| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Comments:
<0> that is the difference
<1> but i recognize that i wasn't there, i don't know what happened.
<1> i saw a couple video clips, a couple photographs.
<0> Nine, shut up, please
<2> Not really, when you accept that them saying that was just crap
<1> oh.
<1> great debate form, really.
<2> it's just ****talking
<2> They know full well if they ever did anything like that, all their populated areas would be radioactive within 30 minutes
<0> Nine, were you in world war I, or II - no... so are they myths created by public consensus?
<1> how could iran have threatened to nuke israel if they to this day deny having any intention of creating nuclear weapons?
<2> So they spout off to maintain their extremist facade. Don't forget, even as recently as 18 months ago, Iran was modernising/libralising
<1> Quantum`` : they very well could be, to some degree.
<0> Nine, you should indeed move to nz... :)
<3> iraq also hadn t bobbs, bu US intruded there...
<3> *bombs
<0> because israel destroyed their reactor in the 80ies...
<1> so why shouldn't iran want to destroy israel's?
<1> along with their stockpile of nuclear -weapons-?
<1> and i don't see how threatening to use nukes is significantly worse than having nukes.
<0> it is
<0> so much worse
<1> the only purpose to have nukes is as a threat.
<1> unless we start building Orion cl*** starships.
<1> the very act of possessing nuclear weapons is itself an unspoken threat.
<0> saying you will use the bomb changes the game theory
<0> completely
<1> and israel is the master of that, even their possession of nukes is unspoken.
<0> yes, exactly
<1> cheers to "nuclear ambiguity"
<0> Nine, they do not brag about having bombs, they dont even say they will ever use it
<4> Mmmm cold war.
<1> right, they just have them as paperweights.
<1> they invested unspeakable amounts of public wealth to develop nuclear weapons, but no, not as a threat.
<1> you're right :P
<4> A lot of people don't realize this but enriched uranium makes an excellent paperweight.
<0> if you say you will use the bomb or destroy a country, then this other country should damn well make sure the other does not get the capability of doing so
<0> saying it is the first sign of irrationality
<1> and if you demonstrate hostility towards neighboring countries, and develop nuclear weapons, those neighboring countries better get nukes too. and fast.
<1> that's just my opinion though.
<0> israel did not say they wanted war with Iran
<1> no, but they have a history of being the aggressor in wars against arab states.
<0> lol
<5> NineVolt they do? like the 6 day war??
<1> and then combine that with having nukes, well, i think it would make sense for some balance.
<0> and the yom kippour war
<0> and so on and so on
<0> I hate people who speak about things they have no clue about
<1> i laugh about the six day war to this day.
<0> why do you laugh about it?
<5> it wasn't all that humorous at the time
<1> because only israel could get away with attacking other countries "in a defensive capacity".
<5> were you even alive then
<0> haha
<0> its a myth
<5> NineVolt ummm, Egypt attacked you fool
<1> israel's forces were the first to cross into sovereign territory.
<5> then Israel pushed them back to the Suez
<1> and that's what attacking is.
<0> Nine, are you saying Israel should have let attacked itself when the egyptions crossed the chanel?
<1> if they wanted to be the defender, yes.
<1> if they wanted to have the advantage of being the aggressor, no.
<0> you are a moron
<0> honestly
<1> they might not have won had they waited.
<1> although they probably would have either way.
<5> how long should they have waited to be the "defender" according to you?
<1> i'm a moron because i try looking at things objectively without biasing myself with people's opinions? indeed.
<5> how long should they have waited to be the "defender" according to you?
<1> stick to the facts.
<5> answer the ****ing question
<1> until enemy forces crossed into israel. that justifies war.
<1> enemy forces am***ing at your border, no, that doesn't entitle you to invade a sovereign nation.
<1> egypt, as a sovereign state, is entitled to distribute its armed forces as it pleases -within their own borders-
<1> same for israel.
<1> that does not include -invading- a sovereign state.
<2> mm
<1> israel could've started mobilizing troops to the same border. but they chose the "pre-emptive" defense.
<1> it probably saved many israeli lives. but it cost them this.
<5> this doesn't sound like the news reports from back then
<0> not at all
<0> but it might have been a myth
<0> because Nine wasnt alive
<1> that's old school :P
<1> indeed, i'm but a young'un, but i like to read up on the more interesting plots of history.
<1> and as far as i've read, israel was the first to cross borders.
<1> and that's an act of war.
<1> am***ing troops on your own side of a border isn't.
<5> like the Branch Davidians were the 1st to fire a shot?
<1> so you're saying that the israeli troops that crossed were a cia planted unit, there solely so that blame could be pinned on the israelis after the fact?
<5> huh????
<5> I didn't say anything
<1> :P
<5> I never said cia
<1> i don't know what happened at waco.
<5> you were alive then, how come you don't
<1> and i wouldn't be able to draw parallels between waco and the six days war.
<1> i don't know what happened because it was crazy.
<1> it could've been what they say, it could've been what the conspiracy theorists say.
<6> vawjr, you believe the branch davidians fired the first shots?
<5> fact.... the BATF tossed in flash-bangs
<1> i don't know, and i think there are very few people who could know.
<5> the question is.... is that "firing a shot"
<5> the real answer is hell yes
<5> the government claims that since they were "non-lethal" it wasn'6t
<6> tossing flash bangs into someone's house is a bit of an aggressive act
<5> they didn't get them in the house, but they got them close
<6> well by one account the fires inside were started by some flash bangs
<6> as they get very hot
<5> I was referring to the very first day
<6> oh
<5> not the "end"
<5> it was boradcast live on TV
<1> all i'm saying is that i have never read any reasonably authoritative account of the six days war where israel was not the first to cross borders.
<6> well it was found later that they could've picked up koresh himself at a grocery store early on when he left the compound
<6> big old mess
<1> while many aspects of the war are debatable, and many circumstances arguable, it is accepted that israel was the first to cross borders, although in a purely defensive capacity.
<5> azr|el I've often wondered whether it was a test of the U.S. public to see whethere they'd stand for an attack on U.S. citizens by an agency of the government
<5> and violations of several laws (by the government)
<1> speaking of conspiracy theories..
<6> vawjr, possibly but I don't want to know the answer they think they got
<1> have you heard about that one physics professor that conducted a brief analysis of the 9/11 attacks?
<1> i think from some southwest US school..
<5> I will probably regret to my dying day not taking my airplane there and making an "emergency" landing in the compound
<1> texas maybe?
<5> NineVolt I haven't
<1> i wish i had a link, he's got his writeup hosted at his .edu
<1> he makes a couple fascinating points.
<1> demolitions isn't an easy business. to make a building collapse into its footprint, well, it takes a team of talented engineers and precision charges.
<5> NineVolt ask the architect of the buildings
<1> both towers fell straight into their footprints, even with asymmetrical supports. could be described as one of the most difficult demo jobs in human history, and it went flawless.
<1> hard to believe that that could've happened from a haphazard airplane collision. twice.
<1> also WTC-7, the little building that wasn't hit, collapsed in almost freefall time.
<7> maybe it was from the heat and the structure if the buildings
<1> meaning that the hypothesis that it collapsed under the weight of dust/debris from the other two towers very unlikely.
<7> i saw a shot on discovery i think
<5> NineVolt unless this physics prof is also an architect I'll stick w/ the guy who DID the design's analysis
<1> the structure must've failed at the bottom. if it was the roof collapsing in, it would've taken considerably longer to fall, as each floor would slow the collapse some.
<7> and they blamed it on the structures of the buildings
<5> _BUFU_ I think the buildings stayed intact amazingly well considering all the fuel inside (burning)
<5> NineVolt for "conspiracy theories" I'm much more fond of OKC
<8> each floor might momentarily slow it, but i think after it breaks, it would add much more momentum than it took away
<7> but who would want to blow up the buildings?
<7> and why?
<2> the problem with the conspiracy theories is that it's just too damn complicated
<1> well...
<1> the government, for one.
<5> _BUFU_ have you ever looked at the history surrounding the "Reichstag fire" ?
<1> there's no other way we could've had such support for an iraq invasion
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#skype
elebait
JSON id invalid label
#linux
#MissKitten
fedora support cycle
#MissKitten
#mysql
realplayer segfault gentoo
#c
|
|