The Gravest Threat to World Peace

[irosie91]

for the record HEZBOLLAH is Iran

 

[pbel]

I actually find the concept of a nation ruled by death cultists, (Iranian Mullocrats),to be dangerous as the Dark Ages islamist mindset has no business being in control of nukes. My unease in connection with Iranian Death Cultists acquiring nukes is twofold: First, Iran, basically a third world nation, is simply buying Western technology with no real conception of the dangers involved and no true understanding of the technology. Secondly, we need to understand that religious fanatics who embrace a death cult mentality having such a technological play-thing is a prescription for disaster.

Anyway, the "revelations" that came out of the Wikileaks data some time ago was an opportunity to do some research regarding the Islamist eschatology mythos. I recalled reading something in the sunnah about the destruction of the kaaba / black God-rock right around the same time as the Allahpocalypse, but I couldn't remember where. I finally found it in the hadith of Sahih Muslim—Book 41: The Book Pertaining to the Turmoil and Portents of the Last Hour (Kitab Al-Fitan wa Ashrat As-Sa`ah):

- Number 6881:

Zainab bint Jahsh reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) got up from sleep saying: There is no god but Allah; there is a destruction in store for Arabia because of turmoil which is at hand, the barrier of Gog and Magog has opened so much. And Sufyan made a sign of ten with the help of his hand (in order to indicate the width of the gap) and I said: Allah's Messenger, would we be perished in spite of the fact that there would be good people amongst us? Thereupon he said: Of course, but only when the evil predominates.

Geez, your style of posting should be sent to the flame-zone as science fiction...Iran is an Israeli target because of her false sense that her nukes are going to protect her from the Islamic Horde which she has tried to goad the West into War...she succeeded in Iraq, but America refuses to fight her war with Iran...

It is obvious to me that everyone in the entire ME has Weapons of Mass Destruction as nerve agents etc...There is no way Israel will retain nuclear monopoly...

Her efforts should be peaceful transition of the ME into modern societies...Her mistreating the Palestinians have de-legitimized her in front of the world bodies because she is aggressively harassing her neighbors and expanding her borders.

Dr. Chomsky is a Polymath, people like that, i.e. Einstein, DaVinci, Aristotle are incapable of lying.

I couldn't help but note that you chose not to address a single point in my comments.


Additionally, I couldn't but note that you hope to implicate Israel in a Middle East conflict that is actually pitting the shia against the sunni.

Unless you have chosen to ignore events taking place in the islamist Middle East, it is the 1,300 year old blood feud separating the shia and sunni tribes that is the largest concern. Because you missed it, the sunni's across the Arab world are growing increasingly concerned with the "shia crescent" across the Gulf.


For a bit of history, you can look here: Abdullah's 'Shia crescent' warning backfires | World news | guardian.co.uk


For some more recent news: Gulf Arabs decry Iran "interference" in region - Yahoo! News


The reasons for innocent civilians being sploded’ in food markets is fundamentally an issue of religious hatreds that divide the sunni and shia. Those hatreds are founded in a religious blood feud that dates back to early Islamic times and tales.


That’s why we continue to get fun stuff like this: Attacks in Iraq kill at least 41, most of them pilgrims - CNN.com


For just one example of how these nutbars are at each others throats, you can look here: Beneath Bahrain's Shia-versus-Sunni narrative, only the tyrants benefit | Maryam al-Khawaja | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The reasons for adherents to the competing sect of islam being sploded’, is fundamentally an issue of religious hatreds that divide the sunni and shia. Those hatreds are founded in a religious blood feud that dates back to early Islamist times and tales.

The reason Shia Iran came to prominence because Israel's clamoring to get Saddam eliminated her greatest threat as an ascending power in the ME...She simply filled the power vacuum when America eliminated Iraq.

Now the Sunni find themselves in the middle, but in the ME circles the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.

The elimination of Iran will make the Sunnis the power brokers again, while the Arab Spring keeps turning out Islamist Regimes...


Israeli, and American policies to pacify the ME are backfiring!

 

[Hollie]

for the record HEZBOLLAH is Iran

Yep!

And with the sunni Arab "rebels" contingent of Dark Ages Intl. Inc., slugging it out with the Alawite (pseudo-shia) tribes, we have the prescription for 60,000 dead people in the span of what, 27 months?

It's a full-blown, internecine, sunni vs. shia holy war.

 

[Hollie]

Geez, your style of posting should be sent to the flame-zone as science fiction...Iran is an Israeli target because of her false sense that her nukes are going to protect her from the Islamic Horde which she has tried to goad the West into War...she succeeded in Iraq, but America refuses to fight her war with Iran...

It is obvious to me that everyone in the entire ME has Weapons of Mass Destruction as nerve agents etc...There is no way Israel will retain nuclear monopoly...

Her efforts should be peaceful transition of the ME into modern societies...Her mistreating the Palestinians have de-legitimized her in front of the world bodies because she is aggressively harassing her neighbors and expanding her borders.

Dr. Chomsky is a Polymath, people like that, i.e. Einstein, DaVinci, Aristotle are incapable of lying.

I couldn't help but note that you chose not to address a single point in my comments.


Additionally, I couldn't but note that you hope to implicate Israel in a Middle East conflict that is actually pitting the shia against the sunni.

Unless you have chosen to ignore events taking place in the islamist Middle East, it is the 1,300 year old blood feud separating the shia and sunni tribes that is the largest concern. Because you missed it, the sunni's across the Arab world are growing increasingly concerned with the "shia crescent" across the Gulf.


For a bit of history, you can look here: Abdullah's 'Shia crescent' warning backfires | World news | guardian.co.uk


For some more recent news: Gulf Arabs decry Iran "interference" in region - Yahoo! News


The reasons for innocent civilians being sploded’ in food markets is fundamentally an issue of religious hatreds that divide the sunni and shia. Those hatreds are founded in a religious blood feud that dates back to early Islamic times and tales.


That’s why we continue to get fun stuff like this: Attacks in Iraq kill at least 41, most of them pilgrims - CNN.com


For just one example of how these nutbars are at each others throats, you can look here: Beneath Bahrain's Shia-versus-Sunni narrative, only the tyrants benefit | Maryam al-Khawaja | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The reasons for adherents to the competing sect of islam being sploded’, is fundamentally an issue of religious hatreds that divide the sunni and shia. Those hatreds are founded in a religious blood feud that dates back to early Islamist times and tales.

The reason Shia Iran came to prominence because Israel's clamoring to get Saddam eliminated her greatest threat as an ascending power in the ME...She simply filled the power vacuum when America eliminated Iraq.

Now the Sunni find themselves in the middle, but in the ME circles the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.

The elimination of Iran will make the Sunnis the power brokers again, while the Arab Spring keeps turning out Islamist Regimes...


Israeli, and American policies to pacify the ME are backfiring!

Nonsense. Your conspiracy theories are geting old, bunkie.

 

[irosie91]

Hollie----peeballs is a very sensitive poet----do not plague him
with historic realities

 

[pbel]

I couldn't help but note that you chose not to address a single point in my comments.


Additionally, I couldn't but note that you hope to implicate Israel in a Middle East conflict that is actually pitting the shia against the sunni.

Unless you have chosen to ignore events taking place in the islamist Middle East, it is the 1,300 year old blood feud separating the shia and sunni tribes that is the largest concern. Because you missed it, the sunni's across the Arab world are growing increasingly concerned with the "shia crescent" across the Gulf.


For a bit of history, you can look here: Abdullah's 'Shia crescent' warning backfires | World news | guardian.co.uk


For some more recent news: Gulf Arabs decry Iran "interference" in region - Yahoo! News


The reasons for innocent civilians being sploded’ in food markets is fundamentally an issue of religious hatreds that divide the sunni and shia. Those hatreds are founded in a religious blood feud that dates back to early Islamic times and tales.


That’s why we continue to get fun stuff like this: Attacks in Iraq kill at least 41, most of them pilgrims - CNN.com


For just one example of how these nutbars are at each others throats, you can look here: Beneath Bahrain's Shia-versus-Sunni narrative, only the tyrants benefit | Maryam al-Khawaja | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The reasons for adherents to the competing sect of islam being sploded’, is fundamentally an issue of religious hatreds that divide the sunni and shia. Those hatreds are founded in a religious blood feud that dates back to early Islamist times and tales.

The reason Shia Iran came to prominence because Israel's clamoring to get Saddam eliminated her greatest threat as an ascending power in the ME...She simply filled the power vacuum when America eliminated Iraq.

Now the Sunni find themselves in the middle, but in the ME circles the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.

The elimination of Iran will make the Sunnis the power brokers again, while the Arab Spring keeps turning out Islamist Regimes...


Israeli, and American policies to pacify the ME are backfiring!

Nonsense. Your conspiracy theories are geting old, bunkie.

Its always amazing when ZioNuts like you claim to know the truth and dismiss the truth as a conspiracy theory...


Before attacking Iran, Israel should learn from its 1981 strike on Iraq - Washington Post


When Netanyahu meets with President Obama on Monday and addresses the annual meeting of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, later that day, we should expect additional dire assessments and warnings of military action.



For Israelis considering a strike on Iran, Osirak seems like a model for effective preventive war. After all, Hussein never got the bomb, and if Israel was able to brush back one enemy hell-bent on its destruction, it can do so again. But a closer look at the Osirak episode, drawing on recent academic research and memoirs of individuals involved with Iraq’s program, argues powerfully against an Israeli strike on Iran today.

To begin with, Hussein was not on the brink of a bomb in 1981. By the late 1970s, he thought Iraq should develop nuclear weapons at some point, and he hoped to use the Osirak reactor to further that goal. But new evidence suggests that Hussein had not decided to launch a full-fledged weapons program prior to the Israeli strike. According to Norwegian scholar Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, a leading authority on the Iraqi program, “on the eve of the attack on Osirak . . . Iraq’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability was both directionless and disorganized.”

 

[Hollie]

The reason Shia Iran came to prominence because Israel's clamoring to get Saddam eliminated her greatest threat as an ascending power in the ME...She simply filled the power vacuum when America eliminated Iraq.

Now the Sunni find themselves in the middle, but in the ME circles the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.

The elimination of Iran will make the Sunnis the power brokers again, while the Arab Spring keeps turning out Islamist Regimes...


Israeli, and American policies to pacify the ME are backfiring!

Nonsense. Your conspiracy theories are geting old, bunkie.

Its always amazing when ZioNuts like you claim to know the truth and dismiss the truth as a conspiracy theory...


Before attacking Iran, Israel should learn from its 1981 strike on Iraq - Washington Post


When Netanyahu meets with President Obama on Monday and addresses the annual meeting of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, later that day, we should expect additional dire assessments and warnings of military action.



For Israelis considering a strike on Iran, Osirak seems like a model for effective preventive war. After all, Hussein never got the bomb, and if Israel was able to brush back one enemy hell-bent on its destruction, it can do so again. But a closer look at the Osirak episode, drawing on recent academic research and memoirs of individuals involved with Iraq’s program, argues powerfully against an Israeli strike on Iran today.

To begin with, Hussein was not on the brink of a bomb in 1981. By the late 1970s, he thought Iraq should develop nuclear weapons at some point, and he hoped to use the Osirak reactor to further that goal. But new evidence suggests that Hussein had not decided to launch a full-fledged weapons program prior to the Israeli strike. According to Norwegian scholar Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, a leading authority on the Iraqi program, “on the eve of the attack on Osirak . . . Iraq’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability was both directionless and disorganized.”

I haven't noticed that you posted much in the way of truth. Your obvious Joooo-hating agenda makes you a poor candidate for an unbiased account.

I should point out to you that Iraq in the 1980's was a very different circumstance than Iran is today.

If you have followed any of the data issued by the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, there is a disturbing pattern of behavior on the part of the Iranians. I obviously don't know their intentions but it is clear that the Mullocrats have an agenda of mis-information and stalling when to comes to an open dialogue with the international community.

 

[pbel]

Nonsense. Your conspiracy theories are geting old, bunkie.

Its always amazing when ZioNuts like you claim to know the truth and dismiss the truth as a conspiracy theory...


Before attacking Iran, Israel should learn from its 1981 strike on Iraq - Washington Post


When Netanyahu meets with President Obama on Monday and addresses the annual meeting of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, later that day, we should expect additional dire assessments and warnings of military action.



For Israelis considering a strike on Iran, Osirak seems like a model for effective preventive war. After all, Hussein never got the bomb, and if Israel was able to brush back one enemy hell-bent on its destruction, it can do so again. But a closer look at the Osirak episode, drawing on recent academic research and memoirs of individuals involved with Iraq’s program, argues powerfully against an Israeli strike on Iran today.

To begin with, Hussein was not on the brink of a bomb in 1981. By the late 1970s, he thought Iraq should develop nuclear weapons at some point, and he hoped to use the Osirak reactor to further that goal. But new evidence suggests that Hussein had not decided to launch a full-fledged weapons program prior to the Israeli strike. According to Norwegian scholar Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, a leading authority on the Iraqi program, “on the eve of the attack on Osirak . . . Iraq’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability was both directionless and disorganized.”

I haven't noticed that you posted much in the way of truth. Your obvious Joooo-hating agenda makes you a poor candidate for an unbiased account.

I should point out to you that Iraq in the 1980's was a very different circumstance than Iran is today.

If you have followed any of the data issued by the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, there is a disturbing pattern of behavior on the part of the Iranians. I obviously don't know their intentions but it is clear that the Mullocrats have an agenda of mis-information and stalling when to comes to an open dialogue with the international community.

Rather than focusing on what is actually posted you claim that I have a Joooo hating agenda...for the sake of argument, even if what you say is true, how does that affect the veracity of what I actually posted?

You have nothing.

 

[Hollie]

Its always amazing when ZioNuts like you claim to know the truth and dismiss the truth as a conspiracy theory...


Before attacking Iran, Israel should learn from its 1981 strike on Iraq - Washington Post


When Netanyahu meets with President Obama on Monday and addresses the annual meeting of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, later that day, we should expect additional dire assessments and warnings of military action.



For Israelis considering a strike on Iran, Osirak seems like a model for effective preventive war. After all, Hussein never got the bomb, and if Israel was able to brush back one enemy hell-bent on its destruction, it can do so again. But a closer look at the Osirak episode, drawing on recent academic research and memoirs of individuals involved with Iraq’s program, argues powerfully against an Israeli strike on Iran today.

To begin with, Hussein was not on the brink of a bomb in 1981. By the late 1970s, he thought Iraq should develop nuclear weapons at some point, and he hoped to use the Osirak reactor to further that goal. But new evidence suggests that Hussein had not decided to launch a full-fledged weapons program prior to the Israeli strike. According to Norwegian scholar Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, a leading authority on the Iraqi program, “on the eve of the attack on Osirak . . . Iraq’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability was both directionless and disorganized.”

I haven't noticed that you posted much in the way of truth. Your obvious Joooo-hating agenda makes you a poor candidate for an unbiased account.

I should point out to you that Iraq in the 1980's was a very different circumstance than Iran is today.

If you have followed any of the data issued by the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, there is a disturbing pattern of behavior on the part of the Iranians. I obviously don't know their intentions but it is clear that the Mullocrats have an agenda of mis-information and stalling when to comes to an open dialogue with the international community.

Rather than focusing on what is actually posted you claim that I have a Joooo hating agenda...for the sake of argument, even if what you say is true, how does that affect the veracity of what I actually posted?

You have nothing.

Bad analogies and false comparisons are what you posted. As noted, Iraq in the 1980's was a very different circumstance than Iran is today.

