The Middle East part 2

[JdB 151]

When the second caliph Omar entered Jerusalem the city you living in, he not just didn’t kill anyone he offered protection to Christians and other religions alike, when the crusades entered it they killed over 50.000 Muslim and Christian there and 12.000 Jew in their way when Muslims toke back the city again and it was Salah alDeen

That was the ''fighting islam'' of the day. Todays extremists are a very different breed.

Also the Muslims did plenty of crimes themselves back then, it's not like the Christians were the sole villains.

[M4XSs 0]

Here's my own solution to the Iran we're facing now - Airstrike the hell out of their nuclear facility and threaten to nuke their country if they even think about retaliating on anyone. I believe it is the only "argument" an insane hostage-taking-terrorist-turned-dictator would understand. That way we can have our pie and and eat it, too. Diplomacy has failed and Iran is laughing at us, so I don't see any other solution to this.

Don’t bother yourself those will do it for Israel!

An actual plan to invade Iran already exists but what really scares me what reason they will fake?

What a hoax those are preparing again?

Out.

[EiZei 0]

I wonder why Iran is not allowed to build such facilities or even getting the knowledge to do so while Israel sitting on 420 nuclear warheads, and launching threats against Syria and Iran from all sorts and weights??

Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and it's not some somewhat unstable pseudo-democracy run by a bunch of fundies.

It's a hell lot easier to prevent someone from getting something than have somebody let go of something that they have had for quite a time now.

Quote[/b] ]

If Iran was honest about the real intentions behind such projects then Iran have the right to accomplish it, and I don’t think they would care for the United States anymore, and they shouldn’t if the united nation resolutions only applies on the Arabs and Iran and does not apply on Israel.

I think it's pretty fair to assume that treaties that Israel has not signed do not apply to Israel.

[llauma 0]

I think it's pretty fair to assume that treaties that Israel has not signed do not apply to Israel.

And as they refuse to sign such treaties shouldn't the UN impose some economical sanctions on them?

This won't happen though as those who have to power to make it happen prefers to have a Israel with nukes.

The UN and other international institutions are run by a few strong countries in a way which fits themselves the best. International laws, the 'rules of war' etc. are even re-written so that the countries in power can't be charged for war crimes because everything they do will no longer be considered a crime. A few examples are Serbia's bombings of TV stations which they were charged for but the charges were later dropped because NATO did the same against Serbia, hence it was no longer a crime. A crime even worse which was decided to be legimate was the conventional bombings of civilian areas, no matter the damage caused. The Nazi bombings of London would had been considered a crime if it had not been for the fact that the allied forces did much more damage in their bombings of several german cities. So to avoid any of the allies to be charged for war crimes it was okay to do so.

So to get back on topic again.. Iran did sign the treaty but as long as the UN wont do anything about a country which refuses to sign it, the treaty is worthless. Also if Iran had not signed the treaty the UN would have imposed economical sanctions on them for sure, even before they had started developing the nukes. There's no question about it.

I find it alarming that Iran is most likely trying to develope nukes but the UN needs to be consistent in their attempt to disarm the world of nukes. I do understand if you consider that making sure that the countries follows the treaties which they signed is the first priority but just as Israel, North Korea didn't sign the treaty so to be able and most importantly to justify an attempt to disarm them the same measures must be taken against Israel, Pakistan and India.

[EiZei 0]

I do understand if you consider that making sure that the countries follows the treaties which they signed is the first priority but just as Israel, North Korea didn't sign the treaty so to be able and most importantly to justify an attempt to disarm them the same measures must be taken against Israel, Pakistan and India.

As a matter of fact North Korea did sign the treaty, ratified it and promised to abide by it. Too bad they withdrew in 2003.

I just think a more pragmatic approach to this would be to contain the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce their amounts than go for the hopeless option of trying to remove existing nuclear arsenals.

[M4XSs 0]

That was the ''fighting islam'' of the day. Todays extremists are a very different breed.

Also the Muslims did plenty of crimes themselves back then, it's not like the Christians were the sole villains.

Can you mention some of those crimes please?

What you saying will not change the historic look to them, and they never represented Christianity. They were on their own making crimes in the name of Christianity just like what Al-Qaeda doing now in the name of Islam!

I think it's pretty fair to assume that treaties that Israel has not signed do not apply to Israel.

And as they refuse to sign such treaties shouldn't the UN impose some economical sanctions on them?

This won't happen though as those who have to power to make it happen prefers to have a Israel with nukes.

The UN and other international institutions are run by a few strong countries in a way which fits themselves the best. International laws, the 'rules of war' etc. are even re-written so that the countries in power can't be charged for war crimes because everything they do will no longer be considered a crime. A few examples are Serbia's bombings of TV stations which they were charged for but the charges were later dropped because NATO did the same against Serbia, hence it was no longer a crime. A crime even worse which was decided to be legimate was the conventional bombings of civilian areas, no matter the damage caused. The Nazi bombings of London would had been considered a crime if it had not been for the fact that the allied forces did much more damage in their bombings of several german cities. So to avoid any of the allies to be charged for war crimes it was okay to do so.

So to get back on topic again.. Iran did sign the treaty but as long as the UN wont do anything about a country which refuses to sign it, the treaty is worthless. Also if Iran had not signed the treaty the UN would have imposed economical sanctions on them for sure, even before they had started developing the nukes. There's no question about it.

I find it alarming that Iran is most likely trying to develope nukes but the UN needs to be consistent in their attempt to disarm the world of nukes. I do understand if you consider that making sure that the countries follows the treaties which they signed is the first priority but just as Israel, North Korea didn't sign the treaty so to be able and most importantly to justify an attempt to disarm them the same measures must be taken against Israel, Pakistan and India.

They prefer to see Israel more powerful at any known level in the Middle East; they even stopped Russia from selling long range anti-aircraft missiles and some short range anti-tank missiles for Syria, while they are supplying Israel with the best weapons in their armory.

These double standards policies from the U.S are clearer than any time before now.

I wonder why Iran is not allowed to build such facilities or even getting the knowledge to do so while Israel sitting on 420 nuclear warheads, and launching threats against Syria and Iran from all sorts and weights??

Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and it's not some somewhat unstable pseudo-democracy run by a bunch of fundies.

It's a hell lot easier to prevent someone from getting something than have somebody let go of something that they have had for quite a time now.

Quote[/b] ]

If Iran was honest about the real intentions behind such projects then Iran have the right to accomplish it, and I don’t think they would care for the United States anymore, and they shouldn’t if the united nation resolutions only applies on the Arabs and Iran and does not apply on Israel.

I think it's pretty fair to assume that treaties that Israel has not signed do not apply to Israel.

You see things in extremely shallow way!

Israel with nukes is encouraging other countries like Iran to develop such technologies in the Middle East, and saying that Israel is democracy oh and responsible is a pathetic excuse, Iran is nation of 65 million or more people when they threatened by generals like Mofaz from a nuclear country like Israel, I think their national security on the line here.

Plus Israel nuclear weapons is a threat like any other country, Israel threatened to use them against Egypt in 1973, uncle Sam responded by supplying them with arms using the biggest air bridge ever known, so they don’t need the nukes that bad.

A middle east with 1 nuclear country will never be safe, they want the area clear of such weapons they should include everyone!

[EiZei 0]

They prefer to see Israel more powerful at any known level in the Middle East

Correction, the USA itself prefers to be more powerful than anyone in the middle east and the way to accomplish that is to make your friends there stronger than your enemies.

It's not some bullshit religious or ideological thing, it's all about controlling that precious little substance called crude oil.

Quote[/b] ]

they even stopped Russia from selling long range anti-aircraft missiles and some short range anti-tank missiles for Syria

Of course they did. Why they'd want their potential enemies to get better weapons?

Quote[/b] ]

.. while they are supplying Israel with the best weapons in their armory.

They are also supplying countries like Saudi-Arabia and Egypt with abramses, cobras and god-knows-what.

Quote[/b] ]

These double standards policies from the U.S are clearer than any time before now.

Believe me, I am no fan of US policy but not being santa claus when it comes to arms deals is hardly hypocricy.

Quote[/b] ]

Israel with nukes is encouraging other countries like Iran to develop such technologies in the Middle East, and saying that Israel is democracy oh and responsible is a pathetic excuse, Iran is nation of 65 million or more people when they threatened by generals like Mofaz from a nuclear country like Israel, I think their national security on the line here.

Bullshit, Israel's economy is not self-sufficient enough and nuking somebody first for no good reason would decimate that country.

Iran would be going for those things no matter what, it's just an another way to get ahead in the enormous rat race which we call international diplomacy.

Quote[/b] ]

Plus Israel nuclear weapons is a threat like any other country, Israel threatened to use them against Egypt in 1973, uncle Sam responded by supplying them with arms using the biggest air bridge ever known, so they don’t need the nukes that bad.

Yom kippur war? Now, who were the ones that started it?

Quote[/b] ]

A middle east with 1 nuclear country will never be safe, they want the area clear of such weapons they should include everyone!

I'd say it's as safe as before (in other words, not). Maybe even safer now that attacking Israel directly means getting your country wiped off the map if you succeed.

[M4XSs 0]

Correction, the USA itself prefers to be more powerful than anyone in the middle east and the way to accomplish that is to make your friends there stronger than your enemies.

It's not some bullshit religious or ideological thing, it's all about controlling that precious little substance called crude oil.

You really think Americas only concern in the area is oil?

Israel security is above all!

Quote[/b] ] Of course they did. Why they'd want their potential enemies to get better weapons?

Their enemies or Israel enemies?

If there is such country like the U.S that will fight and bleed for them, and spends billions of dollars to secure everything around Israel would they ever have an equal ENEMY?

Quote[/b] ] Bullshit, Israel's economy is not self-sufficient enough and nuking somebody first for no good reason would decimate that country.

Iran would be going for those things no matter what, it's just an another way to get ahead in the enormous rat race which we call international diplomacy.

I doubt that you got that part, Israel didn’t threat with nukes they threatened to bomb Iran nuclear and oil facilities, and they can do so for years without the economical losses you think about, remember there is lots of tax payers in the U.S.

Quote[/b] ]Yom kippur war? Now, who were the ones that started it?

Do you really know why they started it?

Quote[/b] ] I'd say it's as safe as before (in other words, not). Maybe even safer now that attacking Israel directly means getting your country wiped off the map if you succeed.

It’s not my country, but you have nice diplomacy there!

You represent the Neocon more than the Neocons themselves!

Good luck there Mr. Diplomat!

[lwlooz 0]

What a bunch of BS.How I love the good ole grand-Jewish world conspiracy theories to propose an easy solution to every problem.

The point in this is that Iran has been BS its diplomatic partners and the IAEA for quite some time now and they can still sell their "We are the victims" propaganda to people like you.Its quite simple.If the Iranians only want a peaceful nuclear program,then they should cooperate with the goddamn international community. I also don't get the people who say like: "Meh,just one country with nukes more". Not very funny,I know most people forgot,but this very planet could still be wiped out in the next 15mins if someone went crazy at any powerful position.Nukes are very very dangerous solution to keep the world at peace.My opinion anyways.Now its your time to slag me off

P.S: I wrote more than one sentence now Messiah

Edit: I couldnt be bothered to make a new post,so this applies to the post below this one:

Quote[/b] ]They should admit that the real issue is their concern about Israel security no more no less.

[M4XSs 0]

What a bunch of BS.How I love the good ole grand-Jewish world conspiracy theories to propose an easy solution to every problem.

The point in this is that Iran has been BS its diplomatic partners and the IAEA for quite some time now and they can still sell their "We are the victims" propaganda to people like you.Its quite simple.If the Iranians only want a peaceful nuclear program,then they should cooperate with the goddamn international community. I also don't get the people who say like: "Meh,just one country with nukes more". Not very funny,I know most people forgot,but this very planet could still be wiped out in the next 15mins if someone went crazy at any powerful position.Nukes are very very dangerous solution to keep the world at peace.My opinion anyways.Now its your time to slag me off

P.S: I wrote more than one sentence now Messiah

Jewish conspiracy? Iranians as victims? Slag you off?

If you considered the American Israeli relations a Jewish conspiracy that’s your problem.

What I m asking is the Middle East should nuclear weapons free, and I didn’t support a military nuclear project by Iran, I wondered why they are not allowed 2 develop such project if they were honest about its civilian uses, and about their propaganda does they really have such propaganda machine?

Yeah I agree that nuclear weapons are dangerous and stupid way to keep the world at peace as you describe the situation. But don’t you think that the nukes helped in keeping world peace for couple of decades?

Edit: I couldnt be bothered to make a new post,so this applies to the post below this one:

Quote[/b] ]They should admit that the real issue is their concern about Israel security no more no less.

<<

The U.S as an allied country for Israel are concerned about Israel security, they clarify that sometimes and sometimes they claim a different reason for their concerns about things happen in the middle.

But what I don’t understand is how you understood my post as someone talking about Jewish conspiracy?

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]if they were honest about its civilian uses

Naturally the mullahs are worried about the greenhouse effect and want to stop using fossile fuels That's why they've kept the project hidden from the world for 18 years so they could give all this delighful environment-saving surprise.

Funny they haven't used this card yet, some may actually believe them in the west.

Quote[/b] ]But don’t you think that the nukes helped in keeping world peace for couple of decades?

Partially true but then again when potential nuclear weapons release was considered impossible due to destruction of both sides the emphasis was put more and more on conventional weapons which were seen potentially only method of achieving some sort of 'reasonable' solution to war.

The problem is that when both sides have only few nuclear weapons the temptation to use them despite the losses may be higher than when both sides have massive doomsday arsenal. That would be potentially very inflammable situation as both sides calculate they may gain by using nuclear weapons as first-strike weapon. So no, I don't think Iran has right to have nuclear weapons and I believe anybody who feels Iran's nuclear arsenal is no less threatning than Israel's is being dishonest. While they shouldn't naturally have it either I don't see any arab leaders loosing sleep over it.

Religious fanaticism + nationalism + support to terrorism + nuclear weapons = Very, very bad.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

You really think Americas only concern in the area is oil?

Israel security is above all!

I just find it hard to believe that a smallish country is more important to the USA than the substance that their and the rest of the developed world's economies require to function.

Quote[/b] ]

If there is such country like the U.S that will fight and bleed for them, and spends billions of dollars to secure everything around Israel would they ever have an equal ENEMY?

Erm? I think I missing the message here.

Quote[/b] ]

Israel did'nt threat with nukes they threatened to bomb Iran nuclear and oil facilities, and they can do so for years without the economical losses you think about, remember there is lots of tax payers in the U.S.

And they are quite damn justified to do so if it's the only way to stop iranians from getting the bomb. You can't say that they are not given any other options than the one they are executing now.

Quote[/b] ]

Do you really know why they started it?

Uh.. middle-east political cockfight gets out of hand, the arabs get their asses handed over to them, lose territory and try having a rematch some 6 years later?

Quote[/b] ]

It’s not my country, but you have nice diplomacy there!

You represent the Neocon more than the Neocons themselves!

Good luck there Mr. Diplomat!

As far as peace goes nuclear weapons in rational hands have been more effective than ideological bickering.

EDIT:

Great, this also means that I have been called a terrorist symphatizer, an america-hater and a neocon so far on the same forum no less.

[M4XSs 0]

Quote[/b] ]if they were honest about its civilian uses

Naturally the mullahs are worried about the greenhouse effect and want to stop using fossile fuels That's why they've kept the project hidden from the world for 18 years so they could give all this delighful environment-saving surprise.

Funny they haven't used this card yet, some may actually believe them in the west.

Quote[/b] ]But don’t you think that the nukes helped in keeping world peace for couple of decades?

Partially true but then again when potential nuclear weapons release was considered impossible due to destruction of both sides the emphasis was put more and more on conventional weapons which were seen potentially only method of achieving some sort of 'reasonable' solution to war.

The problem is that when both sides have only few nuclear weapons the temptation to use them despite the losses may be higher than when both sides have massive doomsday arsenal. That would be potentially very inflammable situation as both sides calculate they may gain by using nuclear weapons as first-strike weapon. So no, I don't think Iran has right to have nuclear weapons and I believe anybody who feels Iran's nuclear arsenal is no less threatning than Israel's is being dishonest. While they shouldn't naturally have it either I don't see any arab leaders loosing sleep over it.

Religious fanaticism + nationalism + support to terrorism + nuclear weapons = Very, very bad.

Since you intentionally missing lots of accuracy in serious matter that concerns everyone these days, can you confirm that the Iranian nuclear project started before 18 years?

After the revolution I mean.

The real nuclear project started before 30 years when the shah was the highest authority in Iran, and the United States was the biggest supporter for that project, the shah who is a known dictator been approved by the U.S to have nuclear weapons!

How ironic, America is the one who supported and funded those extremists and dictators during the cold war!

And now playing Mr. Democracy man!

EDIT:

Great, this also means that I have been called a terrorist symphatizer, an america-hater and a neocon so far on the same forum no less.

Have you ever wondered why?

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]shah who is a known dictator been approved by the U.S to have nuclear weapons!

Dictator, sure, but I don't recall the Shah supporting terrorism or threaten it's neighbours or Israel with destruction. You could say same about Musharraf, the dictator of Pakistan but I don't see people get genuinely upset about him even after his sabre rattling with India.

Quote[/b] ]How ironic, America is the one who supported and funded those extremists and dictators during the cold war!

Extremists came to play after the revolution.

If the other option is a fundamentalist terror-exporting government, I don't know which is worse. But you are right, I don't know how advanced Shah's nuke program was but it robably still has little to do with the vast post-revolution developement. I don't think people are comfortable with religion mixed with nuclear weapons.

[M4XSs 0]

Quote[/b] ]shah who is a known dictator been approved by the U.S to have nuclear weapons!

Dictator, sure, but I don't recall the Shah supporting terrorism or threaten it's neighbours or Israel with destruction. You could say same about Musharraf, the dictator of Pakistan but I don't see people get genuinely upset about him even after his sabre rattling with India.

Quote[/b] ]How ironic, America is the one who supported and funded those extremists and dictators during the cold war!

Extremists came to play after the revolution.

If the other option is a fundamentalist terror-exporting government, I don't know which is worse. But you are right, I don't know how advanced Shah's nuke program was but it robably still has little to do with the vast post-revolution developement. I don't think people are comfortable with religion mixed with nuclear weapons.

Both countries threatening each other, but the type of the Iranian threats are more stupid.

No one upset with the current Pakistani leader because the U.S heavily supports him; he is an American ally in the war on terrorism, the same dictator who destroyed the democratic system there!

In this month we will see, if everyone refused the idea in the world then I think the Iranians should drop the idea completely, and no one comfortable to hear their threats against their neighbors.

Quote[/b] ]don't think people are comfortable with religion mixed with nuclear weapons.

If religion keeps away (Really away.) from such matters then everything should be fine!

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]No one upset with the current Pakistani leader because the U.S heavily supports him; he is an American ally in the war on terrorism, the same dictator who destroyed the democratic system there!

Well, that coup has to be put into context. In 1999 Pakistan and Indian relations were in turmoil after so-called Kargil Conflict in Kashmir and recent nuclear tests by both countries. It seemed the countries were set to be heading for full-scale war and mistrust between Pakistani military and politicians grew over policies, eventually this led to bloodless coup by Mr.Musharraf. While many countries automatically condemned the coup at the time I think it ultimately led to better relations between both countries and easing of tensions.

[EiZei 0]

Maybe the danes will get a break now..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4805952.stm

Quote[/b] ]

Top US evangelist targets Islam

Pat Robertson's recent comments have landed him in hot water

Outspoken US Christian evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson has accused Muslims of planning world domination, and said some were "satanic".

On his live television programme, The 700 Club, he said radical Islamists were inspired by "demonic power".

A US religious liberty watchdog called the comments "grossly irresponsible".

He went on to say that "Islam is not a religion of peace", and "the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen whether you like it or not, is world domination".

Mr Robertson said in a statement later he was referring specifically to terrorists as being motivated by Satan.

Why attribute something that can be perfectly well explained by human stupidity to satan?

[Grim_Fandango 0]

Last time I checked we never asked for a break.

The whole situation is pretty perverse. There isn't really one sane aspect about it. It's a nasty mess of polarization and people sticking their heads where it doesn't belong. Everybody's right and everybody's wrong at the same time, in my oppinion, due to lack of perspective. Or just common sense.

Here everybody panicked and the public debate was reduced to "You didn't like the cartoons? YOU FUCKING FREEDOM HATER!" Or "You support the cartoons? You're a disgusting racist", at least in the first days. I thought it was pretty ironic that the British got hit by a terror attack, and took that with complete stoic calm, and someone got mad over a cartoon, and everybody flipped around here.

Just because it's printed in a news medium in the free world, it doesn't mean it's something to be proud of, just for that. And just because some people feel offended, it doesn't mean it shouldn't have been printed. Either way, free speech in Denmark is about as natural to all of us as farting, and just as I feel pissed off when people who know nothing about our country, start burning our flags due to a cartoon, I feel very belittled when people come to baby us and go on and on about how they support our supposed "struggle". There never was a struggle for freedom here, and just like the arabs didn't care, noone cared about Denmark before the whole media circus got started. I can't count the times I've been called Dutch, or asked what Holland was like. But I still prefer that to misconceptions about our supposed situations regarding this whole "conflict". Suddenly everybody is lined up to either shower me with patronizing sympathies, or shower me with bombs, instead of letting my business, be just that.

I don't go around telling Americans how ridiculously lame I think it is that you can't get married in the supposed land of the free if you have the "wrong" sexuality, that would be intrusive.

We have our problems, and in some ways this was probably inevitable. But I still think it's the best example ever, of how a global press hunting for it's next sensation, all be it aided skillfully by a bunch of theocracies and other dictators, can really take a fairly mundane situation and turn it into hellfire around the globe. Suddenly 30 bigots in a land of 5 millions' plan to burn a Qur'an, can get an embassy torched in Damascus. Before they were just a flock of undereducated welfare clients with too little to do, now they're in global politics.

Either way, I think it's an internal issue. Although I suppose you might say that it's Denmarks first taste of real globalization. It didn't taste all that well.

[JdB 151]

Why attribute something that can be perfectly well explained by human stupidity to satan?

Maybe because they are the same thing?

Take a trip to Africa for example, and see how they rape, mame and murder eachother there for 50 yards of farmland, Satan is a p*ssy in comparison to the human mind.

[HotShot 0]

Good post Grim_Fandango. I guess people are jumping on the band wagon just as much when they put a Danish flag in their signature as those that are jumping around on a burning one in the street. In fact for the former it could be said more so than the latter, because at least when they're jumping around on a flag they're putting their hearts into it instead of just a 1 minute picture posting job.

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]You really think Americas only concern in the area is oil?

Israel security is above all!

That's absurd. If there wasn't oil to be had in the region, they wouldn't have established a foothold in it to begin with. Stability in the region starts with your allies, and stability means laying the framework for opening up the oil market to the U.S, it's very simple logic when you cut the horseshit out.

(I still don't know how China would sit with the U.S "liberating" Iran if it ever came to that, I think things might get interesting)

There are plenty of other places in the world that are stricken with war and poverty that need help much much more than israel. If the U.S was making such a philanthropic gesture, they should start with those areas.

Clearly they aren't.

[M4XSs 0]

Quote[/b] ]You really think Americas only concern in the area is oil?

Israel security is above all!

That's absurd. If there wasn't oil to be had in the region, they wouldn't have established a foothold in it to begin with. Stability in the region starts with your allies, and stability means laying the framework for opening up the oil market to the U.S, it's very simple logic when you cut the horseshit out.

(I still don't know how China would sit with the U.S "liberating" Iran if it ever came to that, I think things might get interesting)

Your simple logic looks like whoreshit from my view of the situation!

[mp_phonix 0]

In my judgement, Iran should have the same rights to develop nuclear technology as any other signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and as long as Iranian Leaders grant the IAEA further access to their nuclear installations and facilities.

Thunderbird84

I agree with TB84, but there also a little problem. You right, Iran should have the rights to devlop nuke tech, but with the IAEA supervision. the problem is with they leader. He says that Israel should be wiped from the map and should be destroyed etc. Under his leadership, Iran shouldent be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, thats what I think.Mujhdin (or whatever his name, the Iraninan president) is a very extremist with his opinions, and i think will use nukes.One o the major problems of dealing with Iran is because its an Muslem Counter (I have nothing against muslems, dont get me wrong). Islam is not just a diffrent religion, its a different world.. They have a totally another concept about life, and death. They often fight for their religion (or by it's supervision [Alla U-Akbar]).It's like was in the Iran-Iraq war ! both sides declared their war "In the name of Allah". I think the next WW (means WW3) will be between the Islam country that declares Jihad (holy war) on the west. That could be Iran, and i think they will use Nukes.

I think some1 said here that the US and Israel relations are a Jewish Concipercy. escuse me, but ow stuped can you be ? U.S helps Israel because USA want an allie in the middle east wich has democratic government (real one). Also was mention here arms trade between them, the only thing USA sells Isral is Airplanes/Apaches and Light weapons. We make our own tanks (Mk4 etc.)

btw, im Israeli

[M4XSs 0]

In my judgement, Iran should have the same rights to develop nuclear technology as any other signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and as long as Iranian Leaders grant the IAEA further access to their nuclear installations and facilities.

Thunderbird84

I agree with TB84, but there also a little problem. You right, Iran should have the rights to devlop nuke tech, but with the IAEA supervision. the problem is with they leader. He says that Israel should be wiped from the map and should be destroyed etc. Under his leadership, Iran shouldent be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, thats what I think.Mujhdin (or whatever his name, the Iraninan president) is a very extremist with his opinions, and i think will use nukes.One o the major problems of dealing with Iran is because its an Muslem Counter (I have nothing against muslems, dont get me wrong). Islam is not just a diffrent religion, its a different world.. They have a totally another concept about life, and death. They often fight for their religion (or by it's supervision [Alla U-Akbar]).It's like was in the Iran-Iraq war ! both sides declared their war "In the name of Allah". I think the next WW (means WW3) will be between the Islam country that declares Jihad (holy war) on the west. That could be Iran, and i think they will use Nukes.

Were those really the reasons for the first gulf war?

And about that Iran will use nukes.

Bunch of lunatics predicted that before months, Google this *false flag* and see by

Yourself.

Quote[/b] ]I think some1 said here that the US and Israel relations are a Jewish Concipercy. escuse me, but ow stuped can you be ? U.S helps Israel because USA want an allie in the middle east wich has democratic government (real one). Also was mention here arms trade between them, the only thing USA sells Isral is Airplanes/Apaches and Light weapons. We make our own tanks (Mk4 etc.)

btw, im Israeli

Are you stupid to understand this line as Jewish conspiracy like the former member?

Quote[/b] ]They should admit that the real issue is their concern about Israel security no more no less.

Shouldn’t allies be concerned about each security, how could that be understood as someone saying that a Jewish conspiracy?

I doubt that you read the replays as they are.

[HotShot 0]

One o the major problems of dealing with Iran is because its an Muslem Counter (I have nothing against muslems, dont get me wrong). Islam is not just a diffrent religion, its a different world.. They have a totally another concept about life, and death. They often fight for their religion (or by it's supervision [Alla U-Akbar]).It's like was in the Iran-Iraq war ! both sides declared their war "In the name of Allah". I think the next WW (means WW3) will be between the Islam country that declares Jihad (holy war) on the west. That could be Iran, and i think they will use Nukes.

I think this is rubbish. Sure Iran is pissing around alot, but i cant see they will nuke guys when/if they get Nuke Bombs. The idea that Iran and Iraq war went to war each in the name of Allah is also rubbish. Iraq was after Iranian resources, and Iran was just defending its territory then getting its own back. Whether they said it was in the name of Allah or not doesnt matter as its unlikely that was the course, besides, by your logic you cant trust Iran anyway so anything they say must be full of crap.

Irans getting less religious anyway, not everyone wheres head scarfs, and heck, i saw a report on TV the other day where all these women were getting nose jobs and saying it was a fashionable thing to have your nose plastered up to show they have had one. Same programme but different time they showed U.S. basketball players kicking arse in games, they even had them on the army teams!

So sure these crazy iranians get abit fanatical at times, and politically they are trying to flex their muscles, but iran i nthe whole is getting more and more western, and i reckon that will win over the political guys soon too. If they were so religious they would just cut oil back all together to the US.

Saying that i dont know what those top dogs are thinking, maybe they are just waiting to pounce and take over the world, but i dont reckon so, they're human afterall, not satan.