Bibi Netanyahu addresses congress today
![[Image: tumblr_n7wgk0ckU41qagcpzo3_400.gif]](https://38.media.tumblr.com/65ecfb10d9c2e21c77856455d05a194a/tumblr_n7wgk0ckU41qagcpzo3_400.gif)
Not sure what business the politician of another country has adressing the US Congress. The US and Israel sure are pretty intertwined aren't they
It is funny and sad to see that most of the Americans don't even know that the US is an Israeli vassal.
You don't have to believe me. Just look at the standing ovation he got. The Israeli lobby has huge influence in congress and if Nethanyaho says you are going to war, you are going to war and you know it.
I know that Americans are patriotic and shit but this is the truth.
You don't have to believe me. Just look at the standing ovation he got. The Israeli lobby has huge influence in congress and if Nethanyaho says you are going to war, you are going to war and you know it.
I know that Americans are patriotic and shit but this is the truth.
I read a book about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising by former Israeli minister of defense Moshe Arens about two years ago that had a profound impact on me. One of the most most shocking themes in the story of the Warsaw Ghetto is how incredibly stubborn the Jews were. Not just there, but in all of Europe. The vast majority of them refused to believe that Hitler really wanted to exterminate all the Jews. During the "Great Deportation," approximately 270,000 of the Jews in Warsaw offered virtually no resistance to being hoarded like cattle and shipped off to the concentration camps.
Would I have been any different? I don't know. In any event, I'm making an observation, not a judgment. Despite hundreds of years of anti-semitism, the Jews of the time refused to believe that the threats against them were really that dire. The two major underground factions that formed and resisted against the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto were an extremely small percentage of the overall Jewish population that lived there. In fact, the Zionist movement comprised an extremely small percentage of the overall global Jewish community during World War II. Most Jews stubbornly refused to believe in the Nazi threat despite the overwhelming evidence staring them in the face. Note well that I am not bringing up the Holocaust to justify Israel's existence.
I'm bringing it up to explain why I believe that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel. I used to not think much of it, but then I recall all of the Jews in Europe thinking that there's no way that Hitler actually wants to kill ALL the Jews. That's just crazy.
Many political scientists believe that the "Mutually Assured Destruction" (or MAD) theory is a sufficient explanation as to why the Cold War never became a hot war, and why in general nuclear countries will never go to war with each other. The theory is based on the assumption that nuclear deterrence works because countries are rational actors. In the Cold War, there was a difference in ideologies; capitalism vs. communism. Today, we have a conflict not of ideology x vs. ideology y, but of Western ideology vs. religious extremism.
I believe that Iran is a rational actor, but I also believe that many westerners make the mistake of thinking that radical Islamists act according to the same rationales that they do. There are critical differences in the way elected officials in a liberal democratic country think, and the way religious extremists think. Many westerners don't understand this.
I'll explain why with Iran as an example. Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world, spending about $100 million annually on funding terrorism.
Does Iran think it would be rational to nuke Israel, despite the fact that Israel would likely nuke it back (i.e. MAD)? I fear yes. Especially since Iran can do it via its main proxy, Hezbollah. In a case such as this, who does Israel shoot back at? Iran? Lebanon? What if Hezbollah fires a nuclear weapon at Israel from Syria? Does Israel nuke Syria now? This might seem irrational to you, but it might not be irrational for a terrorist state that has religious goals. All of a sudden nuclear deterrence and the MAD theory aren't so comforting.
People say that Israel is hypocritical because it has nuclear weapons and yet does not want to allow another country to get nuclear weapons. And is America hypocritical for doing the same thing? "But at least America doesn't keep its nuclear program a secret!" So what? America actually used its nuclear weapons, and on civilian targets no less. It resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, mostly civilians. So if we're going down this route, then what moral right does America have to stop other countries from acquiring nukes? And yet it's somehow only Israel who is hypocritical.
The most important thing I'll write is this: Israel is facing an existential threat vis-à-vis a nuclear Iran.
Bibi's speech was spot on. He understands that Israel's survival is in jeopardy, so he diplomatically pleaded his case. He explained why the current deal is terrible, and then offered viable solutions. Even if Obama doesn't agree, at least Bibi can put pressure on him by firing up the resolve of members of Congress, and by swaying public opinion. People that don't like Israel will say that Israel is "biting the hand that feeds it." Should Bibi refrain from biting the hand that feeds Israel, or should he try to prevent a deal from happening that is a threat to his country's survival?
Once again: the threat to Israel is an existential one and nothing less than that. I won't even go into the rampant anti-semitism that's unfortunately prevalent not only in this thread, but also all over the western world. I don't mean to say that there aren't legitimate ways to criticize Israel, but blatant disregard for logic (e.g. criticizing a democratic country for being concerned about its survival in the face of a radical Islamic dictatorship that has sworn to destroy it trying to get its hands on nuclear weapons) by intelligent people can only lead me to one conclusion.
Or maybe there's the "third side," as kaotic said, which is that you're not an anti-semite, you're just sick of all this, it's never going to end, etc. Well that's not new either. It's called buck passing. The world turned to the "third side" when it was battle weary after World War I. I'm talking about when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, when Italy used mustard gas on Ethiopia in 1935, and when Franco committed human atrocities in Spain around the same time, and no one did anything.
Hitler saw all this and knew that he too could get away with committing atrocities without any foreign interference. And he was right. Oops, I referenced the Holocaust again. Sorry, I know I'm not allowed to do that. Godwin's Law and all.
So the third side isn't anything new or special. History has shown how it can be convenient to buck pass in the short term, but that in the long term it can have disastrous, global repercussions. But you still don't care. You're sick of all of it anyway. I have to ask you though, kaotic, even if you're sick of everything, why are you criticizing Netanyahu for being concerned about his country's existence?
Would I have been any different? I don't know. In any event, I'm making an observation, not a judgment. Despite hundreds of years of anti-semitism, the Jews of the time refused to believe that the threats against them were really that dire. The two major underground factions that formed and resisted against the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto were an extremely small percentage of the overall Jewish population that lived there. In fact, the Zionist movement comprised an extremely small percentage of the overall global Jewish community during World War II. Most Jews stubbornly refused to believe in the Nazi threat despite the overwhelming evidence staring them in the face. Note well that I am not bringing up the Holocaust to justify Israel's existence.
I'm bringing it up to explain why I believe that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel. I used to not think much of it, but then I recall all of the Jews in Europe thinking that there's no way that Hitler actually wants to kill ALL the Jews. That's just crazy.
Many political scientists believe that the "Mutually Assured Destruction" (or MAD) theory is a sufficient explanation as to why the Cold War never became a hot war, and why in general nuclear countries will never go to war with each other. The theory is based on the assumption that nuclear deterrence works because countries are rational actors. In the Cold War, there was a difference in ideologies; capitalism vs. communism. Today, we have a conflict not of ideology x vs. ideology y, but of Western ideology vs. religious extremism.
I believe that Iran is a rational actor, but I also believe that many westerners make the mistake of thinking that radical Islamists act according to the same rationales that they do. There are critical differences in the way elected officials in a liberal democratic country think, and the way religious extremists think. Many westerners don't understand this.
I'll explain why with Iran as an example. Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world, spending about $100 million annually on funding terrorism.
Does Iran think it would be rational to nuke Israel, despite the fact that Israel would likely nuke it back (i.e. MAD)? I fear yes. Especially since Iran can do it via its main proxy, Hezbollah. In a case such as this, who does Israel shoot back at? Iran? Lebanon? What if Hezbollah fires a nuclear weapon at Israel from Syria? Does Israel nuke Syria now? This might seem irrational to you, but it might not be irrational for a terrorist state that has religious goals. All of a sudden nuclear deterrence and the MAD theory aren't so comforting.
People say that Israel is hypocritical because it has nuclear weapons and yet does not want to allow another country to get nuclear weapons. And is America hypocritical for doing the same thing? "But at least America doesn't keep its nuclear program a secret!" So what? America actually used its nuclear weapons, and on civilian targets no less. It resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, mostly civilians. So if we're going down this route, then what moral right does America have to stop other countries from acquiring nukes? And yet it's somehow only Israel who is hypocritical.
The most important thing I'll write is this: Israel is facing an existential threat vis-à-vis a nuclear Iran.
Bibi's speech was spot on. He understands that Israel's survival is in jeopardy, so he diplomatically pleaded his case. He explained why the current deal is terrible, and then offered viable solutions. Even if Obama doesn't agree, at least Bibi can put pressure on him by firing up the resolve of members of Congress, and by swaying public opinion. People that don't like Israel will say that Israel is "biting the hand that feeds it." Should Bibi refrain from biting the hand that feeds Israel, or should he try to prevent a deal from happening that is a threat to his country's survival?
Once again: the threat to Israel is an existential one and nothing less than that. I won't even go into the rampant anti-semitism that's unfortunately prevalent not only in this thread, but also all over the western world. I don't mean to say that there aren't legitimate ways to criticize Israel, but blatant disregard for logic (e.g. criticizing a democratic country for being concerned about its survival in the face of a radical Islamic dictatorship that has sworn to destroy it trying to get its hands on nuclear weapons) by intelligent people can only lead me to one conclusion.
Or maybe there's the "third side," as kaotic said, which is that you're not an anti-semite, you're just sick of all this, it's never going to end, etc. Well that's not new either. It's called buck passing. The world turned to the "third side" when it was battle weary after World War I. I'm talking about when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, when Italy used mustard gas on Ethiopia in 1935, and when Franco committed human atrocities in Spain around the same time, and no one did anything.
Hitler saw all this and knew that he too could get away with committing atrocities without any foreign interference. And he was right. Oops, I referenced the Holocaust again. Sorry, I know I'm not allowed to do that. Godwin's Law and all.
So the third side isn't anything new or special. History has shown how it can be convenient to buck pass in the short term, but that in the long term it can have disastrous, global repercussions. But you still don't care. You're sick of all of it anyway. I have to ask you though, kaotic, even if you're sick of everything, why are you criticizing Netanyahu for being concerned about his country's existence?
כמו שאומרים בארץ..תוטמוסיס בוא נעשה טיול בארץ ומצרים ונדבר על הכל
Quote: (03-04-2015 11:22 AM)sandman972 Wrote:
Quote: (03-03-2015 11:17 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:
Israel, the biggest welfare leach in existence today.
We give them money, military equipment, and software.
Yet those fucks still want to steal the US military secrets.
First rule, don't bite the hand that feeds you. Although they do because they play victim and our media does not report instances when israeli spies get caught.
What a baseless claim of stupidity. Dont comment on things you know absolutely nothing about.
Israel receives lots of aid from America, which we appreciate. ....
Netanyahu's speech was great. That's what you call a leader. As oppose to the unfortunately sad president who is running the great country of America.
Nice of you to accept our 4 billion? IDK per year and let us use your training camps.
I guess since you don't like Obama you don't want the aid normally scheduled during his administration, right?
Israeli PM is allowed to address congress because America is one of the only countries where it is at least net neutral to be Jewish; and after being chased all over the world for millennia, they are powerful enough here to keep it that way.
Jews are smarter than hell, and have invented a ton of stuff for all of humanity including the Polio vaccine and modern psychotherapy among probably thousands of other medical advancements.
Only real dim-witted, jealous wing-nuts are anti-semitic even though Israeli extremists do love killing Arabs.
America is smart to kiss ass with the Jews. They have a great, great deal of political power in America. Looking at Russia and Ukraine and the rest of the Middle East, few would want to live in these anti-Semitic places-- there's talk, and three or four posters here who live in in FSU, but when it come to the shitty QOL most don't walk the walk.
