»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Wipe Israel Off The Map
| The Alley |
|
Wipe Israel Off The Map |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
“Wipe Israel Off The Map” That is what the BBC says the words on the banners draped over a medium ballistic missile recently paraded in Tehran translate to in English. As you may remember, Israel bombed and destroyed a nuclear facility in Iraq. That facility had been built by the French to Iraqi specifications even they, the French, said exceeded the requirements for peaceful purposes. Should, in the future, the Israelis want to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities they determine to be a threat they would need American assistance in the way of refueling tankers for their bombers. If the Israelis ask for that assistance should the United States provide it? Why or why not? |
||
| © Copyright 2004 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
The Dome on the Rock is the third most holy site in all of Islam, being the presumed site of Abraham (common father-figure to both Jews and Muslims) and his sacrifice of Isaac who was spared by God granting a ram caught in a thorn bush after Abraham showed his devout trust in God (YHWH, Jehovah, Allah). That event is captured in both Jewish and Muslim chronicles. If any Muslim damaged the Temple Mount (aka Dome on the Rock), they would quickly be attacked en masse by Muslims. Countries like Iran, which has never recognized the statehood of Israel, can spout their nationalistic messages, but that will not erase that fact that only a very very deranged Muslim would do anything to endanger the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Alicat So Israel need only fear a Muslim Hitler which is so unlikely as makes my question merely academic. Also they were wrong with Iraq. John |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Saddam (Iraq) was well known to be a Muslim only via lip-service. Kinda like how some think all Americans are Christians, so the thought is that all Arabs are Muslim. As a Muslim, Saddam was the equivalent to a nominal Christian who may go carolling on Christmas, or attend services on Easter, and that's about it. If one of Saddam's SCUDs during the first Gulf War had hit the Temple Mount, he would not have lasted past a few years, at best. Just as some Christains see certain sites as sacred, and are extremely devout about them, so are the Muslims with regards to Mecca, the Tomb of Mohammed, and the Temple Mount. In many ways, even more devout so as to seem fanatical. But then, there are Christians who are the same. And that's not even taking into account the backlash from Israel and Jews worldwide. Iran is one of the few nations to deny that Israel even exists, and refuses to recognize Israel as a legitimate state. Though Iran may throw their propaganda around in hopes of inciting devout Muslims to erradicate Israel, I still think many countries are still gunshy after getting their collective arses kicked several times by the fledgling nation of Israel. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Alicat, So the idea is that once armed with nuclear warheads a nation that is committed to the destruction of Israel would refrain for fear of reprisals from whatever would be left after their attack. Yet, let’s get back to my question, assuming the Israelis aren’t as confident: Should, in the future, the Israelis want to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities they determine to be a threat they would need American assistance in the way of refueling tankers for their bombers. If the Israelis ask for that assistance should the United States provide it? John P.S. “If one of Saddam's SCUDs during the first Gulf War had hit the Temple Mount, he would not have lasted past a few years, at best.” You can’t really believe that a rationale couldn’t be created. Remember, there are many many Moslems who sincerely believe 9/11 was a Jewish plot, (“how about those 4,000 Jews that didn’t show up for work ?”). You don’t think they wouldn’t be blamed and believed guilty? That would be a brave new world! |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
You're forgetting the timeframe of the first Gulf War. 1991, and there were many Arab countries directly opposed to Saddam's invasion of Quwait. They didn't mind the SCUD attacks on Israel, since those were in the northern areas and not around Jerusalem. There were also SCUD attacks in Quwait and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has Mecca and the Tomb of Mohammed. If you want sake of discussion (that Israel would not be as confident) then at least consider the massive outrage among Muslims had any of those 3 sites been hit. As for the other question posed, if Israel wants to destroy the Iranian reactors, Israel will destroy those reactors, or make a very determined attempt, with or without any outside assistance, including the U.S. And I really doubt some crazed mullah in Iran would dare risk a nuclear attack on Israel for one big reason aside from the Temple Mount: Israel has nukes too, and a lot more than Iran could produce within a very determined year. And if Israel retaliated with nukes, who would go against them? Syria's military is a joke, Egypt doesn't want to tango, Palestine doesn't have a standing army outside of thought police, Lebanon is a province of Syria, and Jordan would desire to stay neutral. Saudi Arabia would be hard pressed to do anything for nothing more than political reasons. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
That sounds about right to me. As, I hope, an interesting aside, the cultures of the three countries in the axis of evil, Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea, are all culturally prone to a kind of machismo far above anything they actually intend to do. Believe me, I know, you should hear my wife sometimes.  That isn't to say there isn't a threat, just that one needs to take what is being said with a grain of salt. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
The responses so far remind me of true stories from the Warsaw Ghetto. How, even there, the majority refused to believe the information that was getting to them as to what was really happening to those taken away. The Jews of today remember as well. And I am still waiting for a direct answer to my question: If the Israelis ask for that assistance should the United States provide it? John PS Alicat: “They didn't mind the SCUD attacks on Israel, since those were in the northern areas and not around Jerusalem.” Memo to Iran: skip Jerusalem and they won’t mind. Memo to Israel: pack everybody up against Temple Mount to be safe. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Heh....I get the feeling that no matter the direct answer, it'll get debated. So, I'll go with a Maybe. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And you're starting to sound like Jon Anderson -- a one note wonder.  Sure, we should give assistance to Israel. Nobody wants Iran with nuclear weapons. But then again I don't want Israel to have them either. Theocracies scare me. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: To me, the responses so far are fairly typical of what happens when someone tries to play the sensationalism card. People seem to instinctively realize that most fires need to be damped, not fanned, lest everyone get burnt by them. |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
I find it beyond sad that you choose to focus on the seriousness of antisemitism by repeating incendiary phrases rather than searching for some peaceful solution. There are certainly many rumblings in Europe and definitiely here in the US, that should make us all aware that we cannot sit back and ignore such anti-humanity mindsets. But I don't believe the choice of your title offers the prospective reader with anything but continued stereotyping and hatred. And for me, the answer is a clear NO, no matter what the intent or reason, it's assinine to bomb nuclear facilities. PERIOD. I spent several hours at Yad Vashem, the holocaust memorial on Har Hazikaron in Jerusalem. It's a day I'll never forget. But one thing I remembered most, was the Avenue of the Righteous, a row of trees that honored many non-Jews who bravely risked their lives to stop the atrocities. There are many today doing the same, and I can't help but think they should be getting equal media attention. And the holocaust of WWII seems sadly to have not made much of a dent in in-humanity's collective hard head, or we wouldn't be witnessing the genocide and starvation going on in Africa this very minute, along with what was/is going in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. One more comment, about the phrases on the missiles or bombs. American GI's did the same thing in WWII and Korea, Nam, and the Middle East. And I personally knew more than one Israeli soldier who wrote names on his bullets. And in this country, in the wild west days, cavalrymen and Indians both were known to label their weapons of death. so that banner did not surprise me, and shouldn't surprise anyone else either. My point in replying to this thread, which I had first decided to ignore, is that we CANNOT ignore what is happening, but perpetuating hatred and encouraging bombing is not going to bring us one step closer to a peaceful resolution. l'chaim, shalom shalom wishing you peace |
||
Marshalzu 
since 2001-02-15
Posts 2681Lurking |
I cant see any reason why the United States should get any further involved in the Middle East, it is already overstretched and can ill afford to enter into a conflict with Iran. If Israel wants to ensure that only it has nuclear weapons then it should be willing to fight it's battles alone. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 I absolutely agree with what Kacy has said. My answer is also clearly NO. Such a thing could have catastrophic consequences and lead to mass violence. I am neutral to this whole issue. It saddens me to see a growing sense of anti-semitism re-surfacing. I believe though creating the state of Israel was planned out very poorly to begin with over fifty years ago and those assisting in forming the state should have been aware of the long-term consequences forming it among other claimed territory, Israelis deserve their nation and we must honor that. All the same, the Palestines should be respected just as much and I disapprove of what the Israelis are doing, continuing to expand on their rightful land and building the apartheid wall. They should have a free state, and it saddens me how the U.S is doing very little to sympathize with the Palestinians as well and form a bi-lateral agreement. I believe both the Israelis and the Palestinesians should have the right to exist, and there should be NO bombing...period. Those protesting the U.S government and their biased appeal to the state of Israel and their violence on Palestinians and the apartheid wall, yet also believe Palestinians should have the right to use violence against the Israelis or nuke them, are hypocrites. Huge hypocrites. I believe a peaceful solution can be made that grants Israel the right to have their existing state and give Palestine the right to have the land that has belonged to them for so long under dispute. A bi-lateral process is what must happen, it can't come unilaterally. I, like Kacy, originally didn't want to respond either. But I strongly believe war and violence only incites more war and violence in the world, and this type of hated thinking made me, in my heart, forced to respond the urgent need to find pacifist solutions. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I have some sympathy with the people of Palestine. So shoot me. Or just give me the gun and I'll do it myself. Nodding, I think that has been their misguided philosophy as well. The following has been quoted so much that it has lost its impact, but what the heck, I don't mind being annoying (obviously) "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..." And yes, I realize that my opinion shows some insight into my own psyche. But I really think that you'd have to experience walls being built around you in order to understand the desperate motivation. (and if I strayed off topic, mea culpa, and I blame it on the meds again  ) |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Midnitesun, The phrase is a direct, (albeit translated), quote by the BBC, of banners draped on a medium range ballistic missile they showed being paraded by the Iranian government in Tehran, so their viewers around the world, (including those watching their program on PBS in the United States), are aware of it. The Israeli government for obvious reasons is vehemently opposed to such missiles already in existence, (capable of reaching their country), ever being afforded nuclear warheads. The limitations of Israel’s ability to act as it did in Iraq, and the consequent need for American assistance in the way of refueling tankers should they decide to act, was openly discussed by John McLaughlin with his guest during a recent program on PBS. I am merely bringing for discussion here a possibility that has already been publicly raised by respected individuals , and is no doubt being considered behind closed doors. John |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
John, Regardless Kacy's point stands. You could have addressed the issue under a title less imflammatory. If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Absolutely agree with Larry. I personally find the title of this thread offensive, and believe it would be best if it was toned down. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Noah/Larry, Was it wrong of the BBC to broadcast the phrase, (in BBC's English translation, which means far more would understand), from the banners on a missile to the world? John |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Midnitesun, “One more comment, about the phrases on the missiles or bombs. American GI's did the same thing in WWII and Korea, Nam, and the Middle East. And I personally knew more than one Israeli soldier who wrote names on his bullets. And in this country, in the wild west days, cavalrymen and Indians both were known to label their weapons of death. so that banner did not surprise me, and shouldn't surprise anyone else either.” And those missiles, bombs, bullets, weapons of death were used to kill, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone, (its intent so openly announced), if . . . John |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I don't personally know that the BBC engaged in yellow journalism, John, but even if it did, I fail to see how that justifies someone else doing it? You seem to lean toward the melodramatic, John, which I think is why you've been misunderstood in previous threads. "Look at me, I'm being offensive and shocking (but not really, I'm completely innocent, if you just take it in context)." A good title or hook is an effective way to get the reader's attention when used responsibly, but that usually means actually delivering on the implied promises made. Mislead or sensationalize and, like the little boy who cried wolf, a writer will soon find himself losing trust and being ignored. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, “I don't personally know that the BBC engaged in yellow journalism, John, but even if it did” I don’t see how the BBC reporting a public fact is yellow journalism. Had they not, I wouldn’t have known of its reality. I wouldn’t have begun to understand the context for all the concern regarding Iran, and I certainly would have been at a loss to comprehend any Israeli and or American action in response. The BBC was simply confronting me with a world that is not Kansas. The phrase is shocking, far more so draped on a nation's missile. It was not a quote from some bad book by a failed artist who was once a corporal. It’s best to think about it seriously now. John |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I've got to side with Ron on this one. Had you posed your topic as a question: "Wipe Israel Off The Map?" I think you would have had a less hostile reception, and therefore better communication. Trust me, you do not need to use volatile phrasing to get the attention of the people in this forum. They will find you, and be persistant in their stance as well. This happens to be a discussion forum within a POETRY web site. Just as location is to real estate, tone, tone, tone, is to the poetic ear. It's not quite the same as television, radio, or even newspapers, where one is in competition with myriads of others for the seven second attention span. I think you'll find the people here, thoughtful, informed and open-minded as well. I hope you didn't read a strong-arm admonition in Ron's reply. I took it as friendly advice, and I offer up this as my own. Enjoy your discussion. I go read some poetry. There's a lot of good stuff out there. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
serenity blaze, Ah, for lack of “” and ? I did use “” right off then in my first comment; does that count? And look how much we’ve avoided the real issue. Of course I am not the BBC, and this is . . . John |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Now y'see? That was just sarcastic. shrug |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
serenity blaze, Yeah, sorry. John |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Off topic for me. John, with most debates and similar conversation methods, there will be some meandering, misunderstanding, and tangents directly tied to the conversation. Just as there will be straight answers. That noone directly answered your question for a while means little. Some here were addressing other aspects of your initial post. As an aside, and as advice, it might be best to limit your initial post to just a question or two, then later come back with more detail as the discussion evolves. This can also serve to bring the topic back to topic. That having been said, carry on. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
