5 ms·

US itself and Israel engaged in sabotage of foreign countries development? you don't say...

loverobots 14y ago
Well, Iran's leaders have stated that they wish to wipe Israel off the map. At least Israel has a legitimate reason to what they are doing and then some.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  That suggests there was a first attack in this conflict; AIUI, the Israel vs. middle east conflict is centuries old, and this is just the latest chapter of escalation and posturing. Once could also argue that Iran is justified in wanting to eliminate Israel because Israel is acting to prevent Iran's growth. Don't mistake my words for wanting to live in Iran -- I just find myself disgusted when we westerners use a ridiculous double standard when judging our own behavior as compared to that of some country we don't like.
  - loverobots 14y ago
    It's more than judging "behavior," Iran has specifically said that they want to wipe Israel off the map. More than once. So it is, or it may be a matter of life and death, not just tolerating someone's odd choice in clothes, or whatever. Is Iran bluffing, are Iran's leader rational or brainwashed religious fanatics? When all it takes is one nuke, why should Israel wait to find out?
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      Many in the US have said the same thing about Iran. When all it takes is one nuke, why should Iran wait to find out? See the hypocrisy? Existential threats work both ways. Are those US talking heads and politicians "brainwashed religious fanatics?" A more important question is why Iran('s government) wants (or claims to want) to eliminate Israel, and how to change their mind (or their government) peacefully.
      - wolf550e 14y ago
        Ostensibly, Iran's theocracy wants to eliminate the State of Israel (not the land itself, duh) because it's a non-Muslim occupier of Muslim land. That is what they say, and it is inline with their religious texts. Israel has never threatened to nuke anyone. It has stated that it is preparing for a potential MAD situation, but that's not a threat - it's a defensive move. Israel does not state that Iran has no right to exist or that its regime must be changed or anything of the sort. I don't think Iran can legitimately claim they have an existential fear of Israel and any attack on Israel is in their own defense. They proclaim Israel as their enemy _in the name of other Muslims_, because they are a big defender of Islam from the Western invaders, not because they are directly threatened.
        seclorum 14y ago
        >I don't think Iran can legitimately claim they have an existential fear of Israel and any attack on Israel is in their own defense. 300+ Israeli nuclear weapons, undeclared, and Israel not a signing member of the NPT pact. This is more than an existential threat - its a real threat of destruction. Why else would the Zionists invest so heavily in these weapons? I think that Israeli Nuclear Weapons are quite a valid threat towards Iran, and every single other life on the planet. Israel should sign, ratify, and obey the NPT. They should declare their nuclear inventory (which includes subs, by the way.. far more threat to Europe than Iran.) Until Israel does this, it can not exert rights over who should, and should not, have nuclear weapons, and any posturing over the 'threat' posed by Iran is simply an effort to obfuscate the Israeli threat, itself, to the world at large. (Iran is a party to the NPT, btw.)
        philwelch 14y ago
        Israel has 300+ nuclear weapons in order to dissuade their unneighborly neighbors from making a third attempt to push them into the sea. They exist, essentially, and literally, to prevent anyone from finishing the Holocaust. Which is not an argument that has much traction with Mr. Ahmedinejad, the esteemed host of international Holocaust denial conferences, or with his similarly inclined sympathizers.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- beedogs 14y ago
  Nice, more repetition of the same mistranslation. Even if Iran's goal is to build a nuclear weapon -- which, from all rational reports, doesn't seem to be the case -- I'm having a hard time sympathizing with a country that already has several hundred nuclear warheads trying to prevent another neighboring country from acquiring one.
- mahmud 14y ago
  Israel did wipe another country off the map: Palestine. Yet we trust them with nukes, which they don't have at all.
  - Zhenya 14y ago
    There was a country called Palestine before Israel? Source please!
    - mahmud 14y ago
      Whatever I cite will never be good enough for you because you believe in the BS "finders keepers" colonialist mindset of occupation. No text, however sacred, no higher-power or imaginary friend can grant you dominance over others and their land. It's simply immoral to fly people from all over the world, so they may replace a forcibly expelled population.
      - berntb 14y ago
        You made a claim. You don't have sources -- and when questioned, you attack the one asking. Why shouldn't we write you off as just another hate propagandist? And if I would write an argument, not that you deserve the chance to change the subject: Please explain why the land area lost in present Israel was worse than most other land area losses after the world wars? They have been let go, they are accepted. I'd say e.g. Karelia was a worse change, from any moral evaluation. The main reason I can see that the Palestine question survived to this day, is because the refugees' lives where destroyed by the Arab states which forced them to live in camps, etc. Edit: Clarity.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    Israel? Try Rome.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    I think you're mistaking Israel with Jordan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan
- justsee 14y ago
  No they haven't. That convenient mistranslation is widely reported because it suits the narrative of the major political powers [1]. They've essentially said the current political regime in Israel must / will disappear. However that sentiment is less useful if your aim is to portray the Iranian state as an aggressive, modern-day Nazi regime though. Anyway that aim (essentially portraying Iran as a country dedicated to the extermination of Jews in the Middle East) completely falls apart in the mind of anyone who cares to review the facts: Iran houses the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside Israel, with population estimates ranging between 30,000 and 90,000 people (most sources put it at 75 000) [2], and they are represented in the Iranian parliament. The current Iranian regime is certainly terrible, and can and should be condemned for many reasons, but pushing the notion that Iran threatens Israel with genocide is pr-fueled nonsense. Useless for intelligent discussion, but handy for manipulating public opinion. [1] http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/08/28/putting-words-in-ahmadinejad-s-mouth/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/08/28/putting-words-in-ahma... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews
  - wolf550e 14y ago
    He said the State of Israel has no right to exist and that regime must vanish. [1] I think that is clear enough. The USA and the USSR exchanged similar messages, and also funded proxy wars against each other. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#...
    - kristopolous 14y ago
      You either see Israel as an intentionally aggressive religiously driven racist (different license plates, voting laws, roads, id cards, laws) nuclear state with a colorful history of terrorism, espionage, invasions, spying, and assassination convictions in multiple countries, or you choose to ignore all of history and blindly support it. Either way, please stop acting surprised when people claim Israels' foreign policy is antagonistic, as if her detractors are mistaken and fabricating... as if Chomsky and Kofi Anaan are liars...
kai-zer 14y ago
Development of weapons-grade uranium for which the only purpose is for use in weapons of mass destruction... You make it sound like that is a bad thing.
- AngrySkillzz 14y ago
  A statement for which you have no evidence. And what threat does Iran pose to the United States? None at all.
  - Retric 14y ago
    That's a rather strong statement. Some people would argue that Iran with weapons grade uranium could reasonably increase the chances that 50,000 Americans will die in the next 10 years by more than 1 in 10,000. That suggests the US could reasonably kill 5 Iranians to deal with the threat. However, Iran would respond to such action which suggests a more limited response such such as planting a virus is reasonable as long as the US can get away with it. PS: That's how these people think, rare events vs lot's of deaths = covert and deniable action.
    - barrkel 14y ago
      I think a nuclear armed Iran would greatly decrease the probability of Americans being killed by Iranians. The logic is simple: nukes bring a country into MAD (mutually assured destruction) mechanics. Most likely Iran would use Israel as a hostage since it would not have the ICBMs necessary to attack the US directly. It would be like North Korea and Japan, only "Japan" would be nuclear armed. I consider invasion of Iran by the US the most likely vector for Iranians killing Americans. MAD should prevent this, like it does in North Korea. (I don't buy neo-conservative anti-Muslim ideology around suicidal leaders for a second. NK is far worse in this respect, IMO; that whole country is being led on a suicidal basis.)
      - mc32 14y ago
        >MAD should prevent this, like it does in North Korea I thought MAD only worked with rational players. Do we know the people who would hold the levers would be rational? We (the west) don't seem to have the same feedback network (i.e. spies) we could depend on as we did with the USSR. That and we had the "red phone" thing. Dunno if that was more gimmick than actual tool. >I don't buy neo-conservative... We don't know what the control structure behind such threat there would be. Can one person cause a launch, conversely, can one person override a launch order?

