Iran Threatens To Attack Tel Aviv...

[GostHacked]

Yeah...and the Illuminati did 9-11. I didn't realize you were one of those conspiracy theorists. We haven't had a good one since PolyNewbie. You have big shoes to fill. I'll be there to laugh at you at each turn.

-------------------------------------

To the German Commander: Nutz!!

---General Anthony McAuliffe, Bastogne, Dec. 1944

So I guess ABC news is one of those tinfoil hat wearing news sources. Even when it comes from the horses mouth you still deny it.

Hitler used the burning of the Riechstag to further his plan of Nazi Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

The most widely accepted theory of long standing, still reflected in the Encyclopedia Brittanica online today, is that the Nazis deliberately set the fire and falsely blamed their enemies in order to gain support for the Nazi movement.

DAMMMMIT ... I need more tinfoil, this hat is wayyyyyy to small.

edited to add the following

The Nazis tried a Dutch man for the fire.

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonis...43-d7323719d083

But they end up pardoning him for the crime.... 75 years after he was executed for the crime.

A Nazi court found Van der Lubbe guilty of arson and high treason and he was beheaded in 1934.

The verdict remains a source of controversy.

Some historians say the Dutchman admitted burning down the Reichstag alone in an attempt to rouse Germans to rise up against the Nazis.

Others believe he was made a scapegoat for a fire that the Nazis started themselves.

Edited July 17, 2008 by GostHacked

[DogOnPorch]

So I guess ABC news is one of those tinfoil hat wearing news sources. Even when it comes from the horses mouth you still deny it.

Hitler used the burning of the Riechstag to further his plan of Nazi Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

DAMMMMIT ... I need more tinfoil, this hat is wayyyyyy to small.

That's Reichstag. You cater to a number of logical fallacies: Appeal to Ignorance, Strawman, Excluded Middle, Non sequiter, Statistics of Small Numbers and Weasel Words. That's just off the top of my head. Give you a few more posts and you'll cover the rest. By the way...your television set is watching you. I'd keep an eye on that mail carrier as well...probably a government spy.

----------------------------

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

---Carl Sagan

[HisSelf]

A pity....lack of self respect can lead to low self esteem dontcha know?

In Geneva?

Painful for who? You? Don't make me laugh! Israel's only mistake was not to exterminate, dominate, "educate", and incarcerate just like Canada and the US of A. Nope, Israel is held to a much higher standard these days, eh? God Save the Queen, and all that jazz.

OK. Now I remember. So long.

[DogOnPorch]

OK. Now I remember. So long.

Such a drama queen. Why not "ignore" everyone then you can just agree with yourself.

--------------------------------------

Don't just do something, stand there.

---Clint Eastwood on acting

[GostHacked]

That's Reichstag. You cater to a number of logical fallacies: Appeal to Ignorance, Strawman, Excluded Middle, Non sequiter, Statistics of Small Numbers and Weasel Words. That's just off the top of my head. Give you a few more posts and you'll cover the rest. By the way...your television set is watching you. I'd keep an eye on that mail carrier as well...probably a government spy.

----------------------------

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

---Carl Sagan

Actually I am appealing to your own ignorance, because ignorance IS bliss.... right??

However, anyone can watch almost anyone. How many security cameras are you exposed to on a daily basis. Someone is always watching you. Our loss prevention team at work watches what goes on in our warehouse because there is theft and sometimes damage to the property/equipment. ect ect. We have this old lady in our apartment complex who seems to have nothing better to do but walk her dog and watch everyone. Saw her yesterday on my way out hanging around the corner of the hall listening to a couple that was having a fight inside their apartment. Now that is pretty crazy eh?

DAMMMM... I went to the grocery store today after work .... I could only fit about 12 boxes of tinfoil in my backpack. But that is ok, I only had enough money for 10. Someone must have stolen my money ,,,.... but who?

[DogOnPorch]

Saw her yesterday on my way out hanging around the corner of the hall listening to a couple that was having a fight inside their apartment. Now that is pretty crazy eh?

An agent for sure. Perhaps you should 'citizen arrest' her. You can never be too careful in these days of rampant crop circles and false flag operations. I'll be right behind you comarade!

---------------------------------------

I'm not supposed to get sauce in my eye!!!

---Lenny: The Simpsons

[White Doors]

Yeah...and the Illuminati did 9-11. I didn't realize you were one of those conspiracy theorists. We haven't had a good one since PolyNewbie. You have big shoes to fill. I'll be there to laugh at you at each turn.

-------------------------------------

To the German Commander: Nutz!!

---General Anthony McAuliffe, Bastogne, Dec. 1944

He is also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, albeit a shy and occasional one. lol

Maybe he is a casual conspirorist?

gothacked, the casual conspirorist.

I think I have the makings of a t-shirt here.

[White Doors]

Actually I am appealing to your own ignorance, because ignorance IS bliss.... right??

However, anyone can watch almost anyone. How many security cameras are you exposed to on a daily basis. Someone is always watching you. Our loss prevention team at work watches what goes on in our warehouse because there is theft and sometimes damage to the property/equipment. ect ect. We have this old lady in our apartment complex who seems to have nothing better to do but walk her dog and watch everyone. Saw her yesterday on my way out hanging around the corner of the hall listening to a couple that was having a fight inside their apartment. Now that is pretty crazy eh?

DAMMMM... I went to the grocery store today after work .... I could only fit about 12 boxes of tinfoil in my backpack. But that is ok, I only had enough money for 10. Someone must have stolen my money ,,,.... but who?

A poor, apartment-living conspiracy theorist.

Yep, that agrees with my stereotype.

Do you have bad acne too?

Is the acne from your 'environment' or do you think you inherited it?

[GostHacked]

He is also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, albeit a shy and occasional one. lol

Maybe he is a casual conspirorist?

gothacked, the casual conspirorist.

I think I have the makings of a t-shirt here.

You do, only if you spell my name correctly. I messed up my name when I made an account here on MLW. It should have read GhostHacked. Crap maybe I should just drop my account .... someone could.. no IS watching me. And I am not that poor, sure I have some debt left to pay off. My new apt is pretty nice actually. Lots of room for my insane crazy ass, and my cat.

A poor, apartment-living conspiracy theorist.

Yep, that agrees with my stereotype.

Do you have bad acne too?

Is the acne from your 'environment' or do you think you inherited it?

My skin is clear. Way past those teen acne days. And actually the air is kind of bad. I walk to work from the bus stop, and there are plenty of large trucks that drive by on this road, bieng an industrial area, the stench is pretty bad from the vehicles. Not to mention walking by sewer drains, you get that awfull crap smell.

Is there a way to spot weld tinfoil without ruining it?? I think I need a new tank for the torch. Almost done sealing up the apt wiht tinfoil as well.

[BC_chick]

Ghost, I see you are meeting the same fate as me, Buffy, Kuzadd, and many others who don't but rarely post here anymore.... after a while your opinions are no longer being discussed, but you yourself. For the right, character assassination seems to be a perfectly acceptable method for debating.

Remember the Kerry/Bush debates? I believe they usually went something along the lines of....

Kerry: Your policies in Iraq have devastated the economy and alienated us throughout the world.

Bush: Ya well, your wife has cankles and you peddle Ketchup.

{Cheers from the Bush supporters}

[Rue]

Uh: how about "power?" Dictatorial regimes the world over and since time immemorial have been characterized by their obsession with retaining their grip on power. Why would Iran be any different? they've spent more than 25 years cementing their power base and you think they'll just toss it aside in a nuclear fireball for shits and giggles?

Relevance? And link? 'cause here's what I have:

"the Arab League's envoy to Sudan on Tuesday described the indictment of the country's president on genocide and other charges as a serious blow to peace efforts in Darfur.

The Egyptian diplomat, Salah Halima, told reporters at his office in Cairo that the indictment filed by a prosecutor at the International Criminal Court on Monday will have a negative impact on the stability of a region already beset by internal and cross-border conflict."

One more time: where did I "poo poo" Iran's record on human rights? Quote it or drop it.

I'm very sorry basic reading comprehension is a struggle for you today. I shouldn't have to explain this, but questioning Iran's commitment to nuclear suicide and the wisdom of starting yet another war in the region is in no way, shape or form a defense of Iran's human rights track record or a denial of its crimes. Simple stuff.

Black Dog I have responded to your comments and again respond to them and since you appear to me to be having a selective problem as to what you stated hear let me refresh your memory:

Post 97;

“And what has Iran actually done in the past 25 years to indicate they are irrational actors? On what basis is the assumption being made that the Iranian regime will suddenly cast aside the obsession with self-preservation that has characterized its actions for the past decades in favour of nuclear suicide (the inevitable consequence of a nuclear strike against Israel)?”

Post 109;

“Never defended Iran or its record. I simply asked why people think the Iranian regime is suicidal. That has nothing to do with their treatment of gays, women or dissidents, its sponsorship of terrorism etc etc.”

Post 120;

“Do not confuse stupidity or incompetence with actual suicidal intent.”

Post 126;

“ I shouldn't have to explain this, but questioning Iran's commitment to nuclear suicide and the wisdom of starting yet another war in the region is in no way, shape or form a defense of Iran's human rights track record or a denial of its crimes. Simple stuff.”

What I have challenged and responded to and continue to challenge is your position that you feel Iran’s human rights record and treatment of its own people within its borders as well as its role as a major financial supporter, military advisor, and for that matter using its Iron Guard along side Hezbollah or to train terrorists is not relevant when asking whether it should be trusted with nuclear weapons and not to use them against Israel.

Of course you being an intelligence expert you also stated Iran has stopped engaging in the build up of its nuclear arsenal and of course you are in the position to say with full confidence that Iran is stupid and incompetent but not suicidal.

Again for the record, following your argument, supporting terrorism against Israel and other nations, being involved in a clear economic war with the West over oil, killing and torturing its seasons in the name of Allah not to mention being stupid and incompetent are all irrelevant considerations when considering whether it should be trusted with a nuclear arsenal. And you tell me to stop it?

At no time did I say you denied Iran has a human rights problem. What I am stating and state again and no you can’t back step your way out of it Black Dog-I am stating loud and clear, your attempt to deny all these issues associated with Iran and dismiss them as irrelevant is typical of your selectivity when it comes to arguing against the U.S. and Israel-you are the same person who will be quick to point out what Israel does wrong but not a peep from you about Iran.

That is why I challenge your credibility. Unlike say the other posters on this thread who typify the usual selectivity as to Israel and ignore any other country’s track record , you try to continue this act of being rational and neutral and poo pooing hysterical right wingers unfairly demonizing Iran.

My but imagine if you spent an equal amount of time applying that same benefit of the doubt to Israel or the U.S.

Like I will hold my breath. Love the Michael Jackson moves.

Stilly singing the Iran is sweet and innocen and rational song? Uh huh.

[Rue]

Ghost, I see you are meeting the same fate as me, Buffy, Kuzadd, and many others who don't but rarely post here anymore.... after a while your opinions are no longer being discussed, but you yourself. For the right, character assassination seems to be a perfectly acceptable method for debating.

Remember the Kerry/Bush debates? I believe they usually went something along the lines of....

Kerry: Your policies in Iraq have devastated the economy and alienated us throughout the world.

Bush: Ya well, your wife has cankles and you peddle Ketchup.

{Cheers from the Bush supporters}

I am sorry BC but the innocent victims of right wing posters shtik is getting in my craw. From my perspective I try not to get personal with posters and I admit I can slip sometimes like we all do. But what happens a lot BC Chick is that certain posters when they come on this forum engage in opining that is personal. It makes sweeping assumptions as to the motives of all Israelis and their right to exist and gets very personal but you not being an Israeli would not see that.

I am sorry BC but some of the words used when criticizing Israeli policy are highly personal and they are as inappropriate as me or anyone else doing it in reverse with Palestinians or Muslims but I see people like Norman Finklstein quoted as credible academics for smeering all holocaust survivors as being liars and using it to justify Israel's existence and its hard not to take it personally being part of that world of people who have survived it. It does get personal.

You are right though no none of us should insult one another but with due respect I see people dish out negative generalizations of an entire people but then when someone throws it back at them they run.

We all should try harder to keep these debates non personal yes.

