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 19
    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 (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-14 09:12:47 AM
3 votes:
As opposed to the sane and decent folk in Israel?
2013-06-15 12:45:35 PM
1 votes:

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 11:41:27 AM
1 votes:

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 06:59:49 AM
1 votes:

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 06:30:50 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-14 07:38:31 PM
1 votes:

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 07:19:51 PM
1 votes:

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 07:00:51 PM
1 votes:

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 06:06:23 PM
1 votes:

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 12:26:32 PM
1 votes:

jakomo002: liam76: Define "involved". Unless you are limiting it to deploying tropps you are very wrong.

Invading another country with their military.


So the US isn't involved in Syria.  We weren't "involved" with Libya.  We were never "involved" with Cuba.

Haven't really thought this one out, have you?

jakomo002: READ STUFF. Israel has been threatening it for years.


They have never threatened invasion.
2013-06-14 11:53:08 AM
1 votes:

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.

jakomo002: Not invasions of sovereign land.  Not the Iranian military.


So conflict by proxy is to be ignored. Got it. Nice backpedaling there.
Your statement was made to show that Iran was not involved in armed conflict for centuries, this is so wrong and stupid so let's just limit it to 'sending an army over the border' because war by proxy is not a war.

jakomo002: Israel has been threatening it for years.


Utter and total bullshiat, everything stated or done by Israel was a result of Iran's own actions.

jakomo002: And that's illegal?  To support your allies?  You drunk already?


No, slaughtering civilians en mass is not illegal, according to you apparently.  it means 'supporting your ally'.
You haven't been following events in Syria, haven't you. but that's not surprising coming from anyone who made the claim that 'Iran wasn't involved in conflict of aggression for centuries' with s straight face.
2013-06-14 10:48:45 AM
1 votes:

jakomo002: Except Iran hasn't been involved in a war of aggression for centuries.


Except the conflicts via their proxies Hizballah, Hamas, Islamic jihad, The Qods Force, the IRGC, not to mention exporting terrorism throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.

other than that, no sir.
2013-06-14 10:18:28 AM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: Let's look at it from Iran's perspective.

A major world power has invaded the countries on both your eastern and western borders, displacing the governments, causing wide spread destruction, and initiating long term military occupations. That very same world power has poor relations with you, and has repeatedly invoked the possibility of military intervention against you.

If you were Iran, would it not be logical to seek a military technology that provides a significant deterrent to invasion by that power?


Again... the motivations of the man in power, and not the good of the people.  Why is it that the world is  so opposed to Iran specifically gaining a nuclear weapon vs other countries like India or hell even Pakistan?  Nobody gives a shiat that Turkey has nukes, right?  Its because Irans been farking up for a very, very long time  without any prospect of nukes.  This isnt specifically about nukes... its about a dangerous unstable nation whose threat will only be  exacerbated by them gaining nuclear weapons.

If everyone thought Iran genuinely would only use nukes for self defense, we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.   Thats the problem.... and its costing the people of Iran everything.

They are literally in a downward spiral into North Korea territory right now with regards to the effect trade embargo's will be having on their populace as a result of their behavior.  There were many paths Iran could have (and still could) take... but they're choosing brinksmanship because the people in power see themselves as having nothing to lose.  Its all or nothing for them.  fark the people.

/My opinion, anyhow.
2013-06-14 10:09:48 AM
1 votes:

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

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


Well, we still haven't captured Bokonon.
2013-06-14 10:02:49 AM
1 votes:

lockers: As opposed to the sane and decent folk in Israel?


Everything Israel does seems perfectly logical to me, when I consider the world from their perspective.

When I look at it from the Iranian perspective, I conclude that they really just want to scapegoat jews into a unifying boogeyman so they can continue lusting over their power.  Compare a nation like Iran to say, the UAE and compare their social and economic policies and how its affecting their place in the world today.

Iran seems to be making some incredibly dumb moves... which only make any kind of sense at all if you look at it from the perspective of somebody who is less interested in the good of Iran and instead only care about your own personal power and interests.
2013-06-14 10:02:30 AM
1 votes:
Ahmadinejad  leaving office.
Bin Ladin dead.
Chavez dead.

The US is in serious danger of running out of bogeymen.
2013-06-14 09:26:56 AM
1 votes:
Looking forward to the new Jon Stewart movie about how the country is not full of American-hating Islamic maniacs but is mostly comprised of rational people who just want a better life like the rest of us.
2013-06-14 09:25:05 AM
1 votes:
Subby: You realize that the Iranian president is only like...  What, the 14th most powerful person in the country?
2013-06-14 09:14:06 AM
1 votes:
Totally unimportant.
President of Iran has almost zero power.
Similar to President of Germany. Well, except for the theocracy part.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report