Letters to the Editor
Attack on Iran
July 16, 2008
Advertisement
To the editor:
It seems more and more likely that something will occur quite soon in Iran. It is inevitable that Israel will act before the November elections. It would also be highly beneficial to the Republican Party if they did so.
From Israel's point of view an attack makes very good sense because they cannot sit idle much longer and expect the United States to back their actions. They can hardly wait and risk losing that support, which may well be the case in the event of a Democratic landslide.
The decision to act has already been made, and the rehearsal has happened. The airstrikes will at least send the message even though the nuclear program in Iran is widely dispersed. The strikes will at least delay the annihilation of Israel and create a panic in Europe. However it will force the attention of the world upon the problem. I feel confident in this prediction because from Israel's point of view with the covert encouragement of the present administration it will bring advantages to both parties.
E.G. Hickam,
Lawrence
16 July 2008
at 6:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
temperance (Anonymous) says…
The author seems really excited about the prospect of more conflict in the Middle East. Is he 12 years old? A military swipe at Iran, be it by the Israelis or the US, will cause the price of oil to soar, resulting in severe financial and political repercussions. How does that help the Republicans?
16 July 2008
at 6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
Ahhh, Temperance, is it your position that allowing Islamic apocolyptics to have nuclear weapons is preferred to the painful economics resulting from a strike at Iran's nuclear weapons program? That would boil down to something like this: Let Tel Aviv/New York burn under atomic fire as long as the finances remain stable ???
16 July 2008
at 7:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
“It is inevitable that Israel will act before the November elections.”
We'll check back with you on this after the election.
16 July 2008
at 7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
According to many of the Psuedo-liberal/Neo-socialists around here, Iran has the “right” to possess atomic bombs!
16 July 2008
at 7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
Let us all pray ( or merely hope) for no more war in the Middle East. It won't be good for anybody. I certainly don't want Iran to have nukes, but hopefully increasing pressure from Europe, and more importantly Russia, could stop their program.
16 July 2008
at 7:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
militant (Anonymous) says…
Libya was a hotbed for terrorism until Reagan silenced them. When was the last time you heard them mentioned? We certainly have the ability to take out Iran's ability to inflict harm. Soon it may be to late.
16 July 2008
at 7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
jaywalker (Anonymous) says:
Let us all pray ( or merely hope) for no more war in the Middle East. It won't be good for anybody. I certainly don't want Iran to have nukes, but hopefully increasing pressure from Europe, and more importantly Russia, could stop their program.”
Marion writes:
Or maybe the “United” Nations will ask them politely!
16 July 2008
at 7:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
Brent,
I'm sure you'll be the first to sign up and go fight this supposedly vitally necessary 3rd concurrent U.S.A. vs. [insert country here] war, yes?
For that matter, you can pay for it too. Maybe you've been under a rock for the last 8 years, but our military is already overextended in two separate conflicts and our deficit is astronomical. I realize you and the rest of the chickenhawks love the idea of things going *boom* against them durn Mooslims, but the reality is beholden to things such as finite resources and real people's lives.
Some people have no capacity to learn.
16 July 2008
at 8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
…”with the covert encouragement of the present…”
If it's covert, how in the world can Mr. Hickam know it?
16 July 2008
at 8:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigAl (Anonymous) says…
logicsound is absolutely correct.
16 July 2008
at 8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says…
Before the Dubya starting pounding on the war drums and rattling his martini olive skewers, Iran was in the midst of what can only be described as progressive social reforms. (Progressive for Iran, mind you) The security chief of Iran, after the election of Mahmoud thanked America for getting the very loud and conservative leader elected.
The current situation with Iran falls squarely on this administration's shoulders.
Israel probably won't attack, at least not under their current leadership. They are giving up 5 prisoners, one who was a convicted child killer, for the bodies of 2 Israeli soldiers, KILLED while in captivity (thanks for the help there Amnesty International). They were holding secret negotiations with Syria. The attitude in Israel has shifted, for now.
I am not going to make any bold predictions though, Israel could very well take advantage of being able to use Iraqi airspace to launch an attack, undoubtedly utilizing American intelligence on the Iranian air defense systems.
16 July 2008
at 8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
And will the usual suspects against Bush and everything he does not at least give him credit for backing away a little from the 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' position? That's what you guys want, to peacably handle the problem?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3…
16 July 2008
at 8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Whoo hoo! A chicken-hawk flag before 8:00AM.
16 July 2008
at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Trobs (Anonymous) says…
Just a reminder, Iran is having an election in the near future. Also, Ahmadinejad is not the true leader of Iran. The Supreme Leader is a religious leader named Ali Khamenei. The country is much in the same way as it was back in the 70s when they took Americans hostage. The differences are they want to be much more like the west.
Amazingly enough, the rest of the world enjoys our tvs, movies, etc as much as we do. Even repressed countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
16 July 2008
at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
logicsound04…
I don't think Brent is necessarily advocating for an attack on Iran, he is stating the he understands the logic if one occurred. After all, if we had a chance to take out the Taliban before 9/11 we would have. Iran has declared numerous times it wants to wipe Israel off the map and now has long-range missiles capable of doing so. It is only natural for Israel to consider the possibility of taking out these missile sites, rather than waiting for Iran to do in a few hours what it took Hitler to do in 6 years.
However, I believe (and hope) cooler heads will prevail and military conflict will be avoided. Although Iran is a theocracy, it still understands the importance of self preservation, and realizes America will retaliate if Iran gets stupid. I think they just wanted bargaining chips and leverage. After all, we just gave North Korea a ton of money to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs, so it seems to be in Iran's interest to at least pretend it is a threat.
16 July 2008
at 8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…
I see that a few of the Blame America Firsters are up already - unusual for them.
16 July 2008
at 8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“That would boil down to something like this: Let Tel Aviv/New York burn under atomic fire as long as the finances remain stable ???”
Um, who's going to nuke NYC? Iran???
“Iran has declared numerous times it wants to wipe Israel off the map and now has long-range missiles capable of doing so. ”
Uh huh. Does Israel have nukes? Oh, they do?
You think Iran knows this?
16 July 2008
at 8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says…
Trobs: “The country is much in the same way as it was back in the 70s when they took Americans hostage.”
Thats not necessarily true. More than half of the University students in Iran are women. 20% of those up for election in 2006 in Iran were women. This was not the case in the 70's as you say.
Yes Ahmdinayabbadabbadoo isn't the Supreme Leader of Iran and isn't the real power but he WAS elected by the people. The most conservative and vile man up for election won because of the threatening stance America took after the invasion of Iraq.
Satirical: “After all, if we had a chance to take out the Taliban before 9/11 we would have.”
First of all, the Taliban did not attack us. Al Qaeda did. Second, we had numerous chances to take out major elements of terrorist leadership before Bush was elected and we didn't.
16 July 2008
at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
Israel will strike immediately after the Nov elections especially if Obama gets elected. They don't want to influence our elections so they will wait until then. That is the window, do it then or wait and deal with a shakey allie in Obama.
16 July 2008
at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Trobs (Anonymous) says…
I love how people take snippets out of my text and use them, but not the entire quote. Yes, Iran is much like they were, but they want change. That's why Ahmadinejad is in real trouble when the election comes. The people of Iran do not like him making enemies all over the place. We can't break their Theocracy, but the people no longer want to be viewed as “enemies”.
16 July 2008
at 9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
I think Israel understands that if they get to froggy, they will alienate everybody else's support they may have now. No one wants the total destablization of the region..In the long run, Iran will end up with KFC's on the corner and maybe even a walgreens. Without blowing up the whole country. Whatever happens really needs to have coalition support of the EU, Russia and the rest..Sort of the way George senior did things with the Kuwait deal.
16 July 2008
at 9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Monkeyspunk:
“First of all, the Taliban did not attack us. Al Qaeda did.”
Yes, but the Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda, and wouldn't have been able to grow so large in Afghanistan without the Taliban. However, I neglected to state the U.S. would take out the Taliban and Al Qaeda if they knew then what we know now.
“Second, we had numerous chances to take out major elements of terrorist leadership before Bush was elected and we didn't.”
Obviously. I was referring to Brent's logic of pre-empting an attack that is extremely likely to occur. I was making the point that if we knew about the 9/11 attack before it occurred we would have used pre-emptive measures, and therefore pre-emptive measures are sometimes necessary. This counters logicsound's argument. This was entirely clear from my sentence preceding the one you critize, “I don't think Brent is necessarily advocating for an attack on Iran, he is stating the he understands the logic if one occurred.” Please try reading rather than taking my comments out of context, and ignoring the post I was responding to or my actual arguments.
16 July 2008
at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
It would be in our best interests to look at the bigger picture from time to time.
The Taliban grew in Afghanistan after the US had sent lots of money and weapons to help them fight the Soviets, and then after they had won (at great cost to the Afghan people), we simply forgot about them.
If we had helped them rebuild and form a more stable situation, it's very likely the Taliban wouldn't have grown so strong there.
Also, there is a valid question - who has the “right” to have nuclear weapons, and who gets to decide that?
And, finally, we need to look at our ties to Israel, and how that affects the Arab perception of the US. Israel was formed at the end of WWII (for understandable reasons) by Britain and the US without any consideration for the Palestinians already living there. Also, Israel is occupying territory it shouldn't be. According to Jimmy Carter, Israel is not correct in many ways.
If we continue to blindly support Israel, both monetarily and with weapons, we will continue to fuel the flames of Arab anti-American sentiment, and not without good reason.
If we continue to occupy Arab territory, we will continue to justify their opposition - one of the five pillars of Islam is the exhortation to fight against those who would occupy your land (again, not without reason.)
And, before we get the predictable anti,…I am Jewish, not anti-Semitic. And, my comments are made in order to help us become more secure - I am not “anti-American”.
16 July 2008
at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“Whoo hoo! A chicken-hawk flag before 8:00AM.”
–––––-
Brent raised it. I merely pointed out that it was flying.
===========================================
“I don't think Brent is necessarily advocating for an attack on Iran, he is stating the he understands the logic if one occurred. ”
––––-
A razor-thin distinction.
=============================
“Iran has declared numerous times it wants to wipe Israel off the map and now has long-range missiles capable of doing so.”
–––––-
Correction, Ahmenineniajad (sp?) has bloviated that they want to wipe Israel off the map.
At any rate, a policy of “preemptive strike” is a clever/tricky way of saying “attack” so that it sounds like we aren't the aggressors, when in reality we would be.
=============================
“I think they just wanted bargaining chips and leverage.”
––––—
Which is exactly why a “preemptive strike” policy is inappropriate and a foreign relations disaster. Preemptive strike essentially makes threats = actions.
Wouldn't you think it unreasonable for another country to attack the United States based on our comments.
Couldn't al-Qaeda claim that 9/11 was a “preemptive strike” and technically be correct? (Before I am called a terrorist sympathizer—again—I am not defending the actions of those terrorists in any way shape or form. I am merely pointing out that the line between our military actions and the actions of terrorists is different, but far less different than many seem to think.)
16 July 2008
at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Jafs:
“If we had helped them rebuild and form a more stable situation, it's very likely the Taliban wouldn't have grown so strong there.” - jafs
If you were attempting to refute my argument that, “if we knew about the 9/11 attack before it occurred we would have used pre-emptive measures, and therefore pre-emptive measures are sometimes necessary,” the you have failed.
“who has the 'right' to have nuclear weapons, and who gets to decide that?”
- jafs
Sovereign nations have the right to do whatever they want. The real question is: Do we want to allow, or should we prevent nations with leaders that are insane and would gladly sacrifice their own nations to attack their enemies, the access to such weapons. I think the answer is clear. The methods of prevention are really the only point of debate.
16 July 2008
at 9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Jafs:
“And, finally, we need to look at our ties to Israel, and how that affects the Arab perception of the US. Israel:” jafs
I understand that most nations in the Middle East don't want to destroy Israel only because they took land from the Palestinians (who took it from the Israelites), a significant reason they want to destroy Israel because of religious differences. I think the U.S. should protect its ally and the only (true) democracy (until Iraq) in the Middle East. I don't care what the Middle East thinks of the U.S. protecting Israel, because I believe it is the right thing to do, and I don't believe the U.S. should sacrifice Israel and bow to pressure from the Middle East simple because it MIGHT make some Middle Eastern countries not hate us so much.
16 July 2008
at 9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
I was trying to look at the larger picture, and find less violent ways of preventing violence.
Pre-emptive strikes are aggressive, and would not meet the legal definition of self-defense unless there was very clear and persuasive evidence that we were in imminent danger.
Who is “we” and who gets to decide which leaders are insane? It seems to me that the current administration is willing to sacrifice our people to attack our enemies. Should America be allowed to have nuclear weapons?
Why is it ok for Israel, but not Iran, to have nuclear weapons?
It seems to me we'd be much better off fixing our own errors first, and then worrying about other nations. And, perhaps, if we improved our actions, we might find that there are fewer “enemies” out there.
16 July 2008
at 10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
The reason to question our support of Israel is not because of “pressure” from anyone.
It is simply because the formation of Israel was unjust to the Palestinians, and the continuing actions of Israel are fraught with error.
As I said, our continuing blind support of Israel is not in our nation's best interests as well.
16 July 2008
at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
All actions which begin in violence are going to have continuing violent repurcussions.
Our actions as a nation have been extremely violent, and aggressive.
If we want real change (and the chance to create fewer enemies), we need to look at this problem.
16 July 2008
at 10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Logicsound04:
Others may, but I do not believe you are a terrorist sympathizer, you are one of the few that can make and respond to rational arguments, even though I disagree with you.
“A razor-thin distinction” LS04
One can make an argument for or against a position without believe in the position. As an example you have made the argument that Al Qaeda could have seen 9/11 as a pre-emptive strike. This does not mean you were advocating for the pre-emptive strike. I agree that is Al Qaeda probably viewed the attack.
“Correction, Ahmenineniajad (sp?) has bloviated that they want to wipe Israel off the map.” LS04
Yes, but he is the one with the capability of authorizing the attack and is the one we should care about. Also, my guess is that many Iranians will agree with his statement.
I think a preemptive strike would be premature at this point with Iran, of course I am not the one with missiles pointed at me being threatened with annihilation. However, I do think they are sometimes necessary and justified. JFK was willing to go to war with the Soviets to get the missiles removed from Cuba. This was a pre-emptive move by his part since Cuba never fired the missiles at us, but it would be illogical to always require the enemy to wipe out several major cities before you can take any stops to prevent them.
16 July 2008
at 10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Logicsound04:
“Wouldn't you think it unreasonable for another country to attack the United States based on our comments.” LS04
I think a lot of nations and terrorists groups would do serious harm to the U.S. if it had the opportunity, and probably believe that any attack on us is either preemptive or retaliation for whatever. We are free people with great wealth and envied by many. However, we have the greatest military in the history of the world along with brave men and women who are protecting us.
Just to be clear: I am not stating that if we simply label something as preemptive it somehow justifies the attack. I am saying pre-emptive attacks are sometimes justified.
16 July 2008
at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
Another better way to prevent 9/11 would have been to prevent the terrorists from gaining access to our country.
Improving our problems with illegal immigration might be a good idea.
Also, we should use the same ideas that reasonable people use to defend themselves - lock your windows and doors (borders), don't go out of your way to make enemies (reasonable discussion with other nations), and be ready to defend yourself if necessary.
16 July 2008
at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
If I hear from a friend that someone is out to get me, and respond by going to their house and attacking them (“pre-emptively”), I would be liable for assault.
Why can't we simply defend our borders, and our nation from attack without attacking others first?
16 July 2008
at 10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
1. Iran has been offered numerous “deals” that would allow it to develop peaceful nuclear power and have rejected each of them. Among those were offers by the Saudi's to practically pay for Iranian enrichment provided the enrichment was done in a third country under international supervision. Iran said no. Russia made a similar offer and it got rejected.
2. Russia and China will never support a UN action against Iran as that would not fit into their national interests one of which is to expand their sphere's of influence and drive out the hated West—read that US. So as long as Iran can be used as an irritant against the US, Russia and China will foil any and all efforts to keep the lid on this boiling pot.
3. Both the Iranian President and the Supreme Ayatollah have called for a world without Israel and the US. Additionally, Iran has engineered the take over of Lebanon by Hezbollah and has heavily infiltrated Hamas in Gaza. Further, they have completed a military and defense alliance with Syria which gives Iran practically full control over the Syrian military. Iran has armed Hezbollah to the teeth with an estimated 40,000 conventional ballistic rockets of all calibers. These are not the actions of a nation seeking to “peacefully” co-exist with either its neighbors or the rest of the world.
4. Public speeches given by the Iranian President have increasingly referenced the Mahdi—Islamic messiah—and the violent conditions needed for him to appear. These are true believers who feel it their religious duty to bring on the apocaclypse so that their messiah will appear. Such people should NEVER be allowed WMDs of any kind!
5. Ths US will have no choice but to confront Iran even though our military is indeed stretched. We are in the same position vs our defense needs as the British where facing Hitler in 1939—woefully ill prepared. We have disarmed, downsized, and stripped our defense establishment so bare that we can be legitimately taunted and threatened by upstarts like Iran. Will a strike, not invasion, of Iran be expensive economically? Absolutely! But, how much more expensive will it be to have Iranian nukes used on cities from Israel to the US. (No, the current missile arsenal cannot reach the continental US, but can anyone guarantee that future Iranian missiles will not be able to do so? Plus, missiles are not the only way to convey a nuclear device to the US. Think ship borne threat!)
6. The world is in a very tight place. The only way forward, barring rationality arriving in Iran, is with significant pain and suffering. The only choice we have right now is to determine what level of pain and suffering we will have to endure.
16 July 2008
at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Jafs:
“Pre-emptive strikes are aggressive, and would not meet the legal definition of self-defense unless there was very clear and persuasive evidence that we were in imminent danger.”- jafs
Exactly, pre-emptive strikes are necessary when “there (is) very clear and persuasive evidence that we were in imminent danger” which is the same reason JFK was willing to risk a war with the Soviet that could have cost the U.S. millions of lives to prevent Cuba from getting missiles.
“Who is “we” and who gets to decide which leaders are insane?” jafs
Since we are a sovereign nation as well we can decide which countries/leaders we feel are a threat to our security. Would you rather outsource our nations defense to the worthless U.N. decide? Or how about Iran can decide when Iran is a threat to the U.S.
“It seems to me that the current administration is willing to sacrifice our people to attack our enemies.” jafs
Sometimes sacrifice is necessary in order to save lives. Freedom is not free. My guess is you would also order an military attack against Al Qaeda before 9/11 if you knew then what we know now, even if it was at the cost of “sacrificing (some of) our (military) people”
“Should America be allowed to have nuclear weapons?” jafs
Yes, because we are a sovereign nation, and no one can stop us.
“Why is it ok for Israel, but not Iran, to have nuclear weapons?” - jafs
Because Israel is a democracy that doesn't want to kill all of its neighbors simply because they are of a different faith (they could if they really wanted to), whereas Iran is a theocracy that believes Israel and the U.S. should be destroyed.
“It seems to me we'd be much better off fixing our own errors first, and then worrying about other nations.” - jafs
Should we do absolutely nothing while an enemy that vows to destroy us arms itself to the teeth (this does not necessarily mean the U.S. should attack Iran)? This is an isolationist stance that is naÃive.
16 July 2008
at 10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Jafs:
“It is simply because the formation of Israel was unjust to the Palestinians, and the continuing actions of Israel are fraught with error. As I said, our continuing blind support of Israel is not in our nation's best interests as well.” - jafs
I agree there were problems with the formation of Israel, but history has shown the land has gone back and forth between the Palestinians and the Israelites (jews) for thousands of years. Who is to say which groups really deserves the land?
Israel is not perfect and the U.S. does not believe it is perfect, our support is not blind. But is in our nation's best interest to support a democracy in the Middle East and an ally.
16 July 2008
at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Jafs:
“If we want real change (and the chance to create fewer enemies), we need to look at this problem.” - jafs
Unfortunately sometimes war is necessary, and preemption is sometimes justified. Belief that if we were less violent the enemy would go away is naÃive (see malcolm x obama's comments at 10:00).
16 July 2008
at 10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
“The strikes will at least delay the annihilation of Israel and create a panic in Europe.” -E.G. Hickam
––––––––––––––––—
“The truth of the matter is only a very few people in the inner circle of the Islamic regime know the current status of Iran's nuclear weapons program. The NIE is merely guesswork, produced by three officials who happen to dislike Bush. It is based, in part, on intercepted conversations between top Iranian officials.” ……….”Bush haters seem willing to gamble on a “revised estimate'” authored by three anti-Bush bureaucrats. I bet Europe does not appreciate that one bit.”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/dec…
––––––––––––––—
Some more shameless self-promotion. You guys need to move to the more rural, ignorant areas (and maybe you can catch up with my stunningly prophetic insight).
16 July 2008
at 10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
neoquixote (Anonymous) says…
If Israel or U.S. attack Iran, there should have a purpose, or goal. what is it?
the oil? take over the land, or just erase the Nuclear stuff?
Does anybody really believe that Iran can finally work out the NB successfully? Or Iran really want to use the NB or spread it to the terrorist against Israel or U. S.?
I don't think so. Even Iran really want to develop the nuclear weapons, it is for self defense. they are not mad, they want peaceful and happy life as much as us.
On the other hand, if all of these are about national interests, how do we know that there are no other countries standing behind Iran.
16 July 2008
at 11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mkh (Anonymous) says…
Saterical:
“Sovereign nations have the right to do whatever they want. The real question is: Do we want to allow, or should we prevent nations with leaders that are insane and would gladly sacrifice their own nations to attack their enemies, the access to such weapons. I think the answer is clear. The methods of prevention are really the only point of debate.”
–––––––––––––—
Perhaps the better question is why do we give a tyrant leader the means to start a nuclear program only to then later want to invade the country on the basis of them having a nuclear program?
16 July 2008
at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Speakout (Anonymous) says…
jafs, while I agree with you for the most part, I wonder where this could go. I believe that if the USA did not support Israel with arms and restrict it from occupying Palestinian land, there would be no Al Queda, no Hisbollagh or Hamas. These organizations were build on the premise of defending their own land.
The five Pillars of Islam are these: 1) Belief in One God, 2)Prayer to Him, 3) Giving Charity, 4) Fasting the Month of Ramadhan and 5) Pilgrimage if one has the means to do so. Nothing about fighting or killing. The Quran advocates the freeing of ones self from oppression, such as living under the rule of unjust people, in this case Israel.
Lastly, the balance of power in the Middle East wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing unless you want absolute power to do as you want. The idea that Iran would have nuclear weapons should be a deterrent to Israel and that Israel's nuclear weapons should be a deterrent to Iran. Sort of balances out. But we Americans want to be supreme and won't allow anyone to be equal or above us in power except Israel. Thus we make it look like they are the bad guys.
The Palestinians have been on that land for thousands of years along side the Children of Israel. Not the Israelis, they are European and Western Jews who want to claim this land as theirs.
16 July 2008
at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
staff04 (Anonymous) says…
I don't like the idea of Islamic apocalyptics with nukes any more than I like the idea of Christian apocalyptics with nukes.
16 July 2008
at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
temperance (Anonymous) says…
It's a mistake to think that the interests of American neocons or Israeli Likuds match the interests of either the US or Israel. Some right-wing Jews have pushed for strikes against Iran for the last few years, but those views represent only a small minority of Jews in the US (or Israel for that matter). Most Jews in the US oppose taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. Most Jews in the US favor the creation of a Palestinian state. And, relatedly, the majority of Jews in Israel favor direct talks with Hamas. To say that supporting an attack on Iran is pro-Israel or pro-Jewish is to state the opposite of reality. Bombing Iran will not “support” our ally Israel it will swiftly endanger it.
http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG…
http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG…
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/95847…
16 July 2008
at 11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
It will be impossible to liberate Europe from the Muslims.
16 July 2008
at 11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“Perhaps the better question is why do we give a tyrant leader the means to start a nuclear program only to then later want to invade the country on the basis of them having a nuclear program?”
–––––
A great point, considering that Iran's nuclear program was originally launched with substantial assistance from the United States.
By I would like to again reiterate that the president of Iran is not the power wielder. He is an elected figurehead.
16 July 2008
at 12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
Speakout is an Islamic apologist who speaks without authority and would have us believe his version of Islam which disagrees emphatically with the public statements and actions of other Islamics both here in the US and elsewhere in the world. It boils down to this. Who should we believe? This one voice who says X, Y, and Z or the multitude of voices who say A, B, and C? The answer should be obvious.
Previously, on a different post, I challenged Speakout to tell uls by what authority he speaks for Islam. I asked him which of the 5 Madh'hab (schools of Islamic thought) he has studied in and been approved by. He did not then respond to me on that topic. I now give him another opportunity. Tell us, Speakout, by what authority you claim your version of Islam and the Qur'an are valid when the vast majority of your fellow believers seem to be saying and acting otherwise.
16 July 2008
at 12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Speakout (Anonymous) says…
Well, Screedposter, I am neither, and if I leveled a charge like that against you (and since I am an ethical person, which obviously you only can aspire to be) I would state the reasons, give evidence and welcome debate.
16 July 2008
at 12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
Now, addressing the issue of Palestine. The Islamics and their Palestinian brethren would have us believe that they have occupied that land for thousands of years. Further, they would have us believe that any covenant that God had with the House of Israel was broken by the Babylonian captivity. Additionally, Islamic experts working on the temple mount in Jerusalem work aggressively to prevent the discovery of or to destroy evidence of ancient Jewish presence in the area.
The Palestinians and Islamics say that the Jews have no right to the land. How can we ignore the ancient history of the area which clearly shows from both religious and secular sources that the Jews were there. And, Speakout, a very nice try at Orwellian newspeak when you say that these are Jews whereas the ancient Hebrews living there were a different group called the Children of Israel. What subterfuge! What deception! The “Jews” of today are the literal descendents of the same Children of Israel you cite. As such, your very statement substantiates their claim to the land.
Would it be preferable for both peoples to live peacefully side by side? Yes! However, history seems to show that there is a distinct disinclination to do that, most notably from the non-Israeli side of the problem.
16 July 2008
at 12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Speakout (Anonymous) says…
BK, sorry you didn't read my lenghthy post that got truncated. Since I work for a living and do not spend my entire day reading and responding on here, I will answer briefly:
1) Not an apologist, just a reader of Quran and Sunnah. I do not ascribe to any school of thought because these writers, like me, have their opinion and I have mine. AND I have more research, methodology and statistics than they had which makes my thinking more exact. Second, they concluded, in the 8th or 9th Century, that after they wrote and made all the research and thinking that was necessary, there would be no need for more. I couldn't agree LESS. We need constant research and understanding.
2. I do not speak for anyone but me and I clearly pointed out that the proof of what I said is in the Quran its self. Read it and you will see many times that it “is clear” “easy to understand and Remember” etc. Read it your self.
3. I speak for what is written, not what is done or misunderstood by those who can't read. Terrorists read a part, misunderstand it and use it to make war on innocents. Not cool and not permitted in Islam, but ignorants, like them, believe it fully.
Blast away, but if you would take the time to enlighten yourself and read it yourself to see if I am wrong. The Quran is not a book of quotes although it can be quoted. It has long sentences and sometimes its point goes over two or three verses. Read the whole of what it is saying, not take out of context bits and pieces. For example: Did you know that Jesus said in the Bible, that “No one comes unto the Father”?
Not the whole though is it? Not the whole sentence but this is how the ignorant quote the Quran.
So the ignorant say that Islam believes in violence because (and they quote): “:Kill them where they fight”. Actual quote from a post a few days ago.
But what it really says is : “And if they oppress you and fight you, kill them where they fight you, but if they cease, then fight them not”.
Read it ALL yourself.
Since there is no clergy in Islam, as Islam is clearly written in the Quran, there is no authority above me except God. I do not ask you to believe me, but for the truth, you should read it yourself. Read the whole thing and you will see what I am saying. If you do not read it, do not debate me, for I don't debate ignorant people. Thanks.
16 July 2008
at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Speakout (Anonymous) says…
Wrong again BK. The Children of Israel were scattered throughout the diaspora and did not remain in that land. How can you say they are the same people. They have non-Hebrew names, they have a different religion altogether although they call them selves Jews. The Jews are descendants from Judah who was ONE of Jacob's sons and his family were the ones who scattered. The remaining parts of the family are untraceable. Prove to me they are one in the same.
There is no such thing as “Islamics”. Where did you get that word. Islam is the religion and Muslims are those who follow that religions. Do you have a word “Christianics?”. or Judaic's” referring to people who believe in that religion.
You are shooting from the hip and since you bring no evidence, just continual gibberish we have heard a million times, I am inclined to believe research and facts.
I hae never heard a Muslim or Palestinian (Muslim or not) say that Jews did not have a right to the land. They do. But they have the same right as Palestinians Christian and Muslim. There should be a way to live in peaceful coexistence, but you cannot have that when one occupys the other's as the Israelis do over the west bank. i have said a million times that if Israel gets out of the West Bank the wars will crumble. Let the Palestinians breathe, eat and enjoy some part of life!
16 July 2008
at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
“tehran, Iran (CNN) — Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be “wiped out from the map,” insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.”
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/1…
16 July 2008
at 1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Speakout:
“The Jews are descendants from Judah who was ONE of Jacob's sons and his family were the ones who scattered. The remaining parts of the family are untraceable. Prove to me they are one in the same.” speakout
The Jews are from all of the sons of Jacob. 10 of the tribes were brought into captivity with only the tribe of Judah and Benjamin remaining. The Jews in Israel are literal descendants from these two tribes, perhaps you could prove otherwise.
16 July 2008
at 1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
“i have said a million times that if Israel gets out of the West Bank the wars will crumble.”
In case you've not noticed, terrorists claiming to be Muslim are killing people in Indonesia and other countries in SE Asia. What does that have to do with the West Bank?
16 July 2008
at 1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Logicsound04:
“A great point, considering that Iran's nuclear program was originally launched with substantial assistance from the United States.” LS04
What a ridiculous statement, that the U.S. gave Iran its nuclear capability so it could start a war. You must think the U.S. is really evil. Who was it that gave Iran and North Korea this technology anyway? Or perhaps Bill Clinton and George Bush are in collusion to start a war.
The U.S. can go to war whenever it sees fit. Saddam Hussein didn't have nuclear capabilities and we started one with him. So even by logical construct this statement is fallacious.
“By I would like to again reiterate that the president of Iran is not the power wielder. He is an elected figurehead.” LS04
He is an elected figurehead like President Bush, who has the authority to order military attacks.
16 July 2008
at 1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
temperance (Anonymous) says…
A strike on Iran will accelerate their nuclear program, not slow it down. Foreign policy expert Joseph Cirincione: “[A] military strike would be disastrous for the United States. It would rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq. And it would accelerate, not delay, the Iranian nuclear program. Hard-liners in Tehran would be proven right in their claim that the only thing that can deter the United States is a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders could respond with a crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years.”
16 July 2008
at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Speakout (Anonymous) says…
Well, I have work to do, so you guys think what you want and act accordingly. Ideas are fine, truth, sometimes, is ellusive for people who are not used to it. Lets put a truth spin on things instead of following derogatory talking points invented by prejudice people.
16 July 2008
at 2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Quigly (Anonymous) says…
Death solves all problems. No man no problem.
16 July 2008
at 2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
Speakout:
When I refer to passages from the Qur'an or see others refer to passages, I always read well before that passage and well after to make certain that things are not being taken out of context. And, yes, I have read vast portions of the Qur'an. Have I read it all? Not yet. Working on it. I must say that I find many parts of it alarming and disturbing. Contrary to what you say there are passages that clearly authorize Muslims to kill non-believers, to lie to them, to subjugate them. The Qur'an does not treat men and women equally. Even your false prophet stated that for a matter to be established 4 male witnesses or 8 female witnesses must support the issue. Thus, men and women are not equal under Islam. Then there is the treatment of non-believers under Islam. The tax is called jizya. Hardly equal treatment.
Now, given your explanation of your authority to speak for Islam, then I must say here that if that is your authority then my authority is just as valid. You base your authority on your reading of the Qur'an and on your reading only. You convenientlly ignore how others both past and modern have interpreted those same teachings. Then you propose that your viewpoint is the dominant one within Islam when the evidence is to the contrary. If your position is the correct one, then why the war being waged by Muslims against non-Muslims everywhere in the world? Islam is hardly a religion of peace. Judging by the empirical evidence of the behavior of your fellow religionists both here in the US and elsewhere, it is obvious, even to the casual observer that your interpretation does not agree with nor coincide with the dominant behavior. Therefore, the validity of your claims is cast into doubt.
16 July 2008
at 2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
Speakout:
I would also point out to you that the West Bank and Gaza were occupied only because two Muslim nations chose to go to war with Israel in 1967. Egypt had positioned significant numbers of troops and tanks in Gaza so those had to be eliminated. Jordan lost the West Bank because Jordan ignored Israeli promises to leave Jordan alone if Jordan stayed out of the fighting. Jordan capitulated to Egypt's Nassar and to Syria's Assad and went to war. The consequence was they lost the West Bank. After 1967, Israel repeatedly offered to return the Sinai, Gaza, and the West Bank in exchange for secure borders and the recognition of Israel's right to exist by Egypt and Jordan. At the time, those nations refused. This went on for many years and gave time for elements of Israeli society to advance the position that if they were being forced to administer these captured territories then Israel should benefit therefrom to offset the expense. If you want to point a finger at someone responsible for the continued occupation of the west bank and gaza you should look at Cairo and Amman, not Tel Aviv. I know this is a fact because I lived then and these offers were on the nightly news and in the newpapers, so if you deny they were made then you will be evidenced as one who misrepresents things.
Further, I find it intriguing that recently from Palestinian sources have come admissions that much of the Palestinian diaspora was caused not by Israeli's forcing them out but by Arab countries urging them to get out of the way of the advancing Arab armies that would supposedly drive the Jews into the sea. The Arab armies failed to do so and the displaced Palestinians did not go home. This is from their own journals and records.
I would address the ancestry of the “Jews” but it appears Satirical has done that.
16 July 2008
at 3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
Speakout:
Finally, given the literally billions of dollar that have been donated by nations all over this earth to the Palestinians can you explain why they still live in such conditions? If those monies had been used to build universities, start businesses, etc., the Palestinians would be some of the wealthiest people on earth. But what happened to all that money? It was secreted away by their leaders into private accounts belonging to those leaders. It was spent on buying weapons, not hospitals, schools, infrastructure. Consequently, the Palestinian people continue to suffer. This serves the totalitarian purposes of their leaders as it gives them a reason to incite their people against a people who are not responsible, to a large degree, for the suffering the Palestinians are undergoing. Take the money and build schools, universities, start businesses and their condition will improve. Stop letting murderous monsters steal your money and bleed you dry. Or is it just too easy to blame someone else, Israel, for all your problems?
16 July 2008
at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Wow, that pretty well sums it up bkgarner.
16 July 2008
at 3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Speakout (Anonymous) says…
BK, arguing with you is fruitles and pointless. No matter what I say or point out to you, you believe what you want. Good for you, enjoy yourself and know I won't post again. I have never shrunk from discussing the issues with anyone, but I will not discuss them with those who look at everything with a prejudice and looking to find fault. There is nothing better than critical thinking, but with that comes some sort of thinking!
I suggested that we meet and talk about these issues, but you would rather talk out of the side of your mouth and discredit Islam and Muslims. Your right - and I served to ensure that - so knock yourself out.
16 July 2008
at 3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
Israel is not worth it, maybe during the cold war era, but not now. Cut'em loose they are a sovereign nation. Good luck Israel, I wish you well.
16 July 2008
at 4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
invictus..
“Cut'em loose they are a sovereign nation.”
Yeah, great idea. We should have left Kuwait alone, and South Korea, and now that I think about why did we ever rescue so many sovereign nations from Germany and Japan in WWII? I am sure they could have either taken care of themselves or died trying. Not our problem.
16 July 2008
at 4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
We at least benefited from those nations. What does Israel offer the U.S.?
Hitler's Germany would have attacked us eventually so we attacked him in Europe and profited greatly.
Communism left unchecked would have expanded in to America so we opened a front in South Korea.
Iraq threatened the stability of our oil supply so we stopped it in Kuwait.
Iran posses to direct threat to the U.S. Israel constantly tries to convince the U.S. that it's enemies are ours.
Not true.
16 July 2008
at 4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus