Really? It's a one sided hit piece? That's funny cause the author, after reciting the history I quoted, goes on to argue that in his opinion Iran acts out of strategic calculation and is unlikely to do something so crazy as to force an attack on it (like use a nuclear weapon). But sure, whatever, it's a hit piece because the author can't be sure of exactly how many millions of dollars Iran funnels to Hezbollah.
And you haven't pointed out lies. You've responded to factual statements claiming that they are lies (when they are not). I'm actually not advocating a strike on Iran. I'm just trying to provide the necessary context to have an informed discussion of the subject.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
And you haven't pointed out lies. You've responded to factual statements claiming that they are lies (when they are not). I'm actually not advocating a strike on Iran. I'm just trying to provide the necessary context to have an informed discussion of the subject.
Oh ya? I'm still waiting on the proof that it is Iran's policy and that it is the revolutionary gaurd carrying out attacks around the world. You know? Your flat out lie...
The article I posted above is from a peer reviewed journal. If that's not good enough for you then please tell me what would be? Cause it seems to me that you are so utterly close minded that nothing short of me personally introducing you to the Supreme Leader of Iran and having him tell you this stuff himself would convince you (and maybe not even then!).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
The article I posted above is from a peer reviewed journal. If that's not good enough for you then please tell me what would be? Cause it seems to me that you are so utterly close minded that nothing short of me personally introducing you to the Supreme Leader of Iran and having him tell you this stuff himself would convince you (and maybe not even then!).
That article has nothing to do with your outright lies. All it does is state that Iran has given money to palestinian organizations. Wether they gave that money to Hamas to fight Israel or to help the palestinians suffrage is another argument. It is no concern of mine and has nothing to do with the lies you are perpetuating.
You must have some proof of a Revolutionary guard member committing some sort of violent act against a western nation at the will of the Iranian government? If not, stop spreading lies and half truths.
Are you kidding me!!! I highlighted the relevant sections for you! Here, I'll post it again:
With Iranian guidance, the Lebanese Hizballah dramatically captured America's attention with devastating suicide attacks on the U.S. embassy in Beirut in April 1983, where 63 people died, including 17 Americans, and on the U.S. Marine Barracks in October 1983, where 241 U.S. Marines were killed (a simultaneous attack killed 58 French peacekeepers). These attacks, and the sense that the peacekeepers had little peace to keep, led President Reagan to withdraw U.S. troops in February 1984. Hizballah also took numerous Westerners hostage in the 1980s, executing several of them. Hizballah, often working through suborganizations with different names, took 17 Americans, 15 Frenchmen, 14 Britons, 7 Swiss, and 7 West Germans hostage, as well as 27 others hostage during the 1980s. 10 In March 1992, Hizballah and Iran worked together to bomb the Israeli embassy in Argentina, killing 29 and in July 1994 attacked the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, killing 86. Hizballah also aided other groups that shared its agenda. Iran also directed the attack on the U.S. military facility of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, killing 17 American troops. 11 In addition to its support for Hizballah, Iran has also supported a wide array of other groups that have attacked Israel. In each of these instances, Tehran was able to compensate for its military inferiority by relying on terrorism.
Terrorism also offered Iran some degree of deniability in this effort. By working through proxies, Iran was able to achieve its own interests against the United States, Israel, or states supporting Iraq without paying the consequences that more direct involvement might entail...Of the many terrorist groups that Iran has sponsored, none is more important to Tehran than the Lebanese Hizballah. 13 Their close relationship is perhaps the strongest and most effective relationship between a state sponsor and a terrorist group in history. Iran helped found, organize, and train Hizballah, eventually creating a strong and relatively independent terrorist group. In exchange, Hizballah has served Iran loyally, striking Iran's various foreign enemies, helping assassinate Iranian dissidents, and otherwise advancing the interests of the Islamic Republic. Iran, as noted earlier, helped build the movement from the ground up and to this day plays a major role in sustaining it and its day-to-day operations. Iranian sponsorship of Hizballah is a major reason why Iran consistently tops the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Although exact figures are difficult to verify, Tehran provides perhaps $100 million per year to Hizballah—a figure that may have increased after the summer 2006 Israel–Hizballah war. In addition, Iranian forces train the movement and provide it with intelligence. Moreover, Hizballah operatives enjoy close ties to Iranian intelligence and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is linked directly to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Hizballah's senior terrorist, Imad Mugniyieh, reportedly enjoys Iranian citizenship and regularly travels there. Hizballah's leadership proclaims its loyalty to Khamenei, and he reportedly serves as an arbiter for group decisions. Iran is particularly influential with regard to Hizballah activities overseas.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Please explain to me how the facts stated in the peer reviewed article above are lies. You seem so sure that they are, so please explain to me how you know that to be the case?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Please explain to me how the facts stated in the peer reviewed article above are lies. You seem so sure that they are, so please explain to me how you know that to be the case?
Again, just because there are Iranians linked to terrorism, it doesn't give Israel or America the right to pre-emptivly strike Iran. Otherwise every nation in the middle east would have to be struck including Israel itself.
We can go on and on. But it's obvious that I am pushing for peace and you are pushing for war. I am neither American, Israeli, or Iranian. I am just an observer that sees a bunch of right wing zealots pushing their own agendas from each of those sides. And the more you choose to believe and perpetuate false information like "wipe Israel from the map" the further we'll be from peace.
Again, just because there are Iranians linked to terrorism, it doesn't give Israel or America the right to pre-emptivly strike Iran. Otherwise every nation in the middle east would have to be struck including Israel itself.
We can go on and on. But it's obvious that I am pushing for peace and you are pushing for war. I am neither American, Israeli, or Iranian. I am just an observer that sees a bunch of right wing zealots pushing their own agendas from each of those sides. And the more you choose to believe and perpetuate false information like "wipe Israel from the map" the further we'll be from peace.
Actually quite the opposite. Yosi is pushing for peace, you are pushing for inevitable war. Think about it.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I was wondering...
If it's okay for Israel to launch a pre-emptive fisrt strike against Iranian nuclear facilities because Isreal has the right to defend herself based upon fears that will result in future attacks against Israel...
Does that mean it is okay for Iran to launch a pre-emptive first strike against Israeli air fields because Iran is afraid that Israel is going to launch a future attack on Iranian nuclear facilities?
...
If you are for one side... aren't you justifying the actions of the other?
Does that mean it is okay for Iran to launch a pre-emptive first strike against Israeli air fields because Iran is afraid that Israel is going to launch a future attack on Iranian nuclear facilities?
Sadly, but I think "yes"...If Israel wants to beat the drums of war they should be ready for others join the concert....
Again, just because there are Iranians linked to terrorism, it doesn't give Israel or America the right to pre-emptivly strike Iran. Otherwise every nation in the middle east would have to be struck including Israel itself.
We can go on and on. But it's obvious that I am pushing for peace and you are pushing for war. I am neither American, Israeli, or Iranian. I am just an observer that sees a bunch of right wing zealots pushing their own agendas from each of those sides. And the more you choose to believe and perpetuate false information like "wipe Israel from the map" the further we'll be from peace.
I think you've completely missed the point here. Again, it's not that there are random Iranians linked to terrorism. It's that the government of Iran is linked to terrorism specifically targeting America and Israel. That is, in fact, a legal cause for war with Iran. To be clear, I am not arguing in favor of war. I'm just trying to provide the relevant context, since some people on this thread seem intent on portraying this issue as if Israel and America are warmongering trolls intent on attacking an innocent country for no reason.
Your second sentence is just silly. Iran's links to terrorism are a sufficient legal cause for war. Having cause for war does not mean that one must actually go to war. Whether or not to launch a military strike is a policy decision. It's not some automatic outcome that gets triggered just because I can provide facts of Iranian bad behavior on an internet thread.
Again, I'm not pushing for war. I'm also not perpetuating false information. Many very intelligent people argue against striking Iran, but they do so recognizing the reality of the situation that I've outlined. They don't hide from the truth that Iran does really terrible stuff. They simply argue that from a policy perspective a strike on Iran doesn't make sense. The arguments they are making are serious ones. What you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" over and over again.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Again, just because there are Iranians linked to terrorism, it doesn't give Israel or America the right to pre-emptivly strike Iran. Otherwise every nation in the middle east would have to be struck including Israel itself.
We can go on and on. But it's obvious that I am pushing for peace and you are pushing for war. I am neither American, Israeli, or Iranian. I am just an observer that sees a bunch of right wing zealots pushing their own agendas from each of those sides. And the more you choose to believe and perpetuate false information like "wipe Israel from the map" the further we'll be from peace.
I think you've completely missed the point here. Again, it's not that there are random Iranians linked to terrorism. It's that the government of Iran is linked to terrorism specifically targeting America and Israel. That is, in fact, a legal cause for war with Iran. To be clear, I am not arguing in favor of war. I'm just trying to provide the relevant context, since some people on this thread seem intent on portraying this issue as if Israel and America are warmongering trolls intent on attacking an innocent country for no reason.
Your second sentence is just silly. Iran's links to terrorism are a sufficient legal cause for war. Having cause for war does not mean that one must actually go to war. Whether or not to launch a military strike is a policy decision. It's not some automatic outcome that gets triggered just because I can provide facts of Iranian bad behavior on an internet thread.
Again, I'm not pushing for war. I'm also not perpetuating false information. Many very intelligent people argue against striking Iran, but they do so recognizing the reality of the situation that I've outlined. They don't hide from the truth that Iran does really terrible stuff. They simply argue that from a policy perspective a strike on Iran doesn't make sense. The arguments they are making are serious ones. What you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" over and over again.
Wrong!! You have absolutely zero proof of Iranian government involvement in anything that would make war with them legal. All you have is fabricated stories. But because you've bought the bullshit propaganda from the right wing and Fox media, you think you know something for sure. You don't. And you have provided ZERO proof other than hearsay and innuendo. You CANNOT attack a country because of hearsay...sorry that's how international law works. You need proof.
I stand by everything I've written, and I absolutely do not think it's bullshit at all. You should really do some research, because frankly the idea that Iran is just some poor law abiding nation that everyone all of a sudden has decided to pick on for no reason whatsoever is just ludicrous. All of the actions I mentioned (dealings with Hamas and Hezbollah, bombing Jewish sites, killing American soldiers, etc.) were carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, a wing of the Iranian government. These were not, as you laughably implied, the actions of random Iranians. These are the results of Iranian government policy.
Regardless of what the perfect translation is, it's unarguable that those kinds of statements reflect an immense hostility towards Israel. It's not normal for the leaders of nations to talk this way about other sovereign states. This is the same reason why the holocaust deniel is relevant. When all of Iran's actions are taken together with the repeated hostile statements of its leaders towards Israel, I think it becomes perfectly understandable why Israel feels threatened by Iran.
Absolutely wrong. Show me any kind of proof that any active revolutionary guards have done the things you say. You say "results of Iranian policy", you are beyond full of shit. Policy is usually written so you must have proof. Show me any proof of Iranian policy that calls for the things you say are being carried out by their government. There must be documents since you say it is Iranian government policy.
An active US soldier just killed 17 afghan civilians, it must be the policy of the United States to slaughter afghanis.....oh wait :oops:
I stand by everything I've written, and I absolutely do not think it's bullshit at all. You should really do some research, because frankly the idea that Iran is just some poor law abiding nation that everyone all of a sudden has decided to pick on for no reason whatsoever is just ludicrous. All of the actions I mentioned (dealings with Hamas and Hezbollah, bombing Jewish sites, killing American soldiers, etc.) were carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, a wing of the Iranian government. These were not, as you laughably implied, the actions of random Iranians. These are the results of Iranian government policy.
Regardless of what the perfect translation is, it's unarguable that those kinds of statements reflect an immense hostility towards Israel. It's not normal for the leaders of nations to talk this way about other sovereign states. This is the same reason why the holocaust deniel is relevant. When all of Iran's actions are taken together with the repeated hostile statements of its leaders towards Israel, I think it becomes perfectly understandable why Israel feels threatened by Iran.
Absolutely wrong. Show me any kind of proof that any active revolutionary guards have done the things you say. You say "results of Iranian policy", you are beyond full of shit. Policy is usually written so you must have proof. Show me any proof of Iranian policy that calls for the things you say are being carried out by their government. There must be documents since you say it is Iranian government policy.
An active US soldier just killed 17 afghan civilians, it must be the policy of the United States to slaughter afghanis.....oh wait :oops:
Still waiting on the proof of the revolutionary guards involvement....where'd you hear that from anyway? Right wing media or pundit?
Dude, do you understand what "peer-reviewed" means? It means that before publication the article was sent to academic experts in the relevant subject matter who read it and made sure it was fit for publication. They would not have allowed the article to be published if it contained factual inaccuracies and outright lies. That's the purpose of peer-review.
If you want to actually offer a substantive response I'd be glad to read it. Otherwise please just stop responding. I've provided you with a comprehensive, authoritative source. All you've done is respond with shrill and baseless accusations that I'm lying. You quite frankly don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about, nor do you seem interested in engaging in an open-minded discussion, nor do you seem willing (or perhaps able) to respond to my points except in the most childish and irrational of fashions. It's frankly getting annoying.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I think the initial question suffers from a false premise. A pre-emptive strike (assuming that there is a legitimate fear of attack) is not "good" or "right." I don't think it should be looked at in moral terms. It's a question of survival and self-defense. Imagine that I see someone pointing a gun at me, and I legitimately think that he means to shoot me. If I also had a gun, and I was able to shoot him first, I wouldn't say that by shooting him I had done a "good" or "right" thing. In fact I probably would say that I did a morally problematic thing, in that shooting another person is wrong, but in this instance it was arguably necessary and justified.
Except the one pointing the gun - sabre rattling - right now is Israel, not Iran. And Israel has nuclear weapons, whilst Iran doesn't. So it looks like you're attempting to turn reality on it's head.
Israel is the little guy. The bullies just don't get that he has big guns, yet. Which is amazing b/c he's been beating their asses for almost 60 years now.
Sure, killing unarmed civilians by the thousand, as they did in Lebanon in 2006, and Gaza in 2008-2009, is really heroic.
B, I'm suggesting that when it comes to the use of its nuclear arsenal, yes, Israel is a responsible country. As for who is doing the sabre rattling, I understand your perspective, but I also think that I've made my perspective perfectly clear. Given Iran's history of sponsoring terrorism targeting Israel and the anti-semitic and frankly (at least to an Israeli ear) genocidal rhetoric of its leaders, I understand why Israel feels that an Iranian nuclear weapon is an existential threat. All Iran has to do to stop the momentum towards an armed conflict (and who really knows if that is a certainty?) is to stop building nuclear weapons (to borrow a phrase from your playbook) in accord with the will of virtually the entire international community.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Are you kidding me!!! I highlighted the relevant sections for you! Here, I'll post it again:
With Iranian guidance, the Lebanese Hizballah dramatically captured America's attention with devastating suicide attacks on the U.S. embassy in Beirut in April 1983, where 63 people died, including 17 Americans, and on the U.S. Marine Barracks in October 1983, where 241 U.S. Marines were killed (a simultaneous attack killed 58 French peacekeepers). These attacks, and the sense that the peacekeepers had little peace to keep, led President Reagan to withdraw U.S. troops in February 1984. Hizballah also took numerous Westerners hostage in the 1980s, executing several of them. Hizballah, often working through suborganizations with different names, took 17 Americans, 15 Frenchmen, 14 Britons, 7 Swiss, and 7 West Germans hostage, as well as 27 others hostage during the 1980s. 10 In March 1992, Hizballah and Iran worked together to bomb the Israeli embassy in Argentina, killing 29 and in July 1994 attacked the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, killing 86. Hizballah also aided other groups that shared its agenda. Iran also directed the attack on the U.S. military facility of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, killing 17 American troops. 11 In addition to its support for Hizballah, Iran has also supported a wide array of other groups that have attacked Israel. In each of these instances, Tehran was able to compensate for its military inferiority by relying on terrorism.
Terrorism also offered Iran some degree of deniability in this effort. By working through proxies, Iran was able to achieve its own interests against the United States, Israel, or states supporting Iraq without paying the consequences that more direct involvement might entail...Of the many terrorist groups that Iran has sponsored, none is more important to Tehran than the Lebanese Hizballah. 13 Their close relationship is perhaps the strongest and most effective relationship between a state sponsor and a terrorist group in history. Iran helped found, organize, and train Hizballah, eventually creating a strong and relatively independent terrorist group. In exchange, Hizballah has served Iran loyally, striking Iran's various foreign enemies, helping assassinate Iranian dissidents, and otherwise advancing the interests of the Islamic Republic. Iran, as noted earlier, helped build the movement from the ground up and to this day plays a major role in sustaining it and its day-to-day operations. Iranian sponsorship of Hizballah is a major reason why Iran consistently tops the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Although exact figures are difficult to verify, Tehran provides perhaps $100 million per year to Hizballah—a figure that may have increased after the summer 2006 Israel–Hizballah war. In addition, Iranian forces train the movement and provide it with intelligence. Moreover, Hizballah operatives enjoy close ties to Iranian intelligence and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is linked directly to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Hizballah's senior terrorist, Imad Mugniyieh, reportedly enjoys Iranian citizenship and regularly travels there. Hizballah's leadership proclaims its loyalty to Khamenei, and he reportedly serves as an arbiter for group decisions. Iran is particularly influential with regard to Hizballah activities overseas.
1.Show me anything in this article that implicates the revolutionary guard. Nothing in this article does anything to back up your lies in this thread. You flat out said that the revolutionary guard was involved in terrorist bombings. I'm still yet to see anything from you to back that up. There is certainly nothing in this article.
2.Nothing in this article has anything to do with anything recent. Look at all the dates within the article, 1983, 1984, 1996, 2006. This thread is about pre-emptive strikes against Iran NOW. If you want me to take you seriously then you need to come up with something recent.
3. You haven't provided a source for the article. Was it written by an American, Israeli, or maybe a European? Not that I really care that much because the article fails to deal with anything current. I mean we all know that Iran has been giving money to Palestinian organizations for a long time. But only an Israeli or a right wing warhawk would try and stretch that into a reason for pre-emptive strikes.
Colin Powell has a lot more credibility than you and laid out much more evidence, albeit easy to be seen as manipulated. I didn't believe this speech that pushed for the invasion of Iraq. I turned out to be right. And you expect me to believe the crap you've been slinging in this thread?? :roll:
Now please, try and come up with something credible to back up your bullshit or just admit that you are regurgitating talking points from rightwing media with an agenda. If you bring up your stupid 5 year old article again I will just assume you are brain dead.
Actually quite the opposite. Yosi is pushing for peace, you are pushing for inevitable war. Think about it.
I'm sure George Orwell would understand you.
True.
Clearly not a perfect solution. But, then again, I live in the real world. I guess here's how I would put my argument:
1) If the US and Israel laid down its arms, gave Palestine the land, and ceased having nuclear weapons (or the ability to re-build them EVER) and armies (or anything of the like) would you feel safer?
2) If Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq were forced to lay down their arms and ceased having nuclear weapons (or the ability to build them EVER) and armies (or anything of the like) would you feel safer?
Both are perfectly discrete questions. So, in the first, Iran, etc. would be able to do whatever it wanted. In the second, Israel and the US would be able to do whatever it wanted.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
3. You haven't provided a source for the article. Was it written by an American, Israeli, or maybe a European? Not that I really care that much because the article fails to deal with anything current. I mean we all know that Iran has been giving money to Palestinian organizations for a long time. But only an Israeli or a right wing warhawk would try and stretch that into a reason for pre-emptive strikes.
NTI - Nuclear Threat Initiative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Threat_Initiative
The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) serves as the Secretariat for the Nuclear Security Project, in cooperation with the Hoover Institution. Former Secretary of State George P. Shultz, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and former Senator Sam Nunn have joined together to form the Nuclear Security Project—an effort to galvanize global action to reduce urgent nuclear dangers and build support for reducing reliance on nuclear weapons, ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.
Author:
Dr. Daniel Byman
Director, Center for Peace and Security Studies, Georgetown University
Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution
Brookings Institution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution
Funders:
At the end of 2004 the Brookings Institution had assets of $258 million and spent $39.7 million, while its budget has grown to more than $80 million in 2009.[55] Its largest contributors include the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her husband Richard C. Blum, Bank of America, ExxonMobil, Pew Charitable Trusts, the MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation; and the governments of the United States, Japan, Qatar, Taipei, the District of Columbia, and the United Kingdom.
Oh wow....really??? Iranian government officials have been saying for YEARS that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, should be wiped off the map, etc....even going so far as holocaust denial. These are religious fanatics...they don't issue ultimatums...they just strike...and strike hard with the intention of killing as many people as possible. Wake up, dude!
Don't these things seem to contradict each other? what kind of ultimatums are you talking about? Saying a country should be wiped off the map (which isn't exactly true) seems like talking before an attack. So either they talk or they don't...am I misinterpreting?
There is plenty of logic in a pre-emptive strike...but making a logical argument doesn't give you immunity from being wrong.
I always find it somewhat saddening that as people argue the merits of israeli/iranian histories and conflicts...they lose the forest for the trees...This is like the chicken blaming the egg for its existence...you couldn't have one without the other...They both are guilty of many things...Claiming Israeli innocence or justifying their behavior in all cases, when they themselves have been involved in false flag operations against the US, is kind of silly.
Both sides have been, are now, and will be wrong about the other on most cases.
There is no Iranian innocence in everything that has happened...Israeli either.
It is like splitting up a pair of dopes that are fighting...and when asked why they are fighting they both give you the same reason..."he started it"
I say the US should pull back and let these two handle it themselves...Foreign and strategic alliances are can be dangerous to a nation's sovereignty...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
It wasn't because you disagree with me. It was because you perpetuate the cycle of violence by repeating false information to fan the flames of war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 14/post155
Case in point
And you haven't pointed out lies. You've responded to factual statements claiming that they are lies (when they are not). I'm actually not advocating a strike on Iran. I'm just trying to provide the necessary context to have an informed discussion of the subject.
Oh ya? I'm still waiting on the proof that it is Iran's policy and that it is the revolutionary gaurd carrying out attacks around the world. You know? Your flat out lie...
That article has nothing to do with your outright lies. All it does is state that Iran has given money to palestinian organizations. Wether they gave that money to Hamas to fight Israel or to help the palestinians suffrage is another argument. It is no concern of mine and has nothing to do with the lies you are perpetuating.
You must have some proof of a Revolutionary guard member committing some sort of violent act against a western nation at the will of the Iranian government? If not, stop spreading lies and half truths.
With Iranian guidance, the Lebanese Hizballah dramatically captured America's attention with devastating suicide attacks on the U.S. embassy in Beirut in April 1983, where 63 people died, including 17 Americans, and on the U.S. Marine Barracks in October 1983, where 241 U.S. Marines were killed (a simultaneous attack killed 58 French peacekeepers). These attacks, and the sense that the peacekeepers had little peace to keep, led President Reagan to withdraw U.S. troops in February 1984. Hizballah also took numerous Westerners hostage in the 1980s, executing several of them. Hizballah, often working through suborganizations with different names, took 17 Americans, 15 Frenchmen, 14 Britons, 7 Swiss, and 7 West Germans hostage, as well as 27 others hostage during the 1980s. 10 In March 1992, Hizballah and Iran worked together to bomb the Israeli embassy in Argentina, killing 29 and in July 1994 attacked the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, killing 86. Hizballah also aided other groups that shared its agenda. Iran also directed the attack on the U.S. military facility of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, killing 17 American troops. 11 In addition to its support for Hizballah, Iran has also supported a wide array of other groups that have attacked Israel. In each of these instances, Tehran was able to compensate for its military inferiority by relying on terrorism.
Terrorism also offered Iran some degree of deniability in this effort. By working through proxies, Iran was able to achieve its own interests against the United States, Israel, or states supporting Iraq without paying the consequences that more direct involvement might entail...Of the many terrorist groups that Iran has sponsored, none is more important to Tehran than the Lebanese Hizballah. 13 Their close relationship is perhaps the strongest and most effective relationship between a state sponsor and a terrorist group in history. Iran helped found, organize, and train Hizballah, eventually creating a strong and relatively independent terrorist group. In exchange, Hizballah has served Iran loyally, striking Iran's various foreign enemies, helping assassinate Iranian dissidents, and otherwise advancing the interests of the Islamic Republic.
Iran, as noted earlier, helped build the movement from the ground up and to this day plays a major role in sustaining it and its day-to-day operations. Iranian sponsorship of Hizballah is a major reason why Iran consistently tops the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Although exact figures are difficult to verify, Tehran provides perhaps $100 million per year to Hizballah—a figure that may have increased after the summer 2006 Israel–Hizballah war. In addition, Iranian forces train the movement and provide it with intelligence. Moreover, Hizballah operatives enjoy close ties to Iranian intelligence and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is linked directly to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Hizballah's senior terrorist, Imad Mugniyieh, reportedly enjoys Iranian citizenship and regularly travels there. Hizballah's leadership proclaims its loyalty to Khamenei, and he reportedly serves as an arbiter for group decisions. Iran is particularly influential with regard to Hizballah activities overseas.
http://ihr.org/books/ztn.html
I can change the subject also.
Again, just because there are Iranians linked to terrorism, it doesn't give Israel or America the right to pre-emptivly strike Iran. Otherwise every nation in the middle east would have to be struck including Israel itself.
We can go on and on. But it's obvious that I am pushing for peace and you are pushing for war. I am neither American, Israeli, or Iranian. I am just an observer that sees a bunch of right wing zealots pushing their own agendas from each of those sides. And the more you choose to believe and perpetuate false information like "wipe Israel from the map" the further we'll be from peace.
Actually quite the opposite. Yosi is pushing for peace, you are pushing for inevitable war. Think about it.
Does that mean it is okay for Iran to launch a pre-emptive first strike against Israeli air fields because Iran is afraid that Israel is going to launch a future attack on Iranian nuclear facilities?
Sadly, but I think "yes"...If Israel wants to beat the drums of war they should be ready for others join the concert....
I think you've completely missed the point here. Again, it's not that there are random Iranians linked to terrorism. It's that the government of Iran is linked to terrorism specifically targeting America and Israel. That is, in fact, a legal cause for war with Iran. To be clear, I am not arguing in favor of war. I'm just trying to provide the relevant context, since some people on this thread seem intent on portraying this issue as if Israel and America are warmongering trolls intent on attacking an innocent country for no reason.
Your second sentence is just silly. Iran's links to terrorism are a sufficient legal cause for war. Having cause for war does not mean that one must actually go to war. Whether or not to launch a military strike is a policy decision. It's not some automatic outcome that gets triggered just because I can provide facts of Iranian bad behavior on an internet thread.
Again, I'm not pushing for war. I'm also not perpetuating false information. Many very intelligent people argue against striking Iran, but they do so recognizing the reality of the situation that I've outlined. They don't hide from the truth that Iran does really terrible stuff. They simply argue that from a policy perspective a strike on Iran doesn't make sense. The arguments they are making are serious ones. What you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" over and over again.
Wrong!! You have absolutely zero proof of Iranian government involvement in anything that would make war with them legal. All you have is fabricated stories. But because you've bought the bullshit propaganda from the right wing and Fox media, you think you know something for sure. You don't. And you have provided ZERO proof other than hearsay and innuendo. You CANNOT attack a country because of hearsay...sorry that's how international law works. You need proof.
Still waiting on the proof of the revolutionary guards involvement....where'd you hear that from anyway? Right wing media or pundit?
Oh ya, and how about that Iranian policy?
If you want to actually offer a substantive response I'd be glad to read it. Otherwise please just stop responding. I've provided you with a comprehensive, authoritative source. All you've done is respond with shrill and baseless accusations that I'm lying. You quite frankly don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about, nor do you seem interested in engaging in an open-minded discussion, nor do you seem willing (or perhaps able) to respond to my points except in the most childish and irrational of fashions. It's frankly getting annoying.
Except the one pointing the gun - sabre rattling - right now is Israel, not Iran. And Israel has nuclear weapons, whilst Iran doesn't. So it looks like you're attempting to turn reality on it's head.
Are you seriously suggesting that Israel is a responsible country?
Sure, killing unarmed civilians by the thousand, as they did in Lebanon in 2006, and Gaza in 2008-2009, is really heroic.
I'm sure George Orwell would understand you.
1.Show me anything in this article that implicates the revolutionary guard. Nothing in this article does anything to back up your lies in this thread. You flat out said that the revolutionary guard was involved in terrorist bombings. I'm still yet to see anything from you to back that up. There is certainly nothing in this article.
2.Nothing in this article has anything to do with anything recent. Look at all the dates within the article, 1983, 1984, 1996, 2006. This thread is about pre-emptive strikes against Iran NOW. If you want me to take you seriously then you need to come up with something recent.
3. You haven't provided a source for the article. Was it written by an American, Israeli, or maybe a European? Not that I really care that much because the article fails to deal with anything current. I mean we all know that Iran has been giving money to Palestinian organizations for a long time. But only an Israeli or a right wing warhawk would try and stretch that into a reason for pre-emptive strikes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYBA9JD5oW4
Colin Powell has a lot more credibility than you and laid out much more evidence, albeit easy to be seen as manipulated. I didn't believe this speech that pushed for the invasion of Iraq. I turned out to be right. And you expect me to believe the crap you've been slinging in this thread??
Now please, try and come up with something credible to back up your bullshit or just admit that you are regurgitating talking points from rightwing media with an agenda. If you bring up your stupid 5 year old article again I will just assume you are brain dead.
Clearly not a perfect solution. But, then again, I live in the real world. I guess here's how I would put my argument:
1) If the US and Israel laid down its arms, gave Palestine the land, and ceased having nuclear weapons (or the ability to re-build them EVER) and armies (or anything of the like) would you feel safer?
2) If Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq were forced to lay down their arms and ceased having nuclear weapons (or the ability to build them EVER) and armies (or anything of the like) would you feel safer?
Both are perfectly discrete questions. So, in the first, Iran, etc. would be able to do whatever it wanted. In the second, Israel and the US would be able to do whatever it wanted.
http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/126_1.pdf?_=1318513643
NTI - Nuclear Threat Initiative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Threat_Initiative
The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) serves as the Secretariat for the Nuclear Security Project, in cooperation with the Hoover Institution. Former Secretary of State George P. Shultz, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and former Senator Sam Nunn have joined together to form the Nuclear Security Project—an effort to galvanize global action to reduce urgent nuclear dangers and build support for reducing reliance on nuclear weapons, ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.
Author:
Dr. Daniel Byman
Director, Center for Peace and Security Studies, Georgetown University
Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution
Brookings Institution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution
Funders:
At the end of 2004 the Brookings Institution had assets of $258 million and spent $39.7 million, while its budget has grown to more than $80 million in 2009.[55] Its largest contributors include the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her husband Richard C. Blum, Bank of America, ExxonMobil, Pew Charitable Trusts, the MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation; and the governments of the United States, Japan, Qatar, Taipei, the District of Columbia, and the United Kingdom.
Don't these things seem to contradict each other? what kind of ultimatums are you talking about? Saying a country should be wiped off the map (which isn't exactly true) seems like talking before an attack. So either they talk or they don't...am I misinterpreting?
There is plenty of logic in a pre-emptive strike...but making a logical argument doesn't give you immunity from being wrong.
I always find it somewhat saddening that as people argue the merits of israeli/iranian histories and conflicts...they lose the forest for the trees...This is like the chicken blaming the egg for its existence...you couldn't have one without the other...They both are guilty of many things...Claiming Israeli innocence or justifying their behavior in all cases, when they themselves have been involved in false flag operations against the US, is kind of silly.
Both sides have been, are now, and will be wrong about the other on most cases.
There is no Iranian innocence in everything that has happened...Israeli either.
It is like splitting up a pair of dopes that are fighting...and when asked why they are fighting they both give you the same reason..."he started it"
I say the US should pull back and let these two handle it themselves...Foreign and strategic alliances are can be dangerous to a nation's sovereignty...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan