PDA

View Full Version : US fears uncoordinated Israeli strike on Iran



Rockntractor
11-02-2011, 07:56 PM
US fears uncoordinated Israeli strike on Iran
Washington concerned Israel will mount military operation against Islamic Republic, State Department official says. US consequently putting greater pressure on Security Council to impose harsher sanctions on Iran Read More>http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4141689,00.html
I wonder which side Obama will back?

noonwitch
11-03-2011, 08:57 AM
I don't know what Obama will say about it, but Israel should make sure that at the same time they are bombing sites in Iran, they are also aggressively dealing with Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza and along their northern border.

Arroyo_Doble
11-03-2011, 09:30 AM
Read More>http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4141689,00.html
I wonder which side Obama will back?

I would say the United States' side, as it should be.

DumbAss Tanker
11-03-2011, 09:43 AM
I would say the United States' side, as it should be.


His options to affect the situation one way or the other have become pretty limited through his effectively shunning Israel in favor trying to make friends and influence people in the Muslim world (With very limited and transitory success). At the same time, the Israelis have reluctantly come to the entirely accurate conclusion that our commitment to international processes means we have tied our own hands and will never do anything effective to the Iranian nuke program.

Arroyo_Doble
11-03-2011, 09:52 AM
His options to affect the situation one way or the other have become pretty limited through his effectively shunning Israel in favor trying to make friends and influence people in the Muslim world (With very limited and transitory success).

If that were the case, we would have supported the creation of a Palestinian state in the United Nations when they came to that body for recognition. We would have treated them the same was as we did the Republic of South Sudan. Israel has not been "shunned" by the United States.


At the same time, the Israelis have reluctantly come to the entirely accurate conclusion that our commitment to international processes means we have tied our own hands and will never do anything effective to the Iranian nuke program.

Israel must act in its own interests. So should we.

AmPat
11-03-2011, 10:32 AM
US fears uncoordinated Israeli strike on IranI don't know why it would be considered "uncoordinated." Israel will ensure it is very well coordinated, just not with us.;)

Tipsycatlover
11-03-2011, 11:14 AM
obama should just come out and say that he doesn't believe Israel has a right to self defense. Well all know that's why he means. He should just say it.

Arroyo_Doble
11-03-2011, 12:45 PM
I don't know why it would be considered "uncoordinated." Israel will ensure it is very well coordinated, just not with us.;)

This Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear)has some British chatter on the issue.

Hansel
11-03-2011, 01:01 PM
Read More>http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4141689,00.html
I wonder which side Obama will back?


An uncoordinated attack? As if we need to be in on it. I say let it happen while we watch.

Odysseus
11-03-2011, 01:12 PM
If that were the case, we would have supported the creation of a Palestinian state in the United Nations when they came to that body for recognition. We would have treated them the same was as we did the Republic of South Sudan. Israel has not been "shunned" by the United States.

Israel must act in its own interests. So should we.

There is no compelling US interest that is served by the recognition or formation of a Palestinian state. At best, such a state would be simply another kleptocratic Muslim nation which is openly hostile to our allies and values and covertly hostile to us, a la Egypt, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. At worst, it will be a theocratic terror state which is openly hostile to us across the board, like Iran. Neither of these would enhance the stability of the region or provide any other benefits to the United States. Those other Islamic states that briefly complimented us on our abandoning of an ally would almost immediately return to their prior agenda, assuming that they recognized it at all. Let's recall that $100 million in emergency food aid from USAID to Afghanistan in 2000 didn't prevent them from harboring Osama Bin Laden while he was planning and executing 9/11, or after the fact, just as billions in aid had not kept Pakistan from harboring him for years after that.

The United States has not shunned Israel, but Obama certainly has.


obama should just come out and say that he doesn't believe Israel has a right to self defense. Well all know that's why he means. He should just say it.

Obama doesn't believe that any western nation has a right to self defense, because he sees the west as an exploiter of Third World peoples, lacking in any virtues that warrant defense. At every opportunity, Obama has abandoned critical defense initiatives of the US and gutted our capabilities, and he will continue to do so. Israel is just the canary in the coal mine.

Arroyo_Doble
11-03-2011, 01:49 PM
There is no compelling US interest that is served by the recognition or formation of a Palestinian state. At best, such a state would be simply another kleptocratic Muslim nation which is openly hostile to our allies and values and covertly hostile to us, a la Egypt, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. At worst, it will be a theocratic terror state which is openly hostile to us across the board, like Iran. Neither of these would enhance the stability of the region or provide any other benefits to the United States. Those other Islamic states that briefly complimented us on our abandoning of an ally would almost immediately return to their prior agenda, assuming that they recognized it at all. Let's recall that $100 million in emergency food aid from USAID to Afghanistan in 2000 didn't prevent them from harboring Osama Bin Laden while he was planning and executing 9/11, or after the fact, just as billions in aid had not kept Pakistan from harboring him for years after that.

The United States has not shunned Israel, but Obama certainly has.





Normally, I figure if I want to know your opinion I will just listen to the Mark Levin show but I had to comment on the incredible cognitive dissonance in your post.

Rockntractor
11-03-2011, 02:03 PM
Normally, I figure if I want to know your opinion I will just listen to the Mark Levin show

A very good compliment!:)

Bailey
11-03-2011, 02:06 PM
I dont know how they could do it without our help or approval. While I'd like to see them bomb Iran into the stone age (i know not that big a fall) I dont think they have the millitary to go it alone.

Rockntractor
11-03-2011, 02:09 PM
I dont know how they could do it without our help or approval. While I'd like to see them bomb Iran into the stone age (i know not that big a fall) I dont think they have the millitary to go it alone.

They have nothing to lose, their destruction is assured if they fail to act.

Bailey
11-03-2011, 02:39 PM
They have nothing to lose, their destruction is assured if they fail to act.

Short of nukes I dont know how they could do it alone, I'd wish the magic negro would partner up with them and fight Iran but if wishes were fishes :)

Odysseus
11-03-2011, 03:55 PM
Normally, I figure if I want to know your opinion I will just listen to the Mark Levin show but I had to comment on the incredible cognitive dissonance in your post.

I don't get to listen to talk radio much, but I do get to read a variety of sources, open and classified. Claiming a cognitive dissonance where none exists, and then declaring victory, doesn't accomplish very much. OTOH, I actually responded to the points in your post, and refuted them. Since you could not do the same, I feel safe in assuming that you have no counter arguments, and are simply parroting what you heard on NPR, which you continue to consider a serious news source for reasons that escape the rest of us.

djones520
11-03-2011, 04:03 PM
Short of nukes I dont know how they could do it alone, I'd wish the magic negro would partner up with them and fight Iran but if wishes were fishes :)

They did it just fine to Iraq, and Iran is even further away. The only way they could retaliate would be to use missiles, which Israel has a good defence system against.

A land strike wouldn't really be feasible. They'd have to cross through Iraq, and you will not see Iraq allowing an Iranian army into their territory.

Bailey
11-03-2011, 04:23 PM
They did it just fine to Iraq, and Iran is even further away. The only way they could retaliate would be to use missiles, which Israel has a good defense system against.

A land strike wouldn't really be feasible. They'd have to cross through Iraq, and you will not see Iraq allowing an Iranian army into their territory.

Assuming we dont help them, you think they could fight their way over several hostile countries and arrive in any kind of shape to mount a successful air strike? not just on one target but multiple ones?

Odysseus
11-03-2011, 04:29 PM
They did it just fine to Iraq, and Iran is even further away. The only way they could retaliate would be to use missiles, which Israel has a good defence system against.

A land strike wouldn't really be feasible. They'd have to cross through Iraq, and you will not see Iraq allowing an Iranian army into their territory.

I don't know that Iraq would be able to stop an Iranian army, but it's irrelevant, as Israel doesn't border Iraq, either. They'd have to go through Jordan, which would be highly provocative to the US and would bring a serious response, at least from any other administration. Given what we know of Obama, it's highly likely that he'd deploy several medium-range adjectives through the State Department.

djones520
11-03-2011, 04:38 PM
I don't know that Iraq would be able to stop an Iranian army, but it's irrelevant, as Israel doesn't border Iraq, either. They'd have to go through Jordan, which would be highly provocative to the US and would bring a serious response, at least from any other administration. Given what we know of Obama, it's highly likely that he'd deploy several medium-range adjectives through the State Department.

Iraq wouldn't have to stop an invading army. We would. You know we wouldn't stand by and let them get steam rolled by Iran after we spent 8 years trying to get that country back on it's feet.

djones520
11-03-2011, 04:38 PM
Assuming we dont help them, you think they could fight their way over several hostile countries and arrive in any kind of shape to mount a successful air strike? not just on one target but multiple ones?

Saudi has already said they wouldn't interfere. That's all they need.

fettpett
11-03-2011, 04:46 PM
here's some perspective


56 Muslim Countries in the World, 1 Jewish Country. Almost all of the Muslim countries want that ONE Jewish one destroyed

djones520
11-03-2011, 04:51 PM
here's some perspective


56 Muslim Countries in the World, 1 Jewish Country. Almost all of the Muslim countries want that ONE Jewish one destroyed

Very few of them want that country destroyed. If Israel where to dissapear tomorrow, the middle east would shortly there after collapse in an uprising that made the "arab spring" look silly.

It's the scapegoat nation. The governments can blame israel for all their woe's, and the ignorant masses know no better.

fettpett
11-03-2011, 06:30 PM
Very few of them want that country destroyed. If Israel where to dissapear tomorrow, the middle east would shortly there after collapse in an uprising that made the "arab spring" look silly.

It's the scapegoat nation. The governments can blame israel for all their woe's, and the ignorant masses know no better.

doesn't mean that they don't want it destroyed. even if it's a scapegoat, it's not the only one, they get rid of Israel, they still have the US

Rockntractor
11-03-2011, 07:22 PM
doesn't mean that they don't want it destroyed. even if it's a scapegoat, it's not the only one, they get rid of Israel, they still have the US

Anyone who thinks Muslims are fooling when they say they want to kill all the Jews are only fooling themselves.

Odysseus
11-03-2011, 10:24 PM
Iraq wouldn't have to stop an invading army. We would. You know we wouldn't stand by and let them get steam rolled by Iran after we spent 8 years trying to get that country back on it's feet.
I think that it would depend on who's in the White House. If it's Obama, we can count on a few choice diplomatic threats of sanctions and perhaps the odd attempt at opening a "dialogue" with Iran, but other than that, nada.

Very few of them want that country destroyed. If Israel where to dissapear tomorrow, the middle east would shortly there after collapse in an uprising that made the "arab spring" look silly.

It's the scapegoat nation. The governments can blame israel for all their woe's, and the ignorant masses know no better.
No, they really do want Israel destroyed. It's very existence in the middle of the Arab world is an affront to their "honor" and they would cheerfully destroy it if they could.

Anyone who thinks Muslims are fooling when they say they want to kill all the Jews are only fooling themselves.

Exactly. Every Muslim nation has been virulently anti-Semitic, even when there were no Jews around to hate. The Qur'an and the Hadiths command Muslims to kill Jews. It is the only religion in the world which is founded on hatred of Jews and Judaism.

noonwitch
11-04-2011, 08:48 AM
I don't know that Iraq would be able to stop an Iranian army, but it's irrelevant, as Israel doesn't border Iraq, either. They'd have to go through Jordan, which would be highly provocative to the US and would bring a serious response, at least from any other administration. Given what we know of Obama, it's highly likely that he'd deploy several medium-range adjectives through the State Department.


No president, not even Obama, is going to ignore the constructive relationship the US has had with Jordan over the years.

