Yoyogitoj: You clearly subscribe to the ‘never let the facts get in the way’ school of argument.

You said: One rule for fanatic islamists who threaten to `wipe Israel off the map`

Even the Jerusalem Post reported the quote in context: Iran repeated its threat to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ IF ISRAEL ATTACKED IRAN’S NUCLEAR SITES.

Would you like to explain how that differs from Israel’s threat, before the invasion, to use nuclear weapons to destroy Iraq if attacked? And, isn’t it kind of standard for a country to threaten retaliation if attacked? Or is that only if you are not Muslim?

In addition, not only has Israel threatened to destroy Iran if attacked, it has threatened to attack Iran with nuclear weapons even if not attacked. As has the United States.

To date, Iran’s threat is made only as retaliation. That leaves them one up on the morality scale I would have thought.

And, should you take the time to read the Iranian position more carefully, the point made in regard to the ‘annhiliation’ of Israel refers in fact to Israel as an occupying power. Which it is. The Palestinians understandably also feel this way. Israel as an occupying power should be ‘removed.’ That does not mean to say that Israel when it is no longer an occupier and colonizer should be removed. The world at large accepts Israel as a given but on original borders. No-one gets it all. The Palestinians won't get all of their country back and Israel won't get allof Palestine. But the foundation of Israel was both immoral and illegal and until Israel admits to the wrongs inherent in its foundation and makes redress to those it has dispossessed and abused it will continue to attract this sort of hatred.

oh stop it who gives a crock what chomsky thinks about energy cooperations hes a known moonbat... just funny how even he distances himself from the m/w article, cuz yeh its dodgy or what ever word you can cope with....like i said deal with it.

now back to the merits of the gas chambers ?

rhross,

"We, the Palestinian People, Are in Favor of Iran Having a Nuclear Bomb"

From MEMRI TV, Palestinian terror gang representatives attend a rally in Damascus to show their support for Iran’s Manhattan Project:

Anwar Raja, PFLP representative in Lebanon: The Muslim, Iranian, fighting people now possess nuclear capabilities. My brother, the Iranian representative sitting here, let me tell you that we, the Palestinian people, are in favor of Iran having a nuclear bomb, not just energy for peaceful purposes.

rhross -

I refer you to the HAMAS Charter which calls for the destruction of Isreal - the HAMAS`terror state` sends suicide bombers into Isreal to blow up cafes and busses and murder women and children goign about their days because Isreal was not established in international law... I don`t think so...

HAMAS wants a genocide - it wants ALL the land... wake up ^

AND

This AP story mentions his genocidal threats, but quotes only three sentences from a very long rant: Iran President: Israel Is a ‘Fake Regime’.

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday renewed his criticism of Israel, calling it a “fake regime” that cannot continue to exist.

“Some 60 years have passed since the end of World War II. Why should the people of Germany and Palestine pay now for a war in which the current generation was not involved?” Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. “We say that this fake regime (Israel) cannot logically continue to live,” he said.

rhross, people like you simply do not understand the realities of islamofascism...

rhross, the islmaimist `rally` reported in the SMH may open your eyes to islamofascism and it seems it is not a religion of peace afterall - well, didn`t we know that already - suicide bombings, beheadings etc...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/wolves-in-sheeps-clothing-on-an-extremist-islamic-mission/2006/04/22/1145344316019.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

But they belong to a political group called Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation) that calls for the creation of a global Islamic state, or caliphate, under strict sharia law. The message from these young men is one of division, non-assimilation and rejection of the values of the “kafir” - non-Muslims.

rhoss:

“Meredith, your quotes to support the accusation of ‘dodgy’ are not only out of context they are inaccurate.”

You have missed the point entirely here rhoss. The word “dodgy” refers to the W&M paper. The point that Chomsky is making is the same as that of Dershowitz, Rubenstein, meredith and a great many others, including you. Namely that their article is not credible. Please read it:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

to see what this thread is all about.

They are arguing that there is a more insidious Israeli control over US policy, you know, manoeuvring America into going to war on their behalf, those sort of things. If you agree with the points made by Chomsky then you also agree that those sort of claims are not reasonable. You seem to contradict yourself at times, such as the comments concerning Israeli influence following the equivalence you attempted to draw earlier with China?

Please clear this up for us so that we know where you stand. You cannot be arguing that Chomsky is right and then take the position you argued earlier without questions of consistency arising.

I notice nobody seems willing to overtly endorse the W&M article, only arguing against the detractors.

Also, note the date on the Iranian quote I provided above. Please explain how it is out of context. You pointedly did not do that before, just assertion with the “deeper understanding” statement.

Are we really going to have to get all the Ahmadinejad quotes, all the conferences, the elimination of Zionism and USA rhetoric. All that stuff. You would be well aware how many of them there are. Do you really have time to try and explain them all away as errors of context and emphasis and so on. Do you think you would be convincing?

“In addition, not only has Israel threatened to destroy Iran if attacked, it has threatened to attack Iran with nuclear weapons even if not attacked.”

Please provide a reference for that.

Yogo,

There is a home recording of that that HuT meeting in Bankstown at:

http://democracyfrontline.org/news/?p=38

Dear rHoss
could you explain to me in simple terms (I must be rather dull) how the current 'Isreali Occupation' of their former homeland is different from the Turkish/Ottoman or the Islamic Empire occupation in days gone by ?

What is the distinctive qualitative difference ?

Or.. the difference between the Israeli occupation and our white 'occupation' of indigenous Australia, or the American 'occupation'of Indian lands or the Turkish 'occupation' of Armenian lands, or Kurdish lands.. or..'you name the country' and "I'll name some mob who is 'occupied'"

If you cannot show the difference.. as opposed to some semantic exercise you argument does not carry much weight.

When the Romans took Israel, or the the Arabian Muslims, or the Persians, or Alexander or the Turks (also Muslims)... and so it goes on.

History is shaped by those with the power to shape it. To whom do you appeal in order to reverse this ? the UN? what a joke. Each time they try to decide on action, at least one or more of the 'Security Council' Objects due to 'interests'...... Often Russia or China.

Look to the Almighty. One might be a pre-tribulation rapture premillenialist, or a post millenialist, or a PAN millenialist (It will all 'pan' out ok in the end) or even an 'a-millenialist' or an atheist... there will be no solutions this side of heaven on this issue.
P.S. there is nothing specially spiritually noble about most modern Jews. Sadly many are atheists. No different from Moses day. While he was on the mountain receiving the 10 commandments, they decided to party. -They were not elected because of their inherrant righteousness. If God is working out His purpose though them now, it is in 'spite' of them rather than because of them.

Still, the call goes out to us all, "Who is on the Lords side, choose this day who you will serve".