Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Yakk » Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:30 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Well, the assumption here is that acquiring nuclear weapons is a hostile act even if you do not use them. Which is a defensable position, but not coming from the US or Israel of course.

The US acquired nuclear weapons as a hostile act.

Israel acquired nuclear weapons as a hostile act.

The US used nuclear weapons in a war it was engaged in.
Claiming that developing nukes is an unprovoked hostile act while you have yourself already nukes pointed at that country is not deeply convincing, except as a pure statement of power.

There is currently a treaty in effect called the non-proliferation treaty. There are two categories of signatories to this treaty -- one category agrees not to build nuclear weapons, the other agrees to decrease their nuclear arsenal.

Iran is a signatory that agrees not to build nuclear weapons.
There are two different statements here. There is the claim that virtue of its military power, the US has the ability to decide which countries are allowed to have nukes and which are not. The other statement is that the US by virtue of its power or its intrinsic goodness has the right to determine which countries are allowed to have nukes.
Actually, there is the position that ownership of nuclear weapons should be scaled back, not up, and that each nation with nuclear weapons increases the chance that they will be used.
The first is to some extent true, and Iran wants nukes exactly to reduce that power the US has over them.

Agreed. And one totally rational response to that is to smash nations that attempt to aquire nukes back to the stone age before they acquire nukes. This is not very practical, and possibly not moral.
But of course no one in Iran agrees to the second, just as the people of the US do not think that Iran has a right to determine whether the US has nuclear weapons.

So break the nuclear NPT, and every other signatory to the NPT has an obligation to stop trading with you any components that can be used to build nuclear weapons.

That is what 'sanctions' are about -- a collective agreement to not trade any components that could be used for building nuclear materials. On top of this, there is the agreement that anything you do acquire under the NPT to help you with peaceful nuclear technology should not be used to build weaponry.

Thus the position that isolating Iran, blocking off all imports and exports, is a solution to Irans refusal to follow the NPT.

Note that this is highly questionable, as Israel is not a signatory to NPT, and is generally believed to have acquired its own nuclear weapons.

tzvi wrote:The power US has over Iran is nothing compared to the power Iran will have over the entire region with nukes in the silos.

I think you presume restraint on the part of the US too much. The US currently has the power to glass Iran, but restrains from doing so. In fact, the general belief that the US has such restraint is strong enough that the power almost might as well not be there.

Iran, with a handful of nukes, would have the power to destroy a handful of cities, and destroy a handful of conventional forces that attack it.

Spoiler:
Here is an interesting question: is it legal, under international law, to fire nukes at nuclear launch sites in a war to prevent the opponents weapons from being used? If you place your launch sites in cities, does this change things? Is it legal to place nuclear launch sites in cities? What consequences are there, and should there be, to illegally placing weapons in/near civilian areas?

Should international law of war attempt to make legal war impractical?
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby jestingrabbit » Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:43 pm UTC

How about "the US installs the Shah by force after a socialist is democratically elected, then supports destabilising forces (eg Iran contra)" as an initiating hostile act, hmmm?

The earlier attempt to frame the discussion in terms of fairness vs consequences was also nonsense. What are the consequences of living in a world where one country posing a threat to another, not doing something, just posing a threat, is grounds for a unilateral attack? A steady drift towards a disolution of the (relative) international peace that's been existing lately, treaties and pacts losing value etc. How do you like those consequences?
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby yoni45 » Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:25 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:How about "the US installs the Shah by force after a socialist is democratically elected, then supports destabilising forces (eg Iran contra)" as an initiating hostile act, hmmm?


Sure? If Iran feels the need to act in a hostile manner to the US on that basis - they are free to do so. The issue isn't that they shouldn't be hostile. The issue is that such hostility has certain repercussions, which may or not may not involve significant military action should they choose to pursue certain avenues.

jestingrabbit wrote:The earlier attempt to frame the discussion in terms of fairness vs consequences was also nonsense. What are the consequences of living in a world where one country posing a threat to another, not doing something, just posing a threat, is grounds for a unilateral attack?


Possibly a world in which WWII could have been nipped in the bud.

Zamfir wrote:But why is Iran the hostile state, if the US and Israel are seriously considering to bomb their country? Might makes right I guess, but it's dangerous to believe that the mighty are also the just.


Iran is not "the" hostile state - it is "a" hostile state (relative to us). And it's a hostile state by virtue of its tendency to fund terrorist groups that act against our interests, as well as its tendency to regularly tell the world how horrible and evil we are and that we are doomed to be eventually destroyed.

Could be me, but that's pretty hostile.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Gelsamel » Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:Iran is not "the" hostile state - it is "a" hostile state (relative to us). And it's a hostile state by virtue of its tendency to fund terrorist groups that act against our interests, as well as its tendency to regularly tell the world how horrible and evil we are and that we are doomed to be eventually destroyed.

Could be me, but that's pretty hostile.


But if you're talking in relative terms then that is pretty meaningless...

Relative to the US Iran sees itself as on the defensive (and NK likely sees itself on the defensive to everyone else too). What differentiates your relative situation from their relative situation? The US funds Blackwater which could easily be construed as a terrorist organisation (remembering that terrorist is a projectivist property).
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby tzvibish » Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:40 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
The earlier attempt to frame the discussion in terms of fairness vs consequences was also nonsense. What are the consequences of living in a world where one country posing a threat to another, not doing something, just posing a threat, is grounds for a unilateral attack? A steady drift towards a disolution of the (relative) international peace that's been existing lately, treaties and pacts losing value etc. How do you like those consequences?


Better than the consequences of Iran actually firing those missiles.

Obviously, if there was no reason to believe Iran wouldn't fire, the consequences argument would fall to your side. Israel has seen enough Arab hostility in the last 100 years to know that they are perfectly capable of firing. If the US doesn't want to listen to that argument, then you're right, the US should not bomb the plants.
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby yoni45 » Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:50 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:But if you're talking in relative terms then that is pretty meaningless...

Relative to the US Iran sees itself as on the defensive (and NK likely sees itself on the defensive to everyone else too). What differentiates your relative situation from their relative situation? The US funds Blackwater which could easily be construed as a terrorist organisation (remembering that terrorist is a projectivist property).


Nothing really needs to. As I said before, if Iran feels the US is acting in a hostile manner towards them, they have the right to act accordingly as well.

It's just that as noted, such actions have repercussions which might not be particularly pleasant.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Gelsamel » Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:54 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Gelsamel wrote:But if you're talking in relative terms then that is pretty meaningless...

Relative to the US Iran sees itself as on the defensive (and NK likely sees itself on the defensive to everyone else too). What differentiates your relative situation from their relative situation? The US funds Blackwater which could easily be construed as a terrorist organisation (remembering that terrorist is a projectivist property).


Nothing really needs to. As I said before, if Iran feels the US is acting in a hostile manner towards them, they have the right to act accordingly as well.

It's just that as noted, such actions have repercussions which might not be particularly pleasant.


Right... and the US might have repercussions too? (Although they won't, because they're big and can bully people)...

Point is, if we're going to make judgements about who is justified to stop the other then there will have to be some differentiation...
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby yoni45 » Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:Right... and the US might have repercussions too? (Although they won't, because they're big and can bully people)...

Point is, if we're going to make judgements about who is justified to stop the other then there will have to be some differentiation...


A particular state is hostile and is acting against our interests = justification.

If you think that applies the other way as well, so be it. I'm not precluding Iran's right to act according to what they construe as a threat against them.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

etmorpi
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:01 am UTC

Two niggling points

Postby etmorpi » Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:46 pm UTC

I should really know better than to do this, but these are two very large peeves of mine.

tzvibish wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
tzvibish wrote:"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

A better translation is "removed from history." As in "I'd really like to dissolve the Israeli state," not "I'd really like to kill Jews." Not quite as genocidal as you make it out.
Um, "removed from history" is hardly any less genocidal than "wiped off the map". You can make up silly excuses for why either one's not really *that* bad if you interpret things in an ideal way, but it doesn't change the fact that this is nevertheless an otherwise belligerent statement against the security of a state.


Being a student of Persian, this has continuously pissed me off from the beginning. Heisenberg tried to correct Tzvibish's translation, but still exercised poor word choice (since to most people, state = nation = people). The original quote by Ahmedinjad was, "Imam goft: in rezhim-e eshqalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

The key phrase here is "in rezhim-e eshqalgar-e qods," or, quite literally, "this regime occupying Jerusalem." Not Israel, not The Jews, not The System of Government -- the current regime. I could even go so far as to analyze the usage of the adjective "This", since Farsi does not require its use here, thus possibly making it contextually significant (consider the differences between "this regime", "the regime", "a regime", etc.).

