What is Iran up to?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I don't think that a diverse list of, possibly, unsubstantiated propaganda is pointing anything out,

Unsubstantiated?

• Well Israel also don't seem to mind annexing land,
  Yep look at this great big barrier that just happens to veer way off their internationally recognized borders into land they have no legal entitlement to.
• kidnapping people from other countries and taking them back to Israel illegally
  Yep thats a lie. Just ask Mordechai Vannu about it. Except you can't as he can't legally speak to any media outlets without risking being put back in jail.
• state-sponsored killings of people with no trial,
  All those cars blowing up in Gaza and the West Bank are all accidents. Nothing to do with missiles etc.
• keeping people in solitary confinement in jail for years at a time
  See point 2 above.

I don't think I have an anti-American, anti-Israel viewpoint. I'm no fan of Monkey in Chief Bush but when everyone starts screaming about Iran wanting nuclear weapons and Iraq having them ready for use in 45 minutes (ahem) it is worth pointing out only 1 country in the Middle East actually does have WMD's

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by dezzo

Well Israel also don't seem to mind annexing land,
Yep look at this great big barrier that just happens to veer way off their internationally recognized borders into land they have no legal entitlement to.

And if you knew anything about the situation you would understand why Israel needs to hold onto the West Bank (don't tell me, you think it's palestinian land ) and the Golan Heights.

Originally Posted by dezzo

kidnapping people from other countries and taking them back to Israel illegally
Yep thats a lie. Just ask Mordechai Vannu about it. Except you can't as he can't legally speak to any media outlets without risking being put back in jail.

An Israeli citizen giving out state secrets and threatening the stability of the middle east and security of Israel. Unless you're claiming he didn't go to the press with the information.
Did Britain not do the same with it's double agents during the cold war?
Isn't that normal practice when tackling traitors?
Or do you think members of our MoD should be free to talk about what they like to the press?

Originally Posted by dezzo

state-sponsored killings of people with no trial,
All those cars blowing up in Gaza and the West Bank are all accidents. Nothing to do with missiles etc.

Of course, it'd been so easy to send them a letter saying "your court date is next week, please turn up"
Next you'll be saying that busses in Israel have a technical fault causing them to spontaniously combust and has nothing to do with anyone in Gaza or the West bank.

Originally Posted by dezzo

I don't think I have an anti-American, anti-Israel viewpoint. I'm no fan of Monkey in Chief Bush but when everyone starts screaming about Iran wanting nuclear weapons and Iraq having them ready for use in 45 minutes (ahem) it is worth pointing out only 1 country in the Middle East actually does have WMD's

Would that 1 country be Israel, Jordan or Syria? Each have WMD's.
I know which one I'd trust with them though.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I don't think that a diverse list of, possibly, unsubstantiated propaganda is pointing anything out, except that you clearly have an anti-American, anti-Israeli agenda.

In my opinion is that if people are critical of Israel in anyway they are labelled as beeing anti american/.anti israeli and sometimes even anti semetic. Thats why I sometimes feel its pointless engaging in such arguements because your tarred, often incorrectly with this brush. Because someone can be critical of Israel's policy in the middle east and in relation to Palestine, it does not mean they are anti Israeli.

Originally Posted by dezzo

Unsubstantiated?

Yes.

Originally Posted by dezzo

• Well Israel also don't seem to mind annexing land,
  Yep look at this great big barrier that just happens to veer way off their internationally recognized borders into land they have no legal entitlement to.

• Says who?

They just recently they moved out of a huge amount of 'annexed' land but that didn't seem to satisy anyone either.

Originally Posted by dezzo

• kidnapping people from other countries and taking them back to Israel illegally
  Yep thats a lie. Just ask Mordechai Vannu about it. Except you can't as he can't legally speak to any media outlets without risking being put back in jail.

• That doesn't sound like a systematic activity. And I gather he has made efforts to betray Israel.

Originally Posted by dezzo

• state-sponsored killings of people with no trial,
  All those cars blowing up in Gaza and the West Bank are all accidents. Nothing to do with missiles etc.

• They have made their attitude to terrorism clear. If the terrorists don't want to get blown up, then they should stop blowing up innocent people.

I know two wrongs don't make a right, but to only focus on the actions of one party is just biased.

Originally Posted by dezzo

• keeping people in solitary confinement in jail for years at a time
  See point 2 above.

• Again, not evidence of systematic abuse.

And none of these justify proliferating nuclear weapons in the Middle east.

Originally Posted by dezzo

I don't think I have an anti-American, anti-Israel viewpoint. I'm no fan of Monkey in Chief Bush but when everyone starts screaming about Iran wanting nuclear weapons and Iraq having them ready for use in 45 minutes (ahem) it is worth pointing out only 1 country in the Middle East actually does have WMD's

Singling out the US as the opponents to Iran's nuclear ambition shows anti-American bias, since they're not the only ones against it. I'd suggest that even the language you use to describe the Americans/Bush makes you look very anti-, rather than a principled observer.

You've also tried to suggest that because Israel (who you have tried very hard to make look the bad guys) has nukes, Iran should be allowed to have them too. The way you have railed against Israel certainly seemed anti-Israeli to me, rather than offering any kind of measured debate.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

In my opinion is that if people are critical of Israel in anyway they are labelled as beeing anti american/.anti israeli and sometimes even anti semetic. Thats why I sometimes feel its pointless engaging in such arguements because your tarred, often incorrectly with this brush. Because someone can be critical of Israel's policy in the middle east and in relation to Palestine, it does not mean they are anti Israeli.

So saying nation A should have the means to carry out it's promise to wipe out nation B isn't anti-nation B in your book?

What if nation B was Britain?
Would you let a nation which has sworn to wipe Britain off the face of the planet the means to do so, or would you object to that?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

You've also tried to suggest that because Israel (who you have tried very hard to make look the bad guys) has nukes, Iran should be allowed to have them too. The way you have railed against Israel certainly seemed anti-Israeli to me, rather than offering any kind of measured debate.

OK where have I said that Iran *should* be allowed nukes?

What I have tried to point out before being painted having political sympathies somewhere to the right of the BNP was that it is hypocritical of the west to be so put out about the possibility of Iran having weapons that they are threatening sanctions and not ruling out military force when other 'friendly' states are tolerated having these weapons.

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

Because someone can be critical of Israel's policy in the middle east and in relation to Palestine, it does not mean they are anti Israeli.

It is possible to be critical of Israel without blaming America.

It is possible to be critical of America without always using the example of Israel.

It is possible to be critical of either without using childish terms of abuse - if you want to be taken seriously.

There is clearly no easy solution (<-link) to the situation in the Middle East, but it would be a whole lot easier of Israel's neighbours weren't all either stating the aim of the total destruction of the State of Israel, or tacidly supporting those who do.

It would furthermore be a whole lot more successful, if the terrorists would stop their slaughter and allow diplomacy to take place.

How can we expect Israel to step back long enough to see a diplomatic solution when they're seemingly surrounded on all sides by countries that would happily see them evaporate in a mushroom cloud?

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:08 ----------

Originally Posted by dezzo

OK where have I said that Iran *should* be allowed nukes?

You've been saying that the US/UK (or anyone else) should not be able to stop Iran getting nukes. Is that not the same thing?

Originally Posted by dezzo

What I have tried to point out before being painted having political sympathies somewhere to the right of the BNP was that it is hypocritical of the west to be so put out about the possibility of Iran having weapons that they are threatening sanctions and not ruling out military force when other 'friendly' states are tolerated having these weapons.

First of all, I have at no point suggested that you have right-wing sympathies.

It is not hypocritical to say that you don't want an 'unfriendly' state not to have nukes, but that you don't mind if a 'friendly' one does. That's just common sense. Iran is no friend of the US.

[BBKing]

Iran is no friend of the US.

And vice-versa. The US has had no diplomats in Tehran for 25 years+ and probably very few spies (there's a rumour that the CIA accidentally compromised their Iranian network recently). So any intelligence coming out of the US is a bit iffy even before you factor in the Iraq element.

People who *are* friends of the Iranians are the Russians and Chinese, who do a lot of business there (Iranian oil powers China which powers a big balance of payments surplus with the USA, humorously). It would be very interesting to ponder what China would do if the neocons start nuking the place. The US isn't the only place anxious about its oil supply not being interrupted.

They just recently they moved out of a huge amount of 'annexed' land but that didn't seem to satisy anyone either.

Well, if someone stole my house, kept it for 40 years, then gave me back the garage (having trashed it and while retaining the right to invade the garage if they don't like what I'm doing in it) I wouldn't exactly be putting them on my Christmas card list.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Well, if someone stole my house, kept it for 40 years, then gave me back the garage (having trashed it and while retaining the right to invade the garage if they don't like what I'm doing in it) I wouldn't exactly be putting them on my Christmas card list.

Or, to put it more acurately, you moved a caravan, paid for by another person, into someone's back garden (claiming it's yours because you "live" there), then started throwing rubbish into their neighbour's back garden, got punched by the neighbour when they had enough, and then they allowed you to stay there on the condition that you no longer threw things their way, otherwise they'd be back to thump you as you're being unreasonable.
While the garden owner washes his hands of the whole situation.

[DaggaDagga]

I'm not sure I believe a single word about Iran even developing nuclear power. I used to think people with conspiracy theories were mad, but since the Iraq lies and manipulation, I'm not sure any more.

The US has a lot at stake - they're massively in debt. If the dollar ceases to be the #1 world currency then they are in a massive amount of trouble. If Iran switches to Euros for its oil then this could be the beginning of the slide for the US. Saddam did it in 2003, and look at the spanking he got, after the months of media manipulation in the UK and US.

The two major oil trading markets are in the US and UK. Is it entirely coincidence that these two countries decided that Iraq needed to be taken over? This was shortly after Saddam stopped trading in dollars. Iran is now doing the same.

I can only hear various business and economic interests behind every word uttered by Bush.

Iran themselves said they are developing nuclear power, it isnt a crazy ol story from Blair and bush

[Chrysalis]

I dont think we can justify attacking iran without it invading another country first, of it happens especially after the oil currency change I would be highly suspicous of the motives.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I dont think we can justify attacking iran without it invading another country first, of it happens especially after the oil currency change I would be highly suspicous of the motives.

There will not be a war. America is too badly damaged by the last one, they will not want to go into a war that size against Iran. It would be massive.

Iran know this and are using this oppertiunity to take the ****, meanwhile most people will be more critical of America (dispite no actual US issue with Iran, its the UN we talking about here) while one of the most radical and unstable goverments trys to build nukes.

[Chrysalis]

If we dont want them to have nukes then we should disarm but sorry we have no right to judge them on their democracy status and no right to tell them they cant match the weapons we already have. It is no wonder so many people are critical of the US and some now of the UK.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior
I trust in a country where I know democracy is working.

Yep a country where anyone can become President as long as they have a billion dollars for campaigning, absolutely anyone, as long as you are not black or a woman, apart from that though it's open to everyone.