| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On December 31 2008 13:20 Mindcrime wrote: There are several ways of acquiring land, and most don't involve slaughtering or enslaving the men , women and children that already live on that land. We are talking about planet earth correct? Cause the humans here have been doing that shit for ages. | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
Locke... so Iran has a nuclear program? Since when is it ok to not have a nuclear program? Since when is it ok for Israel and other Western countries to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran and anyone else who has the capacity to do it? Not every fuckhead who CAN make nuclear weapons WILL, and not everyone who makes them will use them. If you think Iran is building nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map you are full of shit for several reasons: 1) Ahmadinejad doesn't have all the power, and those who do have the power to actually order something like a nuclear attack have more sense than to actually do it. 2) It would MAKE NO SENSE for Iran to nuke Israel. Do you have any idea wtf would happen to Iran if they did? Iran would be attacked by every single country on earth and pretty much be decimated. Iran would NEVER risk its entire existence by trying to actually nuke Israel. 3) The only reason they MIGHT (we're not even certain they will get nuclear weapons) get nuclear weapons would be for deterrence purposes... they won't be created to be put into use. 4) Even an Iranian invasion of Israel would probably result in the same consequences as I said before, so they wouldn't do it. 5) If Iran nuked Israel, they would fire a nuke right back, and Iran can't counter that, so they wouldn't risk nuclear warfare with Israel because that would lead to their own destruction 6) Iran is more interested in consolidating its power and building alliances / relationships with other Shi'a movements throughout the Middle East rather than outright destroying Israel -- Basically your whole viewpoint is insanely jaded and so one sided it's unbelievable (I'm referring to Locke). | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On December 31 2008 13:24 HeadBangaa wrote: We are talking about planet earth correct? Cause the humans here have been doing that shit for ages. huh? Why did you mention the Kingdom of Israel again? | ||
|
PaeZ
Mexico1627 Posts
On December 31 2008 11:37 Wolverine wrote: Fuck you, he said that you can't prove intent by the words of "some government officials", when the fucking government official in question happens to be the God damn President of Iran. You dumb shit. Keep posting like that and you wont last to long in here, go read history and go read politics and LEARN how Iran's Government is run, then you can come here and talk shit to Xeris (who knows better than most of us here seeing he is from there), and me, who actually likes to get informed before talking... Grow up. | ||
|
HeavenS
Colombia2259 Posts
On December 31 2008 13:35 Xeris wrote: Savio or whatever, it's a fallacy to say that if Hamas never bomed Israel, they would have never bombed Hamas. Israel is just as aggressive as any of the Arab states that are against it - Western media is just heavily biased towards Israel and you don't see it. Locke... so Iran has a nuclear program? Since when is it ok to not have a nuclear program? Since when is it ok for Israel and other Western countries to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran and anyone else who has the capacity to do it? Not every fuckhead who CAN make nuclear weapons WILL, and not everyone who makes them will use them. If you think Iran is building nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map you are full of shit for several reasons: 1) Ahmadinejad doesn't have all the power, and those who do have the power to actually order something like a nuclear attack have more sense than to actually do it. 2) It would MAKE NO SENSE for Iran to nuke Israel. Do you have any idea wtf would happen to Iran if they did? Iran would be attacked by every single country on earth and pretty much be decimated. Iran would NEVER risk its entire existence by trying to actually nuke Israel. 3) The only reason they MIGHT (we're not even certain they will get nuclear weapons) get nuclear weapons would be for deterrence purposes... they won't be created to be put into use. 4) Even an Iranian invasion of Israel would probably result in the same consequences as I said before, so they wouldn't do it. 5) If Iran nuked Israel, they would fire a nuke right back, and Iran can't counter that, so they wouldn't risk nuclear warfare with Israel because that would lead to their own destruction 6) Iran is more interested in consolidating its power and building alliances / relationships with other Shi'a movements throughout the Middle East rather than outright destroying Israel -- Basically your whole viewpoint is insanely jaded and so one sided it's unbelievable (I'm referring to Locke). Xeris you're right about Iran probably not directly attacking Israel. It would indeed be suicide for Iran, but no one is saying they're gonna just start launching missiles strapped with nuclear warheads and western allies. However, if Iran did develop a nuclear weapon it would GREATLY increase the chances of said weapon being smuggled into other countries, or provided by Iran to terrorist organizations. Imagine an organization like Hezbollah with their hands on a nuclear weapon? After all the shit thats gone down between them and Israel, i really don't see a reason why they would hesitate to use it. Thats just one example out of the many possible scenarios. With that being said, i'd also like to add that i'm saddened by Israel's response to the situation. You don't stop rocket attacks by bombing Gaza, if anything you fuel them. Rocket attacks have increased since Israel began its airstrikes and I don't think diplomacy was pressed enough. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new. | ||
|
HeavenS
