Israel ready to attack Iran?

[FinnAgain]

@Spoke

Who is threatening whom?

Count up the number of US soldiers that Iran killed at the marine barracks bombing and in the Khobar towers bombing.
Then count up the number of times the US has attacked Iran.
Then redefine the words “threatening” to mean “existing nearby” and “blowing soldiers up” to “minding their own business.”
Then we find that Iran is really the victim and has to be concerned about US aggression due to how much we’re threatening them after they’ve simply been minding their own business.

QED.

[RedFury]

@FinnAgain

…They may even become more entertaining; if anybody does do something about Iran’s nuclear weapons program we can at least see quite a few amusing tirades about how Iran’s government is pure as the driven snow and a global cabal of neocons and Jews are unfairly persecuting their innocent desire to have clean, non-polluting energy sources. Expect the words “Hamas”, “Hezbollah”, “Marine barracks” and “khobar towers” to appear not once.

No need when you have mainstream American politicians blabbering on like this:

Insane warmongering rhetoric

You think about an Iranian nuclear weapon. You think about the dangers, to Cleveland, or to Columbus, or to Cincinnati, or to New York,” Mr. Gingrich said. “Remember what it felt like on 9/11 when 3,100 Americans were killed. Now imagine an attack where you add two zeros. And it’s 300,000 dead. Maybe a half-million wounded. This is a real danger. This is not science fiction. That’s why I think it’s very important that we have the strongest possible national security.

– no mention, of course, what possibly methods Iran will use to deliver such devastating blows…or why they would…and with what.

It’s like 2003 all over again.

[Spoke]

@brazil84

I think what you are really trying to insinuate is that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons simply as a defensive measure against a possible US invasion; that if the US were to simply leave Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran would probably abandon its nuclear weapons program. Correct?

Yes and no. Yes, I think they want nukes as a deterrent. No, I don’t think they would abandon the program (assuming it exists) if the US quit Iraq and Afghanistan. (We are still capable of projecting force.)

I think the Ayatollahs are jackasses, but I think their apparent desire for nuclear weapons is entirely logical.

@FinnAgain

Count up the number of US soldiers that Iran killed at the marine barracks bombing and in the Khobar towers bombing.

Really? You want to hang your hat on events from 29 and 16 years ago respectively? Bombings not even carried out by Iranians? You are a determined grudge-holder, sir. Pardon me if a shiver doesn’t run down my spine.

George Bush named three members of the putative “Axis of Evil” in his speech. I’m sure it hasn’t escaped Iran’s notice that we invaded the country that didn’t have nuclear weapons (Iraq) and shipped rice to the one that did (N. Korea).

[FinnAgain]

@Spoke

You want to hang your hat on events from 29 and 16 years ago respectively?

Two events which show that even when Iran attacks the United States and murders hundreds of soldiers, we won’t attack them, and you still want to claim that we’re “threatening” them by simply having troops somewhere nearby? Yeah, that’s pretty clear as a refutation, your spine-shivering not withstanding.
You’re also obfuscating when you state that they weren’t carried out by Iranians, as they were planned, orchestrated, directed, funded and authorized by the Iranian government.

[Spoke]

@FinnAgain

You’re also obfuscating when you state that they weren’t carried out by Iranians, as they were planned, orchestrated, directed, funded and authorized by the Iranian government.

Sort of like Israel sponsors terroristic attacks in Iran by MEK? So then you think a military attack by Iran on Israel would be a fully-justified response, right?

[FinnAgain]

@Spoke

Sort of like Israel sponsors terroristic attacks in Iran by MEK?

Did you mean to link to another cite? That doesn’t describe terrorism, it describes assassinations of Iran’s nuclear scientists.

Even if it did describe terrorism, I suppose I’d have to do all the heavy lifting of pointing out that you’ve evidently immediately gone to a tu quoque fallacy in order to try to shift attention from the fact that the US is not only not threatening Iran, but hasn’t attacked Iran even after having a clear casus belli.

So if all you’ve got are factual errors and fallacies, perhaps it’s time for you to rethink your position, no?

[brazil84]

@Spoke

their apparent desire for nuclear weapons is entirely logical.

I agree. And it was also entirely logical for someone to break into my car in hopes of finding valuables. So what?

[RedFury]

The group, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, has long been designated as a terrorist group by the United States, accused of killing American servicemen and contractors in the 1970s and supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran before breaking with the Iranian mullahs in 1980.

Yeah. Good thing they are not terrorists. If they were, Israel obviously wouldn’t “work” with them. Like in murdering people and other trivial stuff like that.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@RedFury

Mebbe not this time. The combined Aipac/Israel hysterical propaganda campaign seems to be drawing more and more traction.

Bomb Iran? Nearly half of Americans say ‘yes’ to halt nuclear program.

Making progress for yet more bloodshed in the name of…who cares?

You think this AIPAC is responsible for the fact that so many Americans are concerned about Iran getting nukes?

Please explain how AIPAC has been more responsible for this feelings of animosity towards Iran than such things as the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran, the blowing up of 200+ American soldiers in Lebanon and the bombing of the Khobar Towers.

BTW, do you even know who’s the head of this organization you despise so much or even what his or her title is(President, Chairman, Executive Director etc.)?

[RedFury]

@Ibn_Warraq

You think this AIPAC is responsible for the fact that so many Americans are concerned about Iran getting nukes?

Please explain how AIPAC has been more responsible for this feelings of animosity towards Iran than such things as the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran, the blowing up of 200+ American soldiers in Lebanon and the bombing of the Khobar Towers.

BTW, do you even know who’s the head of this organization you despise so much or even what his or her title is(President, Chairman, Executive Director etc.)?

Not in the mood for submitting a “gotcha thesis” or taking on busywork for you. But thanks for offering anyway – I’ll be sure to give it all the consideration it deserves.

Cheers.

PS-And yeah, I know lots of “things.”

::: ominous sounds:::

[RedFury]

For shits & giggles: AIPAC-championed amendment pushes Obama into a corner on Iran

More fun reading:

Iran War: What Is AIPAC Planning?

These are strange times for those of us who follow the debate about a possible war with Iran. It is clear that the Israeli government and its neoconservative camp followers here in the United States are increasing pressure on President Obama to either attack Iran or let Israel do it (in which case, we would be forced to join in). But the idea of another Middle East war is so outlandish that it seems inconceivable it could actually occur.

Still the conventional wisdom holds that it can, and the main reason is that this is an election year and no one will say no to Binyamin Netanyahu in an election year.

War enthusiasm will rise to a fever pitch by March, when AIPAC holds its annual policy conference. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will, if past example holds, bring the crowd of 10,000 to its feet by depicting Iran as the new Nazi Germany and by coming very close to stating that only war can stop these new Nazis. Other speakers will say the same. The few who mention the idea of diplomacy will be met by stony silence.

<snip>

The goal of the “asks” is ensuring that Congress follow the script. Invariably at least one of these AIPAC goals will be put into legislative language and quickly pass both chambers of Congress. In fact, usually the “ask” is already in legislative form, so that the AIPAC citizen lobbyists can simply demand that their legislators sign on as co-sponsors (if they haven’t already done so). Once the AIPAC bill has the requisite number of co-sponsors, the House and Senate leadership brings it to the floor where it passes with few dissenters.

All hell breaks loose if a member of Congress objects.

One Member of Congress has actually described what happened when she voted no on an AIPAC “ask.” Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) refused to support a bill (opposed by the State Department) that would have essentially banned all U.S. contacts with Palestinians. AIPAC was not pleased with her recalcitrance.

In a letter to AIPAC executive director, Howard Kohr, McCollum described what happened next. In short, she was threatened by an AIPAC official from her district, called a terrorist supporter and warned that her behavior “would not be tolerated.” In response, McCollum told AIPAC not to come near her office again until it apologized.

McCollum was not, of course, the only legislator threatened that way. She is, however, the only one in memory who went public…

Much, much more at source…for those who care.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@RedFury

Not in the mood for submitting a “gotcha thesis” or taking on busywork for you. But thanks for offering anyway – I’ll be sure to give it all the consideration it deserves.

Cheers.

PS-And yeah, I know lots of “things.”

::: ominous sounds:::

How am I asking for a “gotcha thesis”?

I merely asked for you to explain in your own words how AIPAC has managed to convince 50% of all Americans to attack Iran and why you think AIPAC is more responsible for American animosity towards Iran than things like the storming of the American Embassy, the killing of over 200 Americans in Lebanon and similar actions.

Also, what do you mean by “I know lots of thing”?

Please explain.

Thanks

[FinnAgain]

So, final answer is that AIPAC and Israel are controlling US public opinion through unknown means, alternate explanations are “gotchas”, and knowing the basic facts about the shadowy conspiracy is beyond the pale.

Check.

[RedFury]

@FinnAgain

So, final answer is that AIPAC and Israel are controlling US public opinion through unknown means, alternate explanations are “gotchas”, and knowing the basic facts about the shadowy conspiracy is beyond the pale.

Check.

Yup, that’s what I just posted. We are fighting ignorance after all. Care for a personalized tin-foil hat/detector? Two for one deal as it might just fit Ibn as well.

Hoot 'n a holler you kids are.

:::bats big brown eyes:::

Keep them coming.

[FinnAgain]

-You won’t identify the means whereby “AIPAC/Israel” are controlling public opinion via “propaganda” to the point where nearly half of Americans want to bomb Iran, but you are unable to actually explain how this “propaganda” controls the opinions of almost 150 million people. You can’t even show how much of the debate is actual “AIPAC/Israel” “propaganda”, and it sure seems that you’re slinging a conspiracy theory to demonize a group you don’t like since people don’t agree with you. Therefore they are controlling US public opinion by means which are unknown (at least to you). Or you think you know what those methods are, but you refuse to tell anybody. In Great Debates. In a thread which you started.
-Ibn’s request for you to analyze alternate explanations as to why the US would have a high degree of anti-Iranian sentiment is a “gotcha”, according to you. -Knowing basic facts about AIPAC is beyond the pale, and you refuse to answer a simple question as to AIPAC’s leadership.

So… yeah.

As for rational interpretations of data when nearly half of America is willing to bomb Iran to stop their nuclear program? We can look at decades of hostility and the deaths/kidnapping of numerous American citizens and soldiers. We can look at how Iran has repeatedly been in the news recently for its role in supporting two genocidal terrorist organizations, how it was aiding Al Quaeda before 9/11, how it’s just recently threatened to mine one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. We can conceive of several reasons why reasonable people might not want them to have nuclear weapons.
Or we can claim that it’s due to “The combined Aipac/Israel hysterical propaganda campaign”.

The two options are not, however, quite equal in terms of intellectual rigor.

[Marley23]

@RedFury

Yup, that’s what I just posted. We are fighting ignorance after all. Care for a personalized tin-foil hat/detector? Two for one deal as it might just fit Ibn as well.

Hoot 'n a holler you kids are.

:::bats big brown eyes:::

Keep them coming.

RedFury, you’re not allowed to insult people this way in Great Debates. I’m giving you a forma warning for this post.

[FinnAgain]

Back to the facts, what’s actually striking is that American public opinion has remained fairly consistent on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program and the support/oppose dynamic for military action against Iran has steadily been creeping up over the last half decade.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@RedFury

For shits & giggles: AIPAC-championed amendment pushes Obama into a corner on Iran

More fun reading:

Iran War: What Is AIPAC Planning?

Much, much more at source…for those who care.

That’s an extremely odd article that you’re quoting from.

MJ Rosenberg was playing fast and loose with the truth. He claims “In a letter to AIPAC executive director, Howard Kohr”. Well, Kohr was not the Executive Director of AIPAC. AIPAC has a President, Lee Rosenberg. Kohr is, or at least was, the Executive Director of a different organization called the American Israel Education Foundation, which collaborates with AIPAC but calling him the “Executive Director of AIPAC” is a bit like calling Joseph Lowery(President of SCLC) the “President of the NAACP”.

Red, if you don’t mind my asking, how did you come to post an article with such a huge error in it?

Was it A)you didn’t read it very closely, you just saw a negative article about AIPAC and decided to repost it, B)you knew it was an error but rather than revealing that Rosenberg was lying you decided to simply repost the article, or C) you were unaware that Rosenberg was trying to mislead his readers?

Thanks

BTW: B) is not meant to imply that you were lying.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@FinnAgain

Back to the facts, what’s actually striking is that American public opinion has remained fairly consistent on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program and the support/oppose dynamic for military action against Iran has steadily been creeping up over the last half decade.

They did not specify what type of military action. They did not make it clear that military action short of a full scale invasion or nuclear strikes is not guaranteed to end the program. None of the questions were modified with generals’ doubts about the effectiveness of military action.

Besides being a completely irrelevant survey, I bet Cosmo surveys ask more detailed questions.

[FinnAgain]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

Besides being a completely irrelevant survey

Indeed, a survey about how many Americans would support military action against Iran has nothing to do with how many Americans would support military action against Iran.