Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)

[Bloggingheads]

[Ocean]

This is not a discussion for the weak of heart. The degree of self centeredness that these two gentlemen display regarding Israel's place in the universe is astonishing. I wonder for how long the rest of the world has to put up with this kind of discourse and the global dangers associated with this degree of paranoia.

Larry talks about "crazy homicidal maniacs" who have nuclear capabilities but don't necessarily use them. True. Israel has nuclear capability and the current discourse is as crazy, paranoid and maniacal, that we need to question who it is that that rest of the world has to be weary about.

Elliot states that the possibility of Iran getting nuclear weapons isn't just Israel's problem and that the rest of the world has to intervene. I wonder if they realize how much of a problem Israel itself is. They seem to take for granted that Israel's interest is above all else and seemingly it's free of fault.

The international community has to make sure that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, but perhaps the international community should make sure that Israel can't use its own, mostly considering the insanity of its current leadership. They seem to be as dangerous as any other "crazy" state being discussed.

[Wonderment]

Here's Uri Avnery's left-wing take on why Israel will not attack:

ISRAEL WILL not attack Iran. Period.

Some may think that I am going out on a limb. Shouldn’t I add at least “probably” or “almost certainly”?

No, I won’t. I shall repeat categorically: Israel Will NOT Attack Iran.

Israel -- by appearing crazy (consistent with its status as a rogue nuclear state) -- is trying to goad the USA, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Europe and other players into collectively punishing Iranians with "crippling sanctions" (as all the GOP debaters signed onto tonight) or quarantine, as these two endorsed. "Crippling sanctions," like cyber attacks and assassination of scientists, constitute ongoing warfare against Iran and we are in the process of escalating.

That said, I agree with Larry that ultimately a nuclear-weaponized Iran is NOT unacceptable. There is more danger with deterring Iran by lethal force (or sanctions) than by allowing them to join the Nuke Club.

The only way to eliminate the risk of nuclear war is to abolish nukes. Iran, I am certain, would be amenable to dismantling its (alleged) program in the context of international nuclear disarmament.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Here's Uri Avnery's left-wing take on why Israel will not attack:



Israel -- by appearing crazy (consistent with its status as a rogue nuclear state) -- is trying to goad the USA, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Europe and other players into collectively punishing Iranians with "crippling sanctions" (as all the GOP debaters signed onto tonight) or quarantine, as these two endorsed. "Crippling sanctions," like cyber attacks and assassination of scientists, constitute ongoing warfare against Iran and we are in the process of escalating.

So are these two deceived or deceiving?

This acting crazy is scaring the bejesus out of me!

That said, I agree with Larry that ultimately a nuclear-weaponized Iran is NOT unacceptable. There is more danger with deterring Iran by lethal force (or sanctions) than by allowing them to join the Nuke Club.

The only way to eliminate the risk of nuclear war is to abolish nukes. Iran, I am certain, would be amenable to dismantling its (alleged) program in the context of international nuclear disarmament.

Well, yes, at the end of this conversation I had the impression that Iran may be after all more sane than Israel. I didn't anticipate to end up with that conclusion, but the lack of self awareness and their complete Israelcentric perspective was scary.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Well, yes, at the end of this conversation I had the impression that Iran may be after all more sane than Israel

What an illuminating statement. People on left seem to say nihilistic things frequently, throughout the West. Relativism is the road to self-immolation.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

What an illuminating statement. People on left seem to say nihilistic things frequently, throughout the West. Relativism is the road to self-immolation.

If you listen to this diavlog and you were to take off your partisan hat, you would understand my comment. Self-immolation is what these two are talking about but for the entire species.

I rarely comment on Israel/Palestine/Middle East politics and mostly because I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other except that I wish those people reached some form of peaceful coexistence. Their history is too complicated and messy. I've never come to the conclusion that there's an absolute right or wrong there. But for the sake of future generations I hope they don't continue to escalate one's craziness with the other's paranoia.

Originally Posted by Ocean

I rarely comment on Israel/Palestine/Middle East politics and mostly because I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other except that I wish those people reached some form of peaceful coexistence.

Yes, and I wish that there were rainbows and unicorns EVERYWHERE!

Originally Posted by Ocean

Their history is too complicated and messy. I've never come to the conclusion that there's an absolute right or wrong there.

Or anywhere else, as a self-proclaimed moral relativist. I'm glad you were not around in the 1940s, or you would be proclaiming that there's no absolute or objective right or wrong there, either.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by apple

Yes, and I wish that there were rainbows and unicorns EVERYWHERE!

Nah, too childish.

Or anywhere else, as a self-proclaimed moral relativist. I'm glad you were not around in the 1940s, or you would be proclaiming that there's no absolute or objective right or wrong there, either.

Apple, you have a blind spot and knee jerk reaction whenever the idea of Islam/ Arab enters your consciousness. There's no way there could be a rational discussion with you about anything even closely related to it. Additionally, I wouldn't be the one holding that discussion anyway because I have no real interest in debating this topic. My thoughts were mostly an overall reflection about the sad situation over there.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Nah, too childish.

So are your kumbaya-fantasies about Jews and Muslims. Muslims believe that the following was actually said by the best man who ever lived:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Sahih Moslem Book 041, Number 6985)

Lo and behold, your beloved religion of peace.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Apple, you have a blind spot and knee jerk reaction whenever the idea of Islam/ Arab enters your consciousness. There's no way there could be a rational discussion with you about anything even closely related to it.

This claim is almost as absurd as your claim about Iranian leaders being more sane than the Israeli ones. Try to be more rational.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by apple

So are your kumbaya-fantasies about Jews and Muslims. Muslims believe that the following was actually said by the best man who ever lived:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Sahih Moslem Book 041, Number 6985)

Lo and behold, your beloved religion of peace.

Are you such a hammer that everything is the same nail to you?

I defend no religion. None. I'm not religious. We would be better off without religions. Religions when taken to any extreme are poisonous. And people who go extreme, like you, against one particular religion are equally poisonous. Being blind for or against any cause is the problem. And that's one of the main reasons that you can't be taken seriously here. You're so radical and blind that your arguments (even those who have some merit) lose strength.

This claim is almost as absurd as your claim about Iranian leaders being more sane than the Israeli ones. Try to be more rational.

I wish you were able to comprehend what you read before jumping to conclusions about what I said.

But I admit, most likely that's not in your agenda. Your agenda is to use any comment, even if remotely associated with your bogeyman, to have an excuse to advertise your puny anti-Muslim song.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Are you such a hammer that everything is the same nail to you?

Sorry, it's a substantive reply to your utopian dreams of a Jewish-Muslim Brotherhood (no relation) of Man. It seems unlikely that people who believe that they will be required to brutally murder Jews, will be able to peacefully co-exist with Jews and respect their rights.

Originally Posted by Ocean

I defend no religion.

I've heard that before. Usually, people who say that deride every single religion, except Islam (and Buddhism, if we consider that to be a religion).

Originally Posted by Ocean

Religions when taken to any extreme are poisonous.

Define "extreme". Is it 'extreme Christianity' to follow Jesus and what he said? Is it 'extreme Islam' to follow Muhammad and what he said?

Originally Posted by Ocean

You're so radical and blind that your arguments (even those who have some merit) lose strength.

How am I blind? Am I blind to the brilliance and strength of your arguments?

Originally Posted by Ocean

I wish you were able to comprehend what you read before jumping to conclusions about what I said.

I don't think I have trouble comprehending anything, Ocean - much less your posts.

Originally Posted by Ocean

But I admit, most likely that's not in your agenda. Your agenda is to use any comment, even if remotely associated with your bogeyman, to have an excuse to advertise your puny anti-Muslim song.

Not at all. You just don't like that I popped your utopian dreams of a Jewish-Muslim peaceful coexistence.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by apple

Sorry, it's a substantive reply to your utopian dreams of a Jewish-Muslim Brotherhood (no relation) of Man. It seems unlikely that people who believe that they will be required to brutally murder Jews, will be able to peacefully co-exist with Jews and respect their rights.

I've heard that before. Usually, people who say that deride every single religion, except Islam (and Buddhism, if we consider that to be a religion).

Define "extreme". Is it 'extreme Christianity' to follow Jesus and what he said? Is it 'extreme Islam' to follow Muhammad and what he said?

Apple, it looks like you have it all figured it out and I really don't know why I'm following this discussion with you. But what the heck, I'll give it a last try while I can.

I can't represent all people that say this or that. I can only tell you that I defend no religion. There are aspects of religious teachings that are admirable. I happen to know of some, mostly within Christianity because that's the religion that I've been, although minimally, exposed to.

Religions, when followed to the extreme that their believers think they are up against some or all others, and that they need to spread their views by expressing hatred and intolerance, are dangerous. People who go against religions with a similar stance, by expressing hatred and intolerance, are also dangerous. Intolerance and hatred are the key elements because they easily lead to violence.

Of course, you don't know what you're talking about when you criticize me on this, because in fact I have been quite vocal against certain aspects of religious groups which are regressive and diminishing to their own (for example the treatment of women within Islam).

How am I blind? Am I blind to the brilliance and strength of your arguments?

No, you're blind in your obtuseness whenever Islam or anything remotely related to it comes up as a topic. You go full speed into rants without consideration of any possible grey areas or any attempt to view a slightly different perspective.

I don't think I have trouble comprehending anything, Ocean - much less your posts.

If you comprehend so well, you're doing a poor job of demonstrating it since you're accusing me of saying something that I didn't say.

Not at all. You just don't like that I popped your utopian dreams of a Jewish-Muslim peaceful coexistence.

You really must be kidding. You popped what? I don't have utopian dreams*, I only have good wishes**. Do you understand the difference between those two?

* an expectation that a highly desirable but unlikely outcome will be true.

** a desire that a favorable outcome was true, even when knowing it's highly unlikely.

Originally Posted by Ocean

I can't represent all people that say this or that.

I did not say that you were representative of the many people who are like that, merely that you are like that, just like many others who claim to defend no religion.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Religions, when followed to the extreme that their believers think they are up against some or all others, and that they need to spread their views by expressing hatred and intolerance, are dangerous.

Well, you did not answer my more specific questions: is following Jesus and his words 'extreme'? What about Muhammad and his words?

Originally Posted by Ocean

People who go against religions with a similar stance, by expressing hatred and intolerance, are also dangerous. Intolerance and hatred are the key elements because they easily lead to violence.

You're one of the most intolerant people in this board, Ocean, and I mean that. For example, you are intolerant of Israel's right to defend itself against rogue states like Iran. At the same time, I doubt that you will ever commit violence, even against people you despise (anyone who disagrees with you).

Originally Posted by Ocean

Of course, you don't know what you're talking about when you criticize me on this, because in fact I have been quite vocal against certain aspects of religious groups which are regressive and diminishing to their own (for example the treatment of women within Islam).

How can you criticize the treatment of women in Islam and simultaneously be a moral relativist?

Originally Posted by Ocean

No, you're blind in your obtuseness whenever Islam or anything remotely related to it comes up as a topic. You go full speed into rants without consideration of any possible grey areas or any attempt to view a slightly different perspective.

Incorrect, as usual - it's closer to a description of how you carry yourself in any thread not related to science.

Originally Posted by Ocean

If you comprehend so well, you're doing a poor job of demonstrating it since you're accusing me of saying something that I didn't say.

Funny how every person not named Ocean interpreted in exactly the same way.

Originally Posted by Ocean

You really must be kidding. You popped what? I don't have utopian dreams*, I only have good wishes**. Do you understand the difference between those two?

* an expectation that a highly desirable but unlikely outcome will be true.

** a desire that a favorable outcome was true, even when knowing it's highly unlikely.

Perhaps you should know what you're talking about before attempting to lecture others. I recall you straining to exclude retribution as a part of the definition of justice. Your personal definitions do nothing any good, except perhaps your feelings. Same thing here, one can have a utopian dream without expecting it to come true, the whole concept is silent on the issue of expectations.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

What an illuminating statement. People on left seem to say nihilistic things frequently, throughout the West. Relativism is the road to self-immolation.

Nah, "relativism" is a catchphrase designed to keep people from actually thinking carefully about moral issues. It's so much easier when you can pretend that such issues are simple to parse and fundamentally support the notion that one's own position is by definition in the right.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Nah, "relativism" is a catchphrase designed to keep people from actually thinking carefully about moral issues. It's so much easier when you can pretend that such issues are simple to parse and fundamentally support the notion that one's own position is by definition in the right.

Until one wants to defend, say, torture and then suddenly everyone's a relativist.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Nah, "relativism" is a catchphrase designed to keep people from actually thinking carefully about moral issues.

Virtue may be simple, AemJeff, but that doesn't mean it is easy. You sit at the razor's edge of three thousand years of struggle. Three thousand years of men questioning the world and themselves. Three thousand years of blood and iron and sacrifice. Three thousand years of progress, made in miles and in inches, sometimes at the expense of nations.

In this struggle, the West has elevated man to the heights of Gods, and has done so at some great cost. We now live in a world of Reason, a world of rights, and of liberty. Israel is a small outpost of this world, in a place where many of these cherished gains are alien. The tiny state of the Jews was purchased with the blood of six million men, women, and children. Simple, but not easy.

I do not ask anyone to avoid "careful" thinking about a matter. I ask them to commit. I ask people to cleave to virtue and hold to a course. If a man values the Enlightenment's conception of rights, if he purports to believe that the law binds the state just as much as it does himself, if he holds the quaint idea that a people are sovereign and not the property of a despot, then there is no choice to be made. There is no "other side". The other side is an abyss of intellectual and moral quality. The Quds advisor with his pistol in a Hezbollah bunker is functionally no different than the Persian satrap with his whip driving Xerxes' horde through Greece. The truth of the matter is the struggle is less one about peoples; and more about futures. And this struggle is as old as recorded history. It is life affirming civilization against thralldom. It is the vitality of Renaissance against the nihilism of a death cult and the suicide bomber.

The question all of us should ask ourselves is not who the Iranians are. We know them from the bodies of women and children, stretching from the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia to the blood drenched streets of Iraq to the shores of the United States, where our sacred dead lie in silent witness at their barbarity.

Nor should we be asking ourselves who the Israelis are. We know them from the haunted, sunken eyes staring back at us from the survivors of totalitarian atrocity in Germany and the Soviet Union. We know them from their writing on philosophy, their music, their art, their shared culture with us. We know them from the kinship we have as our friends and neighbors.

No AemJeff, we must ask ourselves who we are. Are we changeable, rootless men who breeze through our existence without holding to virtue? Are we a people who abandon our friends because friendship grows difficult? Are we a people who would, unmoored to a sense of honor or duty, allow convenience guide us to betray a Friend and Ally of this Republic? Or are we made of sterner stuff? I believe we are. I believe it is incumbent on a great people to stand against the tide, no matter how rough the tempest, and hold to a course of virtue regardless of the cost. Rarely is the choice so stark.

It's so much easier when you can pretend that such issues are simple to parse and fundamentally support the notion that one's own position is by definition in the right.

Virtue is simple, not easy.

[kezboard]

No AemJeff, we must ask ourselves who we are. Are we changeable, rootless men who breeze through our existence without holding to virtue? Are we a people who abandon our friends because friendship grows difficult? Are we a people who would, unmoored to a sense of honor or duty, allow convenience guide us to betray a Friend and Ally of this Republic? Or are we made of sterner stuff? I believe we are. I believe it is incumbent on a great people to stand against the tide, no matter how rough the tempest, and hold to a course of virtue regardless of the cost. Rarely is the choice so stark.

THIS. IS. SPARTA!!

We're actually talking about the future of the world here, not a morality play.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by kezboard

We're actually talking about the future of the world here, not a morality play.

They are one in the same. The issue raised was relativism in Israel vis a vis Iran. If virtue is the polestar of policy, there is no confusion on the matter.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by kezboard

THIS. IS. SPARTA!!

We're actually talking about the future of the world here, not a morality play.

Lets not judge here. What he does with his copies of 300 and Top Gun in the privacy of his own bedroom or survivor shelter is his own business.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

Lets not judge here. What he does with his copies of 300 and Top Gun in the privacy of his own bedroom or survivor shelter is his own business.

LOL. The Xerxes reference was a dead giveaway that he's learning his history from Frank Miller.

Apparently his ideas about OWS also come from Frank Miller.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Apparently his ideas about OWS also come from Frank Miller.

That's kind of sad. My feelings about Miller are almost completely captured by the first commenter, except I will probably hold on to his Daredevil Death of Electra run.

ETA. Has anyone ever seen both Miller and Sulla at the same time?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

ETA. Has anyone ever seen both Miller and Sulla at the same time?

All I know of Frank Miller is Sin City, which I enjoyed as a quasi noir film.

Has Miller written some sort of script about Athens and Jerusalem, Reason and Revelation?

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

All I know of Frank Miller is Sin City, which I enjoyed as a quasi noir film.

Has Miller written some sort of script about Athens and Jerusalem, Reason and Revelation?

He wrote a comic book called 300, recently made into a film, about the Spartan fighters who fought the Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

He wrote a comic book called 300, recently made into a film, about the Spartan fighters who fought the Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae.

I heard about the film, but never saw it. I've never been particularly fond of the Spartans, and besides which, the movie seemed like a grotesque parade of pornography.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I heard about the film, but never saw it. I've never been particularly fond of the Spartans, and besides which, the movie seemed like a grotesque parade of pornography.

Exactly. Here is a restrained review of the movie:

http://www.deep-focus.com/dfweblog/2.../300_2007.html

from the piece:

If it were only brutish spectacle, executed with the inescapable élan that Miller’s stark and exciting combinations of word and image always brings to the printed page, it could be an invigorating diversion from the more nuanced, and infinitely more taxing, struggles of the real world. But with its fetishistic depiction of the nearly naked male body as nothing more or less than a merciless instrument of warfare, it fills a much-needed gap between gay porn and recruitment film.

And just to explain my other reference somewhere in this wide ranging topic about Iran/Israel and the Bomb here is clip containing Quentin Tarantino discussing how Top Gun was a movie about a man's struggle with his own homosexuality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHklGtW3rwU

you can be my wingman any time.
bullshit you can be mine.

Fighting for the TOP eh

Anyway I think this just about pins the Male Adolescent Meter. Think of it as levity to offset the drama unfolding in the land of Leviticus.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

All I know of Frank Miller is Sin City, which I enjoyed as a quasi noir film.

Has Miller written some sort of script about Athens and Jerusalem, Reason and Revelation?

Others have answered the 300 thing. if you liked the Sin City movie (I also did) you would enjoy the graphic novel series, which includes not only the story told in the movie but a couple of others as well..

His really great work on Daredevile is collected in such graphic novelizations as Daredevil: Born Again and Daredevil visionaries.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

LOL. The Xerxes reference was a dead giveaway that he's learning his history from Frank Miller.

Simply because you are ignorant of antiquity doesn't mean everyone else is. You should be embarrassed by the fact that you are historically illiterate. For all the "Young Earth" jokes about Christians, it is liberals who don't believe in human civilization before 1932.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by kezboard

THIS. IS. SPARTA!!

LOL! I was just thinking, "Gosh sounds like Sulla really liked 300!"

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

LOL! I was just thinking, "Gosh sounds like Sulla really liked 300!"

You are unconsciously dialing in the limits to your knowledge with reference to pop films which mention historical subjects. This is the online equivalent of walking around with your fly open.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Virtue is simple, not easy.

I have one quibbling point regarding your distaste for relativists. I don't think people can be anything but relativists; the question seems a matter of degree and to what extent. After all, if an older adult were to self-reflect upon her actions as a younger person, she would find her own deeds deserving of reprobation.

As to your main point about virtue, however, I must agree.

Originally Posted by sugarkang

I have one quibbling point regarding your distaste for relativists. I don't think people can be anything but relativists; the question seems a matter of degree and to what extent. After all, if an older adult were to self-reflect upon her actions as a younger person, she would find her own deeds deserving of reprobation.

What does that have to do with relativism? The fact that even I can be wrong, does not demonstrate the relativist's position that every moral position is as good as any other. Hell, the fact that the older person can recognize that he made mistakes or did things that were wrong, is hardly any support for relativism - which denies that there is any such thing as something that is wrong, affirming instead that it's just what the older person believes is wrong, no better or worse than what the younger person believed.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

....

I'm as sorry as you are that you were born a century too late, but that hardly seems relevant to this conversation.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

I'm as sorry as you are that you were born a century too late, but that hardly seems relevant to this conversation.

A century too late? I think you may be off by two or more millennia.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Florian

A century too late? I think you may be off by two or more millennia.

Perhaps, but I'm inclined to be more charitable. I think Sulla's mode of thought would be perfectly normal in say, Prussia in 1911 or so.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Perhaps, but I'm inclined to be more charitable. I think Sulla's mode of thought would be perfectly normal in say, Prussia in 1911 or so.

You're right. Mine was a cheap shot. Thoughts like this:

Are we changeable, rootless men who breeze through our existence without holding to virtue? Are we a people who abandon our friends because friendship grows difficult? Are we a people who would, unmoored to a sense of honor or duty, allow convenience guide us to betray a Friend and Ally of this Republic? Or are we made of sterner stuff?

have a distinctly Prussian ring, even if Prussia was never much of a friend to anyone.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Florian

You're right. Mine was a cheap shot.

Oh, I think you cottoned on to what he was going for, actually, although I don't think he was as successful -- and certainly not as relevant -- as intended.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Florian

have a distinctly Prussian ring, even if Prussia was never much of a friend to anyone.

He sounds like someone who thinks that the first world war was tragic because some people actually learned from the experience.

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

He sounds like someone who thinks that the first world war was tragic because some people actually learned from the experience.

Are you done posting your drive-by ad hominem "arguments", avoiding a direct debate because you know you'd lose?

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by apple

Are you done posting your drive-by ad hominem "arguments", avoiding a direct debate because you know you'd lose?

I think you forgot to call me a sissy.

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

I think you forgot to call me a sissy.

I don't think I need to.