quote:

---

A 75-year-old chief from Iraq's powerful Tamim tribe was thrown to his death from the top of a Baghdad building after gunmen kidnapped him from a funeral, a relative said today ...

Although Mohammed Suhail is a Sunni, nearly two thirds of his tribe is Shi'ite and he was known as a moderate who was working to reconcile Baghdad's warring communities, his nephew said ...

Tamim is a leading tribe in the Arab world with clans in countries like Syria and Jordan as well as Iraq.

---

I read that story after reading this one:

quote:

---

But less clear is whether Bush will stop at a 20,000-troop escalation in Iraq or whether he will “double-down” his Middle East bet further by expanding the war beyond Iraq’s borders to confront other U.S. adversaries in Syria and Iran.

Along with Israeli leaders, Bush has declared that Iranian progress on a possible nuclear bomb is unacceptable. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has even called the prospect an “existential threat” to Israel.

But Bush and Olmert are facing a ticking clock if they want to act before they lose one of their few remaining international allies. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has agreed to resign from his post sometime in the spring.

So, with Bush purging his regional military commanders by March – and presumably replacing them with more pliable generals – the next few months could prove to be crucial for the future of the Middle East.

---

And I couldn't help but thinking, what if they are all seeking regional conflagaration but for wholly different reasons?

The US neo-conservtives fronted by Bush and Dick are seeking the New American Century through control over ME resources.

Israel is hoping to eliminate the last regional rival for a final push for Eretz Israel and dominion over the lesser Arabs.

And Iran thinks that by stoking Shi'ite and Sunni tensions, throuh its Iraqi proxies, it can provoke a wider, regional war that will engulf its enemies in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf states while at the same time trapping the US army in the ensuing hell fire leaving it crippled and the US, a sworn enemy and empire, in inexorable decline.

Is it possible they can all be that mad?

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peech:
nonsense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Yeah, I think there's a 50/50 chance they are thinking like that. Wars seem to build momentum that way. I think Freud wasn't too far off with his concept of "death wish."

---

The present Iranian regime is motivated by Jihadism and it's intent is the elimination of external infidels. (It has the means to do serious damage and is seeking "better" technology.)Its aim is to be the next superpower in the ME. Furthermore it has always assisted any group with money and weapons that has the destruction of Israel as its objective.

Israel is motivated by self preservation and survival.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: Peech ]

quote:

---

Israel is motivated by self preservation and survival.

---

Racism and expansion is what motivates Israel.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peech:
The present Iranian regime is motivated by Jihadism and it's intent is elimination of the infidels. (It has the means to do serious damage and is seeking "better" technology.)Its aim is to be the next superpower in the ME. Furthermore it has always assisted any group with money and weapons that has the destruction of Israel as its objective.

---

quote:

---

The background of Holocaust denial policy and undermining the legitimacy of Israel 's existence: the Iranian regime's anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli worldview:

11. The Iranian Islamic regime's anti-Semitic worldview is built into the ideology of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian Islamic Republic, and his successors. Khomeini wanted to restore the Islamic Caliphate, in which all Muslims would live as a single community ruled by Muslim law (the Shai'ah). Like the prophet Muhammad, who waged a holy war against the infidels, the Iranian Islamic regime led by Khomeini set out to wage a war to the death against contemporary infidels, central among them “the great Satan,” the United States, and “the little Satan,” Israel.

12. In the perceptions of both Khomeini and the heads of the Iranian regime, no real distinction is made between Israel and the Jewish, and their virulent anti-Israeli ideology is laced with anti-Semitism and a fundamental hatred for the West, particularly the United States . Both Shi'ite religious law and the teaching of Khomeini define the Jews, like the followers of all religions which are not Islam, as infidels and unclean. Khomeini regarded the Jews as the enemies of Islam, and that perception was strengthened by the fact that the Jews and “world Zionism” were identified as allies of the Shah (whose regime was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution). Furthermore the Jews, he claimed, deprived the Palestinians of their rights and land and established a country in the middle of the Muslim world. The “liberation” of Palestine and Jerusalem were and are the cornerstones of the Iranian regime's internal and inter-Arab legitimacy, and the justification for its negative stance toward Israel , the Jewish people, the United States , the West and the peace process in the Middle East .

13. In addition, Khomeini and his successors view the Jews as plotting to take over the world, and that image is rooted in the minds of the heads of the Iranian Islamic regime. For them, the Jews play an overt or covert role in every international event or crisis, they control global media (including the film industry, especially in America), founded the Freemasons to carry out their plots to rule the world and prevent the spread of Islam, exert pressure on the decision-makers of the United States and Europe, and are even accused of supporting terrorist organizations around the world to create crises. Therefore they are a threat and danger to the world. One of the “proofs” is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion , which have a central place in the anti-Semitic publications issued in Iran9 .

14. The Iranian aspiration to destroy the State of Israel is also political. According to the ruling clerics in Iran , Judaism is considered a religion, not a nationality, and thus the Jews are not necessarily deserving of a state of their own. Thus there is no place for a Jewish state, and certainly not on what the Iranians consider Muslim land (Palestine), while violating what they consider the legal rights of Muslims (Palestinians), and certainly not one with control and sovereignty over Jerusalem, sacred to all Muslims.

15. As a result, the lessening of the Holocaust's dimensions is central to the political worldview of the heads of the Iranian regime, according to which the Jews use a variety of strategies in their striving to control the world and justification for the “occupation” of Palestine . One of the more successful ones, in Iranian opinion, is an exaggeration of the dimensions of the Holocaust which is meant, claimed Khomeini and his successors, the current Iranian leaders, to deflect world attention from the Jews' real goals. The Iranian regime does not deny the loss of Jewish lives during the Second World War, but attempts to minimize the magnitude of the Holocaust, and to that end gives broad coverage to Holocaust deniers or individuals who cast doubt on the Holocaust.

---

Please Peech, get some sources. At best this should be qualified as an opinion, if not outright propoganda.

Nothing that indicates a program of "elimination of the infidels," at all.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Goal of the State of Iran

After he drove most infidels out of Persia - the other ones were covered in towels - Britney spears founded the country of Secular Democrrrrrrrrrrrrratic Republic of Iran. Its goal was, and still is, to transfer Israel to Canada, some where closer to the United states. Therefore Britney spears is trying to create "weapons of mass construction" just like Iraq. We want to be constructive as our fellow Israel is. Whilst he was experimenting with uranium and plutonium, something went terribly wrong and the Brittny got pregnant by Shimon Peres: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was born. The problem with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is, that he thrives on enriched uranium, therefore the second goal of Secular Democrrrrrrrrrrrrratic Republic of Iran is to enriche enough uranium to feed Ahmadinejad and to make him able to transform into a hugh atomic bomb and sell it to the United states. If they succeed the first goal of Secular Democrrrrrrrrrrrrratic Republic of Iran can be accomplished.

---

For instance: Since when, pray tell, did calling for an Islamic Caliphate indicate a desire to "eliminate the infidels," since the historical record shows that the Caliphate was quite tollerant of religious minorities, and certainly did not officially pursue a policy of extermination?

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

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

quote:

---

" killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

---

The situation is precipitous though, and should there be a major conflict the objecteve conditions might change to such an extreme that Israel's policies may tip to an even uglier extreme.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Despite earlier roots, Iran started its missile development program in earnest during its long and costly war with Iraq. At times, throughout the war Iran found that it could not strike certain Iraqi facilities or targets with its own forces. This resulted in an ambitious missile development programme that is still continuing today. Today, it possesses the second largest (behind the Democratic People's Republic of Korea—DPRK) ballistic missile force in the developing world[citation needed], and is near to developing a space launch vehicle named IRIS and medium-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles. A large number of Iran's ballistic missiles and/or long-range artillery rocket systems currently possess the capability to deliver conventional high explosive, submunition, chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological dispersion warheads.

The Iranian military controls the country's missile forces as a subsection of the Revolutionary Guards, a more ideologically driven parallel army within Iran.

---

quote:

---

Equipment of the Iranian army
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Current Equipment of the Iranian Army)
Jump to: navigation, search
Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Emblem of the Army
Military Branches

Air Force
Army
Navy
IRGC
Personnel

Army Insignia of Rank
Army History
History of the Army
Field Marshals
Equipment
Current Equipment

Historical Equipment
Other
Order of Battle

From 1925 to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Iran used to be equipped with the very latest Western hardware. Cases exist where Iran was supplied with equipment even before it was made standard in the countries that developed it (for example the US F-14 Tomcat, or the British Chieftain Tank). Primary suppliers included the United States, Britain, France, the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany), Italy, Israel, and the Soviet Union.

The Iran-Iraq War, and post revolutionary sanctions at the time had a dramatic effect on Iran's inventory of western equipment. Under the pressures of war all supplies were quickly exhausted and replacements became increasingly difficult to come by. The war eventually forced Iran to turn towards the Soviet Union, North Korea, Brazil, and China to meet its short term military requirements. Nevertheless, the experience of using advanced and high quality equipment was not lost on any of the branches of the Iranian armed forces. Severely disappointed by its more recent purchases of inferior, more dated designed Russian and eastern equipment, Iran sought to develop its own ability to mirror the high technology of its likely enemies, the West and to provide a totally reliable source of equipment for the future.

Initial developments in every field of military technology were carried out with the technical support of Russia, China, and North Korea to lay the foundations for future industries. Iranian reliance on these countries has rapidly decreased over the last decade in most sectors where Iran sought to gain total independence; however, in some sectors such as the Aerospace sector Iran is still greatly reliant on external help. Iran has, at present, developed an uncanny ability to reverse engineer existing foreign hardware, improve it to its own requirements and then manufacture the finished product. Examples of this are the Boragh and the IAMI Azarakhsh. In an attempt to make its military industries more sustainable Iran has also sought to export its military products, see Iranian Military Exports.

---

quote:

---

And Iran thinks that by stoking Shi'ite and Sunni tensions, throuh its Iraqi proxies, it can provoke a wider, regional war that will engulf its enemies in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf states

---

FM - So to what extent tdo you think the Americans would go to in an attempt to ensure Saudi oil in an event like this?

I'm not quite sure on this though... I'm not sure if theres any intent in Iran beyond making Iraq it's puppet.

Peech - I could swear I've read those linked articles in the past. If you redate them to 2002 and change 'Iran' to 'Iraq', I'm really not sure if I would notice a difference.

I love this line in particular:

quote:

---

Today, it possesses the second largest (behind the Democratic People's Republic of Korea—DPRK) ballistic missile force in the developing world[citation needed]

---

Note the key term there... 'Devoloping world'. Hehe 'Out of the countries that are not like us, they have the second most missiles and thats outrageous [citation needed]'

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

Solution: Give other third world nations more ballistic weapons so that Iran only rates a measly 10th.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

Oh well. Perhaps then Peech you can tell me why in the "The Holocaust denial conference in Tehran: Overview" you provided, there is a set of photographs kind of like "want ad" posters, that includes Shiraz Dossa, as among the particpant in the "Holcaust Denial Conference," and by extension, one presumes, actual Holocuast deniers when Professor Dossa is on record as saying anyone who denies the Holocaust is insane?

Don't you think this kind of hyperbolic distortion and smearing of individuals indicates that the persons whom compiled the report are a bunch of fucking assholes?

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

FM - So to what extent tdo you think the Americans would go to in an attempt to ensure Saudi oil in an event like this?

---

That's the beauty of the thing for Iran. The US army would be effectively trapped.

quote:

---

I'm not quite sure on this though... I'm not sure if theres any intent in Iran beyond making Iraq it's puppet.

---

It is reasonable to assume other Sunni dominated states allied with the US (Jordan, Kuwait, for example) feel the same way. But that would be less of a problem for Iran if those nations were too busy trying to keep the lid on their own domestic uprisings driven by tribal and sectarian rivalries and stoked by Iranian proxies.

Note that Shia, in Arab nations, represent, in large numbers, the Arab underclass.

quote:

---

Saudi Arabia has said quite clearly that it would enter Iraq on the side of the Sunni if the US withdrew or failed to assist the Sunni in a Shia dominated Iraq.

---

I think Eygpt and Jordan are on a similiar level... Mind you, I still don't think I have a full grasp on the Shi'a // Sunni tensions, though I've gotten to witness some of it first hand (Lebanon conflict... I talked to a few Sunni friends who were exceedingly anti-hizbollah and blamed them for everything... And then a Shi'a who lived next door to me who was very anti-Sunni and pro Hizbollah)... So the tension is obviously there to some degree.

But with that part aside... Isn't Irans greatest ally, Syria, Sunni dominated? How does Syria play into all this?

It's been Irans tactics so far to support all Shi'a factions involved within Iraq, kinda regardless of that factions goals within Iraq. I would not be overtly surprised if Iran adopted this policy for lands outside of Iraq as well. There was a recent bust in Morroco where an 'islamic warrior' recruitment system sending fighters to Iraq was broken up... In this case I think (think) that it was Sunni based, but it still goes to show that many of the fighters within Iraq are being pulled from foriegn nations... One ring was broken up, I think that leads to the assumption that theres likely many more out there.

quote:

---

That's the beauty of the thing for Iran. The US army would be effectively trapped.

---

The US army still has strong ties to the Saudi's... I beleive some of the infrastructure from operation Desert shield might even be within place... So there is room to fall back even in the event of a full civil war. But even then, I don't beleive you could effectively 'trap' the US within Iraq... Americans have dug in quite well and have made pretty large military installations across Iraq. I'm hard pressed to see how a guerilla style army would be able to press a seige vs one of these encampments.

So would 'how far will they go' include nuclear potentials?

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

added:

I think this also fits into why I think the Hussien execution was a major mistake... As far as I can see, the Shi'a majority has already mobolized and is ready for the conflict... The only holdout from this going full scale are Sunni. His execution can easily be taken as Shi'a vengance on the Sunni leader, especially after that video was released (the full execution video can be watched on youtube), which serves as a perfect incitement to conflict.

Though there still is one more ingredient missing on the Sunni side... When Iraq was invaded, Saddam knew the best defence was during an occupation and not a flat out military conflict. To ensure a drawn out insurgency could be fought, weapon caches were put all over the nation. These caches have been used primarily by the Sunni factions (Saddam would have armed his sunni supporters first), but I think their drying up. Shi'a factions have Iran supplying them... The last component for an all out civil war could be the Saudi's stepping in and supplying the Sunni factions with the arms required.

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

The US army still has strong ties to the Saudi's... I beleive some of the infrastructure from operation Desert shield might even be within place... So there is room to fall back even in the event of a full civil war. But even then, I don't beleive you could effectively 'trap' the US within Iraq... Americans have dug in quite well and have made pretty large military installations across Iraq. I'm hard pressed to see how a guerilla style army would be able to press a seige vs one of these encampments.

---

A fall back position still leaves them there within the conflagration with their supplies lines and their bases potentially under continuous attack. Arguably, if sectarian divisions were to embroil the region, there would be no safe place to fall back to. Keep in mind Osama's rage against the US was because of the troop presence in Saudi Arabia.

That scares the US as they are used to supplying weapons to both party's in conflicts, but not used to alien technology used against them. China is also buddy buddy with Iran and has veto power at the UN. Of course the US has shown that being a rouge nation defending oil intrests trumps any UN decisions.

The US wants a military presence in the mid east so bad they'll do just about anything. Bin Laden has managed to take the US down the road of bankruptcy like it did Russia, however the US is replaceing the money with Iraq wealth.

Reports of halliburton operating in Iran fuel lots os suspicion of a US alliance but I think that's just the US trying to spy on Iran's technological capabilities. Iran invented the game of chess, I think they have figured out the US is not their friend. Remember the US supplied toxic nerve agents to Saddam so he can use them on Iranians...something they managed to somewhat cover up by hanging him(saddam)before that case came up.

All in all this may end up with all countries influenced by Isreal turning there back on Israel or face a nuclear world war type of scenerio. Is Israel with all it's nukes , influence and arrogance worth it is the question.

quote:

---

Iran has made it quite clear it wants israel wiped of the map.

---

Still disagree with that... Beleiving what Iran wants is the same as what Ahmedinejad says is equivlent to someone from Iran beleiving Pat Robertson is the number 1 deciding factor behind american policy. This thread may more accurately represent how Irans people feel. I would suggest you re-evaluate some of the blanket assumptions you are basing your opinion on.

quote:

---

Arguably, if sectarian divisions were to embroil the region, there would be no safe place to fall back to. Keep in mind Osama's rage against the US was because of the troop presence in Saudi Arabia.

---

AH yes, the involvement in Mecca that was the incitement for the 9/11 attacks... Though I do not think the Saudi's share the same view as Osama. Afterall, how much Saudi investment and money is ultimately within the US? Then again, thats using the assumption that the Saudi royalty can control their populace isn't it?

To most of my knowledge, the Americans have kept mostly nuetral between the 2 factions (I think part of this stems from the common western perception of "factions? I thought all dem dam dirty mooslums are the same"). An escalation that would see the US trying to turn to saudi arabia for refuge would ultimately be the Americans siding with the Sunni's (who the americans already threw from power). Odd politics there.

Though that would make sense... There has been many reports over the last months of 2 of the larger Sunni factions (I dislike the term factions as its not quite accurate... Tribal leaders?) that have been using underground and Saudi channels to reach out for American help in defending vs Shi'a "Death squads".

The possibility of Iran forcing America into an alliance with Saudi will have huge ripples for Israel as well... I can't imagine the Hizbollah, or even Hamas, will stand idle if the Americans take an open stand on one side in the civil war within Iraq. And if the American army gets bogged down and badly trapped within Iraq, that might be the opening for another larger scale conflict between Hizbollah/Hamas and Israel.

And that would be total regional conflict by then... Syria is a bit of a wildcard in there (because of the Sunni presence), but I would assume they would side with Lebanon and their Iranian allies first and foremost.

Well... I hope this 'what if' is exceedingly off the mark FM ^^

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

I would disagree the US has been neutral. But let's leave that alone. The US is siding with Sunnis outside Iraq and have been trying to negotiate with Sunnis inside Iraq once they realized just how bad they f*cked things up. But, having lynched Saddam, a new anti-Shia Sunni alliance probably won't happen (f*cked up again).

I don't think Iran is concerned about a Saudi/US/Israel alliance. I think they see that as a given. Iran is plan a) trying to push Arabs into a new sphere of power dominated by Iran through soft power, and if that fails, plan b) through internal strife. If the treasure for the US is Iraqi oil and Irani gas, the treasure for Iran is a defeated US and a friendly, allied Iraq offering a buffer between Iran and hostile Arab neighbours and Israel.

Hamas and Hizbollah, both nationalist movements, are friendly to Iran only because Iran offers support. It is important to understand that. End the occupation and remove the Iraeli existentialist threat to Lebanon and the strength both Hizbollah and Hamas begins to wane as their purpose for being is removed.

There is a paradox at work that is beyond the comprehension of the current US regime and that is the occupation and blatant US double-standards and hypocrisy fuel revolt which in turn gives succor to Iran. It is like the Chinese finger trap. The more the victim struggles the more they remain trapped. Only in this case, the more the US attempts to cage Iran, the stronger Iran becomes if only because it is the only real national force in opposition to the US/Israeli hegemony in the region. While officially Arab governments are hostile to Iran, Arab peoples who feel they have suffered decades of humiliation offer greater support to Iran.

The escape for the US would be to become the honest broker it likes to pretend it is and withdraw unconditional support for Israel in exchange for an even handed approach, fairness, and an honest effort at ending the Palestinian crisis once and for all. This seems unlikely.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buddy Kat:
Iran has made it quite clear it wants israel wiped of the map. Iran has also stated if the US gets in the way , they will deal with them also.Iran is also using military technology the US does not have.

---

quote:

---

The US is siding with Sunnis outside Iraq

---

Those relations are pre-invasion... Bush and his Admin didn't know there was a difference between Shi'a/Sunni when they invaded, so I'm guessing they weren't aware their dealings were with primarily Sunni rulers prior to that. Only recently (after the independant Iraq report released in December) have the Americans really outwardly reached out to only the Sunni nations.

When it comes to within Iraq, I really doubt American soldiers differentiate and refer to them all as enemies (or less favorable words). When I refer to taking a side, I would also be implying the supplying and coordination as well.

al-Maliki is ruler of the Shi'a party within Iraq... And only recently has the Americans support for him started to wane.

Heh, it's hard to tell if Bush is aware he's siding with Sunni's or if it just happened that way.

quote:

---

Hamas and Hizbollah, both nationalist movements, are friendly to Iran only because Iran offers support.

---

I would have said very much the same prior to the Lebanon - Israel month long war... But I'm not entirely sure about that any longer. I would not discount Iran rising as the Shi'a power and the connections that creates with other Shi'a dominated groups. The initial ties may have been created from the support offered vs Israel, but as Iran rises as the major power after the Iraq invasion... I think that relationship will grow deeper.

I agree with you that America is stuck in the gigantic finger trap that is the middleeast right now. Even their presence will promote violence (and I think this is why the Americans have mostly maintained nuetral... Turns out all the Arabs regardless of faith who have seen their lives destroyed by the American military are united in their hate vs America, who coulda guessed?). Attempting to play 'nuetral broker' can never occour anymore (even if they did do something completely nuetral for a change, nobody in their right mind would trust them to remain that way).

The longer the conflict draws on within Iraq, the more we're going to see how strong Iran has been involved within Iraq. Sunni forces do not seem to have a reliable source of money and weapons... Shi'a forces are proving to be really well equipped and able to replenish losses. A sustained civil war without any additional outside involvement is going to see the Shi'a "death squads" emerge superior.

Not sure if I can back it up... But I'm under the impression that Iranian influence is behind the recent divide within Al-Sadr's warriors. Theres enough signs that Al-Sadr and his resistance will seek an eventual ceasefire (CNN was reporting this I beleive), but would have an incredibly tough time enforcing the ceasefire among his own followers. That would suggest theres either divides in his leadership, or theres simply a large number of fighters who will follow any that will lead them to fight. I doubt you'd have to look to far within that divide to find Iranian involvement with those wanting to continue the conflict... And I'm sure someone will be there to provide continued military leadership in Al-Sadr's absence.

In the event of a sustained civil war... Iran will emerge with control (or atleast exceedingly friendly ties) over Iraq. Now if one of the Sunni nations were to see this and begin supplying weapons to those factions (if they haven't already), this could deteriorate into the situation you describe above with the Americans stuck in the middle. I wonder if Saudi Arabia would be willing to take a military stand against Iran? In some ways, it's the Sunni within Iraq's inability to completely retaliate that is preventing the complete civil war.

One sticking point for me is I'm not entirely sure if a civil war could exist without American presence... How many 'death squad' fighters are inspired purely by hatred for America? How many of them would continue to fight if America left?

Bush's "surge" tactics that he seems to be leaning towards (and should be shot for) will play directly into Irans hands, continuing to fuel the number willing to die in the name of their country. I'm unsure if America leaving would inspire these fighters to seek truce with one another now that the American presence is gone... Or will the Iran/Iraq hostilities and the threat of civil war remain high?

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

Edited to add:

However, according to Wikipedia the Israeli's are now saying the missile used was even more advanced Chinese missile than the Silkworm. Iran is capable of producing the Silkworm, but the Israeli contention that the missile is of an even more advanced type, actually puts into doubt the origins of the missile, since Iran is only known to produce the older model. Or so it would seem.

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

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

So in the case of most American technology, it evolved in a series of steps coming out of the military environement predicated on that of the Second World war, with Europe as the battlefield, and with the USSR as the primary opposing contestant, and some very specific assumptions of who was going to be the allies, and who were going to be enemies.

The problem is the unforseable, among other things.

Its a little known fact but during the Falklands war the Shefield was sunk by a rather dated Excocet missile fired from a likewise dated Dasault Mirage 3 fighter/bomber. No problem really, except that all the on-board computers identified the Exocet missiles as French missiles, and therefore friendly (allied) ones. Thus the onboard anti-missile systems of the Shefield simply failed to fire upon the oncoming, slow and dated missile.

This underscores the problems of highly sophistcated techonological systems, and the principle that the more complex a system is the more likely it is to break down due to unfroseen events. I sumbit that this effect is compounded by the problems created by the general change in the predicated battlefield environement, so that not only are the US systems complex but they are also somewhat akin to Penguins trying to eek out an existance in the Canary islands.

Hezbollah has simply subverted the entire paradigm in which American war fighting technology was created, and unlike the previous Arab armies refused to play the game by relying entirely on war fighting strategies and equipment imported from the USSR, which all was predicated on the same military orthdoxy of how war should be fought and with what weapons.

In short they did not fight the same war.

So, I doubt these successes have anything to do with new or better technology, but other factors, things which simply slipped through the cracks of ultra-sophisticated technology and command and control structures of the IDF.

How did Hexbollah get the co-ordinates for "a sophisticated Israeli air defence installation?" They bought it or otherwise used human resources to aquire them. Nothing special at all.

[ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
It may well have been Debka file that first reported the defeat of Israeli electronic warfare. These reports were confirmed by subsequent other different sources, I believe. They reported that Israeli intelligence officers were particularly dismayed to see that when the ceasefire deadline came into effect, all Hizbullah positions ceased firing simultaneously, indicating their communications systems were still intact, despite massive Israeli attempts to destroy them. Apparently Hizbullah could listen in on Israeli military communications while the Israelis failed to compromise Hizbullah's. And Israel would presumably have the latest cutting edge American technology. Iran may have some surprises in store.

---

Communications systems? Typical of the kind of rarified air some of these military intelligence analysts breath, they seem to have completely missed the possibility that Hezbollah units got the news over their portable civilian radios, or simply hand delivered the message, Pony Express style.*

"Analysis" or tendentious fear mongering?

More likely an inability to believe that their vaunted technology could be overcome by primative means. The crime of hubris.

*By the way did you know it was the Mongols who invented the Pony Express, transmitting messages from the heartland of Mongolia to the far edge of civilization in darkest Austria in a matter of weeks?

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Communications systems? Typical of the kind of rarified air some of these military intelligence analysts breath, they seem to have completely missed the possibility that Hezbollah units got the news over their portable civilian radios, or simply hand delivered the message, Pony Express style.*

---

Good call - Who's to say obfuscated instructions weren't broadcast over Al-Manar?

(On a related note, the pony-express comms you refer to were key to the victory of the "Iranian" side during American Wargames in 2002. For a chuckle see: http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1060102.php)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

More likely an inability to believe that their vaunted technology could be overcome by primative means. The crime of hubris.

---

Hubris was definitely a factor in the compromise of Israeli comms. Modern secure communications can be compromised by a combination of technology, and sloppy/inconsistent communications discipline.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I am not sure advocating transfer of the Palestinians is genocide, in and of itself, though it most certainly is ethnic cleansing.

---

quote:

---

(On a related note, the pony-express comms you refer to were key to the victory of the "Iranian" side during American Wargames in 2002. For a chuckle see: http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1060102.php)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buddy Kat:
Iran has made it quite clear it wants israel wiped of the map.

---

A more gracious person would ask if you had a source for that claim.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Getting an error.

---

My bad. I added a bracket to the URL. Try:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
That is completely typical.

---

I wish such wonderful ocurrences were.

quote:

---

Well, the Fed, the US Treasury and the Bush administration--the real axis of evil--would like to forestall the inevitable recession-depression until they carry out their forthcoming attack on Iran. That’s why Bush is sending another carrier group to the Gulf as well as a squadron of F-16s to Turkey. (It also explains why the US forces seized 5 Iranian hostages in Irbil, Iraq yesterday) The US is clamping down on transactions with Iran’s main banks (“unilateral sanctions”) and has coerced the Saudis into “discounting their top-line sweet crude by $1.75 to US customers” (Jim Willie “Golden Jackass.com”) to put additional pressure on Iranian oil exports. As Willie says, “This is the real story behind the falling (Gas) prices, not the silly (East Coast) weather”.

Uncle Sam is gearing up for another Middle East dust-up in Iran and the lower gas prices are (temporarily) averting a US recession.

The longer term prospects, however, are not so rosy. The “sunny Jim” reports in the media about a “soft landing” will have no affect on the impending housing collapse or on America’s downward economic spiral; the numbers are simply too enormous. By spring 2007, the Fed will have to lower rates to stop the hemorrhaging and to avoid a full-blown depression. When that happens, the last wobbly bit of scaffolding that’s propping up the greenback will be kicked-out and the dollar will slip into oblivion.

---

quote:

---

KUWAIT CITY: Washington will launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, say sources. The attack will be launched from the sea and Patriot missiles will guard all oil-producing countries in the region, they add. Recent statements emanating from the United States indicate the Bush administration’s new strategy for Iraq doesn’t include any proposal to make a compromise or negotiate with Syria or Iran. A reliable source said President Bush recently held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice and other assistants in the White House where they discussed the plan to attack Iran in minute detail.

---

War in April according the the editor of the Arab Times

I almost spit up my coffee howling with laughter when I read this last part:

quote:

---

“although US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice suggested postponing the attack, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on attacking Tehran without any negotiations based on the lesson they learnt in Iraq recently.” The Bush administration believes attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calm down the situation in Iraq and pave the way for their democratic project, which had to be suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq

---

quote:

---

It was a bizarre sight: a cadre of Orthodox Jews, with their distinctive hats, beards and sidelocks, standing alongside President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran last month at a conference in Tehran debating the Holocaust.

Among them was Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, spokesman and assistant director of a small anti-Zionist group with a foothold in this town in Rockland County, home to one of the nation’s largest communities of Hasidic Jews.

Unlike Mr. Ahmadinejad and most of the others present, including the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, Rabbi Weiss does not deny or question the Holocaust; his grandparents died at Auschwitz, as did several of his aunts and uncles, he said. What he and the Iranian president have in common, he explained, is their belief that the Holocaust has been exploited to justify the existence of Israel.

“We went to Iran because we had to let the world know, especially the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are not their enemies,” he said in an interview, a Palestinian flag with the phrase “A Jew Not a Zionist,” written in Hebrew, English and Arabic pinned to the lapel of his coat. Below the Palestinian flag was an Israeli flag with a red line across it.

---

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: ohara ]

It's New York Times. About as mainstream as you're gonna get. What, are they a bunch of anti-semites now too?

quote:

---

The NY Times was exposing a horrible phenmena. And you post this with no comment

---

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

However this Board may not be the best place to ask a question about educators who use the lessons on the Holocaust.

In another thread a moderator for example posted a NY Times story that told of a Rabbi (yes there are Jews who can be anti-Semitic-sadly) who suggests that Jews (and I suppose those that in any way support Israel) use and exploit the Holocaust for their own purposes. If the modrator had posterd this story as a means by which to condemn such statements (by Jews and non-Jews) one could understand. That does not seem to be the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I just posted it because it was an interesting phenomena. You've never posted any article on babble without comment? Are you calling me an anti-semite? Are you calling babble anti-semitic?

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:

Do you accept this Rabbi's position that Jews "exploit" the Holocaust for their own nefarious purposes or not?

---

The article never once quoted the Rabbi saying that Jews exploit the Holocaust. That is your own hysterical concoction, necessary to create a provocation.

The article paraphrases him as sharing a belief that "the Holocaust has been exploited to justify the existence of Israel".

I share that belief too. And it's not "Jews" that exploit it, and the Rabbi never said that - it's supporters of the policies of Israel, whether they be Jews or not.

Your methodology of twisting facts (such as misquoting an article) is typical of those who twist history to justify denying human rights to one people (Palestinians) by reference to an unrelated monstrous crime committed against another people (European Jewry).

The exploitation of the Holocaust for evil purposes is not a new discovery. Those interested in a detailed account should read Norman Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry - Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. Some media comments:

quote:

---

When it comes to analyzing how 'The Holocaust' has been employed to advance political interests, Finkelstein is at his best. - The Nation

His basic argument that memories of the Holocaust are being debased is serious and should be given its due. - The Economist

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I just posted it because it was an interesting phenomena. You've never posted any article on babble without comment? Are you calling me an anti-semite? Are you calling babble anti-semitic?

---

Michelle, just as a suggestion, the fact that ohara creates a deliberate provocation doesn't mean we need to accommodate him by raising the tone. The debate about the use of the Holocaust to justify Israeli policies is a legitimate one. Ohara, of course, engages in it illegitimately, but I still think we can defeat his scandal-mongering without saying, "how dare you call us anti-semites".

[edited for spelling]

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
And Michelle what was your purpose in posting this nasty piece of work? The NY Times was exposing a horrible phenmena. And you post this with no comment. Since you are not the NY Times are we to understand that you are you now promoting the idea that Jews are exploiting the Holocaust for their own nefarious purposes? How low will Babble actually go?

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: ohara ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
Come on Michelle, everyone here knows your feelings for Ohara. Yet you still refuse to answer his question. Its a good one even if directly put.

He is giving you the opportunity to clarify. Why the reticence? Either you accept the Rabbi's position or you don't.

---

Provocateur #2 pipes up.

Leave Michelle alone. Target me. I firmly believe that the Holocaust is misused and dishonoured by some fans of Israeli aggressive and apartheid policy to justify those policies. I've observed and experienced it to a small degree for much of my life, although the phenomenon has mushroomed in recent years.

As the son of Holocaust survivors, it is very hurtful for me to see the barbaric crime committed against my people being misused to justify crimes against others. Our watchword, "Never again!", has already been forgotten by those who see in the Holocaust the distorted "lesson" that the enemy of each people is every other people.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peech:

Israel is motivated by self preservation and survival.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Michelle, just as a suggestion, the fact that ohara creates a deliberate provocation doesn't mean we need to accommodate him by raising the tone. The debate about the use of the Holocaust to justify Israeli policies is a legitimate. Ohara, of course, engages in it illegimitately, but I still think we can defeat his scandal-mongering without saying, "how dare you call us anti-semites".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
Meanwhile I continue to note that Michelle has refused to respond in any way to ohara's "provocation". Only, I believe, a "provocation" to those who feel provoked for cause.

---

She won't answer because she is a Communist, and Communists don't answer questions like that.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
Either you accept the Rabbi's position or you don't.

---

To answer your question: I posted it because I saw the article in the New York Times and found it interesting. That's why.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I posted it because I saw the article in the New York Times and found it interesting. That's why.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

You have succeeded in having a discussion on the article in this thread.

I thought that the article was crap and just more BS from a paper that in recent history has had its good name tarnished from numerous reporting problems.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnpauljones:
You have succeeded in having a discussion on the article in this thread.

---

Well, not really - the only person who discussed it was unionist, and now you. But hey, that's a good start!

I don't really have a problem with the article - it presents both sides of the issue pretty well, gives equal time to the rabbi's views and the views of the people who oppose him and his group.

As for Rabbi Weiss, he is the head of Neturei Karta, which has been around in Israel (mainly Jerusalem) since before Israel existed. They are a fringe extremely religious group which happens to be anti-Zionist. FYI, I am an atheist Jew who happens to be anti-Zionist.

The New York Times article, by emphasizing Neturei Karta's fringe nature, fails to mention that there are vast numbers of extremely religious Jews who are also opposed to the policies of Israel and to the "existence" of Israel as a "state of the Jews" - as am I (except for the religious part). By the way, ohara and Petsy, that doesn't mean I (or other such anti-Zionist Jews) want Israel to be annihilated. It means we want it to stop behaving like a gangster and occupier and discriminating against people on the basis of race, creed, etc.

Example: The Satmar Hassidim, who are and always have been extremely anti-Zionist. They are one of the largest Hassidic "dynasties" in existence, numbering approximately 120,000 adherents. There are many smaller Hassidic sects which share Satmar's militant anti-Zionism. Source.

I can't tell you how many non-religious and/or politically progressive Jews oppose Israeli policies, but I think you're safe to go by common knowledge here - from the big names of Chomsky and Finkelstein to the hundreds of Jewish anti-Israel organizations in Canada and around world to the individual Jews militating in the progressive movement as a whole.

No one should be browbeaten by McCarthyite-style fingerpointing into remaining silent about Israel. Rabbi Weiss may be a fool, or worse, for associating with Ahmedinejad. But the masses of Jews, of all religious and political hues, who refuse to have Israel speak in their name, must not and will never be silenced.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

I don't really have a problem with the article - it presents both sides of the issue pretty well, gives equal time to the rabbi's views and the views of the people who oppose him and his group.

I understand the Rabbi's position and I don't think it's anti-semitic, but at the same time, I don't think I'd be going and hugging the President of Iran since I really dislike him not just because of his attitude toward Jews (which I suspect is anti-semitic) but because he's a right-wing conservative mullah, and I don't like right-wing conservative religious freaks of any stripe, especially when they have the power to harm women as much as they do in Iran.

---

I also think there is a tiny tiny grain of truth in Dr. Fikelstein's thesis, but (based upon my conversations with him) I am convinced he is naive. Furthermore he (and his mentor Chomsky) do not realize (or probably care)that the bigots are thrilled with the ammunition they have provided.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Peech ]

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Finklestein has indeed fanned the flames for the David Irvings, Zundels et al. Are there some in the Jewish community that misplay the Holocaust, yes I have no doubt. However to those like Finklestein who suggest Jewish organizations misuse the Holocaust to protect Israel, well in my books that crosses the line into anti-Semitism. Yes I know Finklestein is the Child of Holocaust survivors so what? It is offensive and stupid to make such arguments based solely on his own speculation that is laced with his own personal issues from all I can tell.

If the New York Times had not published such a stupid article then Michelle would not have posted it and Ohara would not have responded and the world would be a better place.

Ohara (and I geuss me as well) is a thorn in your side and you cannot see him/her any other way.

I contend that the question was legit and it would have been no skin off your nose to have responded.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Petsy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Responding to the claim that Finklestein has given anti-semites ammunition - basically, any racist, sexist, or anti-semite will use anything as ammunition or fodder. That's a good reason never to say anything at all, in case some right-wing moron uses it against you.

But it's not a very courageous way to live.

---

It is not just right wing morons who will use it against someone.

I will never respect anything that Noam Chomsky writes, says or believes.

Why?

Because I am reminded of the incident where Noam Chomsky the great academic actually wrote an introduction to a book written by a known anti-semite and Holocaust denier -- Robert Faurisson

Now Chomsky is still used as a light in the darkness by many.

But for me he will remain nothing more than a protector of holocaust denial.

ETA the difference with Chomsky is that he has not only given ammunition. He has also defended and tried to give credibility to a known anti-semite and holocaust denier

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Peech ]

Here's a quote from Terry Glavin on the subject:

Glavin's Chronicles

quote:

---

Noticing that “anti-Zionism” on the left is being used as a cover for such raw anti-Semitism that “you say something nice about Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, cite Noam Chomsky a couple of times, make a joke or two about George Bush, toss in words like resistance and hege­mony, and you can have everyone singing ‘Throw the Jew Down the Well’ before anyone even notices what’s happening.”

---

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Peech ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peech:

Furthermore I observed those in the audience in attendance at Finkelstein's lectures and they jeered and cheered at any mention of "Jews" or "those Jews who..." they were they same reactions (I submit) of those who attend pro-Zundel and Doug Christie rallies.

---

I have spent my time on babble condemning injustice wherever I perceive it - and Israel's occupation and treatment of Palestinians rank among those.

I also condemn, vilify, and expose every instance of anti-Jewish hatemongering - whether it comes from alleged pro-Muslim nice people (like "Dr. Maxtor") or hate sites (like the one one calling for assassination of Canadian Jews) or anyone who ever says anything bad about "Jews" because they're too brain-dead or evil to tell the difference between Jews and pro-Israeli apologists.

If someone jeers the word "Jews" at a Finkelstein meeting, and Finkelstein doesn't stop and say, "Get out of this meeting, racist!", then I condemn Finkelstein as brain-dead (at best) or evil (at worst). Show me the proof that he doesn't demarcate himself from lowlife neo-Nazi anti-Semitic racists, and I will denounce him for what he is.

quote:

---

I also think there is a tiny tiny grain of truth in Dr. Fikelstein's thesis, but (based upon my conversations with him) I am convinced he is naive. Furthermore he (and his mentor Chomsky) do not realize (or probably care)that the bigots are thrilled with the ammunition they have provided.

---

Bank sees February or March timeline if Israel strikes

Warning that investors might be "in for a shock," a major investment bank has told the financial community that a preemptive strike by Israel with American backing could hit Iran's nuclear program, RAW STORY has learned.

The banking division of ING Group released a memo on Jan. 9 entitled "Attacking Iran: The market impact of a surprise Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities."

ING is a global financial services company of Dutch origin that includes banking, insurance, and other divisions. The report was authored by Charles Robinson, the Chief Economist for Emerging Europe, Middle East, and Africa. He also authored an update in ING's daily update Prophet that further underscored the bank's perception of the risks of an attack.

quote:

---

I will never respect anything that Noam Chomsky writes, says or believes.

Why?

Because I am reminded of the incident where Noam Chomsky the great academic actually wrote an introduction to a book written by a known anti-semite and Holocaust denier -- Robert Faurisson

Now Chomsky is still used as a light in the darkness by many.

But for me he will remain nothing more than a protector of holocaust denial.

ETA the difference with Chomsky is that he has not only given ammunition. He has also defended and tried to give credibility to a known anti-semite and holocaust denier

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]

---

Anyone interested in what jpj is talking about here can read the wikipedia article here:

L'affaire Faurisson. It's a good article, conforming very closely to Wikipedia neutral perspective. It has all the arguments for and against, plus source material and the proper quotes from the major players.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:

I agree it was not one of Chomsky's shining moments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:

However to those like Finklestein who suggest Jewish organizations misuse the Holocaust to protect Israel, well in my books that crosses the line into anti-Semitism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

He defended his right to publish, on principle, not the content of what Faurisson wrote.

---

quote:

---

As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.

---

quote:

---

I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust.

---

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: quart o' homomilk ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by quart o' homomilk:
[QB]The problem with being Noam Chomsky is that his books are too well argued and his sources are too well referenced. When people can't find holes in his writing they have no choice but to jump on his back and attack his personality, or his home-life, his hairstyle, etc. QB]

---