Did you ever play “Red light, green light”? Why would Iran advance their development of nukes while the whole world is watching? They know that eventually the world will lose interest so why risk it? Sure they’ve reduced the purity of their uranium, but why do they insist on keeping their centrifuges? If the goal is nuclear power, even 3% enriched uranium is plenty. But they insist on enriching to 20% and above. What other purpose could that serve?
 March 2, 2015 at 6:42pm
Does Obama have some strange delusion that a bad plan that makes things worse is better than no plan that has things end up less bad?
 March 2, 2015 at 3:34pm
I opened my last comment by asking if the source for this is Al Jazeera. According to your Fox News link: “But in the document published Monday by The Guardian and Al-Jazeera, the Mossad is quoted as saying “Iran at this stage is not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons.”"
In short, you are getting your news from Al Jazeera, a government owned news source whose owners are state sponsors of terrorism. Moreover, having read the original article, I was unable to find the original leaked document. They haven’t deemed it worth sharing.
 March 2, 2015 at 12:33pm
It’s not a lie, it’s a statement of facts that overlooks certain truths.
 March 2, 2015 at 12:32pm
You get your news from Al Jazeera? I have yet to see this supposed Mossad document contradicting Netanyahu. And I mean the original not some cheap translation. The “one year “away comment happened in 2012. In 2013, Iran was compelled to reduce the purity of its Uranium (though the means to enrich it again remains in their hands). In short, their progress was set back briefly and has been put on hold. But if this deal goes through and all the sanctions and attention goes away, who’s going to stop them?
 March 2, 2015 at 12:27pm
“Why should Israel be trusted with nuclear weapons over Iran? Both use violent rhetoric against one another.”
King, Israel always seeks peace with its neighbors. Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that Israel has no quarrel with the Iranian people, only with its government. And more than rhetoric, Iran has actually carried out attacks against Israeli civilians with the intention of slaughtering the largest number of people possible. Israel has done nothing of the sort.
 March 2, 2015 at 12:03pm
I saw the Young Turks video. They cited The Guardian. The Guardian cited Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera claimed they had a Mossad document but only provided an English document that had Al Jazeera’s logo on it. Needless to say, I’m pretty sure Mossad doesn’t use English in their documents nor puts Al Jazeera’s logo on it.
If you can’t trace the origin of a story, how can you possibly be considered an expert?
Notice the “document” they claim to have received is so obviously a forgery that only an idiot would believe it.
 March 2, 2015 at 10:25am
Where did this information come from Violet? Why don’t you tell us that this information came from none other than a state-owned media outlet whose backers finance Hamas (most people know it as Al Jazeera)? Why not say that this story is based on a supposed “leaked Mossad document” that Al Jazeera supposedly has exclusive access to and yet has not shared the original?
Why the omission of critical information? Are you hiding the truth from us?
The Young Turks on You Tube
And now true to form AND SO TIRED ALREADY.
y’all can spend the rest of the day
ATTACKING The Young Turks.
Bwahahahaha! No need!
I saw the Young Turks video. They cited The Guardian. The Guardian cited Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera claimed they had a Mossad document but only provided an English document that had Al Jazeera's logo on it. Needless to say, I'm pretty sure Mossad doesn't use English in their documents nor puts Al Jazeera's logo on it.
If you can't trace the origin of a story, how can you possibly be considered an expert?
Notice the "document" they claim to have received is so obviously a forgery that only an idiot would believe it.
 March 2, 2015 at 10:13am
“The bakery has no right to determine on their own how marriage is defined and then discriminate because of their owners personal beliefs.”
The bakery has every right to decide which kind of service they will provide. If that service is baking cakes for heterosexual weddings only, that’s their choice.
If we were to take your argument at face value, one could argue that an all girls school has no right to decide who is a girl and bar entrance based on the personal beliefs of those who run the school. Imagine where that leads. Men can’t be arrested for intentionally using the woman’s restroom because who has the right to say they aren’t women. High class restaurants must service people in their swimsuits because who are they to say that they aren’t formal enough.
What about shops that don’t permit people to smoke inside? Is that discriminatory?
 March 2, 2015 at 9:34am
So you recognize that Iran is engaged in attacks on Israel’s national sovereignty but claim that Israel has no right to defend itself from such assaults? Next you’ll tell me that going after the Taliban for backing Al Qaeda was “an infringement of the sovereignty” of Afghanistan.
Iran and Israel are already at war. They simply haven’t started fighting openly yet for political reasons. But unless something is done the conflict won’t end.
 March 2, 2015 at 8:52am
“You can’t deny equal service to someone without a legitimate business reason for the refusal of service.”
A wedding cake shop offers to bake cakes for weddings, which they define as between one man and one woman. They aren’t denying service, they simply never offered to service gay weddings. Similarly, they also won’t bake cakes celebrating Hitler’s birthday. They are under no obligation to accept every request made of them, much like how lawyers aren’t obligated to represent every potential client who approaches them.
Imagine that someone is hired to remodel a home and is told that the owner wants to build a BDSM style dungeon in the basement. Is the contractor not allowed to refuse to build it because he finds it morally repulsive?
The bakery has no right to determine on their own how marriage is defined and then discriminate because of their owners personal beliefs. This is illegal. A public accommodation is regulated by it's state's laws, and individuals under the jurisdiction of those state laws are protected by the US Constitution.
That's true liberty and individualism right there snowflake; slip on the yoke of Govt or else. Like your whole 'gay marriage' soup sandwich. Real special, the need for big Govt. Would love to see the rainbow jihad in S Chitcago explaining the similarities to the actual civil rights.
"The bakery has no right to determine on their own how marriage is defined and then discriminate because of their owners personal beliefs."
The bakery has every right to decide which kind of service they will provide. If that service is baking cakes for heterosexual weddings only, that's their choice.
If we were to take your argument at face value, one could argue that an all girls school has no right to decide who is a girl and bar entrance based on the personal beliefs of those who run the school. Imagine where that leads. Men can't be arrested for intentionally using the woman's restroom because who has the right to say they aren't women. High class restaurants must service people in their swimsuits because who are they to say that they aren't formal enough.
What about shops that don't permit people to smoke inside? Is that discriminatory?
 March 2, 2015 at 7:17am
“I’m no fan of Iran, but starting a war because your country isn’t included in a treaty discussion is absurd. ”
Who said they were starting a war because they weren’t included. Iran has already attacked Jews and Israelis on multiple occasions.
A direct attack on Iran by Israel would be the start of outright war. I don't deny that Iran engages in shadow tactics against Israel. Israel does the same to Iran. Neither nation is justified in this conflict, but Israel making an official assault would be an infringement of the sovereignty of Iran and would almost certainly start a war. That is not something that should be encouraged.
So you recognize that Iran is engaged in attacks on Israel's national sovereignty but claim that Israel has no right to defend itself from such assaults? Next you'll tell me that going after the Taliban for backing Al Qaeda was "an infringement of the sovereignty" of Afghanistan.
Iran and Israel are already at war. They simply haven't started fighting openly yet for political reasons. But unless something is done the conflict won't end.
 March 1, 2015 at 4:50pm
“France would not have ALLOWED anti-Jewish cartoons AT ALL!”
“They fired one cartoonist for even mentioning someone was a Jew! LOL!!!!!”
Really? You can prove this?
 March 1, 2015 at 4:33pm
The Talmud barely mentions non-Jews and the vast majority of the laws it discusses apply only to Jews. The Koran has a set of laws that Muslims are obliged to impose on Christians, especially if Christians do not wish it.
 March 1, 2015 at 4:14pm
Baseless accusations. Any non-Jew can walk into a Hillel event without an invitation and will never be turned away so long as they are respectful and non-violent. Moreover most non-Jews have no interest in governing Hillel. Moreover, Hillel isn’t a student association. It’s an independent organization founded and funded by Jews for the purpose of providing a venue for Jews on campus to interact with one another.
Why should non-Jews be given a voice governing an institution that is funded almost exclusively by Jews? That’s like saying that Jews should be given a voice in governing the Catholic Church, or any church for that matter.
 March 1, 2015 at 4:02pm
This coming from someone who supports a man calling for the murder of cartoonists. This man who was arrested clearly believes that only Muslims are allowed free speech. Clearly you are blinder than a jellyfish.
 March 1, 2015 at 4:01pm
So a Muslim is allowed to call for the murder of cartoonists expressing freedom of speech but Jews can’t refuse to acknowledge Jesus. Nice double standard there.
 March 1, 2015 at 3:59pm
Calling for the murder of people expressing their freedom of speech is permissible? A more accurate headline would be “Man arrested for advocating the violent overthrow of free speech”.
 March 1, 2015 at 3:54pm
“Muslim countries haven’t attacked us but the one Jewish one has – many times.”
WOW. So 9/11, the WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the several attacks on our embassies and consulates, including those in Tehran and Benghazi, never happened? I bet you couldn’t name one time Israel intentionally launched an attack on American soil.
 March 1, 2015 at 3:52pm
“They expect their “cattle” to continue to do their work even when they know they are being sacrificed.”
Just because you think that way about people doesn’t mean the rest of the world does.
“It must be a big threat to you that we Gentiles would want self-determination, eh?”
Since when have you been for self-determination? Nazis like you believe in being in charge of determining everyone else’s livelihood.
“Since then what have we seen? More and more wars for bankers (we know who they are) and Israel.”
Bankers causing wars? And Israel has never let anyone fight its wars.
“Paying tribute to Israel while Sumner Rothstein poisons our culture through MTV.”
No one’s paying tribute to Israel. And if you watch MTV you deserve to be poisoned. Last I checked Jews don’t control your TV remote.
“US has been on a steady decline since supporting Israel and allowing Jews to define our culture (which always seems to have some under-current of anti-White sentiment.)”
The people spreading the “anti-White sentiment” are the same ones spreading lies against Israel, attacking Jews and Judaism, and openly embracing Islamism.