On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:20:20 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Let the Record show that "Tom Del Rosso" on or
about Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:06:45 -0400 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Blackouts lasting months are not a concern? Excuse me, but when
the water goes out people get really cranky - no coffee without water!

Yeah, but they don't like being irradiated either. Given the considerable
extra expense for this type of attack, they will choose the other option.
And the sponsoring nation won't equip the terrorists to use a method that
makes tracing the source easier.

This of course, assumes that the sponsoring nation isn't prepared
for Armageddon. Last I heard, the Iranians were big believers in the
12th Imman, and one thing good Muslims can do to hasten his
re-appearance, is massive global strife.

It's sort of like how many Evangelicals just know that the second
coming is dependent on Antichrist introducing the Tribulation and
waging the battle of Armageddon. Only in the Evangelical's cases,
they're not trying to hurry the onset of the Antichrist by
precipitating the Tribulation.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!


Not having a horse in this race, I would suggest that the Iranians have a very
specific reason to want to a nuclear capabability:- The other nuclear capable
terrorist nation in the Middle East that has a nasty habit of ignoring other
countries' boundaries, international laws and treaties. At least your current
president isn't supporting them quite as irresponsibly as his predecessor.


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:36:53 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:20:20 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Let the Record show that "Tom Del Rosso" on or
about Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:06:45 -0400 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Blackouts lasting months are not a concern? Excuse me, but when
the water goes out people get really cranky - no coffee without water!

Yeah, but they don't like being irradiated either. Given the considerable
extra expense for this type of attack, they will choose the other option.
And the sponsoring nation won't equip the terrorists to use a method that
makes tracing the source easier.

This of course, assumes that the sponsoring nation isn't prepared
for Armageddon. Last I heard, the Iranians were big believers in the
12th Imman, and one thing good Muslims can do to hasten his
re-appearance, is massive global strife.

It's sort of like how many Evangelicals just know that the second
coming is dependent on Antichrist introducing the Tribulation and
waging the battle of Armageddon. Only in the Evangelical's cases,
they're not trying to hurry the onset of the Antichrist by
precipitating the Tribulation.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!


Not having a horse in this race, I would suggest that the Iranians have a very
specific reason to want to a nuclear capabability:- The other nuclear capable
terrorist nation in the Middle East that has a nasty habit of ignoring other
countries' boundaries, international laws and treaties. At least your current
president isn't supporting them quite as irresponsibly as his predecessor.


Mark Rand
RTFM

You are claiming then that the Isrealies are a bunch of idiotic
Jihadists whom simply kill Non Believers whenever they get the urge?

Interesting Herr Rand..most interesting indeed.

Jawol!

Gunner Asch.


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:48:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:36:53 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:20:20 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Let the Record show that "Tom Del Rosso" on or
about Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:06:45 -0400 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Blackouts lasting months are not a concern? Excuse me, but when
the water goes out people get really cranky - no coffee without water!

Yeah, but they don't like being irradiated either. Given the considerable
extra expense for this type of attack, they will choose the other option.
And the sponsoring nation won't equip the terrorists to use a method that
makes tracing the source easier.

This of course, assumes that the sponsoring nation isn't prepared
for Armageddon. Last I heard, the Iranians were big believers in the
12th Imman, and one thing good Muslims can do to hasten his
re-appearance, is massive global strife.

It's sort of like how many Evangelicals just know that the second
coming is dependent on Antichrist introducing the Tribulation and
waging the battle of Armageddon. Only in the Evangelical's cases,
they're not trying to hurry the onset of the Antichrist by
precipitating the Tribulation.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!


Not having a horse in this race, I would suggest that the Iranians have a very
specific reason to want to a nuclear capabability:- The other nuclear capable
terrorist nation in the Middle East that has a nasty habit of ignoring other
countries' boundaries, international laws and treaties. At least your current
president isn't supporting them quite as irresponsibly as his predecessor.


Mark Rand
RTFM

You are claiming then that the Isrealies are a bunch of idiotic
Jihadists whom simply kill Non Believers whenever they get the urge?

Interesting Herr Rand..most interesting indeed.

Jawol!

Gunner Asch.

I'm not one to argue with the evidence. They certainly are a bunch of idiotic
jihadists that are poisoned by their paranoia.

PS, although My brother in law and sister run a profitable pig farm in Lower
Saxony, the family line is closer to the line of the Dukes of Norfolk than to
any German line. There is a Dutch element, five generations back however.

Mark Rand wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:48:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

You are claiming then that the Isrealies are a bunch of idiotic
Jihadists whom simply kill Non Believers whenever they get the urge?

Interesting Herr Rand..most interesting indeed.

Jawol!

Gunner Asch.

I'm not one to argue with the evidence. They certainly are a bunch of
idiotic jihadists that are poisoned by their paranoia.

PS, although My brother in law and sister run a profitable pig farm
in Lower Saxony, the family line is closer to the line of the Dukes
of Norfolk than to any German line. There is a Dutch element, five
generations back however.

Anti-Semites come from all over.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:14:29 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


Mark Rand wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:48:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

You are claiming then that the Isrealies are a bunch of idiotic
Jihadists whom simply kill Non Believers whenever they get the urge?

Interesting Herr Rand..most interesting indeed.

Jawol!

Gunner Asch.

I'm not one to argue with the evidence. They certainly are a bunch of
idiotic jihadists that are poisoned by their paranoia.

PS, although My brother in law and sister run a profitable pig farm
in Lower Saxony, the family line is closer to the line of the Dukes
of Norfolk than to any German line. There is a Dutch element, five
generations back however.

Anti-Semites come from all over.


Indeed they do. Ive not run into one in many years, and to find one on a
beloved newsgroup....blink...stopped me solid for a moment.

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:36:26 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:48:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:36:53 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:20:20 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Let the Record show that "Tom Del Rosso" on or
about Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:06:45 -0400 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Blackouts lasting months are not a concern? Excuse me, but when
the water goes out people get really cranky - no coffee without water!

Yeah, but they don't like being irradiated either. Given the considerable
extra expense for this type of attack, they will choose the other option.
And the sponsoring nation won't equip the terrorists to use a method that
makes tracing the source easier.

This of course, assumes that the sponsoring nation isn't prepared
for Armageddon. Last I heard, the Iranians were big believers in the
12th Imman, and one thing good Muslims can do to hasten his
re-appearance, is massive global strife.

It's sort of like how many Evangelicals just know that the second
coming is dependent on Antichrist introducing the Tribulation and
waging the battle of Armageddon. Only in the Evangelical's cases,
they're not trying to hurry the onset of the Antichrist by
precipitating the Tribulation.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!


Not having a horse in this race, I would suggest that the Iranians have a very
specific reason to want to a nuclear capabability:- The other nuclear capable
terrorist nation in the Middle East that has a nasty habit of ignoring other
countries' boundaries, international laws and treaties. At least your current
president isn't supporting them quite as irresponsibly as his predecessor.


Mark Rand
RTFM

You are claiming then that the Isrealies are a bunch of idiotic
Jihadists whom simply kill Non Believers whenever they get the urge?

Interesting Herr Rand..most interesting indeed.

Jawol!

Gunner Asch.

I'm not one to argue with the evidence. They certainly are a bunch of idiotic
jihadists that are poisoned by their paranoia.


Blink blink....blink....the Israelies are paranoid?????????

**** me running.

You actually stated that..on a public newsgroup.

You really think that way? Honestly, you are simply not trying to prove
you are brain damaged so we shouldnt expect too much from you?

PS, although My brother in law and sister run a profitable pig farm in Lower
Saxony, the family line is closer to the line of the Dukes of Norfolk than to
any German line. There is a Dutch element, five generations back however.


Seems that there are occasionally "sports" that show up in the family
line, kameraden.

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:48:29 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:36:53 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:20:20 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Let the Record show that "Tom Del Rosso" on or
about Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:06:45 -0400 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Blackouts lasting months are not a concern? Excuse me, but when
the water goes out people get really cranky - no coffee without water!