What if a strong Iranian threat encouraged an alliance between Israel, Jordan and Iraq? At least then something good would come of it all, and although Israel would probably still need some US support, it would have at least two countries in the region with a common cause. Iran is not going to get support from the House of Saud in any of this, and Syria has it's own problems. An act of provocation like invading Iraq could possibly cause a lot of instability within Iran, and if the army isn't at home to keep the people down, the people could finally throw off the mullahs and the revolutionary government.


I'm an optimist, though.

namvet
11-04-2011, 10:15 AM
Read More>http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4141689,00.html
I wonder which side Obama will back?

the incoming round side i hope

Arroyo_Doble
11-04-2011, 11:04 AM
the incoming round side i hope

Wow.

namvet
11-04-2011, 11:28 AM
Wow.



let him spend some time in an underground bunker. while he's there the economy improves !!!

DumbAss Tanker
11-04-2011, 12:09 PM
If that were the case, we would have supported the creation of a Palestinian state in the United Nations when they came to that body for recognition. We would have treated them the same was as we did the Republic of South Sudan. Israel has not been "shunned" by the United States.

I doubt I'd convince you, but your logic is faulty here. Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your starting assumption, as there are numerous other factors including the Presidential campaign dynamics and other domestic political considerations that would lead to the same result without the real international issue of our relationship to Israel entering into it at all. I disagree.

Odysseus
11-04-2011, 02:11 PM
No president, not even Obama, is going to ignore the constructive relationship the US has had with Jordan over the years.

What if a strong Iranian threat encouraged an alliance between Israel, Jordan and Iraq? At least then something good would come of it all, and although Israel would probably still need some US support, it would have at least two countries in the region with a common cause. Iran is not going to get support from the House of Saud in any of this, and Syria has it's own problems. An act of provocation like invading Iraq could possibly cause a lot of instability within Iran, and if the army isn't at home to keep the people down, the people could finally throw off the mullahs and the revolutionary government.


I'm an optimist, though.

Jordan was formed out of a part of the Palestine mandate (the original name of the country, "Transjordan", referred to it's having been arbitrarily lopped off of the mandate at the Jordan River), and constitutes a true Palestinian Arab state, something that the Arabs cannot acknowledge without admitting that the entire issue of Palestinian sovereignty is a sham. Jordan can only keep its own Palestinian population calm by maintaining a cold peace with Israel, while demonizing Jews at every turn. Both Jordan and Iraq are also unable to form any alliance with Israel, because of the virulent and pervasive anti-Semitism which makes up so much of Islam. Any such alliance would be seized on by Iran as proof of their duplicity and apostasy, and would result in them being on the receiving end of a jihad.

Arroyo_Doble
11-04-2011, 03:17 PM
I doubt I'd convince you, but your logic is faulty here. Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your starting assumption, as there are numerous other factors including the Presidential campaign dynamics and other domestic political considerations that would lead to the same result without the real international issue of our relationship to Israel entering into it at all. I disagree.

I was responding to the claim that the President of the United States is "effectively shunning" the nation of Israel. It is not borne out by the facts. I just mentioned one obvious way our Executive could have exhibited that behavior if he were really "shunning," effectively or otherwise, Israel.

If anything, the President has been ineffective in dealing with, and concilliatory toward, Israel. They diplomatically spit in the eye of the United States and he weakly wipes away the spittle just in time for another loogie from Bibi. The pants wetting from the rightwing media when our nation's Executive actually shows a minute amount of backbone toward Israel is stunning. I am not sure which nation they belong to. Can you imagine how they would act when a President actually stands up to Israel like GWH Bush did? Like when he told them to sit down and shut up while we prosecuted the First Gulf War? Would these people choose Israel's interests over those of our nation? Would they join Shamir and whimper about the reunification of Germany? Would they cheer him when he tried to prop up East Germany? Thank God we had a strong President then or Israel, and its lapdogs in America, would haved effectively ensured the end of NATO.

America should be Obama's concern, not Israel. I guarantee you the leadership of that nation is more concerned with their own than with ours.

fettpett
11-04-2011, 03:47 PM
I was responding to the claim that the President of the United States is "effectively shunning" the nation of Israel. It is not borne out by the facts. I just mentioned one obvious way our Executive could have exhibited that behavior if he were really "shunning," effectively or otherwise, Israel.

If anything, the President has been ineffective in dealing with, and concilliatory toward, Israel. They diplomatically spit in the eye of the United States and he weakly wipes away the spittle just in time for another loogie from Bibi. The pants wetting from the rightwing media when our nation's Executive actually shows a minute amount of backbone toward Israel is stunning. I am not sure which nation they belong to. Can you imagine how they would act when a President actually stands up to Israel like GWH Bush did? Like when he told them to sit down and shut up while we prosecuted the First Gulf War? Would these people choose Israel's interests over those of our nation? Would they join Shamir and whimper about the reunification of Germany? Would they cheer him when he tried to prop up East Germany? Thank God we had a strong President then or Israel, and its lapdogs in America, would haved effectively ensured the end of NATO.

America should be Obama's concern, not Israel. I guarantee you the leadership of that nation is more concerned with their own than with ours.

he's been ineffective when dealing with ANY of our allies, lest of all Israel.

Lanie
11-04-2011, 08:53 PM
Israel has a long history of being good with coordination. They took out a nuclear facility in Iraq years ago. They also have actually done very well with limiting civilian casualties in the territories. I realize a big deal has been made out of certain things, but compared to other countries (including us), I think Israel does great with limiting casualties. Heck, they'll even warn Palestinians ahead of time, which hurts them. This same country managed to fight off the rest of the middle east in 1948 while the Arabs in the Palestinian parts of the area were fighting too much. How's that for coordination?

The US needs to back off. As for the idea that Israel needs to worry more about the immediate threat, I'm not sure if I agree. The leader in Iran has already said he wants to destroy Israel. That alone isn't a good enough reason to bomb Iran, but the guy's insane.

Rockntractor
11-04-2011, 08:58 PM
Israel has a long history of being good with coordination. They took out a nuclear facility in Iraq years ago. They also have actually done very well with limiting civilian casualties in the territories. I realize a big deal has been made out of certain things, but compared to other countries (including us), I think Israel does great with limiting casualties. Heck, they'll even warn Palestinians ahead of time, which hurts them. This same country managed to fight off the rest of the middle east in 1948 while the Arabs in the Palestinian parts of the area were fighting too much. How's that for coordination?

The US needs to back off. As for the idea that Israel needs to worry more about the immediate threat, I'm not sure if I agree. The leader in Iran has already said he wants to destroy Israel. That alone isn't a good enough reason to bomb Iran, but the guy's insane.

Send them a letter, I'm sure you would get the same high degree of respect and consideration we give you here.

Odysseus
11-04-2011, 10:45 PM
I was responding to the claim that the President of the United States is "effectively shunning" the nation of Israel. It is not borne out by the facts. I just mentioned one obvious way our Executive could have exhibited that behavior if he were really "shunning," effectively or otherwise, Israel.

If anything, the President has been ineffective in dealing with, and concilliatory toward, Israel. They diplomatically spit in the eye of the United States and he weakly wipes away the spittle just in time for another loogie from Bibi. The pants wetting from the rightwing media when our nation's Executive actually shows a minute amount of backbone toward Israel is stunning. I am not sure which nation they belong to. Can you imagine how they would act when a President actually stands up to Israel like GWH Bush did? Like when he told them to sit down and shut up while we prosecuted the First Gulf War? Would these people choose Israel's interests over those of our nation? Would they join Shamir and whimper about the reunification of Germany? Would they cheer him when he tried to prop up East Germany? Thank God we had a strong President then or Israel, and its lapdogs in America, would haved effectively ensured the end of NATO.

America should be Obama's concern, not Israel. I guarantee you the leadership of that nation is more concerned with their own than with ours.

The sheer mendacity exhibited above is beyond description. To claim that Obama has been on the receiving end of Israeli "spit" is such an inversion of the truth that I have to wonder if you are simply trying to be obnoxious for the hell of it, rather than advancing an actual argument. Eileen Toplofsky had a superb rebuttal to your BS at American Thinker. I know that you will deride the source, but at least read the facts before you display further ignorance or dishonesty:


Obama's Animus Toward Israel and Jews

By Eileen F. Toplansky
Lists have a way of coalescing important ideas into a clear and easy-to-remember format. What then is the track record of Barack Hussein Obama with regard to Israel and Jews?


Listing the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel, as a terror sponsor. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency maintains a list of countries that "have shown a tendency to promote, produce or protect terrorist organizations of their members." Recently Israel has been placed on this list. This equivalence with such nations as Syria and Iran is breathtaking. Nothing like blaming the victim of unrelenting terrorism and including her with the world's "leading perpetrators of terrorism."
Pursuing a policy of "limited contacts" with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, denounced this policy and stated that it was "unfathomable that this Administration is reaching out to an extremely violent Islamic fundamentalist group...which has declared holy war on the U.S. and Israel." This calculated move by Obama emboldens the jihadists.
Stating that the Israeli action to stop the flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip in June of 2010 was "tragic." In essence, Obama did not decry Hamas' actions to attack Israel; instead Obama refused to recognize Israel's right to protect herself.
In 2009 directing the expenditure of $20.3 million of U.S. taxpayer money for "the urgent refugee and migration needs...related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza." These are the same Palestinian residents in Gaza who celebrated the brutal murder of an Israeli Jewish family by handing out "candy and sweets" while rejoicing at the massacre of yet another Jewish family.
Abetting the United Nations in its desire to carve out and eventually destroy Israel all under the guise of the euphemistic gibberish known as "even-handedness." When Obama stated that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton called "it the most radical anti-Israel speech [he recalled] any president making."
Demanding that Israel withdraw to 1967 borders which would put Israel at the mercy of terrorists bent on wiping out every Israeli man, woman, and child which would include Arab Israeli citizens as well.
Coercing Israel to join a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which would, again, weaken Israel's retaliatory powers against her enemies.
Continually blaming Israel as an obstacle to peace and scapegoating Israel for the region's ills.
Appointing people who have deep ties with the enemies of America and Israel and who publicly show their disdain for Israel. They include:

o Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations who targets Israel.

o Lee Hamilton who wants to pressure Israel to surrender the Golan Heights and leave the West Bank.

o Samantha Power who advocates ending all U.S. military aid to Israel.

o Robert Malley, a Hezbollah and Hamas sympathizer and supporter of jihadists.

o Hannah Rosenthal who served on the board of J Street which is harshly critical of Israeli anti-terror military actions.

o Dalia Mogahed and Azizah al-Hibri who believe that sharia law is superior to the American Constitution.

Obama's mentors are well-known for their implacable loathing for Jews and Israel. They revile the U.S. Constitution and embrace a mindset of Israel and America as colonial occupiers. Despite the typographical errors in this YouTube video, the genesis of Obama's anti-Jewish attitudes becomes clear. Rashid Khalidi, an important influence on Obama, has called Israel a "racist state" and affirms that the founding of Israel is a "catastrophe."
Obama is a clever, manipulative individual. Unlike Hitler who wildly screamed his antisemitic screed, Obama is far more genteel. He constantly speaks with forked tongue. Thus, "while outwardly courting Jews, [Obama's] people have been "quietly shoving Jewish organizations into a corner."

For those readers who have accessed this article's hyperlinks, it is striking how prescient the writers have been. What becomes even more frightening is the speed with which their deep concerns have actually come to fruition. From such prophets as Pamela Geller to Aaron Klein, Robert Spencer, Steven Emerson, and Ed Lasky, we see that Obama deliberately keeps moving in the direction of those who hate America, Israel, and Jews in general. The noose keeps tightening.

Yet, there are still those Americans, particularly Jews, who do not comprehend the depth of Obama's revulsion of Israel. They continue to shield themselves from the reality of an American president actually pursuing actions that could affect the very existence of an ally and ultimately the United States as well.

The destructive forces that seem an integral part of Obama's makeup must be highlighted. As Brigitte Gabriel has written, "[w]e are summoned to wake up the apathetic and inspire the despaired, to silence the liars and educate the patriots. For if we fail to inform the ignorant, we will fail to save the informed."

Keep this short list handy so you can inform the ignorant and the indifferent.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/07/obamas_animus_toward_israel_and_jews.html at November 04, 2011 - 09:39:08 PM CDT

AmPat
11-05-2011, 11:26 AM
I know that you will deride the source, but at least read the facts before you display further ignorance or dishonesty:
ODY, this is as far as AD read. If further reading threatened his prejudice, he won't read further.

Lanie
11-05-2011, 02:49 PM
Send them a letter, I'm sure you would get the same high degree of respect and consideration we give you here.

Oh heck.

Odysseus
11-05-2011, 03:19 PM
ODY, this is as far as AD read. If further reading threatened his prejudice, he won't read further.

I doubt that he got that far.

Molon Labe
11-05-2011, 05:02 PM
His options to affect the situation one way or the other have become pretty limited through his effectively shunning Israel in favor trying to make friends and influence people in the Muslim world (With very limited and transitory success). At the same time, the Israelis have reluctantly come to the entirely accurate conclusion that our commitment to international processes means we have tied our own hands and will never do anything effective to the Iranian nuke program.

What's so strange about that? What politicians say publicly sbout Israel is one thing. But what they do privately has not really changed. We have been giving Arab nations twice the foreign aid that we give to Israel. Been doing that for a quarter century and more. Hedging your bets is not wise, but it is certainly not a new foreign policy strategy.

Arroyo_Doble
11-08-2011, 11:19 AM
Listing the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel, as a terror sponsor. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency maintains a list of countries that "have shown a tendency to promote, produce or protect terrorist organizations of their members." Recently Israel has been placed on this list. This equivalence with such nations as Syria and Iran is breathtaking. Nothing like blaming the victim of unrelenting terrorism and including her with the world's "leading perpetrators of terrorism."



Cuba
March 1, 1982

Iran
January 19, 1984

Sudan
August 12, 1993

Syria
December 29, 1979

State Sponsors of Terrorism according to the U.S. Department of State. (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm)


In order to designate a country as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, the Secretary of State must determine that the government of such country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. Once a country has been designated, it continues to be a State Sponsor of Terrorism until the designation is rescinded in accordance with statutory criteria.

Country Reports on Terrorism (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2010/170260.htm)

I looked for any information to back up the claim that ICE has juristiction on determining state sponsors of terrorism and could not find it. That is under the pervue of the U.S. Department of State and the Secretary of State as far as I can tell. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I will look at it.

As far as the ICE accusation, I did find this:


US: Israel included in terror watch list by mistake

Israel erroneously included in Department of Homeland Security blacklist. Officials reassure Jerusalem is Washington's partner in war on terror

WASHINGTON – Israeli diplomats stationed in the United States was surprised to discover that Israel was one of 36 countries included in a new Homeland Security terror watch list.

The list, which was attached to a May 10 document from the DHS Inspector General's office, also included a number of other close US allies such as Turkey, Bahrain, Morocco and Philippines.

Notice Turkey, a NATO ally, was also reportedly on this list. I do not believe this was one denoting "terror sponsor[s]" as the author of the piece claims.

Also notice, the statement was reported on July 7th, 2011 (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4092186,00.html)

Your article is from July 8th, 2011 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/obamas_animus_toward_israel_and_jews.html)

The piece completely got the facts wrong (ICE does not have the authority to designate state sponsors of terror) and also does so after the controversy it was referring to elicited a response from the government of the United States of America and neglected to include that response.

The American Thinker piece is apparently not just inaccurate but also dishonest.


I can take apart more of this screed against the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America if you like. Up to you but again, you really need to work on your credulity.




Edit: As a side note, the author calls Israel the only democracy in the Middle East.



In the academic community, the term Middle East refers to the Arab countries of North Africa; the Arab countries of Asia; Israel; and the non-Arab countries of Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey.

The Link (http://www.cod.edu/middle/maps/defined.htm)

I won't get into an argument about whether or not The Islamic Republican of Iran or The Islamic Republic of Pakistan are democracies but I will say it is hard to convince me that The Republic of Turkey is not.

Odysseus
11-08-2011, 11:40 AM
As far as the ICE accusation, I did find this:

[INDENT]US: Israel included in terror watch list by mistake

Israel erroneously included in Department of Homeland Security blacklist. Officials reassure Jerusalem is Washington's partner in war on terror

WASHINGTON – Israeli diplomats stationed in the United States was surprised to discover that Israel was one of 36 countries included in a new Homeland Security terror watch list.

The list, which was attached to a May 10 document from the DHS Inspector General's office, also included a number of other close US allies such as Turkey, Bahrain, Morocco and Philippines.

Notice Turkey, a NATO ally, was also reportedly on this list. I do not believe this was one denoting "terror sponsor[s]" as the author of the piece claims.

Also notice, the statement was reported on July 7th, 2011 (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4092186,00.html)

Your article is from July 8th, 2011 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/obamas_animus_toward_israel_and_jews.html)

The piece completely got the facts wrong (ICE does not have the authority to designate state sponsors of terror) and also does so after the controversy it was referring to elicited a response from the government of the United States of America and neglected to include that response.

The American Thinker piece is apparently not just inaccurate but also dishonest.


I can take apart more of this screed against the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America if you like. Up to you but again, you really need to work on your credulity.

It's neither inaccurate nor dishonest. Israel was, in fact, placed on the ICE list. The administration claimed that it was a mistake. You can claim that if you like, as well, but you cannot claim that ICE maintains no list, then cite an article which cites the list. The article that the AT article linked to for the data was written in May 2011, and predates the claim of a mistake by over a month. Which means that it took ICE over a month to correct the list and apologize for the "error". Therefore, the AT article is factually correct, and more honest than you are.

Feel free to refute the rest of the "screed" at your leisure. If this is the best that you can do, you will only further embarrass yourself.

Arroyo_Doble
11-08-2011, 12:03 PM
It's neither inaccurate nor dishonest. Israel was, in fact, placed on the ICE list.

ICE does not determine which countries are designated as state sponsors of terror.

Odysseus
11-08-2011, 12:54 PM
ICE does not determine which countries are designated as state sponsors of terror.

Okay, fine. The Department of Homeland Security, of which ICE is a subdivision, maintains the list. Happy now? Does that change the other relevant facts, namely that DHS had Israel on a terror blacklist for more than a month under Obama? Yeah, you sure showed me. :rolleyes:

Molon Labe
11-08-2011, 01:10 PM
Since this is an internet forum and eveybodies worthless opinion is front and center.....Here's my two cents on Israel and Iran...



Israel would be making a strategic blunder to attack Iran. It makes no political sense.

First the IAEA report, specifically IAEA official David Albright,....that all Iran has is the information needed to make weapons.
This matches exactly what U.S intelligence has said all along. No clear cut capability only information.

Even the former Mossad chief says it is innacurate and stupid. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/former-mossad-chief-israel-air-strike-on-iran-stupidest-thing-i-have-ever-heard-1.360367) to consider attacking Iran.


Israel does not have the capability (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/an-israeli-preventive-attack-on-iran-nuclear-sites-implications-for-the-us)to run a mission to neutralize the nuclear locations effectively. All the sites are more spread out than in the 1980 bombing and they are hardened.

It would conflagurate the entire middle east....all of that for the "possibility" of neutralizing the site. There's not evidence Israel could even conduct and effective raid at this point and time

Sanctions have also never worked to prevent this. In order to effectively destroy the program, it would take a strategic invasion of Iran....something that isn't going to happen.