General Discussion

janlyn

(735 posts)

121. snark

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:52 PM

Sep 2012

Well thanks for that,I guess???

Please look up a map of ancient palestine,only a small portion of it sits on land that is now syria.

The palestine in biblical times encompassed all of what is now Israel part of jordan and lebanon.

And to say there is no palestine now is correct,but the land has changed hands many times over its history.

so for you to make the statement there was no palestine is incorrect and generally only a talking point of people who have never studied the back story.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

174 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

OK. I'll say it. Yes, I'd rather risk Iran having nukes than [View all] cali Sep 2012 OP

If Israel can live with the Pakistani/Saudi bomb, they can learn to live with the Persian bomb, too leveymg Sep 2012 #1

Aren't the rest of them living with Israeli bombs? n/t malaise Sep 2012 #2

israel doesn't boast of annihilating her neighbors. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #6

you mean like the Palestinians? magical thyme Sep 2012 #19

There is no such state called Palestine. Missycim Sep 2012 #23

and there was no state called "Native America" magical thyme Sep 2012 #67

Well then they are Missycim Sep 2012 #69

And that area is expected to be unliveable by 2020. randome Sep 2012 #77

Even if the Israeli's went back to the 1967 boarders Missycim Sep 2012 #82

Stop allowing Jewish settlers to take over Palestinian land would at least help. randome Sep 2012 #87

I agree Missycim Sep 2012 #89

Wow. Good point. randome Sep 2012 #71

I could be wrong and correct me if I am but Missycim Sep 2012 #84

"The world�s largest Open Air Prison:" Gaza�s Shrinking Borders polly7 Sep 2012 #85

You're correct. It is not genocide. randome Sep 2012 #86

Educate yourself tavalon Sep 2012 #149

You are correct; Genocide is the incorrect term w/r to Palestine Scootaloo Sep 2012 #155

you clearly have no clue as to what constitutes genocide. cali Sep 2012 #106

Wish I'd said that. truedelphi Sep 2012 #169

Actually... janlyn Sep 2012 #97

Well then they should go to the Syrians and get their land back Missycim Sep 2012 #98

snark janlyn Sep 2012 #121

I think you might have to do some more research. Missycim Sep 2012 #123

The people were called Philistines LiberalEsto Sep 2012 #125

there's some unbiased sources for you.... HiPointDem Sep 2012 #147

Custer said there weren't any Cheyennes, too n/t Scootaloo Sep 2012 #157

And yet, you, yourself, tavalon Sep 2012 #150

I think you should find a bit more credible sources. polly7 Sep 2012 #167

Sorry your educational opportunities never truedelphi Sep 2012 #168

You mean like at the Olympics in '72? Lod Airport? Hebrew University? Pan Am 103? School WinkyDink Sep 2012 #46

I see it this way, too duhneece Sep 2012 #64

This message was self-deleted by its author sherylkaye Sep 2012 #88

Added to the fact Missycim Sep 2012 #24

Tell that to the Palestinians n/t malaise Sep 2012 #38

Yes they do Recursion Sep 2012 #40

Is he the President or Prime Minister? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #49

He's the head of the lynchpin coalition party Recursion Sep 2012 #99

Well they do although it really isnt necessary if you have nuclear capability. nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #41

The US does it for them. OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #43

Israel is the only country over there I have heard threatening to nuke Iran's sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #91

Well, aren't they special? Skidmore Sep 2012 #94

That talk is for domestic consumption. It appeals to the conservative base in Iran and alfredo Sep 2012 #95

But they still have nukes Scootaloo Sep 2012 #152

Many war mongering nations have refrained from "Boasting" truedelphi Sep 2012 #153

Aren't we? Israel has used the threat against its neighbors as blackmail against us more than once leveymg Sep 2012 #30

That was one interesting post. And I had never heard that truedelphi Sep 2012 #159

Yes, they are. polly7 Sep 2012 #78

+100 HiPointDem Sep 2012 #148

First of all, Iran hasn't been "Persia" for centuries. Secondly, who are you to say what another WinkyDink Sep 2012 #5

so you're saying invading Iraq, in particula, was a good thing? cali Sep 2012 #7

No. I'm saying Americans have no right to tell another nation what to do. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #10

I have every fucking right in the world to say what I wish about this matter, dear. cali Sep 2012 #11

Yes, of course; you are not the Leader of the Free World, are you? I'm not talking about Free Speech WinkyDink Sep 2012 #48

So America has no right to tell Iran not to build a nuclear weapon? MattBaggins Sep 2012 #15

Actually, I have always wondered why some countries can have them and some can't. Always Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2012 #44

stewardship Mosby Sep 2012 #102

Why haven't they been given chemical weapons ? former-republican Sep 2012 #145

Actually, America is the last nation which can be considered to have moral authority to speak to the Skidmore Sep 2012 #122

which would include telling another nation what technology they may develop magical thyme Sep 2012 #20

Sorry we and others do if that country has repeatedly Missycim Sep 2012 #27

That's a hoax pushed by the war mongers cpwm17 Sep 2012 #90

it said almost weekly Mosby Sep 2012 #103

Nice propaganda tavalon Sep 2012 #151

Well, you've just sunk your own argument, the warmonger argument DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2012 #32

I was speaking, specifically, of an American telling israel what to do or not to do. And yes, that WinkyDink Sep 2012 #47

But Israel should tell the US when to use force? abelenkpe Sep 2012 #39

I don't believe I said that. But "not for anything"? You need a bigger imagination. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #53

Nah abelenkpe Sep 2012 #124

but israel does? spanone Sep 2012 #57

No need to be snarky. "Persian" is a commonly used synonym for "Iranian" Bucky Sep 2012 #144

I agree get the red out Sep 2012 #3

I guess I am wondering why Iran is considered so much more likely to use them n2doc Sep 2012 #4

You are fundamentally incorrect. No USSR leader said any such thing. The MOST that was said WinkyDink Sep 2012 #8

No, and that's survival logic at its basest. Zalatix Sep 2012 #13

We were "surrounded" by China and the USSR n2doc Sep 2012 #16

Did the shape of the world change? Missycim Sep 2012 #31

How do you define "failure," when "success" to some would mean no Israel? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #56

Isn't The Converse True As Well?.... global1 Sep 2012 #60

the Soviet Union had an essentially materialistic mindset el_bryanto Sep 2012 #9

This. fifthoffive Sep 2012 #12

Nothing short of a full fledged invasion and occupation of Iran will stop them from getting nukes. redgreenandblue Sep 2012 #14

Well it would cost a fortune but money Missycim Sep 2012 #33

Oh, yes, the US could win a confrontation with the Iranian military. redgreenandblue Sep 2012 #37

Dick Cheney is that you? bahrbearian Sep 2012 #51

No I know how to handle a Missycim Sep 2012 #54

Your thinking not your shot gun skills. I quess you weren't on the Fight Deck Mission Accomplished bahrbearian Sep 2012 #58

again I am saying in a war of conquest Missycim Sep 2012 #112

Uh, you have heard of two nations who wouldn't be pleased with truedelphi Sep 2012 #156

Yes but they rely on us for money Missycim Sep 2012 #161

your statement "Yes but they rely on us for money" truedelphi Sep 2012 #174

It depends on whether by "win" you just mean the initial fighting or include the occupation. JHB Sep 2012 #109

The Initial fighting would be a Win, not sure on the Missycim Sep 2012 #113

The only way to win a war in the ME is through complete annhilation BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #136

I see you're pretty new here tavalon Sep 2012 #158

Yes but it bugs me Missycim Sep 2012 #162

it could last six days, six weeks. i doubt six months. frylock Sep 2012 #119

Agreed, 100%. nt magical thyme Sep 2012 #17

Agree with you - TBF Sep 2012 #18

If I was Iran I'd want nukes as fast as I could get them madokie Sep 2012 #21

I would rather everyone in all countries watch "Threads". moriah Sep 2012 #22

Probably most here would agree with you oberliner Sep 2012 #25

It would be utter suicide if Iran ever uses them anyway jsr Sep 2012 #26

i dont know if theyare try to get the bomb or not, but if they are, i bet money it's for something dionysus Sep 2012 #28

Well I would agree Missycim Sep 2012 #36

"the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" ronnie624 Sep 2012 #61

Links please? Missycim Sep 2012 #63

You're sitting at your computer. ronnie624 Sep 2012 #65

That's not how the Iranian state-run news agency translated it oberliner Sep 2012 #68

Ahmadinejad and other Iranian government officials ronnie624 Sep 2012 #92

Funny how Juan Cole think he knows more than the Iranian translators oberliner Sep 2012 #105

"Being concerned" is one thing. ronnie624 Sep 2012 #111

I didn't make your point so why should I have to prove it? Missycim Sep 2012 #75

Thank you! polly7 Sep 2012 #72

I would think Iran would get the support of Russia and possibly China Rosa Luxemburg Sep 2012 #29

They could have attacked and killed most of the Israeli people already if they wanted. former-republican Sep 2012 #34

Yes. Let's just sell the Ayatollahs a bunch of nukes for a reasonable price. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #35

I agree abelenkpe Sep 2012 #42

I certainly respect your opinion.. zellie Sep 2012 #45

Ever hear of the cold war? All of us have nukes pointed at us today. ret5hd Sep 2012 #96

Uh, we've had nukes pointed at us FOR DECADES -- Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2012 #100

Israel has done their fair share of provoking. nt Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #50

How so? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #52

Well, when Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust, and Netanyahu waved the Auchwitz plans at him, Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #80

I wouldn't... liberallibral Sep 2012 #55

Using a nuclear bomb on Israel would make the country uninhabitable for decades. randome Sep 2012 #59

What about something on a smaller scale? oberliner Sep 2012 #70

I would think the capability of building those kind of delivery systems would take years. randome Sep 2012 #73

Iran would be another expensive, decade long stalemate. Initech Sep 2012 #62

Oh, Israel could definitely halt Iran's nuke program MercutioATC Sep 2012 #66

Jews living in a huge sea of Christians didn't work out very well either oberliner Sep 2012 #74

Win what? A sea of destruction and uninhabitable land for decades??? nanabugg Sep 2012 #76

+1. polly7 Sep 2012 #79

Iran's leadership's rationality is questionable. MercutioATC Sep 2012 #166

I agree, but Israel isn't going to allow that, so other opinions are irrelevant. n/t Waiting For Everyman Sep 2012 #81

In short, right or wrong, an attack on Iran will be a F'en mess for years. Another win for religion. RKP5637 Sep 2012 #83

Iran is never going to stop trying to get nukes. Iggo Sep 2012 #93

Mutual assured destruction, Iran is no more of a risk, ... CRH Sep 2012 #101

Iran Trades with Pakistan... triplepoint Sep 2012 #104

great OP for Rosh Hashanah Mosby Sep 2012 #107

Oh, are we supposed to suspend posting about politics during Rosh Hashanah? progressoid Sep 2012 #110

Unlike YOU. Classy is certainly not a problem for you. cali Sep 2012 #115

I'm not implying or insinuating or whatever that your post was antisemitic Mosby Sep 2012 #116

You should probably do a search for posts where this same sentiment has polly7 Sep 2012 #118

Yeah, because this is only an issue for Jews. progressoid Sep 2012 #120

This message was self-deleted by its author Mosby Sep 2012 #127

Yes. But what does that have to do with it? progressoid Sep 2012 #128

This message was self-deleted by its author Mosby Sep 2012 #130

Isn't it our right to mock religions, regardless of holidays? Alduin Sep 2012 #140

No flames here. AngryOldDem Sep 2012 #108

Agreed i don't see Iran using nuke as terror device. chknltl Sep 2012 #114

Only religious fanatics and lunatics would ever use them....people like Harry Truman. Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2012 #117

+1000! Walk away Sep 2012 #129

Surely you're not so naive as to think if Truman hadn't used them then no one else would have in the cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #132

No one else has. Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2012 #133

Because until it was used the first time, no one really knew what it was capable of. cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #134

So, it was all for show. Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2012 #135

That doesn't explain the second time jberryhill Sep 2012 #160

I'm guessing it's possible the Bomb Damage Assessments were inconclusive. cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #170

There were two designs jberryhill Sep 2012 #171

actually so would i. barbtries Sep 2012 #126

An old favorite of mine RandiFan1290 Sep 2012 #131

I'll go you one better. If Iran were to get nukes, that would make them much harder to attack eridani Sep 2012 #137

Okay, here's a question: BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #138

Jerusalem is not the holiest place in Islam. Behind the Aegis Sep 2012 #141

Meant to say one of the holiest places BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #142

The Al-Aqsa Mosque is the 3rd most holy site, but not Jerusalem. Behind the Aegis Sep 2012 #146

And where is that mosque located? Hugabear Sep 2012 #172

Hint...he said city, not mosque. Behind the Aegis Sep 2012 #173

I'd rather have no one with nukes over there. Alduin Sep 2012 #139

It's called Containment, the policy that prevented nuclear war for 45 years. Bucky Sep 2012 #143

This message was self-deleted by its author darkangel218 Sep 2012 #154

Is it because you feel relatively safe from an Iranian nuke? customerserviceguy Sep 2012 #163

I tend to agree with you... Volaris Sep 2012 #164

I agree, but our government shouldn't tell Iran that Tom Rinaldo Sep 2012 #165