Iran Threatens Strike on Israel's Nuclear Facilities if Attacked

Discussion in 'News And Current Events' started by Unregistered, Jul 25, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I kill civilians in video games :D. So, in the real world, when I don't , I am indeed living in the real world. :D
  2. You are talking about specifics like uranium enrichment rather than the general idea of a civil nuclear industry, which is what I had addressed.

    No, that doesn't make any sense.

    Third-class citizens because, quite clearly, those rights that are granted by the NPT are deigned by the powers that be to be "unacceptable."

    Just today there was a deal between Iran and Ukraine on civilian aircraft. The conditions you refer to are grim, but don't prove your theory.

    You mean irrespective of how the costs and benefits lie, because of some moral fable? Whether the Iranian, or global economy for that matter, worsens depends on many things. I don't deny that your side of the argument exists. i focused on the other side because that was the side you neglected to relate.
  3. Cold war was a war. You perhaps did not see it as a "war" because you, in your safe, western world, did not see the casualties, did not hear about them.. You were protesting at that time against US nuclear ships carriers and thought CCCP was a great country. You did not know about the causes becuse you did not wanted to know or see the pattern which did not supported your view. PAH!

    Saudi Arabia is a kingdom. A wahabi kingdom. And religion is contraindicated in communist countries because as Marx (or was it Lenin) said: "religion is opium of the workers"
  4. That doesn't support your claim that "it was known from the beginning," nor clarify whether you're even addressing my point. My point has been about the casualties.
  5. can someone mspaint a flowchart of this thread? i'm getting confused.
  6. Truth hurts?

    Don't you have some college dorm doors to be kicking in about now?

    Human scum.
  7. Ray Murphy Member

    The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were not in direct conflict in any war - so there WERE no casualties in any war between them.
  8. Yes, good so far...
    Either outright false, or purposely vague. There were casualties in conflicts that made up the Cold War. None of those conflicts were directly between the USA and the USSR, but the war which was the cause of those conflicts was between the USA and the USSR.
  9. Ray Murphy Member

    We're just running an experiment to see who genuinely wants to help the Iranian citizens, and who jumped on the bandwagon so they can snipe at someone.
  10. i've been seeing this mirror phrase bandied about a few times. what does it even mean? talk to your own reflection?
  11. Ray Murphy Member

    Yes, that was agreed to earlier. It was also the U.S. versus any type of Communism - particularly communism that could close the port of Singapore to U.S. shipping and cost billions to the U.S. economy if communism moved further south. As it turned out the U.S. won what it set out to win - keep Singapore open but they still don't talk about it much.
  12. It means the basiji here can't look at their own reflection in the mirror, because then they see who they really are, and all the lies they tell themselves fall away. One can't hide the truth from one's self.

    When they look in the mirror, they see a traitor, and the lies they tell themselves and others to ease their guilt start flowing.

  13. Don't let that distract you from what you understood right. Regardless of the truth of the story.
  14. All of these tangents are fun, but I must return to the reason I brought the Cold War up to begin with: to address the argument of justified intentional mass civilian killings. None of the details that you have brought up disqualifies the Cold War as an example.

    The involvement of the Soviets was, if anything, exaggerated, rather than underplayed, in the conflicts between the US and "communists," so it can't accurately be said that those conflicts seemed like isolated events, unrelated by any common antagonistic actor, at the time.

    The argument stands.
  15. Ray Murphy Member

    What are you trying to say?
  16. i know what "look in your own mirror" means, but i'm not getting "stop putting words in my mouth, do it with your own mirror!"
  17. You mean before your prolonged tangent?

    But the size of the war is not enough to justify a particular intentional civilian death toll. The Cold War was huge, with hot zones around the world taking the lives of millions of civilians. Would this justify either side, say the USSR, undertaking a unilateral nuclear bombardment to neutralize its adversary? If questions of moral superiority come into play, then the argument becomes circular, because the supposedly morally superior side is the one undertaking the mass intentional killing of civilians.
  18. Again. I repeat. You don't want to be as you said "third world citizen" Iran

    1/ is withdrawing from treaty you signed
    2/allows IAEA unfettered access to you nuclear cities which id does not do.
    3/ resign from having more nuclear power stations

    NOs 1 and 3 are quite simple.The first gives Iran more sanctions. the third gives Iran no sanction. That leaves second point. Iran did not give IAEA that access. Which was confirmed by IAEA report on June 7, 2009. Iran wants to have nuclear power station Iran have to submit all documents and allow all access to IAEA. That is demanded by all countries which signed treaty. Iran should not lie, like before 2002, But looking at history of Iranian dealing with IAEA it is no wonder that IAEA and other countries suspect that Iran is lying.

