Leon Panetta Predicts Israel Will Bomb Iran This Spring (2012)

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I listened closely to this speech, but didn't once hear the speaker refer to oralloy or even anyone who shares his opinions.

Do you really think that a politician of Kaufman's stature would mention an insignificant nonentity like Oralboy. You have problems with taking things literally, sometimes I think you do it deliberately. Kaufman likened Israeli spokepeople to the nazis when they dismissed the deaths of 500 Palestinians as being militants. That is exactly the same as Oralboy who likes using the language of the nazis.

Kaufman is a Labour MP, obviously he's to the left of you but that's not saying much. I imagine every member of parliament is to the left of you.

izzy wrote:

It's interesting to note that people who actually have experience of the Holocaust, have very little time for obscene racists like Oralboy.

Your comment, not mine.

Somehow you were able to determine, by listening to this clip, that Kaufman was refering to orraloy or even anyone who shares his opinions

If you are going to put such a literal spin on your interpretation, you should refrain from questioning how literal I may be. As a side note, you should also read everything I have written before cherry picking the comments you prefer to counter.

Clearly Kaufman is to the left of me, but your imagination is running wild if you think all of your MPs are so.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

What a crock, and a poorly written one at that.

The truth is that Arafat was a ******* terrorist.

The truth is that Kaufman is not a Zionist.

The truth is that I couldn't care less whether or not you think I am capable of any sort of debate.

Come down off your liberal throne izzy, you're more likeable when you do.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Well that decides it...Chomsky said it is so and therefore it must be.

Laughing

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Perhaps, but how does that have any legitimate bearing on our fretting about iran?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Well that decides it...Chomsky said it is so and therefore it must be.

You are nothing but an ignorant son of a bitch, Finn. Embarrassed again.

Chomsky didn't say it. Had you listened you would have heard, right at the outset, 49 seconds in, that the evaluation of Iran as no threat comes from "the regular reports to Congress by the Pentagon and US intelligent sources".

You have got to be drunk when you post. That's the only explanation for how you can repeatedly embarrass yourself and then return time after time to embarrass yourself again.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Your fretting about Iran is just the latest in a long line of lies that you gullible people accept with no thought whatsoever. It happened for Iraq, for Afghanistan, for Vietnam, for scores of other countries that the US has illegally invaded or trained terrorists to do its evil bidding.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Good lord how you go on JTT.

Does your keyboard get sticky from all the rabid foam flying out of your mouth?

Clearly you can't be embarrassed or you would have stopped posting long ago.

You are a cartoon.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn, you have been caught out. In your heart, what's left of it, you know that you are so wrong and yet you continue with the lies, the constant misleading. This is exactly how the US got to the evil place it now occupies.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Yep, you've caught me out JTT.

My heart is large and expansive and in it, I know I am right, and you are wrong.

Who, in your opinion, is not evil?

Anyone?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn wrote:

In any case, unlike Infrablue, I don't see how the Palestinian issue has anything to do with Israel attacking Iran's nuclear capabilities.

As I've said before, I see Iran's alleged "nuclear ambitions" (I'm quoting you here) as a result of their animosity towards Israel. A part of this animosity stems from the Palestinian issue.

I don't expect you to ever comprehend much of any point of view that is contrary to your own. You betray this obtuseness of yours whenever you mischaracterize the positions of those with whom you happen to disagree.

Quote:

If Israel was truly a nuclear threat to Iran, Tehran would already be a pile of smoking, fused rubble.

There is absolutely no reason to consider Israeli nukes as an aggressive threat.

None.

How do you come to this conclusion?

If it's because Israel hasn't bombed Iran with nuclear weapons, then you're assuming they won't in the future.

It could be the case that Israel uses the threat of a nuclear retaliation against any regional military response to their continued repression of the Palestinian peoples.

Quote:

Since Iran, clearly, desires to be the dominant force in the region and Israel is not inclined to let this happen, Iran wanting nukes to counter the regional counter (Israel) to a Persian hegemony is understandable.

Understandable is not the equivalent of legitimacy.

Likewise, Israel's counter to a Persian hegemony is understandable, but not legitimate.

What then, would be legitimate objectives for either of them?

Quote:

Since Israeli nukes pose no threat, what-so-ever, to a peaceful Iran that recognizes Israel's right to exist, the argument that Iran wants nukes because Israel has them is specious.

What exactly does "recognition of Israel's right to exist" mean? If this means that they have the right to repress the Palestinian peoples, then why should anyone with a modicum of humanity recognize this "right"?

