Saudis clear Israel to bomb Iran? Riyadh opens air space for run on nuke facilities, paper says

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Why would you want to intimidate you? You're fearful already. You can't imagine an Iran with nuclear power technology let alone with nuclear weapon. Out of your fear, you are hoping Israel bombs Iran pre-emptively. I'm curious do you guys care about the Iranian people at all? Or do you care about human beings at all? You are a people from who I don't expect sympathy for anyone. Most everyone I encountered on off-topic are heartless animals masquerading as human beings, with strange fetish for war, inhumanity, injustice, bloodletting, holding grudges. Basically warmongering savages.

Now that I'm done insulting you idiots deservingly, read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force Iran doesn't have the most capable air force or military in the world but it can still put up a decent fight. Bombing Iran won't be as easy as bombing Palestine, Lebanon, and/or Iraq.

Also, Saudi Arabia is already denying that they will allow Israel to use their airspace.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/saudi-arabia-we-will-not-give-israel-air-corridor-for-iran-strike-1.295672

Are you Australian by any chance?

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Please stop the name calling and personal attacks. They add nothing to the discussion and only serve to create animosity. Disagreement is fine, just be civil in your comments.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Kathryn41

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Apologist excuse making. That's the interesting thing about people who defend Christian bloodletting; in their minds, it doesn't really count and is quite benign, even though it's been going on even before Islam came to the Middle East.

I don't defend Christian bloodletting. The argument is one of scale, i.e. vast vs. relatively small.

[Darnell 8,478]

Like I said, chump, KSA

Note - name calling is against the TOS here on VJ.

Now that I'm done insulting you idiots deservingly,

Note - name calling is against the TOS here on VJ.

That's twice, in one topic.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Darnell

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It pushed it out of the public eye because Christian on Christian violence isn't really about Christianity, but Muslim violence is about Islam, for sure.

Did anyone note that you rarely hear about the Christians slaughter of over 200,000 Muslims in the 1990's ethnic cleansings in the Balkans?

To your first point, Muslim's involved in violence over the last decade [just to narrow down the focus to the here and now] are the one's who claim it is about Islam. Your denials consistently involve painfully weak attempts to point to Christianity as worse.

And it is at least partially true that the conflict in Ireland, where the two sides generally have clear lines between Protestant and Catholic is not simply about a battle over faiths in competition. The political views of the two sides are far more the focus of the conflict. And while 3,500 deaths are not nothing, nor inconsequential, as a matter of scale vis a vis Sunni-Shia conflicts over the same period of time dwarf the Irish conflict to the tune of hundreds if not thousands.

As to point number two, I remember the Balkans well. My sister was among our contingent of great young men and women who put themselves at risk for those very same Muslims. However you would have a great argument to make that it took insanely long to get involved and stopped. On that score the West failed those poor Muslims quite badly. However it must be said that although the 200,000 figure in the Balkans is indeed bad and tragic, Muslim vs Muslim deaths world wide positively dwarf that figure as well.

Are the roughly 110,000 Algerian citizens hacked to death by Islamists since 1962 nothing?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

To your first point, Muslim's involved in violence over the last decade [just to narrow down the focus to the here and now] are the one's who claim it is about Islam. Your denials consistently involve painfully weak attempts to point to Christianity as worse.

And it is at least partially true that the conflict in Ireland, where the two sides generally have clear lines between Protestant and Catholic is not simply about a battle over faiths in competition. The political views of the two sides are far more the focus of the conflict. And while 3,500 deaths are not nothing, nor inconsequential, as a matter of scale vis a vis Sunni-Shia conflicts over the same period of time dwarf the Irish conflict to the tune of hundreds if not thousands.

As to point number two, I remember the Balkans well. My sister was among our contingent of great young men and women who put themselves at risk for those very same Muslims. However you would have a great argument to make that it took insanely long to get involved and stopped. On that score the West failed those poor Muslims quite badly. However it must be said that although the 200,000 figure in the Balkans is indeed bad and tragic, Muslim vs Muslim deaths world wide positively dwarf that figure as well.

Are the roughly 110,000 Algerian citizens hacked to death by Islamists since 1962 nothing?

Despite the feeble attempts to portray me as anti-Christian or trying to make Christianity look bad, that is not what any objective person would say I'm doing. Repeated snipes at Islam call for a response, and despite your denials, history shows that crimes committed in the name of Jesus, throughout history, have racked up millions of murders and atrocities. Unfortunately, what it also has is contemporaries, like yourself, who constantly downplay the facts to make Islam look worse. Christianity had a headstart on violence way before Islam even made the history books.

That Christian violence continues into the 20th century and beyond is nothing to negate or excuse in your quest to disparage Islam while explaining away Christian terrorism. When I try to explain why Islam isn't to blame for the violence committed by bad Muslims, you refuse to allow me that courtesy, yet you expect that you can sell the same bill of goods to me because, when talking about your faith, you easily dismiss conflicts as "political" or of lesser scale. Any event I can name, Jonestown, for example, you will explain away as not really involving Christianity. You won't allow the baser acts of Christians define Christianity, but you dictate to me that Muslim terrorists define Islam. In point of fact, they don't, no more than Christian terrorists define Christianity.

For me, pointing out the fact that Christians are also a violent bunch is not an excercise in pleasure. It is truly sad that there are still people today who can cavalierly brush off incidents involving members of their faith as not so much. A religion of peace is supposed to be about peace. Since yours isn't either, by your logic, you don't have much to defend.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Sofiyya

[sandinista! 1,816]

To your first point, Muslim's involved in violence over the last decade [just to narrow down the focus to the here and now] are the one's who claim it is about Islam. Your denials consistently involve painfully weak attempts to point to Christianity as worse.

And it is at least partially true that the conflict in Ireland, where the two sides generally have clear lines between Protestant and Catholic is not simply about a battle over faiths in competition. The political views of the two sides are far more the focus of the conflict. And while 3,500 deaths are not nothing, nor inconsequential, as a matter of scale vis a vis Sunni-Shia conflicts over the same period of time dwarf the Irish conflict to the tune of hundreds if not thousands.

As to point number two, I remember the Balkans well. My sister was among our contingent of great young men and women who put themselves at risk for those very same Muslims. However you would have a great argument to make that it took insanely long to get involved and stopped. On that score the West failed those poor Muslims quite badly. However it must be said that although the 200,000 figure in the Balkans is indeed bad and tragic, Muslim vs Muslim deaths world wide positively dwarf that figure as well.

Are the roughly 110,000 Algerian citizens hacked to death by Islamists since 1962 nothing?

while not nothing, still a much smaller number than the 1 million+ algerians killed in the war for independence alone. over 120 years of colonialism took its toll there too.

i've read anywhere from 1.4-2.2 million cambodians died because of khmer rouge. 11 million congolese died during belgium's colonial reign of terror there. 5 million congolese people died in the late 90s-early 00s. so who's been busier?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it's trite and in bad taste to attempt to relativise atrocities.

[Pooky 3,348]

I think it's trite and in bad taste to attempt to relativise atrocities.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I think it's trite and in bad taste to attempt to relativise atrocities.

I agree. It's fascinating, though, that from Christians the response is "Yea, they did that, but it's not so bad." or "That was a long time ago, apples and oranges." Atrocities have been committed by adherents to Islam and to Christianity in the name of God for centuries. If non-Muslims are going to point fingers at Muslims, they need to acknowledge that there have been Christians who have found justification in Biblical scripture that their acts are blessed by Jesus, just as there are Muslims who believe their acts are commanded by Allah in the Quran.

My point is, and has always been, that there are no clean hands; some bad people find what they need in scripture to explain their acts. We don't understand why they do what they do because we don't cherry pick our holy books for reasons to commit murder. But, to insist that bad Muslims define the entire faith for Islam, then deny the same logic for Chrisianity because you favor it is hypocrisy. To do so while accusing Muslims who defend Islam of refusing to acknowledge that crimes were committed in God's name by adherents to their faith, while you make excuses for murderous Christians is double hypocrisy. This happens whenever any topic even remotely involving violence, religion, Muslims or Islam is discussed here and it's ridiculous. I don't blame anyone for defending Christianity against those who desparage it, just don't blame me for defending Islam. I know a lot more of the truth about it than those of you who get your info from Muslim hating websites.

Just sayin' . . .

Edited June 13, 2010 by Sofiyya

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Just so we are all clear here.

Christian atrocities are atrocities. They by definition and discussion are to be understood as reflecting the historical blood lust of Christian believers. When such issues are raised here it is ok to defend Christianity from disparaging remarks, just don't expect them to stop any time soon.

Islamic atrocities are really ok, because [insert lame excuse, outside influence here] and they do not in any way shape or form reflect on the historical blood lust of Muslim believers. The current and historical record contains no such information, Islam is solely a religion of peace. When such issues are raised, expect disparaging of Christianity, accusations that the remark-er as opposed to the incident or issue is 'worse than the terrorists' and expect to hear that the terrorists are not actually Islamic at all, to say that is of course incredibly stupid and inaccurate, and merely designed to stir up Right Wing-Nut anti-Islam fervor?

Do I have it correct now?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I think you just refuse to get it. I have seen a single soul, including myself, make excuses for Muslims who commit atrocities while claimimg that Islam commands it. The correction has been made, numerous times, that Islam doesn't condone terrorism, but that, if one wants, they can cherry pick verses to find justification, in their own mind.

The same is true of Christianity. Christians have committed atrocities in the name of God, claiming that God commands them to do so. The correction has been made to say that this is not behavior that is condoned by Christianity, but there are verses that can be interpreted as permission to murder non-believers.

Where I have a problem wth people like you is that you even as you insist that there are reasons other than faith for misguided Christians to kill in God's name, you will not allow for the fact that there are reasons other than faith for misguided Muslims to kill in God's name.

There is nothing Islamic about attacking innocents. Nothing. Yet, you, who knows nothing about Islam except that which stokes your prejudice, believe that you can dictate to me what my faith condones because you have decided that Islam promotes violence.

Unlike you, I know that neither Islam or Christianity promote violence, and I don't offer historical events where Christians have murdered innocents as examples of the faith demanding that, or even to be disparaging toward Christianity. I'm just showng that both faiths have their miscrients.

You, however, believe you know better, and continue to state emphatically that violence is intrinic to Islam, that it is to be expected because that is what Muslims are commanded to do. That is not true, but you won't accept that of Islam, even as you scramble to show that it's not true of Christianity. You apply a double standard, correctly dismissing centuries of Christian terrorism as an abogation of the text, yet refusing to make any comparison that allows for the same to be said about Muslim terrorism.

I am trying to teach you something you apparently have a great deal of resistance to. That resistance links you closer to Muslim terrorists because you have eagerly devoured their philosophy and interpretations of Islam, hook, line and sinker. You sound just like them - stuck on stupid. You certainly don't believe as knowledgable Muslims do, that terrorists and their sympathizers are the misguided ones. You keep trying to convince me and others that Muslims who don't kill in God's name are the ones who don't know their faith, because that's what you believe. In so doing, you are spreading the message of terrorism, and, that places you on their side. You certainly aren't combating them when you agree with them. You are only making them stronger, and that's sad.

Just so we are all clear here.

Christian atrocities are atrocities. They by definition and discussion are to be understood as reflecting the historical blood lust of Christian believers. When such issues are raised here it is ok to defend Christianity from disparaging remarks, just don't expect them to stop any time soon.

Islamic atrocities are really ok, because [insert lame excuse, outside influence here] and they do not in any way shape or form reflect on the historical blood lust of Muslim believers. The current and historical record contains no such information, Islam is solely a religion of peace. When such issues are raised, expect disparaging of Christianity, accusations that the remark-er as opposed to the incident or issue is 'worse than the terrorists' and expect to hear that the terrorists are not actually Islamic at all, to say that is of course incredibly stupid and inaccurate, and merely designed to stir up Right Wing-Nut anti-Islam fervor?

Do I have it correct now?

Edited June 13, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Pooky 3,348]

If you combine the OP Article with the one about an Iranian flotilla, escorted by Iranian warships this will soon be on its way to Gaza (see here) and does anyone else see an impending sh*tstorm about to engulf the Middle East?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Correction to post #57:

I think you just refuse to get it. I haven't seen a single soul, including myself, make excuses for Muslims who commit atrocities while claiming that Islam commands it

I can't type worth a damn

[SupportGeek 21]

Why would you want to intimidate you? You're fearful already. You can't imagine an Iran with nuclear power technology let alone with nuclear weapon. Out of your fear, you are hoping Israel bombs Iran pre-emptively. I'm curious do you guys care about the Iranian people at all? Or do you care about human beings at all? You are a people from who I don't expect sympathy for anyone. Most everyone I encountered on off-topic are heartless animals masquerading as human beings, with strange fetish for war, inhumanity, injustice, bloodletting, holding grudges. Basically warmongering savages.

Now that I'm done insulting you idiots deservingly, read this http://en.wikipedia...._Iran_Air_Force Iran doesn't have the most capable air force or military in the world but it can still put up a decent fight. Bombing Iran won't be as easy as bombing Palestine, Lebanon, and/or Iraq.

Also, Saudi Arabia is already denying that they will allow Israel to use their airspace.

http://www.haaretz.c...strike-1.295672

Im worried about any country with a radical/extremist leadership having either nuclear power or nuclear weaponry, obviously Israel is worried about Iran specifically because they have made overt statements that they want to cause Israel to cease to exist.

Why should we care about the Iranian people when their own governments actions seem to indicate that THEY dont even care about their people, continuing on the quest for nuclear power and weapons is certainly not taking their people out of danger now is it?

It definitely wouldnt be easy to bomb Iran, but I seriously doubt they could stop a determined Israel.