Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2012, 06:06 PM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(18-08-2012 05:28 PM)shiranl Wrote:  
(18-08-2012 04:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Look at it from a non-Israeli viewpoint: if the modern state of Israel had not been created, these problems wouldn't exist.

In the sense that people feel that Palestinian/Arab/Muslim/whatever land was wrongfully taken to create Israel, then their intention to destroy Israel is rational. It is also rational for the people of Israel to do whatever they can to prevent that.

The idea that the land was wrongfully taken is certainly no more irrational than the idea that it is the "Promised Land" and was rightfully taken.

Look at it from a human viewpoint: if the modern state of Israel had not been created, these problems would be very minor in comparessment to what could have happened.
Let's think together- after WW2 the UK was economicly broken, it could not maintain its mandate anymore, so the mandate still return to the UN and they still suggest the 1947 partition plan. The Jews still accept it and declare a state, the Arabs still deny it and launch a war. So the only thing that could've happen that would reverse the result of the creation of Israel, is the Arabs winning the 1948 war. In that case- they would have finished Hitler's job. I think it is much more devastating result than a nuclear Iran.

And btw- look at the so called "Arab Spring", which is a very nice and heroic term for civil war in the entire Arab world. Israel had nothing to do with it, this is the Arabs fighting against Arabs. So yeah, without Israel the Middle East would still be a headache to the rest of the world, with the only difference- the Arabs and the world won't have Israel to blame.

No, it is not rational to want blood and death. It is just like saying "In the sense that people feel that Germany was viciously taken by the Jews, then their intention to exterminate the Jewish people is rational". It is not rational to want a war, at least not when you are a sane person.
However, to protect yourself is still remain rational. Wheather you are Israeli protecting yourself from nuclear Iran in 2012 or a Jew protecting yourself from the Nazis killing machines in 1940. It is a basic survival instinct.

And you think I am here, in this website as well as in this land, because of "promised land"? God didn't do anything to protect his so called "chosen people", which is one of the reasons I do not believe in such god, so why would I take his so called "word" as the only and ultimate reason why I deserve to be here, not by mercy but by right?
Please, read about Zionism and its founder Binyamin Zeev Hertzel, they are not the religious fanaticism you seem to think they are. Actually, they are the complete opposite.

If your state never existed, there would be no problem here. Notice the if? Yes, we are dealing with theory, not in practicality.

I do not think comparing another war over the holy land ending in defeat to a overzealous Islamic country obtaining nuclear arms is fair. You don't think this was about the Holy Land? Really? I am disappointed in you. Why choose to make a state that is surrounded by nothing but Muslims? I don't think it is because they wanted to make friends.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2012, 10:58 PM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(18-08-2012 04:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Look at it from a non-Israeli viewpoint: if the modern state of Israel had not been created, these problems wouldn't exist.

In the sense that people feel that Palestinian/Arab/Muslim/whatever land was wrongfully taken to create Israel, then their intention to destroy Israel is rational. It is also rational for the people of Israel to do whatever they can to prevent that.

The idea that the land was wrongfully taken is certainly no more irrational than the idea that it is the "Promised Land" and was rightfully taken.

You are playing right into the Islamist claims that no Muslim lands may ever revert into the hands of non-believers. This mantra by Islamists is the most despicable doctrine I can possibly think of. You realize that terrorist bombings of Madrid and East Timor were in because these were once Muslim lands. If you allow for this kind of thinking, you are advocating for perpetual religious wars in the Middle East. We very well may get that, but it is precisely because of your thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2012, 06:44 AM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(18-08-2012 10:58 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(18-08-2012 04:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Look at it from a non-Israeli viewpoint: if the modern state of Israel had not been created, these problems wouldn't exist.

In the sense that people feel that Palestinian/Arab/Muslim/whatever land was wrongfully taken to create Israel, then their intention to destroy Israel is rational. It is also rational for the people of Israel to do whatever they can to prevent that.

The idea that the land was wrongfully taken is certainly no more irrational than the idea that it is the "Promised Land" and was rightfully taken.

You are playing right into the Islamist claims that no Muslim lands may ever revert into the hands of non-believers. This mantra by Islamists is the most despicable doctrine I can possibly think of. You realize that terrorist bombings of Madrid and East Timor were in because these were once Muslim lands. If you allow for this kind of thinking, you are advocating for perpetual religious wars in the Middle East. We very well may get that, but it is precisely because of your thinking.

You misconstrue what I said, I think.
I was describing mindsets as being rational/irrational given certain assumptions.

In my view, there are no 'Muslim lands', or 'Promised Land', or 'holy ground', or 'sacred places'. Those things exist in only human minds and are memes that should be eradicated.

These claims to land are centuries old and 'justified' by myth books. The Jews have no greater claim to Palestine than the non-Jews, Muslims have no claim to lands formerly occupied by their Caliphates. Religious, tribal, sectarian thinking is what creates the conflict.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2012, 06:46 AM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(18-08-2012 04:38 PM)shiranl Wrote:  WHAT?! You are awere to the fact I am Israeli, are you?

No I wasn't. Feel free to let people know if you think it's important in the context of a discussion.

(18-08-2012 04:38 PM)shiranl Wrote:  Maybe my English is lacking of sense, maybe I haven't got enough knowledge to understand your English, but I'm pritty sure that I said exactley the same thing you said about US policy- that there is no point of a Palestinian statehood without negotiations and peace agreement with Israel. And maybe I didn't implay it well enough- but I fully support that policy.

I think I screwed up on who I was replying to. I agree that we're saying the same thing, but I'd like to hear more from you on how the requirement for a peace agreement doesn't satisfy the "recognition of existence." I've been assuming that the type of agreement required for US support would be a major agreement, and not simply a cease fire. I'm not here as an expert on US policy, just arguing that it's not irrational or otherwise comparable to Iran's policy on Israel.

Also, just FYI since we're not all of one mind on this, I'm a strong advocate for US protection of Israel, and a big fan of Israel. Whatever one feels about Israel, it was created where it is by the United Nations. The closest thing we have to a world government came together and agreed to create and recognize Israel. Iran is a member of the UN. For Iran to have a major policy against Israel which is in direct conflict with the letter and spirit of the UN is, to me, more evidence of Iran's irrationality.

(18-08-2012 05:44 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  He was agreeing with you; those comments were addressed toward me.

Yes, correct

(18-08-2012 05:44 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The flaw in those again though is I'm not saying their method is rational. Iranian leaderships desire for Israel to not exist DOES NOT equal Iran's policy for destruction of Israel. Of course that wouldn't be rational. It's a matter of principal level just as the level of U.S. and their principals on the Palestinian issue.

ClydeLee, I understand the distinction you're making - the difference between Iran's desire for Israel to not exist is different than saying they will destroy Israel. But when you look at the statements from Iran, even allowing for mis-translations, contradications and denials, I think it's clear that they're not simply saying "we wish Israel didn't exist." Much of our impression of Iran's intentions about Israel come from statements by Ahmadinejad, who will say something extreme and then when confronted with it try to diminish it's extremeness. Which, again, is how an irrational government functions. Iran has the resources to define and publish a clearly worded, unambiguous (in all languages) policy on Israel. Let them do that and make it clear that they are not committed to Israel's destruction. Until then I think the world will assume that Iran's desire for a nuke is to use it against Israel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2012, 08:10 AM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(19-08-2012 06:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-08-2012 10:58 PM)BryanS Wrote:  You are playing right into the Islamist claims that no Muslim lands may ever revert into the hands of non-believers. This mantra by Islamists is the most despicable doctrine I can possibly think of. You realize that terrorist bombings of Madrid and East Timor were in because these were once Muslim lands. If you allow for this kind of thinking, you are advocating for perpetual religious wars in the Middle East. We very well may get that, but it is precisely because of your thinking.

You misconstrue what I said, I think.
I was describing mindsets as being rational/irrational given certain assumptions.

In my view, there are no 'Muslim lands', or 'Promised Land', or 'holy ground', or 'sacred places'. Those things exist in only human minds and are memes that should be eradicated.

These claims to land are centuries old and 'justified' by myth books. The Jews have no greater claim to Palestine than the non-Jews, Muslims have no claim to lands formerly occupied by their Caliphates. Religious, tribal, sectarian thinking is what creates the conflict.

I agree that characterizing lands by religion is illegitimate and wrong. The Israelis are guilty of this as well. But yes, the Israelis have a stronger claim to the land to the extent they fought and won wars to control that land.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2012, 08:18 AM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(19-08-2012 08:10 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(19-08-2012 06:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  You misconstrue what I said, I think.
I was describing mindsets as being rational/irrational given certain assumptions.

In my view, there are no 'Muslim lands', or 'Promised Land', or 'holy ground', or 'sacred places'. Those things exist in only human minds and are memes that should be eradicated.

These claims to land are centuries old and 'justified' by myth books. The Jews have no greater claim to Palestine than the non-Jews, Muslims have no claim to lands formerly occupied by their Caliphates. Religious, tribal, sectarian thinking is what creates the conflict.

I agree that characterizing lands by religion is illegitimate and wrong. The Israelis are guilty of this as well. But yes, the Israelis have a stronger claim to the land to the extent they fought and won wars to control that land.

Well, yes, in the "might makes right" sort of way.

But to practice realpolitik, we need to acknowledge that modern Israel has existed for 60-odd years, that the attitudes of some Israelis are part of the problem, that the attitudes of many non-Israelis is an even bigger part of the problem, and that only a political solution can end the violence.

Without a political solution, a nuclear 'solution' looks all too likely if we don't keep nukes out of the hands of people and states hell-bent on the destruction of Israel.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
19-08-2012, 02:59 PM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2012 03:02 PM by shiranl.)
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(18-08-2012 06:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  But just one thing. Why did Jews want to set up the State of Israel there, in that place?

Where else? which other place in the whole world unites the whole Jewish nation? Germany? Uganda? China? Brasil? This is our homeland, proven by archeology and geneology researches, a very valid science fields. I can not deny part of it is the religion, religion I chose not to believe and not to practice, but it is not the only reason. Continious Jewish community, big or small, always exicted in the land of Israel, way before Zionism was a word. After WW2 most of the Jews in the world were uprooted, homeless and clueless. My own grandmother, after surviving the Holocaust, came back to her town and found her house ruined, unexisted. She was only a teenager, little than I am now. So what did she do? went to the next place which ressembled home for her, which was Israel. Even though she was never here before, even though the land of Israel was only pictured in her mind by the stories she heard every Shabbat night- that was the next logical place to call home. And she, apperently, wasn't the only one.


(18-08-2012 06:06 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  If your state never existed, there would be no problem here. Notice the if? Yes, we are dealing with theory, not in practicality.

I do not think comparing another war over the holy land ending in defeat to a overzealous Islamic country obtaining nuclear arms is fair. You don't think this was about the Holy Land? Really? I am disappointed in you. Why choose to make a state that is surrounded by nothing but Muslims? I don't think it is because they wanted to make friends.

Then it is only fair I would get my turn to make my own assamptions. and I did. and look at that- I even used the word if! You can accept, you can ignore it and you can oppose it. I really give a fuck.

Because this place is our birthplace, where every Jew in the world know he came from and where his history began. And in this friendly atmosphere I will refer you to Israel's Independence Declaration, where it is written, black upon yellow, that Israel indeed reach its hand to its neighbors for peace and hope for a good friendship between us in order to make benefit for the whole region.
It wasn't a holy war, at least not from the Jewish part, because I am not living in a theocracy. Israel's law isn't the Jewish religion law (Halacha) and its principles are founded on a democratic and not religious principles.

(19-08-2012 06:46 AM)Jeff Wrote:  I think I screwed up on who I was replying to. I agree that we're saying the same thing, but I'd like to hear more from you on how the requirement for a peace agreement doesn't satisfy the "recognition of existence." I've been assuming that the type of agreement required for US support would be a major agreement, and not simply a cease fire. I'm not here as an expert on US policy, just arguing that it's not irrational or otherwise comparable to Iran's policy on Israel.

Also, just FYI since we're not all of one mind on this, I'm a strong advocate for US protection of Israel, and a big fan of Israel. Whatever one feels about Israel, it was created where it is by the United Nations. The closest thing we have to a world government came together and agreed to create and recognize Israel. Iran is a member of the UN. For Iran to have a major policy against Israel which is in direct conflict with the letter and spirit of the UN is, to me, more evidence of Iran's irrationality.

Yes, you did. Not cool of you man, I was doubting my English understanding skills TongueTongueTongue

I said it didn't? Unless, of course, in that agreement is specified that the mere existence of that document doesn't necessarely mean the Palestinian state recognize Israel's legitimacy. In which case, I will sign you that Israel won't sign on such an agreement, and if in the tiny chance it will, I am letting you know that I'm going to go out to the streerts against this kind of agreement.
The peace agreement must contain a mutual recognition in each other's right for statehood.

Thank you for the clarification and your support.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2012, 06:32 PM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(18-08-2012 04:08 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Yes, they have demonstrated that they are very sovereign, what with their presidential election rigs and such.

Doesn't matter. Iran's president is like the US President's press secretary. He has no power. Just a face and voice.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2012, 06:37 PM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(19-08-2012 06:32 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(18-08-2012 04:08 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Yes, they have demonstrated that they are very sovereign, what with their presidential election rigs and such.

Doesn't matter. Iran's president is like the US President's press secretary. He has no power. Just a face and voice.

Nothing like giving the people the illusion that they are making a difference in their government's policies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2012, 06:52 PM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(19-08-2012 06:37 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(19-08-2012 06:32 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Doesn't matter. Iran's president is like the US President's press secretary. He has no power. Just a face and voice.

Nothing like giving the people the illusion that they are making a difference in their government's policies.

Eventually every nation will overthrow it's tyrannical government. It's just a matter of time. I hope, at least.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The problem with storing guns/ammo at a range Phaedrus 2 75 28-04-2014 06:25 PM
Last Post: Phaedrus
  White Privlige and Ignoring the Problem BrokenQuill92 122 2,415 23-01-2014 08:15 PM
Last Post: BnW
  Should Israel be allowed to continue to have nuclear weapons? I and I 26 838 11-04-2013 09:51 AM
Last Post: DLJ
  Is racism part of the Iran and North Korea media entertainment? I and I 14 672 09-04-2013 12:10 PM
Last Post: Logica Humano
  Training terrorists in Afghanistan to be used against Iran. I and I 4 301 02-01-2013 03:20 AM
Last Post: Bijurn
  Funding terrorists to start the war against Iran. I and I 16 607 27-10-2012 03:57 PM
Last Post: Birdguy1979
  Is a Nuclear Armed Israel Dangerous? I and I 31 1,048 22-10-2012 08:55 PM
Last Post: Vosur
Forum Jump: