SoldiersMum wrote:Igmond 50 said:
make them say (in the context of an attempt at verbal/diplomatic global resolution) the things they are saying for the benefit of a very small number of arguably disturbed people. Let people across the world (including those they claim to lead) see the evil of their words and watch them waiver and ultimately wither under the pressure that brings.

This labeled ignorant. warmongering hater says in response:
What do you think Amadinejad has been saying for years now?  The whole world has heard him.  Who's doing anything about it?  Who's bringing any pressure to bear upon Iran so they can waiver and wither in their goals to annihilate Israel and all of the West, particularly the U.S.?  Is it the UN you are expecting to "negotiate a global resolution?"  Fat chance.  No one will make Amedinejad change his goal to bring the 12th Imam back.  No one.  Armegedon is his answer and that is his goal.  You want to talk, talk, talk and perhaps your goal is to negotiate (which we do not do with terrorists) but that will merely be seen as weakness.  Why do you think they all want Obama to be our President?  Is it because he is a mighty warrior who they fear and respect or because he is a weak talker who will do nothing but talk?  

Amadinejad is not a nice person who is rational and has your values.  He does not think like a person from the West who can be reasoned with.   He is a man who has a very bad goal and has very skewed thinking.  Talking is futile.

Really...how much talking have we done? His rhetoric is for domestic consumption and is a means by which he attempts to distract his own people from their very real problems. Kind of like what our leaders (and others) do for the purpose of manipulating us. Like The Iraqi War of Freedom! Now if ya'll liked that, we got a real tasty treat for ya right across the water. We're gonna bring some more freedom. That fancy exploding kind.

One thing is for sure nothing ever gets done by first saying it can't. Another thing is for certain...wars are easier to start when you are able to demonize your opponent (leaders and population). In fact it's a necessary step in the process. Keep up the good work. P.S. It was you who claimed the title of warmonger.

Igmond50 wrote: One thing is for sure nothing ever gets done by first saying it can't. Another thing is for certain...wars are easier to start  (1)when you are able to demonize your opponent (leaders and population). In fact it's a necessary step in the process. Keep up the good work. (2) P.S. It was you who claimed the title of warmonger.

1. No one demonized the population of Iran and no one here wants them dead.

2. I knew you would jump right on that.  I said that with tongue in cheek because that was what you were calling all of us.  Names don't hurt me or make me angry.  I just feel sad that you need to resort to such rhetoric and wish you would get on and stay on topic without the personal comments.  You're a smart enough cookie without doing that but apparently you think it beefs up what you say and you can't help yourself.  So, since you are labeling, I'm going to refer to myself as your labels.  I'd rather hear "beautiful, lovely, tender-hearted wonderful moderator" but that's a big fat chance.

Continue on.

SoldiersMum wrote:

Igmond50 wrote: One thing is for sure nothing ever gets done by first saying it can't. Another thing is for certain...wars are easier to start  (1)when you are able to demonize your opponent (leaders and population). In fact it's a necessary step in the process. Keep up the good work. (2) P.S. It was you who claimed the title of warmonger.

1. No one demonized the population of Iran and no one here wants them dead.

2. I knew you would jump right on that.  I said that with tongue in cheek because that was what you were calling all of us.  Names don't hurt me or make me angry.  I just feel sad that you need to resort to such rhetoric and wish you would get on and stay on topic without the personal comments.  You're a smart enough cookie without doing that but apparently you think it beefs up what you say and you can't help yourself.  So, since you are labeling, I'm going to refer to myself as your labels.  I'd rather hear "beautiful, lovely, tender-hearted wonderful moderator" but that's a big fat chance.

Continue on.

This subject is used up.

Igmond50 asks ed me,
Your son is pretty sharp...I miss the time when my children's words were under construction. I could listen all day.

Is it your belief that all people of the Muslim faith are like this? What is your perception of the extent to which people think and act as you say?

Yes he is. He has an uncanny knack for remembering very unusual details of history. The little things that really help make a difference in ones understanding of how the world became what it is. The good and the bad parts.
My son is well versed in world history and has a particular interest in the birth of this nation and the sacrifices that were made by so many to provide us with a constitution that could give us the guidance to not allow tyranny and oppression to happen to American’s that has happen to so many other people throughout time.

Is it my belief that all people of the Muslim faith are like the leaders of Iran? That would be an absurd view and very narrow-minded. There are many ‘moderate’ Muslims all around the world and in Iran. They have as many different religious offshoots as this country does although they do not seem to be as well defined. Sunni and Shia are the two main ones but even within these there are differing degrees of what is a good Muslim as well as differing views of separation of church and state.
Here we have many religions Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist, Baptist, Jewish, Hindu, Wicca, etc and it has been many years that the use of violence was even considered as a way of oppressing or destroying someone’s religion. Unfortunately it appears that some within the various forms of Muslim faith choose violence to spread their particular brand.
A large portion of the Iranian population does not believe that whole we have to take over the world stuff. They want to be able to believe in their faith to whatever degree they feel is good for them and have their government operate outside of the faith.

Below are two articles that although not scholarly in nature give a good general picture of what I am talking about.



Iran loses faith in clerics By Kim Barker | Tribune foreign correspondent May 2, 2004
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... ory?page=1

For Iran's Shiites, a celebration of faith and waiting By Michael Slackman August 30 2007 Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/30/ ... 30imam.php

Igmond50 wrote:

Eyas wrote:Igmond,

I know what your answer to this will be, but I will ask it anyway.

If I were your neighbor and I routinely told you and the rest of the community that you were inhuman scum, and that I was going to murder you and your family just as soon as I bought a gun and ammunition, what would you do?

What would you do when I got the ammunition?  What would you do when I got the gun?

[size=9]You're analogy is bit off but I appreciate the sentiment. I would first notify the authorities and by all means provide for an adequate degree of protection.

There are clearly plenty of people out there that cannot be talked out of their psychotic behavior. I do not believe that applies to an entire country or people or faith.

Well, I said I knew what your answer would be; and I was right.  "I would first notify the authorities"

You said my analogy was off; but that was exactly the point of the question.  You would call the police.  But the analogy is flawed because in the case of nations, there are no police.  

Who then do you call to save you from the threat of another nation?  The UN?

You go on to say that you would provide for an adequate defense?  What does this mean?  You would buy a bullet-proof vest or something and hope that my aim is so bad that I can't hit your head?  What is the "bullet-proof" vest that will protect Israel from nuclear annihilation?  What magical plan do you suggest for Israel?

You may not believe that psychotic aggressive behavior cannot afflict an entire nation or people, but history adequately proves you wrong on that count.

Of course, it hardly matters whether many or most Iranians don't want war.  They are not presently in a position to do anything about it, Ahmedinejad is.  Conversely, Pakistan posesses nukes that most of the population would like to use against India, Israel, or the U.S.; but presently they cannot, because Musharraf (with our help) is in control of those nukes.

I knew what your response would be because you have been hypnotized by Leftist thinking.  You live in a fantasy world where the police will stop Ahmedinejad, and if they don't, the Iranian people will.  None of your beliefs or ideas has any basis in reality.  Your entire world-view rejects not only fact, but also any understanding of human nature.  This detachment from reality is a symptom of schizoprenia.

Unfortunately, there are no anti-psychotic medicines currently available to help you with your symptoms.

Eyas wrote:

Igmond50 wrote:

Eyas wrote:Igmond,

I know what your answer to this will be, but I will ask it anyway.

If I were your neighbor and I routinely told you and the rest of the community that you were inhuman scum, and that I was going to murder you and your family just as soon as I bought a gun and ammunition, what would you do?

What would you do when I got the ammunition?  What would you do when I got the gun?

[size=9]You're analogy is bit off but I appreciate the sentiment. I would first notify the authorities and by all means provide for an adequate degree of protection.

There are clearly plenty of people out there that cannot be talked out of their psychotic behavior. I do not believe that applies to an entire country or people or faith.

Well, I said I knew what your answer would be; and I was right.  "I would first notify the authorities"

You said my analogy was off; but that was exactly the point of the question.  You would call the police.  But the analogy is flawed because in the case of nations, there are no police.  

Who then do you call to save you from the threat of another nation?  The UN?

You go on to say that you would provide for an adequate defense?  What does this mean?  You would buy a bullet-proof vest or something and hope that my aim is so bad that I can't hit your head?  What is the "bullet-proof" vest that will protect Israel from nuclear annihilation?  What magical plan do you suggest for Israel?

You may not believe that psychotic aggressive behavior cannot afflict an entire nation or people, but history adequately proves you wrong on that count.

Of course, it hardly matters whether many or most Iranians don't want war.  They are not presently in a position to do anything about it, Ahmedinejad is.  Conversely, Pakistan posesses nukes that most of the population would like to use against India, Israel, or the U.S.; but presently they cannot, because Musharraf (with our help) is in control of those nukes.

I knew what your response would be because you have been hypnotized by Leftist thinking.  You live in a fantasy world where the police will stop Ahmedinejad, and if they don't, the Iranian people will.  None of your beliefs or ideas has any basis in reality.  Your entire world-view rejects not only fact, but also any understanding of human nature.  This detachment from reality is a symptom of schizoprenia.

Unfortunately, there are no anti-psychotic medicines currently available to help you with your symptoms.

Eyas, what would you have Igmond do in your analogy? Instead of notifying the authorities and taking defensive precautions, what would you have him do? Go next door, kick the door in, and shoot the potential threat? While he's at it, he should shoot his wife and children as well, because they may try and avenge their loved one.

That, friend, is murder. The term is malice aforethought - most states have a mandatory life sentence attatched to such actions.

I don't see how your analogy is even remotely applicable. I think what Igmond is trying to say is that war ought not to be the only option. Many have made note on this forum to the horrors of war and have conceded that it is not inherently a desirable end. So let's take this a bit further - shouldn't we then employ as many options as possible to prevent such a non-desirable end? From my interpretation of what Igmond is suggesting (and sir, please correct me if I'm wrong), it appears as though he is simply stating we ought to be cautious about engaging in such a greusome option. To me, I find that hard to disagree with.

By all means, we should not appease any tyrant who chooses to engage in militaristic rhetoric. All necesary steps ought to be taken to prevent the horrors of war. But perhaps we ought to apply that same standard to ourselves.

Eyas wrote:

Igmond50 wrote:

Eyas wrote:Igmond,

I know what your answer to this will be, but I will ask it anyway.

If I were your neighbor and I routinely told you and the rest of the community that you were inhuman scum, and that I was going to murder you and your family just as soon as I bought a gun and ammunition, what would you do?

What would you do when I got the ammunition?  What would you do when I got the gun?

[size=9]You're analogy is bit off but I appreciate the sentiment. I would first notify the authorities and by all means provide for an adequate degree of protection.

There are clearly plenty of people out there that cannot be talked out of their psychotic behavior. I do not believe that applies to an entire country or people or faith.

Well, I said I knew what your answer would be; and I was right.  "I would first notify the authorities"

You said my analogy was off; but that was exactly the point of the question.  You would call the police.  But the analogy is flawed because in the case of nations, there are no police.  

Who then do you call to save you from the threat of another nation?  The UN?

You go on to say that you would provide for an adequate defense?  What does this mean?  You would buy a bullet-proof vest or something and hope that my aim is so bad that I can't hit your head?  What is the "bullet-proof" vest that will protect Israel from nuclear annihilation?  What magical plan do you suggest for Israel?

You may not believe that psychotic aggressive behavior cannot afflict an entire nation or people, but history adequately proves you wrong on that count.

Of course, it hardly matters whether many or most Iranians don't want war.  They are not presently in a position to do anything about it, Ahmedinejad is.  Conversely, Pakistan posesses nukes that most of the population would like to use against India, Israel, or the U.S.; but presently they cannot, because Musharraf (with our help) is in control of those nukes.

I knew what your response would be because you have been hypnotized by Leftist thinking.  You live in a fantasy world where the police will stop Ahmedinejad, and if they don't, the Iranian people will.  None of your beliefs or ideas has any basis in reality.  Your entire world-view rejects not only fact, but also any understanding of human nature.  This detachment from reality is a symptom of schizoprenia.

Unfortunately, there are no anti-psychotic medicines currently available to help you with your symptoms.

Left or right has nothing to do with it...I propose we work as diligently on peace as we do preparing for war and you think I am in need of anti-psychotic drugs.

You are being led around by your red, white and blue nose ring and your mind has been so numbed you can't even feel your master's tug. Actually it is clear that you are now capable of taking yourself for a walk around the "kill em and let God sort em out later" Institute for Advanced Hate and Ignorance.

Like it or not, war is a natural human condition. You can wish and hope all you want. Wishes and hopes don't change human nature. The "War To End All Wars" was fought nearly a century ago. Since then, there has not been a single year without armed conflict somewhere on this planet.

World Peace is as likely as pigs flying. To think otherwise is a total denial of reality. Does accepting 6,000+ years of human history make me cavalier in my attitude toward war? Does attempting to dismiss that same history make others naive?

"Our aim is to achieve a socialist system of society, which, by eliminating the division of mankind into classes, by eliminating all exploitation of man by man and nation by nation, will inevitably eliminate the very possibility of war."

--Comrade Vladimir Lenin

SoldiersMum wrote:"Our aim is to achieve a socialist system of society, which, by eliminating the division of mankind into classes, by eliminating all exploitation of man by man and nation by nation, will inevitably eliminate the very possibility of war."

--Comrade Vladimir Lenin

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."

-  Ayn Rand From The New Intellectual


This definition applies to socialists, progressives and conservatives...differing only in degree.