Iran and the Nuclear Bomb

[Billo_Really]

Of course you would. You would allow Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth.

In a few moments, I'll show you just how stupid your argument is.

And I'll be using your own words fed back to you to do it............hope you enjoy the crow!

You would back the enemies of the U.S. and those who would support terrorism.

There you go, throwing shit against the wall and hoping it sticks.

You wrongly place the blame on a country that has been under attack since it was formed.

You mean ever since they invaded Palestine?

It must really suck to be on the wrong side of this, as Israel has CLEANED THE CLOCKS of the ones who want them utterly destroyed.

Israel certainly has cleaned a lot of clocks. And they'll clean some more if they have to. Because no one in the ME has the capability to "wipe them out!" You can take all the country's in the ME and have them go at Israel all at once and they'd still get their ass kicked.

So with that being said, why don't you shove that "wipe Israel off the map" comment, up your ass? Because we all know (including you), they can't get "wiped". So just shit-can that part of your argument, it's just stupid talk!

So much so that you BEG for the U.S. to do it for them.

How the fuck did you get "wiping them out", from "driving them back?"

I don't believe that day will come even with Losers like Obama in office. Too bad buddy.

I'm not your buddy, buddy.

I support Israel's RIGHT TO EXIST. You don't. So be it.

Country's don't have rights, people do!

That's another stupid statement. Israel exists already. The issue is moot.

 

[toastman]

Invaded Palestine ??? The Palestine you are referring to was actually the British Mandate of Palestine . The European Jews who arrived were INVITED by the British. The British encouraged and facilitated the immigration. Stop with your Arab propaganda lies.

 

[toastman]

lol loinboy still talking like a little angry child. I guess some things haven't changed

 

[sambino510]

Invaded Palestine ??? The Palestine you are referring to was actually the British Mandate of Palestine . The European Jews who arrived were INVITED by the British. The British encouraged and facilitated the immigration. Stop with your Arab propaganda lies.

Though I agree the European Jews were invited there, after the British left the area and Israel was established officially, with the Palestinians being slowly driven from their land, THAT'S when the problems arose. With every conflict, every battle that sparked up, Israel would not only drive back the Palestinians but snatch more territory in the process. The land agreements of the mandate in the 1940s is not the land agreements we have right now.

 

[Billo_Really]

Invaded Palestine ??? The Palestine you are referring to was actually the British Mandate of Palestine . The European Jews who arrived were INVITED by the British. The British encouraged and facilitated the immigration. Stop with your Arab propaganda lies.

Where the fuck have you been?


I'm talking about the thousands that came in violation of the immigration restrictions in force at the time.

 

[Auteur]

Invaded Palestine ??? The Palestine you are referring to was actually the British Mandate of Palestine . The European Jews who arrived were INVITED by the British. The British encouraged and facilitated the immigration. Stop with your Arab propaganda lies.

In fact the British vacillated several times. They made promises to the Jews when they thought that might be of some service, but also made promises to the Arabs, when they were of some marginal use. They they tried to reconcile the two. In the end, they did try and limit Jewish immigration, when it was clear that a blow-up was coming.

Anyway, that was over by '48, and there has been a lot of land grabbing since then. This is the core of the issue- land was seized rather than negotiated, and this has never been accepted.

 

[irosie91]

Invaded Palestine ??? The Palestine you are referring to was actually the British Mandate of Palestine . The European Jews who arrived were INVITED by the British. The British encouraged and facilitated the immigration. Stop with your Arab propaganda lies.

In fact the British vacillated several times. They made promises to the Jews when they thought that might be of some service, but also made promises to the Arabs, when they were of some marginal use. They they tried to reconcile the two. In the end, they did try and limit Jewish immigration, when it was clear that a blow-up was coming.

Anyway, that was over by '48, and there has been a lot of land grabbing since then. This is the core of the issue- land was seized rather than negotiated, and this has never been accepted.

when and what land was "seized" I agreee that the core issue is LAND. The
core issue is the fact that the islamic POV is that the entire middle east is "muslim
land" thus even land purchased in the 1800s is described as "seized"

The Jerusalem pogroms which occured in the 1920s could hardly be
a "reaction" to land "seized" by military force

as to "invasion"----it is a term that some people used in reference to black
americans who INVADED the Northeast----after the civil war-----that
"invasion" led to pogroms in New York City

east Jerusalem was placed under starvation siege by arab muslim forces in 1947 and
the jewish population annhilated/expelled--------does that one count as
"LAND SEIZURE"??

Land is a big issue ----the problem should be resolved with EQUITY and
with full consideration of the history of the region over the past 2500
years-------not that difficult

The mistake is in assuming that the problem began either in 1948 or
1967. Another problem is the concept "muslim land"------
If there can be "muslim land" -----then there must also be
"christian land" "jewish land" "hindu land" etc

 

[skye]

Iran continues unabated ....



07 Aug 2013
"Iran has built a new rocket launch site which is likely to be used for testing ballistic missiles, according to military analysts publishing satellite images of the structure."


Iran launch site 'likely for testing ballistic missiles', analysts say - Telegraph

 

[Auteur]

Invaded Palestine ??? The Palestine you are referring to was actually the British Mandate of Palestine . The European Jews who arrived were INVITED by the British. The British encouraged and facilitated the immigration. Stop with your Arab propaganda lies.

In fact the British vacillated several times. They made promises to the Jews when they thought that might be of some service, but also made promises to the Arabs, when they were of some marginal use. They they tried to reconcile the two. In the end, they did try and limit Jewish immigration, when it was clear that a blow-up was coming.

Anyway, that was over by '48, and there has been a lot of land grabbing since then. This is the core of the issue- land was seized rather than negotiated, and this has never been accepted.

when and what land was "seized" I agreee that the core issue is LAND. The
core issue is the fact that the islamic POV is that the entire middle east is "muslim
land" thus even land purchased in the 1800s is described as "seized"

This is not the core issue at all. Only a small minority make such radical claims.

[
The Jerusalem pogroms which occured in the 1920s could hardly be
a "reaction" to land "seized" by military force

as to "invasion"----it is a term that some people used in reference to black
americans who INVADED the Northeast----after the civil war-----that
"invasion" led to pogroms in New York City

The conflict in the '20s was due to unwanted, large scale immigration of Jews into what was then a Palestinian Arab country, temporarily under the control of Britain. I'm not going to defend the violence on either side here, but the fact is almost any other region on earth would have probably reacted the same way to such events. Massive immigration by foreigners who are changing the nature of society, buying up land and altering the country to suit their desires and needs, and the original inhabitants have no say in the matter.....conflict would be unavoidable.

Look at your own example of blacks moving north in the US. There was horrific violence and social dislocation, and the event was far, far less threatening to the established society than was the case in Palestine.

[
east Jerusalem was placed under starvation siege by arab muslim forces in 1947 and
the jewish population annhilated/expelled--------does that one count as
"LAND SEIZURE"??

Your reference?

[
Land is a big issue ----the problem should be resolved with EQUITY and
with full consideration of the history of the region over the past 2500
years-------not that difficult

The mistake is in assuming that the problem began either in 1948 or
1967. Another problem is the concept "muslim land"------
If there can be "muslim land" -----then there must also be
"christian land" "jewish land" "hindu land" etc

Perhaps, from a philosophical perspective, but the farther back in time we go, the more complex things become. Should Europe be re-ordered on the basis of 2500 years ago? How about North America? Doesn't really work, does it?

 

[sambino510]

Iran continues unabated ....



07 Aug 2013
"Iran has built a new rocket launch site which is likely to be used for testing ballistic missiles, according to military analysts publishing satellite images of the structure."


Iran launch site 'likely for testing ballistic missiles', analysts say - Telegraph

The fact that this site would be used for ballistic missiles is a possibility, but others have said that it could just be used for their growing space program as well. I'm sure the launchpad in Houston could, hypothetically, be used for ballistic missiles as well.

 

[irosie91]

In fact the British vacillated several times. They made promises to the Jews when they thought that might be of some service, but also made promises to the Arabs, when they were of some marginal use. They they tried to reconcile the two. In the end, they did try and limit Jewish immigration, when it was clear that a blow-up was coming.

Anyway, that was over by '48, and there has been a lot of land grabbing since then. This is the core of the issue- land was seized rather than negotiated, and this has never been accepted.

when and what land was "seized" I agreee that the core issue is LAND. The
core issue is the fact that the islamic POV is that the entire middle east is "muslim
land" thus even land purchased in the 1800s is described as "seized"

This is not the core issue at all. Only a small minority make such radical claims.



The conflict in the '20s was due to unwanted, large scale immigration of Jews into what was then a Palestinian Arab country, temporarily under the control of Britain. I'm not going to defend the violence on either side here, but the fact is almost any other region on earth would have probably reacted the same way to such events. Massive immigration by foreigners who are changing the nature of society, buying up land and altering the country to suit their desires and needs, and the original inhabitants have no say in the matter.....conflict would be unavoidable.

Look at your own example of blacks moving north in the US. There was horrific violence and social dislocation, and the event was far, far less threatening to the established society than was the case in Palestine.

[
east Jerusalem was placed under starvation siege by arab muslim forces in 1947 and
the jewish population annhilated/expelled--------does that one count as
"LAND SEIZURE"??

Your reference?

[
Land is a big issue ----the problem should be resolved with EQUITY and
with full consideration of the history of the region over the past 2500
years-------not that difficult

The mistake is in assuming that the problem began either in 1948 or
1967. Another problem is the concept "muslim land"------
If there can be "muslim land" -----then there must also be
"christian land" "jewish land" "hindu land" etc

Perhaps, from a philosophical perspective, but the farther back in time we go, the more complex things become. Should Europe be re-ordered on the basis of 2500 years ago? How about North America? Doesn't really work, does it?

your response ---is NON RESPONSIVE------considerations of equity for PEOPLE LIVING
TODAY----based on aspects of their history does not mean _"REORDERING SOCIETY
ACCORDING TO SOCIAL STRUCTURES THAT EXISTED 3000 years ago "

There are hundreds of millions of people LIVING TODAY----who truly believe
that there is something called "MUSLIM LAND" ----but reject the concept
of "hindu land" "christian land" "buddhist land" "jewish land" ----today---
not 3000 years ago----TODAY. Unless you are suggesting that the concept of
"muslim land" must be scrapped entirely----you are not saying anything. Do you
have a plan as to how to convince hundreds of millions of people that the
concept of "muslim land" should no longer exist?. In southeast asia----the
concept of HINDU LAND----is a direct consequence of the absolute acceptance in the
minds of scores of millions over there that there is a DEFINITE REALITY called
"MUSLIM LAND" the universe tends towards SYMETRY (a synonym for equity)'

 

[skye]

Iran continues unabated ....



07 Aug 2013
"Iran has built a new rocket launch site which is likely to be used for testing ballistic missiles, according to military analysts publishing satellite images of the structure."


Iran launch site 'likely for testing ballistic missiles', analysts say - Telegraph

The fact that this site would be used for ballistic missiles is a possibility, but others have said that it could just be used for their growing space program as well. I'm sure the launchpad in Houston could, hypothetically, be used for ballistic missiles as well.

It is not for their growing space program.

There is no more dangerous present event in the world that an Atomic Iran...and they are very close to it now, Israel will have to take pre emptive action,it is only a matter of time and it's going to happen.

 

[Jos]

I look forward to the response

 

[skye]

I look forward to the response

I don't.

It's not going to be pretty.

But letting the Iranian Regime have the bomb would be worse.

 

[sambino510]

Iran continues unabated ....



07 Aug 2013
"Iran has built a new rocket launch site which is likely to be used for testing ballistic missiles, according to military analysts publishing satellite images of the structure."


Iran launch site 'likely for testing ballistic missiles', analysts say - Telegraph

The fact that this site would be used for ballistic missiles is a possibility, but others have said that it could just be used for their growing space program as well. I'm sure the launchpad in Houston could, hypothetically, be used for ballistic missiles as well.

It is not for their growing space program.

There is no more dangerous present event in the world that an Atomic Iran...and they are very close to it now, Israel will have to take pre emptive action,it is only a matter of time and it's going to happen.

I would be curious to know what definite proof there is that this particular site is a definite ballistic missile site. Even if it is, it's irrelevant. God forbid a country build a launch site for a relatively common weapon in just about the most volatile region on Earth. I don't condone violence, but I support logic, and logically, Iran would want things like ballistic missiles, or even a nuclear bomb. That doesn't mean they're pursuing one, but why wouldn't they? It's a source of national pride, it will keep us out of their regional affairs, and, after all the sanctions and international defamation they've gone through, they might do it just to rub it in our faces. Who knows?

 

[Jos]

I look forward to the response

I don't.

It's not going to be pretty.

But letting the Iranian Regime have the bomb would be worse.

I refer to the Iranian response to any attack by the isRalians, and dont forget, you asked for it

 

[skye]

I look forward to the response

I don't.

It's not going to be pretty.

But letting the Iranian Regime have the bomb would be worse.

I refer to the Iranian response to any attack by the isRalians, and dont forget, you asked for it

Whatever will be will be.

 

[Jos]

Not what ever you want, will be

 

[irosie91]

Not what ever you want, will be

so true Jos ------"not whatever you want, will be.

By its founding of Hezbollah----its arming and funding
and training and direction of its operatives----Iran has made
clear that which is " WHAT IRAN WANTS"------as we post----Hezbollah
dogs----murder in Syria ------are joining the pro-morsi ranks----and
best of all-----are lining up their doggy asses on the border between
yemen and saudi arabia. As such EVERY MOVE by iran --inside
and outside of Iran ----is suspect-------and Iran is responsible for
every crime comitted by Hezbollah

PS a very intelligent---kinda in the know mexican neighbor of mine--
insists that the Hezbollah dogs have even invaded Mexico

 

[irosie91]

Riddle me this.........Why the hell do Libs get upset and call every one a Warmonger when we talk about possible threats like Iran.

.

Because you don't make up bullshit reasons to attack sovereign nations.

Hypothetical: If you were on a Island with someone who threatened to kill you when you slept, would you not defeat that intention, before you slumbered?

I have another "riddle me this" thing-------Why is it that so many people
who style themselves -----"liberals" or 'secular humanists" ----- parrot
the nazi propaganda of the mid 1930s ??? Way back then----anyone who
murmered a word against ADOLF HITLER was called a "warmonger"

seek it out on microfilm in old libraries -- I recognize it because I grew up
in a town founded in pre revolutionary war days in the USA----the town was
RIDDLED with old propaganda pamphlets ------lying in dusty corners ---at
that time dating as far back as the 1920s Billo ---you are parroting
crap -----some 100 years old -----the stuff that galvanized the deaths of
hundreds of millions