The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
Crunch Time with Iran
Let's push back against Israel's friends and avoid a war
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Bibi bomb

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It now appears that the longest drawn out negotiations in history since the Treaty of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War have will again be prorogued. I am, of course, referring to the P5+1 talks in Vienna seeking to come up with a peaceful resolution to the problem of Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program. Today represents the third deadline as the negotiations have already been extended twice, ostensibly to permit further discussion of details of timing for the lifting of sanctions as well as verification and inspection procedures.

I refer to a “nonexistent” program as the frequently cited intelligence suggesting that a weapon was being developed has turned out to be based on forgeries provided by the Israelis. Currently, both the CIA and Mossad agree that no such program exists though both Washington and Tel Aviv persist in suggesting that Iran might change its mind and therefore must not even be able to develop relevant technologies in the future.

In theory an agreement should have been reached long ago as the two basic elements are well understood: Iran wants an end to sanctions and the United States plus its negotiating partners want a verifiable end to existing and potential programs in Iran that could possibly produce a nuclear weapon. The devil would appear to be in the details but that is not necessarily the case as the real problem is political. The talks have in fact been subject to a relentless media campaign by Israel and its friends in the U.S. to derail any possible agreement, to include a number of appearances by none other than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before both the United Nations and the U.S. Congress. Netanyahu has been warning that an Iranian weapon is imminent since 1996 and he has even produced a cartoon showing a bomb with a ticking fuse to illustrate his thinking on the issue.

The intensity of the anti-Iran campaign has increased to a boiling point as the end of June deadline has approached, to include full page ads in newspapers and a rash of editorials, op-eds and letters to the editor. If you read an article about the negotiations on an unmoderated site like yahoo you will see numerous comments trashing Iran using the same misspellings and phrases, suggesting that they originate in the banks of paid students organized and directed by the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

In order to avoid constantly rehashing the same material, the well-funded and highly creative exploration of Persian perfidy has meant in practice that the media and punditry are constantly raising new issues that have nothing to do with the nuclear weapons themselves. These have included demanding that a contrite Iran confess that it once sought a weapon, addressing the state of possible missile delivery systems in the discussions, assessing Iran’s intentions as a regional power, critiquing the country’s human rights record and examining Tehran’s support of organizations that critics choose to describe as terroristic. Congress is on record calling for the prevention of Iran’s “capability” to construct a weapon, a threshold that it already has passed. Presidential wannabe Senator Marco Rubio has even demanded that Iran recognize “Israel’s right to exist.” The latest wrinkle is to insist on assurances over what might happen in ten years’ time when any agreement negotiated currently will presumably expire.

Assuming that the neocons’ other pet projects to go to war with Russia and eventually also China do not actually materialize and we will all still be here in a decade, it has to be recognized that what is occurring in Vienna this week is already a war. On one side are the serious players, including Secretary of State John Kerry acting for the president as well as the Russians, Germans, Chinese, British and French, all of whom understand that no agreement leaves armed conflict as the only remaining option. They realize that a major explosion in the Persian Gulf would be disastrous for all parties and potentially even for the world economy. On the other side are the naysayers from Israel and its formidable amen section, deeply embedded in the media and among politicians at all levels. Many believe that, as Israel firster mega billionaire Sheldon Adelson has recommended, all Iran really needs is an admonitory nuclear strike to show the Mullahs that we are serious about the military option.

As in any war it is important to know what the enemy is doing. That generally requires massive mobilization of resources to collect intelligence, but in this case we are fortunate in that our enemies write for the Washington Post, The Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal when they are not, collectively speaking, busy appearing on the Sunday morning talk shows and on Fox.

My favorite Queen of Mean among the pro-Israel shock troops is Jennifer Rubin, who writes a blog appropriately labeled “Right Turn” for the Washington Post. In previous incarnations before she found her niche with editorial page chief Fred Hiatt at the Post Jennifer wrote for neocon house organs Commentary, Human Events and Bill Kristol’s The Weekly Standard. Jenn has ungraciously referred to President Barack Obama as the “most anti-Israel president ever.” Ben Smith at Politico describes her as “caustic and single minded” possessing an “intense and combative interest in foreign affairs and politics in general, and in Israel in particular – the sole bumper sticker on her gray Honda Pilot reads, “JERUSALEM IS NOT A SETTLEMENT. It’s Israel’s Eternal And Undivided Capital.” A recent comment on one of her pieces observed “Science is wrong. The world revolves around Israel. Jennifer knows it to be true. Bibi told her.”

Rubin writes about Iran frequently. Between June 16th and the 26th she penned no less than seven articles attacking the Mullahs – “Obama ignores Iran’s human rights atrocities,” “The Iran missile mistake,” “Democrats, Republicans, neutral experts reject Iran sellout,” “The Iran debacle unfolds,” “Iran appeasement relies on self-delusion,” “Can these forces stop a rotten Iran deal?” and “Iran sanctions back on the table.” All of her writing on Iran beats to death the same theme, i.e. that Iranians are both evil and liars and are out to destroy Israel. Driven by her obsession with Israel, she is constantly at work finding connections and seeing things that the rest of us cannot discern, appreciating as she does that there is always an Israeli angle as well as an evil Muslim narrative hidden somewhere as long as one looks long and hard enough. One of her most recent gems “Can these forces stop a rotten Iran deal?”, which appeared on June 25th, does a good job recounting recent commentary by all her friends in the Israel Lobby who are opposing a nuclear deal, which to her mind represents objective opinion. As is always the case, I searched in vain for any real evidence that Iran in any way threatens the United States but that does not appear to be on her agenda. She does, however, quote a number of Israeli politicians.

And Rubin is far from a lonely voice crying in the wilderness. The New York Times featured a story last Wednesday revealing that “former members of President Obama’s inner circle of Iran advisers” had written a letter advising caution on the possible Iran agreement. The article describes in some detail the objections of Dennis Ross, David Petraeus, Robert Einhorn, Gary Samore, Stephen Hadley and General James E. Cartwright. The signatories, who are accepted at face value in the article, should give one pause. Ross is chairman of the Jewish People Policy Institute (which opposes intermarriage of Jews with non-Jews) and has been described as “Israel’s lawyer” while Hadley, a National Security Adviser for George W. Bush, believes that Iran is intent on dominating much of the Middle East and has a nuclear program that “…is a complex threat to international peace and stability.” Einhorn, who helped “devise and enforce the sanctions against Iran,” and Gary Samore have been persistent critics of the ongoing negotiations. Samore is a fixture at the Harvard Belfer Center, a neocon stronghold, and heads United Against Nuclear Iran. Petraeus is probably the best known of the signatories but I will leave it up to the reader to judge his integrity.

If one were looking for someone who might just entertain the thought that Iran has a legitimate point of view it would not be found in the letter nor in the Times coverage. But the most astonishing thing about the article is what the editors chose not to mention, an omission that would appear to constitute deliberate obfuscation of the letter’s intent. The Times notes towards the end of the article that the letter was commissioned by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), but it does not reveal that WINEP is a spin-off of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC is an organization that is de facto opposed to any agreement with Iran that is not endorsed by Benjamin Netanyahu, which means no deal at all.

Interestingly, Israel is not mentioned even once in the letter nor in the Times coverage of it even though it certainly loomed large in the mind of Ross in particular and likely for all of the other co-authors. One might also note that the arguments against the possible agreement made by the signatories is based on the reader’s acceptance of the view that Iran is some kind of global threat, though they make no attempt to explain how that is so and they also assume that its rulers are not to be trusted without an intrusive inspection regime directed against all military facilities in the country, something that no government anywhere could possibly accept. The five signatories of the letter all claim to support a negotiated settlement with Iran but they are just not happy with what Obama has come up with, which is a characteristic line for many of those who in reality want no agreement at all.

Finally, in a completely bizarre instance of the Israel Lobby’s unwillingness to miss any opportunity in its campaign against Iran, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft traveled to Israel last week with an entourage of 20 Hall of Fame football players. They met with Prime Minister Netanyahu who lectured the players, attired in their Hall of Fame gold Jackets, all about Iran by using a football metaphor: “Iran is one yard away from the goal line. If they get nukes, the preeminent terrorist regime of our day will be armed with nuclear weapons. That’s dangerous for the United States and for Israel and for the entire world. And our effort today is to make sure that we block them and push them back.” The appreciative players gave Bibi a game jersey, a helmet and a signed football in return.

And so the enormous smear campaign against Iran goes on, though I suppose we can always hope that Obama will show a little intestinal fortitude and go ahead with an agreement. I will most certainly never watch the New England Patriots again, but I made that decision some time ago based on their win at any cost ethos. Indeed, since the Israel Lobby is very much in the game of punishing critics as it is doing with its odious website Canary Mission perhaps it is past time for a little pushback coming from Americans who would like to take their government back. Folks like myself who object to the Lobby’s overweening influence over our foreign policy might initiate personal boycotts of the products and business interests of those billionaires who are the most enthusiastic supporters of Benjamin Netanyahu and who are the enablers of Israel’s crimes against humanity. It would be partial payback for nearly seventy years of systematic abuse of America’s true interests. Don’t attend their sporting activities, don’t buy their products, don’t watch their films and don’t stay in their hotels or play in their casinos. Such a reckoning would certainly include people like Robert Kraft, Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, as well as Hollywood moguls Haim Saban and Arnon Milchan. Milchan notoriously spied against the U.S. for Israel and is still walking around free, which I don’t quite get. I won’t suggest any additional names but other over the top friends of Likudnik Israel are easily identifiable through Google. As the Mikado’s Lord High Executioner once put it, “I’ve got a little list.”

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran, Israel, Robert Kraft 
Hide 229 CommentsLeave a Comment
229 Comments to "Crunch Time with Iran"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Maj. Kong says:

    On one side are the serious players, including Secretary of State John Kerry

    lol

    Derangement Syndrome much

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quercus
    Would it be possible for you to compose a complete sentence, nitwit?
    , @George Taylor
    Do you take your Pseudonym from the Major Kong in Dr. Strangelove? One of my favorite characters in one of my favorite movies. But you realize he was created as a satirical figure, to illustrate the lunacy of nuclear war, right?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. chris says:

    the clearest corroborating evidence that Iranian nuclear arms issue is not the existential threat Israel claims, comes from Yahoo himself.
    On the eve of the Iraq war 2, Yahoo wasn’t urging us to save Israel from the Iranian nuclear threat, but was promising us roses if we wrecked Iraq.
    Apparently the “existencial” threat can wait!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Perhaps not totally off topic, the neoconservatives seem fine with engaging Cuba by a normalization of relations and a gradual loosening of totalitarian control via open trade. It appears that this just can’t work with Teheran however. I just can’t remember why.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    The neocons entertain high hopes of re-establishing the Jewish Mafia in Havana to replace the one Castro kicked out in 1959.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Quercus says:
    @Maj. Kong

    On one side are the serious players, including Secretary of State John Kerry
     
    lol

    Derangement Syndrome much

    Would it be possible for you to compose a complete sentence, nitwit?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I understood that comment. Standard formula, and a complete sentence (with implied beginning, similar to this).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. alexander says:

    ” I refer to a “nonexistent” program as the frequently cited intelligence suggesting a weapon was being developed has turned out to be based on forgeries provided by the Israelis…”

    Mr Giraldi,

    Isn’t “forging a document” to initiate a war an act of international terrorism ?

    If it isn’t , why isn’t it ?

    And if it is , why aren’t those who forged it in Guantanamo bay?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    "And if it is , why aren’t those who forged it in Guantanamo bay?"

    You're kidding....right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Quercus
    Would it be possible for you to compose a complete sentence, nitwit?

    I understood that comment. Standard formula, and a complete sentence (with implied beginning, similar to this).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. “. . .all of whom understand that no agreement leaves armed conflict as the only remaining option.” – Phil Giraldi, http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/

    Is it a good idea to maintain this notion?

    What would be the casus belli?

    Just war theory states that a state may go to war in self-defense against aggressions against it.

    Does Iran have ships just off the dear homeland’s coasts and harbors and troops and tanks massed on USA borders bristling with guns aimed at American citizens?

    Has Iran assassinated an American diplomat or military leader?

    Further,

    just cause . . . can ostensibly be a response to
    a physical injury (for example, a violation of territory),
    an insult (an aggression against national honor),
    a trade embargo (an aggression against economic activity), or even to
    a neighbor’s prosperity (a violation of social justice) http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/#H2

    Signatories to The United Nations charter have agreed that the United Nations Security Council is the arbiter when such acts are alleged to have occurred http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

    Does failure to come to an agreement about Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program constitute just cause to wage war on Iran?

    And if the unjustifiable threat of war is used as a cudgel to force an agreement, is that agreement null and void because it was entered into under duress?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    Thanks Solon - you make a good point, several points actually. Of course you are completely right that Iran poses no threat and has not established a casus belli. I am basically suggesting that a complete breakdown in negotiations closes off many of the options for the White House, under pressure as it is by Israel and its Lobby, Congress and the media to "do something." I think the neocons (if one goes by comments from Cotton, Graham, Menendez and McCain) are thinking that Iran can be dished with one massive strike to decapitate its nuclear program and eliminate its ability to defend itself. They would justify it based on existing sanctions, though I agree with you it would be a stretch, but Washington has of late not worried much about niceties like international law. Congress is definitely leaning in the direction of military action. If Obama falters, it may come down to what would Hillary or one of the GOP sixteen dwarfs would do and I hate to think what that might be.
    , @Carroll Price
    You're living in the past. As far as the US and Israel are concerned, Just War Theory is as out-of -date as plaid pants and leisure suits.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @SolontoCroesus

    ". . .all of whom understand that no agreement leaves armed conflict as the only remaining option." - Phil Giraldi, http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/
     
    Is it a good idea to maintain this notion?

    What would be the casus belli?

    Just war theory states that a state may go to war in self-defense against aggressions against it.

    Does Iran have ships just off the dear homeland's coasts and harbors and troops and tanks massed on USA borders bristling with guns aimed at American citizens?

    Has Iran assassinated an American diplomat or military leader?

    Further,


    just cause . . . can ostensibly be a response to
    a physical injury (for example, a violation of territory),
    an insult (an aggression against national honor),
    a trade embargo (an aggression against economic activity), or even to
    a neighbor’s prosperity (a violation of social justice) http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/#H2
     
    Signatories to The United Nations charter have agreed that the United Nations Security Council is the arbiter when such acts are alleged to have occurred http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml


    Does failure to come to an agreement about Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program constitute just cause to wage war on Iran?

    And if the unjustifiable threat of war is used as a cudgel to force an agreement, is that agreement null and void because it was entered into under duress?

    Thanks Solon – you make a good point, several points actually. Of course you are completely right that Iran poses no threat and has not established a casus belli. I am basically suggesting that a complete breakdown in negotiations closes off many of the options for the White House, under pressure as it is by Israel and its Lobby, Congress and the media to “do something.” I think the neocons (if one goes by comments from Cotton, Graham, Menendez and McCain) are thinking that Iran can be dished with one massive strike to decapitate its nuclear program and eliminate its ability to defend itself. They would justify it based on existing sanctions, though I agree with you it would be a stretch, but Washington has of late not worried much about niceties like international law. Congress is definitely leaning in the direction of military action. If Obama falters, it may come down to what would Hillary or one of the GOP sixteen dwarfs would do and I hate to think what that might be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Sherman says:

    “The top friends of Likudnik Israel are easily identifiable through Google”

    Google was founded by Jews. Many of its top officers and engineers are Jewish.

    Google also maintains a large office (as do many hi-tech companies) in Israel.

    Perhaps Giraldi and his fellow Holocaust denying buddies should also boycott Google.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    "Holocaust denying buddies ..."

    Citation.
    , @Sam Shama

    Perhaps Giraldi and his fellow Holocaust denying buddies should also boycott Google.
     
    Lol. Also Yahoo, because of Bibi! So left with ....Bing!!?
    , @Wally
    "Perhaps Giraldi and his fellow Holocaust denying buddies should also boycott Google."

    Another desperate hasbara troll has just revealed herself.

    One cannot deny the '6M & gas chamber' when they never happened in the first case.

    Holocau$t Lies, Who Profits?

    www.codoh.com

    , @annamaria
    What has Google to do with Zionism? Why are you trying to equate the sufferings of East European Jews during the WWII with the legitimate criticism of Israel's atrocities towards the native Palestinian population (these atrocities are an insult to the memory of Holocaust victims).
    There is a growing dissatisfaction of the US citizens of various ethnicities with the treasonous behavior of Israeli Lobby and with the US Senators bought by the Lobby. Perhaps you need to ponder how come that Israel is the only country that is perceived as preying on the American resources.
    , @Moi
    You left out Facebook.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. George says:

    Whether a state poses a threat can’t be judged just by whether it has ships off your coast.

    If senior political figures within a country continuously wish for your destruction, and want the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, I think it’s well within the limits of just war theory that we go to war to prevent that.

    A war with Iran would be pretty much a low risk mop up operation, so it’s something we probably should gave done long ago. As long as we avoid the stupidity of trying to impose liberal democracy on iran, destroying iran would be easy and cheap.

    If, after that moderate elements within iran rise to the fore, we should help them reconstruct their country. If Iranians continue to let their worst elements control them, they will continue to be under threat of destruction from us.

    As long as we avoid quixotic attempts to impose democracy on countries, we can pretty much do whatever we want, almost anywhere. For instance, if we just wanted to destroy china, we could do it.

    We run into trouble only when we seek to rebuild people in our image. We should never try that again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Biff
    "If senior political figures within a country continuously wish for your destruction, and want the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, I think it’s well within the limits of just war theory that we go to war to prevent that.”


    These are the kind of ‘assumptions’ that drive the propaganda wheel that the more intelligent folks would like to stop.
    Get real, that crap has been de-bunked a thousand times.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    If senior political figures within a country continuously wish for your destruction . . .I think it’s well within the limits of just war theory that we go to war to prevent that.
     
    Hossein Mousavian responded to a similar question from a participant in Seminars at the National War College recently.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-LlFo56Wic&feature=youtu.be

    Dan Hershkowitz of Seminar 21 16, 19 asked the question:


    Talk about Israel: from an Iranian point of view do you feel it possible that the rhetoric that has come out of Iran the last several years uh talking about annihilating Israel and even discounting that the holocaust even took place, do you think it is possible that Iran and Israel can ever come to the table and talk about peace?

     

    Dr. Mousavian responded (wrt "annihilation" rhetoric):

    You are right — Iran rhetoric — it was the last president.
    The present president has condemned holocaust and congratulated the Jews on new year. [Iran] never before had such a policy.
    But Netanyahu has not changed. … [so] I don’t know whether it matters or not. If it really matters for Israelis then Israel should have acknowledged [Iran's change of behavior].
     
    Just war doctrine requires that:

    "Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted, especially good-faith diplomatic negotiations." http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/understanding/JustWarCriteria.pdf
     
    The offensive rhetoric you complain of has been resolved through "good-faith diplomatic negotiations" without the use of force. The offense, however specious, no longer exists.

    Moreover,

    No more force can be used than is required to succeed — wanton killing and destruction are not allowed and collateral civilian deaths must be minimal. http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/understanding/JustWarCriteria.pdf
     
    "Proportionality," applied to this situation, would mean that Israel could attack Iran with the same rhetoric, continually wishing for Iran's destruction. Which Israel has done and continues to do.


    Regarding your second point:


    [Iran] want[s] the capacity to develop nuclear weapons . . . I think it’s well within the limits of just war theory that we go to war to prevent that.
     
    1. There is no proof that Iran wants "the capacity to develop nuclear weapons." As Dr. Giraldi noted:

    "I refer to a “nonexistent” program as the frequently cited intelligence suggesting that a weapon was being developed has turned out to be based on forgeries provided by the Israelis. Currently, both the CIA and Mossad agree that no such program exists though both Washington and Tel Aviv persist in suggesting that Iran might change its mind*** and therefore must not even be able to develop relevant technologies in the future. "
     
    For emphasis: "both the CIA and Mossad agree that" a nuclear weapons program does not exist in Iran.

    2. Furthermore, (and wrt ***) Iran's highest religious authorities have issued a fatwa against the use of any weapon of mass destruction. Given that a major complaint about the Islamic Republic of Iran is that it is a "theocracy" that governs by religious, Islamic principles, one is forced to concede that either Iran is not run by Islamic principles therefore a fatwa is meaningless, or Iran is governed by Islamic principles and the fatwa against Iranian use of WMD is determinative.

    The latter position has been demonstrated to be the case: When Iranian soldiers as well as civilians were attacked with chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein, Iran's religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, would not permit the use of chemical weapons in retaliation. Iran walked the talk.

    3. Finally, as a signatory to the NPT, Iran is within its rights to pursue development of nuclear technology. The conditions of those rights include monitoring of Iran's use of that technology, which is carried out by the appropriate enforcement body, the IAEA. In fact, Iran is subjected to more intrusive and comprehensive nuclear monitoring than any other NPT signatory.

    It should also be noted that the IAEA has violated its obligations to maintain confidentiality and has leaked "volumes of information" about Iranian facilities to the extent that the USA has been able to build highly-accurate mock-ups of Iran's nuclear facilities. (It is also reasonable to speculate that IAEA has leaked information about the identity of Iranian nuclear scientists that has resulted in their assassinations, not unlikely by Mossad.)

    The USA did something similar, beginning in 1939, with respect to Germany: it built precisely detailed replicas of German and Japanese workers' housing in the desert at Dugway, Utah. Erich Mendelsohn, "the Jewish architect," assisted in the design work for "German village," and Jewish-run RKO Studios provided interior decor expertise. Included in the furnishings of German village -


    "In the bedroom, the single beds were placed together in pairs, with a crib ■adjacent, reflective of a young family with an infant." [source: DUGWAY PROVING GROUND, GERMAN
    VILLAGE, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

     
    (Deliberately targeting civilians is, of course, contrary to the principles of Just War and are crimes against humanity. The Allies have never been called to account for the war crimes that took the lives of some 600,000 German civilians and hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.

    When Benjamin Netanyahu says that "Iran is Germany," the civilized world must pay attention: the US, and Israel and prominent Jewish persons in the USA are taking steps ominously similar to those taken by the USA and Britain when they deliberately planned and carried out the terror bombing of German civilians, with which prominent Jewish persons collaborated.

    These facts, documented and validated by government agencies of the USA, must be forcefully brought to the attention of every US congressperson.)


    For your reference, George -- Some notes on what the civilized world has developed to control war-like impulses -- now you do not have the excuse of ignorance:


    The doctrine of justifiable war assumes a presumption against war — war should not be launched unless all the criteria are met (jus ad bellum), the war will be fought in a moral way (jus in bello), and it will be ended in a moral way (jus post bellum). There is no “official” set of criteria, but the following criteria are the main ones typically suggested.

    Jus ad bellum (what justifies going to war)

    Just Cause — Force may be used only to correct a
    grave, public harm, such as defending against unjust aggression or intervening to stop massive violation of basic human rights of whole populations (such as genocide).

    Legitimate Authority — War must serve public and not merely private purposes. So only duly constituted authorities at the highest levels of a legitimate government — those who bear the responsibility to decide matters that are for the good of the people — can make the decision and they must do so publicly. Private armies cannot conduct their own wars.

    Formal Declaration — Before using force, a country/entity must make a formal declaration of war and delineate its aims.

    Right Intention — War must be waged for the sake of a just cause, not out of ethnic hatred, for revenge, for wanton killing and destruction, [take note, George. Genocide is not a 'right intention'] for material gain, nor to grab power. War’s ultimate goal must be reconciliation and the restoration of justice. In addition, those who undertake war, even for a justifiable cause, should act not with arrogance or self-righteousness, but with humility, regret, and full recognition of the humanity of their adversaries.

    Probability of Success — Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success. It is not right to wreak widespread havoc for a lost cause, even if the war is defensive.

    Proportionality — The good a war will accomplish — or the evil it will prevent — in total must outweigh the totality of suffering it will inevitably cause to all parties. It is morally wrong to make matters worse.

    Last Resort — Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted, especially good-faith diplomatic negotiations.

    Jus in bello (how combatants must act)

    Discrimination and Non-Combatant Immunity
    War must only be directed towards those engaged in harm — enemy combatants — and not towards civilians caught in circumstances they did not create. Only attacks on legitimate military, political, and industrial targets involved in rights-violating harm are permitted. Attacks on civilian factories supporting the war effort are questionable. While some collateral civilian casualties are excusable, intentional attacks upon non-combatants or prisoners are clearly forbidden. Weapons of mass destruction, because they kill and maim so many civilians, cannot be used.

    No Atrocious Weapons — No horrendous weapons (like chemical and biological weapons) or tactics (like mass rape or genocide) can be used. Treachery, like disguising soldiers to look like civilians, cannot be used.

    Proportionality — No more force can be used than is required to succeed — wanton killing and destruction are not allowed and collateral civilian deaths must be minimal. http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/understanding/JustWarCriteria.pdf
     

    ---

    George wrote:


    We run into trouble only when we seek to rebuild people in our image. We should never try that again.
     
    No George.
    You run into trouble when you think and act upon the notion that wanton mass killing is the right of an entity just because it possesses the means to do so. That's called psychopathology. Your comment reeks of it.

    To the extent that people -- like Iraqis and Palestinians -- resist being "rebuilt in [y]our image," it seems to me that is a sign of their sanity.

    , @guest
    The question isn't whether Iran is a threat; it's whether Iran has given the P-whatever and most importantly the U.S. just cause for war. Posing a threat could mean anything, from maybe they'll invade us in a thousand years to they're incapable of attacking us if they wanted to, even if they'd never win, and even if they never actually will. Not much of a reason for war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Realist says:

    “Let’s push back against Israel’s friends and avoid a war”

    And who would do the ‘push back’? Our lickspittle politicians?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Realist says:
    @alexander
    " I refer to a "nonexistent" program as the frequently cited intelligence suggesting a weapon was being developed has turned out to be based on forgeries provided by the Israelis..."


    Mr Giraldi,

    Isn't "forging a document" to initiate a war an act of international terrorism ?

    If it isn't , why isn't it ?

    And if it is , why aren't those who forged it in Guantanamo bay?

    “And if it is , why aren’t those who forged it in Guantanamo bay?”

    You’re kidding….right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Are you saying that anyone who seeks to defraud the United States into a war isn't a terrorist ?
    Then what are they?

    Defrauding us into war of aggression is the essence of " Terrorism" with a capital" T".....isn't it ?

    If it isn't, please tell me how it is not?

    Using "forgeries" and concocting fake documents to create the false impression that a country is doing something it is not....to have us initiate a war of aggression(against that country).... that otherwise would never happen....Is the very nature of Evil. It is" terrorizing "us, through fraud, into an action that we would normally never do !



    It is not only" terrorism", but it
    is terrorism in its most pernicious form.....
    and should be treated as such !

    But if you don't see that...I am curious what your argument is ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Realist says:
    @Sherman
    "The top friends of Likudnik Israel are easily identifiable through Google"

    Google was founded by Jews. Many of its top officers and engineers are Jewish.

    Google also maintains a large office (as do many hi-tech companies) in Israel.

    Perhaps Giraldi and his fellow Holocaust denying buddies should also boycott Google.

    “Holocaust denying buddies …”

    Citation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    http://www.unz.com/article/keep-your-eye-on-the-camel/#comment-971625
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Sam Shama says:
    @Sherman
    "The top friends of Likudnik Israel are easily identifiable through Google"

    Google was founded by Jews. Many of its top officers and engineers are Jewish.

    Google also maintains a large office (as do many hi-tech companies) in Israel.

    Perhaps Giraldi and his fellow Holocaust denying buddies should also boycott Google.

    Perhaps Giraldi and his fellow Holocaust denying buddies should also boycott Google.

    Lol. Also Yahoo, because of Bibi! So left with ….Bing!!?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Biff says:
    @George
    Whether a state poses a threat can't be judged just by whether it has ships off your coast.

    If senior political figures within a country continuously wish for your destruction, and want the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, I think it's well within the limits of just war theory that we go to war to prevent that.

    A war with Iran would be pretty much a low risk mop up operation, so it's something we probably should gave done long ago. As long as we avoid the stupidity of trying to impose liberal democracy on iran, destroying iran would be easy and cheap.

    If, after that moderate elements within iran rise to the fore, we should help them reconstruct their country. If Iranians continue to let their worst elements control them, they will continue to be under threat of destruction from us.

    As long as we avoid quixotic attempts to impose democracy on countries, we can pretty much do whatever we want, almost anywhere. For instance, if we just wanted to destroy china, we could do it.

    We run into trouble only when we seek to rebuild people in our image. We should never try that again.

    If senior political figures within a country continuously wish for your destruction, and want the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, I think it’s well within the limits of just war theory that we go to war to prevent that.”

    These are the kind of ‘assumptions’ that drive the propaganda wheel that the more intelligent folks would like to stop.
    Get real, that crap has been de-bunked a thousand times.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Sam Shama says:
    @Realist
    "Holocaust denying buddies ..."

    Citation.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. George says:

    But you agree, biff, that if it can be reliably documented that Iranian officials, have said such things over a prolonged period, then we can say they are an enemy who we would be morally justified in destroying before getting the bomb?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. @George
    Whether a state poses a threat can't be judged just by whether it has ships off your coast.

    If senior political figures within a country continuously wish for your destruction, and want the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, I think it's well within the limits of just war theory that we go to war to prevent that.

    A war with Iran would be pretty much a low risk mop up operation, so it's something we probably should gave done long ago. As long as we avoid the stupidity of trying to impose liberal democracy on iran, destroying iran would be easy and cheap.

    If, after that moderate elements within iran rise to the fore, we should help them reconstruct their country. If Iranians continue to let their worst elements control them, they will continue to be under threat of destruction from us.

    As long as we avoid quixotic attempts to impose democracy on countries, we can pretty much do whatever we want, almost anywhere. For instance, if we just wanted to destroy china, we could do it.

    We run into trouble only when we seek to rebuild people in our image. We should never try that again.

    If senior political figures within a country continuously wish for your destruction . . .I think it’s well within the limits of just war theory that we go to war to prevent that.

    Hossein Mousavian responded to a similar question from a participant in Seminars at the National War College recently.

    Dan Hershkowitz of Seminar 21 16, 19 asked the question:

    Talk about Israel: from an Iranian point of view do you feel it possible that the rhetoric that has come out of Iran the last several years uh talking about annihilating Israel and even discounting that the holocaust even took place, do you think it is possible that Iran and Israel can ever come to the table and talk about peace?

    Dr. Mousavian responded (wrt “annihilation” rhetoric):

    You are right — Iran rhetoric — it was the last president.
    The present president has condemned holocaust and congratulated the Jews on new year. [Iran] never before had such a policy.
    But Netanyahu has not changed. … [so] I don’t know whether it matters or not. If it really matters for Israelis then Israel should have acknowledged [Iran's change of behavior].

    Just war doctrine requires that:

    “Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted, especially good-faith diplomatic negotiations.” http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/understanding/JustWarCriteria.pdf

    The offensive rhetoric you complain of has been resolved through “good-faith diplomatic negotiations” without the use of force. The offense, however specious, no longer exists.

    Moreover,

    No more force can be used than is required to succeed — wanton killing and destruction are not allowed and collateral civilian deaths must be minimal. http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/understanding/JustWarCriteria.pdf

    “Proportionality,” applied to this situation, would mean that Israel could attack Iran with the same rhetoric, continually wishing for Iran’s destruction. Which Israel has done and continues to do.

    Regarding your second point:

    [Iran] want[s] the capacity to develop nuclear weapons . . . I think it’s well within the limits of just war theory that we go to war to prevent that.

    1. There is no proof that Iran wants “the capacity to develop nuclear weapons.” As Dr. Giraldi noted:

    “I refer to a “nonexistent” program as the frequently cited intelligence suggesting that a weapon was being developed has turned out to be based on forgeries provided by the Israelis. Currently, both the CIA and Mossad agree that no such program exists though both Washington and Tel Aviv persist in suggesting that Iran might change its mind*** and therefore must not even be able to develop relevant technologies in the future. “

    For emphasis: “both the CIA and Mossad agree that” a nuclear weapons program does not exist in Iran.

    2. Furthermore, (and wrt ***) Iran’s highest religious authorities have issued a fatwa against the use of any weapon of mass destruction. Given that a major complaint about the Islamic Republic of Iran is that it is a “theocracy” that governs by religious, Islamic principles, one is forced to concede that either Iran is not run by Islamic principles therefore a fatwa is meaningless, or Iran is governed by Islamic principles and the fatwa against Iranian use of WMD is determinative.

    The latter position has been demonstrated to be the case: When Iranian soldiers as well as civilians were attacked with chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein, Iran’s religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, would not permit the use of chemical weapons in retaliation. Iran walked the talk.

    3. Finally, as a signatory to the NPT, Iran is within its rights to pursue development of nuclear technology. The conditions of those rights include monitoring of Iran’s use of that technology, which is carried out by the appropriate enforcement body, the IAEA. In fact, Iran is subjected to more intrusive and comprehensive nuclear monitoring than any other NPT signatory.

    It should also be noted that the IAEA has violated its obligations to maintain confidentiality and has leaked “volumes of information” about Iranian facilities to the extent that the USA has been able to build highly-accurate mock-ups of Iran’s nuclear facilities. (It is also reasonable to speculate that IAEA has leaked information about the identity of Iranian nuclear scientists that has resulted in their assassinations, not unlikely by Mossad.)

    The USA did something similar, beginning in 1939, with respect to Germany: it built precisely detailed replicas of German and Japanese workers’ housing in the desert at Dugway, Utah. Erich Mendelsohn, “the Jewish architect,” assisted in the design work for “German village,” and Jewish-run RKO Studios provided interior decor expertise. Included in the furnishings of German village –

    “In the bedroom, the single beds were placed together in pairs, with a crib ■adjacent, reflective of a young family with an infant.” [source: DUGWAY PROVING GROUND, GERMAN
    VILLAGE, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

    (Deliberately targeting civilians is, of course, contrary to the principles of Just War and are crimes against humanity. The Allies have never been called to account for the war crimes that took the lives of some 600,000 German civilians and hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.

    When Benjamin Netanyahu says that "Iran is Germany," the civilized world must pay attention: the US, and Israel and prominent Jewish persons in the USA are taking steps ominously similar to those taken by the USA and Britain when they deliberately planned and carried out the terror bombing of German civilians, with which prominent Jewish persons collaborated.

    These facts, documented and validated by government agencies of the USA, must be forcefully brought to the attention of every US congressperson.)

    For your reference, George -- Some notes on what the civilized world has developed to control war-like impulses -- now you do not have the excuse of ignorance:

    The doctrine of justifiable war assumes a presumption against war — war should not be launched unless all the criteria are met (jus ad bellum), the war will be fought in a moral way (jus in bello), and it will be ended in a moral way (jus post bellum). There is no “official” set of criteria, but the following criteria are the main ones typically suggested.

    Jus ad bellum (what justifies going to war)

    Just Cause — Force may be used only to correct a
    grave, public harm, such as defending against unjust aggression or intervening to stop massive violation of basic human rights of whole populations (such as genocide).

    Legitimate Authority — War must serve public and not merely private purposes. So only duly constituted authorities at the highest levels of a legitimate government — those who bear the responsibility to decide matters that are for the good of the people — can make the decision and they must do so publicly. Private armies cannot conduct their own wars.

    Formal Declaration — Before using force, a country/entity must make a formal declaration of war and delineate its aims.

    Right Intention — War must be waged for the sake of a just cause, not out of ethnic hatred, for revenge, for wanton killing and destruction, [take note, George. Genocide is not a 'right intention'] for material gain, nor to grab power. War’s ultimate goal must be reconciliation and the restoration of justice. In addition, those who undertake war, even for a justifiable cause, should act not with arrogance or self-righteousness, but with humility, regret, and full recognition of the humanity of their adversaries.

    Probability of Success — Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success. It is not right to wreak widespread havoc for a lost cause, even if the war is defensive.

    Proportionality — The good a war will accomplish — or the evil it will prevent — in total must outweigh the totality of suffering it will inevitably cause to all parties. It is morally wrong to make matters worse.

    Last Resort — Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted, especially good-faith diplomatic negotiations.

    Jus in bello (how combatants must act)

    Discrimination and Non-Combatant Immunity
    War must only be directed towards those engaged in harm — enemy combatants — and not towards civilians caught in circumstances they did not create. Only attacks on legitimate military, political, and industrial targets involved in rights-violating harm are permitted. Attacks on civilian factories supporting the war effort are questionable. While some collateral civilian casualties are excusable, intentional attacks upon non-combatants or prisoners are clearly forbidden. Weapons of mass destruction, because they kill and maim so many civilians, cannot be used.

    No Atrocious Weapons — No horrendous weapons (like chemical and biological weapons) or tactics (like mass rape or genocide) can be used. Treachery, like disguising soldiers to look like civilians, cannot be used.

    Proportionality — No more force can be used than is required to succeed — wanton killing and destruction are not allowed and collateral civilian deaths must be minimal. http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/understanding/JustWarCriteria.pdf

    George wrote:

    We run into trouble only when we seek to rebuild people in our image. We should never try that again.

    No George.
    You run into trouble when you think and act upon the notion that wanton mass killing is the right of an entity just because it possesses the means to do so. That’s called psychopathology. Your comment reeks of it.

    To the extent that people — like Iraqis and Palestinians — resist being “rebuilt in [y]our image,” it seems to me that is a sign of their sanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @chris
    absolutely beautiful and comprehensive response, Solonto; thank you !
    , @Cloak And Dagger
    Fantastic and scholarly post,SolontoCroesus! Extremely informative and well-argued.

    To your excellent points, I would add that the belligerent (Israel) complaining about the potential for and intent of Iran, a signatory of the NPT, to develop nuclear weapons, is laughable considering that Israel has neither signed the NPT, nor permits IAEA inspections, while sitting on a clandestine pile of nuclear weapons that are no longer ambiguous speculations.

    I would also add that these provocations to wage war on Iran, a country that has not attacked anyone in 300 years, are coming from both chickenhawk armchair warriors, and of course, from the rogue nation of Israel, who would like us to fight their wars for them. Despite our massive aid to that sh*tty little country, including advanced armaments, their cowardly IDF is incapable of war against anyone but unarmed civilians, as demonstrated by the shameful routing they received from Hizbollah on their last military adventure of attacking Lebanon. If Netanyahu wants war with Iran, let him have at it. Do you know what happens to a dog chasing a car if he actually catches it?

    Finally, I will add that the Iran Nuclear deal is, in fact, an existential threat to Israel - but not because Iran will attack them. No, with our warming relations with Iran, the temperature in the Middle East will be greatly reduced with increased trade and reduced violence. This will be terrible for Israel as it will no longer be able to distract the world's attention from its atrocities on the Palestinians, and will stand naked in front of the world without the US being there to protect it from world condemnation. That will be the end of Israel.

    A 2009 CIA report predicted that Israel would cease to exist by 2030. I give it till 2025, and I am being generous.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. George says:

    It could be that Iranian you quoted is mischarscterizing the situation.

    A comprehensive study of the statements and belief systems of top Iranian officials over an extended period of time would cut through any deception by either party. If, on balance, this reveals a clear desire for the destruction of America, and a belief system and world view that morally justifies that, then that would make iran a clear enemy and we would be obviously justified in destroying iran.

    Since civilian nuclear capacity can be weaponized, they present the same threat.

    I agree that the destruction should be proprtional to the threat – in this case, the destruction would have to be massive.

    A proprtional response refers to the force necessary to the threat. In many cases this means a massively larger response – for instance if a country of 40 million people kills 5 million people in a country of 6 million people, a proprtional response would not be to kill 5 million people in the larger country.

    Similarly, if a country wishes to destroy you, and is pursuing technology that would allow it to do so, a proportional response to that threat might be the destruction of that entire country even before it fired a shot, if necessary.

    I agree force should only be used after all other options are exhausted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    "If, on balance, this reveals a clear desire for the destruction of America... [then] the destruction [of Iran] would have to be massive."

    Are you seriously suggesting that Iran is bent on destroying America? Do you feel so threatened that you cannot sleep at night and that this justifies the U.S. launching a war of aggression against Iran, just as it did against Iraq?

    The sad part is that your (and the neocons/Israel Firsters') wet dreams may come true after Obama is out of office and is replaced by neocon darling Killary or one of Adelson's 16 dwarfs!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. George says:

    “Obviously justified on destroying iran”

    I mean if it persists in pursuing technology that would enable it to do so and that were the onlyears left to deter that threat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    If your pathology, I mean principle, were widespread, I mean widely held, which it may well be, I suppose it would justify Iran or whomever else you claim the right preemptively to destroy in destroying you. And us in the bargain. Think of the danger: Iran must have a few idiots too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. alexander says:
    @Realist
    "And if it is , why aren’t those who forged it in Guantanamo bay?"

    You're kidding....right?

    Are you saying that anyone who seeks to defraud the United States into a war isn’t a terrorist ?
    Then what are they?

    Defrauding us into war of aggression is the essence of ” Terrorism” with a capital” T”…..isn’t it ?

    If it isn’t, please tell me how it is not?

    Using “forgeries” and concocting fake documents to create the false impression that a country is doing something it is not….to have us initiate a war of aggression(against that country)…. that otherwise would never happen….Is the very nature of Evil. It is” terrorizing “us, through fraud, into an action that we would normally never do !

    It is not only” terrorism”, but it
    is terrorism in its most pernicious form…..
    and should be treated as such !

    But if you don’t see that…I am curious what your argument is ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    It was a facetious remark.

    We're talking about Israelis here....the ones calling the shots in the US.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @Sherman
    "The top friends of Likudnik Israel are easily identifiable through Google"

    Google was founded by Jews. Many of its top officers and engineers are Jewish.

    Google also maintains a large office (as do many hi-tech companies) in Israel.

    Perhaps Giraldi and his fellow Holocaust denying buddies should also boycott Google.

    “Perhaps Giraldi and his fellow Holocaust denying buddies should also boycott Google.”

    Another desperate hasbara troll has just revealed herself.

    One cannot deny the ’6M & gas chamber’ when they never happened in the first case.

    Holocau$t Lies, Who Profits?

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Then what, pray tell, is this guy going on about?

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2015/06/auschwitz-ss-men-confessing-on-tape_30.html?m=1
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. geokat62 says:
    @George
    It could be that Iranian you quoted is mischarscterizing the situation.

    A comprehensive study of the statements and belief systems of top Iranian officials over an extended period of time would cut through any deception by either party. If, on balance, this reveals a clear desire for the destruction of America, and a belief system and world view that morally justifies that, then that would make iran a clear enemy and we would be obviously justified in destroying iran.

    Since civilian nuclear capacity can be weaponized, they present the same threat.

    I agree that the destruction should be proprtional to the threat - in this case, the destruction would have to be massive.

    A proprtional response refers to the force necessary to the threat. In many cases this means a massively larger response - for instance if a country of 40 million people kills 5 million people in a country of 6 million people, a proprtional response would not be to kill 5 million people in the larger country.

    Similarly, if a country wishes to destroy you, and is pursuing technology that would allow it to do so, a proportional response to that threat might be the destruction of that entire country even before it fired a shot, if necessary.

    I agree force should only be used after all other options are exhausted.

    “If, on balance, this reveals a clear desire for the destruction of America… [then] the destruction [of Iran] would have to be massive.”

    Are you seriously suggesting that Iran is bent on destroying America? Do you feel so threatened that you cannot sleep at night and that this justifies the U.S. launching a war of aggression against Iran, just as it did against Iraq?

    The sad part is that your (and the neocons/Israel Firsters’) wet dreams may come true after Obama is out of office and is replaced by neocon darling Killary or one of Adelson’s 16 dwarfs!

    Read More
    • Replies: @George123
    I think Iran would like very much to see America destroyed, or at least huge and influential elements within Iran would, and in the region at large.

    Since that's so, and those elements have made clear their wishes and desires, I would sleep better at night if America used its immense and unstoppable power to ensure that a country that contains such elements in such large numbers, in a region that contains such large elements in such profusion, does not acquire weapons of mass destruction.

    I can't predict the future, nor the future political organization of Iran or other regional powers and groups. But I know that within Iran and surrounding areas so many wish America to vanish. To that end, I consider it good and sensible policy to guard against future contingencies arising out of the desire of so many within Iran and near to destroy America, to prevent the introduction of nuclear weapons into this volatile element.

    Its just common sense, and it can easily be achieved without destroying Iran - which I would deeply regret - if America would be willing to bring its unstoppable power to bear without apology and make a credible threat that the future survival of Iran is contingent on its giving up its desire for nuclear weapons.

    So much evil in the world can be averted if good men in possession of great power would be willing to use it.
    , @Orville H. Larson
    "The sad part is that your (and the neocons/Israel Firsters') wet dreams may come true after Obama is out of office and is replaced by neocon darling Killary or one of Adelson's 16 dwarfs!"

    Excellent!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. chris says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    If senior political figures within a country continuously wish for your destruction . . .I think it’s well within the limits of just war theory that we go to war to prevent that.
     
    Hossein Mousavian responded to a similar question from a participant in Seminars at the National War College recently.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-LlFo56Wic&feature=youtu.be

    Dan Hershkowitz of Seminar 21 16, 19 asked the question:


    Talk about Israel: from an Iranian point of view do you feel it possible that the rhetoric that has come out of Iran the last several years uh talking about annihilating Israel and even discounting that the holocaust even took place, do you think it is possible that Iran and Israel can ever come to the table and talk about peace?

     

    Dr. Mousavian responded (wrt "annihilation" rhetoric):

    You are right — Iran rhetoric — it was the last president.
    The present president has condemned holocaust and congratulated the Jews on new year. [Iran] never before had such a policy.
    But Netanyahu has not changed. … [so] I don’t know whether it matters or not. If it really matters for Israelis then Israel should have acknowledged [Iran's change of behavior].
     
    Just war doctrine requires that:

    "Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted, especially good-faith diplomatic negotiations." http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/understanding/JustWarCriteria.pdf
     
    The offensive rhetoric you complain of has been resolved through "good-faith diplomatic negotiations" without the use of force. The offense, however specious, no longer exists.

    Moreover,

    No more force can be used than is required to succeed — wanton killing and destruction are not allowed and collateral civilian deaths must be minimal. http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/understanding/JustWarCriteria.pdf
     
    "Proportionality," applied to this situation, would mean that Israel could attack Iran with the same rhetoric, continually wishing for Iran's destruction. Which Israel has done and continues to do.


    Regarding your second point:


    [Iran] want[s] the capacity to develop nuclear weapons . . . I think it’s well within the limits of just war theory that we go to war to prevent that.
     
    1. There is no proof that Iran wants "the capacity to develop nuclear weapons." As Dr. Giraldi noted:

    "I refer to a “nonexistent” program as the frequently cited intelligence suggesting that a weapon was being developed has turned out to be based on forgeries provided by the Israelis. Currently, both the CIA and Mossad agree that no such program exists though both Washington and Tel Aviv persist in suggesting that Iran might change its mind*** and therefore must not even be able to develop relevant technologies in the future. "
     
    For emphasis: "both the CIA and Mossad agree that" a nuclear weapons program does not exist in Iran.

    2. Furthermore, (and wrt ***) Iran's highest religious authorities have issued a fatwa against the use of any weapon of mass destruction. Given that a major complaint about the Islamic Republic of Iran is that it is a "theocracy" that governs by religious, Islamic principles, one is forced to concede that either Iran is not run by Islamic principles therefore a fatwa is meaningless, or Iran is governed by Islamic principles and the fatwa against Iranian use of WMD is determinative.

    The latter position has been demonstrated to be the case: When Iranian soldiers as well as civilians were attacked with chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein, Iran's religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, would not permit the use of chemical weapons in retaliation. Iran walked the talk.

    3. Finally, as a signatory to the NPT, Iran is within its rights to pursue development of nuclear technology. The conditions of those rights include monitoring of Iran's use of that technology, which is carried out by the appropriate enforcement body, the IAEA. In fact, Iran is subjected to more intrusive and comprehensive nuclear monitoring than any other NPT signatory.

    It should also be noted that the IAEA has violated its obligations to maintain confidentiality and has leaked "volumes of information" about Iranian facilities to the extent that the USA has been able to build highly-accurate mock-ups of Iran's nuclear facilities. (It is also reasonable to speculate that IAEA has leaked information about the identity of Iranian nuclear scientists that has resulted in their assassinations, not unlikely by Mossad.)

    The USA did something similar, beginning in 1939, with respect to Germany: it built precisely detailed replicas of German and Japanese workers' housing in the desert at Dugway, Utah. Erich Mendelsohn, "the Jewish architect," assisted in the design work for "German village," and Jewish-run RKO Studios provided interior decor expertise. Included in the furnishings of German village -


    "In the bedroom, the single beds were placed together in pairs, with a crib ■adjacent, reflective of a young family with an infant." [source: DUGWAY PROVING GROUND, GERMAN
    VILLAGE, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

     
    (Deliberately targeting civilians is, of course, contrary to the principles of Just War and are crimes against humanity. The Allies have never been called to account for the war crimes that took the lives of some 600,000 German civilians and hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.

    When Benjamin Netanyahu says that "Iran is Germany," the civilized world must pay attention: the US, and Israel and prominent Jewish persons in the USA are taking steps ominously similar to those taken by the USA and Britain when they deliberately planned and carried out the terror bombing of German civilians, with which prominent Jewish persons collaborated.

    These facts, documented and validated by government agencies of the USA, must be forcefully brought to the attention of every US congressperson.)


    For your reference, George -- Some notes on what the civilized world has developed to control war-like impulses -- now you do not have the excuse of ignorance:


    The doctrine of justifiable war assumes a presumption against war — war should not be launched unless all the criteria are met (jus ad bellum), the war will be fought in a moral way (jus in bello), and it will be ended in a moral way (jus post bellum). There is no “official” set of criteria, but the following criteria are the main ones typically suggested.

    Jus ad bellum (what justifies going to war)

    Just Cause — Force may be used only to correct a
    grave, public harm, such as defending against unjust aggression or intervening to stop massive violation of basic human rights of whole populations (such as genocide).

    Legitimate Authority — War must serve public and not merely private purposes. So only duly constituted authorities at the highest levels of a legitimate government — those who bear the responsibility to decide matters that are for the good of the people — can make the decision and they must do so publicly. Private armies cannot conduct their own wars.

    Formal Declaration — Before using force, a country/entity must make a formal declaration of war and delineate its aims.

    Right Intention — War must be waged for the sake of a just cause, not out of ethnic hatred, for revenge, for wanton killing and destruction, [take note, George. Genocide is not a 'right intention'] for material gain, nor to grab power. War’s ultimate goal must be reconciliation and the restoration of justice. In addition, those who undertake war, even for a justifiable cause, should act not with arrogance or self-righteousness, but with humility, regret, and full recognition of the humanity of their adversaries.

    Probability of Success — Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success. It is not right to wreak widespread havoc for a lost cause, even if the war is defensive.

    Proportionality — The good a war will accomplish — or the evil it will prevent — in total must outweigh the totality of suffering it will inevitably cause to all parties. It is morally wrong to make matters worse.

    Last Resort — Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted, especially good-faith diplomatic negotiations.

    Jus in bello (how combatants must act)

    Discrimination and Non-Combatant Immunity
    War must only be directed towards those engaged in harm — enemy combatants — and not towards civilians caught in circumstances they did not create. Only attacks on legitimate military, political, and industrial targets involved in rights-violating harm are permitted. Attacks on civilian factories supporting the war effort are questionable. While some collateral civilian casualties are excusable, intentional attacks upon non-combatants or prisoners are clearly forbidden. Weapons of mass destruction, because they kill and maim so many civilians, cannot be used.

    No Atrocious Weapons — No horrendous weapons (like chemical and biological weapons) or tactics (like mass rape or genocide) can be used. Treachery, like disguising soldiers to look like civilians, cannot be used.

    Proportionality — No more force can be used than is required to succeed — wanton killing and destruction are not allowed and collateral civilian deaths must be minimal. http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/understanding/JustWarCriteria.pdf
     

    ---

    George wrote:


    We run into trouble only when we seek to rebuild people in our image. We should never try that again.
     
    No George.
    You run into trouble when you think and act upon the notion that wanton mass killing is the right of an entity just because it possesses the means to do so. That's called psychopathology. Your comment reeks of it.

    To the extent that people -- like Iraqis and Palestinians -- resist being "rebuilt in [y]our image," it seems to me that is a sign of their sanity.

    absolutely beautiful and comprehensive response, Solonto; thank you !

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Namaste y'all.

    Even you, George.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. annamaria says:
    @Sherman
    "The top friends of Likudnik Israel are easily identifiable through Google"

    Google was founded by Jews. Many of its top officers and engineers are Jewish.

    Google also maintains a large office (as do many hi-tech companies) in Israel.

    Perhaps Giraldi and his fellow Holocaust denying buddies should also boycott Google.

    What has Google to do with Zionism? Why are you trying to equate the sufferings of East European Jews during the WWII with the legitimate criticism of Israel’s atrocities towards the native Palestinian population (these atrocities are an insult to the memory of Holocaust victims).
    There is a growing dissatisfaction of the US citizens of various ethnicities with the treasonous behavior of Israeli Lobby and with the US Senators bought by the Lobby. Perhaps you need to ponder how come that Israel is the only country that is perceived as preying on the American resources.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Sam Shama says:

    Iranian theocratic/terrorist state has called for the destruction of America continuously:

    A comprehensive study of the statements and belief systems of top Iranian officials over an extended period of time would cut through any deception

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America

    There is much more………

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    The wiki notes that "In most official Iranian translations, the phrase is translated into English as the less offensive "Down with America, " which is what the letters on the American flag image spell out -- "Down with America."

    In a speech at the Metropolitan Club in NYC a year or so ago, Prof. Richard Bulliet told the audience that as he was preparing his remarks, he asked a Persian-speaking colleague at Columbia University how to say, "Down with America" and "Down with Israel."

    "Marg bar Âmrikâ" and "Marg bar Israel," he was told.

    "Then how do you say, "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," Bulliet asked.

    "The same way: "Marg bar Âmrikâ," "Marg bar Israel." There is no other way to say "Down with ---"; it's the same as "Death to ---."

    Prof. Bulliet continued his comments: "Nevertheless," he said, "It would be a good idea if the Iranians stopped chanting that statement."

    Of course, everyone agrees. It only serves to rouse negative energy.

    --

    But what should the Iranian people and their leaders say in response to American and Israeli leaders AND people who state boldly that their goal is to Hurt, Hang, Suffocate, Starve, Iranians?

    How should Iranians respond when a congressmen with the longevity and influence of Ed Royce says forthrightly that the goal of sanctions on Iran is caused the Iranian people so much distress that they will rise up and overthrow their government?

    What would Americans do if their young nuclear scientists were assassinated?

    An even larger question is this:

    WHY THE FUCK ARE AMERICANS PUTTING UP WITH THIS SHIT?

    WHY ARE THEY NOT OUT IN THEIR STREETS PROTESTING AGAINST
    THE NETANYAHU-INSPIRED BAD ACTS OF THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT?

    This is not who we are as Americans.
    Killing to get ahead is not what we do as Americans.

    If Israelis want to live that way, that is their bad choice.

    Why should the American people be dragged down into the Israeli cesspool?

    The Sins of the Father are Visited Upon His Children

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. David says:
    @George
    "Obviously justified on destroying iran"

    I mean if it persists in pursuing technology that would enable it to do so and that were the onlyears left to deter that threat.

    If your pathology, I mean principle, were widespread, I mean widely held, which it may well be, I suppose it would justify Iran or whomever else you claim the right preemptively to destroy in destroying you. And us in the bargain. Think of the danger: Iran must have a few idiots too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @George123
    That's merely a sophistry, and you know it.

    American threats of violence are are a response, not an initiation, and they are conditional on Iran expressing the wish to destroy us and trying to acquire the means that would allow them to do so.

    Its not rocket science - don't antagonize other countries by wishing for their destruction. If you do, don't be surprised if they destroy you rather than let you get the technology to make weapons of mass destruction.

    Plenty of countries have no problem getting along. Iran could, if it wanted to, be one of them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @chris
    absolutely beautiful and comprehensive response, Solonto; thank you !

    Namaste y’all.

    Even you, George.

    Read More
    • Replies: @George123
    Namaste, SolontoCroesus.

    You gave an intelligent reply, but I feel did not feel it accurately defined the issue.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Wally
    "Perhaps Giraldi and his fellow Holocaust denying buddies should also boycott Google."

    Another desperate hasbara troll has just revealed herself.

    One cannot deny the '6M & gas chamber' when they never happened in the first case.

    Holocau$t Lies, Who Profits?

    www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Sam Shama
    Iranian theocratic/terrorist state has called for the destruction of America continuously:

    A comprehensive study of the statements and belief systems of top Iranian officials over an extended period of time would cut through any deception
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America

    There is much more.........

    The wiki notes that “In most official Iranian translations, the phrase is translated into English as the less offensive “Down with America, ” which is what the letters on the American flag image spell out — “Down with America.”

    In a speech at the Metropolitan Club in NYC a year or so ago, Prof. Richard Bulliet told the audience that as he was preparing his remarks, he asked a Persian-speaking colleague at Columbia University how to say, “Down with America” and “Down with Israel.”

    Marg bar Âmrikâ” and “Marg bar Israel,” he was told.

    “Then how do you say, “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” Bulliet asked.

    “The same way: “Marg bar Âmrikâ,” “Marg bar Israel.” There is no other way to say “Down with —”; it’s the same as “Death to —.”

    Prof. Bulliet continued his comments: “Nevertheless,” he said, “It would be a good idea if the Iranians stopped chanting that statement.”

    Of course, everyone agrees. It only serves to rouse negative energy.

    But what should the Iranian people and their leaders say in response to American and Israeli leaders AND people who state boldly that their goal is to Hurt, Hang, Suffocate, Starve, Iranians?

    How should Iranians respond when a congressmen with the longevity and influence of Ed Royce says forthrightly that the goal of sanctions on Iran is caused the Iranian people so much distress that they will rise up and overthrow their government?

    What would Americans do if their young nuclear scientists were assassinated?

    An even larger question is this:

    WHY THE FUCK ARE AMERICANS PUTTING UP WITH THIS SHIT?

    WHY ARE THEY NOT OUT IN THEIR STREETS PROTESTING AGAINST
    THE NETANYAHU-INSPIRED BAD ACTS OF THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT?

    This is not who we are as Americans.
    Killing to get ahead is not what we do as Americans.

    If Israelis want to live that way, that is their bad choice.

    Why should the American people be dragged down into the Israeli cesspool?

    The Sins of the Father are Visited Upon His Children

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Clyde says:

    I am perfectly fine with Israel taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities. Strong nuclear EMP blasts over Tehran and Isfahan will also set back Iran quite a bit. Israel has no friend in the White House with that semi-Mulsim Obama who had two Muslim fathers who abandoned him. Here’s hoping Obama plays it neutral and does not try to sabotage any such Israeli attack.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    You do understand that you advocate a mass murder...
    , @Chris Mallory
    By his actions, Obama has shown he is more likely a secret Israeli than that he is any kind of Muslim.
    , @MarkinLA
    Israel can't do it and if they tried Iran will go deeply underground and build a bomb. Mossad knows this, that is why they want the US to do their dirty work.
    , @Anonymous
    clyde: how much more do you want Obama do for your shity state ? you think dropping Bombs and killing innocent people solve the problem on false information you assholes are disseminating didnt you do that to Iraq and who is next on your project Rambo wanker . you insulting American President that trying to keep peace. you are a true POS
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Realist says:
    @alexander
    Are you saying that anyone who seeks to defraud the United States into a war isn't a terrorist ?
    Then what are they?

    Defrauding us into war of aggression is the essence of " Terrorism" with a capital" T".....isn't it ?

    If it isn't, please tell me how it is not?

    Using "forgeries" and concocting fake documents to create the false impression that a country is doing something it is not....to have us initiate a war of aggression(against that country).... that otherwise would never happen....Is the very nature of Evil. It is" terrorizing "us, through fraud, into an action that we would normally never do !



    It is not only" terrorism", but it
    is terrorism in its most pernicious form.....
    and should be treated as such !

    But if you don't see that...I am curious what your argument is ?

    It was a facetious remark.

    We’re talking about Israelis here….the ones calling the shots in the US.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Maj. Kong

    On one side are the serious players, including Secretary of State John Kerry
     
    lol

    Derangement Syndrome much

    Do you take your Pseudonym from the Major Kong in Dr. Strangelove? One of my favorite characters in one of my favorite movies. But you realize he was created as a satirical figure, to illustrate the lunacy of nuclear war, right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. geokat62 says:

    “WHY THE FUCK ARE AMERICANS PUTTING UP WITH THIS SHIT?”

    Great question. My only wish is that this question were asked more often by more people.

    My sense is the Lobby is still strong enough to get their way and get the U.S. to take out Iran. As with most things, though, this is a double-edged sword: while it benefits the Zionist project by removing the keystone in the Shia Arc, it will also provide more irrefutable evidence that the Israel Firsters are placing the interests of a foreign country ahead of their own.

    As I’ve indicated before, when the pendulum swings further in one direction, it will, by necessity, swing further in the other. That said, my sense is the neocons/Israel Firsters will never be content until they swing the pendulum all the way!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. annamaria says:
    @Clyde
    I am perfectly fine with Israel taking out Iran's nuclear facilities. Strong nuclear EMP blasts over Tehran and Isfahan will also set back Iran quite a bit. Israel has no friend in the White House with that semi-Mulsim Obama who had two Muslim fathers who abandoned him. Here's hoping Obama plays it neutral and does not try to sabotage any such Israeli attack.

    You do understand that you advocate a mass murder…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    You do understand that you advocate a mass murder…
     
    You are advocating mass murder of Israelis. So you would just sit on your ass and wait for Iran to strike first? Iran gas been threatening to annihilate Israel for years...... I know. You are going to tell me that those are lies. That the hairy Ayatollahs are actually saints.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Clyde says:
    @annamaria
    You do understand that you advocate a mass murder...

    You do understand that you advocate a mass murder…

    You are advocating mass murder of Israelis. So you would just sit on your ass and wait for Iran to strike first? Iran gas been threatening to annihilate Israel for years…… I know. You are going to tell me that those are lies. That the hairy Ayatollahs are actually saints.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    "Iran gas (sic) been threatening to annihilate Israel for years..."

    Just like Saddam was threatening to annihilate Israel for years with those non-existent weapons of mass deception?
    , @Orville H. Larson
    Piss on Israel, that criminal, racist Zionist entity. And piss on Israel-Firsters.
    , @Chris Mallory
    Defending Israel is not any business of the US government or responsibility of the US taxpayer.
    , @annamaria
    Why does not Israel use diplomacy? For example, Israel showed to be extremely pliable towards ISIS (actually, cooperative with ISIS) when that suits Israel's interests. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.630359 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-islamic-state-isis-and-israel-are-allies/5397522
    Iran has been allowing inspections from IAEA, whereas Israel does not want to cooperate with the Agency and does not admit publicly that Israel has an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Moreover, Israel has forfeited whatever moral ground it has after the WWII by behaving sadistically and murderously towards the native population. A food for thought: What if Europeans start applying the same property law to Israelis that Israelis have been applying to native Palestinians?
    Here in the US, Americans are getting fed up with the Israeli Lobby. The Jewish Americans have found a safe haven in the US, yet they see now how the racist Israeli scum from Moldova and Central Asia guides the influential Israeli-firsters in the US towards disastrous policies in the Middle East. Israel has been harming American interests. The story of Israelis' visceral hatred towards Iran generates another harmful development.
    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/06/httpwwwtypepadcomsiteblogs6a00d8341c72e153ef00d834527e4b69e2post6a00d8341c72e153ef01bb0849e216970d.html
    As for the propaganda of mass murder, nobody does it better than the members of Knesset:
    http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/07/16/371556/israel-must-kill-all-palestinian-mothers/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. geokat62 says:
    @Clyde

    You do understand that you advocate a mass murder…
     
    You are advocating mass murder of Israelis. So you would just sit on your ass and wait for Iran to strike first? Iran gas been threatening to annihilate Israel for years...... I know. You are going to tell me that those are lies. That the hairy Ayatollahs are actually saints.

    “Iran gas (sic) been threatening to annihilate Israel for years…”

    Just like Saddam was threatening to annihilate Israel for years with those non-existent weapons of mass deception?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. George123 says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Namaste y'all.

    Even you, George.

    Namaste, SolontoCroesus.

    You gave an intelligent reply, but I feel did not feel it accurately defined the issue.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. George123 says:
    @David
    If your pathology, I mean principle, were widespread, I mean widely held, which it may well be, I suppose it would justify Iran or whomever else you claim the right preemptively to destroy in destroying you. And us in the bargain. Think of the danger: Iran must have a few idiots too.

    That’s merely a sophistry, and you know it.

    American threats of violence are are a response, not an initiation, and they are conditional on Iran expressing the wish to destroy us and trying to acquire the means that would allow them to do so.

    Its not rocket science – don’t antagonize other countries by wishing for their destruction. If you do, don’t be surprised if they destroy you rather than let you get the technology to make weapons of mass destruction.

    Plenty of countries have no problem getting along. Iran could, if it wanted to, be one of them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. George123 says:
    @geokat62
    "If, on balance, this reveals a clear desire for the destruction of America... [then] the destruction [of Iran] would have to be massive."

    Are you seriously suggesting that Iran is bent on destroying America? Do you feel so threatened that you cannot sleep at night and that this justifies the U.S. launching a war of aggression against Iran, just as it did against Iraq?

    The sad part is that your (and the neocons/Israel Firsters') wet dreams may come true after Obama is out of office and is replaced by neocon darling Killary or one of Adelson's 16 dwarfs!

    I think Iran would like very much to see America destroyed, or at least huge and influential elements within Iran would, and in the region at large.

    Since that’s so, and those elements have made clear their wishes and desires, I would sleep better at night if America used its immense and unstoppable power to ensure that a country that contains such elements in such large numbers, in a region that contains such large elements in such profusion, does not acquire weapons of mass destruction.

    I can’t predict the future, nor the future political organization of Iran or other regional powers and groups. But I know that within Iran and surrounding areas so many wish America to vanish. To that end, I consider it good and sensible policy to guard against future contingencies arising out of the desire of so many within Iran and near to destroy America, to prevent the introduction of nuclear weapons into this volatile element.

    Its just common sense, and it can easily be achieved without destroying Iran – which I would deeply regret – if America would be willing to bring its unstoppable power to bear without apology and make a credible threat that the future survival of Iran is contingent on its giving up its desire for nuclear weapons.

    So much evil in the world can be averted if good men in possession of great power would be willing to use it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Just reviewed a few of your previous comments and came across this one, which pertains to Israel's attack on the USS Liberty:

    Allies, my foot. Trojan horse is more like it. Zionists and Jewish liberalism have all but destroyed this country. Shades of the Protocols. As Henry Ford noted, whatever their true origin, they fit with what is going on.
     
    Given this comment, I'm surprised you cannot connect the dots when it comes to Iran. Wasn't it W's speech-writer, David Frum, a died-in-the-wool neocon, who coined the phrase "Axis of Evil"? Who did the neocons include in this axis? Wasn't it Iraq, Iran, and North Korea? The first two were bitter foes who had recently fought a bloody war for 8 years, but for some reason they were somehow lumped together in the axis of evil. The third, NK, was substituted for Syria since the goy may have figured out what the common denominator was if the axis was Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Speaking of Syria, they have been locked in a bitter civil war for over four years now.

    So Act I was to remove Saddam in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, both of which bolstered the Iranians. Act II is the Sunni turn, with the U.S. aiding and abetting al-Qaeda to confront the Shia Crescent. And Act III is a Sunni/Shia war with the Sunnis led by KSA and the Shia by Iran. The idea is that these two sides will be too busy slaughtering each other to notice or care that Greater Israel will be stealing more and more land.

    Why were these 3 countries - Iran, Iraq, and Syria (not NK) - included in the axis of evil? Because they were all supporting the Palestinians in their struggle against Israeli oppression. As a result, they were are targeted for regime change. It's all in PNAC's Clean Break and Oded Yinon's A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties. You should give them a read and tell us if you still think Iran is such a clear and present danger to the homeland!

    , @Cloak And Dagger
    @George

    Your premise is preposterous. You have determined that Iran seeks to destroy America, and therefore, we should attack and destroy it first.

    By that logic, they have every right to destroy the US and Israel, because there is a constant stream of war provocations emanating from both these countries towards Iran. Even a sitting senator, McCain, goes out singing "bomb, bomb Iran", while political donors like Adelson recommend using nukes against that country.
    , @Carroll Price
    Stop hiding behind words. Iran poses absolutely no threat to America and you know it. What you are really worried about is that Iran posses a major threat to Israel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Sam Shama says:

    and others,

    Your argument if I understand it correctly, is that if Iran gets a nuke, that will ‘balance’ the power structure in the ME.

    I have said this before and don’t mind repeating, giving Iran the capability to have nuclear enrichment makes zero sense. It will lead to their acquiring a nuke inevitably, which will lead to many other ME countries getting it too. How does this make the region and the world safer?!!

    I was unaware of this until recently, but India and Pakistan came really close to a nuclear war

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

    extract:
    The nature of the India-Pakistan conflict took a more sinister turn when the United States received intelligence that Pakistani nuclear warheads were being moved towards the border. Bill Clinton tried to dissuade Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif from nuclear brinkmanship, even threatening Pakistan of dire consequences. According to a White House official, Sharif seemed to be genuinely surprised by this supposed missile movement and responded that India was probably planning the same. In a May 2000 article, Sanjay Badri-Maharaj claimed that India too had readied at least five nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, but could not back up this claim with any official proof.

    What makes you guys think that if more countries in the ME had nukes, a real disaster would not happen?

    I think Iran needs to be stopped right now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Look, it's a pretty simple principle: either everyone is allowed to have a nuke or no one is. If you are so keen to stop Iran from getting a nuke (which is contrary to what the most recent NIE indicates), you should be equally keen to disarm Israel, immediately. If you are truly seeking stability, you should be supportive of this approach. But my sense is that you are seeking something else!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama
    @geokat62 and others,

    Your argument if I understand it correctly, is that if Iran gets a nuke, that will 'balance' the power structure in the ME.

    I have said this before and don't mind repeating, giving Iran the capability to have nuclear enrichment makes zero sense. It will lead to their acquiring a nuke inevitably, which will lead to many other ME countries getting it too. How does this make the region and the world safer?!!

    I was unaware of this until recently, but India and Pakistan came really close to a nuclear war


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

    extract:
    The nature of the India-Pakistan conflict took a more sinister turn when the United States received intelligence that Pakistani nuclear warheads were being moved towards the border. Bill Clinton tried to dissuade Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif from nuclear brinkmanship, even threatening Pakistan of dire consequences. According to a White House official, Sharif seemed to be genuinely surprised by this supposed missile movement and responded that India was probably planning the same. In a May 2000 article, Sanjay Badri-Maharaj claimed that India too had readied at least five nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, but could not back up this claim with any official proof.
     
    What makes you guys think that if more countries in the ME had nukes, a real disaster would not happen?

    I think Iran needs to be stopped right now.

    Look, it’s a pretty simple principle: either everyone is allowed to have a nuke or no one is. If you are so keen to stop Iran from getting a nuke (which is contrary to what the most recent NIE indicates), you should be equally keen to disarm Israel, immediately. If you are truly seeking stability, you should be supportive of this approach. But my sense is that you are seeking something else!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Obviously, the Israeli right and its “Amen corner” are terrible for American interests in the region. But what about the Saudis, and the other Sunni states in the region? It seems to me, that the Saudis and the other fundamentalist Sunni states oppose Iran’s nuclear program just as much as Israel; and they would also try to get the United States to attack Iran. I’m not letting Israel and the lobby off the hook, I’m just suggesting that these gulf states, which also receive a good bit of American aid, are just as problematic as the “Israeli firsters.” This a point that Prof. Michael Scheuer has repeatedly made.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    "I’m not letting Israel and the lobby off the hook, ..."

    Of course not. It's that nefarious Saudi lobby that is undermining the national interest. Let me ask you a question: how many times has the ruler of Saudi Arabia addressed a joint session of congress, ... and how many standing ovations did he receive?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. geokat62 says:
    @George123
    I think Iran would like very much to see America destroyed, or at least huge and influential elements within Iran would, and in the region at large.

    Since that's so, and those elements have made clear their wishes and desires, I would sleep better at night if America used its immense and unstoppable power to ensure that a country that contains such elements in such large numbers, in a region that contains such large elements in such profusion, does not acquire weapons of mass destruction.

    I can't predict the future, nor the future political organization of Iran or other regional powers and groups. But I know that within Iran and surrounding areas so many wish America to vanish. To that end, I consider it good and sensible policy to guard against future contingencies arising out of the desire of so many within Iran and near to destroy America, to prevent the introduction of nuclear weapons into this volatile element.

    Its just common sense, and it can easily be achieved without destroying Iran - which I would deeply regret - if America would be willing to bring its unstoppable power to bear without apology and make a credible threat that the future survival of Iran is contingent on its giving up its desire for nuclear weapons.

    So much evil in the world can be averted if good men in possession of great power would be willing to use it.

    Just reviewed a few of your previous comments and came across this one, which pertains to Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty:

    Allies, my foot. Trojan horse is more like it. Zionists and Jewish liberalism have all but destroyed this country. Shades of the Protocols. As Henry Ford noted, whatever their true origin, they fit with what is going on.

    Given this comment, I’m surprised you cannot connect the dots when it comes to Iran. Wasn’t it W’s speech-writer, David Frum, a died-in-the-wool neocon, who coined the phrase “Axis of Evil”? Who did the neocons include in this axis? Wasn’t it Iraq, Iran, and North Korea? The first two were bitter foes who had recently fought a bloody war for 8 years, but for some reason they were somehow lumped together in the axis of evil. The third, NK, was substituted for Syria since the goy may have figured out what the common denominator was if the axis was Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Speaking of Syria, they have been locked in a bitter civil war for over four years now.

    So Act I was to remove Saddam in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, both of which bolstered the Iranians. Act II is the Sunni turn, with the U.S. aiding and abetting al-Qaeda to confront the Shia Crescent. And Act III is a Sunni/Shia war with the Sunnis led by KSA and the Shia by Iran. The idea is that these two sides will be too busy slaughtering each other to notice or care that Greater Israel will be stealing more and more land.

    Why were these 3 countries – Iran, Iraq, and Syria (not NK) – included in the axis of evil? Because they were all supporting the Palestinians in their struggle against Israeli oppression. As a result, they were are targeted for regime change. It’s all in PNAC’s Clean Break and Oded Yinon’s A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties. You should give them a read and tell us if you still think Iran is such a clear and present danger to the homeland!

    Read More
    • Replies: @George123
    That wasn't my comment. That must have been a different George.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. geokat62 says:
    @David Bruce
    Obviously, the Israeli right and its "Amen corner" are terrible for American interests in the region. But what about the Saudis, and the other Sunni states in the region? It seems to me, that the Saudis and the other fundamentalist Sunni states oppose Iran's nuclear program just as much as Israel; and they would also try to get the United States to attack Iran. I'm not letting Israel and the lobby off the hook, I'm just suggesting that these gulf states, which also receive a good bit of American aid, are just as problematic as the "Israeli firsters." This a point that Prof. Michael Scheuer has repeatedly made.

    “I’m not letting Israel and the lobby off the hook, …”

    Of course not. It’s that nefarious Saudi lobby that is undermining the national interest. Let me ask you a question: how many times has the ruler of Saudi Arabia addressed a joint session of congress, … and how many standing ovations did he receive?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. George123 says:
    @geokat62
    Just reviewed a few of your previous comments and came across this one, which pertains to Israel's attack on the USS Liberty:

    Allies, my foot. Trojan horse is more like it. Zionists and Jewish liberalism have all but destroyed this country. Shades of the Protocols. As Henry Ford noted, whatever their true origin, they fit with what is going on.
     
    Given this comment, I'm surprised you cannot connect the dots when it comes to Iran. Wasn't it W's speech-writer, David Frum, a died-in-the-wool neocon, who coined the phrase "Axis of Evil"? Who did the neocons include in this axis? Wasn't it Iraq, Iran, and North Korea? The first two were bitter foes who had recently fought a bloody war for 8 years, but for some reason they were somehow lumped together in the axis of evil. The third, NK, was substituted for Syria since the goy may have figured out what the common denominator was if the axis was Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Speaking of Syria, they have been locked in a bitter civil war for over four years now.

    So Act I was to remove Saddam in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, both of which bolstered the Iranians. Act II is the Sunni turn, with the U.S. aiding and abetting al-Qaeda to confront the Shia Crescent. And Act III is a Sunni/Shia war with the Sunnis led by KSA and the Shia by Iran. The idea is that these two sides will be too busy slaughtering each other to notice or care that Greater Israel will be stealing more and more land.

    Why were these 3 countries - Iran, Iraq, and Syria (not NK) - included in the axis of evil? Because they were all supporting the Palestinians in their struggle against Israeli oppression. As a result, they were are targeted for regime change. It's all in PNAC's Clean Break and Oded Yinon's A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties. You should give them a read and tell us if you still think Iran is such a clear and present danger to the homeland!

    That wasn’t my comment. That must have been a different George.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    That's odd. I simply clicked on your name and this comment was number 86 and it was a response to Samson in the comment thread to the following article:

    Criticizing Israel for Correct and Incorrect Reasons
    Paul Gottfried • January 5, 2015
    • 1,200 Words • 100 Comments • Reply

    Others should give it a try and see if they get the same result.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  47. Man, you caught me! I’m really a sophisticated Hasbra troll! Only a Hasbra troll and a AIPAC agent would suggest that Israel isn’t the only problem for American interests in the region.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. @Geokat62,
    I guess antiwar.com (which also posts Giraldi’s work) is trying to let the Israel lobby off the hook: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/04/19/our-enemies-the-saudis/

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Thanks for that link. I recall reading this column... I may have even commented on it by agreeing with most of his analysis. I've provided excerpts (see below) of the most relevant passages. He seems to be saying the same thing I am, using terms such as "Sunni Turn" and "Regional War led by Iran and KSA". I didn't read anywhere that the Saudi Lobby is responsible for the U.S. attempting to drain the swamp by remaking the ME in its own image in order to enhance the security of the KSA. I did, however, read somewhere (Clean Break and Strategy for Israel in the 1980s) that this is exactly what the Israel Lobby is trying to do. Why don't you give Mearsheimer and Walt a read and tell which lobby is responsible for all the mayhem in the ME. I'll give you a clue: the title of the book is not The Saudi Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy!

    Today, however, we are actively assisting the heirs of Osama bin Laden, not only in Yemen but also in Syria, where the mythical “moderate” Islamists are fighting to overthrow the government – with our help. As we funnel arms to the “Free Syrian Army,” their battalions are defecting to Al Qaeda affiliates by the hundreds and thousands. And of course the Saudis and the Gulf states have been funding the Syrian Islamists all along.

    This is all part of the “Sunni turn” on the part of the United States ... The policy was continued and elaborated on by the Obama administration when the “Arab Spring” was in its heyday. In fear of being left behind by events, the US State Department under Hillary Clinton sought to hitch a ride on that particular bandwagon by taking a “proactive” role, encouraging the turmoil and forging links to Islamists in Egypt, Syria and Libya.

    Events in the Middle East are rapidly culminating in what could be the opening shots of a regional war. As an armed Iranian convoy heads for Yemen, a direct clash between Riyadh and Tehran is in the works.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. geokat62 says:
    @George123
    That wasn't my comment. That must have been a different George.

    That’s odd. I simply clicked on your name and this comment was number 86 and it was a response to Samson in the comment thread to the following article:

    Criticizing Israel for Correct and Incorrect Reasons
    Paul Gottfried • January 5, 2015
    • 1,200 Words • 100 Comments • Reply

    Others should give it a try and see if they get the same result.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Clyde

    You do understand that you advocate a mass murder…
     
    You are advocating mass murder of Israelis. So you would just sit on your ass and wait for Iran to strike first? Iran gas been threatening to annihilate Israel for years...... I know. You are going to tell me that those are lies. That the hairy Ayatollahs are actually saints.

    Piss on Israel, that criminal, racist Zionist entity. And piss on Israel-Firsters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    You are a Muhammad firster posting under phoney Anglo name
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @geokat62
    "If, on balance, this reveals a clear desire for the destruction of America... [then] the destruction [of Iran] would have to be massive."

    Are you seriously suggesting that Iran is bent on destroying America? Do you feel so threatened that you cannot sleep at night and that this justifies the U.S. launching a war of aggression against Iran, just as it did against Iraq?

    The sad part is that your (and the neocons/Israel Firsters') wet dreams may come true after Obama is out of office and is replaced by neocon darling Killary or one of Adelson's 16 dwarfs!

    “The sad part is that your (and the neocons/Israel Firsters’) wet dreams may come true after Obama is out of office and is replaced by neocon darling Killary or one of Adelson’s 16 dwarfs!”

    Excellent!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. That foreign policy in America and Israel should be directed by someone with the moral clarity of a gambling kingpin is an absurdity. I suppose the irresistible power of casino money is such that those who once would have been considered organized crime figures can not only buy both American and Israeli politicians, but also religious leaders of such integrity that they will genuflect on cue to the gambling boss’ insane proposals to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

    I keep thinking this best describes our current polity:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. @SolontoCroesus

    If senior political figures within a country continuously wish for your destruction . . .I think it’s well within the limits of just war theory that we go to war to prevent that.
     
    Hossein Mousavian responded to a similar question from a participant in Seminars at the National War College recently.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-LlFo56Wic&feature=youtu.be

    Dan Hershkowitz of Seminar 21 16, 19 asked the question:


    Talk about Israel: from an Iranian point of view do you feel it possible that the rhetoric that has come out of Iran the last several years uh talking about annihilating Israel and even discounting that the holocaust even took place, do you think it is possible that Iran and Israel can ever come to the table and talk about peace?

     

    Dr. Mousavian responded (wrt "annihilation" rhetoric):

    You are right — Iran rhetoric — it was the last president.
    The present president has condemned holocaust and congratulated the Jews on new year. [Iran] never before had such a policy.
    But Netanyahu has not changed. … [so] I don’t know whether it matters or not. If it really matters for Israelis then Israel should have acknowledged [Iran's change of behavior].
     
    Just war doctrine requires that:

    "Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted, especially good-faith diplomatic negotiations." http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/understanding/JustWarCriteria.pdf
     
    The offensive rhetoric you complain of has been resolved through "good-faith diplomatic negotiations" without the use of force. The offense, however specious, no longer exists.

    Moreover,

    No more force can be used than is required to succeed — wanton killing and destruction are not allowed and collateral civilian deaths must be minimal. http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/understanding/JustWarCriteria.pdf
     
    "Proportionality," applied to this situation, would mean that Israel could attack Iran with the same rhetoric, continually wishing for Iran's destruction. Which Israel has done and continues to do.


    Regarding your second point:


    [Iran] want[s] the capacity to develop nuclear weapons . . . I think it’s well within the limits of just war theory that we go to war to prevent that.
     
    1. There is no proof that Iran wants "the capacity to develop nuclear weapons." As Dr. Giraldi noted:

    "I refer to a “nonexistent” program as the frequently cited intelligence suggesting that a weapon was being developed has turned out to be based on forgeries provided by the Israelis. Currently, both the CIA and Mossad agree that no such program exists though both Washington and Tel Aviv persist in suggesting that Iran might change its mind*** and therefore must not even be able to develop relevant technologies in the future. "
     
    For emphasis: "both the CIA and Mossad agree that" a nuclear weapons program does not exist in Iran.

    2. Furthermore, (and wrt ***) Iran's highest religious authorities have issued a fatwa against the use of any weapon of mass destruction. Given that a major complaint about the Islamic Republic of Iran is that it is a "theocracy" that governs by religious, Islamic principles, one is forced to concede that either Iran is not run by Islamic principles therefore a fatwa is meaningless, or Iran is governed by Islamic principles and the fatwa against Iranian use of WMD is determinative.

    The latter position has been demonstrated to be the case: When Iranian soldiers as well as civilians were attacked with chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein, Iran's religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, would not permit the use of chemical weapons in retaliation. Iran walked the talk.

    3. Finally, as a signatory to the NPT, Iran is within its rights to pursue development of nuclear technology. The conditions of those rights include monitoring of Iran's use of that technology, which is carried out by the appropriate enforcement body, the IAEA. In fact, Iran is subjected to more intrusive and comprehensive nuclear monitoring than any other NPT signatory.

    It should also be noted that the IAEA has violated its obligations to maintain confidentiality and has leaked "volumes of information" about Iranian facilities to the extent that the USA has been able to build highly-accurate mock-ups of Iran's nuclear facilities. (It is also reasonable to speculate that IAEA has leaked information about the identity of Iranian nuclear scientists that has resulted in their assassinations, not unlikely by Mossad.)

    The USA did something similar, beginning in 1939, with respect to Germany: it built precisely detailed replicas of German and Japanese workers' housing in the desert at Dugway, Utah. Erich Mendelsohn, "the Jewish architect," assisted in the design work for "German village," and Jewish-run RKO Studios provided interior decor expertise. Included in the furnishings of German village -


    "In the bedroom, the single beds were placed together in pairs, with a crib ■adjacent, reflective of a young family with an infant." [source: DUGWAY PROVING GROUND, GERMAN
    VILLAGE, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

     
    (Deliberately targeting civilians is, of course, contrary to the principles of Just War and are crimes against humanity. The Allies have never been called to account for the war crimes that took the lives of some 600,000 German civilians and hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.

    When Benjamin Netanyahu says that "Iran is Germany," the civilized world must pay attention: the US, and Israel and prominent Jewish persons in the USA are taking steps ominously similar to those taken by the USA and Britain when they deliberately planned and carried out the terror bombing of German civilians, with which prominent Jewish persons collaborated.

    These facts, documented and validated by government agencies of the USA, must be forcefully brought to the attention of every US congressperson.)


    For your reference, George -- Some notes on what the civilized world has developed to control war-like impulses -- now you do not have the excuse of ignorance:


    The doctrine of justifiable war assumes a presumption against war — war should not be launched unless all the criteria are met (jus ad bellum), the war will be fought in a moral way (jus in bello), and it will be ended in a moral way (jus post bellum). There is no “official” set of criteria, but the following criteria are the main ones typically suggested.

    Jus ad bellum (what justifies going to war)

    Just Cause — Force may be used only to correct a
    grave, public harm, such as defending against unjust aggression or intervening to stop massive violation of basic human rights of whole populations (such as genocide).

    Legitimate Authority — War must serve public and not merely private purposes. So only duly constituted authorities at the highest levels of a legitimate government — those who bear the responsibility to decide matters that are for the good of the people — can make the decision and they must do so publicly. Private armies cannot conduct their own wars.

    Formal Declaration — Before using force, a country/entity must make a formal declaration of war and delineate its aims.

    Right Intention — War must be waged for the sake of a just cause, not out of ethnic hatred, for revenge, for wanton killing and destruction, [take note, George. Genocide is not a 'right intention'] for material gain, nor to grab power. War’s ultimate goal must be reconciliation and the restoration of justice. In addition, those who undertake war, even for a justifiable cause, should act not with arrogance or self-righteousness, but with humility, regret, and full recognition of the humanity of their adversaries.

    Probability of Success — Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success. It is not right to wreak widespread havoc for a lost cause, even if the war is defensive.

    Proportionality — The good a war will accomplish — or the evil it will prevent — in total must outweigh the totality of suffering it will inevitably cause to all parties. It is morally wrong to make matters worse.

    Last Resort — Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted, especially good-faith diplomatic negotiations.

    Jus in bello (how combatants must act)

    Discrimination and Non-Combatant Immunity
    War must only be directed towards those engaged in harm — enemy combatants — and not towards civilians caught in circumstances they did not create. Only attacks on legitimate military, political, and industrial targets involved in rights-violating harm are permitted. Attacks on civilian factories supporting the war effort are questionable. While some collateral civilian casualties are excusable, intentional attacks upon non-combatants or prisoners are clearly forbidden. Weapons of mass destruction, because they kill and maim so many civilians, cannot be used.

    No Atrocious Weapons — No horrendous weapons (like chemical and biological weapons) or tactics (like mass rape or genocide) can be used. Treachery, like disguising soldiers to look like civilians, cannot be used.

    Proportionality — No more force can be used than is required to succeed — wanton killing and destruction are not allowed and collateral civilian deaths must be minimal. http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/understanding/JustWarCriteria.pdf
     

    ---

    George wrote:


    We run into trouble only when we seek to rebuild people in our image. We should never try that again.
     
    No George.
    You run into trouble when you think and act upon the notion that wanton mass killing is the right of an entity just because it possesses the means to do so. That's called psychopathology. Your comment reeks of it.

    To the extent that people -- like Iraqis and Palestinians -- resist being "rebuilt in [y]our image," it seems to me that is a sign of their sanity.

    Fantastic and scholarly post,SolontoCroesus! Extremely informative and well-argued.

    To your excellent points, I would add that the belligerent (Israel) complaining about the potential for and intent of Iran, a signatory of the NPT, to develop nuclear weapons, is laughable considering that Israel has neither signed the NPT, nor permits IAEA inspections, while sitting on a clandestine pile of nuclear weapons that are no longer ambiguous speculations.

    I would also add that these provocations to wage war on Iran, a country that has not attacked anyone in 300 years, are coming from both chickenhawk armchair warriors, and of course, from the rogue nation of Israel, who would like us to fight their wars for them. Despite our massive aid to that sh*tty little country, including advanced armaments, their cowardly IDF is incapable of war against anyone but unarmed civilians, as demonstrated by the shameful routing they received from Hizbollah on their last military adventure of attacking Lebanon. If Netanyahu wants war with Iran, let him have at it. Do you know what happens to a dog chasing a car if he actually catches it?

    Finally, I will add that the Iran Nuclear deal is, in fact, an existential threat to Israel – but not because Iran will attack them. No, with our warming relations with Iran, the temperature in the Middle East will be greatly reduced with increased trade and reduced violence. This will be terrible for Israel as it will no longer be able to distract the world’s attention from its atrocities on the Palestinians, and will stand naked in front of the world without the US being there to protect it from world condemnation. That will be the end of Israel.

    A 2009 CIA report predicted that Israel would cease to exist by 2030. I give it till 2025, and I am being generous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Iran leaders must have rocks for brains. Saddam and Kaduffy got suckered in by USA– told to get rid of their missiles and Uncle Scam will trade with you. Really honestly, cross my heart, honest to god–sanctions will be removed. Bombs away–millions dead.
    Iran—run for your lives. Stay put.You are dealing with Satan’s child–even the devil fears USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloak And Dagger
    It doesn't really matter - the sanctions against Iran are disintegrating on their own. This deal is a win-win for Iran. If it goes through, Iran will be restored as a regional power participating in trade with the west and able to develop its economy. If the deal fails because of all the rhetoric, the US congress and Israel will be blamed by the world, who will not uphold the sanctions. While the first outcome is preferable, Iran could probably live with the second one as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Clyde
    I am perfectly fine with Israel taking out Iran's nuclear facilities. Strong nuclear EMP blasts over Tehran and Isfahan will also set back Iran quite a bit. Israel has no friend in the White House with that semi-Mulsim Obama who had two Muslim fathers who abandoned him. Here's hoping Obama plays it neutral and does not try to sabotage any such Israeli attack.

    By his actions, Obama has shown he is more likely a secret Israeli than that he is any kind of Muslim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Clyde

    You do understand that you advocate a mass murder…
     
    You are advocating mass murder of Israelis. So you would just sit on your ass and wait for Iran to strike first? Iran gas been threatening to annihilate Israel for years...... I know. You are going to tell me that those are lies. That the hairy Ayatollahs are actually saints.

    Defending Israel is not any business of the US government or responsibility of the US taxpayer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    Defending Israel is not any business of the US government or responsibility of the US taxpayer.
     
    So the Obama administration should not interfere by leaking satellite reconnaissance data etc to Iran if Israel decides to take out Iranian nukes. I have seen internet chatter that this interference has been done in the past.
    , @Cloak And Dagger
    You got that right, Chris. It is the Israel Lobby and Jewish billionaires like Adelson who are corrupting our government by buying the venal politicians in our congress or blackmailing them with Jewish pedophilia rings like the one from Epstein and Dershowitz.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. annamaria says:
    @Clyde

    You do understand that you advocate a mass murder…
     
    You are advocating mass murder of Israelis. So you would just sit on your ass and wait for Iran to strike first? Iran gas been threatening to annihilate Israel for years...... I know. You are going to tell me that those are lies. That the hairy Ayatollahs are actually saints.

    Why does not Israel use diplomacy? For example, Israel showed to be extremely pliable towards ISIS (actually, cooperative with ISIS) when that suits Israel’s interests. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.630359 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-islamic-state-isis-and-israel-are-allies/5397522
    Iran has been allowing inspections from IAEA, whereas Israel does not want to cooperate with the Agency and does not admit publicly that Israel has an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Moreover, Israel has forfeited whatever moral ground it has after the WWII by behaving sadistically and murderously towards the native population. A food for thought: What if Europeans start applying the same property law to Israelis that Israelis have been applying to native Palestinians?
    Here in the US, Americans are getting fed up with the Israeli Lobby. The Jewish Americans have found a safe haven in the US, yet they see now how the racist Israeli scum from Moldova and Central Asia guides the influential Israeli-firsters in the US towards disastrous policies in the Middle East. Israel has been harming American interests. The story of Israelis’ visceral hatred towards Iran generates another harmful development.

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/06/httpwwwtypepadcomsiteblogs6a00d8341c72e153ef00d834527e4b69e2post6a00d8341c72e153ef01bb0849e216970d.html

    As for the propaganda of mass murder, nobody does it better than the members of Knesset:

    http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/07/16/371556/israel-must-kill-all-palestinian-mothers/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Clyde says:
    @Orville H. Larson
    Piss on Israel, that criminal, racist Zionist entity. And piss on Israel-Firsters.

    You are a Muhammad firster posting under phoney Anglo name

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloak And Dagger
    He may be a Muhammad firster, whatever that means. Try refuting his logic rather than ad hominems which always make for poor arguments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. geokat62 says:
    @David Bruce
    @Geokat62,
    I guess antiwar.com (which also posts Giraldi's work) is trying to let the Israel lobby off the hook: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/04/19/our-enemies-the-saudis/

    Thanks for that link. I recall reading this column… I may have even commented on it by agreeing with most of his analysis. I’ve provided excerpts (see below) of the most relevant passages. He seems to be saying the same thing I am, using terms such as “Sunni Turn” and “Regional War led by Iran and KSA”. I didn’t read anywhere that the Saudi Lobby is responsible for the U.S. attempting to drain the swamp by remaking the ME in its own image in order to enhance the security of the KSA. I did, however, read somewhere (Clean Break and Strategy for Israel in the 1980s) that this is exactly what the Israel Lobby is trying to do. Why don’t you give Mearsheimer and Walt a read and tell which lobby is responsible for all the mayhem in the ME. I’ll give you a clue: the title of the book is not The Saudi Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy!

    Today, however, we are actively assisting the heirs of Osama bin Laden, not only in Yemen but also in Syria, where the mythical “moderate” Islamists are fighting to overthrow the government – with our help. As we funnel arms to the “Free Syrian Army,” their battalions are defecting to Al Qaeda affiliates by the hundreds and thousands. And of course the Saudis and the Gulf states have been funding the Syrian Islamists all along.

    This is all part of the “Sunni turn” on the part of the United States … The policy was continued and elaborated on by the Obama administration when the “Arab Spring” was in its heyday. In fear of being left behind by events, the US State Department under Hillary Clinton sought to hitch a ride on that particular bandwagon by taking a “proactive” role, encouraging the turmoil and forging links to Islamists in Egypt, Syria and Libya.

    Events in the Middle East are rapidly culminating in what could be the opening shots of a regional war. As an armed Iranian convoy heads for Yemen, a direct clash between Riyadh and Tehran is in the works.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David Bruce
    @geokat62,
    I'm well aware of the Israel Lobby. I read Mearsheimer and Walt's book twice, during undergrad; I also read their article that appeared in the London Review of Books. Also, I never said there was a Saudi lobby. I merely suggested that the Saudi government has a lot of influence on the American government. It's undeniable that the United States props up the Saudi government, despite the Saudis' support for jihadists and their penchant for jailing and executing dissidents. Also, Neocon whores, like Lindsay Graham, have repeatedly called for us to "stand by" our supposed Saudi allies. All I'm suggesting is that Israel and its lobby aren't the problems for American foreign policy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Clyde says:
    @Chris Mallory
    Defending Israel is not any business of the US government or responsibility of the US taxpayer.

    Defending Israel is not any business of the US government or responsibility of the US taxpayer.

    So the Obama administration should not interfere by leaking satellite reconnaissance data etc to Iran if Israel decides to take out Iranian nukes. I have seen internet chatter that this interference has been done in the past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    logic is not your strong suit, Clyde.

    "leaking satellite data to Iran if Israel decides to attack Iran" would benefit, or defend, Iran, not Israel.

    I for one am all for it.
    But it would be a pathetic and not at all exculpatory action: USA would still be guilty up to its Adam's apple if Israel attacks Iran.

    To completely extricate itself from the moral quagmire US & Israel share, it is essential that USA

    1. cut off all financial aid to Israel;

    2. require that all advocates for Israel's interests comply with 22 U.S.C. § 611 (FARA -- Foreign Agents Registration Act;

    3. demand, as the world's sole superpower and guarantor of the "international order," that Israel join the NPT and submit its nuclear facilities to intrusive monitoring and inspections;

    4. demand that Israel pull back to 1967 borders, declare its borders and stay within its borders; and grant Palestinians right of return;

    5. sanction all forms of commercial, academic and research exchange between USA and Israel until Israel complies with these terms;

    6. restrict Israel's access to SWIFT and to credit facilities tied to US dollar;

    7. require that no person with dual US-Israel citizenship or the imminent possibility of same be employed in US government or crucial US institutions until all of terms are complied with.

    In other words, behave like decent citizens of a civilized world.

    This has nothing to do with Israel's well-being; that's not the job of the USA to provide.

    This is about the well-being of the USA.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Moi says:
    @Sherman
    "The top friends of Likudnik Israel are easily identifiable through Google"

    Google was founded by Jews. Many of its top officers and engineers are Jewish.

    Google also maintains a large office (as do many hi-tech companies) in Israel.

    Perhaps Giraldi and his fellow Holocaust denying buddies should also boycott Google.

    You left out Facebook.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. geokat62 says:

    “I have seen internet chatter…”

    Solid evidence you got there, Clyde. With those standards, you would have been a highly sought after employee of the Office of Special Plans. I think, once in office, Killary or one of the 16 dwarfs are planning to resurrect it. You should seriously consider submitting your resume!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. Two-pronged attack: nefarious, insane-sounding rabid antiSemitism; juxtaposed with the most reasonable sounding Likud propaganda.

    As they say, “Let George do it!”

    Unz.com sock puppet trollery at its most frenzied, all heat, no light. It reminds me of the Dostoyevsky short, “Bobok.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Two-pronged attack: nefarious, insane-sounding rabid antiSemitism; juxtaposed with the most reasonable sounding Likud propaganda. . . .

    Unz.com sock puppet trollery at its most frenzied, all heat, no light.'
     

    ? ? ?


    if you hit the Reply button & use that box to compose comment rather than post a decontextualized comment in the hoi polloi Comment box, readers will be able to connect Comment to its precedent and have a better sense of what you are talking about.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Fran Macadam
    Two-pronged attack: nefarious, insane-sounding rabid antiSemitism; juxtaposed with the most reasonable sounding Likud propaganda.

    As they say, "Let George do it!"

    Unz.com sock puppet trollery at its most frenzied, all heat, no light. It reminds me of the Dostoyevsky short, "Bobok."

    Two-pronged attack: nefarious, insane-sounding rabid antiSemitism; juxtaposed with the most reasonable sounding Likud propaganda. . . .

    Unz.com sock puppet trollery at its most frenzied, all heat, no light.’

    ? ? ?

    if you hit the Reply button & use that box to compose comment rather than post a decontextualized comment in the hoi polloi Comment box, readers will be able to connect Comment to its precedent and have a better sense of what you are talking about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    There's so much of it, that what's worthwhile is sui generis
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Clyde

    Defending Israel is not any business of the US government or responsibility of the US taxpayer.
     
    So the Obama administration should not interfere by leaking satellite reconnaissance data etc to Iran if Israel decides to take out Iranian nukes. I have seen internet chatter that this interference has been done in the past.

    logic is not your strong suit, Clyde.

    “leaking satellite data to Iran if Israel decides to attack Iran” would benefit, or defend, Iran, not Israel.

    I for one am all for it.
    But it would be a pathetic and not at all exculpatory action: USA would still be guilty up to its Adam’s apple if Israel attacks Iran.

    To completely extricate itself from the moral quagmire US & Israel share, it is essential that USA

    1. cut off all financial aid to Israel;

    2. require that all advocates for Israel’s interests comply with 22 U.S.C. § 611 (FARA — Foreign Agents Registration Act;

    3. demand, as the world’s sole superpower and guarantor of the “international order,” that Israel join the NPT and submit its nuclear facilities to intrusive monitoring and inspections;

    4. demand that Israel pull back to 1967 borders, declare its borders and stay within its borders; and grant Palestinians right of return;

    5. sanction all forms of commercial, academic and research exchange between USA and Israel until Israel complies with these terms;

    6. restrict Israel’s access to SWIFT and to credit facilities tied to US dollar;

    7. require that no person with dual US-Israel citizenship or the imminent possibility of same be employed in US government or crucial US institutions until all of terms are complied with.

    In other words, behave like decent citizens of a civilized world.

    This has nothing to do with Israel’s well-being; that’s not the job of the USA to provide.

    This is about the well-being of the USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    אני יודע שאתה יהודי

    כאשרמגיע היום , תוכל לרוץלישראל
    , @Sam Shama
    אף אחד אחר יכול לחסוך לך
    , @Cloak And Dagger
    I am not too worried about Israel attacking Iran. There modus operandum is to get the US to do it for them. With the ensuing Iran nuclear deal, that seems unlikely.

    With all their bluster and bravado, the IDF is incapable of taking on the might of Iran. They are more suited to attacking unarmed civilians and defenseless women and children in Palestine. Their last attempt in 2006 to attack Lebanon with their much vaunted Merkava tanks (God's Chariot!) resulted in a total embarrassment for them as they had to retreat after 33 days with their tail between their legs, and 49 of those tanks destroyed by Hezbollah guerillas. If they tried that against the much more numerous (over 1 million) Iranian Republican Guard (IRG) with their much more advanced armaments, in the mountainous terrains of Iran, a country much, much larger than Lebanon, the rain of missiles on Tel Aviv would turn it into molten lava in a matter of minutes.

    No, Israel is not going to attack Iran, and all the consternation about the Iran deal has to do with the fact that once it is consummated, neither will the US do so on its behalf like it would in the past.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @geokat62
    Thanks for that link. I recall reading this column... I may have even commented on it by agreeing with most of his analysis. I've provided excerpts (see below) of the most relevant passages. He seems to be saying the same thing I am, using terms such as "Sunni Turn" and "Regional War led by Iran and KSA". I didn't read anywhere that the Saudi Lobby is responsible for the U.S. attempting to drain the swamp by remaking the ME in its own image in order to enhance the security of the KSA. I did, however, read somewhere (Clean Break and Strategy for Israel in the 1980s) that this is exactly what the Israel Lobby is trying to do. Why don't you give Mearsheimer and Walt a read and tell which lobby is responsible for all the mayhem in the ME. I'll give you a clue: the title of the book is not The Saudi Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy!

    Today, however, we are actively assisting the heirs of Osama bin Laden, not only in Yemen but also in Syria, where the mythical “moderate” Islamists are fighting to overthrow the government – with our help. As we funnel arms to the “Free Syrian Army,” their battalions are defecting to Al Qaeda affiliates by the hundreds and thousands. And of course the Saudis and the Gulf states have been funding the Syrian Islamists all along.

    This is all part of the “Sunni turn” on the part of the United States ... The policy was continued and elaborated on by the Obama administration when the “Arab Spring” was in its heyday. In fear of being left behind by events, the US State Department under Hillary Clinton sought to hitch a ride on that particular bandwagon by taking a “proactive” role, encouraging the turmoil and forging links to Islamists in Egypt, Syria and Libya.

    Events in the Middle East are rapidly culminating in what could be the opening shots of a regional war. As an armed Iranian convoy heads for Yemen, a direct clash between Riyadh and Tehran is in the works.
     

    ,
    I’m well aware of the Israel Lobby. I read Mearsheimer and Walt’s book twice, during undergrad; I also read their article that appeared in the London Review of Books. Also, I never said there was a Saudi lobby. I merely suggested that the Saudi government has a lot of influence on the American government. It’s undeniable that the United States props up the Saudi government, despite the Saudis’ support for jihadists and their penchant for jailing and executing dissidents. Also, Neocon whores, like Lindsay Graham, have repeatedly called for us to “stand by” our supposed Saudi allies. All I’m suggesting is that Israel and its lobby aren’t the problems for American foreign policy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
    re: "All I’m suggesting is that Israel and its lobby aren’t the problems for American foreign policy."

    That sobriquet, "We'll have to agree to disagree" is so unsatisfying.

    "Are you out of your frickin' mind" is the appropriate response to your comment that I-lobby is not the problem for American FP.

    In a recent Senate subcommittee hearing committee chair Mac Thornberry silenced, then ejected representatives of Code Pink who demanded that US Senate stop waging war; "Not in our name," they protested.
    In the next breathe Thornberry pledged that "the US will always take Israel's security as a priority."
    There's no part of Israel that is in Thornberry's Texas district. It's gotta be the I-Lobby twisting his arm, paying him off, or blackmailing him that elicits Thornberry's undying fealty -- and treason to the USA.

    --

    In any event, as Yossi Alpher discusses in a recent book, Israel and Saudi Arabia are now forming a relationship to replace the loss of Iran as Israel's buttress and protector in Israel's Periphery Doctrine.
    , @Cloak And Dagger
    You are right - both the Israeli and Saudi governments have influence over the US. That is why those two are now allies against Iran. Both governments need to be dismantled.

    [Instead of leaving numerous, very short comments you should instead combine them together into one or two much longer and more substantial ones.]
    , @geokat62
    You actually read M&W twice and you concluded "that Israel and its lobby aren’t the problems for American foreign policy."

    That's rather impressive... as this this not an easy thing to do. I'm trying to find a logical explanation for this phenomenon... perhaps the version of the book you were reading was missing the first eight chapters?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    logic is not your strong suit, Clyde.

    "leaking satellite data to Iran if Israel decides to attack Iran" would benefit, or defend, Iran, not Israel.

    I for one am all for it.
    But it would be a pathetic and not at all exculpatory action: USA would still be guilty up to its Adam's apple if Israel attacks Iran.

    To completely extricate itself from the moral quagmire US & Israel share, it is essential that USA

    1. cut off all financial aid to Israel;

    2. require that all advocates for Israel's interests comply with 22 U.S.C. § 611 (FARA -- Foreign Agents Registration Act;

    3. demand, as the world's sole superpower and guarantor of the "international order," that Israel join the NPT and submit its nuclear facilities to intrusive monitoring and inspections;

    4. demand that Israel pull back to 1967 borders, declare its borders and stay within its borders; and grant Palestinians right of return;

    5. sanction all forms of commercial, academic and research exchange between USA and Israel until Israel complies with these terms;

    6. restrict Israel's access to SWIFT and to credit facilities tied to US dollar;

    7. require that no person with dual US-Israel citizenship or the imminent possibility of same be employed in US government or crucial US institutions until all of terms are complied with.

    In other words, behave like decent citizens of a civilized world.

    This has nothing to do with Israel's well-being; that's not the job of the USA to provide.

    This is about the well-being of the USA.

    אני יודע שאתה יהודי

    כאשרמגיע היום , תוכל לרוץלישראל

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloak And Dagger
    No one needs to save him. You should worry more about who will save you when all the chicken come home to roost.

    Good luck with that!
    , @Cloak And Dagger
    And how do you know that he is Jewish? And what if he is?
    , @SolontoCroesus
    איך אתה יודע שאני יהודיומה לעשות
    כאשרמגיע
    אומר



    יחסים מיוחדים החדשים :
    איראןוארה"ב
    אם תרצה אין זו אגדה היא .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    logic is not your strong suit, Clyde.

    "leaking satellite data to Iran if Israel decides to attack Iran" would benefit, or defend, Iran, not Israel.

    I for one am all for it.
    But it would be a pathetic and not at all exculpatory action: USA would still be guilty up to its Adam's apple if Israel attacks Iran.

    To completely extricate itself from the moral quagmire US & Israel share, it is essential that USA

    1. cut off all financial aid to Israel;

    2. require that all advocates for Israel's interests comply with 22 U.S.C. § 611 (FARA -- Foreign Agents Registration Act;

    3. demand, as the world's sole superpower and guarantor of the "international order," that Israel join the NPT and submit its nuclear facilities to intrusive monitoring and inspections;

    4. demand that Israel pull back to 1967 borders, declare its borders and stay within its borders; and grant Palestinians right of return;

    5. sanction all forms of commercial, academic and research exchange between USA and Israel until Israel complies with these terms;

    6. restrict Israel's access to SWIFT and to credit facilities tied to US dollar;

    7. require that no person with dual US-Israel citizenship or the imminent possibility of same be employed in US government or crucial US institutions until all of terms are complied with.

    In other words, behave like decent citizens of a civilized world.

    This has nothing to do with Israel's well-being; that's not the job of the USA to provide.

    This is about the well-being of the USA.

    אף אחד אחר יכול לחסוך לך

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @George123
    I think Iran would like very much to see America destroyed, or at least huge and influential elements within Iran would, and in the region at large.

    Since that's so, and those elements have made clear their wishes and desires, I would sleep better at night if America used its immense and unstoppable power to ensure that a country that contains such elements in such large numbers, in a region that contains such large elements in such profusion, does not acquire weapons of mass destruction.

    I can't predict the future, nor the future political organization of Iran or other regional powers and groups. But I know that within Iran and surrounding areas so many wish America to vanish. To that end, I consider it good and sensible policy to guard against future contingencies arising out of the desire of so many within Iran and near to destroy America, to prevent the introduction of nuclear weapons into this volatile element.

    Its just common sense, and it can easily be achieved without destroying Iran - which I would deeply regret - if America would be willing to bring its unstoppable power to bear without apology and make a credible threat that the future survival of Iran is contingent on its giving up its desire for nuclear weapons.

    So much evil in the world can be averted if good men in possession of great power would be willing to use it.

    Your premise is preposterous. You have determined that Iran seeks to destroy America, and therefore, we should attack and destroy it first.

    By that logic, they have every right to destroy the US and Israel, because there is a constant stream of war provocations emanating from both these countries towards Iran. Even a sitting senator, McCain, goes out singing “bomb, bomb Iran”, while political donors like Adelson recommend using nukes against that country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @George
    That is incorrect.

    I say we should prevent iran from acquiring the means to gravely hurt us, even if that involves destroying iran. If they have the wissh, but not the power, I don't care.

    The phrase "war rhetoric emanating from all sides" is designed to obfuscate important distinctions.

    Neither israel, nor america, have ever expressed a desire to destroy iran. They have expressed a cautious willingness to use limited violence targeted at Iran's efforts to acquire weapons that might enable it to one day carry out the expressed wishes of a large and influential sector of of Iranian society to destroy israel, and america.

    It'd just common sense. Stop shouting death to America while trying to get your hands on nuclear technology, and everything will be fine.

    Iran is one of the least complicated issues facing america. While it isnt clear to me why we should defend Taiwan against china, where the stakes for us are high, neutralizing iran, an easy task with little risk, seems like a no brainer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @David Bruce
    @geokat62,
    I'm well aware of the Israel Lobby. I read Mearsheimer and Walt's book twice, during undergrad; I also read their article that appeared in the London Review of Books. Also, I never said there was a Saudi lobby. I merely suggested that the Saudi government has a lot of influence on the American government. It's undeniable that the United States props up the Saudi government, despite the Saudis' support for jihadists and their penchant for jailing and executing dissidents. Also, Neocon whores, like Lindsay Graham, have repeatedly called for us to "stand by" our supposed Saudi allies. All I'm suggesting is that Israel and its lobby aren't the problems for American foreign policy.

    re: “All I’m suggesting is that Israel and its lobby aren’t the problems for American foreign policy.”

    That sobriquet, “We’ll have to agree to disagree” is so unsatisfying.

    “Are you out of your frickin’ mind” is the appropriate response to your comment that I-lobby is not the problem for American FP.

    In a recent Senate subcommittee hearing committee chair Mac Thornberry silenced, then ejected representatives of Code Pink who demanded that US Senate stop waging war; “Not in our name,” they protested.
    In the next breathe Thornberry pledged that “the US will always take Israel’s security as a priority.”
    There’s no part of Israel that is in Thornberry’s Texas district. It’s gotta be the I-Lobby twisting his arm, paying him off, or blackmailing him that elicits Thornberry’s undying fealty — and treason to the USA.

    In any event, as Yossi Alpher discusses in a recent book, Israel and Saudi Arabia are now forming a relationship to replace the loss of Iran as Israel’s buttress and protector in Israel’s Periphery Doctrine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David Bruce
    @SolontoCroesus,
    There was a typo in my comment. I meant to say that Israel and its lobby aren't the ONLY problems for America's interests in the Middle East. I've read Mearsheimer and Walt's book twice, and Paul Findley's book once. Obviously, the uncritical relationship with Israel is not good for American interests. I'm simply suggesting that we should also reexamine our relationship with the Saudis and the other Sunni gulf states. In other words, Israel isn't the ONLY problem; that's not the same thing as saying that Israel isn't a problem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @SolontoCroesus
    logic is not your strong suit, Clyde.

    "leaking satellite data to Iran if Israel decides to attack Iran" would benefit, or defend, Iran, not Israel.

    I for one am all for it.
    But it would be a pathetic and not at all exculpatory action: USA would still be guilty up to its Adam's apple if Israel attacks Iran.

    To completely extricate itself from the moral quagmire US & Israel share, it is essential that USA

    1. cut off all financial aid to Israel;

    2. require that all advocates for Israel's interests comply with 22 U.S.C. § 611 (FARA -- Foreign Agents Registration Act;

    3. demand, as the world's sole superpower and guarantor of the "international order," that Israel join the NPT and submit its nuclear facilities to intrusive monitoring and inspections;

    4. demand that Israel pull back to 1967 borders, declare its borders and stay within its borders; and grant Palestinians right of return;

    5. sanction all forms of commercial, academic and research exchange between USA and Israel until Israel complies with these terms;

    6. restrict Israel's access to SWIFT and to credit facilities tied to US dollar;

    7. require that no person with dual US-Israel citizenship or the imminent possibility of same be employed in US government or crucial US institutions until all of terms are complied with.

    In other words, behave like decent citizens of a civilized world.

    This has nothing to do with Israel's well-being; that's not the job of the USA to provide.

    This is about the well-being of the USA.

    I am not too worried about Israel attacking Iran. There modus operandum is to get the US to do it for them. With the ensuing Iran nuclear deal, that seems unlikely.

    With all their bluster and bravado, the IDF is incapable of taking on the might of Iran. They are more suited to attacking unarmed civilians and defenseless women and children in Palestine. Their last attempt in 2006 to attack Lebanon with their much vaunted Merkava tanks (God’s Chariot!) resulted in a total embarrassment for them as they had to retreat after 33 days with their tail between their legs, and 49 of those tanks destroyed by Hezbollah guerillas. If they tried that against the much more numerous (over 1 million) Iranian Republican Guard (IRG) with their much more advanced armaments, in the mountainous terrains of Iran, a country much, much larger than Lebanon, the rain of missiles on Tel Aviv would turn it into molten lava in a matter of minutes.

    No, Israel is not going to attack Iran, and all the consternation about the Iran deal has to do with the fact that once it is consummated, neither will the US do so on its behalf like it would in the past.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Sam Shama
    אני יודע שאתה יהודי

    כאשרמגיע היום , תוכל לרוץלישראל

    No one needs to save him. You should worry more about who will save you when all the chicken come home to roost.

    Good luck with that!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Sam Shama
    אני יודע שאתה יהודי

    כאשרמגיע היום , תוכל לרוץלישראל

    And how do you know that he is Jewish? And what if he is?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @David Bruce
    @geokat62,
    I'm well aware of the Israel Lobby. I read Mearsheimer and Walt's book twice, during undergrad; I also read their article that appeared in the London Review of Books. Also, I never said there was a Saudi lobby. I merely suggested that the Saudi government has a lot of influence on the American government. It's undeniable that the United States props up the Saudi government, despite the Saudis' support for jihadists and their penchant for jailing and executing dissidents. Also, Neocon whores, like Lindsay Graham, have repeatedly called for us to "stand by" our supposed Saudi allies. All I'm suggesting is that Israel and its lobby aren't the problems for American foreign policy.

    You are right – both the Israeli and Saudi governments have influence over the US. That is why those two are now allies against Iran. Both governments need to be dismantled.

    [Instead of leaving numerous, very short comments you should instead combine them together into one or two much longer and more substantial ones.]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Sam Shama
    אני יודע שאתה יהודי

    כאשרמגיע היום , תוכל לרוץלישראל

    איך אתה יודע שאני יהודיומה לעשות
    כאשרמגיע
    אומר

    יחסים מיוחדים החדשים :
    איראןוארה”ב
    אם תרצה אין זו אגדה היא .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    אני לא מבין אותך בצורה מושלמת, אבל אנחנו נהיה שם כדי לעזור לך
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Clyde
    You are a Muhammad firster posting under phoney Anglo name

    He may be a Muhammad firster, whatever that means. Try refuting his logic rather than ad hominems which always make for poor arguments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Chris Mallory
    Defending Israel is not any business of the US government or responsibility of the US taxpayer.

    You got that right, Chris. It is the Israel Lobby and Jewish billionaires like Adelson who are corrupting our government by buying the venal politicians in our congress or blackmailing them with Jewish pedophilia rings like the one from Epstein and Dershowitz.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @George Archers
    Iran leaders must have rocks for brains. Saddam and Kaduffy got suckered in by USA-- told to get rid of their missiles and Uncle Scam will trade with you. Really honestly, cross my heart, honest to god--sanctions will be removed. Bombs away--millions dead.
    Iran---run for your lives. Stay put.You are dealing with Satan's child--even the devil fears USA.

    It doesn’t really matter – the sanctions against Iran are disintegrating on their own. This deal is a win-win for Iran. If it goes through, Iran will be restored as a regional power participating in trade with the west and able to develop its economy. If the deal fails because of all the rhetoric, the US congress and Israel will be blamed by the world, who will not uphold the sanctions. While the first outcome is preferable, Iran could probably live with the second one as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. geokat62 says:
    @David Bruce
    @geokat62,
    I'm well aware of the Israel Lobby. I read Mearsheimer and Walt's book twice, during undergrad; I also read their article that appeared in the London Review of Books. Also, I never said there was a Saudi lobby. I merely suggested that the Saudi government has a lot of influence on the American government. It's undeniable that the United States props up the Saudi government, despite the Saudis' support for jihadists and their penchant for jailing and executing dissidents. Also, Neocon whores, like Lindsay Graham, have repeatedly called for us to "stand by" our supposed Saudi allies. All I'm suggesting is that Israel and its lobby aren't the problems for American foreign policy.

    You actually read M&W twice and you concluded “that Israel and its lobby aren’t the problems for American foreign policy.”

    That’s rather impressive… as this this not an easy thing to do. I’m trying to find a logical explanation for this phenomenon… perhaps the version of the book you were reading was missing the first eight chapters?

    Read More
    • Replies: @David Bruce
    @geokat62,
    There was a typo in my comment. I meant to say there Israel and its lobby aren't the ONLY problems for American foreign policy. I'm all for exposing lobby's negative influence on American foreign policy; but I think we should also reexamine our relationship with the Saudis and the other odious Gulf states.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. George says:
    @Cloak And Dagger
    @George

    Your premise is preposterous. You have determined that Iran seeks to destroy America, and therefore, we should attack and destroy it first.

    By that logic, they have every right to destroy the US and Israel, because there is a constant stream of war provocations emanating from both these countries towards Iran. Even a sitting senator, McCain, goes out singing "bomb, bomb Iran", while political donors like Adelson recommend using nukes against that country.

    That is incorrect.

    I say we should prevent iran from acquiring the means to gravely hurt us, even if that involves destroying iran. If they have the wissh, but not the power, I don’t care.

    The phrase “war rhetoric emanating from all sides” is designed to obfuscate important distinctions.

    Neither israel, nor america, have ever expressed a desire to destroy iran. They have expressed a cautious willingness to use limited violence targeted at Iran’s efforts to acquire weapons that might enable it to one day carry out the expressed wishes of a large and influential sector of of Iranian society to destroy israel, and america.

    It’d just common sense. Stop shouting death to America while trying to get your hands on nuclear technology, and everything will be fine.

    Iran is one of the least complicated issues facing america. While it isnt clear to me why we should defend Taiwan against china, where the stakes for us are high, neutralizing iran, an easy task with little risk, seems like a no brainer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloak And Dagger
    neutralizing iran, an easy task with little risk, seems like a no brainer

    How do you have the audacity to make such a claim after the proven fallacy of such prophesies prior to the Iraq war, when your ilk proposed that Iraq would be a cakewalk and they would welcome us with roses? It seems that our quagmire in the Middle East from that decision has taught you nothing in the intervening years.

    Let me remind you that Iran is much larger than Iraq, with a mountainous terrain to boot. They have a population of 70 million as compared to Iraq's 30 million. They have a powerful army and a sophisticated array of Russian and domestic weaponry, including a huge amount of long range missiles. They have a chokehold on the Persian Gulf with a swarm of small attack boats, which the Pentagon has run models to demonstrate that it would wipe out our fleet there and stop all shipments in and out of the Gulf, propelling an international economic crisis.

    Anyway, the days when people would rise to your crapola and pack for war are over. We will no longer sacrifice our blood and treasure for Israel's wars. You want to fight Iran? Here's your rifle and parachute. Good luck!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @SolontoCroesus

    Two-pronged attack: nefarious, insane-sounding rabid antiSemitism; juxtaposed with the most reasonable sounding Likud propaganda. . . .

    Unz.com sock puppet trollery at its most frenzied, all heat, no light.'
     

    ? ? ?


    if you hit the Reply button & use that box to compose comment rather than post a decontextualized comment in the hoi polloi Comment box, readers will be able to connect Comment to its precedent and have a better sense of what you are talking about.

    There’s so much of it, that what’s worthwhile is sui generis

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. geokat62 says:

    “Neither israel, nor america, have ever expressed a desire to destroy iran.”

    Just like they never expressed a desire to destroy Iraq?

    It’s comments like these that almost make me yearn debating with the Ph.D. in Mathematical Economics!

    Read More
    • Replies: @George
    The art of getting along is not a difficult one.

    In the case of iraq, dont invade another country that had not threatened you.

    Its not rocket science.

    Oh, and if the sole superpower says it will destroy you if you don't reverse your invasion, you do it.

    Such simplicities are far beyond the understanding of Phds, perhaps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @George
    That is incorrect.

    I say we should prevent iran from acquiring the means to gravely hurt us, even if that involves destroying iran. If they have the wissh, but not the power, I don't care.

    The phrase "war rhetoric emanating from all sides" is designed to obfuscate important distinctions.

    Neither israel, nor america, have ever expressed a desire to destroy iran. They have expressed a cautious willingness to use limited violence targeted at Iran's efforts to acquire weapons that might enable it to one day carry out the expressed wishes of a large and influential sector of of Iranian society to destroy israel, and america.

    It'd just common sense. Stop shouting death to America while trying to get your hands on nuclear technology, and everything will be fine.

    Iran is one of the least complicated issues facing america. While it isnt clear to me why we should defend Taiwan against china, where the stakes for us are high, neutralizing iran, an easy task with little risk, seems like a no brainer.

    neutralizing iran, an easy task with little risk, seems like a no brainer

    How do you have the audacity to make such a claim after the proven fallacy of such prophesies prior to the Iraq war, when your ilk proposed that Iraq would be a cakewalk and they would welcome us with roses? It seems that our quagmire in the Middle East from that decision has taught you nothing in the intervening years.

    Let me remind you that Iran is much larger than Iraq, with a mountainous terrain to boot. They have a population of 70 million as compared to Iraq’s 30 million. They have a powerful army and a sophisticated array of Russian and domestic weaponry, including a huge amount of long range missiles. They have a chokehold on the Persian Gulf with a swarm of small attack boats, which the Pentagon has run models to demonstrate that it would wipe out our fleet there and stop all shipments in and out of the Gulf, propelling an international economic crisis.

    Anyway, the days when people would rise to your crapola and pack for war are over. We will no longer sacrifice our blood and treasure for Israel’s wars. You want to fight Iran? Here’s your rifle and parachute. Good luck!

    Read More
    • Replies: @George
    Defeating Iraq was a breeze - we ran into trouble trying to reconstruct Iraq in our image.

    We always run into trouble doing that. Had we wanted to, we could have killed every last person in vietnam, or reduced them to slaves on plantations.

    What we could not do is make them think like us or live like us. I respect that - its a testament to the invincibility of the human spirit, and should teach us to curtail our hubris tic tendencies.

    We are not gods. We can destroy a people, but we cannot re fashion them in our image. That is a task for a god.

    Iran was unable to defeat Iraq after seven years of war. It took us a few days, and we used a fraction of power.

    Most people simply do not understand the power of a modern western country like america, or even israel. The petty guerilla wars constrained by social and political objectives give no idea of the immense destructive power at our disposal.

    Even tiny israel has amassed a degree of military destructive power that is almost inconceivable. I was shocked when I read about it. Literally shocked. Tiny israel alone could literally wipe out iran with the loss of a few hundred thousand people itself.


    America is in a league of its own.

    Trying to reform iran would end in failure and humiliation for us. Deterring iran, or destroying. Would be a matter of days.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Mulegino1 says:

    Only in the kosher world of universal deceit is a non-existent nuclear weapons program considered more of a danger than an illegal arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons which is known with certainty to exist. But that is the world that the Washingtonian elites live in, because they must.

    Peace will come to the Middle East when Israel begins to relocate its illegal settlers. The first to go should be the ones on Capitol Hill.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    איך אתה יודע שאני יהודיומה לעשות
    כאשרמגיע
    אומר



    יחסים מיוחדים החדשים :
    איראןוארה"ב
    אם תרצה אין זו אגדה היא .

    אני לא מבין אותך בצורה מושלמת, אבל אנחנו נהיה שם כדי לעזור לך

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    איראן וארה"ב. אם תרצה אין זו אגדה.
    (Iran and USA. If you will it it is no dream.)



    Thank you, AnonIsraeli, for your offer of assistance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. George says:
    @Cloak And Dagger
    neutralizing iran, an easy task with little risk, seems like a no brainer

    How do you have the audacity to make such a claim after the proven fallacy of such prophesies prior to the Iraq war, when your ilk proposed that Iraq would be a cakewalk and they would welcome us with roses? It seems that our quagmire in the Middle East from that decision has taught you nothing in the intervening years.

    Let me remind you that Iran is much larger than Iraq, with a mountainous terrain to boot. They have a population of 70 million as compared to Iraq's 30 million. They have a powerful army and a sophisticated array of Russian and domestic weaponry, including a huge amount of long range missiles. They have a chokehold on the Persian Gulf with a swarm of small attack boats, which the Pentagon has run models to demonstrate that it would wipe out our fleet there and stop all shipments in and out of the Gulf, propelling an international economic crisis.

    Anyway, the days when people would rise to your crapola and pack for war are over. We will no longer sacrifice our blood and treasure for Israel's wars. You want to fight Iran? Here's your rifle and parachute. Good luck!

    Defeating Iraq was a breeze – we ran into trouble trying to reconstruct Iraq in our image.

    We always run into trouble doing that. Had we wanted to, we could have killed every last person in vietnam, or reduced them to slaves on plantations.

    What we could not do is make them think like us or live like us. I respect that – its a testament to the invincibility of the human spirit, and should teach us to curtail our hubris tic tendencies.

    We are not gods. We can destroy a people, but we cannot re fashion them in our image. That is a task for a god.

    Iran was unable to defeat Iraq after seven years of war. It took us a few days, and we used a fraction of power.

    Most people simply do not understand the power of a modern western country like america, or even israel. The petty guerilla wars constrained by social and political objectives give no idea of the immense destructive power at our disposal.

    Even tiny israel has amassed a degree of military destructive power that is almost inconceivable. I was shocked when I read about it. Literally shocked. Tiny israel alone could literally wipe out iran with the loss of a few hundred thousand people itself.

    America is in a league of its own.

    Trying to reform iran would end in failure and humiliation for us. Deterring iran, or destroying. Would be a matter of days.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloak And Dagger
    Defeating Iraq was a breeze – we ran into trouble trying to reconstruct Iraq in our image.
    we could have killed every last person in vietnam, or reduced them to slaves on plantations.

    Mark Twain said, never try to argue with a stupid person - they will bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience. I think he had you in mind.

    Our going into Iraq took a stable situation and destabilized it, bringing both Al-Qaeda and ISIS into the region. So, now we are fighting ISIS. We went into Libya and destabilized them, now they are a breeding ground for terrorists. Yemen is exploding as well, thanks to our drones. So, people who were never our enemies before, now are, and one day, enough of them will get together to attack us for our stupidity because we listened to people like you.

    Do us all a favor and stop giving us your brilliant advice. Actually, I just realized that you are a troll, and I am not going to waste any more time debating you.
    , @annamaria
    Why do you believe that Iran must be reformed? Israel's Knesset must be reformed (too much racist verbiage is coming from the members of this institution); the US plutocracy must be reformed to avoid a crush of the States. What does give you rights to look upon the peoples with deep roots that have been nurturing human civilization - the Iraqis and Iranians - as if they are in need of your wisdom and of the US/Israeli war profiteers in their midst?
    The civilized world prefers diplomacy. The subhuman war mongers love money&power.
    , @Carroll Price
    "Even tiny israel has amassed a degree of military destructive power that is almost inconceivable. I was shocked when I read about it. Literally shocked. Tiny israel alone could literally wipe out iran with the loss of a few hundred thousand people itself."

    Then please explain how Hezbollah fighters were able to defeat mighty Israel and chase them out of Lebanon with their tail between their legs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. George says:
    @geokat62
    "Neither israel, nor america, have ever expressed a desire to destroy iran."

    Just like they never expressed a desire to destroy Iraq?

    It's comments like these that almost make me yearn debating with the Ph.D. in Mathematical Economics!

    The art of getting along is not a difficult one.

    In the case of iraq, dont invade another country that had not threatened you.

    Its not rocket science.

    Oh, and if the sole superpower says it will destroy you if you don’t reverse your invasion, you do it.

    Such simplicities are far beyond the understanding of Phds, perhaps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    "In the case of iraq, dont invade another country that had not threatened you."

    I think you've got your Iraq wars mixed up. The U.S. did not destroy Iraq because they had invaded Kuwait over a decade ago. They invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power, as Iraq was one of the "Axis of Evil" countries and so slated for regime change. Syria and Iran are the other two countries targeted for regime change (see a previous post for details).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. geokat62 says:
    @George
    The art of getting along is not a difficult one.

    In the case of iraq, dont invade another country that had not threatened you.

    Its not rocket science.

    Oh, and if the sole superpower says it will destroy you if you don't reverse your invasion, you do it.

    Such simplicities are far beyond the understanding of Phds, perhaps.

    “In the case of iraq, dont invade another country that had not threatened you.”

    I think you’ve got your Iraq wars mixed up. The U.S. did not destroy Iraq because they had invaded Kuwait over a decade ago. They invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power, as Iraq was one of the “Axis of Evil” countries and so slated for regime change. Syria and Iran are the other two countries targeted for regime change (see a previous post for details).

    Read More
    • Replies: @George
    Whatever the motivations of the US were, Iraq only brought down the might of the US when it chose to invade Kuwait, and refused to back down.

    Perhaps the lesson is - if you act aggressively towards your neighbors, you may create a pretext for far more powerful players to attack you in turn, even if their motives aren't honorable.

    Morality operates as a constraint for everyone. If you step outside the lines, you have forfeited the protection afforded by being within that magic circle. Other predators might now take advantage of you.

    Its easy to avoid.
    , @geokat62
    Just to clarify, the pretexts given for the 2003 invasion were to:

    1. locate and destroy the non-existent WMD;
    2. liberate the oppressed peoples (Kurds, Shia); and
    3. establish Iraq as model of democracy that other countries in the ME could emulate

    The real reason, of course, was to enhance the security of Israel. Again, it had nothing to do with Saddam invading Kuwait a decade earlier!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Sam Shama
    אני לא מבין אותך בצורה מושלמת, אבל אנחנו נהיה שם כדי לעזור לך

    איראן וארה”ב. אם תרצה אין זו אגדה.
    (Iran and USA. If you will it it is no dream.)

    Thank you, AnonIsraeli, for your offer of assistance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. George says:
    @geokat62
    "In the case of iraq, dont invade another country that had not threatened you."

    I think you've got your Iraq wars mixed up. The U.S. did not destroy Iraq because they had invaded Kuwait over a decade ago. They invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power, as Iraq was one of the "Axis of Evil" countries and so slated for regime change. Syria and Iran are the other two countries targeted for regime change (see a previous post for details).

    Whatever the motivations of the US were, Iraq only brought down the might of the US when it chose to invade Kuwait, and refused to back down.

    Perhaps the lesson is – if you act aggressively towards your neighbors, you may create a pretext for far more powerful players to attack you in turn, even if their motives aren’t honorable.

    Morality operates as a constraint for everyone. If you step outside the lines, you have forfeited the protection afforded by being within that magic circle. Other predators might now take advantage of you.

    Its easy to avoid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    "Whatever the motivations of the US were, Iraq only brought down the might of the US when it chose to invade Kuwait, and refused to back down."

    I just listed the pretexts that Wolfie & Co. dreamt up. You still insist on linking the decision to attack Iraq to Saddam's decision to invade Kuwait. Why don't you read M&W and see what they have to say as to why the U.S. invaded Iraq? The book's title is The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy.

    Here's the relevant passage:


    Israel’s enthusiasm for war eventually led some of its allies in America to tell Israeli officials to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest the war look like it was being fought for Israel. In the fall of 2002, for example, a group of American political consultants known as the Israel Project circulated a six-page memorandum to key Israelis and pro-Israel leaders in the United States. The memo was titled “Talking about Iraq” and was intended as a guide for public statements about the war. “If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.”
     
    , @SolontoCroesus

    Whatever the motivations of the US were, Iraq only brought down the might of the US when it chose to invade Kuwait, and refused to back down.
     
    The facts differ from your narrative.

    George H W Bush did not give a hoot about Kuwait or its liberation. G H W Bush and team saw the invasion of Kuwait as an opportunity inside a golden moment -- the newly-minted unipolar moment -- to establish US dominance and create a "new world order." Iraq's invasion of Kuwait gave GHW a test-case situation.

    It is also not true that Saddam "refused to back down."
    Jordan's King Hussein and his friend and lawyer, former CIA station chief Jack O'Connell, crafted a solution that Saddam was prepared to agree to.
    Leaders of the other Arab states pleaded with Bush to butt out (in diplomatic tones) and let them handle the situation since they "understood how Arabs think."

    Gorbachev was in constant communication with Bush. He, too, counseled Bush to the point of exasperation to refrain from getting involved in what was an Arab matter. Bush yelled at Gorbachev and told him to Butt out -- in far less diplomatic tones.

    Bush invaded Iraq in 1991 because he wanted to, because it offered to him the "imperial pivot."


    Perhaps the lesson is – if you act aggressively towards your neighbors, you may create a pretext for far more powerful players to attack you in turn, even if their motives aren’t honorable.
     
    So true.
    Israel should take note.

    Jews should take that counsel to heart as well.
    There are many forms of "acting aggressively towards your neighbors." Edwin Black chronicled how Jacob Schiff used his wealth as a weapon to "act aggressively toward" Russia. He set in motion wars that are still resolving themselves after having destroyed millions of lives.

    Schiff could have used his status and his wealth to achieve the results he sought -- a better life for Russian Jews -- by dealing with honesty and respect.

    But as Theodor Herzl observed several times in Der Judenstaat "our terrible power of the purse" turned the Jewish mind from thoughts of working toward peace with all their neighbors to "acting aggressively" towards them instead. People on the other end of that aggressive wealth are likely to resist it or retaliate against it. Every time, Eventually.


    Morality operates as a constraint for everyone. If you step outside the lines, you have forfeited the protection afforded by being within that magic circle. Other predators might now take advantage of you.
     
    This is confusing.
    Do you consider it moral to even give voice to a thought like, "Trying to reform iran would end in failure and humiliation for us. Deterring iran, or destroying. Would be a matter of days," and

    A war with Iran would be pretty much a low risk mop up operation, so it’s something we probably should gave done long ago. As long as we avoid the stupidity of trying to impose liberal democracy on iran, destroying iran would be easy and cheap.

    If, after that moderate elements within iran rise to the fore, we should help them reconstruct their country. If Iranians continue to let their worst elements control them, they will continue to be under threat of destruction from us.
     

    First of all, who is the "us" who should "mop up" Iran and continue to threaten to destroy the rest of Iran if it fails to "reform" to "our" satisfaction?

    Why psychopathic god animates the voices in your head?

    Second, in what sense are such recommendations moral? As noted above, over the millennia the 'civilized' world has developed a code of moral conduct pertaining to war. I posted it above for your enlightenment. You appear not to have absorbed the basics.

    You do seem to reflect the ideology of Jewish neoconservatives such as Michael Ledeen who endorses the model of Moses (you may have noticed that Moses was not mentioned in the Just War doctrine notes).

    According to Ledeen, it's necessary and therefore quite all right -- moral -- to kill people, in large numbers, even, in order to bring about their "reform," their 're-creation' in the image of their killers. Ledeen cites the book of Exodus, chapter 32, ---


    Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever is for the Lord, come to me.” And all the Levites rallied to him.

    Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”

    The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.”

    So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.”

    The Lord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.”

    And the Lord struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.
     

    Got that, George: the Levites killed a massive number of people; the remnant was cursed with a plague; that remnant was not permitted to enter the 'promised land' but was made to wander in the desert until they died off. Folks like Michael Ledeen, who considers himself a Levite, takes pride in a literal re-enactment of these tales; that's the neoconservative model.

    They are central to the thinking of the core neoconservatives centered on Richard Perle, Ledeen, the Wurmsers, Jushua Muravchik and their ideological golden calves, Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol and the Kagan klan. Donald Kagan's particular contribution is disdain for the rule of law: might makes right is all the wall-eyed patriot of the Kagan boys needs to form his moral framework.

    These neoconservatives are fixated on these homicidal scenes from Hebrew mythos.

    If Greeks had the same fixation most of the male population of Athens would be walking around with only one shoulder.


    "Its easy to avoid."
     
    Well yea.
    Coupla thousand years of refining the way that men organize themselves in community and try to better it has discovered "easy ways to avoid" mass killing just for the hell of it.

    Greeks, and Romans, Germans, and Persians, Arabs, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Celts, even Vikings continually reexamined their founding myths and reinterpreted them for the betterment of humanity, not its mindless slaughter.

    Zionism, however, looks and works backward: Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro complains, almost weeping, "Zionism has stolen my Jewish identity! It has replace the Torah of Judaism with militarism . . .[zionists] changed what the Jewish people are, from a religion . . . to a nation of soldiers and warriors."

    -- and in its neoconoservative expression, zionism affirms genocide and advocates that the Iranian people be killed en masse.

    Just as you do, George.

    Once again, George, that's not moral.
    That's psychopathic and criminally so. It's also backward.

    And by the way -- genocide and psychopathology are not in the USA value set either.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @George
    Defeating Iraq was a breeze - we ran into trouble trying to reconstruct Iraq in our image.

    We always run into trouble doing that. Had we wanted to, we could have killed every last person in vietnam, or reduced them to slaves on plantations.

    What we could not do is make them think like us or live like us. I respect that - its a testament to the invincibility of the human spirit, and should teach us to curtail our hubris tic tendencies.

    We are not gods. We can destroy a people, but we cannot re fashion them in our image. That is a task for a god.

    Iran was unable to defeat Iraq after seven years of war. It took us a few days, and we used a fraction of power.

    Most people simply do not understand the power of a modern western country like america, or even israel. The petty guerilla wars constrained by social and political objectives give no idea of the immense destructive power at our disposal.

    Even tiny israel has amassed a degree of military destructive power that is almost inconceivable. I was shocked when I read about it. Literally shocked. Tiny israel alone could literally wipe out iran with the loss of a few hundred thousand people itself.


    America is in a league of its own.

    Trying to reform iran would end in failure and humiliation for us. Deterring iran, or destroying. Would be a matter of days.

    Defeating Iraq was a breeze – we ran into trouble trying to reconstruct Iraq in our image.
    we could have killed every last person in vietnam, or reduced them to slaves on plantations.

    Mark Twain said, never try to argue with a stupid person – they will bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience. I think he had you in mind.

    Our going into Iraq took a stable situation and destabilized it, bringing both Al-Qaeda and ISIS into the region. So, now we are fighting ISIS. We went into Libya and destabilized them, now they are a breeding ground for terrorists. Yemen is exploding as well, thanks to our drones. So, people who were never our enemies before, now are, and one day, enough of them will get together to attack us for our stupidity because we listened to people like you.

    Do us all a favor and stop giving us your brilliant advice. Actually, I just realized that you are a troll, and I am not going to waste any more time debating you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    "Do us all a favor and stop giving us your brilliant advice. Actually, I just realized that you are a troll, and I am not going to waste any more time debating you."

    I couldn't agree more!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. geokat62 says:
    @geokat62
    "In the case of iraq, dont invade another country that had not threatened you."

    I think you've got your Iraq wars mixed up. The U.S. did not destroy Iraq because they had invaded Kuwait over a decade ago. They invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power, as Iraq was one of the "Axis of Evil" countries and so slated for regime change. Syria and Iran are the other two countries targeted for regime change (see a previous post for details).

    Just to clarify, the pretexts given for the 2003 invasion were to:

    1. locate and destroy the non-existent WMD;
    2. liberate the oppressed peoples (Kurds, Shia); and
    3. establish Iraq as model of democracy that other countries in the ME could emulate

    The real reason, of course, was to enhance the security of Israel. Again, it had nothing to do with Saddam invading Kuwait a decade earlier!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. geokat62 says:
    @George
    Whatever the motivations of the US were, Iraq only brought down the might of the US when it chose to invade Kuwait, and refused to back down.

    Perhaps the lesson is - if you act aggressively towards your neighbors, you may create a pretext for far more powerful players to attack you in turn, even if their motives aren't honorable.

    Morality operates as a constraint for everyone. If you step outside the lines, you have forfeited the protection afforded by being within that magic circle. Other predators might now take advantage of you.

    Its easy to avoid.

    “Whatever the motivations of the US were, Iraq only brought down the might of the US when it chose to invade Kuwait, and refused to back down.”

    I just listed the pretexts that Wolfie & Co. dreamt up. You still insist on linking the decision to attack Iraq to Saddam’s decision to invade Kuwait. Why don’t you read M&W and see what they have to say as to why the U.S. invaded Iraq? The book’s title is The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy.

    Here’s the relevant passage:

    Israel’s enthusiasm for war eventually led some of its allies in America to tell Israeli officials to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest the war look like it was being fought for Israel. In the fall of 2002, for example, a group of American political consultants known as the Israel Project circulated a six-page memorandum to key Israelis and pro-Israel leaders in the United States. The memo was titled “Talking about Iraq” and was intended as a guide for public statements about the war. “If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. An unprovoked attack on Iran, regardless of whatever mean things they say about the U.S., would bring world-wide condemnation and serious economic ramifications. Even the Europeans would finally grow a pair and reexamine their relationship with the U.S. It would probably also bring Russian and/or Chinese military involvement. This at a time when America’s Potempkin economy is ill-suited for total war.

    Americans aren’t very bright, are they?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  95. geokat62 says:
    @Cloak And Dagger
    Defeating Iraq was a breeze – we ran into trouble trying to reconstruct Iraq in our image.
    we could have killed every last person in vietnam, or reduced them to slaves on plantations.

    Mark Twain said, never try to argue with a stupid person - they will bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience. I think he had you in mind.

    Our going into Iraq took a stable situation and destabilized it, bringing both Al-Qaeda and ISIS into the region. So, now we are fighting ISIS. We went into Libya and destabilized them, now they are a breeding ground for terrorists. Yemen is exploding as well, thanks to our drones. So, people who were never our enemies before, now are, and one day, enough of them will get together to attack us for our stupidity because we listened to people like you.

    Do us all a favor and stop giving us your brilliant advice. Actually, I just realized that you are a troll, and I am not going to waste any more time debating you.

    “Do us all a favor and stop giving us your brilliant advice. Actually, I just realized that you are a troll, and I am not going to waste any more time debating you.”

    I couldn’t agree more!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. annamaria says:
    @George
    Defeating Iraq was a breeze - we ran into trouble trying to reconstruct Iraq in our image.

    We always run into trouble doing that. Had we wanted to, we could have killed every last person in vietnam, or reduced them to slaves on plantations.

    What we could not do is make them think like us or live like us. I respect that - its a testament to the invincibility of the human spirit, and should teach us to curtail our hubris tic tendencies.

    We are not gods. We can destroy a people, but we cannot re fashion them in our image. That is a task for a god.

    Iran was unable to defeat Iraq after seven years of war. It took us a few days, and we used a fraction of power.

    Most people simply do not understand the power of a modern western country like america, or even israel. The petty guerilla wars constrained by social and political objectives give no idea of the immense destructive power at our disposal.

    Even tiny israel has amassed a degree of military destructive power that is almost inconceivable. I was shocked when I read about it. Literally shocked. Tiny israel alone could literally wipe out iran with the loss of a few hundred thousand people itself.


    America is in a league of its own.

    Trying to reform iran would end in failure and humiliation for us. Deterring iran, or destroying. Would be a matter of days.

    Why do you believe that Iran must be reformed? Israel’s Knesset must be reformed (too much racist verbiage is coming from the members of this institution); the US plutocracy must be reformed to avoid a crush of the States. What does give you rights to look upon the peoples with deep roots that have been nurturing human civilization – the Iraqis and Iranians – as if they are in need of your wisdom and of the US/Israeli war profiteers in their midst?
    The civilized world prefers diplomacy. The subhuman war mongers love money&power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @George123
    The only element within Iran I'd like to see reformed is its hatred of America and the West, because it directly concerns me. In fact, if Iran wasn't trying to get nukes, I wouldn't even care if it hated us. I'd probably like it, because its good to have different perspectives.

    I don't look down on Iraq or Iran as much as you might think. I like Arab culture and appreciate Islamic civilizations and especially the refined Islamic civilization of Persia and the nearby lands it inspired, like Mughal India and Afghanistan.

    As I've said, I'm opposed to reforming other cultures and countries, especially in the image of America, which I find lacking in so many ways.

    I also prefer diplomacy, but I am willing to use force - even overwhelming force - when that has failed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @George
    Whatever the motivations of the US were, Iraq only brought down the might of the US when it chose to invade Kuwait, and refused to back down.

    Perhaps the lesson is - if you act aggressively towards your neighbors, you may create a pretext for far more powerful players to attack you in turn, even if their motives aren't honorable.

    Morality operates as a constraint for everyone. If you step outside the lines, you have forfeited the protection afforded by being within that magic circle. Other predators might now take advantage of you.

    Its easy to avoid.

    Whatever the motivations of the US were, Iraq only brought down the might of the US when it chose to invade Kuwait, and refused to back down.

    The facts differ from your narrative.

    George H W Bush did not give a hoot about Kuwait or its liberation. G H W Bush and team saw the invasion of Kuwait as an opportunity inside a golden moment — the newly-minted unipolar moment — to establish US dominance and create a “new world order.” Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait gave GHW a test-case situation.

    It is also not true that Saddam “refused to back down.”
    Jordan’s King Hussein and his friend and lawyer, former CIA station chief Jack O’Connell, crafted a solution that Saddam was prepared to agree to.
    Leaders of the other Arab states pleaded with Bush to butt out (in diplomatic tones) and let them handle the situation since they “understood how Arabs think.”

    Gorbachev was in constant communication with Bush. He, too, counseled Bush to the point of exasperation to refrain from getting involved in what was an Arab matter. Bush yelled at Gorbachev and told him to Butt out — in far less diplomatic tones.

    Bush invaded Iraq in 1991 because he wanted to, because it offered to him the “imperial pivot.”

    Perhaps the lesson is – if you act aggressively towards your neighbors, you may create a pretext for far more powerful players to attack you in turn, even if their motives aren’t honorable.

    So true.
    Israel should take note.

    Jews should take that counsel to heart as well.
    There are many forms of “acting aggressively towards your neighbors.” Edwin Black chronicled how Jacob Schiff used his wealth as a weapon to “act aggressively toward” Russia. He set in motion wars that are still resolving themselves after having destroyed millions of lives.

    Schiff could have used his status and his wealth to achieve the results he sought — a better life for Russian Jews — by dealing with honesty and respect.

    But as Theodor Herzl observed several times in Der Judenstaat “our terrible power of the purse” turned the Jewish mind from thoughts of working toward peace with all their neighbors to “acting aggressively” towards them instead. People on the other end of that aggressive wealth are likely to resist it or retaliate against it. Every time, Eventually.

    Morality operates as a constraint for everyone. If you step outside the lines, you have forfeited the protection afforded by being within that magic circle. Other predators might now take advantage of you.

    This is confusing.
    Do you consider it moral to even give voice to a thought like, “Trying to reform iran would end in failure and humiliation for us. Deterring iran, or destroying. Would be a matter of days,” and

    A war with Iran would be pretty much a low risk mop up operation, so it’s something we probably should gave done long ago. As long as we avoid the stupidity of trying to impose liberal democracy on iran, destroying iran would be easy and cheap.

    If, after that moderate elements within iran rise to the fore, we should help them reconstruct their country. If Iranians continue to let their worst elements control them, they will continue to be under threat of destruction from us.

    First of all, who is the “us” who should “mop up” Iran and continue to threaten to destroy the rest of Iran if it fails to “reform” to “our” satisfaction?

    Why psychopathic god animates the voices in your head?

    Second, in what sense are such recommendations moral? As noted above, over the millennia the ‘civilized’ world has developed a code of moral conduct pertaining to war. I posted it above for your enlightenment. You appear not to have absorbed the basics.

    You do seem to reflect the ideology of Jewish neoconservatives such as Michael Ledeen who endorses the model of Moses (you may have noticed that Moses was not mentioned in the Just War doctrine notes).

    According to Ledeen, it’s necessary and therefore quite all right — moral — to kill people, in large numbers, even, in order to bring about their “reform,” their ‘re-creation’ in the image of their killers. Ledeen cites the book of Exodus, chapter 32, —

    Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever is for the Lord, come to me.” And all the Levites rallied to him.

    Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”

    The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.”

    So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.”

    The Lord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.”

    And the Lord struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.

    Got that, George: the Levites killed a massive number of people; the remnant was cursed with a plague; that remnant was not permitted to enter the ‘promised land’ but was made to wander in the desert until they died off. Folks like Michael Ledeen, who considers himself a Levite, takes pride in a literal re-enactment of these tales; that’s the neoconservative model.

    They are central to the thinking of the core neoconservatives centered on Richard Perle, Ledeen, the Wurmsers, Jushua Muravchik and their ideological golden calves, Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol and the Kagan klan. Donald Kagan’s particular contribution is disdain for the rule of law: might makes right is all the wall-eyed patriot of the Kagan boys needs to form his moral framework.

    These neoconservatives are fixated on these homicidal scenes from Hebrew mythos.

    If Greeks had the same fixation most of the male population of Athens would be walking around with only one shoulder.

    “Its easy to avoid.”

    Well yea.
    Coupla thousand years of refining the way that men organize themselves in community and try to better it has discovered “easy ways to avoid” mass killing just for the hell of it.

    Greeks, and Romans, Germans, and Persians, Arabs, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Celts, even Vikings continually reexamined their founding myths and reinterpreted them for the betterment of humanity, not its mindless slaughter.

    Zionism, however, looks and works backward: Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro complains, almost weeping, “Zionism has stolen my Jewish identity! It has replace the Torah of Judaism with militarism . . .[zionists] changed what the Jewish people are, from a religion . . . to a nation of soldiers and warriors.”

    – and in its neoconoservative expression, zionism affirms genocide and advocates that the Iranian people be killed en masse.

    Just as you do, George.

    Once again, George, that’s not moral.
    That’s psychopathic and criminally so. It’s also backward.

    And by the way — genocide and psychopathology are not in the USA value set either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @George123
    None of us can know the motivations of Bush, his advisers, the many politicians who supported the war, the many commentators and citizens who supported the war. It was probably a complex mix of multiple motives that overlapped and had different relevance for each individual. "Imperial pivot" was undoubtedly one motive, but it's overly reductionist to single it out as *the* motive.

    Israel is undoubtedly aware of the perils of overstepping widely accepted moral constraints. So far, though, most of the world seems to find the Israeli response to morally complex challenges without clear solutions to have not gone so far beyond what good men grappling with a frustratingly challenging predicament might do to condemn with unambiguous finality.

    In other words, "its complicated" :)

    Your remarks about Jews puzzle me - some Jews are bad? I grant that. Every group has its unattractive specimens. I just looked up Jacob Schiff - apparently he financed Japan in the Russo-Japanese war to oppose Czarist oppression of Jews. Your description of him as the starter of wars for personal gain seems overblown.

    Do I consider my proposal to devastate Iran if it doesn't desist from getting nukes, or lose its desire to destroy American, moral? I do. It would be a clear ultimatum to Iran - the devastation would be its own responsibility. It could easily avoid it by ceasing to be aggressive. I also consider it justified by the rules of just war crafted by civilized nations.

    Zionism isn't calling for the genocide of Iranians. Israeli leaders are proposing to use the necessary force to stop a country that has called for the elimination of Israel from acquiring the means to do so. That seems eminently sensible to me, as well as moral.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. George123 says:
    @annamaria
    Why do you believe that Iran must be reformed? Israel's Knesset must be reformed (too much racist verbiage is coming from the members of this institution); the US plutocracy must be reformed to avoid a crush of the States. What does give you rights to look upon the peoples with deep roots that have been nurturing human civilization - the Iraqis and Iranians - as if they are in need of your wisdom and of the US/Israeli war profiteers in their midst?
    The civilized world prefers diplomacy. The subhuman war mongers love money&power.

    The only element within Iran I’d like to see reformed is its hatred of America and the West, because it directly concerns me. In fact, if Iran wasn’t trying to get nukes, I wouldn’t even care if it hated us. I’d probably like it, because its good to have different perspectives.

    I don’t look down on Iraq or Iran as much as you might think. I like Arab culture and appreciate Islamic civilizations and especially the refined Islamic civilization of Persia and the nearby lands it inspired, like Mughal India and Afghanistan.

    As I’ve said, I’m opposed to reforming other cultures and countries, especially in the image of America, which I find lacking in so many ways.

    I also prefer diplomacy, but I am willing to use force – even overwhelming force – when that has failed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Is not there a diplomatic process going on between the US and Iran right now, which alarms Israel-firsters and makes them mad with visceral hatred because the diplomacy could prevent the desired (by the Zionists) demolition of Iran? Iran has been cooperating with the international community, whereas Israelis' position with regard to nuclear WMD has been profoundly dishonest. For a starter, Israel must let IAEA to access and inspect Israel's nuclear arsenal.
    And whose "overwhelming force" are you having in mind? May I guess, you believe that the US should break international laws, again, to satisfy the Israel-firsters desires for regional triumph, that the Lobby will be able to cajole the treasonous US Senators to betray the US interests and to allow the US to become involved into military actions against Iran.
    But the tide has been turning. From the perspective of the US citizenry (including sane Americans of Jewish descent), the Lobby's only goal is to use the US resources for the benefit of Israel. And why should Americans support Israel? To become complicit in apartheid policies against the native Palestinian population? To cooperate with the former Soviets that advocate mass murder of the de facto prisoners on the Israel-occupied territories?
    The comment No 98 made an exceptionally profound explanation to the problems that American Zionism presents for the US citizenry and for people in the Middle East and east Ukraine:
    The psychopathic sense of superiority leading to abrogation of morality and to crimes against humanity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is a threat not just to potential belligerents in any ME war, but to civilization and the world itself.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

    Who doubts that if the American gravy train was ever halted, the Saudi oil wells would be nuked in response? The utter foolishness of Americans and their cartoon views of history is nothing less than astounding. Indeed, if not for Rambo movies and such, they would have no historical views.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. MarkinLA says:
    @Clyde
    I am perfectly fine with Israel taking out Iran's nuclear facilities. Strong nuclear EMP blasts over Tehran and Isfahan will also set back Iran quite a bit. Israel has no friend in the White House with that semi-Mulsim Obama who had two Muslim fathers who abandoned him. Here's hoping Obama plays it neutral and does not try to sabotage any such Israeli attack.

    Israel can’t do it and if they tried Iran will go deeply underground and build a bomb. Mossad knows this, that is why they want the US to do their dirty work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Thomas O. Meehan
    Perhaps not totally off topic, the neoconservatives seem fine with engaging Cuba by a normalization of relations and a gradual loosening of totalitarian control via open trade. It appears that this just can't work with Teheran however. I just can't remember why.

    The neocons entertain high hopes of re-establishing the Jewish Mafia in Havana to replace the one Castro kicked out in 1959.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @SolontoCroesus

    ". . .all of whom understand that no agreement leaves armed conflict as the only remaining option." - Phil Giraldi, http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/
     
    Is it a good idea to maintain this notion?

    What would be the casus belli?

    Just war theory states that a state may go to war in self-defense against aggressions against it.

    Does Iran have ships just off the dear homeland's coasts and harbors and troops and tanks massed on USA borders bristling with guns aimed at American citizens?

    Has Iran assassinated an American diplomat or military leader?

    Further,


    just cause . . . can ostensibly be a response to
    a physical injury (for example, a violation of territory),
    an insult (an aggression against national honor),
    a trade embargo (an aggression against economic activity), or even to
    a neighbor’s prosperity (a violation of social justice) http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/#H2
     
    Signatories to The United Nations charter have agreed that the United Nations Security Council is the arbiter when such acts are alleged to have occurred http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml


    Does failure to come to an agreement about Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program constitute just cause to wage war on Iran?

    And if the unjustifiable threat of war is used as a cudgel to force an agreement, is that agreement null and void because it was entered into under duress?

    You’re living in the past. As far as the US and Israel are concerned, Just War Theory is as out-of -date as plaid pants and leisure suits.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @geokat62
    You actually read M&W twice and you concluded "that Israel and its lobby aren’t the problems for American foreign policy."

    That's rather impressive... as this this not an easy thing to do. I'm trying to find a logical explanation for this phenomenon... perhaps the version of the book you were reading was missing the first eight chapters?

    ,
    There was a typo in my comment. I meant to say there Israel and its lobby aren’t the ONLY problems for American foreign policy. I’m all for exposing lobby’s negative influence on American foreign policy; but I think we should also reexamine our relationship with the Saudis and the other odious Gulf states.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    While I have no difficulty agreeing that "Israel and its lobby aren’t the ONLY problems for American foreign policy," do you have any difficulty agreeing that Israel and its Lobby represent the biggest problems?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @solontoCroesus
    re: "All I’m suggesting is that Israel and its lobby aren’t the problems for American foreign policy."

    That sobriquet, "We'll have to agree to disagree" is so unsatisfying.

    "Are you out of your frickin' mind" is the appropriate response to your comment that I-lobby is not the problem for American FP.

    In a recent Senate subcommittee hearing committee chair Mac Thornberry silenced, then ejected representatives of Code Pink who demanded that US Senate stop waging war; "Not in our name," they protested.
    In the next breathe Thornberry pledged that "the US will always take Israel's security as a priority."
    There's no part of Israel that is in Thornberry's Texas district. It's gotta be the I-Lobby twisting his arm, paying him off, or blackmailing him that elicits Thornberry's undying fealty -- and treason to the USA.

    --

    In any event, as Yossi Alpher discusses in a recent book, Israel and Saudi Arabia are now forming a relationship to replace the loss of Iran as Israel's buttress and protector in Israel's Periphery Doctrine.

    ,
    There was a typo in my comment. I meant to say that Israel and its lobby aren’t the ONLY problems for America’s interests in the Middle East. I’ve read Mearsheimer and Walt’s book twice, and Paul Findley’s book once. Obviously, the uncritical relationship with Israel is not good for American interests. I’m simply suggesting that we should also reexamine our relationship with the Saudis and the other Sunni gulf states. In other words, Israel isn’t the ONLY problem; that’s not the same thing as saying that Israel isn’t a problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. geokat62 says:
    @David Bruce
    @geokat62,
    There was a typo in my comment. I meant to say there Israel and its lobby aren't the ONLY problems for American foreign policy. I'm all for exposing lobby's negative influence on American foreign policy; but I think we should also reexamine our relationship with the Saudis and the other odious Gulf states.

    While I have no difficulty agreeing that “Israel and its lobby aren’t the ONLY problems for American foreign policy,” do you have any difficulty agreeing that Israel and its Lobby represent the biggest problems?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @George123
    I think Iran would like very much to see America destroyed, or at least huge and influential elements within Iran would, and in the region at large.

    Since that's so, and those elements have made clear their wishes and desires, I would sleep better at night if America used its immense and unstoppable power to ensure that a country that contains such elements in such large numbers, in a region that contains such large elements in such profusion, does not acquire weapons of mass destruction.

    I can't predict the future, nor the future political organization of Iran or other regional powers and groups. But I know that within Iran and surrounding areas so many wish America to vanish. To that end, I consider it good and sensible policy to guard against future contingencies arising out of the desire of so many within Iran and near to destroy America, to prevent the introduction of nuclear weapons into this volatile element.

    Its just common sense, and it can easily be achieved without destroying Iran - which I would deeply regret - if America would be willing to bring its unstoppable power to bear without apology and make a credible threat that the future survival of Iran is contingent on its giving up its desire for nuclear weapons.

    So much evil in the world can be averted if good men in possession of great power would be willing to use it.

    Stop hiding behind words. Iran poses absolutely no threat to America and you know it. What you are really worried about is that Iran posses a major threat to Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    Stop hiding behind words. Iran poses absolutely no threat to America and you know it. What you are really worried about is that Iran posses a major threat to Israel.
     
    All Sunni regimes too. Iran wants to depose them and get the Sunni Arab populations to convert to Shi'ism. Within the greater Middle East, 35% of Muslim are Shiite. So this Iranian vision is possible and fits into their Twelver end times scenario. Getting nuclear weapons is also part of Twelver end times doctrine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @George
    Defeating Iraq was a breeze - we ran into trouble trying to reconstruct Iraq in our image.

    We always run into trouble doing that. Had we wanted to, we could have killed every last person in vietnam, or reduced them to slaves on plantations.

    What we could not do is make them think like us or live like us. I respect that - its a testament to the invincibility of the human spirit, and should teach us to curtail our hubris tic tendencies.

    We are not gods. We can destroy a people, but we cannot re fashion them in our image. That is a task for a god.

    Iran was unable to defeat Iraq after seven years of war. It took us a few days, and we used a fraction of power.

    Most people simply do not understand the power of a modern western country like america, or even israel. The petty guerilla wars constrained by social and political objectives give no idea of the immense destructive power at our disposal.

    Even tiny israel has amassed a degree of military destructive power that is almost inconceivable. I was shocked when I read about it. Literally shocked. Tiny israel alone could literally wipe out iran with the loss of a few hundred thousand people itself.


    America is in a league of its own.

    Trying to reform iran would end in failure and humiliation for us. Deterring iran, or destroying. Would be a matter of days.

    “Even tiny israel has amassed a degree of military destructive power that is almost inconceivable. I was shocked when I read about it. Literally shocked. Tiny israel alone could literally wipe out iran with the loss of a few hundred thousand people itself.”

    Then please explain how Hezbollah fighters were able to defeat mighty Israel and chase them out of Lebanon with their tail between their legs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @George123
    The same way the Iraqis were able to "defeat" the US Army - political and social considerations drastically limited the use of military power. Its not a mystery.

    Do you seriously doubt Israel could have simply obliterated every single village in southern Lebanon if it wanted to?

    The Israelis never had more than a few companies in Lebanon - less than 500 men - and won every face to face battle they engaged in.

    While Western soldiers are more skilled and effective, the disparity isn't greater than 2 or 3 to 1 ratio. The Western edge is in weapons systems of devastatingly lethal power and the complex organization and technological skill needed to deploy them at their full potential. Hezbollah has nothing even remotely comparable to this and depends on political constraints to avoid complete annihilation.

    Nevertheless, the Israelis did indeed perform poorly in Lebanon, far below the high expectations one would have of them. That happens. Successful armies become complacent and tend to rest on their laurels. Israel had also just crafted a new battle doctrine that was disastrously abstract, confusing, incoherent, and over-reliant on air power - the kind of thing crafted by over-clever academics whose novel theories are indulged in an atmosphere of over-confidence.

    The US Army published an analysis of the whole situation. Its very interesting, and lays the whole situation quite bare.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. annamaria says:
    @George123
    The only element within Iran I'd like to see reformed is its hatred of America and the West, because it directly concerns me. In fact, if Iran wasn't trying to get nukes, I wouldn't even care if it hated us. I'd probably like it, because its good to have different perspectives.

    I don't look down on Iraq or Iran as much as you might think. I like Arab culture and appreciate Islamic civilizations and especially the refined Islamic civilization of Persia and the nearby lands it inspired, like Mughal India and Afghanistan.

    As I've said, I'm opposed to reforming other cultures and countries, especially in the image of America, which I find lacking in so many ways.

    I also prefer diplomacy, but I am willing to use force - even overwhelming force - when that has failed.

    Is not there a diplomatic process going on between the US and Iran right now, which alarms Israel-firsters and makes them mad with visceral hatred because the diplomacy could prevent the desired (by the Zionists) demolition of Iran? Iran has been cooperating with the international community, whereas Israelis’ position with regard to nuclear WMD has been profoundly dishonest. For a starter, Israel must let IAEA to access and inspect Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
    And whose “overwhelming force” are you having in mind? May I guess, you believe that the US should break international laws, again, to satisfy the Israel-firsters desires for regional triumph, that the Lobby will be able to cajole the treasonous US Senators to betray the US interests and to allow the US to become involved into military actions against Iran.
    But the tide has been turning. From the perspective of the US citizenry (including sane Americans of Jewish descent), the Lobby’s only goal is to use the US resources for the benefit of Israel. And why should Americans support Israel? To become complicit in apartheid policies against the native Palestinian population? To cooperate with the former Soviets that advocate mass murder of the de facto prisoners on the Israel-occupied territories?
    The comment No 98 made an exceptionally profound explanation to the problems that American Zionism presents for the US citizenry and for people in the Middle East and east Ukraine:
    The psychopathic sense of superiority leading to abrogation of morality and to crimes against humanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @George123
    I'm not opposed to negotiations if they produce the desired outcome. But they must have a time limit, and at some point, you have to resort to military force. Negotiations are only as useful as the result produced by them, they aren't an end in themselves.

    While I think America should be supportive of Israel, I certainly don't think we should carry out any military on their behalf.

    But I think dealing with Iran is indeed a compelling national interest of ours, and matching ends to means, our means are so enormous that tolerating a high level of risk that might seem the lesser of two evils to smaller and weaker nations, does not seem indicated in our case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Clyde says:

    Israel better shit or get off the pot, because right now with low world oil prices is the ideal window of opportunity to waste the Iranian nuclear program and threat to the region. Threat to the Saudis and all wealthy Sunni Muslim oil producers. These US allies will be cheering from the sidelines if Israel does the deed. Publicly they will condemn, privately they will applaud. This might get very interesting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. Clyde says:
    @Carroll Price
    Stop hiding behind words. Iran poses absolutely no threat to America and you know it. What you are really worried about is that Iran posses a major threat to Israel.

    Stop hiding behind words. Iran poses absolutely no threat to America and you know it. What you are really worried about is that Iran posses a major threat to Israel.

    All Sunni regimes too. Iran wants to depose them and get the Sunni Arab populations to convert to Shi’ism. Within the greater Middle East, 35% of Muslim are Shiite. So this Iranian vision is possible and fits into their Twelver end times scenario. Getting nuclear weapons is also part of Twelver end times doctrine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. George123 says:
    @Carroll Price
    "Even tiny israel has amassed a degree of military destructive power that is almost inconceivable. I was shocked when I read about it. Literally shocked. Tiny israel alone could literally wipe out iran with the loss of a few hundred thousand people itself."

    Then please explain how Hezbollah fighters were able to defeat mighty Israel and chase them out of Lebanon with their tail between their legs.

    The same way the Iraqis were able to “defeat” the US Army – political and social considerations drastically limited the use of military power. Its not a mystery.

    Do you seriously doubt Israel could have simply obliterated every single village in southern Lebanon if it wanted to?

    The Israelis never had more than a few companies in Lebanon – less than 500 men – and won every face to face battle they engaged in.

    While Western soldiers are more skilled and effective, the disparity isn’t greater than 2 or 3 to 1 ratio. The Western edge is in weapons systems of devastatingly lethal power and the complex organization and technological skill needed to deploy them at their full potential. Hezbollah has nothing even remotely comparable to this and depends on political constraints to avoid complete annihilation.

    Nevertheless, the Israelis did indeed perform poorly in Lebanon, far below the high expectations one would have of them. That happens. Successful armies become complacent and tend to rest on their laurels. Israel had also just crafted a new battle doctrine that was disastrously abstract, confusing, incoherent, and over-reliant on air power – the kind of thing crafted by over-clever academics whose novel theories are indulged in an atmosphere of over-confidence.

    The US Army published an analysis of the whole situation. Its very interesting, and lays the whole situation quite bare.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. George123 says:
    @annamaria
    Is not there a diplomatic process going on between the US and Iran right now, which alarms Israel-firsters and makes them mad with visceral hatred because the diplomacy could prevent the desired (by the Zionists) demolition of Iran? Iran has been cooperating with the international community, whereas Israelis' position with regard to nuclear WMD has been profoundly dishonest. For a starter, Israel must let IAEA to access and inspect Israel's nuclear arsenal.
    And whose "overwhelming force" are you having in mind? May I guess, you believe that the US should break international laws, again, to satisfy the Israel-firsters desires for regional triumph, that the Lobby will be able to cajole the treasonous US Senators to betray the US interests and to allow the US to become involved into military actions against Iran.
    But the tide has been turning. From the perspective of the US citizenry (including sane Americans of Jewish descent), the Lobby's only goal is to use the US resources for the benefit of Israel. And why should Americans support Israel? To become complicit in apartheid policies against the native Palestinian population? To cooperate with the former Soviets that advocate mass murder of the de facto prisoners on the Israel-occupied territories?
    The comment No 98 made an exceptionally profound explanation to the problems that American Zionism presents for the US citizenry and for people in the Middle East and east Ukraine:
    The psychopathic sense of superiority leading to abrogation of morality and to crimes against humanity.

    I’m not opposed to negotiations if they produce the desired outcome. But they must have a time limit, and at some point, you have to resort to military force. Negotiations are only as useful as the result produced by them, they aren’t an end in themselves.

    While I think America should be supportive of Israel, I certainly don’t think we should carry out any military on their behalf.

    But I think dealing with Iran is indeed a compelling national interest of ours, and matching ends to means, our means are so enormous that tolerating a high level of risk that might seem the lesser of two evils to smaller and weaker nations, does not seem indicated in our case.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. George123 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Whatever the motivations of the US were, Iraq only brought down the might of the US when it chose to invade Kuwait, and refused to back down.
     
    The facts differ from your narrative.

    George H W Bush did not give a hoot about Kuwait or its liberation. G H W Bush and team saw the invasion of Kuwait as an opportunity inside a golden moment -- the newly-minted unipolar moment -- to establish US dominance and create a "new world order." Iraq's invasion of Kuwait gave GHW a test-case situation.

    It is also not true that Saddam "refused to back down."
    Jordan's King Hussein and his friend and lawyer, former CIA station chief Jack O'Connell, crafted a solution that Saddam was prepared to agree to.
    Leaders of the other Arab states pleaded with Bush to butt out (in diplomatic tones) and let them handle the situation since they "understood how Arabs think."

    Gorbachev was in constant communication with Bush. He, too, counseled Bush to the point of exasperation to refrain from getting involved in what was an Arab matter. Bush yelled at Gorbachev and told him to Butt out -- in far less diplomatic tones.

    Bush invaded Iraq in 1991 because he wanted to, because it offered to him the "imperial pivot."


    Perhaps the lesson is – if you act aggressively towards your neighbors, you may create a pretext for far more powerful players to attack you in turn, even if their motives aren’t honorable.
     
    So true.
    Israel should take note.

    Jews should take that counsel to heart as well.
    There are many forms of "acting aggressively towards your neighbors." Edwin Black chronicled how Jacob Schiff used his wealth as a weapon to "act aggressively toward" Russia. He set in motion wars that are still resolving themselves after having destroyed millions of lives.

    Schiff could have used his status and his wealth to achieve the results he sought -- a better life for Russian Jews -- by dealing with honesty and respect.

    But as Theodor Herzl observed several times in Der Judenstaat "our terrible power of the purse" turned the Jewish mind from thoughts of working toward peace with all their neighbors to "acting aggressively" towards them instead. People on the other end of that aggressive wealth are likely to resist it or retaliate against it. Every time, Eventually.


    Morality operates as a constraint for everyone. If you step outside the lines, you have forfeited the protection afforded by being within that magic circle. Other predators might now take advantage of you.
     
    This is confusing.
    Do you consider it moral to even give voice to a thought like, "Trying to reform iran would end in failure and humiliation for us. Deterring iran, or destroying. Would be a matter of days," and

    A war with Iran would be pretty much a low risk mop up operation, so it’s something we probably should gave done long ago. As long as we avoid the stupidity of trying to impose liberal democracy on iran, destroying iran would be easy and cheap.

    If, after that moderate elements within iran rise to the fore, we should help them reconstruct their country. If Iranians continue to let their worst elements control them, they will continue to be under threat of destruction from us.
     

    First of all, who is the "us" who should "mop up" Iran and continue to threaten to destroy the rest of Iran if it fails to "reform" to "our" satisfaction?

    Why psychopathic god animates the voices in your head?

    Second, in what sense are such recommendations moral? As noted above, over the millennia the 'civilized' world has developed a code of moral conduct pertaining to war. I posted it above for your enlightenment. You appear not to have absorbed the basics.

    You do seem to reflect the ideology of Jewish neoconservatives such as Michael Ledeen who endorses the model of Moses (you may have noticed that Moses was not mentioned in the Just War doctrine notes).

    According to Ledeen, it's necessary and therefore quite all right -- moral -- to kill people, in large numbers, even, in order to bring about their "reform," their 're-creation' in the image of their killers. Ledeen cites the book of Exodus, chapter 32, ---


    Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever is for the Lord, come to me.” And all the Levites rallied to him.

    Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”

    The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.”

    So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.”

    The Lord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.”

    And the Lord struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.
     

    Got that, George: the Levites killed a massive number of people; the remnant was cursed with a plague; that remnant was not permitted to enter the 'promised land' but was made to wander in the desert until they died off. Folks like Michael Ledeen, who considers himself a Levite, takes pride in a literal re-enactment of these tales; that's the neoconservative model.

    They are central to the thinking of the core neoconservatives centered on Richard Perle, Ledeen, the Wurmsers, Jushua Muravchik and their ideological golden calves, Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol and the Kagan klan. Donald Kagan's particular contribution is disdain for the rule of law: might makes right is all the wall-eyed patriot of the Kagan boys needs to form his moral framework.

    These neoconservatives are fixated on these homicidal scenes from Hebrew mythos.

    If Greeks had the same fixation most of the male population of Athens would be walking around with only one shoulder.


    "Its easy to avoid."
     
    Well yea.
    Coupla thousand years of refining the way that men organize themselves in community and try to better it has discovered "easy ways to avoid" mass killing just for the hell of it.

    Greeks, and Romans, Germans, and Persians, Arabs, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Celts, even Vikings continually reexamined their founding myths and reinterpreted them for the betterment of humanity, not its mindless slaughter.

    Zionism, however, looks and works backward: Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro complains, almost weeping, "Zionism has stolen my Jewish identity! It has replace the Torah of Judaism with militarism . . .[zionists] changed what the Jewish people are, from a religion . . . to a nation of soldiers and warriors."

    -- and in its neoconoservative expression, zionism affirms genocide and advocates that the Iranian people be killed en masse.

    Just as you do, George.

    Once again, George, that's not moral.
    That's psychopathic and criminally so. It's also backward.

    And by the way -- genocide and psychopathology are not in the USA value set either.

    None of us can know the motivations of Bush, his advisers, the many politicians who supported the war, the many commentators and citizens who supported the war. It was probably a complex mix of multiple motives that overlapped and had different relevance for each individual. “Imperial pivot” was undoubtedly one motive, but it’s overly reductionist to single it out as *the* motive.

    Israel is undoubtedly aware of the perils of overstepping widely accepted moral constraints. So far, though, most of the world seems to find the Israeli response to morally complex challenges without clear solutions to have not gone so far beyond what good men grappling with a frustratingly challenging predicament might do to condemn with unambiguous finality.

    In other words, “its complicated” :)

    Your remarks about Jews puzzle me – some Jews are bad? I grant that. Every group has its unattractive specimens. I just looked up Jacob Schiff – apparently he financed Japan in the Russo-Japanese war to oppose Czarist oppression of Jews. Your description of him as the starter of wars for personal gain seems overblown.

    Do I consider my proposal to devastate Iran if it doesn’t desist from getting nukes, or lose its desire to destroy American, moral? I do. It would be a clear ultimatum to Iran – the devastation would be its own responsibility. It could easily avoid it by ceasing to be aggressive. I also consider it justified by the rules of just war crafted by civilized nations.

    Zionism isn’t calling for the genocide of Iranians. Israeli leaders are proposing to use the necessary force to stop a country that has called for the elimination of Israel from acquiring the means to do so. That seems eminently sensible to me, as well as moral.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Actually, the Zionists have been calling for the genocide of Iranians (on the US dime, of course). Just a random sampling: http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/04/17/406791/Bolton-Israel-speeds-up-Iran-war-plan
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/usisrael-01-lie-unlawful-war-aggression-iran-99-99-must-choose-arrests-global-nuclear-war.html
    http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/04/02/3642106/nuclear-talks-near-deal-israel-threatens-bomb-iran/
    There is no doubts that the Zionists are against diplomatic solution re Iran and that the Zionists are for the Israeli hegemony in the Middle East by any means, including the death of millions of innocent civilians that are native to the Middle East and whose ancestors have been living there for many generations. The opportunistic newcomers from the Central Asia and Eastern Europe (plus an admixture of wealthy American Jews), are drunk with a feverish belief in their ethnic supremacy. For this belief, the murderous lunatics are prepared to incinerate other countries.
    , @Anonymous
    And why did the deputy prime minster of Israel Meridor admit that Iran never said that it wanted to wipe Israel off?
    , @SolontoCroesus
    George -- Below is an example of how Jacob Schiff could have used his wealth to become a force for good rather than a financier of war. Mohammad Mahallati came of age in Iran's revolutionary turmoil; he was Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, among other roles. Now he teaches conflict resolution and the "ethics of peacemaking in Islam." Your friend Sam Shama would no doubt call that "phobic," "irrational."

    Jewish financiers like Schiff, and other Jewish "mediocre intellects" like Rosa Luxemburg have interfered with the revolutions of states that sought to reform their own government -- such as the Jewish exploitation of the German revolution and meddling in Weimar government, and the subversion of Iranian efforts at home-grown revolution and reform carried out by Jewish influencers and their carry-out staff in US government.

    You insist on the right to "reform" Iran in your image and likeness. Iranians insist on the right to reform their own government.

    Of the two states, Israel and Iran, and as Haggai Ram and Avigail Abarbanel have observed, the Israeli model is psychopathic; detached from reality;


    "anti-Iran phobias in the Israeli public sphere are largely projections of perceived domestic threats to the prevailing Israeli ethnocratic order. At the same time, he examines these phobias in relation to the Jewish state’s use of violence in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon in the post-9/11 world."
     
    Israeli society is deformed and dysfunctional; how can it be otherwise: it is built on a foundation of lies; it's very architecture is designed to segregate, oppress and humiliate; a system that can be and is maintained only by continual violence, the religion of zionism that has replaced the Torah of Judaism.

    The tragedy of American foreign policy is that it has followed the Jacob Schiff model rather than its own founding legacy; it has aided and abetted the deformed and dysfunctional Israeli society in its mission of oppression and killing, while throwing roadblocks in the way of what may well be the most dynamic experiment in self-government since the establishment of the United States Constitutional republic; namely, the creation and evolution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    -------


    Mohammad J. Mahallati
    Presidential Scholar of Islam

    [email protected]

    Educational Background
    Bachelor of Arts, National University (Tehran), 1975
    Bachelor of Science, University of Kansas, 1978
    Masters of Science, University of Oregon, 1980
    Doctor of Philosophy, McGill University, 2006

    Mohammad Jafar Amir Mahallati is currently Presidential Scholar in Islamic Studies at the Religion Department of Oberlin College. He received his Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from McGill University, after completing the Harvard fellowship for Persian studies in 2005-06. Mahallati has taught graduate courses and lectured at Columbia, Princeton, Yale, and Georgetown Universities. He has served as senior scholar and affiliate with several academic and religious institutions focused on international relations, including the Middle East Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Affairs, and Search for Common Ground (all in Washington DC).

    After his studies in Islamic theology at Khan Seminary (Shiraz, Iran) and receiving a B.A. in Economics from National University (Tehran), Mahallati completed a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Kansas and a M.S. in Political Economy from the University of Oregon. He served as, Chairman of Economic Department at Kerman University (1980), Director General for Economic and International Affairs, in Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1981-1987), and Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations (1987-1989). As Ambassador he was successful in bringing an end to the devastating eight-year Iran-Iraq War.

    Mahallati achieved his multidisciplinary and multicultural peace-building experience through works at the United Nations in the field of conflict resolution for a decade, teaching international relations for another decade, as well as eight years of teaching Islamic studies at Oberlin College. His research has focused on the ethics of peacemaking in Islam in the context of comparative religions. This central theme appears in his published and projected scholarship and also draws from his previous and present peace activism and teaching. Within the religious framework of interpersonal and inter-communal peacemaking, Mahallati aims to contribute to various stages of this discipline including: Ethics of War (focuses on limiting the scale and scope of war and questioning its legitimacy); Ethics of Forgiveness (based on ethico-religious arguments that aim to end current wars and prevent future ones); and Ethics of Friendship (that aims to transform cold and negative to positive and friendly peace). His research looks at cultural and religious elements in Muslim life that could be utilized in the modern international relations and produce a language that can facilitate an Islamic contribution to the current strategic peacemaking efforts in international arenas.

    His monograph drawing on dissertation research Ethics of War and Peace in Iran and Shi‘i Islam serves the first goal; his current project Ethics of Apology and Forgiveness in Politics: A Christian and Muslim Perspective serves the second goal, and his edited volumes in English and Persian languages on Rethinking Friendship in Muslim Cultures and Modern World Politics, with his substantial contribution to both, serve the third. This book would be the first of its kind on this topic. It is intended for scholars and students of Islamic studies, conflict resolution, law, history, ethics, interfaith and international relations. It will also be of interest to the general public and to policymakers in the Muslim and the non-Muslim cultures.

    Through inter-disciplinary teaching and writing, Mahallati brings high moral and religious values such as friendship, forgiveness, magnanimity, and sense of charity from interpersonal realms to civic, interfaith and international relations. Besides his scholarly interests in Religious Studies, Mahallati enjoys pursuing his interests in Islamic arts and literature, specifically Sufi poetry and sacred calligraphy. He has co-translated into English two published volumes on works of Sohrab Sepehri known as the contemporary pioneer Persian poet who promotes environmental consciousness.

    In his teaching on Islam, Mahallati deconstructs popular perceptions of this religion through an emic approach that weaves a rich tapestry of cultural religious history. His courses cover a broad historical swath and seamlessly integrate texts of impressive diversity and scope. By looking into the intricate trends of Islamic institutional development and textual interpretation in various historical contexts, he allows students to think within a tradition while also having an eye on modern critical interpretive assessments. In his seminar courses, Mahallati covers the philosophical and conceptual foundations of lived religion and esoteric, devotional, and artistic practices and beliefs of Muslim societies. In all his courses related to applied ethics, he introduces students to his own research into the intersection between Christian and Muslim ethical discourses on just war theories, peacemaking, and theories of friendship.

    Mahallati’s scholarship in ethics of friendship has resulted in the annual celebration of Friendship Day at Oberlin; a day of his founding that has garnered support on the American national scene.
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. JohnDough says:

    It’s easy to see Israeli involvement in this deal. One has to remember the Talmud when dealing with Jews. It’s their culture and it’s certainly not Christian culture. If you look at the flexible rules that go into the ritual Mikvah bath for example you can see an abstract model of their reasoning. In Christianity you’re baptised once and that’s it! That’s the Christian take on the Mikvah.

    In Judaic thinking there are many potential loopholes allowed to be exercised all over the place. The bread and butter of shrewd and shifty lawyers or in this case politicians, diplomats and stink tank minds. Then following this type of cultural reasoning which has a goal of winning by any means, they will say that Iran was given the deal of the century and didn’t accept it so we’re going to slaughter their country.

    And they will really slaughter it for the security of Israel as they are now slaughtering Syria. Egypt is already a puppet government and other enemies of Israel are becoming busy fighting ISIS. Israel has to be removed from US politics if we are to advance American interests in the future. It’s sad when two of the biggest supporters of the candidates for Potus in both parties are Israel firsters with money made in questionable ways.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. annamaria says:
    @George123
    None of us can know the motivations of Bush, his advisers, the many politicians who supported the war, the many commentators and citizens who supported the war. It was probably a complex mix of multiple motives that overlapped and had different relevance for each individual. "Imperial pivot" was undoubtedly one motive, but it's overly reductionist to single it out as *the* motive.

    Israel is undoubtedly aware of the perils of overstepping widely accepted moral constraints. So far, though, most of the world seems to find the Israeli response to morally complex challenges without clear solutions to have not gone so far beyond what good men grappling with a frustratingly challenging predicament might do to condemn with unambiguous finality.

    In other words, "its complicated" :)

    Your remarks about Jews puzzle me - some Jews are bad? I grant that. Every group has its unattractive specimens. I just looked up Jacob Schiff - apparently he financed Japan in the Russo-Japanese war to oppose Czarist oppression of Jews. Your description of him as the starter of wars for personal gain seems overblown.

    Do I consider my proposal to devastate Iran if it doesn't desist from getting nukes, or lose its desire to destroy American, moral? I do. It would be a clear ultimatum to Iran - the devastation would be its own responsibility. It could easily avoid it by ceasing to be aggressive. I also consider it justified by the rules of just war crafted by civilized nations.

    Zionism isn't calling for the genocide of Iranians. Israeli leaders are proposing to use the necessary force to stop a country that has called for the elimination of Israel from acquiring the means to do so. That seems eminently sensible to me, as well as moral.

    Peace.

    Actually, the Zionists have been calling for the genocide of Iranians (on the US dime, of course). Just a random sampling: http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/04/17/406791/Bolton-Israel-speeds-up-Iran-war-plan

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/usisrael-01-lie-unlawful-war-aggression-iran-99-99-must-choose-arrests-global-nuclear-war.html

    http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/04/02/3642106/nuclear-talks-near-deal-israel-threatens-bomb-iran/

    There is no doubts that the Zionists are against diplomatic solution re Iran and that the Zionists are for the Israeli hegemony in the Middle East by any means, including the death of millions of innocent civilians that are native to the Middle East and whose ancestors have been living there for many generations. The opportunistic newcomers from the Central Asia and Eastern Europe (plus an admixture of wealthy American Jews), are drunk with a feverish belief in their ethnic supremacy. For this belief, the murderous lunatics are prepared to incinerate other countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @George
    I looked at those links. They don't appear to contain any new information, but just explain israel is preparing to use force to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear technology.

    Can you explain what in those links would lead one to conclude that Israel is planning a genocide, and that it's actions are not a limited response to Iran's attempt to acquire nukes?

    The Israelis do appear to be against a diplomatic solution that would leave iran with nukes. I can understand that.

    I do find israeli ethnocentrism troubling, but far more benign and less aggressive than that of various Muslim communities.

    In an ideal world ethnocentrism would have no place, but the best way to reach that world is to support benign ethnocentrism against its more virulent strains as a stage on that path. Once the muslim world develops liberal humanistic tendencies, which I believe has roots in traditional Islam as seen in the deeply humanistic outlook of certain mughal emperors as well as sufism, I would support the dismantling of Israeli ethnocentrism.

    Doing so now, however, would amount to unilateral disarmament and hasten the advance of evil in the world.
    , @KA
    Why is NYT 07/02/15) page A 4 still peddling the genuineness of the debunked Laptop information?
    Its behavior is reminiscent of the continued indirect endorsement of the Niger forgery until it became a common knowledge that it was a pack of lies ,thanks to the saga around Joe Wilson and his wife.
    Who does NYT report for? Not for American when it comes to Middle East or Iran.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. George says:
    @annamaria
    Actually, the Zionists have been calling for the genocide of Iranians (on the US dime, of course). Just a random sampling: http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/04/17/406791/Bolton-Israel-speeds-up-Iran-war-plan
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/usisrael-01-lie-unlawful-war-aggression-iran-99-99-must-choose-arrests-global-nuclear-war.html
    http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/04/02/3642106/nuclear-talks-near-deal-israel-threatens-bomb-iran/
    There is no doubts that the Zionists are against diplomatic solution re Iran and that the Zionists are for the Israeli hegemony in the Middle East by any means, including the death of millions of innocent civilians that are native to the Middle East and whose ancestors have been living there for many generations. The opportunistic newcomers from the Central Asia and Eastern Europe (plus an admixture of wealthy American Jews), are drunk with a feverish belief in their ethnic supremacy. For this belief, the murderous lunatics are prepared to incinerate other countries.

    I looked at those links. They don’t appear to contain any new information, but just explain israel is preparing to use force to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear technology.

    Can you explain what in those links would lead one to conclude that Israel is planning a genocide, and that it’s actions are not a limited response to Iran’s attempt to acquire nukes?

    The Israelis do appear to be against a diplomatic solution that would leave iran with nukes. I can understand that.

    I do find israeli ethnocentrism troubling, but far more benign and less aggressive than that of various Muslim communities.

    In an ideal world ethnocentrism would have no place, but the best way to reach that world is to support benign ethnocentrism against its more virulent strains as a stage on that path. Once the muslim world develops liberal humanistic tendencies, which I believe has roots in traditional Islam as seen in the deeply humanistic outlook of certain mughal emperors as well as sufism, I would support the dismantling of Israeli ethnocentrism.

    Doing so now, however, would amount to unilateral disarmament and hasten the advance of evil in the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    I wasn't going to respond to any of your postings, but this one has so many telltale signs that it was scripted by someone from the MFA that I just had to comment.

    I admire how new subtleties are being introduced so as to not offend the sensibilities of the goy, especially their sense of fairness. It looks like the MFA is continually trying to improve its product, but no matter how hard it tries, at the end of the day, it still remains Hasbara! Oh, btw, the monicker "George" is a nice touch!
    , @annamaria
    For your future psyop posts, here is a soft spot in Israel's narrative, namely, the biblical and other mythological claims on the land in the Middle East.
    The zionists project started by the highly ambitious people that never envisioned themselves as agrarians working in kibbutz, though. The State of Israel began with a Declaration (not a legal agreement) and with arbitrary decisions spelled and enforced by the very wealthy and very influential Jewish bankers. The State was supposed to give a shelter to Jewish people. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html
    The State was conceived in a revolutionary manner, totally in a spirit of the revolutionary epoch, including a set of Jewish terrorist bands (Stern and such) and the quasi-communist agrarian communes. Eventually, the State has transformed into apartheid entity with a strong parasitic instinct towards the only superpower, the US. The current population of Israel includes a considerable number of the former Soviets that came to Israel as legal economic migrant; many of them had no connection whatsoever to Judaism. A large percentage of the migrants put tremendous efforts to get out of Israel and to emigrate to Canada, Germany, and the US. As you perhaps noticed, there has been no stampede among the American and West European Jews to relocate to Israel.
    Today the State of Israel is a Disney Land for the wealthy Jews. They want to see their childhood dream no matter what, because it is so comforting to feel a superior race! At the same time, the most influential Israel-firsters in the US and EU do not want to live in the promised land. Neither American Kagans and Rubins, and Krystols and Feiths, nor French "philosopher" Bernard Henri-Lévy and likes have ever expressed a desire to live with "their people" and reside permanently in Israel. There are many noble and courageous Israelis, no doubts, that see the danger of malignant transformation. It is not surprising that some of those who thought for the existence of the State of Israel look at the current "transformer" with horror (Uri Avnery: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/8/uri_avnery_on_gaza_crisis_his).

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/05/the-big-lie-at-the-heart-of-the-myth-of-the-creation-of-israel/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. geokat62 says:
    @George
    I looked at those links. They don't appear to contain any new information, but just explain israel is preparing to use force to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear technology.

    Can you explain what in those links would lead one to conclude that Israel is planning a genocide, and that it's actions are not a limited response to Iran's attempt to acquire nukes?

    The Israelis do appear to be against a diplomatic solution that would leave iran with nukes. I can understand that.

    I do find israeli ethnocentrism troubling, but far more benign and less aggressive than that of various Muslim communities.

    In an ideal world ethnocentrism would have no place, but the best way to reach that world is to support benign ethnocentrism against its more virulent strains as a stage on that path. Once the muslim world develops liberal humanistic tendencies, which I believe has roots in traditional Islam as seen in the deeply humanistic outlook of certain mughal emperors as well as sufism, I would support the dismantling of Israeli ethnocentrism.

    Doing so now, however, would amount to unilateral disarmament and hasten the advance of evil in the world.

    I wasn’t going to respond to any of your postings, but this one has so many telltale signs that it was scripted by someone from the MFA that I just had to comment.

    I admire how new subtleties are being introduced so as to not offend the sensibilities of the goy, especially their sense of fairness. It looks like the MFA is continually trying to improve its product, but no matter how hard it tries, at the end of the day, it still remains Hasbara! Oh, btw, the monicker “George” is a nice touch!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. KA says:
    @annamaria
    Actually, the Zionists have been calling for the genocide of Iranians (on the US dime, of course). Just a random sampling: http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/04/17/406791/Bolton-Israel-speeds-up-Iran-war-plan
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/usisrael-01-lie-unlawful-war-aggression-iran-99-99-must-choose-arrests-global-nuclear-war.html
    http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/04/02/3642106/nuclear-talks-near-deal-israel-threatens-bomb-iran/
    There is no doubts that the Zionists are against diplomatic solution re Iran and that the Zionists are for the Israeli hegemony in the Middle East by any means, including the death of millions of innocent civilians that are native to the Middle East and whose ancestors have been living there for many generations. The opportunistic newcomers from the Central Asia and Eastern Europe (plus an admixture of wealthy American Jews), are drunk with a feverish belief in their ethnic supremacy. For this belief, the murderous lunatics are prepared to incinerate other countries.

    Why is NYT 07/02/15) page A 4 still peddling the genuineness of the debunked Laptop information?
    Its behavior is reminiscent of the continued indirect endorsement of the Niger forgery until it became a common knowledge that it was a pack of lies ,thanks to the saga around Joe Wilson and his wife.
    Who does NYT report for? Not for American when it comes to Middle East or Iran.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. George says:

    Argue the arguement, not the man.

    Arguing the man is a concession of defeat.

    When I see an ad hominem, what I think is – game, set, match.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    "When I see an ad hominem, what I think is... "

    I wonder if it's still an ad hominem if I'm attacking an institution, not an individual?
    , @Cloak And Dagger
    Argue the arguement[sic], not the man.

    I didn't want to react to your postings, but I think it is worthwhile to do so for the other readers who may be confused by your assertions.

    An argument consists of statements of fact, supported by logical reasoning or supporting data. What you have provided us is nothing more than trivial assertions without any basis in reference data or demonstrated reasoning. You do not get to win an argument by merely repeating the same words over and over again in your posts, even with rephrasing, without any corroborating data or supporting logic, nor does your point become more valid by increasing the volume of what you say or the quantity of your verbiage.

    It is also an insult to our intelligence for you to assume that we are not aware of Israel's megaphone project with its hordes of Internet trolls to fill comment boards with form data, that is meant to merely obfuscate and corrupt discussions, in the hopes of distracting from the nefarious activities of Israel's minions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. George says:

    A belief is the unique virtues of your group – in this case, the unique fairness of whites (deriving the “essence” of whitness through a peculiar proccess that manges to ignore the entire history of actual, living whites) is a mental vice, and an emotional failing. In this particular instance, an intellectual grotesquerie, too.

    We are all human – and equally bad, with an equal potential for good.

    At different historical points, different groups exhibit different potential for good.

    Today, Muslims are in a bad way, but they were once more humanistic than whites. The liberal, poetic, and humanistic remarks of some of the late mughal emperors compare favorably with the rough british conquerors that were about to replace them. And I have read convincing accounts of post-biblical Talmud Jewish culure that make clear it contains hideous and dark elements.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. annamaria says:
    @George
    I looked at those links. They don't appear to contain any new information, but just explain israel is preparing to use force to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear technology.

    Can you explain what in those links would lead one to conclude that Israel is planning a genocide, and that it's actions are not a limited response to Iran's attempt to acquire nukes?

    The Israelis do appear to be against a diplomatic solution that would leave iran with nukes. I can understand that.

    I do find israeli ethnocentrism troubling, but far more benign and less aggressive than that of various Muslim communities.

    In an ideal world ethnocentrism would have no place, but the best way to reach that world is to support benign ethnocentrism against its more virulent strains as a stage on that path. Once the muslim world develops liberal humanistic tendencies, which I believe has roots in traditional Islam as seen in the deeply humanistic outlook of certain mughal emperors as well as sufism, I would support the dismantling of Israeli ethnocentrism.

    Doing so now, however, would amount to unilateral disarmament and hasten the advance of evil in the world.

    For your future psyop posts, here is a soft spot in Israel’s narrative, namely, the biblical and other mythological claims on the land in the Middle East.
    The zionists project started by the highly ambitious people that never envisioned themselves as agrarians working in kibbutz, though. The State of Israel began with a Declaration (not a legal agreement) and with arbitrary decisions spelled and enforced by the very wealthy and very influential Jewish bankers. The State was supposed to give a shelter to Jewish people. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html
    The State was conceived in a revolutionary manner, totally in a spirit of the revolutionary epoch, including a set of Jewish terrorist bands (Stern and such) and the quasi-communist agrarian communes. Eventually, the State has transformed into apartheid entity with a strong parasitic instinct towards the only superpower, the US. The current population of Israel includes a considerable number of the former Soviets that came to Israel as legal economic migrant; many of them had no connection whatsoever to Judaism. A large percentage of the migrants put tremendous efforts to get out of Israel and to emigrate to Canada, Germany, and the US. As you perhaps noticed, there has been no stampede among the American and West European Jews to relocate to Israel.
    Today the State of Israel is a Disney Land for the wealthy Jews. They want to see their childhood dream no matter what, because it is so comforting to feel a superior race! At the same time, the most influential Israel-firsters in the US and EU do not want to live in the promised land. Neither American Kagans and Rubins, and Krystols and Feiths, nor French “philosopher” Bernard Henri-Lévy and likes have ever expressed a desire to live with “their people” and reside permanently in Israel. There are many noble and courageous Israelis, no doubts, that see the danger of malignant transformation. It is not surprising that some of those who thought for the existence of the State of Israel look at the current “transformer” with horror (Uri Avnery: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/8/uri_avnery_on_gaza_crisis_his).

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/05/the-big-lie-at-the-heart-of-the-myth-of-the-creation-of-israel/

    Read More
    • Replies: @George
    No people owns the land on which they once dwelled. Nothing lasts, nothing is permanent. Arabs came to Palestine as conquerors, but it does not seem obvious why that should be the final political dispensation of the land.

    Time passed, Arabs lost their political independence, the Turks took over, then the British, the land became thinly settled and derelict, with many waste spaces.

    It is wrong to violently dispossessed a settled population, but to establish a new community and political organization amid such conditions, in the face of pressing need, is not something i can blame the Israelis for. What violence there was, was in the midst of war.

    If the American southwest became thinly settled and derelict, it's population drifted away, washington lost political control, it would not surprise me if a foreign people decided to create a community there, nor would I consider it criminal, especially if done out of need, not greed.

    I understand why Arabs would resist this, and they are not wrong for doing so, but they have no immortal claim as descendants of conquerors, nor is there any eternal principle that stamps the Arab conquest as the final, legitimate one. The Arab claim seems equally mystical.

    Both communities have good case, which is why compromise is the right thing to do, not violence. But from the beginning, one side violence.

    While I understand this, no, I cannot put all blame on the israelis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @George123
    None of us can know the motivations of Bush, his advisers, the many politicians who supported the war, the many commentators and citizens who supported the war. It was probably a complex mix of multiple motives that overlapped and had different relevance for each individual. "Imperial pivot" was undoubtedly one motive, but it's overly reductionist to single it out as *the* motive.

    Israel is undoubtedly aware of the perils of overstepping widely accepted moral constraints. So far, though, most of the world seems to find the Israeli response to morally complex challenges without clear solutions to have not gone so far beyond what good men grappling with a frustratingly challenging predicament might do to condemn with unambiguous finality.

    In other words, "its complicated" :)

    Your remarks about Jews puzzle me - some Jews are bad? I grant that. Every group has its unattractive specimens. I just looked up Jacob Schiff - apparently he financed Japan in the Russo-Japanese war to oppose Czarist oppression of Jews. Your description of him as the starter of wars for personal gain seems overblown.

    Do I consider my proposal to devastate Iran if it doesn't desist from getting nukes, or lose its desire to destroy American, moral? I do. It would be a clear ultimatum to Iran - the devastation would be its own responsibility. It could easily avoid it by ceasing to be aggressive. I also consider it justified by the rules of just war crafted by civilized nations.

    Zionism isn't calling for the genocide of Iranians. Israeli leaders are proposing to use the necessary force to stop a country that has called for the elimination of Israel from acquiring the means to do so. That seems eminently sensible to me, as well as moral.

    Peace.

    And why did the deputy prime minster of Israel Meridor admit that Iran never said that it wanted to wipe Israel off?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. George says:
    @annamaria
    For your future psyop posts, here is a soft spot in Israel's narrative, namely, the biblical and other mythological claims on the land in the Middle East.
    The zionists project started by the highly ambitious people that never envisioned themselves as agrarians working in kibbutz, though. The State of Israel began with a Declaration (not a legal agreement) and with arbitrary decisions spelled and enforced by the very wealthy and very influential Jewish bankers. The State was supposed to give a shelter to Jewish people. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html
    The State was conceived in a revolutionary manner, totally in a spirit of the revolutionary epoch, including a set of Jewish terrorist bands (Stern and such) and the quasi-communist agrarian communes. Eventually, the State has transformed into apartheid entity with a strong parasitic instinct towards the only superpower, the US. The current population of Israel includes a considerable number of the former Soviets that came to Israel as legal economic migrant; many of them had no connection whatsoever to Judaism. A large percentage of the migrants put tremendous efforts to get out of Israel and to emigrate to Canada, Germany, and the US. As you perhaps noticed, there has been no stampede among the American and West European Jews to relocate to Israel.
    Today the State of Israel is a Disney Land for the wealthy Jews. They want to see their childhood dream no matter what, because it is so comforting to feel a superior race! At the same time, the most influential Israel-firsters in the US and EU do not want to live in the promised land. Neither American Kagans and Rubins, and Krystols and Feiths, nor French "philosopher" Bernard Henri-Lévy and likes have ever expressed a desire to live with "their people" and reside permanently in Israel. There are many noble and courageous Israelis, no doubts, that see the danger of malignant transformation. It is not surprising that some of those who thought for the existence of the State of Israel look at the current "transformer" with horror (Uri Avnery: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/8/uri_avnery_on_gaza_crisis_his).

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/05/the-big-lie-at-the-heart-of-the-myth-of-the-creation-of-israel/

    No people owns the land on which they once dwelled. Nothing lasts, nothing is permanent. Arabs came to Palestine as conquerors, but it does not seem obvious why that should be the final political dispensation of the land.

    Time passed, Arabs lost their political independence, the Turks took over, then the British, the land became thinly settled and derelict, with many waste spaces.

    It is wrong to violently dispossessed a settled population, but to establish a new community and political organization amid such conditions, in the face of pressing need, is not something i can blame the Israelis for. What violence there was, was in the midst of war.

    If the American southwest became thinly settled and derelict, it’s population drifted away, washington lost political control, it would not surprise me if a foreign people decided to create a community there, nor would I consider it criminal, especially if done out of need, not greed.

    I understand why Arabs would resist this, and they are not wrong for doing so, but they have no immortal claim as descendants of conquerors, nor is there any eternal principle that stamps the Arab conquest as the final, legitimate one. The Arab claim seems equally mystical.

    Both communities have good case, which is why compromise is the right thing to do, not violence. But from the beginning, one side violence.

    While I understand this, no, I cannot put all blame on the israelis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    no, I cannot put all blame on the israelis.
     
    I can and I do. The facts and history can and must.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. geokat62 says:
    @George
    Argue the arguement, not the man.

    Arguing the man is a concession of defeat.

    When I see an ad hominem, what I think is - game, set, match.

    Peace.

    “When I see an ad hominem, what I think is… ”

    I wonder if it’s still an ad hominem if I’m attacking an institution, not an individual?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Sam Shama says:

    Hello
    I thought I might drop in to peek at the hullabaloo in Phil Giraldi’s latest after a shortish gardening leave. (A bit OT, but my last commentary, which I believe was about the 150th in the said serving, met with, to put it mildly, something not quite cricket, by none other than the esteemed sponsor of this site. He also posted the link to an article he penned, on China which I thought was somewhat puzzling, under the circumstances. So I hesitate to write more.)

    I shall only say this: We can all go on speaking past each other, post our own supporting bibliography, etc, but I wonder – pray what do we hope to achieve?

    Shabbat Shalom

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    "... but I wonder – pray what do we hope to achieve?"

    The truth!

    btw - I noticed you haven't bothered responding to my previous post on hate speech.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @George
    No people owns the land on which they once dwelled. Nothing lasts, nothing is permanent. Arabs came to Palestine as conquerors, but it does not seem obvious why that should be the final political dispensation of the land.

    Time passed, Arabs lost their political independence, the Turks took over, then the British, the land became thinly settled and derelict, with many waste spaces.

    It is wrong to violently dispossessed a settled population, but to establish a new community and political organization amid such conditions, in the face of pressing need, is not something i can blame the Israelis for. What violence there was, was in the midst of war.

    If the American southwest became thinly settled and derelict, it's population drifted away, washington lost political control, it would not surprise me if a foreign people decided to create a community there, nor would I consider it criminal, especially if done out of need, not greed.

    I understand why Arabs would resist this, and they are not wrong for doing so, but they have no immortal claim as descendants of conquerors, nor is there any eternal principle that stamps the Arab conquest as the final, legitimate one. The Arab claim seems equally mystical.

    Both communities have good case, which is why compromise is the right thing to do, not violence. But from the beginning, one side violence.

    While I understand this, no, I cannot put all blame on the israelis.

    no, I cannot put all blame on the israelis.

    I can and I do. The facts and history can and must.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama
    Hello
    I thought I might drop in to peek at the hullabaloo in Phil Giraldi's latest after a shortish gardening leave. (A bit OT, but my last commentary, which I believe was about the 150th in the said serving, met with, to put it mildly, something not quite cricket, by none other than the esteemed sponsor of this site. He also posted the link to an article he penned, on China which I thought was somewhat puzzling, under the circumstances. So I hesitate to write more.)

    I shall only say this: We can all go on speaking past each other, post our own supporting bibliography, etc, but I wonder - pray what do we hope to achieve?

    Shabbat Shalom

    “… but I wonder – pray what do we hope to achieve?”

    The truth!

    btw – I noticed you haven’t bothered responding to my previous post on hate speech.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    On hate speech. Allright.

    I believe that there is rather a difference between what Pam Geller is doing - and branding it a device that causes Islamophobia - and, free speech. Not that I agree with her methods, ( I don't entirely), but it is in fact her right to organise any peaceful exhibition of whatever she chooses.

    The term 'phobia' means an irrational dread. As applied to Islam it is aimed to suggest that such apprehension is without merit. The insinuation is that any such sentiment is ipso facto, phobic. The preachings in that religion (if e.g., you have had the pleasure to witness samples, especially in London or NYC) manifest precisely those properties, and therefore suspicion of it, is by no means irrational.

    Apropos of the current topic, I do support a deal as long as it prevents further proliferation in the ME. I also believe that there is going to be no war against Iran.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62
    "... but I wonder – pray what do we hope to achieve?"

    The truth!

    btw - I noticed you haven't bothered responding to my previous post on hate speech.

    On hate speech. Allright.

    I believe that there is rather a difference between what Pam Geller is doing – and branding it a device that causes Islamophobia – and, free speech. Not that I agree with her methods, ( I don’t entirely), but it is in fact her right to organise any peaceful exhibition of whatever she chooses.

    The term ‘phobia’ means an irrational dread. As applied to Islam it is aimed to suggest that such apprehension is without merit. The insinuation is that any such sentiment is ipso facto, phobic. The preachings in that religion (if e.g., you have had the pleasure to witness samples, especially in London or NYC) manifest precisely those properties, and therefore suspicion of it, is by no means irrational.

    Apropos of the current topic, I do support a deal as long as it prevents further proliferation in the ME. I also believe that there is going to be no war against Iran.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Sam Shama wrote: "The term ‘phobia’ means an irrational dread. As applied to Islam it is aimed to suggest that such apprehension is without merit. The insinuation is that any such sentiment is ipso facto, phobic."


     


    Iranophobia: The Logic of an Israeli Obsession
    "Israel and Iran invariably are portrayed as sworn enemies, engaged in an unending conflict with potentially apocalyptic implications.Iranophobia offers an innovative and provocative new reading of this conflict. Concerned foremost with how Israelis perceive Iran, the author steps back from all-too-common geopolitical analyses to show that this conflict is as much a product of shared cultural trajectories and entangled histories as it is one of strategic concerns and political differences.

    Haggai Ram, an Israeli scholar, explores prevalent Israeli assumptions about Iran to look at how these assumptions have, in turn, reflected and shaped Jewish Israeli identity. Drawing on diverse political, cultural, and academic sources, he concludes that anti-Iran phobias in the Israeli public sphere are largely projections of perceived domestic threats to the prevailing Israeli ethnocratic order. At the same time, he examines these phobias in relation to the Jewish state's use of violence in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon in the post-9/11 world.

    In the end, Ram demonstrates that the conflict between Israel and Iran may not be as essential and polarized as common knowledge assumes. Israeli anti-Iran phobias are derived equally from domestic anxieties about the Jewish state's ethnic and religious identities and from exaggerated and displaced strategic concerns in the era of the "war on terrorism."
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Sam Shama
    On hate speech. Allright.

    I believe that there is rather a difference between what Pam Geller is doing - and branding it a device that causes Islamophobia - and, free speech. Not that I agree with her methods, ( I don't entirely), but it is in fact her right to organise any peaceful exhibition of whatever she chooses.

    The term 'phobia' means an irrational dread. As applied to Islam it is aimed to suggest that such apprehension is without merit. The insinuation is that any such sentiment is ipso facto, phobic. The preachings in that religion (if e.g., you have had the pleasure to witness samples, especially in London or NYC) manifest precisely those properties, and therefore suspicion of it, is by no means irrational.

    Apropos of the current topic, I do support a deal as long as it prevents further proliferation in the ME. I also believe that there is going to be no war against Iran.

    Sam Shama wrote: “The term ‘phobia’ means an irrational dread. As applied to Islam it is aimed to suggest that such apprehension is without merit. The insinuation is that any such sentiment is ipso facto, phobic.

    Iranophobia: The Logic of an Israeli Obsession
    “Israel and Iran invariably are portrayed as sworn enemies, engaged in an unending conflict with potentially apocalyptic implications.Iranophobia offers an innovative and provocative new reading of this conflict. Concerned foremost with how Israelis perceive Iran, the author steps back from all-too-common geopolitical analyses to show that this conflict is as much a product of shared cultural trajectories and entangled histories as it is one of strategic concerns and political differences.

    Haggai Ram, an Israeli scholar, explores prevalent Israeli assumptions about Iran to look at how these assumptions have, in turn, reflected and shaped Jewish Israeli identity. Drawing on diverse political, cultural, and academic sources, he concludes that anti-Iran phobias in the Israeli public sphere are largely projections of perceived domestic threats to the prevailing Israeli ethnocratic order. At the same time, he examines these phobias in relation to the Jewish state’s use of violence in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon in the post-9/11 world.

    In the end, Ram demonstrates that the conflict between Israel and Iran may not be as essential and polarized as common knowledge assumes. Israeli anti-Iran phobias are derived equally from domestic anxieties about the Jewish state’s ethnic and religious identities and from exaggerated and displaced strategic concerns in the era of the “war on terrorism.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    You could care less about Iranians. They are just your hammer to use against Jews. If the Tibetan monks and the Dalai Lama were anti-Zionist you would be praising them too. You are a victim of self inflicted tunnel vision. I am amazed that posters here have so much idle time to type long winded anti-Israel posts. But do carry on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. geokat62 says:

    “… it is in fact her right to organise any peaceful exhibition of whatever she chooses.”

    I could care less about her organizing exhibitions… I was referring to her hate speech that motivated Anders Breivik to murder over 70 Norwegians!

    Let me playback your rationalization of her behaviour with a couple of minor modifications and see how compelling your argument is:

    The term ‘phobia’ means an irrational dread. As applied to Judaism it is aimed to suggest that such apprehension is without merit. The insinuation is that any such sentiment is ipso facto, phobic. The preachings in that religion (if e.g., you have had the pleasure to witness samples, especially in Occupied Palestine*) manifest precisely those properties, and therefore suspicion of it, is by no means irrational.

    * Here’s a list of massacres that have occurred in Mandate Palestine:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    You must have noticed that I mentioned, I did not agree with her methods, and am certainly not a fan to pursue audience of her speeches.

    Breivik's actions are those of a deranged creature, and if speeches by Geller were to be curtailed, so should, obviously, the daily abhorrence spewed by the many imams in London, NYC, etc. Do you deny that this happens? (This is one of the reasons I feel western societies are wrong headed in pursuing diversity, when they ought to be promoting integration as it applies to the alarming trends in muslim immigration).

    I could paste a list of Jewish deaths from massacre, terrorism etc., over the same period you chose, but prefer not to. I shall only observe that we hold our lives rather precious, driven by what we need, in the only life we know: this one. But I am also sure that someone will respond (not necessarily you) with some version of 'proportionality'. Its a bankrupted position.

    It worth quoting Hitchens, if only to crystallise something keenly understood by western peoples. He said:

    "I simply laugh when I read the Koran (of both major sects), with its endless prohibitions on sex and its corrupt promise of infinite debauchery in the life to come: it is like seeing through the 'let's pretend' of a child, but without the indulgence that comes from watching the innocent at play"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @George123
    None of us can know the motivations of Bush, his advisers, the many politicians who supported the war, the many commentators and citizens who supported the war. It was probably a complex mix of multiple motives that overlapped and had different relevance for each individual. "Imperial pivot" was undoubtedly one motive, but it's overly reductionist to single it out as *the* motive.

    Israel is undoubtedly aware of the perils of overstepping widely accepted moral constraints. So far, though, most of the world seems to find the Israeli response to morally complex challenges without clear solutions to have not gone so far beyond what good men grappling with a frustratingly challenging predicament might do to condemn with unambiguous finality.

    In other words, "its complicated" :)

    Your remarks about Jews puzzle me - some Jews are bad? I grant that. Every group has its unattractive specimens. I just looked up Jacob Schiff - apparently he financed Japan in the Russo-Japanese war to oppose Czarist oppression of Jews. Your description of him as the starter of wars for personal gain seems overblown.

    Do I consider my proposal to devastate Iran if it doesn't desist from getting nukes, or lose its desire to destroy American, moral? I do. It would be a clear ultimatum to Iran - the devastation would be its own responsibility. It could easily avoid it by ceasing to be aggressive. I also consider it justified by the rules of just war crafted by civilized nations.

    Zionism isn't calling for the genocide of Iranians. Israeli leaders are proposing to use the necessary force to stop a country that has called for the elimination of Israel from acquiring the means to do so. That seems eminently sensible to me, as well as moral.

    Peace.

    George — Below is an example of how Jacob Schiff could have used his wealth to become a force for good rather than a financier of war. Mohammad Mahallati came of age in Iran’s revolutionary turmoil; he was Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, among other roles. Now he teaches conflict resolution and the “ethics of peacemaking in Islam.” Your friend Sam Shama would no doubt call that “phobic,” “irrational.”

    Jewish financiers like Schiff, and other Jewish “mediocre intellects” like Rosa Luxemburg have interfered with the revolutions of states that sought to reform their own government — such as the Jewish exploitation of the German revolution and meddling in Weimar government, and the subversion of Iranian efforts at home-grown revolution and reform carried out by Jewish influencers and their carry-out staff in US government.

    You insist on the right to “reform” Iran in your image and likeness. Iranians insist on the right to reform their own government.

    Of the two states, Israel and Iran, and as Haggai Ram and Avigail Abarbanel have observed, the Israeli model is psychopathic; detached from reality;

    “anti-Iran phobias in the Israeli public sphere are largely projections of perceived domestic threats to the prevailing Israeli ethnocratic order. At the same time, he examines these phobias in relation to the Jewish state’s use of violence in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon in the post-9/11 world.”

    Israeli society is deformed and dysfunctional; how can it be otherwise: it is built on a foundation of lies; it’s very architecture is designed to segregate, oppress and humiliate; a system that can be and is maintained only by continual violence, the religion of zionism that has replaced the Torah of Judaism.

    The tragedy of American foreign policy is that it has followed the Jacob Schiff model rather than its own founding legacy; it has aided and abetted the deformed and dysfunctional Israeli society in its mission of oppression and killing, while throwing roadblocks in the way of what may well be the most dynamic experiment in self-government since the establishment of the United States Constitutional republic; namely, the creation and evolution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    ——-

    Mohammad J. Mahallati
    Presidential Scholar of Islam

    [email protected]

    Educational Background
    Bachelor of Arts, National University (Tehran), 1975
    Bachelor of Science, University of Kansas, 1978
    Masters of Science, University of Oregon, 1980
    Doctor of Philosophy, McGill University, 2006

    Mohammad Jafar Amir Mahallati is currently Presidential Scholar in Islamic Studies at the Religion Department of Oberlin College. He received his Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from McGill University, after completing the Harvard fellowship for Persian studies in 2005-06. Mahallati has taught graduate courses and lectured at Columbia, Princeton, Yale, and Georgetown Universities. He has served as senior scholar and affiliate with several academic and religious institutions focused on international relations, including the Middle East Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Affairs, and Search for Common Ground (all in Washington DC).

    After his studies in Islamic theology at Khan Seminary (Shiraz, Iran) and receiving a B.A. in Economics from National University (Tehran), Mahallati completed a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Kansas and a M.S. in Political Economy from the University of Oregon. He served as, Chairman of Economic Department at Kerman University (1980), Director General for Economic and International Affairs, in Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1981-1987), and Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations (1987-1989). As Ambassador he was successful in bringing an end to the devastating eight-year Iran-Iraq War.

    Mahallati achieved his multidisciplinary and multicultural peace-building experience through works at the United Nations in the field of conflict resolution for a decade, teaching international relations for another decade, as well as eight years of teaching Islamic studies at Oberlin College. His research has focused on the ethics of peacemaking in Islam in the context of comparative religions. This central theme appears in his published and projected scholarship and also draws from his previous and present peace activism and teaching. Within the religious framework of interpersonal and inter-communal peacemaking, Mahallati aims to contribute to various stages of this discipline including: Ethics of War (focuses on limiting the scale and scope of war and questioning its legitimacy); Ethics of Forgiveness (based on ethico-religious arguments that aim to end current wars and prevent future ones); and Ethics of Friendship (that aims to transform cold and negative to positive and friendly peace). His research looks at cultural and religious elements in Muslim life that could be utilized in the modern international relations and produce a language that can facilitate an Islamic contribution to the current strategic peacemaking efforts in international arenas.

    His monograph drawing on dissertation research Ethics of War and Peace in Iran and Shi‘i Islam serves the first goal; his current project Ethics of Apology and Forgiveness in Politics: A Christian and Muslim Perspective serves the second goal, and his edited volumes in English and Persian languages on Rethinking Friendship in Muslim Cultures and Modern World Politics, with his substantial contribution to both, serve the third. This book would be the first of its kind on this topic. It is intended for scholars and students of Islamic studies, conflict resolution, law, history, ethics, interfaith and international relations. It will also be of interest to the general public and to policymakers in the Muslim and the non-Muslim cultures.

    Through inter-disciplinary teaching and writing, Mahallati brings high moral and religious values such as friendship, forgiveness, magnanimity, and sense of charity from interpersonal realms to civic, interfaith and international relations. Besides his scholarly interests in Religious Studies, Mahallati enjoys pursuing his interests in Islamic arts and literature, specifically Sufi poetry and sacred calligraphy. He has co-translated into English two published volumes on works of Sohrab Sepehri known as the contemporary pioneer Persian poet who promotes environmental consciousness.

    In his teaching on Islam, Mahallati deconstructs popular perceptions of this religion through an emic approach that weaves a rich tapestry of cultural religious history. His courses cover a broad historical swath and seamlessly integrate texts of impressive diversity and scope. By looking into the intricate trends of Islamic institutional development and textual interpretation in various historical contexts, he allows students to think within a tradition while also having an eye on modern critical interpretive assessments. In his seminar courses, Mahallati covers the philosophical and conceptual foundations of lived religion and esoteric, devotional, and artistic practices and beliefs of Muslim societies. In all his courses related to applied ethics, he introduces students to his own research into the intersection between Christian and Muslim ethical discourses on just war theories, peacemaking, and theories of friendship.

    Mahallati’s scholarship in ethics of friendship has resulted in the annual celebration of Friendship Day at Oberlin; a day of his founding that has garnered support on the American national scene.

    Read More
    • Replies: @George123
    "You insist on the right to “reform” Iran in your image and likeness. Iranians insist on the right to reform their own government."

    You keep on saying that, but I have no wish to reform Iran. I just want them to not wish to destroy America or get nukes. The last thing I want to do is reform Iran.

    The rest of your post contains no argument, just a statement of views, so I can't respond.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Clyde says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Sam Shama wrote: "The term ‘phobia’ means an irrational dread. As applied to Islam it is aimed to suggest that such apprehension is without merit. The insinuation is that any such sentiment is ipso facto, phobic."


     


    Iranophobia: The Logic of an Israeli Obsession
    "Israel and Iran invariably are portrayed as sworn enemies, engaged in an unending conflict with potentially apocalyptic implications.Iranophobia offers an innovative and provocative new reading of this conflict. Concerned foremost with how Israelis perceive Iran, the author steps back from all-too-common geopolitical analyses to show that this conflict is as much a product of shared cultural trajectories and entangled histories as it is one of strategic concerns and political differences.

    Haggai Ram, an Israeli scholar, explores prevalent Israeli assumptions about Iran to look at how these assumptions have, in turn, reflected and shaped Jewish Israeli identity. Drawing on diverse political, cultural, and academic sources, he concludes that anti-Iran phobias in the Israeli public sphere are largely projections of perceived domestic threats to the prevailing Israeli ethnocratic order. At the same time, he examines these phobias in relation to the Jewish state's use of violence in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon in the post-9/11 world.

    In the end, Ram demonstrates that the conflict between Israel and Iran may not be as essential and polarized as common knowledge assumes. Israeli anti-Iran phobias are derived equally from domestic anxieties about the Jewish state's ethnic and religious identities and from exaggerated and displaced strategic concerns in the era of the "war on terrorism."
     

    You could care less about Iranians. They are just your hammer to use against Jews. If the Tibetan monks and the Dalai Lama were anti-Zionist you would be praising them too. You are a victim of self inflicted tunnel vision. I am amazed that posters here have so much idle time to type long winded anti-Israel posts. But do carry on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    The state of Israel has been causing an irreparable harm to the US and the Middle East. Does this explain for you why Americans see Israel-firsters as traitors? Just leave the US (and the US treasury) alone.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    Quick Henry the Flit.


    pfffft
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. geokat62 says:

    “If the Tibetan monks and the Dalai Lama were anti-Zionist you would be praising them too.”

    It has nothing to do with who happens to be anti-Zionist. What gives people here the right to write anti-Zionist posts are the immoral actions of the rogue state and the fact that the U.S. is supporting this behaviour by providing it unconditional support in terms of financial, military, and diplomatic assistance.

    Bottom line: as long as Israel continues its brutal occupation of the Palestinians and the Lobby (which is comprised of Israel Firsters) continues to undermine the national interest, we’ll continue to criticize both.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  134. annamaria says:
    @Clyde
    You could care less about Iranians. They are just your hammer to use against Jews. If the Tibetan monks and the Dalai Lama were anti-Zionist you would be praising them too. You are a victim of self inflicted tunnel vision. I am amazed that posters here have so much idle time to type long winded anti-Israel posts. But do carry on.

    The state of Israel has been causing an irreparable harm to the US and the Middle East. Does this explain for you why Americans see Israel-firsters as traitors? Just leave the US (and the US treasury) alone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62
    "... it is in fact her right to organise any peaceful exhibition of whatever she chooses."

    I could care less about her organizing exhibitions... I was referring to her hate speech that motivated Anders Breivik to murder over 70 Norwegians!

    Let me playback your rationalization of her behaviour with a couple of minor modifications and see how compelling your argument is:

    The term ‘phobia’ means an irrational dread. As applied to Judaism it is aimed to suggest that such apprehension is without merit. The insinuation is that any such sentiment is ipso facto, phobic. The preachings in that religion (if e.g., you have had the pleasure to witness samples, especially in Occupied Palestine*) manifest precisely those properties, and therefore suspicion of it, is by no means irrational.
     
    * Here's a list of massacres that have occurred in Mandate Palestine:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine

    You must have noticed that I mentioned, I did not agree with her methods, and am certainly not a fan to pursue audience of her speeches.

    Breivik’s actions are those of a deranged creature, and if speeches by Geller were to be curtailed, so should, obviously, the daily abhorrence spewed by the many imams in London, NYC, etc. Do you deny that this happens? (This is one of the reasons I feel western societies are wrong headed in pursuing diversity, when they ought to be promoting integration as it applies to the alarming trends in muslim immigration).

    I could paste a list of Jewish deaths from massacre, terrorism etc., over the same period you chose, but prefer not to. I shall only observe that we hold our lives rather precious, driven by what we need, in the only life we know: this one. But I am also sure that someone will respond (not necessarily you) with some version of ‘proportionality’. Its a bankrupted position.

    It worth quoting Hitchens, if only to crystallise something keenly understood by western peoples. He said:

    “I simply laugh when I read the Koran (of both major sects), with its endless prohibitions on sex and its corrupt promise of infinite debauchery in the life to come: it is like seeing through the ‘let’s pretend’ of a child, but without the indulgence that comes from watching the innocent at play”

    Read More
    • Replies: @George123
    “I simply laugh when I read the Koran (of both major sects), with its endless prohibitions on sex and its corrupt promise of infinite debauchery in the life to come: it is like seeing through the ‘let’s pretend’ of a child, but without the indulgence that comes from watching the innocent at play”

    There's nothing illogical or laughable about that. But then, Hitchens is a rather unintelligent militant atheist.

    Sex in this earthly realm is full of consequences and social perils, so it needs to be hedged in by prohibitions. The point of "heaven" is that the constraints and limitations of this world are left behind.

    Makes perfect sense, even shows a wise understanding of the psychological function of heaven - joys that if followed without inhibition in this world would bring ruin and collapse may be freely indulged in heaven.

    Those cagey old desert Sheikhs were on to something.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. geokat62 says:

    “… if speeches by Geller were to be curtailed, …” (emphasis added)

    So rather than unequivocally condemning hate speech, as I have done, that leads to the slaughter of innocent victims, you prefer to condition it on the other side curtailing as well? Do I understand you correctly?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Once more, I don't know to which speech you are referring, and if it pleases you, I condemn it. So there!

    I won't flog the dead horse by pointing out the obvious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Clyde
    You could care less about Iranians. They are just your hammer to use against Jews. If the Tibetan monks and the Dalai Lama were anti-Zionist you would be praising them too. You are a victim of self inflicted tunnel vision. I am amazed that posters here have so much idle time to type long winded anti-Israel posts. But do carry on.

    Quick Henry the Flit.

    pfffft

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62
    "... if speeches by Geller were to be curtailed, ..." (emphasis added)

    So rather than unequivocally condemning hate speech, as I have done, that leads to the slaughter of innocent victims, you prefer to condition it on the other side curtailing as well? Do I understand you correctly?

    Once more, I don’t know to which speech you are referring, and if it pleases you, I condemn it. So there!

    I won’t flog the dead horse by pointing out the obvious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. geokat62 says:

    “I don’t know to which speech you are referring…”

    Does this ring a bell?

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/calling-gellers-philadelphia

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Since you've taken issue with Mondoweiss, I've pulled this excerpt from The Forward:

    Pamela Geller preaches venomous hatred of Muslims. She is one of the leading voices promoting the idea of “creeping Sharia” in the United States. Claiming that Islam, as a religion, is dedicated to eradicating Jews and eventually turning all others into Muslims by whatever means necessary is the very definition of hate speech.
     
    Read more: http://forward.com/opinion/174761/why-pamela-gellers-hate-speech-should-be-barred/#ixzz3eqVMXs91
    , @Sam Shama
    I recall the incident now, but was not paying much attention at the time. Certainly she is off her rocker.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. George123 says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    George -- Below is an example of how Jacob Schiff could have used his wealth to become a force for good rather than a financier of war. Mohammad Mahallati came of age in Iran's revolutionary turmoil; he was Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, among other roles. Now he teaches conflict resolution and the "ethics of peacemaking in Islam." Your friend Sam Shama would no doubt call that "phobic," "irrational."

    Jewish financiers like Schiff, and other Jewish "mediocre intellects" like Rosa Luxemburg have interfered with the revolutions of states that sought to reform their own government -- such as the Jewish exploitation of the German revolution and meddling in Weimar government, and the subversion of Iranian efforts at home-grown revolution and reform carried out by Jewish influencers and their carry-out staff in US government.

    You insist on the right to "reform" Iran in your image and likeness. Iranians insist on the right to reform their own government.

    Of the two states, Israel and Iran, and as Haggai Ram and Avigail Abarbanel have observed, the Israeli model is psychopathic; detached from reality;


    "anti-Iran phobias in the Israeli public sphere are largely projections of perceived domestic threats to the prevailing Israeli ethnocratic order. At the same time, he examines these phobias in relation to the Jewish state’s use of violence in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon in the post-9/11 world."
     
    Israeli society is deformed and dysfunctional; how can it be otherwise: it is built on a foundation of lies; it's very architecture is designed to segregate, oppress and humiliate; a system that can be and is maintained only by continual violence, the religion of zionism that has replaced the Torah of Judaism.

    The tragedy of American foreign policy is that it has followed the Jacob Schiff model rather than its own founding legacy; it has aided and abetted the deformed and dysfunctional Israeli society in its mission of oppression and killing, while throwing roadblocks in the way of what may well be the most dynamic experiment in self-government since the establishment of the United States Constitutional republic; namely, the creation and evolution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    -------


    Mohammad J. Mahallati
    Presidential Scholar of Islam

    [email protected]

    Educational Background
    Bachelor of Arts, National University (Tehran), 1975
    Bachelor of Science, University of Kansas, 1978
    Masters of Science, University of Oregon, 1980
    Doctor of Philosophy, McGill University, 2006

    Mohammad Jafar Amir Mahallati is currently Presidential Scholar in Islamic Studies at the Religion Department of Oberlin College. He received his Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from McGill University, after completing the Harvard fellowship for Persian studies in 2005-06. Mahallati has taught graduate courses and lectured at Columbia, Princeton, Yale, and Georgetown Universities. He has served as senior scholar and affiliate with several academic and religious institutions focused on international relations, including the Middle East Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Affairs, and Search for Common Ground (all in Washington DC).

    After his studies in Islamic theology at Khan Seminary (Shiraz, Iran) and receiving a B.A. in Economics from National University (Tehran), Mahallati completed a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Kansas and a M.S. in Political Economy from the University of Oregon. He served as, Chairman of Economic Department at Kerman University (1980), Director General for Economic and International Affairs, in Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1981-1987), and Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations (1987-1989). As Ambassador he was successful in bringing an end to the devastating eight-year Iran-Iraq War.

    Mahallati achieved his multidisciplinary and multicultural peace-building experience through works at the United Nations in the field of conflict resolution for a decade, teaching international relations for another decade, as well as eight years of teaching Islamic studies at Oberlin College. His research has focused on the ethics of peacemaking in Islam in the context of comparative religions. This central theme appears in his published and projected scholarship and also draws from his previous and present peace activism and teaching. Within the religious framework of interpersonal and inter-communal peacemaking, Mahallati aims to contribute to various stages of this discipline including: Ethics of War (focuses on limiting the scale and scope of war and questioning its legitimacy); Ethics of Forgiveness (based on ethico-religious arguments that aim to end current wars and prevent future ones); and Ethics of Friendship (that aims to transform cold and negative to positive and friendly peace). His research looks at cultural and religious elements in Muslim life that could be utilized in the modern international relations and produce a language that can facilitate an Islamic contribution to the current strategic peacemaking efforts in international arenas.

    His monograph drawing on dissertation research Ethics of War and Peace in Iran and Shi‘i Islam serves the first goal; his current project Ethics of Apology and Forgiveness in Politics: A Christian and Muslim Perspective serves the second goal, and his edited volumes in English and Persian languages on Rethinking Friendship in Muslim Cultures and Modern World Politics, with his substantial contribution to both, serve the third. This book would be the first of its kind on this topic. It is intended for scholars and students of Islamic studies, conflict resolution, law, history, ethics, interfaith and international relations. It will also be of interest to the general public and to policymakers in the Muslim and the non-Muslim cultures.

    Through inter-disciplinary teaching and writing, Mahallati brings high moral and religious values such as friendship, forgiveness, magnanimity, and sense of charity from interpersonal realms to civic, interfaith and international relations. Besides his scholarly interests in Religious Studies, Mahallati enjoys pursuing his interests in Islamic arts and literature, specifically Sufi poetry and sacred calligraphy. He has co-translated into English two published volumes on works of Sohrab Sepehri known as the contemporary pioneer Persian poet who promotes environmental consciousness.

    In his teaching on Islam, Mahallati deconstructs popular perceptions of this religion through an emic approach that weaves a rich tapestry of cultural religious history. His courses cover a broad historical swath and seamlessly integrate texts of impressive diversity and scope. By looking into the intricate trends of Islamic institutional development and textual interpretation in various historical contexts, he allows students to think within a tradition while also having an eye on modern critical interpretive assessments. In his seminar courses, Mahallati covers the philosophical and conceptual foundations of lived religion and esoteric, devotional, and artistic practices and beliefs of Muslim societies. In all his courses related to applied ethics, he introduces students to his own research into the intersection between Christian and Muslim ethical discourses on just war theories, peacemaking, and theories of friendship.

    Mahallati’s scholarship in ethics of friendship has resulted in the annual celebration of Friendship Day at Oberlin; a day of his founding that has garnered support on the American national scene.
     

    “You insist on the right to “reform” Iran in your image and likeness. Iranians insist on the right to reform their own government.”

    You keep on saying that, but I have no wish to reform Iran. I just want them to not wish to destroy America or get nukes. The last thing I want to do is reform Iran.

    The rest of your post contains no argument, just a statement of views, so I can’t respond.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    You keep on saying that, but I have no wish to reform Iran. I just want them to not wish to destroy America or get nukes. The last thing I want to do is reform Iran.
     
    and

    The only element within Iran I’d like to see reformed is its hatred of America and the West, because it directly concerns me.
     
    OK.
    got it.

    You advocate destroying Iran --
    here http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-991671 :

    A war with Iran would be pretty much a low risk mop up operation, so it’s something we probably should gave done long ago. As long as we avoid the stupidity of trying to impose liberal democracy on iran, destroying iran would be easy and cheap.

    If, after that moderate elements within iran rise to the fore, we should help them reconstruct their country. If Iranians continue to let their worst elements control them, they will continue to be under threat of destruction from us.
     
    which Biff cut the legs out from under at # 15 http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-991787; George responded at #17
    "But you agree, biff, that if it can be reliably documented that Iranian officials, have said such things over a prolonged period, then we can say they are an enemy who we would be morally justified in destroying before getting the bomb?"

    Biff not having responded, permit me to note some legalisms that might apply to the situation.

    A 2014 New York Times article analyzed legal issues involving free speech and threats of violence. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/magazine/do-online-death-threats-count-as-free-speech.html?_r=0
    The article cited a 2003 decision by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:

    For decades, the court has essentially said that ‘'true threats'’ are an exception to the rule against criminalizing speech. These threats do not have to be carried out — or even be intended to be carried out — to be considered harmful. Bans against threats may be enacted, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in 2003, to protect people ‘'from the fear of violence'’ and ‘'from the disruption that fear engenders.'’ Current legal thinking is that threats do damage on their own.
     
    The case under consideration in the NYTimes article reported that the accused issued specific descriptions of the violence he wished to carry out on his wife. That speech was not constrained within the rhetoric of "Death to Tara" or "Tara will cease to exist in the pages of time;" they were graphically violent and were accompanied with photos depicting that violence.

    Nevertheless, the accused, Elonis, "claims that he didn’t make a true threat, because he didn’t mean it. ‘'I would never hurt my wife,'’ he told the jury. ‘'I never intended to threaten anyone."

    His wife, on the other hand, said that she "felt extremely afraid for mine and my children's and family's lives."

    Thus,

    The central question for the Supreme Court will be whose point of view — the speaker’s, or the listener’s — matters. The jury was instructed to convict Anthony Elonis if it was reasonable for him to see that Tara would interpret his posts as a serious expression of intent to harm her. The court could uphold the standard, or it could require that jurors be asked to convict only if they believe the speaker truly intended to threaten harm. In essence, the court will have to decide what matters more: one person’s freedom to express violent rage, or another person’s freedom to live without the burden of fear?
     
    The case at issue involved on-line speech, so the NYTimes article examined the playacting content of such expressions.

    The Elonis case also involved a domestic dispute in circumstances far different from the matter of Israel vs Iran vs Israel. The most pertinent difference is that while Mr. Elonis threatened harm to Mrs. Elonis, there is no allegation that Mrs. Elonis harmed or threatened to harm or was carrying out harms against Mr. Elonis.

    In contrast, Israel ("Mrs. Elonis") has and is and predictably will continue to carry out real harms against Iran, to which Iran ("Mr. Elonis," the accused) responds with rhetoric -- free speech-- that is non-specific and solely a rather impotent expression of rage and resentment.

    An attorney arguing in defense of "Mr. Elonis/Iran" would point to certain characteristics and behaviors of the alleged victim of the threatening speech, "Mrs. Elonis/Israel," such as those behaviors identified by Israeli psychologist Avigail Abarbanel and Israeli scholar and author Haggai Ram.

    Abarbanel has observed that http://www.avigailabarbanel.me.uk/gaza-2009-01-04.html

    An Israeli friend told me in disgust the other day, that there is an atmosphere of ‘national orgasm’ in Israel about the prospect of attacking Iran. While people are being bombed in Gaza, all Israelis can talk about is the coming attack on Iran. But there is a link between the two. . . .Israel and perhaps the rest of the world too, refuse to see that Israel’s problems are a direct result of deep-seated Jewish trauma and its consequences. Israel’s response to trauma was to arm itself to the teeth, and to become an incredibly aggressive country while perpetuating inside and out the myth of victimhood and goodness. As a psychotherapist I recognise this reaction to trauma. Some people who have been traumatised respond to it by becoming very powerful and very frightening. This is a reaction to having been hurt, and a response to the desire to never be hurt again.

    Unfortunately this isn’t a good or wholesome way to live. This is a way of life that perpetuates inner conflicts, leads to isolation and invites animosity from others. It’s hard to spread good will and kindness in the world when one’s inner world is based on an adversarial foundation.

     

    This trauma psychology is perpetuated by Israel's leadership, as Abarbanel observed in February 2009 ---

    Professor Ben-Zion Netanyahu said,

    " “Today we are facing plain and simple, a danger of annihilation. This is not only the ongoing existential danger to Israel, but a real danger of complete annihilation." . . .
    The views of Netanyahu Senior do not represent a lunatic fringe, but the Israeli mainstream. . . .

    When a person’s perception of reality is completely out of touch with reality itself, we begin to get an uneasy feeling that something might be wrong with his or her mind.
     
    In other words, Israelis demonstrate a syndrome of psychological instability, in the assessment of a trained psychotherapist who has direct and intimate knowledge of Israeli society.

    According to Haggai Ram, a professor of political science in an Israeli university, describes Israel's stance toward Iran as the outgrowth of a phobia:

    ". . .anti-Iran phobias in the Israeli public sphere are largely projections of perceived domestic threats to the prevailing Israeli ethnocratic order. . . . examine[d] . . . in relation to the Jewish state’s use of violence in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon in the post-9/11 world.

    . . . the conflict between Israel and Iran may not be as essential and polarized as common knowledge assumes. Israeli anti-Iran phobias are derived equally from domestic anxieties about the Jewish state’s ethnic and religious identities and from exaggerated and displaced strategic concerns in the era of the “war on terrorism.” "
     
    That is, an Israel-born psychologist and an Israeli academic assess the Israeli claims of an Iranian "threat" as the result of a centuries-long attachment to a culture of trauma and victimhood that the present Israeli culture has failed to appropriately resolve; that is "detached from reality;" "phobic;" "projections;" and "exaggerated and displaced." "Mrs. Elonis/Israel has quite a load of psychological baggage that any defense attorney worth his salt would explore mercilessly.

    Moreover, Benjamin Netanyahu himself has opened the door to critical evidence that zionists/Israelis have a pattern of causing harm to a target with the goal of provoking that target to some retaliatory action, whereupon zionists will engineer the destruction of that target. Netanyhu reveals this pattern in his oft-repeated declarations that "Iran is Germany."

    From the time that Adolf Hitler assumed the chancellorship in 1933 until a hot war broke out between Germany and Poland, zionist advocates in the USA and elsewhere issued a relentless stream of invective, false charges, and atrocity propaganda against Germany, coupled with a multi-pronged attack on Germany's economy that was intended to "destroy the export economy on which Germany's existence depends." "International Jewry" pursued this agenda for over seven years. Numerous articles in the archives of the Jewish Telegraph Agency document this program of demonization and economic warfare. Here's an index to a small sample of anti-German propaganda and provocations carried out by Jewish leaders between 1933 and 1939 -- http://www.jta.org/?s=hans+luther&orderby=date&order=desc&limit=50

    In other words, evidence demonstrates a pattern of behavior by which zionist agents and leaders attacked Germany in a fashion similar to the attacks being carried out on Iran today. Also similar to the characteristics that Abarbanel and Ram described with respect to Iran, zionism's 20th century attacks on Germany were based on " the result of a centuries-long attachment to a culture of trauma and victimhood " and on "phobias . . .[and] domestic anxieties about Jewish . . . ethnic and religious identities . . . and exaggerated and displaced strategic concerns."

    Most importantly, the zionist attacks on Germany served a strategic function. This claim is based on the fact that sometime in the first two weeks of February 1933, Louis Brandeis directed that "all Jews must leave Germany; no German Jew must remain in Germany." The significance of this directive cannot be overstated.

    The pattern of past acts that Benjamin Netanyahu has pointed to, coupled with the psychological profile of Israel ("Mrs. Elonis") suggest that Israel is actually the perpetrator of threats and the creator, not the victim, of " the fear of violence'’ and ‘' the disruption that fear engenders.'’

    As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor concluded in 2003, "Current legal thinking is that threats do damage on their own. " Iran has been and continues to be the victim of those threats, not the perpetrator of them.

    Iran's rhetorical outcries, "Down with Israel, Down with America," and the wishful prediction that "zionism will disappear from the pages of history" are cries of resistance to Israel's, and the USA's sustained threats of violence economic warfare against the Iranian state and people.



    George has stated that he advocates the "destruction of Iran" in order to "make Iran not wish to destroy America" or "hate America."

    There's a lot easier way to bring about that salubrious state:

    Stop threatening Iran.

    Stop the economic war against Iran.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. geokat62 says:
    @geokat62
    "I don’t know to which speech you are referring..."

    Does this ring a bell?

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/calling-gellers-philadelphia

    Since you’ve taken issue with Mondoweiss, I’ve pulled this excerpt from The Forward:

    Pamela Geller preaches venomous hatred of Muslims. She is one of the leading voices promoting the idea of “creeping Sharia” in the United States. Claiming that Islam, as a religion, is dedicated to eradicating Jews and eventually turning all others into Muslims by whatever means necessary is the very definition of hate speech.

    Read more: http://forward.com/opinion/174761/why-pamela-gellers-hate-speech-should-be-barred/#ixzz3eqVMXs91

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    Doesn't the average Evangelic exactly say that before being vetted by Liberman and his ilk all the time? Someone gave a Lear jet to Falwell ( to bring the Jeuss Christ down to Jerusalem ? ) and someone compared Hagee to Moses .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. George123 says:
    @Sam Shama
    You must have noticed that I mentioned, I did not agree with her methods, and am certainly not a fan to pursue audience of her speeches.

    Breivik's actions are those of a deranged creature, and if speeches by Geller were to be curtailed, so should, obviously, the daily abhorrence spewed by the many imams in London, NYC, etc. Do you deny that this happens? (This is one of the reasons I feel western societies are wrong headed in pursuing diversity, when they ought to be promoting integration as it applies to the alarming trends in muslim immigration).

    I could paste a list of Jewish deaths from massacre, terrorism etc., over the same period you chose, but prefer not to. I shall only observe that we hold our lives rather precious, driven by what we need, in the only life we know: this one. But I am also sure that someone will respond (not necessarily you) with some version of 'proportionality'. Its a bankrupted position.

    It worth quoting Hitchens, if only to crystallise something keenly understood by western peoples. He said:

    "I simply laugh when I read the Koran (of both major sects), with its endless prohibitions on sex and its corrupt promise of infinite debauchery in the life to come: it is like seeing through the 'let's pretend' of a child, but without the indulgence that comes from watching the innocent at play"

    “I simply laugh when I read the Koran (of both major sects), with its endless prohibitions on sex and its corrupt promise of infinite debauchery in the life to come: it is like seeing through the ‘let’s pretend’ of a child, but without the indulgence that comes from watching the innocent at play”

    There’s nothing illogical or laughable about that. But then, Hitchens is a rather unintelligent militant atheist.

    Sex in this earthly realm is full of consequences and social perils, so it needs to be hedged in by prohibitions. The point of “heaven” is that the constraints and limitations of this world are left behind.

    Makes perfect sense, even shows a wise understanding of the psychological function of heaven – joys that if followed without inhibition in this world would bring ruin and collapse may be freely indulged in heaven.

    Those cagey old desert Sheikhs were on to something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Well I suppose you are arguing that the notion of Heaven is a neat psychological ploy (to preserve order on Earth). Or it is a hedge, but only in the sense of Pascal's Wager. It may very well be the case, but choice in this life, one hopes, is not a stark binary between debauchery and abstinence; there is a happy medium.

    My point on the other hand, was to highlight the deviousness of the current crop of pseudo- religious leaders, who would pack youngsters off to Heaven with the aid of an explosive vest and the promise of infinite debauchery. Such was in fact always the case.

    Hitchens takes note from Elysium.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Is Jane Harmon on that little list?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  144. Sam Shama says:
    @George123
    “I simply laugh when I read the Koran (of both major sects), with its endless prohibitions on sex and its corrupt promise of infinite debauchery in the life to come: it is like seeing through the ‘let’s pretend’ of a child, but without the indulgence that comes from watching the innocent at play”

    There's nothing illogical or laughable about that. But then, Hitchens is a rather unintelligent militant atheist.

    Sex in this earthly realm is full of consequences and social perils, so it needs to be hedged in by prohibitions. The point of "heaven" is that the constraints and limitations of this world are left behind.

    Makes perfect sense, even shows a wise understanding of the psychological function of heaven - joys that if followed without inhibition in this world would bring ruin and collapse may be freely indulged in heaven.

    Those cagey old desert Sheikhs were on to something.

    Well I suppose you are arguing that the notion of Heaven is a neat psychological ploy (to preserve order on Earth). Or it is a hedge, but only in the sense of Pascal’s Wager. It may very well be the case, but choice in this life, one hopes, is not a stark binary between debauchery and abstinence; there is a happy medium.

    My point on the other hand, was to highlight the deviousness of the current crop of pseudo- religious leaders, who would pack youngsters off to Heaven with the aid of an explosive vest and the promise of infinite debauchery. Such was in fact always the case.

    Hitchens takes note from Elysium.

    Read More
    • Replies: @George123
    Nah, not even as a psychological ploy. The defining feature of heaven would have to be that the limitations of our earthly existence don't obtain there. One earthly limitation is that our sexuality has to be corralled for society to function. We cannot indulge it unrestrainedly without bringing ruin onto ourselves or society - in heaven, we can. Makes perfect sense.

    The Hebrew bible also envisions divine reward as a flourishing earthly existence. It seems that Semitic religions always have envisioned heaven in concrete material terms, and the Muslim version seems decidedly superior as its vision is of material rewards without the limitations of earthly existence.

    Only Eastern religions, and to some extent Christianity, developed a vision of heaven as a mental or spiritual state.

    I doubt the vision of virgins is truly what motivates Muslims to kill themselves in holy war. Jihad just represents the "power impulse" of the various Muslim people's, and in its current form its as much a response to an unsettling modernity that has been imposed on them as anything else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62
    "I don’t know to which speech you are referring..."

    Does this ring a bell?

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/calling-gellers-philadelphia

    I recall the incident now, but was not paying much attention at the time. Certainly she is off her rocker.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. geokat62 says:

    “Hitchens takes note from Elysium.”

    More like… Hitchens takes note from Hades!

    Two years after the invasion of Iraq, British MP George Galloway and journalist Christopher Hitchens debated the causes and consequences of the Iraq war at Baruch College in New York City.

    Here’s my favourite part (in bold) where Galloway rips into Hitchens for first opposing Iraq War I, but then somehow supporting Iraq War II:

    GEORGE GALLOWAY: But ah, I want to thank Mr Hitchens for the brave stand that he made against the war on Iraq in 1991. What you are… what you have witnessed since is something unique in natural history, the first ever metamorphosis from a butterfly back into a slug. (sound of cheering and clapping) And I mention slug purposely, because the one thing a slug does leave behind it is a trail of slime. Now, I was brought up by my father on the principle never to wrestle with a chimney sweep, because whatever you do you can’t come out clean. But you, Mr Hitchens are no chimney sweep. That’s not coal dust in which you are covered, you are covered in the stuff you like to smear onto others, not just me with your Gobellian leaflets full of selective quotation, half-truth, mistruth and downright untruth, and the comments you made in your last two minutes of this speech. People like Mr Hitchens are ready to fight to the last drop of other people’s blood, and it’s utterly contemptible, utterly and completely contemptible.

    Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-hitchens-galloway-debate.89215/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Oh I think Hitch was very precise about his exact positions and differences with the prosecutors of the 2nd War. He was never a man to thoughtlessly coalesce and follow a party or trend simply because he happened to agree with them in the past.

    As debates go, I'd say he trounced that slobbering codger Galloway with effortless superiority worthy of a Balliolite! :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @George123
    "You insist on the right to “reform” Iran in your image and likeness. Iranians insist on the right to reform their own government."

    You keep on saying that, but I have no wish to reform Iran. I just want them to not wish to destroy America or get nukes. The last thing I want to do is reform Iran.

    The rest of your post contains no argument, just a statement of views, so I can't respond.

    You keep on saying that, but I have no wish to reform Iran. I just want them to not wish to destroy America or get nukes. The last thing I want to do is reform Iran.

    and

    The only element within Iran I’d like to see reformed is its hatred of America and the West, because it directly concerns me.

    OK.
    got it.

    You advocate destroying Iran —
    here http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-991671 :

    A war with Iran would be pretty much a low risk mop up operation, so it’s something we probably should gave done long ago. As long as we avoid the stupidity of trying to impose liberal democracy on iran, destroying iran would be easy and cheap.

    If, after that moderate elements within iran rise to the fore, we should help them reconstruct their country. If Iranians continue to let their worst elements control them, they will continue to be under threat of destruction from us.

    which Biff cut the legs out from under at # 15 http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-991787; George responded at #17
    “But you agree, biff, that if it can be reliably documented that Iranian officials, have said such things over a prolonged period, then we can say they are an enemy who we would be morally justified in destroying before getting the bomb?”

    Biff not having responded, permit me to note some legalisms that might apply to the situation.

    A 2014 New York Times article analyzed legal issues involving free speech and threats of violence. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/magazine/do-online-death-threats-count-as-free-speech.html?_r=0
    The article cited a 2003 decision by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor:

    For decades, the court has essentially said that ‘’true threats’’ are an exception to the rule against criminalizing speech. These threats do not have to be carried out — or even be intended to be carried out — to be considered harmful. Bans against threats may be enacted, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in 2003, to protect people ‘’from the fear of violence’’ and ‘’from the disruption that fear engenders.’’ Current legal thinking is that threats do damage on their own.

    The case under consideration in the NYTimes article reported that the accused issued specific descriptions of the violence he wished to carry out on his wife. That speech was not constrained within the rhetoric of “Death to Tara” or “Tara will cease to exist in the pages of time;” they were graphically violent and were accompanied with photos depicting that violence.

    Nevertheless, the accused, Elonis, “claims that he didn’t make a true threat, because he didn’t mean it. ‘’I would never hurt my wife,’’ he told the jury. ‘’I never intended to threaten anyone.”

    His wife, on the other hand, said that she “felt extremely afraid for mine and my children’s and family’s lives.”

    Thus,

    The central question for the Supreme Court will be whose point of view — the speaker’s, or the listener’s — matters. The jury was instructed to convict Anthony Elonis if it was reasonable for him to see that Tara would interpret his posts as a serious expression of intent to harm her. The court could uphold the standard, or it could require that jurors be asked to convict only if they believe the speaker truly intended to threaten harm. In essence, the court will have to decide what matters more: one person’s freedom to express violent rage, or another person’s freedom to live without the burden of fear?

    The case at issue involved on-line speech, so the NYTimes article examined the playacting content of such expressions.

    The Elonis case also involved a domestic dispute in circumstances far different from the matter of Israel vs Iran vs Israel. The most pertinent difference is that while Mr. Elonis threatened harm to Mrs. Elonis, there is no allegation that Mrs. Elonis harmed or threatened to harm or was carrying out harms against Mr. Elonis.

    In contrast, Israel (“Mrs. Elonis”) has and is and predictably will continue to carry out real harms against Iran, to which Iran (“Mr. Elonis,” the accused) responds with rhetoric — free speech– that is non-specific and solely a rather impotent expression of rage and resentment.

    An attorney arguing in defense of “Mr. Elonis/Iran” would point to certain characteristics and behaviors of the alleged victim of the threatening speech, “Mrs. Elonis/Israel,” such as those behaviors identified by Israeli psychologist Avigail Abarbanel and Israeli scholar and author Haggai Ram.

    Abarbanel has observed that http://www.avigailabarbanel.me.uk/gaza-2009-01-04.html

    An Israeli friend told me in disgust the other day, that there is an atmosphere of ‘national orgasm’ in Israel about the prospect of attacking Iran. While people are being bombed in Gaza, all Israelis can talk about is the coming attack on Iran. But there is a link between the two. . . .Israel and perhaps the rest of the world too, refuse to see that Israel’s problems are a direct result of deep-seated Jewish trauma and its consequences. Israel’s response to trauma was to arm itself to the teeth, and to become an incredibly aggressive country while perpetuating inside and out the myth of victimhood and goodness. As a psychotherapist I recognise this reaction to trauma. Some people who have been traumatised respond to it by becoming very powerful and very frightening. This is a reaction to having been hurt, and a response to the desire to never be hurt again.

    Unfortunately this isn’t a good or wholesome way to live. This is a way of life that perpetuates inner conflicts, leads to isolation and invites animosity from others. It’s hard to spread good will and kindness in the world when one’s inner world is based on an adversarial foundation.

    This trauma psychology is perpetuated by Israel’s leadership, as Abarbanel observed in February 2009 —

    Professor Ben-Zion Netanyahu said,

    ” “Today we are facing plain and simple, a danger of annihilation. This is not only the ongoing existential danger to Israel, but a real danger of complete annihilation.” . . .
    The views of Netanyahu Senior do not represent a lunatic fringe, but the Israeli mainstream. . . .

    When a person’s perception of reality is completely out of touch with reality itself, we begin to get an uneasy feeling that something might be wrong with his or her mind.

    In other words, Israelis demonstrate a syndrome of psychological instability, in the assessment of a trained psychotherapist who has direct and intimate knowledge of Israeli society.

    According to Haggai Ram, a professor of political science in an Israeli university, describes Israel’s stance toward Iran as the outgrowth of a phobia:

    “. . .anti-Iran phobias in the Israeli public sphere are largely projections of perceived domestic threats to the prevailing Israeli ethnocratic order. . . . examine[d] . . . in relation to the Jewish state’s use of violence in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon in the post-9/11 world.

    . . . the conflict between Israel and Iran may not be as essential and polarized as common knowledge assumes. Israeli anti-Iran phobias are derived equally from domestic anxieties about the Jewish state’s ethnic and religious identities and from exaggerated and displaced strategic concerns in the era of the “war on terrorism.” “

    That is, an Israel-born psychologist and an Israeli academic assess the Israeli claims of an Iranian “threat” as the result of a centuries-long attachment to a culture of trauma and victimhood that the present Israeli culture has failed to appropriately resolve; that is “detached from reality;” “phobic;” “projections;” and “exaggerated and displaced.” “Mrs. Elonis/Israel has quite a load of psychological baggage that any defense attorney worth his salt would explore mercilessly.

    Moreover, Benjamin Netanyahu himself has opened the door to critical evidence that zionists/Israelis have a pattern of causing harm to a target with the goal of provoking that target to some retaliatory action, whereupon zionists will engineer the destruction of that target. Netanyhu reveals this pattern in his oft-repeated declarations that “Iran is Germany.”

    From the time that Adolf Hitler assumed the chancellorship in 1933 until a hot war broke out between Germany and Poland, zionist advocates in the USA and elsewhere issued a relentless stream of invective, false charges, and atrocity propaganda against Germany, coupled with a multi-pronged attack on Germany’s economy that was intended to “destroy the export economy on which Germany’s existence depends.” “International Jewry” pursued this agenda for over seven years. Numerous articles in the archives of the Jewish Telegraph Agency document this program of demonization and economic warfare. Here’s an index to a small sample of anti-German propaganda and provocations carried out by Jewish leaders between 1933 and 1939 — http://www.jta.org/?s=hans+luther&orderby=date&order=desc&limit=50

    In other words, evidence demonstrates a pattern of behavior by which zionist agents and leaders attacked Germany in a fashion similar to the attacks being carried out on Iran today. Also similar to the characteristics that Abarbanel and Ram described with respect to Iran, zionism’s 20th century attacks on Germany were based on ” the result of a centuries-long attachment to a culture of trauma and victimhood ” and on “phobias . . .[and] domestic anxieties about Jewish . . . ethnic and religious identities . . . and exaggerated and displaced strategic concerns.”

    Most importantly, the zionist attacks on Germany served a strategic function. This claim is based on the fact that sometime in the first two weeks of February 1933, Louis Brandeis directed that “all Jews must leave Germany; no German Jew must remain in Germany.” The significance of this directive cannot be overstated.

    The pattern of past acts that Benjamin Netanyahu has pointed to, coupled with the psychological profile of Israel (“Mrs. Elonis”) suggest that Israel is actually the perpetrator of threats and the creator, not the victim, of ” the fear of violence’’ and ‘’ the disruption that fear engenders.’’

    As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor concluded in 2003, “Current legal thinking is that threats do damage on their own. ” Iran has been and continues to be the victim of those threats, not the perpetrator of them.

    Iran’s rhetorical outcries, “Down with Israel, Down with America,” and the wishful prediction that “zionism will disappear from the pages of history” are cries of resistance to Israel’s, and the USA’s sustained threats of violence economic warfare against the Iranian state and people.

    George has stated that he advocates the “destruction of Iran” in order to “make Iran not wish to destroy America” or “hate America.”

    There’s a lot easier way to bring about that salubrious state:

    Stop threatening Iran.

    Stop the economic war against Iran.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    How many minutes of your life did you waste assembling that anti-America montage? lulz :)
    , @George123
    Solonto, I assume you're some sort of apologist for the Iranian and other Muslim causes, and there's nothing wrong with that, that's perfectly OK, but the way you are trying to twist my words doesn't inspire a belief in the honesty of your cause.

    Avoid spin, stick to facts, and have respect for the intelligence of your readers.
    , @Anonymous
    Man you are doing a good job at destroying that Zionist apologist George. His responses are becoming thinner and thinner and he is failing miserably, as most Zionist do, in accurately rebutting anything you have to say. I find it funny that he tells you to stick to facts when all you did was present facts. It is up to George to find anything inaccurate in what you said which he hasn't. Excellent analogy bringing up that court case as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62
    "Hitchens takes note from Elysium."

    More like... Hitchens takes note from Hades!

    Two years after the invasion of Iraq, British MP George Galloway and journalist Christopher Hitchens debated the causes and consequences of the Iraq war at Baruch College in New York City.

    Here's my favourite part (in bold) where Galloway rips into Hitchens for first opposing Iraq War I, but then somehow supporting Iraq War II:


    GEORGE GALLOWAY: But ah, I want to thank Mr Hitchens for the brave stand that he made against the war on Iraq in 1991. What you are… what you have witnessed since is something unique in natural history, the first ever metamorphosis from a butterfly back into a slug. (sound of cheering and clapping) And I mention slug purposely, because the one thing a slug does leave behind it is a trail of slime. Now, I was brought up by my father on the principle never to wrestle with a chimney sweep, because whatever you do you can't come out clean. But you, Mr Hitchens are no chimney sweep. That's not coal dust in which you are covered, you are covered in the stuff you like to smear onto others, not just me with your Gobellian leaflets full of selective quotation, half-truth, mistruth and downright untruth, and the comments you made in your last two minutes of this speech. People like Mr Hitchens are ready to fight to the last drop of other people's blood, and it's utterly contemptible, utterly and completely contemptible.

    Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-hitchens-galloway-debate.89215/
     

    Oh I think Hitch was very precise about his exact positions and differences with the prosecutors of the 2nd War. He was never a man to thoughtlessly coalesce and follow a party or trend simply because he happened to agree with them in the past.

    As debates go, I’d say he trounced that slobbering codger Galloway with effortless superiority worthy of a Balliolite! :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. geokat62 says:

    “As debates go, I’d say he trounced that slobbering codger Galloway with effortless superiority worthy of a Balliolite!”

    It may have been worthy of a Balliolite (whatever that is!), but he got the crap kicked out of him, nevertheless! Here’s how one commenter described it:

    I agree, Galloway won handily despite what seemed a favourable audience for Hitchins. Hitchens is not a very good public speaker whereas Galloway is excellent also Hitchens arguments are seriously undermined by the fact he has done a major U turn from his anti-war stance in 1991 which Galloway constantly reminded him of which threw Hitchens onto the back foot trying to defend his earlier stance whilst supporting his conversion. In return Hitchens tried weakly and hence unsuccessfully to attack Galloway on the oil for food scandal. This is the first of a series of debates Galloway will be taking part in during this tour of the US and it will be interesting to see how he performs against a US opponent with good oratorial skills and a more consistant track record.

    Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-hitchens-galloway-debate.89215/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    "favourable audience for Hitchens.....Hitchens is not a very good public speaker"
     
    For that, the most appropriate response, is the internet shorthand: ROFL!

    Balliolite: Alumnus of Balliol College Oxford, known for its unmatched proficiency in debating. Alma Mater of Robert Browning, Linus Pauling and few hundred distinguished others.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62
    "As debates go, I’d say he trounced that slobbering codger Galloway with effortless superiority worthy of a Balliolite!"

    It may have been worthy of a Balliolite (whatever that is!), but he got the crap kicked out of him, nevertheless! Here's how one commenter described it:


    I agree, Galloway won handily despite what seemed a favourable audience for Hitchins. Hitchens is not a very good public speaker whereas Galloway is excellent also Hitchens arguments are seriously undermined by the fact he has done a major U turn from his anti-war stance in 1991 which Galloway constantly reminded him of which threw Hitchens onto the back foot trying to defend his earlier stance whilst supporting his conversion. In return Hitchens tried weakly and hence unsuccessfully to attack Galloway on the oil for food scandal. This is the first of a series of debates Galloway will be taking part in during this tour of the US and it will be interesting to see how he performs against a US opponent with good oratorial skills and a more consistant track record.

    Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-hitchens-galloway-debate.89215/
     

    “favourable audience for Hitchens…..Hitchens is not a very good public speaker”

    For that, the most appropriate response, is the internet shorthand: ROFL!

    Balliolite: Alumnus of Balliol College Oxford, known for its unmatched proficiency in debating. Alma Mater of Robert Browning, Linus Pauling and few hundred distinguished others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Tell you what Mr. 204, after you finish dusting yourself off from ROFL would you like to make a little wager? I bet most posters who view the video (by clicking the link below) will agree with me that GG crushed CH in this debate. It wasn't even close!

    Here's the video:

    http://youtu.be/XLKQGwVkczg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama

    "favourable audience for Hitchens.....Hitchens is not a very good public speaker"
     
    For that, the most appropriate response, is the internet shorthand: ROFL!

    Balliolite: Alumnus of Balliol College Oxford, known for its unmatched proficiency in debating. Alma Mater of Robert Browning, Linus Pauling and few hundred distinguished others.

    Tell you what Mr. 204, after you finish dusting yourself off from ROFL would you like to make a little wager? I bet most posters who view the video (by clicking the link below) will agree with me that GG crushed CH in this debate. It wasn’t even close!

    Here’s the video:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    No, I obviously would not take that wager at all. It would be akin to my posting that video on the National Review forum and asking for an opinion!

    As you saw, the cerebral part of the debate was conceded by his antagonist (by his own admission), to Hitchens. On the other hand, Galloway is a rabble rouser of par excellence Celtic pedigree!

    Cheers

    My last post

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. geokat62 says:

    While I still have you ROFL, I wanted to share something with you.

    I did some digging online that might clearly establish who won the debate and I came across an interesting website.

    It’s hosted by a guy who is so enamoured with Hitchens that he calls him his “intellectual hero”!

    He divided Hitchen’s debates up into three separate categories: The Great; The Good; and The Not So Good and guess where he consigned the debate against Galloway (“The Iraq War of 2003 was just and necessary”, Baruch College, New York, 14 September 2005)? Nope, guess again. That’s right, The Not So Good!

    So much for your “I’d say he trounced that slobbering codger Galloway with effortless superiority worthy of a Balliolite!”

    Here’s his rationale:

    I have consigned this one to the lowest category, not because Hitch loses the debate, but because it’s deeply unpleasant watching him share a platform with such an unsavoury, hard-left demagogue who openly supports brutal Islamist regimes. Things get pretty personal and Galloway resorts to schoolyard name calling. At least he gets his comeuppance from the NY crowd by suggesting that America brought the 9/11 attacks on themselves. Sully your eyes and ears by watching it if you must.

    https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/hitchens-debate-reviews-not-so-good/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  153. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62
    Tell you what Mr. 204, after you finish dusting yourself off from ROFL would you like to make a little wager? I bet most posters who view the video (by clicking the link below) will agree with me that GG crushed CH in this debate. It wasn't even close!

    Here's the video:

    http://youtu.be/XLKQGwVkczg

    No, I obviously would not take that wager at all. It would be akin to my posting that video on the National Review forum and asking for an opinion!

    As you saw, the cerebral part of the debate was conceded by his antagonist (by his own admission), to Hitchens. On the other hand, Galloway is a rabble rouser of par excellence Celtic pedigree!

    Cheers

    My last post

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. geokat62 says:

    “No, I obviously would not take that wager at all. It would be akin to my posting that video on the National Review forum and asking for an opinion!”

    I knew you wouldn’t… that’s why I provided a more “objective” assessment from someone who would visit the National Review forum on a regular basis (see post #153).

    Enjoy your gardening!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  155. Clyde says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    You keep on saying that, but I have no wish to reform Iran. I just want them to not wish to destroy America or get nukes. The last thing I want to do is reform Iran.
     
    and

    The only element within Iran I’d like to see reformed is its hatred of America and the West, because it directly concerns me.
     
    OK.
    got it.

    You advocate destroying Iran --
    here http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-991671 :

    A war with Iran would be pretty much a low risk mop up operation, so it’s something we probably should gave done long ago. As long as we avoid the stupidity of trying to impose liberal democracy on iran, destroying iran would be easy and cheap.

    If, after that moderate elements within iran rise to the fore, we should help them reconstruct their country. If Iranians continue to let their worst elements control them, they will continue to be under threat of destruction from us.
     
    which Biff cut the legs out from under at # 15 http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-991787; George responded at #17
    "But you agree, biff, that if it can be reliably documented that Iranian officials, have said such things over a prolonged period, then we can say they are an enemy who we would be morally justified in destroying before getting the bomb?"

    Biff not having responded, permit me to note some legalisms that might apply to the situation.

    A 2014 New York Times article analyzed legal issues involving free speech and threats of violence. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/magazine/do-online-death-threats-count-as-free-speech.html?_r=0
    The article cited a 2003 decision by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:

    For decades, the court has essentially said that ‘'true threats'’ are an exception to the rule against criminalizing speech. These threats do not have to be carried out — or even be intended to be carried out — to be considered harmful. Bans against threats may be enacted, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in 2003, to protect people ‘'from the fear of violence'’ and ‘'from the disruption that fear engenders.'’ Current legal thinking is that threats do damage on their own.
     
    The case under consideration in the NYTimes article reported that the accused issued specific descriptions of the violence he wished to carry out on his wife. That speech was not constrained within the rhetoric of "Death to Tara" or "Tara will cease to exist in the pages of time;" they were graphically violent and were accompanied with photos depicting that violence.

    Nevertheless, the accused, Elonis, "claims that he didn’t make a true threat, because he didn’t mean it. ‘'I would never hurt my wife,'’ he told the jury. ‘'I never intended to threaten anyone."

    His wife, on the other hand, said that she "felt extremely afraid for mine and my children's and family's lives."

    Thus,

    The central question for the Supreme Court will be whose point of view — the speaker’s, or the listener’s — matters. The jury was instructed to convict Anthony Elonis if it was reasonable for him to see that Tara would interpret his posts as a serious expression of intent to harm her. The court could uphold the standard, or it could require that jurors be asked to convict only if they believe the speaker truly intended to threaten harm. In essence, the court will have to decide what matters more: one person’s freedom to express violent rage, or another person’s freedom to live without the burden of fear?
     
    The case at issue involved on-line speech, so the NYTimes article examined the playacting content of such expressions.

    The Elonis case also involved a domestic dispute in circumstances far different from the matter of Israel vs Iran vs Israel. The most pertinent difference is that while Mr. Elonis threatened harm to Mrs. Elonis, there is no allegation that Mrs. Elonis harmed or threatened to harm or was carrying out harms against Mr. Elonis.

    In contrast, Israel ("Mrs. Elonis") has and is and predictably will continue to carry out real harms against Iran, to which Iran ("Mr. Elonis," the accused) responds with rhetoric -- free speech-- that is non-specific and solely a rather impotent expression of rage and resentment.

    An attorney arguing in defense of "Mr. Elonis/Iran" would point to certain characteristics and behaviors of the alleged victim of the threatening speech, "Mrs. Elonis/Israel," such as those behaviors identified by Israeli psychologist Avigail Abarbanel and Israeli scholar and author Haggai Ram.

    Abarbanel has observed that http://www.avigailabarbanel.me.uk/gaza-2009-01-04.html

    An Israeli friend told me in disgust the other day, that there is an atmosphere of ‘national orgasm’ in Israel about the prospect of attacking Iran. While people are being bombed in Gaza, all Israelis can talk about is the coming attack on Iran. But there is a link between the two. . . .Israel and perhaps the rest of the world too, refuse to see that Israel’s problems are a direct result of deep-seated Jewish trauma and its consequences. Israel’s response to trauma was to arm itself to the teeth, and to become an incredibly aggressive country while perpetuating inside and out the myth of victimhood and goodness. As a psychotherapist I recognise this reaction to trauma. Some people who have been traumatised respond to it by becoming very powerful and very frightening. This is a reaction to having been hurt, and a response to the desire to never be hurt again.

    Unfortunately this isn’t a good or wholesome way to live. This is a way of life that perpetuates inner conflicts, leads to isolation and invites animosity from others. It’s hard to spread good will and kindness in the world when one’s inner world is based on an adversarial foundation.

     

    This trauma psychology is perpetuated by Israel's leadership, as Abarbanel observed in February 2009 ---

    Professor Ben-Zion Netanyahu said,

    " “Today we are facing plain and simple, a danger of annihilation. This is not only the ongoing existential danger to Israel, but a real danger of complete annihilation." . . .
    The views of Netanyahu Senior do not represent a lunatic fringe, but the Israeli mainstream. . . .

    When a person’s perception of reality is completely out of touch with reality itself, we begin to get an uneasy feeling that something might be wrong with his or her mind.
     
    In other words, Israelis demonstrate a syndrome of psychological instability, in the assessment of a trained psychotherapist who has direct and intimate knowledge of Israeli society.

    According to Haggai Ram, a professor of political science in an Israeli university, describes Israel's stance toward Iran as the outgrowth of a phobia:

    ". . .anti-Iran phobias in the Israeli public sphere are largely projections of perceived domestic threats to the prevailing Israeli ethnocratic order. . . . examine[d] . . . in relation to the Jewish state’s use of violence in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon in the post-9/11 world.

    . . . the conflict between Israel and Iran may not be as essential and polarized as common knowledge assumes. Israeli anti-Iran phobias are derived equally from domestic anxieties about the Jewish state’s ethnic and religious identities and from exaggerated and displaced strategic concerns in the era of the “war on terrorism.” "
     
    That is, an Israel-born psychologist and an Israeli academic assess the Israeli claims of an Iranian "threat" as the result of a centuries-long attachment to a culture of trauma and victimhood that the present Israeli culture has failed to appropriately resolve; that is "detached from reality;" "phobic;" "projections;" and "exaggerated and displaced." "Mrs. Elonis/Israel has quite a load of psychological baggage that any defense attorney worth his salt would explore mercilessly.

    Moreover, Benjamin Netanyahu himself has opened the door to critical evidence that zionists/Israelis have a pattern of causing harm to a target with the goal of provoking that target to some retaliatory action, whereupon zionists will engineer the destruction of that target. Netanyhu reveals this pattern in his oft-repeated declarations that "Iran is Germany."

    From the time that Adolf Hitler assumed the chancellorship in 1933 until a hot war broke out between Germany and Poland, zionist advocates in the USA and elsewhere issued a relentless stream of invective, false charges, and atrocity propaganda against Germany, coupled with a multi-pronged attack on Germany's economy that was intended to "destroy the export economy on which Germany's existence depends." "International Jewry" pursued this agenda for over seven years. Numerous articles in the archives of the Jewish Telegraph Agency document this program of demonization and economic warfare. Here's an index to a small sample of anti-German propaganda and provocations carried out by Jewish leaders between 1933 and 1939 -- http://www.jta.org/?s=hans+luther&orderby=date&order=desc&limit=50

    In other words, evidence demonstrates a pattern of behavior by which zionist agents and leaders attacked Germany in a fashion similar to the attacks being carried out on Iran today. Also similar to the characteristics that Abarbanel and Ram described with respect to Iran, zionism's 20th century attacks on Germany were based on " the result of a centuries-long attachment to a culture of trauma and victimhood " and on "phobias . . .[and] domestic anxieties about Jewish . . . ethnic and religious identities . . . and exaggerated and displaced strategic concerns."

    Most importantly, the zionist attacks on Germany served a strategic function. This claim is based on the fact that sometime in the first two weeks of February 1933, Louis Brandeis directed that "all Jews must leave Germany; no German Jew must remain in Germany." The significance of this directive cannot be overstated.

    The pattern of past acts that Benjamin Netanyahu has pointed to, coupled with the psychological profile of Israel ("Mrs. Elonis") suggest that Israel is actually the perpetrator of threats and the creator, not the victim, of " the fear of violence'’ and ‘' the disruption that fear engenders.'’

    As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor concluded in 2003, "Current legal thinking is that threats do damage on their own. " Iran has been and continues to be the victim of those threats, not the perpetrator of them.

    Iran's rhetorical outcries, "Down with Israel, Down with America," and the wishful prediction that "zionism will disappear from the pages of history" are cries of resistance to Israel's, and the USA's sustained threats of violence economic warfare against the Iranian state and people.



    George has stated that he advocates the "destruction of Iran" in order to "make Iran not wish to destroy America" or "hate America."

    There's a lot easier way to bring about that salubrious state:

    Stop threatening Iran.

    Stop the economic war against Iran.

    How many minutes of your life did you waste assembling that anti-America montage? lulz :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @George
    Argue the arguement, not the man.

    Arguing the man is a concession of defeat.

    When I see an ad hominem, what I think is - game, set, match.

    Peace.

    Argue the arguement[sic], not the man.

    I didn’t want to react to your postings, but I think it is worthwhile to do so for the other readers who may be confused by your assertions.

    An argument consists of statements of fact, supported by logical reasoning or supporting data. What you have provided us is nothing more than trivial assertions without any basis in reference data or demonstrated reasoning. You do not get to win an argument by merely repeating the same words over and over again in your posts, even with rephrasing, without any corroborating data or supporting logic, nor does your point become more valid by increasing the volume of what you say or the quantity of your verbiage.

    It is also an insult to our intelligence for you to assume that we are not aware of Israel’s megaphone project with its hordes of Internet trolls to fill comment boards with form data, that is meant to merely obfuscate and corrupt discussions, in the hopes of distracting from the nefarious activities of Israel’s minions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Extremely well put!
    , @George123
    I never said I won any argument. I merely said that ad hominems are an immediate indication that someone cannot deal with the arguments presented to him. Its a concession of defeat.

    If Israel has hordes of people making arguments on its behalf, that doesn't excuse you from evaluating the merit of an argument presented to you.

    It doesn't matter who made an argument, what you think his motives were, and what you think the purpose of an argument is. An argument is to be judged on its merit. Its either good or bad.

    The reason this rule was made is because its exceedingly easy for partisans to attribute any motive they wish to the person making an argument, and then dismiss a valid argument.

    Therefore - don't evaluate the person, evaluate the argument. He may be the worst person in the world. If his argument is valid, its valid. Its the basics of intellectual honesty and health.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. George123 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    You keep on saying that, but I have no wish to reform Iran. I just want them to not wish to destroy America or get nukes. The last thing I want to do is reform Iran.
     
    and

    The only element within Iran I’d like to see reformed is its hatred of America and the West, because it directly concerns me.
     
    OK.
    got it.

    You advocate destroying Iran --
    here http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-991671 :

    A war with Iran would be pretty much a low risk mop up operation, so it’s something we probably should gave done long ago. As long as we avoid the stupidity of trying to impose liberal democracy on iran, destroying iran would be easy and cheap.

    If, after that moderate elements within iran rise to the fore, we should help them reconstruct their country. If Iranians continue to let their worst elements control them, they will continue to be under threat of destruction from us.
     
    which Biff cut the legs out from under at # 15 http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-991787; George responded at #17
    "But you agree, biff, that if it can be reliably documented that Iranian officials, have said such things over a prolonged period, then we can say they are an enemy who we would be morally justified in destroying before getting the bomb?"

    Biff not having responded, permit me to note some legalisms that might apply to the situation.

    A 2014 New York Times article analyzed legal issues involving free speech and threats of violence. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/magazine/do-online-death-threats-count-as-free-speech.html?_r=0
    The article cited a 2003 decision by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:

    For decades, the court has essentially said that ‘'true threats'’ are an exception to the rule against criminalizing speech. These threats do not have to be carried out — or even be intended to be carried out — to be considered harmful. Bans against threats may be enacted, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in 2003, to protect people ‘'from the fear of violence'’ and ‘'from the disruption that fear engenders.'’ Current legal thinking is that threats do damage on their own.
     
    The case under consideration in the NYTimes article reported that the accused issued specific descriptions of the violence he wished to carry out on his wife. That speech was not constrained within the rhetoric of "Death to Tara" or "Tara will cease to exist in the pages of time;" they were graphically violent and were accompanied with photos depicting that violence.

    Nevertheless, the accused, Elonis, "claims that he didn’t make a true threat, because he didn’t mean it. ‘'I would never hurt my wife,'’ he told the jury. ‘'I never intended to threaten anyone."

    His wife, on the other hand, said that she "felt extremely afraid for mine and my children's and family's lives."

    Thus,

    The central question for the Supreme Court will be whose point of view — the speaker’s, or the listener’s — matters. The jury was instructed to convict Anthony Elonis if it was reasonable for him to see that Tara would interpret his posts as a serious expression of intent to harm her. The court could uphold the standard, or it could require that jurors be asked to convict only if they believe the speaker truly intended to threaten harm. In essence, the court will have to decide what matters more: one person’s freedom to express violent rage, or another person’s freedom to live without the burden of fear?
     
    The case at issue involved on-line speech, so the NYTimes article examined the playacting content of such expressions.

    The Elonis case also involved a domestic dispute in circumstances far different from the matter of Israel vs Iran vs Israel. The most pertinent difference is that while Mr. Elonis threatened harm to Mrs. Elonis, there is no allegation that Mrs. Elonis harmed or threatened to harm or was carrying out harms against Mr. Elonis.

    In contrast, Israel ("Mrs. Elonis") has and is and predictably will continue to carry out real harms against Iran, to which Iran ("Mr. Elonis," the accused) responds with rhetoric -- free speech-- that is non-specific and solely a rather impotent expression of rage and resentment.

    An attorney arguing in defense of "Mr. Elonis/Iran" would point to certain characteristics and behaviors of the alleged victim of the threatening speech, "Mrs. Elonis/Israel," such as those behaviors identified by Israeli psychologist Avigail Abarbanel and Israeli scholar and author Haggai Ram.

    Abarbanel has observed that http://www.avigailabarbanel.me.uk/gaza-2009-01-04.html

    An Israeli friend told me in disgust the other day, that there is an atmosphere of ‘national orgasm’ in Israel about the prospect of attacking Iran. While people are being bombed in Gaza, all Israelis can talk about is the coming attack on Iran. But there is a link between the two. . . .Israel and perhaps the rest of the world too, refuse to see that Israel’s problems are a direct result of deep-seated Jewish trauma and its consequences. Israel’s response to trauma was to arm itself to the teeth, and to become an incredibly aggressive country while perpetuating inside and out the myth of victimhood and goodness. As a psychotherapist I recognise this reaction to trauma. Some people who have been traumatised respond to it by becoming very powerful and very frightening. This is a reaction to having been hurt, and a response to the desire to never be hurt again.

    Unfortunately this isn’t a good or wholesome way to live. This is a way of life that perpetuates inner conflicts, leads to isolation and invites animosity from others. It’s hard to spread good will and kindness in the world when one’s inner world is based on an adversarial foundation.

     

    This trauma psychology is perpetuated by Israel's leadership, as Abarbanel observed in February 2009 ---

    Professor Ben-Zion Netanyahu said,

    " “Today we are facing plain and simple, a danger of annihilation. This is not only the ongoing existential danger to Israel, but a real danger of complete annihilation." . . .
    The views of Netanyahu Senior do not represent a lunatic fringe, but the Israeli mainstream. . . .

    When a person’s perception of reality is completely out of touch with reality itself, we begin to get an uneasy feeling that something might be wrong with his or her mind.
     
    In other words, Israelis demonstrate a syndrome of psychological instability, in the assessment of a trained psychotherapist who has direct and intimate knowledge of Israeli society.

    According to Haggai Ram, a professor of political science in an Israeli university, describes Israel's stance toward Iran as the outgrowth of a phobia:

    ". . .anti-Iran phobias in the Israeli public sphere are largely projections of perceived domestic threats to the prevailing Israeli ethnocratic order. . . . examine[d] . . . in relation to the Jewish state’s use of violence in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon in the post-9/11 world.

    . . . the conflict between Israel and Iran may not be as essential and polarized as common knowledge assumes. Israeli anti-Iran phobias are derived equally from domestic anxieties about the Jewish state’s ethnic and religious identities and from exaggerated and displaced strategic concerns in the era of the “war on terrorism.” "
     
    That is, an Israel-born psychologist and an Israeli academic assess the Israeli claims of an Iranian "threat" as the result of a centuries-long attachment to a culture of trauma and victimhood that the present Israeli culture has failed to appropriately resolve; that is "detached from reality;" "phobic;" "projections;" and "exaggerated and displaced." "Mrs. Elonis/Israel has quite a load of psychological baggage that any defense attorney worth his salt would explore mercilessly.

    Moreover, Benjamin Netanyahu himself has opened the door to critical evidence that zionists/Israelis have a pattern of causing harm to a target with the goal of provoking that target to some retaliatory action, whereupon zionists will engineer the destruction of that target. Netanyhu reveals this pattern in his oft-repeated declarations that "Iran is Germany."

    From the time that Adolf Hitler assumed the chancellorship in 1933 until a hot war broke out between Germany and Poland, zionist advocates in the USA and elsewhere issued a relentless stream of invective, false charges, and atrocity propaganda against Germany, coupled with a multi-pronged attack on Germany's economy that was intended to "destroy the export economy on which Germany's existence depends." "International Jewry" pursued this agenda for over seven years. Numerous articles in the archives of the Jewish Telegraph Agency document this program of demonization and economic warfare. Here's an index to a small sample of anti-German propaganda and provocations carried out by Jewish leaders between 1933 and 1939 -- http://www.jta.org/?s=hans+luther&orderby=date&order=desc&limit=50

    In other words, evidence demonstrates a pattern of behavior by which zionist agents and leaders attacked Germany in a fashion similar to the attacks being carried out on Iran today. Also similar to the characteristics that Abarbanel and Ram described with respect to Iran, zionism's 20th century attacks on Germany were based on " the result of a centuries-long attachment to a culture of trauma and victimhood " and on "phobias . . .[and] domestic anxieties about Jewish . . . ethnic and religious identities . . . and exaggerated and displaced strategic concerns."

    Most importantly, the zionist attacks on Germany served a strategic function. This claim is based on the fact that sometime in the first two weeks of February 1933, Louis Brandeis directed that "all Jews must leave Germany; no German Jew must remain in Germany." The significance of this directive cannot be overstated.

    The pattern of past acts that Benjamin Netanyahu has pointed to, coupled with the psychological profile of Israel ("Mrs. Elonis") suggest that Israel is actually the perpetrator of threats and the creator, not the victim, of " the fear of violence'’ and ‘' the disruption that fear engenders.'’

    As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor concluded in 2003, "Current legal thinking is that threats do damage on their own. " Iran has been and continues to be the victim of those threats, not the perpetrator of them.

    Iran's rhetorical outcries, "Down with Israel, Down with America," and the wishful prediction that "zionism will disappear from the pages of history" are cries of resistance to Israel's, and the USA's sustained threats of violence economic warfare against the Iranian state and people.



    George has stated that he advocates the "destruction of Iran" in order to "make Iran not wish to destroy America" or "hate America."

    There's a lot easier way to bring about that salubrious state:

    Stop threatening Iran.

    Stop the economic war against Iran.

    Solonto, I assume you’re some sort of apologist for the Iranian and other Muslim causes, and there’s nothing wrong with that, that’s perfectly OK, but the way you are trying to twist my words doesn’t inspire a belief in the honesty of your cause.

    Avoid spin, stick to facts, and have respect for the intelligence of your readers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. geokat62 says:
    @Cloak And Dagger
    Argue the arguement[sic], not the man.

    I didn't want to react to your postings, but I think it is worthwhile to do so for the other readers who may be confused by your assertions.

    An argument consists of statements of fact, supported by logical reasoning or supporting data. What you have provided us is nothing more than trivial assertions without any basis in reference data or demonstrated reasoning. You do not get to win an argument by merely repeating the same words over and over again in your posts, even with rephrasing, without any corroborating data or supporting logic, nor does your point become more valid by increasing the volume of what you say or the quantity of your verbiage.

    It is also an insult to our intelligence for you to assume that we are not aware of Israel's megaphone project with its hordes of Internet trolls to fill comment boards with form data, that is meant to merely obfuscate and corrupt discussions, in the hopes of distracting from the nefarious activities of Israel's minions.

    Extremely well put!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. George123 says:
    @Cloak And Dagger
    Argue the arguement[sic], not the man.

    I didn't want to react to your postings, but I think it is worthwhile to do so for the other readers who may be confused by your assertions.

    An argument consists of statements of fact, supported by logical reasoning or supporting data. What you have provided us is nothing more than trivial assertions without any basis in reference data or demonstrated reasoning. You do not get to win an argument by merely repeating the same words over and over again in your posts, even with rephrasing, without any corroborating data or supporting logic, nor does your point become more valid by increasing the volume of what you say or the quantity of your verbiage.

    It is also an insult to our intelligence for you to assume that we are not aware of Israel's megaphone project with its hordes of Internet trolls to fill comment boards with form data, that is meant to merely obfuscate and corrupt discussions, in the hopes of distracting from the nefarious activities of Israel's minions.

    I never said I won any argument. I merely said that ad hominems are an immediate indication that someone cannot deal with the arguments presented to him. Its a concession of defeat.

    If Israel has hordes of people making arguments on its behalf, that doesn’t excuse you from evaluating the merit of an argument presented to you.

    It doesn’t matter who made an argument, what you think his motives were, and what you think the purpose of an argument is. An argument is to be judged on its merit. Its either good or bad.

    The reason this rule was made is because its exceedingly easy for partisans to attribute any motive they wish to the person making an argument, and then dismiss a valid argument.

    Therefore – don’t evaluate the person, evaluate the argument. He may be the worst person in the world. If his argument is valid, its valid. Its the basics of intellectual honesty and health.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloak And Dagger
    Therefore – don’t evaluate the person, evaluate the argument.

    Sorry, that is not always true, as indicated by your posts. If a person is repeatedly refuted and still insists on presenting the same debunked claims over and over again, then it is perfectly reasonable to call into question the persons character, affiliations, and even the level of demonstrated intelligence. If the arguments are merely talking points or opinions without basis in facts, they do not a cogent argument make. Therefore, after repeated refutations of anyones's theses, it is no longer necessary to refute once more, and the poster polluting the forums is justifiably a target for acrimony and criticism.

    By all means convince us with your credible data if you have any, however, rote repetitions of baseless opinions and hasbara talking points do not an argument make. It is an insult to the intelligence of the reader to continue in this strain, and therefore, makes the author a completely reasonable object of derision, specially one whose interests are counter to those of the US, despite protestations to the contrary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. George123 says:
    @Sam Shama
    Well I suppose you are arguing that the notion of Heaven is a neat psychological ploy (to preserve order on Earth). Or it is a hedge, but only in the sense of Pascal's Wager. It may very well be the case, but choice in this life, one hopes, is not a stark binary between debauchery and abstinence; there is a happy medium.

    My point on the other hand, was to highlight the deviousness of the current crop of pseudo- religious leaders, who would pack youngsters off to Heaven with the aid of an explosive vest and the promise of infinite debauchery. Such was in fact always the case.

    Hitchens takes note from Elysium.

    Nah, not even as a psychological ploy. The defining feature of heaven would have to be that the limitations of our earthly existence don’t obtain there. One earthly limitation is that our sexuality has to be corralled for society to function. We cannot indulge it unrestrainedly without bringing ruin onto ourselves or society – in heaven, we can. Makes perfect sense.

    The Hebrew bible also envisions divine reward as a flourishing earthly existence. It seems that Semitic religions always have envisioned heaven in concrete material terms, and the Muslim version seems decidedly superior as its vision is of material rewards without the limitations of earthly existence.

    Only Eastern religions, and to some extent Christianity, developed a vision of heaven as a mental or spiritual state.

    I doubt the vision of virgins is truly what motivates Muslims to kill themselves in holy war. Jihad just represents the “power impulse” of the various Muslim people’s, and in its current form its as much a response to an unsettling modernity that has been imposed on them as anything else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    Jihad just represents the “power impulse” of the various Muslim people’s, and in its current form its as much a response to an unsettling modernity that has been imposed on them as anything else.
     
    Quite
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @George123
    I never said I won any argument. I merely said that ad hominems are an immediate indication that someone cannot deal with the arguments presented to him. Its a concession of defeat.

    If Israel has hordes of people making arguments on its behalf, that doesn't excuse you from evaluating the merit of an argument presented to you.

    It doesn't matter who made an argument, what you think his motives were, and what you think the purpose of an argument is. An argument is to be judged on its merit. Its either good or bad.

    The reason this rule was made is because its exceedingly easy for partisans to attribute any motive they wish to the person making an argument, and then dismiss a valid argument.

    Therefore - don't evaluate the person, evaluate the argument. He may be the worst person in the world. If his argument is valid, its valid. Its the basics of intellectual honesty and health.

    Therefore – don’t evaluate the person, evaluate the argument.

    Sorry, that is not always true, as indicated by your posts. If a person is repeatedly refuted and still insists on presenting the same debunked claims over and over again, then it is perfectly reasonable to call into question the persons character, affiliations, and even the level of demonstrated intelligence. If the arguments are merely talking points or opinions without basis in facts, they do not a cogent argument make. Therefore, after repeated refutations of anyones’s theses, it is no longer necessary to refute once more, and the poster polluting the forums is justifiably a target for acrimony and criticism.

    By all means convince us with your credible data if you have any, however, rote repetitions of baseless opinions and hasbara talking points do not an argument make. It is an insult to the intelligence of the reader to continue in this strain, and therefore, makes the author a completely reasonable object of derision, specially one whose interests are counter to those of the US, despite protestations to the contrary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @George123
    And who's to decide who refuted whom? You? Me? Can I decide I refuted you and then start attacking your character?

    This is just another device to avoid having to face troubling perspectives and arguments. People have long ago realized the infinite number of devices the human mind is prone to in an effort to avoid facing troubling perspectives and have developed a code to guard against that - argue the argument, not the man.

    Many of the perspectives here are not subject to refutation - they are perspectives. I may think its moral to destroy Iran to prevent it from getting nukes, others may not. I may think the region is so volatile, and contains so many who hate America, that Iran getting nukes is a serious threat. Others may think deterrence theory will work just fine.

    Such perspectives are not amenable to decisive refutation, but they can be intelligently discussed with reference to history, logic, and common sense, while realizing no one is likely to produce an unambiguously persuasive argument.

    In the end, everyone has to act on their conscience in the absence of certainty.
    , @Sam Shama
    I have to agree with @George and @SamShama, that what you and @SolntoCroesus and others have been writing is not what you "think" they are. You are no more "debunking" anything in what is essentially a political debate.

    I can see the long posts from @SolontoCroesus, but they turn out to be nothing more than the opinions of several people like Abarbanel (yeah I read her stuff and she seems psychologically unbalanced, and gives the impression that she is about to break into tears at any moment)

    On the other hand I had posted earlier (after Sam Shama had pointed to the fact) that giving Iran the nuke is going to guarantee that Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey etc. are all going to acquire it.

    The above is a logical statement. Sam had also pointed out that (which I did not know until recently) that India and Pakistan almost came to a nuclear confrontation in 1999!!


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
     
    Tell me, how does this fact and its logical conclusion not be anything other than that Iran having the bomb, proportionally increases the chance of a ME nuclear war?

    to this very question @Geokat said essentially that "either everyone should have it, or no one". Ok so, if we were playing a children's game this may be possible, but do you believe for a second that the major powers will do so? Absolutely Not!

    Isn't it much easier to stop Iran right now? Answer these important questions with a logical argument of your own and don't post a 10-page montage of someone's experiences of child abuse or whatever growing up!!!

    @George is completely in the green when he says that argue the argument.

    And actually more important to me as an American is the argument that Iran, a country that has so much oil can only want nuclear power for one and only one purpose makes more logical sense than anything you folks have presented.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “the real problem is political”

    Duh, it’s not as if the negotiations are being run by mathematicians. Politicians are in charge, and everything they do is political. That’s why we call them “politicians.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  163. guest says:
    @George
    Whether a state poses a threat can't be judged just by whether it has ships off your coast.

    If senior political figures within a country continuously wish for your destruction, and want the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, I think it's well within the limits of just war theory that we go to war to prevent that.

    A war with Iran would be pretty much a low risk mop up operation, so it's something we probably should gave done long ago. As long as we avoid the stupidity of trying to impose liberal democracy on iran, destroying iran would be easy and cheap.

    If, after that moderate elements within iran rise to the fore, we should help them reconstruct their country. If Iranians continue to let their worst elements control them, they will continue to be under threat of destruction from us.

    As long as we avoid quixotic attempts to impose democracy on countries, we can pretty much do whatever we want, almost anywhere. For instance, if we just wanted to destroy china, we could do it.

    We run into trouble only when we seek to rebuild people in our image. We should never try that again.

    The question isn’t whether Iran is a threat; it’s whether Iran has given the P-whatever and most importantly the U.S. just cause for war. Posing a threat could mean anything, from maybe they’ll invade us in a thousand years to they’re incapable of attacking us if they wanted to, even if they’d never win, and even if they never actually will. Not much of a reason for war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @George123
    It's a judgement call and an assessment. Risks have to be balanced against means.

    If a country has so many in positions of power who wish you dead, in a region that has so many such people, and a region prone to violence and instability, I think it perfectly justified in trying to prevent that country from getting some of most powerful weapons known to man.

    Now, the risk of nukes falling into the wrong hands has to be balanced against the means at our disposal. If a war with Iran would be a huge risk for us, it might make more sense to take the risk of letting them get nukes and see what happens. But we are so powerful that the risk of war with Iran is almost nil.

    In such circumstances, the risk of letting them get nukes is far greater, and it makes moral and practical sense to stop them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. George123 says:
    @Cloak And Dagger
    Therefore – don’t evaluate the person, evaluate the argument.

    Sorry, that is not always true, as indicated by your posts. If a person is repeatedly refuted and still insists on presenting the same debunked claims over and over again, then it is perfectly reasonable to call into question the persons character, affiliations, and even the level of demonstrated intelligence. If the arguments are merely talking points or opinions without basis in facts, they do not a cogent argument make. Therefore, after repeated refutations of anyones's theses, it is no longer necessary to refute once more, and the poster polluting the forums is justifiably a target for acrimony and criticism.

    By all means convince us with your credible data if you have any, however, rote repetitions of baseless opinions and hasbara talking points do not an argument make. It is an insult to the intelligence of the reader to continue in this strain, and therefore, makes the author a completely reasonable object of derision, specially one whose interests are counter to those of the US, despite protestations to the contrary.

    And who’s to decide who refuted whom? You? Me? Can I decide I refuted you and then start attacking your character?

    This is just another device to avoid having to face troubling perspectives and arguments. People have long ago realized the infinite number of devices the human mind is prone to in an effort to avoid facing troubling perspectives and have developed a code to guard against that – argue the argument, not the man.

    Many of the perspectives here are not subject to refutation – they are perspectives. I may think its moral to destroy Iran to prevent it from getting nukes, others may not. I may think the region is so volatile, and contains so many who hate America, that Iran getting nukes is a serious threat. Others may think deterrence theory will work just fine.

    Such perspectives are not amenable to decisive refutation, but they can be intelligently discussed with reference to history, logic, and common sense, while realizing no one is likely to produce an unambiguously persuasive argument.

    In the end, everyone has to act on their conscience in the absence of certainty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. George123 says:
    @guest
    The question isn't whether Iran is a threat; it's whether Iran has given the P-whatever and most importantly the U.S. just cause for war. Posing a threat could mean anything, from maybe they'll invade us in a thousand years to they're incapable of attacking us if they wanted to, even if they'd never win, and even if they never actually will. Not much of a reason for war.

    It’s a judgement call and an assessment. Risks have to be balanced against means.

    If a country has so many in positions of power who wish you dead, in a region that has so many such people, and a region prone to violence and instability, I think it perfectly justified in trying to prevent that country from getting some of most powerful weapons known to man.

    Now, the risk of nukes falling into the wrong hands has to be balanced against the means at our disposal. If a war with Iran would be a huge risk for us, it might make more sense to take the risk of letting them get nukes and see what happens. But we are so powerful that the risk of war with Iran is almost nil.

    In such circumstances, the risk of letting them get nukes is far greater, and it makes moral and practical sense to stop them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Sam Shama says:
    @George123
    Nah, not even as a psychological ploy. The defining feature of heaven would have to be that the limitations of our earthly existence don't obtain there. One earthly limitation is that our sexuality has to be corralled for society to function. We cannot indulge it unrestrainedly without bringing ruin onto ourselves or society - in heaven, we can. Makes perfect sense.

    The Hebrew bible also envisions divine reward as a flourishing earthly existence. It seems that Semitic religions always have envisioned heaven in concrete material terms, and the Muslim version seems decidedly superior as its vision is of material rewards without the limitations of earthly existence.

    Only Eastern religions, and to some extent Christianity, developed a vision of heaven as a mental or spiritual state.

    I doubt the vision of virgins is truly what motivates Muslims to kill themselves in holy war. Jihad just represents the "power impulse" of the various Muslim people's, and in its current form its as much a response to an unsettling modernity that has been imposed on them as anything else.

    Jihad just represents the “power impulse” of the various Muslim people’s, and in its current form its as much a response to an unsettling modernity that has been imposed on them as anything else.

    Quite

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Quite not!

    Just a moment ago you conceded that Pamela Gellar is "off her rocker" for disparanging an entire religion... and now the two of you are doing the very same thing!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Sam Shama says:
    @Cloak And Dagger
    Therefore – don’t evaluate the person, evaluate the argument.

    Sorry, that is not always true, as indicated by your posts. If a person is repeatedly refuted and still insists on presenting the same debunked claims over and over again, then it is perfectly reasonable to call into question the persons character, affiliations, and even the level of demonstrated intelligence. If the arguments are merely talking points or opinions without basis in facts, they do not a cogent argument make. Therefore, after repeated refutations of anyones's theses, it is no longer necessary to refute once more, and the poster polluting the forums is justifiably a target for acrimony and criticism.

    By all means convince us with your credible data if you have any, however, rote repetitions of baseless opinions and hasbara talking points do not an argument make. It is an insult to the intelligence of the reader to continue in this strain, and therefore, makes the author a completely reasonable object of derision, specially one whose interests are counter to those of the US, despite protestations to the contrary.

    I have to agree with and @SamShama, that what you and @SolntoCroesus and others have been writing is not what you “think” they are. You are no more “debunking” anything in what is essentially a political debate.

    I can see the long posts from , but they turn out to be nothing more than the opinions of several people like Abarbanel (yeah I read her stuff and she seems psychologically unbalanced, and gives the impression that she is about to break into tears at any moment)

    On the other hand I had posted earlier (after Sam Shama had pointed to the fact) that giving Iran the nuke is going to guarantee that Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey etc. are all going to acquire it.

    The above is a logical statement. Sam had also pointed out that (which I did not know until recently) that India and Pakistan almost came to a nuclear confrontation in 1999!!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

    Tell me, how does this fact and its logical conclusion not be anything other than that Iran having the bomb, proportionally increases the chance of a ME nuclear war?

    to this very question @Geokat said essentially that “either everyone should have it, or no one”. Ok so, if we were playing a children’s game this may be possible, but do you believe for a second that the major powers will do so? Absolutely Not!

    Isn’t it much easier to stop Iran right now? Answer these important questions with a logical argument of your own and don’t post a 10-page montage of someone’s experiences of child abuse or whatever growing up!!!

    is completely in the green when he says that argue the argument.

    And actually more important to me as an American is the argument that Iran, a country that has so much oil can only want nuclear power for one and only one purpose makes more logical sense than anything you folks have presented.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    "... to this very question @Geokat said essentially that “either everyone should have it, or no one”. Ok so, if we were playing a children’s game this may be possible, but do you believe for a second that the major powers will do so? Absolutely Not!"

    Nice try. I thought we were discussing the state of nuclear affairs in the ME?, not the whole world! Rather than requiring the whole world to disarm if Iran is not permitted to have a nuke, my argument was that if you truly desired stability in the region, then the whole world should be calling on Israel to disarm, immediately!

    But as I've indicated before, my sense is that your desire for stability in the region is not genuine!

    , @Philip Giraldi
    Pat - It has been noted that Iran does indeed have a great deal of oil but it is a diminishing resource that is the country's main source of hard currency income. Recall that the Shah was the one who first sought nuclear energy and he was a close ally of both the US and Israel. It makes sense to supply domestic energy from nuclear reactors to keep the oil revenue high and the economy afloat.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    On the other hand I had posted earlier (after Sam Shama had pointed to the fact) that giving Iran the nuke is going to guarantee that Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey etc. are all going to acquire it.

    The above is a logical statement. Sam had also pointed out that (which I did not know until recently) that India and Pakistan almost came to a nuclear confrontation in 1999!!
     
    1. "Logic" is used 5 times in your comment. Logic is a system that relies on accurate information; if the first premise is wrong, the conclusion cannot possibly be correct. In addition, logic used perniciously or in a self-serving manner (i.e. pilpul) produces results that are frequently counterproductive if not tragic. Croesus lost Lydia because he filtered the Delphic oracle through his own hubris.

    2. Nuclear weapons have been used only overtly a very few times and covertly several more times (for example, by Israel, to force US military re-supply in 1973). Nuclear weapons are just not that useful, and fewer people have been killed directly by nuclear weapons than by all other means of killing people on a mass scale.

    The USA and Israel are selling death-dealing devices to unstable, ideologically and/or religiously-driven autocracies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia like there is no tomorrow; the revenues produced have to be approaching the trillions-mark. Millions of people can be killed with the weapons that the USA and Israel have already sold to these volatile regimes in the Middle East.

    If it is logical that "allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons will mean that Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey" will seek nuclear weapons; and if by logic we mean a reasoning process that applies to similar situations, then isn't it logical to conclude that selling death-dealing weapons to Israel and KSA is an extremely dangerous practice that threatens the entire region and the world?

    If it's logical, the reasoning must apply across the board, right Pat Newton?

    Otherwise, we're in a Croesus crisis, which seems to be the situation that pertains, as the USA self-destructs in pursuit of its delusion of "conquering Persia," in collusion with rogue state Israel.

    One more thing -- Yossi Alpher disclosed something phenomenally important about the huge imago driving the psychopathic god of zionism. Alpher said:

    "We Israelis, . . . to this day, have a need to -- a deep need to be recognized and accepted by the region. You see, Bibi’s demand, which is supported by most Israelis, that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, or the state of the Jewish people -- the nation-state of the Jewish people -- this goes way back, this need to be recognized. It explains our relationships with some of the Christian and Kurdish and Druze minorities as well . . . there’s this sense that the ancient peoples of the Middle East have created an alliance, the people who precede the Arabs, okay. We go back with Iran, we just celebrated Purim, all right, we go back 2,600 years with Iran. The Egyptian, the Ethiopian national narrative is King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. So, this is almost a biblical -- a new biblical chapter.
    This is how some people in Israel felt. "
     
    Unpacking this statement is a topic all its own. For the moment, the salient concept is the insatiable need of the East European Jews who concocted zionism to link themselves historically and culturally with the ancient empire of the Persians, and not, significantly, with the Persia of Cyrus, extolled in Torah and in the Cyrus scroll as having guaranteed universal human rights to all in the Persian empire, but to Esther's Persia -- Esther, who supplanted Persia's queen, suborned its king, slaughtered the prime minister and his sons, replaced him with Esther's tribesman, and slaughtered 75,000 innocent Persians.

    In the above statement Alpher revealed the fevered mental blockage that clouds zionist "logic."
    , @Cloak And Dagger

    you and @SolntoCroesus and others have been writing is not what you “think” they are
     
    Please cite statements by me that you perceive as "I think" rather than facts w.r.t. to the Iran deal. I will then provide you with scholarly citations to support my contentions.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
    Tell me, how does this fact and its logical conclusion not be anything other than that Iran having the bomb
     
    First of all, Wikipedia can be modified by anyone and is not considered a scholarly citation that can be used to support anything. Even more so, when the first paragraph on that page has the following warning:

    The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed.
     
    Nice try.

    Ok so, if we were playing a children’s game this may be possible, but do you believe for a second that the major powers will do so
     
    Rubbish. The key reason for instability in the Middle East (not the ony one) is that Israel has nuclear weapons, and no one else in the region does (Pakistan and India ar not in the Middle East). Speaking of "major powers", Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has been a key part of the defense strategy of the major powers since WW2 for ourselves, USSR/Russia, and China. In fact, it has been proven that we do not attack anyone, who possesses nuclear weapons by our posture towards North Korea. The rogue nation of Israel has obtained nuclear weapons through clandestine means, and refuses to be part of the nuclear NPT or allow IAEA inspections, while belligerently demanding war on Iran, who is a signatory to the NPT and is heavily inspected, and everyone, including Mossad admits that they have no nukes or intentions of acquiring them. Talk of hypocrisy!

    Iran, a country that has so much oil can only want nuclear power for one and only one purpose makes more logical sense
     
    I suggest that you look up the meaning of "logical". Iran uses it's centrifuges to produce medical isotopes - a perfectly reasonable application of nuclear technology for an NPT signatory. Further, Iran wants to use nuclear power for supplying itself with electrical power, as it is more profitable to do that and export its oil to earn foreign exchange. As I have said before, unsupported assertions do not an argument make.

    But these are all red herrings

    Phil's article is about the Iran nuclear deal. The only people asserting that the deal is tantamount to giving Iran nukes are you Israelis and your sayanims in this country, and your minions in our congress. Besides Israel-firsters, nobody believes that Iran has nukes or wants nukes. Your game is up.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama
    I have to agree with @George and @SamShama, that what you and @SolntoCroesus and others have been writing is not what you "think" they are. You are no more "debunking" anything in what is essentially a political debate.

    I can see the long posts from @SolontoCroesus, but they turn out to be nothing more than the opinions of several people like Abarbanel (yeah I read her stuff and she seems psychologically unbalanced, and gives the impression that she is about to break into tears at any moment)

    On the other hand I had posted earlier (after Sam Shama had pointed to the fact) that giving Iran the nuke is going to guarantee that Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey etc. are all going to acquire it.

    The above is a logical statement. Sam had also pointed out that (which I did not know until recently) that India and Pakistan almost came to a nuclear confrontation in 1999!!


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
     
    Tell me, how does this fact and its logical conclusion not be anything other than that Iran having the bomb, proportionally increases the chance of a ME nuclear war?

    to this very question @Geokat said essentially that "either everyone should have it, or no one". Ok so, if we were playing a children's game this may be possible, but do you believe for a second that the major powers will do so? Absolutely Not!

    Isn't it much easier to stop Iran right now? Answer these important questions with a logical argument of your own and don't post a 10-page montage of someone's experiences of child abuse or whatever growing up!!!

    @George is completely in the green when he says that argue the argument.

    And actually more important to me as an American is the argument that Iran, a country that has so much oil can only want nuclear power for one and only one purpose makes more logical sense than anything you folks have presented.

    “… to this very question @Geokat said essentially that “either everyone should have it, or no one”. Ok so, if we were playing a children’s game this may be possible, but do you believe for a second that the major powers will do so? Absolutely Not!”

    Nice try. I thought we were discussing the state of nuclear affairs in the ME?, not the whole world! Rather than requiring the whole world to disarm if Iran is not permitted to have a nuke, my argument was that if you truly desired stability in the region, then the whole world should be calling on Israel to disarm, immediately!

    But as I’ve indicated before, my sense is that your desire for stability in the region is not genuine!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    But as I’ve indicated before, my sense is that your desire for stability in the region is not genuine!
     
    Do me a favor and not talk about who is genuine and who is not. (For example I saw your post in another forum where you were basically pushing people to agree that since Jews were semitic like Arabs and muslims, we should throw them out of the USA. So your motives are transparent and despicable. Don't try to play that holier-than-thou crap).

    Actually what Dr Giraldi said above makes more sense and I can see some logic behind it, even though I don't fully agree.

    Your response is twisted. Even if we are talking about the ME, do you think we can get Israel to disarm (can you do that to South Africa or North Korea, even if we are not talking about the world at large?)

    Your answer is ok so let's give it to EVERYBODY in the ME, which any sensible person would think is nuts! From nuclear power generation to a nuke is not that difficult. At the time the Shah was in power we we allies. Iran in the meantime has turned into a state which took our embassy hostage, kept them prisoners for an entire year and then let them go only when Reagan basically gave them the ultimatum. I would not trust them as far as I can throw a stone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama

    Jihad just represents the “power impulse” of the various Muslim people’s, and in its current form its as much a response to an unsettling modernity that has been imposed on them as anything else.
     
    Quite

    Quite not!

    Just a moment ago you conceded that Pamela Gellar is “off her rocker” for disparanging an entire religion… and now the two of you are doing the very same thing!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I was agreeing about the jihadis mate, not all muslims.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Sam Shama
    I have to agree with @George and @SamShama, that what you and @SolntoCroesus and others have been writing is not what you "think" they are. You are no more "debunking" anything in what is essentially a political debate.

    I can see the long posts from @SolontoCroesus, but they turn out to be nothing more than the opinions of several people like Abarbanel (yeah I read her stuff and she seems psychologically unbalanced, and gives the impression that she is about to break into tears at any moment)

    On the other hand I had posted earlier (after Sam Shama had pointed to the fact) that giving Iran the nuke is going to guarantee that Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey etc. are all going to acquire it.

    The above is a logical statement. Sam had also pointed out that (which I did not know until recently) that India and Pakistan almost came to a nuclear confrontation in 1999!!


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
     
    Tell me, how does this fact and its logical conclusion not be anything other than that Iran having the bomb, proportionally increases the chance of a ME nuclear war?

    to this very question @Geokat said essentially that "either everyone should have it, or no one". Ok so, if we were playing a children's game this may be possible, but do you believe for a second that the major powers will do so? Absolutely Not!

    Isn't it much easier to stop Iran right now? Answer these important questions with a logical argument of your own and don't post a 10-page montage of someone's experiences of child abuse or whatever growing up!!!

    @George is completely in the green when he says that argue the argument.

    And actually more important to me as an American is the argument that Iran, a country that has so much oil can only want nuclear power for one and only one purpose makes more logical sense than anything you folks have presented.

    Pat – It has been noted that Iran does indeed have a great deal of oil but it is a diminishing resource that is the country’s main source of hard currency income. Recall that the Shah was the one who first sought nuclear energy and he was a close ally of both the US and Israel. It makes sense to supply domestic energy from nuclear reactors to keep the oil revenue high and the economy afloat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    It puzzles me why US political leaders do not travel to Iran themselves.

    They might learn something.

    In my most recent visit to Iran I saw the new cities that the Iranian people are preparing for its growing and rapidly-urbanizing population. Iran's major cities -- Tehran, Isfehan, Shiraz, Mashad etc. -- cannot accommodate all the Iranian young people who have benefited from the health and literacy programs introduced by that evul mullocracy with its 7th-century yearnings. (It was not the western-puppet shah who delivered these cultural and social benefits to Iran's rural and working class, it was the Khomeini-Islamists. That's a fact. )

    To create a future for these young people on a geographically challenging landscape, Iran is greening the desert: for miles and miles along the highways around Natanz pylons carry power lines and energy to irrigation systems that water the thousands of acres of evergreen trees planted to cool the desert, and the expansive plantings of greenery bordering highways to keep the desert sands from obstructing the roadways. The nuclear powered energy is supplemented with windmills in the deeper desert as far as the eye can see. I understand that there is a 'solar city' off Iran's Persian Gulf coast, but I did not visit that array.

    The project that I saw was already over 25 years old.

    It is an article of faith in the Iranian mental framework that "God has given them" the ability and the resources to provide for themselves, even in the desert-, mountain-, and earthquake-marked geography that is Iran. Iranians have demonstrated their ability to do so, having developed the qant system for extracting water from beneath the desert floor, and wind towers to cool their homes using only the processes of nature and man's ingenuity. Such systems are still in use today in many places in Iran, most notably in Yazd, the ancient seat of Zoroastrianism, where the Sacred Fire still burns.

    With all this in mind, Yossi Alpher's revelation is understandable: zionists from Lithuania would be envious of the ancient as well as on-going achievements of the Iranian people. In a world recently aroused to keen concern for the environment, Iranians have a 3000 + year history of respect for nature and careful husbanding of nature's gifts.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62
    "... to this very question @Geokat said essentially that “either everyone should have it, or no one”. Ok so, if we were playing a children’s game this may be possible, but do you believe for a second that the major powers will do so? Absolutely Not!"

    Nice try. I thought we were discussing the state of nuclear affairs in the ME?, not the whole world! Rather than requiring the whole world to disarm if Iran is not permitted to have a nuke, my argument was that if you truly desired stability in the region, then the whole world should be calling on Israel to disarm, immediately!

    But as I've indicated before, my sense is that your desire for stability in the region is not genuine!

    But as I’ve indicated before, my sense is that your desire for stability in the region is not genuine!

    Do me a favor and not talk about who is genuine and who is not. (For example I saw your post in another forum where you were basically pushing people to agree that since Jews were semitic like Arabs and muslims, we should throw them out of the USA. So your motives are transparent and despicable. Don’t try to play that holier-than-thou crap).

    Actually what Dr Giraldi said above makes more sense and I can see some logic behind it, even though I don’t fully agree.

    Your response is twisted. Even if we are talking about the ME, do you think we can get Israel to disarm (can you do that to South Africa or North Korea, even if we are not talking about the world at large?)

    Your answer is ok so let’s give it to EVERYBODY in the ME, which any sensible person would think is nuts! From nuclear power generation to a nuke is not that difficult. At the time the Shah was in power we we allies. Iran in the meantime has turned into a state which took our embassy hostage, kept them prisoners for an entire year and then let them go only when Reagan basically gave them the ultimatum. I would not trust them as far as I can throw a stone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    "... you were basically pushing people to agree that since Jews were semitic like Arabs and muslims, we should throw them out of the USA. So your motives are transparent and despicable. Don’t try to play that holier-than-thou crap)."
     
    Is that what I was doing? And here I thought I was trying to determine whether this poster was truly anti-Semitic or not!

    I especially liked your charge that I am guilty of being "holier than thou." Given that I'm irreligious, this would be a difficult thing for me to do! If I come off sounding a little indignant, it's because there are few things I despise more than hypocrites!


    "Your response is twisted. Even if we are talking about the ME, do you think we can get Israel to disarm (can you do that to South Africa or North Korea, even if we are not talking about the world at large?)"
     
    So my response is twisted for suggesting we should disarm Israel if we insist that no other state in the region should have a nuke? Tell me something... didn't the U.S. insist that Iraq be disarmed? Wasn't Assad forced to disarm? Aren't the neocons/Israel Firsters/yourself demanding that Iran be disarmed? And you have the gall to suggest that my response is twisted for suggesting Israel should be disarmed... and you wonder why I come off sounding holier than thou!
    , @SolontoCroesus

    " Iran in the meantime has turned into a state which took our embassy hostage, kept them prisoners for an entire year and then let them go only when Reagan basically gave them the ultimatum. I would not trust them as far as I can throw a stone. "
     
    1. The hostages were held for 444 yellow-ribbon media-frenzy days.

    2. Every one of the hostages held by Iranian students returned to the USA relatively unharmed. Several of the former hostages are vocal advocates for US rapprochement with Iran.

    On the other hand, 34 US sailors were killed, 171 Americans wounded and a highly sophisticated military vessel severely and deliberately damaged by Israelis who, in collusion with persons at the highest level of US government have not yet come clean on this crime.
    "I would not trust Israelis as far as I can throw a stone."

    3. While it is likely the case that Reagan operatives (now known as the neocons) played a significant role in the timing of the hostage release, the crisis was resolved after months of negotiations conducted by the Carter administration resulting in the Algiers Accords of Jan. 19, 1981, Ronald Reagan had no authority to issue "ultimatums" at the time the hostages were released -- the day before his inauguration.

    Incidentally, the USA has systematically reneged on at least three key provisions of the Algiers Accords, most notably with Point Number 1.:


    1. The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs.
     
    ---
    So what are we left with:

    " Iran in the meantime has turned into a state which took released our embassy hostage in good health, kept them prisoners for an entire year and then let them go only when Reagan basically gave them the ultimatum. "
     
    Except for those discrepancies, Pat Newton, your sentence is spot-on. Thanks for playing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62
    Quite not!

    Just a moment ago you conceded that Pamela Gellar is "off her rocker" for disparanging an entire religion... and now the two of you are doing the very same thing!

    I was agreeing about the jihadis mate, not all muslims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    I must have been connecting this post with your previous post. You do remember it don't you? And I don't believe it was limited to Jihadis:

    The term ‘phobia’ means an irrational dread. As applied to Islam it is aimed to suggest that such apprehension is without merit. The insinuation is that any such sentiment is ipso facto, phobic. The preachings in that religion (if e.g., you have had the pleasure to witness samples, especially in London or NYC) manifest precisely those properties, and therefore suspicion of it, is by no means irrational.
     
    (emphasis added)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Sam Shama
    I have to agree with @George and @SamShama, that what you and @SolntoCroesus and others have been writing is not what you "think" they are. You are no more "debunking" anything in what is essentially a political debate.

    I can see the long posts from @SolontoCroesus, but they turn out to be nothing more than the opinions of several people like Abarbanel (yeah I read her stuff and she seems psychologically unbalanced, and gives the impression that she is about to break into tears at any moment)

    On the other hand I had posted earlier (after Sam Shama had pointed to the fact) that giving Iran the nuke is going to guarantee that Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey etc. are all going to acquire it.

    The above is a logical statement. Sam had also pointed out that (which I did not know until recently) that India and Pakistan almost came to a nuclear confrontation in 1999!!


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
     
    Tell me, how does this fact and its logical conclusion not be anything other than that Iran having the bomb, proportionally increases the chance of a ME nuclear war?

    to this very question @Geokat said essentially that "either everyone should have it, or no one". Ok so, if we were playing a children's game this may be possible, but do you believe for a second that the major powers will do so? Absolutely Not!

    Isn't it much easier to stop Iran right now? Answer these important questions with a logical argument of your own and don't post a 10-page montage of someone's experiences of child abuse or whatever growing up!!!

    @George is completely in the green when he says that argue the argument.

    And actually more important to me as an American is the argument that Iran, a country that has so much oil can only want nuclear power for one and only one purpose makes more logical sense than anything you folks have presented.

    On the other hand I had posted earlier (after Sam Shama had pointed to the fact) that giving Iran the nuke is going to guarantee that Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey etc. are all going to acquire it.

    The above is a logical statement. Sam had also pointed out that (which I did not know until recently) that India and Pakistan almost came to a nuclear confrontation in 1999!!

    1. “Logic” is used 5 times in your comment. Logic is a system that relies on accurate information; if the first premise is wrong, the conclusion cannot possibly be correct. In addition, logic used perniciously or in a self-serving manner (i.e. pilpul) produces results that are frequently counterproductive if not tragic. Croesus lost Lydia because he filtered the Delphic oracle through his own hubris.

    2. Nuclear weapons have been used only overtly a very few times and covertly several more times (for example, by Israel, to force US military re-supply in 1973). Nuclear weapons are just not that useful, and fewer people have been killed directly by nuclear weapons than by all other means of killing people on a mass scale.

    The USA and Israel are selling death-dealing devices to unstable, ideologically and/or religiously-driven autocracies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia like there is no tomorrow; the revenues produced have to be approaching the trillions-mark. Millions of people can be killed with the weapons that the USA and Israel have already sold to these volatile regimes in the Middle East.

    If it is logical that “allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons will mean that Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey” will seek nuclear weapons; and if by logic we mean a reasoning process that applies to similar situations, then isn’t it logical to conclude that selling death-dealing weapons to Israel and KSA is an extremely dangerous practice that threatens the entire region and the world?

    If it’s logical, the reasoning must apply across the board, right Pat Newton?

    Otherwise, we’re in a Croesus crisis, which seems to be the situation that pertains, as the USA self-destructs in pursuit of its delusion of “conquering Persia,” in collusion with rogue state Israel.

    One more thing — Yossi Alpher disclosed something phenomenally important about the huge imago driving the psychopathic god of zionism. Alpher said:

    “We Israelis, . . . to this day, have a need to — a deep need to be recognized and accepted by the region. You see, Bibi’s demand, which is supported by most Israelis, that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, or the state of the Jewish people — the nation-state of the Jewish people — this goes way back, this need to be recognized. It explains our relationships with some of the Christian and Kurdish and Druze minorities as well . . . there’s this sense that the ancient peoples of the Middle East have created an alliance, the people who precede the Arabs, okay. We go back with Iran, we just celebrated Purim, all right, we go back 2,600 years with Iran. The Egyptian, the Ethiopian national narrative is King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. So, this is almost a biblical — a new biblical chapter.
    This is how some people in Israel felt. “

    Unpacking this statement is a topic all its own. For the moment, the salient concept is the insatiable need of the East European Jews who concocted zionism to link themselves historically and culturally with the ancient empire of the Persians, and not, significantly, with the Persia of Cyrus, extolled in Torah and in the Cyrus scroll as having guaranteed universal human rights to all in the Persian empire, but to Esther’s Persia — Esther, who supplanted Persia’s queen, suborned its king, slaughtered the prime minister and his sons, replaced him with Esther’s tribesman, and slaughtered 75,000 innocent Persians.

    In the above statement Alpher revealed the fevered mental blockage that clouds zionist “logic.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama

    But as I’ve indicated before, my sense is that your desire for stability in the region is not genuine!
     
    Do me a favor and not talk about who is genuine and who is not. (For example I saw your post in another forum where you were basically pushing people to agree that since Jews were semitic like Arabs and muslims, we should throw them out of the USA. So your motives are transparent and despicable. Don't try to play that holier-than-thou crap).

    Actually what Dr Giraldi said above makes more sense and I can see some logic behind it, even though I don't fully agree.

    Your response is twisted. Even if we are talking about the ME, do you think we can get Israel to disarm (can you do that to South Africa or North Korea, even if we are not talking about the world at large?)

    Your answer is ok so let's give it to EVERYBODY in the ME, which any sensible person would think is nuts! From nuclear power generation to a nuke is not that difficult. At the time the Shah was in power we we allies. Iran in the meantime has turned into a state which took our embassy hostage, kept them prisoners for an entire year and then let them go only when Reagan basically gave them the ultimatum. I would not trust them as far as I can throw a stone.

    “… you were basically pushing people to agree that since Jews were semitic like Arabs and muslims, we should throw them out of the USA. So your motives are transparent and despicable. Don’t try to play that holier-than-thou crap).”

    Is that what I was doing? And here I thought I was trying to determine whether this poster was truly anti-Semitic or not!

    I especially liked your charge that I am guilty of being “holier than thou.” Given that I’m irreligious, this would be a difficult thing for me to do! If I come off sounding a little indignant, it’s because there are few things I despise more than hypocrites!

    “Your response is twisted. Even if we are talking about the ME, do you think we can get Israel to disarm (can you do that to South Africa or North Korea, even if we are not talking about the world at large?)”

    So my response is twisted for suggesting we should disarm Israel if we insist that no other state in the region should have a nuke? Tell me something… didn’t the U.S. insist that Iraq be disarmed? Wasn’t Assad forced to disarm? Aren’t the neocons/Israel Firsters/yourself demanding that Iran be disarmed? And you have the gall to suggest that my response is twisted for suggesting Israel should be disarmed… and you wonder why I come off sounding holier than thou!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    geokat62
    July 4, 2015 at 5:42 pm GMT
    “OUR PRECIOUS NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICA”

    Just curious about what your definition of “white” is. I noticed you are eager to deport all Muslims. But does this also apply to Jews? I ask because a large subset of Muslims are Arabs and as you know both Arabs and Jews are Semitic.
     
    So what did you mean in the above?

    For sure the USA insisted that Saddam should be disarmed of chemical weapons (which he used on the Kurdish people) and and he was looking to buy nukes from North Korea. Same for Syria. The Assad family massacred its own people in Hama years back using tanks. Why should we not disarm dictators?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Sam Shama

    But as I’ve indicated before, my sense is that your desire for stability in the region is not genuine!
     
    Do me a favor and not talk about who is genuine and who is not. (For example I saw your post in another forum where you were basically pushing people to agree that since Jews were semitic like Arabs and muslims, we should throw them out of the USA. So your motives are transparent and despicable. Don't try to play that holier-than-thou crap).

    Actually what Dr Giraldi said above makes more sense and I can see some logic behind it, even though I don't fully agree.

    Your response is twisted. Even if we are talking about the ME, do you think we can get Israel to disarm (can you do that to South Africa or North Korea, even if we are not talking about the world at large?)

    Your answer is ok so let's give it to EVERYBODY in the ME, which any sensible person would think is nuts! From nuclear power generation to a nuke is not that difficult. At the time the Shah was in power we we allies. Iran in the meantime has turned into a state which took our embassy hostage, kept them prisoners for an entire year and then let them go only when Reagan basically gave them the ultimatum. I would not trust them as far as I can throw a stone.

    ” Iran in the meantime has turned into a state which took our embassy hostage, kept them prisoners for an entire year and then let them go only when Reagan basically gave them the ultimatum. I would not trust them as far as I can throw a stone. “

    1. The hostages were held for 444 yellow-ribbon media-frenzy days.

    2. Every one of the hostages held by Iranian students returned to the USA relatively unharmed. Several of the former hostages are vocal advocates for US rapprochement with Iran.

    On the other hand, 34 US sailors were killed, 171 Americans wounded and a highly sophisticated military vessel severely and deliberately damaged by Israelis who, in collusion with persons at the highest level of US government have not yet come clean on this crime.
    “I would not trust Israelis as far as I can throw a stone.”

    3. While it is likely the case that Reagan operatives (now known as the neocons) played a significant role in the timing of the hostage release, the crisis was resolved after months of negotiations conducted by the Carter administration resulting in the Algiers Accords of Jan. 19, 1981, Ronald Reagan had no authority to issue “ultimatums” at the time the hostages were released — the day before his inauguration.

    Incidentally, the USA has systematically reneged on at least three key provisions of the Algiers Accords, most notably with Point Number 1.:

    1. The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.


    So what are we left with:

    ” Iran in the meantime has turned into a state which took released our embassy hostage in good health, kept them prisoners for an entire year and then let them go only when Reagan basically gave them the ultimatum.

    Except for those discrepancies, Pat Newton, your sentence is spot-on. Thanks for playing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I don't think most Americans would agree with you. I know one of the hostages of that crisis pretty closely. She would tell you a very different story about her experiences during those days. I say without any reservations, screw the Iranians. Don't think most people in this country would be on the side of you, Iran firster!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Sam Shama
    I have to agree with @George and @SamShama, that what you and @SolntoCroesus and others have been writing is not what you "think" they are. You are no more "debunking" anything in what is essentially a political debate.

    I can see the long posts from @SolontoCroesus, but they turn out to be nothing more than the opinions of several people like Abarbanel (yeah I read her stuff and she seems psychologically unbalanced, and gives the impression that she is about to break into tears at any moment)

    On the other hand I had posted earlier (after Sam Shama had pointed to the fact) that giving Iran the nuke is going to guarantee that Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey etc. are all going to acquire it.

    The above is a logical statement. Sam had also pointed out that (which I did not know until recently) that India and Pakistan almost came to a nuclear confrontation in 1999!!


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
     
    Tell me, how does this fact and its logical conclusion not be anything other than that Iran having the bomb, proportionally increases the chance of a ME nuclear war?

    to this very question @Geokat said essentially that "either everyone should have it, or no one". Ok so, if we were playing a children's game this may be possible, but do you believe for a second that the major powers will do so? Absolutely Not!

    Isn't it much easier to stop Iran right now? Answer these important questions with a logical argument of your own and don't post a 10-page montage of someone's experiences of child abuse or whatever growing up!!!

    @George is completely in the green when he says that argue the argument.

    And actually more important to me as an American is the argument that Iran, a country that has so much oil can only want nuclear power for one and only one purpose makes more logical sense than anything you folks have presented.

    you and @SolntoCroesus and others have been writing is not what you “think” they are

    Please cite statements by me that you perceive as “I think” rather than facts w.r.t. to the Iran deal. I will then provide you with scholarly citations to support my contentions.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
    Tell me, how does this fact and its logical conclusion not be anything other than that Iran having the bomb

    First of all, Wikipedia can be modified by anyone and is not considered a scholarly citation that can be used to support anything. Even more so, when the first paragraph on that page has the following warning:

    The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed.

    Nice try.

    Ok so, if we were playing a children’s game this may be possible, but do you believe for a second that the major powers will do so

    Rubbish. The key reason for instability in the Middle East (not the ony one) is that Israel has nuclear weapons, and no one else in the region does (Pakistan and India ar not in the Middle East). Speaking of “major powers”, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has been a key part of the defense strategy of the major powers since WW2 for ourselves, USSR/Russia, and China. In fact, it has been proven that we do not attack anyone, who possesses nuclear weapons by our posture towards North Korea. The rogue nation of Israel has obtained nuclear weapons through clandestine means, and refuses to be part of the nuclear NPT or allow IAEA inspections, while belligerently demanding war on Iran, who is a signatory to the NPT and is heavily inspected, and everyone, including Mossad admits that they have no nukes or intentions of acquiring them. Talk of hypocrisy!

    Iran, a country that has so much oil can only want nuclear power for one and only one purpose makes more logical sense

    I suggest that you look up the meaning of “logical”. Iran uses it’s centrifuges to produce medical isotopes – a perfectly reasonable application of nuclear technology for an NPT signatory. Further, Iran wants to use nuclear power for supplying itself with electrical power, as it is more profitable to do that and export its oil to earn foreign exchange. As I have said before, unsupported assertions do not an argument make.

    But these are all red herrings

    Phil’s article is about the Iran nuclear deal. The only people asserting that the deal is tantamount to giving Iran nukes are you Israelis and your sayanims in this country, and your minions in our congress. Besides Israel-firsters, nobody believes that Iran has nukes or wants nukes. Your game is up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Slam

    Dunk

    !


    Thank you, Cloak and Dagger.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    "... you were basically pushing people to agree that since Jews were semitic like Arabs and muslims, we should throw them out of the USA. So your motives are transparent and despicable. Don’t try to play that holier-than-thou crap)."
     
    Is that what I was doing? And here I thought I was trying to determine whether this poster was truly anti-Semitic or not!

    I especially liked your charge that I am guilty of being "holier than thou." Given that I'm irreligious, this would be a difficult thing for me to do! If I come off sounding a little indignant, it's because there are few things I despise more than hypocrites!


    "Your response is twisted. Even if we are talking about the ME, do you think we can get Israel to disarm (can you do that to South Africa or North Korea, even if we are not talking about the world at large?)"
     
    So my response is twisted for suggesting we should disarm Israel if we insist that no other state in the region should have a nuke? Tell me something... didn't the U.S. insist that Iraq be disarmed? Wasn't Assad forced to disarm? Aren't the neocons/Israel Firsters/yourself demanding that Iran be disarmed? And you have the gall to suggest that my response is twisted for suggesting Israel should be disarmed... and you wonder why I come off sounding holier than thou!

    geokat62
    July 4, 2015 at 5:42 pm GMT
    “OUR PRECIOUS NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICA”

    Just curious about what your definition of “white” is. I noticed you are eager to deport all Muslims. But does this also apply to Jews? I ask because a large subset of Muslims are Arabs and as you know both Arabs and Jews are Semitic.

    So what did you mean in the above?

    For sure the USA insisted that Saddam should be disarmed of chemical weapons (which he used on the Kurdish people) and and he was looking to buy nukes from North Korea. Same for Syria. The Assad family massacred its own people in Hama years back using tanks. Why should we not disarm dictators?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    "So what did you mean in the above?"
     
    Just what I said earlier... namely, is this individual just anti-Muslim or is he anti-Semitic.

    btw your smear that I think Jews should be deported is despicable. And you take issue with my calling you disingenuous?


    "For sure the USA insisted that Saddam should be disarmed of chemical weapons ..." (emphasis added)
     
    Oh, it was chemical weapons that we were after? That's news to me... You seem to have forgotten Condi Rice's infamous statement, something to the effect that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." You do remember her saying that don't you?

    And, finally, with respect to your final remark:


    "Why should we not disarm dictators?"
     
    I would respond with a question of my own: Why should we not disarm ethnocracies, ... especially those that are causing death and destruction in their neighbourhood?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama
    I was agreeing about the jihadis mate, not all muslims.

    I must have been connecting this post with your previous post. You do remember it don’t you? And I don’t believe it was limited to Jihadis:

    The term ‘phobia’ means an irrational dread. As applied to Islam it is aimed to suggest that such apprehension is without merit. The insinuation is that any such sentiment is ipso facto, phobic. The preachings in that religion (if e.g., you have had the pleasure to witness samples, especially in London or NYC) manifest precisely those properties, and therefore suspicion of it, is by no means irrational.

    (emphasis added)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Philip Giraldi
    Pat - It has been noted that Iran does indeed have a great deal of oil but it is a diminishing resource that is the country's main source of hard currency income. Recall that the Shah was the one who first sought nuclear energy and he was a close ally of both the US and Israel. It makes sense to supply domestic energy from nuclear reactors to keep the oil revenue high and the economy afloat.

    It puzzles me why US political leaders do not travel to Iran themselves.

    They might learn something.

    In my most recent visit to Iran I saw the new cities that the Iranian people are preparing for its growing and rapidly-urbanizing population. Iran’s major cities — Tehran, Isfehan, Shiraz, Mashad etc. — cannot accommodate all the Iranian young people who have benefited from the health and literacy programs introduced by that evul mullocracy with its 7th-century yearnings. (It was not the western-puppet shah who delivered these cultural and social benefits to Iran’s rural and working class, it was the Khomeini-Islamists. That’s a fact. )

    To create a future for these young people on a geographically challenging landscape, Iran is greening the desert: for miles and miles along the highways around Natanz pylons carry power lines and energy to irrigation systems that water the thousands of acres of evergreen trees planted to cool the desert, and the expansive plantings of greenery bordering highways to keep the desert sands from obstructing the roadways. The nuclear powered energy is supplemented with windmills in the deeper desert as far as the eye can see. I understand that there is a ‘solar city’ off Iran’s Persian Gulf coast, but I did not visit that array.

    The project that I saw was already over 25 years old.

    It is an article of faith in the Iranian mental framework that “God has given them” the ability and the resources to provide for themselves, even in the desert-, mountain-, and earthquake-marked geography that is Iran. Iranians have demonstrated their ability to do so, having developed the qant system for extracting water from beneath the desert floor, and wind towers to cool their homes using only the processes of nature and man’s ingenuity. Such systems are still in use today in many places in Iran, most notably in Yazd, the ancient seat of Zoroastrianism, where the Sacred Fire still burns.

    With all this in mind, Yossi Alpher’s revelation is understandable: zionists from Lithuania would be envious of the ancient as well as on-going achievements of the Iranian people. In a world recently aroused to keen concern for the environment, Iranians have a 3000 + year history of respect for nature and careful husbanding of nature’s gifts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Cloak And Dagger

    you and @SolntoCroesus and others have been writing is not what you “think” they are
     
    Please cite statements by me that you perceive as "I think" rather than facts w.r.t. to the Iran deal. I will then provide you with scholarly citations to support my contentions.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
    Tell me, how does this fact and its logical conclusion not be anything other than that Iran having the bomb
     
    First of all, Wikipedia can be modified by anyone and is not considered a scholarly citation that can be used to support anything. Even more so, when the first paragraph on that page has the following warning:

    The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed.
     
    Nice try.

    Ok so, if we were playing a children’s game this may be possible, but do you believe for a second that the major powers will do so
     
    Rubbish. The key reason for instability in the Middle East (not the ony one) is that Israel has nuclear weapons, and no one else in the region does (Pakistan and India ar not in the Middle East). Speaking of "major powers", Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has been a key part of the defense strategy of the major powers since WW2 for ourselves, USSR/Russia, and China. In fact, it has been proven that we do not attack anyone, who possesses nuclear weapons by our posture towards North Korea. The rogue nation of Israel has obtained nuclear weapons through clandestine means, and refuses to be part of the nuclear NPT or allow IAEA inspections, while belligerently demanding war on Iran, who is a signatory to the NPT and is heavily inspected, and everyone, including Mossad admits that they have no nukes or intentions of acquiring them. Talk of hypocrisy!

    Iran, a country that has so much oil can only want nuclear power for one and only one purpose makes more logical sense
     
    I suggest that you look up the meaning of "logical". Iran uses it's centrifuges to produce medical isotopes - a perfectly reasonable application of nuclear technology for an NPT signatory. Further, Iran wants to use nuclear power for supplying itself with electrical power, as it is more profitable to do that and export its oil to earn foreign exchange. As I have said before, unsupported assertions do not an argument make.

    But these are all red herrings

    Phil's article is about the Iran nuclear deal. The only people asserting that the deal is tantamount to giving Iran nukes are you Israelis and your sayanims in this country, and your minions in our congress. Besides Israel-firsters, nobody believes that Iran has nukes or wants nukes. Your game is up.

    Slam

    Dunk

    !

    Thank you, Cloak and Dagger.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama

    geokat62
    July 4, 2015 at 5:42 pm GMT
    “OUR PRECIOUS NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICA”

    Just curious about what your definition of “white” is. I noticed you are eager to deport all Muslims. But does this also apply to Jews? I ask because a large subset of Muslims are Arabs and as you know both Arabs and Jews are Semitic.
     
    So what did you mean in the above?

    For sure the USA insisted that Saddam should be disarmed of chemical weapons (which he used on the Kurdish people) and and he was looking to buy nukes from North Korea. Same for Syria. The Assad family massacred its own people in Hama years back using tanks. Why should we not disarm dictators?

    “So what did you mean in the above?”

    Just what I said earlier… namely, is this individual just anti-Muslim or is he anti-Semitic.

    btw your smear that I think Jews should be deported is despicable. And you take issue with my calling you disingenuous?

    “For sure the USA insisted that Saddam should be disarmed of chemical weapons …” (emphasis added)

    Oh, it was chemical weapons that we were after? That’s news to me… You seem to have forgotten Condi Rice’s infamous statement, something to the effect that “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” You do remember her saying that don’t you?

    And, finally, with respect to your final remark:

    “Why should we not disarm dictators?”

    I would respond with a question of my own: Why should we not disarm ethnocracies, … especially those that are causing death and destruction in their neighbourhood?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    " Iran in the meantime has turned into a state which took our embassy hostage, kept them prisoners for an entire year and then let them go only when Reagan basically gave them the ultimatum. I would not trust them as far as I can throw a stone. "
     
    1. The hostages were held for 444 yellow-ribbon media-frenzy days.

    2. Every one of the hostages held by Iranian students returned to the USA relatively unharmed. Several of the former hostages are vocal advocates for US rapprochement with Iran.

    On the other hand, 34 US sailors were killed, 171 Americans wounded and a highly sophisticated military vessel severely and deliberately damaged by Israelis who, in collusion with persons at the highest level of US government have not yet come clean on this crime.
    "I would not trust Israelis as far as I can throw a stone."

    3. While it is likely the case that Reagan operatives (now known as the neocons) played a significant role in the timing of the hostage release, the crisis was resolved after months of negotiations conducted by the Carter administration resulting in the Algiers Accords of Jan. 19, 1981, Ronald Reagan had no authority to issue "ultimatums" at the time the hostages were released -- the day before his inauguration.

    Incidentally, the USA has systematically reneged on at least three key provisions of the Algiers Accords, most notably with Point Number 1.:


    1. The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs.
     
    ---
    So what are we left with:

    " Iran in the meantime has turned into a state which took released our embassy hostage in good health, kept them prisoners for an entire year and then let them go only when Reagan basically gave them the ultimatum. "
     
    Except for those discrepancies, Pat Newton, your sentence is spot-on. Thanks for playing.

    I don’t think most Americans would agree with you. I know one of the hostages of that crisis pretty closely. She would tell you a very different story about her experiences during those days. I say without any reservations, screw the Iranians. Don’t think most people in this country would be on the side of you, Iran firster!

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
    Margaret Mead

    "Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference has never tried to fall asleep with a mosquito in the room."
    Christine Todd Whitman

    my own observations:

    Mobs are fickle things.
    When people are lied to in order to gain their support or acquiescence, as Jeremy ben Ami observed, "When they learn the truth, there will be resentment." People don't like being lied to.

    Propaganda -- hasbara, the techniques that zionists surely did not create but which they seem addicted to, works for only so long. Then the duped become the informed and then the angry.

    If zionists are lucky, and if the duped-to informed-to angry can manage to react in a way that resists all the normal impulses of the human mob, there will be a relatively non-violent process of extracting zionist, neoconservative ideologues from USA political and social systems & institutions.

    Objective research into the methods NSDAP employed to reform German culture post-WWI and Weimar distortions, suggests that strenuous efforts were taken to proceed in a nonviolent manner, and that they were successful. My hypothesis is that zionists, as well as certain other major influence-purveyors, were not desirous of this outcome for differing reasons, and so provoked a different outcome.

    Excuse that diversion -- the main point I'm trying to make is another old chestnut --

    You can fool some of the people all of the time,
    And all of the people some of the time,
    But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

    When a critical mass understands the extent to which they have been fooled, there will be hell to pay. It's happened before; it's inevitable it will happen again. I have long advocated that this time we confront the syndrome in a different way, and attempt a nonviolent resolution. I have proposed such a 'resolution,' based on Roman Catholic notions and concept of confession - repentance - reparations - penance -then forgiveness and re-incorporation into the Body.

    You can continue the mental masturbation that "most people in this country would [not] be on the side of you, Iran firster!," but I don't think you're assessing the data with sufficient objectivity. Your error may come back to bite you.
    Just sayin' .

    btw, I do admire Iranian history and culture, and yes, I do find it far more elevating and life-affirming than zionist ideology. I consider myself an Iranophile but not an Iran firster; I'm an American, and I want my country to be true to its best values.

    , @SolontoCroesus

    I know one of the hostages of that crisis pretty closely. She would tell you a very different story about her experiences during those days.
     
    There were two females held hostage; one of them, "Ann" Swift, died in 2004, in a horseback accident, as the article below notes.

    Since you said you know one of the [female] hostages, you must be referring to Kate Koob.

    Your ominous generalities about her "very different story" do not square with the general tenor of the 2011 interview of Ms. Koob, who is quoted as having said, very shortly after her release, "' if the absence of anger, bitterness, hatred [and] resentment means love, then I guess I do [love my enemies]." and in 2004 said "I have too much to do to stand around hating a nation and a people who did what they thought was right for their country.""

    Nobody denies that being held hostage was frightening, enraging, and capable of provoking a serious wish for vengeance. But in contrast to
    Lieutenant James Pierce
    Jerry Leroy Converse
    Thomas Ray Thornton
    Francis Brown

    and the other 30 men who lost their lives while serving the USA on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, Kate Koob is alive and apparently well today.

    I think Unz readers are astute enough to weigh your claims about Kate Koob against her own statements and draw the appropriate conclusions about your agenda.

    I also can't -- or don't intend to -- refrain from comparing Koob's Christian-inspired response to her captivity with a comment of Norman Finkelstein's that I can't get out of my head.

    Finkelstein was discussing Israel's destruction of Lebanon in 2006, and urging the Lebanese not to capitulate but to stand up to --- the USA! He said he did not respect those who would choose to "live on their knees rather than die on their feet;" and that he had far more respect for "Jews, whose thinking is never to forgive, never to forget."

    The difference in attitudes shows. Koob had "better things to do" than to spend her life hating.
    Finkelstein claims that Jews ______ _____ (Fill in the blanks).

    ---
    One more thing -- Ms. Koob worked for the Iran-American Society in Iran. the late Richard Nelson Frye also worked for a Persian American society and was so esteemed for his life-long commitment to and scholarship in Iranian culture that the Iranian government dedicated a beautiful spot on Isfehan's Zayandarud for his final resting place. The Zayand River is longest river in Iran; it flows from the Zagros Mountains through Isfehan, the Iranian city that is "half the world." Iranians know how to esteem those who respect Iran.

    Yossi Alpher said that zionist Israel seeks ardently to be "recognized" as having Iranian roots. It might start by imitating Iranian values.

    ----


    Where Are They Now?
    Iranian Hostage Crisis: Kathryn Koob
    52 American hostages were released 30 years ago
    by: Kitty Bennett, from: AARP Bulletin, January 20, 2011

    Thirty years ago today, 52 Americans held hostage in Iran for 444 days were blindfolded and delivered to a pair of waiting jets while a sea of bearded faces chanted "death to America, death to Reagan." Here in the United States, Ronald Reagan was just concluding his inaugural address when the planes lifted off the ground to freedom.

    Kathryn "Kate" Koob, 72, was one of two women among those held captive, and she is the only female hostage still living. Koob (pronounced "kobe" as in robe) had arrived in Tehran to serve as director of the Iran-American Society — a nonprofit organization established by the U.S. government to foster educational and community ties between the two countries — only four months before the American embassy was seized by Iranian militants on Nov. 4, 1979. From her office 2 miles away, she relayed information to Washington for a day before she, too, was captured.


    Upon their return to the United States, the hostages were celebrated with a ticker-tape parade in New York City and tickets to Broadway shows. They met Presidents Jimmy Carter and Reagan. But, Koob told the AARP Bulletin in a telephone interview from her home in Waverly, Iowa, nothing could compare with the feeling of "being with my family … seeing my mom and my dad and then getting together with all of my sisters and my nieces and nephews."

    Although she and her hostage roommate, Elizabeth "Ann" Swift, who died in a horseback-riding accident in 2004, were never abused by their captors, they lived with the fear that they could be brutally interrogated or executed at any time.

    A life-changing experience

    Her sense of humor, her Lutheran faith and prayer sustained her. "The idea of a contemplative lifestyle intrigued me," she wrote in her book, Guest of the Revolution. "What would it be like? Here was my opportunity to find out." She worked out a schedule for herself, spending each morning in prayer and concentrating on a different topic. After several days, she was delighted to find an Armed Forces Service Hymnal on a closet shelf in the embassy, where she was being held.

    When given the opportunity to speak to her family on camera at Christmas in 1980, she joked about how grateful she was to have lost weight and sang "Away in a Manger" for her nieces and nephews, touching the hearts of Americans who saw her on television.

    The low point for Koob came shortly afterward, on Jan. 1, 1981, just weeks before she would be released. "We realized we'd lost a whole year. For all practical purposes 1980 didn't exist," she recalled.

    Looking back, she said, her captivity was a part of the background of her life, but doesn't shape her life. And, some positive things came of it: the development of her spiritual life and her embrace of the biblical admonition to love your enemies.

    "People would say, 'Well, do you love your enemies?' when I first came home. And I said, 'Well, I don't know, but if the absence of anger, bitterness, hatred [and] resentment means love, then I guess I do. And then, as I was teaching a course in reconciliation at Wartburg [College] many, many years later, I realized that loving your enemies is a gift of the grace of God. You wonder how could I do this and then you discover it's not you, it's the spirit of God in you that enables and empowers you."

    She told the Associated Press in 2004, "I have too much to do to stand around hating a nation and a people who did what they thought was right for their country."
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Sam Shama
    I don't think most Americans would agree with you. I know one of the hostages of that crisis pretty closely. She would tell you a very different story about her experiences during those days. I say without any reservations, screw the Iranians. Don't think most people in this country would be on the side of you, Iran firster!

    “A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
    Margaret Mead

    “Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference has never tried to fall asleep with a mosquito in the room.”
    Christine Todd Whitman

    my own observations:

    Mobs are fickle things.
    When people are lied to in order to gain their support or acquiescence, as Jeremy ben Ami observed, “When they learn the truth, there will be resentment.” People don’t like being lied to.

    Propaganda — hasbara, the techniques that zionists surely did not create but which they seem addicted to, works for only so long. Then the duped become the informed and then the angry.

    If zionists are lucky, and if the duped-to informed-to angry can manage to react in a way that resists all the normal impulses of the human mob, there will be a relatively non-violent process of extracting zionist, neoconservative ideologues from USA political and social systems & institutions.

    Objective research into the methods NSDAP employed to reform German culture post-WWI and Weimar distortions, suggests that strenuous efforts were taken to proceed in a nonviolent manner, and that they were successful. My hypothesis is that zionists, as well as certain other major influence-purveyors, were not desirous of this outcome for differing reasons, and so provoked a different outcome.

    Excuse that diversion — the main point I’m trying to make is another old chestnut –

    You can fool some of the people all of the time,
    And all of the people some of the time,
    But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

    When a critical mass understands the extent to which they have been fooled, there will be hell to pay. It’s happened before; it’s inevitable it will happen again. I have long advocated that this time we confront the syndrome in a different way, and attempt a nonviolent resolution. I have proposed such a ‘resolution,’ based on Roman Catholic notions and concept of confession – repentance – reparations – penance -then forgiveness and re-incorporation into the Body.

    You can continue the mental masturbation that “most people in this country would [not] be on the side of you, Iran firster!,” but I don’t think you’re assessing the data with sufficient objectivity. Your error may come back to bite you.
    Just sayin’ .

    btw, I do admire Iranian history and culture, and yes, I do find it far more elevating and life-affirming than zionist ideology. I consider myself an Iranophile but not an Iran firster; I’m an American, and I want my country to be true to its best values.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Clyde
    I am perfectly fine with Israel taking out Iran's nuclear facilities. Strong nuclear EMP blasts over Tehran and Isfahan will also set back Iran quite a bit. Israel has no friend in the White House with that semi-Mulsim Obama who had two Muslim fathers who abandoned him. Here's hoping Obama plays it neutral and does not try to sabotage any such Israeli attack.

    clyde: how much more do you want Obama do for your shity state ? you think dropping Bombs and killing innocent people solve the problem on false information you assholes are disseminating didnt you do that to Iraq and who is next on your project Rambo wanker . you insulting American President that trying to keep peace. you are a true POS

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Sam Shama
    I don't think most Americans would agree with you. I know one of the hostages of that crisis pretty closely. She would tell you a very different story about her experiences during those days. I say without any reservations, screw the Iranians. Don't think most people in this country would be on the side of you, Iran firster!

    I know one of the hostages of that crisis pretty closely. She would tell you a very different story about her experiences during those days.

    There were two females held hostage; one of them, “Ann” Swift, died in 2004, in a horseback accident, as the article below notes.

    Since you said you know one of the [female] hostages, you must be referring to Kate Koob.

    Your ominous generalities about her “very different story” do not square with the general tenor of the 2011 interview of Ms. Koob, who is quoted as having said, very shortly after her release, “‘ if the absence of anger, bitterness, hatred [and] resentment means love, then I guess I do [love my enemies].” and in 2004 said “I have too much to do to stand around hating a nation and a people who did what they thought was right for their country.””

    Nobody denies that being held hostage was frightening, enraging, and capable of provoking a serious wish for vengeance. But in contrast to
    Lieutenant James Pierce
    Jerry Leroy Converse
    Thomas Ray Thornton
    Francis Brown

    and the other 30 men who lost their lives while serving the USA on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, Kate Koob is alive and apparently well today.

    I think Unz readers are astute enough to weigh your claims about Kate Koob against her own statements and draw the appropriate conclusions about your agenda.

    I also can’t — or don’t intend to — refrain from comparing Koob’s Christian-inspired response to her captivity with a comment of Norman Finkelstein’s that I can’t get out of my head.

    Finkelstein was discussing Israel’s destruction of Lebanon in 2006, and urging the Lebanese not to capitulate but to stand up to — the USA! He said he did not respect those who would choose to “live on their knees rather than die on their feet;” and that he had far more respect for “Jews, whose thinking is never to forgive, never to forget.”

    The difference in attitudes shows. Koob had “better things to do” than to spend her life hating.
    Finkelstein claims that Jews ______ _____ (Fill in the blanks).


    One more thing — Ms. Koob worked for the Iran-American Society in Iran. the late Richard Nelson Frye also worked for a Persian American society and was so esteemed for his life-long commitment to and scholarship in Iranian culture that the Iranian government dedicated a beautiful spot on Isfehan’s Zayandarud for his final resting place. The Zayand River is longest river in Iran; it flows from the Zagros Mountains through Isfehan, the Iranian city that is “half the world.” Iranians know how to esteem those who respect Iran.

    Yossi Alpher said that zionist Israel seeks ardently to be “recognized” as having Iranian roots. It might start by imitating Iranian values.

    —-

    Where Are They Now?
    Iranian Hostage Crisis: Kathryn Koob
    52 American hostages were released 30 years ago
    by: Kitty Bennett, from: AARP Bulletin, January 20, 2011

    Thirty years ago today, 52 Americans held hostage in Iran for 444 days were blindfolded and delivered to a pair of waiting jets while a sea of bearded faces chanted “death to America, death to Reagan.” Here in the United States, Ronald Reagan was just concluding his inaugural address when the planes lifted off the ground to freedom.

    Kathryn “Kate” Koob, 72, was one of two women among those held captive, and she is the only female hostage still living. Koob (pronounced “kobe” as in robe) had arrived in Tehran to serve as director of the Iran-American Society — a nonprofit organization established by the U.S. government to foster educational and community ties between the two countries — only four months before the American embassy was seized by Iranian militants on Nov. 4, 1979. From her office 2 miles away, she relayed information to Washington for a day before she, too, was captured.

    Upon their return to the United States, the hostages were celebrated with a ticker-tape parade in New York City and tickets to Broadway shows. They met Presidents Jimmy Carter and Reagan. But, Koob told the AARP Bulletin in a telephone interview from her home in Waverly, Iowa, nothing could compare with the feeling of “being with my family … seeing my mom and my dad and then getting together with all of my sisters and my nieces and nephews.”

    Although she and her hostage roommate, Elizabeth “Ann” Swift, who died in a horseback-riding accident in 2004, were never abused by their captors, they lived with the fear that they could be brutally interrogated or executed at any time.

    A life-changing experience

    Her sense of humor, her Lutheran faith and prayer sustained her. “The idea of a contemplative lifestyle intrigued me,” she wrote in her book, Guest of the Revolution. “What would it be like? Here was my opportunity to find out.” She worked out a schedule for herself, spending each morning in prayer and concentrating on a different topic. After several days, she was delighted to find an Armed Forces Service Hymnal on a closet shelf in the embassy, where she was being held.

    When given the opportunity to speak to her family on camera at Christmas in 1980, she joked about how grateful she was to have lost weight and sang “Away in a Manger” for her nieces and nephews, touching the hearts of Americans who saw her on television.

    The low point for Koob came shortly afterward, on Jan. 1, 1981, just weeks before she would be released. “We realized we’d lost a whole year. For all practical purposes 1980 didn’t exist,” she recalled.

    Looking back, she said, her captivity was a part of the background of her life, but doesn’t shape her life. And, some positive things came of it: the development of her spiritual life and her embrace of the biblical admonition to love your enemies.

    “People would say, ‘Well, do you love your enemies?’ when I first came home. And I said, ‘Well, I don’t know, but if the absence of anger, bitterness, hatred [and] resentment means love, then I guess I do. And then, as I was teaching a course in reconciliation at Wartburg [College] many, many years later, I realized that loving your enemies is a gift of the grace of God. You wonder how could I do this and then you discover it’s not you, it’s the spirit of God in you that enables and empowers you.”

    She told the Associated Press in 2004, “I have too much to do to stand around hating a nation and a people who did what they thought was right for their country.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz


    I know one of the hostages of that crisis pretty closely. She would tell you a very different story about her experiences during those days.
     
    There were two females held hostage; one of them, “Ann” Swift, died in 2004, in a horseback accident, as the article below notes.

    Since you said you know one of the [female] hostages, you must be referring to Kate Koob.

    Your ominous generalities about her “very different story” do not square with the general tenor of the 2011 interview of Ms. Koob...
     
    Ha, ha, ha...

    Since I'm generally too busy with my software work to follow these long discussion threads, it's quite nice that some very knowledgeable participants can do so.

    Personally, it's unclear to me which of the energetic Foxtards that hang around here are sincere and ignorant and which are dishonest and paid...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Ron Unz says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    I know one of the hostages of that crisis pretty closely. She would tell you a very different story about her experiences during those days.
     
    There were two females held hostage; one of them, "Ann" Swift, died in 2004, in a horseback accident, as the article below notes.

    Since you said you know one of the [female] hostages, you must be referring to Kate Koob.

    Your ominous generalities about her "very different story" do not square with the general tenor of the 2011 interview of Ms. Koob, who is quoted as having said, very shortly after her release, "' if the absence of anger, bitterness, hatred [and] resentment means love, then I guess I do [love my enemies]." and in 2004 said "I have too much to do to stand around hating a nation and a people who did what they thought was right for their country.""

    Nobody denies that being held hostage was frightening, enraging, and capable of provoking a serious wish for vengeance. But in contrast to
    Lieutenant James Pierce
    Jerry Leroy Converse
    Thomas Ray Thornton
    Francis Brown

    and the other 30 men who lost their lives while serving the USA on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, Kate Koob is alive and apparently well today.

    I think Unz readers are astute enough to weigh your claims about Kate Koob against her own statements and draw the appropriate conclusions about your agenda.

    I also can't -- or don't intend to -- refrain from comparing Koob's Christian-inspired response to her captivity with a comment of Norman Finkelstein's that I can't get out of my head.

    Finkelstein was discussing Israel's destruction of Lebanon in 2006, and urging the Lebanese not to capitulate but to stand up to --- the USA! He said he did not respect those who would choose to "live on their knees rather than die on their feet;" and that he had far more respect for "Jews, whose thinking is never to forgive, never to forget."

    The difference in attitudes shows. Koob had "better things to do" than to spend her life hating.
    Finkelstein claims that Jews ______ _____ (Fill in the blanks).

    ---
    One more thing -- Ms. Koob worked for the Iran-American Society in Iran. the late Richard Nelson Frye also worked for a Persian American society and was so esteemed for his life-long commitment to and scholarship in Iranian culture that the Iranian government dedicated a beautiful spot on Isfehan's Zayandarud for his final resting place. The Zayand River is longest river in Iran; it flows from the Zagros Mountains through Isfehan, the Iranian city that is "half the world." Iranians know how to esteem those who respect Iran.

    Yossi Alpher said that zionist Israel seeks ardently to be "recognized" as having Iranian roots. It might start by imitating Iranian values.

    ----


    Where Are They Now?
    Iranian Hostage Crisis: Kathryn Koob
    52 American hostages were released 30 years ago
    by: Kitty Bennett, from: AARP Bulletin, January 20, 2011

    Thirty years ago today, 52 Americans held hostage in Iran for 444 days were blindfolded and delivered to a pair of waiting jets while a sea of bearded faces chanted "death to America, death to Reagan." Here in the United States, Ronald Reagan was just concluding his inaugural address when the planes lifted off the ground to freedom.

    Kathryn "Kate" Koob, 72, was one of two women among those held captive, and she is the only female hostage still living. Koob (pronounced "kobe" as in robe) had arrived in Tehran to serve as director of the Iran-American Society — a nonprofit organization established by the U.S. government to foster educational and community ties between the two countries — only four months before the American embassy was seized by Iranian militants on Nov. 4, 1979. From her office 2 miles away, she relayed information to Washington for a day before she, too, was captured.


    Upon their return to the United States, the hostages were celebrated with a ticker-tape parade in New York City and tickets to Broadway shows. They met Presidents Jimmy Carter and Reagan. But, Koob told the AARP Bulletin in a telephone interview from her home in Waverly, Iowa, nothing could compare with the feeling of "being with my family … seeing my mom and my dad and then getting together with all of my sisters and my nieces and nephews."

    Although she and her hostage roommate, Elizabeth "Ann" Swift, who died in a horseback-riding accident in 2004, were never abused by their captors, they lived with the fear that they could be brutally interrogated or executed at any time.

    A life-changing experience

    Her sense of humor, her Lutheran faith and prayer sustained her. "The idea of a contemplative lifestyle intrigued me," she wrote in her book, Guest of the Revolution. "What would it be like? Here was my opportunity to find out." She worked out a schedule for herself, spending each morning in prayer and concentrating on a different topic. After several days, she was delighted to find an Armed Forces Service Hymnal on a closet shelf in the embassy, where she was being held.

    When given the opportunity to speak to her family on camera at Christmas in 1980, she joked about how grateful she was to have lost weight and sang "Away in a Manger" for her nieces and nephews, touching the hearts of Americans who saw her on television.

    The low point for Koob came shortly afterward, on Jan. 1, 1981, just weeks before she would be released. "We realized we'd lost a whole year. For all practical purposes 1980 didn't exist," she recalled.

    Looking back, she said, her captivity was a part of the background of her life, but doesn't shape her life. And, some positive things came of it: the development of her spiritual life and her embrace of the biblical admonition to love your enemies.

    "People would say, 'Well, do you love your enemies?' when I first came home. And I said, 'Well, I don't know, but if the absence of anger, bitterness, hatred [and] resentment means love, then I guess I do. And then, as I was teaching a course in reconciliation at Wartburg [College] many, many years later, I realized that loving your enemies is a gift of the grace of God. You wonder how could I do this and then you discover it's not you, it's the spirit of God in you that enables and empowers you."

    She told the Associated Press in 2004, "I have too much to do to stand around hating a nation and a people who did what they thought was right for their country."
     

    I know one of the hostages of that crisis pretty closely. She would tell you a very different story about her experiences during those days.

    There were two females held hostage; one of them, “Ann” Swift, died in 2004, in a horseback accident, as the article below notes.

    Since you said you know one of the [female] hostages, you must be referring to Kate Koob.

    Your ominous generalities about her “very different story” do not square with the general tenor of the 2011 interview of Ms. Koob…

    Ha, ha, ha…

    Since I’m generally too busy with my software work to follow these long discussion threads, it’s quite nice that some very knowledgeable participants can do so.

    Personally, it’s unclear to me which of the energetic Foxtards that hang around here are sincere and ignorant and which are dishonest and paid…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloak And Dagger

    Personally, it’s unclear to me which of the energetic Foxtards that hang around here are sincere and ignorant and which are dishonest and paid…
     
    The Israeli Hasbrats are very obvious from their writing. Those of us who have viewed their verbiage on many sites can spot them easily through their oft-repeated tactics, although there have been times when I have been fooled into engaging them in futile debate thinking that I was educating the ignorant, only to find that I was merely feeding the trolls. You can also tell by the timestamps of the postings - they tend to be during Israeli waking hours, although some of these Israelis reside in US timezones.

    It is gratifying to see the increasing shrieks of desperation from them as the world becomes wiser to their false PR.

    , @George123
    Lol, like I said.

    Game, set, match.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Ron Unz


    I know one of the hostages of that crisis pretty closely. She would tell you a very different story about her experiences during those days.
     
    There were two females held hostage; one of them, “Ann” Swift, died in 2004, in a horseback accident, as the article below notes.

    Since you said you know one of the [female] hostages, you must be referring to Kate Koob.

    Your ominous generalities about her “very different story” do not square with the general tenor of the 2011 interview of Ms. Koob...
     
    Ha, ha, ha...

    Since I'm generally too busy with my software work to follow these long discussion threads, it's quite nice that some very knowledgeable participants can do so.

    Personally, it's unclear to me which of the energetic Foxtards that hang around here are sincere and ignorant and which are dishonest and paid...

    Personally, it’s unclear to me which of the energetic Foxtards that hang around here are sincere and ignorant and which are dishonest and paid…

    The Israeli Hasbrats are very obvious from their writing. Those of us who have viewed their verbiage on many sites can spot them easily through their oft-repeated tactics, although there have been times when I have been fooled into engaging them in futile debate thinking that I was educating the ignorant, only to find that I was merely feeding the trolls. You can also tell by the timestamps of the postings – they tend to be during Israeli waking hours, although some of these Israelis reside in US timezones.

    It is gratifying to see the increasing shrieks of desperation from them as the world becomes wiser to their false PR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Those of us who have viewed their verbiage on many sites can spot them easily through their oft-repeated tactics, although there have been times when I have been fooled into engaging them in futile debate thinking that I was educating the ignorant, only to find that I was merely feeding the trolls.
     
    Actually, I would argue that debating even with obvious "trolls" may have substantial value...

    Consider that over 99% of the readers of this website or the individual comment-threads do not participate as commenters. Therefore, any arguments you make are much better addressed to that large, silent audience of third-party readers than the particular commenter whom you're engaging. This is the downside of dishonest, stupid, "trollish" behavior. If you reply politely and effectively to such arguments, mustering a great deal of credible evidence, you'll certainly not convince your silly opponent, but you may convince the hundreds or even thousands of other individuals who read the exchange, either at that time or much later.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    To be fair, I think Israel has many unpaid friends in the U.S. Many of them are in positions of immense power and influence.........
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. KA says:
    @geokat62
    Since you've taken issue with Mondoweiss, I've pulled this excerpt from The Forward:

    Pamela Geller preaches venomous hatred of Muslims. She is one of the leading voices promoting the idea of “creeping Sharia” in the United States. Claiming that Islam, as a religion, is dedicated to eradicating Jews and eventually turning all others into Muslims by whatever means necessary is the very definition of hate speech.
     
    Read more: http://forward.com/opinion/174761/why-pamela-gellers-hate-speech-should-be-barred/#ixzz3eqVMXs91

    Doesn’t the average Evangelic exactly say that before being vetted by Liberman and his ilk all the time? Someone gave a Lear jet to Falwell ( to bring the Jeuss Christ down to Jerusalem ? ) and someone compared Hagee to Moses .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    You keep on saying that, but I have no wish to reform Iran. I just want them to not wish to destroy America or get nukes. The last thing I want to do is reform Iran.
     
    and

    The only element within Iran I’d like to see reformed is its hatred of America and the West, because it directly concerns me.
     
    OK.
    got it.

    You advocate destroying Iran --
    here http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-991671 :

    A war with Iran would be pretty much a low risk mop up operation, so it’s something we probably should gave done long ago. As long as we avoid the stupidity of trying to impose liberal democracy on iran, destroying iran would be easy and cheap.

    If, after that moderate elements within iran rise to the fore, we should help them reconstruct their country. If Iranians continue to let their worst elements control them, they will continue to be under threat of destruction from us.
     
    which Biff cut the legs out from under at # 15 http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-991787; George responded at #17
    "But you agree, biff, that if it can be reliably documented that Iranian officials, have said such things over a prolonged period, then we can say they are an enemy who we would be morally justified in destroying before getting the bomb?"

    Biff not having responded, permit me to note some legalisms that might apply to the situation.

    A 2014 New York Times article analyzed legal issues involving free speech and threats of violence. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/magazine/do-online-death-threats-count-as-free-speech.html?_r=0
    The article cited a 2003 decision by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:

    For decades, the court has essentially said that ‘'true threats'’ are an exception to the rule against criminalizing speech. These threats do not have to be carried out — or even be intended to be carried out — to be considered harmful. Bans against threats may be enacted, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in 2003, to protect people ‘'from the fear of violence'’ and ‘'from the disruption that fear engenders.'’ Current legal thinking is that threats do damage on their own.
     
    The case under consideration in the NYTimes article reported that the accused issued specific descriptions of the violence he wished to carry out on his wife. That speech was not constrained within the rhetoric of "Death to Tara" or "Tara will cease to exist in the pages of time;" they were graphically violent and were accompanied with photos depicting that violence.

    Nevertheless, the accused, Elonis, "claims that he didn’t make a true threat, because he didn’t mean it. ‘'I would never hurt my wife,'’ he told the jury. ‘'I never intended to threaten anyone."

    His wife, on the other hand, said that she "felt extremely afraid for mine and my children's and family's lives."

    Thus,

    The central question for the Supreme Court will be whose point of view — the speaker’s, or the listener’s — matters. The jury was instructed to convict Anthony Elonis if it was reasonable for him to see that Tara would interpret his posts as a serious expression of intent to harm her. The court could uphold the standard, or it could require that jurors be asked to convict only if they believe the speaker truly intended to threaten harm. In essence, the court will have to decide what matters more: one person’s freedom to express violent rage, or another person’s freedom to live without the burden of fear?
     
    The case at issue involved on-line speech, so the NYTimes article examined the playacting content of such expressions.

    The Elonis case also involved a domestic dispute in circumstances far different from the matter of Israel vs Iran vs Israel. The most pertinent difference is that while Mr. Elonis threatened harm to Mrs. Elonis, there is no allegation that Mrs. Elonis harmed or threatened to harm or was carrying out harms against Mr. Elonis.

    In contrast, Israel ("Mrs. Elonis") has and is and predictably will continue to carry out real harms against Iran, to which Iran ("Mr. Elonis," the accused) responds with rhetoric -- free speech-- that is non-specific and solely a rather impotent expression of rage and resentment.

    An attorney arguing in defense of "Mr. Elonis/Iran" would point to certain characteristics and behaviors of the alleged victim of the threatening speech, "Mrs. Elonis/Israel," such as those behaviors identified by Israeli psychologist Avigail Abarbanel and Israeli scholar and author Haggai Ram.

    Abarbanel has observed that http://www.avigailabarbanel.me.uk/gaza-2009-01-04.html

    An Israeli friend told me in disgust the other day, that there is an atmosphere of ‘national orgasm’ in Israel about the prospect of attacking Iran. While people are being bombed in Gaza, all Israelis can talk about is the coming attack on Iran. But there is a link between the two. . . .Israel and perhaps the rest of the world too, refuse to see that Israel’s problems are a direct result of deep-seated Jewish trauma and its consequences. Israel’s response to trauma was to arm itself to the teeth, and to become an incredibly aggressive country while perpetuating inside and out the myth of victimhood and goodness. As a psychotherapist I recognise this reaction to trauma. Some people who have been traumatised respond to it by becoming very powerful and very frightening. This is a reaction to having been hurt, and a response to the desire to never be hurt again.

    Unfortunately this isn’t a good or wholesome way to live. This is a way of life that perpetuates inner conflicts, leads to isolation and invites animosity from others. It’s hard to spread good will and kindness in the world when one’s inner world is based on an adversarial foundation.

     

    This trauma psychology is perpetuated by Israel's leadership, as Abarbanel observed in February 2009 ---

    Professor Ben-Zion Netanyahu said,

    " “Today we are facing plain and simple, a danger of annihilation. This is not only the ongoing existential danger to Israel, but a real danger of complete annihilation." . . .
    The views of Netanyahu Senior do not represent a lunatic fringe, but the Israeli mainstream. . . .

    When a person’s perception of reality is completely out of touch with reality itself, we begin to get an uneasy feeling that something might be wrong with his or her mind.
     
    In other words, Israelis demonstrate a syndrome of psychological instability, in the assessment of a trained psychotherapist who has direct and intimate knowledge of Israeli society.

    According to Haggai Ram, a professor of political science in an Israeli university, describes Israel's stance toward Iran as the outgrowth of a phobia:

    ". . .anti-Iran phobias in the Israeli public sphere are largely projections of perceived domestic threats to the prevailing Israeli ethnocratic order. . . . examine[d] . . . in relation to the Jewish state’s use of violence in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon in the post-9/11 world.

    . . . the conflict between Israel and Iran may not be as essential and polarized as common knowledge assumes. Israeli anti-Iran phobias are derived equally from domestic anxieties about the Jewish state’s ethnic and religious identities and from exaggerated and displaced strategic concerns in the era of the “war on terrorism.” "
     
    That is, an Israel-born psychologist and an Israeli academic assess the Israeli claims of an Iranian "threat" as the result of a centuries-long attachment to a culture of trauma and victimhood that the present Israeli culture has failed to appropriately resolve; that is "detached from reality;" "phobic;" "projections;" and "exaggerated and displaced." "Mrs. Elonis/Israel has quite a load of psychological baggage that any defense attorney worth his salt would explore mercilessly.

    Moreover, Benjamin Netanyahu himself has opened the door to critical evidence that zionists/Israelis have a pattern of causing harm to a target with the goal of provoking that target to some retaliatory action, whereupon zionists will engineer the destruction of that target. Netanyhu reveals this pattern in his oft-repeated declarations that "Iran is Germany."

    From the time that Adolf Hitler assumed the chancellorship in 1933 until a hot war broke out between Germany and Poland, zionist advocates in the USA and elsewhere issued a relentless stream of invective, false charges, and atrocity propaganda against Germany, coupled with a multi-pronged attack on Germany's economy that was intended to "destroy the export economy on which Germany's existence depends." "International Jewry" pursued this agenda for over seven years. Numerous articles in the archives of the Jewish Telegraph Agency document this program of demonization and economic warfare. Here's an index to a small sample of anti-German propaganda and provocations carried out by Jewish leaders between 1933 and 1939 -- http://www.jta.org/?s=hans+luther&orderby=date&order=desc&limit=50

    In other words, evidence demonstrates a pattern of behavior by which zionist agents and leaders attacked Germany in a fashion similar to the attacks being carried out on Iran today. Also similar to the characteristics that Abarbanel and Ram described with respect to Iran, zionism's 20th century attacks on Germany were based on " the result of a centuries-long attachment to a culture of trauma and victimhood " and on "phobias . . .[and] domestic anxieties about Jewish . . . ethnic and religious identities . . . and exaggerated and displaced strategic concerns."

    Most importantly, the zionist attacks on Germany served a strategic function. This claim is based on the fact that sometime in the first two weeks of February 1933, Louis Brandeis directed that "all Jews must leave Germany; no German Jew must remain in Germany." The significance of this directive cannot be overstated.

    The pattern of past acts that Benjamin Netanyahu has pointed to, coupled with the psychological profile of Israel ("Mrs. Elonis") suggest that Israel is actually the perpetrator of threats and the creator, not the victim, of " the fear of violence'’ and ‘' the disruption that fear engenders.'’

    As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor concluded in 2003, "Current legal thinking is that threats do damage on their own. " Iran has been and continues to be the victim of those threats, not the perpetrator of them.

    Iran's rhetorical outcries, "Down with Israel, Down with America," and the wishful prediction that "zionism will disappear from the pages of history" are cries of resistance to Israel's, and the USA's sustained threats of violence economic warfare against the Iranian state and people.



    George has stated that he advocates the "destruction of Iran" in order to "make Iran not wish to destroy America" or "hate America."

    There's a lot easier way to bring about that salubrious state:

    Stop threatening Iran.

    Stop the economic war against Iran.

    Man you are doing a good job at destroying that Zionist apologist George. His responses are becoming thinner and thinner and he is failing miserably, as most Zionist do, in accurately rebutting anything you have to say. I find it funny that he tells you to stick to facts when all you did was present facts. It is up to George to find anything inaccurate in what you said which he hasn’t. Excellent analogy bringing up that court case as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Ron Unz says:
    @Cloak And Dagger

    Personally, it’s unclear to me which of the energetic Foxtards that hang around here are sincere and ignorant and which are dishonest and paid…
     
    The Israeli Hasbrats are very obvious from their writing. Those of us who have viewed their verbiage on many sites can spot them easily through their oft-repeated tactics, although there have been times when I have been fooled into engaging them in futile debate thinking that I was educating the ignorant, only to find that I was merely feeding the trolls. You can also tell by the timestamps of the postings - they tend to be during Israeli waking hours, although some of these Israelis reside in US timezones.

    It is gratifying to see the increasing shrieks of desperation from them as the world becomes wiser to their false PR.

    Those of us who have viewed their verbiage on many sites can spot them easily through their oft-repeated tactics, although there have been times when I have been fooled into engaging them in futile debate thinking that I was educating the ignorant, only to find that I was merely feeding the trolls.

    Actually, I would argue that debating even with obvious “trolls” may have substantial value…

    Consider that over 99% of the readers of this website or the individual comment-threads do not participate as commenters. Therefore, any arguments you make are much better addressed to that large, silent audience of third-party readers than the particular commenter whom you’re engaging. This is the downside of dishonest, stupid, “trollish” behavior. If you reply politely and effectively to such arguments, mustering a great deal of credible evidence, you’ll certainly not convince your silly opponent, but you may convince the hundreds or even thousands of other individuals who read the exchange, either at that time or much later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Scots-Irishman "Whiskey" comes to mind. Some of his posts are so comical that I think he's literally mocking us as he posts.

    Also, I recall that after Bin Laden was killed, a new commenter named "Wes" showed up and posted a huge number of posts, attacking "conspiracy theorists" that questioned the official story. Perhaps he wasn't Hasbara, but he was definitely apart of some type of intelligence operation.

    , @Cloak And Dagger

    Actually, I would argue that debating even with obvious “trolls” may have substantial value…

     
    I don't dispute that there are occasional benefits to engaging them in debate - if it is indeed a debate. One of the tricks that they employ is to go off on a tangent or introduce non sequiturs to the point being debated, and leave one chasing phantoms, obscuring the original point of contention.

    More frequently, they will repeat their unfounded assertions and try to turn the debate into mere expressions of opinions, forcing their opponents to chase data to counter opinion with facts. Their hope is that the white hats will tire of this and retreat in frustration, gifting them with the last word - which defeats the goal of educating the 99% non-participants that you would like to illuminate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. George123 says:
    @Ron Unz


    I know one of the hostages of that crisis pretty closely. She would tell you a very different story about her experiences during those days.
     
    There were two females held hostage; one of them, “Ann” Swift, died in 2004, in a horseback accident, as the article below notes.

    Since you said you know one of the [female] hostages, you must be referring to Kate Koob.

    Your ominous generalities about her “very different story” do not square with the general tenor of the 2011 interview of Ms. Koob...
     
    Ha, ha, ha...

    Since I'm generally too busy with my software work to follow these long discussion threads, it's quite nice that some very knowledgeable participants can do so.

    Personally, it's unclear to me which of the energetic Foxtards that hang around here are sincere and ignorant and which are dishonest and paid...

    Lol, like I said.

    Game, set, match.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Ron Unz

    Those of us who have viewed their verbiage on many sites can spot them easily through their oft-repeated tactics, although there have been times when I have been fooled into engaging them in futile debate thinking that I was educating the ignorant, only to find that I was merely feeding the trolls.
     
    Actually, I would argue that debating even with obvious "trolls" may have substantial value...

    Consider that over 99% of the readers of this website or the individual comment-threads do not participate as commenters. Therefore, any arguments you make are much better addressed to that large, silent audience of third-party readers than the particular commenter whom you're engaging. This is the downside of dishonest, stupid, "trollish" behavior. If you reply politely and effectively to such arguments, mustering a great deal of credible evidence, you'll certainly not convince your silly opponent, but you may convince the hundreds or even thousands of other individuals who read the exchange, either at that time or much later.

    Scots-Irishman “Whiskey” comes to mind. Some of his posts are so comical that I think he’s literally mocking us as he posts.

    Also, I recall that after Bin Laden was killed, a new commenter named “Wes” showed up and posted a huge number of posts, attacking “conspiracy theorists” that questioned the official story. Perhaps he wasn’t Hasbara, but he was definitely apart of some type of intelligence operation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    Yes, I remember that "Wes" fellow in exactly the same way you do. In all my years of reading Steve's blog, no one has *ever* popped up from nowhere and suddenly blanketed all the discussions with so many long comments. That it all happened just after Bin Laden's death and all those comments were attacks on "conspiracy theories" certainly supports your suspicion...
    , @Ron Unz
    Incidentally, I really should have added how impressed I am that you remember the "Wes Incident" from years ago. I would have been almost sure I was the only one who did...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Cloak And Dagger

    Personally, it’s unclear to me which of the energetic Foxtards that hang around here are sincere and ignorant and which are dishonest and paid…
     
    The Israeli Hasbrats are very obvious from their writing. Those of us who have viewed their verbiage on many sites can spot them easily through their oft-repeated tactics, although there have been times when I have been fooled into engaging them in futile debate thinking that I was educating the ignorant, only to find that I was merely feeding the trolls. You can also tell by the timestamps of the postings - they tend to be during Israeli waking hours, although some of these Israelis reside in US timezones.

    It is gratifying to see the increasing shrieks of desperation from them as the world becomes wiser to their false PR.

    To be fair, I think Israel has many unpaid friends in the U.S. Many of them are in positions of immense power and influence………

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloak And Dagger

    To be fair, I think Israel has many unpaid friends in the U.S. Many of them are in positions of immense power and influence………
     
    No argument from me on that. I put them under the category of Israel-firsters, and they are more dangerous than those who are paid, since they are motivated by deep-seated ideologies rather than venal impetus. They are in the same boat as Christian Zionists, who want to hasten Armageddon, by recreating biblical Israel as a precursor to their destruction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Ron Unz says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Scots-Irishman "Whiskey" comes to mind. Some of his posts are so comical that I think he's literally mocking us as he posts.

    Also, I recall that after Bin Laden was killed, a new commenter named "Wes" showed up and posted a huge number of posts, attacking "conspiracy theorists" that questioned the official story. Perhaps he wasn't Hasbara, but he was definitely apart of some type of intelligence operation.

    Yes, I remember that “Wes” fellow in exactly the same way you do. In all my years of reading Steve’s blog, no one has *ever* popped up from nowhere and suddenly blanketed all the discussions with so many long comments. That it all happened just after Bin Laden’s death and all those comments were attacks on “conspiracy theories” certainly supports your suspicion…

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    According to the site, our friend "Wes" had 212 comments in 2011.

    http://www.unz.com/comments/commenter/wes/2011/

    For some reason, most of those comments aren't showing up for me. Hmmm.........

    Of the comments that are showing up, here's a selection of some of the comments:


    Government is not the solution – WE are.
     

    Anyway, I would think that terrorist groups with some kind of state support are more threatening. Al-Qaeda was protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan and we don’t know what other direct or indirect support Al-Qaeda may have received from other countries. Hezbollah, which has launched terrorist attacks around the world and has a huge weapons cache, receives a lot of support from Iran and Syria. And Hamas also receives support from Iran and some from other countries too.
     

    Some in the Pentagon support commando raids into Pakistan to capture terrorist figures who have gone into areas that are too populated to make drone strikes viable without significal collateral damage.


     


    Yes, please continue blogging, on whatever schedule fits. If you need to take breaks, take them.


     


    By the way, does anyone recommend any newer fiction books that might be of interest to people who read this blog? Or for people that enjoy HBD, or political incorrectness, or original thought? Something in recent years (not Wolfe or Rand or Asimov). I hate most fiction (always have) but would love something fun, new and interesting to read from this perspective.


     


    Razib, I just have to ask, how the heck to do you publish such a huge volume of work almost daily? You must have Herculean work ethic.


     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Ron Unz says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Scots-Irishman "Whiskey" comes to mind. Some of his posts are so comical that I think he's literally mocking us as he posts.

    Also, I recall that after Bin Laden was killed, a new commenter named "Wes" showed up and posted a huge number of posts, attacking "conspiracy theorists" that questioned the official story. Perhaps he wasn't Hasbara, but he was definitely apart of some type of intelligence operation.

    Incidentally, I really should have added how impressed I am that you remember the “Wes Incident” from years ago. I would have been almost sure I was the only one who did…

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    At the time, I remember being puzzled about the Bin Laden killing. The official story just didn't make any sense whatsoever in any way.

    Supposedly, he'd been hiding in a huge house near a Pakistani military base for all these years after somehow escaping from Tora Bora, Afghanistan. Despite needing dialysis, somehow he stayed alive. Right after death, he was "buried" at sea due to "Muslim customs", except that Muslims have no such custom (Saddam's sons weren't buried at sea after US forces killed them). Then after his death, the official SEALs raid story kept changing. Then we found out that the U.S. wouldn't punish Pakistan or raise any concerns over how Bin Laden could've been hiding there for so long.

    Too much didn't make sense.

    Something else that never made sense was the true rationale for the Iraq War and how Iraq was blamed for 9/11 (while Saudi Arabia avoided responsibility). The expenditure of trillions of dollars on destroying one terrorist group (which never seemed to die out even after all these years) seemed strange too, especially with all the financial fraud committed by contractors. Then I realized I shouldn't think of these events (9/11, Iraq War, Bin Laden's strange death, the never ending and bankrupting "War on Terror") independently, but see these events in a broader context.

    Except that my government would never do something like that, would it? Well, it let Saudi Arabia off the hook for 9/11, likely because the Bush-Saudi financial connection. It knowingly concocted false evidence ("yellowcake", Iraq-9/11 link, etc.) for a destructive war in Iraq, which has ruined countless lives. It let off hundreds of financial executives after they caused one of the worst crashes in American history, mostly because those execs were generous campaign contributors. If our elites are so unethical and immoral to do all this, perhaps it's not so far fetched that they could've been involved in other nefarious activities.

    Well our media would hold these people accountable, right? Our media gets to the bottom of every story, right? Not exactly. See your "American Pravda" article.

    Yeah, but no conspiracy has ever occurred like this before....... Except one has - JFK.

    Then suddenly the appearance of "Wes" wasn't so mysterious.

    .....but would our government really conduct a disinformation campaign? Yes. "Whiskey" is obviously a paid Hasbara agent who's been spouting pro-Israeli nonsense here since at least 2007. If the Israelis have such agents to frequent blogs like this, why not our government? If our government has a huge NSA to spy on the population, it's not impossible that they could've found out about a dissident site like this and targeted it.

    So when I started to think of everything taken together,

    So a fellow like "Wes" wasn't just an oddball who showed up to debunk "conspiracy theories," he was apart of something much larger. It's hard to forget a guy like that. He's a piece of a very important and very disturbing puzzle.

    Sorry for the long post, but I really do find a lot of this troubling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Ron Unz

    Those of us who have viewed their verbiage on many sites can spot them easily through their oft-repeated tactics, although there have been times when I have been fooled into engaging them in futile debate thinking that I was educating the ignorant, only to find that I was merely feeding the trolls.
     
    Actually, I would argue that debating even with obvious "trolls" may have substantial value...

    Consider that over 99% of the readers of this website or the individual comment-threads do not participate as commenters. Therefore, any arguments you make are much better addressed to that large, silent audience of third-party readers than the particular commenter whom you're engaging. This is the downside of dishonest, stupid, "trollish" behavior. If you reply politely and effectively to such arguments, mustering a great deal of credible evidence, you'll certainly not convince your silly opponent, but you may convince the hundreds or even thousands of other individuals who read the exchange, either at that time or much later.

    Actually, I would argue that debating even with obvious “trolls” may have substantial value…

    I don’t dispute that there are occasional benefits to engaging them in debate – if it is indeed a debate. One of the tricks that they employ is to go off on a tangent or introduce non sequiturs to the point being debated, and leave one chasing phantoms, obscuring the original point of contention.

    More frequently, they will repeat their unfounded assertions and try to turn the debate into mere expressions of opinions, forcing their opponents to chase data to counter opinion with facts. Their hope is that the white hats will tire of this and retreat in frustration, gifting them with the last word – which defeats the goal of educating the 99% non-participants that you would like to illuminate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    That's a reasonable point. The overwhelming majority of the individuals I've occasionally argued with in comment-threads may be ignorant and stubborn and biased and even perhaps dishonest, but I tend to doubt that almost any of them are deliberate obfuscators---they almost certainly believe the nonsense they are spouting. Paid propagandists have a wider range of tactics available in their tool-chest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @JohnnyWalker123
    To be fair, I think Israel has many unpaid friends in the U.S. Many of them are in positions of immense power and influence.........

    To be fair, I think Israel has many unpaid friends in the U.S. Many of them are in positions of immense power and influence………

    No argument from me on that. I put them under the category of Israel-firsters, and they are more dangerous than those who are paid, since they are motivated by deep-seated ideologies rather than venal impetus. They are in the same boat as Christian Zionists, who want to hasten Armageddon, by recreating biblical Israel as a precursor to their destruction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    I like the term Israel firsters and have personally been using it myself for a while. I think the Israel firsters fall into three camps.

    1. Jewish people (often in powerful positions) who see themselves as promoters of Jewish interests worldwide. For example, the Jewish-American owner of the New England Patriots football team took some prominent players on a trip to Israel to convince them of the Iranian threat.

    2. Zionist Christians who want to "stand with Israel."

    3. Opportunists who want to be apart of the inner party. This is probably the largest group overall. For example, watch this tape (go to 3:30 minutes into the video):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G2GlUvgtYk
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Ron Unz says:
    @Cloak And Dagger

    Actually, I would argue that debating even with obvious “trolls” may have substantial value…

     
    I don't dispute that there are occasional benefits to engaging them in debate - if it is indeed a debate. One of the tricks that they employ is to go off on a tangent or introduce non sequiturs to the point being debated, and leave one chasing phantoms, obscuring the original point of contention.

    More frequently, they will repeat their unfounded assertions and try to turn the debate into mere expressions of opinions, forcing their opponents to chase data to counter opinion with facts. Their hope is that the white hats will tire of this and retreat in frustration, gifting them with the last word - which defeats the goal of educating the 99% non-participants that you would like to illuminate.

    That’s a reasonable point. The overwhelming majority of the individuals I’ve occasionally argued with in comment-threads may be ignorant and stubborn and biased and even perhaps dishonest, but I tend to doubt that almost any of them are deliberate obfuscators—they almost certainly believe the nonsense they are spouting. Paid propagandists have a wider range of tactics available in their tool-chest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @Ron Unz
    Yes, I remember that "Wes" fellow in exactly the same way you do. In all my years of reading Steve's blog, no one has *ever* popped up from nowhere and suddenly blanketed all the discussions with so many long comments. That it all happened just after Bin Laden's death and all those comments were attacks on "conspiracy theories" certainly supports your suspicion...

    According to the site, our friend “Wes” had 212 comments in 2011.

    http://www.unz.com/comments/commenter/wes/2011/

    For some reason, most of those comments aren’t showing up for me. Hmmm………

    Of the comments that are showing up, here’s a selection of some of the comments:

    Government is not the solution – WE are.

    Anyway, I would think that terrorist groups with some kind of state support are more threatening. Al-Qaeda was protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan and we don’t know what other direct or indirect support Al-Qaeda may have received from other countries. Hezbollah, which has launched terrorist attacks around the world and has a huge weapons cache, receives a lot of support from Iran and Syria. And Hamas also receives support from Iran and some from other countries too.

    Some in the Pentagon support commando raids into Pakistan to capture terrorist figures who have gone into areas that are too populated to make drone strikes viable without significal collateral damage.

    Yes, please continue blogging, on whatever schedule fits. If you need to take breaks, take them.

    By the way, does anyone recommend any newer fiction books that might be of interest to people who read this blog? Or for people that enjoy HBD, or political incorrectness, or original thought? Something in recent years (not Wolfe or Rand or Asimov). I hate most fiction (always have) but would love something fun, new and interesting to read from this perspective.

    Razib, I just have to ask, how the heck to do you publish such a huge volume of work almost daily? You must have Herculean work ethic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    For some reason, most of those comments aren’t showing up for me. Hmmm………
     
    Thanks for noticing the bug hiding most of Steve's old comments. I think it got into the system when I added the Agree/Disagree option a couple of weeks ago, but I just fixed it:

    http://www.unz.com/comments/commenter/wes/2011/

    Complex systems are easy to accidentally break and a powerful research tool is useful if it doesn't work.

    And I actually tend to doubt that "Whiskey" is any sort of organized disinformation agent---he's just too obvious and totally incompetent. Imagine spending years loudly proclaiming that you're "Scots-Irish" and then one day expanding on that by explaining that you're Scottish on your father's side and Irish Catholic on your mother's. The Opposition is surely well-funded enough to pay more than minimum wage. He strikes me as more like a student-volunteer, living in his mother's basement or something.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Cloak And Dagger

    To be fair, I think Israel has many unpaid friends in the U.S. Many of them are in positions of immense power and influence………
     
    No argument from me on that. I put them under the category of Israel-firsters, and they are more dangerous than those who are paid, since they are motivated by deep-seated ideologies rather than venal impetus. They are in the same boat as Christian Zionists, who want to hasten Armageddon, by recreating biblical Israel as a precursor to their destruction.

    I like the term Israel firsters and have personally been using it myself for a while. I think the Israel firsters fall into three camps.

    1. Jewish people (often in powerful positions) who see themselves as promoters of Jewish interests worldwide. For example, the Jewish-American owner of the New England Patriots football team took some prominent players on a trip to Israel to convince them of the Iranian threat.

    2. Zionist Christians who want to “stand with Israel.”

    3. Opportunists who want to be apart of the inner party. This is probably the largest group overall. For example, watch this tape (go to 3:30 minutes into the video):

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @Ron Unz
    Incidentally, I really should have added how impressed I am that you remember the "Wes Incident" from years ago. I would have been almost sure I was the only one who did...

    At the time, I remember being puzzled about the Bin Laden killing. The official story just didn’t make any sense whatsoever in any way.

    Supposedly, he’d been hiding in a huge house near a Pakistani military base for all these years after somehow escaping from Tora Bora, Afghanistan. Despite needing dialysis, somehow he stayed alive. Right after death, he was “buried” at sea due to “Muslim customs”, except that Muslims have no such custom (Saddam’s sons weren’t buried at sea after US forces killed them). Then after his death, the official SEALs raid story kept changing. Then we found out that the U.S. wouldn’t punish Pakistan or raise any concerns over how Bin Laden could’ve been hiding there for so long.

    Too much didn’t make sense.

    Something else that never made sense was the true rationale for the Iraq War and how Iraq was blamed for 9/11 (while Saudi Arabia avoided responsibility). The expenditure of trillions of dollars on destroying one terrorist group (which never seemed to die out even after all these years) seemed strange too, especially with all the financial fraud committed by contractors. Then I realized I shouldn’t think of these events (9/11, Iraq War, Bin Laden’s strange death, the never ending and bankrupting “War on Terror”) independently, but see these events in a broader context.

    Except that my government would never do something like that, would it? Well, it let Saudi Arabia off the hook for 9/11, likely because the Bush-Saudi financial connection. It knowingly concocted false evidence (“yellowcake”, Iraq-9/11 link, etc.) for a destructive war in Iraq, which has ruined countless lives. It let off hundreds of financial executives after they caused one of the worst crashes in American history, mostly because those execs were generous campaign contributors. If our elites are so unethical and immoral to do all this, perhaps it’s not so far fetched that they could’ve been involved in other nefarious activities.

    Well our media would hold these people accountable, right? Our media gets to the bottom of every story, right? Not exactly. See your “American Pravda” article.

    Yeah, but no conspiracy has ever occurred like this before……. Except one has – JFK.

    Then suddenly the appearance of “Wes” wasn’t so mysterious.

    …..but would our government really conduct a disinformation campaign? Yes. “Whiskey” is obviously a paid Hasbara agent who’s been spouting pro-Israeli nonsense here since at least 2007. If the Israelis have such agents to frequent blogs like this, why not our government? If our government has a huge NSA to spy on the population, it’s not impossible that they could’ve found out about a dissident site like this and targeted it.

    So when I started to think of everything taken together,

    So a fellow like “Wes” wasn’t just an oddball who showed up to debunk “conspiracy theories,” he was apart of something much larger. It’s hard to forget a guy like that. He’s a piece of a very important and very disturbing puzzle.

    Sorry for the long post, but I really do find a lot of this troubling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Ron Unz says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    According to the site, our friend "Wes" had 212 comments in 2011.

    http://www.unz.com/comments/commenter/wes/2011/

    For some reason, most of those comments aren't showing up for me. Hmmm.........

    Of the comments that are showing up, here's a selection of some of the comments:


    Government is not the solution – WE are.
     

    Anyway, I would think that terrorist groups with some kind of state support are more threatening. Al-Qaeda was protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan and we don’t know what other direct or indirect support Al-Qaeda may have received from other countries. Hezbollah, which has launched terrorist attacks around the world and has a huge weapons cache, receives a lot of support from Iran and Syria. And Hamas also receives support from Iran and some from other countries too.
     

    Some in the Pentagon support commando raids into Pakistan to capture terrorist figures who have gone into areas that are too populated to make drone strikes viable without significal collateral damage.


     


    Yes, please continue blogging, on whatever schedule fits. If you need to take breaks, take them.


     


    By the way, does anyone recommend any newer fiction books that might be of interest to people who read this blog? Or for people that enjoy HBD, or political incorrectness, or original thought? Something in recent years (not Wolfe or Rand or Asimov). I hate most fiction (always have) but would love something fun, new and interesting to read from this perspective.


     


    Razib, I just have to ask, how the heck to do you publish such a huge volume of work almost daily? You must have Herculean work ethic.


     

    For some reason, most of those comments aren’t showing up for me. Hmmm………

    Thanks for noticing the bug hiding most of Steve’s old comments. I think it got into the system when I added the Agree/Disagree option a couple of weeks ago, but I just fixed it:

    http://www.unz.com/comments/commenter/wes/2011/

    Complex systems are easy to accidentally break and a powerful research tool is useful if it doesn’t work.

    And I actually tend to doubt that “Whiskey” is any sort of organized disinformation agent—he’s just too obvious and totally incompetent. Imagine spending years loudly proclaiming that you’re “Scots-Irish” and then one day expanding on that by explaining that you’re Scottish on your father’s side and Irish Catholic on your mother’s. The Opposition is surely well-funded enough to pay more than minimum wage. He strikes me as more like a student-volunteer, living in his mother’s basement or something.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Sam Shama says:

    The truth about Iran is that a desperate attempt is being made to cobble together any deal!!

    ELEVEN MAJOR CONCESSIONS OBAMA HAS MADE TO IRAN

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/06/15/obamas-iran-nuclear-concessions/

    Four brand new concessions to Iran on top of seven recent ones: “This morning the Wall Street Journal editorializes on the latest concessions in President Obama’s pursuit of his Lausanne legacy: (1) defunding the Lebanese civil-society initiative that was an alternative to Iran-sponsored Hezbollah; (2) removing the CFO of the A.Q. Khan nuclear-proliferation network from the sanctions list; (3) eliminating sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program; and (4) ending sanctions on 23 of 24 Iranian banks. These come on top of: (i) early elimination of all nuclear sanctions, (ii) waiving answers to outstanding International Atomic Energy Agency questions before signing a deal, (iii) a huge “signing bonus,” (iv) the lack of “anywhere, any time” inspections, (v) subjection of “snap back” sanctions to an unrealistic administrative process, (vi) failure to dismantle any centrifuges (which will simply be stored) or facilities (which will continue to operate), and (vii) the sunset provision that guarantees Iran nuclear capability at the end of the agreement.” Link above for full report.

    OBAMA CAVES ON EVERY ONE OF HIS IRAN DEAL ‘RED LINES’

    In the Obama Administration’s own words: Terms it once said would constitute a good Iran deal, and what it is saying now. “The impending deal is an embarrassment: the world’s greatest power prostrate before the world’s most patiently expansionist, terror-sponsoring, anti-American theocracy.”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/iran-deal-then-and-now_978661.html

    7-6-15 1) On decoupling nuclear negotiations and sanctions relief on nonnuclear items. 2) On the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program and disclosure of past activities. 3) On shuttering the secret nuclear facility at Fordo. 4) On suspension of enrichment. 5) On ballistic missile development.

    WHAT A REAL, NOT A FAUX, DEAL WOULD CONSIST OF

    The following five criteria:
    (1) Inspectors must be permitted anytime, anywhere access to all suspect sites.
    (2) Iran must fully explain its prior weaponization efforts.
    (3) Sanctions relief must commence only after Iran complies with its commitments.
    (4) Iran’s nuclear weapons quest must be blocked for decades.
    (5) Iran must dismantle its nuclear infrastructure so it has no path to a nuclear weapon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  204. geokat62 says:

    “ELEVEN MAJOR CONCESSIONS OBAMA HAS MADE TO IRAN”

    Even if this were true, it still does not compare with:

    INNUMERABLE MAJOR CONCESSIONS U.S. HAS MADE TO ISRAEL!

    Regarding your criteria, I think they should equally apply to Israel, with a few minor modifications:

    The following five criteria:
    (1) Inspectors must be permitted anytime, anywhere access to all suspect sites.
    (2) Israel must fully explain its prior weaponization efforts.
    (3) Sanctions must commence if Israel does not comply with all internationally imposed obligations.
    (4) Israel’s nuclear weapons must be dismantled immediately.
    (5) Israel must immediately become a signatory to the NPT.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Iran has signed an arms deal with the Russian Rosoboronexport arms group to buy 250 Su-30MKM warplanes and 20 Il-78 MKI aerial tankers, that would allow Iran to bomb Israel. It is reported that Israeli defense officials were investigating the potential Iran–Russia deal, in which Iran would pay $1 billion a dozen squadrons’ worth of the jets. Iran and Russia have both denied this and have rejected these claims as propaganda. In a recent broadcast the "Mehr News Agency" has reported that they (the reporters) saw a dozen Su 30s in a maneuver that took place on 15 and 16 September 2008; further the report reads: "In this joint maneuver of the IRIAF and the AFAGIR which is called the 'Guardians of the Nations Skies' the Air Forces of Iran have tested domestically developed systems as well as newly purchased systems (from Russia and China)." Su 30s have been photographed flying over Tiran.

    If you think Iran does not intend to harm America, especially in the Gulf region, and after it acquires ICBM capacity in the coming years (most likely bought from Russia/China) you are not realistic!

    With these and other deals between Iran, China and Russia is there anyone who really believes the "snap-back" provisions would ever be enforced when (not if) Iran refuses to abide by the inspection clauses of the agreement? Such naivete from our government leaders is disturbing.

    We will suffer the consequences of faculty-lounge foreign policy for decades to come.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62
    "ELEVEN MAJOR CONCESSIONS OBAMA HAS MADE TO IRAN"

    Even if this were true, it still does not compare with:

    INNUMERABLE MAJOR CONCESSIONS U.S. HAS MADE TO ISRAEL!

    Regarding your criteria, I think they should equally apply to Israel, with a few minor modifications:

    The following five criteria:
    (1) Inspectors must be permitted anytime, anywhere access to all suspect sites.
    (2) Israel must fully explain its prior weaponization efforts.
    (3) Sanctions must commence if Israel does not comply with all internationally imposed obligations.
    (4) Israel’s nuclear weapons must be dismantled immediately.
    (5) Israel must immediately become a signatory to the NPT.
     

    Iran has signed an arms deal with the Russian Rosoboronexport arms group to buy 250 Su-30MKM warplanes and 20 Il-78 MKI aerial tankers, that would allow Iran to bomb Israel. It is reported that Israeli defense officials were investigating the potential Iran–Russia deal, in which Iran would pay $1 billion a dozen squadrons’ worth of the jets. Iran and Russia have both denied this and have rejected these claims as propaganda. In a recent broadcast the “Mehr News Agency” has reported that they (the reporters) saw a dozen Su 30s in a maneuver that took place on 15 and 16 September 2008; further the report reads: “In this joint maneuver of the IRIAF and the AFAGIR which is called the ‘Guardians of the Nations Skies’ the Air Forces of Iran have tested domestically developed systems as well as newly purchased systems (from Russia and China).” Su 30s have been photographed flying over Tiran.

    If you think Iran does not intend to harm America, especially in the Gulf region, and after it acquires ICBM capacity in the coming years (most likely bought from Russia/China) you are not realistic!

    With these and other deals between Iran, China and Russia is there anyone who really believes the “snap-back” provisions would ever be enforced when (not if) Iran refuses to abide by the inspection clauses of the agreement? Such naivete from our government leaders is disturbing.

    We will suffer the consequences of faculty-lounge foreign policy for decades to come.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    If you think Iran does not intend to harm America, especially in the Gulf region, and after it acquires ICBM capacity in the coming years (most likely bought from Russia/China) you are not realistic!
     
    Offer one good reason why Iran would seek to harm USA.

    USA and Iran had friendly relations for many years -- decades; the foundational values of USA and the values of Iran, especially its core Zoroastrian ethic, are far more closely aligned than are the value sets of USA and zionist Israel.

    Netanyahu has been warning that "Iran will be able to target USA in three more years" for the last 20 years. Only the US Congress pays any attention to that buffoon, and they do that only because they're paid to. It's like paying someone to date your ugly sister.

    But do try again, George, your diversions are entertaining and instructive.

    edit: ooops. I mean Bird. Y'know, after a while they all look alike.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. geokat62 says:

    If you think Iran does not intend to harm America, especially in the Gulf region, and after it acquires ICBM capacity in the coming years (most likely bought from Russia/China) you are not realistic!

    Just like Saddam intended to harm America? Why not be a little more truthful and just say that Israel is eager to destroy the Shia Arc and won’t be able to do so unless the U.S. attacks Iran, just like it did Iraq?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    IRAN SAYS 'NO' TO EVERYTHING OBAMA PROMISED WOULD BE IN A DEAL

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/06/24/khamenei-challenge-obama/

    6-24-14 Iran’s Supreme Leader sent a strong message to President Obama on Tuesday. In a speech broadcast live on Iranian television, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said he would not permit any long freeze on Iran’s nuclear research, absolutely ruled out foreign inspections of the country’s military nuclear facilities and made it clear he expected all sanctions on Iran to be lifted as soon as an agreement is signed. This Khamenei challenge lays out positions that are incompatible with the terms that President Obama said would be enforced when he announced U.S. acceptance of a proposed nuclear framework with Iran back in April.

    Those are the facts. Iran is planning a total capture of the Gulf and de-stabilize the middle east is the reality. Wake up!

    Link above for full report.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    If you think Iran does not intend to harm America, especially in the Gulf region, and after it acquires ICBM capacity in the coming years (most likely bought from Russia/China) you are not realistic!
     
    Just like Saddam intended to harm America? Why not be a little more truthful and just say that Israel is eager to destroy the Shia Arc and won't be able to do so unless the U.S. attacks Iran, just like it did Iraq?

    IRAN SAYS ‘NO’ TO EVERYTHING OBAMA PROMISED WOULD BE IN A DEAL

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/06/24/khamenei-challenge-obama/

    6-24-14 Iran’s Supreme Leader sent a strong message to President Obama on Tuesday. In a speech broadcast live on Iranian television, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said he would not permit any long freeze on Iran’s nuclear research, absolutely ruled out foreign inspections of the country’s military nuclear facilities and made it clear he expected all sanctions on Iran to be lifted as soon as an agreement is signed. This Khamenei challenge lays out positions that are incompatible with the terms that President Obama said would be enforced when he announced U.S. acceptance of a proposed nuclear framework with Iran back in April.

    Those are the facts. Iran is planning a total capture of the Gulf and de-stabilize the middle east is the reality. Wake up!

    Link above for full report.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. geokat62 says:

    Those are the facts. Iran is planning a total capture of the Gulf and de-stabilize the middle east is the reality. Wake up!

    Oh, those are the facts, are they? And here I thought the Zionist project was planning a total capture of Greater Israel and de-stabilize the Middle East, as spelled out in PNAC’s Clean Break strategy.

    I especially liked your admonition to “Wake up!” as your true objective is to put the goy back to sleep!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Americans need to wake up (has nothing to do with being goy)

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-iran-boosts-terror-activities-across-globe

    6-22-15 Iran boosts terror activities around the globe per US State Dept. Obama's concessions to Iran continue undeterred.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB11256044688352624473104581053840377876286

    6-22-15 Under Obama/Kerry BFF, the "moderate" Hassan Rouhani, Iran ratchets up repression of its own people.
    , @George123
    Why not address his points about the emerging Iran deal? Instead, you shifted attention to Israel's intentions.

    I admit that his interpretations of Iranian intentions is just that, an interpretation, but it isn't clear why shifting attention to Israel's intentions, as you understand them, does anything to negate or undermine his interpretation of Iranian attentions.

    Your response didn't address his point it merely shifted attention to something else. Was that your intention, or is there some logical way that suggesting Israel has bad intentions actually does counter the argument that Iran has bad intentions?

    I'm genuinely curious. As a rhetorical advice, it is so obvious that I don't believe that could possibly be your intention. Anyone would see through that. You must be making a logical point that has escaped me, and I'm curious if you could explain it.

    Most importantly, however, is that he made clear points about how the emerging deal lacks strong enforcement, and that in fact was the substance of his post, yet you ignored the factual claims of his post and fastened on to the small segment at the end that was meant as an interpretation. And then, somehow, failed to address that, but shifted attention.

    What is going on here? I am sure that I somehow misunderstood.

    Ron Unz I would expect to merely shut me down with insults, as his his way, but you seem better than that. You've made some good points on this post and shown a capacity for some logical thought at least.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    Those are the facts. Iran is planning a total capture of the Gulf and de-stabilize the middle east is the reality. Wake up!
     
    Oh, those are the facts, are they? And here I thought the Zionist project was planning a total capture of Greater Israel and de-stabilize the Middle East, as spelled out in PNAC's Clean Break strategy.

    I especially liked your admonition to "Wake up!" as your true objective is to put the goy back to sleep!

    Americans need to wake up (has nothing to do with being goy)

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-iran-boosts-terror-activities-across-globe

    6-22-15 Iran boosts terror activities around the globe per US State Dept. Obama’s concessions to Iran continue undeterred.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB11256044688352624473104581053840377876286

    6-22-15 Under Obama/Kerry BFF, the “moderate” Hassan Rouhani, Iran ratchets up repression of its own people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    It appears Hasbara Central has adopted some new tactics. Rather than being abrasive and belligerent, the new approach emphasizes persistence, with multiple links to neocon websites.

    They still need to develop less conspicuous monikers, however. Bird234 simply doesn't cut it. Surprised they haven't opted for more common waspy names!

    These guys remind me of Wile E. Coyote... they're always ordering a new plan of attack from Acme Inc. after each failed attempt. Like Wile E., they never give up!
    , @Anonymous
    yes American need to wake up from slumber, neocon zionist threat as they destroyed their economy with incessant wars.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama
    Americans need to wake up (has nothing to do with being goy)

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-iran-boosts-terror-activities-across-globe

    6-22-15 Iran boosts terror activities around the globe per US State Dept. Obama's concessions to Iran continue undeterred.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB11256044688352624473104581053840377876286

    6-22-15 Under Obama/Kerry BFF, the "moderate" Hassan Rouhani, Iran ratchets up repression of its own people.

    It appears Hasbara Central has adopted some new tactics. Rather than being abrasive and belligerent, the new approach emphasizes persistence, with multiple links to neocon websites.

    They still need to develop less conspicuous monikers, however. Bird234 simply doesn’t cut it. Surprised they haven’t opted for more common waspy names!

    These guys remind me of Wile E. Coyote… they’re always ordering a new plan of attack from Acme Inc. after each failed attempt. Like Wile E., they never give up!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. George123 says:
    @geokat62

    Those are the facts. Iran is planning a total capture of the Gulf and de-stabilize the middle east is the reality. Wake up!
     
    Oh, those are the facts, are they? And here I thought the Zionist project was planning a total capture of Greater Israel and de-stabilize the Middle East, as spelled out in PNAC's Clean Break strategy.

    I especially liked your admonition to "Wake up!" as your true objective is to put the goy back to sleep!

    Why not address his points about the emerging Iran deal? Instead, you shifted attention to Israel’s intentions.

    I admit that his interpretations of Iranian intentions is just that, an interpretation, but it isn’t clear why shifting attention to Israel’s intentions, as you understand them, does anything to negate or undermine his interpretation of Iranian attentions.

    Your response didn’t address his point it merely shifted attention to something else. Was that your intention, or is there some logical way that suggesting Israel has bad intentions actually does counter the argument that Iran has bad intentions?

    I’m genuinely curious. As a rhetorical advice, it is so obvious that I don’t believe that could possibly be your intention. Anyone would see through that. You must be making a logical point that has escaped me, and I’m curious if you could explain it.

    Most importantly, however, is that he made clear points about how the emerging deal lacks strong enforcement, and that in fact was the substance of his post, yet you ignored the factual claims of his post and fastened on to the small segment at the end that was meant as an interpretation. And then, somehow, failed to address that, but shifted attention.

    What is going on here? I am sure that I somehow misunderstood.

    Ron Unz I would expect to merely shut me down with insults, as his his way, but you seem better than that. You’ve made some good points on this post and shown a capacity for some logical thought at least.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Yet again... more evidence of the new approach!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. geokat62 says:
    @George123
    Why not address his points about the emerging Iran deal? Instead, you shifted attention to Israel's intentions.

    I admit that his interpretations of Iranian intentions is just that, an interpretation, but it isn't clear why shifting attention to Israel's intentions, as you understand them, does anything to negate or undermine his interpretation of Iranian attentions.

    Your response didn't address his point it merely shifted attention to something else. Was that your intention, or is there some logical way that suggesting Israel has bad intentions actually does counter the argument that Iran has bad intentions?

    I'm genuinely curious. As a rhetorical advice, it is so obvious that I don't believe that could possibly be your intention. Anyone would see through that. You must be making a logical point that has escaped me, and I'm curious if you could explain it.

    Most importantly, however, is that he made clear points about how the emerging deal lacks strong enforcement, and that in fact was the substance of his post, yet you ignored the factual claims of his post and fastened