Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: "Wipe Israel off the Map"?

Posted 2 years ago on April 26, 2012, 8:43 a.m. EST by bklynsboy (834)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This line has been endlessly repeated even by the president as justification to start yet another Middle East war with Iran.

It's actually an incorrect translation of the Persian. Read the accurate translation.

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/04/25/how-obama-recycled-a-lie-about-iran/

111 Comments

111 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Iran's elected leader in 1953 was oustered by a collusion between the CIA and MI6, to prevent the nationalising of Iranian oil. The period between then and the revolution saw the worst human rights abuses in that country, supported by the US of A.

Don't ever wonder why Iranians hate Americans.

[-] 4 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Googled it. Confirmed.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Applies to the entire Middle East.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the US government supported Saddam Hussein to fight Iran back in the 80s

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

And we helped Taliban in then 80's arming them against the Russians. Then we became the new invaders.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I may not have a popular position on this subject, but I'll say what's on my mind. Chances are pretty good that Israel will launch a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, and the fact is there isn't very much we can do about it. Sure, we can complain about the influence of the Israeli lobby (and I for one don't like the influence of ANY lobby), but at this point there's just nothing we can really do to change the trajectory here.

This subject is an endless quagmire, and while we hope for a positive outcome to this mess, it has little to do with reforming our financial system, promoting participatory democracy, worker ownership initiatives, reducing wealth disparity, etc. We can be supportive of the aspirations of the Palestinian people and also stand against terrorism (and all forms of coercive violence). We can support the idea of a Palestinian state, with contiguous borders, but we shouldn't gloss over religious fundamentalism, using children as suicide bombers, etc. (there should never be an excuse for this sort of behavior).

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

US/NATO interfere everywhere the Fortune 500 dictate to enhance profits at all costs.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Yes, agreed ... but it seems to me that the best way for "us" (as in US citizens, or Europeans) to address this issue, is by changing our societies from within (which is really the only thing we can do if you think about it). Let's imagine ten or twenty years into the future. A robust participatory democracy, no more money in politics, no more lobbyists, politicians that have one mission, represent those who put them in office (the people), and if they fail to do that ... we recall them.

If we have this world, then solutions to all our other problems lie within our grasp, without this world, we're just complaining to the wind :)

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

A worthy utopia. But the business forces control the governments and both parties. We must vote with our wallets and minimize purchases to cause monetary loses; the only thing they respond to.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Exactly. Money is the only thing those people understand. Take that away and watch them come begging. I assume you're practicing what you preach? Boycotting anyone?

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

I try to fix and patch everything I can. No fast food, junkfood, minimize driving. No trips and the minimal eating out to preserve my marriage. Thrift stores. Garage sales. craigslist. used cars.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

That's the right philosophy. Now, if we can just get you on the boycott team . . . .

There's no 'official' team, of course. You know what I mean.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Also, get off mainstream media.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Yep. I haven't watched MSM in years. It wasn't the lies so much as it was the obsessive focus on nothing but the bad news. "If it bleeds, it leads," and all that. I got sick of it.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

They're also responsible for dumbing down the public and focusing on trivia instead of significant US policy.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Absolutely. I was aware of the dumbing-down for a long, long time, so that part I was unaffected by. But that is one of the most important reasons for anyone to stop watching now. Especially the younger guys.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Koch and special interest money also shape the media with their fake research and think tanks.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Yes, which begs the questions, what can we trust? Which think tanks are unbiased, if any? How do we sift through the bullshit and find the unbiased truths?

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

People serving counter interests.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Absolutely (I'm assuming this is in response to my "by whom" question). This site, and probably all OWS-related sites, are being monitored. Personally, I can see some good in this, actually, although that may sound bizarre.

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

I fear these posts are monitored.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

By whom?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

anyone can see them

Matt Holck Mattholck

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I don't think the people will put up with censoring

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

As long as they know it's going on. Still a lot of people walking around with blinders on, unfortunately.

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Best sources are off mainstream media: truthout, consortium news, tomgram

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Agreed. The Web, although it has an abundance of misinformation, is the only way to go nowadays. Unless they start censoring big-time, which is what I fear may happen.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Not I.


[-] 1 points by gnomunny (2916) 1 minute ago

That makes sense. Why didn't I think of that? Didn't you tell me recently that the Rockefeller Foundation may be one of the unbiased ones (or at least less biased)? ↥like ↧dislike permalink

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Look at proposals the full proposals. Those that support everyone and the planet are good. Those that serve individual interests are bad.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

That makes sense. Why didn't I think of that? Didn't you tell me recently that the Rockefeller Foundation may be one of the unbiased ones (or at least less biased)?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

That's certainly a good strategy, and there's much we can do to create alternatives to our current economy (for instance local cooperatives), but ultimately, if peaceful protest is the strategy, then a certain amount of "political" reform is necessary. It was fine for Spanish anarchists (during the Spanish Civil War) to refuse to cooperate with the government (since they were resisting fascism with force, albeit unsuccessfully). In that context it at least made sense to refuse to work with or participate in the government (even though in retrospect some of those Spanish anarchists may wish they did things differently). But in the context of a peaceful protest movement, the only way to achieve reforms that could enable a more participatory democracy, is through political reform (which requires some level of engagement with the political process).

In other words, if we want the right to recall elected officials, then the political system has to allow us this right (implying we need to elect politicians who support this idea). We can say that we shouldn't have to ask for this right, it's implicit in the concept of democracy, but in reality, a peaceful protest movement must ask for the right (and the only way it can be won is at the ballot box).

It's fine to say we need to radically transform society (which is a slow, grinding, bottom up process), but in the mean time, the powers that be will probably stay busy consolidating their gains and further entrenching themselves (and if they're allowed to act with impunity, the possibility of radical change becomes exceedingly distant, and if the only consequence is an angry group of protesters who raise a little hell once in a while, they will be able to act with impunity).

So at some point (the sooner the better) OWS will probably need to find a way to become engaged in the political process, even if through unaffiliated proxies.

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

I agree. Ghandi perhaps can be used as a template. It is necessary to unite the masses into a cohesive movement. But the media and main parties are adept at fragmenting special interest groups.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

It's hard to know what the right approach is (and I certainly can't claim any special insight into how we should proceed). I'd love to see some sort of candidate pledge (enlisting the support of political candidates to specific items), but to what extent does this open OWS up to the same fate of the many unsuccessful movements that preceded us .... I just don't know? I suppose any group can do this, it doesn't have to be OWS (but, quite frankly, I can't think of many other groups or movements that merit our trust).

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

OWS directors seem to have a less inclusive agenda.

[-] 0 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

there is no "utopia".

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

It's an ideal, a goal.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Quite the other way around. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eptPeSmA37U

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

They don't hate Jews, they hate the imperialism of the US and NATO and propping up tyrants for oil and access.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Tell that to American12.

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Look at the millions of Muslims in Asia and Pacific we don't have a problem with. Because we don't interfere in their countries and prop up despots for oil.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Okay, your point being...?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by American12 (1) 2 years ago

If that is true then why do they always say death to the infidel? Why do they hate and want to kill those who aren't in their religion?

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

asked and answered.

[-] 1 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

It may be a good idea to "wipe Israel off the map" if the idea is to get rid of a Jewish state - not that we should replace it with a Palestinian state, mind you! Then we would also need to to "wiped that off the map." What we need over there is a state that is not based on creed or seperation. Not a Palestinian state nor an Israeli state but a state for all peoples. Who agrees with this?

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Get rid of religion fixes it.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

How would you go about achieving that?

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Religion seems to correlate with poverty and living standard. O f course one can be well off and religious, but it becomes balanced and reasoned. Address those issues and moderation should follow.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

"seems to correlate"?? Well, it may seem that way, but does that make it true. If the sun reflects on a window, it may seem like the sun is sitting there in the window, but it is not really there now is it. Any actual proof to back up that seeming connection. Without some actual evidence to support that statement, I would have to take it on "faith". And I thought that was the whole point of your statement - to get rid of faith.

[-] 4 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Use your brains and common sense. Have-nots revolt. Haves don't. Want documentation if you jump off a 10 story building you'll die?

[-] 1 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

try reading about the american revolution. it was about taxation without representaion. NOT about haves and have nots.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Sorry, misunderstood your comment. Makes sense after I read it again.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

LOL - many will. And pictures if you can get them.

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

coon rapids real?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep it's on the map North side of Minneapolis. The story is it was named due to the fact of the abundance of racoons - fur trappin times.

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Heard the state bird is the mosquito.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

They can get pretty large - in the land of 10,000+ humidifiers they can get fierce, huge swarms have been known to steal cattle.

[-] 0 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

spoken like a true fascist. the arab run totlaitarin theocracies do indeed hate israel and the jews. try looking at ISRAEL21c.org/ to see what they have accomplished with intelligence and inventivness.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Spoken like a true puppet getting all their fake news from FOX. Yes: inventive ways of stealing land that's not theirs and building settlements without permits, and then raising a stink when the government comes and tries to enforce the law by evicting them. Yes, intelligent ways in witholding millions in tax money legally due the Palestinians. Yes, Haredi fanatics spitting on Jewish school girls because they didn't dress to their extreme views. Yes, making Jewish women move to the back of a bus and making them walk on the other side of the street and other inventive discrimination , prejudice and violence. The fanatical right wing Jews are so nice even to their fellow Jews. Yes, intelligent ways of bribing potential military customers around the world to buy Israeli weapons. Now many of them were caught by the FBI for bribes and racketeering. Gee, did they do something to piss people off?

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago
[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Must be more publicized.

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Check this video out i posted earlier. The site I got it from is a pretty good source on the topic I believe.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Extremist fanaticals are a menace anywhere.

[-] 0 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

go to the http:// ISRAEL21c.org site. if the link doesnt work do you own search on ISRAEL21c

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

I agree with wiping off the map any nationalist endeavors to occupy the lands, resources, and sovereignty of others.

[-] 0 points by bobgnote (-55) 2 years ago

Muslims generally agree with the above idea, of a secular state. This was basically what Hezbollah head Nasrallah said on the Julian Assange Show, Russia Today, last week. But zionists started up their eurotrashing of Palestine, as soon as they settled there, 1882. They incited the Mahdi Army revolt, of 1886, and they have been starting or trying to start wars, ever since, see "bulldozers." Zionism has been killing, since the Habirus stoned Moses, in the 14th Century B.C. The Old Testament is all about ethnic cleansing, by the ancient Israelites, as in, they put to the sword all inhabitants, of Ai, Hazor, Jericho, and about 50 other places in the area of the Sea of Galilee. Just what do YOU think will stop such a determined group of organized criminals, still killing and taking, today?

[-] 1 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

First of all I would try to accept all people as members of humanity and having the same general traits of humanity like compassion for one's fellow man. I would also try not to generalize about any particular group by asking myself if there is an exception to the rule that I have given myself by not seeing a particular person because he or she is of some ethnicity or creed.

Looking for evidence and reasons to hate any particular group is not the way to go. Politicians have tried that on Muslims and Jews and Blacks and Whites and all kinds of people to keep their war machines going.

If the people of Palestine/Israel didn't see each other as different, there probably wouldn't have been any conflict because they would have learned to live with each other. Just seems like common sense

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Right, 'cause that really works...indigenous people seeing foreign invaders as just fellow human beings. Yes, the past 500 years has truly born this out.

[-] 2 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Like Mahatma Gandhi's on violent struggle for India's independence and Nelson Mandela's fight against Apartheid and other events in the last 500 years. Ever tried listening to the "I have a dream" speech by Martin Luther King Jr?

War only breeds more war, hate breeds more hate. Nothing can be won by hate. You just set yourself up for some group's desire for retribution. What good is that?

We live in a global world. Any idea of one group vs another is really just not going to work with our current population and technological advances. No-one group can invade any other group anymore. It's now a war of ideology. What system are we going to live under?

The very notion of "indigenous" is ridiculous because peoples have been shifting all over the earth, you have to ask at what time and during what culture. All humans came from somewhere in Africa and then migrated. Migration is still happening today.

So end these false identities and false maps drawn on paper. They all come from the human mind. The human mind can create something else now.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Would this be the same Martin Luther King Jr who was content to be a beneficiary of the foreign invasion in continued occupation of another peoples' land? How's that dream of his working out for people like Trayvon Martin?

Perfect invader mentality...now that we've made war to obtain other people's lands, no more war...unless you have some resources we want as well. For the invader mentality "indigenous" is "ridiculous" but "illegal alien" isn't. So long as justice is too much of an inconvenience for populations with technological advances, especially nuclear ones, war shall ever remain inevitable. Whether it's false accusations of weapons of mass destruction or false accusations of merely striving to be nuclear weapon capable, the warmongering populations of technological advances who promote these falsehoods must vanish from the page of time.

[-] 2 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I don't understand what you are saying here..are you saying I have an invader mentality?

Indigenous is ridiculous and is all a matter of interpretation. It's another fictional reality like "chosen people of God."

Your angry emotions don't convince me of anything. Just the lyrics to a John Lennon song:

"If you want money for people with minds that hate, all I can tell you brother is you have to wait"

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

I myself am reminded of the lyrics to a song:

"I'm gonna kill me a pilgrim (pilgrim...pilgrim...)" "Kill his mother and his father and his children (children...children...)" "I'm blowin' up twenty story buildings (buildings...buildings...)" "I'm gonna kill me a pilgrim."

Apparently, there are those minds that hate that aren't interested in anyone's money for injustice.

I have pointed out a characteristic of an invader mentality. You can judge for yourself whether or not it applies to you.

Indigenous people are a fact no matter how one may want to ridicule or rationalize away their status. When a people arrive in a land with no previous human habitation, their descendents born into that land are indigenous. When others arrive and settle peacefully either among them or separate from them, they are settlers. When others arrive with malicious intents of enslavement and land acquisation, they are invaders. It doesn't matter if they remain within the land for 3000 years, if they maintain their invader mentality towards those who were there before them, they remain foreign invaders.

No people has a right to enter another people's habitation at their expense. So long as the violence and threat of violence exists to maintain the benefits of injustices done unto others, counter violence shall always exist. All who seek to justify the retention of other people's lands and sovereignty must vanish from the page of time.

[-] 2 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

So you believe in property rights and fighting over little man made drawings called maps.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

I support fighting for justice and against injustice and that certainly includes fighting against anyone who acts upon a perspective of self-entitlement towards the labor, products, and resources of others whose natural habitations can be clarified by the use of maps. Such self-entitled people who interfere in the lives of others, along with the regime that occupies Jerusalem, must vanish from the page of time.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Sheeple love sound bites...

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Fox makes it easy for lazy minds.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Idiotic sound bites know no partisan boundaries...

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

What's more asinine is they vote against their own interests.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I particular like the afghan slur

they are a kulture of warriors like Conan the barbarian

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Like it too.

[-] 1 points by bobgnote (-55) 2 years ago

What Iran wants is a state, which allows Palestinians to be citizens and vote. While he was a student, President Mahmoud Achmadinijad opposed the takeover of the US Embassy. His words are always getting twisted; see also, Jimmy Carter, Man From Plains(2007), getting hassled by zionist pigs. He eventually gets denied permission to visit Syria, by the Bush Administration, even though he has known both Assads, including Bashar, since he was a student. Carter was once able to go to Haffez Assad and get compromises made, which the Reagan State Dept. wanted. Look how THAT situation has deteriorated, under Bush and Obama. Obama is a lousy zionist, with the same first name, as a general, who served Queen Deborah of ancient Israel. So naturally, Obama's toadying to zionist-fascists gets him branded as a Muslim. You cannot discuss issues, with zionist punks. I don't know what Obama's sorry excuse is, for trying to toad up, to oppressors.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Suicidal fanatics at AIPAC and Israeli right have bought Congress, the Pres. and media by money and intimidation.

[-] 0 points by bobgnote (-55) 2 years ago

This is true. Some estimates make AIPAC the most influential, of all the lousy political action committees. I would not use the term "suicidal," rather than MURDEROUS and LARCENOUS.

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Like Muslim fanatics, they are dangerous.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Looks like it is a case of semantics:

Wipe Israel 'off the map' Iranian says:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html

Semantics mean nothing after you have been wiped off the map.

[-] 0 points by Devoghe (40) 2 years ago

You gotta wonder why not one head of state or official has corrected this misinformation to the public......no they continue to let the public think Achmadinijad actually said it. Why? Wouldn't truly peace loving administrations and leaders want to make sure this was corrected immediately, given how inflammatory it sounds? Hmmmm......

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Goebbels: Tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

[-] 0 points by Devoghe (40) 2 years ago

Yaeh, well, they can just kiss my ass!!!!

[-] 0 points by Mowat (164) 2 years ago

Israelis hate everyone. They even hate themselves.

Haters, occupiers, killers: This is why they have been foresaken by God.

Uneasy, unhappy, guilty. You name it!

I feel sorry for them. They can't repent. They can't do good. It's in their blood.

An ill fate is awaiting them, surely.

[-] 3 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

ALL people come into this world a blank slate. They are taught to love or hate. Jews, Muslims, Christians have gotten along and prospered for centuries in the past. That was lost as we "advance." The US NATO policy of democracy at gunpoint is a failure. China will win because it prospers by trade instead of war and force.

[-] 1 points by Mowat (164) 2 years ago

Well said!

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Can you justify any of that information, Mowat?

From my post in this link, it is clear that people of the Jewish faith are present in pretty much every culture on the face of the earth. They are still present in Iran, and they will continue to be an active participant in their politics, if what is written in wiki is to be believed.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Jagger01 (-6) 2 years ago

bklynsboy, your parents must have raised you to be a good left wing useful idiot. Does Iran support Hezbollah? Did Iran blow up the Jewish Cultural center in Argentina? Does Iran currently support the murderous Assad? I don't expect you to know the correct answers as you are muy estupido.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Dickbreath, what were the causes of that blowback, or is it all you know is FOX fake facts and your 1st grade schooling? Were your parents related?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by American12 (1) 2 years ago

If anyone actually believes that Iran wan the rest of the Middle East doesn't want to kill us and Israel is an idiot. They hate Jews. They think America is run by Jews. Ou have to be pretty ignorant or stupid to believe otherwise.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

From wiki, for your information.

Iran's Jewish population was reduced from 100,000–150,000 in 1948 to about 80,000 immediately before the Iranian Revolution, due mostly to immigration to Israel. While immigration to Israel had slowed in the 1970s and the Jewish population of Iran had stabilized, the majority of Iran's remaining Jews left the country in the aftermath of the overthrow of the Shah. The current Jewish population of Iran is estimated by most sources to be 75,000,[11][12][13][14] though estimates vary, as low as 30,000 [15] and as high as 90,000.[16] Notable population centers include Tehran, Isfahan (1,200),[17] and Shiraz. Historically, Jews maintained a presence in many more Iranian cities. Jews are protected in the Iranian constitution and seat is reserved for a Jew in the Majlis.[12] Iran hosts the largest Jewish population of any Muslim-majority country.[18] After Israel, it is home to the second-largest Jewish population in the Middle East.[11] Other communities

Iranian Jews also emigrated to form smaller communities in Western Europe (in particular Paris and London), and in Australia, Canada, and South America. A number of groups of Jews of Persia have split off since ancient times. They have been identified as separate communities, such as the Bukharan Jews and Mountain Jews. In addition, there are a large number of people in Iran who are, or who are the direct descendants of, Jews who converted to Islam or the Bahá'í faith.[19]

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Why is the Middle East the biggest source of war against the US? Why does the rest of the world leave us alone? Could it be we're historically meddling, interfering and waring there for oil and propping up despots? Name one other region in the world where we interfere and they hate us.

[-] 0 points by American12 (1) 2 years ago

No one else does because most of the Middle Eastern countries are headed by Muslim Extremists. Just like Iran.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Right, but of course these despotic leaders have thrived with American support, and in the case of Iran, our meddling helped create the situation we have today .... and yet, we still haven't learned our lesson. While countries like Portugal manage to produce over 50% of their electricity using renewable energy sources, we haven't even been able to decide whether or not alternative energy is a good idea (because a huge swath of our population won't even accept well understood science).

