Israel Strikes Iranian Oil Tankers Bound For Syria

If it is, I've never heard anything about it and I was an avid reader of history in my teens and twenties. Frankly, it sounds like some legend to soothe the guilt of what the Wermacht was responsible for. I don't condone cold-blooded murder by anyone but crying about maltreatment when you started a war that killed 50 million humans is disingenuous, to say the least.

 

"Military Blackmail" - You definitely got the "Same as anyone else" part right - having a nuke is a definite bargaining chip. So of course Iran wants one .. and has been working toward that goal.

Libya had a WMD /Nuke program - US guaranteed its safety - from the US/West - for giving up this program which Ghaddafi did - what a great thing - after which Obama Attacked- which was not such a great thing. Dumb and Dumber - and a violation of everything ... teaching the world Rule 1 - Don't trust anything the USA say

and turned Libya into a Islamist Jihadist wonderland state - with slave markets and the works - its now like a Pirate nation .. a definite safe haven and breeding job for these radicals..

So good job - well done.

Fast forward to DDD - Donalds dumb and dumber moment (think it was Pompeo actually but DDD sounded so good)

North Korea - during/prior to negotiations - Says we should use the same tactics as Libya .. and says it publicly .. WOW - just WOW - like that is going to help get a Deal with Lil Kim ??

But - how does this all relate to Israel targeting Iran's tankers - as that is not going to do anything to stop the nuke program .. nor really do much to Iran's economy - which is doing quite well as China violates sanctions - buying up Iranian oil - and developing a close relationship.

Piss China or Russia off enough and they will just give Iran a few nukes .. which to be honest might be the best solution - not enough to be a threat to any of the Security Council .. but enough to be a deterrent to Israeli Aggression - and a deterrent in general.

What say you !? - and do learn chess notation . and then you can start using it .. or just ask and I can teach you.

 

Wikipedia is unreliable concerning WW 2 history. It is commonly known to have an anti German bias because it is dominated by paid Hasbara agents - "students"


1. "How Israel and its partisans work to censor the Internet"
https://israelpalestinenews.org/israel-partisans-work-censor-internet/

Campaign to infiltrate Wikipedia

CAMERA called for volunteers to secretly work on editing Wikipedia entries. It emphasized the importance of keeping the project secret. Volunteers were schooled in ways to elude detection. After they signed up as editors, they were to “avoid editing Israel-related articles for a short period of time.”CONTINUED


2. "Zionist Control of WikiPedia"
http://www.ascertainthetruth.com/at...ls-the-media/429-zionist-control-of-wikipedia

EXCERPT “And as shown in our section on Google, this Internet search-engine is well in the hands of Zionist Jews and also cooperates openly with Zionist organizations such as ADL and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) to control the searches and censoring information and certain sites.

This means that apart from Wikipedia other sites may be censored when Googling any given subject.” CONTINUED


3."Course: Zionist Editing on Wikipedia"

 

So, killing Oppenheimer or Szilard in the early days of research for the bomb would have had no effect on the Manhattan Project? How do you come to such conclusions?

 

You seem to believe in very easy solutions to complex problems. If Xi or Putin took that step, they'd know that Taiwan and possibly Poland or another eastern European state would also be given nukes. There are no simple solutions and anyone who tries them is apt to call down the lightning.

 

Care to cite your proof that Germany "invented" the bomb? No doubt, German Jews were essential in its creation but your Fuehrer made a point of getting rid of brilliant physicists who happened to be Jews. Sorry, I call BS on this unless you have proof.

 

They CHOSE to join the Schutzstaffel. That entire command from Himmler down to the lowliest enlisted man were responsible for great evil in the world. That uniform alone would have been proof enough for execution on the spot. It's very difficult to believe that there are still Germans who support what Hitler's minions did in the 30s and 40s.

 

You sound like you think these soldiers should have been treated gently by the survivors who had seen thousands of their friends killed by Germans. That's not short of delusional. I used to work in a VA hospital and one particular Vet told a story of how nearly his whole unit was killed by German troops with the help of some local women who spied for them. He said that when they took the little town, they butchered every soldier AND young woman they found. THAT is the terrible reality of war and the hate it creates. There is NO redeeming quality for people who gassed and burned millions. There is no redeeming quality for the rape and pillage of multiple nations through armed force. That anyone today would make excuses for the Nazis is incredible to me.

 

The only thing I would disagree with there is the notion of 'soothing guilt'. I have encoutnered a number of people who push this fantasy and not one of them feels any 'guilt' for what Germany did. They generally deny the atrocities & mass murder because they know that it makes their people look bad to others, but if you scratch the surface even slightly (or just wait) you discover an attitude to Jews that excludes 'guilt' as a motive.

If you believe Hitler was a lovely man and are proud that your family were Nazi suppporters 'guilt' isn't your motivation for pushing lies about German POWs being killed, pride in Nazi germany is.

 

Follow the link in my previous post.

 

This isn't Oppenheimer in the early days - you are making a horrendously false comparison. Oppenheimer invented the Bomb .. without him - there would be no bomb.

Iran already has the invention - no need for Oppenheimer - or they dude they killed.

And why am I having to explain the obvious - when already detailed in previous post. Did you not understand the part about .. "Iran knows how to make a nuke" - they just need the enriched uranium - and they know how to do that as well.

 

You seem to be left with only strawman fallacy - a desperate attempt to attack the messenger - rather than address the message.

My solution was neither simple - nor was saying it was great solution - and claiming it would lead to Taiwan and Poland getting nukes is ridiculous.. but - it would be nuclear proliferation.

So perhaps we should have stayed with the deal - since you have no other legitimate options - and don't like the option I proposed.

 

Without needing to address your suggestion that, for Israel, ALL IS fair, so-called, I would say that Biden's making the announcement I suggested-- as you have already imagined-- would be, or should certainly be, the biggest disincentive we could realistically give to Netanyahu to, "keep it in his pants," as it were. That was the intended consequence I had in mind. The alternate options for Israel would be to use other means to ensure its safety. It would not be unreasonable, even, for the U.S. to make clear that a nuclear strike on Israel, much like one on South Korea, would bring upon the perpetrator the serious risk of a nuclear response from the U.S. Note, though Kim Jong-un has had the capacity for some time to attack his neighbor this way-- and please do not tell me that you find the North Korean leader to be a saner, more reasonable actor than the Iranians-- he has refrained from doing so.

I must point out that it is an ASSUMPTION, on your part, that it even IS Iran's intention to develop nuclear weapons. I must also clarify, based on the opening of your reply making it unclear that you realize this, that ASSUMING things that are not known, isn't generally considered a positive attribute.

At this time, Iran seems content, to me, to use this potential of nuclear weaponry as its bargaining chip. And they, no doubt, would like to get as close as they can, to both maximize the effectiveness of this chip, as well as to have that option as near at hand as possible, should the need arise. But it would be disadvantageous for Iran to develop that weapon now, because they are aware (as should you be) that this would precipitate immediate, harsher sanctions from the International community, not just the Americans. We might well go so far, under those circumstances, as interfering in China's flouting of Iranian embargos (& sanctioning Russia for violating them-- provided Donny Brasco-Trump is not back in office).

Iran, unlike N. Korea, does not love nuclear arms more dearly than all else, including food. They will not, I predict, develop the final weapons before they intend to use them, & I am unconvinced by the argument that the primary goal of all Iranians, in life, is merely to destroy Israel, and that they would be happy, after that, to all die in a nuclear inferno. That is why they want us back in the nuclear deal. They can only slow-walk the development for so long, and they want to gain every benefit they can out of their, "good behavior." (BTW, after long underestimating North Korea's nearness to nukes, I think the, "expert/pundits" are compensating by overestimating Iran's proximity to it. As one approaches the required purity of nuclear fuel, each miniscule increase, further, becomes almost as difficult as having brought the radioactive element up to its current state of refinement.)

The problem with your perspective, is that you remove from Israel, itself, any responsibility for navigating a responsible path, using diplomacy where possible. Granted, it will make it uncomfortable for Israel, knowing that Iran is near to developing nukes. But Israel, itself, has had nuclear weapons for decades, & I'm sure their habitual self-justification of military solutions has not made their nuclear capability a benefit to the sleep of their Middle Eastern neighbors. But that was not something that was considered important-- to the contrary, keeping potential enemies wary was probably a good part of the point. There is no rational basis to assume it is not the same way with the Iranians. And this discomfort is certainly not justification for whatever they want to do, with it being solely America's, or the world's, responsibility to prevent any messes, and clean them up, when we fail. By your propositional assumption-- Israelis gonna do, what Israelis are gonna do-- you grant Israel carte blanche to act independently on the world stage as a loose cannon, free from accountability, due to their tragic past. I can be sympathetic to their history, yet still respond to that theory of the case with: no sale.

 

The woman is this video is correct - the Internet is rife with antisemitism.
But this has little to do with allegations that Americans and British murdered
half a million German POW's - that's utter fiction. In fact the many POW's
who were sent to America did very well, and many stayed.

 

Is the Uranium METAL they're refining meant to be "widgets"?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-uranium-metal-joe-biden-united-states-nuclear-deal-standoff/
Anyone who looks at this situation and refuses to acknowledge the ambitions of Iran has other motives, IMO. People are free to support Iran's quest for nukes. I just hate dealing with hypocrites who can see what's happening yet still provide the mullahs cover.

In case you hadn't noticed, the majority of Iranians seem to be protesting the regime but between the IRGC and the Basij, they are quite efficiently crushed. Of COURSE, they don't "ALL" want to die in a firestorm. Comparing Kim and his crime family to religious fanatics is disingenuous at best. But, to each his own belief. If Iran tests or offers any proof that they have nukes, that entire region is going to change and it will be FAR more dangerous than it is with a non-nuclear Shia Theocracy. At some point, those who worship at the altar of slow Joe and his cadre of puppet-masters may have to face horrific consequences that cannot be sufficiently blamed on Republicans or their policies. That's just how nuclear holocausts roll, I guess. If Israel burns, most of the rest of the world is going to burn as well. AND WE WILL DESERVE TO...

 

Which nation do you trust the most?
Think about it - if your nation has censorship and dictatorship then it can't be counted
as there's no opposition media. You might not have trusted America during the 1970's
but there was an opposition with the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate investigation.
Nothing like this exists with China and Russia, for instance.

 

This is accurate and it seems to be casually overlooked. Imagine a nuclear Theocracy holding the Straits of Hormuz hostage by demanding a fee or a toll for every ship that passes through. WHO would confront them? Ultimately, I think Iran WILL become a nuke weapons state and that region will burn. I just hate hypocrites who offer cover for what is obviously coming and for their approval of it because of who the "enemy" is.

 

What's wrong with hating the Iranians?

 

And I hate dealing with people who can't read at the level to understand what a post clearly says, yet respond as if they could-- and rudely, no less.

The translation of your above paragraph, is that you don't like to deal with any subtleties or nuance (in short, complexities) in your arguments. Fellow-debaters are given two legitimate choices, in your mind: agree with you, or take one, highly-specified, counter-argument, to which you already have a lengthy response loaded and ready to go.

 

Hating an entire population of people for the actions of their leaders, especially when they have precious little control over who those leaders are, is simply wrong. I'm speaking of hating people outside that nation who are obviously informed enough to see what's happening and where these moves are headed but who STILL parrot the line that Iran doesn't really mean to create nukes. It's patently ridiculous.

 

Where this DID happen was in Russia. About ten percent of the German POW's returned.
But Britain and America doing this? No.
When the allies DID do things considered inhumane they were caned mercilessly for it,
such as maligning "Bomber Harris" and the decision to nuke or burn Japanese cities.
And history records cases of Americans not taking prisoners in Germany, as well as
their treatment of surrendered Japanese (but that's different as the Japanese exploited
American humanity to fake their surrenders or injuries to kill Americans.)

 

The truth hurts, I guess. I suspect we can both get over the hard feelings. This issue is by FAR the most volatile in the world just now. If our Potato-in-Chief mishandles it, we might ALL be in some very serious trouble.

 

No, my parents died over 20 years ago, they were born 18 and 23.

But the point about the 1.7 millions is bookkeeping. That bookkeeping is flawed, because thousands of German soldiers were released or escaped without being in those books.
The French recruited thousand of German soldier for the Legion. You said yes, you vanished and got a brand new identity. An other bookkeeping flaw.
Yes the conditions in the POW camps were very harsh and thousand died.
Could have been those conditions better ?
I do not think so. There was no infrastructure in 45 left to support camps with so many people. Could that have been planed, ahead, well yes, but that is hind sight
Was keeping those soldiers for years as prisoner and slave labour a atrocity, well yes, by todays standards
Should not have happened.
But than look at the time, 6 years of mindless killing. Millions had died, live had lost its value.
For me the best example was the late bombing campaign. It was not needed, did not do doodly in defeating Germany.
Just a killing machine, out of control.

 

Holy deer in headlights .. this is not about who I Trust - this is about the message that was sent out to the world - the leaders of nations.

Have you no inkling of the consequences of this position ? you are way out in la la land .. your brain went into some kind of haze . not able to deal with reality or something ..

Its not complicated .. what we did to Gaddafi - was nasty - and did our nation no favors - and certainly did no favors for Libya - the war on terror - peace and security in the world - or make the world a better place.

 

I think few held any sympathy for Gadaffi - the guy who brought down the Pan Am.
So you support Libya, is that it? Libya is the country you want to live in?
Or is it America?