US Senate: Will back Israeli attack on Iran

[kcchiefs6465]

Actually I never mentioned the Six Day War.

I mentioned the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and the Yom Kippur War.

Don't you agree Israel has a right to self-defense that they exercised in those wars?

Sure they do. And our undying, forever standing with allegience, should have nothing to do with it. We shouldn't have armed them as we did. A lot of blood is on our hands. (in Israel, Palestine, as well as various terrorist plots over the Middle East)

I mentioned the Six Day War because I had brought up the Golan Heights with regards to Jacob Rothschild, Rupert Murdoch, and Dick Cheney's (among many other powerful men's) company, Genie Energy, being given the first rights to drill there.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

To expand upon my above post, Israel's need to defend themselves is predictable. We have no moral authority to help them in their efforts. We give them money which does not go to help an Israeli or the Palestinian people but instead is recycled back to weapon manufacturers here. And this is under the premise of job creation. Building things that create destruction is not a net gain on the world, or even our country, in the long run. Fuck Israel. I mean that. (and a lot of my hostility is because of my [supposedly my] senators and congressman supporting this on end)

 

[pcosmar]

If you provoke and instigate the fight in the first place,, is it still "self defense"?

From what I have seen,, Iran is showing a great deal of restraint.

Iran is the one presently with a good case of self defense. They have been directly attacked many years.

This stupidity Israel is instigating is going to end very badly.. and we should do everything we can to extricate ourselves from it.

 

[TheGrinch]

But why don't you defend that without making up that this bill affirms the US will back an Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran? When it clearly doesn't - it's in the case of self-defense and it's explicitly, ad verbatim, stated in the bill.

That was my only point in this thread. Do you actually disagree with anything I said? I don't think so.

Ummm, actually your argument throughout the thread seems to be that there's little difference between self-defense and a pre-emptive strike, since as you someohw argued, an attack is different than self-defense? How so? Self-defense typically means you've been attacked or there is a concrete imminent threat (not just concerns over a nuke program), or else you're only left with one other option, that is that you're pre-emptively striking before an attack can happen...

Further, if you can that easily twist what self-defense means, then no, I'm not comfortable with us supporting whatever definition of "self-defense" they decide.

But the more concerning part, "self defense" or not, is that the bill says that we will unconditionally support Israel militarily and financially in waging a war. Particularly if they haven't been attacked, then they can act on their "self defense" with their own dime (or rather our dimes we've already provided, along with hundreds of nukes and stockpiles of weapons and vehicles, already. Why do you hate letting Israel be independent?)

Also, it's pretty tough to call Israel's actions "self defense" and not the other side, when they are every bit as much of agressors in many cases, if not moreso, so they can go at it alone if they want to keep kicking hornets nests and expect we'll unconditionally support it.

 

[gwax23]

I actually just showed up to the conversation. I was somewhat annoyed by your, "I'm surprised people here aren't aware of the Six Day War," etc comment. You didn't seem to be aware that Israel is on stolen land. (as well as the other war crimes committed) Frankly, I don't like that we funded and armed them in the first place. Not because of crackpot theories but because of factual evidence of what they've done and their creation.

The first two graphics probably will need saved to view them. I don't think it will show up correctly here. It's a good summary of the area and creation of Israel over the last 100 years or so.

First Im gonna say I dont support the bill or any foreign aid to israel OR ANY COUNTRY. I wish that could be the end of the discussion but rarely on these forums will people be willing to stop there. Generally they follow their good points about foreign aid with a rant about jewish conspiracies and Israels illegitimacy and basically void any rationality they made with their other points.

Its getting late but Ill try to address your propaganda graphics one by one as quickly as I can.

The first graphic assumes Palestine was some sort of state or Nation in 1917. Which is wasnt. It was under British Control soon to turned into the Mandate for Palestine which included modern day jordan. So its misleading with the black shading trying to say that black meant Palestinian control, sovreignty, or ownership which it didnt. It was occupied by the British after getting it from the Ottomans and most of the land that was privately owned was owned by absentee landowners in neighboring Arab nations.There were are ready many Jewish communities there at the time. Many of which had been there continuously since before Christianity or Islam. Look up the Hebron community which was massacred if you want to educate yourself. But fuck history were trying to demonize a group of people right??

Jews had been legally purchasing swathes of lands most of it sand dunes (Tel Aviv was built on Sand Dunes not on the blood of Palestinian babies that zionists sacrificed to their sun god as you might believe) and other worthless marginal farmland. last I purchasing land was okay on Libertarian principles right? And people moving to live on the land they own was also legal? Or is it only illegal if Jews do it...

I love how it immediately skips 31 years of history to 1948 UN Resolution as if nothing happened in between.

heres the first graphic I found to fill the void:



The israelis agreed to the UN partition plan. The land allotted to the Jewish state was majority Jewish. The Arabs denied the plan and declared war on Israel. Yet your graphic only says hostilities broke out not who initiated it. Youd think that be a major point...

The rest of the land they won through self defense. Despite the odds they won. Throughout all of history the spoils go to the victor especially spoils won through a defensive war against numerically superior opponents. But alas since they where jews who defended themselves the land they won through the defensive war was stolen. If we applied this standard to most of the worlds countries..well many of them wouldnt exist. Our own country the United states being one of them.

Further between 1948 and 1967. 19 years the west bank and Gaza where not Palestinian. They where under Jordanian and Egyptian rule respectively.

The graphic mentions the 700k Palestinian refugees who where told to leave their homes by the Arab armies but fails to mention the 1,000,000 Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim lands. The first group has its own agency directed specifically to help them in the UN and receives huge amounts of funding. It also has the privilege unlike any other refugee group to pass on refugee status generation by generation. The later group (The jews) have no such support never received compensation for their losses of property after many of them fled for their lives or where forcefully expelled. The later group did assimilate into society despite speaking a multitude of different languages and coming as far away as Morrocco and Afghanistan. The palestinian refugees despite coming from a few miles away and speaking the same language and have the same culture and many the same religion have no been granted citizenship or been allowed to assimilate even generations later. This must be Israels fault and not arab states fault on account of..well just because.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Sure they do.

Then you agree with everything I posted in this thread.

Your other points might be valid or not, but they don't change the fact that this bill states the US will support Israel in the case they take military action against Iran in self-defense.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Ummm, actually your argument throughout the thread seems to be that there's little difference between self-defense and a pre-emptive strike, since as you someohw argued, an attack is different than self-defense?.

What?

No, I never said there's little difference between self-defence and pre-emptive defence. I didn't even come close. I never even suggested it. Quite the contrary.

If I did this, please provide the quotes that explain it.

But the more concerning part, "self defense" or not, is that the bill says that we will unconditionally support Israel militarily and financially in waging a war

No, this is a flat out lie (and why the heck am I always getting negative reputation points from you? It's not that I care about that, but that obsession can't be healthy).

 

[TheGrinch]

What?

No, I never said there's little difference between self-defence and pre-emptive defence. I didn't even come close. I never even suggested it. Quite the contrary.

If I did this, please provide the quotes that explain it.

You said:

This: "Self-defense means someone attacked you, period" is beyond Orwellian.

To me, self-defense means exactly that or a direct imminent threat. You can feel free to clarify if you wish.

No, this is a flat out lie (and why the heck am I always getting negative reputation points from you? It's not that I care about that, but that obsession can't be healthy).

You always get neg rep from me? That's news to me, but you must "always" be unnecessarily hostile, rude, divisive or disruptive, because those are the only posts I neg rep. Don't flatter yourself.

But anyways, don't let me get in the way of you twisting the debate to make it look like our only objections are "anti-semitic"

 

[DeMintConservative]

You said:


To me, that means exactly that. You can feel free to clarify if you wish

I have already, but I'll post it again for your benefit (considering that apparently you read a single sentence of what I wrote):

View Post
I'm referring, as it's explained, that self-defense is not non-violence. That self-defense is taking countermeasures. As I said: Self-defense implies action from the victim part. You take military action in self-defense by using military action as a countermeasure to an attack.

This isn't hard to understand.

To be clear: self-defense is not "being attacked, period" - which was what I was contesting. Self-defense doesn't mean violence can't be used against others. Asking "how can you take military action in self-defense?" - which was what I was contesting - is nonsensical.


Clear enough now?


LOL at the strawman at the end of your post.

 

[TheGrinch]

I have already, but I'll post it again for your benefit (considering that apparently you read a single sentence of what I wrote):

View Post
I'm referring, as it's explained, that self-defense is not non-violence. That self-defense is taking countermeasures. As I said: Self-defense implies action from the victim part. You take military action in self-defense by using military action as a countermeasure to an attack.

This isn't hard to understand.

I stopped reading right after that first sentence because I have little patience for paranoiac strawmen.

To be clear: self-defense is not "being attacked, period" - which was what I was contesting. Self-defense doesn't mean violence can't be used against others. Asking "how can you take military action in self-defense?" - which was what I was contesting - is nonsensical.


Clear enough now?


LOL at the strawman in the end.

Other than that directly contradicting your claim I quoted, yes, I guess we're in agreement that "self-defense" is in response to an attack, so until there's a at very least a direct imminent threat from Iran (key word direct and imminent, or else you're talking pre-emptive)...

And like I said, that's not even the part that's most concerning about the bill, which is the US's unwavering support. I didn't even bother to respond to your strawman accusation about US unwavering support, because it's very clearly implied by the language of the bill, or else they wouldn't have had a bill in the first place to declare "vital national interest in, and unbreakable commitment to, ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the State of Israel", "Iran threatening the security and existence of Israel" , "reaffirms its strong support for the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and urges the President to continue and strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation", "stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence". It's very clear what this bill was meant to affirm and it wasn't just supporting Israel defending itself. It was affirming us supporting it.

Anyways, time for bed, your unwarranted hostility isn't worth my time. You just seem to want to grasp on to whatever strawman criticism you can find.

 

[sailingaway]

Other than that directly contradicting your claim I quoted, yes, I guess we're in agreement that "self-defense" is in response to an attack, so until there's a at very least a direct imminent threat from Iran (key word direct and imminent, or else you're talking pre-emptive)...

And like I said, that's not even the part that's most concerning about the bill, which is the US's unwavering support. I didn't even bother to respond to your strawman accusation about US unwavering support, because it's very clearly implied by the language of the bill, or else they wouldn't have had a bill in the first place to declare "vital national interest in, and unbreakable commitment to, ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the State of Israel", "Iran threatening the security and existence of Israel" , "reaffirms its strong support for the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and urges the President to continue and strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation", "stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence". It's very clear what this bill was meant to affirm and it wasn't just supporting Israel defending itself. It was affirming us supporting it.

Anyways, time for bed, your unwarranted hostility isn't worth my time. You just seem to want to grasp on to whatever strawman criticism you can find.

Remember that Obama claimed a similar resolution was sufficient to let him go into Lybia.

Congress needs to be the one to declare war.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Yeah, "Self-Defense" is the biggest farce ever stated... Hitler and the Nazis used that MeMe over and over for every 'piece of land'/country they wanted to conquer. Staged conflicts are one politicl policy to steal land/assets. Been done for 100s of years by those in power.

PDF of Senate Resolution 65: http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/S Res 65 Amendment Clause 8.pdf

WIKILEAKS has been a gem... when the State Dept TELEX covered Israel operations to steal land from Palestinians and "JUDIFICATION" by removing all other religious symbols/artifacts/shines. Here's the link/post from the US State Deportment once classified SECRET/NOFORN. Proves the Israeli game plan has been going on for decades and they are truly monsters.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ssinger-Cables-Post-the-Juicy-Cables-You-Find!

ISRAELI DEVELOPMENT IN JERUSALEM

1974 December 31, 14:08 (Tuesday)

Original Classification: SECRET / NOFORN

"...JUDAIZATION OF ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS, CULTURAL AND ARTISTIC STRUCTURES."

"...ISRAELIS ARE BENT ON TIGHTENING ISRAELI RING AROUND ARAB JERUSALEM BOTH AS FORTIFICATION IN MILITARY SENSE AND TO FORTIFY ISRAELI POSITION IN ANY NEGOTIATION ABOUT THE CITY."

"...DIRECTOR OF ISRAELI HOUSING MINISTY'S JERUSALEM DISTRICT AS SAYING PURPOSE OF NEW PROJECTS WAS TO "FORTIFY" CITY BY CONTIGUOUS JEWISH SETTLEMENTS (ARTICLE FORWARDED TO DEPT. BY OM NOV. 11). FINALLY, MA'ALE ADUMMIM DEVELOPMENT WAS WIDELY SEEN IN ISRAEL AS RESPONSE TO RABAT SUMMIT: IN EFFECT, IF ARABS COMPLICATE NEGOTIATIONS THEY MUST EXPECT TO SEE ISRAEL TAKE MORE AND MORE TERRITORY."

https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cabl...SA02202_b.html

I actually just showed up to the conversation. I was somewhat annoyed by your, "I'm surprised people here aren't aware of the Six Day War," etc comment. You didn't seem to be aware that Israel is on stolen land. (as well as the other war crimes committed) Frankly, I don't like that we funded and armed them in the first place. Not because of crackpot theories but because of factual evidence of what they've done and their creation.

The first two graphics probably will need saved to view them. I don't think it will show up correctly here. It's a good summary of the area and creation of Israel over the last 100 years or so.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Hey, can I get a bunch of people to agree to recognize my neighbors property as being mine if I go sit there, then if they, or their friends, come at me I can defend myself?

edit: If I can hold it long enough, with lots of help, well, all the other stuff about it being theirs is old history.

While true, it does get complicated when its been 60 years. That means that the previous owners, and the people that they took it from, and quite possibly the children of both, are dead.

Should we also have to go back and figure out exactly what land we took fron Indians and give that back, and pay reparations for the crimes of our ancestors? I don't think so.

I'm not sure exactly when, but you've got to draw the line somewhere. For me, that means right now America pulls out of this and lets Israel and Palestine figure something out. But I'm not ready to dogmatically state that Palestine is just defending itself by trying to drive Israel out just because it was Palestinian land 65 years ago. I do think this is more complicated than that.

Remember that Obama claimed a similar resolution was sufficient to let him go into Lybia.

Congress needs to be the one to declare war.

Better yet, don't declare war. If somebody attacks us, it should be obvious that we're at war.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

This morning

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Hagel-Israel-has-right-to-decide-on-Iran-strike-310555

Hagel: Israel has right to decide on Iran strike
By YAAKOV LAPPIN
04/21/2013 13:17

US secretary of defense arrives in Israel, says arms deal with Israel is "another very clear signal to Iran".

US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel arrives in Israel. Photo: REUTERS
Israel has the right to decide for itself whether to strike Iran, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told reporters on his flight to Israel on Sunday, the Wall Street Journal reported.
"Israel is a sovereign nation and every sovereign nation has the right to defend itself and protect itself. Israel will do that. It must do that," Hagel was quoted as saying.
Hagel, who arrived in Israel on Sunday morning, vowed to provide Israel with advanced weapons that will enhance its abilities to strike at Iran.