I’m not making any insinuations.
I’m asking exactly how you can argue there’s no difference between someone who’s a Zionist and someone who isn’t.
Please do so.
If you feel uncomfortable doing so then please explain why you see no difference between someone who sees no difference between those who approve of the Balfour Declaration and those who are strongly opposed to the Balfour Declaration.
Thanks
Really? Please show me where I said that. I believe what I actually said was that for someone who claims not to be a Zionist, you sure sound like one.
So I think we’ll have to go with the “dramatic misunderstanding” option.
What?
Please explain to me what you think a Zionist is why you think I “sound like one”.
Thanks
:shrug: Israel is a sovereign state too. And Iran’s nuclear program is a legitimate military target. Period.
Well, first you have to realize that Spoke has now abandoned the defense of his own arguments and has spent a half dozen posts or so purely on personal criticism of you. This indicates that his argument truly is indefensible and only personal criticism is left.
Second, Spoke has perhaps inadvertently given the best definition of his position and that of his fellow travelers that has been offered on the boards in recent memory. Someone who objects to incorrect factual claims, invalid and unsound logic and is aware of the historical record is, by his own definition, opposed to his camp. In fact, they aren’t just opposed, they are a Zionist. That shows us that Spoke’s conception of anti-Zionists is that they must cleave to factual inaccuracies, disregard logic, and ignore historical context if doing otherwise means they cannot criticize Israel. In other words, they must be ready and willing to criticize Israel whether or not there is any rational reason to do so, and your failure to do so and reliance on reality marks you an ideological enemy to Spoke.
It’s… amazing.
Do you really have no idea how does this sound?
To me, it sounds like a bully in a schoolyard saying to some kid who’s trying to hold onto his dignity: “Yeah, you are your own person and you can choose to wear/talk/act any way you want but your face is a legitimate target when I’m pissed at something and I better do it ASAP b/c you might grow up bigger than me or learn martial arts and then it’ll be too late.”
Guess I am a “seer” – seeing that is exactly what today’s CSM follow-up article claims the Iranians are calling them (the attacks.)
Here a more in-depth article on the false flag thesis:
So I understand just fine. Even if I don’t necessarily agree.
[QUOTE=newcomer]
Do you really have no idea how does this sound?
To me, it sounds like a bully in a schoolyard saying to some kid who’s trying to hold onto his dignity: “Yeah, you are your own person and you can choose to wear/talk/act any way you want but your face is a legitimate target when I’m pissed at something and I better do it ASAP b/c you might grow up bigger than me or learn martial arts and then it’ll be too late.”
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s an interesting spin. So, nuclear weapons are the equivalent of the weak kids face now? And it’s only legitimate when the ‘bully’ is pissed? I mean, it’s not legitimate because it’s a weapon that threatens the ‘bully’, but merely because the ‘bully’ wants to punch the poor wittle kiddie in the nuclear weapon?
Fascinating…
-XT
Next you will claim that those Iranians in Bangkok who botched up their operation and were arrested, one with legs blown off, are Israelis too.
I know perfectly well how it sounds. The point is that if Iran has some kind of moral right as a sovereign state to develop nuclear weapons, then certainly Israel has a moral right as a sovereign state to defend itself from its enemies.
I would guess that’s because you believe that of all the states on Earth, Israel has no legitimate right to defend itself or even exist.
Let me ask you this: Do you believe that Israel has at least the same right of self-defense as other states?
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Guess I am a “seer” – seeing that is exactly what today’s CSM follow-up article claims the Iranians are calling them (the attacks.)
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, no one saw that coming Red. I mean, who would have thought that Iran would come out and claim that the bombs were actually planted by Israel to frame Iran? You nailed that one man!
-XT
No, “false flag” attacks and Israel are a perennial Conspiracy Theory. That you immediately suggested a common anti-Israel Conspiracy Theory is hardly surprising, given its pedestrian nature. You have, however, not quoted a single word which actually supports your claim. After you claimed that the original cite you provided supported it (it also provided not one word in support) your further claims are suspect.
Give proof or retract.
It’s not that complicated.
Israel has no desire to destroy Iran, and never contemplated attacking it before being cornered with the combination of nuclear weapon development and annihilation threats from Iran. There is absolutely no reason for Israel to have any designs on Iran. Just look at the map.
Iran has stated on numerous occasions that its goal is Israel’s destruction.
It’s pretty clear who’s the bully in the situation.
It’s clear to me, but it’s not clear to people who believe – consciously or subconsciously – that Israel has no legitimate right to exist. For such people, all threats and aggression against Israel are moral and justified. And any response or self-defense by Israel is wrong, just like the misconduct of a schoolyard bully.
I’ll go on record to say that if – and please note the “IF” – Iran does attack any sovereign nation including Israel – said nation, including Israel – has every right to respond in whatever said nation, including Israel finds appropriate, including nuclear option.
The problem that I see and many others too, is that you, and many others, conflated in your mind a threat - of ruling elites who are on the losing side of History - with an actual attack.
I do not leave out a possibility that Iranian leadership is crazy but in reality – considering that you have a major superpower (US) and local power (Israel) on their case with enormous pressure, force presence and Western world opinion on their side – they are not THAT crazy to think that they can do anything without 100 times retaliation.
The only reasonable logic in Iranian crazy ways I can find is that their 30 year long theocratic ruling elite is losing a battle with the times and internal societal dynamic and they are trying – as any dictatorial regime does – to find a way to solidify its internal power by upping the stakes on the international front, namely with USA and Israel. I can also see that in such a game of internal struggle to maintain power Iranian ruling elite would not shy away from hurting its own citizens by proxy (i.e. provoke an attack) – as they are already doing great job at it. So, I’m not really blinded by the idea that they (Iranians ruling theocratic elites) are innocent in all of this. But it is also far fetched.
However, what I see happening is very well expressed here.
To elaborate, accusations of “false flag” operations are bog standard in the litany of anti-Israel rhetoric. Here’s a CT’er site (whale.to) which blames numerous events, including Kristalnacht, on “Mossad”. Noted Illuminati-believer, Alex Jones, is hosting this CT about Israeli “false flag” operations. And so on. It’s a very good possibility that folks will suggest that Israeli is nefariously behind events in, and out of, the region. That Iran denied involvement and immediately jumped to a CT is hardly surprising.
That Red claimed a CT was plausible and claimed that his original cite supported that view, when it said not one word on it, is a fact. That he still has not carried the burden of defending the CT is also a fact. If he wants to do more than simply offer the murmuring of the crankosphere as innuendo, he actually has to offer a thesis and provide proof. Or retract.
Umm, does that mean yes or no?
And by the way, does an “attack” include an attempt to assassinate Israeli diplomats? Does it include funding and arming terrorist groups which in turn launch rocket attacks on Israel?
That’s not true at all. I believe that the critical question is not whether it has been attacked. The question for me is whether Israel has good reason to believe that Iran poses a serious threat to them. Which Israel clearly does.
I’ll ask you basically the same question I asked another poster:
If you were Prime Minister of Israel; and there was a non-catastrophic but painful nuclear attack against Israel - for example a West Bank Jewish settlement of 1000 people was wiped off the map; and you thought there was a 75% chance that Iran was behind it; would you order that Tehran and every other major Iranian city be wiped off the map?
I don’t see any evidence of a false flag operation by Israel there.
Please show where it is.
Thanks
Any question or claim that includes subjective words such as “believe” or where truth is expressed as a percentage has an answer already built-in.
Which means, if that’s the question, what’s a debate?
:rolleyes: