Let's Cut to the Chase - Iran Must Be Stopped

reply to post by nenothtu


Ha, ha. You'll never figure it out. And I am not going to explain it for you, though it is a simple religion issue.

You don't have the need to know because you no got the clearance.

Perhaps, It was a code directed to the middle east to test the Irondome, maybe not. haha. Just worry yourself and keep fussing.

Back to the Iranian flying saucers, superplague bacterium, and cobra venom neurotoxin bacterium.

Now Isreal will for sure attack Iran to get one of them space ships for a joyride to heaven.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


We have a term for that around here. the same term covers that substance which proceeds from the south end of a north-bound male bovine.

Usage: "If you can't blind 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS."

I note that we are not blinded.

Originally posted by nenothtu
My mistake - I confused "Key players" for "major players", which are not the same thing at all. I've always said that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist - it's a matter of perspective, where one views him from. In a nuber of the cases you mention, it may not be as much a matter of being excluded from the conference table as it is not being able to coax them to it.

Good point, but I am sure that given suitable incentives. However, I should imagine, it would be a matter of how ‘serious’ the objectives of such a conference were to be. If you set out to form an iron-fist, and then offer immunity for those who join in, then I should think that there would many who would take the opportunity to stand down or change sides, rather. I don’t think such a fist currently exists though.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Foreign investors have bought their employees with their investment. When that happens, then yes, they have a stake in loal matters, an interest in keeping those emplyees happy and mutiny-free. The employees can them eith accept that master or reject him by voting with their feet. In imperial pursuits, it's a little different when the rule is militant.

Of course then there is the secure enclave method, and this seems to be very much the practice in places like Nigeria and Congo, and coincidently, where the greatest human rights abuses take place. Which sadly, does kind of make you hark back to the slightly more protectionist days of colonial rule...but then again, that depended entirely upon who the colonialist were. Not too bad if you were under British or even to some extent Spanish rule, but god help you if you got the Dutch. And in all cases, especially the British and Spanish models, the real problems only started when religions got involved.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I know the choices I make in matters of economic imperialism, but everyone has to find their own solution. In my case I quit a "Security firm" that was supposed to be American when it was bought out by foreigners. My reasoning was simple. I have no problems contracting to foreigners - in foreign areas - but I won't tote a gun in America, and potentially against Americans, under foreigners. I went free-lance again after that.

I can fully appreciate that on a personal moral level. Just to clarify on that point, I presume that you would have no difficulty under the circumstances that you operate, toting a gun at a former compatriot of American nationality who had decided to take pay from those same ‘foreigner’, if you found yourself opposed?

Originally posted by nenothtu
Rights are just there - for me, for you, for everyone. Whether we choose to seize them and wield them is another matter separate from whether they exist or not. The US Bill of Rights did not "grant" any rights at all, it codifed guarantees against governmental usurpation of them. essentially, it's a contract where the government promises "we won't interfere with these rights" which the government seems to feel that it is decreasingly bound by.
No, I never "earned" those rights, because they cannot BE earned. I have, however, defended them, sometimes with vigor and cordite. I don't take them for granted, because they have never been granted - they are seized. I know what that seizure costs. The price is the same everywhere on Earth.

Okay, I see what you mean. It is slightly different here in the UK, we have, in my lifetime had to fight and gain certain rights, that you in a ‘created’ nation perhaps haven’t. We have been conquered many times, and had many different rulers over our history.

Originally posted by nenothtu
The operative word there was "launch", because I was speaking of the nuclear issue. The covert operations they currently engage in can be met with like operations, and no nukes have to blossom.

The matter of supply by America of her enemies is a sore point with me, and one I'm currently active against. It's not isolated to Iran - just look at the current administrtion's supply of arms to the mexican drug cartels, which are in turn killing off Americans with those same arms - all while the American government is also trying to supply the cartels with disarmed targets. It's not even slightly sane, it happens way too often, and it's something to be worked against, wherever it occurs. Even in Iran.

I agree. What I have found amazing in my recent reading about the Iranian situation, is how the evidence exists against certain individuals, hard documentary evidence, but because those individuals refuse to acknowledge the crimes, Bush senior’s involvement in Iran-Contra for one example, nothing is done. I’m not sure I am being incredibly naive on some level, but I just don’t get the impotency of the International justice system. It blows my mind. Similarly, regarding the hostage taking in the 80s, Russia had a couple of their citizens taken, so they grabbed a couple of theirs, slit their throats dumped them on the doorstep of the right people. No trouble since. And yet, both Bush and Clinton were evidently too scared of reprisals to act in anyway other than to exchange (often faulty) armaments for hostages. It doesn’t take a genius to see that that is a bull# excuse.

Originally posted by nenothtu
The dichotomy of the carrot and the stick - give them enough carrots, and hope they don't balk against the stick.

Aye, that makes a lot of succinct sense.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm curious here - do you mean "US Republicanism" as in the Republican form of government, or as in the US Republican Party, which has turned decidedly against a Republican form of government?

The latter. It’s a great idea on paper, but it requires a vigilance by the population as a whole.

There is zero doubt that your are baffled due to your blindness. Truely, blind men, like yourselft, can't see.

Others have a light on in their mind.

Most are laughing at your blindness and ignorance of the obvious. All this whinning. You cornered the market on BS, piled it higher and deeper, making this thread extremely long.

When you can't solve that little item, you have shown that you really can't think on the scale of the Iran conflict's complexity. Or make reasoned comments based upon looking at the obvious. imho

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
There is zero doubt that your are baffled due to your blindness. Truely, blind men, like yourselft, can't see.

Others have a light on in their mind.

Most are laughing at your blindness and ignorance of the obvious. All this whinning. You cornered the market on BS, piled it higher and deeper, making this thread extremely long.

When you can't solve that little item, you have shown that you really can't think on the scale of the Iran conflict's complexity. Or make reasoned comments based upon looking at the obvious. imho

edit on 12-3-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Nimrods have their lights out.

Fair enough.

I direct my comments to your argument, rather than your person, and call it out for what it is, and you in turn can't find any flaws in mine, so opt for the personal attack instead. that's fine - it serves to put on display that you are merely constructing a smoke screen to hide the fact that you have no responses.

Fair enough. Carry on, then.

I do think most everyone else appears to see that my comment was a direct and spot on response to your not seeing that which is obvious to everyone else.

Notice the stars to see their reaction to being able to see that which is obvious, but not to you. They read that which was plainly written right on the Forum.

That you like to get into thou's vs thine tells us all your not worth the time, don't do what you say, and remain blind as to what are benevolence, truth, and the higher roads in this world. imho


But for those well read, they know the town named for Gideon, which means "destroyer" / 'Warrior". They also associate the name with the ephod that returned religion again to paganism, and a name synomous with Bibles. It is a place where illegals, via corruption, take the jobs of the citizens in a land known as the most corrupt in the nation. The area is known for Bible thumping of the sort that promoted nuclear bombs for Israel, so traded by those that didn't understand the word to the point of killing a president to attain their goal. It is this same corruption of religion involved with the Iran issues.

Originally posted by Biliverdin
Of course then there is the secure enclave method, and this seems to be very much the practice in places like Nigeria and Congo, and coincidently, where the greatest human rights abuses take place. Which sadly, does kind of make you hark back to the slightly more protectionist days of colonial rule...but then again, that depended entirely upon who the colonialist were. Not too bad if you were under British or even to some extent Spanish rule, but god help you if you got the Dutch. And in all cases, especially the British and Spanish models, the real problems only started when religions got involved.

I have problerms with colonialism - I view it as a foreign occupation not generally brought about in response to an act of war. With that said, I am still forced to admit that there have definitely been instances where the native population were a lot better off under colonial rule than they were after the colonials left.

I can fully appreciate that on a personal moral level. Just to clarify on that point, I presume that you would have no difficulty under the circumstances that you operate, toting a gun at a former compatriot of American nationality who had decided to take pay from those same ‘foreigner’, if you found yourself opposed?

No, I wouldn't have problems in that case. They chose their sides, same as I did, and would be fair game, same as I would be. I don't go overseas any more, for anything, though. I was commenting more on the propriety of working for foreigners, and against Americans in general, in America - on the American's own turf.

On an individual basis, there are Americans who have already staked their claim in opposition to mine. I have no problems or dilemmas in opposing them. As everywhere, I don't offer them violence unless they propose it first. I would rather get along with everyone, but if they don't want to get along, I'm game for that play, too, to the same extent that they don't want to get along - plus a 10% surcharge in whatever coin they have proposed, for the bother.

I agree. What I have found amazing in my recent reading about the Iranian situation, is how the evidence exists against certain individuals, hard documentary evidence, but because those individuals refuse to acknowledge the crimes, Bush senior’s involvement in Iran-Contra for one example, nothing is done. I’m not sure I am being incredibly naive on some level, but I just don’t get the impotency of the International justice system. It blows my mind. Similarly, regarding the hostage taking in the 80s, Russia had a couple of their citizens taken, so they grabbed a couple of theirs, slit their throats dumped them on the doorstep of the right people. No trouble since. And yet, both Bush and Clinton were evidently too scared of reprisals to act in anyway other than to exchange (often faulty) armaments for hostages. It doesn’t take a genius to see that that is a bull# excuse.

I'm not sure which arms were traded for hostages, but in general giving arms to your enemies for ANY reason is a bad idea. Iran-Contra was a mess and ill-conceived from the get go. Bush Sr should have been imprisoned for his role, and instead they made him president.

International law doesn't operate on the same basis as national law. Nations are sovereign, with no overarching governmental structure to dictate to them - there is no "World Government" in the same sense as we have national governments. Because of that, international law is generally carried out on the basis of agreements, consensus, and treaties. In the Iran-Contra affair, there weren't any international laws that I'm aware of that governed it. If Iran wanted to buy, and the US wanted to sell, and the materials weren't weapons grade nuclear materials, I can't think of an international law that was violated.

I don't think the players should have been hauled into international court for selling weapons to Iran, I think they should have been tried in the US for treason (i.e. giving aid and comfort to the enemy) and jailed on that account under US law.

Applying international law to the Iranian situation, they signed on to the NPT as a sovereign nation, and are expected to honor their agreements in full. Since they are unwilling to, they really should pull out of it, rather than smile and nod, keep making the promise and ignoring the promise they've made. properly, they should have pulled out BEFORE they started balking against inspections. North Korea followed that course - pulled out of the NPT, then developed a nuke, and no ill effects came to them for that.

I can only think of two presidents in the last 50 years who WEREN'T scared spitless at the thought of a reprisal, to the point of inactivity - one from each of our parties, and neither of the Bushes are included in the "not scared" category. Probably the WORST two examples were Jimmy Carter and Bush II. Carter froze solid, and Bush II panicked. Both conditions led to disaster.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm curious here - do you mean "US Republicanism" as in the Republican form of government, or as in the US Republican Party, which has turned decidedly against a Republican form of government?

The latter. It’s a great idea on paper, but it requires a vigilance by the population as a whole.

Agreed. I was a Republican for most of my life. In the 1990's I started wondering what on Earth they were using to think with, and after the neocon takeover was completed around 2000, I abandoned that party altogether. I think 10 years is plenty of time for them to clean their act up, but they have failed to make even a token effort to do so. At this point there is nothing they will ever be able to do to make up for the damage wrought, and I'll never vote for another Republican for the rest of my days. Can't force myself to vote for a Democrat, either, because of their insistence on insinuating government into private matters - insurance, retirement, etc - so I'm pretty much choice-limited to third parties at this point.

Can't even vote for Ron Paul with a clear conscience until and unless he finally divorces himself from the Republicans and gets that (R) knocked away from his name.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


*Yawn*

Let me know when you're finished with the attacks against my person rather than my argument. I'll just keep sleepin' through the beatin' until you are.

BTW - Just because you've got two friends to "agree" with you (amazing how fast those stars popped up), doesn't necessarily make your argument right. However, if you somehow think it does, well, lets match stars then. let me just check...

Ah, there it is - 585 vs. 14,722.

And there you have it.

And with your typical missing of the issues and slanting of the issues. You have been on ATS since 2008, and only started 10 themes, but seem to work full time being what some would term trolling churning out thousands of postings--more than 8,500.

But, since the comparision of stars was only about your not finding Gideon's namesake, for this recent theme, your other is moot, and it tells us what appears to have become your obcession is trolling. But, you are not a fisher of men.

You and Gideon share much, a fascination with Ephods, that tend to corrupt a religion, and cater to destruction. What Gideon was, more than anything, was a slick warrior that tricked people with loud noise and chaos to win their destruction.

And you do have a tendency to corrupt away from true comparisions.

Lights out, sleepy time. Have you ever been truly awake? You might have to wake up one day, too late.

There are those that know more than you, and that shall always be. There is a place that men become SkyWalkers. The comment was coded for other persons and that person was not yourself. So, perhaps the issue is that you insist on controlling and sticking your nose into messages never intended for you.

Perhaps the Gideons need to never give out a Bible without the Clift Notes, so people can see its deeper and more hidden meanings that people miss, just as the simple truth is missed here.

I'd think most can find the place of Gideon's Skywalkers, and once they find that, they can begin to understand Biblical Narratives much better.

It appears the Middle East is having some problems with 125 rockets tossed into Israel over their killing 16 Palestinians in Gaza. Israel's "Iron Dome" didn't do too well and only 25% of the rockets were hit with the "Iron Dome" defense system. It appears the Israel system is being checked for response effects, so if the push comes to shove and Israel hits Iran, all hell is going to break loose for Israel.

The Arab side appears to have what some claim is 100,000 plus rockets. The Israeli side appears to have 400 nukes that they claim they will launch on Europe, if they get overrun by a massive attack on Israel. The battle of the insurgents in Syria continues, which are called terrorists trying to start things in Syria using foreign weapons and persons.


So, as the Bibi "Mr. Iran" Zionist war mongering continues in Israel and trying to make a panic in the US, the triping point will come in less than 4 months on the present course.

The Wise Man would tell Israel to fight its own battle and sit back and watch. And the Unwise would drag the US into the war and even the US will find war on their home ground. If Russia and China stick to their guns on Iran, those will become nuclear bombs targetting the US.

So, time to stock up the fallout shelters, and look forward to the time when this war distroys those with the crazy ideas from religion. You have about 4 months to prepare. The US might be able to start over again, but will be gone for all national purpose. imho

www.guardian.co.uk...

Originally posted by nenothtu
I have problerms with colonialism - I view it as a foreign occupation not generally brought about in response to an act of war. With that said, I am still forced to admit that there have definitely been instances where the native population were a lot better off under colonial rule than they were after the colonials left.

Well, firstly you have the problem where the colonialists import their administrative structure and form of governance, in order to facilitate or smooth the trade process...then you get the more, and I use the term loosely, barbaric tribespeople, coming from neighbouring territories and raiding, causing the need for an increased military presence...and then in reaction to tighter controls generally, you get, eventually, a general aggression towards the colonial traders...which subsequently leads to departure of the colonialists...and well, nothing left to fill the vacuum other than half-baked native administrators. And generally weak ones at that. Leaves the way wide open for militants to take over and form even more oppressive regimes. Not necessarily the fault of the original colonialists, or the natives...just seemingly the natural order of things. But that being said, we have had enough experience of these things to be able to anticipate them, and learn from them. And those that are able have, but they chose to exploit the situation rather that amend it.

Originally posted by nenothtu
No, I wouldn't have problems in that case. They chose their sides, same as I did, and would be fair game, same as I would be. I don't go overseas any more, for anything, though. I was commenting more on the propriety of working for foreigners, and against Americans in general, in America - on the American's own turf.

I understood that to be honest, I was simply wanting clarity on that point in a more general sense.

Originally posted by nenothtu
On an individual basis, there are Americans who have already staked their claim in opposition to mine. I have no problems or dilemmas in opposing them. As everywhere, I don't offer them violence unless they propose it first. I would rather get along with everyone, but if they don't want to get along, I'm game for that play, too, to the same extent that they don't want to get along - plus a 10% surcharge in whatever coin they have proposed, for the bother.

I understand, I have far less of an issue with people who choose a way of life, because they are good at it, because they know where they stand and where that line is drawn, than people who have to be broken and told who is the ‘bad guy’. Those are the people that commit atrocities, not the people who are doing a job.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm not sure which arms were traded for hostages, but in general giving arms to your enemies for ANY reason is a bad idea. Iran-Contra was a mess and ill-conceived from the get go. Bush Sr should have been imprisoned for his role, and instead they made him president.

Part of the Iran-Contra deal was the release of US hostages, primarily, William Buckley. Turned out he had been dead for some time already and kept in the deep freeze, but even so, that was the bargain...allegedly...

Originally posted by nenothtu
International law doesn't operate on the same basis as national law. Nations are sovereign, with no overarching governmental structure to dictate to them - there is no "World Government" in the same sense as we have national governments. Because of that, international law is generally carried out on the basis of agreements, consensus, and treaties. In the Iran-Contra affair, there weren't any international laws that I'm aware of that governed it. If Iran wanted to buy, and the US wanted to sell, and the materials weren't weapons grade nuclear materials, I can't think of an international law that was violated.

I think it does fall under Anti-Trust laws...but otherwise I agree, and yet, which I don’t have a problem with, why the secrecy? If no laws are violated why keep it all so clandestine? So, yes I agree with you, but with that, what national laws were then broken?

Originally posted by nenothtu
I don't think the players should have been hauled into international court for selling weapons to Iran, I think they should have been tried in the US for treason (i.e. giving aid and comfort to the enemy) and jailed on that account under US law.

Perhaps this answers my previous question, haha. Okay, so I’ll take a different tact, weaponry I understand can be as much a preventative measure to conflict as an affirmatory one...but at what point do you cross the line into Nuremberg Law, when you supply to the extent that the recipient is able to ‘wage aggressive war’?

Originally posted by nenothtu
Applying international law to the Iranian situation, they signed on to the NPT as a sovereign nation, and are expected to honor their agreements in full. Since they are unwilling to, they really should pull out of it, rather than smile and nod, keep making the promise and ignoring the promise they've made. properly, they should have pulled out BEFORE they started balking against inspections. North Korea followed that course - pulled out of the NPT, then developed a nuke, and no ill effects came to them for that.

Yes but, isn’t this where state sponsored terrorism comes to the fore...and if they are all doing it, who is going to point the finger?

Originally posted by nenothtu
I can only think of two presidents in the last 50 years who WEREN'T scared spitless at the thought of a reprisal, to the point of inactivity - one from each of our parties, and neither of the Bushes are included in the "not scared" category. Probably the WORST two examples were Jimmy Carter and Bush II. Carter froze solid, and Bush II panicked. Both conditions led to disaster.

Now to my understanding, Carter was putting pressure on the Shah of Iran over human rights abuses, and it was that situation that paved the way for the revolution that put Khomeini in power. If anything Carter was at least a genuine leader, rather than a pussy for the corporations to poke. Not necessarily what you want, but sorry to say, I’m not sure, when I look at the US, that you have had a strong leader in a considerable amount of time. Bush II was indeed an idiot beyond belief, I’m not sure he even knew he had an arse, let alone could differentiate between it and his elbow.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Agreed. I was a Republican for most of my life. In the 1990's I started wondering what on Earth they were using to think with, and after the neocon takeover was completed around 2000, I abandoned that party altogether. I think 10 years is plenty of time for them to clean their act up, but they have failed to make even a token effort to do so. At this point there is nothing they will ever be able to do to make up for the damage wrought, and I'll never vote for another Republican for the rest of my days. Can't force myself to vote for a Democrat, either, because of their insistence on insinuating government into private matters - insurance, retirement, etc - so I'm pretty much choice-limited to third parties at this point.

In the UK, I last voted for the Labour party because they promised a referendum on proportional representation...I get very excited about the idea of proportional representation, but it aint gonna happen, and the bunch of idiots that we currently have in governance can barely string a sentence together without showing their sheltered upbringing. I don’t watch the news for fear of being reminded of their sheer haplessness. However, luckily, and not so luckily, despite the pretence of democracy, we have trained professionals, in the form of the Privy council, and permanent cabinet, who actually run this country. I don’t like them one little bit, but I prefer them, right now, to those that can be bought by industry and corporations, as they would lead us right slap bang into war again. And as a nation, we cannot afford to do that. They’re all idiots, but fortunately, the partitions of the constitutional monarchy, as it stands, prevents a unifications of idiocy. Which is why, for the time being at least, I shan’t be revolting.

The Iran issue is one of the scinerios for which there is a no win outcome. If Israel attacks Iran, the Iran counterattack will be severe and Israel might go nuke on Iran and half of Europe to retaliate for no support.

If the US tosses in with Isreal to blow up Iran, then the US becomes a prime target for retaliation and the Russians and Chinese enter the war to blow up Israel and the US.

Usually, with a no win scinerio, it is better to allow a cold war as developed with India / Pakistan, the US / Russia, and the list goes on.

It gets down to the US is going to have to tell Israel to shut up and just deal with a nuclear Iran and if either side needs to fight nuclear then they wipe out each other. The other choice is it moves to the superpowers and massive areas get into the nuclear confligration.


Former Israeli Spy Leader speaks of the Crush of Israel between the two Islamic factions if Iran attacked:

====

www.cbsnews.com...

Dagan: We are going to ignite, at least from my point of view, a regional war. And wars, you know how they start. You never know how you are ending it.


We went outside and looked out from his balcony at the bright lights of the very prosperous, modern city of Tel Aviv.


Stahl: If Israel does strike Iran, the retaliation would probably take place right here. Hezbollah could come from the north; Hamas could fire from the south.

Dagan: It will be a devastating impact on our ability to continue with our daily life. I think that Israel will be in a very serious situation for quite a time.


Dagan's other concern is that a bombing attack would not be effective. It's been widely reported that there are four main, heavily fortified, nuclear facilities dispersed across Iran. He says it's more complicated than that.

======


More reading:

www.cbsnews.com...

reply to post by nenothtu


Just to apologise for the formatting...character count limitations mean I'm pasting and copying into word and then once I put it in the thread, I can't edit it...and I have no idea where the problem is...

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

You and Gideon share much,

We share more than you have the capability to ever comprehend, and neither of us is or was Iranian.

a fascination with Ephods, that tend to corrupt a religion, and cater to destruction. What Gideon was, more than anything, was a slick warrior that tricked people with loud noise and chaos to win their destruction.

And you do have a tendency to corrupt away from true comparisions.

And you have a tendency to corrupt away from thread topics - especially the ones where you find yourself out of your depth, apparently.

Looks like 1553 comments to this thread and most of them yours. Amazing. Looks like the nonsense here has spawned all kinds of better threads on the Middle East theme. That Stop Israel theme and others look very interesting.

Oh well, keep tossing your nonsense, Gideon style with the lights down low, trumpets blaring, and inciting death. imho

I'll toss out the real deals and latest news. And I'll get down to the better options for a no win situation.

I don't need a little Ephod to impress anyone and my words do their work just fine.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
Looks like 1553 comments to this thread and most of them yours. Amazing.

Looks like you're running a close second - but it's STILL second. 78 pages, 6 pages worth are mine, 6 pages worth are yours. Congrats on second place.

Looks like the nonsense here has spawned all kinds of better threads on the Middle East theme. That Stop Israel theme and others look very interesting.

Threads on Israel? Who knew? Quite a lot of what you've posted in this IRAN thread would likely be more at home in one of them. You should consider that.

Oh well, keep tossing your nonsense, Gideon style with the lights down low, trumpets blaring, and inciting death. imho

I'll toss out the real deals and latest news. And I'll get down to the better options for a no win situation.

I don't need a little Ephod to impress anyone and my words do their work just fine.

I'm not the one carrying on about dead Sumerian gods, ephods, Israel, and all sorts of smoke generators in a thread on... IRAN.

"Real deals"? Dead Sumerian gods are "real deals"? "Latest news"? Dead Sumerian gods and ancient Hebrew religious accoutrements are "latest news"?

Don't look now - your ephod is showing...

There you go with your attempts to intentionally mislead the religion issues again.

I have only spoken of Babylon's god issues and that religion's Trinity. So, my discussion has been on Nimrod, Semaramis, and Tammuz, which are Babylon, and that is the religion order that affects the Babylon Talmud's corruption.


You are the only one speaking of these other misleading links, per Sumerian, and that was explained to you by others. Yet, you still attempt to mislead people again and again, like a broken record. That makes you appear dishonest again. imho

The part that I speak to on Babylon's profane Nimrod linked god are the roots of why Islam calls many Christians as Infidels, as they have painted up Jesus with all the imagery from Nimrod and Tammuz. Understanding what the Iran Islams don't like about the misplaced Christian beliefs is rather important to promote understanding.

This is a "Jahad" (Holy War) issue between the Zionists and the Iran Islam's and it is good to visit the perspective on if Islam is correct in their convictions, and have the Christians been misled starting with Constantine and then the issues of Corporatism and Big Banking that hate the real image and history of Jesus and the Essene. So, they are in large part promoting these Jihads for their own greed, power and domination over the world. The NWO is as much about killing all the truth on Jesus religion truths, as it is about trying to knock out Islam's views on usury.



However, it becomes obvious that you don't like those type associations becoming so visible, as you don't appreciate religion truth and promoting peace. imho

Most would call you a war monger.

It is becoming rather boring correcting your blatant buffoonery on every page, can't you find someone else to pester.

Originally posted by Biliverdin
Well, firstly you have the problem where the colonialists import their administrative structure and form of governance, in order to facilitate or smooth the trade process...

In my opinion, that right there is the crux of the colonial problem. It's the importation - and perhaps more importantly the extension to native areas - of the colonial administrative and governing functions. Look at the Spanish model in Latin America, and contrast it to the French model in Canada. The French were more prone to "go native", and did a lot better in developing sustainable trade than the Spaniards did, with fewer revolts.

I understood that to be honest, I was simply wanting clarity on that point in a more general sense.

I won't fight Americans in general, but specific Americans, you betcha.

I understand, I have far less of an issue with people who choose a way of life, because they are good at it, because they know where they stand and where that line is drawn, than people who have to be broken and told who is the ‘bad guy’. Those are the people that commit atrocities, not the people who are doing a job.

If someone has to be told by another who "the bad guys" are, they're already doing it wrong. That's why I never went into the US military to begin with, and went the freelance route instead via Security Contracting. I don't need to have my enemies issued to me, and realize that the enemy of the moment may be the ally of tommorrow, and vice versa. That is much more pronounced when one allows an external organization - i.e. a government - to pick and choose his enemies for him.

Part of the Iran-Contra deal was the release of US hostages, primarily, William Buckley. Turned out he had been dead for some time already and kept in the deep freeze, but even so, that was the bargain...allegedly...

I'm not familiar with Buckley, but will check into it. The Iranian Embassy hostages were released en masse within an hour of the inauguration of Reagan in 1981 - I remember that very well. the general consensus at the time was that the Iranians had the distinct sense that they would be toasted in a matter of days if they didn't, which is an uneasy feeling they didn't get with Carter. Another school of thought at the time held that they just wanted to embarrass Carter, and so offered "insult" to him by not releasing the hostages until Reagan was in office, but as soon as possible after that event occurred. In that latter thought process, the notion of Iran getting toasted over the hostages doesn't really enter the equation.

In any event, the Iran-Contra sales were some time after the hostage release, so this is the first time I've ever seen anyone try to make that connection. When the hostages were taken, there were no Nicaraguan Contras - the Sandinistas had taken over on 20 July 1979 (I remember that very well, too) and what would later become the Contras was in disarray and on the run - except for the Miskito elements, which had yet to leave Nicaragua for the refugee camps in Honduras.

In light of that, and the bit-player part I had in those events before the Contras ever came to be, I would appreciate some links to what you've been reading on the subject if it's on the internet, and you have the links handy. I'd like to see what they are saying re the Iran hostages in hindsight, 30 years after the facts.

I think it does fall under Anti-Trust laws...but otherwise I agree, and yet, which I don’t have a problem with, why the secrecy? If no laws are violated why keep it all so clandestine? So, yes I agree with you, but with that, what national laws were then broken?

It was my understanding that it was a clerical end-run around congressional refusal to fund the Contras. The arms were sold by intelligence elements (one of which was Bush Sr., who was at one time the Director, CIA) in order to generate clandestine funds for the Contras outside congressional control. Attempting to bypass congress is what pissed off the congressmen, and got the hearings rolling into the matter. Since Congress is responsible for appropriating Agency funding, the "outside sales" was on questionable legal grounds from that standpoint. My own take was that it was treasonous - not even borderline, but flat-out treason, to arm enemies for ANY reason.

Clerical people seek clerical solutions, however, so the treason aspect was never explored, in favor of the clerical aspects of bypassing congress.

Perhaps this answers my previous question, haha. Okay, so I’ll take a different tact, weaponry I understand can be as much a preventative measure to conflict as an affirmatory one...but at what point do you cross the line into Nuremberg Law, when you supply to the extent that the recipient is able to ‘wage aggressive war’?

From my standpoint, ANY war is "aggressive war" - it's pretty useless otherwise. IMO, the Nuremburg line was crossed there when they were supplying arms to an enemy actor. We had and have enough enemies that we should be able to let the enemies supply each other, without the US having to help them out, too.

Yes but, isn’t this where state sponsored terrorism comes to the fore...and if they are all doing it, who is going to point the finger?

State sponsored terrorism comes to the fore when weapons are supplied to terroristic organizations, regardless of the initial source of those weapons. In a more modern example, the US Justice Department supplying weapons to the Mexican Drug Cartels qualifies as "state sponsored terrorism" as far as I'm concerned, and the US is in that case supporting terrorism against their own citizens.

With a friendly government of the caliber of ours, who needs enemies?

Now to my understanding, Carter was putting pressure on the Shah of Iran over human rights abuses, and it was that situation that paved the way for the revolution that put Khomeini in power. If anything Carter was at least a genuine leader, rather than a pussy for the corporations to poke. Not necessarily what you want, but sorry to say, I’m not sure, when I look at the US, that you have had a strong leader in a considerable amount of time. Bush II was indeed an idiot beyond belief, I’m not sure he even knew he had an arse, let alone could differentiate between it and his elbow.

Having lived and worked through the Carter administration as well as all the subsequent ones, I have to say that Jimmy Carter did more to destabilize the world in four years than Bush and Obama combined have in 12. Carter's inadequacy as a "leader" directly resulted in the turbulent times that extended throughout the 1980's and some way into the 1990's. The inadequacy and down right duplicity of Bush I did nothing to improve things.

Carter didn't just "pressure" the Shah, he actively worked against him. he didn't just "pave the way" for Khomeini, he actively pushed for Khomeini's return to Iran in a leadership role. We see the thanks Carter got for that bone-headed miscalculation.

In the UK, I last voted for the Labour party because they promised a referendum on proportional representation...I get very excited about the idea of proportional representation, but it aint gonna happen, and the bunch of idiots that we currently have in governance can barely string a sentence together without showing their sheltered upbringing. I don’t watch the news for fear of being reminded of their sheer haplessness. However, luckily, and not so luckily, despite the pretence of democracy, we have trained professionals, in the form of the Privy council, and permanent cabinet, who actually run this country. I don’t like them one little bit, but I prefer them, right now, to those that can be bought by industry and corporations, as they would lead us right slap bang into war again. And as a nation, we cannot afford to do that. They’re all idiots, but fortunately, the partitions of the constitutional monarchy, as it stands, prevents a unifications of idiocy. Which is why, for the time being at least, I shan’t be revolting.

Is there still a British Whig party? I think I'm probably more along the lines of the early American Whigs politically, but they are no more as a party. The two are not exactly the same, but there are enough points of congruence that parallels can be drawn.

One thing is sure - I'll never again be a Republican. they had their chance, and crapped the nest full.

An interesting reverse about who is threatening who, per pre-emptive strikes.


mantiqaltayr.wordpress.com...


Article 51 allows Iran to use aggressive force against Israel’s nuclear program if an “armed attack” occurs. Its plain language is satisfied when one state has used armed force to attack another state. Under customary international law, a preemptive strike is also permitted when an armed attack is imminent.

Thus an Iranian attack against Israel’s nuclear facilities would be legitimate for two reasons.

First, Israel already is conducting armed attacks under the plain meaning of Article 51 through Islamic terrorist surrogates such as the MEK so a de facto state of war exists between Israel and Iran.

Second, even if one questions whether armed attacks have occurred (by discounting Israel’s use of surrogates), Israel’s development of weapons of mass destruction constitutes an imminent, existential threat to Iran, all of Israel’s neighbors and the entire world.

======

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
There you go with your attempts to intentionally mislead the religion issues again.

I have only spoken of Babylon's god issues and that religion's Trinity.

yes you have, at length at repeatedly. You have yet to demonstrate an ancient religion's relevance to "stopping Iran" - or not stopping it, as you seem to prefer.

So, my discussion has been on Nimrod, Semaramis, and Tammuz, which are Babylon, and that is the religion order that affects the Babylon Talmuds corruption.

Tammuz is Hebrew, not Babylonian. So is Nimrod - a "demi-god", not even a full diety. the Sumero-Babylonian cognate of Nimrod is Gilgamesh, and of Tammuz, Dumuzi. You seem to be rather ill-informed on that subject matter to be trying to promote it so much.

In any event, you STILL have not demonstrated any relevance to "stopping" or "not stopping" Iran in the modern world.

You are the only one speaking of these other misleading links, per Sumerian, and that was explained to you by others. Yet, you still attempt to mislead people again and again, like a broken record. That makes you appear dishonest again. imho

Where do you (and the "others" you speak of) think the Babylonian deities came from? Sumeria - and often without so much as a name change. It's not I who is being misleading, but you miscalculate if you think I care in the least about "appearances", dishonest or otherwise.

ALL of my discourse on the Sumerian gods has been a direct response to your attempt to inject them where they have no place, as a smoke screen against discovery of the issues at hand, and as an intentional misdirection of the topic.

The part that I speak to on Babylon's profane Nimrod linked god are the roots of why Islam calls many Christians as Infidels, as they have painted up Jesus with all the imagery from Nimrod and Tammuz. Understanding what the Iran Islams don't like about the misplaced Christian beliefs is rather important to promote understanding.

You'll never "promote understanding" by intentionally muddying the waters like that. Muslims (yes, "Muslims", not "Islams" - Islam is a system, the followers of which are called "Muslims" - "those who do Islam" just as "mujahideen" means "those who do jihad") don't ponder ancient Sumerian cosmology when assessing Christianity.

This is a "Jahad" (Holy War) issue between the Zionists and the Iran Islams and it is good to visit the perspective on if Islam is correct in their convictions, and have the Christians been misled starting with Constantine and then the issues of Corporatism and Big Banking that hate the real image and history of Jesus and the Essene. So, they are in large part promoting these Jihads for their own greed, power and domination over the world. The NWO is as much about killing all the truth on Jesus religion truths, as it is about trying to knock out Islam's views on usury.

I'm very familiar with what "jihad" is. NO ONE - not "Zionists", not Christians, not Hindus, not CEOs - can wage jihad other than Muslims. there is no such thing as "jihad between" twe peoples. Muslims wage jihad, the other side wages war. Even if the opposition is doing it for religious reasons - which has not occurred in a couple hundred years - they CAN NOT wage a jihad.

"Visiting the perspective on if Islam is correct in their convictions" is a matter for Muslims to attend to, not outsiders. The Essenes are no more, and have not existed for a couple thousand years. They are a non-starter, and have no place in a discussion of current events at all. they are a matter for religious historians to wrangle over.

However, it becomes obvious that you don't like those type associations becoming so visible, as you don't appreciate religion truth and promoting peace. imho

Discussion of such is fine in it's proper place - which is not this thread.

Most would call you a war monger.

Meh. I've been called worse by better. I've found that when those names start getting flung, it is invariably an attempt to pin a label on in order to mask open conversation. it rarely ever works, but they just keep trying.

It is becoming rather boring correcting your blatant buffonery on every page, can't you find someone else to pester.

That's funny, considering the source and how the allegations actually apply to itself, in a recursive manner. No, I won't "find someone else to pester" - I'll stand against blatant error and intentional deception whenever I find it.

Including right here.

P.S. - "buffoon" has two o's. If your going to fling names, at least try to get THAT right... even if you can't manage to get anything else right.