@oralloy,
OmSigDAVID wrote:I 'm no expert,
but I 'm under the impression that "anti-semite" is defined
as being hostile toward Arabs and Jews, both. Yes ?
oralloy wrote:Actually no. The term refers to the hate that is manifested specifically at Jews.
AGAIN:
I 'm
no expert,
but I believe that the Semites are
the Jews and the Arabs.
I coud be
rong.
I did not research it.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:AGAIN:
I 'm no expert,
but I believe that the Semites are the Jews and the Arabs.
That is correct.
However, the term anti-Semitism was created to refer to the hate that is directed at Jews. There is no similar degree of hate that is directed at Arabs.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:The eviler the scumbag, the more the scumbag objects to me.
You embrace evil everytime you refuse to accept the truth of what is happening. The world is not as monochromatic as you would like it to be, and your simplistic categorisation of a whole group of people as either good or evil shows you are unable to participate in grown up conversation.
@OmSigDAVID,
You've not answered my question yet Dave. Do you believe that a missile strike on Iran makes an attack on a Western city with a dirty bomb more or less likely?
@oralloy,
OmSigDAVID wrote:AGAIN:
I 'm no expert,
but I believe that the Semites are the Jews and the Arabs.
oralloy wrote:That is correct.
However, the term anti-Semitism was created to refer to the hate that is directed at Jews.
There is no similar degree of hate that is directed at Arabs.
I have now done a little bit of research on the point;
enuf to see that
BOTH of your statements r
correct.
The term was
inartfully drawn.
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:You've not answered my question yet Dave.
My apologies, Izzy.
I did not see your question.
I did not read the thread with sufficient care.
izzythepush wrote:Do you believe that a missile strike on Iran
makes an attack on a Western city with a dirty bomb more or less likely?
I believe that that depends upon the degree
to which Iran's offensive capabilities have been reduced.
If thay
CAN smack us, thay will
DO it, to the offensive degree that it is
POSSIBLE.
I am
1OO% confident that the reason that 9/11/1 was not a nuclear event
is that such was not within the ability of what the Moslem fanatics coud then
DO.
When thay
CAN do it, thay
WILL do it.
In their minds: it is the right thing to do.
In their plans, after our inevitable nuclear counter-attacks
:
thay will triumphantly go get their virgins in Paradise.
For the last ten years it has been my belief that the best foreign policy
for us toward them is to offer them peace, as follows:
"Look. U leave us alone and we will leave u alone,
but if u press additional attacks, remember that
WE KNOW WHERE U LIVE
and unlike ours,
YOUR religion is based upon geography (e.g. Mecca & Medina, etc.)
If u get us mad enuf, we 'll leave craters that
glow in the dark,
where those cities used to be; (if u don't believe us, consult the citizens of Japan)
or
we can drop
porcine products upon and around your favorite cities.
Be advised accordingly and let us know your choice. Happy Hajs to u.
"
David
@OmSigDAVID,
Mecca and Medina are not in Iran, but Saudi Arabia, an ally.
The response would be that we, and I include my country in this, are not leaving them alone. We have military bases in Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Are you suggesting we close those bases down?
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:Mecca and Medina are not in Iran, but Saudi Arabia, an ally.
That 's a good point; I shuda thawt of that!
Maybe thay have something that thay like in Iran.
izzythepush wrote:The response would be that we, and I include my country in this, are not leaving them alone.
We have military bases in Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Are you suggesting we close those bases down?
Not necessariy. I dunno how much we continue to need them.
The 3rd World War is over;
no further
communist danger.
Maybe we don't need them, but I dunno.
The concept that I was representing is that we 'd leave
the Iranians alone
if thay abandon their nuclear ambitions and don't make trouble for us; no more 9/11s. Enuf is enuf.
If the King of Arabia invites us to remain there,
that is between him and us, not Iran.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
Iran had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Most of the perpetrators were Saudi or Egyptian, followers of hardline Sunni Islam. The Iranians are Persian, they're not even Arab.
Straight after 9/11 British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw visited Tehran. There was a lot of sympathy for what had happened, and the regime as was, was far less harline than the one that's in charge today. The Iranians were having a lot of problems with the Taliban, their diplomatic staff had been murdered. The fundamentalist Sunni form of Islam practiced by the Taliban viewed the Iranians as at best heretics, and at worst infidels.
This rapproachment was thrown on the trash pile by Bush's ridiculous 'Axis of Evil,' speech. It completely undermined all of Jack Straw's hard work and strengthened the position of the hard liners.
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:
izzythepush wrote:Saudi Arabia, an ally.
really?
Of course, without them the arms industries in USA and UK wouldn't be able to thrive as they have done.
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:Iran had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
I was not contemplating avenging ourselves upon the Iranians
for the misadventures of 9/11/1, which u point out not to be of Iranian origin.
I understood your question to pertain to a future attack by the Iranians.
If the Iranians do not trouble us (producing nukes is
extreme trouble),
then we will not trouble them.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:I was not contemplating avenging ourselves upon the Iranians
You are such a perfidious piece of excrement, Om. The balance is so out of whack, Om. It's the Iranians who owe you big time for helping US installed brutal dictators murder so many Iranians, not to mention steal their wealth.
The Real Truth of Wars - Dr. Dahlia Wasfi's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_RvhvGZVkk&feature=player_embedded
=============
Here Sig, have someone read it to you;
Quote:We have an obligation to every last victim of this illegal aggression because all of this carnage has been done in our name. Since World War II, 90% of the casualties of war are unarmed civilians. 1/3 of them children. Our victims have done nothing to us. From Palestine to Afghanistan to Iraq to Somalia to wherever our next target may be, their murders are not collateral damage, they are the nature of modern warfare. They don't hate us because of our freedoms. They hate us because every day we are funding and committing crimes against humanity. The so-called "war on terror" is a cover for our military aggression to gain control of the resources of western Asia.
This is sending the poor of this country to kill the poor of those Muslim countries. This is trading blood for oil. This is genocide, and to most of the world, we are the terrorists. In these times, remaining silent on our responsibility to the world and its future is criminal. And in light of our complicity in the supreme crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ongoing violations of the U.N. Charter in International Law, how dare any American criticize the actions of legitimate resistance to illegal occupation.
Our so-called enemies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, our other colonies around the world, and our inner cities here at home, are struggling against the oppressive hand of empire, demanding respect for their humanity. They are labeled insurgents or terrorists for resisting rape and pillage by the white establishment, but they are our brothers and sisters in the struggle for justice. The civilians at the other end of our weapons don't have a choice, but American soldiers have choices, and while there may have been some doubt 5 years ago, today we know the truth. Our soldiers don't sacrifice for duty-honor-country, they sacrifice for Kellogg Brown & Root.
They don't fight for America, they fight for their lives and their buddies beside them, because we put them in a war zone. They're not defending our freedoms, they're laying the foundation for 14 permanent military bases to defend the freedoms of Exxon Mobil and British Petroleum.
They're not establishing democracy, they're establishing the basis for an economic occupation to continue after the military occupation has ended. Iraqi society today, thanks to American "help" is defined by house raids, death squads, check-points, detentions, curfews, blood in the streets, and constant violence. We must dare to speak out in support of the Iraqi people, who resist and endure the horrific existence we brought upon them through our bloodthirsty imperial crusade. We must dare to speak out in support of those American war-resisters, the real military heroes, who uphold their oath to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, including those terrorist cells in Washington DC more commonly known as the Legislative, Executive & Judicial branches.
"If There Is No Struggle, There Is No Progress"
Frederick Douglass said
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are people who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both ... but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
Every one of us, every one of us must keep demanding, keep fighting, keep thundering, keep plowing, keep speaking, keep struggling until justice is served. NO justice, NO peace.
Here is an excellent piece that gets right to the truth.
Preempt Iran—At All Costs!
By Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, Israel Hayom January 31, 2012
The discussion about the cost of a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is valuable only if intended to advance the attack and neutralize the possible retaliation by Iran and its allies. However, such a discussion is harmful, ignores precedents, plays into Iran's hands and threatens Israel's existence, if it reflects hesitancy, skepticism and fatalism, aiming to preclude preemption, and assuming that Israel can co-exist with a nuclear-armed Iran.
On May 12, 1948, the pre-state Israeli Cabinet decided by a vote of six to four to declare independence and include Jerusalem within Israel's boundaries, despite internal opposition and pressure by the U.S. and despite a terrible price: The U.S. withheld military aid, threatened economic sanctions and surmised that the declaration of independence would result in a second Holocaust, this time at the hands of the Arabs. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion refused to abide by the American pressure to postpone the declaration of independence by a few years, knowing that such a delay would be tragic in the long run, and that independence exacts a painful price.
On Oct. 5, 1973, the eve of the Yom Kippur War, Prime Minister Golda Meir rejected the option of a pre-emptive strike to repel the clear and present danger of a joint Egyptian-Syrian attack. She was concerned about the cost of such a strike -- namely appearing as the aggressor and severely damaging ties with the U.S. -- and preferred to be portrayed as the victim. However, the terrible, long-term cost of that war has been far greater than pre-emptive action would have been. As expected, Israel was not viewed as a victim, but rather as a country that lost the "spirit of the Six-Day War," eroding is own deterrent power, and undermining its position as a strategic asset for the U.S.
In June 1981, on the eve of the destruction of the nuclear reactor in Iraq, then Prime Minister Menachem Begin weighed the cost of a pre-emptive strike versus the cost of inaction. The heads of the Mossad and Military Intelligence, former Defense Minister Ezer Weizman, opposition leader Shimon Peres, Deputy Prime Minister Yigael Yadin, Israel's national security adviser and the Head of the Atomic Energy Commission all opposed striking Iraq. They presented apocalyptic scenarios that would result from such action: an irreparable rift with the U.S., harsh sanctions, conflict with the Soviet Union and Western Europe, reconciliation between Muslim countries and a pan-Islamic attack, threats to the peace treaty with Egypt and other doomsday events. They underestimated the probability of a successful pre-emptive attack and overestimated Iraq's military capabilities. Some claimed there was a greater chance of seeing Israeli pilots being dragged through the streets of Baghdad than being welcomed back to their bases. But, Begin decided in favor of a pre-emptive strike, determining that the cost of restraint could be far greater than that of a pre-emptive strike; that a nuclear threat would subordinate Israel both politically and militarily; that a nuclear attack could not be ruled out considering the violent, unpredictable and hateful nature of regimes in the region, and that the ratio of Israeli territory to that of surrounding Arab states (0.2%) did not allow for a Mutual Assured Destruction. Begin understood that the window of opportunity for a strike against Iraq's nuclear reactor was about to close. The destruction of the reactor drew short-term isolation, which was promptly substituted by a long-term strategic esteem and cooperation.
In 2012, after a decade of failed attempts at engagement and sanctions, and in light of the assistance (in terms of development and acquisition) Iran has received from Pakistan, North Korea, Russia and China for its nuclear program, Israel must decide between launching a pre-emptive attack to eliminate that threat or facing it. Opponents of an attack warn that it could potentially result in a harsh response from Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, and international anger directed at Israel over higher oil prices, a wave of terror and Persian Gulf turbulence. Yet, these pale in comparison to the lethal cost of a nuclear threat, which includes a withdrawal of overseas and Israeli investors from the country, a record number of Israeli emigrants and a sharp decline of Aliya (Jewish immigration), dwindling tourism, intensification of military-political-economic dependence on the U.S., a more powerful and influential Iranian regime that takes control of the Persian Gulf , and the transformation of Israel from a strategic asset to a strategic liability. Israel would wither without even one nuclear warhead needing to be launched.
A pre-emptive attack against Iran would exert non-lethal and short-term cost, but would boost Israel's long-term strategic image. It would also provide a tailwind for the opposition to the ayatollahs' regime. Will Israel embrace the legacy of Ben-Gurion and Begin, or that of their opponents?
@Advocate,
Quote: and assuming that Israel can co-exist with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Why should Iran have to try to co-exist with a nuclear armed Israel, a country that acts like an enforcer for the crime syndicate that is the USA?
Want some truth, Advocate, try this,
Dahlia S. Wasfi M.D. Treason in America Conference 1 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZMbPgYLONs
The other four parts can be found at,
http://able2know.org/topic/184219-1#post-4888241
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:You embrace evil everytime you refuse to accept the truth of what is happening.
There is not a bit of truth to the horrific lies you post about Israel.
@JTT,
JTT wrote:Why should Iran have to try to co-exist with a nuclear armed Israel
Is that a rhetorical question?
In any case, the answer is:
"Because if they don't, we'll bomb them into powder, and we'll smile while we are doing it."
EDIT: Just for context, the casual belligerence of my tone is due to my attitude towards Iran, and is not an attempt to offend you (though I do wish you'd ease up on the namecalling).
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:There is not a bit of truth to the horrific lies you post about Israel.
What I post is backed up with reputable sources. You simply ignore everything that does not conform to your simplistic, bigotted view of reality.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
"Because if they don't, we'll bomb them into powder, and we'll smile while we are doing it."
Your desire to exterminate anyone who does not share your viewpoint is clear. You already think Americans should be allowed to murder British students for sexual gratification.
@JTT,
For your information, J:
I rejected your post after the first few foully rude words
without reading the rest of what u wrote.
David
