NEWS: Bush Plans Preemptive Nuclear Strike Against Iran

Originally posted by marg6043
Yes is Déjà vu, but with a twist I imagine that it will be no invasion just surgical strikes.

Of course you have to clear the area, by leveling it, before invading it. Easier to setup camp and stuff, more places to drag women and children to in bags, more dead people to harass on camera and put on the internet as a joke. C'mon! Logic.

But no really, before we went into Iraq we bombed the hell out of Baghdad. I think the same goes for Kuwait and all those other oil-enriched countries.

Obviously I have prejuidices, so what? In my opinion they're justified with evidence

I cant beleive some of you rallying behind the president in this.

Humanity is at stake, and you're behind this evil? THERE ARE OPTIONS, like maybe conventional weapons if we HAVE to wipe their butts off the face of the earth?
And why do we? Why do we have to eliminate more men, women and innocent children? Because GOD told Bush to do so?

This is the ultimate evil. Best be careful, i wouldnt be surprised if we here are turned to rubble. Somebody might be thinking of a little pre-emptive surprise strike for us on their own.....
And that is something that's unimaginable. Right? That could never happen to us. Right?
Another instance where we MUST eliminate a country because they COULD pose a threat to us.


*But we have to get rid of their nukes. They pose a threat to their neighbors*
BS. Everyman for themselves. They've been fighting thousands of years, let them continue. They will do a nice job at eliminating themselves.


As Bush goes around the world creating democracy, killing people, and dictating who can have weapons and who cannot, our time is running out in this country, because nobody appointed us lords of the world.

Keep rooting for Bush & Co. Our death wish of death by incineration is getting closer each day. Thanks to all who due to ignorance back this man up.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by dgtempe]

the media spin machine and lie manufacturing is started, and being pushed for going to war as with Iraq. men I'm so sick of this world... US in first place, people do something about yout corrupt gov, we here in Europe have no impact on your gov policy, hope you will help the world and confront your representatives with these real end-world-projections.

Source

FKh: What is the rationale for America using nukes on Iran, given that even the CIA believes Iran is at least "10 years" from any nuclear weapon production?

JH: The use of nuclear weapons against Iran will be justified by "military necessity". In theory, Iran could equip missile warheads with chemical or biological weapons and aim them at Israeli cities or US bases in the area. The declared US policy of "preemption" would "justify" using highly accurate earth penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy missile silos or suspected underground facilities housing WMD's. The argument will be made that a few hundred or thousand Iranian "collateral damage" casualties of low yield earth penetrating nuclear weapons is preferable to potential tens of thousands of US or Israeli casualties from Iranian missiles equipped with WMD warheads.

The US accuses Iran of having clandestine chemical and biological weapons facilities, even though it doesn't present proof of such assertions, and despite the fact that Iran is signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological Weapons Convention treaties. Furthermore the US has worked very hard over the past 15 years to create the perception that nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are all similar "WMD"'s, to prepare the ground for the US use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon countries. However the scientific fact is, nuclear weapons are million-fold more destructive than all other weapons and in contrast to chemical and biological weapons there is no protection against nuclear weapons.

Thats the mentality.

I enjoyed reading what you wrote and also prefer grown-up conversations.
I hope you don't stop posting your wisdom here, because some of us want and need to hear it. So please ignore those who resort to name calling and help enlighten those who are searching for truth.

Originally posted by rich23
As so often on my occasional visits to this bulletin board, I am dismayed by the sloppy and partial thinking prevalent here.

The first words out of your keyboard I have had the pleasure to read set the tone perfectly for the rest of your spew and exemplify perfectly what I mean by elitist.

All this fuss about 'pre-emptive strikes': Iraq has no nukes, is not likely to have any for at least ten years (according to CIA estimates)...

Care to revisit any of these issues in light of Ahmadinijads "great news" this week smart guy?

The US, on the other hand, has lots of nukes (and Israel has around 200, in violation of the selectively-enforced Non-Proliferation Treaty) and has, post-Bush's accession, abandoned its 'no first use' policy.

When a demonstatable nut wants you off the map and has the ways and means to accomplish this long publicly held goal all bets are off. If you were in this position i would expect you to nuke them as well, even if you are taoist.

I suspect most of those patriot sheeple fell hook, line and sinker for the US administration's lies about Iraq (and about Afghanistan, too) and are FALLING FOR IT AGAIN over Iran.

IMO Iraq part 2 should have started after Saddam broke the first UN resolution -not the last 14.

What was it your linguistically-challenged president (I note with some amusement that his mispronunciation of the word 'nuclear' has become quite a fashion amongst those of you who cannot correctly spell your first language) said? "Fool me once... shame on you... fool me twice... er... fool... ah... you won't get fooled again". Well, he's heard a Who song, how lovely.

I haven't ever heard Bush quote The Who and in another attempt to deliver an elitist barb (all hail the brilliance of Rich23) your point here becomes seriously muddled. I'm sure because I had to read it a few times and I noticed my eyes were bleeding again.

But so many of you are utterly willing to believe the sheerest fantasies, which are, in order:

Iran is a threat to the US (it's the other way around)

How long will it be before the worlds foremost backer of terrorism gets to detonate one of these in your town? Don't expect to see them comin on a missle, expect something of an IRA attack except a way bigger target then a cafe...

The US is interested in a diplomatic solution (just as in Iraq, this is not the case) and

It goes against all your opinions I know but it is actually true that a peaceful resolution is prefered. But there is a time table involved here that is seperate from your perfect world problem resolution theory and no-one can afford to wait for a change of thought from Tehran. Iran wants nukes "for peaceful puposes" but are developing missle that can carry a warhead. Iran wants these weapons and will continue to reach for them regardless of what is said on BBC primetime.

The US are the good guys, bringing liberation and democracy to a grateful world (those of us who know our history find that one hilarious and tragic in equal measure).

If you were speaking German right now you might have a better argument that we aren't the good guys. As it turns out though, you still speak English better then I do.

As one of the true and great Americans said, "Think! It ain't illegal yet! Think!"

Please, please, please.

Neo-communist:
www.frontpagemag.com...

Now you can have a nice day too.

Actually bush did totally mangle the old adage (not from a who song) of fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me...he couldn't even complete the scentence. it was all over the TV, it was at a rally in tenneessee I believe. Thing is, the most conservative estimates say it will take Iran at least 10 years to produce enough nuclear material to produce a bomb, and probably longer to work it into a deliverable format, i.e. a missle. The Iranian president, whose name I cannot pronounce muchless spell will probably be long out of power by then, unless of course we scare them into a more hardline stance, which will probably be the outcome of all of Washington's hystronics going on now. personally I would love to see all you gungho bomb them back to the dark ages slim pickens types to ride the GD bomb down. But no you are a bunch of macho arm chair warriors just barking to hear yourselves bark.

US attacks Iran in pre-emptive strikes. Nuke goes off in US city, and they claim Iran did it. Boom. Martial Law imposed. Internet locked down. Activist groups rounded up. No one to oppose them. It can happen. What can we do about it? Let me know when you figure it out.

Well...bye bye America...

Suenotofu

thank you for your gracious comment. I'm afraid I'm having a bit of fun with Earlybird, but proper conversations are really what I came here for. There's quite a bit of genuine information to be had here if you keep digging...

And on a more general level, I was replying to Earlybird and inadvertently hit 'post' before I'd finished dealing with his sottismes - so I've radically edited this post to reply to Suenotofu knowing that my full reply to EB is below.

Aye aye me hearties

R

[edit on 13-4-2006 by rich23]

Originally posted by Seekaro
US attacks Iran in pre-emptive strikes. Nuke goes off in US city, and they claim Iran did it. Boom. Martial Law imposed. Internet locked down. Activist groups rounded up. No one to oppose them. It can happen. What can we do about it? Let me know when you figure it out.

Well...bye bye America...

well, first what you can do about it, is not wait until it happens!!!!
Second, you can use your Constitutional Rights to their greatest extent that your brain/body can handle until it does happen.

Maybe, consider joining a winner, Russ Feingold, and try to start a grassroots effort so we never have to go to war again.

Seriously people, get it together! We don't have Constitutional rights if we don't have peace(and the war that goes with it), Terrorism and other forms of random violence are a threat to our peace and Constitutional Rights.

Seekaro, do you think I as an American Citizen am not also concerned with what is happening with our Constitutional Rights right now, well I am.

However I priortize terrorism and acts of terrorism as to be a geater Constitutional Atrocity than would be getting my phone/computer tapped.
It robs our Country of its dignity for mankind.


If I had to prioritize my rights it would probably be as follows.(1 being the most important 4 being the least)

1. Right to life, (right to live without fear of constant violence)

2. Right to Property, (my government nor another has the right to take whats mine)
3. Right to Worship (right to worship any God or none at all)

4. Freedom of Speach (right to talk about Dubbya however you want to using the internet algore invented)

after all,

Seekaro, what does a man's constitutional rights matter if he is blown up by a nuke in the U.S.?

Freedom is not and should not be Free. Freedom is the liberty owed to one who defends rightly what is his.


Terrorism is an intrusive attack by Islamo-Fascist Terrorists which they see as a counter attacks to respond to the American Pop Culture(music/movies/politics/philosophies) which has, contaminated(expanded) their children's minds.

Americans do not force the Middle East to listen to Britney Spears but Terrorists force us to listen to them through violence.

Now we could appease this violence and the terrorists who bring it to us but where will that lead us Seekaro?

The only answer to your complex question is to WIN the WAR!!! Only by defeating Iran Militarily will we be able to get inside the sovereign country of Iran and attack the terrorists where they procreate and spread hate.

By going on the offensive we have put our enemies in a defensive stance. Ahmadnininininajad(Iran's President) is boxed in right now just like Kim Jung, by eliminating their Nuclear Capabilities just think about how many Nukes you are saving the world from ever seeing.

Although you might not think either are caged in, because they are always saying crazy things against the west, I would compare it to a cat in a shoebox, they aren't too happy to be in the box so they fuss and whine but regardles, they are still boxed in.

We just gotta stick with it and finish with diplomacy or at least until the Security Council meets April 28th. After that, I'd have to say its up to Dubbya.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

I read this Post article and it would seem that America and the Brits are about set to go with some interesting scenarios I'd not have thought of. A Caspian Sea/Northern attack?
blogs.washingtonpost.com...
What up with that?

Earlybird! Hooray!

TOP comedy value, again. Quite often on this board I get upset when insulted, but right now I'm grinning ear to ear. I ESPECIALLY liked the link, which had me alternately falling about and clutching my head in disbelief. There's a great deal of difference between name-calling and making an argument, and you do need to bring yourself up to speed on this. I don't know, frankly, how much time and effort I'm going to put into a rebuttal I know will have no effect. Be it known now that I'm doing it simply for my own amusement.

Anyway... on with the motley...

Care to revisit any of these issues in light of Ahmadinijads "great news" this week smart guy?

But of course! Had you actually been listening to the whole thing, you'd have noticed that he was talking about using nuclear power to generate electricity. Other posters here have already made the point that enriching uranium to weapons-grade is far more time-consuming and difficult. My point is made: you're falling for the spin. Even the CIA have said - quite recently - that Iran is 5 - 10 years away from making nuclear weapons.

When a demonstatable nut wants you off the map and has the ways and means to accomplish this long publicly held goal all bets are off. If you were in this position i would expect you to nuke them as well, even if you are taoist.

It is entirely possible to take that point of view and use it to justify Iran attacking the US. The PNAC documents show explicitly that the US (which, unlike Iran, DEFINITELY has nukes) wants to re-draw the map of the ME and make the world safe for Israel (which, incidentally, has ignored more UN resolutions than Saddam has by a long way).

As for throwing nukes around at the drop of a hat... it's ugly and thuggish. And REALLY stupid. Plus, as I've said, the fallout spreads. Obviously you couldn't care less about that, but if you want to exemplify the Ugly American, that's up to you. The whole point of having nukes is not to use them. That was always the way (except for the two crimes against humanity the US perpetrated when Japan was trying to surrender). And if you knew anything about the beliefs of Taoists, I'd be truly surprised.

IMO Iraq part 2 should have started after Saddam broke the first UN resolution -not the last 14.

