News Iran & US Friendship

  • Thread starter Perham
  • Start date
4
0
so the impression one gets from this is that Israel is seen as "responisble" (whereas Iran is not for whatever reasons) with its WMDs because Israel had been pushed to the limit and still refused to use their WMDs.
Though I support the attributed conclusion for different reasons, that was never my intention in this section. It was constructed as a similarly structured reply to:
lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country.
The sentence consists of two seperate parts that were put together to echo Art's statement, which also consists of two parts that are linked in a logical argument. My response is meant to dispell Art's implied parallellism between Israel and Iran, by presenting each part in (IMHO) its proper context. It was not meant to be viewed as a comparison between Iran and Israel.

however, the idea that goals do not equate to outcomes in wars, implies that the above claim does not have much substance. This is because, from the complexity of wars, one cannot say whether it was rationality, hypocrisy, morality or .... etc. that triggered the actions/inactions we see during the Yom-Kippur war. As a result, it didn't really demonstrate whether Israel can be trusted not to use its WMDs in the future at all. All those events were telling us was that on that occasion for whatever reasons (that we probably shall never really know the truth of), Israel did not use WMDs (thank god!). But it did not add to/substract from the argument whether Israel can be or cannot be trusted.
Very well; however, Art's contention that Israel intends to attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons stems from a single newspaper report. My response, "Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon..." contradicts Art's contention as such an attack was never carried out, and as far as we know no leader of the US or Israel has argued for it. One can argue that is weak inductive reasoning, but I feel that actions (or lack thereof) speak louder than words (even if they are printed by a News International subsidiary, vis a vis hypocrisy). While I do not discount the possibility that such an attack is planned, I highly doubt any Israeli Prime Minister will authorise such a move.

I believe the "twisted logic" Art was referring to previously simply means that one cannot make a convincing arguement and call oneself "correct" when one gloss over the details when it suits one, while only go into the essentials when it enhances one's point of view.
If you feel I have "glossed over the details" you may direct me and I'll address whatever details you like. However, it doesn't at all seem as if that was Art's intention:
lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country. Yes this certainly sounds like the usual twisted logic employed by the current despotic leaders of Israel and the US.
I feel I have addressed the basic flaws in Art's perception of "twisted logic" of "despotic leaders". BTW, I don't see how one can take that statement seriously, unless it is some cynical demonstration of native "twisted logic" I do not understand. The true despots by all accounts are the ones which Art supports - the leadership of Iran.

Iran may have a bad image but that doesn't automatically means Israel has a good image either. It is inconclusive.
Fortunately, this stopped being a popularity contest since the days of Cardinal Richelieu.
 
Last edited:
311
0
Yonoz, do not take your biased and misinformed opinions so seriously. Observing your posts I wonder why the ops have not contacted you already. Your post examplify in parable the israeli tactics and politics. (Are you israeli jew?)
 
4
0
Yonoz, do not take your biased and misinformed opinions so seriously.
I don't, until I come across someone with such unbiased and well informed opinions such as yourself.

Observing your posts I wonder why the ops have not contacted you already.
You mean, for things like going off-topic? *wink*

Your post examplify in parable the israeli tactics and politics. (Are you israeli jew?)
Thank you. :smile:
May I commend you on your extraordinary powers of observation.
 
311
0
Very well, it must be hard to hide your true colors? I knew I was right after couple of posts. But dont mind this little expose, I will go back to observing "you" guys at work, to know what to warn ppl against and how to recognize the tactics.
 
Last edited:
4
0
Very well, it must be hard to hide your true colors? I knew I was right after couple of posts. But dont mind this little expose, I will go back to observing "you" guys at work, to know what to warn ppl against and how to recognize the tactics.
Now I'm at a loss for words.


You are kidding, right?
 
311
0
right
 

EnumaElish

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,285
123

EnumaElish

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,285
123
AGAIN everything is ruined by Israel!!!
To identify individual posters with countries, states, or racial stereotypes is neither fair nor helpful to the debate, IMO.
 
4
0
An example of Iran's destabilizing an already disturbed balance of powers: Lebanon: Why is the Presidential Election Becoming Crucial?
Earlier this week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dispatched his Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki to Damascus with a single message: Tehran wants Aoun and no one else as the next President of Lebanon. Believing that he is pushing the US into retreat across the chessboard, from Afghanistan to Iraq and passing by the Caspian Basin and e Levant, Ahmadinejad hopes that a spectacular success in Lebanon would enhance his own prospects for winning a majority in the Iranian general election next spring.
...
Ahmadinejad’s tough message came at a time that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was gearing himself for a compromise in which his Lebanese clients and allies would abandon Aoun in favor of a “candidate of consensus” as suggested by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri.

In Ahmadinejad’s analysis, Syria, now a virtual client state of the Islamic Republic, is trying to keep the option of switching sides open. One way to block that option is to commit Syria to a direct and clear confrontation with the United States and its Arab allies over who should be Lebanon’s next president. The man most likely to provoke such confrontation is Aoun whose election would amount to a clear defeat with the current Lebanese majority headed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and backed by the US and moderate Arab states.
 

Art

Yonoz if Iran were to launch an airstrike on Israel would you consider this a stabilizing or destabilizing action?
 
34
0
hi, this is my 1st post in this nice forum:). i think most of you are americans...i am from lebanon, lebanese:D, here i can now -maybe- more than you in our politics..realy, Jefry Filtman the embassador of america here allways intervent in the smallest specialities of our concerns...as well as Rise and Wolch and all th american administration...iran and syria now are not interventing in our politics -don't think i'm with Hizbollah or Fouad al-Siniora or any lebanese politician you now...all of them are tools in americas and iran's hands, but especially they are tools for america- whay Wolch intervent the meeting of Aoun and Hariri in Paris, and why Feltman every day have to speak and meet the lebanese politicians and say for example what means that america will not let the president be from a political side (8 March and Aoun)....
there is a big project american administration is working on (mayors and democratic party) aim to divid the countries in the middle east to become weak and make civil wars so it can command and utilize on the fuel and protect israel from national resistance which they consider as terrorism!! just to have a pretext to do what it want and to deceive the american and west people.....
 

mjsd

Homework Helper
725
3
there is a big project american administration is working on (mayors and democratic party) aim to divid the countries in the middle east to become weak and make civil wars so it can command and utilize on the fuel and protect israel from national resistance which they consider as terrorism!! just to have a pretext to do what it want and to deceive the american and west people.....
when there is greed and selfishness, people would do whatever they want. It is perhaps not far from the truth that the US is onto something in the middle east more than just "promoting democracy" and "fighting terrorism". But only time will tell whether you grim assessment is correct. In any case, violence from your side or their side is counter-productive to getting a friendship going. Of course, perhaps you guys (not pointing at Lebanon or any particular middle east country or US, just using "you guys" as to mean middle east and the western world), don't actually want to be friends of each other because of differences in opinion on many fronts such as religion, race, culture, trade ...etc. It is almost like if I don't like the Manchester United football team, I shall find it hard to cheer for them or getting along well with the Man Utd fans in the stadium.,...even if we don't go so far as fighting each other with chairs and iron bars.

to get a real friendship going between Iran and the US, they must first tolerate each other differences in opinion on issues like those I have pointed out above. Otherwise, it may be a waste of time and both sides needed to be separated (just like in the stadium) to avoid further conflicts.

but sometimes there are "fans" who just can't stay still and keep inciting violence :frown:
 
87
0
I dont think talking about Israel on a thread about Iran is off topic, as the entire reason the whole Iranian issue is even being discussed is due to Israel in the first place. If you watch and believe what the media has to say about Israel you will have gotten a very warped picture. Israel has very powerful media lobby groups in the US (mainly AIPAC), and becuase of this any reporting done on the middle east rarely covers both sides of the story. In contrast Israels neighbours have no lobby groups and so are not given a voice in the whole issue from the beggining.

British Army spokesman Major Charlie Burbridge stresses that there is not firm evidence of any direct Iranian meddling in southern Iraq. And British Army field commander Lt. Col. David Labouchere, whose troops patrol Maysan, says that any Iranian influence is a result of a long and tragic history, one that coalition forces should understand before letting fears of Iranian infiltration influence policy. For 4,000 years the Marsh Arabs have inhabited what is now southern Iraq. For much of that history they were ignored by the various governments that rose and fell in the region. The result is a xenophobic, deeply traditional society where tribal leaders are the highest authority — and where political borders are largely irrelevant.

Meaning they cross into Iran almost daily, often without even realizing it — or caring if they do. Their intents aren’t to smuggle in weapons or to undermine the Iraqi government, but to trade, fish and visit family and friends.

The fact that some of the weapons that end up in Iraq were made in Iran is obvious, but that does nothing to implicate Iran in anything. Using that sort of logic you could claim that America should be stopped, as it has created over half of the weapons on the planet, most of which are used now by terrorists themselves.

Despite the much publicised footage of the Military general showing Iranian made mortars in Iraq, it really does not mean anything significant. Anyone watching it would get the impression that Iran has some sort of secret plan to take over the entire middle east, which is exactly what Cheyney an Co want the public to think, so if they do attack there will be more popular support for the war. Despite all this there has not been ONE case of an Iranin person caught smuggling ANY weapons into Iran. confirmed by a recent Reuters News article; http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071101/ts_nm/britain_iraq_iran_dc [Broken]

"It's fair to say that no one has caught anyone red-handed bringing in lethal aid across the border," said Major Anthony Lamb, who oversees training of Iraqi border enforcement units.

"Hundreds of searches are carried out every day, but as yet, there hasn't been a direct seizure of lethal aid."

Lamb says on some days, when British forces visit the major border crossing points in southern Iraq, they can see some Iranian trucks turning back, but there's no certainty they're doing so because they're carrying illicit weapons.

"They could be carrying ladies' underwear and be embarrassed about that," he said.
The media does not even have to say anything directly implicating Iran any more. Everyone see's Iran through such paranoid eyes that if they had seen the above story I quoted most of the viewers would probably think that these trucks are actually being used to transport weapons, simply because they are mentioned, even though none of these trucks has EVER been found with ANY weapons in what-so-ever. If there was direct evidence it would be all over the media.

So, if you take into account that there is no evidence of iran trying to destabilize Iraq (which they would not have an interest in doing anyway), no evidence of nuclear weapons, no evidence of weapons being transported across borders and no direct evidence that Iran is not adhering to IAEA guidlines, apart from pure speculation, what exactly is Iran accused of?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mjsd

Homework Helper
725
3
The media does not even have to say anything directly implicating Iran any more. Everyone see's Iran through such paranoid eyes that if they had seen the above story I quoted most of the viewers would probably think that these trucks are actually being used to transport weapons, simply because they are mentioned, even though none of these trucks has EVER been found with ANY weapons in what-so-ever. If there was direct evidence it would be all over the media.

So, if you take into account that there is no evidence of iran trying to destabilize Iraq (which they would not have an interest in doing anyway), no evidence of nuclear weapons, no evidence of weapons being transported across borders and no direct evidence that Iran is not adhering to IAEA guidlines, apart from pure speculation, what exactly is Iran accused of?
don't forget those "direct evidence" that led to the Iraq war in the first place.
Iraq had WMDs and had the capability to depoly them in 45 mins and to strike Britian and its allies; satellite photos showing suspiciously moving trucks; thousands of underground lanuch pads in the Iraqi desert; Iraq had links to Al-Qaeda and would be willing to supply them with chemical and biological weapons to use against the coalition of the willing; they have sought uranium from Africa; also President Bush had told us that Iraq is part of the axis of evil who will threaten the freedom loving world and must be stopped at all costs; it was a clear and present danger because Saddam Hussien was a dictator who kills and torture his own citizens with chemcial weapons; and remember the former Iraqi govt kept the weapon inspectors going in circles and playing cat and mouse with Hans Blix.....

so the conclusion is that since Iran has been more or less playing the same game that Iraq had played, if not more sinister, therefore, in order to protect the well-being of the freedom loving ppl, and continue the free trade and healthy globalisation, we have no choice but to stirke Iran preemptively and ask questions later (Remember we civilised ppl have principles and don't negotiate with terrorists). It is a small price to pay for achieveing a common good.

It is fortunate that we have the Iraq case to compare with otherwise the case against Iran would be harder to get through to the masses. So, since it is correct to go into Iraq, there is no reasons not to go into Iran who poses an even bigger threat for it has a larger border (hence, potentially more underground launch pads).....

And if that's not good enough a reason to strike Iran, then perhaps I am really missing something here. :confused:
 
87
0
don't forget those "direct evidence" that led to the Iraq war in the first place.
Iraq had WMDs and had the capability to depoly them in 45 mins and to strike Britian and its allies;


I thought that this 45 minute claim was made on fundamentally wrong intelligence, and no weapons were ever found. The 45-minute claim was meant to refer only to battlefield weapons. MI6 certainly knew. During the Hutton inquiry, the head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, had first acknowledged that the reference to 45 minutes had referred to short-range weapons. John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who insisted that he “owned” the document, also said he knew. And Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon admitted to Hutton that he too was aware of the nature of the 45-minute claim. Unfortunately the only person that didn't seem to realise this was Blair. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/wmds-f07.shtml

satellite photos showing suspiciously moving trucks; thousands of underground lanuch pads in the Iraqi desert;
Again, if you are looking at this through paranoid eyes it looks a lot worse than it actually is. how can a truck be suspiciously moving? they were probably just normal trucks. And there is no law against a country having launch pads.

Iraq had links to Al-Qaeda and would be willing to supply them with chemical and biological weapons to use against the coalition of the willing;
I am sure that this claim has been refuted. Sadam HATED Al-Queda, they would be the last people he would give a weapon to. General Wesley Clark, Former Commanding General of U.S. European Command, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, (which included all American military activities in the 89 countries and territories of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East) has recently said in the award winning documentray called 'breaking the silence' that "I never saw any of the intelligence, and thus far there has been no evidence produced to imply that Saddam was behing Al-Queda. In-fact in my experience in the time i served it was just the opposite, Saddam was the least likely person to want anything to do with Al-Queda. The only reason to have gone to war was to deal with a threat so imminent and so dangerous that war, as a last resort, was the only means available. As I weighed the evidence, and watched the debate amoung others and reflected on my own experience, as i listened to the discussions in the pentagon, inside the whitehouse, as i checked with sources in congress, people who work hard on the intelligence; That simply wasn't the case."

'The Sept. 11 commission reported that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda'; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

'Pentagon report debunks prewar Iraq-Al Qaeda connection' Declassified document cites lack of 'evidence of a long-term relationship,' http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html

BBC " There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News. "; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm

They have sought uranium from Africa;
What has that got to do with anything? Korea also got some of their technology from china? i am not sure what point you are making by saying that.

also President Bush had told us that Iraq is part of the axis of evil who will threaten the freedom loving world and must be stopped at all costs; it was a clear and present danger because Saddam Hussien was a dictator who kills and torture his own citizens with chemcial weapons;
Saddam was a nasty guy, make no mistake, but he was certainly not as dangerous as the press suggested. Why on earth would a tiny country like Iraq try to attack the UK or US? Saddam may not be a very nice guy, but he's not stupid, he would be well aware that his entire country would be obliterated by America and Israel before he could do any significant damage to anyone. Which country did Saddam get these chemical weapons from then? I think you will find it was America, a fact that is often overlooked. Which makes the idea that anyone who supplies 'rogue' states with weapons should be attacked highly ironic as the US comes top in the list of arming rogue regimes.


and remember the former Iraqi govt kept the weapon inspectors going in circles and playing cat and mouse with Hans Blix.....
The main respected weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly, said that there was no evidence of weapons. He was going to testify to that infront of a panel, but was found dead days before, buts thats a whole different issue. There was NO eveidence from the inspectors of weapons, or they would have said that. Also, Hans Blix, that you brought up, said In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, that the U.S. and British governments had drastically overexaggerated the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

so the conclusion is that since Iran has been more or less playing the same game that Iraq had played, if not more sinister, therefore, in order to protect the well-being of the freedom loving ppl, and continue the free trade and healthy globalisation, we have no choice but to stirke Iran preemptively and ask questions later (Remember we civilised ppl have principles and don't negotiate with terrorists). It is a small price to pay for achieveing a common good.
Do you honestly think that an attack on Iran would improve stability? it would more likely start a bigger war, as Russia, Syria and other countries are firmly on Irans side on this debate. Think of the impression this will give to the entire muslim world aswell, you would probably have every muslim leader in the middle east declaring jihad on Israel and the US. Remeber how angrily the muslim population reacted to that cartoon picture being published, attacking Iran would be so much worse. What would happen after the attack? another Iraq type situation? we would more likely end up with a more extreme leader in Iran than the current one. Most times America has intervened in foriegn situations they end up making it worse, and i dont expect Iran will be any different.
 
Last edited:
34
0
american adminstration is controled by the bigist companies of weapons and fuel and by zionism! these wars done by america here and there, america's adminstration doesn't matter with it how many soldiers die in her wars ( excipt the pressure of american people..) in her wars it disburse the products of weapons ( specially in Saudi Arabia and different Gulf countries...as we see) and also it obtains the fuel...but in some places it is easier for it to get this fuel from a place were there is no real country or in the existance of sectarian and ethnic struggles (iraq, darfur) also america needs to be the strongest adminstration;that's for economical reasons not for the american countries, but for the big companies i mentioned which are controlled by zionism....how can you belive that interposition lebanon by america is for its nationalistic security, as bush said!!!....
about the iraqian weapons of saddam husein, there is a quasi information tells that saddam was told to confess faking that these weapons were transported to syria and he will not hanged; that is also from the ways of pressuring on syria
 
48
0
about the iraqian weapons of saddam husein, there is a quasi information tells that saddam was told to confess faking that these weapons were transported to syria and he will not hanged; that is also from the ways of pressuring on syria

So Saddam did ship WMD's to Syria after all?

Do you have a link or article to post which I can read about this?
 
4
0
RICE'S[/PLAIN] [Broken] STRATEGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Present at the Creation


By David Brooks in Jordan
What is Condi doing?

This is the question that's been floating around foreign policy circles over the past few months. It is then followed by more specific questions: Why is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spending her remaining time in office banging her head against the Israeli-Palestinian problem? Why has she bothered to make eight trips to the region this year? What can possibly be accomplished when the Israeli government is weak and the Palestinian society is divided?

It took a trip to the region for me to finally understand that this peace process is unlike any other. It's not really about Israel and the Palestinians; it's about Iran. Rice is constructing a coalition of the losing. There is a feeling among Arab and Israeli leaders that an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance is on the march. The nations that resist that alliance are in retreat. The peace process is an occasion to gather the "moderate" states and to construct what Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center calls an anti-Iran counter-alliance.
...
Iran has done what decades of peace proposals have not done -- brought Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Palestinians and the U.S. together. You can go to Jerusalem or to some Arab capitals and the diagnosis of the situation is the same: Iran is gaining hegemonic strength over the region and is spreading tentacles of instability all around.

The Syrians, who have broken with the Sunni nations and attached themselves to Iran, are feeling stronger by the day. At least one-third of Iraq is under Iranian influence. Hezbollah is better armed and more confident now than it was before its war against Israel. Hamas is being drawn closer inside the Iranian orbit and is more likely to take over the West Bank than lose its own base in Gaza.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
87
0
You can go to Jerusalem or to some Arab capitals and the diagnosis of the situation is the same: Iran is gaining hegemonic strength over the region and is spreading tentacles of instability all around.
How? is there any direct evidence of this happening? or is this just another person looking at the whole issue with the pesumption that Iran is evil and so everything they do is part of some conspiracy to destry the middle east and the west (a truly ridiculous notion). Iran sits on one of largest oil fields in the world, so it naturally follows it is going to be gaining strength. If there was direct evidence of Iran directly destablizing i would believe it, but i have yet to see it. I would agree that Iran is gaining hegemonic strength, but its hegemonic stregth is absolutely NOTHING when compared to the power Israel still has over the Middle east, which is ironically why Iran is gaining support in the first place, due to Israel's provocative nature.

Also, Mr David Brooks, that wrote that article, is a well known supporter of Israel and Interventionist policies. Before the Iraq War, Brooks had argued forcefully on moral grounds for American military intervention, echoing the belief of neoconservative commentators and political figures that American and British forces would be welcomed as liberators. In 2007, he argued that withdrawing from Iraq would result in 10,000 Iraqi deaths a month, but later admitted on Meet the Press that he had "just picked that 10,000 out of the air."

I would suggest that a person with such strong views on Interventing in foreign countries is not an ideal person to believe when deciding on what to do about Iran. The trouble is the vast majority of people in the mainstream news have similar pro-Israeli/zionist based ideas about the middle east, so you will probably direct me to another editor with equally biased views. A lot of his stories can be seen on one of the main zionist sites online; http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000163.html and if you read the articles he has written there you will find out that he always brings up how dangerous Iran is, without ever stating the actual hard reasons as to why this is the case.
 
Last edited:
4
0
If there was direct evidence of Iran directly destablizing i would believe it, but i have yet to see it.
Iranians Face Interpol Notices for Blast
Former Hizbullah Secretary-General Sheik Subhi Al-Tufeili
Lebanese Minister of Defense: Lebanon, Iran, and Syria Supply Hizbullah with Weapons
Hezbollah as a strategic arm of Iran
Iranian official admits Tehran supplied missiles to Hezbollah
Iran and Syria as Strategic Support for Palestinian Terrorism
...and then of course there are the multiple controversial statements and actions by the current Iranian president, which - no matter how you translate them - show Iran's lack of respect for the status-quo, in an understatement.

I would agree that Iran is gaining hegemonic strength, but its hegemonic stregth is absolutely NOTHING when compared to the power Israel still has over the Middle east, which is ironically why Iran is gaining support in the first place, due to Israel's provocative nature.
You are attributing too much power to Israel - the burden of proof is on you now. Also, I believe it is the demise of its traditional foe - the Baathist regime in Iraq - that is the most fundamental cause for its rising support.
What do you mean by "provocative nature"?

Very odd, it seems to me as if he has a separate agenda than just reporting the news.
His agenda is quite clear, thankfully this isn't a news report, it's an OP-ED piece.
It doesn't seem he is calling for interventionism in this piece - I hope he's learnt his lesson. Would you know what are his current views on the Iraq war?
 

EnumaElish

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,285
123
Reuters (BAGHDAD) said:
Nine Iranians being held in Iraq would be released soon, the U.S. military said on Tuesday, just days after U.S. officials signaled a possible change in approach by noting positive Iranian developments in Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071106/wl_nm/iraq_dc [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
4
0
aren't all these evidences came from Israeli media?!
No.
The first is from the SFGate.com, the site of the San Francisco based paper San Francisco Chronicle.
The second is an interview on Saudi television of Nasrallah's predecessor.
The third is an interview on Egyptian television of the Lebanese defense minister.
The fourth is an Israeli source, however it presents other sources, such as screen captures showing Iranian made UAVs being paraded by Hizbullah on Lebanese television and then later after being shot down by Israeli jets, and the insignia of the Iranian military industry on weapons captured from Hizbullah.
The fifth is an Israeli newspaper quoting an Iranian one.
The sixth is by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and shows Iranian deliveries of weapons and ammunition to the Palestinians captured by Israel.

you're lucky that we don't have powerful media propaganda like yours here. 'cause what I see here from Israel, is so dark that I can't even think that they are humans doing these to Palestinian people.
That last sentence makes it self-evident that you have been fed much state propaganda. In Israel we don't have children's shows like you have in Iran.

those who wanna fight, will fight, and we (normal people) are gonna die in fight for more power and money that aren't gonna be ours.
Unfortunately, your country uses proxies to fight its wars - how many more Lebanese, Palestinians and Israelis must die for Iran's fundamental regime?

THIS SYSTEM IS OUR ENEMY. the world's leading system should be changed as it's far from being complete. perhaps it's time to experience world war III. can't you see it coming?
What would you change it to?
 
4
0
well, if you stop killing Palestinians or Lebanese they won't die for themselves!
First, Palestinians are "dying for themselves": Palestinians are torturing and killing other Palestinians - even inside hospitals. The Lebanese are killing Palestinians too (shelling refugee camps etc.) as well as Red Cross workers.
Second, Israel does not target civilians with intent (and no, this will not turn into a debate about Israel), it is Iran's mercenaries that are bringing the warzone to civilian's homes.

and surely it's not Iran's fault.
I've already proved Iran's destabilizing of this region.

and of course we all know the slaughter of sabra and shatila.
A terrific example - the massacre of Sabra and Shatila was actually carried out by the Lebanese Forces, yet you're certain it was carried out by Israel... Have you ever heard of the Hama massacre?

(although this is not all the facts, but I couldn't find a better source in a internet controlled by israeli money and power)

I didn't meant from israel country, the Israeli media even contains BBC and CNN!
I believe this is a Farsi expression: if four people say you're drunk, go to sleep. EDIT: seems it's of Romanian origin.

I would definitely erase the veto right, as it's making some countries superior to some others. then you would lose a powerful tool to destroy nations.
The veto right makes as much sense as the "one nation, one vote" rule - the consequences of which are felt everywhere there is no veto power - such as the UN human rights council:
UN: Rights Council Fails Victims in Iran, Uzbekistan
UN: Rights Council Remains Timid in Face of Abuses

the country that rose from ashes of anger and hate, can't love the world.
Countries shouldn't love the world, they should seek the best interests of their inhabitants.
The country that leads the world in child executions, can't be allowed to export its fundamental Islamic revolution (and I apologise to all those who don't consider the Shi'a true Muslims). But I'm jumping ahead - just stay out of Lebanon and the territories.
 
Last edited:
311
0
Yonoz, the only destabilizing nation of the world is israel (and its power over US). You live in delusions (which I know you only pretend to miseducate the gentiles). If you ever to decide to grip reality you should read "Zionism the real enemy of the jews" to stop misrepresenting the educated jews of israel. As a jew myself, I urge you to stop your propagandist work here. I have uncovered you already and many ppl here already see through you as I do.

We already got that there is nothing you want more than Iran attacked (by US). You and most importantly (isreali politcs) are manufacturing necessity for such an action, which is obvious going to bring down both of you down. Just postpone your learned hate and wish that one day you dont get taste of your own medicine of how you treat palestinians.
 

Art

Yonoz mentioned before he served with Israeli military intelligence. Enough said..
 

Related Threads for: Iran & US Friendship

  • Posted
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
Replies
177
Views
16K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Posted
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
126
Views
9K
  • Posted
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top