Iran commander says could launch pre-emptive strike on Israel

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 

Well put


What we need to worry about is this


”In order to facilitate the action of liberative forces, reduce the capabilities of the Syrian regime to organise and direct its military actions, to hold losses and destruction to a minimum, and to bring about desired results in the shortest possible time, a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time.” (The Guardian, 27 September 2003)

The whole story




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 


Cosmic egg, you missed my point completely. I was making reference to the obvious two-faced propaganda in the MSM regarding Islam, but you sailed on past it into a promotion of New Age mantras. There is no religion 'of' peace, but peace can be found in religion.


''Work justice, love kindness, and walk humbly before your God''.


This expression from the OT constitutes the sum total purpose of the Judeo-Christian 'religion'. When we strip away the human interpretations leading to the many and varied modern expressions of Christianity, the above quote holds true as the purpose of Jesus' ministry on Earth, and the responsibility of those followers who [are/ should be] His hands and feet in this dark world (reaching out to support those who are in need, showing love in a variety of practical ways).

Justice, mercy/grace & humility - quite simply, what is expected of humanity. This three-facet principle complements the 'Torah on one foot' as the Jews would put it, or the 'Golden Rule' of Christianity (almost everyone in the world has it as their 'prime rule of conduct') - neatly summarised in the following:



''Do not do to others that which you would not like to be done to yourself'' - or,

''Treat others as you would like to be treated'' - or,

''Love your neighbour [look after your neighbour's needs] as yourself [as you look after your own needs]''


So going back to where we left off, and the actual purpose of the comment I made, I was trying to demonstrate that you'd made an errant assumption in your estimation of my level of understanding re: 'the way things work', with reference to propaganda machinations.

You seem to have done it again, this time with regard to spirituality...



Anyway, take care and no hard feelings.



edit on 9-10-2012 by FlyInTheOintment because: grammar..



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 


Haha! It's a bit arrogant of you to think there would be hard feelings. You overestimate your own importance in my life.


What you said was: "Do you believe Islam is a religion of peace? If so, YOUR programming is complete." I addressed that. If you want to interpret it as something entirely other, that I have somehow missed the profundity of your reply, then I must have done because it was pretty .. whatever.

I think you think you're cleverer than you are. My opinion only. No hard feelings though, eh?



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Come on girls stop fighting

There is no chance of any form of peace when grown people bicker like little children




posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by felixjames20
 


In reply, might I just suggest that if you're planning on going into diplomacy full-time, don't quit your day job just yet.

Should I have simply not commented at all? What is the mentality behind this? If I don't comment, that could be interpreted as him being correct and I have no reply, or then perhaps that by not communicating, he will go away and bother someone else. Is that any sort of solution? I was not "bickering", as you put it. But I shouldn't either have to accept being insulted without giving any reaction. Why is that considered the responsible way of handling it? It seems to me to be far from it.

And please refrain from insulting females in the future. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Lets see if we can bring the discussion back on the ground.

Here are a few historical aspects to Today's serious problem.
1) Meeting between Shimon Peres, then Israel's Deputy Minister of Defense and President John Kennedy, held at the White House on 2 April 1963.



It was in response to that question that Peres used for the first time with the United States what would subsequently become Israel's nuclear formula (pages 3-4). Here is the English translation of this nuclear exchange: Kennedy: You know that we follow very closely the discovery of any nuclear development in the region. This could create a very dangerous situation. For this reason we monitor your nuclear effort. What could you tell me about this? Peres: I can tell you most clearly that we will not introduce nuclear weapons to the region, and certainly we will not be the first.

Link

2) Memo regarding "The Israeli Problem"



The President desires, as a matter of urgency, that we undertake every feasible measure to improve our intelligence on the Israeli nuclear program as well as other Israel and UAR advanced weapon programs to arrive at a firmer evaluation of their import. In this connection he wishes the next formal inspection of the Israeli reactor complex to be undertaken promptly and to be as thorough as possible. In view of his great concern over the destabilizing impact of any Israeli or UAR program towards nuclear weapons, the President also wishes the Department of State to develop proposals forestalling such programs, in particular we should develop plans for seeking clearer assurances from the Governments concerned on this point, and means of impressing upon them how seriously such a development would be regarded in this country.

Link
What do you think?





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join