At least you're handling it in a more mature manner than I ever could. :)

Not sure what your point is, but I look less kindly upon the IRA than I do Hamas.

So isnt this the first time HAMAS, the voted for gov't. of the Palestinian territories has, basically, voiced support for suicide bombings, as a leadership gov't.? If this is the case than can this be considered an "attack" on Israel?


Tel Aviv attack sparks different Palestinian reactions
Suicide blast kills 9, wounds dozens at restaurant

Monday, April 17, 2006; Posted: 1:16 p.m. EDT (17:16 GMT)

TEL AVIV, Israel (CNN) -- A suicide bombing that killed nine people Monday at an Israeli restaurant provoked conflicting responses from Palestinian leaders.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, via a spokesman, condemned the Tel Aviv terror attack, while Hamas called it justified.

The blast marked the first time a suicide bomber has successfully set off a bomb in Israel since the Hamas-led government assumed power over the Palestinian Authority on March 30.

The bombing occurred during a busy period of Passover and just hours before a special session of the Israeli parliament. (Watch emergency responders work to save victims after the attack -- 1:35)

The Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the blast, which also killed the bomber.

Hamas, like Islamic Jihad, calls for Israel's destruction. After its election victory, the Hamas-led government refused to meet Western demands to renounce violence and recognize the Jewish state's right to exist -- although it has maintained a cease-fire. The United States, European Union and Israel consider Hamas a terrorist organization.

A Hamas spokesman, in an interview with Al-Jazeera television, described Monday's attack as an "act of self-defense" against the Israeli occupation.

Abbas -- a member of the Fatah party that Hamas defeated in the January 25 elections, has denounced the bombing, Palestinian legislator Saeb Erakat said.

"I condemn this attack on behalf of President Mahmoud Abbas, Abu Mazen, as we have always condemned attacks targeting civilians, whether Palestinian or Israelis," Erakat said. "Such attacks harm Palestinian interests. We call upon all Palestinians to abide by the cessation of violence."

Of the 49 people taken to hospitals after Monday's attack, one died later of wounds. Another eight people were critically wounded and 12 others were in moderate condition, ambulance officials said.

An Israeli police commander said that immediately before the attack the bomber scuffled with a security guard outside the restaurant, a falafel stand at Tel Aviv's old central bus station.

The commander said the bomber tried to push himself inside the restaurant and then blew himself up.

A witness, Moussa al Zidat, told The Associated Press that the guard asked the bomber to open his bag.

"I saw a young man starting to open his bag. The guard begins opening the bag, and then I heard a boom," the witness told the AP.

The wounded were treated on sidewalks. One man was lying on his side, his shirt pushed up and his back covered by bandages, the AP reported. A bleeding woman was taken away on a stretcher, and a dazed-looking man in a blood-splattered white T-shirt was walking about, according to the AP.

The explosion shattered car windshields and blew out windows in buildings, the AP reported. The sign of the restaurant's building was blown away, the AP said. Bottles and other debris were scattered yards from the site.

In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters the attack was "a despicable act of terror for which there is no excuse or justification."

Challenge for Olmert
The bombing was among the first major security challenges for Israeli Prime Minister-designate Ehud Olmert since he won March 28 elections, taking over from the ailing Ariel Sharon.

Olmert met with his Kadima faction at the Israeli Knesset and said that Israel would respond appropriately to the attack.

"We will know how to respond in the way and manner required,and we will continue to act with all means at our disposal to thwart further such incidents," Olmert said.

He has said he would continue Sharon's policy of unilateral withdrawals from Palestinian territories.

Olmert has vowed to define Israel's permanent borders within four years -- with or without talks with the Palestinians -- by evacuating many of the smaller Jewish settlements in the West Bank and annexing the larger ones.

In what was reported to be the year's first suicide bombing in Israel, a bomber attacked the same falafel restaurant on January 19. Police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld confirmed Monday's attack occurred at that eatery.

The old bus station is a mall area usually packed with workers.

Israeli police have said it is difficult to patrol, making it a favorite target of suicide bombers.

You guys are having all your fun with analogies, so I thought I'd throw one in there. If Hamas is to the IRA as Israel is to Great Britain, then perhaps we shouldn't worry too much.

In your analogy, which country stands for Iran? The US? Boston?

The IRA is a despicable organization. My family spent a year in London while I was in grade school, and one of their bombs went off two blocks from the house we were renting. That was frightening. But the IRA is nothing compared to Hamas and other Arab terrorist groups.

The IRA's aim was economic destruction. They often phoned to warn people out of buildings they were bombing. While they did kill people (most notoriously Lord Mountbatten), their goal was not to kill as many citizens as possible. They want political independence from England, not the deaths of every British citizen.

With Iran, the problem isn't just nuclear weapons in the hands of a small country. It's nuclear weapons in the hands of a country run by people who outwardly seek the deaths of every Jewish man, woman and child. Iran has made a credible threat toward Israel in what amounts to a declaration of intent of war.

Note: I was just pointing out that analogies aren't worth anything, i.e. back to the KKK mention. If analogies were worth anything, then perhaps we could do the Northern Ireland comparison.

While I can sypmathize with the need of Isreal to take seriously any threats from heads of state of other countries (as well as terrorist organizations), I also can't imagine Iran, as a state, acting so completely irrational as to launch a nuclear strike against Isreal (or any country for that matter).

Yes, President Ahmadinejad continues to present an outspoken and defiant public position on Isreal which is highly troubling, and the country is a Muslim theocracy with a bent towards very conservative interpretations of Shi'a Islam. However, it is important to remember that this is a reasonably successful country. This isn't Afghanistan - the country has been stable since the 1979 revolution. And while it is a theocracy, it is a constitutional theocracy with democratic elections. Ahmadinejad was elected, not appointed (and yes, I'm aware that corruption/strong-arming probably occurs in their elections). Economically, Iran does pretty well for itself as the #2 OPEC oil exporter, and they have growing economic ties with France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea. They are not backwards when it comes to industry and education - for all of the Shah's faults, he pushed the country into modernization, and that tradition hasn't been eradicated under the Islamic Republic. This is also a country with a rich cultural history and a populace that is very proud of that history and culture.

My point being, this is not a country with nothing to lose, willing to invite their own assured destruction by acting on their threats to Isreal's existence by using nuclear weapons.

That said, I can understand the fear that nuclear weapons developed in Iran could fall into terrorist hands. I don't know that this would ever happen - it hasn't so far from places like North Korea, Pakistan or any of the former Soviet Republics - and as extreme as some of the rhetoric is from Ahmadinejad, I don't think he's so irrational as to tacitly allow nukes to be delivered into the hands of terrorists. For one thing, he has to know that there's a fair chance that any such action would be discovered by intelligence agents from the U.S., Russia, Europe or Isreal and so any action by terrorists with Iran-produced nukes would be tied directly to Iran itself (as the Taliban was held responsible for the actions of Al Qaeda against the U.S. on 9/11). For another, handing off nukes to terrorists organizations is a highly irrational move for the head of a state; who's to say that if, say, Islamic Jihad were provided a nuke by Iran that they wouldn't at some point in the future threaten Iran itself if they felt the government wasn't acting in ways that the leaders of Islamic Jihad approved of?

What is your solution to the problem? Airstrikes? Invasion? Sanctions?

Well, now I disagree with that. Analogies obviously have value if used as a way to shed light on a topic. Of course, they can be taken too far, as well, but that doesn't mean they're worthless.

I've answered this question before. Just check back a page or two. You're so busy with the attack I'm not sure you're reading what people say in response.

I'm still curious about how you and the other Hamas defenders feel about their charter. Have you read it? What do you think?


Dawgfan, the scary part of these fundamentalist nutjobs is that they don't believe our world is the final destination. They're playing for positioning in the afterlife. It's entirely possible, if not likely, that Ahmadinejad believes he will be richly rewarded for destroying Israel - at any cost. Have you seen interviews with these people? They truly believe that God is on their side and guiding their actions, and that first, Israel must be eradicated.

thats what I think and fear...that muslim collateral damage will be martyrs in the afterlife and well worth the sacrifice for the destruction of the zionist regime.

Also there is the realization that Ahmedinejad doesn't particularly hold much power over this stuff. The Supreme Council is the power brokers and they've shown themselves to be remarkably pragmatic over their history (as I keep pointing out they traded arms for hostages with the "Great Satan").

What gets me is those that point out, during Khatami's Presidency, that the Supreme Council has all the power and the President doesn't have that much aside from domestic policy (and even then he's a bit tied up), but now are saying that OMG!!! Ahmedinejad is nuts and he's going to do X, Y, and Z!! How did it change so quickly? After all, Ahmedinejad was a dark horse to begin with. The Council threw their support behind other candidates originally.

Agreed, except that I just don't think that Ahmadinejad is truly one of the extremist nutjobs described above - I think he's mostly posturing. Same thing with the majority of the Supreme Council - I think they are more pragmatic than some here give them credit for. Ahmadinejad's statements are very troubling, and you can't dismiss them, but when push comes to shove I just don't think he or the Supreme Council would press the button to launch an offensive nuclear strike.

Funny thing about power - once you have it, you aren't so willing to easily toss it away. They may talk about heavenly rewards, but for those that are actually living the good life as the power brokers in Iran, I just don't think they'd be so willing to risk it by supporting actions that would assuredly result in their own deaths (as opposed to talking their followers into terrorist actions).

Because that one Ahmadinejad statement about destroying Israel is the cornerstone to our causus belli for military action, that's how...

I'm not sure where I defended Hamas. You ironically seem to think that anyone suggesting anything short of Hamas having no right to exist is a Hamas fan. I'm also not sure where I attacked you. I asked you politely a couple of times to explain what you mean by your earlier comment of doing anything possible to stop Iran from getting nukes. You haven't shed any light on that. The closest you came (back a page or two) was, "Once these options are exhausted, and only then, force must be used." But that is an empty platitude. What kind of force are you talking about? Economic force, as in sanctions? Military strikes? If so, how far? Just air strikes? Invasion and occupation? Tactical nukes? I only ask because all of the military force options are terrible. Airstrikes will only slightly delay their acquisition of nukes, and invasion/occupation would make Iraq look like Haiti. That's not worth starting a war over. Military force just makes no sense.

uh oh

Israel calls Mideast terror "declarations of war"

By Evelyn Leopold 33 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -
Israel's ambassador to the
United Nations called actions by
Iran,
Syria and Palestinian leaders "declarations of war," but the Palestinian envoy said Israel's attacks on Gaza were inhumane and violated international law.

The two diplomats on Monday opened a
U.N. Security Council debate that included some 35 speakers. The session had been scheduled before Monday's Palestinian suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, in which nine people were killed and 60 wounded.

Nevertheless, the Palestinian U.N. observer, Riyad Mansour, echoed the condemnation made by Mahmoud Abbas, president of the
Palestinian Authority. The Hamas-led Palestinian government has not made similar comments.

"We restate our condemnation of the loss of innocent lives, Palestinian and Israelis, and we call upon the occupying power to do the same," Mansour told the council.

Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman said every day fundamentalist leaders were inciting acts of terrorism.

"A dark cloud is looming above our region, and it is metastasizing as a result of the statements and actions by leaders of Iran, Syria, and the newly elected government of the Palestinian Authority," Gillerman said.

"These recent statements are clear declarations of war, and I urge each and every one of you to listen carefully and take them at face value."

He said Iran and Syria harbored and financed Hamas and Lebanon's Hizbollah group, citing comments from Hamas leaders based in Syria, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniya and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

But Iran's U.N. ambassador, Javad Zarif, told the council Gillerman had made "irresponsible claims." He said that daily threats by Israel required "urgent and serious attention by the council" which at minimum should demand that Israel desist from resorting to force.

Iran, itself under the gun for its nuclear program, said Israel already had atomic weapons despite its "unprecedented record of state terrorism."

CONDEMNATIONS

Arab and African delegates backed Mansour's condemnation of what he called Israel's "excess and indiscriminate force against Palestinian civilians," particularly those in Gaza that he said killed 15 to 21 civilians, among them two children.

In the past week, Israel has bombarded targets in Gaza, from where militants often fire home-made rockets into Israel. The death toll is the highest since Israel pulled out of Gaza last August and September after 38 years of occupation.

The meeting was called after the United States last week refused to agree to a compromise statement on Israeli military strikes in Gaza, saying the draft was "disproportionately critical of Israel."

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton on Monday said he regretted the loss of life, including in Gaza, but that the responsibility for preventing terror attacks "rests with the Palestinian Authority."

"The United States has noted reactions by several terrorist groups including Hamas that defend -- and even applaud -- the act of terror in Tel Aviv today, as we have noted President Abbas's quick denunciation of it," he said.

Britain's deputy ambassador, Adam Thomson, told the council it was "very disappointing" that the Hamas-led Palestinian government did not condemn the Tel Aviv bombing but "sought to justify this senseless, abhorrent, and counter-productive action." But he also said that Israeli rocket attacks were "unacceptable" close to residential areas that resulted in civilian deaths.

By implying that it's a 50/50 conflict, you defend the use of force by Hamas. I don't see how it can be viewed a 50/50 conflict, when one side is doing its best to eradicate the other. You have steadfastly refused to comment on the Hamas charter, and how that contrasts with what the Israelis say and do.

A few days ago, Israeli rockets killed several militants and several innocent people. But what the Hamas defenders fail to recognize is that these rockets targetted terrorists who were firing shells into Israeli villages. Then the terrorists, as they always do, hid behind civilians. Since the Palestinian government refuses to arrest the terrorists, what else can the IDF do? If they march in with tanks and lay siege to a couple of houses, it looks bad. If they fire rockets themselves, it looks bad. If they do nothing, as they've tried in the past, the terrorists live on to fire more rockets. They don't stop because they feel it's their duty to die as martyrs.

Today, a terrorist blew himself up at a bus station, killing nine Israeli citizens. Hamas, the elected government of Palestine, applauded.

What these actions and the comments from radical fundamentalist Muslim leaders show is that, without a doubt, the region is committed to destroying Israel.

I guess we Americans can't fully understand this. We're a nation that sues when we spill hot coffee on our own laps.

When I say that force must be used against Iran, that is not intended to be trite or glib. I'm saying that if diplomatic options fail, they must be backed with force. I am not a military strategist, so I can't be as certain as you are which exact uses of force are appropriate. All I know is that Bush badly screwed up the Iraq situation, so it's likely that the plan that failed in Iraq wouldn't work very well in Iran. And, at this stage, it's more important to build relationships with Europe and China than it is to threaten Iran directly.

It's not as if Rafsanjani, Khamenei, Khomenei etc. haven't said things along the same lines.

I'm still curious as to what people think the U.S. can do, with force, to Iran. Sure, there are airstrikes, but apparently the Iranians have learned from the Iraqis and both a) spread out and b) put underground a considerable portion of their nuclear program. Plus, effective airstrikes rely on good intelligence-gathering. We don't have a good track record there.

So then what? Invasion? Unlike Iraq, most Iranians actually living in Iran don't actively dislike their leader to the extent that they'll step aside and let the tanks through. Plus, where do we get the manpower for an invasion, much less an occupation? I'd assume we're talking well over 500,000 troops, probably closer to a million, at this point. We simply can't project that kind of power at this point, even if we were to take everyone out of Iraq summarily.


No, this is going to have to be solved diplomatically. And if it can't be solved diplomatically, then the U.S. and U.N. are going to have to take a hard look at what non-proliferation strategy actually means. In this, Iran is being a completely rational actor. They've seen the way U.S. foreign policy changes towards a country once it has a viable nuclear weapon (again, Pakistan for the best example), and they know if they can just get over that hump that they'll be in a completely different negotiating seat.

The Cold War non-proliferation strategy of "don't let them have nukes" is old and busted, and never really worked all that well, anyway. I'm not sure what the new one should be, but I don't think cold warriors like Condi Rice or warmongers like Dick Cheney are going to be the ones to develop it.

This is an e-mail I just received from a missionary over in Israel. Our church helps to sponsor her, but she is otherwise independent, and not affiliated with any particular denomination. I am simply posting it 'as-is', without any editing or commentary, as the perspective of a woman who does mission work with Jews and Arabs alike:

Can do?
Or will do?
Or should do?

(I know what your question says, I'm just not sure that it's really what you meant).

Can = pretty much the entire raft of options from "nothing" to "thermonuclear annihilation". I mean what we "can" do is an awfully wide range.

Should = bomb the country systematically back to about 100 years before the Stone Age, leaving no stone stacked atop another.

Will = who the hell knows? We've been so passive in Iraq that I hesitate to advocate any military option on the scale that I believe we might actually undertake due to fears that we would just half-ass an Iran operation into a real c.f.

st. cronin, add JIMGA to the list of bombers.

By my math, that makes 1.

So if you aren't sure of the effects of using force, how can you be sure that force must be used? I'm not a military genius, but I read a lot and listen to the people that were right about Iraq. They say that airstrikes will only delay the Iranians' acquisitions of nukes by a couple years, and they say that occupations would take more troops than Iraq SHOULD have taken. They just don't seem like feasible alternatives. Foreign policy dictates that Bush should never SAY that force is off the table (like Clinton and Iraq in the '90's), but to actually use major force would be a mistake, IMO.

And there's the rub. I think most people feel the same way, i.e. that military action in Iran would be highly problematic, but in the interests of foreign policy, you still want the perception that force is an option so that you have more leverage in your diplomatic negotiations.

If anything, the threat of force should be very real to Iran... we've already invaded Iraq, and we have a large military presence nearby.

Whether or not we use it is another thing. Personally, I think there's no appeasing a fanatic like Ahmadinejad. He'll utilize diplomacy to buy himself more time to build nukes, and he'll tell us what we want to hear, while refusing to take any real action.

ROFL

Surely that part of the post was a joke.

Why?

He's told the western media his uranium enrichment is strictly for energy... while he brags to his people about how he has the capacity to destroy Israel now...

I guess this is what I was getting at earlier. What, exactly, can the U.S. military do to Iran? The ground forces deployed to Iraq are bogged down and have their hands full. Given that there are barely enough in Iraq to "keep control" of the situation there, what will happen if they're pulled out?

And anyways, how much can we really do with 50,000, 100,000, whatever amount of troops in Iran? Especially given that the Iranian people are far more likely than the Iraqis to resist us upon the initial invasion.

How, exactly, do those of you who say "invade Iran" see such an invasion going? And, learning from Iraq here, how exactly do you see the "post-invasion" period working?

So, basically, what you're saying is that because I'm not a military expert, I should defer to your selection of nattering nabobs? It didn't take a genius to figure out what Iraq would do (sadly, Bush is not a genius). There are plenty of retired generals willing to smile for the red lights of television. I'm more interested in the ones who still have influence.

People learn from mistakes. Maybe Bush's successor will listen, and will put a better strategist in Rumsfeld's place.

Using force without the backing of Europe and China would be a mistake. Using force right now would be a mistake. Using force, with the support of key countries and if Iran refuses to dismantle its program years from now, is a definite option.

If bombing only sets them back a couple of years, come back in a year or so and bomb again. Eventually, they will get tired of wasting money on expensive recepticles for our bombs and they will stop building nukes.

Meanwhile, repeating what I said about the Palestinian situation... by implying that it's a 50/50 conflict, you defend the use of force by Hamas. I don't see how it can be viewed a 50/50 conflict, when one side is doing its best to eradicate the other. You have steadfastly refused to comment on the Hamas charter, and how that contrasts with what the Israelis say and do.

I don't see us making a full-scale invasion into Iran... at least not right away. But it's pretty easy to bomb them from our bases in Iraq.

Don't you think this will have negative effects on our ability to operate in Iraq, necessitating more troops, quite possibly?

I think we're going to have a lot more coalition help before we invade Iran, and I think the Iraqis are going to continue to improve their own internal security as time goes by, requiring less dependence on US troops.

That is probably a good way to break it down, although you do seem at risk of implying that the Hamas charter is representative of all Palestinians, when it's pretty clear that a vast majority of Palestinians disagree with it, and in fact appear to have views not so different from the Iraelis. But there is, to be sure, a huge difference between what Hamas says and what Israel says and the Israelis come out looking better in that respect.

On the side of what they do, I find the difference less telling. I guess I have a hard time seeing something like this (an attack, BTW, that Ariel Sharon referred to as a huge success) as being a whole lot different from a terrorist attack. There are simply no circumstances under which dropping a one-ton bomb on a crowded apartment building is justified. This was one of the most egregious instances of Israeli misbehavior in recent years, but hardly an isolated event (as I've already mentioned, Israel kills a lot more Palestinians than the reverse). The Israelis have their excuses, but as far I'm concerned actions like that put them on a level of equivalence with the actions of the Palestinians. Wanton disregard for human life is just not something I can accept.

Additionally, your conclusion that seeing equivalence in the conflict supports violence by Hamas is incorrect, not to mention nonsensical. If you think both sides are guilty of severe violations of human rights it is rather more obvious to conclude that they should both stop than that they should both continue, wouldn't you think?

And for the record, Hamas wasn't responsible for this bombing and has had a ceasefire through last year. If they are really engaged on a campaign to eradicate Israel, they're doing a pretty crappy job of it.

Addendum: If Monday's suicide bombing had killed an IDF offiicer amongst all the civilian casualties, would you feel that it was a justified attack? To be logically consistent I think a lot of the more fervently pro-Israel people around here would have to say yes. To my mind the answer is no, and that this is precisely the scenario we see where Israeli assassination efforts kill numerous bystanders...

Not quite: For your analogy to hold up, it would have had to be a specific IDF officer known to have done evil.

edited to add: And, obviously, they would have had to be TARGETING that officer.

this is why i like you. :cool:

Like st. cronin said, for the analogy to work, the IDF officer would have to be a specific target known to have instigated violence against the Palestinians.

The difference between the apartment bombing and the market bombing is the instigation of violence. One one side, you have a group dedicated to the eradication of Israel. They make their goals known, loud and clear. On the other side, you have a group that needs to defend itself from constant violence. Every missile they've sent is directed at a specific, known terrorist.

Since the Palestinians refuse to arrest their terrorists and hold them responsible, the IDF has to act. I don't like that innocent people died as well. I feel, given the situation, that the IDF deserves the benefit of the doubt. Just like our US soldiers deserve the benefit of the doubt when going after Iraqi terrorists who are trying to blow them up. Innocent people died when we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan. When your government supports terror and essentially declares war against another country, you have to be prepared for the reaction.

It's nice that this poll of yours seems to show something positive. But I've also seen polls that show similar numbers support the bombings. Maybe things have changed recently. That doesn't change the fact that the Palestinians elected a group dedicated to terror.

I have no problem with that modification. You could even go it one step further and say the that the targetted officer has been involved in assassination attacks in Palestine resulting in civilian casualties. What, then, is your response? Is it O.K. for the Palestinians to detonate bombs in crowded public places killing a dozen people and wounding scores more under those circumstances?



This comparison doesn't really hold for me. I don't believe (and I hope I'm not being naive) that the U.S. would ever do what the IDF does. There have been incidents of collateral damage in both Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe too many. But to my knowledge those incidents all came in situations where a) the military had bad intelligence or b) they missed their target or had spillover damage. I don't know of any incidents where the U.S. military flattened a crowded apartment building to kill a single insurgent. And if they did, I would certainly not forgive them or give them the benefit of the doubt. I would expect a serious investigation and for heads to roll (metaphorically speaking). Of course, I expected that after Abu Ghraib too.. maybe I am being naive...



I've seen the same polls you have and believe they are likely accurate. And that mine is as well. They are separate questions. What they reveal is that:

a) The Palestinian people do not want to eradicate Israel (the poll I linked to)
b) The Palestinian people support the use of violence (the poll you mention)

Logically we have to conclude that the violence directed at Israel, to the extent that it is supported by the Palestinian people is not aimed at the eradication of Israel (as you have claimed in every post). Rather it must be directed at other objectives, most likely independence and an end to occupation. That doesn't necessarily make the violence acceptable, but it does seem to change the dynamic you are trying to promote..

All this would be true if and only if both sides were equal aggressors. Hamas and the other hate groups have pledged to get rid of Israel. Entire countries, like Egypt and Syria, have done their best and failed. Their leaders have made similar pledges, as Iran's does today.

Meanwhile, Israel, which does have the power to slaughter millions, has not. When they had the upper hand in 1967 during the six-day war, they exercised restraint, knowing full well the Arabs had declared they would torture and murder every Jewish man, woman and child they could get their hands on.

War isn't pretty. If you attack someone and hide in a crowded apartment building, you are placing all the innocent people in that building at risk. You must take responsibility for those deaths. During war, there is no safe harbor.

I would expect the U.S. armed forces to take loss of innocent lives into consideration, but if Osama bin Laden were hiding in the middle of a crowded Karachi theater and there was no other way to do it, I'd give the go-ahead to send a missile into the middle of that theater.

The key to all of this is that the minute the Arab hate groups stop the attacks, stop sending suicide bombers into bus stations, stop shelling the villages on a daily basis, the IDF will stop its attacks.

Does anyone really think that the IDF would continue if the Arabs decided to recognize Israel and let its citizens live in peace?

I don't know for sure what the Palestinians want. I'd like to know how that latest poll was put to them. The polls are inconsistent. But they did vote in Hamas, seemingly knowing about their charter. They do not demand that terrorists in their midst are jailed. They celebrate when Israeli citizens are killed, just as they celebrated when the WTC was attacked.

Assuming that there was no way to apprehend him (I'm no Hollywood scriptwriter I can't think of an (in)plausible scenario) would that be true if he were in a theatre in New York? Or are the lives of the people in Karachi less valuable than those of Americans?

If, if, if. If Hamas and the suicide bombers were morally equivalent (or even in the same ballpark) to the IDF, they would be. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

That we are having this discussion validates their strategy of describing the murder of 9 innocents, plus attempted murder of 50-100 more, in a BUS station "self-defense." That's utter nonsense, and everybody should know better.

We have control over the streets of New York. If it were a hostage situation, there are rules for dealing with that which ensure he would not escape and hopefully avoid loss of innocent life. If it were a group of terrorists, there are seige protocols.

I doubt our army or a SWAT team could march into Karachi and control the streets without considerable consternation from the Pakistanis. If the Pakistani government refused to act, I can see making the call to use long-range weapons. There would be consequences, but they might be worth it. The key would be waiting to act until their government clearly refused to act.

Now, let's say it's Paris, and the French government is refusing to use its own SWAT teams to lay seige to the theater. That's a tough one. You can't go in, you can't fire the long-range weapons without completely unacceptable consequences. You'd just have to hope that putting immediate diplomatic pressure on France, with support from other countries, would force them to do the job.

As always, the fact that Bush has been so lousy on the international diplomatic front makes everything a lot more difficult. Let's hope that Bin Laden can wait to see La Cage aux Folles until we have a new president.

The value of innocent lives is always equal. It's up to the local government whether they should be placed at risk. By not cooperating, essentially harboring the criminal, the local government devalues those lives. Of course, we could always ensure we get Bin Laden by nuking half the world. At a certain point, killing innocent people to get to a legitimate target is not reasonable. Honestly, I don't know how large that number is, but it should be the same regardless of nationality.

The immediate danger to innocent people presented by the Arab terrorists gives the IDF some right to kill innocent people in order to get to a specific target. After all, the Palestinian government is harboring the terrorists. I cannot judge whether the IDF went too far in that one case, but I believe they should receive the benefit of the doubt under the current circumstances. If it were a situation where they could have taken out the terrorists before they went into the building, but chose to wait specifically in order to increase the number of dead to include innocent people, then they should be prosecuted (like "hey, we have a right to take out the terrorists, so let's make sure we kill as many people as possible with our one shot"). At that point, the moral deliniation between the two sides would start to become hazy.

But again, we know that the terrorists intentionally choose to "hide" behind women and children for maximum effect. The terrorists want to die as martyrs, they already feel they're moving on to a better afterlife as a reward, so it's worth it to them to create more martyrs. They probably think they're doing the children a favor.

Palestine wants to be a sovereign nation. They need to exercise sovereignty over their populace. If they are going to allow a segment of their population to attack a foreign neighbor, essentially condoning the behavior, then that foreign neighbor has the right, actually the responsibility to respond.

If there were a Mexican gang in Ciudad Juarez lobbing bombs into El Paso or orchestrating suicide bombers' trips across the border to kill civilians, and the Mexican government refused to do anything about it, I'm pretty sure the US response would be pretty damn dramatic. We would take reasonable precautions to protect the lives of Mexican civilians, but we wouldn't consider them sacrosanct when our own citizens are in danger.

My point is that Israel has acted with relative restraint. I say relative, because from time to time they have shown little.

If Palestine wants to become a sovereign nation, they need to step up to the plate and exercise some control over these extreme elements.

the minute they become sovereign and that shit that went down this week occurs, in my view it's a declaration of war from one soevereign nation to another. I shudder to think of the ramifications.

Um, but we're not having a discussion about validating suicide bombing (as I have never advanced any argument that such actions are valid).. We're having a discussion about bombing theaters and apartment buildings based on suspicion that a targetted individual is inside (which others have argued is valid)... Frankly the fact that people are willing to validate that strikes me as utter nonsense that people should know better. What we're discussing is outrageously immoral conduct with a very thin veneer of justification.

I'm willing to talk shades of gray, as mentioned above, in situations where a legitimate military action causes collateral damage, but there is some conduct that falls below the threshold of acceptability under any circumstances, and I think the sort of things Solecismic advocates and that the IDF does fall clearly below that threshold. And once you're there I don't particularly care to debate the finer points of who is more abominable. It's morally (and I should think criminally) culpable behavior. At that point, if you want to measure anything, it's the magnitude of harm (i.e. I'm not arguing that mass genocide is equivalent to an isolated incident). On that level Israel comes out looking no better (and probably worse) than the Palestinians.


But Palestine is not a sovereign nation. Your argument is a chicken and egg argument. They can't exercise sovereignty they don't have, but they have to in order to gain sovereignty. I don't think Fatah had the horsepower to overcome Hamas when they were in power, neither does it seems likely Hamas could overcome Fatah if they wanted to. There is not a real government in Palestine in the sense that we conventionally think of a government (monopoly on force and whatnot).

But that is really not where my gripe lies. Because Palestine is not sovereign (whether or not it should be), Israel retains some right to engage in policing and clearly has the right to respond to attacks. It's the tactics that they engage in while doing so that irk me. Responding to terror with terror does not allow someone to retain the moral high ground.


The fact that you feel this way, I think, means that we will have to respectfully agree to disagree. I just don't see how you can adopt tactics like this without becoming the monster you seek to destroy. Bin Laden is just a man. It is the inhumanity in his actions and those he represents that we're fighting. I would not have us adopt inhumanity in our response.

I hoped to at least point out that this is not as clear-cut an issue as you pretty obviously believe it to be, and I'm not sure if I had any success in that, but in any case I think we've probably taken this argument as far it goes (at least between you and I).

We probably have. I think what you're missing is that in these cases, the US and the IDF are looking to kill an active combatant who is likely to kill more innocent people if not stopped.

If he chooses to hide among civilians, and we lack the ability to apprehend him because the government that has control of those areas refuses, we have only two choices: act or don't act. Either way, more innocent people will die. So you have to decide if the likely collateral damage of acting exceeds the price you're willing to pay to save yourself from future attacks from this person.

I don't think the IDF or the US is within a million miles, from any action taken in the war against these Islamic militants, of the reprehensible conduct of these groups that seek to slaughter every Israeli man, woman and child.

the lives of non-American/British/European people are in fact less valuable. you're talking about people whose sense of worth is so low they bomb themselves.

Palestine has a government. They have laws. They have a police force. They need to enforce the law, and reign in their extreme elements. I believe that this really is something that they have to do, if they want to join the international community. If they want to be sovereign, they essentially have to be able to exercise sovereignty, at least over their own people.

I don't believe that Israel is responding with terror. They are at war with a terrorist organization in a neighboring "state". They are attacking valid millitary targets. We would certainly do no less in the United States. In fact, In light of how long this has been happening in Israel, I'd be pissed if the United States was showing as much restraint in the same circumstances.

As I always say, Israel has the responsability to either annex the disputed territories and welcome a few million more "Muslims" into their "Jewish" state or release the lands so it can become a formal sovereign entity. Everybody has a right to vote, it's not the average Palestinian worker/squatter's fault that terrorists and their "govt" can't stop their own violence.

However, the flip side is, of course, that I feel the second Palestine becomes a sovereign nation it will trigger a massive war.

Palestine will bomb Israel (whether on purpose or just supporting it) and Israel will be allowed to declare war on Palestine. That will probably lead to at least Syria and Iran declaring war on Israel. Which may or may not prompt a response from the US and Europe, depending on whether it looks like Israel is about to be exterminated or not, I suppose.

I don't envy the Isreali/Palestinian future, they are the modern day "powder keg".

Matthew Yglesias takes apart the idea of war with Iran:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...rticleId=11431

Can't agree more.

The only one that says we should bomb right now. But there are several that have said that war is an option assuming diplomacy fail. You said:
You are now moving the goalposts to only include people that want to nuke Iran tomorrow, which isn't what you said.

What is your opinion of Iran using nuclear weapons if they acquire them?

Obviously, the blogger here feels that Iran would never use nuclear weapons. And if that is the case, then he's absolutely right. No sense attacking Iran over something that doesn't matter in the long run.

I feel differently. I don't dismiss the lunatic ravings as mere rhetoric. The leader of Iran has promised to wipe Israel off the map. Just as other lunatic leaders in the region did before they attacked. Perhaps Iran's war simulations indicate that a first-strike nuke will take out Israel's second-strike capabilities. Or perhaps they feel that Allah has blessed them with this weapon for a reason.

It all amounts to whether you believe Iran's current leadership is capable of making that determination. History says they are. This blogger, who repeatedly rallies against U.S. aid to Israel, makes quite a few mentions of Israel behaving badly toward Palestinians while explaining away the leadership of Palestine as violence from radical outliers. He does seem biased.

Just to edit to reiterate one point: we are not anywhere near the point where bombing or invasions is an appropriate response. If that's where Bush is headed, he needs to be stopped.

I'm saying that since we are not military experts, we should listen to those who are. Here is a list of real scholars, real military people, and not just 'nattering nabobs' that believe that any war with Iran is not a good option:

http://thinkprogress.org/iran-military-option

One mistake was not having enough troops in Iraq. Problem is, we didn't have enough troops to do it right. And Iran has four to five times the insurrection population as Iraq. So any invasion/occupation is off the table, unless you want a major draft along with major expenses that would make Iraq look cheap.

What about the effects of war with Iran? Oil prices? Muslim hostility? Attacks on our troops in Iraq? Iran using Hezbollah has a proxy? We don't just bomb and go home and have a beer with the Iranians after it is over. I don't see any benefits that match that cost.

The Palestinians are the ones that believe their land was stolen, of course their position is that they shouldn't exist. If someone took your cake, then wanted to keep it, you would want it back, not have it split between you (that is the way that the Palestinians see the issue anyway, which can be debated).

me too

I think the odds are low that they will use them, and even lower that they will use them against us.

Iran is one of the most stable and democratic countries in the Middle East. One of their biggest allies is one of our supposed biggest allies, UAE. Why would the UAE be going after such big ties with them if they were the next Nazi Germany?

Question: if they didn't care about mutual destruction, couldn't Iran wipe out Isreal just as easily with conventional weapons? How does nukes change the equation?

I don't know if you are wrong or right on this, but what is your point? Are you trying to say that this Jew is an anti-semite? And he is a writer for the American Prospect, and pretty highly regarded.

they dont want to make the same mistake that others in the past have made of underestimating israel. There is a huge article on the ties that are being solidified between arab nations in their disdain for Israel. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the hamas, PLO, Jihadists will be difficult to math up with since the enemy will be coming from inside and out.

Iran having nukes should not be an option allowed by anyone.

What do you mean? If the entire Arab world put it's entire military, missiles, nerve gas, bio weapons, etc, and left nothing back at home to defend the homeland, they could easily destory Isreal. Since Isreal has second strike capability, how do nukes change the equation?

They're wrong. The Israelis have just as much right to the land, from both a recent historic (back to the 1890s) and a long-term (birth of civilization) perspective. The Palestinians were mostly nomadic people, and never tried to settle the land themselves.

Originally, both groups were to live together in peace. But in 1948, the rest of the Arab world convinced the Palestinians who were trying to live in peace to leave their homes so they could finish Hitler's job. The Israelis survived, against all odds.

Anyone who believes the Palestinians are entitled to Israel is, in my opinion, an anti-Semite. The Israelis have a right to some homeland, and this little piece of land the size of New Jersey, which they settled out of mostly desert themselves, is all they have.

You can complain that the British didn't have the right to imperialistically set boundaries on their own, but they were certainly at odds with the Jews themselves and the Jews did not get a great deal here. You should be mad at the British, not the six million people living in this tiny piece of land who had no other place to go.

The Palestinians could easily be absorbed into any number of much larger Arab countries nearby. But these Arab countries refuse to take them in. Why? Because it keeps the pressure on Israel.

They've tried before, with forces from several countries, and Israel has proven that it can defend itself against conventional attack, even against what looks like staggering odds. They don't just want to war against Israel, they want to slaughter every man, woman and child. A prolonged attack that includes Arabs on Israeli soil going house to house slaughtering people greatly increases the chances that Israel will retaliate with nuclear weapons.

Iran having nukes gives it the power to do the home-to-home slaughtering at a distance. Or through presumed proxy.

I have no idea what Yglacias believes in his heart, other than he writes a lot about believing the US gives too much foreign aid to Israel and he thinks the Arab terrorists are not mainstream. I disagree. He's a good writer, but he's very young and I think he needs to get out there. Maybe he should live in Israel for awhile, see the conflict first-hand. That's the difference between a blogger and a journalist.

I don't post very often but to this I just could not resist.

Since the day the sun rose on humanity people from this region have faught and killed each other, they will continue to do so until the day the sun sets on humanity. So if letting Iran go nuclear speeds up this process so be it.

I think in the best interest of the US and Europe would be to have Iran remain without nuclear capability, but as for invading Iran I think Isreal should do the bombing after all its in thier backyard not ours.

I may agree with your conclusions, but not the way you got there. Sounds a little too racist (or religion-ist) for me. It's hard to say that people from that region are more prone to killing than anywhere else. Haven't we killed more people in the middle east than anyone else in the past 20 years?

The speech reproduced in this post articulates a lot of my feelings on the matter. I'd encourage everyone who has an opinion on the matter to read it.

Warning: it's long, and I realize we're all Americans, but if there's ever a time for an effort at increasing attention span, that speech is it.

things are not looking up for the whole area. It seems Hamas has no sense or care what the international community thinks of their overtures or moves.

Abbas Blocks Hamas Plan for Security Force

By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 45 minutes ago

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday vetoed Hamas' plan to set up a security force of 4,000 militants, but Hamas insisted it would go ahead, deepening the bitterest clash yet between the Islamic group and the moderate Palestinian leader.
ADVERTISEMENT

Hamas, which ousted Abbas'
Fatah Party from power in January parliamentary elections, had spoken in the past of incorporating militants into the Fatah-dominated Palestinian security forces.

But the concept of a shadow security force headed by the No. 2 fugitive on
Israel's wanted list appeared to go too far for Abbas, who favors talks with Israel and is trying to keep the West from shunning the Palestinians over Hamas' violently anti-Israel ideology.

The new force, to be based in chaotic Gaza, is to have about 4,000 members, or nearly one-fourth the size of the 18,000-member armed security contingent in the coastal strip.

Egypt, meanwhile, invited interim Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for an official visit even before he has put together his government, signaling it is eager to do business with a man keen to draw Israel's final borders with the Palestinians within the next four years.

Egyptian President
Hosni Mubarak extended the invitation in a telephone call to Olmert, and a date for the visit is to be set next week, aides to the Israeli leader said. Israeli and Egyptian leaders haven't met since February 2005.

Egypt's MENA news agency reported the phone call, but did not mention any invitation.

Olmert has said he prefers a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, but is expected to act unilaterally because of Hamas' refusal to disarm or recognize Israel's right to exist.

Hamas hard-line policies have already cost it hundreds of millions of dollars in Western aid and Israeli transfer payments. Abbas, who was elected separately, saw the proposed militants' security force as yet another act of defiance, and on Friday, wielded his ultimate power — the presidential veto — to block the force.

"All the officers, soldiers and security personnel are asked not to abide by these decisions and to consider them null and void," Abbas wrote in a letter to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas. A text of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press.

Government spokesman Ghazi Hamad said Interior Minister Said Siyam, who nominally controls three of the six existing security forces, would form the new force as planned, despite Abbas' veto.

"The decision of the interior minister conformed with the law ... which gives the minister the authority to take the necessary decisions to guarantee security," Hamad said. "The aim of the decision was to support and strengthen the efforts of the police, and not to replace the police."

In
Syria, Hamas' political chief, Khaled Mashaal, lashed out at Abbas' veto, without mentioning the Palestinian leader by name.

"We can understand that Israel and America are persecuting us, and seeking ways to besiege and starve us, but what about the sons of our people who are plotting against us, who are following a studied plan to make us fai1?" Mashaal said.

Abbas' clash with Hamas over the security forces is the bitterest tussle since the two sides started wrangling over authority.

Hamas' proposed security force would draw its members from various militant factions. The force is to be headed by Jamal Abu Samhadana, 43, a founder of the small Popular Resistance Committees, which blew up three Israeli tanks in 2002 and 2003, killing seven Israeli soldiers. The group is also suspected in a deadly bombing attack on a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Gaza in 2003.

Abu Samhadana, who refused to discuss Abbas' decree, told The AP he would continue his resistance despite his appointment to head the militants' forces.

"I am not going to give up resistance," he said. "There is no contradiction between the appointment and resistance. I am a fighter who is protecting the homeland."

During five years of fighting, Israel has killed dozens of militants in targeted missile attacks. Abu Samhadana is high on Israel's wanted list, and Israel has tried to kill him in targeted strikes.

"We have old scores to settle with this murderer," Israeli Cabinet minister Zeev Boim told Israel Radio. "He has no immunity and we will have to settle this score sooner or later."

Meanwhile, a senior Israeli military commander raised the pressure on Hamas by saying Israel is preparing for a possible invasion of Gaza.

Officials said there were no immediate plans to strike. But the comments reflected rising Israeli impatience with Hamas, which defended a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv this week and hasn't halted militant rocket fire from Gaza.

"If the price we have to pay becomes unreasonable as a result of increased attacks, then we shall have to take all steps, including occupying the
Gaza Strip," Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant, head of Israel's southern command, told the Maariv daily. He said the plans have been approved by senior officials, including Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz.

Israel already has made two brief incursions into Gaza in recent days to search for explosives. But defense officials said the odds of a large-scale operation or full occupation are slim because of financial and political constraints.

Israel withdrew from Gaza last summer, ending 38 years of military occupation. Since the pullout, militants have fired rockets into southern Israel on nearly a daily basis.

Hey FLASCH186.

What?

You are looking more and more right all the time on this one.

Thanks.



Iran Threatens Israel if U.S. Attacks

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer 35 minutes ago

TEHRAN, Iran - A top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander said Tuesday that
Israel would be
Iran's first retaliatory target in response to any U.S. attack.


"We have announced that whenever America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel," the Iranian Student News Agency quoted Gen. Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani as saying.

Dehghani, a top commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, also said Israel was not prepared to go war against Iran.

"We will definitely resist...U.S. B-52 (bombers)," Dehghani also was quoted as saying.

President Bush has said a military option remained on the table if Iran did not agree to international demands for it to stop enriching uranium. The American leader has said, however, that Washington wanted to solve the dispute over the Iranian nuclear program through diplomacy.

Good work Flasch, I expect you to be first in line when we storm the beach.

Fixed that for you.

whats a draft card? I kid.

What are you right about? That if we attack Iran they will attack Isreal? Yeah, no kidding. Not only did Iraq do the same thing during the first Gulf War, but they did the same thing for the same reason: they are absolutely no threat to us whatsoever. They have no missiles that can reach us, they have no power they can project to our shores.

Because they will attack Isreal if we attack them is not a reason to attack them. In fact, it's a reason NOT to attack them.

sorry, my initial point way back in this thread, which you disagree with, is that their hatred for Israel will lead them to attack Israel sometime regardless of what we do to prompt it. They will launch a strike at israel.

This article simply shows their willingness to view israel as target #1 no matter what.

What do you mean 'no matter what'? If we attack them, it is a perfectly rational response on their part to attack Isreal. They simply don't have the ability to attack us. If we attack them, they will probably also shoot at our planes. That doesn't mean that they will launch an attack against our planes no matter what. This doesn't help your point at all.

Actually, no matter what is said or shown, you will NEVER agree to anyone else's point but your own so what good does it do to have you debate the topic at all. I showed that Israel is target #1 for iran, We showed that Iran is flaunting their nose at IAEA and the UN, we have stated our opinions that Iran having Nukes WILL in turn lead them to attacking Israel and why that seems rational to them. That is our side of the debate and we have the articles and history to come to our OPINION. That is all, sir.

While I do agree that you are unlikely to persuade MrB, I find it odd that you would target someone else with such an arrogant dismissal. You rarely engage in anything that would be considered "debate" on an issue. Instead you take a stand (and you try to take contary views to prove you are non-partisan in your own mind) and then get mad that people don't agree with you. That is not debate. We (myself included) have all done that in political debates on this board, but Flasch you really seem to make this your normal tact. You aren't as bad as Dutch in doing this (that is a low, low bar), but I think viewing yourself as somehow better than MrB in this regard is mistaken.

Haha, hilarious Flasch. Your points do not show what you think they do. No kidding Isreal is Iran's #1 enemy. No kidding they will be attacked if we invade them. But not a single point you have made supports the fact that Iran would want to get annihilated just to start a war of aggression against Isreal. That is not rational, so you actually have to have something to back that up, not just accept it as fact. And the fact that they will attack Isreal if we attack comes nowhere near doing that.

You have lost your mind. That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. How dare you even try to justify such an evil, asinine policy?

Imagine if Bush said something like "If Iran attacks Israel, we will nuke Egypt."

Ok... read that quote in W's voice in your head... it's a lot funnier. :D

Iran is dead-set against Israel. Any argument to the contrary is head-in-the-sand appeasement talk... the sort of thing that got a lot of Jews killed back in the 30's and 40's.

MrB can speak for himself, but I assume he meant "perfectly rational" in the realism sense of the world, not in the morally justifiable sense of the word.

I had to reply at the irony though. So, if the U.S. attacks Iran and Iran attacks Israel, that is the "most idiotic thing [you] have ever heard" and an "evil, asinine policy." And it is like Bush saying "If Iran attacks Israel, we will nuke Egypt." And yet when Al Qaeda attacked the U.S., we justifiably invaded Iraq? Interesting.

Well thats not true though. Via debate on this here boards many people have changed my views on stuff. Most recently being theDubai ports deal, I forgot who the person was but someone directed me to a link wherein I found the information I needed to change myview and did so. I can think of more than once where Glen or Bishop has shown me information that changed my view. Are you just ignoring these in the "flasch" = X vain? I dont understand that. I may be emotional but I am open minded on issues enough to change my stance when I learn that Im worng or information changes. no?

Only perfectly rational people would read MrB comments as such though! :p

As you are well aware, the reasons for invading Iraq were not so simple, and are in fact still being debated by reasonable men.

If you think it's rational for Iran to attack Israel when Israel has not attacked Iran then you are just wrong, end of story.

:) st.cronin, Isreal is our ally, correct? We care about what happens to Isreal, correct? Any military action in the area will most likely have their blessing, and probably some help from them at least in terms of intelligence, correct? Iran has no hope of attacking our country, correct?

How does this not make them a legitimate target? It boggles my mind that you can defend a war of aggression on Iran and at the same time call their retaliatory strike on Isreal 'evil' and 'asinine'. Incredible.

Shorter st.cronin: USA good! Iran bad!

Keep in mind also that Iran doesn't have nukes, so saying that I said that it would be ok for Iran to nuke Isreal is not only a strawman, but not connected to reality.

Imagine if Bush said something like "If Al Queda attacks us, we'll nuke Iran". Crazy, I know!

EDIT: Looks like JG and I thought the same thing reading the imagined Bush comment. And yes, I meant it's rational as in it being rational for guerrillas to fight the way they do, I wasn't speaking in terms of moral justification.

My emphasis is on the word "debate" not on the steadfastness of one's views. Debate is the exchange of argument and discussion of oppositional viewpoints. One can have a highly effective debate where no one changes their mind. You can also have an argument (but not a debate) where everyone changes their mind. Debate is about engaging and opponent's arguments, recognizing weaknesses, and responding accordingly. It is not just about finding out something you didn't know (like the Dubai ports issue). In your arguments, I think you usually ignore the objections of your opponents (i.e. in this discussion, you seem to gloss over the fact that the rhetoric of Iran's leadership is probably not the reality, you presume irrationality on a small historic record, and ignore a lot of historical construction of enemy threats that proved to false) and fail to engage their strong points. I would say Jim is "debating" in this thread and you are shouting.

I value debate (although I do my share of shouting). To criticize MrB for his failure to change his mind (especially in the fashion you did) strikes me as missing the point. If a debate is only about changing your opponent's mind, then I have failed in virtually every debate I've had on this board. I like to think that isn't the case.

Yeah, it's kind of like saying "Osama bin Ladin attacked us, so let's get rid of Saddam." Oh wait... ;)

Seriously though, I agree that rational choice theory would not predict a conventional Iranian attack on Israel following a US military action on Iran, especially since Iran doesn't have the power projection capability.

Leveraging their unconventional capacity wouldn't be that surprising, however.

but we cant let it get that far to see. not a good gamble considering all the outside static.

I have said repeatedly that war with Iran would be a mistake. But it is a lie to equate Israeli policy in the region with US policy in the region, and a lie that is repeated by those who should know better. Honestly, Kuwait or Turkey would make more sense as a target for Iran if that is the point of view.

As usual, you have no consistent view of the world and make it up as you go along. I thought your bizarre habit of making stuff up and being indignant was limited to political threads until you randomly asserted that Jim was working on TCY2. Now, I just don't know what goes through your mind.

I'm glad you feel this way. You are therefore very much against any attack that the US would make on Iran, so the whole point of Iran attacking Isreal if we attack is moot. Right?

Given Israel's hardened second-strike capability, I'm not sure that's the case. It would be an awful big gamble to launch a nuke at Israel on the hope that they wouldn't launch back. MAD is a disturbing, yet historically effective doctrine for keeping peace.

Emphasis mine.

What is this "history" of which you speak? Can you relate for me the last time Iran attacked another country (without being attacked first)?

Or maybe you're speaking about the last "rogue state" to acquire WMD, which would be Pakistan or North Korea, depending on your point of view. Neither of them attacked their neighbors immediately afterwards (pre-existing conflict in Kashmir excepted).

So, where exactly are the facts that bolster this opinion:



I don't know, maybe you're trying to say that if Iran develops nukes, the U.S. will attack them, and then they will attack Israel, and that this is not a rational thing for Iran to do. If so, then yes, this is a compelling argument, since Iran would be following the same gameplan the Bush Administration followed after 9/11: Get attacked by Afghanistan-based, Saudi-financed terrorists and after a slight diversion, attack an unrelated 3rd country, on the strength of supposed connections between that country and your original enemy.

Actually, by that logic, Iran probably have the stronger case.

hmmm, interesting point. Perhaps I do my fair share of shouting but I certainly do NOT disregard others points but you are failing to see, like in this thread, that we are actually not debating but talking in circles because Jim and my view is that we cant allow iran to get nukes because that will lead to them attacking Israel unprovoked (although who knows what they consider provoked if they dont already consider themselves provoked like Hamas does), the other side is saying we shouldnt/cant attack Iran because we dont know what the future holds. So this is essentially a shouting match unless we trim down the focus of the debate, no? Am I understanding you correctly.

Jim has said he is working on new versions of both games. And you're right, I just make up my worldview all by myself, instead of getting it from whatever newspaper or website. It's called independent thinking.

I am loathe to join in on this thread but I did want to point out one thing. While I agree Iran currently doesn't have a rocket that can reach our shores they certainly could in the semi-near future. They have already launched a satellite into space with the help of the Russians and are far more advanced than I think many people realize.

Sadly, as I posted in another Iran thread I really don't see a good answer to this one. I also think the situation will get much worse before it gets any better.

I should have been more clear--I was not talking about Iranian nukes, because they do not have the delivery capability. There is no dirty bomb scenario either, since the Iranians would be foolish to put any nukes in the hands of their terrorist clients.

What I meant by "uncoventional" was their sponsorship of terrorist groups. Israel has tolerated this for some time (again, since the Israeli's long range power projection capability is also rather limited).

See, I think that's what I'm talking about. Your characterization of the "other side" is pretty weak and not particularly accurate, IMO. I think people are saying there is a lot of history (other "bad" regimes - China, North Korea, Pakistan, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, and the Soviets) who talked big, but either gave up their nuclear pursuits or didn't use their weapons. And I think a lot of people subscribe to some version of international realism (although I bet most of them wouldn't sign off on realism's dismissal of arms control as a means of securing peace) that holds that countries tend to act rationally. Jim has made a good argument that maybe these countries leaders aren't rational. That is the meat of the debate, IMO. Your description of the "other side" seems to miss this point.

Turkey and the US have icy relations right now. Turkey just denied the US airspace for attacks in Iran. Kuwait is muslim, and when Iraq attacked Kuwait the whole muslim world supported the Gulf War. And people in the US don't really care if Turkey or even Kuwait is hit, but they do care about Isreal. So Iranian threats and attacks on Isreal would be a concern to the American people, so that would help them out. It would also energize other countries in the muslim world to perhaps take their side. It makes much more sense for them to attack Isreal if we attack them, I'm surprised you can't see that.

One might think there is a difference between independent thinking and contradictory and ad hoc thinking. But then again, maybe not.

Sorry, I took "unconventional" to mean "nonconventional" weapons. I agree with what you said.