![](”http://static.flickr.com/44/116364022_14e11279b9_o.jpg")
Sunday, 17 Dec 2006
I ventured into Um-Khalil land today, and as usual, the trip wasn't pleasant. I could go on a number of negative adjective describing my view of this woman and her ideas, but, like, my granny taught me to be polite when it comes to the elderly. Instead I am going to debate her ideas (hehehehe), especially her last post, which would like us to believe that Israel is the # 1 threat to world peace.
Ok, I'll bite.
Putting aside your thoughts on the west for a second, and ignoring your utterly unfounded premise that the crazy jewish talmudic extreemists will somehow take over Israel in the near future, I have one question to ask you: Who, exactly, will Israel use their nukes against? The arab states surrounding it? Are you kidding me? Do you even know how nuclear weapons work?
Do you understand that using nukes would be nothing short of suicide as far as Israel is concerned? That it lives way too close to everyone, you claim, it want to exterminate? That a nuclear explosion in Syria, Lebanon, or even Egypt, will end up greatly affecting them? Have you heard of the term Radiation? Nuclear fallout? Radioactive contamination? Don't you get that we live on the same land, breathe the same air, and use the same undergorund water streams? Don't you get that the aftermath of such incident would cause a radioactive cloud so huge that it would surely damage Israel as well? That didn't go through your head at all?
Don't you get why they call it the Samson option? Because it's a suicidal plan. It will bring down the temple on everybody. Why would Israel do that, do you think? Or rather, in what situation? Onl one scenario springs to mind, and that would be an all out war against Israel from its surrounding states that would actually threathen to destroy Israel itself. Then, and only then, would they use them. When they know, for sure, that the israeli state's destruction is immenint. That's the only time they will push that button. When they know that there is no alternative to their death, and chose for it to be done by them rather than their enemies. That's all!
The arab states don't need nuclear weapons to counter "the israeli threat". Our proximity is all the detterence we need. We have nothing to fear from israeli nukes as long as we keep peace in the middle east. The israeli nuclear option means we either have peace in this godforesaken region, or we have mutually-assured destruction. Think of the USSR and the USA during the cold war, and you get the idea.
So, no, I do not fear Israeli nukes. I can tell you whose nukes I fear though: Iran!
Iran is far away enough, that if they chose to nuke Israel, they will not be harmed in any way. They are too far away, enjoying the safety provided by the distance they have from their "sworn enemy", a luxuary we don't have unfortunately. If they get hit, we get the nuclear fall-out. Oh yeah, and all the palestinians you fight for so much will die. Incinerated in a second. The Big Bye-Bye. Does that sound appealing to you?
You afraid of possible talmudic extremist taking over Israel? Well, that's a scenario that is very far from happening any time soon. And even if they do take over, the jewish people, who are secular and sane for the most part, would not let them kickstart armageddon cause they feel like it. Iran, on the other hand, is already controlled by extremist shia islamists, who 1) don't listen to their people at all and do as they please, 2) Hate arabs, and consider them as inferior and barbaric in comparison to their persian superiority, 3) are not afraid of death, and even view it as something to look forward to and 4) are utterly fuckin insane! Oh yeah, and did we mention how far they are from the region? If you actually care about your livelihood and not living under a threat as you claim, who sounds more scary to you? Who is the bigger threat here?
Listen, I know that your desire for Israel's nuclear disarmement stems from your belief that this is the first step to annihilate the "zionist entity" from existance, and that it has nothing to do with any threat to world peace. I also get why you want that, and while I 100% disagree with you I totally get why you would hate them so much. But please, don't cover up your own personal agenda under some guise of caring for world peace. You don't care for world peace. You only care about Israel destroyed without the threat of having israeli nukes going off, and if it means making some ambigiuos far-fetched threating scenario where this is the case, then so be it. God knows the world is full of idiots who don't think and who would agree with you. Me? I don't buy it. If Israel has nukes it hasn't used it for more than 6 wars with its neighbours so far, and that's a track record I can trust, which is more than I can say about Iran getting nukes for example.
You don't agree? You probably wouldn't! But then again it's in you agenda to disagree, so no surprises there. Just don't expect to spew that idiotic crap and not have someone call you on it. The world maybe full of idiots, but it has its fairshare of thinking people as well, and they can see through a bullshit argument when they see one.
December 17th, 2006 at 2:31 am
Wow, an amazing post.
Talmudic extremists.. ha ha… has someone been reading too much of the protocols of Zion’s elders lately?
December 17th, 2006 at 5:24 am
Don’t even try to use common sense with this woman. She’s hopeless. Dumb as a rock.
December 17th, 2006 at 5:44 am
A voice of sanity in an increasingly insane world.
America invented nuclear weapons because a physicist told Albert Einstein the Germans were working on an atomic bomb. By 1946, American intellectuals and scientists realized actually using them was pretty nuts. But the 1950’s Cold War led to increasing power and miniaturization of nukes. Now we’re entering the most-feared phase: hyperproliferation.
Now everyone will think they need nukes and nobody who has them will consider giving them up without ironclad agreements and verifiable proof the other guy is giving up his nukes.
We’re 60+ years out from a really serious war. I guess we’re going to learn the lessons again, but worse.
December 17th, 2006 at 6:09 am
Sandmonkey, good to see you back! It’s been a long time! I just remembered why I love your blog so much
Chip,
We’re 60+ years out from a really serious war. I guess we’re going to learn the lessons again, but worse.
I think it’s even worse than that. I’m starting to believe the end of the world is really coming… not because any scriptural prophecy is being fulfilled, or it’s the right year for it or any of that crap. I’m just starting to think humanity doesn’t deserve to survive. Going around the blogs and seeing what real people from various countries and religions are saying, it’s pretty obvious all this animosity from various factions isn’t just politics. It’s real hatred. We fucking hate each other. A lot. I’m just going to throw in this little bit of my religious beliefs. Hate leads to death and damnation. Love is life and salvation. There is NO love in this world, today, except on a personal level. It’s a world full of hate. And hate leads to one thing and one thing only, as far as I’m concerned. That’s what we deserve (all of us) and that’s what we’re going to get. We have the technology to exterminate ourselves and I think that’s just where we’re headed.
Come to think of it, Revelations doesn’t really pin down a timeline, anyway. Maybe Hitler was the anti-Christ. He fits the bill, to perfection. Maybe we’ve been in slow motion Armageddon for 60 years now. Who knows? Whatever. Live for today, folks. It may be all you have!
December 17th, 2006 at 6:22 am
Sandmonkey, this was one kickass post! Rock-on, man.
December 17th, 2006 at 6:26 am
“We’re 60+ years out from a really serious war. I guess we’re going to learn the lessons again, but worse.”
I was thinking the same thing when I read the post by the crazy woman. It’s going to get really nasty pretty soon. I would bet the house that a nuclear attack from a non-state actor will be the end of a few countries.
Right now some muslim(very pious, yet hated by most muslims), probably educated in Europe or N. America is trying to find a way to infect you with smallpox. Someone who works for the U.S. government is trying to harness Ebola for the response. At this point I honestly wouldn’t give a fuck if the response to smallpox was Ebola. It’s not hate, I just want to get it over with. Fuck the “Forever War”.
btw, did anyone else see the latest Memri clip from the hezbollah rally? Is it okay to compare them to Nazi’s yet? Watch Triumph of the Will and compare it with a Hezbollah rally, it’s the same. Replace “human rights and dignity” with “sovereign rights of a state” and “Jews” with uhh… “Jews” and it is the same shit.
December 17th, 2006 at 6:52 am
Actually, Israel has nuclear submarines. Israel is also known to have missile silos that are built to withstand a first nuclear strike. Those missiles are certainly capable of hitting Iran. That means any attack on Israel by Iran would lead to retaliation that would wipe Iran out.
Um-Khalil is just a weirdo. She lives in the narrow little world outlined by the most kooky Palestinian and left-wing propaganda. (By the way, what is up with Um-Khalil’s eyes in her photo?)
Even if the most radical right-wing Jews took over Israel, I doubt they would launch an all out nuclear war on all their neighbors even assuming they were willing to risk fallout (which might not be as bad as you think, BTW, SM). That is just so much nonsense.
December 17th, 2006 at 7:17 am
SM, a nuclear bomb in Cairo, Baghdad, or Teheran would have ZERO, absolutely ZERO effect on any part of Israel in terms of fallout.
December 17th, 2006 at 8:23 am
Not so sure about Cairo, Patrick. Cairo is right on the Nile, and not far from the coast. And it’s only about 200 miles from Israel. Which is along the same coast. Water borne contamination is quite likely, and my guess is that the prevailing winds along the sea coast there would carry the radiation (and radioactive rains) over Israel in pretty large amounts. It’s not an easy thing to predict, as you probably know, but I wouldn’t want to bet that Israel is safe from radioactive contamination if Cairo got hit by a a large nuclear blast.
You’re probably right about Baghdad, and definitely right about Tehran. The problems is, there aren’t many scenarios where only one nuclear weapon is used, on one target. I’m not aware of any doctrine that calls for a limited nuclear strike. They play that came in sci-fi novels and movies, but in the real world, it’s just not logical to give your opponent a chance to strike back, if you can avoid it.
December 17th, 2006 at 8:23 am
I would be worried about Iran too but not that they will bomb Israel. I would be worried that they would buy a sub and some medium range missile technology from the North Koreans and sit out in the Indian Ocean until a Hajj came around and send some flying at Mecca and possibly Medina for good measure. Destroy the sub after firing and who do you think everyone in the Middle East will blame?
You need more than a few nukes to wipe a country like Israel off the map but a few hundred million jihadis descending on the place from across the planet should do it. And if anyone thinks that no Muslim nation would destroy Mecca since the pilgrimage is one of the five sacred pillars, it might be be worth noting that Iran’s president is:
a) out of his mind
b) certain that events are occurring that will eliminate the need for Mecca (i.e. the 12th Imam and Judgment Day and such).
North Korea gets something more than just cash out of the deal also. America gets pulled in to defend Israel weakening them and their commitment to the peninsula, and in the chaos, while America redeploys to Israel, Iran walks into Iraq joins hands with al-Sadr and sings Kumbaya.
I am not saying this is likely nor likely to succeed but if I have thought of this I bet you $5 that Ahmadinejad has. Just how crazy does an idea need to be before even Ahmadinejad thinks it is too far out.
December 17th, 2006 at 8:25 am
The book “Gideon’s Spies,” somewhat well researched - and in some places pretty specious - mentions an Israeli interest in so-called nuclear landmines, low-yield devices developed by the UK in the early Cold War to act as a tripwire against a Warsaw Pact conventional invasion into the West. Israel’s supposed plan was to place them in the Golan Heights to deter a Syrian invasion - weird, since were I them, I would be more worried about the Egyptian armor that was able to actually achieve something in 1973. Either way, this fits in with the “Sampson Option” - the WWII equivalent was the Choltitz plan, in which the Germans allegedely planned to immolate all of Paris if the allies made it there, which thankfully was not acted upon - e.g. the Israelis would, if the allegation is true, be willing to make any effort to annihilate the Israeli state as unimaginably costly to the whole region as possible.
But the issue of Israeli nukes figuring into a larger regional arms race is no joke. Deterrence figures into their worries of existential destruction; everyone, especially Iran, knows they have nukes, and possibly/probably a pretty well developed chemical and bioligical weapons program. This deterrent is geared, rightly so, at Iran more than anyone. The danger of this is that Iran will freak out about it as an offensive option (though once you factor in their nuclear submarines, it looks more and more like a defensive program built around a second-strike capability, but Tehran doesn’t see it that way) and beef up their own program. Factor in the morass in Iraq, and rising Iranian influence in the region, and what do you get? Egypt restarting its nuclear program, along with Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Morocco, the UAE, and Algeria all interested in starting their own. Will any of these eventually cross the threshold from nuclear power to nuclear weapons? Not likely, but not impossible. Iran is a state of concern to Egypt and Saudi Arabia as much as it is to Israel, though for very different reasons. If they want to be the big boys in the region, they have to compete with Iran, who has just raised the stakes. In the end, the nuclear issue has less to do with Israel, and I don’t blame them for pursuing such a deterrent (using it is another matter entirely). However the INDIRECT effects - a potential arms race between Shi’a and Sunni - are pretty scary and destabilizing.
December 17th, 2006 at 8:39 am
I think the use of an H-bomb wouldn’t have much impact on Israel The Neutron variety is the type that produces the massive amounts of radiation. I could be wrong, and if someone with more knowledge would post it would be great.
December 17th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Great post! Lucidly- and well-put.
December 17th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Some one hasn’t heard about small tactical nukes …..
December 17th, 2006 at 9:55 am
“The Neutron variety” is a zionist plot.
December 17th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Great post Sandmonkey. And yes, certainly any nuclear attack on Israel would wipe out all of Israel and all of the Palestinian Territories in the first big flash — then the radiation would get southern Lebanon, big swaths of Jordan and certainly large portions of Egypt. And the leader of Iran is out of his tiny little mind.
December 17th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Down with Um-Khalil! Up with Um Kalthoum!
People, Greece had fallout from Chernobyl. SM is right on the money.
December 17th, 2006 at 11:58 am
A mini nuke on the Aswan dam will do it, (mind you it maybe Iran not Israel that drops it).
December 17th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
“Rave Says:
Some one hasn’t heard about small tactical nukes …..”
Someone hasn’t heard about the amount of technological advancement one has to reach to *make* tactical nukes.
December 17th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
steve, that can be done as easily with some conventional explosives, and will have much less international impact
December 17th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
#17 Nope. What is nuclear weapon compared to nuclear reactor? Worm and elephant. It is few kilos vs. tens of tons, some have over hundred of tons of fuel. The enrichment levels are different, but still.. have you noticed that half of Japan died after Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?
And BTW everything on earth is radioactive, and if there is a blast in Cairo, the surplus to the normal dose in Lebanon would be close to nil.
December 17th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
#19 Roman Kalik
“Someone hasn’t heard about the amount of technological advancement one has to reach to *make* tactical nukes.”
Someone hasn’t heard that no one knows how advanced Israel is in Nuclear weapons….
December 17th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Fantastic, well-written post!
December 17th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Rave,
And someone doesn’t know how limited the applicability of tactical nuclear weapons is. They may be perfect for terrorists(suitcase bombs, anyone?) but really there plenty standard explosives that can achieve the same military goal without erasing the area and making it unlivable, no matter how “litmited” the radiation is when compared to strategic nukes. The average tac nuke is still stronger than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs yet with not that less radiation.
December 17th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
We gotta spread this post around the internet. This maybe one of the coolest things I have ever read as his voice and sarcasm in it, is fucking amazing.
December 17th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Roman, you sound like a nuclear weapons expert! Do you have a day-time job at the pentagon?
