"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<wa_4d.16$Xc6.741@eagle.america.net>...
"Policy toward Iran is another such matter. Today's news is that the US
has sold (given?) a huge number of bunker-buster bombs to Israel. The
only use the Israelis have for such things is to blow up nuclear sites
in Iran. If that happens you folks [the Brits -- DSH] will be engaged
in World War III along with everyone else."
P. Jonathan Gans -- Left-Wing NYU chemist and self-professed National
Security Expert
--------Cordon Sanitaire--------------
Hilarious!
There he goes again!
World War III is over -- We Won. Gans can't keep up.
This is WORLD WAR IV we are fighting now.
Read Norman Podhoretz's brilliant piece in the September 2004
_Commentary_:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/
Norman Podhoretz is a man whom I have often described, quite admiringly
and justifiably, as a Smart Jew -- one of the very smartest. His son,
John, is no slouch either.
Gans, _au contraire_, is a Dumb Jew and does not read brilliant, long
articles by Smart Jews. They tire him out, he loses concentration and
can't remember what he has read, much less write intelligently about it.
Gans, in fact, eschews the writings of Smart Jews and Smart Christians.
He far prefers to read the writings and listen to the soundbites of Dumb
Jews and Dumb Christians, folks such as Senator Joe Biden, of Delaware
and Terry McAuliffe.
That's Chicken Little you see posting below:
"The sky is falling" -- whines Gans.
The brave, smart, bold, competent Israelis took out Saddam's Osirak
nuclear reactor in June 1981, with U.S. help, and the World was much
better off.
We may just do the same with Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors in 2004 or
2005.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Osirak.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr-intro.htm
Stay Tuned....
Gans wants to whip up FEAR and HYSTERIA in the American [and Allied]
Electorate BEFORE November 2nd.
Will He Succeed?
----------------------
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cis7f7$71u$1@reader1.panix.com...
"Policy toward Iran is another such matter. Today's news is that the US
has sold (given?) a huge number of bunker-buster bombs to Israel. The
only use the Israelis have for such things is to blow up nuclear sites
in Iran. If that happens you folks [the Brits -- DSH] will be engaged
in World War III along with everyone else."
P. Jonathan Gans -- Left-Wing NYU chemist and self-professed National
Security Expert
Hilarious!
DSH
========================================================================
If Iran were to be attacked by "bunker-busters" from Israel, I'm afraid
that the 'gloves would be off' between the Islamic world & the jews --
the jews would probably end up on the receiving end of Islamic rage
all over the world....
a very sad world we live in, yes siree yes indeedy deedy do }:-(
Hooroo }:-(
Uncle Wally }:-(
=========================================================================
.
|
|
| User: "Fred J. McCall" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
25 Sep 2004 10:07:48 AM |
|
|
(Uncle Wally's World) wrote:
:If Iran were to be attacked by "bunker-busters" from Israel, I'm afraid
:that the 'gloves would be off' between the Islamic world & the jews --
:the jews would probably end up on the receiving end of Islamic rage
:all over the world....
You really need to learn something about the world before you make
silly statements like the preceding. Are you assuming that somehow
Iran is considered the leader of the Muslim world? Are you assuming
that there *is* a monolithic 'Muslim world'?
:a very sad world we live in, yes siree yes indeedy deedy do }:-(
One hopes that people deciding policy are better informed than this.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
03 Oct 2004 07:52:13 PM |
|
|
"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a92bl0l0q9d3lgv6alnhaqpk7e34c0uo1d@4ax.com...
unclewallysworld@yahoo.ca (Uncle Wally's World) wrote:
:If Iran were to be attacked by "bunker-busters" from Israel, I'm afraid
:that the 'gloves would be off' between the Islamic world & the jews --
:the jews would probably end up on the receiving end of Islamic rage
:all over the world....
You really need to learn something about the world before you make
silly statements like the preceding. Are you assuming that somehow
Iran is considered the leader of the Muslim world? Are you assuming
that there *is* a monolithic 'Muslim world'?
There is agency to make it monolithic. In fact that might be the definition
of Al Qaeda. The theory of 'oneness' is politically important to the likes
of Bin Laden.
:a very sad world we live in, yes siree yes indeedy deedy do }:-(
One hopes that people deciding policy are better informed than this.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
05 Oct 2004 07:39:33 AM |
|
|
"Gregory" <mike.baudrillard@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1918d.1680$Xb.940@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
There is agency to make it monolithic. In fact that might be the
definition
of Al Qaeda. The theory of 'oneness' is politically important to the likes
of Bin Laden.
Quite so. The concept of the global "Ummah' or Islamic nation, where the
whole world is united
in Islam under a Caliph is one of their core desires. Naturally this is
incompatible with western
society (or in fact ANY society that is not Islamic) as they consider no
other form of government
to be acceptable according to the Quran...
Geoff in OZ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hans-Joachim Maximilian" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
01 Nov 2004 09:45:11 PM |
|
|
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<2sfj00F1l1bs6U1@uni-berlin.de>...
"Gregory" <mike.baudrillard@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1918d.1680$Xb.940@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
There is agency to make it monolithic. In fact that might be the
definition
of Al Qaeda. The theory of 'oneness' is politically important to the likes
of Bin Laden.
Quite so. The concept of the global "Ummah' or Islamic nation, where the
whole world is united
in Islam under a Caliph is one of their core desires. Naturally this is
incompatible with western
society (or in fact ANY society that is not Islamic) as they consider no
other form of government
to be acceptable according to the Quran...
Geoff in OZ
Osama Bin Laden has to keep his role in the proceedings. He has to
watch crazy people pretending to offer fealty to him. It is scary to
think that Osama Bin Laden views some of his competitors as 'extreme'.
