Time to kick Iran

[Oliver]

Many magazines and most tv shows, movies and videogames have their content rated in Australia.

There are three levels of adult content

MA material is not suitable for children under 15 and MA movies should only be shown to children under adult supervision. Swearing, some nudity, some simulated sex and some violence is allowed to be shown under the MA rating. MA shows can be shown on TV after 9PM.

R rated shows can have more nudity, more violence and more simulated sex. R rated movies can only be shown to people over the age of 18 but are shown on Pay TV. Movies like Pulp Fiction would get an R rating in Australia. Pay TV is allowed to show R rated shows any time of the day. R rated porn movies are allowed to be sold or rented in Australia. Unfortunately there is no R rating for videogames so some videogames are banned in Australia for being too violent. I believe something similar happened in Germany recently.

X rated movies contain realistic sex and are not allowed to be sold outside of Canberra (where they can also be shown on pay TV apparently). Until recently they were legal in the Northern Territory. They are openly sold in many adult shops in Australia and widely available by mail order (I believe). Usually the police will only prosecute the sale of these items as part of an investigation into other crimes (like drugs or child pornography).

Sexual violence is also illegal.

The government has made internet porn illegal for Australian websites (as far as I know) and prosecutes child pornography but I don't think they have the ability or desire to do anything about internet porn on overseas websites.

Public nudity is not as common on Australian beaches as on European beaches and you might get fined for taking your pants off at a popular beach but there are many private beaches where nudity is tolerated.

I doubt there are many Australian, German or American teenagers with pay tv or internet who would have trouble finding porn

Your rating system sounds pretty similar to the one in the US - even if it may be a little bit more laxer. But we also have such rating systems for Porn and Violence for audience below the age of 16 and 18. Also for Video Games.

I don't know if there are still bans for "extreme violent" Video Games since we also have the rating system for games. I have to look into this issue to see if there are still bans today - I can't remember the last time I heard about a ban.

Concerning Pornography on the Internet: We have strict rules concerning Pornographic Websites. They have to make sure that children don't have access. So most sites are pay-sites or censored in showing sexual acts. On the other Hand, Online-Sexshops aren't censored - so it's okay to show sex-toys and describe them without any illegality by doing so.

 

[Oliver]

Wow, the world without Zionism. Could we ever be so lucky. So that would mean no Jewish state right. What do you think it means? Because all it means to me is that Israel would embrace multiculturalism. You're not trying to imply that Ahmadinejad wants to begin some kind of Jewish eradication programs are you?

Did you talk to me? You should use the "Quote"-Button in your replies. Personally I don't think that Iran would be dumb enough to even try to start an "eradication program" or attack. In Pardalis Bogeyman-World however, this will happen tomorrow.

 

[gtc]

Access to videogames is slightly more restrictive in Germany than Australia. Games for the XBox 360 like Crackdown and Dead Rising are not sold in Germany as they have been refused a rating (I believe they could be sold but only under certain circumstances). These games are available in Australia

Of course, the importation of videogames in Germany or Australia is very easy.

 

[Oliver]

Access to videogames is slightly more restrictive in Germany than Australia. Games for the XBox 360 like Crackdown and Dead Rising are not sold in Germany as they have been refused a rating (I believe they could be sold but only under certain circumstances). These games are available in Australia

Of course, the importation of videogames in Germany or Australia is very easy.

From what I remember, there never was a real ban on video-games. You just weren't allowed to name and advertise them in the media or your shop. But you were always able to buy them legally "under the counter".

 

[gtc]

Oliver,

Have you read the interview with the President of Iran? Will you read it when you get time?

Your interpretation of the German rules on videogames seems correct from wikipedia.

This means that access to videogames is more restricted in Australia according to theory, but in practice more games seem to be available in Australia than in Germany (we are also less restrictive about the use of swastikas in games). Of course, we could both import most games into Australia or Germany.

 

[Oliver]

Oliver,

Have you read the interview with the President of Iran? Will you read it when you get time?

I've read parts of it and believe, it's not amusing at all.
But he's no threat - that's the difference. So it doesn't really matter what he says or thinks - he has absolutely no chance against the powerful west, even with a nuclear bomb. And he knows that - that's my point here.

