Is Israel a rogue state?

[hard2miss]

the word antisemitic has nothing at all to do with the word 'semite'. Words do not not necessarily form the sum of their parts - i.e. you can drive on parkways, and park on driveways.

 

The word itself was coined by a German Jew-hater by the name of Wilhelm Marr - antisemitsche. His aim was to make hating Jews sound more 'scientific' - i.e. a 19th century version of political correctness.

 

in its original German the word is never spelt with a hyphen, but as one word.

 

the confusion seems to have begun when an English dictionary took the decision to spell the word with a hyphen.

 

the word 'Semite' itself was originially used to refer to languages, not people. Semitic languages include Hebrew, Arabic, and Armhaic. Using 'Semite' to refer to ethnicities is frankly ridiculous. Half of Ethiopians speak Semitic languages, and half do not, this doesn't mean that they belong to different ethnic groups.

 

when the word is spelt with a hyphen, it gives Arabs the opportunity to turn round and declare, 'hey I'm a Semite myself. I speak a Semitic language, Arabic, just like Jewish Israelis speak a Semitic language, Hebrew. How can I possibly be an anti-semite?'

 

but antisemitsche, the word coined by Marr, has never meant anything other than predjudice against Jews.

 

Wilhelm Marr, Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Marr

Cheers for that,

I take your point that Arabs are not correct when they use it to not be labelled as 'anti Jewish', but from what you are saying here that its only ever meant prejudice towards Jews, well of course it does because whoever coined the phrase is irrelevant as its been adopted and brought into everyday language by the Israelis when its used as a brush to paint anyone with that does not conform to a pro Israeli view point.

[hard2miss]

Dropping a nuclear bomb is in a entirely different league to 9/11.

 

The only nuclear weapons to have been used are the first atomic bombs by the US, but would the US have dropped the bombs if they knew Japan also had a nuclear bomb that they could retaliate with.......I doubt it.

The fear is not being attacked, its the fear that there will become a balance in the region and their own threat will be lessened as it would be consequential to them if they ever did want to nuke Iran.

[hard2miss]

I will guarantee that the USA will not bomb Iran (with a nuke).

Spoil the oil ?

[Rupert_Baehr]

Dropping a nuclear bomb is in a entirely different league to 9/11.

 

The only nuclear weapons to have been used are the first atomic bombs by the US, but would the US have dropped the bombs if they knew Japan also had a nuclear bomb that they could retaliate with.......I doubt it.

 

Would the Americans (and NATO) have nuked Russia if the Cuban missile crisis had turned out differently?

[Kingmaker2]

Would the Americans (and NATO) have nuked Russia if the Cuban missile crisis had turned out differently?

 

The Cuban Missile crisis is rather different than the scenario faced in World War 2.

 

In the Cuban Missile crisis the US was feeling threatened by the missiles being stationed on Cuban soil and was seen as a direct threat.

 

The US had a number of options to defeat Japan, however Japan showed they had the capability to attack the US when they attacked Pearl Harbour.

Had the US known that Japan would retaliate in kind then I suspect they wouldn't have gone down the atom bomb route.

[sccsux]

if they do something wrong you tell them and you do not support them in their wrong actions.

 

If only somebody had told TB.

[MAMALOCHA!]

Well there is that, but aside from that, if they did Israel would be gone within a few hours - Iran wouldn't bother attacking the USA back, it would do Israel.

 

there lies the dilemma for the West of what to do with Iran, in addition Iran is far more capable in military terms than Iraq was.

[Kingmaker2]

there lies the dilemma for the West of what to do with Iran, in addition Iran is far more capable in military terms than Iraq was.

 

Is it:?:

 

Their 8 year war with Iraq suggests otherwise.

[Kingmaker2]

The fact that it lasted 8 years when Iraq were being supplied weapons by the west would indicate that Iran did pretty well.

 

What was funny was that Iraq handed back to Iran the piece of land they fought over, prior to the gulf war to try and keep iran from taking advantage of the situation.

 

I take back my last comment

[Kingmaker2]

Yeah true, but there is a bit of a misconception about what being supplied by the soviets actually means - they put very little money into arming their allies, preferring to give them outdated stuff unless it was strategically extremely important, and if they did give them new stuff, it was rarely as good as the stuff being supplied by the americans anyway.

 

It looks like the Soviets favoured Iraq but then again who knows what really goes on behind the scenes.

 

My understanding is that the US non officially gave Iraq coordinates of Iranian positions

 

I think that with or without support both sides were pretty evenly matched.

 

If the US ever did invade Iran as unlikely as it seems, then Iran would probably offer about the same resistance that Iraq did.

 

If however Iraq did develop a nuclear weapons then the US wouldn't be quite so keen to invade.