Iran & US Friendship

  • News
  • Thread starter Perham
  • Start date
  • #61
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.....
 
  • #62
mjsd
Homework Helper
726
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:
 
  • #63
88
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:
  • #64
mjsd
Homework Helper
726
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:
 
  • #65
88
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:
  • #66
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
 
  • #67
51
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?
 
  • #68
23
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:
  • #69
88
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:
  • #70
23
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?
 
  • #71
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,322
124
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:
  • #72
23
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?
 
  • #73
23
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:
  • #74
312
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.
 
  • #75
Art
Yonoz mentioned before he served with Israeli military intelligence. Enough said..
 
  • #76
23
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.
There is nothing to uncover, unlike yourself I am being genuine. "Miseducating the gentiles"? You're either as Jewish as a ham and cheese sandwich, a bigot, or both - in any case you're making a great case for Zionism.
You may want to furnish your library with books by someone who doesn't believe Israeli security services have nothing better to do than to kill Alan Johnston. I'd start with Judenstaat and Altneuland by one Theodor Herzl, though perhaps those uneducated about a state's duties to its citizens should start with the basics - Rousseau's Social Contract and Hobbes' Leviathan.
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.
There is nothing I want more than to feel safe in my own home. Though I see the Iranian leadership's actions as rational to a certain extent, I have personally encountered homicidal and suicidal irrationality on the part of those who seek to destroy me for my mere existence, and I know my history - so I know not to rely on that rationality lasting very long. I know of no way for a country to defend itself against a nuclear first strike other than keep its enemies from acquiring that capabilty. I don't believe the possibility of a nuclear first strike by fundamental Islamists is something that should be left to chance - this needn't be done by force, but seeing the reluctance of certain nations to aid in stopping the Iranian nuclear enrichment programme, it appears we will reach a point where it's the only option on the table. Even if Iran's leadership was to act rationaly and not use nuclear weapons, it's quite clear that it will continue to try to establish itself as a key regional player in the same way itself and its predecessors (Nasser, Hussein) have always done - gathering popular Arab support by confronting Israel. I realise that will be to the delight of people such as yourself and to the indifference of others, and that's why I'm convinced we should not count on anyone but ourselves. It's as obvious as the sun, as we say, that Iran will confront us again whether we like it or not. Might as well make sure they don't have the ability to destroy us with a single warhead.
Oh, and leave the Palestinians out of this, they have enough problems as it is.
 
Last edited:
  • #77
23
0
Yonoz mentioned before he served with Israeli military intelligence. Enough said..
That's right Art. The Israeli government pays me to post on physicsforums.com
 
  • #78
312
0
You may want to furnish your library with books by someone who doesn't believe Israeli security services have nothing better to do than to kill Alan Johnston. I'd start with Judenstaat and Altneuland by one Theodor Herzl, though perhaps those uneducated about a state's duties to its citizens should start with the basics - Rousseau's Social Contract and Hobbes' Leviathan.
Herzl is your hero? I rest my case. We all get Herzl drilled in us at school dont you know? I got the israeli education about the gentiles and the rest dont worry. I am insider, and I will expose the zionists devils like yourself.

here is nothing I want more than to feel safe in my own home. Though I see the Iranian leadership's actions as rational to a certain extent, I have personally encountered homicidal and suicidal irrationality on the part of those who seek to destroy me for my mere existence, and I know my history - so I know not to rely on that rationality lasting very long. I know of no way for a country to defend itself against a nuclear first strike other than keep its enemies from acquiring that capabilty. I don't believe the possibility of a nuclear first strike by fundamental Islamists is something that should be left to chance - this needn't be done by force, but seeing the reluctance of certain nations to aid in stopping the Iranian nuclear enrichment programme, it appears we will reach a point where it's the only option on the table. Even if Iran's leadership was to act rationaly and not use nuclear weapons, it's quite clear that it will continue to try to establish itself as a key regional player in the same way itself and its predecessors (Nasser, Hussein) have always done - gathering popular Arab support by confronting Israel. I realise that will be to the delight of people such as yourself and to the indifference of others, and that's why I'm convinced we should not count on anyone but ourselves. It's as obvious as the sun, as we say, that Iran will confront us again whether we like it or not. Might as well make sure they don't have the ability to destroy us with a single warhead.
Oh, and leave the Palestinians out of this, they have enough problems as it is.

yada yada yada, still the same bull you are pulling. We all know the jewish way, start a fight among other nations and watch and profit. I do not think what you saying is actually what you think. Your view is based on propagandist lies you must have been exposed as israeli IOF. Your concern for humanity is 0 (ie non jews), for idiotic zionistioc ideas you would have world butchered. (Israel is oppressor and as such is the highest must of the oppressed to fight against). NO amount of propaganda and lies will change this.

Might as well make sure they don't have the ability to destroy us with a single warhead.
Look at you......, full of it.

Zionists like you make me what other zionists call sel-hating jew.
 
  • #79
23
0
Zionists like you make me what other zionists call sel-hating jew.
You've made it very clear what you ought to be called.
 
  • #80
23
0
when I see people understanding what you are doing, my hopes rise again.
I don't need to explain more, people understood your goal.

10000 of this kind of man, and the earth will be destroyed completely!
Maybe you should invite them to Tehran, I know of this conference they'd love to attend.
 
  • #81
Art
That's right Art. The Israeli government pays me to post on physicsforums.com
You surprise me. I thought it was a labour of love.
 
  • #82
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,322
124
Interpol puts 5 Iranians on wanted list

Associated Press said:
Interpol put an ex-Iranian intelligence chief, a former leader of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, three other Iranians and a Lebanese militant on its most-wanted list Wednesday for a 1994 bombing that killed 85 people at a Jewish center in Argentina.

The international coordinating agency announced the move after delegates at its general assembly sided with Argentine prosecutors and turned back a lobbying blitz by Iranian envoys trying to avoid having their country linked to Argentina's worst terrorist attack.

The dispute was steeped in geopolitical drama at a time of high tension between Iran and the West over Tehran's suspect nuclear program and American claims that Iran is supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan — claims that the Islamic Republic denies.

While Iranian envoys accused Israel and the United States of trying to use Interpol to taint Iran's image, most delegates agreed the case was purely a police matter. The result was a vote of 76-14 to add the names, with 26 abstentions, delegates said after the closed-door session.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071108/ap_on_re_af/interpol_iran [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #83
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,429
746
Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. They took their cue from North Korea. The world will deplore the effort, but not intervene. Once you have nukes and missile technology, you can no longer be ignored or forced to bow to the will of others.
 
  • #84
23
0
Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. They took their cue from North Korea. The world will deplore the effort, but not intervene. Once you have nukes and missile technology, you can no longer be ignored or forced to bow to the will of others.
In that case there's a good chance Israel will attempt to halt that development with force.

Pre-WWI Germany was also obsessed with not "bowing to the will of others". Unfortunately, they all miscalculated the effectiveness of new military technology.
 
  • #85
23
0
maybe, why not? maybe they set one Zionist per forum, to destroy discussions between west and east people. not impossible for you with that amount of money.
We ran out of money, having bought the internet, CNN and BBC.
 
  • #86
23
0
so what? we should bow to your will?!
Your regime should stop developing nuclear weapons and stop destabilising Lebanon and the Palestinians.
 
  • #87
23
0
Thankyou, Perham, for making it very clear why your fundamental theocracy should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.
 
  • #88
23
0
Our fundamental difference is that I see you as a human being, while you see me as an agent of some omnipotent hive.
 
  • #89
88
0
We ran out of money, having bought the internet, CNN and BBC.

yonoz, i wrote a mini essay previously on a forum about the Israeli lobby's influence on mainstream news coverage. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is a well known fact. If you want i can post it here.

Meanwhile, i suggest that you watch this video, which i can highly reccommend to anyone interested in surpession of Israeli actions in the news; http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7985100635045440998 [Broken]

At the latest Doha Debate held at the prestigious Oxford Union in the United Kingdom on May 1st, two-thirds of the student audience approved a motion claiming that Israel's supporters are stifling Western debate about Israel's actions.

The event at the world famous debating society of Oxford University marked the first time the Doha Debates have been held outside Qatar.

The Debate took place amid mounting controversy over the role of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States and accusations that it has suppressed criticism of Israel - a charge that the lobby vigorously denies.

Norman Finkelstein, an American academic and a leading critic of Israeli policies, argued in favour of the motion claiming that the pro-Israel lobby sows confusion to avoid being held to account. The journalist and writer Andrew Cockburn also supported this view, claiming there are "red lines" in discussing Israel that no politician or journalist in the US would dare cross for fear of being demonised or driven out of public life.

If you choose to watch it pay particular attention to what Prof Norman Finkelstein says, who is himdelf jewish, and the son of holocaust survivors. The points he makes are very compelling, and his account of Israel is perfectly factually accurate, whether you like what he says or not, Yonoz. On the other hand the points that Dr Martin Indyk make are often completely meaningless, and Finkelsteins comments show the majority of what he says to be completely wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Iran & US Friendship

  • Last Post
Replies
26
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
2K
K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
177
Views
18K
A
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
126
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
127
Views
11K
Top