News Uncovering the Influence of the Pro-Israel Lobby on Mainstream News Coverage

[Yonoz]

nd since Zionism is basically a rascist ideology, i think that he is entitled to not like Israels Zionist regime.

Zionism is not a racist ideology.

 

[Yonoz]

as a statement of fact this is true but it doesn't tell the real story.

Forgive me, I forgot you don't let facts get in the way of your reality.

btw do you not find it slightly duplicitous that Iran should be threatened with destruction on the basis of it's nuclear program and it's suspected non-compliance with the IAEA with Israel leading the call to arms whilst Israel has always point blank refused to let the IAEA have so much as a sniff of it's own nuclear program.

Who's threatening Iran with destruction?

 

[Art]

Forgive me, I forgot you don't let facts get in the way of your reality.

No answers so you resort to an ad-hominem attack instead

Who's threatening Iran with destruction?

The US and Israel - example

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece

And

Israel will eventually 'have to attack Iran'

Israeli lawmaker Effi Eitam last week said it has become clear in light of the failure of international diplomatic efforts that Israeli will eventually have no choice but to launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Israel National News quoted Eitam as stating during a gathering in the Samarian town of Beit El that "Israel has the right and the ability to defend itself and that day is around the corner."

Eitam went on to say he is confident the United States will support Israel in any military action it deems necessary for the survival of the Jewish state and the Zionist dream.

Use google and you will find 1000's of other references to Israeli and US threats to attack Iran. None of which require a deliberate mis-translation to make their message clear as was done with the comments by Ahmadinejad.

Btw Still waiting to hear your justification for the dual standards re nuclear inspections.

 

[Art]

Zionism is not a racist ideology.

According to UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 it is.

DETERMINES that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.

 

[Yonoz]

According to UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 it is.

You mean the resolution that was passed on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, and was revoked by resolution 4686?

 

[Yonoz]

And Use google and you will find 1000's of other references to Israeli and US threats to attack Iran. None of which require a deliberate mis-translation to make their message clear as was done with the comments by Ahmadinejad.

Wow, 1000's of references to a google search on such rarely used keywords as "Israel", "Iran", "attack" and "nuclear"...
So a single attack with tactical nuclear weapons means the destruction of Iran? Please explain.

Btw Still waiting to hear your justification for the dual standards re nuclear inspections.

I believe the best justification was given by yourself in that previous post - you demonstrated very well how the UN and its agencies are dominated by the circa-50-strong Muslim body in the GA.

 

[Art]

Are you seriously claiming Israel does not operate an apartheid regime? Would you like me to provide examples?

 

[Art]

Wow, 1000's of references to a google search on such rarely used keywords as "Israel", "Iran", "attack" and "nuclear"...
So a single attack with tactical nuclear weapons means the destruction of Iran? Please explain.

lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country. Yes this certainly sounds like the usual twisted logic employed by the current despotic leaders of Israel and the US.

Other attack plans threatened include a massive bombing campaign of all Iran's military and infrastructure leading to the same level of destruction as seen in Iraq which I think most people would agree equalled pretty much total destruction.

I believe the best justification was given by yourself in that previous post - you demonstrated very well how the UN and its agencies are dominated by the circa-50-strong Muslim body in the GA.

More twisted logic. Why insist Iran comply with the IAEA if you don't trust them yourselves??

 

[EnumaElish]

So a single attack with tactical nuclear weapons means the destruction of Iran? Please explain.

Yonoz -- I am not saying that Israel has planned or is planning this; but you seem to own up to it.

Even a limited tactical nuclear first strike will take the world to a whole new level of "acceptable and fair"; and I suspect "deep down" the mainstream Israeli public would understand this sentiment -- and logic.

 

[kach22i]

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece

I would hope that the USA has similar plans in the ready.

Nothing wrong with being ready.

 

[Yonoz]

Yonoz -- I am not saying that Israel has planned or is planning this; but you seem to own up to it.

Even a limited tactical nuclear first strike will take the world to a whole new level of "acceptable and fair"; and I suspect "deep down" the mainstream Israeli public would understand this sentiment -- and logic.

When this report came out there was a brief public discussion about it but that died down fairly quickly. We have a lot on our minds these days.

 

[Yonoz]

Are you seriously claiming Israel does not operate an apartheid regime? Would you like me to provide examples?

You'd better open up a different thread, as that would be taking us completely off-topic.

 

[Yonoz]

lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country. Yes this certainly sounds like the usual twisted logic employed by the current despotic leaders of Israel and the US.

No, Iran is to be attacked because it is developing nuclear weapons that would destabilize the already shaken up balance of powers in the Middle East, and Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon, even when it was seen as on the brink of extinction.

Other attack plans threatened include a massive bombing campaign of all Iran's military and infrastructure leading to the same level of destruction as seen in Iraq which I think most people would agree equalled pretty much total destruction.

The destruction of the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programmes did nothing to their stability, let alone destroy them. Hopefully Iran will do no more than have Hizballah and Hamas attempt to start another proxy war for them, perhaps attack an Israeli target oversees a la the Buenos Aires bombings, and increase the flames in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they do anything silly such as attacking allied targets directly, I would expect the current US administration to reciprocate with a powerful fire effort but little or no maneuver effort, mainly aimed at eroding the Iranian administration's power base. But again, that would be in reaction to an Iranian counterattack, not because of the Iranian nuclear programme.

More twisted logic. Why insist Iran comply with the IAEA if you don't trust them yourselves??

The IAEA is simply the easiest way out of this mess, for everyone.

 

[mjsd]

No, Iran is to be attacked because it is developing nuclear weapons that would destabilize the already shaken up balance of powers in the Middle East, and

what balance of powers in the Middle East are you talking about? Isn't Irsarel (with US backing) by far the "strongest" at the moment?

Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon, even when it was seen as on the brink of extinction.

seriously, at which point after WW2 do u think that Israel was on the brink of extinction?

 

[Yonoz]

what balance of powers in the Middle East are you talking about? Isn't Irsarel (with US backing) by far the "strongest" at the moment?

Careful, that sort of thinking that led to the occupation of Iraq.
Israel is very small both geographically and demographically, with a population of 7 million. Its military is ranked 33rd in size, while those of Egypt (population 88 million) and Syria (population 20 million) are ranked 11th and 16th. Egypt is also backed by the US and Europe and has extensive manufacturing abilities, including an Abrams tank production facility. Egypt also has chemical weapons ability and experience. Syria is heavily armed by Russia with state of the art anti-tank and surface to air missiles, and has an advanced surface to surface missile program, on top of its existing arsenal which is one of the largest in the Middle East, and is tightly coupled with its chemical weapons programme. The Golan Heights are the most densely fortified region in the world, and any conflict there would be too costly for either side to initiate.
... And these are just two of israel's closest neighbours. Saudi Arabia has a large and well-supplied military (25th). Iran has the largest military in the ME (8th), an extensive domestic military industry, very advanced surface to surface missile programmes and manufacturing, and is supplied by Russia with some the latest AA and anti-tank systems. Turkey is a full NATO member, and its military is 9th in size.
There's much more to the Middle East than Israel. I won't go detail all the ethnic disputes - there's too many, and the west is getting a crash course on the balance of powers in the Middle East (and what happens when it is disturbed), complete with live demonstrations and pyrotechnics.

seriously, at which point after WW2 do u think that Israel was on the brink of extinction?

During the Yom-Kippur war.

 

[Art]

During the Yom-Kippur war.

Can you show anything to justify your claim that the destruction of Israel was a goal of the Yom-Kippur war? Or that it was in anyway possible? All the literature related to this war shows the Arab goals were limited to regaining territories seized by Israel in 1967 following Israel's rejection of peace talks offered by Sadat through UN intermediary Gunnar Jarring. Israel responded that it would not withdraw to the pre-June 5, 1967 lines as required by UN Security Council Resolution 242 and so Sadat publicly warned Israel it would go to war if necessary to regain it's lands.

The Syrians and Egyptians could only operate under the umbrella cover of the fixed SAM positions provided by the Russians and so territorial gains of Israeli land was an impossibility as if the Arab forces advanced beyond their air protection zone they were open to annihilation from the Israeli air-force.

 

[Yonoz]

Can you show anything to justify your claim that the destruction of Israel was a goal of the Yom-Kippur war?

When did I claim that?

Or that it was in anyway possible?

Syrian tanks stopped on the fence of the Regimental HQ in Nafah, and on the El-Al ridge, the southern tip of the Golan Heights. There was nothing between them and Tel-Aviv.
Between the 15,000-strong Egyptian armies and Tel-Aviv stood two divisions.

 

[Art]

When did I claim that?

When you claimed Israel was on the brink of extinction. Seeing as how this wasn't a goal of the Arab armies and since they were incapable of pursuing such a goal even if they wished how do you translate this into being on the brink of destruction?

Syrian tanks stopped on the fence of the Regimental HQ in Nafah, and on the El-Al ridge, the southern tip of the Golan Heights. There was nothing between them and Tel-Aviv.
Between the 15,000-strong Egyptian armies and Tel-Aviv stood two divisions.

As already pointed out the Arabs couldn't advance past the cover of their SAM sites. In fact when Egypt tried to advance to relieve pressure on the Syrians they were flattened.

 

[Yonoz]

When you claimed Israel was on the brink of extinction. Seeing as how this wasn't a goal of the Arab armies and since they were incapable of pursuing such a goal even if they wished how do you translate this into being on the brink of destruction?

Goal does not necessarily equal outcome, especially when wars are concerned.

As already pointed out the Arabs couldn't advance past the cover of their SAM sites. In fact when Egypt tried to advance to relieve pressure on the Syrians they were flattened.

If you're referring to the attack of October 14 - that attack was too late (or too early) and terribly planned.
The reasons for the Egyptian and Syrian militaries' halt is the subject of many theories. The Soviets had armed them with the highly mobile SA-6 platform, and there are ways of advancing an AA umbrella safely - the systems are designed for it. One can go on for hours about such things. One thing is for certain - even the IAF could not have stopped both armies. Without the US airlift operation Israel would have quite simply run out of ammunition.

 

[mjsd]

Goal does not necessarily equal outcome, especially when wars are concerned.

NOW, perhaps that's one of the major sticking point! I glad that you seem to have realized it. not so long ago the claim was that

No, Iran is to be attacked because it is developing nuclear weapons that would destabilize the already shaken up balance of powers in the Middle East, and Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon, even when it was seen as on the brink of extinction.

so the impression one gets from this is that Israel is seen as "responisble" (whereas Iran is not for whatever reasons) with its WMDs because Israel had been pushed to the limit and still refused to use their WMDs.

however, the idea that goals do not equate to outcomes in wars, implies that the above claim does not have much substance. This is because, from the complexity of wars, one cannot say whether it was rationality, hypocrisy, morality or ... etc. that triggered the actions/inactions we see during the Yom-Kippur war. As a result, it didn't really demonstrate whether Israel can be trusted not to use its WMDs in the future at all. All those events were telling us was that on that occasion for whatever reasons (that we probably shall never really know the truth of), Israel did not use WMDs (thank god!). But it did not add to/substract from the argument whether Israel can be or cannot be trusted.

I believe the "twisted logic" Art was referring to previously simply means that one cannot make a convincing argument and call oneself "correct" when one gloss over the details when it suits one, while only go into the essentials when it enhances one's point of view.

Iran may have a bad image but that doesn't automatically means Israel has a good image either. It is inconclusive.

 

[Yonoz]

so the impression one gets from this is that Israel is seen as "responisble" (whereas Iran is not for whatever reasons) with its WMDs because Israel had been pushed to the limit and still refused to use their WMDs.

Though I support the attributed conclusion for different reasons, that was never my intention in this section. It was constructed as a similarly structured reply to:

lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country.

The sentence consists of two separate parts that were put together to echo Art's statement, which also consists of two parts that are linked in a logical argument. My response is meant to dispell Art's implied parallellism between Israel and Iran, by presenting each part in (IMHO) its proper context. It was not meant to be viewed as a comparison between Iran and Israel.

however, the idea that goals do not equate to outcomes in wars, implies that the above claim does not have much substance. This is because, from the complexity of wars, one cannot say whether it was rationality, hypocrisy, morality or ... etc. that triggered the actions/inactions we see during the Yom-Kippur war. As a result, it didn't really demonstrate whether Israel can be trusted not to use its WMDs in the future at all. All those events were telling us was that on that occasion for whatever reasons (that we probably shall never really know the truth of), Israel did not use WMDs (thank god!). But it did not add to/substract from the argument whether Israel can be or cannot be trusted.

Very well; however, Art's contention that Israel intends to attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons stems from a single newspaper report. My response, "Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon..." contradicts Art's contention as such an attack was never carried out, and as far as we know no leader of the US or Israel has argued for it. One can argue that is weak inductive reasoning, but I feel that actions (or lack thereof) speak louder than words (even if they are printed by a News International subsidiary, vis a vis hypocrisy). While I do not discount the possibility that such an attack is planned, I highly doubt any Israeli Prime Minister will authorise such a move.

I believe the "twisted logic" Art was referring to previously simply means that one cannot make a convincing argument and call oneself "correct" when one gloss over the details when it suits one, while only go into the essentials when it enhances one's point of view.

If you feel I have "glossed over the details" you may direct me and I'll address whatever details you like. However, it doesn't at all seem as if that was Art's intention:

lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country. Yes this certainly sounds like the usual twisted logic employed by the current despotic leaders of Israel and the US.

I feel I have addressed the basic flaws in Art's perception of "twisted logic" of "despotic leaders". BTW, I don't see how one can take that statement seriously, unless it is some cynical demonstration of native "twisted logic" I do not understand. The true despots by all accounts are the ones which Art supports - the leadership of Iran.

Iran may have a bad image but that doesn't automatically means Israel has a good image either. It is inconclusive.

Fortunately, this stopped being a popularity contest since the days of Cardinal Richelieu.

 

[sneez]

Yonoz, do not take your biased and misinformed opinions so seriously. Observing your posts I wonder why the ops have not contacted you already. Your post examplify in parable the israeli tactics and politics. (Are you israeli jew?)

 

[Yonoz]

Yonoz, do not take your biased and misinformed opinions so seriously.

I don't, until I come across someone with such unbiased and well informed opinions such as yourself.

Observing your posts I wonder why the ops have not contacted you already.

You mean, for things like going off-topic? *wink*

Your post examplify in parable the israeli tactics and politics. (Are you israeli jew?)

Thank you.
May I commend you on your extraordinary powers of observation.

 

[sneez]

Very well, it must be hard to hide your true colors? I knew I was right after couple of posts. But don't mind this little expose, I will go back to observing "you" guys at work, to know what to warn ppl against and how to recognize the tactics.

 

[Yonoz]

Very well, it must be hard to hide your true colors? I knew I was right after couple of posts. But don't mind this little expose, I will go back to observing "you" guys at work, to know what to warn ppl against and how to recognize the tactics.

Now I'm at a loss for words.


You are kidding, right?

 

[sneez]

right

 

[EnumaElish]

Observing your posts I wonder why the ops have not contacted you already.

Who's ops?

 

[EnumaElish]

AGAIN everything is ruined by Israel!

To identify individual posters with countries, states, or racial stereotypes is neither fair nor helpful to the debate, IMO.

 

[Yonoz]

An example of Iran's destabilizing an already disturbed balance of powers: http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=10743

Earlier this week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dispatched his Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki to Damascus with a single message: Tehran wants Aoun and no one else as the next President of Lebanon. Believing that he is pushing the US into retreat across the chessboard, from Afghanistan to Iraq and passing by the Caspian Basin and e Levant, Ahmadinejad hopes that a spectacular success in Lebanon would enhance his own prospects for winning a majority in the Iranian general election next spring.
...
Ahmadinejad’s tough message came at a time that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was gearing himself for a compromise in which his Lebanese clients and allies would abandon Aoun in favor of a “candidate of consensus” as suggested by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri.

In Ahmadinejad’s analysis, Syria, now a virtual client state of the Islamic Republic, is trying to keep the option of switching sides open. One way to block that option is to commit Syria to a direct and clear confrontation with the United States and its Arab allies over who should be Lebanon’s next president. The man most likely to provoke such confrontation is Aoun whose election would amount to a clear defeat with the current Lebanese majority headed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and backed by the US and moderate Arab states.

 

[Art]

Yonoz if Iran were to launch an airstrike on Israel would you consider this a stabilizing or destabilizing action?