Bow Down Before Iran?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-22 01:56:56

If the International Rules say, Jew must die, and that its ok for Palestinians to kill them, but not ok for the Israeli Jew to defend himself,
The international rules say that no people should be occupied and his territory taken by foreign forces.

Didn't you say previously that you were an anarchist? I don't see why an anarchist should insist that the United States obeys any rules, international of otherwise.
The whole point of anarchy is to have no rules and have each nation do whatever it wants regardless of consequences. Today, the world is pretty much an anarchist's paradise, we have wars, nations ignoring the UN and obeying international rules only when they feel like it, and you stick up for Iran when it wants to build nuclear weapons. So whats the point of rules if only the United States obeys them and nobody else does.

What you have against evangelicals and Jews I don't know,
Both say that Israel is THE elected people, therefore has superiority over other peoples.

Islam is an evangelical religion, they attempt to spread their faith and convert nonbelievers. Judaism is a non-evangelical religion, they don't attempt to spread their faith except through bearing of offspring and passing on their religions teachings to the next generation, but Jews don't actively seek converts, and seeking converts is the definition of evangilization.

DonPanic · 2006-11-22 09:42:20

If the International Rules say, Jew must die, and that its ok for Palestinians to kill them, but not ok for the Israeli Jew to defend himself,
The international rules say that no people should be occupied and his territory taken by foreign forces.
Didn't you say previously that you were an anarchist? I don't see why an anarchist should insist that the United States obeys any rules, international of otherwise.(...)So whats the point of rules if only the United States obeys them and nobody else does.

Rather an anarchist. Anarchists do obey laws as long as laws aren't opposed to ethic.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-22 14:03:50

If the International Rules say, Jew must die, and that its ok for Palestinians to kill them, but not ok for the Israeli Jew to defend himself,
The international rules say that no people should be occupied and his territory taken by foreign forces.
Didn't you say previously that you were an anarchist? I don't see why an anarchist should insist that the United States obeys any rules, international of otherwise.(...)So whats the point of rules if only the United States obeys them and nobody else does.
Rather an anarchist. Anarchists do obey laws as long as laws aren't opposed to ethic.

an.ar.chy 1. Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
[b]The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language - third edition - copyright (c) 1992 by the Houghton Mifflin Company.

Seems to me, that with that definition in mind, an Anarchist wouldn't support the existance of the UN or any government, so why would one insist that the United States obey UN rules, if he doesn't even think that the UN or any country has the right to exist?

dicktice · 2006-11-22 21:57:38

First it was Islamists. Now it's Anarchists. Give it a rest, guys.

DonPanic · 2006-11-23 07:50:37

First it was Islamists. Now it's Anarchists. Give it a rest, guys.

Sorry, but Tom Kalbfuss acts as the most vicious lawyers, when he has no more arguments, he discusses event the words used by opponents, as he considers that the main isn't to have rationnal arguments, but having the last word is being right.

"The first modern systematic exponent of anarchism was William Godwin. . . . Strongly influenced by the sentiments of the French Revolution, he argued that since man is a rational being he must not be hampered in the exercise of his pure reason.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-23 10:41:27

First it was Islamists. Now it's Anarchists. Give it a rest, guys.
Sorry, but Tom Kalbfuss acts as the most vicious lawyers, when he has no more arguments, he discusses event the words used by opponents, as he considers that the main isn't to have rationnal arguments, but having the last word is being right.

"The first modern systematic exponent of anarchism was William Godwin. . . . Strongly influenced by the sentiments of the French Revolution, he argued that since man is a rational being he must not be hampered in the exercise of his pure reason.

Its right there in the dictionary, I didn't make up the definition. Anarchy is the total collapse of civil order, anarchy is everyman for himself. anarchy is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater and people trampling each other to get to the exits! That is what most people mean when they say anarchy.

I heard that an anarchist assassinated the Russian Czar, the one before Nicolaus II, he was a reformer, wanted to democratize Russia in the 19th Century and some anarchist assassinated him simply because he wanted chaos and confusion, he was replaced with the more autocratic Nicolaus II. I don't know how you could get more evil than that. If it weren't for that anarchist assassin, Russia might well be on its way toward a Parlimentary Democracy with a constitutional monarch instead of the dictator system it has today.

DonPanic · 2006-11-23 12:45:30

Its right there in the dictionary, I didn't make up the definition. Anarchy is the total collapse of civil order, anarchy is everyman for himself. anarchy is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater and people trampling each other to get to the exits! That is what most people mean when they say anarchy.

I sit upon "most of the people" understandings of a single word !
You're just nitpicking on a word to avoid the main, which is that Israel does'nt comply to international laws, steals day after day palestinian soils, confine a whole people under unacceptable conditions of living while complaining that peoples kept behind barbed wires like in a huge concentration camp revolt against this pressure.
When peoples complain that they suffered nazi barbary, they don't inflict such pains to others.

Now this is about Iran, every Europeans agree that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, has full rights to have electric nuclear power plants as soon as it complies to IAEA rules.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-24 09:19:36

Its right there in the dictionary, I didn't make up the definition. Anarchy is the total collapse of civil order, anarchy is everyman for himself. anarchy is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater and people trampling each other to get to the exits! That is what most people mean when they say anarchy.
I sit upon "most of the people" understandings of a single word !

Instead of making up new definitions for the word anarchy so you can call yourself an anarchist, why don't you just look in the dictionary and find another word which describes you? If you are an advocate of chaos and confusion and pandemonium as well, then you are an anarchist.

You're just nitpicking on a word to avoid the main, which is that Israel does'nt comply to international laws, steals day after day palestinian soils, confine a whole people under unacceptable conditions of living while complaining that peoples kept behind barbed wires like in a huge concentration camp revolt against this pressure.

Well maybe if the Israelis chafe under International Law, why don't you recognize that maybe they are just anarchists as well? An anarchist would say that if there is any law you don't like, just ignore it. If you want something steal it, and might makes right, those are positions held by various anarchists. To an anarchist war is a natural state of things, but you must remember that other people can war against you as well as you against them.

When peoples complain that they suffered nazi barbary, they don't inflict such pains to others.

You act like there is a difference between that the Palestinians are doing to Jews and what the Nazis did.

Now this is about Iran, every Europeans agree that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, has full rights to have electric nuclear power plants as soon as it complies to IAEA rules.

Why doesn't somebody just built a nuclear power plant outside their country, and run wires into their country and the Iranians can pay for it. There is alot of existing nuclear technology that would be cheaper than the Iranians developing their own, and then the Iranains can have their "nuclear" electricity without the rest of the world having to worry about their developing nuclear bombs.

DonPanic · 2006-11-27 09:31:18

Well maybe if the Israelis chafe under International Law, why don't you recognize that maybe they are just anarchists as well?

Because I ignore laws which go against ethic.
Bombing civilians is not ethic, therefore I condemn Israel as well as palestinian terrorists.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast … n.nuclear/

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-28 08:52:35

Well maybe if the Israelis chafe under International Law, why don't you recognize that maybe they are just anarchists as well?
Because I ignore laws which go against ethic.
Bombing civilians is not ethic, therefore I condemn Israel as well as palestinian terrorists.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast … n.nuclear/

For the Israelis, self-defense is a solid ethic, and world laws that are not enforced and which say they Israelis effectively cannot defend themselves are ignored. You see with anarchy there is also not much agreement on what's right and what's wrong. If all anarchy means to you that the whole world does what you tell it to do, then that's not anarchy.

DonPanic · 2006-11-29 07:53:44

Well maybe if the Israelis chafe under International Law, why don't you recognize that maybe they are just anarchists as well?
Because I ignore laws which go against ethic.
Bombing civilians is not ethic, therefore I condemn Israel as well as palestinian terrorists.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast … n.nuclear/
For the Israelis, self-defense is a solid ethic, and world laws that are not enforced and which say they Israelis effectively cannot defend themselves are ignored.

Ehtic is not stealing palestinian territory !

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-29 11:19:46

Because I ignore laws which go against ethic.
Bombing civilians is not ethic, therefore I condemn Israel as well as palestinian terrorists.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast … n.nuclear/
For the Israelis, self-defense is a solid ethic, and world laws that are not enforced and which say they Israelis effectively cannot defend themselves are ignored.
Ehtic is not stealing palestinian territory !

So if someone steals my wallet in a crowd, I can go on a shooting spree, is that it? You equate property theft with murder! Do you live in a society where they execute all thieves? Do you believe in the Death Penalty? You seem to believe in the Death Penalty for Jews, don't you. Now if someone can be executed for property theft without trial or jury by any individual who happens to be Palestinian, don't you think equally any Jew who's had a relative murdered by a Palestinian can seek his own justice, with his gun? If you apply this kind of justice then you must apply it equally. If a theft warrents the victim to go execute anybody he wants, and that is what the Palestinians do, then the same system applies to any Jew in this country who thinks he's been wronged. So how can you as an anarchist find anything wrong with what's going on in Israel or the Middle East? It seems a blood bath is what you want, so I wouldn't begrudge the Israelis the right to participate. It isn't fair, the Israelis have better weapons, well anarchy isn't fair, it is just random, and the thing about anarchy is that it never lasts, there is always someone who imposes order in the end. I don't know why you complain about Israeli actions, it is just war after all, war is chaos, and war is anarchy, maybe its not fair for the Palestinians, but then again, no one made them attack the Israelis, it was their decision, and now they reap the consequences.

As for theft of land, it is merely a case of the theft of stolen property. I don't suppose the Palestinians have the deed or the land title for this land. I didn't think so, the Jews say their ancestors lived on this land, and the Palestinians have no right to tell them otherwise because they can't prove they own the land either. If they go on a shooting spree, then the Israelis are going to win, and their is no reason to restrain the Israelis, as it is not to their advantage to be so restrained. Under a system of anarchy, might equals right after all, there is no authority to say who is wrong. So I say, let them fight it out, and w3hen someone loses the War is over. Peace is only a tactic for the losing side to recover from their last fight, regroup and fight again. Since the Palestinians are so insincere about wanting peace, I don't see why the Israelis should give them a break. I predict that the Palestinians through their shenanegans will get another Likud government into power in Israel on an "I told you so" platform, and this time there will be no letup in the fighting. Olmert tried giving them land and it didn't work, he listend to what people like you had to say, but as you demostrate you don't have their best interests at heart, so why should they listen to you?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-03-23 07:34:59

Iran seizes 15 British Navy personnel

Iranian forces seized 15 British Royal Navy personnel who had searched a merchant ship on Friday, Britain said, triggering a diplomatic crisis.

Britain said the incident took place in Iraqi waters, where it routinely boards merchant vessels with United Nations permission to search them. The UK Foreign Office summoned Iran's ambassador and demanded the immediate, safe release of the personnel.
"At approximately 10.30am Iraqi time this morning [Friday], 15 British naval personnel, engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters ... were seized by Iranian naval vessels," the ministry said.[/

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-23 07:50:14

Iran seizes 15 British Navy personnel
Iranian forces seized 15 British Royal Navy personnel who had searched a merchant ship on Friday, Britain said, triggering a diplomatic crisis.
Britain said the incident took place in Iraqi waters, where it routinely boards merchant vessels with United Nations permission to search them. The UK Foreign Office summoned Iran's ambassador and demanded the immediate, safe release of the personnel.
"At approximately 10.30am Iraqi time this morning [Friday], 15 British naval personnel, engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters ... were seized by Iranian naval vessels," the ministry said.

Hostage taking is what Iran is known for, that's how they started their revolution after all, they take diplomats hostage and soldiers hostage, they invade Iraqi territorial waters, what I fail to understand is why it is only a diplomatic crisis, we should have been at war with these people a long time ago, they have long since supplied us with sufficient cause. The Iranians have shown their utter contempt for diplomats when they took ours hostage in 1979, so I don't see why we should send them any more. The Iranians used military force against us, so we should use military force against them!

dicktice · 2007-03-26 16:50:57

... While the Brithish look on, eh, Tom?

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-26 23:51:55

... While the British look on, eh, Tom?

We shouldn't let the POWs the enemy holds influence our military decisions. We didn't during World War II, so why should we do so now. The Germans have executed a number of American POWs during World War II, but we didn't send diplomats over or sign a peace treaty with them to gain their release. The position the 15 British Soldiers are in is that same as many of our allied soldiers who were captured by an uncivilized enemy during World War II. The important thing is to defeat that enemy, not first priority to do anything to gain the release of the POWs. The problem is we have this country that goes around kidnapping our soldiers, and that act is an act of War. The mistake the British are making is to worry about their release of their soldiers rather than to concentrate on defeating the enemy that took them. We've lost alot more than 15 soldiers in this war, if 15 more are executed by the enemy in an unlawful act, that's not going to make a hell of alot of difference. The best thing for the majority of our soldiers is to defeat the enemy so they can go home. The best thing we can do for our captured soldiers is not to make them into valuable barganing chips that the enemy can threaten to gain leverage on us. Soldiers are necessarily expendable while doing their jobs as they are in any war. The important thing in any war is to win while securing the release or safety of our soldiers is a secondary goal after that. In other words, we should not give up on the war just because some of our soldiers are captured, it is a provocative act, something that justifies expanding the War against Iran, but if we go to war against Iran, our goal should be to defeat them, that is where our priority should be. We should not talk to an enemy that kidnaps our soldiers. We should send those diplomats home and bring them out only when the Iranians wish to discuss their surrender.

clark · 2007-03-28 06:12:29

by the same logic, the US should have invaded China when they imprisoned the US crew of the intel plane that had to make an emergency landing on their soil.

But George Bush cowered and the Chinese terroists won.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-28 09:43:31

by the same logic, the US should have invaded China when they imprisoned the US crew of the intel plane that had to make an emergency landing on their soil.
But George Bush cowered and the Chinese terroists won.

If they are going to go into international waters and kidnap our soldiers and claim they've violated their territory, then we should go to war as that is an act of war. Well of course the soldiers would be violating their territory if they drag them in at gunpoint what do you expect? Do you want the Chinese military to kidnap you force you onto their territory and then arrest you for trespassing? Maybe the United States should go around kidnapping people they don't like, tie them up and bring them into the United States and then arrest them for illegal entry, What do you think? We had a similar situation with the Barbary Pirates during the Thomas Jefferson Administration, he sent the Marines to the shores of Tripoli to put an end to this Piracy, what the Iranians are doing is no different!

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-05-28 14:23:46

Meeting between US and Iran begins in Iraq
http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n113410

Mars_B4_Moon · 2008-01-08 00:57:14

Iran : " WE WILL BLOW YOU UP "

Iranian boats reportedly threaten three US Navy war vessels

Cosgriff said that after the radio exchange, two of the boats dropped white boxes into the water, in the path of the Ingraham. The boxes floated but did not explode. After about 30 minutes, Cosgriff said, the Iranians retreated northward, toward their territorial waters.

Armed Iranian speedboats menaced three US warships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, radioing a threat to blow them up and sending tensions flaring, US officials said Monday.

But Iran played down the encounter, which came just days before President George W. Bush travels to the region to boost the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and assure allies that Washington continues to view Iran as a threat.

Five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats swarmed three US Navy ships as they transited the strategic Strait of Hormuz, radioing a threat to blow them up, a Pentagon official said yesterday.

"I'm coming at you and you will blow up in a couple of minutes," the official quoted the radio transmission as saying.

The official said no shots were fired during the encounter, which occurred in international waters as the ships transited the Strait of Hormuz.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the incident was a reminder of the unpredictability of the Iranian government and said he hoped that Tehran would disavow the action of the boats.

"I found the action by the Iranians quite troubling, actually, and a matter of real concern," Gates said shortly after touring the amphibious assault ship New Orleans in San Diego and examining its defenses against small boats. "This is a very volatile area. And the risk of an incident, and an incident escalating, is real."

Senior Pentagon officials said they were puzzled about the purpose of the confrontation. A military official said officers were still trying to determine whether the Iranians were attempting to attack and were thwarted, or if the confrontation was designed to test American defenses.

Terraformer · 2008-01-11 13:39:39

I'm starting a new thread about Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and Jordan (I refuse to call it Israel and Palastine as Palastine is the area, meaning Israelis are palestinians as well.)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-07-14 09:47:09

Four Iranian intelligence operatives charged with plotting to kidnap author living in Brooklyn
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fo … n-n1273890

Iranians 'plotted to kidnap US, Canada and UK targets'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57830677

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-09-10 09:50:29

The Iranian has a Case of Missile Madness
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo … ess-193365

Was the nation that supports fatwas drawing taboo paintings and cartoons back in the day?
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_imag … c_mo_full/

Iran president calls for election in Afghanistan
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/04/ … ghanistan/

'Taliban has now taken over the Norwegian Embassy in Kabul. Say they will return it to us later.'
https://twitter.com/NorwayAmbIran/statu … 3737028608

Iran hails attack on ‘terrorist’ sites in Iraqi Kurdistan
https://www.rt.com/news/534389-iran-ira … kurdistan/

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-12-12 14:18:07

Satellite pics suggest Iranian space launch coming
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/satellite-ima … 42080.html

'One more (dark) thought: we can't rule out the possibility that Iran has already decided it won't do another deal with the US, regardless of its details.'
https://twitter.com/Nick_L_Miller/statu … 0872528905

Satellite images, expert suggest Iranian space launch coming
https://apnews.com/article/72a010e26d3f … 7c1b3e51d5

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2021-12-12 14:19:25)

SpaceNut · 2021-12-12 14:31:17

Just saw the photo that appears to be a vertical launch building and rails to move it outside for launch.
Its one thing if the rocket capability is used for attacking neighbors and another thing if used for peace.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2006-11-22 01:56:56

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#227 2006-11-22 09:42:20

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#228 2006-11-22 14:03:50

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#229 2006-11-22 21:57:38

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#230 2006-11-23 07:50:37

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#231 2006-11-23 10:41:27

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#232 2006-11-23 12:45:30

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#233 2006-11-24 09:19:36

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#234 2006-11-27 09:31:18

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#235 2006-11-28 08:52:35

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#236 2006-11-29 07:53:44

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#237 2006-11-29 11:19:46

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#238 2007-03-23 07:34:59

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#239 2007-03-23 07:50:14

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#240 2007-03-26 16:50:57

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#241 2007-03-26 23:51:55

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#242 2007-03-28 06:12:29

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#243 2007-03-28 09:43:31

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#244 2007-05-28 14:23:46

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#245 2008-01-08 00:57:14

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#246 2008-01-11 13:39:39

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#247 2021-07-14 09:47:09

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#248 2021-09-10 09:50:29

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#249 2021-12-12 14:18:07

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#250 2021-12-12 14:31:17

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

Board footer