Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Prediction: Israel is attacked in the next 1.5 years? No, it's Paris, France.

Prediction: Israel is attacked in the next 1.5 years? No, it's Paris, France.
Thread Tools
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 04:17 PM
 
Prediction time. I could be way off. But with a major stabilizing force in the ME (Saudi Arabia) in somewhat of a political upheaval with the moderate King Adbullah passing away in an increasingly extremist Saudi Arabia, and this administrations not-so-thinly-veiled contempt for Israel....

I'm calling it now, Israel suffers some form of terrorist attack the likes of which we have not seen since 9/11 or an emboldened Iran/fundamentalist movement launching a proxy war using Syria and ISIS held territories of Iraq as a staging ground. The US will do nothing, and leave Israel to fend for itself, and our alliance with Israel will be permanently damaged.

Just my prediction. Feel free to rip on me, and hopefully we'll come back in 1.5 years and I'll be dead wrong.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 04:23 PM
 
I have no strong opinion on this. The logic behind the destabilized ME creating an opportunity from some fanatic to make a move is sound enough on the surface.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I have no strong opinion on this. The logic behind the destabilized ME creating an opportunity from some fanatic to make a move is sound enough on the surface.
Unfortunately I think ISIS is just the beginning, and western aligned ME nation-states will begin to undermine our influence from a security perspective and the whole region will start moving towards radicalism, whether it be nation-states turning a blind eye or actively supplying militant fundamentalist organizations. ISIS itself will utlimately lose, but they've paved the way and drawn up the roadmap. The US, unfortunately, has lost its will to fight these guys and Israel will be the first and foremost to suffer the consequences.

Losing King Abdullah is huge, and my real fear is that his replacement, while appearing to be a great choice for US interests, is 79 and has already had a stroke. It was only 10 years ago Saudi Arabia had to put down an "arab dawn" style uprising by extremist rebels. Once this new guy kicks the bucket, the royal family's grasp on the stability of the region will, IMO, most likely slip unless the next Crown Prince is decidedly Pro-US and more importantly shows some skill in leading his country.

Edited to add: You'll also start seeing Hebdo style attacks in Europe, and quite possibly in the West. Queue the surveillance state after that
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 04:35 PM
 
This reminds me, a few weeks ago I came to the conclusion that Iraq probably played a pivotal role in destabilizing the ME.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2015, 02:47 PM
 
I think the West (mostly Europe and the US) are meddling too much into the affairs, preventing a shake-out. We are keeping despicable despots in power, because we are afraid of the ramifications an overthrow of that government could have. Much of the acrimony in these regions towards the West, the US in particular, can be traced back to hypocritical foreign policies based solely on short term interests.

I don't think the situation in Israel will change because of the current developments in Saudi Arabia and ISIS. ISIS is a problem from within muslim countries, because most of the victims are other muslims. It's a conflict over who will wield the power in that region, and the West is just an ancillary party in the conflict. If we profess to believe in power by the people, we have to accept that the interpretation of what that actually means may result in a government that does not share our values. If we are consistently supporting the values we are professing, e. g. self-determination, our actions should reflect that.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2015, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think the West (mostly Europe and the US) are meddling too much into the affairs, preventing a shake-out. We are keeping despicable despots in power, because we are afraid of the ramifications an overthrow of that government could have. Much of the acrimony in these regions towards the West, the US in particular, can be traced back to hypocritical foreign policies based solely on short term interests.
I don't disagree with you but when we did do something about it in Iraq, it didn't take all that long after we were gone for ISIS to materialize. Rock and a hard place, IMO.
I don't think the situation in Israel will change because of the current developments in Saudi Arabia and ISIS. ISIS is a problem from within muslim countries, because most of the victims are other muslims. It's a conflict over who will wield the power in that region, and the West is just an ancillary party in the conflict. If we profess to believe in power by the people, we have to accept that the interpretation of what that actually means may result in a government that does not share our values. If we are consistently supporting the values we are professing, e. g. self-determination, our actions should reflect that.
I don't think ISIS is a good example of "power by the people". More like "power over the people."

We do support self-determination but that isn't just limited to the government of said country. Do people in ISIS controlled territories have any self-determination? Absolutely not - only the ISIS leaders do. It would also be much easier to leave them alone if they weren't still constantly threatening, and carrying out those threats, to attack the West (US and Europe in particular) as well as beheading every one of our citizens they can get their hands on.


We can't just pull out - it would only be a few short years before the next attack and we'd be back in their facing a stronger threat.


Rock and a hard place.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2015, 05:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I don't disagree with you but when we did do something about it in Iraq, it didn't take all that long after we were gone for ISIS to materialize. Rock and a hard place, IMO.
Not really, Iraq was a very good example of unnecessary meddling. The US and her allies have set themselves up for more repercussions. In they eyes of many the US can do no good there anymore, and since this is a matter of perception, it does not matter whether that is accurate or not.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I don't think ISIS is a good example of "power by the people". More like "power over the people."
I realize that the story of ISIS is not that of an oppressed majority who finally have had their chance to free themselves of the shackles. What they are doing is despicable. Nevertheless, it's the result of a struggle inside of society inside that region, triggered by the collapse of the previous oligarchies.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
We do support self-determination but that isn't just limited to the government of said country. Do people in ISIS controlled territories have any self-determination? Absolutely not - only the ISIS leaders do.
Yes, but if self-determination exactly means that you don't right every wrong you see, because sometimes peoples have to do that for themselves.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It would also be much easier to leave them alone if they weren't still constantly threatening, and carrying out those threats, to attack the West (US and Europe in particular) as well as beheading every one of our citizens they can get their hands on.
I understand that in view of the images from the region you can't help yourself but wanting to help the people who are the victims of ISIS. But there are other regions in the world where similar conflicts are going on right now (e. g. Boko Haram), and while I'm am certainly not against humanitarian aid, we make the situation worse by meddling. There are already some signs that the pendulum is swinging in the other direction, I have to think long and hard to come up with an example where Hamas has condemned a terrorist attack committed by muslims against people from the West (I'm referring to the terror attacks in Paris).
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
We can't just pull out - it would only be a few short years before the next attack and we'd be back in their facing a stronger threat.
I disagree: if we remove ourselves from the conflict, the focus of this conflict becomes more internal, i. e. how society reacts towards the threat of muslim radicals who go far and beyond what the average of society there considers acceptable. That isn't a conflict which concerns us.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2015, 08:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Not really, Iraq was a very good example of unnecessary meddling. The US and her allies have set themselves up for more repercussions. In they eyes of many the US can do no good there anymore, and since this is a matter of perception, it does not matter whether that is accurate or not.
We could debate it's neccessity til the cows come home. An Iraq still ruled by the ba'ath party could very well have been a haven for extremists much like the ISIS controlled parts of it today.

As far as "perception" is concerned, it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't type situation. They (extremists) hate us because we are not Muslim, and we are rich. Until you get rid of those two things, there will always be a large number of propagandists molding our "perception".

I realize that the story of ISIS is not that of an oppressed majority who finally have had their chance to free themselves of the shackles. What they are doing is despicable. Nevertheless, it's the result of a struggle inside of society inside that region, triggered by the collapse of the previous oligarchies.
Oligarchies which posed as much (of not more) of a threat then the current caliphate.

Yes, but if self-determination exactly means that you don't right every wrong you see, because sometimes peoples have to do that for themselves.
I agree wholeheartedly, but those "wrongs" are not in a vaccuum.

I understand that in view of the images from the region you can't help yourself but wanting to help the people who are the victims of ISIS. But there are other regions in the world where similar conflicts are going on right now (e. g. Boko Haram), and while I'm am certainly not against humanitarian aid, we make the situation worse by meddling. There are already some signs that the pendulum is swinging in the other direction, I have to think long and hard to come up with an example where Hamas has condemned a terrorist attack committed by muslims against people from the West (I'm referring to the terror attacks in Paris).
Getting Hamas to like the West and getting Hezbollah to put down their arms are two entirely different animals.

This is not a "perception" problem so much as an ideological battle where one side will literally fight to the death. You cannot change the perceptions of a group of people that live and operate solely to wipe the Jewish people off the face of the planet.

I disagree: if we remove ourselves from the conflict, the focus of this conflict becomes more internal, i. e. how society reacts towards the threat of muslim radicals who go far and beyond what the average of society there considers acceptable. That isn't a conflict which concerns us.
Like Pre 9/11? Then 9/11 happened?

It absolutely is a conflict which concerns us because they actively target our citizens and plot to kill us. Their stated goal is not peaceful self-determination. Their stated goal is to destroy the West, including Israel and the United States.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2015, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
We could debate it's neccessity til the cows come home. An Iraq still ruled by the ba'ath party could very well have been a haven for extremists much like the ISIS controlled parts of it today.
Huh? Do you realize that the Ba'ath Party which was pan-Arab nationalist and socialist ideologically ... of which Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Bashar al-Assad of Syria belonged to (albeit different factions) ... was diametrically opposed to religious extremists? Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were mortal enemies. Much like Bashar al-Assad is with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of ISIS. Iraq under Saddam and Syria under Assad were predominately Muslim countries but were fundamentally secular with respect to public policy. The extremist religious fundamentalists who wanted to institute Sharia law were by no means fans of either of them.

OAW
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2015, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
They (extremists) hate us because we are not Muslim, and we are rich. Until you get rid of those two things, there will always be a large number of propagandists molding our "perception".
Please note that we (the US anyway) are not rich. Maybe Europe (except Greece) counts as rich. The US is further in debt than any other civilization in history. Though I'll grant the middle east may not see the US that way.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 02:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Getting Hamas to like the West and getting Hezbollah to put down their arms are two entirely different animals.
I was just using that as an example to show how divided the muslim world is. My only point was that Hamas's statement against the attacks was a very, very rare event, showing that something is brewing in the region, something which doesn't cleanly divide amongst old friends and foes.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
This is not a "perception" problem so much as an ideological battle where one side will literally fight to the death. You cannot change the perceptions of a group of people that live and operate solely to wipe the Jewish people off the face of the planet.
We don't have to change anything about that. Your premise of this title is that the changes in the Middle East somehow put Israel in additional, concrete danger. Israel is safe from attack from another foreign nation in the region because of its nuclear arsenal. The only country which is hard at work to obtain nuclear capabilities is Iran, and compared to Iraq, Kurdistan, Libya and Syria, the situation in Iran is stable. Israel is only really vulnerable against attacks from non-states, and given that they have the situation in Gaza and the Westbank under control, and ISIS right now has no interest in Israel, they have other fish to fry. Once the areas which ISIS control congeal into a state, we can deal with them as a state.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Like Pre 9/11? Then 9/11 happened?

It absolutely is a conflict which concerns us because they actively target our citizens and plot to kill us. Their stated goal is not peaceful self-determination. Their stated goal is to destroy the West, including Israel and the United States.
9/11 is the result of 50+ years of policies, and I don't want to rehash this, but the US had had personal dealings with bin Laden before, he started out on our team when it was convenient for us to arm and train him. Just imagine if we hadn't made him into who he was before the attacks. Bin Laden and all the others who shared direct responsibility for the 9/11 attacks are either dead or incarcerated, the job is done. We can pull out, and try to put distance between us and what happens in the Middle East.

What you're arguing for is a perpetuation of mistakes, most of which end up biting us in the rear-end even if it is decades later. We cannot change history, but we can avoid making the same mistakes in the future. Actions speak for themselves, and if for at least 50-odd years your foreign policy (open and covert) is guided by short-term, realist's perspective, people aren't going to believe you if you claim you're doing something for the greater good. Even if you are. We should stop supporting certain despotic regimes (e. g. Saudi Arabia) while vilifying others who are much more benign in comparison (Venezuela and Cuba come to mind). We should pull out of conflicts that don't directly concern us, and minimize involvement. I think that'd serve us much better in the long run.

This self-imposed mission has cost the US dearly, although the cynic in me thinks that America is only going to stop once it realizes that it really, really can't afford all of this anymore.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 07:41 PM
 
So, we'll take back our supporting of OBL because it was "convenient", and you can have the Soviet Union back. Deal?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 08:09 PM
 
3/4 of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi (Wahhabi), as was OBL. I think it's time for the world's leaders (this includes Pope Francis) to recognize that Isalm is not "the religion of peace" before anyone can properly deal with it. Islam means submission. You have three options, convert, live as a dhimmi and pay the jizya, or death. Many are not given option two.

With regard to a war timetable. If reports of Iran posessing a new missle to haul their nuke, Israel will not wait too long before launching preemptive strikes.

Israeli TV shows Iranian missile that can reach far beyond Europe | The Times of Israel
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2015, 10:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So, we'll take back our supporting of OBL because it was "convenient", and you can have the Soviet Union back. Deal?
???
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2015, 02:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It absolutely is a conflict which concerns us because they actively target our citizens and plot to kill us. Their stated goal is not peaceful self-determination. Their stated goal is to destroy the West, including Israel and the United States.
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
... Isalm is not "the religion of peace" before anyone can properly deal with it. Islam means submission. You have three options, convert, live as a dhimmi and pay the jizya, or death. Many are not given option two.
We (the West) can't just let the ME sort itself out because it won't happen in a vacuum. They will continue to kill innocent people and it's morally wrong to just watch it happen. There are too many extremists and the moderates are either too afraid to speak out against them or choose not to because they aren't as moderate as they think they are.

So will there be more attacks in Israel? Sadly, the answer is probably yes, but I think the chances of more attacks in the US goes up every day as well.
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2015, 09:44 AM
 
So why not take the "Dirty Dozen" approach? Make a list of all the Muslim population centers. Warn them that ANY act against the west will cause us to randomly pick one of those population centers and flatten it. Therefore they are all responsible for each others safety. This may cause some internal discussions in the ME.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2015, 10:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So why not take the "Dirty Dozen" approach? Make a list of all the Muslim population centers. Warn them that ANY act against the west will cause us to randomly pick one of those population centers and flatten it. Therefore they are all responsible for each others safety. This may cause some internal discussions in the ME.
MAD will not work with the Islamist mindset. They are willing to strap bombs on children, let alone themselves because they belive they will immediately go to paradise. We need to target two places only, Medina and Mecca. Flatten Medina first, then state Mecca will be next. No Mecca, no Hajj.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2015, 10:21 AM
 
I think that adding mistrust between factions will keep them killing each other, and their attentions will be on each other.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2015, 10:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
An Iraq still ruled by the ba'ath party could very well have been a haven for extremists much like the ISIS controlled parts of it today.
That's a giant supposition. Iraq was being governed in a secular manner. I think Saddam saw religious fervor as a threat to his rule, so he kept a tight lid on things, meaning supporting a fervent religious terrorist group would be out of his usual playbook. Not to mention he knew what we were capable of.

Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Please note that we (the US anyway) are not rich. Maybe Europe (except Greece) counts as rich. The US is further in debt than any other civilization in history. Though I'll grant the middle east may not see the US that way.
Weird, this the second time I've seen something like this in the past few weeks. All it does is solidify that judging wealth by the numbers isn't as straightforward as it seems.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
So, we'll take back our supporting of OBL because it was "convenient", and you can have the Soviet Union back. Deal?
Well, if we're going to be fair, we just give Afghanistan to Russia and call it squarsies.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2015, 02:06 PM
 
Watch: What happened when a Jewish man walked around Paris for 10 hours - The Washington Post

Apparently Paris is a pretty crappy place to live if you're Jewish (or gay, since one of the main insults used against the man was "homo"). WTF Europe?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2015, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
WTF Europe?
Antisemitism is one of those subjects that communicates what a sheltered life I lead. I don't get it. My exposure to jewish people has been minimal, but I find the concept of the opposite making me more prone to antisemitism a chilling thought. What's the deal with hating jews? (Particularly in contrast with Muslims)
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2015, 09:22 PM
 
A larger question that needs to be asked, has the Holy War with Islam begun?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2015, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
A larger question that needs to be asked, has the Holy War with Islam begun?
Huh?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2015, 12:58 PM
 
I think most people are realizing it has, but not President Liar.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2015, 10:01 PM
 
Regarding Israel's survival, good news, according internal Mossad documents Netanyahu has lied about the state of Iran's nuclear weapons program and the Iranians are much farther away from making a bomb than what was claimed by the government.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2015, 10:22 PM
 
Let's hope so. It willl easier to take them down before a serious bomb exists.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 09:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I think it's time for the world's leaders (this includes Pope Francis) to recognize that Isalm is not "the religion of peace" before anyone can properly deal with it. Islam means submission. You have three options, convert, live as a dhimmi and pay the jizya, or death. Many are not given option two.
The reality is that almost any Muslim you meet in North America is likely to be peaceful, moderate, and think your above statements are absolutely crazy.

What does that say about your argument?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 09:24 AM
 
Are you Greg, also?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 11:11 AM
 
Most...But not ALL???? Seems you lose on details. It only takes ONE, with a bomb strapped under the garment. Obamas' open borders aren't helping either. All while Obama wants a higher fence around the White House.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 11:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
All while Obama wants a higher fence around the White House.
I think that's the secret service, not Obama. Mostly because they've gotten bad at their job.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Netanyahu has lied
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Let's hope so.
lololololol

This ****in' place
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
The reality is that almost any Muslim you meet in North America is likely to be peaceful, moderate, and think your above statements are absolutely crazy.

What does that say about your argument?
That they would be next inline to killed by ISIS and the like for not being true to Islam. Islam means submission, not peace. I have to defer to those who studdied further than I have, especially those who have lived among it's followers, like Brigette Gabriel and Robert Spencer. I have posted a clip of Miss Gabriel answering a question about the "peaceful majority Muslims"




Miss Gabriel on Imus

You also have to ignore the honor killings that occur each year around the world among the "peaceful moderate Muslims"

Another issue is I understand that most of the Mosques in the west are being funded and staffed by Wahhabi Imams. They have redifined "infidel" from those who are not Muslim or "person of the book" to anyone that is not a Sunni Muslim and does not stricly follow the Koran and Hadith.

Here is Robert Spencer on EWTN discussing Catholics and Islam (2013)


We also need to remember that Islam is a political system.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 08:08 PM
 
......
( Last edited by Chongo; Feb 24, 2015 at 08:09 PM. Reason: not on topic)
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2015, 12:07 AM
 
It's not clear to me that Netanyahu has lied about anything.

What I see is leaked internal communications from Mossad expressing a tentative conclusion without context. I don't think that particular communication amounts to anything without further context and the rest of Mossad's findings, among other groups including the consensus at the IAEA.

In other words, that communication is meaningless.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2015, 12:13 AM
 
In all honesty it sounds awfully similar to how the Bush Administration cherry picked intelligence assessments to support its political desire for war with Iraq. An outright "lie"? Perhaps not. Willful blindness to contrary evidence and embellishment of evidence that could be spun toward their foreign policy objective? Absolutely.

OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2015, 09:57 AM
 
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2015, 06:13 PM
 
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2015, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Antisemitism is one of those subjects that communicates what a sheltered life I lead. I don't get it. My exposure to jewish people has been minimal, but I find the concept of the opposite making me more prone to antisemitism a chilling thought. What's the deal with hating jews? (Particularly in contrast with Muslims)
Unfortunately, I think the Jews have done a disservice to themselves by isolating themselves from secular America. Many people have minimal interactions with religious Jews because the religious Jews don't go to the same schools, shop at the same supermarkets, eat at the same restaurants, etc. How can you gain first hand experience without any meaningful interactions?

Not all Jews do this of course, or even all religious ones, but there aren't that many Jews and the more religious they are the more secluded and sheltered they tend to be.

This is one of the reasons I take every opportunity to answer questions about Judaism whether it be from coworkers, clients, or the person next to me on the plane.
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2015, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
In all honesty it sounds awfully similar to how the Bush Administration cherry picked intelligence assessments to support its political desire for war with Iraq. An outright "lie"? Perhaps not. Willful blindness to contrary evidence and embellishment of evidence that could be spun toward their foreign policy objective? Absolutely.

OAW
I mean, you're welcome to speculate all you like.

It's also funny to me that "Bush" is the first leader that comes to mind when speculating about who's lying. Never mind the one currently in office very publicly lied to the entire nation ("if you like your plan..."), or the one before Bush who very publicly lied to the nation ("I did not have sexual relations...". Infact, Bush is the only president we've had in the last 20 years where there's no evidence that he lied to the nation, just rampant partisan speculation.

Sounds to me more like you're cherry picking click-bait headlines rather than substantive opinion based off of what we do know for certain.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2015, 11:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I mean, you're welcome to speculate all you like.

It's also funny to me that "Bush" is the first leader that comes to mind when speculating about who's lying. Never mind the one currently in office very publicly lied to the entire nation ("if you like your plan..."), or the one before Bush who very publicly lied to the nation ("I did not have sexual relations...". Infact, Bush is the only president we've had in the last 20 years where there's no evidence that he lied to the nation, just rampant partisan speculation.

Sounds to me more like you're cherry picking click-bait headlines rather than substantive opinion based off of what we do know for certain.
Well the thread topic isn't "US Presidents Who Have Lied". I could have sworn we were discussing "Prediction: Israel is attacked in the next 1.5 years". You said ... "It's not clear to me that Netanyahu has lied about anything. " To which I gave my response. Obamacare talking points and Clinton skeeting on Monica's dress are both utterly beside the point.

In my view Netanyahu is pushing for military conflict with Iran. But that only makes sense if he can drag the US into it. Notice how Israel will attack Syrian military facilities with impunity. But in the 20+ years that Netanyahu has been erroneously claiming that Iran is on the cusp of developing a nuclear weapon you've never seen Israel carry out a military attack on that country. Assassinate their nuclear scientists covertly? Most definitely. But launch airstrikes or a missile attack? Not so much. There's a reason for that. Militarily speaking ... Iran is not Syria. That's not to say that Israel wouldn't win an all out war with Iran. Just saying that Iran is capable of exacting a heavy price for going there. A price that Israel thus far has been unwilling to pay on its own.

OAW
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2015, 01:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Well the thread topic isn't "US Presidents Who Have Lied". I could have sworn we were discussing "Prediction: Israel is attacked in the next 1.5 years". You said ... "It's not clear to me that Netanyahu has lied about anything. " To which I gave my response. Obamacare talking points and Clinton skeeting on Monica's dress are both utterly beside the point.
And 2008 election talking points are somehow more relevant? I fail to see how the situation with Iran is anything like Iraq, other than their region of the world.

In my view Netanyahu is pushing for military conflict with Iran.
I think this would have happened already if that were the case.
But that only makes sense if he can drag the US into it.
I'm not sure Netanyahu is dumb enough to pursuit that with this administration in office.

Notice how Israel will attack Syrian military facilities with impunity. But in the 20+ years that Netanyahu has been erroneously claiming that Iran is on the cusp of developing a nuclear weapon you've never seen Israel carry out a military attack on that country. Assassinate their nuclear scientists covertly? Most definitely. But launch airstrikes or a missile attack? Not so much. There's a reason for that. Militarily speaking ... Iran is not Syria. That's not to say that Israel wouldn't win an all out war with Iran. Just saying that Iran is capable of exacting a heavy price for going there. A price that Israel thus far has been unwilling to pay on its own.

OAW
I don't think Israel wants a war with Iran at all. That would compromise their security for the foreseeable future. I think Israel wants Iran to have a nuke even less than they want a conventional war with Iran, and doesn't buy into Obama's apologist rhetoric. Netanyahu cannot appear to be weak in the face of it's most formidable ally's ineptitude with dealing with the situation. By bypassing Obama altogether and speaking to Congressional Republicans, Netanyahu is showing the world and Iran that Israel is not afraid to challenge it's allies with its survival on the line.

Iran has been waging proxy wars against Israel for decades now, and a nuclear armed Iran would be a existential threat to the security of Israel and the stability of Western influences in the region.

I don't think the "death to america state" would have any interest in fulfilling their end of the bargain should the nuke deal pass. Iran is simply gaming us into an agreement that benefits them by lifting sanctions. With Iran still actively funding the proxy wars with Israel, there is little doubt that respecting their end of the bargain with the US is simply unrealistic, and that they will continue to pursue nuclear weapons clandestinely.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2015, 09:16 AM
 
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2015, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I read the article, but I have a hard time believing it. The thought of a country shooting down an ally's planes doesn't sit right. The US wouldn't be able to keep it a secret and nobody would believe that the Iraqi's shot the planes down. Then there is a matter that if you don't shoot all the planes down enough will get through to complete the mission and then what was the point in shooting any of them down? Lastly, it is kind of arrogant to think they could shoot down Israeli fighters so easily. They aren't exactly amateurs.
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2015, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I mean, you're welcome to speculate all you like.

It's also funny to me that "Bush" is the first leader that comes to mind when speculating about who's lying.
The connection is simple – lying to try to get war. All presidents are liars, but lying about spunk and lying about impending doom kinda sit on opposite sides of the spectrum.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm not sure Netanyahu is dumb enough to pursuit that with this administration in office.
It's clear you don't support the current path by the administration, but rather than assume, I have to ask, what is it you seek? I'm hoping it's not armed intervention.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2015, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by SSharon View Post
Unfortunately, I think the Jews have done a disservice to themselves by isolating themselves from secular America.
I don't think it's that, and I have to ask if 'Jews' means all jews, or a certain segment (religious, orthodox, etc.)

Originally Posted by SSharon View Post
Many people have minimal interactions with religious Jews because the religious Jews don't go to the same schools, shop at the same supermarkets, eat at the same restaurants, etc. How can you gain first hand experience without any meaningful interactions?
Well, in my case it's two things:
1. Where I live
2. I wouldn't know a jew unless they wore it on their sleeve
(Actual exchange from high school: "Have a merry christmas" "I'm jewish, we don't celebrate christmas" "oh")

There's always the possibility people are interacting with jews and just not realizing it.

Originally Posted by SSharon View Post
Not all Jews do this of course, or even all religious ones, but there aren't that many Jews and the more religious they are the more secluded and sheltered they tend to be.
But is the hate directed at a certain subsection (like the orthodox)? Again, sheltered here, but I really fail to see why anyone would have a problem with integrated secular jews.
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2015, 12:23 PM
 
Religious (by which I mean observant, since I don't want to imply that not following strict laws makes you less religious or less spiritual in any way) Jews do themselves the disservice.

The ignorance of Jewish customs and practices necessarily involves regular practice of those customs (as opposed to the more cultural Judaism as observed by reform Jews for example). Anti-semitism extends beyond the religious Jews of course, but the point I was trying to make is that some Jews are upset that the secular world isn't more understanding or knowledgeable about Judaism, but they do nothing to educate the public because they intentionally isolate themselves.

For example, I can't blame someone for not knowing about the rules of the sabbath or keeping kosher if they never had any meaningful contact with someone that actually observes the sabbath and keeps kosher. Not everyone is in a (geographical) place to have that contact, but there are plenty of places where it could happen, but doesn't.
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2015, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by SSharon View Post
Religious (by which I mean observant, since I don't want to imply that not following strict laws makes you less religious or less spiritual in any way) Jews do themselves the disservice.

The ignorance of Jewish customs and practices necessarily involves regular practice of those customs (as opposed to the more cultural Judaism as observed by reform Jews for example). Anti-semitism extends beyond the religious Jews of course, but the point I was trying to make is that some Jews are upset that the secular world isn't more understanding or knowledgeable about Judaism, but they do nothing to educate the public because they intentionally isolate themselves.

For example, I can't blame someone for not knowing about the rules of the sabbath or keeping kosher if they never had any meaningful contact with someone that actually observes the sabbath and keeps kosher. Not everyone is in a (geographical) place to have that contact, but there are plenty of places where it could happen, but doesn't.
Understood.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2015, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The connection is simple – lying to try to get war. All presidents are liars, but lying about spunk and lying about impending doom kinda sit on opposite sides of the spectrum.
I agree, though I don't see any evidence netanyahu is/was lying. Just a leaked intelligence report without context. My point is that lying about anything compromises your credibility across all issues, regardless of when you were actually caught lying. I'm asking for more than a clickbait headline with no other context than a low level intelligence report before we go labeling Netanyahu a liar. I was also pointing out that we never caught Bush in any lies (that doesn't mean he didn't make a few bad decisions) whereas the presidents before and after him were caught very publicly doing just that.

Netanyahu isn't lying to start a war. I don't believe he wants a war. I do believe that he wants to keep Iran from going nuclear, and that we're wasting our time and actually facilitating just that by believing Iran would follow any kind of deal - one that would give them ALOT more money and distract us from what they're really up to.

It's clear you don't support the current path by the administration, but rather than assume, I have to ask, what is it you seek? I'm hoping it's not armed intervention.
What I think we ought to do with Iran?

Continue the sanctions until such a time that ALL of their nuclear infrastructure is taken apart. In the meantime, if they want to pursuit peaceful nuclear power, then allow them to buy low-enriched uranium from the US, Russia, wherever.

There's absolutely no basis for the US to make any concessions to Iran, given their past track record and the fact that even to this day the IAEA and opposition groups in Iran believe their is at least one clandestine nuclear research facility in Iran.

I am reminded of the old adage between the scorpion and the frog.

The Scorpion and the Frog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The fable is used to illustrate the position that no change can be made in the behaviour of the fundamentally vicious."

"the greatest kindness will not bind the ungrateful"

Iran is the very definition of fundamentally vicious:

Iranian Parliament Chanted 'Death to America' The Day After Nuclear Talks Failed - Business Insider

‘Death to America’ rallies sweep Iran - Washington Times



On what basis could you possibly believe for even half a second that Iran would follow any agreement put into place, aside willful ignorance of their track record? To this day they call for death to America and her Allies, especially Israel and continue to fight proxy wars on that front. Any concessions we give to Iran is just a bonus for them, as you'd have to be seven kinds of stupid to believe they'd follow the deal. They're coming to the table to see what they can get out of us, and to buy time to continue their agenda. America and her allies will not benefit at all from any kind of concessions given to Iran, but Iran would benefit immensely.


We aren't dealing with some kind of cultural misunderstanding between countries and cultures here. If we were, concessions in diplomacy would be appropriate. Instead, we're dealing with a country who's aspirations is to grow it's empire through conquest and a religious subjugation doctrine.

EDITED TO ADD: When I say Iran, I am talking about their government. I believe there are a great many secularists in that country that would love to see Iran head down a path of reconciliation and take their place among the world as a peaceful, secular country.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Mar 4, 2015 at 09:08 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2015, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What I think we ought to do with Iran?

Continue the sanctions until such a time that ALL of their nuclear infrastructure is taken apart. In the meantime, if they want to pursuit peaceful nuclear power, then allow them to buy low-enriched uranium from the US, Russia, wherever.
Fair enough. The question then becomes if the Iranian government blows off the sanctions and builds a nuclear weapon anyway .... then what?

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
We aren't dealing with some kind of cultural misunderstanding between countries and cultures here. If we were, concessions in diplomacy would be appropriate. Instead, we're dealing with a country who's aspirations is to grow it's empire through conquest and a religious subjugation doctrine.
Huh? You do realize that modern Iran (I'm not talking about ancient Persia) has never initiated any war of aggression in its entire history right? Can the same be said for Israel? Or the US for that matter?

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2015, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I agree, though I don't see any evidence netanyahu is/was lying.
That wasn't the part I quoted. You asked why Bush came up in comparison. I'm telling you why he would come up first.

I don't know if Netanyahu is lying, but it seems clear at the very least he's exaggerating. And then people point out he's been singing the same song since 1992 and it becomes a 'boy who cried wolf' situation.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What I think we ought to do with Iran?

Continue the sanctions until such a time that ALL of their nuclear infrastructure is taken apart. In the meantime, if they want to pursuit peaceful nuclear power, then allow them to buy low-enriched uranium from the US, Russia, wherever.
Seems reasonable to me.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The Scorpion and the Frog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The fable is used to illustrate the position that no change can be made in the behaviour of the fundamentally vicious."

On what basis could you possibly believe for even half a second that Iran would follow any agreement put into place, aside willful ignorance of their track record?
Doesn't this fable cut both ways? Why should they trust a nation that has completely disregarded their sovereignty in the past for commercial pursuits and has shown even recently it will go to war on merely perceived danger?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:36 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,