It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Israel Cries Wolf

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I don't know
this seems surreal

I'm reading everybody's post, but this littlebunny guy...

Seems like he's taking everyone for a ride
Like maybe he's an alias or something wanting attention


Taking everyone for a ride... Hmmm! You mean perhaps one of you here has the ability to understand the written word? I mean, it wasn't like I stated by intent the moment I started posting in this thread. Nahhh! I mean, did I?


I mean even if he truly believes the nonsense he's speaking.... ummm
what's with the rethoric? LOLLL

I freakin, these freaking, i am freakin...
and the best
ARE YOU FREAKIN ME? LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO

are u freaking me??????? hahha


Hey... someone who might actually know how to talk smack! Good deal! Not bad btw, I laughed pretty hard at this part...Great job!


Anyhow, seems like someone listened to too much neo-republican trash and got brainwashed.
OR... perhaps I am tired of reading posts were people only argue from one perspective, both sides do this btw... I am tired of it, and I decided to respond just as forceful but from the other perspective. Also, I have been called neo-con several times and I am damn proud of it! Brainwashed however, not freaken (with an ’en not ‘in btw) hardly!


I don't see how anyone with a brain can debate that Israel is/was the good guy against the palestinians.
Is Israel without guilt? HELL NO! What they did in the 70's, 80's and part of the 90's, with well aimed bullets against rocks and empty bottles was disgusting. However, and this is not an excuse, that is just how things were done back then. One needs to look no further then American, Russian, Cuban, Mexican, England, Egypt, and other countries histories to see exactly what I am referring too. YET... The biggest - However - is this. In the early 90's Israel changed. They have been working towards peace, seriously working towards it, and for that, these so called Palestinians caused the longest sustained terrorists attacks in human history against Israel. And then in 2008 after firing over 3000 missiles Israel finally said enough. Palestinians are not innocent, even all the way back to -1972 - do you know what happened then?
Even still - They are both to blame for the pain they have caused each other… this time however these so called Palestinians are more at fault. And I don't see how anyone with a brain can seriously claim that Israel is to blame for what has been happening over the last 13 years.


The article speaks of Israel speaking of Iran
But it's so similar to Israel speaking of Gaza

making a non-threat seem like a threat for pro-war sentiment


Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, period! End of debate. If America won't do it, then Israel will. nuff said on that score!

--Charles Marcello

[edit on 9-4-2009 by littlebunny]




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
In my opinion, the fact that Isreal hasn't taken a much stronger approach and "bombed the hell" out of them, as has been so eloquently discussed so far hehe, is fishy. And really it kinda shows a major disregard for their innocent women and children that they always squeal about in the media.

If they really were that outraged, I figure they would've already taken much stronger actions...but no...like most wars (the one in Iraq included) innocent people (both civilians AND soldiers) are being used to fill the pockets of oil giants, weapons giants, rebuilding companies, and the Carlyle Groups of the world.

The Isreali government(s) are patsies for these people (as are many many other governments), a guaranteed source of INstability in the region for many years to come.

We all know deep down this conflict is gonna rage on for many years to come, barring some miracle/horrific travesty, and that's just how these money-grabbing groups like it. The billions spent daily in warfare around the globe gotta go somewhere, right?

As far as Isreal-Palestine, I don't think any side is any more in the right than the other. Both are guilty of exploiting the deaths of innocent civilians, including children, and exploiting the pain of these peoples' families for towing their cause's line, and not for looking for a solution.

So F**k Isreal, and Palestine. Barbarians exist on both sides.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllinTheMind89

Well, I think I just proved my point on your approval of killing innocents. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Yet, you don't care. Haha, you even wanted to kill MORE civilians than Palestine would have supposedly done to Israel.

Umm, okay I believe in killing innocents... I guess that makes me innocent! I mean that is exactly what you are saying the Palestinians are... So kill all the innocent people you want and people like you will start saying and defending my actions because of just how innocent I am.

I know... Trying to understand that logic is confusing as hell, but that is what these, the Palestinian's are innocent, people believe.


I don't know what I'm "Freaken" you on. I mean, I have no idea what you're actually trying to say by that. Maybe some good old, well thought out English would help you get your point across, not some lame slang.

I never knew asking others of their knowledge on a subject is so juvenile. Geeze, we all mine as well never learn anything ever again from a teacher, professor, or anyone!

I love the fact you suggest I need some good ol' English to get my point across, yet in the next paragraph... well... just look for the underlined sentence in the above quote.


I'm pretty sure everyone else on the thread agrees that your views/ideas are ridiculous, somewhat radical. But, whatever, I'm sure this won't change anything and you'll go about your way putting in your opinion with not a lot of fact. *Sigh*


Somewhat radical??? What I have posted, for the most part, is freaken out of control radical, that is the freaken point! The only thing that is going to change my way of posting within this thread is if someone actually wants to have an honest discussion. Outside of that I will continue to play the role of the other side. How's that for English?

--Charles Marcello



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


Since when did Mossad know about ATS?
I really didn't realise you guys already had knowledge of this site...

You working for the Shin Bet directorate or Aman?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by WizardVanWizard
In my opinion, the fact that Isreal hasn't taken a much stronger approach and "bombed the hell" out of them, as has been so eloquently discussed so far hehe, is fishy. And really it kinda shows a major disregard for their innocent women and children that they always squeal about in the media.

If they really were that outraged, I figure they would've already taken much stronger actions...but no...like most wars (the one in Iraq included) innocent people (both civilians AND soldiers) are being used to fill the pockets of oil giants, weapons giants, rebuilding companies, and the Carlyle Groups of the world.

The Isreali government(s) are patsies for these people (as are many many other governments), a guaranteed source of INstability in the region for many years to come.

We all know deep down this conflict is gonna rage on for many years to come, barring some miracle/horrific travesty, and that's just how these money-grabbing groups like it. The billions spent daily in warfare around the globe gotta go somewhere, right?

As far as Isreal-Palestine, I don't think any side is any more in the right than the other. Both are guilty of exploiting the deaths of innocent civilians, including children, and exploiting the pain of these peoples' families for towing their cause's line, and not for looking for a solution.

So F**k Isreal, and Palestine. Barbarians exist on both sides.


Nice post! There are things that you said that I don't agree with 100%, but for the (very) most part, well put! A star for you my friend!

--Charles Marcello



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


What I find totally unbelievable is each year the US gives money away under
the term "Foreign Aid". Israel is one of those recipients. The US spends more
money on these 7 Million #uckers than all the other countries combined.

Why is that?

Money that is supposed to be used for Non-Military purposes always seems
to end up used for Military Purposes. And the US still keeps sending them
more money.

Why is that?

Even before the banks wanted tax payers to pay for their continued failed lifestyles,
the US government spent more money on those 7 Million #uckers than the
homeless people in the US

Why is that?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by littlebunny

Originally posted by AllinTheMind89

Well, I think I just proved my point on your approval of killing innocents. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Yet, you don't care. Haha, you even wanted to kill MORE civilians than Palestine would have supposedly done to Israel.

Umm, okay I believe in killing innocents... I guess that makes me innocent! I mean that is exactly what you are saying the Palestinians are... So kill all the innocent people you want and people like you will start saying and defending my actions because of just how innocent I am.

I know... Trying to understand that logic is confusing as hell, but that is what these, the Palestinian's are innocent, people believe.


I don't know what I'm "Freaken" you on. I mean, I have no idea what you're actually trying to say by that. Maybe some good old, well thought out English would help you get your point across, not some lame slang.

I never knew asking others of their knowledge on a subject is so juvenile. Geeze, we all mine as well never learn anything ever again from a teacher, professor, or anyone!

I love the fact you suggest I need some good ol' English to get my point across, yet in the next paragraph... well... just look for the underlined sentence in the above quote.

--Charles Marcello



First off, if each side just continues a back and forth trend of killing each others civilians, what does that solve? You're just adding fuel to the fire by doing that. Not only are you adding fuel, but with what you said, you're just trying to get the fire to burn bigger and brighter.

You said you would drop 10,000 pound bombs on populated places and plant bombs in all these public locations, all because some Israeli suicide bomber killed 23 in a market building or something. Do you not see how cynical that is? I condemn either side that kills innocent people. Both sides are wrong no matter what.

By the way, I made a typo and you're using slang no one can understand. There's a big difference there.

Damn, this thread is getting off topic...



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllinTheMind89
First off, if each side just continues a back and forth trend of killing each others civilians, what does that solve? You're just adding fuel to the fire by doing that. Not only are you adding fuel, but with what you said, you're just trying to get the fire to burn bigger and brighter.

Actually I am having a discussion on a board that won't add anything productive or fuel to anything that happens in Israel. Not only that, you think saying the Palestinians are innocent is not adding fuel to this supposed fire. When they use suicide bombers and fire rockets into non-military areas of Israel? Yeah that will make Israelis come to the peace table.


You said you would drop 10,000 pound bombs on populated places and plant bombs in all these public locations, all because some Israeli suicide bomber killed 23 (you meant Palestinian suicide bombers right... seeing how Israel has never used human bombers to do anything...) in a market building or something. Do you not see how cynical that is? I condemn either side that kills innocent people. Both sides are wrong no matter what.


I did in fact say that, however I finished with this... follow the underlined sentence...
"...Nope, I truly don’t think even with all the nonsense I just posted above did I equal the hate I see on ATS from these anti-Israel/anti-Semite ATSers..."


By the way, I made a typo and you're using slang no one can understand. There's a big difference there.

Damn, this thread is getting off topic...


You don't know what freaken is slang for? Are you freaken (F'en) kiddening me? And no... you misspelled a word... big deal I do it from time to time, let alone my grammar... Yet I don't care because I post on a message board and not for some business or professional reason. Its a message board, get over it!

--Charles Marcello

[edit on 9-4-2009 by littlebunny]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by littlebunny
 


What I find totally unbelievable is each year the US gives money away under
the term "Foreign Aid". Israel is one of those recipients. The US spends more
money on these 7 Million #uckers than all the other countries combined.

Why is that?

Money that is supposed to be used for Non-Military purposes always seems
to end up used for Military Purposes. And the US still keeps sending them
more money.

Why is that?

Even before the banks wanted tax payers to pay for their continued failed lifestyles,
the US government spent more money on those 7 Million #uckers than the
homeless people in the US

Why is that?


Does anyone need more proof, then from what is mentioned above, that most of these people who post anti-Israeli posts are actually anti-semites/Jew haters!

I knew it before I began posting in here... I see part 2 of my plan has finally paid off! Hook, line, and sinker!

--Charles Marcello



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by littlebunny

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by littlebunny
 


What I find totally unbelievable is each year the US gives money away under
the term "Foreign Aid". Israel is one of those recipients. The US spends more
money on these 7 Million #uckers than all the other countries combined.

Why is that?

Money that is supposed to be used for Non-Military purposes always seems
to end up used for Military Purposes. And the US still keeps sending them
more money.

Why is that?

Even before the banks wanted tax payers to pay for their continued failed lifestyles,
the US government spent more money on those 7 Million #uckers than the
homeless people in the US

Why is that?


Does anyone need more proof, then from what is mentioned above, that most of these people who post anti-Israeli posts are actually anti-semites/Jew haters!

I knew it before I began posting in here... I see part 2 of my plan has finally paid off! Hook, line, and sinker!

--Charles Marcello


Oh, and death to Israel



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by milesp
 


“You can keep reading your neo-fascist news and views and the Bible.”

Yes, and of course your civility and decency is obvious, just about as much as your grasp of history and the facts. Nevertheless, I digress, welcome back from work.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


Godfather, I almost don't know where to start to reply. The sheer volume of mistaken assumptions, fabricated suggestions, and tainted arguments that you make are unbelievable. I don't know what comic book you speak of, but since you're the comic book expert, this may explain some of the things you said.

You imply that Darius, and I assume Xerxes declared themselves to be a god-king. Everyone and everything within their empire belonged to these god-kings. Every person, every structure, every crop, every implement, and every animal was chattel of the king. He did as he pleased with his chattel, and he was a god-king.

Don't take it so personal. Absolute rulers have habitually assumed this title, or accepted this title bestowed by some of their more enthusiastic butt-kissing worshipers. The same thing occurred in the Roman Empire, as a string of emperors violated Grimsley's First Law of Bull****ing. And so, they started believing in their divine position. You point out that even Alexander believed that crap, so don't get your panties in a wad over this. It wasn't uncommon at all.

Yes, I realize that the poor little band at Thermopylae lost the battle. We'll get back to that in a second post, but your suggestion that I was glossing over history is inaccurate as we shall see.

You mention the Persian victories over the Boeotians and the sacking of Athens. You mean after it was abandoned? That's quite a victory, and we'll get back to that in the next post as well.

Your suggestion that the Persians were within a hair's breadth of conquering Greece is complete, total BS. They may teach that crap in Iran, but secular history tells a different story. Next post.

I stated that the Persian Empire went up against the Macedonians. I never, ever said that the Persians invaded Macedonia. Yet another delusional misassumptions, and so you argued against a point that was never made! How clever!

Alexander wanted to defeat Persia. He wanted payback for all the trouble Persia had created over the past centuries. Contrary to your statement, it can be argued that Alexander had lots of women, and like all kings, his marriages were made for political reasons, not out of admiration for a culture he wanted to punish.

And it would seem that you are the one engaging in fallacy after fallacy. Ever read a non-Iranian, non-Muslim influenced, secular history book?

You won't believe the difference. Night and day.

One thing that may assist you is if you keep your timelines straight. Zoroastrianism of the Persian kings almost 2,500 years ago, is not to be confused with Islam, which didn't begin to spread until the seventh century.

The fact that the people of the old Persian Empire were chattel, and COMPELLED to do as directed by others, is just as they are today COMPELLED to follow the directions of others, under Islam.

Went right over your head, didn't it?

You stated that your brain cells wanted to throw up.

There may be an explanation.

I hate to be the one to suggest this, but this comic book expertise of yours is apparently getting in the way of your ability to maintain timelines, separate fantasy from secular history, and then know the difference.

Thus the brain-cell rebellion.

Now, in my next post, we'll have a real look at what I earlier suggested.

That Persians, every single time they met up against Westerners, got slaughtered.

No mistake.

No bad history.

Fact.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
The topic is Israel cries wolf. Mods, in an earlier post, my arguments were questioned, and that's the purpose of this reply.

Delete it if you think it's over the top. Otherwise, let's get into the meat of the Iranian threat.

Modern day Iranian nationalists love to reminisce over the greatness of the ancient Persian Empire, and they do long to restore that influence. This wish may be to their detriment.

The abilities of the West to wage war are unparalleled in history, and that ability is a combination of characteristics that the Persian and Arab Muslims will never, ever have. But let's see why.

The destructive excesses of the Western nations seems to derive from concepts and practices not found anywhere else in the world. Free will. Freedom. Economic freedom, political freedom, and religious freedom.

Western nations habitually field bold, disciplined, well-armed armies of considerable power in times of need, and historically, these Western armies, once turned loose, kill like no others on earth. The most terrible battles in terms of bloodshed have been Western power against Western power, something hopefully learned.

In the battle of the Somme, 465,000 casualties. Verdun - 550,000 French casualties and 434,000 casualties. Kursk resulted in 900,000 casualties. Stalingrad - 2,100,000 casualties.

Westerners will suffer near annihilation simply to annihilate their foes. Study their battles. The list one comes up with is a long and bloody proof that no one wars like Westerners.

Darius I determined to conquer the small Western nation of Greece and make it part of the vast Persian Empire. In his first attempt, he lost his fleet of 300 ships and 20,000 men at Cape Athos.

Depending on sources, either 44,000-60,000 Persians landed at Marathon against 10,000-16,000 Greeks. Herodotus states that 6,400 Persian bodies were found on the battlefield, while the Greeks lost 192 men.

Outnumbered 3:1 the Greeks slaughtered the Persians in a 33:1 kill ratio at Marathon.

This defeat exploded the myth of Persian invincibility for the first time, which encouraged many subjected Persian peoples to revolt. Darius was killed while putting down some of these revolts, compliments of the Greeks.

The throne passed to Xerxes, who determined to do what his father hadn't - invade and conquer the tiny country of Greece. Xerxes gathered his huge army for three years, extracting the best soldiers of his empire - Persians, Medes, Hyrcanians, Assyrians, Bactrians, Parthians, Sythian Sacae, Paricanians, Pactyans, Arabs, Ethiopians, Libyans, Syrians, Matieni, Lydians, Thracians, and an entire another alphabet of other peoples.

These numbered over 250,000, the cream of the Persian Empire.

They were surprised to find a small band of 7,000 Greeks at the Hot Gates, led by Spartan king Leonidas. After patiently allowing this pitiful force of Greeks a few days to change their minds and evaporate, Xerxes finally ordered his elite Medes to bring this small band of Greeks to him alive. It didn't quite work out that way.

For two days, 6,700 Greeks, and 300 Spartans chewed on this massive Persian army, 250,000 strong. They chewed up the elite Medes, the premier force, second only to the 10,000 Companions, misnamed the Immortals. Immortal they weren't.

On the third day with the Persians flanking front and rear, most Greeks left. Only the remaining Spartans, roughly seven hundred Thespians, and some very unenthusiastic Thebans remained. 1,000 men. Facing 250,000 men. Even surrounded, the Persians were having problems, and getting slaughtered. Xerxes was having a fit, pulled back his infantry, and killed the survivors at a distance with archers.

During those three day, the Greeks killed over 25,000 of the Persian elite, including many of the 10,000 "Immortals." In offshore action the Persians lost 200 ships and about 40,000 men in a storm, and other Persian ships were lost during naval skirmishes at Artesium.

Although outnumberd 35:1 at Thermopylae, the Greeks killed over 25,000, and even then the Greeks weren't defeated. Only killed. Xerxes ordered that 24,000 out of the 25,000 dead be buried so that his army wouldn't see the slaughter. He left a thousand bodies lying around to see.

Outnumbered 35:1, the Greeks killed Persians in a 25:1 kill ratio.

A year later, at the naval battle of Salamis, the Persian navy under the watchful eye of Xerxes watched the greatly outnumbered Greeks fleet of volunteer free men sink 200 of his ships and 40,000 of his sailors drown. Historians agree that this too, was a slaughter.

Say a 40:1 kill ratio for the Greeks over the Persians.

The following Spring, Mardonius and 300,000 of the Persian army met only 60,000 free Greeks at Plataea, and the Persians were again slaughtered. 287,000 Persians were slain at the cost of 1,360 Greeks, and 43,000 Persians ran, but were later caught at the Strymon river estuary, and they too were slaughtered by Alexander of Macedon. (not to be confused with Alexander the Great, also of Macedon.)

That's a kill ratio of nearly 220:1. For every Greek killed, the Greeks killed 220 Persians.

This was the last Persian adventure of East versus West on Greek soil. Wonder why?

The Persians weren't having any fun.

None.

The next significant action between Persians and the West was at the battle of Granicus, where Alexander's army met an equal sized Persian force. Oddly, the Persian force had a lot of Greek mercenaries. The Persians learned. No one could fight like Westerners. Persian armies always hired Greeks, but the Greeks neither hired nor desired Persians.

The Persians were routed at Granicus, and 5,000 Persians were killed while the Macedonians lost 150 men. The Macedonians enjoyed a 26:1 kill ratio.

After coming to Issus with 94,000 men, Alexander wheeled back and caught him late in the afternoon with his own 42,000 men. Darius fled on a light battlefield chariot, abandoning not only his army, but also abandoning his family, including his wife, children, and mother. You just KNOW that made momma proud. And when the family was offered to return home, they refused.

At Issus, even while outnumbered over 2:1, the Macedonians lost 7,000 while killing 30,000. That's a kill ratio of 4:1, which is low when talking about Persians, but keep in mind that the sun was going down during the battle, and in the darkness, many Persians ran faster than the Macedonians could pursue.


The next battle of any significance (beyond the slaughter at Yyre), was Guagamela, or Arbela.

Darius prepared a battlefield with an army of 250,000 men, while the Macedonians fielded only 47,000 men. Outnumbered 5:1, the vastly undermanned Macedonian force slaughtered the Persians yet again, and yet again, Darius fled the battle.

The Macedonians lost 500 killed, while killing 50,000. That's a 100:1 kill ratio. Later, Athenian harlots burned the Persian capitol, in return for burning the abandoned Athens. Harlots.

If the modern Iranians long to return to the glory of the Persian Empire, or some of that influence, then they don't know what they seek, as they have been taught a skewered view of history. The worst mistake Iran will make is to once again incur the wrath of a Western military.

The Persians under the rule of their god-kings were chattel. Property. The Persian king owned everyone and everything, including the land and those who worked the land.

The Greeks, by contrast, highly valued the individual and the private ownership of land that could be held, improved, and passed to their offspring. Even if killed in battle, his capital, or land, would survive and be maintained by his family.

This same identical principle is held in great esteem by all Western cultures to this day. Westerners are not compelled by individuals who are above them.

The subjected Persians were compelled to fight under the penalty of death, unlike Western Greeks who ELECTED to fight, CHOSE their leaders, and who VOTED on and held councils on tactics. All Greek commanders were held responsible for their charges, and suffered if they failed to properly look after their men. Even Patton was held accountable for simply slapping his charges.

Accountability. It's another Western thing.

The Persian king wanted subservience. But Westerners habitually bow to no man. Westerners are traditionally a stiff-backed people. The Persian king wanted to impose his will on the free Greeks, but it was the free Greeks who demonstrated the greater will. The Persian king determined to invade Greece, and it was on Greek soil that these free men slaughtered these subjected Persian invaders.

Consider the modern day territories controlled by the great Persian Empire of Xerxes. Modern day Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, portions of Jordan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, and portions of Libya.

As portions of the ancient Persian Empire, these people were an oppressed people. Subjects of a god-king compelled to follow predetermined pursuits. Likewise, even today these same peoples are subjects under the yoke of Islam, once again an oppressed, miserable people, compelled by their religion, and are not free to make their own determinations in terms of economic freedom, political freedom, or religious freedom.

Exactly as in millennia prior, as like-subjugated peoples, they lock-step or they face execution.

(to be continued)



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Godfather, hope you're keeping up. Might want to take some notes.

Private property is the ultimate Western practice that was widely realized millennia ago, and is determined to be an irrevocable concept. The individual, his private property, and the institutions that value and protect these principles always excel in war fighting capabilities for many reasons.

The same countries of the former Persian Empire, these modern day Islamic nations continually rely heavily on the West, even for their weapons. You'll note that since the opening battle at Marathon, modern day nations made up of the former Persian Empire have ever been removed from any significant military accomplishments, even as verified by "Godfather."

Currently, many float on oil. Yet it was the West who found the oil, financed and drilled this oil, established their infrastructure, and in turn enabled their current good fortune.

Left to their own devices, these people would still be living in tents and mud houses, scratching their asses left-handed while chewing on mutton, and washing it down with a sheep-skin canteen while betting on goat races.

Ever see the high technology, Mach 2 Iranian air superiority fighter the West nicknamed the Camel-puff? Or the huge Persian carrier battle group? How about the Iranian, cutting edge, technologically advanced main battle tank, the Goat-foot? Of course you haven't seen them, even with their huge fortunes obtained from oil.

If not for Westerners selling them military hardware, they'd still be using wicker shields and composite bows.

The famous Russian T-34 tank of World War Two was largely based on the American Cristie design, which Russia bought a couple of.

The only time the Russians and the rest of the West had a problem was when Russian communism threatened Western capitalist pursuits. Always fifty years behind other Western cultures in terms of political and economic reforms and surges, the Russians are an industrious people and will eventually catch up, and hopefully they will understand that the Western hand of friendship and cooperation is a hand of strength.

The American P-51 Mustang became the most efficient and versatile fighter of the war when the British Rolls Royce Merlin 61 engine was shoehorned into the narrow Mustang frame. When Americans were looking to design a new Main Battle Tank with high technology, it was an adaption of British Chobham armor that completely defined the landmark shape and design. Even then, the tank was later outfitted with the M256 120mm gun designed by the Rheinmetall Corporation of Germany.

These many characteristics culminating in joint developments is where the West has always enjoyed many military advantages over dynasties, feudal societies, communist police states, or restrictive religion states.

Imagine the nations of the former Persian Empire, with their immense oil wealth in-house designing, building, arming, and outfitting the equivalent of the Joint Strike Fighter. Or a main battle tank to compete with the Abrams.

They can't.

A more restrictive, miserable, backward group of contentious people have never existed.

And the one thing they today have in common?

These same Western values are found in the small state of Israel, which is currently surrouned and detested by the same backward cultures and governments of the former Persian Empire. The first time these peoples conflicted with the West, as chattel, they were compelled by a god-king. Now they are being compelled by a religion of submission, which likewise restricts or prohibits freedom of property, religion, capitalism, speech, and the value of the individual.

In the years 1947-48, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982, the tiny nation of Israel, surrouned by immensely superior numbers and hostile peoples, conclusively and soundly defeated multiple coalitions of its Arab border nations who had vastly superior numbers and weapons, supplied by France, the Soviet Union, and Communist China.

In case one wonders - yes - he Chinese AK is a replica of the WESTERN Russian AK. Chinese planes, artillery, and rockets are all copies or stolen designs of systems originating from WESTERN nations.

Israel hs been forced to defend an almost impossible border since its inception in 1947, but has done so with such battlefield success as to baffle reasonable expectations. Then again, Israel is a nation of Western immigrants who field a vastly superior organized military consisting of brighter, better trained individual soldiers for battle.

Of course, Israel is a Parliamentary democracy of free markets, technological innovations, capitalist pursuits, free elections, free press, free speech, and freedom of religion.

Their enemies were not - and are not.

Israel, a Western nation in a Middle Eastern location, will prevail.

A good thing to remember.

Iran.

And Godfather, please break out some books. Study facts, and then chew on the concepts found therein.

Then you won't have to attribute claims that were never made, and then argue against arguments that you yourself fabricate.

Just make the process go so much smoother.

Besides, in such a manner, you just may learn something.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by masonwatcher
 


Mason, get a grip.

The Persians invaded. This was not some stupid trade disagreement as you suggest.

It was an invasion.

And they got slaughtered. Like it or not, they can't fight. Never could.

They do fine fighting other piddly neighbors.

They just can't hold up when it comes to Western powers.

I know, I know. Your Islamic ties just can't let this ride.

Just too bad. Things are as they are.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 



Godfather, I almost don't know where to start to reply.


Start with admitting that you have some intense hatred for anything relating to Iran, that's a logical step.


You imply that Darius, and I assume Xerxes declared themselves to be a god-king.


Uh, no. That's what YOU implied. The title "God-King" (which is lifted directly from the movie 300) implies the King of a nation considers himself like a god to his people or above one.

The Persian Kings never did, they had many religious traditions in which all members of the Royal Court showed their subservience to a higher God.

Note this picture: (symbolising all member nations of Ancient Persia greeting the King)


The figure above everyone else, is God. Darius on the left is looking up to him for guidance.

Why, if he really was "God King" and some Ancient Dictator that you love to imply he is, would he place himself below god?

Note also the 80 or so times "Auramazda" (the Zoroastrian God) is referenced in official Imperial reliefs like the Behistan Inscription:
mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Oh yeah, the Persian Kings were full of themselves.
Can we stop with the sillyness now? You have absolutely nothing to prove your asinine theory.


He did as he pleased with his chattel, and he was a god-king.


According to a theory ONLY supported by YOU. Find me one credible claim of this in an history textbook. Just one.


The same thing occurred in the Roman Empire, as a string of emperors violated Grimsley's First Law of Bull****ing. And so, they started believing in their divine position. You point out that even Alexander believed that crap, so don't get your panties in a wad over this.


That's because Roman and Greek mythology and religion believed God could incarnated as a person, such as the Emperor or Basileus. Zoroastrianism had no such belief.

Kings had control over their Empire, obviously. Thanks for further wasting time to state yet another blatant fact.

They did have the power of life and death and could overrule anyone else.

That being said, the Persian Kings NEVER thought of themselves as God. Case closed.


Ever read a non-Iranian, non-Muslim influenced, secular history book?


Hundreds by now... after completing primary school and high school in Australia. I'm also taking a Classical Antiquity unit this year, with a minimum 8 textbooks.

See where it says "Location" on my avatar? Terra Australis = Australia
(That's Latin btw, I know, it must have confused the hell out of you.)

Don't for a second assume to know anything about me. The fact that you believe person's ethnic background somehow influences their knowledge of history according to you, shows how fargone your argument is.

You're resorting to labelling me "Iranian" just like Israel-apologists label people "Anti-Semite" when they dare to challenge their beliefs.


Alexander wanted to defeat Persia. He wanted payback for all the trouble Persia had created over the past centuries.


No, he wanted to rule the world. Do you know where the word "Hegemony" comes from? Greek: Hegemon, a title bestowed upon Alexander which means "overlord".

This is the mindset of Alexander:

If it were not my purpose to combine barbarian things with things Hellenic (Greek), to traverse and civilize every continent, to search out the uttermost parts of land and sea, to push the bounds of Macedonia to the farthest Ocean, and to disseminate and shower the blessings of the Hellenic justice and peace over every nation, I should not be content to sit quietly in the luxury of idle power, but I should emulate the frugality of Diogenes. But as things are, forgive me Diogenes, that I imitate Herakles, and emulate Perseus, and follow in the footsteps of Dionysos, the divine author and progenitor of my family, and desire that victorious Hellenes should dance again in India and revive the memory of the Bacchic revels among the savage mountain tribes beyond the Kaukasos…

* As quoted in "On the Fortune of Alexander" by Plutarch, 332 a-b

en.wikiquote.org...

Those are the delusions of a true hegemonic, dictator who had a lust to rule the world.
As his mentor, Plato taught him during his childhood, all things Greek are superior to all things not.

Alexander was nothing short of an egotistical maniac.


Contrary to your statement, it can be argued that Alexander had lots of women, and like all kings, his marriages were made for political reasons, not out of admiration for a culture he wanted to punish.


It CAN be argued yes, if you really want to make yourself look entirely clueless, you may as well argue that point which no honest historian would agree with:


In the years 330-327, we see Alexander appointing Persians in important functions, dress himself like an Iranian nobleman, introduce the oriental court ritual (proskynesis).

www.livius.org...

Alexander's men attempted to kill him numerous times for what they saw as "traitorous intermingling" with barbarian culture that was widely held to be inferior. He lost a lot of loyaly from this men as a result of this:

During this time, Alexander adopted some elements of Persian dress and customs at his court, notably the custom of proskynesis, a symbolic kissing of the hand that Persians paid to their social superiors, but a practice of which the Greeks disapproved. The Greeks regarded the gesture as the preserve of deities and believed that Alexander meant to deify himself by requiring it. This cost him much in the sympathies of many of his countrymen. Here, too, a plot against his life was revealed, and his companion Philotas was executed for treason for failing to bring the plot to his attention.

www.crystalinks.com...

So as I said, you CAN argue that Alexander risked his own life and the loyalty of his Greeks for some vain political purposes.


Zoroastrianism of the Persian kings almost 2,500 years ago, is not to be confused with Islam, which didn't begin to spread until the seventh century.


I'm not the one that was confusing it in the first place:

Your post on Page 2:
Their fanatical, fundamentalist Islamic leaders are once again compelling them without choice. Their religion? Submission. Islam means submission.

Once again?
So it was these same "fanatical, Fundamentalist" leaders that were the Ancient Persian "God Kings" several thousand years ago, in era when Islam didn't exist?




The destructive excesses of the Western nations seems to derive from concepts and practices not found anywhere else in the world. Free will. Freedom. Economic freedom, political freedom, and religious freedom.


Let's talk relevance for a second instead of your run-of-the-mil anti-Islamic diatribes.

Thousands of years before modern Western nations even existed, there was religious freedom:

King Darius when he conquered Syria, Phoenicia and the modern-day regions of Israel he FREED the Jews from centuries of constant oppression and discrimination at the hands of the Romans. (Remember the Romans? The people who crucified Jews on crosses?)

King Darius gave them amnesty and freedom and that is precisely why there are still 30,000 Jews living in Iran today. The largest population in the Middle East outside Israel, who have been an integral and inseparable part of Persian culture since the beginning.

Economic freedom existed under Persian rule as well. The "Silk Road" of Central Asia was an ancient, international trade route stretching for some 4,000 miles.

It was the world's very first, "free-market" economy. Goods and trade from Egypt to China flowed along the Silk Road passing along major cities where traders stopped, set up shop and exchanged with the local population rare and exotic items.
It brought together nations and countries which had never even known of each other in antiquity by exchanging items for economic reward.

The Persians pioneered and controlled much of the Silk Road during the height of the Achaemenid and Sassanid Empires, long before anyone in the West got over their isolationist trade policies and decided to start exchanging goods and services abroad, sometime in the middle ages.


Western nations habitually field bold, disciplined, well-armed armies of considerable power in times of need, and historically, these Western armies, once turned loose, kill like no others on earth.


Yeah, uh once again, hate to break up your Euro-centric power trip there, but it was the Persians who invented the concept of heavily armoured cavalry with their famed Cataphracts.

This then spread to Rome, who lost so many battles at the hands of these Cataphracts (notable of course, the Battle of Carrhae), that they copied them and created their own armoured Calvary corps.

After the fall of the Romans, the concept of Knights and Paladins and the Feudalist era that spread across Europe were directly derived from the Romans (who got it from the Persians).

Not to mention, military archery itself (which the Persians excelled in), the Chariot, the compound bow, chain-mail armour and plate-mail armour were all invented in Ancient Persia and spread to Europe via contact with the Greeks and Romans.

The Persian Empire was during it's day, the unrivalled power in the world as the US is now.
Long before the term "Superpower" was coined, there already existed a historical example of one. The Persian Empire, undefeated for almost 1,000 years.

[edit on 10/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   
What I find interesting is for a "race" (Jews) of people who were sacrificed up as a "burnt offering" (see holocust) they sure are chill about using deadly force when people make threats of trying to wipe them out, again.

I think they don't actually have any nukes, it's a bluff, because if I was in their position and I had what they deem to be a mad man (Iran) threatening them with genocide I would nuke the hell out of them just in case...



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 



The most terrible battles in terms of bloodshed have been Western power against Western power, something hopefully learned.
In the battle of the Somme, 465,000 casualties. Verdun - 550,000 French casualties and 434,000 casualties. Kursk resulted in 900,000 casualties. Stalingrad - 2,100,000 casualties.


And this is proof of what exactly?

If the greatest casualties in battle can be attributed to Western nations it's obviously because they've participated in the largest scale military conflicts. Duh.

Your attempt to link the MODERN, battles of WWI and WWII to Ancient Persian warfare as an example somehow of their lack of "prowess" is laughable.

Comparing the battles of the 20th Century to the ones of classical antiquity is just delusional. This proves nothing save for the fact that as humanity advances, so do the methods of killing each other.

If the Romans, Greeks and Persians had access to machine guns, tanks and atomic bombs in the BC era, then they would have produced the same results WW2 did.

Absolutely convoluted logic.



Westerners will suffer near annihilation simply to annihilate their foes. Study their battles. The list one comes up with is a long and bloody proof that no one wars like Westerners.


Now you're starting to sound like a Nazi radio broadcast.

Suffering near annihilation is never a victory, precisely why that concept has it's own term, "Pyrrhic Victory", meaning a victory whose costs greatly exceed any benefits.

Another fun tidbit for you to mull over



That's a kill ratio of nearly 220:1. For every Greek killed, the Greeks killed 220 Persians.

This was the last Persian adventure of East versus West on Greek soil. Wonder why?

The Persians weren't having any fun.

None.


Kill ratio? What is this a video game?

Okay excluding for a second your brief summation of the Battle of Thermopylae which seems to have been lifted ad verbatim from Wikipedia, you do realise that encompasses ONE battle in ONE campaign, of which the Persians won at:

Thermopylae, Artemis, Olynthus, Eretria, Karystos, Naxos... that's 6 Victories in total where they decisively defeated the Greeks.

Compared to the Greeks only 3 Victories during the Persian campaign, at Salamis, Plataea, and Mycale.

Suddenly that's puts your brainwashed, selective perspective of history into context.
No matter how many Persians were killed at Thermopylae, that still doesn't detract from the fact the Persians slaughtered the Greeks tenfold in the entire campaign and had more tactical successes than they did.


No one could fight like Westerners.


And no one can make their prejudices any more clear than you can. Congratulations.


Oddly, the Persian force had a lot of Greek mercenaries. The Persians learned. Persian armies always hired Greeks, but the Greeks neither hired nor desired Persians.


Is that why they copied the Persians and invented their "Clibinarii", a Greek version of the Cataphracts, because they were so superior?

Persian mercenaries never served for the Greeks because Persian soldiers were always paid a commission, something unheard of in the Greek ranks.

Spartans, Greeks, Ionians, Cretians forced men to fight for them under punishment of death.


The next battle of any significance (beyond the slaughter at Yyre), was Guagamela, or Arbela.

Darius prepared a battlefield with an army of 250,000 men, while the Macedonians fielded only 47,000 men.


Where the hell are you pulling this from?

250,000 is a figure far beyond any of the most liberal estimates of the Persian forces.


Modern estimates
Units Numbers Numbers
Peltasts 10,000[3] 30,000[6]
Cavalry 12,000[3] 40,000[4]
Persian Immortals 10,000[7] 10,000
Greek hoplites 8,000[3] 10,000[5]
Bactrian Cavalry 1,000[5] 2,000
Archers 1,500 1,500
Scythed chariots 200 200
War elephants 15 15
Total 52,930[3] 93,930[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

94,000-100,000 is about as high as any modern historian as suggested.

It's clear your embellishing whatever you can Google up just to support your extremely prejudiced theories regarding "Western armies".

50,000 Macedonians to 100,000 or so Persians suddenly makes the overwhelming odds seem far less daunting as you present them.

It was a 2:1 number advantage, nowhere near 5:1. Stop pulling figures out of thin air for god's sakes.


If the modern Iranians long to return to the glory of the Persian Empire, or some of that influence, then they don't know what they seek, as they have been taught a skewered view of history. The worst mistake Iran will make is to once again incur the wrath of a Western military.


Like you have any clue as to what modern Persians "long for".

You do realise Iran has not invaded or attack another sovereign country in the last century?

I think that puts to rest your theory of "Iranian Imperialistic Ambitions".

America on the other hand..... gives much reason to float the idea of establishing a global hegemony. It's been in a near perpetual state of war since 1945.


The Greeks, by contrast, highly valued the individual and the private ownership of land that could be held, improved, and passed to their offspring.


Of course.... it's so obvious how much they valued individual freedoms:

-The Spartans threw new-born babies deemed "unfit" for the rigours of combat off cliffs.

-Athenians, Ionians and Cretians fully declared slavery to be legal and slaves could not be freed by "any mortal".

-Spartan men were forced into a life of military service since boyhood with absolutely no other choice. Young men were taken from their families and grew up in barracks for their entire lives.

-Working for wages was regarded as a foreign concept:

at around 250,000 - men, women and children, free and unfree, enfranchised and disenfranchised. Of those 250,000 some 5,000 on average were fully paid-up citizens

www.bbc.co.uk...

-Women could never serve in Council or Parliment.

-Only Athenians by birth could become "elected" officials.

-Socrates himself was put on trial and executed for 'corrupting the young and believing in strange gods'. Greek euphemism for spreading free-thinking and innovative philosophy that challenged the belief in Greek gods.

-The concepts of "Xenophobia" (fear of foreigners), "Misogyny" (Contempt of women), "Homophobia" (fear of homosexuals) and Polygamy (Having more than one partner) are all Ancient Greek inventions.


The subjected Persians were compelled to fight under the penalty of death, unlike Western Greeks who ELECTED to fight, CHOSE their leaders, and who VOTED on and held councils on tactics.


Yeah they also held gay rights rallies too.

Kings were chosen by birth. Not by vote. Alexander unified the Greek city-states by forcing them to side with Macedonia or besieging and enslaving them until they did. He was only eligible to command his own military because his father was King Phillip of Macedon.

The Greek Athenian democracy was so far from what we in the West associate with the term it doesn't even deserve the name:

Our democracy is representative - we choose politicians to rule for us. Athenian democracy was direct and in-your-face. To make it as participatory as possible, most officials and all jurymen were selected by lot. This was thought to be the democratic way, since election favoured the rich, famous and powerful over the ordinary citizen.



Only adult male citizens need apply for the privileges and duties of democratic government, and a birth criterion of double descent - from an Athenian mother as well as father - was strictly insisted upon.
Women, even Athenian women, were totally excluded - this was a men's club. Foreigners, especially unfree slave foreigners, were excluded formally and rigorously.



One distinctively Athenian democratic practice that aroused the special ire of the system's critics was the practice of ostracism - from the Greek word for potsherd. In this reverse election to decide which leading politician should be exiled for ten years, voters scratched or painted the name of their preferred candidate on a piece of broken pottery.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Oh they were a very free, egalitarian society weren't they?

Sigh...


Westerners are traditionally a stiff-backed people. The Persian king wanted to impose his will on the free Greeks, but it was the free Greeks who demonstrated the greater will. The Persian king determined to invade Greece, and it was on Greek soil that these free men slaughtered these subjected Persian invaders.


Based on WHAT evidence?

You call that a credible argument, a thinly-veiled, racist viewpoint that "Westerners are a stiff-backed people"?

Are you trying to purposefully discredit yourself even further than you already have? Because it's certainly working in my mind...


As portions of the ancient Persian Empire, these people were an oppressed people. Subjects of a god-king compelled to follow predetermined pursuits.Likewise, even today these same peoples are subjects under the yoke of Islam, once again an oppressed, miserable people, compelled by their religion,


Yes ISLAM. Spread by Arabs.NOT Persians.

Can you make the distinction yet?


And are not free to make their own determinations in terms of economic freedom, political freedom, or religious freedom.


And since Iran no longer rules over any of those countries you mentioned, they have about as much to do with their lack of rights as Santa does

[edit on 10/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


I've wasted more than enough time trying to argue with someone as delusional as yourself.

It's clear you've convinced yourself already of some inane theory about Persian ambitions to restore an Empire carrying on into the present day, and are only interested now in hearing the sound of your own voice (figuratively speaking) as you bring up fact after baseless fact.

Some of the claims you make are just outright hypocritical lies, and I'm sure you're aware of this yourself when you make them.

No one could be so backwardly-ignorant to claim the Persians never won a battle since Marathon (Carrhae and Antioch are two shining examples).

Not to mention, there's a distinctively, racist, prejudiced and bigoted flavour to much of your assertions that "Western nations/peoples/countries always triumphed over non-Western ones".

And it's quite obvious where this stems from, when you decry my arguments by assuming I'm Iranian or Muslim. Religion of course.


And Godfather, please break out some books. Study facts, and then chew on the concepts found therein.


Get a grip mate.
I'd say go read and book but I don't think all the ancient literature in the world would cure you.

Whoever or whatever implanted these twisted perspectives into your mind was good. Very good.

[edit on 10/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join