Time to kick Iran

[Darth Rotor]

It doesn't matter what he says, but whatever Bush says you criticize... Why the double standard?

Oliver does not speak Farsi.
By the way, Osama Bin Laden is not a lunatic. He is a very sane leader of a group of people whose aim is to use any means necessary to bring about a change. I'd not take his rhetoric any more seriously as an analysis of mental capacity than I'd take most political rhetoric. He pushes particular buttons for a reason: to elicit a particular response.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Thanks for not actually reading anything I wrote. There is no "woo," and there are infact several questions there.

"The problem though, Ellison, is where do you draw the line? "

Easy. Draw the line between facts and fiction.

"If you have indisputable evidence of this taking place, would striking back at Iran really be preemptive or unprovoked?"

If ... Welcome to a skeptics forum.

"What if Iran decides to increase their activities in the future, after they've obtained even more advanced weaponry, including nuclear warheads?"

If ...

"So their desire is to see Israel gone, dead, wiped from existence. This isn't even something they deny. In fact, Ahmadinejad continually reminds people of it. It's a stated goal of his. It's not a great secret."

See? Woo.
Unless, of course - you have evidence for any ongoing nuclear
warhead program. And to clear this up: You don't:

In July 2007 the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to allow inspectors to visit its Arak nuclear plant, and by August 2007 a plan for monitoring the Natanz uranium enrichment plant will have been finalised. [27]

In August 2007 the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to a plan to resolve key questions regarding its past nuclear activities. The IAEA described this as a "significant step forward". [28]

In September 2007 the IAEA announced it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use. While the IAEA has been unable to verify some "important aspects" regarding the nature and scope of Iran's nuclear work, the agency and Iranian officials agreed on a plan to resolve all outstanding issues, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.[29]


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#IAEA

Please stop spewing non-rational fear mongering, Jsiv.
It's a Skeptics Forum - not a Woo-Forum... Thanks.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Please stop spewing non-rational fear mongering, Jsiv.

Please stop channeling Shanek on a bad day, Oliver. Shouting on the internet is hardly necessary in this discussion.

jsiv disagreeing with you != fear mongering.

Since you have shown that you'll buy Mahmoud's line of BS, you are in danger of getting the woo sticker attached to your handle.

Not good.

DR

 

[Pardalis]

By the way, Osama Bin Laden is not a lunatic. He is a very sane leader of a group of people whose aim is to use any means necessary to bring about a change.

I know he's not insane, I tend to use "lunatic" to refer to people who have deluded themselves to this extent.

Like Alex Jones, I don't think he's insane, but he sure is a lunatic in my book.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I know he's not insane, I tend to use "lunatic" to refer to people who have deluded themselves to this extent.

Like Alex Jones, I don't think he's insane, but he sure is a lunatic in my book.

I'd use "charlatan" and "snake oil salesman" before I'd use lunatic, though moonbat does spring to mind.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Please stop channeling Shanek on a bad day, Oliver. Shouting on the internet is hardly necessary in this discussion.

jsiv disagreeing with you != fear mongering.

Since you have shown that you'll buy Mahmoud's line of BS, you are in danger of getting the woo sticker attached to your handle.

Not good.

DR

I believe as much in Mahmoud as I believe in republican fear-mongering.
But all of this doesn't matter.

Evidence, please.

 

[Pardalis]

Oliver, what do you think of this video?



See at about 04:30, the soldiers make formations which look like missiles, aiming at the star of David and the US.

I don't know when it was taken, but you can see Iran's top Ayatollah attending.

I know this is not evidence of anything, but don't you find it troublesome?

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, what do you think of this video?



See at about 04:30, the soldiers make formations which look like missiles, aiming at the star of David and the US.

I don't know when it was taken, but you can see Iran's top Ayatollah attending.

I know this is not evidence of anything, but don't you find it troublesome?

Quite frankly, Goury - to me it sounds like:

"Did you see that??? : http://www.rawcuisine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/bush-sign2.jpg

Bush is worshiping Satan!!!OMG!!!1!!ELEVEN!!!11!!!!1!!"

Your arguments are on the same level. And I apologize
for being the one who has to point this out for you.

There is no evidence for the Threat in your imagination. The
real threat is that the Al-Qaida's/Qutb's-Message is gaining speed
all over the Muslim world. That's the real threat. Not what Israel
wants to make us believe.

Where are your skeptical skills, Goury?
Don't you care about evidence anymore?

 

[Pardalis]

Link doesn't work

 

[Oliver]

Link doesn't work

Strange. It works for me.
Try this similar one: http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/-/a/bush_rockon.jpg

 

[Pardalis]

So Ayatollah Khamenei attends a military show which shows clearly missiles aiming and striking the star of David, and you equate this to some silly freeze frame of George Bush?

I see you don't want to have a serious conversation.

 

[Oliver]

So Ayatollah Khamenei attends a military show which shows clearly missiles aiming and striking the star of David, and you equate this to some silly freeze frame of George Bush?

I see you don't want to have a serious conversation.

No. I'm trying to get to a serious discussion. Not wooing all day long.

Fact is:

In July 2007 the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to allow inspectors to visit its Arak nuclear plant, and by August 2007 a plan for monitoring the Natanz uranium enrichment plant will have been finalised. [27]

In August 2007 the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to a plan to resolve key questions regarding its past nuclear activities. The IAEA described this as a "significant step forward". [28]

In September 2007 the IAEA announced it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use. While the IAEA has been unable to verify some "important aspects" regarding the nature and scope of Iran's nuclear work, the agency and Iranian officials agreed on a plan to resolve all outstanding issues, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.[29]


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_an...struction#IAEA

And Goury's counter-evidence is ....

 

[marksman]

A freeze frame of George Bush giving the traditional symbol for a football team, that other interpret as a Stanic symbol.

So, it appears Oliver's argument is that while the image of missiles aiming and striking the star of David is considered a direct threat to harm Israel to many of us,. in reality, this symbol has an innocent meaning which is.....

.....

um... Oliver, care to step in an explain what the non-threatening meaning of that image is?

 

[Pardalis]

And Goury's counter-evidence is ....

I've never said they had nuclear warheads, I'm just saying their rhetoric is worrisome.

 

[Oliver]

I've never said they had nuclear warheads, I'm just saying their rhetoric is worrisome.

Argh. So is the republican rhetoric.

But the difference is: Iran is talking about being open for diplomatics
while the republicans are War-Mongering.

So? What do you personally prefer: War-mongering or diplomatics?
And if you're for diplomatics, why are you siding with republican propaganda?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I believe as much in Mahmoud as I believe in republican fear-mongering.
But all of this doesn't matter.

Evidence, please.

You last 500 posts on the JREF forums.

Oliver is a practitioner of woo.

I rest my case.

DR

 

[Pardalis]

And if you're for diplomatics, why are you siding with republican propaganda?

Both sides are guilty of playing deaf.

 

[Oliver]

You last 500 posts on the JREF forums.

Oliver is a practitioner of woo.

I rest my case.

DR

Wrong.

There is no counter-evidence regarding this one:

In July 2007 the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to allow inspectors to visit its Arak nuclear plant, and by August 2007 a plan for monitoring the Natanz uranium enrichment plant will have been finalised. [27]

In August 2007 the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to a plan to resolve key questions regarding its past nuclear activities. The IAEA described this as a "significant step forward". [28]

In September 2007 the IAEA announced it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use. While the IAEA has been unable to verify some "important aspects" regarding the nature and scope of Iran's nuclear work, the agency and Iranian officials agreed on a plan to resolve all outstanding issues, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.[29]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_an...struction#IAEA

Everthing else is woo since the controversy is about Nuclear Weapons...

 

[Oliver]

Both sides are guilty of playing deaf.

To me it sounds like the republicans are even more deaf since
they have no problem with lies:






So what's your solution? And if I may ask - what's the real
threat-scenario in your mind?

 

[jsiv]

"The problem though, Ellison, is where do you draw the line? "

Easy. Draw the line between facts and fiction.

I don't get it. Are you saying Iran has never done anything intended to harm Israel? The question was how far you feel Iran would have to go before a country like Israel could be justified in fighting back.

"If you have indisputable evidence of this taking place, would striking back at Iran really be preemptive or unprovoked?"

If ... Welcome to a skeptics forum.

"What if Iran decides to increase their activities in the future, after they've obtained even more advanced weaponry, including nuclear warheads?"

If ...

At the risk of violating Judge Judy's copyright, "If ..." is not an answer.

Why won't you answer? Why do you keep sidestepping?

"So their desire is to see Israel gone, dead, wiped from existence. This isn't even something they deny. In fact, Ahmadinejad continually reminds people of it. It's a stated goal of his. It's not a great secret."

See? Woo.

Unless, of course - you have evidence for any ongoing nuclear
warhead program. And to clear this up: You don't:

Explain what's "woo" about it.

Also, this does not follow. Nowhere in the paragraph you quoted do I say anything about Iran currently having a nuke factory. Nor does it in any way imply that Iran is planning on ridding the world of Israel by nuking them. Infact, later in the post I gave my opinion on what tactic they prefer and why they might have an interest in developing nuclear weapons.

Since, sadly, everything seems to indicate that Iran is going to increase its efforts in the future rather than the opposite, it would be in Israel's best interest to destroy any nuclear weapons before they're ready to be used. Such a strike would hardly be unprovoked, as Iran have made their intentions very clear -- both through actions and rhetoric.

Otherwise, if things get completely out of hand in the future and Israel is left with no choice but to fight back against Iran, matters would be severely complicated by the presence of nuclear weapons. It would put them at a severe disadvantage.

Do you get what I'm saying?

Please stop spewing non-rational fear mongering, Jsiv.
It's a Skeptics Forum - not a Woo-Forum... Thanks.

I have no idea why you feel I'm "spewing non-rational fear mongering," I really don't. I'm simply trying to have a discussion.