JoePolitix
Gone
For rachamim18
Stop War On Iran
- Thread starter Nigel
- Start date
rachamim18 said:
Well, I find it fairly believable, as the people who told me this is what ahmadinejad does, told it to me as a criticism . It was something that really annoyed them about him. They say it causes continual inflation, because he's giving money for nothing to the poor, and thus stopping the country's overall economic development.
"Implying the Guardian wants..." Are you serious?How would you EVER come to that conclusion? I think it was clear that I said the Gurdian should not be taken seriously with regards to Israel and any nation involved with it on either side of the fence. Bias is bias is bias.
As for chachrater, I post under my real name. You?
"Joe has seen a positive story in the Gurdian within the last 15 years on Israel." Please show us.
"Holocaust denial." Who said it was justification for anything? You asked for prrof that Ahmadinejad was against Israel (Jews having been the group he disparages in talking oft he Holocaust).
"CNN." Actually, I was going to post the link to a transcript of the speech reported in that CNN story but thought the CNN would suffice. You know, his own govt. went on the offencive saying Ahamdinejad did not speak for the Iranian Govt. Explain that? Or the fact that when confronted at the parade the next day with his alma mater he reconfirmed the reported comments. Care to explain that?
How about this little gem. And, if anyone wants to question the source, it is
a MEMRI video from Youtube, of course, and yet even non-Farsi speakers will be able to understand the last 20 seconds clearly:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo
I think that says it best, unless you want to say "Death to Israel" does not mean "Death to Israel"?
You can defend a man who dances around direct questions by posing (always 2 or 3 more) a question himself to deflect attention away from his inability to answer truthfully.
You actually want to bring up his talk at Columbia? The same talk where he told a live audience that Iran does not have gays?
"We don't have homosexuals in Iran. I don;t know who told you that we have it," after which he was booed . You did not see him twitching?
You did not hear him talk about executing drug dealers when asked about executing homosexuals? Yeah, right.
Did he , or did he not commit to the idea that Tom and Jerry is a Jewish plot?
The man is borderline besides hateful and dangerous.
As for chachrater, I post under my real name. You?
"Joe has seen a positive story in the Gurdian within the last 15 years on Israel." Please show us.
"Holocaust denial." Who said it was justification for anything? You asked for prrof that Ahmadinejad was against Israel (Jews having been the group he disparages in talking oft he Holocaust).
"CNN." Actually, I was going to post the link to a transcript of the speech reported in that CNN story but thought the CNN would suffice. You know, his own govt. went on the offencive saying Ahamdinejad did not speak for the Iranian Govt. Explain that? Or the fact that when confronted at the parade the next day with his alma mater he reconfirmed the reported comments. Care to explain that?
How about this little gem. And, if anyone wants to question the source, it is
a MEMRI video from Youtube, of course, and yet even non-Farsi speakers will be able to understand the last 20 seconds clearly:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo
I think that says it best, unless you want to say "Death to Israel" does not mean "Death to Israel"?
You can defend a man who dances around direct questions by posing (always 2 or 3 more) a question himself to deflect attention away from his inability to answer truthfully.
You actually want to bring up his talk at Columbia? The same talk where he told a live audience that Iran does not have gays?
"We don't have homosexuals in Iran. I don;t know who told you that we have it," after which he was booed . You did not see him twitching?
You did not hear him talk about executing drug dealers when asked about executing homosexuals? Yeah, right.
Did he , or did he not commit to the idea that Tom and Jerry is a Jewish plot?
The man is borderline besides hateful and dangerous.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Many people in power are hateful and dangerous. Each country seems to have their own share of religious and political figures who say the most heinous things. I can find examples from USA, from UK, from Europe and from Israel - I'm sure you can too. Are we to use them all as cases for denying nuclear power?
Why aren't the nuclear power stations the type that aren't used to make nuclear weapons from - if this were so, then all doubt could be removed.
Why aren't the nuclear power stations the type that aren't used to make nuclear weapons from - if this were so, then all doubt could be removed.
lobster
Well-Known Member
rachamim18 said:
That's right IRA.
In the media from various political strands each have a different take on what Iran want to do with there Nuclear facilities.
Until Iran posses Nuclear weapons and points them at Israel , its incomplete to suggest otherwise.
As Spion brought up the idea of Israel becoming a single state, what do you think of that?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
lobster said:
You forgot about the INLA. The IRA get all the attention.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
invisibleplanet said:
It's both the nature of the technology and the society that produces the technology. Technology has to first be developed for the purpose of warfare and if there are any civilian applications arising from its military purpose - then all well and good.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
I'm not a supporter of nuclear power/weaponry cycle at all. There is a reactor type that doesn't produce nuclear waste for reprocessing, isn't there?
Am I correct in assuming the various European firms who sold the Iranians these reactor parts with full knowledge of their governments, sold them the parts for the reactor type that produces spent fuel for reprocessing to make nuclear weapons?
If this is the case, then why aren't these firms being held responsible for nuclear weapons profileration and why aren't they being investigated fully to ensure that no more reactor>reprocessing cycles are born? What can be done to safeguard against this happening in the future, and why is the US calling for sanctions on Iran for a situation which Europe actively helped to create?
Am I correct in assuming the various European firms who sold the Iranians these reactor parts with full knowledge of their governments, sold them the parts for the reactor type that produces spent fuel for reprocessing to make nuclear weapons?
If this is the case, then why aren't these firms being held responsible for nuclear weapons profileration and why aren't they being investigated fully to ensure that no more reactor>reprocessing cycles are born? What can be done to safeguard against this happening in the future, and why is the US calling for sanctions on Iran for a situation which Europe actively helped to create?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Quite likely "we" shouldn't "go after countries" at all.jæd said:
fela fan said:
So we (ie the US + UK) should just stand by while human rights abuses go on in other countries...? (ie, "real" human rights violations, much worse than happens in the US + UK).
fela fan said:
Eh...? Whats the Thai Govt doing in Iraq/Iran...? Or is this another case of Fela's moveable nationality...?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I wonder if I can detect some space in between "doing nothing" and "bombing and invading those countries which happen to resist Washington's demands rather than follow them"?jæd said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
invisibleplanet said:
I think you may be thinking of nuclear fusion technology. What we currently have is nuclear fission. I think we are some way away from developing a fully functional nuclear fusion generator.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Well you do and in certain cases like Saudi Arabia, support the regimes that carry them out.jæd said:
jæd said:
It's uncertain what you mean here because you've not edited what you wrote before you pressed the submit reply button.
But nevertheless, i can say that the biggest violators of human rights in the whole wide world are the yanks, followed by the UK.
So, it's really not a case of 'us' policing the others, rather that we are the bastards committing massive crimes upon others.
But you have your eyes and ears closed to this inconvenient fact don't you jaed?
Never mind, perhaps you'll wake up one day.
jæd said:
Well if the US wants to be a moral arbiter and so on and rule the world, then it should be honest about it, and apply a level playing field, -
Perhaps they should declare themselves the de facto rulers of the world, and organise so that everyone in the world has a say in their elections: And remove all governments that resist local or global democracy, commit human rights violations, etc.
And if they won't or can't do this, - perhaps they should do nothing except mind their own business. It would save them an awful lot of money, - can't remember how many billions a year they spend on defence, - but it's certainly difficult to believe that the world would have a lot less problems if the money that's been spent on it had been spent on something that actually
benefited humanity.
jæd said:
Probably because i'm not sure any solution is needed. It's only arrogant western thinking that says this nation or that nation should do what it says or else. But what makes it even worse is that the very nations who presume to police the world are the most corrupt of the lot. The most war-hungry of the lot.
You think for one minute that britain and america are not corrupt nuclear-wielding countries? And since that is what we are, how come we should have this arrogant notion that we are the globe's policemen??
It's fucking unbelievable. And you appear to have been taken in by all this propaganda that the USUK machine churns out via it's spokesagency, the mass-media.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Resolution of this needs to come about soon. It's been 60 years already.Spion said:
And what about the millions now displaced by the US-led war for Iraqi 'freedom'? (Millions are certainly 'free' of Iraq now). What resolution will there be for those displaced by the Iraq catastrophe?
lobster
Well-Known Member
jæd : what your missing out is that only when there is a business interest for the US + UK + whoever else , as its not just those two countries will they go in there, to rescue there business and proclaim there doing it for humanitarian reasons, if they really care about it, why are so many countries left of there "list" ?
fela fan said:
So not even a desire to help people rotting in gaols...?
fela fan said:
Go on then... Please point out the corruption that is embedded in the UK/USA's democracies. And I'd be also interested where the mass-media is implicated in this. Hard links please, with proper documentation...
Or is it just your ganja fueled paranoia that gives you these notions...?
lobster said:
I'm fully aware of that, its just Fela is ready to defend a country which has shown been to be corrupt through hard evidence... He's much more willing to bleat on about supposed injustices in the UK + US when he could be actually do something to help.
Yep, there's no country without some moral stains but Fela wants us all to be whiter than white before he'll lift a hand. And while he is waiting those persecutions and injustices aren't going to stop...
jæd said:
The US has loads of people, over a couple of million, in jail, and US prisons are said to be very nasty.
A huge number of them are imprisoned for "drug crimes", i.e. they haven't even done anything morally wrong, they've just broken an arbitrary law, and given the socioeconomics of the country, it was fairly inevitable that many of them would do this.
Perhaps we should invade america, and liberate the brothers?
jæd said:
If you even need to ask these questions then you're in the kindergarten of world politics as impacted upon by US and UK foreign policy, and in how those governments operate behind closed doors, the closed doors being the mass media.
This thread is the wrong stage to begin your lesson, and just one post would be far too long. So i suggest you go elsewhere for your education.
Hard links with proper documentation...
jæd said:
Ah dear, i don't defend anybody or any nation that commits injustices or crimes against other humans. You've got yourself in a tiddle here. Straighten yourself out and desist with your rather faulty interpretations of what you read.
Iran has been shown to be corrupt with hard evidence? Really? And what is 'hard' evidence as opposed to the more normal variety of evidence?
Demosthenes said:
I think i'm right in saying demos that out of two million prisoners, one million are in for cannabis offences, not just any old drug.
Furthermore, this is the same country that shackles its prisoners, where you can be in prison for life for three thefts, where you have guantanamo, and so on. The US also has more people in prison per head of population than any other nation. They love retribution over there.
Invisible: "Most nations have their share of religious people in power who say hateful things, etc": The difference being however, is that Ahmadinejad represents a nation that hardly even pays lip service to democracy. IF a person rises to that leolve in Irael, America, or the UK, they are thrawted by checks and balances.Iran has no protective systems since it is a theocracy based on Sha'ria.
"Why are nations calling for snactions on Iran when Europe helped create the problem." Because there loopholes in existing agreement that permit the distribution of certain materials. Most of the items have dual or multiusages and in the end, it is not what you might do that makes the issue but what you have actually done.
For example, if I provide you with steel, am I then guilty if you take my steel and make a gun out of it to murder a person?
"Are we to use them as examples for the denial of nuclear power." First, see above. Secondly, if it was for power, fine. However, Iran has thwarted inspections and oversight. This only heightens International concern.
Spion: "The Guardian has to provide evidence for what it says." No it does not. In using labels it is free to describe things as it wishes to. That is called putting a slant on things. Impressionable people just take it verbatim and there goes more public opinion.
"Rachamim never provides evidence." You mean like giving you everything but a url? Sorry, article titles, publication names, dates of publishing, and subject matter is just not enough? If you say so.
Lobster: "Irish Freedom Fighters, as in IRA." The IRA blew up civlains willingly. That is not usually soemthing to glorify (sic - it NEVER is). Their cause was certainly just. Their methods far from it.
"Until Iran has nuclear weapons and points them at Israel..." Are you serious? At that point the world is over. Luckily for the world though, srael acts when it really needs to. Had it not, imagine what Saddam would have problem done with his new toy. All the outrage and condemnation at what Israel did when it removed that threat and then nary a word as Sadam went cetifiably bonkers.
"Spion's idea of a 1 State Solution.": Well, I already adressed it many times, most recently in thh thread just iniated about it (possibly by you). I will say it again: It is a stupid idea (no offence). Among the 2 groups, only Communists from both sides want it.
Getting down to basics, which I did not bother to do in that new hread, the issue most consider is demographics. Jews like myself hate the idea because of course it would negate the concept of a Jewis State. It would do what bullets and bombs have not been able to, destroy the Zionist "Character of the state, i.e. destroy Israel. This same truth is what makes it so attractive to Muslims.
Muslims have 57 nations. Arabs have 32 not including the PA Lands. Why then do people feel that Jews should give up their legal national homeland? IS the proposed nation of "Palestine" not larghe enough to accomodate the Arabs? No, the idea behind it is merely subjugation of Jews, plain and simple.
We have 1 tiny nation, and yet we are still and have always been willing to give most of our tradional tribal homelands (Yehudah/Judah and Shomron/Samaria) to Arabs so they can create yet another nation...and do so over the bones of our ancestors.
{Edited to remove 2 sentences that had ended up out of place, we well as some spelling}
"Why are nations calling for snactions on Iran when Europe helped create the problem." Because there loopholes in existing agreement that permit the distribution of certain materials. Most of the items have dual or multiusages and in the end, it is not what you might do that makes the issue but what you have actually done.
For example, if I provide you with steel, am I then guilty if you take my steel and make a gun out of it to murder a person?
"Are we to use them as examples for the denial of nuclear power." First, see above. Secondly, if it was for power, fine. However, Iran has thwarted inspections and oversight. This only heightens International concern.
Spion: "The Guardian has to provide evidence for what it says." No it does not. In using labels it is free to describe things as it wishes to. That is called putting a slant on things. Impressionable people just take it verbatim and there goes more public opinion.
"Rachamim never provides evidence." You mean like giving you everything but a url? Sorry, article titles, publication names, dates of publishing, and subject matter is just not enough? If you say so.
Lobster: "Irish Freedom Fighters, as in IRA." The IRA blew up civlains willingly. That is not usually soemthing to glorify (sic - it NEVER is). Their cause was certainly just. Their methods far from it.
"Until Iran has nuclear weapons and points them at Israel..." Are you serious? At that point the world is over. Luckily for the world though, srael acts when it really needs to. Had it not, imagine what Saddam would have problem done with his new toy. All the outrage and condemnation at what Israel did when it removed that threat and then nary a word as Sadam went cetifiably bonkers.
"Spion's idea of a 1 State Solution.": Well, I already adressed it many times, most recently in thh thread just iniated about it (possibly by you). I will say it again: It is a stupid idea (no offence). Among the 2 groups, only Communists from both sides want it.
Getting down to basics, which I did not bother to do in that new hread, the issue most consider is demographics. Jews like myself hate the idea because of course it would negate the concept of a Jewis State. It would do what bullets and bombs have not been able to, destroy the Zionist "Character of the state, i.e. destroy Israel. This same truth is what makes it so attractive to Muslims.
Muslims have 57 nations. Arabs have 32 not including the PA Lands. Why then do people feel that Jews should give up their legal national homeland? IS the proposed nation of "Palestine" not larghe enough to accomodate the Arabs? No, the idea behind it is merely subjugation of Jews, plain and simple.
We have 1 tiny nation, and yet we are still and have always been willing to give most of our tradional tribal homelands (Yehudah/Judah and Shomron/Samaria) to Arabs so they can create yet another nation...and do so over the bones of our ancestors.
{Edited to remove 2 sentences that had ended up out of place, we well as some spelling}
Jaed: "We should then go after nations with the most records of abuse..." Um, no. The concept behind Iran is that of nuclear threat. The abuses are just icing on the cake, making that dung cake more palatable.
Fela: Biggest violators worldwide of Human Rights is the US." that is crazy. All nations the US included have real issues. However, saying the US is worse than North Korea is ludicrous.
"US and UK are coirrupt nuclear nations." And both are democratic with loads of checks and balances. Bit of a difference.
Demosthenes: "The Us wants to play arbiter..." Hardly, as I have stated its aim is to prevent destabilsation of petrol reserves . The biggest threat would clkearly be nuclear weapons in the hands of religiously inspired meglomaniacs.The Human Rights issue is just an added bonus that makes selling this action alot easier.
"Many in the West are imprisoned for drug crimes..." Many more in Iran. It has the highest per capita rate of opiate addiction in the world. While it is making some unbelivable progrss, as in providing methadone for addicts, as opposed to executing them as it did in the veary early 80s, it is still behind the West so check that one off as wrong.
"Maybe we should invade the US and liberate the brothers ,": When America locks and loads some warheads over Tom and Jerry, by all means.
"Minding its buisness will save the US alot of money." Not at all. It would actually destroy America when it loses its access to petrol.
Invisible: Resolution need to scome soon after 60 years.": Resolution has been in the hands since 1919, 29 years before your 60 years began.
Fela: Biggest violators worldwide of Human Rights is the US." that is crazy. All nations the US included have real issues. However, saying the US is worse than North Korea is ludicrous.
"US and UK are coirrupt nuclear nations." And both are democratic with loads of checks and balances. Bit of a difference.
Demosthenes: "The Us wants to play arbiter..." Hardly, as I have stated its aim is to prevent destabilsation of petrol reserves . The biggest threat would clkearly be nuclear weapons in the hands of religiously inspired meglomaniacs.The Human Rights issue is just an added bonus that makes selling this action alot easier.
"Many in the West are imprisoned for drug crimes..." Many more in Iran. It has the highest per capita rate of opiate addiction in the world. While it is making some unbelivable progrss, as in providing methadone for addicts, as opposed to executing them as it did in the veary early 80s, it is still behind the West so check that one off as wrong.
"Maybe we should invade the US and liberate the brothers ,": When America locks and loads some warheads over Tom and Jerry, by all means.
"Minding its buisness will save the US alot of money." Not at all. It would actually destroy America when it loses its access to petrol.
Invisible: Resolution need to scome soon after 60 years.": Resolution has been in the hands since 1919, 29 years before your 60 years began.
Similar threads
