BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 08:00 PM

The Isle of Capri.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 08:00 PM

"- If you are a signatory of the Nuclear NPT you are not allowed to pursue the development and aquisition of nuclear weapons."

Correct. However, no one has proven that Iran IS pursuing the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons, and Iran, unlike North Korea, has stated over and over again that they are not doing so. So, what if the USA is lying when they say that they believe Iran is pursuing the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons? Or what if the USA is mistaken when they say that?

All people ARE allowed to retaliate to attack, Teribus, but in a reasonably proportionate manner. Israel's invasions of Lebanon were both totally out of proportion to anything that paramilitary forces in Lebanon had done to Israel. It would have been a proportionate response on Israel's part to counterfire rocket launchings with return fire from artillery and to make surgical airstrikes on the rocket launching positions. It was completely disproportionate, however, to launch a fullscale invasion of southern Lebanon.

I do not hold a particularly high estimation of Iranian credibility, Teribus, but neither do I hold a high estimation of American or Israeli credibility. They all are capable of lying and misleading in order to achieve desired objectives. I don't feel that any of them have a right to launch pre-emptive attacks on any other country, nor to answer a minor provocation with a fullscale war. If they do so, they're doing it not for legitimate defence, but for their own gain.

I think it's entirely possible that Iran is secretly building or preparing to build nukes. It wouldn't surprise me. If they were, however, I would not regard it as a legitimate reason for attacking them. No one has the moral or legal right to attack first. You must realize, Teribus, that were the USA or Israel in Iran's position vis-a-vis more powerful enemies already armed with a great many nuclear weapons and they with no nukes of their own, they would most certainly move heaven and earth to build nukes, they would do it secretly and illegally if they had to, and they would do it without delay.

The fact is, the Israelis already did that. A long time ago. The problem with America and Israel in regards to the rest of the world is this: they always seem to think that it's okay for them to do things that no one else (except maybe the UK) is allowed to do. Well, they must be very, very special people, eh? You have to be extra-special to be granted legal and moral exemptions that no one else gets.

Is it any surprise that the rest of the world doesn't buy it, and sees a double standard in effect?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 07:24 PM

See you ducked the question dianavan - thought that you would.

More crap from Little Hawk, except in his latest tirade he has managed some absolute howlers. My favourite is this one:

"Leader also warns Iran will retaliate if attacked"

Gosh! How awful of them!!! ;-) Look, who the hell does NOT retaliate if attacked? Who does not warn he will retaliate if attacked?"

Judging by your earlier posts Little Hawk, Israel is not allowed to retaliate if attacked, but, according to you, that is an option open to others (i.e. the ones you approve of).

Read last November's IAEA Report on Iran's nuclear programme LH - you should.

A few things that tend to get in yours and dianavan's claims for Iranian credibility:

- If you are a signatory of the Nuclear NPT you are not allowed to pursue the development and aquisition of nuclear weapons.

"Even if it were proven, would that then be justification for a pre-emptive attack on Iran? Hell, no!" - Little Hawk.

Hell Yes, if someone had done something about Hitlers secret weapons development, construction and training programmes in 1935 WWII would not have happened.

- Why were the enrichment facilities built in secret?

- Why are the Iranians buying the type of centrifuges that enrich uranium way beyond the level required for fuel.

- Why are the Iranians buying those types of centrifuges in sufficient numbers to greatly accelerate enrichment.

- Why are the Iranians modifying and developing IRBM's capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

Absolutely dianavan, totally peaceful, nothing to worry about at all. You have got to be joking!!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:28 PM

Iran is doing exactly what any other sovereign nation would do if conducting a domestic nuclear power program to generate electricity and being told that they cannot enrich unranium because they might use it to build nuclear weapons. Building nuclear weapons is NOT the only reason for enriching uranium.

Iran is being asked to prove that it doesn't have nukes and doesn't intend to build any. You cannot prove a negative.

In the same way, Saddam was asked to prove he didn't have WMDs. He could not prove a negative either. He was like a fish in a barrel...nothing he could do would have stopped the US attack in 2003.

The USA normally does this when they want an excuse to attack someone...they ask their next target to prove a negative...which can't be done. It's the perfect catch-22. The target can struggle all they want, but they can't prove that they don't have something which the USA says they do, and they can't prove that they don't have intentions which the USA says they do.

"• Leader also warns Iran will retaliate if attacked"

Gosh! How awful of them!!! ;-) Look, who the hell does NOT retaliate if attacked? Who does not warn he will retaliate if attacked?

Iran has something the USA wants, but is not cooperating with American corporate planning, and non-cooperation is simply not accepted by the Superpower any more than it is by a local Mafia boss. Therefore Iran is now a target, and has been ever since 1979. The present propaganda campaign by America and Israel is geared to make people think that Iran is so dangerous, so scary, that they must be attacked without delay (same tired old propaganda technique that was used to attack Iraq in 2003). Therefore, they are asked to prove a negative....that they DON'T have nukes or plans to build nukes. You cannot prove a negative. If you don't have such things or any plans for them...and if you say so...the USA can just accuse you of lying, after all. And that's what happens. It is justification of war not on the basis of any actual provocation, but on the basis of innuendo.

It becomes more and more likely under such outside pressure that Iran will eventually decide it must acquire nuclear weapons simply as a matter of self-defence. If so, the USA accusation will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, the ayatollahs have always opposed the idea of developing nuclear weapons, considering such weapons to be "un-Islamic".

I wouldn't want to bet either way on how this one will turn out...

Is it possible that Iran wants to build nukes and is enriching uranium for that purpose? Yes. Is it proven? No. Is the burden of proof on the accusers? Yes. Even if it were proven, would that then be justification for a pre-emptive attack on Iran? Hell, no! No one has the right to pre-emptively attack another country just because that country has or is building some kind of weapon.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:20 PM

At least Switzerland is willing to negotiate.

"The proposal was that Iran would be permitted to keep its current uranium enrichment infrastructure of several hundred centrifuges. Iran could run the centrifuges but would not feed any processed uranium hexafluoride (UF6) into them while negotiating a package of incentives with six world powers."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21525348.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:52 PM

'Iran's representative asserted that its peaceful nuclear programme posed no threat to international peace and security, and, therefore, dealing with the issue in the Security Council was unwarranted and void of any legal basis or practical utility. Far from reflecting the international community's concerns, the sponsors' approach flouted the stated position of the overwhelming majority of Member States. Today's action by the Council, which was the culmination of efforts aimed at making the suspension of uranium enrichment mandatory, violated international law, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and IAEA resolutions. It also ran counter to the views of the majority of United Nations Member States, which the Council was obliged to represent. The sole reason for pushing the Council to take action was that Iran had decided, after over two years of negotiations, to resume the exercise of its inalienable right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, by partially reopening its fully safeguarded facilities and ending a voluntary suspension.



Iran's right to enrich uranium was recognized under the NPT, he said. And, upholding the right of State parties to international regimes was as essential as ensuring respect for their obligations. Those regimes, including the NPT, were sustained by a balance between rights and obligations. Threats would not sustain the NPT or other international regimes, but ensuring that members could draw rightful benefits from membership, and that non-members were not rewarded for their intransigence, did. Yet, today, the world was witnessing a dangerous trend. While members of the NPT were denied their rights and punished, those who defied the NPT, particularly the perpetrators of the current carnage in Lebanon and Palestine, were rewarded by generous nuclear cooperation agreements. "This is one awkward way to safeguard the NPT or ensure its universality", he said.'

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:32 PM

Ah, well that's alright then Dianavan. By the bye is there any particular reason that they wanted to keep this desire for life secret?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:04 PM

"The Iranian nation needs nuclear energy for life, not weapons," Khamenei said.

Makes sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 12:00 PM

Iran threatens 'illegal' nuke work
POSTED: 11:54 a.m. EDT, March 21, 2007

Story Highlights• Khamenei warns Iran will pursue nuclear activities outside international law
• Leader also warns Iran will retaliate if attacked
• Iran accused of using atomic program as a cover to build nuclear weapons

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned on Wednesday that the country will pursue nuclear activities outside international regulations if the U.N. Security Council insists it stop uranium enrichment.

"Until today, what we have done has been in accordance with international regulations," Khamenei said. "But if they take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions and will do so."

Khamenei did not elaborate what "illegal actions" could be pursued by Tehran as it faces new sanctions by the U.N. body over its refusal to halt enrichment which the West fears is used for arms making.

Iran's top leader also issued a stark warning to the United States, saying Iran will "use all its capacities to strike" its enemies if his country is attacked.

"If they want to treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack," Khamenei told the nation in an address marking the first day of Nowruz, or the Persian New Year.

The top five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have drawn up new sanctions meant to punish Iran for rejecting U.N. demands it halt the controversial enrichment -- a key process that can produce fuel for a reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead.

Khamenei said sanctions against Iran had not worked in the past and more could instead have the opposite effect on a nation that wants to benefit from nuclear power because "one day oil will dry up."

"We achieved nuclear (technology) amid sanctions. Sanctions may even, under circumstances, come to our benefit since they create more motivation for us," he added.

The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of using its nuclear program as a cover to build nuclear weapons. Tehran has denies the charges, saying its nuclear program is merely geared toward generating electricity, not bomb.

Iranian is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- the agreement under which the U.N. inspections are held.

"The Iranian nation needs nuclear energy for life, not weapons," Khamenei said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:37 PM

Marvelous. Isn't it hilarious that the most powerful and heavily armed country in the world, the biggest aggressor nation, the one that attacks other people whenever they have something it wants and they won't cooperate, tells its own public that IT is the one being threatened? How outrageous. You know who their next target of choice is, when they say "those people are a threat".

Its the most blatant case of a wolf calling its next prey a wolf that I have seen in modern times.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:08 PM

Propoganda regarding Syria's threat to use bio weapons (possibly small pox) in the event that Iran is invaded by the US is currently making the rounds by people like Matt Drudge.

Be it Rovian, Cheneyesque or Rumsfeldian fear propoganda or simply true, it may reach the shores of mainstream media next month.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

Suit yourself. But you have said you will reply to my posts about Israel /palestine - which is effectively the same as talking to me; except it will be as in "Tell your father to pass the salt" "Tell your mother she can get it herself" which will look ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 10:13 PM

Nickhere--for the last time, I have NOTHING more to say to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 03:22 PM

VIENNA, Austria (Reuters) -- Iran's persistent failure to clear up concerns about its nuclear activities after concealing them for almost 20 years sets it apart from all other nations, the U.N. atomic watchdog chief said on Monday.

Six world powers are now negotiating on widening sanctions against Iran for pressing ahead with its program to enrich uranium, a possible route to building atomic bombs, and ignoring a February 21 U.N. Security Council deadline for it to stop.

"Iran's verification case is sui generis (one of a kind)," Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in opening remarks to a gathering of the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors.

"Unlike other verification cases, the IAEA's confidence about the nature of Iran's program has been shaken because of two decades of undeclared activities (until 2003)," he said.

"This confidence will only be restored when Iran takes the long overdue decision to explain and answer all the agency's questions and concerns about its past nuclear activities in an open and transparent manner."

Iran rejects Western suspicions that it is trying to master nuclear bomb technology under the cover of a civilian atomic energy program, saying it only wants to generate electricity.

Tehran has also complained of unfair treatment, noting the IAEA has found no hard evidence of covert bomb making efforts. It has characterized sanctions as a U.S.-led campaign to stunt its economic development and topple its government.

"We have not seen concrete proof of diversion of nuclear material, nor the industrial capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material, which is an important consideration in assessing the risk," said ElBaradei.

"But quite a few uncertainties remain about experiments, procurements and other activities ..." Iran's IAEA envoy, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said it would never cede "its inalienable right" to enrichment but was prepared to resolve outstanding issues "if our nuclear dossier is returned (by the Security Council) to the IAEA where it belongs."

Cuts in nuclear aid
At the meeting likely to run some four days, governors were expected to approve cuts to 22 of 55 IAEA technical aid projects in Iran. This would uphold a December U.N. ban on giving Iran technology and know-how of use in making atomic fuel.

A February 22 IAEA report said Iran was installing cascades, or networks, of 164 centrifuges each in its underground uranium enrichment plant in a bid to graduate from research-level refinement of nuclear fuel to a basis for "industrial-scale" production, with some 3,000 centrifuges due to be set up by May.

But ElBaradei said Iran apparently had not begun pumping uranium gas into cascades in the vast Natanz bunker complex, as it said it would start doing by the end of February.

"While there is concern about Iran's future intentions, the situation today is still very much R&D (research and development) activities," he told reporters.

ElBaradei praised an apparent nuclear climb-down by North Korea, whose own confrontation with the world eased when it agreed on February 13 to dismantle its nuclear arms program and readmit IAEA inspectors expelled four years ago.

"I welcome the Beijing agreement, and the invitation to visit North Korea, as positive steps toward the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and towards the normalization of North Korea's relationship with the agency," he told the board.

ElBaradei goes to Pyongyang on March 13 to work out details of the nuclear shutdown and redeploying inspectors by mid-April to ensure the secretive Stalinist state upholds the pact.

"This process has to be completed within 60 days so we have a short time span (to achieve it) ...," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 10:40 AM

Hi Bobert - I've had lots of dealings with people from middle east as well....all corners of it. I'm not sure what kind of dealings you had, obviously, but to call them all liars on the basis of the ones you've met seems a bit too much. Liars can be found everywhere. I'm sure you'l agree there's good and bad to be everywhere!

Peace - you only 'lose' the 'friends' you want to - just because you disgaree with someone doesn't mean that also have to start hating them - that would imply you only like and are friends with people who agree with you. As for having a go at people - may I remind you that you started having a go at me simply because I didn't agree with you and asked you a few of the same kind of quetsions that you ask too. Was there any other reason? I didn't see your PM until after you said I was 'impolite' etc., That ever occur to you?

Teribus - I'm willing to try answering your questions and asking a few of my own as well, cos this is an area that has started to fascinate me of late.
But in deference to the thread this is, I'll start a new one so we can discuss the topic openly.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:06 PM

Well, I don't know why LH feels that he can't answer yer questions, Terrible, but he is a man of honesty an' if he can't discuss this he can't... He has offered you an avenue for the two of you to hash it out privately... No grandstanding... Jus' an avenue...

If you have made the choice not to engage LH on this subject thru PM's then I can opnly think that you care more about grandstanding...
What am I missing here???

As for my own opinion which of course you won't read because you think my arguments are weak and bigoted is that, as per usual, there is a lot of postruing in the Middle East... But, hey, it is the Middle Esat and folks in the Middle East love posturing and bluffing and all that kind of stuff...

Ask me how I know...

Well, I've had business dealings with Saudis, Kuwaitis and Palestinians an' for folks who haven't: lucky yous... These folsk is so full of it that this explains why all of 'um have brown eyes... It backs up that far...

So, when I hear anyone from that region sayin' anything I think to myself, "Liar", which, of course, is a well honored behavior in the Middle East... Lieing, that is... The kids are taught very early how to out lie their school mates and their brothers...

Okay, maybe Terrible is right... Maybe I am a bigot 'cause of these observations???

(Ouch, I've hurt my head and now must lie down an' take a nap...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:00 PM

Guys: LH has said that he'd keep his posts here to the Iran/Korea thing. He will, because that's the kind of man he is. He and I disagree vehemently on Israel/Arab conflict, but despite that, he's not a 'friend' I've lost over the issue. IMO, it would be good to let it pass. I hope you can see clear to agree with that, Teribus. Becaiuse despite that I agree with YOU on this, it just isn't worth the heartache to watch two people I really like go at each other on a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

As I thought LH, you spout complete and utter shite on the forum and when faced with a question, all of a sudden it becomes too sensitive for public discussion.

You are exceedingly good at knocking things (primarily the US and Israel), you have no original ideas, you can offer no solutions. While you can see your way to justifying the murderous actions of terrorists, you have got no idea as to how those faced with a terrorist threat that demands their complete and utter annihilation can even attempt to open any form of negotiation.

By the bye LH look at what Osama has said (prior to 911) you will find that the US is in the same frame. Get real, wake up, smell the coffee - There is no negotiation with these people, you are in a war, you have been since the early 1990's, long before GWB became President of the United States of America. Your enemies demand your unconditional surrender, conversion to Islam and adoption of Sharia Law. All GWB did was to take the battle to them, and ever since they have been suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 01:55 PM

Teribus, are you not aware that I recently indicated a few posts back that I wasn't going to talk further about Israel on this thread? I am doing that partly to spare the feelings of certain friends of mine here who don't see Israel in the same light as I do.

If you want to discuss Israel further with me, PM me.

I'm waiting...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 04:49 AM

LH, a question for you, in the face of the threats and statements made, what would you, as Israel do?

Just to remind you here are some of those threats and statements:

Gamal Abul Nasser - March 8, 1965:
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."

Gamal Abul Nasser, a few months later:
"... the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq, June 4, 1967:
"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

Now who else quite recently voiced their desire that "Israel should be wiped off the map"?

What are the stated long term goals of both Hamas and Hezbollah with regard to the State of Israel?

OK Little Hawk, that is what you have been faced with, that is reality with which you have lived since 1948, what do you regard as your basis for negotiation?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:30 PM

The Security Council of the UN is talking about a second round of sanctions, but the talk coming from Ahmadinejad indicates it won't matter squat anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:05 PM

I don't give a rat's ass what you do, N, just don't address me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:04 PM

Seems evident in terms of the thread's title that Iran is more likely to be next. But it also seems that Bush needs cooperation from many other countries before he can do anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 06:57 PM

Beardedbruce: "And what would you say about the Jews who were removed c.1948 to 1967 from the West Bank? (When it was under the control of Jordan, who made NO effort to provide a state for their Palestinian brothers.
Jordan agreed that the border was basically the Jordan river ( with minor exceptions ) between Israel and Jordan"

Absolutely - I quite agree with you. Jordan did nothing for the Palestinians either. I believe they simply wanted to annex the West Bank for themselves. But it's not Jordan that the Palestinians have to deal with now.

Peace: no, I won't piss off.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 05:57 PM

BB - Yes! I am only too keenly aware that it was Canada which inflicted William Shatner on an unsuspecting world. (sob!) The humiliation and deeply suppressed guilt feelings that I and most other Canadians feel over this...this almost unspeakable fact...in time drove me to conceal my true feelings by pretending to admire the man...if not worship him. This was the sort of emotional reversal that can take place when a person is under extreme stress. It was only later that I discovered that Shatner is Jewish, and so too is Leonard Nimoy. Then too, my musical hero Bob Dylan is Jewish. Could it be that my negative assessment of Israeli policies is connected somehow to my denial of the fact that Shatner is...well...less than perfect?????

Disturbing questions to ponder indeed. I fear that only a number of lengthy sessions on the couch of Herr Doktor Liebenscheiss will suffice to put these contradictions to rest.

In the meantime, I will attempt to get back to discussing Iran and Korea and the USA on this thread...and try, by hook or by crook, to avoid the thorny subject of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 05:31 PM

"In a stunning reversal of hardline foreign policy, the Bush administration has announced it will engage in diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria in an effort to stabilize Iraq.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the policy back flip at a hearing of the US Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, which is considering the Bush administration's request for $100 billion to continue its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:48 PM

Nickhere,


"I see you do get some of your information from the < palestinefacts website >."

Point of information- I was the one who posted that address.

I looked for maps of Israel on the Palestinian sites, but they do not acknowledge that it exists.


And what would you say about the Jews who were removed c.1948 to 1967 from the West Bank? (When it was under the control of Jordan, who made NO effort to provide a state for their Palestinian brothers.
Jordan agreed that the border was basically the Jordan river ( with minor exceptions ) between Israel and Jordan.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:45 PM

"Peace, are you implying you are / were a member of Shin Bet? That's what it sounds like." Your inferences are yours; that was not my implication. Simply put, I find you to be a prig. Kindly talk with someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:43 PM

I no longer have anything to say to you, Nickhere. Piss off.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:38 PM

Ok Peace, let's get to grips with some of your quotes.

1:" Nickhere, I would likely have more to say about Shin Bet than you have any right to know. I am beginning to think you get your info from a Frank Weltner website".

Peace, are you implying you are / were a member of Shin Bet? That's what it sounds like. At least it would explain your blind faith in Israeli good intentions. As for Frank wots-his-name, never heard of him or his website.
I see you do get some of your information from the < palestinefacts website >.... the website set up by the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs to give their spin to things. But that's ok, everyone's voice is entitled to be heard, isn't it?

2: "I am aware that Shin Bet has committed murders. I am also aware that the Muslims you so proudly speak on behalf of have committed murders too. You tend to want to gloss over that, and you were impolite enough not to respond the message I sent you leading me to figure you just play to the crowd"

Maybe you're backpedalling now, maybe you're with Mossad? Well, only you know, for the moment. Anyway, yes there are members of the IRA who should be put on trial, but in the end the people north and south voted and decided to let bygones by bygones and all crimes deemed to have been poliutical - which includes a large number of crimes by pro-British loyalists - go untried in the name of peace and progress. The difference is that unlike Palestine, there is an attempt to build a self-governing entity at least. Also interesting is that you always seem to qualify Israeli violence with either "Yes, but it's justified self-defence" or "yes, but what about MUSLIM violence?"

You are also mistaken in your belief that I speak 'proudly' for Arabs. Maybe you don't fully understand what I wrote in earlier posts - that in order to lecture Muslims on how to behave, we - the west - needs to be above fault itself. Israel is the main representative of the West in the Middle East.

I am impolite?? What message did you post that I did not respond to (not that there's much point in answering it now that you've gone into your room in sulk and refuse to speak to me)? Bear in mind also that I can't reply to everything, though as I'm sure you all know, I do my best. I have been slagged by Slag in the past for not being brief enough!


3: "If that were true, then you would spend as much time talking about the bad stuff done by the various terrorist organizations supported by various Muslim countries as y'all do about Israel's bad stuff. This "I want to balance the record" stuff looks and sounds like bullshit to me"

I was going to ask you what you meant by that. If you don't believe that LH or I or others criticise Israeli policy for the reasons we gave, then what do you believe our motivations to be? But i think you answered that already:

"However, I will address your anti-Isreal crap on this thread at any and every opportunity. Until such time as you understand that there are very few innocents left in the middle-East. Not Israel and certainly not any of the organizations you seem to speak for. Regardless how you phrase it all, you have a thinly-disguised hatred of Israel that masquerades as a love of your fellow man, and if you meant any of it you would extend that hatred for Israel to all the killers in the middle-East, including the countries whose stated policies of genocide you seem to be so comfortable with"

Anti-Israeli crap. Hatred of Israel. Ahhh, so now we get down to the nub of it. You think I am anti-semitic, don't you? You think, in spite of all I said about the need to have our own house in order first, that I'm simply anti-Israel, presumably because Jews live there.

That raises another question - even assuming what you think is true (and it isn't) where does that leave Jews who are critical of Israel (and there are quite a few)? Are they anti-semitic too? And where does that leave you? Since you have never been able to bring yourself to criticise Israel much without offering (to borrow from Teribus) 'lame-assed excuses' for their behaviour, and have rarely had a good word to say about the Arabs, then according to your own own criteria you are an anti-Arab racist, aren't you?

"But the people here who think that the Muslim countries who have sworn themselves to eradicate/exterminate the Israelis are on the side of right have their heads so far up their asses they should fuckin' choke"

OK, I think I've said this before, but just to be clear I'll write it in big letters to make it easier to read and understand:

I DO NOT THINK THAT IT'S ALRIGHT FOR MUSLIM COUNTRIES TO SWEAR TO EXTERMINATE THE ISRAELIS. I ABSOLUTELY DISGAREE WITH IT. NOR DO I BELIEVE IT'S OK TO BLOW YOURSELF UP ON A BUS FULL OF CIVILIANS OR FIRE A ROCKET INTO A CIVILIAN HOUSE. SO THAT'S THE MUSLIM SIDE. BUT I AM NOT A MUSLIM OR AN ARAB. I AM A 'WESTERNER' - ARE ONLY ARABS TO BE CONDEMNED?

Now, in smaller letters - Peace, when are you going to bring yourself to condemn what Israel is doing in the West Bank that's in contravention of the 4th Geneva Convention, Article 49, Hague Resolutions, UN Resolutions 242, 338 etc., etc., and please spare me the bulls**t of saying "Yes, but the OTHER side must respect theire resolutions first!"

And if you don't understand that, let's put it another way:

Q: Do you think that Israel's policies in colonising the West Bank in contravention of International Law and with the resulting disposession and murder of the the native Palestinian people is acceptable?

Q2: Do you think that this policy has any effect on the levels of violence and tension in the middle east?

Q3: Since you believe (as I do) in the right of the Jewish people to have a place to call home and lay their hat, do you also believe in the right of the West Bank and Gazan Palestinians to a Palestinian state?
(Israel was created by drawing a pen around a map. The same can be done for the Palestinians)

So you say we have nothing to talk about and you won't talk to me anymore, but you'll respond to any of my posts that don't say the sun shines out of Israel's ass. That sounds like we'll be doing a lot more talking so in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:23 PM

LH,

And Canada gave us ... Shatner!

The world can never forgive you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:43 PM

No, bobad, not exactly.

You see, there were no Europeans in N.A. but there were Jews in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:42 PM

Look at it this way...

I'm white!

I'm male!

I belong to no historically persecuted or visible minority!

I'm reasonably well off financially!

I'm Canadian!!! Oh, the horror. The horror.

Imagine the incredible burden of collective guilt by association that I must carry and live with every day.........!

It ain't easy, but I somehow carry on regardless. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:31 PM

I have never objected to your criticisms of Canada, BB. Why do you object to my criticims of the USA and Israel? ;-) I think your assertion that Canada gets a bigger break in the international media than the USA is an interesting one, and probably true. If so, that is primarily because Canada has a much smaller effect on most of the world than the USA does or than Israel does.

Canada, thus, doesn't get noticed all that much, and it gets away with things like its horrible asbestos wrongdoings! Well, I'll try to see what I can do about that, but I think it's a situation beyond my control or influence, frankly... ;-)

By all means, BB, feel free to mention Canadian international wrongdoings all you want. It doesn't upset me if you do. I do not believe in the old adage: "my country, right or wrong".

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:14 PM

"if the immigrants had to adjust to a Middle Eastern way of life instead of the other way around"

Just as the Europeans did when they came to North America.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:53 AM

You're right, bobad, I didn't realize this thread went so far back. I suppose its difficult to discuss Iran and the U.S. without discussing Israel. I know that Israel is a nation onto itself but lets face it, the U.S. and Israel have been hand in glove since its inception. Now that I think about it, its as if the U.S. has a colony in the Middle East.

Don't get me wrong, I think a Jewish homeland is not such a bad idea but I do think that the process of creating it was ass-backwards. It could have been established by the Sephardic Jews (at least those that were familiar with the customs and traditions of the Middle East). Part of the problem has been the large influx of European Jews and the push toward 'modernization' and a way of life stronly influenced by the West. It would probably have gone more smoothly if the immigrants had to adjust to a Middle Eastern way of life instead of the other way around. I know I'm sticking my neck out by saying this but at least I can't be accused of being an anti-Semite.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:46 AM

I get so fuckin' fed up with the Israeli bashing that takes place on Mudcat and the 'some of my best friends are Jewish' bullshit that is used to llok good after expressing oneself as a Jew hater. Many people in Shin Bet deserve to be tried, convicetd and shot for their actions. About that there is no question. So do some members of the IRA, people from Nickhere's country. And some members of SAS, GSG9, your country's military and mine. But the people here who think that the Muslim countries who have sworn themselves to eradicate/exterminate the Israelis are on the side of right have their heads so far up their asses they should fuckin' choke. I have lost a few friends over this issue. I expect I will lose a few more. Such is life.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:50 AM

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_british_mandate.php
http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/Graphics/Maps/PartitionforTransJordan.asp

"In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of the proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian Nation of "Trans-Jordan," meaning "across the Jordan River." The Palestinian Arabs now had THEIR homeland... the remaining 25% of the original Palestinian territory (west of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:35 AM

Peace,

Your willingness to have Canada take responsibility for the actions of OTHER countries is admirable. MY point was that if LH HAS to blame Israel, even in a thread discussing Iran and Korea as threats to the US, I fell justified in bringing up the faults of Canada when the faults of the US are being discussed.

Should the thread drift back to the point, I doubt if there would be any mention of Canada OR Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:21 AM

Canada's involvement with the slaughter at My Lai has come to light. It gets worse. When we dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and then another on Nagasaki, it became evident to the world that a new force had come upon the scene. Our involvement with Oliver North and the weapons for hostages program was--hell, have to go. But I will be back with more history to help BB slag the Canadians.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:15 AM

So I guess no one wants to talk about Iran or Korea. Tjis thread is gonna go to shit in a New York minute.

Asbestos? Fuckin' right.
Indians? Fuckin' right.
Patronage in the Prime Minister's office? Fuckin' right.

I have it on good authority that the Canadian Navy sunk the British ship Hood. AND we invaded Grenada. Slag away. Ya can't tell us anything we don't already know. Now, to balance THAT, let me mention a few things about the USA . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:50 AM

"bobad - I believe the first post to mention Israel was 28 Feb 07 - 10:10 AM. Correct me if I'm wrong."

Take a look at LH's first post to the thread on 03 Nov 04 - 10:24 PM .

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:25 AM

LH and dianavan,


I feel that I am living in a society where the government and media are grossly prejudicial in their favoritism toward Canada and their failure to bring to bear on Canada the same standards of criticism which they would bring to bear on any other nation doing what Canada does. Canada is allowed to get away with actions that would simply not be tolerated if the US did them...such as the exportation to SE Asia, in violation of international law, of asbestos that is predicted to cause at least 3 million deaths over the next 30 years.

So from now on, ANY mention of the US will be balanced by pointing out the crimes of Canada, and ignoring any admission of any other country's fault.


Or do YOU think that Canada is some kind of special case?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:05 AM

bobad - I believe the first post to mention Israel was 28 Feb 07 - 10:10 AM. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Old grudges die hard and 'poor me' just doesn't work anymore. Ancestral pain contributes nothing to finding a useful solution. How long are you gonna use that as an excuse to inflict suffering on others?

Lets face it. Zionism just aint what it used to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:34 AM

"It's obvious that we are experiencing a difference in perception as to who is getting the short end of the stick, Peace and Teribus and bobad. That is the only reason we disagree about Israel. I think the Muslims are getting the short end of the stick. Therefore I defend them. You think Israel is getting the short end of the stick. Therefore you defend Israel.

End of story."

End of the story from you. I happen to agree with what you wrote to that point, but just saying that does not mean that remarks which question the legal right of Israel to exist as a country will pass unrebuked. Or remarks that single out Israel as if it was the only cause of wrong-doing in the mid-East. Maybe you DO support the underdog, but the underdog you presently support has rabies, and they have shown that time and time again.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:57 PM

It's obvious that we are experiencing a difference in perception as to who is getting the short end of the stick, Peace and Teribus and bobad. That is the only reason we disagree about Israel. I think the Muslims are getting the short end of the stick. Therefore I defend them. You think Israel is getting the short end of the stick. Therefore you defend Israel.

End of story.

It is simply not possible to resolve such a difference in perception. My viewpoint will always seem unfair to you guys, and your viewpoint will always seem unfair to me. It's like trying to resolve a debate in 1876 between people who see Indians as victims of the army and people who see Indians as murdering savages who must be brought to heel by the army. Those arguments were likewise impossible to resolve...and there WERE such arguments at the time. They were very hotly debated in the Eastern press. It was all a matter of perception as to who were the "bad guys" in what was a collision between 2 ways of life. Wrongs happened on both sides.

And that's just the way it is. We perceive different subjective worlds through our deeply subjective beliefs about "who the victims are" and "who the perpetrators are" in the Middle Eastern situation.

And we always will, in all probability. Expect to disagree from here until eternity, guys.

Bobad, remember...one who is paranoid sees enemies everywhere. Correct? But he can always counter that by saying, "Ah, yes! But even paranoids can have REAL enemies!!!"

No doubt they can. But I am not one of them. Your objection to my criticism of Israel reminds me of Black people who raise a ruckus and want someone fired because he used the word "niggardly" (although the word niggardly has absolutely nothing to do with what they think it does...it does not refer to black people in any way whatsoever). "Racism!" they cry. "Anti-semitism!", someone else cries...when Israel is criticized for doing what ANY other country on Earth(except the USA?) would be criticized for doing.

Same deal. It's a kneejerk reaction by someone who has a great big chip on his shoulder...due to past emotional trauma which arose out of past historical events.

I'm afraid that the Muslims have gotten very much like that too in the last few decades...and for quite similar reasons. Like the Jews were in the past many centuries up to the end of WWII, the Muslims since WWII have been stigmatized, robbed, beaten, and kicked around the block for quite some time now...simply for being who they are.

So they're similarly unreasonable about it now, and they are similarly inclined to take violent offence. It makes for a bloody dangerous situation when you have 2 groups of people like that fighting each other. Almost hopeless, I'd say.

I belong to neither group. I consider neither group to be above criticism, just because they...or their grandparents...have suffered.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:52 PM

I am aware that Shin Bet has committed murders. I am also aware that the Muslims you so proudly speak on behalf of have committed murders too. You tend to want to gloss over that, and you were impolite enough not to respond the message I sent you leading me to figure you just play to the crowd. I have nothing more to say to you.

However, I will address your anti-Isreal crap on this thread at any and every opportunity. Until such time as you understand that there are very few innocents left in the middle-East. Not Israel and certainly not any of the organizations you seem to speak for. Regardless how you phrase it all, you have a thinly-disguised hatred of Israel that masquerades as a love of your fellow man, and if you meant any of it you would extend that hatred for Israel to all the killers in the middle-East, including the countries whose stated policies of genocide you seem to be so comfortable with.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:40 PM

Nickhere, I would likely have more to say about Shin Bet than you have any right to know. I am beginning to think you get your info from a Frank Weltner website.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:27 PM

So, a thread whose opening premise is speculation on whether Iran or Korea is to be the next target of the US morphs into yet another anti-Israeli crusade by the usual suspects.

Is anyone else beginning to detect a pattern here?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:08 PM

So Peace, when are we going to hear you say a few solemn words about Shin Bet etc.,??