Well, Iran's leaders have stated that they wish to wipe Israel off the map. At least Israel has a legitimate reason to what they are doing and then some.

nitrogen 14y ago
That suggests there was a first attack in this conflict; AIUI, the Israel vs. middle east conflict is centuries old, and this is just the latest chapter of escalation and posturing. Once could also argue that Iran is justified in wanting to eliminate Israel because Israel is acting to prevent Iran's growth. Don't mistake my words for wanting to live in Iran -- I just find myself disgusted when we westerners use a ridiculous double standard when judging our own behavior as compared to that of some country we don't like.
- loverobots 14y ago
  It's more than judging "behavior," Iran has specifically said that they want to wipe Israel off the map. More than once. So it is, or it may be a matter of life and death, not just tolerating someone's odd choice in clothes, or whatever. Is Iran bluffing, are Iran's leader rational or brainwashed religious fanatics? When all it takes is one nuke, why should Israel wait to find out?
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    Many in the US have said the same thing about Iran. When all it takes is one nuke, why should Iran wait to find out? See the hypocrisy? Existential threats work both ways. Are those US talking heads and politicians "brainwashed religious fanatics?" A more important question is why Iran('s government) wants (or claims to want) to eliminate Israel, and how to change their mind (or their government) peacefully.
    - wolf550e 14y ago
      Ostensibly, Iran's theocracy wants to eliminate the State of Israel (not the land itself, duh) because it's a non-Muslim occupier of Muslim land. That is what they say, and it is inline with their religious texts. Israel has never threatened to nuke anyone. It has stated that it is preparing for a potential MAD situation, but that's not a threat - it's a defensive move. Israel does not state that Iran has no right to exist or that its regime must be changed or anything of the sort. I don't think Iran can legitimately claim they have an existential fear of Israel and any attack on Israel is in their own defense. They proclaim Israel as their enemy _in the name of other Muslims_, because they are a big defender of Islam from the Western invaders, not because they are directly threatened.
      - seclorum 14y ago
        >I don't think Iran can legitimately claim they have an existential fear of Israel and any attack on Israel is in their own defense. 300+ Israeli nuclear weapons, undeclared, and Israel not a signing member of the NPT pact. This is more than an existential threat - its a real threat of destruction. Why else would the Zionists invest so heavily in these weapons? I think that Israeli Nuclear Weapons are quite a valid threat towards Iran, and every single other life on the planet. Israel should sign, ratify, and obey the NPT. They should declare their nuclear inventory (which includes subs, by the way.. far more threat to Europe than Iran.) Until Israel does this, it can not exert rights over who should, and should not, have nuclear weapons, and any posturing over the 'threat' posed by Iran is simply an effort to obfuscate the Israeli threat, itself, to the world at large. (Iran is a party to the NPT, btw.)
        philwelch 14y ago
        Israel has 300+ nuclear weapons in order to dissuade their unneighborly neighbors from making a third attempt to push them into the sea. They exist, essentially, and literally, to prevent anyone from finishing the Holocaust. Which is not an argument that has much traction with Mr. Ahmedinejad, the esteemed host of international Holocaust denial conferences, or with his similarly inclined sympathizers.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
beedogs 14y ago
Nice, more repetition of the same mistranslation. Even if Iran's goal is to build a nuclear weapon -- which, from all rational reports, doesn't seem to be the case -- I'm having a hard time sympathizing with a country that already has several hundred nuclear warheads trying to prevent another neighboring country from acquiring one.
mahmud 14y ago
Israel did wipe another country off the map: Palestine. Yet we trust them with nukes, which they don't have at all.
- Zhenya 14y ago
  There was a country called Palestine before Israel? Source please!
  - mahmud 14y ago
    Whatever I cite will never be good enough for you because you believe in the BS "finders keepers" colonialist mindset of occupation. No text, however sacred, no higher-power or imaginary friend can grant you dominance over others and their land. It's simply immoral to fly people from all over the world, so they may replace a forcibly expelled population.
    - berntb 14y ago
      You made a claim. You don't have sources -- and when questioned, you attack the one asking. Why shouldn't we write you off as just another hate propagandist? And if I would write an argument, not that you deserve the chance to change the subject: Please explain why the land area lost in present Israel was worse than most other land area losses after the world wars? They have been let go, they are accepted. I'd say e.g. Karelia was a worse change, from any moral evaluation. The main reason I can see that the Palestine question survived to this day, is because the refugees' lives where destroyed by the Arab states which forced them to live in camps, etc. Edit: Clarity.
- philwelch 14y ago
  Israel? Try Rome.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  I think you're mistaking Israel with Jordan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan
justsee 14y ago
No they haven't. That convenient mistranslation is widely reported because it suits the narrative of the major political powers [1]. They've essentially said the current political regime in Israel must / will disappear. However that sentiment is less useful if your aim is to portray the Iranian state as an aggressive, modern-day Nazi regime though. Anyway that aim (essentially portraying Iran as a country dedicated to the extermination of Jews in the Middle East) completely falls apart in the mind of anyone who cares to review the facts: Iran houses the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside Israel, with population estimates ranging between 30,000 and 90,000 people (most sources put it at 75 000) [2], and they are represented in the Iranian parliament. The current Iranian regime is certainly terrible, and can and should be condemned for many reasons, but pushing the notion that Iran threatens Israel with genocide is pr-fueled nonsense. Useless for intelligent discussion, but handy for manipulating public opinion. [1] http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/08/28/putting-words-in-ahmadinejad-s-mouth/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/08/28/putting-words-in-ahma... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews
- wolf550e 14y ago
  He said the State of Israel has no right to exist and that regime must vanish. [1] I think that is clear enough. The USA and the USSR exchanged similar messages, and also funded proxy wars against each other. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#...
  - kristopolous 14y ago
    You either see Israel as an intentionally aggressive religiously driven racist (different license plates, voting laws, roads, id cards, laws) nuclear state with a colorful history of terrorism, espionage, invasions, spying, and assassination convictions in multiple countries, or you choose to ignore all of history and blindly support it. Either way, please stop acting surprised when people claim Israels' foreign policy is antagonistic, as if her detractors are mistaken and fabricating... as if Chomsky and Kofi Anaan are liars...

kai-zer 14y ago

Development of weapons-grade uranium for which the only purpose is for use in weapons of mass destruction... You make it sound like that is a bad thing.

AngrySkillzz 14y ago
A statement for which you have no evidence. And what threat does Iran pose to the United States? None at all.
- Retric 14y ago
  That's a rather strong statement. Some people would argue that Iran with weapons grade uranium could reasonably increase the chances that 50,000 Americans will die in the next 10 years by more than 1 in 10,000. That suggests the US could reasonably kill 5 Iranians to deal with the threat. However, Iran would respond to such action which suggests a more limited response such such as planting a virus is reasonable as long as the US can get away with it. PS: That's how these people think, rare events vs lot's of deaths = covert and deniable action.
  - barrkel 14y ago
    I think a nuclear armed Iran would greatly decrease the probability of Americans being killed by Iranians. The logic is simple: nukes bring a country into MAD (mutually assured destruction) mechanics. Most likely Iran would use Israel as a hostage since it would not have the ICBMs necessary to attack the US directly. It would be like North Korea and Japan, only "Japan" would be nuclear armed. I consider invasion of Iran by the US the most likely vector for Iranians killing Americans. MAD should prevent this, like it does in North Korea. (I don't buy neo-conservative anti-Muslim ideology around suicidal leaders for a second. NK is far worse in this respect, IMO; that whole country is being led on a suicidal basis.)
    - mc32 14y ago
      >MAD should prevent this, like it does in North Korea I thought MAD only worked with rational players. Do we know the people who would hold the levers would be rational? We (the west) don't seem to have the same feedback network (i.e. spies) we could depend on as we did with the USSR. That and we had the "red phone" thing. Dunno if that was more gimmick than actual tool. >I don't buy neo-conservative... We don't know what the control structure behind such threat there would be. Can one person cause a launch, conversely, can one person override a launch order?