yet another Iranian scientist killed.

[EagleKeeper]

You're over-interpreting those out of context quotations that you are drawing from Wiki. They said that Israel didn't think they would be conquered by Egypt in the shortrun. They did not say that Egypt's provocative actions weren't threatening to Israeli security in the longrun.

You're also leaving out some crucial information. For one thing, Israel tried hard to keep Jordan out of the conflict. How does that support your theory that Israel wanted to conquer East Jerusalem and the West Bank? The candid sources that you cite, Rabin and Begin, did not say that this was the reason they attacked pre-emptively. In fact, they gave entirely different reasons. Yet you credit them so far as whatever implications you choose to draw.

Also, Egypt did intend to attack Israel pre-emptively, and called it off at the last minute due to pressure from the Soviets. That isn't really in dispute.

- wolf

He does not over interpret; He finds what he wants to see and then projects it outward.

What he refuses to see is ignored/side tracked; excused away.
Had Rabin and Begin made those statement in Hebrew or Yiddish; he would be sure to find a translation

 

[lopri]

No one with a sense of reality would believe that the U.S. has nothing to do with this serial terrors on the region. It is very much likely illegal, though there must be some secret DoJ memo approving its legality. However, chances are these innocent deaths will never be accounted for, or even acknowledged.

It is sad that we have shifted from one wrong (Bush Doctrine) to another (Obama Doctrine, which apparently is something like Doctrine of "Silence").

 

[davmat787]

No one with a sense of reality would believe that the U.S. has nothing to do with this serial terrors on the region. It is very much likely illegal, though there must be some secret DoJ memo approving its legality. However, chances are these innocent deaths will never be accounted for, or even acknowledged.

It is sad that we have shifted from one wrong (Bush Doctrine) to another (Obama Doctrine, which apparently is something like Doctrine of "Silence").

Personally, I think the operation that attached the car bomb has Mossad written all over it. They are much more adept and capable at operations in that region that the US is. I would be very surprised if the CIA was behind it, but I am just guessing of course.

Or did I miss something, and it has been found out that the US is behind this?

 

[cwjerome]

No one with a sense of reality would believe that the U.S. has nothing to do with this serial terrors on the region. It is very much likely illegal, though there must be some secret DoJ memo approving its legality. However, chances are these innocent deaths will never be accounted for, or even acknowledged.

It is sad that we have shifted from one wrong (Bush Doctrine) to another (Obama Doctrine, which apparently is something like Doctrine of "Silence").

It's the easy, obvious, and popularly cynical view to accuse the US of these terrorist acts.

The US outlawed assassinations a long time ago. We speak out against these types of terrorist acts constantly. If the US were behind this it would invalidate so many national and international pronouncements, agreements, and laws it's ridiculous. It doesn't pass the common sense test... the fallout would be enormous. If the US were to ever do something like this (I'm not naive enough to believe ti could never happen) it would surely be done in such a secretive, controlled manner designed to produce zero suspicion.

Since we're all about wild speculation around here, I would lean towards either internal Iranian activity or Saudi Arabia.

 

[mutz]

No one with a sense of reality would believe that the U.S. has nothing to do with this serial terrors on the region. It is very much likely illegal, though there must be some secret DoJ memo approving its legality. However, chances are these innocent deaths will never be accounted for, or even acknowledged.

It is sad that we have shifted from one wrong (Bush Doctrine) to another (Obama Doctrine, which apparently is something like Doctrine of "Silence").

were these scientists innocent? helping a hateful country like Iran building nuclear weapons for what cause? helping poor children in Africa get feed?

 

[zinfamous]

again, unless you've seen combat your opinion does not matter to me. I proudly killed taliban just like my grandfarther proudly killed nazis/nazi collaborators and like my forefarthers proudly killed anyone who dared oppose them. we humans have been killing our enemies since the dawn of time, it's our nature so don't you try and push your halfbaked morals on me.

proudly doing what one is proudly trained to do and proudly ordered to do, just as their father and father before them proudly did what they were proudly ordered to do, as they are told it is a reason to be proud.

proud proud proud.

yeah, you fit right in.

it's one thing to do what you have to as a soldier, it's another thing to eat the bullshit: using that indoctrinated bullshit to justify crimes.

 

[Broheim]

proudly doing what one is proudly trained to do and proudly ordered to do, just as their father and father before them proudly did what they were proudly ordered to do, as they are told it is a reason to be proud.

proud proud proud.

yeah, you fit right in.

it's one thing to do what you have to as a soldier, it's another thing to eat the bullshit: using that indoctrinated bullshit to justify crimes.

what crimes, is killing enemy combatants all of the sudden a crime?

 

[kylebisme]

You confuse opinions with facts.

Facts:

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

You're obviously intent on holding opinions in denial of those facts, but they exist regardless.

You're over-interpreting those out of context quotations that you are drawing from Wiki.

So you claim, but can you provide further quoting to support your claim?

They did not say that Egypt's provocative actions weren't threatening to Israeli security in the longrun.

I know Moshe Dayan said something about provicitive actions which lead up to the Six-Day War, specifically:

After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara [Zvi Tsur, Rabin's predecessor as chief of staff] did that, Yitzhak did that, but it seems to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado [David Elzar, OC Northern Command, 1964-69].

As for your arguments against my understanding of the history, please cite your sources.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Facts:


You're obviously intent on holding opinions in denial of those facts, but they exist regardless.

:golfclap; You are able to copy and paste, verbatim, the claim from a guy whose claim to fame is writing articles for anti-war.com, a far left website with an agenda. How impressive.

So you've found a total of two people on the the internet, BOTH of which are vocierously anti-war and both of which are known Iran apologists, and use them as your "fact."

It's still opinion, and a biased one at that.

And NONE of this minutiae matters anyway. As usual, you dive headlong into some obscure argument you actually believe you can win and ignore everything else that has been said to you, so you can ignore the bigger picture in the process. You do it with your 9/11 whackjob arguments and you have done it in this thread.

Personally, I'm tired of your transparent modus operandi in P&N. I doubt I'm the only one either.

The primary argument is that Iran has made threats to Israel, has used proxies to attack Israel, and is an enemy of Israel. Therefore Israel has a right to prevent that enemy from obtaining a weapon of mass destruction. NOTHING you have said thus far has done a thing to debunk that "fact."

 

[zinfamous]

what crimes, is killing enemy combatants all of the sudden a crime?

no, not at all.

but killing people because they wear turbans, or because they are Muslim, for "shits and giggles" sure as hell is.

In any theater.

 

[kylebisme]

:golfclap; You are able to copy and paste, verbatim, the claim from a guy whose claim to fame is writing articles for anti-war.com, a far left website with an agenda.

Arash Norouzi's debunking of the "wiped off the map" translation is an entirely factual word for word translation, which is why you are incapable of refuting it and hence are left just waving your hands in denail of it instead. Also, anti-war.com isn't a leftist website at all but rather a libertarian one. Now, are you still unwilling to explain why one should believe the man you copied and you copped and pasted verbatim from here?:

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.

Also not that your suggestion that I can only find two people refuting the "wiping Israel away" has no basis in reality, and all anyone has to is read your own link there to find a third name.

 

[Craig234]

The US outlawed assassinations a long time ago. We speak out against these types of terrorist acts constantly. If the US were behind this it would invalidate so many national and international pronouncements, agreements, and laws it's ridiculous. It doesn't pass the common sense test... the fallout would be enormous. If the US were to ever do something like this (I'm not naive enough to believe ti could never happen) it would surely be done in such a secretive, controlled manner designed to produce zero suspicion.

Since we're all about wild speculation around here, I would lean towards either internal Iranian activity or Saudi Arabia.

No, we didn't. In about 1981 we had an executive order ban asssassination of heads of state - after decades of out of control assassinations - and them violated that targetting many heads of state for assassination by calling them 'military targets'. For just one example, in the leadup to the Iraq war we did our best to find Saddam and ordered dozens of air strikes trying to kill him - instead killing many civilians.

Do a search on 'School of the Americas' sometime.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

snip

And NONE of this minutiae matters anyway. As usual, you dive headlong into some obscure argument you actually believe you can win and ignore everything else that has been said to you, so you can ignore the bigger picture in the process. You do it with your 9/11 whackjob arguments and you have done it in this thread.

Personally, I'm tired of your transparent modus operandi in P&N. I doubt I'm the only one either.

The primary argument is that Iran has made threats to Israel, has used proxies to attack Israel, and is an enemy of Israel. Therefore Israel has a right to prevent that enemy from obtaining a weapon of mass destruction. NOTHING you have said thus far has done a thing to debunk that "fact."

You continue to avoid the primary point, which is exactly what I expected you would do. Instead you try to redirect to minutiae.

Nobody is surprised at your lame tactic.

 

[Broheim]

no, not at all.

but killing people because they wear turbans, or because they are Muslim, for "shits and giggles" sure as hell is.

In any theater.

when did I say that I killed them because they wear turbans or are muslims?

regardless, as long as they are enemy combatants my reasons for killing them are irrelevant, or are you really that much of a moron?

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Theres 2 type of muslims. People reading about the middle East in papers and see it on tv don't know that. Jihad propoganda try make people believe theres one.

But Saddam didn't kill all those muslims because of land. No because those muslim believes are different and not the arab-jihad way

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

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?

Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire.

After Muhammad’s death, his successor immediately went to war with former allied tribes which wanted to go their own way. Abu Bakr called them 'apostates' and slaughtered anyone who did not want to remain Muslim. Eventually, he was successful in holding the empire together through blood and violence.

From the history of the faith to its most sacred writings, those who want to believe in "peaceful Islam" have a lot more to ignore than do the terrorists. By any objective measure, the "Religion of Peace" has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known. In Islam there is no peace unless Muslims have power - and even then...

Religious minorities have not “flourished” under Islam. In fact, they have dwindled to mere shadows after centuries of persecution and discrimination. Some were converted from their native religion by brute force, others under the agonizing strain of dhimmitude.

What Muslims call “tolerance,” others correctly identify as institutionalized discrimination. The consignment of Jews and Christians to dhimmis under Islamic rule means that they are not allowed the same religious rights and freedoms as Muslims. They cannot share their faith, for example, or build houses of worship without permission.

In fact, the definition of "terrorism" in Islam is ambiguous at best. And the definition of an “innocent person” in Islam isn't something that Muslim apologists advertise when they say that such persons aren't to be harmed. The reason for this is that anyone who rejects Muhammad is not considered to be innocent according to Islamic teaching.

Me stating the truth written so in the Quran is hatred? I think most people in the world don't know what the Quran states and is all about.

Consider that a great deal of the Quran is devoted to describing the horrible punishment that awaits those who refuse to become Muslim. How can Muslims say that the subjects of such divine wrath are innocent persons?

My facts are based from the Holy Book of Quran. Its written in it. For me to inform everyone about it and what it means is hatred? Maybe in your country but mine where democracy is king and not religion it means freedom of speech

 

[JEDIYoda]

Arash Norouzi's debunking of the "wiped off the map" translation is an entirely factual word for word translation, which is why you are incapable of refuting it and hence are left just waving your hands in denail of it instead. Also, anti-war.com isn't a leftist website at all but rather a libertarian one. Now, are you still unwilling to explain why one should believe the man you copied and you copped and pasted verbatim from here?:


Also not that your suggestion that I can only find two people refuting the "wiping Israel away" has no basis in reality, and all anyone has to is read your own link there to find a third name.

ONLY IN america can people like you get away with posting such nonsense...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

proudly doing what one is proudly trained to do and proudly ordered to do, just as their father and father before them proudly did what they were proudly ordered to do, as they are told it is a reason to be proud.

proud proud proud.

yeah, you fit right in.

it's one thing to do what you have to as a soldier, it's another thing to eat the bullshit: using that indoctrinated bullshit to justify crimes.

You know, that IS a reason to be proud, your accomplishments. There are lots of people who are proud of all kinds of things that they had no influence on, like being English or American, being proud over the flag, being proud over all sorts of idiotic things.

Being proud over your accomplishments is real pride, it's something Broheim did in the real world, something people like yourself will NEVER understand just like you don't understand how the terrorists are real enemies.

I'm sure you think the terrorists are just swell people out to do no harm and that those of us who fought them were just indoctrinated but reality begs to differ with you.

Broheim is right and if you don't get that a dead terrorist is the only version there is of a good terrorist then there is something severely wrong with you.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

ONLY IN america can people like you get away with posting such nonsense...

Actually... we get them over here too and i've seen them speaking in Israel and France too.

They are not of any specific nationality, idiocy isn't bound by national borders.

 

[Craig234]

One poster, Kyle, has backed up his position with facts on this.

But let's review:

Iran is SUCH a clear threat to Israel because they SAY THEY ARE UTTERLY DEDICATED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL that... Iran says that is NOT their position.

Of course their denial of that being their position is PROOF it's their position.

Man, this reminds me of Iraq and WMD. The denials of having any are proof they do!

No one disputes the stated position of Iran being that they are not threatening Israel with war or nuclear destruction. The only dispute is claiming it's CLEARLY the case.

Which side is the aggressor here again?

Which side has forced agreements to take the others' resources cheaply? Which side forced a puppet dictator into place over the other? Which side was attacked in a war?

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

One poster, Kyle, has backed up his position with facts on this.

But let's review:

Iran is SUCH a clear threat to Israel because they SAY THEY ARE UTTERLY DEDICATED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL that... Iran says that is NOT their position.

Of course their denial of that being their position is PROOF it's their position.

Man, this reminds me of Iraq and WMD. The denials of having any are proof they do!

No one disputes the stated position of Iran being that they are not threatening Israel with war or nuclear destruction. The only dispute is claiming it's CLEARLY the case.

Which side is the aggressor here again?

Which side has forced agreements to take the others' resources cheaply? Which side forced a puppet dictator into place over the other? Which side was attacked in a war?

Now add on 12 November a accident happened at a uranium conversion site in the city of Isfahan where a accidental” explosion destroyed a Shahab-3 missile site and killed the top Revolutionary Guards missile engineer. Hello?????

 

[cwjerome]

No, we didn't. In about 1981 we had an executive order ban asssassination of heads of state - after decades of out of control assassinations - and them violated that targetting many heads of state for assassination by calling them 'military targets'. For just one example, in the leadup to the Iraq war we did our best to find Saddam and ordered dozens of air strikes trying to kill him - instead killing many civilians.

Do a search on 'School of the Americas' sometime.

Actually it was Ford who made the executive order making political killings illegal. Putting out 'kill or capture' notices in Iraq was legal since it is considered a wartime operation... yes, military targets.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

You express my line of thinking. I know the motivation is to prevent nuclear technology in Iran.

The question is, is it our place to actively prevent any country from advancing technology? There are a multitude of answers all over the board for that question.

I agree with you though, that we shouldn't be doing any terrorist attacks, and that is exactly what CIA assassinations, etc are, unless it Congress has passed an act of war against said country.

If we are officially at war with a country, then I have no problem taking out their politicians and their generals through assassinations, electronic warfare, assassinations of scientists that are in weapons development, or nuclear development.

We obviously try to avoid killing medical personal, and other forms of industry.

A common argument I have heard for the non declaration of war, is that the "terrorists groups" are not an official army.

Well, if we want to fight them, tough luck, they are official if they are allowed to operate within the country, so we simply tell that to their officials, and get congress to declare war, then we hit them hard, fast and pull out.

Mossad uses MEC to carry out the attacks. One thing though. Yes every country has the right for nuclear technology but to create nuclear arms after treaties was signed to end such things. And where the believes are a country in range of such a missile doesn't belong there and their laws state they must be removed. Those laws are the Islamic believes btw. If one follows a strict code where it states that you don't believe in what he believes in and you can be killed. Will you turn your back or trust tah person especially testing missiles which will only be effective with 2000+ payloads and a small bomb?

 

[kylebisme]

Yes every country has the right for nuclear technology but to create nuclear arms after treaties was signed to end such things. And where the believes are a country in range of such a missile doesn't belong there and their laws state they must be removed.

US defence secretary Leon Panetta on Iran:

Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.

Is there any evidence you can present to substantiate claims to the contrary?

 

[Jhhnn]

Mossad uses MEC to carry out the attacks. One thing though. Yes every country has the right for nuclear technology but to create nuclear arms after treaties was signed to end such things. And where the believes are a country in range of such a missile doesn't belong there and their laws state they must be removed. Those laws are the Islamic believes btw. If one follows a strict code where it states that you don't believe in what he believes in and you can be killed. Will you turn your back or trust tah person especially testing missiles which will only be effective with 2000+ payloads and a small bomb?

You really don't understand the history of guided missiles. Germany fired thousands of V-1 & V-2 conventional warhead missiles against England as terror weapons & as a means to divert Allied resources. Saddam launched scuds against Israel in GW1 for much the same reasons & effect.

Missiles can also be made with a variety of guidance systems- GPS, inertial & can also be made to home in on various electromagnetic emissions, like radars. They're obviously a lot more accurate than in WW2, when the Germans used them to considerable effect.

They don't have to be nuclear weapons to be effective, at all.