re: The strikes on Iran are a fraud of the highest order

quote:

---

Likewise, with Iran, we could overthrow the current regime with little to no loss of American life. There's really no need for ground troops at all, outside of maybe some special operations.

---

We have no clue what the fallout will be though. Iran as shitty as it is was somewhat stable. Now they're probably looking at instability moving forward. There could be a rebellion or civil war that could lead to millions of refugees being relocated to Western nations. Once you get into regime change the unintended consequences box is wide open and we have no idea what's going to happen.

We need to stop bankrolling everything. All of it. That's the one major issue in this country right now. Congress is like my wife. If they can buy it, they do. Let somebody else (me) worry about how the bills get paid.

quote:

---

We have no idea what the fall out of that will be.

---

We probably just kick the can down the road for another 20 years, seems to be the theme with these countries.

quote:

---

Yes, Iran was a state sponsor of terror and are not the good guys. But making up things about them being on the brink of having nuclear weapons is just a false justification for regime change.

---

This is not an irrational statement. However, it requires a lot of decision on your part as to what you proclaim the truth to be.

Iran has significantly contributed to the impression that it is developing nuclear weapons. It periodically hints at a weapons program and makes statements promising to destroy Israel. It is also beyond question that Iran has been the primary source of money, organization and coordination for Islamic terrorist organizations since 1979. So Iran has put itself in the position of distrust on the issue.

As for Israel’s periodic military response to this situation, it’s difficult for us to judge. Israel is the direct target of Iran’s threats and terrorism. There has only been a very narrow state of non-aggression, and that was during the very short lived Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO. There is very strong evidence that Iran was the party that directed the PLO to break the peace to further Iran’s objective to destroy Israel. The PLO quickly faded after that and was replaced by more aggressive Iran-backed terrorist groups.

The actual situation is waaaay to muddy to declare one single “truth” here. We can disagree with Israel’s tactics or Iran’s tactics, and we can be eager to get involved or not, but it isn’t as clear as you suggest.

quote:

---

I can promise you that no one in the region believes Israel's lies

---

What evidence or expertise do you have that should lead us to believe you?

Which of the 2 (Israel, Iran) attacked military targets with their missile strikes and which of them attacked civilian targets?

You’re the propagandist here

quote:

---

But one thing they weren't close to having is a nuclear weapon

---

The CIA also sad that Iraq had WMDs. I think it’s time to all admit that our CIA isn’t really all that good at what they do.

quote:

---

FriendofBaruch

---

You seem to really hate the jewish folks. You know who else hated the jewish folks back in the 30's and 40's?

quote:

---

You seem to really hate the jewish folks

---

his name is

quote:

---

FriendofBaruch

---

Is Baruch Spinoza the Founder of Modern Anti-Semitism?

quote:

---

For Spinoza, the “Scripture” under examination was exclusively the Tanakh: that is, the Hebrew Bible, the “Old Testament”—because, he declared with false modesty, he did not know Greek and so was unable to apply his method also to the “New Testament.” (He was lying; a letter by him proves that he knew Greek so well that he even found Hebraisms in a text of the Gospels.) To put it more broadly, and more correctly, his aim was only to desacralize the Hebrew Bible, and thereby to undermine the authority of theologians who relied on it; in doing so, he simultaneously sought to avoid any frontal attack on Christianity. His Latin motto was “Caute”: be cautious.

In thus aiming specifically at the Jews, he had recourse to a number of devices for showing that, in contrast to Christianity, Judaism not only lacked any universal dimension but was actually a selfish religion that radiated hatred toward all others. Primary among his devices was a sleight-of-hand move to discredit his targets before analyzing them, thereby catching the eye and influencing the judgment of a reader prior to, or without any need for, reasoned argument.

In pursuit of this end, Spinoza makes repeated use of the phrases hoc est and id est (i.e.): two Latin expressions meaning “so it is” or “it just is.” For instance: several times in the Tractatus he avers that the supposedly divine “chosenness” or “election” of the Jewish people amounted only to a concern for their temporal felicity, “i.e. the state” of the Hebrews, a construct designed only to ensure their access to such low pleasures and material goods as eating, sleeping, and copulating.

But, one might ask, if the election of the Jewish people was simply God’s “choice” of a certain people, set in certain circumstances and destined to live in a certain space at a certain time for a certain purpose, how did Spinoza find out about this decision by God—especially since, as he also insists, God has no will?

His answer? None of that matters; it’s just the way “it” is. As a sole example of “evidence,” Spinoza offers up the weak observation that when money-savvy Jews came into a windfall, they would thank God—an assertion that reveals precisely nothing new about Judaism (whose teachings abound with expressions of gratitude for God’s goodness) but something about the author’s own unhesitating and telltale adoption of a derogatory Christian trope alleging a singularly Jewish attachment to money. But, again, no matter: for him, “the Jew” has always been thus: devoid of reason, prototypically selfish, wallowing in material pleasures, mechanically observing obsolete rites and ceremonies.

There is much more. Since it would not suffice simply to denounce Jews as hating and hateful, Spinoza undertakes to identify and repudiate the values that have supposedly upheld all that enmity. For this exercise, he turns to the Hebrew prophets.

In biblical Judaism, the prophet is the voice of God, transmitting the divine word with a view to establishing justice on earth, charging Jewish society with a message of ethical responsibility, and inviting other peoples to abandon idolatry so that all can participate in the messianic era. Spinoza, however, sees things otherwise, opening his discussion with a sweepingly illogical declaration according to which, first, nothing less than “the authority of the [entire] Bible . . . depends on the authority of the prophets” and, second, that “the opinions of the prophets are of little importance to us.”

---