quote:

---

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.

---

To cover the distance between Israel and Iran, there will be a need for refueling. Thus unless one of the (Arab/Muslim) countries in the way would conspire with Israel and allow it to refuel. A possibility would be an attack from Iraq, but would Shii Iraq allow an attack on Shii Iran, let alone a fellow Muslim country ?

Would an attack be actually enabled by the US and through US forcing it on the (though puppet) Iraqi government ? The consequences would be unbearable for the US in Iraq.

Such scenario would unleash such furor within Islamic and Arab lands that no local client regime and its US support would be able to contain.

quote:

---

This sounds like BS from the times. -500_Apples

---

Could be from the Times, could be from CIA/Mossad.

quote:

---

Think about it. If Israel is developing a plan to shut down Iran's nuclear ambitions, it would obviously not reveal details of the tactical plan.

---

No details of tactical plan were revealed. Simply answers to anticipated questions such as "How could Israel do it from a 3 200 kilometers distance ? Besides, when the US was to invade Iraq, it did not shy from saying so.

quote:

---

Israel has drawn up plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, according to a report in the London-based Sunday Times on Sunday morning.

In March 2005 The Sunday Times reported that Israel has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear program.

The British newspaper then claimed that the inner cabinet of former prime minister Ariel Sharon, had given "initial authorization" for an attack at a private meeting on his ranch in the Negev.

---

Jerusalem Post

quote:

---

I believe it and sadly I don't see any way to stop it.
Irans president has made it quite clear his position on Israel,and he will strike back with force. -Centerfield

---

The "position" referred to here -I assume- is "Israel must be wiped off the map", which is a spin, a lie, peddled by msm media that totally ignored the truth -in interpreting the farsi uttering the Irani president.

But let us suppose it is true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centerfield:
I believe it and sadly I don't see any way to stop it.
Irans president has made it quite clear his position on Israel,and he will strike back with force.

Jerusalem Post

Big Egos keep pushing the buttons at the cost of millions of lives.

---

Ahh so, Israel must use to nukes to prevent a nuclear attack. Ahhh. I am sure the people of the world will be more than able to distinguish right from wrong.

A madman who holds antisemitic Holocaust denial conferences has made a claim that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. Then there are some here trying to explain that he doesnt really mean Israel, that he means the "Zionist entity".

What total shit. He means what he says. He said he would have a conferenc to show the Holocaust didnt happen and he did. He knows full well that the only way to to wipe Israel off the map is to destroy it entirely. Why dont people listen to madmen with power?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
I just find it sad that only Israel must always justify its existance.

---

Can you point to any demands in this thread for Israel to justify its existence?

quote:

---

A madman who holds antisemitic Holocaust denial conferences has made a claim that he wants to wipe Israel off the map.

---

A madman? Anyone else having a flashback to 2002/2003 when Saddam was just the craziest dictator every?

And aside from ignoring what's repeatedly been pointed out to you -- that his remarks were badly translated -- you're ignoring the fact that he's not the sole ruler of Iran. His position is largely ceremonial (though he's certainly done his best to consolidate his own power).

quote:

---

Jews are no longer expendable. Those who threaten another wholesale murder of jews/Israel will reap their own sad rewards.

---

quote:

---

A British newspaper reported Sunday that Israel has drafted plans to strike as many as three targets in Iran with low-yield nuclear weapons, aiming to halt Tehran's uranium enrichment program. The Israeli Foreign Ministry denied the report.

Citing multiple unidentified Israeli military sources, The Sunday Times said the proposals involved using so-called "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons to attack nuclear facilities at three sites south of the Iranian capital.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said it would not respond to the claim. "We don't respond to publications in the Sunday Times," said Miri Eisin, Olmert's spokeswoman.

"I refuse to believe that anyone here would consider using nuclear weapons against Iran," Reuven Pedatzur, a prominent defense analyst and columnist for the daily Haaretz, told the AP. "It is possible that this was a leak done on purpose, as deterrence, to say 'someone better hold us back, before we do something crazy."'

Ephraim Kam, a strategic expert at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Strategic Studies and a former senior army intelligence officer, also dismissed the report.

"No reliable source would ever speak about this, certainly not to the Sunday Times," Kam said.

---

Only Israel can attack and invade and occupy.

Only Israel can threaten and bully and bluster.

Only Israel can build their military might and seek protection from its neighbours.

If anyone else tries to act as Israel acts, then they are a danger, but never Israel itself.

quote:

---

I just find it sad that only Israel must always justify its existance.

A madman who holds antisemitic Holocaust denial conferences has made a claim that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. Then there are some here trying to explain that he doesnt really mean Israel, that he means the "Zionist entity".

---

And you have no concerns that the racist state of Israel has elevated an openly racist madman to deputy prime minister and that very same man has advocated the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and wiping Iran of the map with nuclear weapons. That doesn't bother you at all?

[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

A madman who holds antisemitic Holocaust denial conferences has made a claim that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. Then there are some here trying to explain that he doesnt really mean Israel, that he means the "Zionist entity". -Ohara

---

It does nothing to enhance your credibility to pull out the "madman" canard that the biased msm media attaches to any leader who opposes the USA and Israel.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaG:
Israel is denying that it's planning a nuke attack on Iran...I don't believe that they would be planning this either, and I really hope that it's not true.

---

Is Israel really denying it though, I do not really get that they are from the article you quoted?

1st comment:

quote:

---

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said it would not respond to the claim. "We don't respond to publications in the Sunday Times," said Miri Eisin, Olmert's spokeswoman.

---

They did not deny it, they said they would not respond to publications in the "Sunday Times".

2nd comment:

quote:

---

Israeli Minister of Strategic Threats Avigdor Lieberman also declined to comment on the report.

---

Again no comment,not a denial, and why would they comment just to say: "yes, were are going to do this?"

3rd comment:

quote:

---

Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev denied the report and said that "the focus of the Israeli activity today is to give full support to diplomatic actions" and the implementation of a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt enrichment.

---

He denied it for "today" only, as he said; Israeli activity today is to give full support to diplomatic actions. What tomorrow or next week brings is another is what is left unsaid by him utilizing "today". That left unsaid portion is bolstered by his saying the implementation of a UN resolution imposing sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt enrichment.

UN resolutions for sanctions and their enforcement are not diplomatic actions.

4th comment of note depicting that Israel denied nothing is:

quote:

---

Though Olmert has not explicitly ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear program...

---

Then at the end of the article, after the paper stated that it has proof that Israeli air force has been on training flights for that purpose comes the 5th comment of no denial.

quote:

---

The Israeli army declined to comment when asked by The Associated Press...whether the Israeli air force was training for an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities.

---

Even the prominent defense analysist that "refuses to believe" tha Israel would do this actually says the opposite with:

quote:

---

It is possible that this was a leak done on purpose, as deterrence, to say 'someone better hold us back, before we do something crazy."

---

Really, he is confirming it as he says it was possible a leak was done on purpose to say hold Israel back before they do something. A leak means just that, a security breach in the secret plans.

In essence, if it was not true, there would be no leak, and nothing for the world to stop because nothing like that was in the works. Otherwise his "leak" comments make no sense.

And the concluding opinion, was not a denial either, he just said: "No reliable source would ever speak about this".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
...There is not even a weak link...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:

Moreover, most madmen are harmless. .

---

Stalin=madman
Hitler=madman
PolPot=madman

quote:

---

Stalin=madman
Hitler=madman
PolPot=madman

And these three were certainly harmless -Ohara

---

You forgeot a few, Ohara. But it seems that "madmen" to you are only those identified as so by the biased, corporatist, media.

If you paid attention, you would have realized that I said "most madmen are harmless". There are millions of them in the world and you named three in your rebuttal attempt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:

That's what I thought.

---

The same old story: Israelis equivocate, and the corporate/zionist media re-interprets to give a preferred impression.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:

The "position" referred to here -I assume- is "Israel must be wiped off the map", which is a spin, a lie, peddled by msm media that totally ignored the truth -in interpreting the farsi uttering the Irani president.

But let us suppose it is true.

I hope you are not implying that this is a tit for tat. It is not. It is a tit for a disaster of great proportions, of grave consequences.

