If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Global Geopolitics)   Iranians begin voting on the next madman to lead their country into suicide   (glblgeopolitics.wordpress.com) divider line 99
    More: Interesting, Iranians, Ahmadinejad, Gulf Arab, Iran, Saeed Jalili, Sunni Islam, outgoing president, LCC  
•       •       •

1117 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jun 2013 at 9:11 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-14 01:02:38 PM
Not easy being a figurehead.
 
2013-06-14 01:22:01 PM

LewDux: GentDirkly: The Iranian nuclear program is very popular among Iranians.

Among all Iranians

?

FTFM
 
2013-06-14 01:35:14 PM
Eh. I have no faith whatsoever in the legitimacy of this election. What I'm predicting:

Ghalibaf and Rowhani are the top two vote getters (with about 40% and about 25%), leading to a run-off between those two. Ghalibaf wins the run-off handily (at around 70%). And it's irrelevant because he has no real power anyway, and nothing changes.
 
2013-06-14 01:48:47 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: TappingTheVein: liam76: Unless you are limiting it to deploying troops you are very wrong.

Iran has been deploying troops in Syria for some time now.

So has Israel sine 1967. Who has deployed more? Which troops were invited in by the Syrian government?


Ve vere invited! Ask Poland!

/ I keed
 
2013-06-14 02:12:47 PM

liam76: Economically it make no sense for Iran to continue to futher enrich uranium, yet they keep doing it.


This reminds me of climate-change arguments.

Whereas Climate Change "skeptics" fail in the following way:

1) It's not getting warmer
2) OK, it's getting warmer, but it's not our fault
3) OK, it's getting warmer, and it's our fault, but it's more expensive to prevent than mitigate later
4) OK, it's getting warmer, it's our fault, and it's more expensive to fix than prevent, but it's too late anyway

The defenders of Iran usually cascade in the following way:

1) They're not enriching
2) OK, they're enriching, but only for peaceful purposes
3) OK, they're enriching beyond the peaceful needs, but they're not making nukes
4) OK, they're making nukes, but they have a right to defend themselves
 
2013-06-14 02:31:07 PM

BSABSVR: Philip Francis Queeg: Ahmadinejad  leaving office.
Bin Ladin dead.
Chavez dead.

The US is in serious danger of running out of bogeymen.

Assad.
Castro.
The other Castro.
Kim.
Whoever the Iranians elect.

There are always more bogeymen out there to keep the people scared.


Ding dong, the witch is dead
More warm up in Uncle Sam's bullpen
Cartoon boogeymen to keep people scared
I believe every word, cos the truth is too weird
 
2013-06-14 02:45:33 PM
Boys,Boys, Boys.....stop fighting...instead feast your eyes on what thousands of years of invasions and occupations have done to the Persian gene pool..
25.media.tumblr.com
www.persianesquemagazine.com
unamusementpark.com

Unfortunately also this:
cdn.thedailybeast.com
But hey...they make great strip club owners!
 
2013-06-14 03:08:12 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Ahmadinejad  leaving office.
Bin Ladin dead.
Chavez dead.

The US is in serious danger of running out of bogeymen.


librulz and hoemoes, man!
 
2013-06-14 03:43:59 PM
And when does America elect it's next madman?
 
2013-06-14 04:33:24 PM

Nasty Celt: And when does America elect it's next madman?




According to Rolling Stone, Brownback is a considering a run at the presidency. And as distorted as things have become, likely anyone to get the GOP's nomination would qualify as a madman to anyone not a Republican. So, maybe, but hopefully not, in November of 2016.
 
2013-06-14 05:26:05 PM

TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: So has Israel sine 1967. Who has deployed more? Which troops were invited in by the Syrian government?

Of course this is unrelated to the discussion and of course you neglect to mention Syria's attempt to annihilate Israel in 67. Minor details, i know.



I was being kind in not mentioning that Israel seized the land in a war Israel started.I guess occupation after aggression and conquest is more acceptable to you than an invited military presence?
 
2013-06-14 06:06:23 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: I was being kind in not mentioning that Israel seized the land in a war Israel started.


You were kind not lying ?
What Israel did was preemptive action when the arab nations surrounding it were preparing their armies for an immidieate attack.
I believe Nasser summed it quite well for you:

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel..to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle!"

Abdur Rahman Aref was more poetic: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear-to wipe Israel off the map."


How dare Israel defend itself! spoil the arabs' fun like that!
And the Golan held by Israel, being the strategic base of attack for Syria due to its position above northern Israeli cities and Israel's industrial heartland, is the reason Syria didn't attack Israel ever since.

Philip Francis Queeg: I guess occupation after aggression and conquest is more acceptable to you than an invited military presence?


I guess historical revisionism is more acceptable to you than acknowledging reality. Why don't you pass this to the Syrians: when you go to war to destroy Israel and slaughter the jews, it has consequences.
And you also should go read a bit what Assad's allies are currently doing in Syria. But i guess that's OK in your book because they were invited.
 
2013-06-14 06:33:39 PM

TappingTheVein: What Israel did was preemptive action when the arab nations surrounding it were preparing their armies for an immidieate attack


Yes, that's what I said. Israel started the war. Glad to see you understand that.

TappingTheVein: And the Golan held by Israel, being the strategic base of attack for Syria due to its position above northern Israeli cities and Israel's industrial heartland, is the reason Syria didn't attack Israel ever since.


And the history of Israel attacking Syria, and Israel's continued occupation of their territory sure sounds like a reason they might invite an allied nation to station troops there.

Israel has the right to defend itself. So do the Syrians. So do the Iranians. I recognize all three of those as facts. You recognize only the first.
 
2013-06-14 07:00:51 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, that's what I said. Israel started the war. Glad to see you understand that.


You seem to have a lot of difficulty acknowledging the fact that all the arab armies positioned on Israel's border were preparing an immediate attack as the arabs put it "our goal is clear-to wipe Israel off the map". hmm.. sounds familiar.

Why is that ? some form of cognitive dissonance when it contradict with the lie you're trying to push as if Israel attacked because why the hell not ?

Philip Francis Queeg: And the history of Israel attacking Syria, and Israel's continued occupation of their territory


And again you seem to ignore the reasons as if none exist.

Philip Francis Queeg: sure sounds like a reason they might invite an allied nation to station troops there.


Which of course never happened, Iranian forces were sent to Syria as a life line for Assad against his own arab brethren. And on the way to commit some of the worst atrocities imaginable but that's OK, they were invited.

Philip Francis Queeg: Israel has the right to defend itself. So do the Syrians. So do the Iranians. I recognize all three of those as facts. You recognize only the first.


What you don't seem to recognize is the difference between aggression and defense against said aggression.
And you also seem to be fond of historical revisionism when Israel is concerned.
 
2013-06-14 07:11:53 PM

TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, that's what I said. Israel started the war. Glad to see you understand that.

You seem to have a lot of difficulty acknowledging the fact that all the arab armies positioned on Israel's border were preparing an immediate attack as the arabs put it "our goal is clear-to wipe Israel off the map". hmm.. sounds familiar.

Why is that ? some form of cognitive dissonance when it contradict with the lie you're trying to push as if Israel attacked because why the hell not ?

Philip Francis Queeg: And the history of Israel attacking Syria, and Israel's continued occupation of their territory

And again you seem to ignore the reasons as if none exist.

Philip Francis Queeg: sure sounds like a reason they might invite an allied nation to station troops there.

Which of course never happened, Iranian forces were sent to Syria as a life line for Assad against his own arab brethren. And on the way to commit some of the worst atrocities imaginable but that's OK, they were invited.

Philip Francis Queeg: Israel has the right to defend itself. So do the Syrians. So do the Iranians. I recognize all three of those as facts. You recognize only the first.

What you don't seem to recognize is the difference between aggression and defense against said aggression.
And you also seem to be fond of historical revisionism when Israel is concerned.


Yes, I understand aggression. Aggression is when you start shooting at the other guys before they start shooting at you.

I understand that the Japanese were the aggressors when they launched their preemptive attack in 1941.
I understand the Israelis were the aggressors when they launched their preemptive attack in 1967.
I understand that the United States were the aggressors when they launched their preemptive attack in 2003.

Preemptive attacks are not defense. They are aggression.

You seem quite fond of ultra-nationalist propaganda where Israel is concerned.
 
2013-06-14 07:19:51 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, I understand aggression. Aggression is when you start shooting at the other guys before they start shooting at you.


No, you fail to understand when someone is pointing a gun to your head and is about to pull the trigger, as he explicitly state that he will,  stopping him is not an act of aggression.

Philip Francis Queeg: Preemptive attacks are not defense. They are aggression.


Not in a nation-wide war for survival when giving the side about to attack you the benefit of the doubt is suicidal.
You should also tell that to a police officer if you want him to have a good laugh.

Philip Francis Queeg: You seem quite fond of ultra-nationalist propaganda where Israel is concerned.


You seem quite fond of historical revisionism and ignoring facts and justifications which contradict your delusional bullshiat.
 
2013-06-14 07:31:20 PM

TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, I understand aggression. Aggression is when you start shooting at the other guys before they start shooting at you.

No, you fail to understand when someone is pointing a gun to your head and is about to pull the trigger, as he explicitly state that he will,  stopping him is not an act of aggression.

Philip Francis Queeg: Preemptive attacks are not defense. They are aggression.

Not in a nation-wide war for survival when giving the side about to attack you the benefit of the doubt is suicidal.
You should also tell that to a police officer if you want him to have a good laugh.

Philip Francis Queeg: You seem quite fond of ultra-nationalist propaganda where Israel is concerned.

You seem quite fond of historical revisionism and ignoring facts and justifications which contradict your delusional bullshiat.


Israel had a gun pointed at other countries heads  in 1967 as well. T he difference is they DID pull the trigger.

It was an act of aggression. You clearly believe that act was wholly justified, as you believe all Israeli military acts to be. That does not make it any less an act of aggression. The Japanese thought they were justified. The US thought it was justified. All were aggressors.

Unlike you, I am not so blinded by nationalism to be unable to admit that.
 
2013-06-14 07:38:31 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Israel had a gun pointed at other countries heads  in 1967 as well.


Another lie, i'll add it to the list.

Philip Francis Queeg: It was an act of aggression. You clearly believe that act was wholly justified


Not acting when all the arab armies are positioned on your border about to attack as they clearly explained, for a country as tiny as israel, is suicidal. if you actually knew the historical facts you wouldn't be making these hilariously embarrassing comments.

Philip Francis Queeg: as you believe all Israeli military acts to be


And you lie some more for a change. Never said that.

Philip Francis Queeg: The Japanese thought they were justified. The US thought it was justified


This has nothing to do with the 1967 war when the arab armies were at Israel's borders preparing to annihilate it as they very very clearly stated.

Philip Francis Queeg: Unlike you, I am not so blinded by nationalism to be unable to admit that.


No you just ignore basic facts and history.
 
2013-06-14 09:11:41 PM
Hey everybody, remember the country that use to be a democracy but then wanted control over its oil so two other countries overthrew the government and installed a monarch who tried to turn the country into a huge living episode of Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In? Man, did that ever end up backfiring. Maybe if those countries meddle some more things will magically get better.

/Can BP touch anything without ruining it?
 
2013-06-14 10:10:46 PM

TappingTheVein: Not acting when all the arab armies are positioned on your border about to attack as they clearly explained, for a country as tiny as israel, is suicidal. if you actually knew the historical facts you wouldn't be making these hilariously embarrassing comments.


How many miles were IDF from the Arab countries borders in 1967? Were they massed? Oh that's right, they were just as massed and just as close to the borders as the Arab armies were.  I forgot that Isra

TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: as you believe all Israeli military acts to be

And you lie some more for a change. Never said that.


Correct me then. Please tell me which Israeli military actions you condemn as unjustified.

TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: The Japanese thought they were justified. The US thought it was justified

This has nothing to do with the 1967 war when the arab armies were at Israel's borders preparing to annihilate it as they very very clearly stated.


Every aggressor very, very clearly states why it's particular acts of aggression are justified. Ultra-nationalists like you accept those justifications without question.  The rational people can see aggression for what it is, even when their own country is the aggressor, no matter what their government claims.
 
2013-06-15 12:24:57 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: The US is in serious danger of running out of bogeymen.


Put that on hold. Mugabe hasn't stolen his re-election yet.
 
2013-06-15 02:38:47 AM
Didn't the Ayatollah basically just disqualify the only real reformer from running anyway?
I can't imagine there is any hope of significant change, sadly.  What the population of Iran wants and what the leaders of Iran want are misaligned in so many ways, but the system they have in place basically guarantees that the people can't change it.  Unless the Ayatollah kicks the bucket and the council, by some miracle, appoints a highly liberal supreme leader who dissolves the system, I'm not seeing how this is going to change anytime soon.
 
2013-06-15 06:30:50 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: How many miles were IDF from the Arab countries borders in 1967? Were they massed? Oh that's right, they were just as massed and just as close to the borders as the Arab armies were.


That's even weak by your standards. There is no comparison, none whatsoever, between Israel's army to the combined forces of several nation's armies about to invade. I understand that you dug yourself into a corner with your retarded attempt to paint Israel as the aggressor but this is ridiculous.
Israel was not planning to invade Egypt, Syria and Jordan to commit genocide, it was the other way around.

Philip Francis Queeg: Correct me then. Please tell me which Israeli military actions you condemn as unjustified.


Where to start ? the West Bank occupations, the use of children as human shields, the behavior of commanders and soldiers which i witnessed personally. Can you be specific ?
Do you understand how it is hard to take you seriously when you pull lies out of your ass ?

Philip Francis Queeg: Every aggressor very, very clearly states why it's particular acts of aggression are justified.


Explain to me how "every aggressor" situation compares to the situation we are discussing. I'll remind you: several armies of several nations on all sides of Israel (and armies of other arab nations) about to invade, there is no doubt about this, not in the slightest.

So you're saying that Israel should have waited for the genocide to commence before defending itself. A tiny country like Israel, faced with armies from 12 nations about to invade.

You are a strategic genius! you should be a commanding officer in charge of defending a country the size of Israel from a dozen armies about to invade.
The battle will be studies in every military training class! as a way to lift the soldiers spirits with a hearty laugh before getting into the stuff dealing with how the real world operate.
 
2013-06-15 06:59:49 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Ultra-nationalists like you accept those justifications without question.


And extremists like you will look for any reason to deny Israel a right to protect itself.

The armies from 12 nations were on their border with leaders bragging how they were going to wipe Israel out, and that means nothing to you.  You seem to think no reaction from Israel was justified.
 
2013-06-15 09:27:37 AM

TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: How many miles were IDF from the Arab countries borders in 1967? Were they massed? Oh that's right, they were just as massed and just as close to the borders as the Arab armies were.

That's even weak by your standards. There is no comparison, none whatsoever, between Israel's army to the combined forces of several nation's armies about to invade. I understand that you dug yourself into a corner with your retarded attempt to paint Israel as the aggressor but this is ridiculous.
Israel was not planning to invade Egypt, Syria and Jordan to commit genocide, it was the other way around.


You are right, there is no comparison in the military force involved. Israel smashed all of the other countries in less than a week, and seized the land they desired for permanent settlement. Israel far outclassed their neighbors.

TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: Every aggressor very, very clearly states why it's particular acts of aggression are justified.

Explain to me how "every aggressor" situation compares to the situation we are discussing. I'll remind you: several armies of several nations on all sides of Israel (and armies of other arab nations) about to invade, there is no doubt about this, not in the slightes

t.

Let me help clear up your historical ignorance.

Japan very much felt they were not the aggressor when they launched their preemptive attack on the United States in 1941. They too felt they were a nation under an existential threat. The US and Britain were taking actions which were directly threatening their establishment of the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", which they viewed as a noble, anti-colonial effort. Besides the sanctions and embargoes, The US was massing forces in the Philippines. They felt the transfer of the main Pacific fleet to Hawaii from their normal bases on the weat coast was a threat to them. (and making them feel that was why the fleet was transferred.)They honestly felt that they were required to strike before it was too late. I'd really recommend you read a good history that includes the Japanese viewpoint. You'll find that their statements at the time, and the viewpoints of Japanese at all levels, closely match the same sense of threat that you portray from Israel in 1967. No matter what the Japanese felt, rightly or wrongly, they were the aggressors. They chose war to achieve their national aims and to protect their security.

As for the US in 2003....."Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud." 'nuff said.

I understand you support Israel's aggression in 1967. I understand that you support at least some of the land grabs (The Golan in specific) I even understand why you support them. What I have issue is your ultra-nationalistic compulsion to present Israel as the peace loving, put upon victim in 1967. Israel chose war. They pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. They chose violence as the means of achieving national aims and protecting their security. It WAS a war of aggression.
 
2013-06-15 09:49:32 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: You are right, there is no comparison in the military force involved.


Playing dumb again?

Other countries moving their armies to the border of Israel isn't comparable to Israel having an army, that by virtue of Israel's small size, is near the border.

Philip Francis Queeg: Israel smashed all of the other countries in less than a week,


Is it just Jews who are evil for winning, or any army?

Philip Francis Queeg: seized the land they desired for permanent settlement.


They have proven they will give back land for peace.  Few of their neighbors have.


Philip Francis Queeg: Israel chose war.


No.  War was chosen for them when the surrounding nations marshaled their armies against them.  You are upset that they chose to fight the war rather then get rolled over.

Philip Francis Queeg: They chose violence as the means of achieving national aims and protecting their security.


Funny how you have no problem when Israel's enemies choose violence that achieves nothing but dead civilians.
 
2013-06-15 10:05:53 AM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: You are right, there is no comparison in the military force involved.

Playing dumb again?

Other countries moving their armies to the border of Israel isn't comparable to Israel having an army, that by virtue of Israel's small size, is near the border.

Philip Francis Queeg: Israel smashed all of the other countries in less than a week,

Is it just Jews who are evil for winning, or any army?

Philip Francis Queeg: seized the land they desired for permanent settlement.

They have proven they will give back land for peace.  Few of their neighbors have.


Philip Francis Queeg: Israel chose war.

No.  War was chosen for them when the surrounding nations marshaled their armies against them.  You are upset that they chose to fight the war rather then get rolled over.

Philip Francis Queeg: They chose violence as the means of achieving national aims and protecting their security.

Funny how you have no problem when Israel's enemies choose violence that achieves nothing but dead civilians.


Huh? I'll readily condemn the Arab nation's choices for war in 1948 and 1973.  They were the aggressors since they chose  war to achieve their national aims.

You know what else champ? I'll even condemn the saber rattling that the Arab nations engaged in in 1967. Saber rattling is a profoundly unhelpful form of diplomacy. It is reckless.

Of course the recklessness of saber rattling brings us back to the US and Israeli relationship with Iran, where saber rattling abounds on all sides.
 
2013-06-15 10:05:57 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: You are right, there is no comparison in the military force involved. Israel smashed all of the other countries in less than a week, and seized the land they desired for permanent settlement. Israel far outclassed their neighbors.


So Israel is to blame for defending itself against the genocide attempts of the arabs and they are to blame for having the audacity to actually win! un-farking-believable. Go read a bit about the armies facing Israel, specifically the numbers of soldiers and weaponry, this is getting into the 'comically pathetic' range with your arduous efforts to paint Israel is the aggressor.

"A land they desired for permanent settlement" ? what's with you and historical revisionism ? why do you think pulling lying crap like that out of your ass again will not be noticed ?

And by 'no comparison' i was of course referring to your lame attempt of painting Israel as the aggressor when faced with the genocidal attempt of multiple arab nations but of course you had to twist and lie about that as well. I can also try and explain to you the importance of the element of surprise in a preemptive military strike but i won't waste my time.

Philip Francis Queeg: Let me help clear up your historical ignorance ..[unrelated bullshiat]


The US and Britain were not surrounding the nation of Japan with massive armies yelling 'we will wipe out Japan from the face of the Earth!'. Do you understand, even just a tiny bit, how your comparison is total and utter bullshiat ?

Philip Francis Queeg: As for the US in 2003....."Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud." 'nuff said.


Iraqi armies were about to wipe the US from the face of the earth ?

Philip Francis Queeg: I understand you support Israel's aggression in 1967.


What you fail to understand is how the real world works. To you Israel is at fault no matter what, even Israel's efforts to defend itself from genocide is "an aggression".

Philip Francis Queeg: What I have issue is your ultra-nationalistic compulsion to present Israel as the peace loving, put upon victim in 1967.


It's like you consciously choose to ignore every fact and historical event which interferes with your delusional fantasies when Israel is concerned. I find it fascinating.

Philip Francis Queeg: Israel chose war


Repeating this hilarious lie won't somehow make it true.

Philip Francis Queeg: They pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. They chose violence as the means of achieving national aims and protecting their security. It WAS a war of aggression.


The fact that you say that with a straight face when all the evidence and historical facts are presented to you showing that you have no farking clue only shows your level of ignorance and bias when Israel is concerned.
 
2013-06-15 10:15:03 AM

TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: You are right, there is no comparison in the military force involved. Israel smashed all of the other countries in less than a week, and seized the land they desired for permanent settlement. Israel far outclassed their neighbors.

So Israel is to blame for defending itself against the genocide attempts of the arabs and they are to blame for having the audacity to actually win! un-farking-believable. Go read a bit about the armies facing Israel, specifically the numbers of soldiers and weaponry, this is getting into the 'comically pathetic' range with your arduous efforts to paint Israel is the aggressor.

"A land they desired for permanent settlement" ? what's with you and historical revisionism ? why do you think pulling lying crap like that out of your ass again will not be noticed ?

And by 'no comparison' i was of course referring to your lame attempt of painting Israel as the aggressor when faced with the genocidal attempt of multiple arab nations but of course you had to twist and lie about that as well. I can also try and explain to you the importance of the element of surprise in a preemptive military strike but i won't waste my time.

Philip Francis Queeg: Let me help clear up your historical ignorance ..[unrelated bullshiat]

The US and Britain were not surrounding the nation of Japan with massive armies yelling 'we will wipe out Japan from the face of the Earth!'. Do you understand, even just a tiny bit, how your comparison is total and utter bullshiat ?

Philip Francis Queeg: As for the US in 2003....."Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud." 'nuff said.

Iraqi armies were about to wipe the US from the face of the earth ?

Philip Francis Queeg: I understand you support Israel's aggression in 1967.

What you fail to understand is how the real world works. To you Israel is at fault no matter what, even Israel's efforts to defend itself from genocide is "an aggression".

Philip Francis Queeg: What I have issue is your ultra-nat ...


Do you do nationalist propaganda for a living? You really have the whole feel down pat. One can practically hear the spittle hitting the screen as you type.
 
2013-06-15 10:26:21 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Do you do nationalist propaganda for a living? You really have the whole feel down pat. One can practically hear the spittle hitting the screen as you type.


I guess you had enough with lame attempts at historical revisionism, lies and bullshiat when faced with actual historical facts and proof negating your nonsense and you decided to move to Ad Hominem. Well, i guess it's a new approach so you got that going for you. Which is nice.
 
2013-06-15 10:34:20 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Huh? I'll readily condemn the Arab nation's choices for war in 1948 and 1973. They were the aggressors since they chose war to achieve their national aims.


That isn't the, sometimes daily, choice of violence I am talking about.

No answer on why the jews were in the wrong for winning?

No response about your mscharacterization of what they did with the land they took?


Philip Francis Queeg: Do you do nationalist propaganda for a living? You really have the whole feel down pat. One can practically hear the spittle hitting the screen as you type


So instead of acknowledging anything he said you are just going to plug your ears and cry "ultra nationalist"?  If that i syour only reponse to facts, you may want to rethink your stance.
 
2013-06-15 10:41:13 AM

TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you do nationalist propaganda for a living? You really have the whole feel down pat. One can practically hear the spittle hitting the screen as you type.

I guess you had enough with lame attempts at historical revisionism, lies and bullshiat when faced with actual historical facts and proof negating your nonsense and you decided to move to Ad Hominem. Well, i guess it's a new approach so you got that going for you. Which is nice.


Proof? The rantings of an ultra-nationalist propagandist that his nation was wholly justified and uniquely threatened does not constitute proof on anything beyond how ultra-nationalism twists the mind.]

I have given up on the thought that you will ever be capable of taking a balanced, rational view of Israel's actions and how they compare to those of other nations.  An ultra-nationalist can never see his nation as comparable to any other. The motivations of their nation are unique in their purity. Their actions are without parallel or precedent. Then threats their nations face are more dire than any nation has faced before. Their victories more glorious than any nation has won before.

I am certain you were a good soldier. A very good soldier. All any nation could ask for. A true believer through and through
 
2013-06-15 10:51:29 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Proof? The rantings of an ultra-nationalist propagandist that his nation was wholly justified and uniquely threatened does not constitute proof on anything beyond how ultra-nationalism twists the mind.


Rantings?  Pointing out facts are rantings?  Is that only because the facts support Israeli actions?
 
2013-06-15 10:59:07 AM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: Huh? I'll readily condemn the Arab nation's choices for war in 1948 and 1973. They were the aggressors since they chose war to achieve their national aims.

That isn't the, sometimes daily, choice of violence I am talking about.


OK, I also condemn the sometimes daily choice to initiate violence of both Israel and of groups that oppose Israel. 


liam76:
No answer on why the jews were in the wrong for winning?

I didn't say they were wrong for winning,. I said they were the aggressor in the war, and condemned some of their war aims. Perhaps you confused me pointing out that the completeness and speed of their victory indicated that they weren't the underdog being claimed for condemning them for winning. I mean, that would be pretty irrational on your part, but....oh, right, it is you.

liam76: No response about your mscharacterization of what they did with the land they took?


You aren't actually denying the existence of permanent Israeli settlements on land captured in 1967, are you? Because that would be even dumber.
 
2013-06-15 11:00:11 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Proof? The rantings of an ultra-nationalist propagandist that his nation was wholly justified and uniquely threatened does not constitute proof on anything beyond how ultra-nationalism twists the mind.]


So you're saying all the historical proof i presented as quoted above, from the actual events leading to the war, the number of armies, everything i pointed out which you can easily proof-check yourself are "rantings of an ultra-nationalist propagandist".

I understand how you feel when all your bullshiat is torn to pieces when you are presented with actual facts but lying like this only cements the fact that you are delusional and biased and have the habit of burying your head up your ass when presented with facts not to your liking when Israel is concerned.

Philip Francis Queeg: I have given up on the thought that you will ever be capable of taking a balanced, rational view of Israel's actions and how they compare to those of other nations.


Not only did i prove that your comparison to events with other nations which you claim are similar is total bullshiat, i also gave you examples where i criticize Israel's actions.

Philip Francis Queeg: n ultra-nationalist can never see his nation as comparable to any other. The motivations of their nation are unique in their purity. Their actions are without parallel or precedent.


Do you realize that lying like this when all the proof negating your bullshiat, especially your comparison to other historical events with japan and the US, is posted in this thread makes you look like a farking pathetic joke ?

Philip Francis Queeg: Then threats their nations face are more dire than any nation has faced before.


Seriously how can you say that when i explained in detail how your comparison to situations with other nations is a farking joke ?

Philip Francis Queeg: I am certain you were a good soldier. A very good soldier. All any nation could ask for. A true believer through and through


I am certain you're a delusional, biased individual with a hard-on for painting israel as 'the aggressor', reality and actual historical facts be damned.
 
2013-06-15 11:09:27 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: Huh? I'll readily condemn the Arab nation's choices for war in 1948 and 1973. They were the aggressors since they chose war to achieve their national aims.

That isn't the, sometimes daily, choice of violence I am talking about.

OK, I also condemn the sometimes daily choice to initiate violence of both Israel and of groups that oppose Israel. 


liam76:
No answer on why the jews were in the wrong for winning?

I didn't say they were wrong for winning,. I said they were the aggressor in the war, and condemned some of their war aims. Perhaps you confused me pointing out that the completeness and speed of their victory indicated that they weren't the underdog being claimed for condemning them for winning. I mean, that would be pretty irrational on your part, but....oh, right, it is you.

liam76: No response about your mscharacterization of what they did with the land they took?

You aren't actually denying the existence of permanent Israeli settlements on land captured in 1967, are you? Because that would be even dumber.


When you strike back at a Rocket launcher that is not 'initiating' violence.

Winning quickly doesn't mean the threat was not real. If the combined Arab armies made headway into their country it could have turned out very differently. At least I can chalk that up to your ignorance of warfare as opposed to the normal double standard on this subject.

You characterized their taking of land as just for permanent settlements. That ignores the reality that they have. Given back more land than all of Israel, gaza and the WB.
 
2013-06-15 11:19:09 AM

TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: I have given up on the thought that you will ever be capable of taking a balanced, rational view of Israel's actions and how they compare to those of other nations.

Not only did i prove that your comparison to events with other nations which you claim are similar is total bullshiat, i also gave you examples where i criticize Israel's actions.


Again you proved nothing beyond the fact that your ultra-nationalism blinds you to inconvenient reality. Again I invite you to educate yourself on how the Japanese viewed their situation in 1941. You will find they felt exactly the way they Israelis did in 1967; surrounded and outnumbered by hostile nations bent on their destruction. They felt that as a small nation their position was indefensible, so aggressive action was needed to ensure their continued existence. Perhaps you will be able to put your biases aside long enough to learn.

Hell, a lot of Japanese still feel that way about Japan's situation in 1941.

"I believe that Shinzo Abe honestly thinks that the Second World War and the aggression and events leading up to it were relative - that Japan basically was forced into fighting because of Western colonial policies," says Robert Campbell, a professor of Japanese literature at the University of Tokyo and a long-time social commentator for Japanese television and radio.  "It's very difficult to move on and to gain the political capital necessary to solve difficult economic and political problems when you are constantly carrying this enormous bagful of historical rocks."

The latest drama began last month, during a question-and-answer session in the Diet. Abe, who had focused largely and so far successfully on boosting the economy, repeated a standard line recognizing that Japan had caused great suffering and damage during
"The definition of aggression has yet to be established in academia or in the international community," Abe said. The policy chief for Abe's Liberal Democratic Party later said that Abe also disagreed with the allied tribunal that found 14 wartime leaders guilty of war crimes.


That was from last month.
 
2013-06-15 11:23:33 AM

liam76: When you strike back at a Rocket launcher that is not 'initiating' violence.


What is it when you launch a missile into an apartment building because a specific individual may be in there?

liam76: Winning quickly doesn't mean the threat was not real. If the combined Arab armies made headway into their country it could have turned out very differently. At least I can chalk that up to your ignorance of warfare as opposed to the normal double standard on this subject.


It shows certainly that the threat was less dire than then certain genocidal doom TTV posits if Israel didn't strike first.

liam76: You characterized their taking of land as just for permanent settlements. That ignores the reality that they have. Given back more land than all of Israel, gaza and the WB.


And kept the land they wanted for permanent settlements.
 
2013-06-15 11:29:14 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Again you proved nothing beyond the fact that your ultra-nationalism blinds you to inconvenient reality.


What's with the constant lying ? do you want me to paste all the facts i presented which you elegantly chose to ignore ?
they are all posted above. Read them again. Carefully this time.

Philip Francis Queeg: Again I invite you to educate yourself on how the Japanese viewed their situation in 1941. You will find they felt exactly the way they Israelis did in 1967; surrounded and outnumbered by hostile nations bent on their destruction. They felt that as a small nation their position was indefensible, so aggressive action was needed to ensure their continued existence. Perhaps you will be able to put your biases aside long enough to learn.


The US and Britain were not surrounding the nation of Japan with massive armies yelling 'we will wipe out Japan from the face of the Earth!'. Do you understand, even just a tiny bit, how your comparison is total and utter bullshiat ?

Philip Francis Queeg: "I believe that Shinzo Abe honestly thinks that the Second World War and the aggression and events leading up to it were relative - that Japan basically was forced into fighting because of Western colonial policies," says Robert Campbell, a professor of Japanese literature at the University of Tokyo and a long-time social commentator for Japanese television and radio.  "It's very difficult to move on and to gain the political capital necessary to solve difficult economic and political problems when you are constantly carrying this enormous bagful of historical rocks."

The latest drama began last month, during a question-and-answer session in the Diet. Abe, who had focused largely and so far successfully on boosting the economy, repeated a standard line recognizing that Japan had caused great suffering and damage during
"The definition of aggression has yet to be established in academia or in the international community," Abe said. The policy chief for Abe's Liberal Democratic Party later said that Abe also disagreed with the allied tribunal that found 14 wartime leaders guilty of war crimes.


This has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the situation Israel was facing. Why is it so hard to grasp such a simple fact ?
 
2013-06-15 11:34:23 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: It shows certainly that the threat was less dire than then certain genocidal doom TTV posits if Israel didn't strike first.


Hell, i'll copy/paste anyway:

So you're saying that Israel should have waited for the genocide to commence before defending itself. A tiny country like Israel, faced with armies from 12 nations about to invade.

You are a strategic genius! you should be a commanding officer in charge of defending a country the size of Israel from a dozen armies about to invade.
The battle will be studies in every military training class! as a way to lift the soldiers spirits with a hearty laugh before getting into the stuff dealing with how the real world operate.

So Israel is to blame for defending itself against the genocide attempts of the arabs and they are to blame for having the audacity to actually win! un-farking-believable. Go read a bit about the armies facing Israel, specifically the numbers of soldiers and weaponry, this is getting into the 'comically pathetic' range with your arduous efforts to paint Israel is the aggressor.

I can also try and explain to you the importance of the element of surprise in a preemptive military strike but i won't waste my time.

What Israel did was preemptive action when the arab nations surrounding it were preparing their armies for an immidieate attack.
I believe Nasser summed it quite well for you:

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel..to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle!"

Abdur Rahman Aref was more poetic: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear-to wipe Israel off the map."


How dare Israel defend itself! spoil the arabs' fun like that!
 
2013-06-15 11:41:27 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: When you strike back at a Rocket launcher that is not 'initiating' violence.

What is it when you launch a missile into an apartment building because a specific individual may be in there?

liam76: Winning quickly doesn't mean the threat was not real. If the combined Arab armies made headway into their country it could have turned out very differently. At least I can chalk that up to your ignorance of warfare as opposed to the normal double standard on this subject.

It shows certainly that the threat was less dire than then certain genocidal doom TTV posits if Israel didn't strike first.

liam76: You characterized their taking of land as just for permanent settlements. That ignores the reality that they have. Given back more land than all of Israel, gaza and the WB.

And kept the land they wanted for permanent settlements.


Depends what the guy just did or is doing.

Israel winning in no way makes the threat less dire.

They kept land because their neighbors don't want peace.
 
2013-06-15 11:49:13 AM

TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: Again you proved nothing beyond the fact that your ultra-nationalism blinds you to inconvenient reality.

What's with the constant lying ? do you want me to paste all the facts i presented which you elegantly chose to ignore ?
they are all posted above. Read them again. Carefully this time.

Philip Francis Queeg: Again I invite you to educate yourself on how the Japanese viewed their situation in 1941. You will find they felt exactly the way they Israelis did in 1967; surrounded and outnumbered by hostile nations bent on their destruction. They felt that as a small nation their position was indefensible, so aggressive action was needed to ensure their continued existence. Perhaps you will be able to put your biases aside long enough to learn.

The US and Britain were not surrounding the nation of Japan with massive armies yelling 'we will wipe out Japan from the face of the Earth!'. Do you understand, even just a tiny bit, how your comparison is total and utter bullshiat ?

Philip Francis Queeg: "I believe that Shinzo Abe honestly thinks that the Second World War and the aggression and events leading up to it were relative - that Japan basically was forced into fighting because of Western colonial policies," says Robert Campbell, a professor of Japanese literature at the University of Tokyo and a long-time social commentator for Japanese television and radio.  "It's very difficult to move on and to gain the political capital necessary to solve difficult economic and political problems when you are constantly carrying this enormous bagful of historical rocks."

The latest drama began last month, during a question-and-answer session in the Diet. Abe, who had focused largely and so far successfully on boosting the economy, repeated a standard line recognizing that Japan had caused great suffering and damage during
"The definition of aggression has yet to be established in academia or in the international community," Abe said. The policy chief for ...


All you are doing is highlighting how your ultra-nationalism blinds you. It really is sad to see how it has stunted you are. As shown the Japanese felt exactly the same way. They looked at the US, the British, the Chinese and the Soviets, all larger, hostile nations surrounding them on all sides and saw looming destruction. They saw forces being moved into place round them. A tiny nation like Japan, surrounded by great powers. The could see how outnumbered they were, especially in soldiers and weaponry. They knew the importance of surprise in a preemptive strike. Should they have waited for the enemy to strike first?

In a rational person, the similar attitudes of the Japanese might cause some introspection and questioning. However you have utterly disconnected from that ability when it comes to your nation. All you are capable of is ever more shrill screaming about how dire Israel's situation was.
 
2013-06-15 11:59:13 AM
liam76:.

They kept land because their neighbors don't want peace.


Why then did they claim sovereignty over East Jerusalem withing weeks of the end of fighting?
 
2013-06-15 12:07:48 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: All you are doing is highlighting how your ultra-nationalism blinds you.


By presenting facts, actual historical events ?..

Philip Francis Queeg: It really is sad to see how it has stunted you are.


it's hilarious to see how you squirm your way out of confronting the facts i presented, lie constantly as proved in this thread over and over again and  show your bias and ignorance when Israel is concerned.

Philip Francis Queeg: As shown the Japanese felt exactly the same way. They looked at the US, the British, the Chinese and the Soviets, all larger, hostile nations surrounding them on all sides and saw looming destruction.


Jesus Christ it's like talking to a retarded 4 year old..

The US and Britain were not surrounding the nation of Japan with massive armies yelling 'we will wipe out Japan from the face of the Earth!'. Do you understand, even just a tiny bit, how your comparison is total and utter bullshiat ?

Japan did not defend their country from a genocide attempt, hell it wasn't near their country. This has nothing in comparison with the situation with Israel and the arab nations.

Philip Francis Queeg: In a rational person, the similar attitudes of the Japanese might cause some introspection and questioning. However you have utterly disconnected from that ability when it comes to your nation. All you are capable of is ever more shrill screaming about how dire Israel's situation was.


you're absolutely right. it wasn't a bad situation, having 12 armies about to invade your country and slaughter everyone. Armies much larger and with more equipment than yours. I say, give the arabs the benefit of the doubt.
And Israel should be ashamed of having the nerve to actually win and continue to exist instead of rolling over and dying. How dare they!

I explained like to a retard the reasons for Israel's actions and i was pointing out the fact that you're a lying, delusional moron who can't face facts when they contradict with his bias when Israel is concerned. I believe i made that clear about 5 or 6 times now.
I don't mind repeating myself although at this point it feels like poking a retard cowering in the corner with a sharp stick.
 
2013-06-15 12:09:49 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76:.

They kept land because their neighbors don't want peace.

Why then did they claim sovereignty over East Jerusalem withing weeks of the end of fighting?


With regard to that small bit of land you are right. But given that under the previous Arab rule Jewish sites were desecrated, Jews were expelled, all but one of the 35 synagogues were destroyed, etc it has been made clear that if they want access they must own it.
 
2013-06-15 12:34:28 PM

TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: All you are doing is highlighting how your ultra-nationalism blinds you.

By presenting facts, actual historical events ?..

Philip Francis Queeg: It really is sad to see how it has stunted you are.

it's hilarious to see how you squirm your way out of confronting the facts i presented, lie constantly as proved in this thread over and over again and  show your bias and ignorance when Israel is concerned.

Philip Francis Queeg: As shown the Japanese felt exactly the same way. They looked at the US, the British, the Chinese and the Soviets, all larger, hostile nations surrounding them on all sides and saw looming destruction.

Jesus Christ it's like talking to a retarded 4 year old..

The US and Britain were not surrounding the nation of Japan with massive armies yelling 'we will wipe out Japan from the face of the Earth!'. Do you understand, even just a tiny bit, how your comparison is total and utter bullshiat ?

Japan did not defend their country from a genocide attempt, hell it wasn't near their country. This has nothing in comparison with the situation with Israel and the arab nations.

Philip Francis Queeg: In a rational person, the similar attitudes of the Japanese might cause some introspection and questioning. However you have utterly disconnected from that ability when it comes to your nation. All you are capable of is ever more shrill screaming about how dire Israel's situation was.

you're absolutely right. it wasn't a bad situation, having 12 armies about to invade your country and slaughter everyone. Armies much larger and with more equipment than yours. I say, give the arabs the benefit of the doubt.
And Israel should be ashamed of having the nerve to actually win and continue to exist instead of rolling over and dying. How dare they!

I explained like to a retard the reasons for Israel's actions and i was pointing out the fact that you're a lying, delusional moron who can't face facts when they contradict with his bias when Israel ...


Yes, keep screaming about how uniquely threatened Israel was and ignoring the clear historic parallels. That will prove that you aren't an irrational ultra-nationalist.

It goes without saying that when survival is threatened, struggles erupt between peoples, and unfortunate wars between nations result. -  Hideki Tojo

During this period, Japan's peaceful commercial relations were successively obstructed, primarily by the American rupture of commercial relations, and this was a grave threat to the survival of Japan. - Hideki Tojo


 
2013-06-15 12:45:35 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, keep screaming about how uniquely threatened Israel was and ignoring the clear historic parallels. That will prove that you aren't an irrational ultra-nationalist.


Since there is no comparison as explained to you repeatedly about 4 or 5 times now i'll just add this to the 'bullshiat' pile.

Philip Francis Queeg: It goes without saying that when survival is threatened, struggles erupt between peoples, and unfortunate wars between nations result.


"It goes without saying that Israel's actions and situation in the Six Days Wars and Japans actions in Pearl Harbor are not 'historic parallels'"  - Any person who knows the difference between historical facts and bullshiat.

Philip Francis Queeg: During this period, Japan's peaceful commercial relations were successively obstructed, primarily by the American rupture of commercial relations, and this was a grave threat to the survival of Japan


During that period there were no massive armies positioned all around Japan about to invade to literally "wipe japan off the map" - Any person who knows the difference between historical facts and bullshiat.
 
2013-06-15 02:20:28 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: All you are doing is highlighting how your ultra-nationalism blinds you.

By presenting facts, actual historical events ?..

Philip Francis Queeg: It really is sad to see how it has stunted you are.

it's hilarious to see how you squirm your way out of confronting the facts i presented, lie constantly as proved in this thread over and over again and  show your bias and ignorance when Israel is concerned.

Philip Francis Queeg: As shown the Japanese felt exactly the same way. They looked at the US, the British, the Chinese and the Soviets, all larger, hostile nations surrounding them on all sides and saw looming destruction.

Jesus Christ it's like talking to a retarded 4 year old..

The US and Britain were not surrounding the nation of Japan with massive armies yelling 'we will wipe out Japan from the face of the Earth!'. Do you understand, even just a tiny bit, how your comparison is total and utter bullshiat ?

Japan did not defend their country from a genocide attempt, hell it wasn't near their country. This has nothing in comparison with the situation with Israel and the arab nations.

Philip Francis Queeg: In a rational person, the similar attitudes of the Japanese might cause some introspection and questioning. However you have utterly disconnected from that ability when it comes to your nation. All you are capable of is ever more shrill screaming about how dire Israel's situation was.

you're absolutely right. it wasn't a bad situation, having 12 armies about to invade your country and slaughter everyone. Armies much larger and with more equipment than yours. I say, give the arabs the benefit of the doubt.
And Israel should be ashamed of having the nerve to actually win and continue to exist instead of rolling over and dying. How dare they!

I explained like to a retard the reasons for Israel's actions and i was pointing out the fact that you're a lying, delusional moron who can't face facts when they contradict with his bias when Israel ...

Yes, keep screaming about how uniquely threatened Israel was and ignoring the clear historic parallels. That will prove that you aren't an irrational ultra-nationalist.

It goes without saying that when survival is threatened, struggles erupt between peoples, and unfortunate wars between nations result. -  Hideki Tojo

During this period, Japan's peaceful commercial relations were successively obstructed, primarily by the American rupture of commercial relations, and this was a grave threat to the survival of Japan. - Hideki Tojo


'Peaceful'?

Not familiar with the rape of Nanking?
Or are you cool pushing what you know to be lies if you think it helps you discredit Israel?
 
2013-06-15 02:41:01 PM

TappingTheVein: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, keep screaming about how uniquely threatened Israel was and ignoring the clear historic parallels. That will prove that you aren't an irrational ultra-nationalist.

Since there is no comparison as explained to you repeatedly about 4 or 5 times now i'll just add this to the 'bullshiat' pile.

Philip Francis Queeg: It goes without saying that when survival is threatened, struggles erupt between peoples, and unfortunate wars between nations result.

"It goes without saying that Israel's actions and situation in the Six Days Wars and Japans actions in Pearl Harbor are not 'historic parallels'"  - Any person who knows the difference between historical facts and bullshiat.

Philip Francis Queeg: During this period, Japan's peaceful commercial relations were successively obstructed, primarily by the American rupture of commercial relations, and this was a grave threat to the survival of Japan

During that period there were no massive armies positioned all around Japan about to invade to literally "wipe japan off the map" - Any person who knows the difference between historical facts and bullshiat.


"No blood for oil" only applies to the U.S.
 
Displayed 49 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report