|
On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote:
You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
I don't think I was defending him. I was challengling your reaction. No matter, I obviously agree with most of what you say.
|
On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote:
You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
Now if only people would realize the same thing about Muslims....
Anyway, I'm not sure if a strike is the best way to deal with it. The problem is, is stopping Iran get nukes worth the risk of a destabilization in the middle east? For that's what would happen. Whether it would be good or not overall, I don't know. It would be bad because of the lack of stability, but at least another country wouldn't have nukes.
International sanction aren't working either, so that's a bummer. I feel like Iran is bringing it upon itself yet I really really wouldn't want to punish the Iranians themselves.
|
Poor Iran. If only they had gotten nukes sooner they wouldn't have been bullied by Israel and the US.
|
On July 26 2010 00:21 ImFromPortugal wrote:UPDATE:"U.S. strike on Iran likelier than ever, former CIA chief says" Michael Hayden says Iran intends to reach the point where it's just below having a nuclear weapon, adding that such a step would be as destabilizing to the region as the 'real thing.' By The Associated Press and Haaretz Service A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program. Article
Everyone seems to be ignoring this post and instead arguing over demographics.
This is bad. Really, really bad. The consequences of starting another war are truly unforseeable, with the exception of mass civillian casualties. (Since the Bosnian War, it's been proven that in modern warfare, 50-90% of the casualties are civillians.) Now I have personal qualms with the CIA and their notorious buisness in Latin and South America, however this former CIA director most likely knows what he's talking about. Once again, the general population of America has no say or control over what their government does overseas. This shit is gonna go down, and it's gonna go down hard.
|
Another war over oil.
America would find a bullshit reason to attack Iran, them getting nuclear weapons to protect themselves would stop that from happening so the U.S has to attack now.
|
On July 26 2010 05:15 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote:
You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
Now if only people would realize the same thing about Muslims.... Anyway, I'm not sure if a strike is the best way to deal with it. The problem is, is stopping Iran get nukes worth the risk of a destabilization in the middle east? For that's what would happen. Whether it would be good or not overall, I don't know. It would be bad because of the lack of stability, but at least another country wouldn't have nukes. International sanction aren't working either, so that's a bummer. I feel like Iran is bringing it upon itself yet I really really wouldn't want to punish the Iranians themselves.
Iran is "bringing this upon itself" if you choose to follow the chronology of Washington (which is what most of the Western media do). The history goes farther back and there is no proof remember, it has been "alleged" and it "seems" as if Iran is developing weapons. We heard the same things about Iraq and powerful states (governments) have a proven record of extreme and relentless dishonesty.. this includes Iran. No one knows as of yet, and to be honest it's not the "stability of the Middle East" that's at stake here. A nuclear weapon for Iran would just mean that it could not be invaded (by the US)... the horror, the horror...It would also mean that nuclear war would become marginally more likely. But Iran will not get nuclear weapons.. no wories. One way or another this will end long before that point. If I were religious I'd pray for the people of the region..
|
On July 26 2010 06:06 wadadde wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 05:15 Pandain wrote:On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote:
You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
Now if only people would realize the same thing about Muslims.... Anyway, I'm not sure if a strike is the best way to deal with it. The problem is, is stopping Iran get nukes worth the risk of a destabilization in the middle east? For that's what would happen. Whether it would be good or not overall, I don't know. It would be bad because of the lack of stability, but at least another country wouldn't have nukes. International sanction aren't working either, so that's a bummer. I feel like Iran is bringing it upon itself yet I really really wouldn't want to punish the Iranians themselves. Iran is "bringing this upon itself" if you choose to follow the chronology of Washington (which is what most of the Western media do). The history goes farther back and there is no proof remember, it has been "alleged" and it "seems" as if Iran is developing weapons. We heard the same things about Iraq and powerful states (governments) have a proven record of extreme and relentless dishonesty.. this includes Iran. No one knows as of yet, and to be honest it's not the "stability of the Middle East" that's at stake here. A nuclear weapon for Iran would just mean that it could not be invaded (by the US)... the horror, the horror...It would also mean that nuclear war would become marginally more likely. But Iran will not get nuclear weapons.. no wories. One way or another this will end long before that point. If I were religious I'd pray for the people of the region..
Agreed 100%. How would you Americans feel if Canada just got invaded by Russia for whatever Canadians have that is important (mostly good weed.) I'm pretty sure you would support your country arming up and getting prepared in case that situation is going to happen to you. Iran is scared of the U.S right now, and btw Obama is a puppet.
|
Personally I think obama is actually trying to do well by the american public whilst fulfilling the plans of the new world order. This is just what my intuition says.
He may be a puppet but he still wields a certain amount of power.
But clearly the industrial-military complex has been running things for quite a while. I mean geesh, George H. W. Bush becomes president after serving as director for the CIA. How much clearer can it be.
|
Personally I think obama is actually trying to do well by the american public whilst fulfilling the plans of the new world order. This is just what my intuition says.
imo it just gets worse when it's coloured with the most carefully constructed rethoric-bullshit, compared to bush. Atleast there were no possibility of being in doubt with bush
|
On July 26 2010 06:06 Diuqil wrote:
Another war over oil.
America would find a bullshit reason to attack Iran, them getting nuclear weapons to protect themselves would stop that from happening so the U.S has to attack now.
I would hardly say that this is a war over oil, or that Iran needs nuclear weapons to protect itself. Keep in mind that this is a country that has outright declared that it wants western civilization dead. Nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would use them against us is a major threat to not just American national security, but the security of the entire world.
Also, to "America would find a bullshit reason to attack Iran, them getting nuclear weapons to protect themselves would stop that from happening so the U.S has to attack now," America isn't the one attacking Iran, it's Israel.
|
The world doesn't want Iran to have nukes because guess who supports the Palestinians...
Israel needs to be a little nicer to the Palestinians, then they might have to worry less about the consequences of taking Palestinian lands in the 1940's.
Politics are complicated and messy. We could all throw our conspiracy theories into the discussion as to why things are going on the way they are, but until we're actually part of a government administration, we will never fully understand.
P.S. It's just my opinion that Iran wants to nuke Israel not a fact.
|
On July 26 2010 08:20 RamenAmen23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 06:06 Diuqil wrote:
Another war over oil.
America would find a bullshit reason to attack Iran, them getting nuclear weapons to protect themselves would stop that from happening so the U.S has to attack now.
I would hardly say that this is a war over oil, or that Iran needs nuclear weapons to protect itself. Keep in mind that this is a country that has outright declared that it wants western civilization dead. Nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would use them against us is a major threat to not just American national security, but the security of the entire world. Also, to "America would find a bullshit reason to attack Iran, them getting nuclear weapons to protect themselves would stop that from happening so the U.S has to attack now," America isn't the one attacking Iran, it's Israel.
omfg, do you really believe this?
you seriously need to study the history of your own country(!!!!!), stop worrying about statements by governments and start looking at actions. i obviously don't know how old you are, but this is a shameful display of ignorance. If you don't care about human life then it obviously doesn't matter what you believe to be true. Otherwise, you've got some catching up to do. This is not a football game.
Do you at least know that the Iranians overthrew their Us-backed dictator in the late 1970s and were subsequently forced to fight a bitter war against then US ally Sadam Hussein for 8 years and that the US heavily funded Hussein's agression? Do you know about the Iran-Contra scandal? Did you see The Lord Of The Rings at least? Power has nothing to do with benevolence. Power doesn't do anything unless it results in more power/money. USA does not = "the world"..........
EDIT : at least Twiggy is Canadian. Still pretty bad though..
|
Also, I'm not saying that the US needs the oil. But the larger picture is about oil and the advantages for US-based trans-national corporations. Iran couldn't care less about the Palestinians... sure, they don't like what's happening to those people, but that would never be a good enough reason for them to get completely obliterated in any confrontation with the military superpower of the region (=Israel). Iranians aren't suicidal, you know... well, not that suicidal.
|
On July 26 2010 05:15 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote:
You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
Now if only people would realize the same thing about Muslims.... Anyway, I'm not sure if a strike is the best way to deal with it. The problem is, is stopping Iran get nukes worth the risk of a destabilization in the middle east? For that's what would happen. Whether it would be good or not overall, I don't know. It would be bad because of the lack of stability, but at least another country wouldn't have nukes.
International sanction aren't working either, so that's a bummer. I feel like Iran is bringing it upon itself yet I really really wouldn't want to punish the Iranians themselves.
I don't buy that at all. When the Osirak reactor was blown in Iraq, it certainly did destabilize the region; in fact it had the opposite effect. Compare that to when the reactors that the Pakistanis were making were not blown up though, and you see quite clearly that the entire region was destabilized by them getting nukes (And the region remains destabilized to this day).The idea that blowing up Iran's reactors would somehow destabilize the region is simply ludicrous.
When you put aside the issue of oil, which I don't doubt is why the Americans are pushing so hard on Iran, the issue of Iran's instability becomes a serious problem. Not only does the government not have the support of its own population, as evidenced by the massive protests around the country that have sporadically popped up every few years only to be brutally quelled by the countries security forces, but Iran is composed of several minority groups that could pose serious problems to Iran's long-term stability. Many of these minorities have strong militas too, with Baluchistan sticking out the most; consider that Baluchistan is basically what Afghanistan was when the mujahideen were supplied by the CIA back in the 80s...incidentally, it appears that the Baluchi's are being supplied by the CIA too. The Iran of today resembles Pakistan back when they were getting nuclear weapons (It might be interesting to point out that the Pakistanis also made the claim that they only wanted nuclear power too) and so, for the rest of the world this poses a serious concern that goes far beyond simply oil rights.
|
On June 13 2010 02:31 Monst3r wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:29 Whiplash wrote:On June 13 2010 02:22 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:15 zer0das wrote:On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote:
Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing. Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel. If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too. You really think countries like Iran and North Korea are going to be more responsible with nukes than America? Not North Korea but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
Its not a matter of "starting" wars with iran its a matter of crazy people who are in power in iran.. lets face it the goverment over there is very unstable and lead mostly by religous zealots who would love nothing more then to destroy every single jew in exsistance.. starting with the israel. You think muslims are more peaceful in that part of the world then jew's are? They are both guilty horrible hate crimes against the other. The very root of the problem being religious intolerance for eachother! Unfortunately for the rest of the world this could lead to a nuclear exchange of missles which doesnt make anyone comfortable.
|
UPDATE:
Mossad chief reportedly visited Saudi Arabia for talks on Iran
Account on WorldNetDaily follows series of recent reports on increasing secret cooperation between Israel and the Saudis, including defense coordination on matters related to possible military action.
Source
|
On July 26 2010 10:14 Meldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:31 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:29 Whiplash wrote:On June 13 2010 02:22 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:15 zer0das wrote:On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote:
Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing. Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel. If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too. You really think countries like Iran and North Korea are going to be more responsible with nukes than America? Not North Korea but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started? Its not a matter of "starting" wars with iran its a matter of crazy people who are in power in iran.. lets face it the goverment over there is very unstable and lead mostly by religous zealots who would love nothing more then to destroy every single jew in exsistance.. starting with the israel. You think muslims are more peaceful in that part of the world then jew's are? They are both guilty horrible hate crimes against the other. The very root of the problem being religious intolerance for eachother! Unfortunately for the rest of the world this could lead to a nuclear exchange of missles which doesnt make anyone comfortable.
Actually Amenidijad has jewish roots : |
And there is a large jewish community living in Teheran with no problems :o
|
On July 26 2010 13:18 ImFromPortugal wrote:UPDATE:
Mossad chief reportedly visited Saudi Arabia for talks on Iran
Account on WorldNetDaily follows series of recent reports on increasing secret cooperation between Israel and the Saudis, including defense coordination on matters related to possible military action.Source
lol seriously, if there are reports of this going on and u replace the name Israel with Iran, the USA would have launched pre-emptive strikes already.
|
On July 26 2010 13:18 ImFromPortugal wrote:
Actually Amenidijad has jewish roots : |
And there is a large jewish community living in Teheran with no problems :o
Ive heard this too. I have a friend at school from Iran and he seems to say the same thing.
(Although hes pretty wealthy and his perception might be skewed)
He seems to believe people his age arent as crazy as they are made out to be here. Granted hes not arab and would probably Identify himself more as "Persian" but he seems to think the Islamic government isnt going to last anyway.
I think Iran gets a bad rap here in the US, but people who arent comfortable with them having nuclear weapons arent exactly wackjobs. From the various statements by Amendinijhad*sp* (even though my friend seems to think no one in Iran respects him anyway and hes just a figurehead(which pretty much everyone thinks/knows)) people have a right to be worried.
I dont believe any non secular government should have WOMD's anyway though. But meh.
|
On July 26 2010 10:14 Meldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:31 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:29 Whiplash wrote:On June 13 2010 02:22 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:15 zer0das wrote:On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote:
Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing. Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel. If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too. You really think countries like Iran and North Korea are going to be more responsible with nukes than America? Not North Korea but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started? Its not a matter of "starting" wars with iran its a matter of crazy people who are in power in iran.. lets face it the goverment over there is very unstable and lead mostly by religous zealots who would love nothing more then to destroy every single jew in exsistance.. starting with the israel. You think muslims are more peaceful in that part of the world then jew's are? They are both guilty horrible hate crimes against the other. The very root of the problem being religious intolerance for eachother! Unfortunately for the rest of the world this could lead to a nuclear exchange of missles which doesnt make anyone comfortable.
"How many wars has Iran started and how many has America"
War is terror. War mongerers in the West love pointing out the grave imperfections of other cultures/states to rally support for their terror-for-profit scheme. What's more insane : wanting to kill people because they are an existential threat to their country (learn Iran-US history!! and the role of Israel) or consistently using public funds to wage war in the interest of US investors and corporations? The US has supported far worse human rights abusers all over the world when it didn't conflict with their buisiness interests.. the record is consistent and thinking that war=peace is violently retarded. War creates poverty, resentment, death, extremists and more war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
