Iran vs. US Requiem?!
Bombs away?
http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=12059
Arms expert Scott Ritter says the U.S. plans to attack Iran. MT asks why he's so sure.
by Curt Guyette and W. Kim Heron
11/28/2007
"Everything ponts to April 2008 to being a month of some critcality."
It seems that with each passing week there are more stories raising the specter of George Bush turning Iraq and Afghanistan into a bloody trifecta by attacking Iran.
In mainstream daily papers we see pieces like one by Gannett's John Yaukey, who wrote in early November that "confrontation could be near" because "Iran continues to taunt the United States with its aggressive posturing in Iraq and Lebanon while pushing ahead with its nuclear research ..."
We are also witnessing what appears to be a chilling rerun of the Iraq debacle. Confronted with evidence that calls into question the status of Iran's nuclear program, the Bush administration is shifting its rhetoric.
"The Bush administration has charged that Iran is funding anti-American fighters in Iraq and sending in sophisticated explosives to bleed the U.S. mission, although some of the administration's charges are disputed by Iraqis as well as the Iranians," the Los Angeles Times reported in October. "Still, ... diplomatic and military officials say they fear that the overreaching of a confident Iran, combined with growing U.S. frustrations, could set off a dangerous collision."
Look beyond daily papers — from Seymour Hersh's reporting in The New Yorker to articles in The Nation — and the picture emerges of an administration that is determined to attack Iran.
John H. Richardson's "The Secret History of the Impending War With Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know" in the November issue of Esquire magazine is particularly eye-opening. Richardson, using two former high-ranking Middle East experts who worked for the White House as his primary sources, warns that the Bush administration is "headed straight for war with Iran" and that "it had been set on this course for years."
"It was just like Iraq, when the White House was so eager for war it couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to leave," writes Richardson, who details the Bush administration's success at scuttling diplomatic efforts — notably involving then-Secretary of State Colin Powell — to reach a peaceful accord with Iran. "The steps have been many and steady and all in the same direction. And now things are getting much worse. We are getting closer and closer to the tripline. ..."
With all this in mind, we decided to talk with the man who literally wrote the book on Bush's intentions. Nearly a year ago, Scott Ritter's Target Iran was published, and he's been sounding the claxon of impending war ever since.
A former Marine Corps intelligence officer, Ritter served as chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 when he left as a pointed critic of the Clinton administration's commitment to weapons inspection and its Iraq policy. Before the United States' 2003 invasion, Ritter loudly disputed the Bush administration's claims regarding weapons of mass destruction under Saddam's control and predicted that, instead of the quick and easy war being promised, Iraq would turn into a quagmire, though not necessarily of the type he envisioned. His analyses have been embraced by both the right and the left at various points. He portrays himself as the straight-shooting analyst unconcerned by who supports him or whom he offends.
To learn what he thinks the future holds for Iran, and the consequences of a U.S. invasion, we recently sat down for a 90-minute phone interview with Ritter. What follows is a condensed version of that conversation.
Metro Times: A year ago, when your book Target Iran came out, you were sounding the alarm about war being imminent. Why do you think that attack hasn't occurred?
Scott Ritter: Let's remember that this is an elective war, not a war of necessity. A war of necessity would be fought at the point and time a conflict is required, if somebody is threatening to invade you, to attack, etc. But an elective war is one where we choose to go to war. It will be conducted on a timescale that's beneficial to those who are planning the conflict.
As far as why it hasn't happened, there's any number of reasons. One, the Bush administration has not been able to stabilize Iraq to the level they would like to see prior to expanding military operations in the region. Two, the international community has not rallied around the cause of Iran's nuclear program representing a casus belli to the extent that the Bush administration would like. They were hopeful that there would be more action from the [United Nations] Security Council. It took a long time to get the issue shifted from the International Atomic Energy Agency's headquarters to the Security Council. And even when it got shifted to the Security Council, the Council took very timid steps, not decisive steps. The Bush administration sort of tied its hands at that point in time. I think you are seeing increasing frustration today at the slow pace.
Also, the need to redefine the Iranian threat away from exclusively being focused on nuclear activity, because now you have the difficulty of both the IAEA saying there is no nuclear weapons program and the CIA saying pretty much the same thing. So the Bush administration needs to redefine the Iranian threat, which they have been doing successfully, casting Iran as the largest state sponsor of terror, getting the Senate resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command a terrorist organization, and creating a perception amongst the American people, courtesy of a compliant media, that talks about the reason why things are going bad in Iraq is primarily because of Iranian intervention.
They have been working very hard to get back on track. I still believe that we are seeing convergence here. The Bush administration is moving very aggressively toward military action with Iran.
MT: Is your conclusion that an attack is imminent based on the administration's statements and actions, like labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, or do you also have sources within the intelligence community and the military and the administration telling you what's going on?
Ritter: I don't have any current sources of the sort you just spoke of. I was plugged in back in 2006 to good quality current information. But I haven't been plugged in recently, so I have to use some sort of analytical methodology as opposed to saying, "Aha, I got it from the horse's mouth." But there's nothing that has occurred that leads me to believe the Bush administration has changed its policy direction. In fact there has been much that's occurred that reinforces the earlier conclusions that were based on good sources of information. We take a look at items in the defense budget, the rapid conversion of heavy bombers to carry bunker-busting bombs on a specific time frame, the massive purchasing of oil to fill up the strategic oil reserve by April 2008. Everything points to April 2008 to being a month of some criticality. It also matches my analysis that the Bush administration will want to carry this out prior to the crazy political season of the summer of 2008.
MT: Last year you expressed hope that if Democrats took control of Congress it might pass legislation that could block the march toward war. Do you see them stepping up?
Ritter: No. They just passed a resolution declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command as a terrorist organization. Unless there is a radical reawakening in Congress, I don't see them passing any sort of pre-emptive legislation of that nature.
MT: But it is now clearer than ever that our invasion of Iraq has been a disaster. How do you explain the lack of opposition?
Ritter: It's difficult to explain. First of all you have to note, from the public side, that very few Americans actually function as citizens anymore. What I mean by that are people who invest themselves in this country, people who care, who give a damn. Americans are primarily consumers today, and so long as they continue to wrap themselves in the cocoon of comfort, and the system keeps them walking down a road to the perceived path of prosperity, they don't want to rock the boat. If it doesn't have a direct impact on their day-to-day existence, they simply don't care.
There's a minority of people who do, but the majority of Americans don't. And if the people don't care — and remember, the people are the constituents — if the constituents don't care, then those they elect to higher office won't feel the pressure to change.
The Democrats, one would hope, would live up to their rhetoric, that is, challenging the Bush administration's imperial aspirations. Once it became clear Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, one would have thought that when the Democrats took control of Congress they would have sought to reimpose a system of checks and balances, as the Constitution mandates. But instead the Democrats have put their focus solely on recapturing the White House, and, in doing so, will not do anything that creates a political window of opportunity for their Republican opponents.
The Democrats don't want to be explaining to an apathetic constituency, an ignorant constituency whose ignorance is prone to be exploited because it produces fear, fear of the unknown, and the global war on terror is the ultimate fear button. The Democrats, rather than challenging the Bush administration's position on the global war on terror, challenging the notion of these imminent threats, continues to play them up because that is the safest route toward the White House. At least that is their perception.
The last thing they are gong to do is pass a piece of legislation that opens the door for the Republicans to say, "Look how weak these guys are on terror. They're actually defending the Iranians. They're defending this Ahmadinejad guy. They're defending the Holocaust denier. They're defending the guy who wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth." The Democrats don't want to go up against that. They don't have the courage of conviction to enter into that debate and stare at whoever makes that statement and say they're a bald-faced liar. They're not going to go that route.
MT: Do you think there is anything that can happen at this point that will stop this attack?
Ritter: You have to take a look at external influences, not internal ones. I don't think there is anything happening inside the United States that's going to stop that attack. I do believe that, for instance, if Pakistan continues to melt down, that could be something that creates such a significant diversion the Bush administration will not be able to make its move on Iran.
To attack Iran, they're going to need a nice lull period. That's what they're pushing with this whole surge right now. They're creating the perception that things are quieting. I don't know how many people picked up on it, but one day we're told that 2007's been the bloodiest year for U.S. forces in Iraq, the next day we're told that attacks against American troops are dropping at a dramatic pace. So, what's the media focus on? The concept of attacks dropping at a dramatic pace. No one's talking about the fact, wait a minute, we've just lost more guys than we've ever lost before.
They are pushing the perception that Iraq is now stable. If you have a situation in Pakistan that explodes out of control, where you suddenly have nuclear weapons at risk of falling into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists, that could stop it. If Turkey attacks Kurdistan and that conflict spins out of control, that could put a halt to it. These are things that could overshadow even Dick Cheney's desire to bomb Iran.
And there could be some other unforeseen meltdown globally that's not on the radar at this time, that, unfortunately, we have to be hoping for to stop an attack on Iran. And that says a lot, that we have to hope for disaster to prevent unmitigated disaster.
MT: What's the motivation?
Ritter: The ideologues who are in there believe the United States in the post-Cold War environment needed to fill the gap created by the demise of the Soviet Union so that no nation or group of nations would ever again confront us as equals. And in order to do this, they basically divided the world into spheres of strategic interest and said we will impose our will. And the Middle East is one such area. There's a whole host of reasons to do this.
It's not just supporting Israel. It's not just taking down Saddam. It's about geopolitics. It's about looking down the road toward China and India, the world's two largest developing economies, especially the Chinese, and the absolute fear that this resurgent Chinese economy brings in the hearts of American industrialists and the need to dictate the pace of Chinese economic development by controlling their access to energy. And controlling central Asian and Middle East energy areas is key in the strategic thinking of the Bush administration.
So, there's a lot of complexity at play here. But you say why do they want to do this? It's about as Condoleezza Rice continuously says before the U.S. Congress: It's about regional transformation, inclusive of regime change. It turns the Middle East into a sphere of interest that we have tremendous control over. That's what's behind all this.
MT: And when Bush talks about being an instrument of God, do you think he really believes that or is that just political posturing, playing to the religious base?
Ritter: That's a question that can only be asked of George Bush. But I find it disturbing that an American politician who is supposed to be the head of a secular nation where religion is protected but there is no state religion, and who has control over the world's largest nuclear arsenal, not only openly talks about how God is his final adviser, which pretty much negates the role of Congress or any other system of governmental oversight, checks and balances of the executive, but also embraces a kind of evangelicalism that gives legitimacy to the notion of the rapture, Armageddon, the apocalypse as a good thing.
Here's a man who speaks of World War III and the apocalypse and he has his hand on the button and he talks to God. I don't know, if it's a show, its a dangerous show, if its real, we should all be scared to death.
MT: Even going back to before the start of the Iraq war, the national mainstream media just seemed to be beating the drum for it. Why do you think that is?
Ritter: Again, only they can really answer that question, but I think it is clear the mainstream media, while not outright fabricators, are not there to tell the truth, they're there to win over ratings. They will package their programming in ways that sells well to an audience. And we are dealing with a complacent American audience, where in-depth reality stories are trumped by reality TV. I don't see the programming director saying, "Look, we're going to spend an hour explaining to the American people why Ahmadinejad's speech wasn't that big of a deal." Or they can say, "Hell, no; in three minutes we can lead with a story saying he's a Holocaust denier and win everybody's attention."
MT: Do you think the resolutions in 2001 and 2002 authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq give Bush the authority to attack Iran without first obtaining congressional approval?
Ritter: I'd like to believe it didn't, but unfortunately when you take a look at it, and I've had constitutional scholars take a look at it, the feeling is that, yeah, because of the terrorist threat, if you take a look at the fine print on both of those resolutions, it gives the president authorization to use military force to take out groups, organizations, individuals, etc. who are linked to the events of 9/11. And the president has continued to make the case that Iran is linked to the attacks.
MT: Do you think an attack on Iran would be an illegal war of aggression and a war crime under international law?
Ritter: It depends on what triggers it. If Iran engages in an action that legitimizes a military response, the answer is no.
There are two conditions that we are legally allowed to engage in military operations. Militaries are bound by the charter of the United Nations' Article 51, legitimate self-defense, and a Chapter 7 resolution passed by the Security Council authorizing military force to be used. If we attack Iran void of any of these, especially when it can be shown that we have hyped up a threat in defense of pre-emption — I think the Nuremberg Tribunals from 1946 have set a clear precedent with Judge Jackson condemning German generals to death for invading Denmark and Norway in the same premise of pre-emption. It is quite clear this is illegal. Unfortunately the Nuremburg Tribunals don't have any weight when it comes to prosecution of the law.
The international community has not agreed upon a definition of what pre-emptive aggression is, and what the consequences of such are. Let's keep in mind if we attack Iran we're guilty of no more than what we're already guilty of in attacking Iraq. Hyping up a threat where one doesn't exist, going to war void of any legitimacy, violating everything we claim to stand for. Yet we don't see any war crimes tribunals being convened for the Bush administration over Iraq.
MT: One of the scenarios that's been raised has Israel launching the first strike, prompting a response from Iran that would then pull us in.
Ritter: I think Israel is capable of doing a one-time limited shot into Iran. One has to take a look at the distances involved and the complexity of military operations ... the lack of friendly airspace between corridors into and out of Iran. It's nice to talk about an Israeli attack, but the reality is far different. Israel had trouble dominating Hezbollah right on its own border with air power.
I think Israel could actually go into Iran and get their butts kicked. It may not go off as well as they think it's going to go off. It is too long of a distance, too much warning for the Iranians. The Iranians are too locked-in; they're too well prepared. It doesn't make any sense. Israel doesn't have the ability to sustain a strike. Like I said, they might be able to pull off a limited one-time shot. But I think the fallout from that would be devastating for the United States. As much as we've worked to get an Arab alliance against Iran, that would just fall apart overnight with an Israeli attack. No Muslim state will stand by and defend Israel after it initiated a strike against Iran. It just will not happen. And the United States knows this. I just think it's ludicrous to talk about an Israeli attack.
I think what we're looking at is an American attack. It's the only viable option both in terms of initiation and sustainment of the strike. Israel might be drawn in after that. There's no doubt in my mind the Iranians will launch missiles against Israeli targets, either directly or through proxies, and that Israel will suffer. This is something I try to warn all my Israeli friends about. If you think Saddam Hussein firing 41 missiles was inconvenient, wait until the Iranians fire a thousand of them. It goes well beyond an inconvenience; it becomes a national tragedy. And then the escalation that can occur from there.
I think right now what the Bush administration is conceiving is a limited strike against Iran to take out certain Revolutionary Guard sites and perhaps identified nuclear infrastructure. Not a massive, sustained bombardment, but a limited strike. But we were always told in the Marine Corps that the enemy has a vote and no plan survives initial contact with the enemy. So we may seek to have a limited strike, but if the Iranians do a massive response, things could spin out of control quickly.
MT: What do you foresee as some of the possible consequences? No one is talking about putting troops on the ground in Iran are they?
Ritter: A while back there was talk about having forces move in on Tehran via Azerbaijan. But I think those plans have gone to the wayside. If Iran is successful in shutting down the Straits of Hormuz, it will force our hand and we'll have to put the Marines in to secure the Straits. If the conflict drags on and air power is not sufficient to break the will of the Iranian resistance, the Army may have to activate its option to put a reinforced corps into Azerbaijan and punch down the Caspian Sea coast. But these are definitely not the leading options at this point in time.
MT: When you say a "limited strike," what might that look like in more detail?
Ritter: Iran is a big country. There are a number of target sites we have to look at. To give an example, to take out a number of air defense sites during the Gulf War, a sortie required over 100 aircraft. It's not just one airplane coming in, firing a missile and going out. You have to secure a corridor, you have to put a combat air patrol over it, you have to have air-to-air refueling, you have to have aircraft protecting the refuelers, and then you have to have the strike aircraft themselves. You have to have pre- and post-reconnaissance. When you replicate this, let's say, over 20 targets, we don't have enough airplanes to do it all at once. So, it's something that will occur in phases. What you look at is maybe a three- to five-day bombardment where we take out sites, radar sites and air defense sites the first day, the second we pound the nuclear sites, the third day we take the Revolutionary Guard Command sites, the fourth and fifth days we do follow-up strikes to make sure all targets are destroyed, then we're done. That's probably what we're looking at.
MT: How much damage could be done to the Iranian nuclear program?
Ritter: No damage would be done to it. Remember, the problem the Iranians face isn't the manufacture of this equipment. They've already mastered that. And if you think for a second machine tools that are used to manufacture enrichment equipment are going to be stored out in the open where we can bomb them, you're wrong. They've been dispersed. The Iraqis were masters of this. We spent a lot of money blowing up concrete, but we never got the machine tools, because they were always hidden. They were always evacuated the day before — they'd take it to palm groves or warehouses that we didn't know about, or hidden in narrow streets. And we never detected that, and we never got them. The Iranians are even better. They've been mastering the technology of deep-earth tunneling, so they can hide things underground that we can't reach with our conventional weapons. So I just think it is absurd to talk about bombing these sites, because all we'll do is blow up buildings that can be rebuilt.
A couple of sites are more sensitive; I think the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan, that'll be a major blow. It's a site that can be rebuilt however. It was a facility put in by the Chinese, but the Iranians have the blueprints. It'll take time, but they can rebuild it. At the best we are talking about retarding an Iranian program. But what's worse is if we bomb them, we may retard it, but we might also make it a militant program. Meaning that if their objective is only nuclear energy and suddenly they're being attacked and the world is doing nothing, we may push the Iranians into weaponization even though that is something they don't want to do. That's not in the cards right now. But our attack will have little or no impact on anything. That's for certain.
MT: So what do you think the United States should be doing to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
Ritter: I think that is the wrong question. That presumes Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. So rather than pose a question that legitimizes a certain point, I think the question should be, "What should the United States be doing in regards to Iran?" I think we should be seeking to normalize relations with Iran. We should be seeking stability in the region. This concept that the United States gets to dictate to sovereign people the makeup of their government is absurd. First of all, the theocracy in Iran, while not a model, for instance ... it's an Iranian problem, not an American problem. The day of the exportation of the Islamic revolution is long gone. The Iranians are not seeking to convert by the sword anybody. It's a nation that has serious internal problems. Economic. Huge unemployment. It's a nation that recognizes these problems. And they are in desperate need of not only political stability but also the economic benefits that come with this stability.
The Iranians want a normalization of relations with the United States that would be inclusive of peaceful coexistence with Israel. They've said this over and over and over again.
So what the United States should be doing is exploiting the olive branch that is being held out by the Iranians. We should be engaging them diplomatically. We should be terminating economic sanctions and seeking to exploit the leverage that comes with having American businesses working inside Iran to try and change them from within. We should be doing everything to get Iran to be a positive player in the region, especially considering the debacle that's unfolding in Iraq. Having the Iranians working with us to engender stability as opposed to being at cross-purposes.
The same can be said in Afghanistan and the entire central Asian region. We keep putting our hopes on allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia, which produced 14 of the hijackers who slaughtered Americans on 9/11. Pakistan, which was the political sponsor of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and continues to have ties to radical Islamic terror organizations. These are our allies? And we call Iran the enemy? We've got it backward. The Iranians are actually the ones we should be working with to oppose dictatorships like Pakistan and irresponsible governments like Saudi Arabia's.
MT: Even under Iran's current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? It seems like before him, just after 2001, there was a window where the Iranians were seeking rapprochement and doing things perhaps quietly and not well-known to Americans to stabilize things.
Ritter: You have to remember that Ahmadinejad doesn't make any policy. He is more than a figurehead, but constitutionally he's hampered by the reality that the power resides with the theocrats. It's the theocrats we need to be engaging, not Ahmadinejad. You engage the people who make the decisions. In the end we should be sending people to talk to the National Security Council, the Guardian Council, the representatives of the supreme leader. That's where the power is, that's where the decisions are made. Ahmadinejad is in reality just a minor inconvenience. The bottom line is, not only doesn't he account for much, his words haven't created a problem at all. Half the things we claim he said, he never said at all. And the other half we put out of context and exaggerate.
I'm not here to defend what the guy says. But the notion that just because a man dared question a 100 percent interpretation of the history of the Holocaust as put forward by Israel — and again, I'm not saying he's right to do that — I'm just saying that because he dared do that, he's suddenly evil incarnate and we need to go to war against this guy? No. At worst he's a joke. He's a guy whose words mean nothing, have no power, have no relevance. It's the supreme leader that matters. And, yes, today the supreme leader continues to want to seek to normalize relations with the United States.
MT: You are getting ready to go to Iran at the start of December. What's the purpose of that trip?
Ritter: I've been trying to get there for some time now to talk with Iranian government officials trying to ascertain firsthand what's going on in Iran. We get a lot of rhetoric here at home, we get the media saying a lot of things that are derived not so much from on-the-ground truth in Iran but rather from talking points put out by the White House. I think it is imperative that if we are going to have a national debate, discussion and dialogue about Iran, that we get all sides of the story.
Hopefully, I'll have an opportunity to meet with Iranian government officials, and have a chance to speak with some religious officials, and maybe even have a chance to talk about hypotheticals, not only what the current situation is, but how the Iranians would like to see this thing resolved and what mechanisms might need to be employed and maybe come back with some ideas that people in Congress might be interested in.
MT: You've been to Iran before, haven't you?
Ritter: Yes. And having been to Iran, I can tell you that it is the last nation in the world we should be saying these are people we have to fight. When you visit Iran and you see the Iranian people and you get the chance to talk to them, you realize that these are peaceful people. These are highly educated people. They are more like us than we can possibly imagine. They are very Western in their approach, although they reject the term Western because they say think those in the West are Neanderthals compared to the Persian culture. But they are very modern in their approach. They are a very modern people.
I always say the best way to stop a war with Iran would be to issue every American a passport and roundtrip ticket and money for a two-week stay and let them go there and when they came back they'd say there's no way we should bomb this place. Once you've been to Iran you realize just how utterly useless the concept of militaristic confrontation is.
MT: I think it is fair to say you are perceived as a champion of the left at this point. But 10 years ago, when you were criticizing the Clinton administration for undermining efforts to root out Saddam's weapons, you were being heralded by the right. Saddam accused you of being an American spy. And you were criticized for being too close with the Israelis and sharing information with them. But when you go to Iraq prior to the war there, people on the right are calling you a traitor. The FBI put you under surveillance. What do you make of all that?
Ritter: What I make of it is my consistency and the inconsistency of those who seek to gain political advantage by manipulating the truth. When the right embraced what I was saying, they didn't embrace the totality of what I was saying. They only embraced that aspect that was convenient for their political purposes. I would say today that the left is guilty of the same thing. I'm only convenient to the left when that which I espouse mirrors what they are pursuing. It will be interesting to see, if Hillary Clinton wins the White House, how popular I will be in certain circles, because I can guarantee I will go after her with all the vengeance I go after the Bush administration.
It's not about being Republican, it's not about being Democrat, it's about being American. It's about doing the right thing. And in the 1990s the right thing was to implement the [United Nations] Security Council resolutions calling for the disarmament of Iraq. That was the law. That was what I was tasked with doing, and the Clinton administration was not permitting the task to be accomplished.
By holding them to account, if that suddenly made me popular with the right, then so be it. It's not something that I sought; it wasn't the purpose of what I was doing. But when the complexity of my stance became inconvenient to the right, when they found out it wasn't just about taking down the Clinton administration, but rather criticizing an American political position that put unilateral policy objectives and regime change higher up in the chain of priorities than disarmament, suddenly it wasn't convenient anymore to be saying, "Hey, we like this guy."
One cannot be held accountable for the words and actions of those who seek to selectively embrace what you say.
MT: When Bush talks about World War III, how likely is the scenario that an attack by us would escalate into that?
Ritter: I don't know about likely, but what I say is that I can sit here and spin scenarios that have it going in that direction. And these aren't fantastic scenarios.
MT: Would that be having Russia or China coming in?
Ritter: No, no, no. It would be something more like the destabilization of Pakistan to the point where a nuclear device gets in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who are aligned with al-Qaeda and there's some sort of nuclear activity on the soil of the United States of America. That's more what I'm looking at. I don't think the Russians or the Chinese would become involved. They don't need to. All they have to do is sit back and wait and pick up the pieces — because it is the end of the United States as a global superpower. That's one thing I try to tell everybody. The danger of going after Iran is that it is just not worth it. What we can lose is everything, and what we gain is nothing. So why do it?
It may not be all about israel - but, israelis, i.e., zionists are THE driving force behind it.
By now, anyone who doesn't see that must be either blind or willfully ignorant.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
qrswave,
You got lost because Ritter refused to blame zionism for the U.S. aggression against Iran, and too Iraq, Afghanistan, and so forth. Ritter instead argues that the U.S. is wanting to prevent, as a genaeral policy, the creation of any future adversaries. Bush wants to stomp on the competition before they get started. So, he said, just before your quote,
"...MT: What's the motivation?
Ritter: The ideologues who are in there believe the United States in the post-Cold War environment needed to fill the gap created by the demise of the Soviet Union so that no nation or group of nations would ever again confront us as equals. And in order to do this, they basically divided the world into spheres of strategic interest and said we will impose our will. And the Middle East is one such area. There's a whole host of reasons to do this.
It's not just supporting Israel. It's not just taking down Saddam. It's about geopolitics. It's about looking down the road toward China and India, the world's two largest developing economies, especially the Chinese,..."
Ritter is here repeating an argument that I've heard others put forward. They think that after the "cold war" with the communists was won, they did not want to allow another head to head confrontation with an equal. So, this is why they promote the preventative war doctrine. They are not so much trying to prevent a confrontation with a country that can do us damage at the present moment. Their policy is that they will destroy the means that a present country has now that might allow them to be an equal competitor in the future.
They understand that Iran can't threaten us, or even Israel, at the present moment. Their concern is to prevent Iran from being in a position to threaten, or even defend themselves, in the future.
Ritter's concern is that he doesn't think it fair or reasonable for the United States to destroy or kill a huge population today if they are not able to threaten us at the present moment. The point I think he doesn't bring out is that the policy of the United States is that we are not doing all of this because Iran, or anyone else is a threat at present. Bush, goaded by his zionist advisors and others, is just following his policy that we should prevent problems with Iran instead of waiting for real problems to come up in the future.
I suspect that you think the only argument in support of this policy comes from zionists. I've heard this analysis of the neocon policy of preventative war pushed by Chomsky. You have said, I believe, that Chomsky ignores the influence of the zionist lobby and instead claims that the american corporate influence is the power behind these wars in Iraq, and the push into Iran.
I am not sure how Ritter argues about whether its the zionists or the american establishment which pushes most. I think from what he said about the Chessboard argument, he thinks its the military-industrial establishment which wants to create wars.
If he has any stated view, Ritter may just say that the zionists agree that Iran needs to be prevented from having any way to threaten others, i.e., the Israelis, or to defend themselves, in the future.
Do you think that the only basis for opposing the American aggression against Iran has to be anti-zionism? Aren't there other good reasons to avoid war with Iran? Shouldn't we oppose it because there's something screwy about preventing people from opposing us in the future by killing them today?
”It may not be all about israel – but zionists are THE driving force behind it.”
Hmmm…
The way I see things, evil can only thrive as long as people cooperate with it. I’ve suggested that Israel could never have existed if the USA were not warlike in the first place. I think the same thing applies the greed of western elites. I think greed and Zionism are yin and yang. They feed off each another, and increase each other. They’re two sides of the same coin. U.S. hypocrisy is identical to Israeli / Zionist hypocrisy.
Ritter says the western elite is scared of China’s and India’s growing power, and therefore wants to control China’s and India’s access to oil. Let’s agree with Ritter for a moment. Why then does the elite not work with Iran? Why pursue war? Answer: Zionism and greed. Bush wants to break up Iraq so private oil companies can move in and make a quick buck. The “quick buck” mentality (greed) requires a cover story, which Zionists provide. In so doing, Zionists increase war fever.
American culture (overall) tends to be arrogant, parochial, and materialistic. Zionism exploits that ethos, increases it, and helps steer it.
American culture is also puritanical. It dangles sex-sex-sex before people, and then tells them forbidden-forbidden-forbidden. This neurosis, again, serves Zionists. It lets them control the American mind.
American culture – like Zionist culture -- must have a war at all times. The war on drugs; war on terrorism; war on poverty; war on this, war on that – it’s all part of U.S. culture, and Zionists help promote it. Even when the USA went to the moon, the Apollo program was part of the “war on Communism.” It was a contest between the USA and USSR.
Before Israel existed, Americans owned slaves, and treated Indians the way Israelis treat Palestinians. Zionists saw this and said, “Behold…paradise!” Americans outgrew slavery, but have they outgrown arrogance?
Jews gained control of all the central banks, but westerners allowed this because banks encouraged general greed. Average people learned they could make profits by trading bits of paper, rather than from producing.
U.S. culture does not praise community or cooperation. It praises “competition” (war again). It praises greed, selfishness, and monetary profit. It likes movies in which the “heroes” are people who “kick ass.” Jews own Hollywood, but Americans willingly devour this filth.
Zionists are a disease of opportunity. When the disease found a sympathetic host, was it because Americans were nice, or because Americans had Zionist tendencies to begin with? Probably both.
I don’t mean to let Zionists off the hook. On the contrary, Zionists are our first target, since we are not allowed to discuss them. I’m suggesting we will never get rid of Zionists unless we also examine our own culture, which let them in. Yes, Zionists control U.S. culture, but to a large extent they merely took U.S. tendencies and expanded them.
steven said:
Zionism is not the root of all evil.
I oppose it because it embodies greed, selfishness, arrogance, ruthlessness, and deception and happens to be the shared ideology of most of the economic and political players that are destroying our lives today.
I get upset when people avoid referring to zionism, or distract others from it by bringing the focus on someone else, i.e., internationalists, globalists, corporatists, etc., when in fact, most if not all of these people ARE zionists - but, nobody wants to discuss it.
Zionists, hands down, are the most successful supremacist cult on earth and if we don't start treating them that way, we can never hope to stop them.
Will eliminating israel end the madness?
Absolutely, not.
Israel just happens to be a localized manifestation of it - but it is not the source of the madness.
Is it all their fault? Also, no.
Every one of us is to blame to some degree or another.
Zionists have no power without the rest of us.
I alluded to this in my post "what would you do for money?"
But every time we do something for money, it furthers their agenda and every time we pay them money it empowers them to do more - because they are the money masters.
Arrogance, greed, selfishness, and deception are the roots of all evil and money is the chain link that makes it all possible on a grand scale.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
To both QRS and Abdul,
I agree with many things that both of you have said. I agree that the general conversation about what our country needs to do in the world to promote liberty, prosperity, the meeting of human needs, has to include some serious scrutiny of what zionism is, and whether it promotes anyone's needs, particularly the interests of the world's jews, the Islamic world in the ME, and the people of the United States. So, in this, I think QRS is right to push the topic so that what most people would like to keep in the dark, we bring out into the light.
I also agree that zionism is not the root of all evil. Here, I think Abdul and QRS agree. They seem to agree that the culture of the United States is often times its own worst enemy. I think the Republicans have some problem with this when they insist that America can do no wrong.
I connection with Ritter's topic, I thought there was another recent article that added good points. Kats made an interesting response, saying,
"...It is only natural that the military be the first to realize that wars in ME are not designed just to destroy middle eastern countries but to destroy US too. This is where the hypothesis that the wars in ME are run by US imperialism to dominate and become unchallengeable world power falls short in logics."
I think this is intersting, but I do not agree with it as it stands. The fact that the wars in the ME are undermining the US may not have been anticipated by the people who pushed for them. They instead may have been blinded by the argument that we were the only superpower left on the planet, so we can do what we want. I think the idea that we are an arrogant nation says that we would suppose we can take on Central Asia without reckoning that there would be any blowback to us.
That story was not clear about whether the people who are in charge are just ignorant about the real possiblity that these wars will destroy us, or whether that was part of their intention all along. For the military, I'm not sure the intent is all that important. The fact is, they believe the wars are destroying at least the US military, and soon the economy and culture of the country. Whether it was by design or not is not as important.
The point here is, I believe, that whatever the argument is for these wars, we will waste time arguing about who might be pushing them, or what their intentions might be in doing that. We will be wasting our time because the real issue is whether these are justified wars, whether they're legal, whether they are in the interest of the the United States and the other countries involved.
So, my argument would be that regardless of whether or not they are being pushed by the zionist advisors to the President, or the zionist deep pockets for the legislatures, they are criminal wars and not in the interest of the United States or the people of the ME.
I suspect that QRS is concerned to push his argument about the zionists because there is the thought that people don't care much about anything like what's right, their own futures, their country, and so forth, but they are concerned about their religious or tribal connections. Ritter speaks to this what he was asked the following and replied,
"...MT: But it is now clearer than ever that our invasion of Iraq has been a disaster. How do you explain the lack of opposition?
Ritter: It's difficult to explain. First of all you have to note, from the public side, that very few Americans actually function as citizens anymore. What I mean by that are people who invest themselves in this country, people who care, who give a damn. Americans are primarily consumers today, and so long as they continue to wrap themselves in the cocoon of comfort, and the system keeps them walking down a road to the perceived path of prosperity, they don't want to rock the boat. If it doesn't have a direct impact on their day-to-day existence, they simply don't care..."
QRS may think, along with Ritter, that even though most people don't care to base their lives on reality, they will get concerned about religion and maybe, what I call, "their eternal souls." QRS thinks that this is why people support or are unwilling to think to object to, whatever zionism does, because they think what's important is in the hands of GOD. Well,...maybe QRS doesn't think this, but I do. I wonder why there's the focus on whatever the zionists might say, because the issue is whether we should be going to war, invading countries, smashing up people who aren't harming us. What difference does it make what the zionists say?...I suppose it must matter because people don't want to deal with the real issues and so we're left with trying to go after the backroom deals.
I agree that we would not be in this situation if we had a functioning democracy. In a democracy that worked well we wouldn't have good reason to think that our Representatives in government are not listening to the people or even to good reason because their minds have been colonized by outsiders, and their votes bought off. I suspect there is good reason to think the government no longer serves the people, but instead does whatever business tells them, or whatever some Lobby might tell them, because their careers depend on the monetary support that business and other Lobbies give them. The people are too beggered to have much of an influence.
I guess I'm saying I agree that the influence of zionism is too strong in this country, but it is so strong because there are many kinds of corruptions here unrelated to zionism. So, I think we have to acknowledge that there's a lot going on in our own house that we have to clean up so that our policies are not so taken over by religious movements or narrowly focused political ideologies.
is of utmost importance. I can't stress it enough.
The reason it is so important is that if you don't know who they are, there is no way to stop them.
They are extraordinary LIARS - masters of deception.
They get away with launching wars because they control the money supply, but also because they control the media and because they are LIARS.
Not only are they able to manufacture reality, but indeed they are able to manufacture consent.
Once you understand who they are and what their intentions are you can spot them from a mile away and their lies become transparent.
Your statement that:
is completely impossible.
If it had been "an honest mistake" as you're suggesting then people in the military wouldn't have spoken out against the war beforehand and would not be pushing hard to expose 'the element' that is pushing hard for a similar war with Iran. I refer you to an article posted by mparent recently "US Military vs. Israel Firsters."
This ideological battle is EXTREMELY and PRACTICALLY important.
There are many practical reasons to avoid the war and I am not saying that these should not be discussed. But, to avoid the ideological players behind them is a deadly mistake, for it gives them the opportunity to regroup and resurrect themselves under a different mask to wreak the same havoc.
For the madness to stop these people must be exposed and removed from positions of power.
The only practical way to do that at this point is to wrest control of the monetary system away from them and to restructure the campaign finance laws so that it eliminates the avenue for corrupting our government.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
QRS,
I argued that if someone tells me to go jump off a bridge, I can tell it would or wouldn't be a good idea for me whether or not I knew why I was told to jump off that bridge. QRS is telling me that in order for me to assess whether I should jump off the bridge, I need to determine why I was told to do so.
It seems important to QRS to determine why someone might be making this suggestion to me so that I can understand what's behind the next recommendation they give me.
This is all just a metaphor for the recommendations QRS sees the US is being given by the zionists. QRS thinks we are being told to jump off a bridge and, unfortunately, QRS thinks we don't have the sense to see the problem with that. So, QRS recommends we look at the intentions behind the zionist's recommendations. I suspect QRS sees the intentions to involve things which are not in the interest of the U.S. Given some understanding of the details of the zionist intentions, QRS believes the guys in charge will choose to not jump off the bridge.
My argument is that we should be able to point out what's wrong with our jumping off a bridge without having to look into the intentions of those who tell us to go do such a thing.
Having said that, I agree with QRS that we do have to be wary of people who tell us over and over again to jump off a bridge.
I went off to think about this for awhile and remembered that I wanted to make another point. It seems the arguing here is about trying to wake people up to the dangers of those who would have us jump off this bridge. I went back to pick out the Podheretz thesis, as an example of what we're talking about:
"Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what September 11, 2001 did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the cold war was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the cold war, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of Communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades."
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/The-Case-for-Bombing-...
This guy wants us to think of the Iranians as one part of a whole world of evil doers who we have been in a battle with for decades. Accepting his claims about how the world is amounts to jumping off a bridge, as far as I can see.
QRS is not only wanting us to see that jumping off a bridge is a bad idea, but the people who ask us to do such a thing are bad people. I want to say that the thing we need to do is not try to gather the forces of reason together to oppose Podherez, et al, but try to argue to him and the zionists that they have to change their minds.
It does us no good to gather up all the people who agree with QRS on this issue to oppose the nefarious zionists, if we present no argument to the zionists and people who are not committed one way or another that we should all be in agreement on things.
It occurs to me that the zionists will also see that American culture is corrupted and undemocratic and see that as a threat to them as we see it to be a threat to others. Whereas we see zionist efforts to protect their constituents as being against our intersts in some way, they must see the things that people do who are anti-zionist as being against their interests.
The better strategy is not just to root for the military officers who oppose an American attack on Iran, or to try to kick-start some life into the civilian anti-war movement, but to go out and argue with the zionists and corporate establishment, whomever, that they should not be pushing an attack on Iran.
What can we argue back at Podheretz that he should give up his project to get us to fight Iran? That would be the better project for us.
Wait a minute....
What the...?
What are you talking about, Steven? What are you actually saying here? Zionists see American culture as corrupted and undemocratic and see that as a threat to ....them, the zionists?
Are you really serious here?
THEY INVENTED THE “AMERICAN” CULTURE!
Heck, I don’t even know what the real “american” culture is anymore. Is it “hot dogs, apple pie and chevrolet”? “Take me out to the ball game”? “Oh I wish I were an Oscar Meyer weiner?”
When did we lose this elusive “American culture”? When did it begin? Did it only last for just a moment? Where does Americanism end and zionism begin? The bigger and better question to ask is:
What would America look like today without the parasitical growth - this cancer, zionism, which has its teeth sunk so deeply into the roots of this land, America???
Therefore, I find this “whereas we see zionist efforts to protect their constituents as being against our interests in some way, they, the zionists must see the things that people do who are anti-zionist as being against their interests....” - well I find this a bit too sympathetic, a bit too apologetic, a bit too wishy-washy. I find this as making EXCUSES for bloodthirsty, greedy, warmongering people who seem to almost have no soul or heart....and so I certainly don’t buy these ’EXCUSES’.
The zionists must protect their constituents, their interests...? Oh puleeeeeze. What the hell do they have to “protect”??? They are the ones ATTACKING,PROVOKING, MANIPULATING, DECEIVING! They are the ones going for the jugular. They are draining us to the marrow of our bones...we don’t have to “understand” their intentions...just like we don’t have to “understand” the symbology of satan. What you are is what you are, what is...IS!.
Evil is evil...sickness is sickness...any special, precious moments trying to “understand” the intentions of these mutated creatures dressed as humans is a cosmic waste of time!
As for the bridge and jumping off of it...they, the zionists, can certainly go JUMP into the murky, grey waters of which they came. But that was a joke. They won’t, will they? No need in figuring out that one.
BTW, when I speak of zionists I am talking of people who are pro-israeli, realizing or not realizing what they are supporting, which is the slaughter of innocents abroad or at home in order to fulfill their goals, regardless of the “religion” they attach themselves to...
Wait a minute....Let me look this one up...
"excuse,"....oh, here...
"...To try to free (a person) of blame; seek to exonerate...to serve as an explanation or justification for; justify; exculpate; absolve: as, his honesty excuses his mistake..."
I guess I have to plead a Paul, who argued that we have to understand why the guys flew the planes into the Towers, and that understanding why they did that does not exonerate them of any of the cruelty and evil of such an act. It only helps us understand why it occured.
So, if I point out that zionists may believe not only that every country or society is at bottom anti-semitic, but that even the United States that seems to be a haven for Jews can turn in a heartbeat into a killing ground for Jews, this claim, and others, only goes to explain what might be behind zionist actions here abouts.
Rhiannon thinks that what I said about zionist concerns about American culture was some effort to excuse whatever zionists seem to have done to corrupt American culture. If zionists have done any such corrupting, I have not absolved them of wrongdoing by merely suggesting that the zionists themselves might have had some concerns and arguments about culture that went into their behavior. In doing that, I have not tried to justify what they may have done, or try to absolve them of wrongdoing.
Suppose the U.S. military drops the weapons of mass destruction that I've heard them planning, say 300 to a thousand nuclear weapons. I've heard that there are estimates that only a couple of hundred people might be killed by this attack. The weapons are very accurately targeted, we're assured. I think a more reasonable number might be a couple of million killed in the first couple of hours.
This would be a crime against humanity and peace. When the Japanese did this to us at Pearl Harbor I'm sure there were more than a few Americans who felt justified in killing every Japanese on the planet. At least Truman felt justified in dropping two nuclear warheads on Japan killing hundreds of thousands in seconds. The world might feel justified in having the Russians do what they could to destroy our ability to do anything of the sort again.
Now, suppose the President should try to explain himself to some future Nuremburg court. He might say, "Well, the devil made me do it." This excuse might explain why we attacked a defenseless country that wasn't harming us, but it would not justify or absolve what the U.S. did. The Nuremburg Court is famous for arguing that we have an obligation to resist the entreaties of the Devil and that we are responsible for our own actions despite whatever the Devil, or the zionists, might tell us to do.
Rhiannon is pissed off that I might try to argue that the people who are responsible for the inhumanity of Ghaza, for example, or Iraq, might be able to get off scott free because of some argument that I have given. I am not offering some defense of crimes.
When I spoke about the concerns of the zionists I was attempting to make the point that the conflict we've had here about the influence of zionism in our threatened attack on Iran is not going to be resolved unless we take into consideration what zionists are concerned about. They feel threatened.
Rhiannon tells us that my claim here that they feel threatened by American culture is hogwash because, according to Rhiannon, zionists created and control American culture. I have thought that the creation and control of culture would be a complicated and a vast undertaking. I have to be skeptical about the claim that zionists created and now control American culture.
But, lets say that for the sake of argument there are zionist billionares who finance politicians and subvert our politics. My claim could still be true that the billionares spend all their time and effort in manipulating things because they are afraid of the non-Jews re-creating some Nazi-like situation in America.
Again, this would not excuse any wrongdoing, but it would explain what concerns of theirs we could address in order to get them to stop manipulating American culture and pushing for wars in the ME.
My point was to argue for a better way of addressing the problem of our threatened war in Iran, and the continuing mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, other than just trying to mount some meager counterattack on the forces of "evil."
If the Devil made you do it?
Yeah...you are still bad, cuz you LET the devil make you do it. You let the devil in. So any EXCUSE does not fly anyway. Whether it is the 'devil' or a 'hobgoblin' or whatever you choose to wriggle out of blame for wrong doing.
-------
Fine...try to understand things...it's just that there comes a point where there is no need anymore to understand. People do what they want to do, and there is no amount of "understanding" to explain the situation.
That's what I am saying.
I love this....
Rhiannon thinks that what I said about zionist concerns about American culture was some effort .....
Rhiannon is pissed off that I might try to argue that the people who are responsible for the inhumanity of Ghaza....
Rhiannon tells us that my claim here that they feel threatened by American culture is hogwash because.......
according to Rhiannon, zionists created and control American culture.......
Well...don't I feel like I am in a classroom and the teacher is very upset with me, while he addresses the class about my behavior.
Sorry Steven to rain all over your comment. But I take nothing back.
The zionists created the FEAR for themselves, of themselves and they BASK in it willingly, as they enjoy the sympathy they get from non-zionists, hoodwinked by the zionist media fear / warmongering soap opera.
Remember Mohammed, the teddy bear.
They created the falseness, the deception of "anti-semetism" - now if they had SHUT UP about it - they would have no fears and nightmares now would they? But they didn't SHUT UP - did they? They created this 'anti-semetic' monstrocity - this maze without exits and entrances, this abyss, this house of mirrors .....it's their own doing and they are loving every minute of it! They love the fear, they love the false fear, they love the drama and hysteria, they make a FORTUNE OUT OF IT......and frankly my dear, I don't think they are losing any sleep, after all.
And I don't hear anyone anywhere saying mean things about Jews in public - do you???
No.
But I hear whole lot of stuff about Arabs - Semetic people - the true semites - Arabs who have no desire to make a big deal about semetism in the first place - certainly not for the orchestrated reasons done by the zionists.
The United States turning in a heartbeat into a killing ground for the zionists???
It won't happen, dear watson, but they want you to believe it.
Zionists having concerns and arguments about culture that went into their behavior?
Do you really think they even give a damn? Besides, if cornered, and found completely guilty I am sure they would come up with a smorgasbord of excuses as to why they are the way they are.....and I say: Cry me a river.
What do you mean IF zionists have done such corrupting....?
There is no IF.
Darn right I am pissed off, Steven. The 'people' who are responsible for the inhumanity of Gaza and Iraq H A V E gotten off scott free - regardless of your argument.
What's with this 'might be able to get off scott free' nonsense?
"concerns" of zionists again: We should take into consideration what zionists are "concerned" about. Aw. They feel threatened. Which ones? Kissinger? Chertoff? Abrams? Feith? Wolfie? Rumsy? Ayalon? Livni? Dicey Ricey? Perle? miri eisen? Cheney? The Bullshits, I mean the bushes? Do ya think Jenna and Barbie are terrified of being drafted into the war? Watch out Iran! A new form of WMD!
I know there is a much longer list somewhere in my hope chest - must look for it sometime....
Yes, Steven, let us turn to pages 976 through 1,347, in our books How To Alleviate The Fears of The Maniacal-Mass-Murdering Zionists on how to
discuss intelligently with the zionists why they feel threatened in a world of their own creation.
Better still....
Steven...if you were a Rolling Stone, the appropriate song you would shout at me is: Get Off My Cloud.
Lot of whimsy going on up there, no?
Oh my stomach is just turning:
The billionaires are spending all their time manipulating things for fear of non-jews re-creating Nazi-like situation in America?
??????????????????????????
??????????????????????????
??????????????????????????
??????????????????????????
???????????????????????????
....if the devil DID make them [the zionists] do what they have done, what they are doing now, and what they plan to do in the future...maybe they created Lucifer, Beezlebub, Damien, Abaddon, Leviathan, and the Serpent....just like they created "anti-semetism".
Do ya think?
" The better strategy is ......to go out and argue with the zionists and corporate establishment, whomever, that they should not be pushing an attack on Iran. "
I would suggest the following talking points in such negotiations with them to increase our chances to be more convincing:
1. It was not right to doctor the holey book of more than a billion unsuspecting people secretly and subsequently working tenaciously for more than a century to create 40 million christian zionists in US alone whose leaders foam up their mouths just like a rotwilder and quote bible that there must be a river of blood in ME for their lord to return.
2. It was not right to use your subversive influence to change FCC regulations and subsequently use your fake money to buy up virtually all major news networks in this country and Europe to have an at least 90% control over the news so that no one knows any more which direction is north which south.
3. It is not right to lie thru your teeth about, extort, and denigrate Germany for the last 60 years so that to illegally and unethically steal somebody else's land to build a safe haven for your rejects around the world; Germany was the only country in north europe that gave you equal rights of citizenship, identity, culture, and prosperity when you were starving from unemployment, famine, and diseases when you came from the east lice-riddled. You did exactly the same thing to the Egyptians 3k years earlier. We know old habits are tough to drop, but we hope you can work on it. We are here to help.
4. It is not right what your settlers are doing to the cultured Palestinians. It is exactly what you did to the cultured Chinese 2k years earlier. In this 2k yrs, according to yourselves, the only thing you have offered the world civilizations is the horse saddle. It is about time that you reconsider your world view and life style of 'rule or ruin' to some thing more like other humans. We really need a few names of yours in the world of literature, art, philosophy, and sciences. A lot of people know now that you created the noble prize committee so you can give it to yourselves and create the 'image' that you are sophisticated and contributing. That works for only awhile. You should really reconsider running more than 3/4 of porno industry in the west, 90% of $4b abortion industry, drug traffic, white slavery, ...
5. It is not right to use your fake money to buy up pharma companies and then create endowed chairs in med schools around the country so that bought out professors create new (nonexisting) dieseases (ADD, HAD, ...) that requires your products; turning this country to the most drugged country on earth. Now your sayanim in the neighborhoods and comrades in congress and operatives in think tanks are pushing to make it mandatory for schools to test all students for psychiatric evaluation. Of course you have to go around and shoot scores of kids in schools to make every one believe this is necessary. We need you to reconsider treating goy kids like this.
7. It is not right that you burn forests and homes every summer by your operatives, so that you can claim an increase in fire and climate change as commercials for your fake warm mongering swindle. We need you to reconsider this scorch earth business practice in our country.
6. Like air borne virus, any country that you have landed in the last few thousand years , they have lost their culture, language, and soon they even looked different. East side caspian sea is supposed to look like west side and speak indoeuropean languages. You passed thru from mongolia to khazaria, look what happened. You sent 4k of your mongurk (mongoloid turk) thugs with your fake money to russia a century ago and took it over. Your first legislature was making anti-judaism a crime, but rampaged and murdered 25 million christians who resisted you. Name of russia was wiped off the map for 70 years, where you had the highest rate of disappearance of indigenous languages in the world.
Now you are here. America looks less america by years. Walk thru hallways of universities today. English is only scarcely heard from offices and labs. TVs are just mongurk boxes.
7. In the last 28 years, there has been five to ten real opportunities that problems between US and Iran could have been resolved. But every single time it was shot down in flame by a mongurk operative in congress. This is not somebody's opinion. They are on records. The reason? Iran is a cultural super power in the region. She can seamlessly communicate with Indians, Pakis, central asians, russians, caucasus, turks, arabs. In sharp contrast Azrael is an implant who cannot talk to anyone because of cultural and life style incongruity. Even the semitic judeans who have been lured to immigrate to azrael are leaving and all complain about being culturally choked. Mongurks know well that if US and Iran become friends, they will soon lose their grip on america's foreign policy in ME.
8. Steven: Zionists are junk yard rotwilders. They don't decide who to bite who not to. They are remote controlled ruthless zombies, the same way that Lenin and Trotsky were. They just have missions to accomplish. They care less who might die or might get hurt in the process. Talking to Douglas Feith or Bill Crystal to change their mind about attacking Iran is like squatting in front a charging rotwilder and saying good dogie, seconds before he rips your face apart.
9. You might think some of items above are irrelevant to our topic. They are not. My first quot from you and (my goodness) this one,
" ...because they are afraid of the non-Jews re-creating some Nazi-like situation in America."
makes me feel you might not be quite familiar with who we are talking about here.
"Talking to Douglas Feith or Bill Crystal to change their mind about attacking Iran is like squatting in front a charging rotwilder and saying good dogie, seconds before he rips your face apart."
very good one, kats! Sums it up nicely.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
Steven
If I got this right,
although you would like the masters of the destruction (MOD) punished you would like to change the mind of the MOD instead of punishing them for their destruction, because that is a more realistic approach.
I cannot look into peoples hearts, so I don't know if you are truly aiming for least destruction and maximum peace, or just trying to get the MOD of the hook but claim not to want this.
You also argue that this is not really important.
Trying to interpret the intentions of the MOD is important and to a reasonable extent possible since you just have to read their own writings. However this can not really be applied to posters and will only lead to some useless flamewar.
So I am just assuming (and really believe) your intentions are just, but I'll stay a bit wary.
You seem to be a bit new, since you think qrswave is a guy.
If I am not mistaken she's a she.
And you seem to not use html code. So although your posts have good contents no html makes your posts look like walls of text.
Check out these basics and bookmark them.
Compose tips
HTML posting basics
Proper HTML usage will reduce misunderstanding and increase readability of posts.
Scott Ritter
He seems to agree with the UN that disarming Iraq was a right thing to do.
I think the UN is totally useless. And it seems to be playing "good cop" "bad cop" with the US.
I also don't agree with the hypocritical disarming past-Iraq right before a US invasion and not all those other far more dangerous countries like the US itself.
Well, I'm sorry for being mistaken about qrs's gender.
I think reading Rhiannon can be a waste of time because you didn't understand what I was saying before you went off venting your anger.
The first thing that pissed you off was you thought I was trying to excuse, or maybe "absolve" someone for killing or stealing or whatever, so long as it's bad.
"Yeah..." you said. "...you are still bad, cuz you Let the devil make you do it. You let the devil in. So any Excuse does not fly anyway..."
The fact that I used the word "excuse" does not mean that I was trying to excuse anybody of wrongdoing. In fact, I said, "I have not absolved them of wrongdoing by merely suggesting that the zionists themselves might have had some concerns and arguments about culture that went into their behavior. In doing that, I have not tried to justify what they may have done, or try to absolve them of wrongdoing."
Willie Sutton said, when asked why he robbed banks, that's where the money is. http://www.banking.com/ABA/profile_0397.htm The obvious answer does not absolve the man of the wrongness of robbing banks. It does go to explain why anyone would rob them. I think Rhiannon and others can't get beyond the wrongness of bank robbery to see what might be learned by this answer that could stop them.
So, to you, I am not illiterate nor am I ignorant about the claims made here and elsewhere about what zionists have done, or are suspected of doing, to Palestineans, Americans, Arabs, Muslims, or non-zionists in general. The long laundry list of crimes that Kats wants to make against zionists is completely beside the point.
As I said, I was trying to suggest some constructive ways of preventing a war between the United States and Iran. The claim was made that the zionists are behind this American aggression. I argued that no matter what the zionists claim, they could be the devil himself, we are responsible for whatever we do. There are no excuses for however many deaths we would cause by attacking a defenseless country that was not harming us.
Furthermore, I said that we should be wary of people who would tell us to jump off such a bridge over and over again. But, I said that the strategy heretofore followed by members of this collective, and others, to rally their committed troops, to revive an anti-war movement, or to cheer on a ragtag band of dissident military officers, will not work. It has not worked. It cannot work.
Do not argue with me about the treachery of the Jews. I'm not the one out there doing anything. Go talk to them about that. If you think they're a hazard go try and get them to change their "evil" ways. You're argument trying to make the point zionists are evil is not with me, but with them!
Just go try presenting your case to them the way you are talking to me and see how far you'll get. But, if you experience silence or the door slammed in your face because you start out attacking them without first trying to understand where they are coming from, it will be your arrogance that makes any resolution impossible.
Or, is resolution part of the game plan here?
Yeah, reading me can be a waste of time....well be that as it may.....
You say the argument is not with you it is with the zionists....NO. I don't think so.
It is people who are not informed, who lack clarity of what is going on in the Middle East, in this whole world, from the past to present, that ALLOWS zionists to go on with their murderous ways.
There comes a time when you CANNOT REASON WITH MONSTERS. You cannot reason with sociopaths....
Hows about linda calbi, Steven?? In Detroit, people are reeling over the beating death of a 15 year old boy, and the murderer, his mother, is allowed ALIMONY, because of the twisted, hazy, ridiculous court system in the USA - CANADA TOO.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1930771/posts
Let me tell you about the death penalty! We lay a death penalty on thousands of children every day, children like Matthew, beaten, because society allows creepy monsters like linda calbi, a "mother",
to take her time with her 'issues', her 'anger problems', mismanagement with her 'feelings' about her past, her inherent gene pool,...blah blah blah.......
Yes! Let's try and figure her out -- NOT!!
When is evil just evil?... and WHEN will we finally stop basing or stretching the laws on gender, looks, and who has the power?
When will we finally recognize that what ever shape or form evil comes our way, be it a pretty little blond mother, or a powerful business executive, when will we finally GET IT...that evil is simply evil and these kinds of people never change!
The waters are extremely murky-grey in the court system! The child-care / social systems are especially murky.
Violent "parents" getting their babies back because they took anger classes - babies staring horrified as they are handed back to these creeps - a baby is too young to hide its terror.
Whose side will you be on, Steven?
A lot of those babies don't make it the second time around - the grave awaits their battered bodies.
[I know some nurses, and my sister is in her last year of nursing. I hear terrible things.]
People are what they are. Very few change or transform. There is no reasoning with people who are especially bent on greed and maliciousness. NOT POSSIBLE.
Steven...it is people like you that need to CHANGE. You need to stand up, get angry and say ENOUGH.
All this wishy washy mumbo jumbo of suggesting that zionists have "concerns" and "arguments" about culture that went into their behaviour is pure lavish NONSENSE.
They created these 'concerns' and 'arguments' and I supppose the nice, ill-informed, do-gooders helped them along. Real cozy! What a comfortable partnership - kind of like with their alliance with those things called kreestian zionists.
Ask any Arab leader what it is like to talk to the zionists.
The cards are stacked in their favor. They have 100 aces up their sleeves - and their zionist media won't tell you so. The bullies have it made.
What's the point of resolving any issues with these people - it just buys them more time to keep doing what they want to do.
Willie Sutton, when asked why he robbed banks, he said 'that's where the money is'..........well you just confirmed what I have been saying all along.
There are no answers to stop Willie Sutton. How?? With such a cute, pat answer such as that??
I read the article.
He did what he wanted to do and no amount of talking to him could change him.
Steven, you just confirmed what I have been saying all along.
Negotiations are nothing new. Talks about "concerns" and "fears" of the zionist elite have been conjured up since the invention of this isreal.
Did you hear Olmert?
Whining and moaning about buses, pizza parlors, and cafes. This is the same old song and dance the neocon zionists flip at us. Same rote, same protocol.
How many of these buses, pizza parlors and cafes? Compared to Palestinian homes demolished?
What is the ratio? The difference? What would the scale look like : pizza parlors, buses, and cafes to JUST home demolitions in Palestine.
When it comes to pizza parlors and buses in israel America listens...
When there's talk of home demoltions in Palestine [the tip of the iceberg by the way] America is D E A F.
So much for talk.
I recently argued that Rhiannon and others should not argue with me about the treachery of the Jews and how we have to stop zionists from pushing the United States into a war with Iran. Instead, I said, they should go try to make their points with the zionists.
In response to my suggestion Rhiannon said that no one should waste their time arguing with zionists. Rhiannon said,
"There comes a time when you CANNOT REASON WITH MONSTERS. You cannot reason with sociopaths."
Apparently, it would be a waste of time because monsters cannot be reasoned with.
In addition, it would be a waste of time to argue with them because they are evil and evil people cannot change.
To my suggestion that it is important to consider zionist 'concerns' and 'arguments' I got, it's "pure lavish NONSENSE."
And, to try to understand them, I'm told is dangerous because it just gives them more time to work on their nefarious plans.
I guess I understand the anger expressed here about the activities of these zionists and how they seem impervious to reasonable argument.Well, maybe I see that they are impervious to invective.
That's the problem here for me. I do not see that anyone who goes along with me that we are being asked to jump off a bridge, by attacking Iran, for example, is reasonable unless we confront the arguments I believe the zionists will make that that is the wrong interpretation of what we would be so doing. In fact, by ignoring zionist arguments about why we should attack Iran, or they settle the West bank, buy up politicians, subvert the political process whereever, and so forth, we beg the question at issue. We assume our view on these matters is correct, and obvious, and just, without arguing for it.
The fact that Rhiannon tells me zionists are just monsters, and unreasoning, and evil, and so on, isn't going to make any points with all the people we'd like to have stop being evil and monstrous, and so on, because Rhiannon and others are just begging the question about the points at issue. Rhiannon is just insulting the other side without addressing the need to provide some kind of argument.
I was too hasty when before I said that it was a waste of time to read Rhiannon because I am wanting this person to listen to the argument that I want to make. But, it would be a waste of time for anyone not already persuaded by Rhiannon that zionists are monsters to read any of this swearing.
When I say that I'm not the one to argue with, that you have to go talk to the zionists, I mean that it's no good discussing this with the choir and others who are already willing to agree without an argument. To me, Kats's long list of zionist crimes would be read only by those persuaded already without having been given an argument that they are reasonable and true as they stand, because no argument is there given.
Now, I can expect someone might argue that people have already tried arguing with the zionists and nothing seems to get through to them. I'm told to talk to the Arabs about how useless it is to argue with zionists.
I have to admit that it may be difficult to come to a resolution that satisfies everyone. In fact, it seems that a case can be made that negotiations between Palestineans and Israel have always been matters of beating up on the Palestinean position with no real give and take between both sides. A lot of suffering has therefore been a result.
I'm not saying zionists have any moral high ground. I'm just saying that in discussing Iran, for example, or zionist intentions, you have to consider the views of the zionists and others who want to be aggresive, or else you risk spinning your wheels accomplishing nothing except begging the question.
The importance of engaging the zionists in an argument about attacking Iran is that you want to change their minds according to the arguments made for peace. The zionists or the neocons will not back off easily, and won't unless there is some strong argument that even they would accept.
I can also imagine that Rhiannon or others will argue that the effort to understand what's gone into zionist policy and actions is an effort to mitigate or absolve them of criminal activity. At least, I might be accused of prolonging the time for their comeuppance so that they might have more time to carry out their skullduggery.
I'm not saying that people should be pardoned for their crimes if we somehow could be told why they did what they did. I don't think that honest autobiographies should make governors give people pardons. I am saying that people are lead to think they need to harm others for various reasons. We need to know what those reasons are. We need to point out that we risk our own painful destruction if we attack people and kill them for no good reason, as we believe we would be doing if we attacked Iran. We need to make the argument that people who ask us to jump off of bridges are mistaken in specific ways, so that they will stop pushing weak politicians into doing such stupid things. I suspect zionists like Podhoretz will respond that the U.S. would be justified and righteous if we bombed the shit out of Iran. He'd have x, y, z arguments to back up his claim. I'm just saying the best way to stop Podoretz, et al, is to meet and counter his argument.
With all due respect, I disagree with you completely.
“By ignoring zionist arguments about why we should attack Iran, or allow them to settle on the West bank, or buy up politicians, subvert the political process and so forth, we beg the question at issue. We assume our view on these matters is correct, and obvious, and just, without arguing for it.”
There is no need to "argue for it." These matters are self-evident. They do not require justification or debate. Zionists want power. They want the USA to fight wars for them. Murder is wrong. The genocide of Palestinians is wrong. What’s to discuss?
Perhaps you have never personally tried to reason with a Zionist. Without exception they are incapable of reason. Try talking with one of them. Watch as their eyes turn red with rage, no matter what you say. Choose anyone you like, young or old, male or female. Their psychosis never varies. Rational discussion is beyond their capacity.
I’ve been around Zionists many times. They only understand brute force. Without exception they are psychopaths. I repeat: WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
”The fact that Rhiannon tells me zionists are just monsters, and unreasoning, and evil, and so on, isn't going to make any points with all the people we'd like to have stop being evil and monstrous, and so on, because Rhiannon and others are just begging the question about the points at issue. Rhiannon is just insulting the other side without addressing the need to provide some kind of argument.”
Insulting? Zionists laugh as they put bullets into the heads of children. Shall we worry about “insulting” them? Shall we worry about providing "some kind of argument" against mass murder?
I get the impression that you are just beginning to explore Zionism. If that’s true, then it’s natural to think Zionists can somehow be reasoned with. It’s natural to presume they will listen if you convince them you mean them no harm. It’s natural to take the attitude of “Can’t we all just get along?”
If this is your attitude, then clearly you are still on the up-cycle of the learning curve. That’s fine. All of us were there at one point.
You seem like a person of good will, but I can only shake my head when I read things like this…
”In discussing Iran, for example, or zionist intentions, you have to consider the views of the zionists and others who want to be aggresive, or else you risk spinning your wheels accomplishing nothing except begging the question.”
Strange. Why consider the views of a people who are engaged in genocide, and who want to start World War III?
We cannot truly be reasonable unless we are willing to face reality. The reality is that Zionists are incapable of reason. This is a fact. Circles are round, triangles have three sides, and Zionists cannot be reasoned with. Those who disagree are those who have no experience with Zionists.
“The importance of engaging the zionists in an argument about attacking Iran is that you want to change their minds according to the arguments made for peace. The zionists or the neocons will not back off easily, and won't unless there is some strong argument that even they would accept.”
Wow. There is no possible way to change the Zionist mind, since Zionists cannot survive without contention, and without “anti-Semitism.” Being atheists, they are hollow at their core, and have nothing to live for except the quest for power. Anyone who quests for power cannot be reasoned with. It is folly –yea unreasonable -- to try reasoning with someone who is delirious with fever.
Most people regard Zionists as evil. I do not. To regard them as evil is to ascribe some semblance of humanity to them. I regard Zionists as disease. We don’t debate bacteria, we cleanse it, sterilize it, oxidize it.
”I suspect zionists like Podhoretz will respond that the U.S. would be justified and righteous if we bombed the shit out of Iran. He'd have x, y, z arguments to back up his claim. I'm just saying the best way to stop Podoretz, et al, is to meet and counter his argument.”
Zionists never use arguments, because they have no arguments, no evidence, and no facts. They only have threats. That’s why they get laws passed that imprison anyone who questions the “holocaust” hoax. Authentic truth needs no laws to defend it.
Doubtless you regard me as rigid, close-minded, absolutist, and extremist. That’s fine. I request that you seek out a Zionist and try to have a discussion with him or her. Again, choose anyone you like.
I would be very interested to hear about your experience.
Thanks for reading.
"We cannot truly be reasonable unless we are willing to face reality. The reality is that Zionists are incapable of reason. This is a fact. Circles are round, triangles have three sides, and Zionists cannot be reasoned with."
Very well said. In fact, in just about everything you said, you took the words right out of my mouth, with one exception - I do believe zionists are evil and on the contrary being evil comes part and parcel with losing your humanity.
The devil is evil incarnate. When some human beings chew other human beings alive for what they believe to be their own self interest, they are in fact, doing the devil's work and taking his side in an eternal battle against humanity, during which he has sworn to God that he will take as many of us to hell with him as he can.
Steven, all I can tell you is - if changing zionist minds is your strategy - then good luck.
Can some people's minds be changed - sure. But, like Abdul Alhazred said, certain arguments are self-evident. People who can't or don't recognize their truth will likely never, no matter how much you argue with them.
It makes me wonder - how old are you? Haven't you ever ran into a person in your life that no matter how many different ways you present reason to him or her they never embrace it?
Unfortunately, some people are hopeless. Many zionists, if not all, are like that.
May God have mercy on their souls - or not - whichever He sees fit in His infinite wisdom.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
About having a "dialogue" with 'jews'.
They will cut you down, they are bullies, they will not listen...or they will pretend to. They will play mindgames.
I have "spoken" to israelis - Lirun, Snurdly, and Andre at Mirvat's blog.
I have "spoken" to the Queen Bitch of Psychology, PME [from somewhere USA] at Khalid Jarrar's blog .....and the hideous kreestain zionist, MadTom, from Miami FL., as well.
I have "spoken" to super KING CREEP jon [who calls himself a libertarian - whatever that is] at Nadia's blog who is from Iraq but does not live there anymore.
I have argued with the ridiculous Ephraim who lives in New Jersey, but has a second home in israel ...at GadFly's blog... as well as some other witless statues who consider themselves 'gods'.
T H E Y
A R E
A L L
Z I O N I S T S.
You find these automatons and YOU speak to them, Steven. They are everywhere - not hard to seek them out.
Before summer of 2006, I would have been like you, I suppose.
Steven, I will NOT GO BACK to the person I was - what you are today.
I have progressed...you are still stuck in "can't we all just get along?"
No thanks.
YOU are the one that needs to change Steven. There are so many others like you. You all need to WAKE UP.
You can argue to the moon and back and do a few acrobatic pit stops on Jupiter for all I care - - -
the zionists LOVE IT. They WANT to argue with you. They play passive-aggressive headgames. They make you think you are winning and then they pull the hard work/patience you stressed under your feet. Not only are you back at zero - you are LESS THAN ZERO because of the time you wasted - and they LOVE that...it's what they wanted all along.
That's how they work. Steven, they would love and welcome you, and all the other [well-intentioned] people like you with open arms.
In the meantime... my aunt was telling me of an article from a newspaper she sent to a friend of hers. The article is on the social page and in very little print.
It speaks of the 11 million dollars sent to the zionists in Palestine to help them on there way - to murder, steal, buy land, and other deeds of darkness.
The date of this Newspaper - 1936.
At that time 11 million dollars from USA pockets was sure a gob of dough. Imagine that.....1936.
And the zionists today will tell you there was no such help from the USA.
The zionists today will tell you the Palestinians were, in fact, just mindless neanderthals.
And Mercury is as close to Pluto as your eyelash is to your cheek.
Nadia who has a blog [I don't remember the name of it] is originally from Iraq.
jon, the libertarian, was from somewhere in the USA - the East most likely.
Just wanted to get that straight.
Rhiannon,
I cannot say that I understand your frustration about discussing these issues with zionists, and finding that they do not change their minds after having heard you make your point, because I have not discussed these things with zionists, nor have I done any discussions with people on this issue to the degree that you apparently have done in the past.
I only see that you are frustrated and seemingly angry. The large fonts tell me this.
I was interested in commenting on this piece by Ritter because I too am interested in preventing a war between the U.S. and Iran. I think the actions of our government and the hostilities in the ME are generated by the way people think about their security, their goals for themselves and what is important to them. And, all this comes down to some kind of argument. I write on these blogs as a way of understanding the arguments that we rely on to justify ourselves, and to make arguments that should get people to do better.
So, I have proposed the idea that in order to get the President and others to stop pushing us into a war with Iran we should negotiate with Iran instead of trying to intimidate them with force and the promise of harm to them if they do not comply. I am told by Rhiannon and others here that the main reason Bush and others rely on force instead of negotiations is because of the zionists and the influence they have of American political affairs.
In response to that claim I argued that we should try to determine what "concerns" and "arguments" the zionists have that drive them to push the United States into attacking Iran, and in understanding them, develop some kind of plan to resolve the conflict between them and Iran, et al.
I have been told, repeatedly, that this suggestion has been tried but the zionists are unreasonable. They have no interest in listening to anyone who would have them stop pushing for wars and stop meddling in American politics. Some of the claims made about zionists, that they are monsters, that they laugh when they shoot children in the head, and so forth, are meant to explain why they do not listen to reason.
Some others have wondered about me. They wonder whether I'm too young to know much about the world and the these facts about zionists. They think that I'm just naive and that after awhile and after having some experience talking to zionists I will come around to a more realistic view and, supposedly, agree with the "zionists are monsters" assessment.
Some have wondered how I could think that understanding zionist's "concerns" and "arguments" could be relevant because such an effort could be nothing but an effort to excuse the inexcusable. Evil is evil, I'm told, and murder is murder, and that there is no point in discussing or understanding why they commit the horrible crimes that they commit. There is no excuse possible.
Well, I'm still concerned to prevent a war with the Iranians. Rhiannon tells me that in order to prevent such a war, or to "take back our country," so to speak, we have to understand that people who have too much influence on our affairs, i.e., the zionists, are unreasonable monsters who think nothing of killing and stealing from innocent people and laugh while they do it. I have to say that this opinion of zionists has so little difference from anti-semitism that the difference means nothing. There may be some argument about how being anti-zionist is not being anti-Jew, but the difference won't make any Jew reassured.
Rhiannon has previously complained that I have put together statements supposing "Rhiannon thinks this...Rhiannon might suppose that, and so forth. And then, argues that whatever I've said makes no difference to her argument. When I've put together an argument and put Rhiannon's name to it, I am attempting to make sense of what Rhiannon has said, and have tried to fill in pieces to that argument that I have thought needed to be made explicit. Of course, Rhiannon can jump in at any time and dispute that she would say any such thing. However, the things I have put in her mouth I have put there for a reason. It's what I think she is arguing but not saying. Just to say that what I've argued doesn't persuade her does not adequately respond to my argument.
It's a fact that saying zionists are unreasoning monsters will be taken as the ravings of an anti-semite and treated accordingly. So, the zionists that Rhiannon spoke with... once they smelled a whiff of this attitude, why would you expect them to do any different than how Rhiannon says we should do to them? I wonder whether Rhiannon tried to understand their arguments and concerns in these early years of her efforts to understand the political landscape? Rhiannon does not go into exactly what her discussions with the long list of zionists involved. I suspect it probably did not involve an effort to get their side of the story.
One of the things that one notices about the idea that zionists are unreasoning monsters is how much like the views the President and the zionists hold about their opponents. So, Glenn Greenwald has written a book about how the Bush Presidency was corrupted by thinking that the world was divided by the forces of good and evil. One implication of that view, according to him, is that negotiations with Iranians, or Palestineans, are impossible because they are unreasoning monsters.
I am wondering why we should think a realistic view of the world must involve the idea that our opponents have to be irrational monsters. Greenwald suggests that this view has destroyed the Bush administrations credibility and that by acting on this idea, we have invaded defenseless countries and ruined our moral position in the world. Why should we not suppose that Rhiannon et al would be any different?
