Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/2010/july/015.jpg

So this is the background to what is happening to Iran. Those who are saying that Iran's potential for nuclear weapons is a danger to the world are the same people who have supplied country after country with the bloody things.

I am sick of being lectured about terrorism by terrorists, and about the danger of nuclear weapons by those who own and supply them.

Successive Rothschild-controlled American and Israeli administrations have been the world's playground bullies, doing what they like, saying what they like, and threatening others for doing what they do.

This week the US State Department, led by Rothschild Zionist Hillary Clinton, expressed 'concern' that Iran had supplied early-warning radar technology to Syria for greater defence against Israeli air attacks and to give Iran an early warning of possible Israeli strikes.

The 'concern' is apparently the suggestion that Syria would give the technology to Hezbollah in Lebanon so they could have better warning of Israeli air attacks.

Syria is causing 'concern' because Israeli President Shimon Peres says that it is supplying Hezbollah with Scud missiles that could cause major damage to Israel - yes, the very same Shimon Peres who signed an agreement with apartheid South Africa to supply them with nuclear weapons for use against other African states.

The real reason for this mock 'concern' is the desire to connect Syria to Iran and 'terrorism' and thus demonise it in preparation for when the Israel-US bully boys seek to add Syria to their list of occupied countries.

http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/2010/july/016.jpg

Meanwhile, as the Rothschild Zionist psychopaths seek to trigger yet another war on their ever-expanding list, it is reported from the Gaza strip concentration camp, guarded by Israeli troops, that more than half of the Gaza children are suffering from malnutrition and severe vitamin deficiency because of the Israeli blockade.

Hospital patients are dying through lack of medical supplies and the world watches as an entire people are systematically destroyed. While Israel's poodle, Barack Obama, stays silent on this genocide, he announced further economic sanctions against Iran this week and 'individuals' who commit 'human rights abuses'.

The man is a narcissistic disgrace.

The mentally-disturbed lunatics behind the mass murder of the Palestinian nation are those who lecture the world about terrorism and the dangers posed by 'tyrannical regimes'. When it comes to tyrannical, when it comes an utter disrespect for human life, no-one does it better, or worse, than Israel which, in league with the United States, is the most dangerous country on the planet.

And not just because of what it does directly - also for the way it is the hidden force behind tyrannies across the world, including many in the Middle East, as I outlined two weeks back.

http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/2010/july/017.jpg

These bullies think they can do what they like and have no consequences. Yesterday Iran marked the 22nd anniversary of a US missile attack on an Iranian passenger airliner over the Persian Gulf that killed all 290 passengers on board, 66 of them children.

The US claimed - ludicrously - that its naval officers had mistaken the Iranian Airbus A300 for an F-14 Tomcat fighter and America has refused to even apologise.

We can do what we like - get used to it.

And what did the United Nations do? Nothing.

On May 31st, Israeli commandos killed nine people on a peace flotilla in international waters trying to take supplies to the tragic people of the Gaza Strip and Israel has refused to even apologise or accept it was an unlawful act.

We can do what we like - get used to it.

And what did the United Nations do? Nothing.

The United Nations do nothing of substance to stop the bullies of Israel and America because the UN was created by the same Rothschild cabal that imposes its will via Israel and America.

But, don't worry, there is no conspiracy or coordinated agenda. It's just a theory. Ask CNN or the BBC, they'll tell you.

interesting cartoons.

Out of curiosity Deano, did you type all that up yourself, or did you copy+paste it from a site?

Why do you do this? In regular intervals you decide to knowingly emerge from the conspiracy forum to post a vast conspiracy theory in the GDF. Do you have the times marked in the calendar? What gives?

I think it's hard to accept doing all that work to copy+paste the articles knowing that you're posting it in one of the least visited forums on the site. He yearns for the days when his zany Conspiracies were getting 100 views a day!

It's good to see that you don't mindlessly repeat things to people like some sort of parrot-cum-sheep being with no will of it's own. Seeing as you're a conspiracy theorist devoted to freeing people from their own blindness they would be hysterical.

I see no source. Reported for plagiarism.

reported lol. its like being back in school. well i apologize. its the david icke newsletter.

i don't care who views it. if someone enjoys reading it then thats good. do not post if you haven't got anything relevant to say

and its not such a conspiracy theory, more a question exposing the hypocrisy of Israel and USA.

discuss it, if you don't want to then get out. simple

deano: what are your thoughts on how the appearance of j street has changed the face of Israeli-us relations?

It's from the David Icke Newsletter and i'm supposed to believe it's credible and definitely not a conspiracy theory?

so instead of talking shit why don't you tell me what parts you disagree on then?

Lets see if you can do this menial task shall we

Originally posted by Deano
so instead of talking shit why don't you tell me what parts you disagree on then?

Lets see if you can do this menial task shall we

What effect do you think J Street has had/will have on the relationship between the United States and Israel?

Originally posted by inimalist
deano: what are your thoughts on how the appearance of j street has changed the face of Israeli-us relations?

i have no thoughts on this really because whatever relations they appear to have is just on the surface, and on the surface, nothing is as it seems

so then, aside from just agreeing with you, what do you want to discuss? the appearance of a non-militant Israeli lobby group is one of the most important events in us-Israeli relations for years. if you have no opinion on this, or what appears to be happening in the world, there is no topic. this is free advertising for ice at best

i just want to expose the hypocrisy that is all

Didn't bother reading as Icke is generally horrible at keeping his "facts" straight and he tends to stumble over himself article to article, but the old Jew depicted ala 1930's Nazi propaganda format is great in the LoLz-factor. "Der Juden!"

this article is really good though. and its right

Originally posted by Deano
this article is really good though. and its right

It's right except for the parts where it's completely wrong...Which is almost all of it.

Harping on about how Israel controls and manipulates the entire middle east....Do people really forget that quickly who actually started the 6 day war which is the basis of every action and reaction in that part of the world ever since...Because NEWSFLASH...It wasn't Israel.

And remember what we're talking about here....It was

Syria
Jordan
Iraq
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Tunisia
Sudan
Morocco
Algeria
Libya

vs

Israel.

As for Israel being the only nation in the middle east with Nuclear weapons...Yeah that's true...If you don't count Pakistan as being in the middle east...Which the UN and G8 do. Of course he actually goes on to say later that Pakistan is one of the countries he means by middle east. He's just trying to make a point by lying...again.

It's idiots like him that make me hope that Iran DO get nuclear weapons and use them against Israel just so he can either see how thouroughly ****ing wrong his opinion is or just so he can show his true colours in the aftermath for saying Israel deserved it to show what a repugnant anti semitic, xenophobic cretin he really is.

thank you jaden for an intelligent comment. the first

i think icke stands for justice but i dont think he is anti semitic

today, if you speak of the global deception and mention any name involved which happens to be Jewish, you are immediately branded 'anti-Semitic'.

I agree that happens but I don't believe it's the case with David Icke. If it was then he wouldn't have to resort to making false claims about Israel manipulating and threatening the entire middle east. It's in fact, the other way round.

Here's what Mahmoud Ahnadinejad said in a speech to the so called "world without Zionism" conference about Israel.

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map for great justice and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world"

Then there were other lesser known quotes such as.

Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken. Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation."

"the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a dead end and will under God's grace be wiped off the map."

"the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map."

So who's really making the threats here?

Why is it a bad thing to try and do everything possible to deny the most powerful weapons of mass destruction from getting into the hands of a leader who makes such vile statements?

Icke paints Israel to be a tyrannical and war mongering regime run by "absolute crazies" yet they have been bombarded with over 10,000 rocket attacks in the last 3 years...Had SCUD missles launched at them by Iraq in the 1st gulf war. Yet these supposedly "absolute crazies" have had nuclear weapons for 40+ years and never used them despite constant aggression from an entire continent of countries who want them obliterated.

If anything, Israel have been muted and restrained in regards to how they deal with their neighbours.

I would go over the 1st gesture in the now defunct peace process of forcibly removing it's own citizens from settlements in the Gaza strip in order to show commitment to peace in the area and that hand of reconcilliation being slapped away by the Palestinian people who less than a year after the withdrawl from Gaza, voted Hamas into power...A terrorist organisation hellbent on killing as many Israelis as possible.

Interesting, (and long) read. I do agree that Iran is not a threat - it will only become so if USA becomes involved in a war with them.

Criticizing Israel is NOT anti-Semitic. Such attitude is retarded.

Originally posted by Deano
thank you jaden for an intelligent comment. the first


Whoa, whoa, whoa, seems my comment was spot on, as Jaden's response after reading the article reflects Icke's inability to get facts right, as I mentioned.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Interesting, (and long) read. I do agree that Iran is not a threat - it will only become so if USA becomes involved in a war with them.

Criticizing Israel is NOT anti-Semitic. Such attitude is retarded.


You really see no chance on a nuclear armed Iran secretly selling or giving WMDs to groups who would use said arms on Israeli soil?

Valid criticism, certainly isn't; there's a difference in saying something like "some of Israel's actions in the West Bank provoke and promote war" and something like "the Zionist are nothing more than murder happy tyrants."

The first being a valid argument, the later being nothing more than rambling Jew/Israel hatred.

has anyone else here read Them by Jon Ronson?

if not, do yourself a favor

i really wish i had the attention span or will power to read those posts.


Can someone break those posts down for me, in a paragraph or less?

Originally posted by Robtard
You really see no chance on a nuclear armed Iran secretly selling or giving WMDs to groups who would use said arms on Israeli soil?

Valid criticism, certainly isn't; there's a difference in saying something like "some of Israel's actions in the West Bank provoke and promote war" and something like "the Zionist are nothing more than murder happy tyrants."

The first being a valid argument, the later being nothing more than rambling Jew/Israel hatred.

Iran has not started any wars in a REALLY long time, while USA remains trigger happy, especially in Iranian's neighbourhood.

Therefore, how can anyone think Iran will stand for having itself disarmed while two if it's biggest enemies have nukes? No nation would ever accept such ridiculous terms.

Would USA accept having Iran, Iraq and other enemy states with nukes, while she is disarmed? I don't think so.

Just going ''oh Iran will do this, and Iran will do that'' when they have done NOTHING of the sort, is a speculation that will drive USA into another unnecessary and devastating war.

Nothing quite beats fear-mongering eh?

Now hear this...Now hear this.

THERE WILL NOT BE A WAR IN OR WITH IRAN.

Why?...The US simply does not have the capability to do it successfully. The proof is in Iraq and Afghanistan...2 countries who, at the time of putting troops in, were far weaker than Iran is now.




Correct. Provided it's based on actual FACTS...David Icke's article is not. He lies several times within the 1st few paragraphs to try and put across spurious points.




Israel is only an enemy to Iran because Iran views it as such. It was and is the primary funder of Hamas and thus suicide bombing in Israel.

During the Pahlavi dynasty Iran and Israel had extremely close diplomatic ties...It was only after the Islamic revolution that IRAN chose to abandon those relations.

It should be noted, though, that the leadership of Iran is very out of touch with it's people. You only have to look at the protests by Iranian students against the current regime as evidence that Ahmadinejad doesn't really represent the nation at all. Initially millions of people were involved in those protests.

because its worthy of discussion. it is a bit conspiracy based but not enough to put in the conspiracy forum

Well a modern prob in general is as soon as you start to talk about a topic and disagree with the mainstream medias you get called a) an idiot or b) a conspiracy theorist.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Well a modern prob in general is as soon as you start to talk about a topic and disagree with the mainstream medias you get called a) an idiot or b) a conspiracy theorist.

I only use conspiracy theorist when someone is discussing their theory of a conspiracy.

Though the term obviously has hugely negative implications nowadays because of people like Icke. I understand Deano doesn't like to be called that, but, imo, he furthers this stereotype by basically broadcasting any conspiracy theory he reads unfiltered.

This thread for example is so insanely biased to just one side, proclaiming a US and Israel conspiracy, that even though the topic can and should be discussed seriously, it very hard to do so jumping off of this "source".

Originally posted by Bardock42
I only use conspiracy theorist when someone is discussing their theory of a conspiracy.

Though the term obviously has hugely negative implications nowadays because of people like Icke. I understand Deano doesn't like to be called that, but, imo, he furthers this stereotype by basically broadcasting any conspiracy theory he reads unfiltered.

This thread for example is so insanely biased to just one side, proclaiming a US and Israel conspiracy, that even though the topic can and should be discussed seriously, it very hard to do so jumping off of this "source".

Alex Jones once compared David Icke to someone taking a big dump in a punch bowl.

I think the analogy works well here. The Israeli-America connection is worthy of investigation, but maybe Icke overstates some of his points, making it much less effective of a criticism.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Iran has not started any wars in a REALLY long time, while USA remains trigger happy, especially in Iranian's neighbourhood.

Therefore, how can anyone think Iran will stand for having itself disarmed while two if it's biggest enemies have nukes? No nation would ever accept such ridiculous terms.

Would USA accept having Iran, Iraq and other enemy states with nukes, while she is disarmed? I don't think so.

Just going ''oh Iran will do this, and Iran will do that'' when they have done NOTHING of the sort, is a speculation that will drive USA into another unnecessary and devastating war.

That didn't really answer the question I posed. I'm not suggesting that Iran would openly start a war, I asked do you think there's a chance that a nuclear Iran would secretly sell or give nuclear weapons to groups who would have no hesitation in using them on Israel?

Originally posted by jaden101

Correct. Provided it's based on actual FACTS...David Icke's article is not. He lies several times within the 1st few paragraphs to try and put across spurious points.


Ridiculous. This is a political discussion and not about Jews. Criticizing Israel is criticizing it's political moves, not Jews.
Are Jews who criticise Israel self hating Jews?

In fact, Israel, by walling off Palestinians, can be considered infinitely more anti-semitic than a person criticizing the government of Israel, by the same logic.

Calling criticism of Israel anti-semitic is insulting and a suppression of independent thinking of that which Israel says is true.

I could equally consider criticising Syria, Jordan or Lebanon anti-Semitic by that logic.

Originally posted by jaden101
Nothing quite beats fear-mongering eh?

Now hear this...Now hear this.

THERE WILL NOT BE A WAR IN OR WITH IRAN.

Why?...The US simply does not have the capability to do it successfully.


Since when has that stopped America from attacking?

Though seriosuly, the US certainly does have the capacity to wage war and demolish; it doesn't have the capacity to occupy, polititics get in the way.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Conspiracy is not a synonym for "untrue".

Might as well be. Just like when the media calls someone an "alleged" murderer, they're really implying that the SOB did it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I could equally consider criticising Syria, Jordan or Lebanon anti-Semitic by that logic.

you'd likely be surprised at how popular the Protocols are in those nations then

Originally posted by Robtard
That didn't really answer the question I posed. I'm not suggesting that Iran would openly start a war, I asked do you think there's a chance that a nuclear Iran would secretly sell or give nuclear weapons to groups who would have no hesitation in using them on Israel?

No, I do not think there is a great chance. Firstly, because Iran repeatedly said it doesn't want nuclear weapons but nuclear energy. This was recognized by the west and united states way before the 70s, that Iran does NOT have enough oil to power up its country.

This whole nuclear program thing became ''weapons'' after it was decided Iran is the enemy and after it's been decided that there must be a war against them.
What evidence is there that Iran will do ANYTHING of the sorts? Nobody wants nuclear war in their neighbourhood.

