Israeli

[anonymous-user]

LOL at Countdown's retort!
Narnia!

[Mojocvh]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yes I know.

But he's factually correct.

How do I know this? because I had the good fortune to have Iranian neighbours some time ago.

One was a Dr working for the NHS, he carried the scars of saddams chemical war.

But saddam didn't best the Persians, even with sarin... although my neighbours scars were from blister...

[anonymous-user]

Of course. There is nothing funny about the reality, only the Narnia bit.
Saddam, at that time, was seen by the Americans as the lesser of two evils, but I think he proved them wrong when he unleashed his weapons.

[NelsonR32]

Transmitter Man said:

Countdown said:

So basically a total and complete surrender from Hamas?

Because then Israel will genuinely try to make peace, stop building settlements, stop building checkpoints, and stop "targeted assassinations"

Hamas are a terrorist group, or had you forgot?

Hamas are the democratically elected Government of Gaza (unfortunately)

[Grumfutock]

NelsonR32 said:

Transmitter Man said:

Countdown said:

So basically a total and complete surrender from Hamas?

Because then Israel will genuinely try to make peace, stop building settlements, stop building checkpoints, and stop "targeted assassinations"

Hamas are a terrorist group, or had you forgot?

Hamas are the democratically elected Government of Gaza (unfortunately)

And a terrorist group.

[Mrr T]

drivin_me_nuts said:

Mrr T said:

Silent1 said:

IMHO, let Iran have nukes, they wont use them, TBH despite being a bit mental they're not that stupid that they'd turn their country into a glass carpark.

You do realise Iran is controlled by a bunch of Mullahs some of who would happily launch global jihad and forcible conversion of all “kaffiers” to the true belief.

Your demonstrate bugger all knowledge of Iran. Please, refrain from writing any more about Iran on this thread as you'll surely embarrass yourself more.

Really?

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/2...

[Mrr T]

Octoposse]i]Controlled[/i said:

is an exaggeration - it's a democracy with an elected government. Then it has the Guardian Council to ensure that 'democracy' runs within carefully defined limits . . . rather like the European Court of Human Rights. Sort of . . . .

There's a lot of scope for better relations with Iran.

You do understand the Guardian Council do not just “ensure democracy runs within certain rules”. They select who can stand as candidates. That is not democracy.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/2...

[Mrr T]

Mr Snap said:

I see you're now making a fool of yourself re Iran now. I suggest you try to prove to them that Iran is somehow unstable and therefore liable to use nuclear weapons (you'll need some luck with that). Evidence, rather than your unfounded opinions, will again be required. Marshall facts and make a cogent rebuttal. Most important, stop telling people you're right and failing to back it up - it makes them think you're an opinionated fool.

Now go get them, Tiger! I've told you how to do it but you'll really have to do the rest yourself...

Please point out where I said Iran was likely to use nuclear weapons or unstable.
I said it was controlled by religious leaders some of who are likely to have views I find unacceptable.
It was not a democracy as I would use the word.

It only Wiki but I believe fairly accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Hilts said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But other governments don't want their citizens to die. Iran couldn't give a flying fk. The Iran / Iraq war taught us that. They were quite happy to fight a war of attrition.

More bks. This shows a lack of understanding of the Iranian people.

What have the Iranian people got to do with any of this? My point is the Iranian people are of no concern to the Iranian leadership.

The whole "they won't use nukes as they don't want to be nuked back" argument only really applies to the mentally sane. I don't include the Iranian leadership in that category.

[drivin_me_nuts]

Mrr T said:

drivin_me_nuts said:

Mrr T said:

Silent1 said:

IMHO, let Iran have nukes, they wont use them, TBH despite being a bit mental they're not that stupid that they'd turn their country into a glass carpark.

You do realise Iran is controlled by a bunch of Mullahs some of who would happily launch global jihad and forcible conversion of all “kaffiers” to the true belief.

Your demonstrate bugger all knowledge of Iran. Please, refrain from writing any more about Iran on this thread as you'll surely embarrass yourself more.

Really?

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/2...

You take an article about elections and use that as your evidence of the actions of a nation. Like I said and I will repeat it twice more. You know nothing about Iran and the people who live there. You know nothing, zipp, nadda, zero, zilch: a big fat zero.

Now, do yourself a favour and actually read something about these peoples, their beliefs, culture, history and sense of identity before you come back here and make a further arse of yourself.

Edit: there is no chance that they would use nuclear weapons. Simply because of one thing. The government likes to rule. They know full well the consequences of what an attack by nuclear weapons would bring down upon them. It is simple self preservation that would stop them 'pressing the big red button'.

If there is one thing engrained in the mindset of those who rule, self preservation is that thing.

Edited by drivin_me_nuts on Sunday 27th July 09:42

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Yes, because self preservation is a big thing in the minds of Islamic extremists.

And why do people keep going on about the Iranian people. As if they figure in the equation!!!

[trashbat]

Was the Soviet leadership insane at the height of the Cold War? It's a shame we didn't have the internet then as we'd surely be able to find the same people banging on about how Moscow needed to be nuked first before they did it to us.

Plus ca change. If you buy into that kind of propaganda then what hope is there for an intelligent view on Israel?

[kitz]

Apartheid state IDF losses 45

Palestine Untermensch losses 1000+ injured 6000+ homes destroyed 2000+ and so on ...

The IDF say Hamas use human shields ,in other words hostages.
If Hamas had say 2 jewish hostages does anyone seriously think
the IDF would obliterate the building they were held in ?
Jewish hostages have a higher worth than Palestinian hostages who have no value .
Why would Hamas take human shields that clearly offer no protection ?

I can't think why ....Just more crap from a deeply unpleasant poster .

The murder continues ....

[Qwert1e]

Grumfutock said:

And a terrorist group.

That's the same label which was applied to Nelson Mandela. At least, that label was applied until the apartheid state was dismantled.
So no similarities. None whatsoever.

[Mrr T]

drivin_me_nuts said:

You take an article about elections and use that as your evidence of the actions of a nation.

The article you brush over highlighted the current political process in Iran. Are you suggesting the Guardian Council has now been abolished and no longer has complete control over who can stand in elections. If it has please let me see a link and my views on Iran will change.

drivin_me_nuts said:

Like I said and I will repeat it twice more. You know nothing about Iran and the people who live there. You know nothing, zipp, nadda, zero, zilch: a big fat zero.
Now, do yourself a favour and actually read something about these peoples, their beliefs, culture, history and sense of identity before you come back here and make a further arse of yourself.

I made no comments about the people of Iran because like all those who have the misfortune to live in a dictatorship their views, traditions, culture, have no influence on their government.
You can see how the current Iranian Government treats its people.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/iran
http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/publications/repor...

drivin_me_nuts said:

Edit: there is no chance that they would use nuclear weapons. Simply because of one thing. The government likes to rule. They know full well the consequences of what an attack by nuclear weapons would bring down upon them. It is simple self preservation that would stop them 'pressing the big red button'.

If there is one thing engrained in the mindset of those who rule, self preservation is that thing

In general I would agree Governments would not use nuclear weapons because they want to protect their own power. However, we have seen many suicide bombers in the last 20 years.

[Mrr T]

trashbat said:

Was the Soviet leadership insane at the height of the Cold War? It's a shame we didn't have the internet then as we'd surely be able to find the same people banging on about how Moscow needed to be nuked first before they did it to us.

Plus ca change. If you buy into that kind of propaganda then what hope is there for an intelligent view on Israel?

Where the leaders of the communist party religious extremes who believed in global jihad?
I did not know.

[Funkycoldribena]

[quote=kitz
Why would Hamas take human shields that clearly offer no protection ?

....
[/quote]
If you can't work that one out then you really are as thick as the st you post.

[Qwert1e]

^^^^ You must have been great fun in the school playground. High level debate - I think not.

[Funkycoldribena]

Qwert1e said:

^^^^ You must have been great fun in the school playground. High level debate - I think not.

You call his posts high level debate?!?
He hasn't taken part in any debate yet.
Comes along now and again with his diatribe and then disappears.

[S 8 GRN]

kitz said:

Apartheid state IDF losses 45

Palestine Untermensch losses 1000+ injured 6000+ homes destroyed 2000+ and so on ...

The IDF say Hamas use human shields ,in other words hostages.
If Hamas had say 2 jewish hostages does anyone seriously think
the IDF would obliterate the building they were held in ?
Jewish hostages have a higher worth than Palestinian hostages who have no value .
Why would Hamas take human shields that clearly offer no protection ?

I can't think why ....Just more crap from a deeply unpleasant poster .

The murder continues ....

At least you know you're unpleasant - specifically your deeply offensive 'untermensch' comment.

As you're bringing it down to the value/worth of a life consider this:-

1 Gilad Shalit was worth 1027 Palestinian Prisoners to Hamas. By the same calculation 45 IDF soldiers would be worth 46,215 Palestinians - the balance is clearly in their favour.

Meanwhile in Syria they have had their worst week of atrocity to date. 700 killed in two days. Are you being deeply unpleasant about that?

Edited by S 8 GRN on Sunday 27th July 11:15