Will Israel Vs Iran start world war 3?

paddylanger

There has been a awful lot of rhetoric coming from Israel (and Iran too) lately and been reported in the press about a pre emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Is this the precursor to world war 3?

We all know or at least we should understand that israel cannot mount such attack with out the express permission of their number 1 and bff America. Simply because an attack by israel on iran will be seen by the iranians as an american attack on iran.

Likewise any attack by israel will more than likely unite the muslim world in such a way that israel would face their own demise. surely they must realize this and thus not really conceive that an attack on iran is possible or likely and its all talk to try to enhance their own political strength among their own voters and to try an get more finance from america to.

israel states that they are just protecting themselves and a pre emptive strike is vital in their eyes so that Iran can not develop nuclear weapons and thus use them on israel! Are we seeing the propaganda machine in motion. its beginning to sound similar to the other lies we were told like that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or that Bin laden was in Afghanistan.

As it is asserted by certain individuals that iran has not attacked directly another state in over 300 years. However they have shown support to other groups like Hamas and Hezbollah .

I tried to have a reasonable debate on one of the irish newspaper sites recently and i was surprised by the amount of pro zionist contributors. I was approaching the topic from an unbiased view and open to learn about both sides of the argument. but their fervor in stating that Iran wants to push the jews into the sea and they were all adamant that israel has to strike first and put iran back into the dark ages got me really concerned.

When i queried the fact that israel is an apartheid state and they should consider trying to make an acceptable peace with the palestinians first rather than worrying about Iran, i was immediately jumped on as almost anti israel, anti jew. which i am not, but it got me thinking i maybe was leaning toward the anti zionist end of the spectrum.

I was trying to figure out if there is a difference between being anti israel and anti zionist and indeed some research lead me to find that even in israel there are jewish people that are anti zionist and had no conflicts with their faith about that fact, indeed they even believe that it is the zionists that have lost their faith or a portion of it.

I believe that all organized religion is a bad thing for this world and religion has caused more wars and deaths and often contrary to the beliefs and practices of those religions. But i can accept that people choose to believe and they are perfectly entitled to do so imho. But there are serious consequences of their beliefs that they use as an excuse to incite hatred and indeed kill and murder in the name of one god or another but those are the faults of man and not necessary the religion or belief structure .

It is also difficult to assume that the true conflict between iran and israel and palestine is due to different religions. less than 20% of muslims in the world are arabs/ persians. so not all muslims for the time being anyways has any grievances with israel despite what they themselves might think.

Also i when the pro zionists mentioned that iran wants to push all jews into the sea that they are interpreting the fact that iran has indeed stated that israel will be wiped off the map. It follows that indeed if it wasn't for the Balfour declaration by the british that the state of israel that exists today wouldn't even be there. So maybe that is what Iran is talking about.

So are we just dealing with another consequence of britain and america interfering in countries thousands of miles away and leaving a trail of destruction behind them?

the people of palestine had elections that former us president carter described as the most fair and democratic elections seen anywhere in the world and when they elected a Hamas majority to represent them both america and israel refused to deal with the elected officials as in their eyes they are a terrorist organization. How can they try to force democracy on the palestinians and yet then refuse to accept the results of that democracy when it happened? to me it makes no sense.

I find it incredulous to read that israel want to refuse iran the right to science and provide nuclear energy for its people. they know the oil will run out one day and are preparing to address their energy concerns. Should religion differences be allowed for one state to deny anothers a right to science ? when science is based on facts and reality and religion is based on fiction and beliefs?

Again i will admit i am a pacifist and have no religious belief despite being raised R.C. there might be some similarities with what happened in ireland and palestine so maybe i have some understanding and sympathy for the palestinian people. but i sincerely hope that a war of words and a symptom of the problems of the middle east does not end up in a third world war. surely we have learnt our lessons from history and that it is not the way forward and even a threat of war is infact one of the worse forms of global terrorism we could see and no better than the terrorist organizations that the supposed war on terror is trying to defeat.

So if anyone has anything to add . please do . i am eager to try an understand things better. if thousands of more lives are going to be lost maybe we should try to understand why and hopefully inquire together and find a way to save lives. Of course i wouldn't be presumptuous enough to think a discussion on boards.ie will solve the crisis but i certainly would want to question both sides of the argument and not accept all things at face value as i am sure there will be propaganda from both sides of the divide.

Eggy Baby!

Unfortunately there is no real way to tell if it will lead to a global war. Before WW1, nobody could really predict beforehand that their world was going to be turned upside down. If there was a world war, however, NATO and the SCO would screw each other up badly.

Higher

paddylanger wrote: »

We all know or at least we should understand that israel cannot mount such attack with out the express permission of their number 1 and bff America. Simply because an attack by israel on iran will be seen by the iranians as an american attack on iran.

Israel doesn't need permission from America, they certainly didn't need it in 1967 when they launched preemptive strikes and this has not changed. If Israel finds itself in difficulty it can count on the extraordinarily powerful Israeli lobbies in America to guarantee both military and economic support from politicians.

Likewise any attack by israel will more than likely unite the muslim world in such a way that israel would face their own demise. surely they must realize this and thus not really conceive that an attack on iran is possible or likely and its all talk to try to enhance their own political strength among their own voters and to try an get more finance from america to.

Would it though? Its not the first time Israel will have attacked a Muslim state and survived. In addition to this, Iran is a Shia Muslim country and would simply not invoke the same kind of fervor across the Muslim world as an attack on a Sunni state by Israel would. In fact, a lot of Muslim states such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, UAE would love for a situation to develop that would weaken BOTH Israel and Iran.

israel states that they are just protecting themselves and a pre emptive strike is vital in their eyes so that Iran can not develop nuclear weapons and thus use them on israel! Are we seeing the propaganda machine in motion.

The middle east is a very unstable region and the last thing it needs is an assertive, nuclear armed Iran upsetting this balance. This may be unfair to Iran but it is genuinely in the interest of stability that Iran is denied a nuclear weapon.

its beginning to sound similar to the other lies we were told like that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or that Bin laden was in Afghanistan.

Neither were lies. The Americans generally did believe Saddam had WMDS, why? Because the Americans supplied them to him during the Iran-Iraq war. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan by the way, he had a camp near Kandahar where he housed his family and most loyal fighters. This is not even in doubt. He was more than likely smuggled out of Afghanistan after his escape from Toro Boro.

When i queried the fact that israel is an apartheid state and they should consider trying to make an acceptable peace with the palestinians first rather than worrying about Iran

Well a nuclear armed Iran is a much bigger threat to their safety than the Palestinian issue.

I believe that all organized religion is a bad thing for this world and religion has caused more wars and deaths and often contrary to the beliefs and practices of those religions. But i can accept that people choose to believe and they are perfectly entitled to do so imho. But there are serious consequences of their beliefs that they use as an excuse to incite hatred and indeed kill and murder in the name of one god or another but those are the faults of man and not necessary the religion or belief structure .

Religion is but one part of what is a greater clash of civilizations.

Also i when the pro zionists mentioned that iran wants to push all jews into the sea that they are interpreting the fact that iran has indeed stated that israel will be wiped off the map. It follows that indeed if it wasn't for the Balfour declaration by the british that the state of israel that exists today wouldn't even be there. So maybe that is what Iran is talking about.

Common mistake. The Iranian president did not say Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, he was mistranslated at the time. What he actually said was that he hoped that Israel would vanish from the pages of time which was a direct reference to the Balfour declaration and not the confrontational aggressive threat it was subsequently portrayed to be.

the people of palestine had elections that former us president carter described as the most fair and democratic elections seen anywhere in the world and when they elected a Hamas majority to represent them both america and israel refused to deal with the elected officials as in their eyes they are a terrorist organization. How can they try to force democracy on the palestinians and yet then refuse to accept the results of that democracy when it happened? to me it makes no sense.

What has this got to do with Israel's relationship with Iran?

I find it incredulous to read that israel want to refuse iran the right to science and provide nuclear energy for its people. they know the oil will run out one day and are preparing to address their energy concerns. Should religion differences be allowed for one state to deny anothers a right to science ? when science is based on facts and reality and religion is based on fiction and beliefs?

Firstly Israel aren't denying Iran anything based on religion, its purely to protect their own security. Secondly there is little doubt that Iran are indeed attempting to build a nuclear bomb and while they should be entitled to one in a fair and utopian world, it is not in the interest of stability in the Middle East and would result in a plethora of Sunni states acquiring their own Nuclear Weapons.

Again i will admit i am a pacifist and have no religious belief despite being raised R.C. there might be some similarities with what happened in ireland and palestine so maybe i have some understanding and sympathy for the palestinian people. but i sincerely hope that a war of words and a symptom of the problems of the middle east does not end up in a third world war. surely we have learnt our lessons from history and that it is not the way forward and even a threat of war is infact one of the worse forms of global terrorism we could see and no better than the terrorist organizations that the supposed war on terror is trying to defeat.

Back to Palestine on a thread supposed to be about Iran?

spank_inferno

short answer is no.

The big world players wont want to duke-it-out with each other.

It could well be a proxy war of sorts, but similar to Vietnam, isolated to just that theatre.

SamHarris

paddylanger wrote: »

There has been a awful lot of rhetoric coming from Israel (and Iran too) lately and been reported in the press about a pre emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Is this the precursor to world war 3?

Almost certainly not. Its incredibly difficult to see how this would escalate to the point where Russia, China, the US and the European states are all pulled in. Iran is very far from a close ally of anyone.

paddylanger wrote: »

We all know or at least we should understand that israel cannot mount such attack with out the express permission of their number 1 and bff America. Simply because an attack by israel on iran will be seen by the iranians as an american attack on iran.

If it feels like it is sufficiently threatened it will attack without American consent. It has a long history of, rightly or wrongly, defneding itself to the hilt. The chance of a nuclear Iran leaves very little room for equivocations.

paddylanger wrote: »

Likewise any attack by israel will more than likely unite the muslim world in such a way that israel would face their own demise. surely they must realize this and thus not really conceive that an attack on iran is possible or likely and its all talk to try to enhance their own political strength among their own voters and to try an get more finance from america to.

It wouldnt unite Muslims against Israel, or more likely it would not unite Muslim states against it - anymore than they already are. Suadi, Qatar, Yemen and more all have a massive stake in Iran not attaining a weapon. They might well make noises about the "Zionist aggressor" but almost certainly no more.

It WOULD however push the Iranian people into further supporting the Iranian regime, as is always the case following an attack.

paddylanger wrote: »

israel states that they are just protecting themselves and a pre emptive strike is vital in their eyes so that Iran can not develop nuclear weapons and thus use them on israel! Are we seeing the propaganda machine in motion. its beginning to sound similar to the other lies we were told like that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or that Bin laden was in Afghanistan.

So you believe they are lying that they actually believe they are a threat and looking for a nuclear weapon? Why would they strike the sites if they didnt? Just to cause mischief?

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan before and during the 9 11 attacks. They were planned there. The Taliban made no secret of their support for and harbouring of al Qaeda - they still dont.

paddylanger wrote: »

I tried to have a reasonable debate on one of the irish newspaper sites recently and i was surprised by the amount of pro zionist contributors. I was approaching the topic from an unbiased view and open to learn about both sides of the argument. but their fervor in stating that Iran wants to push the jews into the sea and they were all adamant that israel has to strike first and put iran back into the dark ages got me really concerned.

When i queried the fact that israel is an apartheid state and they should consider trying to make an acceptable peace with the palestinians first rather than worrying about Iran, i was immediately jumped on as almost anti israel, anti jew. which i am not, but it got me thinking i maybe was leaning toward the anti zionist end of the spectrum.

I was trying to figure out if there is a difference between being anti israel and anti zionist and indeed some research lead me to find that even in israel there are jewish people that are anti zionist and had no conflicts with their faith about that fact, indeed they even believe that it is the zionists that have lost their faith or a portion of it.

Something tells me from your choice of language and position that you are very far from unbiased, or at least already have an entrenched position on the issue. Stating thing like "The Israeli apartheid state" indicates an already very politicised view of the conflict and region.

Zionism is the belief that Jews should have a homeland in that region and a
state of their own. To be "anti" a particular groups right of self determination is an ideology that too many people are comfortable declaring themselves part of.

paddylanger wrote: »

It is also difficult to assume that the true conflict between iran and israel and palestine is due to different religions. less than 20% of muslims in the world are arabs/ persians. so not all muslims for the time being anyways has any grievances with israel despite what they themselves might think.

Also i when the pro zionists mentioned that iran wants to push all jews into the sea that they are interpreting the fact that iran has indeed stated that israel will be wiped off the map. It follows that indeed if it wasn't for the Balfour declaration by the british that the state of israel that exists today wouldn't even be there. So maybe that is what Iran is talking about.

Its not just religion - there is an incredibly strong ethnic component to the conflict. Anti -semitism (indeed rascism in general) is rampant in Arab states - to the point where 99% of Yemenis polled expressed a negative view of jews. There is also a cultural clash. It is an incredibly complex conflict.

The president of Iran and various officials are near constant in their confrontational rhetoric. Even if that particular quote is mis interpreted and misreprented (which it seems to be) there is more than enough statements and actions by both sides for them to be considered strong enemies of each other.

paddylanger wrote: »

So are we just dealing with another consequence of britain and america interfering in countries thousands of miles away and leaving a trail of destruction behind them?

British colonialsm has played a massive part in creating todays situation but if you can boil it down to that - and this goes for every conflicy/issue the world over - you dont know enough / your willfully ignoring any number of factors.

paddylanger wrote: »

the people of palestine had elections that former us president carter described as the most fair and democratic elections seen anywhere in the world and when they elected a Hamas majority to represent them both america and israel refused to deal with the elected officials as in their eyes they are a terrorist organization. How can they try to force democracy on the palestinians and yet then refuse to accept the results of that democracy when it happened? to me it makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense - there is no rule saying one state must deal with another state, elections or no. Hamas' positions are sufficiently radical for any reasonable person to at least ackowledge the right of another state to refuse to deal with them.

That the US/Israel's position is, at the very least, unhelpful and perpetuates the conflict is undeniable, however.

paddylanger wrote: »

I find it incredulous to read that israel want to refuse iran the right to science and provide nuclear energy for its people. they know the oil will run out one day and are preparing to address their energy concerns. Should religion differences be allowed for one state to deny anothers a right to science ? when science is based on facts and reality and religion is based on fiction and beliefs?

They, and the international community, have to recognise their right to civilian nuclear energy. However the IAEA, US and assorted others are very much opposed to the manner in which Iran pursues it. Infractions include hiding nuclear facilities and equipment and not allowing IAEA full access to said facilities. Every country under international law must adhere to certain rules when dealing with this technology, for extremely good reasons, Iran refuses to do so.

paddylanger wrote: »

Again i will admit i am a pacifist and have no religious belief despite being raised R.C. there might be some similarities with what happened in ireland and palestine so maybe i have some understanding and sympathy for the palestinian people. but i sincerely hope that a war of words and a symptom of the problems of the middle east does not end up in a third world war. surely we have learnt our lessons from history and that it is not the way forward and even a threat of war is infact one of the worse forms of global terrorism we could see and no better than the terrorist organizations that the supposed war on terror is trying to defeat.

You may be a pacisift but no country is. Indeed, there is a powerful argument that no government could or even should be - a states first and most important priority is to defend its own citizens. You may argue that in individual cases there are better ways of doing so, but a state cannot "turn the other cheek" when its people are directly threatened and or harmed (thats not a statement regarding this particular situation).

plasmaguy

An attack on Iranian facilities is probably going to happen in the next few months anyways as all the signs are the Iranians are hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons which cannot be a good thing for the entire region. They hate Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel to name just a few countries, basically anyone who isn't Shia.

Whether it happens before or after the US Presidential elections, who knows. Obama is loath to get the US involved in anything in the middle east while in office and that includes both Syria and Iran.

Iranians seem to be itching for a fight with Israel and might just get their wish next year. As for the Russians and Chinese getting involved, I doubt it, so it probably won't lead to WW3.

Cheerful Spring

Russia would likely not interfere in any attack on Iran by outsiders, but if Syria joins its ally in a war against the "Westerners" there could be a scenario of were Russia would stop an invasion of Syria. How actually that would play out i do not know. You got to remember the only reason there wasn't a Libya Style fly zone adopted for Syria. The Russians wouldn't allow it and sent warships to the area as a warning sign to the west.

Iran is already nuclear but they have no nuclear weapon missile technology. Least that we know of. The worry for other Islamic states if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. They too might have to require the technology. This likely does worry Israel longtern. While Iran doesn't get on well with lot of its Arab neighbours, this countries are essentially still Muslim. But out of fear this Arab countries will seek the weapon once Iran has them.

Israel would not tolerate this kind of arms race to occur. It probably one of the prime reasons they will attack Iran. How far we are away from that nobody knows. I am guessing Israel would like American involvement. But they have the weaponry to go it alone. if that is their choosing.

Victor

Higher wrote: »

Secondly there is little doubt that Iran are indeed attempting to build a nuclear bomb and while they should be entitled to one in a fair and utopian world ...

Interesting idea.

delad

plasmaguy wrote: »

Whether it happens before or after the US Presidential elections, who knows. Obama is loath to get the US involved in anything in the middle east while in office and that includes both Syria and Iran.

Romney is a warmonger though so almost guaranteed to be a strike on Iran if he wins the election.

nyarlothothep

The thought of a nuclear exchange arising from such a conflict makes me naseous and angry, angry that any cohort of high ranking officials would be stupid enough to think, "oh yeah, nuclear weapons are good, lets use them." Instead of entering into a conflict, nuclear or otherwise, which will cost the lives of ordinary people on both sides why not, lets see, calm the fck down? I just find it absurd that a lot of innocent people are going to die/endure pain, suffering and misery due to regional struggles for dominance, it's so primitive, especially with the religious/cultural aspect to it.

Chuck Stone

All the while Israel's nuclear arsenal (the only one in the Middle East) does not come up for discussion because their nukes, of course, aren't allowed to be part of the narrative.

Israel isn't really concerned with Iran committing nuclear suicide by attacking it with its non-existent nukes - let's face it that's exactly what an attack by Iran would be.

Israel is concerned with losing its theatre dominance i.e. the choice to knock the shit out of its neighbours, subjugate the Palestinians, and fulfil the Zionist project.

As for a world war? Highly unlikely. Imo an attack on Iran is highly unlikely too.

Cheerful Spring

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The thought of a nuclear exchange arising from such a conflict makes me naseous and angry, angry that any cohort of high ranking officials would be stupid enough to think, "oh yeah, nuclear weapons are good, lets use them." Instead of entering into a conflict, nuclear or otherwise, which will cost the lives of ordinary people on both sides why not, lets see, calm the fck down? I just find it absurd that a lot of innocent people are going to die/endure pain, suffering and misery due to regional struggles for dominance, it's so primitive, especially with the religious/cultural aspect to it.

Nuclear exchange would only happen when those extreme circumstances have happened in the World. The middle east is a tinder box, but its very unlikely a nuclear exchange will occur there. Is their a potential yes, but Russia, and the USA have no interest in starting World War 3 anytime soon, i can tell you that.

World peace is likely to be more in threat when China outpaces the United States economically.

Cheerful Spring

Chuck Stone wrote: »

All the while Israel's nuclear arsenal (the only one in the Middle East) does not come up for discussion because their nukes, of course, aren't allowed to be part of the narrative.

Israel isn't really concerned with Iran committing nuclear suicide by attacking it with its non-existent nukes - let's face it that's exactly what an attack by Iran would be.

Israel is concerned with losing its theatre dominance i.e. the choice to knock the shit out of its neighbours, subjugate the Palestinians, and fulfil the Zionist project.

As for a world war? Highly unlikely. Imo an attack on Iran is highly unlikely too.

An attack on Iran is very real. Jews live in a hostile land and Iran of all countries requiring a nuclear weapon, is not going to be accepted. Simply isn't something they can live with. I think they might wait, but don't anyone be surprised if they go it alone in next few weeks.

paddylanger

Higher wrote: »

Israel doesn't need permission from America, they certainly didn't need it in 1967 when they launched preemptive strikes and this has not changed. If Israel finds itself in difficulty it can count on the extraordinarily powerful Israeli lobbies in America to guarantee both military and economic support from politicians.

.. Do you honestly believe that without america, israel will attempt anything? especially as i said iran views america and israel as one and the same in many ways. Can america afford to go toe to toe with iran especially when iran has support from both russia and china. why do you think both russia and china are also blocking americas attempts to intervene in syria? there are many american politicians, advisors that don't even want to touch iran because they can't afford to and also because in reality they have no reason to.

Higher wrote: »

Would it though? Its not the first time Israel will have attacked a Muslim state and survived. In addition to this, Iran is a Shia Muslim country and would simply not invoke the same kind of fervor across the Muslim world as an attack on a Sunni state by Israel would. In fact, a lot of Muslim states such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, UAE would love for a situation to develop that would weaken BOTH Israel and Iran.

weaken maybe. but in irans case the economic sanctions are putting an awful lot of pressure on the iranian people. it looks like america is hoping for an uprising from inside iran and are just biding time for that to happen. the reason i said what i said is because one of the pro zionist comments on the other site said that israel had to attack iran for that exact reason, that all the other muslim states have 1000's of missiles aimed directly at israel. So i was just paraphrasing what was said to me and curious to find out more. that is certainly what the israelis seem to believe, or have been told. another note i am not calling them pro zionist out of any maliciousness it is what they described themselves as, actually they said " far right zionists" what ever that may be.

Higher wrote: »

The middle east is a very unstable region and the last thing it needs is an assertive, nuclear armed Iran upsetting this balance. This may be unfair to Iran but it is genuinely in the interest of stability that Iran is denied a nuclear weapon.

Pat Buchanan said recently that the situation between america and russia during the cold war was a hundred times worse that any situation between iran and america. He mentioned that america does not fear Iran and has no reason to. Nuclear is always a deterrent and at worst that is what it should be. i still don't understand why the right of a country to use science is a reason for attack. Iran has stated many times they have no intension of making bombs. it is purely for energy resources. Most of irans wealth comes from selling oil. if they have nuclear then they can sell more oil. Oil that the chinese are desperate for. hence chinas interest in iran.

you mention stability but surely the fact that israel has 200 - 300 nuclear bombs is also creating and enhancing that instability. whats good for the goose is good for the gander except that ducks don't need nuclear..... hopefully.

Higher wrote: »

Neither were lies. The Americans generally did believe Saddam had WMDS, why? Because the Americans supplied them to him during the Iran-Iraq war. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan by the way, he had a camp near Kandahar where he housed his family and most loyal fighters. This is not even in doubt. He was more than likely smuggled out of Afghanistan after his escape from Toro Boro.

...so where was the big announcement when they found the WMD's? It is a well known fact that the intelligence report and final excuse to go into iraq was a fabrication.... so you have the proof that the rest of the world was looking for that it was Iraq that caused 9-11? ..... Regarding bin laden are you serious? if a man of his means knew the americans were coming to Afghanistan to look for him the first thing any intelligent person would do is get out of there. Bin laden might have been a loon but he wasn't stupid. America go into Afghanistan in 2001 and bin laden found in pakistan in 2011. Some game of hide n seek then.

Higher wrote: »

Well a nuclear armed Iran is a much bigger threat to their safety than the Palestinian issue.

why do you think iran has a problem with israel in the first place. the fact that people that they see as brothers of sorts are being treated like second class citizens. they certainly use it as an excuse to throw at israel. hence why israel feels so intimidated and hence announcing that they will attack first.

Israel continually says that the reason for all the walls and compounds is to protect their citizens from attacks. refusing to sort out the palestinian issue is one of the main reason for those attacks. Any oppressed people will eventually fight back. its human nature.

Higher wrote: »

Religion is but one part of what is a greater clash of civilizations.

there was a time when jews, christians and muslims all lived there together in harmony and as i said less than 15% of muslims are persians or arabs. So religion is once again being used as an excuse but it cannot be the problem. again i don't understand what else would iran have to clash with israel over apart form the occupation and their treatment of the palestinians.

Higher wrote: »

Common mistake. The Iranian president did not say Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, he was mistranslated at the time. What he actually said was that he hoped that Israel would vanish from the pages of time which was a direct reference to the Balfour declaration and not the confrontational aggressive threat it was subsequently portrayed to be.

i was just repeating what the pro zionists told me. i didn't even try to find his original comments. tbh. so i took them for their word. i just tried to look it from a neutral view and could interpret that he meant that the state of israel shouldn't be there in the first place. but again i was hoping that some one would enlighten me further.

Higher wrote: »

What has this got to do with Israel's relationship with Iran?

I see you are approaching it from the assumption that it is just about israel and iran. which it clearly isn't. America will always be heavily involved and the palestinians live there too, so they are even more involved. Any attack on israel will involve the deaths of thousands of palestinians even as collateral damage. why do you think the israelis have built all jewish towns scattered between all palestinian slums. It is the best form of human shields you can get, another deterrent if you will. If you don't understand that the palestinians and americans are involved in this situation too even by association then you will never understand the complexities of the situation imho.

Higher wrote: »

Firstly Israel aren't denying Iran anything based on religion, its purely to protect their own security. Secondly there is little doubt that Iran are indeed attempting to build a nuclear bomb and while they should be entitled to one in a fair and utopian world, it is not in the interest of stability in the Middle East and would result in a plethora of Sunni states acquiring their own Nuclear Weapons.

They are denying them the right to science. whilst they themselves have nuclear. pot kettle and black springs to mind. when has iran ever attacked another country in the past 300 years? the pro zionists kept on telling me israel only acts in self defense. why are they saying israel must attack first then ? The israelis have given iran weeks to destruct their nuclear plants or they will attack.

Iran will never attack israel first as they know if they did then the americans will be right in to protect their little brother and thus iran would risk their own destruction. again we need to inquire what makes israel so insecure in the first place especially with the yanks right behind them. If over 200 nuclear weapons and one of the biggest military superpowers in the world on your side doesn't give israel security then they have major mental problems.

Higher wrote: »

Back to Palestine on a thread supposed to be about Iran?

... why do you differentiate between palestine and israel. in irans eyes israel is occupying palestine. the two can never be separate imho. As i said i am trying to investigate things more and increase my understanding and ask question so i can then decide for myself and find some truth in it all.

I didn't wish this discussion to be a but you said, i said argument as it might be tedious for others to read. i was just curious to see peoples views and not get down to semantics especially when i'll admit i am not an expert on the situation. but i can still hopefully express an informed opinion despite my fairly limited knowledge. i am neither trying to convince people one way or the other and of course i'll respect the opinions of all.

there has long been an unwritten rule in this country to not talk about politics or religion as it can incite trouble. but i think by not talking about it can also lead us to where we currently find ourselves, in deep doo doo, especially in this country.

paddylanger

spank_inferno wrote: »

short answer is no.

The big world players wont want to duke-it-out with each other.

It could well be a proxy war of sorts, but similar to Vietnam, isolated to just that theatre.

i do hope its just all talk from both sides and no lives are lost.

i don't think america will want to ever get involved with another vietnam type scenario .

nyarlothothep

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nuclear exchange would only happen when those extreme circumstances have happened in the World. The middle east is a tinder box, but its very unlikely a nuclear exchange will occur there. Is their a potential yes, but Russia, and the USA have no interest in starting World War 3 anytime soon, i can tell you that.

World peace is likely to be more in threat when China outpaces the United States economically.

I'd be worried about Israel nuking Iran, that would be my main concern. I just don't see the point either of adding yet another war to the ME. It will just destabilise the region even further. Not to mention the human cost which can't be measured and which seems to be stubbornly ignored by politicians. It's a cliche, lost amongst the myriad of different personality types that inhabit this planet and who percieve things in a very different way with their radically divergent cognitive setups, but...can't we all just get along? I mean seriously, what would it cost apart from pride and a little bit of self interest in return for long term gain and an overall improvement of happiness and wellbeing in the world.

paddylanger

SamHarris wrote: »

Almost certainly not. Its incredibly difficult to see how this would escalate to the point where Russia, China, the US and the European states are all pulled in. Iran is very far from a close ally of anyone.

don't think thats correct. we just have to look at syria atm. russia and china are telling the americans to back off . precisely because of the ties between syria and iran. likewise china wants the oil from iran and has more interest in them and thier oil than america. plus they both don't want america to have any more power or control over the oil rich countries.

SamHarris wrote: »

If it feels like it is sufficiently threatened it will attack without American consent. It has a long history of, rightly or wrongly, defneding itself to the hilt. The chance of a nuclear Iran leaves very little room for equivocations.

again how is it defense if they attack first? in football fair enough attack is the best form of defense but in war one attack only leads to retaliation.

SamHarris wrote: »

It wouldnt unite Muslims against Israel, or more likely it would not unite Muslim states against it - anymore than they already are. Suadi, Qatar, Yemen and more all have a massive stake in Iran not attaining a weapon. They might well make noises about the "Zionist aggressor" but almost certainly no more.

It WOULD however push the Iranian people into further supporting the Iranian regime, as is always the case following an attack.

as i said above in the reply. i was paraphrasing what the pro zionists said to me. So was just seeing was this also the general consensus.

SamHarris wrote: »

So you believe they are lying that they actually believe they are a threat and looking for a nuclear weapon? Why would they strike the sites if they didnt? Just to cause mischief?

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan before and during the 9 11 attacks. They were planned there. The Taliban made no secret of their support for and harbouring of al Qaeda - they still dont.

i'm not sure what you meant here. Israel have stated that they will strike first. they have given weeks for iran to disarm all nuclear ability. not just nuclear bombs( cause they don't have any, so they say) but nuclear energy. if you think the only reason america went to Afghanistan was to find bin laden then you are very much mistaken in my view. but you can research that for yourself.

SamHarris wrote: »

Something tells me from your choice of language and position that you are very far from unbiased, or at least already have an entrenched position on the issue. Stating thing like "The Israeli apartheid state" indicates an already very politicised view of the conflict and region.

Zionism is the belief that Jews should have a homeland in that region and a state of their own. To be "anti" a particular groups right of self determination is an ideology that too many people are comfortable declaring themselves part of.

If you know that little about palestine then why are you commenting here? have a read of this ( http://www.bloggingisfree.com/2012/08/israel-fails-civil-rights-and-democracy.html ) then show why you believe it isn't an apartheid state? palestinians are not allowed to use roads (some are for jews only) and palestinians are denied basic human rights. the facts are there for all to see. if thats not apartheid then i dunno what is.

Regarding " To be "anti" a particular groups right of self determination is an ideology that too many people are comfortable declaring themselves part of"

.... exactly shouldn't the palestinians have had a right for self determination before the british gave their country to the israeli's. I believe that i am destined to marry angelina jolie and we will live happy ever after. it doesnt mean it will happen and can be a dangerous belief too, in that if i then decide to take brad out of the equation because of my initial belief, after all it is my destiny. you would say i was mad and you would be dead right. but never the less those were my beliefs and i am sure you could see how dangerous beliefs can be. ( disclaimer ... i don't believe i will marry angelina jolie, a quick fling would do, )

SamHarris wrote: »

Its not just religion - there is an incredibly strong ethnic component to the conflict. Anti -semitism (indeed rascism in general) is rampant in Arab states - to the point where 99% of Yemenis polled expressed a negative view of jews. There is also a cultural clash. It is an incredibly complex conflict.

The president of Iran and various officials are near constant in their confrontational rhetoric. Even if that particular quote is mis interpreted and misreprented (which it seems to be) there is more than enough statements and actions by both sides for them to be considered strong enemies of each other.

Yes i agree that their seems to be long term issues. but no worse than northern ireland to be fair. Especially those on the receiving end of constant racism and discrimination. Most people are willing to sacrifice themselves for their families sake and hence why suicide bombing is seen as doing something good for their families. they see it as a way to help their families and ease the oppression. i'm not saying its right but most people will do anything to try to protect their loved ones even if it costs their own lives.

SamHarris wrote: »

British colonialsm has played a massive part in creating todays situation but if you can boil it down to that - and this goes for every conflicy/issue the world over - you dont know enough / your willfully ignoring any number of factors.

I am here to try to inquire and have honest debate and try to learn something. i openly admit i don't know the full story and to my shame have never really considered it properly untill recently.

SamHarris wrote: »

It makes perfect sense - there is no rule saying one state must deal with another state, elections or no. Hamas' positions are sufficiently radical for any reasonable person to at least ackowledge the right of another state to refuse to deal with them.

That the US/Israel's position is, at the very least, unhelpful and perpetuates the conflict is undeniable, however.

you miss the point. the americans and israelis forced their version of democracy on the palestinians and then when they did vote they were told they got it wrong. something is either democratic or not.

if the british and irish refused to deal with sinn fein/ IRA then where would we be now. but i agree it is unhelpful and thus very confusing for the palestinians . Also very foolish from the americans and israel because after a while the palestinians could have decided feck that and like we constantly do with FF and FG ,call for a change. Given enough of a chance hamas could have been their own worst enemy. but denying them their democratic rights only furthers their cause and makes the usa/isr seem all the more unreasonable.

SamHarris wrote: »

They, and the international community, have to recognise their right to civilian nuclear energy. However the IAEA, US and assorted others are very much opposed to the manner in which Iran pursues it. Infractions include hiding nuclear facilities and equipment and not allowing IAEA full access to said facilities. Every country under international law must adhere to certain rules when dealing with this technology, for extremely good reasons, Iran refuses to do so.

I think you will find that america, britain and israel also deny iaea the same things. so iran is just copying them. again why should iran do different when the same standard don't apply to others..

SamHarris wrote: »

You may be a pacisift but no country is. Indeed, there is a powerful argument that no government could or even should be - a states first and most important priority is to defend its own citizens. You may argue that in individual cases there are better ways of doing so, but a state cannot "turn the other cheek" when its people are directly threatened and or harmed (thats not a statement regarding this particular situation).

.. i agree with you. but i assume you said that from the israel point of view, forgive me if you didn't. . if you read it from an iranian point of view the same also is true. but i do agree with you 100%. hence why i want to learn more about it all and filter the propaganda from the truth. they main reason i am investigating it all is the almost vicious response i got from some of the pro israel side on the other site and i thought something wasn't quiet right.

So if i do have tendencies as i believe i said i was leaning towards anti zionist was because of they way they considered any discussion at all, is all of a sudden anti jew. which i am definitely not. i am more pro human being regardless of race or religion. chances are i will never visit iran or israel/ palestine but when nuclear weapons are involved it is my planet too like its yours and everyone else's. so we do have the right to be concerned.

golden lane

never let facts get in the way of a good war......history tells us that most conflicts are based on assumptions,,not facts...

if israel feels threatened, it will act. nobody can stop that....

paddylanger

plasmaguy wrote: »

An attack on Iranian facilities is probably going to happen in the next few months anyways as all the signs are the Iranians are hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons which cannot be a good thing for the entire region. They hate Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel to name just a few countries, basically anyone who isn't Shia.

Whether it happens before or after the US Presidential elections, who knows. Obama is loath to get the US involved in anything in the middle east while in office and that includes both Syria and Iran.

Iranians seem to be itching for a fight with Israel and might just get their wish next year. As for the Russians and Chinese getting involved, I doubt it, so it probably won't lead to WW3.

Why do you say that the iranians are hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons?

when every time they deny this. indeed if they are telling the truth, it is an insult in their eyes that we would not believe them. what reason have we not to believe them? as far as i know the only governments that have lied to us before have been america and britain. these are what the facts and what history shows us.

i agree that the american elections are being used to pile pressure on the americans to find a solution.

we'd have to agree to disagree about iranians iching for a fight . All the reports are currently about israel striking first.

paddylanger

golden lane wrote: »

never let facts get in the way of a good war......history tells us that most conflicts are based on assumptions,,not facts...

if israel feels threatened, it will act. nobody can stop that....

i do agree with you but america does control the airspace over iraq . we could see a strange situation where americans will shoot down israeli planes. unlikely but it could happen.

iran has numerous nuclear plants spread all over the country. so to destroy them all in an attack would mean out right war and invasion of iran imho.

golden lane

paddylanger wrote: »

Why do you say that the iranians are hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons?

when every time they deny this. indeed if they are telling the truth, it is an insult in their eyes that we would not believe them. what reason have we not to believe them? as far as i know the only governments that have lied to us before have been america and britain. these are what the facts and what history shows us.

i agree that the american elections are being used to pile pressure on the americans to find a solution.

we'd have to agree to disagree about iranians iching for a fight . All the reports are currently about israel striking first.

the iranian government has vowed to wipe israel off the map.......

now....if i was an israeli, i wonder what i would do..?????

Chuck Stone

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

An attack on Iran is very real.

For the moment it's just posturing. We're discussing whether it will become 'real'.

I think they might wait, but don't anyone be surprised if they go it alone in next few weeks.

Israel's problem with attacking Iran is losing the support of the public in the US of which the majority are against the US getting involved in a war with Iran (in spite of the fawning corporate media).

maddragon

I've been following this for years as I spent alot of time in the ME and also have some Iranian friends. The amazing thing for me is that a strike against Iran has not taken place already. Mark my words, it will happen and in fact the Iranian leadership have held a conference recently where the Ayatollah stated that Iran would be at war in a matter of weeks. The consequences of a strike on Iran are many but some possible scenarios include massive rocket attacks on Israel from Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. Israeli retaliation will be very heavy and unless the US gets involved, we could have full scale regional conflict in the ME, sky high oil prices and worldwide economic depression.
http://www.debka.com/article/22229/Khamenei-Warns-Iran’s-Top-Leaders-WAR-IN-WEEKS

golden lane

paddylanger wrote: »

i do agree with you but america does control the airspace over iraq . we could see a strange situation where americans will shoot down israeli planes. unlikely but it could happen.

iran has numerous nuclear plants spread all over the country. so to destroy them all in an attack would mean out right war and invasion of iran imho.

i have a feeling that israel will threaten to do something, if the rest of the world (mainly the usa) does nothing.....

decisions by people who are not in danger, tend to be completely different to those who are.....

and all of us armchair warriors have no right to say if it is right or wrong...

paddylanger

golden lane wrote: »

the iranian government has vowed to wipe israel off the map.......

now....if i was an israeli, i wonder what i would do..?????

Again it is open to interpretation, especially if iran sees israel as an occupation of palestine. Hence there is no israel to begin with in their eyes.

Iran knows that they cannot literally blow up israel . because all the force of america would retaliate against Iran. they are not foolish enough to think they could just blow up israel and get away with it. Do you think they hate israel more than their own lives and culture? of course they don't.

plus why would iran kill all the Palestinians too.

paddylanger

golden lane wrote: »

i have a feeling that israel will threaten to do something, if the rest of the world (mainly the usa) does nothing.....

decisions by people who are not in danger, tend to be completely different to those who are.....

and all of us armchair warriors have no right to say if it is right or wrong...

can the planet survive 200 nuclear bombs going off? And thats just israel!

its our planet too no matter what the rest of the world thinks. so indeed we do have a say in what happens to the planet. otherwise the only thing left could be curiosity probe on mars....

paddylanger

maddragon wrote: »

I've been following this for years as I spent alot of time in the ME and also have some Iranian friends. The amazing thing for me is that a strike against Iran has not taken place already. Mark my words, it will happen and in fact the Iranian leadership have held a conference recently where the Ayatollah stated that Iran would be at war in a matter of weeks. The consequences of a strike on Iran are many but some possible scenarios include massive rocket attacks on Israel from Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. Israeli retaliation will be very heavy and unless the US gets involved, we could have full scale regional conflict in the ME, sky high oil prices and worldwide economic depression.
http://www.debka.com/article/22229/Khamenei-Warns-Iran’s-Top-Leaders-WAR-IN-WEEKS

yeah thats what got me concerned. israel has also said war within weeks.

Presidential elections in america is also having an influence.

its a scary game of poker coz if both sides go ALL in then we are all in deep trouble...

golden lane

paddylanger wrote: »

can the planet survive 200 nuclear bombs going off? And thats just israel!

its our planet too no matter what the rest of the world thinks. so indeed we do have a say in what happens to the planet. otherwise the only thing left could be curiosity probe on mars....

well, if i was an israeli....and a country threatened to wipe me off the map...would i be concerned about what other people thought.....

our presumed life or death situation......and israels real life or death situation......who has the right..????

paddylanger

golden lane wrote: »

well, if i was an israeli....and a country threatened to wipe me off the map...would i be concerned about what other people thought.....

our presumed life or death situation......and israels real life or death situation......who has the right..????

Name one country Iran has attacked ? they have never done it before in the last 300 years.

Also it is not a real life or death situation for the israeli's yet! their fear is as hypothetical as ours.

Reality is that palestinians are being murdered , women and children.

Only last week an israeli sniper received a 45 DAYS. yes days, sentence for killing 2 palestinian women who were holding a white flag at the time. that is the reality...

they plea bargained from murder, to manslaughter to finally " illegal use of a weapon" hence the 45 day sentence..... these are facts and have happened not idle threats.

Going to war based on what someone said is the worst reason to go to war imho.

RobbingBandit

Where would Turkey come into this equation, given their unresolved issues with Isreal and the fact that they share a boarder with Iran.

golden lane

paddylanger wrote: »

Name one country Iran has attacked ? they have never done it before in the last 300 years.

Also it is not a real life or death situation for the israeli's yet! their fear is as hypothetical as ours.

Reality is that palestinians are being murdered , women and children.

Only last week an israeli sniper received a 45 DAYS. yes days, sentence for killing 2 palestinian women who were holding a white flag at the time. that is the reality...

they plea bargained from murder, to manslaughter to finally " illegal use of a weapon" hence the 45 day sentence..... these are facts and have happened not idle threats.

Going to war based on what someone said is the worst reason to go to war imho.

and in my opinion also......but i am not threatened.....


as far as i'm concerned, there never should have been an israeli state...and i do not agree with that state....

but there is, and i don't know what the israeli's know....i only know that a religeous nutter that runs iran.....has threatened to wipe israel off the map....if the israeli's believe that, then for their own safety, if they believe that is threatened....they must act first......second is too late.....

Chuck Stone

golden lane wrote: »

.i only know that a religeous nutter that runs iran.....has threatened to wipe israel off the map.

Not quite.

*Regime over Jerusalem (the political doctrine of Zionism) from the pages of time.

paddylanger

golden lane wrote: »

and in my opinion also......but i am not threatened.....


as far as i'm concerned, there never should have been an israeli state...and i do not agree with that state....

but there is, and i don't know what the israeli's know....i only know that a religeous nutter that runs iran.....has threatened to wipe israel off the map....if the israeli's believe that, then for their own safety, if they believe that is threatened....they must act first......second is too late.....

Is he that much of a nutter though, risk losing his own power and nation?

even if he is surely the whole iranian population are not as bad as him. would we like to risk war based on statements enda kenny made ? maybe i am just in a phase of questioning everything because its hard to know who to believe any more. propaganda from both sides. unfortunately we probably have a better understanding of american ideals and tv and thus more exposed to their line of thinking.

i did watch his statement to the UN when the americans walked out after he called for an independent inquiry into 9-11. Saying there was rumours that the USA had been involved directly that needed to be cleared up. especially since as a direct result of 911 the wars in iraq and Afghanistan happened and the tragic lose of life as a result.

However i also know of many americans that also wanted an independent inquiry and also think their own government was involved. so he is not alone in that regard. but then the media calls them conspiracy nuts......

indeed 40% of american voters think the world is less than 10,000 years old and the only reason dinosaurs don't' exist today is because noahs ark wasn't big enough for them all.

Again i'm just trying to tease things out and trying to inquire and hopefully see valid reasons for all points of views.

Duiske

golden lane wrote: »

the iranian government has vowed to wipe israel off the map.......

now....if i was an israeli, i wonder what i would do..?????

Maybe find a translator who could tell you what the Iranians actually said ?????

Israeli Minister Agrees Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel ‘Must Be Wiped Off the Map’

SamHarris

paddylanger wrote: »

don't think thats correct. we just have to look at syria atm. russia and china are telling the americans to back off . precisely because of the ties between syria and iran. likewise china wants the oil from iran and has more interest in them and thier oil than america. plus they both don't want america to have any more power or control over the oil rich countries.
.

Big difference between posturing and actually going to war the US.

paddylanger wrote: »

again how is it defense if they attack first? in football fair enough attack is the best form of defense but in war one attack only leads to retaliation.

Pre emptive strikes are a well established defensive military strategy. You could maybe argue if an attack is pre emptive in nature, that the attacked state had no intention of attacking to begin with, however once the intended aggression of a state is established a pre emptive strike is both permitted under international law and militarily a far perferable strategy to waiting and retaliating.

paddylanger wrote: »

i'm not sure what you meant here. Israel have stated that they will strike first. they have given weeks for iran to disarm all nuclear ability. not just nuclear bombs( cause they don't have any, so they say) but nuclear energy. if you think the only reason america went to Afghanistan was to find bin laden then you are very much mistaken in my view. but you can research that for yourself. .

I mean there is an obvious contradiction in your postition - that Israel is both intentionaly inflating (and perhaps outright lying) about Irans nuclear ambitions and is hell bent on striking at Iran's facilities. One clearly precludes the other.

Unless, of course, your position is that they are pushing for a strike merely because they are annoyed at Iran advancing in civilian nuclear technology. That, however, does not have a rational basis and would require real evidence.

If you do not believe 9 11 and the threat of more attacks was the premier reason for the Afghan war then Ill let you discuss it on the CT forum yourself, its an ideology for people of this position - not open to rational debate and I dont have any intention of discussing it.

paddylanger wrote: »

If you know that little about palestine then why are you commenting here? have a read of this ( http://www.bloggingisfree.com/2012/08/israel-fails-civil-rights-and-democracy.html ) then show why you believe it isn't an apartheid state? palestinians are not allowed to use roads (some are for jews only) and palestinians are denied basic human rights. the facts are there for all to see. if thats not apartheid then i dunno what is..

Merely drawing attention to the fact that your assertion that you did not have a position on the subject yet was and is clearly complete BS.

If you want to open a thread discussing what the definniton of an Apartheid state is, and whether or not Israel is one, then knock yourself out. Really has little to do with this discussion.

paddylanger wrote: »

Regarding " To be "anti" a particular groups right of self determination is an ideology that too many people are comfortable declaring themselves part of"

lol.... exactly shouldn't the palestinians have had a right for self determination before the british gave their country to the israeli's. I believe that i am destined to marry angelina jolie and we will live happy ever after. it doesnt mean it will happen and can be a dangerous belief too, in that if i then decide to take brad out of the equation because of my initial belief, after all it is my destiny. you would say i was mad and you would be dead right. but never the less those were my beliefs and i am sure you could see how dangerous beliefs can be. ( disclaimer ... i don't believe i will marry angelina jolie, a quick fling would do, )..

I agree, Palestinians to should have a right to self determination. I, however, do not express the clearly hypocritical view that one group should whilst claiming to be "anti" the proponents of another groups rights to the same statehood.

Dont really care about your beliefs towards Aneglina and Brad.

paddylanger wrote: »

Yes i agree that their seems to be long term issues. but no worse than northern ireland to be fair. Especially those on the receiving end of constant racism and discrimination. Most people are willing to sacrifice themselves for their families sake and hence why suicide bombing is seen as doing something good for their families. they see it as a way to help their families and ease the oppression. i'm not saying its right but most people will do anything to try to protect their loved ones even if it costs their own lives.

If you want to argue that Arabs in the area have a right to unarguably rascist views then start a thread about it. Here it is merely another red herring.

paddylanger wrote: »

you miss the point. the americans and israelis forced their version of democracy on the palestinians and then when they did vote they were told they got it wrong. something is either democratic or not..

No, you miss the point - a country is not and will never be obligated to act in a certain way towards another purely because it is democratic ( we will leave arguing about whether a nation is democratic purely because they voted out of it).

The US and Israel's position on Hamas and their government is a reaction to their declared genocidal intent. Whether they are voted in
are not is irrelevant.

paddylanger wrote: »

if the british and irish refused to deal with sinn fein/ IRA then where would we be now. but i agree it is unhelpful and thus very confusing for the palestinians . Also very foolish from the americans and israel because after a while the palestinians could have decided feck that and like we constantly do with FF and FG ,call for a change. Given enough of a chance hamas could have been their own worst enemy. but denying them their democratic rights only furthers their cause and makes the usa/isr seem all the more unreasonable.

Another red herring - if you want to argue that it would be a more effective position then start a thread.

paddylanger wrote: »

I think you will find that america, britain and israel also deny iaea the same things. so iran is just copying them. again why should iran do different when the same standard don't apply to others..

The US and the UK are not bound by the same laws in this regard.

Any nation could certainly push for Israel to be punished in the same way as Iran.

As to your question, because there is no equivallency in international politics. You could try and argue morally that every nation is equal (though it would be tough) but with regard to international law, politics and proliferation it is certainly not true that the same standard could or should be placed on every nation.

paddylanger wrote: »

lol.... i agree with you. but i assume you said that from the israel point of view, forgive me if you didn't. . if you read it from an iranian point of view the same also is true. but i do agree with you 100%. hence why i want to learn more about it all and filter the propaganda from the truth. they main reason i am investigating it all is the almost vicious response i got from some of the pro israel side on the other site and i thought something wasn't quiet right.

I argue it from any point of view.

With regard to propoganda that is why it is so imporant for an independant body like the IAEA to be allowed to investigate sites for themselves. When a nation that is adamant about its peaceful intentions does not allow it the implication is very clear that they have something to hide.

paddylanger wrote: »

So if i do have tendencies as i believe i said i was leaning towards anti zionist was because of they way they considered any discussion at all, is all of a sudden anti jew. which i am definitely not. i am more pro human being regardless of race or religion. chances are i will never visit iran or israel/ palestine but when nuclear weapons are involved it is my planet too like its yours and everyone else's. so we do have the right to be concerned.

Every argument of this kind leads to similiar accusations - Islamophobia is the buzzword for the other side. The fact is, however, that both sides do have people with both tendencies that are the most voracious opponents of the other. The accusations may be without merit in an individual case, but certainly have some traction given the larger debate.

From a "human" stand point it is abundantly clear that nuclear proliferation is the very worst outcome. If Iran were to aquire a weapon, it is perdicted that other states in the region will seek to get their own. Iran's (non existant) right to privacy pales completly in this regard. The onus is and has been on them for years to allow full access to the IAEA - if they are telling the truth then the causus beli of Israel dissapears. It really is that simple. The problem is they almost certainly are weaponising their program - they now claim they need even more refined uranium for other purposes. Really if people cant see the very clear evidence at this stage they are being wilfully dishonest.

Higher

paddylanger wrote: »

lol... Do you honestly believe that without america, israel will attempt anything? especially as i said iran views america and israel as one and the same in many ways.

Whats so funny? You obviously display a profound lack of understanding about politics in America to believe that Israel will even bat an eye lid towards America's wishes. Israel will do what it wants because the Israeli lobby in America will ensure that US politicians will support Israel's actions no matter what. There is little doubt that the US government is requesting that Israel refrain from attacking Iran but believe me, if Israel feels itself threatened that won't matter a jot.

Can america afford to go toe to toe with iran especially when iran has support from both russia and china.

The support Iran gets from Russia and China isn't overly significant. Secondly, America is more than capable of going toe to toe with China as its increased presence in the South China Sea is indicating. In regards to Russia, the Libyan 'no fly zone' showed that America has no issues with standing up to Russia. Georgia was probably a step too far but if the question is whether America is hesistant because of limited support from two weaker powers then the answer is a resounding no.

why do you think both russia and china are also blocking americas attempts to intervene in syria?

Because they have a veto vote in the UN. I would have thought that was obvious.

there are many american politicians, advisors that don't even want to touch iran because they can't afford to and also because in reality they have no reason to.

American politicians are hesistant about Syria because theres strong evidence of extremist Sunni groups who are vying for power there. Theres also the small matter that Israel supported the continued presence of Assad. The US is simply hedging its bets, there are a number of factors to consider in such a volatile region. Considering how many weapons fell into the hands of AQAP after Libya and considering the plethora of chemical weapons Syria has, The US needs to extraordinarily careful about who it backs if it does indeed decide to back them through military assistance.

However that said, the 'aid' being funneled through Turkey and the Gulf States could already be weapons in the same way that America funneled 'aid' through Pakistan during the Afghan Russian war.

weaken maybe. but in irans case the economic sanctions are putting an awful lot of pressure on the iranian people. it looks like america is hoping for an uprising from inside iran and are just biding time for that to happen.

Well at least you got something right Not a bad strategy at all.

Pat Buchanan said recently that the situation between america and russia during the cold war was a hundred times worse that any situation between iran and america. He mentioned that america does not fear Iran and has no reason to.

I never said America fears Iran.

Nuclear is always a deterrent and at worst that is what it should be. i still don't understand why the right of a country to use science is a reason for attack. Iran has stated many times they have no intension of making bombs. it is purely for energy resources. Most of irans wealth comes from selling oil. if they have nuclear then they can sell more oil. Oil that the chinese are desperate for. hence chinas interest in iran.

There is no way that so many states would agree to sanctions against Iran that hurt their own economies as well as Irans unless there were credible reports that Iran intends to build a bomb. It would be extraordinarily naive to believe that Iran isn't trying to acquire the bomb. Nothing wrong with that, its in Iran's interest to acquire the bomb. But then its also in the interest of America and Israel to prevent it.

you mention stability but surely the fact that israel has 200 - 300 nuclear bombs is also creating and enhancing that instability. whats good for the goose is good for the gander except that ducks don't need nuclear..... hopefully.

So you believe that a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race is a good thing? Good Lord.

lol...so where was the big announcement when they found the WMD's? It is a well known fact that the intelligence report and final excuse to go into iraq was a fabrication....

I never said they found WMDs, I said they believed that Saddam still had them. No need to 'lol' because you are misinformed on history. Perhaps do some reading, you might discover that America actually supplied Saddam with WMDs during a conflict called the Iran Iraq War.

By the way, what would you call the weapons used in Halabya?

so you have the proof that the rest of the world was looking for that it was Iraq that caused 9-11?

Where did I say Iraq caused 911? Are you really resorting to misrepresenting me to try improve your misinformed anti US ranting?

..... Regarding bin laden are you serious? if a man of his means knew the americans were coming to Afghanistan to look for him the first thing any intelligent person would do is get out of there. Bin laden might have been a loon but he wasn't stupid. America go into Afghanistan in 2001 and bin laden found in pakistan in 2011. Some game of hide n seek then.

America certainly believed OBL would be hiding in the mountains in Afghanistan. They also believed that OBL could be in Pakistan in the NWP. The Taliban weren't going to comply with America's request so America went to Afghanistan themselves to overthrow a regime that harboured and actually supported OBL. The Americans believed that the Pakistani's would do their uptmost to search for OBL as well. There were always going to only be two places where OBL would be and that was either Afghanistan or Pakistan.

By the way, a man of OBL's means? I once again think you need to do a bit more reading. OBL was more or less bankrupt after his misadventures in Sudan and had been ex communicated from his family.

why do you think iran has a problem with israel in the first place. the fact that people that they see as brothers of sorts are being treated like second class citizens. they certainly use it as an excuse to throw at israel. hence why israel feels so intimidated and hence announcing that they will attack first.

Iran isn't overly concerned about the plight of Palestinians its just a convenient situation for Iran to criticise Israel for.

Israel doesn't feel intimidated by Iran's criticism about the Palestinian situation resulting in them wanting to attack...now thats an LOL. Israel is intimidated by a competing power in its region getting more and more assertive.

Israel continually says that the reason for all the walls and compounds is to protect their citizens from attacks. refusing to sort out the palestinian issue is one of the main reason for those attacks. Any oppressed people will eventually fight back. its human nature.

You're going off on a tangent again. If you want to discuss the Palestinian situation then start another thread because let me tell you, the plight of the Palestinians has next to no bearing on Israel's relationship with Iran.

there was a time when jews, christians and muslims all lived there together in harmony and as i said less than 15% of muslims are persians or arabs. So religion is once again being used as an excuse but it cannot be the problem. again i don't understand what else would iran have to clash with israel over apart form the occupation and their treatment of the palestinians.

Religion has nothing to do with Israel and Iran's relationship. The tension is solely down to regional power.

Any attack on israel will involve the deaths of thousands of palestinians even as collateral damage. why do you think the israelis have built all jewish towns scattered between all palestinian slums. It is the best form of human shields you can get, another deterrent if you will

Once again you're utterly wrong. Israel aren't building settlements amongst Palestinians so that Arab nations will be discouraged from attack Israel and killing their fellow Muslims, they are building settlements amongst Palestinians to diffuse the Palestinian population and take more land from them.

If you don't understand that the palestinians and americans are involved in this situation too even by association then you will never understand the complexities of the situation imho.

Once again you're resorting to misrepresenting me. I never said America wasn't involved in this situation, I simply said Israel will attack Iran with or without America's permission. This is because Israel knows that despite the rejections of the US admin, Israel can count on its lobby in America to ensure the American govt will be forced into action to support Israel.

Although I stand by my comments that the Palestinian issue has nothing to do with Iran and Israel's current predicament.

again we need to inquire what makes israel so insecure in the first place

I would have thought that was obvious, a secondary school history student could even answer that one.

lol... why do you differentiate between palestine and israel. in irans eyes israel is occupying palestine. the two can never be separate imho. As i said i am trying to investigate things more and increase my understanding and ask question so i can then decide for myself and find some truth in it all.

The Palestine issue does not even figure remotely on Iran's agenda with Israel outside of rhetoric.

SamHarris

Higher wrote: »

I never said they found WMDs, I said they believed that Saddam still had them. No need to 'lol' because you are misinformed on history. Perhaps do some reading, you might discover that America actually supplied Saddam with WMDs during a conflict called the Iran Iraq War.

By the way, what would you call the weapons used in Halabya?

The rest of your post was good but the suppliers of chemical weapons to Iraq were (variously and in order of amount) Singapore, The Netherlands, Egypt, India and West Germany. It is an urban myth that it was the US military. Some US chemical companies may have sold precursor chemicals, however the amounts pale in comparison to these states.

Brian_Zeluz

Whatever happens I'm siding with my buddy Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Cheerful Spring

Chuck Stone wrote: »

For the moment it's just posturing. We're discussing whether it will become 'real'.



Israel's problem with attacking Iran is losing the support of the public in the US of which the majority are against the US getting involved in a war with Iran (in spite of the fawning corporate media).

I don't think so i don't remember a time when it has been as heated as this. The recent headlines in the last few months tend to support the conclusion a strike against Iran is real possibility unlike before.

Isreal nation is divided about attacking Iran. Some of it citizens are not in favor. But the decision to attack at the end of the day is made by the government. The prime minister Netanyahu and Barak vice president are in favor of a strike this year.

Cheerful Spring

Brian_Zeluz wrote: »

Whatever happens I'm siding with my buddy Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Iran regime is not popular its not supported by the masses in Iran. The poor and middle class detest the Ayatollah regime. So supporting it your not supporting the people who want change and freedom.

paddylanger

As i already said in one of my earlier posts i have no wish for a you said, i said.... i never said that, you never said that type discussion with both "Higher" and "samharris".

Despite the fact i could respond to each statement and show you why my view would differ and indeed add the facts that would support my view. you are entitled to your opinions and i am mine.

I do find it unbelievable how ye manage to make personal attack on my views. saying i am wrong. misinformed, lack knowledge....e.t.c

When neither of ye have come up with any facts just hearsay on your own opinions.

We could go round in a circle and make this thread very boring for everyone else. but that was not the reason i started this thread.

I was searching for Facts. In a trial with a jury the verdict and judgement is based on the facts of a case. not hearsay. so if ye have anything to add please furnish us with evidence and don't continue to spout the propaganda from one side only.

I got accused of being as obvious as a secondary school kids when i said i wanted to inquire. Do ye even know what inquire means? both of ye seem to have made up your minds and are no longer inquiring or indeed willing to question your own beliefs. which as i pointed out is a very dangerous position to hold .

If ye know all the facts then what are ye doing here. why are ye not over there giving both the israeli's, palestinians, americans and iranians the facts that ye know? making them see sense.

Ye both seem to have a limited view of the whole topic and yet ye proclaim ye are right and everyone else is wrong. I could add that the reason that ye think like ye both do is because ye have stopped inquiring and accepted snippets of information ye know as facts and thus fallen for the propaganda because of your lack of inquiry.

when i started this discussion i wanted to find out more information about it all and i have stated that many times. i will be first to admit i don't know everything. shame ye won't do the same.

If ye'r beliefs that palestine has nothing to do with this situation then it precludes ye from discussing it anything further. if there will be a war, it will be in Palestine and Iran. So to say it has nothing to do with palestine is wrong. this is a fact not an opinion.

i have shown information and i can give more which display that Israel is an apartheid state. You might disagree and you are entitled to. but that doesn't change the facts. If you have proof that it isn't then share them. i can deal with facts and not your own personal theories or beliefs with no evidence to support them......

if ye wish instead to make ye'r own statement instead of trying to discredit others then please do. but endless posts of quotes especially with out any facts to back them up are pointless imho.

However dismissing things as red herrings because you don't wish to discuss that topic e.t.c on displays your own lack of inquiry and that is something i cannot help ye with. Also turning questions i asked and insinuating them as quotes also is something ye need to figure out for yourselfs.

MY last question to both of ye . just to make sure ye get of the fence. If ye don't believe israel is an apartheid state then explain this news report from 4 days ago.

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/israeli-sniper-given-less-two-months-killing-palestinian-women?fb_action_ids=4544456175512&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

If ye agree with it as just a consequence of war or indeed value palestinian life so cheaply then i am not interested in anything else ye might have to say but feel free to post for others benefit... i for one won't waste my time pointing out where i think ye are misguided and trying to back what i think up with evidence.

but ye cannot tell me that this has nothing to do with palestine while stuff like this goes on.

Higher

paddylanger wrote: »

Despite the fact i could respond to each statement and show you why my view would differ and indeed add the facts that would support my view. you are entitled to your opinions and i am mine.

Please do, that is the entire point of a discussion.

I do find it unbelievable how ye manage to make personal attack on my views. saying i am wrong. misinformed, lack knowledge....e.t.c

You did state some things that were wrong, that were misinformed and that displayed a lack of knowledge on certain issues. This was pointed out in instances where you had replied to my points with a big 'LOL' thrown in. Quite smug for a poster who himself admitted he didn't know much.

When neither of ye have come up with any facts just hearsay on your own opinions.

I presented an abundance of facts. You have decided not to even try to challenge them and instead have gone off on a rant in this post all the while completely ignoring every point myself and samharris made.

We could go round in a circle and make this thread very boring for everyone else. but that was not the reason i started this thread.

I was searching for Facts. In a trial with a jury the verdict and judgement is based on the facts of a case. not hearsay. so if ye have anything to add please furnish us with evidence and don't continue to spout the propaganda from one side only.

It seems that when you get facts that didn't fit into your own beliefs you decided to throw your toys out of the pram.

I got accused of being as obvious as a secondary school kids when i said i wanted to inquire. Do ye even know what inquire means? both of ye seem to have made up your minds and are no longer inquiring or indeed willing to question your own beliefs. which as i pointed out is a very dangerous position to hold .

So because we disagree with you that means were close minded?

Ye both seem to have a limited view of the whole topic and yet ye proclaim ye are right and everyone else is wrong.

Once again, we have a limited view because we disagree with you?

I could add that the reason that ye think like ye both do is because ye have stopped inquiring and accepted snippets of information ye know as facts and thus fallen for the propaganda because of your lack of inquiry.

Ah right, so because we have an alternative view then we must simply be victims of propaganda :rolleyes:

when i started this discussion i wanted to find out more information about it all and i have stated that many times. i will be first to admit i don't know everything. shame ye won't do the same.

Care to point out where either of us said we knew everything? Its a shame you can't have an actual debate without having a fit when someone disagrees with you.

If ye'r beliefs that palestine has nothing to do with this situation then it precludes ye from discussing it anything further.

Did you not just accuse SamHarris and myself as being 'know it alls'? However you are now saying that because we disagree with you on a point we should be precluded from discussing it any further..

if there will be a war, it will be in Palestine and Iran. So to say it has nothing to do with palestine is wrong. this is a fact not an opinion.

Really? Show me the factual evidence then..

i have shown information and i can give more which display that Israel is an apartheid state. You might disagree and you are entitled to. but that doesn't change the facts. If you have proof that it isn't then share them. i can deal with facts and not your own personal theories or beliefs with no evidence to support them......

Where did I disagree with the assertion that Israel is an apartheid state???

You (like many anti-US/Israeli people) seem to think that just because I'm not anti-US/Israel it must mean that I am an avid supporter of both countries. Unlike you, I am genuinely a neutral.

if ye wish instead to make ye'r own statement instead of trying to discredit others then please do. but endless posts of quotes especially with out any facts to back them up are pointless imho.

Oh O.K so you are allowed to openly mock my statements (by replying to them with comments like 'LOL') and even have the audacity to comment that myself and another poster should be precluded from the discussion because we disagree with your beliefs, but we can't even debate the points made by you?

MY last question to both of ye . just to make sure ye get of the fence. If ye don't believe israel is an apartheid state then explain this news report from 4 days ago.

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/israeli-sniper-given-less-two-months-killing-palestinian-women?fb_action_ids=4544456175512&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

You're really showing your true colors. A nice attempt to paint the thread as a genuine inquiry into Israel-Iran relations when in reality all you've wanted is an Israeli-bashing thread. The Palestinian question is of no relevance to the potential coming conflict between Iran and Israel. It has everything to do with power dynamics and nuclear weapons. You keep bringing up the Palestine issue and talking about Israel being an apartheid state. This has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.

I believe that Israel engages in Apartheid practices, but then again where on earth did I say that I didn't? You just assumed that because I disagreed with you that I must be some kind of zionist who can see no wrong in Israel. To be perfectly honest I think it is you who is close minded.

but ye cannot tell me that this has nothing to do with palestine while stuff like this goes on.

I can and will. It has nothing to do with Palestine and everything to do with Iran's commitment to acquire nuclear weapons that would threaten the stranglehold Israel currently holds over its neighbors.

I am actually in disbelief that you stated a few posts back that Israel want to attack Iran because Iran criticizes Israel on its Palestine situation.

paddylanger

interesting view for those interested. although the title could have been phrased better. to me he makes sense anyways and i think my views expressed already would be echo'ed by his statements.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_jRTMFjwEo&feature=player_embedded

more about Uri Avnery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Avnery


Also, although haredi jews an interesting Doc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTmw9F9f-2c

probable not for any pro zionists posting here, but valuable words from an ex zionist Benjamin_H._Freedman worth a listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNs09FTU79Y

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_H._Freedman


Before i get flamed again for my anti zionist tendencies may i remind ye that all the people above are currently or were former jews.

So i am not anti american, i am not anti jew despite some remarks made towards me, my opinions don't different greatly from the jewish people above.


If people wish to point me in directions of other sources of information that expands my horizons in either direction i will take em under due consideration and be as objective as i always have been trying to be imho.

K-9

Less of the handbags please, keep your replies civil and we should have no problems.

JustinDee

paddylanger wrote: »

Name one country Iran has attacked ? they have never done it before in the last 300 years

Why do folk make out that Iran is alone in its intelligence and military operations outside its borders but the US (or whomever) is behind everyone else's?
While the 'attack Iran' argument is not going to convince many, neither is this delusional rubbish that Iran is a defenceless and innocent republic that acts alone and never provocatively.
Ffs.

paddylanger

Higher wrote: »

Whats so funny? You obviously display a profound lack of understanding about politics in America to believe that Israel will even bat an eye lid towards America's wishes. Israel will do what it wants because the Israeli lobby in America will ensure that US politicians will support Israel's actions no matter what. There is little doubt that the US government is requesting that Israel refrain from attacking Iran but believe me, if Israel feels itself threatened that won't matter a jot.

apologies for laughing at your comment, i now know that was wrong and i do apologize. please forgive me.

Higher wrote: »

Israel doesn't need permission from America

well this is certainly your opinion. you couldn't have possible gather my total understanding of american politics from 2 posts? yet you know i have a profound lack of it. Again making assumptions from limited information. it is a view of some jewish people that they need permission. watch the first video i posted and see what an ex member of israels parliament said. Does he lack understanding too? even though we both said the same thing?

Again you state that if israel feels it is threatened it will act. why is it threatened? the clip from the new york times interview the deputy minister says that they are talking Irans rhetoric seriously . yet you dismiss irans rhetoric regards palestine and israel? you can't have it both ways. the israelis believe the rhetoric and are prepared to attack first because of it. again your lack of understanding is being displayed or do you also disagree with what the israeli deputy minister says too? isn't he one of the people that will decide to attack or not?

Higher wrote: »

The support Iran gets from Russia and China isn't overly significant.

as i said already russia and china are telling america to stay out of syria. is this not significant behaviour for a friend of irans. if i need to explain the whole oil situation in middle east and the resources iran has, then we will be here all day. where is your evidence that china and russia are not prepared to support Iran or it is not significant. there is limited oil left in the world, we are already past peak oil. china are desperate for oil to keep their economy going and need it for their people . therefore i would say it has more than significant support for iran and its oil, unless you think the future of china isn't a concern for the chinese.

Higher wrote: »

Secondly, America is more than capable of going toe to toe with China as its increased presence in the South China Sea is indicating. In regards to Russia, the Libyan 'no fly zone' showed that America has no issues with standing up to Russia. Georgia was probably a step too far but if the question is whether America is hesistant because of limited support from two weaker powers then the answer is a resounding no.

what two weaker powers? russia and china? if you think that america would break a blockage consisting of russia and china then thats your opinion. Not a fact.

Higher wrote: »

Because they have a veto vote in the UN. I would have thought that was obvious.

so russian ships in syrian waters despite a un veto doesn't tell you anything. in any case a veto is not a reason for blocking americas attempts to intervene in syria it is the consequence of their logic.

Russia has sent a naval flotilla of seven warships led by an anti-submarine destroyer to its naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus. this isn't significant support? i wonder what they would do if they really meant business.

Higher wrote: »

American politicians are hesistant about Syria because theres strong evidence of extremist Sunni groups who are vying for power there. Theres also the small matter that Israel supported the continued presence of Assad.

From what i know america is arming the rebels in syria. Rebels who also consists of al-Qaeda members. So in effect america is now arming al-Qaeda and not for the first time. yet they are mortal enemies because of 9-11. now they are on the same side?

imho the only reason israel supported the pressence of assad is because they don't know what turmoil a new regime might have. A case of better the devil you know. But indeed its strange israel would support a known ally of Iran. who's side do you think syria will be on if assad stays in power?

Higher wrote: »

The US is simply hedging its bets, there are a number of factors to consider in such a volatile region. Considering how many weapons fell into the hands of AQAP after Libya and considering the plethora of chemical weapons Syria has, The US needs to extraordinarily careful about who it backs if it does indeed decide to back them through military assistance.

However that said, the 'aid' being funneled through Turkey and the Gulf States could already be weapons in the same way that America funneled 'aid' through Pakistan during the Afghan Russian war.

Again weapons are indeed being funneled as you put it but america doesn't seem to care that al-Qaeda are also getting their hands on those weapons. I suppose its convenient to forget that the rebels in syria have captured and threaten to execute the group of iranians they caught in syria. not hard to see what the rebels think of iran.

Higher wrote: »

Well at least you got something right Not a bad strategy at all.

this statement i find offensive because you imply that everything else i have said is wrong. yet i have managed to counter most of your opinions. it can be a terrible strategy if the iranian people don't revolt and especially if israel attacks iran first. you honestly believe that the iranian people will appreciate all the bombs coming raining on them and not re enforce their governments power and demand retaliation?.

Do you think Iran needs nuclear bombs to attack israel. their arsenal of non nuclear bombs can do as much damage if they wanted too.

Higher wrote: »

I never said America fears Iran.

And i never said you did! . see another example of your tit for tat nonsense i was on about. i repeated the views of pat buchanan who is getting on in years now but has intimate knowledge of america and its politics and indeed has his own opinions. the point i was making was that america has nothing to fear from iran. the only reason the would go to war is to back up israel. which i personally believe they will not do. that is my opinion, you can disagree if you like but it will not change the fact it is my opinion or make it any less valid.

Higher wrote: »

There is no way that so many states would agree to sanctions against Iran that hurt their own economies as well as Irans unless there were credible reports that Iran intends to build a bomb. It would be extraordinarily naive to believe that Iran isn't trying to acquire the bomb. Nothing wrong with that, its in Iran's interest to acquire the bomb. But then its also in the interest of America and Israel to prevent it.

credible reports that it intends to build a bomb? links please. the IAEA has stated that iran does not have nuclear bombs. they admitted they were concerned that some experiments could have a dual purpose and a path could lead to bombs. do you know something the IAEA doesn't? America doesn't believe they have nuclear bombs. Iran has said they don't have nuclear bombs. the only people that have said that iran has intentions to make bombs is Israel and you...... So where are the facts supporting your opinion?

Higher wrote: »

So you believe that a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race is a good thing? Good Lord.

where did i say this? i believe i said "whats good for the goose is good for the gander" . it is your biased opinion that has inferred i wanted a nuclear arms race. you have shown your true colours . any true peaceful orientated mind would have correctly inferred that if israel got rid of their arsenal of nuclear bombs then iran would not even consider nuclear bombs. it is israel that has started this proliferation. they are the one that have nuclear bombs. which is a fact. Not the fictional bombs you seem to think iran has.

Higher wrote: »

I never said they found WMDs, I said they believed that Saddam still had them. No need to 'lol' because you are misinformed on history. Perhaps do some reading, you might discover that America actually supplied Saddam with WMDs during a conflict called the Iran Iraq War.

By the way, what would you call the weapons used in Halabya?

again re read my post. what did i say? i asked you where was the big announcement when they found the WMD's?. i never even said you said they found WMD's . it was a question. there was no announcement because they didn't find any! yet you turn it into a accusation. how was i mis informed on history? you want me to do some reading yet you don't even read what i said in my post and come back at me with that attitude. Again you seem to infer i didn't know that america had sold weapons of mass destruction. i said iraq said there was none, hans blix n co couldn't find any. iraq was invaded and millions of lives lost and after it all it turned out there was no weapons of mass destruction. is any of this not true? or where was i misinformed?

So iraq had to be invaded to find out they were telling the truth. the people that lied was britain and america. i can't put it any simpler tbh.

Higher wrote: »

Where did I say Iraq caused 911? Are you really resorting to misrepresenting me to try improve your misinformed anti US ranting?

I asked you a question again that have you information that iraq caused 9-11? there was no weapons of mass destruction in iraq.... a lie we were told....which is a fact. and 9-11 was a catalyst for going to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. yet you come back at me with another question and accuse me of misrepresenting you to as you say "improve your misinformed anti US ranting"

i have no misinformed anti usa ranting. how do you know i am anti USA? again not even reading my posts yet fabricating not only what you perceive as accusations but then making a double error to presume i am anti-usa. or is anti zionist also anti USA in your world?

Also don't call my opinion a rant. its an opinion based on the facts that i know off. you can't even seem to read what i actually say and invent loads of things and make decisions based on your mis informed view.

Higher wrote: »

America certainly believed OBL would be hiding in the mountains in Afghanistan. They also believed that OBL could be in Pakistan in the NWP.

they also believed that there were WMD's in Iraq. Again actions arising out of beliefs. not facts. why didn't they invade pakistan too? why did they not bring OBL to trial? Why are those beliefs important to you yet when they say they don't believe that Iran has nuclear bombs you all of a sudden disregard their beliefs.

Higher wrote: »

Taliban weren't going to comply with America's request so America went to Afghanistan themselves to overthrow a regime that harboured and actually supported OBL. The Americans believed that the Pakistani's would do their uptmost to search for OBL as well. There were always going to only be two places where OBL would be and that was either Afghanistan or Pakistan.

well i could have told them that they would not have found him in Afghanistan. So the people of Afghanistan had to die because of america's beliefs? it is also obvious to unbiased people that pakistan were happy to take americas money and yet be not too bothered about searching for him themselves . Does america not know bribes n the like are rampant in pakistan. even in cricket. did they only go to pakistan when they believed he wasn't in Afghanistan?

Higher wrote: »

By the way, a man of OBL's means? I once again think you need to do a bit more reading. OBL was more or less bankrupt after his misadventures in Sudan and had been ex communicated from his family.

one of the most influential terrorists in the world and you think he was short of a few bob? suppose he built the compound in pakistan out of fresh air? didnt he have a private nurse. and a bunch of wives to feed. Why don't you think nobody noticed or would admit to have noticing him being around. like i said bribery is not something that never happens in pakistan. indeed please don't assume i am calling all pakistanis corrupt. because i am not.

Higher wrote: »

Iran isn't overly concerned about the plight of Palestinians its just a convenient situation for Iran to criticise Israel for.

well the rhetoric you don't want to believe is certainly rhetoric that the israeli government believes. which i think is the most important factor. wether you believe them or not is up to you.

Higher wrote: »

Israel doesn't feel intimidated by Iran's criticism about the Palestinian situation resulting in them wanting to attack...now thats an LOL. Israel is intimidated by a competing power in its region getting more and more assertive.

please listen to the israel deputy prime minister and his interview. He believes it and states iran are intimidating israel into action. yet you know better than the deputy prime minister of israel? why do you think Iran states Israel should not be there? Simple question and if you can answer with out mentioning the palestinians then hats off to you. yet these are the same palestinians you don't want to bring into this discussion. It doesn't matter what you want . what matters is the facts and what is. Israel believes it , iran believes it and palestinians believe it.

israel is worried about iran's strength and influence in the region . you are right. Again even the Israel deputy minister says they have no quarrel with iran or the iranians people. they have a problem with the policy of iran saying israel should not exist. why do iran say israel should not exist? because they are occupying palestine. enlighten me if i am wrong but please stick to facts and not your beliefs.

Higher wrote: »

You're going off on a tangent again. If you want to discuss the Palestinian situation then start another thread because let me tell you, the plight of the Palestinians has next to no bearing on Israel's relationship with Iran.

i'm going off on a tangent by talking about the palestinians. you are for some reason and i don't know why yet, refusing to stick to the points. dismissing what i say, the israelis say and iranians say because it doesn't suit you is no reason to accuse me of going off on tangent.

Higher wrote: »

let me tell you, the plight of the Palestinians has next to no bearing on Israel's relationship with Iran.

again you are entitled to your opinion but i am sick of repeating myself. the israelis, iranians and palestinians all admit it has a bearing, the only one that says it doesn't is you. Prove it to me. i have shown you facts. there is video's where Israelis are saying it has a bearing . yet we are all wrong because you believe otherwise. So tell me the facts and not just an unfounded opinion.

Higher wrote: »

Religion has nothing to do with Israel and Iran's relationship. The tension is solely down to regional power.

So the jews are not the one and only chosen people? they are only in palestine for the craic? the jews don't believe that the rest of us are gentiles and are doomed anyways. You stating religion has nothing to do with it doesn't make it true. As i said before there was a time when jews, christians and muslims all lived in palestine and respected each other. but that day is long gone. because of mans behaviours not because of the religions. but you you cannot dismiss religion out of hand. a jihad is a holy war. i suppose that has nothing to do with religion either?

Higher wrote: »

Once again you're utterly wrong. Israel aren't building settlements amongst Palestinians so that Arab nations will be discouraged from attack Israel and killing their fellow Muslims, they are building settlements amongst Palestinians to diffuse the Palestinian population and take more land from them.

i am not only wrong but utterly wrong? Facts please? a stupid comment to make. israel can have as much land as it wants . it takes what it wants when it wants. so it has nothing to do with not having all the jewish settlements in one place? or having muslims nearby so there will be collateral damage in case of any attack. if i am so utterly wrong then prove it. while i'll admit that your point is valid it does not make mine less so.

Higher wrote: »

Once again you're resorting to misrepresenting me. I never said America wasn't involved in this situation, I simply said Israel will attack Iran with or without America's permission. This is because Israel knows that despite the rejections of the US admin, Israel can count on its lobby in America to ensure the American govt will be forced into action to support Israel.

Although I stand by my comments that the Palestinian issue has nothing to do with Iran and Israel's current predicament.

first part i believe i have already addressed earlier and the second part i have already address earlier and if indeed you have come up with an honest response you will have addressed your self. by the time you get to this part.

I just point out that i did not misrepresent you when i said that "If you don't understand that the palestinians and americans are involved in this situation too even by association then you will never understand the complexities of the situation imho."

it is my opinion . how all of a sudden are you misrepresented? i don't understand....

Higher wrote: »

I would have thought that was obvious, a secondary school history student could even answer that one.

i said " we need to inquire what makes israel so insecure in the first place"

and you come back with a response like that.stating the obvious . the obvious is the issue of the palestinians. yet you refuse to even let them into the discussion. why what have you against them? either you are winding me up or have serious issues with them. i don't know or don't care frankly. but don't be so flippant with a response like that till you explain yourself and back it up with facts.

tell me what makes israel so insecure in the first place? enlighten me!

Higher wrote: »

The Palestine issue does not even figure remotely on Iran's agenda with Israel outside of rhetoric.

the same rhetoric that the israeli deputy prime minister it telling the world they are taking seriously. i am glad that you can dismiss it so easily. ring him up n tell him he is wrong. of course coz you know better.

What part of illegal occupation do you not understand? irans view that israel should not be there and you seem to be so dismissive about it!

golden lane

Duiske wrote: »

Maybe find a translator who could tell you what the Iranians actually said ?????

Israeli Minister Agrees Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel ‘Must Be Wiped Off the Map’

not interested in the actual words.....only interesrted in what israel thinks........that is what people act on.....they don't consult forums......

Brian_Zeluz

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Iran regime is not popular its not supported by the masses in Iran. The poor and middle class detest the Ayatollah regime. So supporting it your not supporting the people who want change and freedom.

My point was I'll support whoever is against Israel. I'm not arguing whether the regime represents the populous, that would belong in a different thread.

Duiske

golden lane wrote: »

not interested in the actual words.....only interesrted in what israel thinks........that is what people act on.....they don't consult forums......

You obviously are interested in the words if you are willing to quote them as fact.

paddylanger

SamHarris wrote: »

Big difference between posturing and actually going to war the US.

Likewise the exact same thing could be said about israel and iran. maybe they are just posturing too.

SamHarris wrote: »

Pre emptive strikes are a well established defensive military strategy. You could maybe argue if an attack is pre emptive in nature, that the attacked state had no intention of attacking to begin with, however once the intended aggression of a state is established a pre emptive strike is both permitted under international law and militarily a far perferable strategy to waiting and retaliating.

what intended aggression? has Iran said they are going to invade israel? if israel are concerned with international law then why do the constantly ignore the geneva convention? even the USA veto'd the resolution of the illegal settlements by israel despite support from all other nations. why are these settlements considered illegal? if not breaking international law.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011218201653970232.html

SamHarris wrote: »

I mean there is an obvious contradiction in your postition - that Israel is both intentionaly inflating (and perhaps outright lying) about Irans nuclear ambitions and is hell bent on striking at Iran's facilities. One clearly precludes the other.

Iran says it has no nuclear bomb ambitions!, the IAEA says they have no nuclear bombs, America says iran has no nuclear bombs. are all these groups deceiving us all and israel? why would they do that?

What proof does israel have of irans ambitions? links please. if israel doesnt beleive their allies then don't twist it to make that my problem its israels problem.

SamHarris wrote: »

Unless, of course, your position is that they are pushing for a strike merely because they are annoyed at Iran advancing in civilian nuclear technology. That, however, does not have a rational basis and would require real evidence.

again i am repeating what israel haven been stating. They (israel) have given iran an ultimatum to decommission all nuclear abilities! Or else face war in weeks..... if you need more evidence then contact the israelis. that is what they believe and have said. not me. your issue is with them.

SamHarris wrote: »

If you do not believe 9 11 and the threat of more attacks was the premier reason for the Afghan war then Ill let you discuss it on the CT forum yourself, its an ideology for people of this position - not open to rational debate and I dont have any intention of discussing it.

i said it wasn't the only reason for the invasion of Afghanistan. where did i say it wasn't the premier reason? again please stop saying and inferring things i did or did not say or what i meant or didn't mean. if you want to quote me then quote me. but get your facts straight. its all we have.

SamHarris wrote: »

Merely drawing attention to the fact that your assertion that you did not have a position on the subject yet was and is clearly complete BS.

I said i was leaning towards the anti zionist side of the argument! can i not be more clear than that. Calling my opinion BS because of my view might not agree with yours. doesn't mean it is BS. Am i not entitled to an opinion but you are?

SamHarris wrote: »

If you want to open a thread discussing what the definniton of an Apartheid state is, and whether or not Israel is one, then knock yourself out. Really has little to do with this discussion.

here are some of my my sources

http://www.bloggingisfree.com/2012/08/israel-fails-civil-rights-and-democracy.html

and

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/israeli-sniper-given-less-two-months-killing-palestinian-women?fb_action_ids=4544456175512&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map=%7B%224544456175512%22%3A10150937934060736%7D&action_type_map=%7B%224544456175512%22%3A%22og.recommends%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

What facts do you disagree with in both articles? why has it little to do with these discussions? because you say so? or because you don't want to address the palestinian issue ? why don't you want to include one of the major players in this whole situation?

If there is war even more palestinians could die. they are closer to the issue than anyone. i have given you examples of why i think israel is an apartheid state. give me examples to disagree with my opinion and i will consider them. i have a feeling you won't be able to though. but i'll happily look at any new facts.

SamHarris wrote: »

I agree, Palestinians to should have a right to self determination. I, however, do not express the clearly hypocritical view that one group should whilst claiming to be "anti" the proponents of another groups rights to the same statehood.

show me where israel has the right to land in palestine? Balfour declaration alone isn't good enough i'm afraid.

SamHarris wrote: »

Dont really care about your beliefs towards Aneglina and Brad.

you don't have to care about my beliefs but if you cannot or refuse to see how beliefs are dangerous then that is only a concern for you . it may impact your ability to have empathy with anyone else that has beliefs that conflict with your own. which is very dangerous in trying to understand problem with many belief structures involved.

SamHarris wrote: »

If you want to argue that Arabs in the area have a right to unarguably rascist views then start a thread about it. Here it is merely another red herring.

where did i say this? please quote me where i said arabs have a right to be racist? i Said and quote

"Yes i agree that their seems to be long term issues. but no worse than northern ireland to be fair. Especially those on the RECEIVING END OF CONSTANT RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION. Most people are willing to sacrifice themselves for their families sake and hence why SUICIDE BOMBING is seen as doing something good for their families. they see it as a way to help their families and ease the oppression. i'm not saying its right but most people will do anything to try to protect their loved ones even if it costs their own lives."

you don't think the palestinians are on the receiving end of racism and discrimination? of course you don't because you don't want to admit israel is an apartheid state for some bizarre reason.

Well show me all the examples of happy go lucky Palestinians and i can show you many more that are not and feel like the victims of discrimination and racism every day. you go first n i'll respond. Else don't be misquoting me an suggesting i said things i didn't in order to suit your misguided argument.

SamHarris wrote: »

No, you miss the point - a country is not and will never be obligated to act in a certain way towards another purely because it is democratic ( we will leave arguing about whether a nation is democratic purely because they voted out of it).

The US and Israel's position on Hamas and their government is a reaction to their declared genocidal intent. Whether they are voted in
are not is irrelevant.

Democracy exists or it doesn't. the people that palestine voted for to represent them was their choice not israels, not americas. America is the so called leader of the free world. yet they will not let the palestinians be free even after democracy....

imagine if we took that attitude in ireland. no one dealing with sinn fein. we'd be in a civil war at the moment. indeed israel and palestine could learn alot from northern ireland and the good friday agreement. but i suppose that BS too. never the less it is my opinion.

SamHarris wrote: »

Another red herring - if you want to argue that it would be a more effective position then start a thread.

why are you so fascinated with red herrings? why don't you want to discuss issues and facts? i started this thread. if you want to make silly comments then start your own thread for them please.

SamHarris wrote: »

The US and the UK are not bound by the same laws in this regard.

Any nation could certainly push for Israel to be punished in the same way as Iran.

Iran have been pushing.. yet israel refuse the IAEA. why? what are israel worried about?

Iran just wants the same treatment as israel. you don't believe they are entitled to the same treatment? Can you explain why not? is israel more important? is it superior in some way? please do explain

SamHarris wrote: »

As to your question, because there is no equivallency in international politics. You could try and argue morally that every nation is equal (though it would be tough) but with regard to international law, politics and proliferation it is certainly not true that the same standard could or should be placed on every nation.

no equivallency in international politics? is this another phrase that some nations are more important than others? coz where i come from its called racism. you need to try to expand on this more. because i am getting more concerned about your views.

SamHarris wrote: »

I argue it from any point of view.

With regard to propoganda that is why it is so imporant for an independant body like the iaea to be allowed to investigate sites for themselves. when a nation that is adamant about its peaceful intentions does not allow it the implication is very clear that they have something to hide.

please give me examples from the IAEA have not been allowed to investigate sites? have the IAEA said that they have nuclear bombs? again How can you prove a negative in this situation? when it certainly didnt work in Iraq.

the exact same could be said about israel and their refusal to allow the IAEA in. what do you think israel is hiding? i'm very curious now.

SamHarris wrote: »

Every argument of this kind leads to similiar accusations - Islamophobia is the buzzword for the other side. The fact is, however, that both sides do have people with both tendencies that are the most voracious opponents of the other. The accusations may be without merit in an individual case, but certainly have some traction given the larger debate.

From a "human" stand point it is abundantly clear that nuclear proliferation is the very worst outcome. If Iran were to aquire a weapon, it is perdicted that other states in the region will seek to get their own. Iran's (non existant) right to privacy pales completly in this regard. The onus is and has been on them for years to allow full access to the IAEA - if they are telling the truth then the causus beli of Israel dissapears. It really is that simple. The problem is they almost certainly are weaponising their program - they now claim they need even more refined uranium for other purposes. Really if people cant see the very clear evidence at this stage they are being wilfully dishonest.

O.k . let me get this straight . you don't think that israel having nuclear bombs is the begining of proliferation ? Explain, why not?

Non existant right to privacy? Are you for real? why don't they have this right?

Almost certainly? i always thought certainly was an absolute. but it must be up there with almost drowned.

Clear evidence? all i have been doing is asking for clear evidence and all i get is opinion. where is this clear eveidence and if it is so clear it should be easy for you to find for the rest of us.....

ressem

JustinDee wrote: »

Why do folk make out that Iran is alone in its intelligence and military operations outside its borders but the US (or whomever) is behind everyone else's?
While the 'attack Iran' argument is not going to convince many, neither is this delusional rubbish that Iran is a defenceless and innocent republic that acts alone and never provocatively.
Ffs.

Iran apparently spends less than 2% of it's budget on military spending.
The reason is that the theocracy doesn't trust the military not to become a rival.

Any chance that the reason for wanting a nuclear weapon is to keep the armed forces fairly weak while having the ability to dissuade an attack from it's neighbours?

As for Palestine, Iran isn't all that concerned for the problems of the Kurds, Azeri and Baloch populations within it's own borders.
http://thediplomat.com/2011/05/16/inside-iran%E2%80%99s-most-secretive-region/?all=true

According to figures from Amnesty International, Iran executed at least 1,481 people from 2004 to 2009, with the London-based International Voice for Baloch Missing Persons claiming that about 55 percent of these were Baloch. The organization claims that the Baloch in Iran have endured the highest concentration of death penalties handed down as a percentage of population in the world for nearly a decade under the Islamic regime.

In reverse, analysis has suggested that due to distance and hostile neighbours, Israel would need to use their entire strike force just to hit the processing plant.
A huge risk for Israel with no real gain, at the expense of inflaming the Iranian people against an invader, strengthening the Iranian government which faced riots due to claims of rigging the last election.

Not impossible of course. Politicians do ridiculous things to follow the sentiment of the crowd. The king of Jordan during the Yom Kippur war is reported to have warned the Americans that the attack was imminent, but felt compelled to join in the attack alongside the Syrians