And who exactly will use them on Israel? if they wanted to use them on Israel they would not wait till Iran gets a nuclear program, then buy them off Iran.
That's just stupid.

They would buy them from Pakistan if they're THAT keen on using it.

if the elite want an war with iran it will happen. the next 2 years will be very interestingg

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Might as well be. Just like when the media calls someone an "alleged" murderer, they're really implying that the SOB did it.

Alleged, too, has a meaning that is still used correctly. Perhaps it is your bias that makes you think the alleged person actually did it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Alleged, too, has a meaning that is still used correctly. Perhaps it is your bias that makes you think the alleged person actually did it?

No. Its because of the obvious doubt in the reporters'/news-anchors' voices that they make little effort to hide. And even when all the evidence in the world is against the accused, they still use that word. To this day, news professionals on tv still call OJ Simpson an "alleged" murderer, even though the trial was 15 years ago, and he's now in prison for another felony. The reason for that dumbshit is because people don't wanna get sued for saying it, and if too many public figures say that the accused obviously did it the judge might declare a mistrial due to slander and/or defamation of character.

"I hate the word 'alleged'. Let's be honest; if somebody has to use that word, they did it. Think about it. You didn't allegedly eat breakfast today, did you? No, you f*uckin ate breakfast."
-Comedian Jo Koy, when I saw him live in Vegas three months ago.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No, I do not think there is a great chance. Firstly, because Iran repeatedly said it doesn't want nuclear weapons but nuclear energy. This was recognized by the west and united states way before the 70s, that Iran does NOT have enough oil to power up its country.

This whole nuclear program thing became ''weapons'' after it was decided Iran is the enemy and after it's been decided that there must be a war against them.
What evidence is there that Iran will do ANYTHING of the sorts? Nobody wants nuclear war in their neighbourhood.

And who exactly will use them on Israel? if they wanted to use them on Israel they would not wait till Iran gets a nuclear program, then buy them off Iran.
That's just stupid.

They would buy them from Pakistan if they're THAT keen on using it.

I do agree that Iran's nuclear program for energy purposes is no ones business but their own.

What evidence? Ahmadinejad saying that there can be no peace with Israel and that Israel needs to vanish, that's a decent indicator, for one. Man is/was a fool for saying it, regardless if it's was a real threat or just showboating to the Arab and Persian world.

Like I said, the threat of Iran directly using them is a non-factor.

The groups who launch rockets into Israel, send in suicide bombers etc., those people.

Has Pakistan made the comments and threats towards Israel that Iran has?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ridiculous. This is a political discussion and not about Jews. Criticizing Israel is criticizing it's political moves, not Jews.
Are Jews who criticise Israel self hating Jews?

In fact, Israel, by walling off Palestinians, can be considered infinitely more anti-semitic than a person criticizing the government of Israel, by the same logic.

Calling criticism of Israel anti-semitic is insulting and a suppression of independent thinking of that which Israel says is true.

I could equally consider criticising Syria, Jordan or Lebanon anti-Semitic by that logic.

Way to miss the point, Sherlock.

I've never mentioned anything about it being Jews and not the government he was criticising. I said it was because he was making things up and passing them off as fact...Such as Israel being a bully because it's the only nation in the middle east with nuclear when it's not. Or Israel being the nation making all the threats in the middle east when it's clearly not the case...As I've proven with quotes from people like Mahmoud Ajmadinejad.

Probably best to actually address what I type rather your nonsense interpretation of what I type.




The regime before the Islamic revolution could not be more different to what it is now so trying to pass off that point as legitimate is irrelevant. Besides if it didn't have enough oil even back then then why was it exporting oil to the west via Israel by the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline? And why does it continue to export oil? In fact why does Iran have the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world (some 150 BILLION barrels) and the 2nd largest natural gas reserves in the world? It has vastly more energy than it needs. So it doesn't actually need nuclear energy. I'm not saying that they are trying to establish a nuclear weapons programme as the IAEA said there was no evidence for one and a US led investigation said that when they found weapons grade highly enriched uranium in Iranian equipment it was because it was from contaminated 2nd hand Pakistani centrifuges.

It's problem is that it is possibly the most energy inefficient country on earth...On average it uses 10 times the amount of energy per person that the EU does and 15 times that of Japan.

I was skimming through the article and I have a question:

What the hell does "President 'dark eyes' Obama" mean? Is it just Icke's way of make sure no one takes him seriously?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No. Its because of the obvious doubt in the reporters'/news-anchors' voices that they make little effort to hide. And even when all the evidence in the world is against the accused, they still use that word. To this day, news professionals on tv still call OJ Simpson an "alleged" murderer, even though the trial was 15 years ago, and he's now in prison for another felony. The reason for that dumbshit is because people don't wanna get sued for saying it, and if too many public figures say that the accused obviously did it the judge might declare a mistrial due to slander and/or defamation of character.

"I hate the word 'alleged'. Let's be honest; if somebody has to use that word, they did it. Think about it. You didn't allegedly eat breakfast today, did you? No, you f*uckin ate breakfast."
-Comedian Jo Koy, when I saw him live in Vegas three months ago.

Jo Koy is an idiot. "Alleged" means someone said you did it. If I get on national television and say that David Hasselhof beat a hooker to death then people can legitimately refer to him as "alleged murderer David Hasselhof".

Now, do you think David Hasselhof beat that hooker to death? Do you?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Jo Koy is an idiot. "Alleged" means someone said you did it. If I get on national television and say that David Hasselhof beat a hooker to death then people can legitimately refer to him as "alleged murderer David Hasselhof".

Now, do you think David Hasselhof beat that hooker to death? Do you?

Yeah, I know what the word's technical dictionary-definition is. But I'm talking about the way its used in media. Its used to essentially imply that someone is guilty, as if to say "Yeah I'm saying 'alleged', but let's not kid ourselves. Anyone with half a brain knows the sum'b*tch did it.". In everyday, informal speech, that's how its used. Every now and then, an anchor will have a Freudian slip like "The killer, I'm sorry; alleged killer..." Jane Velez-Mitchell and Nancy Grace from HLN both do it all the time. Grace will sometimes roll her eyes while saying "alleged", because she knows how dumb it is and how much of a stupid formality it is (she's a former prosecutor, so she would know). Like I said: they just don't wanna get sued or get flak from other people accusing them of being "unprofessional".

-----

Yeah I agree; Jo Koy aint that good. That's why he wasn't the headliner; he was opening for Chelsea Handler. But still, he was dead-on with how that word gets thrown around on tv.

Originally posted by Robtard
I do agree that Iran's nuclear program for energy purposes is no ones business but their own.

What evidence? Ahmadinejad saying that there can be no peace with Israel and that Israel needs to vanish, that's a decent indicator, for one. Man is/was a fool for saying it, regardless if it's was a real threat or just showboating to the Arab and Persian world.

Like I said, the threat of Iran directly using them is a non-factor.

The groups who launch rockets into Israel, send in suicide bombers etc., those people.

Has Pakistan made the comments and threats towards Israel that Iran has?
If you watch the entire, unedited video, Ahmadinajad never threatened to attack Israel nor did he ever threaten to use any kind of force.
He said, and I quote: ''Iran is not a threat to any country and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression''

He then said that Iran is not even a threat to Israel and wants to deal with problems there peacefully and through elections...

He did NOT threaten Israel, he never even used the word 'map' - he said ''regime occupying Israel must vanish from the pages of history''.
It makes it painfully clear he wants REGIME change, not Israel off the map.
Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khameini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope and that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.

He died like almost 20 years ago - Was he going on his death bed: ''Iran will in 20 years get a nuclear program, then use that to sell weapons to Israeli's enemies or better yet, nuke it''.
Just ridiculous.
But that matters not in propaganda nor to war mongers.

This man, regardless of how despicable, has never threatened Israel.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah, I know what the word's technical dictionary-definition is. But I'm talking about the way its used in media. Its used to essentially imply that someone is guilty, as if to say "Yeah I'm saying 'alleged', but let's not kid ourselves. Anyone with half a brain knows the sum'b*tch did it.". In everyday, informal speech, that's how its used. Every now and then, an anchor will have a Freudian slip like "The killer, I'm sorry; alleged killer..." Jane Velez-Mitchell and Nancy Grace from HLN both do it all the time. Grace will sometimes roll her eyes while saying "alleged", because she knows how dumb it is and how much of a stupid formality it is (she's a former prosecutor, so she would know). Like I said: they just don't wanna get sued or get flak from other people accusing them of being "unprofessional".

-----

Yeah I agree; Jo Koy aint that good. That's why he wasn't the headliner; he was opening for Chelsea Handler. But still, he was dead-on with how that word gets thrown around on tv.

Perhaps you are right that some News outlets use it in a very biased voice, but I think the opposite is also true, that they overuse the word alleged in an attempt to be more unbiased than necessary. Either way, I do think it is an important term and it does still get used right, it's definitely not as devolved as conspiracy theorists, which 99% of the time is used as a synonym for "kook".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was skimming through the article and I have a question:

What the hell does "President 'dark eyes' Obama" mean? Is it just Icke's way of make sure no one takes him seriously?

Dunno, do lizard have dark eyes? David Icke is into calling folk blood drinking lizars.

Sorry I know this doesn't belong here but I just saw that on the news
B1hiHh8vN9Q

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If you're going to make such accusations, I'd like to see some evidence of Ahmadinajad threatening Israel with ''annihilation, destroy, wipe off the map as quoted by you. Otherwise, you're talking out of your ass.
Exact quotes please, hopefully a video would do, but newspaper will do as well.

I'm the one talking out of my ass when you're the one who said Iran doesn't have enough oil to supply its energy needs?....You are an absolute belter. It's really not me that needs to get my facts right here although I think it's extremely funny that you conveniently skipped over all that.

A newspaper?...Will I post it to you?...Belter.

Still.



From

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ix-viVGAnfS1RHJGzZHSGjnzDIXg

Which was made on Israel's 60th birthday in 2008 and was reported by the IRNA news agency.

The Jerusalem post had the "wiped out" quote. It was made on December 11th 2006 at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust.

Rueters had the "Israel will disappear" quote. It was made on the 19 anniversary of the assassination of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Sohrab Mahdavi (One of Iran's top translators) and Siamak Namazi (Bilingual MD of a Tehran consulting firm) both translated the original speech as saying "wipe off" of "wipe away" rather than "vanish".

He also used the term "wiped off" in a speech made on 27th January 2009 at a Holocaust conference at the Sharif University of Technology

As Charles Manson wrote..."Look at your game, girl".

As recently as June 11th this year he said Israel is "doomed". Also hinting clearly several times that his interest in nuclear power has to do with weapons by saying that the US "Clearly isn't against nuclear weapons in the area as they have a Zionist regime with Nuclear weapons"

no ones know whats the true translation is. many people are saying different things

Originally posted by Deano
no ones know whats the true translation is. many people are saying different things

When the Iranian government's official translators say he did mean "wipe off" or "wipe away" I think we can take it as given...Not to mention I've clearly brought up several speeches from a wipe period of time where the general tone is highly threatening and aggresive. Yet people are arguing that Israel is the "bully" and the nation making all the threats.

It's astounding.

Israel is portrayed as the aggressor but lets look at the last big conflict Israel was involved in in 2006 with Hezzbollah...It started because Hezzbollah launched rocket attacks at Israeli border towns as a diversion so it could attack with anti tank missles, 2 armoured humvees that were on the Israeli side of the border.

Take Hezzbollah itself...Funded and trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards...Repeatedly have called for the destruction of Israel. In fact it's part of their founding principles.

Yet some deluded people on here still think that Iran is an innocent party and harbours no aggression towards Israel...It's utter madness and completely delusional to think that.

''official translators'' it must be true then

i think your anti semitic. reported!

you're

Iran shouldn't be allowed to have nukes.

Originally posted by amnesia
Iran shouldn't be allowed to have nukes. No one should

Originally posted by Parmaniac
No one should


Israel needs it to protect themselves against crazies.

Originally posted by amnesia
Israel needs it to protect themselves against crazies. That was an awful movie, I can see why they'd need nukes.

Originally posted by amnesia
Israel needs it to protect themselves against crazies. If every country would get nukes to protect itself against crazies, the Iraque would have needed some too.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That was an awful movie, I can see why they'd need nukes.

I heard it was bad, so i didn't see it.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
If every country would get nukes to protect itself against crazies, the Iraque would have needed some too.

Why? Israel and USA have somewhat sane leaders. Iran doesn't.

Originally posted by amnesia
Why? Israel and USA have somewhat sane leaders. Iran doesn't. George Bush was a modern Hitler

Hitler attacked poland under false information

Bush attacked Iraque cause of the following reasons (not at the same time)

at first he said that the Iraque is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, which was a flatout lie, Hussein even allowed everyone to come in and search for them noone found anything EVER, the weird thing is that the CIA had satellite pics of supposedly deposits for WoMD and they still weren't able to find them... The USA could just have asked us germans cause we sold him most of his weapons back in the day...

And then (again) the CIA "found out" that Hussein is supporting Terrorists which was also a lie Hussein was a dictator nothing more nothing less, he gave a **** about Al Queida.

And then after they couldn't prove anything they said they wanted to bring democracy into the country and by doing so they threw bombs on Bagdad a civil city full of innocents... Now the whole country lies in chaos. The irony is, now the Iraque will most likely become a place for Al Queida to recruite new terrorists cause imagene following:
You live in a country and without any reason another country which military is totally superior to your own military attacks your country and by that process that country kills your pretty much your whole family. And now I ask you what would you do when someone comes to and says: Hey we know how you feel they did the same with us back in the day, we can give you the opprtunity to take revenge.

Wouldn't maybe think about joining them?

It's a crime that Bush is still free and not in prison or worse, he caused the death of thousand of innocents.

The irony is 3 days ago I've read an article that (again) the CIA found out that the Iran will be able to build nukes in only 2 years...

I foresee fun times for the people in Iran...

Originally posted by Parmaniac
George Bush was a modern Hitler



Now you exaggerate bro.

the hitlers are hidden behind the scenes, using puppets like bush and obama to further there agenda

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Hitler attacked poland under false information


Maybe your wording/grammar is off, but it sounds like you're saying Hitler was duped into igniting WWII?

Oh sorry of course I meant: By spreading false information

Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe your wording/grammar is off, but it sounds like you're saying Hitler was duped into igniting WWII?

Replace "information" with "justification" and then it works the way you want to.


Maybe that dude's first language is not English? "Information" and "Justification" are close: you use some information for your justification: the information IS your justification. And we know that is means =. awesome


It's just a colloquialism in English that messes the whole thing up.

I wouldnt say Israel opresses the world, but it certainly opresses palestinians systematically. As for the debate regarding Iran and nuclear weapons, pro-israel advocates certainly like their double standards. Ahmadjenad isnt crazy either, hes just vile.

Originally posted by amnesia
Now you exaggerate bro. Youre right, hitler actually believed his own demented ideology. Bush, his cronnies and the elites they represent only care about money.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm the one talking out of my ass when you're the one who said Iran doesn't have enough oil to supply its energy needs?....You are an absolute belter. It's really not me that needs to get my facts right here although I think it's extremely funny that you conveniently skipped over all that.

A newspaper?...Will I post it to you?...Belter.

Still.



From

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ix-viVGAnfS1RHJGzZHSGjnzDIXg

Which was made on Israel's 60th birthday in 2008 and was reported by the IRNA news agency.

The Jerusalem post had the "wiped out" quote. It was made on December 11th 2006 at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust.

Rueters had the "Israel will disappear" quote. It was made on the 19 anniversary of the assassination of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Sohrab Mahdavi (One of Iran's top translators) and Siamak Namazi (Bilingual MD of a Tehran consulting firm) both translated the original speech as saying "wipe off" of "wipe away" rather than "vanish".

He also used the term "wiped off" in a speech made on 27th January 2009 at a Holocaust conference at the Sharif University of Technology

As Charles Manson wrote..."Look at your game, girl".

As recently as June 11th this year he said Israel is "doomed". Also hinting clearly several times that his interest in nuclear power has to do with weapons by saying that the US "Clearly isn't against nuclear weapons in the area as they have a Zionist regime with Nuclear weapons"

The article, apart from perpetuating the ridiculous ''Israel off the map'' thing that has never be said, quotes Ahmadinajad as, again, referring to regime of Israel not Israel itself.

But what else could we possibly expect from newspapers and people on different side of the world that freely fund Jundullah in Iran.

And seriously, the fact that you even doubt Iran has enough energy, shows you known nothing about Iran, nor the history outside of the searching up few phrases and copying paragraph or two from wikipedia.
The fact that you even suggested it was ME who suggests Iran has not enough energy, in the spirit of ''defending Iran'', clearly indicates you are not well versed in Middle Eastern politics.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

The fact that you even suggested it was ME who suggests Iran has not enough energy, in the spirit of ''defending Iran'', clearly indicates you are not well versed in Middle Eastern politics.

Yeah, cos you didn't say the following.



I evidently know a considerable amount more than you do.

I had a large response typed out but there's not point. You came in to this thread with an attitude problem calling me ignorant and arrogant. You made silly claims and got caught out and now you're trying to scrape back some semblance of respectability by saying the exact opposite and claiming that I am all the things you've displayed.

Quite sad really.

Here's an issue, Iran's got a shitload of oil, but they export much of is; this is were much/most of their revenue and government's budget is paid with.

-Not building reactors and lowering their oil exports will net them the fuel they need to power themselves, but it will ruin their income/budget. That's not good for them, someone's gotta feed the monkey; I think we can all sympathize with them here.

-Building reactors will give them the power, and would allow them to continuing to export mass oil for profit; likely even increasing the export amount and thereby increasing their income. Sounds like a legit plan/idea.

Here's the thing though, building their multiple nuclear reactors would cost several billion to build and then several billion to maintain, year after year. It could literally end up costing them more than their oil exporting brings in, even with an increase in exports.

So something's not right.

Originally posted by Robtard
Here's an issue, Iran's got a shitload of oil, but they export much of is; this is were much/most of their revenue and government's budget is paid with.

-Not building reactors and lowering their oil exports will net them the fuel they need to power themselves, but it will ruin their income/budget. That's not good for them, someone's gotta feed the monkey; I think we can all sympathize with them here.

-Building reactors will give them the power, and would allow them to continuing to export mass oil for profit; likely even increasing the export amount and thereby increasing their income. Sounds like a legit plan/idea.

Here's the thing though, building their multiple nuclear reactors would cost several billion to build and then several billion to maintain, year after year. It could literally end up costing them more than their oil exporting brings in, even with an increase in exports.

So something's not right.

Does it really take that much to maintain a powerplant?

You need to build a dedicated area to house the used materials, keep a constant staff paid well, (around 1200 regular and another 1000 on standby) pay for the materials, etc. It's at least a few hundred million a year per power plant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does it really take that much to maintain a powerplant? A lot of experts claim that if you contabilize all the energy that goes into building and maintaining them, theyre actually drains of energy. They just help out local distribution. I havent checked that clim out thoroughly though. But they are very expensive yes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does it really take that much to maintain a powerplant?

My bad, millions, not billions to maintain. Though they cost around 3-6 billion to build, depending on size; that a conservative number, as construction projects of this magnitude generally do go over-budget.

Edit: Though Iran is planning to build 6 reactors, iirc. So the combined cost to maintain 6 will likely be in the billions per year.

Originally posted by Robtard
Here's an issue, Iran's got a shitload of oil, but they export much of is; this is were much/most of their revenue and government's budget is paid with.

-Not building reactors and lowering their oil exports will net them the fuel they need to power themselves, but it will ruin their income/budget. That's not good for them, someone's gotta feed the monkey; I think we can all sympathize with them here.

-Building reactors will give them the power, and would allow them to continuing to export mass oil for profit; likely even increasing the export amount and thereby increasing their income. Sounds like a legit plan/idea.

Here's the thing though, building their multiple nuclear reactors would cost several billion to build and then several billion to maintain, year after year. It could literally end up costing them more than their oil exporting brings in, even with an increase in exports.

So something's not right.

I understand the dodgyness you speak of. I also absolutely support investigations into Iran's business. Wasn't there a report by US intelligence in 2008 or 2007, (I'm not sure exactly), and NIE report has allegedly stated that Iran appears to not be as determined to make any weapons as US previously thought? Obviously, Israel has rejected this assessment (as they have the right to do so and to be suspicious of their enemy).

However, could we not argue the fact that Israel refuses to join NPT and allow inspections of its own warheads as threatening, if we were Iran? Would it make sense that Iran allows absolute transparency into their nuclear business, while Israel refuses to be inspected?

On the other hand, should Israel allow itself to be inspected if its enemy is not adhering to total transparency? Would knowledge of Israel's arsenal give an upper hand to it's enemies?

This is a situation that is not best solved through a war. And I don't believe sanctions will help.

Given, Iran is now not a country it once was - it is a religious dictatorship akin to 7th century practices and mentality. Kamenei declared fatwa against nuclear weapons. I am betting he doesn't know what nukes are, yet he contributes to political world...in his own dangerous way.
Should leadership change in Iran? YES. Not just leadership, but whole structure of the government.

Here's the Nov 2009 report by the IAEA.

http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Report_Iran_16November2009pdf_1.pdf

And a section from it regarding possible nuclear weapon's development activities.





I agree...Leadership change is neccesary in Iran but I believe that the Iranian people will enact that soon enough. Whether the process is promoted in an underhand way by western governments is highly likely in that they will push for another revolution. But I think all out war is highly unlikely.



Specific sanctions related to weapons and multi use materials will be effective.



I think Israel's arsenal of nuclear weapons may be small to non existant now. This is a strong reason for not allowing inspectors because if they found a weak or non existant nuclear weapons programme in Israel then it's likely their enemies in the middle east would launch all out war on them. Surely when Iraq attacked Israel during the 1st gulf war with scud missles with potentially WMD biological and chemical weapons then Israel, if they had the potential to attack, would have done so at that point with WMD's of their own.



It's considerably less threatening than Iran's rhetoric.

they sure are bullies to the world.thanks for posting that Deano.great stuff.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
they sure are bullies to the world.thanks for posting that Deano.great stuff.

Isn't he also the guy who believes that the Earth is controlled by lizard people?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Isn't he also the guy who believes that the Earth is controlled by lizard people?

yeah but that doesnt change anything that he has FACTS here that cant be refuted in this article. people around really need to stop listening to what the corporate controlled media says-the newspapers and THE idiot box in the living room that you turn on and listen to, and start reading newspapers that report REAL news like this such as AMERICAN FREE PRESS,ROCK CREEK FREE PRESS and MEDIA BYPASS. and they DONT talk about Lizard people just so you know.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah but that doesnt change anything that he has FACTS here that cant be refuted in this article. people around really need to stop listening to what the corporate controlled media says-the newspapers and THE idiot box in the living room that you turn on and listen to, and start reading newspapers that report REAL news like this such as AMERICAN FREE PRESS,ROCK CREEK FREE PRESS and MEDIA BYPASS. and they DONT talk about Lizard people just so you know.

Why don't the lizard people take care of the Jews?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why don't the lizard people take care of the Jews?

You know, some Jews are not supportive of Israel's policies contra Palestinians.

And this David Ike - even if he posts some good arguments against banking and financial institutions, he soils it all with the lizard crap.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You know, some Jews are not supportive of Israel's policies contra Palestinians.

I realize that.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And this David Ike - even if he posts some good arguments against banking and financial institutions, he soils it all with the lizard crap.

It is kind of hard to take David Ike seriously.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah but that doesnt change anything that he has FACTS here that cant be refuted in this article. people around really need to stop listening to what the corporate controlled media says-the newspapers and THE idiot box in the living room that you turn on and listen to, and start reading newspapers that report REAL news like this such as AMERICAN FREE PRESS,ROCK CREEK FREE PRESS and MEDIA BYPASS. and they DONT talk about Lizard people just so you know.

damn your eloquent and insulting logic

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You know, some Jews are not supportive of Israel's policies contra Palestinians.

And this David Ike - even if he posts some good arguments against banking and financial institutions, he soils it all with the lizard crap.

yeah very true and thats very true about Icke as well.

I think Israel is the most powerful Middle Eastern country by far, I mean it has rumoured to have around 300 nukes perhaps even more. That guarantees Israel its security and the Arab countries are just too damn weak to do anything about it. Pakistan has nukes in Saudi Arabia to counter Israel & they know it, i also believe that an Iran with nuclear weapons is a serious threat to Pakistan because if it wasn't bad enough to have India with its nuclear weapon on the eastern border but to have Iran with it's future nukes on the south western border then i dont know what is

And remember Iran is one of India's closest allies and would let India use it's airbases to attack Pakistan.
Iran also supports militant shia terrorism in Pakistan and i guess i would probably support an Israeli attack on Iran because they would doing Pakistan a huge favour.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I realize that.



It is kind of hard to take David Ike seriously.

thats why alot of people think he is a disinfo agent. that he mixes 90% truth with 10% fantasy to steer people away from this kind of stuff

Originally posted by Deano
thats why alot of people think he is a disinfo agent. that he mixes 90% truth with 10% fantasy to steer people away from this kind of stuff

90% to 10%? Meh, giving that man way too much credit on "the truth".

Originally posted by Robtard
90% to 10%? Meh, giving that man way too much credit on "the truth".

wrong

we could probably test...

get a series of Icke publications, picked at random from a wider pool of (hopefully) all of his work, find all the verifiable claims made in each, and tally up the percentages.

I'd be surprised to find anyone who stands up to a 90% truth standard after such though