 

[irosie91]

Hollie---peeballs simply ignores refutation and claims none exists

 

[pbel]

I haven't noticed that you posted much in the way of truth. Your obvious Joooo-hating agenda makes you a poor candidate for an unbiased account.

I should point out to you that Iraq in the 1980's was a very different circumstance than Iran is today.

If you have followed any of the data issued by the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, there is a disturbing pattern of behavior on the part of the Iranians. I obviously don't know their intentions but it is clear that the Mullocrats have an agenda of mis-information and stalling when to comes to an open dialogue with the international community.

Rather than focusing on what is actually posted you claim that I have a Joooo hating agenda...for the sake of argument, even if what you say is true, how does that affect the veracity of what I actually posted?

You have nothing.

Bad analogies and false comparisons are what you posted. As noted, Iraq in the 1980's was a very different circumstance than Iran is today.

How about this quote about the 2002 attack?...

"In 1996, when Benjamin Netanyahu was prepared to take office, eight Jewish neocon leaders sent him a six-page memo outlining an aggressive vision of government. At the top of their list was overthrowing Saddam. They sketched out a kind of domino theory in which the governments of Syria and other Arab countries might later fall or be replaced.

Comments of reserve Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom, long regarded as one of the worlds best intelligence officers. Prior to his retirement in 1998. Brom served in Israeli military intelligence for 25 years, and acted as deputy chief of planning for the Israeli army."ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE WAS A FULL PARTNER WITH THE US AND BRITAIN IN DEVELOPING A FALSE PICTURE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY."

 

[Hollie]

Rather than focusing on what is actually posted you claim that I have a Joooo hating agenda...for the sake of argument, even if what you say is true, how does that affect the veracity of what I actually posted?

You have nothing.

Bad analogies and false comparisons are what you posted. As noted, Iraq in the 1980's was a very different circumstance than Iran is today.

How about this quote about the 2002 attack?...

"In 1996, when Benjamin Netanyahu was prepared to take office, eight Jewish neocon leaders sent him a six-page memo outlining an aggressive vision of government. At the top of their list was overthrowing Saddam. They sketched out a kind of domino theory in which the governments of Syria and other Arab countries might later fall or be replaced.

Comments of reserve Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom, long regarded as one of the worlds best intelligence officers. Prior to his retirement in 1998. Brom served in Israeli military intelligence for 25 years, and acted as deputy chief of planning for the Israeli army."ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE WAS A FULL PARTNER WITH THE US AND BRITAIN IN DEVELOPING A FALSE PICTURE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY."

How about those quotes?

Typing in caps and adding bold colors adds a touch of melodrama but what is your point?

Additionally, is there a reason why your "quotes" are unsourced?

 

[pbel]

Bad analogies and false comparisons are what you posted. As noted, Iraq in the 1980's was a very different circumstance than Iran is today.

How about this quote about the 2002 attack?...

"In 1996, when Benjamin Netanyahu was prepared to take office, eight Jewish neocon leaders sent him a six-page memo outlining an aggressive vision of government. At the top of their list was overthrowing Saddam. They sketched out a kind of domino theory in which the governments of Syria and other Arab countries might later fall or be replaced.

Comments of reserve Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom, long regarded as one of the worlds best intelligence officers. Prior to his retirement in 1998. Brom served in Israeli military intelligence for 25 years, and acted as deputy chief of planning for the Israeli army."ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE WAS A FULL PARTNER WITH THE US AND BRITAIN IN DEVELOPING A FALSE PICTURE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY."

How about those quotes?

Typing in caps and adding bold colors adds a touch of melodrama but what is your point?

Additionally, is there a reason why your "quotes" are unsourced?

Luv ...Color it affects mood...my source:Just saw the following post on one of the AOL Iraq War message boards as it is referring to the 'A Clean Break' document (which was co-authored by JINSA/PNAC Chickenhawks Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser for Israel):
Message 1 of 8 Subject 2 of 50
Subject: Israel's War!
Date: 4/26/04 4:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: PBel281198
MsgId: <[email protected]>

The original by Avi Shavit for Haaratz in 2002, if you insist I'll find it, but I did post what was said.

 

[chikenwing]

Is not Iran in spite of what the Wall Street Journal would like you to believe:

"Reporting on the final U.S. presidential campaign debate, on foreign policy, The Wall Street Journal observed that 'the only country mentioned more (than Israel) was Iran, which is seen by most nations in the Middle East as the gravest security threat to the region...'"

"The Journal article, like countless others on Iran, leaves critical questions unanswered, among them: Who exactly sees Iran as the gravest security threat? And what do Arabs (and most of the world) think can be done about the threat, whatever they take it to be?

"The first question is easily answered. The 'Iranian threat' is overwhelmingly a Western obsession, shared by Arab dictators, though not Arab populations.

"As numerous polls have shown, although citizens of Arab countries generally dislike Iran, they do not regard it as a very serious threat. Rather, they perceive the threat to be Israel and the United States; and many, sometimes considerable majorities, regard Iranian nuclear weapons as a counter to these threats.

"In high places in the U.S., some concur with the Arab populations' perception, among them Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the Strategic Command. In 1998 he said, 'It is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East,' one nation, Israel, should have a powerful nuclear weapons arsenal, which 'inspires other nations to do so.'"

Noam Chomsky: The Gravest Threat to World Peace

Well he is just like everyone is from time to time,just plan wrong.

 

[RoccoR]

Hollie, et al,

This is one of the observations that throws outsiders.

Additionally, I couldn't but note that you hope to implicate Israel in a Middle East conflict that is actually pitting the shia against the sunni.

Unless you have chosen to ignore events taking place in the islamist Middle East, it is the 1,300 year old blood feud separating the shia and sunni tribes that is the largest concern. Because you missed it, the sunni's across the Arab world are growing increasingly concerned with the "shia crescent" across the Gulf.

(COMMENT)

I am not sure that there are very many Middle Eastern/Persian Gulf outsiders that can fully appreciate the dispute between the Sunni and Shi'ite.

Clearly, there are factions out there that believe, whatever the nature of the dispute, it is --- and should be exploited to exemplify and expose the true nature of the base religion, and to accelerate the process of self-destruction from the inside-outward.

Contrary to popular belief, the real (limited aspect of this) conflict is not between the Muslim and non-Muslim cultures; but between Muslim and Muslim cultures. There are a great many non-Muslim elements that believe the Muslim culture is one of the most barbaric, dangerous, and violent cults ever to survive into this century; anything but responsive to the elementary teachings behind the basic concepts furthered by the common God between the Christians-Hebrews and Islamics religions. Thus, they see no real fault in pitting Muslim against Muslim. As one officer pointed out to me, "quite frankly, the problem is that they are not dispatching one another with the speed and efficiency" they had hoped for in the rivalry.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Hollie, georgephillip, loinboy, et al,

Americans can hardly be aware of how diplomacy has once again failed, for a simple reason: Virtually nothing is reported in the United States about the fate of the most obvious way to address – "the gravest threat" –
Establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.​

Noam Chomsky​

(PREFACE)

In any discussion on this topic (International World Threat), that involves Israel, it is probably better to forget Noam Chomsky. Not because of what Chomsky says is irrelevant, but because he has become so divisive himself; which derails and diminishes the importance of anything he has to say.

The topic itself, presupposes, that the "gravest threat" has anything at all to do with the Middle East and the "classic dispute" between the Muslim World and everyone/everything non-Muslim. And while no one can argue that this "classic dispute" is not one of the most important topics of the day, it is rather impetuous to believe it is the gravest of threats. The "classic dispute" between the inhabitants of the Middle East/Persian Gulf Region and the rest of the World has been around for more and three millenium. And if they survive, it will be around for another three millenium, popping in and out of the history of importance like a sine-wave through time. Today, they have a piece of the stage, with Iran wanting parity with Israel on nuclear weapons, and the Palestinians wanting the world to believe they are the owners of a piece of land that has been conquered so many times, that they forget that they are not a unified people.

(CLARIFICATION)

Threat is a matter of perception.

• What is a threat to you, may not be a threat to me.
• What situations intimidate you, may not intimidate me.
• What is perilous to you, may not be perilous to me.

The perception is affected by the level (very Maslow-ish) and proximity of the threat in time and space. [(A 122mm Rocket looks more impressive if it lands in your row of CHUs than if it lands across the river.)(A crash on Wall Street is more impressive to the upper 1% of the elite than it is to me in the lower quarter of the economy.)(Unemployment has an impact on the working class, but doesn't on the independently wealthy.)]

When we talk about the "World Threat," it means something much different than it does when we say a "Threat to America." Americans have a tendency to consider these interchangeable; that is, what threatens America, threatens the world. But this is not necessarily the case. The outcome of the Iraq and Afghan military adventures is not of the same level of importance to the Pacific nations or Africa, as it is to America. The same can be said, is true for the Persian Gulf.

(COMMENT)

So the questions remains: What is the Gravest Threat to World Peace? Is it (really) Middle Eastern/Persian Gulf centric? Has it anything to do with:

• Israel
• The Palestinian Issue
• Iran
• Nuclear Weapons

OR, is it based on the emerging political-economic hegemonies, and the distribution of energy?

While I respect the commentary of Noam Chomsky, and his perspective, I believe him to be wrong. His perspective, if tightened down to just the one (of several) regional issues, then --- there might be some validity to his thesis. But examining the threat on a global scale, I say he is (no disrespect intended to his academic prowess, or his youthful experiences as an undergrad in the HaZore'a Kibbutz) a bit naive.

Most Respectfully,
R

Perhaps , you are right, and perhaps the greatest threat to world peace is global warming and the manner in which that will pit people against people, all over the world, fighting for survival! Some even say that explains the fighting in Darfur.

 

[irosie91]

any attempt to lay the issue of CONFLICT --upon
a single factor is idiotic Attempts to find
UNIFYING THEORIES in the science of
PHYSICS does work out a little. In ORGANIC
SYSTEMS it don't work we end up having
to try to figure out how CHAOS works

 

[SAYIT]

Is not Iran in spite of what the Wall Street Journal would like you to believe:

"Reporting on the final U.S. presidential campaign debate, on foreign policy, The Wall Street Journal observed that 'the only country mentioned more (than Israel) was Iran, which is seen by most nations in the Middle East as the gravest security threat to the region...'"

"The Journal article, like countless others on Iran, leaves critical questions unanswered, among them: Who exactly sees Iran as the gravest security threat? And what do Arabs (and most of the world) think can be done about the threat, whatever they take it to be?

"The first question is easily answered. The 'Iranian threat' is overwhelmingly a Western obsession, shared by Arab dictators, though not Arab populations.

"As numerous polls have shown, although citizens of Arab countries generally dislike Iran, they do not regard it as a very serious threat. Rather, they perceive the threat to be Israel and the United States; and many, sometimes considerable majorities, regard Iranian nuclear weapons as a counter to these threats.

"In high places in the U.S., some concur with the Arab populations' perception, among them Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the Strategic Command. In 1998 he said, 'It is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East,' one nation, Israel, should have a powerful nuclear weapons arsenal, which 'inspires other nations to do so.'"

Noam Chomsky: The Gravest Threat to World Peace

As always, Chumpsky takes the one-eyed shortcut. Debate mentions aside, it isn't Israel herself which is the greatest threat to world peace (that would be Russia with lots of nukes and little reason to secure them) but rather the fact that Israel exists in the tinderbox known as the Mideast and her "peaceful" Arab neighbors just can't seem to accept that fact.

 

[SAYIT]

Hollie, georgephillip, loinboy, et al,

Americans can hardly be aware of how diplomacy has once again failed, for a simple reason: Virtually nothing is reported in the United States about the fate of the most obvious way to address – "the gravest threat" –
Establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.​

Noam Chomsky​

(PREFACE)

In any discussion on this topic (International World Threat), that involves Israel, it is probably better to forget Noam Chomsky. Not because of what Chomsky says is irrelevant, but because he has become so divisive himself; which derails and diminishes the importance of anything he has to say.

The topic itself, presupposes, that the "gravest threat" has anything at all to do with the Middle East and the "classic dispute" between the Muslim World and everyone/everything non-Muslim. And while no one can argue that this "classic dispute" is not one of the most important topics of the day, it is rather impetuous to believe it is the gravest of threats. The "classic dispute" between the inhabitants of the Middle East/Persian Gulf Region and the rest of the World has been around for more and three millenium. And if they survive, it will be around for another three millenium, popping in and out of the history of importance like a sine-wave through time. Today, they have a piece of the stage, with Iran wanting parity with Israel on nuclear weapons, and the Palestinians wanting the world to believe they are the owners of a piece of land that has been conquered so many times, that they forget that they are not a unified people.

(CLARIFICATION)

Threat is a matter of perception.

• What is a threat to you, may not be a threat to me.
• What situations intimidate you, may not intimidate me.
• What is perilous to you, may not be perilous to me.

The perception is affected by the level (very Maslow-ish) and proximity of the threat in time and space. [(A 122mm Rocket looks more impressive if it lands in your row of CHUs than if it lands across the river.)(A crash on Wall Street is more impressive to the upper 1% of the elite than it is to me in the lower quarter of the economy.)(Unemployment has an impact on the working class, but doesn't on the independently wealthy.)]

When we talk about the "World Threat," it means something much different than it does when we say a "Threat to America." Americans have a tendency to consider these interchangeable; that is, what threatens America, threatens the world. But this is not necessarily the case. The outcome of the Iraq and Afghan military adventures is not of the same level of importance to the Pacific nations or Africa, as it is to America. The same can be said, is true for the Persian Gulf.

(COMMENT)

So the questions remains: What is the Gravest Threat to World Peace? Is it (really) Middle Eastern/Persian Gulf centric? Has it anything to do with:

• Israel
• The Palestinian Issue
• Iran
• Nuclear Weapons

OR, is it based on the emerging political-economic hegemonies, and the distribution of energy?

While I respect the commentary of Noam Chomsky, and his perspective, I believe him to be wrong. His perspective, if tightened down to just the one (of several) regional issues, then --- there might be some validity to his thesis. But examining the threat on a global scale, I say he is (no disrespect intended to his academic prowess, or his youthful experiences as an undergrad in the HaZore'a Kibbutz) a bit naive.

Most Respectfully,
R

Perhaps , you are right, and perhaps the greatest threat to world peace is global warming and the manner in which that will pit people against people, all over the world, fighting for survival! Some even say that explains the fighting in Darfur.

I can't say that global warming is the source of the strife in Africa but a disruption of the flow of relatively inexpensive oil for an extended period of time certainly will cause global economies and civility to break down. You can take that to the bank but your money will be worthless.

 

[Connery]

On Chomsky: "He begins as a preacher to the world and ends as an intellectual crook"~ Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (1969) « Truman’s Speech & Noam Chomsky Commentary Magazine

Chomsky expressed support for the arming of Hezbollah, in direct contradiction to UN Security Council Resolution 1559 calliing for “the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias”:

Hezbollah's insistence on keeping its arms is justified... I think [Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan] Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and [a] persuasive argument that they [the arms] should be in the hands of Hezbollah as a deterrent to potential aggression, and there is plenty of background reasons for that. So until – I think his position [is] reporting it correctly and it seems to me [a] reasonable position, is that until there is a general political settlement in the region, [and] the threat of aggression and violence is reduced or eliminated, there has to be a deterrent, and the Lebanese army can't be a deterrent. (Noam Chomsky, Al Manar TV, 13 May 2006)​

CAMERA: Noam Chomsky's Support for Hezbollah


I take what Chomsky says with not a grain but a pillar of salt...He is biased and only throws fuel on a discussion. Crazy bastard....