But when someone's giving you billions per year, maybe the best strategy is not to bad-mouth their president.
Netanyahu
"Iran must never get nukes, but we can, because we are good guys and they are bad guys - according to us, ofc lol"
"Iran must never get nukes, but we can, because we are good guys and they are bad guys - according to us, ofc lol"
No no dont worry we used it, while the biggest pussy of US history tries to save himself, we made sure that a dreamer like your president wont threaten our survival. It's all taken care of dont worry ![[Image: wink.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Quote: (03-04-2015 06:45 PM)RealityCheck Wrote:
I read a book about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising by former Israeli minister of defense Moshe Arens about two years ago that had a profound impact on me. One of the most most shocking themes in the story of the Warsaw Ghetto is how incredibly stubborn the Jews were. Not just there, but in all of Europe. The vast majority of them refused to believe that Hitler really wanted to exterminate all the Jews. During the "Great Deportation," approximately 270,000 of the Jews in Warsaw offered virtually no resistance to being hoarded like cattle and shipped off to the concentration camps.
Would I have been any different? I don't know. In any event, I'm making an observation, not a judgment. Despite hundreds of years of anti-semitism, the Jews of the time refused to believe that the threats against them were really that dire. The two major underground factions that formed and resisted against the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto were an extremely small percentage of the overall Jewish population that lived there. In fact, the Zionist movement comprised an extremely small percentage of the overall global Jewish community during World War II. Most Jews stubbornly refused to believe in the Nazi threat despite the overwhelming evidence staring them in the face. Note well that I am not bringing up the Holocaust to justify Israel's existence.
I'm bringing it up to explain why I believe that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel. I used to not think much of it, but then I recall all of the Jews in Europe thinking that there's no way that Hitler actually wants to kill ALL the Jews. That's just crazy.
Many political scientists believe that the "Mutually Assured Destruction" (or MAD) theory is a sufficient explanation as to why the Cold War never became a hot war, and why in general nuclear countries will never go to war with each other. The theory is based on the assumption that nuclear deterrence works because countries are rational actors. In the Cold War, there was a difference in ideologies; capitalism vs. communism. Today, we have a conflict not of ideology x vs. ideology y, but of Western ideology vs. religious extremism.
I believe that Iran is a rational actor, but I also believe that many westerners make the mistake of thinking that radical Islamists act according to the same rationales that they do. There are critical differences in the way elected officials in a liberal democratic country think, and the way religious extremists think. Many westerners don't understand this.
I'll explain why with Iran as an example. Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world, spending about $100 million annually on funding terrorism.
Does Iran think it would be rational to nuke Israel, despite the fact that Israel would likely nuke it back (i.e. MAD)? I fear yes. Especially since Iran can do it via its main proxy, Hezbollah. In a case such as this, who does Israel shoot back at? Iran? Lebanon? What if Hezbollah fires a nuclear weapon at Israel from Syria? Does Israel nuke Syria now? This might seem irrational to you, but it might not be irrational for a terrorist state that has religious goals. All of a sudden nuclear deterrence and the MAD theory aren't so comforting.
People say that Israel is hypocritical because it has nuclear weapons and yet does not want to allow another country to get nuclear weapons. And is America hypocritical for doing the same thing? "But at least America doesn't keep its nuclear program a secret!" So what? America actually used its nuclear weapons, and on civilian targets no less. It resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, mostly civilians. So if we're going down this route, then what moral right does America have to stop other countries from acquiring nukes? And yet it's somehow only Israel who is hypocritical.
The most important thing I'll write is this: Israel is facing an existential threat vis-à-vis a nuclear Iran.
Bibi's speech was spot on. He understands that Israel's survival is in jeopardy, so he diplomatically pleaded his case. He explained why the current deal is terrible, and then offered viable solutions. Even if Obama doesn't agree, at least Bibi can put pressure on him by firing up the resolve of members of Congress, and by swaying public opinion. People that don't like Israel will say that Israel is "biting the hand that feeds it." Should Bibi refrain from biting the hand that feeds Israel, or should he try to prevent a deal from happening that is a threat to his country's survival?
Once again: the threat to Israel is an existential one and nothing less than that. I won't even go into the rampant anti-semitism that's unfortunately prevalent not only in this thread, but also all over the western world. I don't mean to say that there aren't legitimate ways to criticize Israel, but blatant disregard for logic (e.g. criticizing a country for being concerned about its survival in the face of a radical Islamic dictatorship that has sworn to destroy it trying to get its hands on nuclear weapons) by intelligent people can only lead me to one conclusion.
Or maybe there's the "third side," as kaotic said, which is that you're not an anti-semite, you're just sick of all this, it's never going to end, etc. Well that's not new either. It's called buck passing. The world turned to the "third side" when it was battle weary after World War I. I'm talking about when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, when Italy used mustard gas on Ethiopia in 1935, and when Franco committed human atrocities in Spain around the same time, and no one did anything.
Hitler saw all this and knew that he too could get away with committing atrocities without any foreign interference. And he was right. Oops, I referenced the Holocaust again. Sorry, I know I'm not allowed to do that. Godwin's law and all.
So the third side isn't anything new or special. History has shown how it can be convenient to buck pass in the short term, but that in the long term it can have disastrous, global repercussions. But you still don't care. You're sick of all of it anyway. I have to ask you though, kaotic, even if you're sick of everything, why are you criticizing Netanyahu for being concerned about his country's existence?
You really think after all that work the Iranians are just going to hand over a nuke to Hezbo ? or any other terrorist group ? Give me a break.
Having a nuke to them is a another tool in the box, I don't ever see them using it, Isreal is the biggest power player there (if you can count Turkey). They would/want to light up Iran in a heartbeat. Iran isn't stupid come on man.
Apparently disagreeing with Bibi has been whittled down to being an anti-semite, not supporting isreal is being an anti-semite.
![[Image: dodgy.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/dodgy.gif)
This isn't the same as saying hey good old hitler won't REALLY deport and kill us all.
It isn't the same argument.
The third side - what I meant was, what the REAL story is. What is the actual TRUTH.
So complete sanctions and bringing Iran to it's knees a great idea right ?
Especially when the Iranian people more or less don't care for us or actually like us, whereas the Iranian government wants to see us dead.
Yeah let's piss of ALL the people there instead of just the heads of government.
Regardless if Iran gets nukes or not, Isreal needs someone to scream at for an external threat.....don't mind the Palestinians suffering right ?
Funny how Iran won so many hearts without doing any effort. It shows you how America and Israel don't need enemies besides themselves
Quote: (03-04-2015 07:01 PM)sandman972 Wrote:
No no dont worry we used it, while the biggest pussy of US history tries to save himself, we made sure that a dreamer like your president wont threaten our survival. It's all taken care of dont worry
You're a regular PR genius for Israel. Insulting, antagonizing and even threatening the people that give you billions.
@kaotic...define "Palestinian" inteligent one
@iknowexactly..ironic isn't it? I thank you for labelling me a genius. While I wouldn't push it that far I would say you are just on the far ens of the spectrum of uneducated, not to mention again, you have never been here. Dont act smart on subject you have no experience with, you will only get burned. If you want, Ill be with be with my sniper team in 2 weeks on the Gaza border, I'd be glad to talk about what's going on.
Sorry kaotic I for forgot an L as Im typing from a night club, ...please define what I requested befote I make a complete fool of you...this is fun.
Quote: (03-04-2015 06:59 PM)Orion Wrote:
Netanyahu
"Iran must never get nukes, but we can, because we are good guys and they are bad guys - according to us, ofc lol"
^This is really just not a good argument. In jest you write this, but you actually do stumble upon the truth.
Israel having nukes can't be compared to the potential threat of a nuclear Iran. Sure, Iran may want nukes just to keep people from fucking with them. That is a reasonable assumption. However, that's all it is. There's no way to know for sure.
If anyone knows the history of this country, Iran, you'd realize that the chance of Iran to do something psychotic with nukes....like passing them clandestinely along to Hamas for example....is way higher on the probability scale than a country like say, the US, or India or Israel of doing something psychotic with nukes.
Why is this a reasonable assumption? Because Iran has a long consistent track record of funding, supporting and exporting terrorism. They've proven they will supply arms and WEAPONS to terrorists who have done nothing more than KILL people in many many countries the past few decades. This, coupled with the fact that they explicitly state in , I think it's their constitution, that one of their tenets is the annihilation of Israel.
It's much easier to annihilate a country with thermonuclear bombs than it is with rockets and AK 47s and plastique.
Iran is literally an exporter of terrorism. That's their number one national product. Some countries export fine clothing and lamborghinis, some countries export top notch TVs and stereo equipment, some countries export agricultural goods.
Iran exports terrorism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_st..._terrorism
Bottom line - Iran with nukes is too unpredictable.
- One planet orbiting a star. Billions of stars in the galaxy. Billions of galaxies in the universe. Approach.
#BallsWin
I doubt this is a popular opinion on here and elsewhere but...I hope Iran does become a nuclear state.
Nobody touches a state with nuclear capability. How easy was it to go off on a jolly every time spring came round to invade someone you didn't like? it was pretty common.
Then the age of the bomb came and it suddenly dried up all forms of conquest, outside of nuclear states using their influence on others who had no means to defend themselves.
A joint US/Israel call for a disarmed Iran is like telling them to await the day they will suffer like Iraq, Syria, Libya and every other failed state the USA and NATO has involved itself in.
All because they are proven to fund and harbour terrorists, have chemical weapons and are a threat to Bob, his wife, 2 kids and some banker on Wall Street.
I'm sure the world will be a lot safer after the US and Nato pulverise Iran into dust, because it has worked remarkably well for every other nation we've brought "democracy" to.
Jesus christ, its like we're being led by a bunch of wolves to a field for slaughter. Who here wants to see a war in Iran? That would make Syria and iraq look like weekend warrior parties by comparison.
What happened when Syria was threatened by the US for being very very bad? Oh no Mr Assad! You're the enemy! We must remove you.
Thank god Russia doesn't take shit from the US or it would be a quagmire. The only thing keeping that country intact is Assad, Iran and the Shi'ite fighters. - All perceived enemies of us here in our comfy western homes.
Lets talk about Japan shall we? Their history is quite coloured and yet having being pacified by the allies in WWII they want to re-arm to nuclear level. I'm not making this up.
Their reasons are due to the Chinese threat. Would China touch Japan if they had nuclear capability? Would Japan invade China if it had the capability and China did not? I sincerely doubt Japan would be muzzled by the USA regardless of what rebuilding plan was put in place after the world war.
Would Ukraine be the stage for WW3 if it wasn't for nuclear weapons pointed at every single western city? Yes it would. In negotiations you are only as good as the weapon you wield.
A man with a sword does not negotiate with a man armed with a gun. The man with the gun will simply laugh and pull the trigger.
If both men had equal capability then the balance of power is acknowledged and negotiations can begin. Israels' xenophobia towards other countries needs to be put in its place with a rival power.
I do not want to see another war of "terrorism" rolled out because some banker and politician says so. The only way those fucking idiots pay attention and scarper back under their rocks is when some man has a very large weapon pointed at them.
Nobody touches a state with nuclear capability. How easy was it to go off on a jolly every time spring came round to invade someone you didn't like? it was pretty common.
Then the age of the bomb came and it suddenly dried up all forms of conquest, outside of nuclear states using their influence on others who had no means to defend themselves.
A joint US/Israel call for a disarmed Iran is like telling them to await the day they will suffer like Iraq, Syria, Libya and every other failed state the USA and NATO has involved itself in.
