Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jnarvey wrote:
That's ridiculous. Of course states - even hostile, heavily armed, human-rights abusing ones - are different from terrorist organizations.


Imagine what a 'hostile, heavily armed, human-rights abusing' state might do as it is over-run by 'terrorist organizations''!

That is infact what is happening in Iran - a 'terrorist organization' has taken control of that country and - they now have a field of activity - for staging their wider attacks.

Do you think that 'terrorist organizations' aren't seeking to control nations and states?

Do you think that 'terrorist organizations' within states like Iran are in any way discouraged by the state? Just look to the hezbollah 'state within a state' in Lebanon for your answer...

You're presenting a very simplistic estimation of these things.

Here is a terrible example of what a terrorist state can do with their potential to abuse the 'good-faith' position with the west - ask youself if what we saw on 9/11 with hijacked aircraft could again take place at any moment - only - with states that are run by 'terrorist organizations' - like Iran and Syria -- now with terrorist idologues in the captains chair in those nations - there is every chance that an airliner from one of those nations - which are if i'm not mistaken - are currently flying commercial aircraft into the western nations - so - one of these states could 'decide covertly' that instead of landing at airports - they can instead do something else.

You may not see the panoptic potential for danger when states are overtaken by 'terrorist organizations' - but it shall persist nonetheless.

I still question if Pakistan is an ally or something else. The current government is in place due to an military coup... So - with recent attitudes seen in her leader - one has to wonder...

As for China and Russia - of course no one here wants any war with them - but - they seem to be 'playing the world' in a way that is going to present some problem later - so what do we do? Ignoring the issue isn't going to help.

It is time for our world to sort-out 'some issues' to take us away from this age of empires and tyrants and - this growing islamist conundrum - seems to be becoming a catalyst - one that is bringing forward these 'other' issues. How can we avoid a problem with Russia and China? Wait for it to appear as lucid as the sun?

It is time for some REAL dialogue between Moscow Beijing and - the west.

The growth of irregular fighters - with religio-Political and other agendas are the major threat to a collective future - the leaders and followers of such - are so delusional that - if they had weapons of mass destruction - they would use them.

Surley it must be known that in the minds of the jihadist's - Russia and China are on the list of nations that are to be islamized - every bit as much as the west is [on their list]!

I wonder - how do people think that these islamist states and 'terrorist organizations' are going to become pacified.

What do you suggest the west do in order to have them settle-down and accept a real peaceful coexistence? How can it be done?

How can you get them to cease and desist on their islamist revolution?


In today's news we read interesting words from the president of iran - in response to more recent "danish cartoons":

Ahmadinejad, referring to the cartoons shown on Danish television, told a cabinet meeting "Those who make these insults are low life, lost, without human values...," ISNA said. "Such measures reveal the depth of weakness and failure of the leaders of liberalism," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reu.....artoons_dc

So just see the cheap shot he takes at the west:

"Such measures reveal the depth of weakness and failure of the leaders of liberalism"

So what is that? Should we play a reverse blame-game in seeing these:



www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-21.htm

Or you can see many more nasty cartoons here:

http://somebodyhelpme.info/car.....mitic.html

So is there an ugly double standard at work in the mind of the president of iran?

All such cartoons are nasty and ignoble and - he makes no mention of the same phenomena in the Arab world - why not?

How can 'these horrible cartoons' be coming from these 'noble' Arab states?

Of course - it's not just an isolated incident - it seems to happen all the time - they seem to love these fiendish cartoons.

So - when the president of Iran comes forward and says "Such measures reveal the depth of weakness and failure of the leaders of liberalism" - we can see that his real focus is to earn cheap points - in terms of forwarding his attack on the leaders and the very foundations of our 'liberal' [free] western nations.

Can YOU see the truth of this?

That comment - taken with his comments in his recent letter to the President of the United States:

"...Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems..."

http://medias.lemonde.fr/mmpub.....lettre.pdf

You seem to be one of them that think that the bulk of Islamists are only concerned with a palestinian state - but - that isn't the case in the least - they have hijacked that conflict and they intend to use it to further their plans - to destroy the state of Israel and - more.

Hamas provides [with financial help from whom?] the palestinians with social programs and cash - really - what they are doing is using a bastardized form of socialism - to brainwash the palestinians [socialism is partly how Hitler induced the German people to follow him from atrocity to atrocity]!

So - there is a good question here - would the palestinian peoples be so supportive of Hamas - without Hamas' socialism - as a bartering chip - if it were only the irregular fighting - [terror program] being offered them - would they be so accepting of these 'freedom fighters'? I do doubt it!

That - is why Hamas is buying the populations of palestine - in the noted manner...the islamists need this conflict to manipulate the muslim world and the palestinians [obviously] have need of leadership - only the Palestinian people get the contaminated crap end of the deal in that arrangement. President Abbas aught to disolve the government and give the palestinian people another choice...there are recent hints of this potential.

Of course - there shall be a palestinian state in the future - I humbly ask you - on what basis do you think that formation of the state of palestine - how do you think that is going to induce the islamists to accept real peace and - accept the right for Israel to exist - what to speak of giving up their 'convert or die' pogrom which they wish to induce on as much of the global populations as possible?

What do you think we the free world can do to solve this enmity?


Last edited by don muntean on Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
jnarvey





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 47
Reputation: 17.2Reputation: 17.2
Location: Vancouver

PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for your rambling dissertation that no doubt took many hours away from your Thanksgiving dinner with your family to compose. As I do not have several hours to spend writing a response, I will only deal with your first point:

Quote:
Imagine what a 'hostile, heavily armed, human-rights abusing' state might do as it is over-run by 'terrorist organizations''!

That is infact what is happening in Iran - a 'terrorist organization' has taken control of that country and - they now have a field of activity - for staging their wider attacks.


Iran was not overrun by a terrorist organization. It underwent a revolution against a Western-backed ruthless dictator. It is now run by a theocracy with a weak symbolic parliament and president, but that is far from being a state in the hands of a terrorist organization.

Iran may be a badly-run country which is hostile to the West and our interests. Calling it a terrorist state only does disservice to the English language.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jnarvey wrote:
Thank you for your rambling dissertation that no doubt took many hours away from your Thanksgiving dinner with your family to compose. As I do not have several hours to spend writing a response, I will only deal with your first point [...]

Iran was not overrun by a terrorist organization. It underwent a revolution against a Western-backed ruthless dictator. It is now run by a theocracy with a weak symbolic parliament and president, but that is far from being a state in the hands of a terrorist organization.

Iran may be a badly-run country which is hostile to the West and our interests. Calling it a terrorist state only does disservice to the English language.


"rambling dissertation" Just see! :roll: Iran's "revolution" was conducted by the noted theocratic islamist terrorists who spent years machinating toward that goal [by terrorizing the iranian nation] - that's a fact.

Iran was a first front in their plans for an islamist revolution - what do you think the islamic revolution is all about?

I would ask you - since hamas are now elected officials - are you going to say that under them - palestine is not operating as a terrorist 'state'?

In your mind you see only 'terrorist organizations' so that is your limited hang-up.

Did you read that noted letter from the president of iran? What do you think of all the threats in that letter? Do you think they are going to renounce their plans for a widespread revolution?

You write:

It underwent a revolution against a Western-backed ruthless dictator

That says to me that you don't really understand the nature of this revolution - you allude to the mistaken idea that the revolution was a natural consequence of or a reaction to "a Western-backed ruthless dictator" - where in fact that isn't the case.

The islamic revolutionaries are not freedom fighters despite all attempts to cast them as such. Look to some real history okay?

You didn't answer - so - what is the answer to all these issues? Any ideas? What can be done to settle all these issues with the 'islamists' and 'the states' who support them [if you prefer that perspective]?
jnarvey





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 47
Reputation: 17.2Reputation: 17.2
Location: Vancouver

PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"rambling dissertation" Just see! Rolling Eyes Iran's "revolution" was conducted by the noted theocratic islamist terrorists who spent years machinating toward that goal [by terrorizing the iranian nation] - that's a fact.


That's odd. I thought the revolution happened because the Shah was putting a good chunk of his people in torture chambers. And it was welcomed by the vast majority of the population, even if the revolution was ultimately subverted by the mullahs... Check your own "facts".

Focusing once again on the topic of this thread (which you seem either unwilling or unable to do), my point stands: launching strikes against Iran would bring little benefit and a lot of problems. Iranian propaganda about spreading their revolution is not a legitimate reason for going to war. Same goes on the nuclear issue.

Have a nice day.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jnarvey wrote:
Quote:
"rambling dissertation" Just see! Rolling Eyes Iran's "revolution" was conducted by the noted theocratic islamist terrorists who spent years machinating toward that goal [by terrorizing the iranian nation] - that's a fact.


That's odd. I thought the revolution happened because the Shah was putting a good chunk of his people in torture chambers. And it was welcomed by the vast majority of the population, even if the revolution was ultimately subverted by the mullahs... Check your own "facts".

Focusing once again on the topic of this thread (which you seem either unwilling or unable to do), my point stands: launching strikes against Iran would bring little benefit and a lot of problems. Iranian propaganda about spreading their revolution is not a legitimate reason for going to war. Same goes on the nuclear issue.

Have a nice day.


The nuclear issue most certainly does... In its current state, possibly not - but that man CANNOT have the bomb..

Everyone dismissed Hitler's musings as propaganda, dismissed him as a madman. I don't think this world actually learned a lesson. the words "lest we forget" are wasted on the western world...

Facists do what they say they are going to do... Ahmadinejad will do what he says.

I'm surprised you can't understand that someone that funds a terrorist organization is no different than the people setting off the bombs...
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jnarvey wrote:
Quote:
"rambling dissertation" Just see! Rolling Eyes Iran's "revolution" was conducted by the noted theocratic islamist terrorists who spent years machinating toward that goal [by terrorizing the iranian nation] - that's a fact.


That's odd. I thought the revolution happened because the Shah was putting a good chunk of his people in torture chambers. And it was welcomed by the vast majority of the population, even if the revolution was ultimately subverted by the mullahs... Check your own "facts".

Focusing once again on the topic of this thread (which you seem either unwilling or unable to do), my point stands: launching strikes against Iran would bring little benefit and a lot of problems. Iranian propaganda about spreading their revolution is not a legitimate reason for going to war. Same goes on the nuclear issue.

Have a nice day.


So - you're avoiding the answers - you didn't answer - again - so - what is the answer to all these issues? Any ideas? What can be done to settle all these issues with the 'islamists' and 'the states' who support them [if you prefer that perspective]?
jnarvey





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 47
Reputation: 17.2Reputation: 17.2
Location: Vancouver

PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"rambling dissertation" Just see!


Let's see. Your post of a little while back came in at 1,198 words. That's about five pages of text, versus my average post of two paragraphs. Yup. That's rambling. I refuse to respond point by point to it, not out of any desire to duck questions, but simply because my time is too valuable to waste.

So, once more, I'll briefly enunciate my points, which you clearly are not reading carefully, since the same questions get asked again and again.

1. War with Iran is not viable. Even if the nuclear issue were worth going to war for, American air power (and what else could possibly be used in the event?) would only set back the Iranian nuclear program by two or three years, according to the Pentagon. This, at a cost of decades of revenge attacks by conventional and terrorist forces emanating from Iran and its surrogates - not to mention an energy crisis and risking the wholesale destruction of Israel in retaliatory strikes down the line.

2. Equating Iran (or any other nation with a terrorist group) not only does a disservice to the English language - it also opens the gate for anyone to accuse the West of being "terrorist states" for their past support of bad people. Anyone remember the IRA (funded mostly by American private citizens), the Contras (funded directly by the CIA) or the Tamil Tigers (Canada let their diaspora community fund their activities for decades before finally closing it up). These are just the most prominent examples. Give it up. If Iran renounces terrorism, it simply stops funding people we consider to be bad guys and continues to operate as a sovereign country. If Al Queda renounces terrorism, it ceases to exist. Clear enough for you?

3. What's the solution? Are you seriously asking me to give a comprehensive solution to the Middle East conflict in a blog post? That's realistic. The solution? All I can tell you is, that's for diplomats, not soldiers, to sort out.

Good day.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Your post of a little while back came in at 1,198 words. That's about five pages of text, versus my average post of two paragraphs. Yup. That's rambling


Reply:

Was it that long? It doesn't seem that long - gee in the cyber-world with no page breaks - a posting can read shorter - in any event - it's not all that long of a posting - did it take you a half an hour to read it? Your posts are an 'average of two paragraphs' - oh well - not my fault if you don't have that much to say. :lol:

Quote:

If Iran renounces terrorism, it simply stops funding people we consider to be bad guys and continues to operate as a sovereign country. If Al Queda renounces terrorism, it ceases to exist. Clear enough for you?

Reply:

Not clear enough for you i think.

On what basis are they going to do that - what shall induce them to renounce terrorism?

Quote:

What's the solution? Are you seriously asking me to give a comprehensive solution to the Middle East conflict in a blog post? That's realistic. The solution? All I can tell you is, that's for diplomats, not soldiers, to sort out.

Reply:

Yes I'm asking you - who said it has to be a comprehensive solution - even some suggestions - of course - you'll have to see in that answer that they are not very likely ever going to renounce terror.

To get at the heart of how to induce an end of the middle east conflicts you must understand the islamist's central agenda of forwarding their islamic revolution.

How shall they renounce that? Is it through negotiations? What's there to talk about now? They wish to dissolve the Israeli state and - 'conquer the world' - as far as possible - so how can negotiations settle that?

The islamist's plans are that they wish to 'secure' the middle east - before moving on - of course - through many different measures - it would appear that they already do control the middle east. Without much counter activity - they also generate and depend on so much anti-western propaganda - especially that which is advanced by those living in the west.

It's all well and good to post that this is this and that is that and yet - offer no ideas on how to settle this - of course in asking this - I'm only asking you to see that confrontations and war are without doubt going to happen and - if we have too many people not understanding the situation with these various players and the adversarial irregular fighting groups - all with a known 'agenda' - then - we have a problem worse than the war - one that shall work against us.

Look to north korea - no one wanted to check them while they were openly manufacturing their nuke - now that they have a nuke - certainly no one shall want to try to check them - so I guess - so-called diplomacy and peace-talks are futile - yet again.

Western Diplomats are not able to work with such people - like the leaders of iran north korea and others too - heck - even cuba is again showing that they're hedging their bets - with the other two! It seems that there may be a few 'bad apples' in central and south america - leaders who are on-side with Iran and North Korea.

Quote:

Equating Iran (or any other nation with a terrorist group) not only does a disservice to the English language - it also opens the gate for anyone to accuse the West of being "terrorist states" for their past support of bad people

Reply:

Oh please - that isn't why these noted states - like Iran - are terrorist states - the fact is - in these places - whether they are theocrats or communists - they terrorize their people and they are working on ways to do the same - to other nations. Giving support to terror groups is just one facet of what they do in their machinations.

In the west we don't see the same absues of the people who do not agree with the state. Sure there are problems - and yes there have been many instances of western nations giving support to dictators in the crazy dipolmacy games of our world - but - that cannot go on much longer either.

If the free nations of the world do not do something about these issues now they shall have little chance of checking all of it later.

So I'm not any great scholarly person and I'm not any professional writer but - I do have good enough sense - to call it like it is...

:roll:

[i hope that this wasn't too long it's about a page and a half - it's only a little more than 602 words - some of them yours too ] :lol:
jnarvey





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 47
Reputation: 17.2Reputation: 17.2
Location: Vancouver

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the disagreement we're having here is over means. I believe that armed force is sometimes necessary. But it must also have a realistic chance of achieving its objectives. I believe both of those conditions were met in Afghanistan in the case of the American intervention and the UN-supported NATO security operations.

Strikes on Iran don't meet both of those conditions. Essentially, doing nothing is better than doing something, if your only option is military force.

Fortunately, military force isn't the only option. With any luck, diplomacy will succeed where armed force is guaranteed to fail.
Buddy Kat





Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 94
Reputation: 24.6Reputation: 24.6
votes: 1
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is no question that Pakistan is keeping it's option open regarding Afghanistan. That is the country that everyone should fear if your worried about terrorism. They have nukes and can easily , well maybe not easily arm terrorists.

The osamaites in that country are a majority and are constanatly trying to bump off the president, once he's gone it's bye bye alright. Can you imagine terrorists with ICBM's . :x

As it is right now the US is playing right into their hands when it comes to anti west support. They are dragging Canada down the drain with them. Wait till they start parading the results of all the DU dumped there. They will then have all the proof needed to backup a full scale attack on the west. Between Pakistan , Iran and N. Korea and there background supporters , russia and China...the future does not look good .

All because of Bush and american exploitation .
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buddy Kat wrote:
...the future does not look good .

All because of Bush and american exploitation .


Not because of Bush and "american exploitation" - it's because of the Islamist agenda!
PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jnarvey wrote:
Quote:
"rambling dissertation" Just see! Rolling Eyes Iran's "revolution" was conducted by the noted theocratic islamist terrorists who spent years machinating toward that goal [by terrorizing the iranian nation] - that's a fact.


That's odd. I thought the revolution happened because the Shah was putting a good chunk of his people in torture chambers. And it was welcomed by the vast majority of the population, even if the revolution was ultimately subverted by the mullahs... Check your own "facts".

Focusing once again on the topic of this thread (which you seem either unwilling or unable to do), my point stands: launching strikes against Iran would bring little benefit and a lot of problems. Iranian propaganda about spreading their revolution is not a legitimate reason for going to war. Same goes on the nuclear issue.

Have a nice day.


those torture chamber stories were made by KGB trained commies in western media.

There was nothing like that under the Shah
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buddy Kat wrote:


As it is right now the US is playing right into their hands when it comes to anti west support. They are dragging Canada down the drain with them. Wait till they start parading the results of all the DU dumped there. They will then have all the proof needed to backup a full scale attack on the west. Between Pakistan , Iran and N. Korea and there background supporters , russia and China...the future does not look good .

All because of Bush and american exploitation .


So at least you can see that the true evil is terrorism, not the west. Glad you clarified that, because you've been seeming more and more like a member of Al-Qaeda every time you post. Your drawing a connection between the Arab states(the guys with all the oil) and China and Russia is very good.. You're starting to see the light. If there's a conspiracy involving oil going on, its not with the US, it's with Russia (oh and those ungrateful french - incidently the two nations feeding the arab states nuclear tech. time and time again, and saving their #$^sses from sanctions time and time again.) Funny enough, they are also the nations who denounced Israel's attack on Lebanon the most.
Coincidence? I think not..

Just consider yourself lucky that you'll have that so called "american exploitation" protecting your sorry ^&@, we all know you with your pacifist ways won't have the balls to.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Canadians reject strike against Iran

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB