Iran Vindicated... but who cares?

[koan]

NIE: National Intelligence Estimate. This is a fancy way of saying "just an educated guess" when it comes to deciding whether Bush will base foreign policy on the reports.



Iran has been cleared of any evidence suggesting that they are developing nuclear weapons but, hey, what does George care? He's pushing for sanctions anyway and not seeming to regret his comments regarding a WWIII

article

[LilacDragon]

Gosh - you really didn't expect him to say he was wrong, did you?

Thank goodness he can't run for another term in office. He might try to take over the Middle East! Sure seems that as long as he is safe on his Texas ranch, he doesn't mind using U.S. soldiers (and anyone else he can con into helping) to get what he wants.

[koan]

If the potential to cause harm is the only ingredient required to keep someone under sanctions then no country should be trading with any other country on the planet.

[koan]

No, I did not.

The US government is downplaying it. They made accusations that didn't pan out and now they are focusing on the fact that anything is possible to take away from the fact that what they were accusing Iran of is not actually taking place.

[koan]

Jester;735158 wrote: When Iran gets nukes, no one in the west will be safe. Do you trust Iran with nuclear capabilites? They are still enriching Uranium.

Iran has a nuclear program thats a fact, they have suspended weaponizing as far as we can confirm, but the have an intense potential to start it up, and they threaten the west and others.

Do you trust Iran with nuclear capabilites?

Do you trust Iran with nuclear capabilites?


For crikey's, Jester!!

I don't trust the USA with nuclear capabilities!

[koan]

Jester;735176 wrote: ahahah darlin I did not ask you that question! :wah:

If I controlled a nuke Tehran would be gone tomorrow. I'd give them 24 hours to evac and push the button.

I said that not becasue I'm serious, but because Abene-Jihad would do the same to Washington DC, when he gets the capabilites. When or if he does, the candle goes up and the super heat will light up the East, it could be considered miraculous by some, as the star in the East hangs over yet another city.

The fear you may have over the US nukes is dependent on the ability of Iran to have a nuke.


I think it is unjustifiable for any country that holds nuclear weapons to tell another country they can't have them. Aside from that, you can't pre-empt the world from trying to keep up with the Jones'. Lead by example.

[koan]

They are, in fact, not building nukes.

With the way you talk about their country, I wouldn't blame Iranians for thinking they need nukes though. Add in what you said about Islam earlier tonight and it almost seems like you want to kill them all.



eta: stress the word "seems" at the end. I know you don't personally wish death upon innocents. What I'm pointing out is that your attitude brings that death, wanted or not.

[Bryn Mawr]

Jester;735134 wrote: Oh I think in Irans case its slightly more than just potential. You down played that slightly would you say?


No - Bush and co massively over played the position and are still continuine to do so.

Firstly we has Iraq and the Weapons of Mass Destruction being a clear and present danger to the US.

Then we had Iran being on the verge of possessing nuclear weapons and being a clear and present danger to the US.

Both total lies knowingly told to manipulate the population into accepting war.

[Ziggy]

Bryn Mawr;735221 wrote: No - Bush and co massively over played the position and are still continuine to do so.

Firstly we has Iraq and the Weapons of Mass Destruction being a clear and present danger to the US.

Then we had Iran being on the verge of possessing nuclear weapons and being a clear and present danger to the US.

Both total lies knowingly told to manipulate the population into accepting war.


Wait a second... that's what I think...

Good Post!



Whether or not Iran is a threat isn't a confirmed fact, but the lies are out, I'm just glad that this one is out in the open before the war started (This IMO, pretty much makes every U.S Government claim about the Iranian threat somewhat questionable).



The question now is, will the diplomatic "Rah-Rah" calm everybody down, or will something new come up that could "Justify" an American attack?

(Fingers crossed, Bush will be gone beforehand - Only one more year to go...)



There is always the option that Israel will do something, but that's another side of this story.

[spot]

Jester, no country's used a weapon from their nuclear arsenal against another country similarly armed. There's a reason for that. It was the reason the US and USSR could be so antagonistic for so long and fight so many proxy wars without attacking each other directly. Nuclear arms are good for peace, though huge stockpiles seem a waste of money to me.