---

The position is,both sides are moving closer to conflict.

Please tell me where you see a light at the end of the tunnel?
Read "Reminds" thread,I agree with it.

You don't have to convince me whether "Israel must be wiped off the map" is misinterpreted or mot.It's Israel who believe these comments are a threat and obviously are proceeding with action.Or at least the rumors are saying so.

It just seems to me that the situation is getting worse not better.

[QUOTE] It is a tit for a disaster of great proportions, of grave consequences.[/QB]

My feelings exactly.

I guess the really confusing part to me is why Ahmadinejad would hold that Holocaust Denial Conference with guests like David Duke.

Why do this when tensions were already high.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centerfield:

I guess the really confusing part to me is why Ahmadinejad would hold that Holocaust Denial Conference with guests like David Duke.

---

Following the "Mohammed Cartoons" scandal, which westerners claimed fell within freedom of speech, Ahmadinejad wanted to see if we practiced what we preach, by roasting one of the west's sacred cows.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Legless-Marine:

Following the "Mohammed Cartoons" scandal, which westerners claimed fell within freedom of speech, Ahmadinejad wanted to see if we practiced what we preach, by roasting one of the west's sacred cows.

To the west, this mockery of our own sacred belief was unacceptable and an incitement. To the Arab/Muslim world, it was just a confirmation of Western hypocrisy.

---

quote:

---

Ahmadinejad wanted to see if we practiced what we preach, by roasting one of the west's sacred cows.

---

The cartoons were posted by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten,not by any Jewish news agency.
It was the epitome of stupidity to publish these,but I don't believe any Jews were involved.(I'm not sure of this).

It's was a very dangerous game for Ahmadinejad to play(Justified or not),it was reckless Imo.

[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: Centerfield ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:
The "position" referred to here -I assume- is "Israel must be wiped off the map", which is a spin, a lie, peddled by msm media that totally ignored the truth -in interpreting the farsi uttering the Irani president.

---

Yep, what he really said is something like "I love Israel."
An honest mistake in interpreting Farsi. Also his Holocaust denying conference was really....a "scientific exploration" as well his cartoon contest was a "good will" exchange which "logically" was in response to the Danish cartoons.

And finally Iran is developing nukes (and enriching uranium) for peaceful methods.

If you believe ll this...I have a bridge to sell you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
The US and Britain, both of which flout the NPT in the same way (and with the same moral authority) Capone flouted prohibition

---

quote:

---

Yep, what he really said is something like "I love Israel."
An honest mistake in interpreting Farsi. Also his Holocaust denying conference was really....a "scientific exploration" as well his cartoon contest was a "good will" exchange which "logically" was in response to the Danish cartoons. -Peech

---

It seems that only one of us relies on the one-sided, selective and in some cases pro-Zionist owned msm media as a reliable source and surely it is not me.

quote:

---

and finally Iran is developing nukes (and enriching uranium) for peaceful methods.

---

First of all, there is as much evidence that Iran is developing nukes for other than peaceful purposes as much as there was evidence of Iraq's WMD "arsenal". Second, if it actually is, we cannot say that Israel's nuclear arsenal is meant to lay a bed of roses over the region.

quote:

---

If you believe ll this...I have a bridge to sell you.

The Times story is just just bull ticky or propaganda. Israel and the US know it is now impossible to stop Iran militarily (at least not without all out war) because most of its "peaceful" nuclear programs are scattered and under ground.

---

I appeal to your own sens of fairness: Don't you think Iran and the US should first declare an all out war against Israel for its nuclear arsenal and then Israel and the US would get busy with Iran ? Why not ?

[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]

quote:

---

Not strictly accurate, but not through any virtue of the US and Britain. The NPT says that those countries (along with France, USSR/Russia, and China) are allowed to have nuclear weapons, and nobody else is. Israel, on the other hand, is flouting the rules (as are India, Pakistan, and the DPRK).

---

When I say the US and Britain have flouted the rules, that is accurate and I could even add flagrantly. The rules of the NPT also call for the nuclear powers to disarm. Not only has the US and Britain (and all the nuclear powers) failed to disarm, but both have made plans to increase or improve (not in a good way) their nuclear capabilities and could trigger an arms races (arguably already underway) in the process.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, and, not surprisingly at all given the rank hypocrisy of the "great powers", is under no pressure to sign the NPT or to adhere to the rules voluntarily.

---

quote:

---

When I say the US and Britain have flouted the rules, that is accurate and I could even add flagrantly. The rules of the NPT also call for the nuclear powers to disarm. Not only has the US and Britain (and all the nuclear powers) failed to disarm, but both have made plans to increase or improve (not in a good way) their nuclear capabilities and could trigger an arms races (arguably already underway) in the process.

---

quote:

---

The US and Britain have no moral or legal authority to dictate to anyone about anything. Both nations are hypocritical and corrupt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:
An Israeli nuclear attack is very unlikely, for logistical and (consequently) political reasons.

To cover the distance between Israel and Iran, there will be a need for refueling. Thus unless one of the (Arab/Muslim) countries in the way would conspire with Israel and allow it to refuel. A possibility would be an attack from Iraq, but would Shii Iraq allow an attack on Shii Iran, let alone a fellow Muslim country ?

Would an attack be actually enabled by the US and through US forcing it on the (though puppet) Iraqi government ? The consequences would be unbearable for the US in Iraq.

Such scenario would unleash such furor within Islamic and Arab lands that no local client regime and its US support would be able to contain.

I would suggest that this is a hot balloon by Israel and the US secret services to attempt to provoke activities in Iran's nuclear facilities (movements, evacuations etc..) for their spying eyes.

---

quote:

---

To cover the distance between Israel and Iran, there will be a need for refueling. Thus unless one of the (Arab/Muslim) countries in the way would conspire with Israel and allow it to refuel.

---

Jericho III is thought to have been in service since mid-2005. With a payload of 1,000 - 1,300 kg it has a range of 4,800 km. This gives Israel nuclear strike capability against any Arab state (as well as all of Africa and Europe, and most of Asia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_missile

Would there be any backlash against Israel if they took out the Nuclear facilities with minimal casualties.Who would this be (excluding Iran of course)?

Who would back up Iran if they were to counter attack ?

quote:

---

2006 study on consequences of a regional nuclear war
A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (ca. 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated fatalities from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. Also, as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers

---

In reply to your mentioning the Jericho III that can go some diatance...

The Times article says:

quote:

---

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources ...

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

---

So, reading the article, one understands that it will not be a missile, but a bomb that will be guided from a squadron of airplane(s).

quote:

---

Would there be any backlash against Israel if they took out the Nuclear facilities with minimal casualties.Who would this be (excluding Iran of course)?

Who would back up Iran if they were to counter attack ?

God forbid this should ever happen,but I'm just curious who the players would be.(I really don't know how it would play out) -Centerfield

---

There might not be a backlash against Israel in the sens of regimes or governments (most are either unconditional allies of the US (i.e, Europe) or in the US pocket (so to speak). The upheavel would be from the populations.

We cannot forever count on Arabs and Muslims' abilities to absorb humiliations. Furthermore, Al-Qaeda would open franchises in big cities and small hamlets for recruits.

[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by eau:
It is difficult for me to think that nuclear attacks are even being discussed. The world has gone mad. I saw this today and saved it.

How could anyone sane be even thinking about this. How many dead ?

---

It is madness.

This report was from last May,and tensions have gotton worse since then with negotiations failing.

quote:

---

Last week, Israeli Knesset member Effie Eitam, a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said in a WND interview Israel and the international community should consider carrying out strategic strikes now against Iran's nuclear facilities to stall its suspected uranium-enrichment activities.

Eitam, a former Israeli army general, warned the Jewish state would need to attack Iran by itself if the international community led by the United States fails to successfully halt Tehran's nuclear program within about a year.

"With or without a world coalition, Israel will have to take action at some point when we are fully sure Iran's nuclear project is coming to a point of no return," he said. " I am worried all mechanisms of diplomacy used by the Iranians in response to the international movement against it are to buy time as they camouflage the real nature of their programs."

---

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50356

[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: Centerfield ]

quote:

---

So, reading the article, one understands that it will not be a missile, but a bomb that will be guided from a squadron of airplane(s).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:
So, reading the article, one understands that it will not be a missile, but a bomb that will be guided from a squadron of airplane(s)

---

A missiles aren't reliably precise enough for the kind of strike described. Moreso if they're carrying a payload the size of a nuke.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centerfield:
Holy smokes,they (Israel) punished Palestine relentlessly for kidnapping two soldiers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
I just find it sad that only Israel must always justify its existance.

A madman who holds antisemitic Holocaust denial conferences has made a claim that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. Then there are some here trying to explain that he doesnt really mean Israel, that he means the "Zionist entity".

What total shit. He means what he says. He said he would have a conferenc to show the Holocaust didnt happen and he did. He knows full well that the only way to to wipe Israel off the map is to destroy it entirely. Why dont people listen to madmen with power?

Jews are no longer expendable. Those who threaten another wholesale murder of jews/Israel will reap their own sad rewards.

---

That is a pile of crap.

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:
Centerfield,
We cannot forever count on Arabs and Muslims' abilities to absorb humiliations. Furthermore, Al-Qaeda would open franchises in big cities and small hamlets for recruits.

[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]

---

You mean like New York, Toronto, LA, Paris and Berlin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:

You forgeot a few, Ohara. But it seems that "madmen" to you are only those identified as so by the biased, corporatist, media.

If you paid attention, you would have realized that I said "most madmen are harmless". There are millions of them in the world and you named three in your rebuttal attempt.

Are you thick-skulled or you just can't read ?

---

Nice. More Israeli morality. What do you folks call it? Oh yeah: "Purity of arms."

That is a joke.

But above all lets not talk about:

quote:

---

On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. Why??I asked the soldier. Its an order this is a Jews-only road? he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here??

---

From: Israeli Prize laureate and former Cabinet minister Shulamit Aloni

Now that is mad.

Purity of Bullshit more like. Keep it flowing deep and strong.

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centerfield:

The cartoons were posted by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten,not by any Jewish news agency.
It was the epitome of stupidity to publish these,but I don't believe any Jews were involved.(I'm not sure of this).

It's was a very dangerous game for Ahmadinejad to play(Justified or not),it was reckless Imo.

---

Yeah, but a lot of Israelis made fun of them when the cartoon fiasco was happening, didn't they? Wasn't it an Israeli media outlet who held "anti-semitic cartoon" contests in order to show that Jews have a sense of humour as opposed to those barbarian Muslims who can't take a joke, etc. And it was much of the western media who went on about how stupid the reaction was to the cartoons, but that same media freaked out about the Holocaust conference.

Heh. And I'm one of those people who thought the reaction to the cartoons was ridiculous, undemocratic, fundamentalist and stupid. They were fucking cartoons, for god sake. Imagine, demonstrating in the streets and uttering death threats over a bunch of stupid frigging cartoons making fun of religion. (And I saw the cartoons in Harpers - they weren't even that bad.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centerfield:
Would there be any backlash against Israel if they took out the Nuclear facilities with minimal casualties.Who would this be (excluding Iran of course)?

Who would back up Iran if they were to counter attack ?

---

There sure would be backlash from countries in the region if they were to do that, and who could blame them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

Yeah, but a lot of Israelis made fun of them when the cartoon fiasco was happening, didn't they? Wasn't it an Israeli media outlet who held "anti-semitic cartoon" contests in order to show that Jews have a sense of humour as opposed to those barbarian Muslims who can't take a joke, etc. And it was much of the western media who went on about how stupid the reaction was to the cartoons, but that same media freaked out about the Holocaust conference.

Heh. And I'm one of those people who thought the reaction to the cartoons was ridiculous, undemocratic, fundamentalist and stupid. They were fucking cartoons, for god sake. Imagine, demonstrating in the streets and uttering death threats over a bunch of stupid frigging cartoons making fun of religion. (And I saw the cartoons in Harpers - they weren't even that bad.)

However, Ahmadinejad did prove a point, didn't he? Free speech for western imperialists to attack what Muslims hold sacred and ridicule their outraged reaction to that attack, but universal condemnation and sabre-rattling on the part of Israel and the US when an Islamic government attacks what the west holds sacred and holds some stupid conference that no self-respecting scholar would consider academically meaningful.

---

It's amazing. You do it and you don't even see you're doing it. How do you do that?

Oh, and you're right, it wasn't an Israeli media outlet who hosted the contest. It was an Israeli illustrator who got tons of exposure by Israeli and western media. My mistake.

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Then of course we will hear the canard about David Duke, perhaps with the references to his past remarks in Hustler Magazine. What I can't understand is why Amedinejad giving David Duke a platform to disseminate his views makes him an anti-semite, while Larry Flynt is not, even though way more people read Hustler than they do the Iranian press -- this is probably true, even in Iran.

Be that as it may it seems the formula being applied is that the powers that be in Iran say mean things, and hold event of questionable taste, and that means we can irradiate them: lovely.

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

A total of 102 two-seat F-16Is will be delivered to Israel under two production contracts worth a combined $4.4 billion. The first aircraft will arrive early next year and subsequent deliveries will occur at a rate of two per month spanning about four years.

Acquired through the US government's Peace Marble V programme, the fighters will gradually replace the IAF's existing inventories of A-4 Skyhawk ground-attack and F-4 Phantom strike aircraft (Jane's Defence Weekly 30 April). The F-16 will provide the backbone of the air force's future strike capability - the latest acquisition brings to 362 the number of the aircraft delivered to the IAF. Dubbed the Soufa (Storm), the new aircraft will augment more than 230 F-16s now in service, as well as the IAF's fleet of more than 90 F-15-series fighters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
You're the one who conflated the two, right in this thread. Check out your earlier post. You used the Holocaust conference as justification for Israel's current sabre-rattling against Iran.

It's amazing. You do it and you don't even see you're doing it. How do you do that?

Oh, and you're right, it wasn't an Israeli media outlet who hosted the contest. It was an Israeli illustrator who got tons of exposure by Israeli and western media. My mistake.

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
How is it that anyone here (progressives?) even wants to come close to this guy? It boggles the imagination.

---

Now, Israel may however use 'traditional' weapons against Iran - depending on how well protected their facilities are. They found a way to get the Iraqi facilities - and Mossad can probably do it again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:

Ok Sidra indulge us, which "mad" world leaders are harmless?

---

You just moved the goal posts. That's dishonest.

quote:

---

Michelle:
However, Ahmadinejad did prove a point, didn't he? Free speech for western imperialists to attack what Muslims hold sacred and ridicule their outraged reaction to that attack, but universal condemnation and sabre-rattling on the part of Israel and the US when an Islamic government attacks what the west holds sacred and holds some stupid conference that no self-respecting scholar would consider academically meaningful.

---

It was a perverse "point" which had an evil "logic." Cartoons "poking fun" of Mohamed (the same cartoons were published in Egyptian newspapers almost a year earlier without even a mention)have no relation to "hate" literature. (i.e cartoons of Hitler smoking in bed with Anne Frank with the caption "write that in your diary") Quite frankly there is a gross difference between glorifying hate propaganda and freedom of speech. If you are confused then I suggest a tiny bit of legal research. And if the Mohamed cartoons were hateful then a determination by a court (using community standards) would be the correct forum.
Also FYI hate mongers (such as Ernst Zundel) have traditionally been hiding behind "freedom of speech."

Anne Frank "Cartoon"

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Peech ]

Obviously anyone who would make such a cartoon is a sick fucker. But sick fuckers should have just as much right to their sick beliefs and their sick expression of those sick beliefs as anyone else, as long as they aren't threatening to harm anyone, making plans with other people to harm anyone, telling people to harm anyone, or hraming anyone in the production of them. Their right to free speech shouldn't be curtailed by your wish not to be offended.

There's lots of utterly tasteless and nasty stuff out there. All sorts of horrible jokes I don't find funny and racist idiots who say stuff that makes me want to puke. Check out some of the grittier porn magazines if you want to see cartoons that are just as misogynist as any anti-semitic cartoon out there.

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Hate law in Canada

Application of Hate Law in Canada (old but useful article)

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Peech ]

From an outsider's perspective, it is easy to see Islam being scapegoated in the same way Jews in Europe were 70 years ago. And it seems people are shocked hate flows both ways.

But Michelle makes a valid argument. Is speech always free, or only when someone else is the target of incitement or hate?

quote:

---

I suggest you inform yourself about the law against hate literature because the law does in fact protect us (like it or not) from some of the examples you cite as "free speech" including the dear old President of Iran's (misunderstood or mistranslated) intentions in holding his (hate) cartoon festival and Holocaust deniers love in

---

You keep going on about that and yet there is no misunderstanding of the hate expressed by Israel's deputy prime minister or the beloved supremacist and racist, Bibi. Again, it seems one man's hate is another man's blind eye.

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Michelle may have no problem with those who promote hatred against identiable groups but Canadians have seen fit to support a law that makes such expression illegal and I for one am glad it exists.

I can spell it: h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s.

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Peech ]

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Or, conversely, those who stopped him from speaking also supported the free speech rights of the cartoonists and do not support hate speech laws against women and minorities?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
Michelle put yourself in the shoes of a Jewish or Muslim child verbally maligned because he wears a skullcap or she wears a Hijab.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Bibi was prevented at one event. How many venues did he speak at where he was warmly welcomed despite his hateful and racist message? Good that you can spell what you are.

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I stopped Bibi from speaking?

Or, conversely, those who stopped him from speaking also supported the free speech rights of the cartoonists and do not support hate speech laws against women and minorities?

I strongly doubt it.

---

Those who advocate stopping him (because of..... hate speech) apparently by their own admission (here) support the freedom of speech, of Holocaust denying cartoons and a Holocaust denying "conferences."

Is that what you mean?

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Peech ]

But accroding to you that justifies spreading fissile material all over Iran. Lovely.

You complaing about challenges to Bibi's "rights" but seem to be completely fine with irradiating millions because of some dumb conference about which you know nothing.

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

But he appears to have forgotten that I am already a member of a traditionally persecuted group. I am a woman who doesn't have to travel far (certainly not seeking out fringe, far-right neo-nazi web sites) to find misogynist stuff all over the place. In fact, I'm willing to bet that there is a hell of a lot more misogynist literature, cartoons, broadcasts, movies, music, and speech readily available in the mainstream than there is anti-semitic stuff.

You think I can't find the misogynist equivalent of that Anne Frank cartoon out there? I'd tell you to pull your head out of your (most likely) white, male, privileged ass, but I'm way too polite for that, as you know, so I'll just say: Dream on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
The point is, while I certainly don't appreciate people exercising their free speech in such a manner, and I think they're assholes for doing so, I certainly wouldn't make it illegal to do so.

---

With all due respect, the point is that while you might not make it illegal, the legality is a question of degree to be examined by the courts using the guidelines set out by the laws in question which were drafted by those who do make the law. Ridiculing the Holocaust or its victims in such a way to incite hatred upon a class of people IS illegal.

Application of the laws against Hate

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Peech ]

Good for you.

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

You think I can't find the misogynist equivalent of that Anne Frank cartoon out there? I'd tell you to pull your head out of your (most likely) white, male, privileged ass, but I'm way too polite for that, as you know, so I'll just say: Dream on.

---

quote:

---

Canadian law is pretty specific. If Bibi is in Canada and breaks canadian law he can be prosecuted.
Michelle may have no problem with those who promote hatred against identiable groups but Canadians have seen fit to support a law that makes such expression illegal and I for one am glad it exists.

Michelle put yourself in the shoes of a Jewish or Muslim child verbally maligned because he wears a skullcap or she wears a Hijab.Imagine if you were a woman of colour having to put up with taunts from white racists or a Roma mother protecting your children from a Neo-Nazi demonstration that call you and your people thieves and garbage. Try just for a moment. -Petsy

---

I am not even close to being functional in English. I would like, however, to offer to summarize all the above in one sentence:

Imagine you are a Palestinian under Israeli occupation.

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
"Most likely"..you are something else. You have no idea of my backround. You are so full of biased assumptions. Really crass shit Michelle. Whatever our differences how sad that you stoop so low.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

I'd tell you to pull your head out of your (most likely) white, male, privileged ass, but

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
"Most likely"..you are something else. You have no idea of my backround. You are so full of biased assumptions. Really crass shit Michelle. Whatever our differences how sad that you stoop so low.

---

Heh. This is really funny. You weren't even posting during that conversation and I was pretty clearly addressing Petsy, and yet you answer as though I had been addressing you. Are you Petsy?

Anyhow, often when you howl you're hit. And your reaction is so predictable - take a post that makes a point you can't refute and quibble over a questionable side comment.

It's been my experience that when a man writes ignorant, lecturing crap to a woman about discrimination, forgetting that women live with discrimination every day, that it's usually a white guy. Also, since Petsy's overwrought writing style is pretty much exactly the same as a former babbler who I know was a white man, I guess I just figured chances were good.

Of course, you probably noticed that I put "most likely" in brackets. I put that there in order to acknowledge the possibility that maybe he isn't white.

So, have I fully addressed your little diversion? Enough for you to answer the substance of my post? Or would that be too inconvenient?

[ 09 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Try as I might I cannot seem to find anything on record about a hateful message delievered by Bibi here in canada that would violate our hate laws. Perhaps you can help me out.

---

quote:

---

So only if he preaches hate in Canada that is a concern to you? So then why do you give a shit was someone says in Iran? That's not Canada either. The hypocrisy is deeper than the shit at a dairy farm. Frustrated Mess

---

quote:

---

Anti-War Movement's Strange Allies: Hard Line Islamists
Khomeini: admirers in the ranks.
Canada's progressive Muslims wonder why left would embrace theocrats.
By Terry Glavin
Published: November 22, 2006

This is what it's come to: a disgraced, dictator-praising British MP who dances around in red tights on reality-television shows is visiting Canada to commemorate the founding of a fascist movement known for its own distinctive swastika and Nazi-style uniforms and an anthem that's sung to the tune of Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles.

And it's just another otherwise unremarkable day in the life of Canada's "anti-war" movement.

Just how things degenerated so badly, and so fast, is a long and sad story.

The upshot is that Canada's anti-war movement has become not only the primary vehicle for an obscure, formerly left-wing group that attacks anyone who opposes Shariah courts in Canada, it's also now the main source of public respectability for a Toronto think-tank that advocates for the establishment of theocracies that hang gay people.

It's also a story that has left Canada's progressive Muslims in despair, in disarray, and sometimes in fear for their lives. ......

But are Islamists really the same as fascists? Fred Halliday, the Middle East scholar and professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, says he doesn't think so, but writing in the online journal Open Democracy, Halliday argues that it hardly matters, because just like fascism, Islamism is antithetical to everything the left has ever stood for. It is the sworn enemy of the left, "that is, the left that has existed on the principles founded on and descended from classical socialism, the Enlightenment, the values of the revolutions of 1798 and 1848, and generations of experience."

But if you regard the United States as a greater enemy of the left than even Islamism, "what you end up with," says Hashmi, "is 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.'" And that brings us back to the degeneracy of the "anti-war" activism represented by Galloway and his followers in Britain and in Canada, in their alliance with Islamists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
Strawman arguments. Guilt by association. All the hallmarks of the red baiting of the Cold War era.

---

Yep that Terry Glavin is a real red-neck red-baiter.Glavin Bio

More On Terry Glavin

[ 09 January 2007: Message edited by: Peech ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peech:
Anti-War Movement in Bed with hard line Muslims

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
How many times does this Glavin piece need to be discussed on babble. Weekly? Every other week? It appears to be a trend.

---

quote:

---

Fourth offence: Expressing some dismay that vast sections of Canada’s “antiwar” left had actually taken sides in the Israeli-Hezbollah war that had just broken out. And that the side they chose was that of Hezbollah, led by the fanatical Jew-hater Hassan Nasrallah (“If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.” The New Yorker, October 14, 2002), whose dirty work in Lebanon is paid for by the tyrant, Holocaust denier, and homosexual-lyncher Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

---