Christian Zionist wrote:
CK wrote: “Islamophobia” is a word for a form of collective prejudice based on irrationality.
And what if the “prejudice” is based on rationality
Well it's not. It reminds me of the War Rhetoric of the Reformation/CounterReformation. And if you want prejudice,what's a Christian doing pretending he's a Zionist. Isn't your agenda about getting the Jews to Convert? I don't trust anyone looking to agitate a religious war who waNTS TO BE ON THE WINNING SIDE. Religious zealots are a murderous lot,no matter what side they're on.
Sully Wrote/"Disarming Iran with the megaton range nuclear weapons Israel probably has would not be a challenge."
And then Sully wrote/"...I think you make a wrong assumption when you suppose that any and all nuclear wars MUST escalate into “WW3.”
Not Must,"Might" If the Assasination of a Prince in 1914 can lead to a World War,Why is it so wrong to suggest that a Nuclear attack on Iran in 2010,could accomplish the same.
Sully/ "The U.S. could tell Israel not to attack, and it could apply harsh sanctions after an attack; but it could not stop Israel from attacking by surprise – except by attacking by surprise. . ."
And if the US felt that Israel was recklessly jeopardizing its national Security previous to this "Surprise" attack,we would be justified in forming a Defense agreement with Iran.
Do you want Israel to be in the unenviable position to be the first nation in history to preemptively nuke a nation to prevent the Nukee from having nukes. I feel it's all too possible that Russia or China would destroy Israel if they Nuked Iran,and there you have it,would the US put its citizens at risk to avenge the destroyed Israel? And Israel would have accomplished what?
"Equally damaging to the credibility of McChrystal's strategy was the Washington Post report published Thursday documenting in depth the failure of February's offensive in Marja.
The basic theme underlined in both stories - that the Afghan population in the Taliban heartland is not cooperating with U.S. and NATO forces - is likely to be repeated over and over again in media coverage in the coming months.
The Kandahar operation, which McChrystal's staff has touted as the pivotal campaign of the war, had previously been announced as beginning in June. But it is now clear that McChrystal has understood for weeks that the most basic premise of the operation turned out to be false.
http://www.counterpunch.org/porter06172010.html
"When you go to protect people, the people have to want you to protect them," said McChrystal, who was in Brussels for a NATO conference.
He didn't have to spell out the obvious implication: the people of Kandahar don't want the protection of foreign troops."
So, down the road not very far from Iranian nuclear capability you have a besieged Israel whose leaders know that a hair trigger nuclear offense is the only (semi)guarantee of national survival answering to a polity dominated by holdouts.
Israel's national survival is not in the slightest guarenteed by action that could result in WW3. In fact,an Israeli Nuke attack on Iran would force the US to prevent Israel from this action simply because WW3 is an existential threat to the US. There are a number of better options that guarantee the survival of the Jewish people. There is no government on Earth that is so important that its survival requires a Nuclear War. Period
When people avow that their God has said,
And further attest that their Prophet has writ,
That they should not rest until you are dead,
Unless you bow, and scrape and submit. . .
Believe them.
Jennifer Believes,
"There are two existential threats to Israel — a nuclear one and a political one. The first (1)may be solved only by an Israeli military action and at great human and economic cost to the Jewish state. And if Israel is (2)forced to go it alone, the (3)damage to American credibility and prestige will be immense.
The political threat will only be solved when a new occupant arrives in the White House or there is a widespread, forceful, and effective efforts to confront the actions of the current one. As to the former, I don’t know that Israel can hold out until January 2013. As to the latter, I wish there were reason for optimism.
I want to point out how assumptions are built into Jennifer's opinion that create the appearance of credibility,but are deeply disingenuous.
(1)MAY be solved,not CAN ONLY be solved????
(2)FORCED??? Who's Forcing Israel with their 200 Nukes
(3)DAMAGE??? HOW?
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/315756
they practice Shariah law from Baghdad to Birmingham, are we supposed to accept that
I accept their right to practice Shariah Law until they break American Law,
Should we amend the Constitution to Forbid the Practice of Shariah Law in America?,good luck with that one.
First of all anti-Islamism is different from anti-Muslims just as anti-Zionism is different from anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism. There are plenty of anti-Catholics,but that is different from anti-Catholicism. It is possible to distinguish the religion/organization from the individuals that belong to that organization.
I don't respect The Catholic Church,The Protestant Churches,The Jewish Church,The Islamic Church,but I respect individual Catholics,Protestants,Jews,and Moslems. I guess I just don't like Isms. One Ism always thinks it is better than other Isms,like American Exceptionalism,which I find offensive.
So what does Spenser,Mccarthy et al want?,do they insist that we prefer certain Isms over other Isms,or certain individuals above other
individuals based on what Ism they belong to?
Sully/What I said was that after Iran achieves nuclear capability sufficient to destroy Israel
In that case,why wait?
