Frankly, I don't know what the Saudis could stand to gain from financing or otherwise assisting in the execution of 9/11.
Nothing, but that doesn't mean they didn't fund al-qaeda or bin Laden. Saudi money goes to Islamic/wahhabist movements all over the world. This can be opening madrassas, or supplying militants with cash. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if some of them had links to the Saudi government in some way.
Frankly, I don't know what the Saudis could stand to gain from financing or otherwise assisting in the execution of 9/11.
Nothing, but that doesn't mean they didn't fund al-qaeda or bin Laden. Saudi money goes to Islamic/wahhabist movements all over the world. This can be opening madrassas, or supplying militants with cash. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if some of them had links to the Saudi government in some way.
Well, in that logic, the US pushed Saudi's to fund Jihad against soviets in afghan. Al Qaeda is a monster we Saudi's created under orders from you the USA. Any links you'd find are usually soviet era support of jihad.
I feel like this will just wind up being some rogue prince/lower level royal who felt like pulling a Faisal bin Musaid.
The Saudis have a complicated relationship with Wahabbism (which is predicated largely on internal politics and the need to play an offensive defense to safeguard their legitimacy as the keepers of Mecca), but they're not stupid.
Organizations like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah don't limit themselves to terrorism. To gather sympathy/support/recruits, they also do things like open schools and run/affiliate themselves with charities in poorer communities. "Support" to these organizations could be giving them weapons and intel just like it could be donating goods to food banks, and everything in between. Without specific details, it could be a big deal, just like it could be nothing worth caring about.
Organizations like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah don't limit themselves to terrorism. To gather sympathy/support/recruits, they also do things like open schools and run/affiliate themselves with charities in poorer communities. "Support" to these organizations could be giving them weapons and intel just like it could be donating goods to food banks, and everything in between. Without specific details, it could be a big deal, just like it could be nothing worth caring about.
If the only way to make sure we don't benefit al qaeda is to not donate onto places that are in need of food; then it isn't worth it. Feeding people in need trumps marginal security benefits everytime in my book.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Organizations like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah don't limit themselves to terrorism. To gather sympathy/support/recruits, they also do things like open schools and run/affiliate themselves with charities in poorer communities. "Support" to these organizations could be giving them weapons and intel just like it could be donating goods to food banks, and everything in between. Without specific details, it could be a big deal, just like it could be nothing worth caring about.
If the only way to make sure we don't benefit al qaeda is to not donate onto places that are in need of food; then it isn't worth it. Feeding people in need trumps marginal security benefits everytime in my book.
I'm not even sure we run into the issue of having to let impoverished areas suffer because all the charities to those areas have links to terrorists groups. Sure you run into the so called charity that is a front for a terrorist group, but the government can usually freeze their assets and some other charity, that isn't a front for terrorism, can step in. Hell, I think more people end up starving because groups tied with terrorists actively seeks ways to keep humanitarian groups, than starve from the government freezing the assets to groups that are terrorists fronts masquerading as charities (See Somalia).
Organizations like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah don't limit themselves to terrorism. To gather sympathy/support/recruits, they also do things like open schools and run/affiliate themselves with charities in poorer communities. "Support" to these organizations could be giving them weapons and intel just like it could be donating goods to food banks, and everything in between. Without specific details, it could be a big deal, just like it could be nothing worth caring about.
If the only way to make sure we don't benefit al qaeda is to not donate onto places that are in need of food; then it isn't worth it. Feeding people in need trumps marginal security benefits everytime in my book.
I'm not even sure we run into the issue of having to let impoverished areas suffer because all the charities to those areas have links to terrorists groups. Sure you run into the so called charity that is a front for a terrorist group, but the government can usually freeze their assets and some other charity, that isn't a front for terrorism, can step in. Hell, I think more people end up starving because groups tied with terrorists actively seeks ways to keep humanitarian groups, than starve from the government freezing the assets to groups that are terrorists fronts masquerading as charities (See Somalia).
You're right about "letting people starve because charities are linked to terrorism" not being an issue, but they are much more than "so called charities". Hezbollah is a prime example of this:
Hezbollah not only has armed and political wings - it also boasts an extensive social development program. Hezbollah currently operates at least four hospitals, twelve clinics, twelve schools and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental department and an extensive social assistance program. Medical care is also cheaper than in most of the country's private hospitals and free for Hezbollah members.
Al-Qaeda wasn't so extensive in its "social" programs, but wherever they could be found they'd provide brainwashing camps schooling for the young. They also infiltrate existing charities (or sometimes they just are plainly supported by them), allowing them not only to gather fund but also indoctrinate/recruit people at the same time.
To get back on what was discussed above, Osama bin Laden hated the Saudi royal family; it wouldn't really make sense for them to give Al-Qaeda money. However, you can bet that some of the money the royals spend ends up in terrorist hands after moving around a bit.
Well, Hezbollah is a good example of an obvious offender. The country they operate in is actually functional and have a multi-ethnic culture and a booming tourisim industry. Which make them look bad, a functional country don't need a milita, it needs an army.
Thats what I have to say against them. For them, there is still something to be said: Isreal have attacked Lebnon more then once, with very to little provcation and this validate any tactics used in defense. When you invade a country, you don't get to call them terrorists because they blew your check points up.
Reporting from Washington— President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday sought to offer a united front against Iran's growing nuclear program but appeared to differ on whether a diplomatic solution remains possible or if military action is needed to prevent Tehran from gaining a nuclear bomb.
At a White House meeting, Netanyahu said he reserved the option to launch a unilateral attack on Iran despite Obama's position that more time is needed for stiff economic sanctions and international diplomacy to work.
"When it comes to Israel's security, Israel has the right, the sovereign right, to make its own decisions," Netanyahu told Obama in a brief session with reporters in the Oval Office. "I believe that's why you appreciate, Mr. President, that Israel must reserve the right to defend itself."
The two leaders' last Oval Office meeting, in May, ended in acrimony when Netanyahu lectured Obama before TV cameras on the president's proposal to revive moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
U.S. officials said late Monday that the two leaders continued to disagree about what should trigger military action against Iran and did not try to resolve their differences in their talks.
They discussed in some detail their timeline for expected developments in Iran's uranium enrichment program, but did not make firm commitments on how their governments would respond, according to people familiar with the talks.
...
Though Obama pleased Netanyahu by declaring in his speech that he did not bluff about using military force, the Israeli prime minister's aides said Netanyahu made it clear he remains concerned. Israeli officials say military action is justified if Iran is seen to approach the capability to build a bomb, or if Tehran moves enough of its uranium enrichment program underground to make it less vulnerable to bombing.
The Obama administration says it does not believe military force is necessary unless Iran is building a nuclear bomb. The administration believes Iran would need about a year to develop and build its first nuclear weapon should it decide to do so. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
When people unite together, they become stronger than the sum of their parts.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
This is actually one of those weird things that governments seem unwilling to address:
That Europe helped screwed up the middle east/Africa by drawing arbitrary national boundaries, is such a widely accepted thing that I don't think I've ever seen any refutation of it.
Yet, we also won't split up or acknowledge when areas of these cobbled together countries want to split up. Somaliland is probably the most obvious example. It been basically a autonomous functional country in the cluster-fuck that is Somalia for a decade+, but they aren't recognized by the UN. Also Taiwan, but that's a whole different thread I'm too lazy to start.
Now, a no-fly zone doesn't mean it's over though. Saddam had a no-fly zone over a huge chunk of his country in ths 90s. Plus crippling sanctions. Plus the US and UK occasionally bombing things that looked interesting. After the country was smashed by the Gulf War. And after a rebellion in which the rebels took virtually the entire country.
He held on.
Not saying it's the same situation, it clearly isn't. But Gadaffi seems holed up pretty good. Getting him out of Tripoli hasn't been easy so far, and you know he's going to fight to the end.
Which is why I think the West is nuts for getting into this. If they get involved there is really no telling where this will go, and most already have over extended militaries and huge deficits, and unrest at home. I guess we'll know pretty soon.
Your entire premise is based on the equivalence between Iraq and Libya. You acknowledge that they're different situations, yet...........reach a conclusion based on their equivalence.
A few key differences: Saddam had a large and relatively loyal military. Gadaffi has neither, since he controlled the country through secret police. Iraq is much larger than Libya. Libya's population is concentrated along the coastline. Also, Gadaffi's forces are likely to abandon ship at the first sign of serious trouble.
I think the West is very, very sane for intervening.
I'm saying that the West is getting involved in yet another war in the Middle East. These have, to say the least, not had the best long term results. Libya borders two nations that are currently in the midst of a revolution, two others with on again off again insurgencies (and two others which I know nothing about). Plus its full of oil. The region as a whole is highly unstable. Europe and the US have over extended militaries and huge deficits, and unrest at home.
The results of this are unpredictable. Thats why I question the wisdom of this.
Really, New York Times? How many times have they attacked America exactly? Or their neighbours? And their malign intent regarding Israel has been through proxies which have become legitimate politcal entities in their own right (Hezbollah and Hamas), while Israel have been sponsoring terrorism and assassinating their scientists.
I find it hard to believe that they can both employ the bastion of critical thought that is Paul Krugman and also lack any ability to be critical of the flawed assumptions that underlie American foreign policy. I thought that maybe they'd learnt something from their Iraq war cheerleading and rubbish reporting on the atrocities there in the first few years of the war.
Turns out they probably have. That they can push a country into a retarded war incredibly easily and people will lap that shit up. I can only assume that it is intentional and that the staff/owners there do want war in Iran. There's no way they could've gone through the last 11 years and not been made acutely aware of the media's role in promoting these conflicts.
Now, a no-fly zone doesn't mean it's over though. Saddam had a no-fly zone over a huge chunk of his country in ths 90s. Plus crippling sanctions. Plus the US and UK occasionally bombing things that looked interesting. After the country was smashed by the Gulf War. And after a rebellion in which the rebels took virtually the entire country.
He held on.
Not saying it's the same situation, it clearly isn't. But Gadaffi seems holed up pretty good. Getting him out of Tripoli hasn't been easy so far, and you know he's going to fight to the end.
Which is why I think the West is nuts for getting into this. If they get involved there is really no telling where this will go, and most already have over extended militaries and huge deficits, and unrest at home. I guess we'll know pretty soon.
Your entire premise is based on the equivalence between Iraq and Libya. You acknowledge that they're different situations, yet...........reach a conclusion based on their equivalence.
A few key differences: Saddam had a large and relatively loyal military. Gadaffi has neither, since he controlled the country through secret police. Iraq is much larger than Libya. Libya's population is concentrated along the coastline. Also, Gadaffi's forces are likely to abandon ship at the first sign of serious trouble.
I think the West is very, very sane for intervening.
I'm saying that the West is getting involved in yet another war in the Middle East. These have, to say the least, not had the best long term results. Libya borders two nations that are currently in the midst of a revolution, two others with on again off again insurgencies (and two others which I know nothing about). Plus its full of oil. The region as a whole is highly unstable. Europe and the US have over extended militaries and huge deficits, and unrest at home.
The results of this are unpredictable. Thats why I question the wisdom of this.
Now, a no-fly zone doesn't mean it's over though. Saddam had a no-fly zone over a huge chunk of his country in ths 90s. Plus crippling sanctions. Plus the US and UK occasionally bombing things that looked interesting. After the country was smashed by the Gulf War. And after a rebellion in which the rebels took virtually the entire country.
He held on.
Not saying it's the same situation, it clearly isn't. But Gadaffi seems holed up pretty good. Getting him out of Tripoli hasn't been easy so far, and you know he's going to fight to the end.
Which is why I think the West is nuts for getting into this. If they get involved there is really no telling where this will go, and most already have over extended militaries and huge deficits, and unrest at home. I guess we'll know pretty soon.
Your entire premise is based on the equivalence between Iraq and Libya. You acknowledge that they're different situations, yet...........reach a conclusion based on their equivalence.
A few key differences: Saddam had a large and relatively loyal military. Gadaffi has neither, since he controlled the country through secret police. Iraq is much larger than Libya. Libya's population is concentrated along the coastline. Also, Gadaffi's forces are likely to abandon ship at the first sign of serious trouble.
I think the West is very, very sane for intervening.
I'm saying that the West is getting involved in yet another war in the Middle East. These have, to say the least, not had the best long term results. Libya borders two nations that are currently in the midst of a revolution, two others with on again off again insurgencies (and two others which I know nothing about). Plus its full of oil. The region as a whole is highly unstable. Europe and the US have over extended militaries and huge deficits, and unrest at home.
The results of this are unpredictable. Thats why I question the wisdom of this.
Basically, the Zionist lobby in America is enormously powerful. It wouldn't be a problem if it was a "Zionist lobby" in an ample sense, but by "Zionist" you should read "crackpot militaristic imperialistic dicks". You can't recognize the statehood of Palestine, you can't recognize the fact that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal, you can't point the obvious fact that Israel has nuclear capabilities of some kind. You go one step to the left of Netanyahu, and you're gearing for a Holocaust repeat.
It's a social fact; as the last TDS put it, you can't argue against Israeli policy - the political discourse in the US on Israel is either "we'll protect Israel no matter what, and we don't discard the option of bombing Iran" to "LETS BOMB IRAN"
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Basically, the Zionist lobby in America is enormously powerful. It wouldn't be a problem if it was a "Zionist lobby" in an ample sense, but by "Zionist" you should read "crackpot militaristic imperialistic dicks". You can't recognize the statehood of Palestine, you can't recognize the fact that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal, you can't point the obvious fact that Israel has nuclear capabilities of some kind. You go one step to the left of Netanyahu, and you're gearing for a Holocaust repeat.
It's a social fact; as the last TDS put it, you can't argue against Israeli policy - the political discourse in the US on Israel is either "we'll protect Israel no matter what, and we don't discard the option of bombing Iran" to "LETS BOMB IRAN"
Uh, I think you'll find that most American Jews want the two state solution. J Street exists just as much as AIPAC.
A nuclear Iran would be fucking insane, that changes the "sure, a terrorist will probably get a nuke someday" to "well any minute now we'll see a mushroom cloud." I'm not convinced MAD would work in the Middle East or containment. It's also worth pointing out that Iran hasn't decided to build a nuke, yet, though the more the Committee to Re-elect Barack Obama GOP primary candidates keep talking about "Day One, repeal Obama care. Day two, gay death march. Day three, bomb Iran" the more likely it is that they'll flip that bitch switch.
Basically, the Zionist lobby in America is enormously powerful. It wouldn't be a problem if it was a "Zionist lobby" in an ample sense, but by "Zionist" you should read "crackpot militaristic imperialistic dicks". You can't recognize the statehood of Palestine, you can't recognize the fact that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal, you can't point the obvious fact that Israel has nuclear capabilities of some kind. You go one step to the left of Netanyahu, and you're gearing for a Holocaust repeat.
It's a social fact; as the last TDS put it, you can't argue against Israeli policy - the political discourse in the US on Israel is either "we'll protect Israel no matter what, and we don't discard the option of bombing Iran" to "LETS BOMB IRAN"
This is an unfair (and inaccurate) characterization of Zionism as a political ideology. The original Zionists -- the small percentage of Jews who identified as ideological Zionists and who founded the State of Israel -- weren't as hard-line as the Likud Party and Israeli conservatives generally today. They were the original socialist Zionists who supported dialog with the Palestinians. They weren't totally blameless, mind you -- it was during the establishment of the State of Israel that things like Plan D happened, after all -- but they were much more open to conciliation with the Palestinians than the conservatives who came to power following 1977.
Also before the creation of Israel was underway, there were a fair number of Zionists who were deeply conflicted with establishing a new nation within an area that was already heavily populated and settled. As much as I have a problem with the history of Israel's establishment (along with the government in general), and how the government has been recently, Hamurabi has the right of approaching their philosophy.
Basically, the Zionist lobby in America is enormously powerful. It wouldn't be a problem if it was a "Zionist lobby" in an ample sense, but by "Zionist" you should read "crackpot militaristic imperialistic dicks". You can't recognize the statehood of Palestine, you can't recognize the fact that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal, you can't point the obvious fact that Israel has nuclear capabilities of some kind. You go one step to the left of Netanyahu, and you're gearing for a Holocaust repeat.
It's a social fact; as the last TDS put it, you can't argue against Israeli policy - the political discourse in the US on Israel is either "we'll protect Israel no matter what, and we don't discard the option of bombing Iran" to "LETS BOMB IRAN"
This is an unfair (and inaccurate) characterization of Zionism as a political ideology. The original Zionists -- the small percentage of Jews who identified as ideological Zionists and who founded the State of Israel -- weren't as hard-line as the Likud Party and Israeli conservatives generally today. They were the original socialist Zionists who supported dialog with the Palestinians. They weren't totally blameless, mind you -- it was during the establishment of the State of Israel that things like Plan D happened, after all -- but they were much more open to conciliation with the Palestinians than the conservatives who came to power following 1977.
Basically, the Zionist lobby in America is enormously powerful. It wouldn't be a problem if it was a "Zionist lobby" in an ample sense, but by "Zionist" you should read "crackpot militaristic imperialistic dicks". You can't recognize the statehood of Palestine, you can't recognize the fact that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal, you can't point the obvious fact that Israel has nuclear capabilities of some kind. You go one step to the left of Netanyahu, and you're gearing for a Holocaust repeat.
It's a social fact; as the last TDS put it, you can't argue against Israeli policy - the political discourse in the US on Israel is either "we'll protect Israel no matter what, and we don't discard the option of bombing Iran" to "LETS BOMB IRAN"
This is an unfair (and inaccurate) characterization of Zionism as a political ideology. The original Zionists -- the small percentage of Jews who identified as ideological Zionists and who founded the State of Israel -- weren't as hard-line as the Likud Party and Israeli conservatives generally today. They were the original socialist Zionists who supported dialog with the Palestinians. They weren't totally blameless, mind you -- it was during the establishment of the State of Israel that things like Plan D happened, after all -- but they were much more open to conciliation with the Palestinians than the conservatives who came to power following 1977.
Which is a comment on historical zionism and not it's current state.
Lolken's statement is still unfair to Israel and American Jews. Most Israelis, forget Jewish Americans, don't want to go off half cocked against Iran, and especially not without us.
Basically, the Zionist lobby in America is enormously powerful. It wouldn't be a problem if it was a "Zionist lobby" in an ample sense, but by "Zionist" you should read "crackpot militaristic imperialistic dicks". You can't recognize the statehood of Palestine, you can't recognize the fact that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal, you can't point the obvious fact that Israel has nuclear capabilities of some kind. You go one step to the left of Netanyahu, and you're gearing for a Holocaust repeat.
It's a social fact; as the last TDS put it, you can't argue against Israeli policy - the political discourse in the US on Israel is either "we'll protect Israel no matter what, and we don't discard the option of bombing Iran" to "LETS BOMB IRAN"
This is an unfair (and inaccurate) characterization of Zionism as a political ideology. The original Zionists -- the small percentage of Jews who identified as ideological Zionists and who founded the State of Israel -- weren't as hard-line as the Likud Party and Israeli conservatives generally today. They were the original socialist Zionists who supported dialog with the Palestinians. They weren't totally blameless, mind you -- it was during the establishment of the State of Israel that things like Plan D happened, after all -- but they were much more open to conciliation with the Palestinians than the conservatives who came to power following 1977.
Which is a comment on historical zionism and not it's current state.
Lolken's statement is still unfair to Israel and American Jews. Most Israelis, forget Jewish Americans, don't want to go off half cocked against Iran, and especially not without us.
He's talking about the Israeli Lobby in the US, not American jews or even Israelis themselves.
And in reference to the US Israeli Lobby, he's dead on.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Basically, the Zionist lobby in America is enormously powerful. It wouldn't be a problem if it was a "Zionist lobby" in an ample sense, but by "Zionist" you should read "crackpot militaristic imperialistic dicks". You can't recognize the statehood of Palestine, you can't recognize the fact that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal, you can't point the obvious fact that Israel has nuclear capabilities of some kind. You go one step to the left of Netanyahu, and you're gearing for a Holocaust repeat.
It's a social fact; as the last TDS put it, you can't argue against Israeli policy - the political discourse in the US on Israel is either "we'll protect Israel no matter what, and we don't discard the option of bombing Iran" to "LETS BOMB IRAN"
This is an unfair (and inaccurate) characterization of Zionism as a political ideology. The original Zionists -- the small percentage of Jews who identified as ideological Zionists and who founded the State of Israel -- weren't as hard-line as the Likud Party and Israeli conservatives generally today. They were the original socialist Zionists who supported dialog with the Palestinians. They weren't totally blameless, mind you -- it was during the establishment of the State of Israel that things like Plan D happened, after all -- but they were much more open to conciliation with the Palestinians than the conservatives who came to power following 1977.
Which is a comment on historical zionism and not it's current state.
Lolken's statement is still unfair to Israel and American Jews. Most Israelis, forget Jewish Americans, don't want to go off half cocked against Iran, and especially not without us.
He's talking about the Israeli Lobby in the US, not American jews or even Israelis themselves.
And in reference to the US Israeli Lobby, he's dead on.
He's right about AIPAC, not J Street.
EDIT: And I think I also find the use of the word "Zionist" troubling, most modern usage comes from a very specific part of the population.
CLARIFICATION: I am NOT saying that anyone on this thread is a member of that part of the population.
I guess you can dissect it into individual organizations if you like, because "Israel lobby" is a two word combinations that leads to much gnashing of teeth, but there no comparable lobbying force in American politics that's coming so close to driving the US into war with a country of 70 million people. And for no reason but for the wishes of hardliners in foreign country.
"But, J Street" is a cop-out. The Israeli lobby is real, its powerful, and it's extremely hawkish .
Posts
Nothing, but that doesn't mean they didn't fund al-qaeda or bin Laden. Saudi money goes to Islamic/wahhabist movements all over the world. This can be opening madrassas, or supplying militants with cash. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if some of them had links to the Saudi government in some way.
Well, in that logic, the US pushed Saudi's to fund Jihad against soviets in afghan. Al Qaeda is a monster we Saudi's created under orders from you the USA. Any links you'd find are usually soviet era support of jihad.
The Saudis have a complicated relationship with Wahabbism (which is predicated largely on internal politics and the need to play an offensive defense to safeguard their legitimacy as the keepers of Mecca), but they're not stupid.
If the only way to make sure we don't benefit al qaeda is to not donate onto places that are in need of food; then it isn't worth it. Feeding people in need trumps marginal security benefits everytime in my book.
I guess we're supposed to listen to our generals only when they want to stay in wars and keep gays and women out.
I'm not even sure we run into the issue of having to let impoverished areas suffer because all the charities to those areas have links to terrorists groups. Sure you run into the so called charity that is a front for a terrorist group, but the government can usually freeze their assets and some other charity, that isn't a front for terrorism, can step in. Hell, I think more people end up starving because groups tied with terrorists actively seeks ways to keep humanitarian groups, than starve from the government freezing the assets to groups that are terrorists fronts masquerading as charities (See Somalia).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
You're right about "letting people starve because charities are linked to terrorism" not being an issue, but they are much more than "so called charities". Hezbollah is a prime example of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_social_services
Al-Qaeda wasn't so extensive in its "social" programs, but wherever they could be found they'd provide brainwashing camps schooling for the young. They also infiltrate existing charities (or sometimes they just are plainly supported by them), allowing them not only to gather fund but also indoctrinate/recruit people at the same time.
To get back on what was discussed above, Osama bin Laden hated the Saudi royal family; it wouldn't really make sense for them to give Al-Qaeda money. However, you can bet that some of the money the royals spend ends up in terrorist hands after moving around a bit.
Thats what I have to say against them. For them, there is still something to be said: Isreal have attacked Lebnon more then once, with very to little provcation and this validate any tactics used in defense. When you invade a country, you don't get to call them terrorists because they blew your check points up.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
If they didn't want to be raped it bombed, they wouldn't have worn those skimpy clothes tried to protect it from being bombed.
Hey look taking sides in a civil war can have unintended and destabilizing consequences. I'm fucking shocked.
Yeah, we totally should've left Gaddafi in charge.
Because drawing boundaries organically tends to last for hundreds of years and leave millions of people dead.
Sudan is just doing spiffy, last I heard.
That Europe helped screwed up the middle east/Africa by drawing arbitrary national boundaries, is such a widely accepted thing that I don't think I've ever seen any refutation of it.
Yet, we also won't split up or acknowledge when areas of these cobbled together countries want to split up. Somaliland is probably the most obvious example. It been basically a autonomous functional country in the cluster-fuck that is Somalia for a decade+, but they aren't recognized by the UN. Also Taiwan, but that's a whole different thread I'm too lazy to start.
Give it 5 or 10 years and that may indeed seem like the best idea.
Also noticed this gem from the New York Times Editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/opinion/iran-israel-and-the-united-states.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Really, New York Times? How many times have they attacked America exactly? Or their neighbours? And their malign intent regarding Israel has been through proxies which have become legitimate politcal entities in their own right (Hezbollah and Hamas), while Israel have been sponsoring terrorism and assassinating their scientists.
I find it hard to believe that they can both employ the bastion of critical thought that is Paul Krugman and also lack any ability to be critical of the flawed assumptions that underlie American foreign policy. I thought that maybe they'd learnt something from their Iraq war cheerleading and rubbish reporting on the atrocities there in the first few years of the war.
Turns out they probably have. That they can push a country into a retarded war incredibly easily and people will lap that shit up. I can only assume that it is intentional and that the staff/owners there do want war in Iran. There's no way they could've gone through the last 11 years and not been made acutely aware of the media's role in promoting these conflicts.
I don't think that is a thing that can happen, really beyond "Isreal good, not-Isreal baaaaad"
In what reality?
Give it 5 or 10 years, Gaddafi keels over dead ... and we are back to where we are right now, except with alot of dead people in the interim.
I guess we'll find out, given time.
Basically, the Zionist lobby in America is enormously powerful. It wouldn't be a problem if it was a "Zionist lobby" in an ample sense, but by "Zionist" you should read "crackpot militaristic imperialistic dicks". You can't recognize the statehood of Palestine, you can't recognize the fact that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal, you can't point the obvious fact that Israel has nuclear capabilities of some kind. You go one step to the left of Netanyahu, and you're gearing for a Holocaust repeat.
It's a social fact; as the last TDS put it, you can't argue against Israeli policy - the political discourse in the US on Israel is either "we'll protect Israel no matter what, and we don't discard the option of bombing Iran" to "LETS BOMB IRAN"
Uh, I think you'll find that most American Jews want the two state solution. J Street exists just as much as AIPAC.
A nuclear Iran would be fucking insane, that changes the "sure, a terrorist will probably get a nuke someday" to "well any minute now we'll see a mushroom cloud." I'm not convinced MAD would work in the Middle East or containment. It's also worth pointing out that Iran hasn't decided to build a nuke, yet, though the more the Committee to Re-elect Barack Obama GOP primary candidates keep talking about "Day One, repeal Obama care. Day two, gay death march. Day three, bomb Iran" the more likely it is that they'll flip that bitch switch.
This is an unfair (and inaccurate) characterization of Zionism as a political ideology. The original Zionists -- the small percentage of Jews who identified as ideological Zionists and who founded the State of Israel -- weren't as hard-line as the Likud Party and Israeli conservatives generally today. They were the original socialist Zionists who supported dialog with the Palestinians. They weren't totally blameless, mind you -- it was during the establishment of the State of Israel that things like Plan D happened, after all -- but they were much more open to conciliation with the Palestinians than the conservatives who came to power following 1977.
Bottom-line: "Zionist" != "crackpot militaristic imperialistic dicks"
Oh come on, this is just getting silly and overly passive-agressive.
Under what situation would leaving Gaddafi in power have led to less violence over the long term?
Which is a comment on historical zionism and not it's current state.
Lolken's statement is still unfair to Israel and American Jews. Most Israelis, forget Jewish Americans, don't want to go off half cocked against Iran, and especially not without us.
He's talking about the Israeli Lobby in the US, not American jews or even Israelis themselves.
And in reference to the US Israeli Lobby, he's dead on.
He's right about AIPAC, not J Street.
EDIT: And I think I also find the use of the word "Zionist" troubling, most modern usage comes from a very specific part of the population.
CLARIFICATION: I am NOT saying that anyone on this thread is a member of that part of the population.
"But, J Street" is a cop-out. The Israeli lobby is real, its powerful, and it's extremely hawkish .