Nethanyahu tells US: Ignore Overtures From Iran

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Tails wagging dogs or is it something else?

Nethanyahu worried that Iran has WMD's in their underpants? Have I heard this somewhere before?

Seems somewhat hypocritical IMHO, considering their underpants, pockets and a lot more are bulging with them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...f67b5e-ff96-11e2-8294-0ee5075b840d_story.html
So war, war, war is preferential to jaw, jaw, jaw? Predictable or conspiracy theory fear mongering?
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why is this a conspiracy theory? It sounds like perfectly ordinary politics. Spin and posturing.

One politician say he does not trues another is not a conspiracy theory.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
At some point Israelis have to take responsibility for their fear mongering, seems to me. What if Iranian leaders were threatening to bomb Israel due to the fact that they really are a rogue nuclear state? We'd never hear the end of it in the corporate media.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
At some point Israelis have to take responsibility for their fear mongering, seems to me. What if Iranian leaders were threatening to bomb Israel due to the fact that they really are a rogue nuclear state? We'd never hear the end of it in the corporate media.

Surely both sides here are guilty of various incidents of antagonism. Iran is hardly warm and fuzzy about leaving Israel alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
If that's a call for the destruction of Israel then Zionism was or is a call for the destruction of the Palestinians. As far as the idea of sacrifice goes, if Palestinians happen to be burned to death by white phosphorous then is that another holocaust or a sacrifice made by fire that creates a right for some other Palestinians to bulldoze the homes of some Israeli peasants? How do these "sacrifices" work?

If the Japanese had won WWII and eventually had their movie producers create movies of starving Japanese that were interned in America and then published all the information they found on America's campaign to create a master race in the Media Inc. would that have given them a right of return to... Russia?

In any case, I think Iran should mind its own business. But that might be hard to do if people that apparently believe in the principle of human sacrifice altering logic and the rule of law keep threatening you, given that they've been known to try to find WMDs in people's underpants before and so forth.

Again, it's not clear how the logic of Zionism or the logic of holocausts and "sacrificing" peasants works in the first place. What does that have to do with bulldozing another peasant's house or taking their land, again?

There may be no "both sides" equivalency here, if one side believes in human sacrifice or holocausts altering basic aspects of logic and the rule of law and the other doesn't.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Oxy, why did you feel the need to title this thread with "zionists"? Isn't it a bit more specific than that?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There may be no "both sides" equivalency here, if one side believes in human sacrifice or holocausts altering basic aspects of logic and the rule of law and the other doesn't.

You are talking utter nonsense. Please try to make more sense in future posts. Be very explicit about what you are trying to say. Do not imply, explain. State clearly what you think. Keep it short and to the point.

example:
"If the Japanese had won WWII and eventually had their movie producers create movies of starving Japanese that were interned in America "
seems to imply
"Zionists in Hollywood make propaganda movies like Schindler's List to promote the exaggerated Zionist lies about the holocaust"

If that's what you mean, then say it. If it's not, then don't imply it obtusely.

Speak plainly, or speak elsewhere.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
You are talking utter nonsense.
....
example:
"If the Japanese had won WWII and eventually had their movie producers create movies of starving Japanese that were interned in America "
seems to imply
"Zionists in Hollywood make propaganda movies like Schindler's List to promote the exaggerated Zionist lies about the holocaust"

Reality is complex, so I wouldn't write something like "...to promote exaggerated Zionist lies about the holocaust." To begin with, people with a tribal mentality hanging out with other people that have the same mentality aren't sitting there consciously "conspiring" about how to promote the lies that they tell themselves. Nor are they consciously thinking about promoting their "sacrifices" as the most important in the entire world while turning a blind eye to others. After all, conspiring or breathing in sync and so forth comes naturally based on their mentality.

Anyway, I was referring to the movie producers that were there to film starving Jews for propaganda purposes originally.

If that's what you mean, then say it. If it's not, then don't imply it obtusely.

Well, that wasn't what I actually wrote... whatever it "seemed to imply" to you from your perspective. Do you understand the logic of the type of sacrifice/holocaust that Zionists are talking about and promoting?

Because it would seem to be important to understand their perspective, given that it's shaping world events to this day.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
For perspective: Debating a Holocaust Denier

That might help with the "seemed to imply" type of perspective. But it probably won't help with understanding why some sacrifices/holocausts count or shape world events to this day while others don't.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Anyway, I was referring to the movie producers that were there to film starving Jews for propaganda purposes originally.

Then you failed to communicate. I think you really need to focus less on how great your words sound to yourself, and focus on how you can communicate your inner thoughts to other people who are different to you.

Speaking plainly would be a good start. You could just ask "why does the Holocaust seem to affect world events more than Cambodia's Killing Fields?".
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I have edited the thread title for neutrality. Previous title:
"Zionist's Push The U.S Again. 'Ignore Talks With Iran' and "Confront Militarily"

That was simply a misrepresentation of what was said, and by whom.
Ah... sorry, are Israel’s leadership not Zionists? It is they that are calling for military confrontation on a country that apparently has not started a war in 300 years or so. I thought they were?

I just took Nethanyahu's quote and put it in the title... I paraphrased

“He knows how to exploit this, and yesterday he called for more talks. Of course he wants more talks. He wants to talk and talk and talk. And while everybody is busy talking to him, he’ll be busy enriching uranium. The centrifuges will keep on spinning.”

into 'Ignore talks with Iran', which is what I read it as....

And paraphrased...

"Israel’s leadership has declared Iran’s uranium-enrichment program an “existential threat,” and Netanyahu has sought assurances from the Obama administration that it would confront Iran, militarily if necessary."

into 'confront militarily', for brevity and accuracy. I then followed up with a clarification.

As for 'what is the conspiracy', I thought that was self evident as it has been discussed on other threads on this site. But for clarity: Are the U.S and Israel conspiring to attack Iran or as you say is it just political posturing as with Iraq? I have already stated that I believe the U.S want to attack Iran as set out in PNAC, and I also believe Israel wants to either attack or get the U.S to do it for them.

I can only attribute all this fear mongering that Iran wants to attack Israel as propaganda to attack Iran, as Iran has never said anything of the sort... although certain Iranians have been misquoted to give that illusion but is it politic to debunk anything like that because it is not our tribe? I mean, who wants to wind up on the NSA shit list for unamerican activity, even if you are not American, (not you personally but in general), I mean how much room has the Ecuadoran Embassy got?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
One should understand 'common usage' for words, even when those are incorrect. The second use here is very common.

from the Urban dictionary

Anyone that has been active with dog breeding has learned this. If your boss tells you that they have a new puppy, you don't ask them "Is it a dog or a bitch?" Asking a friend how their queen is doing will most often not get you an answer of how their sick female cat is doing.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ah... sorry, are Israel’s leadership not Zionists? It is they that are calling for military confrontation on a country that apparently has not started a war in 300 years or so. I thought they were?
Lots of people are Zionists, Netanyahu does not speak for them all.

I just took Nethanyahu's quote and put it in the title... I paraphrased

“He knows how to exploit this, and yesterday he called for more talks. Of course he wants more talks. He wants to talk and talk and talk. And while everybody is busy talking to him, he’ll be busy enriching uranium. The centrifuges will keep on spinning.”

into 'Ignore talks with Iran', which is what I read it as....

And paraphrased...

"Israel’s leadership has declared Iran’s uranium-enrichment program an “existential threat,” and Netanyahu has sought assurances from the Obama administration that it would confront Iran, militarily if necessary."

into 'confront militarily', for brevity and accuracy. I then followed up with a clarification.

Neither of those were accurate. In the first "ignore talks with Iran" implies there are talks that should be ignored. In the second there's a vast difference between "confront militarily" - which means to actually do it, and "confront militarily if necessary", which is redundant, and really he means "expresses a willingness to confront militarily under certain extreme circumstance".

Make longer headlines if you need. Or make the short, but don't paraphrase in them. Explain in the body.

Bunk via headlines is a problem. I won't allow it here.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
One should understand 'common usage' for words, even when those are incorrect. The second use here is very common.

from the Urban dictionary

Anyone that has been active with dog breeding has learned this. If your boss tells you that they have a new puppy, you don't ask them "Is it a dog or a bitch?" Asking a friend how their queen is doing will most often not get you an answer of how their sick female cat is doing.
So you are saying it is 'politically incorrect'? Is the word now taboo? What is a politically acceptable alternative? BTW, I meant the first definition... the correct one.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If you use a word you have to use it in the context of how other people will understand it, not how you understand it.

You are not writing to yourself. Communicating is about speaking the other person's language.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
If you use a word you have to use it in the context of how other people will understand it, not how you understand it.

You are not writing to yourself. Communicating is about speaking the other person's language.
Which is why I have asked the above questions.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Surely you know that many people would consider your usage to be anti-semitic? People have told you this before, haven't they?
Yes I do know that but I do not understand how it came to be so. It seems politically motivated to put the question of Zionism off the table for discussion.

It appears to be a deliberate conflation. If a Zionist is one who promotes and believes in the state of Israel, there should be nothing wrong in the ideology or thinking that it is not right that Zionists should be entitled to evict the original inhabitants from their land and homes, Anti Zionist.

As I said before, what is the politically correct way of addressing them? It appears not to be Israeli as not all Israeli's are Zionists.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
In high school, I came close to being sent to the Principal's office because the magazine I was reading, om study hall, had an article on "Feeding the nursing bitch".

And Grieves wondered about my comment.

By the way, if they are Israeli citizens, then the proper term is 'Israeli' .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes I do know that but I do not understand how it came to be so. It seems politically motivated to put the question of Zionism off the table for discussion.

It appears to be a deliberate conflation. If a Zionist is one who promotes and believes in the state of Israel, there should be nothing wrong in the ideology or thinking that it is not right that Zionists should be entitled to evict the original inhabitants from their land and homes, Anti Zionist.

As I said before, what is the politically correct way of addressing them? It appears not to be Israeli as not all Israeli's are Zionists.

Address them by name, or by the smallest group that defines them. Like here, use "Netanyahu". Or "the Israeli government". "Zionists" do not speak with one voice. So unless you are simply discussing the desire for a Jewish homeland then it's an inappropriate blanket term.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Then you failed to communicate. I think you really need to focus less on how great your words sound to yourself, and focus on how you can communicate your inner thoughts to other people who are different to you.

Speaking plainly would be a good start. You could just ask "why does the Holocaust seem to affect world events more than Cambodia's Killing Fields?".

This was a rhetorical question: If the Japanese had won WWII and eventually had their movie producers create movies of starving Japanese that were interned in America and then published all the information they found on America's campaign to create a master race in the Media Inc. would that have given them a right of return to... Russia? And the simple answer by any rule of law or logic that we know of that doesn't incorporate ideas about human sacrifice/holocausts shaping world events is simply: "No, it wouldn't." Wouldn't you agree?

As far as communication, rhetorical questions and satire are often a good way to communicate a point. But I think you'll find that when I write a satire, it's often all too real anyway. For instance, to say that some groups of modern people believe that human sacrifice or "holocausts" ought to affect world events in peculiar ways like giving some peasants more rights than others might seem like a satire. But it isn't.

With respect to your other question about Cambodia's Killing Fields... are you going to try to answer it?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
For any points that fit into a big picture like pixels on a screen or pigments in a painting... a work of art or rhetoric and so forth is often the best way to communicate.

How are you thinking that a point is right or wrong or "bunk" if you aren't even aware of how it may fit into a bigger picture that can usually only be dealt with in those other ways? It seems to me that you're likely to be subject to the owners of the paradigm that creates your perceptions or perhaps incorporated into the work of the owners of the bunker in the military industrial complex.

In this case, part of the bigger picture is that foreign aide from the US to Israel is being recycled back through the military industrial complex and into the political system. So perhaps it's to be expected that Israel and the US want war. Not necessarily the peasants living in either nation, especially not in America since it's totally against our interests just like the U.S./Israel invention and creation of the war in Iraq was. But the ruling class, international financiers and those incorporated into foreign aide and so forth are likely to want war.

As I pointed out before, the recycling process of the bankster's paper ponzi has gotten to the point that AIPAC lobbyists are openly proposing false flag attacks to create more wars for peasants to die in and so forth:

Do you see the "point" of being anti-war or criticizing Netanyahu's fear mongering within the context of the big picture? If not then what isn't clear?

Like Sibel Edmond's experience with the way the military industrial complex was incorporated in Turkey and 911, the overall pattern or big picture having to do with what some have begun calling U.S./Israeli "globalists" and their lobbyists is becoming more and more clear. Another example:
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
For any points that fit into a big picture like pixels on a screen or pigments in a painting... a work of art or rhetoric and so forth is often the best way to communicate.

No, really it's not. The best way is to explain what the point is. You consistent fail to do this. Your continued lack of real communication is just cluttering up the forum and will likely lead to you being banned if you do not clarify your communication style.

If you want to communicate via works of art, then start a blog. This is a place for clarity.
 

Related Articles

Top