Clan Xpy: I don't understand why people hate on the jews, because of where the UN put them.

I don't see any UN buildings being hit with rockets.

The UN didn't create Israel as we now understand it. After WWII a concerted campaign of terrorism by the Zionists forced the British to say "Bloody hell, this is all a bit much!" and leave, opening up a massive power vacuum. The newly-created UN stepped in and tried to prevent further violence by proposing two separate states - one Arab, one Jewish.

The Jewish council agreed but the Arabs, understandably, rejected and a Civil War began. The Jewish palestinians seemingly won and declared the entire area of Palestine to be henceforth known as Israel. A year later the state of Israel was ratified as a UN member.

I thought Bolton was enough of a reason for a facepalm but I had to come in here and read Thunderpipes' comments.

When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks just like fine china, old CRTs, freshly-sheetrocked interior walls, and Matchbox cars you don't like any more, right?

dillengest: Clan Xpy: I don't understand why people hate on the jews, because of where the UN put them.

I don't see any UN buildings being hit with rockets.

The UN didn't create Israel as we now understand it. After WWII a concerted campaign of terrorism by the Zionists forced the British to say "Bloody hell, this is all a bit much!" and leave, opening up a massive power vacuum. The newly-created UN stepped in and tried to prevent further violence by proposing two separate states - one Arab, one Jewish.

The Jewish council agreed but the Arabs, understandably, rejected and a Civil War began. The Jewish palestinians seemingly won and declared the entire area of Palestine to be henceforth known as Israel. A year later the state of Israel was ratified as a UN member.

To the victor belong the spoils...

wkiernan: Awesomeness snipped here for the sake of brevity


Best explanation I've ever read.

+1

I dunno. I certainly don't think that now is the time for a military strike, by any nation; but since the beginning of the protests, I've wondered if maybe military action wouldn't ultimately be necessary, if the protests were somehow squashed.

And if we're not at that point yet, then we're certainly close.

Please don't flame-destroy me. This is an honest issue I've spent a lot of time thinking about.

Israelis:Iranians::Tribbles:Klingons

This would push their populace into Khamenei's arms.

NCg8r: dillengest: Clan Xpy: I don't understand why people hate on the jews, because of where the UN put them.

I don't see any UN buildings being hit with rockets.

The UN didn't create Israel as we now understand it. After WWII a concerted campaign of terrorism by the Zionists forced the British to say "Bloody hell, this is all a bit much!" and leave, opening up a massive power vacuum. The newly-created UN stepped in and tried to prevent further violence by proposing two separate states - one Arab, one Jewish.

The Jewish council agreed but the Arabs, understandably, rejected and a Civil War began. The Jewish palestinians seemingly won and declared the entire area of Palestine to be henceforth known as Israel. A year later the state of Israel was ratified as a UN member.

To the victor belong the spoils...

Heh, true. But to the spoils belong a whole heap of shiat.

CalvinMorallis: I dunno. I certainly don't think that now is the time for a military strike, by any nation; but since the beginning of the protests, I've wondered if maybe military action wouldn't ultimately be necessary, if the protests were somehow squashed.

What, pray tell, exactly would you hit?

dillengest: Clan Xpy: I don't understand why people hate on the jews, because of where the UN put them.

I don't see any UN buildings being hit with rockets.

The UN didn't create Israel as we now understand it. After WWII a concerted campaign of terrorism by the Zionists forced the British to say "Bloody hell, this is all a bit much!" and leave, opening up a massive power vacuum. The newly-created UN stepped in and tried to prevent further violence by proposing two separate states - one Arab, one Jewish.

The Jewish council agreed but the Arabs, understandably, rejected and a Civil War began. The Jewish palestinians seemingly won and declared the entire area of Palestine to be henceforth known as Israel. A year later the state of Israel was ratified as a UN member.

Ah okay thanks. My high school level understanding of this situation has been elevated. They should have just given them Canada.

dillengest: The Jewish council agreed but the Arabs, understandably, rejected and a Civil War began.

It's not much of a "Civil War" when you have the Israeli Jews on one side, and the Arab Palestinians... and the Egyptians... and the Jordanians... and the Iraqis... and the Saudis... and the Lebanese... and the Yemenis... and the Syrians... all on the other.

There's a reason why they call it an "Arab-Israeli War," not a "Civil War."

Witchydiva: CalvinMorallis: I dunno. I certainly don't think that now is the time for a military strike, by any nation; but since the beginning of the protests, I've wondered if maybe military action wouldn't ultimately be necessary, if the protests were somehow squashed.

What, pray tell, exactly would you hit?


First of, I wouldn't hit anything myself. I'm far too stupid to run a military operation.

But broadly: if we, in the United States, (theoretically) respect freedom and the will of the people; and if the will of the people in Iran is to have a legitmate government; and if the illegitimate government denies the people that right; then does our supposed respect of freedom and democracy not demand we assist the people?

Again, I'm not even saying I think this is a good idea; and certainly not until the protests going on are completey stamped out.

I'm just, ya know...wondering.

crimsin23: Karma Curmudgeon: crimsin23: Israel does not shiat where the US eats.

Really? You think that oil is going to keep flowing out of the ME if Israel attacks Iran? Not without a heavy US involvement it's not.

Then that's a US problem. Israel can't worry about everyone, nor should they.

Maybe the US shouldn't worry about Israel, and take down it's jets when they cross Iraqi airspace. How bout it?

If Iran was attacked the oil market would go to hell and the world's economies would collapse. If Israel was attacked pretty much the rest of the world wouldn't be seriously affected. Therefore I think it will be clear where the US's foreign policy interests lie here, AIPAC notwithstanding.

CalvinMorallis: I dunno. I certainly don't think that now is the time for a military strike, by any nation; but since the beginning of the protests, I've wondered if maybe military action wouldn't ultimately be necessary, if the protests were somehow squashed.

And if we're not at that point yet, then we're certainly close.

Please don't flame-destroy me. This is an honest issue I've spent a lot of time thinking about.

Military action right now would completely un-do any of the good that came from the protests. Military action by any outside force right now would unite Iran behind it's fundamentalist dictatorship. There's a lot of history with outside forces farking with Iran(see 1952), even the young people in Iran know of this.

Like theorellior said...when all you got is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Well, we got a lot more tools than a hammer. And just like Iraq, if we break it, we buy it.

Wolfmanjames: Sygerrik: Not to mention-- many Israeli Jews are of European extraction, while the Palestinians are a Semitic people. So who's the anti-Semite now?

1) About half the Jewish population of Israel are descendants from Arab Jews- forced out by their neighbors after 1948 and 1967.

2) The term anti-Semetism was coined by Wilhelm Marr to describe anti-Jewish animus. It takes a special kind of ignorance to think that BS arguement is clever.



FWIW, while I would normally say that an attack would galvanize the population, right now Dinnerjacket's popularity is lower than Bush 2's in 2006. He can't go out to public events etc. All he has is sabre rattling and his thugs. A kick in the nuclear nads will make him look weak. That could be what topples him.

Remember, Farouk got his fat ass booted after the 1948 fiasco and Nasser barely survived 67.

Couldn't leave this one alone. The thing is...
While I am well aware of the connotations and etymology of the term "Anti-Semitism" the fact remains that regardless of what it has come to mean, the words do mean something on their own, and the fact that Anti-Semitism is a barb thrown out by a group intent on oppressing a large number of Semitic people.

Furthermore, I am not attempting to redefine the word, merely stating that someone accusing me of racial bias in my argument is doing so in the service of a state where racial bias is ingrained into the culture, yet does not see the irony of it. Just like how the term "Anti-Semitic," when used to describe non-Jew-hating opponents of Israel, carries with it a special brand of irony.

Regardless, your arguments stating that a strike against Iran, nuclear or otherwise, would lead the population to topple Ahmadinejad is patently dishonest. They would rally behind the Persian state, not any particular leader. It would also either shut up moderate Ayatollahs like Montazeri and Rafsanjani or force them to toe the line with the Supreme Leader, setting back the cause of liberalism in Iran decades.

In conclusion, your post is bad and you should feel bad.

CalvinMorallis:
But broadly: if we, in the United States, (theoretically) respect freedom and the will of the people; and if the will of the people in Iran is to have a legitmate government; and if the illegitimate government denies the people that right; then does our supposed respect of freedom and democracy not demand we assist the people?

Again, I'm not even saying I think this is a good idea; and certainly not until the protests going on are completey stamped out.

I'm just, ya know...wondering.

So, basically, you want to reward the Iranian people for the failure of their protests by bombing the shiat out of them?

CalvinMorallis: Witchydiva: CalvinMorallis: I dunno. I certainly don't think that now is the time for a military strike, by any nation; but since the beginning of the protests, I've wondered if maybe military action wouldn't ultimately be necessary, if the protests were somehow squashed.

What, pray tell, exactly would you hit?


First of, I wouldn't hit anything myself. I'm far too stupid to run a military operation.

But broadly: if we, in the United States, (theoretically) respect freedom and the will of the people; and if the will of the people in Iran is to have a legitmate government; and if the illegitimate government denies the people that right; then does our supposed respect of freedom and democracy not demand we assist the people?

Again, I'm not even saying I think this is a good idea; and certainly not until the protests going on are completey stamped out.

I'm just, ya know...wondering.

I'm sorry, that is a horrible idea. First, we are already bogged down on two fronts. And once we enter Iran it's people would most likely come together to fight us.

rastjr: Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

Oh I know, we could make guns illegal... or better yet, make war illegal, you know a war crime to start war...

/oh wait, they still do it even though it's illegal huh?

elchip: Israelis:Iranians::Tribbles:Klingons

We should beam all the Israelies into the Iranian engine room?

BTW, has this story (FBI says Saddam's weapons bluff aimed at Iran) been submitted/greenlighted yet?

A much much MUCH better article here (new window) from Roger Cohen. Bolton is a psychopath.

elchip: dillengest: The Jewish council agreed but the Arabs, understandably, rejected and a Civil War began.

It's not much of a "Civil War" when you have the Israeli Jews on one side, and the Arab Palestinians... and the Egyptians... and the Jordanians... and the Iraqis... and the Saudis... and the Lebanese... and the Yemenis... and the Syrians... all on the other.

There's a reason why they call it an "Arab-Israeli War," not a "Civil War."

The Arab-Israeli War technically came after Israel declared independence. Before that it was a civil war, though there was probably outside interference. To be honest the timescales are so short on this period of history it all flows into a one big mess of war so you're kind of right.

elchip: dillengest: The Jewish council agreed but the Arabs, understandably, rejected and a Civil War began.

It's not much of a "Civil War" when you have the Israeli Jews on one side, and the Arab Palestinians... and the Egyptians... and the Jordanians... and the Iraqis... and the Saudis... and the Lebanese... and the Yemenis... and the Syrians... all on the other.

There's a reason why they call it an "Arab-Israeli War," not a "Civil War."

It always seemed to me that the Palestinians took general dislike for the Jews (whether it be racial, religious, or historical) and used the whole land struggle forum as a way to continue it without criticism. It never seemed rational that they'd commit so many lives when they still had their own territory. It's not like their the French under German occupation in WW2. They have their own area with their own unique values still. Also they could disperse to surrounding nations that had much the same going on. Always seemed like it was being taken way beyond national pride. Like a race war in disguise.

GypsyJoker: CalvinMorallis:
But broadly: if we, in the United States, (theoretically) respect freedom and the will of the people; and if the will of the people in Iran is to have a legitmate government; and if the illegitimate government denies the people that right; then does our supposed respect of freedom and democracy not demand we assist the people?

Again, I'm not even saying I think this is a good idea; and certainly not until the protests going on are completey stamped out.

I'm just, ya know...wondering.

So, basically, you want to reward the Iranian people for the failure of their protests by bombing the shiat out of them?

No...I don't want to do that. Or, rather, I don't want my country to do that.

Guess the basic question is this: what happens if the protests ultimately fail? What happens then? Now, yes, the world reaction is the correct one: wait and see, and don't appear to be meddling.

But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

elchip: It's not much of a "Civil War" when you have the Israeli Jews on one side, and the Arab Palestinians... and the Egyptians... and the Jordanians... and the Iraqis... and the Saudis... and the Lebanese... and the Yemenis... and the Syrians... all on the other.

There's a reason why they call it an "Arab-Israeli War," not a "Civil War."

Yes. And that's the same reason that in the U.S. we call it the "Civil War" and not the "War Between the States".

To wit: the victor of the war gets to control the narrative in many ways. In the 1860s, the contested narrative was whether the U.S. was one nation, part of which rebelled, or a confederation of states, some of which wanted to go their separate ways. The "one nation" narrative came out on top because its proponents won the war.

In the Levant, the competing narratives were "righteous Jewish Homeland" vs. "interloping Zionists on our land". According to the "righteous Jewish Homeland" narrative, no Arabs had any claim on the land which the Jews had come back to reclaim, so therefore all of them must actually belong to the various nations which surrounded said homeland.

CalvinMorallis: Witchydiva: CalvinMorallis: I dunno. I certainly don't think that now is the time for a military strike, by any nation; but since the beginning of the protests, I've wondered if maybe military action wouldn't ultimately be necessary, if the protests were somehow squashed.

What, pray tell, exactly would you hit?


First of, I wouldn't hit anything myself. I'm far too stupid to run a military operation.

But broadly: if we, in the United States, (theoretically) respect freedom and the will of the people; and if the will of the people in Iran is to have a legitmate government; and if the illegitimate government denies the people that right; then does our supposed respect of freedom and democracy not demand we assist the people?
Again, I'm not even saying I think this is a good idea; and certainly not until the protests going on are completey stamped out.

I'm just, ya know...wondering.

Holy shiat NO. Are you serious? Think about what you're saying. This is a sovereign nation you're talking about. Just because we support their people and disapprove of their government doesn't give us any right or mandate to start bombing the fark out of them. Goddamitsomuch. This is what 8 years of dick-wagging saword waving does to the american mentality? fark me.

So in the 2000 election between Gore and Bush...would it have been OK for Canada to bomb the White House because many people here saw the election as fraudulent? It's not much different(minus the brutality and murder provided by the state police of course, *cough*).

Israel, it's time for you to do what you do best against Iran

They're going to build on its land?

Non of this would have happened if Donald Rumsfeld were still alive.

When did he slither back from under the rock he was hiding under?

Fart_Machine:



Quadrotriticale

Marcus Aurelius: John Bolton is actually Benjamin Netanyahu in a clever disguise.

...would explain everything!

CalvinMorallis: GypsyJoker: CalvinMorallis:
But broadly: if we, in the United States, (theoretically) respect freedom and the will of the people; and if the will of the people in Iran is to have a legitmate government; and if the illegitimate government denies the people that right; then does our supposed respect of freedom and democracy not demand we assist the people?

Again, I'm not even saying I think this is a good idea; and certainly not until the protests going on are completey stamped out.

I'm just, ya know...wondering.

So, basically, you want to reward the Iranian people for the failure of their protests by bombing the shiat out of them?

No...I don't want to do that. Or, rather, I don't want my country to do that.

Guess the basic question is this: what happens if the protests ultimately fail? What happens then? Now, yes, the world reaction is the correct one: wait and see, and don't appear to be meddling.

But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

Dude, you can't GIVE people democracy and freedom. The people have to TAKE it. They have to die for it and bleed for it themselves. Themselves. An outside force doing it for them is an invasion and an occupation, no matter how much the right-wing think -tanks spin it as "liberation". fark that.

'kay, first this:

joonyer: This is what 8 years of dick-wagging saword waving does to the american mentality? fark me.

I asked a question; I didn't wave a flag or hang a banner.

Now this:


joonyer: because we support their people and disapprove of their government doesn't give us any right or mandate to start bombing the fark out of them. Goddamitsomuch.

Didn't advocate bombing the fark out of anybody. Asking questions...trying to discuss things...ya know, kind of the opposite of the so-called post-Bush mentality you mentioned.

joonyer: CalvinMorallis: GypsyJoker: CalvinMorallis:
But broadly: if we, in the United States, (theoretically) respect freedom and the will of the people; and if the will of the people in Iran is to have a legitmate government; and if the illegitimate government denies the people that right; then does our supposed respect of freedom and democracy not demand we assist the people?

Again, I'm not even saying I think this is a good idea; and certainly not until the protests going on are completey stamped out.

I'm just, ya know...wondering.

So, basically, you want to reward the Iranian people for the failure of their protests by bombing the shiat out of them?

No...I don't want to do that. Or, rather, I don't want my country to do that.

Guess the basic question is this: what happens if the protests ultimately fail? What happens then? Now, yes, the world reaction is the correct one: wait and see, and don't appear to be meddling.

But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

Dude, you can't GIVE people democracy and freedom. The people have to TAKE it. They have to die for it and bleed for it themselves. Themselves. An outside force doing it for them is an invasion and an occupation, no matter how much the right-wing think -tanks spin it as "liberation". fark that.

I've been out of the news loop lately. Are people actually proposing that America militarily aids the Iranian protesters, or is that just what liberals think they mean by endorsing them?

006andahalf: I'm really starting to think that he is actually a nihilist or anarchist in conservative disguise.

This eschaton isn't going to immanentize itself, you know.

/look it up

i don't think john or anyone will tell what israel to do. they can do what they want. it would make for some great fireworks

Bolton got his marching orders regarding Iran from none other than Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu. Below is the text of a Haaretz article (pops) published February 18, 2003, just prior to the commencement of major military operations against Iraq.

Watch for "hints" that might tell you whose interests are being served, not only in attacking Iran, but Iraq.



Last update - 00:00 18/02/2003
Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria
By Aluf Benn

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen.

Sharon told the congressmen that Israel was not involved in the war with Iraq "but the American action is of vital importance."

In a meeting with U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton yesterday, Sharon said that Israel was concerned about the security threat posed by Iran, and stressed that it was important to deal with Iran even while American attention was focused on Iraq.

Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials that he had no doubt America would attack Iraq, and that it would be necessary thereafter to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea.

Bolton, who is undersecretary for arms control and international security, is in Israel for meetings on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Bolton said Syria would get a chance to prove it was behaving in a way worthy of the international community and that dealing with North Korea had not been pushed aside, but postponed.

Bolton said the United States was striving to get a new UN Security Council resolution regarding Iraq and that the result of the vote would affect the U.S.'s relations with Western Europe and Russia, after the war in Iraq.

Bolton also met with Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Housing and Construction Minister Natan Sharansky.

Sharansky warned Bolton that the Quartet's (U.S., UN, European Union and Russia) plan for the Israelis and Palestinians deviated from President Bush's vision

END OF ARTICLE

There you have it, kids. Bolton the walrus got his marching orders from Sharon the Killer Whale and Bennie Netanyahu.

How do you stop this? It won't be easy. The ONLY way to stop this kind of Israeli manipulation of our foreign policy from continuing is to STAND UP AND CALL A SPADE A FARKING SPADE.

Grow some balls.

So the assumption is that weapons of mass destruction are more dangerous in military form as opposed to financial form?

CalvinMorallis: But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

never. according the the fark community.
maybe after iran begins lobbing nukes, selling them to groups that smuggle them over here, the fark community might admit that they may have erred.

False flag?

In 1953, the U.S. and British-orchestrated Operation Ajax used "false-flag" and propaganda operations against the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. Information regarding the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives.[6]

In 1954, Israel sponsored bombings against US and UK interests in Cairo aiming to cause trouble between Egypt and the West.[7] This operation, later dubbed the Lavon Affair, cost Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon his job. The state of Israel (where it is known as "The Unfortunate Affair") finally admitted responsibility in 2005.[8]

DFWPhotoGuy: I want him to take off his stache and use it like a razor boomerang and decapitate our enemies.

Him and Geraldo could make up the new Flying Mustache Brigade.

Clan Xpy: I've been out of the news loop lately. Are people actually proposing that America militarily aids the Iranian protesters, or is that just what liberals think they mean by endorsing them?

Sadly, all of the well-intended Farkers who were following the protests, shocked by the entirely predictable reactions of the regime were simply being manipulated by Zionist interests who are looking for an "excuse" and to drum up popular support for something that they have wanted to do for years: BOMB THE SHEITES out of Iran.

Does Israel REALLY want to bomb Iran?

No.

Not of they can con US into doing it for them.

Clan Xpy: I've been out of the news loop lately. Are people actually proposing that America militarily aids the Iranian protesters, or is that just what liberals think they mean by endorsing them?

Actually it's the opposite, the neo-cons want to hit Iran to stop their nuke capability. But along the same lines is the "liberation" mentality. So yes, people are proposing that. It's not the liberals, though.

What the headline reminds me of, I expect at least one Farker to get it:

"And Groo does what Groo does best!"

CalvinMorallis: 'kay, first this:

joonyer: This is what 8 years of dick-wagging saword waving does to the american mentality? fark me.

I asked a question; I didn't wave a flag or hang a banner.

Now this:


joonyer: because we support their people and disapprove of their government doesn't give us any right or mandate to start bombing the fark out of them. Goddamitsomuch.

Didn't advocate bombing the fark out of anybody. Asking questions...trying to discuss things...ya know, kind of the opposite of the so-called post-Bush mentality you mentioned.

I hear you. Apologies for getting a bit agitated. No offense intended to you.

colon_pow: CalvinMorallis: But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

never. according the the fark community.
maybe after iran begins lobbing nukes, selling them to groups that smuggle them over here, the fark community might admit that they may have erred.

In the meantime we'll bomb the fark out of anyone who even looks threatening. Brilliant.

DeathByGeekSquad: DFWPhotoGuy: I want him to take off his stache and use it like a razor boomerang and decapitate our enemies.

Him and Geraldo could make up the new Flying Mustache Brigade.

or The Mustachioed Chickenhawk Squadron.

Sliding Carp: 006andahalf: I'm really starting to think that he is actually a nihilist or anarchist in conservative disguise.

This eschaton isn't going to immanentize itself, you know.

/look it up

Or he is just your average ultra-conservative right wing christian nutjob with a "patience problem" who wants to speed up the coming of THE RAPTURE.

Wombatzu:Bolton = stupid cocksucker

I take great offense. Stupid cocksuckers still provide a useful service to society.

SupremeLeader: colon_pow: CalvinMorallis: But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

never. according the the fark community.
maybe after iran begins lobbing nukes, selling them to groups that smuggle them over here, the fark community might admit that they may have erred.

Yes, Iran is truly an aggressive nation, invading other countries without any reason.

Bark!=Bite

you are correct. their nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful.