Can Israel deal with Iran on its own?

[annienormanna]

drooperdoo said:

Annienormanna,


Come back and talk to us when the United States has a woman president. Then maybe your mysoginy rhetoric would make sense and not sound so utterly bigoted and retarded.

Bhutto:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/319813.stm

Here's the short version of the evidence in the case folder:

In countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, and in the Taleban-era Afghanistan, which are governed by Islamists who view Islam as a political ideology as well as a personal faith, a strict interpretation of the Sharia serves as the supreme law of the land.

In the majority of Muslim countries, however, the Sharia is applied selectively. Some countries adopt only a few aspects of Sharia law; others apply the entire code.

It doesn't just have to do with Afghanistan, Drooperdoo, now does it?

[annienormanna]

Fine. Don't shove female Presidents in my face. Like, "oh, well America sucks too so F*ck off!"

I'm sorry you think that what I have to say is some bigoted feminist blather. Well too bad. There are organizations working on womens issues around the world.

Here's one:
www.asiasource.org/asip/muslimwomen.cfm

And another:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3734420.stm

And it's not bigotry when the very people who want to bring you down are running wild across the world, enforcing it over millions of people. Next time look at the the horror in the faces of women who through no fault of their own become victims of their "own" cultures.

I keep my American politics off this board. Don't make the assumption that I believe in what you think an American believes in.

Smoke screens have no nationality.

[Drooperdoo]

Annienormanna,
I can't believe that you're falling for the "outraged womenhood" propaganda that was used by the United States in the Spanish-American war. They made up lies about Spain beating their women, and how it was our duty to go into someone else's country, kill them and take over . . . as a moral duty.

I don't buy that crap!

Sure, women may have it bad in Third World countries (of any religion), but it's not my right or responsibility to bomb them in the name of "saving them".

Like in Vietnam when "we had to burn the village to save it".

Bush himself admits to 30,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. The Red Cross says its more like 100,000. But let's just go with what Bush says [even though we all know his reliability and trustworthiness], but just for the sake of argument: Let's say 30,000 civilians died.
Imagine that!
3,000 Americans died on 9-11 [which Iraq had nothing to do with]. Yet we go into THEIR country and kill ten times as many "in the name of freeing them".

I no longer believe in the propaganda of "we had to burn the village to save it".

If I did, then I'd have to concede that China had a right to invade my country because America has the highest rape rate and murder rates in the world. Women are killed at astonishingly higher numbers than anywhere else on Earth.
I don't think that gives China a right to come and kill people in my country. . . . So being fair, I can't use that as a pretext to invade anybody else's.

P.S.--It's always good to remember that we live in a nation, not an empire. Our legal authority extends only so far as our borders. When we think it's our right to invade other countries and install puppet-regimes, how are we any different than Nazi Germany? [And please: No Jew references. Just geopolitically--pre-1943 concentration camps--when Hitler was in 1939 and invading countries and installing puppet-regimes . . . If it was wrong when he thought he had a right, then it's wrong when we pull the same bullshit.]

[annienormanna]

drooperdoo said:

Annienormanna,
I can't believe that you're falling for the "outraged womenhood" propaganda that was used by the United States in the Spanish-American war. They made up lies about Spain beating their women, and how it was our duty to go into someone else's country, kill them and take over . . . as a moral duty.

I don't buy that crap!

Sure, women may have it bad in Third World countries (of any religion), but it's not my right or responsibility to bomb them in the name of "saving them".

Like in Vietnam when "we had to burn the village to save it".

Bush himself admits to 30,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. The Red Cross says its more like 100,000. But let's just go with what Bush says [even though we all know his reliability and trustworthiness], but just for the sake of argument: Let's say 30,000 civilians died.
Imagine that!
3,000 Americans died on 9-11 [which Iraq had nothing to do with]. Yet we go into THEIR country and kill ten times as many "in the name of freeing them".

