SeVeR

Worthless: I'll consider that post, with its complete lack of any counter-argument, to be a concession. Thanks for your time and enjoy your 3 months without people disecting your arguments to the point where all you can do is shout insults. nintendo: You can't declare someone elses land your home, no matter how much they deserve to have a home. True but you can't just bomb civilian buildings, moving cars, and the airport without knowing for sure that there are terrorists at those locations. Israel is randomly selecting targets that show any sign of activity whether they're terrorist targets or not.

I don't want another Holocaust, i want the people who were living in peace on that land to go back to living there in peace after the Jews give back what they've stolen.

Worthless: Israel is conducting "terrorist" attacks!!!! Are you watching the !@#$%^&*ing news?!?!? They join the Israeli "army" to legitimize their actions and then go out and kill Muslim civilians. TERRORISM you dumb !@#$%^&*. They can wear nice uniforms and call themselves an army but its still terrorism. Israel last pulled out of Lebanon in 2000. If you think that 6 years makes the Lebanese population stop hating Israel for what they did then you know less about this conflict than you admit. Your lack of logic must make you believe that all the Muslims in the middle east have no reason to fight whatsoever. Whether its 6 years or 60 years, people don't forget. So "!@#$%^&*" was no status quo, all that happened in Lebanon is Israel pulled out and the opposition regrouped. What have you got against rhetorical questions? The questions cause you to think about your preconceptions and look back over how you came to form your point of view. If you can't do that then you become a tool for whoever manages to influence you. *Fox News lets out a cheer* "One more convert!" I thought you didn't like rhetorical questions? There are already thousands of dead muslims, as for your "bull!@#$%^&*" figure of 20 million dead Jews i think you're dreaming. You seem to forget that the Jews already have what they want: another people's land. The Muslims want their land back and that requires attacking the Jews. You seem to want to equate hate to aggression and you're completely wrong to do so when the Jews only need to defend to keep what they have stolen. They still hate the muslims, they just don't need to do anything. Ok so a terrorist organisation "!@#$%^&*ed" with Israel. Does that mean you go out and kill hundreds of civilians? Israel isn't even targetting the people responsible, did you know they're bombing random cars that happen to be on the move? If you can justify all that by saying that "its not about moral relativism" then you can go "!@#$%^&*" yourself. Yeah they can go out and bomb a bunch of terrorist installations if they want killing hundreds of terrorists and i wouldn't bat an eyelid. But it seems you're ignoring something really crucial to this argument. Capturing 2 soldiers is not an act of war against Israel from Lebanon. The proper response is to gather intelliegence on Hezbollah and attempt a rescue and/or negotiate and/or destroy select terrorist strongholds. Bombing the crap out of civilians is what turned this into a !@#$%^&*-storm and the sooner you realise it the better. Would you say that next time some civilians go missing in Colombia we should bomb the crap out of the whole country? Israel made a mountain out of a mole-hill (or a !@#$%^&*-storm out of a violent fart...) Yea they did, and now they still do. So tell me what the war will achieve? Israeli tanks roll back into that land in Gaza all the time to level any buildings. Its not their land when it gets occupied each time a man who has had his family killed shoots at some Israeli soldiers. Its ridiculous to think that... and what do you think happens when the tanks roll back in and kill more civilians? You get another heart-broken muslim wanting brutal revenge. No, the US won the land because they favoured the Jews. If you don't think so then look back on some of Truman's speechs. I'm sure even at that time there were laws in place to not favour one ethnic group over another. You're right that all land has once been occupied illegally and all those lands are at peace now, Israel is not at peace and until it is the international community should decide which side to take and who the land belongs to. Where is my hatred? As for ignorance you should really watch less of the Fox News channel and start having your own opinions. So? I would too. If a world super-power bullied me into doing something when i have every right to do what i want i would "throw them the bird". What angers Iran the most is how the West has painted them as a criminal because of their unwillingness to concede. They have no reason or obligation to concede and as a result are being incriminated through the western media. Its an absolute farce and i can't believe people like you believe this crap when its fed to you. ....Actually i can believe it in your case. Oh you really are a patriotic crack-pot aren't you? Astro: The Jews have the land and are "outraging" the Muslims. Do you somehow think that because the Jews went through the Holocaust we should pity them, then give them someone elses land and say "there, there, i hope this can somehow make up for it"?

Who are the real terrorists? The Muslims who are too scared to get into an organised fighting force because they know they'll be wiped out too easily? Or the Israelis who have the backing and technology of the USA and who can wear nice uniforms and call themselves an army? The hate is the same on both sides. Israel's actions aren't even "eye-for-an-eye" they're so much more deplorable. Somehow they weigh up 2 kidnappings with 335 deaths (and rising). The question for all you Israeli (+ America and "axis" of self-righteous criminals) supporters is what has this action achieved other than "Don't mess with us". 1. Its destablised the region and tempts Syria+Iran into an all out war. 2. A whole new generation of terrorists are born as they watch their family members die. Sure there were plenty of terrorists to start with but opinions like that don't change with killing civilians. Israel may have killed a few "terrorists" but for each one that dies there are now 10 more to take their place. Israel has put out the message "Don't mess with us" but we already know this is the case. Is it just the new PM trying to prove "mine is bigger than yours"?. Israel is under the wing of a war-monger. What gets forgotten in this conflict is how much hate the Jews have for the Muslims. They never even explored a diplomatic option. They have still not given back the Palestinian land. Israel only uses diplomacy to incriminate the opposition but they've never actually given up anything in their existence. They haven't had too... the USA is their "daddy". What do you mean by "their own territory"? Occupying a piece of land illegally for 60 years or less makes it your own? And what have they given up? I'm sure they do. The problem is that the USA wants Israel to survive aswell. You cannot expect an illegal land-grab to just "blow-over" after 60 years. If there is a right thing to be done then its certainly not what Israel is doing. And your evidence for this? I'm looking for something other than Fox News. Hamas has next to nothing to do with Iran and Hezbollah likely gets funding from Iran but there is no reason to suggest Iran controls Hezbollah. I don't think anyone could control the will of a man who has had a member of their family killed by Israelis. The motive of Bush will always be to incriminate Iran and the media in the last 6 months has of course been all over it even though Iran has done nothing illegal or said anything that i personally would not have said. When the G8 leaders met they practically ignored Bush's attempt to paint Iran as big-bad criminal simply because they're educated enough to not be puppets.... i guess that'll be the case until the US makes a lucrative deal for them to back action against Iran (Israel's creation 60 years ago). On what grounds? Because Bush told you Iran is evil? Seriously i hope Iran and Syria back up Lebanon if Israel gets into full-on war against the Lebanese army. Then it'll be up to the USA to show its true colours once again, except this time i don't think they'll have the support or the man-power to pull it off. Maybe then justice will be done... albeit at what could be one of the worst costs since the second world war.

You provide the jet fuel and i'll provide the leprachaun.

pernille> um Had to be done..

Hezbollah is not the same as Lebanon. Just like an international civilian airport is not the same as a terrorist training camp. Just like all the civilians who've been killed are not terrorists. Soldiers get kidnapped all the time! Israeli soldiers get killed all the time! Last time some soldiers got killed i didn't remember Israel bombing civilian infrastructure in a "sovereign" country that is not a representative of the terrorist group that operates within its borders. In some ways i hope Syria and Iran show the same force to Israel as Israel shows to its Islamic neighbours. But of course then the USA would intervene. Israel is like the spoilt little rich kid who throws insults around because he knows he can get away with it, in this case though the insults are bombs. Its time someone put them in their place... but i'd much rather the international community recognised the USA's bias in the region and their initial crimes for the creation of Israel or we'd end up with a world war. However.... America may be too overstretched in Iraq and the time for Syria and Iran to strike may be upon us. Wonderor: You talk as if this is an innocent family who have lost beloved relatives... what you don't do in that situation is kill 60 or more innocent people just to get those beloved relatives back. Are the lives of Lebonese civilians completely worthless to you?

Aw she was hot, just shows you that in every fat chick there's a hot girl inside and vice versa. Maybe slim-fast will use it as another one of those before and after things but in reverse. Holy crap, why is this 2005 thread on page 1... now i've inadvertantly gone and resurrected something ancient.

Once again Israel uses a disproportionate amount of force with no regard for civilians. Attacking the airport was an act of "terrorism" equivalent to that of any other group that has destroyed civilian infrastructure. Deployment of battleships seems completely unnecessary. This appears to be an act of war against a nation for the simple reason that they cannot control a terrorist group that operates within their borders. What is the UN doing to deal with this "rogue state" that has eagerly attacked another country in an act of "terrorism"? I doubt Bush would phrase it that way...

Burning a turtle alive is cruelty against animals. Burning a flag is like burning your old curtains. If some patriotic idiot with nothing better to be proud of wants to attach some meaning to a particular pattern (The American Flag) then we shouldn't all be forced to treat the flag like an ancient tapestry. I've never burnt a flag (or a cross) but if America invades Iran i'd certainly be tempted, i don't want to be breaking the law to express a viewpoint. If mainstream culture happens to dislike that i'd understand why and continue to happily disagree. The fact remains that we should not be forced into the American religion. It can be or it can be an act of protest against the American government or a loss of faith in America because of what it has become.... it doesn't have to be a lack of respect for what it once was.

So if you take a bit of cloth and draw/dye the American flag on it, it suddenly means something other than "this is America's flag"? People may have died for what it stands for TO THEM, but forcing others to have the same respect for something that is essentially a piece of cloth with a symbol on it is almost going against 'Freedom of Religion'. We are free burn crosses, qurans and bibles so why not this other symbol? People should not be forced to treat a particular symbol with respect. I won't be forced to join the American religion (aka Patriotism).

Freedom of speech is far more important than displaced pride.

I was referring to Christians. I think Catholics would probably listen more to the Pope than to Bush. Christianity is the dominant religion by quite a long way in the US. It is hard to "nail down" exactly how many are Christians and how many are Catholics but there is certainly alot of Jesus talk in the US (compared to the UK).

No more so than a 70 year old having sex with a 23 year old.

I think alot of people would see the UN as a puppet for the US, i would. Israel is a creation of US dominance over the UN. How does this make Iran wrong? Iran has a right to enrich uranium, accepting anything to the contrary accepts that the US and a select group of Europeans are right to make them do otherwise. The president of Iran hasn't said anything i haven't already said, none of it makes me a killer, so why would it make him a killer? I would do everything i can to get the international community to recognise the crimes of the US and Israel to grab land from Muslims. I would wipe Israel off the map in the same way Palestine was wiped off the map.

Again, where does it say kill? I want Israel wiped off the map, i want the elimination of the Zionist regime, but i don't want to kill tens of millions of jews in cold blood! You are reading one thing and thinking another. It really doesn't surprise me though since this is exactly the kind of thing the media is encouraging. I want Israel wiped off the map too. No it wouldn't because the people support the government and want Israel to exist. Iran is doing nothing more than stating that the creation of Israel was an illegal and inhumane act and that it needs to be corrected. They need to be wiped off the map, and the Zionist regime needs to be kicked out because they shouldn't be there. Wind-power is not efficient enough, its not cost-effective and all that "sand" would get in the turbines . Did you know % of France's energy comes from nuclear power stations? That's how effective the nuclear option can be. You've got to think from their perspective though, Iran see's a community dominated by the USA -- the country largely responsible for the creation of Israel. Firstly China and Russia are not in agreement with the US so its not the "UN". Secondly its only the Europeans who are helping the US and the US is the only country threatening Iran with sanctions and military action. The Europeans may come to agree with sanctions in the end (if they haven't already) but it would only be to appease the US. Iran has a right to not let the US push them around. They have a right to nuclear power. If the US is going to use its international power to stop that happening then they're the criminals. Iran see's the UN as a puppet for the US and why shouldn't they? Israel got created "through the UN". The fact that China and Russia don't agree with the US fits perfectly because it shows how countries that don't suck up to the US get behind the side that isn't doing anything illegal. The US's case would not hold up in a court of law. All they have is suspicion and prejudice. Iran on the other hand would have a good case against the US for har!@#$%^&*ment.

Did they say kill? I don't think so, they want the destruction of Israel just like America wanted the destruction of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. They want Israel gone, if you construe that as killing everyone in a mad bombing spree through some stereotypical, media-driven view that any anti-Israel comments are from islamic extremists then you've 'been' misguided. I want Israel gone, if I was a Muslim i bet you'd be calling me a murderer too. Building solar or wind power plants are too expensive at the moment and they generate a tiny amount of power. (I have no idea what made you think Iran has alot of wind). They have a huge oil supply but they rely on selling most of that. It is by far their biggest export and when it runs out they're pretty much screwed for money and energy. By building nuclear power plants they can increase their exports and have a better future when things run out. I can't blame them for not wanting other countries to interfere. I don't think its reason to suspect they want to nukes. What? They're negotiating, they just throw a big !@#$%^&* you to America when America criminalizes them to the world and pressurises them to stop their perfectly legal development of nuclear power. I got to tell you, it was a convincing post but then i remembered Iran is not doing anything wrong. America's price for diplomacy and their "threats" of military action and sanctions are the closest things to criminal in this conflict of interests.

Naw, Hece had a wet encounter and told me all about it.

I agree with you about the republican split but all republicans still benefit in the same way. I believe Bush is an economic libertarian who uses the patriots and christians to his advantage through mentioning God, good&evil, and calling himself a Christian. He has to keep those voters and does it by being a republican. The libertarians would not gain from a split, they might convince a few democrats to join/vote but they'd lose a large chunk of their voters. They'd have to convince as many Democrats to join their party as they lose to the "social conservative party". I actually agree that the Clintons are very similar to the Bushes. I might even theorise that we have a democratically-agreeable aristocracy going on in America. If Hilary ever becomes president (i really hope she doesn't) then that'd be two bushes and two clintons for the last four presidents. I think you give them too much credit. There are alot of people in America who will vote on very shallow principles. You may call almost every American a patriot by that definition, but i'm only referring to the people who stick flags on their houses, support almost any war (usually whilst not knowing where the country is on a map) and are quite xenophbic. There are plenty of them and Bushes speeches usually accomodate them quite well (aswell as slipping in the words "God" and "fighting evil" for the Christians). I do believe everything is relative so i will agree with your definition of patriotism and change my definition to "extreme patriotism".

The republicans always appealed to two key groups: Patriots and Christians. Wars, Defense, Flag-Waving - for the patriots. Anti-gay, pro-life, being a Christian, , talking about good&evil all the time - for the Christians.

I've heard its quite painful to be on the receiving end.

A University run by a Christian group has already told a gay man to "go to San Francisco" and expelled him from the university. I don't think you can avoid it.

I agree Greased, although i think what some people want is the definition of the word changed for when two gay people "marry". I wouldn't have any complaints if they invented a new word for when gay people marry as long as they had most/all of the same rights a heterosexual couple has. These people just want something to hate that isn't marriage. They see marriage as tainted otherwise especially as its in the eyes of God... etc.

I'm been living in America for the past four months since this all started. Originally i'm from England though. In this country its much easier to see straight through the propaganda on the news, especially when they say things like "stop them getting nuclear weapons" as if there's any proof they want them. Half the US probably thinks Iran wants nukes because of the news. I just dislike the government and the media, America is one of the best countries in the world to live in.

A cease-fire requires concessions from both sides prior to diplomacy. What is the US doing? Also lets be clear that Iran isn't killing anyone, they're not committing any sort of crime, and they are perfectly justified in wanting to develop nuclear power for their country. I thought they let the IAEA into their country to check whether the process was still going on. No one has the right to tell Iran they can't develop their own nuclear power. If the IAEA said that then they're just another tool that Bush has at his disposal. I think alot of people would have done the same thing, i don't see anything wrong with outlining the crimes of the Bush administration. If Bush wanted to argue any of this he would have replied. What exactly is your evidence for saying this? America wanted to push them around and Iran is doing everything they should do to not let that happen. How are they getting "more political power"? And who's fault is that? Iran originally set out to develop nuclear power which would give their people better lives. That is still their objective and they shouldn't have to suspend that because the US wants otherwise. Are you telling me that the resisitance to US threats is evidence that Iran doesn't want what is best for its people? If the US wants to enter talks with Iran then they shouldn't demand a change in Iran's internal affairs!