• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Time to kick Iran

Pardalis said:
Yes, Ronald Reagan is a bigger threat than Ahmadinejad... :rolleyes:

I'm talking about >today< Oliver.

You first.

Answer my question.
Click to expand...


No, selfish US foreign policies are the worlds biggest threat.
Which Question? :confused:
 
Oliver said:
US Intervention.
Click to expand...
Red Herring, and an attempt to move goal posts. President Bush is not responsible for anything other than President Bush's record, and good and bad policy choices. Mahmoud is responsible for his words and policies.

The topic at hand, based on the pictures that raise the question, in this derail, is the two men, Bush and Mahmoud, and you reach for "The US is Teh Suxor Evil Empire !!!11111eleventyone11" card, when the core question is

What does a world free of Zionism mean to you, Oliver?

You were deliberately obtuse the first time the question was asked.

I ask you, again, what does that mean to you?

A World Free of Zionism.

You have not satisfactorily answered that, beyond a patent absurdity.
A "World without Zionism" means a World in which the Zionists Movement died because Israel is finally accepted globally, including the acceptance from their Neighbors
Click to expand...
I will point out to you that the Zionist movement is who created Israel. Without it, no Israel.

Now, would you care to try again?

Do you honestly believe that is what Mahmoud means?

Israel is finally accepted globally, including the acceptance from their Neighbors

Mahmoud supports the Pals. At the time of his Spiegel interview, Hamas was growing in the Pal government, and Hamas has a policy that Israel has no right to exist. Still. How does that fit with your idiotic statement above? Mahmoud claims Israel need not fear him, yet he contradicts himself. Spiegel's interviewer tried to catch him at it, but Mahmoud was wily enough to bridge and switch to avoid being pinned down.

DR
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Try to focus Oliver, we were talking about Ahmadinejad's speech in 2005.

Do you find the statements of the head of the state of Iran to be threatening?
Click to expand...


In context to his military history and world politics? No. Absolutely not.

Now please answer my question, too - Do you agree with that? :

One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that "people like us" could not commit atrocities against civilians.
  • German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered millions of people.
  • British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.
  • Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
  • Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians and Lebanese.
  • Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S. and Israeli civilians.
  • U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.
Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent. The attacks of September 11 were not only a test for U.S. citizens attitudes' toward minority ethnic/racial groups in their own country, but a test for our relationship with the rest of the world. We must begin not by lashing out at civilians in Muslim countries, but by taking responsibility for our own history and our own actions, and how they have fed the cycle of violence.

Source: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/gros...rventions.html
Click to expand...
 
Pardalis said:
:rolleyes:

Yes, and it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Goodbye Oliver.
Click to expand...


Good bye, Goury.
shake.gif




:rolleyes:
 
Pardalis said:
Read the whole freaking text Oliver, it's quite clear what he meant.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4164
Click to expand...


So what? Let me guess:

After he has his Nuclear Reactor, he will produce a nuclear weapon and once he got one -and he never thinks about consequences anyway- he will immediately throw it on Shimon Peres's Head, right? :rolleyes:

Oh wait, you never said that and therefore it's a Strawman. :rolleyes:

So what is your horror scenario? :rolleyes:
 
Pardalis said:
Yes, and it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Click to expand...


Uhm, no. Actually this is exactly what peoples "My world is better than yours"-fallacy is about - and leads to 99% of all conflicts in the world, including the ones with Iran.

You can't agree with that and behaving exactly this way at the same time. :boggled:
 
Oliver said:
So what? Let me guess:

After he has his Nuclear Reactor, he will produce a nuclear weapon and once he got one -and he never thinks about consequences anyway- he will immediately throw it on Shimon Peres's Head, right? :rolleyes:

Oh wait, you never said that and therefore it's a Strawman. :rolleyes:

So what is your horror scenario? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And your "bipartisan dictatorship" theory makes perfect sense to you right? :rolleyes:

btw, too many smilies makes you look gay.

Oliver said:
Uhm, no. Actually this is exactly what peoples "My world is better than yours"-fallacy is about - and leads to 99% of all conflicts in the world, including the ones with Iran.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Mahmoud.
 
Oliver said:
One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that "people like us" could not commit atrocities against civilians.
German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered millions of people.
British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.
Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians and Lebanese.
Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S. and Israeli civilians.
U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.
Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent. The attacks of September 11 were not only a test for U.S. citizens attitudes' toward minority ethnic/racial groups in their own country, but a test for our relationship with the rest of the world. We must begin not by lashing out at civilians in Muslim countries, but by taking responsibility for our own history and our own actions, and how they have fed the cycle of violence.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear - do you support this view that the western democracies (US, Israel, UK, France) have been responsible for the same kind of extreme atrocities as the totalitarian regimes of Germany, Japan, and USSR/Russia?

I would say that atrocities by the democracies have been far more minor and localized than those by the dictatorships and the reason is not ethnicity (as correctly pointed out in the article) but rather a cultural one derived from institutions such as a free press, a government that will have to face free elections etc.

Note that this implies that Theocratic Iran is more likely, due to being an unfree state, to commit atrocities than a liberal democracy would (if placed in a similar situation). Which means perhaps we/you should be concerned about Ahmonajihad, nien?
 
Oliver said:
It is no theory: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63611
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a theory, your theory, and it's a stupid one.

Quoting yourself, especially yourself, doesn't make it true.

And I will tell it to Mahmoud once he poses a real threat besides his stupid rants.
Click to expand...
He is a threat because these aren't random and harmless rants.

Could answer Darth's question? What do you think "A World without Zionism" means, really?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2776921&postcount=104
 
Oliver said:
After he has his Nuclear Reactor, he will produce a nuclear weapon and once he got one -and he never thinks about consequences anyway- he will immediately throw it on Shimon Peres's Head, right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That is one possibility and it is a worrying possibility given:
  1. His statements about Israel, zionism and the Holocaust;
  2. His support of Hezbollah and Hamas; and
  3. His apparently apocalyptic religious beliefs.

There is no clear indication that he values the wellbeing of his people (and the arabs who would die in the event of an attack on Israel) above his apocalyptic beliefs and his desire to rid the world of zionism.

On the other hand, he doesn't control all the power in Iran and there are (hopefully) people in Iran who do value the wellbeing of the Iranian people.

It seems more likely that Iran would use the threat of its nuclear weapons to improve its position in its various disputes and interventions against the Kurdish community, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Central Asia, the rest of the Arab Middle East, Lebanon and Israel.

There is also the risk that it will share its nuclear technology with countries like North Korea or even (and this seems a long way off) with terrorist groups.

There is also the risk that a nuclear armed Iran could spark an arms race which could include (directly) Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel and (indirectly) Egypt, India and China.

The risk of any or all of this events occurring may not be great but these are the issues that I believe are concerning the international community.
 
Oliver said:
And I will tell it to Mahmoud once he poses a real threat besides his stupid rants.
Click to expand...

But he does pose a real threat to Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Kurds (at least).

Firstly, we have explained his connections to Hezbollah and Hamas.

Secondly, I have shown you the hate filled material Iran openly sells in Germany. You know that there is a reason why that material was made illegal in Germany, you know where that sort of rhetoric leads.

Unless you can accept that he does pose a real threat, I am not sure that there is much anyone can say to you.
 
Giz said:
Just to be clear - do you support this view that the western democracies (US, Israel, UK, France) have been responsible for the same kind of extreme atrocities as the totalitarian regimes of Germany, Japan, and USSR/Russia?

I would say that atrocities by the democracies have been far more minor and localized than those by the dictatorships and the reason is not ethnicity (as correctly pointed out in the article) but rather a cultural one derived from institutions such as a free press, a government that will have to face free elections etc.

Note that this implies that Theocratic Iran is more likely, due to being an unfree state, to commit atrocities than a liberal democracy would (if placed in a similar situation). Which means perhaps we/you should be concerned about Ahmonajihad, nien?
Click to expand...


Well, first of all - and according to the people in here - the US is no democracy:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/tags/index.php/democracy/

Secondly, if you sum up all millions of people who died as a result of foreign policies, the US is the leading country since WW2 - not some Dictator State in the Middle-East. Of course, this is absolutely fine for hypocrites.

Now todays theocracy in Iran isn't a military aggressor in comparison to Israels military policies, for example. Iran also isn't infamous for it's aggressive foreign policies. (Ahmonajihad's speech isn't foreign politics - it was a speech - which may be a foreign policy in the future if we, the west, are poking into the bee-hive long enough - as we did over and over again in the past.)

You may like to read this paragraph to understand todays Iran and what led to their opinion about imperialistic oppressors and Israel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Iranian_Revolution_and_Iran-Iraq_War_.281979_.E2.80.93_1988.29

Maybe you also like to watch the documentary at the beginning of this thread to see todays Iran from inside and in a way you rarely see in the Media, especially in the US. (The patriotic Media in the US blindly adopts the Image the Government has about a State or Person (Castro, Saddam, Khrushchev etc...)).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom