On Iran

[Big Don]

Do you really support a false flag attack on our own troops to get us into war with Iran? I never thought I would read something like this on MT.

Slow down there, Conspiracy Boy.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Do you really support a false flag attack on our own troops to get us into war with Iran? I never thought I would read something like this on MT.

No, I don't. Point made. However, Iran must be denied nuclear capability. If that means bombing them, then that's what it means. I would not support another Pueblo, Liberty, or Maine. In fact, I would find it despicable that we could not simply attack Iran on the basis of the threat itself, rather than having to manufacture a pretext. But I also would not be surprised if it happened.

 

[Big Don]

If you read the thread, you will see that I was asked when Israel has said the same as Iran has said to Israel. I said that I did not think Israel had said the same, but had threatened its neighbours. Perhaps you feel that this thread and all of my comments are relevant only to you, but that is not the case. Also, you have got it the wrong way round; Iran has made threats to Israel, my reply was about threats made by Israel. Read before you call me ignorant please. Perhaps it is you who are choosing to be ignorant.

I simply said that you may find the article interesting. Clearly you are closed-minded and not interested in hearing other opinions. Oh, and seeking to generalise from a few Muslim Iranians to the whole of Iran? Do I even need to write about how ridiculous that is?

About those Israeli made threats...
If a guy walks up to you on the street and starts beating you with a bat, are you going to stand there and take it meekly or fight back? Assuming you prevail, would you smack the hell out of his friends, coming behind him, and warn his other friends that if they mess with you they will get the same? That is exactly what Israel's threats amount to.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I hate to correct you here, Bill. But, Iran IS a tangible, physical, ongoing terrorist threat to Israel through its funding of Hezzbollah and other terrorist groups. Iran doesn't just represent a threat to Israel. Iran represents a threat to what we laughingly call Western Values, i.e., Freedoms of speech, religion, association, etc. Why the LEFT isn't up in arms over Iran's treatment of homosexuals, for example is curious.

Existential in this sense means 'existence'. Iran is a threat to Israel's very existence. Thus, an existential threat.

 

[CanuckMA]

If you read the thread, you will see that I was asked when Israel has said the same as Iran has said to Israel. I said that I did not think Israel had said the same, but had threatened its neighbours. Perhaps you feel that this thread and all of my comments are relevant only to you, but that is not the case. Also, you have got it the wrong way round; Iran has made threats to Israel, my reply was about threats made by Israel. Read before you call me ignorant please. Perhaps it is you who are choosing to be ignorant.

I simply said that you may find the article interesting. Clearly you are closed-minded and not interested in hearing other opinions. Oh, and seeking to generalise from a few Muslim Iranians to the whole of Iran? Do I even need to write about how ridiculous that is?

Israel has acted in self defense. You tell me when Israel has threatened to obliterate her neighbours?

And yes, when people question the right of Israel to exist, that is blatant anti-semetism.

 

[Razor]

About those Israeli made threats...
If a guy walks up to you on the street and starts beating you with a bat, are you going to stand there and take it meekly or fight back? Assuming you prevail, would you smack the hell out of his friends, coming behind him, and warn his other friends that if they mess with you they will get the same? That is exactly what Israel's threats amount to.

I do not think the analogy is very good. Perhaps if other countries had attacked Israel, and Iran threatened to, then Israel threatened back, that would be different. But Israel has been doing its fair share of threatening. Honestly, I am not sure who "started it" but I don't think the analogy is quite fair.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I do not think the analogy is very good. Perhaps if other countries had attacked Israel, and Iran threatened to, then Israel threatened back, that would be different. But Israel has been doing its fair share of threatening. Honestly, I am not sure who "started it" but I don't think the analogy is quite fair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border.[20] Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[21][22] UN Secretary-General U Thant proposed that the UNEF force be redeployed on the Israeli side of the border, but this was rejected by Israel despite U.S. pressure.[23] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or a justification for war.[24][25] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May. 22–23. On 27 May he stated "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." [26] On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan.[27] They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War.

Israel is surrounded by enemies who wish its destruction and they know it. They have come through the Holocaust and have made it clear that they will never again become victims of attempts to annihilate them. Any nation which urges the destruction of Israel risks being attacked preemptively, and I for one applaud their stance. You don't want for schoolyard bullies to attack you at the time and place of their choosing. Once they've made it clear they intend to attack you, you destroy them as quickly as possible. This is the misunderstood character of self-defense. One does not wait to be punched before defending oneself. Once one knows they are about to be hit, they defend; first if necessary. Iran has made it clear through their continued weapons and monetary support of Hamas and their own statements about the right of of Israel to exist that once they have The Bomb, they're going to use it on Israel. Israel would be stupid not to take that threat for what it is and to prepare accordingly.

At the moment, Israel can destroy Iran's nuclear capability at will; this means they have time to take, time for sanctions and diplomacy (and yes, even threats and even assassinations) to work. Once Iran completes the task of moving their nuclear research and refinement programs underground and split into many parts of the country, Israel will no longer have the ability to destroy them at will. This will not happen; Israel will not permit it.

Iran is saber-rattling, and maneuvering for time. They won't get the time they want.

 

[Makalakumu]

No, I don't. Point made. However, Iran must be denied nuclear capability. If that means bombing them, then that's what it means. I would not support another Pueblo, Liberty, or Maine. In fact, I would find it despicable that we could not simply attack Iran on the basis of the threat itself, rather than having to manufacture a pretext. But I also would not be surprised if it happened.

Bill, what does it mean that we have to acknowledge that our government might have to manufacture a pretext to attack in order to get this done? I know you say that you don't support that and I believe you, but simply acknowledging it as a possibility has some grim implications regarding the state of our republic.

 

[Makalakumu]

And then there is this...

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=302258

"The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office just recently, in his inaugural address reiterated that his government is against weapons of mass destruction and will only pursue nuclear activities in the peaceful domain. The leadership of Iran has pledged at the highest level that Iran will remain a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT and has placed the entire scope of its nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards and additional protocol, in addition to undertaking voluntary transparency measures with the agency that have even gone beyond the requirements of the agency's safeguard system."

The highest spiritual leader in Iran issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. According to spiritual and political leaders at the heart of Muslim world, nuclear weapons are prohibited by Allah.

 

[Big Don]

And then there is this...

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=302258



The highest spiritual leader in Iran issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. According to spiritual and political leaders at the heart of Muslim world, nuclear weapons are prohibited by Allah.

Yes, because no Muslim ever does anything contrary to their religion, ever.
I missed the part in the Koran where truck loads of porn and alcohol were permitted to some Muslims, yet, forbidden the rest.

 

[Razor]

Israel has acted in self defense. You tell me when Israel has threatened to obliterate her neighbours?

And yes, when people question the right of Israel to exist, that is blatant anti-semetism.

See above. Israel often threatens neighbours.

Not according to the US State Department: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm

"An important issue is the distinction between legitimate criticism of policies and practices of the State of Israel, and commentary that assumes an anti-Semitic character." I feel with legitimate concern about lands taken from other people, that falls underneath the former.

The report does note however, that debate over what exactly constitutes anti-semitism has been going on for some time. In any case, criticism of Israel and/or its right to exist have legitimate and illegitimate paradigms; to criticise Israel does not necessarily imply anti-semitism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War



Israel is surrounded by enemies who wish its destruction and they know it. They have come through the Holocaust and have made it clear that they will never again become victims of attempts to annihilate them. Any nation which urges the destruction of Israel risks being attacked preemptively, and I for one applaud their stance. You don't want for schoolyard bullies to attack you at the time and place of their choosing. Once they've made it clear they intend to attack you, you destroy them as quickly as possible. This is the misunderstood character of self-defense. One does not wait to be punched before defending oneself. Once one knows they are about to be hit, they defend; first if necessary. Iran has made it clear through their continued weapons and monetary support of Hamas and their own statements about the right of of Israel to exist that once they have The Bomb, they're going to use it on Israel. Israel would be stupid not to take that threat for what it is and to prepare accordingly.

At the moment, Israel can destroy Iran's nuclear capability at will; this means they have time to take, time for sanctions and diplomacy (and yes, even threats and even assassinations) to work. Once Iran completes the task of moving their nuclear research and refinement programs underground and split into many parts of the country, Israel will no longer have the ability to destroy them at will. This will not happen; Israel will not permit it.

Iran is saber-rattling, and maneuvering for time. They won't get the time they want.

What does the Six-Day War have to do with Iran? They are no friends of the Arabs and only buddy up to Syria because they are both oppressive states and apparently there is some sort of club for those

Anyway, let us carry the bully analogy a little bit further, look at it from Iran's perspective. There are several mean bullies who keep coming into your side of the playground. They come right up to you and harass you, all because they want some sweets that you have. Sometimes they even hurt you in an attempt to get your sweets. Other times they try to set up companies (could not stretch the analogy far enough!) that take your sweets and leave you with very little money. You tell them you won't stand for it any more and you put your sweets deep into your pocket to that you are in charge of them, and the bullies can't take them. After a while, they all get sticks. They now have the power to hit you and make you hurt even more. Now the story diverges a little, because we don't quite know how it went:

Story A:

You go off and try to find a stick to I don't know, build a fort or something. Something that would make things better for you in any case. The bullies try to stop you doing this. threatening to hurt you some more (not with the sticks yet though). You protest that you are just building a fort so that you'll be better off and can play and that this does not affect the bullies because you don't want to try to hurt them with the stick. They don't believe you and keep threatening to hurt you. One bully in particular is very aggressive and thinks you want to hurt them very badly. This frightens them and means they are most likely to hurt you even if the other bullies don't join in. This is the point we're up to so far.

Story B:

You go off and find a stick because if they have sticks, you want one too so they will be more wary of you then and you can protect yourself. You sneakily tell them that you just want sticks to build a fort while finding a stick. They don't believe you and keep threatening you, and your ruse has not worked. Now it looks like the bullies will come and hurt you again, just because you dared to reach for the stick. One bully in particular thinks you want to hurt them very badly with your stick you have found to try and protect yourself from the bullies. There is little you will be able to do as they threaten to attack. This is the point we're up to so far.​

After that there are a myriad of other stories about whether or not the protagonist actually wants to hurt the other bullies or not, but you get the picture. Please note that this is a simplistic analogy to try and show the other side of the argument. I am sure some will disagree, others may mock it, but I hope it encourages some thought.

 

[Razor]

And then there is this...

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=302258



The highest spiritual leader in Iran issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. According to spiritual and political leaders at the heart of Muslim world, nuclear weapons are prohibited by Allah.

I see the point you're making, and I just want to say that Iran is not exactly a Muslim country. Your point is perfectly valid as most of those in power (in government) are Muslim (i.e. the people who would use the weapons anyway). However, Islam has never featured much in Iran before 1979, at least among the better educated, urban population. Parts of it that were (and are) Muslim are Muslim a bit like the UK is "Christian". If you're not familiar with Christianity in the UK, 4-5% of people go to church, and a lot of attendance is for things like Midnight Mass at Christmas. Religion is loosely tied in to the state and more of a cultural than religious phenomenon. Similarly, Iran has little attachment to Islam, which has been spread there originally by invading Arabs anyway. If you can find anyone who lived in Iran before 1979, ask them how religious it was (or is if they have been back there)!

(Just to be clear, I'm talking mainly about the actual people here rather than the religion imposed by the state)

 

[Makalakumu]

I see the point you're making, and I just want to say that Iran is not exactly a Muslim country. Your point is perfectly valid as most of those in power (in government) are Muslim (i.e. the people who would use the weapons anyway). However, Islam has never featured much in Iran before 1979, at least among the better educated, urban population. Parts of it that were (and are) Muslim are Muslim a bit like the UK is "Christian". If you're not familiar with Christianity in the UK, 4-5% of people go to church, and a lot of attendance is for things like Midnight Mass at Christmas. Religion is loosely tied in to the state and more of a cultural than religious phenomenon. Similarly, Iran has little attachment to Islam, which has been spread there originally by invading Arabs anyway. If you can find anyone who lived in Iran before 1979, ask them how religious it was (or is if they have been back there)!

(Just to be clear, I'm talking mainly about the actual people here rather than the religion imposed by the state)

My point is to show that "Iran" is actually very diverse about what the people believe and that the propaganda that paints it with a broad brush is wrong. I actually agree with you. Iran is a very complicated and diverse place.

Which leads into my next point.

The fact that people must acknowledge that our government would stage an attack on our own troops as a pretext to war means that we are acknowledging that our government will do anything it takes, tell any lie, hurt anyone it needs to, even our own citizens to get us into war. The scenario where the US attacks itself to go to war has already played out. Seymour Hersch reported in the NYT that Dick Cheney had these plans in motion, but basically Joint Chiefs put a stop to it in 2006. They thought that it would put too many troops at risk in Iraq.

People need to realize that we've been lied into war again and again and again. The decision to go to war isn't based on facts and arguments, it's based on an emotional response that transforms into political energy. In this environment any **** can be reported as news and people will believe it. Right now, the US is exerting is political muscle in the UN and with the IAEA to get this war on. For example, they replaced the head of the IAEA with a person who will tell the people what the US wants to hear in regards to the UN's nuclear program. The result is that all of the allegations that were debunked with their last report have basically been trundled out and stamped with approval in their latest report.

No one here knows the truth and I say that anyone who trusts a government with a proven history of lying us into war is a fool.

That said, I say that we need to cut ties with Israel. My kids and my families future comes first. If they want to start a regional conflagration, they can deal with the results. Our national interests, my families interests, are harmed by our intervention in Iran for Israel. If we really care about the future of our country and the state of the world, we'll back away and let this go.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, what does it mean that we have to acknowledge that our government might have to manufacture a pretext to attack in order to get this done? I know you say that you don't support that and I believe you, but simply acknowledging it as a possibility has some grim implications regarding the state of our republic.

I acknowledge that we're run by a bunch of sneaky criminal bastards that we elected; left and right. I accept that we've pulled crap like this before and we'll do it again. We do not hold the moral high ground. However, I'm not as interested in that as I am in the survival of Israel and preventing Iran from achieving access to nuclear weapons.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And then there is this...

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=302258

The highest spiritual leader in Iran issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. According to spiritual and political leaders at the heart of Muslim world, nuclear weapons are prohibited by Allah.

Do tell. Did he swear on a stack of Korans and cross his heart?

I do not believe one word of it, and neither should any thinking person. We lie, they lie, it's all lies.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What does the Six-Day War have to do with Iran? They are no friends of the Arabs and only buddy up to Syria because they are both oppressive states and apparently there is some sort of club for those

They are the single largest supporters of Hamas. That puts them in the 'against Israel' category. And my link to the Six Day War was meant to illustrate that when nations attack Israel, Israel strikes first and hardest. Therefore, before Iran gets to the point of being able to build a nuclear device, Israel will stop them. This is not speculation; this will happen.

That means speculation and urging 'talk' regarding Iran is of no use. It's pointless because Iran will keep enriching uranium, and at some point very soon, Israel will stop them. Then the real issues start.

Anyway, let us carry the bully analogy a little bit further, look at it from Iran's perspective. There are several mean bullies who keep coming into your side of the playground. They come right up to you and harass you, all because they want some sweets that you have. Sometimes they even hurt you in an attempt to get your sweets. Other times they try to set up companies (could not stretch the analogy far enough!) that take your sweets and leave you with very little money. You tell them you won't stand for it any more and you put your sweets deep into your pocket to that you are in charge of them, and the bullies can't take them. After a while, they all get sticks. They now have the power to hit you and make you hurt even more. Now the story diverges a little, because we don't quite know how it went:

Story A:

You go off and try to find a stick to I don't know, build a fort or something. Something that would make things better for you in any case. The bullies try to stop you doing this. threatening to hurt you some more (not with the sticks yet though). You protest that you are just building a fort so that you'll be better off and can play and that this does not affect the bullies because you don't want to try to hurt them with the stick. They don't believe you and keep threatening to hurt you. One bully in particular is very aggressive and thinks you want to hurt them very badly. This frightens them and means they are most likely to hurt you even if the other bullies don't join in. This is the point we're up to so far.

Story B:

You go off and find a stick because if they have sticks, you want one too so they will be more wary of you then and you can protect yourself. You sneakily tell them that you just want sticks to build a fort while finding a stick. They don't believe you and keep threatening you, and your ruse has not worked. Now it looks like the bullies will come and hurt you again, just because you dared to reach for the stick. One bully in particular thinks you want to hurt them very badly with your stick you have found to try and protect yourself from the bullies. There is little you will be able to do as they threaten to attack. This is the point we're up to so far.​

After that there are a myriad of other stories about whether or not the protagonist actually wants to hurt the other bullies or not, but you get the picture. Please note that this is a simplistic analogy to try and show the other side of the argument. I am sure some will disagree, others may mock it, but I hope it encourages some thought.

Blah blah blah. It's not about who is oppressed and who is the bully. Iran is not going to get access to nukes. They are playing a good game of brinksmanship, but it's not going to happen. Are we the bad evil overlords and they are just the poor oppressed peace-obsessed little guys? Fine, paint it that way. I don't care. I want Iran stopped. Most of the world does too. And that is going to happen.

Who's the bad guy? I don't care if we are. Yay bad guys. I do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Wring your hands all you like, Iran is not going to be permitted to have nukes.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That said, I say that we need to cut ties with Israel.

That will never happen.

My kids and my families future comes first. If they want to start a regional conflagration, they can deal with the results.

If Israel attacks Iran (which is looking a lot more like 'when' and not 'if'), it won't be regional.

Our national interests, my families interests, are harmed by our intervention in Iran for Israel. If we really care about the future of our country and the state of the world, we'll back away and let this go.

Won't happen. Live in the real world. It doesn't matter what you think we should do; nor does it matter what I think. We are not going to abandon Israel; that's a fact, period, done. And we (not just Israel) are not going to let Iran have a nuclear capability. Ever.

 

[Big Don]

Do tell. Did he swear on a stack of Korans and cross his heart?

I do not believe one word of it, and neither should any thinking person. We lie, they lie, it's all lies.

IIRC, it is permitted, by the koran to lie to us lowly infidels...

 

[Makalakumu]

We are not going to abandon Israel; that's a fact, period, done.

It is the best thing we could do for them and probably the only way we'll stave off this conflict. The moment President Ron Paul announces that Israel is on it's own if it decides to attack Iran, they will be left in an unbelievable bind. They will have to determine the truth about Iran's nuclear program and simply do away with the propaganda. If it turns out that Iran really is developing a nuclear bomb, they are going to need to talk to Iran and figure out a relationship for the region that will prevent this catastrophe. As it has been noted above, Iran is not the single minded monster it's being portrayed in the western media. They are politically diverse there are plenty of people in that country who want to live in peace.

No US interest, not mine, not my children, not yours, is served by supporting Israel to attack Iran. The only interest is the Israel lobby...and that makes no sense whatsoever because their policy is a one way ticket to what everyone with an ounce of sanity wants to avoid. I don't understand the Israeli position on this at all. They will probably be the ones to suffer the most from this. A war with Iran would reverberate throughout the region for at least fifty years. An entire generation of Israeli men and women will be sacrificed.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that factions in the US want this war with Iran and are willing to use Israel as a pawn to do it. I suspect that certain special interest groups would like to dominate the region and check China and Russia. Supposed Iranian nukes are an excuse. Israel is just an excuse.

It's time to put an end to the lies and take a look at the War Pigs who are running the show.

 

[Makalakumu]

Some more Musical Inspiration to do the right thing in America. Master of War by Bob Dylan.