grotto_man: Ah, the usual antisemitic nut jobs chiming in, Party Boy, Amos Quito, and some new bigot Captain_Ballbeard with crap like:

Considering that AIPAC and associated people in US Media are essentially kingmakers, or breakers

Of course, Discovery, History and The Learning Channels all going into 24/7 Hitler/Holocaust mode whenever Israel is taking a beating in the court of public opinion is just a coincidence

Needless to say, in the real world, Debka doesn't represent the entirety, or even the majority, or the "Israeli media" - they're not really a media site even. Nor is saying you think an event will happen is somehow manipulating it to happen.

But antisemitic Israeli bashing crap from subnazis gets greenlights on Fark! Gotta feed the bigots and stir up "constroversy".

So in your unbiased opinion is all criticism of Israeli policy antisemitic?

grotto_man: antisemitic Israeli bashing

I wonder whats it like to abuse a term to where it starts to lose its meaning. I posted this above for an unrelated purpose. Its just as applicable here.

The goal here is the same as it always is for efforts to smear critics of Israel (or those who question the AIPAC line on U.S. policy toward the region) as anti-Semites: namely, to gather scalps, even low-level ones, in order to intimidate others from questioning or challenging the Israel Lobby's agenda and enforce orthodoxy in the mainstream of both parties. This cause has become more urgent than ever as a result of two factors: (1) increasing tensions with Iran, which many of these accusers desperately want to see devolve into war and (2) increasing freedom among mainstream pundits and even establishment Democrats to criticize the Israeli government and the domestic Israel Lobby (the 2012 election is a third factor for some, as they hope to link anti-Semitism to the White House in order to scare Jewish voters out of voting for the Democrats). Being able to display the heads of these offending writers on a pike will, it is hoped, serve to deter further dissent on these Israel-related questions in mainstream circles. But those pushing this particular smear campaign have over-played their hand in several important ways and, in doing so, have revealed more starkly than ever the true purpose and the real premises underlying their attacks.

...

Also strictly prohibited, according to the ADL, is "minimizing or rationalizing the Iranian threat." This means that not only are the American intelligence agencies which produced the 2007 and 2010 NIEs guilty of anti-Semitism, as are Israeli officials who believe Iran "has not yet decided whether to translate these capabilities into a nuclear weapon," but so too is Tamir Pardo, the current chief of the Israeli Mossad, who recently rejected the claim that Iranian nuclear weapons would pose an existential threat to Israel; ex-Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy ("[Iran is] far from posing an existential threat to Israel"; instead, domestic radicalization in Israel "poses a bigger risk than Ahmadinejad" because "ultra-Orthodox extremism has darkened our lives"; he added: "The State of Israel cannot be destroyed. An attack on Iran could affect not only Israel, but the entire region for 100 years"); ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan ("a future Israel Air Force attack on Iranian nuclear facilities was 'the stupidest thing I have ever heard"); and Israeli Defense Minister Barak ("Iran does not constitute an existential threat against Israel").

This goes on for a bit
There are many points to make about how this campaign has manifested, but I want to focus on one amazing aspect of it. Because these "leading Jewish groups" have whittled away their credibility by continuously exploiting charges of "anti-Semitism" for political gain and debate-suppressing ends, it is no longer sufficient for them simply to spout the accusation and be taken seriously. They are now required to specify what exactly is out of bounds and what makes someone "anti-Semitic" as opposed to a mere critic of Israeli actions. And in their answers here one finds extremely revealing - and damning - facts.

So according to Block, you are not allowed (unless you want to be found guilty of anti-Semitism) to use "policy rhetoric that is hostile to Israel" or - more amazingly - even to "suggest that Iran has no nuclear weapons program." Those ideas are strictly off limits, declares the former AIPAC spokesman. Apparently, then, America's National Intelligence Estimates of 2007 and 2010 are both anti-Semitic, since they both concluded that Iran ceased work on developing a nuclear weapon back in 2003 and that there is no conclusive evidence demonstrating it resumed; to cite those reports and to embrace their conclusions makes you an anti-Semite, since you're not allowed to "suggest that Iran has no nuclear weapons program." Israel's government is also evidently suffused with anti-Semites, given that Haaretz reported this week that "the Israeli view is that while Iran continues to improve its nuclear capabilities, it has not yet decided whether to translate these capabilities into a nuclear weapon." Make certain, though, not to mention that because, according to Block, that expression of anti-semitism "has no place in the mainstream Democratic party discourse." To avoid being an anti-Semite, you must quietly and gratefully accept the most extreme claims about the state of Iran's nuclear weapons program: it is not permissible to debate it.

blockquote tag disappeared

grotto_man: But antisemitic Israeli bashing crap from subnazis gets greenlights on Fark!

Damned subnazis.

that bosnian sniper:
You mean when Kuwait slant-drilled into Iraqi territory and offered the US a better deal on Iraqi oil than Iraq was offering?

Of course there were reasons, mainly threatening King Saud that backs Kuwait to begin with. The point being that America acts in the interests of their own pocket books. That's why they have fought battles for Saudi Arabia for decades. Blaming Israel is using Jews as a scapegoat because you hate them. Israel has nothing to do with any conflict America gets involved in.

Gyrfalcon:
Frankly, I don't see any reason to go to war with Iran because we still have troops committed in Afghanistan with no end in sight, and Syria is becoming more and more destabilized even as we speak--if Israel wants to rattle sabers with Iran, let them do so at their own peril. Iran has not threatened America, or American interests in the Middle East (except for their standard 30-year old rhetoric), so why provoke them?

Rattling sabers? You mean like planting a carrier fleet in the Straights of Hormuz, or crashing drones in Iran and demanding they be returned, or maybe pushing embargo's on the economy of Iran?

Tell me again who's saber rattling? Israel or America? That's why people call arguments like yours anti-Semitic. Because you ignore everything America does and blame it all on the Jews.

Jews Pray their puppet Gimp State the US will launch war with Iran in May


can't imagine why.........................

intelligent comment below: That's why they have fought battles for Saudi Arabia for decades.

Yes, thats why Bush tanked accepted the Saudi Peace plan on Israeli concerns, or Prince Bandar has much more clout than the various domestic pro-Israeli lobbies, or the recent Saudi sale was just sold to them when the deal was first negotiated in 2007, without listening to Israeli concerns first.

Saying what you just said is profoundly uninformed.

intelligent comment below: .

How about this. Who crafted these sanctions? You can take your pick from the mid 1990's ILSA sanctions where they were signed over the objections of oil companies, to the 2000's extension, to the current one. 2007-9 are key years there, too.

Gyrfalcon:

Your handle is really unwarranted. Nothing you said was in any way intelligent. America may have irked Iran in response to some thing Iran has done (challenging shipping in the Straits, asking that our illegally overflown drone be returned [politely enough], enforcing a UN embargo), but since I specifically said "Iran has not threatened American interests" enough to warrant going to war, where you think any of that is blaming anything on "the Jews" is beyond me.

What I said--and have always said--is that America has no reason to go to war with Iran. Should Iran provide one, that is different. If Israel chooses to go to war with Iran, they may do so on their own time. America has no reason to support them in a unilateral war.

Now, tell me how that is anti-Semitic.


America will go to war with who ever Saudi Arabia wants America to go to war with. Iran has always been a threat to Saudi Arabia, just like Saddam's Iraq was.

Israel doesn't dictate American foreign policy. They don't control OPEC.

Israel would never go to war with Iran, not only do they not have a direct land route, but they wouldn't be able to send fighters all that distance over enemy territory for sorties.

Israel instead might attack a plant just like they did in the 80's against Saddam. But the only people who want war are the American military industrial complex, and Saudi Arabia who loves being worshiped like Gods and protected by American tanks and aircraft.

Party Boy: intelligent comment below: That's why they have fought battles for Saudi Arabia for decades.

Yes, thats why Bush tanked accepted the Saudi Peace plan on Israeli concerns, or Prince Bandar has much more clout than the various domestic pro-Israeli lobbies, or the recent Saudi sale was just sold to them when the deal was first negotiated in 2007, without listening to Israeli concerns first.

Saying what you just said is profoundly uninformed.

I hope one day to be informed like you with your fark comment links that do nothing to disprove what I said.

intelligent comment below: I hope one day to be informed like you with your fark comment links that do nothing to disprove what I said.

When you do, youll see Saudi lobbies falling apart in a Bush administration, where neoconservative advisors suggest replacing the Saudi Monarchy, and a Bush admin dismissing a Saudi Peace Plan and Israeli objections to it. You'll see a Saudi arms deal delayed for years and its crafting to meet Israeli concerns.

Most importantly, youll see how oil companies lost out to pro-Israeli pressure on iran in the 1990's over sanctions. Youll see the extensions of these sanctions.

It looks like you are taking the fingers in ears approach right now.

Norv Turner: If they do go to war, we have to back them up because if we abandon an ally then who can trust us in the future?

*blink*

You realize that most of the Arab states also have most favored nation status, right? Did you see us doing anything to help Egypt, probably our strongest ally in the region outside the Saudis, when they got into a war last year? And they didn't even start that one.

Basically, not sure if trolling or just stupid.

Link (We're gonna need a bigger mop)

Pentagon's working on a bigger MOP. "The Pentagon had concluded that the bomb, made by Boeing, would not be capable of destroying some of Iran's underground nuclear facilities, according to the report, prompting the request for re-designing the bomb to penetrate even further.
The Pentagon has spent $300 million so far for 20 bombs, and is now asking for another $82 million for the upgrades."

So in other words, war on hold until bigger conventional tool designed and built. Remember, they have unconventional tools that can do the job if things get a little dicey.

They are coming for them, it's just a matter of inventing a way to get at them. I would look directly at the completion and delivery of this tool from as to the new moon we go to war.

Mugato: Amos Quito: In before Drew's phone rings and the link "disappears".

When has that ever happened?

Cancelled my total fark subscription when a link submitted that wasn't favorable to Israel was censored by fark.

Tatsuma: Debka? Give me a farking break.

What next, Bat Child?

If he speaks Yiddish, probably so.

Heron: mysticcat: Party Boy: mysticcat: My bold
...

There was a real interesting interview on Charlie Rose last week with Zbigniew Brzezinski, he has a real interesting outlook on the situation on Iran.

fark Israel. Seriously. What have they ever done for us that merits the massive amount of money we spend on their national security?

As for Iran, who cares if they get nukes? Pakistan, the country that Osama lived in undisturbed for 5 frickin years, has nukes. If terrorists really want the nukes they could almost surely get them there. And as time goes on, it only gets easier to make nukes, and trying to stop "bad" countries from making them becomes an exercise in futility.

The whole thing is a bullshiat farce to try to get us to spend another trillion dollars to feed the military-industrial complex and spend even more on Israel's security.

it will be Israel & Canada vs the world .. harpers going to be the end of Canada

http://www.thestar.com/article/1123584--israel-has-no-better-friend-in -the-world-than-canada-john-baird-says

"There is no better friend to Israel than Canada,"Baird said. "We shall always be there for you, and in front of you."

Captain_Ballbeard: Tatsuma: Actually, that makes him a weird stalker who goes back threads five years old


That's pretty rich coming from someone who has done the same thing, accusing others of being anti-semites because they once linked to an article or a pic on a website you consider anti-semitic. Not sure why anyone takes you seriously, you've been outed as being a shared account, a shill and of having alts that say some very nasty things. You're a putz.

From Wiki:

Wired.com's Noah Shachtman wrote in 2001 that the site "clearly reports with a point of view; the site is unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics," adding that Debka had partnered with the right-wing news site WorldNetDaily for a weekly subscription product.[3]

YES THIS IS A SOURCE I CAN BELIEVE IN

Party Boy:
When you do, youll see Saudi lobbies falling apart in a Bush administration, where neoconservative advisors suggest replacing the Saudi Monarchy, and a Bush admin dismissing a Saudi Peace Plan and Israeli objections to it. You'll see a Saudi arms deal delayed for years and its crafting to meet Israeli concerns.

Most importantly, youll see how oil companies lost out to pro-Israeli pressure on iran in the 1990's over sanctions. Youll see the extensions of these sanctions.

It looks like you are taking the fingers in ears approach right now.

1. Did the Saudi monarchy get displaced? No? So looks like Saudi won that round after all

2. Saudi peace plan, objections on both Israel and Palestinian sides. Israel can reject it, what does that have to do with their power over Saudi Arabia? It's a plan that they can refuse to sign regardless of any power OPEC has over the American economy. I can't force you to sign a piece of paper I want even though my company controls your government.

3. arms deal = mainly objected by American and EU politicians in private not to mention angering China and Russia

4. Of course all the rest of the oil industry got screwed EXCEPT Halliburton and Unocal. Funny huh?

Gyrfalcon:
Goddamn, you're stupid. I'm not even sure what that last paragraph is referring to, except to prove you were born in 1990.

Huh? I bet you never even knew that the Reagan administration condemned Israel for their attack on the American ally Saddam's nuclear reactor in the 80s. But you're going to try and pin me as a 20 year old?

Face facts. America has an oil addiction. OPEC is its drug dealer. America will do anything to keep its ties to its drug dealer. America doesn't go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan for Israel. It goes for Saudi Arabia. Israel doesn't want a destabilized government in Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. that can be more influenced by Iran like its currently happening.

You know nothing of global politics or economics. Go back to your fantasy play pen.

intelligent comment below: what does that have to do with their power over Saudi Arabia?

You know how i know you didn't read the links to pass a forced perspective in an exposition of confirmation bias?

Good luck on the next thread.

You know how I know you can't respond to what I said? Your links to fark comments of wall street journal editorials proves nothing except your bias.

Amos Quito: Party Boy: Let me dust of this oldie
May 2008 Israeli intelligence now believes Iran will have nukes by next year, and Israel is seriously considering preemptive unilateral military action. This headline brought to you courtesy of the years 2005-2030 (170)


This headline brought to you courtesy of the years 2005-2030

2004
2003
lets skip some

1996
1995
(1995) Iran May Be Able to Build an Atomic Bomb in 5 Years, U.S. and Israeli Officials Fear
1994
1993
1992

More on this


Well it's pretty clear that neither Israel nor anyone else (Panetta) really takes the Iran Nuke Threattm seriously, yet Israel has been pushing for decades to con the US into taking out Iran.

So what is their motive? What does Israel really want, and why?

And more importantly, why in the hell are we playing along?

Came here to ask this.