|
|
Post by niff on Dec 1, 2013 12:04:11 GMT
Don't you find it amusing that little old Israel was able to kick all it's neighbors butts in six days against the collective Arab military?
That's got to say something about who could fight and who could simply run their collective mouths in the region.
The fact is the Arabs in the region are living in the fifteenth century and always will be.
The Jews have, without a dime from oil revenues turned the desert into a garden.
The Arabs in both world wars chose to be on the side they believed would kill the most Jews. Both times they lost. When it came time to divide up the 'spoils' after WW11 the world decided to teach the Arabs a 'little lesson'. They gave the land where Israel is now to the Jews and basically told the Arabs to go eat sand.
You're fond of making 'big predictions'. If you believe the Jews in Israel would sit back and watch the demographic in Israel to change to where the Arabs would control the country you're dreaming.
As for your other 'Jew hater' here I find it amusing he would whine about Palestinian children being killed by Israeli soldiers. The Arabs in Palestine locate their mortars in family living rooms. How sick is that? (That is one reason the entire world has zero respect for the Palestinians) Ya the 'big tough Arab fighters' literally hide behind their own children.
Who but an Arab would sexually mutilate little girls? And 'stone' a woman for being raped by her brother-in-law? Ya those Arabs are a real class act.
Like I said the rest of the world can't stand to be in the same room as an Arab for good reason/s. The least of which is the fear that the Arab will pick their pocket.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Dec 1, 2013 14:48:21 GMT
There is no fundamental difference between Nazi White Supremacy, Israeli Jewish Supremacy, and Palestinian Muslim Supremacy. All are based upon nefarious criteria and all result in tyranny.
Not true - the first two are essentially the same racist colonialist ideology, based on the alleged existence of an alleged 'Volk' whereas Palestinian rejection of racist bullies is just a local example of a universal reaction to jackbooted scum trying to steal other people's countries, as you know.. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 1, 2013 16:58:13 GMT
There is no fundamental difference between Nazi White Supremacy, Israeli Jewish Supremacy, and Palestinian Muslim Supremacy. All are based upon nefarious criteria and all result in tyranny. Not true - the first two are essentially the same racist colonialist ideology, based on the alleged existence of an alleged 'Volk' whereas Palestinian rejection of racist bullies is just a local example of a universal reaction to jackbooted scum trying to steal other people's countries, as you know..
The belief that the Palestinians will impose a secular government without any invidious criteria is a pipe-dream and they are no different than the Nazis or the Zionists in this regard.
Try naming one "Arab" nation where the Koran is not listed as a supreme document of the land, where women are afforded the full equality of men, and/or that isn't based upon a monarchy.
The Palestinian Charter from 1964 specifically establishes that Palestine is exclusively an Arab homeland which in and of itself is an invidious criteria that results in tyranny just like the Zionists and the Nazis.
There is no question whatsoever that the Arabs have legitimate grievances against the tyranny of Israel but they would also be tyrannical just like the Zionists and the Nazis because they would impose invidious criteria as a foundation for government.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 1, 2013 17:02:07 GMT
Don't you find it amusing that little old Israel was able to kick all it's neighbors butts in six days against the collective Arab military?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 1, 2013 17:02:19 GMT
Don't you find it amusing that little old Israel was able to kick all it's neighbors butts in six days against the collective Arab military?
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Dec 2, 2013 12:56:22 GMT
Not true - the first two are essentially the same racist colonialist ideology, based on the alleged existence of an alleged 'Volk' whereas Palestinian rejection of racist bullies is just a local example of a universal reaction to jackbooted scum trying to steal other people's countries, as you know..
The belief that the Palestinians will impose a secular government without any invidious criteria is a pipe-dream and they are no different than the Nazis or the Zionists in this regard.
Try naming one "Arab" nation where the Koran is not listed as a supreme document of the land, where women are afforded the full equality of men, and/or that isn't based upon a monarchy.
The Palestinian Charter from 1964 specifically establishes that Palestine is exclusively an Arab homeland which in and of itself is an invidious criteria that results in tyranny just like the Zionists and the Nazis.
There is no question whatsoever that the Arabs have legitimate grievances against the tyranny of Israel but they would also be tyrannical just like the Zionists and the Nazis because they would impose invidious criteria as a foundation for government.
Lebanon. Would you be racist if you objected to the Chinese taking over YOUR country? Don't be silly. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 2, 2013 16:51:44 GMT
Lebanon. Would you be racist if you objected to the Chinese taking over YOUR country? Don't be silly.
Lebanon was actually founded with religious beliefs being established as a criteria related to government and the original "Cabinet" was divided by Muslims and Christians based upon their religious beliefs. Always remember that Freedom Of Religion also includes Freedom From Religion.
We can also note that women are not granted equality in Lebanon as gender discrimination enforced by "religious" courts continues where religion dictates that women are, in effect, the chattel property of their husbands and not entitled to equal protection under the law.
Would I be racist if Chinese immigrated to my country and used the power of the vote to change the law of the land based upon their political beliefs? Absolutely if I blamed it on the Chinese as opposed to acknowledging that the change was based upon the "will of the People" that included everyone and not just the Chinese. I seriously doubt that even with massive immigration that Chinese citizens of the United States could get the US Constitution amended to accomplish this nor do I believe they would want to do so.
But remember the "Jews" did not invade Palestine but instead "Zionist" European Jews immigrated and they didn't create government based upon the will of the people of Palestine. Instead this those with a political agenda immigrated to Palestine and violated the sovereign Rights of the native Palestinians that were comprised of Arabs, Jews, and "Christians" through violent revolution. I can condemn the Zionists, that included Jewish and non-Jewish people, as it was the political ideology and not the Jewish people that were responsible. Millions of Jews worldwide oppose Zionism as well as the State of Israel.
I have no problem today with Hispanics immigrating to the United States, becoming citizens, and peacefully using the established social contracts of America (i.e. State Constitutions and the US Constitution) to change the government of the States and the United States based upon the will of the people. I am opposed to the violent overthrowing if a government by foreign immigrants though but that would not be a condemnation of Hispanic people even if Hispanics (e.g. Mexicans) were responsible for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Dec 2, 2013 16:59:23 GMT
I am very much in favour of Jews. Zionists are Nazis. The zionists stole the land by ethnic cleansing, as you know. The Hispanic people in the US did not seize military control - the Zionist racists did. End of story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Dec 3, 2013 7:58:41 GMT
The article doesn't say that Iran is pursuing the production of nuclear weapons. Iran has said it is not pursuing nuclear weapons. And the IAEA has not found any evidence of a nuclear weapons programme.
But what is wrong with Iran having nuclear weapons? A whole lot of awful nations, like North Korea, Pakistan, and Israel, have nuclear weapons - so why are we getting our knickers in a knot about Iran? And MAD makes sure nobody with nuclear weapons dares to use them. Like what does Iran do if it produces one, or even ten, nuclear warheads? If it uses it, Tehran becomes a heavily-glassed parking lot.
I think it's a lot of fuss over nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 3, 2013 11:02:47 GMT
A few points of interest.
From what I understand the agreement stops essential work at Arak (e.g. work on the actual reactor) but does not stop construction at the facility.
Yes, a heavy water nuclear reactor does create plutonium as a part of it's waste by-products but it can't be used for a nuclear weapon in that state. It has to be refined from the waste and Iran is incapable of doing that just as it is currently incapable of refining uranium from 20% enrichment to 90% enrichment.
Nuclear weapons always represent an unacceptable danger to society and even MAD is no assurance that the leaders of a nation wouldn't use them which would result in millions or tens of millions of innocent people dying. MAD essentially only ensures that probably twice as many innocent people will be murdered by the politicians.
How many Americans know, for example, that under the War Powers Act the US President can unilaterally launch an unprovoked nuclear weapon attack anywhere in the world murdering millions of people in a matter of minutes and that is far too much power for any person. All it takes is the push of a button by the President.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 4, 2013 14:57:14 GMT
The article doesn't say that Iran is pursuing the production of nuclear weapons. Iran has said it is not pursuing nuclear weapons. And the IAEA has not found any evidence of a nuclear weapons programme.
But what is wrong with Iran having nuclear weapons? A whole lot of awful nations, like North Korea, Pakistan, and Israel, have nuclear weapons - so why are we getting our knickers in a knot about Iran? And MAD makes sure nobody with nuclear weapons dares to use them. Like what does Iran do if it produces one, or even ten, nuclear warheads? If it uses it, Tehran becomes a heavily-glassed parking lot.
I think it's a lot of fuss over nothing.
For the left, it is an article of faith that MAD (an aptly named acronym, I believe) will solve all problems nuclear in nature. Even if you sincerely believe that MAD was a success in deterring war with the former Soviet Union--I certainly do not; but that is a subject for another discussion--the analogy to Iran strikes me as farfetched, to say the least. Remember, the Politburo (of the Soviet Union) was comprised of hardheaded pragmatists. Iran, by contrast, would appear to be headed up by crazed apoctalyptists, who would love nothing more than to hasten the return of the (long deceased) Firth Imam, or Mahdi, in accordance with fundamentalist Shiite eschatology. The death of a few hundred thousand (or even a few million) "Infidels" and insufficiently zealous Muslims would be a reasonable price to pay for this glorious event... |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Dec 4, 2013 15:13:32 GMT
The article doesn't say that Iran is pursuing the production of nuclear weapons. Iran has said it is not pursuing nuclear weapons. And the IAEA has not found any evidence of a nuclear weapons programme.
But what is wrong with Iran having nuclear weapons? A whole lot of awful nations, like North Korea, Pakistan, and Israel, have nuclear weapons - so why are we getting our knickers in a knot about Iran? And MAD makes sure nobody with nuclear weapons dares to use them. Like what does Iran do if it produces one, or even ten, nuclear warheads? If it uses it, Tehran becomes a heavily-glassed parking lot.
I think it's a lot of fuss over nothing.
For the left, it is an article of faith that MAD (an aptly named acronym, I believe) will solve all problems nuclear in nature. Even if you sincerely believe that MAD was a success in deterring war with the former Soviet Union--I certainly do not; but that is a subject for another discussion--the analogy to Iran strikes me as farfetched, to say the least. Remember, the Politburo (of the Soviet Union) was comprised of hardheaded pragmatists. Iran, by contrast, would appear to be headed up by crazed apoctalyptists, who would love nothing more than to hasten the return of the (long deceased) Firth Imam, or Mahdi, in accordance with fundamentalist Shiite eschatology. The death of a few hundred thousand (or even a few million) "Infidels" and insufficiently zealous Muslims would be a reasonable price to pay for this glorious event... Well, many of us feel the same about the USA. Mutually ASSURED dstruction tends to put off both sets of fanatics, which is why you never dared colonise North Korea. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 5, 2013 14:57:33 GMT
For the left, it is an article of faith that MAD (an aptly named acronym, I believe) will solve all problems nuclear in nature. Even if you sincerely believe that MAD was a success in deterring war with the former Soviet Union--I certainly do not; but that is a subject for another discussion--the analogy to Iran strikes me as farfetched, to say the least. Remember, the Politburo (of the Soviet Union) was comprised of hardheaded pragmatists. Iran, by contrast, would appear to be headed up by crazed apoctalyptists, who would love nothing more than to hasten the return of the (long deceased) Firth Imam, or Mahdi, in accordance with fundamentalist Shiite eschatology. The death of a few hundred thousand (or even a few million) "Infidels" and insufficiently zealous Muslims would be a reasonable price to pay for this glorious event... Well, many of us feel the same about the USA. Mutually ASSURED dstruction tends to put off both sets of fanatics, which is why you never dared colonise North Korea. Well, the good news, at least, is that your virulent anti-Americanism has now become obvious. In any case, America has certainly never turned South Korea into a colony of the US; nor did it attempt to do so with North Korea, prior to the latter's (fairly recent) acquisition of nukes... |
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Dec 5, 2013 18:15:47 GMT
Well, many of us feel the same about the USA. Mutually ASSURED dstruction tends to put off both sets of fanatics, which is why you never dared colonise North Korea. Well, the good news, at least, is that your virulent anti-Americanism has now become obvious. In any case, America has certainly never turned South Korea into a colony of the US; nor did it attempt to do so with North Korea, prior to the latter's (fairly recent) acquisition of nukes...
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Dec 6, 2013 13:37:37 GMT
Well, many of us feel the same about the USA. Mutually ASSURED dstruction tends to put off both sets of fanatics, which is why you never dared colonise North Korea. Well, the good news, at least, is that your virulent anti-Americanism has now become obvious. In any case, America has certainly never turned South Korea into a colony of the US; nor did it attempt to do so with North Korea, prior to the latter's (fairly recent) acquisition of nukes... You really believe that? Jesus! The Yanks had been beaten by China after bombing Mukden remember! Well, no, you aren't allowed to, are you? |
|
