myata Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) See this is the problem with this statement....the old Israel has nukes why can t anyone else crap>1. Iran is run by a Islamic Fanatic. 2. If Iran goes Nuclear, Israel will start building nukes like there is no tomorrow. 3.Likelihood of a Nuclear war goes up immensely. 4.Iran has directly and openly threatened Israel....gives Israel all the authority in the world to attack first!! (its called a premptive strike) say for example you are facing a man who says as soon as he gets his gun put together he is going to kill you but you have a gun also and it's ready to go...are you going to wait until the other guy gets his gun built or are you going to take him out first???? No of course you wouldn't question the right of a state that's been involved in a bitter dispute with its neighbours, and is continuinig a clear and persistent policy of agression, to possess a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons. Well, let's sum it all up: - We alone should have the right to possess (and use? as per factual track record) nuclear weapons. - We (and ours) should be allowed to appropriate more and more of others land - We (and ours) should be allowed to attack first and without provocation. Sounds clear enough already? Nothing new there either. Other than that peaceful freedomloving cloak, that can be donned and removed on a spot, as needed. Edited September 28, 2009 by myata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyStone Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 See this is the problem with this statement....the old Israel has nukes why can t anyone else crap>1. Iran is run by a Islamic Fanatic. 2. If Iran goes Nuclear, Israel will start building nukes like there is no tomorrow. 3.Likelihood of a Nuclear war goes up immensely. 4.Iran has directly and openly threatened Israel....gives Israel all the authority in the world to attack first!! (its called a premptive strike) say for example you are facing a man who says as soon as he gets his gun put together he is going to kill you but you have a gun also and it's ready to go...are you going to wait until the other guy gets his gun built or are you going to take him out first???? Well, first of all Iran has not threatened to take Israel out, despite Israel-friendly mistranslations. Ahmadinejad has said that it will happen, but he has not said how. For instance, I have said that the US economy will collapse, this does not mean that I am planning or in any way associated with it. As for question 4, I don't live in the 'hood', like you do, so perhaps it is more difficult for me to fathom, but I would think that shooting someone whom I suspect might shoot me, if they got a guy, would probably land me in jail. I would think that a better approach would be to report the threat to the local authorities. Then again, you might know better, from all your 'gangsta' experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted September 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) No of course you wouldn't question the right of a state that's been involved in a bitter dispute with its neighbours, and is continuinig a clear and persistent policy of agression, to possess a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons. Well, let's sum it all up:- We alone should have the right to possess (and use? as per factual track record) nuclear weapons. - We (and ours) should be allowed to appropriate more and more of others land - We (and ours) should be allowed to attack first and without provocation. Sounds clear enough already? Nothing new there either. Other than that peaceful freedomloving cloak, that can be donned and removed on a spot, as needed. Why Iran should not have Nuclear Weapons... Well, let's sum it all up!!http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english...ek0.963299.html And besides Israel is going to level them and the Saudi's believe it or not are going to help them do it!!! http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=10731...ionid=351020104 http://www.alalam.ir/english/detail.aspx?id=81269 Edited September 28, 2009 by wulf42 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=10731...ionid=351020104 According to a study published bythe Center for Strategic and International Studies, a military exchange between Iran and Israel could result in the death of as many as 6 million people. I wonder if the 6 million figure was used on purpose. http://www.alalam.ir/english/detail.aspx?id=81269 Tel Aviv accuses Tehran of nuclear weapons development - a charge rejected by both Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog, which has so far made "21 unannounced inspections" of the country's nuclear facilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted September 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Well, first of all Iran has not threatened to take Israel out, despite Israel-friendly mistranslations. Ahmadinejad has said that it will happen, but he has not said how. For instance, I have said that the US economy will collapse, this does not mean that I am planning or in any way associated with it. As for question 4, I don't live in the 'hood', like you do, so perhaps it is more difficult for me to fathom, but I would think that shooting someone whom I suspect might shoot me, if they got a guy, would probably land me in jail. I would think that a better approach would be to report the threat to the local authorities. Then again, you might know better, from all your 'gangsta' experience. lol.....if you can t tell a figure of speech then well what can i say?? i am making a comparsion a smart person would pick up on that!! no Gangsta here........... The point i am making is why should Israel wait until Iran goes Nuclear after threatening to wipe them out when Israel can hit them first?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 lol.....if you can t tell a figure of speech then well what can i say??i am making a comparsion a smart person would pick up on that!! no Gangsta here........... The point i am making is why should Israel wait until Iran goes Nuclear after threatening to wipe them out when Israel can hit them first?? Almost sounds like we should get Tom Cruise in on this in a Minority Report fashion. PRE-CRIME WORKS !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted September 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Well, first of all Iran has not threatened to take Israel out, despite Israel-friendly mistranslations. Lmao.............you must be kidding right?? Oh yes those Iranians are peaceful.......give me a freakin break...i suppose Hitler was just a little upset ?? Israel has every right to attack and should before it is too late. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133617 http://www.geo.tv/7-26-2009/46546.htm http://newsblaze.com/story/20081023180234t...b/topstory.html http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1030279.html http://www.topix.com/forum/world/middle-ea...H1S77AI60B4FM1F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Lmao.............you must be kidding right?? Oh yes those Iraniansare peaceful.......give me a freakin break...i suppose Hitler was just a little upset ?? Israel has every right to attack and should before it is too late. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133617 http://www.geo.tv/7-26-2009/46546.htm http://newsblaze.com/story/20081023180234t...b/topstory.html http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1030279.html http://www.topix.com/forum/world/middle-ea...H1S77AI60B4FM1F Who has Iran attacked?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted September 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Who has Iran attacked?? Read the articles.their intentions are clear! why should Israel wait?? they should take out Iran first because if Iran gets nukes they are going to attack Israel!! Just common sense really, Israel has a duty to protect its citizens from Islamic Maniac's!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 they should take out Iran first because if Iran gets nukes they are going to attack Israel!! First it was just take out the 'Plant' but now its take out the whole country. Just common sense really, Israel has a duty to protect its citizens from Islamic Maniac's!! Soon this will read; just common sense really, Iran(et al) have a duty to protect their citizens from Israeli maniac's. Story One Haredi leader who almost won Jerusalem's mayoralty race last fall, boasts that, within 20 years, the ultra-Orthodox will control the municipal government of every city in the country. And why not? Of the Jewish Israeli children entering primary school for the first time this month, more than 25 per cent are Haredi, and that proportion will keep growing. There are between 600,000 and 700,000 Haredim in Israel, and they average 8.8 children a family. Ironically, considering these religious leaders have made such use of the democratic process, they continue to say democracy is not consistent with Halacha.“In many ways these guys are closer to Islamic fundamentalists than to anything else,” Prof. Ben Yehuda said. They also do not shrink from violence. Prof. Ben Yehuda's research found that violence is the number-one criminal infraction among Haredim. He also found that most of that violence is for political purposes. Prof. Ben Yehuda has no doubt that many of the country's emigrants are leaving, in part, because of the rise of the Hardal. But it's not the major reason, he says.“However, as this place becomes more and more like Iran, the secular community will leave in droves.” I'd like to extend an open invitation to these and also any like these that make it out of Iran (et al). Canada, every country on Earth in fact, needs as many secularists as they can get their hands on. They really are a civil societies only hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 You can extend all the invitations you'd like, but with inaccurate statements such as Israeli maniacs endangering Iran's citizens (on which planet again?), you'll get few takers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Read the articles.their intentions are clear!why should Israel wait?? they should take out Iran first because if Iran gets nukes they are going to attack Israel!! Just common sense really, Israel has a duty to protect its citizens from Islamic Maniac's!! That is not exactly answering my question. Try again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 You can extend all the invitations you'd like, but with inaccurate statements such as Israeli maniacs endangering Iran's citizens (on which planet again?), you'll get few takers. Are you kidding? You'll get lots of takers. “In many ways these guys are closer to Islamic fundamentalists than to anything else,” Prof. Ben Yehuda said. Excuse me but aren't nuclear armed fundamentalists supposed to be everyone's worst nightmare? I fail to see why one bunch is any less dangerous than another. On the other hand, I bet there are another bunch of religous loony's a lot closer to home who'll think this development is a dream come true. Hallelujha brother! Have you heard the Good News? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Excuse me but aren't nuclear armed fundamentalists supposed to be everyone's worst nightmare? I fail to see why one bunch is any less dangerous than another. On the other hand, I bet there are another bunch of religous loony's a lot closer to home who'll think this development is a dream come true. Hallelujha brother! Have you heard the Good News? Henry Kissinger has already commented on that aptly awhile back. Rephrasing, "they may be maniacs, but our own maniacs". Choice of terminology aside, if Israel with its track record of hostilities, violence and unabated agression should be entitled to handly bunch of nukes, there wouldn't many nations on the face of planet that should not. Enough of that Iraq / Afghanistan / Cuba / Syria / Iran threat to our survival bs already. Clean up your own act, then may be somebody someday would want to hear your cermons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Got to love the mentality present that would give nuclear weapons to a government that kills its own citizens in the streets out of a sense of fair play. I suppose the common hatred of Israel wins out over common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Who has Iran attacked?? As a financier as supporter of international terrorism, Canada, the US, UK, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Israel...to name a few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 (edited) You meant this country: Slate: Police brutality? Please be more clear. And of course, lives of other "citizens" shouldn't matter (BBC: civilian casualties in Gaza conflict) Edited September 29, 2009 by myata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 As a financier as supporter of international terrorism, Canada, the US, UK, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Israel...to name a few. Would that conclusion work the other way around too? I.e. if we finance and support somebody we've gotta be accountable as accomplices of their acts? I wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Would that conclusion work the other way around too? I.e. if we finance and support somebody we've gotta be accountable as accomplices of their acts? I wonder. When's the last time Canada sponsored a terrorist attack on civilian targets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Let's see: 1) Borrowing that kindly suggested rule of association, Canada has been a vocal and strong "supporter" of Israel, of late. 2) "Support", again, following the suggested rule (of association) qualifies for complicity in the associate's "accomplishments". 3) Israel has been accused, in an official UN investigation, as well as several non-governmental organisations, of causing excessive civilian casualties. 1,2,3 -> Canada may be complicit excessive civilian casualties caused by Israel's military operations. As well as, to add, any escalation of hostilities caused by its ongoing practice of expanding illegal settlements. No? The equation only works one (particular) way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Let's see: 1) Borrowing that kindly suggested rule of association, Canada has been a vocal and strong "supporter" of Israel, of late. 2) "Support", again, following the suggested rule (of association) qualifies for complicity in the associate's "accomplishments". 3) Israel has been accused, in an official UN investigation, as well as several non-governmental organisations, of causing excessive civilian casualties. 1,2,3 -> Canada may be complicit excessive civilian casualties caused by Israel's military operations. As well as, to add, any escalation of hostilities caused by its ongoing practice of expanding illegal settlements. No? The equation only works one (particular) way? Canada doesn't support Israel on the ground in its fight against the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, et al. No Canadian military assets are in Israel...no nuthin'. Nor does Israel conduct terrorist attacks no matter the spin you'd like to put on it in support of actual terrorism in that area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 OK, it's the ground that matters, clear enough. So if A knocks B on the head on the ground of "terrorism", it's a big fat no-no. If on the other hand, the ground is of "advancement of freedom and such things", it's allright and you're welcome. Correct? Oh wait, who decides which ground is which? How do I know that your ground is better than mine (or should it be the other way around)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 This thread is a hoot! Iran repeatedly threatens Israel's existence, funds and orchestrates attacks on Israel, is feverishly trying to get the bomb, and Israel is the bad guy for not bending over backwards enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Not bending enough appropriating more and more of occupied lands? Such a poor, defenceless (with 400 nukes and annual billion $$ assistence to develop new weapons) and innocent lamb :-( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted September 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 (edited) The anti Israel crowd on here are in full swing aren t they...unbelievable Israel is surrounded by crazed suicidal Islamics who attack Israel every chance they get yet Israel is the bad guy??? that doesn t add up some how...everything Israel has done has been in RESPONSE to not the cause of Islamic Attacks...they are trying to exist in an area full of lunatics trying to get their hands on nukes......This situation is going to end in one of four ways. 1. Iran's Leader gets overthrown and the country get's taken over by moderates. (best option) 2. Iran's leader back's down and away from Nuclear weapons/threats (Possible) due to restrictive sanctions 3. Israel/Nato alone or in combination together attack Iran's Nuclear sites (possible) 4. Iran becomes a Nuclear power forcing Israel to stock piles hundreds if not thousands of warheads as a deterent...creating a mid eastern arms race. (Highly likely) Its Iran's choice Edited September 29, 2009 by wulf42 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.