Quote:

(Almost as specious as the argument that Iran wants nukes because the Israelis aren't being very nice to the Palestinians)

So then if the argument that Iran wants nukes because Israel has them isn't as specious as other propositions, like the one about Iran wanting nukes because the Israelis aren't nice to the Palestinians, then that means that the argument that Iran wants nukes because Israel has them isn't very specious, it isn't fallacious or implausible after all.

Quote:

Iran wants nukes because it will provide them with serious leverage in their efforts to dominate the region.

They want nukes for the same reason North Korea wanted them.

Well then there should be no problem to Iran alleged wanting of nukes seeing as how North Korea has them, and yet utterly fails to dominate their region.

Quote:

It's amazing to me that folks such as yourself are so willing to give the Iranian regime the benefit of the doubt when Iranians have died in the street to overthrow it.

I don't mean to answer for izzy, but one thing is giving the Iranian regime the benefit of the doubt about your allegations of "nuclear ambitions," quite another thing is Iranians dying in the street to overthrow it. You are conflating the two issues.

Quote:

Do you think the Iranians who protest and die are rebel rousers, funded by Israel and the CIA?

That's precisely how the CIA and Mossad tend to operate, though. They even train and support the secret police of son-of-a-bitch dictators that they consider their very own.

Quote:

Perhaps you are among those who consider NATO forces imperialistic war criminals for aiding the Libyan rebels against the dictator Khaddafi.

Imperialistic? Of course. It was done to further the US' sphere of influence. Do you think it was done for the benefit of the Libyan people? War Criminals? That seems to be defined by a matter of international consensus. What's the consensus on this?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Try, for once in your life to deal with the issues, Finn. You raised the specious argument, as you are wont to do when you could have easily listened and found out the truth.

Now you try this bullshit diversion instead of being a man and admitting your mistake.

Iran is no threat. Say it, it's easy and it's the truth.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I knew that would flush you out.

You've modified your position.

Quote:

A part of this animosity stems from the Palestinian issue.

That's not your original claim. Your original claim was that Iran's animosity was primarily based on the Palestinian issue.

Please don't lie and contend otherwise, as I may have to seek conformation from Set who spits nickles whenever I do.

If you've conceded you were originally wrong, good for you.

Quote:

How do you come to this conclusion?

Because Israel has faced numerous crisis they might have quashed with a nuclear threat, let alone a nuclear strike.

How long do you think the US would put up with thousands of missile attacks from Mexico before we threated a nuclear retaliation?

How long do you think North Korea would put up with thousands of missile attacks from South Korea before they responded with a nuke?

How long do you think Pakistan would put up with thousands of missile attacks from India before they responded with a nuke?

No country equipped with nukes would put up with the **** with which Israel has endured.

Quote:

Likewise, Israel's counter to a Persian hegemony is understandable, but not legitimate.

Really?

Opposition to US, Chinese, Russian etc hegemony is not legitimate?

I guess you're all for fsaying "**** You" to Tibet.

A legitimate objective for both of them is to hinder a single power seizing the region. There is no fear, what-so-ever, that Israel will attempt such an end, but maybe you have enough **** behind your ears to think Iran won't either.

Quote:

What exactly does "recognition of Israel's right to exist" mean?

That's really hard for you to understand?

The Syrian regime is totally fucked up, but does anyone question the right of Syria to exist?

Quote:

So then if the argument that Iran wants nukes because Israel has them isn't as specious as other propositions, like the one about Iran wanting nukes because the Israelis aren't nice to the Palestinians, then that means that the argument that Iran wants nukes because Israel has them isn't very specious, it isn't fallacious or implausible after all.

Does this make sense to anyone?

Iran wanting nukes because Israel has them is perfectly understanable given the fact that Iran want to rid the region of Israel and rule it.

Iran has no reason to fear Israeli nukes unless they insist upon dominating the region. They want them so they can dominate the region, and most certainly not because they give a **** about Palestinians.

Quote:

Well then there should be no problem to Iran alleged wanting of nukes seeing as how North Korea has them, and yet utterly fails to dominate their region.

Are you really making this argument?

Quote:

I don't mean to answer for izzy, but one thing is giving the Iranian regime the benefit of the doubt about your allegations of "nuclear ambitions," quite another thing is Iranians dying in the street to overthrow it. You are conflating the two issues.

Again, are you really making this argument?

There is no shortage of A2Kers who disagree with everything I write, but I would be amazed if even the most severe (but intelligent) of my critics will support this absurd argument.

You, predictably, rely upon the usage of "alleged" to undermine arguments that Iran is seeking nukes.

Why?

Either because you insist upon taking any position that can be seen as an attack on Israel or the US, or you believe the mullahs.

(If there is an alternative reason, please inform me)

I tend to believe the former, but if you lay claim to the latter than you need to argue for the integrity of the mullahs...the ones that ordered the slaughter of members of the Iranian opposition.

Quote:

That's precisely how the CIA and Mossad tend to operate, though. They even train and support the secret police of son-of-a-bitch dictators that they consider their very own.

Gosh you really are an ideological tool. Where do you live and what do you look like so I can cross the street whenever I see you.

How to explain your hatred for Israel so that you will go so far as to suggest the theocracy's opposition are CIA or Mossad puppets?

Quote:

Imperialistic? Of course. It was done to further the US' sphere of influence. Do you think it was done for the benefit of the Libyan people? War Criminals? That seems to be defined by a matter of international consensus. What's the consensus on this?

Of course. Why did I think you might be other than a cartoon?

Thanks. With this thread you have revealed your essence. I won't ignore you but I won't be wasting my time engaging you.

Out of curiousity, how did you come up with these opinions?

Parents? Friends? Weird pamphlets read in the dark corners of your bedroom?

Did a Jew steal the girl you longed for from afar?

Are you Jewish?

Are you convinced that agreeing with folks like izzy makes you cool?

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

The truth is that Arafat was a ******* terrorist.

You've got a lot of nerve.

1 Reply

@JTT,

And you have very little perspective.

Let's make something clear: You are wanking off when you spew your bile towards me.

It doesn't anger me; it doesn't offend me; it doesn't challenge me.

It bores me.

You are such a one trick pony it's pathetic.

I took you off of ignore with the understanding that if you remained so ******* boring I would put you back.

You remain ******* boring because you only want to spew and never discuss. Everyone thinks you are a boring dolt and they are right. Who agrees with you JTT? Who?

**** you bubby I don't need your ****.

Ignore.

Thankfully I will not see your pathetic response. You really are a paper revolutionary. You think yourself a herald of truth but you are no more than a shitbug,

I know...blah, blah, blah.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Iran is no threat. Say it, it's easy and it's the truth.

Iran is a very grave threat, and their nuclear program will not be tolerated.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

JTT wrote:

Iran is no threat. Say it, it's easy and it's the truth.

oralloy wrote:

Iran is a very grave threat, and their nuclear program will not be tolerated.

I hope it will not.

David

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Don't call me a liberal Finn. I hate Nick Clegg. Arafat wasn't a terrorist, he was the leader of a persecuted people, and he made some bad decisions. The amount of innocent Israelis killed by Palestinians pales into insignificance compared to the innocent Palestinians killed by Israel.

Just because Kaufman does not fit your narrow description of Zionist doesn't mean he isn't one. I thought you were someone who appreciated how complicated reality is, you're sounding a bit like Oralboy with his black and white view of things.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

I guess you're all for fsaying "**** You" to Tibet.

Tibet is a good thing for bleeding heart pseudo humanitarians like you to bleat on about, because it gives the impression you're actually doing something. You know you can't have any influence over Tibet whatsoever, what with China paying all of America's bills at the moment.

You could actually do something about Palestine, but you choose not to. Is it because like Oralboy you think some people should be persecuted, or because your so called humanitarianism is just a sham? Appearances are more important than anything else, but your veneer is cracking.

Israel's treatment of the Palestinians also gives the green light to China with regard to its treatment of Tibetans. What's sauce for the goose and all that.

I think it's beneath you to start attacking people's English for the odd typo, it's not something you're innocent of.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn lies his ass off and illustrates clearly that he isn't capable of discussing anything because of his silly preconceived notions.

You were proven wrong, Finn. And you have the honesty or decency to admit it.

Hide yourself in "ignore". That won't save you from yourself. You'll still post the same ignorant posts.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

And you have very little perspective.

Quote:

Well that decides it...Chomsky said it is so and therefore it must be.

Finn the incredible hypocrite!

You don't have enough perspective to even listen to the source material, where, less than two minutes in, you would have found that Chomsky isn't anywhere as stupid as folks like you. He is a scholar who looks at the issues from all angles.

0 Replies

Leon Panetta Predicts Israel Will Bomb Iran This Spring (2012)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know