Yet another war, this time with Iran

[Loren Pechtel]

All countries have the right to exist.

No country has the right to expand.

Which looks good until you have cases like the Iranian stealth expansion. Subvert other countries by funding terror movements while not officially taking control.

Where conflicts do arise, a powerful peacekeeping force from neutral countries should intervene and enforce non-violence.

This one is a complete impossibility. Peacekeeping forces are useless against terrorist movements.

That's how the UN was meant to work; Sadly the five permanent members of the Security Council make a mockery of the whole show, not least because they render the remaining nations of the world effectively irrelevant.

It was a pipe dream from the start, it never could work.

 

[bilby]

How has Iran's global influence grown?

Power is the ability to make others do stuff they'd rather not.

...like run out of oil?

Closing the strait (note, it is not straight, it has a fairly sharp bend) is hugely influential, and by allowing certain vessels to pass, while prohibiting others, Iran has gained at least some degree of new influence over nations such as China and India (who between them constitute a quarter of the world), and are also able to bolster the Russian economy and strengthen that country's ties to Iran, which in turn allows Iran to rebuild her military.

They’ve always had that ability. Now, they have a reason to direct that ability in ways that irritate the US.

Well, they didn't really have that ability; I mean, sure, they could have closed the strait without provocation, but doing so would have invited massive retaliation from the US and her allies.

Now that the US has dumped all bar one of her allies, and the stuff that could have been attacked by them in retaliation has been turned into rubble, there's no good reason left for them to not do it.

 

[Toni]

I’m ignoring nothing but go right ahead and continue your Islamophobia, hatred towards Iranians and ignoring the Christofascists and incel terrorist right here.

[emphasis added]
Besides false equivalence and whataboutism, you are really enamored of this particular slur, aren't you?

A more measured response than my earlier rant: I responded to Loren’s post castigating me for ignoring something he thought important. He happens to be wrong in his assumptions and definitions—you also disagreed with him.

I’m sorry if you don’t like the inclusion of the word incel. By incel, I am referring to those who take their personal dissatisfaction with their lives out on women and advocate for violence against women. It’s not really different than any other kind of terrorism except that generally incels can’t be bothered to leave their basements to actually physically attack women. But they are happy to support and idolize serial rapists such as the Tate Brothers.

 

[bilby]

How has Iran's global influence grown?

Power is the ability to make others do stuff they'd rather not.

...like run out of oil?

Closing the strait (note, it is not straight, it has a fairly sharp bend) is hugely influential, and by allowing certain vessels to pass, while prohibiting others, Iran has gained at least some degree of new influence over nations such as China and India (who between them constitute a quarter of the world), and are also able to bolster the Russian economy and strengthen that country's ties to Iran, which in turn allows Iran to rebuild her military.

Its only a tool for power if Iran can use it to get what they want. How's that going for them, do you think?

Pretty well.

Until it leads to countries threatening USA for this, its a limp dick

Plenty of countries are not just threatening, but acting against the USA. The USA has shown that it is unreliable and is a loose cannon.

NATO countries that were poised to buy US weapons systems are now choosing European made alternatives. Non-NATO countries are choosing Chinese alternatives too.

That's action against the USA; Not merely threats. Indeed, threats are for losers. As is violence. Taking economic action by boycotting American products is far smarter.

 

[bilby]

You sound like Hamas leadership.

More like Churchill or Roosevelt. My point is that we should not capitulate to the islamofascists just because oil prices went up some.

Capitulation would only be on the cards if they had attacked you. It was the other way around. America attacked, and Iran refused to capitulate. America then realised that she had no plan for that entirely predictable eventuality.

Iran is a cancer to which the left is playing don't look up. They have unquestionably killed millions through the various groups they support, it would not surprise me if the total was in the tens of millions. And the idiot did not understand why the world keeps kicking the can about it and went in totally stupid. That doesn't make Iran not a cancer.

Following the expert advice of one's oncologist is not "kicking the can", even if it doesn't fast-track full remission.

Deciding that you are bored of listening to the experts, and ditching your oncologist for a witch-doctor doesn't make the cancer go away, it gives it an opportunity to metastatise.

Nobody here is saying that the Iranian regime is good. They are just advising against making a bad situation worse.

Regime change was alleged to be the goal of Operation Epic Tantrum; And it has been achieved. The previous Iranian Regime has been replaced by an even more rigidly fundamentalist and more violent regime, wherein the hard-line IRCG has gone from playing a role as one of three ruling bodies, to being the primary and dominant faction.

Well done, Bibi and Donald. Congratulations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But nobody here favors installing a dictator who would trample of individual rights, including those of women. What are you talking about?

Hitler 2.0.

Iran is a cancer but The Felon is a horribly inept surgeon.

 

[bilby]

Moreover, the Strait of Hormuz is Iranian and Omanian waters. While the UN International Convention on the Law of the Seas indicates ships of transit rights, Iran claims since it never ratified it, they can charge tolls. The USA has no such claim.

I don’t know if Iran is correct. Regardless, Politesse’s argument suggests there is a legal basis but does not suggest approval.

Iran has no power to charge tolls on ships in Omanian waters.

But they do have the power to stop ships from wanting to use Omani waters.

 

[laughing dog]

Israel and Lebanon have agreed to a 10 day ceasefire.

But will Hezbollah honor it?

Will Israel?

When have they not?

Note the news almost never reports on attacks against Israel that do not kill someone.

BS to both. Ceasefires have little meaning these days in almost every region.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel was invaded by 5 countries on its 1st day of independence and you claim those countries are hurt that Israel defeated them? Diddums.

You keep trying to sever the connection between Zionists declaring a new nation in Palestine and everything that happened in the days, weeks, months and years leading up to it, and how it impacted those neighboring countries.

Why do you do that?

It can't be because you don't know about the terrorism, murders, kidnappings, coordinated attacks on villages full of unarmed civilians, etc. It's not because you are simply unaware of the careful planning and decades of efforts to acquire weapons and other resources necessary to carry out those plans. And it's not because you don't know the ambition of the Zionists who founded Israel was to seize even more territory and resources than they had on that day in May of 1948.

So, why? Why does the history of the conflict start for you on May 14th and not before? Why were the on-going ethnic cleansing and massacres which resulted in close to a million refugees seeking shelter in neighboring countries not a good enough reason, in your opinion, for those countries to get involved?

We know a lot of the Palestinian version of "history" has little to do with what actually happened.

And what ethnic cleansing? A few people got driven out of strategic locations. The "cleansing" that happened was at Arab behest, it being suggested that they get out of the way of the coming war. The actual cleansing was by the Palestinians--zero Jews remained in Palestinian territory, while large numbers of Muslims remained in Israeli territory.

 

[laughing dog]

Will Israel?

If your Hezbos do, sure.

My Hezbos? If you are insinuating I am supporter of Hezbollah or any terrorist organization, that is pure slander.

Israel has been the first to break ceasefires in the past. In fact, in that region, "ceasefire" does not reflect its historical meaning.

You do not knowingly support them. But you always take the position they want you to take.

You mean how you don’t support Israel’s ethnic cleansing, but always support the policies that enable it?

Speaking of Hezbollah, they are storing weapons in schools.

IDF uncovers Hezbollah arsenal stashed inside southern Lebanon school

That's a war crime.

Assuming the report is accurate, add it to their list of war crimes if it makes you feel better.

If you don't care about war crimes by Hezbollah why object to supposed war crimes by Israel?

Why do you feel the need to fabricate positions?

There are no war crimes police. IMO “war crimes” is a misnomer. The rules of war reflect old technologies and viewpoints. They are vague enough to allow plenty atrocities and needless killing. Perpetrators are rarely arrested.

So keep adding to the charge sheet. In the end, it won’t matter to either side. As far as I can tell, these wsr crimes by one side are used by the other side as justification for their war crimes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Have started a thread on Sudan. Died of disinterest.

India's interest in Sudan is limited.

So you don't care about genocide?

Israel was invaded by 5 countries on its 1st day of independence and you claim those countries are hurt that Israel defeated them? Diddums.

Israel was an imposition by the British.

Look at what happened between India and Pakistan. Exactly the same thing as 1948 except far, far bloodier.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

True, there were no Israelis before Zionists claimed they had founded the State of Israel. That's something I have often pointed out.

But that does not explain why you keep trying to sever the connection between Zionists declaring Israel existed and all the bloodshed and upheaval that went into Israel's founding, and how that bloodshed and upheaval affected neighboring countries.

It's like you're trying to claim Israel had some kind of virgin birth with no blood, no trauma, and nobody getting fucked.

What came before did not affect other countries and was small potatoes compared to the 1948 war. And it was roughly equal between the two sides.

You are ignoring 400 years of peaceful relations between Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Palestine from the early 1500s to the early 1900s.

You appeared to know about the Ottoman Turks rescuing Sephardic Jews from Spain, and that Jews were welcome in the Ottoman Empire.

You said you knew about Tantura. You said you knew about the peaceful relations between Native Palestinians and Jewish immigrants during the 1st and 2nd Aliyah.

And yet, you seem to forget all that whenever you want to make an appeal to emotion to justify the violent takeover of Palestine and the purging of non-Jews by Zionist extremists.

The same peaceful coexistence of Jim Crow.

The closest comparison to what happened in 1948 is a battered wife finally leaving her abuser.

I agree with compensation, resettlement, and a Right-of-Return for refugees.

If there is to be a right of return it should be mutual. But this is a complete non-starter. It's just another way to victimize the Jews.

But why would European Jews have more of a Right than Palestinians to live in Palestine? Members of the European branch of the Jewish diaspora show a significant degree of European ancestry, and it's impossible to determine which persons are descended from those who were forced out. Whereas the refugees who fled when Plan Dalet was implemented, and their descendants, have solid evidence to back up their claims to a Right to Return to villages that were conquered by Zionist forces in the 1940s.

IMO, the people with the best evidence to support their claim to Palestine as their ancestral homeland are the ones known to be from there, i.e. recent refugees, not the ones who might have some ancestors who were enslaved by Romans but might also be the descendants of shepherds who moved to Ukraine because they wanted to be farmers and seafarers who got stuck living in Greece when their boat sank.

Also, I have addressed the point of Jews being forced out of countries like Morocco many, many times.

Perhaps you were not party to those discussions. Usually it's Loren trying to slip in bullshit about Algerian Jews that prompts a dive into that history. If you want to discuss it, I'd be happy to do that. But if you're going to try claiming that what happened to Jews in the 1970s justifies what happened to Palestinians in the 1940s, or that Palestinians have to pay the price for what Italians did, or that 2 wrongs make a right when it's the Right of Return for Jews alone, then you'd better bring your A game. I have links and I'm not afraid to use them.

What you are missing is that it's not isolated things that happened to Jews. We just have a few surviving examples of what was normal.

You're looking at the paucity of news reports of twister hits tornado alley and concluding tornadoes are very rare.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I absolutely understand that European Jews very much wanted a ‘homeland,’ a place they could live as a majority, and have a Jewish state. It made sense that this Jewish state would be centered on places of historic importance to Judaism. Much of the world wanted that for them, too. The trauma of WWII was, well, world wide.

Of course that’s a fairly shallow understanding of events but it’s also largely true. Another shallow way of looking at things is that there are multiple Islamic states. There are multiple Christian based states. Why could there not exist a single Jewish state?

More it was a case of saying never again. They wanted a place they wouldn't be subjected to periodic pogroms. Historically, there is no meaningful country where they have not had times where they feared for their safety.

And we see the pattern continue, except this time it's nations behind the pogroms.

Unfortunately people living in Palestine wanted to keep living as they had. And why should they not? And unfortunately, all people are flawed and too often want to impose their beliefs on others or to blame others and are often driven by greed and lust for power and fear.

Except nobody would have been expelled from anywhere had the Palestinians not chosen the path of violence. The partition should have been peaceful--but Islam can't accept loss. We see a far bloodier version of the same thing with India/Pakistan, no Jews to blame for it so it gets ignored.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's also a well tested fact that violent opposition to a religion causes it to become both stronger and more radicalized.

Religions thrive on persecution. The way to kill them is through apathy and gentle ridicule.

It's not working very well against Islam. The problem is that the Iranian regime has weaponized it.

 

[Toni]

I absolutely understand that European Jews very much wanted a ‘homeland,’ a place they could live as a majority, and have a Jewish state. It made sense that this Jewish state would be centered on places of historic importance to Judaism. Much of the world wanted that for them, too. The trauma of WWII was, well, world wide.

Of course that’s a fairly shallow understanding of events but it’s also largely true. Another shallow way of looking at things is that there are multiple Islamic states. There are multiple Christian based states. Why could there not exist a single Jewish state?

More it was a case of saying never again. They wanted a place they wouldn't be subjected to periodic pogroms. Historically, there is no meaningful country where they have not had times where they feared for their safety.

And we see the pattern continue, except this time it's nations behind the pogroms.

Unfortunately people living in Palestine wanted to keep living as they had. And why should they not? And unfortunately, all people are flawed and too often want to impose their beliefs on others or to blame others and are often driven by greed and lust for power and fear.

Except nobody would have been expelled from anywhere had the Palestinians not chosen the path of violence. The partition should have been peaceful--but Islam can't accept loss. We see a far bloodier version of the same thing with India/Pakistan, no Jews to blame for it so it gets ignored.

Of course it is telling that no other nation has welcomed Palestinians with open arms as brothers. How much of that is due to the Palestinians and how much it is due to having a convenient mutual enemy in Israel.

 

[Tigers!]

I absolutely understand that European Jews very much wanted a ‘homeland,’ a place they could live as a majority, and have a Jewish state. It made sense that this Jewish state would be centered on places of historic importance to Judaism. Much of the world wanted that for them, too. The trauma of WWII was, well, world wide.

Of course that’s a fairly shallow understanding of events but it’s also largely true. Another shallow way of looking at things is that there are multiple Islamic states. There are multiple Christian based states. Why could there not exist a single Jewish state?

More it was a case of saying never again. They wanted a place they wouldn't be subjected to periodic pogroms. Historically, there is no meaningful country where they have not had times where they feared for their safety.

And we see the pattern continue, except this time it's nations behind the pogroms.

Unfortunately people living in Palestine wanted to keep living as they had. And why should they not? And unfortunately, all people are flawed and too often want to impose their beliefs on others or to blame others and are often driven by greed and lust for power and fear.

Except nobody would have been expelled from anywhere had the Palestinians not chosen the path of violence. The partition should have been peaceful--but Islam can't accept loss. We see a far bloodier version of the same thing with India/Pakistan, no Jews to blame for it so it gets ignored.

Of course it is telling that no other nation has welcomed Palestinians with open arms as brothers.

Jordan was the only country to welcome the Palestinians after 1948. And we saw the result in September 1970. Other country's were more aware than Jordan and did not provide an open welcome.

How much of that is due to the Palestinians and how much it is due to having a convenient mutual enemy in Israel.

Yes to both. By not really looking after the refugees they had a convenient stick to use again Israel.
Lebanon allowed in some and we can still see the results today.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I provided two links to the Arab Proposal, one of them a PDF of the document stored in the Library of Congress and the other a summation of the main points, in a post in this thread that was a direct response to you (#11124). I was under the impression you had at least skimmed them. When you said "Plans were proposed that might have allowed a measure of co-existence but nothing was done to take them seriously" I thought you were referring to it. When I said "I take it you're a fan of the Arab Proposal?", I was seeking confirmation.

Did you think the Arab Proposal had merit? Would you have supported it if you'd been there at that conference negotiating Palestine's future?

I do not recall the poison pill in the Arab plan but I do recall there is one. Such plans exist to deceive people into thinking Islam wants peace, they're always booby-trapped.

You claim that the relationships were peaceful. The Jews, Christians were 2nd class (at best) citizens of the Ottomans. Subject to arbitrary rules enforced by an iron hand. Certainly peaceful, if the alternative could be mass slaughter.

I don't just claim it, I have supported that assertion with scholarly articles, essays written by historians, and links to sites like the Jewish Virtual Library and My Jewish Learning.

Jim Crow was also basically peaceful.

I have pointed out the two times that Jews in Palestine were victimized over the 4 centuries of Ottoman rule, both of them when the Ottomans briefly lost control. I have provided evidence that Jews were sheltered by their Muslims neighbors during those riots. So before you try to bring up something we have already discussed, perhaps you should review my posts, especially the ones I wrote in response to one of your posts, and try to remember what I said.

Sheltered from whom, though?? Other Muslims.

Anne Frank was sheltered by a German. Thus Jews did not live in fear in Germany.

I have never said, suggested, hinted, or implied that the Ottoman Empire was perfect. I have plainly stated what I believe are its flaws and areas where it could have been greatly improved. What I have said was that Palestinian Jews had peaceful relations with their Christian and Muslim neighbors in Palestine for 400 years. You seem to want to ignore history and keep claiming that Jews never had anyplace where they could live in peace with their neighbors. I understand that claim is an important pillar in the argument in favor of seizing land by force in order to create an exclusive State for Jews, but it's not factual.

Jim Crow was peaceful.

And you fail to understand what "seizing land" means in this case.

It was a change in government, not a change in occupation of the land!

I live in an unincorporated area, although within a metropolitan area. The city boundary is nearby. An equivalent to 1948 would be if the city annexed this area. I would vote against such an annexation as I consider the city to add costs without adding value (and sometimes even subtracting it--last year I was trying to report a street light on the fritz. It wouldn't let me drop the pin on the offending light--took me a while to figure out I was standing in county territory but the light (on the other side of the street) was in city territory and the county website for reporting such stuff doesn't work in the city.) Would I lose my house? Of course not, I would just be paying taxes to the city instead of the county. That's what Islam was shitting itself over in 1948.

Palestinian Jews were living in peace in Palestine before Zionist European immigrants started arriving in force with the intention of carving out a territory for themselves and kicking out the majority of the indigenous population. If you think you can prove they weren't, go ahead and make your case.

Didn't happen. That "kicking out" was landlords selling land to Jews. Same thing happened in the US with people breaking the unofficial rules and selling homes in white neighborhoods to black people.

Unwillingness of any?

You are completely discounting the willingness to compromise shown by the villagers of Tantura, Deir Yassin, and others who had pacts and agreements with the local Jewish communities. You are ignoring the Arab Proposal, which was all about willingness to compromise. You are ignoring the people Count Bernadotte was working with and why Zionist terrorists thought it best to murder him before all that compromising resulted in them getting less than everything they wanted. ***

Look more carefully at that Arab Proposal. That wasn't about peace. A properly crafted Google search showed it on Google's page (didn't need to load the link) on the very first hit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would love specific references to the LDS shit involving child polygamy.

For reasons.

Also, how far from "mainstream" LDS can a church go? Aren't they something like mail-order churches, where you get materials and a central authority essentially just preaches at you long-distance via Watchtower publications?

Because of the centralization of literature I was under the impression that pretty much all their churches were about the same level of crazy? Then, I've only seen how LDS churches behave based on the groups I've encountered.

I don't have any references for you. I haven't seen the force side of it. I have seen the child polygamy side of it. Not mail order, they effectively controlled the town. I used to work for people who had left the nutty side of it, I was in Colorado City, Arizona many times. Despite being aware of the situation it was hard not react when encountering his wife and his wife--and the ones I saw were the moderates. There was some suspicion that they tried to burn out our factory for not going along properly. (It happened at night, clearly the origin had been the drying area which had a bunch of wood with flammable finishes on it, assumed accidental. But we found a propane tank near the origin point--we had several, used only for forklifts. And no forklift would ever have gone into the drying area. By then if there had been any evidence we had already cleaned it up, so no investigation.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel was invaded by 5 countries on its 1st day of independence and you claim those countries are hurt that Israel defeated them? Diddums.

Not only was this last century but this was wayyy back last century. Piss weak argument.

I bunch of bullys pick on a kid. The teachers break it up and put the bullies in detention. From detention the bullies continously scream out the window that the moment they come out they will murder the kid who was bullied.

The Arabs have been in detention since 1948. The biggest factor keeping Israel alive is US support

No, it wasn't last century. It never stopped. The Hamas attack of 2023 was just the last one in a string of attacks. It never stopped.

Stop downplaying Arab aggression against Israel. The tenacity of their hatred for Israel is remarkable. As is what they are willing to sacrifice just to keep the conflict going

By now most Arab nations make noises but don't really want to attack Israel.

The modern attacks basically all trace back to Iran.

 

[Toni]

I provided two links to the Arab Proposal, one of them a PDF of the document stored in the Library of Congress and the other a summation of the main points, in a post in this thread that was a direct response to you (#11124). I was under the impression you had at least skimmed them. When you said "Plans were proposed that might have allowed a measure of co-existence but nothing was done to take them seriously" I thought you were referring to it. When I said "I take it you're a fan of the Arab Proposal?", I was seeking confirmation.

Did you think the Arab Proposal had merit? Would you have supported it if you'd been there at that conference negotiating Palestine's future?

I do not recall the poison pill in the Arab plan but I do recall there is one. Such plans exist to deceive people into thinking Islam wants peace, they're always booby-trapped.

You claim that the relationships were peaceful. The Jews, Christians were 2nd class (at best) citizens of the Ottomans. Subject to arbitrary rules enforced by an iron hand. Certainly peaceful, if the alternative could be mass slaughter.

I don't just claim it, I have supported that assertion with scholarly articles, essays written by historians, and links to sites like the Jewish Virtual Library and My Jewish Learning.

Jim Crow was also basically peaceful.

I have pointed out the two times that Jews in Palestine were victimized over the 4 centuries of Ottoman rule, both of them when the Ottomans briefly lost control. I have provided evidence that Jews were sheltered by their Muslims neighbors during those riots. So before you try to bring up something we have already discussed, perhaps you should review my posts, especially the ones I wrote in response to one of your posts, and try to remember what I said.

Sheltered from whom, though?? Other Muslims.

Anne Frank was sheltered by a German. Thus Jews did not live in fear in Germany.

I have never said, suggested, hinted, or implied that the Ottoman Empire was perfect. I have plainly stated what I believe are its flaws and areas where it could have been greatly improved. What I have said was that Palestinian Jews had peaceful relations with their Christian and Muslim neighbors in Palestine for 400 years. You seem to want to ignore history and keep claiming that Jews never had anyplace where they could live in peace with their neighbors. I understand that claim is an important pillar in the argument in favor of seizing land by force in order to create an exclusive State for Jews, but it's not factual.

Jim Crow was peaceful.

And you fail to understand what "seizing land" means in this case.

It was a change in government, not a change in occupation of the land!

I live in an unincorporated area, although within a metropolitan area. The city boundary is nearby. An equivalent to 1948 would be if the city annexed this area. I would vote against such an annexation as I consider the city to add costs without adding value (and sometimes even subtracting it--last year I was trying to report a street light on the fritz. It wouldn't let me drop the pin on the offending light--took me a while to figure out I was standing in county territory but the light (on the other side of the street) was in city territory and the county website for reporting such stuff doesn't work in the city.) Would I lose my house? Of course not, I would just be paying taxes to the city instead of the county. That's what Islam was shitting itself over in 1948.

Palestinian Jews were living in peace in Palestine before Zionist European immigrants started arriving in force with the intention of carving out a territory for themselves and kicking out the majority of the indigenous population. If you think you can prove they weren't, go ahead and make your case.

Didn't happen. That "kicking out" was landlords selling land to Jews. Same thing happened in the US with people breaking the unofficial rules and selling homes in white neighborhoods to black people.

Unwillingness of any?

You are completely discounting the willingness to compromise shown by the villagers of Tantura, Deir Yassin, and others who had pacts and agreements with the local Jewish communities. You are ignoring the Arab Proposal, which was all about willingness to compromise. You are ignoring the people Count Bernadotte was working with and why Zionist terrorists thought it best to murder him before all that compromising resulted in them getting less than everything they wanted. ***

Look more carefully at that Arab Proposal. That wasn't about peace. A properly crafted Google search showed it on Google's page (didn't need to load the link) on the very first hit.

Loren, I’m not a great student of history but Jim Crow was not ‘peaceful’ fior any person of color living under it. It wasn’t peaceful in states that were merely adjacent to it! There were lynchings, raped, murders, all manner of violence under Jim Crow.

Anne Frank and her family lived in Amsterdam, not Germany. They were sheltered in space on a bed by Mr. frank and aided by Dutch citizens who were their friends and employees.

Jews lived very much in fear in Germany and elsewhere.

My sister joined the LDS church in the Midwest. ( she’s no longer a member) .She attended grad school in Provo. The regular LDS church is quite mainstream—much more so compared with Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Orthodox Jews for example.