Politics and Religion

talk about zionist propaganda.sad_smile
willywonka4u 22 Reviews 1201 reads
posted

1) Iran's President never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map.

2) Iran wiping Israel off the map is about as amusing as Guatemala wiping the USA off the map.

3) Iran hasn't been successful in enriching uranium, a requirement to make nukes.

4) Obama is trying to convince Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons. That is not appeasement.

Quite frankly, I'm a little tired of zionist Israelis. It seems that they believe that they are entitled to America defending them. And then when they act like jackasses on the international stage, we're supposed to shut our mouths and obediently go along with whatever fucked up thing their doing. And that's after they disrespected our Vice President.

I have one position here. I believe that American defense forces should be used to defend one country, and one country only...The United States.

We shouldn't promise to defend Israel, France, Japan, Canada, or anybody else. If Israel has a problem with Iran, then that is THEIR problem, not ours. Quite frankly, I don't care if Iran wipes Israel off the map, and I don't care if Isreal wipes Iran off the map. What I care about is the security and the strength of the only country I love, The United States.

It's high time that we stop engaging in these international conflicts on behalf of other nations. It's a drain on our resources, on the blood of our soldiers, and now it's even causing terrorists to point their guns at us. Enough already.

It's time we tell the Middle East to go pound sand, and that we have the technology and resources so that we don't need their oil anymore. We have the ability to power our automobiles with electricity, powered by the sun, the wind, and the earth.

We're 13 trillion in the hole, we've been at war for a decade, our economy is in the shitter, our bridges are falling apart, American industry has gone overseas, and unemployment is at 10%. It's time that we start thinking first and foremost about America for Americans.

-- Modified on 4/8/2010 7:41:08 AM

DoctorZGonzo5570 reads


By Stan Goodenough
April 07, 2010

US President Barack Obama acknowledged Monday that the Islamic Republic of Iran - which has repeatedly voiced its intention to see Israel wiped off the map - is on course to obtain nuclear weapons after all.

Speaking to the New York Times, Obama said he was convinced “the current course they [the Iranian leadership] are on would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities.”

As a consequence of Obama's appeasement approach to Tehran, America can do nothing to prevent it.

The American's admission comes after a year during which his administration barely stopped short of public threats to prevent Israel from self-defensively destroying Iran's nuclear facilities.

Most recently, behind-closed-door coercive tactics were employed during successive visits by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs off Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen and Vice President Joe Biden in order to keep pressure on Israel not to attack.

For his part Obama inherited - and fully embraced - the attitude adopted by the Bush administration in 2004.

According to Assistant Editor to The Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick: "From 2004, the Bush administration sought to appease Iran into giving up its nuclear program - first indirectly through the negotiations that France, Britain and Germany conducted with Tehran. Then in 2006, the administration began direct negotiations with the mullahs. Bush personally rejected repeated Israeli requests to purchase refueling aircraft and bunker buster bombs necessary for attacking Iran's hardened nuclear facilities. And he refused to back Israeli plans to attack Iran's nuclear installations. So too, Bush stopped calling for regime change in Iran.

"After the November 2007 publication of the falsified National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program," Glick wrote, "Bush discarded the possibility of a US military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities altogether." ("Exploiting the Crisis," by Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post, April 2, 2010)

As far back as January 2006, then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared that, "under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us [to] have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence."

In November of the same year, then opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu sounded a clarion call that went largely dismissed by the rest of the world:

"It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs," Netanyahu starkly warned the United Jewish Communities General Assembly. "Believe [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] and stop him," he continued. "This is what we must do. Everything else pales before this."

A frequent question posed Jerusalem Newswire by visiting groups is what the Israelis are going to do about the Iranian threat. Notwithstanding international efforts to wear down Israel's resolve on this issue, the government in Jerusalem remains resolved to not permit Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons.

The Israel Defense Forces are believed to be in constant training for an attack on Iran. It is understood that the result of Obama's resigned attitude towards the burgeoning threat in the east will leave Israel with no choice but to act on its own.

Scant decades after the Holocaust saw two-thirds of European Jewry washed away, Israel's leaders are not about to sit back and allow the threat of another act of anti-Jewish genocide to be perpetrated against their people.

Doc's comment: Never Again

St. Croix1676 reads

You have Axelrod and Emanuel, both Jewish, directing a significant portion of Obama's agenda. Jews tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Jews overwhelmingly support Obama. Jews overwhelmingly support the safety and security of Israel. Talk about a conundrum.

who supports Israel, support the Obama adminstration? It really seems to me, either:

(1) the Obama adminstration is taking the Jewish for granted or

(2) they don't care.

DoctorZGonzo1228 reads

i have never been an obama supporter.

and the answer is... both.

Add to this the 2 billion dollar a year Madison Avenue disinformation campaign against Israel paid for by Saudi Arabia, and you have a recipe for trouble.

St. Croix869 reads

Here are a people that have been royally screwed by the Egyptians, Romans, Spanish, Russians and Germans. They basically tried to curry favor with each government, and what happened? So why would they want to support an expanding and more intrusive government like we have. If history means anything, they are going to get screwed again. So at least on the international security front, you would think they would be hard ass hawks. The Israelis are, so you would think American Jews would be. It's in their best interest.

I think I understand why Jews are predominately liberal. They are preoccupied with social justice. They are terrified of anything right wing. Jews believe secularism guarantees their physical security, hence their disproportionate membership in the ACLU. I think some of the views are way overblown, but then I'm not Jewish.

-- Modified on 4/7/2010 7:11:35 PM

But yet you are a Likduist. Or is it somehow possible Xia could be wrong, yet again? Nawwwww. Well then again, suppsoedly I am a Likudist too. As is Doc. And RWU. And Snow. And Marikod. And Jacko. etc. etc. Basically anyone who ever called him out on his bullshit has been labeled as such. I'd say you were in good company, but we seem to be a bit of a ragged bunch. ;)

DoctorZGonzo1562 reads

Based on marikods posts of the last several weeks, I do not see how anybody could confuse marikod with a Likudist. He appears to be patently anti-Israel, but he doesn't make denigrating snarky insults about Jews, so I'm not going to confuse him with Xiaoming or the other haters.

propaganda piece such as that penned by Professor Dershowitz in an attempt to sway public opinion to support a preemptive Israeli strike attack against Iran.

      Fox News would be proud of the utter lack of balance in the article –

(1) the lead – "Iran has repeatedly voiced its intention to see Israel wiped off the map;"

- the balance omitted –many of these statements go to Israel not having a legal right to exist (an issue on which reasonable scholars disagree), the article omits other statements by Iranians disclaiming the use of WMD, the article fails to distinguish rhetoric from statement of policy, and most important of all, the article fails to reflect that Iran would never be able to use a nuclear bomb as an operational military weapon bc this would guaranty its own destruction.


     (2) the usual suspects quoted –Mr. Olmert “We can’t allow Iran to have nuclea weapons and Bibi’s ridiuculous comparison if Irand to the Nazi regime;”

    -the balance omitted-statements from other Israeli figures who oppose Iran first strike and describe the notion of an Iranian attack as “idiotic.” See Avner Cohen’s comment attached. Unlike Dershowitz, Professor Cohen is an authority on Israel’s nuclear program and the Iranian threat


(3) the hysterical conclusion –“It is understood that the result of Obama's resigned attitude towards the burgeoning threat in the east will leave Israel with no choice but to act on its own.”

–the balance omitted- Israel’s choice is not to start a war, absent evidence a clear and present danger posed by Iran which it does not have.

My comment –read Professor Cohen’s writings for a non-hysterical policy based analysis of the problem.

DoctorZGonzo1007 reads

There is nothing factually bereft about the stated intentions of Iran, Hamas, and the Arab world in general.

It is one thing to refuse recognition of a sovereign government.

It is something else again to openly support genocide.

The Arab world does not distinguish between Israel and Jews. Jews are not allowed to enter Arab-ruled lands.

When Israel liberated Jerusalem in 1967, they took great care to show proper respect for both Christian and Muslim holy places.

Whenever the Arabs take over, the first thing they do is desecrate Jewish holy places. They have no respect for anything, not even the lives of their own children.

I've said this before, and I say this again. To view the mindset of the Middle East from a perspective of Western civilization is ill-advised, foolhardy and a recipe for disaster.

you can't reason or use logic and rational ideas when it comes to dogma-driven religious zealotry and hatred combined with arrogance and ignorance.

America's vaunted foreign policy mavens just don't get it, because they are too wrapped up in their all-knowing presumptuous arrogance.

msrikod, you can spin it any way you want to, but at the end of the day, i can only point out the following:

The Arabs have no compunction to use their own children as weapons, their own weak and vulnerable as human shields. They have made it plain they have no concwern regard or respect for human life beyond what it can do to further their evil agenda.

Golda Meir, the late great prime minister of israel was quoted as saying "we can forgive the arabs for killing our children, but we can not forgive them for forcing us to kill theirs".

But you would have us believe it is the Israeli's who are the barbarians, right?

of using a nuclear weapon on Israel, so as to justify a preemptive Israeli strike?

     You certainly have not done so. I did a dedicated post rebutting Professor Dershowitz's article last weekend -no one made a case there either.

"It is something else again to openly support genocide."
Can you make that case against Iran? Mr. Khomeni has expressly declared that Iran threatened no nation.

      And btw, while I'm sure you know this, I am going to point out to those who may not know that

1. Iran is not an Arab nation.
2. The Iranian Constitution says Jews and Muslims are equal.
3. Mr. Khomeni has expressly declared that the Jews in Iran-about 25,000 - are to be protected.
4. The Jews have one seat in the legislature
5. The second country to recognize Israel's existence in 1948?
     
    You guessed it -Iran. The current regime does not recognize Israel's legal right to exist in what they view as Palestinian territory. Hopefully they will all be kicked out in the next few years.





Yet you want Israel to take the risk of annihilation from a rogue nation which refuses to recognize it as a legitimate nation (for whatever reason you want to give to spin it that somehow it is reasonable to question Israel's right to exist, that's still the bottom line).

If/when Iran develops its nuclear arsenal, there simply is no way to know what sort of erratic actions it might take. Its easy for you to say its just rhetoric and Iran would never act so stupidly and self-destructively. Yet, you forget the honor of martydom and how Iran has funded much suicide-attacks. So death for them it not the problem it is for us in the West, if they kill the enemey (of which Israel is) in the process.

Seriously, if Mexico consistently questioned US right to exist, refused to recognize it, sponsored terrorist activities against it, and was developing nuclear weapons, do you really think US would stand by and let that happen? Its perfectly reasonable, not hysterical, for Israel to take action to prevent Iran from having the capability to destroy it. That's called self-preservation.

believe Israel has no legal right to occupy that territory. I went through all the arguments in my post last week.

Here is what you've given us so far-

1. there is no way of knowing what thy might do (that is true but if that justifies a first strike we should definitely hit N. Korea))
2. the honor of martydom and Iran funding of suicide attacks -(um that is  a little different from a suicide first nuclear strike.)
3. Iran does not recognize Israel as a legitimate nation? That is a legal argument not a reason to push the button.

So which one of us is really speculating? All I'm getting is a regurgitation of cliches from the pro- Israeli media. Give me some facts that would justify a first strike.

"All I'm getting is a regurgitation of cliches from the pro- Israeli media. "

Sorry, but that is a cliche itself. Would you feel better with a retort of "All I'm getting from you is a regurgitation of cliches from the anti-Israeli media." ?


pt1. Pulling in NK is a stretch, even for you. If this were an SAT and you said NK is to US as Iran is to Israel, I don't think anyone would accept that analogy.

pt2. You are claiming difference in degree is difference in kind. Maybe, maybe not. Would you consider suicide attacks against citizens reasonable to begin with? If so, you are sick and no point in continuing this or any discussion. If  not, then how can you possibly claim they would not use nuclear weapons just because its not's reasonable FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

pt3. Does a legal argument justify funding of terrorist attacks against Israel either? Again, same fork as in pt2.

Bottom line, you must be willing to contend that there is absolutely zero chance that an unstable Iran would be reckless with its nuclear weapons. That means neither using them to attack, nor ever selling/giving to other enemies of Israel, when they already fund weapons acquisitions for various terrorist organizations. BTW, Iran funding Hamas is not a cliche, it is indeed a fact.

If you think Israel should bank its continued existence on Iran once it has nuclear capabilities, that is beyond naive.

1. I disagree with your premise that a preemptive Israeli strike against Iran is justified unless I can say there is a zero chance that Iran would be reckless with its nuclear weapons.

     2. Of course I cannot say that. If you truly believe that is the standard for invasion, then there is nothing for us to discuss. I do agree that if that is the standard, they should bomb Iran and probably several other countries as well.

     If that is the standard, then the US most certainly should invade North Korea, Pakistan, Russia. Come on, that is a ridiculous standard for an invasion and you know it.

       3. What I posted last week in response to Prof. Dershowitz’s article was that there was no reasonable basis to believe Iran posed an actual nuclear threat to Israel because they have stated no actual intent to do so as a matter of policy, it is not in their self interest to do so, and Dershowitz’s lame claim that Iran is a “suicidal nation” is not supported by the facts, is preposterous, and reflects a complete misunderstanding of how the Iranian government operates.

    4. You say I cannot look at the question from what is reasonable to me?

     Okay, that is a fair point -  if you can make the case that nuking Israel is reasonable from Iran’s perspective I concede the point. But you cannot do that. You are not seriously suggesting that bc they fund Hamas and the military wing engages in suicide attacks, that this somehow means Iran is a suicidal nation are you? That is really all you have said.

     5. Among other problems you would have to assume that the entire decision making apparatus of Iran is unreasonable or unstable.

     But Iran is not a dictatorship like Saddam in Iraq. No one guy could make that decision. In fact, one of the problems the country has is that power is subject to so many checks and balances decisonmaking tends to be paralyzed.

     6. What would they gain and what would they lose? Do you really think they are so invested in Palestinian rights that they would take this step? The cost would be destruction of Iran.

If the destruction of Israel is so important, why not invade now?


      Conclusion – there is no reasonable basis, from my chair or what I perceive to be Iran’s chair, to believe Iran poses an actual nuclear threat to Israel and, therefore, preemptive bombing is not justified and would be a war crime.


I think all sides in this discussion can agree that Iran does not have the nuclear and delivery capability to attack Israel TODAY!
So the argument must be conceded that it is premature for Israel to try to take out Iran's nuclear capability.  But the problem of waiting until the moment when Iran poses a "real" threat is that you can never be sure it is upon you until it is too late.
Furthermore, the effect on Iran of a preemptive attack by Israel would be far different than the effect of a second strike.  If Iran were to stage a nuclear attack on Israel the latter would have to brace for a second punch in the form of a ground war to take control of the Land of Israel.  Therefore, if Iran makes a first strike and Israel is to make a second strike the Israeli strike would have to broad based, probably nuclear, to neutralize the totality of the Iranian war machine.  Iranian collateral damage (such a lovely euphemism for loss of innocent life) would be enormous.
However, a preemptive strike by Israel would be a surgical as its intelligence could support.  Collateral damage would be kept at a minimum.  (As I recall there was a single casualty, a night janitor, when Israel took out the first Iraqi nuclear facility.)
"Fortunately", Iran has other weapons that could be devastating to the west short of nuclear weapons, other weapons already existent and ready to deploy. I'm talking about a bolckade of the Straights of Hormuz. Will they draw the U.S. and E.U. Navies into a Mediteranean equivalent of the Battle of Midway?  This would make clear their intent without risk deployment of nuclear weapons by either side and at that point we could decide on the appropriate response.
In the meantime, the best we can do is watch from the sidelines and hope that Israel can find another Eli Cohen to provide the kind of intelligence to enable Israel to make a surgical first stike when and if it becomes apparent that Iran has taken things to the point of no return.

No question that determining when - if ever - Iran poses a true risk of a strike is extremely difficult. But I'm not addressing that question. My post was about the article being a propaganda piece rather than an analysis of the problem. And I have not seen anyone -even the OP - dispute that.

     To the extent we are going to argue the merits, we are in agreement that at the present time, a preemptive strike is not justified by the risk.

1) Iran's President never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map.

2) Iran wiping Israel off the map is about as amusing as Guatemala wiping the USA off the map.

3) Iran hasn't been successful in enriching uranium, a requirement to make nukes.

4) Obama is trying to convince Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons. That is not appeasement.

Quite frankly, I'm a little tired of zionist Israelis. It seems that they believe that they are entitled to America defending them. And then when they act like jackasses on the international stage, we're supposed to shut our mouths and obediently go along with whatever fucked up thing their doing. And that's after they disrespected our Vice President.

I have one position here. I believe that American defense forces should be used to defend one country, and one country only...The United States.

We shouldn't promise to defend Israel, France, Japan, Canada, or anybody else. If Israel has a problem with Iran, then that is THEIR problem, not ours. Quite frankly, I don't care if Iran wipes Israel off the map, and I don't care if Isreal wipes Iran off the map. What I care about is the security and the strength of the only country I love, The United States.

It's high time that we stop engaging in these international conflicts on behalf of other nations. It's a drain on our resources, on the blood of our soldiers, and now it's even causing terrorists to point their guns at us. Enough already.

It's time we tell the Middle East to go pound sand, and that we have the technology and resources so that we don't need their oil anymore. We have the ability to power our automobiles with electricity, powered by the sun, the wind, and the earth.

We're 13 trillion in the hole, we've been at war for a decade, our economy is in the shitter, our bridges are falling apart, American industry has gone overseas, and unemployment is at 10%. It's time that we start thinking first and foremost about America for Americans.

-- Modified on 4/8/2010 7:41:08 AM

Israel's government in fact has done an outstanding job on balancing the need to preserve its security without using disproportionate and unnecessary force on the very people -unlike Iran - who have sworn to kill Jews and destroy the nation.

   It is the government's hysterical approach to the Iran nuclear problem where rational analysis is needed.

    To say that you do not care if Israel and Iran wipe each other out destroys your credibility and undermines the legitimate independent thought in your post that I would agree with if stated differently.





Priapus531178 reads

tho I DO regard Iran as a vile theocratic nation that supports terrorism, I think a pre-emptive strike against that country would be most unwise.
If Israel thinks they can make a clean strike against that country like they did against the Iraqi nuclear reactor in '81, guess again. I've heard no statements from the Iranian govt. saying
they would use nukes in a 1st stike against Israel. Even those Farsi fanatics realize that such an action would result in the annihilation of their country.

Let's play devil's advocate ;suppose a pre-emptive strike was implemented against Iran;what would be the consequences ? You'd have a spate of worldwide terrorist attacks that would make 9/11 look like a picnic;Iran could blockade the Persian gulf, sinking oil tankers which would severely cripple the flow of oil to the west.That would spark a worldwide depression that would make the current recession look like an era of unrivalled prosperity. Keep in mind, folks, the Iranians are NOT the Iraqis---while they're not crazy enough to make a 1st nuclear strike, the maniacal Mullas would regard such an attack as a call to a holy war & the consequences would be disastrous.

IF Israel has RELIABLE intelligence ( an oxymoron these days ),that Iran was going to strike, then I'd be in favor of a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Barring that, I'd say a pre-emptive strike against Iran would be a catastrophe.

-- Modified on 4/8/2010 8:58:32 AM

this time, except for the opening line that Iran is a a "vile theocratic nation that supports terrorism."

     We have to modify this line to state that the current regime is a "vile theocratic regime that supports terrorism."

     In fact, Mr. Mousavi -who probably would have been elected if fair elections had been held -  opposes terroism, opposes Ahmadinejad's attitude toward the The Holocaust (namely, that it was a "a myth"),  condemned the killing of Jews in the Holocaust, and promised to guaranty that Iran’s nuclear program would never be diverted from peaceful purposes.

   But, aside from this pedantic objection, I'm giving you an A for this post.

"Israel's government in fact has done an outstanding job on balancing the need to preserve its security without using disproportionate and unnecessary force on the very people...who have sworn to kill Jews and destroy the nation."

First, how many people would be swearing to kill Jews if it wasn't for Israel's actions, both in the past and present? The reality is that you can always count on religious lunatics to cause problems, whether they be Muslim, Jewish, or Christian.  

Israel has used lethal force against Palestinian children for Christ's sake, not to mention American citizens. They used lethal force against Lebanon just a few years ago, leveling that country after it had just become a democracy. Their war crimes have been legandary.

Priapus53748 reads

let me cite history here------Russia gets the
A-bomb in '49. Why didn't the US stage a preemptive strike against the U.S.S.R. then ? The Evil empire was a FAR more menacing worldwide threat then Iran could ever be today. Hopefully,the Mullas will meet the same fate that the Russian communists met in the early 90's; dictatorships are an aberrant social cancer that always implode under their own weight. Hopefully, that will happen in Iran.

Willy, how about listing terrorist acts that have been committed in the name of the Palestinians? They HAVE happened, you know. Both sides of the issues have tobe addressed. Watch it , WW-------you'e gonna sound as tiresome as that far-left anti-Zionist Xiao-----:(

Lastly, Mari, thx for the compliment---even tho you come across as a pedantic putz from time to time--------;)

Let's see, on this thread alone I have been labeled anti-Israeli, Likudist, and now apparently Israeli biased.

      I do not disagree with you that people are swearing to kill Jews bc of  Israel's action but that begs the question, doesn't it? In almost every instant, the "action" was in response to attacks on the Israeli nation or its people.

     I have no idea what you mean about using lethal force on Palestinian children, but unless you can show me otherwise I will presume that they will killed in one of the wars. No way they would target children; to the extent they used disproportionate force to get bad guys with knowledge that children would be killed, I certainly condemn that and as I condemn the drone strikes conducted by the CIA for the same reason.

   "Their war crimes have been legandary.?" There have been some and Israel itself is investigating and disciplining soldiers who crossed the line in the Hamas invasion. But we will save that for another day.











But how is this relevant to the preemptive strike against Iran that we are discussing.

DoctorZGonzo1972 reads

1) Iran's President never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map.

Ahmadinejad has been quoted numerous times threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

2) Iran wiping Israel off the map is about as amusing as Guatemala wiping the USA off the map.

There is zero chance of the US ever looking upon Guatemala as a nuclear target.

Iran wiping Israel off the map might give YOU a woody, willy, but i have family living there. So I am not amused.

3) Iran hasn't been successful in enriching uranium, a requirement to make nukes.

They currently have over 3000 confirmed working centrifuges, though that number is far from the 12,000 they claim to be constructing.

4) Obama is trying to convince Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons. That is not appeasement.

No it isn't. Its pointless, stupid, and displays an extraordinary naivete and ignorance of the Middle Eastern mindset. But then again, what do I know? all I have is first hand experience.

Quite frankly, I'm a little tired of zionist Israelis. It seems that they believe that they are entitled to America defending them. And then when they act like jackasses on the international stage, we're supposed to shut our mouths and obediently go along with whatever fucked up thing their doing. And that's after they disrespected our Vice President.

And quite frankly, I'm more than a little tired of the double standard applied to Israel by the likes of you and the apologists who turn a blind eye to the depradations and barbaric violence of the Arab ruled governments, focusing instead on the Arab generated spin about Israel and the Jews as gospel truth.
Tell me willy, what's YOUR opinion of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Do you also believe Jews kill Christian (scuse me, MUSLIM) children to use their blood in the baking of passover matzoh? May 2008 was the most recent publication date. By the Saudi Arabian government.

I have one position here. I believe that American defense forces should be used to defend one country, and one country only...The United States.

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me. But if I am only for myself, what am I?" - Hillel

What are you willy?

-- Modified on 4/8/2010 11:36:09 AM

GaGambler708 reads

Most of the time I don't believe that Willy even has opinions. He just spouts off Bullshit that he thinks will get a rise out of someone.

As Marikod pointed out, even when Willy starts off with a cognizent thought, he loses it before the post is over and ends up making some ridiculous statement that even people that agree with him have to distance themselves from.

DoctorZGonzo815 reads

I am just so FUCKING sick and tired and fed up with the double standards applied to Israel.

If Israel had the public relations budget to disparage Arab supported terrorism the way Saudi Arabia spends 2 billion a year on Madison Avenue campaigns denigrating Israel,Judaism, and Jewish people the world over, maybe some of the willy wonka's in the world wouldn't sound quite so ignorant.

But it happens over and over again.

The West does not understand that to the Middle East, to the Arab, any show of weakness is to be pounced upon, any effort at appeasement is to be met with contempt and deceit and death.

Egypt and Israel forged a peace treaty and established formal relations. Israel has not only never broken that peace, but both countries have benefitted from it, especially Egypt, where new agricultural and medical technology provided by Israeli scientists and engineers have helped Egypt nearly quintuple their agricultural productivity in the last 25 years.
Until Hamas took over in Gaza.
Now, even Egypt is fighting with Hamas over the border walls, but do you hear about it, NO!; all you hear about is the Israeli barrier. But Egypt has to kowtow to the Saudi Royal Family, who while maintaining a public posture of hostility towards Israel, are more afraid of the Iranians than Israel because they also know that Iran is not only capable of, but willing to use nuclear weapons in their own backyard.

This bullshit policy of appeasement has the smell of Neville Chamberlain all over again.
The Arabs and Iranians laugh in contempt at the flaccid Americans, seeing it as weakness.

There is no civility, no rules of engagement in the middle east. the arabs have shown this time and time again.

Explain to me why the Arab oil mongers, with all their wealth, still spend more on their diamond encrusted mercedes benz automobiles than they do on sending money to the Paslestinian Arabs? Think it might have something to do with the arabs using the palestinians as pawns in their game of power and corruption?

i get off track with tangents.

it just really surprises me to see the levels of ignorance being displayed on this board. there used to be so many more informed disacussions, now its all he said she said fuck you no fuck you oh fuck it lets just blame the jews and israel for everything from 911 to the economy to the price of oil to the wall street scam to the death of jesus christ.

For Cryin' Out Fucking LOUD, if we were THAT powerful, why the fuck don't we already control everything including the propaganda arms known as Madison Avenue and Main Stream Media?

(out of place note to marikod... when i have calmed down enough to give you the courtesy of a resoned response absent emotional subjectivity, i will do so. until then i wont give any ammunition to the "so what you're saying is" crowd. They love to spin anything pro-Israel into a Zionist conspiracy, when the simple fact of the matter is, ask most Jews, we just want to be left alone to live our lives in peace, raise our children in a safe and secure environment, and be able to walk down the street at night wearing our religious garments without fear of consequence.
Israel is the only country to ever pay back foreign assistance loans. The spin is that america gives Israel 2.1 billion per year in foreign aid, and it gets villified. how come nobody ever says anything about the 3 billion we send to egypt every year, or the billions more we use to prop up despots and dictatorships in south america and africa.

Yes, America has given Israel billions. Israel has given the US billions in return. and has paid back many loans.

shit i can't help it, i get off subject.willy's ignorance really got to me. i simply don't understand how otherwise intelligent people get so twisted and warped and vehemently prejudicial when it comes to Israel and Jews.  

i'm outa here. got to take a step back.

GaGambler1206 reads

Since when has Willy been "otherwise intelligent"?

Willy spouts off stupid bullshit like that all the time, and he will continue to as long as it gets a rise out of you.

Remember rule number one, "Don't feed the troll", not that I am calling Willy a troll, just saying...........


       What exactly does that mean? We are talking about decisions made by the leaders of the Nation of Israel who are tasked with preserving the security of that country not only for the Jews who live there but for the 25% of the population that is not Jewish.

      What do you mean by “zionist Israelis?” Seems to me that is either a meaningless reference or a redundant one, and the only reason to use the Zionist tag is to add a racial/ethnic element to this. But I remain open to being educated as to what you mean.

Register Now!