american lies
- Thread starter coltpython3
- Start date
It is so much easier to reply when it all isn't in a quote...however, here goes...
I am just giving my opinion. I am struggling to think of many ways of removing an ideology led state that do not involve either sanctions or violence. The example of Nazism being a point in case. We didn't exactly stop Hitler via harsh words. It may not automatically mean a military means, but if you can come up with a more viable way I am all ears.
So, of the many wars that Israel has been involved in, how many of them has Israel started? There is even a case for the six day war to have been started by Egypt (blockading another country can be considered an act of war). This is in now way making excuses for Israel's behavour, but they are far from the only aggressor in the region.
Having large armies, being run by a religious ideology and wanting to wipe another ideology off the map are not exactly conducive to longterm peace. While I would much prefer if China and India and Israel did not have nuclear weapons sadly they do and there is little we can do about that now.
In short, yes. We can do nothing about the nations that already have nuclear arms, but I do honestly think it is a good idea to try and stop other nations from getting hold of them. Or do you think continued nuclear proliferation is a good idea?
I am only assuming that is what he thinks as it is what he put in his original post. This bit in fact:
I haven't assumed anything about what you think.
I am just giving my opinion. I am struggling to think of many ways of removing an ideology led state that do not involve either sanctions or violence. The example of Nazism being a point in case. We didn't exactly stop Hitler via harsh words. It may not automatically mean a military means, but if you can come up with a more viable way I am all ears.
So, of the many wars that Israel has been involved in, how many of them has Israel started? There is even a case for the six day war to have been started by Egypt (blockading another country can be considered an act of war). This is in now way making excuses for Israel's behavour, but they are far from the only aggressor in the region.
Having large armies, being run by a religious ideology and wanting to wipe another ideology off the map are not exactly conducive to longterm peace. While I would much prefer if China and India and Israel did not have nuclear weapons sadly they do and there is little we can do about that now.
In short, yes. We can do nothing about the nations that already have nuclear arms, but I do honestly think it is a good idea to try and stop other nations from getting hold of them. Or do you think continued nuclear proliferation is a good idea?
I am only assuming that is what he thinks as it is what he put in his original post. This bit in fact:
coltpython3 said:
I haven't assumed anything about what you think.
1. I am pretty sure it was from the pages of history and not the state itself, so there is no foundation that he wants to destroy Israel as a state.
Hezbollah (Lebanese organisation) have the aim you speak of, not Iran as a state.
2. You were asserting Iran was dangerous because of the actions of its neighbours, I refuted this claim as absurd and further Iran hasn't had a modern history of invading countries.
You have gone off topic, I don't care what Israel did or didn't do, or who started what, just that people should worry less about Iran as Israel is far more active in occupying states and areas of land it doesn't have the right to be in. And thus the media hype over Iran is unjust.
3. Again refer to point 1, he said history and not the map.
4. I think it is only fair that if we have them, Iran can have them? Why shouldn't they, other than their ideas are different to what you think is correct. Just the fact that they hold religion very important, doesn't mean they are dangerous.
5. Sorry, I thought you meant OP as in me being the OP where the quotes came from.
Last edited:
So, how do you suggest the Zionist state of Israel is wiped from the pages of history? I doubt it is going to be over milk and cookies...
As far as nuclear weapons go I am more interested about "safe" than "fair". Especially when states that have strong ties with terrorism start to get hold of nuclear weapons. An ideal world, no nation would have them. In the real world I would prefer it to be kept to as small a number as possible. The more nations that have them, the more chance of them being used.
1. I don't suggest in any way shape or form that Israel should be wiped from anywhere.
2. Hezzbollah is not a recognised as terrorist organisation by the UK.
What about America having nuclear capability when it had strong certain ties to Bin Laden as a the head of a "terrorist organisation" in Afghanistan?
You seem to be missing the point of my position.
I accept that Iran is wrong in many instances, I don't condone stoning to death for example, but my point is that they are no worse than any of the Western countries. Consequently Iran does not merit the level of concern shown.
And further I didn't realise it was unsafe that Iran had nuclear capability, what actions have they performed that makes YOU believe they are unsafe?
I'm not talking about their religious beliefs or governing structure, and what you think the correlation is, I'm talking about actions, for we can't persecute people on their perceived thoughts and intentions.
No, but you seem to be suggesting that there are peaceful ways of doing so. If there are not peaceful ways of doing so then I would suggest that Iran's pronouncements are possibly less than peaceful? They are certainly not overly helpful..
They do not recognise the political wing as a terrorist organisation, but they do the military wing. It is the military wing that Iran provide so much in the way of weapons and training. There is also a fair amount of evidence linking Iran to supplying and training insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the fact that Iran itself admits to "funding liberation armies" in the middle east.
Again, the US already has nuclear weapons, there is little the world can do about that. What it can do is try and stop them being held by even more nations.
Human rights wise (the point of this thread if you recall) Iran is considerably worse than the US and the UK. Pop along to HRW or AI and see for yourself. While we are certainly far from perfect we are almost paragons compared to Iran. As a percentage of their population they even execute more people than China. They have appalling records on human rights.
I believe it is potentially unsafe for any nation to have nuclear weapons so I am pretty much opposed to any more getting them regardless of how stable they are. However I would suggest that nations run by a fundamentalist religious government that has many links with terrorism is not really a good choice for "stable countries that are unlikely to use nuclear weapons".
Do you think that more nations with nuclear weapons makes the world a safer or more dangerous place?
I would assume that nations that do possess Nuclear weapons (US, UK etc) imposing restrictions on other countries so they are unable to gain the political clout that comes with nukes, would make said nations pretty un co-operative and possibly giving way to more extremists and anti-western sentiment.
It plays both ways really.
After all, how will you stand up to the evil Westerners (politicaly) without Nuclear weapons? If you have oil, then we might just consider invading you for it.
It is a tricky situation. I say we hand out nukes on a merit system. You do enough in the name of FREEEDDOOOOM! human rights and general all around goodness, then you can have a few nukes to help keep the world in check
(This idea was pulled outta my behind within a few seconds so shoot it down all you want)
Last edited:
I'd love for America to stop interfering and just let the world stew in it's own ****. Have the entire world outside the USA run by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Mussolini, Kim Jong Il, Hirohito, Milosevic, Hussein, Pablo Escobar etc.
Was the child playing in the street, holding a mobile phone and stopped to point at the tank ?
What was the report given by the soldier ? Does anyone care about the other side of the story ?.
Doctor McNinja said:
Do you believe that Injecting a late term (i.e. 7, 8, 9 months old) foetus with formaldehyde to kill it whilst still inside the mother who is then forced to give birth to the dead baby is acceptable method of population control to you ?
Do you believe that it is acceptable for it to be done to people who have found themselves pregnant without an official license, who have one child already or are unmarried at the time of conception ?
Do you believe that it should be enforced violently especially if local government officials promotional prospects are at risk due to them not keeping below the target local birthrate ?
RB
Someone fails at detecting jokes.
...yeah I couldn't be arsed to phrase that in the form of a rhetorical question.
Someone fails to understand how people would be happy to joke about something like late term abortions. You believe the comment is a joke. Why ?
If you think the questions posed were rhetorical then you are mistaken. I fully expected a reply because some people have very different ideas on life and what is acceptable as shown by replies to this thread over the involvement in Iraq.
RB
Or the western media want to believe they threaten Israel.
Israel is a rogue state but for some bizarre reason the mainstream media seem oblivious to the fact.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Maybe you should become a military commander and tell them how to do it?
Much of the things which happened are regrettable but not as regrettable as the delusion of those who want to beleive it was all on purpose.
'Look, a civilian! Gun him down for the lulz'.
I think not.
How many civilians were killed in WW2?
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 449
THREAD FAIL
He said something like "Israel is corrupt, and needs a regime change" which the western media translated as "we will remove Israel from the map"
*EDIT*
This is what he actually said (when correctly translated and not taken out of context)
"the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"
- Joined
- 3 May 2004
- Posts
- 17,742
- Location
- Kapitalist Republik of Surrey
Having never heard of "Wikileaks" before last week, I will continue to assume that they are not a credible source, whatever they are posting is junk and I will continue to ignore whatever message it is that they are trying to get across. To me they are just another stupid website trying to be sensationalist and for some reason they have had way too much exposure as a result.