babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » election of hamas

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: election of hamas
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 31 January 2006 04:43 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
Why Hamas Leaves Me Neutral
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
January 31, 2006
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3347

Reactions to the lopsided Hamas victory over Fatah last week in the Palestinian Authority elections divided into three. Some, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee expressed dismay, worried about Hamas openly boasting of its goal to destroy the Jewish state, seeing this as the end of the peace process.

Others, such as former president Jimmy Carter, gulped hard and defied common sense to hope that following Hamas winning 74 seats to Fatah's 45 in the 132-seat legislative council, it would be tamed and transformed into Israel's peace partner.

A third group, which includes Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, determined that the Hamas success was "by far the best result" because it offers an "unambiguous reality check into the nature of Palestinian society."

And me? The Hamas victory leaves me neutral with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Not much separates Hamas anti-Zionism from Fatah anti-Zionism except that Hamas terrorists speak forthrightly while Fatah terrorists obfuscate. Even their tactics overlap, as Fatah denies the existence of Israel and Hamas negotiates with Israelis. Differing emphases and styles, more than substance, distinguishes their attitudes toward Israel.

I abominate Hamas and have called for its destruction, but I also recognize that the elections might bring benefits, prompting Israelis finally to recognize the deep and pervasive anti-Zionism in the Palestinian Arab body politic. Hamas and Fatah together won all but thirteen seats in the legislative council. A leftist terrorist group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, got three seats; three leftist parties – Al-Badil (or the Alternative List), the Independent Palestine List, and the Third Way List – each won two seats, and four independents won seats. With the possible exception of some marginal figures, then, the legislative council wall-to-wall rejects Israel's right to exist. Or, in David Horowitz's biting description, Palestinian Arabs are "the first terrorist people."

The Palestinian election outcome resulted partly from more than a decade of misrule by Yasser Arafat and his cronies, who stole, plotted, embezzled, and ran roughshod over their subjects. Hamas, in contrast, built a record of community service, relative probity, and modesty. Looked at positively, the success of Hamas implies that Palestinian Arabs do take other matters into consideration besides eliminating Israel. Looked at negatively, they merely prefer honest terrorists to dishonest ones.

The strong Hamas victory, wrote Steven Plaut of Haifa University, is "the only thing that stands a chance of forcing Israelis to open their eyes and wake up." Its ascent might conceivably wake others up too; will Spain's blinkered government note the recent call by a Hamas children's publication for the city of Seville to be returned to Muslim rule?

Possibly. But I hold out meager hope that Hamas-in-power will provide a reality check. The "peace process" community will not give up its cherished negotiations just because a murderous totalitarian organization has been elected. As has inexorably been the case since 1993, it will ignore this setback and press ahead for more Israeli concessions.

I predict an approximate repeat performance of the pressure on Arafat in 1982-88 to renounce terrorism. But an acute observer of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, doubts that Hamas will be compelled even to match Arafat's concessions back then.

I also expect that, despite bold statements about how it will not change, Hamas will play along with the verbal demands on it. Feeling a financial pinch and diplomatic pressure, its leaders will adopt Arafat's habit of delivering opaque hints and saying one thing in English and another in Arabic. Like Arafat, they might even "renounce" terrorism or pretend to change their Protocols-laced covenant.

Indeed, what Yossi Klein Halevi calls "the era of the wink and the hint" has already begun, with Hamas largely desisting from terrorism against Israel during its declared tahdiya (calming down) in 2005, then somewhat moderating its rhetoric in recent weeks; for example, it proposed a 15-year truce with Israel. The makeover shows signs of success: former president Bill Clinton, often an opinion bellwether, has just urged the Bush administration to consider dealing with Hamas.

I predict Palestinian-Israeli negotiations will resume their glorious record of bringing good will, harmony, and tranquility, with Israel this time facing a far more determined and clever foe than the blighted Arafat or the hapless Mahmoud Abbas.


From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 January 2006 04:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
About as interesting, unexpected and informative as a subway ad. I am always amazed, given Pipe's controversial reputation, at to how pedestrian his writing really is.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 31 January 2006 04:50 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Copyright violation.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 31 January 2006 05:41 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:
Copyright violation.

Pipes gives permission to forward as long as the whole article is included and the source is credited, both of which I have done.


From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 31 January 2006 05:47 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
About as interesting, unexpected and informative as a subway ad. I am always amazed, given Pipe's controversial reputation, at to how pedestrian his writing really is.

Pipes is short on poetic theories, and long on basic facts. The most basic facts here are that Hamas is dedicated to the second holocaust of the Jews, and is a client organization of Iran, which also denies the first holocaust and is a few months away from going nuclear and causing the second.


From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
FabFabian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7496

posted 31 January 2006 05:51 PM      Profile for FabFabian        Edit/Delete Post
Since when was Hamas a client organization of Iran? I think you are confusing it with Hezbollah. Hamas is more of a client organization of the Israeli gov't if we really want to down to basics.
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 31 January 2006 05:54 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:
The most basic facts here are that Hamas is dedicated to the second holocaust of the Jews, and is a client organization of Iran, which also denies the first holocaust and is a few months away from going nuclear and causing the second

Emphasis added. Only according to Pipes and Charles Krauthammer. Credible sources say 5 years minimum and more likely 10.

Re: the permission to forward. Quite right.

ETA: Actually Pipes doesn't say anything about Iran's weapons capability so I guess it's just according to you and Krauthammer.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: pogge ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 January 2006 06:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:

Pipes is short on poetic theories, and long on basic facts. The most basic facts here are that Hamas is dedicated to the second holocaust of the Jews, and is a client organization of Iran, which also denies the first holocaust and is a few months away from going nuclear and causing the second.


I think you missed Pipe's point, and here he is a lot more subtle than you. His line is that the differences between Fatah and Hamas are negligible, and of no interest.

Actually Pipes exemplifies the essential quality of Zionist Fascism, in that the Palestinian point of view, who they support and what ideas they hold are irrelevant, as all sailent discourse exists within the Jewish/Zionist paradigm. Disapearing Palestinian divergance thought as homogenous in this manner is typical of imperialist ideological constructs, such as the one which identifed Jews as a unified body pursuing world power through an internaional conspiracy of Jews Bankers and communists, in thirties under Hitler.

However, it is manifested, the main thing, as with North American indians, is to dehumanize them and the best way to do that it submerge their individuality, hopes, aims and goals into simplistic and barbaric concepts like that they (the Palestinians) are universally committed to wiping Jews out as a cultural group.

Conceptualized in this manner any atrocity is justifiable against them.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 31 January 2006 06:12 PM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
David Ben Gurion: "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 31 January 2006 06:15 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Already being discussed here.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 01 February 2006 08:27 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by FabFabian:
Since when was Hamas a client organization of Iran? I think you are confusing it with Hezbollah. Hamas is more of a client organization of the Israeli gov't if we really want to down to basics.

Hamas and the Iranian regime share comman beliefs and interests in the imposition of islam by force. While it is true that the Israeli's originally did encourage Hamas as a counterweight to Fatah, I think this is now historical footnote rather than the basics of political reality in the middle east today.


From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 01 February 2006 08:41 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:

Emphasis added. Only according to Pipes and Charles Krauthammer. Credible sources say 5 years minimum and more likely 10.

Well, I certainly hope you are right, for all our sakes!But in closed societies like Iran,no one really knows for sure, ( like the wmd in Iraq-first he had them,(poison gas), and used them, then he didnt have them, but almost everyone still thought he did, and he went on acting like he did.Meanwhile,while the "negotiations" have been going on, Iran has spent the last several years hiding and hardening their nuclear programs.

ETA: Actually Pipes doesn't say anything about Iran's weapons capability so I guess it's just according to you and Krauthammer.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: pogge ]



Quite right about Pipes, but its not just Krauthammer.
And I reserve the freedom to synthesize different sources in the process of forming my opinion!

From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 February 2006 08:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And trying to make a hard link between Hamas, an organization founded by a Sufi mystic, with the Shia oligarchy of Iran is only to expose resounding ignorance of the nature of Islam. Hamas is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization founded in 1904 in Egypt. It is not even a Salafist outfit, along the lines of OBL or the house of Saud,

The all muslims are alike canard is worthy of afternoon talk shows, not serious political or sociological discussion.

No. Iran has backed the Shia organization Hizbollah in Lebanon. Hamas has gottan direct support from a variety of sources all Sunni.

Interestingly the Sufi "mystic" tradition of Sheik Ahmed Yassin are probably the reason Hamas can condone suicide bombing, opposed actually by the Shia (when was the last Iranian suicide bombing? Ever heard of one? No? Nor have I. There is a reason pernaps?) and also interestingly most mainstream Salafists.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 01 February 2006 08:58 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

I think you missed Pipe's point, and here he is a lot more subtle than you. His line is that the differences between Fatah and Hamas are negligible, and of no interest.

I am more concerned with truth than sublety. Pipes goes on to say that the main difference with Hamas is that it doesnt bother with the fig leaf of pretending to care about a peace process,and this will perhaps wake up those who were deceived by this pretending.

Actually Pipes exemplifies the essential quality of Zionist Fascism, in that the Palestinian point of view, who they support and what ideas they hold are irrelevant, as all sailent discourse exists within the Jewish/Zionist paradigm. Disapearing Palestinian divergance thought as homogenous in this manner is typical of imperialist ideological constructs, such as the one which identifed Jews as a unified body pursuing world power through an internaional conspiracy of Jews Bankers and communists, in thirties under Hitler.

However, it is manifested, the main thing, as with North American indians, is to dehumanize them and the best way to do that it submerge their individuality, hopes, aims and goals into simplistic and barbaric concepts like that they (the Palestinians) are universally committed to wiping Jews out as a cultural group.

Conceptualized in this manner any atrocity is justifiable against them.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]



Pipes is a recognized expert in Arabic studies,and has deeply studied the roots of contemporary Islamic Fascism with the Muslim Brotherhood, National Socialism in the 1920's and 1930's,and indeed an militant strain of Isamic thought that can be amply sourced in the Koran.
But he does not lump all muslims together, he thinks the solution to radical Islamics will be found with moderates who believe in respect and democratic process as well as the koran

From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 February 2006 09:12 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pipe's is such an expert on the subject that he can not fathom a difference between Hamas and Fatah. That is like a chemist telling me there is no difference between Hydrogen and Helium, and wanting me to listen to what he has to say.

Above he more or less said, they are elments on the periodic table. Who cares about their differences?

At best he is an expert on Zionist mythology.

I was talking about what you said, not what he said, since you seemed a little more subtle in your thinking.

Do you dispute my theological differentiation as stated above or not. Is there a fundamental difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims? If you think so, do you have even a slight understanding of what it is?

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 01 February 2006 09:18 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:
And I reserve the freedom to synthesize different sources in the process of forming my opinion!

Of course you have that freedom. That in itself doesn't mean your opinions will have any value or bear any resemblance to the truth.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: pogge ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 02 February 2006 12:34 AM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:

Of course you have that freedom. That in itself doesn't mean your opinions will have any value or bear any resemblance to the truth.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: pogge ]



From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 February 2006 12:44 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:

Of course you have that freedom. That in itself doesn't mean your opinions will have any value or bear any resemblance to the truth.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: pogge ]



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 February 2006 12:44 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is there an echo in here?
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 February 2006 12:45 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some things are worth repeating, apparently.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 02 February 2006 12:45 AM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:

Of course you have that freedom. That in itself doesn't mean your opinions will have any value or bear any resemblance to the truth.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: pogge ]



Mark Steyn in a recent Sun Times article believes Iran will be nuclear in less than a year and refers to European estimates of four to five years as "laughable". As well, Pipes in a recent Iran article makes reference to Israeli foreign ministry estimates of a six month window until Iran has nuclear capablity.Again, the caveat that in a closed Iranian society the only way to know for sure is when we can peruse the rubble, so better to take the threat seriously,now.

From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 February 2006 12:57 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, well the most chronic breaker of international law, and constant billegrent in the mid-east was nuclear 20 years ago, and nothing has happened yet. So, I doubt the relatively passive Iranian regime will do anything but sit on them too.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 02 February 2006 01:05 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Aside from the fact that they're both blindingly partisan and even overtly racist on occasion, neither Mark Steyn nor Daniel Pipes would be my first choices as sources on anyone's nuclear weapons capability. Neither has a reputation as expert in the field or even close to it. And Israeli intelligence has their own agenda.

It all sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it? Less than four years ago we were told that if we waited to find out more about Iraq's weapons capabilities there'd be a mushroom cloud over Washington, D.C. See what happens when you lose credibility?

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: pogge ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 02 February 2006 01:05 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quoted when I should have edited. Nothing to see here.

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: pogge ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 02 February 2006 01:10 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:

Mark Steyn in a recent Sun Times article believes Iran will be nuclear in less than a year and refers to European estimates of four to five years as "laughable".

Well, if you're basing your assumptions on the work of noted nuclear arms expert Mark Steyn, then you're in sorry shape. In Standing small against Iran just won't work Steyn said, "Incidentally, the assumption in the European press that the nuclear payload won't be ready to fly for three or four years is laughably optimistic." He provides no corraborating evidence for his assertion. Do you have some?

quote:
As well, Pipes in a recent Iran article makes reference to Israeli foreign ministry estimates of a six month window until Iran has nuclear capablity.Again, the caveat that in a closed Iranian society the only way to know for sure is when we can peruse the rubble, so better to take the threat seriously,now.

Is that the only caveat? Really? What about the fact that Israel has every political reason to make the threat seem far more imposing than it is? Do they provide any corraborating evidence, or do you also go around parroting propaganda ministries without verifying their evidence?

I seem to recall a recent case in which some cried loudly about an "imminent" threat of WMDs. Remember how that turned out.

Lastly, the assumption that once they had finished a nuclear weapon, Iran would immediately go willy-nilly tossing it about the Middle East is what is laughable. Why would you destroy a multi-million dollar asset that provides a credible deterrent against meddling powers, diplomatic clout AND a bargaining chip for future negotiations? Why on earth would they spend all that money just to ensure that once they used the damned thing, they'd have about 10 minutes to enjoy the spoils? The regime in Tehran is a lot of things, but they aren't as stupid as Mark Steyn and Daniel Pipes seem to think.

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 February 2006 02:33 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Didn't you mean to say: "...but they aren't as stupid as Mark Steyn and Daniel Pipes," plain and simple?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 February 2006 02:35 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hang on, everyone; these guys say Iran is ready to nuke us all!
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 February 2006 03:35 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
See the truck. Uh huh.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 02 February 2006 03:14 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes, well the most chronic breaker of international law, and constant billegrent in the mid-eastwas nuclear 20 years ago, and nothing has happened yet. So, I doubt the relatively passive Iranian regime will do anything but sit on them too.

CUE: LOL you're killing me!

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 February 2006 03:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only war that the Iranian regieme has been involved in is the one with Iraq, which was started by Iraq, largely at the behest of the US. It is true that Iran was also tacitily involved in the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by funding and supporting Mujahadeen.

Anything I missed?

Edited to inluded: Damned, I forgot, Iran also funded Hezbollah in its attempt to unseat Israel from its possessions in Lebanon.

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 February 2006 04:41 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How many countries has Persia/Iran attacked or invaded in the last 500 years?

How many countries has Israel attacked or invaded in the last 50?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 February 2006 04:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
500 years? Lets not stretch it.

The Persians are not traditionally pacifist. But the evidence of the last 100 years, since there has been an effort to establish a code international law, identifies that it is not Iran, which has consistently acted contrary to the code of international law in the mid-east, on the level of unilaterally resolving disuptes through arms rather than negotiation.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 02 February 2006 05:02 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

Is that the only caveat? Really? What about the fact that Israel has every political reason to make the threat seem far more imposing than it is? Do they provide any corraborating evidence, or do you also go around parroting propaganda ministries without verifying their evidence?

I seem to recall a recent case in which some cried loudly about an "imminent" threat of WMDs. Remember how that turned out.

Lastly, the assumption that once they had finished a nuclear weapon, Iran would immediately go willy-nilly tossing it about the Middle East is what is laughable. Why would you destroy a multi-million dollar asset that provides a credible deterrent against meddling powers, diplomatic clout AND a bargaining chip for future negotiations? Why on earth would they spend all that money just to ensure that once they used the damned thing, they'd have about 10 minutes to enjoy the spoils? The regime in Tehran is a lot of things, but they aren't as stupid as Mark Steyn and Daniel Pipes seem to think.

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]



Steyn' s predictions have track record of being vindicated by events . He predicted the afghanistan war would be very short and decisive, when the mainstream liberal press was still moaning on about the "brutal afghan winter"; and the dread Q word (quagmire) was still been dredged up by the stay-behind guys from the Vietnam era.The fact that you don't like him does not give your ad hominum attack any probitive value.

The Israeli's certainly do have their own agenda,they have an irrational fear of being attacked by the same lot that have aggressed against them many times before, and tend to take seriously pronouncements by Iran that they will soon enough have a nuclear device

Iran has stated that with just a few bombs they can wipe out the Jewish state, wheras Israel could only destroy part of Islam in response. They have also denied the holocaust.Do these sound like rational men to you? Would you care to stake your life on it?

History is full of examples of those who made the mistake of expecting irrational zealots with their hands on weapons of destruction to make the same reasonable and rational decisions that they themselves would make.

There are more and more signs( one just posted recently on this thread) that this could all come down very soon. Do I have definative proof that this is so....no. Do you have any to the contrary?

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: who's tory now ]

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: who's tory now ]


From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 February 2006 05:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So I gues you missed the report about the Canadian soldiers being blown up by a bomb in Afghanistan, and the ongoing need for military presence there, as well as the escalation of western military presence.

The original Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan was "short and decisive." In fact, arguably, faster and more decisive, taking less than a week to effect occupation. I believe it took the US a month, and as yet they still have not secured Kadahar.

Perhaps you should spend some time away from your ideological teddy bears.

I predicted that there would be a speedy conventional war, so much is blindingly obvious, followed by a prolonged guerilla struggle. I have been right in this. So I guess I am have one up on Steyn and Pipes, whose analytic skills rarely elevate themselves above stating the blindingly obvious.

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 February 2006 05:59 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
History is full of examples of those who made the mistake of expecting irrational zealots with their hands on weapons of destruction to make the same reasonable and rational decisions that they themselves would make.

Saddam Husayn being among the most recent...


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 February 2006 06:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jesus! Man! That is way to subtle for this thread. We need simple ideas torn at like they were pieces of meat by howling packs of dogs.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 02 February 2006 06:42 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
How many countries has Persia/Iran attacked or invaded in the last 500 years?

How many countries has Israel attacked or invaded in the last 50?



Well as you know it's a question of interpretation as to whetehr it's a defence move or invasion (you say tomatoe I say tomato.)

Meanwhile Iran has publicly declared that Israel "must be wiped off the map" while:

a) developing nuclear "power"(weapons)
b) purchasing warheads and missiles
c)declaring that the Holocaust never happened
c) having a "scientific" convention to determine "if" the Holocaust ever happened and "where else should we "put" those Jews?"
d) financed terror groups including paying bounty to survivors of "suicide" bombers.
and on and on.

Yes a lovely peaceful regime

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 February 2006 07:00 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well as you know it's a question of interpretation as to whetehr it's a defence move or invasion (you say tomatoe I say tomato.)

Quick, no googling - name one country Persia has invaded (Marathon, Thermopylae and Salamis don't count).


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 February 2006 07:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To be fair Salamais, Thermopalae and Marathon were all part of the same campaign against the insignificant border tribes. Luckily for the Greeks, the Persians soon lost interest when they realized that aside from a useful ports occupation did not pay off, in terms of the net return.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 02 February 2006 07:23 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Quick, no googling - name one country Persia has invaded (Marathon, Thermopylae and Salamis don't count).



Georgia.
besides you don't have to actually "invade" to be hostile. Iran has done a great job via remote control.
I'll bet you a dozen onion pirogies you can't point one instance of Israel threatening another (UN member) nation that it will wipe it off the map. (although your pirogies might be better than ours)

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 February 2006 07:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is pretty good Peech, the Battle of Krisinisi 1790 or so. Soundly beaten if I remember it correctly. Since then of course Georgians would identify Turks and Russians as their primary foe, I think, if not Chechyns.

As for the "threats" one might refer oneself to a famous quote by Mamet, in that regard, no?

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 02 February 2006 07:34 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
That is pretty good Peech, the Battle of Krisinisi 1790 or so. Soundly beaten if I remember it correctly. Since then of course Georgians would identify Turks and Russians as their primary foe, I think, if not Chechyns.

As for the "threats" one might refer oneself to a famous quote by Mamet, in that regard, no?



1795 or 7 or something like that.Yes, I am hoping Mamet is appropriate, Touche!

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 February 2006 07:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Dr. Shahak, Holocaust survivor and retired professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights.
The debates held in Israel during the course of the Gulf War brought to light some remarkable revelations about pre-war Israeli policies.

In this article I will describe two such revelations, the first about the Israeli use of nuclear threats against at least three Arab states in the past, and the real nature and capacity of the Israeli intelligence services.

[SNIP]

Naturally, Rabin's speech had its reverberations. In a leading article in Hadashot (February 19), Amnon Levy, after comparing Rabin to an exceptionally hawkish Likud ex-general, Bar Kochba, asked: "Is it not impolitic to threaten Syria so openly and so virulently, just when it is a part of the anti-Iraq coalition? Is it justified to provoke so strongly a state which at the present juncture is on the same side we are?" After further questions to Rabin concerning Israeli internal affairs, Levy proceeds to the last "and the most essential" question: "What shall we do from now on? According to Rabin, all our power of deterrence has crumbled, after the threats presumed preventable by it were carried through" when the missiles actually struck Israel. Therefore, asks Levy, "What will be our defense from now on, in the absence of deterrence?"

{MORE SNIP]

The conclusion is inescapable that Israel has, for years, threatened Syria and Iraq with its nuclear weapons. According to an article by Rabin himself published a few days afterwards (Yediot Ahronot, February 22), Saudi Arabia was being threatened by Israel as well. Moreover, those nuclear weapons with which the three said Arab states have been threatened can be assumed to have been not just "tactical" ones, but intended to wreak maximum death and destruction. A celebrated Israeli writer, Yaakov Sharett (son of former Prime Minister Moshe Sharett) offered the same interpretation of Rabin's speech in Davar on February 24, while expressing his indignation over the very idea of relying on nuclear deterrence. Reuven Padatzur, the military correspondent of Haaretz ("A symptom of failure," February 25) also understands Rabin as calling for the use of nuclear weapons. "Everyone understands what is the only possible means of ‘obliterating' two Syrian cities."



Israel Shahak

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 02 February 2006 08:03 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Very interesting, and perhaps hypothetical. But I haven't found an actual speech made publiclly to the world and the target state where Israel threatens the extermination of the state. Secondly Israel was in fact targeted by missiles from Iraq during the last gulf war notwithstanding it wasn't even a participant! (although fortunately with non-nuclear warheads.)
And thirdly I truly believe that Israel's possession of nukes (although not ideal) is clearly a case where the mere possession is a deterrence.

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 February 2006 08:17 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Secondly Israel was in fact targeted by missiles from Iraq during the last gulf war notwithstanding it wasn't even a participant!

Dat burn it, didn't Israel bomb Iraq a few years before that, and Iraq wasn't even a participant?

quote:
But I haven't found an actual speech made publiclly to the world and the target state where Israel threatens the extermination of the state.

Well, there's Bibi on Palestine, and the Israelis have effectively - not hypothetically - demolished (as opposed to the inactive Iranian blowhards) any chance that there will ever be a viable Arab state in Palestine.

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 02 February 2006 09:06 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Bibi speaks for himself. Besides not a good example or analogy.(Palestine's fate will be sealed by its election of Hmas...which Israel is not responsible for.)
Secondly Iraq at that time was an unstable dictatorship with a declared objective in "taking out Israel" (just like Iran).
Israel didn't invade Iraq it just neutralized it's nuclear weapon producing facility. The world is grateful (although most can't publicly say so.)
It was the right thing to do even if not PC.
I'll send you my address for those pirogies!

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 February 2006 09:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Very interesting, and perhaps hypothetical. But I haven't found an actual speech made publiclly to the world and the target state where Israel threatens the extermination of the state. Secondly Israel was in fact targeted by missiles from Iraq during the last gulf war notwithstanding it wasn't even a participant! (although fortunately with non-nuclear warheads.)
And thirdly I truly believe that Israel's possession of nukes (although not ideal) is clearly a case where the mere possession is a deterrence.

Trust me peech. I can find other "actual" threats. I was much pleased to find this piece, which I hadn't seen before, and it was an interesting perspective and use of deductive logic, I thought. No use in repeating it, given that it is so well argued above.

And in anycase, anyone who has seen the Godfather knows that it is always possible to say things, without actually saying them, in politics as well as within the mob, so I think we can dispense with petty preverication. The fact that Israel got the bomb is a threat all in itself.

I would actually argue that overtly billigerent talk is actually a sign of lack of resolve, having been sucker punched enough times to know that it is often those who bark the least who hammer in the lethal blow, and the others are full of talk, mostly.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 02 February 2006 09:33 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:

Mark Steyn in a recent Sun Times article believes Iran will be nuclear in less than a year and refers to European estimates of four to five years as "laughable".

That would be Mark Steyn the racist who called for a return to the "good old days" of imperialism and the white man's burden?

When exactly did he get back from his secret spy mission into Iran exactly?


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 February 2006 10:36 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
(Palestine's fate will be sealed by its election of Hmas...which Israel is not responsible for.)

Never mind the creepy, threatening overtones of this statement, do you really think that Palestinians voted for Hamas with no thoughts of Israel to motivate them?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
MartinArendt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9723

posted 03 February 2006 12:10 AM      Profile for MartinArendt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Man, I usually don't post in this forum. But, I have to say, I'm not exactly ecstatic about Hamas winning the elections.

I've always been in the 'middle' when it comes to the Israel/Palestine debate, which tends to irritate everybody on either side of me. The activists don't like it that I don't side with them entirely about Palestine, and a lot of my more mainstream Jewish friends weren't happy that I wouldn't side with them about Israel.

I was never happy with Sharon, for the same reason I've never liked other right-wing, hawkish leaders. I was also never happy with Arafat, for the same reason I've never liked other hawkish dictators. When Abbas was elected, and Sharon seemed to be maybe possibly thinking about relenting a bit, I thought things could go in a positive direction. But with Hamas, I really don't see how that could be.

At the same time, I think Daniel Pipes is kind of full of hot air, although he spouts out hot air in a fairly articulate way.

I don't know. No matter what happens, it always seems to have the worst results...


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 03 February 2006 12:45 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:
[QB]
Steyn' s predictions have track record of being vindicated by events . He predicted the afghanistan war would be very short and decisive

Completely irrelevent to the question of Iran's nuclear arms capability. As for the accuracy of the prediction, I'll give you one thing: It was short. Decisive? Hardly. The Taliban are still a major player pretty much everywhere except in the capital.

quote:
The fact that you don't like him does not give your ad hominum attack any probitive value.

I didn't make an ad hominem attack. I attacked his lack of evidence, not his character. Since my assertion was that he had no evidence, the fact that he has no evidence is completley probative. I'll ask again, where is the evidence that you and Mark Steyn are relying upon?

quote:
The Israeli's certainly do have their own agenda,they have an irrational fear of being attacked by the same lot that have aggressed against them many times before,

Ahhh yes, "the same lot" - by this I assume you mean to lump the entirety of Arabs, Syrians, Persians, etc. who largely profess some version of Islam as their religion into one big pile? Iran has never taken any direct military action against Israel.

Tell me, however, since Israel is "irrational" according to you and has initiated a number of attacks against it's neighbours, why should they not "irrationally" fear a nuclear armed Israel and why do they not also have the right to protect themselves from this known "irrational" aggressor?

quote:
There are more and more signs( one just posted recently on this thread) that this could all come down very soon. Do I have definative proof that this is so....no. Do you have any to the contrary?

So after all of that bluster, you actually concede that you just don't know. BTW, I don't have to prove anything, I'm not the one who claimed that Iran would have nuclear weapons in 6 months to a year.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 03 February 2006 01:06 AM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

I'll bet you a dozen onion pirogies you can't point one instance of Israel threatening another (UN member) nation that it will wipe it off the map.


Uh, that's how Israel won the 73 war--they deployed their brand new nukes, targetted Damascus, Cairo and Amman, and then called Henry Kissenger and told him that they'd nuke the middle east if the US didn't start sending supplies, asap.

The US shat a brick and started sending arms. With the confidence that they had a powerful backer in their corner, Israel was able to make some riskier moves and won the war after Ariel Sharon's brilliant raid across the Suez.

As far as anyone knows, that's the closest anyone's come to the launch of nuclear weapons since nagasaki.

So yeah, Israel has done FAR more than idly (and impotently) threaten a neighbour. It's very potently threatened them all, and has carefully leaked news of this threat to them, because the same threat is still just as good today. Israel has been conducting nuclear blackmail for 32 years. That's the real reason they're upset at the r=prospect of a nuclear Iran: MAD will make Israel's bombs useless.

~~

Israel's nuclear arsenal is a major driever of the shift toward terrorism that confilct in the middle east took in, yes, 73. With Israel's nuclear terrorism making legal warfare impossible (the arabs came very close to winning in 73), and with the US preventing any legal resolution to their plight via the UNSC, the arabs took to terror as the last resort left.

Soon after came Munich, and the well known story of the past thirty years.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 February 2006 01:12 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

Uh, that's how Israel won the 73 war--they deployed their brand new nukes, targetted Damascus, Cairo and Amman, and then called Henry Kissenger and told him that they'd nuke the middle east if the US didn't start sending supplies, asap.

Soon after came Munich, and the well known story of the past thirty years.


Yep they just had absolutely no choice but, as a last possible resort, were "forced" into against their wishes, and better judgment to resort to murder. (I have some swamp land that Paul Bernardo used to own to sell you.)

That's great fiction! You have talent my boy! And of course, Israel is responsible for:
global warming, toxic waste, pollution, poverty, spam, cholesterol, trans fatty acids, BSE, the Cuban Missile Crisis, 911, the FLQ and hmmm let's see..... oh yes the wet winter in Vancouver.

[ 03 February 2006: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 03 February 2006 01:42 AM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Yep they just had absolutely no choice but, as a last possible resort, were "forced" into against their wishes, and better judgment to resort to murder. (I have some swamp land that Paul Bernardo used to own to sell you.)

It means you lose your bet, above.

quote:
That's great fiction! You have talent my boy! And of course, Israel is responsible for:
global warming, toxic waste, pollution, poverty, spam, cholesterol, trans fatty acids, BSE, the Cuban Missile Crisis, 911, the FLQ and hmmm let's see..... oh yes the wet winter in Vancouver.

If your education in recent middle eastern history didn't include this event, then you are wholly unqualified to discuss the topic: this has been a major driver of events in the region for more than three decades.

If you're curious, he's the story told by someone from the USAF staff college:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm

OK. The source is a paper written for USAF staff officers and national security policy makers. See the cited page for footnotes and documentation of the conclusions.*

quote:
THE THIRD TEMPLE'S HOLY OF HOLIES:
ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS

by

Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army

The Counterproliferation Papers

September 1999

The Counterproliferation Papers Series was established by the USAF Counterproliferation Center to provide information and analysis to U.S. national security policy-makers and USAF officers to assist them in countering the threat posed by adversaries equipped with weapons of mass destruction. Copies of papers in this series are available from the USAF Counterproliferation Center, 325 Chennault Circle, Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427. The fax number is (334) 953-7538; phone (334) 953-7538.

...


On the afternoon of 6 October 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in a coordinated surprise attack, beginning the Yom Kippur War.

Caught with only regular forces on duty, augmented by reservists with a low readiness level, Israeli front lines crumbled. By early afternoon on 7 October, no effective forces were in the southern Golan Heights and Syrian forces had reached the edge of the plateau, overlooking the Jordan River. This crisis brought Israel to its second nuclear alert.

Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, obviously not at his best at a press briefing, was, according to Time magazine, rattled enough to later tell the prime minister that "this is the end of the third temple," referring to an impending collapse of the state of Israel. "Temple" was also the code word for nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Golda Meir and her "kitchen cabinet" made the decision on the night of 8 October.

The Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton atomic bombs. The number and in fact the entire story was later leaked by the Israelis as a great psychological warfare tool. Although most probably plutonium devices, one source reports they were enriched uranium bombs. The Jericho missiles at Hirbat Zachariah and the nuclear strike F-4s at Tel Nof were armed and prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets. They also targeted Damascus with nuclear capable long-range artillery although it is not certain they had nuclear artillery shells.62

U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was notified of the alert several hours later on the morning of 9 October. The U.S. decided to open an aerial resupply pipeline to Israel, and Israeli aircraft began picking up supplies that day. Although stockpile depletion remained a concern, the military situation stabilized on October 8th and 9th as Israeli reserves poured into the battle and averted disaster. Well before significant American resupply had reached Israeli forces, the Israelis counterattacked and turned the tide on both fronts.


[ 03 February 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 February 2006 02:17 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know why it is so, but there have been quite a few instances when one of babble's Israeli apologists, when confronted with the issue of Zionist nukes, tries to deflect the discussion by mentioning nonsensical conspiracy theories.

It must be part of the syndrome of denial that allows Zionists to live with themselves - if they didn't have their fairy-tale image of Israel they'd probably go nuts.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 03 February 2006 09:09 AM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
S1mOn says.."That's the closest anyone's come to the launch of nuclear weapons since Nagasaki."

Maybe, but there's a persistent story that the officer of the deck on the Saratoga launched two A-4's with nuclear bombs on their centre strakes on June 8, 1967. The Saratoga was the carrier responding to the attack on USS Liberty; the A-4's target was Cairo. The pilots were recalled just in time.


From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 February 2006 09:56 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From Coyote's Howls:

quote:

I say none of this with anything approaching glee. I am deeply disturbed by this turn of events. As logical as I may find the motives of the Palestinian electors, I am far less sanguine about those whom they have elected to represent them. Hamas's brutality does not extend only to the Israeli civilians they have butchered; many are the secular or non-moslem activists who have been "removed" from Hamas controlled areas, and there are good reasons to believe that Hamas has deliberately exacerbated tensions in both Gaza and the West Bank so as to step forward and bring "order". These are ideologues of the worst kind, and the kind words said of them by the inheritors of Iran's Khomeni may serve as a reminder of what can happen when a popular movement with right on its side is hi-jacked by fundamentalists.

Nevertheless, the Palestinians have spoken, and Israelis must face up to that; just as Palestinians had to face up to the Bulldozer - the Butcher of Shabra and Shatilla - as the Israeli Prime Minister.

In other words, they have to live with one another. Is there any better reason to end the occupation now?


here


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 February 2006 11:46 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of debunking anti-Zionist rhetoric and conspiracy theories this former CIA operative deals with many issues:
John Loftus:
quote:
Similarly, the official history of the Yom Kippur War of 1973 credits the intervention of an American Jew, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, with saving Israel by warning off the USSR and airlifting arms to Israel. Loftus and Aarons provide a different take on this. In their view (or that of many intelligence officers whom they interviewed), Kissinger was a military incompetent and created a climate for war by sabotaging the Sadat/Rogers peace negotiations because he could not claim credit for these. Kissinger dithered with intelligence, mobilization, and re-supply, and Israel would have been in serious danger without the intervention of White House chief-of-staff (and ex-military man) Alexander Haig. Kissinger scapegoated CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton for these blunders, forcing Angleton's retirement

In order for some Hamas apologists to live with themselves, they deflect and rewritehistory in order to blame Israel for the election of repressive Islamic fundamentalist murderers by the Palestinians! (Or similarly blame Israel for the current rants and threats of destruction by the Iranian tyrant.)

[ 03 February 2006: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 February 2006 11:58 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Real Facts On Israels's WMD
quote:
Nuclear weapons need not be detonated to be used as weapons. Early in the 1973 war, Israel went on a nuclear alert, partly in the knowledge that it would be detected by the United States and the Soviet Union. The Soviets, Israel assumed, would restrain their Arab allies while the Americans would speed up resupply efforts. While the USSR did inform Egypt that Israel had armed three nuclear weapons, the extent to which Israel's nuclear alert affected the timing of Washington's subsequent decision to rearm Israel is not clear.

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 February 2006 12:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well at least we are begining to step into reality. So we can agree that non-use is the actual employable strategic value of nuclear weapons, and so we can assume that the Iranians also don't itend to use them, exuant lunatic Pipedreamer.

Now, the real threat, if there is one to Israel from Iran, is that obviation of Israeli superiority in this key area of intimidation, is the possibility that parity will create a nuclear umbrella underwhich conventional means might be employable. However, we might want to note that Iran does no border on Israel. So we can stuff that into are sci-fi hat, as well.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 February 2006 12:33 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
However, we might want to note that Iran does no border on Israel. So we can stuff that into are sci-fi hat, as well.

Iranian Missile Guide

Actually with all due respect Iran has purchased/developed long range missiles which it has claimed are capable of reaching "deep into Israeli territory" Tel Aviv for example.) So Iran is clear and present threat.

Shahab 3

quote:
The Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missile means Meteor-3 or Shooting Star-3 in Farsi [alternatively designated Zelzal (Earthquake)] is derived from the 1,300-1,500 kilometer range North Korean No-dong missile. The Shahab-3 reportedly has a range of between 1,300 and 1,500 kilometers and is capable of carrying a 1,000-760 kilogram warhead

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 03 February 2006 04:26 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TCD:
That would be Mark Steyn the racist who called for [URL=http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith//courses01/rrtw/Steyn.htm]a return to the "good old days" of imperialism and the white man's burden

I didn't entirely agree with that article either, Steyn's language tends to run over the top sometimes. On the other hand,it was written just a few weeks after 9/11, when emotions were running high, and we had just seen the results of allowing a very evil state of affairs to exist in afghanistan. And what he actually advocates in the article is not the imposition of a british raj,but a multinational rebuilding of afghanistan into a workable democratic state, just what is now in the process of becoming.

When exactly did he get back from his secret spy mission into Iran exactly?[/QUOTE]

Steyn has quite a good record of predictions, and so do the Israelis. While they do have their own agendas, so do the Europeans and others who predict four or five years or even ten years, till Iran goes nuclear,and of course,they will not have to worry as much about being the targets.

[ 03 February 2006: Message edited by: who's tory now ]


From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 February 2006 04:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
[QB][/QB]

I thought we had diposed of the idea that nukes were valuable as anything other collateral leverage. Given this, a few paltry rockets means very little, as Israel would no doubt be able to respond in kind, and so the value seems pretty low geopolitically speaking. No really, the kind of military operation that Iran would have to mount toward any kind of useful goal would be strictly conventional and at least temporary occupation of the main land of Israel.

Not likely since 2 US client states sit between Iran and Israel, (Iraq and Jordan) as well as 200,000 man US expeditionary force in the gulf.

Perhaps we can start talking about something a little more likely, such as an Australian attempt at revisiting Galipoli -- all they really got out of that was a classic song, and I am sure that has gotta hurt.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 03 February 2006 04:45 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

So after all of that bluster, you actually concede that you just don't know. BTW, I don't have to prove anything, I'm not the one who claimed that Iran would have nuclear weapons in 6 months to a year.


The war was decisive. You dont see pictures of weird beards beating women with wire rods on T.V.these days, or blowing up bhuddist statues.Instead there are joyous scenes of people voting, women taking off their veils, if they wish, and going to school for the first time in many years.

You're right, I apologise, your arguement was not ad hominum, I was confusing your post with anothers.

If you disagree with my time estimate, then you must have a different one in mind, and you would have as much requirement for evidence on that one as I do for mine. There is no gold standard here, just varying estimates of different people with different agendas, and again, in a closed society such as Iran, you can't just look it up on nexus,so estimates are all we have. Given that being wrong about the capacities and motives of an irrational zealot,might mean wandering around the rubble of the middle east with geiger-counters, it would behoove us to be conservative in the time department.

[ 03 February 2006: Message edited by: who's tory now ]


From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 03 February 2006 05:26 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

So after all of that bluster, you actually concede that you just don't know. BTW, I don't have to prove anything, I'm not the one who claimed that Iran would have nuclear weapons in 6 months to a year.


continued
Obviously,all Muslims are not the same in their origins or religion, but most Palestinians, Iraqis( in Saddam's day) and Iranians through their hezbollah proxies have been united in their record of aggressive war s of annihilation against Israel from 1948 to the present.

And all of Israels military actions have been responses to these attacks.Is there any doubt as to the fate of the
Israelis if even one of those attacks had been sucessful?
And yet, Israel won all these wars of self preservation, and is still willing to negotiate with the Palestinians,if they are ever willing to let go of their depraved cult of death.

[ 03 February 2006: Message edited by: who's tory now ]


From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 February 2006 07:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Except of course that almost all Israeli sources of note disagree with the idea that all of Israel's war were "responses" to "attacks." Menachem Begin, noting quite clearly that Israel began the war in Lebanon in 1982 by choice, much as they began the 1967 war by choice, as they entered the 1956 war by choice. But of course, if I were only to read Berlin papers from 1939, I would no doubt be convinced that Germany had no choice but go to war after repeated Polish provocations. That is what happens to your mind when you only read biased publications whose sole purpose it dispensing official propoganda.

[ 03 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 03 February 2006 08:07 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:

continued
Obviously,all arabs are not the same in their origins or religion, but most palestinians, iraqis( in saddams day) and iranians through their hezbollah proxies have been united in their record of aggressive war s of annihilation against Israel from 1948 to the present.


I'm curious about this term - used only in the case of threats against Israel - "wars of annihilation". I'm curious as to it's genesis and promulgation. Why is it that everyone else's wars, regardless of the ideological factors -- nevermind the realistic military capabilities of the combattants or the severity of the fighting --are never "wars of annihilation"? But whenever Arab states go to war with Israel, or even when they are attacked by Israel, it's a "war of annihilation"?

quote:
And all of israels military actions have been responses to these attacks.

In 1956 Israel initiated the conflict with Egypt. There goes the "all" part of your theory. As any grade 8 teacher might warn you: when making arguments, be very careful with all-encompassing statements, especially the kind that start with "All". Other cases of Israeli aggression include the attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities, and various overflights and bombings in Syria. A more debatable instance would be 1967. High-ranking Israeli leaders have admitted that they understood the threat from Egypt was not that great and that they started the hostilities because they realised they held a strategic and material advantage. Others, like James Bamford, have argued that Israel had planned just such an attack for some time and only used the Egyptian buildup in the Sinai as a pretext for initiating a pre-written script. But, in that case there is at least some question as to whether Egypt's build-up was a suitable provocation for a "pre-emptive war". In 1973, we have Egypt and Syria attacking Israel over territory that Israel had occupied in 1967. So there you at least have the Arab states attacking first, but as to the question of the intent to "annihilate" Israel, there is little certainty.

quote:
Is there any doubt as to the fate of the
Israelis if even one of those attacks had been sucessful?

Much doubt. Rhetorical questions aren't arguments.

[ 03 February 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 03 February 2006 08:19 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:
[QB]

The war was decisive. You dont see pictures of weird beards beating women with wire rods on T.V.these days,


"Weird beards?" Excuse me? Racist or discriminatory characterisations are not welcome here.

quote:
If you disagree with my time estimate, then you must have a different one in mind, and you would have as much requirement for evidence on that one as I do for mine.

Not necessarily. You made a claim and I put your feet to the fire for it. I don't need to have any alternative timeframe in mind. An analogy: I don't have to know the precise length of my cat's tail to know that it would be better to get close to the cat and use a ruler than to throw some of his poo against the wall and then guess in order to find out.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 February 2006 10:10 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Obviously,all Muslims are not the same in their origins or religion, but most Palestinians, Iraqis( in Saddam's day) and Iranians through their hezbollah proxies have been united in their record of aggressive war s of annihilation against Israel from 1948 to the present.

This is just plain wrong.

Hezbollah was created in response to Israel's war of aggression against Lebanon. It wouldn't exist otherwise.

How anyone can construe Palestinian resistance against the occupation by a conquerer as "aggression" is beyond me.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 04 February 2006 12:13 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Except of course that almost all Israeli sources of note disagree with the idea that all of Israel's war were "responses" to "attacks." Menachem Begin, noting quite clearly that Israel began the war in Lebanon in 1982 by choice, much as they began the 1967 war by choice, as they entered the 1956 war by choice. But of course, if I were only to read Berlin papers from 1939, I would no doubt be convinced that Germany had no choice but go to war after repeated Polish provocations. That is what happens to your mind when you only read biased publications whose sole purpose it dispensing official propoganda.

[ 03 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]



The Polish "provocations"j were wholly invented by the nazis.

The terrorist incursions against Israeli terrorists by fedayeen were very real,as authenticated by the international media at the time, and resulted in many casualties.This alone justifies the Israeli response in 1956, not to mention the stated intentions of Israel and Syria to drive the Jews into the sea. They clearly had this intention.And Jews have learned from the holocaust to listen very carefully to clear statements of intent backed up by actions in service of that intent.


From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 February 2006 12:29 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:

The Polish "provocations"j were wholly invented by the nazis.

The terrorist incursions against Israeli terrorists by fedayeen were very real,as authenticated by the international media at the time, and resulted in many casualties.This alone justifies the Israeli response in 1956, not to mention the stated intentions of Israel and Syria to drive the Jews into the sea.


Apparently there are more self-hating Jews out there than previously estimated...


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 04 February 2006 12:52 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

Much doubt. Rhetorical questions aren't arguments.

[ 03 February 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]



Quote-I'm curious about this term - used only in the case of threats against Israel - "wars of annihilation". I'm curious as to it's genesis and promulgation. Why is it that everyone else's wars, regardless of the ideological factors -- nevermind the realistic military capabilities of the combattants or the severity of the fighting --are never "wars of annihilation"? But whenever Arab states go to war with Israel, or even when they are attacked by Israel, it's a "war of annihilation"? end quote
Who knows? Why, that must say something about the Jews eh? Couldn’t have anything to do with the stated intentions of Israel’s enemies to utterly destroy them. drive the “sons of pigs and monkeys” into the sea? Repeated ad nauseum, and often with the means to nearly succeed, the “nearly” part only clear in hindsight, or that Jews wandering into Palestinian areas have been literally torn to shreds. Perhaps “annihilation” is rhetorical overkill (so to speak) in Canadian polite society, ( but not if you’re in New York) but a very real and constant possibility in Israel.
All Israeli military actions have been responses to Arab attacks. And I use the word “all” advisedly. If the Arabs were willing to accept the existence of the state of Israel, there would be no Israeli military action.
.quote
Other casesof Israeli aggression include the attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities, and various overflights and bombings in Syria. A more debatable instance would be 1967. High-ranking Israeli leaders have admitted that they understood the threat from Egypt was not that great and that they started the hostilities because they realised they held a strategic and material advantage. Others, like James Bamford, have argued that Israel had planned just such an attack for some time and only used the Egyptian buildup in the Sinai as a pretext for initiating a pre-written script. But, in that case there is at least some question as to whether Egypt's build-up was a suitable provocation for a "pre-emptive war". In 1973, we have Egypt and Syria attacking Israel over territory that Israel had occupied in 1967. So there you at least have the Arab states attacking first, but as to the question of the intent to "annihilate" Israel, there is little certainty. End quote

Most of the world is grateful that Israel eliminated Iraqs nuclear capacity, even if they wont say so publicly. Those weapons were in the hands of an unstable dictator who had the express aim of annihilating Israel.
Until Syria ceases hostilities against Israel, overflights and bombings are justified response

The Israeli leaders statements that I have read say otherwise. The forces against Israel were overwhelming, even so, Israel agonized for weeks after Egypts closing the straights and ordering out the u.n


From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 February 2006 01:00 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And yet they invaded Lebanon on a lark!
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 04 February 2006 01:29 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Specifically, they invaded Lebanon on the basis of the utterly fraudulent excuse of an assassination attempt on an Israeli diplomat in Europe which they conveniently blamed on the PLO. In fact, it was carried out by Abu Nidal's rival group (which they knew), but any excuse would do for the long-planned invasion.

That was after the PLO had annoyingly adhered to a ceasefire and restrained itself from launching rocket attacks against northern Israel from Lebanon for almost a year, despite repeated Israeli provocations (ie. bombing and killing Lebanese civilians) designed to illicit just such an attack.

But, I'm sure those inconvenient facts can be easily banished if one closes ones eyes and concentrates hard enough on images of Israel the Innocent Angel Surrounded by Evil Arabs.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 February 2006 04:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:

The Polish "provocations"j were wholly invented by the nazis.

The terrorist incursions against Israeli terrorists by fedayeen were very real,as authenticated by the international media at the time, and resulted in many casualties.This alone justifies the Israeli response in 1956, not to mention the stated intentions of Israel and Syria to drive the Jews into the sea. They clearly had this intention.And Jews have learned from the holocaust to listen very carefully to clear statements of intent backed up by actions in service of that intent.



Please source through the "drive the Jews into the sea" quote. And I don't mean Ben Gurion, saying some Arab leader said it, I mean someone else saying that they heard an Arab leaders say it, like a journalist or a diplomat who is not Israeli? I mean these things get around you know. Really, someone other than Ben Gurion must have heard it somewhere, from someone?

[ 04 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 February 2006 04:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:
But, I'm sure those inconvenient facts can be easily banished if one closes ones eyes and concentrates hard enough on images of Israel the Innocent Angel Surrounded by Evil Arabs.

You forgot the mantra. You have to say over and over again, "A land without a people, and a people without a land."


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 05 February 2006 08:30 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:


Please source through the "drive the Jews into the sea" quote. And I don't mean Ben Gurion, saying some Arab leader said it, I mean someone else saying that they heard an Arab leaders say it, like a journalist or a diplomat who is not Israeli? I mean these things get around you know. Really, someone other than Ben Gurion must have heard it somewhere, from someone?

[ 04 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


In 1967 we all heard those those words and many others like them as the comman boasts of Nasser and other Arab leaders in the rhetorical onslaught that accompanied Nassers actions in closing the straits of Tiran and ordering out the UN peace keepers from the demilitarized zone between Israel and Egypt.


From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 05 February 2006 08:38 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

Not necessarily. You made a claim and I put your feet to the fire for it. I don't need to have any alternative timeframe in mind. An analogy: I don't have to know the precise length of my cat's tail to know that it would be better to get close to the cat and use a ruler than to throw some of his poo against the wall and then guess in order to find out.


Sorry, but the taliban by their own self characterization, wish to destroy any who do not subscribe to their own brand of Islamic fascism. As such they do not deserve my tolerance.

I have cited three experts with good records for accuracy of prediction, Steyn, Pipes, and then Israeli foreign ministry.You have cited none. This analogy is beginning to resemble a salamanders tail, which, when cut, constantly regrows, thus, the tale that has no end!


From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 08:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:

In 1967 we all heard those those words and many others like them as the comman boasts of Nasser and other Arab leaders in the rhetorical onslaught that accompanied Nassers actions in closing the straits of Tiran and ordering out the UN peace keepers from the demilitarized zone between Israel and Egypt.


So you are fluent In Arabic, and spent your time with your ears glued to the radio. No doubt seeing as you are personally experienced in the matter, and as a fluent Arabic speaker, you will be able to identify the speech, the date of the speech, and find a source.

Someone with your multilingual abilities is far more capable than I in researching such a topic, but here is all I have been able to find:

The only properly sourced pre-war reference that I have found spoken by Nasser that is even close is simply:

quote:
"The Jews threatened war. We tell them: You are welcome, we are ready for war. Our armed forces and all our people are ready for war, but under no circumstances will we abandon any of our rights. This water is ours."

Not quite the same as "We will push the Jews into the sea," is it?

You would think that the Jewish virtual Library would be able to track down a sourced reference for the "drive the jews into the Sea" quote, but no, the speech they provide says nothing of the kind.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 05 February 2006 10:27 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have cited three experts with good records for accuracy of prediction, Steyn, Pipes, and then Israeli foreign ministry.

This gets my vote for Best Unintential Humour of the Day.

A lunatic pundit, a crank professor and a government which, like all governments, lies routinely. Hoo-boy.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 06 February 2006 02:33 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:

The Polish "provocations"j were wholly invented by the nazis.

The terrorist incursions against Israeli terrorists by fedayeen were very real,as authenticated by the international media at the time, and resulted in many casualties.This alone justifies the Israeli response in 1956, not to mention the stated intentions of Eygypt and Syria to drive the Jews into the sea. They clearly had this intention.And Jews have learned from the holocaust to listen very carefully to clear statements of intent backed up by actions in service of that intent.



From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 06 February 2006 03:11 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Not quite the same as "We will push the Jews into the sea," is it?

You would think that the Jewish virtual Library would be able to track down a sourced reference for the "drive the jews into the Sea" quote, but no, the speech they provide says nothing of the kind.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]



I havent got a lot of time to research this issue, but a cursory google search found this in the may 26 address of Nasser to the Egyption trade unions
"The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel. I probably could not have said such things five or even three years ago. If I had said such things and had been unable to carry them out my words would have been empty and worthless"

True, not the literal words," drive the jews into the sea" but the intent is clear. In other parts of the speech he makes reference to a parallel to driving the Crusaders out in the middle ages, to justifying expelling the UN peacekeepers,and to the ring of Arab forces now surrounding Israel .
The internet, and Arab media watch, which now tracks and translates every hateful, antisemitic, and genocidal public utterance of Muslim clerics and politicians did not exist in 1967, but these views were widely promulgated and heard by the world in the prelude to the war. It was widely thought that Israel's destruction, as expounded in Nassers speech was imminent,and the world prepared to shed a tear for Jewish victims of the impending genocide. (It does seem that Jews were much more popular as potential victims than as victors)And it is interesting that what was generally understood to be the case forty years ago( or sixty for the holocaust) can be deconstructed and denied today.


From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 04:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you make this cursory google search, but fail to make a cursory link, well...
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 06 February 2006 05:51 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whose Tory Now missed the sentence that immediately preceeded his quote. It's a rather significant omission:

"If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders."

Nasser is responding to the threat of attack by Israel and its backers, the US and UK.

I found the tone of the speech to be defiant, much like Churchill's "We shall fight on the beaches..." and it seems also to be a rallying-point and an attempt to unite the various Arab coutries behind him.

There's also an element of, "Sure, we've had the stuffing kicked out of us in the past by united Western countries, but we'll be stronger the next time we're attacked."

web page


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 06 February 2006 06:01 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Whose Tory Now missed the sentence that immediately preceeded his quote.

He did more than leave out the preceding sentence: he edited the sentence he cites to leave out the initial clause. Very naughty!

quote:
Genuine: "If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be...

quote:
Quoted: "The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel...

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 06 February 2006 06:49 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:
[QB]

Sorry, but the taliban by their own self characterization, wish to destroy any who do not subscribe to their own brand of Islamic fascism. As such they do not deserve my tolerance.


Who said they did? A lot of folks wear long beards and other accoutrements associated with their religious beliefs. What if I decided to make fun of Orthodox Jews' dress and facial hair. Is that kosher?

quote:
I have cited three experts with good records for accuracy of prediction, Steyn, Pipes, and then Israeli foreign ministry.

When, exactly, did Steyn and Pipes become experts in nuclear weapons design and manufacture? Steyn is a journalist with absolutely no qualifications in the field of nuclear technology and no experience in the monitoring of weapons proliferation. Ditto Pipes. The Israeli Foreign Ministry is a partisan propaganda outfit.

Predictions are not evidence. Watch this: I predict the Leafs will win the Stanley Cup this year. I have successfully predicted several other events of varying magnitude in my life. Therefore, it is a surefire thing that the Leafs will win the Stanley Cup. Boy, that was easy.

I guess being "Tory" means giving up basic common sense. I long for the days of Edmund Burke.

[ 07 February 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 09:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Whose Tory Now missed the sentence that immediately preceeded his quote. It's a rather significant omission:

"If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders."


I guess that explains the missing link.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 07 February 2006 01:21 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:
I have cited three experts with good records for accuracy of prediction, Steyn, Pipes, and then Israeli foreign ministry.

Could you please list their successes in predicting nuclear arms development timetables? As I can gather, not one of your sources has a significant track record in predicting nuclear arms development.

Hey, my buddy seems to be able to pick the ponies pretty good. Can I call him in as an "expert with a good record for accuracy of prediction" on this one? According to your model, he should be just fine.

Personally, I'll take the word of the IAEA.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 February 2006 01:36 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
Steyn is a journalist...

I wouldn't even call him a journalist. He's a polemicist. He started his career as a musical theatre and film critic and then moved into political punditry. He's never been a field reporter.

[ 07 February 2006: Message edited by: pogge ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 February 2006 02:17 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Really, can you find some links to review by him? That might be interesting.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 07 February 2006 02:42 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Really, can you find some links to review by him? That might be interesting.


http://www.marksteyn.com/

I'm envoking the Townsend Defense on this one.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 07 February 2006 03:51 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

I guess that explains the missing link.



I left that out because it was nonsense. Egypt had ALREADY embarked on a war of aggression against Israel by closing the straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping, ordering out the UN peacekeeping force that stood between Egypt and Israel, and moving its armies up to the international border. These actions constituted a causus belli. Any Israeli military reaction would not therefore be "embark(ing)on an aggression,but would be a defensive reaction.

If you cannot see that the country that orders OUT the UN peacekeepers and substitutes its OWN army in its place is the aggressor, I give up.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.


From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
who's tory now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11934

posted 07 February 2006 03:53 PM      Profile for who's tory now        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:

I left that out because it was nonsense. Egypt had ALREADY embarked on a war of aggression against Israel by closing the straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping, ordering out the UN peacekeeping force that stood between Egypt and Israel, and moving its armies up to the international border. These actions constituted a causus belli. Any Israeli military reaction would not therefore be "embark(ing)on an aggression",but would be a defensive reaction to those actions.

If you cannot see that the country that orders OUT the UN peacekeepers and substitutes its OWN army in its place is the aggressor, I give up.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.



From: victoria | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 February 2006 04:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think anyone is interested in wether you think what Nasser said was nonsense. I think that people here feel like they would look at the uncensored version of the historical record, so that they can make up their own minds. The fact that you have decided that your personal politcal analysis trumps the written record to the extent where you feel that you can exclude parts of the record seems like untruthfulness, and does nothing but sully whatever point you are trying to make.

So far we have nothing from any confirmed Arab leader talking about anihilation, or driving the Jews into the sea, except as a response to Israeli miliitary action. I really had hoped that you would be able to help me with this, because I have never been able to source a record of an unmitigated and direct threat against Israel of the kind often referred to by Zionists, in regards this war or any that came before.

So, tell me at what point during the 1967 Nasser's army in the Sinai enter Israel? For that matter at what point did Syrian army enter Israel during the war?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 February 2006 04:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see you have mentioned the Straights of Tiran, actually the Enterprise Channel, which as you no doubt know was within the 50 mile limit of the Egyptian coast, which as a happenstance of geography was the only channel in the straight which was navigable to big tanker shipping. You are saying that Israel had the unilateral right to determine that closing the straight was an act of war, correct?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 07 February 2006 04:14 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:

I left that out because it was nonsense. ...

I see. In other words, you intentionally set out to mislead.

How intellectually honest. Not!

If you have to cheat to 'prove' your case, I think we can safely infer that you don't have a good one.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 February 2006 05:50 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by who's tory now:

Egypt had ALREADY embarked on a war of aggression against Israel by closing the straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping...


The gays of Tiran were relieved, though, that they wouldn't have to cross inhospitable deserts to call out, "Wooo, sailor!"


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 February 2006 11:10 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca