Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb

[R.H. Lee]

Do you even read from the links you post? Here are some excerpts from that Hamas link:

Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

That isn't advocacy of genocide??????

 

[shootinstudent]

R.H. Lee,

It is certainly advocacy of violence, and for the destruction of Israel. You need to reread my post. If you read the later articles, you will find that even such a hateful group as Hamas has to pay lip service to peaceful coexistence between Jews and Muslims. What I am claiming is that there are ways to reverse the trend towards more hatred, and if you read into what's going on, you can find them.

If you just resign yourself to "All Arabs (and Iran, which isn't an Arab country irrationaly hate Jews and will never change", then you're a defeatist in my opinion. I think we ought to focus on opportunities to promote stability and peace, instead of just hyping up the battle...which is exactly what the extremists want.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Deleted, trying to be nice... please continue.

 

[ArmedBear]

I think we ought to focus on opportunities to promote stability and peace, instead of just hyping up the battle...which is exactly what the extremists want.

Here's the problem.

If you're right, then Israel will continue to exist, regardless of what it does.

If you're wrong, Israel is toast.

Why would Israel gamble on your opinions being right, where there is a lot of evidence that they're not?

Note that a good number of European Jews gambled that the Nazis wouldn't REALLY do anything to them. They lost that gamble, while Britain was losing her gamble that Hitler could be appeased. Americans might be stupid enough to forget fatal lessons again and again, but I assure you, most Israelis are not.

So why in the world would Israel bet the lives of its people on the opinions of some safe academics blathering away in American colleges -- that IS where those opinions prevail, of course?

 

[shootinstudent]

Note that a good number of European Jews gambled that the Nazis wouldn't REALLY do anything to them. They lost that gamble, while Britain was losing her gamble that Hitler could be appeased.

So why in the world would Israel bet the lives of its people on the opinions of some safe academics blathering away in American colleges -- that IS where those opinions prevail, of course?

That's a good point. What I'm trying to show is that using extreme retaliation to solve conflicts is just as much a gamble, if not more so, than my option...becuase it will create generations of hatred for certain, whereas generations of support from the rest of the world are terribly uncertain.

Which leaves Israel in a better position: Taking risks with terrorists today in order to secure the trust of a majority of the middle east in the long run...thus making international military support from the US irrelevant,

or...

using lots of really big bombs, thus guaranteeing that all those who survive the bombing are going to spend the rest of their days teaching their kids to kill you...and hoping that the day never comes when they have the ability, and no other country really cares what happens to Israel?

 

[Waitone]

Wow!

 

[R.H. Lee]

If you just resign yourself to "All Arabs (and Iran, which isn't an Arab country irrationaly hate Jews and will never change", then you're a defeatist in my opinion. I think we ought to focus on opportunities to promote stability and peace, instead of just hyping up the battle...which is exactly what the extremists want.

No Arab leader since Sadat has made any conciliatory gesture to the Jews, and he was murdered for it. The entire Arab world is lined up against Jewish presence in the region, ergo, they are all extremists. Israel, on the other hand, has made and will continue to make offers of peace through negotiation with the Arabs. But that peace cannot be made unilaterally, and until the Arabs understand that the state of Israel is a fact, they will continue to pay the price. If they do not get the message, there may be no alternative for Israel other than peace through victory by way of warfare.

 

[ArmedBear]

That's a good point. What I'm trying to show is that using extreme retaliation to solve conflicts is just as much as a gamble, if not more so, than my option...becuase it will create generations of hatred for certain, whereas generations of support from the rest of the world are terribly uncertain.

Which leaves Israel in a better position: Taking risks with terrorists today in order to secure the trust of a majority of the middle east in the long run...thus making international military support from the US irrelevant,

or...

using lots of really big bombs, thus guaranteeing that all those who survive the bombing are going to spend the rest of their days teaching their kids to kill you...and hoping that the day never comes when they have the ability, and no other country really cares what happens to Israel?

Well, Israel has chosen option 2 several times, and it exists only because it has. It has chosen option 1 with the Palestinians, and every time it's been burned. Israel also held its fire during Gulf War I, in response to American pleas, but this was a tactical move, not a philosophical one. Were it not for overwhelmingly victorious Coalition forces that took care of the job for them, Israel would have attacked Iraq out of necessity, or it would have continued to be a sitting duck target.

So you tell me -- imagining of course that you're in Israel, not safe here in the US.

As far as "defeatism", well, I'm not sure how old you are, but I'll guess I'd been hearing about the endless Arab-Israeli conflict on the news long before you were born. That's not a jab at your age -- or mine. But sooner or later, "defeatism" seems more like getting a grip on reality, to most people, when it comes to the Middle East.

 

[shootinstudent]

It has chosen option 1 with the Palestinians, and every time it's been burned.

We had this debate...see above. Claiming that you're only invading land to protect the State, and not to permanently occupy it, is not credible when the first thing you do is build thousands of houses to permanently settle the area. Solution 1 has not been seriously attempted, at least not until the most recent (like, this year's) events with Sharon...and I support this year's trend. If Ariel Sharon is agreeing with negotiation and Palestinian statehood, I think that's strong evidence that I'm not the only person on earth who thinks this is the way to go.

That's not a jab at your age -- or mine. But sooner or later, "defeatism" seems more like getting a grip on reality, to most people, when it comes to the Middle East.

Sure...but my point is that the reality of retaliation and long standing hatred is something to consider also. Who would've predicted that Germany would have the most powerful military in the world within 20 years after being crushed in WWI? Likewise, who knows what is going to happen in the next hundred years in the Middle Eastern states? And who is going to guarantee that the US keeps suppporting Israel indefinitely?

Given that kind of uncertainty, I think a real grip on reality means recognizing that betting the existence of Israel solely on military force is indeed a risky proposition. I do see your point though, and it's certainly true that things could get worse no matter what happens.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Which leaves Israel in a better position: Taking risks with terrorists today in order to secure the trust of a majority of the middle east in the long run

You cannot 'secure the trust' of psychopathic killers. If this had been the prevalent thinking during WWII, we'd all be lampshades or speaking German and singing the Horst Wessel song.

 

[ArmedBear]

Given that kind of uncertainty, I think a real grip on reality means recognizing that betting the existence of Israel solely on military force is indeed a risky proposition.

You're in the forest. You have a single shot .45-70 in your hands, and a few rounds in your pocket. You think there might be two bears in the brush, but you're not sure.

One bear comes charging out of the brush at you. If you shoot it, and there's another bear, it will be REALLY pissed off. But you don't know if there's another bear or not.

So, given that you HAVE a rifle, do you shoot the bear that you see, hoping that there is no second bear or that you can reload your gun quickly, or do you try to play dead so as not to appear threatening, and hope the bear will back down?

Remember--we're talking nukes in the hands of sociopathic racists here.

 

[Waitone]

Claiming that you're only invading land to protect the State, and not to permanently occupy it, is not credible when the first thing you do is build thousands of houses to permanently settle the area.

Question. In your examination of the Arab-Israeli mess have you come upon an explanation of the settlements, what they are and why they exist? I'm not trying to be smart. You seem concerned about the existence of the settlements yet you demonstrate no understanding of them or their existence.

 

[shootinstudent]

In your examination of the Arab-Israeli mess have you come upon an explanation of the settlements, what they are and why they exist? I'm not trying to be smart. You seem concerned about the existence of the settlements yet you demonstrate no understanding of them or their existence.

My understanding of settlements is that they are intended to expand the permanent borders of Israel for religious and political reasons. They are mainly the product of and supported by the ultra-orthodox conservative groups, and I just read an article the other day about how the Government of Israel is now seriously considering prosecutions for illegal funding (from conservatives) to the settlements.

If you have a better understanding of their purpose, I'd like to see it.

Here's one such article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17499-2005Mar8.html

 

[CAnnoneer]

Which leaves Israel in a better position: Taking risks with terrorists today in order to secure the trust of a majority of the middle east in the long run...thus making international military support from the US irrelevant

ROTFLOL

SS, you are killing me!

using lots of really big bombs, thus guaranteeing that all those who survive the bombing are going to spend the rest of their days teaching their kids to kill you.

The only reason why these bozoslamic krapluckistanians dare play oneupmanship with us in terror is because they count on leftists and bleeding hearts to stay our killing hand. To believe that the gloves would not come off if we are truly properly motivated is certifiably insane. So is believing that total and utter destruction is unattainable.

And no, we are not yet properly motivated. That is not a coincidence, or a failure on the part of OBL. What these guys want is power. They saw Arafat keep his for decades by opposing Israel. They went for a far bigger and more impressive target - us.

Let's ask ourselves why it is that there have been no new attacks on American soil. We all know Homeland security is a joke. With the millions these guys have, they can get a couple of soviet nukes, cross the nonexistent Mexican border and make 9/11 look like a friday night fist fight. Why haven't they? Because fascists everywhere prefer perpetual Threat Level: Orange. A serious escalation of any sort will break their little game.

 

[shootinstudent]

The only reason why these bozoslamic krapluckistanians dare to play oneupmanship with us in terror is because they count on leftists and bleeding hearts staying our killing hand. To believe that the gloves would not come off if we are truly properly motivated is certifiably insane. So is believing that total and utter destruction is unattainable.

That is a frighteningly naive view of the situation. I refer you to Afghanistan and Chechnya. In Central Asia, the Russians had basically a no-holds-barred push to destroy insurgency for 50 years...and look where it's gotten them. I think these visions of grand genocidal capabilities are a good example of Americans needing to come to grips with reality: we are powerful, but killing that many people isn't feasible.

If a population is large and motivated enough, even unlimited killing potential and absolutely no political constraints will only earn you more hatred. And not just from the first people you tried to destroy...other anti-genocidal factions will normally join them.

Sure, if "the gloves came off", millions could certainly be killed...but only at the likely cost of destroying our own country.

Then there's that whole morality thing. It's troubling to see people who don't find that argument convincing anymore...I think any point at which genocide is the answer is the point at which we've become a culture that is not worth saving.

 

[Waitone]

Actually settlements in "occupied" territory was a military strategy adopted to give Israel longer warning time of impending war. '67 and '73 wars happened fast. The badguys staged close to Israel's borders removing the element of time from Israel's column of advantages. After the '73 war Israel implemented a plan to settle those areas used as staging areas for attacks. There was no controversy at the time in Israel since its citizens just experienced war out of the clear blue. The strategy was was to expand Israel's borders for the purpose of denying staging areas to the enemy.

Fast forward to today. Sharon is in the process withdrawing from "occupied" areas and leaving the settlements. In doing so he is recreating the military situation of the early '73. He is (for whatever the reason) narrowing the borders of his country and leaving in place a society of pyschopaths. Israel is doing the bidding of Bush in its retraction of the borders in the hope it will lead to a negotiated "peace." I hope he and Bush are right; I don't think they are. I think the stage is being set for killing on a biblical scale. Israel is a fact of reality in that part of the world. Israel is not about to walk into the ovens again. "Palestinians" will not admit to the existence of Israel. Under such circumstances negotiations have limited prospects for success, yet it appears Sharon and Bush are willing to give it a whirl. Hopefully, not to many people will die, but I am not that hopeful.

 

[shootinstudent]

The strategy was was to expand Israel's borders for the purpose of denying staging areas to the enemy.

I see. So you agree that Israel never intended to leave that land to the Palestinians after 67?

If the purpose was purely military, why not build observation outposts instead of houses for civillians with families?

In any case, it's a clear violation of the law, and that includes International and now even domestic Israeli law. I think it's quite convenient that the direction of the settlements is towards the bounds of Israel considered to be legitimate by religious conservatives, including the crucial areas around Jerusalem.

Israel is doing the bidding of Bush in its retraction of the borders in the hope it will lead to a negotiated "peace." I hope he and Bush are right; I don't think they are. I think the stage is being set for killing on a biblical scale. Israel is a fact of reality in that part of the world. Israel is not about to walk into the ovens again. "Palestinians" will not admit to the existence of Israel.

Just like some Israelis won't admit the existence of Palestine. I think the reason Palestinians are still fighting is that they were promised independence and a state of their own after WWI, and that state was never created because a group of immigrants took the land for themselves. If the terms of the UN partition plan had been kept from the beginning, and the UN cease fire obeyed...we probably wouldn't be sitting in this situation right now.

Let's hope it's not too late to make some progress back to square one...

 

[CAnnoneer]

In Central Asia, the Russians had basically a no-holds-barred push to destroy insurgency for 50 years...and look where it's gotten them.

Exactly what do you envision as "no-holds-barred"? Conscripts gang-pressed into service at the barrel of a gun, underpaid, underequipped, starving, untrained, unsupported, crippled by political considerations and BBC/CNN/Crappers-with-cameras-united watch on what you do 24/7?

I think these visions of grand genocidal capabilities are a good example of Americans needing to come to grips with reality: we are powerful, but killing that many people isn't feasible.

Propose a method of survival in the desert when nukes destroy industrial centers, communications are cut, water works are blown to pieces, power stations are bombed out, waterwells are poisoned, and bacteriological weapons are deployed.

Better yet, go out camping even in a temperate climate without proper supplies. Come back and write us a field report (if you make it).

If a population is large and motivated enough, even unlimited killing potential and absolutely no political constraints will only earn you more hatred. And not just from the first people you tried to destroy...other anti-genocidal factions will normally join them.

Dead canaries don't sing.

Sure, if "the gloves came off", millions could certainly be killed...but only at the likely cost of destroying our own country.

Again, explain how.

Then there's that whole morality thing. It's troubling to see people who don't find that argument convincing anymore...I think any point at which genocide is the answer is the point at which we've become a culture that is not worth saving.

Morality is meaningful only among those who adhere to it. Societies that breed droves of suicide bombers do not qualify. The same was true with Imperial Japan, and that is why Truman dropped the bombs. By your logic, we have not been a culture worth saving, for 60 years.

 

[shootinstudent]

Conscripts gang-pressed into service at the barrel of a gun, underpaid, underequipped, starving, untrained, unsupported, crippled by political considerations and BBC/CNN/Crappers-with-cameras-united watch on what you do 24/7?

Uh, no. I mean 50 years of complete control over the territory, and one of the most ruthless and efficient secret police organizations in history. The folks who kept the Soviet Union together were not "untrained, unsupported" or "crippled by political considerations." They also weren't watched by anyone at all. I believe some estimates give Stalin's death toll at 20 million. You do realize that they had 50 years to try and stamp out the independence movements in Central Asia, right?

Propose a method of survival in the desert when nukes destroy industrial centers, communications are cut, water works are blown to pieces, power stations are bombed out, waterwells are poisoned, and bacteriological weapons are deployed.

Moving to countries who will happily accept refugees is one way. This is irrelevant though, since most of the population who will be compelled to fight genocide in this war don't live in deserts.

Again, explain how.

By losing all political credibility at home and abroad. Plenty of Americans would refuse to support genocide (I have a high opinion of us.) Terrorism would become daily, via infiltrators who have every incentive to destroy our government before it kills every last one of their families. Add in some eager Chinese factions ready to capitalize on an excuse to subordinate a now ruthless America, and you've got a recipe for economic and military disaster.

Morality is meaningful only among those who adhere to it. Societies that breed droves of suicide bombers do not qualify. The same was true with Imperial Japan, and that is why Truman dropped the bombs. By your logic, we have not been a culture worth saving, for 60 years.

Last I checked, Japan was still there.

Do you not see the irony in saying that societies who breed droves of suicide bombers "do not qualify", when arguing for protecting a proposed society that breeds genocide???

 

[scout26]

I see. So you agree that Israel never intended to leave that land to the Palestinians after 67?

If the purpose was purely military, why not build observation outposts instead of houses for civillians with families?

In any case, it's a clear violation of the law, and that includes International and now even domestic Israeli law. I think it's quite convenient that the direction of the settlements is towards the bounds of Israel considered to be legitimate by religious conservatives, including the crucial areas around Jerusalem.

Could you please give me a reference for this "law". I'm sure there are some Prussians (and Silieasan Germans) who would would like to use this "Law" to get their lands back from the Poles (who probably want to get some of their lands back from Belorussia)

If the terms of the UN partition plan had been kept from the beginning, and the UN cease fire obeyed...we probably wouldn't be sitting in this situation right now.

Last time I checked the Isrealis said "Okey-Dokey" to the partition plan, but the Palestinians/surrounding Arab Nations said: "Ummmm, we don't think so" and attacked/invaded in '48.

I'm not saying the Isreal is prefect, but which would you rather be:

a) an Isreali-Arab living in Isreal (where you have the same rights as every other citizen, including the right to vote)
or
b) a Jew living in an Arab country ??

 

[CAnnoneer]

I mean 50 years of complete control over the territory, and one of the most ruthless and efficient secret police organizations in history.

Interestingly, Chechens did exactly two things under Stalin - jack and squat. Well, they got a white horse for Hitler in 1941, I guess, but otherwise nada. Why? Because they knew NKVD had Nagants and were not afraid to use them. It was only after the fall of USSR that suddenly the situation became what it is today. And now you can find footage on the web of local rebels sawing Russian POW's heads off.

Moving to countries who will happily accept refugees is one way. This is irrelevant though, since most of the population who will be compelled to fight genocide in this war don't live in deserts.

Riight. Let me get this straight. The refugees are supposed to:
1) survive the initial attack
2) avoid starving to death or dehydrating to death (far faster)
3) avoid the bacteriological weapons
4) avoid raiders and their fellow-refugees that would kill them for a piece of bread
5) transport themselved over contaminated areas before the fallout gets them
6) reach a border
7) don't get shot to pieces by the border patrol
8) convince another country to neglect its own interests and accept them and their problems

And do all this while burdened with the sick, the elderly, and the children, which their highly evolved sense of morality would not allow them to ditch.

Sounds like a triple episode of McGyver and Lawrence of Arabia combined. Can I have it on DVD?

By losing all political credibility at home and abroad. Plenty of Americans would refuse to support genocide (I have a high opinion of us.) Terrorism would become daily, via infiltrators who have every incentive to destroy our government before it kills every last one of their families. Add in some eager Chinese factions ready to capitalize on an excuse to subordinate a now ruthless America, and you've got a recipe for economic and military disaster.

This is getting truly bizarre.

Last I checked, Japan was still there.

Only because they surrendered and forsook any and all claims of imperialism and completely restructured themselves. Interestingly, no appeasement, sanctions, economic hardship, or conventional military losses convinced them to do so, but two little nukes did. If anything that should be an argument for deploying two 10kt on Mecca and Medina now, so that the imams come forth and speak on the radio how Jihad is lost, but Allah wants them to make changes.

Do you not see the irony in saying that societies who breed droves of suicide bombers "do not qualify", when arguing for protecting a proposed society that breeds genocide???

Nope. Gentlemanly behavior is reserved among gentlemen. These guys are scum with which we share nothing but the consensus human genome.

Dude, it is obvious you have an agenda. Nobody acts this way unless somehow motivated. My guess is you are of Islamic or Middleeastern descent, so you feel these are your people. You may even be a foreign student, taking into account your defense for illegals.

That is why you do all this talk about how great a culture they are, how they did this or that for modern civilization, how we should bend out of shape to "understand" and "compromise" while they laugh at us and kill us and push us into bankrupsy.

Fact is, you are not tricking anybody.

 

[Cousin Mike]

This thread is becoming scary. Advocating genocide on the Arabs? Saying with conviction that all Arabs are unreasonable and hate the Jews? I guess if I used the word 'racist', the whole thread would turn on me for stating the obvious. SO I'll use the word 'insane' instead. That's insane almost to the point of being criminal, and that's not the America my little brother is in Iraq fighting for. Maybe some of you should talk to someone like him who has actually spent time with those people, and sees what they go through, but still respects them as human beings and individuals. But then again, he's serving his country while you sit at your computer, stuffing your fat face and talking about people needing to be killed like it's nothing but a numbers game. Advocating genocide on a racial/religious basis, while you condemn someone else for doing the same thing. This is just hypocracy to the point of lunacy. How are you better than anyone else for doing that?

If that's all you have to offer in terms of a solution, R.H. Lee, you're the most dangerous type of person in the U.S. A man with no morals, wrapping a sick, twisted ideology in our flag. It's nice to know you have no consideration of the Arabs who love this country so much they left everything they knew, including their families, behind to come here and be free. What about the young Arab-American Muslim men who put on our uniform to fight those thugs in Iraq and elsewhere? Maybe you don't see a difference between them, but I think most of America does. Or maybe you've just convinced yourself that good Arabs don't exist. Maybe you just don't like anyone who thinks or looks differently than you. You wouldn't be the first. As a man who could lose his brother at the hands of the bad guys at any moment, let me tell you one thing. America is better than what you advocate, and so are our soldiers. If these people are so inherently evil, why does my brother always call home with wonderful stories about his relationships and experiences with the Iraqi's in his area? Why does he take so much pride in helping them get their country back? Why do most of our men and women in uniform feel the same way? Why do children and adults alike thank him everyday for helping their country and their people?

From what I see, you're just as sick and angry as the people we are fighting... And so is anyone who thinks genocide is an answer to anything. Turn off Bill O'Reilly and come join the real world. There's more than one type of person in it, and thats what makes it a great place. If you don't know that, you've learned nothing from life, and I feel sorry for you.

 

[Dannyboy]

So you agree that Israel never intended to leave that land to the Palestinians after 67?

3 words for ya, Land for Peace. Israel had every intention of giving back the "occupied lands." All the Arab states had to do was give Israel peace. But noooo, genocide is so much more fun. The way it is now, Israel won't give up the Golan Heights as long as there are wackos in charge in Syria. They won't annex the West Bank, even though it's theirs now, because of that whole demographic problem. Gaza is now in the incompetent hands of the PA. I look at it like this; the Palestinians have acted like animals for years. There are 2 ways to deal with wild animals: put them down or put them in cages. Israel is doing both. I'm not saying that Israel is without blame in this but for the most part, they have been reactionary. The curfews, checkpoints, and now the security barrier are direct reactions to Palestinians routinely blowing themselves up in restaurants, on buses, or in hotels.

 

[shootinstudent]

Could you please give me a reference for this "law". I'm sure there are some Prussians (and Silieasan Germans) who would would like to use this "Law" to get their lands back from the Poles (who probably want to get some of their lands back from Belorussia)

Sure. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm

The washington post article above describes Israeli law.

Last time I checked the Isrealis said "Okey-Dokey" to the partition plan, but the Palestinians/surrounding Arab Nations said: "Ummmm, we don't think so" and attacked/invaded in '48.

That is false. The Jewish Agency totally rejected the partition plan, and rejected the cease fire that the Palestinians wanted to enforce. See above, the 16th of April debates at the UN security council. I can track down the exact reference for the text if you need, as it's in another thread here. (It's not online, only in print).

Nope. Gentlemanly behavior is reserved among gentlemen. These guys are scum with which we share nothing but the consensus human genome.

Dude, it is obvious you have an agenda. Nobody acts this way unless somehow motivated. My guess is you are of Islamic or Middleeastern descent, so you feel these are your people. You may even be a foreign student, taking into account your defense for illegals.

Genocide and advocating genocide are not gentlemanly in my book. The Arab people I know are, in my view, much more gentlemen than some Americans I know...namely, those Americans who stereotype others and then advocate genocide based on the stereotype.

Your guess is wrong. I am an Irish-American and I've been born and raised here in the United States. I have an interest in the subject because it reeks to me of the blood-libel type debates that went on in Europe during the pre-WWII days...with "Jews" substituted out for "Muslims." I also notice, having done some study in the area, that virtually 100 percent of the people calling for nukes and destruction have done almost zero study into the history and current situation. Having people calling for war when they know almost nothing about the part of the world to be attacked is terrifying to me as an American.

3 words for ya, Land for Peace. Israel had every intention of giving back the "occupied lands." All the Arab states had to do was give Israel peace.

Land for peace is the partition, and is currently apparently an American plan. It was rejected in 48 by the Jewish Agency at the UN, and the settlements that were built after 67 are pretty good proof that the Israeli government never intended to give the land back. Arafat definitely rejected it in the 90's also though...I don't think peace under him would've been possible. Now that he's gone, we'll see...but regardless, attacking Iran is going to make it that much harder for all involved.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Genocide and advocating genocide are not gentlemanly in my book.

Then self-preservation in extreme conditions is not gentlemanly in it either. It is better to rot gracefully, kind of like Europe, I guess.

Besides, my graphic descriptions of the horrors that can be visited were in response to your assertations that technically they cannot be done. Finally, the policy I do "advocate" is a few posts up - an opprotunistic Monroe doctrine of sorts, that involves genocide only in extreme conditions.

The Arab people I know are, in my view, much more gentlemen than some Americans I know...

Chances are the Arabs you know are immigrants or descendents of immigrants that have assimilated and adopted the local culture, or they are educated foreign students that abhor their own societies. To get the complete picture, perhaps you should see a few beheading videos too. Just for a perspective's sake.

I have an interest in the subject because it reeks to me of the blood-libel type debates that went on in Europe during the pre-WWII days...with "Jews" substituted out for "Muslims."

That is a horrible parallel to make. European jews did not put on rolls of dynamite and did not run into Bavarian beerhouses to kill Germans. Nor did they fly planes into the Reichstag. The famous fire in 1933 was accidental or started by the Nazis, and even the accused ones were not jews IIRC but two Bulgarian commies and a German commie. The rabbi did not preach every Saturday how it is every chosen's duty to kill the Aryan devils in exchange for virgins from Yehova. Et cetera.