Yeah, but they don't like being irradiated either. Given the considerable
extra expense for this type of attack, they will choose the other option.
And the sponsoring nation won't equip the terrorists to use a method that
makes tracing the source easier.

This of course, assumes that the sponsoring nation isn't prepared
for Armageddon. Last I heard, the Iranians were big believers in the
12th Imman, and one thing good Muslims can do to hasten his
re-appearance, is massive global strife.

It's sort of like how many Evangelicals just know that the second
coming is dependent on Antichrist introducing the Tribulation and
waging the battle of Armageddon. Only in the Evangelical's cases,
they're not trying to hurry the onset of the Antichrist by
precipitating the Tribulation.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!


Not having a horse in this race, I would suggest that the Iranians have a very
specific reason to want to a nuclear capabability:- The other nuclear capable
terrorist nation in the Middle East that has a nasty habit of ignoring other
countries' boundaries, international laws and treaties. At least your current
president isn't supporting them quite as irresponsibly as his predecessor.


Mark Rand
RTFM

You are claiming then that the Isrealies are a bunch of idiotic
Jihadists whom simply kill Non Believers whenever they get the urge?

Interesting Herr Rand..most interesting indeed.

To quote an old catchphrase "Und Shtupid, too."

Jawol!

Gunner Asch.


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:20:20 -0700, pyotr filipivich

wrote:

Let the Record show that "Tom Del Rosso" on or
about Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:06:45 -0400 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Blackouts lasting months are not a concern? Excuse me, but when
the water goes out people get really cranky - no coffee without water!

Yeah, but they don't like being irradiated either. Given the
considerable
extra expense for this type of attack, they will choose the other option.
And the sponsoring nation won't equip the terrorists to use a method that
makes tracing the source easier.

This of course, assumes that the sponsoring nation isn't prepared
for Armageddon. Last I heard, the Iranians were big believers in the
12th Imman, and one thing good Muslims can do to hasten his
re-appearance, is massive global strife.

It's sort of like how many Evangelicals just know that the second
coming is dependent on Antichrist introducing the Tribulation and
waging the battle of Armageddon. Only in the Evangelical's cases,
they're not trying to hurry the onset of the Antichrist by
precipitating the Tribulation.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!


Not having a horse in this race, I would suggest that the Iranians have a
very
specific reason to want to a nuclear capabability:- The other nuclear
capable
terrorist nation in the Middle East that has a nasty habit of ignoring
other
countries' boundaries, international laws and treaties. At least your
current
president isn't supporting them quite as irresponsibly as his predecessor.


Mark Rand
RTFM

They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous. It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars. Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous. It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars. Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

--
Ed Huntress




Absolutely right on target, Ed.
Thanks.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous. It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars. Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the quasi-religious
bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their neighbours and those whose
land they occupy, there would not quite so much desire amongst those
neighbours to wipe them off the face of the earth. Supporting their deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to stabilize the
region.

Mark Rand
RTFM

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:43:58 +0100, the infamous Mark Rand
scrawled the following:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous. It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars. Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the quasi-religious
bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their neighbours and those whose
land they occupy, there would not quite so much desire amongst those
neighbours to wipe them off the face of the earth. Supporting their deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to stabilize the
region.

OTOH, anyone supporting the quasi-religious bigoted paranoia, deluded
world view, and continuing atrocious behavior of the Arabs does
nothing to stabilize the region, either. These hacks have been
hacking at each other for 4 millenia. A few democrazies aren't going
to faze them. shrug,sigh

--
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to
be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:43:58 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous. It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars. Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the quasi-religious
bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their neighbours and those whose
land they occupy, there would not quite so much desire amongst those
neighbours to wipe them off the face of the earth. Supporting their deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to stabilize the
region.

Mark Rand
RTFM


Is that right Kluxer? Interesting. Did they tell you that at your Klan
meeting?

Or was that at your National Socialist dinner?


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:



They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries
would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous. It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars.
Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the quasi-religious
bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their neighbours and those whose
land they occupy, there would not quite so much desire amongst those
neighbours to wipe them off the face of the earth. Supporting their
deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to stabilize
the
region.

We'll never agree about this, and my opinion of Israel is not what you
probably assume. But the idea of "working with their neighbors" suggests to
me an unrealistic view of their history -- and especially an unrealistic
view of their neighbors.

If the Israelis had the opportunity, they probably would wipe out their
neighbors. As for the neighbors, they've proven multiple times that they
would do the same.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:



They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western
countries would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying
Western-style rules of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in
which most countries understand the principles of non-proliferation
and the instability risk posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't
just Israel that's nervous. It's also much of the Arab Middle East,
who probably would feel compelled to develop their own nuclear
weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the
theoretical niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany
between the wars. Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the
quasi-religious bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their
neighbours and those whose land they occupy, there would not quite
so much desire amongst those neighbours to wipe them off the face of
the earth. Supporting their deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to
stabilize the
region.

We'll never agree about this, and my opinion of Israel is not what you
probably assume. But the idea of "working with their neighbors"
suggests to me an unrealistic view of their history -- and especially
an unrealistic view of their neighbors.

If the Israelis had the opportunity, they probably would wipe out
their neighbors. As for the neighbors, they've proven multiple times
that they would do the same.

And having failed to conclude your thought, I'll do it myself.
We ought to just let the mother****ers, but before we do we ought to let
everyone know it's just that way.
THEN, they might sort it out but if not, who cares. Warren Buffet can just
write off Iscar.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:



They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western
countries would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying
Western-style rules of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in
which most countries understand the principles of non-proliferation
and the instability risk posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't
just Israel that's nervous. It's also much of the Arab Middle East,
who probably would feel compelled to develop their own nuclear
weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the
theoretical niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany
between the wars. Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the
quasi-religious bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their
neighbours and those whose land they occupy, there would not quite
so much desire amongst those neighbours to wipe them off the face of
the earth. Supporting their deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to
stabilize the
region.

We'll never agree about this, and my opinion of Israel is not what you
probably assume. But the idea of "working with their neighbors"
suggests to me an unrealistic view of their history -- and especially
an unrealistic view of their neighbors.

If the Israelis had the opportunity, they probably would wipe out
their neighbors. As for the neighbors, they've proven multiple times
that they would do the same.

And having failed to conclude your thought, I'll do it myself.
We ought to just let the mother****ers, but before we do we ought to let
everyone know it's just that way.
THEN, they might sort it out but if not, who cares. Warren Buffet can just
write off Iscar.


--
John R. Carroll

I think the consequences for all of us would be a lot worse than you're
suggesting, if the world let that happen.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:


They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries
would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous. It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars.
Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.
Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the quasi-religious
bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their neighbours and those whose
land they occupy, there would not quite so much desire amongst those
neighbours to wipe them off the face of the earth. Supporting their
deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to stabilize
the
region.

We'll never agree about this, and my opinion of Israel is not what you
probably assume. But the idea of "working with their neighbors" suggests to
me an unrealistic view of their history -- and especially an unrealistic
view of their neighbors.

If the Israelis had the opportunity, they probably would wipe out their
neighbors. As for the neighbors, they've proven multiple times that they
would do the same.

IIRC... way back when, God commanded the Isrealites to destroy their
enemies, every last man, woman, child, and beast.
They didn't do it, and are still paying for the oversight.

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:


They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries
would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style
rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous.
It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars.
Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.
Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the quasi-religious
bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their neighbours and those
whose
land they occupy, there would not quite so much desire amongst those
neighbours to wipe them off the face of the earth. Supporting their
deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to stabilize
the
region.

We'll never agree about this, and my opinion of Israel is not what you
probably assume. But the idea of "working with their neighbors" suggests
to me an unrealistic view of their history -- and especially an
unrealistic view of their neighbors.

If the Israelis had the opportunity, they probably would wipe out their
neighbors. As for the neighbors, they've proven multiple times that they
would do the same.

IIRC... way back when, God commanded the Isrealites to destroy their
enemies, every last man, woman, child, and beast.
They didn't do it, and are still paying for the oversight.

That would have solved the Christian problem, all right. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress