Iran's ruler calls for slaughter.

G

Gyroscope

Well-Known Member
I agree that they are heavily fortified, but I don't think Israel will sit by and let them finish their nuclear program. Even if they have to bomb them more than once. Anything they do will be a setback for Iran. If the sites were not totally destroyed, they will still have to be dug out and repaired. And about the time they dig them out Israel could hit them again......
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Brick Top said:
Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That means that as long as a member of the treaty Iran agrees to NOT create nuclear weapons.

If Iran is willing to come out of the nuclear closet and withdraw from the treaty and admit they are seeking nuclear weapons, like North Korea did, than yes, Iran would have every right to create nuclear weapons.

But as long as they remain a signatory of the treaty Iran DOES NOT have the right to create nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Anti-proliferation Treaty covers weapons tests, on the ground, under it, above and below the sea and in space. Development of nuclear materials without bomb testing is allowed under that Treaty.

Strange how Anti-Zionist Jews love the Iranian administration and under the Iranian Constitution are equal to Muslims...

Wiki said:
Iran's Jewish community is officially recognized as a religious minority group by the government, and, like the Zoroastrians, they are allocated one seat in theIranian Parliament. Ciamak Moresadegh is the current Jewish member of the parliament, replacing Maurice Motamed in the 2008 election. In 2000, former Jewish MP Manuchehr Eliasi estimated that at that time there were still 30,000–35,000 Jews in Iran, most other sources put the figure at 25,000.[SUP][54][/SUP] The United States State Department estimated the number of Jews in Iran at 20,000–25,000 as of 2009.[SUP][55][/SUP]Today Tehran has 11 functioning synagogues, many of them with Hebrew schools. It has two kosher restaurants, an old-age home and a cemetery. There is a Jewish library with 20,000 titles.[SUP][18][/SUP] Iranian Jews have their own newspaper (called "Ofogh-e-Bina") with Jewish scholars performing Judaic research atTehran's "Central Library of Jewish Association".[SUP][56][/SUP] The "Dr. Sapir Jewish Hospital" is Iran's largest charity hospital of any religious minority community in the country;[SUP][56][/SUP] however, most of its patients and staff are Muslim.[SUP][57][/SUP]
Chief Rabbi Yousef Hamadani Cohen is the present spiritual leader for the Jewish community of Iran.[SUP][58][/SUP] In August 2000, Chief Rabbi Cohen met with Iranian President Mohammad Khatami for the first time.[SUP][59][/SUP] In 2003, Chief Rabbi Cohen and Maurice Motamed met with President Khatami at Yusef Abad Synagogue which was the first time a President of Iran had visited a synagogue since the Islamic Revolution.[SUP][60][/SUP]Haroun Yashayaei is the chairman of the Jewish Committee of Tehran and leader of Iran's Jewish Community.[SUP][60][/SUP][SUP][61][/SUP] On January 26, 2007, Yashayaei's letter to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad concerning his Holocaust denial comments brought about worldwide media attention.[SUP][62][/SUP][SUP][63][/SUP][SUP][64][/SUP]
The Jews of Iran have been best known for certain occupations like making gold jewellery and antique dealing, textiles and carpets.
[h=3]Conditions[/h]The Constitution of Iran says that Jews are equal to Muslims. Imam Khomeini visited with members of the Jewish community and issued a decree ordering the adherents of Judaism and other revealed religions to be protected. Jews are entitled to self-administration and one member of the 290-seat Majlis is elected by only Jews. Jewish burial rites and divorce laws are accepted by Islamic courts. Tehran has over 20 synagogues. Iran has one of only four Jewish charity hospitals in the world. The hospital has received donations from top Iranian officials, including President Ahmadinejad. Kosher butcher shops are available in Iran. There are Hebrew schools and coeducation is allowed.[SUP][65][/SUP]
Jews are conscripted into the Army like all Iranian citizens. Many Iranian Jews fought during the Iran-Iraq war (1980–1988) as drafted soldiers. About 15 were killed.[SUP][66][/SUP] It has been reported that Jews in Iran are proud of their heritage.
Jewish citizens are permitted to obtain passports and to travel outside the country, but they often are denied the multiple-exit permits normally issued to other citizens. With the exception of certain business travelers, the authorities require Jews to obtain clearance and pay additional fees before each trip abroad. The Government appears concerned about the emigration of Jewish citizens and permission generally is not granted for all members of a Jewish family to travel outside the country at the same time.
The Association of Tehrani Jews said in a statement, "We Iranian Jews condemn claims of the US State Department on Iranian religious minorities, announced that we are fully free to perform our religious duties and we feel no restriction on performing our religious rituals." [SUP][67][/SUP]
In spite of the many allegations about discrimination by the US state department, the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad reported that mass emigration to the USA is due to economic reasons and not to religious persecution.[SUP][68]
Click to expand...
Strange how they'd protect Jews/treat them as equals in their country but supposedly call for the destruction of them worldwide? Critical thinking is starting to tell me we're all getting lied to and may infact be on the wrong side...[/SUP]
 
dontexist21

dontexist21

Well-Known Member
Here is a great idea, instead of spending trillions on attacking foreign oil countries, lets I don't know spend it on renewable s and become dependent in 5-10 years. And we can go back pre-1940s when the middle east did not matter.
 
Pat the stoner

Pat the stoner

New Member
Iran is a country that wont let the c ia put a leader in power again , all this has to do with world domination and iran wants to remain its own nation .
 
smok3y1

smok3y1

Active Member
jagdog3 said:
Just watch what's going on in Syria and you'll see what the Iranian's are all about!!
Click to expand...
I think its the same as what happened in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez and how the CIA made it look like the Venezuelan people were against him when it was people paid by CIA destabilising the country. Assadd has said it himself its foreign countries that is destablising his country.
 
Pat the stoner

Pat the stoner

New Member
What scares me is these crazy bastards have nukes (all of the nations who have them ) and none of them should . They can kill the world , and then what , for what reason .
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Pat the stoner said:
What scares me is these crazy bastards have nukes (all of the nations who have them ) and none of them should . They can kill the world , and then what , for what reason .
Click to expand...
What scares me is the likes of Mitt Romney having nukes, I think that's far more dangerous to me than Iran having them.

What happens if Mittens decides the IRA are bad and starts bombing my town because there may "be a few sympathisers" here? It's legit to do in Afghanistan...why not here?

I think every country should have nukes, nuclear nations are polite nations to one another ;)
 
mackey

mackey

Well-Known Member
Isreal has tried to get along w/ others. They won the war and won the land and others will not accept and wish to keep the war going until they get it back. With terrorist activity that is. If Iran gets these weapons they will use them along with other crazies, like North korea. We should have went to North Korea in lieu of Iraq. These extremist lead countries will be the end of the world as we know it if they get enough weapons as they believe they will get 100 virgins in heaven. Some God they worship.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
mackey said:
Isreal has tried to get along w/ others. They won the war and won the land and others will not accept and wish to keep the war going until they get it back. With terrorist activity that is. If Iran gets these weapons they will use them along with other crazies, like North korea. We should have went to North Korea in lieu of Iraq. These extremist lead countries will be the end of the world as we know it if they get enough weapons as they believe they will get 100 virgins in heaven. Some God they worship.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure North Korea just wants the rest of the world to leave it the fuck alone, no? Just think about that for a little while.

Israel didn't "win the land", that's feudal system bullshit and in a sense legitimises Palestenian terror attacks, because by your logic, if Israel "won it" then in theory the indigenous people could try to "win it back" no?
 
R

Radiate

Well-Known Member
I noticed an odd little something about that clip of the anti zionists talking to Ahmadinejad. The guy giving his speech of thanks stated the death of so many Jews during the Holocaust as a reason that so many of his people fell into the trick of Zionism. This exact same guy was featured in Bill Maher's "Religulous", where it really seems like Bill was trying to paint him as a holocaust denier.

