• 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

jsiv said:
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.

At the risk of violating Judge Judy's copyright, "If ..." is not an answer.
Why won't you answer? Why do you keep sidestepping?

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?

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.
Click to expand...


A. Yes, Iran never started a War against Israel.
B. They "might" is no answer at all. They "might" as well pulling Elvis out of their asses.
C. It would be in Israels interest to give up the occupied land and
Nuclear Weapons to have ANY POINT AT ALL!
 
Oliver said:
A. Yes, Iran never started a War against Israel.
Click to expand...

Since Hezbollah is essentially an Iranian proxy, and Hezbollah started the recent war in southern Lebanon, Iran does indeed seem to have started a war against Israel.

B. They "might" is no answer at all. They "might" as well pulling Elvis out of their asses.
Click to expand...

We do not have the opportunity to live in a world full of only certainties. There are many times when we must make choices based on possibilities and probabilities. Inaction is a choice too, and it is by no means the automatically preferable default choice. That's life, Oliver. Grow up and get used to it.

C. It would be in Israels interest to give up the occupied land and
Nuclear Weapons to have ANY POINT AT ALL!
Click to expand...

You are no longer even coherent, so I cannot respond to whatever idea you are trying to express here.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Since Hezbollah is essentially an Iranian proxy, and Hezbollah started the recent war in southern Lebanon, Iran does indeed seem to have started a war against Israel.
Click to expand...


Hezbollah, Hezbollah, Hezbollah...

So Hezbollah is able to undermine Israel's nuclear power? ... BS!
Stop whining and stick to the facts:

1110746f6db53e8e86.jpg
 
I don't think your A/B/C reply made any sense.

Also, are you saying that Israel should drop a nuke on Hizballah the next time they attack? Interesting. I didn't think you were that extreme.
 
Oliver said:
Hezbollah, Hezbollah, Hezbollah...

So Hezbollah is able to undermine Israel's nuclear power? ... BS!
Click to expand...

Did I say that? No, I did not. I said Iran started a war with Israel, using Hezbollah as a proxy. The fact that this war did not pose an existential threat to Israel doesn't mean it wasn't still a war, and that Israelis weren't still killed by it.

Stop whining and stick to the facts:
Click to expand...

That's pretty funny coming from you, Oliver. I presented a fact, and all you can respond with is a strawman, and repetition of what I can only presume you think is a humorous montage charicaturing various people. How, exactly, does that constitute sticking to the facts? It's childish mockery, and tedious at that. If you're going to try playing the commedian, at least get some new material ocassionally.
 
jsiv said:
I don't think your A/B/C reply made any sense.

Also, are you saying that Israel should drop a nuke on Hizballah the next time they attack? Interesting. I didn't think you were that extreme.
Click to expand...


No. I think Israel should start to show that they want peace,
get out of the occupied lands and help to establish a Palestine
government.

That would be a good start to undermine Extremists Opinions.
But hey, aren't there similar religious Nutjobs in Israel as well? :rolleyes:
 
Oliver said:
No. I think Israel should start to show that they want peace, get out of the occupied lands and help to establish a Palestine government.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that Israel should ignore the attacks, which brings me back to one of my earlier questions.

Where does one draw the line? When is enough, enough? Is there a point where retaliation would no longer be unprovoked? Is there a point where a preemptive strike to prevent a disaster in the future could be considered justifiable?

Please think about it instead of giving a knee-jerk response.
 
Oliver said:
That would be a good start to undermine Extremists Opinions.
Click to expand...

If you're doing something, and it seems to be working why on earth would that make you stop doing it? Because that is exactly what you're claiming will happen: you're claiming that giving extremists what they want because they're acting in a certain way, you hope to get them to stop acting that way. But people don't work that way: if you reward behavior, you get more of it.
 
jsiv said:
So you're saying that Israel should ignore the attacks, which brings me back to one of my earlier questions.

Where does one draw the line? When is enough, enough? Is there a point where retaliation would no longer be unprovoked? Is there a point where a preemptive strike to prevent a disaster in the future could be considered justifiable?
Click to expand...


Yes, my opinion is that there should be peace in the ME, not
more war and accusations.

So if Israel is interested in peace, they should leave the occupied
land. Or to sum it up in this Atheist's words:


What's the problem with that - in your opinion? :confused:
 
It's cute that your video guy thinks "giving back" Jerusalem is going to bring peace to the middle east, but can't you understand that few of us are really interested in all your videos?

Discussion boards are designed for exchanging opinions, and that's all I'm asking for here.

Your opinion.

I want to hear your answer to my questions, not some random YouTube video.
 
jsiv said:
It's cute that your video guy thinks "giving back" Jerusalem is going to bring peace to the middle east, but can't you understand that few of us are really interested in all your videos?

Discussion boards are designed for exchanging opinions, and that's all I'm asking for here.

Your opinion.

I want to hear your answer to my questions, not some random YouTube video.
Click to expand...


Jesus ... what question do you have that I didn't addressed so far? :confused:
My main point still is - IRAN IS NO THREAT TO AMERICA - even if
some Idiots claim the opposite.

Would it bother you to answer my questions as well? :boggled:
 
Oliver said:
Jesus ... what question do you have that I didn't addressed so far? :confused:
Click to expand...


Here you go, since your scrollbar appears to be broken:

jsiv said:
Oliver said:
No. I think Israel should start to show that they want peace, get out of the occupied lands and help to establish a Palestine government.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that Israel should ignore the attacks, which brings me back to one of my earlier questions.

Where does one draw the line? When is enough, enough? Is there a point where retaliation would no longer be unprovoked? Is there a point where a preemptive strike to prevent a disaster in the future could be considered justifiable?

Please think about it instead of giving a knee-jerk response.
Click to expand...


Your answer was that you want "peace in the middle east" and a YouTube video of some random guy ranting. I don't know whose question you were answering, because it sure as hell wasn't mine.


Oliver said:
My main point still is - IRAN IS NO THREAT TO AMERICA - even if some Idiots claim the opposite.
Click to expand...


I've been talking about Iran and Israel, not America, all night, so why do you keep bringing this up?

What does it have to do with anything?

Why do you keep telling me this when I've never even claimed that Iran is a threat to the Continental US?

Why?


Jesus, I should be getting a medal or something for this.
 
jsiv said:
Here you go, since your scrollbar appears to be broken:

Your answer was that you want "peace in the middle east" and a YouTube video of some random guy ranting. I don't know whose question you were answering, because it sure as hell wasn't mine.

I've been talking about Iran and Israel, not America, all night, so why do you keep bringing this up?

What does it have to do with anything?

Why do you keep telling me this when I've never even claimed that Iran is a threat to the Continental US?

Why?


Jesus, I should be getting a medal or something for this.
Click to expand...



Let me put it in a empathic way for you:


I give a **** about Israel.
I give a **** about Iran.
I want peace. Period. No matter what you're whining about.
 
jsiv said:
So you're saying that Israel should ignore the attacks, which brings me back to one of my earlier questions.
...
Click to expand...
Israel deserves attacks in Israeli occupied territories.

Israel should retreat.
 
Oliver said:
I give a **** about Israel.
I give a **** about Iran.
I want peace. Period. No matter what you're whining about.
Click to expand...
You know Oliver has lost the argument when he suddenly doesn't give a **** about the things he has been passionately arguing himself into a corner over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom