This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Does the Iranian Government Have A Right To A Nuclear Bomb?
Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,
As Reuters reported last week, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has confirmed that while the Iranian government is still enriching uranium at an increasing rate, there is no evidence of a weapons program under development. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei still maintains that the nuclear program is entirely peaceful. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, senior Obama administration officials say the 2007 intelligence report which confirmed that Iran’s government put a stop to its efforts to create a nuclear bomb in 2003 is still accurate. Just last February, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also confirmed that the government is not pursuing a weapons program.
The nonexistence of a nuclear weapons program hasn’t stopped the neoconservatives in Congress and the press or the Obama administration from denouncing Iran publicly in the name of American hegemony. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney remains willing and eager to use military force to halt the country’s nuclear development. At a speech before the Veterans of Foreign War convention in July, Romney called the prospect of Iran having a nuclear weapon the greatest “danger in the world today” and castigated President Obama for not doing more to stop the continuing enrichment. The Obama administration hasn’t been sitting idly by however when it comes to Iran. Under pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, perhaps the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, Obama signed into law the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act in July which would give “a blank check drawn on the U.S. taxpayer” to Israel “to maintain its qualitative military edge” according to former CIA officer Philip Giraldi. With Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu playing a game of nuclear blackmail with the White House in an effort to goad Obama into launching a preemptive attack on Iran, U.S. National Security Director Tom Dinilon reportedly presented an attack plan to the war-ready Netanyahu recently.
Should Netanyahu pull the trigger and strike Iran before the U.S. elections as he is rumored to be determined to do, it is highly likely that both President Obama and the U.S. Congress will come to the rescue by ordering the deployment of the military. The Israeli news source Yediot Ahronoth recently reported that the White House told the Iranian government they would not assist in an Israeli strike if American interests were let be in the Persian Gulf yet the Obama administration has denied the allegation. The U.S. military literally has the country surrounded with bases; as if already prepared for a full blown assault. A campaign in Iran will be added to the lengthy list of Middle East excursions this decade that include Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Libya. The drums for war are indeed being pounded upon not by the general public but by well-connected interest groups looking to profit from bloodshed.
The United States isn’t the only country whose leaders are opposed to Iran’s government possessing nuclear arms. The European Union’s embargo of Iran’s oil exporters came into effect on July 1st in an effort to curb the nuclear program. In fact, many Western nations including Canada and Japan have colluded to ban their citizens from doing business in Iran. Following the U.S.’s lead, it has been decided by the power players in the international community that Iran is not allowed to have nuclear arms.
The idea that the U.S. government should be the sole decider of what governments are allowed to own what weapons is demonstrative of the hegemonic desires of the ruling establishment. It is automatically assumed that because the government of Iran refuses to bow down to the American empire, it should be stripped of its sovereignty. There is no consideration of the question at the heart of the matter: should people have the right to own nuclear weapons in a free society?
It is certainly not outside the bounds of moral considerations to agree that people should have the right to defend themselves from harm’s way or if they feel genuinely threatened. This includes the right to own small arms for defensive purposes. Denying someone the right to own arms is denying them the right to protect their own life. In the context of violent behavior, the act of simply owning a firearm or weapon in no way constitutes a threat towards another. In a society where property rights are respected and upheld, gun control is a coercive intrusion into peaceful living.
But does the notion that man has a natural right to own the means to protect his life apply to nuclear weapons?
At first glance it may appear so since the mere possessing of a nuclear bomb does not constitute a threat toward anyone. There is a clear difference between owning a gun and a thermonuclear device however. As Murray Rothbard explains:
…while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even ‘conventional’ aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction.
Nuclear weapons are bound to kill innocents just because the radius of damage is so encompassing. Since they can’t be pinpointed, nuclear weaponry can’t be used purely for defensive purposes on Earth. The only plausible scenario for the justified stockpiling of a nuclear bomb is if there exists a threat beyond Earth. Economist Walter Block calls this the proportionality thesis. Because the universe is conceivably wide enough where the setting off of a nuclear device may not harm an innocent person, ownership of an atom bomb can be permissible.