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by American12 (1) 2 years ago

Iran is headed by radical extremists who have a horrible hatred for both the US and Isreal. They think that the US is headed by Jews who are run by the devil. THEY HATE JEWS. That us why the hate Israel to. If they successfully weaponize Uranium you can sure as shit bet that they will use it against Israel. No one can deny that they are extremists that hate us and Israel.

[-] -1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Dealing with Iran isn't worth a single American boot on the ground, but an Iran with nuclear weapons would be insane. Hopefully we can keep knocking off their scientists to the point where anyone with a PhD in physics get's the hell out of Iran at first opportunity. If this doesn't work, then there's always plan B (drop a 30,000 lb. bomb on her nuclear facilities, definitely not a desirable outcome, considering the potential fallout, and considering it would only set the Iranians back, not destroy their nuclear aspirations altogether).

The only real way to force the Iranians to the negotiating table, is if the war we were contemplating was a real war. Not boots on the ground, but an all out air campaign that destroyed her oil producing capability, took out electrical plants, all communications, etc. But of course the question becomes, do we have a moral imperative for this kind of war (since it would send Iran back to the dark ages, and its people along with it)? Since the Iranians know that we lack the will for this sort of thing, it's not really worth discussing.

Clearly, this is a very difficult situation. When religious nut jobs are trying to get their hands on a nuclear warhead, we obviously need to be concerned (and I view this as a somewhat separate issue, from the questions concerning the Israel/Palestinian relationship, or lack thereof).

Ideally, sanctions would have toppled the Iranian regime, but this strategy exceedingly looks like it won't succeed. The Israeli's will likely launch a strike in the near future, and we've already positioned missile defense assets on Israeli soil (so one way or the other, we'll be involved). At least if it's Israel who does this (unilaterally), we get a certain amount of plausible deniability (and I think we avoid the dooms day scenario of bombing Iran back to the stone age).

So my message to Israel would be, just get it over with already (assuming you can pull it off).

[-] 3 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

ANY attack on Iran will blowback destroying the global economy and targeting US, NATO and Israeli interests world wide.

N. Korea, Pakistan, India have bombs. End of the world? Plus, Iran knows it's suicide to build one. Attack unnecessary.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

April 24 JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel's military chief said he does not believe Iran will decide to build an atomic bomb and called its leaders "very rational".

Lieutenant-General Benny Gantz's remarks, in an interview published on Wednesday in the left-wing Haaretz newspaper, drew little attention in Israel on its annual remembrance day for fallen soldiers, when political discourse is suspended.

But they will add fuel to an internal debate on the prospects of Iran weaponizing its uranium enrichment program and the wisdom and risks of any Israeli military strike to try to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear power.

"Iran is moving step-by-step towards a point where it will be able to decide if it wants to make a nuclear bomb. It has not decided yet whether to go the extra mile," Gantz said.

But, he said, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could opt to produce nuclear weapons should he believe that Iran would not face reprisal.

"In my opinion, he will be making a huge mistake if he does that and I don't think he will want to go the extra mile," Gantz said.

"I think the Iranian leadership is comprised of very rational people. But I agree that such a capability in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists, who at some moments may make different calculations, is a dangerous thing."

Tehran denies seeking the bomb, saying it is enriching uranium only for peaceful energy purposes and that its nuclear program is a threat to no one.

Speaking on CNN on Tuesday, Netanyahu said he would not want to bet "the security of the world on Iran's rational behavior." A "militant Islamic regime", he said, "can put their ideology before their survival."

The portrayal of Iran as irrational - willing to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon even if it means the destruction of the Islamic Republic in retaliatory strikes - could bolster a case for pre-emptive bombing to take out its atomic facilities.

Netanyahu had already been stung at home by his former spymaster, Meir Dagan, who said that such an Israeli strike on Iran would be a "ridiculous" idea.

Shannon Kile, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said Gantz's description of Iranian leaders as rational was "quite an interesting turnabout."

"Hopefully, it is going to reduce the incentives for any sort of pre-emptive or preventive military action, at least for the time being," Kile said.

Gantz's assessment appeared to be in step with the view of the top U.S. military officer, General Martin Dempsey. He said in a CNN interview in February he believed Iran was a "rational actor" and it would be premature to take military action against it.

Israeli political sources said at the time that the remarks by Dempsey - who also suggested Israel's armed forces could not deliver lasting damage to Iranian nuclear sites - had angered Netanyahu.

A diplomat who tracks Iran carefully said Gantz's comments might aim to tilt Israeli opinion away from a strike. "I would see it as push-back or maybe something preventive," he said, saying the assessment "flies in the face" of Netanyahu's views.

"What he said ... (is) consistent with the views of the U.S. military leadership, the U.S. intelligence community," said Carnegie Endowment for International Peace analyst George Perkovich. "What's interesting is why he said it out loud."



Now - can you imagine Iran dropping an atomic bomb on Israel and NOT killing a million Muslims.
Now you could argue that Muslims killing Muslims has been SOP since the year 624. And the rationality of the Iranian bombers could argue that it was a fatwa or that the were sending their brothers to their 72 virgins.
And their sisters where?
But why should these Muslims be different from any other Muslims.

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

We wen thru this before: Israel has 200+ nukes. The US will back Israel to the hilt with air, land and sea wars against Iran. Iran is too advanced and prosperous to war with Israel (NATO and US). Stop dreaming and listening to FOX and AIPAc and use your brains. Iran and its people aren't suicidal. Numerous high ranking Israeli and US military and intelligence agree. You and FOX and the fanatical Israeli right know better?

[-] -1 points by bobgnote (-55) 2 years ago

What makes you think, "ideally," sanctions would topple a "regime," which now features Achmadinijad as President, where Shiites are the clear majority, and no way will any zionists be able to call shots? The Israelis will fulfill Islamic prophecy, as to how the world will end, see "Israfel." See also, "apartheid." The US likes apartheid, see the movie, Formosa Betrayed, noting how 2 million Mandarin-speaking Chiang thugs took over Taipei, where 18 million Cantonese-speakers lived; now I guess there are more, but China still has missiles pointed at the island, where many were murdered, and that did not slow down, until Nixon met Mao, in the 1970s. In Bahrain, a Sunni king rules a Shiite majority. Russia supports the Shiite Assad tyrant, in Syria, where Sunnis are the majority. Israel is ruled by a Jewish minority, over a Palestinian majority, or at least, before all the bulldozers, the Palis were more numerous. When you get a little tired of ethnic cleansing, read the Old Testament. The Habirus have been ruling by the sword, since they stoned Moses, c. 14th Century. The Jewish state is your favorite nutjob, looks like. What about if organized crime get nukes? Already happened, if you ask me.

[-] 1 points by Mowat (164) 2 years ago

The conflict between Israel and Iran is that both want to swallow the same chunk of land: Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. The Israelis have about 70 million Jews waiting to be settled in the "Promised Land" which in their eyes extends from the Nile to the Euphrates, the Iranians on the other hand want to make those lands Shiite and restart the Fatimid Kingdom replacing the majority Muslim Sunnis who they consider to be enemies.

If both have nuclear weapons, none of them can have that land without facing the other.

It should be happy news for the world that Iran gets its nukes.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Where do get the 70 million Jews figure? There are only about 15 million worldwide.

[-] 1 points by Mowat (164) 2 years ago

15 million?

Can you believe a clan that lasted more than 6000 years would leave only 15 million?

I said 70 million. I am sure the number is much more than that.

The main-stream media and many Zionist owned/controlled sources will give you accurate information only if it is not related to Jews or their interests. Keeping a low profile helps them achieve their agendas.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The 70 million figure is based on what? Provide the evidence.

