[QUOTE=newcomer]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Huh? If you believe that I’m about to attack you, then you believe that I’m about to attack you, whether I am or not. Perception becomes reality, especially if you act on that belief, which you might do if you feel threatened enough by me to calculation that acting first is your best course.
What would Iran gain from supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, blowing up US marine barracks and Saudi buildings? Why, they must not have done it. Of course.
He’s also a liar.
What he actually “proved” is that the assassination methods are roughly similar. He does not prove “US/Israeli expertise.”
Likewise, he’s less than honest when he claims that we’ve only got “assertions” that Iran is a sponsor of global terrorism.
The fact that Iran sponsors Hamas and Hezbollah is not doubted by any honest analysts. None. That Red’s author is forced to question even that shows that reality is the enemy of his narrative. Unsurprisingly.
“False flag” indeed.
Meanwhile Red’s new response is equally absurd. What he quoted isn’t proof, it’s, at best, insinuation. Some of it is also nonsensical. If this is the spark that will ignite war… why are we still waiting on it? Are we supposed to believe that the dastardly “AIPAC/Israel propagandists” have been preparing for war for years, but now that they have their “false flag” pretext they can’t launch a few cruise missiles or sent a few sorties over to Iran? Bull, shit.
And Red is still not adding any of his own analysis, simply pulling quotes. If he expects to carry his position, surely more is required than pulling quotes from dishonest hack pieces online. This is Great Debates, not a blog. One is expected to support their arguments, not to simply cite someone else’s words and then walk away.
I have no idea what your point is here. You made an assertion about what you thought was going on in my mind, – an assertion about my beliefs. I explained to you that you were incorrect.
Anyway, please answer my questions so that I can understand your position:
Do you believe that Israel has at least the same right of self-defense as other states?
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?
Also, do you feel that Israel would be certain to retaliate one hundred-fold against Iran if a 1000-person Jewish settlement on the West Bank were obliterated in a nuclear blast and the Israelis thought there were a 75% chance that Iran was behind it? Would you give the launch order if you were in charge?
No question I dislike the poster mentioned, but If you’ll follow this thread you’ll also notice I mostly ignore his insult-riddled monologues. These days it’s more boredom than anger that he manages to elicit from me.
Thanks. I appreciate you saying that. Must admit this whole sense of '02/'03 déjà vu is almost surreal. Here I thought most of us had learnt from that.
BTW, I do admit Obama has been doing his level best to stop the madness from increasing. But with pressure seemingly increasingly daily from all sides an an election in the process, I am not so sure how much longer he’ll be able to hold up. Just look at Greenwald’s latest bit. Reads like The Onion – but sadly, it isn’t.
Anyway, would you mind answering my question from earlier.
Please explain what you think a Zionist is and why I’m no different than one?
Also, please provide evidence that my views on Israel are not different than Finn’s
You’re the one who made the stupid assertion regarding me and Finn supposedly have the same views on the subject so you should be able to provide evidence to back it up.
Would you define an attack upon Iran by Israel to include assassination of Iranian scientists?
If another nation is assassinating your scientists, would you be justified in launching a military strike in response? If not, what response would be justified?
Legitimate military target? Are you saying that a unilateral preemptive strike against Iran by either Israel or the US would not violate UN rules and international law? In fact, such action would be criminal.
[QUOTE=Spoke]
Would you bow to similar logic used to justify a preemptive strike by Iran against Israel? Somehow, I sort of doubt it.
[/QUOTE]
If Iran really thought that it was under imminent threat from Israel then they would absolutely be justified in doing a preemptive strike. Why wouldn’t they be? Of course, just because YOU think it’s justified doesn’t mean other would agree with you, and there would certainly be consequences (it would be a rather spurious claim by Iran that Israel is threatening them, considering it’s generally been Iran attacking Israel via proxy and not the other way around).
I think a unilateral preemptive strike against Iran by either Israel or the US would be highly stupid and extremely immoral but I don’t believe that preemptive strikes are illegal.
Israel carried out a preemptive strike against Egypt in 1967 and the UN, which is hardly known for being wildly pro-Israel, didn’t rule the strike illegal or a violation of international law.
[QUOTE=newcomer]
This is weird. I strongly believe that your response deserves “huh?” but you beat me to it. Pre-emptively, I might add.
On a serious note, that kind of thinking is eff’d up. I have nothing reasonable to counter it.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I don’t know how to help you to understand this seemingly simple point. Wish I could but while you can lead a horse to water, you can’t always beat it to death mid-stream while attempting to change to a different horse who has better teeth…
#2 first half, is my understanding is “playing the game” so from that perspective it is not, as for 2nd half, if that were the case there would be war every day so, no, it’s not an attack
I answered your original question, as I answer all questions I believe to be asked in good faith. I explained why I see little distinction between you and Finn.
But now you are just playing the “I’ve got another question” game. (Also one of Finn’s favorites. Hmm.)
I think I have made my take on your supposed “anti-Zionism” (or “non-Zionism” or “aZionism” or however you prefer to phrase it) quite clear.
Agree. Which is exactly why the US should make it very clear to Israel that we will not use our veto power to protect Israel from sanctions in the event they launch a strike. If they honestly believe there is an existential threat, then let’s see if they believe it fervently enough to accept whatever sanction the world imposes.
[QUOTE=Spoke]
Agree. Which is exactly why the US should make it very clear to Israel that we will not use our veto power to protect Israel from sanctions in the event they launch a strike. If they honestly believe there is an existential threat, then let’s see if they believe it fervently enough to accept whatever sanction the world imposes.
[/QUOTE]
What specific document, rule or law do you base your agreement on here? Why would Iranian nuclear WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT facilities NOT be ‘legitimate military target’(s)? Why would a unilateral preemptive strike by Israel against such targets be ‘criminal’? What SPECIFIC UN rule or international law would it violate? BordelDeMerde, feel free to chime in with specifics as well, since it was your assertion.