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.
When Did Iran Say It Wanted To Kill All Jews?
page: 3share:
reply to post by Alexei
Conveniently (/end sarcasm), more like intentionally, the media never mentions the fact that there are about 40,000 Jews living in Iran. Though Israel has offered to relocate them (on stolen Palestinian land of-course), they have refused.
If Iran wanted to "kill all Jews", they're doing a terrible job of it.
Conveniently (/end sarcasm), more like intentionally, the media never mentions the fact that there are about 40,000 Jews living in Iran. Though Israel has offered to relocate them (on stolen Palestinian land of-course), they have refused.
If Iran wanted to "kill all Jews", they're doing a terrible job of it.
edit on 7-4-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by Alexei
Conveniently (/end sarcasm), more like intentionally, the media never mentions the fact that there are about 40,000 Jews living in Iran. Though Israel has offered to relocate them (on stolen Palestinian land of-course), they have refused.
If Iran wanted to "kill all Jews", they're doing a terrible job of it.
edit on 7-4-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)
Why kill infiltrators you can use against thier own people? Or hostages? Its funny they do not want to leave. Usually if someone offers you a gift for free almost anybody will take it. there has got to be something going on with the iranian jews not wanting to go back. Oh did you know one of the wives of the scientist killed in Iran said her husband was working on a nuclear device to destroy israel. It was in the news a month ago i think.
reply to post by yuppa
www.jta.org...
a jewish news article regarding what i suspect is your possible mentioned story.
nowhere does it state he was workong on a nuclear device to dstroy israel.
if this isn't the story you mention, could you supply a link for your last two sentences?
regards fakedirt
www.jta.org...
a jewish news article regarding what i suspect is your possible mentioned story.
nowhere does it state he was workong on a nuclear device to dstroy israel.
if this isn't the story you mention, could you supply a link for your last two sentences?
regards fakedirt
reply to post by fakedirt
Allowing the nuclearization of Iran would serve as an incredible public-relations measure for Netanyahu's contestants to the Prime-Ministry of Israel, and the elections are to eventuate within a few months. When Israel is no longer the only regional power with nuclear weaponry, Israel's most preponderant bargaining-chip, the nuclear reactor in Dimona, will lose much of its significance in the balance of power. Such a development will be succeeded by economic loss and an even hastier process of brain-drain, as affluent Israelis will be encouraged to pack their bags and immigrate before it's too late and another holocaust (and a nuclear one, at that) befalls the them. Two major developments will stem from the nuclearization of Iran: a) the commencement of a uranium-enrichment race between all regional powers, as any local state will demand to own what Iran already owns, and the region will be further destabilized; b) the prospect of an Iranian nuke arriving, "in an eerie coincidence", at the hands of a terrorist organization, will pounce from 0% (as, obviously, Iran currently doesn't own even a single such nuke) to approximately 80%, a scenario that will involve an immense threat to Israel's national security, as well as the security of Jews (I specifically choose the term 'Jews', and not 'Israelis', because Hezbollah and its ilk target worldwide Jewry regardless of any connection or its lack thereof with Israel) around the globe, and of course, the whole globe itself, which will have do struggle with yet another insane leadership with overt imperialist tendencies and objectives. To rephrase it in short: Israel just cannot accept an Iran which is even at risk of manufacturing the technology to annihilate the Zionist regime. Of course, Iran can always buy an atom bomb from North Korea, but that's a different scenario and it's not the time and place to reflect upon it.
Exterminating Iran's nuclear program will destabilize Iran, making it less likely that the regime, which has just lost its major national program, for which the citizenry class has paid so dearly due to international sanctions, will last any longer than a decade, and seeing that Israel is determined to stay the only nuclear power in the region, Iran and the rest of Middle-Eastern states will be dissuaded from attempting to construct another nuclear program. Let me appeal here to your common-sense: in case an uranium-enrichment race begins, and Iran itself will have nukes in its arsenal, what are the chances that, an Islamic dictator and/or a leading terrorist will not, in contemporary times or in the indefinite future, employ this weapon? Extremely low chances. Israel, therefore, will act logically by inflicting as much damage possible to Iran and to whichever states that are in risk of attacking it.
As demonstrated above, an aggressive policy in which perceived enemies are diminished only serves the interests of the one pursuing such a policy. This is not to claim that only aggressiveness achieves objectives, but rather, when no immediate achievement is obtained through groveling, certainly the route of aggression, taken to its most extreme forms, is more profitable than some mild-diplomacy. You don't fight with words, but with weapons.
Now, being a hardcore Machiavellian, I deem "the use of nukes or any other medium where masses of civilians are slaughtered for the increased tenureship of another nation" as, indeed, 'acceptable'.
Regarding the question of espousing game-theory logic to the socio-economic realm, there's no question that as a an individual, my interests collide with those of my state, as the states always moves in the direction of tightening the grip over the population, while the individual citizen, myself in the given event, who is not a part of the ruling clique, certainly strives towards the opposite direction, the direction of expanding as much possible his personal liberty. However, from a collective point of view, if we return for a moment to the Iranian affair, it is a positive development for the individual Israeli should the Iranian threat be diminished. The formula is: "I want my state weak, but other states even weaker". To make it even more complicated, I as an individual would support any infringement of liberty upon society, as long as I'm exempt from it -- having others following dictations you're exempt from is in your interests. If another formulative phrase is warranted: "I support the confiscation of all guns, except that of my own".
To sum up this point, applying game-theory measures to socio is always expedient, the question is, of course, to whom. Of course, one of the considerations of the government is public sentiment, so blatantly exterminating people for being a burden on society, as in your example, may not be a smart decision by the state and its leaders, and unless you can control all of the people all of the time, as a ruler you'd rather prefer to appeal to the mobs' fondness by not managing an overly-obtrusive state, to which all individuals would resist. And likewise, when conducted appropriately, a game theory-based policy is practically more likely to turn out fruitful in the global sphere than in the domestic and private fields, as international relations are always characterized a complete lack of the need to compromise immediate interests for the sake of a creative, but a restraining, notion.
Therefore, in a fashion of applying game theory to the modern conflict and to any conflict in general, the more bold and uncompromising is your declaration of intentions and its derivative pursuit of a policy, the most likely it is to become fruitful, since when a vacillating element collides with a pompously determined one, the latter is to defeat the former, and not vice versa. Now let's examine, as succinctly as possible, the application of game theory in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict:
If Israel declares that whatever land it currently holds belongs to Israel, and proceeds with the expulsion of the Arabs from its territory, the world will be mad, but then after a few years of sanctions, the world will normalize with Israel, and thus the conflict will be solved. If, on the other hand, Israel will argue that 'those Arab will stay, and those Arabs aren't allowed'; 'these lands we'll hold, and these lands we won't', and likewise bargain with such irresolute demand, the tide will always lean in favor of the uncompromising Palestinians, and more decades of war and bloodshed will follow. So in the current example, being aggressive (comparatively) towards the Palestinians and settling them in Jordan, Syria, etc, clearly serves the Israeli interest, and in long-term also the Palestinians' interest (as their purported nationality will collapse, and they will assimilate into their fellow Arabs).
Therefore, it must be concluded that such a policy is more expedient and more advantageous than any other. Let me offer a different perspective: from an individual perspective, the complete dismantlement of Israel and the immigration of all Jews to the Western world, with the overt objective of intermingling with the local populations and assimilating into them, is the best solution and the only realistic one.
I disagree with your assessment of what the outcome of nuking Tehran may be. If the perpetration of such a strike is done with top military experts' provision, no fundamental, irreversible damage will be suffered by the world or by Israel. By setting the astounding precedent of employing a nuclear weapon outside the context of WW2, Israel guarantees itself both international appreciation as an unflinching stat, and an overwhelming force of deterrence. The annihilation of all or even most human civilization is an implausible outcome, and ought not to be appended into the equation.
The IAEA are not 'afraid' of inspecting Israel's nuclear reactor, it's just that Israel forbids them doing it (obviously, it's against the Israeli interest to expose for the whole world its most preponderant bargaining chip), and since Israel has never admitted to posses any nuclear weaponry ("we neither affirm, nor deny"), it cannot be coerced to be inspected by foreign inspectors. This cunning strategy fits well with the game theory notion, and as Netanyahu's agenda goes, 'a perceived threat is as credible as a real one'.
Allowing the nuclearization of Iran would serve as an incredible public-relations measure for Netanyahu's contestants to the Prime-Ministry of Israel, and the elections are to eventuate within a few months. When Israel is no longer the only regional power with nuclear weaponry, Israel's most preponderant bargaining-chip, the nuclear reactor in Dimona, will lose much of its significance in the balance of power. Such a development will be succeeded by economic loss and an even hastier process of brain-drain, as affluent Israelis will be encouraged to pack their bags and immigrate before it's too late and another holocaust (and a nuclear one, at that) befalls the them. Two major developments will stem from the nuclearization of Iran: a) the commencement of a uranium-enrichment race between all regional powers, as any local state will demand to own what Iran already owns, and the region will be further destabilized; b) the prospect of an Iranian nuke arriving, "in an eerie coincidence", at the hands of a terrorist organization, will pounce from 0% (as, obviously, Iran currently doesn't own even a single such nuke) to approximately 80%, a scenario that will involve an immense threat to Israel's national security, as well as the security of Jews (I specifically choose the term 'Jews', and not 'Israelis', because Hezbollah and its ilk target worldwide Jewry regardless of any connection or its lack thereof with Israel) around the globe, and of course, the whole globe itself, which will have do struggle with yet another insane leadership with overt imperialist tendencies and objectives. To rephrase it in short: Israel just cannot accept an Iran which is even at risk of manufacturing the technology to annihilate the Zionist regime. Of course, Iran can always buy an atom bomb from North Korea, but that's a different scenario and it's not the time and place to reflect upon it.
Exterminating Iran's nuclear program will destabilize Iran, making it less likely that the regime, which has just lost its major national program, for which the citizenry class has paid so dearly due to international sanctions, will last any longer than a decade, and seeing that Israel is determined to stay the only nuclear power in the region, Iran and the rest of Middle-Eastern states will be dissuaded from attempting to construct another nuclear program. Let me appeal here to your common-sense: in case an uranium-enrichment race begins, and Iran itself will have nukes in its arsenal, what are the chances that, an Islamic dictator and/or a leading terrorist will not, in contemporary times or in the indefinite future, employ this weapon? Extremely low chances. Israel, therefore, will act logically by inflicting as much damage possible to Iran and to whichever states that are in risk of attacking it.
As demonstrated above, an aggressive policy in which perceived enemies are diminished only serves the interests of the one pursuing such a policy. This is not to claim that only aggressiveness achieves objectives, but rather, when no immediate achievement is obtained through groveling, certainly the route of aggression, taken to its most extreme forms, is more profitable than some mild-diplomacy. You don't fight with words, but with weapons.
Now, being a hardcore Machiavellian, I deem "the use of nukes or any other medium where masses of civilians are slaughtered for the increased tenureship of another nation" as, indeed, 'acceptable'.
Regarding the question of espousing game-theory logic to the socio-economic realm, there's no question that as a an individual, my interests collide with those of my state, as the states always moves in the direction of tightening the grip over the population, while the individual citizen, myself in the given event, who is not a part of the ruling clique, certainly strives towards the opposite direction, the direction of expanding as much possible his personal liberty. However, from a collective point of view, if we return for a moment to the Iranian affair, it is a positive development for the individual Israeli should the Iranian threat be diminished. The formula is: "I want my state weak, but other states even weaker". To make it even more complicated, I as an individual would support any infringement of liberty upon society, as long as I'm exempt from it -- having others following dictations you're exempt from is in your interests. If another formulative phrase is warranted: "I support the confiscation of all guns, except that of my own".
To sum up this point, applying game-theory measures to socio is always expedient, the question is, of course, to whom. Of course, one of the considerations of the government is public sentiment, so blatantly exterminating people for being a burden on society, as in your example, may not be a smart decision by the state and its leaders, and unless you can control all of the people all of the time, as a ruler you'd rather prefer to appeal to the mobs' fondness by not managing an overly-obtrusive state, to which all individuals would resist. And likewise, when conducted appropriately, a game theory-based policy is practically more likely to turn out fruitful in the global sphere than in the domestic and private fields, as international relations are always characterized a complete lack of the need to compromise immediate interests for the sake of a creative, but a restraining, notion.
Therefore, in a fashion of applying game theory to the modern conflict and to any conflict in general, the more bold and uncompromising is your declaration of intentions and its derivative pursuit of a policy, the most likely it is to become fruitful, since when a vacillating element collides with a pompously determined one, the latter is to defeat the former, and not vice versa. Now let's examine, as succinctly as possible, the application of game theory in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict:
If Israel declares that whatever land it currently holds belongs to Israel, and proceeds with the expulsion of the Arabs from its territory, the world will be mad, but then after a few years of sanctions, the world will normalize with Israel, and thus the conflict will be solved. If, on the other hand, Israel will argue that 'those Arab will stay, and those Arabs aren't allowed'; 'these lands we'll hold, and these lands we won't', and likewise bargain with such irresolute demand, the tide will always lean in favor of the uncompromising Palestinians, and more decades of war and bloodshed will follow. So in the current example, being aggressive (comparatively) towards the Palestinians and settling them in Jordan, Syria, etc, clearly serves the Israeli interest, and in long-term also the Palestinians' interest (as their purported nationality will collapse, and they will assimilate into their fellow Arabs).
Therefore, it must be concluded that such a policy is more expedient and more advantageous than any other. Let me offer a different perspective: from an individual perspective, the complete dismantlement of Israel and the immigration of all Jews to the Western world, with the overt objective of intermingling with the local populations and assimilating into them, is the best solution and the only realistic one.
I disagree with your assessment of what the outcome of nuking Tehran may be. If the perpetration of such a strike is done with top military experts' provision, no fundamental, irreversible damage will be suffered by the world or by Israel. By setting the astounding precedent of employing a nuclear weapon outside the context of WW2, Israel guarantees itself both international appreciation as an unflinching stat, and an overwhelming force of deterrence. The annihilation of all or even most human civilization is an implausible outcome, and ought not to be appended into the equation.
The IAEA are not 'afraid' of inspecting Israel's nuclear reactor, it's just that Israel forbids them doing it (obviously, it's against the Israeli interest to expose for the whole world its most preponderant bargaining chip), and since Israel has never admitted to posses any nuclear weaponry ("we neither affirm, nor deny"), it cannot be coerced to be inspected by foreign inspectors. This cunning strategy fits well with the game theory notion, and as Netanyahu's agenda goes, 'a perceived threat is as credible as a real one'.
edit on 7-4-2012 by RATSOYFY37 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-4-2012 by RATSOYFY37 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by fakedirt
www.theatlantic.com...
There is the article. Really though you can determine for yourself what he was working on. His wife would have no reason to lie would she? Looks like she was pissed to tell that.
www.theatlantic.com...
There is the article. Really though you can determine for yourself what he was working on. His wife would have no reason to lie would she? Looks like she was pissed to tell that.
reply to post by RATSOYFY37
hello ratsoy.
i will chew over your reply. quite a lot of pointers for me so allow me some time to respond.
2nd
regards fakedirt.
hello ratsoy.
i will chew over your reply. quite a lot of pointers for me so allow me some time to respond.
2nd
regards fakedirt.
reply to post by yuppa
hello yuppa
regarding the article, it's the same story as the one previous just a different outlet. this is gleaned from the fars news agency. english.farsnews.com... an interesting read.
it's emphasis is the destruction of the zionist regime. the connection between his work and his stance on the destruction of israel is still questionable. a bit more information from his wife would be of interest and i have searched for more, however when i do find an expanded interview, i'll post a link.
regards fakedirt.
btw, do you have the slightest suspicion that emotions run high when a spouse loses a partner and is imo convinced that a certain agency is behind the liquidation? it is also an eyeopener as to the number of scientists in iran who come to grisly ends.
hello yuppa
regarding the article, it's the same story as the one previous just a different outlet. this is gleaned from the fars news agency. english.farsnews.com... an interesting read.
it's emphasis is the destruction of the zionist regime. the connection between his work and his stance on the destruction of israel is still questionable. a bit more information from his wife would be of interest and i have searched for more, however when i do find an expanded interview, i'll post a link.
regards fakedirt.
btw, do you have the slightest suspicion that emotions run high when a spouse loses a partner and is imo convinced that a certain agency is behind the liquidation? it is also an eyeopener as to the number of scientists in iran who come to grisly ends.
edit on 8-4-2012 by fakedirt because:
add.
edit on 8-4-2012 by fakedirt because: add1
edit on 8-4-2012 by fakedirt because: add2
reply to post by fakedirt
Well thanks in advance for when you do find the info. Well the guy was working for the wrong people so i have no remorse for him being liquidated. You work for bad people you tend to get killed. SS officers found that out the hard way. Its not surpising to see so many scientist dying because they are afraid they will reveal a secret. Note to scientist. DO NOT WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT THEY WILL KILL YOU TO KEEP THE SECRET.
Well thanks in advance for when you do find the info. Well the guy was working for the wrong people so i have no remorse for him being liquidated. You work for bad people you tend to get killed. SS officers found that out the hard way. Its not surpising to see so many scientist dying because they are afraid they will reveal a secret. Note to scientist. DO NOT WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT THEY WILL KILL YOU TO KEEP THE SECRET.
reply to post by Alexei
Well, some might say this is all about the fact that Iran as a country is the only power standing infront of the Zionist agenda to take over the area for their own 'Promised Land'.
Surely I'm not the only person who has heard of this conspiracy theory. I mean, I can't be bothered to bring up links right now but you get my drift.
Well, some might say this is all about the fact that Iran as a country is the only power standing infront of the Zionist agenda to take over the area for their own 'Promised Land'.
Surely I'm not the only person who has heard of this conspiracy theory. I mean, I can't be bothered to bring up links right now but you get my drift.
reply to post by RATSOYFY37
hello alex.
i am still mulling over your last response so bear with me. i know this is way off topic from the original thread, however i do hope the op will forgive the tangent.
in searching the wider region with nuclear capable systems, i came across an article regarding pakistans refusal to sign the npt which resulted in sanctions implemented and pushed by the usa. the point being the usa suspended the sanctions against the pakistan regime in order to have an easy route into afghanistan on a number of occasions. this adhesive stance imo shows evidence of double standards from the usa with regards to who is and who is not allowed to possess these weapons.
i am formulating a response to your post but will require the above to be considered prior to an answer.
regards fakedirt.
hello alex.
i am still mulling over your last response so bear with me. i know this is way off topic from the original thread, however i do hope the op will forgive the tangent.
in searching the wider region with nuclear capable systems, i came across an article regarding pakistans refusal to sign the npt which resulted in sanctions implemented and pushed by the usa. the point being the usa suspended the sanctions against the pakistan regime in order to have an easy route into afghanistan on a number of occasions. this adhesive stance imo shows evidence of double standards from the usa with regards to who is and who is not allowed to possess these weapons.
i am formulating a response to your post but will require the above to be considered prior to an answer.
regards fakedirt.
edit on 9-4-2012 by fakedirt because: reason.
Originally posted by yuppa
reply to post by fakedirt
Well thanks in advance for when you do find the info. Well the guy was working for the wrong people so i have no remorse for him being liquidated. You work for bad people you tend to get killed. SS officers found that out the hard way. Its not surpising to see so many scientist dying because they are afraid they will reveal a secret. Note to scientist. DO NOT WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT THEY WILL KILL YOU TO KEEP THE SECRET.
are you implying that the scientists own government liquidated them?
imo one could exhaust all quotes from the iranian leadership, commentators and persons of relevance and it will still not be enough to address the issue. there will always be suspicions and political movements against the iranian regime irrespective of their intentions.
i posed a question to ratsoy, would you care to comment on the adhesive nature of american foreign policy with regards to the pakistan situation?
furthermore the connection between the tenureship of the liquidated scientist and the implied statement that he was working on a weapon to use against israel, can you supply any links for this?
regards fakedirt.
edit on 9-4-2012 by fakedirt because: y
reply to post by yuppa
Jameela is not Iranian and neither does she understand Farsi. I don't know why in the name of God, you guys on ATS are taking an Islamic Arabic view on Iran, from the US, serious.
It is his actual meaning. I'm an actual Iranian that understands what he's saying. There is no poetic undertone.
Well, that's the thing. He has to mean it to keep the support from religious nutjobs. Even if he doesn't mean it. Does that mean it's okay to say? No. It means he's catering to a bunch of nutjobs. Who want to hear him say such things.
He's not a good guy. To get into office he handed out sacks of potatoes to poor folk if they voted for him. But then again, he has to do the bidding of the theocracy, the bidding of the REAL nutjobs that Ahmadinejad is shilling for. Khamenei.
Seriously, do not take anything Jameela says on the Iran issue serious. He/She has absolutely NO clue what is going on.
Still we are people who take your word literally because we have learned to do that after so many times we did not and someone died.
Jameela is not Iranian and neither does she understand Farsi. I don't know why in the name of God, you guys on ATS are taking an Islamic Arabic view on Iran, from the US, serious.
If he would go on worldwide tv and break it down into his actual meaning it would be different.
It is his actual meaning. I'm an actual Iranian that understands what he's saying. There is no poetic undertone.
He needs to do that if he is not actually meaning to destroy Israel,and the jews.
Well, that's the thing. He has to mean it to keep the support from religious nutjobs. Even if he doesn't mean it. Does that mean it's okay to say? No. It means he's catering to a bunch of nutjobs. Who want to hear him say such things.
Personally anyone who says a nations people should be drove into the sea is not a good guy in my opinion.
He's not a good guy. To get into office he handed out sacks of potatoes to poor folk if they voted for him. But then again, he has to do the bidding of the theocracy, the bidding of the REAL nutjobs that Ahmadinejad is shilling for. Khamenei.
Seriously, do not take anything Jameela says on the Iran issue serious. He/She has absolutely NO clue what is going on.
edit on 9-4-2012 by
InfoKartel because: (no reason given)
reply to post by InfoKartel
Well dear if it was to mean death to JEWS then the chant would be Marg bar (jews)... instead it is Marg bar ISRAEL, and no one is stupid enough to think that it would mean otherwise
www.abovetopsecret.com... how I posted is how Iranians explained it to me. Anyone with a brain can figure out the difference
note: I placed the word Jews in parentheses to separate it from the sentence as saying the sentence in that manner was only an illustration of a difference between what people accuse Iranians of chanting and the reality of what is said.
Well dear if it was to mean death to JEWS then the chant would be Marg bar (jews)... instead it is Marg bar ISRAEL, and no one is stupid enough to think that it would mean otherwise
www.abovetopsecret.com... how I posted is how Iranians explained it to me. Anyone with a brain can figure out the difference
note: I placed the word Jews in parentheses to separate it from the sentence as saying the sentence in that manner was only an illustration of a difference between what people accuse Iranians of chanting and the reality of what is said.
edit on 10-4-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Jameela
Imagine if people shouted "Death to [x]", and x would be the country you live in / are from. Point clear yet?
Imagine if people shouted "Death to [x]", and x would be the country you live in / are from. Point clear yet?
Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by Jameela
Imagine if people shouted "Death to [x]", and x would be the country you live in / are from. Point clear yet?
People say that all the time!
edit on 10-4-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Jameela
Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by Jameela
Imagine if people shouted "Death to [x]", and x would be the country you live in / are from. Point clear yet?
People say that all the time!edit on 10-4-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)
Sigh
You're pushing it now.
Just refrain from posting any LIES about the situation in Iran because you talk to a few government stooges inside Iran, if you even speak to anyone inside Iran in the first place. Just because you feel your religion is at war with the West does not mean it is so. It means your religious perspective is messed up. It means you were raised by some messed up people. Just because you want more people to follow your backward religion it does not give you the right to minimalize the suffering of people inside Iran. That's what animals do, not humans.
Originally posted by Jameela
reply to post by InfoKartel
Well dear if it was to mean death to JEWS then the chant would be Marg bar (jews)... instead it is Marg bar ISRAEL, and no one is stupid enough to think that it would mean otherwise
www.abovetopsecret.com... how I posted is how Iranians explained it to me. Anyone with a brain can figure out the difference
note: I placed the word Jews in parentheses to separate it from the sentence as saying the sentence in that manner was only an illustration of a difference between what people accuse Iranians of chanting and the reality of what is said.
edit on 10-4-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)
To the people who starred this post. You are starring the interpretation of an indoctrinated Muslim who is not even Iranian, but pretends to know Iranians. Jameela doesn't even understand what is being said but is trying to deflect because of her own personal religious agenda. I hope God has mercy on your souls.
Israel admits that Iran didn't say "We will wipe Israel off the face of the Earth".
www.liveleak.com...
www.liveleak.com...
edit on 22-4-2012 by Clearskies because:
(no reason given)
Everyone, please pardon me for raising from the necromancy this rather old thread. It seems I've received some sort of a retort, which I obviously
can't ignore. My sincere apologies are given to you.
It's not really double-standards; there aren't any standards in the first place, just divergent interests. The US doesn't view Jewish nuclear bombs as a threat to its security; ergo the Jews are allowed to hold those bombs. However, having an Islamic state holding such bombs is a grave danger for the USA, so it had had to be hampered, until a seemingly more preponderant issue approached, at which case the considerations have changed. The US is indeed inconsistent in its foreign policy, but there always seems to be some sort of reasoning behind each and every move it conducts. The implications of allowing a Muslim state to become nuclear are very fatal, and thus it cannot just pass under everyone's noses and radars that a nuclear theocracy is established. Sanctions, however, are not a solution, as your example manifests. If you're stance is that certain weapons are a 'danger to world peace' (which translates to: 'a danger to our country's security') when they are under the wrong leadership, don't target the country under the sovereignty of said leadership; rather, annihilate the weaponry itself and all its supplementing technology. And if you do target the country, then do the right move and erase it altogether from being in existence. Doing things by-halves, as is they American model of the appropriate manner of conducting affairs, is occasionally worse than doing nothing at all.
In the Iranian case, this strategy suggests carpet-bombing Iran with nuclear weapons, and setting an eternal precedent for any Islamic regime willing to achieve nuclear proliferation. (Except, of course, the ones that have already done so -- albeit this can be fixed just as well) A nuclear theocracy is a genuine, authentic, fresh recipe for international disasters.
Originally posted by fakedirt
reply to post by RATSOYFY37
in searching the wider region with nuclear capable systems, i came across an article regarding pakistans refusal to sign the npt which resulted in sanctions implemented and pushed by the usa. the point being the usa suspended the sanctions against the pakistan regime in order to have an easy route into afghanistan on a number of occasions. this adhesive stance imo shows evidence of double standards from the usa with regards to who is and who is not allowed to possess these weapons.
It's not really double-standards; there aren't any standards in the first place, just divergent interests. The US doesn't view Jewish nuclear bombs as a threat to its security; ergo the Jews are allowed to hold those bombs. However, having an Islamic state holding such bombs is a grave danger for the USA, so it had had to be hampered, until a seemingly more preponderant issue approached, at which case the considerations have changed. The US is indeed inconsistent in its foreign policy, but there always seems to be some sort of reasoning behind each and every move it conducts. The implications of allowing a Muslim state to become nuclear are very fatal, and thus it cannot just pass under everyone's noses and radars that a nuclear theocracy is established. Sanctions, however, are not a solution, as your example manifests. If you're stance is that certain weapons are a 'danger to world peace' (which translates to: 'a danger to our country's security') when they are under the wrong leadership, don't target the country under the sovereignty of said leadership; rather, annihilate the weaponry itself and all its supplementing technology. And if you do target the country, then do the right move and erase it altogether from being in existence. Doing things by-halves, as is they American model of the appropriate manner of conducting affairs, is occasionally worse than doing nothing at all.
In the Iranian case, this strategy suggests carpet-bombing Iran with nuclear weapons, and setting an eternal precedent for any Islamic regime willing to achieve nuclear proliferation. (Except, of course, the ones that have already done so -- albeit this can be fixed just as well) A nuclear theocracy is a genuine, authentic, fresh recipe for international disasters.
new topics
-
More Proof of Lawfare
US Political Madness: 38 minutes ago -
I thought Trump was the existential threat?
World War Three: 2 hours ago -
Interesting Video-UFO?
Aliens and UFOs: 3 hours ago -
Joe Biden Dabs Away Tears at Farewell White House Dinner
Politicians & People: 3 hours ago
top topics
-
I thought Trump was the existential threat?
World War Three: 2 hours ago, 9 flags -
Joe Biden Dabs Away Tears at Farewell White House Dinner
Politicians & People: 3 hours ago, 7 flags -
More Proof of Lawfare
US Political Madness: 38 minutes ago, 4 flags -
Interesting Video-UFO?
Aliens and UFOs: 3 hours ago, 3 flags
active topics
-
Joe Biden Dabs Away Tears at Farewell White House Dinner
Politicians & People • 11 • : xuenchen -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3376 • : Thoughtful3 -
What if this is true?
2024 Elections • 27 • : matafuchs -
Well, here we go red lines crossed Biden gives the go ahead to use long range missiles
World War Three • 348 • : Freeborn -
I thought Trump was the existential threat?
World War Three • 24 • : RickyD -
More Proof of Lawfare
US Political Madness • 1 • : network dude -
Interesting Video-UFO?
Aliens and UFOs • 7 • : Boomer1947 -
Merry-Go-Round Ride
Short Stories • 7 • : randomuser2034 -
Petition Calling for General Election at 564,016 and rising Fast
Political Issues • 81 • : Bilbous72 -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7825 • : baddmove