Christian Zionist wrote:
CK wrote: “Islamophobia” is a word for a form of collective prejudice based on irrationality.
And what if the “prejudice” is based on rationality
Well it's not. It reminds me of the War Rhetoric of the Reformation/CounterReformation. And if you want prejudice,what's a Christian doing pretending he's a Zionist. Isn't your agenda about getting the Jews to Convert? I don't trust anyone looking to agitate a religious war who waNTS TO BE ON THE WINNING SIDE. Religious zealots are a murderous lot,no matter what side they're on.
Sully Wrote/"Disarming Iran with the megaton range nuclear weapons Israel probably has would not be a challenge."
And then Sully wrote/"...I think you make a wrong assumption when you suppose that any and all nuclear wars MUST escalate into “WW3.”
Not Must,"Might" If the Assasination of a Prince in 1914 can lead to a World War,Why is it so wrong to suggest that a Nuclear attack on Iran in 2010,could accomplish the same.
Sully/ "The U.S. could tell Israel not to attack, and it could apply harsh sanctions after an attack; but it could not stop Israel from attacking by surprise – except by attacking by surprise. . ."
And if the US felt that Israel was recklessly jeopardizing its national Security previous to this "Surprise" attack,we would be justified in forming a Defense agreement with Iran.
Do you want Israel to be in the unenviable position to be the first nation in history to preemptively nuke a nation to prevent the Nukee from having nukes. I feel it's all too possible that Russia or China would destroy Israel if they Nuked Iran,and there you have it,would the US put its citizens at risk to avenge the destroyed Israel? And Israel would have accomplished what?
From Israel to Afghanistan:
"Equally damaging to the credibility of McChrystal's strategy was the Washington Post report published Thursday documenting in depth the failure of February's offensive in Marja.
The basic theme underlined in both stories - that the Afghan population in the Taliban heartland is not cooperating with U.S. and NATO forces - is likely to be repeated over and over again in media coverage in the coming months.
The Kandahar operation, which McChrystal's staff has touted as the pivotal campaign of the war, had previously been announced as beginning in June. But it is now clear that McChrystal has understood for weeks that the most basic premise of the operation turned out to be false.
http://www.counterpunch.org/porter06172010.html
"When you go to protect people, the people have to want you to protect them," said McChrystal, who was in Brussels for a NATO conference.
He didn't have to spell out the obvious implication: the people of Kandahar don't want the protection of foreign troops."
So, down the road not very far from Iranian nuclear capability you have a besieged Israel whose leaders know that a hair trigger nuclear offense is the only (semi)guarantee of national survival answering to a polity dominated by holdouts.
Israel's national survival is not in the slightest guarenteed by action that could result in WW3. In fact,an Israeli Nuke attack on Iran would force the US to prevent Israel from this action simply because WW3 is an existential threat to the US. There are a number of better options that guarantee the survival of the Jewish people. There is no government on Earth that is so important that its survival requires a Nuclear War. Period
When people avow that their God has said,
And further attest that their Prophet has writ,
That they should not rest until you are dead,
Unless you bow, and scrape and submit. . .
Believe them.
Jennifer Believes,
"There are two existential threats to Israel — a nuclear one and a political one. The first (1)may be solved only by an Israeli military action and at great human and economic cost to the Jewish state. And if Israel is (2)forced to go it alone, the (3)damage to American credibility and prestige will be immense.
The political threat will only be solved when a new occupant arrives in the White House or there is a widespread, forceful, and effective efforts to confront the actions of the current one. As to the former, I don’t know that Israel can hold out until January 2013. As to the latter, I wish there were reason for optimism.
I want to point out how assumptions are built into Jennifer's opinion that create the appearance of credibility,but are deeply disingenuous.
(1)MAY be solved,not CAN ONLY be solved????
(2)FORCED??? Who's Forcing Israel with their 200 Nukes
(3)DAMAGE??? HOW?
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/315756
they practice Shariah law from Baghdad to Birmingham, are we supposed to accept that
I accept their right to practice Shariah Law until they break American Law,
Should we amend the Constitution to Forbid the Practice of Shariah Law in America?,good luck with that one.
First of all anti-Islamism is different from anti-Muslims just as anti-Zionism is different from anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism. There are plenty of anti-Catholics,but that is different from anti-Catholicism. It is possible to distinguish the religion/organization from the individuals that belong to that organization.
I don't respect The Catholic Church,The Protestant Churches,The Jewish Church,The Islamic Church,but I respect individual Catholics,Protestants,Jews,and Moslems. I guess I just don't like Isms. One Ism always thinks it is better than other Isms,like American Exceptionalism,which I find offensive.
So what does Spenser,Mccarthy et al want?,do they insist that we prefer certain Isms over other Isms,or certain individuals above other
individuals based on what Ism they belong to?