Most terrorism that takes place does so under the Wahabbi sect. Saudi's are the prome sponsors that sect of Islam. Al Qaeda and the Taliban were both anti Shite and strict Wahabbi's. Suggesting they were sponsored by Shite Iram whom they despise is foolish on your part.
Why do Americans consider Israel their closest ally?
- Thread starter GG2
- Start date
Yes, but not all Wahabbi's are terrorists, obviously, and the Saudi government has been a good ally in the fight against Al Qaeda.Most terrorism that takes place does so under the Wahabbi sect. Saudi's are the prome sponsors that sect of Islam.
I never suggested that Al Qaeda or the Taliban were sponsored by Iran. The terrorists sponsored by Iran are Hamas and Hezbollah.Al Qaeda and the Taliban were both anti Shite and strict Wahabbi's. Suggesting they were sponsored by Shite Iram whom they despise is foolish on your part.
This is likely true, but it begs the question. Why does the US care? What benefit does the US get by giving aid to a small insignificant nation that is hated by its neighbors?The Palestinian terrorists are largely supported by Iran and Syria, which are natural enemies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and... Israel. Egypt has helped Israel enforce the blockade of Gaza. Saudi Arabia has spearheaded the Arab League's outreaches to Israel, such as they've been. Lebanon is caught in the middle, with Hezbollah siding with the Syrian/Iranian bloc, and other elements siding with the Israeli/Saudi bloc.
There are more Arab countries in the region, and they are rich in oil. Why risk their relations with the Arabs by supporting a small nation of 7 million? And at the same time, be seen as the enemy, thus a target for retaliation?
Israel is hardly a "small insignificant nation". It is an economic powerhouse, it still has by far the best military in the region, and on top of all that it is a democracy.
Israel also has staying power: One day the Arabs will run out of oil.
Israel also has staying power: One day the Arabs will run out of oil.
I have to stop you there.Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Israel is a democracy. Saudi Arabia is neither, but it does have oil.
First off, Iran sponsors two organizations some countries call terrorists, as does the US and Israel who sponsor MEK and support terrorism (check out Romney's latest speech calling for more assassinations of scientists and support of groups like the MEK). Israel also uses state terrorism as a tactic, making it one level worse then Iran.
Iran is a semi-democracy, with an elected president though the last election was fixed, Israel is an apartheid country, with lesser rights for non-Jews.
Israel regularly is seen as one of the least liked countries in the world, and support for Israel is seen as motivation for terrorists here, making support of Israel dangerous.
Iran is not a "semi democracy", it is an absolute dictatorship. The Supreme Leader rules by fiat. The "elections" in Iran are contests between people who have all been vetted by the Supreme Leader--you don't get to run unless you have his stamp of approval. It's like saying that China is a democracy because all of its officials are elected to their posts, but neglecting to mention you have to be invited to belong to the Communist Party in order to have a vote!
The clown show continues!!!
The clown show continues!!!
Also they have a nuclear capability comparable to the major powers. Unlike some nuclear nations I am sure they have the weapon systems to deliver a bomb wherever they want. I believe that Israel is the most likely country to use a nuclear weapon if they believe their nation is threatened by a force they cannot counter with conventional weapons. It is in the Americans best interest to insure they remain secure.This is likely true, but it begs the question. Why does the US care? What benefit does the US get by giving aid to a small insignificant nation that is hated by its neighbors?
There are more Arab countries in the region, and they are rich in oil. Why risk their relations with the Arabs by supporting a small nation of 7 million? And at the same time, be seen as the enemy, thus a target for retaliation?
And here you are again with the lie: "Israel who sponsore MEK"
You made that up. Or rather, your controllers in Iran made that up. That claim has never appeared ANYWHERE but Iran State Media. Nobody believes it.
MEK was sponsored by the regime of Saddam Hussein, and since his downfall really haven't had much support from anyone anywhere.
What other bullshit from Iran's propaganda ministry do you want to try and pass off as fact, and do you really think people are so stupid that you will get away with that?
You made that up. Or rather, your controllers in Iran made that up. That claim has never appeared ANYWHERE but Iran State Media. Nobody believes it.
MEK was sponsored by the regime of Saddam Hussein, and since his downfall really haven't had much support from anyone anywhere.
What other bullshit from Iran's propaganda ministry do you want to try and pass off as fact, and do you really think people are so stupid that you will get away with that?
Hey Groggy, I'm curious to know what it is you think the US has done to support MEK.
Which of the following things, to you, sounds like support:
-- Seizing their military equipment after the Iraq war
-- Listing them as a terrorist organization
-- Arresting them and holding them in prison camps
It does seem like a funny way to "support" a group, but I am curious how you see it?
Which of the following things, to you, sounds like support:
-- Seizing their military equipment after the Iraq war
-- Listing them as a terrorist organization
-- Arresting them and holding them in prison camps
It does seem like a funny way to "support" a group, but I am curious how you see it?
As for Romney, you lied when you said he supports MEK. Lied.
The truth is that one of his advisors mentioned somewhere that perhaps they should be delisted as a terrorist organization, which is quite different than saying you support them. This is because since 2001 they have been claiming to have renounced violence. Certainly they were a terrorist organization before. Have they evolved? I don't know. Should they be delisted? If it's true they have renounced violence why not. I guess we need to know what they are currently up to.
Can terrorists be rehabilitated?
Gerry Adams now has his name on the ballot for the Irish Presidency, and Sinn Fein has become a major political force. Irgun was disarmed and its members went on to participate in the political process. MEK could do the same, so could Hamas. If Hamas were to renounce violence I see no reason why it and its members shouldn't get an amnesty in the name of moving the world forward. Combining a carrot and a stick tends to work better than either a carrot or a stick alone. Hamas needs to face a choice between eradication if it continues down the path of terrorism, or full and complete political participation if it chooses to renounce violence and become a purely political force.
The truth is that one of his advisors mentioned somewhere that perhaps they should be delisted as a terrorist organization, which is quite different than saying you support them. This is because since 2001 they have been claiming to have renounced violence. Certainly they were a terrorist organization before. Have they evolved? I don't know. Should they be delisted? If it's true they have renounced violence why not. I guess we need to know what they are currently up to.
Can terrorists be rehabilitated?
Gerry Adams now has his name on the ballot for the Irish Presidency, and Sinn Fein has become a major political force. Irgun was disarmed and its members went on to participate in the political process. MEK could do the same, so could Hamas. If Hamas were to renounce violence I see no reason why it and its members shouldn't get an amnesty in the name of moving the world forward. Combining a carrot and a stick tends to work better than either a carrot or a stick alone. Hamas needs to face a choice between eradication if it continues down the path of terrorism, or full and complete political participation if it chooses to renounce violence and become a purely political force.
Must have been a good post. 5 angry Fuji rants, new record.
You know, its getting easier and easier to keep this argument about who is worse, Israel or Iran.
Just that fact that it takes this much work from you to make even a half assed defense shows you how morally bankrupt Israel has become.
Because you just can't top Israel actually using state terrorism and Israel's apartheid nature, it'll just get harder and harder.
How can funding terrorism be worse then terrorism itself?
How can flawed democracy be worse then apartheid?
How many posts will it take you this time?
You know, its getting easier and easier to keep this argument about who is worse, Israel or Iran.
Just that fact that it takes this much work from you to make even a half assed defense shows you how morally bankrupt Israel has become.
Because you just can't top Israel actually using state terrorism and Israel's apartheid nature, it'll just get harder and harder.
How can funding terrorism be worse then terrorism itself?
How can flawed democracy be worse then apartheid?
How many posts will it take you this time?
Anyone who doesn't recognize that (groggy) either does not know much about Iran or is in extreme denial.Iran is not a "semi democracy", it is an absolute dictatorship.
Groggy I answered your 5 different lies in 5 different posts, I see you haven't got any way to defend any of your lies. Instead you've changed the topic, as usual.
So in summary:
-- There's no dispute that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorists, and terrorists supported by Iran
-- Iran is an absolute dictatorship ruled by the Supreme Leader
-- Israel does not sponsor MEK, that is just Iranian propaganda
-- The US does not support MEK either, in fact it confiscated their weapons and jailed them
-- You lied about Romney, all that's happened is one of his advisors has speculated about delisting MEK as terrorist now that MEK has supposedly renounced violence
I see you are now repeating the slanderous lie that Israel is an "apartheid" state, even though you have been repeatedly humiliated on this topic: You have been unable to show that Israel's Arab citizens enjoy anything less than full rights as Israeli citizens.
So in summary:
-- There's no dispute that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorists, and terrorists supported by Iran
-- Iran is an absolute dictatorship ruled by the Supreme Leader
-- Israel does not sponsor MEK, that is just Iranian propaganda
-- The US does not support MEK either, in fact it confiscated their weapons and jailed them
-- You lied about Romney, all that's happened is one of his advisors has speculated about delisting MEK as terrorist now that MEK has supposedly renounced violence
I see you are now repeating the slanderous lie that Israel is an "apartheid" state, even though you have been repeatedly humiliated on this topic: You have been unable to show that Israel's Arab citizens enjoy anything less than full rights as Israeli citizens.
Do I need to post the 25 racist laws yet again?I see you are now repeating the slanderous lie that Israel is an "apartheid" state, even though you have been repeatedly humiliated on this topic: You have been unable to show that Israel's Arab citizens enjoy anything less than full rights as Israeli citizens.
Shall I detail the apartheid policies in the west bank and Gaza?
Here, lets narrow down the argument for you.
sponsor of terrorism vs state terrorism - which is worst?
lack of democracy vs apartheid - which is worst?
Don't you feel some shame in how easy this argument is for me?
How can you keep backing state terrorism and apartheid?
You have been humiliated on this point before, why bring it up again? None of those laws interfere with the full democratic rights of Arab Israelis. Therefore you cannot use any of them to argue that Israel is an "apartheid state".Do I need to post the 25 racist laws yet again?
For example, #1 and #2 on your list apply only to non citizens, and so it goes on down the list: You are simply LYING.
You are simply lying. Again. Doesn't it bother you that your position depends on lying?
I corrected your statement.Shall I detail the security policies in the west bank and Gaza?
Who said we were talking only about "Israeli Arabs"? - note, this in itself is a racist term meant as avoidance of naming them as Palestinians.You have been humiliated on this point before, why bring it up again? None of those laws interfere with the full democratic rights of Arab Israelis. Therefore you cannot use any of them to argue that Israel is an "apartheid state".
For example, #1 and #2 on your list apply only to non citizens, and so it goes on down the list: You are simply LYING.
Your own argument said those laws give preferential treatment to Jews.
That defines them as racist.
