Jump to content

Home

Israel seen rehearsing Iran attack


Det. Bart Lasiter
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm going on the record by stating that it was a grave error on the part of both of our our governments in giving Palestine over to the Jews in the first place. People already lived there and it was bound to cause trouble. We should have let them settle here in the US. All of them. I'm afraid that racism played a part in that decision. Racism against the Palestinians as well as the Jews.

 

We don't disagree on that.

 

Another Briton who shared your views. See how well it worked out for him?

 

I would review how I phrased my sentence, as I did so carefully, as I knew the droll attempt would be made to liken me to Nev...

 

I think we should have begun WW2 with Germany after the anaxed parts of Czechoslovakia.

 

War is a tragedy, and should be avoided, you may want to review my thread on Zimbabwe to see that there are times war should be used. Iran has not done enough to warrant an invasion.

 

Q. If Israel wasn't as aggressive as it was, would Iran be behaving the way it is?

A.I don't think anyone can say.

Q. Is their leader an idiot?

A. Yes.

Q. In reality would Iran ever destroy Israel?

A. Not if Iran attacks first.

Q. Could Iran be manipulating Israel into attacking to have 'the moral high ground'?

A. Possibly.

 

Such is life in the real world. I'll take realism, warts and all, over misguided idealism any day. Ambitious dictators should not be coddled.

 

Sir, making a strawman out of me, maybe what you would like to do, however what you have said above is far from the truth.

 

See the current state of Iraq to see what would happen in Iran. I think the Iranian people may well topple their own government, especially if the middle-classes continue to grow.

 

The comments by president Ahmadinejad were purely political in ends, if Iran ever attacked Israel the US would strike back; if Iran used Nukes against you, both yourself and the US would counter strike.

 

@Arc:

And yes, a coup might work if the Iranians were up for such a thing. It would be great if the Iranians could share in the benefits of the global community.

 

It is clear sir, you don't know much about Iran. Read any books about the current country? Got an best friends who were thrown out the country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Qliveur, I expect to see you on the front lines.

 

I'd never support any war I wouldn't fight in. So then, are you willing to be in the forefront of the assault against Iran? If you're not, I'd really question why you desire to see other people kill each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would if I could. I'm ineligible for military service or I'd be in Iraq or Afghanistan right now doing my part.

 

I feel that I should apologize for bringing my extremist views into Kavar's where they are obviously not welcome. Carry on.

Edited by Q
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would if I could. I'm ineligible for military service or I'd be in Iraq or Afghanistan right now doing my part.

 

Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Voltaire

 

Do note that; you have freedom of speech and freedom of action are two entirely different things. If you could have freedom of action you would cause World War 3; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavrilo_Princip

 

I feel that I should apologize for bringing my extremist views into Kavar's where they are obviously not welcome. Carry on.

 

Kavar's is a place for discussion and debate; many of us disagree... You may want to consider why ;)

 

As for wanting to fight? War is hell, it brings out the worst in good men, and brings out the 'best' in bad men. It destroys the soul; why would you want to be in one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such is life in the real world. I'll take realism, warts and all, over misguided idealism any day. Ambitious dictators should not be coddled.
Damn right. We should coddle the nation of invisible sky wizard worshipers who drop cluster bombs without regard for civilian casualties and most likely creates more terrorists than it kills. And I love how they had a war criminal for a Prime Minister. I thought that was really special.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for wanting to fight? War is hell, it brings out the worst in good men, and brings out the 'best' in bad men. It destroys the soul; why would you want to be in one?

 

Indeed... I quote F.N:

 

"Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

 

Damn right. We should coddle the nation of invisible sky wizard worshipers who drop cluster bombs without regard for civilian casualties and most likely creates more terrorists than it kills. And I love how they had a war criminal for a Prime Minister. I thought that was really special.

 

Haha... :lol: Jmac, you have a great skill in comedic sarcasm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don: I really doubt a Ghandi would be able to do much' date=' even when atempting to free a country from a occupation nation that was de-colonizing, it still ended with a blodbath.[/quote']

 

You have a valid point.

However, the bloodbath that you're referring to was mostly brought about when Pakistan and India separated. The bloodshed occured after Gandhi's death and it was mostly divided along religious lines. Had Gandhi lived, I get the feeling it might have turned out differently....

Nevertheless, if not a Gandhi, we definitely need another charismatic leader in the middle east. One that both sides can look up to. (As of yet, no person comes to my mind).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a valid point.

However, the bloodbath that you're referring to was mostly brought about when Pakistan and India separated. The bloodshed occured after Gandhi's death and it was mostly divided along religious lines. Had Gandhi lived, I get the feeling it might have turned out differently....

Nevertheless, if not a Gandhi, we definitely need another charismatic leader in the middle east. One that both sides can look up to. (As of yet, no person comes to my mind).

 

I agree with your points on Gandhi.

 

The tragedy of Palestine, is had the Palestinians followed the Martin Luther King line of non-violent resistance, I think they would have had their own state and I think a lot less bloodshed would have occurred. Unfortunately they took the path of violent resistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tragedy of Palestine, is had the Palestinians followed the Martin Luther King line of non-violent resistance, I think they would have had their own state and I think a lot less bloodshed would have occurred. Unfortunately they took the path of violent resistance.
I totally agree with you here. I found it more than a little ironic that Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with you here. I found it more than a little ironic that Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

I agree, given all he had done, everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten it, and that his apparent "U-turn" made up for this.

 

I do also think the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin to have been a grave tragedy as well; it would have been interesting to see where the Middle East would be now had he lived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tragedy of Palestine, is had the Palestinians followed the Martin Luther King line of non-violent resistance, I think they would have had their own state and I think a lot less bloodshed would have occurred. Unfortunately they took the path of violent resistance.

 

In a perfect world, I'd agree. However Israel have given them little reason to trust in peacefull resistance. Whenever a peace deal is negotiated, Israels responsibilities are "shoulds", while Palestines responsibilities are "musts". Settlements are being built, "assasinations" are still caried out, and the only visible results are that more land is lost and entrenched by the Israelis. Would you still stop the violence when the only visible result is loss of land?

Besides, we are not talking about an old colony wishing freedom, or a discriminated group with lesser rights (well, that too, but you get my point), we are talking recent occupation, do you blame the French/Polish/Norwegian resistance during ww2 for fighting back too? I realize that you say should, but frankly, I don't think it would have been much different, nevermind that it's not realistic to expect a people to not resist an occupation forcefully.

 

I found it more than a little ironic that Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

Part of the point of the prize is to encourage peace, and give a tiny push towards a better future. Sometimes it turns out well, De Clerk got the prize partly in order to help things along, so did Arafat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a perfect world, I'd agree. However Israel have given them little reason to trust in peacefull resistance. Whenever a peace deal is negotiated, Israels responsibilities are "shoulds", while Palestines responsibilities are "musts". Settlements are being built, "assasinations" are still caried out, and the only visible results are that more land is lost and entrenched by the Israelis. Would you still stop the violence when the only visible result is loss of land?

Besides, we are not talking about an old colony wishing freedom, or a discriminated group with lesser rights (well, that too, but you get my point), we are talking recent occupation, do you blame the French/Polish/Norwegian resistance during ww2 for fighting back too? I realize that you say should, but frankly, I don't think it would have been much different, nevermind that it's not realistic to expect a people to not resist an occupation forcefully.

 

Your points are interesting, though I disagree. One of the reason's for the Black enfranchisement success was not responding to violence; it generates public sympathy and outrage when peaceful protesters are harmed, it takes a long time, but eventually works. In the case of Israel it would work, but cause international outrage and external pressure. The US couldn't back Israel as the Middle East's "only" democracy; if International outrage was loud enough.

 

Peaceful resistance wouldn't of worked with Hitler; a violent resistance was needed; although perhaps violent resistance by Palestinians would be accepted by the International community if they only hit Military targets instead of civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Western countries have been able to support many abusive governments before, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to support Israel in the "Gandhi" scenario. And a difference compared to the blacks, they had been opressed for ages, every right gained was a victory, the Palestinians lost almost everything overnight, acepting every part of what they had for not fighting back for them was hard, when they never got anything back for peacefull acts it became nigh on impossible.

In adition, how do you expect them to trust the western countries when they say they want them to have equal rights with Israelis, when the moment the vote for the "wrong" party they are punished?

 

I agree that hitting military targets would be far better, but in the palestinians case it's often an act of desperation, easily taken advantage of by some groups. If we want to stop that, cut away their motivation, or negotiate with someone who can prevent them.

Besides, it's hard for palestinians to accept that they should not strike civilians, when Israel continues to do so. Do I agree with that mentality?No. Can I understand it? Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mur'phon: ?

 

"Act of Desperation"

Act: "[P]erform an action[.]" (Source)

 

Desperation: "[A] state in which everything seems wrong and will turn out badly[.]" (Source)

 

So, and act of desperation is an action during a a state in which everything seems wrong and will turn out badly.

 

So, when all those rockets were being fired indiscriminately into Israel in order to hit as many Jews as could be, that was from desperation?

 

Interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel (and Palestine): "[A] state(s) in which everything seems wrong and will turn out badly[.]"

 

Fixed ;)

 

So, and act of desperation is an action during a a state in which everything seems wrong and will turn out badly.

 

So, when all those rockets were being fired indiscriminately into Israel in order to hit as many Jews as could be, that was from desperation?

 

Interesting.

 

I would say so, Israel has the advantage of a Military and is viewed as an occupational force - the above rocket attacks are an act of desperation and of hatred. And are no different to the same attacks Israel mounts in Palestinian territories; both sides seem to think they have the moral high ground (which neither does) and this said moral high ground seems to give both sides the "right" to kill indiscriminately.

 

Violence only breeds more violence - do you try and put out a fire in your garden by setting your house on fire?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, the rockets aren't meant to kill as many as possible (suicide bombers are a different matter), they are meant to scare the settlers away. Look at the number of kills, if they really wanted to kill, they'd use frag warheads on their quassams. And yes, as J7 said, it's from desperation and hatred, imagine if the U.S was occupied by a group of amadi moslems in need of a homeland, americans squesed into small areas, criss crossed with walls and checkpoints, wouldn't you feel desperate?

 

J7: I'd say the Palestinians have the moral high ground, though I don't think they have the right to kill indiscriminately. And just curious, which solution do you propose to the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J7: I'd say the Palestinians have the moral high ground' date=' though I don't think they have the right to kill indiscriminately. And just curious, which solution do you propose to the problem?[/quote']

 

Personally I think any moral high ground was lost many thousand of deaths ago...

 

a)I think Jerusalem should be made an international city under the jurisdiction of the UN. I would declare Palestine a separate state with its own Government; provide aid and nation rebuilding. Israel should withdraw from occupied territories. (Unfortunately those Jews and Palestinians living in peace together, I think will suffer under the above.

 

b) Give everyone 72 hours to evacuate the area and nuke it; thus meaning if they really want to argue over a nuclear wasteland let them do so....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think any moral high ground was lost many thousand of deaths ago...

 

a)I think Jerusalem should be made an international city under the jurisdiction of the UN. I would declare Palestine a separate state with its own Government; provide aid and nation rebuilding. Israel should withdraw from occupied territories. (Unfortunately those Jews and Palestinians living in peace together, I think will suffer under the above.

 

b) Give everyone 72 hours to evacuate the area and nuke it; thus meaning if they really want to argue over a nuclear wasteland let them do so....

 

Wait, so you would do all those things in letter a, and then just nuke it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say the Palestinians have the moral high ground' date=' though I don't think they have the right to kill indiscriminately.[/quote']They would have the moral high ground if they hadn't resorted to terrorism. Doing so has destroyed their credibility.

Personally I think any moral high ground was lost many thousand of deaths ago...
Agreed. By both sides.

a)I think Jerusalem should be made an international city under the jurisdiction of the UN. I would declare Palestine a separate state with its own Government; provide aid and nation rebuilding. Israel should withdraw from occupied territories. (Unfortunately those Jews and Palestinians living in peace together, I think will suffer under the above.

 

b) Give everyone 72 hours to evacuate the area and nuke it; thus meaning if they really want to argue over a nuclear wasteland let them do so....

Heh, "b" is kind of reminiscent of Soloman and his handling of the baby ownership dispute. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, no I don't think either will happen, it was an either or option...

 

Ah, it was a bit misleading to me.

 

Both were a bit extreme and would probably be met with wide criticism.

 

Declaring a city like Jerusalem under the jurisdiction of the UN would make a lot of people mad I think. Given it's religious status, I don't think a lot of people would buy that solution.

 

Nuking is self-explanatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, it was a bit misleading to me.

 

Both were a bit extreme and would probably be met with wide criticism.

 

The first I would argue is what needs to happen for peace; don't think it's going to happen though. The problem being there are extremists on both sides, and *they* have to be satisfied and don't give a monkeys about anyone else. Unfortunately; this means the Palestinian extremists won't be happy till all the Jews are dead, and vice-versa won't be happy until all the Holy land is back under Jewish control. - So the innocent suffer, people not involved have their children killed, and want revenge and become involved, creating an endless circle of violence.

 

Declaring a city like Jerusalem under the jurisdiction of the UN would make a lot of people mad I think. Given it's religious status, I don't think a lot of people would buy that solution.

 

Perhaps; but it is precisely for that reason it should be under UN control, Jews, Muslims and Christians all claim it for their own, so why not have a third party in charge? During the Crusades (Christians v Muslims) the Jews were given the keys to the city.

 

Heh, "b" is kind of reminiscent of Soloman and his handling of the baby ownership dispute. ;)

 

Aye, the hope would be for everyone to see sense, if they did or not is another matter entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless about how we all feel about war, the process and end result is damn ugly. Even though we try to use diplomacy to settle conflicts, sometimes war is a necessary means to protect one’s people and nation. Governments in the Middle East have been stomping on Israel since day one. Most of us don’t live in the region, so we are not faced with visible threats from day to day. ‘Saber Rattling’ is always used to ward off foreign threats. Since the world is too bound by politics, I give Israel all of my blessings and prayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless about how we all feel about war, the process and end result is damn ugly.

 

Agreed.

 

Even though we try to use diplomacy to settle conflicts, sometimes war is a necessary means to protect one’s people and nation. Governments in the Middle East have been stomping on Israel since day one. Most of us don’t live in the region, so we are not faced with visible threats from day to day. ‘Saber Rattling’ is always used to ward off foreign threats. Since the world is too bound by politics, I give Israel all of my blessings and prayers.

 

Israel has been stomped all over by other governments? Did you see what they did to Lebanon?

 

I really hope you live in an alternate reality to me; otherwise you must be very selectively reading and watching the news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J7: While I generally agree with plan A, are we talking about the original (and rejected) U.N plan? And you know what Israel promise to do with the nukes in the event of scenario B? That hope is not worth milions of deaths from Israeli nukes.

 

Q: The difference is that the terrorist attacks (the bloodbath kind at least) is carried out by relatively small extremist groups whereas the crimes of Israel is (for the most part) done by the state, and since it's a (imperfect) democracy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...