Do you remember the extent to which the US public detested the USSR for ideological reasons, having been taught to do so from birth? Almost as much as the rhetoric against Iran is generating these days.

The evidence, rather than the paranoia, is that possessing nuclear weapons in a world where other countries also possess nuclear weapons precludes their use even when you're at war. What it guarantees is that the owner's administration won't be destroyed, that the owning country can't be colonized and that nobody else will use nuclear arms against you.

Some countries in the past relied on a nuclear umbrella - a treaty obligation that an attack on one would be considered an attack on all and that a nuclear strike would be answered in kind from other nuclear-capable countries within that alliance. Any state not covered by such a guarantee can only protect its long-term integrity by owning at least a few deliverable warheads. I'd be delighted if every country on earth had some, it would fend off all colonial expansion of the bigger players.

That, in my opinion, is why any country would want a modest nuclear arsenal. Not for attacking other countries, because that's never happened which suggests there are good reasons why employing them is unproductive. Would you have trusted the USSR with a stockpile if you'd had a choice? I doubt it. Did it keep the peace? I think the evidence is that it did.

If you have a National Intelligence Estimate indicating that Iran's nuclear weapons development was shelved before 2003 then that's a fair indication of reality. The reason offered for bombing Iran before then was to stop their program before completion. The reason offered for bombing Iran now is to stop their program from restarting. The elephant in the room is Israel's 300 deliverable warhead stockpile which, all evidence shows, would stop any other nuclear-armed country from using a device anywhere in the theatre. Nuclear weapons are purely defensive and that's all they've ever been used for, Nagasaki and Hiroshima excepted.

Iran doesn't threaten the West. How could it? It can't deploy troops into the West, it has no air cover outside its own territory, it's madness to think they might attack anyone in the West. They might hand out materials to make a dirty bomb - something with a ton of explosives to disperse nuclear contamination without a nuclear blast, say - and you fear such an attack on the US Homeland? That threat could come from any nuclear source, there's a lot of material like that already traded back and forth. For some reason the US psyche has developed an irrational fear of Iran, just as it had an irrational fear of International Communism, and it's reasonable to think the media has a hand in that.

Let's be honest - this is the tail wagging the dog again. Some section of Israel's policy makers wants Iran struck and the US is being goaded into wasting its resources and international goodwill on their behalf. There is absolutely no US Homeland threat from Iran at the moment and neither could there ever be, nuclear armed or not. Neither is there any military threat to Israel from Iran either, their armed forces have never been in conflict.

What needs mending isn't Iran - Iran's fine. What needs mending is the Palestinian problem.

[spot]

You have to really abuse any rational use of English to call them mad.

Does "mad mullah" mean angry? I can imagine some of them are angry.

Does it mean unpredictable? Lots of the world leaders seem unpredictable to me and some of them even lie a lot. I think these "mad mullahs" lie less than most.

Does it mean insane? If that's what you mean I'd ask for some evidence. They seem rational whenever I read what they've said and done.

[spot]

jimbo;735408 wrote: well anyone one that calls us infidels and would not think twice about murdering us all seems pretty mad to me ,just my personal view of course





we could put up a poll and see if most people think the iranian leader is unstable or not if you like spoticus


I agree with you entirely, anyone one that calls us infidels and would not think twice about murdering us all would seem pretty mad to me as well. I'd be happy to see your poll but it would be better still if it had reasons and instances posted as well as opinion, don't you think?

Infidel isn't a term of abuse, mind you. An infidel is "One who does not believe in (what the speaker holds to be) the true religion". Taking a bit from the dictionary, "From a Christian point of view: An adherent of a religion opposed to Christianity; esp. a Muhammadan, a Saracen (the earliest sense in Eng.); also (more rarely), applied to a Jew, or a pagan", and "from a non-Christian (esp. Jewish or Muhammadan) point of view", the reverse. By all means let Muslim Iranians call non-believers infidels, it's what the word means and I, for example, qualify for their description.

That leaves us with "would not think twice about murdering us all". We could bring evidence of the cultured and civilized nature of the Iranian religious leadership - the "mullahs" if you like - or their lack of it, as regards genocide. That'd be interesting.

[koan]

I would wager that most people, myself included... but spot and Galbally exempt, could probably only name less than half of the countries in the world off the top of their head. Yet we seem to think we understand the world.

A typical Canadian's view of the continents:

The West is like a male body with Canada as the brain and a very large penis called the USA which likes to **** everything in sight and often gets us in trouble.



South America is Brazil with a tumour called Venezuela, Cuba is some other planet visible during various phases of the moon.

Asia is China with a siamese twin that is really good at making electronics.

Russia is a grandmother in a rocking chair that tells good stories, has interesting antiques but kind of smells like 'old people'.

Europe is England and France, and are like the neighbours that yell at each other every night, loud enough to be heard from outside but have a big smile on their faces everytime they walk outside... and have a Rottweiler called Germany that barks a lot.

Africa is South Africa and we think of them as poor people that sit around on welfare instead of getting a job.

The Middle East is the convenience store up the street, run by a large extended family, where we buy our gas, make racist jokes about the way they talk and, as long as the pumps stay open, we don't mind them getting robbed.

Australia is a lush jungle full of cute animals and, for some reason, their reporters keep getting shot.



What most Canadians know about the world is what the news tells them. The news only tells us when something bad or funny happens. Since not much funny stuff comes out of the Middle East, Canadians think they are all a bunch of murderous fanatics and that the world would be more peaceful without them. If all of the Middle East blew up, but we still got gas for a good price, Canadians would think the world was better off.

How do people come to rational conclusions with that sort of attitude?



Iran faces a huge problem right now. They are seen by so many as a belligerent little child that needs a spanking instead of being treated like a rational adult or like a teenager that grew up abused and no one cares what made them rebellious. We'd rather throw them in jail than listen to their problems. Who's got the time?

Take the time.

If you strip away the clothing that makes you different, look at the way Americans act when their right to bear arms is threatened. Now picture that same American with a different skin tone and clothing. Yes, some Americans would like to see more gun laws but I think you get the picture.

[gmc]

You might find it useful to look at a bit more detail of what was in the report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/world ... ref=slogin

The administration officials also said the intelligence findings would not lessen the White House’s concern about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The fact that Iran continues to refine its abilities to enrich uranium, they said, means that any decision in the future to restart a nuclear weapons program could lead Iran to a bomb in relatively short order. While the new report does not contrast sharply with earlier assessments about Iran’s capabilities, it does make new judgments about the intentions of its government.

Rather than portraying Iran as a rogue, irrational country determined to join the club of nations that possess a nuclear bomb, the estimate says Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.


We felt that we needed to scrub all the assessments and sources to make sure we weren’t misleading ourselves, said one senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The estimate concludes that if Iran were to restart its arms program, it would still be at least two years before it would have enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. But it says it is still “very unlikely Iran could produce enough of the material by then.

Instead, the report released on Monday concludes that it is more likely that Iran could have a bomb by the early part to the middle of the next decade. The report states that the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research judges that Iran is unlikely to achieve this goal before 2013, “because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.


posted by Jester.

Hardly vindicated. With them being the greatest exporter of terrorism and enriched uranium being a key component for a dirty bomb they remain a likely threat.


Actually it's saudi arabia that is the biggest exporter. It wasn't iranians that attacked on 911 it was saudi's and no they weren't backed by Iran. I suggest you read the 911 commission report.

There is also enough waste uranium lying around on US dumps that getting enough to make a dirty bomb is not a problem. Ever wonder where all that radioactive waste from hospitals ends up?

http://www.nrc.gov/waste.html

On the other hand any terrorist worth worrying about is going to find similar and more convenient ways to create havoc. All they have to do is blow up the oil fields an Saudi Arabia and your economy is wrecked. Chemicals are just as bad-how about a phone call to the press telling them something has been added to the water, cheap and effective.

[freetobeme]

jimbo;735408 wrote: well anyone one that calls us infidels and would not think twice about murdering us all seems pretty mad to me ,just my personal view of course





we could put up a poll and see if most people think the iranian leader is unstable or not if you like spoticus
Agreed, and don't forget that an Iranian Mullah issued a fatwa permitting the use of nuclear weapons - Mohsen Gharavian, stated that using nuclear weapons as a counter-measure is acceptable in terms of sharia (Islamic law), depending upon the goal for which the weapons are used.

Not to mention that a female suicide bomber just killed 16 people in Iraq - and that's not mad.

[gmc]

freetobeme;735693 wrote: Agreed, and don't forget that an Iranian Mullah issued a fatwa permitting the use of nuclear weapons - Mohsen Gharavian, stated that using nuclear weapons as a counter-measure is acceptable in terms of sharia (Islamic law), depending upon the goal for which the weapons are used.

Not to mention that a female suicide bomber just killed 16 people in Iraq - and that's not mad.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use

President George W. Bush

In March 2006, President Bush held a town hall meeting at a retirement community in the Washington D.C. area, where a man identifying himself as one of the only few surviving members of the U.S. negotiation team for the non-proliferation treaty asked Bush to re-examine the administration's "first use" policy:[10]

"...the basic bargain there was that other countries would give up their nuclear weapons if we, the nuclear powers, would engage in a program of nuclear disarmament. Now, I'm aware of all of the agreements that have taken place. I'm aware of the negotiations that you had with Mr. Putin. The point is that we cannot expect that agreement, that basic agreement to hold if the United States, particularly, goes on acting as -- and has the position that we might initiate a nuclear war if it is necessary. And I would ask you just to think about the time -- while you're still President, taking the one position that only one American President has taken, and that is President Johnson, to consider a "no first-use" policy to help the prospect of nuclear proliferation in the long run."

The response from the president:

"Well, thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks for your contribution, by the way. I appreciate it. (Applause) ... I did do an agreement with President Putin -- thanks for noticing -- where we are -- both of us are reducing nuclear stockpiles. But I will take your words to heart, and think about it. Thank you. No commitment standing right here, of course. (Laughter) ...."


OK tell me what the difference is.

A Fatwa stating that using nuclear weapons as a counter measure is acceptable under sharia law depending on the goal for which the weapons are used or reserving the right to use nuclear weapons in a first strike against a non nuclear nation. Which one is maddest?

[spot]

freetobeme;735693 wrote: Agreed, and don't forget that an Iranian Mullah issued a fatwa permitting the use of nuclear weapons - Mohsen Gharavian, stated that using nuclear weapons as a counter-measure is acceptable in terms of sharia (Islamic law), depending upon the goal for which the weapons are used.This particular farrago has a much-quoted news story and a disregarded news story associated with it and relates to "a scholar at Qom Seminary", Hojatoleslam Mohsen Gharavian. The title Hojatoleslam wal-muslemin (authority on Islam and Muslims) is given to middle-ranking clerics. Is your "Iranian Mullah issued a fatwa" meant to imply he carries such national authority that he dictates policy himself?

So, what did he say. In the initial report in the Telegraph we have:One senior mullah has now said it is "only natural" to have nuclear bombs as a "countermeasure" against other nuclear powers, thought to be a reference to America and Israel [...] seen as an attempt by the country's religious hardliners to begin preparing a theological justification for the ownership - and if necessary the use - of atomic bombs [...] He also said: "When the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is permissible to use these weapons as a counter-measure. According to Sharia too, only the goal is important." Mohsen Gharavian did not specify what kinds of "goals" would justify a nuclear strike, but it is thought that any military intervention by the United States would be considered sufficient grounds.The reaction in the Muslim News the next week, which has been spectacularly ignored by all and sundry ever since, has:Hojatoleslam Mohsen Gharavian, a scholar at Qom Seminary, on Monday rejected rumors appearing on some websites quoting him as saying that the use of nuclear weapons is allowed according to the Islamic tenets. The British weekly "Sunday Telegraph" in its last edition wrote that religious leaders in Iran have issued a new fatwa (religious decree) that permits the use of atomic weapons against enemies.

The theologian, who was talking in an exclusive interview with IRNA, added, "We do not seek nuclear weapons and the Islamic religion encourages coexistence along with peace and friendship." Recalling his statement, Gharavian reiterated, "I said if the enemies plan to launch attacks on our vital sites, we have the capacity to defend ourselves and take retaliatory measures against them. "Unfortunately, these websites have tried to misquote me," he reiterated. He said Iran is doing its best to promote spirituality and humanistic and Islamic values and never wages a war. The religious figure said the distortion of his remarks betrayed the enemies' desperation. "I have just stated an idea, but it is obvious that the Islamic Republic of Iran plans to settle its nuclear case through negotiations. The enemies aim to create pretexts and misuse the issue through hue and cry."This isn't the head of some nuclear strike first-use committee within the Iranian government, this is a lecturer at a prestigious theological college. Can we try to talk about reality rather than fling mud around? The best guess reality is that if Iran does restart its abandoned nuclear weapons program (though it shows no sign of doing so) it will have one weapon by 2013, and that's if they restart tomorrow. Well golly gee, Israel's had 300 or so for decades and the silence calling for their abandonment is deafening. The possibility that if this and if that then Iran might have one bomb's worth of fissile material by 2013 is not, in my opinion, justification for bombing within their borders.

Could I point out that Hojatoleslam Mohsen Gharavian's ""We do not seek nuclear weapons" is what the National Intelligence Estimate just confirmed, within the degree of probability that they qualified their statement this month? Just in case that's been forgotten? And that it's what President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been accurately saying for years?

freetobeme;735693 wrote: Not to mention that a female suicide bomber just killed 16 people in Iraq - and that's not mad.I'm sure you can explain to us the relevance of that to Iran's abandoned nuclear weapons program, I'd be grateful for at least a hint. She was an Iranian nuclear scientist out of a job perhaps?

[Nomad]

This presidency has downplayed its irresponsible and criminal actions not to mention its outright lies and inept blundering guessing games that have taken lives and caused destruction and decimation in a region that wasnt a threat to us.

You cant tear another country apart because 13 people hijacked a plane.

This administration is a group of low life clandestine thugs. No better than the Mafia.

Theyve lied, they cloaked themselves in secrecy and theyve started the process of shredding our liberties in the name of revenge with God on their side.

Bush and Cheney should be imprisoned for murder.

[koan]

Nomad;736031 wrote: This presidency has downplayed its irresposnsible and criminal actions not to mention its outright lies and inept blundering guessing games that have taken lives and caused destruction and decimation in a region that wasnt a threat to us.

You cant tear another country apart because 13 people hijacked a plane.

This administration is a group of low life clandestine thugs. No better than the Mafia.

Theyve lied, they cloaked themselves in secrecy and theyve started the process of shredding our liberties in the name of revenge with God on their side.

Bush and Cheney should be imprisoned for murder.


:yh_clap

Nomad... your sanity is showing! I knew it was in there somewhere :-6

[spot]

My immediate reaction to all of your comments here in both posts is that they're faith-based rather than evidence based. They may reflect your opinion but you're giving no evidence-based justification for our adopting them. Would you consider that a fair comment?

[koan]

Jester;736068 wrote: Childlike? Are you serious? Irans leadership needs to be hanged by the neck till dead and then let the Iranians pick soemone else to step up! A SPANKING! They are way past a spanking! ABUSED!

Too much pshyco anylizing. Remove them form the gene pool.


Remove them from the gene pool?

You're really going out of your way to make bigoted remarks lately, Jester. I have a one on one thread waiting for you in General Religious Discussions. I'd wager you've done not enough analysing before screaming for blood.

Let's take a walk down history lane here for a minute.

The US government has been anti-Iran ever since 1979 16 January - US-backed Shah of Iran forced to leave the country after widespread demonstrations and strikes. (source) The only real threat Iran poses to the USA, which is more than beyond the range of any missile capability, is that Iran doesn't take orders from Washington. The biggest proxy war that has taken place there involved the US arming Iraq to fight the Iraq/Iran war in which Hussein was later executed for gassing his own citizens with US chemicals. The US has removed a lot of people from the gene pool through incessant meddling and, as unpopular as the middle east has been, they are actually starting to gain more global sympathy than the US can muster on a cloudy day.

The people you are so intent on hating are the extremists who are right now saying, in their own language, about the US, "Too much pshyco anylizing. Remove them form the gene pool."

[koan]

Jester;736088 wrote: I will stop you on the 'bigot' remark there Koan, I siad the 'leadership' and I gave a reason why. It was not for thier religious thoughts it was for the danger they present around them.

Well if the level of sympathy for the Murdering Jihadists thats in this place is any comparison for the level in the global community, I dont doubt your statement whatsoever.


How can you differentiate between yourself and your enemies when you take such a violent, aggressive approach? I certainly can't see much difference.

Yes, here you specified the leadership but what you said about all of Islam and their prophet yesterday indicates that the animosity runs deeper. I'm not seeking an admission, I'm just asking you to step back for a moment and be honest with yourself. I second spot in wanting you to provide some facts to back your opinions.

[Bryn Mawr]

Jester;736078 wrote: Agreed, send the so called paletinians back to the country of each of their origin and we will have way less of a problem in the region.


Are you even vaguely serious with this comment?

Where do you believe that the Palestinians came from?

Who do you believe lived in Palestine before the Israelis moved in?

Work within the facts, please.

[freetobeme]

Bryn Mawr;736158 wrote: Are you even vaguely serious with this comment?

Where do you believe that the Palestinians came from?

Who do you believe lived in Palestine before the Israelis moved in?

Work within the facts, please.


I'm too busy right now to get really involved in this, but many of the Palestinians came from Jordan and Egypt, there never was a nation of Palestine. Not only that, no matter how moderate or what the views are, anyone oppposing the Palestinian myth or supports Israel will eventually be called a bigot etc. It tends to stop discussion and debate, it works well.

Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which suggested the partition of Palestine: “There is no such country as Palestine! Palestine is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel’s capture of Judea and Samaria.

[spot]

We might be concerned less with considering the various names and rulers the Holy Land has had over the years and focus instead on the people whose families have lived on the same area of ground for more generations than they can recall. Currently those people are called Palestinians, they're subject to pass laws and can't vote any representative to the government which enforces those pass laws. They live mostly in the West Bank. Those who have been displaced from such land mostly live in the Gaza Strip and they're called Palestinians as well. They can't live in any area of the Holy Land which is currently occupied by Jewish settlements, that's the law of Israel. It's an apartheid law.

You don't need to worry about being called a bigot just as I needn't worry about being called anti-Semitic. Personal abuse has no place in any thread on ForumGarden.

[Nomad]

Jester;736062 wrote: Guess I'll start here and work my way back...



20 years from now when we start to declassify some stuff you're gonna hear lots of reasons why your wrong. I cannot dipute you now. What you have said is how the media has made it appear.


Youre privy to classified documents ?

Of course youre not so you base your decisions and modify your point of view with the same bulk crap the rest of us our fed.

I watch the news and its fairly obvious which broadcasting co. is skewed to the left and which to the right. Its all entertainment anyway.



My contempt for this administration stems from its actions. Its smug bulldozer attitude that it can just plow through any problem without fear of retribution. Well guess what ? We cant win hearts and minds with bullets. Were stockpiling enemies faster than we can put them in animal cages in Guantanamo.



Sure we can build really cool weapons and other neato stuff that will send blood and flesh flying for a half mile down the road but were not going to get what we want like that.



Were no different than the other bullies we stand on our soapbox and condemn waving our flag and sticking our chests out declaring the USA Gods gift to the world.

Bullshit !

As of yet were just not savvy enough or smart enough to move the world in the direction that suits us.

Were stirring up the hornets nest.

Plan B ?

[double helix]

Jester;735121 wrote: From the report...



Hardly vindicated. With them being the greatest exporter of terrorism and enriched uranium being a key component for a dirty bomb they remain a likely threat.


Eggzactly! People, listen. Politics is just a big game. It has nothing to with the best interests of the American people just as politics doesn't have any interests in "the people" of any nation. Politics is a game, each side seeking to further its own agenda. If the opposing party is crafty enough, expose enough "crimes" by there opposition, exploit enough scandalous behavior, they might win.

The fact is, Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer the focus. Why is that? No news is good news, isn't it?

And Iran, very much a threat to freedom. Tell yourself that Iran is vindicated. In five years you will be hearing a very different story. By then, if you still hold faith in your safe, happy, indulgent life as a member of a democracy feel free to volunteer yourself to raped and pillaged.

What about Chavez? Defeated by the voice of his people. Do you think Chavez is going to take that quietly?

[Bryn Mawr]

freetobeme;736231 wrote: I'm too busy right now to get really involved in this, but many of the Palestinians came from Jordan and Egypt, there never was a nation of Palestine. Not only that, no matter how moderate or what the views are, anyone oppposing the Palestinian myth or supports Israel will eventually be called a bigot etc. It tends to stop discussion and debate, it works well.

Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which suggested the partition of Palestine: “There is no such country as Palestine! Palestine is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel’s capture of Judea and Samaria.


Where are you getting your information from?

The first references to a nation of Palestine occur before the first world war when there was a push for independence - the reason there was no nation of Palestine is that Palestine was that the country was part of the Ottoman empire, not that it was unpopulated.

In 1900 the population was over one million - virtually all Palestinian Arab. These are the people to whom I was referring.

Talking of being called a bigot - I am the one who's been called anti-Semitic for daring to suggest that the Israelis could be guilty of human rights abuses. To suggest that it is a standard technique against anyone opposing the Palestinians is a reversal of the truth.

[Bryn Mawr]

Jester;736740 wrote: I couldnt have answered it better than free2bme did, but yes I am serious.

Each of those people have a national origin I understood the majority to be of Jordanian descent. What I don't see is Jordan taking care of their people. Let them be repatriated. The rest I'd welcome to the US, and I'd be happy to pay for it with my tax dollars. I'td be cheaper in the long run and far safer and better for them personally.


See my reply to Freetobeme.

Your understanding is wrong.

[Bryn Mawr]

double helix;736836 wrote: Eggzactly! People, listen. Politics is just a big game. It has nothing to with the best interests of the American people just as politics doesn't have any interests in "the people" of any nation. Politics is a game, each side seeking to further its own agenda. If the opposing party is crafty enough, expose enough "crimes" by there opposition, exploit enough scandalous behavior, they might win.

The fact is, Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer the focus. Why is that? No news is good news, isn't it?

And Iran, very much a threat to freedom. Tell yourself that Iran is vindicated. In five years you will be hearing a very different story. By then, if you still hold faith in your safe, happy, indulgent life as a member of a democracy feel free to volunteer yourself to raped and pillaged.

What about Chavez? Defeated by the voice of his people. Do you think Chavez is going to take that quietly?


Rather than rhetoric, could you provide facts and / or evidence?

[koan]

Regarding the history of Palestine and whether or not Arabs pre-existed in the area, the UN (presumably an authoratative, unbiased source) breaks the events down as such:

The Palestine problem became an international issue towards the end of the First World War with the disintegration of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Palestine was among the several former Ottoman Arab territories which were placed under the administration of Great Britain under the Mandates System adopted by the League of Nations pursuant to the League's Covenant (Article 22) .

All but one of these Mandated Territories became fully independent States, as anticipated. The exception was Palestine where, instead of being limited to "the rendering of administrative assistance and advice" the Mandate had as a primary objective the implementation of the "Balfour Declaration" issued by the British Government in 1917, expressing support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

During the years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewish populations. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after World War II. Great Britain tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. In 1947, Great Britain turned the problem over to the United Nations.

source

Anyone who believes the Arabs in Palestine are not native to the area has some serious 'splainin to do.