Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why are we going after Iran, again?

The Question

The Question

Eternal
Source=Combined Jewish Philanthropies

Israeli parachutist accidentally lands near Dimona nuclear centre

Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa)
05/22/2006



Tel Aviv (dpa) - An Israeli parachutist carried away by the wind accidentally drifted toward Israel's top secret nuclear research centre near the southern town of Dimona late Monday afternoon, prompting police forces to rush to the area.

Two F16 fighter jets were also sent into the skies as the parachutist headed involuntarily toward the nuclear installation, an Israeli army spokeswoman told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.

The parachutist had entered the no-fly security zone surrounding the facility, she said.

He later managed to land safely near the nearby town of Yerucham, where he was taken in for questioning but released shortly afterwards.

Although Israel has never admitted it, international experts say the country uses the Dimona plant, which opened in the early 1960s, for the manufacturing of nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Which is why Israel has refused to sign on with non-proliferation.

In 1986, a former Israeli technician, Mordechai Vanunu, sold information and photographs of the site to The Times of London. He was kidnapped by agents of the Israeli Mossad agency from Italy and sentenced to 18 years in prison for treason and espionage.
Click to expand...

And yet...

Source: Information Clearinghouse

^^Israel spies in and on the U.S.
 
The dichotomy is easily explained, TQ.

See, the joos may be nasty, rude, manipulative and duplicitous kikes bent on ripping off and shitting upon the stupid goyyim, but they're not insane, and hold their purported nuclear capability as a deterrent.

The muslims scum, on the other hand, are insane, and would not hesitate to set of a nuke whilst chanting 'allahu akbar' to their evil god.
 
Muslims who aren't secularist enough to NOT keep their women in stupid costumes and prevent half of their population from going to school and advancing their society usually amount to nothing more than partisans running around in caves.

If the Afghanis had an a-bomb, they probably would have used it. Then again, they were too poor to develop it. Simply because a more secular Islamic nation develops nukes doesn't mean its going to start waving them around.
 
Messenger said:
Simply because a more secular Islamic nation develops nukes doesn't mean its going to start waving them around.
Click to expand...

If a nation is "secular" it cannot be "islamic". Period. End of story.
 
Messenger said:
You're confusing Islam with Islamic Fundamentalism.
Click to expand...


You display your ignorance of Islam. For someone who thinks others are sheep, you sure are going 'baa baa' when the vermin mudscum apologists tell you there's some kind of difference between "regular Islam" and "radical Islam".

There is no difference between the four major schools of Islam, or even between Sunni and Shia to warrant such a distinction.

There is no difference between the Islam of Cat Stevens and the Islam of Sheik Rahman abd el Suddais, the Grand Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, and the Islam of the Beslan child-murderers. All revel in bigotry and intolerance and hate, and all give both you and me and every single other dweller in Dar al Harb two choices: submit to Islam or die.

What's your choice gonna be?
 
Thank you for reminding The Question why Christianity is still the least objectionable of the Sandbox Religions.

Now, y'all might think about getting back on topic before somethin' weird and bad happens.
 
Gurk_MacGuintey said:
You display your ignorance of Islam. For someone who thinks others are sheep, you sure are going 'baa baa' when the vermin mudscum apologists tell you there's some kind of difference between "regular Islam" and "radical Islam".

There is no difference between the four major schools of Islam, or even between Sunni and Shia to warrant such a distinction.

There is no difference between the Islam of Cat Stevens and the Islam of Sheik Rahman abd el Suddais, the Grand Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, and the Islam of the Beslan child-murderers. All revel in bigotry and intolerance and hate, and all give both you and me and every single other dweller in Dar al Harb two choices: submit to Islam or die.

What's your choice gonna be?
Click to expand...
My choice will be to inform you that Turkey, Iran, and Iraq (during Saddam's rule) did not fully enforce the teachings more detrimental to a developing society.

The theory and the actual practice very much warrant distinction.

You'll basically saying that they do not follow 'true' Islam, and sound like a Fundamentalist when doing so.

I care little for such trivialities, because the recent national history of those countries prove you wrong.
 
Messenger said:
My choice will be to inform you that Turkey, Iran, and Iraq (during Saddam's rule) did not fully enforce the teachings more detrimental to a developing society.

The theory and the actual practice very much warrant distinction.

You'll basically saying that they do not follow 'true' Islam, and sound like a Fundamentalist when doing so.

I care little for such trivialities, because the recent national history of those countries prove you wrong.
Click to expand...

I strongly urge that you research two things:

1) Sayyid Qutb and the origins and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood.

2) The origins and doctrine of the Ba'athist party and pan-arabism.

You disappoint me, Messman. You are proving yourself unworthy of my engagement.

Are there any others here capable of debate at my level?
 
Dude, are you listening to anything I'm saying?

Do you see predominately Christian nations executing homosexuals? Of course not, because such behavior would be detrimental towards the state, and since you seek portray Islam as an absolute within the state, I am required to show you counter-examples where your Fox News thinking is blatantly false.

Iraq flourished as a nation when the Baath party took power. Why? Because they didn't let their religions stand in the way of advancement, just as European nations were able to put Christianity on the backburner.

Yet by your thinking, every single Islamic nation is inherently dangerous because they happen to be Islamic, yet you do nothing but cite the most possible extreme examples of their religion when I try to show you that it is not absolute within their nations.

Muslims have every right to seek nuclear power.

Iraq, under Saddam, whom fundamentalists such as Osama hated (past tense, because he's been DEAD a long while now), had the best system of health care in the entire Middle East because they were able to adapt to the demands of the modern world.

Stop looking like a total fucking loon.
 
Messenger said:
Dude, are you listening to anything I'm saying?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's why I am so disappointed ... Duuuuuude

Your arguments lack substance. Your clever vocabulary and intellectual posturing are a thin veneer that hide a deep well of ignorance. You obviously know next to nothing about the issues I've referenced here, as the remainder of the post I am responding to clearly shows. Even when I provide you clues - even blatantly suggesting research points as I did in my last post - you respond with a rehashing of points those research points would have disposed of if you had researched them. Your intellectual "skilz" were most certainly honed on internet message boards and not in any scholastic or academic setting; otherwise you wouldn't continue to respond with yahoo lib/con talking point pablum.

Here are a few points to ponder if you wish to continue this discussion:

Syria - secular/baathist = sponsor of jihadi terror
Hussein's Iraq - secular/baathist = sponsor of jihadi terror
Iran - theocratic/shi'ite = sponsor of jihadi terror
Saudi Arabia - theocratic/sunni = sponsor of jihadi terror

What is the one constant in the above?

As a sidebar, it might be helpful for you to understand that IRL I have Phd's, decades of experience and publishing credits that would make the children in your little TK Writers Workshop weep. On a daily basis I chew up and spit out guys like your godling, Skinofevil ... and guys like you, Messman? I got chunks of guys like you in my stool.
 
Gurk_MacGuintey said:
Hussein's Iraq - secular/baathist = sponsor of jihadi terror
Iran - theocratic/shi'ite = sponsor of jihadi terror
Click to expand...

What a fucking klutz. :roll:

As a sidebar, it might be helpful for you to understand that IRL I have Phd's, decades of experience and publishing credits that would make the children in your little TK Writers Workshop weep.
Click to expand...
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEN TRULY, THE NATION IS DOOMED. Perhaps starguard is next in line for a Ph.D?

On a daily basis I chew up and spit out guys like your godling, Skinofevil ... and guys like you, Messman? I got chunks of guys like you in my stool.
Click to expand...
:gagh:
 
Iran dismisses U.S. talks as ‘propaganda move’

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13048821/
WASHINGTON - The official Iranian news agency said Wednesday the U.S. offer to join in direct talks with Iran about its disputed nuclear program was “a propaganda move.â€

The American proposal, a major policy shift after decades without official public contact between the two countries, was made conditional on Iran agreeing to stop its uranium enrichment activities.
Click to expand...

With an interesting summation from WHR:


This is the same position the US has had all along. Everything starts with Iran ceasing nuclear enrichment of reactor fuel rods. In return, the US offers nothing, least of all agreements NOT to invade.

Bear in mind that both the US and Iran have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which Iran is allowed to have nuclear reactors for power generation, and the right to make the fuel for their reactors. In demanding that Iran cease such activities, George Bush is in violation of the treaty terms, which means he is also violating the US Constitution's requirement that treaties are the highest law of the land.

In this issue, Bush is legally wrong, and Iran is legally right. But in the end, this is not about Iran's nuclear power stations. Thus is about the Neocons searching for any flimsy excuse to invade Iran, just as they used flimsy (indeed fraudulent) excuses to invade Iraq, and just as they will eventually use flimsy excuses to invade Saudi Arabia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top