It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Sintabon3
reply to post by filosophia
My point is that he was refering to Lebanon whyle speaking about democracy, and not Iran as you claimed.
Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Sintabon3
Oh so someone must have misquoted the prime minister of israel, but they couldnt possibly have misquoted the prime minister of iran. There are plenty more quotes where that comes from, plus its the israelis ACTIONS that speak the loudest, i.e. illegal settlements and killing a protester with a bulldozeredit on 15-2-2012 by filosophia because: (no reason given)
You provided no link to your quote correction, as well the revised quote doesnt make sense since it is also cut off, something about use of force, but only if necessary, and then saying they dont want to expel arabs from their land, but guess what, they did!edit on 15-2-2012 by filosophia because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Sintabon3
reply to post by filosophia
Bare with me here...Lebanese Indeed want democracy, Instead they got a civil war, and today An Iranian Proxy Embeded deeply in their politics.
Originally posted by Sintabon3
reply to post by filosophia
I admit Israel works with other Arab countrys such as Khatar Saudi Arabia and the emirates...but you can keep on trying to take my words out of context, if that makes you feel better.
Originally posted by filosophia
Douglas Murray
-begins his speech with an ad hominem attack against his three opponents and correlates their views to the downfall of England as a whole.
-provides no contrary evidence or evidence of any kind, not even a quote.
-called iran a regional stabilizer but hypocritically ignoring the manufactured CIA arab spring
-says iran wipes out best chance of democracy, ignoring the fact that iran does not want a democracy and they have a right to pick their fom of government.
-continuosly brings up this two choice game: war with iran, or iran with a nuke. He wants war, thinks it is moral, so my question is, will this war monger put his life where his mouth is and fight himself?
-doesnt want iran 'regime' to be stong, so he is an iranaphobe.
-iran is violating every right of british students. No evidence of this remarkable claim, just authoritarian assurances that iran is violating ALL rights.
-he is glad this 'house', i.e. the debate has no say, is also glad that britain has no say if iran is attacked or not. In oher words it is a foregone cnclusion, the debate is just lip service.
-invokes the victim card fear mongering as only evidence of irans hostility, ignoing the murder of iranian scientists.
edit on 15-2-2012 by filosophia because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by lordnightstalker
reply to post by filosophia
There is no such thing as terrorism, war is war and you fight with the methodologies you have available, there are no terrorists only combatants, that word no matter which side in the debate is using is no more than a dehumanizing term for your enemy, killing scientists is a part of war, period.
Originally posted by filosophia
FINALLY, this remarkable gem:
" when israel strikes, the entire world will condemn israel openly, but in secret they will say 'thank god for israel'
The saudis, the egyptians, the libyans will all say 'thank god for israel' "