 

[Oliver]

This means that access to videogames is more restricted in Australia according to theory, but in practice more games seem to be available in Australia than in Germany (we are also less restrictive about the use of swastikas in games). Of course, we could both import most games into Australia or Germany.

A swastika would be a general problem over here because the Laws we have - but the simple solution is to replace the bitmaps with another logo in a game. That's the way I remember it in "Castle Wolfenstein" - but I don't remember if there was a prohibition against advertisements and selling it openly.

 

[gtc]

I think you underestimate his danger and I think you over-estimate the US and Israel's desire to attack Iran.

As an example, Iran was selling the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Frankfurt in 2005. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1129540607434

Iran seems to be deliberately undermining German policies about the Holocaust and Nazism.

I think Schneibster was disappointed that you didn't come right out and say what you thought about the President of Iran's rhetoric. He feels very strongly about that sort of rhetoric.

I think Pardallis was disappointed for the same reason and also because of how you seem to think that Pardallis sees the President of Iran as some kind of bogeyman.

 

[Oliver]

I think you underestimate his danger and I think you over-estimate the US and Israel's desire to attack Iran.

As an example, Iran was selling the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Frankfurt in 2005. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1129540607434

Iran seems to be deliberately undermining German policies about the Holocaust and Nazism.

I think Schneibster was disappointed that you didn't come right out and say what you thought about the President of Iran's rhetoric. He feels very strongly about that sort of rhetoric.

I think Pardallis was disappointed for the same reason and also because of how you seem to think that Pardallis sees the President of Iran as some kind of bogeyman.

Well, he posted a Bogeyman Picture - of course that makes me think he's scared of him. And concerning Schneibster, what should I tell him about Ahmadinejad rhetoric. It's as nutty as every extremists thoughts. If he starts to invade foreign countries in some kind of "War on Terror" with the assistance of God, in which case he doesn't have a chance anyway, I would be a little bit more concerned.

If the US has to play Nanny, they also should take away the nuclear weapons of Israel to have an argument against Iran. Otherwise they're risking their own security because this would be no fair solution.

And the reason for that is simple:

Iran is a smaller threat to Israel - from Israel's Point of View, than
Israel is a nuclear threat to Iran - from Iran's Point of View.

Think neutral - Am I wrong?

Concerning "undermining Germany": He's no friend of us - and especially not in terms of his ideas.

 

[gtc]

Oliver,

I understand your point of view but I think you have some things wrong.

Firstly, Israel is a very small country. One or two nuclear bombs would cause much more destruction to Israel than to Iran, given that Iran has more space to spread out its leadership, population and military.

Secondly, Israel would find it very hard to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities without the assistance of the US. Of course, this also applies to Iran.

Thirdly, Iran is already supplying material to various Lebanese and Palestinians militants for use against Israel.

Fourthly, Israel has never shown any desire to harm Iran. Iran chose to supply material to the various militant groups to use against Israel and the Iranian leadership chose to whip up hatred of Israel. If Iran stopped these actions, Israel and Israelis wouldn't really care about Iran anymore than Germans care.

Fifthly, the current Iranian leadership seems to be willing to risk Iranian lives for religous purposes:

On the last day when I was speaking before the assembly, one of our group told me that when I started to say "In the name of God the almighty and merciful," he saw a light around me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself.
I felt the atmosphere suddenly change, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't bat an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating because I was looking at them. And they were rapt.
It seemed as if a hand was holding them there and had opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic republic

The question is how much of this is rhetoric to bolster his standing and whether the religious or other political leaders would let him risk Iranian lives for religous purposes.

Iran is a smaller threat to Israel - from Israel's Point of View, than
Israel is a nuclear threat to Iran - from Iran's Point of View.

Think neutral - Am I wrong?

My problem with this statement is that you grant equal validity to Israel's point of view and Iran's point of view. Is Iran's point of view really rational?

 

[Oliver]

Oliver,

I understand your point of view but I think you have some things wrong.

Firstly, Israel is a very small country. One or two nuclear bombs would cause much more destruction to Israel than to Iran, given that Iran has more space to spread out its leadership, population and military.

Secondly, Israel would find it very hard to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities without the assistance of the US. Of course, this also applies to Iran.

Thirdly, Iran is already supplying material to various Lebanese and Palestinians militants for use against Israel.

Fourthly, Israel has never shown any desire to harm Iran. Iran chose to supply material to the various militant groups to use against Israel and the Iranian leadership chose to whip up hatred of Israel. If Iran stopped these actions, Israel and Israelis wouldn't really care about Iran anymore than Germans care.

Fifthly, the current Iranian leadership seems to be willing to risk Iranian lives for religous purposes:

The question is how much of this is rhetoric to bolster his standing and whether the religious or other political leaders would let him risk Iranian lives for religous purposes.

My problem with this statement is that you grant equal validity to Israel's point of view and Iran's point of view. Is Iran's point of view really rational?

Concerning Nuclear Bombs: The US shouldn't have provided them to Israel in the first place because the Muslim countries see this as a threat. What the hell was the stupid reason to provide these bombs to Israel anyway? In what a stupid world do I live?

Israel is a small country compared to Iran.
Iran is a small country compared to America.
Iran knows that they have no chance whatever they do.
Since Israel has his nuclear Bombs, the US should stop annoying the Muslim countries anymore by playing the Nanny any further because "there is no light at the end of the tunnel", don't you see that, too?

Why should Israel "take out Iran's nuclear capabilities" at all? After all, Iran is a sovereign state. And I fully understand that people don't like this fact: Iran is a sovereign country. This has nothing to do with rationality.

If the US has to play the worlds manager, it should rather play the mayor than the LAPD* (*Pun intended).

Well, if God told Bush he has to go to war, then he does not only risk American lives - he sends them straightway to their death ... "for religious purposes".

Is Americas preemtive war rational? You make the failure that you prefer to see the world from western point of view - but I tell you how I see it, maybe you understand:

Take some time and Imagine:

Let's say that Iran is the current Worlds Superpower and you are skeptical about the fact that "radical Muslims" control the World. Now imagine someone from the western world attacks the Superpower Iran.

You feel scared because as you know from Irans foreign policies in the past, there will be some kind of revenge against your western world.

But instead finding the responsible persons, Superpower Iran suddenly attacks a sovereign country that had nothing to do with the attack.

So like your fellow compatriots, you are even more scared:

"Do they hate the Western World now because the Perpetrators where western people, too?"

"What if they attack us next after they already attacked that sovereign country?"

"Shouldn't we also have nuclear weapons to defend ourself?"

"They gave nuclear weapons to our enemies but we're not allowed to have them".

"Who will protect us against the nuclear Superpower Iran?"

"Who will stop them if they invade my country, too?"

See? The world looks very different if you watch through the eyes of the other side, doesn't it?

Pardalis, as he pointed out in this thread, is a perfect example for the "My world is right and you're World is wrong-Fallacy".

Maybe you understand what I mean - because that's the root of all conflicts in the world - since tens of thousands of years. I really would love to see that humans grow up some day.

 

[Spins]

Concerning Nuclear Bombs: The US shouldn't have provided them to Israel in the first place because the Muslim countries see this as a threat. What the hell was the stupid reason to provide these bombs to Israel anyway? In what a stupid world do I live?

As far as I'm aware this is incorrect, the nuclear facility at Dimona was built with the help of the French, and the Norwegians who supplied 20 tonnes of heavy water needed for the reactor. Once adequate supplies of fissile material had been produced by the reactor Israel completed the weapons development on their own, although it's possible there was some sort of research exchange with the South Africans in the 70s.

In fact when the US found out about the real purpose of the facility at Dimona in the early 60s they demanded that Israel agree to international inspections, just as they are doing with Iran and North Korea. Doesn't this point to the fact that the US are against nuclear proliferation whoever it may be?

If you have any sources available that show the US supplied Israel with nuclear weapons technology I'd sure like to see it. If not I'm intrigued why you would come out with such a statement, doesn't it go some way to prove you are a rabid anti-American, who likes to blame them for everything, which maybe clouding your judgment.

 

[Spins]

Oh BTW, IMO anyone who thinks the US is going to Invade Iran anytime soon is about as insane as Alex Jones!

 

[Giz]

See? The world looks very different if you watch through the eyes of the other side, doesn't it?

Pardalis, as he pointed out in this thread, is a perfect example for the "My world is right and you're World is wrong-Fallacy".

Maybe you understand what I mean - because that's the root of all conflicts in the world - since tens of thousands of years. I really would love to see that humans grow up some day.

So, these situations are basically the same and the morality just depends on which point of view you look at it from:

1) President of Iran makes comments about wanting to see Israel wiped of the map. Sponsers anti-semetic and holocaust denial conferences/matireals. Seeks to acquire nuclear weapons which would allow him to turn threats into reality.

2) Israel could nuke Iran. Heavily. Does not. Would not. No one thinks it would (save PERHAPS in retaliation). Has never threatened any state with being "wiped off the map". Has been the target of numerous attempted genocides (both the Shoah and the wars against Israel I think count here).

I suppose that if the viewpoint you are looking from is "I have a real problem with jews" then they could be seen as identical...

 

[Oliver]

So, these situations are basically the same and the morality just depends on which point of view you look at it from:

1) President of Iran makes comments about wanting to see Israel wiped of the map. Sponsers anti-semetic and holocaust denial conferences/matireals. Seeks to acquire nuclear weapons which would allow him to turn threats into reality.

2) Israel could nuke Iran. Heavily. Does not. Would not. No one thinks it would (save PERHAPS in retaliation). Has never threatened any state with being "wiped off the map". Has been the target of numerous attempted genocides (both the Shoah and the wars against Israel I think count here).

I suppose that if the viewpoint you are looking from is "I have a real problem with jews" then they could be seen as identical...

It's much more simple:

1. Iran has no nuclear Weapons
2. Israel has nuclear Weapons

No matter what anybody said. Iran is no threat.

 

[Giz]

It's much more simple:

1. Iran has no nuclear Weapons
2. Israel has nuclear Weapons

No matter what anybody said. Iran is no threat.

So there are no potential threats in your world?

So until they get them and are an actual threat, they cant be seen as worrying, troubling, potentially threatening, only a few years away from a "final solution" to the MidEast peace problem?

(And you accuse others of having blinkers on!)

 

[Oliver]

As far as I'm aware this is incorrect, the nuclear facility at Dimona was built with the help of the French, and the Norwegians who supplied 20 tonnes of heavy water needed for the reactor. Once adequate supplies of fissile material had been produced by the reactor Israel completed the weapons development on their own, although it's possible there was some sort of research exchange with the South Africans in the 70s.

In fact when the US found out about the real purpose of the facility at Dimona in the early 60s they demanded that Israel agree to international inspections, just as they are doing with Iran and North Korea. Doesn't this point to the fact that the US are against nuclear proliferation whoever it may be?

If you have any sources available that show the US supplied Israel with nuclear weapons technology I'd sure like to see it. If not I'm intrigued why you would come out with such a statement, doesn't it go some way to prove you are a rabid anti-American, who likes to blame them for everything, which maybe clouding your judgment.

Here you go: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB189/

Oh BTW, IMO anyone who thinks the US is going to Invade Iran anytime soon is about as insane as Alex Jones!

I also don't believe it - even if it wouldn't surprise me either.

 

[Oliver]

So there are no potential threats in your world?

So until they get them and are an actual threat, they cant be seen as worrying, troubling, potentially threatening, only a few years away from a "final solution" to the MidEast peace problem?

(And you accuse others of having blinkers on!)

Oh, that's interesting. Please feel free to paint your final solution horror-scenario. What does it look like?

And of course: There are potential threats all over the world if you look hard enough. And no, Iran isn't one of them. Personally I believe that a wrong decision in one of the western worlds foreign policies poses the most probable threat. You know, things like invading sovereign countries for dubious reasons, for example.

You think differently about that? If so, why?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Oh BTW, IMO anyone who thinks the US is going to Invade Iran anytime soon is about as insane as Alex Jones!

You might want to check out poster "BeAChooser" and have a few jousts. He's rabidly encouraging an attack, air strike, on Iran.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

In direct comparison? Mhmm, not really:

[qimg]http://www.250kb.de/u/070717/j/fad47f26.jpg[/qimg]
Hotlinking allowed, supported and provided by Imagehoster: www.250kb.de

One guy is wearing a tie.

One guy has a beard.

Notice anything else in the pictures?

DR