48 replies to this topic

[HellsingDS]

Well, Israel isn't governed by a theocratic dictator, nor does it stone women to death for adultery. Amongst other things.

ffs, they don't stone people ¬¬ what have I said bout this dark? There was two incidents when a law was passed over a large time span, people protested against it and they removed the punishment. Also, what's the difference in their governmental system? Our democracy is but an illusion. Regardless of how we protest something our leaders still do near enough as they please regardless, especially when their pockets are being lined for it.

[Darkademic]

ffs, they don't stone people ¬¬ what have I said bout this dark? There was two incidents when a law was passed over a large time span, people protested against it and they removed the punishment. Also, what's the difference in their governmental system? Our democracy is but an illusion. Regardless of how we protest something our leaders still do near enough as they please regardless, especially when their pockets are being lined for it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10579121

"In 2002, the Iranian judiciary placed a moratorium on death by stoning. But such sentences have continued to be reported. And Amnesty said this week that eight men and three women were awaiting the carrying out of sentences of stoning and since 2006 at least six people had been put to death in this manner."

Looks like it was removed from the books in 2008, but there were a lot more than two incidents - looks more like ~10 per year.

And what does our democracy being an illusion have to do with anything? The people of Iran are far less free than we are, and are far less free than the people of Israel.

Edit: According to the Financial Times stoning to death as punishment for adultery was removed from the penal code in 2012 - and replaced by hanging. Oh.. much better.

Edited by Darkademic, 12 April 2012 - 06:44 pm.

[HellsingDS]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10579121

"In 2002, the Iranian judiciary placed a moratorium on death by stoning. But such sentences have continued to be reported. And Amnesty said this week that eight men and three women were awaiting the carrying out of sentences of stoning and since 2006 at least six people had been put to death in this manner."

Looks like it was removed from the books in 2008, but there were a lot more than two incidents - looks more like ~10 per year.

And what does our democracy being an illusion have to do with anything? The people of Iran are far less free than we are, and are far less free than the people of Israel.

It has everything to do with your statement of 'but they have a dictator' as if it has any basis. If a country is going to go to war it will regardless of what its people say. It doesn't matter that we have more 'freedom', if you can call it that... it doesn't make us superior. It only means our country is part of the 'elite' and can afford to spare some of its wealth. Of course though, that shared wealth is being attacked now...

Edited by HellsingDS, 12 April 2012 - 06:36 pm.

[Darkademic]

It has everything to do with your statement of 'but they have a dictator' as if it has any basis. If a country is going to go to war it will regardless of what its people say. It doesn't matter that we have more 'freedom', if you can call it that... it doesn't make us superior. It only means our country is part of the 'elite' and can afford to spare some of its wealth.

Our government can't even get away with making marginal cuts to the health service... You really think Iran and the UK have equally dictatorial governments?

I never said anything about superiority.

Put it this way, would you rather live here, or in Iran?

[Bibidiboo]

It has everything to do with your statement of 'but they have a dictator' as if it has any basis. If a country is going to go to war it will regardless of what its people say. It doesn't matter that we have more 'freedom', if you can call it that... it doesn't make us superior. It only means our country is part of the 'elite' and can afford to spare some of its wealth. Of course though, that shared wealth is being attacked now...

uhm
What does anything you even wrote here have anything to do with what you replied to? like really..?

[ReaverMage]

I'm not sure why everyone is so anti-Iran here. I'm not pro-Iran but they're not the only bad guys here.

First of all, Iran has agreed to UN's non-nuclear creation laws, while Israel has not.

Second, according to all the intelligence that many countries have been getting Iran is not trying to make nuclear bombs. (I am not denying that being able to make nuclear energy would make it significantly easier to produce nuclear weapons.)

Third, the current Israelian president is pretty fucking horrible. He's a extremely socially conservatie anti-Iran super racist. He is absolutely horrible, and I wouldn't call him much better than Ahmedinejad. He's toxic for his government, and the ''West'' does not like it. Also, his politics are horrible. Seriously, Israel is not a nice country. While they were politically fighting with Iran(which also raised oil prices), made Iran seem horrible, they started sending their army to the gaza coast to take more of it. They're not nice, at all.

Iran has in no way agreed to UN's non-nuclear creation laws. That's why there's so much controversy about whether to attack them or not.

Can you give some evidence of this 'intelligence' that Iran is not making nuclear weapons? Or that netanyahu is "super racist"? Or that he said he wants to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth? Or that he took territory from Iran by sending his army to Gaza, which is hundreds of miles away from Iran?

I'm not anti Iran.... I think they're being ganged up on the same way Iraq and Afghanistan have been in the last few years. There's a threat, the country gets invaded, the invaders get rich, the country left in ruins, then a retarded puppet gets elected into power and Bob's your uncle.

Btw how big was Palestine (geographically) 10 years ago? and how big is it now? who has allowed this?

I'm not digressing here, I just feel that Iran is feeling threatened with the fall of Iraq, the attacks in Afghanistan, its neighbour Israel having 300 (and maybe loads more since they refuse to disclose the actual amount) nukes, the largest military force in the world, some of the most advanced military tech in the world, and now that they've virtually (illegally) taken over Palestine in its entirety.

No, Iran does not have the right to nukes, but neither does any other nation. While other nations (including ours) have nukes, you cannot deny any others the same right. Iran can see its oil as being a problem, and is sourcing a better energy resource. We can't predict the future, but as it stands, Israel is in a much more of a threat than Iran.

Palestine was the same size 10 years ago....

Where is the evidence that Israel has 300+ nukes or the biggest military in the world? Last time I checked the USA had the biggest military. And by the way all the Palestinian land Israel took over was during wars instigated by other arab countries. Look up Yom Kippur war and 6 day war.

Today's news, http://uk.breakingne...ogram?REF=MSNUK


Iran says its nuclear program is designed chiefly to generate electricity and does not have a military component. But several Western countries, including the US, UK and Canada, fear Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and have imposed increasingly strict sanctions, including ones to block Iran's oil exports.

The head of the U.N. nuclear agency said his organization has "serious concerns" that Iran may be hiding secret atomic weapons work. Israel has indicated it is considering a unilateral, pre-emptive strike on Iran to set back the program.


Serious Concerns? Like the WMD in Iraq? They attack, go in, find no nukes, hold up their hands and say "our bad!!", and then go "oooh! is that oil?"

And isn't this threat from Israel just as bad, if not worse than the threat by Ahmedinejad? Iran's threat was idle, because they didn't have the means. Israel is actually planning an attack.
What happens next? Iran retaliates? America and the UK get involved AGAINST IRAN, they go into Iran to "Stabilise" the country, take control of the oil and leave the country in a bigger hole than Iraq.
All the while, our countries, which are in serious debt, losing our AAA status at risk (America already at AA I think), and they'll end up committing more millions to war against oil rich, Islamic Middle Eastern countries.

I just don't like the way they're ganging up, on no proof at all. They should be applauded for efforts concerning renewable fuel. The world is wise to their motives,and still they do not relent.

Believing someone who said he wants to "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth" is developing nuclear technology for energy is ludicrous. Look at North Korea- would you say they are being victimised and "ganged up on"?

It has everything to do with your statement of 'but they have a dictator' as if it has any basis. If a country is going to go to war it will regardless of what its people say. It doesn't matter that we have more 'freedom', if you can call it that... it doesn't make us superior. It only means our country is part of the 'elite' and can afford to spare some of its wealth. Of course though, that shared wealth is being attacked now...

are you telling me this country is not a democracy?

Edited by ReaverMage, 13 April 2012 - 09:05 pm.

[Bibidiboo]

Iran has in no way agreed to UN's non-nuclear creation laws. That's why there's so much controversy about whether to attack them or not.

There's controversy about it because of political bs, attacking Iran would help nobody except Iran, also newspapers. Read the former somewhere can't remember, still pretty sure it's true.

Can you give some evidence of this 'intelligence' that Iran is not making nuclear weapons?

Can you give me any evidence that they are? They're trying to make nuclear energy, this might help them if they eventually want to make nukes, but for the moment it does not seem to be their priority. Also To the first, multiple newspapers reported that the UK/US intelligence actually told them that they couldn't find evidence of them actually wanting to make nuclear weapons. I could find them for you, but i don't think it's necessary and i don't want to.

Or that netanyahu is "super racist"?

In many speeches he talks pretty negatively about palestinians, and he's pretty conservative.

Or that he said he wants to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth?

? where did i write this?

Or that he took territory from Iran by sending his army to Gaza, which is hundreds of miles away from Iran?

brain malfunction has no impact on the arguments, but they are fighting around gaza coast area if my brain is remembering the right name.

Believing someone who said he wants to "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth" is developing nuclear technology for energy is ludicrous. Look at North Korea- would you say they are being victimised and "ganged up on"?

http://www.washingto...JIKML_blog.html

[ReaverMage]

There's controversy about it because of political bs, attacking Iran would help nobody except Iran, also newspapers. Read the former somewhere can't remember, still pretty sure it's true.

Can you give me any evidence that they are? They're trying to make nuclear energy, this might help them if they eventually want to make nukes, but for the moment it does not seem to be their priority. Also To the first, multiple newspapers reported that the UK/US intelligence actually told them that they couldn't find evidence of them actually wanting to make nuclear weapons. I could find them for you, but i don't think it's necessary and i don't want to.
In many speeches he talks pretty negatively about palestinians, and he's pretty conservative.
? where did i write this?
brain malfunction has no impact on the arguments, but they are fighting around gaza coast area if my brain is remembering the right name.[/b]


[/font][/color]
http://www.washingto...JIKML_blog.html

I didn't say whether I think Iran should be attacked or not, I simply said they have repeatedly violated UN's non-nuclear creation laws.

As for evidence of them wanting to create nuclear weapons, the very fact of their belligerence towards Israel and the West, as well as other Muslim countries, coupled with the fact that they are enriching plutonium should make a relatively simple 'join the dots' picture. And I haven't seen these articles you are talking about anywhere, and if you don't want to find them it's a moot point.

Talking negatively about Palestinians is hardly "super-racist", and while he may be conservative that doesn't make him racist as such.

You said he was not much better than Ahmedinejad and I was merely pointing out one pledged to destroy the other.


A simple wikipedia search reveals:

http://en.wikipedia.....22_controversy
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad). According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he wanted its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, to collapse." The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."
I.e he wants to destroy it.

[Xeynobrand]

Israel have repeated ignored UN calls for nuclear inspection on the grounds that 'its neighbours are hostile' and refuse to sign any nuclear free agreements. They have a poor human rights record with the Palestinians. Should they be invaded or attacked? They have a far greater military threat than any of its Arab neighbours.

[ReaverMage]

Israel have repeated ignored UN calls for nuclear inspection on the grounds that 'its neighbours are hostile' and refuse to sign any nuclear free agreements. They have a poor human rights record with the Palestinians. Should they be invaded or attacked? They have a far greater military threat than any of its Arab neighbours.

They already have nukes and have done for a long time... can I have some evidence of your claims of refusing to comply with UN inspections? Or of government human rights abuse of Palestinians? Why would we invade or attack them when they are friendly to and allied with many western countries? As for their military, http://en.wikipedia....sraeli_conflict look at all the times they've been attacked.

[Xeynobrand]

Well its common knowledge that Israel has refused nuclear inspections. Simply google Israel refuses to allow nuclear inspections.
As for human rights issues http://en.wikipedia....ied_Territories and a lot of people think these are not the only injustices committed against palestinians.
No one is calling for an attack on Israel, I don't want to see any wars at all, but the comparison of so called justifications to invade Iran are somewhat nonsensical because their own allies fall under the same bracket. The military issue was again a comparison.
The 'history' of conflicts with Israel has been re-written many times and many wars and conflicts are still under scrutiny for authenticity. History is rarely written by anyone other than the victors.

[ReaverMage]

Well its common knowledge that Israel has refused nuclear inspections. Simply google Israel refuses to allow nuclear inspections.
As for human rights issues http://en.wikipedia....ied_Territories and a lot of people think these are not the only injustices committed against palestinians.
No one is calling for an attack on Israel, I don't want to see any wars at all, but the comparison of so called justifications to invade Iran are somewhat nonsensical because their own allies fall under the same bracket. The military issue was again a comparison.
The 'history' of conflicts with Israel has been re-written many times and many wars and conflicts are still under scrutiny for authenticity. History is rarely written by anyone other than the victors.

The UN inspections are to enforce the NPT, and Israel is not a signatory state so it is doing nothing wrong by not being inspected, whereas Iran signed the treaty then violated it.
Iran have a much, much, much worse record of human rights abuse, not to mention their stated aim to destroy Israel.
"Should they be invaded or attacked?" That seems like a pretty belligerent statement to me, but if you were saying it's hypocritical to say Iran should be invaded as Israel are in the same position, that's completely nonsensical. As above, Iran have stated they want to destroy Israel, they have violated a treaty they signed, they have worse human rights records, they haven't been attacked multiple times by their neighbours and don't have frequent anti-civilian terrorist attacks against them (unless you call the murder of nuclear scientists or viral infection of computer systems connected to the nuclear programme anti-civilian). Furthermore, the very fact that you say it is 'history' in inverted commas is laughable. It is 100% clear cut that neighbouring arab states attacked Israel without provocation. I'm not claiming Israel's behaviour was stellar, but no one would dispute the facts- saying they are under scrutiny for authenticity makes me want to facepalm. History may be written by the victors, but when innumerable independent observers write it too it's reliable.
By the way:
http://en.wikipedia....epublic_of_Iran
http://en.wikipedia...._violent_events

Edited by ReaverMage, 18 July 2012 - 06:31 pm.

[Xeynobrand]

Clearly your not up for intelligent civil debate so I wont bother.

[ReaverMage]

Ok...

[Devlin1991]

Don't degrade down into childish implied insults please

I am not really sure on my opinion currently, I feel that weapons as powerful as nuclear bombs should not be in the hands of any country that has an unstable military especially one that is heavily influenced by religion to the point that actions that would be considered insane are brushed off as being holy. Yes, pretty much every religion has done some bad things, but I do not have any fear that America or Russia or China would use nukes in combat because they are all perfectly aware of the eventual outcome. I do not have that same confidence in Iran and Israel, its a ticking timebomb waiting to blow up atm, and when it does it might do way more environmental damage due to radiation and oil disruptions/spills that either state seems to have a grasp of.

[Monkeypooh]

hello all.
first post and all thought this would be a fun one to join.....
power always defends it self ...in the uk we have had imprisonment without trial for a long time ...case in point my black school mates used to get arrested and detained under sus laws as they left the school grounds....second point on death penalty,check out usa and china record on how many they killed and how...the usa have never attacked a state no matter how unstable as long as they have weapons of mass destruction ...pakistan/north korea...
final point the truth is what the powerful says its is ..any one got a dossier on saddams nukes ....1 million peeps marched in london to say no but we still went to war..democracy in action.