All because they are proven to fund and harbour terrorists, have chemical weapons and are a threat to Bob, his wife, 2 kids and some banker on Wall Street.
I'm sure the world will be a lot safer after the US and Nato pulverise Iran into dust, because it has worked remarkably well for every other nation we've brought "democracy" to.
Jesus christ, its like we're being led by a bunch of wolves to a field for slaughter. Who here wants to see a war in Iran? That would make Syria and iraq look like weekend warrior parties by comparison.
What happened when Syria was threatened by the US for being very very bad? Oh no Mr Assad! You're the enemy! We must remove you.
Thank god Russia doesn't take shit from the US or it would be a quagmire. The only thing keeping that country intact is Assad, Iran and the Shi'ite fighters. - All perceived enemies of us here in our comfy western homes.
Lets talk about Japan shall we? Their history is quite coloured and yet having being pacified by the allies in WWII they want to re-arm to nuclear level. I'm not making this up.
Their reasons are due to the Chinese threat. Would China touch Japan if they had nuclear capability? Would Japan invade China if it had the capability and China did not? I sincerely doubt Japan would be muzzled by the USA regardless of what rebuilding plan was put in place after the world war.
Would Ukraine be the stage for WW3 if it wasn't for nuclear weapons pointed at every single western city? Yes it would. In negotiations you are only as good as the weapon you wield.
A man with a sword does not negotiate with a man armed with a gun. The man with the gun will simply laugh and pull the trigger.
If both men had equal capability then the balance of power is acknowledged and negotiations can begin. Israels' xenophobia towards other countries needs to be put in its place with a rival power.
I do not want to see another war of "terrorism" rolled out because some banker and politician says so. The only way those fucking idiots pay attention and scarper back under their rocks is when some man has a very large weapon pointed at them.
Quote: (03-04-2015 07:22 PM)sandman972 Wrote:
Sorry kaotic I for forgot an L...please define what I requested befote I make a complete fool of you...this is fun.
See now you're just trolling and bringing everyone down to your level and insulting everyone who doesn't see your POV.
You're going to have to learn that not everyone is going to agree with you.
That maybe some things the IDF/Israel ARE doing, ARE bad. Sure plenty cases of good.
If you're going to keep insulting everyone then well, maybe this isn't the place for you.
Allegedly, you're on the ground in SF as part of a sniper team, I'd ask for you to log what you see, but I have a feeling you aren't going to be allowed to write about that or wont.
Quote: (03-04-2015 07:25 PM)robreke Wrote:
[quote='Orion' pid='971732' dateline='1425513578']
Bottom line - Iran with nukes is too unpredictable.
Can someone explain why hasn't Pakistan done this yet towards India ?
By that I mean why hasn't Pakistan snuck a nuke into india, their mortal enemy ?
They fund terrorism also (not to the extent as Iran).
@kaotic..would'nt trolling be someone such as yourself talking about a subject you have no clue about as oppose to someone that has seen it first hand. Just stop commenting you will get only be burned with facts...wait you still haven't answered my question...ah you don't know..its ok you can save yourself now by not responding
Quote: (03-04-2015 07:35 PM)sandman972 Wrote:
@kaotic..would'nt trolling be someone such as yourself talking about a subject you have no clue about as oppose to someone that has seen it first hand. Just stop commenting you will get only be burned with facts...wait you still haven't answered my question...ah you don't know..its ok you can save yourself now by not responding
LOL how would you know that I don't have any experience ? Had first hand accounts ? How would you know if I've ever visited the region or not ? How would you know anything ?
A little narrow minded to think that.
Only answering your questions are going to feed the troll.
You're welcome for my tax dollars.
![[Image: heart.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/heart.gif)
kaotic, I see that we simply disagree on some fundamental things. I'll try to address your major points evenhandedly rather than get into a tit-for-tat heated debate.
You think that Iran would never hand over a nuke to Hezbollah, but I think they would. I presented my arguments as to why, obviously you disagree with them.
In regards to you claiming that I'm blowing anti-semitism out of proportion, I tried to make clear that I don't think criticizing Israel is anti-semitic in and of itself. I also don't mean to say that you are hiding something, and that among your closest friends you would readily say that you hate Jews, but here you are censoring yourself.
I'll reiterate part of what I said: Criticizing Israel, a democratic country, for being concerned about its survival in the face of a radical Islamic dictatorship that has sworn to destroy it trying to get its hands on nuclear weapons is anti-semitism in my eyes. I think that Israel is held to an absurd, unmeetable standard that no other country is held to, and all of this in the face of existential threats.
So how does this happen that I don't think you're consciously being anti-semitic, but I think that you are expressing anti-semitic views? I think that in many parts of the western world there is a societal reinforcement that is so subtle that most don't even realize it's there, even if they're affected by it. It results in holding Israel to a ridiculous standard. I call it anti-semitism. Perhaps it's caused by the "useful idiot" phenomenon. I'm not calling you an idiot, that's just the name of the expression. It's a "term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause."
So there. It's interesting because I know that most Palestinians would claim the opposite and say that the world is pro-Israel and racist against Arabs, but I digress.
Also, for clarity's sake, I'm not saying that everyone is affected by this "societal reenforcement," or that everyone who isn't Jewish is an anti-semite. Definitely not. But I believe that it does affect a lot of people.
As for your sucker punch at the end about Palestinian suffering, that's a legitimate topic of conversation and I could write the Israeli side of the argument. I call it a sucker punch though because it's not the subject of this thread nor of what I was talking about. I'll just say that my heart goes out to any innocent human being that suffers, but the suffering of the Palestinians is not Israel's fault. I could write a lengthy explanation as to why, but I feel like it would derail the thread. PM if you like.
You think that Iran would never hand over a nuke to Hezbollah, but I think they would. I presented my arguments as to why, obviously you disagree with them.
In regards to you claiming that I'm blowing anti-semitism out of proportion, I tried to make clear that I don't think criticizing Israel is anti-semitic in and of itself. I also don't mean to say that you are hiding something, and that among your closest friends you would readily say that you hate Jews, but here you are censoring yourself.
I'll reiterate part of what I said: Criticizing Israel, a democratic country, for being concerned about its survival in the face of a radical Islamic dictatorship that has sworn to destroy it trying to get its hands on nuclear weapons is anti-semitism in my eyes. I think that Israel is held to an absurd, unmeetable standard that no other country is held to, and all of this in the face of existential threats.
So how does this happen that I don't think you're consciously being anti-semitic, but I think that you are expressing anti-semitic views? I think that in many parts of the western world there is a societal reinforcement that is so subtle that most don't even realize it's there, even if they're affected by it. It results in holding Israel to a ridiculous standard. I call it anti-semitism. Perhaps it's caused by the "useful idiot" phenomenon. I'm not calling you an idiot, that's just the name of the expression. It's a "term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause."
So there. It's interesting because I know that most Palestinians would claim the opposite and say that the world is pro-Israel and racist against Arabs, but I digress.
Also, for clarity's sake, I'm not saying that everyone is affected by this "societal reenforcement," or that everyone who isn't Jewish is an anti-semite. Definitely not. But I believe that it does affect a lot of people.
As for your sucker punch at the end about Palestinian suffering, that's a legitimate topic of conversation and I could write the Israeli side of the argument. I call it a sucker punch though because it's not the subject of this thread nor of what I was talking about. I'll just say that my heart goes out to any innocent human being that suffers, but the suffering of the Palestinians is not Israel's fault. I could write a lengthy explanation as to why, but I feel like it would derail the thread. PM if you like.
Quote: (03-04-2015 08:00 PM)RealityCheck Wrote:That's a lot of wasted words to essentially say.
Snip.
"I'm not calling you anti-semitic but you're anti-semitic. I'm not calling you an idiot but you're an idiot."
Speaking of propaganda isn't this the slur that Israel pulls out whenever it doesn't get it's way.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)