Home | Community | Message Board


Sporeworks
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Growery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Offlinekyuzo
Stranger Than Fiction

Registered: 07/05/10
Posts: 981
Last seen: 12 years, 27 days
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: Kilroy]
    #464304 - 08/20/10 03:59 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Kilroy said:
making things more tense in an already tense place. We can not keep our noses out of anything anymore except stuff like ethnic cleansing that goes on in other countries. I know this is going to sound bad but I say let them have at it and then deal with who ever wins. We should not be over there IMO.





Well, if you look at the LIKUD charter, Arab home demolitions in the occupied territories, un resolution 181 defining the territorial borders for the Israeli state, UN resolution 446 admonishing Israel for violating the Geneva convention, in relation to attempts to extend their territorial control over Jerusalem and other occupied territories, the open calls that the area is inherently Jewish, the increase in settlement activity since the early 80's,land repossession, and the way they use the settlements to push out arab residents, it's pretty clear there is ethnic cleansing going on in the region

Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinekyuzo
Stranger Than Fiction

Registered: 07/05/10
Posts: 981
Last seen: 12 years, 27 days
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: TomCollins]
    #464306 - 08/20/10 04:00 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Spency said:
Quote:

KillerPicklez said:
Israel definitely has the superior firepower.




Only because you Americans are in bed with yids.





whats the deal with making it a racial issue?

Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinekyuzo
Stranger Than Fiction

Registered: 07/05/10
Posts: 981
Last seen: 12 years, 27 days
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: Picklez]
    #464312 - 08/20/10 04:02 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

KillerPicklez said:
Iran deserves it.




Indeed, it's nearly impossible to defend Iran in this instance, and no one in the region wants to see them gain access to a NW, especially the Arab state.

Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinekyuzo
Stranger Than Fiction

Registered: 07/05/10
Posts: 981
Last seen: 12 years, 27 days
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DeadHearts]
    #464339 - 08/20/10 04:25 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

DeadHearts said:
All they are doing is trying to improve their energy situation.
Why in the hell would they be doing all work out in the open just to
make some nukes. If they did we would know about it and then action
would be taken.

But until then I dont want to hear anything about it. This is yet
another example how how America needs to stay the fuck out of
everyone's business. We need to get the fuck out of Afghanistan as
well. There is no war to be won there whatsoever. 

Everyone is so quick to point the finger at other nations when we
should be taking a look in the mirror. We are the world police. We
have become the terrorists.





I believe the IEAE found suspicious radioactive sample that were measured at a higher concentration than what is needed for power generation, and that there has been no satisfactory explanation of this fact


Also, for doing work out in the open, the same report makes remarks about frustrations and delays in inspections, and there was that whole issue about the secret production facility they had in the mountains

Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinekyuzo
Stranger Than Fiction

Registered: 07/05/10
Posts: 981
Last seen: 12 years, 27 days
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DeadHearts]
    #464384 - 08/20/10 04:54 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

DeadHearts said:You believe? Is this a fact or what??




<<<(f) Encouraged by the Director General’s assessment that there has been good progress on the
actions agreed during the Director General’s visit to Tehran in early April 2004 and that the
Agency continues to make progress in gaining a comprehensive understanding of Iran’s nuclear
programme, but noting with concern that after almost two years from when ***Iran’s undeclared***
programme came to the Agency’s knowledge a number of ***questions remain outstanding***, and in
particular *** two questions that are key to understanding the extent and nature of Iran’s enrichment programme***: the sources of all HEU contamination in Iran and the extent and nature of work
undertaken on the basis of the P-2 advanced centrifuge design,

(g) Noting in this context with serious concern that important information about the P-2
centrifuge programme has often been forthcoming only after repeated requests, ***and in some
cases has been incomplete and continues to lack the necessary clarity*** and also that the
information provided to date relating to contamination issues*** has not been adequate to resolve
this complex matter***


(i) Noting with concern that the Agency’s investigations ***have revealed further omissions*** in the
statements made by Iran, including in the October declaration, in particular concerning the
importation of P-2 components from abroad and concerning laser enrichment tests, which have
produced samples enriched up to 15%, and also that Agency experts have raised questions and
doubts regarding the explanations provided by Iran concerning those programmes, which
require further clarification


2. Deplores, at the same time, the fact that, overall, as indicated by the Director General’s written
and oral reports, Iran’s cooperation has not been as full, timely and proactive as it should have been,
and, in particular, that Iran postponed until mid-April visits originally scheduled for mid-March -
including visits of Agency centrifuge experts to a number of locations involved in Iran’s P-2
centrifuge enrichment programme - ***resulting in some cases in a delay in the taking of environmental
samples and their analysis;***


Calls on Iran to take all necessary steps on an urgent basis to help resolve all outstanding
questions, especially that of LEU and HEU contamination found at various locations in Iran, including
by providing additional relevant information ***about the origin of the components in question and
explanations about the presence of a cluster of 36% HEU particles***; and also the question of the nature
and scope of Iran’s P-2 centrifuge programme, including by providing full documentation and
explanations at the request of the Agency;


Recalls that in previous resolutions the Board called on Iran to suspend all enrichment-related
and reprocessing activities; welcomes Iran’s voluntary decisions in that respect; ***regrets that those
commitments have not been comprehensively implemented*** and calls on Iran immediately to correct
all remaining shortcomings, and to remove the existing variance in relation to the Agency’s
understanding of the scope of Iran’s decisions regarding suspension, including by refraining from the
production of UF6 and from all production of centrifuge components, as well as to enable the Agency
to verify fully the suspension;

http://www.iaea.org/Publication...v2004-49.pdf


<<<"The International Atomic Energy Agency can confirm that on 10 June 2010 it received a letter from Iran objecting to the designation of two IAEA safeguards inspectors.

"The IAEA has full confidence in the professionalism and impartiality of the inspectors concerned. The Agency confirms that its report on the implementation of safeguards in Iran, issued on 31 May 2010, is fully accurate.>>>


http://www.iaea.org/Publication...v2004-49.pdf




Quote:

DeadHearts said:Anyways we are talking about a country that is surrounded by countries
we occupy as well as allies and people are throwing their arms up at Iran
like they are some big threat? I think its silly. Its fine to keep them in
line. We do not need another country with nukes and its against policy
anyways I get all that. But all this war talk its fucking stupid. The last
thing this county and entire planet needs right now is another war going on.




I agree.  i personally think there are other avenues still to explore.  But as I said, it's nearly impossible to defend Iran in this instance. 

Quote:

DeadHearts said:Im 25 years old and I am already so sick and fucking tired of these wars.
I mean come on. And how everyone is so quick to back them in this country
is beyond me. We do not have the money nor the resources for this. People
wonder why this country is flat broke. Billions are wasted and thousands of
our people are lost on these agendas that offer no progression of the future
and the future of our children. Its really become sad that we are seeing the
same games played out over and over again up until this present day.






i'm pretty critical of US foreign policy

Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinekyuzo
Stranger Than Fiction

Registered: 07/05/10
Posts: 981
Last seen: 12 years, 27 days
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: TomCollins]
    #465427 - 08/22/10 02:06 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

without going into the various points you raised (some i agree with, some I don't), I would point out that criticisms of other states really don't amount to a defense of Iran.  It's like going into a court of law and arguing your innocence against rape on the basis that others have raped before, and some even get away with it

PS And the original Zionists were mainly comprised of secularists who tried to assimilate into European culture and failed.  Even LIKUD is a secular party

Edited by kyuzo (08/22/10 02:07 PM)

Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinekyuzo
Stranger Than Fiction

Registered: 07/05/10
Posts: 981
Last seen: 12 years, 27 days
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: Picklez]
    #465440 - 08/22/10 03:29 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

KillerPicklez said:Spency- I thought you of all people would know what ethnic cleansing looked like  :lolocaust:





That's genocide, ethnic cleansing is different.  And indeed, one can easily make the case that is exactly the type of program being carreid out in certain areas of the OT

Edited by kyuzo (08/22/10 03:31 PM)

Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinekyuzo
Stranger Than Fiction

Registered: 07/05/10
Posts: 981
Last seen: 12 years, 27 days
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: Picklez]
    #465445 - 08/22/10 03:37 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

KillerPicklez said:
genocide is a form of ethnic cleansing, as is forced migration. :nerd:




In genocide the aim is to eradicate the group, with ethnic cleansing the aim is to remove the group from a certain area.  Surely this can be achieved through a genocide, but it can also be achieved through forced immigration and various other means that do not amount to the groups demise

Edited by kyuzo (08/22/10 03:38 PM)

Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinekyuzo
Stranger Than Fiction

Registered: 07/05/10
Posts: 981
Last seen: 12 years, 27 days
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: Picklez]
    #465454 - 08/22/10 04:21 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

KillerPicklez said:
semantics.





Not really, being that any serious researcher who tried to define the Holocaust as ethnic cleansing would become a complete joke.  Because there are very clear distinctions in the definitions of the two terms


Quote:

KillerPicklez said:their goal was genocide. but they only achieved ethnic cleansing :tongue:




The act itself was genocide, because they were trying to eradicate a people, not simply push them out into some foreign region. 

Also, there are still jews in Germany and larger europe, so no ethnic cleansing was achieved

Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinekyuzo
Stranger Than Fiction

Registered: 07/05/10
Posts: 981
Last seen: 12 years, 27 days
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: Coaster]
    #465990 - 08/23/10 03:35 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

lol @ this thread devolving into nothing more than blind emotionalism

Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinekyuzo
Stranger Than Fiction

Registered: 07/05/10
Posts: 981
Last seen: 12 years, 27 days
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DeadHearts]
    #466044 - 08/23/10 06:30 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Nelson Mandela on the ANC's innevitable turn towards violence: 


<<< Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.

But the violence which we chose to adopt was not terrorism. We who formed Umkhonto were all members of the African National Congress, and had behind us the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of solving political disputes. We believe that South Africa belongs to all the people who live in it, and not to one group, be it black or white. We did not want an interracial war, and tried to avoid it to the last minute. If the court is in doubt about this, it will be seen that the whole history of our organisation bears out what I have said, and what I will subsequently say, when I describe the tactics which Umkhonto decided to adopt. I want, therefore, to say something about the African National Congress.

The African National Congress was formed in 1912 to defend the rights of the African people which had been seriously curtailed by the South Africa Act, and which were then being threatened by the Native Land Act. For thirty-seven years - that is until 1949 - it adhered strictly to a constitutional struggle. It put forward demands and resolutions; it sent delegations to the Government in the belief that African grievances could be settled through peaceful discussion and that Africans could advance gradually to full political rights. But white governments remained unmoved, and the rights of Africans became less instead of becoming greater. In the words of my leader, Chief Lutuli, who became President of the ANC in 1952, and who was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:

"Who will deny that thirty years of my life have been spent knocking in vain, patiently, moderately, and modestly at a closed and barred door? What have been the fruits of moderation? The past thirty years have seen the greatest number of laws restricting our rights and progress, until today we have reached a stage where we have almost no rights at all."

Even after 1949, the ANC remained determined to avoid violence. At this time, however, there was a change from the strictly constitutional means of protest which had been employed in the past. The change was embodied in a decision which was taken to protest against apartheid legislation by peaceful, but unlawful, demonstrations against certain laws. Pursuant to this policy the ANC launched the Defiance Campaign, in which I was placed in charge of volunteers. This campaign was based on the principles of passive resistance. More than 8,500 people defied apartheid laws and went to jail. Yet there was not a single instance of violence in the course of this campaign on the part of any defier. I and nineteen colleagues were convicted for the role which we played in organising the campaign, but our sentences were suspended mainly because the judge found that discipline and non-violence had been stressed throughout. This was the time when the volunteer section of the ANC was established, and when the word 'Amadelakufa' was first used: this was the time when the volunteers were asked to take a pledge to uphold certain principles. Evidence dealing with volunteers and their pledges has been introduced into this case, but completely out of context. The volunteers were not, and are not, the soldiers of a black army pledged to fight a civil war against the whites. They were, and are, dedicated workers who are prepared to lead campaigns initiated by the ANC to distribute leaflets, to organise strikes, or do whatever the particular campaign required. They are called volunteers because they volunteer to face the penalties of imprisonment and whipping which are now prescribed by the legislature for such acts.

During the defiance campaign, the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act were passed. These statutes provided harsher penalties for offences committed by way of protests against laws. Despite this, the protests continued and the ANC adhered to its policy of non-violence. In 1956, 156 leading members of the Congress alliance, including myself, were arrested on a charge of high treason and charges under the Suppression of Communism Act. The non-violent policy of the ANC was put in issue by the state, but when the court gave judgement some five years later, it found that the ANC did not have a policy of violence. We were acquitted on all counts, which included a count that the ANC sought to set up a communist state in place of the existing regime. The government has always sought to label all its opponents as communists. This allegation has been repeated in the present case, but as I will show, the ANC is not, and never has been, a communist organisation.

In 1960 there was the shooting at Sharpeville, which resulted in the proclamation of a state of emergency and the declaration of the ANC as an unlawful organisation. My colleagues and I, after careful consideration, decided that we would not obey this decree. The African people were not part of the government and did not make the laws by which they were governed. We believed in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that 'the will of the people shall be the basis of authority of the government,' and for us to accept the banning was equivalent to accepting the silencing of the Africans for all time. The ANC refused to dissolve, but instead went underground. We believed it was our duty to preserve this organisation which had been built up with almost fifty years of unremitting toil. I have no doubt that no self-respecting white political organisation would disband itself if declared illegal by a government in which it had no say.

In 1960 the government held a referendum which led to the establishment of the republic. Africans, who constituted approximately 70 per cent of the population of South Africa, were not entitled to vote, and were not even consulted about the proposed constitutional change. All of us were apprehensive of our future under the proposed white republic, and a resolution was taken to hold an all-in African conference to call for a national convention, and to organise mass demonstrations on the eve of the unwanted republic, if the government failed to call the convention. The conference was attended by Africans of various political persuasions. I was the secretary of the conference and undertook to be responsible for organising the national stay-at-home which was subsequently called to coincide with the declaration of the republic. As all strikes by Africans are illegal, the person organising such a strike must avoid arrest. I was chosen to be this person, and consequently I had to leave my home and family and my practice and go into hiding to avoid arrest.

The stay-at-home, in accordance with ANC policy, was to be a peaceful demonstration. Careful instructions were given to organisers and members to avoid any recourse to violence. The government's answer was to introduce new and harsher laws, to mobilise its armed forces, and to send saracens, armed vehicles, and soldiers into the townships in a massive show of force designed to intimidate the people. This was an indication that the government had decided to rule by force alone, and this decision was a milestone on the road to Umkhonto.

Some of this may appear irrelevant to this trial. In fact, I believe none of it is irrelevant because it will, I hope, enable the court to appreciate the attitude eventually adopted by the various persons and bodies concerned in the National Liberation Movement. When I went to jail in 1962, the dominant idea was that loss of life should be avoided. I now know that this was still so in 1963.

I must return to June 1961. What were we, the leaders of our people, to do? Were we to give in to the show of force and the implied threat against future action, or were we to fight it and, if so, how?

We had no doubt that we had to continue the fight. Anything else would have been abject surrender. Our problem was not whether to fight, but was how to continue the fight. We of the ANC had always stood for a non-racial democracy, and we shrank from any action which might drive the races further apart than they already were. But the hard facts were that fifty years of non-violence had brought the African people nothing but more and more repressive legislation, and fewer and fewer rights. It may not be easy for this court to understand, but it is a fact that for a long time the people had been talking of violence - of the day when they would fight the white man and win back their country - and we, the leaders of the ANC, had nevertheless always prevailed upon them to avoid violence and to pursue peaceful methods. When some of us discussed this in May and June of 1961, it could not be denied that our policy to achieve a non-racial state by non-violence had achieved nothing, and that our followers were beginning to lose confidence in this policy and were developing disturbing ideas of terrorism.

It must not be forgotten that by this time violence had, in fact, become a feature of the South African political scene. There had been violence in 1957 when the women of Zeerust were ordered to carry passes; there was violence in 1958 with the enforcement of cattle culling in Sekhukhuniland; there was violence in 1959 when the people of Cato Manor protested against pass raids; there was violence in 1960 when the government attempted to impose Bantu authorities in Pondoland. Thirty-nine Africans died in these disturbances. In 1961 there had been riots in Warmbaths, and all this time the Transkei had been a seething mass of unrest. Each disturbance pointed clearly to the inevitable growth among Africans of the belief that violence was the only way out - it showed that a government which uses force to maintain its rule teaches the oppressed to use force to oppose it. Already small groups had arisen in the urban areas and were spontaneously making plans for violent forms of political struggle. There now arose a danger that these groups would adopt terrorism against Africans, as well as whites, if not properly directed. Particularly disturbing was the type of violence engendered in places such as Zeerust, Sekhukhuniland, and Pondoland amongst Africans. It was increasingly taking the form, not of struggle against the government - though this is what prompted it - but of civil strife amongst themselves, conducted in such a way that it could not hope to achieve anything other than a loss of life and bitterness.

At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.

This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice. >>>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/23/nelsonmandela1

Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinekyuzo
Stranger Than Fiction

Registered: 07/05/10
Posts: 981
Last seen: 12 years, 27 days
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DeadHearts]
    #466054 - 08/23/10 07:13 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

DeadHearts said:
Just a question. What was youre motivation behind posting that?




to underline the idealistic nature of pacifism, and how it's dependent on some shared perception of common humanity between two sides

Quote:

DeadHearts said:What is youre opinion on the matter?




I generally think force should be a very last resort and am not quite convinced that's the only option left here (though I am honestly at a loss for what those other options are at this point).


Personally i would prefer the route of heavy sanctions, but they come with their own set of issues

Edited by kyuzo (08/23/10 07:16 PM)

Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Ready for war against Iran?
( 1 2 all )
Picklez 5,071 33 11/09/12 09:15 AM
by Tank333
* Iran tested medium-long range missles today
( 1 2 all )
Picklez 5,903 25 07/10/08 02:31 PM
by Butters
* jewitagain is moving to israel
( 1 2 all )
Doitagain 7,657 29 12/23/08 01:58 PM
by Doitagain
* Iran Sells Clean Fusion-Based Electricity Across South Asia sloantbone 486 0 12/25/12 06:21 PM
by sloantbone
* Cease fire between Israel and Gaza Strip ends, 155 dead
( 1 2 all )
MassSpectrometer 9,993 32 12/27/08 08:57 PM
by Picklez
* NKorea steps up rhetoric amid nuclear crisis bobby 1,277 4 06/10/09 09:06 AM
by Ben18
* 24 reasons to support Israel
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Doitagain 23,503 100 02/08/09 07:01 PM
by Doitagain
* Security troops on US nuclear missile base took LSD Deadkndys420 1,974 9 06/18/18 08:59 AM
by Stoneth

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: FurrowedBrow, Harry_Ba11sach, Magash, Data, Stoneth, Dr. Siekadellyk
13,460 topic views. 6 members, 51,509 guests and 1,506 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Sporeworks
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2025 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.057 seconds spending 0.041 seconds on 15 queries.