Humanitarian aid flotilla attacked.... - Page 7

There you go again...semantics. I say extremist, and you say normative. Ba-da-bump!
Let me spell it out for you: You have people in power who consider it their duty--their very purpose in life--to facilitate the Hidden Iman's return. From my understanding, the belief is that His return will come after a period of bloodshed, chaos, etc. These same people are developing nuclear weapons and yes, threatening Israel--at least indirectly.
You see no problem whatsoever with this?


Genocide? That's absurd. As for the other terms, that is your view and you are certainly welcome to it. I won't get into that debate at the moment. However, your response has nothing to do with the part of mine you quoted. Ahmadinejhad is a holocaust denier. I'll say it...anyone that denies or diminishes the Holocaust is an anti-semite. Period.


Don't you understand? Israel would not even consider attacking Iran if they were not working towards a nuclear weapon, and if Iran was not making at least indirect/rhetorical threats against Israel. Developing a nuclear weapon is the surest way for Iran to be attacked.


It's unfortunate that you fell you need to put words in my mouth and use stawman-esque statements. I merely asked who these Neocons were. We heard a lot about them when Bush was in office. But no one has named anyone specifically now that we have The Messiah's administration in charge.


Here again, you use a strawman. Is someone advocating pushing Iran into the sea? Is it the secret group of Neocons again? Is it the President? Members of the US Congress? The ubiquitous They? I would sure love to know who these warmongering racists are!



I never claimed the entire nation was anti-semitic or that there were no Jews is Iran. I never claimed Jews were being rounded up and exterminated. What I did claim is that many in the government of Iran are anti-semitic. Why else would we see such an anti-Israeli stance? Do you believe it is merely the (ever-changing) government of Israel? Or are the Jews incapable of electing a government of humans?




I think I've stated the issue clearly, but I'll do so again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3...with-Iran.html



Now, I certainly don't have your credentials. But, are you saying that devote Shi'i Muslims believe differently than I've stated?---they DON'T wish to facilitate his return...and that such a a return will NOT come after a period of chaos, war, bloodshed, etc? Further, you don't see a problem with said believers pursuing nuclear weapons in a highly unstable part of the world?

Yes. No weapons...guaranteed! Plus, the ship is named after a girl that got killed. You might as well be the PR Director for Hamas.

But why is Irsael treated "differently" from other nations? This is a theory you've floated many times. The fact is that the international community, on the whole, is exceptionally anti-Israel. The UN itself is anti-Israel.

Your British/American hypothetical doesn't wash. One doesn't attempt to run a naval blockade and expect no consequences, or expect consequences for those that did the blockading. You're pretending that Israel's Navy was sailing around the sea, and just happened upon this boat of poor, peaceful activists---only to massacre them. Why? Because they could! That version is just purely delusional.

Their Navy had a blockade for security reasons. The ship tried to run the blockade and refused inspection. They boarded it, were attacked, and things went badly from there. Any balanced person knows this is what happened.

SDW you treat Israel differently yourself. When we were having a discussion once about the US must attack Iraq because they violated a UN resolution I came back with many countries have violated UN resolutions the one with the worst record was Israel ironically enough. Your position remained unchanged inspite of this gap in logic.

Do you know the difference between a UN sanction and a resolution?

That's the WHOLE POINT - it's relative but you are claiming it's universal. You seem pretty extremist to me and there are some of the most far-out whackos I've ever encountered ANYWHERE right here in this thread. (No Names).


You don't need to spell it out. I understand what you are trying to say and I understand you are very wrong.

You really need to rid yourself of this complex - I noticed it before when you felt you were better at understanding Farsi than native speakers even though you don't speak a word of the (any?) language. Now I see it gain in a closely related area.

Why?

What you are saying is simply not true and worse - you have NO WAY OF KNOWING it is not true and you don't seem to care. I think you need to avoid topics like that.


No, lets not get into the genocide.

Re Prez A: he is not as far as I have ever read any comment of his, a Holocaust Denier in the sense that say, Zundel or Irving are. He QUESTIONS the nature and role of the Holocaust (as do numerous Jews) and I have also read comments of his ABOUT the Holocaust as a historical fact so clearly he accepts it happened.

That said, he could clearly be a Holocaust denier for all I know. What I do know is that there are no comments of his that I have read that would indicate it. If you know of one I am happy to accept it. It won't be like the 'map' which is a question of basic lying....I hate racists and am happy to denounce them whoever they are.


No, I don't understand that at all. Why do you think that? Or, out another way, why are you so convinced of Israel's basic goodness? Israel seems to me a brutal society (and yes, I know it well) and we all know the brutality they meet out on a military level.

Of course they would consider it. They would consider it against anyone they deemed an enemy...or who actually is.


Who knows? They're out there though.... and they are still there, probably more so, with this new Admin.

You don't get it do you? It's something that transcends the Office of President or the political parties.


I think more that it is something in the genetic makeup of the West. The centuries old deep-grained fear of 'The Moor", "The Muslim" and conceptions of "The Holy Land". It goes back to the Crusades and it permeates all levels of the 'Christian' West.

Leaders when they get to power are as prey to it as the electorate. So it happens.....


Being anti-Israel is not the same as being anti-Jewish and therefore you cannot use it interchangeably with the 'anti-semite' card as you are sometimes wont to do.

I myself for example am fairly strongly anti-Zionist, mildly anti-Israel and very, very very anti-Racist.

This last one btw often brings certain sections of Israeli society into the frame; would be an interesting debate one day: can a nation subject to racism be racist itself?


Firstly the Telegraph is a right-wing rag that really has very little credibility in the arena of new gathering and exist merely as a pillar of the English establishment which crumpled old farts can read in their Mayfair clubs while they sink senilely into decrepitude. I don't think anyone takes it seriously now.

Secondly, I am saying that: they do not wish to FACILITATE his return but they do WISH for his return.

This is the problem actually; this whole concept - along with many others - is actually very alien to Islam and derives instead from Christian dispensationalism (where it is rife) and has no equivalent in the East. How could it? The very idea is inimical to the Eastern mindset.

This is a major issue: Westerners project onto the East Western ideals. It just does not work - at the very least it causes conflict but worse, it means that the West cannot actually get to grips with the East....and then they lose in many ways.

The war in Afghanistan would be over by now if the West grasped this. the Russians never did, nor the British and now the US are unable to take it on its own terms.

But let's clear this up:

1) The time of the return of the Mahdi is appointed by God and has been fixed. No-one else knows.

2) Because of this NO-ONE can change it - it's impossible and to try to (ie by hastening it) is one of the biggest blasphemies in Islam. It just is not possible. It's like saying that the part of a Catholic's belief is worshipping Satan.

3) There are 'signs' that the Imam is coming - these signs cannot be hastened in any way (again see above) but also it would be impossible to do so.

One would be the appearance of the antichrist, another would be the destruction of Syria, another is the fall of Islam itself (in terms of corruption from original and also lack of believers).

Some of these prophecies seem to have come true already such as the decimation of Baghdad and the invention of television but there is no way to bring them about.

4) The period of 'chaos, war and bloodshed' is HERE NOW....HELLO!!!!! No-one needs to usher one in...

Actually this last bit is the most disingenuous - while the US and allies are stomping all over the globe spreading mayhem and murder then people are saying "ooh ooh...I hope that Iran does not usher in a period of chaos and bloodshed".



So, that's the belief: chaos and war, AntiChrist shows up, Mahdi returns, bit more war, jesus returns, Peace.

Nowhere is the possibility allowed to 'make it happen'. Nowhere. I cannot think of a more un-Islamic concept or a more Western one.

Excuse me it's early here " resolution " and it still doesn't change the fact. I'll correct it.

Can you point me to the perinent UN resolutions which can be enforced by the use of military force?

Steve! I'll try to write big so you pay attention : It was an example of preferential treatment.

UN resolutions are just the background to this statement! It was an example from another topic! But the lesson of this little story is SDW showed different treatment to a country that had done more wrong ( in that context ) than Iraq. Yet he was willing to excuse it in Israel's case. An example! Got it now?

Specific to the bolded sections of your quote (above) I have to ask are you just playing possum? Because there are numerous instances of documented references of precisely that; i.e., Iranian President Ahmadinejad questioning whether the Holocaust actually occurred! If you're going to deny facts, try to do it more creatively! A good summary of Mahmoud Imanutjob's holocaust denial here.

There is only one quote there:


I don't know if you speak Farsi but in this case it is not even necessary - the English does not say what you claim. How is this Holocaust denial in the sense of Zundel or Irving who plainly say it did not happen.

This is not saying that - it is saying: "IF someone questions it certain things happen"

Now you might say it is suspect for someone to talk like this - as indeed it is - but let's not call it what it isn't. No doubt there is a high possibility that Ahmedinejad does not believe in the Holocaust but this is not evidence of it.

So let's retain a shred of intellectual sincerity. Those of us who can anyway.

Btw, Ahmedinejad's view of the Holocaust and its usage is actually a widespread academic view and is echoed by the Jewish academic Finklestein in his book The Holocaust Industry


Of course Ahmedinejad's INTENT may well be different as I say but we are talking about what he has so far SAID. Or not said.

How can it be an example, if sanctions and resolutions are clearly not even in the same category? I don' think you get it. The double standard is Israel is quickly condemned off the bat, before any investigation.

I really think you just follow me around and disagree with whatever I post for the fun of it.

Beyond that: The UN is half the problem. On the whole, the UN is anti-Israel. It's not hard for Israel to be in violation of these resolutions when they are singled out constantly.

Moreover, all resolutions are not created equally. And, the UN never gave Israel a "final opportunity" to verifiably disarm with the threat of "serious consequences" if it didn't. Oh, and last...Israel is not Saddam's Iraq. the last time I checked, Israel wasn't run by an oppressive dictator.

First I'm a "reasonable man," then I'm a an extremist. You really should make up your mind.


On this issue, you haven't explained why I'm wrong. I merely asked a question. I asked if you saw a problem with someone that believes as Ahmadinejhad does pursuing nuclear weapons. Clearly, you don't see an issue.

As for Farsi, we went through the translation issue. It came down to what he meant by referencing the "disappear from the pages of time" comment made by the Khomeni years(?) before. I say that was at least a veiled threat. You disagree.


That sir, is complete and utter delusional crap. He questions the number of Jews actually killed. He thinks we should research whether or not the holocaust was grossly exaggerated. Here, from wikipedia:


He's a holocaust denier. Not much doubt about that.


Look at it from Israel's perspective for a moment. They are surrounded by nations that wish they didn't exist (in the least). Iran developing nuclear weapons would present a real threat to Israel's existence, at least in Israel's eyes. They would be more likely to launch an attack to eliminate or seriously delay/downgrade that capability--especially with many of the statements that President A. has made.


I'm not, necessarily..no more than I am convinced about any other nation's overall goodness. I do think their government, for all its flaws and mistakes, is "better" than the Iranian government's oppressive regime. They are, at least, a democracy. Their society is far less restrictive in terms of personal freedoms, for example.



A brutal society? I've never gotten that impression. I've never been there myself, but I know many that have. I've never once gotten that. I also don't think it's a good idea to judge an entire society based on the perceived conduct of its military.


Well, that pretty much applies to any nation, doesn't it?


Of course. A self-reinforcing delusion of sorts. I would like to know who the current Neocons are that hold positions of power today. You don't have to name all of them. I'll settle for--let's see--how about just 10 names? 5? The fact is that you don't know who these maniacal Neocons are. When did they arrive? I thought it was the Bush administration in cahoots with CPAC and like groups? Oh right..it's the Obama Oil Well Excuse....it takes longer than 18 months to change the culture in the administration. Hmmm. Maybe that's it.


The genetic makeup? You realize that if I made that comment about the East or Middle East, I'd be called the biggest racist...EVER. And you've already acknowledged that our disagreement has little to do with my religious beliefs...so why bring up The Crusades?



I realize that and make every effort not to use them interchangeably. That said, there are certainly anti-Israeli types who are ALSO anti-semitic.


Fair enough.


The whole country? I really doubt that.


I do appreciate that explanation as its been something you've been unwilling to engage in before. Taking your point about not being able to facilitate/change the time of the return, would you agree that these believers consider it their duty to follow the will of God? What if, in their interpretation, the End Times are nearly upon us? Is it not then a problem for these same people to be developing nuclear weapons? What if they determine it's God's will that they attack Israel or the US with said weapons--as part of the pre-ordained return?

I don't know about you, but somehow I don't think these two things play well together.

It's interesting debate here. I thought I would add this. These are eyewitness accounts; not fed by politicians and lobbyist who were not even there.

\t
Israelis Subdued Captain by Pointing Gun at a Child

Algerian activist gives chilling account of atrocities

By Layelle Saad, GCC & Middle East Editor, and Ramadan Al Sherbini, Correspondent

June 04, 2010 "Gulf News" --- Dubai/Cairo: According to a report in The Guardian, an Algerian activist, who gave her name as Sabrina, revealed that Israeli troops pointed their gun at a one-year-old Turkish child in front of his parents to force the captain of the Mavi Marmara to stop sailing.

Many reports have emerged from among the 124 activists who crossed over into Amman, Jordan, yesterday.

In an interview with Sky News, IT professional Hasan Nowarah, from Glasgow, described the moments as the Israeli troops descended on the ship.

"All you could see was screaming and bullets. Out of the blue as I looked around our ship, all I could see were hundreds of Zodiacs. Hundreds of Zodiacs full of soldiers, and big ships, lots of ships, and I believe as well submarines in the sea."

Kuwaiti MP Walid Al Tabtabai said the Israelis were "brutal and arrogant".

"Israelis roughed up and humiliated all of us, women, men and children," he said.

Algerian Izzeddine Zahrour said Israeli authorities "deprived us of food, water and sleep and we weren't allowed to use the toilet".

"It was an ugly kidnapping and subsequently bad treatment in Israeli jail," he said.

"They handcuffed us, pushed us around and humiliated us," Egyptian MP Hazem Farouq, who was also on the boat, said and added what he witnessed on the ship "defied his imagination".

"It was hell on the sea. I saw Israeli soldiers killing activists in cold blood and then walking on their bodies," Farouq, who was one of more than 700 activists aboard the Freedom Flotilla attacked by Israeli commandos, said on Tuesday in Cairo.

"The Israeli soldiers sprayed bullets as if they were a mafia in an American film."

Farouq and his colleague Mohammad Al Beltagui were detained along with many activists, who survived the widely condemned Israeli attack. They were released late on Monday after direct intervention by the Egyptian Foreign Ministry.

Egypt was the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.

Robbed

"The Israelis left some of the injured activists bleeding without treatment until death," Farouq said.

He added that he and Al Beltagui had been robbed of all their belongings and around $3,500 in cash. Both MPs belong to the banned Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's strongest opposition force.

"All the survivors on the ship were beaten up, stripped and humiliated by the Israeli commandos while other Israeli soldiers were busy firing teargas," said Al Beltagui.

"What happened is sheer thuggery and piracy," he added.

According to him, the blood was so copious on the ship that some Israeli soldiers slipped while on board.

"We were kept aboard the ship until 3pm under the blazing sun, a situation that made many people, including women, suffer sunstroke and lose consciousness."

The two lawmakers, whom the Egyptian authorities said they had joined the humanitarian effort without notifying them, said they and other activists had refused to sign a written Israeli statement that they had attempted to illegally enter Israel.

"Al Beltagui and I left the detention centre only in the underwear, which were stained with blood of the martyrs, and without shoes until the Egyptian Consul in Israel came to accompany us to the [Egyptian] border town of Taba," said Farouq.

=========

I would call That terror on the high seas by Israel's War Machine, an unthinkable monster of black twisted metal and eyeless flesh with high velocity weapons ::: shudder::

Look. From what I have seen all you do is read what other people say and comment without understanding the context and then you run with it.

It was an error on my part to call it sanctions. Ok A simple mistake. Don't even try to pretend you don't make them. It was UN resolutions that we were talking about. And Israel is the worst offender. SDW doesn't care as much about them as they're Israel and not Iraq. Now there's a double standard if you want one. That's not conjecture it's a fact. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Funny I was going to say the same thing about you.


Or is it that the UN is pissed off at Israel for violating so many resoulutions?


Yes and as we saw they had disarmed! Oops!


No. But it's not run by a perfect angel either.

And SDW none of this undermines the fact that Israel is the worst offender of resolutions so that basically does undermine your oft mentioned resolutions argument. Fair is fair and you can try to spin it however you like but it will always come out this way.

Wow, such unbiased, truthful, fact-filled accounts! I had no idea Israel sent its entire fleet. You forgot to post the accounts of the Golem Jews and blood libel.

From what I have seen you are either woefully misinformed or completely ignorant in all matters relating to foreign policy, terrorism and the UN. Either that, or blinded by hate and ideology.
Have you ever even read the UN resolutions passed against Israel? Many deal with military parades. Have you looked at who submitted and voted for the resolutions? It is almost all Arab and Islamic states and military dictatorships which depend on oil from Arab and Islamic states.
Why is it those who have no idea how the UN operates have complete devotion and faith in said organization?

Really? Everyone agree this is fact filled and unbiased?

Funny that! I was just about to say the same thing about you!

Stevie the law is the law and resolutions are resolutions. If they aren't that important you shouldn't base an argument about starting a war on them ( you might want to share this with SDW ).


Well to be honest I have more faith in them than I do you.

I didn't say anything concerning resolutions and war. Iraq violated 17 UN mandates. Not that you would know what a mandate is. You do know nearly all the resolutions passed against Israel are General Assembly resolutions, while those passed against Iraq were Security Council resolutions? Do you know the difference between the 2? Of course you don't.

Who is this SDW you seem to be obsessed with?

I imagine you would love the US to be governed by the UN.

No but SDW did. That's what you were commenting on without understanding the conversation remember?


Sigh! You're just digging yourself deeper! Like I've said SDW based his argument of why we invaded on UN resolutions that Iraq vilolated. Israel has violated more. Double standard and end of story. Now if you're really interested do a search for the conversation with SDW and myself that took place years ago. I'm not doing it for you.


Try reading the rest of the thread you're posting in.

For all I know you and he could be one and the same with a different handle.

There is a whole lot of blame that can be passed around to everyone involved. My great-uncle worked turning unused swampland into fertile ground in the 1930s in then Palestine. The grandfathers and grandmothers of many, many Israelis put their blood, sweat, and tears into taming land that the Arabs never used. Pretending that the current Palestinians have any sort of claim to those lands just isn't right. There are other lands, however, that were vacated: some willingly and some by force. There were promises made to the Jewish people for all the land of British Palestine (including what is now Jordan). Jordan, which only got their independence two years before that of Israel's, isn't even ruled by a local dynasty. The first king of Jordan was Saudi and in order to prevent him from attacking British allies in Syria, Churchill gave away 2/3 of what was promised to the Jewish people to this Saudi invader.

The situation is much more complicated than Israel is evil, Palestinians are oppressed.

Israel has done more than it's fair share of overreacting of late. But the Palestinians themselves as well as other Arab nations have done their fair share of provoking. To deny either of these statements is plain partisan blindness. To be honest, I think much of the recent (as in the last decade) attacks on Israel (rocket attacks and the like) and the current attempts at running the blockades are as much about provoking Israel into overreacting to win the PR war as they are about helping the Palestinians themselves.

Remember, if the rest of the Arab world really gave a shit about the Palestinians, they would have let the refugees into their countries. The Palestinians are more useful to the Arab world as oppressed pawns in this campaign against Israel than they are as citizens of the various Arab countries. When Israel gave Sinai back to Egypt, they also tried to give Gaza back as well. Egypt didn't want Gaza. Imagine a world where Egypt took Gaza back. So much pain and suffering could have been avoided.

It's nice to say let's remove all the labels and all the history and look at this recent blockade incident in a vacuum. But the point is the situation is much, much more complicated than that.

Thank you for that very well spoken and insightful post. Hope you don't mind me saying it was quite refreshing amidst all the crap floating in this thread.

That is the narrative that works for you. Always.

I think that the idea is that everything is the will of God. Whatever you do.

This is what I meant earlier that the West does not really understand the Easts conception. In the West, in a religious context, when something 'bad' happens then this is often attributed to the work of Satan or 'evil' but in Islam this is not the case as there is no opposite force to God in that sense nor can there be.

Satan himself is a very different character in Islam and not necessarily evil and sometimes even regarded as 'Good' certainly he has no power as such and is not a force that can challenge God. So when something happens - good or bad - then it is God's will by definition.

So it is not a duty as such to follow the will of God - if you follow it is God's will you do, if you don't it is God's will you don't. This is quite clear in the Qur'an.

Having said that I have to concede that to some degree you may have a point and there is a possibility that some Muslims may not actually act in accordance with this (whether Prez A falls in this category is debatable) but clearly Islamists of all kinds who want to 'make something happen' by violent means are acting against Islam and the Qur'an but this does not stop them.

It is bad theology actually - if God is all powerful and can do anything and all is His will then it follows that if (say for the sake of the current argument) Israel exists then it is clearly His will it does so. To try to change that is actually going against God and thus not really Muslims but they don't see it that way although imo they are wrong.

Where Prez A stands in relation to such beliefs I am not sure. I only know what the Shi'i beliefs are SUPPOSED to be. He may well have some heretic version of his own though I doubt it but to be fair to you, I suppose it is possible.

[QUOTE=BR;1646226]There were promises made to the Jewish people for all the land of British Palestine (including what is now Jordan). Jordan, which only got their independence two years before that of Israel's, isn't even ruled by a local dynasty. The first king of Jordan was Saudi and in order to prevent him from attacking British allies in Syria, Churchill gave away 2/3 of what was promised to the Jewish people to this Saudi invader.[quote]

That's the point though isn't it? The reasons for the promises were self-interest belonging to another era - they no longer apply and that's why there is a problem. One of the reasons.

Did they even have the right to dictate in this way? No.


It's a war though isn't it?


Very true...but thats a different story and this veers of into why there is a rise in Islamism and radical terrorism. Essentially the reason these Arab nations act the wy they do is to get a seat at the table along with the high-fliers of the West.

And the price of admission is some degree of Westernisation as well as support for Western adventures in the region and elsewhere.

The more radical of the citizens of these nations do not stand for that and attack the Arab nations and the West. But this is the reason for it. I do not believe the West would be the recipient of Islamist terror if some Arab Nations were not allies. It would be confined to Saudi and the Islamic World.


Of course. But it is a snapshot that shows why things happen. It is because Israel thinks it is ok to solve issues in this way that we are where we are.

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

I never consider people of Israel a religious issue. Israel and leadership, like any other country in world, has responsibilities. It is there action that defines them. It is here action that is widelyand rightfullycondemn.




This is what Max Blumenthal says.

It was in the article "Pariah Nation" By ALEXANDER COCKBURN.


The attack on the Mavi Marmara was carefully planned. As Max Blumenthal reports on his website,

Tel Aviv-Israel Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his senior ministers have attempted to blame army commanders for the bungled raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla, according to the UKs Daily Telegraph.

But was the raid really bungled? Did the Israeli military command and Netanyahu government have no clear strategy going in? Or was the violence they meted out against the flotilla activists deliberate and methodically planned?

Statements by senior Israeli military commanders made in the Hebrew media days before the massacre revealed that the raid was planned over a week in advance by the Israeli military and was personally approved by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Ehud Barak. Details of the plan show that the use of deadly force was authorized and calculated.

The massacre of activists should not have been unexpected.

On May 28, three days before the raid, top Israeli military officials revealed details of their strategy to Maariv, Israels most widely circulated paper. The caption of the Maariv article reflected the military commands plan to use force: On the way to violence; one of the boats is on its way.

In the opinion of much of the world, Israel is descending to the status of South Africa in the final years of apartheid (in which period, it has just emerged, Israel was trying to sell South Africa nuclear weapons) a pariah nation.

Those people needn't to die. They were their to save lives; to provided much relief to the people of Gaza. And their children.

======

No, you certainly don't.

Of course they planned the raid- that's why only 10 terror supporters were killed. The terrorist flotilla advertised their intentions. Israel and Egypt tried to make arrangements for the aid and dual use supplies to be offloaded at ports in either Egypt or Israel, but that wouldn't fit in with the purpose of the flotilla- martyrdom, establish Turkey's place in the Islamic world, and sit back and watch the rest of the world condemn Israel. The planners of the flotilla got everything they wanted, but certainly not what they deserved.

What evidence do you have Israel was trying to sell S. Africa nuclear weapons? There isn't even any concrete evidence Israel has its own nuclear weapons.

I wonder if the Israeli's will shoot the Iranian Revolutionary Guard through the top of the head as they descend from helicopters?

"Iran's Revolutionary Guard naval forces are prepared to escort the peace and freedom convoys that carry humanitarian assistance for the defenceless and oppressed people of Gaza with all their strength," pledged Hojjatoleslam Ali Shirazi, Khamenei's personal representative to the guards corps.
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...ran-aid-convoy

If Iran wants war with Israel and the US, it's their deaths.

Context?

If Iranian ships guide the next 'aid' flotilla to Gaza, bust the blockade and enter Israeli waters, it is war. Regardless of how apathetic the Obama Admin has been toward Israel of late, they are our only ally in the region, and the US will commit military force to defend them.

Done more wrong? You act as if all UN resolutions are the same.


Exactly. He doesn't care though. "Israel violated US resolutions" is all he reads or hears.


No, jimmac. They are not "the worst offender" because MANY of the resolutions are not even from the security council. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.



Excellent post. Could not have said it better.

Short of Israel going nuclear they could not win that confrontation.

You want that to happen? (War not the nuclear option.) Israel has surprised people before with how well it did in battle. So I doubt it is that cut and dried. But whatever the case, not really worth speculating on. Iran should not push on this.

I think Iran is going too far here. There are better ways of pushing for change than risking a war, though some in the US and Israel seem hell bent on that idea anyway.

What do you think Turkey response would be? They've been close to Europe and the US, but anger at Israel is high.

Why do you think Israel and presumably a host of other countries, couldn't win a war with Iran without nuclear weapons? War with Iran would be an immense affair, even if they didn't have allies, but still.

My guess is that North Korea would be brought into it, but that will depend on what actions the US takes over the torpedo affair.

Sorry for all the questions but you seem to have excellent knowledge regarding these issues.

He clearly doesn't know the difference between General Assembly resolutions, Security Council resolutions and mandates. He seems to believe GA resolutions dealing with Israeli parades in Jerusalem hold the same weight as SC resolutions dealing with oil-for-food or WMD against S. Hussein's Iraq.