Payback time

Bob

Melanie,

Your examination of the idiocy of our policies toward Israel and Iran is accurate. The powers that be in the government and socially in America are now almost unabashedly anti-Semitic. How sad that the more tahn 60 year friendship between Israel and the US is being systematically and assuredly dismantled, while the appeasement of Iran continues apace. No one is listening to any sense such as John Bolton has provided. How disastrously sad a time it is in America.

Carl

Saddam's role in the Islamist war on the west? Do enlighten us Melanie, I can't wait for you to reveal this secret.

THX1138

Mel- Quotes The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen , warned that Iran is now at the point where it can develop nuclear weapons. I'm sure he is right.

They want the nuclear weapons because Israel has them.

The former head of The Strategic Air Command General Lee Butler said this 1998 at Nation Press club dinner on Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East and this of Israel in particular

"it is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East, one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and that that inspires other nations to do so.

How could it not be so!

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/ethics/issues/military/butler_national-press-club-q&a.htm

Should the world not be working towards a nuclear free middle east that also includes Israel ?

Michael B

Yes. This seems right, all too right, throughout.

Simon

Israel is a nuclear power - I don't think anyone seriously doubts that. If Iran did seek to incinerate Israel then the cost would certainly be the reciprocal destruction of Iran or at the very least a nuclear riposte that would shatter the Iranian state completely. How does Ms Philips think that Iran can destroy Israel without itself being destroyed? To suggest not just that Iran will destroy Israel - which would assume that Iran's leaders are literally insane - but that the country (or what's left of it) would then go on to "finish off" the rest of the western world would appear completely irrational. How exactly is a post-nuclear exchange Iran supposed to take on Europe and America? There is after all the small matter of the American, British and French nuclear arsenals.

Gautam

This presents a very grim picture. Obama appears to be seriously muddling things. It's astonishing that just a few months back this glib gent was being seen as the great white hope of not just America but the entire free world. Today, he looks like just another Washington politician, and certainly not the best that the American system is -- I would say still -- capable of producing.

Obama must see the folly in his policy towards Israel. Israel is a creation of America. That, however, does not mean that Israel would remain perpetually beholden to America. As a matter of fact, even if America withdraws its support to the Jewish homeland, Israel is perfectly capable of looking after itself. What Obama needs to see is that, as a consequence of his Israel policy, Tel Aviv could get far more belligerent than it is, even at this moment. Would such an Israel be in the interests of peace in the "free world" that America swears by? The need is for the US to even more actively engage Israel as it tries to come to terms with its troubled neighborhood. Abandoning Israel would fly in the face of wisdom as well as cold reason.

Jenny

How on earth George Mitchell gets the nerve to show his face after what has been unfolding in Northern Ireland lately, I have no idea.

If Iran goes nuclear, the key parts of the Middle East go nuclear just as the West is hollowed out from the inside by Islamist poison and Marxian acid.

We really are about to live through history - and there is little sign the good guys are going to win.

New Brunswick Barry

Of course, if Iran were to incinerate Israel, it would be a Pyrrhic victory and its last act of aggression, since the Israelis would strike back in kind. There is no way the Iranians could destroy Israel's entire air- sea- and land-based nuclear capability in a first strike.

porkbelly

In an interview on NPR a day or two ago Gates admitted that the United States has very little inside intelligence on either Iran or North Korea so it is hard to understand how he can be so defintive about the state of Iran's weapons program. Only after Israel has been incinerated by an Iranian nuclear strike will the ever-cautious (and ever-opportunist) Gates concede the existence of the threat. Look at Obama's willingness to look the other way as China crushes Tibet yet again, or as Russia expands its reach over Eastern Europe once more and you can see what is in store for Israel (and that is the best case scenario!)

Vision Aforethought

I cannot believe that those who adhere to Mr. Bolton's excellent analysis of the status quo (sense in a senseless world) are not pulling some strings somewhere to ensure things don't go completely pear shaped. Else they may go big hot mushroom shaped.

epaminondas

I would NOT pre-suppose a bound and gagged Israel. I would look for a US abandoned Israel, ready to commit ANY ACT IMAGINABLE to ensure NEVER AGAIN.

I would look for Israel selling military technology to CHINA in such a situation, and absolute strategic chaos.

I doubt if that serves US interests

John Edwards

Clive Davis on his Spectator blog once again has some good coverage on the Freeman affair.

In particular he links to an excellent piece by Staphen Walt. As Walt points out Freeman's comments about Israel are frequently made by moderate Israelis. Indeed he notes "If Freeman were Israeli he could write a regular column in Haaretz without anyone batting an eye"

As Walt concludes "What is different about the Freeman case is that the campaign against him got waged out in the open and many people figured out what was going on and were willing to say so....the case shows that the discouse on the issue is changing and that is all to the good. It didn't move fast enough to save Freeman but maybe it can move fast enough to rescue the US from some of its mistakes and prevent it from making more"

Let us hope so.

Suffolkbor

During the cold war we were told that maintaining a nuclear deterrent was the best possible way of avoiding major confrontation based upon the principle of M.A.D.
:Mutual Assured Destruction :

Neither side would make a pre-emptive strike on the other because by doing so they would they would seal their own fate via reciprocity .

As other posters have noted why are we supposed to accept that Israel could be nuked by Iran with impunity when the former country has a substantial nuclear arsenal of it,s own and doubtless the sophisticated tracking systems and intelligence networks to warn of such an attack ?
Iran would be cinders . Not very clever at all .
The terrorist sleeper cells that Ahmedinijad boasts of lying dormant in Europe awaiting activation are a different kettle of fish ,however .

Straydingo

Carl,
It has been well documented that Saddam wrote cheques to Hamas and Hezbollah Suicide Bombers and that he had dealings with Al-Qaeda.
The problem is you are not interested in considering any other point of view, which is ultimately the root cause of the problem individuals like me have with the likes of you.
I am man enough to admit and acknowledge that I don’t have all the answers....I don’t suffer from any form of anxiety and don’t feel the need to take up causes that enable me to feel morally superior to others with alternate views.
The problem I have with individuals like you is that you really don’t want to consider what my views are...you have no interest in considering that I my opinion may carry some weight.
This is a great shame, as I believe that by cultivating an environment in which healthy debate can be engaged in leads to new ideas and solution being revealed.

Virginia Bob

Iran could use its nuclear weapons to neutralize any Israeli nuclear threat while they engage in multiple small wars against Israel. In any event the fate of the world now depends upon the IAF to take out the Iranian sites. Tragically under Messiah Obama the I doubt the US will be able to recognize any foreign threat let alone confront it.
Frankly the US deserves pain for electing that jerk.

Sam Armstrong

Simon
March 13th, 2009 7:41pm

You have to remember that Ahmadinejad is totally insane, and as an Islamist perfectly happy to have his citizens wiped out and his land razed to the ground, in order to destroy Israel. He has said so already.

An American

Now I'm beginning to understand why Gates was Obama's only big-gun holdover from Bush's presidency.

Maybe Gates was a 'yes' man all along...and we all know that's the only kind that the 'Messiah' will have in his administration...the Emperor doesn't want anyone telling him he has no clothes on...

Check out the latest Rasmussen polls, The One's popularity and believeablity are falling like a rock...

just Louise

Among those crawling out from beneath their rocks to defame Israel and ensure that it's offered up for sacrifice are ex-CIA agent-turned-political activist and Israel basher Ray McGovern and former anti-apartheid campaigner Ian Williams, a Liverpudlian who has been resident in America for many years and seems of much the same ilk if not as strident.
The anti-Israel credentials of these individuals – especially McGovern’s – can be glimpsed here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern12072004.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ianwilliams
Both gentlemen were interviewed on Iran’s round-the-clock propaganda news channel, Press TV, on Wednesday evening, and spoke at length alleging the role of various American partisans of Israel in Freeman’s downfall. They named Dennis Ross, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Rahm Emanuel as probable twisters of Obama’s arm, and agreed that such shenanegans on the part of ‘the Israel lobby’ must be fought tooth and nail.
McGovern in particular looked like the proverbial cat who has lapped the cream, delighted with the exposure the Iranian channel was giving him, and making the most of the opportunity. He had a malevolent glint in his eye as he insisted that Israel is a liability to the USA, that American foreign policy is in thraldom to Israel, which does not serve (he raved) America’s national interest, and that Israel must be told now and in no uncertain terms by a special envoy that America will not risk its own security by coming to Israel’s aid in the event of a nuclear strike by Israel on Iran’s nuclear capability. The latter, he agreed, was only for pacific use, and Admiral Blair was correct to say there are no bombs in the works.
It was nauseating spectacle, one that I’m sure will be often repeated, and was accompanied by images of webpages of US Jewish organisations – lots of them including AIPAC, the American Jewish Congress, the Central Conference of American Rabbis and synagogue organisations - supposedly components of ‘the Israeli lobby’.

Dixon

Simon
March 13th, 2009 7:41pm
Israel is a nuclear power - I don't think anyone seriously doubts that. If Iran did seek to incinerate Israel then the cost would certainly be the reciprocal destruction of Iran or at the very least a nuclear riposte that would shatter the Iranian state completely. How does Ms Philips think that Iran can destroy Israel without itself being destroyed? "

Answer: Geography. Just look at the map will you. Iranian leaders know full well that tiny Israel could be effectively obliterated with only a couple of bombs followed by an overwhelming land offensive whilst Iran in its territorial immensity and geographical resilience would survive an attack by anything less than hundreds of warheads.

During the cold war, NATO expected, if a Soviet ground invasion occurred, to use tens of thousands of tactical nuclear weapons, such as Lance, Davey Crocket, 155mm nuclear howitzer shells, gravity bombs dropped from single and two seat fighters, nuclear demolition charges and satchel bombs, ON THEIR OWN TERRITORY. Israel hardly poses the threat to Irans existence that you imagine.

Meanwhile, who can seriously imagine that British or French politicians would ever launch a nuclear reprisal against a country like Iran, perceived as comprising a harmless populace ruled by a tiny crackpot elite. If even Churchill was greatly reluctant to allow RAF bombing of German cities, the rulers of states like Iran can full well rely upon our present political classes to consider the use of nuclear weapons, under ANY circumstances, as unthinkable. In fact, it makes you wonder why we still have them. Indeed, it is not at all certain that in a few years we still shall.

Mark Adrian Solomon

This bland assertion made by a few here that the Cold War reality of M.A.D. applies equally to Iran-Israel ignores the basic facts: during the Cold War both sides had a rational leadership that considered what was best for their countries and people(within the framework of ideology of course) - they were both nationalist and wanted to avoid losing the war, or preferably winning it, but at the very least to survive intact.

With Iran one is not in the same boat. Their dominant motivation is ideological and religious, where little value is placed on the people as a whole. Where the ideology states that destruction of one's enemy, even if it results in one's own death, means going straight to paradise, then we are a long way off the rational basis of the Cold War era. That is the problem, we are judging Iran's leaders to be the same as our's or at least something we would recognise, when in fact they are from a different planet entirely and are playing a different game. Failure to recognise this will lead directly to Israel's and our incineration.

Also the difference in physical size and population means that we are not on the same level playing field as the Cold War antagonists. Iran could totally destroy Israel with less than 10 atomic weapons while Isreal would need many hundreds to do the same to Iran. This imbalance is dangerous in itself but even more so is the naivety - which I can only see as deliberate - that puts these countries on the same level and thereby guarantees Israel's annihilation (which is, after all, what these people want).

Linda Smith

The rational westerners posting here forget that Ahmadinejad and his string pulling Mullahs have got some ideology about an apocalypse and a hidden imam. They welcome death. That's why nuclear weapons are so dangerous in their hands.

porkbelly

I think some commenters don't really understand how deterrence or mutually assured destruction works. The concept presupposes more-or-less equally equipped opponents (because if one side runs out of weapons before the other it must lose), who are also mostly (but not entirely) rational. If one side were entirely rational deterrence would fail since - and this is the key point, and the reason for the "M.A.D." acronym - a nuclear response is such a barbaric thing that no sane, rational person would engage in one - even if attacked first. That is because only a barbaric, extreme response would have any effect as a response to a first strike - a measured second strike aimed, say, at purely military targets would then invite an even more devastating (and game-ending) reaction. So deterrence assumes that after being on the receiving end of a first strike the injured party would - as in "Dr. Strangelove" - go a little funny in the head, would go "MAD" in other words and launch an irrational devastating second strike. At the very least neither opponent could ever be sure enough that his adversary wouldn't react "funny" and therefore wouldn't risk (or even threaten) a first strike. This is the basis for the so-called balance of terror - it is a fine balance not simply of miltary force but of human psychology and shared values. That is why even during the depths of the Cold War both the U.S. and the USSR shared a commitment to avoiding a nuclear war at all costs.

Now let us look at the situation of Iran and Israel. In this case you would have a serious military imbalance: Iran with a small number of nuclear devices and Israel with (probably) several hundred. Iran doesn't have the capability to drop a bomb on Israel from an aircraft (they'd never make it into Israeli airspace). So unless they smuggle a bomb into Israel (a real possibility) they are left with miniaturizing their weapons and fitting them atop missiles. Not simple but it can be done, obviously. But they'd have get their missiles into launch readiness for them to be credible and at that point Israel, armed with satellite intelligence, would need to destroy them on the ground immediately. So Iran needs to make a commitment to arm and then as soon as possible to launch their nuclear missiles or see them lost. This, so far, is not deterrence, this is an inherently unstable situation.

But would the threat of massive Israeli nuclear retaliation deter Iran in the first instance? I think not. First, Iran's leaders may well feel the costs of an Israeli second strike are worth the gain of obliterating Israel. Second, their perception is that the West (and to them Israel is firmly in that camp) is fundamentally weak, sentimental, lacking in resolve and ruthlessness. Would a nation that phones up its enemies to alert them of an attack, or treats its enemies in its own hospitals truly be willing to annihilate millions of innocent Iranians even after their own cause is lost? In other words, is there sufficient reason to doubt Israel would go "MAD"? I think in the Iranian leaders' eyes there very much is. Calculating the situation this way I do not see how deterrence can function: the military and the human balance is too skewed. Can some one show me the flaw in this logic?

Roy

Melanie's last paragraph sums it up beautifully as usual. What comes to mind is that we have more to be concerned about by the fifth columnists within the various countries of the western democratic sector than those outside it. Once of course nuclear devices get thrown around those doing the throwing will not be discerning as to whom to avoid due to their helping hand. Certain countries will sit idly by with their nuclear finger ready, then walk in and help divide the uncontaminated spoils, if any.

Ben

"...why are we supposed to accept that Israel could be nuked by Iran with impunity..."

The main danger is a proxy attack - Iran supplies weapons to a non-state group who carry out the attack, while Iran denies responsibility. Such scenarios were never properly incorporated into cold-war MAD strategy, and are becoming a very realistic possibility as time proceeds.

Shiva

I for one fully agree with Melanie on the Bush logic and reasoning to neutralize Saddam and his cronies and more importantly his two snake-lings, UDAY and KHOSAY (both future Jehadis in the making for sure). I'm chagrined as to why there is such a hue and cry over the destruction of Saddam today as if he was some messiah. Had Saddam been left alone to his machinations, we would have seen another born again Jehadi out to destroy the free world for twisted reasons known only to themselves.

Shiva

Melanie:
I fail to understand as to why u single out Israel as the only hated target of the Jehadis. Hindu India has for long been the hated target of Jehadis, esp from their epi-centre in Islamabad, Pakistan. The total annihilation of Hindu India has long been their open cherished dream. Ps note that Hindu India belongs to the free-world as much as Israel and the West. Once Israel is destroyed by the Jehadis, their next cherished target would be Hindu_India (a much much softer target than the West). So the West has more insurance time than u think. Ps spare a thought for the Hindus of India who have long long borne the brunt of Jehadi terror.

Andre

What Obama fails to realize is that we, the west, are engaged in a war with radical Islam. Catch the film 'Obsession' on you tube. Moderate Muslims who eschew violence look for a lead against the evil mullahs and terrorists. All they get is fudge. Iran has said it will destroy Israel, it will also engage Britain and the US. Neither Britain or America has leaders now of sufficient stature to recognize this struggle for what it is and to take up arms against Iran. This is not just a war for the survival of democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of religion it is a struggle between good and evil.

Gil

John Edwards, Clive Davis cherry picks the quotes and ignores others that would dilute his viewpoint. It's no big deal to link to Walt who has his 'brand' to maintain so stop pretending there is any objectivity here. Did you read, perchance, the Washington Post editorial on the Freeman issue? It was amazing and really showed up Freeman and his supporters for who they are.

William Lambton

A couple of ideas:
1. Saddam had months to dispose of any chemicle or biological warfare project (and maybe the people running it), before the 2003 invasion .
2. An important threat posed by him may have been his making any NBC research carried out within Iraq's sophisticated scientific establishment available, at many arms' lengths, to terrorists of his choosing.
3. It was obvious long before the widely announced invasion that the WMD business, as it was presented, was a hoax, a sellable pretext.
4. The briefings of any worthwhile intelligence source/s available around and prior to 9/11 would have been ruthlessly buried and will remain so, most particularly if those sources are still functioning. Also, a tangled web of disinformation will have served to obfuscate.
***************
A question: can anyone think of the name of the prominent military historian (a former serving officer) who wrote a book on the Middle East in the mid-70s, other than Clutterbuck, please? (Post answer here.)

Kiffa

Straydingo, don't you accept and acknowledge that Karl is on a higher moral plane than you? After all, it is his good INTENTIONS that are important! If he has a social vision for a better world, then we are simply without humanity and morals to argue against what he and his comrade Gordon Brown, and all the social liberals since 1960 are sure they will bring about! I recommend a book to you: The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (Thomas Sowell). It is a devastating critique of the mind-set behind the FAILED social policies of the past 40 years. Otherwise known as political correctness, and why liberals are so blind to the empirical feedback that their visions simply don't work.
Sowell: the West is sleepwalking to disaster.

wonderer

Epaminondas, I understand your position but China knows where oil comes from and I can't see her being ready to support Israel. Also, she doesn't want to stir up her Uighurs.

And Suffolkbor, elements in Iran see Israel as a "one bomb country", ie a country small enough to be wiped out by one bomb, and feel that if this goal can be achieved an episode of mass martyrdom in the Islamic world is a price worth paying.

Tony

No country has a 'right to exist'. Not Israel, not Iran, not England, not China, not the US. Countries only exist because of favourable geopolitical climates. We should welcome a struggle for power in the Middle East. It is Darwinian selection in its purest form, and must be embraced.

John Birch

Thanks, Melanie, for your usual over the top take on American foreign policy. Could you please provide evidence to support Carl's point and also to support your contention that "most of Obama's foreign policy and intelligence appointments" have a "pro-appeasement predilection."

Joe NS

Sam,

I very much doubt that Ahmadinejad is "perfectly happy to have . . . his land razed to the ground, in order to destroy Israel." It is certainly possible, and that's almost as disturbing, in judging Obaa's attitude toward Iran, because even if the chances were only 5% that DinnerJacket truly credits the theological notion that the right amount of chaos will inspire the "Hidden Imam" finally to return and set all things right for Muslims, one wonders why the most aggressive strategy for preventing an Iranian bomb is not the default policy.

Ultimately, we can only deal with probabil;ities when it comes to predicting the actions of foreign leaders, which means the odds must be assessed seriously. A 5% chance of Armageddon should not be dismissed that because it is improbable it should somehow become impossible. In playing Russian Roulette one has only about a 17% chance of committing suicide, yet very, very few people play that game regardless of the amount of money wagered. Yet the same people will often eagerly bet money on a horse race with 5-to-6 odds of winning. The reason, they know they can cover the bet.

So here's the rub. IF DinnerJacket and the Mullahs go literally ballistic, we in the West will not have to cover the bet - the odds of which, to be candid - know one really knows, the Israelis will. It is their smug insouciance in the face of a real and terrible outcome that most alarms me about Obama and his foreign-policy preferences.

Suffolkbor

Ben:
Thank you for your reply .
I understand what you say .
M.A.D. would not apply with such a scenario as you described and of course if one state wished to destroy another without a retaliatory strike in kind then this would be the most effective way to do it .
A truly chilling prospect .

Penny

Dear Porkbelly,

I tend to agree with your logic. As I've said many times, the West seems to view some ME countries through its own logic and values systems - and these may not be on a par. The value of any individual's life in the West is seen to be paramount, but, as we know from the numerous suicide bombings, in some ME nations martyrdom is encouraged. I believe thousands have signed up to 'Shihad' in Iran.

I would also factor in Ahmadinejad's 'mystical' experience whilst giving a speech at the UN. He believes he has some role to play in the return of the Imam Mahdi and has set up news agencies and telephone hotlines to keep the people abreast of current developments. Legend has it that the return of the Imam will bring about a global battle after which Islam, led by the Imam, will reign throughout the world. It's the classic 'Messiah' / 'Armageddon' story.

I really wouldn't assume that MAD will dominate the mind of those who are looking forward to the Imam's return - which will include not only the destruction of Israel, but also of the rest of the world.

John Birch

Ben: If you big danger is a proxy attack then you should be far more concerned about Pakistan which already has a large nuclear arsenal and an extremely unstable political situation. Plus, Pakistan has in the past (hello A.Q. Khan) supplied nuclear technology to others. Pakistan is the number one security threat period. It is the home of al-Qaeda and remnants of the Taliban. It has ties to terrorism plots in the UK and potentially the U.S. And, of course, it has a very tense relationship with another nuclear power in the form of India. Iran does not even come close in terms of threats.

Davod

Carl:

"Saddam's role in the Islamist war on the west? Do enlighten us Melanie, I can't wait for you to reveal this secret"

Sadaam's terrorism contacts were even more extensive than those mentioned by Straydingo.

This June 9, 2008 Editorial of The New York The Senate's Intelligence discusses some aspects of the 2008 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on pre-Iraq war intelligence. This report was produced by the Democratic Majority, no friend of the Bush Administration or the war in Iraq:

"Our evidence suggests that Baghdad is strengthening a relationship with al-Qaeda that dates back to the mid-1990s, when senior Iraqi intelligence officers established contact with the network in several countries..."

"...We have some evidence that Iraqi Intelligence has been in contact with elements in the northeastern area. And the al-Qaeda operatives there are in regular contact with other operatives located in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has also received information from other sources alerting it to the presence of al-Qaeda operatives in Baghdad."

"We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in several locations in Iraq with the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam's regime...The quotes are taken from Mr. Ford's memo [not a part of thye NEOCON Cabal]to Secretary Powell before Mr. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein..."

Read the report, not just the executive statemet.

Larry

78% of American Jews voted for this clown Obama, but given that their god is the Democratic Party, and the fact that American Jews are frozen in time, in 1968 namely, it's not surprising.

A more pathetic bunch of self-loathing, stupid and out of touch know-nothings (American Jews) I know not of. I come into contact with these morons all the time (in Israel where I live). We will have to pay the price for this Chamberlain administration in the White House. I fear the worst.

Of course Israel has plenty self-loathing know-nothing so-called Jews, and coming to think of it we have less excuse. Sigh.

Dixon

Porkbelly, whilst I agree with most of your post and your conclusions, carefully explained, there is one historical point that needs injecting and which only enhances the argument.

That is that what you describe was regarded as the "Kissinger doctrine", that if you pretend to be potentially unhinged, people will take your threats of violence more seriously. But that this was not NATO nuclear policy, which DID indeed foresee a gradual escalation of nuclear exchanges from small battlefield weapons to outright Armaggedon. This arose from the conventionally accepted view among NATO leaders not publicly well reported at the time ( for good reason ) that Western conventionall forces were simply never going to be able to do more than slow down a Soviet invasion for a couple of days. It was part of conventional NATO planning to assume that Soviet forces would have effectively obliterated all effective resistence in Germany and France within a week or two if no nuclear weapons werte deployed.Hence, in the 1960's the US created "Nuclear Battlegroup" strategy, which foresaw the use of such weapons inside West German territory as an aspect of conventional warfare against armoured forces. Weapons such as Davey Crocket had yields as low as ten tonnes of TNT and a range of less than a mile. Thousands of these and other such low yield weapons were in fact deployed with the US Army in West Germany at that time. By the 1980's they were being replaced by the then controversial "Neutron Bomb", the controversy about which has now strangely been forgotten, given that the weapons are presumeably still out there. This "enhanced radiation weapon" was intended specifically for use against tanks and infantry, killing them whilst doing less damage by way of blast to ones own infrastructure.

Nonetheless, in between tiny nukes operated by two man teams and the big Titans and Minuteman were several further steps, first to short range ballistic missiles such as Lance, again fired at targets well inside German territory. The French had ( still have ) their own Pluton, launched from a tank chassis and with a range only able to take it as far as Western Germany. Highly controversial among Germans, as one might expect. Next up would be "theatre nuclear weapons", such as Pershing and cruise missiles. Next would be counterforce nuclear strategic weapons, aimed solely at Soviet military targets. The B2 Spirit stealth bomber was designed SPECIFICALLY for that task, being intended for use in roaming through Soviet airspace to locate and destroy the USSR's train mobile strategic ballistic missile platforms.

Only when that lot had failed to cool the Soviet ardour would it finally come to M.A.D.

Indeed, by the 80's, M.A.D had been replaced in Pentagon thinking by a starategy of expecting to fight and survive a sustained nuclear exchange. This lead to very baroque notions, seriously considered, such as the creation of a super fortress inside a desert mesa capable of holding a supply of nuclear weapons in spite of attack, producing and using them over a period of months if necessary.

The point about all of this is that whilst the man in the street has this notion of nuclear weapons as a kind of last point in all existence, that is not in the remotest how they are regarded by the engineeers who build them or the military who deploy them. On the contrary, as far as they were concerned, you could sensibly use thousands of them on West German soil and still consider this a viable method of preserving that country's existence, integrity and independence.

By the same token, Iran's leaders might well make the same calculation. They dont need to believe in the hidden Imam and the end of days in order to think in these terms ( although they may also believe in such things ). On the contrary, they can see that Iran is such a vast territory with such a large population that even Israels alleged arsenal of "hundreds" of nuclear weapons could be quite practicably shrugged off.

By contrast, Israel is tiny, its population is tiny,it has Hizballah and Syria on its doorstep ready to sweep into action directly after a nuclear attack ...as American soldiers practised doing in the 1950's and 1960's during exercises in Nevada. Indeed, they could even pretend to be on a humanitarian mission to help survivors!

So thats the reality. Iran can think itself able to survive the worstIsrael can throw at it. But Israel is extremely vulnerable.

Dixon

Since we are sifting the embers of the Iraqi WMD debate, bear this in mind: The Foot and Mouth outbreak that wrought such havoc in the UK not long before the invasion and which was officially "unexplained" was of the Iraqi strain of the desease! It'll be thirty years before the documents addressing cabinet response to that discovery are de-classified.

I think the WMD issue is irrelevant. He had to go so long as he was a threat to our oil supplies from Saudi. Oil is the oxygen of Western industrialised civilisation and Saddam was standing with his jackboot on our wind-pipe.

If he had remained an ally, I would have been happy to see him still in power. as it was, he had to go.

An American

Linda Smith,

I do enjoy reading all of the thoughtful, and insightful comments here...but your simple comment states all we need to know.

George Laird

Dear Melanie

Your title Payback time.

Over the top as usual.

What is Freeman's crime?

As I see it; he made a few glib comments and was associated in some way to the Saudis and Chinese.

John Edwards highlights the Clive Davis piece with the link to Walt.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/12/freeman_wasnt_the_first

Any comments?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Ganpat Ram

Cheer up, Melanie and fellow bloggers!

Things are not so bad.

What if Islm DOES win and take the world?

I rather think it will.

It has youth, numbers, passion, willingness to sacrifice on its side.

It will take over, just as another fanatical Middle Eastern religion took over the Roman world and destroyed the temples of the Graeco-Roman gods.

The takeover of Christianity seemed an appalling cultural destruction and regression into intellectual savagery to the intellectuals of the Roman world.

Yet humanity recovered. After some centuries, the Dark Ages ended. Christianity slowly but surely liberalised.

So it will be with Islam.

So quit fantasising about how to beat Islam. Just learn to live under it and enjoy.

We are all Muslims now.

Penny

Shiva - you are absolutely right; India is too often overlooked in this struggle. I hope you will contribute a little more so that we remain aware of the situation.

Dixon - thank you for such an enlightening post. It has enabled me to understand this issue a little more.

Suffolkbor

Ganpat Ram;
this is a joke , right?

Ann

"What Obama needs to see is that, as a consequence of his Israel policy, Tel Aviv could get far more belligerent than it is, even at this moment. "

Err ... the capital of Israel is Jerusalem.

solemnman

This is nothing new.America is simply returning to its default position.Truman, among the first to recognise Israel was among the first to abandon it by embargoing arms which were crucial for its survival-arms which were finally provided by the Russians via the Czechs.Eisenhower forced Israel to give up the strategic depth acquired in the 56 war for, what proved in 67 to be, a specious guaranty for Israeli shipping through the Suez Canal and the Red Sea.It was prior to the 73 war that that Israel recieved,against the advice of the state department, its first military aid.Johnson,to his credit,was not sanguine with the posibility of yet another holocaust taking place.America has been against every subsequent effort Israel has made to insure its survival.It was against Israel acquiring the bomb.It was against the attack on the osirak reactor in Iraq.Under pressure from successive governments israel's strategic depth has shrunk to nil.

Dixon

Ganpat Ram...yours is a longer term view which I tend now to take. But I would go further. I would say that our society has become so decadent, so self-loathing, so episcine or baldly "soft" , its denizens such hollow, sheep-like, almost inhumane in their strange combination of zealous regard for remote "others" whilst abusive and full of disdain for their fellow citizens that, to be frank, I hope to see the whole lot binned.

I wont have to live under isla, as im on my way out. But I can relish the thought of the misery it will bring to the people who brought it upon themselves and the utter contempt they will be held in by their children and childrens children, for having squandered their freedom.

But this, too, is a short term view. In the longer term, SOMETHING will render Humanity extinct. In geological terms, we are talking of the very near future, a million years at most. A Gamma ray burst from a nearby Neutron star would wipe out all life on Earth almost instantaneously. An asteroid impact, a cometary collision, they have happenned repeatedly throughout Earths history. These certain and unavoidable hazards are another reason why climate change hysteria is so pathetic. Its like arguing about the colour of ones wallpaper when the house is about to collapse into a ravine.

Eventually, the earth will be swallowed by the expanding Sun. All life upon it extinct a billion years before then due to its encroaching radiation and heat. This is utterly certain.

Even if Humanity escapes Earth and gradually colonises the nearest planetary systems in our galaxy ( my hunch is that it will ) the universe itself will eventually suffer one of two, inevitable ends, either collapsing in upon itself or dying "heat death" as it expands forever into entropy.

These things astronomers know full well. Such facts and such a timescale tends to knock all topical concerns into a cocked hat. Its like squabbling among ants in a patch of grass before you come along and tread them out of existence with a single footfall. Meaningless.

All the same, I do wish next doors dog would shut up ( an animal "unclean" under Islam ).

Linda Smith

Ganpat Ram, you posted "We are all Muslims now."

Speak for yourself.

Gil

Charles Freeman and his supporters e.g. Walt are maliciously invoking the 'Lobby' because of course we must never annoy the Chinese and Saudis, that would never do.

Freeman, in his comments since he pulled out, has shown himself to be utterly unsuitable for the job. Walt with his hate filled comments against Martin Peretz, a columnist, is also no model of academic decorum.

There is something sick with the neo-realist school of thought in international relations. Bring back the neo-Cons.

Gautam

Ref Porkbelly's signing off with a call to find a flaw in his logic. The obvious one is that he doesn't take into account the following possibility: what if the Iranian clerics are informed otherwise -- what if they are aware of the possibility that Israel will launch dozens of nukes in second strike? I think the assumption that the Iranians or Arabs see the West was fundamentally weak is facetious. For all the noise Iran makes, it's highly unlikely it will launch a first strike because, precisely, of MAD. Instead, it's far more plausible that Iran intends to use its nukes as a huge bargaining chip with the West (and Israel).

Speaking of Iran, it's a sad example of an old and tolerant civilization in the clutches of a regressive leadership. The need is to give a leg-up to Iranian dissidents. There's a sophisticated middle class minority in Iran that believes its leadership's periodic bouts of bloodcurdling talk of the annihilation of Israel is all wrong. Perhaps there's need to work with the sane elements in Iran...

BenQurayzah

Israel wins. Islamalek loses.

Steerforth

You seem to have a very limited repertoire of subjects on this blog. 90% of the time, you're ranting about the Middle East and Islamism. The remaining 10% is mainly devoted to telling us that Obama isn't as good as he seems.

It's like being stuck in the back of a London taxi.

Antonia

To Simon:
"Israel is a nuclear power - I don't think anyone seriously doubts that. If Iran did seek to incinerate Israel then the cost would certainly be the reciprocal destruction of Iran or at the very least a nuclear riposte that would shatter the Iranian state completely. How does Ms Philips think that Iran can destroy Israel without itself being destroyed?'

Simon, it is not what Melanie says, but what Iranians believe. In their own words( I don't now remember which one of them said it) two bomb would destroy the entire Israel, but 10 bombs would not destroy Iran, let alone the Islamic world. That is the Iranian calculus and we know that having several million of their own killed means nothing to them -- after all those are the people who sent their children against Iraqi machine guns and into mine fields armed with plastic keys to paradise.
Please do not project your Western logic and values onto Iranians, at least not onto their regime.
Besides, look at the map -- look at the size of Iran and the size of Israel. Israel is truly a tiny country.

porkbelly

Gautam - perhaps you are right and the Iranian leadership takes the West more seriously than is apparent, although it is worth remembering that if they do become a nuclear power over the West's vociferous objections it would necessarily diminish the West in their eyes. And perhaps there is a reasonable middle class just waiting to be heard from - just as there was in Germany in the 1930's. Personally I hope you are right, but the possibility that the Iranian leaders are ruthless religious fanatics whose messianic and strategic goals would both be fulfilled by Israel's extinction and I think they would very well take the chance that Israel is bluffing. I personally do not see Israel responding with a devastating second strike - I don't think they have that level of inhumanity in them - and Iran knows this.

Robert Greenberg

It just goes to show you can't be too careful!

Conservative Cabbie

Steerforth

"It's like being stuck in the back of a London taxi."

And what's wrong with that!!!

Ganpat Ram

SUFOLKBOR:

A joke? No, a serious suggestion about what is likely to happen.

If Islamic expansionism can't be stopped, it must be endured.

On a point of facts: does anyone know which religion inspired Islam?

I would like to know.

The Koran venerates Abraham and Moses and sides with the children of Israel against he Egyptians.

Reading it, one would think it was a book of the Old Testament.

I have even heard it said that Islam is but an adaptation of Judaism for Arabs, that Islam is the daughter of Judaism.

Any thoughts on this?

Why then can't Jews and Arabs make peace?

Dixon

solemnman
March 14th, 2009 5:43pm
This is nothing new.America is simply returning to its default position.Truman, among the first to recognise Israel was among the first to abandon it by embargoing arms which were crucial for its survival-arms which were finally provided by the Russians via the Czechs..."

Little known, but a problematic allegation is that the US once threatened a nuclear strike on Israel. I dont immediately remember the specifics, but it was around the time of the Six Days War. An Israeli aircraft repeatedly strafed a US Navy spy ship in the Mediterranean. That much is documented fact. Ex US Navy men who served aboard a carrier in the vicinity tell that in response an A4 Skyhawk was armed with a live nuclear weapon and prepared, piloted, ready for launch at a moments notice.

Sounds far-fetched, I know. But if you are interested in such historical ephemera its worth looking into. I only came upon it because of my occasional hobby of reading about military topics.

The web brings up a great deal of first hand testimony on historical events, not all of it reliable, but much of it susceptible to corroboration merely through further reading. In this way I recently discovered a fascinating story about an SR71 Blackbird that was wrecked by a mechanics daft error in retracting the undercarriage whilst it was on the ground. The man himself later came forward online with his ID and CV and told how it happenned and how his career temporarily suffered as a consequence. The story that had developed over the years that his punishment had been diabolically severe was quashed by his first person account of what actually happenned.

Edwared in the USA

Ganpat Ram, posted "We are all Muslims now."

GOD FORBID!

RWB

I greatly admire you and your writings, Melanie, but I doubt there will be an 'incinerated Israel'.

I am sure that an emissary, perhaps the Finnish Ambassador or someone similar, has been sent to Ahmedinijad and said this - "Mr. President, the Israelis and the Americans want you to know that Israel has submarines, the submarines have Cruise missiles and the Cruise missiles have nuclear warheads. In short, Mr President, the Israelis' have second strike capability. And if necesary they will use it, which will not just mean the total destruction of Iran but also some other Arab countries.

In fact, on reflection, this emissary has probably also been sent to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and maybe King Abdullah and a few others.

These people are not totally stupid even if Ahmedinijad is.

What worries me much more than Iranian threats is Israel being pushed into a 'truce' with Hamas or Hezbollah.

An American

Steerforth...are you steering in the wrong direction?

Both of the subjects that you demean Melanie for, are the main problems of this world today...Islamic extremists/terrorism and the Socialist/Communist destruction of Democracy/Capitalism.

And if I'm stuck in the back of a London taxi...Conservative Cabbie would make the experience entertaining...we could talk about world politics and the latest book he's read on President Truman.

An American

Dixon,

Thank you for the morning's bright hope for the future.

Everything you say is, of course, true...and it does help put things in prespective...kind of like viewing the night sky and all it's millions of stars...we are all absolutely insignificant, less than a grain of sand on a beach...and that's the way our 'ruler' politicians view and treat us. They have a completely skewed view of themselves, however...brings to mind, Obama pontificating about him lowering the levels of the oceans during his campaign.

I, like you...had the priviledge of living in the best of times on this good earth and hope that I will not live to see the destruction of my beloved America. My only regret is that I couldn't protect it for my children and grandchildren.

Gautam

I'd say RWB has answered part of pork b's question: whether, when it comes to the crunch, Israel will retaliate with second srike. There's no doubt that it will. Israel is not soft despite its rambunctious democracy and all that painful evidence of not knowing how much land to give to Palestinians, etc. Iran knows this deeper Israeli resolve. The clerics in Iran are certainly better informed than that Ahmed-shut-up-nejad. He's a joke. I don't think many Iranians themselves take him seriously. As for pork b on the middle class in Nazi Germany, let me say there was a middle class in Britain as well that, in those "heady" years when Hitler was threatening to finish off communists (let the Nazi dog eat the Bolshie dog), was toasting the fuehrer. The point is that if anti-Nazi resistance groups in Germany had been supported, Hitler might, just might, have had a tougher time in trying to realize his crazed ambitions.

The moral here is we need to learn from history and not repeat the mistakes, instead of pointing to those mistakes and suggest that we are ready to make them again!

I'd still say Iran needs to be engaged, Israel needs to be engaged, but Mr Obama doesn't seem to be making much headway. If, as Melanie keeps warning, there's a serious body of opinion in the US aiming to jettison Israel for good, then we might be a lot closer to pork b's visions of a nuclear armageddon than we have so far imagined.

Ann

"No country has a 'right to exist'. Not Israel, not Iran, not England, not China, not the US. Countries only exist because of favourable geopolitical climates. We should welcome a struggle for power in the Middle East. It is Darwinian selection in its purest form, and must be embraced."

Sounds like something Goebbels and Streicher would have said. But unlike you, decent and civilised human beings are not wild animals or Stone Age savages.

Ann

"Little known, but a problematic allegation is that the US once threatened a nuclear strike on Israel."

For strafing a ship? LOL. You really haven't a clue how the military works.

Ann

"These certain and unavoidable hazards are another reason why climate change hysteria is so pathetic."

You are the hysterical one - refusing to deal with the problems of the here and now because the sun will expand in 4 billion years' time. Utterly loony.

Ann

More words of wisdom from the Laird:

"What is Freeman's crime?
As I see it; he made a few glib comments and was associated in some way to the Saudis and Chinese".

Why am I not surprised to see you coming to the aid of this antisemite and fascist-lover, who praised the Tiananmen massacre as nothing much to write home about, in fact quite restrained (which, incidentally, if you could but read, was one of the reasons for jettisoning him, and quite right too). You regard yourself as a progressive liberal, right? But you see nothing wrong in a massacre of protestors for freedom in China, right? Amazing and disgusting in equal amounts!

Ben

Steerforth, feel free to go elsewhere. This is Mel's blog. She will write about whatever she likes.

Fergus Pickering

Imagine, I ust say, like John Lennon, Imagine a world without Muslims. None at all. Mohammad never existed. What would we lose. Some pretty mosques. The Taj Mahal. Stuff in Southern Spain. The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. What would we gain? Just imagine. Islam is neither necessary nor desirable.

Margret Muller-Johansson

London Black Cabs are fun, the cabbies are clever you could have talk with them about anything, they know almost everything and they are not political incorrect

George Laird

Dear Ann @ 5.30 pm

Did Freeman take part in Tiananmen Square?

No; he made a few glib comments because he knew where his bread was buttered.

That's called politics.

Try not to be self righteous; you don't wear that coat well, probably like the rest of your wardrobe.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Steerforth

Ben, you're quite right. I shall go elsewhere.

I suppose my frustration stems from the fact the in the press and radio, Melanie does comment on a wide variety of issues and I assumed that her blog would reflect this. I am concerned about the rise of Islamism and was appalled by the recent demonstration in Luton, but some of the paranoid comments on this blog would make the ayatollahs proud. As for 'An American's' perception of President Obama, I would suggest that he will actually be more likely to save Israel (and capitalism, for that matter), by compelling it to adopt a strategy that is more likely to guarantee long-term security.

One of the things that really annoys me about this blog is the number of people who suggest that criticism of Israel is closet anti-Semitism. It is precisely because I want to see a permanent Jewish homeland in the Middle East that I am critical about the Israeli government's policies.

Dixon

Ann, you dont half write some tripe. Lets look at your comments:
Ann
March 15th, 2009 5:23pm
"Little known, but a problematic allegation is that the US once threatened a nuclear strike on Israel."
For strafing a ship? LOL. You really haven't a clue how the military works."

On the contrary, the order came directly from Schlesinger. On the contrary again, it is you who havent a clue how ready the US was to use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack throughout the cold war...see my earlier posts in this regard. So Ann, I think I know a great deal more about it than you do.

Now Anns next bright interjection:
Ann
March 15th, 2009 5:27pm

"You are the hysterical one - refusing to deal with the problems of the here and now because the sun will expand in 4 billion years' time. Utterly loony."

No Ann, there is no problem in the "here and now". If anyone, it is you who are utterly looney exhibiting delusions pf a "problem" that does not exist and a paranoiac preoccupation with the belief that what happens to Humanity actually has aty significance. The climate change hysteria is based on the notion that if we do not change our ways now, there will be problems IN THE FUTURE. The worst conceiveable of which will be Humanity's extinction. But as I point out, that is IN ANY CASE INEVITABLE!. Oh Ann, you are so pathetically limited. Can you not even ask yourself a simple and obvious question...what difference does anything make?

Give me one good reason, any reason at all why I should give a proverbial monkeys about something that will never affect me?

Idiotic.

Ann

Laird rants:

"Try not to be self righteous"

ROLF. From the most pompously self-righteous poster here.

"you don't wear that coat well, probably like the rest of your wardrobe"

I suppose that you consider yourself a progressive person, right? Is that why you post this sexist filth?

It really is very revealing that this terribly progressive person posts constant apologies for those who support mass murders, both in China and elsewhere. "The Campaign for Human Rights", my eye. Your 'campaign' consists of apologies for Hamas, for China's fascist rulers etc.

Dixon

Fergus Picjkering, how I so agree. But just where can we say this without being arrested and for how long?

When the time is right, I'll say it anyway...maybe we can seek political asylum in a post-Obama USA?

Dixon

When I said "schlesinger" I meant "McNamara".

Adam B.

George laird,

I'm glad you think supporting the massacre of innocent unarmed students , who were being non-violent, in Tianenmen Square constitutes being "glib."

And you're meant to be supporting human rights?

What a hypocrite.

solemnman

dixon
The use of the bomb over that incident seems bizarre to me.
That ship didn't accidentaly stumble into a war zone.It was their to spy.If it were spying on the Israelis behalf I think Israel would have known about it.The maritime powers ,including the u.s. refused to impliment their guaranty to break the blocade .Israel was forced to wait weeks by the u.s.before that betrayal became clear losing ,as a consequence ,the element of surprise which Israel,miraculously managed to recover.

alanadale

You write:

‘All is now horribly clear. It’s finally pay-back time for Iraq by the intelligence and diplomatic community, which failed so conspicuously to pay sufficient attention to the Islamist war upon the west – and Saddam’s role within that --until it was too late.’

This really takes the biscuit for ‘chutzpah’. If I am not mistaken wasn’t it John Bolton and his neocon cronies aided and abetted by Israeli intelligence who rooted for Ahmed Chalabi and landed us up the gum tree in Iraq?

It is also rich to accuse Freeman of conflict of interest over his links to Saudi Arabia and China. No one thought to question whether Dennis Ross might be similarly compromised as a former head of Aipac when he was appointed Clinton’s point man in the Oslo Peace Process or indeed his recent appointment as Obama’s point man on Iran. Nor has anyone challenged Ram Emmanuel’s commitment to international law having co sponsored a Congressional motion opposing the World Court’s unanimous ruling against Israel’s wall.

As to The New York Times ‘faithfully [echoing] the Freeman ‘Jewish power’ calumny, its own report on the affair came in for stick from the 420 or so readers who responded on the blog. They overwhelmingly disapproved of the Zionist lobby’s hold over US policy making. A few actually took the paper to task for not mentioning the fact that the chief architect of the smear campaign against Freeman, Steve Rosen, was currently under indictment for spying for Israel.

Liberal rag or no, if you’ve lost the readership of the New York Times, you really are losing the argument.

Dixon

Re Ann and her suggestionn that I made the nuclear incident up, I just went onto Google about it, there is bucket-loads of material. It was the USS Liberty, strafed, bombed and torpedoed by the Israelis in 1967. It nearly sank. Crew members died. Israel eventually paid $67 million in compensation. The Wikipaedia article additionally mentions the following:

" The 1981 book Weapons by Russell Warren Howe asserts that Liberty was accompanied by the Polaris armed Lafayette class submarine USS Andrew Jackson, which filmed the entire episode through its periscope but was unable to provide assistance. According to Howe: "Two hundred feet below the ship, on a parallel course, was its 'shadow'- the Polaris strategic submarine Andrew Jackson, whose job was to take out all the Israeli long-range missile sites in the Negev if Tel Aviv decided to attack Cairo, Damascus or Baghdad. This was in order that Moscow would not have to perform this task itself and thus trigger World War Three."

So the mooted nuclear attack by the US on Israel was actually a lot more substantial than the solo A4 Skyhawk with one bomb , rumours about which I referred to. However, those rumours are curiously consistent with another conspiracy theory that has it the attack on the Liberty was supposed to be blamed on Egypt and several nuclear armed Skyhawks were already en-route to Cairo to "retaliate" but were called back when the plan failed to result in a swift easily misrepresented sinking.

So in fact, Ann, the proposed role of nuclear weapons in connection with that little engagement was considerably broader and more significant than I had earlier suggested.

All conspiracy theory, but I never said it was more than an "allegation" and, clearly, it's not something I made up.

Do I get an apology?

George Laird

Dear Ann

I terribly disappointed that you seek to attack me for telling the truth.

Read what Dixon wrote about you @ 7.51 pm.

More and more people now have the courage to speak up about the nonsense you are writing and quite right too.

As to how I see myself; I don’t see myself other that an ordinary working class person from a Glasgow housing ghetto.

With regard to posting apologises; I don’t post them for Hamas or anyone else, so why make something up?

Don’t you deal in the truth?

As for this sexist charge; I totally refuted your warped allegations levelled against me.

I don’t expect an apology but then I suppose neither does Dixon. I guess you don’t do humble when you get it wrong.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

George Laird

Dear Adam B

I am disappointed that you cannot recognise that Freeman made glib remarks.

This doesn't translate into support.

Some people say one thing in public and another in private.

As to me being a hypocrite; I hardly think so.

If you think I am then I don't care.

Your opinion isn't a must read on here; you are a sheep, just grazing, and muttering the occasional baa!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Linda Smith

George Laird, you are also a sheep, just grazing and muttering the occasional baa (often using poor grammar and incorrect spelling, the very thing for which you have the audacity to criticise other posters.)

Adam B.

George Laird

If you want a grazer, attack Carl, who never posts more than one hateful sentence at a time.

Your posts are empty, and you studiously avoid answering points of substance put to you.

You like the sound of your own keyboard.

Adam B.

George, as has been asked of you several times, which other human rights issues in the Middle East do you campaign about (other than Gaza)?

I've never seen you mention one.

There you go George, a point of substance.

I await an answer.

Adam B.

George, I would also suggest that it is you, jumping on the ignorant anti-Israel bandwagon, who is the sheep, mindlessly following the herd.

Try reading something not in the Guardian or the BBC website. It may open your eyes.

phil

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University --both you and the lovely Tourette champion ann make a wonderful couple .perhaps you could invite her to your pad in "the Glasgow housing ghetto" where you both could study common sense and how to persuade others ,so far I doubt either of you have ever managed to achieve even one of those objectives ,although I must admit you do give us a laugh which is more than the sweet one does .Adam B is available to give tutorials if you need him and there will be a massive panel of examiners to give you both a certificate of worthiness to post here .
phil the campaign for the human rights of posters to stop reading garbage emanating from your housing project.

Ronnie

It seems, Ann, that the course in personal development that you recently attended was over-priced.

Ganpat Ram

Blaming Islam is too easy.

Who were its teachers in intolerance and monotheistic fanaticism?

I recommend a reading of the Bible.

Don't blame the pupil. Blame the teacher.