The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Give Iran the bomb? Reading Iran's apologists > Comments

Give Iran the bomb? Reading Iran's apologists : Comments

By Jan De Pauw, published 27/9/2007

Iran is a regime that is marked by a high degree of unpredictability. A responsible leader better think twice before giving the bomb away.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All
Keith,

So despite the risks Iranian nukes may be a good thing because they will strike fear into the hearts of the Israelis?

Your last post does at least clear up one question. You are genuinely INCAPABLE of addressing the issue of Iranian nukes without bringing Israel into it. You are so obsessed by Israel that you cannot see the wider picture.

Sad.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 8 October 2007 11:52:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont...

You on the other hand you raised and dismissed the 'leftie' solution of addressing Muslim grievances, and of course the greatest of those is …which? That’s right Israel’s suppression of the Palestinians.

I raised the possibility of an Israeli attack as a solution, and I as a liberal but not a leftie agreed addressing Muslim grievances would go a long way to solving the problem.

You then claimed the impossibility of Israeli nukes ending in the hands of nutters.

I replied to that nonsense in a jesting fashion.

(In our discussion so far now who first raised that apparently taboo subject Israel and Palestine? Oops you did… are you obsessed?)

And then in your next post you raised an equally absurd scenario regarding Israeli nukes.

I ignored that nonsense.

Then you asked how the discussion got sidetracked onto Israel and you accused me of having an obsession and then you carried on about Israel being a target for Iranian nukes.

I ignored the provocation and you’re alarmist claims.

You then ascribed to me an attitude about Israel I don’t hold, asked why I didn’t write an OLO article, and claimed I’d hi-jacked a discussion and was obsessive.

I responded to those accusations and led you by the nose through the development of the postings.

You didn’t respond to that but raved on about some religious nuttery.

I ignored that.

You then carried on in another anti-Arab post and raised Israel again.

I ignored that and told you how hypocritical you look.

You then accused me of not addressing the topic and obsessing about Israel.

I responded to that silliness.

Then you accused me of not being able to leave Israel out of this discussion.

And you reckon I’m obsessed.’?

As the other bloke said:

‘Er no’ …head shaking and laughing.

That really was worth a good laugh.

btw… What exactly are the risks to the Western Liberal Democracies of Iran having nuclear arms? … Smirking … and try responding without referring any country that isn’t a western liberal democracy.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 2:40:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith

In answer to you rather smug question to steven. How about a nuclear 9/11? Is that serious enough for you?
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 5:09:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That’s rich. Stevenmeyer

The author raised Israel in the article … twice. Is he obsessed?

In my first post I responded to those references and pointed out the absurdity of fearing Iran’s nukes but not Israel’s.

Does that make me obsessed?

In Paul’s first post he raised Israel … twice.
In his second post and first in response to my enquiry about who is the greater threat to peace, he ranted about Egyptians, Arab armies, Syrians, North Koreans, and launched personal attacks by calling me an apologist, a soft leftie, suggested I was helping the Iranians obtain Nuclear Weapons and then yelling that I was ‘MAD’.
His posts from then on degenerated into raves about all sorts of issues and continual personnal abuse.

My posts merely responded by answering his questions and pointing to alternative thinking in regard to biased claims made in his posts.

However, perhaps unfortunately, I did lose patience at times and I did suggest his logic might be questionable and lacked balance and that he didn’t apply typical western democratic reasoning when assessing mid eastern problems. I did say one of his views was racist and that he lied about Camp David. I did accuse him of being a one-eye propagandist. I did ask him to stop whining and that he grizzled. I did say he was behaving the blustering clown etc etc …

And now he's answered my question to you with a reference to a Western Democracy.

See my point, he's only interested in Israeli scaremongering and misses the obvious as usual.

Which is: If an Iranian nuclear bomb was detonated in the US, Iran would simply be obliterated in .... minutes.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 5:56:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

Now you are really losing it. … What exactly are the risks to the Western Liberal Democracies of Iran having nuclear arms? … Smirking … and try responding without referring any country that isn’t a western liberal democracy.

Keith. Try thinking and rubbing your head at the same time. I bet you can't do both.

So please try and explain what are the risks to western democracies without mentioning any country which isn’t a western democracy?

Anyway, I didn’t mention Israel at all. I pointed out the very real possibility of a nuclear 9/11 in America.

Your soft logic requires many other assumptions you haven’t made clear. There are a number of scenarios under which such an attack might occur

1. That Iran doesn’t care or is not concerned about American retaliation if they can make a first strike on America. See Ahmedinejhads many speeches on the coming apocalypse and the return of the Mehdi

2. Iran can’t prevent nuclear material falling into the hands of the terrorists against their wishes.

3. Iran believes they can disguise the source of the nuclear material so that it is not clear where it came from.

4. Iran believes that the US needs Middle Eastern oils so much they can’t afford to nuke anyone in the area.

BTW I am ROFLAO at the thought of you and your friends gathered around your computer giggling at the right wing lunatics, its such a wonderfully geeky idea. You really are a very sensitive little petal aren’t you? Robust debate a little much for you?
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 8:40:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L

I don't for a minute believe that Keith and his friends were around the computer giggling.
Keith's just trying to make you rise (as Steven observed) to the bait.

I am sure, despite our differences, Keith and his friends don't act like a group of bullying, pubescent, spiteful schoolgirls. He's just having you on ...
Posted by Danielle, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 1:53:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy