NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=11fbf4a8-282a-4d18-954f-546709b1240f&k=32073

They're going to require Jews and Christians to wear colored badges - just like those handy badges that Hitler ordered for the Jews in Germany.

So, anyone here still want to say that Iran is just another nice place to live, that just wants peaceful nuclear power, that doesn't want to harm any other nations, and treats people better than the US?

I demand nazi photoshops of the Iran President.

Meh.

Meh.
I guess you figure it's ok to make Jews wear badges.

I guess you figure it's ok to make Jews wear badges.

Of course, you expect leftists to actually care about jews? Remember, if it supports socialists or islam, it's a good thing.

So, anyone here still want to say that Iran is just another nice place to live, that just wants peaceful nuclear power, that doesn't want to harm any other nations, and treats people better than the US?
Did anyone ever say that?

I guess you figure it's ok to make Jews wear badges.

:D :D :D

So,

Meh is now read as "Yup, hate dem Joos! I'm a Nazi and w00t Iran!"

Riight. :rolleyes:

Did anyone ever say that?

Exactly.

Of course, you expect leftists to actually care about jews? Remember, if it supports socialists or islam, it's a good thing.

:rolleyes:

I've always been an opponent of any form of religious fundamentalism. Much less isolation and targeting of specific groups of people.

They should get those five gay guys to pass laws on how people should be dressed.

And here I thought "meh" meant that the person wasn't surprised nor impressed.

Did anyone ever say that?
Yes.

Yes.
I must have missed it...

You know, if you say it with a sort of New Zealandic accent, you can almost make "Holocaust" sound like "Allahcaust".

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=11fbf4a8-282a-4d18-954f-546709b1240f&k=32073

They're going to require Jews and Christians to wear colored badges - just like those handy badges that Hitler ordered for the Jews in Germany.

So, anyone here still want to say that Iran is just another nice place to live, that just wants peaceful nuclear power, that doesn't want to harm any other nations, and treats people better than the US?

How reliable is this source? Are there others?

I must have missed it...
How convenient of you to miss the posts about how Iran is justified in developing nuclear power, and how there's no proof that it's for anything except "peaceful purposes", and how the US is going off the deep end for describing a man who wants "to wipe Israel off the map" as a danger to international peace and stability.

Wake up.

How convenient of you to miss the posts about how Iran is justified in developing nuclear power, and how there's no proof that it's for anything except "peaceful purposes", and how the US is going off the deep end for describing a man who wants "to wipe Israel off the map" as a danger to international peace and stability.

Wake up.

I missed the post where anyone said they wanted the Jews (and Christian and Zoroastrian populations) to be 'labelled' like the Nazis did.

Could you point that one out to me?

No?

Shocking.

Yay...

I'll be overdosing on Nyquil the second we get news that Israel has been nuked.

I've searched CNN, Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera and found nothing on this subject being released today. Given the gravity of the charges, I find it very ver strange that no one knows about this, even if it's possible.

I've searched CNN, Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera and found nothing on this subject being released today. Given the gravity of the charges, I find it very ver strange that no one knows about this, even if it's possible.
I guess you don't find canada.com to be a reliable news source?

How convenient of you to miss the posts about how Iran is justified in developing nuclear power, and how there's no proof that it's for anything except "peaceful purposes", and how the US is going off the deep end for describing a man who wants "to wipe Israel off the map" as a danger to international peace and stability.

Wake up.

That still leaves:

So, anyone here still want to say that Iran is just another nice place to live, ... and treats people better than the US?

Or is that automatically right just because it was in the same sentence as the other stuff?

That still leaves:

Or is that automatically right just because it was in the same sentence as the other stuff?

Gosh, I see plenty of stuff about how bad and evil the US is - a bad place to live full of crime, civilians with guns, fundamentalist Christians, etc. - and not a word from anyone on here who I would regard as Left about how evil and bad the Iranian government is.

Not one word.

Gosh, I see plenty of stuff about how bad and evil the US is - a bad place to live full of crime, civilians with guns, fundamentalist Christians, etc. - and not a word from anyone on here who I would regard as Left about how evil and bad the Iranian government is.

Not one word.

You know, I've heard a lot of people attack the US govt, and say the US people are still ok.

I've a lot of people attack the Iranian govt, and defend the population against people like who who insist on tarring them all with the same brush as their leader.

Hypocrite.

Gosh, I see plenty of stuff about how bad and evil the US is - a bad place to live full of crime, civilians with guns, fundamentalist Christians, etc. - and not a word from anyone on here who I would regard as Left about how evil and bad the Iranian government is.

Not one word.
I would say that's because it goes without saying. People just assume everyone already knows how bad it is. I mean, I haven't heard much on how bad the Iranian government is from anyone really, it's just expected to be common knowledge.

I would say that's because it goes without saying. People just assume everyone already knows how bad it is. I mean, I haven't heard much on how bad the Iranian government is from anyone really, it's just expected to be common knowledge.

Hardly. There's someone on this thread who doesn't even believe it's possible.

:D :D :D

So,

Meh is now read as "Yup, hate dem Joos! I'm a Nazi and w00t Iran!"

Riight. :rolleyes:

No. Meh is apathy. Apathy is to suggest that what is being discussed isnt of importantce. To suggest that it is not of importance is to suggest its fine.

How convenient of you to miss the posts about how Iran is justified in developing nuclear power, and how there's no proof that it's for anything except "peaceful purposes", and how the US is going off the deep end for describing a man who wants "to wipe Israel off the map" as a danger to international peace and stability.

Wake up.

1. The fact they are enriching the Uranium themselves, as opposed to buying it off Russia which is far far cheeper than developing it themselves

2. The fact that they are researching long range rocketry

3. The rhetoric from the head of governemnt regarding Israel's destruction.

It may be that they will not develop these weapons 'offically' and they just may give the materials for their development unoffically to people who would be quite happy to turn them into weapons to use against Israel.

Yay. Come on, we aren't invading Saudi Arabia or North Korea for its human rights abuses, which are just as bad or worse. I see no reason to use this as a justification to invade Iran.

When Iran attacks another nation that is allied to us, we can blow it up. Otherwise, it really doesn't affect us.
I guess you don't find canada.com to be a reliable news source?
Come on, it's Canadian, that means it's a commie conspiracy to get the USA to invade iran so it can take over the US government in the meantime! :rolleyes:

Seriously however... it's perfectly natural to look for corroboration with other news sources, especially here. But meh.

Seriously however... it's perfectly natural to look for corroboration with other news sources, especially here. But meh.

'Meh.'

Oh you must want the Jews to be exterminated then? :rolleyes:

1. The fact they are enriching the Uranium themselves, as opposed to buying it off Russia which is far far cheeper than developing it themselves

2. The fact that they are researching long range rocketry

3. The rhetoric from the head of governemnt regarding Israel's destruction.

It may be that they will not develop these weapons 'offically' and they just may give the materials for their development unoffically to people who would be quite happy to turn them into weapons to use against Israel.


What makes me laugh is the uniforms for their citizens. They're planning to make everyone in the country wear the same uniform - with badges for the Jews and Christians and other non-Muslims.

Sounds like Islamofascism - a term that many on this forum found laughable.

Now we're seeing Islamofascism - at least those people who have their eyes open can see it.

I guess you don't find canada.com to be a reliable news source?

I didn't know it until I read your post, so I can hardly classify it "reliable" :D

Also, I have little faith that the Pentagon or Israeli hawks WON'T distribute propaganda against Iran and Canada.com isn't invulnerable to it. My point is, it's seems too serious to not be mentioned in the major media, even if it's possible that it's an exclusive. I would hold from flaming Iran, until I felt I am a bit more confortable this could be true.

At the moment, the report seems to come from "The Simon Wiesenthal Centre", an organisation that may be biased. I dread to think that Israel is as desperate as to possibly spread such propaganda, to get the International community involved. Let's not shut our ears to this but let's not play fools either.

'Meh.'

Oh you must want the Jews to be exterminated then? :rolleyes:
Yes, kill the jews, they secretly control the illuminati and rule the world! they aer in league with teh republicans to take oevr the universe and establish a zoinist 3d reich1 omgwtfbbqlol!!!11!11

I didn't know it until I read your post, so I can hardly classify it "reliable" :D
Also, I have little faith that the Pentagon or Israeli hawks WON'T distribute propaganda against Iran and Canada.com isn't invulnerable to it. My point is, it's seems too serious to not be mentioned in the major media, even if it's possible that it's an exclusive. I would hold from flaming Iran, until I felt I am a bit more confortable this is could be true.

At the moment, the report seems to come from "The Simon Wiesenthal Centre", an organisation that may be biased. I dread to think that Israel is as desperate as to possibly spread such propaganda, to get the International community involved. Let's not shut our ears to this but let's not play fools either.


Considering the reputation of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, I challenge you to post one statement they've ever made that was false.

I'll be waiting.

I tried to find these sources which canada.com mentioned, but couldn't find any. I did, however, found this: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/25/iran12535.htm

Looks like the U.S. government and Iran can still agree on some issues...

What makes me laugh is the uniforms for their citizens. They're planning to make everyone in the country wear the same uniform - with badges for the Jews and Christians and other non-Muslims.

Sounds like Islamofascism - a term that many on this forum found laughable.

Now we're seeing Islamofascism - at least those people who have their eyes open can see it.

You keep forgetting that the program of the extreme left is very single issue, as it has been since the beginnings of the nineties.
At all costs, be pro-muslim, and/or pro-anyone-who-claims-to-be-muslim.
Occasionally, they do get confused between 'and' and 'or'.

I tried to find these sources which canada.com mentioned, but couldn't find any. I did, however, found this: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/25/iran12535.htm

Looks like the U.S. government and Iran can still agree on some issues...

It won't load. Is that the gay marriage thing?

You keep forgetting that the program of the extreme left is very single issue, as it has been since the beginnings of the nineties.
At all costs, be pro-muslim, and/or pro-anyone-who-claims-to-be-muslim.
Occasionally, they do get confused between 'and' and 'or'.
:rolleyes:

It won't load. Is that the gay marriage thing?

Either that or something about giving the death-penalty to all and sundry.

Capital. Punishment is just about the only issue that Dubya and Muslim countries agree on. Certainly nothing to be proud about.

Either that or something about giving the death-penalty to all and sundry.

Capital. Punishment is just about the only issue that Dubya and Muslim countries agree on. Certainly nothing to be proud about.

And executing mentally retared people... and people who are under the age of 18 being tried as adults. (Though that last one might just be in some parts of the US)

:rolleyes:

Present company ( one person ) excepted.
Sowwy.

And executing mentally retared people... and people who are under the age of 18 being tried as adults. (Though that last one might just be in some parts of the US)

*nods*
And that may be just about the only issue you and I agree on.
But then at least, we can be proud about it.

It won't load. Is that the gay marriage thing?
Odd. It works perfectly fine for me.

Also something about the Simon Wiesenthal Center: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Wiesenthal_Center
Just wanted to have a look what the critics say about this source...

Either that or something about giving the death-penalty to all and sundry.

Capital. Punishment is just about the only issue that Dubya and Muslim countries agree on. Certainly nothing to be proud about.

Yeah, but at least in the US, the death penalty is used on people who arguably deserved it.

And executing mentally retared people... and people who are under the age of 18 being tried as adults. (Though that last one might just be in some parts of the US)

Well, at least the US isn't executing homosexuals and them fornicatin' types...yet. :p (j/k)

Considering the reputation of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, I challenge you to post one statement they've ever made that was false.
I'll be waiting.

I'm not saying they ever did or they're doing it. Just saying we should have more that one source, before flaming Iran.

Yeah, but at least in the US, the death penalty is used on people who arguably deserved it.

Arguable?
That is, indeed, rather debatable.

*nods*
And that may be just about the only issue you and I agree on.
But then at least, we can be proud about it.

Probably :D

At the moment, the report seems to come from "The Simon Wiesenthal Centre", an organisation that may be biased. I dread to think that Israel is as desperate as to possibly spread such propaganda, to get the International community involved. Let's not shut our ears to this but let's not play fools either.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center is a very serious and recognized organization. However, there are no news on this on their website, and they keep an Iran Watch. Maybe they just haven't got around it yet.

Let's see if the Ayatollahs let this one pass. Although the mere fact that the Ahmadinejad is seeking something like this is worrying. It's not secret that Iran makes life harder for non-Muslims, but this is too much.

Arguable?
That is, indeed, rather debatable.

Don't even start it. Although I will state that I think only the absolutely worst crimes deserve death.

Let's start up a "How Low Can They Go" thing with iran. See if they can surplant Nazi Germany as the ultimate fascist state. Hey, the Nazis never had civilian uniforms, that's a start.

Well, at least the US isn't executing homosexuals and them fornicatin' types...yet. :p (j/k)

Nope, but I do hear some mentally impaired people are... In any case, until it bans the death penalty, the US cannot guarantee that it won't execute another innocent person, homosexual or not.

Let's start up a "How Low Can They Go" thing with iran. See if they can surplant Nazi Germany as the ultimate fascist state. Hey, the Nazis never had civilian uniforms, that's a start.

What I'm waiting for is for Iran to nuke Israel, and for them to round up non-Muslims in Iran and kill them.

Then I'll get on NS General and listen to the apologists for Iran.

Don't even start it. Although I will state that I think only the absolutely worst crimes deserve death.

An appropriate thread is bound to turn up in the near future.

What I'm waiting for is for Iran to nuke Israel, and for them to round up non-Muslims in Iran and kill them.

Then I'll get on NS General and listen to the apologists for Iran.
If that happens, you won't find any.

You see DK, most people's opinions change with new material and evidence. We don't just clap our hands to our ears, shut our eyes and go... "NANANANANANANANANA.. I CAN'T HEAR YOU" ;)

What I'm waiting for is for Iran to nuke Israel, and for them to round up non-Muslims in Iran and kill them.

Then I'll get on NS General and listen to the apologists for Iran.

Is it fun always being so optimistic?

The Simon Wiesenthal Center is a very serious and recognized organization. However, there are no news on this on their website, and they keep an Iran Watch. Maybe they just haven't got around it yet.

Let's see if the Ayatollahs let this one pass. Although the mere fact that the Ahmadinejad is seeking something like this is worrying. It's not secret that Iran makes life harder for non-Muslims, but this is too much.
Let's hope it's fake, otherwise the world is in deep trouble...

If that happens, you won't find any.

You see DK, most people's opinions change with new material and evidence. We don't just clap our hands to our ears, shut our eyes and go... "NANANANANANANANANA.. I CAN'T HEAR YOU" ;)

Oh, I'm sure there will be quite a few here. Most will say that Israel was asking for it, or it's all Bush's fault.

Oh, I'm sure there will be quite a few here. Most will say that Israel was asking for it, or it's all Bush's fault.

That won't be me.

Oh, I'm sure there will be quite a few here. Most will say that Israel was asking for it, or it's all Bush's fault.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". When all parties have been flaming each other for decades on the news, no one should be surprised when the flames end up taking innocent lives. Only way to prevent it? Stop flaming each other...

1. The fact they are enriching the Uranium themselves, as opposed to buying it off Russia which is far far cheeper than developing it themselves

2. The fact that they are researching long range rocketry

3. The rhetoric from the head of governemnt regarding Israel's destruction.

It may be that they will not develop these weapons 'offically' and they just may give the materials for their development unoffically to people who would be quite happy to turn them into weapons to use against Israel.

If the US doesn't take care of Iran Israel will, and the israelis could count on my support too.

Curious timing.
There were a couple of things in The Independent which maybe showed a different side of Iran. Not saying one way or the other, but if they're all devils then I wonder why...

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/books/features/article496524.ece

The other was a book review from someone who'd travelled through Iran and studied it. (Jason Elliot-- Mirrors of the Unseen: Journeys in Iran)
He didn't get killed or oppressed or anything. He said it was quite nice.

Not saying it doesn't happen. But it seems hardly to be the unmitigated hellhole we're often encouraged to imagine.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". When all parties have been flaming each other for decades on the news, no one should be surprised when the flames end up taking innocent lives. Only way to prevent it? Stop flaming each other...

I have to disagree... I love flaming innocent lives...

How convenient of you to miss the posts about how Iran is justified in developing nuclear power, and how there's no proof that it's for anything except "peaceful purposes", and how the US is going off the deep end for describing a man who wants "to wipe Israel off the map" as a danger to international peace and stability.

Wake up.

Where do you get all this stuff?

I mean - sure, you are RIGHT that people argue Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power, and that there is no evidence that they intend 'non-peaceful' use of it... but where does all this stuff about "the US going off the deep end for describing a man who wants "to wipe Israel off the map" as a danger to international peace and stability'... stuff come from?

Unless I'm mistaken - he HAS said Israel should be wiped off the map, and that he thinks it will happen - I do not recall any statement where it has been claimed Iran will be the power to do it...?

How reliable is this source? Are there others?
UPI
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060519-105912-5198r

The canada.com article has been linked on the DRUDGE REPORT (drudgereport.com) which is a very reputable news source.

Also on the Drudgreport, you can find a link to a Jerusalem Post article which discusses how the French and Swiss intelligence agencies thwarted a December plot to shoot down an EL AL airliner with an RPG.

Unless I'm mistaken - he HAS said Israel should be wiped off the map, and that he thinks it will happen - I do not recall any statement where it has been claimed Iran will be the power to do it...?

You know, Hitler laid out his goals in Mein Kampf - he said up front what he was going to do - and I recall many people saying, "well, he doesn't have the power to do it", or "Germany isn't foolish enough to do it".

That's right - do what Chamberlain did, and say that the Iranian President is merely a demagogue.

Where do you get all this stuff?

I mean - sure, you are RIGHT that people argue Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power, and that there is no evidence that they intend 'non-peaceful' use of it... but where does all this stuff about "the US going off the deep end for describing a man who wants "to wipe Israel off the map" as a danger to international peace and stability'... stuff come from?

Unless I'm mistaken - he HAS said Israel should be wiped off the map, and that he thinks it will happen - I do not recall any statement where it has been claimed Iran will be the power to do it...?

Calm down, Kimchi is on our side, lol. Kimchi was just pointing out to someone who claims to have never seen a pro-Iranian nuclear proliferation post that they do exist. :)

1. The fact they are enriching the Uranium themselves, as opposed to buying it off Russia which is far far cheeper than developing it themselves.

Similarly, one could ask why the US is researching alternative fuels when importing it from the Middle East is far far cheaper.

Accusations of weapons development aside, the reasons are the same. Long term sustainability and self-sufficiency.

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060519-105912-5198r

There's your source, UPI.

Where do you get all this stuff?

I mean - sure, you are RIGHT that people argue Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power, and that there is no evidence that they intend 'non-peaceful' use of it... but where does all this stuff about "the US going off the deep end for describing a man who wants "to wipe Israel off the map" as a danger to international peace and stability'... stuff come from?

Unless I'm mistaken - he HAS said Israel should be wiped off the map, and that he thinks it will happen - I do not recall any statement where it has been claimed Iran will be the power to do it...?

I cannot state for a fact that it will happen, even if I am working 24/7 on the case these days. Unfortunately, I never know what He's up to and He's full of sleazy tricks.

By the way, it isn't Iran doing it... It's me.

hmmm...or maybe i'm a little confused

What is it with liberals embracing those who speak slander agaisnt the Jews. They have embraced this Iranian psycho, Hugo Chavez, and defending the Islamic media.

Then I'll get on NS General and listen to the apologists for Iran.

Technically, there wouldn't be. Iran wouldn't be around to apologize for. You DO know what the penalty for aggresive use of nuclear weapons is don't you?

Technically, there wouldn't be. Iran wouldn't be around to apologize for. You DO know what the penalty for aggresive use of nuclear weapons is don't you?
I can see the plethora of posters on NS General who would say that the US or Israel went overboard and committed genocide in Iran with nuclear weapons.

What is it with liberals embracing those who speak slander agaisnt the Jews. They have embraced this Iranian psycho, Hugo Chavez, and defending the Islamic media.
I embrace people who slander against anyone my friend, including you who just slandered "liberals".

I embrace people who slander against anyone my friend, including you who just slandered "liberals".


Today, at QBVII, punitive damages in the amount of 1 penny were awarded for libel...

I can see the plethora of posters on NS General who would say that the US or Israel went overboard and committed genocide in Iran with nuclear weapons.

*shrug* I think it's a fundamental concept of understanding that anyone who uses a nuclear weapon in anger won't ever get a chance to do so again, their nation pancaked. Mutually Assured Destruction.

But then again, I think your also biased against some people to the point where you'd prejudge them that badly.

*shrug* I think it's a fundamental concept of understanding that anyone who uses a nuclear weapon in anger won't ever get a chance to do so again, their nation pancaked. Mutually Assured Destruction.

But then again, I think your also biased against some people to the point where you'd prejudge them that badly.
I'm so sure about it, I'm willing to make a bet.

You know, Hitler laid out his goals in Mein Kampf - he said up front what he was going to do - and I recall many people saying, "well, he doesn't have the power to do it", or "Germany isn't foolish enough to do it".

That's right - do what Chamberlain did, and say that the Iranian President is merely a demagogue.

But, that isn't what is happening here...

People aren't dismissing this situation as a joke - they are looking at what is being SAID.

I think pie is good. I think I should have pie for lunch.

Does that mean I WILL have pie for lunch?

I think someone should have pie for lunch.

Does that mean I should have pie for lunch? Does that mean I am going to be the instrument of someone ELSE having pie for lunch?

The simple fact is - you are adding something not-said, to what HAS been said, and then drawing a battleplan based on THAT vision.


Of course - in the case of Iran - the 'demagogue' story wouldn't be too unreasonable... since a politician is unlikely to be able to wield too much power without religious support.

But, that certainly isn't MY argument... mine is more along the lines that the arguments AGAINST Iranian nuclear power have all centred around their alleged violent use (which is unsupported by evidence) or the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons - which, again, seems unsupported.

At the same time, we ALLOW 'proliferation' when it favours us.

*shrug* I think it's a fundamental concept of understanding that anyone who uses a nuclear weapon in anger won't ever get a chance to do so again, their nation pancaked. Mutually Assured Destruction.

But then again, I think your also biased against some people to the point where you'd prejudge them that badly.


Oh, how harsh and pre-judgemental it is to judge Iran on its sordid past, basing one's judgement only on the weight of Iran's own actions.

But I won't get too detaily, as I myself remain suspicious of the theory that 10 semi-good motive to go to war equate 1 correct motive.

I embrace people who slander against anyone my friend, including you who just slandered "liberals".
Wow. You're so evil. :) I wish I could be that evil. :) Evil's way cooler than good. :mad: Good is for dorks. :mad:

Oh, how harsh and pre-judgemental it is to judge Iran on its sordid past, basing one's judgement only on the weight of Iran's own actions.

But I won't get too detaily, as I myself remain suspicious of the theory that 10 semi-good motive to go to war equate 1 correct motive.

You forget that it's OK to pre-judge the US anytime.

I embrace people who slander against anyone my friend, including you who just slandered "liberals".
Today, at QBVII, punitive damages in the amount of 1 penny were awarded for libel...
Let me rephrase the sentence, so that maybe you can consider readjusting those values:

I embrace people who slander against anyone my friend, including you who just slandered "liberals" as being equivalent to Jewish-hating people like "this Iranian psycho". You see, this "Iranian psycho" is MY friend, not his "liberals' friend" and I am really really jealous... :mad:

Oh, how harsh and pre-judgemental it is to judge Iran on its sordid past, basing one's judgement only on the weight of Iran's own actions.

But I won't get too detaily, as I myself remain suspicious of the theory that 10 semi-good motive to go to war equate 1 correct motive.

The problem with that kind of argument, is that spotless histories are hard to come by... the first true semitic genocide was carried out BY the Jews; Manifest Destiny was the extermination and relocation of hundreds of peoples in the name of God; the British Empire was built on drug-trading, mass-exterminations and slavery...

But, that isn't what is happening here...

People aren't dismissing this situation as a joke - they are looking at what is being SAID.

I think pie is good. I think I should have pie for lunch.

Does that mean I WILL have pie for lunch?

I think someone should have pie for lunch.

Does that mean I should have pie for lunch? Does that mean I am going to be the instrument of someone ELSE having pie for lunch?

The simple fact is - you are adding something not-said, to what HAS been said, and then drawing a battleplan based on THAT vision.


Of course - in the case of Iran - the 'demagogue' story wouldn't be too unreasonable... since a politician is unlikely to be able to wield too much power without religious support.

But, that certainly isn't MY argument... mine is more along the lines that the arguments AGAINST Iranian nuclear power have all centred around their alleged violent use (which is unsupported by evidence) or the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons - which, again, seems unsupported.

At the same time, we ALLOW 'proliferation' when it favours us.
Because I know something of the process and, thus, understand that this isn't as urgent a problem as teh Admin's propaganda makes it out to be, I'm not hoppin' around screaming for an attck on Iran. Having said that, looking at what is being said is not nearly enough. It's clear what is shaping up to happen there. I don't think there's any question that the aim of Iran is to acquire nuclear weapons. I just think that their homegrown supply of Uranium is insufficient to the task because of the types of minerals in their ores and that the tech hurdles are such that we're probably looking at a decde or more before they get them.

Iran cannot be allowed these weapons and to sit there and say, "Well, we don't knwo what they plan and just because they are about to start branding non-muslims and have called for the destruction of Isreal doesn't mean theyu're going to do it," is extremely naive and dangerous. Hpoefully, as they get closer, the world will recognize that and attack them before it's too late.

What is it with liberals embracing those who speak slander agaisnt the Jews. They have embraced this Iranian psycho, Hugo Chavez, and defending the Islamic media.

Free speech is a bitch, isn't it?

But when did Chavez slander the jews?

Similarly, one could ask why the US is researching alternative fuels when importing it from the Middle East is far far cheaper.

Accusations of weapons development aside, the reasons are the same. Long term sustainability and self-sufficiency.

Thats completely diffrent. We need alternative fuels for the other reason. That if we continue to burn them at this rate they will run out. Also we have the problem of emissions. Political independence is a secondary concern in the oil issue

The issue with this here is that we arnt talking about the reactors themselves, we're talking about the fuel for the reactors. In other words if Russia produced this it would be far easier to moniter where its going and what its being used for. But they dont want that because the Iranians will most likly "acciendtally" let some of the uranium go to terrorists, to use against Israel

Free speech is a bitch, isn't it?

But when did Chavez slander the jews?
He referred to them as Christ-killers.

Let me rephrase the sentence, so that maybe you can consider readjusting those values:

I embrace people who slander against anyone my friend, including you who just slandered "liberals" as being equivalent to Jewish-hating people like "this Iranian psycho". You see, this "Iranian psycho" is MY friend, not his "liberals' friend" and I am really really jealous... :mad:

Oh, go back to Hell.

But pick up a copy of QBVII before you go there.

A thing can be libelous and slanderous to someone -
yet the honour of the slandered party can be so low that no English jury would ever award more than the lowest coin found in the Realm.

No more fooling around with Iran. The goal of the Iranian regime is crystal clear and the UN running around handing out these 30 day suspension notices isn't helping.

Clearly they have no plans on bringing an end to their enrichment because their president is a 12th Imam believing whackjob who TRULY believes the end is near.

The last time Israel waited before taking pre-emptive action was when Golda Meir held back prior to the surprise-attack on Yom Kippur in '73. Israel suffered massive casualties, and although the war was won, such needless loss of life amounted to an overall defeat.

Because I know something of the process and, thus, understand that this isn't as urgent a problem as teh Admin's propaganda makes it out to be, I'm not hoppin' around screaming for an attck on Iran. Having said that, looking at what is being said is not nearly enough. It's clear what is shaping up to happen there. I don't think there's any question that the aim of Iran is to acquire nuclear weapons. I just think that their homegrown supply of Uranium is insufficient to the task because of the types of minerals in their ores and that the tech hurdles are such that we're probably looking at a decde or more before they get them.

Iran cannot be allowed these weapons and to sit there and say, "Well, we don't knwo what they plan and just because they are about to start branding non-muslims and have called for the destruction of Isreal doesn't mean theyu're going to do it," is extremely naive and dangerous. Hpoefully, as they get closer, the world will recognize that and attack them before it's too late.

I think there IS a question as to why Iran might want nuclear technology, and I will not endorse a pre-emptive war to appease those who think their 'gut-feeling' is a good enough reason...

He referred to them as Christ-killers.

Strange that Venezuela's Jews don't seem to be all that worked up about it. In fact, they defended him. (http://www.forward.com/articles/7189)

In times like this I really feel like crying inside for not having Dag Hammarskjold around.:rolleyes:

Lets hope that China and Russia give Iran a cold shoulder, then Iran would know its time to stop taunting the big arse. <- There is political satire in that comment, and if you spend ten minutes digging for it I am not sorry at all.:D

The problem with that kind of argument, is that spotless histories are hard to come by... the first true semitic genocide was carried out BY the Jews; Manifest Destiny was the extermination and relocation of hundreds of peoples in the name of God; the British Empire was built on drug-trading, mass-exterminations and slavery...


Irrelevant. See: the other liberal thread.

The crimes of others - real or not - are no reason not to judge you by your own crimes.

Oh, go back to Hell.
What do you think I've been doing for centuries?
But pick up a copy of QBVII before you go there.
I ban books as a hobby.
A thing can be libelous and slanderous to someone - yet the honour of the slandered party can be so low that no English jury would ever award more than the lowest coin found in the Realm.
And this obviously applies to all liberals.

Keep up, I'm starting to like your style...

What do you think I've been doing for centuries?

I ban books as a hobby.

And this obviously applies to all liberals.

Keep up, I'm starting to like your style...

Yes, so go back.
But why ban books in hell? They burn there, without warning.
Sayonara.

Irrelevant. See: the other liberal thread.

The crimes of others - real or not - are no reason not to judge you by your own crimes.

Huh?

If we are going to judge Iran on it's history, should we not acknowledge our own? Is every nation a mirror to it's history? Or - do we argue that special exception only for the ones we don't like...?

Huh?

If we are going to judge Iran on it's history, should we not acknowledge our own? Is every nation a mirror to it's history? Or - do we argue that special exception only for the ones we don't like...?


I'm arguing for judging everyone according to their own merit.
Not according to the merit of others.
The actions of others are quite irrelevant.

Let us say that I just killed a dog. Animal cruelty. I got away with it because the RSPCA was somewhere else.
Now, you kill a cat. Animal cruelty. The RSPCA catches you in the act.
Do you think you should be allowed to get away with it because I did?

Yes, so go back.
But why ban books in hell? They burn there, without warning.
Sayonara.
I would explain to you how books can be banned in hell and simultaneously sold, but I feel you temper is clouding your mind.
Don't worry, we'll have plenty of time.
I love you too.

I'm arguing for judging everyone according to their own merit.
Not according to the merit of others.
The actions of others are quite irrelevant.

Let us say that I just killed a dog. Animal cruelty. I got away with it because the RSPCA was somewhere else.
Now, you kill a cat. Animal cruelty. The RSPCA catches you in the act.
Do you think you should be allowed to get away with it because I did?

I don't see any parallel.

We have - on the one hand - the assertion that it is justified to 'attack' Iran, because of their history.

All I'm saying is - if that is so, then the other hand justifies acts like 9/11, because someone else judged US on our history...

^ You are asking us to judge nations by our history and making it mutual, right?

I believe that the evidence of Iran's politics in itself represent a dogmatic interference with development which discourages the UAE to respect them.
If Iran were to just show up in a real debate willing to answer truly to its commissions, not to mention its NPT-signature then the situation would not be a problem.

But, since the ayatollah cabinet has given a go-signal to counter the UN there is many a good reason to be feeling uncomfortable.
For example, Germany's official statement about the neutrality assurance of Belgium with GB before the outbreak of WWI: "It's just a scrap of paper".

I don't see any parallel.

We have - on the one hand - the assertion that it is justified to 'attack' Iran, because of their history.

All I'm saying is - if that is so, then the other hand justifies acts like 9/11, because someone else judged US on our history...

That is sophistry.

An attack - IF justified - is justified because of what Iran did - not because others judged.

I don't see any parallel.

We have - on the one hand - the assertion that it is justified to 'attack' Iran, because of their history.

All I'm saying is - if that is so, then the other hand justifies acts like 9/11, because someone else judged US on our history...


Will you answer the question?

That is sophistry.

An attack - IF justified - is justified because of what Iran did - not because others judged.

By which token, any attack on US, may be justified because of what WE have done?

By which token, any attack on US, may be justified because of what WE have done?

Evasions.
It is Iran that is under scrutiny.

If you wish to scrutinise the US, you are free to start a thread of your own.

Now, will you answer the question? It is a yes or no thing.

^ You are asking us to judge nations by our history and making it mutual, right?

I believe that the evidence of Iran's politics in itself represent a dogmatic interference with development which discourages the UAE to respect them.
If Iran were to just show up in a real debate willing to answer truly to its commissions, not to mention its NPT-signature then the situation would not be a problem.

But, since the ayatollah cabinet has given a go-signal to counter the UN there is many a good reason to be feeling uncomfortable.
For example, Germany's official statement about the neutrality assurance of Belgium with GB before the outbreak of WWI: "It's just a scrap of paper".

I'm saying - if we are going to go to war with Iran, because they have a bad history, then we cannot expect any sympathy when others attack us... after all, everyone has a bad history.

Iran has recently said they'd be more open to inspection... but it does them no good.

Iran hasn't made any moves to 'proliferate' nuclear technology, so that is a red herring ... but you could argue that Iran is not BOUND by NPT, because their current government is a 'revolutionary' government... so, not bound to the paperwork of former regimes...

Will you answer the question?

No, I won't. I am very anti-cruelty to animals, so I see no reason why I should position myself 'cat-killer' for your little game. There is no parallel to the discussion, so I see no academic advantage to be gained...

Evasions.
It is Iran that is under scrutiny.


But I question your BASIS for your assumptions.

I do not consider it a valid premise... especially when applied unilaterally.

I'm not going to applaud your guns-and-glory politics, for historical prejudices.

where can i order myself some of these badges. i have some marking to do

No, I won't. I am very anti-cruelty to animals, so I see no reason why I should position myself 'cat-killer' for your little game. There is no parallel to the discussion, so I see no academic advantage to be gained...

Evasions. As usual. Your goose is cooked.

I'm saying - if we are going to go to war with Iran, because they have a bad history, then we cannot expect any sympathy when others attack us... after all, everyone has a bad history.

Iran has recently said they'd be more open to inspection... but it does them no good.

Iran hasn't made any moves to 'proliferate' nuclear technology, so that is a red herring ... but you could argue that Iran is not BOUND by NPT, because their current government is a 'revolutionary' government... so, not bound to the paperwork of former regimes...

A bad history? The Iranian President comes out with a new anti-semetic/anti-Israel/anti-world comment atleast once a week if not more. We are in the present, and presently the Iranian President is refusing to comply with international law and is PRESENTLY threatening Israel. Their goal is clear, and we cannot wait for them to make the first move.

Evasions. As usual. Your goose is cooked.

Of course my goose is cooked... I have this kitchen to myself...

But I question your BASIS for your assumptions.

I do not consider it a valid premise... especially when applied unilaterally.

I'm not going to applaud your guns-and-glory politics, for historical prejudices.


And I question your questioning.
I won't applaud your pro-ayatollah stand, for historical prejudices.
See, this game is FUN!

A bad history? The Iranian President comes out with a new anti-semetic/anti-Israel/anti-world comment atleast once a week if not more. We are in the present, and presently the Iranian President is refusing to comply with international law and is PRESENTLY threatening Israel. Their goal is clear, and we cannot wait for them to make the first move.

The 'history' idea wasn't introduced by me... you are fighting against someone else's construct...

Which international law is Iran refusing to comply with? How have they recently threatened Israel?

Iran hasn't made any moves to 'proliferate' nuclear technology, so that is a red herring

I am sorry, but being recipient of prohibited stuff from non NPT nations (Pakistan) is also proliferation no?

Kinda how like receiving help in exams is also cheating and saying "well, he was the one who helped me, I did not do anything wrong" does not cut it.

... but you could argue that Iran is not BOUND by NPT, because their current government is a 'revolutionary' government... so, not bound to the paperwork of former regimes...

Why did they not declare that they are no longer a signatory to NPT after Khomeini took over after the revolution?

Why did they continue to enjoy the benefits of the tech and reactors they received as part of the NPT?

You know its been TWO DECADES since the revolution, right?

And I question your questioning.
I won't applaud your pro-ayatollah stand, for historical prejudices.
See, this game is FUN!

I haven't claimed to support the ayatollah, have I?

Indeed - I wasn't aware you OR I had even mentioned the ayatollah, thus far.

I haven't claimed to support the ayatollah, have I?
Indeed - I wasn't aware you OR I had even mentioned the ayatollah, thus far.
Let me check.... Nope... Dammit. Wanna do it now? I've got a last empty place on my today's wishlist.

I'm saying - if we are going to go to war with Iran, because they have a bad history, then we cannot expect any sympathy when others attack us... after all, everyone has a bad history.

Iran has recently said they'd be more open to inspection... but it does them no good.

Iran hasn't made any moves to 'proliferate' nuclear technology, so that is a red herring ... but you could argue that Iran is not BOUND by NPT, because their current government is a 'revolutionary' government... so, not bound to the paperwork of former regimes...

Wait, you're saying that Iran's legal commitment to the NPT is a red herring?
I believe that when they signed that treaty, they'd better do their part to uphold it, respect it and remember it.
Of course there is no indication that the country has yet used any technology of the current level to produce nuclear arms, but when their president announces a challenge to the UN, the validity of Iran's loyalty to the treaties signed in the UN must be adhered to. The point is valid, and opens for questioning in the General Assembly, especially in the Security Council meetings.

I dont hold my breath much either for the new inspections, and El Baradei must be getting rather down seeing as how little Iran respects him.
But, when stupid reporters go along and nick the IAEA with the dodger "UN Watchdog" then they too are to blame.

Wait, you're saying that Iran's legal commitment to the NPT is a red herring?
I believe that when they signed that treaty, they'd better do their part to uphold it, respect it and remember it.
Of course there is no indication that the country has yet used any technology of the current level to produce nuclear arms, but when their president announces a challenge to the UN, the validity of Iran's loyalty to the treaties signed in the UN must be adhered to. The point is valid, and opens for questioning in the General Assembly, especially in the Security Council meetings.

I dont hold my breath much either for the new inspections, and El Baradei must be getting rather down seeing as how little Iran respects him.
But, when stupid reporters go along and nick the IAEA with the dodger "UN Watchdog" then they too are to blame.

I'm not saying it IS a red herring, I'm saying it can be argued...

The problem in this situation seems to be a lot of people have already made their decisions of what the situation 'is'... without necessarily allowing such considerations as 'evidence' to cloud their judgement...

^ In the perfect world the entire system should perhaps be judiciary? Hell no, until the Kristalnacht there was not one valid reason to start questioning Nazis intentions. That and their brief departure from the Geneva disarmament commission, but blahblah...

I don't think the rest of the world needs evidence for now. We already know that the USA and Iran are bickering, the only parties who can solve the issue by diplomacy (IMO) are China and Russia. Because they are mutually important to Iran they should have a talk-out on the current issue, because right now Iran has gone from "Wow, you challenged the US! Hardcore!" to "Dude, that's not funny, people might die...", you know?

In my opinion a theocratic republic is a silly combination of juggling politics and fundamental spiritual values. The greatest history of Iran lies in its ancient culture and poets, whilst today their words are perverted by false spiritualists.

He referred to them as Christ-killers.

You're not still spreading this lie are you? Chavez regards Jesus as the first socialist so he used the term 'Christ killers' to refer to powerful groups who oppose socialism. Jewish groups have confirmed that they weren't being targetted.

In Roosevelt's first inaugural address he refered to the super-rich capitalists as 'money changers in the temple' but surely you wouldn't be naive enough to assume he was refering to Jews, right?

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=11fbf4a8-282a-4d18-954f-546709b1240f&k=32073

They're going to require Jews and Christians to wear colored badges - just like those handy badges that Hitler ordered for the Jews in Germany.

So, anyone here still want to say that Iran is just another nice place to live, that just wants peaceful nuclear power, that doesn't want to harm any other nations, and treats people better than the US?

And this is an example of why I'm in favor of the U.S. first-striking those bastards...

And this is an example of why I'm in favor of the U.S. first-striking those bastards...

And I'm assuming you'd be vollenteering to fight?

Of course, you expect leftists to actually care about jews? Remember, if it supports socialists or islam, it's a good thing.
Why do you love jews and hate muslims/arabs? Islam isnt a bad thing and why should I care about jews? It seems enough people already give them special treatment.

UPI
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060519-105912-5198r
...which refers back to Canada's National Post, so it's not a new and independent source.

And the National Post seems to base their article on statements from iranian exiles, so I will remain sceptical until I see some confirmation of this story.

And this is an example of why I'm in favor of the U.S. first-striking those bastards...
So that the iranian jews don't have to worry about badges or uniforms, since they will have been nuked instead?

"We have just liberated the village, sir."

No, the question is, do we nuke them before they have nukes, or after they not only have nukes but use them against Israel and Europe. And they definitely will - consider their leaders, they aren't exactly paragons of rationality, are they?
No, if we let those mothers get nukes, then there goes the neighborhood - they'll fire off their nukes, then be very suprised (but not for long) when Allah doesn't stop the incoming U.S. missiles. Anyway, we don't have to nuke them - we could just instate conscription and invade them.
As for your question, Saint Rynald, I wouldn't be fighting - I've got a heart condition.

I'm not a militarist, but this guy needs to be taken out. Not by war, but by a surgical CIA operation to rip the bastards-in-command up by their filthy roots in the most humiliating way possible. We are, after all, trying to save the Iranians and we won't be doing that by dropping bombs on them.

Oh, you've got a heart condition, do you? So you won't have to fight... so you can go and advocate full conscription and the invasion of Iran, because you have a heart condition, and so won't have to fight?
Anyway, if Bush hadn't made that stupid "Axis of Evil" remark, Iran might've overthrown its theocracy by now.
Basically, one has to think - do we want to nuke or invade them when a peaceful sollution might work?

"A peaceful solution" - god, you remind me of my parents... alright, so let's asume we go and act all nice to them - then what're they going to do? They're going to go and nuke us all! Do you understand?

As for Halandra's statement - that's a good idea, but if we do that, we're going to need to be sure we do it the right way! (After all, we don't want them becoming even more theocratic and crazy, do we?)

As for your dig at my heart condition - I find myself offended! I will likely die before I am forty, and you are insulting me because of that? If I was healthy, and I wish I were, I would fight if we invaded Iran! Seriously...

But is it not rather hypocritical to say that Iran cannot have nuclear power when other countries such as the US and UK do? Especially since we are the ones who keep starting the wars; we are the ones who possess the nuclear weapons!

N.B. I am not supporting Iran in general, I just think they have as much right as any other country to use nuclear power...

But is it not rather hypocritical to say that Iran cannot have nuclear power when other countries such as the US and UK do? Especially since we are the ones who keep starting the wars; we are the ones who possess the nuclear weapons!

N.B. I am not supporting Iran in general, I just think they have as much right as any other country to use nuclear power...
I don't know. Is it hypocritical to say that a law abiding citizen can have a gun and a violent mental patient can't?

As for Halandra's statement - that's a good idea, but if we do that, we're going to need to be sure we do it the right way! (After all, we don't want them becoming even more theocratic and crazy, do we?)


Yeah, but wouldn't it be great if we could spend time carefully planning out and properly executing SOMETHING for once?

I do agree with you in a sense. The options are either success or an alternative even worse than what we're dealing with now.

As for it being hypocritical to deny Iran nuclear technology: what exactly have they done in the last thirty years to deserve our trust?
Until they allow IAEA inspectors back in and I see a nuclear powerplant chugging away to light up Tehran, I'm going to keep up my scepticism.

The gun analogy doesn't work. I was only talking about allowing Iran nuclear power, not nuclear weapons.

As for it being hypocritical to deny Iran nuclear technology: what exactly have they done in the last thirty years to deserve our trust?

I suppose it's fair enough not to trust them, but I can understand why countries such as Iran may not trust us! (Because we keep starting wars; I don't think that we're really going to get them on our side if we try to intimidate them into joining us because we're just making them angrier!)... Anyway, as it is, everyone's scared and angry, and that'll be why they may want nuclear weapons!

And I'm assuming you'd be vollenteering to fight?

The US military is voluntary. Those who enlist do so with the knowledge that they might and will possibly go to war in defense of the US. As long as our military is meeting its quotas of voluntary enlistements, the whole "I don't see you taking up arms to fight" argument is completely invalid and irrelevant.

Why do you love jews and hate muslims/arabs? Islam isnt a bad thing and why should I care about jews? It seems enough people already give them special treatment.

When have the Jews ever gotten special treatment? The world has always turned a blind eye to Jewish oppression, hence no bombings of the railroads leading to the deathcamps in the Holocaust, the rejection of the passengers on board the doomed ship the St. Louis, and the UN unwavering support of Human Rights violating countries such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and many others which seek Israel's destruction. Let us also not forget the UN countless resolutions condemning Israel while ignoring the REAL oppression of the Palestinian people by their own leaders using them as pawns in their propoganda war against Israel and the oppression going on be actual human rights violaters such as the Sudanese government in Darfur and the Chinese occupation of Tibet to name a few. Besides the US, no one seems to care much about the Jews. And while grateful I am for this great country, we still aren't doing enough (i.e. MOVE the US embassy to Jerusalem).

I suppose it's fair enough not to trust them, but I can understand why countries such as Iran may not trust us! (Because we keep starting wars; I don't think that we're really going to get them on our side if we try to intimidate them into joining us because we're just making them angrier!)... Anyway, as it is, everyone's scared and angry, and that'll be why they may want nuclear weapons!


Technically, we've been at war with Iran since our US embassy was seized and hostages were taken and held there for more than a year. We don't owe Iran a dime and they by no means deserve our trust.

As for your comments about their "nuclear rights," how can a man who denies the Holocaust be responsible enough to harness such energy and power, nevertheless rule a country???

Also, we start wars? What wars are you speaking about exactly?

Those who enlist do so with the knowledge that they might and will possibly go to war in defense of the US.

Do you consider the invasion of Iraq/ Afghanistan to be defensive measures? If anything I'd say they aggrivate terrorism.

I suppose it's fair enough not to trust them, but I can understand why countries such as Iran may not trust us! (Because we keep starting wars; I don't think that we're really going to get them on our side if we try to intimidate them into joining us because we're just making them angrier!)... Anyway, as it is, everyone's scared and angry, and that'll be why they may want nuclear weapons!
That's entirely true. We haven't done anything to make Iran's leadership trust us. I'm not at all saying the U.S. has done things to instill confidence lately.

Nonetheless, we don't need to intimidate them into getting on our side because I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to, regardless of whether we show up with either a shotgun or flowers and a nice pinot noir.

I still require a sign of their sincerity in saying that they're working toward civilian nuclear technology.

Do you consider the invasion of Iraq/ Afghanistan to be defensive measures? If anything I'd say they aggrivate terrorism.


The invasion of Afghanistan was 100% defensive. If the oppressive Taliban regime had not allowed bin laden and his cronies to fester there and train terrorists and plot to attack America (which they did btw on 9/11 if you havent forgotten), then we wouldn't be there to begin with.

As for Iraq, Hussein was a corrupt and cruel dictator whose rhetoric was threatening by all means and had shown in the past that he had no problem using his power and weapons against innocents, i.e. the Kurds and Israel in the first Gulf War. If Saddaam had nothing to hide, which he claimed, then why weren't insepctors allowed into Iraq. All he had to do was let inspectors in and there would be no war. However, since the number of civilians being killed by their "muslim brothers" is dwarfed by the number that were killed on a daily basis under Sadaam and 11 million Iraqis braved the threat of bombings to VOTE (jeez take that right for granted sometimes dont we?), I'd say Iraq is much better off.

I don't think the Iranian government is an espeically safe one! lol ...But I'm not entirely sure the US government is either: think of the illegal detainment of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay!

Yes, we start wars! We were the ones who invaded... I understand how incidents such as 9/11 may be seen as 'the first attack', but the terrorists who commited these horrible crimes are not one and the same body of people as the enitre country of Iran, or Afghanistan, etc. Therefore a war against a country is an unreasonable way to go about stopping a minority of violent and dangerous extremists.

I don't think the Iranian government is an espeically safe one! lol ...But I'm not entirely sure the US government is either: think of the illegal detainment of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay!

Yes, we start wars! We were the ones who invaded... I understand how incidents such as 9/11 may be seen as 'the first attack', but the terrorists who commited these horrible crimes are not one and the same body of people as the enitre country of Iran, or Afghanistan, etc. Therefore a war against a country is an unreasonable way to go about stopping a minority of violent and dangerous extremists.


Great care is taken to prevent civilian casualties, however the Taliban put their population at risk by harboring terrorists; they are as much at fault as the actual highjackers.

No, the question is, do we nuke them before they have nukes, or after they not only have nukes but use them against Israel and Europe. And they definitely will - consider their leaders, they aren't exactly paragons of rationality, are they?
No, if we let those mothers get nukes, then there goes the neighborhood - they'll fire off their nukes, then be very suprised (but not for long) when Allah doesn't stop the incoming U.S. missiles. Anyway, we don't have to nuke them - we could just instate conscription and invade them.
As for your question, Saint Rynald, I wouldn't be fighting - I've got a heart condition.

First - we are talking about a country that has claimed a desire for peaceful nuclear power... not 'nukes'.

Second - you say "They'll fire off their nukes"... but there is no reason to assume that. Indeed - thus far, only ONE nation HAS used nuclear technology as a weapon, and that was US.

Third - why SHOULD we 'invade' them? Because YOU don't like people in the Middle-East having nuclear technology? What about the fact that at least ONE 'middle-east' nation already HAS nuclear technology?


This is a big fuss about nothing. We are claiming that Iran is effectively a terrorist nation, and thus can't be trusted with this technology. The problem with that 'logic' is - if terrorists really wanted us dead in some nuclear winter, all they have to do is cause destruction to the nuclear facilities we HAVE - they don't need to throw warheads of fissible material at us.

Before you get so aroused by the idea of war in Iran - how certain are you that NONE of the technicians who have been working on the Yucca Mountain facility have possible terror connections?

Nonetheless, we don't need to intimidate them into getting on our side because I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to, regardless of whether we show up with either a shotgun or flowers and a nice pinot noir.

I still require a sign of their sincerity in saying that they're working toward civilian nuclear technology.

Yes, I agree. I just don't think that the US is going about it in the right way: threatening an attack based upon assumptions (however valid they may be) that Iran may develop nuclear weapons will only provide more propoganda for the terrorist organisations: any 'oppression' of Islamic peoples can be used to gain more followers.

I don't know. Is it hypocritical to say that a law abiding citizen can have a gun and a violent mental patient can't?

In what way is this 'citizen' law-abiding?

Yes, I agree. I just don't think that the US is going about it in the right way: threatening an attack based upon assumptions (however valid they may be) that Iran may develop nuclear weapons will only provide more propoganda for the terrorist organisations: any 'oppression' of Islamic peoples can be used to gain more followers.
Well, we're not going to go about it the right way because we want a monopoly for us and our allies over nuclear technology. It's not just me saying this. It's more or less a matter of policy.

The invasion of Afghanistan was 100% defensive. If the oppressive Taliban regime had not allowed bin laden and his cronies to fester there and train terrorists and plot to attack America (which they did btw on 9/11 if you havent forgotten), then we wouldn't be there to begin with.

So you think that supporters of Islamic terrorist organisations will suddenly stop their bombings just because we've overthrown the government? The way I see it, it's making it worse.

I do agree that the people of the countries will be better off for having democracy, but as for the countries, such as our own, that played a part in the wars, we will only suffer more.

This is pretty well confirmed here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060519/wl_canada_afp/iranrightsreligion), and by the looks of it, Iran just dug itself a deep hole and is going to get sanctioned by the UN, though it might not do much, it might make a US invasion more likely.

In what way is this 'citizen' law-abiding?

Exactly! lol

Well, we're not going to go about it the right way because we want a monopoly for us and our allies over nuclear technology. It's not just me saying this. It's more or less a matter of policy.

I know. There's so much paranoia in international politics today! (...Understandably)

An invasion on Iran is not a bad idea, because I'm not waiting to get a bomb on Europe. But the invasion is not going to be led by the USA, because that goverment is even more criminal.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=11fbf4a8-282a-4d18-954f-546709b1240f&k=32073

They're going to require Jews and Christians to wear colored badges - just like those handy badges that Hitler ordered for the Jews in Germany.

So, anyone here still want to say that Iran is just another nice place to live, that just wants peaceful nuclear power, that doesn't want to harm any other nations, and treats people better than the US?

Iran hasn't been a nice place to live in since the Revolution. Who the hell said it was so great?

Even still, not enough reason to attack them.

I know. There's so much paranoia in international politics today! (...Understandably)
It's not just paranoia. It's money. Why should we allow people to develop civilian nuclear technology on their own when it would be so much more lucrative to sell it to them?

The invasion of Afghanistan was 100% defensive. If the oppressive Taliban regime had not allowed bin laden and his cronies to fester there and train terrorists and plot to attack America (which they did btw on 9/11 if you havent forgotten), then we wouldn't be there to begin with.

As for Iraq, Hussein was a corrupt and cruel dictator whose rhetoric was threatening by all means and had shown in the past that he had no problem using his power and weapons against innocents, i.e. the Kurds and Israel in the first Gulf War. If Saddaam had nothing to hide, which he claimed, then why weren't insepctors allowed into Iraq. All he had to do was let inspectors in and there would be no war. However, since the number of civilians being killed by their "muslim brothers" is dwarfed by the number that were killed on a daily basis under Sadaam and 11 million Iraqis braved the threat of bombings to VOTE (jeez take that right for granted sometimes dont we?), I'd say Iraq is much better off.

How can a strike AFTER THE FACT be 'defensive'?

Perhaps you mean it was 'retribution'?

Of course, the problem is that Osama isn't an Afghan - he's a Saudi, and yet they are still our little buddy-buddy. And one wonders if you understand the meaning of 'taliban'... we have 'taliban' in this country - Bob Jones University being a classic example.

How many of the 9/11 suspects came from Afghanistan, anyway?


The problem I see, is too many people are being duped. They are accepting propoganda.

The story goes: Iran is a terrorist nation, because people in Iran sponsor terrorist groups... and yet, even after 9/11 the American government sent representation to Sinn Fein events. Even after 9/11 the US has made no move to condemn Sinn Fein... and yet, we cannot recognise the elected government of the Palestinian people... What that tells us - is that this is NOT about 'terror' - it is about different gods, or it is about colour of skin.

I certainly don't think we should be starting wars, anywhere in the world, just because 'they look different' to us.

So you think that supporters of Islamic terrorist organisations will suddenly stop their bombings just because we've overthrown the government? The way I see it, it's making it worse.

I do agree that the people of the countries will be better off for having democracy, but as for the countries, such as our own, that played a part in the wars, we will only suffer more.

If that's what you believe, then how do you propose stopping these people? sitting around a coffee table and discussing our differences? They would as soon take your head off as they would Dubyas.

As for the strategy of invading their countries, seeking these people out and killing them, that seems to be the only option to deal with Islamic fundamentalsits. Absolute victory. 9/11 happened and it's our responsibility to rid the earth of these people because if we just sit back and pretend they will go away, well then...there prob won't be an America anymore. Either that or we'll all be speaking Arabic

It's not just paranoia. It's money. Why should we allow people to develop civilian nuclear technology on their own when it would be so much more lucrative to sell it to them?

Has anyone suggested that to George Bush? lol

And executing mentally retared people... and people who are under the age of 18 being tried as adults. (Though that last one might just be in some parts of the US)



Oh btw, that whole Juveniles thing isn't right.


I'm taking a course called Juvenile Justice Process, and only in RARE occasions are they not handled in the Juvenile court system.

If that's what you believe, then how do you propose stopping these people? sitting around a coffee table and discussing our differences? They would as soon take your head off as they would Dubyas.

Well, I suppose we should arrest them... Provided they get a trial, which the US doesn't seem too bothered by at the moment! Fighting fire with fire (by murdering terrorists) just doesn't seem like a sensible strategy.

How can a strike AFTER THE FACT be 'defensive'?

Perhaps you mean it was 'retribution'?

Of course, the problem is that Osama isn't an Afghan - he's a Saudi, and yet they are still our little buddy-buddy. And one wonders if you understand the meaning of 'taliban'... we have 'taliban' in this country - Bob Jones University being a classic example.

How many of the 9/11 suspects came from Afghanistan, anyway?


The problem I see, is too many people are being duped. They are accepting propoganda.

The story goes: Iran is a terrorist nation, because people in Iran sponsor terrorist groups... and yet, even after 9/11 the American government sent representation to Sinn Fein events. Even after 9/11 the US has made no move to condemn Sinn Fein... and yet, we cannot recognise the elected government of the Palestinian people... What that tells us - is that this is NOT about 'terror' - it is about different gods, or it is about colour of skin.

I certainly don't think we should be starting wars, anywhere in the world, just because 'they look different' to us.

By invading Afghanistan "after the fact" we were attacking the terrorists strongholds INSIDE afghanistan. Stop trying to make the War on Terror look like the targeted killings of civilians because of their color. It just so happens that Bin Laden is of color and he killed 3,000 Americans in a 2 hour time period on our own soil. We are fighting in the Middle East to PREVENT further attacks on our soil.

People of color? Many Israelis are people of color (and dont give me that discriminate against sephardis thing because thats ridiculous, however i'm sure there are isolated incidents as there are of other poeple in america and europe that discriminate against minorities; none of it is state sponsored. Pakistanis, Indians, etc. all have nukes. This has to do with psychosis.

By invading Afghanistan "after the fact" we were attacking the terrorists strongholds INSIDE afghanistan. Stop trying to make the War on Terror look like the targeted killings of civilians because of their color. It just so happens that Bin Laden is of color and he killed 3,000 Americans in a 2 hour time period on our own soil. We are fighting in the Middle East to PREVENT further attacks on our soil.

People of color? Many Israelis are people of color (and dont give me that discriminate against sephardis thing because thats ridiculous, however i'm sure there are isolated incidents as there are of other poeple in america and europe that discriminate against minorities; none of it is state sponsored. Pakistanis, Indians, etc. all have nukes. This has to do with psychosis.

People of colour... yes, India and Pakistan... and Israel. All tolerated, but then - none of them 'look wrong'. Most of us can make some basic colour/raqce judgements... we can usually tell roughly where someone comes from... so Person A is from India or Pakistan, Person B is from China or Japan, Person C is a north-European.

It just so happens, perhaps, that our foreign policy discriminates against Person D, about whom all we can tell is that he is from 'one of them middle-east countries'...


As to the 'war' in Afghanistan... what we did was drove the Taliban underground. Let's admit it - the reason we SAID we were going there, was to capture bin Ladin... but he isn't there, is he? In effect - we used the events of 9/11 to justify the military occupation and regime change of two sovereign powers. Other than that - what exactly have we 'gained'?

Thousands of 'our' men dead, tens of thousands of 'their' men dead. Near civil-war in Iraq, and a flourishing drug trade in Afghanistan.

The 'excuse' that we are fighting in the middle-east to prevent further harm on our own soil is a weak excuse, and you know it. If we are doing ANYTHING, we are simply making sure that the civilians that get caught in the cross-fire are not ours. Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, and neither was Iran. The BIGGEST player in 9/11 was Saudi Arabia, so if we were REALLY fighting to prevent further harm to our own soil... wouldn't we be fighting in Saudi Arabia?

When have the Jews ever gotten special treatment?
the creation of "Israel", lobbying power in washington, and laws against anti-semitism in some places are some special treatment they have

hence no bombings of the railroads leading to the deathcamps in the Holocaust, the rejection of the passengers on board the doomed ship the St. Louis,
Those things wouldnt have benefited the US, so I support them

and the UN unwavering support of Human Rights violating countries such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and many others which seek Israel's destruction.
The UN doesnt approve of what they do either

Let us also not forget the UN countless resolutions condemning Israel while ignoring the REAL oppression of the Palestinian people by their own leaders using them as pawns in their propoganda war against Israel
Israel has rightful been condemned several times. Saying the real oppression of the Palestinian people is by Palestinians is pure bullshit.


Besides the US, no one seems to care much about the Jews. And while grateful I am for this great country, we still aren't doing enough (i.e. MOVE the US embassy to Jerusalem).
the jews shouldnt be left to fend for themselves, like everyone else. We are actually doing WAY TOO MUCH for Israel. Moving the embassy to jerusalem is asking for Americans to be killed.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=11fbf4a8-282a-4d18-954f-546709b1240f&k=32073

They're going to require Jews and Christians to wear colored badges - just like those handy badges that Hitler ordered for the Jews in Germany.

So, anyone here still want to say that Iran is just another nice place to live, that just wants peaceful nuclear power, that doesn't want to harm any other nations, and treats people better than the US?

I just think that this year should be 1930 when nukes weren't around, and Iran is the new Japan.

Meh.
Don't you find this objectionable though?

Of course, you expect leftists to actually care about jews? Remember, if it supports socialists or islam, it's a good thing.
Jews are generally more left-wing than right-wing. Islamic fundamentalism is not compatible with socialism, so I don't understand why any leftists have fetishised it. Also, Hitler was on the right, not the left, and he was the original bastard to do this.

not a word from anyone on here who I would regard as Left about how evil and bad the Iranian government is.

Not one word.
Come on man, me and Drunk Commies talk about this stuff all the time and we are left-wing.

'Meh.'

Oh you must want the Jews to be exterminated then? :rolleyes:
You don't seem to care if Jews suffer for their religion, so what are you complaining about?

You keep forgetting that the program of the extreme left is very single issue, as it has been since the beginnings of the nineties.
At all costs, be pro-muslim, and/or pro-anyone-who-claims-to-be-muslim.
Occasionally, they do get confused between 'and' and 'or'.
What about socialism?

The 'excuse' that we are fighting in the middle-east to prevent further harm on our own soil is a weak excuse, and you know it. If we are doing ANYTHING, we are simply making sure that the civilians that get caught in the cross-fire are not ours.

Isn't that one of the responsibilities of government? To protect it's citizens from harm?

Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, and neither was Iran.

Won't argue with you there.

The BIGGEST player in 9/11 was Saudi Arabia, so if we were REALLY fighting to prevent further harm to our own soil... wouldn't we be fighting in Saudi Arabia?

I always find it funny when people point out that since most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, it must somehow be the fault of Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda was an organization created, trained and sheltered in Afghanistan. If 9 Swedes, 2 Frenchman and a Russian train in a terrorist camp in Peru, and are sheltered by the Peruvian government, is Sweden responsible?

Prior to 9/11, the world was demanding that something be done about the atrocities committed by the Taliban concerning women, the destruction of holy Buddhist sites, etc. But the moment their government sheltered the group responsible for one of the most spectacular terrorist acts in history, suddenly 'doing something about it' was wrong. You can only throw rocks at the biggest kid in the yard for so long until you end up with a bloody nose.

Yeah, but at least in the US, the death penalty is used on people who arguably deserved it.
Except the innocent ones. I appreciate your point though. The US hasn't ever executed anyone for sex with another consenting peer.

You see DK, most people's opinions change with new material and evidence.
Is it not enough to change your opinion on the Iranian government when they start actively trying to create a replica of the Nazi regime?

Another thing that people must take into account is just because I and others speak negatively of the Iranian government, does not mean they we support an invasion of Iran. I personally think that it would be quite unjustified, impractical, unwise and wasteful of resources and life.

That's right - do what Chamberlain did, and say that the Iranian President is merely a demagogue.
Chances are he is, although we should of course keep close watch on the guy. For every Hitler there are about twenty political leaders who rant and rant about what they want to do, what groups they want to exterminate, etc, and never actually do it.

The simple fact is - you are adding something not-said, to what HAS been said, and then drawing a battleplan based on THAT vision.

Of course - in the case of Iran - the 'demagogue' story wouldn't be too unreasonable... since a politician is unlikely to be able to wield too much power without religious support.
True, Iran's current president will probably never wipe Israel off the map. But the fact that he and the Ayatollah think it should be done is a problem in itself, is it not?

I don't see any parallel.

We have - on the one hand - the assertion that it is justified to 'attack' Iran, because of their history.

All I'm saying is - if that is so, then the other hand justifies acts like 9/11, because someone else judged US on our history...
It's not about the history itself. It's not about punishing a bad record. It's about taking action for what the Iran would do in the future based on empirical evidence. That said, again I don't want an invasion of Iran!

I haven't claimed to support the ayatollah, have I?

Indeed - I wasn't aware you OR I had even mentioned the ayatollah, thus far.
Why aren't you more critical of the Iranian regime? Don't you think it's unacceptable to enforce 15th-century morals and execute "sinners" left, right and centre?

They should get those five gay guys to pass laws on how people should be dressed.


That is NOT a bad idea :eek:


May I decide, too?

lol @ DK
You are hilariously insane.

It'd be awesome if we could somehow bomb the entire country with sleeping gas and go in and get all the information on their true intentions and possibly steal any weapons, nuclear equipment and information that we dont wish then to have, tap everythign we can and before we leave: dress all the leaders in drag and put them in compromising positions for their awakening.

He referred to them as Christ-killers.
He also accused them of controlling the world's money (stealing one from Adolph)

Strange that Venezuela's Jews don't seem to be all that worked up about it. In fact, they defended him. (http://www.forward.com/articles/7189)
It's tough to speak out in a nation where political oponnents are arrested and the media is state controlled.

I'm not pleased about the new policy, but I still don't support a war.

I'm not pleased about the new policy, but I still don't support a war.
Heck, Iran could nuke Israel, and you still wouldn't support a war.

Heck, Iran could nuke Israel, and you still wouldn't support a war.

You got me.

It is Iran that is under scrutiny.
*wispers "Yes, yes, scrutinise the target, never the attacker. Always a good strategy."
*claps*

Heck, Iran could nuke Israel, and you still wouldn't support a war.
I do. Wars are my business...

Holy hell, people have no imagination.

Why must everything result in war or at the least, death to some?

Be original people (and perhaps a tiny bit compassionate - not you DK, I could never expect that from you). Lets begin a program of changing their world view by building mock alien spacecraft (remotely controlled - if shot down they find gorillas inside that died from the crash) and having people in the countryside get more and more visits from outer space visitors. Start leaving alien messages (like crop circles but with an easily figured out code) about how the insterspace community doesnt like their nuclear ambitions. Do pirate broadcasts on their tv's and radios of alien language and images so the hysteria can spread and they will overthrow their own govt.

People of colour... yes, India and Pakistan... and Israel. All tolerated, but then - none of them 'look wrong'. Most of us can make some basic colour/raqce judgements... we can usually tell roughly where someone comes from... so Person A is from India or Pakistan, Person B is from China or Japan, Person C is a north-European.

It just so happens, perhaps, that our foreign policy discriminates against Person D, about whom all we can tell is that he is from 'one of them middle-east countries'...


lol i still can't believe you think we invaded these countries because they "look Middle Eastern". Like I said, many Israeli's "look Middle Eastern" and they have the support of the US (freest country in the middle east for all Israeli citizens...which includes ARAB Israelis...yes they do exist and yes they have the same rights as Jewish Israelis). We invaded Afghanistan because their government was harboring Al Qaeda. If France was harboring Al Qaeda we would have invaded them too.

As to the 'war' in Afghanistan... what we did was drove the Taliban underground. Let's admit it - the reason we SAID we were going there, was to capture bin Ladin... but he isn't there, is he? In effect - we used the events of 9/11 to justify the military occupation and regime change of two sovereign powers. Other than that - what exactly have we 'gained'?

Thousands of 'our' men dead, tens of thousands of 'their' men dead. Near civil-war in Iraq, and a flourishing drug trade in Afghanistan.

We drove the Taliban out of power and women are treated as equals and people can vote and have a say in their governmnet. While the Taliban is still present and fighting our troops, they are underground and in hiding..on the run. As long as they are on the run and unable to provide safe haven for Al Qaeda and in turn unable to plan terrorist attacks against the US, then I am an extremely happy camper as all freedom loving people should be. Bin Laden is there, or atleast in that vicinity; somewhere on the Afghani-Pakistani border; however that is disputed as we won't know until we get him.

There as no secret plan to occupy anyones country militarily however after 9/11 (hope u havent forgotten about that) we were put in a position where we could either do as Clinton did and fire a cruise missile or two into terrorist training camps, or we could invade and root out the terrorist and terrorist sympathizers.

As for the dead; thousands of "our" men equals out to roughly 2500, and while any loss of life is terrible and shoul dbe avoided at all costs, we lost 3000 in 2 hours. Tens of thousands of "their" men dead? where is this number coming from? I would love to know. More civilians were being butchered under Sadaams regime than are being killed in bombings by terrorists in Iraq. Civil War? It seems to me that the blood is on the hands of the various Islamic terrorists and Al Qaeda operatives that are orchestrating the various bombings in Iraq by infiltrating the country and trying to cause unrest. Don't buy into their plan. We will win this fight.

Holy hell, people have no imagination.
Why must everything result in war or at the least, death to some?
My dear Sumamba, leave my little things alone. There is nothing wrong with a bit of maiming and killing of innocent lives. They go straight to Heaven, you see...
Be original people (and perhaps a tiny bit compassionate - not you DK, I could never expect that from you).
Thank you for NOT discriminating me with DK. :mad:
Lets begin a program of changing their world view by building mock alien spacecraft (remotely controlled - if shot down they find gorillas inside that died from the crash) and having people in the countryside get more and more visits from outer space visitors.
HAHAHAHAHAHA... You people and your love-dove sense of humour... I can already see the faces of humans finding that gorillas managed to last long enough to build spaceshif...[/QUOTE]
*quickly changes subject*
Start leaving alien messages (like crop circles but with an easily figured out code) about how the insterspace community doesnt like their nuclear ambitions.
Yes! And make sure George W Bush organises the whole plan.
*whispers to Bush "hide the nuclear weapons"
Do pirate broadcasts on their tv's and radios of alien language and images so the hysteria can spread and they will overthrow their own govt.
Yes! Hysteria! Chaos! Revolution!

Wait a minute...

We drove the Taliban out of power and women are treated as equals and peopl...
You drove the Taliban to power...

*snippity snip*
Damn, you're on a roll tonight! :cool:

It's tough to speak out in a nation where political oponnents are arrested and the media is state controlled.
The media in Venezuela is not state controlled at all!

You got me.
DK controls your mind!

My dear Sumamba, leave my little things alone. There is nothing wrong with a bit of maiming and killing of innocent lives. They go straight to Heaven, you see...

Thank you for NOT discriminating me with DK. :mad:

HAHAHAHAHAHA... You people and your love-dove sense of humour... I can already see the faces of humans finding that gorillas managed to last long enough to build spaceshif...
*quickly changes subject*

Yes! And make sure George W Bush organises the whole plan.
*whispers to Bush "hide the nuclear weapons"

Yes! Hysteria! Chaos! Revolution!

Wait a minute...

Satan - you know you like my plan. Don't you go telling your buddies in Iran about it. You know you love a good joke.

Damn, you're on a roll tonight! :cool:


lol - sometimes I get bored and need to see an argument that doesnt fit in with the two sides, so am forced to make it myself.

Of course, you expect leftists to actually care about jews? Remember, if it supports socialists or islam, it's a good thing.
Of all my friends, it's my liberal jewish ones that bother me the most. Pick a side, damn it!

Of all my friends, it's my liberal jewish ones that bother me the most. Pick a side, damn it!


AHHH atleast i'm not the only one who can't handle the liberal jews...it's as if they are suicidal

I think you have already killed enough arabs for the 3,000 deceased of the 9/11, I know you have to maintain international respect and everything, but you should stop now.

A slap do not deserve a beating to death as payment...You are treating Iraqi prisoners as Saddam treated his own, and he's on trial already. Then why are you still occupying Iraq?

I think you have already killed enough arabs for the 3,000 deceased of the 9/11, I know you have to maintain international respect and everything, but you should stop now.

A slap do not deserve a beating to death as payment...You are treating Iraqi prisoners as Saddam treated his own, and he's on trial already. Then why are you still occupying Iraq?

Oh no. The main reason that most nations didn't screw with the US after WW II is that we were known for doing things like dropping nukes and firebombing cities.

Generations have forgotten, and they need a reminder that it's never good to screw with the US.

lol - sometimes I get bored and need to see an argument that doesnt fit in with the two sides, so am forced to make it myself.
And you've got some great plans there too, I see...

Oh no. The main reason that most nations didn't screw with the US after WW II is that we were known for doing things like dropping nukes and firebombing cities.

Generations have forgotten, and they need a reminder that it's never good to screw with the US.


I'm gonna agree that no one should fuck with the US, because we are looking out for EVERYONE's best interests. however, that was a silly comment Kimchi; threatening those who already disagree with our policies isn't the way to win. The way to win is to keep telling them that we do our best to promote the best for all peoples, regardless of the lies spread by the enemy.

I think you have already killed enough arabs for the 3,000 deceased of the 9/11, I know you have to maintain international respect and everything, but you should stop now.

A slap do not deserve a beating to death as payment...You are treating Iraqi prisoners as Saddam treated his own, and he's on trial already. Then why are you still occupying Iraq?

It's not about killing an equal amount of arabs as americans. It's about taking out the TERRORISTS that are killing both US servicemen AND Iraqi civilians. The same people killing US soliders are killing Iraqi civilians. The US is not killing civilians and if that does happen, it is extremely regrettable and most definately not purposeful. I assume you are speaking of Abu Ghraib in your cmments of treating Iraqi prisoners the same and that is for a fact an isolated incident with a few servicemen/women that are being dealt with accordingly. We are still in Iraq because we didn't liberate their people only to pull out when the media makes it seem like its hell re-born (please...no comments Satan) and then leave their people untrained to defend against their "muslim brothers" who are blowing them up in the streets.

And you've got some great plans there too, I see...

Thanks :D

Well recently I've come to the conclusion that wars are so lame. And that what would really make life interesting would be if nations pulled practical jokes off on each other instead. My first plan about gassing the entire nation was from an idea I had about a practical joke to play on N. Korea

Of all my friends, it's my liberal jewish ones that bother me the most. Pick a side, damn it!
Exactly! I always take tails; I really don't like heads...

AHHH atleast i'm not the only one who can't handle the liberal jews...it's as if they are suicidal
I can't either... They are a bunch of lazy hippies that don't want to conform to work their entire lifes to build bombs and ammo. So, instead, they waste their time criticising their governments, while they build the bombs and ammo anyway, ignorant little things... Traitors!
*starts spitting to the air and almost hits Sumamba*

Yahoo has it too

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060519/wl_canada_afp/iranrightsreligion

*unleases umbrella and see's satans spit dissolving the canopy thingy*

I can't either... They are a bunch of lazy hippies that don't want to conform to work their entire lifes to build bombs and ammo. So, instead, they waste their time criticising their governments, while they build the bombs and ammo anyway, ignorant little things... Traitors!*starts spitting to the air and almost hits Sumamba*[/I]

lol...I must say Satan, you've made todays message boarding quite amusing

Yahoo has it too

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060519/wl_canada_afp/iranrightsreligion
While acknowledging they had no details beyond a report in a Canadian newspaper...
and more importantly:
Maurice Motammed, a Jewish member of Iran's parliament, dismissed the report as "a complete fabrication" and told AFP in Tehran, "It is a lie, and the people who invented it wanted to make political gain."

and more importantly:

this is in the same article too:
But McCormack, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Australian Prime Minister John Howard showed little inclination to give the benefit of the doubt to a regime widely criticized for its anti-Israeli statements.

"Unfortunately, we have seen enough already from the Iranian regime to suggest that it is very capable of this kind of action," Harper said in Ottawa.

"I think it boggles the mind that any regime on the face of the earth would want to do anything that could remind people of Nazi Germany," he added.

"The fact that such a measure could even be contemplated, I think, is absolutely abhorent."

this is in the same article too:
So?

I've seen no proof that "such a measure could even be contemplated" - and I will trust the statement of the jewish member of the iranian parliament until the opposite is confirmed by an independent and reputable source.

and more importantly:



I can't find that anywhere on the internet. However I did find this:

"Real Jews, in concord with some Muslims, continue their war against Zionists and against Israeli crimes. The oppressed people of Palestine living under occupation must feel that believers of all faiths support them."

That's a quote by good ole Maurice...if anything, he is a self hating Jew who is in bed with Mahmoud and his ayatollahs.

and another: "I have traveled many times outside Iran, and have discussed the issue (of the Iranian nuclear project). I have been asked for my opinion and that of the Iranian Jewish community, and I have always emphasized that the Iranian people has the right to obtain nuclear technology and energy for peaceful purposes. The Iranian people must not give up this right under any circumstances - and indeed, it will not."

Not a Jew i'd want on my side; just another crazy Iranian loyal to the current regime. Just because he is a Jew doesn't mean he is a good guy.

I can't find that anywhere on the internet. However I did find this:

"Real Jews, in concord with some Muslims, continue their war against Zionists and against Israeli crimes. The oppressed people of Palestine living under occupation must feel that believers of all faiths support them."

That's a quote by good ole Maurice...if anything, he is a self hating Jew who is in bed with Mahmoud and his ayatollahs.

and another: "I have traveled many times outside Iran, and have discussed the issue (of the Iranian nuclear project). I have been asked for my opinion and that of the Iranian Jewish community, and I have always emphasized that the Iranian people has the right to obtain nuclear technology and energy for peaceful purposes. The Iranian people must not give up this right under any circumstances - and indeed, it will not."

Not a Jew i'd want on my side; just another crazy Iranian loyal to the current regime. Just because he is a Jew doesn't mean he is a good guy.
I don't know anything about the guy (though based on those two quotations alone I wouldn't call him 'self-hating'), but as I've said I'm waiting for a confirmation of the story. So far, that hasn't happened.

I just think that this year should be 1930 when nukes weren't around, and Iran is the new Japan.
Actually they are more like Nazi Germany

Strange that Venezuela's Jews don't seem to be all that worked up about it. In fact, they defended him. (http://www.forward.com/articles/7189)
And Spielberg made Munich, one of the biggest terrorist apologist films ever created. Your point is?

And Spielberg made Munich, one of the biggest terrorist apologist films ever created. Your point is?
What? That's got to be the special edition. Is it out on DVD already?

What? That's got to be the special edition. Is it out on DVD already?

I thought Munich showed how the Israeli's responded to the attacks and took out the terrorists, and looked at the effects this had on both terrorist and counter-terrorist operative. How is that an apologist film?

I thought Munich showed how the Israeli's responded to the attacks and took out the terrorists, and looked at the effects this had on both terrorist and counter-terrorist operative. How is that an apologist film?
I don't know, maybe because it dares to portray the terrorists as even vaguely human? :eek:

It seems you might have missed the special edition as well...

I don't know, maybe because it dares to portray the terrorists as even vaguely human? :eek:

It seems you might have missed the special edition as well...

Hell, I just thought the film didn't take sides and showed both sides as human. Hmmm...no wonder certain people don't like it...

What? That's got to be the special edition. Is it out on DVD already?
Not really. The mossad agents that went after the terrorists killed only a single innocent, and that was because they mistook him for a terrorist. How many innocents do the mossad agents kill in Speilbergs movie? It's a hell of a lot more than one.

And Spielberg made Munich, one of the biggest terrorist apologist films ever created. Your point is?
Mr. Spielberg is an ardently pro-Israel Jew.

Not really. The mossad agents that went after the terrorists killed only a single innocent, and that was because they mistook him for a terrorist. How many innocents do the mossad agents kill in Speilbergs movie? It's a hell of a lot more than one.

I'm still confused as to how this makes him a terrorist apologist.

And Spielberg made Munich, one of the biggest terrorist apologist films ever created. Your point is?

There's a difference between one man making a film and "The Venezuelan Jewish community leadership and several major American Jewish groups" saying that Chavez is not anti-Semitic.

How many innocents do the mossad agents kill in Speilbergs movie? It's a hell of a lot more than one.
How many innocents did the agents kill in the movie, by the way? The woman in Beirut makes one...

Isn't that one of the responsibilities of government? To protect it's citizens from harm?


By slowly feeding them piecemeal into a constructed warzone? By antagonizing even previously sympathetic powers?

I always find it funny when people point out that since most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, it must somehow be the fault of Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda was an organization created, trained and sheltered in Afghanistan. If 9 Swedes, 2 Frenchman and a Russian train in a terrorist camp in Peru, and are sheltered by the Peruvian government, is Sweden responsible?

Prior to 9/11, the world was demanding that something be done about the atrocities committed by the Taliban concerning women, the destruction of holy Buddhist sites, etc. But the moment their government sheltered the group responsible for one of the most spectacular terrorist acts in history, suddenly 'doing something about it' was wrong. You can only throw rocks at the biggest kid in the yard for so long until you end up with a bloody nose.

I still decry fundamentalism - Muslim and Christian alike. I still denounce the destruction of irreplacable artifacts. I still denounce the dehumanisation of people - men and women - in Afghanistan or the US.

However - protecting Buddhist relics was not our claimed agenda. We did not claim the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq were about humanitarian issues, except as afterthought.

We are spilling blood in the middle-east because we got hurt. Because our pride was injured. Because we got suckerpunched... and we are going to make SOMEONE bleed for it.


We can argue about the origins of Al Qaeda... we can look at the fact that the US supported mujahidin insurgents against Russian occupation in Afghanistan. We can look at the fact that the original recruitment took place in Peshawar, Pakistan. We can look at the fact that the big initial financial supporters were Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the US. We can look at the fact that Al Qaeda was born from the mujahidin at the hands of a Palestinian (Abdullah Yusuf Azzam) and a Saudi (Osama bin Laden). We can look at the fact that bin Laden relocated his followers to Saudi Arabia after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan... and didn't leave Saudi Arabia until the onset of the Gulf War... when they relocated to Sudan.

Al Qaeda is 'from' everywhere that Islam has resorted to militancy to combat what they perceive as imperialistic oppression. To claim it as an 'afghan' organisation is to oversimplify to the point it becomes nonsensical. But, the fact remains, if one looks at 9/11 - one largely sees the efforts of Saudi individuals. But - of course, 'they' are 'our friends'... only a cynic would blame the oil.

I'm surprised that some Human Rights organizations have spoken out against this. Frankly, Iran has a spur up its butt as usual. The President is doing all he can to isolate Iran.

How many innocents did the agents kill in the movie, by the way? The woman in Beirut makes one...
Except the mossad agents never killed a woman. They killed a single man in a morrocan cafe, and the two agents involved in that particular incident were tried and sent to jail.

True, Iran's current president will probably never wipe Israel off the map. But the fact that he and the Ayatollah think it should be done is a problem in itself, is it not?


Many of our 'western' leaders believe that the Book of Revelation is truth. If Bush is as he claims, it is fairly safe to assume he imagines a future that makes the mere removal of Israel a pale reflection.


It's not about the history itself. It's not about punishing a bad record. It's about taking action for what the Iran would do in the future based on empirical evidence. That said, again I don't want an invasion of Iran!


Where do you get 'would do'?


Why aren't you more critical of the Iranian regime? Don't you think it's unacceptable to enforce 15th-century morals and execute "sinners" left, right and centre?

I a critical of the regime... just as I am critical of those elements of my own society that mirror it.

I just don't think we should be going to war over it. But - if we were going to - THOSE should be the declared reasons... not some political shenanigans about what weapons we think someone MIGHT have.

Except the mossad agents never killed a woman. They killed a single man in a morrocan cafe, and the two agents involved in that particular incident were tried and sent to jail.
No, they killed a single Moroccan man, a waiter in Norway called Ahmed Bouchiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair) - and five of the seven Mossad agents involved were convicted (and served 22 months in jail).

Now, you didn't answer my question: How many innocent people were killed in the movie? You said it was "a hell of a lot more than one." We've counted to one in the movie so far. How many more?

Secondly, how can you be sure that the teams didn't kill more innocent people in real life? The thing about the Lillehammer affair is that they got caught, so we can be sure that it was Mossad.

I shall place this here to add to the Irony of this thread


http://iransticker.com/images/loveiran1.gif

We invaded Afghanistan because their government was harboring Al Qaeda. If France was harboring Al Qaeda we would have invaded them too.


Really? I seem to recall the Afghan government offering to turn over 'Al Qaeda' to an intermediary for us to pick up on non-partisan territory.


We drove the Taliban out of power


As already pointed out, we MADE the Taliban.


...and women are treated as equals and people can vote and have a say in their governmnet. While the Taliban is still present and fighting our troops, they are underground and in hiding..on the run. As long as they are on the run and unable to provide safe haven for Al Qaeda and in turn unable to plan terrorist attacks against the US, then I am an extremely happy camper as all freedom loving people should be.


You seem to imagine that Al Qaeda is LITERALLY running around carrying just a bag on a stick or something. SHOW ME this 'fleeing' organisation. As far as I can see, Al Qaeda has made MORE 'attacks' SINCE 9/11, than before.

Bin Laden is there, or atleast in that vicinity; somewhere on the Afghani-Pakistani border; however that is disputed as we won't know until we get him.


The truth is, we don't have the faintest damn clue where Osama is. So - we have groups of men with guns, running around with their fingers crossed. End of story.


There as no secret plan to occupy anyones country militarily however after 9/11 (hope u havent forgotten about that) we were put in a position where we could either do as Clinton did and fire a cruise missile or two into terrorist training camps, or we could invade and root out the terrorist and terrorist sympathizers.


Actually - you are wrong. There is a document detailing exactly what we are doing. The Pax Americana details the plan to force regime changes in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc.

Just because YOU don't know about it, does not mean it isn't so.


As for the dead; thousands of "our" men equals out to roughly 2500, and while any loss of life is terrible and shoul dbe avoided at all costs, we lost 3000 in 2 hours.


The WTC was not just American citizens... but, regardless... you seem to be using the WTC casualties as a JUSTIFICATION for losing MORE people in the MIddle East?

Tens of thousands of "their" men dead? where is this number coming from? I would love to know. More civilians were being butchered under Sadaams regime than are being killed in bombings by terrorists in Iraq.


An, there is a claim I'd like to see supported...

Civil War? It seems to me that the blood is on the hands of the various Islamic terrorists and Al Qaeda operatives that are orchestrating the various bombings in Iraq by infiltrating the country and trying to cause unrest. Don't buy into their plan.


What do you think a civil war IS, if not factions warring?


We will win this fight.

No. We won't. We can't.

History should be our teacher, here... this just isn't a 'war' (at all) that can be 'won' in conventional terms. We can't capture their capital. We can't kill their king.

You cannot wage a war on an 'idea'.

I demand nazi photoshops of the Iran President.
Not a photoshop but hey...

http://files.fredogfrihed.org/images/obs-files/NaziIran.jpg

If that article could load and I could verify it, I would withdraw all support for Iran. It is looking sort of like Hitler's rise.

Really? I seem to recall the Afghan government offering to turn over 'Al Qaeda' to an intermediary for us to pick up on non-partisan territory.

I seem to recall Hitler making peace with Stalin...we saw how that worked out (just showing how if the Taliban even said that, which I have never heard, that taking them seriously would have been very foolish)

As already pointed out, we MADE the Taliban.

How exactly did we make the Taliban?

You seem to imagine that Al Qaeda is LITERALLY running around carrying just a bag on a stick or something. SHOW ME this 'fleeing' organisation. As far as I can see, Al Qaeda has made MORE 'attacks' SINCE 9/11, than before.

The fact that there hasn't been an attack on U.S. soil in 5 years shows that they ARE on the run and in hiding from the U.S. Stop pretending it's just dumb luck we haven't been hit again.

Actually - you are wrong. There is a document detailing exactly what we are doing. The Pax Americana details the plan to force regime changes in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc.

Full of shit; we are in the Middle East because of 9/11. No murder of innocent Americans(and non-Americans) on 9/11, no war, everything is peachy. REALITY check: it did happen, it was unprovoked, and now we must respond. Like I already said, we are dealing with irrational people who cant be reasoned with.


The WTC was not just American citizens... but, regardless... you seem to be using the WTC casualties as a JUSTIFICATION for losing MORE people in the MIddle East?

By not invading the countries that harbor terrorists and taking these people out, we are leaving ourselves open to another attack. Why do you think that this conflict is the United States' fault? 3,000 innocent civilians were brutally murdered on 9/11 for doing nothing except going to work. We invaded to root out these people so as to not let it happen again. It's not so easy as to just sit back, relax,close our eyes and hope that bin laden doesn't come at us again. That's incredibly foolish and naive. It's that sort of naivity that left us open for attack to begin with.


What do you think a civil war IS, if not factions warring?

Iraq would be in a civil war if the ones killing Iraqis WERE FROM IRAQ. The truth is, is that Zarqawi and his cronies are not Iraqi, they are Al Qaeda operatives infiltrating the country and carrying out terrorist attacks there on the Iraqi population. Whats your problem with a liberated Iraq? Sad to see the torture chambers, mass graves, and rape rooms go bye-bye?

No. We won't. We can't.

History should be our teacher, here... this just isn't a 'war' (at all) that can be 'won' in conventional terms. We can't capture their capital. We can't kill their king.

You are ascerting that by fighting these people we are actually creating more terrorists. There seems to have been no problem recruiting Al Qaeda operatives prior to 9/11 to kill Americans. The same people who said we couldnt win the Cold War and had to accept detente are the same ones saying we cant win this war. Thats ridiculous.


You cannot wage a war on an 'idea'.

maybe not, but you can sure as hell kill the people who believe in it

Really? I seem to recall the Afghan government offering to turn over 'Al Qaeda' to an intermediary for us to pick up on non-partisan territory.

You recall wrong.

They said they will consider it if US provides proof of Osama's involvement. Muttawakil announced this, IIRC.

As already pointed out, we MADE the Taliban.

No.

You made the mujahideen. Taliban =/= Mujahideen.

Your walking out of the region leaving it unstable and at the mercy of KSA and Pak resulted in taliban occupying the country. Now THAT is a blame I will place on the US.


The truth is, we don't have the faintest damn clue where Osama is.

No. Ex CIA chief Peter Goss in response to a question said "we know exactly where he is".

There is more than a "faintest damn clue" where he is. What we don't have a faintest damn clue is what is the administration doing to capture him...

You forget that it's OK to pre-judge the US anytime.

You mean like how you're prejudging some people on NS now? I will take a gamble and assume you mean 'liberals'

And I wouldn't associate too much with BogMarsh if I were you. He's already stated that it's ok for the Israelis to commit genocide if they wanted to.

Iran a good place to visit?!?!? Someone ACUALLY told you that!?!?!? Of you poor dear, you were forced-feed bull with a baby-spoon! :eek:

Thats completely diffrent. We need alternative fuels for the other reason. That if we continue to burn them at this rate they will run out. Also we have the problem of emissions. Political independence is a secondary concern in the oil issue.

As with any issue of supply, when you've got a foreign supplier of needed goods, that means that they've got a hold on you. Why do you think the White House has been so friendly with Saudi Arabia? It's because unless they directly control the fields, they need friendly governments with them or suffer from poor bargaining positions.

Remember, if the Saudi's decide that the US is not such a good customer, they can sell to other people. China and India both have increasingly big energy demands, and would be very happy to cut the US out of the oil trade.


The issue with this here is that we arnt talking about the reactors themselves, we're talking about the fuel for the reactors.

Fuel for the reactors, fuel for oil power plants, either case, it's the same. Being able to produce fuel locally is far cheaper in the long run and less politically vulnerable than if imported from outside.


In other words if Russia produced this it would be far easier to moniter where its going and what its being used for.

And that is the only argument that the US can bring into play against Iran. Security issues of not trusting Iran. Economically, politically and security wise (local based), there's nothing going for Iran if it relied on an external supplier of fuel.


But they dont want that because the Iranians will most likly "acciendtally" let some of the uranium go to terrorists, to use against Israel

This one I wouldn't put much stock in it. If I am not mistaken, based on radiation readings, nuclear weapons and their detonations can be traced back to production sites. If such a nuclear weapon was detonated, there would surely be an investigation as to where it ultimately came from, and subseqently, MAD will follow.

Even if not, I doubt Israel would do nothing, proof or no proof.

And finally, I wouldn't put too much reliance on all news you here. I seem to recall that recently, it came out that the CIA was responsible in the past for planting fake stories in the Cold War to convince the populace to certain viewpoints. There is no indication that they have actually stopped.

There is more than a "faintest damn clue" where he is. What we don't have a faintest damn clue is what is the administration doing to capture him...

Waiting until just before elections?

:p

If that article could load and I could verify it, I would withdraw all support for Iran. It is looking sort of like Hitler's rise.
There's news today, from the National Post, the only media to report this:
Several experts are casting doubt on reports that Iran had passed a law requiring the country’s Jews and other religious minorities to wear coloured badges identifying them as non-Muslims.

The Iranian embassy in Otttawa also denied the Iranian government had passed such a law.
Sam Kermanian, of the U.S.-based Iranian-American Jewish Federation, said in an interview from Los Angeles that he had contacted members of the Jewish community in Iran — including the lone Jewish member of the Iranian parliament — and they denied any such measure was in place.
Meir Javdanfar, an Israeli expert on Iran and the Middle East who was born and raised in Tehran, said yesterday that he was unable to find any evidence that such a law had been passed.

“None of my sources in Iran have heard of this,” he said. “I don’t know where this comes from.”

Mr. Javdanfar said that not all clauses of the law had been passed through the parliament and said the requirement that Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians wear special insignia might be part of an older version of the Islamic dress law, which was first written two years ago.

“In any case, there is no way that they could have forced Iranian Jews to wear this,” he added. “The Iranian people would never stand for it.”
Linky (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6626a0fa-99de-4f1e-aebe-bb91af82abb3)

Iran a good place to visit?!?!? Someone ACUALLY told you that!?!?!? Of you poor dear, you were forced-feed bull with a baby-spoon! :eek:

The thread title is sarcastic.

I would explain to you how books can be banned in hell and simultaneously sold, but I feel you temper is clouding your mind.
Don't worry, we'll have plenty of time.
I love you too.

I get the impression that you 'suffer' from Autism or Asperger's - those mental diseases that make you frightfully unaware that it takes 2 to have a friendly relationship.
Mental afflictions that leave you quite unfit to mix with civil society.

So, araint thee off to Wormwood Scrubs, satanas.

I haven't claimed to support the ayatollah, have I?

Indeed - I wasn't aware you OR I had even mentioned the ayatollah, thus far.
No, you merely mentioned in passing that it was A-OK for a revolutionary state not to abide with paperwork.
I'm afraid you wont get applauded for that either.

And I did not mention that I was historically prejudiced against Iran.

See, this game is fun!

Waiting until just before elections?

:p

:fluffle:

Nah! During the recount...

You mean like how you're prejudging some people on NS now? I will take a gamble and assume you mean 'liberals'

And I wouldn't associate too much with BogMarsh if I were you. He's already stated that it's ok for the Israelis to commit genocide if they wanted to.

Where did I do so?

I don't even approve of capital punishment - let alone genocide.

Non aligned liar...

I rather think you are projecting your innermost feelings about the Israelis.

By slowly feeding them piecemeal into a constructed warzone? By antagonizing even previously sympathetic powers?

I'm not defending the invasion of Iraq, if that's what you're referring to as a 'constructed warzone'. If you mean Afghanistan, I think you exagerate some. My point was that one of the chief responsibilities of government is to protect its citizens from harm. There's no conscription going on here, the soldiers doing the work are volunteers.

I still decry fundamentalism - Muslim and Christian alike. I still denounce the destruction of irreplacable artifacts. I still denounce the dehumanisation of people - men and women - in Afghanistan or the US.

However - protecting Buddhist relics was not our claimed agenda. We did not claim the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq were about humanitarian issues, except as afterthought.

We are spilling blood in the middle-east because we got hurt. Because our pride was injured. Because we got suckerpunched... and we are going to make SOMEONE bleed for it.

You're right that nobodies going to go to war over issues such as turning women into property and destruction of artefacts. But I have a distinct recollection of people demanding that something be done about it. Now the US invasion of Afghanistan was obviously a retaliatory strike, but to suddenly decry setting up a new administration to help put a stop to such behaviour is a little hypocritical.

As to the making someone bleed for it... What the hell do you expect?! A fundamentalist group plans and executes an act like 9/11 and expects the US to just shrug their shoulders and say 'Aw shucks. You got us good this time!' Time to take a reality pill. If the same action was performed by a 'legitimate military', instead of a non-conventional force sponsored and protected by a foreign government, there would be no question about whether or not there should be retaliation. (Except maybe the most rediculous sort of pacifist.)

We can argue about the origins of Al Qaeda... we can look at the fact that the US supported mujahidin insurgents against Russian occupation in Afghanistan. We can look at the fact that the original recruitment took place in Peshawar, Pakistan. We can look at the fact that the big initial financial supporters were Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the US. We can look at the fact that Al Qaeda was born from the mujahidin at the hands of a Palestinian (Abdullah Yusuf Azzam) and a Saudi (Osama bin Laden). We can look at the fact that bin Laden relocated his followers to Saudi Arabia after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan... and didn't leave Saudi Arabia until the onset of the Gulf War... when they relocated to Sudan.

Al Qaeda is 'from' everywhere that Islam has resorted to militancy to combat what they perceive as imperialistic oppression. To claim it as an 'afghan' organisation is to oversimplify to the point it becomes nonsensical. But, the fact remains, if one looks at 9/11 - one largely sees the efforts of Saudi individuals. But - of course, 'they' are 'our friends'... only a cynic would blame the oil.

You're missing the point. Their leadership and training camps were in Afghanistan. They were being sheltered by the Taliban government. Are you suggesting that the US leave 'poor innocent Afghanistan' alone? What good would an invasion of Saudi Arabia have accomplished?

Really, if you were leader of the US at the time, what would you have done?

Well, either way, nuclear technology held by a government that denys the holocaust ever happened, can't be a good thing.

I seem to recall Hitler making peace with Stalin...we saw how that worked out (just showing how if the Taliban even said that, which I have never heard, that taking them seriously would have been very foolish)


Which argument are you settling on? It didn't happen, you didn't know, or it doesn't matter because they 'can't be trusted'?

You were arguing we HAD to invade Afghanistan to get to Al Qaeda, but the evidence suggests Afghanistan werre willing to hand Al Qaeda over, conditionally.

Thus - your 'rationale for war' is proved untrue.


How exactly did we make the Taliban?


We made and supported the mujahidin, as a defense against the spread of communism. We aided the formation of fundamentalisms in the region to protect our ideology. We continued funneling funds and support that way at least until the Gulf War.

We armed insurgents and endorsed fighting imperialism, and now we sit here with shocked-faces when they do what we made them for.


The fact that there hasn't been an attack on U.S. soil in 5 years shows that they ARE on the run and in hiding from the U.S. Stop pretending it's just dumb luck we haven't been hit again.


I didn't say that. There are other targets. If Al Qaeda wants to strike again on American soil, they will - but at the moment, they just don't NEED to, when STILL they have our collective knickers bunched up over one event half a decade ago.


Full of shit; we are in the Middle East because of 9/11. No murder of innocent Americans(and non-Americans) on 9/11, no war, everything is peachy. REALITY check: it did happen, it was unprovoked, and now we must respond. Like I already said, we are dealing with irrational people who cant be reasoned with.


Full of shit, yourself. Do a google search on PNAC or Pax Americana.


By not invading the countries that harbor terrorists and taking these people out, we are leaving ourselves open to another attack.


I don't see us invading Saudi Arabia (where Osama was based, until the Gulf War), I don't see us invading Ireland (home of a number of 'terror' organisations, I don't see us invading Chechnya, I don't see us in Sudan.


Why do you think that this conflict is the United States' fault? 3,000 innocent civilians were brutally murdered on 9/11 for doing nothing except going to work. We invaded to root out these people so as to not let it happen again. It's not so easy as to just sit back, relax,close our eyes and hope that bin laden doesn't come at us again. That's incredibly foolish and naive.


You are talking to someone raised in a nation that has been fighting terrorism for decades. If Al Qaeda wants to hit America, they will. It is foolish and naive to believe that Al Qaeda is a conventional army, and can be stopped fro operating by hitting the chain-of-command.

These people are not IN Afghanistan, and they were fundamental enemies OF Saddam's regime. Your continued insistence that that is why we are 'there' is just not supported by reality.


It's that sort of naivity that left us open for attack to begin with.


No - it was our assurance that we were six-foot-six and bulletproof. Too many years of John Wayne and Rambo convinced us we were untouchable.

We weren't.


Iraq would be in a civil war if the ones killing Iraqis WERE FROM IRAQ. The truth is, is that Zarqawi and his cronies are not Iraqi, they are Al Qaeda operatives infiltrating the country and carrying out terrorist attacks there on the Iraqi population.

Some of the violence might be external, but factional Islamic tensions do not require external assistance. You seem to be claiming some kind of total consipracy theory... which is fine, if you have any kind of evidence.

Of course.... lots of those involved in the American Civil War were not US citizens... so, was that not a civil war?


Whats your problem with a liberated Iraq? Sad to see the torture chambers, mass graves, and rape rooms go bye-bye?


Ad hominem? Is that how weak your argument is?

I have never ENDORSED the previous regime. But the brutality of that regime is not why we went there. And now, we have civil war. Why are 'saving Iraq' by throwing it from frying-pan to fire.


You are ascerting that by fighting these people we are actually creating more terrorists. There seems to have been no problem recruiting Al Qaeda operatives prior to 9/11 to kill Americans. The same people who said we couldnt win the Cold War and had to accept detente are the same ones saying we cant win this war. Thats ridiculous.


We didn't 'win' the Cold War. we just outlasted it.


maybe not, but you can sure as hell kill the people who believe in it

Not all of them. Rome tried that, remember. Ever heard of their little trouble-maker faction, the 'christians'?

when Moslems gain control of a country, there are three options:
1. Convert
2. Die
3. Pay heavier taxes (& we will leave you alone).

The Ottomans did this and I would expect the same from such Islamist fascists.

You recall wrong.

They said they will consider it if US provides proof of Osama's involvement. Muttawakil announced this, IIRC.

How was I wrong?

You have just reinforced my point - they DID offer.

when Moslems gain control of a country, there are three options:
1. Convert
2. Die
3. Pay heavier taxes (& we will leave you alone).

The Ottomans did this and I would expect the same from such Islamist fascists.

Historical evidence, please?

Strange that Venezuela's Jews don't seem to be all that worked up about it. In fact, they defended him. (http://www.forward.com/articles/7189)

The article especially points out how Deep Kimchi's Favorite Simon Wiesenthal Center played "Jewer Than Thou" over the local Venezuelan Jews and ignored them when it rushed to crying wolf... er Anti-Semite at Chavez.

McCarthyism as a carte blanche is alive and well today folks. The Kahanists cry "Anti-Semite" and "Holocaust" to cop out on debates and accountability, whereas the Bush Adminstration uses "National Security" and "Terrorist" to do the same. Both tactics which Kimchi wholeheartedly salutes with a straight arm, mind you folks.

No.

You made the mujahideen. Taliban =/= Mujahideen.

Your walking out of the region leaving it unstable and at the mercy of KSA and Pak resulted in taliban occupying the country. Now THAT is a blame I will place on the US.


We helped form the mujahidin resistance. We funded their war. We funded the Taliban. We even funded Al Qaeda until the Gulf War - when we had a 'conflict of interests' over putting troops in Saudi Arabia.

Taliban =/= mujahidin, but that is irrelevent... we armed and financed them until they became an obstacle to US.


No. Ex CIA chief Peter Goss in response to a question said "we know exactly where he is".

There is more than a "faintest damn clue" where he is. What we don't have a faintest damn clue is what is the administration doing to capture him...

Peter Goss has shown no evidence to support his claim. The current regime certainly hasn't borne-out his testimony.

Historical evidence, please?

Bosnians,North Africans, Copts etc... Sorry I don;t have the books/historical record handy.

No, you merely mentioned in passing that it was A-OK for a revolutionary state not to abide with paperwork.
I'm afraid you wont get applauded for that either.

And I did not mention that I was historically prejudiced against Iran.

See, this game is fun!

I didn't say anything of the sort.

If you cannot defeat my arguments, at least don't bne dishonest when presenting them.

I said it could be ARGUED that, since their government is not 'strictly speaking' the SAME government, they might not have the same alleigances and sympathies.

Taliban =/= mujahidin, but that is irrelevent... we armed and financed them until they became an obstacle to US.

The United States government has a tradition of arming and financing oppressive individuals and groups until they become an obstacle. This is also highlighted in the cases of Manuel Noriega and *gasp* Saddam Hussein.

the ways: Jihad or dhimmitude, the repressive and humiliating system of governance imposed upon those non-Muslims (i.e., dhimmis) subjugated by jihad. this word is of recent invention to explain the tactic. see Sir Jadunath Sarkar, Antoine Fattalm, Bat Ye'or ( Eurabia), middle eastern/islamic scholars. Just had to find the sources and educate people.

As to the making someone bleed for it... What the hell do you expect?! A fundamentalist group plans and executes an act like 9/11 and expects the US to just shrug their shoulders and say 'Aw shucks. You got us good this time!' Time to take a reality pill. If the same action was performed by a 'legitimate military', instead of a non-conventional force sponsored and protected by a foreign government, there would be no question about whether or not there should be retaliation. (Except maybe the most rediculous sort of pacifist.)


A couple of things:

1) What do I expect? I expect a response that corresponds to the action. Slaughtering Afghans and Iraqis may have appeased the bloodlust after we were hurt, but it has been basically useless in defusing or removing the original source of the injuries.

We have just been killing because we were hurt. That is not a war I endorse.

2) I am an Englishman. I was a child in London when the IRA were planting bombs in shopping centres at Christmas. We had a problem with terrorism while the US was still openly BACKING Sinn Fein. Sometimes - you DO just have to shrug.

(Hell, we even knew which country the IRA was attacking us from... the US doesn't even have that in this conflict).

3) The whole point is - this is NOT a conventional war. There IS no 'terroristland', we can't invade them and conquer them. It is idiotic to fight as though it WERE a conventional war.

Did we learn nothing in Viet Nam?



You're missing the point. Their leadership and training camps were in Afghanistan. They were being sheltered by the Taliban government. Are you suggesting that the US leave 'poor innocent Afghanistan' alone? What good would an invasion of Saudi Arabia have accomplished?

Really, if you were leader of the US at the time, what would you have done?

AL Qaeda is NOT limited to one geography. Terrorism is guerrilla war... and historical evidence tells us you can't FIGHT against a guerrilla force, with conventional tactics.

Hell - if we didn't know that, the US would still be King George's bitch.

I wonder what happen to the website. (http://www.canada.com/components/pri...b1240f&k=32073) Was it removed because it was far-fetched editorial?

The United States government has a tradition of arming and financing oppressive individuals and groups until they become an obstacle. This is also highlighted in the cases of Manuel Noriega and *gasp* Saddam Hussein.

I know. *sigh*

We keep doing it, but we still go :o when they decide to serve their OWN interests, rather than ours...

And when we don't do it directly (as we did in Iraq and Iran), we do it indirectly (as we did with Pol Pot).

I wonder what happen to the website. (http://www.canada.com/components/pri...b1240f&k=32073) Was it removed because it was far-fetched editorial?
You can still find the editorial here, (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=398274b5-9210-43e4-ba59-fa24f4c66ad4) and today's article here. (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=38b84a95-622e-4830-9a57-ed004fe805ec)

I didn't say anything of the sort.

If you cannot defeat my arguments, at least don't bne dishonest when presenting them.

I said it could be ARGUED that, since their government is not 'strictly speaking' the SAME government, they might not have the same alleigances and sympathies.

You haven't. You just toss evasions around.
So, is Iran a fine place or not?
Oh : I forgot - you don't do yes/no.

You haven't. You just toss evasions around.
So, is Iran a fine place or not?
Oh : I forgot - you don't do yes/no.

More ad hominem?

I don't mind yes/no questions when they are relevent. I won't jump through hoops to satisfy curiousity, though.

Is Iran a 'great place'? Very attractive geography, perhaps... but one can't take the geography without the 'people'... and one can't easily separate 'people' from their culture, their government, their society.

Overall, do I think Iran is 'great'... no.

But, I'm not convinced by these random anti-middle-east hatefests, and I'm not going to condone another pointless war.

Taliban =/= mujahidin, but that is irrelevent... we armed and financed them until they became an obstacle to US.

It is very very relevant. Taliban = mujahideen gives them a legitimacy which they do not actually have because of the differences between why the mujahideen was formed and why the taliban was formed.


Peter Goss has shown no evidence to support his claim. The current regime certainly hasn't borne-out his testimony.

All I can say is that we have more than a "faintest damn clue" on where bin laden is.

A couple of things:

1) What do I expect? I expect a response that corresponds to the action. Slaughtering Afghans and Iraqis may have appeased the bloodlust after we were hurt, but it has been basically useless in defusing or removing the original source of the injuries.

We have just been killing because we were hurt. That is not a war I endorse.
.

So we should have flown a couple of planes into their world trade center? What exactly would be the apropriate response? Do you not believe that the Battle of Britain deserved a response by the British? Why should this situation be any different?

And again, I don't endorse the war in Iraq.

2) I am an Englishman. I was a child in London when the IRA were planting bombs in shopping centres at Christmas. We had a problem with terrorism while the US was still openly BACKING Sinn Fein. Sometimes - you DO just have to shrug.

(Hell, we even knew which country the IRA was attacking us from... the US doesn't even have that in this conflict).

The IRA wasn't attacking the US. Thus, no American invasion of Ireland.

3) The whole point is - this is NOT a conventional war. There IS no 'terroristland', we can't invade them and conquer them. It is idiotic to fight as though it WERE a conventional war.

Did we learn nothing in Viet Nam?

So we should be fighting them 'unconventionally'? Terrorist groups exist in real space. It's not like they disapear into nothingness once they perform their actions. They either have to hide out in a nation that won't endorse them and risk capture by the authorities, or seek protection from a nation that will shelter them. Just because Afghantistan didn't officially endorse Al Qaeda, doesn't mean that it's okay for them to shelter them.

And Viet Nam didn't attack the US, or shelter terrorist groups that attacked the US. Different time, different situation.

AL Qaeda is NOT limited to one geography. Terrorism is guerrilla war... and historical evidence tells us you can't FIGHT against a guerrilla force, with conventional tactics.

Hell - if we didn't know that, the US would still be King George's bitch.

Of course Al Qaeda isn't limited to one geography. But at that time, they were based in Afghanistan, and the Taliban was sheltering them.

You can't fight guerilla forces with conventional tactics, but you need conventional tactics to obtain posession of land in the first place. The answer to fighting terrorism (other than trying to alleviate the reasons for the terrorism in the first place) is punish nations that promote it, and work with other nations at co-operating on eliminating it within their own boundaries.

Unfortunately, the only answer to fighting guerilla tactics is brutal dominance. Alexander the Great is one of the few in history to ever subjigate Afghanistan, and he didn't do it by being nice.

The IRA wasn't attacking the US. Thus, no American invasion of Ireland.


Saddam wasn't attacking the US. Thus, no American invasion of Iraq.

Oh ...wait.