The boy who cried wolf
Scroll to see replies
Very shocking news story OP. I never knew Jews could lie or pretend to be more oppressed/in danger than they actually are.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Does Israel publicly execute people for things like being gay?
Does Israel publicly execute people for things like being gay?
No. As a matter of fact, there are plenty of gay Palestinians in Tel Aviv who were granted refuge because in Gaza they throw homosexuals off of buildings in order to execute them.
Green: Support
Countries which have signed a General Assembly declaration of LGBT rights and/or sponsored the Human Rights Council's 2011 resolution on LGBT rights (96 members)
Red: Oppose
Countries which signed a 2008 statement opposing LGBT rights (initially 57 members, now 54 members)
Grey: Neither
Countries which, as regards the UN, have expressed neither official support nor opposition to LGBT rights (44 members
Black: Non-UN member
Countries that are non-UN members (14 non-UN members)
You can recognise Israel on the map as they are the miniscule speck of green among the sea of Arab red.
Israel is one of very few countries in the region where homosexual is not illegal.....like Iran. Others include Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Yemen, Oman, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, It was illegal in Iraq up until 2003. Something happened around that time in Iraq.....not sure what though
Original post by homeland.lsw
Show me pictures, at the moment I don't care what you say because it doesn't mean anything
Of course Israeli media will do anything to put Iran under a bad light, they probably do photoshop the pictures.
And I didn't know Iran was bombing Palestine just like Israel is. In fact when was the last time Iran has shown aggression to any nation?
Of course Israeli media will do anything to put Iran under a bad light, they probably do photoshop the pictures.
And I didn't know Iran was bombing Palestine just like Israel is. In fact when was the last time Iran has shown aggression to any nation?
So to conclude, Iran does not execute gay people and all sources documenting that it does are fabrications by the Jews to make Iran look bad. If Iran does in fact execute gay people, it doesn't mean anything because Israel "bombs" Palestine and Iran does not show aggression to any nations. Israel doesn't count because Israel is not recognised as a nation by Iran and supporting Hezbollah (who are totally not a terrorist organization) doesn't count as aggression.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by homeland.lsw
Show me pictures, at the moment I don't care what you say because it doesn't mean anything
Of course Israeli media will do anything to put Iran under a bad light, they probably do photoshop the pictures.
And I didn't know Iran was bombing Palestine just like Israel is. In fact when was the last time Iran has shown aggression to any nation?
Of course Israeli media will do anything to put Iran under a bad light, they probably do photoshop the pictures.
And I didn't know Iran was bombing Palestine just like Israel is. In fact when was the last time Iran has shown aggression to any nation?
Oh idk, arming Shiite militias to slaughter Sunnis in Iraq and Syria, arming Shiite militants to slaughter Sunnis and launch a coup against the legitimate government in Yemen, arming, training and equipping Hezbollah to launch attacks against Israel, killing 241 U.S. marines in a barracks in Beirut in 1983...
Btw, Palestine and Israel are the same thing. Palestine is an invented nation.
Give evidence for your assertions, OP. Don't be sad and post a satirical photo with no context or evidence whatsoever.
Oh, and do you ever stop posting pro-Islamic Republic of Iran propaganda?
Aside from any bitching for and against the OP here are what I think the issues are:
1. The Iranian regime is not democratic and has a bad record on human rights. It would be better for all concerned, the Iranian people and stability in the Middle East, to see this regime removed and replaced by another one.
2. It would not be good for Iran to get nuclear weapons as it would prompt more proliferation in the region, and the greater the proliferation of nuclear weapon in unstable countries, the greater the risk of either a nuclear exchange in the region or the technology to deliver a dirty bomb nuclear attack falling in to the hands of terrorists who would use it in the West.
I think there is broad consensus around the world about these two points including probably from within Iran.
3. Iran is a security concern but it's not the most dangerous country in the region. The perma-unstable and nuclear-equipped Pakistan is a much bigger threat to security. Also the Iranian regime doesn't have the threat that Saddam posed in terms of having expansionist ideals. Iran is prickly and defensive on the international stage but it doesn't go round starting fights. The main problem from Iran is its support for pro-Iranian shia groups in other unstable countries where Iran is a destabilising force.
