Enough farting around on Iran & Nukes

[Cliffy]

however, your characterization of him as "wanting to hasten Armageddon" is not only completely unfair, it reveals a clear ignorance of the facts of the matter.

Colpy.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I said the born againers have wanted to hasten Armageddon since Raygun. Do you remember that it was the Moral Majority that mobilized to get Raygun elected because one of his policies was to escalate the arms race and nuclear proliferation.

 

[Colpy]

however, your characterization of him as "wanting to hasten Armageddon" is not only completely unfair, it reveals a clear ignorance of the facts of the matter.

Colpy.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I said the born againers have wanted to hasten Armageddon since Raygun. Do you remember that it was the Moral Majority that mobilized to get Raygun elected because one of his policies was to escalate the arms race and nuclear proliferation.

No.
I don't have a "reading comprehension problem".
Here...I'll type slowly for you, and I will put it in point form, so perhaps you can get a grip on the reality of the situation:

1. Reagan never, in any way, supported nuclear proliferation, as it is commonly defined. If you mean the placing of medium range missiles in Europe.....that is NOT what is meant by "nuclear proliferation". Try to be clear.

2. The "moral majority" opposed SALT on the grounds that the USSR was atheistic and amoral.........and the USA should not show weakness in the face of evil. They were right. Hardly "wanting to hasten Armageddon".........

3. Much to my own amazement, Reagan's absolute faith in American might and the correctness of her path led to the downfall of the USSR,,,,the "moral majority" far from causing Armageddon, were proven CORRECT....and that REALLY sticks in your craw, doesn't it??????:lol:

4. The item that scared the commies straight was not the increase in offensive weaponry....but the American move to build an entirely defensive shield....the infamous "star wars" initiative.

5. Thanks to those who elected Reagan, we now have thousands LESS nukes than we did in 1980.

Deal with it.

I had to.:smile:

The above makes your references to Armageddon kinda......disingenuous....eh???

:roll:

 

[earth_as_one]

Why does your acceptance of these crimes against humanity depend on somebody elses view? Ironside's view of Israeli soldiers has no bearing on Iranian actions. Is it that difficult for you to just accept Iranian crimes against humanity?

Its debatable whether executing several thousand people convicted of capital crimes constitutes a crime against humanity. If most of these people were innocent or only guilty of minor crimes, then it might be a crime against humanity. If most of these people were militants and/or criminals guilty of violent acts and capital crimes, then it probably was not a crime against humanity. Not enough information exists to call it one way or the other IMHO. Flip a coin...

I have no problem describing this event as an extreme example of Iran's barbaric and flawed criminal justice system.

In my opinion, this event isn't on the same scale as the Rwandan genocide which killed 800,000 to 1,000,000. That was a crime against humanity.

I'd describe denying 1.4 million Gazans access to adequate food, potable water, medicine, destroying sewage treatment facilities... as a crime against humanity because of scale and because the resulting malnutrition/famine and disease/plague is artificial. The food and medicine along with the equipment required to fix the water and sewage treatment plants are sitting on trucks waiting at the border. Israel just refuses to allow them to enter Gaza. The innocent civilian death toll and suffering is orders of magnitude greater than the 1988 Iranian inquisition, especially when you factor in the 2009 Gaza massacre.

At some point executing prisoners could become a crime against humanity based on scale and level of injustice. Does this event cross that threshold???? I'm not sure.

If Israeli apologists want to classify this event as a crime against humanity, then feel free. But you would then be hypocritical if you did not also classify many of Israel's far worse crimes as crimes against humanity.

 

[Colpy]

Its debatable whether executing several thousand people convicted of capital crimes constitutes a crime against humanity. If most of these people were innocent, then it probably was. If most of these people were militants guilty of violent acts, then it probably was not. Not enough information exists to call it one way or the other IMHO.

Flip a coin...

EAO, it is absolutely hilarious watching you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to avoid the condemnation of a country led by homicidal lunatics, simply because they oppose Israel.

Capital crimes in Iran include any homosexual act, and any attempt to convert from Islam.......and Iran executes more children than any nation on earth.

These people (the current gov't) are whack jobs.

 

[AnnaG]

Sheeeesh. Iran sure is a nice place. They imprison poor people because they can't pay their bills. Can we say "Medieval England"?

Fars News Agency :: Iran Releases 21,000 Prisoners on Eid ul-Fitr

Those clergy are pretty primitive, IMO. Barbaric, too. Israel and Iran administrations deserve each other.

 

[earth_as_one]

EAO, it is absolutely hilarious watching you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to avoid the condemnation of a country led by homicidal lunatics, simply because they oppose Israel.

Capital crimes in Iran include any homosexual act, and any attempt to convert from Islam.......and Iran executes more children than any nation on earth.

These people (the current gov't) are whack jobs.

I have no problem condemning the 1988 Iranian inquisition. Classifying it as a crime against humanity??? I'm not sure its big enough. Would you put this event in the same category as the Rwandan genocide or the Nazi holocaust?

 

[AnnaG]

I have no problem condemning the 1988 Iranian inquisition. Classifying it as a crime against humanity??? I'm not sure its big enough. Would you put this event in the same category as the Rwandan genocide or the Nazi holocaust?

How big does it need to be?
"Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, 'are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings' "

 

[AnnaG]

Here's more about the offense:
Legal Definition of Crimes Against Humanity

 

[ironsides]

"This video was shown on TishkTV,and it is a song about how the Iranian military has killed thousands of voiceless innocent Kurds, who's only wrongdoing was asking for freedom. It also shows some clip of the PDKI Peshmerga as they bravely fought for Ferderalism and democracy against the current bloody Irainian Regime.
Long live a Free and Democratic Kurdistan."
LiveLeak.com - Kurdish rap against the Iranian Regime

 

[MHz]

EAO, it is absolutely hilarious watching you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to avoid the condemnation of a country led by homicidal lunatics, simply because they oppose Israel.

Capital crimes in Iran include any homosexual act, and any attempt to convert from Islam.......and Iran executes more children than any nation on earth.

These people (the current gov't) are whack jobs.

If you do a side by side comparison between the last 25 years and the 25 starting in 1953 today the rights and protection given to the individual is still at a higher than it was during that period of her past, that is progress. That it is not fast enough to suit you is nothing. It is actually in spite of 'the West' that they have progressed to where they are today.
What is it, 40 years of continuous sanctions orchestrated in Washington?
The West allows almost 30,000 children to starve/day, without wars they could have solved that problem, as it is they don't really care it seems even though they do business with all the nations involved.

It is not our right to determine what laws they envoke is right or wrong, our whole input is to obey those laws if/when we are within their borders.

What changes would we see if we suddenly became to be under Marshal Law? Military checkpoints would just be the first change you would see. That sort of Law is prevalent in many places, yet only Iran's errors are being examined in any detail.

Every country needs prisons, we in the West condemn Iran for their 'inhumanity' yet want nothing to do with an international discussion on how we are dealing with out Native population even today. Gitmo is the way we run our 'tougher prisons' The absolute toughest one is when the life is taken. That is the true nature of how we do things, that isn't any better than their system.

 

[MHz]

Ok, U.S. covert activity accepted something was attempted. Iran is not innocent either though.

Deadly Fatwa: Iran’s 1988 Massacre - Iranian Crimes against humanity
Deadly Fatwa: Iran’s 1988 Massacre - Iran Press Watch


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss20/shahrooz.pdf

Does it even occur to you that covert activities are illegal, people get arrested for those types of activities and then get sent to prisons?

(from your link)
"The victims included prisoners who had served their sentences but had refused to recant their political beliefs, prisoners who were serving sentences of imprisonment, people who had been detained for lengthy periods but had not been convicted, and former prisoners who were rearrested. "

Even today there are prisons in places, like Egypt and many other places, that 'the West' uses to torture certain individuals. On our mainland it might get a news headline or two.

How many people could we put in prison in a time of war. In the last one we put the Japanese in prisons, they were not torture places yet compensation was paid to them because it was a crime against humanity. Some of those prisoners would be truly guilty of trying to over-throw those who were in power, if you fail, you get the death penalty.

The trials would have been a war-crimes version of what should we do with you now the war is over. They were nationals so they had no place to be returned to.

No nation is exempt from crimes against humanity. Canada should not expect others to be on par with our level when we have just reached it ourselves. Our current state is an improvement over what it was 100 years ago. Iran's level of 'humanity shown to it's people' is also better than it was 100 years ago. They may even be advancing at a faster rate than we are. They are gaining rights as individuals, we are becoming subjective to the leaders.

Just what the prisons are like could be determined by a show that was made quite a few years ago (close to that era though), a US young adult got arrested in Afghanistan trying to smuggle some hash out of the country and he was sent to prison, it was more like a crowded market-place and there were no doors on any of the rooms. The movie was 'Midnight something'. That is what Iran's prisons should look like in a non-war time, much like the difference between civilian jails and military jails in 'the West'.

 

[Cannuck]

If Israeli apologists want to classify this event as a crime against humanity, then feel free.

There you go again. The actions of Iran are independent of Israel and its "apologists"

 

[YukonJack]

I happen to be reading Edmund Morris' biography of Ronald Reagan, entitled Dutch. Neither Morris nor I are sycophants to Reagan as the conservative icon......however, your characterization of him as "wanting to hasten Armageddon" is not only completely unfair, it reveals a clear ignorance of the facts of the matter.

"To my amazement, history will remember Ronald Reagan as the man who broke the back of one of the most murderous regimes in history,........without firing a shot.

We should have such a man to deal with China, were we have encouraged the worst regime on earth to emerge as a super-power."

Colpy, I have read "Dutch" and I agree with you.

Please give no credence, whatsoever to any disrecpectful punk, who refers to the greatest President of the 20th century as "Raygun".

 

[Liberalman]

they just want to make more energy for their citizens look at how many nuclear plants America has and has built since the agreements.

America dropped the only nuclear bombs on a country so with this reasoning the U.S. should not have any nuclear weapons

 

[Spade]

Reagan - for someone with dementia he did fairly well.

 

[YukonJack]

"Reagan - for someone with dementia he did fairly well."

Perfect example to firmly stand by my assertion that those who have nothing intelligent to say about Reagan, will always resort to insults.

Ask the ayatollahs about his dementia.
Ask Gorbachev about it.
Ask all the world leasders who came to his funeral to show their respect about dementia.

Then look in the mirror and ask about your own.

People like you are - worth repeating, one and all - DISRESPECTFUL PUNKS.

 

[YukonJack]

"Reagan - for someone with dementia he did fairly well."

President Ronald Reagan realized - after he was out of office, for idiots like you - that he had been afflicted by one of the most hideous diseases imaginable.

Why can't the peanut-brain traitor Jimmy Carter realize that his "best before" label has the date 1976?

 

[Liberalman]

Is Obama ready to use nuclear weapons on Israel?

 

[Goober]

Is Obama ready to use nuclear weapons on Israel?

Why would he and what prompted such a question?

 

[Cliffy]

for idiots like you
DISRESPECTFUL PUNKS
peanut-brain traitor

Who is being disrespectful Jack?