Colombia2259 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On December 31 2008 13:20 HeadBangaa wrote: But you don't disagree that the Jews should have their own state. What you are driving at is how. But it is already done now. We need to deal with the fact that Israel exists and that it even should exist. It may have been by war or under foreign yoke; that's how national boundaries have often been drawn. We could delve into the inequities of any sovereign nation's history and forge make policies based on that, but we don't. I said having a Jewish state would be a solution. Non-native populations are always vulnerable to discrimination and without a state Jews are perpetually non-native. That doesn't necessarily mean they should have there own state in the sense that it is a right. The "how" in this case is not relevant to the conflict. The official establishment of the state is done, but non of the pre-state issues have been resolved and have only become significantly more complex. People often talk about the conflict as if it started 2000 years ago, or in 1948, or 1967, or any other date convenient for argument. Realistically the conflict started 100 years ago as the Zionist began supporting organized immigration into Palestine. The Zionist very effectively set up social organizations within Palestine, had an aggressive propaganda campaign, and were able to funnel lots of money from the diaspora for support. They operated on romantic notions of how laboring the land gets you closer to god and changed the agricultural landscape. They created a safe haven for thousands of oppressed Jews, but were to caught up in there own agenda to realize the impact they were having on the local population. The Arab Palestinians saw the rise of Jewish influence through simple demographics and propaganda, and began to see how the Zionist vision did not have a place for them. This is what created the cultural tension, and the tension was fed by the ambiguous dual support of the British mandate. This information certainly does not provide a solution for the current conflict, and the conflict has become significantly more complex, but I think it should change ones perspective on why there is a conflict in the first place. | ||
|
fast ball player
206 Posts
| ||
|
Creationism
China505 Posts
| ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
On December 31 2008 13:54 ahrara_ wrote: 1.) Ahmadenijad is a loud, obnoxious, figurehead who takes the credit and the blame for policies ultimately determined by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei. Khamanei also exercises power through the council of guardians, a group of six "islamic jurists" who get veto power over any legislation and candidate for office. Almost everyone agrees that who is president has little influence of Iran's foreign policy, namely its nuclear program. 2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new. Exactly. -- HeavenS , do you really think Iranian nuclear weapons would be smuggled to terrorist groups? First of all: 1) Iran wouldn't have enough nuclear weapons to afford to smuggle off nukes to other groups. It's not like they'd give their only nuclear missile away to some scrub Hezbollah or Hamas group. 2) How would it get smuggled? Would terrorists steal them? Because Iran sure as hell wouldn't GIVE THEM AWAY. They wouldn't sell them either. 3) That's still a stupid reason... if some terrorist group nuked anyone where the fuck would they have gotten the nuke from? It's not like nuclear weapons are just floating around, lol. Everyone would know that it came from Iran, and IRAN would suffer the consequences. Iran isn't stupid. So ya. If you think about it logically, there's about a 0.000000001% chance that an Iranian nuclear missile would get into the hands of the wrong guy. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 31 2008 13:14 ahrara_ wrote: when do you NOT have some annoying ideological nose to thumb at me. if you think my post was an attempt to defend huntington's theory and not an attempt to say "QUIT BLAMING PEOPLE U DUMASSES, AND MAYBE THEN WE CAN FIX THE PROBLEM", i have news for ya. i only read this sentence of your post, and it was strong enough to discourage further reading. if you want to sound less shrill about it all, refrain from making such statements. "Mark my words, this is a conflict of civilizations between the Western and the Arab world." and now i've gone back and read the one after: "Why else is there such disproportionately strong interest in this one, obscure corner of the world?" a non sequitur. my qualm here is not ideological at all, just basic depth of analysis. if you do not want premature characterisation of your stuff, don't write like that. your clash of civilization point is merely one of relative viewpoints in different cultural and media environments. such an observation does not a clash of civilizations make. for the actual topic, it is easy to realize that the second both sides drop grudges, the situation would be resolved. but the two sides are not equal, one has power, the other does not. israeli control of the more fundamental facts of the situation does push them into a more responsible role. by facts of the situation i mean stuff like controlling population movements, initiative in land claims and use, control of regional economy and resources. as long as the jewish state means practical inequality for those considered outside of the jewish state, there is no way that can be an acceptable solution there. one of the basic facts of a state, that it is exclusionary and self centered, is being highlighted here. this problem will not be resolved even if there is a palestinian state anyway. any practical inequality will be used to support perceptions of formal inequality, and cries of justice would be sounded, whether true or not. | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
On December 31 2008 14:04 fast ball player wrote: Doesn't it strike anyone as a little more than coincidental that this whole "Clash of Civilizations" thing is beginning right after the whole Cold War thing ends? Why does there always have to be a bad guy? Why has every civilization in history had a bad guy? It helps to get the people behind the leaders' agenda if the people are afraid. drop the Clash of Civilizations argument shit, it's been irrelevant for the past 6 pages. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
On December 31 2008 14:11 oneofthem wrote: i only read this sentence of your post, and it was strong enough to discourage further reading. if you want to sound less shrill about it all, refrain from making such statements. "Mark my words, this is a conflict of civilizations between the Western and the Arab world." and now i've gone back and read the one after: "Why else is there such disproportionately strong interest in this one, obscure corner of the world?" a non sequitur. my qualm here is not ideological at all, just basic depth of analysis. if you do not want premature characterisation of your stuff, don't write like that. your clash of civilization point is merely one of relative viewpoints in different cultural and media environments. such an observation does not a clash of civilizations make. for the actual topic, it is easy to realize that the second both sides drop grudges, the situation would be resolved. but the two sides are not equal, one has power, the other does not. israeli control of the more fundamental facts of the situation does push them into a more responsible role. by facts of the situation i mean stuff like controlling population movements, initiative in land claims and use, control of regional economy and resources. so you didn't read the article but decided to bitch about one obscure, unrelated point. you still haven't read the article, and you're responding vaguely like you always do to a gross oversimplification which has nothing to do with the substance of what i wrote so why do you even post? as long as the jewish state means practical inequality for those considered outside of the jewish state, there is no way that can be an acceptable solution there. one of the basic facts of a state, that it is exclusionary and self centered, is being highlighted here. this problem will not be resolved even if there is a palestinian state anyway. any practical inequality will be used to support perceptions of formal inequality, and cries of justice would be sounded, whether true or not. Last edit: 2008-12-31 14:21:27 I never endorsed a two state solution. In fact, you didn't even read the solution I proposed and how that was related to the clash of civilizations. I'd really appreciate it if before you jumped in to these threads posting like you're the world's foremost expert on the subject you'd read the fucking OP. I think you just post to disagree with people. God forbid I one day write something you agree with, you'd probably write a novel about me not being sufficiently academic in my agreement. 1.) the arab population in Israel is growing 2.) the inequality between Israel and Palestine is directly a result of Western policy. This inequality checks back any attempt at negotiation from succeeding. A political compromise is more than possible, but Israel has little incentive to make substantial concessions. Along every step of the way, it is the Palestinians that have conceded the most in negotiations between the two. | ||
|
Creationism
China505 Posts
"beware my righteous anger" i like that, where does it come out of? ur vagina? | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Gaza is especially proof that it has nothing to do with "civilizations." Not only does religion play an extremely minor role compared to the "getting fucked up" part, but you can also see that the most of the "Arab civilization" doesn't really care about Palestinians and some are probably glad they're being oppressed, the way Damascus and Tehran want the Kurds to be fucked up. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6705627964658699201 | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On December 31 2008 13:54 ahrara_ wrote: 2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new. Because everyone is stupid. His phrasing is the exact same as the phrasing used when the Shah was removed from power; neither are related to blowing shit up. Iran wants weapons because competitors in the region have them, it's cheaper than the giant standing army they have right now and it'll provide a host of other neat technologies. The only risk is that other countries will start wanting nukes, but the same case could already be made for Israel, India and Pakistan's programs. Pakistan is the only real nuclear threat because its government is nearly failed. Iran has a democracy, it should be a non-issue. I don't have time to read this thread but my guess is Savio made some post understanding nothing about the situation in Palestine, or the circumstances in which Israel became a state. Locke probably posted something about how Israelis are entitled to that land, even though the people that moved there were fucking Europeans and claiming land based on a 5,000 year old religious document is as fucking stupid as claiming the Earth is 6,000 years old. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
On December 31 2008 14:34 Creationism wrote: yay! flame wars!!!! "beware my righteous anger" i like that, where does it come out of? ur vagina? boy i wish i were this clever | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
On December 31 2008 14:35 Jibba wrote: the way Damascus and Tehran want the Kurds to be fucked up. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6705627964658699201 Iran doesn't want Kurds to be fucked up. Iran's Kurdish population is the most well off / satisfied of all the Kurdish minorities throughout the Middle East. Iran treats the Kurds relatively well (although they are certainly not equal), and Kurds in Iran are mostly happy. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i was only commenting on a two state solution in general, not that i believe you have made such a proposal. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Safe House 2
IPSL
Sziky vs Havi
Artosis vs Klauso
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
WardiTV Invitational
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
