Which country is the biggest threat to "World peace"?

Chuck Stone

That graph map isn't quite right I think!

charlemont

Freddie59 wrote: »

Both are inseparable. Iran are seeking, ultimately, to usurp the West and dominate, using their brand of "religion" as a vehicle to drive it.

So we are confronted, as a civilisation, with two ideologies (one under which we we enjoy democracy and freedom) and another, which seeks to drag the world to the brink, throw us back several hundred years, and subjugate its subjects. And incredibly, people try to rationalise and defend this.:eek:

Incredibly you believe this..

Gingernuts31

Ireland

Nodin

charlemont wrote: »

Incredibly you believe this..

Ye won't be laughin when some beardie Ayatollah kicks your door open and bins your pork chop, burkhas the missus and fucks the stout down the drain. Could happen any day - if we don't get them before they get us.....

Chuck Stone

Eight former high-ranking military, intelligence and State Department officials took out an ad in the Washington Post today urging President Obama to stand fast against political and lobbying pressure to attack Iran over claims it is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Washington Post Ad.

Source

.

pipelaser

I cant look past Longford

Freddie59

Nodin wrote: »

Yep. I'm always on the alert for bearded Para-Mullahs doing a landing....

Ah somethings never change. Naivety.........gotta love it.:)

Agent Smith

Poll lacks a "Wales" option

Freddie59

wes wrote: »

Well it doesn't protects people from the loons running the US, who have ton of innocent blood on there hands. BTW, as I predicted American crimes are ignored.

Not as much as the bearded Islamist cnuts in frocks. By a long shot. Be careful what you wish for. It just might come true.

Freddie59

RichieC wrote: »

The US has a long and storied history of supplying weapons and training to terrorists. particularly right wing ones. I really can't understand how an American, with a straight face talks of Iran doing the same thing being a good reason to bomb them back to the stoneage.

Let's see......America or Iran in charge.........hmmmmmmmmm. Seems a good enough reason for me.

Freddie59

badabing106 wrote: »

I think you are a little bit "blinded" and bedazzled" by the "western" media.

Yeah, everything about Iran and the fundamentalist threat is probably propaganda. The twin towers were never attacked and 3,000 people from all creeds didn't die. Wake up, for God's sake.

Freddie59

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Good point. Completely ignore (once again) the different scenarios, and continue to play Godwin's Law. And then end your point with rolleyes, which is fast becoming your trademark to your 'points'.

Simply because you don't agree? Sticks, stones, etc.:rolleyes:

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Biggins didn't answer my question, which was directed at yourself, anyway, so I'll ask again. Give me an example of Iran trying to 'usurp the west'. Supplying arms to terrorist factions in the middle east is not an attempt to 'usurp the west'. To 'usurp the west' you would need to engage in some kind of operation to destroy western power or influence, on an international scale.

He answered it very well, and again you don't like facing the truth....which is fast becoming YOUR trademark.

Have a read of Holy War, inc. and come back to me. A fascinating insight into the long-term planning and hypocrisy that is the fundamentalist Islamist, which currently holds power in Iran.

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

They sure are. If you believe they're developing nuclear weapons, then nuclear technology will help to act as a mutual destruction deterrent (similar to the cold war and pakistan v india). If you believe it's simply for nuclear power stations, then nuclear technology is being used to prevent an over-reliance on fossil fuels. Either way, I'd say nuclear technology is a very, very attractive prospect to the iranian regime.

At least we agree on something. But for vastly different reasoning and realities.

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

A black-and-white worldview is a very dangerous thing to hold.

A great pity it wasn't held pre-WW2. Millions of lives could have been saved.

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Hmm, I seem to have come across this kind of 'arguing' on the internet before. Paraphrase somebody's argument and turn it into something the person hasn't said at all. Nobody here is arguing that Iran is as 'pure as the driven snow'. I think it's interesting that you're arguing that Iran is the biggest threat to world peace, because they sold arms to terrorists operating in a country that America has been invading for nearly 10 years now. That's the same America that's invaded her neighbour twice, btw.

It's called a difference of opinion - something you might learn to live with. Me? I find it incredible that ANYONE can either defend, support, or cheer from the sidelines the actions of a fundamentalist Islamic regime, whose sole plan is to subjugate as many people as possible, while hiding behind a "religion", whilst at the same time hoping for the demise of the only country that stands between them and their aims.

Incredibly, the word 'Islam' can be defined as 'to make peace'.:rolleyes:

Go figure.

Freddie59

charlemont wrote: »

Incredibly you believe this..

Incredibly you don't...............

wes

Freddie59 wrote: »

Not as much as the bearded Islamist cnuts in frocks. By a long shot.

Oh please, those guys are a joke, who have achieved nothing.

Also, as I pointed out the US have targetted civilians as well, which doesn't seem to bother you, which to my mind, pretty much destroys any attempt on your part to grab the moral high ground.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for. It just might come true.

Yes, dire warning from someone, who seems to think history consist soley of World War 2, and has no issues when your chosen gang of crazies murders innocent people.

Doc Ruby

Apparently Scotland is regarded as a greater threat to world peace than North Korea. I do agree it needs a Wales option though.

NinjaK

Clearly the US. The sooner someone knocks them off the top spot that better for humanity.

2ndcoming

Freddie59, it's almost unbelievable that you are a real person that actually believes this stuff.

I find it easier to believe that you're some sort of FOX news/ GOP cyborg sent from a secret lab deep in Texas with fantastical tales of mad Arabs with Kalashnikovs and Korans storming the beaches of Wexford to make our women cover their shame and make us all bow to Mecca.

Who is your creator?

Freddie59

wes wrote: »

Oh please, those guys are a joke, who have achieved nothing.

According to you.

wes wrote: »

Also, as I pointed out the US have targetted civilians as well, which doesn't seem to bother you, which to my mind, pretty much destroys any attempt on your part to grab the moral high ground.

Not trying to grab any high ground. Unlike others. Merely pointing out the realities of the situation. Yep, the US isn't perfect. Have they made mistakes? Oh yeah. But they are the preferred choice among people who see the islamist threat for what it is.

wes wrote: »

Yes, dire warning from someone, who seems to think history consist soley of World War 2, and has no issues when your chosen gang of crazies murders innocent people.

Probably because the biggest lessons in history can be taken from that conflict. Which some would prefer to shelve from discussion.

I'll take that chosen gang of crazies over the alternative. Anytime.

HA! I would not have thought the poll would be that conclusive.



DEATH TO AMELLIKA!

Freddie59

2ndcoming wrote: »

Freddie59, it's almost unbelievable that you are a real person that actually believes this stuff.

I find it easier to believe that you're some sort of FOX news/ GOP cyborg sent from a secret lab deep in Texas with fantastical tales of mad Arabs with Kalashnikovs and Korans storming the beaches of Wexford to make our women cover their shame and make us all bow to Mecca.

Who is your creator?

What's more incredible is the Che wannabees who seem to think that Islamic fundamentalism is some kind of joke, and no threat to world peace. We are a member of the western powers. We enjoy the freedoms and protection which that brings. Should there be a shift in World power to, say, China, things will certainly change. And very rapidly.

You, for example, won't be able to view revolutionary claptrap on a service like boards.ie.

Toby Take a Bow

Freddie59 wrote: »

Simply because you don't agree? Sticks, stones, etc.:rolleyes:

Not because I don't agree. Because you can't give a credible response to how the two situations differ.

Freddie59 wrote: »

He answered it very well, and again you don't like facing the truth....which is fast becoming YOUR trademark.

No, he didn't. He answered by referring to Iran supplying terrorists attempting to influence local/regional policy. You suggested an "attempt to usurp the west". And for the third time, you have failed to come up with an example. Hint: Had Iran a hand in the World Trade Centre attacks, this would be a clear example of attempting to usurp the west's power. We'll ignore the simplicity of reducing 'the west' to a uniform way of thinking for now.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Have a read of Holy War, inc. and come back to me. A fascinating insight into the long-term planning and hypocrisy that is the fundamentalist Islamist, which currently holds power in Iran.

Are you deliberately trying to dodge the question? Or are all your ideas taken from this one book? And is this the same Holy War, Inc which has the subtitle referring directly to Osama Bin Laden? The same man who would have been utterly opposed to the Iranian regime in much the same way that he was to the diametrically opposed US and USSR?

Freddie59 wrote: »

A great pity it wasn't held pre-WW2. Millions of lives could have been saved.

And a great pity it was held post WWI. Which lead to the problems faced in the 30s. The black-and-white view you hold also omits such nuances as the completely ill-prepared nature of some of the main players to face-down Hitler at the time, most especially in the case of the Soviet Union. War before 1939 could have utterly destroyed the USSR, without which Europe would have been lost.

Freddie59 wrote: »

It's called a difference of opinion - something you might learn to live with. Me? I find it incredible that ANYONE can either defend, support, or cheer from the sidelines the actions of a fundamentalist Islamic regime, whose sole plan is to subjugate as many people as possible, while hiding behind a "religion", whilst at the same time hoping for the demise of the only country that stands between them and their aims.

Paraphrasing arguments in an attempt to misrepresent the poster's original idea is hardly a difference of opinion. It's misrepresentative. The reason why some of the people here attempt to understand Iran rather than simply label it as fundamentalist and beyond hope is because of a belief that the latter option will only serve to inflame the situation.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Incredibly, the word 'Islam' can be defined as 'to make peace'.:rolleyes: Go figure.

Incredibly, some people equate 'Islam' with 'fundamentalism'. And then end all their posts with rolleyes, as if that's a considered response.

Nodin

Freddie59 wrote: »

Let's see......America or Iran in charge.........hmmmmmmmmm. Seems a good enough reason for me.

How could Iran be "in charge"? Explain please.

Freddie59

Nodin wrote: »

How could Iran be "in charge"? Explain please.

A hypothetical example. Given the amount of anti-US sentiment on this boards.

Freddie59

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Not because I don't agree. Because you can't give a credible response to how the two situations differ.

Again - according to YOU.

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

No, he didn't. He answered by referring to Iran supplying terrorists attempting to influence local/regional policy. You suggested an "attempt to usurp the west". And for the third time, you have failed to come up with an example. Hint: Had Iran a hand in the World Trade Centre attacks, this would be a clear example of attempting to usurp the west's power. We'll ignore the simplicity of reducing 'the west' to a uniform way of thinking for now.

it is indeed fairly simple - much as naive people attempt to complicate it. How do you know they didn't?;)

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Are you deliberately trying to dodge the question? Or are all your ideas taken from this one book? And is this the same Holy War, Inc which has the subtitle referring directly to Osama Bin Laden? The same man who would have been utterly opposed to the Iranian regime in much the same way that he was to the diametrically opposed US and USSR?

No disagreement there. But that book shows the hypocrisy of the fundamentalist Islamic. Which mentality also controls iRAN.

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

And a great pity it was held post WWI. Which lead to the problems faced in the 30s. The black-and-white view you hold also omits such nuances as the completely ill-prepared nature of some of the main players to face-down Hitler at the time, most especially in the case of the Soviet Union. War before 1939 could have utterly destroyed the USSR, without which Europe would have been lost.

At last! Some sense. There's the key phrase: ill-prepared. There were probably people ike your good self around in the 30s who claim ed appeasement was the way forward. Just leave him alone, etc.

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Paraphrasing arguments in an attempt to misrepresent the poster's original idea is hardly a difference of opinion. It's misrepresentative. The reason why some of the people here attempt to understand Iran rather than simply label it as fundamentalist and beyond hope is because of a belief that the latter option will only serve to inflame the situation.

Again, this is YOUR opinion and overview.

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Incredibly, some people equate 'Islam' with 'fundamentalism'. And then end all their posts with rolleyes, as if that's a considered response.

Islamic fundamentalists. Yes, the perfect description. No-one's saying that ALL Islamics are fundamentalists. But they're getting there. much as some choose to ignore the fact.:rolleyes:;):)

RichieC

2ndcoming wrote: »

Freddie59, it's almost unbelievable that you are a real person that actually believes this stuff.

I find it easier to believe that you're some sort of FOX news/ GOP cyborg sent from a secret lab deep in Texas with fantastical tales of mad Arabs with Kalashnikovs and Korans storming the beaches of Wexford to make our women cover their shame and make us all bow to Mecca.

Who is your creator?

They hold right wing conferences where they teach the right leaning conservatives how to debate "lefties" and to use the new media to discredit literature they disagree with using down voting and bad reviews on websites like Amazon. At the same time using book clubs to promote literature they do like. it's an incredibly organised system. Sarah Palin can get her book into the newyork times best seller list using it.

There are folks like that on this very site, and indeed any site you join online where there is a political forum or a prevailing or perceived "left wing" bias.

Though, I doubt freddie is part of it as his debating isn't up to their standards. They usually appear to be rather moderate posters unless you actually read into what they are saying. It's what we call false moderation. Very much like the style of writing you'll find from the Heritage foundation.

I should add, a good way to spot them is by looking out for things like "I used to be a liberal" -

the more you know :pac:

Hande hoche!

RichieC wrote: »

They hold right wing conferences where they teach the right leaning conservatives how to debate "lefties" and to use the new media to discredit literature they disagree with using down voting and bad reviews on websites like Amazon. At the same time using book clubs to promote literature they do like. it's an incredibly organised system. Sarah Palin can get her book into the newyork times best seller list using it.

There are folks like that on this very site, and indeed any site you join online where there is a political forum or a prevailing or perceived "left wing" bias.

Though, I doubt freddie is part of it as his debating isn't up to their standards. They usually appear to be rather moderate posters unless you actually read into what they are saying. It's what we call false moderation. Very much like the style of writing you'll find from the Heritage foundation.


the more you know :pac:

Tell me son, why do you hate freedom?

wes

Freddie59 wrote: »

According to you.

No according to reality. They have actually achieved very little, and are still well on there way to achieve the same. Also, btw you seem to be referring to multiple different groups and countries as if they are one and the same, which shows you really have no idea what the hell you talking about.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Not trying to grab any high ground. Unlike others.

Could have fooled me.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Merely pointing out the realities of the situation.

All I have seen are hysterics, and ill-informed nonsense.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yep, the US isn't perfect. Have they made mistakes? Oh yeah.

Deliberately targetting civilians is not a mistake, thats what we call murder, and its pretty predictable excuse. When the US kills peoples its a mistake, and no one goes to jail or anything. Typical repugnant pov imho.

Freddie59 wrote: »

But they are the preferred choice among people who see the islamist threat for what it is.

For people who are afraid of a few crazies in a cave, that have failed in achieving any of there objectives. Of course, you seem to be referring to Iran, who has never posed a threat to the West. It is in fact the other way round, what with the US/UK destroying Iranian democracy in the 50s, to aiding and abetting Saddam using WMDs on Iranian civilians during the Iran/Iraq war. Iran has much to fear from the US, who have attack Iran via proxies for decades.

Also, there is no one holding a gun to your head making you choose one group of murderers over another. Both can be held accountable for there crimes. No need to just pick one.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Probably because the biggest lessons in history can be taken from that conflict. Which some would prefer to shelve from discussion.

The history behind World War 2 is certainly good know, but to pretend that World War 2 applies to everything is ridiculous. Again, the fact that you keep going back to that well is rather telling imho.

Sorry, but its 2012, not 1939, and the sooner some people comes to that realization that better.

Freddie59 wrote: »

I'll take that chosen gang of crazies over the alternative. Anytime.

Which makes you no different then the crazies you complain about.

RichieC

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Tell me son, why do you hate freedom?

It touched my no no.

2ndcoming

Freddie59 wrote: »

What's more incredible is the Che wannabees who seem to think that Islamic fundamentalism is some kind of joke, and no threat to world peace. We are a member of the western powers. We enjoy the freedoms and protection which that brings. Should there be a shift in World power to, say, China, things will certainly change. And very rapidly.

You, for example, won't be able to view revolutionary claptrap on a service like boards.ie.

Freddie59 wrote: »

What's more incredible is the Che wannabees who seem to think that Islamic fundamentalism is some kind of joke, and no threat to world peace. We are a member of the western powers. We enjoy the freedoms and protection which that brings. Should there be a shift in World power to, say, China, things will certainly change. And very rapidly.

You, for example, won't be able to view revolutionary claptrap on a service like boards.ie.

I'm not sure why Che Guevara would have thought Islamic fundamentalism is some kind of joke, or why you think people who think that are "Ché wannabees"...

Undoubtedly, Iran have an agenda when it comes to Israel, as do all Arab countries in that area, but if you think their agenda is to somehow (against all kinds of insurmountable odds btw) take over the world and send us all into some sort of Sharia law purgatory, then you have certainly been reading some outrageous propaganda, as outrageous as anything that Islamic fundamentalist preachers who deliberately come out with sensationalist BS like Abu-Hamza and his ilk can offer.

Have you ever looked at this issue from the other point of view, just out of interest?

If a country who the majority of the world seem to hold up as the guardians of freedom and the 'heroes of the universe' had funded various wars in all of your neighbouring countries, changing sides as it pleased them and often directly intervening to make sure the result suits them, all the while protecting your mortal enemy who they plonked into the middle of your neighbour's country about 60 years ago, would you consider yourself the aggressor? Do you think the average Iranian considers themselves the aggressor?

Freddie59

wes wrote: »

No according to reality. They have actually achieved very little, and are still well on there way to achieve the same. Also, btw you seem to be referring to multiple different groups and countries as if they are one and the same, which shows you really have no idea what the hell you talking about.

And YOU do?:D

wes wrote: »

All I have seen are hysterics, and ill-informed nonsense.

Again according to you. But back at ya.;)

wes wrote: »

Deliberately targetting civilians is not a mistake, thats what we call murder, and its pretty predictable excuse. When the US kills peoples its a mistake, and no one goes to jail or anything. Typical repugnant pov imho.

Reality my friend. If it were left to some then we'd all take it up the ass from the Irans of this world.

wes wrote: »

For people who are afraid of a few crazies in a cave, that have failed in achieving any of there objectives. Of course, you seem to be referring to Iran, who has never posed a threat to the West. It is in fact the other way round, what with the US/UK destroying Iranian democracy in the 50s, to aiding and abetting Saddam using WMDs on Iranian civilians during the Iran/Iraq war. Iran has much to fear from the US, who have attack Iran via proxies for decades.

For a few crazies in a cave write a few crazies in a beer hall. And there were those who were stupid enough to ignore it. Just like now.

wes wrote: »

Also, there is no one holding a gun to your head making you choose one group of murderers over another. Both can be held accountable for there crimes. No need to just pick one.

Nice twist. But pathetic pacifist nonsense behind the facade.

wes wrote: »

The history behind World War 2 is certainly good know, but to pretend that World War 2 applies to everything is ridiculous. Again, the fact that you keep going back to that well is rather telling imho.

Sorry, but its 2012, not 1939, and the sooner some people comes to that realization that better.

Different year. Same threat. Same methodology. Same people ignoring it. Sigh - will some people ever learn. What's even more telling is that you choose to ignore the most horrific conflict the world has seen - and to learn any lessons from it.

wes wrote: »

Which makes you no different then the crazies you complain about.

Maybe so. But I have the freedom to post what you perceive as craziness. Tell me - is there a Boards.ir? Thought not.