This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Israel Knesset Member Declares "We Are Preparing For War"
In an interview by Likud Knesset Member Danny Danon, speaking with WND senior reporter Aaron Klein, who hosts an investigative program on New York's WABC 770 AM Radio, the Israeli said that "Israel is preparing for a time of war...We are ready for all scenarios, and we are able to defend our civilian population. I cannot tell you how long we can wait more. But we prefer to wait and see if the international bodies are acting, or [whether] it will be only the burden of Israel, like it was in the early '80s, when the great leader, Menachem Begin, [made] the great decision to bomb the nuclear reactor in Iraq." He concluded: "We don't want this to be a war of Jews against Muslims. It should be a war of Western civilization [against] Iran." Good luck explaining that to 1.5 billion Muslims around the world.
From 77WABC Radio, specifically WND's Jerusalem Bureau:
While Israel is hoping for a peaceful resolution to Iran's nuclear ambitions, the Jewish state is also preparing for "a time of war," declared a Knesset member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ruling Likud party.
"We are prepared for all risks," said Likud Knesset Member Danny Danon. "And I think our enemies should know that even though we are speaking of peace, we are getting ready for a time of war, as well."
Danon, the deputy speaker of Israel's parliament, was speaking in a radio interview with WND senior reporter Aaron Klein, who hosts an investigative program on New York's WABC 770 AM Radio.
Danon hinted that Israel may take action if the world does not stop the Iranian nuclear threat, recalling Israel's lone strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981.
Stated Danon: "We are ready for all scenarios, and we are able to defend our civilian population. I cannot tell you how long we can wait more. But we prefer to wait and see if the international bodies are acting, or [whether] it will be only the burden of Israel, like it was in the early '80s, when the great leader, Menachem Begin, [made] the great decision to bomb the nuclear reactor in Iraq."
Despite his assertion that Jerusalem is preparing to act alone, Danon stressed that Iran is an international concern. He called on the Western world to "take action" against Iran's suspected illicit nuclear program.
"I think we have to take action," he said. "It's about time to take action. It should be the international world and not only Israel. And I expect the administration in the White House to wake up as soon as possible."
Danon said he is concerned the international community has not been forceful enough in its policies toward Iran.
"What we see today is that the Russians, the Americans, the Europeans all say they are worried about Iran becoming nuclear, but in fact Iran is working full ahead, and it's only a matter of months or a year before they will be reaching the point of no return," he said.
Danon stated that any future military confrontation against Iran "should be an international effort."
"We don't want this to be a war of Jews against Muslims. It should be a war of Western civilization [against] Iran," he said.
"The threat of Iran becoming nuclear is a threat for the people who live in the U.S., Europe and Israel." he said. "No one can guarantee that Iran will use its power only against Israel."
And with that, we look forward to another stock meltup tomorrow.
The full interview can be heard after the jump.
»
- 24368 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Iran wants nukes - let's give them some of ours. About 50 well placed should do the trick nicely. Now if we only had someone with balls in the White House.
The United States National Intelligence Estimate states that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. You'll need a better excuse in calling for mass murder of innocent people.
Since when the US needs an excuse for that?
Didn't Russia just give Iran the capability to turn that reactor on? sounds like someone is getting played like a fittle in this scheme...
True, anyone care to comment on what Russia's angle is on this? Do they benifit from a interdicted straight of hormuz? Its a big ploy just to increase oil prices 15%.
Hussman is out talking about a dollar collapse
http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc100823.htm
But then you have Taylor on the other side... Don't think Hussman will get it right on this one. Yes, fundamentally, more QE should slaughter the greenback, but right now (in bizarro world) further QE would probably scare the shite out of everything and cause the dollar to go up. Remember, even if the FED blows, it still has more control that the ECB.
JUST remember you war ponies....DRAFT BITCHEZ....hell I might just re-enlist. Just to modify your sweet young ass into something you can never escape from again....in your sorry mortal trading electrons to get ahead life's.
Skippy...all your action movies, G street shit, trespass of social taboo, jerking off mates under the influence of shit, screwing drunk chicks, MMA/Ultimate fag fighting, Bruno shit will seem like a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R11x32WoxrM&feature=related
PS. Not too worry...Mommy will still love you, Dahmer's did.
Larry Summers & Co. are doing to the US what they have done to Harvard, namely, nepotism, corruption and financial ruin. It is about time the US follows Harvard's struggle for life and cut loose the gangrenous malinvestments, starting with shorting all Israeli positions.
Sooner or later the World will have to secure the nukes in the hands of the Israeli death-cultists, so let's take the judeo-cons for their word, and "bring democracy" to the whole of the ME, starting with Rothschildistan.
Egad! Will someone catch the world distributors of Stupid Pills and kill them?!
The U.S. Withdrawal and Limited Options in Iraq
http://israelfinancialexpert.blogspot.com/2010/08/guest-post-us-withdrawal-and-limited.html
As Tensions between Israel and Turkey Grow, Israel and Greece Tighten Their Defense Relations
Good night, all.
This is now the Russians' problem. Let them deal with it. After all, its on their border.
Stop policing the world and the world will stop spitting at your back. Let the Israelis tie their own shoes.
It takes two to tango, and the bellicose Iranian dictator thinks he can dance.
Yes, Worldnet Daily is suspect. So is DEBKA and all the links to such objective sites as jewsdrinkblood.com, shown by racists. But it makes for a lively discussion.
Sweet jesus this is ridiculous.
Man......War is NOT what we need more of. I am all for crushing an enemy if the rationale is righteous, but if Israel drops a single bomb in Iran, the disparate tribes WILL come together to aid Iran. None of the Arab countries like Israel, and an attack ion Iran will unite them in a common cause.
WW III
I just published an article on the neo-cons and Iran, love to get some feedback from the folks here, thanks http://www.thecactusland.com/2010/08/banging-drums-of-war-iran-and-neo-c...
Banging the Drum of War: Iran and the Neo-cons | Robert Bonomo | Cactus Land | August 21, 2010
All the Usual Suspects
Recently, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, Norman Podhoretz of Commentary, Charles Krauthammer of The Washinton Post, Bill Kristol from the The Weekly Standard and Thomas Friedman of The New York Times have all clamored for an attack on Iran. The debate has been shaped. Do we or don’t we attack Iran in order to destroy or delay their supposed nuclear weapons program.
All the usual suspects that hyped a war in Iraq which was started on false precepts and lies. Here are some excerpts from their new project.
Kristol (The Weekly Standard)
“In a speech to the House of Commons in late 1936, Winston Churchill warned, “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”
Podhoretz (Commentary)
“It now remains to be seen whether this President,… will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.”
Goldberg (The Atlantic)
“..a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people.”
Krauthammer (The Washington Post)
“..Iran, which is frantically enriching uranium to make a bomb, and which our own State Department identifies as the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world.”
Friedman (The New York Times 2008)
On how Obama should deal with Iran "a Dick Cheney standing over his right shoulder, quietly pounding a baseball bat into his palm."
Consequences
There is a question we must ask before even beginning to discuss the Iranian nuclear problem. Why do we allow the same people who fought the ideological battle for the invasion of Iraq to continue to shape American foreign policy? From reading these gentlemen’s pieces you would think the Iraq war were a great success. Instead, it's the largest foreign policy blunder in our history. One would expect these journalists to be shunned and stripped of their soapboxes considering the tremendous amount of blood they have on their hands. Let us not forget the consequences of this tragic, unprovoked war.
Iraqi Civilian Causalities - 97,176 est.
US Military Causalities - 4,415
Iraqi Military Causalities - 15,000 est.
Total Dead 116,591
This of course does not include wounded, homeless, the millions of Iraqi refugees or the $749 billion that the war in Iraq has cost so far.
It's fascinating that one of the biggest debates we have today is not how we allowed AIPAC and the neo-cons to manipulate the 9/11 tragedy into what many see as a proxy war for Israel. On the contrary, now a new war campaign has begun with the banging of the drum for more bombing, death and destruction. This begs the question, are their any consequences for American journalists? If you tend not to agree with the special relationship between Israel and the United States there are.
When a journalists like Helen Thomas clearly states that she is anti-Zionist and does not believe Israel has the right to create Jewish state in the midst of a land historically occupied by Palestinians, she is banished, at the age of 89. Of course, her choice of words was unfortunate, but in most cases a grateful country will give one of its most trailblazing journalists a break for a poorly worded statement made at a very advanced age. But not Helen Thomas. Ari Fleisher took time off from representing Tiger Woods and Mark Magwire to lobby hard to have her fired.
Lets not forget some of Ari’s statements on Iraq.
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003
"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
If someone was to call for the head of Helen Thomas, maybe a person with a little less blood on their hands might have been more appropriate.
Octavia Nasr was CNN's Senior Middle East News Editor and had worked for the network for 20 years. When Sayyed Mohammed Hussein, a very influential and beloved religious Shiite figure died, she made the mistake of making this very controversial Tweet "Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah . . . . One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot." She was fired within days.
Framing the Debate
What's most amazing about the ideological support for an attack on Iran is how we have not even begun to debate how and why we went into Iraq. During the 1970’s the United States went through a deep and painful period of introspection regarding Vietnam. Mysteriously, the debate on Iraq has simply morphed into a debate on Iran. Where is the national dispute on how, why, and who is to blame for this deadly, devastating debacle?
In a fascinating study done by Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris, subjects are asked to watch a short video of a group people passing a basketball between them and are told to count the number of passes. A person dressed in a gorilla suit walks through the screen. After the test, the subjects are asked if they saw anything out the ordinary. Amazingly, 50% of the subjects did not see the gorilla. By concentrating on what they are told to look at, they are blind to the gorilla.
The sacred cows, or taboos, are the gorillas. Our media, politicians, and academics tell us to watch the ball (bombings, surges, draw downs, new generals, old generals, what Obama says, what Limbaugh says, what Biden says, what Fox says, what CNN says) but what we should focus on is what they don’t say. What they don’t mention is precisely the gorilla. And the gorilla in this case is the special relationship with Israel. When it is brought up, we are told to focus on another ball. As soon as someone asks the very simple question. Why are we supporting Israel? What do we get out of it? They are told to look at the ball called anti-Semitism.
The real debate, the logical debate, is off limits. That is why we can’t really talk about why we went into Iraq in the first place. When anyone begins to connect the dots: Neo-Cons, AIPAC, Israel, The Project for a New America, it becomes clear that this war was a gross manipulation of the fear caused by 9/11 in an effort to somehow marry Israel’s foreign policy goals with America’s. But no major media outlet ever broaches the taboo. From Fox to CNN, from The New York Times to The New Republic, The New Yorker to the Weekly Standard, Obama to Palin, all agree; America must have a special relationship with Israel. Our foreign policy is obliged to ensure the safety and well being of the Jewish state. (see The End of the Republic ). The real problem for the Republic is not even what our foreign policy is, the real cancer is that there is no debate at all about it's single most important premise.
Ahmadinejad
Admadinejad is certainly an unsavory character, and his holocaust denying, the political repression, hangings and anti-Semitic rants are pitiful and abhorrent. But then again, the United States has no moral footing to question Iran’s democratic credentials after the CIA orchestrated a coup to overthrow the the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953.
The western media has made much of the opposition movement to Ahmadinejad but few have really investigated who won the elections there.
“Though widely ignored by the major American news media, a recent study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland found little evidence to support allegations of fraud, nor to conclude that most Iranians view President Ahmadinejad as illegitimate.
IPA analyzed multiple polls of the Iranian public from three different sources, including some before the June 12 election and some afterwards. The study found that in all the polls, a majority said they planned to vote for Ahmadinejad or had voted for him. The numbers ranged from 52 to 57 percent just before the election to 55 to 66 percent after the election.”
What is the threat to the United States if Iran gets a nuclear weapon? The most pessimistic predictions for a Iran to have a fully operational weapon are at least three years. A deal was worked out between Turkey, Brasil and Iran in which to Erdogan and Lula da Silva convinced Ahmadinejad to agree a deal originally proposed by the Obama administration to ship 2,640 pounds of Iran’s low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for higher-enriched uranium that could only be used for peaceful medical uses.
When the deal was announced, Washington and the neo-con media were not happy. Friedman in the New York Times.
“I confess that when I first saw the May 17 picture of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, joining his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, with raised arms — after their signing of a putative deal to defuse the crisis over Iran’s nuclear weapons program — all I could think of was: Is there anything uglier than watching democrats sell out other democrats to a Holocaust-denying, vote-stealing Iranian thug just to tweak the U.S. and show that they, too, can play at the big power table?
“No, that’s about as ugly as it gets.”
I wonder if Mr. Friedman has looked at any photographs from Iraq lately?
Washington also balked. Hillary Clinton “Every step of the way has demonstrated clearly to the world that Iran is not participating in the international arena in the way that we had asked them to do and that they continued to pursue their nuclear program,”
So what is the real agenda? A negotiated deal or regime change. The similarities to Iraq are striking but no alarms are going off. Why?
The most important discussion should be what is the threat to the United States if Iran gets a nuclear weapon three years from now.
Israel’s Nukes
Israel has close to 100 nuclear weapons stored at its Dimona facility yet no American president has ever publicly mentioned Israel’s nuclear weapons. At the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the final statement criticized Israel for not joining the Non Proliferation Treaty. The double standard rose its ugly head. Obama’s statement at the close of the treaty.
The United States has long supported such a [nuclear-free Middle East] zone, although our view is that a comprehensive and durable peace in the region and full compliance by all regional states with their arms control and nonproliferation obligations are essential precursors for its establishment. We strongly oppose efforts to single out Israel, and will oppose actions that jeopardize Israel’s national security,”
But Israel is different, they would never proliferate nuclear weapons, they are America’s best friend, the only democracy in the Middle East. Well, they are a democracy if you weren’t born in what is now Israel as a Palestinian. The Guardian reported recently on how declassified apartheid era documents show that Israel tried to sell nuclear weapons to South Africa. “Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state's possession of nuclear weapons."
Interesting to see the spin the story was given in The New York Times.
Israel Denies It Offered South Africa Warheads
JERUSALEM — The office of Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, strongly denied Monday that Mr. Peres, as Israel’s defense minister, offered to sell nuclear warheads to South Africa in 1975, as reported by The Guardian.
Hard to make that case that Iran is the evil one if Israel is proliferating nuclear weapons to apartheid regimes.
The Real Debate
Instead of debating the pros and cons of another war against a country that has done us no harm, nor has said it will, we should focus on why we are so entangled in the Middle East in the first place.
Is it oil? Less than 17% of US oil imports come from the Middle East, and only Saudi Arabia represents an important part of our oil needs.
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country May-10
CANADA 1,997
MEXICO 1,290
SAUDI ARABIA 1,093
VENEZUELA 1,011
NIGERIA 1,004
ANGOLA 423
IRAQ 394
RUSSIA 358
ALGERIA 352
BRAZIL 312
COLOMBIA 295
KUWAIT 219
ECUADOR 160
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) 89
NORWAY 78
Finding new sources for 17% of our imported oil through diplomacy, alternative energies and improved efficiency seems like a much more practical strategy than ‘bringing democracy’ to the Middle East.
The other argument is that Israel is America’s best ally, the only democracy in the Middle East. American foreign policy has never put a big premium on democracy ie Chile, Iran, Guatemala, Cuba. United States foreign policy always has been about its own interests. Israel’s military is ranked 11th in the world, yet they are ranked 40th in GDP, so it is safe to say they are armed to the teeth as well as having a massive nuclear arsenal.
It is strange to think that Israel receives around $3 billion in US aid per year when they have a per capita GDP of around $30,000, almost the same as Italy. Could you imagine the uproar if Nancy Pelosi and Rudy Guliani somehow finagled sending Italy $3 billion a year in aid? Israel does not need American foreign aid or military aid. They are a wealthy country with an extremely potent military.
So why does the US spend so much of its foreign policy capital on Israel? The US population is less the 2% Jewish, the vast majority of which have no roots in Israel. The two main culprits are AIPAC and the neo-cons. The power of AIPAC is frightening.
“In the latest spat between Jerusalem and Washington, AIPAC wrote a letter “implicitly rebuking the Obama Administration for its confrontational stance toward Israel.” It was signed by 76 Senators (33 Democrats) who normally can’t agree on the time of day.”
And the US media is incapable of openly questioning the ‘special relationship’. No major newspaper or media outlet has a columnist who consistently calls for an end to US support for Israel and the beginning of new, neutral relationship. As a nation, the US must ask itself what it gets in return for fighting the war in Iraq and using its foreign policy capital on issues like Iran instead of focusing on Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia.
The bottom line is not about being a Zionist or anti-Zionist. If American Zionists want to send their money to Israel and send the sons and daughters to fight for Israel, that is their right. But when a small group manipulates American media and foreign policy so that American troops kill and our killed to carry out a Zionist agenda, then there is a problem.
Just as Helen Thomas and Octavia Nasr where run out of their jobs for the great damage their words caused, it's time voices where raised calling for the same treatment for the war mongers at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Weekly Standard, The Atlantic and Commentary. The same can be said for AIPAC.
An amazingly frank example of the power the Israeli government has over our foreign policy came in early 2009 as the Israeli attack on Gaza raged. The US was going to vote, along with the other members of the UN Security Council for a a cease fire resolution that Condelezza Rice had helped draft. In a very candid speech, Isreali Prime Minister Ehud Olmert described what happened next, as reported in The New York Times.
"In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour," Mr Olmert said "I said 'get me President Bush on the phone'. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now'. He got off the podium and spoke to me. "I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour... She was left pretty embarrassed.”
She abstained, the only abstention on the Security Council. It's almost inconcievable to imagine the uproar if Sarkozy, Tony Blair, or any other ally ever said this to the press. It would be world news. Fodder for columnists, politicians, and even comics. Amazingly, this is not a well known or even talked about event.
Logic seems to have been lost. Those who shout the truth are branded as mad, and those who cry for more madness are considered sane.
"MUCH madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
’T is the majority
In this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain." --Emily Dickinson
http://www.thecactusland.com/2010/08/banging-drums-of-war-iran-and-neo-c...
Israel proves it's insanity every day, like the shooting this weekend of a 22 year old Gazan fisherman, errr "terrorist":
http://www.presstv.com/detail/139578.html
Do those that support Israel have any recent content or proof of it being "a light unto nations" as they bill themselves? I just can't find anything that suggests Israel is something other than a terrorist state! Please help.
we have big noses because the air is free, now go get your shine box.
http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2010/08/iran-launches-ambassador-o...
And oh yeah, got gold and FOFOA, bitchez...
That's 300 undeclared nuclear warheads talking. Wall Street and The City of London thank you for the impending sacrifice of your sons and daughters.
Russia , China , Iran has the " Sunburn Missle "
This alone is a game changer .. they now can
take out our Navy..
Google >>> Sunburn Missle
The following news item demonstrates how the Obama Administration just wants to say they are trying to get the two sides together for peace talks. Fatah has become a US/Israel mouthpiece. The Palestinians are divided because most Palestinians are not interested in surrender. The Democrats want to have this aura of hope based on lies to try to hold their seats in Congress come November. “Gentlemen may cry, peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!”
It’s just one more election-year fraud:
The Palestinian Hamas movement has indefinitely postponed a meeting with Fatah leaders over the Palestinian Authority's decision to resume direct talks with Israel.| Press TV | Aug. 23, 2010
Senior Hamas official Selah al-Bradawil said the decision has "made it too difficult" for his Islamic movement to meet with Fatah officials, Ma'an news agency reported.
The meeting, called by democratically elected Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh was scheduled for Saturday evening in Gaza City and was to discuss a unity deal to span divisions between the two rival movements which have stalled local and general elections.
On Friday, US Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton invited both Israelis and Palestinians to resume direct negotiations in Washington in early September.
Despite Israel's flat refusal to meet the Palestinian pre-condition of extending a 10-month freeze on its West Bank settlements, the Palestinian Authority accepted the US invitation.
Hamas along with a number of other Palestinian factions rejected Washington's "misleading" call and condemned the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority for yielding to US pressure.
Several factions within the Palestine Liberation Organization Palestinian also protested the move with many expecting a statement from the Middle East Peace Quartet to lay the foundations of peace talks.
But the quartet's communique -- released in parallel and in support of a US invitation to direct talks -- was not accepted by the US as a basis for negotiations, while Clinton saying no preconditions to talks would be applied.
http://www.presstv.com/detail/139748.html
You "paid to post" guys made alot of money today, huh?
If the Arabs and Iranians would recognize the state of Israel, a whole series of hopeful events would upfold.
The onus would be on Israel to discuss all issues on the table, right of return, land for peace, Gaza restrictions, West Bank settlements and a host of other things the Arabs and Iranians purport to want for the suffering Palestinians.
European state would rush in to provide any material or diplomatic support that might advance the negotiations.
The US would lean mightily on Israel to be forthcoming.
What would it cost the Arabs and Iranians to concede the existence of the state of Israel?
Israel cannot sit down to negotiate with states like Syria and Iran that do not recognize her existence.
Israel is eager to negotiate. She only desires to be allowed to exist in security.
The Arabs and Iranians could bring the blessings of peace to the Palestinians they profess to be in such distress for.
Why does the Mahdist Shiite totalitarian and baby Assad the butchers son resist recognition of Israel?
Iran wants Saudi Arabia to cringe and crumble and baby Assad wants to keep his hands around the throat of Lebanon.
They want peace but one without Israel.
Israel will not be destroyed.
If her enemies persist, they will be.
JR:
I just copied this piece of tripe attached below from your cactusland posting above.
Judging from your past postings, you seem to be unable to articulate any logical arguments of your own against Israel's alliance with the US (there are none) so you drag in this carcass that says things that agree with your world view but are A untrue and B illogical. Allow me to demonstrate:
"It is strange to think that Israel receives around $3 billion in US aid per year when they have a per capita GDP of around $30,000, almost the same as Italy. Could you imagine the uproar if Nancy Pelosi and Rudy Guliani somehow finagled sending Italy $3 billion a year in aid? Israel does not need American foreign aid or military aid. They are a wealthy country with an extremely potent military."
Response:
The conclusion to this paragraph is Illogical: the reason Israel has an extremely potent military is largely BECAUSE of US aid.
Before you rush out to dump your next carcass here, pause to reflect what I just did for you. You have had part of of your posting logically and factually debunked. That should require an honest mind to question the rest of this cactusland tripe closely before rushing ahead to render more.
Do you get it?
There is no economic, logical, ethical, legal or nationalistic reason to object to US aid to Israel.
If one thinks that the Children of Israel are in the land illegally, then there is every reason in the world to object to U.S. aid for those illegals. That attitude is logical. Whether it is correct as well as logical is determined by which standard you are going to measure it against - western culture or eastern culture.
As in all else, where you stand depends upon where you sit.
Do you get it francismarion? You are not going to convince someone who is coming from a whole different frame of reference than you are coming from. You are both correct, according to your own standards. The correctness of your position is not going to be what carries the day. The size of the guns is what has, and what will continue to, carry the day. Isn't that what saved the day for Gideon?
The law is nothing without force to back it up.
One: "If one thinks..."
Thought is based on either facts or fantasy, you can't have a black white dog. Legality is based on law. If you say Israel is there illegally, why?
The international law establishing Israel is unambiguous. Perhaps you are merely confused.
Two: As for changing minds. First you have to make your mind up. Not everyone has. That is why I am here. Some will never change. I recognize that. Others will. That is why I am here.
Three: Where do you stand Richard P? That is what I would like to know.
Four: Guns. Agree. Reality. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
Dear Jabotinsky-after-the-brainstroke, aka Francismarion,
Your soporific prose and cultist particularism could not persuade a 3rd grader.
At this juncture, you have to resign yourself to the fact that the Zionist position is morally bankrupt and, as such, all is left for you to do is hyperinflate the lies and do damage control.
So keep on preaching for the convert and for yourself while a post-Zionist world dawns on the rest of humanity. Too bad sunlight, logic and truth have a deadly effect on you.
... the Zionist position is morally bankrupt ...
Whose standards are we using to define moral? The West's, or the East's? Their definition of moral is not the same. Some think that the term moral can have meaning apart from God's law. Others think it has no meaning apart from God's law. Others will ask, which God are you talking about. Upshot, the term moral, or morality does not have the same meaning for everybody. Therefore, your use of the term in this situation is irrelevant because it is useless. You need to use more specific words to make your point.
A good way to start making your point would be to write a concise presentation that completes these sentences: Based on the standards of the West, the State of Israel should exist for the following reasons. Based on the standards of the East, the State of Israel should not exist, for the following reaons. You cannot use the phrase because the Zionists stole land that belonged to the Palestinians in your argument. Empire-building by stealing land from others has been going on since time began. That is the way the world works, and is not unique to the Palestinians.
francismarion - do you know who Gideon was and what he did (or didn't do, as the case may be)? I assumed you did. Reference to Gideon put my remarks in context.
Please re-read the first paragraph in my previous post to you. You stated there is no ... reason to object to aid to Israel. My response was, If you believe that the Children of Israel are in the land illegally ... objecting to U.S. aid is a logical thought. For context, understand that no country on earth has to accept that the laws of the U.S. or the U.N. are valid or universal.
I get the point about not everyone has made up their mind. The people you are responding to have made up their mind. That also was my point.
Where do I stand? If the Children of Israel are supposed to be back in the land of Canaan, they don't need the U.S. to protect them (see Gideon). I think that is also the point that the Bible makes. Other than that, I am interested in keeping the conversation on-topic and logical. That is the only way I can learn what the other side is thinking, and why. Propaganda is not so useful for learning. In this context, Shylockracy and others spread a lot of heat, but not much light.
JR: Here's another piece of your cactusland posting:
"Instead of debating the pros and cons of another war against a country that has done us no harm, nor has said it will, we should focus on why we are so entangled in the Middle East in the first place."
Response: Iran has done the US grevious and irreparable harm by causing the deaths and maimings of hundreds of US servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan by providing insurgent with sophisticated road side bombs and other arms; as well as sending agent provocateurs into the same areas to raise resistance to US efforts at pacification. Iran has raised an army in Yemen for the purpose of overthrowing the Yemeni and Saudi governments. Iran is sending shipments to Venezuela for the purpose of mounting attacks on the US. Iran is supplying arms and shock troops to Syria and Hamas in Lebanon.
This statement you found in cactusland is factually incorrect and it is obvious to anyone casually acquainted with the situation and even the most closed-minded observer will recognize that it is false.
Intended in this case specifically in regard to practitioners of Zionism from Herschel to the present day. Can also be applied to American "settlers" who followed the Old Testament as a guide for conquering Indian land.
Respect property rights, folks, and the blessings of liberty will multiply throughout the earth.
1. Not Indians, "First Nations".
2. First Nations' people's property rights were different, like with slavery and all. Their rights were based on conquest. According to their operational system, they were conquered, so a new regime of rights was legitimately established, according to their own system
3. Jews present in the area for 3500 years at least, continually.
4. "Americans" present in the land they claim for way less than that.
5.. Islam's claim on the land maybe 1700 years.
3500 > 1700
Thanks for such a great post and the review, I am totally impressed! Keep stuff like this coming!...
cheap site hosting
windows web hosting
windows vps hosting
windows vps