I have come to this discussion about Iran believing it is just another example of an argument. As such, it would help us to understand what having an argument entails. So, my understanding of having an argument is that one has to have some kind of controversy, that there are arguers who put together positions about the controversy, and that those arguers gather as much supportive evidence as they can to show that their positions are the best one's to have on their controversy.
Now, I have claimed that the U.S. attacking Iran would be like us jumping off a bridge. The result of such a war would involve our painful destruction. I say this and mean to include the idea that it would be wrong for us to destroy the Iranians along with us. I have made this claim about Iran, but the idea I have would also involve the idea that Israel invading the west bank and occupying the land and forcing the Palestinean population to leave would also be like jumping off a bridge for them.
There is the claim that these activities are bad things to do. But, there are others who would argue otherwise. They may say that it's only right that the Israelis live on the land that once the palestineans occupied, and that it's a good thing that the U.S. or someone destroy the ability of the Iranians to have weapons of mass destruction. The killing of people standing around while these good things are being done, is regretable, we might be told, but necessary hazards like breaking eggs in order to make omlettes.
The point I'm wanting to make is that the point at issue is how one should think about some attack on Iran or the invasion and occupation of the Weste bank and the entire country of Israel. There are different positions on these questions, and you'd think the arguers would gather support for each view.
Rhiannon and others tell me that there is no point to wonder about zionists' 'concerns' and 'arguments.' It makes no sense to understand their side of the story because there is no excuse for murder and stealing. It would be murder and stealing only if we agreed with Rhiannon and others, but to do that without considering what the zionists think about it is to beg the question at issue. If it is murder then it would be inexcusable, but we have to first establish it is murder. When the marines go into Bagdad and shoot up the place, some will argue that each death they cause is a murder, whereas others will say that the deaths of innocent civilians is regrettable but unavoidable consequence of war. The deaths are not murders, because the goal of ridding the world of Saddam Hussein makes all the deaths worth it. I'm not saying this is the argument that the zionists would put together for themselves. But, they have arguments and support, and in order to deal with what they've done we have to get at the exact arguments that justify for them what they propose.
I think we have to wonder why it is important to acknowledge that we have people who oppose out position on some controversy. Why recognize that not everyone is going to agree with us? If it is a controversy, shouldn't we acknowledge and understand why it is a controversy. If so, then on the question of what to do about Israel or Iran shouldn't Rhiannon admit that zionists have a position and probably could provide some kind of support for their arguments. I think that there cannot be only one side of this dispute. The claim here that zionists are irrational monsters and just evil, that explanations for their actions just try to excuse the inexcusable, is just Rhiannon's way of dismissing the fact that her position is not universally accepted.
Rhiannon is telling me that only irrational monsters disagree with her position on any number of topics like the war in Iraq, the hostility we've seen between the U.S. and Iran, the state of Israel, the zionist influence on American political culture, and so on.
I suspect Rhiannon believes that reasonable debate is impossible because of her experiences with zionists. They don't want to see that only irrational people disagree with her point of view. I just think that it's likely she did not address the issues raised in the disputes she's had with zionists. They may have only recognized that she had no real argument for her side as she attempted to beg them to agree with her because she had no argument.
I suspect this may have happened. I would be interested to hear more about why these zionists refused to see reason.
However, when the President of the United States refuses to acknowledge that the Palestineans or the Iraqis or the Iranians have an argument to give, he assumes that he doesn't have to give an argument. Bush, at least, assumes that if these second rate powers don't cave in to what he demands he'll be able to send in the marines or the national guard and make them. Bush doesn't have to argue well if he has the American military to act as his hoodlum enforcers.
Rhiannon does not have powerful goons waiting outside my house to make me, or anyone else, agree to her position -- understanding that she has no argument to show people that they should agree with her. This is why I think the "zionists are monsters" position should not be accepted. No one should ignore the fact that zionists have a position and support for their position. And the business about monsters is just a way of saying we can rely on other ways of making them give up their position.
Rhiannon makes a big thing about how zionists cannot be reasoned with. She gives me a list of this zionist or that one that has fucked her over in debate. I have to say that I am not surprised. When the right wingers tell us we are supposed to support the troops, we get the idea that this is an obnoxios way of getting us to seem like we do not support the troops if we dispute the war. How can you support the troops, we are told, if you do not support the war they are fighting in? Rhiannon is only giving me a varioation on this strategy. Why should it make any difference whether some zionist can't see reason with Rhiannon? It should only matter if Rhiannon gave that person the best argument about the controversies at issue and the zionists refused to consider them. However, whether Rhiannon knows the best arguments on Iran or Israel is exactly what's at issue. When Rhiannon refuses to consider what zionists are concerned about or what their arguments might be I am skeptical that she could possibly know the best plan about what to do about Israel or Iran, et al.
I'm saying, as this is an argument you have to treat it like one. Rhiannon and others who think zionists are unreasonable monsters have put up some broken insufficient argument to do something that I think is very important to do. We have to undermine this push to have wars in the Middle East and Rhiannon and her buddies are failing to do anything about that.
Thanks for your comments, but I’m afraid I disaree with you even more than I did before.
“I have not discussed these things with zionists, nor have I done any discussions with people on this issue to the degree that you apparently have done in the past.”
Yes, I gathered this from reading your comments. That’s why I suggested you try discussing these matters with any Zionist you choose. See what happens.
I only see that you are frustrated and seemingly angry. The large fonts tell me this.
Frustration breeds hostilty in all humans. In this case, frustration is a product of the taboo against saying anything in public against Israel or Zionism. There's no possibility of advancing an “argument" against Zionism, since there's no possibility of bringing up the subject in the first place -- except in forms like WUFYS.
I write on these blogs as a way of understanding the arguments that we rely on to justify ourselves, and to make arguments that should get people to do better.
Here I agree with you. I hold that in order to understand the grip of Zionism, Americans (and Canadians) must understand themselves. I hold that American culture tends to be warlike and Zionist in its own way. I suggest this is what alowed Zionist to take ownership of the USA.
I am told by Rhiannon and others here that the main reason Bush and others rely on force instead of negotiations is because of the zionists and the influence they have of American political affairs.
In my opinion, Zionist pressure is only half the problem. The other half is the stupidity of the North American / European elite, which thinks its greedy plans mesh with Zionist plans. I say stupidity, because the elite would achieve its greedy plans much more efficiently if it would dump Israel.
We should try to determine what "concerns" and "arguments" the zionists have that drive them to push the United States into attacking Iran, and in understanding them, develop some kind of plan to resolve the conflict between them and Iran, et al.
The Zionist “concern” is simple: to get power for themselves at the expense of all others. If you disagree with that, then you pay no attention to things like the genocide against Palestinians.
I have been told, repeatedly, that this suggestion has been tried but the zionists are unreasonable. They have no interest in listening to anyone who would have them stop pushing for wars and stop meddling in American politics. Some of the claims made about zionists, that they are monsters, that they laugh when they shoot children in the head, and so forth, are meant to explain why they do not listen to reason.
Monsters they are. Remember Black September and the Abu Nidal gang? That was Mossad – and yes I can give you numerous references. The bombings in Buenos Aires and the Israeli embassy in London? The Khobar Towers bombing in Arabia? Mossad. Do you deny that Israelis helped plan and execute 9-11? Have you not heard of the ringworm children? The list is endless.
I’m curious to know what it would take before you finally understand that Zionists are monsters.
I'm still concerned to prevent a war with the Iranians.
We all are, but we must face reality if we are to prevent war. The reality is that Zionists cannot be reasoned with. You do not understand this because you have never talked with any of them, by your own admission.
Rhiannon tells me that in order to prevent such a war, or to "take back our country," so to speak, we must understand that people who have too much influence on our affairs, i.e., the zionists, are unreasonable monsters who think nothing of killing and stealing from innocent people and laugh while they do it. I have to say this opinion of zionists has so little difference from anti-semitism that the difference means nothing. There may be some argument about how being anti-zionist is not being anti-Jew, but the difference won't make any Jew reassured.
Ah yes -- there we have it. The standard Zionist lie. Anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism. You talk about winning Zionists to your side, but you will not win normal people to your side by parroting Zionist lies.
Why you are so intent on making Zionists feel “reasured"? Are you frightened of them? Are you Jewish? If not, do you think that by serving them you will be liked by them? The Khazars have no friends other than their own. They regard Israel-manic “Christian” evangelicals as useful idiots. The Egyptian and Jordanian governments collaborate with the Khazars, as does Abbas of Fatah. These collaborators are Arabs. Do you think Zionists see them as “friends”? Zionists see them as useful, nothing more. When Zionists get their way, they eliminate their collaborators, as Abbas and his Fatah people will eventually find out.
Rhiannon has previously complained that I have put together statements supposing "Rhiannon thinks this...Rhiannon might suppose that, and so forth. And then, argues that whatever I've said makes no difference to her argument.
Your comments do make a difference, but (this is only my viewpoint) you have apparently spun yourelf into a web of well-meaning but naïve delusion.
The things I have put in Rhiannon’s mouth I have put there for a reason. It's what I think she is arguing but not saying. Just to say that what I've argued doesn't persuade her does not adequately respond to my argument.
You say Rhiannon does not respond to your arguents, yet you admit to putting words in her mouth. How can she respond if her responses are in fact your responses? You are talking to yourself in a mirror, as you accuse everyone else of doing.
What exactly IS your argument anyway? Mine is that Zionists cannot be reasoned with, and must be cut off or destroyed.
It's a fact that saying zionists are unreasoning monsters will be taken as the ravings of an anti-semite and treated accordingly.
It’s also a fact that Zionists automatically regard anyone who is not one of them as a raving “anti-Semitic.” Zionists even regard warmongering Israel-lovers as “anti-Semitic.” Shall I hunt down web references in which Zionists say pro-Israel “Christian” Zionists are perpetrating another “holocaust”on Jews? Zionists hate anyone who is not a Zionist Ashkenazi Jew. They even hate Ashenazi Jews who question Zionism. They regard Sephardic and Ethiopian Jews as second-rate citizens in Israel. They are at war with the planet.
True, there are others like this. American Gentiles often behave like Zionists, as do the Chinese in Tibet. Arabs are clannish. There are endless examples throughout history.
However, for the present, the USA must cut Israel off, or the USA will be doomed.
So, the zionists that Rhiannon spoke with... once they smelled a whiff of this attitude, why would you expect them to do any different than how Rhiannon says we should do to them?
Wow. The problem is not Zionists and their atrocities, but our “attitude” toward them. I myself have an “attitude” toward people who justify the slaughter of innocents.
I wonder