Iran Tells Everybody to "Stick It" - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

guy44 · 03-08-2005, 06:59 PM

News flash!

Bush Announces Iraq Exit Strategy: "We'll Go Through Iran"

Quote:

WASHINGTON, DC—Almost a year after the cessation of major combat and a month after the nation's first free democratic elections, President Bush unveiled the coalition forces' strategy for exiting Iraq.

"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Defense and I have formulated a plan for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," Bush announced Monday morning. "We'll just go through Iran."

Bush said the U.S. Army, which deposed Iran's longtime enemy Saddam Hussein, should be welcomed with open arms by the Islamic-fundamentalist state.

"And Iran's so nearby," Bush said. "It's only a hop, skip, and a jump to the east."

According to White House officials, coalition air units will leave forward air bases in Iraq and transport munitions to undisclosed locations in Iran. After 72 to 96 hours of aerial-bomb retreats, armored-cavalry units will retreat across the Zagros mountains in tanks, armored personnel carriers, and strike helicopters. The balance of the 120,000 troops will exit into the oil-rich borderlands around the Shatt-al-Arab region within 30 days.

Pentagon sources said U.S. Central Command has been formulating the exit plan under guidelines set by Bush.

"The fact is, we've accomplished our goals in Iraq," said General George Casey, the commander of coalition forces in the Iraqi theater. "Now, it's time to bring our men and women home—via Iran."

Questions have been raised about the unprecedented size of the withdrawal budget.

"I'm asking Congress to approve a $187-billion budget to enable us to exit as smoothly as possible," said Casey, whose budget request includes several hundred additional M1A1 Abrams battle tanks, 72 new C-130 cargo planes, and two brigades of artillery. "We're concerned about the safety of our troops, so we need to have the capacity to deal with insurgent forces all the way from the Iraqi border through to Tehran."

Casey has requested a budget increase for the Pentagon, so that the government can reward recruits who serve in the U.S. mission to exit Iraq.
"The plan also includes a minor stopover for refueling and provisional replenishment in Syria," Casey said. "But I don't expect we'll need more than 50,000 additional troops for that stretch of the Iraq pullout."

Bush's plan has met with widespread support.

"The people who said Iraq was a quagmire and that the president would never get our troops out are now eating crow," said Sean Hannity on his popular radio show Tuesday. "Of course, I don't expect anyone will have the honor to come forward and actually admit that they were wrong to question our commander-in-chief."

Sioux Falls, SD's Dianne Haverbuck, who has two sons in the military, said she was pleased to hear of the impending exit.

"Don and Kenneth have already been in Iraq an extra four months, so it's so good to hear that they'll finally be leaving that dangerous place," Haverbuck said. "I can't tell you how happy I was when the president said—what was it? I wrote it down. 'Getting our troops out of the Middle East and back home to their families is a viable long-term goal.'"

"I can't wait to see the boys," Haverbuck added.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei welcomed the exit plan.

"Let the Allied armies come to Iran," Khamenei said. "I believe I can assure you that, if they do withdraw here, their brothers-in-arms in the Islamic Republican Army, the Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Quds special forces units, and the Basij Popular Mobilization Army will no doubt do everything they can to make the troops' trip back home memorable."

So don't worry. It's all taken care of - just sit back and enjoy.

KMA-628 · 03-08-2005, 07:01 PM

and you guys said we didn't have a plan.

We showed you, now didn't we?

Willravel · 03-08-2005, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Do you watch the news? Do you read history? While you do not practice religion, do you understand fanaticism?

The majority of people that rule Iran believe with all their heart that the Jews (supported by the US) are the enemy and if they drive them from the 3rd holiest city in Islam, they are guarenteed paradise.

That isn't from the Bush/Rove playbook, that's straight from their mouths, which you can verify by visiting a few radical Islamic websites.

So their interest is SERVING ALLAH. This goes back before the hostages (444 days I remember well) and before the shah and before the creation of Israel to when Mohammed blessed the taking of lands and killing those who opposed them. (You could live in peace under Islam only if you were Christain or Jewish, but THEN only if you paid a tax for the privilege.)

I can't spell it out any more clearly.

Please take this for an honest respectful response.

The majority of people that rule Israel believe with all their heart that the Muslims are the enemy and if they keep them them from the 3rd holiest city in Islam, they are blessed in the eyes of the Lord.

That isn't from the liberal playbook, that's straight from their mouths, which you can verify by visiting a few radical Zionist websites.

So their interest is serving God and trying to protect the place currently known as Israel from the evil Arab Muslims. This goes back to the very beginnings of not only Islam, but even Christianity. The reality is that there is deeply seeded racism and religious prejudice from the Jewish community towards to Arab Muslim people. Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, head of the Kever Yossev Yeshiva in Nablus stated, "The blood of the Jewish people is loved by the Lord; it is therefore redder and their life is preferable." The killing by a Jew of a non-Jew, i.e. a Palestinian or other Arab, is considered essentially a good deed, and Jews should therefore have no compunction about it.

I can't spell it out any more clearly.

The Federation of American Scientists has said that Israel has an estimated 100-200 nuclear weapons. Not one of them has yet hit an Arab or Muslim target. Just because a nation is run by deeply religious people who happen to belong to a religion that has fanatics does not mean that they themselves are fanatics.

KMA-628 · 03-08-2005, 08:55 PM

will -

I agree.

You have two "old" religions that both claim rights to the same land. Both view the same spot as sacred to their belief.

In regards to Jews vs. Muslims, correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the Jews there first. If memory is serving me right, Islam came about several hundred years after Christ. And, obviously, Judaism was before Christianity.

Is there a "who was there first" ancient law running around.

Also (going back to memory again), aren't some of the signs of the apocalypse related to this area and who controls it?

Hardknock · 03-08-2005, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Personally, I think this is/was/going to be one of the most dangerous issues we have to face today. I know North Korea is an issue as well, but I see them more as folly than anything else....that Kim guy is a joke and I also think he is full of shit. Plus, China doesn't want them to get any power, so I think, with China's help, North Korea isn't going to become a problem.

I see the problem as Iran.

And before any Bush bashing goes on (which I know it will), remember your history. Yes, we created a lot of problems in the middle east, specifically Iran, but don't forget who pretty much started this whole mess (as far as our involvement goes), and it wasn't anybody with the last name of Bush.

Here is a blurb from Iran released in the news today:

And then followed with:

LINKY-POO

To me, Iran is very, very dangerous and represents a threat to the entire world. As far as I am concerned, they cannot be trusted, and even if they agreed to "do what they're told", I don't think they will.

So, as I see it, any talks or negotiations are doomed to fail. Iran will use whatever excuse they can to say that progress wasn't achieved (i.e. talks with the U.S., the E.U. or the U.N.) and that Iran will continue to enrich uranium. Plus, the Security Coucil or the IAEA isn't an option, because Iran already said that won't play that game.

In the short-term, the U.S. isn't in the "danger zone" here. Even after Iran develops nuclear warheads, it would be years and years before they could create a delivery system that could reach us. Their neighbors and the EU community are the ones most at risk--because there isn't anything to stop Iran from using nukes if the feel they are threatened (regardless if the threat is real or manufactured).

I think Iran would actually decide to use a nuke as a first strike weapon.

Granted, it would be dumb, because Iran would get wiped off the face of this planet, but I don't think they care.

So....what do we do?

Nothing?

More talks? If so, by who? And what do the people conducting the talks say that will appease Iran? (that's really the issue here--appeasement of Iran--something that makes me cringe)

Or do we (we = collective) do something else? More drastic? Military (not just the U.S. here)?

Does anyone think the EU or the UN can help?

Is there anything that can persuade Iran?

Or...none of the above? Maybe you think Iran isn't a threat/concern--if so, speak up and tell me why they aren't--I would be interested to know.

Personally, I think it is all a game. The talks go on, everybody claps about progress and achievements.....meanwhile, in the underground bunkers we just heard about, the process continues, and nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles will be developed.

Ok, time for ANOTHER war then. Let's go!

Manx · 03-08-2005, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

In regards to Jews vs. Muslims, correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the Jews there first. If memory is serving me right, Islam came about several hundred years after Christ. And, obviously, Judaism was before Christianity.

Is there a "who was there first" ancient law running around.

Judaism has been around for some 5000 years. Christianity, around 2000. Muslim religion, around 1400. When you actually consider the similarities between all three of them, it's nearly shocking that there has been and continues to be so much violence between them. I mean, it's not like we're talking about some belief as different as Hinduism.

Before Jews came to Palestine, it was ruled in various degrees at various times by Caananites, Philistines, Egyptians, Babylonians and probably a half dozen other groups.

If there is a "who was there first" law running around, maybe we should let the Native American's know.

KMA-628 · 03-08-2005, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Judaism has been around for some 5000 years. Christianity, around 2000. Muslim religion, around 1400. When you actually consider the similarities between all three of them, it's nearly shocking that there has been and continues to be so much violence between them. I mean, it's not like we're talking about some belief as different as Hinduism.

From what I have read, the main point of contention between Christians and Muslims revolves around the concept of the Holy Trinity; giving divinity to Christ is heretical to them and an abomination to God.

Since Jews don't believe in the trinity, I don't really know why they don't get along.

If I were to guess, I would say it is because of the Jewish holy lands that were taken when Islam was super-powerful and spreading across the world. Maybe the Jews never forgave them for that?

That might explain it from the Jewish percepective, but it doesn't explain hundreds of years of Muslims hating Jews--no clue there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

If there is a "who was there first" law running around, maybe we should let the Native American's know.

You'll get no argument from me--my munchkins are all card carrying Cherokee.

guy44 · 03-08-2005, 09:59 PM

EDIT: Will, I think I may have mistook your response for your actual beliefs. If you meant your post as a twist on the post you quoted, and what you wrote is not genuinely what you believe, then ignore what I wrote, and I apologize. If not...

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Please take this for an honest respectful response.

The majority of people that rule Israel believe with all their heart that the Muslims are the enemy and if they keep them them from the 3rd holiest city in Islam, they are blessed in the eyes of the Lord.

That isn't from the liberal playbook, that's straight from their mouths, which you can verify by visiting a few radical Zionist websites.

So their interest is serving God and trying to protect the place currently known as Israel from the evil Arab Muslims. This goes back to the very beginnings of not only Islam, but even Christianity. The reality is that there is deeply seeded racism and religious prejudice from the Jewish community towards to Arab Muslim people. Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, head of the Kever Yossev Yeshiva in Nablus stated, "The blood of the Jewish people is loved by the Lord; it is therefore redder and their life is preferable." The killing by a Jew of a non-Jew, i.e. a Palestinian or other Arab, is considered essentially a good deed, and Jews should therefore have no compunction about it.

I can't spell it out any more clearly.

The Federation of American Scientists has said that Israel has an estimated 100-200 nuclear weapons. Not one of them has yet hit an Arab or Muslim target. Just because a nation is run by deeply religious people who happen to belong to a religion that has fanatics does not mean that they themselves are fanatics.

I'm sorry if I find myself unable to take your post as "respectful." Perhaps I don't know who you are being respectful towards - it surely isn't Jews, or basic decency.

First of all, I will respectfully tell you that you don't know one single fucking accurate thing about Jews. For example, we don't think as one monothilic group. Secondly, there is no deep-seeded anti-Muslim racism inherent in Judaism. Jews and Muslims have had their differences, but before the mid-twentieth century, the two lived alongside each other quite well for millenia. When Spain was ruled by the Moors, they allowed an extraordinary amount of religious freedom to Jews who had been actively persecuted by Christians for centuries. In fact, before the latest intifada began a few years ago, many Arabs lived in Israel, enough that over the next few decades they were expected to outnumber Jews. Does this sound like a country dedicated to removing Arabs from within its borders?

And as dumb as I think Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg may be, I think anyone who believes that this man speaks for any group of estimable size of Jews threatens his status as moron of the moment. I've never heard of him - his quote is just one crazy guy's statement cherry picked to look as if he spoke for more than just his Yeshiva.

Then, you insinuated that Jews consider killing non-Jews a good thing is repugnant beyond belief. Jews have always sued for peace throughout our troubled history. Whatever mistakes Israeli political and/or military leadership may have made over the last 50 years, it is utterly irresponsible and downright offensive to assert that Jews consider it a good thing to kill non-Jews.

One of our most sacred stories is that of Passover - you might know it as the one in which Moses leads the Jews out of Egypt. G-d parted the Red Sea to allow the Jews to pass, and when the Egyptian army attempted to follow, the Sea closed in upon them, drowning every soldier. The Jews initially began to celebrate, until G-d became angry. He told the Jews that every living creature on Earth is one of G-d's creatures, and that the death of the Egyptian army was a tragedy.

Our most tragic moment occurred about 60 years ago, when a country decided that to kill every member of another ethnic group was a good thing.

Do you actually believe that Jews would undertake that same quest?

Of course, you base your disgusting assertions on a "radical Zionist website" that is anything but. In fact, it is a radical racist website that refers to the treasured collected collection of Jewish theological thought, the Talmud, as Jewish Supremacist Hate Literature and decries the racial desegregation of America. Zionists are those who believed that Jews should return to the Holy Land and establish a state. White motherfuckers who dedicate their websites to "the cutting edge of legitimate, studious conspiracy research" in order to wax nostalgic about the good ol' slavery days are the opposite of Zionists.

I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone on these boards that a white supremacist is not a Zionist, and correct assumptions that Jews think killing anyone at all is a good idea. I feel like I'm this close to having to explain that our noses are not all hooked, that we don't run the world's banks, and that no, I've never tasted the blood of Christian children. I'm actually writing this post in genuine anger - I've never done that before. Unfuckingbelievable.

And KMA, I assure you that Islamic-Jewish relations are a bit more complicated than Jews being unable to forgive Muslims for "taking the holy land" in some mysterious event that didn't happen. Like I explained above, Jews and Muslims haven't always had bad relations. That is a relatively new development. Trust me - we Jews have been shuttling around various countries too long to hold some sort of permanent grudge against any one group. Jews have had a much worse history with Christianity than with Islam.

KMA-628 · 03-08-2005, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

And KMA, I assure you that Islamic-Jewish relations are a bit more complicated than Jews being unable to forgive Muslims for "taking the holy land" in some mysterious event that didn't happen. Like I explained above, Jews and Muslims haven't always had bad relations. That is a relatively new development. Trust me - we Jews have been shuttling around various countries too long to hold some sort of permanent grudge against any one group. Jews have had a much worse history with Christianity than with Islam.

Eh, just a guess....and a bad one at that.

Out of curiousity, please explain "G-d"?

guy44 · 03-08-2005, 10:31 PM

Sure thing, KMA. Jews believe that you should not write out the true name of G-d, though most people utilize this tradition only when writing in hebrew. I don't follow this convention in English, except in this post as it felt appropriate.

So Jews call G-d all sorts of names, like Elohim and Adonai and several other names rather than actually write out his true name.

By the way, I've edited my post you are responding to - I think I totally misunderstood what willravel was doing, and if so then obviously my riteous indignation for the night was misplaced.

This is a good website to explain it.

Manx · 03-08-2005, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

I'm sorry if I find myself unable to take your post as "respectful." Perhaps I don't know who you are being respectful towards - it surely isn't Jews, or basic decency.

First of all, I will respectfully tell you that you don't know one single fucking accurate thing about Jews.

guy44 -

willravel seemed to be taking Lebell's post and simply turning it around.

Does willravel know less about Jews than Lebell about Muslims? Who knows. But lebell (apparently) posted his true opinion.

A telling sign is the last portion of willravel's post, where he states that a deeply religious government (Israel) has had nukes in their possession for quite awhile and yet none have been used.

Personally, I found willravel's post to be spot on.

KMA-628 · 03-08-2005, 10:51 PM

So....the next obvious question.....that has already been asked:

Why are there big whoop-dee-doos in Iran with banners proclaiming "Death to Israel"?

You can't really say it is a radical wing of Islam, since the Iranian gov't is sponsoring the event--that is, unless you consider the Iranian gov't itself just a radical wing.

It doesn't seem to me that you have big parades in the streets of Israel with banners saying "Death to Islam" or "Death to Arabs".

So what is driving this from the Muslim side?

I would also like to note, that while typing this, I have the news on in the background and there was just a story on about Israel giving up some land or something today.

So....Israel makes concessions to Palestine, to further the chance for peace in the area.

Besides "Kill Jews" conventions, what is the Arab community doing to promote peace?

And yes, before you say anything, I know the tone I used. I'm not blowing smoke up anybody's ass by trying to make you think I don't have a bias here.

I do have a bias and I will admit to that, but I would still like to know what started this "war"?

/Totally off topic: there was just a porn commercial on Fox News, no joke.

Dyze · 03-09-2005, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Fuck the allies

That is THE most stupid and immature comment I heard this week. Good thing that people like you are not in charge. Wait... they are...

DJ Happy · 03-09-2005, 12:11 AM

guy44, I think the criticisms you have of willravel's post are the exact reason willravel made that post to begin with - to point out the futility of such thinking.

jorgelito · 03-09-2005, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dyze

That is THE most stupid and immature comment I heard this week. Good thing that people like you are not in charge. Wait... they are...

You took it out of context. But however, after reading my post again I can see where it could be misconstued. Some of my wording was not ideal.

smooth · 03-09-2005, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

we don't think as one monothilic group. Secondly, there is no deep-seeded anti-Muslim racism inherent in Judaism. Jews and Muslims have had their differences, but before the mid-twentieth century, the two lived alongside each other quite well for millenia. When Spain was ruled by the Moors, they allowed an extraordinary amount of religious freedom to Jews who had been actively persecuted by Christians for centuries. In fact, before the latest intifada began a few years ago, many Arabs lived in Israel, enough that over the next few decades they were expected to outnumber Jews. Does this sound like a country dedicated to removing Arabs from within its borders?

And as dumb as I think Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg may be, I think anyone who believes that this man speaks for any group of estimable size of Jews threatens his status as moron of the moment. I've never heard of him - his quote is just one crazy guy's statement cherry picked to look as if he spoke for more than just his Yeshiva.

Then, you insinuated that Jews consider killing non-Jews a good thing is repugnant beyond belief. Jews have always sued for peace throughout our troubled history. Whatever mistakes Israeli political and/or military leadership may have made over the last 50 years, it is utterly irresponsible and downright offensive to assert that Jews consider it a good thing to kill non-Jews.

One of our most sacred stories is that of Passover - you might know it as the one in which Moses leads the Jews out of Egypt. G-d parted the Red Sea to allow the Jews to pass, and when the Egyptian army attempted to follow, the Sea closed in upon them, drowning every soldier. The Jews initially began to celebrate, until G-d became angry. He told the Jews that every living creature on Earth is one of G-d's creatures, and that the death of the Egyptian army was a tragedy.

Our most tragic moment occurred about 60 years ago, when a country decided that to kill every member of another ethnic group was a good thing.

Do you actually believe that Jews would undertake that same quest?

Of course, you base your disgusting assertions on a "radical Zionist website" that is anything but. In fact, it is a radical racist website that refers to the treasured collected collection of Jewish theological thought, the Talmud, as Jewish Supremacist Hate Literature and decries the racial desegregation of America. Zionists are those who believed that Jews should return to the Holy Land and establish a state. White motherfuckers who dedicate their websites to "the cutting edge of legitimate, studious conspiracy research" in order to wax nostalgic about the good ol' slavery days are the opposite of Zionists.

I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone on these boards that a white supremacist is not a Zionist, and correct assumptions that Jews think killing anyone at all is a good idea. I feel like I'm this close to having to explain that our noses are not all hooked, that we don't run the world's banks, and that no, I've never tasted the blood of Christian children. I'm actually writing this post in genuine anger - I've never done that before. Unfuckingbelievable.

And KMA, I assure you that Islamic-Jewish relations are a bit more complicated than Jews being unable to forgive Muslims for "taking the holy land" in some mysterious event that didn't happen. Like I explained above, Jews and Muslims haven't always had bad relations. That is a relatively new development. Trust me - we Jews have been shuttling around various countries too long to hold some sort of permanent grudge against any one group. Jews have had a much worse history with Christianity than with Islam.

Thank you very much for saving me a lot of time typing this out. And for sparing me some anger, because I was becoming agitated while reading KMA's post. But it had more to do with the fact that I've already typed responses like yours out to posts like his elsewhere on this board.

In any case, I've quoted the thing because it probably needs to be reiterated. Maybe a few people will actually believe the sentiment contained within.

Oh, and no, lebell does not accurately portray the views of any of my muslim friends. My goodness, yes, I have muslim friends! There is a bit of agitation, some of it escalating into violence between us (well, not me in particular) on my campus, but that is between the people who get wrapped up in the political rhetoric. The religious wars belief is a very simple, seems to be mainly christian belief, way of making sense of a complex situation. It doesn't square with historical relations, however.

When you evaluated the relative timelines between the religions you made an error, now that I think of it attributed to the mistaken belief that any issues are predominantly religious, in linking ethnic heritage to a large number of muslim's religiousity. I mean to say that if you look deeper into the split between the two groups you'll find something very interesting. Lack of historic perspective on where the two derive their lineage could be overcome if christians would stop using the foundation of their religion as a convenient backstory when it suits them. By this I mean, read a bit more of what christians call the "old" testament and you'd find that even religious perspective on this isn't what it's purported to be (regardless of how you feel about the historical accuracy of the events depicted, at least that is what a number of religious groups are working from).

Lebell · 03-09-2005, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Oh, and no, lebell does not accurately portray the views of any of my muslim friends.

People,

It would be better for everyone on "Politics" if we ALL read everything posters write and not take them out of context.

I specifically wrote "The majority of people ruling Iran..." for a reason. Other than having a few of you say in effect that I don't know what I'm talking about, no one has yet shown me how that is so.

Manx · 03-09-2005, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Other than having a few of you say in effect that I don't know what I'm talking about, no one has yet shown me how that is so.

I think willravel did an excellent job of demonstrating how that is so. His post, as the near mirror image of your own, did not claim all Jews, but only the government of Israel and some radical groups - exactly as yours did. But it is rather clear that taking willravel's post on face value would be met with much resistance. The same holds true for your own.

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-09-2005, 08:37 AM

Will was talking about feelings that may or may not be held by members of a secular government, as opposed to doctrine preached and policy practiced by a theocracy. Big difference.

roachboy · 03-09-2005, 09:14 AM

caveat lector:

this post refers to no. 40, above (it took quite a while to write and much has occurred in the meantime it seems)

i have been sitting in front of what follow, reading through it, for a quite a while trying to decide if i should post it or not.
this is not written as a personal attack on you, lebel.
but i find that it can be read as one.
for that i apologize up front.
but i couldnt say what i felt i needed to say about this without going here to some extent.

==========

so let me see if i follow you:

first you assume that you can answer a direct question about the interests of the state of iran--that is its government--by not talking in any detail about the state of iran.

you seem to assume it is logical to treat iran as the expression of "radical isalm" in general--you even treat this equation as a given--which i suppose it is if you do not look at the facts of the matter at all---who the known fundamentalist organizations are, where they come from socially, their relation to the existing power structures within the communities they come out of, whether they oppose the existing power structure before anything else--whether the regime in iran is part of the existing power structure or not---whether these groups are sunni or shi'a--how that division plays out across the sociological situations that shape these groups. none of this is taken into account in your post, lebel--and not a bit of this is obvious without quite a bit of research. so your most basic claim does not hold water.

but let's pass over this preliminary issue:

you really think that iran--the government of which (like any other) has an interest in staying in power--would pass nuclear weapons to a --well what---you dont actually say anything specific, you seem to have no idea who iran might be passing these weapons to, these weapons they do not yet have but might soon have maybe...
to hezbollah?
we already discussed them in this thread---they are not really a "terrorist" outfit in the special senses given the term these days.
hamas?
that would not seem imaginable within any scenario given what is unfolding on the ground between israel and palestine at the moment.

so obviously the problem must be Someone Else, someone we dont know about, who does not now exist, but could exist one day and it is that Potential Enemy who is the Real Threat--well, no wonder there is nothing specific about who iran might pass these weapons they do not yet have to.

but it seems necessary to be able to say SOMETHING about the Potential Enemy, the one that does not yet exist, that we do not know about, but could at any moment, any place, Pop into Being--so what do we know about them? that they are evil muslims who want to destroy israel. voila. there you have it. presto, a kind of sea-monkey enemy: just add water and watch it twitch about in the tumbler of your choice--Instant Enemy: they make fine pets and they help justify massive, out of control defense spending. they keep people glued to their tv sets and help structure paranoia. Instant Enemies are available everywhere, all the time. you dont need to know anything about them--you just need to know that they are evil muslims who want to destroy x....here you can say israel--there you can say the american way of life or our freedoms--it really does not matter what you fill in, it is always something Terribly Important: your own Instant Enemy is always really jealous or really angry or really something and as a result they just want to blow shit up. bad bad muslims.

you dont provide a real indication of how this passing of nuclear weapons could possibly be understood as rational by a government that presides over a nation-state and therefore has an interest in remaining in power and do to that needs to also have an interest in keeping a nation-state around and not getting it blown to smithereens by either the israelis--who are a real nuclear power--or the united states--or both.

[[aside: well, you *do* have the glorious history of american and soviet nuclear weapons thinking during the cold war from around the period around the cuban missle crisis, the mutual assured destruction thing. and because this was an american "strategy" and this is american dammit, it must have been rational.]]

but outside MAD--which was both rational contextually and completely insane contextually at once---even from the most low-level type of self-interest, it would seem to me nuts, your scenario. seeing as your understanding is rooted on no specific information about iran, no specific information about these "terrorists" or "fundamentalists" or other boogeypersons that keep you awake at night and by extension conservatives in power---no specific information about islam for that matter, just a sequence of rickety assertions tied together by the kind of startling fact that you seem to believe what you say.

what is really startling is that you let yourself drop into a very old, very unpleasant set of tropes: They are fanatics--They are not reasonable--They do not act from self-interest--They are inferior--They are deluded: all quite unlike you or Us--all requiring no information--only good old fashioned racism.....but i understand (i think) how this game works these days lebel, and do not blame you personally for it at all--you just follow the logic your particular position leans on--it is perfectly acceptable these days for conservative types to be racist without limits when it comes to arabs, to muslims--because it is wrapped tight in nationalist fervor, in projection, in fear, this particular racism goes unnoticed, unnamed. it is part of the nationalist game. and that nationalist game is an unquestioned good.

Willravel · 03-09-2005, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

First of all, I will respectfully tell you that you don't know one single fucking accurate thing about Jews. For example, we don't think as one monothilic group. Secondly, there is no deep-seeded anti-Muslim racism inherent in Judaism. Jews and Muslims have had their differences, but before the mid-twentieth century, the two lived alongside each other quite well for millenia. When Spain was ruled by the Moors, they allowed an extraordinary amount of religious freedom to Jews who had been actively persecuted by Christians for centuries. In fact, before the latest intifada began a few years ago, many Arabs lived in Israel, enough that over the next few decades they were expected to outnumber Jews. Does this sound like a country dedicated to removing Arabs from within its borders?

Oh boy. My post did not put all jewish people into one group. It would be foolish to claim that the people of any religion are best represented by their radical fundamentalists. Also, please realize that a lot of what I said was to point out how Lebell sounded speaking about the Islamic community.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

And as dumb as I think Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg may be, I think anyone who believes that this man speaks for any group of estimable size of Jews threatens his status as moron of the moment. I've never heard of him - his quote is just one crazy guy's statement cherry picked to look as if he spoke for more than just his Yeshiva.

Rabbi Yizhak’s comment was racist and uncommon in the jewish church. I was pointing to the extremists in the jewish community, just as lebell pointed to the extremists in the muslim community.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Then, you insinuated that Jews consider killing non-Jews a good thing is repugnant beyond belief. Jews have always sued for peace throughout our troubled history. Whatever mistakes Israeli political and/or military leadership may have made over the last 50 years, it is utterly irresponsible and downright offensive to assert that Jews consider it a good thing to kill non-Jews.

Don’t worry, I know. Just as in Islam, i’m sure that 99.999999999% of those who follow Judaism are kind and intelligent people who understand that the Torah teaches peace and understanding. I was trying to make the point that we should not consider all of Islam to be accurately represented by the very few radicals, just as Judaism is not represented by the very, very few radicals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

One of our most sacred stories is that of Passover - you might know it as the one in which Moses leads the Jews out of Egypt. G[o]d parted the Red Sea to allow the Jews to pass, and when the Egyptian army attempted to follow, the Sea closed in upon them, drowning every soldier. The Jews initially began to celebrate, until G[o]d became angry. He told the Jews that every living creature on Earth is one of G[o]d's creatures, and that the death of the Egyptian army was a tragedy.

We Christians believe in Passover as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Our most tragic moment occurred about 60 years ago, when a country decided that to kill every member of another ethnic group was a good thing.

Do you actually believe that Jews would undertake that same quest?

Nope. Actually, I think that if a religion were to initiate some evil quest the Jewish religion would be the religion I’d least expect it from, next to Buddhists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

EDIT: Will, I think I may have mistook your response for your actual beliefs. If you meant your post as a twist on the post you quoted, and what you wrote is not genuinely what you believe, then ignore what I wrote, and I apologize.

I hope I have explained why I was being a bit sarcastic in my post. To clarify, I wanted to point out that if what was said about the Islamic faith was said about another faith, it would be considered truly ignorant and hate-filled. My post does not reflect my beliefs. I hope I still have any respect I might have had from you before you read my post. Know that I have a deep respect for those who follow Judaism, or any religion. Next to my copies of the NIV, NKJ, and Hebrew Christian Bible I have copies of the Jewish Study Bible (Tanakh Translation, Torah, Nevi'Im, Kethuvim), the Tao-te-ching, the Veda, and the Qur'an (just to give you an idea of where I’m coming from). My father was a pastor and my grandfather was a philosopher. My best friend follows Judaism and I’ve gone with him to temple many times.

roachboy · 03-09-2005, 09:59 AM

and then there are problems of assessing iran's nuclear capabilities at all.
this from todays ny times
link:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/in...rtner=homepage

Quote:

Data Is Lacking on Iran's Arms, U.S. Panel Says
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: March 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 8 - A commission due to report to President Bush this month will describe American intelligence on Iran as inadequate to allow firm judgments about Iran's weapons programs, according to people who have been briefed on the panel's work.

The report comes as intelligence agencies prepare a new formal assessment on Iran, and follows a 14-month review by the panel, which Mr. Bush ordered last year to assess the quality of overall intelligence about the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The Bush administration has been issuing increasingly sharp warnings about what it says are Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons. The warnings have been met with firm denials in Tehran, which says its nuclear program is intended purely for civilian purposes.

The most complete recent statement by American agencies about Iran and its weapons, in an unclassified report sent to Congress in November by Porter J. Goss, director of central intelligence, said Iran continued "to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections in Iran for two years, has said it has not found evidence of any weapons program. But the agency has also expressed skepticism about Iran's insistence that its nuclear activities are strictly civilian.

The nine-member bipartisan presidential panel, led by Laurence Silberman, a retired federal judge, and Charles S. Robb, a former governor and senator from Virginia, had unrestricted access to the most senior people and the most sensitive documents of the intelligence agencies.

In its report, the panel is also expected to be sharply critical of American intelligence on North Korea. But in interviews, people who have been briefed on the commission's deliberations and conclusions said they regarded the record on Iran as particularly worrisome.

One person who described the panel's deliberations and conclusions characterized American intelligence on Iran as "scandalous," given the importance and relative openness of the country, compared with such an extreme case as North Korea.

That person and others who have been briefed on the panel's work would not be more specific in describing the inadequacies. But former government officials who are experts on Iran say that while American intelligence agencies have devoted enormous resources to Iran since the Islamic revolution of 1979, they have had little success in the kinds of human spying necessary to understand Iranian decision-making.

Among the major setbacks, former intelligence officials have said, was the successful penetration in the late 1980's by Iranian authorities of the principal American spy network inside the country, which was being run from a C.I.A. station in Frankfurt. The arrests of reported American spies was known at the time, but the impact on American intelligence reverberated as late as the mid-1990's.

A spokesman for the commission, Carl Kropf, declined to comment about any conclusions reached.

The last National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was completed in 2001 and is now being reassessed, according to American intelligence officials. As a first step, the National Intelligence Council, which produces the estimates and reports to Mr. Goss, is expected this spring to circulate a classified update that will focus on Iran and its weapons.

In Congress, the Senate Intelligence Committee has recently begun its own review into the quality of intelligence on Iran, in what the Republican and Democratic leaders of the panel have described as an effort to pre-empt any repeat of the experience in Iraq, where prewar American assertions about illicit weapons proved to be mistaken. But Congressional officials say the language of some recent intelligence reports on Iran has included more caveats and qualifications than in the past, in what they described as the agencies' own response to the Iraq experience.

In testimony last month, intelligence officials from several agencies told Congress that they were convinced that Tehran wanted nuclear weapons, but also said the uncertainty played to Iran's advantage.

"The Iranians don't necessarily have to have a successful nuclear program in order to have the deterrent value," said Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official. "They merely have to convince us, others and their neighbors that they do."

The commission's findings will also include recommendations for further structural changes among intelligence agencies, to build on the legislation Mr. Bush signed in December that sets up a new director of national intelligence. Among the proposals discussed but apparently rejected was the idea of consolidating the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency into a single Defense Department operation that would integrate what are now divided responsibilities for satellite reconnaissance and eavesdropping operations.

The panel is to send a classified report to Mr. Bush by March 31. The panel is expected to issue an unclassified version at about the same time, but it is not clear whether the criticism of intelligence on Iran will be included in that public document, the people familiar with the panel's deliberations said.

In a television interview in February on Fox News, Vice President Dick Cheney described the work of the commission as "one of the most important things that's going forward today."

In the case of Iraq, a National Intelligence Estimate completed in October 2002 was among the assessments that expressed certainty that Baghdad possessed chemical and biological weapons and was rebuilding its nuclear program. Those assessments were wrong, and a report last year by the chief American weapons inspector found that Iraq had destroyed what remained of its illicit arsenal nearly a decade before the United States invasion.

A report last summer by the Senate committee concluded that the certainty of prewar assessments on Iraq had not been supported by the intelligence available at the time. At the Central Intelligence Agency, senior officials have defended the assessments, but they have also imposed new guidelines intended to reduce the prospect for failures.

Among those guidelines, an intelligence official said Tuesday, is a requirement that in producing future National Intelligence Estimates, the National Intelligence Council state more explicitly how much confidence it places on each judgment it makes. Those guidelines are being enforced in the updates on the Iranian nuclear program and in the revised National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which will address issues like political stability as well.

martinguerre · 03-09-2005, 10:07 AM

lebell...fascinating that you skip right past the shah. That era of government makes the selling of fanaticism to the people possible. Islam has both existed as a empire, and as a diaspora...oppressor and oppressed. frankly, your reading of the situation is rather misleadingly simple.

"only if you paid a tax" Duh. What do you think Christendom did to the Jewish diaspora?

violence is a *human* problem, not just an islamic/christian/jewish/whatever one.

martinguerre · 03-09-2005, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

One of our most sacred stories is that of Passover - you might know it as the one in which Moses leads the Jews out of Egypt. G*d parted the Red Sea to allow the Jews to pass, and when the Egyptian army attempted to follow, the Sea closed in upon them, drowning every soldier. The Jews initially began to celebrate, until G*d became angry. He told the Jews that every living creature on Earth is one of G*d's creatures, and that the death of the Egyptian army was a tragedy.

possible threadjack...Guy44, where are you getting that reading of exodus 15? I *like* that reading, but it's not pshat...is that a commentator, or what?

as a Christian, that story is important to me too, but i feel that it's better to acknowledge the violence in it, and not whitewash it away.

guy44 · 03-09-2005, 11:08 AM

Willravel - yeah, I realized after I posted my long ass rant that you were just making a point about stereotyping all members of a religion, and edited my post at the top to indicate so.

Sorry about the invective - I misread what you wrote. I'm an idiot.

martinguerre - I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure that story is commentary, not actually in the Torah.

Willravel · 03-09-2005, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Willravel - yeah, I realized after I posted my long ass rant that you were just making a point about stereotyping all members of a religion, and edited my post at the top to indicate so.

Sorry about the invective - I misread what you wrote. I'm an idiot.

Not to worry. You illustrated well what religious ignorance and stereotypes can do to people. If anything, you supported my point bette than I ever could. Also, I just learned a new word: invective. n. Denunciatory or abusive language; vituperation.

You're no idiot.

03-08-2005, 07:01 PM	#42 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	and you guys said we didn't have a plan. We showed you, now didn't we? __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

03-08-2005, 08:55 PM	#44 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	will - I agree. You have two "old" religions that both claim rights to the same land. Both view the same spot as sacred to their belief. In regards to Jews vs. Muslims, correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the Jews there first. If memory is serving me right, Islam came about several hundred years after Christ. And, obviously, Judaism was before Christianity. Is there a "who was there first" ancient law running around. Also (going back to memory again), aren't some of the signs of the apocalypse related to this area and who controls it? __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

03-08-2005, 10:31 PM	#50 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Sure thing, KMA. Jews believe that you should not write out the true name of G-d, though most people utilize this tradition only when writing in hebrew. I don't follow this convention in English, except in this post as it felt appropriate. So Jews call G-d all sorts of names, like Elohim and Adonai and several other names rather than actually write out his true name. By the way, I've edited my post you are responding to - I think I totally misunderstood what willravel was doing, and if so then obviously my riteous indignation for the night was misplaced. This is a good website to explain it. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'" Last edited by guy44; 03-08-2005 at 10:34 PM..

03-08-2005, 10:51 PM	#52 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	So....the next obvious question.....that has already been asked: Why are there big whoop-dee-doos in Iran with banners proclaiming "Death to Israel"? You can't really say it is a radical wing of Islam, since the Iranian gov't is sponsoring the event--that is, unless you consider the Iranian gov't itself just a radical wing. It doesn't seem to me that you have big parades in the streets of Israel with banners saying "Death to Islam" or "Death to Arabs". So what is driving this from the Muslim side? I would also like to note, that while typing this, I have the news on in the background and there was just a story on about Israel giving up some land or something today. So....Israel makes concessions to Palestine, to further the chance for peace in the area. Besides "Kill Jews" conventions, what is the Arab community doing to promote peace? And yes, before you say anything, I know the tone I used. I'm not blowing smoke up anybody's ass by trying to make you think I don't have a bias here. I do have a bias and I will admit to that, but I would still like to know what started this "war"? /Totally off topic: there was just a porn commercial on Fox News, no joke. __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

03-09-2005, 08:37 AM	#59 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Will was talking about feelings that may or may not be held by members of a secular government, as opposed to doctrine preached and policy practiced by a theocracy. Big difference. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-09-2005, 12:11 AM	#54 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	guy44, I think the criticisms you have of willravel's post are the exact reason willravel made that post to begin with - to point out the futility of such thinking.

03-09-2005, 09:14 AM	#60 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	caveat lector: this post refers to no. 40, above (it took quite a while to write and much has occurred in the meantime it seems) i have been sitting in front of what follow, reading through it, for a quite a while trying to decide if i should post it or not. this is not written as a personal attack on you, lebel. but i find that it can be read as one. for that i apologize up front. but i couldnt say what i felt i needed to say about this without going here to some extent. ========== so let me see if i follow you: first you assume that you can answer a direct question about the interests of the state of iran--that is its government--by not talking in any detail about the state of iran. you seem to assume it is logical to treat iran as the expression of "radical isalm" in general--you even treat this equation as a given--which i suppose it is if you do not look at the facts of the matter at all---who the known fundamentalist organizations are, where they come from socially, their relation to the existing power structures within the communities they come out of, whether they oppose the existing power structure before anything else--whether the regime in iran is part of the existing power structure or not---whether these groups are sunni or shi'a--how that division plays out across the sociological situations that shape these groups. none of this is taken into account in your post, lebel--and not a bit of this is obvious without quite a bit of research. so your most basic claim does not hold water. but let's pass over this preliminary issue: you really think that iran--the government of which (like any other) has an interest in staying in power--would pass nuclear weapons to a --well what---you dont actually say anything specific, you seem to have no idea who iran might be passing these weapons to, these weapons they do not yet have but might soon have maybe... to hezbollah? we already discussed them in this thread---they are not really a "terrorist" outfit in the special senses given the term these days. hamas? that would not seem imaginable within any scenario given what is unfolding on the ground between israel and palestine at the moment. so obviously the problem must be Someone Else, someone we dont know about, who does not now exist, but could exist one day and it is that Potential Enemy who is the Real Threat--well, no wonder there is nothing specific about who iran might pass these weapons they do not yet have to. but it seems necessary to be able to say SOMETHING about the Potential Enemy, the one that does not yet exist, that we do not know about, but could at any moment, any place, Pop into Being--so what do we know about them? that they are evil muslims who want to destroy israel. voila. there you have it. presto, a kind of sea-monkey enemy: just add water and watch it twitch about in the tumbler of your choice--Instant Enemy: they make fine pets and they help justify massive, out of control defense spending. they keep people glued to their tv sets and help structure paranoia. Instant Enemies are available everywhere, all the time. you dont need to know anything about them--you just need to know that they are evil muslims who want to destroy x....here you can say israel--there you can say the american way of life or our freedoms--it really does not matter what you fill in, it is always something Terribly Important: your own Instant Enemy is always really jealous or really angry or really something and as a result they just want to blow shit up. bad bad muslims. you dont provide a real indication of how this passing of nuclear weapons could possibly be understood as rational by a government that presides over a nation-state and therefore has an interest in remaining in power and do to that needs to also have an interest in keeping a nation-state around and not getting it blown to smithereens by either the israelis--who are a real nuclear power--or the united states--or both. [[aside: well, you do have the glorious history of american and soviet nuclear weapons thinking during the cold war from around the period around the cuban missle crisis, the mutual assured destruction thing. and because this was an american "strategy" and this is american dammit, it must have been rational.]] but outside MAD--which was both rational contextually and completely insane contextually at once---even from the most low-level type of self-interest, it would seem to me nuts, your scenario. seeing as your understanding is rooted on no specific information about iran, no specific information about these "terrorists" or "fundamentalists" or other boogeypersons that keep you awake at night and by extension conservatives in power---no specific information about islam for that matter, just a sequence of rickety assertions tied together by the kind of startling fact that you seem to believe what you say. what is really startling is that you let yourself drop into a very old, very unpleasant set of tropes: They are fanatics--They are not reasonable--They do not act from self-interest--They are inferior--They are deluded: all quite unlike you or Us--all requiring no information--only good old fashioned racism.....but i understand (i think) how this game works these days lebel, and do not blame you personally for it at all--you just follow the logic your particular position leans on--it is perfectly acceptable these days for conservative types to be racist without limits when it comes to arabs, to muslims--because it is wrapped tight in nationalist fervor, in projection, in fear, this particular racism goes unnoticed, unnamed. it is part of the nationalist game. and that nationalist game is an unquestioned good. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-09-2005 at 09:21 AM..

03-09-2005, 10:07 AM	#63 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	lebell...fascinating that you skip right past the shah. That era of government makes the selling of fanaticism to the people possible. Islam has both existed as a empire, and as a diaspora...oppressor and oppressed. frankly, your reading of the situation is rather misleadingly simple. "only if you paid a tax" Duh. What do you think Christendom did to the Jewish diaspora? violence is a human problem, not just an islamic/christian/jewish/whatever one. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

03-09-2005, 11:08 AM	#65 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Willravel - yeah, I realized after I posted my long ass rant that you were just making a point about stereotyping all members of a religion, and edited my post at the top to indicate so. Sorry about the invective - I misread what you wrote. I'm an idiot. martinguerre - I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure that story is commentary, not actually in the Torah. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"