Israeli Air Force practices for Iranian strike
Join Date: May 1999
Location: At Home
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Iran starts airmail deliveries of sunshine to Israel, isn't there going to be a fair amount of overspill into the Palestinian areas and wont they be fairly aggrieved about this.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fail to understand the large amount of animosity being directed at Israel, almost universally from Euro-fag lefties. What exactly is their great crime, aside from trying to defend their homeland from continuous threats from their neighbours?
The land they live on was given to them by the UN 60-odd years ago. It was BOUGHT from the Palestinians, and was, at the time, largely barren and infertile (hence the ease with which the Arabs parted with it). The Israelis, however, made a good go of it and made the land productive, at which point (some 20 years later) the Arabs suddenly decided they wanted it back.
Since then, Israel has been invaded, or threatened with invasion, by virtually all of its neighbours, and continues to live under that threat, and the threat of real, organised, well-funded (by most of its Arab neighbours) terrorism on a daily basis. It now faces a country that not only has stated publicly, repeatedly, and most vociferously, its intention to 'wipe Israel off the map', but appears to be working on the means to do so with clandestine haste.
Israel has never invaded any of its neighbours, except when provoked into doing so in necessary self-defence.
Israel does not want any of its neighbours' lands.
Israel has never threatened to wipe any of its neighbours 'off the map'.
Israel has nuclear weapons, but has never used them nor threatened to do so.
Israel HAS occupied 'Palestinian territories' in the past, but has only done so to try and control the endless barrage of terrorist attacks eminating from there (ring any bells - NI, anyone?). It has not attacked the Palestinians without first being provoked, nor has it sought their complete destruction.
Israel is no threat to its neighbours, but Israel's neighbours ARE a huge threat to Israel, and most of them have publicly stated so.
Israel has never denied the right of any of its neighbours to simply exist.
So, PLEASE tell me - exactly WHAT is your problem with Israel, or their possession of nuclear weapons, or their desire to provide security for their citizens to live in (relative) peace within their own borders, or their desire to eliminate a known, publicly stated threat (Iran's nuclear capability) before that threat reaches the stage where nuclear exchange is all but inevitable?
The land they live on was given to them by the UN 60-odd years ago. It was BOUGHT from the Palestinians, and was, at the time, largely barren and infertile (hence the ease with which the Arabs parted with it). The Israelis, however, made a good go of it and made the land productive, at which point (some 20 years later) the Arabs suddenly decided they wanted it back.
Since then, Israel has been invaded, or threatened with invasion, by virtually all of its neighbours, and continues to live under that threat, and the threat of real, organised, well-funded (by most of its Arab neighbours) terrorism on a daily basis. It now faces a country that not only has stated publicly, repeatedly, and most vociferously, its intention to 'wipe Israel off the map', but appears to be working on the means to do so with clandestine haste.
Israel has never invaded any of its neighbours, except when provoked into doing so in necessary self-defence.
Israel does not want any of its neighbours' lands.
Israel has never threatened to wipe any of its neighbours 'off the map'.
Israel has nuclear weapons, but has never used them nor threatened to do so.
Israel HAS occupied 'Palestinian territories' in the past, but has only done so to try and control the endless barrage of terrorist attacks eminating from there (ring any bells - NI, anyone?). It has not attacked the Palestinians without first being provoked, nor has it sought their complete destruction.
Israel is no threat to its neighbours, but Israel's neighbours ARE a huge threat to Israel, and most of them have publicly stated so.
Israel has never denied the right of any of its neighbours to simply exist.
So, PLEASE tell me - exactly WHAT is your problem with Israel, or their possession of nuclear weapons, or their desire to provide security for their citizens to live in (relative) peace within their own borders, or their desire to eliminate a known, publicly stated threat (Iran's nuclear capability) before that threat reaches the stage where nuclear exchange is all but inevitable?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
isn't there going to be a fair amount of overspill into the Palestinian areas and wont they be fairly aggrieved about this.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TheInquisitor
Just like happened in Iraq then.
Hoo eeee we have a live one here! I wonder where that all came from? I'll ignore most of this but if the place was as barren and infertile why then are the Israelis bulldozing so many orchards and olive groves then? This lie that the place was empty, uninhabited and barren has been propagated ad nausium and came as a surprise to the local inhabitants. I say this as a long time supporter of Israel who is exasperated.
May I suggest that you go here and download today’s program.
The people of Iran no longer desire the rule of the mullahs and would be likely to take care of the loose ends themselves.
The land they live on was given to them by the UN 60-odd years ago. It was BOUGHT from the Palestinians, and was, at the time, largely barren and infertile (hence the ease with which the Arabs parted with it).
May I suggest that you go here and download today’s program.
The Inquisitor,
Just for the sake of accuracy....
When Palestine was partitioned, the Jewish population were allocated slightly more than half of the area, despite constituting slightly less than half of the population. The Arabs were understandably miffed about this, the more so since that Jewish population had been inflated by massive illegal immigration (exceeding the targets set during the Mandate, on which Arab consent had been founded), and since the Jewish state would include the most fertile parts.
The Arabs were stupid enough to go to war in '48, and in doing so lost much of the territory that the UN had allocated to them, though (thanks largely to the Arab legion) they clung on to the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
They did not sell their land then decide they wanted it back 20 years later, after Israel had 'improved it'. They wanted back what was taken from them from the moment it was lost, and they fought and died, and killed (in some appalling acts of terrorism) in an impotent attempt to recover it for the next three decades.
For many years, the Palestinians and their allies stupidly and unreasonably claimed the whole of the former Palestine, did not acknowledge Israel's right to exist, and swore to wipe Israel off the map. Naturally even the 'Eurofag Liberals' tended to take Israel's side, as the Israelis were the citizens of a partial democracy (the most democratic state in the region), who were of European origin like us, and who were under attack by unspeakable totalitarian neighbours and filthy domestic terrorists.
The Israelis took the West Bank in '67, along with Gaza, further expanding the State of Israel by force of arms. But for as long as the Arab side wanted the destruction of Israel, Euroweenies like me felt that Israel was entirely justified in its actions.
But in recent years, even the PLO have dropped their outright demands for the whole of Palestine, and have not even demanded the territory that they were allocated by the UN in 1948.
After the work by Sadat in the 70s, and especially since Oslo, Palestinian demands have been relatively modest, amounting to something that falls short of a return to the pre-68 borders. A non-contiguous Palestinian state comprising Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem would seem to be entirely reasonable and just, and once Israel's right to exist was recognised, the Palestinian side deserved some modest payback.
The US failure to encourage Israel to accept such a solution has led to the intransigence that underlies the present problem. Without US support and subsidies, Israel would be forced to compromise.
Only a handful of nutters would deny that the unique suffering of the Jewish people between 1933-45 did not 'earn' them the right to a state of their own in the Holy Land. That's rather different to having the entire Holy Land as their own exclusive state, however, and the more reasonable might also recognise that the suffering of the Palestinians might perhaps earn them the right to a state of their own on the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as their capital.
I'm not equating the Holocaust with what has happened to the Palestinians since '48, nor am I suggesting for one moment that the Palestinians have an equal moral claim to the former Palestine to that of the Jewish people. But I am suggesting that they have some small claim.
I'd also challenge the idea that Israel was founded on 'purchased land' - ask the survivors of Deir Yassin and elsewhere whether they sold their land - while the claim that Israelis 'made the desert bloom' is also flawed - lateral extraction of water from underneath Palestinian land (for example) blurs the achievement somewhat. And being more efficient farmers than your neighbours does not entitle you to their land, otherwise France would be another English county - an annex to Kent!
Just for the sake of accuracy....
When Palestine was partitioned, the Jewish population were allocated slightly more than half of the area, despite constituting slightly less than half of the population. The Arabs were understandably miffed about this, the more so since that Jewish population had been inflated by massive illegal immigration (exceeding the targets set during the Mandate, on which Arab consent had been founded), and since the Jewish state would include the most fertile parts.
The Arabs were stupid enough to go to war in '48, and in doing so lost much of the territory that the UN had allocated to them, though (thanks largely to the Arab legion) they clung on to the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
They did not sell their land then decide they wanted it back 20 years later, after Israel had 'improved it'. They wanted back what was taken from them from the moment it was lost, and they fought and died, and killed (in some appalling acts of terrorism) in an impotent attempt to recover it for the next three decades.
For many years, the Palestinians and their allies stupidly and unreasonably claimed the whole of the former Palestine, did not acknowledge Israel's right to exist, and swore to wipe Israel off the map. Naturally even the 'Eurofag Liberals' tended to take Israel's side, as the Israelis were the citizens of a partial democracy (the most democratic state in the region), who were of European origin like us, and who were under attack by unspeakable totalitarian neighbours and filthy domestic terrorists.
The Israelis took the West Bank in '67, along with Gaza, further expanding the State of Israel by force of arms. But for as long as the Arab side wanted the destruction of Israel, Euroweenies like me felt that Israel was entirely justified in its actions.
But in recent years, even the PLO have dropped their outright demands for the whole of Palestine, and have not even demanded the territory that they were allocated by the UN in 1948.
After the work by Sadat in the 70s, and especially since Oslo, Palestinian demands have been relatively modest, amounting to something that falls short of a return to the pre-68 borders. A non-contiguous Palestinian state comprising Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem would seem to be entirely reasonable and just, and once Israel's right to exist was recognised, the Palestinian side deserved some modest payback.
The US failure to encourage Israel to accept such a solution has led to the intransigence that underlies the present problem. Without US support and subsidies, Israel would be forced to compromise.
Only a handful of nutters would deny that the unique suffering of the Jewish people between 1933-45 did not 'earn' them the right to a state of their own in the Holy Land. That's rather different to having the entire Holy Land as their own exclusive state, however, and the more reasonable might also recognise that the suffering of the Palestinians might perhaps earn them the right to a state of their own on the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as their capital.
I'm not equating the Holocaust with what has happened to the Palestinians since '48, nor am I suggesting for one moment that the Palestinians have an equal moral claim to the former Palestine to that of the Jewish people. But I am suggesting that they have some small claim.
I'd also challenge the idea that Israel was founded on 'purchased land' - ask the survivors of Deir Yassin and elsewhere whether they sold their land - while the claim that Israelis 'made the desert bloom' is also flawed - lateral extraction of water from underneath Palestinian land (for example) blurs the achievement somewhat. And being more efficient farmers than your neighbours does not entitle you to their land, otherwise France would be another English county - an annex to Kent!
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Between The Inquisitor's and Jackonicko's narrative, my belief is that The Inquisitor's has it most right.
Jackonicko, you conveniently ignore the ongoing attacks from Palestinians, the surprise attack wars instigated by various regional Arab powers, and the failure of Palestinians to meet the terms of Oslo or any other arrangements to which they have signed up.
I was once a neutral observer in all this, and I've spent significant time in the Middle East, willing to listen to people, and read the press from both points of view. I concluded long ago that Isreal wants peace and will go more than halfway to achieve it. The Arab/Palestinian side wants not peace, but Israel's demise, and is willing to give very little from that stance. That so many don't see what to any empirical observer is quite obvious is of great mystery to me.
Jackonicko, you conveniently ignore the ongoing attacks from Palestinians, the surprise attack wars instigated by various regional Arab powers, and the failure of Palestinians to meet the terms of Oslo or any other arrangements to which they have signed up.
I was once a neutral observer in all this, and I've spent significant time in the Middle East, willing to listen to people, and read the press from both points of view. I concluded long ago that Isreal wants peace and will go more than halfway to achieve it. The Arab/Palestinian side wants not peace, but Israel's demise, and is willing to give very little from that stance. That so many don't see what to any empirical observer is quite obvious is of great mystery to me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
However, has Israel done anything to Iran?
Has there ever been an Iran-Israeli war?
Did many, if any of the Palestinians migrate to Iran?
Has Israel ever threatened Iran or Iran's interests?
The plight/fate/end game of the Palestinians and Israel is an endless cycle with each side claiming they're in the right. Both are wrong in my view. What does Iran have to do with the situation?
Yet, I see no one here castigating Iran for the public statements of 'wiping Israel off the map.' Even allowing for the argument that the text of that infamous speech has been mistranslated, the public intentions and policies of the current regime in Tehran have been very clear.
Why on earth would anyone begrudge Israel making a show of force in what I imagine is a way keeping the situation from escalating into mutual mushroom clouds?
Or, if need be, preventing a nation that has publicly threatened to destroy Israel and is acquiring the means to follow through?
Why is that wrong?
Has there ever been an Iran-Israeli war?
Did many, if any of the Palestinians migrate to Iran?
Has Israel ever threatened Iran or Iran's interests?
The plight/fate/end game of the Palestinians and Israel is an endless cycle with each side claiming they're in the right. Both are wrong in my view. What does Iran have to do with the situation?
Yet, I see no one here castigating Iran for the public statements of 'wiping Israel off the map.' Even allowing for the argument that the text of that infamous speech has been mistranslated, the public intentions and policies of the current regime in Tehran have been very clear.
Why on earth would anyone begrudge Israel making a show of force in what I imagine is a way keeping the situation from escalating into mutual mushroom clouds?
Or, if need be, preventing a nation that has publicly threatened to destroy Israel and is acquiring the means to follow through?
Why is that wrong?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is all going to kick off in the next 6 months. The Iranian Govt has had lots of chances, I don't blame Israel for a public flexing of muscles.
Funny how Zanu PM changed tack after the swift visit from POTUS last week.
I fully expect the fun to start soon.
$200 a barrel, ouch, best get used to the idea.
Funny how Zanu PM changed tack after the swift visit from POTUS last week.
I fully expect the fun to start soon.
$200 a barrel, ouch, best get used to the idea.
No-one needs to condemn Iran for its lunatic pronouncements about Israel.
Patently we would all (even those of us who are stern critics of the more zionist aspects of Israeli policy) heartily condemn even the idea that Israel should be 'wiped off the map' or 'pushed back into the sea'. Condemnation of such a foul desire goes without saying, surely?
And you have to put Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements in context. The Iranian's have always been big on horrific sounding but empty, impotent rhetoric (remember what they were going to do to the 'Great Satan') and it would be a mistake to think that if Ahmadinejad says something, that's what he actually intends, means or wants. (And there's some controversy as to what he did say....)
As to the rights and wrongs of the Palestinians and Israelis, it is true that some violence has continued post Oslo, but it would be a fool who denied that there has been a seismic shift in Arab attitudes to Israel since then. Oslo marked the point at which various Palestinian factions publicly and specifically acknowledged Israel's right to exist, remember.
However, Israel has failed to abide by UNSC resolutions, and has failed to honour agreements on settlements on the West Bank. It has been heavy handed and disproportionate in its response to Palestinian violence, and the continued expansion of the settlements, the buidling of the wall and blockades have undermined Arab faith in the process. Israel's continued intransigence (and its failure to ensure that Fatah was able to deliver progress post Oslo) has played into the hands of Hamas and the Arab extremists, some of whom never signed up to Oslo in the first place.
Neither side is wholly in the right, and the Palestinian Authority's failure to control the terrorists is disgraceful, but I'd say that Israel's failure to compromise, and its disproportionate military response has been almost as responsible for the current situation - and we expect better from the Israelis, somehow.
Patently we would all (even those of us who are stern critics of the more zionist aspects of Israeli policy) heartily condemn even the idea that Israel should be 'wiped off the map' or 'pushed back into the sea'. Condemnation of such a foul desire goes without saying, surely?
And you have to put Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements in context. The Iranian's have always been big on horrific sounding but empty, impotent rhetoric (remember what they were going to do to the 'Great Satan') and it would be a mistake to think that if Ahmadinejad says something, that's what he actually intends, means or wants. (And there's some controversy as to what he did say....)
As to the rights and wrongs of the Palestinians and Israelis, it is true that some violence has continued post Oslo, but it would be a fool who denied that there has been a seismic shift in Arab attitudes to Israel since then. Oslo marked the point at which various Palestinian factions publicly and specifically acknowledged Israel's right to exist, remember.
However, Israel has failed to abide by UNSC resolutions, and has failed to honour agreements on settlements on the West Bank. It has been heavy handed and disproportionate in its response to Palestinian violence, and the continued expansion of the settlements, the buidling of the wall and blockades have undermined Arab faith in the process. Israel's continued intransigence (and its failure to ensure that Fatah was able to deliver progress post Oslo) has played into the hands of Hamas and the Arab extremists, some of whom never signed up to Oslo in the first place.
Neither side is wholly in the right, and the Palestinian Authority's failure to control the terrorists is disgraceful, but I'd say that Israel's failure to compromise, and its disproportionate military response has been almost as responsible for the current situation - and we expect better from the Israelis, somehow.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Condemnation of such a foul desire goes without saying, surely?
I am not going to go on the hamster wheel of the Israel-Palestine quagmire. Both sides have plenty to feel ashamed over.
I state I have no issue with Israel trying to get Iran to simmer down.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Age: 61
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko, nice ,well written argument but the massive illegal immigration bit seems a bit strange given what was happening in europe at the time. Many think the persecution of jews (and others of course) ended with the defeat of germany, sadly this was not the case and pogroms continued against jews returning from death camps and slave labour sites well into the late 40s.
Polish jews in particular were murdered in hundreds, many for the 'crime' of demanding the return of their land,homes and property
As is now widely known, Stalin was also planning his own campaign before his fortunate demise.
I cannot speak for anyone else posting comments here but if i were jewish, i would have left europe and got to palastine one way or another!!
Polish jews in particular were murdered in hundreds, many for the 'crime' of demanding the return of their land,homes and property
As is now widely known, Stalin was also planning his own campaign before his fortunate demise.
I cannot speak for anyone else posting comments here but if i were jewish, i would have left europe and got to palastine one way or another!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Thailand
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot speak for anyone else posting comments here but if i were jewish, i would have left europe and got to palastine one way or another!!
The terrorist attacks from Palastine are as Jacko said disgraceful. But if you were living in a country, without an army, without police, suffering military attacks from a very well armed organisation, using the latest US technology, what would you do? Suicide bomber and Hellfire missile, what's the connection? Well they both have the desired effect, they kill people, and both cause 'collateral damage', they cost a lot in either dollars or commitment, two sides are attacking each other, one has money and a military, the other does not. What would you do in your country, if you were faced with an oppressor who had military might, who was 'taking over', and you had no military might? Would you lay down and take it up the ass, or would you fight with any means at your disposal? Just a thought.
Bye the way my posts still seem to be being made invisible by a mod, so if you see this post PLEASE say you do or pm me (even if you disagree), as I just need to know when i am back on line. PM's i have sent have also been made invisible.
Ta!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Transiting the M27
Age: 50
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK then, to balance, here's something knocking Iran's leadership.
The current president of Iran is a "twelver", someone who believes that the 12th or "hidden" imam (Muhammad al-Mahdi al-Hujjah) will re-appear. The verses suggest that the 12th imam will appear the day before Judgement Day to dish out justice and peace to the Islamic World. But only the Islamic World.
Apparently President ADJ also thinks that the imam's return can be hastened by chaos on earth, you know, war, civil war, injustice, etc. Many Shias and Iranians think this particular view is a bit barking.
The current president of Iran is a "twelver", someone who believes that the 12th or "hidden" imam (Muhammad al-Mahdi al-Hujjah) will re-appear. The verses suggest that the 12th imam will appear the day before Judgement Day to dish out justice and peace to the Islamic World. But only the Islamic World.
Apparently President ADJ also thinks that the imam's return can be hastened by chaos on earth, you know, war, civil war, injustice, etc. Many Shias and Iranians think this particular view is a bit barking.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pre-emptive air strike is probably a decoy anyways
The Israeli Special Forces could probably go in over-night, dismantle it and ship it back before these tossers have said morning prayers - did something similar before ISTR - missile battery (1967)?
So, how about Tuesday 12th August - coincides with the Grouse shoot
The Israeli Special Forces could probably go in over-night, dismantle it and ship it back before these tossers have said morning prayers - did something similar before ISTR - missile battery (1967)?
So, how about Tuesday 12th August - coincides with the Grouse shoot
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
For those that think the other countries in the Gulf would root for Iran in the case of an attack by Israel, think again. Ignoring the whole Sunni v Shia thing, or the Arab v Persian, the whole geopolitics of the area militate against it. The following two articles in one of the leading Arabic daily papers will give an idea of their fears and views of Iran.
Asharq Alawsat: Why El-Baradei Threatened to Resign
........El-Baradei is witnessing the final moments of the US-Iranian match; so are we, but with mixed feelings. Iran is developing nuclear weapons to target us, rather than Israel; if not by actual use, at least for bargaining purposes. Meanwhile, Israel has the capability of obliterating Iran off the map with the same weapons. We do not want a new war, which would be paid for with civilian lives on many fronts. Preventing Iran from possessing nuclear weapons is clearly a matter of life and death for Israel. Europe supports Israel on this stand and sees itself as a target of Iran's long-range missiles.
The US believes Iran's possession of nuclear weapons would endanger the Gulf oilfields. The Gulf Arabs also want to halt Iran's nuclear weapon development because they are convinced that they would be targeted before Israel.
Hezbollah’s Last Fig Leaf
..........In consideration of the above, all that would be left would be to create the post of envoy to the Supreme Guide within the Lebanese premiership and Lebanon would be transformed into a division of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is not sarcasm; this is the reality that is taking shape on the ground.
It is enough to mention here the warning given by Ahmad El Assad, the founder of the Lebanese Option Gathering in protest against the conduct of some individuals affiliated to Iran’s Hezbollah. He said “In spite of our differences of opinion, such behavior is not representative of our values as Shia.” In a warning to Hassan Nasrallah, he said, “Lebanon is still and will always be a diverse place with differing viewpoints. It has not and will never turn into Iran.”......
-------------------------------------------
Asharq Al-Awsat is a major pan-Arabic daily newspaper, with a circulation of 200,000, printed simultaneously in twelve cities on four continents. It was founded in 1978 in London, United Kingdom by Jihad Al Khazen and Adel Bishtawi. It is still based in London, but it is now edited by the Saudi Research and Marketing Ltd. and directed by Saudi prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz, half-brother of the king.[
I have a thought that, if a large number of Israeli aircraft appeared on the radar tube heading east, those on duty in the Saudi Ops rooms would find an urgent need to pop out to wash their hands and deal with some urgent secondary duties........
Asharq Alawsat: Why El-Baradei Threatened to Resign
........El-Baradei is witnessing the final moments of the US-Iranian match; so are we, but with mixed feelings. Iran is developing nuclear weapons to target us, rather than Israel; if not by actual use, at least for bargaining purposes. Meanwhile, Israel has the capability of obliterating Iran off the map with the same weapons. We do not want a new war, which would be paid for with civilian lives on many fronts. Preventing Iran from possessing nuclear weapons is clearly a matter of life and death for Israel. Europe supports Israel on this stand and sees itself as a target of Iran's long-range missiles.
The US believes Iran's possession of nuclear weapons would endanger the Gulf oilfields. The Gulf Arabs also want to halt Iran's nuclear weapon development because they are convinced that they would be targeted before Israel.
Hezbollah’s Last Fig Leaf
..........In consideration of the above, all that would be left would be to create the post of envoy to the Supreme Guide within the Lebanese premiership and Lebanon would be transformed into a division of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is not sarcasm; this is the reality that is taking shape on the ground.
It is enough to mention here the warning given by Ahmad El Assad, the founder of the Lebanese Option Gathering in protest against the conduct of some individuals affiliated to Iran’s Hezbollah. He said “In spite of our differences of opinion, such behavior is not representative of our values as Shia.” In a warning to Hassan Nasrallah, he said, “Lebanon is still and will always be a diverse place with differing viewpoints. It has not and will never turn into Iran.”......
-------------------------------------------
Asharq Al-Awsat is a major pan-Arabic daily newspaper, with a circulation of 200,000, printed simultaneously in twelve cities on four continents. It was founded in 1978 in London, United Kingdom by Jihad Al Khazen and Adel Bishtawi. It is still based in London, but it is now edited by the Saudi Research and Marketing Ltd. and directed by Saudi prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz, half-brother of the king.[
I have a thought that, if a large number of Israeli aircraft appeared on the radar tube heading east, those on duty in the Saudi Ops rooms would find an urgent need to pop out to wash their hands and deal with some urgent secondary duties........
big on horrific sounding but empty, impotent rhetoric
Many dismissed Hitler's rants in the 1930's as empty, impotent rhetoric.
Dinnerjacket. My my, how amusing.
My admittedly limited knowledge of the Middle East is shaped by a now rather rusty degree in modern history (specialising in the history of the Middle East since 1915), by reading widely, and by talking to mates, including some who now teach at the School of Oriental and African Studies in Russell Square, and others whose profession is based on evaluating military and industrial capabilities in the region.
I'd venture to suggest that I may have a slightly broader view than one might get from reading the right wing US media and listening to paranoid Israeli and neo-con propaganda.
Your point about under-estimating Hitler is interesting and well-made, but even more recently, there are examples of over-estimating threats, and over-stating the threatening intentions of enemy leaders. One only has to go back to the dire warnings of Saddam Hussein's entirely mythical deployable WMD (within 45 minutes), or to Russian intentions in the late 1980s.
There's no doubt that Ahmadinejad has made some outrageous statements, and that if taken at face value, these might be considered extremely threatening. But there are questions as to whether intentions meet rhetoric, and especially as to whether rhetoric could be supported by capability.
My admittedly limited knowledge of the Middle East is shaped by a now rather rusty degree in modern history (specialising in the history of the Middle East since 1915), by reading widely, and by talking to mates, including some who now teach at the School of Oriental and African Studies in Russell Square, and others whose profession is based on evaluating military and industrial capabilities in the region.
I'd venture to suggest that I may have a slightly broader view than one might get from reading the right wing US media and listening to paranoid Israeli and neo-con propaganda.
Your point about under-estimating Hitler is interesting and well-made, but even more recently, there are examples of over-estimating threats, and over-stating the threatening intentions of enemy leaders. One only has to go back to the dire warnings of Saddam Hussein's entirely mythical deployable WMD (within 45 minutes), or to Russian intentions in the late 1980s.
There's no doubt that Ahmadinejad has made some outrageous statements, and that if taken at face value, these might be considered extremely threatening. But there are questions as to whether intentions meet rhetoric, and especially as to whether rhetoric could be supported by capability.
Last edited by Jackonicko; 24th Jun 2008 at 10:44. Reason: clarification: 'one might' is more pompous than 'you'd' but more accurate
I could take this thread slightly more seriously if some the contributors could correctly spell the names of the countries and people they're discussing.
Most people seem to be able to spell Iran properly, but then it's a four-letter word, so that's easy. To those who cannot spell Palestine,Gaza,etc. correctly, I would ask - why? Presumably you have read about this in newspapers and magazines (where they are spelt correctly), which have helped to form your opinion. Even 'The Sun' spells words properly - most of the time!
Most people seem to be able to spell Iran properly, but then it's a four-letter word, so that's easy. To those who cannot spell Palestine,Gaza,etc. correctly, I would ask - why? Presumably you have read about this in newspapers and magazines (where they are spelt correctly), which have helped to form your opinion. Even 'The Sun' spells words properly - most of the time!