Freedom in Israel

[Craig234]

You're also trying to make some additional point that doesn't make any logical sense.

Of course we as the United States, want citizens of Iran to expose their nuclear secrets.

You are confusing the "what woudl we selfishly like when everything is done one way for our allies and done another to people we are not allied with" approach, with the "what is one consistent fair rule" approach.

Tell me the rule by which every nation should expose or not expose their nuclear information, that we can apply to Iran, to Israel, to the US, to everyone.

But we also do not want anyone exposing the secrets of the U.S.

What secrets? We don't keep the secret Israel has. Our nuclear arsenal is pretty well understood, we often release information on it.

We're not talking about some secret mechanism by which an enemy can disable our arsenal - and that's not what the guy exposed about Israel either.

What if Israel's concealment was precisely to AVOID the same treatment as everyone else, to gain unequl and unfair advantage by lying and hiding information? How is that 'ok'?

And if you want to compare Israel to Iran

We're back to this same nonsense that says that having international rules apply fairly is 'comparing' two nations.

, my guess is that while the Israeli was imprisoned for 11 years, the Iranian would have been executed.

I tend to agree - and I have condemned Iran's brutality, as recently as today. This thread isn't saying Israel is worse than Iran *to someone likes this*, but rather just showing they're worse than they should be.

So is Iran, moreso.

But ironically, we are providing Iran with the moral justification and strategic need for nuclear weapons with our policies of double standards - we are creating the crisis with our aggressive policies.

Do you need a history lesson reminder on the last time Iran had a decent goverment, in 1953, and what happened to it, who took it from them? Who pushed Saddam to attack them in a decade-long war etc.?

What exactly are we supposed to be comparing again?

Compare the approval for Israel to have nukes and hide them with the policy on other nations having nukes and hiding them. Would you like that same treatement Iran gets?

I have sympathy for Israel's security needs - but Western aggression in the Middle East shows Israel is faqr from alone in needing security.

And there are other ways to protect Israle than for them to have nuclear weapons. There are ways to have policies in the region that are more fair and thereby cause less conflict.

We're getting way too used to inequality being 'ok'. It's time to look how to have each nation have some respect and security, not just our allies, and threaten others.

 

[Sclamoz]

1. What you consider legitimate security and what a government considers security are wildly different things. The fact that "arabs" didn't invade to take them doesn't prove anything (in large part because they wouldn't be able to).

You did not answer the question: what harm did his telling the truth cause? Responding to my facetious comment only is a dodge.

You made the comment. If you don't want me to point out whats wrong with it don't bring it up in the first place.

A crime doesn't have to cause harm for it be a crime. But to answer your question (again) revealing the fact that Israel has nukes and where they are located weakened Israel by giving strategic information to Israels enemies.

That's the kind of information we are trying to gather in Iran right now using spies. Don't you think it would weaken Iran if an Iranian came out and announced that Iran had nukes and where they are?

OK, so let's be clear - you pick yhour positions not based whatsoever on 'right and wrong', but only on 'what's good for your side', and hypocrisy is fine.

Are there any limits to this for you? Can we not just lie, but steal, improson, torture, murder, burin people in ovens and condemn others for all we want that we do, or only some things? How do you pick?

So you have ZERO moral basis for any of your positions on how your country behaves, you say again.

If it's not zero, you certainly don't say a word about how you pick and choose where to ignore morality.

Yes because I don't look at something that's going on in the world and say omg! that offends me personally! I try and understand the reasoning behind it. Without doing that your just a chicken running around with its head chopped off.

Some people use morality as a basis for their positions - and their country's. They take not only pride in that but see it as a responsibility. Others have no morality, only the blind purssuit of power and weaqlth.

Using your morality for your own decisions works. Applying your own interpretation of right and wrong on the world stage does not. Take a look at what Bush did.

Guess what? A lot of the people you would consider evil were probably trying to do good things in their own personal views. A large portion of the world would also disagree with your personal views as well, maybe consider you evil even? Get off your high horse.

You are in a fine club with the other evil people in history who are in the latter group.

Go fuck yourself.

 

[Craig234]

You made the comment. If you don't want me to point out whats wrong with it don't bring it up in the first place.

Pointing out that you dodged the question is not saying to to respond.

A crime doesn't have to cause harm for it be a crime.

No one said it did. Try to follow the discussion.

Someone said THIS ACT HARMED PEOPLE. I said STATTE THE HARM. Get it?

Your 'crime definition' was not the topic. You made that up and stuck it in.

But to answer it anyway, crimes to need to do wrong somehow, or they're immoral laws. If a law were passed tomorrow saying "no more free speech and no playing baseball", they'd be immoral laws.

You want to say this was a legitimate crime, show the wrong deserving of that devastating punishment.

But to answer your question (again) revealing the fact that Israel has nukes and where they are located weakened Israel by giving strategic information to Israels enemies.

You dishonestly add the phrase "and where they are located".

Quote what in the link or any other source you have backs up your claim that he divulged information of any use to enemies on the 'location' that compromised the security of the arsenal.

He exposed the truth that they had a large arsenal.

The CURRENT issue, in the link, which you completely ignore, is his treament after serving an 18 yhear sentence with illegal restrictions on him.

That's the kind of information we are trying to gather in Iran right now using spies. Don't you think it would weaken Iran if an Iranian came out and announced that Iran had nukes and where they are?

No, it's the information we are saying IRAN MUST DISCLOSE TO THE WORLD. But not Israel.

If an Iranian exposed that Iran had secret nukes and for the safety of the world they exposed them, we'd say they were a 'hero' and condemn Iran for putting them in jail 18 years. But not Israel.

Yes because I don't look at something that's going on in the world and say omg! that offends me personally! I try and understand the reasoning behind it. Without doing that your just a chicken running around with its head chopped off.

Idiotic straw man. You're not the one who is asking any relevant questions, you are the one making excuses blindly - and making up the facts and other things.

Using your morality for your own decisions works. Applying your own interpretation of right and wrong on the world stage does not. Take a look at what Bush did.

The answer to bad 'morality' is not 'no morality'. It's 'good morality'. Bush rarely even had 'bad morality' - he used phony moral arguments as propaganda.

But you aree saying you are in favor of o morality i foreign policy. What a terrible position.

Guess what? A lot of the people you would consider evil were probably trying to do good things in their own personal views. A large portion of the world would also disagree with your personal views as well, maybe consider you evil even? Get off your high horse.
Go fuck yourself.

No, very few were. You can't begin to speak for anyone else, speak for yourself. You need to crawl out of the moral gutter, not tell others not to support morality.

 

[DougoMan]

ok now take a deep breath..

 

[JEDIYoda]

Link: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/01

It's a story of a man who told the truth about Israel's nuclear arsenal.

For telling the truth, he spent over 11 years in solitary confinement.

The article is by his friend, Daniel Ellsberg, who exposed the truth to America about the Vietnam War.

Compare Israel's behavior on their nuclear arsenal to the restrictions on Iran. Quite a different standard.

There is no comparison..leaking nuclear secrets is a crime.

also israerl is not going to all of a sudden lob a nuclear missle at an enemy........you have no clue the type of people you are dealing with wqhen you so smuggly and ignorantly may I add say -- compare this to iran!!

There is no comparison!!

But to be even more clear...you have nothing to fear from a nuclear israel.

When and if Iran becomes nuclear the whole world has something to fear......

 

[JEDIYoda]

If an Iranian exposed that Iran had secret nukes and for the safety of the world they exposed them, we'd say they were a 'hero' and condemn Iran for putting them in jail 18 years. But not Israel.

Yes that individual would be a hero as far as the civilized world is concerned!
why??
because once Iran gets nukes the whole world has something to fear....
is it is now the world has nothing to fear from a tiny jewish country named Israel that has nukes.......

 

[JEDIYoda]

You are confusing the "what woudl we selfishly like when everything is done one way for our allies and done another to people we are not allied with" approach, with the "what is one consistent fair rule" approach.

Tell me the rule by which every nation should expose or not expose their nuclear information, that we can apply to Iran, to Israel, to the US, to everyone.

There are no set rules..so quit being goofy!!



What secrets? We don't keep the secret Israel has. Our nuclear arsenal is pretty well understood, we often release information on it.
We do not often release information on our nuclear program. Our nuclear program is NOT an open book!! As you so goofily believe!

We're not talking about some secret mechanism by which an enemy can disable our arsenal - and that's not what the guy exposed about Israel either. The problem is with you....you are using logic that does NOT apply to this man`s situation..this man is israeli and as such has to abide by their rules!

What if Israel's concealment was precisely to AVOID the same treatment as everyone else, to gain unequl and unfair advantage by lying and hiding information? How is that 'ok'?
What if it was.....who are you to say otherwise....two words come to mind-- BUTT OUT!!



We're back to this same nonsense that says that having international rules apply fairly is 'comparing' two nations. International rules are a total joke. nations ONLy observe them when it is in there best interest.



I tend to agree - and I have condemned Iran's brutality, as recently as today. This thread isn't saying Israel is worse than Iran *to someone likes this*, but rather just showing they're worse than they should be.

So is Iran, moreso.

But ironically, we are providing Iran with the moral justification and strategic need for nuclear weapons with our policies of double standards - we are creating the crisis with our aggressive policies. no we are not creating no crisis....get a grip dude.....

Do you need a history lesson reminder on the last time Iran had a decent goverment, in 1953, and what happened to it, who took it from them? Who pushed Saddam to attack them in a decade-long war etc.?
that was over 50 years ago.....that is NO justification for Iran having nuclear weapons....duh...


Compare the approval for Israel to have nukes and hide them with the policy on other nations having nukes and hiding them. Would you like that same treatement Iran gets?
The issue is something you need to be schooled or educated about...israel did NOT develope there own nuclear weapons......the United States gave thgem to israel. Could israel develope nuclear weapons....porbably...but why when you get them for free??? or you pay for them..lol

I have sympathy for Israel's security needs - but Western aggression in the Middle East shows Israel is faqr from alone in needing security. thats a bunch of caca and you know it!!

And there are other ways to protect Israle than for them to have nuclear weapons. There are ways to have policies in the region that are more fair and thereby cause less conflict.
No there are not other ways to protect israel. You do not know shit about what you are spewing forth!!

We're getting way too used to inequality being 'ok'. It's time to look how to have each nation have some respect and security, not just our allies, and threaten others.

You a real work of art dude.....
First israel will never cap with nuclear weapons another nation unless they are going to be annihilated!!
Second -- you just cannot sit there spewing forth your diatribe and honestly believe that Iran would not use nuclear weapons.......sorry the day iran gets nukes is the day the whole world is frightened and rightly so!!

 

[TruePaige]

More people like Craig and Europe won't have to worry about the Middle East. They'll just rename the E.U to the U.A.E.U.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Craig, do you claim a country has no right to lie about - or intentionally keep vague - a specific military capability?

Israel has a specific policy in place regarding nuclear weapons for very good reasons. Not causing an uproar in the world is just one of them - it has more to do with preventing an arms race in the Middle East. If the Arab public knew about it, there would be pressure applied to the governments to start their own nuclear programs. Thinking it's a matter of an "Arab grabbing Israeli nukes" is simplistic and not very smart.

Unlike what you liberals might think, the public doesn't have a right to know everything that goes on. There are state secrets, for very good reasons. I'd say that the number, location and nature of nuclear weapons certainly falls under the premise of a state secret. Of course state secrets can be abused against the people, but in this case he did nothing for the people of Israel - there was no corruption or anything illegal going on, just covert military activity. If that guy was spying for a foreign government instead of making a public interview, would you still support him?

In my eyes, executing him would be legitimate, and the punishment he got was way, way too light. I wouldn't blame the Iranians if they executed someone who revealed their nuclear plans to the world.

Either you were very naive with this thread, or you're just picking on Israel.

Now, about double standards among nations - for me, democracy stops at the country level. In international affairs, there can be no democracy, simply due to the fact that each country has different, and sometimes conflicting, interests. There will always be a dominant force. In the 20th century, this will be the US. I would support the US being the only country with nuclear weapons around the world, simply because I'm very fond of the situation as it is now. I'd certainly not want any other country to rise to the same power, nor am I stupid enough to wish for global nuclear proliferation just to balance the US, like some idiots do. No double standards here - it's not about democracy or justice, it's about who's calling the shots. Tough, but it wouldn't work any other way - look at the UN as an example.

 

[Ozoned]

Link: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/01

It's a story of a man who told the truth about Israel's nuclear arsenal.

For telling the truth, he spent over 11 years in solitary confinement.

The article is by his friend, Daniel Ellsberg, who exposed the truth to America about the Vietnam War.

Compare Israel's behavior on their nuclear arsenal to the restrictions on Iran. Quite a different standard.

Bored????



Daniel Ellsberg exposed his version of the truth about the Vietnam War. More or less, he engaged in a public relations campaign and brought to it only selective things that appeal to basic emotions, ie. individual human suffering.

That's what pacifists do. They are absolutely blind to anything beyond that. Their "standards" don't look at reality.

 

[Colt45]

What's the real harm in revealing secrets about a nations nuclear arsenal?

Really?

Nukes aren't a very effective deterrent if no one knows about them. Especially if people are estimating far less than what the country actually holds.


to quote my avatar...
"Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret!
Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"

 

[SamurAchzar]

Nukes aren't a very effective deterrent if no one knows about them. Especially if people are estimating far less than what the country actually holds.


to quote my avatar...
"Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret!
Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"

They are actually a very effective deterrent when you keep some fog around it. No one has to know the exact number, capabilities or means for delivery.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

This message is hidden because Craig234 is on your ignore list.

The best way to view Craig threads.

I have to admit, I seriously thought about blocking Craig's posts but the comedy which ensues in Craig's threads just keeps me coming back. They are almost formulaic on the level of sitcoms and the ensuing ownage always gives me a good laugh.

 

[Craig234]

Bored????



Daniel Ellsberg exposed his version of the truth about the Vietnam War. More or less, he engaged in a public relations campaign and brought to it only selective things that appeal to basic emotions, ie. individual human suffering.

That's what pacifists do. They are absolutely blind to anything beyond that. Their "standards" don't look at reality.

Well, ignoramus, the only think you got right is the spelling of his name.

Your italicized "his version"? No, the Pentagon Papers he released were *a secret history of the war commissioned within the government*. Not his version - an extremely informed, blunt factual history.

That's what pacifists do? You don't know a thing about them - but Daniel Ellsberg was not a pacifist. Read the linked article inside the one I linked, he explains, he was not a pacifist.

You post your utter ignorance, throwing words around without any concern for the truth.

You just accused the US military's own report of the war of not being in touch with reality. You just made crap up about it being only about emotional appeals based on human suffering.

Ellsberg was the first civilian to see our nuclear war plans on a hair trigger to kill a billion people (if the Soviets invaded West Berlin, we were poised to nuke every city in *China* who was uninvolved as well).

He does I'm sure have concern for the 'human suffering' you mention. What kind of a moral scumbag are you that you say that like it's a bad thing? You sound like a sociopath saying that *discredits* him.

There's the famous story of a Pentagon officer saying if there are 2 Americans and 1 Russian left aftger the war, we win. We don't have to look there for insanity, you offer it right here.

There's no point in discussing this with you further, when your position is that the human cost discredits an argument.

It's like arguing healthcare with someone who thinks the rightpolicy is one that kills off millions to reduce overpopulation. No point.

 

[Sclamoz]

Pointing out that you dodged the question is not saying to to respond.

For the love of...I didn't dodge the question, I answered it. I also pointed out what was wrong with your facetious statement.

Someone said THIS ACT HARMED PEOPLE. I said STATTE THE HARM. Get it?

Your 'crime definition' was not the topic. You made that up and stuck it in.

But to answer it anyway, crimes to need to do wrong somehow, or they're immoral laws. If a law were passed tomorrow saying "no more free speech and no playing baseball", they'd be immoral laws.

You were the first person who asked who brought up harm. You are also questioning what crime he committed. Hence the explanation.

To your second point, if I drink and drive but don't hurt anyone its still a crime.

You want to say this was a legitimate crime, show the wrong deserving of that devastating punishment.

How about you show it wasn't a really crime? Prove that he didn't commit treason?

You dishonestly add the phrase "and where they are located".

Quote what in the link or any other source you have backs up your claim that he divulged information of any use to enemies on the 'location' that compromised the security of the arsenal.

He exposed the truth that they had a large arsenal.

Sorry, I misread what the story stated. Instead he just revealed where Israel manufactures their nukes. That's the kind of information Israel used to knock out Iraq's Osriak reactor and stop them from building nukes. This information was also released in 86 during the cold war, when nukes were vital to security.

No, it's the information we are saying IRAN MUST DISCLOSE TO THE WORLD. But not Israel.

If an Iranian exposed that Iran had secret nukes and for the safety of the world they exposed them, we'd say they were a 'hero' and condemn Iran for putting them in jail 18 years. But not Israel.

Right he'd be a hero to us and in Iran he'd be a villain and likely executed! Is it starting to sink in yet? Not everyone has the perceptions.

No, very few were. You can't begin to speak for anyone else, speak for yourself. You need to crawl out of the moral gutter, not tell others not to support morality.

Very few were what?

"You can't begin to speak for anyone else, speak for yourself", I don't speak for others, you should apply that to yourself and how you think.

Whose version of morality should we use? In one of your other posts you suggest that international rules should apply be fairly, How do we decide on whats fair? Go by your ideals?

 

[MotF Bane]

I have to admit, I seriously thought about blocking Craig's posts but the comedy which ensues in Craig's threads just keeps me coming back. They are almost formulaic on the level of sitcoms and the ensuing ownage always gives me a good laugh.

Well, I still see his quoted posts, and then the ownage is attached to them right there. It's a condensed way to get past his wall of bullshit texts.

 

[wwswimming]

Link: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/01

It's a story of a man who told the truth about Israel's nuclear arsenal.

For telling the truth, he spent over 11 years in solitary confinement.

The article is by his friend, Daniel Ellsberg, who exposed the truth to America about the Vietnam War.

Compare Israel's behavior on their nuclear arsenal to the restrictions on Iran. Quite a different standard.

no kidding.

next up, an article about hot springs in Antarctica.

 

[EndGame]

This message is hidden because Craig234 is on your ignore list.

The best way to view Craig threads.

Have to agree......

 

[SamurAchzar]

no kidding.

next up, an article about hot springs in Antarctica.

Look look, the champions of human rights are coming, LOL

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

no kidding.

next up, an article about hot springs in Antarctica.

Yeah, I don't get the connection either.

OK, for sake of argument let's assume that the article is correct as written. Let's also assume that the punishment was disproportionate.

That still has nothing to do with Iran. Why? Because Israel has demonstrated that it has restraint regarding nuclear weapons. It has them and hasn't used them, so they aren't a threat in this regard.

So we have injustice in Israel. You are going to find that in every nation which has existed or ever will. That's how it goes.

Is every wrong equal? Is every crime worthy of the same punishment? I'd say no.

So what's happening in Israel today? It's citizens are going around generally not worried that they are going to be shot by their security forces.

And in Iran, it's the same... no wait. The government there is committing wholesale slaughter of it's own citizens. If it does this, precisely why should it have nukes?

If the response is "Well look at the US and Iraq", I'd say that has nothing to do with it. We have them and there's nothing you can do about it, and for all the wrong you can find here, you aren't going to see anything like the executions going on in Iran.

The bottom line is that there are people in charge in Iran who freely slaughter their own, and that wouldn't suggest they would hold others in high regard either.

What to do about it? I haven't a clue. The problem is the Iranian leadership not the people. Sanctions won't work and attacking Iran will solidify the position of the hard liners.

Regardless, what to do about a situation is not the same as if it should happen at all.

 

[cliftonite]

So I'm assuming Craig had no issues with the Valerie Plame 'outing' then? After all, Cheney/Scooter/Bush/whomever was just telling the truth right?

So by that logic they should have been shot for treason right?

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, I don't get the connection either.

OK, for sake of argument let's assume that the article is correct as written. Let's also assume that the punishment was disproportionate.

That still has nothing to do with Iran. Why? Because Israel has demonstrated that it has restraint regarding nuclear weapons. It has them and hasn't used them, so they aren't a threat in this regard.

So we have injustice in Israel. You are going to find that in every nation which has existed or ever will. That's how it goes.

Is every wrong equal? Is every crime worthy of the same punishment? I'd say no.

So what's happening in Israel today? It's citizens are going around generally not worried that they are going to be shot by their security forces.

And in Iran, it's the same... no wait. The government there is committing wholesale slaughter of it's own citizens. If it does this, precisely why should it have nukes?

If the response is "Well look at the US and Iraq", I'd say that has nothing to do with it. We have them and there's nothing you can do about it, and for all the wrong you can find here, you aren't going to see anything like the executions going on in Iran.

The bottom line is that there are people in charge in Iran who freely slaughter their own, and that wouldn't suggest they would hold others in high regard either.

What to do about it? I haven't a clue. The problem is the Iranian leadership not the people. Sanctions won't work and attacking Iran will solidify the position of the hard liners.

Regardless, what to do about a situation is not the same as if it should happen at all.

I don't really see what internal oppression has to do with the reliability of a nuclear state. The Soviet Union had internal oppression down to a science and they never used their nukes.

Iran having nukes does not worry me in the slightest from the perspective that I most commonly hear on here. (they're crazy and will start nuking everyone) That's not really an issue at all in my opinion. The reason for people in the US to not want Iran to have nukes is that it weakens our position in the Middle East and strengthens that of our enemies. To me that's really the beginning and end of it.

 

[Fear No Evil]

So by that logic they should have been shot for treason right?

IF they committed treason, then sure.. I'd support shooting them. I don't think there is any evidence as such though.. but Craig should obviously have no problem with them 'telling the truth' about Plame if thats what happened.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't really see what internal oppression has to do with the reliability of a nuclear state. The Soviet Union had internal oppression down to a science and they never used their nukes.

Iran having nukes does not worry me in the slightest from the perspective that I most commonly hear on here. (they're crazy and will start nuking everyone) That's not really an issue at all in my opinion. The reason for people in the US to not want Iran to have nukes is that it weakens our position in the Middle East and strengthens that of our enemies. To me that's really the beginning and end of it.

So if you had two neighbors who were buying a weapon, one who had been just an ordinary guy as far as you know, and one who had been recently released from prison for shooting his family, you'd feel exactly the same?

 

[fskimospy]

So if you had two neighbors who were buying a weapon, one who had been just an ordinary guy as far as you know, and one who had been recently released from prison for shooting his family, you'd feel exactly the same?

States aren't people, and your example of someone murdering his family certainly implies a level of psychological instability that is not evident from Iran in any way, shape, or form. I don't feel exactly the same about Israel and Iran but it goes from about a 1 in a hundred billion chance of Israel going crazy and nuking the world to about a 1 in ten billion chance for Iran to do the same. Both threats are negligible.

As I've said many times, people who think Iran is crazy are doing both the US and Iran a disservice. If we want to defeat our enemies we need to understand them, and to say 'ahh fuck it they're just nuts' weakens our ability to do so. As I've challenged people before, can anyone show me a single solitary foreign policy action that Iran has taken that isn't completely rational?