4. The direct threats against the West come from terrorist organisations, ISIS, Al Qaeda. Iran is generally an enemy of these groups. Iran is more of a friend of the Shia groups that fight Israel like Hezbollah so its understandable why Israel has concerns.
5. Attacking Iran is not a feasible option and would make things worse. Firstly you cannot ever sustain a ground war in Iran like in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be 100 times more difficult. When Saddam attacked Iran in 1980 after the revolution, Iraq had a far more sophisticated military than Iran did but they met a wall of death inside Iran and had Saddam not then been bolstered by outside support the Iranians could well have counter-attacked through Iraq and overthrown him. All that outside powers could do with Iran is air strikes, but that will then drive Iran in to becoming a very hostile power against whoever attacks them and they will become a very dangerous enemy, likely operating through proxy powers.
The rest of the world has recognised this and is trying to deal with Iran by bringing them cautiously back in to the fold but with strings attached - which is limiting the risk of them developing nuclear weapons and also more likely to get them to be a constructive player in the Middle East.
The problem with Netanyahu is what the OP alluded to: he is hell bent on direct confrontation with Iran and he actively tries to oppose and disrupt efforts by the rest of teh world to contain Iran's nuclear programme. He wants to go down the path of air strikes on Iran. But this is a high stakes game which massively threatens the security of Israel which is why many Israelis are uncomfortable with it.
Israel doesn't have the capability to invade Iran, nobody does, so all Israel will do is air strike them. Iran will respond literally with the ultimate jihad on Israel and call for them to be destroyed, and that will mean the Iranians working full tilt to enable proxy groups like Hezbollah to get the technology to do it. Once we have started down that road there is literally nothing Israel can do to stop its own destruction, even if they nuke Iran, they will just make so many enemies all over the world they will focus all Islamic terrorist groups on Israel and even their relatively powerful defence and security forces will not be able to cope.
1. The Iranian regime is not democratic and has a bad record on human rights. It would be better for all concerned, the Iranian people and stability in the Middle East, to see this regime removed and replaced by another one.
2. It would not be good for Iran to get nuclear weapons as it would prompt more proliferation in the region, and the greater the proliferation of nuclear weapon in unstable countries, the greater the risk of either a nuclear exchange in the region or the technology to deliver a dirty bomb nuclear attack falling in to the hands of terrorists who would use it in the West.
I think there is broad consensus around the world about these two points including probably from within Iran.
3. Iran is a security concern but it's not the most dangerous country in the region. The perma-unstable and nuclear-equipped Pakistan is a much bigger threat to security. Also the Iranian regime doesn't have the threat that Saddam posed in terms of having expansionist ideals. Iran is prickly and defensive on the international stage but it doesn't go round starting fights. The main problem from Iran is its support for pro-Iranian shia groups in other unstable countries where Iran is a destabilising force.
4. The direct threats against the West come from terrorist organisations, ISIS, Al Qaeda. Iran is generally an enemy of these groups. Iran is more of a friend of the Shia groups that fight Israel like Hezbollah so its understandable why Israel has concerns.
5. Attacking Iran is not a feasible option and would make things worse. Firstly you cannot ever sustain a ground war in Iran like in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be 100 times more difficult. When Saddam attacked Iran in 1980 after the revolution, Iraq had a far more sophisticated military than Iran did but they met a wall of death inside Iran and had Saddam not then been bolstered by outside support the Iranians could well have counter-attacked through Iraq and overthrown him. All that outside powers could do with Iran is air strikes, but that will then drive Iran in to becoming a very hostile power against whoever attacks them and they will become a very dangerous enemy, likely operating through proxy powers.
The rest of the world has recognised this and is trying to deal with Iran by bringing them cautiously back in to the fold but with strings attached - which is limiting the risk of them developing nuclear weapons and also more likely to get them to be a constructive player in the Middle East.
The problem with Netanyahu is what the OP alluded to: he is hell bent on direct confrontation with Iran and he actively tries to oppose and disrupt efforts by the rest of teh world to contain Iran's nuclear programme. He wants to go down the path of air strikes on Iran. But this is a high stakes game which massively threatens the security of Israel which is why many Israelis are uncomfortable with it.
Israel doesn't have the capability to invade Iran, nobody does, so all Israel will do is air strike them. Iran will respond literally with the ultimate jihad on Israel and call for them to be destroyed, and that will mean the Iranians working full tilt to enable proxy groups like Hezbollah to get the technology to do it. Once we have started down that road there is literally nothing Israel can do to stop its own destruction, even if they nuke Iran, they will just make so many enemies all over the world they will focus all Islamic terrorist groups on Israel and even their relatively powerful defence and security forces will not be able to cope.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
Aside from any bitching for and against the OP here are what I think the issues are:
Great post as always.
Original post by Cato the Elder
killing 241 U.S. marines in a barracks in Beirut in 1983...
Well the good news is the Americans retaliated by shooting down an Iran Air flight from Tehran to Dubai, killing all 290 aboard, these were innocent men women and children.
The American excuse was the crew incorrectly identified the Iranian Airbus A300 as an attacking F-14 Tomcat Fighter. The man responsible for this was given the Legion of Merit medal. The US never apologised for their actions.
Let's not forget the US and British support of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. They supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, killing an estimated 200,000 people in Iran. Following the aftermath of the War, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that "members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops, and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons." The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement.
Original post by KimKallstrom
So to conclude, Iran does not execute gay people and all sources documenting that it does are fabrications by the Jews to make Iran look bad. If Iran does in fact execute gay people, it doesn't mean anything because Israel "bombs" Palestine and Iran does not show aggression to any nations. Israel doesn't count because Israel is not recognised as a nation by Iran and supporting Hezbollah (who are totally not a terrorist organization) doesn't count as aggression.
So you're telling me Israel doesn't support any terrorist organisation at all...
Maybe Iran does execute homosexuals, but what about every other state that does? Do they get some kind of immunity? Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan? So you are conveniently missing those out? Is it because you find Iran "to be of the most detestable entities on the planet"
Iran has a small military budget, about $10 bn., on the order of that of Norway or Singapore. It has no air force to speak of. The US military budget is roughly 80 times that of Iran. The Islamic Republic has launched no wars of aggression since its founding in 1979. This is true. In 1980 Iraq invaded Iran. Iran fought the invaders to a standstill and ultimately made peace, making no effort to occupy Iraqi territory. It is the USA that has illegally launched wars of aggression in the Middle East, along with Israel.
Khamenei considers nuclear bombs to be against Islamic law, since they kill large numbers of innocent non-combatants, including women and children, when deployed. Of course, he could be lying. But that is sort of like the Pope maintaining a condom factory in the basement of the Vatican. You have to ask yourself, why ban something religiously that you intend to promote in actuality? If the contradiction became known, it would damage the religious leader’s credibility.
Original post by Cato the Elder
Btw, Palestine and Israel are the same thing. Palestine is an invented nation.
These are all the countries that recognise the state of Palestine exists
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by MagicNMedicine
Aside from any bitching for and against the OP here are what I think the issues are:
1. The Iranian regime is not democratic and has a bad record on human rights. It would be better for all concerned, the Iranian people and stability in the Middle East, to see this regime removed and replaced by another one.
2. It would not be good for Iran to get nuclear weapons as it would prompt more proliferation in the region, and the greater the proliferation of nuclear weapon in unstable countries, the greater the risk of either a nuclear exchange in the region or the technology to deliver a dirty bomb nuclear attack falling in to the hands of terrorists who would use it in the West.
I think there is broad consensus around the world about these two points including probably from within Iran.
3. Iran is a security concern but it's not the most dangerous country in the region. The perma-unstable and nuclear-equipped Pakistan is a much bigger threat to security. Also the Iranian regime doesn't have the threat that Saddam posed in terms of having expansionist ideals. Iran is prickly and defensive on the international stage but it doesn't go round starting fights. The main problem from Iran is its support for pro-Iranian shia groups in other unstable countries where Iran is a destabilising force.
4. The direct threats against the West come from terrorist organisations, ISIS, Al Qaeda. Iran is generally an enemy of these groups. Iran is more of a friend of the Shia groups that fight Israel like Hezbollah so its understandable why Israel has concerns.
5. Attacking Iran is not a feasible option and would make things worse. Firstly you cannot ever sustain a ground war in Iran like in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be 100 times more difficult. When Saddam attacked Iran in 1980 after the revolution, Iraq had a far more sophisticated military than Iran did but they met a wall of death inside Iran and had Saddam not then been bolstered by outside support the Iranians could well have counter-attacked through Iraq and overthrown him. All that outside powers could do with Iran is air strikes, but that will then drive Iran in to becoming a very hostile power against whoever attacks them and they will become a very dangerous enemy, likely operating through proxy powers.
The rest of the world has recognised this and is trying to deal with Iran by bringing them cautiously back in to the fold but with strings attached - which is limiting the risk of them developing nuclear weapons and also more likely to get them to be a constructive player in the Middle East.
The problem with Netanyahu is what the OP alluded to: he is hell bent on direct confrontation with Iran and he actively tries to oppose and disrupt efforts by the rest of teh world to contain Iran's nuclear programme. He wants to go down the path of air strikes on Iran. But this is a high stakes game which massively threatens the security of Israel which is why many Israelis are uncomfortable with it.
Israel doesn't have the capability to invade Iran, nobody does, so all Israel will do is air strike them. Iran will respond literally with the ultimate jihad on Israel and call for them to be destroyed, and that will mean the Iranians working full tilt to enable proxy groups like Hezbollah to get the technology to do it. Once we have started down that road there is literally nothing Israel can do to stop its own destruction, even if they nuke Iran, they will just make so many enemies all over the world they will focus all Islamic terrorist groups on Israel and even their relatively powerful defence and security forces will not be able to cope.
1. The Iranian regime is not democratic and has a bad record on human rights. It would be better for all concerned, the Iranian people and stability in the Middle East, to see this regime removed and replaced by another one.
2. It would not be good for Iran to get nuclear weapons as it would prompt more proliferation in the region, and the greater the proliferation of nuclear weapon in unstable countries, the greater the risk of either a nuclear exchange in the region or the technology to deliver a dirty bomb nuclear attack falling in to the hands of terrorists who would use it in the West.
I think there is broad consensus around the world about these two points including probably from within Iran.
3. Iran is a security concern but it's not the most dangerous country in the region. The perma-unstable and nuclear-equipped Pakistan is a much bigger threat to security. Also the Iranian regime doesn't have the threat that Saddam posed in terms of having expansionist ideals. Iran is prickly and defensive on the international stage but it doesn't go round starting fights. The main problem from Iran is its support for pro-Iranian shia groups in other unstable countries where Iran is a destabilising force.
4. The direct threats against the West come from terrorist organisations, ISIS, Al Qaeda. Iran is generally an enemy of these groups. Iran is more of a friend of the Shia groups that fight Israel like Hezbollah so its understandable why Israel has concerns.
5. Attacking Iran is not a feasible option and would make things worse. Firstly you cannot ever sustain a ground war in Iran like in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be 100 times more difficult. When Saddam attacked Iran in 1980 after the revolution, Iraq had a far more sophisticated military than Iran did but they met a wall of death inside Iran and had Saddam not then been bolstered by outside support the Iranians could well have counter-attacked through Iraq and overthrown him. All that outside powers could do with Iran is air strikes, but that will then drive Iran in to becoming a very hostile power against whoever attacks them and they will become a very dangerous enemy, likely operating through proxy powers.
The rest of the world has recognised this and is trying to deal with Iran by bringing them cautiously back in to the fold but with strings attached - which is limiting the risk of them developing nuclear weapons and also more likely to get them to be a constructive player in the Middle East.
The problem with Netanyahu is what the OP alluded to: he is hell bent on direct confrontation with Iran and he actively tries to oppose and disrupt efforts by the rest of teh world to contain Iran's nuclear programme. He wants to go down the path of air strikes on Iran. But this is a high stakes game which massively threatens the security of Israel which is why many Israelis are uncomfortable with it.
Israel doesn't have the capability to invade Iran, nobody does, so all Israel will do is air strike them. Iran will respond literally with the ultimate jihad on Israel and call for them to be destroyed, and that will mean the Iranians working full tilt to enable proxy groups like Hezbollah to get the technology to do it. Once we have started down that road there is literally nothing Israel can do to stop its own destruction, even if they nuke Iran, they will just make so many enemies all over the world they will focus all Islamic terrorist groups on Israel and even their relatively powerful defence and security forces will not be able to cope.
Fantastic post.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by homeland.lsw
Well the good news is the Americans retaliated by shooting down an Iran Air flight from Tehran to Dubai, killing all 290 aboard, these were innocent men women and children.
The American excuse was the crew incorrectly identified the Iranian Airbus A300 as an attacking F-14 Tomcat Fighter. The man responsible for this was given the Legion of Merit medal. The US never apologised for their actions.
Let's not forget the US and British support of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. They supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, killing an estimated 200,000 people in Iran. Following the aftermath of the War, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that "members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops, and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons." The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement.
The American excuse was the crew incorrectly identified the Iranian Airbus A300 as an attacking F-14 Tomcat Fighter. The man responsible for this was given the Legion of Merit medal. The US never apologised for their actions.
Let's not forget the US and British support of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. They supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, killing an estimated 200,000 people in Iran. Following the aftermath of the War, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that "members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops, and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons." The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement.
itam didn't help matters by storming an embassy and holding its people hostage.
Did you know that no western power supported Iraq invading Iran?
Original post by homeland.lsw
These are all the countries that recognise the state of Palestine exists
These are all the countries that recognise the state of Palestine exists
Hardly countries that you'd be proud to say you come from
Original post by MatureStudent36
Hardly countries that you'd be proud to say you come from
What? I don't even know what to say? That's approximately 70% of the world. Please don't make such outrageous comments
Original post by homeland.lsw
What? I don't even know what to say? That's approximately 70% of the world. Please don't make such outrageous comments
Amazingly it's less than the number of countries who believe in Israel having the right to exist.
Original post by MatureStudent36
itam didn't help matters by storming an embassy and holding its people hostage.
Well, there is more to Iran's history than you think. What do you know about pre revolutionary Iran?
Did you know that the Shah banned wearing the Hijab? That he wanted to Westernize a predominately Muslim country
The Shah's regime became increasingly oppressive, brutal, corrupt, and extravagant. It also suffered from basic functional failures that brought economic bottlenecks, shortages, and inflation. The Shah was perceived by many as beholden to — if not a puppet of — a non-Muslim Western power (the United States) whose culture was affecting that of Iran.
I suppose you've never heard of the Savak, one of the most brutal Intelligence Agencies that operated during the Shah's regime, and aided by the- you guessed it United States of America.
This group broke every single human right.
It was only a matter of time before the Iranian people stood up to the oppressors, and made them pay the consequences.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36
Amazingly it's less than the number of countries who believe in Israel having the right to exist.
Yet nevertheless Israel does exist, what's your point.
Not only Arab countries recognise Palestine. Brazil, Iceland, China, South Africa, India, Sweden and Thailand do and none of these are Arab.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Did you know that no western power supported Iraq invading Iran?
You have balls making such an outrageous statement, the amount of evidence against that is monumental
Original post by homeland.lsw
You have balls making such an outrageous statement, the amount of evidence against that is monumental
Think again treacle.
Nobody in the west asked Iraq to attack Iran. Iraq saw an opportunity to take advantage of the Ayatollahs purge on the iraninan military leadership and had a crack at finishing off a long standing border dispute.
It was only later, when the Iranians rallied after doing crazy stuff like marching kids through minefields to clear the way for tanks did the west get involved.
Interestingly though, most Iraqi kit was of Russian origin. After that, have a guess who was the largest weapons supplier to Iraq?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- sad movie recommendations coz i need to cry
- Which movies can make you cry or at least teary-eyed?
- Am i The ******** for have several girl friends
- What were your favourite TV shows as a teenager?
- Am I a bad person?
- post your unpopular literature opinions?
- I'm a furry, ask me anything!
- Kallisto's Sunday Question: Actors and Actresses
- Girls who do you prefer, Jack or Jacob?
- Make it More Christmas Decorations-ey !!
- good romance books?
- Song name alphabet game!!!
- My boyfriend never buy me anything even for christmas
- Spring 2024 Anime Preview
- Been crying a lot lately - need advice
- I'm old and feeling like the token addition student | Postgraduate Studies
- comebacks for when you get called emo
- Nightmares about exams
- Friendship break up?
- In my pants...
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
