learn about the religions, political positions, and social issues invloved with the Middle East instead of racing to support anyhting anti- "Zion." You don't know much about Islam and you don't know much about reality.
Being anti Zionism really pisses people off, what an incredibly interesting social experiment the internet can be.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
161
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Israel is more than ready to strike, judging by this thread she has many willing to strike with her.

GySgt, you may hold a differant view on the scheme of things in this world, but i know neither of us will be spared in a global war, so save you energy dude.

I can't be arsed to hear your criticisms of views i don't even hold, i grow weary of your judgements and assumptions about reality especially since i look to quantum physics for info on reality and not patriot, war mongering americans.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Say Gunny, you seem to know more about Middle East history than I do, maybe you can answer a question I have. Not that I completely agree with everything Mickey has said, but I really don't understand the rationale behind Zionism very well.


Think back to 1948. The Jews had been a "people without a nation" for 2000 years, and they had just suffered the most dispicable human rights atrocities in modern history. The UN decided, based on historical and Biblical implications, that the Jews deserve their ancient "homeland" back. So they divided up the region of Palestine (a British colony, right?), and ever since then we've had a Jihad on our hands. The argument is that the Palestinian people have more of a right to that land than the Jews do.

Now I'm not sure why the British had their paws on Palestinian land (assuming it was a British colony, if memory serves), but it seems to me a lot of Middle Easterners don't recognize the UN's right to partition that land and give over half of it to someone who hasn't lived there for 2000 years. From that point of view, it's really no different than if China divided up Texas and let all the Native Americans move there to form their own country. Isn't it?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mickyjaystoned said:
Being anti Zionism really pisses people off, what an incredibly interesting social experiment the internet can be.

As much as anti-Muslim or Anti-Christian or Anti-Hindu.

All religions have a Radical flavor to them, but only one religion is running amok, forming organizations globally, and slaughtering people in the name of God. Sorry, I choose not to bow down to such ignorance and I certainly don't choose to allow them to dictate who my allies are.
 

Touchmaster

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
GySgt said:
As much as anti-Muslim or Anti-Christian or Anti-Hindu.

All religions have a Radical flavor to them, but only one religion is running amok, forming organizations globally, and slaughtering people in the name of God. Sorry, I choose not to bow down to such ignorance and I certainly don't choose to allow them to dictate who my allies are.
Sorry, now you are just coming across as a bigot. I dislike all organised religions equally, and think its just institutionalised insanity, but how many of the hundreds of millions of Muslims on Earth do you think have anything to do with extremist terrorist groups that attack civilians in the name of religion (as opposed to being standard rebels with agrievance about their homeland, real or perceived)?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Binary_Digit said:
Say Gunny, you seem to know more about Middle East history than I do, maybe you can answer a question I have. Not that I completely agree with everything Mickey has said, but I really don't understand the rationale behind Zionism very well.


Think back to 1948. The Jews had been a "people without a nation" for 2000 years, and they had just suffered the most dispicable human rights atrocities in modern history. The UN decided, based on historical and Biblical implications, that the Jews deserve their ancient "homeland" back. So they divided up the region of Palestine (a British colony, right?), and ever since then we've had a Jihad on our hands. The argument is that the Palestinian people have more of a right to that land than the Jews do.

Now I'm not sure why the British had their paws on Palestinian land (assuming it was a British colony, if memory serves), but it seems to me a lot of Middle Easterners don't recognize the UN's right to partition that land and give over half of it to someone who hasn't lived there for 2000 years. From that point of view, it's really no different than if China divided up Texas and let all the Native Americans move there to form their own country. Isn't it?
Briefly...

The Hebrew (Jewish) kingdom was established in Palestine around 1000 B.C. They were subsequently invaded by Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Romans, and Alexander the Great. Arabs took it in 630 B.C. The Christian Crusades began. The Muslims ruled Israel until the 20th Century. The British took it from the Turks during WWI and governed the area under a League of Nations mandate in 1923. Hitler's genocide of 6 million Jews brought increased international interests in a Jewish nation. The State of Israel was proclaimed by England and admitted to the UN in 1949. The U.S. recognized Israel within hours. The VERY NEXT day, Muslims from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq invaded. It's been going on ever since. This is why during the Gulf War; Saddam was killing civilians by launching scuds at Israel instead of at us. He wanted Israel to defend themselves, so he and the rest of the Muslims could turn it into one of their holy wars. We knew this and that is why we instructed Israel to stay neutral while we tried to knock out scuds with patriots before they impacted on Israeli civilians. Because we back Israel's right to exist, the Muslims can't do a thing about it and the Radical element terrorize American civilians as a form of sick defiance and they mask it all under their religion and American foreign policy.

The Palestinians have a legitimate grief, but like the Native Americans, there isn't much to be done about it. They must accept life and roll up their sleeves. In the days of old when "Old Europe" was colonizing everything through conquest, they owned this land. They chose to give it back the Jews through the UN and the Palestinians did not like it. It was that simple. History has taught us that once started, religious strife has a tendency to go on and on, to become permanent feuds. Today we see such intractable inter-religious wars in Northern Ireland, between Jews and Muslims and Christians in "Palestine", Hindus and Muslims in South Asia and in many other places. Attempts to bring about peace have failed again and again. Always the extremist elements invoking past injustices, imagined or real, will succeed in torpedoing the peace efforts and bringing about another bout of hostility. The Persians of Iran and the Arabs of the Middle East could care less about Palestinian strife. If they did, they would help them with financial aid. As it is, America gives more than they. No...they are only interested in causing trouble and violence and they use anchient history to justify it. This is why when people say things like "Zionists invaded Muslim land" and "Israel is a terrorist sponsered state," I simply remind myself that Israel isn't trying to destroy Muslims nor is it out to condemn other religions. At least they use current events to justify their retaliations....not anchient history to slaughter and terrorize.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Touchmaster said:
Sorry, now you are just coming across as a bigot. I dislike all organised religions equally, and think its just institutionalised insanity, but how many of the hundreds of millions of Muslims on Earth do you think have anything to do with extremist terrorist groups that attack civilians in the name of religion (as opposed to being standard rebels with agrievance about their homeland, real or perceived)?
"Bigot?"

Islam is based on the Qu’ran and Hadith. There are major disagreements on a host of issues between Shi’ites and Sunni. These issues are on the succession of Muhammad, Sha’ria (Islamic Law), the role of women, religious tolerance, Jihad (weaker or stronger base), and secular vice an Islamic Government amongst others. The succession of leadership is a especially a fuel for hatred between the two sects. The Sunni believe that a leader of Islamic society can be appointed or elected by men. The Shi’ites believe the Imam (Muhammed’s Successor) should be chosen by divine appointment not “elected” by man. To the Shi’ites, the doctrine of Imam is a divinely appointed leader while the Sunni believe the Imam is merely the leader of Friday prayer services. Because of these distinct differences, democracy is not a comfortable notion to many who are clinging to passed down traditions and want to remain in the past. However, this is where they have failed their civilization. Aside from the difference between Sunni and Shi'ites, they have drawn lines between moderate and radical.

Islam’s inherent divisiveness lends itself to radical interpretation of Qur’an and Hadiths. These texts support a potential for violence not found in other major religions. Radical Muslims account for between 1% to 20% of Islam. That’s between 12 and 150 million people. Not all Radical Muslims carry guns or strap bombs to themselves. The majority are the “sea within which the Radical Islamists terrorists win.” The primary objective is to reform all of Islam in it image, and spreading that vision of reformed Islam throughout the world. They are ideologically opposed to non-Muslim states of the West and the U.S. in particular. They support the imposition of universal Islamic Law (Sha’ria). They believe in the subordinate porition of women. They demonstrate intolerance towards moderate Islamic sects and they believe that Jihad comprises violent acts committed against infidels, and that this version of Jihad is in accordance with Gods’ desires. These people go under many names such as Wahhabi / Deobandi, Salafi, Muslim Brotherhood…etc.
In the decaying Arab world, Islam is the problem—because of the way bitter old men interpret and deform its more humane precepts while embracing its cruelest injunctions.

"Bigot?" Is this a word to mask you being "politically correct" for the sake of reality or just ignorance? Do not make the mistake of interpreting my posts on Radical Islam to true Islam. There is a difference. Like I have said...you really should study the subject you have formed such an opinion on.
 
Last edited:

Touchmaster

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
GySgt said:
"Bigot?"

These texts support a potential for violence not found in other major religions. Radical Muslims account for between 1% to 20% of Islam.
Well you have put me at rest that you arent at least branding hundreds of millions of people as barbarian, stupid, murderous,tyrannical savages, but to say that Islam is the only religion that has the propensity to incite violence shows a little ignorance (probably wilful) on your part. have you read the old testament? a truely pacifist document to be sure. I suppose the millions of indigenous Americans that succumbed to genocide in the name of Christ would possibly disagree with you too.
 

Doug Andreson

New member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As you people probably already know. Islamics are not the only ones who do these types of things as was already said. The crusades is a good example of how christianity got out of hand. But for the sake of the argument, who is going to stop these people from practicing what they belive in their hearts and souls. they belive enough to give there lives and that is where it becomes hard to stop these acts. You cant negotiate with people who dont care for their lives. And who is going to stop them from commiting these acts. The United States sure isnt. dont get me wrong, we will defend our country and our soldiers but when we arnt involved, then the government figures that it is not there problem to solve it.

But just so you know reading this hole thread, you should really stop attacking each other so malicously and get back to the article that was presented in the first place.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Touchmaster said:
Well you have put me at rest that you arent at least branding hundreds of millions of people as barbarian, stupid, murderous,tyrannical savages, but to say that Islam is the only religion that has the propensity to incite violence shows a little ignorance (probably wilful) on your part. have you read the old testament? a truely pacifist document to be sure. I suppose the millions of indigenous Americans that succumbed to genocide in the name of Christ would possibly disagree with you too.

I said this? I said that "Islam is the only religion that has the propensity to incite violence?" I think you are twisting what is being typed with what you are wanting to defend. I put you at rest because you are too quick to swim in "political correctness" rather than to identify the reality of today's issues. The thing about the "Old Testament" is that there is a "New Testament" that goes with it. Passed down traditions of barbarism are not glorified by organizations of fanatic and blood thirsty Christians. It is foolish to justify current occurrences with historical events. It is also very simplistic to try to use what happened to the Native Americans hundreds of years ago as a sort of exoneration for what Radical Islamists are doing today. I also don't remember hoards of lunatic cowboys and soldiers going after Indians while reciting the Bible. Shall we allow them to create nukes and destroy in the name of "God," because Christians burned a few witches at Salem? You know......we wouldn't want to be hypocrits. Once again, you have placed your foot in your mouth and have chosen to defend what is not under attack.....

Our focus on the Middle East over the decades has been so exclusive that the majority has come to see Islam as defined by the Arab. But the Islam of the Middle East is as fixed, as unreflective, and ultimately as brittle as concrete. People don’t realize that Islam is the youngest of the world’s great religions, that it is still very much a work-in-progress. Islam is a vivid, dynamic, and vibrant religion of changing shape and potential and its forms are at least as various as the countless confessions and sects of Christendom.

Throughout history, from the days of Jewish rebels against Rome and Islam’s early and recurrent fractures, through 16th-century Spanish Catholicism alarmed at the advent of alternate paths to salvation, to 19th-century Protestantism startled by Charles Darwin, religions under siege invariably have responded by returning to doctrinal rigor and insisting upon the damnation of nonbelievers. Each major religion has known its share of threats to its philosophical and practical integrity. Our age happens to be a losing era for Islam, when its functionality as a mundane organizing tool has decayed in much of the world—just as European Christianity had done by the beginning of the 16th century.

The ease with which today’s Americans of diverse faiths interact in social settings has allowed us to forget that our ancestors, in their homelands, massacred one another over the contents of the communion cup, or slaughtered Jews and called it God’s desire, or delivered their faith to their colonies with Bibles and breech-loading rifles. Some even brought their hatreds to our shores, but America conquered their bigotries over the generations—although even we have not vanquished intolerance completely. Still, for most contemporary Americans, religion has become as comfortable as it remains comforting. But human history is largely a violent contest of gods and the men who served them, and our age is the latest, intense serial in a saga that shaped our earliest myths.

Religions change, because men change them. Fundamentalists insist upon an historical stasis, but evolution in the architecture of faith has always been essential to, and reflective of, human progress. Certainty is comforting, but a religion’s capacity for adaptive behavior unleashes the energies necessary to renew both the faith and the society in which it flourishes. In the Middle East, where the narcotic of choice is blame, they have stagnated and have resisted the need to progress. On its frontiers, Islam remains capable of the changes necessary to make it, once again, a healthy, luminous faith whose followers can compete globally on its own terms. But the hard men from that religion’s ancient homelands are determined to frustrate every exploratory effort they can. The Muslim extremist from the Middle East has one consistent message: Return to the past, for that is what God wants. Beware, no matter his faith, of the man who presumes to tell you what God wants. It cannot be accomplished, of course, this longed-for return to a golden age of sanctity and success, that is mostly myth, is gone. But the bloody-handed terrorists and their mentors are determined to pay any price to frustrate those Muslims who believe that God is capable of smiling, or that it is possible to change the earth without challenging Heaven.

Why do you choose to defend these monsters as they do everything possible to turn this religion into a blood cult?
 
Last edited:

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Touchmaster said:
Exactly how easy do you think smuggling a nuclear warhead into Israel would be?
1- Fill cement mixer 1/2 full
2- Insert nuke into cement mixer
3- Fill cement mixer the rest of the way
4- Allow cement to cure
5- Drive away...
 

Touchmaster

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yeah, Im sure Israel's border posts let random cement-mixers across the border without a second look...
 

Touchmaster

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
'America conquered their bigotries over the generations'

I dont think you could count the tens of millions of fundamentalist christians as open-minded or tolerant.

I get some of your points though, and as I said, I hate all fundamentalist religions.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Touchmaster said:
I hate all fundamentalist religions.

Our fundamentalists do not cite chapter and verse while they decapitate people.

Seems to me you are worried about a kitten in your room peeing on your carpet while there is a tiger actively stalking you. There are such degrees of difference between fundamentalists in our country and Islamic funamentalists that if you focus on the former while ignoring he latter, it does appear to be a product of political correctness because you are not discerning between the two. Our fundamentalists can be annoying, intrusive and intollerant. Theirs are deadly.
 
Top Bottom