I suppose you might see the tit for tat I and B-dog are having is personal. I don't think so. I just am enjoying sparring with him on Iran. He holds his own ground very well. I doubt anything I say will cause him to loose sleep or suddenly visit a delicatessen.

Stand your ground BC. I may not necessarily agree with you but I sure as hell respect you and your opinions nad if you think it gets too personal say so. Hold your ground girl. Your opinions are important to me and I am sure others.

Listen I have had some good clashes with Bush Chaney. But I clash because I like his honesty and bluntness. Just because I disagree with some of his opinions doesn't mean I would take what he says personally. In fact his bluntness in my humble opinion is easier to take then say someone like me who unlike him tries to be such a prig faced righteous sob. I like blunt libertarian republican conservatives although I am not one. You know where you stand with them. Its us liberals you should worry about. We are too smarmy.

Head up girl and spit it back.

Edited July 19, 2008 by Rue

[HisSelf]

A poor, apartment-living conspiracy theorist.

Yep, that agrees with my stereotype.

Do you have bad acne too?

Is the acne from your 'environment' or do you think you inherited it?

So one person one vote? Where are you with that?

Isn't democracy fun?

I know when I cast my vote I always think of people who say I have acne. Why wouldn't I? Do you have piles? I object to your vote on the ground that you have piles.

[HisSelf]

I am sorry BC but the innocent victims of right wing posters shtik ...

What the hell is a shtick?

[DogOnPorch]

Ghost, I see you are meeting the same fate as me, Buffy, Kuzadd, and many others who don't but rarely post here anymore.... after a while your opinions are no longer being discussed, but you yourself. For the right, character assassination seems to be a perfectly acceptable method for debating.

Remember the Kerry/Bush debates? I believe they usually went something along the lines of....

Kerry: Your policies in Iraq have devastated the economy and alienated us throughout the world.

Bush: Ya well, your wife has cankles and you peddle Ketchup.

{Cheers from the Bush supporters}

That's too bad. I enjoy opposite points of view. Yours, too. That's why I'm here. Buffy and kuzadd are special cases for me...old zionist slayers...lol. I'm surprised they've admitted defeat after all these years. Maybe they're all posting over at babble now where I won't be allowed to bother them. Well...I'd probably last a day...lol.

------------------------------

Is this your pen??

---Sam 'Ace' Rothstein: Casino

[Argus]

I love how all's fair in love and war till someone rams a couple of planes into a building. Then all of a sudden, it's all about fighting fair...

Wasn't the Geneva Convention a strong enough indicator for you that all is definitely NOT fair in war?

As for love, those who think all is fair in trying to seduce the opposite sex are generally not admired by anyone.

[M.Dancer]

What the hell is a shtick?

Why did you drop the Higgly name?

[BC_chick]

I am sorry BC but the innocent victims of right wing posters shtik is getting in my craw. From my perspective I try not to get personal with posters and I admit I can slip sometimes like we all do. But what happens a lot BC Chick is that certain posters when they come on this forum engage in opining that is personal. It makes sweeping assumptions as to the motives of all Israelis and their right to exist and gets very personal but you not being an Israeli would not see that.

I am sorry BC but some of the words used when criticizing Israeli policy are highly personal and they are as inappropriate as me or anyone else doing it in reverse with Palestinians or Muslims but I see people like Norman Finklstein quoted as credible academics for smeering all holocaust survivors as being liars and using it to justify Israel's existence and its hard not to take it personally being part of that world of people who have survived it. It does get personal.

You are right though no none of us should insult one another but with due respect I see people dish out negative generalizations of an entire people but then when someone throws it back at them they run.

We all should try harder to keep these debates non personal yes.

I suppose you might see the tit for tat I and B-dog are having is personal. I don't think so. I just am enjoying sparring with him on Iran. He holds his own ground very well. I doubt anything I say will cause him to loose sleep or suddenly visit a delicatessen.

Stand your ground BC. I may not necessarily agree with you but I sure as hell respect you and your opinions nad if you think it gets too personal say so. Hold your ground girl. Your opinions are important to me and I am sure others.

Listen I have had some good clashes with Bush Chaney. But I clash because I like his honesty and bluntness. Just because I disagree with some of his opinions doesn't mean I would take what he says personally. In fact his bluntness in my humble opinion is easier to take then say someone like me who unlike him tries to be such a prig faced righteous sob. I like blunt libertarian republican conservatives although I am not one. You know where you stand with them. Its us liberals you should worry about. We are too smarmy.

Head up girl and spit it back.

Thanks for that post Rue. But I beg to differ on something - there is mudslinging after making a point, and then there's making mudslinging your only point. The latter is what I am referring to which I find unacceptable (like the example I provided in the hypothetical Bush/Kerry scenario). Look what happened to Gost on this thread - in the end the only thing he was defending was his own character about a subject which has no place on this thread. This type of mudslinging happened to me so many times - where I was nothing but a socialist, pot-smoking, Muslim-loving, etc etc and my responses themselves weren't even being acknowledged, yet alone debated. That's not why I come here.... call me whatever you want, but do it only if you have something else to add to the topic as well.

You and I got heated a few times, and you used to be a little bit like that with the A-word (anti-semitic).... but you never made that your only argument. You always had PLENTY to say on top of that... did I mention it was plenty? No but seriously, you cannot think that your posts are anything like those to which I am referring.

You may think that's because Israel-Palestine aside, we agree on most other subjects. And even with the thorny issue of Israel, we seem to do okay.... I find your views to be the most objective of all the Israel-supporters. You don't try and claim the whole conflict is a result of some inherent defective Muslim gene, you don't try to paint all Israelis as innocent bystanders... you are pretty much aware of the realities facing the conflict. I like your views, and the one I disagree with I find is actually quite well-rounded. In the real world, I think you and I would actually get on quite well.

But to get back to where I was going with that... it's not finding mutual ground that determines a worthy debate partner in my eyes - it's substance. Look at Bush-cheney, s/he and I don't agree on anything at all, yet we debate all the time. That's because even BC doesn't make it a habit to ONLY throw mud as an argument.

Not to say some members of the left don't do the same thing at times. But two of the left's ideological beliefs are 1) seeing both sides of an argument and 2) showing tolerance for opposing views. Therefore, resorting to name-calling as the *only* means of debating seems to occur a lot more frequently amongst those who self-identify as the right, than their leftist counterparts.

And for the record, I cringe just as much when a lefty does the same thing.....

[Oleg Bach]

Thanks for that post Rue. But I beg to differ on something - there is mudslinging after making a point, and then there's making mudslinging your only point. The latter is what I am referring to which I find unacceptable (like the example I provided in the hypothetical Bush/Kerry scenario). Look what happened to Gost on this thread - in the end the only thing he was defending was his own character about a subject which has no place on this thread. This type of mudslinging happened to me so many times - where I was nothing but a socialist, pot-smoking, Muslim-loving, etc etc and my responses themselves weren't even being acknowledged, yet alone debated. That's not why I come here.... call me whatever you want, but do it only if you have something else to add to the topic as well.

You and I got heated a few times, and you used to be a little bit like that with the A-word (anti-semitic).... but you never made that your only argument. You always had PLENTY to say on top of that... did I mention it was plenty? No but seriously, you cannot think that your posts are anything like those to which I am referring.

You may think that's because Israel-Palestine aside, we agree on most other subjects. And even with the thorny issue of Israel, we seem to do okay.... I find your views to be the most objective of all the Israel-supporters. You don't try and claim the whole conflict is a result of some inherent defective Muslim gene, you don't try to paint all Israelis as innocent bystanders... you are pretty much aware of the realities facing the conflict. I like your views, and the one I disagree with I find is actually quite well-rounded. In the real world, I think you and I would actually get on quite well.

But to get back to where I was going with that... it's not finding mutual ground that determines a worthy debate partner in my eyes - it's substance. Look at Bush-cheney, s/he and I don't agree on anything at all, yet we debate all the time. That's because even BC doesn't make it a habit to ONLY throw mud as an argument.

Not to say some members of the left don't do the same thing at times. But two of the left's ideological beliefs are 1) seeing both sides of an argument and 2) showing tolerance for opposing views. Therefore, resorting to name-calling as the *only* means of debating seems to occur a lot more frequently amongst those who self-identify as the right, than their leftist counterparts.

And for the record, I cringe just as much when a lefty does the same thing.....

Who ever does what is right and good for society is a true right winger - who ever enforces sinisterism is a true left winger..judge them by the fruit they bare. Bush-cheney are left wingers..they lied and the lies caused death of thousands...I would say that these are lefties.

[GostHacked]

Ghost, I see you are meeting the same fate as me, Buffy, Kuzadd, and many others who don't but rarely post here anymore.... after a while your opinions are no longer being discussed, but you yourself. For the right, character assassination seems to be a perfectly acceptable method for debating.

Remember the Kerry/Bush debates? I believe they usually went something along the lines of....

Kerry: Your policies in Iraq have devastated the economy and alienated us throughout the world.

Bush: Ya well, your wife has cankles and you peddle Ketchup.

{Cheers from the Bush supporters}

I am not thrown off by these people, in fact it encourages me to post more. Ignoring them will not go away. And if they want to character assasinate me ... then they better figure out what my character is before trying to kill it.

Rue

That is why I challenge your credibility. Unlike say the other posters on this thread who typify the usual selectivity as to Israel and ignore any other country’s track record , you try to continue this act of being rational and neutral and poo pooing hysterical right wingers unfairly demonizing Iran.

Do not ignore Israel's track record if you are going down this path. Both Israel and Iran are looking out for #1, which is their own. That is reasonable. Both countries also want some type of protection, wether it be a military plus nuclear weapons, or asking another country for protection if they cannot do it on their own, but there will be a price to pay for the security. Israel and Iran have both made their decisions.

It is all in how you look at it. And also look how the modern mainstream media shapes your views. Israel is always seen in good light by western media. Iran has always been the bad boy from as far back as I can remember. I remember being 10 years old, cleaning my room and listening to the conflicts happening in the middle east. I always wondered why the hell that was always happening in that part of the world. I learned me some history. I did not like what I found.

Another think you all want to know about tinfoil. Shiney side out.

[Rue]

What the hell is a shtick?

Something a shmo, putz or shlameel would need to research to get the answer for.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Rue

[Rue]

Thanks for that post Rue. But I beg to differ on something - there is mudslinging after making a point, and then there's making mudslinging your only point. The latter is what I am referring to which I find unacceptable (like the example I provided in the hypothetical Bush/Kerry scenario). Look what happened to Gost on this thread - in the end the only thing he was defending was his own character about a subject which has no place on this thread. This type of mudslinging happened to me so many times - where I was nothing but a socialist, pot-smoking, Muslim-loving, etc etc and my responses themselves weren't even being acknowledged, yet alone debated. That's not why I come here.... call me whatever you want, but do it only if you have something else to add to the topic as well.

You and I got heated a few times, and you used to be a little bit like that with the A-word (anti-semitic).... but you never made that your only argument. You always had PLENTY to say on top of that... did I mention it was plenty? No but seriously, you cannot think that your posts are anything like those to which I am referring.

You may think that's because Israel-Palestine aside, we agree on most other subjects. And even with the thorny issue of Israel, we seem to do okay.... I find your views to be the most objective of all the Israel-supporters. You don't try and claim the whole conflict is a result of some inherent defective Muslim gene, you don't try to paint all Israelis as innocent bystanders... you are pretty much aware of the realities facing the conflict. I like your views, and the one I disagree with I find is actually quite well-rounded. In the real world, I think you and I would actually get on quite well.

But to get back to where I was going with that... it's not finding mutual ground that determines a worthy debate partner in my eyes - it's substance. Look at Bush-cheney, s/he and I don't agree on anything at all, yet we debate all the time. That's because even BC doesn't make it a habit to ONLY throw mud as an argument.

Not to say some members of the left don't do the same thing at times. But two of the left's ideological beliefs are 1) seeing both sides of an argument and 2) showing tolerance for opposing views. Therefore, resorting to name-calling as the *only* means of debating seems to occur a lot more frequently amongst those who self-identify as the right, than their leftist counterparts.

And for the record, I cringe just as much when a lefty does the same thing.....

Lol BC in the real world all men are no match for any woman. I figured that out when God told me she had problems with my attitude towards certain things, i.e., my belief the burning bush being was reference to either the aura of an impending epileptic seizure or from Moses getting to close to a spacecraft. I also have issues with Israel supposedly being a land of milk and honey. I think that was an exageration on her part.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Rue

[Black Dog]

RUE:

What I have challenged and responded to and continue to challenge is your position that you feel Iran’s human rights record and treatment of its own people within its borders as well as its role as a major financial supporter, military advisor, and for that matter using its Iron Guard along side Hezbollah or to train terrorists is not relevant when asking whether it should be trusted with nuclear weapons and not to use them against Israel.

Of course you being an intelligence expert you also stated Iran has stopped engaging in the build up of its nuclear arsenal and of course you are in the position to say with full confidence that Iran is stupid and incompetent but not suicidal.

Again for the record, following your argument, supporting terrorism against Israel and other nations, being involved in a clear economic war with the West over oil, killing and torturing its seasons in the name of Allah not to mention being stupid and incompetent are all irrelevant considerations when considering whether it should be trusted with a nuclear arsenal. And you tell me to stop it?

At no time did I say you denied Iran has a human rights problem. What I am stating and state again and no you can’t back step your way out of it Black Dog-I am stating loud and clear, your attempt to deny all these issues associated with Iran and dismiss them as irrelevant is typical of your selectivity when it comes to arguing against the U.S. and Israel-you are the same person who will be quick to point out what Israel does wrong but not a peep from you about Iran.

That is why I challenge your credibility. Unlike say the other posters on this thread who typify the usual selectivity as to Israel and ignore any other country’s track record , you try to continue this act of being rational and neutral and poo pooing hysterical right wingers unfairly demonizing Iran.

My but imagine if you spent an equal amount of time applying that same benefit of the doubt to Israel or the U.S.

Like I will hold my breath. Love the Michael Jackson moves.

Stilly singing the Iran is sweet and innocen and rational song? Uh huh.

What to make of this dog's breakfast? It seems the nut of it is here:

your attempt to deny all these issues associated with Iran and dismiss them as irrelevant is typical of your selectivity when it comes to arguing against the U.S. and Israel-you are the same person who will be quick to point out what Israel does wrong but not a peep from you about Iran.

If that's what this is about, then boo-fucking-hoo. The thing about Israel is that it's a self-styled democracy that behaves in ways most unbecoming of one. When it behaves badly, it should be called on it. On the other hand, regimes like Iran are self-evidently awful, so why waste breath or bandwidth stating the obvious? My expectations for Iran's behaviour are far lower than those for Israel and others professing to uphold democratic ideals. Sorry that chaps your ass. Would it make you feel better if I started trotting out rote condemnations?

As to this point:

Again for the record, following your argument, supporting terrorism against Israel and other nations, being involved in a clear economic war with the West over oil, killing and torturing its seasons in the name of Allah not to mention being stupid and incompetent are all irrelevant considerations when considering whether it should be trusted with a nuclear arsenal. And you tell me to stop it?

If you're going to throw a hissy over my stance, at least have the intellectual honesty to get it right.

My position vis. Iran and nukes is this:

1. Iran is not, according to the U.S.'s own intel service, developing these weapons.

2. If Iran decides to resume developing nuclear capability, the west should intervene.

3. However, intervention should stop short of military action based on the high probability that such action would excrebate the political situation without achieving the desired result.

Side point: Should Iran develop nuclear weapons, the probability that they would actually use them is very low.

[HisSelf]

Something a shmo, putz or shlameel would need to research to get the answer for.

What is a shmo, putz or shlameel?

Do I need a secret code ring from Post cereals?

Now if I were to look you in the eye and mutter 'abacus', what would you think, Rue? Or perhaps 'Couscous'. Would you like to come with me to Tunis and eat some couscous, Rue?

Ha ha.

Take that act to the Poconos Rue.

[M.Dancer]

What is a shmo, putz or shlameel?

Do I need a secret code ring from Post cereals?

Now if I were to look you in the eye and mutter 'abacus', what would you think, Rue? Or perhaps 'Couscous'. Would you like to come with me to Tunis and eat some couscous, Rue?

Ha ha.

Take that act to the Poconos Rue.

This shtick is recycled....

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=241073