Bush wants Irans Revolutionary Guards Declared Terrorists.

FYI

Manic Moran wrote:

Whilst this is true, the one motivation that they have not yet invaded on has been religion, which is the motivation by which the most vicious wars have been fought

Which wars are you talking about?

World War I - the Latter-Day Saints
World War II - in the name of Scientology
Vietnam - Buddists vs. Vegans
The Falkands - Thatcherism
The 1st Gulf War - Televangilism
The 2nd Gulf War - Soccermomism


Wait a sec...who said this:

1) "God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq . . .' And I did."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/iraq/god-told-me-to-invade-says-bush/2005/10/07/1128562952070.html

and who said this:

2) "In the end, there is a judgement that, I think if you have faith about these things, you realise that judgement is made by other people... and if you believe in God, it's made by God as well."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm

Oh and Mick, found any evidence to back up those 'concerns' of yours yet?

Mick86

Liam Byrne wrote:

There's a lot of truth in your posts, Mike, but I think the issue comes down to the fact that you trust the U.S., whereas most people don't; the people who don't trust the U.S. have valid reasons not to, not least the fact that they lied through their teeth in order to brainwash the uninformed into supporting an unjustified invasion of Iraq.

It's a question of who do I trust more, the US or Iran. There is also the fact that this isn't Iran vs the US but Iran vs the rest of the world. The United Nations has said that there are reasons to be gravely concerned about Iran's intentions. So what will your position be if the UN Security Council decides that Iran is arming itself with nukes and votes for military action.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Everything that you say that Iran "might" do is a valid argument, however you seem to have no problem with the fact that the U.S. not only "might" do the same, but have proven time and time again that they "will" do the same..

That depends on what the US is going to do. Toppling homicidal dictators is fine by me. I wouldn't approve of the US bombing the Vatican because the Pope's not a Baptist for instance.

Liam Byrne wrote:

And the same applies to the argument that "because we don't trust them and they might do these things, they shouldn't have nukes"......however you seem to implicity accept this because, well, the U.S. already "have" nukes while Iran are only supposedly/allegedly developing them now...

You've already conceded that there is a point in preventing Iran developing a nuclear arsenal. I would say there is no point in protesting against teh US having one because no power on earth will convince the US to disarm.

Liam Byrne wrote:

In the same way that the U.S. sees Iran as a threat, Iran sees the U.S. as a threat, so are they not entitled to develop a defence ?...

Looked at objectively, Iran is as entitled to develop it's defence as much as any other country. That said of course, I'm not objective.

Liam Byrne wrote:

If it were the other way around (if Iran had nukes but the U.S. didn't) would you as against the idea of the U.S. developing nukes as a deterrent/defence ?

No.

Liam Byrne wrote:

And if not, why not ?

We are closer to Washington than Tehran. Culturally not Geographically.

Liam Byrne wrote:

And if we're sceptical of the U.S., forgive us.?

I quite understand the scepticism. What I fail to understand is the assumption that because the US is on the side of the devil then Iran must be on the side of the angels.

Liam Byrne wrote:

....they seem to invade ONLY based on their criteria and interests,

I believe they invade places out of a sense of altruism.

Liam Byrne wrote:

.... while completely ignoring the countries that we all know well DO have weapons and ARE a threat.

Those countries are inviolate.

Liam Byrne wrote:

.... Your view also seems to be solely based on guesswork and/or prejudice..

Likewise.

Liam Byrne wrote:

.... "Iran might be lying" was how you phrased it. The word "might" also implies a complete validity in the phrase "they might not be lying". And again, how come the U.S. definitely lying does not seem to bother you, but Iran possibly lying does ?

All countries lie. All politicians lie. Even when they tell the truth they are just trying to disguise a lie somewhere. The US lied about WMDs in Iraq. Iran is lying about wanting nuclear power solely for peaceful means. Neither lie bothers me.

Mick86

FYI wrote:

Oh and Mike, found any evidence to back up those 'concerns' of yours yet?

You should have read my earlier posts. UN resolution 1696

Resolution 1696 (2006)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 5500th meeting, on
31 July 2006
The Security Council,
Recalling the Statement of its President, S.......Noting with serious concern that the IAEA Director General’s report of 27 February 2006 (GOV/2006/15) lists a number of outstanding issues and concerns on Iran’s nuclear programme, including topics which could have a military nuclear dimension, and that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared
nuclear materials or activities in Iran,

and 1737

Emphasizing the importance of political and diplomatic efforts to find a negotiated solution guaranteeing that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes, and noting that such a solution would benefit nuclear nonproliferation elsewhere, and welcoming the continuing commitment of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the support of the European Union’s High Representative to seek a negotiated solution,

Determined to give effect to its decisions by adopting appropriate measures to persuade Iran to comply with resolution 1696 (2006) and with the requirements of the IAEA, and also to constrain Iran’s development of sensitive technologies in support of its nuclear and missile programmes, until such time as the Security Council determines that the objectives of this resolution have been met,

Concerned by the proliferation risks presented by the Iranian nuclear programme and, in this context, by Iran’s continuing failure to meet the
requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors and to comply with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006),

mindful of its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Manic Moran

FYI wrote:

Which wars are you talking about?

I said vicious, not famous or recent.

Crusades, War of the Caliphate, Yugoslav Civil War are some of the big ones. Then there's the 30-years-war, Saxon Wars... Though not a war, the Holocaust certainly counts as religiously angled atrocity. Ditto the things the Romans did to the Christians hardly qualified as 'nice' but it was all OK as the Pagan Gods appreciated it. In the late 19th century, machineguns were developed with ammunition based on religion of the target: Ones to be fired at muslims were shaped as cubes, to cause more pain. Israel's issues are heavily religiously affected, it's not just a case of territory. Of that list you gave, the rules of warfare were generally followed. If you can show me how that was applied in Srebenicze, I'll appreciate it. I am at a loss to think of a single atrocity in the entire territorially-motivated Falklands war, possible exception of claims that a British soldier took ears off a dead Argentinian.

NTM

Bubs101

I'd say if this war did happen America would probably lose and Hilldog (Bush will be gone by it's end) will be screwed. Maybe it's a republican masterplan to stop Clinton getting 8 years

gosplan

Mick86 wrote:

Iran vs the US but Iran vs the rest of the world.

No, it's not.

Mick86 wrote:

So what will your position be if the UN Security Council decides that Iran is arming itself with nukes and votes for military action.

Then it will be Iran vrs China;France;Germany;US;Russia;UK. Not 'rest of world.'

Mick86 wrote:

Toppling homicidal dictators is fine by me.

At any cost? Do you think this was their original intention? If so why didn't they say so?

Mick86 wrote:

Looked at objectively, Iran is as entitled to develop it's defence as much as any other country

Yes, particularly if you're dubbed a danger by a unilateraly acting nation. I'm wondering what you think the average Iranian thinks about nuclear weapons.

US supported Shah's regieme. it was toppeled and majority of people went for a theocracy. US blacklists you, invades your neighbour twice, calls you 'evil' and says that military action is a definate option.
Would you want nukes?

Mick86 wrote:

I believe they invade places out of a sense of altruism.

Some example of consistancy as regards this please:D

Why don't they contribute forces to the UN any more?

Mick86 wrote:

The US lied about WMDs in Iraq. Iran is lying about wanting nuclear power solely for peaceful means. Neither lie bothers me.

iran wants Nuclear weapons as a deterrent, it's pretty obvious.

Do you really not have a problem with lying to conceal mass murder for profit?

FYI

Manic Moran wrote:

I said vicious, not famous or recent.

Not vicious?

World War I - 9m
World War II - 60m
Vietnam - 1-5m
The Falkands - 900
The 1st Gulf War - 100,000
The 2nd Gulf War - 1.2m
[conservative figures]

None of these were rose petal related incidents.

FYI

Mick86 wrote:

You should have read my earlier posts. UN resolution 1696

and 1737

Mick, these are +concerns+, not evidence.

Mick86

FYI wrote:

Mick, these are +concerns+, not evidence.

The UN is concerned ergo I am concerned. The UN resolutions are evidence of my concern.

Mick86

gosplan wrote:

No, it's not.

I suggest you read the quotes from the UN resolutions in one of my previous posts.

gosplan wrote:

At any cost? Do you think this was their original intention? If so why didn't they say so?

Why ask me? E-mail the White House.

gosplan wrote:

Yes, particularly if you're dubbed a danger by a unilateraly acting nation.

The US isn't acting unilaterally yet. This is a UN do so far.

gosplan wrote:

US supported Shah's regieme. it was toppeled and majority of people went for a theocracy. US blacklists you, invades your neighbour twice, calls you 'evil' and says that military action is a definate option.
Would you want nukes?

Yep. I would have thought that Iran would be secretly delighted at the removal of Saddam though.

gosplan wrote:

Why don't they contribute forces to the UN any more?

There you go...

The Department of Defense
Office of Public Communication
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs
1400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-1400
Voice Mail: 703.428.0711

They might also tell you why they didn't cite regime change to the Why we are invading Iraq question.

gosplan wrote:

iran wants Nuclear weapons as a deterrent, it's pretty obvious.

Do you think?

gosplan wrote:

Do you really not have a problem with lying to conceal mass murder for profit?

No. I worry about things I can change, not things I can't.

Manic Moran

FYI wrote:

Not vicious?

World War I - 9m
World War II - 60m
Vietnam - 1-5m
The Falkands - 900
The 1st Gulf War - 100,000
The 2nd Gulf War - 1.2m
[conservative figures]

None of these were rose petal related incidents.

Those are simply matters of scale, not content. Can you imagine what the casualties would have been of the Yugoslav Civil War if they retained their policies of mass executions had as large a population as that involved in WWII been involved?

gosplan

Mick86 wrote:

I suggest you read the quotes from the UN resolutions in one of my previous posts.

UN = rest of world???

Mick86 wrote:

The US isn't acting unilaterally yet. This is a UN do so far.

I wasn't talking about in relation to Iran(they did their unilateral gig there a few decades ago). Simply that there's very little restraint on them and they've put Iran on their 'enemies' list. (or at least the 'enemies with little political clout' list)

Mick86 wrote:

There you go...


They might also tell you why they didn't cite regime change to the Why we are invading Iraq question.

So when you say that you believe they 'invade places out of a sense of altruism'...are you basing this on any evidence or is it just personal opinion?

Mick86 wrote:

No. I worry about things I can change, not things I can't.

think you can change the UN?

gosplan

Manic Moran wrote:

All sorts of atrocities have been carried out over the years by most religions, excused by the argument that it's all OK as it's done in the name of God. I would not put nuclear weapons usage outside of that sphere: It becomes a religious weapon, and not a strategic one.

I agree with a lot of what you've said MM but I think you're wrong here. Religions don't carry out atrocities, people do. Take away the religion and they'll just think of a different excuse. Rwanda wasn't religion, Vietnam wasn't religion.
do you think the Spanish conquered America because they actually wanted to convert people. Were the crusades for religion or money?

IMO religion is dumb but in most examples you'll find that it's just used as a means of getting Joe public on board.

The idea of some wars being more vicious is a bit strange as well. Are there non-vicious wars? Was the gassing of the jews religious...or ethnic...or were they just different? Same goes for Turkey and Armenia.

I don't think it's fair to say that Iran is suddenly going to nuke everyone. If anything Pakistan has more hardliners but no-ones worried about them and they already have a bomb. Why aren't we panicking?

Governments(even religious ones) are into self interest. Whether you choose to believe it or not, the Iranian rulers has the interests of their people(and subsequentally themselves) at heart.

they're not going to set off a nuke.

Mick86

gosplan wrote:

UN = rest of world???

Yes

gosplan wrote:

I wasn't talking about in relation to Iran...

Check the thread title

gosplan wrote:

So when you say that you believe they 'invade places out of a sense of altruism'...are you basing this on any evidence or is it just personal opinion?

I knew somebody would take that seriously.:rolleyes:

gosplan wrote:

think you can change the UN?

You think the UN lies to conceal mass murder for profit.

gosplan

Mick86 wrote:

Yes

so if the rest of the world cared about something like say Israel or the situation in Iraq the UN...being the rest of the world would react asap?

hmmmm...

The UN is about the interests of the big few and their economic fan club. It is not, as you think, some form of global liberal democracy.

Mick86 wrote:

Check the thread title

hmm, more constructive argument, especially for a guy who's been discussing the US and tryanical dictators(Iraq) before I got here

Mick86 wrote:

I knew somebody would take that seriously.:rolleyes:

oh? so some of your opinions are genuine and some are taking the p*ss? That livens things up.

Mick86 wrote:

You think the UN lies to conceal mass murder for profit.

No not at all, I just think it's essentially an organisation that's beholden to the security council and essentially powerless to do anything that they don't wish to do.

Is there any specific reason you think that the wealthiest nations should be the one to posess a VETO - a VETO which basically means that legislation encompassing everything from debt relief to foreign intervention to climate change to disarmerment(the original issue) is only adopted on a voluntary basis.

If it's democratic would it not be better to run the security council based on population....get India, Brazil and Indonesia in???


No more smart one-liners please

oscarBravo

gosplan wrote:

No more smart one-liners please

I'll echo that sentiment, but without the big grin.

Liam Byrne

Mick86 wrote:

It's a question of who do I trust more, the US or Iran.....So what will your position be if the UN Security Council decides that Iran is arming itself with nukes and votes for military action.

If the UN Security Council "decides", it's dodgy.....if it finds proof, then it's fine by me.

Mick86 wrote:

That depends on what the US is going to do. Toppling homicidal dictators is fine by me. I wouldn't approve of the US bombing the Vatican because the Pope's not a Baptist for instance.

Toppling a homicidal dictator or a terrorist is fine by me too, but there are 2 other considerations: one, if it's such a noble thing to do, whoever's doing it should stand up and say that that's what they're doing, and two, the cost of doing so, in terms of human life, should be a factor. You earlier said that if the deaths of hundreds saved millions, then that was OK with you; likewise, if allowing Saddam to live (or if capturing him properly, without invading) had saved the thousands whose deaths have been triggered by U.S. actions, that should also be OK.

You've already conceded that there is a point in preventing Iran developing a nuclear arsenal. I would say there is no point in protesting against teh US having one because no power on earth will convince the US to disarm.

I agreed that NO-ONE should have nuclear weapons, and therefore no-one should be allowed develop new ones; I don't agree that this forgives a hypocritical stance on the subject, plus there is no PROOF that Iran is doing so.

Looked at objectively, Iran is as entitled to develop it's defence as much as any other country. That said of course, I'm not objective.

Based on your posts, saying out that you're not objective and not interested in facts is almost a given at this stage.

We are closer to Washington than Tehran. Culturally not Geographically.

That's a matter of opinion......unless you include the former IRA terrorists who reckoned that killing innocent people was fine as long as it achieved their aims.

I quite understand the scepticism. What I fail to understand is the assumption that because the US is on the side of the devil then Iran must be on the side of the angels.

I would fail to understand that either, and I honestly have not seen anyone post anything that suggests that. If the U.S. did not have a proven track record of interfering and causing wars, then the level of scepticism toward both would be equal. But the fact is that the U.S. has more to answer for than Iran, so Iran gets the edge here based on that.....once it's PROVEN that they are up to something, that edge should disappear.....HOWEVER, it has been long proven that the U.S. is "up to something" but no-one has queried that.....

All I'm saying is, treat like with like. Neither country should have nuclear weapons, and neither country should be allowed to invade others on a lying whim.....that said, BOTH should be entitled to take action to defend themselves from threats.

I believe they invade places out of a sense of altruism.

If they did, they wouldn't need to lie about it.

Likewise.

Bull****. I'll tolerate debate and discussion, but I will not accept it when someone tells me that the facts and opinions that I've quoted on this thread are based on guesswork and prejudice (which is what the glib "Likewise" above referred to). You can fire off whatever opinions you have on Iran and Iraq, but do not accuse me of prejudice and guesswork, particularly when you are not prepared to enter a meaningful discussion on any of the facts and figures which I've repeatedly posted.

You stated that "Iran is lying"; I stated that the U.S. lied - FACT

You stated that there were more Muslim terrorists than Christian terrorists, and yet in a later post you admitted that there were no statistics relating to the religion of terrorists :rolleyes:

I pointed out that people are currently dying because of the U.S, and your answer was "They aren't your people"

You said "Islamophobia is based on Islamic terrorists attacking New York, London, Glasgow and Madrid. And they apparently planned an attack in Germany last week. On that basis why should we trust any Muslim, anywhere.". If we take that to the logical conclusion, the U.S. invaded Iraq based on lies - on that basis why should we trust any American, anywhere ? Because not all Americans are psychos.......and the fact that I can admit that proves that you have WAY more prejudice against Islamics than I might be perceived to have against Americans.

You confusingly said further back that the 9/11 terrorists started the war, but later admit that it was purely revenge and had nothing to do with 9/11.

When you posted an opinion masquerading as a "sad fact" - that most terrorists were Muslims - I asked you if there was any chance of a supporting reference, and you said "No". Then, the one slightly opinionated (yet still informed) quote that I did make, that "most Americans were against the war", led you to ask if I'd surveyed most Americans.....odd that you'd think of that, since you hadn't bothered to survey most terrorists to see if they were Muslim.... :rolleyes:

And while you also tried to imply that I said things that I didn't, in order to make it appear that I was being less than objective, unfortunately for you those misrepresentations didn't work.

The US lied about WMDs in Iraq.

Wahey, another actual FACT.....but unfortunately it's followed by.....

Iran is lying about wanting nuclear power solely for peaceful means.

If you know this, then go tell the UN....then we can move onto the next stage which is determining whether or not they are merely defending themselves. But at least we won't be arguing the main point on this board, because the whole argument is that THERE IS NO PROOF.

Since you state this as fact - "Iran is lying" please fill us in on how you KNOW (and not why you think/presume/guess) and we can put this discussion to rest - to be honest it's getting tiresome because so many of your opinions are off the scale and ignoring factual evidence; if you accepted the factual evidence and toned down the opinions based on the facts, you might make more progress on the valid concerns and opinions, but since most of the opinions are immediately discountable as prejudices by simply checking known facts, it dilutes the argument and impact of anything else that you're saying.

That said (and based on a post you submitted a while back) I'm beginning to think that those are not really your opinons - that you're simply ****-stirring because to paraphrase, you said "boards are not for facts but to allow people who have nothing better to do to post opinions"....

edanto

+1 ( in the interests of concision and not post count!)

Mick86

Liam Byrne wrote:

If the UN Security Council "decides", it's dodgy.....if it finds proof, then it's fine by me.

I assume the the SC will decide on the basis of proof or lack of same supplied by the IAEA.

Liam Byrne wrote:

I agreed that NO-ONE should have nuclear weapons, and therefore no-one should be allowed develop new ones; I don't agree that this forgives a hypocritical stance on the subject, plus there is no PROOF that Iran is doing so.

OK. Good luck in convincing the nuclear powers to uninvent the bomb.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Based on your posts, saying out that you're not objective and not interested in facts is almost a given at this stage..

I am interested in facts. I'm just not interested in viewing Iran objectively.

Liam Byrne wrote:

That's a matter of opinion......unless you include the former IRA terrorists who reckoned that killing innocent people was fine as long as it achieved their aims.

There are 41 million Americans who claim Irish descent. There are probably 41 Hiberno-Iranians.

Liam Byrne wrote:

I would fail to understand that either, and I honestly have not seen anyone post anything that suggests that.

Really? You consistently work on the premise that the US is always wrong and it's enemies always right.

Liam Byrne wrote:

HOWEVER, it has been long proven that the U.S. is "up to something" but no-one has queried that.....

Great. What exactly is the US up to and what's the proof?

Liam Byrne wrote:

All I'm saying is, treat like with like. Neither country should have nuclear weapons, and neither country should be allowed to invade others on a lying whim.....that said, BOTH should be entitled to take action to defend themselves from threats......

Seems fair to me.

Liam Byrne wrote:

If they did, they wouldn't need to lie about it.......

I was being sarcastic.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Bull****. I'll tolerate debate and discussion, but I will not accept it when someone tells me that the facts and opinions that I've quoted on this thread are based on guesswork and prejudice

You'll have to learn to deal with it.

Liam Byrne wrote:

particularly when you are not prepared to enter a meaningful discussion on any of the facts and figures which I've repeatedly posted.

You can produce a fact or a statistic to back up any argument. You choose to believe those that suit you and ignore those that don't.

Liam Byrne wrote:

You stated that "Iran is lying"; I stated that the U.S. lied - FACT.

So you keep saying and as I in turn keep saying-Politicians Lie. Big deal, get over it.

Liam Byrne wrote:

You stated that there were more Muslim terrorists than Christian terrorists, and yet in a later post you admitted that there were no statistics relating to the religion of terrorists :rolleyes:.

Done that one Liam. You are becoming boring and repetitive again.

Liam Byrne wrote:

I pointed out that people are currently dying because of the U.S, and your answer was "They aren't your people"

You said "Islamophobia is based on Islamic terrorists attacking New York, London, Glasgow and Madrid. And they apparently planned an attack in Germany last week. On that basis why should we trust any Muslim, anywhere.". If we take that to the logical conclusion, the U.S. invaded Iraq based on lies - on that basis why should we trust any American, anywhere ? Because not all Americans are psychos.......and the fact that I can admit that proves that you have WAY more prejudice against Islamics than I might be perceived to have against Americans.

You confusingly said further back that the 9/11 terrorists started the war, but later admit that it was purely revenge and had nothing to do with 9/11.

When you posted an opinion masquerading as a "sad fact" - that most terrorists were Muslims - I asked you if there was any chance of a supporting reference, and you said "No". Then, the one slightly opinionated (yet still informed) quote that I did make, that "most Americans were against the war", led you to ask if I'd surveyed most Americans.....odd that you'd think of that, since you hadn't bothered to survey most terrorists to see if they were Muslim.... :rolleyes:

And while you also tried to imply that I said things that I didn't, in order to make it appear that I was being less than objective, unfortunately for you those misrepresentations didn't work.



Wahey, another actual FACT.....but unfortunately it's followed by.....



If you know this, then go tell the UN....then we can move onto the next stage which is determining whether or not they are merely defending themselves. But at least we won't be arguing the main point on this board, because the whole argument is that THERE IS NO PROOF.

Since you state this as fact - "Iran is lying" please fill us in on how you KNOW (and not why you think/presume/guess) and we can put this discussion to rest - to be honest it's getting tiresome because so many of your opinions are off the scale and ignoring factual evidence; if you accepted the factual evidence and toned down the opinions based on the facts, you might make more progress on the valid concerns and opinions, but since most of the opinions are immediately discountable as prejudices by simply checking known facts, it dilutes the argument and impact of anything else that you're saying.

That said (and based on a post you submitted a while back) I'm beginning to think that those are not really your opinons - that you're simply ****-stirring because to paraphrase, you said "boards are not for facts but to allow people who have nothing better to do to post opinions"....

I just lost interest again. Try posting something short, concise, new, less hysterical and relevant to the current discussion.

FYI

For Liam.

Mick is not bothered with 'facts', they simply get in the way of him spouting unsubstantiated waffle.

Via Europol:

"Only 0.2% of all "terrorism" in Europe (in 2006) was "Islamist"

Page 15 - Figure 1

http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/EU_Terrorism_Situation_and_Trend_Report_TE-SAT/TESAT2007.pdf

noted by:

http://www.mediasceptic.org/blog.htm

gosplan

Mick86 wrote:

I am interested in facts. I'm just not interested in viewing Iran objectively.

are you sure you know what objectively means? (i.e. basing your opinion on facts)


After a day I'm pretty much finished with all of this now.

Mick86: you pretty much spout juvenile rubbish based on a very niave impression of how the world works. Your statments don't even stand up against themselvesand when countered with anything resembling a coherent argument you resort 'deal with it', 'I was joking/being scarastic' or 'you're boring me'.

To be honest I'd guess that you're pretty young but have developed an interest in politics. You probably don't agree with me now but if you keep reading (try some books, not news sites) and actually learning things then some day you'lll see what I mean.

Apart from that it's all very pointless. Anyone can not conceed a debate by resorting to stupid quips.

oscarBravo

Mick86 wrote:

Done that one Liam. You are becoming boring and repetitive again.

And you are getting personal, as well as starting to look like a borderline troll.

gosplan, you're in danger of getting personal too.

Unless this thread turns into an interesting discussion pretty soon, it's going to be locked.

Liam Byrne

Mick86 wrote:

You can produce a fact or a statistic to back up any argument.

Can you ? You couldn't find one earlier to back up your claim about the number of Islamic terrorists....

Mick86 wrote:

Done that one Liam. You are becoming boring and repetitive again.

Could be true, but only because you're ignoring facts and figures and quoting your opinion as fact instead. Maybe repeating the facts won't stop you from doing this, so I'll stop.

Mick86 wrote:

I just lost interest again. Try posting something short, concise, new, less hysterical and relevant to the current discussion.

Apart from the 100% relevance (and I haven't a notion where you got the hysterical) I'll make a deal with you; you quote something factual and relevant and we'll discuss it. The reason my posts are long is because of the inconsistencies and lack of facts in your posts; remove those and I'll have less to post about.

Funny, though - as pointed out by others Mick tends to "lose interest" or claim sarcasm and irony when there's a point in a post that he cannot counter.

My ONLY views on the actual original topic were:

(a) Bush uses the word terrorist against anyone who disagrees with him, while other countries could validly view him as one
(b) There is no actual proof that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme, and given the lies about Iraqs WMDs we should tread carefully
(c) There are many more dangerous countries who DO have weapons, but Bush is OK with that, so there's probably a separate agenda causing him to choose Iran over them
(d) Iran is entitled to defend itself against an invasion by America
(e) Everyone should be treated equally and fairly - unless they have done something bad; that shouldn't matter whether they're American, Islam, Irish or anywhere else

Anything else that came up during the course of the discussion - like Mick86's false claims about those "nasty Islamic people" :rolleyes: - were sideline opinions which have nearly all been proven false; Mick disagrees, but since he's already indicated that he's not interested in facts or in being objective, there's little point in trying to change his mind or clarify matters.....

So bearing that in mind, lets forget the sideshow and stick to discussing the original topic - quoting facts and having them ignored is tiresome - which, as far as I see it, is based on the above 5 discussion points (maybe more - feel free to add, and bear in mind that the ones above are phrased as my view but are actual discussion points - there could be degrees of truth in each, or you might disagree completely)

And if the U.N. *DOES* decide that there's truth in the rumours, where do we go then ? Do we try something completely different to Iraq, in order to avoid a repeat of the carnage and fiasco there ? Or do we do the same thing and cross our fingers for a different result ?

Mick86

gosplan wrote:

are you sure you know what objectively means? (i.e. basing your opinion on facts)

gosplan wrote:

Mick86: you pretty much spout juvenile rubbish based on a very niave impression of how the world works.

I think I'm pretty streetwise.

gosplan wrote:

To be honest I'd guess that you're pretty young but have developed an interest in politics.

I'm 46 and have lost interest in politics.

Mick86

FYI wrote:

Via Europol:

"Only 0.2% of all "terrorism" in Europe (in 2006) was "Islamist"

Page 15 - Figure 1

Half of all the terrorism arrests were related to Islamist terrorism.

Page 5

Mick86

Try reading the thread...

Liam Byrne wrote:

My ONLY views on the actual original topic were:

(a) Bush uses the word terrorist against anyone who disagrees with him, while other countries could validly view him as one

Mick86 wrote:

… America is a nation. It's leaders are mandated democratically by it's people to go to war. People who plant bombs on trains are terrorists they don't bother looking for a mandate.

Liam Byrne wrote:

(b) There is no actual proof that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme, and given the lies about Iraqs WMDs we should tread carefully

Mick86 wrote:

… Resolution 1696 (2006)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 5500th meeting, on
31 July 2006
The Security Council,
Recalling the Statement of its President, S.......Noting with serious concern that the IAEA Director General’s report of 27 February 2006 (GOV/2006/15) lists a number of outstanding issues and concerns on Iran’s nuclear programme, including topics which could have a military nuclear dimension, and that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,

Mick86 wrote:

… Emphasizing the importance of political and diplomatic efforts to find a negotiated solution guaranteeing that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes, and noting that such a solution would benefit nuclear nonproliferation elsewhere, and welcoming the continuing commitment of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the support of the European Union’s High Representative to seek a negotiated solution,

Determined to give effect to its decisions by adopting appropriate measures to persuade Iran to comply with resolution 1696 (2006) and with the requirements of the IAEA, and also to constrain Iran’s development of sensitive technologies in support of its nuclear and missile programmes, until such time as the Security Council determines that the objectives of this resolution have been met,

Concerned by the proliferation risks presented by the Iranian nuclear programme and, in this context, by Iran’s continuing failure to meet the
requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors and to comply with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006),

mindful of its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

I concede that this doesn’t constitute actual proof but if the UN is so concerned about Iranian nukes then I think there might be something to be concerned about.

Liam Byrne wrote:

(c) There are many more dangerous countries who DO have weapons, but Bush is OK with that….

Mick86 wrote:

… It would be great if we could uninvent nuclear weapons but we can't. Anybody with nukes is not going to disarm so objecting to them having nuclear weapons is a pointless exercise.
Next best thing is to try and limit the number of countries with them.

Liam Byrne wrote:

….so there's probably a separate agenda causing him to choose Iran over them

Mick86 wrote:

… Of course, the US also wants to strike back for the Hostage Crisis humiliation and for Iran backing insurgents in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

Liam Byrne wrote:

(d) Iran is entitled to defend itself against an invasion by America

Liam Byrne wrote:

(e) Everyone should be treated equally and fairly - unless they have done something bad; that shouldn't matter whether they're American, Islam, Irish or anywhere else

Mick86 wrote:

… Looked at objectively, Iran is as entitled to develop it's defence as much as any other country. That said of course, I'm not objective.

FYI

Mick86 wrote:

Page 5

Well at least your doing some research now.

The number of arrests doesn't tell us anything too concrete. If you look at pg16, the number of convictions and acquittals, it complicates the interpretation, as Spain had the highest by a huge margin indicating mainly separatist terrorism.

Mick86

FYI wrote:

Well at least your doing some research now.

Like I said you can produce a statistic to back up anything.

gosplan

Mick86 wrote:

The UN is concerned ergo I am concerned. The UN resolutions are evidence of my concern.

Mick86 wrote:

I'm 46 and have lost interest in politics.

?

FYI

Mick86 wrote:

Like I said you can produce a statistic to back up anything.

Here's an anecdote you'd like Mick:

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=4n-UGQcG3Jw&mode=related&search=