Once again, you don’t seem to understand the concept of what constitutes an ad hominem attack and what doesn’t.
Now that fact is you’ve made several stupid comments on this thread. That doesn’t necessarily mean that you are stupid and I haven’t attacked you or made any personal comments about you.
Now, you’ve been arguing that you see no difference between a Zionist and a non-Zionist. Additionally you’ve argued that if Israel wanted it could have Iran nuked and you refused to address the fact that Brazil and I both refuted your statement.
Those of us familiar with Israel-American relations recognize that the US not only didn’t support Israel during the Suez-Sinai War, but forced her to withdraw from Egypt. We also recognize that Israel couldn’t get the US to pressure Nasser into not going to war with Israel in 1967, couldn’t get the US to pressure Jordan into not attacking, and couldn’t get the US to help them out during the war. It’s also worth noting that Israel couldn’t get the US to not pressure it into withdrawing from Lebanon after invading in both the 70s and later the 80s. In fact, Israel couldn’t even pressure the US to move its Embassy to Jerusalem or release Jonathan Pollard.
Yet, you’re arguing the same Israel government that fails at all that can get the US to launch a nuclear strike wiping out Iran.
By the way, do you have any examples of such “useful idiots”? One might, unsubstantiated, doubt that you read with comprehension. After all, you’ve claimed that I’m arguing in support of attacking Iran and have not comprehended why Iran launching multiple attacks against our forces, without military response from us, shows that they’re not actually being threatened by us.
Absent a cite, one might just conclude that your worry about such “useful idiots” is a fantasy brought on by you repeatedly misunderstanding the function of the historical facts I’ve tried to educate you with.
A course certainly not needed by any number of Usual Suspects on Israel threads – many mods & posters alike. In fact, they teach the course on an on-going basis. Don’t like it: get the boot. Though there are some quaint “yellow cards” in the works right now.
Then again, you could always either learn to play the game and/or keep your trap shut. Such is life.
Wow Red, yet another pullquote with no substance from you, at all. Go figure. But at least you got in a Conspiracy Theory. Yes, it’s a “false flag”. Right. Your evidence for that being…?
And speaking of valuable contributions from a certain few Dopers in this thread, Spoke, you uncritically cited the comments of an unnamed American official saying that Israel was using MEK to assassinate Iranian scientists. I assume that you would credit any such anonymous reports from any such American officials, right? You didn’t simply select that one and credit it was true because it helped your argument. Didja?
Glutton, you can’t make up a definition for the word “honest”.
Red has provided yet another content free post consisting of a pullquote and, well, nothing. (And this was before his post that he made while I was composing this, which is yet another content-free post consisting of a pullquote).
He also suggested that the attacks on Israel were false-flag operations. His proof for that being, nothing, at all. It’s not an honest claim to make, it’s not dishonest to point it out, and it’s less than savory to allow insinuations of “false flag” operations to pass without comment and try to slime someone for pointing out that there’s no proof offered of such a Conspiracy Theory. I might add that, unsurprisingly, Red is markedly ignorant on the topic. Iran attempting to assassinate Israelis ambassadors is hardly “non-garden variety”. There was a story out of Azerbaijan a month or two ago about the same situation. Go figure, Isreal didn’t go to war then. But Red feels he needs to blog to this thread because, well…
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
That is not an honest response to RedFury’s post.
[/QUOTE]
Why? It’s an off-topic drive by cite that provides zero evidence…merely a way for Red to try and muddy the waters a bit to prove…well, who knows what Red thinks this proves. That Israel attacked itself in a ‘false flag’ operation in order to justify an attack on Iran that Israel hasn’t launched and really doesn’t need justification for, assuming you don’t believe that Israel is also behind some sort of false UN/IAEA report about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Or something.
Seriously…the Christian Science Monitor? You believe that this is a reputable cite, especially when the article has zero actual evidence in it of, well, anything?? And that this drive-by has to be addressed in some ‘honest’ sort of way??
Take a deep breath and read the article yet again for the first time. It’s all right there in black and white. Including which way you may lean after reading it.
So in other words, you argument is full of hot air, you can’t substantiate your Conspiracy Theory, and you refuse to post any facts at all supporting it. In fact, you refuse to craft an argument at all and for your last half dozen or so posts you’ve posted empty snark or empty pullquotes with no analysis at all.
So… no support at all for your Conspiracy Theory.
Planning on supporting it in the future, or just slinging baseless innuendo?
I need to see less bluster and implied insults from all sides here:
This is allowable in the abstract since it’s not necessarily a comment about posters, but it can also be read as a dig against people here. I’d think twice about this kind of wording in the future.
These posts are insulting to other posters and don’t add anything to the debate, so don’t do it again.
As noted earlier in this post, all the sarcasm from everybody is not helping. Deal with the substance in the posts (or lack thereof, as you see it) and try heaping less scorn on people disagreeing with you: there’s too much heat in this thread and not enough light.
Red, you have provided a pullquote with no real substance, added no original argument of your own, thereby adding no content to the thread except a Conspiracy Theory about a false flag operation, and provided no proof for said Conspiracy Theory. You then refused one request so far for that substantiation. And the article you pointed to has no substantiation for it, either.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Take a deep breath and read the article yet again for the first time. It’s all right there in black and white. Including which way you may lean after reading it.
[/QUOTE]
Well, let’s take a look, shall we?
Just a coincidence, to be sure, that it happened the day after the four-year anniversary of the death of a Hezollah leader who was assassinated in Syria.
As opposed to the massive evidence provided to back this assertion, ehe?
And all of this is in the backdrop of Iran’s accusations of a purported attack on their scientists AND the current ratcheting up of tension over the sanctions AND the fact that Israel has come out and said that they are seriously concerned with all of this and are considering military options. Yeah, it’s just coincidence…obviously Iran had nothing to do with it, if we ignore all of that backdrop stuff and look at the massive evidence of this article that it was really someone else that attacked Israeli officials in two separate attacks while all this stuff is happening. Iran is completely rational, after all, and no threat to anyone, blah blah blah.
Oh sure…and if you can’t trust Iran’s assertions of innocence over their nuclear program, who CAN you trust. Well…perhaps the UN and IAEA? I note with some irony that they weren’t mentioned in this aside…it’s a puzzlement as to why that might be.
Well, that definitely proves…um…it proves…um. Well, nothing really. What’s the evidence that it wasn’t Hamas (which, curiously, is also a group supported by Iran)?
Which doesn’t preclude them from being members of Hamas, afaik. Even if Israel was wrong here (let’s say they were), what does this prove, exactly? If they were wrong once they must be wrong every time?
In this case, pure out of the ass speculation makes sense, since it supports Red’s basic assertion of…well, who knows what it’s supposed to prove. Let’s pretend that this guy is spot on and it was someone else who attacked Israeli officials…so what? Does this prove that Iran really isn’t developing nuclear weapons? Does it prove that Israeli concerns are unfounded? Does it prove that US and European concerns are unfounded?
Israel wouldn’t intentionally injure its own people to create a casus belli. That’s just not how Israelis think. We’re talking about a country that just released a thousand criminals and terrorists in order to secure the safe release of one Jewish boy who was enlisted in the IDF.
No IDF or Mossad officer would give such an order, and if one did, the order would not be obeyed.
Sadly, it’s Israel’s enemies who have such casual disregard for the lives and well-being of their own people. Probably these allegations are the result of projection of this attitude.
