Harry's Place

The question is, how much more crazy are the Iranians than the Bolsheviks? I’m sure you could hear plenty of irrational talk from those “relatively sane” folk in the Kremlin, who managed to wipe out 20 million of their own people in a fit of paranoia. This article (and I’m sure most HPers) only recognises one option – the nuclear one – but it fails to mention that Iran ramped up its nuclear programme after the Iraq War, for all the obvious reasons (yes boys, they probably did think they would be next). This was a perfectly rational (if undesirable) step. Given this defensive rationality, why should they then destroy themselves?

Israel should bomb its own nuclear facilities and let the people of the world to take a breth, it is now 60 years passing of the existiance of this illigal dirty terrorist regim that always had been busy bombing the world either by its blood terstiy armay or seek minded media, i think all the people around the world undrestand now that zionist are a bunch of terrorists that cause only missery for Jews around the world and espicially in Israel , Finally some people from somewhere will nuke Israel so that to terminate this creminal illegal regim of terror. Poor US people had been paid the price of Isreal stuiped mistakes and a $20 oil barrel shall be bought $130 , Lets not forget that the fathers of these zionest caused the WW2 by supporting Hitler to come to power and then poor Jews became the first vitems of zionest war mangers.

God bless the wise people
Sina

Israel should bomb its own nuclear facilities and let the people of the world to take a breth, it is now 60 years passing of the existiance of this illigal dirty terrorist regim that always had been busy bombing the world either by its blood terstiy armay or seek minded media, i think all the people around the world undrestand now that zionist are a bunch of terrorists that cause only missery for Jews around the world and espicially in Israel , Finally some people from somewhere will nuke Israel so that to terminate this creminal illegal regim of terror. Poor US people had been paid the price of Isreal stuiped mistakes and a $20 oil barrel shall be bought $130 , Lets not forget that the fathers of these zionest caused the WW2 by supporting Hitler to come to power and then poor Jews became the first vitems of zionest war mangers.

God bless the wise people
Sina

Rather than address any of the points in this CIF-refugee’s comment, I thought I’d just copy and paste the whole thing again so we can marvel at its brilliance….

“The question is, how much more crazy are the Iranians than the Bolsheviks?”

No. If that is the question, the difference betwen the answers is the difference between our anihilation and our survival. The risk is too big for us to just wait.

Is like saying, that guy with a knife who is standing in front of my open door, looking at my daughter with a maniacal face, is just my neighbor with which I have a terrible argument all these years, but whom I thought he won’t ever do us any harm, or is he the same neighbor, about which I am not so sure? Should I just go back to my room, or should I confront him?

“Israel should bomb its own nuclear facilities and let the people of the world to take a breth, it is now 60 years passing of the existiance of this illigal dirty terrorist regim that always had been busy bombing the world either by its blood terstiy armay or seek minded media, i think all the people around the world undrestand now that zionist are a bunch of terrorists that cause only missery for Jews around the world and espicially in Israel , Finally some people from somewhere will nuke Israel so that to terminate this creminal illegal regim of terror. Poor US people had been paid the price of Isreal stuiped mistakes and a $20 oil barrel shall be bought $130 , Lets not forget that the fathers of these zionest caused the WW2 by supporting Hitler to come to power and then poor Jews became the first vitems of zionest war mangers”.

God bless the wise people
Sina

So good we had to print it thrice, look upon his words and despair. Half the people I know would probably agree with this, they just might spell it better.

Are Russia and China as ambivalent about any future Iranian nuclear capability as their current rhetoric would suggest?

I doubt it.

“Israel should bomb its own nuclear facilities and let the people of the world to take a breth, it is now 60 years passing of the existiance of this illigal dirty terrorist regim that always had been busy bombing the world either by its blood terstiy armay or seek minded media, i think all the people around the world undrestand now that zionist are a bunch of terrorists that cause only missery for Jews around the world and espicially in Israel , Finally some people from somewhere will nuke Israel so that to terminate this creminal illegal regim of terror. Poor US people had been paid the price of Isreal stuiped mistakes and a $20 oil barrel shall be bought $130 , Lets not forget that the fathers of these zionest caused the WW2 by supporting Hitler to come to power and then poor Jews became the first vitems of zionest war mangers”.

God bless the wise people
Sina

Yeah, that’s the gift that keeps on giving.

they’re playing soft cop I would guess.

Why is Sina’s antisemitic rant allowed to remain on these pages? Repeating it in full to make fun of it doesn’t help either, in my opinion.

As Mario would say liamalpha, you are being a bit of a billy bullshiner there, if repeating shite like that mocks it and shows it for the moronic fuckwittery it is then keep repeating it.

Why not Liamalpha?

“Israel should bomb its own nuclear facilities and let the people of the world to take a breth, it is now 60 years passing of the existiance of this illigal dirty terrorist regim that always had been busy bombing the world either by its blood terstiy armay or seek minded media, i think all the people around the world undrestand now that zionist are a bunch of terrorists that cause only missery for Jews around the world and espicially in Israel , Finally some people from somewhere will nuke Israel so that to terminate this creminal illegal regim of terror. Poor US people had been paid the price of Isreal stuiped mistakes and a $20 oil barrel shall be bought $130 , Lets not forget that the fathers of these zionest caused the WW2 by supporting Hitler to come to power and then poor Jews became the first vitems of zionest war mangers”.

God bless the wise people
Sina

Has Sina asked the world what it thinks? I doubt it.

I feel slightly disappointed that Sina’s lunacy has drawn attention from my brilliant rebuttal… Is she (he? It?) a patsy?

In response to Fabien, I would say the stakes were equally high for the West during the Cold War. The option here appears to be no option – either we have nuclear conflict or… we have nuclear conflict.

To, ahem, paraphrase Sting, don’t the Iranians love their children too?

Benny Morris considers every possible outcome, except a negotiate peace deal, such as might actually happening this weekend in Geneva. A war between Israel and Iran would be completely catastrophic for the people of both countries. It may well bring about WW3. It is completely unnecessary. Both sides are making threats. On the Iranian side, Ahmedinejad says stuff about wiping out Israel, but don’t forget, even if this wasn’t cynical rhetoric aimed at trying to get support from the Arab world, where Iran is seeking further influence (which it is), Ahmedinejad doesn’t have any power in the Iranian system to do anything foreign policy wise. All the power is with Ali Hosseini-Khamenei, the head of state (if you don’t believe me, look at the US Dept of State website). Israel makes practise runs for an attack, which it then broadcasts to the worlds media. The threats of an attack on Iran from Israel and certain people in the US, like John McCain, are open and explicit, as in Benny Morris article above. This is just crazy. These idiots are likely to drag us all into a massive destructive war for NO GOOD REASON. And if and when that happens, its the people of Israel, who they claim to be trying to protect, that will be the first to suffer the consequences.

Benny’s analysis is all too thorough and credible. But even if Israel can destroy Iran’s facilities (to the relief of most of the Arabs, as well as the West), it will only put off the final reckoning. Rockets are bad enough, but there are [difficult and risky] technical countermeasures, such as Patriot (and advanced developments thereof) and the latest laser tecnology. A suicide truck bomb is more likely in the long run and more difficult to stop, and it would not even have to cross Israel’s borders. Jordan’s security people (who are actually quite good) must lose sleep about this option.

The Mullahs, their hotheads and their Republican Guard (and idiots like Sina) want this conflagration. The West, and particularly Europe, will face massive internal strife as a result. Enough of our Muslims would openly celebrate a strike on Israel (and Gavin Essler’s buddy Abd Al-Bari Atwan would “dance in Trafalgar Square), or riot after an Israeli strike to cause tolerance of their host nations to snap. I fear such strife would be worse than we have seen since the Civil War, and Liberalism could die with it, with a massive swing to the likes of the BNP.

The only event that will stop this madness is the death of Islam, and that will take gnerations. Interesting times we live in.

The Eurovision song contest clearly shows the way – extend membership of NATO to Israel (and therefore NATO nuclear and military cover, an attack on one being an attack on all) as pay-back for a strictly enforced two-nation solution (including an end to illegal settlements). Sorted.

The Eurovision song contest clearly shows the way – extend membership of NATO to Israel (and therefore NATO nuclear and military cover, an attack on one being an attack on all) as pay-back for a strictly enforced two-nation solution (including an end to illegal settlements). Sorted.

Israel already benefits from the only practical advantage of NATO membership, i.e. US backing.

I don’t suppose knowing Belgium would come to their aid would make Israelis sleep all that much more peacefully in their beds.

“Ahmedinejad doesn’t have any power in the Iranian system to do anything foreign policy wise. All the power is with Ali Hosseini-Khamenei, the head of state”

Now, there is a really rational man.

As far as I’m aware, Fabian, Khamenei’s position is that Iran will retaliate it attacked. Not a terribly irrational position, surely. I’m unaware of him ever having threatened aggression.

Khamenei in his own words:

Antisemitic tropes:
“According to reports, at the meeting between the prime minister of the Zionist regime and the American president last week the American president present him with a map of Greater Israel, from the Nile to the Euphrates. What does that mean? How can Islamic countries believe their words? How can they regard America as an arbitrator in the Palestinian issue? That aggressive, bullying, usurping and wrong slogan — from the Nile to the Euphrates — was the cursed and condemned slogan of the Zionists. Recently they have denied it, saying: No, that is a lie, we have no such intentions. Now these American warmongers are advocating it. That has exposed them to the Muslim world.”

About negotiations:
“Brothers and sisters, today the Palestinian people’s struggle has fallen into place; it revolves around the axis around which the hope of victory lies. In other words, the nation has come onto the stage. Israel is a contrived regime. It is an illegal regime. It is a usurper regime. They have taken a country from its people by force, through injustice and with ploys. Hence, any kind of negotiations that is based on the acknowledgement of this regime is an illegitimate negotiation and it is a negotiation that will not endure.”

About suicide bombings:
“Let me say to you: these stances [of American administrators on suicide bombings] will not be of any use. This quest for martyrdom is not based on emotions; it is based on belief in Islam and faith in Judgment Day and faith in life after death. Anywhere Islam exists in its true sense, arrogance [the US] faces this threat.”

This is the supreme religious authority of Iran. This guy says that he believes in all that fairy tales that include murder and his regime is developing nuclear weapons.

Sure, TheIrie, he is a really rational person. And of course, you can read his words on negotiation. Learn to read.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/01/ayatollah_khamenei_in_his_own.html

Tell me TheIrie, don’t you feel dirty after defending the Mullah Khamenei and calling Israelis “Murdering bastards”?

Do you really not feel dirty and ashamed of yourself? I know I would.

“I’m unaware of him ever having threatened aggression.”

Not directly no.

‘Imadinnerjacket’ is a creature of Khamenei, and he has clearly stated that he wants Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’. Imadinnerjacket’ would not say this unless he had full permission from Khamenei.

With regard to the article, it just shows you that appeasement doesn’t work. Not that we’ve made that mistake in the west before – pandering to a far right genocidel Anti-Semitic ideology. erm….

Only this time my friends, they might have Nuclear weapons.

Fabian – we need to separate out a number of issues. The most important issue, which I was addressing, is on the question of aggression and war. This is the most important because of the potential consequences, not least for Israel. If Israel attacks Iran, Iran will probably fire missiles at Tel-Aviv, among other places, at least if you believe recent reports (such as Morris’s article above). Questions of whether the Iranian regime is anti-Semitic, whether it is anti-Israel, even whether it supports suicide bombings, are secondary. You can’t make Iran love you. But you can prevent tensions on both sides from boiling over to war. Preventing war is priority number 1. Then, reform in Iran can be seriously considered, and is in fact highly likely to come from within. It might be boring, but the best way through this potential crisis is more talking, less threatening, and definitely preventing a “cold war” from turning “hot” at all costs.

If preventing war is your “number 1″ priority, you will surely end up in a war, at a time and place not of your choosing.

“Questions of whether the Iranian regime is anti-Semitic, whether it is anti-Israel, even whether it supports suicide bombings, are secondary.”

No, they are the primary questions because Iran is pursuing atomic weapons, and incendiary genocidal declarations like these are the only warning we will have before the mushroom cloud.

Now, lets not separate the issues: why do you go out on a limb to call Khamenei “rational” (when he is certainly not and also not a good person), but easily call Israelis “murdering bastards”?
Don’t you feel dirty?

The question is, how much more crazy are the Iranians than the Bolsheviks?

The Bolsheviks may have been murderous but they weren’t suicidal. They managed to stand back from the Cuba Missile Crisis and establish a hotline. The very notion of a hotline between Jerusalem and Tehran is risible.

The USSR (and China) are large countries and could possibly keep functioning after a nuclear attack. Israel is tiny compared to Iran and I doubt if the Revolutionary Guard would balk at wiping out a couple of million Palestinians if it gave them the chance to destroy Israel.

The argument for military action is flaky, and any such move will be hugely controversial and counter productive. Preemptive action is aggression that sows the seeds for disenchantment and current and future retaliation. Nobody likes being humiliated, so I don’t see what problem is addressed.

Untill Iran threatens Israel in a very real way, way beyond words the case is presumptive and highly speculative and talk of action is reckless war mongering. US didn’t bomb Soviet facilities or vice versa, India didn’t bomb Pakistani facilities, China didn’t bomb Indian facilities, that is serious escalation, not a casual action.

That is not the way nuclear nations handle relationships, why should it change now with Israel and Iran? They have to figure out a responsible way to deal with it like other nuclear nations have, implied threats of military action is unnecessary and just vitiate the atmosphere. And if Israel raids Iran, Iran won’t respond? And we then won’t have a full fledged war?

I don’t see any support for this action and if we have learned anything from recent events is global consensus is necessary for any sort of military adventurism. At least there should be an effort to build it, unilateral action by Israel will make it the villain of the piece and Iran the victim, I don’t see how else it can be seen.

Martin Van Creveld believes Iran’s nuclear threat is further off and, to be honest, I think he is a better analyst of current defence threats than Morris.

Personally I think Israel should address Hizbullah and Hamas before Iran. The first Israeli attack on Iranian facilities will not be aeriel, they will be by strategic cruise= missiles, launched from her submarines, and Jericho 1s and 2s. To be truly effective against Iranian facilities, they would have to carry tactical nuclear warheads. There is no way Israel would commit to a mass aeriel attack, jeopardizing most of her strategic and tactical airforce without neutralizing Russian installed radar and air defences.

