Israel - Bullies to the world..

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.

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.

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?

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 lil bitchiness
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.

You're talking about a single speech that there is still debate as to how the Khomeni (Not Khamenei...Different people)that Ahmadinejad quotes actually translate as.

Despite all the scholars who dispute the translation, Ahmadinejad's office released a statement saying “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

It also still doesn't cover the numerous other times that Ahmadinejad HAS DEFINITELY used phrases such as annihilation, destroy, wiped off the map etc in other speeches while referencing Israel and it's government.

Then again, he did also say something like "Mark my words, there will be no war with 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
YouTube video

Originally posted by jaden101
You're talking about a single speech that there is still debate as to how the Khomeni (Not Khamenei...Different people)that Ahmadinejad quotes actually translate as.

Despite all the scholars who dispute the translation, Ahmadinejad's office released a statement saying “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

[b]It also still doesn't cover the numerous other times that Ahmadinejad HAS DEFINITELY used phrases such as annihilation, destroy, wiped off the map etc in other speeches while referencing Israel and it's government.

Then again, he did also say something like "Mark my words, there will be no war with Israel". [/B]

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.