foxnews.com: Israel warns it may act on Iranian warships passing through Suez Canal

[SnyderShrugged]

Got it.

If I walk to a friends house, where I've been invited, without ever once so much as setting foot on your property, and you threaten to kill me if I try it, then I'm provoking you.

yes, if you have been needling me, making absurd statements, and in general acting as my enemy for decades, and you havent found the need to walk by in the past by that route, then you are definitely provoking.

[Burgold]

Got it.

If I walk to a friends house, where I've been invited, without ever once so much as setting foot on your property, and you threaten to kill me if I try it, then I'm provoking you.

Well, if you were to walk to my neighbor's house wearing your gang colors and showing off your guns after parading up and down the streets for weeks threatening my life and saying that you were going to see me buried... ya know...?

I mostly agree with you, but I think we also know that there is subtext and messages being sent in all these actions. There's a game of political chess going on. Iran isn't sending it's ships because its sailors need a little R&R.

Let's not be intentionally naive. (Doesn't give Israel the right to pre-emptively attack or even threaten too really, but it does give them the right to keep a close eye and lock the doors.)

[SnyderShrugged]

Well, if you were to walk to my neighbor's house wearing your gang colors and showing off your guns after parading up and down the streets for weeks threatening my life and saying that you were going to see me buried... ya know...?

I mostly agree with you, but I think we also know that there is subtext and messages being sent in all these actions. There's a game of political chess going on. Iran isn't sending it's ships because its sailors need a little R&R.

Let's not be intentionally naive. (Doesn't give Israel the right to pre-emptively attack or even threaten too really, but it does give them the right to keep a close eye and lock the doors.)

Thats all I'm sayin too

[AzSkinsFan63]

Israel in the news again?...

[Burgold]

Israel in the news again?...

Way to contribute to a civilized conversation! :thumbsup:

[Destino]

Way to contribute to a civilized conversation! :thumbsup:

It does kind of seem that we get one of these "Israel might attack!" news stories regularly.

[Burgold]

And most of the time, she doesn't. How many times have we heard that Israel was going to bomb the **** out of Iran's nuclear power plant? How many times have we heard that Israel was going to attack Iran because of their refusal to stop the constant flow of munitions to the terrorists attacking Israel? etc. Perhaps there is a concerted propaganda effort to cast Israel in a very antagonistic light. As to this story, there are two ways to view this story...

From a point of view that questions why Iran is making a provocative move

or

From a point of view that questions how Israel is responding to Iran

To simply say, "Oh look, Israel is saber rattling and in the news again." really is a useless comment. Note how I responded to all the other comments in this thread.

[Thiebear]

Kicking in somebody's front door is provocation. Walking down the street as part of a suspected plan to kick in somebody's door, a few weeks from now, is not.

Right now, Israel is acting more provocatively than Iran is. Iran is sailing their ships to an international port where they have been invited. Israel is threatening to attack them while in the territorial waters of somebody else's country.

I kinda agree with Larry. I don't really believe in pre-emptive strikes. Iran is certainly dangling bait. Israel should not bite.

I would agree with this, grown up governments should ignore blowhards when they blowhard again.

Don't jump to any instigation your enemy wants, let them put down their demonstrators on their own effort and not because of your stupidity.

[Larry]

From a point of view that questions why Iran is making a provocative move

or

From a point of view that questions how Israel is responding to Iran

Or we could drop the completely biased assertions that when one country is doing absolutely nothing wrong, and a second country is threatening acts of war against multiple countries, then the first country is "making a provocative move", and the second country is "responding".

[Burgold]

Or we could drop the completely biased assertions that when one country is doing absolutely nothing wrong, and a second country is threatening acts of war against multiple countries, then the first country is "making a provocative move", and the second country is "responding".

Sigh. I thought we dealt with that arguement. Don't give me the "ABSOLUTELY" nothing wrong jazz, Larry. The word absolute is foolish to use within the ongoing context and dialogue of threats that have been issued for years.

We both know that the arguments are not that simplistic. Don't play that game please.

[Bang]

I agree with Burgold on that.. the notion they're doing nothing wrong is akin to the guy who wants to fight and gets a half an inch from someone's face. He's technically not doing anything wrong, either.

~Bang

[Larry]

Right. Got it. Iran possess a weapon, therefore they're acting provocatively. Israel is threatening war, and is responding. Because Iran has such a bad reputation for bad rhetoric and actions.

Israel is announcing that they have the right to decide where Iran's navy may sail, and to say who can and can't pass through Egypt's territorial waters, or else they'll go to war. But Iran is provoking, and Israel is merely responding.

----------

Which is more provoking:

1) Iran entering the Med?

2) Israel announcing that if you attempt to enter the Med, I will go to war?

[Thiebear]

This sums it up quite nicely:

Bill Cosby: [describing children with brain damage] You come into the room with a Coca-Cola, you set it down, you go to get a newspaper. Child comes walking in, grabs the drink, starts to... You say, "Give me that! Didn't I just tell you not to drink it?" The child says, "Uh-huh." You say, "What did I just say?"

[mimicking child]

Bill Cosby: "You said for to not for to drink your drink."

[normal voice]

Bill Cosby: "So every time I tell you that, don't I? I say, 'When I have a drink, don't you drink it.' Don't I say that?" "Uh-huh." "Now tell me what I said." "You said for to not for to drink your drink." "That's right!" So you put it down, you go to get the paper, the child picks it up again, and quickly starts to drink it! You say, "Gimme that! Didn't I just tell you?" He says, "Uh-huh!" "Well, why did you do it?" "I don't know!" Well, that's brain damage!

[sacase]

Right. Got it. Iran possess a weapon, therefore they're acting provocatively. Israel is threatening war, and is responding. Because Iran has such a bad reputation for bad rhetoric and actions.

Israel is announcing that they have the right to decide where Iran's navy may sail, and to say who can and can't pass through Egypt's territorial waters, or else they'll go to war. But Iran is provoking, and Israel is merely responding.

----------

Which is more provoking:

1) Iran entering the Med?

2) Israel announcing that if you attempt to enter the Med, I will go to war?

Are you really forgetting all the numerous threats Iran has made about wiping Israel from the face of the earth?

I think Larry is doing his best impersonation of Ten Second Tom

[Larry]

Are you really forgetting all the numerous threats Iran has made about wiping Israel from the face of the earth?

I think Larry is doing his best impersonation of Ten Second Tom

And I think a lot of people are trying real hard to avoid reality.

Answer my question: Which is more provocative?

[Thiebear]

Reality?

If N.K. was to park a warship in Mexico city port we wouldn't have a navy seal team attached to the side and subs nearby?

Attacking the ship would be more provocative than doing donuts in your yard, IF Israel ignores it i'd give them fractional credit.

[sacase]

And I think a lot of people are trying real hard to avoid reality.

Answer my question: Which is more provocative?

The way you put the question, obviously, Israel, but you are ignoring all the previous actions by Iran. You cannot look at the event as a stand a lone event. There is other history leading up to this. I would not want someone who has threatened to kill me and wipe me from the face of the earth moving warships in a position to cause me problems.

[Burgold]

Which is more provocative?

See, that question I think is legit. And I think Israel's threat of response is worse. Your previous statement I found frustrating.

This is the way I see it.

You're a third grader on the playground and every day before school a six grader walks by and whispers, "I'm gonna get you" and smacks his fist. This goes on for weeks. Now, sometimes he not only whispers, but shoves (gives Palestinian's rockets), but keeps whispering "You're dead meat" Then one day, you see him walking towards you with a switch blade and he's looking straight at you with a sneer on his face and he keeps opening and closing the blade. You threaten if he comes near you you're going to get him expelled.

Is the third grader really the provocateur?

[visionary]

If some random accident happens to the ships and they sink, does Israel get blamed?

I suppose it's a good thing these aren't Iranian planes we're talking about....

[Larry]

The way you put the question, obviously, Israel, but you are ignoring all the previous actions by Iran. You cannot look at the event as a stand a lone event. There is other history leading up to this. I would not want someone who has threatened to kill me and wipe me from the face of the earth moving warships in a position to cause me problems.

I am pointing out the actual actions of both countries.

And both countries have a history of provocative rhetoric. (One of them has a history of preemptive wars to seize territory which they have not given back.)

Do I think Iran has an evil motive? Hell, yes. I've even proposed a theory as to what it is. Do I think that having an evil motive is "provocation"? As in "does it entitle me to use violence against them?" Absolutely not.

Do I think Israel has a right to be concerned, and to be suspicious? Well, 1) They don't exactly need my permission, and 2) I think Israel has demonstrated that they're quite capable of taking care of their own self interests. (I think that some of the things they've done deserve to be prosecuted as war crimes, but I'd certainly never describe them as incompetent.)

In fact, if I thought that Israel needed the help, I wouldn't mind having the US Navy show up, too. It's not in our interest for Iran to start thinking that they "own" the Med, either.

[Destino]

Iran and Israel have been threatening each other back and forth for a long time. I have no problem with anything Israel has done in that conflict/situation. I do have a problem with the constant calls for the international community to do something about it. The US isn't a private security firm. If someone is threatening your country and you have the means to deal with it... THEN DEAL WITH IT. If anything there is way too much international community involvement with all things Israel.

[Larry]

See, that question I think is legit. And I think Israel's threat of response is worse. Your previous statement I found frustrating.

This is the way I see it.

You're a third grader on the playground and every day before school a six grader walks by and whispers, "I'm gonna get you" and smacks his fist. This goes on for weeks. Now, sometimes he not only whispers, but shoves (gives Palestinian's rockets), but keeps whispering "You're dead meat" Then one day, you see him walking towards you with a switch blade and he's looking straight at you with a sneer on his face and he keeps opening and closing the blade. You threaten if he comes near you you're going to get him expelled.

Is the third grader really the provocateur?

OK.

Now change the third grader and the sixth grader. Iran is NOT the big kid, here.

Now, make BOTH of them exchange threats for years.

And give the unarmed kid you're labeling "Israel" a gun.

Now you've got a more accurate parallel.

----------

The standard that's being used, here, is that Iran has done some bad things, therefore even when they aren't doing anything, it's still their fault, anyway. Well guess what? Iran isn't the only country in this discussion with a history.

---------- Post added February-16th-2011 at 09:54 PM ----------

If some random accident happens to the ships and they sink, does Israel get blamed?

I suppose it's a good thing these aren't Iranian planes we're talking about....

I have to admit that part of me would be really amused at the thought of the two ships suffering simultaneous mysterious explosions while in international waters.

The sane part of me says that's a bad idea. But I do enjoy the pleasant fantasy.

[Bang]

And I think a lot of people are trying real hard to avoid reality.

Answer my question: Which is more provocative?

Saying "we will wipe them off the map in a storm of fire" is pretty damned threatening.

It surely would lead any sane and reasonable person to be concerned when they start sending warships that way.

~Bang

[sacase]

Iran and Israel have been threatening each other back and forth for a long time. I have no problem with anything Israel has done in that conflict/situation. I do have a problem with the constant calls for the international community to do something about it. The US isn't a private security firm. If someone is threatening your country and you have the means to deal with it... THEN DEAL WITH IT. If anything there is way too much international community involvement with all things Israel.

I saw we just start letting everyone just fight out there problems if they want to.

[twa]

If some random accident happens to the ships and they sink, does Israel get blamed?

I suppose it's a good thing these aren't Iranian planes we're talking about....

Righteous line ...thank you