IMO the US shouldn't have overthrown the democracy that was Iraq, paid Saddam to try to assassinate Qasim, supported him while he was in power, sold him chemical weapons, covered for him when he used them... get the picture? IT'S JUST A SHELL GAME. Three years ago it was Saddam. Now it's Iran... soon, it'll be Chavez. Do try and keep up. I love Dubya, he's just so obvious.

Oh, and thanks to Grover for explaining my reference to Earlybird. For the record, I used to love the Who when I was a kid, and even got to see them once with the original line-up.

I haven't ever heard Bush quote The Who and in another attempt to deliver an elitist barb (all hail the brilliance of Rich23) your point here becomes seriously muddled. I'm sure because I had to read it a few times and I noticed my eyes were bleeding again.

The reason you were having so much trouble is that I was quoting your simian Dear Leader. The point is simple, I'm making it again and again, and predictably, it's just BOUNCING OFF... "fool me once, shame on you: fool me twice, shame on ME". Exactly like Iraq, Iran is being built up as this huge threat which has no basis except in propaganda, and the sheeple are falling for it again, and spoiling for another war which your country can ill-afford either financially or militarily.

Dubya's daddy - as befits an ex-head of the CIA - was smart. He got everyone else to pay for GWI (which he tricked Saddam into, as even Midge Decter knows). Dubya, on the other hand, has surrounded himself with ideologues who cannot see what's really going on and who think they're "making their own reality" in Iraq. They thought that the war would pay for itself on Iraqi oil revenues. But with a highly resistant population that's keen on sabotaging efforts to asset-strip the country, this is proving more difficult. What is the current US deficit? Several trillion bucks, at any rate.

How long will it be before the worlds foremost backer of terrorism gets to detonate one of these in your town? Don't expect to see them comin on a missle, expect something of an IRA attack except a way bigger target then a cafe...

Hang on... wasn't the "world's foremost backer of terrorism" Iraq a couple of years back? Or, no, wasn't it Syria? It's the shell game again.

And TALKING of backing terrorism, weren't the IRA getting lots and lots of money from America? Or maybe I'm just imagining that... (not)

It goes against all your opinions I know but it is actually true that a peaceful resolution is prefered. But there is a time table involved here that is seperate from your perfect world problem resolution theory and no-one can afford to wait for a change of thought from Tehran. Iran wants nukes "for peaceful puposes" but are developing missle that can carry a warhead. Iran wants these weapons and will continue to reach for them regardless of what is said on BBC primetime.

Here is a link to an NYT article to back up my assertion that Iran is years away from nuclear weapons.

And Iranian politicians say they want nuclear power, not nuclear weapons. There is a difference, try to keep up. As for the missiles, they have Israel close by, and THEY definitely have nukes. It would make sense for Iran to want nukes - when Russia had nukes pointed at the US, you'd want to hang on to yours, wouldn't you? It's called deterrence.

However, all the indications are that the US doesn't care about diplomacy, and that they are going to use nuclear bunker-busters on Iran.

Here is a link to show that the US is already paving the way for intervention through - no, wait, you'll love this one...you'll never guess... SPONSORING TERRORISM! Hooray for the good guys! And here is a link to Paul Krugman's NYT article referencing Seymour Hersh's article (the Hersh original is longer than you want to read, I think, but I'm sure you could look it up if you want to) demonstrating that diplomacy is only a holding tactic.

If you were speaking German right now you might have a better argument that we aren't the good guys. As it turns out though, you still speak English better then I do.

If Dubya's granddaddy had his way, I probably WOULD be speaking German. Ever checked out Time magazine's man of the year for 1933? But fascism is not confined to Nazi Germany. Sadly, much of the relevant traits are all-too-visible in the US right now. Umberto Eco wrote a wonderful essay called "14 ways to recognise a Brownshirt" and you can find a copy here. You probably won't get through it all, but it's there for you anyway.

LOVED the article. Now I see where you get your opinions from. If ONLY they were bolstered by any attention to fact whatsoever...

Adherents of this anti-American creed variously describe themselves as "Marxists," "anti-globalists," "anti-war activists" or, more generally, "progressives." Their secular worldview holds claims that America is responsible for reaction, oppression, and exploitation across the globe and causes them to regard this country as the moral equivalent of militant Islam’s "Great Satan." This explains the otherwise incomprehensible practical alliances that individuals who claim to be avatars of social justice make with Islamo-fascists like Saddam Hussein.

Ooh, SECULAR! Secular=Godless=Communist. Isn't that how it goes? And yet your country was founded on a need for freedom of worship. How ironic.

Can you actually point out any practical alliances that, say, Noam Chomsky, has made with "Islamo-fascists"? Oh, and NOT, repeat, NOT, "Islamo-fascists like Saddam Hussein". Saddam was a SECULARIST and actually kept the lid on the more extreme manifestations of Islam. I remember watching in some shock when one of the Iraqi towns played host (after the 'liberation') to a big festival where sect members went out into the street and cut themselves with big knives.

See, it's this kind of sloppy thinking and name-calling that makes me contemptuous, not only of the people who write this bilge, but of the people who can't see it for what it is. Bilge.

But it's exactly the kind of sneaky elision of untruth and accusation that's so prevalent in the piece you quoted that is characteristic of fascist propaganda. Let's not forget that Goebbels said (I'm paraphrasing but accurately) "The problem is always the same. How do you get the ordinary man to leave his wife and family and go and fight a war? The answer - and it's always the same, whether you live in a democracy or under communism or fascism - is to tell him that his country is in danger and that anyone who says different is a traitor."

Which is EXACTLY what Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity and all the other lackwits are good at.

And it certainly appears to be working on you.

I could go through the rest of the article, but honestly, it would be a waste of time. I think that the dishonesty of the author is more than amply demonstrated by the endorsement from Karl Rove (eeeuuwww!)

David Horowitz is the author of numerous books including an autobiography, Radical Son, which has been described as “the first great autobiography of his generation,” and which chronicles his odyssey from radical activism to the current positions he holds. Among his other books are The Politics of Bad Faith and The Art of Political War. The Art of Political War was described by White House political strategist Karl Rove as “the perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield.”

There's someone who's ridden the politics of the sewer all the way to the top. He's actually FAMOUS for fighting dirty. Why would anyone believe anything from someone he endorses so ringingly?

Have fun!

If Bush really would want to prevent Iran to have nuclear weapons, he should stop to declare war to non-lead countries that do not accept a US lead government. They should also disarm Israël from nukes.

If the US would stop doing evils things for money, there wouldn't have be a 9/11 and nothing of that sort. The US policies created anti-US extremism and a group of extremists leaders of Islam created the Jihad.

So the US/Europe/Israël policies created extremism and religious leaders used that extremism for their own to gain power to gain more power. So if the Europe and US wouldn't be led by corporations and lobbys and by a methodist extremist, there wouldn't have people who want to explode themselves for jihad. And we wouldn't be there with Iran.

This is SIMPLE.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Vitchilo]

In my translations of Nostradamus, the great king of awe is gonna attack the Iran this summer in June or July. It will be short and their will be excuses soon.

The matter with george bush is that he is using the ways of Tyr and his king who whas named Satan. Satan is the destroyer, a thing that no Christian can do (even durind inquisition!!! but the diabolo was making them act, far, far from the message of joye of Jesus Christ).

The Bush have never been christian in that way and their chaos are the worst in all the world and time. Remember who was Prescott sheldon Bush, the most important personne for Hitler, his banker, the organisor of Auschwitz, the killer of at least 1 million jews he was making work in the camp with the salary of death and death only.

The massonery is building the world (Zion, Sion) with religious propheties they put in act. This is called Antechrist and satanism, nothing christian at all. They want to be sionist, in the name of no regular religion.

For those who are Christian, Jew, Muslim, or any religion, you can understand that it as always been in the Bible. Don't be fooled by your fear and the maniakery of a winning priest who act far far away from the commandements and the words of Jesus Christ. The tentation is all around you.

Dgtempe is right, there still are a few options to exhaust.

1. Meet one or two more times with the security council

2. Sanctions, attempt to apply them, get everyone involved

3. Build a coalition of the willing, again.

4. If the other options don't work, War - Doesn't have to be Nuclear but bombs do need to be dropped!

Originally posted by Vinci

Of course you have to clear the area, by leveling it, before invading it.

And the propaganda for the patriots on TV of bombs falling from the sky looks good and gives a sense of pride.

Easier to setup camp and stuff, more places to drag women and children to in bags .

Oh, you truly don't believe that our mighty God fearing Nation likes to kill Innocent people right? They are The enemy, terrorist and occurs casualties of war.

Or like the many out there less intelligent in their approach defending pre-empty wars they are in the wrong places at the right time

Occurs we bombed the heck of Iraq and guess what it did look good on television it made the war happy harts swell with pride when our nation shows how mighty they are.

Obviously I have prejuidices, so what? In my opinion they're justified with evidence

Don't we all, don't we all.

[edit on 14-4-2006 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Vinci

Of course you have to clear the area, by leveling it, before invading it.

And the propaganda for the patriots on TV of bombs falling from the sky looks good and gives a sense of pride.

Easier to setup camp and stuff, more places to drag women and children to in bags .

Oh, you truly don't believe that our mighty God fearing Nation likes to kill Innocent people right? They are The enemy, terrorist and occurs casualties of war.

Or like the many out there less intelligent in their approach defending pre-empty wars they are in the wrong places at the right time

Occurs we bombed the heck of Iraq and guess what it did look good on television it made the war happy harts swell with pride when our nation shows how mighty they are.

Obviously I have prejuidices, so what? In my opinion they're justified with evidence

Don't we all, don't we all.

[edit on 14-4-2006 by marg6043]

Marg, if you get blown up by a terrorist, would you still think the same way about going after them?
[edit on 14-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

Originally posted by Low Orbit

Marg, I hope you get blown up by a terrorist, maybe then, more likely only then will you will realize the importance of stopping them.

Orbit that's a very childish comment and one that shows how frustrated you are with what is going on in our country and the resentment against the present administration.

I do not wish harm to anybody because that is not the way I am, my mother though me better than that and I am a woman in my 40s right now.

With the present statistics now you will get run by a car or in a car accident before you get blown up by a terrorist.

So Grow up and deny ignorance

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Low Orbit

Marg, I hope you get blown up by a terrorist, maybe then, more likely only then will you will realize the importance of stopping them.

Orbit that's a very childish comment and one that shows how frustrated you are with what is going on in our country and the resentment against the present administration.

I do not wish harm to anybody because that is not the way I am, my mother though me better than that and I am a woman in my 40s right now.

With the present statistics now you will get run by a car or in a car accident before you get blown up by a terrorist.

So Grow up and deny ignorance

If that's the case let's roll the dice.

"Orbit that's a very childish comment and one that shows how frustrated you are with what is going on in our country and the resentment against the present administration."

Actually I'm just frustrated with people like you who never backed our President or our Troops in a time of war, but you are a woman in her 40's so why would you care about them anyways.

If you got your head out of Newsweek you will realize we aren't doing that bad in the War.

While I took it too far earlier with saying that "I hope you get blown up" for that, I appologize. What I meant by that was not that I wish harm to your person but, why are you refusing to believe that we dont need to take terrorism seriously and that terrorism AND WHERE IT DERIVES FROM needs to be addressed and pursued.

Don't let the victims of 9/11, the USS Cole, Spanish Subway attack, etc. etc. etc. die in vain.


[edit on 14-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

Originally posted by dgtempe

I never experienced such hate before.

Billdo and Shrillery Klintoon (Clintons) were, and ARE enormously several orders of magnitude complicit gleefully with the NWO puppet masters.

Shrillery is many times worse than Dillbo in power mongering after tyrannical control over everyone. I am sure she's eager to be head of NORTHAM--one of the 10 regions of the globe to be set up by the globalist idiots.

I don't know why Bush has not publicized more the abundant evidence that Iraq was even proven (22 sworn affidavits of 22 witnesses seeing known Iraqi military personnel helping with the OKC bombing!!!) to be involved with OKC; had WMD's now in the Beka Valley etc. etc. etc.

I don't know if Bush is grudgingly complicit with the NWO puppet masters or quite willingly. I just know that Hillary Clinton would race us into global tyranny many times faster than Bush at his worst.

So, place your hatred wisely and after the most thorough reserach. And remember, Scripture teaches that hatred includes, is equal to murder. Avoid becoming equal to that which you hate.