America is rearing up to attack Iran... (1 Viewer)

[Analyst]

my point was taht it shows an anti-Semitic view. not like thats new....pretty much every country in Europe has anti-Semitism in its history. this just ties well with the statement to destroy Iran. he has the right to say it, yeah, because he has a right to be ignorant. I then have the right to point out that Iran is being ran by a man who is trying to ignore history because he is anti-Semitic and hates Israel and the Jews.

of course, myths don't have pictures taken while it was going on
http://www.holocaust-history.org/hungarian-photos/
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/history_of_the_holocaust.htm

now, to be fair, we'll use the same level of burden of proof. now, your turn to post some photographs of God creating the universe.

I know I dont need to prove it, open your eyes, see around and realise... those fotos are fake BTW

 

[Generator]

I am anti-semitic.... i have a right to be, just like you have a right to be an Agnostic or athiest.

Ah, those notions cannot (and should not) be equated in such a manner, Analyst, and at the very least, davin's post more than suggests why this is the case.

 

[Minai]

The idea of not letting Iran have nukes is the idea that Iran will use them to start a war, or obliterate Israel, or let a terrorist organisation get ahold of them.

Proof? That's just heresay. Maybe perhaps they just want nuclear energy for industrial consumption?

 

[Comrade nathan]

I am anti-semitic.... i have a right to be, just like you have a right to be an Agnostic or athiest.

It is wrong to deny agnostics and atheist their right to voice and spread their opinion.

It is right to jail and suppress anti-semites.

 

[Analyst]

yep i agree when u talk about in Australia and a few other countries. Not everywhere it is right to jail someone for anti-semitic views. Similarly, not everywhere can you avoid being jailed for being an agnostic.

This does prove to me how many of us just live in one box-Australia.... try and think globally. How many people have the supposedly pro-semitic people have killed in the last 50 years, just in the name of Anti-semitism? The Holocaust happening does not give them the right to bring about the holocaust again on the Germans, or the Palestinians for that matter. See why I just said I was anti-semitic..... it does not mean I am in favour of violence against Jews, but equally strongly I condemn violence by them. That would in essence be achieved by a country in the region telling them to behave, hence the notion that iran should have nuclear technology.

 

[davin]

Proof? That's just heresay. Maybe perhaps they just want nuclear energy for industrial consumption?

i didnt' say that was proof, that was just saying thats exactly why Iran creates nervousness.



I completely oppose people being arrested for saying anti-semitic things, because that is freedom of speech. HOWEVER, freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't be judged in a negative light by people for what you say.
Also, there never WAS a Holocaust against the Germans, definitly, and even the Palestinians is not what I think can be labeled as on par with the Holocaust, though it is far messier. I'd also not want to label the Holocaust as a Jew thing, since while 6 million Jews were killed, and as a community, they definitly were harder hit than anywhere else, but on the same note there were, i believe, 8 million Christians killed is the number I've seen.

 

[Serius]

far more of you count the soldiers that died to free europe from such oppression...

 

[HotShot]

Ah, those notions cannot (and should not) be equated in such a manner, Analyst, and at the very least, davin's post more than suggests why this is the case.

how does it, pictures are not proof of somethin happening? lol in gud stalin days, all the pictures of him and lenin were fake. Trostsky was nowhere in sight.

but anyway, join the club analyst. Anti-semitic, only reason are their attitudes always have to include the holocaust in every single conversation.

Hotshot the burden of proof is such that the person acussing, asserting, stating etc must prove it - not the other way around.

Here are two applications of your reversal of this theory:

State: You murdered Person X
You: Now have to prove you didnt

Me: batshit crazy statement eg the universe is made of sugar or maybe accusation eg Hotshot is a peadophile.
You: Have to prove i'm wrong.

Firstly, I made a statement that i had heard of such a quote. Whether you believe me or not is up to you? If you want me to believe that such a quote does not exist, then prove it to me? Otherwise as they say belive it or not?

Regardless, doesnt make too much of a diff.

It is wrong to deny agnostics and atheist their right to voice and spread their opinion.

It is right to jail and suppress anti-semites.

how do say that? what is the difference? so according to u u cant jail agnosts, athiest but you can jail those who believe in somethin?

you don't have a substantiated claim then

as far i can see so far you havent said anything substantial.

 

[davin]

you argued that there was, in fact, quotes from Indian leaders about destroying Pakistan. it is, then, up to you to back that up.

 

[Analyst]

Iran Rebuffs Request to Suspend Enrichment

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_77

Good on you Ahmedinajad. This is the only way for them to defend themselves against any aggression.

 

[Generator]

Actually, it's a great way to ensure that acts of aggression, if not in the form of military action, will continue.

 

[Analyst]

Time .....will tell!

 

[davin]

and if anythign does happen agaisnt iran, the complaint will then be "well there was no provocation" or such

 

[HotShot]

and if anythign does happen agaisnt iran, the complaint will then be "well there was no provocation" or such

was there any? on the other hand if iran attacks - then will people say 'there was no provocation'?

 

[davin]

i consider Iran with a nuke to be analogous to a crazy person waving a gun around....even if they don't fire, its a dangerous situation that should be fixed.

though ideally i'd like to see a better situation found.... it will depend on if countries like France, Russia, and China consider it important to take a stand against Iran or not

 

[HotShot]

i consider Iran with a nuke to be analogous to a crazy person waving a gun around....even if they don't fire, its a dangerous situation that should be fixed.

though ideally i'd like to see a better situation found.... it will depend on if countries like France, Russia, and China consider it important to take a stand against Iran or not

but how can you say that? as far i can see their history seems to a lot more better than america, who has been (and started) numerous wars, whether it be the cold war or the korean war.

who is the big brother here? isnt it america arent they supposed to lead by example?

The important thing is, America should not create tension for IRan to continue its nuclear program. At the moment with american drawing up plans to attack Iran, is a provaction for them improve their defence technology.

 

[davin]

well, considering Iran has tended to work with terrorist groups in the middle east and seems to be advocating the destruction of a people based on religious grounds, then that is concerning to me.

I'm not sure what your point is with the Cold War or the Korean War as the former didn't have any actual warfare (proxy wars aside), and that the triggers of both of those really wasn't America. The Cold War was based on Soviet changes to governments in Eastern Europe, and the Korean War by North Korea attacking South Korea.


Personally, I don't see why there was such an issue that Iran had to reject the offer to supply them with uranium that could be used for energy purposes but not for weapons, if their nuclear programs are really just for energy.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Yeah basically what Davin said.

Further to that though i dont see what Iran's history has to do with anything. The facts are that the Iranian President has openly denied the Holocaust and as such the legitimacy of the state of Israel. He has also indicating his hostility towards Israel, both because it is Jewish and because it receives financial support from the USA.
These facts combined with Iran's desire for nuclear weapons do not bode well for stability in the Middle East.

 

[Analyst]

i consider Iran with a nuke to be analogous to a crazy person waving a gun around....even if they don't fire, its a dangerous situation that should be fixed.

though ideally i'd like to see a better situation found.... it will depend on if countries like France, Russia, and China consider it important to take a stand against Iran or not

There's a "crazy" person with a gun in the street!!! What about the other guy who already has shot a few dead??? Which one is more dangerous? The proven assassin or the one who just has a gun?

Guns in themselves are not wrong, The ones who use them wrongly are wrong..... (Vice president of USA ) hahaha

Who has already bombed a country with 2 nukes? Was it Iran, Was it North Korea?
Or was it USA?

 

[davin]

First of all, your first statement implies you don't know what an assassin is.

second, look at world war II, and the circumstances of Japan. The country was going to fight to the end, and with the respect held for the Emperor, invading Japan would have meant the entire Japanese populace opposing any invasion, so another way had to be found to force their surrender.
Theres a difference between using a nuke to end a war and using it to begin a war.