Time to kick Iran

[Oliver]

Why can you not answer a simple hypothetical question and instead write all this? It will take 7-11 seconds of typing.

Again, 'Would you see no threat towards Gays after what Bush in a hypothetical sense said? '

Yes, I would. And why is Iran a threat to the US because of gays
while the Saudis are even worse????????

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Yes, I would. And why is Iran a threat to the US because of gays
while the Saudis are even worse????????

Ok, finally. You would find Bush saying 'They shout 'DEATH TO THE HOMOSEXUALS' a threat to homosexuals.

So therefore, all your protests about Iran not being a threat to Israel is null and void. We are getting somewhere.

 

[Oliver]

Where was "Teh Threat" when Hitler was building power in the mid-30's? I suppose you would have advocated nuclear power for the Nazis as well. After all they were following the "rules."

NOPE. There was no IAEA in place. And if they were invented
back then: If the Nazi's played to the rules and didn't block
IAEA-inspectors - yes, that would be playing to the rules as
well...

Because having tens of thousands of Nukes and several nuclear
Powerplants while whining about a third-world-country who is
playing to the rules to get a nuclear facility - is ridiculous...

 

[Oliver]

Ok, finally. You would find Bush saying 'They shout 'DEATH TO THE HOMOSEXUALS' a threat to homosexuals.

So therefore, all your protests about Iran not being a threat to Israel is null and void. We are getting somewhere.

Are you suggesting that all Israelis are gay???

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Hang on, there may be some misunderstanding here. Do you mean you would regard Bush's comments as a threat to the gays or you wouldn't?

 

[Oliver]

Hang on, there may be some misunderstanding here. Do you mean you would regard Bush's comments as a threat to the gays or you wouldn't?

Argh! ... listen carefully:

We are talking about a nuclear threat for the US coming from Iran.

What's the connection to gay people here????

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Argh! ... listen carefully:

We are talking about a nuclear threat for the US coming from Iran.

What's the connection to gay people here????

No, we are not talking about a nuclear threat from Iran for the US.

Regardless, Oliver, yes or no, would you find such comments from Bush a threat to Gays? If you answer, we can stop going round in these circles.

 

[danielk]

Are you suggesting that all Israelis are gay???

Oliver, are you really that dense? The hypothetical Bush-vs-gays example was an attempt to demonstrate the seriousness of Mr. Ahmadinejad's proclamations to you. The assumption was that it might be easier for you to understand if your much beloved president Bush is the evil one and somebody other than the Jews the victim.

However, Ahmadinejad didn't have his audience call for the death of gays, he had them call for the death of Israel.

Capisce?

 

[Oliver]

No, we are not talking about a nuclear threat from Iran for the US.

Regardless, Oliver, yes or no, would you find such comments from Bush a threat to Gays? If you answer, we can stop going round in these circles.

How often do I have to repeat myself?

Yes, I would take this seriously coming from someone who listens
to god to invade a foreign country that isn't a threat to kill hundred
thousands of innocent civilians....

What the **** is your point???????

That Ahmadinejad is a threat for gays in Israel and the US? Are you dumb?

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, are you really that dense? The hypothetical Bush-vs-gays example was an attempt to demonstrate the seriousness of Mr. Ahmadinejad's proclamations to you. The assumption was that it might be easier for you to understand if your much beloved president Bush is the evil one and somebody other than the Jews the victim.

However, Ahmadinejad didn't have his audience call for the death of gays, he had them call for the death of Israel.

Capisce?

So WHAT???

AHMADINEJAD ISN'T IN CONTROL OF THE NUCLEAR PLANT!

Ist das so schwer zu verstehen???

 

[Undesired Walrus]

How often do I have to repeat myself?

Only once it seems

Yes, I would take this seriously

What the **** is your point???????

Right. Ok, so, I think you would find everybody here on the same page (And I hope they will support me in this issue) that

1: If Bush said this, people on the JREF subforum for politics would be calling for Bush's impeachment for standing infront of hundreds and hundreds of people calling 'DEATH TO HOMOSEXUALS'

2: Even if Bush had never killed a single homosexual before with the use of his administration, we would all, on the JREF subforum for politics, be incredibly concerned about the safety of American gays.

3: We would condemn this man, agree with each other that he is a very, very dangerous man who needs to be put pressure on, and held to account by the international community.

4: And if you want to go down the God route, we would also be worried about him if he decided to turn America into a Christian Republic, and spoke on behalf of the Pope.

What the hell are you missing here Oliver? You see how we call you biased?

 

[danielk]

So WHAT???

I assume that means you got the gist of the point everyone tried to explain to you for the last two pages or so. Good.

AHMADINEJAD ISN'T IN CONTROL OF THE NUCLEAR PLANT!

Ist das so schwer zu verstehen???

OK, now we finally seem to have established that Ahmadinejad would indeed be a threat to Israel if he were in the possession of nuclear weapons. Do you now understand why some people would prefer to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons for this very reason?

 

[Oliver]

I assume that means you got the gist of the point everyone tried to explain to you for the last two pages or so. Good.

OK, now we finally seem to have established that Ahmadinejad would indeed be a threat to Israel if he were in the possession of nuclear weapons. Do you now understand why some people would prefer to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons for this very reason?

Yes, I understand the concerns.
I understand that the concerns are based on fears.
I understand that fears aren't any evidence.
I understand that a skeptic would be asking for evidence.
I understand that this is a skeptic board.
I understand that people in here don't care about evidence because fears.

What don't you understand? That we should care about fears
even more than caring about facts???


Fact is: Iran = No Threat. No Evidence for Nukes. No evidence for condemning IAEA.
What's the point besides Fear-WOO???

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I understand that fears aren't any evidence.

VERY REAL PRESIDENT OF IRAN: 'DEATH TO ISRAEL'

HYPOTHETICAL BUSH:'DEATH TO HOMOSEXUALS'

Yes, I would take this seriously

 

[Undesired Walrus]

OK, now we finally seem to have established that Ahmadinejad would indeed be a threat to Israel if he were in the possession of nuclear weapons.

It only took 45 pages.

 

[Oliver]

VERY REAL PRESIDENT OF IRAN: 'DEATH TO ISRAEL'

HYPOTHETICAL BUSH:'DEATH TO HOMOSEXUALS'

Oh - so you base your imaginary threat on someone who
isn't even in charge of the nuclear powerplant. And you
completely ignore that Iran chose to be a member of the
IAEA instead getting rid of the IAEA and their inspectors...

WOO MUCH?

Get back to reality. A world with inspectors and facts.
Otherwise you may drift down the "road of twoof..."

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Oh - so you base your imaginary threat on someone how
isn't even in charge of the nuclear powerplant. And you
completely ignore that Iran chose to be a member of the
IAEA instead getting rid of the IAEA and their inspectors...

*Clunk*, Oh...sorry... I'm starting to build up an Oliver frustrated shape hole here on my desk. Anyone here gone any deeper recently?

The problem is Oliver, you agreed that my hypothetical threat to American gays would be taken 'seriously' by yourself. You agreed that you would never agree with such action from him. You agreed that even if Bush had never killed a gay before you would still rebel against such reckless behaviour on his part.

Now, seeing how nuking his country is not in Bush's interests (See where I am going here?), would you perhaps be a little silly and... well... naive in suggesting there is (In your words) No Threat to US gays?

Compare this to not a hypothetical threat, but a very real one, going on now.

Now, feel like answering that?

 

[rocketdodger]

Would you have favored helping the Nazis get nuclear technology in 1930 if it were available, Oliver?

 

[Oliver]

*Clunk*, Oh...sorry... I'm starting to build up an Oliver frustrated shape hole here on my desk. Anyone here gone any deeper recently?

The problem is Oliver, you agreed that my hypothetical threat to American gays would be taken 'seriously' by yourself. You agreed that you would never agree with such action. You agreed that even if Bush had never killed a gay before you would still rebel against such reckless behaviour.

Now, seeing how nuking his country is not in Bush's interests (See where I am going here?), would you perhaps be a little silly and... well... naive in suggesting there is (In your words) No Threat to US gays?

Compare this to not a hypothetical threat, but a very real one, going on now.

Now, feel like answering that?

The only country in history who EVER dropped a nuclear bomb
on civilians .... is .... surprise, surprise ..... the US.

Yes, the same guys who are whining about a legal Powerplant
in Iran. Wow, what a hypocrisy, isn't it?

ANYWAY:

Your evidence that Iran is/or will start a nuclear weapons program
is WHAT? GAY-RIGHTS????

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Would you have favored helping the Nazis get nuclear technology in 1930 if it were available, Oliver?

Try not to allow him to drift off the main hypothesis here!