December 17th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
No, I just read enough science mags and websites. Where do *you* work, Rave?
December 17th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
That’s my Sandmonkey - so smart, so articulate. xoxox
December 17th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Deterrents are only effective if the opponent values their life or the lives of their people.
This is why the security and safety of the U.S. & Israel is threatened if places like Iran, North Korea & Iraq acquire(d) or develop(ed) these weapon systems. These countries cannot be deterred.
Also you can go to Wikipedia.com and research the effects of the use of these weapons.
The radioactive fallout, while deadly near the point of detonation, decreases over distance; and while the surrounding area would be radio active people could/would still live in the area. The problem with the fallout is if people live in radio active areas they have an increased risk of birth defects and health problems such as cancer.
December 17th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
well, here’s an alternative theory about israel’s nuclear capabillity: it simply dosn’t exist. the whole vaanunu story was a clever trick to fool the world into thinking we have nuclear bombs. thus we gained all the benefits of being considered a nuclear nation, without actually going through the trouble of developing it. the ultra secret nuclear core in dimona is just a big empty werehouse, where president kaccav lures unsuspecting victims of the opposite sex.
I’m no expert, infact, I know absolutly nothing about nuclear weapons, but I do think it’s possible to nuke egypt without suffering an immidiate whiplash, if we aim far enough. let’s say, siwah. but on the other hand, after the meltdown in churnovil, they had acid rain in sweden, so that’s probably not a good idea.
but in the end, there’s no reason to be worried. the craziest jewish talmudic extreemists just joined AJ in his denial conference.
December 17th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
What’s a “talmudic extremist”, pray tell? I’ve never seen that phrase outside of the Stormfront forums. Its typical neo-Nazi lingo.
December 17th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
I see umkahlil hasn’t done her research. Depleted uranium can’t be “dropped” on a target in the same sense that lead can’t be dropped on one. It’s a metal used for it’s extremely high density in armor and ammunition. Boeing 747’s contained hundreds of kilograms of it used as weights. It has no use in explosives and it’s much less radioactive than naturally occurring uranium because the more radioactive isotope has been removed, hence the term “depleted”.
I don’t know if it’s an honest mistake on her part or if she is taking advantage of the fact that most people aren’t knowledgeable about nuclear physics to emphasize her point (I’m going with the latter). Either way, I stopped reading there.
/Just an annoyed science geek’s opinion
December 17th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
The problem with the fallout is if people live in radio active areas they have an increased risk of birth defects and health problems such as cancer.
It’s amazing how harmless radiation poisoning has become the last 15 years :O
Not sure if that’s good or bad. Bad, I guess. People almost talk as if nuclear war is an option, these days. You guys are pretty young, mostly, I’m guessing.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:10 am
The woman is unhinged.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:03 am
Wow, this is what passes for Best of the Web commentary on the Middle East? Who are the judges, former Likud MKs?
Your insane arguments for why Iran would use nukes against Israel contradict every reason you stated that Israel would not use nukes against its enemies. No one (least of which is you) can know for sure what area a nuclear fallout cloud would affect. Also, since Iran is “too far away” from Israel as you profess, and thus ostensibly safe from any nuclear strike from Israel, then by your “logic” the opposite is true, so what in fact would prevent Israel from launching a nuclear strike on Iran? Why don’t you actually take the time to find a study that might at least give you a guess at what would happen in a nuclear attack from either Israel or Iran, instead of pulling nuggets of idiocy from your ass? It might bring at least a modicum of authority to what you write.
The generalizations you make of the “Shia Islamists” in Iran demonstrates a completely vapid knolwedge of that country and its people.
So to pick the least inane of these points, “Shia Islamists” (that’s like saying “Catholic Christianists”, i.e. it’s fucking nonsensical) hate their fellow Shia’s in Iraq who happen to be Arabs? And people take what you say seriously? This peurile tripe sounds like it came out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, except replace “Shia Islamists” with “Dirty Jooz”. What a crock of shit.
The reason Iran MIGHT want nuclear weapons is because Israel MIGHT have them. When two neighbors with less than perfect relations have an imbalance of power, it usually gets balanced again. If your thesis is correct, why hasn’t Pakistan used its nukes against India? You could have made the same blithering argument about Pakistan when they were developing their nuclear weapons capability (and I’m sure someone of your mental capacity did). However, the fact is that they developed a nuclear weapons capability strictly to bring balance back to their relationship with regards to India.
You haven’t the first slightest understanding of politics and warfare. You talk out of your ass and your shitty words and thoughts reflect this.
Furthermore, your choice of moniker is apt: you’re a good little Sandmonkey to the racist white Westerners whom you are trying to appease. If you really are what you say you are. To me, you sound like a Zionist plant.
I’m not done. I will be back.
abraham
http://hypocalypse.com
December 18th, 2006 at 1:04 am
Grandmother or no, that woman is is weapons grade crazy.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:26 am
Right, Pakistan only wanted balance. Don’t mention how close the 2 actually came to using those nukes.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:38 am
“I’m not done. I will be back.”
Sounds like somebody has a troll.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:10 am
HATING ISRAEL IS SUCH A WASTE OF TIME
Hating is so boring and unoriginal. Every group on earth has been victimized, but hate is a choice. Those who hate, clinging to it as an addiction, passing it on to their children, cherishing it inside themselves, using it as the centerpiece of their lives, are finally left with nothing. Hate, quite simply, like other addictions, is a waste of time and energy. If you give up your brain to it, reason is pushed aside by constant anger, paranoia, righteous indignation, dreams of revenge, and self-justification. Thoughts and words are obsessively repeated again and again, day after day, with nothing to show for it, no progress, no change, just like other addictions. People do not have hate – hate has them.
Democracy has always been under attack, and the attackers have always been full of hate. Fascists, Communists, Islamists, to name a few… No one has a right to spread and incite hate. People do not have a right to teach hate in schools, holy places, religious meetings, street demonstrations, or even community picnics. I offer you a demonstration: go into your room, alone, and spend the rest of your life hating Israel, or Sunni’s, or anything else. When you die, we will put on your epitaph: “he hated”. Disappointing, no?
Hate can be confronted. Accept it from no-one, point it out when you see it, disagree with it, refuse to listen, refuse to apologize, fire haters, jail them, sue them, vote against them, and forgive them. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA: “Sherif Ali, so long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people; a silly people; greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are.” Lawrence loved the Arabs, risked his life for them, helped them reconquer their lands from the Ottomans, but the hate thing really bothered him.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:26 am
Wait.
Israel have nukes?
but but.. Iraq was invaded because of their WMDs - Where are they?
December 18th, 2006 at 4:35 am
The sweet smell of Talmudic theocracy
The crazy woman writes on her blog, “I went to school in California, and I hate Zionism like I hate racism, apartheid, bigotry, slavery and child abuse.”
a) I think she hates the truth, too. Clearly she hates Zionism above and beyond all those things - she seems to have a laser like focus - and could care less about racism, apartheid, bigotry, slavery and child abuse where it’s practiced most (1 guess as to where that is, but it might, just might be occurring quite a bit in certain states that decided not to call their regional international organization “The Middle East League,” and instead, went with the rather racist/apartheid choice of assigning an ethnicity to their group. She might want to consider adding “sexism” into laundry list of the things that she supposedly hates, just to go for the full frontal hypocrisy.
b) As a product of the California school system myself, all I can say is this: You can’t win them all. I guess at least one child was left behind. C’est la vie.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:37 am
Democracy rules, I agree with you. Hate can be confronted and should be. When hate has become the obsession of a person’s life, that person is no longer normal. Hatred is just crazy.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:08 am
Abraham,
Congratulations on winning most idiotic comment of the week. Please enjoy your award in silence.
“Your insane arguments for why Iran would use nukes against Israel contradict every reason you stated that Israel would not use nukes against its enemies. No one (least of which is you) can know for sure what area a nuclear fallout cloud would affect. Also, since Iran is “too far away” from Israel as you profess, and thus ostensibly safe from any nuclear strike from Israel, then by your “logic” the opposite is true, so what in fact would prevent Israel from launching a nuclear strike on Iran? Why don’t you actually take the time to find a study that might at least give you a guess at what would happen in a nuclear attack from either Israel or Iran, instead of pulling nuggets of idiocy from your ass? It might bring at least a modicum of authority to what you write.”
What would prevent Israel from launching a first strike at Iran? Wrong question, my pseudo-intellectual interlocutor. The real question is: What would Israel gain from launching a nuclear first strike at Iran?
The answer is “nothing”. Yes, a nuclear strike on Iran would effectively neutralize a *potential* Iranian threat, but it would do so at the cost of opening up a four front war with no diplomatic cover. The day Israel launches a nuclear attack on Iran is the day every Arab league country invades, no holds barred (because if Israel is launching nuclear first strikes then it’s kill or be killed). It also costs Israel any diplomatic cover it gets from the U.S., which will put up with a lot but not with the possibility of nuclear attacks on its own cities (which is what the start of a nuclear exchange would likely result in). Launching a nuclear first strike is, net-net, a losing proposition for Israel, by any measure - and anyone with half a brain can see that.
“So to pick the least inane of these points, “Shia Islamists” (that’s like saying “Catholic Christianists”, i.e. it’s fucking nonsensical)”
So, all muslims are Islamists now? Odd - I know many muslims who disagree with you. Or is it only all Shia who are Islamists? The word “Islamist” has a meaning - it means one who seeks the dominion of Islam over the state/world, often by violence. You can feel free to dislike the meaning of the word, but deluding yourself into thinking that the word has no meaning only makes you look like more of an idiot.
“If your thesis is correct, why hasn’t Pakistan used its nukes against India? ”
Because Pakistan is ruled by a rational if venal man who doesn’t have a burning religious desire to launch armageddon or destroy India? Yeah, I’ll go with that for 500, Alex.
“Furthermore, your choice of moniker is apt: you’re a good little Sandmonkey to the racist white Westerners whom you are trying to appease. If you really are what you say you are. To me, you sound like a Zionist plant.”
Yes, because we all know that the “Zionists” are out there planting fake Egyptian bloggers in the blogosphere. Not because it provides any practical or tactical value but just because it’s, well, you know, fun. And as one of those “racist white westerners” you’re complaining about (see, I’m western and I’m white, which in your tiny little mind I suppose means I’m racist) I’m just glad that they do. Remind me to kick $20 into the “Fake Arab Blogger Fund” at the next Secret Cabal meeting (if anyone wants to join us, we’ll be at the Young Israel on Tuesday night at 5pm).
“I’m not done. I will be back.”
Translation - “I just realized my tinfoil hat has a hole in it. I need to fold myself a new one. Expect me back in 4-6 weeks”
December 18th, 2006 at 6:18 am
I went to school in California, and I hate Zionism like I hate racism, apartheid, bigotry, slavery and child abuse.
Um Khalil wrote that? She doesn’t consider herself a racist? She doesn’t consider herself a bigot? :O
December 18th, 2006 at 6:39 am
she’s drenched in hate - can’t take anybody that’s drunk on hate serious - i’m surprised you gave her any attention at all….
December 18th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
.. Iraq was invaded because of their WMDs - Where are they?
Syria and several large slit trenches in the Bekka if the sat photos are any indication.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
I think “Abraham” is probably UmKhalils good friend Mary Rizzo, otherwise known as “the cutter”. A well know Christian troll who feels the need to call anyone who doesn’t immediately condemn Israel as a Zionist plant. (Ficus presumably).
December 18th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
And if you really want to be depressed, Um Khalil, Nancy, is a teacher on an American military base in Germany. THAT is what is “educating” the children of American servicemen.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
AB, if that’s true, she must surely be an American plant, meant to discredit the cause of HAMAS, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, etc. She does an excellent job in that regard, and I cannot believe that the US military would hire such an obvious supporter of terrorism (and a hater of all things American) to teach the children of US military personnel - the very people charged with fighting the people she claims to support? The US government is not that blind, or that stupid. Right? Right.
December 18th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Purple Avenger
Are you CIA?
Do work for the pentagon?
What sat photos? And how come Bush didn’t attack Syria to save the embarassement?
You are not making any sense.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
to Chuck at # 10
Great moviescript man, sell it to hollywood.
Tho Aj is indeed totally insane.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Oops, forgot , great Post sam and THAT woman, tell me, she does not teach kiddies?? does she?
December 18th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
I see I have a first loser, er, contestant.
Apparently it bothered you enough to reply in a lengthy fashion. So what does that say about you?
Why is that the wrong question? In light of the fact that Israel regularly implies that it will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, and being that it likely can’t pull this off conventionally, or without US support (which seems increasingly unlikely), what other options might Israel have? Yes, I agree it’s far-fetched, for the same reasons that Iran launching a first strike on Israel–if they had any nukes in the first place, which they don’t, and won’t for about 10 years according to all reasonable assessments, assuming they choose to pursue them–is far-fetched. But since you have nothing but visceral hate for Iran and Iranians, you haven’t take the time to study the Iranians and understand their country, people, politics and culture. To you, every Iranian spends their waking hours machinating over the demise on Israel, then go to sleep to dream about it. Your ignorance is what shines through between every letter of every word you write.
Tell me, in such a scenario, where would these nukes hitting US cities be coming from?
Well, since I have at most half a brain, I do understand this. I also understand it is the same reason Iran would not launch a nuclear first strike, if it had nukes and was going to have them in any near-term timeframe. Nuclear weapons are a net-net losing proposition for everyone. It only takes half a brain to understand this.
Ok, assume for a moment Iran has a nuke or two or three. They might get Tel Aviv and Haifa (what, you think a country of devout Muslims would target Jerusalem, one of the holiest of cities in Islam? Notwithstanding that any attack would devastate all the Muslims within a 250 mile radius…) But the moment they do, the existence of Iran as a nation along with its people would end, as every Western nation with nukes will respond with nuclear strikes to take Iran out before they can do any more damage to the world.
Tell me genius, why would Iran commit such a painful suicide? Do you have such little regard for the Persians, a people that has been around for thousands and thousands of years, who have known the full spectrum from glorious empire to humiliating oppression, and have survived the millenia intact, that you believe they would do something so crass just so they can take out an ideological enemy?
With reasoning so weak and an argument completely void of any sense, why do I even give you the courtesy of a reply? That’s the question we should be asking here.
I’m not sure, why don’t you ask the guy that offered it up? In the context with which this term was used, i.e. as an ignorant blanket assertion, as well as the fact that it is Neocon vernacular, I reject it outright. I also reject your silly and simple-minded “definition” of an Islamist as one who “seeks the dominion of Islam over the state/world, often by violence”. That’s grade school, counselor (and know that, with you, I use that term sarcastically). It’s just another term used to dehumanize a group of people. I know you object when someone blames something on The Jews. Why be a hypocrite?
No, I’m sorry, the judges say you are a fool so I’m afraid we’re going to have to deduct your entire balance and eject you from the game. Again, you see, you apparently haven’t even the slightest understanding of Iran as a political entity. If you did, you would know that Ahmedinejad has no real power, and is more akin to a symbolic figurehead. He would in fact have to take out the entire religious leadership (including the Council of Guardians and the Expendiency Council) before he was able to launch a nuke at anyone, if Iran had nukes, which they don’t.
Iran has expressed repeatedly its desire to reach a political agreement with the West, specifically the US, or in the very least detente, which has consistently fallen on deaf ears in the Bush administration, which subsequently pressures European countries to fall in line with its rejectionist ideology. Anyone familiar with the relevant politics at a level deeper than reading the front page of the New York Times understands this.
But getting back to the argument: Pakistan didn’t use its nuclear weapons against India, in part for the reason you mention, but also because Musharraf might be a dictator, but he isn’t an insane one. Ahmedinejad is not a dictator either, nor is he insane, and nor would he be able to launch nukes against Israel even if he was, because he doesn’t have the power to do so, and also because Iran has no nukes.
Wow, you really are that simple. Israel has innumerable propaganda devices at its disposal, not the least of which is AIPAC in the US (you know them, you send money to them every year) and MEMRI, to name but the most obvious. It’s in the very character of the Israeli political establishment to have pro-Israel plants in the media (in all forms, TV, print, radio and internet) to lend cover to its illegal occupation and the war crimes it seems to commit on a daily basis, so to suggest that the monkey that runs this blog is a Zionist plant is hardly a stretch.
Well, thanks for being honest. But I think “Zionist” is more appropriate in your case.
Your homework assignment is to go read Juan Cole so you can at least attempt to debate with me at a minimally competent level. Because wasting my effort on ignoramuses like you (and I use that in the most sincere sense of the word) is pointless.
At least know of what you speak before you open your muzzle and bray.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Craig. Sorry. It is absolutely true.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Wessam #32,
FINALLY someone points that out.. Depleted Uranium is used in dental porcelain, for God’s sake.
This woman is a raving lunatic idiot. Thank the good, kind Lord for Sandmonkey.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
You know you’re in trouble when someone starts mentioning the writings of Juan Cole as gospel.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Anyone with a finger and a computer can type whatever they think worth sharing. The fact that there are people who read her blog and actually agree is more than a little sad and distressing. Most Israel-haters that throw around words like apartheid and nazi would be hard pressed to give you a proper definition of the words. But they know the Jews practice apartheid. And they know the Jews act like nazis. How sad that the end of civilization may be brought about by people with room temperature IQs, and massive amounts of hatred.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Rick,
I live in NYC and we’ve stopped going to Union Square on the weekends because there’s an aggressive little group of middle-aged Um-khalil types waiting to accost passersby. I’m pretty sure they belong to um-idiot’s organization and they’re very physically aggressive. They’re just uncivilized and ill-informed.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Hello Sandmonkey,
In your posting you elaborate on the Iranian nuclear armament. Concerning the necessity of such a programme you argue that Iran does not face an equal nuclear threat by Israel which would (possibly) legitimize the Iranian project. Thus to you the Iranian programme appears completely unnecessary as it does not serve the security interests of the Iranian people. Indeed you charge the Iranians of hideously aiming at the destruction of Israel once they possess the necessary tools for this purpose. Therefore you strongly oppose the Iranian nuclear programme. However, I believe that you commit some serious mistakes in your argumentation.
First of all you base your whole argumentation on the assumption that Iran as a matter of fact is running a nuclear programme. Excuse me if I got something wrong, but until now in the midst of all populist agitation against Iran nobody showed up any serious proof for such a project. The Iranians deny it, the IAEA didn’t find anything and even the CIA (you remember? this band of criminals that falsified proofs to enable the Iraq-War) even these perfidious liars now hesitate to turn up with something similar to the c-class reports by a college student about Iraqi WMD and admit that they have no proof for the Iranian nuclear programme, if we may trust Seymour Hersh (and since his revealing reports about My Lai, the WMD-lie and Abu Ghraib he appears quiet trustworthy to me, http://forum.spiegel.de/showthread.php?p=846158#post846158, sry this source is in German, I’ll try to find a similar report in English). So as long as you don’t have any new special information about such a project which u could confide to us you should not treat this project as a matter of fact.
But never mind, let us talk about this programme in a hypothetic way. Let us assume the Iranians were indeed running a nuclear programme and let us set aside the jurisdictional point of view (according to which the Iranians are clearly allowed to run such a programme as this is part of every nation’s sovereignty). So what? Iran is a country which in the past 600 years has been continuously invaded and exploited by foreign powers. Among the invaders were Arabs, Mongols, Russians, British and most recently Americans to crush a movement which could have turned Iran into a democratic secular state and a mad Arab dictator with friendly help from nearly all Western countries (ironically especially in the area of WMD the Western countries showed generous support for this guy), which btw cost the life of nearly 1 million Iranians. At the same time Iran has not shown any aggression against a foreign country in the past 600 years. Recently, a lunatic superpower run by megalomaniac fanatics has invaded the neighbouring country with half a million troops which until now brought about approximately the same number of casualties. This war was by all means illegal measured at the standards of international law, the only justification for this war, the WMD which Saddam allegedly possessed, never existed which was already clear a long time before the war started and which was proven shortly after it. And while Iraq is just drowning in the bloodshed of sectarian violence and anarchy the same lunatic superpower does not hesitate to threaten Iran with the same destiny. And now you tell me that Iran has no necessity of nuclear weapons? Honestly, I don’t know which reasons could justify nuclear arms more than those I mentioned and I don’t know whether the Iranians are running a nuclear programme or not but I think they would be very stupid if they didn’t.
Nonetheless enough people still call for immediate actions against Iran being terrorized by US-governmental propagandists and other war agitators like they were blinded before the Iraq war. These people fear that Iran would use nuclear arms to destroy Israel once they have developed them referring to the notorious statement about Israel which the Iranian president Ahmedinedschad made during a speech in November 2005. Concerning this speech they quote him demanding that “Israel must be wiped off the map” which btw all TV-stations in Germany rendered as well as many stations in Europe and the USA (for example MEMRI http://www.memri.de/uebersetzungen_analysen/2005_04_OND/iran_ahmadinejad_02_11_05.html). What these people don’t know is that Ahmedinedschad never made this statement. Correctly translated he demanded that “the Zionist regime that occupies Jerusalem must be vanish from the page of time” (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10439). However, this didn’t fit the western Anti-Iran propaganda so they distorted it to make it look like the Iranian president was just imminently about to strike against Israel. Also his statements about the Holocaust were consciously distorted to present him as a new Adolf Hitler quoting him as calling the Holocaust the “Holocaust-myth” which was also wrong he talked about the “myth in the name of the Holocaust” referring to the myth of the creation of the state of Israel, not the Holocaust itself. CNN later on excused itself for this misquotation (http://www.faz.net/s/RubF7538E273FAA4006925CC36BB8AFE338/Doc~E489E641054C24E46B5BFFB6DA50EB310~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html, sry also in German). Another fact which completely drowns in this sea of demagogic agitation is that Ahmedinedschad does not exercise unlimited power in Iran. Even if he was a lunatic who liked to destroy Israel he could not simply press the button. Yet he’s subject to the Ayatollahs power as well as to many other authorities in Iran. And apart from this what do you think would happen if Iran just dropped its bomb over Israel? It wouldn’t take long for a nuclear response by American and European military, even the Israelis could do this job as their nuclear arms are deployed on sub-marines which could escape elimination. Iran would be completely destroyed in this case. The Iranian potentates are definitely not lunatic suicide bombers that would stake this destiny but calculating politicians.
Now let us sum up what we’ve ascertained so far. Despite the fact that Iran would have have every justification to run a programme on nuclear arms the accusations against Iran about the programme are completely unfounded. Also the Western accusations about the Iranian ambitions to destroy Israel are based on statements which have been consciously distorted to fit the political agitation against Iran. In short, this is a propaganda campaign against Iran run by Western media and politicians in order to prepare the Western population for war and you got caught up by it.
Best regards from Mtk
Ps: Sry my first language is German, if you find linguistic mistakes you may retain them.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:13 am
“Apparently it bothered you enough to reply in a lengthy fashion. So what does that say about you?”
That I have time on my hands and enjoy abusing intellectual midgets with delusions of brilliance? As Sideshow Bob might say, “Guilty, as charged”
“Why is that the wrong question? In light of the fact that Israel regularly implies that it will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, and being that it likely can’t pull this off conventionally, or without US support (which seems increasingly unlikely), what other options might Israel have?”
What in the world makes you think they can’t “pull this off conventionally”? And why do you think they could do with a nuclear weapon what they could not with a regular bomb? Nuclear weapons must be delivered to the target in the same manner as conventional weapons - the only difference is what happens after the bomb lands. If Israel can deliver a nuclear warhead to each of Iran’s nuclear sites (or thinks it does) - and your post assumes that they can - they stand an equal chance of delivering conventional payloads.
“Yes, I agree it’s far-fetched, for the same reasons that Iran launching a first strike on Israel–if they had any nukes in the first place, which they don’t, and won’t for about 10 years according to all reasonable assessments, assuming they choose to pursue them–is far-fetched.”
No, it’s far-fetched because Israel has (by all the evidence) had nuclear weapons available to them for use for decades, and through several wars, without using them. In other words, Israel has a track record of NOT using nuclear weapons despite several wars in which it had an opportunity to do so. Iran has no such record, and indeed its former president has gone on record as saying that a first strike on Israel is not beyond contemplation. So the reasons why an Israeli nuclear first strike on Iran would be far-fetched have absolutely no bearing on the likelihood of an Iranian first strike (which, again, anyone with half a brain could have told you).
“But since you have nothing but visceral hate for Iran and Iranians, you haven’t take the time to study the Iranians and understand their country, people, politics and culture. To you, every Iranian spends their waking hours machinating over the demise on Israel, then go to sleep to dream about it. Your ignorance is what shines through between every letter of every word you write.”
Wow - I hope you respond to this post as well, because I want to see if you really are capable of ever-increasing levels of idiocy or if you’ve reached your capacity with this rant. I don’t hate Iranians or Iran; they actually don’t take up very much at all of my time or attention, and certainly none of my emotional energy. The few Iranians I know are very decent people.
Of course, their president is a lunatic who spends his waking hours “machinating” the destruction of Israel (to the point where he faced protests at home from Iranians who had the radical thought that Iranian money should be spent on Iran rather than Hezbollah). And their education system teaches that Tom & Jerry is a zionist plot to get the world to like Jews (since Jerry is a cute mouse and Jews were portrayed as rodents - they needed to rehabilitate the rodent image to get themselves better press). Throw in their support for terror and other unsavory policy choices, and their’s plenty of reason to dislike the Iranian regime.
“Tell me, in such a scenario, where would these nukes hitting US cities be coming from? ”
Once begun, a nuclear exchange would be unlikely to stay contained. The U.S. would be drawn into the war, particularly if it attempted to protect Israel from world response if Israel engaged in a nuclear first strike. Given the proliferation of nuclear material, the increased anger that would suffuse the Islamic world and the current fervor for attacking American civillians, the risk would dramatically increase both from states such as Pakistan and Iran (what remained of it) and Islamists with access to materials.
“Well, since I have at most half a brain, I do understand this. I also understand it is the same reason Iran would not launch a nuclear first strike, if it had nukes and was going to have them in any near-term timeframe. Nuclear weapons are a net-net losing proposition for everyone. It only takes half a brain to understand this.”
Congratulations. All of that, of course, presumes that the actor with the nuclear weapon at its disposal has a will to live and makes rational assumptions about how to maintain that state. Given that Islamic terrorists have already demonstrated that they are willing to die to inflict damage on others, and given Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic beliefs, neither of those makes anyone comfortable with the idea of a nuclear armed Iran.
“I’m not sure, why don’t you ask the guy that offered it up? In the context with which this term was used, i.e. as an ignorant blanket assertion, as well as the fact that it is Neocon vernacular, I reject it outright. I also reject your silly and simple-minded “definition” of an Islamist as one who “seeks the dominion of Islam over the state/world, often by violence”. That’s grade school, counselor (and know that, with you, I use that term sarcastically). It’s just another term used to dehumanize a group of people. I know you object when someone blames something on The Jews. Why be a hypocrite?”
Well, I guess if you “reject it” (without providing any sort of support for your position) it must not be true. Sorry, try again. The term is not dehumanizing - it is an accurate description for (once more, with feeling) Muslims who seek the domination of Islam over the state or world, often by violence. It includes people like Khomeini, Nasrallah, Bin Laden and Zarqawi, but not people like Ali Sistani, who are as Islamic as it is possible to be, but not Islamist.
And if you can’t see the difference between blaming something on “the Jews” and blaming something on a specific subset of Muslims who share an ideological end point and a willingness to kill to reach it - well, then your estimate of your brain power is 1 half too large.
“No, I’m sorry, the judges say you are a fool so I’m afraid we’re going to have to deduct your entire balance and eject you from the game. Again, you see, you apparently haven’t even the slightest understanding of Iran as a political entity. If you did, you would know that Ahmedinejad has no real power, and is more akin to a symbolic figurehead. He would in fact have to take out the entire religious leadership (including the Council of Guardians and the Expendiency Council) before he was able to launch a nuke at anyone, if Iran had nukes, which they don’t.”
The religious figures okayed an attack on a jewish community center in argentina. They include Rafsanjani, the former president mentioned above who spoke openly of launching that first strike. And they have let Ahmadinejad have free rein, and in doing so have empowered him more than they may be aware.
But you know all of that, I’m sure.
I’m also wondering why you keep adding “which they don’t” to the end of your posts. The issue is Iran’s drive towards nuclear weaponry, which PRESUPPOSES that they do not currently have nukes. Bolding the one part of your argument grounded in reality makes sense in the abstract, I guess, but not when nobody who is reading your tripe disagrees.
“But getting back to the argument: Pakistan didn’t use its nuclear weapons against India, in part for the reason you mention, but also because Musharraf might be a dictator, but he isn’t an insane one. Ahmedinejad is not a dictator either, nor is he insane, and nor would he be able to launch nukes against Israel even if he was, because he doesn’t have the power to do so, and also because Iran has no nukes.”
Congratulations, you’ve put your finger on why Pakistan didn’t use nukes. And why nobody is particularly comfortable assuming Iran will act the same way. Because Iran has convinced most of the world (the ones with eyes to see, ears to hear and a brain to process information) that they are absolutely looney tunes.
“Wow, you really are that simple. Israel has innumerable propaganda devices at its disposal, not the least of which is AIPAC in the US (you know them, you send money to them every year) and MEMRI, to name but the most obvious. It’s in the very character of the Israeli political establishment to have pro-Israel plants in the media (in all forms, TV, print, radio and internet) to lend cover to its illegal occupation and the war crimes it seems to commit on a daily basis, so to suggest that the monkey that runs this blog is a Zionist plant is hardly a stretch. . .
Your homework assignment is to go read Juan Cole so you can at least attempt to debate with me at a minimally competent level. Because wasting my effort on ignoramuses like you (and I use that in the most sincere sense of the word) is pointless.”
You really are a master tin foil-folder. Can I see your trophy?
I’ve read Juan Cole. Not particularly impressed (other than by his ability to type despite the rabies)
P.S. - you are obviously a zionist plant yourself, attempting to give the anti-Israel crowd a bad name by spewing conspiracy theories. Prove me wrong. I double dog dare you.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:29 am
“Why is that the wrong question? In light of the fact that Israel regularly implies that it will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, and being that it likely can’t pull this off conventionally, or without US support (which seems increasingly unlikely), what other options might Israel have?”
Multiple conventional munition submarine launched cruise missiles.
“Indeed you charge the Iranians of hideously aiming at the destruction of Israel once they possess the necessary tools for this purpose.”
Well, the President of Iran has made statements on several occasions suggesting such a scenario.
“Excuse me if I got something wrong, but until now in the midst of all populist agitation against Iran nobody showed up any serious proof for such a project.”
You mean the kind of proof that include a mushroom cloud? Wouldn’t that be just a little late?
December 19th, 2006 at 12:49 am
Oh one last thing, to clarify.
“Israel must be wiped off the map”
And
“the Zionist regime that occupies Jerusalem must be vanish from the page of time”
Both say the same thing in English.
December 19th, 2006 at 7:13 am
Ummmmmmm - Sam, who is Mtk and what planet is he/she from? An excellent Blog as usual. This is why YOU win awards and no one reads mine. WHAAAA!
December 19th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Abraham:
“Tell me genius, why would Iran commit such a painful suicide? Do you have such little regard for the Persians, a people that has been around for thousands and thousands of years, who have known the full spectrum from glorious empire to humiliating oppression, and have survived the millenia intact, that you believe they would do something so crass just so they can take out an ideological enemy?”
As some good friends of mine, formerly Jewish citizens of Iran, told me on numerous occasions: “Iran is a wonderful country, with wonderful people, that is ruled by madmen.”
The wishes of the people have little relevance in Iran. Otherwise they wouldn’t be living in poverty and their education would actually matter when it comes to finding a job. In fact, there would have been jobs in the first place.
“No, I’m sorry, the judges say you are a fool so I’m afraid we’re going to have to deduct your entire balance and eject you from the game. Again, you see, you apparently haven’t even the slightest understanding of Iran as a political entity. If you did, you would know that Ahmedinejad has no real power, and is more akin to a symbolic figurehead. He would in fact have to take out the entire religious leadership (including the Council of Guardians and the Expendiency Council) before he was able to launch a nuke at anyone,”
Ahmadinejad is a puppet of the religious leadership, yes. The fact that you deduce the wrong conclusions from this is amusing at best. Yes, AJ only has as much power as the religious leadership gives him, and at the same time they were the ones who set him up in the first place. Iran’s elections are rigged, with the religious leadership trimming away even the appearance of balanced elections.
Ahmadinejad also says those words that he is allowed to say, and does just what he is allowed to do. What, exactly, does that say of Iran’s religious leadership? It’s not AJ that is the problem, AJ is just the symptom.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
“Well, the President of Iran has made statements on several occasions suggesting such a scenario.”
He didn’t. This was a lie by Western media. And he’s not the supreme authority in Iran.
“You mean the kind of proof that include a mushroom cloud? Wouldn’t that be just a little late?”
Before the Iraq war the war agitators said: “If we wait until Saddam distributes his WMD to terrorists millions will die and then it’s too late”. We can’t bomb arbitrarily nations around the world just due to the paranoia of some people. Otherwise millions will indeed face death. Don’t you think 500,00 in iraq are enough for now?
“Both say the same thing in English.”
The fight against a government of a country which illegally occupies parts of another country differs a lot from the fight to destroy the former country completely.
This whole campaign reminds me a lot of the WMD-campaign before the Iraq War. It’s just more sophsticated as now even most of the West-European media and politicians take part in it.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
He didn’t. This was a lie by Western media. And he’s not the supreme authority in Iran.
It’s a lie? And even if it’s not a lie, it doesn’t matter? Is that your point? Are you sticking with that one?
December 20th, 2006 at 12:19 am
“It’s a lie? And even if it’s not a lie, it doesn’t matter? Is that your point? Are you sticking with that one?”
That’s my point.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:54 am
“That’s my point.”
Okay, maybe I answered a bit hastily. If he really said somehting like “I’m going to destroy Israel the moment we’ve got nuclear weapons” this would be a completely different situation which would possibly legitimize economic or even militaric actions against Iran. However, what I want to say is that then one should still take into account first of all that he isn’t the supreme authority in Iran and thus not authorized to make decisions on corresponding militaric actions on his own and secondly the motivation behind such a hypothetic statement. At the moment high unemployment and the wish for more political freedom among the Iranian people set the government under high pressure. Through his populist defiance against the USA Ahmedinedschad intends to seek support and to lift this pressure from the government. His self-presentation in the media serves to tackle interior problems and does not reflect the real Iranian ambitions concerning foreign policy. All this has to be considered in case he really said corresponding statements. Nevertheless until now he never did so.
December 20th, 2006 at 1:43 am
MtK you sound like an Iranian apologist.
About the state or lack thereof on Iranian nuclear bomb development. North Korea tested one years ahead of when any predictions thought they’d be capable. So is Iran able to test one next year, 5 years, 10? Who knows.
There is no binding International law on what makes a war “justifiable” or not. The only real constraint, is the nations moral bearing, and the will of it’s people or governing base.
Abraham you sound like yet another elistist Liberal who thinks they’re all superior, and yet trash talks like a guttersnipe, no better than the rest. Get off your moral high horse.
Iran has consistantly finaced, and supplied material, as well as moral, support to various terrorist and/or militias. Why the hell do you think that policy would change just because the bomb was nuclear as opposed to conventional. No one really worries about them using a nuke “conventionally”. Rather the fear is them suppling nuclear material to various non-state entities for use as a “dirty” bomb. One delivered by truck, train, ship or other non-missile system.
I would never put anything past a group of people that have no respect for one of the foundations of International co-operation, the embassy. Both 1979 in Iran and the Beriut bombing carried out by the forerunner to Iranian proxy, Hezbollah. (Another reason I don’t feel diplomacy is much of an option)
December 20th, 2006 at 1:57 am
Iran’s threat to Nuke Israel is a symbolic defeat for Israel. The fact that AJ can simply get away with declaring his intentions, contributes a lot of pride to the “Resistance Network” which has an effective strategy for destroying Israel, it’s on the move right now. Hezballah, Hamas, al Aksar MB, Fatah, the Madhi Army, the Muslim B., random a. holes, Syria, and Iran are right now stopping Israel from getting defined and defensible boarders. The “Network” also creates Chaos and Weakens surrounding states (Jordan included) which deny Israel any clear military victories. Unless Israel completely revamps it’s strategy, Israel will be destroyed…slowly.
And yes, as Israel goes down, the threat of Nukes will go up.
Egypt should be worried about Iran for another reason that nobody on this blog seems to get. Israel can effectively defend itself from an Iranian Nuclear attack by exploding a nuke in the stratosphere. Because Israel is so small this will work to destroy any incoming missiles headed for TelAviv or Jerusalem. The radiation (no fall out) will likely drift south over to Egypt and perhaps Saudi Arabia.
ps. There are some scary people writing on this string.
December 20th, 2006 at 6:13 am
Jason, it wasn’t a “forerunner” to Hezbollah that committed those attacks in Lebanon in the 1980s. It was the newly formed Hezbollah itself. Formed under that name, in 1982. They bombed the US embassy once, and a diplomatic convoy, once, with car bombs. Then they suicide bombed the US and French peacekeepers. They were responsible for most of the hostage taking in Lebanon (at least, the western hostages) and the infamously hijacked TWA 847 and threw the body of an AMerican out on the tarmac at Beirut airport in 1986. And that doesn’t even scratch the surface of what Iran and it’s Hezbollah proxy are responsible for. Here are some tidbits:
1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan’s inauguration.
1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims’ families.
Hezbollah is not responsible for all of that (and that’s not all that happened in the 1980s, by any stretch of the imagination) but the fact that Ronald Reagan and his administration was negotiating with Iran to try to get the hostages in Lebanon released is pretty good evidence who was behind the bulk of the global terrorism in the 80s.
Iran is a state sponsor of international terrorism. It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s a fact. And they have been since 1979. Prior to 9/11, Hezbollah was responsible for more terrorist attacks, resulting in more deaths, than any other terror group in history. I suspect they are going to try and get redeem themselves and get the spotlight off Al Qaeda. What good is a terrorist group if they can’t claim to be the most successful one? Iran can’t like the idea that their boys have slipped to number two. And what better way to achieve that noble goal than to hand a nuclear weapon to a Hezbollah nutjob, destined for Washington DC? Or New York?
December 20th, 2006 at 6:27 am
MtK,
Okay, maybe I answered a bit hastily. If he really said somehting like “I’m going to destroy Israel the moment we’ve got nuclear weapons” this would be a completely different situation which would possibly legitimize economic or even militaric actions against Iran.
Economic and/or military action has been justified against Iran since 1979. In fact, the US has had unilateral economic sanctions on Iran since then. The US would have been fully justified in declaring war on Iran the minute they seized our embassy, and if anybody but Jimmy Carter had been President, that’s exactly what would have happened. And we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now
However, what I want to say is that then one should still take into account first of all that he isn’t the supreme authority in Iran and thus not authorized to make decisions on corresponding militaric actions on his own
It doesn’t matter. If he’s a mouthpiece, then the words that come out of his mouth are from his masters. His words are still important, either way.
and secondly the motivation behind such a hypothetic statement.
Why do we have to analyze the motivations of a regime that has made it’s ill will towards the west so clear, so many times in the past… and violently, at that?
At the moment high unemployment and the wish for more political freedom among the Iranian people set the government under high pressure.
I don’t see any evidence that this is true. Aren’t you the one demanding evidence before we draw conclusions? In what way has public pressure changed the government, in Iran?
Through his populist defiance against the USA Ahmedinedschad intends to seek support and to lift this pressure from the government.
That’s a myth. Why does a politician with no power, who’s competition is symbolic, need the support of anyone at all? And why, in c ountry where the people have no say in what their government does, would a politician try to be a “populist”? Are you suing that word the same way I am?
It’s all smoke and mirrors. A game of deception.
His self-presentation in the media serves to tackle interior problems and does not reflect the real Iranian ambitions concerning foreign policy.
OK, now I’m asking you to prove that Iran has a foreign policy!
Seriously. I see no evidence of one. Has Iran ever entered into a deal in good faith with another nation? Has Iran ever compromised on an issue that was important?
Has Iran given any ground on the nuclear issue? It’s been over 3 years of non-stop negotiations. What has been accomplished?
Iran may have a foreign policy. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to include foreigners in that policy. So, maybe it should be called a foreign agenda or something, instead?
All this has to be considered in case he really said corresponding statements. Nevertheless until now he never did so.
I’m pretty sure Hitler never came right out and said (ahead of time) exactly how he planned to handle the “jewish problem” either, you know…
December 20th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
AJ lost heavely in the election in Iran
Does that tell you something MtK ??
December 21st, 2006 at 5:11 am
Iran
Contras
Reagan
State sponsored terrorism, YES. But it is not just Iran.
The US is worse than Iran. They hired a bunch of goons and had them massacre civilians. American Democracy at its finest.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:35 am
Craig I stand corrected. I wasn’t 100 percent on if it was pre-hez or just pre-nasrallah. Of little consequence to what I said though.
I always love when ppl knock “american democracy”. Seems way more ppl want in the USA than probably the entire ME, hell maybe the entire Asian continent. So is it really that bad? Hmm?
December 21st, 2006 at 2:02 pm
[...] Sandmonkey, who just won a Weblog, challenges the idea that Israeli nukes represent a threat to peace in the Middle East in Are Israeli nukes a threat to Egypt? [...]
December 21st, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Assuming Israel even has nukes, wouldn’t it be safe to assume it has had them for quite awhile?
And if that is the case, were there not several contexts in which Israel could have used them (Yom Kippur War in particular), and yet did not?
Could it be that it is not in Israeli interest to use a doomsday device? Considering Israel is a liberal democracy, does that sound so outlandish?
December 21st, 2006 at 7:53 pm
The US is worse than Iran.
So get your ass to Iran, so you can live happily ever after.
December 21st, 2006 at 8:40 pm
I think there’s a lot of reasons that it’s vanishingly unlikely that Israel will nuke Egypt, but the radiation isn’t the issue. Look at how little damage was done to areas close to, say, Hiroshima.
Given modern nuclear weapons, Israel could nail something as close to the Green Line as Gaza City without severe effects . . . except for the folks in Gaza City, of course. (Again: that’s not going to happen; when the IDF takes off the gloves wrt Gaza, it’s going to be with the howitzers, not the nukes.)
That said, as things are going, there will be nuclear weapons used in the Middle East within the next five years; the only question is where the Israeli ones will be used and whether the use is preemptive or retributive.
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:40 am
“Israel must be wiped off the map”
And
“the Zionist regime that occupies Jerusalem must be vanish from the page of time”
Sooooooo the difference between these two statements is….
“The fight against a government of a country which illegally occupies parts of another country differs a lot from the fight to destroy the former country completely.”
Riiiiiiiiiight, and what is Israel without the Israeli government?? Nothing, so as I previously stated these statements “Both say the same thing in English.”
“His self-presentation in the media serves to tackle interior problems and does not reflect the real Iranian ambitions concerning foreign policy”
So how long before those “internal problems” become external problems that effect the world? And what are the “real Iranian ambitions concerning foreign policy”?
If the actions of Iran are any indicator I’d say that the actions match the words. And therefore we know exactly what Iran wants to do.
January 6th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Hi Sandmonkey. I’ve been away a long time. I lost you. Now, I’ve found you. Your Israeli rap is crap. Look, you got two people here. You wanna kill them all or what? If you don’t then you have to have a discussion. Have it. Damn it. Just talk. I’ve meant several people from your country. And even though they say the Palestinians are nuts, your people usually say that the Palestinians are pieces of dirt. And I don’t think that’s helpful.