Check it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6e8oBdoV7o
 
smok3y1

smok3y1

Active Member
Radiate said:
I noticed an odd little something about that clip of the anti zionists talking to Ahmadinejad. The guy giving his speech of thanks stated the death of so many Jews during the Holocaust as a reason that so many of his people fell into the trick of Zionism. This exact same guy was featured in Bill Maher's "Religulous", where it really seems like Bill was trying to paint him as a holocaust denier.

Check it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6e8oBdoV7o
Click to expand...
Wow could that interview be edited anymore?
 
R

Radiate

Well-Known Member
Exactly. It portrays a drastically different character than the guy we see talking to Ahmedinejad. Yet one is a random youtube clip, the other a hollywood film.


Makes me feel funny, and not in a good way considering the context of the rest of this argument. Anybody have translations for this "holocaust denial" speech?

(EDIT: After reading through some comments of the clip, someone is claiming Ahmedinejad actually said "one day the Jewish people themselves will rid their country of the zionist criminals allowing a way for peace". Fuck there are some drastically different views on this subject. Someone's lieing like a motherfucker. )
 
smok3y1

smok3y1

Active Member
Thats why you have to hear both sides of the story rather then just relying on mainstream media. Maybe one day it will be fair and unbiased.
 
Brick Top

Brick Top

New Member
Harrekin said:
Actually, the Anti-proliferation Treaty covers weapons tests, on the ground, under it, above and below the sea and in space. Development of nuclear materials without bomb testing is allowed under that Treaty.
Click to expand...
Really?

Is that what it really says?

From the U.N.

THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION
OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
( NPT )
(text of the treaty)

The States concluding this Treaty, hereinafter referred to as the Parties to the Treaty,

Considering the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples,

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war,
In conformity with resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly calling for the conclusion of an agreement on the prevention of wider dissemination of nuclear weapons,

Undertaking to co-operate in facilitating the application of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on peaceful nuclear activities,

Expressing their support for research, development and other efforts to further the application, within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards system, of the principle of safeguarding effectively the flow of source and special fissionable materials by use of instruments and other techniques at certain strategic points,

Affirming the principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including any technological by-products which may be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear explosive devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties to the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear-weapon States,

Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle, all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in co-operation with other States to, the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,

Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament,

Urging the co-operation of all States in the attainment of this objective,

Recalling the determination expressed by the Parties to the 1963 Treaty banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water in its Preamble to seek to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time and to continue negotiations to this end,

Desiring to further the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,

Recalling that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, and that the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security are to be promoted with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources,

Have agreed as follows:

Article I
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.


Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.


Article III
1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this Article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this Article shall be applied on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.

2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this Article.

3. The safeguards required by this Article shall be implemented in a manner designed to comply with Article IV of this Treaty, and to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of the Parties or international co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities, including the international exchange of nuclear material and equipment for the processing, use or production of nuclear material for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Article and the principle of safeguarding set forth in the Preamble of the Treaty.

4. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty shall conclude agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet the requirements of this Article either individually or together with other States in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Negotiation of such agreements shall commence within 180 days from the original entry into force of this Treaty. For States depositing their instruments of ratification or accession after the 180-day period, negotiation of such agreements shall commence not later than the date of such deposit. Such agreements shall enter into force not later than eighteen months after the date of initiation of negotiations.

Article IV
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.


2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Article V
Each Party to the Treaty undertakes to take appropriate measures to ensure that, in accordance with this Treaty, under appropriate international observation and through appropriate international procedures, potential benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty on a non-discriminatory basis and that the charge to such Parties for the explosive devices used will be as low as possible and exclude any charge for research and development. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty shall be able to obtain such benefits, pursuant to a special international agreement or agreements, through an appropriate international body with adequate representation of non-nuclear-weapon States. Negotiations on this subject shall commence as soon as possible after the Treaty enters into force. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty so desiring may also obtain such benefits pursuant to bilateral agreements.

Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Article VII
Nothing in this Treaty affects the right of any group of States to conclude regional treaties in order to assure the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories.

Article VIII
1. Any Party to the Treaty may propose amendments to this Treaty. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Depositary Governments which shall circulate it to all Parties to the Treaty. Thereupon, if requested to do so by one-third or more of the Parties to the Treaty, the Depositary Governments shall convene a conference, to which they shall invite all the Parties to the Treaty, to consider such an amendment.

2. Any amendment to this Treaty must be approved by a majority of the votes of all the Parties to the Treaty, including the votes of all nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty and all other Parties which, on the date the amendment is circulated, are members of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The amendment shall enter into force for each Party that deposits its instrument of ratification of the amendment upon the deposit of such instruments of ratification by a majority of all the Parties, including the instruments of ratification of all nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty and all other Parties which, on the date the amendment is circulated, are members of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any other Party upon the deposit of its instrument of ratification of the amendment.

3. Five years after the entry into force of this Treaty, a conference of Parties to the Treaty shall be held in Geneva, Switzerland, in order to review the operation of this Treaty with a view to assuring that the purposes of the Preamble and the provisions of the Treaty are being realised. At intervals of five years thereafter, a majority of the Parties to the Treaty may obtain, by submitting a proposal to this effect to the Depositary Governments, the convening of further conferences with the same objective of reviewing the operation of the Treaty.

Article IX
1. This Treaty shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Treaty before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article may accede to it at any time.

2. This Treaty shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification and instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, which are hereby designated the Depositary Governments.

3. This Treaty shall enter into force after its ratification by the States, the Governments of which are designated Depositaries of the Treaty, and forty other States signatory to this Treaty and the deposit of their instruments of ratification. For the purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January 1967.

4. For States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited subsequent to the entry into force of this Treaty, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession.

5. The Depositary Governments shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification or of accession, the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, and the date of receipt of any requests for convening a conference or other notices.
6. This Treaty shall be registered by the Depositary Governments pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article X
1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

2. Twenty-five years after the entry into force of the Treaty, a conference shall be convened to decide whether the Treaty shall continue in force indefinitely, or shall be extended for an additional fixed period or periods. This decision shall be taken by a majority of the Parties to the Treaty.1

Article XI
This Treaty, the English, Russian, French, Spanish and Chinese texts of which are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Depositary Governments. Duly certified copies of this Treaty shall be transmitted by the Depositary Governments to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, duly authorized, have signed this Treaty.

DONE in triplicate, at the cities of London, Moscow and Washington, the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-eight.

http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html
Click to expand...
 
Brick Top

Brick Top

New Member
Blaze Master said:
yeah well america signed the geneva convention yet they still torture people. whats the difference?
Click to expand...

What you have relied on is a gray area in definition. Some things, like water-boarding for example, are not considered to be actual torture because it is only simulated and meant to frighten someone into talking. It is not crushing someone's nuts and burning out an eye with a red hot poker or hooking live electrical wire to someone's nuts and zapping the shit out of them.

And some of the complaints about torture turned out to be way beyond laughable. One prisoner at GITMO complained to a Red Cross worker that they were tortured by having cold air blown on them. The prisoner's bed was under an A/C/vent and the fiendish torturous cold air being blown on his was to keep him, and other prisoners, comfortable in the hot humid Cuban climate.

Even though it was easily proven to not be a case of torture, because it was reported as a prisoner as being torture it was added to the number of accusations of torture.

For all the talk about how horrific of a torture water-boarding is, I have seen BDSM films where women were water-boarded, the real thing, just like has been used on murdering terrorists, and after the shoot was over and the girls were interviewed they said how great it was because it caused just enough sensation of fear while still knowing they were in no actual danger of loss of life.

If chicks not only willingly do it, but actually get off on it, how terrible can it really be for some big rough tough fighting all his life terrorist?

Putting a hood on someone and hooking wires to their nuts, wires that are not attached to any electrical source, and making them stand on a box and tell them that if they stop or fall off the box they will step into water and be shocked is not torture. It's trying to scare someone into talking.

Piling a bunch of naked dudes on top of each other to humiliate them and scare them at the same time by having barking dogs nearby is not torture. It's a way to humiliate them and show them you have total control over them and make them wonder what might be coming next and get them thinking about how they and their people will use actual real torture and then cut the head off of a live person, so they start to think that before that stuff does happen to them maybe they should start to sing like a bird.

Don't get me wrong here, I am NOT for Nazi style torture or anything, but I have no problem with someone being frightened or even roughed up a bit, but not beyond anything that would not heal well and not beyond what could happen to any kid playing on a playground or playing baseball or basketball or hockey etc.

Example:

In WWII The First Special Forces Brigade was formed, half American and Half Canadian. It was created for commando style raids but bombing took out their targets before the force was ready. It was going to be disbanded but it's leader talked the military into using it as a highly trained more advanced form of infantry.

While in Italy it was given the job of taking a mountain held by German troops. A number of attacks had been repulsed with heavy casualties. Two German prisoners were taken and brought to the brigade's intelligence officer who was in a room on the second floor of a hotel. He asked one of the German's a question, the German refused to reply, the officer grabbed the German and tossed him out the window. There were troops waiting in the street below to retrieve him and return him to the intelligence officer.

Again the intelligence officer asked a question, the German again refused to answer and once again he went sailing out the window. On that fall he did break one arm. He was returned to the intelligence officer and not only did he answer every question asked, so did the other German who saw his buddy go sailing out the window, plus both went to far as to give additional information pointing out gun positions and munitions storage areas and mortar and artillery positions, tanks and other weapons that the best intelligence had not even guessed was in the area and did not ask about.

The mountain was taken by the Brigade, a much smaller force than the others that were repelled taking very high casualties, and the Brigade took minimal casualties.

OK, a German was frightened and ended up with a broken arm. Broken arms heal. I have broken an arm and several other things. Many of my friends have broken arms and legs. It hurts a bit, you get some pain medication, if the break needs to be set, it is, a cast is put on and you heal. Big deal.

So one German went through that and what was learned from it saved many lives and was the reason the mountain was able to be taken.

How many American and Canadian lives were spared and how many limbs were not lost (ones that would not just heal, that would not grow back) and how many American's and Canadians were not blinded or burned terribly or maimed in some way or psychologically broken, never to be the same again ... and was that worth on German solder being frightened and ending up with a broken arm, that was then treated with just as high quality medical care as if it had been an American or Canadian who broke their arm?

Who would not call that a good and fair and acceptable tradeoff? I sure as Hell would call that more than worth it and more than acceptable.

Also, the gray area fake tortures that people like you get all up in arms about and try to compare as being equal to a terrorist nation possessing nuclear weapons is so far beyond being the ultimate in absurdity that it is proof that people like you totally lack logic, rationale and any degree of sense of proportionality.

According to the 2009 census Tel Aviv had 393,900 residents. One crude atomic device similar to Little Boy, which devastated Hiroshima, or Fat Man, which devastated Nagasaki, if detonated over Tel Aviv would in seconds raise the temperature to over 6,000 degrees Celsius. Half or more of the population could die in one single attack.

How could any sane person believe that risking that, and multiplying it times the number of other Israeli cities that could be targeted is more humane, more acceptable, more intelligent than the faked simulated drowning, where none are actually hurt or die, of one or a few terrorists which could result in such attacks never taking place?

No sane logical rational human being could ever believe that faked simulated torture used to frighten a terrorist into talking is more heinous than the loss of maybe 150,000 or more lives, in just one single city, and the devastation of the city. Not so much as one person who is not insane would say it is better to risk such an unspeakably horrible event than to scare a few terrorists.

And if it came down to where intelligence showed that such an attack was imminent, a preemptive attack that might cost the lives of 1,000, 1,500, 2,000 or maybe 3,000 lives, and terrible as that would be, would still be infinitely more acceptable than the loss of 150,000 lives or 400,000 lives or maybe even a million or more lives.

People need to pull their heads out of their asses and actually think about what is at risk and then consider that in a worst case scenario what would be the far more acceptable outcome. They need to consider proportionality and acceptability based on comparability.

People also have to factor in how if attacked by Iran with nuclear weapons Israel would certainly respond in kind, and then you are talking about a much larger loss of life, possibly as many as millions on both sides.

There would be no true winner. No matter how much someone might attempt to claim otherwise, it would be a lose/lose situation.

Now factor in what it would do the Middle East in general, the flow of oil, the cost of oil, the instability, the possible creation of different factions for defensive purposes, but with divergent agendas, the various nations that might ally themselves with one or more other nations resulting in turning a conflict between two nations into a conflict between numerous nations.

Also, keep in mind that Iran, a known terrorist nation, is continually working on increasing the range of their missiles and before long will have a reliable and fairly accurate missile with the range to cover all of Europe, including the U.K.

There is also the distinct possibility that Iran could sell or just supply nuclear weapons to other less than friendly nations or to terrorist groups, or supply them with the technology and fissionable material needed for them to create their own nuclear weaponry.

Only about 5% of all the containerized cargo brought into U.S. ports is inspected. Just one crude atomic device somewhat similar in explosive power to Little Boy and or Fat Man brought into various U.S. ports on container ships and detonated while docked would wreak havoc the likes of which the U.S. has never seen before, not to mention the loss of life or the economic devastation and the, at least somewhat short term, loss of much needed port facilities.

Is it worth risking all that by sitting back and doing nothing and allowing a known terrorist nation to illegally develop a nuclear arsenal?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
So Brick Top, nuclear energy/weapons are ok for SOME people to have/develop (as long as its not Iran) and torture is ok up to and including water-boarding and broken bones.

Lost a bit of respect for you there to be honest, you're kinda making yourselves out to be the real "terrorists".

Open your mind, Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over 200 years, yet Israel goes around assassinating people and declaring wars on their sand-hut dwelling neighbours but it's ok for Israel to have its secret nuclear arsenal? The West is starting to turn into the bad guys if you ask me.

Why isn't Iran allowed develop nuclear energy? They have basically no weaponised material...how did they breach the Anti-Proliferation treaty? Cos Israel "says" they're making a bomb?

The Koolade might be tasty for a time, but you have to try get over it.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Gyroscope said:
I like that they did that too, but it was just a setback. Too bad it did not cause them to melt down or something more severe.
Click to expand...
the point is that i like the covert approach next best to the diplomatic approach, followed last by an approach that is the full doomsday scenario that brick top is right about in his actuarial science. if it ever came down to that, "they" would lose way more people than "we" would. much of it would be people that don't die in the initial blast, but with the years and decades of suffering that so many would endure from exposure.

and for the record, having taken the time to read even brick's posts, i am more in agreement with him than with harrekin (51-49 ish) about the torture issue with two objections to him.

first objection: rational

if you listen to the people we have actually received information from, the better method to obtain information is not by breaking bones and waterboarding. that has lead, empirically, to false leads and bad information. the real way to get the goods is by promising them things (one guy just wanted a divorce if i recall correctly). i'll have to look this up to be sure, but it makes sense that the best way to get reliable info is to work it out of them with honey, not vinegar. gain trust when possible.

although brick has another point that it is not always possible to gain information without torture-like treatments, it also leads to the logical conclusion that some people will never give up information no matter how much you may torture them. which leads me to my second point...

second objection: emotional/rational

here is the emotional appeal: imagine of your son, daughter, wife, friend, or you were subject to the same techniques as we have imposed but no longer do. how would you feel if your own son or your spouse was subjected to crueler standards of torture, on par with breaking bones and risking death?

we do not need to make the argument that crueler forms of "torture" are needed. we need to make the case for smarter ways of gaining information.

that said, i need to go take a huge dump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top