NationStates Jolt Archive

U.S. says exercise by Israel seemed directed at Iran
By Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt
Published: June 20, 2008

WASHINGTON: Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military's capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran's nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.

Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. A spokesman for the Israeli military would say only that the country's air force "regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel."

But the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies. A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.

One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran's nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.

A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.

"They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know," the Pentagon official said. "There's a lot of signaling going on at different levels."

Several American officials said they did not believe that the Israeli government had concluded that it must attack Iran and did not think that such a strike was imminent.

Shaul Mofaz, a former Israeli defense minister who is now a deputy prime minister, warned in a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot that Israel might have no choice but to attack. "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack," Mofaz said in the interview published on June 6, the day after the unpublicized exercise ended. "Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable."
Article continues here (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/20/america/20iran.php)

So, how long do the great unwashed masses of NSG think it will be before this goes down?

Who says Iran wont attack first. Didnt the president say that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth.

If Israel does attack I believe it will target the nuclear facilities only not the general population. Israel is morally far above Iran. Israel has democratic elections while Iran just has a dictrator.

But oh wait I dont really need to because Iran is funding Hezbullah at the moment. First attack? The attack has already begun

So, how long do the great unwashed masses of NSG think it will be before this goes down?

I'd say within the next ten minutes.

*scratches self*

What? You said I was unwashed.

hard to say. IMHO it depends when Israel thinks Iran is close to completing a bomb. While the IAEA says there not making a weapon, Israel seems to believe they are and they might know more since they don't have to use overt legal means to find it. And if Israel thinks Iran is close to making a bomb, they'll hit Iran. Itll be a "world opinion be damned" kind of thing like in 1981, but they may want US or some other powers help to get all the way there. There fuel tankers will undoubtedly be noticed and Iran will be ready. The IAF will smash them anyway but if they can enlist US or UN or someones help, itll make there job a lot easier. But I bet as soon as Israel thinks that Iran is almost done, and realizes no one else is going to stop them, Iran will be screwed.

Who says Iran wont attack first. Didnt the president say that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth.

If Israel does attack I believe it will target the nuclear facilities only not the general population. Israel is morally far above Iran. Israel has democratic elections while Iran just has a dictrator.

But oh wait I dont really need to because Iran is funding Hezbullah at the moment. First attack? The attack has already begun

While I agree with your general point, I must point out that much of Iran's leadership is technically elected, including our friend Mahmoud. Of course, the clerics get to decide who can and cannot run for political office, and (relatively) recently eliminated the bulk of the candidates for one party, but they technically have elections.

EDIT: Forgot to add my actual response to the question. Yes, Iran is already waging indirect war on Israel, as well as the west as a whole on many fronts, and our own attempts at doing the same in their direction have not been worth noting (with the possible exception of . . . well, it is too long a digression to get into; forget I said anything in these parentheses). As for a direct attack on Iran by Israel, I cannot say with any certainty if or when that will happen, though I strongly doubt it will happen this week.

recently eliminated the bulk of the candidates for one party, but they technically have elections.
(emphasis is mine)

for some reason that made me think of this (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_kim_jong_ils_approval)
:D

(emphasis is mine)

for some reason that made me think of this (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_kim_jong_ils_approval)
:D

Oh, I thought I italicized that . . .

I have to say, I laughed at loud at the clip.

It will happen when israeli intelligence say it is a good time, without access to their reports, it could be any time between 2 days (minimum time needed to co-ordinate that size strike from stand-down status to takeoff, less if the air force is standing ready already) to 20 years.

if the Iranians screw the pooch and stuff their bomb up, israel won't bother. if they have something ready to launch, israels going to jump in first. simple as that. but unless you know what they spies do, you have no fucking clue as to WHEN it's going to happen, so stop the stupid guessing games.

If they are either attacked or feel the threat of an imminent attack. And that's if they show restraint. The question then becomes how the US and others will respond and weather, given Russia's support of Iran, they will risk turning it into a nuclear war between the Superpowers.

Of course no. Their support of Iran is along the lines of "Nobody sells you? Well, we can".

Who says Iran wont attack first. Didnt the president say that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth.

If Israel does attack I believe it will target the nuclear facilities only not the general population. Israel is morally far above Iran. Israel has democratic elections while Iran just has a dictrator.

But oh wait I dont really need to because Iran is funding Hezbullah at the moment. First attack? The attack has already begun

Funny how shit spreads, but no. Let's clarify here, Ahmadinejad never said Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth. He actually said something along the lines of "it's tyrannous government will collapse". Still rather aggressive, but not quite the same thing.

How do you decide what is moral and immoral? Ahmadinejad is an elected leader, and Iran technically is a *democratic state*. Now of course, the mullahs get to decide who runs, but it's still more "democratic" than other countries. And really, simply being democratic does not make a country moral. I mean really, in the war with Hezbollah (which is basically a militia with the fraction of the $ as the IDF) Israel had a higher percentage of civilians deaths compared to overall deaths.

But to respond to the topic, I have no idea what Israel is up to, but I don't see them attacking anytime soon (because I don't think Iran will be getting nuclear weapons for at least 3-4+ years).

Israel is morally far above Iran.


lol wut? no comment.

it may take time.
first, israel prefer to be in the side and let the world solve it (as long as the current diplomatic alliance against the iranian nuclear progrram continue).
on the other end, if the UN will let them keep their progrram, and the election results in USA will make military operation unlikely, we may try something on our own (probably with silent acceptnace and some aid from USA ).
anyway, israel mainstrate in our missle defence progrram, so we probably won't attack before we can assure small losses on our side from the iranian response.

I don't think Israël would attack.
Not as long as Iran can totally annihilate all the US efforts in Irak and do some very hard times to OTAN in Afghanistan.

And in order to properly bomb the Iranian facilities, they would need a tactical nuke...not ordinnary ordnance...so it would be a nuclear strike, politically, this would be a great mess for Israël diplomacy.
And Israël knew that they need EU and USA...without the help of both of us, they would be wiped out.

Plus, Russia and China could absolutly not like that, and in response would make hard retalation against Western interests, I could imagine Russia making some hard time for the IDF ( like they did with their Tartus Base in Syria, during the 80's Lebanon War, when they push Israeli Air Force out of the sky of Lebanon at the threat of shooting them down )
China could be far more dangerous, because of their control on North Korea...

Yup, the political implications would be far more dangerous than it was in 1981, especially with a nuclear strike...I don't think the right conditions are at hand for the next years.

If things don't improve, I could see an Israeli strike going in in about six months. However, a lot can happen in six months, and Israel could well be delayed by such things as negotiating for flyover rights with neighbouring states (which they might well get, given they're hitting "Shi'a heretics":().

Zionist imperialism at it's lowest...

Zionist imperialism at it's lowest...

No, it's called self-defense.

When someone is building a nuclear capability, and already had missiles capable of reaching your country, and is almost weekly talking about wiping you and your people from the face of the earth (and their religious leaders refer to you as subhumans who need to be killed), then you don't sit and wait for them to launch nukes at you.

What, do you suppose that it would be a good idea to wait, and let them vaporize you out of existence?

The difference between this and the Cold War is that the Soviets actually wanted to convert us to Communism - can't attain that goal if you've french fried the people you're trying to convert.

The radical mullahs over in Iran however, aren't interested in converting the Jews. They want to kill them.

Doesn't leave the Israelis much choice for conventions responses prior to an Iranian nuclear attack.

And you might say, the probability of a nuclear attack by Iran is low - the problem being that as low as it might be, it's not zero.

Would you let your kids play in the backyard if you knew that there was a 10% chance that they would be bitten by a rattlesnake? No. You would go out and kill the snakes.

It's that simple. This isn't some kind of bluffing game between rational parties - it's a life or death situation for the Israelis, and a "final solution" to the Jewish problem for the Iranians.

As soon as Mossad operatives on the nuclear site tell the Israeli government that they're getting anywhere near anything viable in terms of enriched uranium output.

When someone is building a nuclear capability, and already had missiles capable of reaching your country, and is almost weekly talking about wiping you and your people from the face of the earth (and their religious leaders refer to you as subhumans who need to be killed), then you don't sit and wait for them to launch nukes at you.
Aye, but you have to realise that Achmujenidad probably says that kind of thing when he pours milk on his cornflakes etc., as long as he's on camera. It's a soundbite, nothing more. You know, instead of "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", it's more like "tough on our country being a shit tip, tough on the causes thereof" or whatever.

And it's not like Israelis wouldn't win medals at the Hollow Bullshitting Olympics, let's be honest.

Aye, but you have to realise that Achmujenidad probably says that kind of thing when he pours milk on his cornflakes etc., as long as he's on camera. It's a soundbite, nothing more. You know, instead of "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", it's more like "tough on our country being a shit tip, tough on the causes thereof" or whatever.

And it's not like Israelis wouldn't win medals at the Hollow Bullshitting Olympics, let's be honest.

They were right about Osirak.

Aye, but you have to realise that Achmujenidad probably says that kind of thing when he pours milk on his cornflakes etc., as long as he's on camera. It's a soundbite, nothing more. You know, instead of "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", it's more like "tough on our country being a shit tip, tough on the causes thereof" or whatever.

And it's not like Israelis wouldn't win medals at the Hollow Bullshitting Olympics, let's be honest.
Ahmedinigad is not the real problem. he only doll of the mulahs. they had the real power and their neuclear progrram was before and will be after someone else will be elected as their speaker.
Ahmedinigad words are actually good thing, since they show the whole world what the iranians had been trying to keep silenced.

Who says Iran wont attack first. Didnt the president say that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth.

If Israel does attack I believe it will target the nuclear facilities only not the general population. Israel is morally far above Iran. Israel has democratic elections while Iran just has a dictrator.

But oh wait I dont really need to because Iran is funding Hezbullah at the moment. First attack? The attack has already begun

Ha! You make me laugh. Israel? Morally above Iran? You truly are a very funny individual, you really, really are. Tell that to the Palestinian people who its shoving in concentration camps and systematically exterminating. Sure, it isn't the same system as the Nazis, completely, but I still see them being shoved into Warsaw-esque ghettos and eliminated slowly, over time. There is nothing the Israeli Government would want more than to exterminate every single Palestinian, they're just afraid of global response.

Ha! You make me laugh. Israel? Morally above Iran? You truly are a very funny individual, you really, really are. Tell that to the Palestinian people who its shoving in concentration camps and systematically exterminating. Sure, it isn't the same system as the Nazis, completely, but I still see them being shoved into Warsaw-esque ghettos and eliminated slowly, over time. There is nothing the Israeli Government would want more than to exterminate every single Palestinian, they're just afraid of global response.

I don't see Israel officially hanging homosexuals in the streets.

I don't see Israel calling for the genocide of every Arab.

Blowing away every Palestinian is well within the capability of the Israeli military, and yet they don't. I think that more that public opinion stays their hand.

Yes, they are morally above Iran, and certainly above the Palestinians. By leaps and bounds.

They were right about Osirak.
Err yep, as I said, the decision is going to be made by Mossad more than by anyone else.
Ahmedinigad is not the real problem. he only doll of the mulahs. they had the real power and their neuclear progrram was before and will be after someone else will be elected as their speaker.
Ahmedinigad words are actually good thing, since they show the whole world what the iranians had been trying to keep silenced.
I wouldn't say that the utter bullshit that Achmujenidad and the Mullahs spout about Iran is really the world-view of the average Persian. There'll be some that agree with all that stuff, but then there's some people that'll believe anything.

you guys dont seem to realize that Ahmenjadad (whatever) isnt the head of state, the man is basically a puppet to divert attention from the grand ayotallah, who runs the country with his council. the president can bluff all he wants, but he cant do anything without the Grand Ayotallah's permission

There is nothing the Israeli Government would want more than to exterminate every single Palestinian, they're just afraid of global response.

yeah, right. maybe that is the reason that no party which suggest transfer for the arabs ever passed the minimal votes percents, and there are only one party that believe that all the territories should kept ours (and they had less than 10 seats of the 120. same amount as the arab parties).
you saw too much biased media.

you guys dont seem to realize that Ahmenjadad (whatever) isnt the head of state, the man is basically a puppet to divert attention from the grand ayotallah, who runs the country with his council. the president can bluff all he wants, but he cant do anything without the Grand Ayotallah's permission

Yeah, like build thousands of centrifuges underground at Natanz, and build ballistic missiles that can reach Israel...

Yeah, like build thousands of centrifuges underground at Natanz
I'm going to play devil's advocate here - any concrete proof they're for anything other than civilian power generation?
and build ballistic missiles that can reach Israel...
Uhu. A rocket propelled shoe could probably hit Isreal from Iran, let's be honest. It's not exactly a long way away.

I wouldn't say that the utter bullshit that Achmujenidad and the Mullahs spout about Iran is really the world-view of the average Persian. There'll be some that agree with all that stuff, but then there's some people that'll believe anything.
who talk about the persian people?
the current regime hopefully doesn't represent large part of the popolution which may prefer more western life style. this is dictatorship and the fake election won't change it.

I believe the persian crowd in the last world cup was more representive than the mulahs. sadly they had no real effect in iran.

Blowing away every Palestinian is well within the capability of the Israeli military, and yet they don't. I think that more that public opinion stays their hand.

the Jews were massacred in Nazi Germany, along with Poles, Slavs, Roma and others, and unlike the germans, the Israelis do it slowly and impercibtly. in 60 years, they have made their living space, and theyre expanding more and more.

Uhu. A rocket propelled shoe could probably hit Isreal from Iran, let's be honest. It's not exactly a long way away.

current intelligence suggest that their missle range is central europe and they keep buying better missles and upgrading their range.

I don't see Israel officially hanging homosexuals in the streets.

I don't see Israel calling for the genocide of every Arab.

Blowing away every Palestinian is well within the capability of the Israeli military, and yet they don't. I think that more that public opinion stays their hand.

Yes, they are morally above Iran, and certainly above the Palestinians. By leaps and bounds.

And you're falling for the media's biases. Having been to Iran I never witnessed any of that. I loved Tehran while I was there.

I don't see Israel officially hanging homosexuals in the streets.

I don't see Israel calling for the genocide of every Arab.

Blowing away every Palestinian is well within the capability of the Israeli military, and yet they don't. I think that more that public opinion stays their hand.

Yes, they are morally above Iran, and certainly above the Palestinians. By leaps and bounds.

No. Israel was created due to numerous Jewish terrorist attacks on British officials in the Middle East and exists by expelling Palestinians from lands that the Palestinians have been on for millenia. Israel certainly isn't Nazi-Germany bad, but it is 19th century USA vs. Native Americans bad.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here - any concrete proof they're for anything other than civilian power generation?

Uhu. A rocket propelled shoe could probably hit Isreal from Iran, let's be honest. It's not exactly a long way away.

It's far more centrifuges than you need to supply a few reactors with fuel.

And this:

16. At follow up meetings in Tehran on 28–30 April and 13–14 May 2008, the Agency presented, for
review by Iran, information related to the alleged studies on the green salt project, high explosives
testing and the missile re-entry vehicle project (See Annex, Section A). This included information
which Iran had declined to review in February 2008 (GOV/2008/4, paras 35, 37–39 and 42). This
information, which was provided to the Agency by several Member States, appears to have been
derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, is detailed in content, and appears to be
generally consistent. The Agency received much of this information only in electronic form and was
not authorised to provide copies to Iran.
17. One aspect of the alleged studies refers to the conversion of uranium dioxide to UF4, also known
as green salt. A second aspect concerns the development and testing of high voltage detonator firing
equipment and exploding bridgewire (EBW) detonators including, inter alia, the simultaneous firing of
multiple EBW detonators; an underground testing arrangement (GOV/2008/4, para. 39); and the
testing of at least one full scale hemispherical, converging, explosively driven shock system that could
be applicable to an implosion-type nuclear device. A third aspect of the studies concerns development
work alleged to have been performed to redesign the inner cone of the Shahab-3 missile re-entry
vehicle to accommodate a nuclear warhead.
18. On 14 May 2008, Iran provided in writing its overall assessment of the documents presented to it
by the Agency. Iran stated that the documents “do not show any indication that the Islamic Republic of
Iran has been working on [a] nuclear weapon.” Iran also stated that the documents were not authentic,
that they were “forged” or “fabricated”. Iran did not dispute that some of the information contained in
the documents was factually accurate, but said the events and activities concerned involved civil or
conventional military applications. Iran said the documents contained numerous inconsistencies and
many were based on publicly available information. Iran stated that “the Islamic Republic of Iran has
not had and shall not have any nuclear weapon program.”

In other words, the IAEA showed them the design of a implosion-type nuclear warhead, and they said either "it's fake" or "it's for civil or conventional military use".

Well, which one is it? It's certainly not something you use for civil or conventional military use, and since this is the IAEA, and not the US finding these documents while inspecting in Iran, I highly doubt they are fake.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-15.pdf

And you're falling for the media's biases. Having been to Iran I never witnessed any of that. I loved Tehran while I was there.

I would post the video of the homosexuals being hanged, but that would violate the terms of service.

the Jews were massacred in Nazi Germany, along with Poles, Slavs, Roma and others, and unlike the germans, the Israelis do it slowly and impercibtly. in 60 years, they have made their living space, and theyre expanding more and more.

in 60 years israel killed 60 thousand arabs (including all the wars). only tenth are palastinians. compare it to any other occuption or conflict in the world and it will had one of the lowest death rate.
if we do it, I guess we do it so slow that their natural death rate is much higher.

In response to the whole Israel being more morally correct:
Israel doesn't use carbombs.
Israel doesn't randomly attack civilians. They only kill civilians if they will be saving more people by the attack than they kill, and they still hate to do so. They never try to do so, but they realize, like everyone should, terrorists have a habit of using people as shields.
Israel specializes in precision and special forces maneuvers to reduce casualties.
Israel tries only to survive. The Arabs that want them dead wish only to kill.
Israel isn't systematically exterminating Palestinians. They know far more than you do. Israel knows the horrors of the Holocaust. If they do something at all similar, it isn't for prejudice, it'd be against real "political prisoners" - i.e. people plotting and attempting to kill Israelis.
Israel doesn't wish for the extermination of every single Palestinian. They wish for only safety. Have you taken any sort of Foreign Policy class? Have you studied exactly why all this is going on? England promised too much to too many people. They promised the Arabs Palestine and they promised the Zionist movement land in Palestine, in things like the Balfour Declaration. Meanwhile, from the turn of the century (approx 1900), the Zionist movement began legally acquiring land in Palestine. In fact, by the time they were pronounced to be a nation, nearly all of their land had been legally acquired via legally buying it from the owners. When they declared themselves a country, they were attacked, and the attacks were not only repulsed, but redoubled, and Israel, for it's own safety, made a more reasonably shaped country like we know today, instead of one that looked like a paint-splatter. Palestinians weren't happy with how the UN divided the lands, so they attacked. They were greedy and got what they had taken from them, rightfully.
If you study it, you'll find that Israel doesn't want the extermination of every single Palestinian. They want to survive. Land they take is meant to be a buffer zone to improve survivability.
How can you even assume they wish to kill every Palestinian? If they wished to do so, Merkavas would be storming the streets of every Palestinian city, laying waste to their lands while F-15s cluster-bombed every building, man, woman, and child into dust.

There a lot of things that must be considered:
1) Israel cares far more for survival than world opinion. If they know about a nuclear weapon, they'll kill as soon as they find out where it is being made. They won't wait for it to be completed.

2) Israel has done this before. We know they can do it, and they can do it better this time. Hell, I hope they take out Iran's Air Force while they are at it. Everyone knows Israeli pilots beat even American pilots.

3) Iran won't stop developing it. Persians and many Arabs tend to be uncompromising and headstrong politically.

4) Iran reminds Israel very much of Nazi Germany, to the "Kill All Jews" Mentality to the Goose-stepping of their soldiers. Israel would whipe them out in a heartbeat if it wasn't morally wrong to kill civilians, and if the rest of the Middle East wouldn't attack them. Without Nukes, Israel will not fall, however. They have one of the most superb militaries in the world, and everyone knows they can kick the crap out of almost anything.

5) Anyone who knows even a slight fraction more than allowed to civilians knows that Iran needs to be taken down, or knows that the US government wants Iran taken down more desperately than is being publicly known. The US Government knows more than they are letting on. Why? We'll assume they have a good reason. This is the Generals I'm talking about. Our Generals have a history of being far more military knowledgable than our Presidents, as well as being the last people who want to go to war. Don't believe me? You don't know enough about the military then, and you need to study more.
If we know something bad about Iran, then Israel knows twice as much. Their Mossad is like the CIA on steroids with a focus on the Middle East.

6) Iran is an obvious threat to Israeli survival. They've got crosshairs on them now.

7) Israel is... well... Israel. They won't only complete their mission, they'll hit it with three times more than what will be considered overkill to make sure it's dead.

Funny how shit spreads, but no. Let's clarify here, Ahmadinejad never said Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth. He actually said something along the lines of "it's tyrannous government will collapse". Still rather aggressive, but not quite the same thing.

Oh yes, but you cannot forget the classic, "Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."
Or perhaps, "Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."
Or maybe, "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

current intelligence suggest that their missle range is central europe and they keep buying better missles and upgrading their range.
And surely they know that they can't actually use them.
No. Israel was created due to numerous Jewish terrorist attacks on British officials in the Middle East and exists by expelling Palestinians from lands that the Palestinians have been on for millenia. Israel certainly isn't Nazi-Germany bad, but it is 19th century USA vs. Native Americans bad.
That major political parties in Israel, especially Likud, are essentially groups of pardoned terrorists is true, that the Israelis are as bad towards the Palestinians as the people who annihilated the native Americans is not. They're pretty bad, but they're not hunting them down and slaughtering whole communities for the sake of it.
It's far more centrifuges than you need to supply a few reactors with fuel.
Maybe they want to sell some to other nuclear powers to help their ailing economy. I know I would were I the government of Iran.
In other words, the IAEA showed them the design of a implosion-type nuclear warhead, and they said either "it's fake" or "it's for civil or conventional military use".
No, they didn't, see this :

"The Agency received much of this information only in electronic form and was
not authorised to provide copies to Iran."

They didn't show the Persians what they'd recieved, and indeed were told they couldn't, seeing as it was probably from espionage and they'd go after the teams involved in whichever areas was concerned on a spy hunt.
Well, which one is it? It's certainly not something you use for civil or conventional military use
It's not a 'which one is it?' issue, seeing as for different elements of the documents that they weren't actually allowed to see, they confirmed or denied certain aspects of them.

No idea what exactly they confirmed or denied, so can't rightly say, and seeing as I wasn't present, I have no idea about how authentic or accurate the documents are...
I highly doubt they are fake.
Neither of us have any idea about their authenticity, but seeing as this information was obviously taken without the consent of the government of Iran, it's hard to say whether it's a sexed-up dossier or not, no?

I don't see Israel officially hanging homosexuals in the streets.
You don't see homosexuals officially being executed in Iraq due to having comitted homosexual acts either. This have been covered in another thread - there's no evidence to support it, and Amnesty International (among others) haven't been able to document it either.

Might happen in isolated cases, but your statement is the usual hyperbole.

I don't see Israel calling for the genocide of every Arab.
When did Iran call for the genocide of anyone? Clearly calling for genocide?

Blowing away every Palestinian is well within the capability of the Israeli military, and yet they don't. I think that more that public opinion stays their hand.
And killing all the Jews in Iran is well within the capability of the Iranian military, and yet they don't. Your point?

Yes, they are morally above Iran, and certainly above the Palestinians. By leaps and bounds.
Debatable at best.

Oh yes, but you cannot forget the classic, "Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."
Or perhaps, "Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."
Or maybe, "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
Uhu. Seriously, that's hollow bullshit. They have no chance to do anything about the presence of Israel in the region, seeing as they spend about $30 a year on the military of Iran or something.

And you're falling for the media's biases. Having been to Iran I never witnessed any of that. I loved Tehran while I was there.

Yeah, right.

http://images36.fotki.com/v1157/photos/9/98493/990775/motivator2314178-vi.jpg

in 60 years israel killed 60 thousand arabs (including all the wars). only tenth are palastinians. compare it to any other occuption or conflict in the world and it will had one of the lowest death rate.
if we do it, I guess we do it so slow that their natural death rate is much higher.

That doesn't negate the fact that Israel has unjustly expelled Palestinians from their lands, forcing them into squalid refugee camps and destabilized the entire Middle Eastern region in the name of a ridiculous, millenia old religious mandate.

I'm going to go with "never" on this one.

Not that Israel couldn't hand Iran's ass to itself over and over and over again.

I mean for God's sake, have you read about their course of military action in the Iran-Iraq war?

No. Israel was created due to numerous Jewish terrorist attacks on British officials in the Middle East and exists by expelling Palestinians from lands that the Palestinians have been on for millenia. Israel certainly isn't Nazi-Germany bad, but it is 19th century USA vs. Native Americans bad.

Wrong

When land was alloted to the Israelis for the time of their being made a country, they owned far over half of that land legally. They bought it over the course of nearly 50 years from their own funds. Israelis moved there, made kipputz (communal farms), and developed the Haganah (the early IDF).
Then Palestine got greedy and wanted that land, even though the Israelis legally and rightfully owned it. In the war that resulted, they lost their land. When a Militia can beat standing armies, you'd think someone would learn not to mess with the standing army that results from that militia. Obviously not, because Israel has been beating back attacks for six decades, winning land, then giving it up as a show of good faith that is never returned.

Were there terrorist attacks? Yes. Why? The British lied to everyone. They told the Arabs that they would be given Palestine. They said the same things to the Zionists. Why? They wanted everyone to be happy.
Then the British stopped allowing migration into Palestine/Israeli areas just about the time that the Holocaust started. That made the Israelis frustrated. Duh. They owned their own land there, but their friends couldn't move in to help.
"The Nazis want us to die and the British won't let us live!" Is a popular quote from that time.

Wrong

When land was alloted to the Israelis for the time of their being made a country, they owned far over half of that land legally. They bought it over the course of nearly 50 years from their own funds. Israelis moved there, made kipputz (communal farms), and developed the Haganah (the early IDF).
Then Palestine got greedy and wanted that land, even though the Israelis legally and rightfully owned it. In the war that resulted, they lost their land.

It's Kibbutz.

Israel is morally far above Iran

Hahahahahahahahahaha, Ooooo you're a live one, you are.....


When land was alloted to the Israelis for the time of their being made a country, they owned far over half of that land legally.

Really? Source for this please, as its news to me....

No. Israel was created due to numerous Jewish terrorist attacks on British officials in the Middle EastIsrael was created due to UN decision about 2 states for 2 nations, which the palastinians refused to accept and we had to fight for, since the UN had no tooths.
how the jewish attacks on british soldiers are ant diferrent than the global rebellion against the european imparialism which created so many new states after WW2?
and exists by expelling Palestinians from lands that the Palestinians have been on for millenia. Israel certainly isn't Nazi-Germany bad, but it is 19th century USA vs. Native Americans bad.first, most of them run away and didn't expelled, although the israeli goverment called for them to be part in the new nation.
second, about the same number of jewish people (600 thousands) had been expelled in the same time from the arab nations and left behind many properties.
third, popolution movement were coomon act in all the world at that time and even after.
and last, their are many refugees in the world. most of them are rehabilitated in other countrey and stop being refugees after less than generation. the palastinians are the only ones which kept in refugee camps so their problem not only solve itself, but will grow in any generation passed.
we (as most other countries) helped our refugees. the arabs didn't help their for political reasons and israel had nothing to do with that.

It's Kibbutz.
Ach this is a Moslem / Muslim issue that I will personally resolve by telling you that transcriptions of different alphabets can be affected by regional accents. The word 'tomato' is spelt the same way in the US and UK, but the pronunciation is different, with a very noticable long 'a' sound in the US compared to the shorter sound in the UK version, which, if transcribed into a foreign script might well cause problems.

It's Kibbutz.

Actually, I understand either spelling is correct. The Hebrew form doesn't translate precisely, sound for sound. Kibbutz is just the most common version.

Wrong

When land was alloted to the Israelis for the time of their being made a country, they owned far over half of that land legally. They bought it over the course of nearly 50 years from their own funds. Israelis moved there, made kipputz (communal farms), and developed the Haganah (the early IDF).
Then Palestine got greedy and wanted that land, even though the Israelis legally and rightfully owned it. In the war that resulted, they lost their land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jewish_Resistance_Movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

Next?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jewish_Resistance_Movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

Next?
I don't think either of those things really changed much in terms of why the Israelis got their own state. There were Jews in the British mandate of Palestine, we were using them as colonial police and it had a religious importance to the Jews in Europe. It was also nowhere near anyone we cared about, and didn't piss off the USSR, so it was all good.

Hahahahahahahahahaha, Ooooo you're a live one, you are.....

So you like the fact that lynching gays is the morally right thing to do?

And surely they know that they can't actually use them.

optimism may be good, but I don't share your believe on that.

Ach this is a Moslem / Muslim issue that I will personally resolve by telling you that transcriptions of different alphabets can be affected by regional accents. The word 'tomato' is spelt the same way in the US and UK, but the pronunciation is different, with a very noticable long 'a' sound in the US compared to the shorter sound in the UK version, which, if transcribed into a foreign script might well cause problems.

Yes, well I...

*Runs off and hides*

So you like the fact that lynching gays is the morally right thing to do?

You think that lynching gays is the right thing to do? Bit harsh, don't you think...

No, its just that slow drip ethnic cleansing, helping Apartheid South Africa with The Bomb and 40 years of a brutal occupation don't help one up on the moral high horse...

He probably believes, as Ahmadinejad stated, that there are NO homosexuals in Iran...

And we all know how much your opinion is worth, of course....

So you like the fact that lynching gays is the morally right thing to do?

He probably believes, as Ahmadinejad stated, that there are NO homosexuals in Iran...

Actually, I understand either spelling is correct. The Hebrew form doesn't translate precisely, sound for sound. Kibbutz is just the most common version.

How can you get from 'Bet' to 'Pei'? I've never heard anyone in Israel call it a Kipputz.

That doesn't negate the fact that Israel has unjustly expelled Palestinians from their lands, forcing them into squalid refugee camps and destabilized the entire Middle Eastern region in the name of a ridiculous, millenia old religious mandate.

I expand on that in later post. this mostly uncorrect.

It was a mispelling on my part - I learned it as kibbutz as well, however, I just haven't been in that class for a few months and forgot that it was a "b" rather than a "p".

Fallen Empire - I edited my post before you made yours, or while you were making yours.

My source is a text-book.
If you can find a map of it, the only extra lands alloted to Israel were to give a slight buffer zone and allow Israel to be able to economically survive in a hostile area.

In response to the whole Israel being more morally correct:
Israel doesn't use carbombs.
...they use rockets and other kinds of bombs...
Israel doesn't randomly attack civilians.
...they only accept an atrocious level of "collateral damage".
They only kill civilians if they will be saving more people by the attack than they kill, and they still hate to do so. They never try to do so,
Incorrect. IDF soldiers have attacked civilians, and have failed in their duty to protect them.

but they realize, like everyone should, terrorists have a habit of using people as shields.
Just like the IDF soldiers have had.

Israel specializes in precision and special forces maneuvers to reduce casualties.
When they can be bothered to do so.

Israel tries only to survive.
Not really.

The Arabs that want them dead wish only to kill.
Not really.

Israel isn't systematically exterminating Palestinians.
This is correct.

Israel knows the horrors of the Holocaust.
"Israel" does not.

4) Iran reminds Israel very much of Nazi Germany, to the "Kill All Jews" Mentality to the Goose-stepping of their soldiers. Israel would whipe them out in a heartbeat if it wasn't morally wrong to kill civilians, and if the rest of the Middle East wouldn't attack them. Without Nukes, Israel will not fall, however. They have one of the most superb militaries in the world, and everyone knows they can kick the crap out of almost anything.
There is no such mentality.

5) Anyone who knows even a slight fraction more than allowed to civilians knows that Iran needs to be taken down, or knows that the US government wants Iran taken down more desperately than is being publicly known. The US Government knows more than they are letting on. Why? We'll assume they have a good reason.
Like with Iraq? Hell no.


7) Israel is... well... Israel. They won't only complete their mission, they'll hit it with three times more than what will be considered overkill to make sure it's dead.
Yay?

Ach this is a Moslem / Muslim issue that I will personally resolve by telling you that transcriptions of different alphabets can be affected by regional accents. The word 'tomato' is spelt the same way in the US and UK, but the pronunciation is different, with a very noticable long 'a' sound in the US compared to the shorter sound in the UK version, which, if transcribed into a foreign script might well cause problems.

Actually, I understand either spelling is correct. The Hebrew form doesn't translate precisely, sound for sound. Kibbutz is just the most common version.

קיבוץ (kibbutz) has a ב in it...it makes a "b" sound. If it were kipputz it would be an entirely different letter, specifically a פּ which makes a "p" sound.

So you like the fact that lynching gays is the morally right thing to do?
Does it happen often in Iran?

Where does it happen in Iran?
He probably believes, as Ahmadinejad stated, that there are NO homosexuals in Iran...
Disregarding your strawman - do you know why he stated that? Can you explain his logic?

Israel was created due to UN decision about 2 states for 2 nations, which the palastinians refused to accept and we had to fight for, since the UN had no tooths.
how the jewish attacks on british soldiers are ant diferrent than the global rebellion against the european imparialism which created so many new states after WW2?
first, most of them run away and didn't expelled, although the israeli goverment called for them to be part in the new nation.
second, about the same number of jewish people (600 thousands) had been expelled in the same time from the arab nations and left behind many properties.
third, popolution movement were coomon act in all the world at that time and even after.
and last, their are many refugees in the world. most of them are rehabilitated in other countrey and stop being refugees after less than generation. the palastinians are the only ones which kept in refugee camps so their problem not only solve itself, but will grow in any generation passed.
we (as most other countries) helped our refugees. the arabs didn't help their for political reasons and israel had nothing to do with that.

1) The UN was dominated by Western powers, and the Arab peoples who lived on the land were virtually not consulted at all in the way their land was auctioned away. The UN deal was remarkably one-sided.
2) These Jews were expelled unjustly, of course, but the action was initiated by Israel.
3) The settlements that Israel is planting today and has been planting for a long time involve forcibly removing Palestinians from their land. BBC ran a story a week and a half ago about how an Israeli gang assaulted a pair of elderly Palestinian farmers who refused to leave their land.
4) Israel created the refugee problem in the first place. Attempting to pass the blame to other Arab regimes does not refute this.
5) And the Jewish attacks on British authorities are not different from those in the rest of the world. It exists solely to refute the claim of "Israel's moral superiority".

קיבוץ (kibbutz) has a ב in it...it makes a "b" sound. If it were kipputz it would be an entirely different letter, specifically a פּ which makes a "p" sound.

Cool. I just learned more about Hebrew!

קיבוץ (kibbutz) has a ב in it...it makes a "b" sound. If it were kipputz it would be an entirely different letter, specifically a פּ which makes a "p" sound.
Fair enough.

Cool. I just learned more about Hebrew!

Semitic languages are fun. For some reason, that I'm not sure is necessarily true but it's something I've noticed from my personal/classroom studies, dialectically the "b" and "p" sounds don't get switched in Semitic languages very often; I don't really understand why that is, but even in Arabic the two sounds often stay mutually exclusive while on the other hand "j" can change to "g" or even "zh" (a "French" j).

Semitic languages are fun. For some reason, that I'm not sure is necessarily true but it's something I've noticed from my personal/classroom studies, dialectically the "b" and "p" sounds don't get switched in Semitic languages very often; I don't really understand why that is, but even in Arabic the two sounds often stay mutually exclusive while on the other hand "j" can change to "g" or even "zh" (a "French" j).

Let's not forget the epenthetic vowels in hebrew...

Does it happen often in Iran?

Where does it happen in Iran?

It happens often enough to make in on the BBC News.

Don't even try pulling that shit. Israel is fucking lightyears ahead of Iran in terms of just about everything.

Seriously, which would you rather move to?

Does it happen often in Iran?

Where does it happen in Iran?

Disregarding your strawman - do you know why he stated that? Can you explain his logic?

It happens often enough to be on YouTube as well.

Amnesty International says that homosexuals are executed in Iran.

"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country,," the President said at Columbia University during a controversial question-and-answer session.

"In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who has told you that we have it."

Amnesty International said figures suggest Iran has executed 200 people this year including many homosexuals.

Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer, in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, ridiculed the comments.

"Well, I think we just all know that's absurd," Mr Downer said.

He probably thinks they've all been executed, or the ones thinking about being homosexual are in the closet, and therefore "not" homosexuals.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22482590-663,00.html

It happens often enough to make in on the BBC News.
Though not any cases where they've officially been executed only for homosexual acts that you can show me? Because several organisations would be interested in having such a case. It would contradict the position of the Home Office (including the UK Home Office Border and Immigration Agency.)

Don't even try pulling that shit. Israel is fucking lightyears ahead of Iran in terms of just about everything.
Nah. Turn down the rethoric and you have a point.

Seriously, which would you rather move to?
Neither.

It happens often enough to be on YouTube as well.

Amnesty International says that homosexuals are executed in Iran.
And they say that heterosexuals are executed in the US.

Can you show me where they say that homosexuals are executed only because of homosexual acts?


He probably thinks they've all been executed, or the ones thinking about being homosexual are in the closet, and therefore "not" homosexuals.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22482590-663,00.html

He probably said so because the Judiciary doesn't recognize the concept of sexual orientation, meaning that from a legal standpoint there are no homosexuals or bisexuals in the country - only heterosexuals "committing" homosexual acts.

You don't see homosexuals officially being executed in Ira[n] due to having comitted homosexual acts either. This have been covered in another thread
Your level of denial and hypocrisy in that thread was sickening. Yes, homosexuals are executed for committing homosexual acts; the fact that the government lying pretends to be executing them for other reasons does not improve matters, quite the contrary.
When did Iran call for the genocide of anyone? Clearly calling for genocide?
When did the Germans clearly call for genocide either? Calls for genocide are always made with weaselly code-words, so that somebody who wants to stay in denial about it can do so.

Your level of denial and hypocrisy in that thread was sickening. Yes, homosexuals are executed for committing homosexual acts; the fact that the government lying pretends to be executing them for other reasons does not improve matters, quite the contrary.
*Shrug*

Your willingness to accept unsupported claims and to expect the worst without evidence were just silly to me. But to each his own.

When did the Germans clearly call for genocide either? Calls for genocide are always made with weaselly code-words, so that somebody who wants to stay in denial about it can do so.
Let's say that the German Endlösung and the Wannsee conference was a clear call for genocide. Can you find me an Iranian equivalent?

Though not any cases where they've officially been executed only for homosexual acts that you can show me? Because several organisations would be interested in having such a case. It would contradict the position of the Home Office (including the UK Home Office Border and Immigration Agency.)

Why the hell are you defending the fact that Iran executes people for being gay? You're either simply playing the devil's advocate or lying to yourself. There's no getting around that.

I'm not even going to bother arguing with your blather. It's common fucking knowledge that Iran lynches people for being gay and you know it.

1) The UN was dominated by Western powers, and the Arab peoples who lived on the land were virtually not consulted at all in the way their land was auctioned away. The UN deal was remarkably one-sided.


The UN never consults the people who live on the land. Ever. It's the United Nations, not the United "Peoples who live on the land". It doesn't now and it didn't then. So I don't see what that has to do with the legitimacy - insofar as UN things go - with the deal.

Your willingness to accept unsupported claims...
The case which was brought up on that thread was supported by official statements from the highest level of the Iranian judiciary. The courts in Iran commonly execute gays, and then lying pretend that one of the partners "raped" the other so they can pretend that they don't execute for homosexual acts. When I told you that's how it works, you said NUH-UHHHH! and when a case was pointed out to you where Iranian officials state flat-out that that's exactly what happened, you escalated your denial to a stratospheric level.
Let's say that the German Endlösung and the Wannsee conference was a clear call for genocide. Can you find me an Iranian equivalent?
"Wiping them off the map" and the other statements that you are willing to shrug off are entirely equivalent.

Why the hell are you defending the fact that Iran executes people for being gay? You're either simply playing the devil's advocate or lying to yourself. There's no getting around that.
No. It's an over-hyped talking point. Iran is worthy of condemnation for a lot of things that can be verified: Using the death penalty, executing young people, harsh penalties, discriminating against homosexuals, etc. But there's still no cases where any person has officially been executed merely for consentual homosexual activities.

I'm not even going to bother arguing with your blather. It's common fucking knowledge that Iran lynches people for being gay and you know it.
More blather from the UK Home Office:
3.9.9 Lesbian sex continues to be illegal and is punishable by 100 lashes, with the death penalty on the fourth offence. As in the case of gay males, reports of persons being penalised for lesbian sex could not be found.
and from the US state dep (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61688.htm):
According to the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights, the justice system did not actively investigate charges of homosexuality. There were known meeting places for homosexuals, and there had been no recent reports of homosexuals executed. However, the group acknowledged it was possible that a case against a homosexual could be pursued.

I don't trust "common knowledge" when the facts don't support it. And, as I've said before, I would like to criticize Iran based on what I can back up with credible reports.

The case which was brought up on that thread was supported by official statements from the highest level of the Iranian judiciary. The courts in Iran commonly execute gays, and then lying pretend that one of the partners "raped" the other so they can pretend that they don't execute for homosexual acts. When I told you that's how it works, you said NUH-UHHHH! and when a case was pointed out to you where Iranian officials state flat-out that that's exactly what happened, you escalated your denial to a stratospheric level.
Oh dear, I didn't take your word for it, hence I was in denial? My you do have an inflated sense of self.

Show me evidence and I'll be convinced otherwise. You failed to do so throughout the last thread, so I don't expect you to lower yourself to meet such a standard now.

And I still won't simply accept your word.

"Wiping them off the map" and the other statements that you are willing to shrug off are entirely equivalent.

So Israel = jews? When are they going to wipe out the Iranian jews then? Why haven't they done so yet?

Don't even try pulling that shit. Israel is fucking lightyears ahead of Iran in terms of just about everything. ?

PR in particular.


Seriously, which would you rather move to?

Neither, which was my point, before you jumped in and started ranting.....

Gravlen, I don't know what kind of Hunter S. Thompson-esque drugs your smoking but they must be pretty powerful.

I think it's fairly obvious that Iran lynches gay people just as inbred hicks below the mason-dixon line did until they were stopped. Unless the TimesOnline is the British equivalent to Fox News, I don't know how the hell you can deny this fact. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2859606.ece)

Might as well go ahead and say that the US doesn't torture people either.

But there's still no cases where any person has officially been executed merely for consentual homosexual activities.
Again with the double-talk. Because the "official" reasons for the execution consist of lying accusations that the homosexuality was non-consensual, you think it is OK.
Oh dear, I didn't take your word for it, hence I was in denial?
You asked for evidence of such a case, which was quite proper for you to ask. You are supplied with exactly such a case, and then went into incredible backflips of denial.
Show me evidence and I'll be convinced otherwise.
No, you won't, obviously.

Again with the double-talk. Because the "official" reasons for the execution consist of lying accusations that the homosexuality was non-consensual, you think it is OK.
Because there's a difference between rape and consentual sex. I hope you know that...

You asked for evidence of such a case, which was quite proper for you to ask. You are supplied with exactly such a case, and then went into incredible backflips of denial.
You mean, "disagree and provide evidence to the contrary."

No, you won't, obviously.
I could say the same as you have yet to produce any reports or evidence that shows that I'm wrong.

Gravlen, I don't know what kind of Hunter S. Thompson-esque drugs your smoking but they must be pretty powerful.
The same as the US state dep., the UK home office and Amnesty International are smoking. Good shit.

I think it's fairly obvious that Iran lynches gay people just as inbred hicks below the mason-dixon line did until they were stopped. Unless the TimesOnline is the British equivalent to Fox News, I don't know how the hell you can deny this fact. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2859606.ece)
Yet you still cannot provide the evidence I'm asking for. The statement you've linked to doesn't prove anything either.

Might as well go ahead and say that the US doesn't torture people either.
And many claim that the US doesn't. We have credible reports suggesting otherwise though.

Because there's a difference between rape and consentual sex. I hope you know that...
OF COURSE I DO. Stop being a condescending weasel here. When Iran executes gays for consensual sex, they lie and say that it is a case of rape, because it sounds better that way. You did not believe me when I told you that "rape" is fabricated, so you demanded to be supplied with such a case. You WERE supplied with a case in which Iranian officialdom itself acknowledged that "rape" allegations were fabricated. This is evidence in favor of the assumption that the "rape" is ALWAYS a fiction, in ALL the Iranian homosexual executions-- since male-on-male rape is actually extraordinarily rare, outside of prisons and suchlike unusual environments. You denied that as well, and demanded that I prove a negative: the burden of proof would be on you, to show any case at all of such a thing from any country except Iran.

Isreal will attack Iran about 5 minutes after they get a phone call from Bush.

OF COURSE I DO. Stop being a condescending weasel here. When Iran executes gays for consensual sex, they lie and say that it is a case of rape, because it sounds better that way. You did not believe me when I told you that "rape" is fabricated, so you demanded to be supplied with such a case. You WERE supplied with a case in which Iranian officialdom itself acknowledged that "rape" allegations were fabricated. This is evidence in favor of the assumption that the "rape" is ALWAYS a fiction, in ALL the Iranian homosexual executions-- since male-on-male rape is actually extraordinarily rare, outside of prisons and suchlike unusual environments. You denied that as well, and demanded that I prove a negative: the burden of proof would be on you, to show any case at all of such a thing from any country except Iran.

Again with the unsubstantiated claims. I see no reason to waste my time going over this yet again with you and hijack this thread by doing so. But I'll leave you with a quote from Scott Long from HRW. Maybe his words will make you understand my position better.

For eight months, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has researched a report on abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Iran, interviewing dozens in Iran and the diaspora, trying to separate fact from rhetoric and rumor. As a prominent Iranian dissident said last week, “We need cases!”—documentation, not speculation.
If we want to challenge Iran’s government, we need facts. There is enough proof of torture and repression that we can do without claims of “pogroms.” If we want to act, we need a goal. That means listening to Iranian dissidents, straight and gay—such as Akbar Ganji, the heroic journalist who last week refused to meet with Bush
administration officials because he believes U.S. policy cannot promote democracy in Iran.

Finally, we need debate. We should discuss the facts and question where our actions are leading. With war and peace hanging in the balance, gay and lesbian Iranians’ lives should not be fodder for our own “battles.”

I just hope he doesn't sicken you too much.

Isreal will attack Iran about 5 minutes after they get a phone call from Bush.

You win the "More Daft Than DK" daily prize

You win the "More Daft Than DK" daily prize

Determined
And
Forever
Thinking

Yea that's me! :D

In all honesty, I kind of wonder what the implications of a nuclear Iran would be for Israeli-Arab relations. Iran and the Arab states don't exactly have a long history of being super chummy and there is an obvious point of collusion for Israel and the various Arab states in cooperating to address the security threat a nuclear Iran would pose to all actors involved. Granted, some more than other (and some not at all) Arab states fall into such diplomatic schemes, but it's an interesting scenario, none-the-less.

In all honesty, I kind of wonder what the implications of a nuclear Iran would be for Israeli-Arab relations. Iran and the Arab states don't exactly have a long history of being super chummy and there is an obvious point of collusion for Israel and the various Arab states in cooperating to address the security threat a nuclear Iran would pose to all actors involved. Granted, some more than other (and some not at all) Arab states fall into such diplomatic schemes, but it's an interesting scenario, none-the-less.

Andrew Cordesman already covered the possible scenarios.

Any way you slice it, most of the Iranian population would cease to exist in the prompt effects of the attack, and the rest soon after.

Andrew Cordesman already covered the possible scenarios.

Any way you slice it, most of the Iranian population would cease to exist in the prompt effects of the attack, and the rest soon after.

Link?

And I'm not talking about an attack or anything of the sort. I'm talking about the diplomatic repercussions of a nuclear Iran upon Israeli-Arab diplomacy. Granted, an Israeli attack upon Iran would have consequences on such a thing, but I still believe such a course of action is highly unlikely.

You know, poorly implemented game theory with the whole "enemy of my enemy" and all that short-sighted nonsense that unfortunately still plays a major role in the thinking of national actors.

1) The UN was dominated by Western powers, and the Arab peoples who lived on the land were virtually not consulted at all in the way their land was auctioned away. The UN deal was remarkably one-sided.actually, no. the UN sent check unit to the area and decide to give the arabs most of israel and make us live in small hardly connected areas. only we take every oppurunity for state while they refused to talk with the UN representives at all.
they had the advantage, but they decided not to use it. they attack us and now they pay for their mistake.
2) These Jews were expelled unjustly, of course, but the action was initiated by Israel. no, unless declarement of indipendence can possibly considered initiation for expelling. most of the arabs run away because the arab states promised them fast victory and ask them for moving out from the war zone.
3) The settlements that Israel is planting today and has been planting for a long time involve forcibly removing Palestinians from their land. BBC ran a story a week and a half ago about how an Israeli gang assaulted a pair of elderly Palestinian farmers who refused to leave their land.this specific case isn't state act. this is crime of private citizens. on the whole issue, the setllement built mostly on empty spaces.
4) Israel created the refugee problem in the first place. Attempting to pass the blame to other Arab regimes does not refute this.no we didn't. the arabs convinced the palastinians to withraw and guarantee them quick return after the victory. too bad for them that the plan failed to work and they couldn't go back when it over.
5) And the Jewish attacks on British authorities are not different from those in the rest of the world. It exists solely to refute the claim of "Israel's moral superiority".
the moral superiority exist as long as we attacked prisons, military bases and soldiers, while the palastinians attacking resturants, malls and citizens.

Link?

And I'm not talking about an attack or anything of the sort. I'm talking about the diplomatic repercussions of a nuclear Iran upon Israeli-Arab diplomacy. Granted, an Israeli attack upon Iran would have consequences on such a thing, but I still believe such a course of action is highly unlikely.

You know, poorly implemented game theory with the whole "enemy of my enemy" and all that short-sighted nonsense that unfortunately still plays a major role in the thinking of national actors.

already now, when the iranian bomb is only potential there is progress in the israeli realitionships with moderate arab states, as well as more hate to iran and the ones who identified with them.
some of them silencely hope that israel or USA will attack iran before they will get nukes.

no we didn't. the arabs convinced the palastinians to withraw and guarantee them quick return after the victory. too bad for them that the plan failed to work and they couldn't go back when it over.


And the 50,000, for example, that Rabin talks of expelling in his diary, in once instance alone....? You and me have been over this before. Considering it was just 3 years after the holocaust, I don't think anyone can blame the people involved for acting the way they did, but saying that it didn't take place really doesn't help anyone.

the moral superiority exist as long as we attacked prisons, military bases and soldiers, while the palastinians attacking resturants, malls and citizens.

And you know thats not always the case either....I might add that turning a blind eye to the settlers activities doesn't do anyone justice either.

this specific case isn't state act. this is crime of private citizens. on the whole issue, the setllement built mostly on empty spaces.


"private" eh?
Israel's Housing Ministry broke the law to spend nearly $6.5m on illegal settlements in three years, says an annual report by the state auditor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3686999.stm

The Israeli state offers tenders for building contracts for the settlements. It provides tax incentives for those who move there. And as for "empty spaces"

According to a report released late last year by the Israeli campaign group Peace Now, Mr Zidane is not alone.

Nearly 40% of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank are built on privately owned Palestinian land, the report states.

Peace Now accuses the government of building settlements on land that has been "effectively stolen".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6181119.stm

And lets not pretend that moving in, making life hell for your neighbour, and then buying the land off him when he has no choice, is an honest deal....

Link?

And I'm not talking about an attack or anything of the sort. I'm talking about the diplomatic repercussions of a nuclear Iran upon Israeli-Arab diplomacy. Granted, an Israeli attack upon Iran would have consequences on such a thing, but I still believe such a course of action is highly unlikely.

You know, poorly implemented game theory with the whole "enemy of my enemy" and all that short-sighted nonsense that unfortunately still plays a major role in the thinking of national actors.

http://www.metimes.com/Opinion/2007/11/22/analysis_a_mideast_nuclear_war/4411/

As far as the repercussions, Israel will not allow a nuclear Iran.

How many times do they have to say it?

Israel knows that no one will help them if they are being nuked - so they have to make sure Iran can't do it at all.

The Gulf States feel threatened enough that they are courting the US to buy nuclear technology. And Bush is willing to sell it to Saudi Arabia.

The Chinese have already sold ICBMs to Saudi Arabia.

The Gulf States feel threatened enough that they are courting the US to buy nuclear technology. And Bush is willing to sell it to Saudi Arabia.

Oy vey, that would be so stupid that he might actually be thinking about it!

DUBAI, June 20 (Reuters) - The chief of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said in remarks aired on Friday that he would resign if there was a military strike on Iran, warning that any such attack would turn the region into a "fireball".

"What I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time ... it would make me unable to continue my work," International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamad ElBaradei told Al Arabiya television in an interview.

"A military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball," he said, emphasising that any attack would only make the Islamic Republic more determined to obtain nuclear power.

"If you do a military strike, it will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West."

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL20498230

Oy vey, that would be so stupid that he might actually be thinking about it!

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/984311.html

And you know, whenever Iran is accused of nuclear ambition, people say, "they're getting a reactor!"

Don't be a fool, and think that a civilian reactor is purely civilian. That's like saying a stick of dynamite is "civilian".

I think this is Bush giving them nuclear reactors.

And while they're at it, some nuclear weapon designs. You figure out what happens next.

I'm not for a nuclear Iran, and I'm not for a clusterfuck of Gulf States with nuclear weapons.

The short answer is no.

The long answer is that the Israelis are flexing their muscles. Their leadership is absolutely terrified of their strategic position, and they were out to prove that, if they felt that need, they could do the deed.

Exercises of this sort do not necessarily indicate that the strike is imminent. During the nineties, the US Air Force undertook several exercises designed around practicing for a strike against the North Korean Yongbyon installation. As we can tell, such a strike never occurred.

Finally, internal pressures in Iran have weakened the hard line leaders, such as Ahmadinejad. His defeat in the recent parliamentary elections (elections whose outcomes are strongly influenced by the clerics and religious leaders) are an indication that he is losing his perpetually tenuous support from the Iranian religious elite. To strike now would be most ill advised, if the Israelis would like to begin to resolve this problem at the least cost to Israel.

Further, the American role in this seems to be that of the messenger. Making it clear that the Israelis can do this, and letting the Iranian government know that that is exactly the case. At worst, the US is not involved in this event, and is merely providing an analysis of what they see. In which case, the Israelis are likely not anywhere near launching such a strike. If the Israelis were to strike, the US would need to beef up its presence in the region, including the addition of multiple carrier battle groups, and a further increase in the American presence in Iraq.

None of the key indications line up. The Israelis are not going to strike.

The Israeli milatary is very capable. If they wish to do a precision strike upon Iran after the Iranain government has been backing terrorist attacks upon them they can. The strike would be as precise and effective as possible but I am sure that the Iranian government would move schools and hospitals as close to the nuclear weapons as possible to play victims

Sadly if Israel does act in self deffence this will just add reason for the grand denier of the holocaust to begin his own holocaust. It will be the spark of a greater war.

Israel is dammed if they do and dammed if they dont. Its sad to see a democracy in such a position.

I am sure that the US would now do anything in its power to stop Cuba from developing nuclear weapons but Israel is somehow consider different. When there are people leading multiple surrounding countries that want you wiped off the face of the earth you have every right to protect your borders.

Long live Iraeli democracy. The only democracy in the middle east

The Israeli milatary is very capable. If they wish to do a precision strike upon Iran after the Iranain government has been backing terrorist attacks upon them they can. The strike would be as precise and effective as possible but I am sure that the Iranian government would move schools and hospitals as close to the nuclear weapons as possible to play victims

Sadly if Israel does act in self deffence this will just add reason for the grand denier of the holocaust to begin his own holocaust. It will be the spark of a greater war.

Israel is dammed if they do and dammed if they dont. Its sad to see a democracy in such a position.

I am sure that the US would now do anything in its power to stop Cuba from developing nuclear weapons but Israel is somehow consider different. When there are people leading multiple surrounding countries that want you wiped off the face of the earth you have every right to protect your borders.

Long live Iraeli democracy. The only democracy in the middle east

Besides Turkey. Or the current Iraqi and Afghan governments. Or the Jordanian legislature. Or...

Again with the unsubstantiated claims.
It was perfectly well substantiated in the case you were given that Iranian prosecutors lie.
I see no reason to waste my time going over this yet again with you and hijack this thread by doing so.
Then you should not have made bullshit claims about how your position was vindicated in the prior thread.
But I'll leave you with a quote from Scott Long from HRW. Maybe his words will make you understand my position better.
HRW, and other non-governmental organizations, are unable to challenge the Iranian government's lies unless one of the so-called "rape victims" comes forward and admits that consensual homosexuality does indeed exist in Iran (but they would be killed for saying they took part in such a thing). HRW is perfectly aware of what is going on in Iran: Scott is expressing his exasperation at the difficulty of challenging it. You yourself know perfectly well that this fiction about "no homosexuals existing in Iran" is an absurdity, but as long as Iran lies consistently you are willing to pretend to believe them.

no, unless declarement of indipendence can possibly considered initiation for expelling. most of the arabs run away because the arab states promised them fast victory and ask them for moving out from the war zone.

no we didn't. the arabs convinced the palastinians to withraw and guarantee them quick return after the victory. too bad for them that the plan failed to work and they couldn't go back when it over.


Umm, if someone told you your neighbourhood was going to become a warzone, are you seriosuly going to say 'I don't agree with this war, so me and my family are going to stay here right in the middle of it'.

Personally, whomever gives me the information and all the whys and wherefores and all of that. I'm just going to get the hell out of there, and I think that'd be a perfectly reasonable reaction for anyone to take.

*snip*Sadly if Israel does act in self deffence *snip*


Fuck that bullshit. There is no such thing as a "pre-emptive self-defense".

If Israel bombs Iran first, they're the aggressor. Just like the USA were the aggressor in an illegal, non-UN-sanctioned war in Iraq.

And the 50,000, for example, that Rabin talks of expelling in his diary, in once instance alone....? You and me have been over this before. Considering it was just 3 years after the holocaust, I don't think anyone can blame the people involved for acting the way they did, but saying that it didn't take place really doesn't help anyone.it happned in much smaller scale than they claim, and they did the same thing for their jewish locals.


And you know thats not always the case either....I might add that turning a blind eye to the settlers activities doesn't do anyone justice either.

every british who were in the area at that period worked for their goverment, mostly for the army, the speical forces or in the local leadership. they were the targets. we didn't sent car bombs to london, aren't we?

Fuck that bullshit. There is no such thing as a "pre-emptive self-defense".

The proper term for that is The Uncle Jimbo Doctrine. Blow the fuck out of anyone and anything you like after screaming out "LOOK OUT!! IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!"

"private" eh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3686999.stm

The Israeli state offers tenders for building contracts for the settlements. It provides tax incentives for those who move there. And as for "empty spaces"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6181119.stm

And lets not pretend that moving in, making life hell for your neighbour, and then buying the land off him when he has no choice, is an honest deal....

look, the setllers aren't holy, and I know that. my political opinions are different from them.
but you ignore the circumances at that time when they were needed for security reason.
you also ignore the israeli will to withraw from most of the area if the palastinians will show ability to control it.
israel only withraw from the strip, and then the PA collapsed and left the area for the hamas. you can understood, we aren't willing to get the same result in the west bank and put all the nation in danger, right?

Umm, if someone told you your neighbourhood was going to become a warzone, are you seriosuly going to say 'I don't agree with this war, so me and my family are going to stay here right in the middle of it'.

Personally, whomever gives me the information and all the whys and wherefores and all of that. I'm just going to get the hell out of there, and I think that'd be a perfectly reasonable reaction for anyone to take.

exactly, as occured in war zones all over the world. the only difference is that in all other cases the refugees were rehabitated in other places, start new life and then they or their children stop being refugees, but equal citizens in their new state.
the palastinians refugees, however, put in refugee camps [b]by the arab states (from political reasons), and now even their grand grand children would consider refugees. demanding that israel alone will rehabitated them after all the arab neglect (let alone in our state), will kill any chance for peace.

Who says Iran wont attack first. Didnt the president say that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth.

If Israel does attack I believe it will target the nuclear facilities only not the general population. Israel is morally far above Iran. Israel has democratic elections while Iran just has a dictrator.

But oh wait I dont really need to because Iran is funding Hezbullah at the moment. First attack? The attack has already begun

Yes Israel never attacks innocent civilians, and they're so morally superior. Let's ask the Palestinians who've had their houses demolished, or the 1100 Lebanese civilians who died in the 2006 conflict.

Fuck that bullshit. There is no such thing as a "pre-emptive self-defense".

If Israel bombs Iran first, they're the aggressor. Just like the USA were the aggressor in an illegal, non-UN-sanctioned war in Iraq.

if someone had the mean and the intentions to harm you, and you neutrilize him, this is pre-emptive self-defense.
if you wait for the attack it will be counter-strike, and it won't be very helpful since both of you will end dead.
all other things are pure terminology.

Yes Israel never target innocent civilians, and they're so morally superior. this is the difference.

Let's ask the Palestinians who've had their houses demolished most of them terrorists and active supporters of terrorists.
, or the 1100 Lebanese civilians who died in the 2006 conflict.most of them were human shield for the hizbulla facilities.

It was perfectly well substantiated in the case you were given that Iranian prosecutors lie.
So you actually don't know the difference between rape and consentual sex, and you don't understand the case you're harping on about. Allrighty then.

Then you should not have made bullshit claims about how your position was vindicated in the prior thread.
My position was vindicated, since you simply telling me differently doesn't invalidate my sources. I stand by my claims and are, unlike you, able to back them up with more than speculations.

HRW, and other non-governmental organizations, are unable to challenge the Iranian government's lies unless one of the so-called "rape victims" comes forward and admits that consensual homosexuality does indeed exist in Iran (but they would be killed for saying they took part in such a thing). HRW is perfectly aware of what is going on in Iran: Scott is expressing his exasperation at the difficulty of challenging it. You yourself know perfectly well that this fiction about "no homosexuals existing in Iran" is an absurdity, but as long as Iran lies consistently you are willing to pretend to believe them.
Ah, so you didn't understand what he was saying. I'm disappointed but not surprised. Oh well. Keep on leveling charges that have no basis in facts against Iran. You're doing yourself and the homosexuals in Iran a disservice, but hopefully you'll learn from your mistakes some day.

this is the difference.

most of them terrorists and active supporters of terrorists.
most of them were human shield for the hizbulla facilities.

Care to prove that?

it happned in much smaller scale than they claim, and they did the same thing for their jewish locals.
?

"They claim"? Theres a lot more than them claiming it, including a good deal of Israeli academics. Benny Morris thinks they were right to eject them, and even he says its true.


every british who were in the area at that period worked for their goverment, mostly for the army, the speical forces or in the local leadership. they were the targets. we didn't sent car bombs to london, aren't we?

I was talking about now, Palestinians and the IDF, however the Irgun were not adverse to placing bombs in Arab markets back in the 1940's either....


look, the setllers aren't holy, and I know that. my political opinions are different from them.
but you ignore the circumances at that time when they were needed for security reason.?

Security might equate to bunkers, barracks, observation towers, tank-traps and mine fields. Certainly I'd believe that was its motivation. Its never going to equate to a bunch of racist Bible/Torah bashers armed to the teeth kicking the shit out of the locals while they steal their land. Thats just causing trouble.

this is the difference..?

Unless being Arab is being guilty, you'd be wrong there....


most of them terrorists and active supporters of terrorists...?

...proven by the fact they lived on the same street, no doubt.


most of them were human shield for the hizbulla facilities....?

...proof?

"They claim"? Theres a lot more than them claiming it, including a good deal of Israeli academics. Benny Morris thinks they were right to eject them, and even he says its true.
there is agreement that 600,000 palastinians run away. not all of them forcefully expelled.


I was talking about now, Palestinians and the IDF, however the Irgun were not adverse to placing bombs in Arab markets back in the 1940's either....I was responded to another argument. anyway, the irgun was small group which weren't represented the popolution.



Security might equate to bunkers, barracks, observation towers, tank-traps and mine fields. Certainly I'd believe that was its motivation. Its never going to equate to a bunch of racist Bible/Torah bashers armed to the teeth kicking the shit out of the locals while they steal their land. Thats just causing trouble.I didn't support the setllers, and I believe that this was our mistake as the refugee camps were the arab mistake.
both sides made mistake, but for now, no israeli goverment could break down the setllements without signed peace agreement.

Unless being Arab is being guilty, you'd be wrong there....Israel don't shot any passing arab. we target terrorists, and do all we can to reduce colleteral damage.



.proven by the fact they lived on the same street, no doubt.there is intiligence. when terrorists caught or bomb himself, it isn't that hard to find his supportive family.

...proof?the bombing were on strategic locations and the hizbulla HQ in beirut.
the hizbulla mostly launched their rockets from populated zones.
unfurtunally, this isn't the kind of information that may published in the net.

Who says Iran wont attack first. Didnt the president say that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth.

If Israel does attack I believe it will target the nuclear facilities only not the general population. Israel is morally far above Iran. Israel has democratic elections while Iran just has a dictrator.

But oh wait I dont really need to because Iran is funding Hezbullah at the moment. First attack? The attack has already begun

Ignorant, occidental tripe. How does Israel's being democratic provide it with an inherent moral superiority over a dictatorial nation?

Israel don't shot any passing arab. we target terrorists, and do all we can to reduce colleteral damage.


Tell that to the Plaestinian family who got hit by a rocket while sunbathing, the 2 month old baby that got shot in the head and the countless Arabs who've been shot/bombed for being within 1 mile of an alleged terrorist stronghold.

this is the difference.

most of them terrorists and active supporters of terrorists.
most of them were human shield for the hizbulla facilities.

The ends justify the means right?
Most of them were human shields, so you didn't care? They're innocent, but since the terrorists used them, they deserve the same firing squad right?

Ignorant, occidental tripe. How does Israel's being democratic provide it with an inherent moral superiority over a dictatorial nation?

Democracy represents the wishes of a the general populace rather than a single person, which gives less chance their morals would be skewed?

Of course a large caveat is that it doesn't always happen that way in the world, but if you honestly think Stalin had equal morality compared to, oh, let's say Sweden during the Cold War you're deluding yourself.

this is the difference.

Israel may not have the destruction of innocent Palestinian civilians as an intended official target, but it's lack of real action when its own deliberately go out and kill Palestinian civilians is rather telling. For example, there was that case where a unit commander gunned down a child of about 4 years at distance, then walked up to her body and shot her some more. He was reshuffled a bit, but didn't even spend one day behind bars. If a Palestinian did that to an Israeli child, how many days would he spend in Israeli custody, assuming they didn't kill him outright hmm?

Israel and Palestine are both responsible for the mess they have, and neither have any real intention of stopping it.

Israel is morally far above Iran.

I have a problem with that statement on OH so many levels...least of all, the fact that Israel's "statehood" is about as undeserved as a spoiled brat who "falls into" a pile of old money (thanks, Dad!).

But oh wait I dont really need to because Iran is funding Hezbullah at the moment. First attack? The attack has already begun

Hizbollah (grammer nazis, most arabic words come in a variety of spellings) is at least in tune with the spirit of the people there. I mean, I know we're all about making third-world countries suck our big black deathcock of democracy, but sometimes people don't WANT it because different political structures appeal to different cultures. I'm sure there are plenty of Hizbollah haters in Iran who would like nothing more than to see the Hizboys hung from the gallows -- just like there are plenty of Americans who feel similarly about Dubya -- but if there were a sufficient amount of the populace that despised the regime enough, it would've been toppled a long time ago.

Bottom line: this is a pissing war about marking territory (sacred territory -- that makes me chuckle), and the Zionist* pigfucks have no more right to be there than the Palestinian crybabies -- they just have the advantage of being on the right side of the Abrahamic divide in the eyes of America.

*Since I imagine I offended about everyone with that rant, I should make a note for those of you who are too apathetic to go below the surface: "Zionist" is NOT synonymous with "Jewish," and, for all you Christian pro-Israel crazies, you'll be interested to know that "Zionism" is a relatively modern movement that was sparked in large part by ATHEISTS. Yep. God loves Israel so much that he sent his unbelievers to help establish the state.

Democracy represents the wishes of a the general populace rather than a single person, which gives less chance their morals would be skewed?

Of course a large caveat is that it doesn't always happen that way in the world, but if you honestly think Stalin had equal morality compared to, oh, let's say Sweden during the Cold War you're deluding yourself.


Ridiculous, and frankly tangential. I was responding to a post which posited that Israel's being a democracy, and Iran not, immediatly conferred upon Israel a moral superiority.

In any case, has it occurred to you that the better part of the democratic electorate, morally, politically and intellectually, are frankly rather too regressed and unthinking to merit a vote?

I have a problem with that statement on OH so many levels...least of all, the fact that Israel's "statehood" is about as undeserved as a spoiled brat who "falls into" a pile of old money (thanks, Dad!).



Hizbollah (grammer nazis, most arabic words come in a variety of spellings) is at least in tune with the spirit of the people there. I mean, I know we're all about making third-world countries suck our big black deathcock of democracy, but sometimes people don't WANT it because different political structures appeal to different cultures. I'm sure there are plenty of Hizbollah haters in Iran who would like nothing more than to see the Hizboys hung from the gallows -- just like there are plenty of Americans who feel similarly about Dubya -- but if there were a sufficient amount of the populace that despised the regime enough, it would've been toppled a long time ago.

Bottom line: this is a pissing war about marking territory (sacred territory -- that makes me chuckle), and the Zionist* pigfucks have no more right to be there than the Palestinian crybabies -- they just have the advantage of being on the right side of the Abrahamic divide in the eyes of America.

*Since I imagine I offended about everyone with that rant, I should make a note for those of you who are too apathetic to go below the surface: "Zionist" is NOT synonymous with "Jewish," and, for all you Christian pro-Israel crazies, you'll be interested to know that "Zionism" is a relatively modern movement that was sparked in large part by ATHEISTS. Yep. God loves Israel so much that he sent his unbelievers to help establish the state.

You are either the biggest fucking asshole on the forums or you're just a good troll, I can't decide which. Your arguments are all over the place, 'pissing war', Abrahamic divide, Zionist agenda, dear god, you are a retard.

And your edit, oh god lol. Yep. Grats, you're just pushing buttons now.

Ridiculous, and frankly tangential. I was responding to a post which posited that Israel's being a democracy, and Iran not, immediatly conferred upon Israel a moral superiority.

In any case, has it occurred to you that the better part of the democratic electorate, morally, politically and intellectually, are frankly rather too regressed and unthinking to merit a vote?

So you're saying the dictator like the Ayotollah are morally on the same level as the democratically elected Knesset?

You talked about it in general, and then you want to refer back to the issue?

In any case, has it occured to you that even if the better part maybe all that you say they are, (links/proof please) that still leaves a larger portion than the leaders of Iran deciding what to do with their nation.

most of them were human shield for the hizbulla facilities.

you know...I understand what that claim is supposed to mean, but I can't help but read it as "We had to kill them, they were in the way."

Democracy represents the wishes of a the general populace rather than a single person, which gives less chance their morals would be skewed?

Of course a large caveat is that it doesn't always happen that way in the world, but if you honestly think Stalin had equal morality compared to, oh, let's say Sweden during the Cold War you're deluding yourself.
The actions of the government are what's important, not its power structure.

Wrong

When land was alloted to the Israelis for the time of their being made a country, they owned far over half of that land legally. They bought it over the course of nearly 50 years from their own funds. Israelis moved there, made kipputz (communal farms), and developed the Haganah (the early IDF).
Then Palestine got greedy and wanted that land, even though the Israelis legally and rightfully owned it.


when the hell did this happen?

So you're saying the dictator like the Ayotollah are morally on the same level as the democratically elected Knesset?

You talked about it in general, and then you want to refer back to the issue?

In any case, has it occured to you that even if the better part maybe all that you say they are, (links/proof please) that still leaves a larger portion than the leaders of Iran deciding what to do with their nation.

"Morality" is a subjective notion determined wholly by the presuppositions and context of th observer, and hence is evoked only by the uninformed. However, insofar as morals are of any relevance to a discipline that should be amoral, the "morality" of a government is detrmined by its policy and actions, not its basis.

I suspect, reading the thread, that Yootopia's made this point rather more succinctly than I, but all the same, it should be raised.

Apropos the democratic electorate; reality television, demagogues and tabloid newspapers. All designed for, or reacting to, the whims of the "silent majority", and all lamentably turgid and dangerous.

most of them were human shield for the hizbulla facilities.
now, i dont say that Israel is inherently evil and must be destroyed.
or the same for the iranians, but for having the moral superiority, i dont think you should have the attitude of:
"they have human shields in the way" still attacks'

i am lebanese, and i was in the war when they started bombing, and to this day i dont get the excuse made for destroying the economy. poverty breeds fanaticism, and that is why hamas is so powerful in gaza, the islamic brotherhood in egypt, and the militias in iraq. personally i support hizbullah, but only since there is no other group willing to stand up to the Israeli War machine. Jordan? failed. Egypt? failed. Syria? failed. iraq & Libya? failed.

the only reason Hizbullah won was because the Israelis have gotten to used to policing the Westbank and usinf bombing runs and dozers to deal with opposition. they expected a small hamas like milita, and what they got, was the most powerful private army in the middle east

you know...I understand what that claim is supposed to mean, but I can't help but read it as "We had to kill them, they were in the way."

Good for Israel. At least it has the resolve and spine to prosecute policy properly, and not preclude any hope of success by fighting a war with one hand behind its back.

there is agreement that 600,000 palastinians run away. not all of them forcefully expelled..

Not all of them, but a goodly portion


IIsrael don't shot any passing arab. we target terrorists, and do all we can to reduce colleteral damage. ..

Like firing that missile into the apartment block, the snipers strange fascination with school girls, using human sheilds, the UN workers.....Lets not go down that road.


there is intiligence. when terrorists caught or bomb himself, it isn't that hard to find his supportive family...

Yep, you fuck with me, I beat up your parents and bulldoze your neighbours. Great policy that. And look how its won hearts and minds.


the bombing were on strategic locations and the hizbulla HQ in beirut.
the hizbulla mostly launched their rockets from populated zones.
unfurtunally, this isn't the kind of information that may published in the net.

Tad convenient that though, isn't it?

when the hell did this happen?

I asked him that too, and then he went away.....the two may or may not be related....

exactly, as occured in war zones all over the world. the only difference is that in all other cases the refugees were rehabitated in other places, start new life and then they or their children stop being refugees, but equal citizens in their new state.
the palastinians refugees, however, put in refugee camps [b]by the arab states (from political reasons), and now even their grand grand children would consider refugees. demanding that israel alone will rehabitated them after all the arab neglect (let alone in our state), will kill any chance for peace.

So what's your justification for not allowing people who you (appear to) agree have done nothing wrong to return to their homes is what?

And it's very common for wartime refugees to be repatriated. Happened (often forcibly) after WWII, is happening in Iraq right now as a matter of fact. And a large number of countries, particularly those with large diaspora populations (Armenia etc) have right of return laws. Many of those laws include provisions for descendants of refugees.

Of course no. Their support of Iran is along the lines of "Nobody sells you? Well, we can".
That was under the Shah...

Good for Israel. At least it has the resolve and spine to prosecute policy properly, and not preclude any hope of success by fighting a war with one hand behind its back.

Yea, but it is a bit annoying when people claim isreal has the moral high ground when it kills people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Yea, but it is a bit annoying when people claim isreal has the moral high ground when it kills people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Why is the moral high ground of any significance?

Why is the moral high ground of any significance?

Kinda easier to gather support when people view your enemy as the indiscriminate killer and you just target the bad guys.

Kinda hard to keep that image when people point out that, yes, you do kill indiscriminately as well.

Amazing the high number of votes towards the bottom of the poll. Isreal running drills, Bush saying they will not help Isreal but will not interfere and Iran saying they will attack if any official announcment of an attack is made by Isreal.

I think the Middle East has officially ran out of chill pills.

Little off track....
How long until Israel attacks Iran or vise versa?
Not who deserves to kill who more and who is more descent.

Go on wikipedia do some research and judge for your self and based on your morals who is right and who is wrong.

War is war, us individuals can't do anything to stop it so arguing about why they are all Nazi evil regimes is pointless. We can only predict what will happen right? Whats in the past is in the past.


We can look at the current factors like historians look at WW1, There is


tension going on thats for sure and all it takes is one, one act of declaration

of war to start the turmoil. God knows how many nations will enter the war if

Israel and Iran go at it, though this all depends when it actually happens if it

happens now Iran cannot move through Iraq currently...its options are turkey

and Kuwait then through Saudi Arabia.... If Israel wants a war, the time to

start it would be now, they have the strategic advantage. ultimately it

depends on the US elections what will the next president do? Recall the

soldiers? Then Iran can move assured a direct route to Israel, at that point

Israel might be lost. Until then how ever this is the situation, Israel should

strike first to have the upper hand... Although the factor that they are

paranoid makes them eager to think longer and rethink all of their actions

which can delay for quite some time...so to truly know when this will go down

is impossible, could be tomorrow?

Fuck that bullshit. There is no such thing as a "pre-emptive self-defense".

If Israel bombs Iran first, they're the aggressor. Just like the USA were the aggressor in an illegal, non-UN-sanctioned war in former Yugoslavia.

Fixed.

[Halcyon] They bought it over the course of nearly 50 years from their own funds.
when the hell did this happen?
1880-1930, if you are under the impression that the Jews just popped into Palestine at the end of WWII with no prior history.

So you actually don't know the difference between rape and consentual sex, and you don't understand the case you're harping on about.
Fuck you. I most certainly do.
Whenever consensual homosexuality is prosecuted in Iran, it is lyingly called rape. Everyone from the President of Iran down to hick judges in little rural towns pretends that consensual homosexuality doesn't exist in the country. That is how they excuse the acts of judicial murder for which you are an apologist.
Ah, so you didn't understand what he was saying.
Yes I did. There is all the difference in the world between "We don't have the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence we would need to indict Vito Corleone for conspiracy to commit murder" and saying "Stop picking on that innocent man!" You are to Iran what Andaras is to Stalin.

"Morality" is a subjective notion determined wholly by the presuppositions and context of th observer, and hence is evoked only by the uninformed. However, insofar as morals are of any relevance to a discipline that should be amoral, the "morality" of a government is detrmined by its policy and actions, not its basis.

I suspect, reading the thread, that Yootopia's made this point rather more succinctly than I, but all the same, it should be raised.

Apropos the democratic electorate; reality television, demagogues and tabloid newspapers. All designed for, or reacting to, the whims of the "silent majority", and all lamentably turgid and dangerous.

Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. Are you actually suggesting that because to an Iranian they have a duty to destroy Israel? That the terrorists had a right to blow their planes up in WTC? What's true for you is true for you is a logical fallacy, and enables people to suppress their conscience. What's the difference between basis and policy and actions - you're just spouting words here, being intentionally obtuse and obfuscating the issue. See I can do it too.

What poitn was that about democratic electorate? Did you seriously argue that because the country has a FREE press they're less democratic. Shut up. Just shut up. Your talking point about morality being subjective is the same point used as an excuse by Scientologists who imprison and abuse their own cult members to the Hezbollah rockets hitting Israeli shopping malls to American troops killing civilians in Iraq.

To actually contribute to the OP, who knows. I doubt anyone here has access to Israeli intelligence about Iran, so its impossible to make a definitive guess.

What's possible to discuss is the possibility of the strike I think. At the moment Israel holds aces in the form of its own nukes, even if the Arabs were able to form a coalition and drive them into the sea they still have their own arsenal. America would not let that happen either. But the addition of nukes in a hostile nation is something that would disrupt the balance of power far too unfavourably for the Israeli's to countenance.
So personally I think they'll do it, for that reason.

The problem is what happens if they do decide to go through with it. Going through Iraq without American's interfering will just be proof positive of American support, which they will still be accused of even if the jets don't use Iraqi airspace.

Turkey and Israel are military allies, Israel has been helping upgrade Turkish military for awhile, but the Turks might not be keen on allowing them through, seeing as they're allied with Iran over the issue of the Kurdish population along their joined border. So I doubt the Israeli's are going to be able to go through their without very very strong diplomatic repercussions.

Saudi Arabia? They have a modern military, bought with their plentiful 'petro-dollars' but they'll probably react the same way as the Turks, they'll be majorly pissed but they won't light off their SAM's.

Fuck you. I most certainly do.
Whenever consensual homosexuality is prosecuted in Iran, it is lyingly called rape. Everyone from the President of Iran down to hick judges in little rural towns pretends that consensual homosexuality doesn't exist in the country.
And you have failed to show that, instead dragging up a case where a man was wrongly accused of rape, and wrongly executed after all the witnesses retracted their allegations of rape. Never was consentual homosexual acts an issue in this case. That you try to make it about that when it isn't supported by the facts doesn't help your case.

That is how they excuse the acts of judicial murder for which you are an apologist.
It seems like you don't know what that word means either.

Yes I did. There is all the difference in the world between "We don't have the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence we would need to indict Vito Corleone for conspiracy to commit murder" and saying "Stop picking on that innocent man!"
Nobody is saying that Iran is innocent. I'm saying that we lack actual cases where people have been executed merely for consentual homosexual acts. Until we have such a case, all criticism based on that foundation will easily be brushed aside by both the regime as well as other, neutral governments.

That's not to say that the regime isn't worthy of condemnation for other reasons, and on more fact-based foundations. The easiest one would be to condemn Iran for even having the death sentence for homosexual acts on the books, regardless of how it's (not) being used.

You are to Iran what Andaras is to Stalin.
Wow, I didn't know that Andaras condemned and criticised Stalin severely and found his lack of respect for human rights and the rule of law deplorable.

It seems that you either fail to understand his position on Stalin, or that you simply choose to ignore what my position on Iran is.

Oh, and on topic:

For all the talk of "Evil Iran", there's been more public talk within Israel and the US about when to attack Iran than vice versa. I find that a bit curious and interesting.

Tmutarakhan, how about instead of simply talking as a mouthpiece of imperialism, that you actually try a more objective stance, the ruling class already has enough propaganda outlets and it's disheartening to see common people doing there job for them.

Less than a week. Maybe its wishful thinking on my part. Can't wait for that war :D

Less than a week. Maybe its wishful thinking on my part. Can't wait for that war :D

But of course! Who doesn't love war? Cowards and libruls,thats who. Oh, and maybe the innocent people who'll be caught up in it, and those who have to deal with the Iranian people suddenly uniting behind their government, doing incredible damage to the cause of freedom in Iran, but who cares about those people?

Yes, and then somehow we'll end up there for a hundred years! Won't be surprised it something major would happen around September-October...

1880-1930, if you are under the impression that the Jews just popped into Palestine at the end of WWII with no prior history.

50% of whats now Israel was bought, was the claim. Which is bollox.

"" How long til Israel attacks Iran? ""

Never, of course.
Why would Israelis do that ?
They got cannonfodder for that. They got american men and women ready and willing to die in their place. :mad:

And you have failed to show that, instead dragging up a case where a man was wrongly accused of rape, and wrongly executed after all the witnesses retracted their allegations of rape. Never was consentual homosexual acts an issue in this case.
The case was entirely about consensual homosexual acts, lying called rape, which is what they say in EVERY case about homosexuality.
Nobody is saying that Iran is innocent. I'm saying that we lack actual cases where people have been executed merely for consentual homosexual acts.
We lack cases in which Iran ADMITS executing people for consensual homosexual acts, because Iran does not admit that consensual homosexuality exists at all.
Until we have such a case, all criticism based on that foundation will easily be brushed aside by both the regime as well as other, neutral governments.
Oh I am quite sure that the regime will brush it off, and that the governments will do nothing about it either. That is no excuse for you to pretend that you do not understand what is going on.
Wow, I didn't know that Andaras condemned and criticised Stalin severely and found his lack of respect for human rights and the rule of law deplorable.
And I didn't know that Gravlen ever criticised Iran at all, let alone "severely". All I have ever seen from you is support for their lies: as long as they lie consistently, you will pretend to believe it is truth.

The case was entirely about consensual homosexual acts, lying called rape, which is what they say in EVERY case about homosexuality.
No it was not. And no sources have claimed that it was either.

And no, you just saying so doesn't count as a credible source, sorry.

And I didn't know that Gravlen ever criticised Iran at all, let alone "severely". All I have ever seen from you is support for their lies: as long as they lie consistently, you will pretend to believe it is truth.
That's what you get for not being able to read, I suppose.

Iran is worthy of condemnation for a lot of things that can be verified: Using the death penalty, executing young people, harsh penalties, discriminating against homosexuals, etc.

[...]

I don't trust "common knowledge" when the facts don't support it. And, as I've said before, I would like to criticize Iran based on what I can back up with credible reports.
US State dep (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78852.htm)
There's not enough evidence that they were executed for homosexual acts - but that doesn't make the case any less horrible.
Yes, well, rumours aren't enough for me. So I will condemn Iran for the executions they do go through with, and for the abuses and mistreatment of homosexuals, and for having homosexual acts as a capital punishment on the books.

If a case is found where someone is executed for homosexual acts, I will take what action I can and I will condemn it. I have yet to see a credible case though.

Ah, the support of an apologist. :rolleyes:

I think we're done here, as I cannot take you seriously any longer.

No it was not. And no sources have claimed that it was either.
Uh, the source we were given for this case was an Amnesty International report entitled "Execution of Homosexuals in Iran". How you can possibly believe the case was about anything else, I do not know: I did repeatedly ask you what possible scenario you thought was actually behind the case.
That's what you get for not being able to read, I suppose.
Yep.

Uh, the source we were given for this case was an Amnesty International report entitled "Execution of Homosexuals in Iran".
I have never seen any report by Amnesty International with that title.

The source was a BBC story via Wikipedia, followed up by an article from Gay City News. Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the EU and others have been very concerned about the case because Makwan Mouloudzadeh was a minor at the time of the alleged offence, and because he was convivted of rape despite the fact that his accusors withdrew their allegations of rape. Never did any sources claim he ever even had homosexual intercourse.

Yep.
It explains a lot.

I'm sorry you view information from Amnesty International, Human rights watch, the UK Home Office and the US State Department as "Iranian propaganda."


So because I misspell a word, I cannot claim that Tmutarakhan cannot read - when he has missed me stating exactly what he accuses me of not saying several times?


They haven't made a mistake.


You just accused them of being a source of Iranian propaganda.



Reporting someone for flaming is not a way of trying to win an argument.
Flaming is against the rules. "Fuck you" is flaming.



i didn't accuse amnesty of having made a mistake, i'm claiming that you have, so unless you are the N.S.G. official mouth piece for Amnesty, the two are not the same.
people curse at each other all the time around here, not that i would but really was it so big a deal that you had to inform?

look i'm not really sure if dissagreeing with you on the issue is what i want to be doing since i know plenty of people are using iranian attitudes and actions with regard to gay people to bolster a spurious case for war with iran, there are precious few calling for an invasion of jamaica for similar reasons, so the position is illogical.

i'll keep my big ugly nose out i think ;)

i didn't accuse amnesty of having made a mistake, i'm claiming that you have, so unless you are the N.S.G. official mouth piece for Amnesty, the two are not the same.
Do you know what case we are talking about?

people curse at each other all the time around here, not that i would but really was it so big a deal that you had to inform?
You should read this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

look i'm not really sure if dissagreeing with you on the issue is what i want to be doing since i know plenty of people are using iranian attitudes and actions with regard to gay people to bolster a spurious case for war with iran, there are precious few calling for an invasion of jamaica for similar reasons, so the position is illogical.
And again, I would like the facts to back up random statements made concerning Iran. It's not a nice regime, and there's a lot of human rights violations to condemn Iran for. So I would rather that we attacked them for reasons that can be verified and confirmed, not speculation and rumours.

i'll keep my big ugly nose out i think ;)
You're welcome to join if you have something productive to add.

Never did any sources claim he ever even had homosexual intercourse.
"the judge relied on `elm-e qazi, the "knowledge of the judge"
to determine that penetration had taken place " from the Amnesty report (http://action.web.ca/home/lgbt/alerts.shtml?x=111094&AA_EX_Session=07c076c590fba71e6e1a93ab5f1855f0).
OF COURSE he was homosexual. This is why his partner (and the witnesses who caught them, although it is not clear how in flagrante delicto they were) had to be coerced into claiming he was the sole instigator (otherwise both had to be punished). What in the world do you think is actually going on in this case?

Do you know what case we are talking about?


You should read this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)


And again, I would like the facts to back up random statements made concerning Iran. It's not a nice regime, and there's a lot of human rights violations to condemn Iran for. So I would rather that we attacked them for reasons that can be verified and confirmed, not speculation and rumours.


You're welcome to join if you have something productive to add.

gosh your grouchy, but yes i am familiar with the case being discused seeing as i don't live under a rock, as the tone of your response might suggest.
as it happens i've already agreed with you about wild speculation about iran being needless, but how about the fact that young and vulnerable gay men are regularly pressured into having sex change operations by a government backed and religiously sanctioned and promoted clinic who's mission is to prove that gays are all just really transgendered?

thanks for the patronising invite to a public forum debate by the way, that's not condescending or anything.

OF COURSE he was homosexual.
Speculation.

This is why his partner (and the witnesses who caught them, although it is not clear how in flagrante delicto they were) had to be coerced into claiming he was the sole instigator (otherwise both had to be punished).
Speculation without any corroborating facts.

gosh your grouchy, but yes i am familiar with the case being discused seeing as i don't live under a rock, as the tone of your response might suggest.
Good for you. I hadn't heard of it before I did some research in connection with the last thread.

as it happens i've already agreed with you about wild speculation about iran being needless, but how about the fact that young and vulnerable gay men are regularly pressured into having sex change operations by a government backed and religiously sanctioned and promoted clinic who's mission is to prove that gays are all just really transgendered?
It's bad and it shouldn't happen. The laws against homosexual acts should be repealed, and they should be allowed to live with their sexuality just like you and me. Only being allowed to live out your preferred sexuality through a sex change is deplorable.

thanks for the patronising invite to a public forum debate by the way, that's not condescending or anything.
I should rather have said Yes, you should keep your "big ugly nose out"? It was an invitation to keep debating, but take it as you will.

Speculation.


Speculation without any corroborating facts.

oh and other peoples opinions based on the facts as they see them aren't axiomaticaly speculation, and as i've had to point out to people before "you can use facts to prove anything thats even remotely true", sorry to have to paraphrase the words of others, but essentialy i'm saying that there are other bases for discussion that aren't always just ones own selections of material.

Israel will only attack Iran once they have there western puppets at hand to use as cannon fodder once more.

Israel will only attack Iran once they have there western puppets at hand to use as cannon fodder once more.
Proof?