Isreal and American forces ready to attack Iran within days

uprising2

Armed resistance against armed occupation.


Hezbollah first emerged in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, during the Lebanese civil war.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber

gizmo wrote: »

Iran has been openly supplying Hezbollah with financial aid, training and even enjoys the public backing of the Iranian parliament, it's not particularly a secret. The problem is that it hasn't always been for self-defense with numerous issues of them being the initial aggressor in incidents with the Israelis.

And no, I don't consider it better, in fact I consider the actions of both sides despicable.

I agree. It's two sides of the same coin. I wish there were no guns in the world at all. I wish there was shalom/salaam in the world but realistically I am in favour of Hezbollah or anyone else having missiles that reach into Israel IF it means Israel won't engage in open warfare with Lebanon/Hezbollah murdering innocent civilians and destroying their means of living intentionally.

Brown Bomber

uprising2 wrote: »

(Edit: And I was replying to Mahatma's post saying another flotilla, but the same personnell and craft used to slaughter the peace activists wouldn't do to these Iranian ships what they did to to humanitarian aid vessel)

Same personell plus 1 - Shimon Peres wants in :pac:

gizmo

uprising2 wrote: »

Well if Iran has armed Hezbolla with 60000000000000000000000000 million or so rockets we've all heard about without using the canal, 2 ships of arms ain't really that big a deal, maybe their just going to play wargames off the coast of syria or something like that, sure all democracies do that these days.

You realise this is the first time Iranian ships have gone through the canal since the late 70s? And you're still not going to ask yourself the question, "why now?". While I don't agree with them if they are indeed transporting the armaments, the law is clearly states they are permitted to do so. It still doesn't stop me asking myself the above question though.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree. It's two sides of the same coin. I wish there were no guns in the world at all. I wish there was shalom/salaam in the world but realistically I am in favour of Hezbollah or anyone else having missiles that reach into Israel IF it means Israel won't engage in open warfare with Lebanon/Hezbollah murdering innocent civilians and destroying their means of living intentionally.

Unfortunately Hezbollah being armed has had no such calming effect on Israel and instead as been responsible for numerous incidents over the past number of years. As I said in the other thread, it will take both sides attempting to came the radicalism on each respective side for real progress to be made. Of course the first opportunity to do so was fluffed the other day as the US vetoed the UN condemnation of Israeli settlements.

Mahatma coat

Ah Yes, the US Is Activley working towards a Peaceful Solution, Except where that solution might bring about Peace

WakeUp

Ex-Goldman Sach’s analyst Charles Nenner is predicting a massive collapse of the Dow Jones to somewhere around the 5000 mark toward the end of 2012 on the back of a “major war” as he puts it himself. Apparently he predicted the stock market and housing collapse 2 years before the fall of Lehman brothers. The video isn’t on youtube so I cant embed it, here is a link to the video you can watch it if you want. A war could flare up in theory anytime anywhere but considering his obvious links to Israel and the current US/Israeli/Iranian stand off I think we can ask the question does he know something we don’t, he says his prediction is model based but inside information/trading happens all the time it wouldn’t be the first or the last time someone was given a heads up. He is advising his clients to….

“I told my clients and pension funds and big firms and hedge funds to almost go out of the market, almost totally out of the market,” saying that the collapse will unfold over the course of a couple of months and that the reversal will come when the Dow hits just above the 13000 level.

Will be keeping an eye on the Dow to see if hits the 13000 mark and if it does cross my fingers and hope he is talking sh1te.
______________________________________________________________

According to a senior Kuwaiti analyst, Dr. Sami Al-Faraj, the next major regional confrontation will be between Iran and US supplied/backed Gulf Arab States. Al Faraji is the chairman of the Kuwait Centre For Strategic Studies. He was speaking to the Kuwaiti daily Al-Watan.- link.
__________________________________________________________________

EU MEP’s call for new round of sanctions against Iran – link

Mahatma coat

Another point that does need to be raised about the alleged weaponsbeing sent Allegedley to the Palestinians.

THEY ARE NOT FIRED AT ISRAEL

They are Fired at ISRAELI OCCUPIERS OF PALESTINIAN LAND

gizmo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Another point that does need to be raised about the alleged weaponsbeing sent Allegedley to the Palestinians.

THEY ARE NOT FIRED AT ISRAEL

They are Fired at ISRAELI OCCUPIERS OF PALESTINIAN LAND

I don't really see why a distinction needs to be made, people will still die. And for the record Iran has no business getting involved in that conflict, just like the US has no business either for the record.

Mahatma coat

theres a huge distinction.

if I walk over to your house and Punch you in the Face, I'm quite clearly in the wrong
if You come into my house, Sit down in my chair and start treating my house as if you own it then I'd be fair justified in givin you a smack in the gob and asking you to leave.

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

theres a huge distinction.

if I walk over to your house and Punch you in the Face, I'm quite clearly in the wrong
if You come into my house, Sit down in my chair and start treating my house as if you own it then I'd be fair justified in givin you a smack in the gob and asking you to leave.

And what if you as owner of the house were to also take swipes at the invader's child?

gizmo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

theres a huge distinction.

if I walk over to your house and Punch you in the Face, I'm quite clearly in the wrong
if You come into my house, Sit down in my chair and start treating my house as if you own it then I'd be fair justified in givin you a smack in the gob and asking you to leave.

Quite true however that's not the point I was making. To use your analogy, what if your mate came over and hit me because I was in your house doing? Or perhaps brought a gun over so you could shoot me? Would he be in the right too?

My point being, Iran (or indeed any other state) shouldn't be openly supplying a terrorist organisation with weapons so they can blow the **** out of the Israelis when there are legitimate efforts being made (by Palestinians) to resolve the issue peacefully. It completely undermines any progress being made and just gives Israel another excuse to act like they have been in the past.

Mahatma coat

Si the Iranians are Bad Bad Men for supplying Weapons to the Palestinians so that they may defend their homes, but I see nothing of condemnation for the Americans who Supply the Israelis and facilitate their agressive and Illegal war.


also If my friends DIDNT Help when you came and invaded my home I would be rather reluctant to call them friends.

Mahatma coat

King Mob wrote: »

And what if you as owner of the house were to also take swipes at the invader's child?

Well if the invader has brought his children with him then he has put them in Harms way.

the trick is NOT to Invade other peoples homes;)

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well if the invader has brought his children with him then he has put them in Harms way.

the trick is NOT to Invade other peoples homes;)

Ah well then it's ok then I guess, kids are just in the way.

Also aren't you a white Australian?

Mahatma coat

Well YEAH, Regardless of how many kids he brings Out on an evenings robbin, he's still out on an evenins robbin, the Kids are being put in harms way by the Invading father not by me, I am defending my property from INVADERS.

so IF I come round to rob your house it'd be OK if I had a Kid??? you wouldnt attack me, or attempt to defend yerself?

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well YEAH, Regardless of how many kids he brings Out on an evenings robbin, he's still out on an evenins robbin, the Kids are being put in harms way by the Invading father not by me, I am defending my property from INVADERS.

so IF I come round to rob your house it'd be OK if I had a Kid??? you wouldnt attack me, or attempt to defend yerself?

But then isn't the other guy also defending his kids?

How would you respond to a person attacking your children?

Mahatma coat

Sorry, No, your posts suggest that You seem to have lost the Fcukin Plot completely :eek:

One Party is the rightful home owner, the other Party is the INVADER. the Invader does not get ( in this situation, apparently when dealing with nation states you can Defend yourself by opening fire from a Helicopter on Unarmed civilians) the right to defend himself, if the Invader wants me to Stop Punching him in the Face then he can Fcuk off out of my house and I will stop, if he brings a Child with him then HE Is puttin the Child in harms way not me.

Invader == Aggressor
Homeowner == Defender

is that such a hard concept to grasp???

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Sorry, No, You seem to have lost the Fcukin Plot completely :eek:

One Party is the rightful home owner, the other Party is the INVADER. the Invader does not get ( in this situation, apparently when dealing with nation states you can Defend yourself by opening fire from a Helicopter on Unarmed civilians) the right to defend himself, if the Invader wants me to Stop Punching him in the Face then he can Fcuk off out of my house and I will stop, if he brings a Child with him then HE Is puttin the Child in harms way not me.

Invader == Aggressor
Homeowner == Defender

is that such a hard concept to grasp???

It's not a hard concept to grasp, that's kinda the issue.
Your analogy (and frankly your position) is far too simplistic.

For every propaganda piece you can put up for the Palestinians fighting for their land, there's a propaganda piece for the Israelis fighting to defend their children.

I just think it's kinda funny that you, a white Australian are saying it's ok for a Aborigine guy to attack your kids.

Mahatma coat

I'm not advocating that anyone ATTACK, thats my point, you seem to think that the Invader suddenly has the right to live in your house and move in his family.
but let me state this one clearly and unambiguosly

Israeli Settlers Have Illegaly invaded another Country, Stolen Land and occupied it by force, They Must Leave that land, The Palestinians have every Right to defend themselves from Further encroachment and to reclaim lands stolen from them.

the settlers are the ones who are putting their childrens Lives at risk, not the Palestinians.

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'm not advocating that anyone ATTACK, thats my point, you seem to think that the Invader suddenly has the right to live in your house and move in his family.
but let me state this one clearly and unambiguosly

Israeli Settlers Have Illegaly invaded another Country, Stolen Land and occupied it by force, They Must Leave that land, The Palestinians have every Right to defend themselves from Further encroachment and to reclaim lands stolen from them.

the settlers are the ones who are putting their childrens Lives at risk, not the Palestinians.

Funny how easy it is to justify killing kids isn't it.
And you think the Israelis have to be inhuman brainwashed monsters from them to do it.

old_aussie

King Mob wrote: »

Ah well then it's ok then I guess, kids are just in the way.

Also aren't you a white Australian?

What's colour got to do with it?

Are you making a racial slur?

King Mob

old_aussie wrote: »

What's colour got to do with it?

Are you making a racial slur?

No just making the point that it can be argued that White Australians (people descended from colonists and immigrants as well as recent immigrants) have stolen land from the original natives.

I just think it's funny that he's in the position more analogous to the Israelis.

phosphate

King Mob wrote:

I just think it's funny that he's in the position more analogous to the Israelis.

Nonsense..for a whole catalog of obvious reasons even a child could see.

There's no armed conflict between australians and Aborigines being the most basic observation.

Occupation of land by Israel is illegal under international law; assuming you respect the UN mandate. (Israel clearly don't)

Australians aren't committing genocide against the Aborignes...
I could go on.. but you get the overall picture, it's not analogous at all in any sense of the word.

King Mob

phosphate wrote: »

Nonsense..for a whole catalog of obvious reasons even a child could see.

There's no armed conflict between australians and Aborigines being the most basic observation.

Occupation of land by Israel is illegal under international law; assuming you respect the UN mandate. (Israel clearly don't)

Australians aren't committing genocide against the Aborignes...
I could go on.. but you get the overall picture, it's not analogous at all in any sense of the word.

But in MC's simplistic example, and views, those that stole land have no rights of defence. The white man stole land.
So in the examples he giving to show how to justify killing kids, he's on the exact same side he things the Israelis are on.
Thus analogous.

Mahatma coat

Hang on here, Back the Fcuk up for a minute, Where Do I JUSTIFY Killing Children????????

Answer this Saliently please

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Hang on here, Back the Fcuk up for a minute, Where Do I JUSTIFY Killing Children????????

Answer this Saliently please

You said it's not the fault of the Palestinians that Israeli children are killed because it's the Israeli's fault for bringing the children.

the settlers are the ones who are putting their childrens Lives at risk, not the Palestinians.

So since they aren't to blame for the deaths of Israeli children there is no moral wrong in launching missiles that might kill said children.

That's the definition of justifying something.

Mahatma coat

Eh, NO, Try reading that again, this time without trying to make connections that arent there.

The Settlers are Endangering the lives of their children, they dont have to endanger the lives of their Children they could just fcuk off back within their own borders.

how is that a justification of Killing children???

My main point is that the Settlers DONT Have the Right to Defend themselves, any action by them is by definition an act of Agression as they are the invading and occupying force

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

how is that a justification of Killing children???

Because it absolves the Palestinians from the moral wrong of killing children.

Is it morally right for anyone to ever launch a rocket at a non-combat target where there's a chance they will kill children.

Mahatma coat

is it right to use Your children as a Human shield?????????