[-] -1 points by bobgnote (-55) 2 years ago

You obviously are uniformed, as to the machinations of the Brits and CIA, which supported the Shah's rise, in 1953, to support the claim of what is now British Petroleum, to Iranian oil rights, but also, to support the development of US arms, in Iran. Too bad, the Ayatollah Khomeini was a purge-artist, who allowed enmity with the zionists in the US, to exacerbate. He purged his entire air force officer corps, when some of them were discovered planning a pro-Shah coups, allowing Saddam to attack, with some expectation of success, not realized. As for killing people in Iran, that is going on, but endorsing it is nutjob talk, plain. The situation is already out of control, without more covert dirt getting done, and it is out-of-control because agencies like the CIA do dirt, back before you were born, so why get hard? The CIA overflew China, from Tibet and Taiwan, in 1948, inciting the taking of Tibet in 1949 by China, and when MacArthur declared South Korea out of our sphere, the North attacked. The US then nestled up to the Yalu and probably overflew and did any incursion MacArthur wanted but did not disclose, and the Chinese response killed a lot of UN troops, in the course of sending everybody back, to parallel 38. The CIA supported Saddam in 1958. Isn't it weird, the Kennedys were hit, on a ten-years after scale. If somebody hits the spent-uranium storage near US reactors, we will be really, REALLY SORRY. So don't think we are so safe, or safe enough, if you have some sort of zionist agenda, left over from when Christians figured out an industrial revolution would let them back into Palestine. As for killing people in Iran, trust me. YOU do not know what is coming in aviation. The Iranians do know a lot of this. I know some of this. We are not safe, if your idea of covert murder in Iran keeps on happening. Smarten the hell up, please.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I mean, we're all aware of the history here, and obviously the US fucked up (considerably) along the way ... but that really isn't helping us now. We're not going to atone for our sins by allowing a nut job to get his hands on nuclear weapons.

[-] 0 points by bobgnote (-55) 2 years ago

If you put it that way, consider Israel has been estimated to have 300 warheads. In 1983, Russians concocted media, for nuclear war, during a US-led NATO exercise. The former Soviet Union went on alert, treating the exercise intercepts, as a real threat. Somebody concocted a program glitch, which right during the drills perceived the reflections off clouds as ICBM-flares. The Soviets sacked the hero who stood their response down, which looks like it was concocted, to hoist NATO by the 1967 Sinai War-pitard, that is, Egypt was on maneuvers, and Israel sacked them, with a pre-emptive strike, inciting the Yom Kippur War, of 1973. SALT talks and the movie SALT both ensued. But with your DOD-popular zionist agression, you cannot ensure the whole world will not get destroyed, in moments, when you blunder forward and react, to something which may be your own fault. Remember, the US always screws up, at the onset, of any war. ALWAYS. Since the Revolution. All the way into the 20th Century. Possibly the worst was FDR conspired, with WestPAC chief General George Marshall, to suppress any evidence of imminent Japanese attack. These guys stopped all US and British intel, by order, including warning by the Brits, about the Imperial Japanese Fleet being headed, for Pearl. They suppressed radar info, an hour before the attack, simultaneous to the USS Ward blowing a hole in a midget sub. STILL they wouldn't go on alert. Similarly, the NSA, CIA, and FBI all had intel, indicating the 9/11 attackers were busy, in the USA. They all failed to coordinate. On the other tack, the US and Dick Cheney and GW all insisted Saddam had WMDs, but actually, he was a whipped, former CIA client, trying to hold his office as a Sunni, amid a Shiite majority. If you think it is time to attack Iran because of some crazy prejudice against Islam or Iran, YOU are the nutjob, buddy. Nukes is as nukes does, dude. They go, BOOOOOOOM, and once they start, they might not stop, for a couple hours. THEN we eat WMD shit-pie. So don't get stupid on me. Like I already wrote, please consider the possibility, organized crime ALREADY has nuclear weapons. Maybe they want to use them. Don't you get all happy about that. The radiation breaks chromosomes, even more efficiently than does petroleum and its products, like gasoline and pesticides. Believe me, if you want to be an idiot-savant, you cannot do more than carry a load of petroleum and nukes, all from bogus policy, and then you want to burn everytning down, needlessly, all at once or gradually, which may finally get done, in your generation.