yet another Iranian scientist killed.

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
SEIG HEIL!

LiuKangBakinPie, your inciting hatred is among the worst of the worse. A student of Goebbels? I've seen you are on tract in one of the recognised steps to ethnic cleansing and genocide, by attempting to deny a people and nation their rights to an identity -- Palestinians. When will your next post be to compare Muslims to vermin and in need of eradication to protect society?

The Stormfront crowd of AnandTech once again rear its vile ass.

Is this xenophobic anti-Muslim hate tirade as espoused by LiuKangBakinPie the return of a more verbose A777pilot, or an account by Anders Behring Breivik after having regained internet access to rally soldiers to the cause?

its morons like you who are the root cause of the issue in the first place. his post is 100% correct and give the xenophobe label a rest, its way over used and in your case you just dont know how to use it.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
What is wrong with members of this forum? All too commonly such regular and blanketed hate speech is tolerated and rarely condemned.

They're smart enough not to be shamed into silence by political correctness and multiculturalism in the face of an insidious threat to their way of life.

It's tolerated because it's the opinion of the vast majority of the West. Is that a surprise? You realize we have entire wars dedicated to killing Muslims right?
 

Whiskey16

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2011
1,338
5
76
It's tolerated because it's the opinion of the vast majority of the West. Is that a surprise? You realize we have entire wars dedicated to killing Muslims right?
Let's all be aware that Nebor proudly declares himself to be a representative of the US military and is on the record of believing current warfare as that of intentional genocide upon Muslims. How would higher command view him if he was not behind forum anonymity?

This forum, AnandTech, is a regular hotbed of extremism.

The tie-in to Breivik's internet anti-Muslim rants is of prime relevance. The membership, owners, and moderators of this site may choose to site by in usual silence and thereby apparent tolerance of these regular and even violent anti-Muslim rhetortic.

It is all of your choices to be apathetic and thereby tolerate the previous posts, or be upon the record and speak out against them.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Let's all be aware that Nebor proudly declares himself to be a representative of the US military and is on the record of believing current warfare as that of intentional genocide upon Muslims. How would higher command view him if he was not behind forum anonymity?

This forum, AnandTech, is a regular hotbed of extremism.

The tie-in to Breivik's internet anti-Muslim rants is of prime relevance. The membership, owners, and moderators of this site may choose to site by in usual silence and thereby apparent tolerance of these regular and even violent anti-Muslim rhetortic.

It is all of your choices to be apathetic and thereby tolerate the previous posts, or be upon the record and speak out against them.

Hrmmm, you don't think that maybe the Indian owners & operators of this site are all too familiar with the kind of joy that Islam can bring them?

Instead of running your mouth, how about you just GTFO.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
No, they haven't. That's a lie debunked many times here. They want to see the state of Israel gone.
It's been debunked? Maybe in your own mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

Note also the numerous outrageous statements by Ahmadinejad including: "They should know that regional nations hate this fake and criminal regime and if the smallest and briefest chance is given to regional nations they will destroy (it)"

And trying to differentiate between Israel and "the state" of Israel is pure apologistic hogwash. Israel IS the state of Israel. Every country is represented by its government and it is that government that is the source of its identity.

Then again, the US has said its policy is 'regime change' in many ocuntries, hasn't it?
Yep. And those countries consider the US an enemy, don't they? So why shouldn't Israel consider Iran an enemy for the very same reason and do what it can to prevent its enemy from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

Iran's defending *itself* as well - unfortunately with the murderous ally of Syria now. That's how these conflicts go, they're terrible, bloody, and we should oppose all the war.

Cherry picking is propaganda.
As one of the largest harvesters of cherries in this very forum you should heed your own words.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
What country has every fought a battle intending on losing?

Israel could not afford to cede any advantage to the opponents.
Rather, the Israeli leadership wanted more territory, particularly East Jerusalem, and they knew the could take it, so they did. Attempting to frame that war of conquest as one of defense is absurd, particularly considering the fact that at least a couple of Israeli leaders from that time have since acknowledged the fact that the Six-Day War was a war of choice.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
Rather, the Israeli leadership wanted more territory, particularly East Jerusalem, and they knew the could take it, so they did. Attempting to frame that war of conquest as one of defense is absurd, particularly considering the fact that at least a couple of Israeli leaders -- please add links instead of your usual min-information---from that time have since acknowledged the fact that the Six-Day War was a war of choice. -- you are really mis-informed!! I cannot believe that you believe the 6day war would have never happenned......are you really that ignorant?? Look at the proof -- look at the way Israel neighbors were arming themselves and getting into position....


You are really naieve and downright not very smart if you believe the Six day war would not have happened had Israel not launched defensive strikes.

Had the Six day war started and ended the way those who opposed Israel desired.....we would not have an Israel and thus all the middle east problems would have been solved!


You Kyle are a real work of art!!

What Led To The Six Day War?
What led to the Six Day War in 1967?
Terrorist Attacks on Israel

From early 1965 to the Six-Day War in June 1967, the PLO through Fatah pursued a consistent policy of border attacks, particularly along the Jordanian and Lebanese borders. Criticism of these activities by the Arab governments and by local public opinion persuaded Fatah leaders to adopt a new approach known as “the entanglement theory.” This involved using sabotage to force Israel to adopt an offensive position, which in turn would force the Arabs to step up their military preparedness. This cycle of action-retaliation-reaction would lead to a gradual escalation of tension on the borders, and eventually to the Six Day War in 1967.

In 1965, 35 terrorist raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.

The number of dangerous incidents on the Syrian border increased following Israel?s activation of the National Water Carrier from the Sea of Galilee to the Negev in 1964. Syria and the other Arab countries opposed the National Water Carrier project and tried to destroy it by diverting the tributaries of the Jordan river located in their territories; Israel bombed the diversion works in response. This tension came against the backdrop of the on-going border clashes along the demilitarized zone between Israel and Syria, as Syria resisted Israel’s attempts to increase use of the DMZ for Israeli agriculture. (The DMZ was the result of the terms of the Israel-Syria armistice signed on July 20, 1949.) Syria launched attacks on Israeli farmers cultivating land in the demilitarized zone and on Israeli fishing boats and other craft in the Sea of Galilee, shelling from the commanding Golan Heights that rise dramatically to the east of the border areas.
Military Provocation By Arab Countries and Soviet Disinformation

While Israel consistently expressed a desire to negotiate a peace with its neighbors, there was no matching sentiment on the Arab side. In an address to the UN General Assembly on October 10, 1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement. Nasser (Egypt) answered on October 15, saying that Israel was trying to deceive world opinion, and reiterating that his country would never recognize the Jewish State. Nasser’s rhetoric became increasingly bellicose; on March 8, 1965 he said:

We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.

A few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs’ goal to be:

… the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.

Other Arab leaders from Syria, Jordan, and Iraq joined in the rhetoric and preparations for war, increasing pressure on Egypt’s President Gamal Nasser, perceived as the leader of the Arab world. Syria’s attacks along the DMZ grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966. Syria’s attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Israel followed up by re-introducing military forces to the DMZ.

At the same time, and unknown to the Israelis, the Soviet Union mounted a disinformation campaign pushing Egypt to join Syria against Israel. At that time, the Soviets were providing military and economic aid to both Syria and Egypt. On May 13, 1967 a Soviet parliamentary delegation visited Cairo and informed the Egyptian leaders that Israel had concentrated eleven to thirteen brigades along the Syrian border in preparation for an assault within a few days, with the intention of overthrowing the revolutionary Syrian Government. This was a complete fabrication designed by the Soviets to destabilize the Middle East. Similar false information may have been given to Egypt by the Soviets as early as May 2.

The build up and aggressive intent were denied by Israel. UN Secretary General U Thant reported that UNTSO observers on the Syrian border:

… have verified the absence of troop concentrations and absence of noteworthy military movements on both sides of the [Syrian] line.

Nasser probably correctly interpreted the Soviet information as an indication to him that the time was ripe for an attack on Israel and that he had their backing. With the United States deeply distracted by the War in Vietnam, the Soviets had reason to think there would be no US intervention. Nassar then abandoned his former cautious policy and took the lead for new aggression against Israel. Syria and Iraq eagerly joined Egypt’s preparations, increasing the momentum toward war.

On May 15, Israel’s 19th Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.

On May 16, Nassar requested the withdrawal of the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956. Egyptian forces moved up to the UNEF lines and began to harrass the UN positions. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. This was a direct violation of the conditions under which Israel had returned control of the Sinai to Egypt after the Sinai Campaign. TheUN force was supposed to safeguard Israel from Egypt again closing the Straits of Tiran or launching terrorist attacks from that quarter.
Blockade of the Straits of Tiran

In 1956, the United States gave Israel assurances that it recognized the Jewish State’s right of access to the Straits of Tiran. In 1957, at the UN, 17 maritime powers declared that Israel had a right to transit the Strait. Moreover, any blockade violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958. Nonetheless, on on the night of May 22-23, 1967 Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel’s only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran.

Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel’s hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly:

The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war.

Final Blows Lead to War

There is evidence that Egypt was warned by the US and the Soviet Union in late May 1967 that war should be avoided, but by then the momentum to war was unstoppable.

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30, 1967, under which Jordan joined the Egyptian-Syrian military alliance of 1966 and placed its army on both sides of the Jordan river under Egyptian command. He had little choice since Jordan housed 700,000 Palestinian Arabs whose rioting in November 1966 almost brought down Hussein’s government. On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq added these words to the mountain of provocation:

The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear — to wipe Israel off the map.

Armed forces in the Arab countries were mobilized. Israel was confronted by an Arab force of some 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft. The armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were contributing troops and arms to
the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian fronts.

Israeli forces had been on high alert during the three weeks of tension which began on May 15, 1967 when it became known that Egypt had concentrated large-scale forces in the Sinai peninsula, an alert status Israel could not maintain indefinitely. The country could not accept interdiction of its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba. Israel had no choice but preemptive action. To do this successfully, Israel had to achieve surprise, not wait for an Arab invasion, a potential catastrophic situation. On June 4, the Cabinet authorized the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence to decide on appropriate steps to defend the State of Israel.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_sixday_backgd.php

Therer are other sites.....
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Any chance you would tell us about the source for what you quoted, and explain why one should take his arguments over those from the various other people mentioned on that page who insist the statement was not a threat?
As to the source, did you miss this part?

[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away.

Care to explain how someone like Juan Cole, who isn't even a native Farsi (or even Arabic) speaker should know better than Ahmadinejad's own translators?
 

janas19

Platinum Member
Nov 10, 2011
2,352
1
0
Are you an idiot or what?

Did you even read what I said?

Was I talking about European immigrants?? Nooo!!
Was I talking about Muslims who have immigrated to European countries and to the United states? YES!!!!

YES -- The Europeans did respect the customs....
But sadly that is NOT the case when it comes to Muslim immigrants......

My problem is not Muslim wanting what they want...its when they try to push their nonsense on others...

Lol at JediYoda. Not the sharpest tool in the shed.

It's called sarcasm dude.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
As to the source, did you miss this part?
I asked you about the source you are quoting. In other words, the man who wrote the words you quoted. Do you not understand that part?


Care to explain how someone like Juan Cole, who isn't even a native Farsi (or even Arabic) speaker should know better than Ahmadinejad's own translators?
First off, when it comes to translating between two languages, being a native speaker of one isn't any better than being a native speaker of the other, being fluent is what makes for the most accurate translation, and considering the quality of the higher education system in the US compared to that of Iran, the chips fall well on the side of Cole et al. However, what makes Cole's translation superior is the fact that it agrees with the word by word literal translations such as this one provided by Arash Norouzi. If Ahmadinejad's own translators have an argument to the contrary of that, I'm happy to hear it.

Then of course there is this from the Wiki page you quoted:

At a news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted. "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want." Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, he denied that his country would ever instigate military action. Instead he claimed that "the Zionist regime" in Israel would eventually collapse on its own.

Now, care to tell us about Ethan Bronner?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I can't believe it's okay to support terrorism on this forum. You're as bad as the Taliban--maybe worse. It's about time the American army starts using drones in their own country against people like you. If they can't do it themselves, maybe we should help them. A few anthrax attacks should take care of it.

It was not terrorism.

It's no more terrorism than 'James Bond' killing a KGB agent.

It's an assassination, it may be an act of war (I think it is), but it's not terrorism. It's (probably just one) country taking out another's military assets.

Fern
 
Last edited:
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
I asked you about the source you are quoting. In other words, the man who wrote the words you quoted. Do you not understand that part?
No, I didn't understand because you were unclear and it's an attempt at further diversion by you.

First off, when it comes to translating between two languages, being a native speaker of one isn't any better than being a native speaker of the other, being fluent is what makes for the most accurate translation, and considering the quality of the higher education system in the US compared to that of Iran, the chips fall well on the side of Cole et al. However, what makes Cole's translation superior is the fact that it agrees with the word by word literal translations such as this one provided by Arash Norouzi. If Ahmadinejad's own translators have an argument to the contrary of that, I'm happy to hear it.
Cole has been taken to task before for other translations of his in the past and it's been pointed out by native Arabic/English speakers that his translation of Arabic is not particularly good. That's beside his frequent penchant to craft apologetics for ME countries. I'll stick with those of Ahmadinejad's own translators as they would likely know his intent and will better than a left-wing professor in Michigan.

[Then of course there is this from the Wiki page you quoted:



Now, care to tell us about Ethan Bronner?
You seem to want to focus on a single tree and ignore the entire forest. Amadjob has made plenty of ridiculous remarks regarding Israel and, taken as a whole, his meaning is plenty clear.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
It's been debunked? Maybe in your own mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel



Note also the numerous outrageous statements by Ahmadinejad including: "They should know that regional nations hate this fake and criminal regime and if the smallest and briefest chance is given to regional nations they will destroy (it)"

And trying to differentiate between Israel and "the state" of Israel is pure apologistic hogwash. Israel IS the state of Israel. Every country is represented by its government and it is that government that is the source of its identity.


Yep. And those countries consider the US an enemy, don't they? So why shouldn't Israel consider Iran an enemy for the very same reason and do what it can to prevent its enemy from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.


As one of the largest harvesters of cherries in this very forum you should heed your own words.

You have a long history of lying, and you repeat more lying here. I'm not 'picking cherries'. But you love to lie about people to make a point you don't have any legitimate basis for.

Your comments are offensive. I thought I already had you on ignore for that long history, and remember why.

My point is that the people who are the actual aggressors here - the ones who have actually removed the democracy in Iran and put a dictator in power, the ones who assisted Saddam in aggressive war with a million casualties including the gassing of civilians including schoolchildren and protected Saddam from Iran in the war with the US military, are pursuing further violence against Iran by alleging this 'threat' to make it 'self-defense', just as the war on Iraq was claimed to be self-defense.

So, you claim 'Iran is determined to destroy Israel'.

You think that milking any such comments can be used indefinitely for justifying violence against Iran, up to and including starting a war against them.

So surely, the fact that Iran is actually stating the intent to destroy Israel is clear, and not you hyping and misrepresenting the issue for justifying your own aggressive war, right?

From your own source, let's see what the nation of Iran has to say - of course they endorse the threat you claim, right?

Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat.

Oh, terrifying! We need to nuke them now for this threat, that... they say no threat is being made. Oops, you want to start a war over a country saying there is no threat.

Yes, we know who the real war starter and supported of violence is here.

How about even the man who made the quote, despite the fact he doesn't make the decision to start a war even if he wanted to, surely he stands by the threat you claim.

No, wrong again.

Asked if he objected to the government of Israel or Jewish people, he said that "creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish". He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country's parliament.

In a September 2008 interview Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?" He replied:

If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.

Many like to claim his statements were a call for genocide, to kill the people of Israel. They were not; his many statements make other suggestions, not calling for killing Israelis.

A hundred members of the US Congress, for example, made this claim voting to call for pursuing him under the 'genodice' law.

Who has ACTUALLY called for war and violence? We can find countless American political leaders in the Republican Party, but start with McCain as the presidential nominee singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." That wasn't 'a joke', it was a 'humorous' expression of a view - there are many others stirring the support for war.

And let's take a Prime Minister of *Israel* himself - while falsely accusing Iran of making the threats, he then actually made the same threat he accused Iran of against them:

The day after Ahmadinejad's remarks, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations...

On May 8, 2006, Shimon Peres told Reuters that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map," Army Radio reported.

Once again, the aggressor claiming 'self defense'. On the genocide claim:

Interpretation as call for genocide

The speech was interpreted by some as a call for genocide. Canada's then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore."[31]

In 2007, more than one hundred members of the United States House of Representatives co-sponsored a bill[32][33] "Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel."

Cole interprets the speech as a call for the end of Jewish rule of Israel, but not necessarily for the removal of Jewish people:


His statements were morally outrageous and historically ignorant, but he did not actually call for mass murder (Ariel Sharon made the "occupation regime" in Gaza "vanish" last summer [sic]) or for the expulsion of the Israeli Jews to Europe...

Ahmadinejad gave the examples of Iran under the Shah, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq as examples of apparently invincible regimes that ceased to exist, using them to justify his belief that the United States and the State of Israel can also be defeated: "They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan."[2]

Interpretation as call for referendum

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for a referendum in Palestine. Most recently in an interview with Time magazine in 2006:

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it? Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.

Yes, clearly he can't wait to get his hands on nukes and commit genocide.

No, you are the menace to peace, and making false claims of 'defense' to justify your own desire for war. You are the actual aggressor and war supporter.

There's a lot to criticize with Iran and its President, but you are the war aggressor, making the false claims to justify your own war support.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
You have a long history of lying, and you repeat more lying here. I'm not 'picking cherries'. But you love to lie about people to make a point you don't have any legitimate basis for.

Your comments are offensive. I thought I already had you on ignore for that long history, and remember why.
Wow. What a co-inkydink. I JUST took you off ignore purely for the purpose of responding to you in this thread.

My point is that the people who are the actual aggressors here - the ones who have actually removed the democracy in Iran and put a dictator in power, the ones who assisted Saddam in aggressive war with a million casualties including the gassing of civilians including schoolchildren and protected Saddam from Iran in the war with the US military, are pursuing further violence against Iran by alleging this 'threat' to make it 'self-defense', just as the war on Iraq was claimed to be self-defense.

So, you claim 'Iran is determined to destroy Israel'.

You think that milking any such comments can be used indefinitely for justifying violence against Iran, up to and including starting a war against them.

So surely, the fact that Iran is actually stating the intent to destroy Israel is clear, and not you hyping and misrepresenting the issue for justifying your own aggressive war, right?

From your own source, let's see what the nation of Iran has to say - of course they endorse the threat you claim, right?



Oh, terrifying! We need to nuke them now for this threat, that... they say no threat is being made. Oops, you want to start a war over a country saying there is no threat.

Yes, we know who the real war starter and supported of violence is here.

How about even the man who made the quote, despite the fact he doesn't make the decision to start a war even if he wanted to, surely he stands by the threat you claim.

No, wrong again.



Many like to claim his statements were a call for genocide, to kill the people of Israel. They were not; his many statements make other suggestions, not calling for killing Israelis.

A hundred members of the US Congress, for example, made this claim voting to call for pursuing him under the 'genodice' law.

Who has ACTUALLY called for war and violence? We can find countless American political leaders in the Republican Party, but start with McCain as the presidential nominee singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." That wasn't 'a joke', it was a 'humorous' expression of a view - there are many others stirring the support for war.

And let's take a Prime Minister of *Israel* himself - while falsely accusing Iran of making the threats, he then actually made the same threat he accused Iran of against them:



Once again, the aggressor claiming 'self defense'. On the genocide claim:



Yes, clearly he can't wait to get his hands on nukes and commit genocide.

No, you are the menace to peace, and making false claims of 'defense' to justify your own desire for war. You are the actual aggressor and war supporter.

There's a lot to criticize with Iran and its President, but you are the war aggressor, making the false claims to justify your own war support.
Blah, blah, blah. You drone on about the US in your usual Chomsky-ist style without even realizing that this thread is about Israel and Iran, NOT the US.

Next, you proceed to put words in my mouth. I said absolutely NOTHING about nuking anyone or starting a war.

You need to get a grasp on your over-the-top, accusatory rhetorical devices, fool, and stop acting the part of an imbecile in here.

Back on ignore you go!
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
It was not terrorism.

It's no more terrorism than 'James Bond' killing a KGB agent.

It's an assassination, it may be an act of war (I think it is), but it's not terrorism. It's (probably just) country taking out another's military assets.

Fern

It's terrorism. It's terrorism when terrorist forces kill civilians, when they kill policemen, when they kill schoolteachers, when they commit sabotage, all designed at creating fear among people to force them to make political concessions using violence. And assassinating these *civilian scientists* not only is an attack on the energy program of Iran, it's terrorizing the scientific community in Iran not to do that work, lest they face assassination.

When the US has wanted to pressure people - in Sandinista Nicaragua, in North Vietnam for a couple examples - we've trained and supported terrorists to assassinate local people.

IMO, the word 'terrorism' has been a word we've tried to use to get around the 'double standard' issue, so that if WE kill a ton of your people, that's 'military operations and collateral damage', but if YOU kill even far fewer of our people, that's 'terrorism' which makes YOU the bad guy.

Terrorism is the tactic of the far weaker side - so perfectly suited for demonizing by the powerful side, to keep the PR war going for its own policies of violence.

Flying a plane into the Pentagon is 'terrorism' but assassinating scientists isn't?

Now, perhaps that terrorism isn't the primary goal of the assassinations - but it sure seems like at least a secondary one. Do they really think they can assassinate so many of Iran's nuclear scientists that they can achieve their goal of shutting down even the peaceful energy program? Seems dubious - that the 'terrorism effect' is part of how to hurt it.

Then again, bin Laden's goal on 9/11 wasn't primarily 'terrorism'. first and foremost, it was to try to force the US governemnt to respond by invading a Muslim country, which he hoped would trigger a global Muslim uprising against the West. Also, it was to make Al Queda appear powerful as the primary force against the west. Also, it was was weaken a strong point of the west by weakening its economy as it took expensive steps against further acts.

Do I see anywhere where bin Laden thinks the people of the US are going to say 'oh we're so afraid of bin Laden, we surrender to him! Give him anything he wants!'? No, I don't.

So you get into a definitional issue here about 'terrorism' that just doesn't seem all that important - other than to serve that goal of demonizing it to hide OUR violence.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Rather, the Israeli leadership wanted more territory, particularly East Jerusalem, and they knew the could take it, so they did. Attempting to frame that war of conquest as one of defense is absurd, particularly considering the fact that at least a couple of Israeli leaders from that time have since acknowledged the fact that the Six-Day War was a war of choice.
Survival or annihilation.

They chose survival.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
It's terrorism. It's terrorism when terrorist forces kill civilians, when they kill policemen, when they kill schoolteachers, when they commit sabotage, all designed at creating fear among people to force them to make political concessions using violence. And assassinating these *civilian scientists* not only is an attack on the energy program of Iran, it's terrorizing the scientific community in Iran not to do that work, lest they face assassination.
-snip-

Your own words demonstrate why this is not terrorism. The attack was not designed to create fear, it was designed to eliminate a military asset - a scientist in the nuke weapon program.

The attackers are not trying to create fear, they're trying to stop or slow nuke weapon development.

Fern
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
If Iran would start assassinating Israel's strategic scientists, I wonder how fast it will be considered an act of war and give seal of approval for US/NATO to invade Iran
Iran has been murdering Israelis for decades -- except, rather than scientists, they prefer to blow up innocent women and children.

Where do you think Hezbollah and Hamas get most of their financing, training, rockets, and bombs?
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Your own words demonstrate why this is not terrorism. The attack was not designed to create fear, it was designed to eliminate a military asset - a scientist in the nuke weapon program.

The attackers are not trying to create fear, they're trying to stop or slow nuke weapon development.

Fern

Well with that kind of logic 9/11 was not terrorism either, it was a one time strike against symbols of US power.

Really, it is pointless to twist words like this. Israel is using Iranians dissidents to do their dirty work for them, along with their own operations in Iran and US operations inside Iran. If the shoe was on the other foot and it was evident Iran was running a targeted campaign to kill Americans and Israelis, Israel and the US would give armed forces order to attack.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Your own words demonstrate why this is not terrorism. The attack was not designed to create fear, it was designed to eliminate a military asset - a scientist in the nuke weapon program.

The attackers are not trying to create fear, they're trying to stop or slow nuke weapon development.

Fern

"not only is an attack on the energy program of Iran, it's terrorizing the scientific community in Iran not to do that work, lest they face assassination."