Israeli president Shimon Peres sounded the general line of the AIPAC policy conference this morning and described Iran as a terror state that threatens the world. The fanatical imams of Iran are "out of history, they are against history."
Israel has only respect for the Iranian people, Peres said. "Historically Iran sought to enrich mankind. Today, alas, they want to enrich uranium."
He added, "Iran is not threatened by anybody."
AIPAC president David Victor punctuated Peres's speech with a charge to the AIPAC members about what they should be lobbying the Congress about starting tomorrow: the threat from Iran.
"This is a moment of danger... Too few people see the urgency. We must highlight to our leaders the true stark dimensions of the threat," Victor said. "We are the only constituency in America making this case."
That sense of loneliness and focus pervades this room. The rest of America is talking about the economy and Pakistan and the two-state solution. During Peres's speech, two members of Code Pink, the antiwar group, were dragged
from the convention center, crying out, "Stop the killing" and "The children of Gaza are people too."
As for Iran, the message is that sanctions are good, but Obama has to back up sanctions with severe penalties, and as Jane Harman emphasized yesterday, leave the military option on the table. Petroleum imports are the "Achilles heel" of the Iranian economy, Victor said, and he said that actions against the central banking system of Iran would work, having a "crippling effect on Iran's economy."
(I guess Iran is threatened by somebody...)
Victor invoked the Holocaust analogy at the end of his speech. He described the fate of the USS St. Louis, the boat carrying 900 Holocaust refugees that was denied entry into the U.S. in June 1939, dooming many of those aboard. The White House and Congress were then indifferent, he said.
"The good people in this room will not be bystanders to this pivot moment in history," he concluded.
Th US can apologize for the USS St. Louis when Israel apologizes for the USS Liberty. http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/...
off topic political humor: WARNING, foul language, probably not appropriate for work Shimmysham The AIG Dummy
'Iran is not threatened by anybody' Perhaps Peres hasn't read Jpost or Haaretz. Or perhaps he didn't read Bernie Morris' Op Ed opining that Israel could be "forced" to nuke Iran. Magical thinking in an alternate universe. How about a little honesty. Israel wants to continue being the only nuclear power in the ME. It's not too dissimilar to the USA just after WWII. Even Bertrand Russell (a liberal pacifist) once proposed nuking the USSR to maintain nuclear exclusivity. It is what it is and pretending otherwise just insults the audiences' intelligence.
oops, link got hosed somehow, trying again Shimmysham The AIG Dummy
hmm., interpreter not working … http://www.redstateupdate.com/video/shimmysham-th...
Any other country organization would be discussing it's agricultural and energy programs, how it's advancing in education, infrastructure, and benefitting its people. What its ten-year plan is. Not Israel. Sympathy ploy for a tennis player who couldn't play in the UAE during the Gaza War. Hyperbolic victims stories; same violin. And always always how it needs to go to war with a neighbor. Now. This minute. There's a threat. Give me money, America.
It is actually quite sickening how Peres claims has the gall to claim Iran is not threatened, while Israel keeps threatening to attack it and the U.S. at the behest of Israel and its own misguided interests leads the campaign in sanctioning and pressuring Iran economically like something out of the Economic Hit man play book, organizing covert operations in Iran in the hopes of undermining the government, and continues to interfere in the region lining up paranoid Sunni dictatorship governments up against Iran. Yet Israel, not Iran is threatened…. "If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you" YES YOU CAN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C3bzPMArSc
Peres' comments didn't seem horrible to me. The note about Code Pink did seem to be somewhat irrelevant and almost desparate, relative to the topic. Important to remember that Palestinians are human beings. Most important to make that statement when actions that effect their condition are contemplated. I think that Iran is definitely a threat to Israel and then to the world, not as much in the specific threat of unilateral nuclear launch, but in the effort to incrementally escalate aggression on Israel's ACTUAL borders. They CURRENTLY provide funding and armaments to groups that actively target civilians within sovereign and internationally recognized Israel. Its further along than a speculated bombing by IDF.
SENATE BILL: Bill Number: S.908 Bill Name: 'A bill to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran.' CONTACT your Senators: Call, Write, Fax, Email http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information... 31 Senate Sponsors: Arizona: John McCain (R) California: Jon Kyl (R) California: Barbara Boxer (D) Connecticut: Joseph Lieberman (I) Florida: Bill Nelson (D) Florida: Mel Martinez (R) Idaho: Jim Risch (R) Indiana: Evan Bayh (D) Kansas: Sam Brownback (R) Kentucky: Jim Bunning (R) Louisiana: Mary Landrieu (D) Louisiana: David Vitter (R) Maine: Susan Collins (R) Maryland: Barbara Mikulski (D) Maryland: Benjamin Cardin (D) Michigan: Debbie Stabenow (D) Minnesota: Amy Klobuchar (D) Missouri: Christopher Bond (R) Nebraska: Mike Johanns (R) Nevada: John Ensign (R) New Jersey: Robert Menendez (D) New York: Charles Schumer (D) New York: Kirsten Gillibrand (D) North Carolina: Richard Burr (R) Oklahoma: James Inhofe (R) Oklahoma: Tom Coburn (R) Oregon: Ron Wyden (D) South Carolina: Lindsey Graham (R) South Dakota: John Thune (R) Washington: Patty Murray (D) Wisconsin: Russ Feingold (D)
HOUSE BILL: Bill Number: H.R.2194 Bill Name: To amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran. CONTACT your Representativs: Call, Write, Fax, Email http://www.house.gov/ 31 House Sponsors: California: Brad Sherman (D 27th) California: Howard Berman (D 28th) California: Ed Royce (R 40th) Florida: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R 18th) Illinois: Mark Kirk (R 10th) Indiana: Dan Burton (R 5th) New Jersey: Robert Andrews (D 1st) New York: Gary Ackerman (D 5th) And maybe @ the same time ask them why they haven't asked ISRAEL to declare their Nuke program.
Israeli Mossad has been inside Iran for quite awhile, fomenting rebellion, assassinating key Iranians, has also done trial runs striking Iran, has a history of actually doing it, e.g., at Iraq & Syria… Hillary has stated we might have to bomb Iran back into the stone age, and all high USA leaders have hung out the same threat by explicitly keeping all options on the table. No. Iran has nothing to feel threatened about. The Shah was a mirage. The current legislation to cut off Iran's banking system and refined energy sources–why worry, be happy.
All goes according to plan; the US government and Israeli government are just trying to help you & the whole world; it's all in your best interests. http://proliberty.com/observer/20081008.htm
I can't decide which is the bigger enemy of the American people, Israel and her supporters, or the elite and political classes of the United States. How can the situation be changed?
AIPAC has been pounding the war drums against Iran at their annual meetings for most of this decade — YAWN! Will these zionist monomaniacs ever stop obsessing? Will anyone care? Iran don't confront me, mon. Meanwhile, I still marvel at the timing of the Rosen/Weissman case being 86'ed just in time to spare KongressKlowns any embarrassment involved in groveling before a foreign lobby. Were the Jane Harman tapes leaked by some actual patriots in the U.S. fedgov, incensed at valid prosecutions being sabotaged by illegitimate political arm-twisting? Maybe me just fantasizin', but I'd like to think so. Don't you mind people grinning in your face? Well, don't you mind people grinnin' in yo face? Listen to Ruthie Foster sing it; she ain't lyin' … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWU4olKvOOo
Zionists like Richard Witty will not be content until the anti-Zionist regime in Iran is attacked and deposed, and it doesn't matter how many Iranian civilians have to die in the process. That is why Zionism has made such a good name for itself among the activist left and right (ie people who give a shit): it rationalizes destroying the lives of any human beings who get in the way of the Zionist dream, without the slightest regard for the universal declaration of human rights, the sovereignty of nations, or international laws and conventions. Every time a Zionist propagandizes in favor of more bloodshed against those on Jewish Nationalism's ever-expanding enemies list, Zionism becomes even more popular with humane individuals.
Interesting. And Israel's meddling in Lebanon, to include arming Christian militias in the Lebanese Civil War, its involvement in the assassination of Lebanese politicians, its admitted culpability in the Sabra Shatila massacre, its bombing of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon in 2006, etc., etc., has not played a part in Iran's involvement in "aggression on Israel's ACTUAL borders"? And what about US/Allied incursions into Iran from Iraq? Does Israel support such incursions and attempts at destabilizing Iran (euphamistically called 'regime change)?
Witty's response to the overwhelming evidence presented on this blog (and many,many other places) is to become a master of saying nothing.
And in Lebanon, the Lebanese security forces have been making several arrests there of Israeli spies…
They are full partners. It can't be changed unless something drastic is done about campaign financing and the bias in the MSM. I'm afraid the only event that might wake people up would be a combo of further economic crash & war with Iran. That will even make a NASCAR fanatic takes his eyes of the racing cars for a few seconds.
Israel Faces a Hard Sell in Bid to Shift Policy http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/world/middleeas... My personal opinion input: U.S. policies continue to fail to represent the will of the people of the region. As long as the underlying intentions of U.S. policy is focused on the Iran/Syria/Hezbollah/Hamas alliance being the major threat in the region to the U.S./ Israel/so-called moderate Arab dictatorship alliance, and not where it should be which is on Israel's ongoing threats and violations of international laws at the expense of the Arab people's rights and the Arab dictator's human rights abuses and oppression of their own people, I do not personally believe that even negotiations for a two state solution, with Israel and the so-called moderate Arab leaders on board, will be able to succeed.The Arab street will not be convinced that U.S. policy in their region is in their best interests…This is what the U.S. government, no matter whether it be a Democratic or Republican administration, doesn't seem to want to get…So much for spreading Democracy in the region that is of and for the people…
Similarly, Israel temporarily pulled the plug on its Gaza massacre just in time so Obama did not have to deal with it.
God gave us the land. Too, its a haven for the world's jews. Goys owe us.
Is Gate's trip to try and clear up the horseshit Dennis Ross recently left behind on his trip? Gates seeking to reassure Gulf on outreach to Iran Gates on mission to reassure Gulf allies they won't be harmed by US reachout to Iran LARA JAKES — AP News — May 04, 2009 http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/05/gat... I certainly hope so.
True, they had the gall to place defeating Hitler & Japan over saving us. What were they thinking with such priorities? Just anti-semites all. I'm getting ready to go to the mall. No anti-semite better try to stick my tires!
And still Iran promotes ONLY militias that historically have used terror against civilians as their chosen method of "dissent". Criticisms of Israel are rational. Ignoring the abuses and threats (actualities, more than threats in fact) is irrational. It is possible to keep two thoughts in one's mind at the same time.
Code Pink dragged away from AIPAC conference: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/05/04-1 Will u see this on today's MSM TV news?
True. And a third thought too: Let's all keep in mind the over-riding reality of who has the power here. Also, keep in mind that Iran has no nukes and is not an occupying power nor a lone super-power aider and abettor.
Two thoughts: 1. You have characterized Iran as an existential threat to Israel, when neither Iran nor its proxies have the capability of posing such a threat; 2. You have characterized Iran and its proxies as 'terrorists', as a way of marginalizing their positions and undermining their legitmacy. Hezbollah has committed acts of terrorism, as has Israel. However, Hezbollah also conducts legitimate political, economic and social activities in Lebanon. (Is it safe to assume that you have used the UPPER CASE when you identify Iran's support of militias as an acknowledgement of Israel's support of SOME terrorist militias in Lebanon? )
"And still Iran promotes ONLY militias that historically have used terror against civilians as their chosen method of "dissent". "–Richard I would have to disagree Richard, Iran's support of Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel's expansionist agenda on their people's lands in the region is only one part of its promotions in the region…
Where did Russell "propose nuking the USSR to maintain nuclear exclusivity"?
A revolution is clearly in order. I'm not an idealist either.
I discussed AIPAC with Rich Sokol of AIPAC's Colorado organization yesterday on Aljazeera English. Topics included AIPAC's poisoning of the US economy and political process. The segment should be viewable today at various times within the live stream.
Steve Walt on Israel's animus towards Iran. "The prime minister and his allies keep harping about an "existential" threat from Iran, but this bogeyman is mostly nonsense. Iran has zero — repeat, zero — nuclear weapons today, and even if it were to acquire a few at some point in the future, it could not use them against nuclear-armed Israel without committing national suicide. Let me say that again: national suicide. And could someone please explain to Netanyahu that a group of devout Muslim clerics aren't likely to fire warheads at a land that contains the third holiest site in Islam? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said some remarkably foolish things about the Holocaust and repeatedly questioned Israel's legitimacy (as in his oft-mistranslated statement about Israel "vanishing from the page of time"), but he's never threatened to murder millions of Israelis (and Palestinians) with nuclear weapons."
AIPAC President David Victor said: "We are the only constituency in America making this case." Something that will not only be denied but indeed called an anti-semitic libel the moment that constituency persuades Obama to attack Iran.
Israel's ACTUAL borders Richard could you or anyone else tell us where those borders are?
AIPAC loves you, the bible tells it so.
Wonder why Israel wants to attack Iran right now? Because they have to do it before the next Iranian election in June, otherwise it's all over for Israel. Mahdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi are running and both are moderates. Karroubi is a real progressive type. Iran is smart enough to know it has the opportunity to be a major player in the Middle East and diminish the importance of Israel in the region. Israel realises that after the Iranian elections a moderate government established, Israel will have lost all chance of an attack. Moreover If Iran and the US develop relations; the face of the Middle East will change politically. Israel becomes a little patch of desert where Jews live, nothing more. No need for BILLIONS of US dollars anymore. War is keeps the money flowing, that’s why Israel CREATES these conflicts. The US must keep Israel from attacking before the elections, that is the problem
Historical side note on the SS St. Louis from Tom Segev's "The Seventh Million:The Israelis and the Holocaust":
For anyone not familiar with the names, the (American Jewish) Joint Distribution Committee is a Jewish relief agency that prior to and during WWII sought refuge for endangered Jews. The Jewish Agency (for Palestine) served as the pre-state (pre-1948) Jewish government It was in charge of immigration and land purchase and general policy planning. It controlled the distribution of immigration certificates allotted under the British quota system. So, in other words, Peres is blaming the US for doing something similar to what the Jewish Agency did by refusing to accept the passengers of the St. Louis as refugees into Palestine. And as a further historical note, the St.Louis passengers eventually were taken in by 4 European countries, Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Its is estimated that 254 of the passengers were killed in WWII, and 682 survived the War. More snippets from Segev about the Agency's determination of who was granted an immigration certificate:
……
The book makes clear that the overriding concern within the Jewish Agency was that the Jewish immigrants to Palestine have the proper political attitude and the ability to help sustain the new collective, and NOT the rescue of just any European Jew. The preferred immigrant was young, able-bodied and unmarried, and these obtained immigration certificates most easily, regardless of where they came from, or whether they were endangered where they lived.
Why should someone tell Netanyahu something that is not true? Muslims destroy Muslim holy sites all of the time. Soon, the Shi'ites will convince themselves that Jerusalem isn't all that important.
Richard did you know this: U.S. has a 45-year history of torture The difference between American involvement in South American atrocities in 1964 and 'enhanced interrogation' now is that some modern-day officials appear proud of themselves. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la... And what do you think about it? And does Israel torture Palestinians according to your knowledge?
Jewish Voices For Peace has a large truck plastered with its anti-AIPAC message on the side–right in front of the AIPAC conference. Also, if you find Witty somewhat lacking in zeal to give us whole truth, you can download free Livestation software to get more input beyond what is filtered for you by the USA MSM.
"Existential threat to Israel". Show me where I said that in the same terms that you mean. Iran is actively supporting (funding, arming, not just "encouraging") terrorist ACTIONS against Israeli civilians, over an extended period of time. Iran is 800 miles away from Israel. There is NO NEED on their part to intervene in the way that they do. There is no threat to them at all, short of what results from their direct incitement and violence.
Richard did you know this: Opinion U.S. has a 45-year history of torture The difference between American involvement in South American atrocities in 1964 and 'enhanced interrogation' now is that some modern-day officials appear proud of themselves. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la... What is your opinion? And to your knowledge has Israel been torturing Palestinian prisoners?
YWH bless Code Pink.
Richard, The same thing could be said about the United States. The U.S is actively supporting (funding, arming, not just "encouraging") Israeli state terrorism against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, over an extended period of time. The US is over 5000 miles away from Israel There is NO NEED on their part to intervene in the way that they do. There is no threat to them at all, short of what results from their direct incitement and violence. So, really, what's your point? Israel has committed acts of terror against both the occupied territories and against Lebanon for scores of years. The IDF's civilian toll totally dwarfs that of Hezbollah and Hamas combined. The US funding and arming of Israel likewise totally dwarfs that of Iran's funding of those two quazi-governmental bodies. Why are you so concerned about Iran but not about the US? Why can't you entertain two thoughts at once, and give us a rational reason why we should be concerned about Iran but not about Israel when Israel's destruction of civilian life has been so much more extensive. And while you are at it, why don't you explain why its right for the US to arm Israel, but not for Iran to arm Hezbollah. In the end, the only apparent reason is that your attachment to Israel clouds your judgment.
Great point, sadly.
Iran isn't threatened by anyone? This comment is made by the same Peres who's country thinks bombing Iran is a good idea? Talk about contradiction. What about US and Arab funding of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war? Or the US getting rid of the Iranian democracy in favour of the Shah? Or George Bush making Iran part of the US 'Axis of Evil' i.e. the next target if they ever got out of Iraq?
Seamless Continuity From Bush Time Obama and "Two States" By ELLEN CANTAROW http://www.counterpunch.org/cantarow04302009.html EXCERPT: "What’s surprising is that left publications have focused so little on Obama’s clear statement of intent in the Arab League proposal reference. It is also surprising that the left press has seldom commented (if at all) on a March 4 address to the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center by Senator John Kerry. As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry made very clear the Administration’s “peace” plans: To start with, we need to fundamentally re-conceptualize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a regional problem that demands a regional solution. The challenges we face there – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Middle East peace process – form an interconnected web that requires an integrated approach . . . . That’s why it is vital that we move quickly, with the Arab world and the Quartet, to build Palestinian Authority capacity. [Thanks to Noam Chomsky for drawing my attention to his discussion of Kerry’s role in his “Exterminate All the Brutes,” on Znet.] The US, together with “the Arab world” (meaning the US’s most powerful Arab clients, Egypt and Saudi Arabia) is to become a united front with Israel against, of course, Iran. The “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” will thus be integrated – or sidelined – within the wider spectrum of the US’s imperial dominance throughout the region. As for the Palestinians, Kerry reiterates that the Administration has found “a legitimate partner for peace” in Abbas – of course there have been no “legitimate” partners to date, Arafat’s compliance at Oslo and his pre-Oslo overtures to Israel being so much disposable trash in the dustbin of history. (Hamas’s repeated overtures to Israel – these have guaranteed truces as long as 30 years in exchange for Israel’s retreat to the ’67 borders, the same requirement as in the Arab League proposal – have been rebuffed by targeted assassinations and last winter’s butchery in Gaza.) Abbas is now shored up with an army. Here’s Kerry at Brookings again: For years, everyone has talked of the need to give the Israelis a legitimate partner for peace . . . . We must help the Palestinian Authority deliver for the Palestinian people, and we must do it now. . . . Most importantly, this means strengthening General Dayton’s efforts to train Palestinian security forces that can keep order and fight terror. Recent developments have been extremely encouraging: during the invasion of Gaza, Palestinian Security Forces largely succeeded in maintaining calm in the West Bank amidst widespread expectations of civil unrest. Given the US’s “help” to similar client regimes throughout the world, the “help the Palestinian Authority deliver” phrase is chilling. While one part of the “experiment” with a final solution to the Palestinian problem was underway – Israel’s bombing and shelling of Gaza, possibly as a test for future US strikes in the Middle East in densely populated areas – another part, equally critical, was underway in the West Bank. To protect the population’s “human rights” the “truly professional” Palestinian National Security Force (N.S.F.) crushed West Bank demonstrations, averting the worrisome possibility that in the face of Israel’s slaughter of their sisters and brothers in Gaza, there might be unwelcome disturbances. According to reliable reports, Abbas also has CIA-run forces, Preventive Security and General Intelligence, which promise to be far more brutal than Dayton’s paramilitaries (these fall under State Department aegis). …" We should not allow for ourselves to be fooled….
By my definition, 67 borders. By international concensus (including consented by Israel) along the border of Gaza and Negev, the 67 borders. On the border of Lebanon, 67 borders. Those two internationally recognized borders are the ones that Iran considers it appropriate to fund and arm the attack of civilians from.
It can be said that the US is supporting Israeli terror. You have a good point. When you seek to propose that Iran is innocent, a victim, to Israel's "aggression", you get overly simplistic. You then sound to me like George W, who can only conceive of the world in terms of good guys/bad guys. My sympathy with Israel informs my judgement. It allows my politics to resemble mutual sympathies, rather than mutual animosities or mutual denials.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1543798... The US is guilty of double-standards, as always. Iranian sponsored militias – bad. US sponsored militias – Good. The US government even supported the IRA (though not financially)
Who proposed that Iran is innocent? Not I. My point was only that Iran has been less guilty than Israel and the US on the matter of "aggression".(Why did you put that word in quotation marks when referring to Israel but used no such quotation marks when referring to Iran, BTW?) So why the double standard on your part. Israel and the US threaten Iran. Iran to a much lesser extent threatens Israel and much of its threat is either in response to it being threatened, or because of a natural affinity with other Muslims who are threatened by Israel. Why the bigger concern on your part for the least of three threats? It is non-rational to ignore the two bigger threats and focus on the much smaller third. If I sound to you like George W, then you aren't listening to what I say. In fact you seem to be trying very hard not to hear what I say. It would be so much easier if you would stop trying so hard not to hear what people say rather than making up conversations that don't exist. There is a difference between being innocent and being a threat. You seem to take it that if Iran is not innocent it must therefore be a threat. If not, why would you respond to those that say that Iran is no serious threat to any country with your insistence that we are all proposing that Iran is an innocent babe in the woods when NONE of us have said that? You are the one here conceiving of the world in terms of good guys/bad guys. You've got a very manichean view that is interfering with your ability to truly listen to what others have to say. The reason that many of your posts make no sense or end up saying nothing is because you are trying way too hard not to hear or see, because to hear or see would destroy your illusions.
I think that Iran is definitely a threat to Israel and then to the world, not as much in the specific threat of unilateral nuclear launch, but in the effort to incrementally escalate aggression on Israel's ACTUAL borders. And, then in your second comment you tie this into Iran's support for terrorism. This is pretty standard argumentation regarding Iran's alleged inclinations to 'wipe Israel off the map.' So, yes, you have incorporated the 'Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel and the world' trope into your argument. You cannot invoke the nuclear menace, used by the likes of Morris, and in an even sillier fashion by the proponents of the European nuclear shield, and then hedge your bet. It is disigenuous. Your comments coupled with context equal the implication that Iran is an existential threat to Israel.
The comments section appears to have eaten my response. My apologies in advance if this is a double post. Who proposed that Iran is innocent? Not I. My point was only that Iran has been less guilty than Israel and the US on the matter of "aggression".(Why did you put that word in quotation marks when referring to Israel but used no such quotation marks when referring to Iran, BTW?) So why the double standard on your part. Israel and the US threaten Iran. Iran to a much lesser extent threatens Israel and much of its threat is either in response to it being threatened, or because of a natural affinity with other Muslims who are threatened by Israel. Why the bigger concern on your part for the least of three threats? It is non-rational to ignore the two bigger threats and focus on the much smaller third. If I sound to you like George W., then you are not listening to what I am saying. You seem to think that if other posters claim that Iran is no serious threat to the US or Israel, that means that we think that Iran is an innocent babe in the woods. But that is NOT what anyone of us is saying. It is YOU who have created this manichean viewpoint that Iran is either a threat or an innocent (i.e., evil or good). It is your viewpoint that resembles George W's. Try really listening to what others are saying, not what you imagine they might say. The reason that so many here state that your posts make no sense is because you are closing your eyes and ears and having imaginary conversations instead of real ones.
Actually the Imperial Japanese learned a lot of their torture techniques from what the US did in the Philippines circa 1901. The US currently uses Red Chinese & Israel torture manuals. Israel has also supplied consultants, and still does so.
Americans have short memories. Israel spokesman believe in the big lie repeated–same as Goebbels & HItler did.
well, when israel puts down it's arms, what happens, you piece of jew-hater shit?
If those are Israel's actual borders, what are half a million Israeli "settlers" doing living on someone else's land? If Israel truly wanted peace, don't you think they would have stopped building settlements outside their borders?
Iran certainly is a threat, more than a threat currently, actually CURRENTLY aggressing violently on a sovereign UN member state remote from its borders. There is a qualitative difference between actively aggressing militarily (even through proxies) and fearing that one will be aggressed on. The very vast majority of posts on this topic, including Phil's emphasis, is that Iran is no threat to anyone. I consider that "reasoning" to be ludicrous. While I favor policies and actions that don't use punitive measures to accomplish reducing Iran's threats and actual actions, I do not falsify analysis or even weight of analysis (who is the bigger "bad guy") towards that end. Please don't speak of illusions about Iran. There is nothing that you could know with certainty, and any observation would then have to be a projection, not an analysis.
Your whole argument is based on two assumptions that we don't agree on: a) Hamas and Hezbollah are proxies for the Iranian state. No they're not. Both get funding from Iran, but both are independent and nationalistic. b) Hamas and Hezbollah have acted aggressively against Israel. No they haven't. Both have RE-acted aggressively to Israeli agression
You have peace and everyone lives happily ever after.
Of course they are proxies. They, like other proxies, have other agendas in addition to their patron, but the patron does exert discipline. You are innaccurate in stating Hamas and Hezbollah act solely or primarily defensively. "Re-action" is a good description. It is the same root as "reactionary". Any action that initiates harms against civilians, especially actions like hostage-taking, or shelling of civilian towns, is aggression. Maybe you only talk to those that react similarly to yourself, but the majority of the world notes the Orwellian language shift.