At least I hope not. The last thing that Israel needs is a government led by such as Ehud Olmert ordering an attack because of Israeli public opinion. I trust Gabi Ashkenazi’s policies with regard to Hizbullah and Hamas. Funnily enough, I think Dan Halutz would have been better at sizing up the situation with regard to Iran. But I hope and pray that Ashkenazi has a soldier’s instinct and wisdom about Iran, and the courage to tell Olmert ‘No’ if something seems unwise.

In purely military and political terms it would be better to nuke Southern Lebanon and Gaza than embark on an attack on Iran that ended in disaster.

’sorry all those ‘aeriel’s should be ‘aerial’. I did not mean to include Prospero’s former supernatural servant in the IDF.

Fabian – you’re not being serious, and it seems to me you’re wilfully ignoring the likely consequences for Israelis of the policies you are advocating.

Zkharya – I’m glad you don’t want to attack Iran. Its a shame, though, that you seem to think dropping a nuclear bomb on the most densely populated area on the planet would in and of itself constitute ending in disaster. Appealing again to your self interest, it wouldn’t exactly be great for the population of Sderot or anywhere else in Israel, either.

“would not”

Having said that, if Israel did attack Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas would surely attack her flanks, giving Israel, having committed much of her forces elsewhere, few military options with which to respond.

The most interesting sentence in Morris’ article is his description of Israels intelligence sources being limited.
Thats worth expanding on.

Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program.

There’s something bizarrely mendacious in that line – and indeed in the whole of the article. If the author genuinely believes that the Iranian regime is insane enough that it is “likely to use any bomb they build” (and I’m sure he’s right), then how can he possibly believe they’d be sane enough to think twice about trying to acquire them?

For my money, this is a win-win situation for the Mullahs. A pre-emptive strike by Israel, whether it stops the nuclear programme or not, will surely swing the whole of Iran behind the government, ending whatever movements towards democracy and sanity currently exist in Iran.

‘Its a shame, though, that you seem to think dropping a nuclear bomb on the most densely populated area on the planet would in and of itself constitute ending in disaster. ‘

Irie, please explain this sentence, and why you would hold it against me.

What I have said I have said. I am not going to bother defending or arguing for it. A failed attack on Iran that wiped out most of Israel’s airforce would be disastrous. More disastrous for her, I think, than using tactical nuclear weapons against Hizbullah and Hamas, which Israel might have to use if these forces attacked her flanks during an attack, especially a failed attack.

Gazans are a tragedy etc. Hamas could have made peace. In the end, that is not Israel’s responsibility. If they chose to aid Iran during such an attack, Israel, her hands full, would have few choices. The blood of Hamas’ citizenry would be upon their own head. Pure and simple.

Gregg – exactly, excellent point.

“Fabian – you’re not being serious, and it seems to me you’re wilfully ignoring the likely consequences for Israelis of the policies you are advocating.”

I see that you prefer not to deal with my arguments. And why do you defend Khamenei?

“Zkharya – I’m glad you don’t want to attack Iran. Its a shame, though, that you seem to think dropping a nuclear bomb on the most densely populated area on the planet would in and of itself constitute ending in disaster.”

The most densely populated area on the planet??? hahahahaha! What a shmock! you don’t know what you are talking about! Buenos Aires, my city of birth is three times more densely populated than Gaza.
Why don’t you concede that you don’t know what you are talking about?

Also, don’t you feel dirty?

Irie,

re. Sderot etc, naturally I would not using nuclear weapons if they irradiated southern Israel. One could detonate one or more neutron devices out to sea whose radius of radiation extended only or primarily into Gaza.

Yes, wicked, genocide etc. Too bad. Hamas should not have sided with Iran in Ahmadinejad’s nuclear wish to wipe the Jewish state from history.

Zkharya – maybe I misread you. I thought that when you wrote it would be better to nuke Gaza and Southern Lebanon rather than nuke Iran what you meant was it would be better to nuke Gaza and Southern Lebanon rather than nuke Iran?

“The question is, how much more crazy are the Iranians than the Bolsheviks?”

The Bolsheviks didn’t believe they served a supernatural omniscient being and death was just a gateway to eternal life and if you died fighting for the supernatural being you where guaranteed a place in paradise.

It’s a significant difference if one thinks that the life here and now is the only prospect you get.

People in more or less atheist/secular societies seem to have some difficulty to comprehend that people do really believe the religious tenets.

Also, Zkharya, people who write “wicked, genocide etc” to me are rather like people who write “yeah, the holocaust was bad, etc”. i.e. Nazi’s.

My point, Irie, is that in war there is only one rule: to win.

It is better to fight wars or battles that you can surely win, than those you are likely, or even potentially, to lose. In the end, history only remembers the winners. Better to use overwhelming force to win your battles, than gamble all you have on a risky enterprise.

Irie, I do not care what you think.

I was exaggerating to make a point, the point I have made, above. I am never going to satisfy or please you, so I am not going to bother.

There was no Jewish Hamas or Hizbullah or Iran that threatened Nazi Germany. But there were silly old fools like you who said there were.

If Israel only has limited intelligence sources, its difficult to see how they could win any conflict in any meaningful way.

Zkharya – yes, that’s something the Nazi’s also believed in.

The fact is, there is no need for a war here. This isn’t Germany 1939. It’s more like Europe in 1914, on the precipice of a completely pointless and disastrous war. And Israel is in the front line of this potential war – so why are you and Fabian willing it to happen?

There were no Jewish rockets raining down on German cities. There was not Jewish threaten to smuggle nuclear weapons into Germany proper. There were no Jews who said Germany is really Judea and belongs to us. I do not care what you think. You are a silly old fool.

If preventing war is your “number 1″ priority, you will surely end up in a war, at a time and place not of your choosing.

I couldn’t agree more.

And there is a world of difference between avoiding war and “preventing” war.

The former can be the result of cowardice and involve a great deal of passivity, whereas the latter implies a more proactive posture that could include some forms of aggression, if needed.

The Irie is for mere avoidance

‘Zkharya – yes, that’s something the Nazi’s also believed in. ‘

But there wasn’t. That is the crucial difference.

‘The fact is, there is no need for a war here. This isn’t Germany 1939. It’s more like Europe in 1914, on the precipice of a completely pointless and disastrous war. And Israel is in the front line of this potential war – so why are you and Fabian willing it to happen?’

How am I willing it to happen, you silly idiot? You just want to fight, don’t you? You’ll find a quarrel in anything.

What Jewish national leaders where publicly calling for the German state to be wiped from the pages of history while attempting to acquire weapons of national destruction. Up to 1939, all states practiced appeasement.

And don’t complain about comparisons with 1939, you were the one who said what I was saying was equivalent to endorsing the holocaust.

Surely what I am saying is that if Israel attacks Iran, the likelihood of such a last resort of Israel on her enemies only increases.

TheIrie, please tell us what is the population density of the Gaza strip, since you know so much about the demography of the region. A million per centimeter?

By preventing a war, you strengthen the possibilities for peace. The longer you have peace, the deeper it becomes. There really is no reason Israel and Iran cannot co-exist peacefully. There are problems with the Iranian regime, but these are only made worse by aggressive behaviour towards it. Priority 1 – avoid violent conflict. Priority 2 – slowly, and boringly, work towards co-operation and co-existence, over a period of years if not decades. Every step taken must be a step forward for both of these aims.

Assalaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.

I thought I’d take this opportunity to remind TheIrie about his blood sacrifice pact with me, the magical 12th occultating imam.

It seems, Irie, that the time has come to abrogate your responsibilty under the pact to cultivate 12er nuclear supremacy…I’ve already spoken to my earthly familiar Khamene’i and he has agreed.

Join us this Thursday, the Island, Ilford, for a 5er anti-occultation extravaganza. We’ll be self-flagellating trough the streets of Clapton, Plaistow and Wapping to the tune of The Proclaimers’ new number one smash, ‘letter from a well somewhere north of Baghdad’. Will you join us?

Allah hafiz wa ‘Ali wali’ullah!

Look, what I said was an exaggeration, but it was to make a point.

If Israel were to suffer a major set back, such as the loss of most of her airforce while under simultaneous attack by Hizbullah and Hamas, with her conventional forces stretched to the limit, she may well consider use of weapons of last resort. You can say it is immoral, Irie, if you like. But, in a matter of life or death, Israel is unlikelihood to care what you consider ethical.

One could detonate one or more neutron devices out to sea whose radius of radiation extended only or primarily into Gaza.

So… the goal of this strategic strike would be to subject the people of Gaza to radiation poisoning? But surely that wouldn’t actually prevent them from continuing the putative attack on Israel, which would be the catalyst for such a strike (aiding an Iranian attack on Israel, as you said), for weeks during the “latent” phase of the poisoning; whilst it would ensure that none of them had anything to lose because they’re going to die soon anyway, and so all of them would proceed fight to the death. This seems like a remarkably bad idea.

And I apologise for my emotionally caused grammatical, syntactical and lexical disaster. My mum’s computer in America has a spell checker that works on dialogue boxes like these. Anyone know how to get one?

Zkharya – OK, your last point is reasonable as a matter of fact, IF Israel chooses to go to war with Iran. That doesn’t have to happen, so the situation you describe doesn’t have to arise at all.

Fabian – Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on the planet. Maybe it isn’t the most densely populated. I don’t have the numbers, but I’m happy to be corrected on that.

TheIrie: I have the numbers. Gaza is not one of the most densely populated areas on the planet. That is a myth.
I don’t know who concocted it, but Gaza, actually, has plenty of vistas.
http://fabitas.blogspot.com/2008/05/la-densidad-de-algunos.html

Gaza has a density of 4.167 inhabitants per square km.
Buenos Aires has a density of 14.946 inhabitants per sq. km by night.
Every week day, the density goes up to 69.133 inhabitants per km.
And that is only Buenos Aires. Think about Sao Paulo, Mexico city, London, Bombay, those are pretty dense places.
Gaza actually is kind of rural. Just take a look on the Google Earth and compare with other cities.
I know that the myth is very useful for Arab propaganda, so I assume you have taken it from one of your idols, Juan Cole, or Chomsky. But it is completely and evidently false.

There really is no reason Israel and Iran cannot co-exist peacefully

Yes there are.

For many true-believer islamists, Israel’s mere existence means the koran is a lie, it means that Islam’s triumph isn’t inevitable

That, I’m afraid, is a sticking point that just can’t be overcome by touchy-feely sessions of “learning to live together” and *dialogue*, and this, even if they last for decades!

You see, on a certain level, if Israel survives, Islam dies.

The immutable, literal and direct word of god is actually quite brittle, and simply cannot broker a single contradiction (Israel’s existence in this case), because even ONE contradiciton means the whole body of Islam, its core texts etc, are all bullshit.

Ultimately, that’s what it all comes down to.

You eat one chip, you eat the whole bag!

Regarding matters of her continued survival, Israel will not fuck around. Benny Morris certainly knows how to write an unpopular essay, but it’s accurate and terrifying. Iranians should be very worried.

What Israel should be doing is directly putting it’s case to the Iranian people- and in a theatrical manner. I would be planning an operation that bombs Iran with leaflets dropped from the air – to demonstrate Israel’s ability to penetrate Iranian airspace. The leaflets should simply point out that Israel does not oppose an Iranian civil nuclear program, and that Israel does not want war with the Iranian people, but that the combination of the regimes genocidal rhetoric, backed by it’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas (the price of which is not popular with many Iranians) and combined with a nuclear program that is almost certainly directed at the acquisition of a bomb, create a situation fraught with danger for the Iranian people and the region.

This would not foreclose any options for Israel, in fact if the strategy of dividing the regime from it’s people failed a subsequent military strike would at least take place with both a rehearsal as well as the justification that Isreal had gone the extra mile for peace beforehand. At the same time it might achieve the result that far from being a factor that allows the regime to rally Iranians to it, much of the populace comes to see it for what it is – a reckless gamble that threatens their country with utter catastrophe.

What is not even mentioned in Benny Morris’s article is the fact that there is already an Islamic bomb, and even were Israel to seek safety through either a successful first strike or by way of escalation through to a nuclear strike there would be an enormous pressure in a politically unstable Pakistan – already teetering on the edge of being fully controlled by Deobandi fanatics with which both the military and Intelligence services are completely rotten, to gamble on providing a warhead or two to Hezbollah, Hamas or some sunni terrorist group allied to Al Queada or the Taliban to retaliate against either US or Isreali interests. They could even manufacture some plausible deniability – claiming perhaps that the warhead was hijacked whilst under guard and in transit – the manner in which the ISI is running the Taliban in NWFP and other tribal areas already shows the way.

So a direct military strike aimed at the nuclear facilities is the wrong way to go. Better to campaign against the leadership, and if the leaflets don’t work I would be aiming any bombs at trying to take out the entire leadership – say during a meeting of the supreme council.

“but I’m happy to be corrected on that.”

So, are you?
Do you promise not to bring that myth again ever in your arguments?

Irie.
If you compare Gaza with countries its about 5th or sixth most densely populated.
Compare it with cities and its not very densley populated.

My mum’s computer in America has a spell checker that works on dialogue boxes like these. Anyone know how to get one?

Use the Firefox web browser, Zkharya. It’s free and has a built-in spellchecker.

Fabian – you are comparing cities with a country (or an autonomous zone, or whatever Gaza is). Of course cities have larger population densities – that is not surprising at all. But compared with countries, or even regions, I think you’ll find Gaza is up near the top.

Gregg,

‘So… the goal of this strategic strike would be to subject the people of Gaza to radiation poisoning? But surely that wouldn’t actually prevent them from continuing the putative attack on Israel’

No, Gregg, the goal would be to wipe out rocket crews and the personnel infrastructure that maintained a concerted attack on southern Israel. It would also be aimed at Hamas command and control which is, arguably, indistinguishable from Hamas as a government.

Actually, Gregg, you are right about the ‘latent’ stage of poisoning. I had forgotten about that. But Israeli strategic planners are unlikely to have done. So, I guess, if nuclear weapons were used, they would have to be of the more conventional kind.

Look, I have no idea what Israeli planners would actually do in such a situation. It is simply a putative suggestion what would happen in a total war situation, such as the one I have described with Israeli conventional forces overstretched.

As to whether such a thing would be better than a failed Israeli strike on Iran, well, personally I feel, yes. If you think me wicked, immoral or whatever, so be it. I think a failed Israeli attack would be much worse, and send out a signal to the wider Arab, Islamic world than Israel’s alleged defeat in 2006.

Hamasstan is an enemy state and, if it decided to make total war on Israel during such an attack, it must bear the consequences.

Its sixth.
Behind Macao,Hong Kong,Singapore,Gibraltar,Monaco.

And yes I know some of those aren’t countries but neither is Gaza.

Zkharya,

Download here:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/

Fabian – you are comparing cities with a country (or an autonomous zone, or whatever Gaza is). Of course cities have larger population densities – that is not surprising at all. But compared with countries, or even regions, I think you’ll find Gaza is up near the top.

But you said:
“Zkharya – I’m glad you don’t want to attack Iran. Its a shame, though, that you seem to think dropping a nuclear bomb on the most densely populated area on the planet would in and of itself constitute ending in disaster.”

Area, not country. And therefore, your statement was false.
And since we are discussing density in the context of bombing the place and not in the context of agricultural produce or tourism, the fact that the Gaza strip is a “country” (it isn’t, but for the sake of the argument lets accept it) is not here nor there.

I lived in an area which is more than ten times (this is the real proportion) more populated than Gaza. And never complained.

Iran is the only nation ever in history to be feverishly developing nuclear weapons – having recently pledged to wipe out a neighboring nation. Yes it puts her in a category of her own, not shared by any other nuclear or even soon to be nuclear nation.

What really disgusts me though is much of the Western media. It has played this fucked up game of moral nuclear equivalency between Israel and Iran. Israel for all her faults, through numerous wars and existential threats has not threatened anyone with the nuclear option. Ironically, the world complains that Israel won’t admit having nuclear weapons. But isnt it more responsible to not shout about the stick you carry? On the other hand; the media have encouraged Iran to think it can get away with it by conspiring with the regime’s bullshit about nuclear energy being the objective as opposed to weapons.

Do they want a nuclear war or something?

The idea that israel cannot knock out iran’s nuclear program, or at least set it back for a very long time is bollocks. That’s the line being taken by the so-called experts in order to slow Israel down and make it much more difficult for her to act. Or in worst case scenario, nuclear tipped bunker busters will surely do the job though that would of course cause far more whining in the media.

But it’s no good waiting until Iran has the a-bomb, that would be really stupid. A Conventional air attack, even if prolonged over a number of days within the next couple months, will allow more breathing space and the possibility that some cooler heads gain leadership in Iran.

Leave Iran’s oil resources alone and just hit the nuclear and military sites and keep hitting them til they are dust. Yes the world will scream for a few days but secretly most Arab nations will be relieved. There will be an oil spike but not for long.

tim – 6th – fine.

Fabian, I shall stop saying “the most densely populated area on the planet”, and say instead “one of the most densely populated regions on the planet”. Happy? Does it change my argument one jot – no it does not.

Minoan – let me repeat my two points. Firstly, the threatening from Iran has come from Ahmedinejad – a man with no serious power in that country, and certainly no power over foreign policy or the army. By contrast, Khamenei, the head of state who does have power, has merely said he will respond if attacked by Israel. This is not threatening aggression. Secondly, Israel has also been explicitly threatening to attack Iran, and even publicised to the world’s media its practise runs. Both sides, therefore, are equally guilty of threatening the other. Both sides need to wind their necks in.

Look, maybe what I said about Gaza was mad. I am very stressed about something right now and in some pain. I just want what’s best for Israel. I do not want to be an armchair general. I am simply concerned for her wellbeing as mine is just so bloody awful.

On a cynical note.
Given that the Mullahs can’t even sort out an oil refinery (Iran remarkably imports 40% of its gasolene) what the chances they will succeed in any of of this?

“Fabian, I shall stop saying “the most densely populated area on the planet”, and say instead “one of the most densely populated regions on the planet”. Happy? Does it change my argument one jot – no it does not.”

But it is not. That argument is also false. There are literally millions of places over the Earth that are more populated than Gaza. 4.000 inhabitants per km is nothing!
The whole myth arises from the fact that Gaza will be a small country. But so is Monaco, and they are living la vida loca.
You need to stop peddling that myth because you are telling lies.

Last person off the planet please turn out the lights.

‘By contrast, Khamenei, the head of state who does have power, has merely said he will respond if attacked by Israel. This is not threatening aggression. Secondly, Israel has also been explicitly threatening to attack Iran, and even publicised to the world’s media its practise runs. ‘

Bullshit, see, you’ve got me worked up again, Irie, you cretin. Khameni said the Islamic world could tolerate a nuclear strike, but Israel cannot. That means that Israel’s deterrent is ultimately useless.

Israel conducted a massive aerial exercise, you schmuck, you cannot keep that secret. She was using Greece’s Russian built air defences as a test. You stupid bastard. Ahmadinejad is calling for the Zionist entity to wiped from the pages of history and much much worse. THAT IS THREATENING AGGRESSION WHEN COMBINED WITH THE FACT THAT IRAN IS TRYING TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. He is an apocalyptic loon. He may not have the full reins of power, the nuclear threat may be more distant than Morris says, but the mere threat of it can hang over Israel like a cloud. As Ahmadinejad knows.

Iran has already attacked Israel, through Hizbullah and Hamas. The war has already begun, you idiot.

Here’s a great rebuttal to the Morris op-ed in the Huffingtonpost: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/benny-morris-justifies-is_b_113725.html

The Iranians are fanatics. But that does not make them totally irrational. They can be deterred — Saddam did it for over 20 years. The gravest danger lies in their giving nuclear first strike capability to Hezbollah. I’d rather see an effective attack on Lebanon aimed at neutering Hezbollah then an ineffective attack on Iranian nuclear installations.

Fabian – “There are literally millions of places over the Earth that are more populated than Gaza”. No, discounting cities, there are literally five places on the earth that are more populated than Gaza. That is a fact. You can write it down, Holmes.

Not true Irie.
We did not look at other regions, did we.

Look, Irie, I am on drugs, I am totally out of control, so I apologise for my language. But, when you are in pain, you just don’t give a f-ck.

There are literally millions of places over the Earth that are more populated than Gaza. 4.000 inhabitants per km is nothing!

“Millions”, Fabian? The entire land area of the Earth is only 143.3 million square km. :D

Leon. I agree. You said it much better than I, and without the swear words.

Sorry, 148.3 million km

Zkharya

Why don’t you calm down with the personal attacks. Even though i essentially agree with your viewpoint calling people bastard and schmuck and idiot rather makes you look like one.

Zkharya – I’m sorry that you are in pain. Don’t take this exchange personally. I write what I think, you write what you think. That’s all. take it easy.

tim – other regions? I thought you said it was 6th?

ok, Boogski, I exagerated a bit.

But, for example, in Argentina there are at least three “regions” of comparable size and higher density: Buenos Aires, Rosario, Cordoba. And Argentina is one of the least dense countries in the world.

You may still be correct, Fabian. I didn’t check that thoroughly. :D

It is certainly very easy to see. the Gaza strip has an area of 360 sq km, which, if it were a square, it would be 19 km x 19 km. It has a million and a half inhabitants.
It is easy to find regions of 360 sq km with more than a millon and a half inhabitants.

Do you mean if we literally divided the entire planet into Gaza sized units, where would Gaza rank? That would be rather hard to check, but I’m still confident it would be right near the top. Fabian says the area of Gaza is 360 km2, with 1.9 million people. Monaco has an area of just 2 km2, hence if you include the surrounding area for a fair comparison with Gaza, you’d get a lower density. Buenos Aires city covers 203 km2 and has a population of 3 million, whilst the metro area is 4700 km2 with 13 million – so the density of a 360 km2 area is somewhere between 14000 and 2700 – compared to Gaza’s 5000. (all sources from wikipedia) So, really, yes Gaza actually, factually is one of the most densely populated regions on the planet.

Fabian is correct:

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbagg

One do better believe what politicians say, history have shown that. but many intelligent people choose to indulge in fantasies about that the fellows didn’t really mean what they said. Politicians of course often talk vague so people can project their own desires on it but when you pin down what they actually say they usually also do that if they can.

If some say he will kill you, it’s foolish to not take it seriously. A good portion of the Jews in Europe didn’t want to believe the Nazis; people can’t be that bad they thought it was empty talk. One makes such a mistake only once.

Ahmedinejad is not the ultimate power in Iran but how come that he have been able to raving like this for years now, if he is completely off with the real power why haven’t he been muted.

‘Benny Morris, the famed Israeli historian’ or the infamous racist advocate of ethnic cleansing and a racially pure Greater Israel.

Le Bor writes, ‘Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power.’ And you know that for a fact Adam? Did they all tell you? Or did you just make that last one up?

How about ‘Every intelligence agency in the world believes Adam Le Bor to be a fantasist.’ I know that because they told me. Every intelligence agency in the world tells me things all the time ‘cos I’m such an important person, unlike Adam Le Bor who has no mates.

note – I accept that Buenos Aires city itself is more densely populated, if that wasn’t clear from the above.

It’s not odd to see a Jewish author who does NOT know the reality of Iran and Iranians. Unlike him. I have many examples that shows how realist and pragmatist the Iranian politicians are. Remember the same people presenting similar arguments about “fanatic and crazy Soviet leaders”. They totally fail to see the realities of their own, their rivals and the region. The only element these theorists lack to start the World War III, is a modern Hitler!

resistor – Adam was quoting Benny Morris. Adam himself only wrote in the intro paragraph. Its not very clear, but anyway, your venom should be directed at Benny M not Adam L.

Damn! Anyway, average population density for the world is 51.3 persons per sq km.

Look.
We can agree its densely populated.
(and getting more so, five children per mother)

But to pick it out as rmarkably so is a habit that some have got into.
C.W. regions of China for instance.

District Population (2000 census) Area (km²) Density (per km²)
Dongcheng District (东城区: Dōngchéng Qū) 536,000 24.7 21,700
Xicheng District (西城区: Xīchéng Qū) 707,000 30.0 23,567
Chongwen District (崇文区: Chóngwén Qū) 346,000 15.9 21,761
Xuanwu District (宣武区: Xuānwǔ Qū) 526,000 16.5 31,879
Chaoyang District (朝阳区: Cháoyáng Qū) 2,290,000 470.8 4,864
Haidian District (海淀区: Hǎidiàn Qū) 2,240,000 426.0 5,258
Fengtai District (丰台区: Fēngtái Qū) 1,369,000 304.2 4,500
Shijingshan District (石景山区: Shíjǐngshān Qū) 489,000 89.8 5,445
Beijing City proper + inner suburbs 8.50 million 1377.9 6,171

Boogski – so Gaza has a pop density 100 times larger than the world average. Fabian, you can concede the point to me now gracefully.

“Buenos Aires city covers 203 km2 and has a population of 3 million, whilst the metro area is 4700 km2 with 13 million – so the density of a 360 km2 area is somewhere between 14000 and 2700 – compared to Gaza’s 5000. (all sources from wikipedia) ”

But as I said, not only the Buenos Aires city is more dense than Gaza. Every day 11 million people enter the city to work, so the actual density of Buenos Aires every week day is aprox 70.000 inhabitants per sq. Compare that to Gaza’s 4.000.

And that is only Buenos Aires, not one of the world’s major cities.

“So, really, yes Gaza actually, factually is one of the most densely populated regions on the planet.”

This is a non-sequitur.

tim – the higher densities in China are all associated with smaller areas. If you included the surrounding area, for a fair comparison with a Gaza sized region, you’d have to discount these. The areas that are comparable from your list all have densities which are comparable (i.e. the same or slightly higher) with Gaza. So, my point stands.

“Boogski – so Gaza has a pop density 100 times larger than the world average. Fabian, you can concede the point to me now gracefully.”

You certainly are an idiot. Not only that is another non-sequitur, you don’t even know how Boogski calculated the average! Did he included the Sahara desert? Did he simply divided 6 billion people by the total sq. km of land in the globe?

“Last person off the planet please turn out the lights.”

What most of you fail to see is the optimism in Morris’s piece. He is not predicting a nuclear war in 4 months. He is predicting a one-sided nuclear attack in 4 months. So please everyone, cheer-up!

This is going off at a ridiculous tangent now, but…

No, Gregg, the goal would be to wipe out rocket crews and the personnel infrastructure that maintained a concerted attack on southern Israel. It would also be aimed at Hamas command and control which is, arguably, indistinguishable from Hamas as a government.

None of which would be achieved by the detonation of “one or more neutron devices out to sea whose radius of radiation extended only or primarily into Gaza”. Using conventional weapons for the strategic bombing of those sites if known, or for the tactical bombing of the entire area, would be the correct courses in that situation.

Actually, Gregg, you are right about the ‘latent’ stage of poisoning. I had forgotten about that. But Israeli strategic planners are unlikely to have done. So, I guess, if nuclear weapons were used, they would have to be of the more conventional kind.

Nuclear bombs are defined as uconventional weapons. No, look, they would not use nuclear weapons on Gaza. There is no plausible situation where doing so makes sense.

You started out by suggesting that it would be better, politically and militarily, for Israel to use nuclear weapons on Gaza and South Lebanon than in Iran – right now, not in the situations we’ve subsequently come up. This is nonsense. A strategic nuclear strike against Iranian nuclear sites would be a massive mistake – provoking Israel into pre-emptive action would be a political triumph for the Iranian regime, and such action would not curtail the long-term threat from Iran – but it is militarily sound. But for Israel to use nuclear bombs on its own borders would be insane.

Even in the scenario you have subsequently suggested – AIUI, a total war against Iran with Hamas and Hezbollah attacking Israel’s borders and Israel’s air forces wiped out – it makes no sense. In that situation, you’d concentrate conventional forces on the borders and use strategical nuclear strikes on Iran.

It could only make sense to use nukes on Gaza or South Lebanon, if Israel has already effectively lost a war. If southern Israel has been successfully occupied and the over-riding goal is to defend the north and Haifa and facilitate evacuation, then the use of nuclear bombs (almost certainly neutron bombs, to minimise the risk of fallout hitting your own troops or refugees) on Gaza and South Lebanon might be sensible. That’s the only situation I can see such a strike making sense. And I can’t see the US or Europe ever letting it reach that stage.

My main worry about Israel in regards to the threat from Iran (and the additional threats from Hamas, the PA, and Hezbollah) is that the Israeli military record in recent years has been pretty bad. Several people commenting on another threat suggested that the Israelis have learned their lesson from 2006. If that is the case (and I hope), I would be sure that Israel could handle the quadruple threats from Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the PA. I also assume that the IDF has already considered that (and probably more) and taken it into account. But, it’s a big if.

Morris is correct in that a nuclear armed Iran is an immediate threat to Israel; whether they use it directly or give a bomb to one of their terrorist clients, they will use it. (or attempt to use it secretly against us).

I don’t share TheIrie’s confidence in the sanity of Khamenei; in any event, why assume Ahmedinejad is speaking out of church? Anyway, TheIrie’s misplaced confidence in Iran speaks only to his hatred of all things Jewish.

TheIrie,

I think you’re being a bit disengenous. Whether or not the Gaza is 6th or 12th etc most densely populated “country” or not is a bit academic. It might have been that you were simply trying to point out the huge loss of life that would occur., but I think you were also illustrating the fact that the conditions are extreme. packed in like rats…not your words I admit. And whose fault is that? Israel of course. So you’re comment is also a criticism of Israel and therefore it’s not unreasonable for Fabian etc to pull you up on that. Anyway that’s how I read it.
I also don’t think the mutual threatening between Iran and Israel is equivalent. Israel would quite happily ignore Iran if it wasn’t a threat to it’s existence, whereas Iran seems to be unable to tolerate Israel in any shape or form.

It’s not odd to see a Jewish author who does NOT know the reality of Iran and Iranians. Unlike him. I have many examples that shows how realist and pragmatist the Iranian politicians are.

Please provide A SINGLE example of an Iranian politician demonstrating a pragmatic approach to negotiating with Israel. (Rafsanjani’s speech on using a nuclear bomb against Israel, while pragmatic-who could argue with his logic?-is not quite what I’m looking for.)

Look, maybe what I said about Gaza was mad. I am very stressed about something right now and in some pain.

OK, never mind then. Hope you feel better soon.

But can I suggest that in this situation, it’s not a good idea to get involved in arguments on blog posts? In any internet discussion you are likely to encounter people who write things that make you even more stressed, quite possibly just for the sake of winding you up.

sheleylee – you’re wrong about that. My comment was a response to a suggestion that we drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza. Is objecting to that equivalent to Israel bashing? But you’re right that this is academic. Its silly. Look, Gaza is very clearly one of the most densely populated regions on the planet. Some cities are more densely populated, I admit. How many, I don’t know. But Gaza must be right up near the top, so my statement is completely reasonable and factual. The end of this off topic diversion.

Can someone perhaps tell me why Iran bothers thinking about Israel at all? I’m quite sure Israel would be content not to bother with Iran for a millisecond if Iran were to merely keep t themselves.

If Iran’s threatening posture is not based on aggression for the sake of aggression, fanaticism and ideology then what drives it? Economics? Cuisine?

Chaoyang District (朝阳区: Cháoyáng Qū) 2,290,000 470.8 4,864
Haidian District (海淀区: Hǎidiàn Qū) 2,240,000 426.0 5,258

Irie.
Those two are bigger than Gaza, and that list was just around Beijing.
The point is thats just become lazy to describe Gaza as you initially did.
In the same way journalists covering the by election in Glasgow East always use the “life expectancy lower than the Gaza strip”.
Well the Gaza strip has a very high life expectancy.

I know nuclear weapons are unconvention, Gregg, I was making a not very good joke. Listen, I agree with a lot of what you say, and I am too tired to argue at length with what I disagree.

Actually, I think that using nuclear weapons against Gaza and Southern Lebanon would not be excluded in the scenario I describe: massive loss of aircraft and massive rocket barrages from the north and south, overstretched conventional forces, Iranian missile retaliation. If anything it would be a political decision, a signal from a wounded tiger for all and sundry to back off. But, heck, I don’t know. Israel’s military planners know better than I.

“What most of you fail to see is the optimism in Morris’s piece. He is not predicting a nuclear war in 4 months. He is predicting a one-sided nuclear attack in 4 months. So please everyone, cheer-up!”

Have you ever seen Dr Strangelove? Doesn’t this comment ring bells? Actually, Shmuel, this is for you.

‘ My comment was a response to a suggestion that we drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza.’

Horseshit, Irie, I made no such suggestion.

‘ My comment was a response to a suggestion that we drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza.’

Horseshit, Irie, I made no such suggestion.

I shouldn’t even point this out, but even the Tel Aviv region (including Givataim, Ramat Gan, etc) is more dense than the Gaza Strip.

Zkharya,

[use firefox and add in a dictionary https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3099 for the British one, restart and it will spell check as you go along]

and please, please for the sake of your blood pressure, ignore, IGNORE at all costs TheIrie, he’s just putting a singly ill informed and illogical case concerning Iran, it is not worth it, he talks bollocks and even moreso when it comes to anything in the Middle East.

having said that, I would oppose a pre-emptive strike on Iran, even though I appreciate that antisemitism is NOT secondary to the beliefs of the Iranian leadership and that they are refining nuclear material for the sake of a bomb (what other reason?)

it is a complex situation and needs clear heads

“Look, Gaza is very clearly one of the most densely populated regions on the planet”

It is not, and has been pointed out to you. You will find hundreds (hundreds is ok Boogski?) of regions of comparative surface denser than the Gaza strip. You are being disingenuous here, not to mention the idiocy you wanted to pass in relation to the world average. That is how you measure chalk?

Further, if Gaza is as densely populated as you say, and I feel no need to dispute with you on that, it was/is/would be Hamas’ responsibility for endangering their citizenry by using their state as a base for total war on Israel in such a scenario.

Resistor:

“‘Benny Morris, the famed Israeli historian’ or the infamous racist advocate of ethnic cleansing and a racially pure Greater Israel.”

First of all, Benny Morris never once advocated a Greater Israel: he supports the two state solution. Secondly, it’s not about racial purity but about the longtime possibility of coexistence with the Arabs inside Israel and in the Territories. Israel has the largest minority population in the world by percentage: over a fifth of its citizens are Arabs. This means the potential rise of what literally would be a fifth column within Israeli society. THis is not racism or paranoia: the Israeli Arab community has been radicalized beyond recognition over the last ten years and Israeli Arabs have been implicated in dozens of terrorist attacks and convicted of treason for spying for Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. There is a real danger here, and even if I disagree with Morris’ sentiment, there’s no point in misrepresenting it as racially motivated. It is not. It is security-motivated.

That was addressed to Irie.

This is Buenos Aires
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=buenos+aires&ie=UTF8&ll=-34.611736,-58.417053&spn=0.149192,0.350189&t=h&z=12

This is Gaza at the same altitude
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=gaza&sll=-34.611736,-58.417053&sspn=0.149192,0.350189&ie=UTF8&ll=31.502751,34.420166&spn=0.154557,0.350189&t=h&z=12

Gaza is GREEN and YELLOW of expanses of land and sand. Buenos Aires is completely GRAY because of packed blocks of buildings.

Do you retract you ill-informed statement, TheIrie, or do you want another beating?

Apologies for diverting the thread, folks.

Fabian – no one is arguing re: Buenos Aires. But Gaza is still one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, and you are sounding very tiresome.

‘ My comment was a response to a suggestion that we drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza.’

Look, what I said was an exaggeration, but it was not a suggestion to nuke Gaza or Southern Lebanon. I was saying it would be better to do those things, to address the threats on Israel’s borders, than launch an attack on Iran that had a high probability of failure. I meant it was better to do something that had a high chance of success than do something with a low chance of success.

But I would not advocate doing those things unless Israel were in extreme danger, such as, as I said, an attack on Iran that had gone wrong in the worst possible way. Gregg disagrees with me, as he is entitled to do.

“Fabian – no one is arguing re: Buenos Aires. But Gaza is still one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, and you are sounding very tiresome.”

Compared to the Sahara desert, yes, it is more populated.

TheIrie, stop lying for a bit. You were talking out of your arse before, and now you want to cover your tracks.

The Gaza strip is not, and I repeat, is not, one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, compared with other similar urban places.

This thread is a prime example of why the Irie sucks.

Question to Fabian and Boogski:

I also had heard that the Strip is one of the densest places on earth. Now, however, based on your evidence I am also seeing this as yet another myth in the pro-Arab narrative of oppression. As you say, the Dan block as well as Buenos Aires and just about every metropolis on earth during rush hour is denser than the Gaza Strip. But what about Gaza City taken by itself? Is it possible that this is what the density claim actually alludes to?

This article (and I’m sure most HPers) only recognises one option – the nuclear one – but it fails to mention that Iran ramped up its nuclear programme after the Iraq War, for all the obvious reasons (yes boys, they probably did think they would be next). This was a perfectly rational (if undesirable) step. Given this defensive rationality, why should they then destroy themselves?

Firstly – a statement of fact: Iran did not “ramp up it’s nuclear program after the Iraq war” – all the systems for the making if fissionable material had been put in place before the Iraq war. These types of facilitites take decades of planning and building.

You’re misunderstanding is a very common one. But it’s important that you remember from now on that there’s no “cause and effect” relationship between the Iraq war and Iran’s nuclear program.

Secondly, and this is a matter for debate, I dont’ understand this argument of “rationality” you (and many others) apply to the Iranian regime’s decision making in this game of brinkmanship.

Even if Iran did only “ramp up” their nuke plans post Iraq (and let’s be clear – this is NOT the case) what rationality and legitimacy is there in this reaction? As opposed to Libya, who ended their nuke program and opened it up to International scrutiny – which exposed the A Q Khan blackmarket in nuke programs and his connections with the Iranian program?

I simply don’t understand why so many people bend over backwards to allow the Iranian regime off the hook on this issue. If the Iraq war shows that the US is a dangeorus imperial bully why on earth would they hesitate to attack IRan if Iran go them any reason.

And, let’s face it, the Iranian regime has given the US every reason to attack them. They supply weapons and money to insurgents in both Afghanistan and Iraq. They refuse every single diplomatic entreaty and economic package from the EU Three (Germany, France, UK).

And we haven’t even mentioned Israel – who are supposed to be pulling the US’s strings (according to many people most of whom are insane but some just misguded).

Do you see what I’m getting at? We hear so much fretting about US and Israeli brinkmanship – yet the Iranian regime is provocative to an almost insane level yet no one says a peep about it.

And this is what lies behind Benny Morris’s bleak view, I’m sure. Because if Iran can get away with such insane provocation while they’re still acquiring nukes, what will happen once they’ve acquired them?

And from this point of view it would be insanity for the Israeli Government NOT to take pre-emptive action. I mean if people just stopped for a moment and looked at the Iranian regime’s words AND actions towards Israel (wiping off the map/arming of Hesbollah) and added in the context of Israel warning action and Iran’s response of firing ballisitic missiles…

Rational?

Only from an irrational point of view.

Did you enjoy the song Shmuel?

Fabian, yeah, and black is white… and Gaza is not an urban place – you said yourself above it is rural and green. It should not be compared with cities, since it is not a city. and even if it is compared with cities, it would come out nearer to the top than the middle, hence, my statement is correct.

“It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike.”

Wait let me get this right, it’s NOT in Iran’s interest to be nuked??… Thanks for the clarification…

Zkharya,

listen, TheIrie does NOT have the character to admit when he’s wrong, even on basic facts, so why would he be able to, when it comes to complex issues, surrounding the Iranian theocracy’s plans?

he can’t.

ANYTHING that you say to TheIrie will be misconstrued, misread, misunderstood, and yet he will want you to be charitable whenever he makes a mistake or goes OTT

so stop, ignore him and let’s concentrate on the issues, not on TheIrie’s continued stupidity

Leon, that is easy to find out. Take a ruler on Google earth.
Gaza city measures, aprox, 6.5 km x 7.5 km = 48.75 sq km.
This core city has 410.000 inhabitants according to Wikipedia (the number of inhabitants for the Metro area includes the whole Gaza strip, a million and a half.)
Gaza city’s density then = 8.410 inhabitants per sq. km.

Buenos Aires city density: 14.000 by night, more than 70.000 every day.

Lets suppose that every single Gaza inhabitant goes to Gaza city every week day to work (which isn’t the case). You will have then 1.400.000 inhabitants in 48.75 sq. km = 28.717 inhabitants per sq. km. A third of what Buenos Aires has actually every week day.

So, again, Gaza is very rural and not very populated compared with other urban areas.

Leon – you have now raised the question of the population density within Gaza. Well, the hotspots are not Gaza city, but the refugee camps. See here:
http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/gaza.html

“For example, over 80,688 refugees live in Beach camp whose area is less than one square kilometer.” Now that, locally, is higher even that Buenos Aires. Can you imagine an area 30 by 30 m with 80,000 people living in! Not commuting into for 8 hours to sit at a desk, but living in.

Just for the record, I do not think launching an attack on Iran just for the excuse of addressing the problems of Hizbullah and Hamas if they decide to act on Iran’s behalf. I do not know if Morris harbours any such apocalyptic desires.

Now, if TheIrie wants to be exquisite, and compare with the density of a Palestinian Refugee camp, I know of at least four “villas miseria” (poor settlements) inside the city of Buenos Aires which are many times more dense, and much less sanitary than the UNRWA mantained Palestinian refugee camps.

Mod – I know you’re dying for my attention, and since we’re doing pedantry, perhaps you could explain why I was so foolish to interpret the sentence below from Zkharya as advocating dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza:

“In purely military and political terms it would be better to nuke Southern Lebanon and Gaza than embark on an attack on Iran that ended in disaster.”

He has since withdrawn this comment, and I’m not bothering him since he is ill. But, please, give me a break – my statement was not disingenuous or fabricated.

I knew it!!!

Modernity,

I was very rude to Irie, which is inexcusable but I don’t care. I guess I was shooting and weeping, but not very much.

“I know of at least four “villas miseria” (poor settlements) inside the city of Buenos Aires which are many times more dense, and much less sanitary than the UNRWA mantained Palestinian refugee camps.” Well that’s OK then. Other people are suffering elsewhere, so the suffering in Gaza doesn’t matter or count. Presumably I can’t describe any problems in Gaza as long as there is anywhere else on earth which is less than a paradise. Incidentally, would you like to provide some evidence of these settlements you claim house more that 80,000 people in an area 30 by 30 m?

This is one of Buenos Aires’ “villas miseria”
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=buenos+aires&ie=UTF8&ll=-34.654215,-58.396212&spn=0.00233,0.005472&t=h&z=18&iwloc=addr

It is more dense than a refugee camp.
This is another
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=buenos+aires&ie=UTF8&ll=-34.659669,-58.450162&spn=0.009319,0.021887&t=h&z=16&iwloc=addr
(compare with normal -for Buenos Aires – blocks of 100m x 100m on the right of the picture)

Here you can see two more (one on the left, one on the right)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=buenos+aires&ie=UTF8&ll=-34.67257,-58.47971&spn=0.018635,0.043774&t=h&z=15&iwloc=addr

If I had to choose, I would prefer an UNRWA Palestinian refugee camp without thinking it twice.

Leon- “Is it possible that this is what the density claim actually alludes to?”

Could very well be. But then as Fabian pointed out, there are probably several hundred equally dense or even more densely populated metro areas around the world.

“Well that’s OK then. Other people are suffering elsewhere, so the suffering in Gaza doesn’t matter or count”

Do you never run out of straw?

“In purely military and political terms it would be better to nuke Southern Lebanon and Gaza than embark on an attack on Iran that ended in disaster.”

How is that a suggestion? It is a comparison. It is not a suggestion. It is saying something is better than something else.

A suggestion would be ‘I suggest/rcommend etc nuking Southern Lebanon and Gaza’.

I think what you are alluding to is that it +suggest+ that, in certain situations, such a course of action might be acceptable, situations which I have subsequently clarified.

But to say I ’suggested +we+ drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza’ is, to say the least, a misrepresentation. You could say that you find it objectionable that I could ever conceive of a situation in which these things were acceptable. OK, fine. But that does not mean I ’suggested +we+ drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza’.

How could one calculate the density of this discussion?

Can I just point out that the average football pitch is about 7km2 (roughly 100m by 70m). We are talking about 80,000 people living in an area 1/7th the size of a football pitch. That sounds like fun, don’t you think Leon?

Fabian – I require evidence that any of these Villa Miserias have a population density of anything like 80,000 per km2. I think you are flatly wrong about this.

TheIrie: you brought the implicit comparison “the most densely populated are on the planet”. I just showed you that it is only bullshit. Later you claimed that it was one of the most populated countries, regions, urban areas, rural areas, then only the refugee camps… and every claim was bullshit.

Now don’t move the goalposts if you don’t even know how to kick the ball.

Can I just point out that I made an extremely embarrassing mathematical error above, and would like you to kindly ignore it while I cower in embarrasment. Of course, a football pitch has an area of 0.007 km2.

It’s not odd to see a Jewish author who does NOT know the reality of Iran and Iranians.

What’s the fact the Benny Morris is Jewish have to do with it?

Unlike him. I have many examples that shows how realist and pragmatist the Iranian politicians are.

Again – this is the interesting question.

The only way to interpret the Iranian regime’s rhetoric and actions over the last five years as “realist” and “pragmatic” is by judging that rhetoric and action against its possible consequences.

Now it’s possible, maybe probable, that the Iranian regime have judged that there’s nothing they can do short of open war that will provoke the US into a pre-emptive strike against them.

They know that, despite the absurd hysteria, the US and Israel are not warmongering racist imperial monsters – and are comfortable that they can ignore UN resolutions and economic sanctions long enough to get their nukes.

Meanwhile, they make threats, arm hezbollah, arm insurgents in IRaq and Afghanistan, hold international Holocaust denial conferences (with cartoon competitions!).

Don’t you ever ask yourself about any of this, Amir?

… and moreover that 1km2 is 1000m by 1000m not 30m by 30m. Probably looks slightly better if I point out my own mistakes. Still.

Thanks for the clarification Fabien.

And thanks for debunking this myth for me!

Those figures don’t sound right, Irie. So even if the entire camp were 8 stories tall, each “refugee” would have less than 1 square meter of living space?

Nevermind. :D

Yes, I messed up Boogski.

But my substantial point stands. I’ve not seen evidence from Fabian that these Villas Miseria’s are more densely populated than the Gaza refugee camps. Leon – how can you possibly think Fabian has debunked any myths? He has presented no evidence, just shown some aerial photos. You must have already made your mind up.

This is “Villa 31″ inside the city of Buenos Aires.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=buenos+aires&ie=UTF8&ll=-34.582362,-58.383257&spn=0.009328,0.021887&t=h&z=16&iwloc=addr

In 1995 it had 7.951 inhabitants.
http://www.naya.org.ar/congreso/ponencia2-11.htm

The houses are made of containers. Yes, those that ships carry.

It has 1.3 km x 0.20 km = 0.26 sq km

That makes a density of 30.580 inhabitants per sq.
In the year 1979 the same villa miseria had 25.852 inhabitants, that means, a density of 99.430 inabitants per sq. km. That means, more than the Palestinian refugee camp theIrie mentions horrified.
http://www.naya.org.ar/congreso/ponencia2-11.htm

However nowadays, because of the high value of the land in that area, many people were compensated and relocated outside the city of Buenos Aires, and fewer people are left. A process that was impeded in the case of the Palestinians by the refusal of the Arab countries and of the Palestinians themselves for new housing accomodations, paid by the International community. You see, as long as you remain in the camp, you receive UNRWA rations. If you try your fortune outside, you are not a refugee anymore.

It is a shame that you don’t speak Spanish TheIrie, because the info is in that language. It is a shame also that you don’t speak Hebrew or Arabic, you know, the languages of the region you pretend you know about.

You are welcome, Leon.

@Sina,

We welcome illiterate Antisemitic foreigners to Harrys Place because it reminds us of the sort of scum who need to be put down.

TheIrie:

No, like you I genuinely believed that Gaza was one the densest places on earth. This is the simple evidence that Fabian presented that convinced me:

“It is certainly very easy to see. the Gaza strip has an area of 360 sq km… It has a million and a half inhabitants. It is easy to find regions of 360 sq km with more than a millon and a half inhabitants.”

Compare this to Tim’s figures for the density of Chinese cities…

It’s obviously a myth.

You take out Iran’s nukes by also using special forces to help with targetting. You also kill all the scientists and technicians involved in the process. Not a savoury thought but necessary I’m afraid.

In fact, if you take out the technicians then the facilities are worthless.

Another, and the biggest, such Villa Miseria en Buenos Aires is called Ciudad Oculta (Hidden City). The name comes from the times of the dictatorship in Argentina, when the military governor of the city, I forgot his name, surrounded the whole shanty town with a wall, leaving only two or three exits, so people would not see the poverty inside.

Fabian – yes, some evidence. OK, in 1979, the situation in Villa 31 was somewhat worse. This doesn’t take away from the fact that the situation in the refugee camps in Gaza persists to this day. You have convinced me not to say that it is the number one most densely populated place. These are the facts:

- The refugee camps in Gaza are among the most densely populated areas on the planet.
- Gaza as a whole is one of the most densely populated regions on the planet, discounting large cities which are more densely populated.

That is the case. Leon, take note – and I repeat, you shouldn’t compare Gaza with cities, because it is a region of a country (or a potential country) not just an urban area within a country.

Let me give you what I think is the best of a bad scenario.

Hezbollah says it is still at war with Israel. Let Hezbollah attack Israel.

This time Israel doesn’t pussy-foot around and destroys Hezbollah with massive air-strikes.

Iran will retaliate because of Hezbollah with conventional weapons. This gives Israel the green light to attack Iran and no-one has a right to dictate to what scale.

This puts Israel in the moral high seat – although engaged in a war it predicts may happen anyway.

I am sure of one thing though. An Israel facing defeat will take the ME with it with nukes. For THIS reason teh West is forced to support Israel.

On the other hand we may just have front seats to the Armageddon that soothsayers have predicted.

Neither your substantial nor substantive point stands, Andrew. You confused one thousand square metres with one thousand metres squared.

Alec – I confused 1km2 with 1000 m2, and I fessed up immediately when I noticed.

Seems like it would be a whole lot easier if the Iranian government would simply cooperate with the International community. Sanctions lifted, everyone’s happy! I’d rather be trading with Iran than bombing them.

“This doesn’t take away from the fact that the situation in the refugee camps in Gaza persists to this day.”

I wonder who is responsible for that regulation that takes away the status of refugee to anyone who lives outside the camp and that it is responsible for the situation as it is today? Israel? Think again.

True, but Israel would be responsible if it dropped a bomb, nuclear or otherwise, on this area, which was my original point.

“The refugee camps in Gaza are among the most densely populated areas on the planet.”

They are certainly dense. Of the planet? I don’t know. Every country in Latin America has Villas Miseria which are more or less dense like a refugee camp (Brasil is even worse than Argentina in this respect – they call the Villas Miseria “Favelas” over there) But that wasn’t your original point, was it?

“- Gaza as a whole is one of the most densely populated regions on the planet, discounting large cities which are more densely populated. ”

And I am the fastest runner on the planet, discounting those that run faster than me.

“True, but Israel would be responsible if it dropped a bomb, nuclear or otherwise, on this area, which was my original point.”

Which area? The refugee camps or the big empty fields of the Gaza strip?

Is it possible to get back on topic? TheIrie’s hijacked the thread to avoid answering difficult questions about the Iranian regime’s actions – don’t let him do it!

Irie.
I never thought you could top the afternoon you spent trying to understand popular vote and turnout.
But I have to say

Can I just point out that the average football pitch is about 7km2 (roughly 100m by 70m). We are talking about 80,000 people living in an area 1/7th the size of a football pitch. That sounds like fun, don’t you think Leon?

That is quite remarkable.

Did it not strike you that it could only be true if everyone lived in lifts.
Standing up.
On each others heads.

“True, but Israel would be responsible if it dropped a bomb, nuclear or otherwise, on this area, which was my original point.”

Which area? The refugee camps or the big empty fields of the Gaza strip from where the Palestinian terrorists launch their murderous rockets?

You know, your assertion above stands alone, without the need for densities.
You needed to bring the myth of the high density in Gaza because it is a standard and rarely challenged trope of the Pro Arab propaganda department.

Fair enough Phomesy.
Is the Iranian regime, which is incapable of building an oil refinery, capable of building a nuclear weapon.

Tim wrote that the average life expectancy in Gaza is 73.
However, as the birth rate is 5 children per mother doesn’t that make the actual rate 18.6 years, which is far lower than Glasgow East.
Also there are two full sized football pitches in Glasgow, Parkhead and Ibrox which have a combined capacity of 120,000 without even using the pitches.

That last comment wasn’t me. I’m going out now to report in with my local Arab propaganda department.

Sorry, the above figure is wrong.

It should be 14.6.
Which means that there is none old enough to vote in Glasgow East.

Sorry Irie.They were me.
But you do ask for it.

I was about to comment that either that was a spoof or I or TheIrie don’t understand enough English.

There to watch the match, you berk. And what does the birth rate have to do with expectancy?
Fessing up makes no difference when you carry on making such barking mistakes.

Whoops.

“I’m going out now to report in with my local Arab propaganda department.”

The propaganda dept is on the twelfth floor.
Don’t get stuck in the lift lookig for a 0.012 button.

Well, if theIrie has an ounce of honesty, he will recognize here and now that he was wrong regarding the density(ies) of Gaza.

But I don’t hold my breath.

The whole myth arises from the fact that there are certainly very dense refugee camps. Later that was erroneously and consciously extended to Gaza city, and then to the whole Gaza strip, and suddenly, “the Gaza strip is the densest area on Earth” which is completely bullshit.

Now, when you debunk all this propaganda, you remain with the fact that, yes, the refugee camps are pretty dense.

But so are many poor areas around the globe. And none of them have an exclusive International Organization funded by the UN to provide for the inhabitants every need.

And when you dig a little deeper on history and the regulations, you will see that the refugee camps exist today not because of Israel, but because of the Palestinian leaderships and the Arab countries which forced the situation to freeze for sixty years.

What, for example, prevents the Hamas leadership today, absolute rulers of Gaza, from relocating the refugees of the Jabalia or Rafiah outside the camps, in pre-fabricated houses and demolish the whole sorry affair? Not Israel, certainly, and of course not lack of resources.

But no. They prefer to keep their population in the camps, with the promise of the destruction of Israel and their return… to where?

Beer Sheva was a miserly caravan post in 1948. Today is a big city, with buildings, parks, coffe shops, etc, many times larger than what it was in 1948. When the Palestinians say “Beer Sheva is ours”, it is the same as saying that they want the whole Paris when they only had the Ille de France.

Don’t worry, aint no Gazan “returning” to Israel in our lifetimes…

Don’t worry, aint no Gazan “returning” to Israel in our lifetimes…

Zkharya wrote:

“How is that a suggestion? It is a comparison. It is not a suggestion. It is saying something is better than something else.”

which proved my point, TheIrie deliberately misread your comments and put THE worst possibly connotation on them, that’s what he does.

look at it another way,

if someone can’t get simple facts right (density of Gaza,etc ) which is not too hard, then how would TheIrie be able to deal with complex issue that require a degree of thought and consideration?

he won’t, TheIrie can’t, mentally he’s not capable, he’s too literalistic, ill informed and entrenched in his views

so if he can’t work out simple things (and he’s a professional scientist, presumably with an advanced degree in either maths or physics, maybe both) then asking him to emphasise with the plight of Israelis is near impossible

it is a difficult situation which has arisen SOLELY because of the Iranian theoracy’s quest for nuclear weaponery, yet “anti-imperialists” like TheIrie just want to blame Israel, that’s what they do

it is their fixed mindset “if there’s a problem in the Middle East then the Israelis are to blame”, it doesn’t suppose that leaders in the region have choices and agency, no it is “blame Israel” all the way.

which is why discussing these issues with them is so hopeless.

The Iranians aren’t building nuclear weapons to launch them at Israel, it’s doing it to threaten the Arab states in the region. It’s rhetoric against Israel is merely cover. At least that’s what I hope…

“For example, over 80,688 refugees live in Beach camp whose area is less than one square kilometer.” Now that, locally, is higher even that Buenos Aires. Can you imagine an area 30 by 30 m with 80,000 people living in!

Yes, that’s 900 people per square metre.

I can imagine that, alright.

Only the Israelis could be responsible for such blatant inhumanity.

Anyway, I’m back from manoeuvres, and back on topic. I’m not blaming Israel yet. I’m saying that both sides are equally guilty of sabre rattling. If Israel launches a strike on Iran, I will blame Israel, and I will probably vacate London for the country side, and I will wish every Israeli, Iranian and Arab all the best, while I wait for the onset of WW3. WE DON’T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN, PEOPLE. COME ON NOW, SEE SENSE!!!

TheIrie reminds me strongly of the http://iraqwarwrong.blogspot.com/

But of course, that is a spoof, and TheIrie IS THE ORIGINAL! COME ONE PEOPLE!!!!

COME ONE PEOPLE could be my motto actually Fabulous. We are one. One love, you know, like my man Marley said:

Lets get together to fight this holy armagiddyon (one love!),
So when the man comes there will be no, no doom (one song!).
Have pity on those whose chances grows tinner;
There aint no hiding place from the father of creation.

Sayin: one love! what about the one heart? (one heart!)
What about the – ? lets get together and feel all right.
Im pleadin to mankind! (one love!);
Oh, lord! (one heart) wo-ooh!

“If Israel launches a strike on Iran, I will blame Israel”

it follows that:

“If Iran launches a strike on Israel, I will blame Iran”

Which really is the shallowest, most naive and meaningless analysis conceivable, n’est pas?

I would wager that Israel is less concerned about who the Irie “blames”, and more concerned about her own survival. Not sure what Iran is concerned about. If they stopped threatening Israel, Israel would be quite content to forget that Iran exists at all.

TheIrie, was this man Marley, who I don’t know, an important politician in your country? Did he have a great army and many enemies?

Shmuel – you may think it shallow and naive to blame the aggressor. I’d say its pretty darn sensible. And yes, if Iran attacked Israel, I’d blame them for starting it.

Of course we better watch out for false flag ops too, such as GW Bush suggested to Blair prior to invading Iraq (Bush suggested provoking Saddam to fire at planes which would have UN colours, according to a leaked memo), and like is almost suggested above by Maven (Let Hizbullah attack Israel, so Israel can respond properly – how exactly do you “let” this happen).

Fabulous – you haven’t heard of Bob Marley? That might explain a lot actually.

Bob Marley? No…

I don’t remember ever hearing about him. Did he rule in Britain before Chamberlain?
What was his stance on nuclear proliferation?

Mark T:

“Yes, that’s 900 people per square metre.
I can imagine that, alright.
Only the Israelis could be responsible for such blatant inhumanity.”

Except that The Irie got his numbers completely wrong. Obviously 900 people per square meter is physically impossible unless you live in New York City.

ps: Only the Israelis could be so inhuman? Do you realize how blatantly anti-Semitic that is?

Wasn’t he the guy who voted against the Trident missiles?

Leon, Mark T was certainly with tongue in cheek.

“..you may think it shallow and naive to blame the aggressor. I’d say its pretty darn sensible.”

If the butcher attacks the cow, I will blame butcher

If the cow attacks the butcher, I will blame cow

Sounds pretty sensible.

Fabian,

with a lot of the English (and I use that term with care), as long as Nuclear Proliferation happens 2700+ miles away they don’t really care, it ain’t them that will be bombed, sure they wring their hands and have painful look on their faces, but it ain’t their problem

so why would they really care 1) to understand the issue 2) to see the implications 3) be troubled to do something about it – they won’t

it is much easier for them to blame the pantomime villain: Israel, whatever happens

Asharq Alawsat columnist Amer Taheri writes today (7/11) that competing international agendas and “twisted threads” always bring us “back to square one” with Iran. He warns that Iran is “not like other countries”, and that a stalemate with the U.N. will not only gain Ahmedinejad re-election to the Presidency in 2009, but perhaps expanded levers of influence. The danger, he says, is compounded by the fact that so many senior clerics in the Supreme Leader’s circle are elderly and/or tainted with charges of corruption. Ultimately, Taheri writes, one of two things will happen: Either the world will accustom itself to the idea of a nuclear Iran—and we’ll see what happens next—or Iran, subject to increasing pressure, will decide to change its strategy. Worst case scenario: the “Khameneiites,” many of whom are off pampering themselves on European vacations, find themselves eclipsed by fanatic, Mahdi-chasing “Khomeniites” (partisans of Ayatollah Khomeini), many of whom believe they they can take over the world.

Is the path forward as murky and dire as all that? While many are quick to write off sanctions as ineffective, looked at from the perspective of the long term the record is more encouraging. The case of Libya is interesting, as for years, pundits were pointing to the Jamahiriyya as a case that sanctions don’t work. Only the threat of imminent force, or so the argument went, succeeded in causing a policy volte-face. A number of Libya observers have argued the contrary: Sanctions drove Libya to sue for an ‘arrangement’ as far back as the Clinton years. In a similar way, prolonged economic isolation, compounded by further signs that Iran is facing a bleak future (see reports on Total’s decision to withdraw from Iranian LNG commitments) has got to be creating a sense of foreboding within the ranks of the less ideological “conservatives.”

This week’s news of missiles and machinations doesn’t appear to change things. With regards Iran’s recent missile tests, the Shehab-3 has proven highly unreliable in the past, and Iran appears to have ‘photoshopped’ an additional meteor into the pictures they broadcast. An attack would more likely galvanize the Iranian public firmly behind Ahmedinejad and the Pasdaran, not the opposite. In contrast to twisted threads, the pursuit of broad-based, legal sanctions, in combination with further attempts to reach a comprehensive deal, would seem to offer a reasonable and clear course forward.

http://forums.csis.org/iran/

Khomeinist will eventually prevail and Khamenie et al will be ousted in the next 10 years. That is the long-term plan of Hojatieh/Khomeinists cult.

I wouldn’t go as far as saying he was a famed historian, his methods and idology are unusual for a historian, to say the least. Here is a ‘Fisking’

http://www.meforum.org/article_print.php?id=466&v=1151946121

When I saw 200-plus comments I thought who are all these people, then I realised it was the same dozen!

In response to the person who argued religious nuts are not as bad as atheistic bolsheviks, well I would respond the Bolshies and Nazis certainly had a religous faith in their atheist creed and were prepared to slaughter millions in pursuit of their heaven here on earth, so I would stand by my analogy.

Bloo,

You could try replying to the response I gave to you.

If the butcher attacks the cow, I will blame the butcher

If the cow attacks the butcher, I will blame the cow

Sounds pretty sensible.

Until you remember that Butcher’s attack cows every day and they alway’s win.

Phomesy, well I’m no Hans Blix. Here’s a timeline of the Iranian programme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_program_of_Iran

I used the phrase “ramp up” because in my judgment they did, but no one really knows. However, what conclusion would you have made were you placed in the “Axis of Evil” and your next door neighbour invaded? Certainly one to make was: nuclear powers don’t get invaded. Quite an incentive to press ahead, I would have thought.

Iranian provocation has mostly come in the drawn-out aftermath of the Iraq invasion, as it has become clear that the only people who benefited from the Iraq invasion was Iran, whom by this time the US was certainly in no position to roll over, as I recall was an oft-expressed sentiment in those pre-cock-up HP days when all us nay sayers were being lambasted for our lack of muscle.

I’m no Irie. I detest Islamists as much as the next person and have no objection to the military option where appropriate. I was opposed to Iraq because I have seen war and know it doesn’t go to plan. It should therefore be the very last option, as it plainly wasn’t in Iraq’s case. As for Iran, before talking ourselves up to nuclear war, all I am saying is that we should be wary of mistaking the posturing of politicians for their intentions. Provide Israel with a missile shield for example, and assure the destruction of her nuclear-armed enemies before their warheads are barely out of their silos, and much of this talking becomes merely bravado.

Just to return to population density for a moment, Stephen Pollard wrote this in the Spectator back in April

“There’s a useful corrective here to the lie that Gaza is the most crowded place on Earth:

The UK politician George Galloway wrote in The Glasgow Record last month that the Gaza Strip is “the most densely populated piece of earth on the planet.” Galloway wrote that 1.5 million Palestinians live there.

Daoud Kuttab, a Palestinian journalist currently teaching at Princeton, wrote March 26 that Gaza is “one of the most densely populated places on earth, with 3,823 people per square kilometre.” Kuttab’s figure is in line with recent Gaza population estimates of 1.4 million.

If Galloway’s estimate of 1.5 million Gaza population is correct, this is almost 4,200 people per square kilometer. The Central Intelligence Agency projects that the Gaza population will reach 1,537,269 in July. This would bring the density to 4,270 people per square kilometer.

But this isn’t even as crowded as Tel Aviv. Gaza had plenty of problems. But they are nothing – nothing – to do with population density:

Both Singapore and Hong Kong have more than 6,000 people per square kilometer. Tel Aviv has more than 7,000 people per square kilometer. If you count the suburbs of Tel Aviv, the metropolitan area with its population of 2.3 million has a density of more than 5,000 people per square kilometer, which is considerably more crowded than the Gaza Strip as reckoned by Galloway or Kuttab or the CIA.

Selected estimates of population density:

Mumbai
27,209 people/sq km
http://www.mcgm.gov.in/

Kolkata
24,000 people/sq km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata

Tel Aviv
7,445 people/sq km
(385,000 people, 51.8 sq km)

Hong Kong
6,352 people/sq km
http://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/population.pdf

Singapore
6,252 people/sq km
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/keyind.html

London
5,100 people/sq km

Tel Aviv metro area including suburbs
5,050 people/sq km
(2.3 million people, 453 sq km)

Moscow
4,900 people/sq km

Tokyo/Yokahama
4,750 people/sq km

Warsaw
4,300 people/sq km

Gaza Strip per CIA projection
4,270 people/sq km
(1,537,269 population July 2008, 360 sq km)

Gaza Strip per George Galloway
4,167 people/sq km
(1.5 million people, 360 sq km)

Gaza Strip per Daoud Kuttab
3,822 people/sq km

The numbers for London, Tel Aviv metro area, Moscow, Tokyo/Yokohama and Warsaw are from the City Mayors site.
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

Well as the democracies around the world neglect their duty and fail to provide common security, it is inevitable that Israel alone will attempt to wipe out this threat to its existence.

As the article says, let’s hope they can stop Iran with a conventional attack. However, I do fear two possibilities: (a) that Iran already has a bomb courtesy of North Korea. (b) it has substantial chemical and biological warheads which it will use against Israel and possibility targets in the West.

“Provide Israel with a missile shield for example, and assure the destruction of her nuclear-armed enemies before their warheads are barely out of their silos, and much of this talking becomes merely bravado.”

Until Russia provides MIRV (multiple atomic heads) to Iran, or Iran develops them alone. But then Iran will already have atomic weapons, and you won’t be able to oppose the deal.

“[War] should therefore be the very last option…”

No, when war is unavoidable, it should be pursued at a time of one’s choosing. The decision to go to war should not be taken lightly, but when war is the last option, it may be too late.

It’s worth noting that the first pre-emptive attack on a nuclear reactor in the Mideast was carried out by Iran, not by Israel. The Iranian air force attacked the Iraqi Osirak reactor in September 1980. The air raid was a failure and of course the IAF took out the reactor the next year.

The more I think about it the more I think the West and Israel should call Iran’s bluff i.e. let it develop nuclear weapons and not offer it any deals or concessions. What’s Iran going to do when it has the bomb? It can’t nuke Israel because Israel will just nuke it back (along with Damascus and Mecca).

genocide

• noun the deliberate killing of a very large number of people from a particular ethnic group or nation.

“Greg wrote:

The more I think about it the more I think the West and Israel should call Iran’s bluff i.e. let it develop nuclear weapons and not offer it any deals or concessions. What’s Iran going to do when it has the bomb? It can’t nuke Israel because Israel will just nuke it back (along with Damascus and Mecca).”

What a stupid, stupid post.

Clearly Greg knows nothing at all about Shia theology or geopolitical reality.

Well:

1. The Shia faith of Iran essentially welcomes the “end time”. Nuclear amargeddon is very much in line with how they see things developing.
So, sorry, they are NOT going to be concerned about a major nuclear war.

2. Israel is teeny-weeny. I think about 70 miles across. Nothing. A sliver of territory. Iran is huge in comparison. Iran can survive an NCB exchange. Israel cannot.

3. The idea that Iran would be weeping buckets at the destruction of Mecca and Damascus is ridiculous. Mecca is seen as a kidnapped bride – falsely imprisoned by the Wahaabi Sunnis. If it is destroyed by Israel that just shows the Saudis are useless at protecting the central shrine of Islam and it hastens the appearance of the Mahdi, the hidden Imam.
Damascus is rival power base. If Tehran is going to be obliterated, then the Iranians will be quite happy to see Damascus go up in smoke too.

El Baradei, on Al Jazeera a couple of weeks ago, said, to my amazement, that Iran could have its first nuclear weapon within a year, if i heard him correctly.
Put me in the ‘ never avoid a war through appeasement, you only raise the number of casualties ‘.
Israel faces a brutal decision.
What amazes me is that the arab palestinians are so sublimely unaware of the danger that they are in, given any decision by iran to destroy israel with nuclear devices, and continue to stoke the fire that may well utterly destroy them.

What’s Iran going to do when it has the bomb?

Of and at their choosing, they can provide Iranian trained and advised transnational sub-state militias and terrorist networks with a nuclear backed green light to initiate ‘resistance’ operations against civilian non-belligerents, against non-belligerent state and UNIFIL military personnel, against rival terror networks and militias, while conducting this ‘resistance’ in a manner that disregards with utter impunity the safety and lives of both enemy and local non-belligerent civilians.

TheIrie: I’m not blaming Israel yet. I’m saying that both sides are equally guilty of sabre rattling.

Typical of a committed Jew-hater. Both sides! Iran funds terror groups to strike Israel and Jews, worldwide; Iran delivers a many-decade-long barrage of verbal attacks on Israel, calling for its destruction, but in TheIrie’s eyes and those of like-minded Jew haters, both sides are equally to blame for sabre rattling. Right.

While, Modernity, I take your substantial point about Gaza’z being less densely populated than conventional wisdom, ‘dropping a nuclear bomb’ om Gaza would result in enormous civilian casualties.

I was not recommending ‘dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza’. I was saying that in a disastrous situation, such as losing most of her airforce and under concerted conventional (or non-conventional) attack, likely rocket barrages from Hizbullah, Hamas and Iran, and her conventional forces overstretched, Israel might use nuclear devices on southern Lebanon and Gaza. In the case of Gaza, to avoid southern Israeli casualties, they would probably be airbursts, out to sea, whose radiation burst was calculated to reach the area of rocket launching. It would also be intended against Hamas command and control which would probably be more central. In the process, there would be vast numbers of civilian deaths.

It would be unlikely to be dropped from an aircraft, unless from at great height, at great speed; more probably a cruise missile.

As to whether this is a moral thing to do, with all due respect: Great Britain resorted to mass aerial bombing, the US to weapons of mass destruction, when they were both less imperilled than Israel would be in such a situation.

BTW, thanks for the firefox help, Boogski and Modernity.

I can just about remember there being much talk about George Bush and his born-again, end-time cravings, so again I would caution commentators to try and chill a little vis Shia theology. There’s really little difference between that and your born again fundi yearning for the “rapture”.

Providing Israel is given NATO-style security guarantees I see no reason why Iran would nuke it – it would be the first nation to ever deliberately cut its own throat. To suggest that they would happily send their nation to the grave – or it would be allowed by all the internal powers that be – actually dehumanises them, the first step, if I recall, in a very worrying psychological process…

I do not think Israel should ever depend on Nato. in the end, whether Europe decides to defend Israel is a political decision, and subject to political winds.

As I said before, it is more important to address Hizbullah and Hamas, though how one would address Hizbullah’s underground systems without tactical nuclear weapons escapes me.

Having said that, this article in Haaretz:

Ahmadinejad’s deputy: Iran is a friend of the U.S. and Israel

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1003466.html

In Europe and America, there’s a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Krushchev said we will bury you
I don’t subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too

Maybe it should begin “In Harry’s Place…”? ;-)

Zkharya:

“As I said before, it is more important to address Hizbullah and Hamas, though how one would address Hizbullah’s underground systems without tactical nuclear weapons escapes me.”

Massive air assaults using thermobaric missiles, combined with a ground invasion, the evacuation of all villages south of the Litani and the reoccupation of strategic heights. Unlike the 2006 war, the gloves will really have to come off this time since no doubt Hezbollah will respond with even more devastating rockets and the whole of northern Israel will come under fire.

Bloo: the Iranians – especially the Iranian regime – love their children so much that they send them to clean minefields with their bodies and a plastic key to paradise.

I don’t think it is the same kind of love the Russians have for their children. I know Russians.

Resistor: I do have some friends. If you check my facebook listing over at Jewcy,

http://www.jewcy.com/user/1930

you can see that I have at least two. So there!

Check out this bilge about “house Negro Muslims”

http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4819/103/

“the Iranians – especially the Iranian regime – love their children so much that they send them to clean minefields with their bodies and a plastic key to paradise.” This really is part of the problem. People like my friend Fabulous Fabian, literally think that the Iranians are sub-human animals who don’t even care about their children. Hence, we can have a rational discussion about dropping a nuclear bomb on them. Once again, I appeal to you Fabian, with the use of song lyrics, this time from Sting:

“In Europe and America, there’s a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Krushchev said we will bury you
I don’t subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too”

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/sting/russians.html

Bombing Iran would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Iranians love their children too

That is really what this whole thing comes down to.

What about the children in the minefields, TheIrie?

Is this man Sting also a great strategist in your country, TheIrie?

Leon,

‘Massive air assaults using thermobaric missiles, combined with a ground invasion, the evacuation of all villages south of the Litani and the reoccupation of strategic heights. Unlike the 2006 war, the gloves will really have to come off this time since no doubt Hezbollah will respond with even more devastating rockets and the whole of northern Israel will come under fire.’

Inerrant intelligence as to the location of every bunker would be needed for mere conventional kinetic penetration warheads. Only nukes could destroy whole networks. A massive reoccupation of southern Lebanon? How long for? Until Hizbullah came when Israel leaves? Or do you mean staying long enough to discover the networks and caches? But Hizbullah now rules most of Lebanon, they could withdraw the caches, if they have not already done so to beyond the Litani.

You may be right, Leon. I know Ashkenazi is ordering the IDF train for urban warfare

Irie,

that is a great song.

Fabian – you would do well to listen less to generals and military strategists, and more to singers and songs. You need to get out of this mindset that says the only way for Israel to survive is by attacking everyone who won’t say uncle in a 500 mile radius.

Irie.
A song tip.
“We all live in a yellow submarine” is not a comentary on the crowded nature of Gaza.

What is it about then?

A yellow submarine.

Damn it.

“Fabian – you would do well to listen less to generals and military strategists, and more to singers and songs.”

Good advice when I am on the mood for some music.

But when I think of Iran having atomic weapons I prefer to listen to someone who has researched the subject, not written a song.

In any case, it is good that you can go to the countryside when there is some risk. We don’t have such a big countryside here. And most of my neighbors will be called to defend their country when there is risk, not much chance of running like a rat.

Well it would firstly be ridiculous for me to pretend I am at anything like the risk that you are at. It would be ridiculous for you to pretend to be at anything like the risk the Iranian people are at. But we are all in some finite amount of risk. However, I am trying to avert this unnecessary disaster from happening, whilst you are willing it on. I hope you will be able to look your children in the eye and tell them it is the right thing to do if and when Israel launch missiles against Iran. And when Iran responds with missiles aimed at Tel-Aviv, as it has promised to do, (note the word responds), I sincerely hope you and yours are not hurt.

“However, I am trying to avert this unnecessary disaster from happening, whilst you are willing it on.”

You are writing nonsense in an English blog. You are not trying to avert anything, who do you think you are?

Are you an undercover commando training to take out Ahmadinejad? Are you writing from Teheran, you big idiot?

Fabian,

forget it. All you will get in response is imperious English patronizing.

I mean, as it Israelis neither listen to nor composed songs.

as IF Israelis neither listen to nor composE songs.

I’ve got to start using that firefox I downloaded, but it keeps blocking stuff and taking much longer to surf than internet explorer.

Sting’s son went to my son, btw. Yeah, things look a bit different from Hampstead, NW3.

Fabian:
Bob Marley? No… I don’t remember ever hearing about him.

I pity you.

Greg:
The more I think about it the more I think the West and Israel should call Iran’s bluff i.e. let it develop nuclear weapons and not offer it any deals or concessions. What’s Iran going to do when it has the bomb? It can’t nuke Israel because Israel will just nuke it back (along with Damascus and Mecca).

And you don’t think that a coterie of genuinely insane zealots would be willing to do it anyway, that they’d be swayed by potential retaliation? The only potential positive outcome of Iran developing the bomb would be that the genuine and high risk that the country’s rulers would actually be willing to use it, pre-emptively, for the holy terror of it, and the certain threat of retaliation, might spur the people into revolution, into strangeling their tyrants with the entrails of their priests and being done with it.

Zkharya,

I would not dream of suggesting that you’d recommended such a course of action, you’re not the type of person that takes pleasure in the death of others, and I did not read it that way.

but speculating on these matters is unhealthy and unhelpful, and will be misread and twisted by the anti-Jewish racists (always will be think the worse of Jews) and morons like TheIrie.

best not dwell on mass murder, nothing is inevitable.

PS: no problem, an alternative method is to download abiword (a free word processor), type and spell check within it and then cut n paste to the browser. Best avoid using IE at all costs, its crap and easy to pick up malware when using it. see http://www.abisource.com/

PPS: just enable the pop ups one by one (per site), best use it, in the long run it is more secure. take the time to get use to it and it’ll pay off.

Even if TheIrie were to sing in person -and in Persian- the song “Russians” to Ahmadinejad’s ear, purring like Marylin Monroe, he would still not be averting anything.
What a phony!

Alcuin

“The Mullahs, their hotheads and their Republican Guard (and idiots like Sina) want this conflagration.”

Iran hasnt started a war in 200 years -Israel started one 2 years ago the US 5 years ago

“The only event that will stop this madness is the death of Islam, and that will take gnerations. Interesting times we live in.”

LOL

Its Israel and the US starting wars in the ME- either Israel and Iran should both have nuclear weapons or neither should. Given that Israel has nukes, and the US which has attacked its two nearest neighbours in the last few years , constantly threatens it Iran has every right to acquire nukes.

BTW, I consider Reagge to be unsuferable music.
You could torture me by playing to me Bob Marley and UB40 for an hour.

The Irie you hit the nail on the head- posters like Fabian simply dont consider Iranians/Arabs as human beings. That is the Israeli mindset.

They will bring up Iranian tactics in a defensive war 20 years while lauding crazed Jewish settlers who move their children to war zones from safe places thus putting their lives in danger.

Israel is an absurd nation – a fourth reich -it demands to exist in a region whilst having genocidal hatred and contempt for the people its shares the region with

Fabian,

TheIrie hasn’t understood that unless people take the Israelis concerns to heart and listen to them, then things may only get worse, so it is a shame that TheIrie and friends didn’t do this before and they’ve been consistently dismissive of evidence of the Iranian President’s racist outbursts in the past few years?

but it is interesting to note, how many “anti-imperialists”, who years ago would have been against ALL nukes, now seem to accept that Iran is going for nuclear weaponry and they actually welcome it ? how times change?

Indeed, Mod.
Iranian nukes are good, “defensive” nukes. Khamenei is rational. Ahamadinejad is misunderstood. Children in minefields never happened or was “over 20 years ago” (but arranged by the same mad theocratic regime that is in power now).

Andrew has not said a word about the children in minefields.

“Children in minefields” are just “Iranian tactics” to the racist commenter “me”.

The racist commenter “me” has not learn that if your call children in minefields “Iranian tactics” you will be accused of Islamophobia or Iranophobia, just like when you said “Muslim terrorism”.

He hasn’t even studied his own propaganda manuals.

I heard on the news this morning that the Iranian government has thumbed its nose (yet again) at the International community concerning uranium enrichment. More sanctions forthcoming.

Man, talk about gluttons for punishment…

Fabian from Israel still not sure how what happened 20 years ago justifies Israel immolating Iranian, Lebanese and Palestinian children today

You claim nuclear armed Israel has a right to attack non-nuclear Iran because of Ahmedinajads words- but dont think Iran has the right
1) to respond to any Israeli attack
2) to respond to Israel threats (Shaul Mofaz) to attack it

This is reality only in a zionazi bubble

modernity

“but it is interesting to note, how many “anti-imperialists”, who years ago would have been against ALL nukes, now seem to accept that Iran is going for nuclear weaponry and they actually welcome it ? how times change?”

as long as some powerful agressive nations like the US and Israel hang on to nukes the countries they threaten have a right to also have nukes. Its called equality.

Boogski

“I heard on the news this morning that the Iranian government has thumbed its nose (yet again) at the International community concerning uranium enrichment. More sanctions forthcoming.

Man, talk about gluttons for punishment…”

That would be the same group of countries who themselves have nuclar weapons.

The “International community” ? oh you mean the US?

“However, I am trying to avert this unnecessary disaster from happening”

That made me laugh out loud.

That would be the same group of countries who themselves have nuclar weapons.

The “International community” ? oh you mean the US?

Nope. The UNSC. Some members have nukes, some don’t.

Fabian:
BTW, I consider Reagge to be unsuferable music.

I pity you even more now, for both your stunted musical taste and for your inability to grapple with the “insufferable”.

You could torture me by playing to me Bob Marley and UB40 for an hour.

Really?

::adds new info to Fabian’s file::

so that’s it, when it comes down to the issues “me” and many of the other “anti-imperialists” really ain’t against nuclear weaponry

in fact following their attitude to the Iranian leadership quest for nukes, then these same people are really FOR nuclear proliferation, nukes for everyone?

why stop with Iran? why not give nuclear missiles to Sudan? for the sake of “equality” ? why not let Malawi** develop nuclear weapons too? that’s “equality” ?

and if more nukes means more chance of using them, then “me” and those “anti-imperialists” will just shrug their shoulders and blame the Jews?

that’s the essence of this attitude “Guns not Butter”

**Maliwi is one of the poorest countries in the world, and any monies spent on expensive nuclear weaponry effectively means less money to spend on health, social project, care of the elderly and greater poverty

Reggae music isn’t my cup of tea either but there’s no denying Marley’s influence. I bought one of his albums back in the day just out of curiosity. It didn’t melt my butter. I can see why it would be appealing to the Utopian types, though. Peace on Earth and pass the bong! :D

That’s a very good point, Modernity. What the “anti-Imperialists” fail to realize is that the “imperialists” have been working to reduce and eliminate their own nuclear weapons for several decades! Anyone remember SALT I and SALT II?

as long as some powerful agressive nations like the US and Israel hang on to nukes the countries they threaten have a right to also have nukes. Its called equality.

No it isn’t.

It’s called proliferation.

And were failed states such as Iran ever to acquire nucelar weapons they would no doubt distribute a few to friends and fellow travellers were they ever in need of a quick infusion of cash.

What amazes me is the fact there’s no sustained and aggressive campaign forcing Pakistan to hand over it’s weapons.

Pakistan is a pathetic, failed state, as well, and were such august figures as the 12th century tribal elders of Waziristan ever to gain power in the country, it would become absolutely essential to engage in pre-emptive strikes.

These countries and their elites are, in the end, mere children in adult bodies, and as such should not be permitted to play with nuclear matches.

Lets face it chaps.

The post-war period of relitive peace, security and prosperity, provided by the US, is coming to an end.

Under the US umbrella of security, and hanging onto the US’s incredible economic coat tails, Europe has enjoyed 70 years of peace and money.

Now Russia and China are on the march, Islamism is rising around the world, and the Europeans are weak, their economies failing and their military unimpressive.

The only strong country with any clout in Europe was Britian, but its military has been stretched to breaking point. It is under-funded, and its equipment is fallying apart. It can barely operate two small wars.

The UK economy is on its knees, as Labour have borrowed far beyond their means. And by following the French style of tax and spend, its ability to create wealth is dying.

In the future, China and Russia, along with various Islamist war Lords, will be deciding things.

Those who spent the last decades hating America, will look back on the good ol’ days of George W, when they realise what real evil is.

As for Israel, I really don’t know how much longer it can hold on.

I personally think that getting rid of Israel may be a disaster for the various dictators of the region, who may find that – with no enemy around – their own power deflates.

On the other hand, Galloway and his various Islamist friends, and those at the BBC who have been campaigning for Israel’s destruction for so many years, will be in their element.

Actually it was me who brought up the dehumanising of the Iranians by compring the crazy beliefs of the Iranian Pres with the American one and thereby presming the Iranians would go whacko when they, indeed, love their children as much as the Russians, in the wise words of Gordon Sumner, aka Sting.

Shame the old people who agree with me here think Israel is a “fourth reich” but never mind… On Fabien’s point about children in minefields, I’m afraid it is rather part of the same vein – the Iranians were on the verge of being destroyed by the (US-backed) Iraqi regime and sending their troops, many who indeed would count as children, unarmed in to battle, yet this was little different to the desperate acts of the Soviets at Stalingrad, for example.

Few countries have clean hands and many countries have sacrificed their sone seemingly wastefully – look at the First World War. I am not complacent, I am not arguing that Iran would not use nukes if it had them, simply that it would be unlikely to use them if doing so would assure its destruction.

Sounds like a sensible solution to me – why resist it (except for the pleasure of endlessly arguing the toss ;-))

“Sounds like a sensible solution to me”

But what is the solution? You didn’t mention it.

I was away, so am in on the tail end, it seems. TT seems to have a pretty good take on the situation “en grosso mondo” as it were.
Israel really could be the “Sampson pulling down the Temple” here
as if they truly feel they are facing extinction, they will feel that they have nothing to lose.

I am 100% against Iran getting nuclear weapons. I believe that the way to avert this is diplomacy, trade and reform in Iran, which can and will come from within. Any attack on Iran will elicit a response – we know that much. The problem is not that hard to get around.

Now, perhaps Modernity can tell us his position on US, UK and Israel nuclear weapons?

I would like to explain my view on nuclear weapons, nuclear power station, the whole shooting match, but TheIrie could find it by using google, but as he’s not very technically capable:

As I have stated several times before, my view on Israel having nukes:

[take a deep breath, TheIrie, get your writing pad out]

I am against them, against!!!!

got that????AGAINST, a-g-a-i-n-s-t!

did you get it?

I am opposed to nuclear weapons, NO matter who has them.

[and write it down, that way you won't have to ask again]

and I am even MORE against more people getting hold of those nasty, foul weapons, is that clear enough?

Then we agree. No need for hysterics. I think you’ll find the “anti-Imperialist” left you so hate also agrees with you on this, whilst the decent left you seem to love, rather disagrees with you, if people like Kamm are anything to go by.

Bloo: “the Iranians were on the verge of being destroyed by the (US-backed) Iraqi regime”

Why do you single out the US, Bloo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq

And besides, the Iranians were the bigger of two cunts at the time. They had recently seized a US embassy (act of war).

TheIrie wrote:

“I think you’ll find the “anti-Imperialist” left you so hate also agrees with you on this,”

er, NO

and had you done ANY research, you’d know that, but you’re too lazy.

eg. the CND is happy to accept Iran having nuclear power, and can’t see why enrichment is an issue?

hint: you don’t need sophisticated enrichment techniques for domestic nuclear production, shame that the CND after over 4 decades of studying this issue hasn’t worked that one out.

so the CND is opposed to nuclear power in the UK, but not in “anti-imperialist” countries, funny that?

Bloo – God you come out with some cr*p.

This is isn’t about who loves their children more. But if it were I would point that different societies at different times have had different attitudes to the parent-child bond. The Kibbutz movement in Israel for instance sought to make it less central to life. The Ottoman Empire removed children from Christian families and raised them separately. Nazi Germany separated children from their families and murdered them, as did the Aztecs.

In fact you shoot your own argument in the foot, since you refer to what happened in the first world war. Parents in the UK did willingly send their children to the slaughter of the trenches, for King, country and Empire. Would they do so now? Of course not. Times have changed. Our culture has changed.

It is perfectly reasonable to say that the Iranian government composed of religious fanatics wedded to Jihadism and Shia victimhood might well feel more willing than we – living in something approaching a democracy with a free media – are to risk our children’s lives in a confrontation.

End of story.

Fabian is so full of shit for comparing refugee camps with shanty towns that litter the continent. Jesus wow, and I have seen plenty first hand. Aside from crime in certain areas these people actually CHOOSE to live there, shocking but true.

I always knew that Israel did not have the conventional capability to stop Iran, and I did laugh my ass off at all of you and your ignorant military ideas but I will rebutt the most idiotic.

Dropping leaflets: The day that the IDF would sacrifice +/- half its task force (which is what would happen if they penetrate Iranian airspace) to drop leaflets it will be the day I believe they are not evil pos. Obviously they will never do this.

Nuking the sea to get to Gaza: What a fucking moron, even beyond the fact that he gives Israel the neutron bomb, his reasoning on how this spares Israelis was too fucking much.

As for the incipid debate re: density, a siamise twin is the most dense area (regardless of area size) on earth period, Gaza OTOH is among the densest de facto autonomous regions in the world. Baires is not an autonomous region.

TheIrie,

please do ask your “anti-imperialists” ‘buddies’, like Flanker, “me” and Sina about their views on domestic nuclear power, the spread of nuclear weaponry and the problems created?

or maybe you wouldn’t like to hear their psychotic reaction?

Flanker:

“Fabian is so full of shit for comparing refugee camps with shanty towns that litter the continent. Jesus wow, and I have seen plenty first hand. Aside from crime in certain areas these people actually CHOOSE to live there, shocking but true.”

Nobody chooses to live in a shanty town. People are born there and forced to live there by economic and social circumstance. Go visit a barrio in S. America or slum in India and ask anyone you meet if they “chose” to live there. If they “chose” to live in such poverty and filth.

“Gaza OTOH is among the densest de facto autonomous regions in the world”

Since there are relatively few such “de facto autonomous regions in the world”, the claim of density becomes dubious at best. Lazy thinking. The fact is that Gaza is routinely referred to as one of the densest places on earth. And, as Fabian helpfully pointed out, this is a media myth.

When the Mullahcracy gets nuclear weapons there will be even less hope for reform within Iran, not more, as the one who almost never fails to showcase his bankrupt logic proffers. As far as diplomacy goes, the nuclear weaponization of the Mullahcracy will assure Islamist insurgents, sub-state militias and terror networks support – with the aim of toppling – any Arab/Muslim government in the region perceived to be pro-Western (Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, the Kingdom of SA). As far as trade goes, the price of oil will skyrocket at the Mullahcracy’s behest and the KSA won’t dare risk upsetting a nuclear weaponized Mullahcracy by attempting to control the price of a barrel.

Were states serious about isolating the Mullahcracy economically and diplomatically before it manages to weaponize nuclear warheads there would be a far greater chance for non-Yazdi-millenarian politicians to be elected who might actually back off the nuclear weaponization and uranium enrichment programs.

‘even beyond the fact that he gives Israel the neutron bomb’

Why do you suppose Israel has no neutron bombs, Flanker?

And I was not talking of ‘nuking the sea’, I was talking of detonating a weapon out to sea, so most of the radiation burst is directed seawards, while some is directed into Gaza. Neutron weapons have ’short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect’, so it is conceivable it would only kill Gazans, but leave the inhabitants of Sderot unaffected.

Such a weapon would be of a last resort, intended to kill Hamas rocket launchers and their human infrastructure, as well as their command and control. It would also kill countless civilians.

However, as Gregg observed, such a use would be problematic, since latent radiation poisoning could mean the survival of irradiated persons for days or even weeks.

I hasten to add, I would only conceive of such a use in the most extreme circumstances, such as those I outlined above: a failed attack on Iran, the loss of most of the Israeli airforce, a combined conventional (or non-conventional) barrage from Hizbullah, Iran and Hamas, with Israeli conventional forces overstretched.

That is one of the reasons why I am not in favour of an attack on Iranian facilities, at least not until success is all but guaranteed, which is not yet, as far as I know. Which is, admittedly, not much.

But. Flanker, I am sure the IDF has thought the matter through far more thoroughly than I.

Zkharya, please, Flanker doesn’t give a shit about the situation, it is simply a good way for him to attack Jews, don’t be baited by him

NOTHING, absolute nothing that you say will mean anything to him, he’ll twist all of your words.

>if they truly feel they are facing extinction, they will feel that they have nothing to lose

Unlikely,

What seperates Israel from all other countires in the region, is the refusal of Israel to engage in mass slaughter.

Whereas most dictators think nothing of slaughtering their own or other countries’ peoples, in the tens of thousands, Israel has not engaged in such activity, and has generally been very careful to avoid civilian casualties.

There is no such thing as Intafada in an Arab country. If anyone tried that in Egypt they’d be dead by nightfall.

Assad killed 20,000 people in one city, when they dared defy him. Iran regularly rounds up abuses or kills thousands.

Isreal is the only country in the region which has a somewhat humane attitude, it does not kill its prisoners and refuses to engage in the type of wholesale slaughter which is common with most of its surrounding states.

Of course this makes it the focus of hatred and bile for the Left and has lead the BBC/Guardian to declare jihad against it.

“Nobody chooses to live in a shanty town. People are born there and forced to live there by economic and social circumstance. Go visit a barrio in S. America or slum in India and ask anyone you meet if they “chose” to live there. If they “chose” to live in such poverty and filth”

You are so wrong and out of touch, there are public housing programs whereby shanty town dewelers in DANGEROUS HILLSIDES, REFUSED to be relocated to a dignified house somewhere else. Reasons given are their strong sense of community (entirely circumstantial) and location. It has come to the point where public housing ministry has resigned itself to rebuild their communities in situ (with safety standards included)

A refugee has only one goal in mind, to get back home, their real home. Shanty town dwellers are home, they just want a better house and services.

“Since there are relatively few such “de facto autonomous regions in the world”, the claim of density becomes dubious at best. Lazy thinking. The fact is that Gaza is routinely referred to as one of the densest places on earth. And, as Fabian helpfully pointed out, this is a media myth.”

180-200, not really pocket change.

“Neutron weapons have ’short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect’, so it is conceivable it would only kill Gazans, but leave the inhabitants of Sderot unaffected.”

They are right next freaking door…

Nato developed neutron weapons to kill the crews of mass Soviet tank attacks but leaving neighbouring cities unaffected. Sderot is five miles from the Gazan border, and a device’s range needn’t reach that far, rather focusing further south.

Zkharya,

sigh, I give up

you are playing Flanker’s game by discussing death and destruction, that’s what he WANTS you to do, to de-humanise yourself, to play out these murderous war games is to be baited by flanker and in responding to his baiting you are allowing him to attack jews.

can’t you see that? there is NOTHING productive or positive in it

I got a map here, Flanker, and a coin. It’s centre is just off the coast of Gaza city, and covers the whole of northern Gaza while its circumference intersects no Israeli towns or cities. That’s a blast radius, Flanker. A weapon of last resort, sure. But it could, I repeat, could kill Gazans but not Israelis.

The thing is detonated in the upper atmosphere, it is an area of effect weapon, whatever justification NATO gives to it is the same justification they give to tactical nukes, landmines and cluster bombs. All of them good at being dumb bombs that are good at killing civilians.

Flanker, you were earlier complaining such a weapon would also kill Israelis.

You are never going to be happy.

Now you are introducing the red herring of cluster bombs etc. Name any forces, Israeli, Palestinian, British, American, Russian, that do not also kill civilians. If Hamas chose to use Gaza as a base to join a concerted Iranian and Hizbullah barrage on Israel, it would have to bear the consequences.

I was not suggesting but that such a weapon would be used but in the most extreme circumstances, such as I described earlier, for the third or fourth time: a failed Israeli attack on Iran, with most of Israel’s airforce destroyed, a concerted conventional or non-conventional barrage from Hizbullah, Iran and Hamas, with Israel’s conventional forces overstretched.

That is, for the third or fourth time, one of the reasons I do not favour bombing Iranian nuclear facilities, so such a situation need not arise.

You know what else is indiscriminate? Katyushas and Qassems. They may not kill as many civilians as Israeli weapons, but they kill as many as they can/

Remember what you wrote to me when I observed Hizbullah fired the first shots (rockets, actually) in the 2006 Lebanon conflict? Not only was Israel obliged not to respond militarily, it was obliged to respond with humanitarian help etc.

Nothing military Israel does will satisfy or please you, Flanker.

You are confused I am NOT bringing up Palestinian casualties since the discussion already assumes that Palestinian casualties are to be maximized, genocide sure but again not the issue at hand, which is that you naively believe that Sdreot would be “safe” from a neutron bomb which is insanely comical, a neutron bomb is designed to kill quickly, and a bomb placed to kill as many Palestinians as possible within days, then that same radiation pulse WILL KILL THE SAME AMOUNT OF ISRAELIS WITHIN MONTHS!!! Their mild Km distance would only spare them a quick death, that is it, and that is why it is such a joke.

Couple of thoughts:

Phomesy – you mentioned that it can take decades for a nuclear program to develop. Generally speaking yes, however the USSR got their first bomb up and active in less than 10 (42-49).

me – you referred to Irans use of children clearing minefields in a defensive war. Actually, Iran was clearing the minefields using children after they went on the offensive in 82. (Iraqi forces didn’t lay minefields in front of their troops if they were still fighting offensively – otherwise you cant sieze territory…)

Leon – you referred to a comment piece about the rationality of Iran in the Iraq-Iran war. This is true – but you have to remember, Iran was losing the war by the mid-late 80’s and indeed, the world was basically turning an eye away from the fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons on their troops. This sometimes helps clarity of thought.

Fabian – if the war got so bad that Israel resorted to nuclear attack on Gaza I suspect they would just attack it directly and the fallout casualties of Israelis nearby would be tolerated (if they hadn’t already evacuated).

“You are so wrong and out of touch, there are public housing programs whereby shanty town dewelers in DANGEROUS HILLSIDES, REFUSED to be relocated to a dignified house somewhere else. Reasons given are their strong sense of community (entirely circumstantial) and location. It has come to the point where public housing ministry has resigned itself to rebuild their communities in situ (with safety standards included)”

“A refugee has only one goal in mind, to get back home, their real home. Shanty town dwellers are home, they just want a better house and services.”

Completely bullshit.
The main reason shanty town dwellers in Buenos Aires refuse to move, is not “sense of community” but proximity to job sources. When they are offered relocation, of course it is not inside the city, since it is all build up, but in the suburbs. But there is less work.

The same approximately can be said of the Palestinian refugees. If they decide to go away from the refugee camp (and in the PA nothing could prevent that), they lose UNRWA help. In Arab countries, like murderer cheeleader Lebanon, in effect they are forbidden to move away, but again, nothing prevents the demolition of the camps and relocation of the people in the PA. It was offered many times by Israel and other countries. The PA, however, because of a twisted logic, prefers the camps to remain, since they make people like Flanker think that the only thing a refugee (actually, the grandchildren of a refugee most times) wants is to “return to his true home”. Bullshit.

To end, if suddenly shanty town dwellers in Buenos Aires started launching rockets and commiting acts of savagery and terrorism against other citizens of Buenos Aires, on account of being forced to live in bad conditions by the neglect of different governments, that wouldn’t do their cause any more just.

Wanker: go play Diablo II.

Lastly: shanty town dwellers are economic refugees. No one of them “choose” to came to Buenos Aires. They just didn’t have any option back where they were. So why this people do not think of going back home (but live a better life)? But of course many do, and Flanker is wrong here too.

But there is even one more issue: why among Palestinians this feeling of “community” is not as strong as among shanty town dwellers, so much as to disagreee with the demolition of the camps? It cannot be because they are refugees, since most of them aren’t, never saw another home, and since shanty town dwellers are also children of refugees, why the difference?

In any way you look at it, the clear-cut distinction Flanker does, doesn’t hold at all.

Of course, if the difference is the degree of hatred they have against the Jews, the distinction Flanker does may have sense, but then doesn’t concerm me at all. I won’t privilege one group of people just because they hate more than other.