"az safheh-ye ruzgar also literally becomes "from the page of time". This does have its own connotations, but nothing quite so explicitly physical or violent as that of "off the map". Once again, it's referring to a concept (regime), not a physical entity (i.e., an actual country). The context of the quote is also relevant here, as it was spoken while comparing "the regime" with other failed states (Soviet Union, the Shah's Iran, etc) whose demises (demisen?) were not brought about through war.

Unfortunately, "mahv shavad" is quite ambiguous. The passive verb in Farsi is used both for something changing from one state to another, or something *being* changed. In the case of the verb mahv shavad, it would be used both in the case of "to vanish" and "to be vanished", which provides much room for interpretation.

tzvibish wrote:Obviously, if there was no reason to believe Iran wouldn't fire, the consequences argument would fall to your side. Israel has seen enough Arab hostility in the last 100 years to know that they are perfectly capable of firing.


I'd just like to be Obvious Guy here and point out that Iran is not Arab. Understanding the culture of a people is key to understanding the people (or even the megalomaniacal ass in charge of the people), and though they may seem similar on the outside, Persians are not Arabs, and to view them as such is strategically unsound. If you want to interpret how the French think and judge how they may act, it's best to remember that they're not Spanish.

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Two niggling points

Postby tzvibish » Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:51 pm UTC

etmorpi wrote:
tzvibish wrote:Obviously, if there was no reason to believe Iran wouldn't fire, the consequences argument would fall to your side. Israel has seen enough Arab hostility in the last 100 years to know that they are perfectly capable of firing.


I'd just like to be Obvious Guy here and point out that Iran is not Arab. Understanding the culture of a people is key to understanding the people (or even the megalomaniacal ass in charge of the people), and though they may seem similar on the outside, Persians are not Arabs, and to view them as such is strategically unsound. If you want to interpret how the French think and judge how they may act, it's best to remember that they're not Spanish.


You're right. I probably over-generalize the word "Arab." However, I would still group Iran with Iraq, Saudi arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. as being the mid-east power brokers embroiled in conflict since a long time ago.
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Two niggling points

Postby aleflamedyud » Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:10 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:
etmorpi wrote:
tzvibish wrote:Obviously, if there was no reason to believe Iran wouldn't fire, the consequences argument would fall to your side. Israel has seen enough Arab hostility in the last 100 years to know that they are perfectly capable of firing.


I'd just like to be Obvious Guy here and point out that Iran is not Arab. Understanding the culture of a people is key to understanding the people (or even the megalomaniacal ass in charge of the people), and though they may seem similar on the outside, Persians are not Arabs, and to view them as such is strategically unsound. If you want to interpret how the French think and judge how they may act, it's best to remember that they're not Spanish.


You're right. I probably over-generalize the word "Arab." However, I would still group Iran with Iraq, Saudi arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. as being the mid-east power brokers embroiled in conflict since a long time ago.

I gotta ask, how come the proud, open Jew over-generalized the word "Arab" to mean "all Middle-Easterners"? Of all people you should know better.

MidEasterners: WE'RE NOT ALL ARABS. An Arab is someone who is of Arab parentage and/or speaks Arabic as a mother tongue and/or comes from an Arab country, with more of those traits making you more Arab. Persians and Jews are not Arabs, possessing our own genetic lines, countries, and languages.

This post brought to you by Captain Obvious and the Obviousateers. GOOOOO OBVIOUS!
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Dream » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:03 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:Obviously, if there was no reason to believe Iran wouldn't fire, the consequences argument would fall to your side. Israel has seen enough Arab hostility in the last 100 years to know that they are perfectly capable of firing. If the US doesn't want to listen to that argument, then you're right, the US should not bomb the plants.

Strange. Israel, the only nuclear power in the region, and the nation with the most enemies in the region, and a nation that believes itself to be under mortal threat at all times has bombed and or invaded three of its neighbours in the last three years, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine. Over the past few decades it has bombed many more. And yet, it has not used nuclear weapons on anyone, ever. Is there something different about Iran that means that it is necessarily less rational and restrained than Israel is? Have they suicidally invaded anyone, or done anything else to pull the temple down on their own heads?

Since nuclear weapons have not been used by extreme necessity nor by malice ever in history, hostility seems a poor metric by which to measure a nation's trustworthiness in possessing them.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Two niggling points

Postby tzvibish » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:06 pm UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:
tzvibish wrote:
etmorpi wrote:
tzvibish wrote:Obviously, if there was no reason to believe Iran wouldn't fire, the consequences argument would fall to your side. Israel has seen enough Arab hostility in the last 100 years to know that they are perfectly capable of firing.


I'd just like to be Obvious Guy here and point out that Iran is not Arab. Understanding the culture of a people is key to understanding the people (or even the megalomaniacal ass in charge of the people), and though they may seem similar on the outside, Persians are not Arabs, and to view them as such is strategically unsound. If you want to interpret how the French think and judge how they may act, it's best to remember that they're not Spanish.


You're right. I probably over-generalize the word "Arab." However, I would still group Iran with Iraq, Saudi arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. as being the mid-east power brokers embroiled in conflict since a long time ago.

I gotta ask, how come the proud, open Jew over-generalized the word "Arab" to mean "all Middle-Easterners"? Of all people you should know better.

MidEasterners: WE'RE NOT ALL ARABS. An Arab is someone who is of Arab parentage and/or speaks Arabic as a mother tongue and/or comes from an Arab country, with more of those traits making you more Arab. Persians and Jews are not Arabs, possessing our own genetic lines, countries, and languages.

This post brought to you by Captain Obvious and the Obviousateers. GOOOOO OBVIOUS!


Which is why I rescinded my statements.
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby tzvibish » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:07 pm UTC

Dream wrote:
tzvibish wrote:Obviously, if there was no reason to believe Iran wouldn't fire, the consequences argument would fall to your side. Israel has seen enough Arab hostility in the last 100 years to know that they are perfectly capable of firing. If the US doesn't want to listen to that argument, then you're right, the US should not bomb the plants.

Strange. Israel, the only nuclear power in the region, and the nation with the most enemies in the region, and a nation that believes itself to be under mortal threat at all times has bombed and or invaded three of its neighbours in the last three years, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine. Over the past few decades it has bombed many more. And yet, it has not used nuclear weapons on anyone, ever. Is there something different about Iran that means that it is necessarily less rational and restrained than Israel is? Have they suicidally invaded anyone, or done anything else to pull the temple down on their own heads?

Since nuclear weapons have not been used by extreme necessity nor by malice ever in history, hostility seems a poor metric by which to measure a nation's trustworthiness in possessing them.


It really depends on how much you want to gamble that they won't be the first.
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

MrGee
Posts: 998
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby MrGee » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:08 pm UTC

Israel never used nukes, but we did. Not even as a last resort, even. I would say that if Israel were ever in danger of LOSING* a war, they might very well go nuclear.

*They haven't, have they?

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby tzvibish » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:09 pm UTC

MrGee wrote:Israel never used nukes, but we did. Not even as a last resort, even. I would say that if Israel were ever in danger of LOSING* a war, they might very well go nuclear.

*They haven't, have they?


well, all the wars they have fought have been inside or directly across their own borders. So, nuking would be a little meaningless at that point.
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby BlackSails » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:15 pm UTC

MrGee wrote:*They haven't, have they?


1973

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Dream » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:15 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:It really depends on how much you want to gamble that they won't be the first.

It isn't for me to decide that. But Iran hasn't invaded anyone in decades, and barring the Iran Iraq war, hasn't been involved in a shooting war in even longer. Perhaps you'd care to explain why you attach so much weight to one administration's tubthumping over the nation's peaceful conduct over a period of decades?

tzvibish wrote:all the wars they have fought have been inside or directly across their own borders.

I count the Iran Iraq war, and possibly some repression of Kurds that could be termed a war in a very generous reading of the word, and some issues with separatism in the north of the country. Can you point to which of these we should use as evidence of Iran's belligerence?
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Philwelch » Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:17 am UTC

Dream wrote:Strange. Israel, the only nuclear power in the region, and the nation with the most enemies in the region, and a nation that believes itself to be under mortal threat at all times has bombed and or invaded three of its neighbours in the last three years, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine.


You left out the part where all three countries (and that uses the term loosely for Palestine) have either actively or passively aided terrorists in firing rockets out of each of those countries into Israeli residential districts.

Dream wrote:Is there something different about Iran that means that it is necessarily less rational and restrained than Israel is? Have they suicidally invaded anyone, or done anything else to pull the temple down on their own heads?


They heavily fund a lot of the militant groups that were shooting rockets at Israeli houses.

Dream wrote:
tzvibish wrote:It really depends on how much you want to gamble that they won't be the first.

It isn't for me to decide that. But Iran hasn't invaded anyone in decades, and barring the Iran Iraq war, hasn't been involved in a shooting war in even longer.


Yeah, "funding terrorists to kill Jews" doesn't technically qualify as "being involved in a shooting war", but only in the same loose sense that Christian teenagers wearing purity rings and giving each other blowjobs technically qualify as "saving themselves for marriage".
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby EMTP » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:16 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:Yeah, "funding terrorists to kill Jews" doesn't technically qualify as "being involved in a shooting war", but only in the same loose sense that Christian teenagers wearing purity rings and giving each other blowjobs technically qualify as "saving themselves for marriage".


The trouble with this analysis is that to a Zionist, any brown person with a gun is a "terrorist," and anybody resisting Israel's murderous occupation is automatically assumed to have no other motive than to "kill Jews."

This is highly ironic given one can count on the fingers of one hand the number of leaders chosen by the Israel electorate who weren't baby-murdering terrorist filth. Begin -- terrorist leader of the mass-murdering Irgun. Shamir -- leader of the terrorist Stern gang. Ben Gurion -- ethnic cleanser par extraordinaire, and using massacres and mass expulsions to do it. Rabin, who carried out those mass expulsions, which killed many civilians, and as defense minister supervised the tortune of prisoners and used lethal force against unarmed demonstrators. And so on.

Hamas and Hezbollah have their faults, but on their worst day they are more legitimate sources of authority than the apartheid regime in Israel, and as to terrorism, there is no consistent definition of terrorism but that Israel and its settler thugs are the worst offenders by orders of magnitude.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby yoni45 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:31 am UTC

EMTP wrote:
Philwelch wrote:Yeah, "funding terrorists to kill Jews" doesn't technically qualify as "being involved in a shooting war", but only in the same loose sense that Christian teenagers wearing purity rings and giving each other blowjobs technically qualify as "saving themselves for marriage".


The trouble with this analysis is that to a Zionist, any brown person with a gun one who deliberately blows himself up on a civilian bus is a "terrorist,"...


Fix'd. You may continue uselessly equivocating.

Dream wrote:I count the Iran Iraq war, and possibly some repression of Kurds that could be termed a war in a very generous reading of the word, and some issues with separatism in the north of the country. Can you point to which of these we should use as evidence of Iran's belligerence?


That's a bit silly - you hardly need a history of belligerence to establish that it probably wouldn't be in our best interests to give a state committed to the destruction of our way of life nuclear weapons. Whether they'd necessarily use them or not.

If someone says you should be killed at the first possible circumstance, you don't need a criminal record to realize it's not a good idea to hand them a firearm. And if they're reaching for one, it's probably a good idea to stop that individual.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby EMTP » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:35 am UTC

Fix'd. You may continue uselessly equivocating.


Who brought the bus bomb to the Middle East? You did. Irgun scum invented it. What about the marketplace bomb? Jewish terrorists. The drive-by shooting? Jewish terrorists. Who has murdered ten times as many unarmed civilians as every other "terrorist organization" put together? The state of Israel.

You really should wipe the blood off your mouth before you speak.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby yoni45 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:38 am UTC

EMTP wrote:Who brought the bus bomb to the Middle East?


Irrelevant. We're not in grade two in a "he started it" contest, nor is the answer to that question pertinent to the fact that Iran funds groups that clearly engage in terrorist activity, and by extension, act against Western interests.

Stay on topic - or at least pretend you're capable of something other than useless trolling.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby EMTP » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:41 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:
EMTP wrote:Who brought the bus bomb to the Middle East?


Irrelevant.


Now who's equivocating? I want to hear you denounce Jewish terrorism past, present, and future. Then we'll hear what you have to say about the mean things the natives have done in self-defense against you genocidal scum.

We're not in grade two in a "he started it" contest, nor is the answer to that question pertinent to the fact that Iran funds groups that clearly engage in terrorist activity, and by extension, act against Western interests.


"Clearly" terrorism, again, because you don't know what a terrorist is. And "Western interests" would best be served by the end of the Israeli occupation and the end of the racist, terrorist regime that has cost the Americian taxpayers billions and American servicemembers their lives. Don't pretend to care about the "interests" of anyone but yourselves.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby yoni45 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:44 am UTC

EMTP wrote:Now who's equivocating?


Still you. You might actually want to look up the word.

EMTP wrote:"Clearly" terrorism, again...


Once again, correct. Blowing oneself up on a civilian bus, which is (among others) the practice in question being funded by Iran, is indeed "clearly" a terrorist act. By any definition of the term.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby EMTP » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:51 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Still you. You might actually want to look up the word.


I think not. Is English your second language or something?

Once again, correct. Blowing oneself up on a civilian bus, which is the practice being funded by Iran, is indeed "clearly" a terrorist act.


I'm glad you admit the Zionist movement and those that fund them are, indeed, terrorists. Of course, Hamas doesn't blow up buses any more (unlike Israel, which is still in the business of delibrately targeting civilians(1)), and you have no evidence whatsoever that Iran pays them to do so.

Checkmate, I think. Or do you want to reveal yourself further?

1) Goldstone: Israel intentionally targeted Gaza civilian sites (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1117893.html)
Last edited by EMTP on Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:54 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby yoni45 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:53 am UTC

EMTP wrote:I'm glad you admit the Zionist movement and those that fund them are...


Considering you do seem to have a basic grasp of the English language, I'll assume you're being deliberately ignorant in making that statement, considering my explicit statement clearly did not make any reference to any Zionist movement. Enjoy trolling.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby EMTP » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:59 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:
EMTP wrote:I'm glad you admit the Zionist movement and those that fund them are...


Considering you do seem to have a basic grasp of the English language, I'll assume you're being deliberately ignorant in making that statement. Enjoy trolling. I can neither show that Iran funds blowing up buses, nor do I have an answer for the fact that Israel blows up buses and other civilian targets, which makes them, by my own logic, terrorists. So it's about time for me to storm off in a huff.


Fix'd.

It always makes me smile when racist, bloody minded Zionists visit xkcd to heap slander on their victims, whine about how hard everybody is to them, and beat the drums for war -- then accuse me of trolling.

Of course, this isn't an Israeli website. It isn't committed to Zionist principles, nor is it affiliated with an organization that does. It's an American website. I'm an American. So where to you get "trolling"? It makes no logical sense.

But that's what you do, isn't it -- barge into a place and pretend you own it, regardless of how little claim you have. I guess you just stick with the lies that work for you.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Philwelch » Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:16 am UTC

EMTP wrote:It always makes me smile when racist, bloody minded Zionists visit xkcd to heap slander on their victims, whine about how hard everybody is to them, and beat the drums for war -- then accuse me of trolling.

Of course, this isn't an Israeli website. It isn't committed to Zionist principles, nor is it affiliated with an organization that does. It's an American website. I'm an American. So where to you get "trolling"? It makes no logical sense.


Maybe the part where you keep spewing hatred against Jews? As cliche as it is, you sound just like a Nazi.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby clintonius » Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:25 am UTC

EMPT: this is a mod, who is not jewish, telling you that your comments are trolling. You are spewing hateful and dismissive rhetoric in a place where only respectful dialogue is welcome. Stop posting in this vein or stop posting in this thread.

~CM
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby The Reaper » Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:58 am UTC

On a strange note, the jews didn't invent the VBIED. an explosive bus is just a modification of explosives on a vehicle. The germans had something for doing that in WW2, and I'm sure it was around prior as well.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby EMTP » Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:37 am UTC

clintonius wrote:EMPT: this is a mod, who is not jewish, telling you that your comments are trolling. You are spewing hateful and dismissive rhetoric in a place where only respectful dialogue is welcome. Stop posting in this vein or stop posting in this thread.

~CM


One does not have to be Jewish to be biased on this subject, and if you think the anti-Iranian and anti-Muslim bile strewn all over this thread constitutes "respectful dialogue" I have to wonder if you're among them.

It is not acceptable to throw around adjectives like "genocidal" and "terrorist" and "evil" (and let's not forget "fanatical muslim") with regards to the behavior of Iran, and then cry trolling when those same words are using to describe behavior which, if anything, warrants these labels far more than Iran's.

I'm all for a respectful discussion, but I'd like it to be mutual.

Philwelch wrote:
Maybe the part where you keep spewing hatred against Jews? As cliche as it is, you sound just like a Nazi.


I'd like to introduce you to my friend Mr. Godwin. He informs me you FAIL.

I do not feel and have not expressed hate against Jews. Much as they would like to be, Zionists are not synonymous with Jews and thinking that stealing someone else's land is wrong, ethnic cleansing is wrong, and crimes against humanity are wrong, does not make you an anti-Semite.

On a strange note, the jews didn't invent the VBIED. an explosive bus is just a modification of explosives on a vehicle. The germans had something for doing that in WW2, and I'm sure it was around prior as well.


As far as I know, the first use of a car bomb or bus bomb in the Middle East was in terrorist strikes by the Irgun in the 1930s (prior to WWII). I can't claim to have conducted exhaustive research on the subject, however.

If we think seriously about the subject of "terrorism," what it is and what it means morally, I think we can see that the essence of terrorism is not blowing up a bus vs shelling a school, is not state vs non-state. It's the targeting of civilians to achieve a political gain. Hamas does this -- sometimes -- and so does Israel (and when supporters of a Jewish state were in Hamas' shoes -- trying to wrest a state of their own from an occupying army -- they used exactly the same sorts of attacks Hamas has been guilty of). So does the United States. So does Hezbollah. All of those organizations or states also have other functions that have nothing to do with terrorism -- feeding people and providing medical care, paying the salaries of traffic cops and so on.

The double standard which some people like to apply is to say that their own war crimes are a rare exception to the state's smooth functioning, the other side's transgressions mark them and any who support them as "terrorists," i.e., ultimate evil, regardless of the full picture of what they are.

Israel and its supporters are more and more complicated than the terrorist acts carried out by the state or the settlers. To describe them in broad strokes as evil and evil for the sake of it is an oversimplification and a dangerous distortion. It is equally a mistake for them, or us, to describe our enemies in overwrought rhetoric as ultimate evil to our qualified goodness.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby tzvibish » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:20 pm UTC

I'm not going to go into this with you, because it's obviously pointless. So, I ask you this instead: Do you think it is a good thing for Iran to have nukes? Is it something we should encourage or discourage. Neutrality is not an option. There's no such thing these days. Your opinion of Israel shouldn't really make that much of a difference, because regardless of how 'evil' they are, they will almost definitely bomb the plants if nukes are being built.
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby EMTP » Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:13 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:I'm not going to go into this with you, because it's obviously pointless. So, I ask you this instead: Do you think it is a good thing for Iran to have nukes? Is it something we should encourage or discourage. Neutrality is not an option. There's no such thing these days. Your opinion of Israel shouldn't really make that much of a difference, because regardless of how 'evil' they are, they will almost definitely bomb the plants if nukes are being built.


I don't agree. If Israel were going to bomb Iran they would have done it by now, instead of threatening to do it, as they have for the past five years almost incessantly. The threat of bombing Iran is intended, I think, to pressure the United States into stronger action.

I think the Israeli leadership knows Iran would never use a nuclear weapon against them unless they were attacked, and probably not even then. The situation is reminscient of the period before the six-day war, when the leadership knew the Arab armies were arrayed in defensive positions and posed no threat, whilst doing their best to convince their population and the rest of the world a second Holocaust loomed.

As to whether it is a good thing for Iran to have nuclear weapons: it would be better if no one had nuclear weapons. But since there is already a nuclear power in the Middle East, and another with armies on the eastern and western borders of Iran, Iran getting nuclear weapons makes large-scale conflict less likely, not more. If you're trying to avoid the use of nuclear weapons -- and not just to maintain your side's nuclear monopoly -- it's apparent that it's better for two sides to have them rather than only one. This will also tend to reduce conventional attacks -- as Israeli officials have acknowledged by complaining an Iranian nuke would limit their "freedom of action." For those unfortunates who would otherwise end up of the receiving end of that "freedom," that's a great benefit.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby tzvibish » Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:25 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:
tzvibish wrote:I'm not going to go into this with you, because it's obviously pointless. So, I ask you this instead: Do you think it is a good thing for Iran to have nukes? Is it something we should encourage or discourage. Neutrality is not an option. There's no such thing these days. Your opinion of Israel shouldn't really make that much of a difference, because regardless of how 'evil' they are, they will almost definitely bomb the plants if nukes are being built.


I don't agree. If Israel were going to bomb Iran they would have done it by now, instead of threatening to do it, as they have for the past five years almost incessantly. The threat of bombing Iran is intended, I think, to pressure the United States into stronger action.

I think the Israeli leadership knows Iran would never use a nuclear weapon against them unless they were attacked, and probably not even then. The situation is reminscient of the period before the six-day war, when the leadership knew the Arab armies were arrayed in defensive positions and posed no threat, whilst doing their best to convince their population and the rest of the world a second Holocaust loomed.

As to whether it is a good thing for Iran to have nuclear weapons: it would be better if no one had nuclear weapons. But since there is already a nuclear power in the Middle East, and another with armies on the eastern and western borders of Iran, Iran getting nuclear weapons makes large-scale conflict less likely, not more. If you're trying to avoid the use of nuclear weapons -- and not just to maintain your side's nuclear monopoly -- it's apparent that it's better for two sides to have them rather than only one. This will also tend to reduce conventional attacks -- as Israeli officials have acknowledged by complaining an Iranian nuke would limit their "freedom of action." For those unfortunates who would otherwise end up of the receiving end of that "freedom," that's a great benefit.


i would agree with you, only that the point isn't only the nukes shouldn't be used. If you believe that Iran, or at least its leadership, is hostile, then you don't want to give them that kind of power. Obviously, there are arguments either way as to whether they are hostile. That's the key point, I believe. And that's also why Israel does believe there is a chance those Iranian nukes would be controlled by someone not so logical. Thus, bomb the plants.
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Yakk » Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:25 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:Who has murdered ten times as many unarmed civilians as every other "terrorist organization" put together?

I know I know!

The Chinese Communist Party?
Stalin?
A certain Austrian?
Smallpox?
The Black Plague?
Malaria?
The Khmer Rouge?
Christopher Columbus?
The person who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima?
The guy who killed the Archduke?
The inventor of the Automobile?

EMTP wrote:[...] it's apparent that it's better for two sides to have them rather than only one.

I don't believe this. I don't disbelieve it -- but I don't think we have nearly the evidence required to make that claim.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Chen
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Chen » Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:38 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:i would agree with you, only that the point isn't only the nukes shouldn't be used. If you believe that Iran, or at least its leadership, is hostile, then you don't want to give them that kind of power. Obviously, there are arguments either way as to whether they are hostile. That's the key point, I believe. And that's also why Israel does believe there is a chance those Iranian nukes would be controlled by someone not so logical. Thus, bomb the plants.


This can get pretty circular. Wouldn't, knowing that, mean that Iran could consider Israel hostile and therefore bomb their airfields so that they could not bomb their plants?

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby EMTP » Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:45 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:i would agree with you, only that the point isn't only the nukes shouldn't be used. If you believe that Iran, or at least its leadership, is hostile, then you don't want to give them that kind of power. Obviously, there are arguments either way as to whether they are hostile. That's the key point, I believe. And that's also why Israel does believe there is a chance those Iranian nukes would be controlled by someone not so logical. Thus, bomb the plants.


The calculus for Israel is easier. They dominate the region and they want to keep it that way. A power with a nuclear monopoly obviously would like to maintain it. America's interests are different.

Bombing the plants could worsen the situation. First, rhetoric aside, it's not clear how interested the Iranian regime is in Israel other than to score cheap rhetorical points. Attack them, of course, and they are likely to make striking back a priority. This presents a post-Pearl-Harbor-type problem for Israel. You've just carried out a fabulous airstrike which started a war with a county ten times your size which you cannot isolate or occupy. What now?

Bombing could also accelerate Iran's nuclear development. Iran now has enough LEU to rapidly go for a bomb, requiring perhaps 500 centrifuges and a few months, but to do that, they need privacy. Bomb the sites you know about, and you give Iran the perfect excuse to yank those materials away from supervision and move underground.

Finally, the attack may not be a great success. Israel may do little real damage, may lose a number of pilots, some of which will be captured. And that's a problem. Such a failure would be a serious blow to what Begin aptly described as "the prestige of a colonial regime that lives by the legend of its omnipotence."
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby tzvibish » Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:50 pm UTC

Just remember that this happened once before, in 1983, in Iraq (I think I've mentioned it once already). No escalation happened. This is in a lot of ways, similar.
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby yoni45 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:32 pm UTC

Chen wrote:This can get pretty circular. Wouldn't, knowing that, mean that Iran could consider Israel hostile and therefore bomb their airfields so that they could not bomb their plants?


Of course. It's just that such acts will have certain repercussions. That's also part of the reason we'd like to keep them from getting nukes, as it will make hostile action from their side much harder to deter.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pex and 18 guests