DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on February 14, 2008, 03:03:46 PM
-
Hezbollah's Nasrallah: "If Israel wants open war, so be it"
Yeah sure buddy, like it's not already? As rockets rain down on Israel every day. ::)
(http://davidbkenner.com/nasrallah_265x336.jpg)
Hassan Nasrallah Terrorist CEO
-
<<Yeah sure buddy, like it's not already? As rockets rain down on Israel every day. >>
Those are little rockets and they don't hurt anybody. If Israel wants war, they can expect bigger rockets. On more cities. But I don't think now is the time.
-
>>They are little rockets and they don't hurt anybody<<
Moron ...
8 civilians, 4 soldiers killed
VIDEO - Israel on Thursday suffered the heaviest human losses since fighting broke out with Hizbullah 23 days ago as eight civilians were killed in rocket attacks and four soldiers were killed in clashes with Hizbullah terrorists in southern Lebanon.
Fallen Soldiers
Family members of Itamar Tsur and Andrei Brudner are told bitter news, describe fallen soldiers
Three soldiers were killed in an anti-tank missile attack on their Merkava tank. Another soldier was killed by a missile fired at troops in the southern Lebanese village of al-Taybeh.
The civilian casualties have been identified as: Sinati Sinati, 21, Amir Naeem, 18, Muhammad Faour, 1,7 of Tarshiha, Shimon Zaribi, 44, his 15 year-old daughter Mazal and Albert Ben-Abu, 41, Ariyeh Tamam, 51, and his brother Tiran, 39, of Akko.
The fallen soldiers were identified as: Sergeant Itamar Tsur, 19, of Beer Tuvia, Sergeant Andrei Brudner 18, of Rishon Letzion, Sergeant Alon Fintuch, 19, of Kiryat Yam, and Sergeant Yonatan Sharabi, 19.
Hizbullah fired 160 rockets at northern Israel on Thursday.
The Nahariya hospital received five seriously injured people, two who were moderately wounded in the rocket attacks, and 21 people lightly injured; 32 people suffered from shock. Two of the moderately and seriously injured are a seven year-old child, and an 18 year-old youth. A two year-old infant is lightly injured.
There are two other wounded people, one critically injured, and the second wounded, who were airlifted to the Rambam hospital in Haifa.
Israel Police and Magen David Adom emergency services reported that four people, including a man and his daughter, were killed in Akko after they left their shelter following the first barrage. Three farmers were killed in the Maalot-Tarshiha area while lying on the ground.
The heavy barrage began shortly after 4 p.m. and continued until the evening hours. Some 160 rockets were fired at Israel on Thursday; 40-50 were fired during the deadly afternoon barrage.
Initial reports said those killed in Akko left their shelter after the first barrage on the city to view the rocket landing sites and were then struck by shrapnel from another rocket salvo.
A number of people traveling in their cars nearby were injured from the blast, and a one car was set ablaze.
Paramedic Yuval Sabag of Akko said ?we rushed to the second rocket landing site, but there was nothing we could do for the three people who were killed. We began to evacuate the wounded; one of them died on the way to the hospital.?
The farmers were apparently killed while lying on the ground when a rocket landed on a road connecting Maalot to a nearby moshav.
A senior police officer said, ?The three made their way from the Maalot area and parked their car on the side of the road. They were on their way to work when suddenly a Katyusha rocket landed just dozens of meters from them. They continued driving and then another rocket landed, directly strking them; additional rocket landings in the Maalot area caused a number of brushfires.?
Hatib, a resident on a village near Maalot, spotted the three farmers just moments after the rockets landed.
?On the road leading to Maalot I noticed a car parked on the side of the road with its engine turned off,? he said. ?I stopped and saw the three people covered with soot. I summoned local police, and a few moments later I was told that they were dead
More rockets fell on Tiberias, Carmiel and Kiryat Shmona; sirens were heard in Haifa and the Krayot area.
Since the fighting in Lebanon began some 2,300 rockets landed on northern communities and surrounding areas.
Overnight Thursday Hizbullah fired a rocket salvo at Maalot around 1:30 a.m. In the early morning hours, three more barrages pounded northern Israel : Two hit the Upper Galilee and a third landed in Ma'alot.
Roughly an hour after the rockets hit the North, witnesses said the IDF renewed air strikes on Beirut. According to the report, air craft fired at least four missiles towards the city?s Shiite neighborhood of Dahiya, which is considered a Hizbullah stronghold. No casualties were reported.
At 1:30 a.m. air raid sirens were heard in Carmiel and western Galilee communities, and residents were called to enter bomb shelters and protected rooms. Shortly afterwards, two rockets hit a community next to Maalot. One rocket directly hit a house, causing damages, and the second landed in the yard of another home.
A number of people suffered shock and were treated by emergency Magen David Adom crews. Police and firefighters also arrived on the scene and helped treat the wounded.
Thursday morning seven rockets were fired at Kiryat Shmona. They exploded in open areas without causing damage.
Thursday afternoon, Col. Yechiel Kuperstein, who heads the Protection Department in the IDF Home Front Command, presented statistics regarding hits on the home front.
According to estimates, the number of casualties who heard warning sirens was lower than of those who did not hear them. "Most of the injuries resulted from shock wave and shrapnel. When hit outside, most casualties are men. When hit indoors, most casualties are women, many of them suffering from shock," Kuperstein said.
-
Those are little rockets and they don't hurt anybody.
Oh since they are little rockets those don't count. ::)
Little or big rockets, it would stop tomorrow if I was in charge.
If Israel wants war, they can expect bigger rockets. On more cities.
But I don't think now is the time.
Yeah I would not advise your terror buddies to launch bigger rockets into Israel right now.
Although I kind of wish they would because that would settle it once and for all.
The IslamoNazis in Tehran know if they launch heavy rocketry upon Israel Tehran will cease to exist.
Those bearded 13th century thugs would have a country that looked like it was in the 13th century.
It will happen. Thats the only thing they understand.
The sooner the better.
-
Michael Tee has nothing to do with the rocketeers in Gaza. He does not give them advice.
Israel could invade Gaza and perhaps kill a few of them, but the rockets would return in a week or so, even if the brave Professor and Richiepoo were to personally supervise the invasion.
Israel's best move would be to move their people out of range. I imagine that they don't do this, because they like the possibility of claiming martyrdom. Martyrdom is a big deal in that part of the world. It proves nothing, but it always gets the headlines, and gives Richie something else to do when Rush is off the air.
Nasrallah is a posturing jerk. He can't fight an open war and everyone knows this.
-
Brilliant analysis BO.
::)
The terrorists could use a guy like you. Maybe they already do.
-
<<Moron ...
<<8 civilians, 4 soldiers killed
<<VIDEO - Israel on Thursday suffered the heaviest human losses since fighting broke out with Hizbullah 23 days ago as eight civilians were killed in rocket attacks and four soldiers were killed in clashes with Hizbullah terrorists in southern Lebanon.>>
DIPSHIT - You are referring to old news - - rockets fired in retaliation for a land invasion. I was of course referring to CU4's complaints about "rockets raining down on Israel every day" - - the current rocket attacks are relatively harmless and I stand by those remarks.
Your sleazy little trick of providing a two-year-old story from a shooting war and trying to pass it off as current events by snipping the date and leaving only the "Thursday" reference is on a par with all the lies and bullshit of the Israeli propaganda mill that you so obviously are a part of. Nice try. Too bad that fewer and fewer people are suckered in by your lies and bullshit any more, but I guess old habits are hard to break, eh?
-
Still a moron.
Timeline of attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks)
2004
June 28, 2004
Mordechai Yosepov, 49, and Afik Zahavi, 4, were killed when a Qassam rocket fired by Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip struck near a nursery school in the northern Negev town of Sderot.[3]
September 29, 2004
On the eve of the Sukkot holiday, Yuval Abebeh, 4, and Dorit Benisian, 2, were killed by a Qassam rocket fired from Gaza into Sderot. About 30 people were wounded in the attack, for which Hamas claimed responsibility.[4]
2005
January 15, 2005
A Qassam rocket attack on Sderot left Ayala (Ella) Abukasis brain dead, as she was hurt while shielding her younger brother. She died on January 21.[5]
June 7, 2005
Salah Ayash Imran, 57, Muhammed Mahmoud Jaroun, and Bi Shude, 46, were killed, and five other workers were wounded, when a Qassam rocket hit a packing shed in Ganei Tal, in the Gaza Strip. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.[6]
July 14, 2005
Dana Galkowicz, 22, was killed in a Qassam attack in the Kibbutz Netiv Ha'asara, just north of the Gaza Strip. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah all claimed responsibility for the attack.[7]
September 24, 2005
Five Israelis were injured when Palestinian militants launched about 30 rockets on Israeli communities from the Gaza Strip. This attack followed an incident the previous day, in which 20 Palestinians, including 16 civilians, were killed when a vehicle carrying Qassam rockets exploded during a Hamas rally in Jabalya. The exact circumstances surrounding the incident are still unknown. To date, no evidence has been found to substantiate Hamas? claim that Israeli interference was responsible for the accident.[8]
December, 2005
A Qassam rocket launched from the West Bank hit near the moshav of Ram-on, near the northern town of Afula.
December 26, 2005
A Qassam rocket landed at a very small distance from a kindergarten during a Hanukkah party at kibbutz Sa'ad.[9]
2006
February 3, 2006
A Qassam rocket struck a family's house in the western Negev village of Kibbutz Karmiya, moderately injuring four people, including a 7-month-old baby.[10]
March 30, 2006
Two Qassam rockets landed in Kibbutz Karmiya, south of Ashkelon, one of them landed in a soccer field, where children played only hours earlier, and injured one person.[citation needed]
June 11, 2006
Three people are wounded, one critically when a Qassam landed near the Sapir Academic College near the Negev town of Sderot.[citation needed] 14 Qassams are fired throughout the day.[11]
July 5, 2006
First Qassam rocket of increased strength is fired into the school yard in the Southern Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon, with a population of 120,000. This was the first instance of an increased distance Qassam rockets can reach and the first time a significantly large city has been attacked. No one was injured in this attack.[citation needed]
July 6, 2006
A second Qassam was fired and hit Ashkelon 24 hours after the first. Eight people went into shock, four of them children.[citation needed]
September 20, 2006
Two teenage Israeli Arab shepherds were moderately wounded by two Qassam rockets fired from Gaza.[12]
September 21, 2006
A rocket hit HaNegev College, damaging a classroom.[citation needed]
November 15, 2006
Twelve rockets in four separate attacks hit Sderot, killing Faina Slutzker, 57, and seriously wounding two others. One of the wounded, Maor Peretz, a security guard, lost both legs in the attack.[citation needed]
November 21, 2006
Yaakov Yaakobov, 43, is killed by an Qassam rocket in Sderot. Witnesses said the Qassam rockets of the last weeks could carry more explosives, making them deadlier.[citation needed]
2007
May 16, 2007
Over thirty rockets were launched at the Israeli town of Sderot, seriously wounding one woman. The attack came after at least 15 Palestinians were killed during an internal feud between Hamas and Fatah within the Gaza strip. Israeli papers speculated that these attacks were aimed at prompting Israeli intervention in order to unite the warring Palestinian factions.[citation needed]
May 21, 2007
Shir-El Feldman, 32, killed and two others wounded in Qassam rocket strike on Sderot.[13]
May 27, 2007
Oshri Oz, 36, killed when a Qassam rocket struck near his car and fatally wounded him. [14]
May 29, 2007
Seventeen Qassams strike the Negev, with three landing in Sderot. The Popular Resistance Committees and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attacks. [15]
June 18, 2007
A Qassam rocket fired from Gaza struck a factory, containing hazardous materials, in Sderot. The attack resulted in a leak of gaseous caustic soda and prompted the response of police, fire-fighting forces, and teams specialized in dealing with hazardous materials who sealed the leak and removed the poisonous materials. [16]
June 20, 2007
Nine Qassam rockets struck the western Negev injuring three with shrapnel and causing shock in at least seven reported cases. In Sderot, rockets damaged two homes and a synagogue. Two of the rockets struck near Kibbutz Nir Am injuring no one but causing a power outage in the area by damaging a high-tension wire. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for four of the rockets. [17]
July 8, 2007
Five Qassam rockets struck the Western Negev with three striking near Sapir College. The attack did not result in any reported casualties and caused damage to a building undergoing construction. The al-Quds Brigades, the armed wing of Islamic Jihad, claimed responsibility for the attack. [18]
July 19, 2007
Four Qassam rockets struck southern Israel, damaging several buildings and causing five people to suffer from shock -- one of whom required hospitalization. [19]
August 22, 2007
A Qassam rocket landed in Sderot late in the evening, causing no reported damage or casualties.[20]
August 23, 2007
Eight Qassam rockets hit in the Negev. Two landing in Sderot caused minor injuries, anxiety, and damage to a house. [21]
September 3, 2007
Seven Qassam rockets hit in the Negev. One landed in the courtyard of a Sderot day-care center, damaging a building and causing shock to twelve people, including some infants. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.[22]
September 11, 2007
Qassam rockets fired from Beit Hanun struck the Zikim military base, a basic training camp for the IDF, resulting in at least 66 wounded, with at least 10 moderately to seriously[23]. The attack harmed both male and female soldiers. Nasr Salah al-Din Brigades and Islamic Jihad both claimed responsibility for the attacks. [24][25]
October 23, 2007
At least ten Qassam rockets were fired at Israel; five struck Sderot, with one hitting an apartment building. The Salah al-Din Brigades claimed responsibility.[26]
2008
January 9, 2008
At least ten Qassam rockets and twelve mortar shells were fired into Israel. Two of the twelve Qassam rockets "directly struck houses" in Sderot.[27]
January 10, 2008
At least one Qassam rocket was fired into Israel hitting a kibbutz in the western Negev about "100 meters from the cafeteria."[27]
January 15-January 18, 2008
More than 120 Qassam-rockets and 65 mortars were fired towards the Western Negev, in a 72-hour period. The attacks injured more than 8 Israelis, and two of the rockets struck near a kindergarten, which was full of children at the time of the attack.[28][29]
-
Got it. All of two people killed by rockets in all of 2007, none to date this year. Oh and lots of "nervous shock" and "anxiety." Zoloft sales musta gone through the roof.
More or less as I said in the first place.
Dipshit.
-
Hey asshole, this is what you said:
Those are little rockets and they don't hurt anybody.
Do you even remember what you say, or does the mania make things a bit fuzzy?
-
It should have been obvious even to a moron like you that I was not speaking literally when I said "not hurting anybody." That was my way of saying the things were pretty harmless. As borne out by the actual casualty figures. Even a moron would have understood that the thing COULD be fatal to anyone unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A claim that a rocket is harmless doesn't mean it won't do serious damage if it lands on your head. How stupid are you, anyway? Did you really not understand that, or is this more posturing and point-scoring on your part?
-
Israel's best move would be to move their people out of range.
Wuld this really work?
How far is enough?
-
<<Wuld this really work?>>
Of course not. They've already got longer range rockets they just aren't using for the moment. Eventually they'll all have rockets that can hit anywhere in Israel. You might as well say they should all move into permanent underground bunkers.
<<How far is enough?>>
Brooklyn. I think for now they'd be safe if they all moved back to Brooklyn.
-
>>That was my way of saying the things were pretty harmless.<<
Pretty harmless ... unless they kill or maim you.
Get help.
-
Of course not. They've already got longer range rockets they just aren't using for the moment. Eventually they'll all have rockets that can hit anywhere in Israel. You might as well say they should all move into permanent underground bunkers.
============================
They SAY they have longer range rockets they aren't using. Why would they not use them if they had them?
Neither Hamas nor the Israelis can be trusted to tell the truth. They all lie like rugs. Exaggeration is the essence of Middle Eastern narrative, and always has been.
In their minds, they have thermonuclear weapons, of course. n their minds, they have the destruction of the White House from ID4 running in a continuous loop, perhaps. But it's all fiction.
The rockets they have are basically simple toys which are impossible to aim with any degree of accuracy. They don't have the expertise or the materials to build anything else. They would love to be dangerous, but basically, they are mere pests. The Israelis want to beg more money off the US, so they inflate this into something serious. Every word of the schmucks on both side of his rocket crap deserves to be ignored.
-
<<They SAY they have longer range rockets they aren't using. Why would they not use them if they had them?>>
No, these are rockets they already used in the 2006 fighting. Remember, they hit Haifa from Lebanon?
Why don't they use them now? Rules of the game. At this point they're just lightly harassing the Israelis and the Israelis are making their usual noises of victimization, killing a few Palestinians in "reprisal" attacks and showing the world how "forbearing" they are. It's more like a public relations exercise for them both -- Nasrallah can impress the homeboys and the Israelis get to play the injured victim, a role they really excel at.
When the shit hits the fan, Hezbollah will roll out the BIG rockets and I'm betting they'll be bigger than in 2006.
-
When the shit hits the fan, Hezbollah will roll out the BIG rockets and I'm betting
they'll be bigger than in 2006.
Man I hope you're right Michael.
Please, please, please, please, please let that be true.
(but I don't think Iran/Syria/Naz have the balls. They'd rather play proxy games)
I hope Hezbollah does roll out the BIG rockets so the "game players" will be
silenced and Israel can launch it's full force against Syria/Iran/Hezbollah.
Even better would be if Iran tried to invade.
Boy that would be the bestest of the best.
It is time to finally settle it once and for all instead of the little games you speak of.
Plus now is preferable to a year, 2-3 years from now when the IslamoNazis in Tehran have a nuke or two.
Now is the time.
-
I agree, to no one's surprise, with CU4. Isreal blinked in Lebanon. Too bad for them. Perhaps they will not be so enamored of global public opinon and get the job done this time. We'll see..
-
XO is right. Nasrallah is merely posturing.
Not only does Hezbollah not have the capability to fight a major war, they have no need to do so. The IRA and Iraq are the models to go by when fighting a military with the capabilities of Israel or the United States. It isn't a matter of "having the balls" but a matter of having the brains. None of those groups can last any length of time fighting a superior military force like the U.S. or Israel. They are completely one dimensional and even lack basic mechanized infantry. The only alternative is guerilla warfare and it has proven to be very costly as Israel discovered in Lebanon and the U.S. rediscovered in Iraq.
It takes a lot of money, time, and equipment to fully train and place a combat-ready American soldier in the field. On the other hand, it does not take an equivalent investment for insurgents or small militias (such as Hezbollah or Hamas) to train and arm one of their combatants. When the U.S. loses three soldiers and a hummer to an i.e.d or eight soldiers in a Blackhawk downing, it is a substantial loss in both life and material. When insurgents lose eight soldiers and even eight AK-47's, it isn't an equivelant loss in their terms.
As for the Israelis, they will never know peace until they have a state freed of apartheid. They can ask South Africa how that works. Police states work for only so long and they constantly breed violence and insurrection. The more iron fisted they are, the more the people will fight against the injustices of that state.
-
As for the Israelis, they will never know peace until they have a state freed of apartheid. Police states work for only so long and they constantly breed violence and insurrection. The more iron fisted they are, the more the people will fight against the injustices of that state.
"Never know peace" is a relative term.
Israel is far from alone.
Does the US "know peace"?
Does Russia "know peace"? (Chechnya)
Does North/South Korea "know peace"?
Does India "know peace"? (Kashmir)
Does Lebanon "know peace"?
Do the Balklands "know peace"?
Does Pakistan "know peace"?
Does Thailand "know peace"?
Does Turkey/Kurdistan "know peace"?
Do the Philippines "know peace"?
Does Nigeria "know peace"?
ect....ect.....ect
True Israel may not have total peace but there are tons of other so called
"police states" that "will only work for so long" including Iran.
And Israel like the US, Canada, and many other countries may have to destroy their
enemy and usher in "a more peaceful period".
For example the US destroyed the enemy at home and became realtively
peaceful.
-
The U.S. destroyed their enemy at home?
I think that Scandinavia knows peace. :P
-
The U.S. destroyed their enemy at home?
Sorry JS on-line it is hard to decipher if you are joking.
But in case you're not. Uh yes for all practical purposes
the American Indian tribes were wiped out and/or forced
on to mostly desolate reservation camps. Hey guess
where alot of Palestinians are? Yep in refugee camps.
-
I agree with J_S on this. The guerrilla tactics have already succeeded in driving Israel out of South Lebanon and then out of Gaza. In Iraq, Amerikkka is reduced to dealing with both sides in the civil war, merely to delay the inevitable, while the U.S. dollar continues to slide. It's anybody's guess how much longer the U.S. can keep paying the piper, but my guess is that once Bush is gone, his successor will have to reduce the expenditure sharply. For every Iraqi, this is the signal that the helicopters will soon be on the Embassy roof.
For every Resistance fighter killed by Jews or Amerikkkans, the fascists have spent millions and the Resistance has lost only hundreds. In reverse, every dead fascist costs bad guys big bucks and yet the fascist is killed at the cost of a roadside bomb or a sniper's bullet. Of course, every wounded fascist costs the bad guys exponentially more, considering the high-cost, low-value Amerikkkan medical system.
These are wars of attrition that the bad guys almost always lose, provided only that the good guys can take the punishment long enough. Doesn't seem fair or just, but it's life.
-
So why is it that good guys count human life cheap?
-
<<So why is it that good guys count human life cheap?>>
Is "Live free or die" a good guy expression or a bad guy expression?
The good guys prefer death to slavery. Life lived as a slave IS cheap. Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
-
<<So why is it that good guys count human life cheap?>>
Is "Live free or die" a good guy expression or a bad guy expression?
The good guys prefer death to slavery. Life lived as a slave IS cheap. Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
We don't want them to be slaves , we are fighting the slave mentality that can't conceive of self goverrnment.Our Allies rise from amoung the people whne we are stead fast .
-
<<We don't want them to be slaves , we are fighting the slave mentality that can't conceive of self goverrnment.>>
That's pure bullshit. Your real objective is to install a Mubarak-like government that does what you want it to do and sells oil to you at your prices. You want to be sure that if people say, hey we don't want this government that gives away our oil cheap, we want one that keeps all the revenue here, like Saddam did, when we all had free educations and health care, that such people will be arrested, tortured and killed or locked up forever. THAT'S what you want. And people who don't want to live under your thumb like that will fight you to the death.
Face this fact: the U.S. has NEVER promoted real self-government in the Middle East. It promotes and protects the King of Jordan, Mubarak, the King of Saudi Arabia, etc. All non-democratic torture states that rule by force and by fear.
Face this fact: when the U.S. encounters a true, democratically elected and independent government in the Middle East, it conspires to undermine and overthrow it. As in Mossadegh's Iran, to bring in the Shah; as in Palestine, to break down Hamas.
Why would you think anyone would be so stupid as to believe your bullshit that you are fighting the slave mentality when everything you have ever done in the Middle East is to enslave the peoples of the region to tyrannical governments that act in your interests?
<<Our Allies rise from amoung the people whne we are stead fast .>>
Really, I don't know what you are talking about. Who are your "Allies" anyway? Mubarrak? The King of Jordan? Musharraf? Any two-bit dictator you can buy or rent?
-
<<We don't want them to be slaves , we are fighting the slave mentality that can't conceive of self goverrnment.>>
That's pure bullshit.
No it is how I really think.
Your real objective is to install a Mubarak-like government that does what you want it to do and sells oil to you at your prices.
We can't really do this , I never thought we could and why should our prime objective be something every thoughtfull person considers impossible? The Oil will rise in value and decrease in availibility no matter what the politics are like. Hugo Chavez too is learning that he doesn't controll the price of oil in any real sense.
You want to be sure that if people say, hey we don't want this government that gives away our oil cheap, we want one that keeps all the revenue here, like Saddam did,
Saddam sold us oil , when he took over Kuait he said he would sell us oil , as if we cared about nothing elese, and the mere flow of oil being dependable would mollify us, then he set the oil feilds of Kuait ablaze because he thought that would make a diffrence. Not a thoughtfull sort.
when we all had free educations and health care, that such people will be arrested, tortured and killed or locked up forever. THAT'S what you want. And people who don't want to live under your thumb like that will fight you to the death.
Then they die for nothing , we don't want them under our thumb.
Face this fact: the U.S. has NEVER promoted real self-government in the Middle East. It promotes and protects the King of Jordan, Mubarak, the King of Saudi Arabia, etc. All non-democratic torture states that rule by force and by fear.
That was almost true till recently , now we are promoteing one rather than takeing what we find and chooseing a faction to back the way we used to.
Face this fact: when the U.S. encounters a true, democratically elected and independent government in the Middle East, it conspires to undermine and overthrow it. As in Mossadegh's Iran, to bring in the Shah; as in Palestine, to break down Hamas.
We may be lovers of democracy , but why should we feel obliged to support a government that opposes us , whether democratic or not?
Why would you think anyone would be so stupid as to believe your bullshit that you are fighting the slave mentality when everything you have ever done in the Middle East is to enslave the peoples of the region to tyrannical governments that act in your interests?
Anyone that can see Japan sould know what we like to have happen in that respect . The Establishment of democracy in Iraq is gonna be good for the people of Iraq and that by itself is a good attack on the root causes of poverty , discontent and violence in the Middle east .
<<Our Allies rise from amoung the people whne we are stead fast .>>
Really, I don't know what you are talking about. Who are your "Allies" anyway? Mubarrak? The King of Jordan? Musharraf? Any two-bit dictator you can buy or rent?
[/quote]
The People of Iraq , who moved in mass to elect their own elders to a new government . It is the main part of them that are our freinds.
-
Anyone that can see Japan sould know what we like to have happen in that respect . The Establishment of democracy in Iraq is gonna be good for the people of Iraq and that by itself is a good attack on the root causes of poverty , discontent and violence in the Middle east .
In fairness Plane, Japan's "democracy" was little more than a sham for many, many decades at the national level. The local level was more of a democracy, true, and interestingly the Japanese often voted for extreme parties that include the communists, a party that is respected in Japan for their competence and lack of corruption (a far cry from their Chinese couterparts).
In most countries the United States absolutely has not supported democracy. From an historical viewpoint I really don't know where you get the notion that we "are lovers of democracy."
Even if we count Japan and West Germany, that is two. Off the top of my head I can give you many more examples of dictators we installed and democracies we dismantled to install some of them. It is a true historical myth that this country has supported democracy in its history. It has been quite the opposite.
Let's see:
Democracies we overthrew to install dictators: Chile, Greece, Iran, Vietnam (was supposed to hold elections and we cancelled them)
Dictators we installed: South Korea, Taiwan, South Vietnam, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, El Salvador, Cuba, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Panama, Indonesia
That's just off the top of my head. We also supported the Khmer Rhouge, Haile Selassie, Saddam Hussein, numerous Pakistani juntas, China, Thailand, etc.
No, if I were an Iraqi student of history I'd have to weigh the evidence as being VERY unlikely that the United States would support a democratic government over a government that supports the economic ideals of the United States despite what form it takes.
-
<<We can't really do this [install a Mubarak-type puppet government], I never thought we could and why should our prime objective be something every thoughtfull person considers impossible?>>
Oh, but you're far too modest. You've done it many times. The Shah. Mubarak. The King of Jordan. The King and Royal Family of Saudi Arabia. The Emir of Kuwait. And many other two-bit tyrants all depend on you for support and weapons and protection. Without you, they could not continue to exist. Of course you can do this. Have done this. Are doing this. Will continue to do this. Until stopped by superior force. Hopefully China and/or India.
<<The Oil will rise in value and decrease in availibility no matter what the politics are like. Hugo Chavez too is learning that he doesn't controll the price of oil in any real sense.>>
So what? You aren't trying to control the price of oil - - you'll have a better shot at it later, if you can rob Iran of its oil too. Right now, it's sufficient to force a country like Iraq (a) to hold off before pricing its oil in euros and (b) to cough up a percentage of its profit to "foreign multi-nationals" owned or controlled largely by Big Oil and its friends.
<<Saddam sold us oil , when he took over Kuait he said he would sell us oil , as if we cared about nothing elese, and the mere flow of oil being dependable would mollify us . . . >>
And it certainly would have, only (a) there was that little issue of trust, how'd you know that he wouldn't sell more to the Chinese if they offered him more and (b) it was kind of irksome to see all of their oil revenues going to the Iraq National Oil Company, when other, more cooperative countries were so generously willing to share their revenues with you.
<<Then they die for nothing , we don't want them under our thumb.>>
But it's funny all the same, isn't it, how you keep supporting your puppet rulers with arms and money and intelligence-sharing, and they keep imprisoning and torturing and murdering their opponents, even though you, their good friends and benefactors don't want anyone "under your thumb?" I guess maybe the explanation is, your purposes are served just the same if the opposition dies under the puppet's thumb rather than under your own thumb?
<<That [Amerikkka's promotion of torture states and dictators] was almost true till recently , now we are promoteing one rather than takeing what we find and chooseing a faction to back the way we used to.>>
If that's really true, why are you still backing all the other dictators, murderers and torturers. And why should anyone believe that you have suddenly switched course? Changed a sixty-year pattern of constant unchanging behaviour and turned on a dime? Why? What happened to promote such a radical switch? Give me ONE reason why I should believe that NOW, suddenly, the Big Bad U.S.A. has suddenly decided to become Mr. Nice Guy? Was there a wholesale change of government nobody told me about?
<<We may be lovers of democracy , but why should we feel obliged to support a government that opposes us , whether democratic or not?>>
Then perhaps you have an explanation as to why the only governments that seem to oppose you (forcing you to overthrow them) are the ones that are democratically elected, and all the ones that support you (prompting you to support them) are murderous, torturing tyrannies ruling by fear and by force? Quite a coincidence, isn't it? Especially considering how you are yourselves such wonderful, pro-democracy people.
<<Anyone that can see Japan sould know what we like to have happen in that respect . >>
Japan's not the Middle East, plane. The shit you get away with in the Middle East and Latin America you could never get away with in Japan. People in the Middle East would look to see what you do where it counts for them, in the Middle East, not Japan. It's your Middle East policy and not your Japanese policy that is under discussion. So again, same question, why would anyone with a knowledge of your past conduct in the Middle East have any reason to believe your ridiculous lies that it is "democracy" you are pursuing in Iraq?
-
<<We can't really do this [install a Mubarak-type puppet government], I never thought we could and why should our prime objective be something every thoughtfull person considers impossible?>>
Oh, but you're far too modest. You've done it many times. The Shah. Mubarak. The King of Jordan. The King and Royal Family of Saudi Arabia. The Emir of Kuwait. And many other two-bit tyrants all depend on you for support and weapons and protection. Without you, they could not continue to exist. Of course you can do this. Have done this. Are doing this. Will continue to do this. Until stopped by superior force. Hopefully China and/or India.
[install a Mubarak-type puppet government]
That isn't what I said is it?
Install any kind of government you please , it will not have thge ability to controll the price of oil .
-
You've done it many times. The Shah. Mubarak. The King of Jordan. The King and Royal Family of Saudi Arabia. The Emir of Kuwait. And many other two-bit tyrants all depend on you for support and weapons and protection. Without you, they could not continue to exist.
Or we could not do this when needed and allow the "bad guy" like the Shah to fall only to be replaced by another un-elected bunch of thugs that will try to build nuclear weapons that will point at Europe and send $100 million a year to Hezbollah in attempts to topple other governments! Sometimes life forces you to deal with skunks, thats a given, but always make sure if you must deal with skunks at least pick one that is pointing his squirter away from you not at you. (in others words not pointing his nukes at you) I mean DUH.
-
Anyone that can see Japan sould know what we like to have happen in that respect . The Establishment of democracy in Iraq is gonna be good for the people of Iraq and that by itself is a good attack on the root causes of poverty , discontent and violence in the Middle east .
In fairness Plane, Japan's "democracy" was little more than a sham for many, many decades at the national level. The local level was more of a democracy, true, and interestingly the Japanese often voted for extreme parties that include the communists, a party that is respected in Japan for their competence and lack of corruption (a far cry from their Chinese couterparts).
I know about that ,you could say much the same thing about the Phillipines and Korea or the first halfcentury of the US, patience is required the democracymust be a custm fit it can't be made one size fits all, but giveing power to the people is the whole point , that the people grow wise over time is the effect.
In most countries the United States absolutely has not supported democracy. From an historical viewpoint I really don't know where you get the notion that we "are lovers of democracy."
Even if we count Japan and West Germany, Italy , France , Poland ,Chezh Republic and Slovocia ,Austria , Russia , Estonia that is two? Off the top of my head I can give you many more examples of dictators we installed and democracies we dismantled to install some of them. It is a true historical myth that this country has supported democracy in its history. It has been quite the opposite.
Let's see:
Democracies we overthrew to install dictators: Chile, Greece
? didn't know about that one, Iran
No that was England , Vietnam (was supposed to hold elections and we cancelled them)
?And why?Becaus half of the electorate was unable to vote against the communists? Dictators we installed: South Korea,
? No? Taiwan,
? No? South Vietnam, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, El Salvador, Cuba, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Panama, Indonesia
That's just off the top of my head. We also supported the Khmer Rhouge, Haile Selassie, Saddam Hussein, numerous Pakistani juntas, China, Thailand, etc.
No, if I were an Iraqi student of history I'd have to weigh the evidence as being VERY unlikely that the United States would support a democratic government over a government that supports the economic ideals of the United States despite what form it takes.
In the past fify years the umber of Democracys went from a minority to a majority of governments , yes we were involved.
-
"why would anyone with a knowledge of your past conduct in the Middle East
have any reason to believe your ridiculous lies that it is "democracy" you are pursuing in Iraq?"
Because that is in fact exactly what is happening.
Are you living in fantasy land again?
8.56 million Iraqis voted in the 2005 election. (ordered by the United States)
(US also demanded women be allowed to vote and have MP seats)
Shiite Muslim Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistanti supported
the elections and is considered by many to be the most
revered and most influential leader among Iraq's 15 million Shiite Muslims.
The current gvt in Iraq got a bigger percentage of votes in the 2005 election
than your 27% Hezbollah got in it's 2005 election.
(http://boifromtroy.com/archives/fight%20on%20iraqis.jpg)
(http://www.freep.com/assets/images/logo_freep_new.gif)
Iraq sets Oct. 1 election
Provincial voting called key reform
February 14, 2008
By STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
ASSOCIATED PRESS
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The Iraqi parliament cleared the way Wednesday for provincial elections this year that could give Sunnis a stronger voice and usher in vast changes to Iraq's power structure.
The new law, which set the vote for Oct. 1, is one of the most sweeping changes pushed by the Bush administration and signals that Iraq's politicians may take small steps toward reconciliation.
Passage of reforms to ease Iraq's sectarian and ethnic rifts went hand in hand with reducing violence as the primary goals for the 30,000-troop surge President George W. Bush ordered early last year.
The law was bundled with a $48-billion budget for 2008 and another measure that grants limited amnesty to prisoners in Iraqi custody. The measures still must be approved by Iraq's three-man presidency council.
Kurds, who operate from a semiautonomous region in the north, insisted on the legislative maneuvering because they feared getting double-crossed on a deal that maintained their 17% share of the budget.
The elections are likely to reshape Iraq's political map. Sunnis, who sat out the 2005 voting, could claim a much stronger role in government. They have provided crucial security help by joining U.S.-led battles against Al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgents.
Among Iraq's majority Shi'ites, the elections could be an important test of strength for rival factions fighting for control of oil-rich southern Iraq.
The law calls for the provinces to work with the United Nations on how elections will operate. Also, the measure would allow provinces to form regional bodies that would begin making many decisions now made by authorities in Baghdad.
Debate on the measure ended in an 82-82 tie, broken by parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani. On Tuesday night, he threatened to disband parliament and call early elections because lawmakers had been unable to compromise.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080214/NEWS07/802140389/1009/NEWS07 (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080214/NEWS07/802140389/1009/NEWS07)
-
You've done it many times. The Shah. Mubarak. The King of Jordan. The King and Royal Family of Saudi Arabia. The Emir of Kuwait. And many other two-bit tyrants all depend on you for support and weapons and protection. Without you, they could not continue to exist.
Or we could not do this when needed and allow the "bad guy" like the Shah to fall only to be replaced by another un-elected bunch of thugs that will try to build nuclear weapons that will point at Europe and send $100 million a year to Hezbollah in attempts to topple other governments! Sometimes life forces you to deal with skunks, thats a given, but always make sure if you must deal with skunks at least pick one that is pointing his squirter away from you not at you. (in others words not pointing his nukes at you) I mean DUH.
Y'all are all talking from theory. I WAS THERE IN IRAN. I saw the advancement in that culture. The jobs created. The roads, yes, real pavement roads, being built. The subsidies for small businesses and on and on. And then, these THUGS got in control. Do you know that within a week, one week, they killed EVERY CREATURE in the Tehran zoo, one of the finest zoos in the world! Yeah, now THAT demonstrates culture and civilized behavior! Next time you tree huggers talk about environmental concerns, just remember that one!
-
You've done it many times. The Shah. Mubarak. The King of Jordan. The King and Royal Family of Saudi Arabia. The Emir of Kuwait. And many other two-bit tyrants all depend on you for support and weapons and protection. Without you, they could not continue to exist.
Or we could not do this when needed and allow the "bad guy" like the Shah to fall only to be replaced by another un-elected bunch of thugs that will try to build nuclear weapons that will point at Europe and send $100 million a year to Hezbollah in attempts to topple other governments! Sometimes life forces you to deal with skunks, thats a given, but always make sure if you must deal with skunks at least pick one that is pointing his squirter away from you not at you. (in others words not pointing his nukes at you) I mean DUH.
Y'all are all talking from theory. I WAS THERE IN IRAN. I saw the advancement in that culture. The jobs created. The roads, yes, real pavement roads, being built. The subsidies for small businesses and on and on. And then, these THUGS got in control. Do you know that within a week, one week, they killed EVERY CREATURE in the Tehran zoo, one of the finest zoos in the world! Yeah, now THAT demonstrates culture and civilized behavior! Next time you tree huggers talk about environmental concerns, just remember that one!
I read "On the wings of Eagles " a few years ago , in it Ross Perot seemed to be trying to help the Sha set up a Social Security system, but when the Sha 's regime couldn't pay the bill , they kidnapped a few of Rosses employees instead.
I wonder what happened to that Social Security idea? No sha, no need for it.
-
[install a Mubarak-type puppet government]
<<That isn't what I said is it?>>
========================================
It's pretty much exactly what you said. First you quoted one of my posts:
<<Quote
<<Your real objective is to install a Mubarak-like government that does what you want it to do and sells oil to you at your prices. >>
Which you then answered as follows:
<<We can't really do this , I never thought we could and why should our prime objective be something every thoughtfull person considers impossible? The Oil will rise in value and decrease in availibility no matter what the politics are like. Hugo Chavez too is learning that he doesn't controll the price of oil in any real sense.>>
OK now I see the problem. It became apparent as I was cutting and pasting. When you said "We can't really do this," I thought you were referring only to installing a puppet government to do whatever you want it to do, and I responded to that. Looks like you meant we can't control the price of oil by installing a puppet government, and I did not respond to that at all.
Sorry. My mistake.
-
Further to the last post, plane, I still have to respond to your point - - the goal of installing a Mubarak-type puppet regime is not, of course, motivated by a simple desire to fix the price of oil. I was using a kind of verbal short-hand or oversimplification to make a point. That was extremely poorly expressed and misleading. Sorry.
The real profits to be gained from control of Iraqi oil through a puppet government are that whereas previously the Iraq National Oil Co. produced and sold its oil without foreign partners, now it will have an unwanted and uninvited partner taking a cut, as yet to be determined, off every barrel sold. Also there is such a thing as "security of supply." If the day comes when there isn't enough oil for everybody, the U.S. will be able to ensure that it gets served at the pump first and everyone else can share what's left. THAT is the point of establishing a pro-Amerikkkan puppet government in Iraq.
-
<<I wonder what happened to that Social Security idea? No sha, no need for it.>>
Sharia law probably provides for care of the elderly, and did so for a thousand years before social security.
-
But they don't.
-
I was just guessing, don't know all that much about Sharia law, but I was pretty sure that it did.
How do you know that it doesn't?
-
There are multitudes of poor.
-
>>Sharia law probably provides for care of the elderly, and did so for a thousand years before social security.<<
>>I was just guessing ...<<
Oh brother ... can you believe this?
-
Charity is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. I think 10% is the recommended donation.
Mohammad preached more than throwing bombs, shooting rockets and taking hostages.
-
Charity is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. I think 10% is the recommended donation.
As it is with Christianity.
Guess we can rely on the church tithes to care for the elderly instead of Social Security, eh?
-
Charity is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. I think 10% is the recommended donation.
As it is with Christianity. Guess we can rely on the church tithes to care for the elderly instead of Social Security, eh?
;)
-
>>I was just guessing ...<<
Oh brother ... can you believe this?
He always assumes the best about the worst!
-
<<He always assumes the best about the worst!>>
Who says Islam is the worst? If you rank religions by the number of Jews killed by them, Christianity is right up there at the top of the heap.
Do you know for a fact that they DON'T take care of their elderly?
Do you know anything about them at all that didn't come from Daniel Pipes, Bernard Lewis, Barry Rubin or David Horowitz?
-
Do you know for a fact that they DON'T take care of their elderly?
Findings of empirical studies document the existence of substantial unmet medical and social needs among rural and urban elderly in Iran.
Naghavi A. Ageing of the population and its effects on social security system. Political Econ Informat J 1997; 4: 147-56.
-
<<Do you know for a fact that they DON'T take care of their elderly?>>
<<Quote
<<Findings of empirical studies document the existence of substantial unmet medical and social needs among rural and urban elderly in Iran.
<<Naghavi A. Ageing of the population and its effects on social security system. Political Econ Informat J 1997; 4: 147-56.>>
Wow. THAT was impressive. I guess what I should have asked was, Do you know for a fact that their elderly are substantially worse off than America's elderly?
-
Wow. THAT was impressive. I guess what I should have asked was, Do you know for a fact that their elderly are substantially worse off than America's elderly?
America is not ruled under Sharia Law. Which is where the question came from.
And yes, we have Social Security and Medicare.
-
I remember seeing beggars in Bahrain , in the midst of opulencethere were old women covered in black cloth looking like a bundle of sticks or a bag of trash on he walkway . Their hands stretched out were also covered in cloth so that their skin showed not at all , I gave a bit to one of these silent women who murmured something I took to be thanks or a prayer . Later I learned that some of these were lepers , that would explain the extreme thinness.
Nearer home American beggars are most often panhandlers who strike up a conversation , offer to make a trade or tell you about an emergency that has just happened to them. My favorite on here in WR has a drastically scarred face from cancer and a prized possesion , a new bicycle.The first time I met him I bought him a sandwitch and a coke , the second time he told me he could only eat special food.
-
<Quote
<<Findings of empirical studies document the existence of substantial unmet medical and social needs among rural and urban elderly in Iran.
<<Naghavi A. Ageing of the population and its effects on social security system. Political Econ Informat J 1997; 4: 147-56.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nasrallah is in Hezbollah, which is in Lebanon. Iran and Lebanon are different countries.
Iran is not ruled by Sharia Law, it is a mostly Shiite country
Perhaps Islam does not take adequate care of its infirm and elderly. These are ancient countries and rather backward. The population of all of them is many more than it was a hundred years ago, and illness and life expectancy has surely risen in that time.
I suggest that this is the responsibility of the local people. It is a bit silly to impose modern American standards on nations that are neither modern nor American.
-
Iran is not ruled by Sharia Law, it is a mostly Shiite country
The Council interprets the constitution and may veto Parliament. If a law is deemed incompatible with the constitution or Sharia (Islamic law), it is referred back to Parliament for revision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Government_and_politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Government_and_politics)
Legal system:
based on Sharia law system; has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction
https://www.odci.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#Govt (https://www.odci.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#Govt)
-
<<And yes, we have Social Security and Medicare.>>
Uhh, with all due respect, that is no answer to the question of whether Iran's elderly, with their admitted deficits in what they need socially and medically, are worse off than America's elderly.
-
Charity is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. I think 10% is the recommended donation.
As it is with Christianity. Guess we can rely on the church tithes to care for the elderly instead of Social Security, eh?
;)
Actually, churches did a good job, but now the Government does it a lot more. Churches have generally abdicated their role in this regard.
-
<<Do you know for a fact that they DON'T take care of their elderly?>>
<<Quote
<<Findings of empirical studies document the existence of substantial unmet medical and social needs among rural and urban elderly in Iran.
<<Naghavi A. Ageing of the population and its effects on social security system. Political Econ Informat J 1997; 4: 147-56.>>
Wow. THAT was impressive. I guess what I should have asked was, Do you know for a fact that their elderly are substantially worse off than America's elderly?
Is relevative important? I mean, if the poor or elderly have needs, they are needs. Yuo keep searching for justificaiton. There are poor and elderly in Muslim countries. Surely, you do not dispute this?
-
<<Is relevative important? I mean, if the poor or elderly have needs, they are needs. Yuo keep searching for justificaiton. There are poor and elderly in Muslim countries. Surely, you do not dispute this?>>
There is just this attitude that if it happens in a Muslim country it must be bad. Ooooooh, there are poor and neglected elderly in Iran! Shocking.
Well, guess what? My point is, there are poor and neglected elderly EVERYWHERE. Yes, even in America, there are unmet needs. Crazy, huh?
-
Uhh, with all due respect, that is no answer to the question of whether Iran's elderly, with their admitted deficits in what they need socially and medically, are worse off than America's elderly.
So? Regardless, the original claim was:
I was just guessing, don't know all that much about Sharia law, but I was pretty sure that it did.
How do you know that it doesn't?
I don't see anything in there about "worse or better than America."
-
Yes.
But then the thread continued, where you produced evidence that elderly Iranians had unmet social and medical needs, I asked if the U.S. was any different, and you then revealed that the U.S. had social security and medicare.
-
Yes.
But then the thread continued, where you produced evidence that elderly Iranians had unmet social and medical needs, I asked if the U.S. was any different, and you then revealed that the U.S. had social security and medicare.
No, actually you changed the conditions. You said "I should have asked..."
You didn't think anyone would present any evidence, and when it was presented you had to backpedal and change the conditions. As usual.
-
<<No, actually you changed the conditions. You said "I should have asked...">>
Well, that's just a rhetorical way of posing a further question. My first question being easily answered, but not too carefully thought out, I sharpened it so that it was more relevant to the point I was making.
<<You didn't think anyone would present any evidence . . . >>
That's why I was so sloppy with my first question.
<<and when it was presented you had to backpedal and change the conditions. As usual.>>
Nice try, except the "backpedalling" was just pressing forward on my original point with a better question, the conditions weren't changed (since I accepted the original Q & A) but merely followed up with a further question. Which of course you were unable to answer. And so to cover up your inability to answer the latter question (in effect, you failed to prove that the neglect and poor medical care was any worse for the elderly in Iran than in America) you resorted to the age-old technique of shoot the messenger.
The focus is no longer on your inability to satisfy my last question, it becomes instead my ability to ask the right question the first time.
So I will ask you again. Cut the bullshit. You're not fooling anyone. This isn't about my ability to ask the right question the first time. It's about eldercare in Iran and Amerikkka. Quit dodging. Put up or shut up - - where's the evidence that the social and medical neglect of the elderly is worse in Iran than it is in Amerikkka?
-
This isn't about my ability to ask the right question the first time. It's about eldercare in Iran and Amerikkka. Quit dodging. Put up or shut up - - where's the evidence that the social and medical neglect of the elderly is worse in Iran than it is in Amerikkka?
No, actually, it's about you habit of making claims, not presenting evidence when asked, and telling others to prove you wrong.
If you want to prove that elderly in Iran are no worse off than in the US, feel free to dig up the evidence yourself. Until then, I consider your claim - "Sharia law probably provides for care of the elderly, and did so for a thousand years before social security," - to just be another line of bullshit. Prove it or not, it's your job to support your own arguments.
-
<<"Sharia law probably provides for care of the elderly, and did so for a thousand years before social security," - to just be another line of bullshit. >>
It may or may not be the truth, but that's my opinion, based on my knowledge of legal systems in general, particularly ancient Middle Eastern legal systems, what they do and don't provide for, and it's not my job to do anything other than state it for your consideration. I believe it is very likely to be true. It probably is. If you don't like the opinion, give me your unsupported opinion against it, which I will probably treat with the contempt that it deserves, primarily because it is so unlikely. Or if you really feel all that strongly about it, go dig up facts (if you can) which disprove it, which I would show more respect for, depending on the source of the facts (the "Future of Freedom Foundation," I can tell you in advance, will not generate a whole lot of respect as a source of facts.)
<<Prove it or not, it's your job to support your own arguments.>>
I gave basically an opinion, not an argument, and moreover, said "probably," meaning how the fuck would I really know, that is my best guess. That is my opinion and I stand by it. You haven't been able to disprove it. First you tried but you failed. That's fine, but then having failed in your attempts to disprove it, it's a little late in the day to come up with arguments that it's not your job to disprove anything. If it wasn't your job to disprove it, why did you try at all?
You're like the little kid who takes three swings at the ball, misses every time and then walks off the field with the ball and bat, saying he doesn't have to play this stoopit game anyway.
-
It seems to me that if Amianthus was actually interested in the truth, he would find the facts to support his position.
If he was more interested in winning some sort of "points" for winning the argument, then he would instead shuffle the burden of proof off on Tee.
I think that the actual comparison of whether elder care is better in the US or in Iran is unknowable and unimportant.
I also think that Nasrallah, the subject of this thread, has very little to do with elder care in Iran, being as he is a Lebanese, and not one who is noted in any way for any position on elder care.
I am not prepared to present either party with the Irrefutable Guardian of the Truth Award. Nor do I actually possess this award, but if I did, well, what I said.
-
<<I am not prepared to present either party with the Irrefutable Guardian of the Truth Award. Nor do I actually possess this award, but if I did, well, what I said.>>
Well, that's fine because I already have a shelf-full of those awards gathering dust on my mantelpiece, but in this case I didn't claim one, which is why I qualified my remarks with "probably." They were just an educated guess. The elderly in both countries re neglected to some extent, and both countries could probably produce the appropriate horror stories of elder abuse and neglect. My guess would be it's probably worse in Iran because it's a much poorer society, but they might be a society with stronger family ties and greater reverence for their elders than America, so who knows really?
It was just funny to watch Ami making those vain efforts to disprove the thesis, and then after failing at each one, claiming he didn't have to disprove anything and whining that I had made him try.
-
It was just funny to watch Ami making those vain efforts to disprove the thesis, and then after failing at each one, claiming he didn't have to disprove anything and whining that I had made him try.
ROFL.
Wow, I spent a whole maybe 5 minutes during two days on those posts. The reference I found came off the first page of a Google search. It's not a "vain effort" unless I actually try.
-
<<Is relevative important? I mean, if the poor or elderly have needs, they are needs. Yuo keep searching for justificaiton. There are poor and elderly in Muslim countries. Surely, you do not dispute this?>>
There is just this attitude that if it happens in a Muslim country it must be bad. Ooooooh, there are poor and neglected elderly in Iran! Shocking.
Well, guess what? My point is, there are poor and neglected elderly EVERYWHERE. Yes, even in America, there are unmet needs. Crazy, huh?
Whoa! You said Shia takes care of the poor in Muslim countires. I am piont pointing out to you there are still poor there. So, do you then concede the point?
-
<<Wow, I spent a whole maybe 5 minutes during two days on those posts. The reference I found came off the first page of a Google search. It's not a "vain effort" unless I actually try.>>
Yeah, good point. Your effort was vain AND half-assed. Thank you for the correction.
-
<<Whoa! You said Shia takes care of the poor in Muslim countires. >>
We were actually talking about the elderly, I believe. As cared for or not under Sharia law.
<< I am piont pointing out to you there are still poor there. So, do you then concede the point?>>
I concede that Sharia law falls short of its objectives in practice, sure. The real point I was trying to make is that nobody's proven it substantially worse than the U.S. system of Medicare + Social Security.
-
Well, I wouldn't eve ntry to determine whether it is better or worse. I duppose you couldspend some time gahtering stats and such but they would be interpretive as well.
The point is that the Shia might indicate that Muslims are suppsoed to support the poor and they may beven pay their 10%, but the elderly and poor still exist in sizable numbers.
As they do here. A wise man once said that you will always have the poor with you and I concur.
-
<<I suppose you couldspend some time gahtering stats and such but they would be interpretive as well.>>
Of course they would. That's why it's an impossible task.