Genocide. ...Who Decides? by USBrowncoat

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Genocide. ...Who Decides?

POSTED BY: USBROWNCOAT
UPDATED: Sunday, August 20, 2006 14:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3100
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, August 18, 2006 2:13 PM

In the short time that I have been apart of this board, posters have brought up genocide often. I am 100% convinced that America and the Western civilized countries have the means to commit genocide, against Muslim nations, but do not want to. I am also 100% convinced that Muslim nations want to commit genocide against anyone non-Muslim, but do not have the means to do so. It is in their hateful language, their religion, and culture. I am trying to get an idea where my fellow posters stand on this issue. Give country, age, sex, and opinion.

USA, 32, Male

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 2:19 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Um.. if you mean who should commit it?

USA, between 15 and 21, and female

EDIT: Oh, sorry, just re-read it...

Genocide is bad. That's my opinion.
---

Go to http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/ and vote Firefly!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 2:23 PM

USBROWNCOAT

Your age speaks volumes about your post. Don't just read headlines yang! Read the story. I gave my opinion on who would be willing to commit genocide, then asked posters of this thread to give their take.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 2:33 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Your age speaks volumes about your post. Don't just read headlines yang! Read the story. I gave my opinion on who would be willing to commit genocide, then asked posters of this thread to give their take.

No doubt you'll win many friends and admirers with this post. You managed to insult her for her age, her literacy and her inability to follow directions. Well done!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 2:36 PM

USBROWNCOAT

Come again?

*edit*
I see what you are saying. When I made my second post she had not edited yet. But I do get a troll baiting vibe from you. Why would you jump into a thread and attack a post before posting one on the topic? I had this experience last night. Do not want another...Bye!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 3:57 PM

MISBEHAVEN

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
In the short time that I have been apart of this board, posters have brought up genocide often. I am 100% convinced that America and the Western civilized countries have the means to commit genocide, against Muslim nations, but do not want to. I am also 100% convinced that Muslim nations want to commit genocide against anyone non-Muslim, but do not have the means to do so. It is in their hateful language, their religion, and culture. I am trying to get an idea where my fellow posters stand on this issue. Give country, age, sex, and opinion.

USA, 32, Male

*****************************************************************

I have absolutely no doubt that America and other Western countries have the means to commit genocide. Although, I personally find it more curious as to why, when they have the means to prevent genocide, they too frequently stand passively by and let it happen anyway.

As for your thoughts on Muslims, I think you are oversimplifying things a little. Not all Muslims are extremist, radical, fundamentalist types. Not all Muslims are supporters of Al-Qaeda and other extremist elements. For that matter, I do not believe that all Muslims want to commit genocide against non-Muslims. There are millions of Muslims living in the Middle East, the U.S. and throughout other Western countries, and not all of them are preaching hate, beheading people, or blowing things up. The number of Muslims participating in such acts are relatively small compared to the number of Muslims worldwide.

If you look, you will find extremist elements in many religions. Just the other day, a fringe element of Buddhist monks began physically attacking other Buddhist monks at a peace ralley in Sri Lanka. And Buddhism is a religion grounded in the principle that "all life is sacred." And Christians, which I am guessing here that you are one, have committed heinous acts throughout history as well: The "Holy" Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials and so on. And let us not forget that it was a Christian President who ordered the dropping of atmoic weapons on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which makes this predominantly Christian country the only nation to have ever used atomic weapons on other human beings, let alone innocent civilians.

USA, 35, Male

*****************************************************************

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 4:15 PM

HKCAVALIER

Heya USB,

I like this li'l trend Dream started with making rules for posting in threads; in a very gentle way, if forces folks to post with a larger context than their three favorite talking points.

I don't think a lot of folks in the U.S. want to commit genocide on the Muslim world. What scares me, is that I can see our leaders accidently-on-purpose committing genocide by default. When we destroy a country's infrastructure without having the wherewithall to reconstruct things when we're done puting their people to the sword, we commit partial, de facto genocide. Subjectively, I can't see the inhabitants of most of Afganistan or major portions of Iraq seeing much of a difference between genocide and what we've done over there in the past few years.

Furthermore, when we bring our 21st Century A-game to countries that would still be medieval if it weren't for the arms we (and other big players) have sold them, we are committing a kind of massacre. When you round up a lot of unarmed people and mow them down with rifle fire, it's called a massacre; not because the unarmed people are wholely unable to fight back, but because they are so completely outclassed that they never have a chance. Most U.S. soldiers were no match in hand-to-hand combat with the Native Americans back when we killed them off, but rounding them up and gunning them down is still a massacre.

I see more and more, that that is the only kind of fight the U.S. will allow itself to get involved with.

Also, I've corresponded with muslims, mostly from Iran and a close friend of the family was an english teacher in Tehran under the Shaw and married an Iranian. Iranians, and other muslim cultures I presume, have a tradition of talking very tough, as tough as they possibly can, to show how fearless they are. This trash-talking and the actual policies of their governing elite aren't expected to match up. It has much more to do with the state of the male ego in muslim cultures and the importance of never showing fear. The culture in Iran is very traditional, very formal, compared to ours. You have to understand what's for real and what's for show.

Think of it like this. If you knew absolutely nothing about the WWF and you were to hear a couple of pro wrestlers trash-talking before a match, I think you'd be surprised that no one was killed once the fight was over--or even bloodied for that matter.

So, when Saddam did all that posturing and acted exactly as if he could have wiped American from the face of the Earth with a wave of his hand, any savvy observer of muslim culture could have guessed that the guy had nothin'. But we had a bunch of xenophobic boyscouts running things, so we took the man at his word.

It makes me crazy to think what the tiniest amount of unbiased inquiry into an alien culture could have done to save thousands and thousands of lives in the past 5 years and, no doubt, the years to come.

USA, 41, male

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 5:25 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
In the short time that I have been apart of this board, posters have brought up genocide often. I am 100% convinced that America and the Western civilized countries have the means to commit genocide, against Muslim nations, but do not want to. I am also 100% convinced that Muslim nations want to commit genocide against anyone non-Muslim, but do not have the means to do so. It is in their hateful language, their religion, and culture. I am trying to get an idea where my fellow posters stand on this issue. Give country, age, sex, and opinion.

USA, 32, Male

Some of this is speculation, and my comments should not be viewed as a condemnation of the commission of genocide either by the Western or Eastern states.

I’m pretty sure that the US and most Western Nations don’t have any intent towards instituting a policy or a pattern of committing genocide. Committing genocide requires a degree of self-confidence that the West just doesn’t have anymore. Whether or not the West would commit ‘genocide by accident’ as HK said. I don’t know. I would hope not, but the West does, and has, started things that they wouldn’t finish, and sadly, that’s a possibility I can’t discount. The West has sold the Middle East weapons, which might have made a small war into a much bigger one, but the buyer had something to do with this, a lot more then the seller. These things aren’t really genocide, because there is no intent. It might be just as bad, but you can’t call it genocide. Come up with some other word. So having addressed that, the rest of my argument will deal exclusive with a threat of genocide and the Middle East.

In 1973, Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack against Israel, which became known as the Yom Kippur War. The whole point of this war was to catch Israel off guard, with an enormous invasion and accomplish what Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon were never able to do in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1970, which was wipe Israel off the face of the map and probably kill every Jew in sight: genocide by definition. Needless to say, the Yom Kippur war, while successful in surprising the Israelis and inflicting heavy damage initially, ended the way the all the rest of the Middle Eastern Wars did, with Israel handing the Arabs their collective asses. That was the last time any Arab state entertained any realistic aspiration to commit genocide against Israel.

What would have happened if Israel hadn’t won those wars?

“This will be war of extermination…”
-- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League, 1948

“Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is no even the smallest place for negotiations.”
-- Egyptian President Nasser, 1956

“The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united. … I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.”
-- Syrian Defense Minister, Hafez Assad, 1967

I’m sure there are probably some good quotes from the 1973 war, but I don’t know any off the top of my head and I think this tells the story pretty well.

Since then both Jordan and Egypt have proclaimed Israel’s right to exist. Iraq never did, but that point is moot now. Lebanon is another story. South Lebanon became a terrorist haven in 1970 and remains a battle ground since then, but Lebanon, like Israel, itself wants peace. Syria is the only remaining Arab state that participated in the wars against Israel that has refused to seek a long term peace with Israel.

Syria is controled by Iran, and Iran is the only remaining player on the Muslim side that continues to seek a realistic aspiration for the destruction of Israel, and the only country (setting aside terrorist groups) that actually appear to want to commit genocide against Israel. Will they do it? That’s anyone’s guess, but given the track record of Arab states throwing themselves against the IDF in 4 consecutive wars (5 if you consider the War of Attrition), then one might be foolish to discount what Iran is saying as saber rattling. Muslim states in the Middle East have an historical habit of making good on their threats against Israel. Of course Tehran believes, and they are probably correct, that they will have to deal with a US/UK invasion if they attack Israel, but Tehran also believes that nuclear weapons will be a deterrent to the US/UK, and they may be right. What threats have been made specifically?

“Anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in the Islamic Nation’s fury, any who recognize the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic World. … As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”
-- President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 2005

Can Tehran do it? I don’t know. Egypt couldn’t do it, and they were about as powerful as an Islamic military gets, but that was thirty years ago. A war between Israel and Iran today will wreak damage in the Middle East probably unlike anything since the World Wars.

And there’s another angle to this: a former Iranian president made a less then veiled threat of nuclear war against Israel:

“Israel is much smaller then Iran in landmass, and therefore much more vulnerable to nuclear attack.”
-- former President of Iran, Ali Rafsanjani, 2002

The Arab world couldn’t defeat Israel in 5 consecutive wars. If Tehran is serious about this, they must be thinking to themselves that there is a good chance they will loose a conventional war.

So do the Muslim states want or have intent to commit genocide? I think only one of them continue to threaten it, but clearly the Arab/Muslim states have not been the peaceful victims that some would like to portray them as. The reality is that whatever may have happened before, the problems in the Middle East today are direct result of Middle Eastern dictators, and terrorist factions, refusing to live peacefully with their neighbors, both Jewish and Muslim. At one time or another many of the Arab states and Iran have sought genocide. They never committed genocide against Israelis (some of them sometimes committed it against their own people). Maybe if they could have defeated the IDF, they would have just walked into Israel and shook everyone’s hand and decided to let all the Jews live in peace. Maybe they would have done that, but I doubt it and I think most rational people do.

USA, 36, male.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 5:26 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I get that you're struggling with hate directed at the US. But suicide bombers are rarely (not never, rarely) motivated by religion. (Several studies - I'll have to get the links later.) Instead they are trying to change a political, social, and /or economic situation from a position of weakness.

-----------------------------

And I have issues with the presumptions of original questions. ("If you determine the questions, you determine the answers.")

"I am 100% convinced that America and the Western civilized countries have the means to commit genocide" I agree with that part. But what does it take to commit genocide? It took a mere 100 days to kill a million Rwandans, mostly by machete. That's 10,000 a day. (Hitler would have been jealous.) So I disagree with the implication that the US is special somehow in its abilities.

"against Muslim nations" Muslim nations? Muslim people? Jihadists? Or merely people who happen to live in Muslim countries who want an end to US interference?

"but do not want to." US policy was to support a weaker Iraq against a stronger Iran so they might bleed each other to death. A majority of USers wanted to "bomb Afghanistan back into the stone age". The US has its own legacy of hatred. But presuming you're right - should there a 'negligent genocide' charge similar to 'negligent homicide'. The US didn't want to, didn't mean to, but somehow killed millions ... oops.

"I am also 100% convinced that Muslim nations" Same caveat as above: Muslim nations? Muslim people? Jihadists? Or merely people who happen to live in Muslim countries who want an end to US interference?

"want to commit genocide against anyone non-Muslim" There are a few religious extremists who do want this. There are also a lot of pissed-off people who might support religious extremists as a way of getting revenge.

"but do not have the means to do so." Again, what does it take to commit genocide? All the M.E. would have to do is turn off the oil spigot.

"It is in their hateful language, their religion, and (their)culture." This sounds seriously racist to me.

-----------------------------------

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 4:53 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
In the short time that I have been apart of this board, posters have brought up genocide often. I am 100% convinced that America and the Western civilized countries have the means to commit genocide, against Muslim nations, but do not want to. I am also 100% convinced that Muslim nations want to commit genocide against anyone non-Muslim, but do not have the means to do so. It is in their hateful language, their religion, and culture. I am trying to get an idea where my fellow posters stand on this issue. Give country, age, sex, and opinion.

USA, 32, Male

USA, 27, Female.......You fucking asshole...eat me!

Chris eatsshitisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 4:57 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Your age speaks volumes about your post. Don't just read headlines yang! Read the story. I gave my opinion on who would be willing to commit genocide, then asked posters of this thread to give their take.

No doubt you'll win many friends and admirers with this post. You managed to insult her for her age, her literacy and her inability to follow directions. Well done!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Hey, you sissy..LOVE to see you acting like a troll! was that an unprovoked "Dart"...You are rich.....But seeing you kiss ass around here no one will notice your shitty ways...If anyone is going to be a dick to usbrownskirt...It'll be me! so ta ta faggot!

PS. Chris eatsshitisall
Well, it's true

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 4:58 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I'd rather have folks around to buy things from and sell things to than annihilate them.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 5:48 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:

I am 100% convinced that America and the Western civilized countries have the means to commit genocide, against Muslim nations, but do not want to.

If you mean nukes, then probably (but not definitly). But, if you mean anything else, then no, certainly not.

At any rate, there will always be survivors.

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:

I am also 100% convinced that Muslim nations want to commit genocide against anyone non-Muslim,

You're confusing Muslims with the small number of fanatical terrorist Muslims.

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:

but do not have the means to do so.

You're probably right.

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:

It is in their hateful language, their religion, and culture.

Bigot much? And before you complain about this, here's the definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Bigot
"""
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
"""

Seriously, you had to expect this with what is quoted directly above.

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:

I am trying to get an idea where my fellow posters stand on this issue. Give country, age, sex, and opinion.

CA, 29, Male.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 5:53 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Come again?

*edit*
I see what you are saying. When I made my second post she had not edited yet. But I do get a troll baiting vibe from you. Why would you jump into a thread and attack a post before posting one on the topic? I had this experience last night. Do not want another...Bye!

No trolling, just pointing out a fact. Namely, that YingYang made a post and you bit his/her head of for it.

If you don't want people pointing out when you do something aggressive that's completely uncalled for, then don't do it.

Again, the retort was very appropriate given what you said. And actually, a lot of people would have actually blasted you instead of make a calm "just pointing out the facts" type post.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 5:56 AM

KANEMAN

We should drop nukes on those towel headed, Camel riding, sand monkeys...Get them before they get you.....

Well, it's true
Chris eatsshitisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 5:57 AM

AGENTRUSCO

Quote:
I have absolutely no doubt that America and other Western countries have the means to commit genocide. Although, I personally find it more curious as to why, when they have the means to prevent genocide, they too frequently stand passively by and let it happen anyway.

This, this is what I hate! All too often have I noted this in my studies. It's all political and economical rather than human. It is easier to pretend to asauge a bit of hurt, but not really do anything. Cheaper too. Then, after the fact say a very sincere "sorry" and throw a bit of money at the nearly resolved situation. I'm thinking mainly of Rwanda, but seriously. When have the world powers every really stepped in? OK, so WWII with with the Holocaust, the US was there, but not really for that reason. Where was the US when the Armenians were given hell? Where were they for the countless pograms in the eastern European nations? Where? And why not? It irks me so much sometimes that I wish I could claim I was born elsewhere, that I was forced to be American against my will...

I'm technically Armenian, you see. At some point in history (dunno when, my dad doesn't keep track of things) my ancestors immigrated to the US. It was prolly about a hundred years ago or so. They left before a whole hecka lotta crud happened.

Anyway, I digress. What I hate most about America and the other prestigious nations is the apathy. Apathy will get every unfotunate soul killed.

I hate it.

US, 20, F.

______________________________
I cannot abide useless people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 6:11 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

The Armenian genocide was perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks, not the Americans. In fact, it was the West that defeated the Ottomans, and the Americans were in that fight. Hitler would use the Armenian genocide as an example of how the Jewish Question should be dealt with. But it was the West that defeated Hitler too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 6:11 AM

KANEMAN

Technically you are an American you ass. that you should be thankful for. I suggest you pack up your things and move if you don't like it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 2:05 PM

AGENTRUSCO

Quote:
Technically you are an American you ass. that you should be thankful for. I suggest you pack up your things and move if you don't like it.

I do know that I am technically an American. But thanks for the suggestion. I fully intend to whenever I get half a chance. Thank you for the cheerful comment.

Quote:

The Armenian genocide was perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks, not the Americans. In fact, it was the West that defeated the Ottomans, and the Americans were in that fight. Hitler would use the Armenian genocide as an example of how the Jewish Question should be dealt with. But it was the West that defeated Hitler too.

This I know. But the delemma still stands. Apathy.

______________________________
I cannot abide useless people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 3:13 PM

DREAMTROVE

I know that this part will disappoint, but in the spirit of debate, a mean it sincerely. Finn said 'genocide' is a loaded term inflamatory. Like islamo-factist, it's not a matter of the truth there in, but in the response it garners, so for the sake of debate, I've retired it. That said, I'll address it in the context of the quesiton, but not accuse anyone of it.

USB,

I don't know why your are 100% sure, I'm not at all sure that you're right on any accounts. I think there are certainly americans with that will, and probably against any group. We still have nazis, and people who think lynchings should return, and even people who believe in a mexican barbeque if you catch my drift. Just recently, a self proclaimed 'bleeding heart liberal democrat' actually defended slaught of the indians as a political necessity, an nuking japan as 'the right thing to do.' All of that considered, and the current geopolitical situation, a large minority of americans must have that stance towards arabs or muslims.

I'm sure a sizable minority of the arab/muslim population have that the same stance towards the west. I have about zero evidence to support the idea that this feeling is stronger on one side than the other.

On the means issue, massive slaughter of a race has been accomplished with machetes. Muslims probably have the means if all of them were committed (several muslim leaders have nukes). Sure, it would be easier for a few americans have the power, and may have the will, I don't know. I think that if there is an effect on this scale, it's not the desired result, but I think perhaps there are some in the decision making process who would not be upset if that were the agenda. But I strongly suspect it's not the operating motive of the command or the majority of the people of either side.

I suppose the knee jerk reaction to who decides is the UN. The UN has condemned the Janjaweed in Sudan, and not the Al Qaeda factions or the western factions, so clearly they're very specific on what qualifies. They have not shirked at condemn israel's aggressions, so if they feel it appropriate they'll probably make the call.

HK,

spot on

Finn,

I have talked to Iranians, read Ahmadinejad's speeches in full. I know this is not the agenda. A few malicious translations make things look much worse then they are, and are designed to do so. I'm am almost completely certain that you are perfectly aware of all of this.

I'm not an idiot, and I don'thtink you're an idiot (If I did, would I argue the point with you?) But I know that you know this stuff. Don't waste too much time spinning, we know the reality too. No one is saying Iran is Israel's best friend, or America's. But they're a regional power with a right to a point of view, which is not a genocidal one against jews. Fiery rhetoric and mistranslation aside, the Iranians are somewhat reasonable, and if someone want to negotiate with them, it could be done. And BTW, I know that the Iranians are very very difficult, I have no illusions about this, but they are certainly not idiots.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 6:05 AM

AGENTRUSCO

dreamtrove, yours is a magnificent post.

______________________________
I cannot abide useless people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:35 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finn,

I have talked to Iranians, read Ahmadinejad's speeches in full. I know this is not the agenda. A few malicious translations make things look much worse then they are, and are designed to do so. I'm am almost completely certain that you are perfectly aware of all of this.

And people used to say the same thing about Hitler, and they said the same thing about Stalin. The spin is to ignore history and claim that since you talked to someone that means you know what Iran’s intent is. You don’t. What I know, for a fact, is that Muslim states have been threatening to wipe Israel off the map for 50 years and they’ve waged 5 consecutive wars to that end. Some people want to play games and pretend like Iran intends no threat towards Israel. My professional opinion is that those people are either ignorant of the issue or they are not objective.

And genocide is not a loaded term. It’s a term with a meaning that does not apply to Coalition forces in the Middle East. To commit genocide you must intend to exterminate a people. That intent (nor the threat) does not exist by Coalition forces in the Middle East, and the only way to make it “exist” is to pretend that the intent is being expressed in secret. I call bullshit on that. But the threat of genocide by some Muslim states towards Israel over the past ~50 years is well expressed by their own words and well documented, and suggested by their own wars. Now they’ve never actually committed genocide towards Israelis, but then the Israelis never gave them the opportunity either. However, they sure as hell said they wanted to and they sure as hell waged the wars to do it. In the end, the only way any of us could know for sure if the intent of Tehran or the other Arab states was genocide of Jews is to let them do it and see.

I know that many Iranians would object to such actions against an Israeli population, so the threat doesn't necessarily translate into intent, even given the opportunity, but the threat is most definitely there and potentially real. However, the threat of genocide by Iranians towards Iraelis is really a moot point, right now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:15 PM

DREAMTROVE

Finn,

Simple gut reaction. I never claimed to be a military strategist, I think I put myself forward as a small tomato farmer. I look at is and call it as I see it, and I think I've got a pretty sharp eye:

Iran is not germany. This is a spin which uses the simple genetic, regional and economic parallels. Sure, it has the role of the "Mid East's Germany." But this is not an analysis, it's spin. It takes nothing of Iranian history or culture into account. It's a simple trick to make the feeble minded click a parallel. Try it on them, but don't try it on me, it won't work.

The real Germany here is Israel, which is not an anti-semitic remark, but a statement about the govt. of Israel, which has acted remarkably like the govt. of Germany. I think of us as the Axis Japan. Physically outside the arena, but aiding in the conflict, and slowly but surely steering of course into dangerous ideological waters.

Iran's role is more similar to that of England or Russia. Afraid of being the next target of the expansion, it seeks to pre-empt that with a defensive plan.

I don't buy that there's a serious threat, I've seen a couple of mistranslations which the govt. of Iran, and Ahmadinejad himself, have denied having said. I say again, I'm not dumb, I know what's going on here, I know that the Iranians are very scared, and I know that they are also not dumb. In fact, I'm continuously impressed by how shrewd they are, esp. when compared with the responses of Saddam Hussein. I credit the Iranian system of a more capitalistic economy and a govt which allows more open debate, as sources of the more intelligent decisions. Saddam's my way or the highway govt. and economy let only his decisions reign, and he was unable to outsmart the US, which allowed the invasion to continue. Iran has kept the world guessing, and delayed a conflict which had first been planned to set in motion in '04, a full two years now. During that time, they have undoubtedly worked out some sweet contingency defense deals.

It's not as simple as good guys, bad guys. I know I see it, and you should know I see it, and I sure hope you see it, because you're the one employed in the field of me, you and everyone else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 1:44 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure you know what you’re talking about. I think, you need to learn some history before any continued discussion in this area could be deemed as constructive. I suggest reading up on the Arab-Israeli wars.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 2:15 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure you know what you’re talking about. I think, you need to learn some history before any continued discussion in this area could be deemed as constructive. I suggest reading up on the Arab-Israeli wars.

What an arrogant attitude.

Of course, I have read the history at some length, some length perhaps more than you. It scares me to think that our military strategy is going off half cocked like this.

I'm certainly aware of the israeli arab conflict and the role which hamas and hezbollah played in that conflict. I'm also most certainly aware that, as seen by the defenders, ie., those who lived on the land initially, and have nowhere else to go, that the Israeli beachhead has slowly been growing and is dead set on growing at the expense of the local inhabitants, who unlike the israelis whose families largely left comfortable wealthy societies to settle israel, the palestinians are poor and destitute and often find themselves in defacto slavery when they leave.

I am by no means defending the actions of the terrorists against Israel, certainly not. But I am most certainly calling a spade a spade.

This is how it is, and there really ain't no two ways about it. Now how to solve the situation, that's another matter. I don't think that the current Israeli attitude will solve the situation, honestly, I think it will likely lead to a retaliatory nuclear strike on Tel Aviv, or increase the chances of that inevitability. I think that arrogant hawkish analyses of the sort our administration and their sport, which you defend, will percipitate that conclusion, which is most certainly in the best interests of no one but the Nazis.

Running an all out offensive against a population which outnumbers them 100 to 1 on the ground of "they don't have nukes" is not only risky, it's doomed. Not only are arabs in possession of nuclear weapons, the Israelis have no counter targets in the event of a nuclear war. How do you nuke Al Qaeda? an amorphous organization spread over an area four times the size of europe?

I think the whole situation is spinning dangerously out of control, and from any perspective, this is bad.

Whether you think that 'arabs are always wrong' and 'israelis are always right' which is certainly how your position comes across, surely you can see the logic of this evolution.

This is chucking dynamite into the gas tank and hoping that it douses the fuse.

Good luck with that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 2:46 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
What an arrogant attitude.

It’s not an arrogant attitude; I’ve just already heard your side of the story. I know that it was all Israel’s fault, but History provides a more balanced, and in many ways different, explanation, and I think you should consider it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE