Llyranor Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Hi, I was reading through another forum recently and found a quite disturbing post. The topic was about the Middle-East, specifically Iran. There were arguments on both sides, and they were pretty compelling. However, one particularly poster wrote that it would just be easier to nuke Iran. Or the entire Middle-East. I personally found it a tad disturbing, but I'm interested in seeing what people from the other side of the fence would use as arguments to justify this. Thanks. (no Middle-East bashing, please) (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
Killian Kalthorne Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 The more you vilify a region or people the easier to seek to wipe them off the map. The Middle East is a bucket of trouble and always will. I dont have a problem with Iran seking nuclear power, and it would be hypocritical to deny them the ability to have nuclear weapons. We have nuclear weapons. Russia has nuclear weapons. China has nuclear weapons. Hell, even India and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Israel also has nuclear weapons but that's a secret. If Iran feels threatened by all these nuclear powers why shouldn't they have nuclear weapons too? Of course I would prefer that no country had any nuclear weapons but that isn't going to happen. "Your Job is not to die for your country, but set a man on fire, and take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
Humodour Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 I think we should support Israel, and includes nuking places like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and especially Palestine.
Killian Kalthorne Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 I think we should just butt out. Let Israel stand on its own. The worst thing the US and the UK did after WW2 was made Israel in the middle east. They should have carved chunks out of Germany, Austria, and Italy for the Jewish state. "Your Job is not to die for your country, but set a man on fire, and take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
Nick_i_am Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Yeah, that wouldn't cause any friction. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
Meshugger Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 (just kidding, the whole question is preposterous) "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy
Killian Kalthorne Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Yeah, that wouldn't cause any friction. I am sure it would, but I am sure it would be less so than the middle east. "Your Job is not to die for your country, but set a man on fire, and take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
kirottu Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Hi, I was reading through another forum recently and found a quite disturbing post. The topic was about the Middle-East, specifically Iran. There were arguments on both sides, and they were pretty compelling. However, one particularly poster wrote that it would just be easier to nuke Iran. Or the entire Middle-East. I personally found it a tad disturbing, but I'm interested in seeing what people from the other side of the fence would use as arguments to justify this. Thanks. (no Middle-East bashing, please) Nuking it would probably be the worst idea ever. Middle-East has vast oil reserves and basicly then there would only be vast radioactive oil reserves. That would be very bad for world economics. Now nerve-gas on the other hand... This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time.
Brdavs Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Sure thing, as long as we start with Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Discussion like this reminds me of a comment I once read... "Iran is not crazy to want nuclear weapons (if it so does), given the situation Iran would be crazy not to want nuclear weapons."
Humodour Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Sure thing, as long as we start with Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Sure, nuke the most democratic countries in the Middle East, why not.
Kaftan Barlast Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 (edited) Before you ask yourselves why we would nuke the middle-east, we should all just take a minute to contemplate why we SHOULDNT nuke it. I mean, we've got all these nukes that are just collecting dust and the middle-east is just sitting there, all wide stretches of desert and even more desert. We could start slow, maybe drop maybe 4-5 nukes there and noone would even know, then we could gradually drop more and more nukes as people start getting used to the idea. I mean, come on. be reasonable here, its a win-win deal for everybody. Sure thing, as long as we start with Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Sure, nuke the most democratic countries in the Middle East, why not. You know those are actually.. you know, pretty much in the same country. You mentioned it before, small place, lots of jewish people. Edited October 1, 2008 by Kaftan Barlast DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "
Rosbjerg Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Hi, I was reading through another forum recently and found a quite disturbing post. The topic was about the Middle-East, specifically Iran. There were arguments on both sides, and they were pretty compelling. However, one particularly poster wrote that it would just be easier to nuke Iran. Or the entire Middle-East. I personally found it a tad disturbing, but I'm interested in seeing what people from the other side of the fence would use as arguments to justify this. Thanks. (no Middle-East bashing, please) Nuking it would probably be the worst idea ever. Middle-East has vast oil reserves and basicly then there would only be vast radioactive oil reserves. That would be very bad for world economics. Now nerve-gas on the other hand... It's funny 'cause it's evil.. I'd rather we use some of those aphrodisiac-bombs I heard the US Military were developing.. It's about time we brought love to the Middle-East. Fortune favors the bald.
kirottu Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Before you ask yourselves why we would nuke the middle-east, we should all just take a minute to contemplate why we SHOULDNT nuke it. I mean, we've got all these nukes that are just collecting dust and the middle-east is just sitting there, all wide stretches of desert and even more desert. We could start slow, maybe drop maybe 4-5 nukes there and noone would even know, then we could gradually drop more and more nukes as people start getting used to the idea. I mean, come on. be reasonable here, its a win-win deal for everybody. Well, when you put it like that. I mean, it This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time.
Guest The Architect Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Yeah, sure, why not, so long as they show it on TV, to entertain us, otherwise they all would've died for nothing.
Brdavs Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 (edited) Sure thing, as long as we start with Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Sure, nuke the most democratic countries in the Middle East, why not. No, nuke the generator of friction in the area and terorism across the globe. I wont even debate the democracy of a zionistic country infused with military that runs the Gaza strip concentration camp. The pure math is simple... There are 7mil izraelis. There are 70mil people in Iran ALONE. Nuke Izrael, problem solved, fewer cost in human lives. Simple arithmitics. Unless you`re trying to say a Israeli life is worth more than the others are lol? Nvm answering, twas a rethorical question. Ofcourse the value of life differs in accordance to the passport it holds, thats no secret. And if democracy was a criteria you should nuke Saudi Arabia waaaaay before Iran or Syria. But they be on our side you say, eh? Like I said, Iranis would be friggin nutjubs not to go for nukes. All the cooks of this "lets nuke ME and be done with it" caliber (if pallin can run one of em has good chances of gettin into office) and all the hardware certain champions of "peacefull resolutions without threaths" of conflicts (think Gerogia cermons to Russia) have stockpiled on the borders\shores. Edited October 1, 2008 by Brdavs
Meshugger Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Sure thing, as long as we start with Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Sure, nuke the most democratic countries in the Middle East, why not. No, nuke the generator of friction in the area and terorism across the globe. I wont even debate the democracy of a zionistic country infused with military that runs the Gaza strip concentration camp. The pure math is simple... There are 7mil izraelis. There are 70mil people in Iran ALONE. Nuke Izrael, problem solved, fewer cost in human lives. Simple aritmitics. Unless you`re trying to say a jews life is worth more than the others lol? Nvm answering, twas a rethorical question. Ofcourse the value of life differs in accordance to the passport it holds, thats no mistery. And if democracy was a criteria you should nuke Saudi Arabia waaaaay before Iran or Syria. But they be on our side you say, eh? Like I said, Iranis would be friggin nutjubs not to go for nukes. All the cooks of this "lets nuke ME and be done with it" caliber (if pallin can run one of em has good chances of gettin into office) and all the hardware certain champions of "peacefull resolutions without threaths" of conflicts (think Gerogia cermons to Russia) have stockpiled on the borders\shores. Israel doesn't have any oil. "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy
Killian Kalthorne Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Sure thing, as long as we start with Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Sure, nuke the most democratic countries in the Middle East, why not. Democratic does not equal good. "Your Job is not to die for your country, but set a man on fire, and take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
Humodour Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Wah wah Irsael thus Zionist conspiracy such as and therefore.
Morgoth Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Violence just creates more violence. And the losers are always innocent civilians anyway, so I'm not really in the mood to make jokes about this subject in the first place. Rain makes everything better.
Meshugger Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 A quick look at the StormFront-forums and this one showed up: Someone has taken a joke too seriously. "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy
Brdavs Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 (edited) Wah wah Irsael thus Zionist conspiracy such as and therefore. Did I mention any conspiracy? did I miss the concrete walls going down around gaza and essencials being periodically shut off as a form of (political) pressure on elected enteties we dont recognise as "legitimate" since theyre not our cup of tea anyways ? And zionism is a factual politacal (nationalistic) movement that comes in many niances, including ones just as fundamental as the Islamism does. The fact it only gets associated with "jews r taking ovah the US" conspiracies in your mind is solly the problem of your uneducated mind. I`m just using the cold hard logic of the would be nukers. And as far as pasports having wight in the scales of life, last time I checked 4k US citizens departing this world led to dead and displaced in the millions. So again, 7mil:100mil. Who would your nonbiggoted oppinion consider nuking over the others? So lemme rephraze that for ya: Wah wah tried to be smart and use some logical ratinalle only to be slapped by the cold hard facts not favoring my prefered side so now I mimic crying since I ran out of arguments such as and therefore. Thought so. Edited October 1, 2008 by Brdavs
Kaftan Barlast Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Stormtroopers of Death are awesome, Ive seem them live once! DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "
Humodour Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Wah wah Irsael thus Zionist conspiracy such as and therefore. Did I mention any conspiracy? did I miss the concrete walls going down around gaza and essencials being periodically shut off as a form of (political) pressure on elected enteties we dont recognise as "legitimate" since theyre not our cup of tea anyways ? And zionism is a factual politacal (nationalistic) movement that comes in many niances, including ones just as fundamental as the Islamism does. The fact it only gets associated with "jews r taking ovah the US" conspiracies in your mind is solly the problem of your uneducated mind. I`m just using the cold hard logic of the would be nukers. And as far as pasports having wight in the scales of life, last time I checked 4k US citizens departing this world led to dead and displaced in the millions. So again, 7mil:100mil. Who would your nonbiggoted oppinion consider nuking over the others? So lemme rephraze that for ya: Wah wah tried to be smart and use some logical ratinalle only to be slapped by the cold hard facts not favoring my prefered side so now I mimic crying since I ran out of arguments such as and therefore. Thought so. Wah wah Israel wah wah fascism wah communism is the answer wah wah wah Muslims are dreamy but Zionist plot wah Hitler thus Western pity thus therefore Q.E.D.
Nick_i_am Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Since I was censored at another place for saying this, I'll say it here. Don't you think that Israel is following in the footsteps of Nazi Germany? Israel is showing parallels to the beginnings of Nazi Germany. Subjugating people of other ethnic and religious faiths (Arabs * Muslims). Sticking Palestinian people in ghettos, concentrated areas (Warsaw Ghetto, concentration camps), bulldozing people (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
Recommended Posts