RE: Iran

RE: Iran (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: Iran (11/28/2013 7:57:03 AM)
Treating the Palestinians as equal Citizens would be a start. Stopping the ethnic cleansing would also be helpful. [8\|]

tweakabelle -> RE: Iran (11/28/2013 9:46:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Treating the Palestinians as equal Citizens would be a start. Stopping the ethnic cleansing would also be helpful. [8\|] Indeed. The issue is not the survival of the Israeli State. There is no prospect of Israel being "driven into the sea" or otherwise destroyed now or in the foreseeable future (except from within, by the Israelis themselves). Is there any force in the region with the capability to destroy the IDF, which has nuclear weapons to fall back if they are needed. No,and there isn't one on the horizon either. The issue is Palestinian statehood, promised as far back as the Mandate days, a promise repeated in the Oslo Accords, a promise still unfulfilled. Most people agree that separate States for Israelis and Palestinians is the best option for both peoples, and for lasting peace in the region. However Zionists want land earmarked for a Palestinian State for themselves, and to this end, have colonised the West Bank - an unambiguous war crime under the Geneva Conventions. The colonists were very clear about their reasons for colonisation - their stated top political goal is to .prevent the formation of a Palestinian State. To this end, over half a million Israelis have colonised the West Bank with the numbers continuing to grow daily. So the question, for those of us who seek a just and lasting peace, is whether this colonisation is reversible?* If it is reversible, then a viable Palestinian State can be formed. If it cannot be reversed, then the prospect of a viable Palestinian State vanishes. My feeling is that the level of colonisation is such that it cannot be reversed without an internal Israeli civil war. I would dearly love to be wrong about this but I just cannot see how anyone is going to dislodge so many armed and committed Israeli fanatics from their colonies, which they regard as God-given. * The option of the colonists staying and living under Palestinian rule in a Palestinian State is a non-starter according to the colonists. From their perspective it defeats the whole point of the exercise, and defies their rather vengeful God to boot.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Iran (11/29/2013 6:28:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle So the question, for those of us who seek a just and lasting peace, is whether this colonisation is reversible?* If it is reversible, then a viable Palestinian State can be formed. If it cannot be reversed, then the prospect of a viable Palestinian State vanishes. My feeling is that the level of colonisation is such that it cannot be reversed without an internal Israeli civil war. I would dearly love to be wrong about this but I just cannot see how anyone is going to dislodge so many armed and committed Israeli fanatics from their colonies, which they regard as God-given. * The option of the colonists staying and living under Palestinian rule in a Palestinian State is a non-starter according to the colonists. From their perspective it defeats the whole point of the exercise, and defies their rather vengeful God to boot. You are Australian. If you moved to the US, you'd would be an immigrant, and could eventually, if you chose, gain Citizenship. Once you gained Citizenship, you could vote for representatives, according your beliefs and morals. I only point this out as an example of how the "colonization" stuff could be dealt with. While the UN was negotiating and figuring on the State lines, there could also be work being done on the government of the nation(s) that are being created. Obviously, it's in everyone's benefit if the new government(s) aren't going to be vengeful in their immigration policy. While it may feel good initially, it will likely create difficulties in the future. The Israeli colonists would have the option of immigrating, leaving, becoming a Citizen of the new State, or military action. Now, military action should be opposed and not supported by Israel, since that would, in fact, be invading another nation, and the threat of military action against Israel would be great (the US should do what it can to prevent or halt military action by Israel against the new State(s)). If the colonists decide to not gain citizenship, but remain legal immigrants, then they would not be able to participate in the governments via election or via being elected.

Phydeaux -> RE: Iran (11/29/2013 9:44:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Treating the Palestinians as equal Citizens would be a start. Stopping the ethnic cleansing would also be helpful. [8\|] Indeed. The issue is not the survival of the Israeli State. There is no prospect of Israel being "driven into the sea" or otherwise destroyed now or in the foreseeable future (except from within, by the Israelis themselves). Is there any force in the region with the capability to destroy the IDF, which has nuclear weapons to fall back if they are needed. No,and there isn't one on the horizon either. The issue is Palestinian statehood, promised as far back as the Mandate days, a promise repeated in the Oslo Accords, a promise still unfulfilled. Most people agree that separate States for Israelis and Palestinians is the best option for both peoples, and for lasting peace in the region. However Zionists want land earmarked for a Palestinian State for themselves, and to this end, have colonised the West Bank - an unambiguous war crime under the Geneva Conventions. The colonists were very clear about their reasons for colonisation - their stated top political goal is to .prevent the formation of a Palestinian State. To this end, over half a million Israelis have colonised the West Bank with the numbers continuing to grow daily. So the question, for those of us who seek a just and lasting peace, is whether this colonisation is reversible?* If it is reversible, then a viable Palestinian State can be formed. If it cannot be reversed, then the prospect of a viable Palestinian State vanishes. My feeling is that the level of colonisation is such that it cannot be reversed without an internal Israeli civil war. I would dearly love to be wrong about this but I just cannot see how anyone is going to dislodge so many armed and committed Israeli fanatics from their colonies, which they regard as God-given. * The option of the colonists staying and living under Palestinian rule in a Palestinian State is a non-starter according to the colonists. From their perspective it defeats the whole point of the exercise, and defies their rather vengeful God to boot. How idiotic. You have the nation of iran's leadership calling for the destruction of israel. And you having them threatening to gain a nuclear weapon. Sure - thats something israel should just ignore.... As for "just and lasting peace" there is no such thing. Its just flowery language saying "you have something I want, give it to me". You are, indeed not wrong about this - no one is going to dislodge those Israelis. And the fault is squarely on the shoulders of the palestinians. The Israelis agreed to give land for peace at Oslo. The palestinians declined - wanting the right of return to israel. A non-starter. No agreement occurred. Since then Israel has put settlement after settlement into lands they conquered. Palestininans should have thought about that before. Israel is still interested in land for peace - and probably would evict some settlers if there were a creditable partner to bargain with. But at the moment there is not. With the split in fatah / hamas there is no one that can speak for the palestinians. No one that can make a binding agreement. So the palestinians will lob rockets, and the israelis will build settlements. The palestininans have to get their house in order before they have a chance at a nation. Sooner or later perhaps a palestinian will arise that will renounce violence - a palestinian ghandi. Then you have a chance for peace. And when that time comes you would find that the US and Europe would be willing to help.

vincentML -> RE: Iran (11/29/2013 2:26:14 PM)
quote: The Israelis agreed to give land for peace at Oslo. The palestinians declined - wanting the right of return to israel. A non-starter. The Oslo Accords were nonsense. They would have split up the Palestinian land into disconnected cantons. There was no generosity in the Israeli offer. The history of the right wing religious settlement movement is evidence of the insincerity of the Israeli position.

thursdays -> RE: Iran (11/29/2013 2:30:36 PM)
[OOPS... being a dick again... will reply via the correct nick if I can be arsed]

crazyml -> RE: Iran (11/29/2013 2:35:39 PM)
You are aware that the status of the territory that you refer to as "conquered land" is controversial?

tweakabelle -> RE: Iran (11/29/2013 5:18:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux As for a "just and lasting peace" there is no such thing. Its just flowery language saying "you have something I want, give it to me". You are, indeed not wrong about this - no one is going to dislodge those Israelis. And the fault is squarely on the shoulders of the palestinians. Nothing I can say can make the moral and political bankruptcy of your position clearer than your outright rejection of a "just and lasting peace". Nor is it a coincidence that your rejection of a "just and lasting peace" is accompanied by an emphatic statement of the Israeli position. The two go hand in hand. When Israel was forced to choose between peace talks and continuing its theft of the West Bank - between land and peace - it chose land. By its decision and actions, Israel told us that continuing to commit war crimes was more important to it than peace. Despite your explicit rejection of peace, and your defence of the Israeli policies that are making peace impossible, your post has the sheer gall to blame the Palestinians for everything, and to advance the blatant lie that Israel doesn't have "a partner for peace". The only surprise is that you seem to expect people to take such obviously contradictory nonsense seriously.

Politesub53 -> RE: Iran (11/30/2013 2:55:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml You are aware that the status of the territory that you refer to as "conquered land" is controversial? Most are aware of this, sadly some are not, or dont care, or both.

Phydeaux -> RE: Iran (11/30/2013 3:15:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml You are aware that the status of the territory that you refer to as "conquered land" is controversial? Its controversial that it was conquered? Funny, I know of no one that disuptes that it was conquered.

Phydeaux -> RE: Iran (11/30/2013 3:19:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux As for a "just and lasting peace" there is no such thing. Its just flowery language saying "you have something I want, give it to me". You are, indeed not wrong about this - no one is going to dislodge those Israelis. And the fault is squarely on the shoulders of the palestinians. Nothing I can say can make the moral and political bankruptcy of your position clearer than your outright rejection of a "just and lasting peace". And perhaps nothing will make clear your idiocy to you. Name me a year that there was not a war going on somewhere - a decade. A century. Do you know what liebensraum is? How about a cordon sanitaire? So before you go lecturing me - try learning a little bit about world history.

Moonhead -> RE: Iran (11/30/2013 4:12:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Do you know what liebensraum is? An incorrect spelling? If you're playing the pedant card, you should make an effort to get that sort of thing right.

Politesub53 -> RE: Iran (11/30/2013 4:29:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And perhaps nothing will make clear your idiocy to you. Name me a year that there was not a war going on somewhere - a decade. A century. Do you know what liebensraum is? How about a cordon sanitaire? So before you go lecturing me - try learning a little bit about world history. How quaint, using a Nazi term to try and justify Israels land grabs. You do see the irony here, don`t you ?

tweakabelle -> RE: Iran (11/30/2013 10:52:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux As for a "just and lasting peace" there is no such thing. Its just flowery language saying "you have something I want, give it to me". You are, indeed not wrong about this - no one is going to dislodge those Israelis. And the fault is squarely on the shoulders of the palestinians. Nothing I can say can make the moral and political bankruptcy of your position clearer than your outright rejection of a "just and lasting peace". And perhaps nothing will make clear your idiocy to you. Clearly advocating a "just and lasting peace" is "idiocy" in your eyes. Like armchair generals everywhere, you'd rather invent an excuse for another war than pursue peace. Peace is such an alien concept to you that you have asked several times to have the expression 'peace bounty' explained to you and even then you still don't get it. Even after the neocon inspired disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan, the wastes of tens of thousands of lives and trillions of $ for very little or no gain, even after half a century of warfare between Israelis and Palestinians with additional tens of thousands of lives and trillions of $ lost with no peace in sight, you still seek another excuse for another descent into barbaric violence. It can't happen quickly enough for you. If opposing this type of lunacy is "idiocy" in your book, then 99.9% of the world's population are idiots and (naturally) you are the exception. Like your fellow armchair generals, you enjoy the fighting and dying in your favourite armchair while other poor saps do the fighting and dying to satiate your lust for violence. How positively heroic of you to cheer them on! No matter how many times I encounter it, I will never get used to the sheer ugliness of neo-con belligerence. It's beyond sad and sickening. It's beyond words. The only nice thing I can say about your perspective on things is that you don't try to sanitise the ugliness or brutality of your policy bankruptcy. Fortunately the neocon approach to foreign affairs is so thoroughly discredited inside the USA that is has been consigned to the dustbin of history and will never be revived. Unfortunately this realisation is yet to occur to the Netanyahoos and other belligerents of the Israeli Right. One of the more pleasing aspects of detente with Iran will be a commensurate reduction in the ability of war mongering Zionists to dictate and influence events. All of which will make the world a safer place, much to their publicly stated disgust.

crazyml -> RE: Iran (12/1/2013 1:32:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml You are aware that the status of the territory that you refer to as "conquered land" is controversial? Its controversial that it was conquered? Funny, I know of no one that disuptes that it was conquered. Where did I say that it is controversial that it was conquered? Could you point to the post where I stated that? If you're going to reply to my posts, would you mind, awfully, reading and comprehending them first. Thanks.

Zonie63 -> RE: Iran (12/1/2013 6:00:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle No matter how many times I encounter it, I will never get used to the sheer ugliness of neo-con belligerence. It's beyond sad and sickening. It's beyond words. The only nice thing I can say about your perspective on things is that you don't try to sanitise the ugliness or brutality of your policy bankruptcy. To some extent, I agree with you, although I wouldn't single out neo-cons exclusively regarding America's favoritism towards Israel and our overall Middle Eastern policies, since those policies were originally formulated by Democrats and only copied by Republicans for reasons of political expediency. Republican-supported isolationism prior to WW2 was no longer politically viable, as it had lost out to Democratic-supported interventionism. Both parties ended up with the same foreign policy goals and geopolitical aspirations, although they differed on how to achieve those goals. The Republicans may have felt that, since they couldn't go back to their isolationist ways, they could offer a political alternative of becoming even more aggressive and belligerent in pursuing America's foreign policy goals, while painting the Democrats as "too soft" and letting our enemies walk all over us. Simply put, the Democrats originally declared who the "enemy" was, while the Republicans responded with "Okay, if they're the enemy, then this is how we must deal with them." The main trouble was that neither party had much of an understanding of the outside world and tended to portray it as some mythic struggle of "good vs. evil." That's the key thing in understanding the kind of belligerence you're addressing, since if one is dealing with "pure evil" through and through, then belligerence would be justified and understandable. This perception of America's "enemies" has been fostered and propagated by both main political factions in America, as well as both the news and entertainment media. Likewise, America's self-image as "defenders of freedom and all that is good and righteous" has been similarly propagated by both parties. The belligerence is the result of these perceptions involving multiple sacred cows in the American political consciousness, embraced by both liberals and conservatives alike. Liberals tend to be vulnerable on this issue because they can't ever directly challenge the perceptions of the outside world, since they're partly responsible for formulating those perceptions. quote: Fortunately the neocon approach to foreign affairs is so thoroughly discredited inside the USA that is has been consigned to the dustbin of history and will never be revived. Unfortunately this realisation is yet to occur to the Netanyahoos and other belligerents of the Israeli Right. One of the more pleasing aspects of detente with Iran will be a commensurate reduction in the ability of war mongering Zionists to dictate and influence events. All of which will make the world a safer place, much to their publicly stated disgust. I wouldn't consign that approach to the dustbin just yet. It's not so much the neo-con approach as much as it is the perception that leads to that approach. Both parties seem to agree wholeheartedly that America has a leading role in the world and that it's our job to "do something" whenever there's some crisis out there to deal with. They only differ on what "we" should actually do. They may differ over how to do the job of being the "leader of the free world," but they don't question that we have the job or how we got it, and that's where both major parties have erred. It's easy to condemn the "bad cop" and his approach, but strictly speaking, the "good cop" ain't much to crow about either. They both have the same goals and objectives, and it's those goals and objectives which need to be questioned.

Phydeaux -> RE: Iran (12/1/2013 9:15:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux As for a "just and lasting peace" there is no such thing. Its just flowery language saying "you have something I want, give it to me". You are, indeed not wrong about this - no one is going to dislodge those Israelis. And the fault is squarely on the shoulders of the palestinians. Nothing I can say can make the moral and political bankruptcy of your position clearer than your outright rejection of a "just and lasting peace". And perhaps nothing will make clear your idiocy to you. Clearly advocating a "just and lasting peace" is "idiocy" in your eyes. Clearly advocating something that has never existed and will never exist is idiocy. Yes. Its like saying, give the palestinians all the lands we ask for and we will bring forth unicorns! Both statements are equally ridiculous. quote: Like armchair generals everywhere, you'd rather invent an excuse for another war than pursue peace. Peace is such an alien concept to you that you have asked several times to have the expression 'peace bounty' explained to you and even then you still don't get it. I have no desire for war in the middle east (or any other place, for that matter). Quite to the contrary. I wish that there was a moderate, peaceful arabic palestinian state that didn't recruit young people to be suicide bombers. I wish that the iranians didnt give 25K for suicide bombers to strike israel. But for that to happen, the palestinians first have to accept that israel has a right to exist. Now, as for peace bounties. I demonstrated my understanding of peace bounties (though I hate the term) by providing examples of the peace bounty we obtained by resetting our relationship with the soviet union. YOU claimed that we had strategic interests in Iran. YOU claimed that we could have a peace bounty by having peace with Iran. I asked you to name some. Concrete examples. Me asking you to provide evidence in support of your claims is not me being a neocon, blood thirsty and any of the other things you have accused me off. Frankly, if the Iranians put aside their nuclear weapon ambitions, and accept inspectors they wouldn't capture 2 seconds worth of my time. quote: Even after the neocon inspired disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan, the wastes of tens of thousands of lives and trillions of $ for very little or no gain, even after half a century of warfare between Israelis and Palestinians with additional tens of thousands of lives and trillions of $ lost with no peace in sight, you still seek another excuse for another descent into barbaric violence. It can't happen quickly enough for you. OH. Sorry. Had to figure out what you meant here. Right. If a military strike can prevent the terrorist state of Iran that has murdered thousands of its citizens who wanted a freer Iran; that has sponsored terrorist strikes in Turkey, Bali, India, Germany, and Israel; that sponsors islamic militants in syria; that gives money is support of suicide bombers; that says that Israel should be driven into the sea. Yes, I'm all in favor of military strikes if they can prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. quote: If opposing this type of lunacy is "idiocy" in your book, then 99.9% of the world's population are idiots and (naturally) you are the exception. Like your fellow armchair generals, you enjoy the fighting and dying in your favourite armchair while other poor saps do the fighting and dying to satiate your lust for violence. How positively heroic of you to cheer them on! No matter how many times I encounter it, I will never get used to the sheer ugliness of neo-con belligerence. It's beyond sad and sickening. It's beyond words. The only nice thing I can say about your perspective on things is that you don't try to sanitise the ugliness or brutality of your policy bankruptcy. Fortunately the neocon approach to foreign affairs is so thoroughly discredited inside the USA that is has been consigned to the dustbin of history and will never be revived. Unfortunately this realisation is yet to occur to the Netanyahoos and other belligerents of the Israeli Right. One of the more pleasing aspects of detente with Iran will be a commensurate reduction in the ability of war mongering Zionists to dictate and influence events. All of which will make the world a safer place, much to their publicly stated disgust. I have never been a neocon. So the rest of your ranting is merely amusing.

vincentML -> RE: Iran (12/2/2013 6:14:36 AM)
quote: But for that to happen, the palestinians first have to accept that israel has a right to exist. Actually, they already have by negotiating, however poorly and clearly disadvantaged, in Oslo. The question is how much of their land can they surrender? It is clear to me from the settlement movement that the Israel religious right is determined to regain all of the "promised land." That theological dogma is their only claim to the right to exist.

Phydeaux -> RE: Iran (12/2/2013 9:15:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: But for that to happen, the palestinians first have to accept that israel has a right to exist. Actually, they already have by negotiating, however poorly and clearly disadvantaged, in Oslo. The question is how much of their land can they surrender? It is clear to me from the settlement movement that the Israel religious right is determined to regain all of the "promised land." That theological dogma is their only claim to the right to exist. Fatah recognized that Israel has a right to exist. However Fatah does not speak for all palestinians. Hamas (and most other organizations of palestinians)- which controls Gaza does not recognize Israels right to exist. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2013/September/Hamas-No-Agreement-that-Includes-Israels-Right-to-Exist/ Tweakabelle has (nonsensically) called me bloodthirsty when it is the palestinians and other arabs that continue to call for the destruction of Israel. She called me morally bankrupt - because I point out that there is no one in palestine at the moment capable of being a partner for peace.

tweakabelle -> RE: Iran (12/2/2013 7:01:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: But for that to happen, the palestinians first have to accept that israel has a right to exist. Actually, they already have by negotiating, however poorly and clearly disadvantaged, in Oslo. The question is how much of their land can they surrender? It is clear to me from the settlement movement that the Israel religious right is determined to regain all of the "promised land." That theological dogma is their only claim to the right to exist. Fatah recognized that Israel has a right to exist. However Fatah does not speak for all palestinians. Hamas (and most other organizations of palestinians)- which controls Gaza does not recognize Israels right to exist. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2013/September/Hamas-No-Agreement-that-Includes-Israels-Right-to-Exist/ Tweakabelle has (nonsensically) called me bloodthirsty when it is the palestinians and other arabs that continue to call for the destruction of Israel. She called me morally bankrupt - because I point out that there is no one in palestine at the moment capable of being a partner for peace. As has happened several times already in this thread, Physdeaux's re-hash of Israeli propaganda puts his claims at considerable variance with the truth. For instance, he neglects to mention that the governing Likud party in Israel has in its constitution a clause that "flatly rejects" any Palestinian State on the West Bank. Despite Phydeaux's claims to the contrary, Palestinians have recognised Israel's right to exist for over two decades. The priority Israel gives to the settlements make it crystal clear that Israel has no intention of ever ceding control of the West Bank to a Palestinian State - it intends to keep the West Bank for itself. Israel doesn't want to negotiate peace with the Palestinians, it wants to steal their country and deny Palestinians their rights to Statehood and self determination forever. And Zionists have the gall to complain that they don't a 'partner' for the peace that Israel is doing everything it can to avoid. Can any one nominate a more hypocritical posture? There are in excess of half a million Israelis illegally colonising the West Bank, with the numbers growing daily. Israel has deliberately cultivated this enormous obstacle to peace with the sole intention of preventing forever the emergence of a Palestinian State. This is compounded by brutal Israeli policies of ethnic cleansing, State-sponsored colonist violence and apartheid against defenceless Palestinians, all designed to drive the Palestinians from their traditional homes and homeland. In over 20 years of on-off negotiations, Israel has yet to produce a single map showing its ideas of what final status borders might look like. By its actions, Israel has shown time and time again that it has no intention of ever allowing the Palestinians a State of their own, ensuring that a just and lasting peace will never occur. As Phydeaux has openly stated, he and his fellow apologists for Zionism regard the very idea of "a just and lasting peace" as "idiocy", as a never to be realised fantasy. Doesn't that tell us all we need to know?

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875