Iran still enriching to 60%

[krealtarron]

Why would anyone want to invade North Korea? It’s super poor, has no assets or value.

Even if there was a reason to, no one would want to risk it, is my point.

Singling out Israel for criticism when a dozen other countries have exactly the same situation (US, UK, China, France, etc.) is antisemitism.

Iran is theocratic and unstable. It is ruled by a unelected religious leader who has stated his intentions to destroy other countries. Iran getting nuclear weapons is not a good thing for humanity.

Singling out for what is the question. It is the one middle eastern country that would 100% be on board for an invasion for Iran and a regime change. Therefore it is legitimate criticism and not anti semitism.

Iran may be theocratic, but it isn't our problem. Many countries do not acknowledge Israel, such as Saudi and they are far more dangerous with all kinds of terrorists coming from there. They are "allies" but Iran which has done nothing is being threatened at the behest of Israel and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia.

 

[Frankfooter]

What a fucked up world when people claim it's racist to criticize racism.

You mean like when you call me racist after I post Amnesty, HRW, UN and B'tselem reports proving that the Israel you support is apartheid?
Which is, I repeat, an antisemitic trope of its own. Criticizing Israeli policy is not an attack on the Jewish people.

 

[Happyhomer]

Completely disagree. Saudi Arabia recognized Israel in 2020 and has an agreement in place with them. Mainly because the Saudis despise Iran. The Saudis (and their allied countries) want an Iran regime change the most. Israel just wants Iran to stop funding terror through Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Your view is solely focused on findinf fault with Jews.

iran being theocratic and unstable with nuclear weapons is a world problem. It will likely lead to a nuclear war.

Singling out for what is the question. It is the one middle eastern country that would 100% be on board for an invasion for Iran and a regime change. Therefore it is legitimate criticism and not anti semitism.

Iran may be theocratic, but it isn't our problem. Many countries do not acknowledge Israel, such as Saudi and they are far more dangerous with all kinds of terrorists coming from there. They are "allies" but Iran which has done nothing is being threatened at the behest of Israel and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia.

 

[krealtarron]

Completely disagree. Saudi Arabia recognized Israel in 2020 and has an agreement in place with them. Mainly because the Saudis despise Iran. The Saudis (and their allied countries) want an Iran regime change the most. Israel just wants Iran to stop funding terror through Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Your view is solely focused on findinf fault with Jews.

iran being theocratic and unstable with nuclear weapons is a world problem. It will likely lead to a nuclear war.

Iran being theocratic is an internal matter. Not a world problem. Them being theocratic also does not mean they cannot defend their sovereignty. It is also not true that only Saudi wants a regime change. Israel very much wants a regime change.

Also criticizing Israel is not finding fault with Jews. Israel is a multi ethnic, multi religious country. Criticizing it doesn't equal "finding fault with Jews". Thats like saying criticizing Iran is "finding fault with muslims".

 

[basketcase]

Nice try, trying to spin legitimate criticism of Israel as racism. That tactic is quite old.
...

Stop trying to pretend racist criticism of Israel is really legitimate. As Canada's definition of anti-semitism says, criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-semitic and gives some very clear examples when it is. Franky has hit many of the points on Canada's definition so yes, his criticism is anti-semitic, both in the content and his obsessiveness.

Also pretty funny that you defend franky's right to obsessively condemn Israel (in a thread about Iran's nuclear program) while claiming it is racist for me to describe Iran's government as authoritarian. Do you not see the double standard there?

And sorry but please describe the existential threat the US (or Israel) pose to Iran. Yes, the US and Israel act to counter Iran's geopolitical agenda but no one has suggested either invading or destroying Iran but instead their actions are to counter the terrorism of the Quds force, pressure them about human rights, and prevent Iran from violating their NPT obligations by making nukes. Do you also say that the UN sanctions on Iran's nuclear program before the JCPOA were acts of aggression?

As long as Iran is an NPT member (they can withdraw if they want), there is absolutely no justification for producing uranium to 60% and no justification for their massive enrichment capacity.



As for their 'right' to have nukes as a deterrence, any rational person realizes that Iran's greatest enemy will use that as a justification for acquiring nukes themselves. Do you think a world where both Iran and Saudi Arabia vie for dominance in the Middle East while having their authoritarian fingers on the button makes a better world?

 

[basketcase]

Iran being theocratic is an internal matter. ...

Yet you think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an international concern? Sorry.

But yes, Iran's authoritarian theocracy is an Iranian matter but it makes it completely reasonable for people to oppose those theocrats owning nukes.

 

[basketcase]

...

Singling out for what is the question. It is the one middle eastern country that would 100% be on board for an invasion for Iran and a regime change. ...

Other than Saudi Arabia that is. And why do you limit it to the Middle East (other than to avoid talking about all of the other issues. Most of NATO and the rights respecting western world as well as many Iranians themselves (and teh diaspora Persian community) would also like to see a regime change, recently heightened by the Russia Iran alliance.

Franky shows his racist nature of his singling out of Israel as an attempt to justify Iran. He keeps demanding Israel gets rid of it's nukes and join the NPT while being absolutely silent on North Korea, Pakistan, or India (and ignoring that the UNGA vote he keeps promoting had non-NPT Pakistan voting to make Israel join the NPT).

 

[basketcase]

You mean like when you call me racist after I post Amnesty, HRW, UN and B'tselem reports proving that the Israel you support is apartheid?
Which is, I repeat, an antisemitic trope of its own. Criticizing Israeli policy is not an attack on the Jewish people.

Yes. You violate many of the points on Canada's definition of anti-semitism and continually infantalize Arab people by refusing to recognize their agency. For example, you show a racist double standard when you post Amnesty criticism of Israel while arguing against Amnesty when they condemn Palestinian factions. And you show overt antisemitsm when you support targeting non-Israeli Jews for anti-Israel protest while also claiming it's racist to say Hamas are a designated terrorist entity.

 

[krealtarron]

Yet you think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an international concern? Sorry.

But yes, Iran's authoritarian theocracy is an Iranian matter but it makes it completely reasonable for people to oppose those theocrats owning nukes.

The Israel Palestine issue is not an internal matter. It IS an international matter. The Iranian conflict is an internal matter as it is their own citizens who are protesting.

Theocratic state doesn't automatically mean they shouldn't own nukes. Nukes are a far bigger threat in the hands of nations like the US and Russia that invade other nations (the only country to actually use nukes).

 

[krealtarron]

Other than Saudi Arabia that is. And why do you limit it to the Middle East (other than to avoid talking about all of the other issues. Most of NATO and the rights respecting western world as well as many Iranians themselves (and teh diaspora Persian community) would also like to see a regime change, recently heightened by the Russia Iran alliance.

Franky shows his racist nature of his singling out of Israel as an attempt to justify Iran. He keeps demanding Israel gets rid of it's nukes and join the NPT while being absolutely silent on North Korea, Pakistan, or India (and ignoring that the UNGA vote he keeps promoting had non-NPT Pakistan voting to make Israel join the NPT).

Yes but who is doing the threatening? It is the US and their middle east foreign policy is most influenced by Israel. The only people who are entitled to making a regime change happen are Iranians themselves.

Pakistan, India and North Korea are not trying to invade or lobbying for invasions of other nations or interfering in other nations affairs. Israel however, is. It isn't racist to ask Israel that is wanting regime change and invasion of Iran for possessing nukes, to first disarm itself.

 

[basketcase]

The Israel Palestine issue is not an internal matter. It IS an international matter. ...

Ah, the beautiful double standard. Iran's actions around the Middle East are also international issues (and at risk of invoking Godwin's law, I recall another issue called an internal matter). Iran is openly a major funder and supplier for various terrorist/nongovernmental militias so yes, there is serious reason for other countries to be very concerned about whether Iran has nukes.

And sorry but theocratic oligarchies are a much greater threat than a democracy, especially when two theocracies that hate each other (Iran and Saudi) have nukes (I see a rapidly deteriorating Putin a threat as well).

 

[basketcase]

Yes but who is doing the threatening? It is the US and their middle east foreign policy is most influenced by Israel. ...

First off, Iran. They routinely chant about Death to Israel, Death to America even in their legislature.

And despite the tropes about Jewish control, Saudi Arabia is heavily influencing US middle East policy; you know, that oil thing. As Iran was expanding their enrichment activities, the Saudis started moving that way but thankfully the US bribed them to stop.

I don't know what level of investigation you've done about politics in the region but while both Saudi and Iran both push to their public the 'dangers' of Israel, their governments are far more concerned about each other than they are about the Jews. Whether the conflict is about the Shia-Sunni split or whether it's just about who's the regional power, that is the real conflict. For example, the Syrian civil war was a significant proxy battle between Iran and Saudi with the US/NATO getting involved due to Russia's presence and the spread of ISIS in Iraq.

Israel's concern is what was stated before; a country that openly states their desire to see Israel "removed from the pages of history" that funding and supplying groups like PIJ, Hezbollah, and Hamas and has a nuclear program right that could easily be tweaked to created nukes.


And yes, Iran's people protesting their government is their choice but it is completely disingenuous to claim that other countries don't have a right to state their opinions or determine whether they want to allow trade with Iran.

 

[krealtarron]

Stop trying to pretend racist criticism of Israel is really legitimate. As Canada's definition of anti-semitism says, criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-semitic and gives some very clear examples when it is. Franky has hit many of the points on Canada's definition so yes, his criticism is anti-semitic, both in the content and his obsessiveness.

Also pretty funny that you defend franky's right to obsessively condemn Israel (in a thread about Iran's nuclear program) while claiming it is racist for me to describe Iran's government as authoritarian. Do you not see the double standard there?

Criticism of Israel is not racist. What does racist criticism of a nation even mean? It is a meaningless statement. Criticism of any country isnt racism Racism is directed towards people. Secondly if you can call franky anti-semitic for making his point, then you can be called an Islamaphobe.

And sorry but please describe the existential threat the US (or Israel) pose to Iran. Yes, the US and Israel act to counter Iran's geopolitical agenda but no one has suggested either invading or destroying Iran but instead their actions are to counter the terrorism of the Quds force, pressure them about human rights, and prevent Iran from violating their NPT obligations by making nukes. Do you also say that the UN sanctions on Iran's nuclear program before the JCPOA were acts of aggression?

As long as Iran is an NPT member (they can withdraw if they want), there is absolutely no justification for producing uranium to 60% and no justification for their massive enrichment capacity.

As for their 'right' to have nukes as a deterrence, any rational person realizes that Iran's greatest enemy will use that as a justification for acquiring nukes themselves. Do you think a world where both Iran and Saudi Arabia vie for dominance in the Middle East while having their authoritarian fingers on the button makes a better world?

Iran has every justification to make nukes. Asking what existential threat the US or Israel pose to Iran is a laughable and disingenuous question. Targeted assassinations of scientists, violations of international borders to recon Iran, economic aggression and sanctions, targeted killing of generals and other military personnel, just to name a few. If Israel and the US can do all this, then Iran is justified in having a Quds force to counter that.

In this case, the US and Israel are the aggressors. Iran is merely reciprocating. US involvement in Iran can be traced back to 1953.

As for nukes, the current owners of nukes are some of the most aggressive countries out there. US, Russia, China, India, UK, France, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel - most countries (except maybe India and North Korea) on this list are aggressive and have attacked or invaded another. You are not worried about these countries owning nukes, but you are worried about Iran that is trying to defend its sovereignty?

 

[basketcase]

...

Pakistan, India and North Korea are not trying to invade or lobbying for invasions of other nations or interfering in other nations affairs....

Wow that's ignorant. Have you no knowledge of the conflict between India and Pakistan, the semi-regular military conflicts between them and the continual issues and fighting between them over Kashmir? And of course there are the routine NK missile tests which are a direct threat to Japan.

Are you arguing out of an obsession with Israel like Franky does or are you simply not aware about any international relations outside of North America?

 

[basketcase]

Criticism of Israel is not racist. ...

Go read what I said and think about it. You called me racist for criticizing Iran as an authoritarian government yet you're suggesting all criticism of Israel is legitimate. Sorry but that's the exact kind of double standard I was talking about. I haven't seen enough posts from you to tell whether your posts are simply a narrow world view or whether you have an anti-semitic viewpoint but Franky (and his previous two banned handles) have provided plenty.

As I said, it is possible to criticize Israel's actions without being racist. people like Franky criticize Israel's very existence and argues that their Jewish population have no right to be there. He is anti-semitic.

And for your information, this is Canada's definition of Anti-semitism. It should clarify the difference. the bolded ones are things that Franks has engaged in.



Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

At least franky doesn't deny the holocaust.

 

[Frankfooter]

Stop trying to pretend racist criticism of Israel is really legitimate.

You claim Israel is a democracy that respects the rights of all races, so how can it be racist to criticize it?

 

[krealtarron]

Wow that's ignorant. Have you no knowledge of the conflict between India and Pakistan, the semi-regular military conflicts between them and the continual issues and fighting between them over Kashmir? And of course there are the routine NK missile tests which are a direct threat to Japan.

Are you arguing out of an obsession with Israel like Franky does or are you simply not aware about any international relations outside of North America?

Yes I know about the India-Pak Kashmir issue. I shouldn't have mentioned Pakistan in that list. I think I removed Pakistan from a similar post somewhere else.

NK missile tests are not a threat to anyone. Missile tests are not a threat. Every country conducts them.

 

[krealtarron]

Go read what I said and think about it. You called me racist for criticizing Iran as an authoritarian government yet you're suggesting all criticism of Israel is legitimate. Sorry but that's the exact kind of double standard I was talking about. I haven't seen enough posts from you to tell whether your posts are simply a narrow world view or whether you have an anti-semitic viewpoint but Franky (and his previous two banned handles) have provided plenty.

As I said, it is possible to criticize Israel's actions without being racist. people like Franky criticize Israel's very existence and argues that their Jewish population have no right to be there. He is anti-semitic.

And for your information, this is Canada's definition of Anti-semitism. It should clarify the difference. the bolded ones are things that Franks has engaged in.

I have not called you racist for criticizing Iran. I called you racist for calling others racist for criticizing Israel, because if that was the measure being used to call someone racist, then your criticism of Iran would make you one. I was infact removing the double standard that you were pushing.

Israel was created out of nowhere because of events in the 20th century along with mass immigration of Jews to that region. Although, I believe that Israel today is a legitimate state and that jews have a right to be there, there is an argument to be considered from the Palestinian side, that most Jews in Israel today are really of European ancestry. Pointing that out is not racist.

 

[krealtarron]

First off, Iran. They routinely chant about Death to Israel, Death to America even in their legislature.

And despite the tropes about Jewish control, Saudi Arabia is heavily influencing US middle East policy; you know, that oil thing. As Iran was expanding their enrichment activities, the Saudis started moving that way but thankfully the US bribed them to stop.

I don't know what level of investigation you've done about politics in the region but while both Saudi and Iran both push to their public the 'dangers' of Israel, their governments are far more concerned about each other than they are about the Jews. Whether the conflict is about the Shia-Sunni split or whether it's just about who's the regional power, that is the real conflict. For example, the Syrian civil war was a significant proxy battle between Iran and Saudi with the US/NATO getting involved due to Russia's presence and the spread of ISIS in Iraq.

Israel's concern is what was stated before; a country that openly states their desire to see Israel "removed from the pages of history" that funding and supplying groups like PIJ, Hezbollah, and Hamas and has a nuclear program right that could easily be tweaked to created nukes.

And yes, Iran's people protesting their government is their choice but it is completely disingenuous to claim that other countries don't have a right to state their opinions or determine whether they want to allow trade with Iran.

Its completely dishonest to place overt importance on the Saudi-Iran conflict. At best it is a cold war.

The real conflict is between Israel and Iran. The most aggressive actions are committed by the US/Israel coalition against Iran.

Those are just facts. You are trying to leverage some pre-existing sectarian conflict to downplay the actual issue here, which is, Israel and the US's aggressive actions towards Iran.

 

[krealtarron]

Ah, the beautiful double standard. Iran's actions around the Middle East are also international issues (and at risk of invoking Godwin's law, I recall another issue called an internal matter). Iran is openly a major funder and supplier for various terrorist/nongovernmental militias so yes, there is serious reason for other countries to be very concerned about whether Iran has nukes.

And sorry but theocratic oligarchies are a much greater threat than a democracy, especially when two theocracies that hate each other (Iran and Saudi) have nukes (I see a rapidly deteriorating Putin a threat as well).

Iran's funding of these anti-Israel groups, if they were actually true, are really in response to Israel and the US's actions. And therefore, your scrutiny should be on Israel and the US. Had these countries left Iran alone we wouldn't have these issues.

Yet these theocratic oligarchies havent attacked or invaded other nations. Or nuked them for that matter. The "democracies" however, have.