    Iran does not want Iranian sovereignty to be infringed Iran should not sign treaty, any treaty. All treaties are in a way infringement of soverignty. No country has complete sovereignty and Iran is no exception. US sovereignty is infringed by many countries daily, the same may be said about Canada, Russia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia - you name it. That is the horror of globalization, the UN and the treaties.

    So don't complain. Iran is not alone. No country can go for it alone. NONE. Even Xerxes persian empire rights have been infringed by Greeks. So there you have it.
    But if Iranians want to have grim condition. Want to have corrupt government - Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad, parlamentarians, mullhas. , Want to be an economic midget, Want to drop everything for "our right is nuclear energy". . Be it on your head.
  19. Ray Murphy Member

    I mean - in plain language - what is your main point?
  20. you have cut off the sentence.

    It is "Stop putting words in my mouth and responding to them! Please do it with your own mirror!"

    So, it means "Claim something and discuss it with yourself"
  21. And again, I repeat, those are speculative outcomes and, besides, are only partial descriptions of outcomes. The sanctions today are not complete, otherwise the Iran/Ukraine civil aviation deal, which will alleviate problems you described earlier, wouldn't be happening. You are only telling part of the story.

    I'm not Iran's advocate, and your continually trying to put me in that role to distract from what my point was, all along, is disingenuous. I was pointing out that economic benefits, as well as costs, come from a civil nuclear program. I was not defending Iran's behaviour. If we are not addressing the same subject, then we have no argument.

    I think there is truth to this, but again I point out that the perspective that all costs are borne by regimes like Iran's, and none by the supposedly omnipotent great powers, is being undermined more and more, in recent history, with every passing year.
  22. sorry 'bout that. thanx for the explanation, though! i wasn't familiar with that phrase.
  23. That was in plain language. I can try in fewer words: The size of a war alone (potential military casualties or civilian casualties) does not in any clear, agreed-upon way justify a corresponding allowable level of mass intentional civilian killings. Bringing supposed moral superiority into the argument is also problematic.

    If you can't understand my position, may I suggest not attempting to refute it?

  24. Maybe because you are using too many qualifiers.
  25. The basiji's English gets worse and worse, the more pissed he gets.

    What would I see if I looked in a mirror? Someone who doesn't rape and then execute nine year olds?

    But of course it is okay for you to do that, right? Because God told you it was okay. Wait, where did that word of God come from? A man? A man who claims he tells you what God wants?

    Why don't you talk to God yourself, and cut the man out. I think you'd get a whole different message about the whole raping and beating people's brains in issues.

    You want honor? Protect the people of Iran. That is what is honorable. Not the reign of one petty man, who demands constant bloodshed and blind obedience, and who stands between you and God and blocks the way. He is leading you far, far away from God.
  26. It's cool. The basiji here is a little touchy about mirrors. He can't stand to see his own eyes.
  27. Ray Murphy Member

    I wasn't trying to refute it (whatever it is). I merely said the Cold War was not a war.
  28. Ray Murphy Member

    Can anyone here paraphrase it?
  29. If my position were demonstrably false, the qualifiers wouldn't matter. If the qualifiers matter, this suggests that the opposing argument depends on qualifiers and vagaries as well.

    And in the face of all of that, the other little detail remains: intentional mass killings of civilians are grotesque, an affront to civilization and all that which is invoked as any basis for moral superiority or just cause for war.

  30. You will see yourself in the mirror, this would help you talk with yourself. So, instead of putting words in my mouth, you put them in yours. Then you respond back to yourself, that way, you would have some company who never gets bored of you and your accusations! :D
  31. Or rather, Big war does not equal right to deliberate acts of mass civilian killings.
  32. Doesn't equal the right to, but war is not about rights. People will die. It always happens. You can say it shouldn't all you want, but that doesn't change reality. It will. On both sides.
  33. Ray Murphy Member

  34. Fuck, it already has. If anyone doesn't think war with hamas and hizzbollah isn't really a disguised war with Iran, via proxies, you are clueless. Many civilians on both sides have already died in this war. All this is is a declaration of the possibility that it will jump to another level.
  35. Ray Murphy Member

    Well let them sort it out after we get a fair election happening in Iran.
  36. Casus belli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "People will die. It always happens." Again, contradicting the preponderance of sentiment on distinctions between different kinds of killing. It is your view, not mine, that is a quaint novelty.
  37. I agree. Who ever said war ever had anything, anything at all, to do with rights? The two terms are completely incompatible. What does one have to do with the other?

    War is about death, and the trampling on everyone's rights. Rights die, and then war comes. War happens in the absence of rights, and the complete disregard for them.
  38. No one gives a fuck about your "views" in war. Your "views" mean shit. All they give a fuck about is if you want to kill them or not.
  39. Did someone defend the morality of mass deliberate acts of civilian killings? Why yes, someone did. If I'm incorrectly conflating morality and right, I'm not particulary interested in such an academic debate, but I'll be happy to deal with either.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins