Support NeoGAF

[maharg]

I wouldn't be so sure. I wrote a long-ass post and clicked preview, only to be faced with "Queue jumpers get dumped" at the top left, and a message saying I followed an invalid link or whatever. WTF? I don't feel like retyping that so I may postpone it to later.

Odd. Did you have to log back in after that happened?

 

[Macam]

The American reaction to Iran's other two 'axis of evil partners' gives the lie to that stament. Iraq has no nuclear weapons and gets invaded despite rolling over and showing its belly to the U.N weapons inspectors; N.Korea does and doesn't despite being belligerent and non-cooperative. That alone is enough to convince me and I would imagine Iran that the only effective way to prevent an American invasion is nuclear deterrance.

Obtaining nuclear weapons is only more likely to aggravate this administration in particular; despite the complete sham that heralded the US invasion into Iraq, Iran isn't likely to be targeted for invasion or military strikes in so long as they can assuage fears of obtaining nuclear weapons. Bush and hardliners in the administration will continue to pressure Iran (and Syria) to reform and most likely be openly hostile to them, but that's to be expected.

 

[Shompola]

This should surprise no one. Israel destroyed the plant in Iraq in 1981. Israel will handle these sorts of things long before the US even puts a strike package in the region.

Correction.. Iran was the one doing the initial attack wich was not successful. A few months after that attack israel attacked it with the help of iranian intelligence. All of that is documented. Besides that attack was far different than any attack Israel is doing now. Iraq was engaged in a war, Iran is not. Iran is prepared for an attack, Iraq was not, Iran's has several nuclear facilities spread all over the country, Iraq did not. Besides the Bushehr nuclear facility is the least important one for Iran and there is rumous that they have a couple of S-300's stationed there.

Another correction, no defence has been successfully tested against a ballistic missile as the Shahab 3. There is a great chance that Iran can successfully bombard Israel.

And last but not least... who is the unstable one? Was it Iran who used WMD in the Iran/Iraq war? No it was Iraq with the help from the western regimes.

 

[Azih]

Obtaining nuclear weapons is only more likely to aggravate this administration in particular;

Just like North Korea is going to be invaded next month. You're ignoring the experience of the two countries closest to Iran in the Bushites 'axis of evil' view.

despite the complete sham that heralded the US invasion into Iraq,

While you may be willing to dismiss that whole con job, Iran isn't. because frankly Iraq was doing a whole lot to assuage fears of having WMD but y'know Bush's drumbeat of war deafened enough Americans to let the war start. What a country *does* doesn't matter to Americans as much as what they *think* it's doing, and Bush knows how to conduct that like a maestro.

Iran isn't likely to be targeted for invasion or military strikes in so long as they can assuage fears of obtaining nuclear weapons.

See above.

Bush and hardliners in the administration will continue to pressure Iran (and Syria) to reform and most likely be openly hostile to them, but that's to be expected.

Yes and judging by North Korea, if Iran had nuclear weapons then America would by and large negotiate with them instead of threatening them.

 

[AssMan]

Don't forget Israel bought 500 bunker busters from the US.


I would agree on an attack on Iran IF, and I mean IF there was photographic evidence that Iran has nukes. All this BS speculation crap from the U.S. gets me really annoyed.

 

[peedi]

Except of course Israel is both stable and a democracy, and Iran is neither. The whole "we're all equal, let's let everybody have nuclear weapons" is rather simplistic.

A "democracy" that subjugates the Palestinians in a system bearing a remarkable likeness to South Africa's now dissolved apartheid. I'd say Iran is more stable than Israel.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

i am just wondering is a nother missle lands on a nuclear missle will it be a huge nuclear explosion?


yes stupid question i know.

 

[ShadowRed]

Correction.. Iran was the one doing the initial attack wich was not successful. A few months after that attack israel attacked it with the help of iranian intelligence. All of that is documented. Besides that attack was far different than any attack Israel is doing now. Iraq was engaged in a war, Iran is not. Iran is prepared for an attack, Iraq was not, Iran's has several nuclear facilities spread all over the country, Iraq did not. Besides the Bushehr nuclear facility is the least important one for Iran and there is rumous that they have a couple of S-300's stationed there.

Also if I'm not mistaken the guy running the radar system that covered the area of Iraq that their reactor was in, was a spy, who when the Isrealis attacked, turned off the radar system allowing the Isrealis to just fly in a attack without warning.

Another correction, no defence has been successfully tested against a ballistic missile as the Shahab 3. There is a great chance that Iran can successfully bombard Israel.

And last but not least... who is the unstable one? Was it Iran who used WMD in the Iran/Iraq war? No it was Iraq with the help from the western regimes.

Well it depends on what story you want to believe. The US, through the CIA claimed that the Iranians used chemical weapons, for 5 plus years I believe, until the US wanted to get the world behind attacking Iraq for invading Kuwaite. Then suddenly the story mysteriously changed and it was Saddam who gassed the town. No one in the media seemed to want to challenge this inconsitancy.

 

[FightyF]

Iran is a hostile regime to Western interests, pursuing nuclear technology, and, as the accusations suggest, a supporter of terrorism. It's no surprise that the administration is bothered by Iran; and given their focus on stabilizing and reforming the Middle East, it's easy to see why they've left North Korea on the backburner (a move I strongly disgaree with).

Iran was actually VERY friendly to the US during the Clinton era...it was only until Bush came into power, and only AFTER making the "Axis of Evil" comments did Iran become "the enemy".

If one of the founding principles of the "democracy" of "Israel" was the utter destruction of every Muslim nation in the Middle East, then there would be something to talk about.

One of the founding principles of "democracy" of "Israel" DOES include the removal of Palestinians. If the Palestinians return to their homes, Jews would be outnumbered by Christians and Muslims, thus no longer being a Jewish state under democracy. This is HUGE part of the Middle East crisis!

A "democracy" that subjugates the Palestinians in a system bearing a remarkable likeness to South Africa's now dissolved apartheid. I'd say Iran is more stable than Israel.

Kind of funny since it's true...a Christian/Muslim Arab is a second class citizen in Israel, whereas in Iran, a Jew is treated equally. Look at Benji.

 

[fse]

Go Israel, kick those Arab's ass'. :lol

 

[Nintendo Ate My Children]

Iran was actually VERY friendly to the US during the Clinton era...it was only until Bush came into power, and only AFTER making the "Axis of Evil" comments did Iran become "the enemy".

Are you nuts?

One of the founding principles of "democracy" of "Israel" DOES include the removal of Palestinians. If the Palestinians return to their homes, Jews would be outnumbered by Christians and Muslims, thus no longer being a Jewish state under democracy. This is HUGE part of the Middle East crisis!

Removing Palestinians from Israel is not what I was referring to. But thanks for pointing out that there is some sort of squabble over territory going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I wasn't aware of that.

Bottom line: I don't support the right of a backwards theocracy to have nuclear weapons. Never have, never will. It just strikes me as a bad idea. Maybe I'm crazy.

 

[FightyF]

Are you nuts?

Whoa! Time for someone to hit the library!

It's amazing how Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech somehow blanked out everybody's memory of the prior 4 years!

Removing Palestinians from Israel is not what I was referring to. But thanks for pointing out that there is some sort of squabble over territory going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I wasn't aware of that.

There's a difference between ethnic cleansing and "squabble for territory". What occurred since the birth of Israel has been the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Now there are millions of Palestinians who won't be allowed to return, because to maintain a "democratic" Jewish State, you will require more Jews than non-Jews.

(In recent years, Israel hasn't been pursuing a policy of "ethnic cleansing" and you can debate whether they did it intentionally or not...all we know is that the end result is almost 2 million displaced Palestinians who will never be allowed to return.)

This is why you see few...VERY few Israelis looking at a one state solution. A two state solution, one that maintains a Jewish state, and one that is Palestinian, is far more desireable for them.

Which goes back to the point you made...Israel's democracy RELIES on making sure that Palestinians are kept to the number they are at now, in Israel. Controlling (whether by explusion, or simply not letting them enter the country) the population is key to the survival of a Jewish State. Ask any Israeli, ask any Jew.

Bottom line: I don't support the right of a backwards theocracy to have nuclear weapons. Never have, never will. It just strikes me as a bad idea. Maybe I'm crazy.

You label them as backwards theocracy, but in reality they aren't that much worse than the many other countries. The US has nuclear weapons as well...so would you consider that crazy? I mean, the US has done some "backwards" things recently, haven't they? The US can be interpreted as a theocracy by some as well, judging by how important one social issue was during the last election...obviously it's not full fledged, but it has elements.

Labelling nations as this or that, is key in promoting an agenda of war. Iran has never recently threatened other nations...the Bush Administration has. Iran has never recently ignored the Geneva Conventions for it's own interests...while the Bush Administration has. Iran has never recently pursued a global policy of secret arrests and use of torture on citizens other than it's own (besides one Iranian-Canadian reporter beaten to death, but again, it's not a global policy).

Countries like Israel are allowed to have Nuclear weapons, because they are the US's allies. As we know, an American ally would never attack the US. Well, what's stopping Iran from becoming a US ally? Bush. He's the one who started breaking off relations, and then destroying them completely.

 

[android]

I really don't want to get back into this thread but I was wondering what you guys who believe Iran is a dangerous nation, believe would happen if they did get a nuclear weapon? I believe their desire is in response to the "Axis of Evil" comments and the invasion of Iraq. I also believe that both these countries want these weapons as a deterrent against a US invasion or in the event of their collapse, a avenging tool. I think that once Iran and North Korea saw this they restarted their weapons programs. It's is interesting to note that both of these countries restarted their weapons programs after or near the fall of Saddam. That should tell you something.
Do you really believe that if Iran had a nuclear weapon tomorrow (Mon) that by Friday, Tel Aviv would go up in a mushroom cloud?

 

[Shompola]

Also if I'm not mistaken the guy running the radar system that covered the area of Iraq that their reactor was in, was a spy, who when the Isrealis attacked, turned off the radar system allowing the Isrealis to just fly in a attack without warning.










Well it depends on what story you want to believe. The US, through the CIA claimed that the Iranians used chemical weapons, for 5 plus years I believe, until the US wanted to get the world behind attacking Iraq for invading Kuwaite. Then suddenly the story mysteriously changed and it was Saddam who gassed the town. No one in the media seemed to want to challenge this inconsitancy.

Ohh please there is no evidence that Iran used chemical weapons even once when there are several documented ones that prove that Iraq used it against Iran and in Halabja. A lot of this evidence was also presented by UN so I personally don't know why people believe the bullshit that Iran used chemical weapons. So you see there is no what story to believe. If you want to be a fool and believe in theories that can't be backed up, please be my guest, I mean there are people who believe in santa aswell.

 

[Shompola]

I really don't want to get back into this thread but I was wondering what you guys who believe Iran is a dangerous nation, believe would happen if they did get a nuclear weapon? I believe their desire is in response to the "Axis of Evil" comments and the invasion of Iraq. I also believe that both these countries want these weapons as a deterrent against a US invasion or in the event of their collapse, a avenging tool. I think that once Iran and North Korea saw this they restarted their weapons programs. It's is interesting to note that both of these countries restarted their weapons programs after or near the fall of Saddam. That should tell you something.
Do you really believe that if Iran had a nuclear weapon tomorrow (Mon) that by Friday, Tel Aviv would go up in a mushroom cloud?

Umm USA and others that are sceptic towards Iran and its nuclear program aren't afraid of Iran the regime using nuclear weapons. They are afraid of Iran supplying terrorist networks, political parties and other "unstable" countries with technology obtained when constructing the nuclear bomb. They are simple afraid of groups such as hizbollah and Hamas obtaining the weapons. Far fetched? Maybe, maybe not.. Iran has supplied them with weapons several times before.. However we don't know if Iran also itends to supply them with nuclear technology.

 

[Shompola]

i am just wondering is a nother missle lands on a nuclear missle will it be a huge nuclear explosion?


yes stupid question i know.

Most likely not even if the nuclear fuel was installed. You need to have more things to trigger a nuclear explosion that nuclear fuel. However of course radiation would be a problem. But it does not matter in the case of Bushehr as the nuclear fuel as not been installed yet and isn't anywhere close to the nuclear plant. I personally don't understand what Israel will gain by bombarding it. Iran can still make "the bomb". The Bushehr nuclear plant isn't important in any way. Israel has most likely planned to attack the other nuclear facilities... but I believe attacking them is much much harder especially with airplanes.

 

[android]

Umm USA and others that are sceptic towards Iran and its nuclear program aren't afraid of Iran the regime using nuclear weapons. They are afraid of Iran supplying terrorist networks, political parties and other "unstable" countries with technology obtained when constructing the nuclear bomb. They are simple afraid of groups such as hizbollah and Hamas obtaining the weapons. Far fetched? Maybe, maybe not.. Iran has supplied them with weapons several times before.. However we don't know if Iran also itends to supply them with nuclear technology.

Yeah but they should be far more worried about North Korea selling them. They are the ones more likely to sell. Sure Iran could supply terrorists but personally I think it is more likey though that they want one to ward off a US invasion.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

And lets not forget that ICBMs *became* a weapon of deterrent. Those weapons were developed to actually be used and only after they were built up in large numbers did they become weapons of deterrence. There was a time where there were very real opportunities for those weapons to be used, and they are always 'on the table' should the situation warrant it.

True, that was the case in the Cold War after much negotiations between the USA and the USSR; Iran is a different altogether. The ayatollahs are facing a nasty situation with more than 50% of the country not only under 20 but also nudging pro-Western at an alarming rate. Once more and more of those youngsters hit voting age and get into politics, that means the hardliners will have to start forcing things far more at home and abroard via shows of power, ie, nukes, selling them like Shompola mentioned, or even the mere threat of possibly them.

 

[ShadowRed]

Ohh please there is no evidence that Iran used chemical weapons even once when there are several documented ones that prove that Iraq used it against Iran and in Halabja. A lot of this evidence was also presented by UN so I personally don't know why people believe the bullshit that Iran used chemical weapons. So you see there is no what story to believe. If you want to be a fool and believe in theories that can't be backed up, please be my guest, I mean there are people who believe in santa aswell.

Huh WTF no evidence that Iran used chemical weapons.

Robert Pelletiere, a former CIA analyst, claims that Iran gassed the villagers of Halabja on 15 March before entering the city.
—Knut Royce, Newsday, 10 October 1988.

So let me see I'm supposed to take the word of an internet jockey over a CIA analyst...uhm no I don't think so.








Oh wait here is more of that "no evidence" that the US claimed Iraq gassed the Kurds so as to drum up support for the war against Iraq.

Was it Iran rather than Iraq that gassed the Kurds?
by Isabel Monday April 21, 2003 at 01:02 PM


The Portugal News has received a full transcript of a report by a former CIA senior political analyst that states that Iran was responsible for the mass murder of 5,000 Kurds by chemicals at the Iraqi township of Halabja in 1988.

Front Page On Line
Portugal's Weekend Newspaper in English
MAIN - 19/04/2003

The Halabja massacre was one of the pretexts put forward by the US Gov't for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Some political commentators, including Matthew Norman of the UK Guardian newspaper, are saying that if the report had been made public before the build up to the present conflict in Iraq, Portugal and Spain might well have had second thoughts about supporting the US and British invasion.

The author of the report, Mr. C. Pelletiere, who was responsible for investigating the incident on behalf of the US Gov't, states that the gassing took place during a battle between Iraqi and Iranian forces. Immediately after the battle the US Defence Intelligence Agency produced a classified report, which clearly illustrated that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds. A team of investigators, under the direction of Pelletierre, discovered that the condition of the Kurds’ bodies indicated they had been killed by a cyanide-based gas, which the Iranians had been known to use. At that time the Iraqis were using mustard gas and there is no record that they possessed the cyanide based blood agent gas.

Pelletiere, who worked as a CIA agent during the Iraq - Iran war and was also a professor at the US Army War College from 1988 to 2000, was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington regarding the Persian Gulf. He headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the US. Part of his report on the Halabja massacre was published by the NY Times last January but was ignored by other major newspapers and TV stations. But Pelletiere’s report is not the only example of political spin doctoring concerning the drumming up of support for a war against Iraq. A claim by the British Government that it was in possession of documents showing that Iraq had attempted to buy 500 tons of uranium from Africa has been shown to be false. Copies of the documents were handed to General Mohamed ElBaradei, Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In a presentation to the United Nations Security Council ElBaradei has proved that the documents were forgeries. His testimony was backed up by the United Nations’ weapons inspectors. Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, has called for an investigation into what he describes as a campaign to deceive the public.

Let me guess at what your response to this will be.


Liburl liars, Saddam was Satan, you hate freedom, you support terrorism, the USA is never wrong.

 

[ghostface]

Go Israel, kick those Arab's ass'. :lol

 

[speedpop]

Sometimes I wish the Persian Empire was still around.

 

[Nintendo Ate My Children]

Whoa! Time for someone to hit the library!

It's amazing how Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech somehow blanked out everybody's memory of the prior 4 years!

I find it amazing that someone believes that before Bush, Iran was friendly with the United States.

I'm not going to even dignify your attempt at relativism regarding Iran not being any worse than many other countries with a response.

 

[FoneBone]

Controlling (whether by explusion, or simply not letting them enter the country) the population is key to the survival of a Jewish State. Ask any Israeli, ask any Jew.

OK, since any Israel-related thread seems to turn in this direction, a word of advice, to the forum in general: STOP FUCKING GENERALIZING ABOUT "THE JEWS." They do not exist as a monolithic entity, and never will, despite what some of you would apparently like to believe.

 

[FightyF]

I find it amazing that someone believes that before Bush, Iran was friendly with the United States.

They were, in fact, they had a message of goodwill sent to the States, and all major news outlets actually aired it. After that, they sent (again for goodwill purposes) a team of wrestlers to compete in the States. There was a whole hoopla about it, and I'm surprised you actually don't remember this.

What are you? Ignorant? Racist? Is there some reason why you don't want to acknowledge reality?

I'm not going to even dignify your attempt at relativism regarding Iran not being any worse than many other countries with a response.

Perhaps because you CAN'T respond? The reality is, Iran is not a threat. The reality is, BUSH determined that Iran wasn't good enough to be an ally, and overnight, labelled them as Evil.

I've shown that Iran hasn't bombed other nations, haven't spoken aggressivly and used aggressive rhetoric to other nations, and in many cases treat it's own people better than other nations. Every country has it's problems, and Iran is no different...but it's clear that Iran hasn't and isn't going to threaten any other nation any time soon.

OK, since any Israel-related thread seems to turn in this direction, a word of advice, to the forum in general: STOP FUCKING GENERALIZING ABOUT "THE JEWS." They do not exist as a monolithic entity, and never will, despite what some of you would apparently like to believe.

I never implied that. Read my post, I said "ask any Jew" on the issue of the survival of a Jewish State. They may not AGREE on the issue, but they all know the simple fact that they have to maintain a 50%+1 population to maintain a democratic Jewish State.

I could have replaced "any Jew" with "any person with logical and rational thinking" as ANYONE can tell you that if the Arabs outnumbered the Jews in Israel, it would no longer be a Jewish State. Though, not everyone with rational thinking knows about the situation Israel is in, hence, I mentioned a group of people who are more informed than the rest of us.

Does that make sense? Maybe I'm not making myself clear here.

 

[Doth Togo]

:lol @ "box-o-noobs"

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[peedi]

When discussing Iran, or any "rogue state"(the term Western imperialists assign anyone who refuses to cower before their racist export of democracy), why is the discussion always framed with the U.S. as the sole party of virtue? Did Iran down an American airliner filled with innocents? Who subsidizes the terror state of Israel? Who places sanctions against states that seek to invest in Iran, a measure that further marginalizes the very people the U.S. purports a desire to bring "democracy" to. Israel antagonizes her neighbors with impunity, exacting a policy of genocide against the Palestinians and threatening any Arab state that comes to their aid. She's given free reign to lay siege to any and all dissent in that region, yet those who resist her barbaric regime are labeled "terrorists." How can any man of a humane bent defend Israel? She's an unwanted tenant of the Middle East, who, under the protection of the U.S., directs violence towards those screaming for her eviction. The hypocrisy would be astounding if it weren't so commonplace.

 

[AssMan]

I find it amazing that someone believes that before Bush, Iran was friendly with the United States

Actually, Iran let us spy on the russians during the cold war near the north eastern borders if my memory is correct.

 

[Azih]

Plus there was the Soccer World Cup match between Iran and the U.S where the Iranian players brought flowers for the U.S players (I believe white roses?). And you don't have to invoke relativisim in this case. By *ANY* measure Iran isn't nearly as agressive or oppressive as the worst offenders. The only valid point of villification possible is the Iranian attitude towards Israel, but really, every country in the region has the same attitude towards Israel. Except I'm pretty sure however that Iran wasn't a part of the Arab Leauges offer to grant full diplomatic relations and recognition to Israel in exchange for a withdrawal to the 1967 borders (what with them not being Arab and all).

 

[bob_arctor]

This should surprise no one. Israel destroyed the plant in Iraq in 1981. Israel will handle these sorts of things long before the US even puts a strike package in the region.

Cheney said as much on the Imus show, about a day prior to Dubya's Inaugaration. Something to the effect of "Well, Israel can take them out and we'd just clean up the diplomatic mess afterwards." This after categorically denying the U.S. had plans to invade/attack Iran since you know "We don't want to start a war in the Middle East", according to Dick.

 

[bob_arctor]

When discussing Iran, or any "rogue state"(the term Western imperialists assign anyone who refuses to cower before their racist export of democracy), why is the discussion always framed with the U.S. as the sole party of virtue? Did Iran down an American airliner filled with innocents? Who subsidizes the terror state of Israel? Who places sanctions against states that seek to invest in Iran, a measure that further marginalizes the very people the U.S. purports a desire to bring "democracy" to. Israel antagonizes her neighbors with impunity, exacting a policy of genocide against the Palestinians and threatening any Arab state that comes to their aid. She's given free reign to lay siege to any and all dissent in that region, yet those who resist her barbaric regime are labeled "terrorists." How can any man of a humane bent defend Israel? She's an unwanted tenant of the Middle East, who, under the protection of the U.S., directs violence towards those screaming for her eviction. The hypocrisy would be astounding if it weren't so commonplace.

Yes, it's pretty amazing how the U.S. and Israel just happen to always be right about who's the good guys and who's the bad guys. Funny how that works, eh?

 

[Nintendo Ate My Children]

They were, in fact, they had a message of goodwill sent to the States, and all major news outlets actually aired it. After that, they sent (again for goodwill purposes) a team of wrestlers to compete in the States. There was a whole hoopla about it, and I'm surprised you actually don't remember this.

What are you? Ignorant? Racist? Is there some reason why you don't want to acknowledge reality?

Ahahahaha. A message of goodwill, that's cute. Who was the "they" you're referring to who sent it? Unless it was sent by the Ayatollah Khameini the other clerics who actually rule Iran, it's meaningless. Reformers like Khatami can dress up as Lady Liberty and sashay down the streets of Tehran singing Lee Greenwood songs for all it's worth, it doesn't matter if the clerics who actually hold the power still lead crowds chanting Death to the Great Satan.

And yes, I'm obviously an ignorant racist because I don't support giving nuclear warheads to fundamentalist Islamic theocracies. While we're making gross generalizations, I'm going to go ahead and assume you're a mindless twerp teenager. Keep on fighting the man, you rebel you!

 

[Azih]

You ever consider that engaging with Khatami and reciprocating the goodwill gestures would have done far more to hasten the end of the theocracy then labelling the country as evil did NAMC?

 

[Instigator]

Sometimes I wish the Persian Empire was still around.

If you put it this way, I'd root for the underdog from that time: the ancient Greeks.

 

[Particle Physicist]

When discussing Iran, or any "rogue state"(the term Western imperialists assign anyone who refuses to cower before their racist export of democracy), why is the discussion always framed with the U.S. as the sole party of virtue? Did Iran down an American airliner filled with innocents? Who subsidizes the terror state of Israel? Who places sanctions against states that seek to invest in Iran, a measure that further marginalizes the very people the U.S. purports a desire to bring "democracy" to. Israel antagonizes her neighbors with impunity, exacting a policy of genocide against the Palestinians and threatening any Arab state that comes to their aid. She's given free reign to lay siege to any and all dissent in that region, yet those who resist her barbaric regime are labeled "terrorists." How can any man of a humane bent defend Israel? She's an unwanted tenant of the Middle East, who, under the protection of the U.S., directs violence towards those screaming for her eviction. The hypocrisy would be astounding if it weren't so commonplace.

:lol

 

[peedi]

Yes, it's pretty amazing how the U.S. and Israel just happen to always be right about who's the good guys and who's the bad guys. Funny how that works, eh?

When you own and operate the media, its singular purpose the eradication of independent thinking, it's easy to demonize and vilify any state that resists you. They who own public opinion own our future.

 

[Manics]

Fuck, nice way to blow the secret! At least put spoiler tags on that.

 

[Particle Physicist]

When you own and operate the media, its singular purpose the eradication of independent thinking, it's easy to demonize and vilify any state that resists you. They who own public opinion own our future.

:lol:lol

im rolling on the floor here. keep it up.

 

[Azih]

:lol:lol

im rolling on the floor here. keep it up.

Dude, while Futami spends most of the time off his rocker, this last bit is just sense. I mean what the hell would you do if you controlled the media?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Dude, while Futami spends most of the time off his rocker, this last bit is just sense. I mean what the hell would you do if you controlled the media?

who exactly owns and operates the media? id also like to see some actual proof behind any supposed accusations. (note:: im not saying that the media is not biased..)

 

[bob_arctor]

Ah, proof! Who owns and operates our media? I couldn't answer that, but let's turn to "dissent" literature, why don't we?

Proof? Bullshit? Nutcake conspiracy fanboys? *Shrug*

 

[Instigator]

who exactly owns and operates the media? id also like to see some actual proof behind any supposed accusations. (note:: im not saying that the media is not biased..)

The point is not who owns the media, but how it is Western media, especially American, is complicit to Western foreign policy and able to shape public opinion to serve it.

 

[Shompola]

Huh WTF no evidence that Iran used chemical weapons.






So let me see I'm supposed to take the word of an internet jockey over a CIA analyst...uhm no I don't think so.








Oh wait here is more of that "no evidence" that the US claimed Iraq gassed the Kurds so as to drum up support for the war against Iraq.










Let me guess at what your response to this will be.


Liburl liars, Saddam was Satan, you hate freedom, you support terrorism, the USA is never wrong.

You retard. Those are not evidences. Those are just weak opinions. I want something like the UN report on chemical warfare in the Iran/Iraq war. The kurds themselfs are probably the best source of evidence to this and even they say it were the iraqis who attacked the then iranian controlled Halabja. And stop with the nonsense about liburla liars etc.. I am probably more liberal than you will ever be. The difference between me and you is that I don't believe in shit without any kind of evidence or good sources. CIA is definitely not a good source as they have demonstrated in the past INCLUDING CLAIMS ABOUT WMD IN IRAQ RECENTLY.

 

[peedi]

Ah, proof! Who owns and operates our media? I couldn't answer that, but let's turn to "dissent" literature, why don't we?

Proof? Bullshit? Nutcake conspiracy fanboys? *Shrug*

Great read. Noam Chomsky is the foremost authority on the ongoing conspiracy between our government and the tool of propaganda known as mainstream media.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Ah, proof! Who owns and operates our media? I couldn't answer that, but let's turn to "dissent" literature, why don't we?

Proof? Bullshit? Nutcake conspiracy fanboys? *Shrug*

i havent read the book, and im not sure if you have either, but going from what the description and the comments on amazon.com say.. the book is focused on corporate america swaying and controlling the mainstream press .. which is quite a bit different from the government controlling the press (not that i condone either).

The point is not who owns the media, but how it is Western media, especially American, is complicit to Western foreign policy and able to shape public opinion to serve it.

thats what gets me.. i would say that the media in europe and america is more 'free' than in other parts of the world.

 

[bob_arctor]

Great read. Noam Chomsky is the foremost authority on the ongoing conspiracy between our government and the tool of propaganda known as mainstream media.

No, no, no. Chomsky is the foremost authority on lefty wackiness and anti-americanism. A fruitcake liberal that has the nerve to compare the torture at Ass Grab prison to the Nuremberg trials. Let's just all write him off, ok? Or better yet, give him a bunch of these: :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[bob_arctor]

i havent read the book, and im not sure if you have either, but going from what the description and the comments on amazon.com say.. the book is focused on corporate america swaying and controlling the mainstream press .. which is quite a bit different from the government controlling the press (not that i condone either).

It is both actually. There's a fair amount covering the "free" elections of Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras during the Contra mess and models on what constitutes "free" elections--just examples that I can remember. There's sections on our role in Indochina as well. Pretty deep book.

 

[peedi]

i havent read the book, and im not sure if you have either, but going from what the description and the comments on amazon.com say.. the book is focused on corporate america swaying and controlling the mainstream press .. which is quite a bit different from the government controlling the press (not that i condone either).





thats what gets me.. i would say that the media in europe and america is more 'free' than in other parts of the world.

How do you define "free"? Yes, Western media is given greater reign in WHAT they can cover, but the press is still held hostage by various controls over HOW they interpret and convey information. You need only look at the coverage of Bush and his proposed plan for social security to see how deeply intertwined the media is with our government. There is no honest objectivity, the dispensing of uncompromised truths that speak to the core of our socio-political constitution. Mainstream media has become an instrument of plutocratic bias, where the exchange of ideas that threaten the ruse of democracy is forbidden.

Coverage of foreign policy, which is dominated by the turmoil in the Middle East, is owned and operated by Israel. You will never see honest coverage of Israel's transgressions. Israel is consistently painted as the victim, when she is, in fact, the catalyst for the carnage sweeping that region.

 

[ghostface]

who exactly owns and operates the media? i

Are you serious? I guess you must of missed that thread started by Bishoptl a few days ago, and everything else leading up to and after the U.S elections.

 

[Nerevar]

There's a difference between ethnic cleansing and "squabble for territory". What occurred since the birth of Israel has been the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Now there are millions of Palestinians who won't be allowed to return, because to maintain a "democratic" Jewish State, you will require more Jews than non-Jews.

(In recent years, Israel hasn't been pursuing a policy of "ethnic cleansing" and you can debate whether they did it intentionally or not...all we know is that the end result is almost 2 million displaced Palestinians who will never be allowed to return.)

This is why you see few...VERY few Israelis looking at a one state solution. A two state solution, one that maintains a Jewish state, and one that is Palestinian, is far more desireable for them.

Which goes back to the point you made...Israel's democracy RELIES on making sure that Palestinians are kept to the number they are at now, in Israel. Controlling (whether by explusion, or simply not letting them enter the country) the population is key to the survival of a Jewish State. Ask any Israeli, ask any Jew.

:lol

wow, easy to see which side of the debate you sit on. Ethnic cleansing - that's a little more than a stretch to equate what is happening in Israel/Palestine to what happened in Nazi Germany and Yugoslavia.

And yes, you're position on the Palestinians is completely one-sided and ignores the role that the rest of the Arab nations have taken in the current Palestinian plight. Let's not forget the promises of the Egyptian / Saudi Arabian /etc. governments to drive Israel into the sea shortly after it's creation and return the land back to the "rightful" muslim owners.

 

[peedi]

Yes, the creation of "Israel" was just. If someone knocks on your door, displaces you from your dwellings, and threatens you with death if you attempt to move back in, I hope you think back to your defense of that illegitimate state.