Of course his main rival is now affecting to be a follower.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Wallys World" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
26 Sep 2004 12:14:06 AM |
|
|
Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<a92bl0l0q9d3lgv6alnhaqpk7e34c0uo1d@4ax.com>...
unclewallysworld@yahoo.ca (Uncle Wally's World) wrote:
:If Iran were to be attacked by "bunker-busters" from Israel, I'm afraid
:that the 'gloves would be off' between the Islamic world & the jews --
:the jews would probably end up on the receiving end of Islamic rage
:all over the world....
You really need to learn something about the world before you make
silly statements like the preceding. Are you assuming that somehow
Iran is considered the leader of the Muslim world? Are you assuming
that there *is* a monolithic 'Muslim world'?
:a very sad world we live in, yes siree yes indeedy deedy do }:-(
One hopes that people deciding policy are better informed than this.
U really don't think that the jews would get away with such a heinous
crime without facing *major* retaliation from the Islamic world, do U
?!?
Seriously ?!?!
Any form of attack on *any* country in the Middle East by either
Israel
or the United States is tantamount to a declaration of war on the
entire
Islamic World from Iran right thru to Indonesia .....
Personally, I would prefer it if the United Nations were involved in
solving
the issue of the illegal occupation of Palestine before things get
totally
out of control in the region....
The world can't afford a third world war...given the size and scope of
WMD these days, it would be a catastrophe of Biblical proportions...
Anyway, only *time* will tell the outcome of all this mess in the
region...
Hooroo ;-)
Uncle Wally ;-)
==========================================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred J. McCall" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
26 Sep 2004 12:28:41 AM |
|
|
(Uncle Wally's World) wrote:
A lot that demonstrated he's a loon and nothing indicating he would
ever be worth bothering to listen to.
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jha_amin" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
25 Sep 2004 09:40:41 PM |
|
|
Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<a92bl0l0q9d3lgv6alnhaqpk7e34c0uo1d@4ax.com>...
unclewallysworld@yahoo.ca (Uncle Wally's World) wrote:
:If Iran were to be attacked by "bunker-busters" from Israel, I'm afraid
:that the 'gloves would be off' between the Islamic world & the jews --
:the jews would probably end up on the receiving end of Islamic rage
:all over the world....
You really need to learn something about the world before you make
silly statements like the preceding. Are you assuming that somehow
Iran is considered the leader of the Muslim world? Are you assuming
that there *is* a monolithic 'Muslim world'?
As far as israel is concerned i think you could say there *is* a
monolithic muslim world. Their intent being to destroy the jews and
visa versa. Unfortunately throughout history the jews have been the
ones who have ended up being nearly destroyed.
:a very sad world we live in, yes siree yes indeedy deedy do }:-(
One hopes that people deciding policy are better informed than this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thelasian" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
26 Sep 2004 02:51:06 PM |
|
|
(jha_amin) wrote in message news:<33b7880.0409251840.4347e2ed@posting.google.com>...
Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<a92bl0l0q9d3lgv6alnhaqpk7e34c0uo1d@4ax.com>...
unclewallysworld@yahoo.ca (Uncle Wally's World) wrote:
:If Iran were to be attacked by "bunker-busters" from Israel, I'm afraid
:that the 'gloves would be off' between the Islamic world & the jews --
:the jews would probably end up on the receiving end of Islamic rage
:all over the world....
You really need to learn something about the world before you make
silly statements like the preceding. Are you assuming that somehow
Iran is considered the leader of the Muslim world? Are you assuming
that there *is* a monolithic 'Muslim world'?
As far as israel is concerned i think you could say there *is* a
monolithic muslim world. Their intent being to destroy the jews
Israel is not the victim. Israel is the aggressor:
Have you read Benny Morris's
Righteous Victims or the Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (if
not go to Amazon.com and do so)
In the meantime, read what Benny Morris had to say about it in his
interview with Ari Shavit, which appeared in Haaretz, where he admits
that ethnic cleansing occurred by Israel, and then being a good
Zionist, he tries to justify it as "breaking a few eggs":
Q According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were
perpetrated in 1948?
"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in
others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of
arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they
are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot.
There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron
region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing
and killed anything that moved.
The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod
(250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no
unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes
were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which
nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the
north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram
[in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun,
Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram
there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people
against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.
That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who
took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they
received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the
population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished
for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered
up for the officers who did the massacres."
Q What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in
Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion
order. Is that right?
"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948,
the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in
writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population.
Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the
Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this
order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the
city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately
after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July
1948]."
Q Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a
deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?
"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer.
There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly
comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population]
transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership
understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what
is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is
created."
Q Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?
"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there
could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its
midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."
Q I don't hear you condemning him.
"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would
not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to
evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state
would not have arisen here.
Q Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of
Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do
you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of
1948?
"There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification
for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions,
expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of
1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.
You have to dirty your hands."
http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "jha_amin" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
27 Sep 2004 02:54:57 PM |
|
|
(Thelasian) wrote in message news:<848aafc.0409261151.4e371df2@posting.google.com>...
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) wrote in message news:<33b7880.0409251840.4347e2ed@posting.google.com>...
Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<a92bl0l0q9d3lgv6alnhaqpk7e34c0uo1d@4ax.com>...
unclewallysworld@yahoo.ca (Uncle Wally's World) wrote:
:If Iran were to be attacked by "bunker-busters" from Israel, I'm afraid
:that the 'gloves would be off' between the Islamic world & the jews --
:the jews would probably end up on the receiving end of Islamic rage
:all over the world....
You really need to learn something about the world before you make
silly statements like the preceding. Are you assuming that somehow
Iran is considered the leader of the Muslim world? Are you assuming
that there *is* a monolithic 'Muslim world'?
As far as israel is concerned i think you could say there *is* a
monolithic muslim world. Their intent being to destroy the jews
Israel is not the victim. Israel is the aggressor:
<snip for brevity>
That may be. Does it really make any difference?
The end result of hate will be the same.
Israel will be destroyed along with a large part of the musliml world.
The rest of the world will suffer a similar fate.
You mess with one muslim country, you mess with them all. They may hate
each other but their hate for israel is trump.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
01 Oct 2004 12:13:42 PM |
|
|
"jha_amin" <jha_amin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33b7880.0409271154.771843c@posting.google.com...
The rest of the world will suffer a similar fate.
You mess with one muslim country, you mess with them all. They may hate
each other but their hate for israel is trump.
Trump eh? I'll see their 'hate for Israel' and raise them a dozen Gabriel
missiles with nuclear warheads....
As for the rest of the world suffering a similar fate, can you see ICBM and
MIRV?
Now *that's* a trump.....
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "jha_amin" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
01 Oct 2004 06:09:27 PM |
|
|
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<2s5hhpF1godojU1@uni-berlin.de>...
"jha_amin" <jha_amin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33b7880.0409271154.771843c@posting.google.com...
The rest of the world will suffer a similar fate.
You mess with one muslim country, you mess with them all. They may hate
each other but their hate for israel is trump.
Trump eh? I'll see their 'hate for Israel' and raise them a dozen Gabriel
missiles with nuclear warheads....
As for the rest of the world suffering a similar fate, can you see ICBM and
MIRV?
Now *that's* a trump.....
The CO
How many nukes do you think it would take before the world suffers the
consequences? Israel is VERY close to their would be targets. The
winds
would spread the poison.
Whatsoever a man sows, that will he also reap applies to nations also.
Nukes are pretty much the fruit of jewish endeavors from cradle to
grave and they will be the undoing of the tribe of israel.
Of course. the one that used the destructive power of nuclear weaponry
would have no exemption.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
01 Oct 2004 09:41:27 PM |
|
|
"jha_amin" <jha_amin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33b7880.0410011509.6828201a@posting.google.com...
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<2s5hhpF1godojU1@uni-berlin.de>...
"jha_amin" <jha_amin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33b7880.0409271154.771843c@posting.google.com...
How many nukes do you think it would take before the world suffers the
consequences?
Realistically, quite a few. The world is pretty big.
Israel is VERY close to their would be targets. The
winds would spread the poison.
There are always side effects, however at the end of the day it's likely
there would be
an Israel. There might not be a Syria or an Iran. You don't need to use
high yield devices
either. Even a small nuke, deployed correctly (air burst) would have a
significant effect with
a minimal fallout. Not saying it would be totally clean, but Chernobyl made
more mess than
some above ground test shots. Ground bursts are the worst for fallout and
contamination.
That said, Israel would not be using a nuke except in response to a first
strike or as a last
ditch defence. Not inconceivable that they might use a 'battlefield' sized
device over their
own territory to take out an invading army. Put it this way, the mere fact
that they *have*
nukes pretty much prevents any invasion and occupation by a non-nuclear
power....
So, I'm not even suggesting the Israelis would go nuclear unless facing
obliteration,
but mere Arab/Muslim hatred is not a 'trump card' per se. The Muslim states
individually and collectively
lack the means to defeat Israel with conventional weapons (they've tried
several times) and
don't have a nuclear arsenal (ok, Pakistan does, but sticking their head in
would likely see
the US and probably several others cutting it off)
Whatsoever a man sows, that will he also reap applies to nations also.
Yes, and the Islamic states would do well to remember that. Whilst it's not
at all unthinkable
that Israel might premptively take out Irans nuclear program, they would do
it with conventional
weapons, and any reprisals by Iran would doubtless be conventional also.
Since the whole point
of the exercise is to *prevent* Iran getting nuclear weapons Iran can't
start the nuclear ballgame
and Israel won't unless it's going to be overrun or has a nuke used against
it. Neither circumstance
is at all likely from Iran. The point is that Israel *does* have a nuclear
deterrent and Iran does not.
Nukes are pretty much the fruit of jewish endeavors from cradle to
grave and they will be the undoing of the tribe of israel.
On the contrary, it makes any overrun of Israel unlikely in the extreme.
The Israelis have
pretty much made it clear that they would not permit that. It's widely
believed that the nuclear
option was considered during a previous conflict, but it seems to be policy
that they will only
use them in response to first use by another or if they are in imminent
danger of being overrun
and destroyed. Remember the pledge all Israelis make when they join the
military.
"Masada will not fall again"
Of course. the one that used the destructive power of nuclear weaponry
would have no exemption.
It's a two edged sword. Personally, I doubt if you will see nukes used in
the ME in the forseeable future.
Conventional warfare to *prevent* states like Iran getting nukes, almost a
certainty. As long as Israel is
the only one holding the nuclear 'trump' they are essentially safe from
being overrun by any non nuclear
armed opponent. It's not even MAD, they have nukes, the Islamic states,
standfast Pakistan, do not.
Realistically, it's the Arab states that have the major issue with Israel,
Muslims collectively have persecuted
them since Mohammed, but they lack the means to do anything about it.
The worst case scenario is rogue/radical Islamic states getting hold of WMD,
particularly nuclear or biological
weapons. Chemicals are nasty but generally more localised and shorter
lived.
Israel doubtless knows this and its existence to some extent depends on
preventing the likes of Iran getting
nuclear weapons.....
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "jha_amin" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
02 Oct 2004 08:10:07 PM |
|
|
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<2s6iq8F1hq75uU1@uni-berlin.de>...
"jha_amin" <jha_amin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33b7880.0410011509.6828201a@posting.google.com...
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<2s5hhpF1godojU1@uni-berlin.de>...
"jha_amin" <jha_amin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33b7880.0409271154.771843c@posting.google.com...
How many nukes do you think it would take before the world suffers the
consequences?
Realistically, quite a few. The world is pretty big.
Israel is VERY close to their would be targets. The
winds would spread the poison.
There are always side effects, however at the end of the day it's likely
there would be
an Israel. There might not be a Syria or an Iran. You don't need to use
high yield devices
either. Even a small nuke, deployed correctly (air burst) would have a
significant effect with
a minimal fallout. Not saying it would be totally clean, but Chernobyl made
more mess than
some above ground test shots. Ground bursts are the worst for fallout and
contamination.
That said, Israel would not be using a nuke except in response to a first
strike or as a last
ditch defence. Not inconceivable that they might use a 'battlefield' sized
device over their
own territory to take out an invading army. Put it this way, the mere fact
that they *have*
nukes pretty much prevents any invasion and occupation by a non-nuclear
power....
So, I'm not even suggesting the Israelis would go nuclear unless facing
obliteration,
but mere Arab/Muslim hatred is not a 'trump card' per se. The Muslim states
individually and collectively
lack the means to defeat Israel with conventional weapons (they've tried
several times) and
don't have a nuclear arsenal (ok, Pakistan does, but sticking their head in
would likely see
the US and probably several others cutting it off)
Whatsoever a man sows, that will he also reap applies to nations also.
Yes, and the Islamic states would do well to remember that. Whilst it's not
at all unthinkable
that Israel might premptively take out Irans nuclear program, they would do
it with conventional
weapons, and any reprisals by Iran would doubtless be conventional also.
Since the whole point
of the exercise is to *prevent* Iran getting nuclear weapons Iran can't
start the nuclear ballgame
and Israel won't unless it's going to be overrun or has a nuke used against
it. Neither circumstance
is at all likely from Iran. The point is that Israel *does* have a nuclear
deterrent and Iran does not.
Nukes are pretty much the fruit of jewish endeavors from cradle to
grave and they will be the undoing of the tribe of israel.
On the contrary, it makes any overrun of Israel unlikely in the extreme.
The Israelis have
pretty much made it clear that they would not permit that. It's widely
believed that the nuclear
option was considered during a previous conflict, but it seems to be policy
that they will only
use them in response to first use by another or if they are in imminent
danger of being overrun
and destroyed. Remember the pledge all Israelis make when they join the
military.
"Masada will not fall again"
Of course. the one that used the destructive power of nuclear weaponry
would have no exemption.
It's a two edged sword. Personally, I doubt if you will see nukes used in
the ME in the forseeable future.
Conventional warfare to *prevent* states like Iran getting nukes, almost a
certainty. As long as Israel is
the only one holding the nuclear 'trump' they are essentially safe from
being overrun by any non nuclear
armed opponent. It's not even MAD, they have nukes, the Islamic states,
standfast Pakistan, do not.
Realistically, it's the Arab states that have the major issue with Israel,
Muslims collectively have persecuted
them since Mohammed, but they lack the means to do anything about it.
The worst case scenario is rogue/radical Islamic states getting hold of WMD,
particularly nuclear or biological
weapons. Chemicals are nasty but generally more localised and shorter
lived.
Israel doubtless knows this and its existence to some extent depends on
preventing the likes of Iran getting
nuclear weapons.....
The CO
Thanks for a well thought out and reasonable reply. (not what i was
expecting) ;)
What you say makes perfect sense in a "sane" world, but that sanity is
ebbing fast.
There is no guarantee that other muslim nations have not managed to
purchase a few items down at the coroner "nukes'r us" store. As you
infer, an adversary with nuclear missiles is an altogether different
proposition and the nation first struck with a nuke will feel
perfectly justified in returning in like manner tenfold. And where
will it stop.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
02 Oct 2004 10:20:37 PM |
|
|
"jha_amin" <jha_amin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33b7880.0410021710.4fcae3ee@posting.google.com...
Thanks for a well thought out and reasonable reply. (not what i was
expecting) ;)
Oh? Ok, you are welcome.
What you say makes perfect sense in a "sane" world, but that sanity is
ebbing fast.
mmmm, or it could be seen as being too politically correct.
90+ years ago it was quite reasonable for the British to bomb a village that
had 'misbehaved' into rubble in Mesopotamia. No whinging about collateral
damage etc, just blow the whole thing off the map. do it today and there
are
screams of outrage from all directions. Please note that the Islamics have
no
such scruples and will kill indiscriminately.
There is no guarantee that other muslim nations have not managed to
purchase a few items down at the coroner "nukes'r us" store.
Highly unlikely. Osama Bin Laden, before he became notoriously noticed
after Sept 11, had made numerous attempts splashing large amounts of money
(which he had at that time) around in an attempt to do exactly that from
sources
(mostly) in the former SU. He was unable to obtain anything significantly
useful.
I seriously doubt any current attempts in the hightened awareness that has
been
pretty much global against such things could succeed. I'd say the most
likely
scenario for nuclear material would be the use of high level waste in a
'dirty'
bomb of some kind. Frankly, I think it more likely that the real risk is
from
biological agents, which are much easier to obtain, process and manufacture
in medical facilities that most nations would have.
As you
infer, an adversary with nuclear missiles is an altogether different
proposition and the nation first struck with a nuke will feel
perfectly justified in returning in like manner tenfold.
Assumption is that *both* nations have nukes. Iran does not.
All Israel has to do is stop them getting them, and this is well within
the capability of conventional weapons.
In the post WW2 era, the US/UK had the monopoly on nuclear weapons and
went to extraordinary lengths to prevent the SU from developing them,
however
the SU had a huge military industrial complex and access to the raw
materials and
the knowledge that it *could* be done.
Iran has some of the resources, and probably has the scientific knowledge,
however
the enriched uranium needs to be produced and it's highly unlikely Israel
will let that
happen.
Consider this hypothetical:
The US continued to devolp nuclear weapons during the 50's/60's AND
used overt or covert means to destroy the SU's nuclear reactors and weapons
development facilities BEFORE they got it to work and/or built a stockpile
of
weapons and delivery systems.
The US would have had the ability to destroy the SU with
it having no effective means of retaliation.
This is what Israel is doing. They attacks on the Iraqi nuclear facility
may well have prevented Saddam from getting a nuke or two.
The same policy applied to Iran would doubtless do the same.
And where
will it stop.
I think my point is that the way to win the game is not to play, or
more correctly, limit the players to one. This is Israel's strategy.
The US seems committed to preventing rogue states like Iran from
obtaining nuclear weapons, which strikes me as a good idea.
North Korea may or may not have nuclear weapons, I consider them
more likely to be a serious threat of a nuclear exchange (limited to the
Korean peninsula and probably parts of Japan) than the Middle East.
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
03 Oct 2004 07:45:01 PM |
|
|
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2s99fhF1h32u9U1@uni-berlin.de...
"jha_amin" <jha_amin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33b7880.0410021710.4fcae3ee@posting.google.com...
Thanks for a well thought out and reasonable reply. (not what i was
expecting) ;)
Oh? Ok, you are welcome.
What you say makes perfect sense in a "sane" world, but that sanity is
ebbing fast.
mmmm, or it could be seen as being too politically correct.
90+ years ago it was quite reasonable for the British to bomb a village
that
had 'misbehaved' into rubble in Mesopotamia. No whinging about collateral
damage etc, just blow the whole thing off the map. do it today and there
are
screams of outrage from all directions. Please note that the Islamics
have
no
such scruples and will kill indiscriminately.
The 'Christianics' (if we are being emotive) are also killing
indiscriminately.
It is about piles of dead bodies.
I would not go so far to say that the US media were that worried about dead
civilians. None of the major US media logged a sustained series of questions
re: any bombing in Iraq or Afghanistan, regardless of who did it or didn't
do it.
It was usually left to the European media to follow-up and reveal one
'determination' or another. Generally speaking the media in the US are
entirely indifferent to the plight of Iraqi and Afghan civilians.
There is no guarantee that other muslim nations have not managed to
purchase a few items down at the coroner "nukes'r us" store.
Highly unlikely. Osama Bin Laden, before he became notoriously noticed
after Sept 11, had made numerous attempts splashing large amounts of money
(which he had at that time) around in an attempt to do exactly that from
sources
(mostly) in the former SU. He was unable to obtain anything significantly
useful.
I seriously doubt any current attempts in the hightened awareness that has
been
pretty much global against such things could succeed. I'd say the most
likely
scenario for nuclear material would be the use of high level waste in a
'dirty'
bomb of some kind. Frankly, I think it more likely that the real risk is
from
biological agents, which are much easier to obtain, process and
manufacture
in medical facilities that most nations would have.
As you
infer, an adversary with nuclear missiles is an altogether different
proposition and the nation first struck with a nuke will feel
perfectly justified in returning in like manner tenfold.
Assumption is that *both* nations have nukes. Iran does not.
All Israel has to do is stop them getting them, and this is well within
the capability of conventional weapons.
In the post WW2 era, the US/UK had the monopoly on nuclear weapons and
went to extraordinary lengths to prevent the SU from developing them,
however
the SU had a huge military industrial complex and access to the raw
materials and
the knowledge that it *could* be done.
Iran has some of the resources, and probably has the scientific knowledge,
however
the enriched uranium needs to be produced and it's highly unlikely Israel
will let that
happen.
Consider this hypothetical:
The US continued to devolp nuclear weapons during the 50's/60's AND
used overt or covert means to destroy the SU's nuclear reactors and
weapons
development facilities BEFORE they got it to work and/or built a stockpile
of
weapons and delivery systems.
The US would have had the ability to destroy the SU with
it having no effective means of retaliation.
This is what Israel is doing. They attacks on the Iraqi nuclear facility
may well have prevented Saddam from getting a nuke or two.
The same policy applied to Iran would doubtless do the same.
And where
will it stop.
I think my point is that the way to win the game is not to play, or
more correctly, limit the players to one. This is Israel's strategy.
The US seems committed to preventing rogue states like Iran from
obtaining nuclear weapons, which strikes me as a good idea.
North Korea may or may not have nuclear weapons, I consider them
more likely to be a serious threat of a nuclear exchange (limited to the
Korean peninsula and probably parts of Japan) than the Middle East.
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
05 Oct 2004 07:35:30 AM |
|
|
"Gregory" <mike.baudrillard@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:h218d.1679$Xb.767@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2s99fhF1h32u9U1@uni-berlin.de...
Please note that the Islamics
have no such scruples and will kill indiscriminately.
The 'Christianics' (if we are being emotive)
No, not at all emotive actually.
I can do 'emotive' if you want, but it
seemed more appropriate to keep it at least
somewhat detached.
are also killing indiscriminately.
We seem to have different comprehensions of the word
'indiscriminately'.
One could probably state with some degree of accuracy that
coalition forces make significant effort to avoid non combatant
casualties.
Whilst there are invariably innocent casualties when you fight
wars in urban areas, it's difficult to call this 'indiscriminate'.
One could equally argue that the militants (be they Islamic
inspired, Baath or perhaps both) are not only indiscriminate, but
deliberately target non combatants.
I find it interesting that they scream about the prisoner abuse
at Abu Ghraib whilst sawing the heads off various non combatant
prisoners of their own.
Not at all excusing the excesses of the guards and interrogators,
such things are no longer acceptable to western society.
Again, it seems the militants have no such scruples.
One of the problems is that western civilisation generally
values life, even that of an individual, whereas the militants,
seem to view it as just a weakness of ours that can be exploited.
It is about piles of dead bodies.
War usually is.
I would not go so far to say that the US media were that worried about
dead
civilians. None of the major US media logged a sustained series of
questions
re: any bombing in Iraq or Afghanistan, regardless of who did it or didn't
do it.
It's probably fair to say that the car bombs and the like are not the work
of
the Iraqi Army or Police or the US and/or other allied forces there.
It was usually left to the European media to follow-up and reveal one
'determination' or another. Generally speaking the media in the US are
entirely indifferent to the plight of Iraqi and Afghan civilians.
Mmmm, make it 'somewhat indifferent' and I'll buy it.
After all, they will use a good sob story about some poor crippled
or burned kid quite readily.
Er, by the way, I'm not American.
Geoff in Oz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
03 Oct 2004 11:32:48 PM |
|
|
Gregory a écrit:
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2s99fhF1h32u9U1@uni-berlin.de...
"jha_amin" <jha_amin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33b7880.0410021710.4fcae3ee@posting.google.com...
Thanks for a well thought out and reasonable reply. (not what i was
expecting) ;)
Oh? Ok, you are welcome.
What you say makes perfect sense in a "sane" world, but that sanity is
ebbing fast.
mmmm, or it could be seen as being too politically correct.
90+ years ago it was quite reasonable for the British to bomb a village
that
had 'misbehaved' into rubble in Mesopotamia. No whinging about collateral
damage etc, just blow the whole thing off the map. do it today and there
are
screams of outrage from all directions. Please note that the Islamics
have
no
such scruples and will kill indiscriminately.
The 'Christianics' (if we are being emotive) are also killing
indiscriminately.
***** lies.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
03 Oct 2004 11:04:20 PM |
|
|
Bah, however hard you try to kiss Iran's *****, they are still ferociously
pursuing the commitment of their crime. And their sanction has to be
imminent, this year, otherwise... they will make hell on earth.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40723
Note, we could bomb them out of muslimdom! ;-)
J.
The CO a écrit:
"jha_amin" <jha_amin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33b7880.0410021710.4fcae3ee@posting.google.com...
Thanks for a well thought out and reasonable reply. (not what i was
expecting) ;)
Oh? Ok, you are welcome.
What you say makes perfect sense in a "sane" world, but that sanity is
ebbing fast.
mmmm, or it could be seen as being too politically correct.
90+ years ago it was quite reasonable for the British to bomb a village that
had 'misbehaved' into rubble in Mesopotamia. No whinging about collateral
damage etc, just blow the whole thing off the map. do it today and there
are
screams of outrage from all directions. Please note that the Islamics have
no
such scruples and will kill indiscriminately.
There is no guarantee that other muslim nations have not managed to
purchase a few items down at the coroner "nukes'r us" store.
Highly unlikely. Osama Bin Laden, before he became notoriously noticed
after Sept 11, had made numerous attempts splashing large amounts of money
(which he had at that time) around in an attempt to do exactly that from
sources
(mostly) in the former SU. He was unable to obtain anything significantly
useful.
I seriously doubt any current attempts in the hightened awareness that has
been
pretty much global against such things could succeed. I'd say the most
likely
scenario for nuclear material would be the use of high level waste in a
'dirty'
bomb of some kind. Frankly, I think it more likely that the real risk is
from
biological agents, which are much easier to obtain, process and manufacture
in medical facilities that most nations would have.
As you
infer, an adversary with nuclear missiles is an altogether different
proposition and the nation first struck with a nuke will feel
perfectly justified in returning in like manner tenfold.
Assumption is that *both* nations have nukes. Iran does not.
All Israel has to do is stop them getting them, and this is well within
the capability of conventional weapons.
In the post WW2 era, the US/UK had the monopoly on nuclear weapons and
went to extraordinary lengths to prevent the SU from developing them,
however
the SU had a huge military industrial complex and access to the raw
materials and
the knowledge that it *could* be done.
Iran has some of the resources, and probably has the scientific knowledge,
however
the enriched uranium needs to be produced and it's highly unlikely Israel
will let that
happen.
Consider this hypothetical:
The US continued to devolp nuclear weapons during the 50's/60's AND
used overt or covert means to destroy the SU's nuclear reactors and weapons
development facilities BEFORE they got it to work and/or built a stockpile
of
weapons and delivery systems.
The US would have had the ability to destroy the SU with
it having no effective means of retaliation.
This is what Israel is doing. They attacks on the Iraqi nuclear facility
may well have prevented Saddam from getting a nuke or two.
The same policy applied to Iran would doubtless do the same.
And where
will it stop.
I think my point is that the way to win the game is not to play, or
more correctly, limit the players to one. This is Israel's strategy.
The US seems committed to preventing rogue states like Iran from
obtaining nuclear weapons, which strikes me as a good idea.
North Korea may or may not have nuclear weapons, I consider them
more likely to be a serious threat of a nuclear exchange (limited to the
Korean peninsula and probably parts of Japan) than the Middle East.
The CO
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
03 Oct 2004 11:31:27 PM |
|
|
Well, in fact the Iranians are still ferociously pursuing the
commitment of their crime. And their sanction has to be imminent, this
year, otherwise... they will make hell on earth.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40723
Note, we could bomb them out of muslimdom!
J.
(sorry I hadn't read your post properly the first time)
The CO a écrit:
"jha_amin" <jha_amin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33b7880.0410021710.4fcae3ee@posting.google.com...
Thanks for a well thought out and reasonable reply. (not what i was
expecting) ;)
Oh? Ok, you are welcome.
What you say makes perfect sense in a "sane" world, but that sanity is
ebbing fast.
mmmm, or it could be seen as being too politically correct.
90+ years ago it was quite reasonable for the British to bomb a village that
had 'misbehaved' into rubble in Mesopotamia. No whinging about collateral
damage etc, just blow the whole thing off the map. do it today and there
are
screams of outrage from all directions. Please note that the Islamics have
no
such scruples and will kill indiscriminately.
There is no guarantee that other muslim nations have not managed to
purchase a few items down at the coroner "nukes'r us" store.
Highly unlikely. Osama Bin Laden, before he became notoriously noticed
after Sept 11, had made numerous attempts splashing large amounts of money
(which he had at that time) around in an attempt to do exactly that from
sources
(mostly) in the former SU. He was unable to obtain anything significantly
useful.
I seriously doubt any current attempts in the hightened awareness that has
been
pretty much global against such things could succeed. I'd say the most
likely
scenario for nuclear material would be the use of high level waste in a
'dirty'
bomb of some kind. Frankly, I think it more likely that the real risk is
from
biological agents, which are much easier to obtain, process and manufacture
in medical facilities that most nations would have.
As you
infer, an adversary with nuclear missiles is an altogether different
proposition and the nation first struck with a nuke will feel
perfectly justified in returning in like manner tenfold.
Assumption is that *both* nations have nukes. Iran does not.
All Israel has to do is stop them getting them, and this is well within
the capability of conventional weapons.
In the post WW2 era, the US/UK had the monopoly on nuclear weapons and
went to extraordinary lengths to prevent the SU from developing them,
however
the SU had a huge military industrial complex and access to the raw
materials and
the knowledge that it *could* be done.
Iran has some of the resources, and probably has the scientific knowledge,
however
the enriched uranium needs to be produced and it's highly unlikely Israel
will let that
happen.
Consider this hypothetical:
The US continued to devolp nuclear weapons during the 50's/60's AND
used overt or covert means to destroy the SU's nuclear reactors and weapons
development facilities BEFORE they got it to work and/or built a stockpile
of
weapons and delivery systems.
The US would have had the ability to destroy the SU with
it having no effective means of retaliation.
This is what Israel is doing. They attacks on the Iraqi nuclear facility
may well have prevented Saddam from getting a nuke or two.
The same policy applied to Iran would doubtless do the same.
And where
will it stop.
I think my point is that the way to win the game is not to play, or
more correctly, limit the players to one. This is Israel's strategy.
The US seems committed to preventing rogue states like Iran from
obtaining nuclear weapons, which strikes me as a good idea.
North Korea may or may not have nuclear weapons, I consider them
more likely to be a serious threat of a nuclear exchange (limited to the
Korean peninsula and probably parts of Japan) than the Middle East.
The CO
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Ullman" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
02 Oct 2004 08:29:13 PM |
|
|
In article <33b7880.0410021710.4fcae3ee@posting.google.com>,
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) wrote:
There is no guarantee that other muslim nations have not managed to
purchase a few items down at the coroner "nukes'r us" store. As you
infer, an adversary with nuclear missiles is an altogether different
proposition and the nation first struck with a nuke will feel
perfectly justified in returning in like manner tenfold. And where
will it stop.
I am not so sure, at least as a knee jerk. It is generally
recognized that these are non-state actors and I doubt we would
really nuke a country unless they could be shown to have actually
helped tranship it or gave the material and/or finished product.
Even then I think most (including the US) would be more likely to
just declare open season on the top tiers of the government than
turn any place into a parking lot and sending in the Marines to
paint the stripes. (1)
(1). To sorta bring it on topic in the clancy NG.
--
"Salary is the only biological variable which peaks
after the age of 25. Somebody once suggested female libido is another
but I completely reject that because female libido and salary are
not independent variables."
Dr. Neil Barnes
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred J. McCall" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
01 Oct 2004 08:22:38 PM |
|
|
(jha_amin) wrote:
:How many nukes do you think it would take before the world suffers the
:consequences?
Hundreds, if not thousands. And what, precisely, do you think "the
consequences" amount to?
:Israel is VERY close to their would be targets. The
:winds would spread the poison.
So the Israeli cancer rates go up by a few people per hundred
thousand. This is not Armageddon we're talking about here.
:Nukes are pretty much the fruit of jewish endeavors from cradle to
:grave and they will be the undoing of the tribe of israel.
Oh, I see. You're just another bigot. Got it now.
<plonk>
--
"This philosophy of hate, of religious and racial intolerance,
with its passionate urge toward war, is loose in the world.
It is the enemy of democracy; it is the enemy of all the
fruitful and spiritual sides of life. It is our responsibility,
as individuals and organizations, to resist this."
-- Mary Heaton Vorse
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
02 Oct 2004 11:47:26 AM |
|
|
jha_amin a écrit:
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<2s5hhpF1godojU1@uni-berlin.de>...
"jha_amin" <jha_amin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33b7880.0409271154.771843c@posting.google.com...
The rest of the world will suffer a similar fate.
You mess with one muslim country, you mess with them all. They may hate
each other but their hate for israel is trump.
Trump eh? I'll see their 'hate for Israel' and raise them a dozen Gabriel
missiles with nuclear warheads....
As for the rest of the world suffering a similar fate, can you see ICBM and
MIRV?
Now *that's* a trump.....
The CO
How many nukes do you think it would take before the world suffers the
consequences? Israel is VERY close to their would be targets. The
winds
would spread the poison.
Whatsoever a man sows, that will he also reap applies to nations also.
Nukes are pretty much the fruit of jewish endeavors from cradle to
grave and they will be the undoing of the tribe of israel.
Of course. the one that used the destructive power of nuclear weaponry
would have no exemption.
Bah, Israel, like any of the former Nuclear nations, would never use
nukes to prevent the making of eventual nukes. They will make sure the
fanatic nations who would won't though. But not with nukes. They got a
big order of special cluster bombs, likely for that purpose, from the
US, last week. :-)
So let's hope diplomacy works.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
04 Oct 2004 03:57:24 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:yYA7d.10260$223.266@edtnps89...
jha_amin a écrit:
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<2s5hhpF1godojU1@uni-berlin.de>...
"jha_amin" <jha_amin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33b7880.0409271154.771843c@posting.google.com...
The rest of the world will suffer a similar fate.
You mess with one muslim country, you mess with them all. They may
hate
each other but their hate for israel is trump.
Trump eh? I'll see their 'hate for Israel' and raise them a dozen
Gabriel
missiles with nuclear warheads....
As for the rest of the world suffering a similar fate, can you see ICBM
and
MIRV?
Now *that's* a trump.....
The CO
How many nukes do you think it would take before the world suffers the
consequences? Israel is VERY close to their would be targets. The
winds
would spread the poison.
Whatsoever a man sows, that will he also reap applies to nations also.
Nukes are pretty much the fruit of jewish endeavors from cradle to
grave and they will be the undoing of the tribe of israel.
Of course. the one that used the destructive power of nuclear weaponry
would have no exemption.
Bah, Israel, like any of the former Nuclear nations, would never use
nukes to prevent the making of eventual nukes. They will make sure the
fanatic nations who would won't though. But not with nukes. They got a
big order of special cluster bombs
You fucking idiot. Do you know what a cluster bomb is you hopeless, yellow,
bedwetting dope addict pissant?
for that purpose, from the
US, last week. :-)
LOL! Yeah, cluster bombs are just the weapon for penetrating hardened
concrete aren't they?
So let's hope diplomacy works.
YOu are a fucking idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
04 Oct 2004 11:37:46 AM |
|
|
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:yYA7d.10260$223.266@edtnps89...
jha_amin a écrit:
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<2s5hhpF1godojU1@uni-berlin.de>...
"jha_amin" <jha_amin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33b7880.0409271154.771843c@posting.google.com...
The rest of the world will suffer a similar fate.
You mess with one muslim country, you mess with them all. They may
hate
each other but their hate for israel is trump.
Trump eh? I'll see their 'hate for Israel' and raise them a dozen
Gabriel
missiles with nuclear warheads....
As for the rest of the world suffering a similar fate, can you see ICBM
and
MIRV?
Now *that's* a trump.....
The CO
How many nukes do you think it would take before the world suffers the
consequences? Israel is VERY close to their would be targets. The
winds
would spread the poison.
Whatsoever a man sows, that will he also reap applies to nations also.
Nukes are pretty much the fruit of jewish endeavors from cradle to
grave and they will be the undoing of the tribe of israel.
Of course. the one that used the destructive power of nuclear weaponry
would have no exemption.
Bah, Israel, like any of the former Nuclear nations, would never use
nukes to prevent the making of eventual nukes. They will make sure the
fanatic nations who would won't though. But not with nukes. They got a
big order of special cluster bombs
You fucking idiot. Do you know what a cluster bomb is you
I know it isn't a nuke, dumbo.
J.
[snip what tw sees in the mirror every day when the mirror doesn't
crack, bit is too chickenshit to admit it applies only to him]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred J. McCall" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
26 Sep 2004 06:26:06 PM |
|
|
(Thelasian) wrote:
Text that reveals him as just another religious bigot.
<plonk>
--
"This philosophy of hate, of religious and racial intolerance,
with its passionate urge toward war, is loose in the world.
It is the enemy of democracy; it is the enemy of all the
fruitful and spiritual sides of life. It is our responsibility,
as individuals and organizations, to resist this."
-- Mary Heaton Vorse
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
29 Sep 2004 04:13:28 PM |
|
|
Thelasian a écrit:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) wrote in message news:<33b7880.0409251840.4347e2ed@posting.google.com>...
Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<a92bl0l0q9d3lgv6alnhaqpk7e34c0uo1d@4ax.com>...
unclewallysworld@yahoo.ca (Uncle Wally's World) wrote:
:If Iran were to be attacked by "bunker-busters" from Israel, I'm afraid
:that the 'gloves would be off' between the Islamic world & the jews --
:the jews would probably end up on the receiving end of Islamic rage
:all over the world....
You really need to learn something about the world before you make
silly statements like the preceding. Are you assuming that somehow
Iran is considered the leader of the Muslim world? Are you assuming
that there *is* a monolithic 'Muslim world'?
As far as israel is concerned i think you could say there *is* a
monolithic muslim world. Their intent being to destroy the jews
Israel is not the victim. Israel is the aggressor:
*****.
J.
Have you read Benny Morris's
Righteous Victims or the Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (if
not go to Amazon.com and do so)
In the meantime, read what Benny Morris had to say about it in his
interview with Ari Shavit, which appeared in Haaretz, where he admits
that ethnic cleansing occurred by Israel, and then being a good
Zionist, he tries to justify it as "breaking a few eggs":
Q According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were
perpetrated in 1948?
"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in
others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of
arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they
are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot.
There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron
region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing
and killed anything that moved.
The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod
(250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no
unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes
were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which
nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the
north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram
[in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun,
Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram
there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people
against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.
That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who
took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they
received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the
population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished
for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered
up for the officers who did the massacres."
Q What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in
Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion
order. Is that right?
"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948,
the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in
writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population.
Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the
Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this
order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the
city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately
after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July
1948]."
Q Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a
deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?
"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer.
There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly
comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population]
transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership
understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what
is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is
created."
Q Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?
"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there
could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its
midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."
Q I don't hear you condemning him.
"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would
not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to
evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state
would not have arisen here.
Q Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of
Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do
you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of
1948?
"There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification
for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions,
expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of
1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.
You have to dirty your hands."
http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred J. McCall" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran's Nuclear Reactors |
25 Sep 2004 10:06:37 PM |
|
|
(jha_amin) wrote:
:Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<a92bl0l0q9d3lgv6alnhaqpk7e34c0uo1d@4ax.com>...
:> (Uncle Wally's World) wrote:
:>
:> :If Iran were to be attacked by "bunker-busters" from Israel, I'm afraid
:> :that the 'gloves would be off' between the Islamic world & the jews --
:> :the jews would probably end up on the receiving end of Islamic rage
:> :all over the world....
:>
:> You really need to learn something about the world before you make
:> silly statements like the preceding. Are you assuming that somehow
:> Iran is considered the leader of the Muslim world? Are you assuming
:> that there *is* a monolithic 'Muslim world'?
:
:As far as israel is concerned i think you could say there *is* a
:monolithic muslim world. Their intent being to destroy the jews and
:visa versa. Unfortunately throughout history the jews have been the
:ones who have ended up being nearly destroyed.
You could certainly say that. After all, you can say pretty much
anything. What you can't do is make it true.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
