|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Feb 1st, 2007 01:57 PM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx |
You can write off his threats against Israel, or the US, because you share his hatred for both, but in actuality he's a lot more dangerous then that. Look at the Iranian role in Lebanon/Iraq to see how close the region is to an all out Sunni-Shia war. |
|||
| Feb 1st, 2007 09:32 AM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
And when you're asked to back up the claim that MOST of his quotes are out of context, you blame it on the corporate media. Well that doesn't cut it. Quote:
I also think your analysis on what the administration thinks of the average Iranian is waaaaay off. I think we realize that you're dealing with a young, and increasingly modern population. |
|||
| Feb 1st, 2007 09:21 AM | ||||
| ranxer |
Quote:
Please, my whole point was simply that his 'crazyness' is exaggerated by our mainstream media seemingly (and its my assertion that) it is in order to demonize his whole country. I heard an Iranian talking about it the other day say that ahmadenejad is not that important from the perspective of most Iranians. He wants attention and says inflamatory things to get it.. hmm, i don't have a deep understanding of Iran but my point still stands, we don't hear much in the U.S. press of what he says that is reasonable, just the out of context edits of him at his worst. I am not defending the guy or in his camp. maybe people assume this but it's not said enough.. when the administration decides it wants to do something.. like make war on a country, the mainstream press too often goes along with it and demonizes whoever with a one sided repetition of the worst angle possible. |
|||
| Jan 30th, 2007 08:17 PM | ||||
| Ant10708 |
I was at one of the camps and the jews and myself had a great time.
|
|||
| Jan 30th, 2007 08:07 PM | ||||
| Courage the Cowardly Dog |
Iranians LOVE Jews, that's why they call them a cancer. You don't call you friends a cancer? Am I the only one? Tell me what David Duke said that actually made you doubt that the video footage, corpses, eye witnesses in my own family, memorials, and mass graves never happened? Give me evidence so we can figure out the truth. |
|||
| Jan 30th, 2007 08:18 AM | ||||
| El Blanco |
I said it wouldn't make a very good bomb. You can use any radioactive material in a dirty bomb, but those things suck. It would be one thing for al Queda or some other nonstate entity to have P-239, but if you are a real nation thats going through all the trouble of building a nuclear weapons program, you might as well do it right. |
|||
| Jan 30th, 2007 02:57 AM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx | n/m..... | |||
| Jan 29th, 2007 10:23 PM | ||||
| kahljorn |
i thought i heard that the process to make weapons-grade plutonium was by putting it into a nuclear reactor and isolating/enriching a certain part of it..? i dont know i could've sworn there's some big deal over how "Easy" it is to make weapons grade plutonium if you just have raw uranium or something..? Why the fuck would it be such a big deal that certain countries have the ability to make their own nuclear power if there wasn't any danger that they could use that ability to also make nuclear weapons.... EL BLANCO I THINK YOURE PULLING MY LEG wikipedia: Plutonium-239 is one of the three fissile materials used for the production of nuclear weapons and in some nuclear reactors as a source of energy. The other fissile materials are uranium-235 and uranium-233. Plutonium-239 is virtually nonexistent in nature. It is made by bombarding uranium-238 with neutrons in a nuclear reactor. Uranium-238 is present in quantity in most reactor fuel; hence plutonium-239 is continuously made in these reactors. Since plutonium-239 can itself be split by neutrons to release energy, plutonium-239 provides a portion of the energy generation in a nuclear reactor. |
|||
| Jan 29th, 2007 06:44 PM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx |
Stop playing yourself. You've said some stupid shit, and got called on it. If you don't want to defend it, then don't. p.s. Since when was tolerance, and co-existance a hardliners stance? |
|||
| Jan 29th, 2007 06:07 PM | ||||
| Preechr |
Quote:
I didn't answer your question because I have no desire to go running with you through the woods at night for no particular reason. THE 1979 ISLAMIC REVOLUTION! Whooptie-doo. I'll PM you a cookie. So what now? I was young, but I can remember when that happened. You? It was a very complicated time that was part of the complicated era in which 2007 is just a small part. Did you think that I haven't already addressed that religion is the smokescreen obscuring the fundamentally political aspect of this conflict? I did, y'know. Did you read that when I wrote it? It doesn't seem so. As long as you choose to demand that everyone see this as a religious conflict, the only possible resolution is for one side to suffer a total defeat. If you want to drink the Kool-aid and wish yourself into a reality where Muslims are all 100% evil and 1000% unredeemable, go right ahead. Don't expect me to follow. When you go too far off that cliff, I'll stop discussing whatever we're talking about. You may know a lot about it, but you have a caveman's attitude about the Israeli conflict. Thank God the Israelis running the show over there aren't as stubborn and hard-headed as you for the most part, no offense. You simply will never beat a dog into liking you. I'm not saying the West could offer Muslim extremists enough candy to make all the problems go away, and I'm certainly not advocating appeasement, but I figure the right way is somewhere between that and total annihilation of all Muslims. Sometimes I wonder where you stand on that. Now, I have to go out of town for a few days, so when you respond, don't get all upset when I don't immediately follow up, Ok? Hopefully this topic will have fallen off by the time I get back. I really do look forward to being completely ignored by you in the next thread where Israel or those damned, dirty Arabs comes up... |
|||
| Jan 29th, 2007 05:46 PM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx |
Well, either way. It would be great to play along and believe Iran just wants nuclear energy, because that's hard to deny them.... but Iran clearly wants it for purposes of waging offensive attacks and unifying his countries with it's own problems like with the Baluchi people calling for their own autonomous land. Like Preech say's, he just needs a bargaining chip so he can keep refusing to negotiate let alone acknowledge Israel's existance, right? That's logical. The Jews come from the Middle East, and they're not leaving it. Ahminiblip doesn't need a bomb to induce him into accepting this fact. |
|||
| Jan 29th, 2007 04:30 PM | ||||
| El Blanco |
Fine, I'll pick up the slack for them: I don't want to sound like a crazy Holocaust Denier, but here is an article from David Duke that makes me highly suspicious about what we hear regarding it. I know he's a whacked out racist psycho, I don't really agree with him. I just think he's not wrong on this issue. |
|||
| Jan 29th, 2007 04:15 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | And Geggy and ranxer go silent. | |||
| Jan 29th, 2007 02:54 PM | ||||
| El Blanco | No, weapons grade plutonium won't work in a regular reactor. And the stuff i na reactor doesn't make a very good bomb. It'll radiate and area, sure, but it won't explode like a properly made bomb will. | |||
| Jan 29th, 2007 01:42 PM | ||||
| kahljorn |
Isn't the responsibility aquainted with nuclear energy and nuclear bombs pretty much the same; since if you're making nuclear energy you also have the capacity to make nuclear bombs? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM everytime I read ABC's posts that song, "Catscratch fever" plays in my head for some reason. |
|||
| Jan 29th, 2007 01:18 PM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx |
Then I'll answer for you, because you seem to be all tapped out. 1979 marked the ISLAMIC REVOLUTION. Like Max, you've proven that you wrap your head around stubborn opinions that have no basis in reality. If you don't understand the settlement movement, religious Zionism, and we know you already got schooled on the facts of the first intifada... then why are you pretending your opinions are informed ones? My rebutal still stands wether we're talking about bombs or energy: Quote:
|
|||
| Jan 29th, 2007 10:12 AM | ||||
| Preechr |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
| Jan 27th, 2007 03:48 PM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx |
"both convinced that establishing control over certain places will hasten the return of their hero?" Here you referenced Wikipedia verbatim "Gush Emunim supporters believe that the coming of the messiah can be hastened through Jewish settlement on land they believe God has allotted to the Jewish people as outlined in the Hebrew Bible." Well, sorry, but that's not what they believe.... nor do they believe the Messiah is a "returning hero". So stop bullshiting. You're not in any position to be debating religious Zionism or the teachings of Rabbi Kook. Israel and Iran had ties before 1979 - what happened in 1979, hmmm? Whatever provocations you would like to assign Israel, does little in exhonorating these leaders "always, now and forever" of just hating Jews. The expression may be political, but their reasonings are not. When Jews in Iran are restricted from going outside on rainy days, is that political? Why would I want to discuss the merits of a nuclear Iran with someone who claims it's due to political reasoning that Persian Jewish women can't test ripened fruit in a market. If Iran wants nuclear energy then they need to stop talking about war, and stop funding a proxy conflict. If you want a balance of equals, then they'll need to stop questioning Jewish soveriegnty and act as equals first. |
|||
| Jan 27th, 2007 12:06 PM | ||||
| Preechr |
Quote:
|
|||
| Jan 27th, 2007 11:40 AM | ||||
| Preechr |
Arabs have persecuted Jews, just like everybody else, since the beginning of time, Ok? Poor, poor Jews, but that's not what I was talking about. Quote:
Quote:
Muslims have persecuted Christians and Jews and Muslims and just about everybody else. Christians have done the same, and I'm sure some goy got picked on at some point by some Jewish kids, too. You said it yourself: "Intolerant people hate other people who aren't the same as them." That is also not what I am talking about. I intentionally didn't write "Gush M&M," even though I think that's a funny name, because I think this is a serious conversation. Maybe it was because I remember the funny name that I misspelled it. I can assure you I didn't hear about it on some anti-Israeli screed page. Are you sure you want to jump so quickly to the conclusion that I'm the one that's ignorant here? Just because Google can't help you doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I believe this is a serious enough topic that I have made a point of NOT learning the first thing about it on the internet. This is all just opinion out here, Abcdxxx. Opinions are biased, and the last thing the peace process needs is more biased opinions floating around. Need I remind you, also, that this was not what I was talking about either? Try googling "Gush EmUnim," Ok? Gosh, I can't believe I actually know something about Israel you don't... I'm amazed it was something so basic as this... Damn... Do I get a prize for this? As long as were discussing only the tangential points that have nothing to do with anything, how exactly is a comparison between two different Messianic religious beliefs unfair when the two I am comparing are both convinced that establishing control over certain places will hasten the return of their hero? Not all Israelis believe the settlements are vital to Israel's goals, which is made perfectly obvious by recent settlement related events. While some Israelis moved out because they thought it was cool to live in the hills where Joshua once walked, and some just wanted out of the hustle and bustle, the settlements were a religious movement at their roots, though based in the religious beliefs of only a subset of Judaism. You have railed against the Palestinian "cause" before by claiming that they are not a people but basically the perennially homeless flotsam of the Arab world, getting kicked out of Jordan and Egypt and then located, strategically, on the borders of Israel in order to harass it. (Notice, that is not a quote. You have said stuff much like that, and I'm just nutshelling it to make a larger point... you don't have to start arguing yet...) I can accept that sort of claim just fine. It's mostly the truth of the situation. Yet that scenario is made up of political moves. The religious aspect of this conflict is a smokescreen. Religious belief is NOT driving this conflict. Islam has ruled it's lands before, as you mentioned, in a very tolerant manner... notice please that it was tolerant when it had actual power. Much more tolerant, in fact, than were the other governments of that time. Israel has also proven it can be tolerant, but it has also proven it can be insensitive and overbearing when holding all the cards. What is needed is a balance of equals before peace can be established. You have yet to address MY MAIN POINT which is that Iran can, will and probably should go nuclear, and that this is the path to peace. I honestly figured THAT would be the focus of your arguments against what I'm saying, but instead you are picking at the edges of my comments. Is the specter of a nuke wielding Iran so scary to you that you can't even talk about it? Is this your "Zionist Entity?" ...the thing you can't even bring yourself to name? Right now, our government is working really hard to find an alternative to nukes that can give Iran the power it needs to take it's seat at the world table. Until it can sit there, Iran will continue to cause trouble for anyone trying to meddle in the political stew of the region. A very similar diplomatic scenario is playing out in North Korea. In both cases, Western media is portraying the figureheads we are dealing with as scary madmen... Not to say Kim Jong Il and Ahminajihad are actually nice guys, but the fact that they are the face on those conflicts only serves to keep us interested. They are the tantrum-throwing brats that draw the attention of everyone else in the restaurant, and it's gonna take all of us focusing on the problems here to establish peace and equality. |
|||
| Jan 27th, 2007 10:00 AM | ||||
| Chojin |
Quote:
|
|||
| Jan 27th, 2007 06:05 AM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx |
Preechr - That Zionist entity is used as an excuse for age old hatred that pre-dates 1948. Can you reason that Islamic presecution existed towards Jews before modern Israel? Your statement was absurd. Even your questions are absurd.... do I have to believe Arabs and Jews are "feuding" to acknowledge an endless list of Islamic persecution of Jews since the Koranic era? Why is that even a question? The cool thing is, there have also been times of great tolerance, especially from the Persians who helped Jews rebuild the Second Temple. So what's it gonna take? A return to that type of tolerance, and love for humanity. You'll have to forgive me...I've never heard of "Gush Eminem", but I'm sure it's the settlement right next to "Gush Reeses pieces". I imagine you're taking a bad translation and referencing an actual place, but I can only find some mentions of it on sketchy anti-Israel sites. Either way - comparing Jews waiting for the Messiah to an Islamic Twelver is very misinformed. Firstly, the belief in the messiah is a basic tenant of mainstream Judaism, it's not specific to any one denomination, or political ideology. "Twelvers" is a belief only specific to Shiites, but not even all Shiites, and it's heavily disputed, even blacklisted in other Islamic communities. If you're outed as a twelver in Egypt you can have your life ruined. When Jews "prepare for the Messiah" it's reflective of their own behavior. There is no belief for example, that the Messiah will not arrive until Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims behave a certain way. That burden falls strictly on the Jewish people. That's different then the Muslim belief of imposing Islam as a goal to trigger some event. It doesn't sound like you really know why religious settlers believe they need to live in the Biblical location of Judea and Samaria. Kahl - Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael...I think it's has more to do with different phillosophies surrounding stories and characters shared by these three major religions...I believe Moses is mentioned in the Koran more then anyone, and Islam shares many of the same prophets....so sure, there's some animosity over who can be blamed for perverting their name, or turning their backs on other beliefs. Cain and Abel is mostly interesting in that it teaches us how to reflect on entitlement and punishment. Both religions have fundamental differences on who must be blamed before a "salvation" can occur. ....but to begin with, it's foolish to say "Arabs and Jews hate each other". Intolerant people hate other people who aren't the same as them. You don't need to source the bible for that one. |
|||
| Jan 26th, 2007 11:46 PM | ||||
| kahljorn | one time someone told me that the reason jews and arabs hate eachother is because cain killed abel. | |||
| Jan 26th, 2007 11:39 PM | ||||
| Preechr |
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
| Jan 26th, 2007 10:18 PM | ||||
| kahljorn |
Quote:
|
|||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||||