I no longer believe in the propaganda of "we had to burn the village to save it".

If I did, then I'd have to concede that China had a right to invade my country because America has the highest rape rate and murder rates in the world. Women are killed at astonishingly higher numbers than anywhere else on Earth.
I don't think that gives China a right to come and kill people in my country. . . . So being fair, I can't use that as a pretext to invade anybody else's.

P.S.--It's always good to remember that we live in a nation, not an empire. Our legal authority extends only so far as our borders. When we think it's our right to invade other countries and install puppet-regimes, how are we any different than Nazi Germany? [And please: No Jew references. Just geopolitically--pre-1943 concentration camps--when Hitler was in 1939 and invading countries and installing puppet-regimes . . . If it was wrong when he thought he had a right, then it's wrong when we pull the same bullshit.]

I am against the war. I saw 9/11 from a very close location. I am a New Yorker.

And don't propagandize using nationality. America, the land of rape: read on:
www.womenagainstrape.net/international_statistics.htm

Hey. Whadda you think- it's some jew crap? You mook.
lazy, lazy you be, yassuh...

I really, really can see, all the way through.

Booh!!!

[annienormanna]

www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19970901

Mookie Wilson:

[asdf]

Annienormanna,
I can't believe that you're falling for the "outraged womenhood" propaganda that was used by the United States in the Spanish-American war. They made up lies about Spain beating their women, and how it was our duty to go into someone else's country, kill them and take over . . . as a moral duty.

I don't buy that crap!

Sure, women may have it bad in Third World countries (of any religion), but it's not my right or responsibility to bomb them in the name of "saving them".

Like in Vietnam when "we had to burn the village to save it".

Bush himself admits to 30,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. The Red Cross says its more like 100,000. But let's just go with what Bush says [even though we all know his reliability and trustworthiness], but just for the sake of argument: Let's say 30,000 civilians died.
Imagine that!
3,000 Americans died on 9-11 [which Iraq had nothing to do with]. Yet we go into THEIR country and kill ten times as many "in the name of freeing them".

I no longer believe in the propaganda of "we had to burn the village to save it".

If I did, then I'd have to concede that China had a right to invade my country because America has the highest rape rate and murder rates in the world. Women are killed at astonishingly higher numbers than anywhere else on Earth.
I don't think that gives China a right to come and kill people in my country. . . . So being fair, I can't use that as a pretext to invade anybody else's.

P.S.--It's always good to remember that we live in a nation, not an empire. Our legal authority extends only so far as our borders. When we think it's our right to invade other countries and install puppet-regimes, how are we any different than Nazi Germany? [And please: No Jew references. Just geopolitically--pre-1943 concentration camps--when Hitler was in 1939 and invading countries and installing puppet-regimes . . . If it was wrong when he thought he had a right, then it's wrong when we pull the same bullshit.]

You're not Catholic.

[Amic]

Whats up with forrest and Droop they seem to be like ex lovers.

[Educate Me]

Droop isnt a catholic?

[asdf]

He doesn't believe in anything Abrahamic, like say, the existence of Abraham, or, um, oh yeah, God, and he doesn't even like Jesus much:

Read the several sarcastic comments Jesus directs at her all throughout the gospels.]

Good points. You missed, however, a good opportunity to skewer my thesis by mentioning Abraham in the Old Testament. There's a point where Jehovah-of-Armies is so fed up with the human race again that he wants to wipe them all out and Abraham wrangles with God and gets us a second chance.
This is characteristic of the primitive Jewish conception of God. He was just a big version of them: a cosmic merchant willing to haggle.
Between the Old Testament and the New Testament, though, something happened: Alexander the Great conquered the Known World and spread Greek ideas. Even the pathologically xenophobic Jews were affected, and their primitive tribal deity was supplanted by Aristotle's more modern, ethereal vision of a Supreme Being.
It's this loftier, superior vision of God that is above haggling, or changing his plans to conform to the whims of mortals.
When the rock singer Jim Morrison screams, "You can't petition God," he's referring to this more modern [Indo-European] conception of God, this idea created by Aristotle of the "Unmoved Mover" which has gained historical ascendancy over the older concepts of God.

That idea colors my own personal convitions--the true Supreme Being--if indeed there is one--wouldn't be flighty enough to suspend his own plans to please wheedling human petitioners. He wouldn't, for instance, suspend the law of gravity just so that some woman praying could have her prayers answered about not having her breasts sag. He wouldn't change the laws of thermodynamics just to please someone praying about his hatred of the summer heat, etc.

Do you people even read what he says?

I've always looked upon religion as something that you either believe in or you don't. It's ridiculous to try and change it based on democratic principles. Religion is not supposed to be democracy.
As Jim Morrison said, "You can't petition God!"
So it strikes me--a non-believer--as obnoxious when activists try to force churches to "accept" them--even when they're spurned in the very scriptures they're pretending to believe in.
As I said, I'm an atheist. But I have great respect for religion in one regard. Religion seems to be a system whereby people try to be better human beings. God asks something of you. It is only the Devil who says that you should be accepted as you are. God demands struggle, sacrifice, change. It's Satan who seduces with doctrines of laziness and universal tolerance--where there's really no right or wrong.
But, then--as I said--I'm a non-believer. I just find it pathetic and sad when the Bible condemns an action or lifestyle a dozen times and people of that lifestyle try to get back into the church, and have those scriptures not read--because it would "hurt their feelings".
My solution: If it hurts your feelings, renounce that religion. It's just that simple. You have free will. Don't go to that church. Or find another religion that fits in with your particular philosophy.
But don't be a hypocrite and try to use techniques of politics and democracy to artificially inflict your position on a church. Religion isn't democracy.
Remember: "You can't petition God."

P.P.S.--Monotheism is a relatively new development in history. It started with the Egyptians and their god Aton. Interestingly, the Jews--who usually take credit for monotheism--were nothing of the sort. They believed in other gods; they just believed that their tribal God Yahweh was the best. Read in the Old Testament, the feats of strength between Yahweh and Ba'al. And remember: The Ten Commandments doesn't say there's one God. It says "hold no other gods before Yahweh". . . . So they believed in other gods. They just believed in loyalty to their own tribal deity. So, technically speaking, the Jews were never monotheists.

He's just "Christian" in the WN sense. It's white and Western, so he's not against it or whatever.

Later Europeanized Christianity also added the cult of Mary. [In the Bible, she's treated with scorn and disdain--by her own son. Read the several sarcastic comments Jesus directs at her all throughout the gospels.] But by the time the religion had reached Europe, Mary underwent a change from spurned lowly Jewish female to Super-heroine.
None of this happened among the original Middle Easterners.

[deuceswild]

ndrthl said:

The most dangerous situation would be the proliferation of nuclear weaponry in the muslim world, and hence the possibility of an anonymous terrorist cell detonating a nuclear artifact (like a suitcase nuclear bomb or something) in a previous designed place. Iran has supported terrorist movements against the West and Israel. It would well do so. In such a case, the target would not know the place where the response should be directed at. The philosophy of Islam is a beligerant one (fidel/infidel binome), and everyone knows that.

Qaeda doesn't have the personnel to maintain complicated nuclear weapons. The Iranians do, and they'd be first on the Hit Parade were they to peddle nukes to Qaeda. Only they wouldn't. Major powers don't invest billions in uranium enrichment and then give the product of that investment to a Saudi playboy, and a Sunni one at that. The Iranians are interested in playing Judenrein with the Shahab 3 missile and have their own plans for the Jews. In any event, both Iran and Qaeda have a similar agenda (revival of the caliphate), though they are both going about it independently from one another.

The real reason why Al-Qaeda thinks of attacking with nuclear weapons, but will stay their hand, is rather simple: once you attack a nuclear power like the United States with the Big One, all bets are off-there is no level of diplomatic restraint that would keep the US from responding in overwhelming kind. When atomic weapons are used as instruments of mass terror, the point is understood that two can play at that game. It's that simple. The notion of legalisms cease when mass killing begins.

The notion among some that America would do nothing because there is no "address" to respond to is a joke. Millions of Muslims, probably upwards to 100 million, would be dead after the first couple of waves of American retaliatory strikes. Vast reaches of the Islamic heartland would be an uninhabitable wasteland. Bin Laden would have achieved his dream: the 9th Century restored. But the Islamic World as it is today would cease to exist.

Restraint falls away when survival is at stake. Bin Laden isn't mad. He is rational. He is a fanatic, like Hitler. That will be his undoing. All fanatics undo themselves in the end. But despite the fanaticism he uses to gull his credulous followers, he knows better than to cross the Rubicon.

[ndrthl]

However 'rational' Bin Laden may be, there will always be those crazy people who would willingly detonate a small nuclear device and cause large civilian casualties in a western nation. I would not rule out any option, and future is not certain at all. The spread of nuclear weaponry in the muslim world is a very dangerous thing indeed. An ultra aggressive response by the US would not be accepted by Russia, India and China (countries not so far from the muslim world), as well as the EU (which is rather close to muslim countries).

[Sharmaarkee]

Stop the bullshit propaganda the number of jews leaving abroad are 20 folds more than those leaving in ISrael. News to digest is Iran has the highest number of Jewish population in the middleeast thats around 6million while Israel has 5million. So what is what?
Iran is an 'ultra-Islamist' they are shias( a muslim sect founded by a Jew)

This is all mere Bullshit psychodrama!!!!!!!
They just want to manupulate the Oil Prices
Cosz the more the tension the higher the oil price gets
so who benefits?

[Drooperdoo]

Forrester,
Amic is right. You keep following me around and posting these really catty, mincing responses that make you seem a little . . . well . . . gay. Snap out of it, man.

Redeem yourself.

As to my calling myself a Catholic. I am a Catholic insofar as I arose from Catholic culture--Iberian which stretches back 500 generations. I was baptized Catholic, as well as having attended Catholic school.

Yes, as an adult, I take a mature view of religion and don't gullibly accept the Bible as if its inspired or even history, but that doesn't disqualify me from my background anymore than an atheistic Jew is not a Jew. He was Jew enough for Hitler to kill him no matter what his beliefs, and I am culturally and ethnically Catholic. Deal with it.

My upbringing and ancestry are 100% Catholic. Not Buddhist, not Muslim, not Lutheran, not Shintoist.

So deal with it.

Whether I part ways with Biblical dogma or not is irrevelant. Albert Einstein famously said that he didn't believe in Judaism, but what idiot would deny that he was a Jew?

Religion is more than a set of dogmas--it's a culture, a background, a set of shared values and common history.

And, by the way, the last I heard only the Church could excommunicate people. Next time you want to deny my heritage and cultural background, check with the Church. To my knowledge, you're not qualified to judge anyone--let alone excommunicate them.

[dukeofpain]

mfalme said:

Stop the bullshit propaganda the number of jews leaving abroad are 20 folds more than those leaving in ISrael. News to digest is Iran has the highest number of Jewish population in the middleeast thats around 6million while Israel has 5million. So what is what?
Iran is an 'ultra-Islamist' they are shias( a muslim sect founded by a Jew)

This is all mere Bullshit psychodrama!!!!!!!
They just want to manupulate the Oil Prices
Cosz the more the tension the higher the oil price gets
so who benefits?

You're right. Israel is merely the tip of the zionist iceberg.

[Igu]

Sometimes I wish I was a jew, having a religion that goes hand in hand with culture and language, that would be perfect for my people, but unfortunately it's too late, no one would believe that I am a prophet, people have changed and are not as dumb as before.

VIVA ISRAEL