Pro-Israel Think Tank Wants To Provoke War With Iran

Post Reply New Topic

Patrick Clawson is Director of Research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which was co-founded by Martin Indyk, a former director of research for AIPAC.
Here is Clawson thinking out loud about how to manufacture an incident that could serve as a pretext for declaring war on Iran.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx3plLrXjE0[/youtube]

All that we are SAYee-ing...

IS give WAR a chance!

waiting for our resident semitophile to weigh in

5... ...4.. ...3...

"Semitophile"? Your bigotry drips from every word, you clown. How about simply being pro-Israel?

Israel is worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Given the nature of the Iranian regime, I fully understand why they are worried. They won't be convinced by MAD like the USSR was, due to the nature of the Iranian regime's Islamist beliefs. (I feel for the poor bastards living under it though.)

If unstable and murderous Christian theocrats in Europe had nukes 400 years ago, we wouldn't be here now.

not at all. Your ad hominem smear tactics don't phase me either. I was searching for an equivalent synonym to 'pro-Israel person' but for some reason 'pro-israel person' doesnt have the same ring.

Excuse me.

You just called Tequila "a Jew lover"!

What else would your term "semitophile" mean?


If you werent being a knave, then you were being a fool, to use that turn of phrase.

Its like saying "n****r lover", and then protesting that you're NOT racist ( if you're not a racist then you have extremely bad judgment to use a phrase like that).

Its perfectly fine to call someone "an apologist for Israel" if they seem to be a knee jerk defender of every policy the Isreali government does. And that would not indicate anti-semitism because Judaism is one thing- and whatever crop of politicians run Israel at any given time is something else.

This guy might have said all this but.... the video stutters, the words are way out of sync with his lips, you're hearing him clearly when his back is turned to the microphone; there has to be a better copy out there.

I prefer "Israel-worshipper"... Darbyism is the plague of today.

you're implying that one must be either a jew lover or a jew hater. Its a false dichotomy.

I am Jew-indifferent, i have no specific opinion on them on way or the other. Nor do I draw prejudiced conclusions about someone due to their being Jewish.

Tequila, on the other hand, is dogmatically apologetic for Israel to the point of nausea.

Im not implying anything of the sort.

Im saying that if you walk around with a sandwich sign saying "eat at joes" then that makes you an advocate of Joe's restaurant. So if you dont want to be associated with Joe's Restaurant, then dont go around in public advertising the place.

The term 'jew lover' is code used only by people who believe that hating jews is the norm.

So if you use that term- be aware that folks will take it as a sandwich sign declaring your antisemitism- whether you mean it as that or not.

If you're not declaring yourself as an antisemite-then find another turn of phrase to say what you're trying to say.

LIke "tequila is a nauseating knee jerk apologizer for Israel" for example. You shouldve said something like that the first time.

Like I said: it's pretty clear that he's a racist, cut and dried. His own comments show this.



Correct. If I or anyone else on this site had called him a 'Taig lover' due to, say, his 'interest' in the motivations for dissident republican terrorism (of course, he's the sort of fool who would run the other way if violence ever returned to NI), you can imagine what this reaction would be.



Wouldn't it be more to the point to call someone an "Israeli government apologist"? They might like Likud and despise Labor or one of the other parties.

In the same way that it's fine to say I'm pro-UK, but I dislike and disagree with the UK government and have for a long time.

so if i refer to someone as a francophile, its assuming that hating the french is the norm?

Its impossible to add the suffix -phile without inferring that its opposite is the default?

Sorry your logic makes no sense.

No, its pretty clear that yet again you're putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5.

You're a spin merchant, and not a particularly good one.

it allegedly worked for afghanistan and iraq

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/22 ... operation/

Yes, yes, yes - it was a false-flag operation, the Jews, the Freemasons and the Communists were responsible, yadda yadda yadda.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about commies, free masons, nor the illuminati. How would they have benefitted from the attacks? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I've had too many friends wander down that road to never return. However they did teach me to be skeptical and look for sources outside than the MSM.