Humanitarian Crisis

No : you are faced by two choices : support Israel or support the terrorists.

As Israel is NOT responsible for 9/11 and the other terror actions,the choice is very simple .

Not sure there really is any difference, both groups are laws until themselves, both believe they are superior to everyone else and neither are liked anywhere.


Besides:we have not the right to criticize other countries,unless ...their actions are a danger for us .
Define a danger?
For example you have the perennial bad guy Iran that has never attacked anyone, for the last 30 years has been accused to building a nuclear weapon (in 30 years I could have built one in my garage faster than Iran seems to be) and who's only crime was to make the USA look silly in the 1970s, on the other side you have your "good guy" Israel that flouts resolution after resolution, is occupying and colonising territories that are not its own (as determined by everyone including the USA (even Israel refers to them as the "Palestinian Territories) and who routinely carry out assassinations around the world while adopting and carrying out apartheid.

I would suggest that you have have to have a very warped sense of right and wrong to choose the side you do on this matter.


Is Assad a danger for the West ? NO : thus,we should not criticize him,as was doing the imbecile who is living at the White House .
Here is the guts of it I will criticise who ever I like as that is the beauty of living in the "free" world, I don't care whether it is Assad, Obama or Nuttyahoo they are all fair game.
 
Last edited:
Obama says Iran sponsors terrorism | New York Post
nypost.com/.../obama-says-iran-sponsors-terrorism
 
Facts

1)Iran is a state that openly says it wants to destroy Israel

2) Iran needs no nuclear capacity

3)Iran wants nuclear capacity

4)Obama will give Iran nuclear capacity

5)Iran will attack Israel

6)Israel will reply

7)The result will be the end of the world

8) Hear,hear Obama ? No , but : you stupid ones from Fuller (Massachusetts) : why did you let him go ?
 
Ah yes and Godwin's law rears its ugly head.
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches

So care to explain the comparison between a country and Hitler?

My understanding is that one is a large land mass with many diverse people and the other is a short Austrian lunatic that failed at art class.
 
US does NOT sponsors terrorism.

Thus ,the claim from Iran is nonsense,as was the claim of Hitler . WHY should we believe Iran ?

Besides: Iran is as dangerous as was Hitler .

The Romans said : Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes = don't trust the Greek especially when they carry presents .

I am saying : Don't trust Iran (or an other Muslim country) especially when it wants nuclear capacity .
 
US does NOT sponsors terrorism.

Thus ,the claim from Iran is nonsense,as was the claim of Hitler . WHY should we believe Iran ?

Besides: Iran is as dangerous as was Hitler .

The Romans said : Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes = don't trust the Greek especially when they carry presents .

I am saying : Don't trust Iran (or an other Muslim country) especially when it wants nuclear capacity .


Funny as not even the Americans entirely agree with you...
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom – noted:
Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world.
Odom also said:
By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.​
The head and special agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office said that most terror attacks are committed by our CIA and FBI.
Wikipedia notes:
Chomsky and Herman observed that terror was concentrated in the U.S. sphere of influence in the Third World, and documented terror carried out by U.S. client states in Latin America. They observed that of ten Latin American countries that had death squads, all were U.S. client states.
***
They concluded that the global rise in state terror was a result of U.S. foreign policy.
***
In 1991, a book edited by Alexander L. George [the Graham H. Stuart Professor of Political Science Emeritus at Stanford University] also argued that other Western powers sponsored terror in Third World countries. It concluded that the U.S. and its allies were the main supporters of terrorism throughout the world.
I think you are adding a whole new level to "whataboutery".

I am not sure I see Iran marching off through Europe and controlling an area from Paris or Moscow even with a nuclear bomb to back them up.

The reason I don't see this is that the last Iranian invasion of Europe was what 480BC under Xerxes the first and since then it has been Europe doing all the invading.

So they don't really have a recent history of aggression to back up your claims, as for Roman comments about the Greeks interesting certainly, amusing possibly but hypocritical definitely as usually a few days behind a Roman trader was a Roman army so I am more inclined to believe few in Europe trusted the Romans either.

So once again please explain the relationship between Hitlers comments and the Iranian nuclear program and where possible show the links to Roman philosophy.

Alternatively we could just accept that you are reading from the Hasbara script and leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky is a Marxist and a traitor and belongs in prison :he said that the death of Bin Laden was an assassination and that,if the Nuremberg Laws were applied,every post war American president would have been hanged .

On 9/11 US (and the West) were attacked by the forces of evil. Any one who defends Bin Laden is not better than Bin Laden .
 
Chomsky is a Marxist and a traitor and belongs in prison :he said that the death of Bin Laden was an assassination and that,if the Nuremberg Laws were applied,every post war American president would have been hanged .

On 9/11 US (and the West) were attacked by the forces of evil. Any one who defends Bin Laden is not better than Bin Laden .

Chomsky is entitled to say whatever he wants, even things we don't agree with.
 
Chomsky is a Marxist and a traitor and belongs in prison :he said that the death of Bin Laden was an assassination and that,if the Nuremberg Laws were applied,every post war American president would have been hanged .

On 9/11 US (and the West) were attacked by the forces of evil. Any one who defends Bin Laden is not better than Bin Laden .

In a pedantic world Chomsky is right though and he would still be right even if I think there are some people that need to be assassinated in the world and Bin Laden was one.

The world is not just black and white and matters of conscience are always the grey area.

But it is all irrelevant as the strength of a persons freedoms can be determined by their ability to be able to say things that are unpalatable to majority without repercussion.
 
Why would they?
But oddly enough Montanan Jeanette Rankin, cast the sole Congressional vote against the U.S. declaration of war on Japan. She also voted against war in 1917.

Rankin, however, believed that Roosevelt deliberately provoked the Japanese to attack because he wanted to bring the U.S. into the European war against Germany; she was determined not to cooperate with the president’s plan. After a 40-minute debate on the floor of the House, a roll call vote began. When her turn came, Rankin stood and said, “As a woman, I can’t go to war and I refuse to send anyone else.”

She continued to be active against the Vietnam war at the age of 87 so I am guessing she wasn't lynched.

But as it goes neither of them said Bin Laden was right they simply said he was assassinated and he was but so what he needed to be dead, in this case a wrong was right.
 
Saying that Bin Laden was assassinated implies that Bin Laden deserved a trial,implies that he was innocent until he was condemned,implies that he was a soldier.

Bin Laden was responsible for the murder of thousands of US citizens,he was a criminal and deserved what he got .

Saying otherwise implies that Bin Laden was on the same level of the US : he was not : he was the bad guy,US were the good guys .

In 1942,Heydrich was killed:saying that Bin Laden was assassinated is saying that Heydrich was assassinated .:mad:
 
assassinate


/əˈsæsɪˌneɪt/

verb (transitive) 1. to murder (a person, esp a public or political figure), usually by a surprise attack


Seems pretty applicable to me.

Heydrich was also assassinated, a team of agents went to Prague specifically to kill him so if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it sometimes is a duck.

You are getting hung up on a rather pedantic argument that only bad people carry out assassinations which is simply not true.

As far as rule of law goes then like it or not people like Hitler, Heydrich, Bin Laden etc. would and should all get their day in court, the fact that we do not go around killing our opponents is what sets the free world apart from the tin pot dictatorships these people promote but the just because I believe this does not mean I am opposed to them being killed either.

Basically it is a grey area, sometimes the good guys can do bad things for the right reasons and it is up to the individuals conscience as to how you view them.
 
Last edited:
A murder/assassination is an unlawful killing.

The killing of Heydrich;Bin Laden ,etc was justified .
 
About Iran,Obama and Hitler :

Hitler tried to exterminate the European Jews and said it was their own fault .

Iran wants to destroy Israel and said that the US is sponsoring terrorism .

Obama said that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet and is giving Iran nuclear capacity that can be used to destroy Israel .


Where is the difference ?
 
About Iran,Obama and Hitler :

Hitler tried to exterminate the European Jews and said it was their own fault .

Iran wants to destroy Israel and said that the US is sponsoring terrorism .

Obama said that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet and is giving Iran nuclear capacity that can be used to destroy Israel .


Where is the difference ?

If I were looking for a fight I would suggest that you are being somewhat disingenuous bordering on dishonest but in this case I will just pass on the relevant sections of that speech you are refering to just to add some context for those trying not to be deceived...

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. And we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women -- it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. (Applause.)
The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources -- it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. (Applause.)
Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims. It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." (Applause.) Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, that’s the vision we will support.
Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on a prospect of peace. Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, those who reject the right of Israel to exist. The road is hard, but the destination is clear -- a secure, Jewish state of Israel and an independent, prosperous Palestine. (Applause.) Understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties, America will walk alongside all who are prepared to make that journey.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly




Now lets move on to the next issue, has Iran ever said it wanted Israel wiped off the map...


Truth squad: Has Iran said it wants to attack Israel?

By the CNN Wire Staff
Updated 0810 GMT (1610 HKT) November 23, 2011

An Israeli strike on Iran was raised as a possibility at Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate in Washington. Candidates were asked if they, as president, would join or support Israel.
Michele Bachmann said the issue of Israeli aggression came up only because of Iran's possible nuclear capability.
The statement: "...why is it that we're talking about Israel having to make a strike against Iran? It's because Iran has announced they plan to strike Israel.
"They've stated, as recently as August just before President Ahmadinejad came to -- to the U.N. General Assembly. He said that he wanted to eradicate Israel from the face of the Earth.
"He has said that if he has a nuclear weapon he will use it to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. He will use it against the United States of America."
The facts:
In 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during a meeting with protesting students at Iran's Interior Ministry, quoted a remark from Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."
Ahmadinejad then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by Iran's state news outlet, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).
This year, Ahmadinejad spoke to the U.N. General Assembly in September. He criticized Zionism and the United States, but did not threaten a military attack on either country.
Ahmadinejad has maintained Iran seeks only nuclear energy capability, not nuclear weapons. On November 9, he denied once again that his country is pursuing nukes.
"The Americans have fabricated a stack of papers and he keeps speaking about them," he said on state-run Press TV. "Why don't you do a report on the U.S. nuclear program and its allies? Present a report on the thousands of U.S. military bases where Washington has nuclear arms that threaten global security."
The verdict: False. While Ahmadinejad is no fan of Israel or the United States, he did not state in August that he wants to eradicate Israel. Because he does not acknowledge pursuit of nuclear weapons, he could not have threatened to use them against Israel or the United States.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/23/politics/truth-squad-iran-israel/

So now that we have determined the context of Obama's speech and shown Iran isn't trying to kill off Israel would you like to try again to compare Hitler, Obama and Israel as you are failing badly so far but I am happy to give you some more time as I love debunking hasbara talking points.
 
Last edited:
You have determined nothing and showed nothing,you have only repeated the lies of the White House and of the Obama Broadcasting Corporation (also know as CNN)

The historical facts are that since 10 years,Ahmadinejad is calling for the destruction of Israel:

TWO exemples (there are dozens of them):

In 2008 ,he said : if the smallest and briefest chance is given to the regional nations ,they will destroy Israel .

As Iran is a regional nation,the picture is clear.

In 2012: the ultimate objective of world forces must be the annihilation of the Zionist regime .

Source : Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel .
 
Last edited:
Ah so it is your contention that any proof to the contrary of your claims is "Obama's lies"

If anyone has shown nothing and proved less on this issue it is you as you have failed at every turn to validate your claims instead reverting to out of context statements and hasbara talking points, while you can continue to ignore those pesky facts that do not fit into your limited line of information I assure you those reading this thread will not so if you plan to "win" then I would suggest addressing points with actual facts would help your cause.

I am also interested as to why your text style, puntuation and over all sentence structure changes from post to post, I mention this because it leads me to suspect that this is shell account used by different individuals.
 
Back
Top