Nuclear weaponry has only one function; the annihilation of vast amounts of people and property. There is no other use. In a free society on Earth (which is thus far the only planet known to have the resources to sustain rational beings like humans) there would be no need for anyone to own nuclear arms. For the state that operates off of the power-lusting of its controllers, the incentives change. Through educational indoctrination and media propaganda the nation-state becomes synonymous with its inhabitants. Americans, Canadians, Brits, etc., are affiliated with their government even when certain atrocities are committed solely by individuals of authority. This mistaken identify provides the perfect cover for the various political classes to scheme for further power grabs. Wars between states are often fought not for the defense of the citizenry but for other motives outside of protecting life. They are neither an economic stimulant nor a dignified crusade; they are destructive and horrifying. War is really mass murder financed through violent means; both of which are unlawful under natural law. Ultimately it is the various minions of the state seeking national glory and resources located in the jurisdiction of another nation-state who conduct war.
For the U.S. government to even begin to lecture Iran’s on whether or not it should have the right to develop a nuclear weapon ignores the very fact that it remains the one and only government on the planet to ever used the atom bomb to exterminate millions. American school children are often told that the use of the nuke was necessary to save the troops who were going to invade Japan during World War II even though such an explanation is dubious. As John V. Denson points out, President Truman kept to a policy of no-surrender even while the Japanese government was willing to admit defeat as long as the emperor could remain in power. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were carried out as a demonstration of force to the Russians. Many of his advisers, including General Eisenhower, had pressured him to not go ahead with the nuking but Truman would have none of it. Establishing the United States government as a supreme world power was more important than the lives of innocent women and children.
It should also be noted that while it is widely believed that Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, threatened to wipe the nation of Israel “off the map,” this was a mistranslation. On October 25, 2005, Ahmadinejad reportedly gave a speech titled “The World Without Zionism” in which he supposedly uttered the infamous remark. But as Arash Norouzi, co-founder of the Mossadegh Project, explains, the words “Israel,” “map,” and “wipe out” were never actually uttered.
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:
“Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “regime.” pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase ”rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing.
None of this is to say that Iran’s government is filled with respectable men trying to do what is best for Iranians. It has its own history of brutal murders and political suppression. This despicable behavior is not an excuse to distort facts however. As history has shown, campaigns of misinformation are often orchestrated to make way for war. And unfortunately for Americans and Iranians alike, war may very well be on the horizon.
The heightening tension between the United States government and Iran’s is based off of the fallacious notion that nuclear weapons have a legitimate purpose outside of killing enormous amounts of people. Yet they have no other real purpose in the end. Governments possess nuclear weaponry because there is little recourse for state-sanctioned murder. The millions of innocent lives that stand to be vanquished off the face of the Earth have little meaning to the power-tripping political elite. So while the Iranian government’s pursuance of nuclear weapons should be condemned, the United States government, the Israeli government, and others capable of waging nuclear war are in no place to criticize.
»
- 17362 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
No, it does not follow that because it is possible for one country to safely abolish nukes it is safe for all to do so.
But the notion of nuclear disarmament is an actionable idea because it has happened. The action has occurred and is undeniable despite your attempt to negate historical fact.
What do you hope to gain by arguing that indiscriminate killing is inevitable and should therefore not be ctiticized? How does such a viewpoint make you safer or happier?
Not only a straw man, the facts are against Hitler using any weapons of mass destruction; he forbade the deployment of Sarin/VX/Tabun nerve agents, which the Nazis had developed and weaponized and for which the Allies had no countermeasure. The fear was the allies would retaliate with even greater, more terrible weapons against Germany, even more terrible than the systematic incineration or death by asphyxiation of civilians.
The Nazi nuclear weapon program was more or less neutralized with the British-led destruction of heavy water production at a hydroelectric dam in Norway. The team continued to submit bogus, over-the-top reports to maintain program funding and avoid being deployed to the front.
Heisenburg was just whistling through the lab with his hands in his pockets to look busy. The German scientists knew the horror of the weapons. Too bad the American scientists didn't have the same qualms about putting such "tools" in the hands of crazed politicians.
WW 1 veterans on both sides - therefore chemical weapons a big No-No. Also a fear of British reprisal via Anthrax.
When is the last time Iran/Persia invaded anyone?
Here's a hint, it's much longer ago than the last time Hitler invaded anyone. Here's another hint, it's much longer ago than the first time a united Germany invaded anyone.
if they want a nuke so bad, why dont we just drop a few .......
Who is we and why do I get the feeling that you want me to pay for your crap?
Why don't we strap your ass to it and then you can become the "flying marshmallow."
Shit FD your drawing more negatives than me...... ZERO HEDGE is going to lose on these threads since it exposes the site as one harboring so many anti Semite scum that can't produce a cogent argument for their hatred of the Jews ...
TYLER .... you're gonna lose buddy ...BTW are you anti Semetic? That would go a long way to explaing certain things ..yeah but you won't touch that question will ya?
Anti semite is a great card to play - because you can roll in race, religion, culture and a narcissistic warlike foreign policy all into one. If someone hates what is happening in Palestine > ANTI SEMITE! IF one disapproves of hoarding nuclear weapons, rejecting non proliferation and threatening sovereign states > ANTI SEMITE! IF one disapproves of massive lobbying in the US in order to sway US foreign policy and gain virtual control over US congress by a foreign nation > ANTI SEMITE!
Pray tell, at what point is criticism not based on a primitive Jew hating psyche? At the point where the regime drops white phosphorous bombs on residential neighborhoods .. no? Where they hold an entire people in concentration camps .. no? Where they threaten half the world with nuclear war if they don't get their way .. no again?
There are extremely legitimate criticisms of the Israeli regime - that have nothing to do with race or religion.
Mutually Assured Destruction (bitchez)
Every human being and primates too should have the right to own a nuclear bomb :)
Wouldn't you all feel safer that way? Anybody who fucks with you hell just nuke them.
So is anybody getting the picture here? It's just about game time people.
Those fuckers already have them.
Ape With AK-47 (Gun)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2ZxC0qVHio
Howzabout we let the warmongering kikes fight their own fucking war and let them do what ever the fuck they want. Bout time we severed the warmonger relationship with them and see how much they rattle their little sabre when they see that the US ain't paying for their Jew bullshit anymore. But hey, God is on their side right Neocons? So how much faith do you have there Neocons? You think God's gonna step in a protect these little war mongers from the maelstrom they will have started? I think these fucking Jews aint got the balls to do a damn thing without America's implicit backing. It's time for America to stand up and start delivering some very powerful words to every fucking nation in the middle east and let it be known that we will not be dragged into another protracted war you little shits.....next time, it's glass parking lot, no holds barred, and that goes for Russia and the fucking Chicoms too...God we have pussies for leaders......Nobody has any fucking balls anymore, the fucking Marxists and socialists have castrated what remains of the population it looks like..Well I guess the Fucking Bolshevik Jews in Amerika are partly to blame.... Quick somebody call the ADL or the Southern Poverty Law center...We have a Jew hater in our midst....Fucking unbelievable Amerika...Unbelievable.....
And here we go with the Jew baiting. And then it is somehow a huge SHOCKER to the Paul crowd that people aren''t quite ready to board the train to Crazyville.
That is not to say that Paul himself is an anti-semite (though the evidence isn't promising). Nor does it mean i don't agree with him on the Fed, Gold Standard, etc (I strongly do).
But now I have really done it. I'm a Jew lover who disagrees with Ron Paul on certain items. I should be purged.
Fire away then.
GoBadgers, there are a lot of Jew haters that comment on this blog; they would have made good Nazi's in the 1930's.
I see you also must have attended UW- with your 's incorrectly used.
Ha!!!! The Grammar Nazis are out and about.
Still hate you some Jews though, huh?
Yes, I have noticed but nothing shocks me anymore.
And although I am a supporter of Israel, I do not use the term "anti-Semite" lightly. I do believe that you can take the general stance that the US should get out of the business of supporting foreign countries, that we have enough problems here as it is.
But when you couch your arguments around the words/phrases "kike" and "Paul Ryan's big nose makes him look Jew-y, he must have Yids in his background", you know they're not making that general argument. You know exactly what they're getting at.
Add in their fervent stance that their God Ron Paul can never be criticized shows their thin skin. If Obama was Messiah V2.0, then Paul is Messiah V3.0 for these folks.
So when fuckheads like Otto and his ilk make bigot-like comments I will, from time to time, remind them of their fuckheadery.
Uh oh, I used a word that's not in the dictionary. I must be a UW grad......
Ixnay on the oojay, dude. When people start waking up to the liberty movement, and they see all of this "it's the Joos" horseshit, they go running right back to the "safety" of the Corp. and the .gov.
You guys with the "it's the Joos" mantra are fucking us all.
Hey Overfed in case you have not been around for the last thirty years of media in Amerika dude...It's always about the Jews......And I am not an Anti semite..... I hate everyone equally because there are too many people in this world who think they are "special" and should be protected. You ever hear the media mourn over the two million Pol Pot killed? How about the Millions Stalin Murdered? You really are blind aparently....
Last time I checked, neither Pol Pot nor Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro/Gueverra, Chavez, and so on were Jews.
Junk me all you want, but this shit of "it's the Joos" is not helping the cause of liberty. It makes the people who are lukewarm to real freedom run like hell 'cause in their ignorance they think we're in league with Stormfront and the like. It ain't helping.
You are exactly right.
I am an anti-semite and I approve this message
Then you're not talking about the Ashkanazi Jews.
There's not a drop of Semitic blood in them. See The Thirteenth Tribe; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe
You would need a microscope to see their little saber.
This is where I part company with Libertarians. The question is not if Iran has a right to a nuclear weapon. The question is, given the Islamic vision of a world in maximum chaos so the 12th Imam (Islam's messiah, al-Mahdi) will return from out of the wel, what can we expect Iran to do when it gets even one device. This is the theological issue that drives the Mullahs forward no matter what, now that they can make enriched Uranium by the pound. The issue then becomes how will Iran act, what proxy groups will they sponsor, what neigbors will the threaten and how will such a development alter the world power dynamics for the worse.
Indeed, given Iran's many threats against Irsreal, how will Iran test its first device? I think it will test it over Tel Aviv. Such as test will have almost the same effect on the rest of the world and especailly on every state within direct missile range of Iran, no matter if the device detonates or not.
I don't believe that Iran is working on a nuke. It's just propaganda to drum up support for another fuckin' war. At OUR expense.
As I see it you either choose a domestic/international police state or you choose liberty - letting markets (capital, monetary & trade) settle it. You cannot have Empire and Liberty simultaneously.
But the prominent libertarian quoted in the article said that the use of nuclear weapons in any context is immoral because they kill indiscriminately and are not capable of being targeted solely at aggressors. So he wouldn't want Iran to have the bomb. Or Israel. Or anyone else for that matter.
But no actionable insight. Just "noone should have them". As useful as the wishful words of a five-year-old.
Isn't the first step in ending an injustice stating that that injustice should not be allowed to continue? Do you reject the notion that no one should rape or murder because only a wishful thinker would suggest that rape and murder can and should be prevented whenever possible?
Pray tell what crazy theology you are reading? Do you read directly from Quran in Arabic, or rely on the shady translation of a translation of a translation taken completely out of context and used as the punch line to an essay about why we must kill Muslims - before they kill us?
I do not believe for a second there is a theological motivation in Iran to glass Tel Aviv; using nuclear weapons is an affront to God, especially so close to al-Quds (Jerusalem), where Muhammed used to pray towards (quibla) before changing it to Mecca.
You might want to check out a famous conversation between the playright George Bernard Shaw and Islamic scholar Maulana Abdul Siddiqui in 1935 where many of the misconceptions of today were explained...a very insightful back-and-forth between a representative of the secular West and the Muslim nation (ummah).
ALL the stupid knee jerk neo-n*zis who come out on this topic don't even realize that Ludwig Von Mises - this unfortunate article came from the institute that bears his name though i doubt he would agree with it - was Jewish. He was forced to flee the Nazi's early because as much as they hated him for being Jewish they hated him more because he was for free markets and Nazi' economics are SOCIALISM. NATIONAL SOCIALISM. DICTATOR SOCIALISM. It is such a joke that these idiot Jew haters mix up all their idiology and think they are libertarians. The revere the Fuhrer who was not afraid to be a dictator socialist, yet they go ballistic over Obama as a socialist- he ihas so far shown more of an affinity to give social benefits to banks.
These guys are not Libertarians in the true sense they are idiot closet socialists with a fetish for a guy with a little mustache.
p.s. I am Jewish, I adhere to Von Mises economic views (how many of you morons have actually read what he wrote) and I am writng from Jerusalem. I think the current corporate socialism based on a tear down of capitalism that started under Reagan, and continues to this day,is wrong. I am unhappy that unfortunately some of my (lapsed) correligionists by birth only are going to cause the knee jerk idiots to paint everyone the same way.
p.p.s. The Islamic fundamentalists have as a strict docterine to lie to infidels (e.g. Christians and Jews) if you think that using subtle translation maeks their intentions (which they repeat up to this week, it isnt just a comment from 7 years ago) then good luck to you. Morons would like to nuke us taking out the Pals in the west bank and Jordan as well in the ruse of liberating them.Most of them i deal with dont want a Pal state, they have more freedom in Israel then in any arab country.
Yassir, an de ole niggas dey jus love livin wif de massa down on de plantation.
We nor anybody else has the right to determine another sovereign's right to defend themselve's. We have the right to protect ourselve's against the aggressor,but if we are going to demand that Iran disarms then we must disarm. Personally I think it's all a distraction to hide what the fed is doing to the dollar. It's easy to pin high oil prices on "those crazy Iranians".
The silliness of the article peaks when he attempts to say that A-Jad doesn't want to wipe Israel off the map. Yeah, I guess we're just supposed to forget all those videos of them in the streets screaming "Death to Israel" too. Nope, bringing that up would be incovenient to the argument. So the answer to the question is when you have a regime calling for the death of a country and sponsoring weekly hate rallies, then yes, you should prevent any country like that from having a nuclear bomb.
I also thought we learned something from WW2. When a maniac like Hitler repeatedly says he will annilate a group of people we should take it seriously. It seems that that lesson has been lost on the West.
The gov/neocon/neolib shills come out of the woodwork with their war propaganda.
It's all fucking bullshit! You know why they want war with Iran? I'll tell ya' why: Iran wants to (and is) circumvent the petro-dollar and because they are one of only a handful of countries without a Rothschild controlled central bank. That's it and that's all.
BS.
Israel got a far more destructive and precise capability to hit Iran.
For Iran this thing would mean almost total destruction. THEY DO NOT WANT WAR. they are playing their game like US is doing and like Israel is doing.
just want to make you notice that US is the only country that dropped a nuclear weapon on another country, and now US pretend other countries dont have them. WHAT A FUCKING HYPOCRISY.
What about MAD? Why would anybody use nukes as an offensive weapon against another (Israel) nuclear power?
Nukes have always been a defensive weapon. Only a madman would use them against another member of the club, and only a psychpath would use them against a non-armed people (like Japan for example).
Feel free to provide a counter-argument but try to use your imagination. See if you can come up with something without saying anything like "at the end of the day, it's all about those crazy Mullahs".
of course the iranians have a right to a nuclear bomb....the united states government under the leadership of the bush crime syndicate used nuclear explosives to destroy the world trade towers in new york city on 9/11/2011....any lecturing of the iranians is the height of pure hypocrisy....
of course there was good old nanothermite but the real real story was the nuclear weapons....you don't get the kind of radiation which melts and twists metals and plastics without radiation - the kind you get from bombs which the iranians aren't supposed to have because they might do the same thing as the bush crime syndicate....
"used nuclear explosives to destroy the world trade towers"? You are delusional.
Indeed. It was a combination of conventional explosives and thermite.
oh, and airplanes.
Don't forget the holograms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-Q0T9wK2g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4tTMMNTisBM
911 truth deniers are irritating and should be ostracized from logical conversation, period.
^^^^
..said one nutcase to the next in the insane asylum.
That's not a particularly effective argument but since it's all you've got I'm sure we'll see more of it.
Well it was a joke in kind, since the comment I was responding to suggested silencing me from the convo.
But in honesty I admit, I do find it hard to argue logically with 911 truthers, because if reason worked on them they wouldn't be 911 truthers to start with.
Disclaimer: I support their right to voice their opinions as much as my right to disagree.
He was speaking directly to me. I saw no mention of your name. But your fear that people are talking about you behind your back and trying to exclude you isn't the least bit paranoid. You're as sane as they come.
He said "911 truth deniers" should be ostracized.
I am a "911 truth denier".
Ergo he was saying I should be ostracized.
Thank you, come again.
Can you read the posts? I made the "9/11 denier" remark to which he directly responded. You might be considered collateral damage but then you favor attacks that incur collateral damage so why the objection?
But he said 911 truth deniers in general should be ostracized, not just you, so your argument is null and void.
So indiscriminate attacks on 9/11 truth deniers are to be recognized and opposed but you don't believe that I should speak out against indiscriminate nuclear attacks? That's understandable. The thousands of noncombatants at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were merely burned alive whereas you were almost excluded from a conversation on an Internet forum. There's nothing selfish or insane about priorities like that.
snip
Clearly I meant Crockett, but Benway, take it, fine.
If you care to debate 911 truth, go for it. But my point, one I frequently make on this site, is that I have trouble trusting anyone's rational ability if he or she cannot easily see that 911 was an inside job. Calling people names like nutcase or suggesting that we belong in insane asylums is ludicrous, absurd, and illogical on its face.
The evidence is overwhelming. LTER has admitted as much, so I have some trust in him. And at least Crockett utilizes logic in many of his posts (though I frequently disagree with him).
Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was a horrific moment in history, targeting civilians. It was also unnecessary as history has revealed.
But the fact that so many of you apparently smart people refuse to accept 911 truth is disturbing to me and something I did not expect when I joined ZH. You can't expect people to take you seriously if you can't reason regarding matters of fact. By matters of fact I mean matters of historical crime that have only one answer. We might all have opinions about which ism is or isn't germaine or about which bankster stooge one should support, but those are matters of opinion. We might all have opinions about what happened on 911, but the truth is a matter of fact that exists independently of all of our opinions, and if we examine it with an open mind, carefully, we can pretty much know it without any doubt.
Steel frame, high rise buildings simply do not collapse on themselves, into their own footprints, at freefall speed, for any other reason besides controlled demolition. Lizzy, Nmewn (or however you spell that name), and many other commenters on here are missing this. This logical miss is an example of cognitive dissonance. It reveals a psychological weakness in you folks, not in truthers. We cannot both be right (logically). Since many of you demonstrate some keen, intellectual prowess, I cannot come to any other conclusion besides the fact that you cannot adjust your worldview to accommodate truth. You are afraid of examining it and facing it, and in your fear you are leading others astray. Without 911 truth, we have little, and it frames the entire discourse on many of these threads. Really.
The FAA, USAF, and NORAD all tell amazingly different stories. Why?
Do you guys believe Oswald acted alone, too?
Insane asylum? That's all you have? Address the evidence. How many different labs and scientists have found nanothermite in the rubble? How do you explain that?
Watch this and then get back to me. How many scientific and engineering experts with years of experience does it take before you will even consider what they're saying? Do they all belong in insane asylums, too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4tTMMNTisBM
oohohohoho looking on youtube for the truth will lead you far :)
Youtube is simply a clearlinghouse for a lot of information, some awful, some ridiculous, and some very accurate. A huge variety of sources use this tool. If I offer you something from youtube, I will have vetted it first, be sure.
When you communicate with someone like me who has researched the matter for years, you will not have to sift through crap. I will give you the best info of which I am aware.
Although I have taken thousands of hours to attempt to figure it out, I am NOT sure how those controlled demolitions took place. I AM SURE that steel-frame buildings like the World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7, could NOT have collapsed in any other way, than through an inside job controlled demolition of some kind. I tend to disbelieve the theories that it took anything more than nanothermite. However, that barely matters, and we may never be able to find out for sure ...
What I am quite certain of is that the events on 9/11/2001 WERE a false flag operation, that MUST have been an "INSIDE JOB." Common sense and the physics of the substance steel make it impossible for me to believe anything else. Therefore, I tend to regard those who believe the official story to be the ones who are actually believing in absurd things, which, of course, is ironic, since those people never debate the issues, other than to accuse those who do not believe the official story of being the ones who are insane.
The deeper problem is that, after one believes that BOTH the financial collapse, and the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings were deliberate inside jobs, then the future probability of global economic collapse, and world war goes way, way UP!!!
I wish that I did not believe what I do. However, after spending many thousdands of hours researching these matters for many years, I can not come to any other conclusion. Rather, I now mostly attempt to understand, from an abstract theoretical point of view, WHY that is the real situation we are in ...
Of course, from a practical perspective, doing that provides nothing but a kind of philosophical consolation, on a sublime level. There is nothing about understanding the money/murder systems that helps to actually change them. We are already way too far gone in the established runaway triumphs of huge lies, backed up with lots of violence!
Good post, radical reefer!
Nanothermite along w/regular c-4 would do the trick just fine. Incendiaries plus cutter charges. The link I post above, from AE911 Truth, explains the bulk of it quite clearly.
Primary suspects are elements of Mossad, MI6, and good ole Amerikan insiders. People who do things like this are trained to be stateless and to perform on a need-to-know basis. Much of the thermitic material could have even been applied without the folks applying it even needing to know what they were actually doing (like in spray paint form).
Buildings do not collapse at freefall speed for any reason other than controlled demolition, period. Cognitive dissonance blocks folks from even examining the truth.
You both have smoked some "radical reefer", that is for sure...
Actually, the opposite has tended to happen.
The more convinced I became that things like the 9/11/2001 events were inside jobs, and that the financial crises starting in 2008 were inside jobs too, the less able I was to enjoy consuming cannabis, because the more objectively depressed I became about what, more and more, I was becoming intellectually convinced was the REAL WORLD!!!
Anyone who still doubts doubt that 9/11 was an inside job should watch the videos that are available about how the World Trade Center buildings were constructed, I.E. SOLID STEEL FRAME, then watch the videos about how they suddenly collapsed ... there can be no rational doubt that that MUST have been due to controlled demolition of some kind, and therefore, MUST have been an "inside job." That is merely the most obvious of the many other ways that the official story is absurd. Truly, anyone who believes the official story is wilfully blind! Anyone still promoting the official story is either a fool or a liar.
At the same time, there is another good video about how the financial crises beginning in 2008 were also an Inside Job, indeed, that is the title of that documentary. And again, there is way, way more material to examine regarding how the financial disasters were deliberately caused.
Thus, like I said, I am now 100% convinced that there is a deliberate plan to collapse the world economy and start world war. After I became convinced about that, I found that I was no longer able to enjoy almost anything that I used to enjoy. E.g., I stopped consuming cannabis, because I found that I no longer could get high, since I was too objectively depressed by the real world around me!
The REAL world is controlled by the triumph of huge lies, backed by violence, which is a runaway towards worse things than can be imagined! Like I already said, I WISH that I did not believe that, however, all of my research for many, many years has finally convinced me that there can be no other explanations.
You know, I agree with a lot of what you say, and yeah it's hard to pinpoint the exact extent of the numerous lies told to us and scams perpertrated on us.
But I urge you to be vigilant for confirmation bias. I think if you really sought for rebuttals against the 911 conspiracy theories you will find every claim extensively rebutted.
And really, from a commonsense perspective the conspiracy theories just don't compute. But I fear we will never convince each other in this argument, my reefering friend.
Surprisingly, PBS is finally running an adequate documentary about 9/11:
http://video.pbs.org/video/2270078138
9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out
It is not so surprising that that video has become a relatively popular one!
Anyway, I liked this mind-boggling observation, as appears in this article:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/332051#tab=comments&sc=1530297
“Both the Republicans and Democrats, as equally staunch defenders of the official story,
stand to be affected if the public’s suspicion of government corruption grows deeper.”
But nevertheless, that is likely way too little, way too late. The overall economic collapses, world war, martial law, and so forth, that 9/11 was a BIG part of making happen, seem already way too advanced to stop now … The runaway triumphs of systems of huge lies, backed by violence, has already become social insanity, that must result in civilization going through some kinds of psychotic breakdowns. Nobody can predict what may be on the other side of madness of such magnitude!
http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/forum/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=CMPmarijuanapa...
There is scientific evidence that smoking weed makes you more capable of independent though - that you become more skeptical and able to have an objective view. While chronic (long term) smoking of cannabis may result in some impairment of memory and so on, it seems that it might be a good thing for a few more people to indulge in the occassional J.
I have wondered if there were reasons why cannabis is so restricted, considering it is completely non toxic and decreases the chance of violence. The other interesting thing I learned was that it is most definately a powerful anti cancer agent.
It is interesting that the very humble hemp plant might contain substances that have the capability to provoke an intellectual revolution - I think this may well be the primary reason it is so hated by authorities.
PS: Of course 911 was conducted by the controlling western regime. The problem that people have in coming to that conclusion has little to do with evidence or logic - it has to do with their faith. Not faith in god, but still a very religious type of mindset that has its own system of beliefs, and will reject any argument - regardless of a mountain of irrefutable in their face evidence. They need to believe - because otherwise they lose their own identity that the system has given them - and to stand alone, and take on responsibility for the truth terrifies most people. They will have to admit they fell for a pack of lies, they were fooled and fools and that everything they believed was false - many would rather die - so dont expect evidence and logic to win the day. These are deeply religious people, and their religion is western culture - I'm not sure how to get someone to realise their faith is misplaced - but thats whats needed.
Weed is illegal because of the petrochem, big pharm folks. One cannot patent it. It has many positive qualities. Thus it is anathema to them.
Yes, Hemp Truth and 9/11 Truth have a lot in common, although 9/11 was orders of magnitude way worse!
Consider what the GOP recently had to say, but simply reverse that with the same insights:
http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_exceptionalism/
"The war on drugs and the war on terror have become a single enterprise."
YES, BUT, THAT IS BECAUSE BOTH WERE STARTED BY EVIL GOVERNMENTS, FOR THEIR EVIL PURPOSES.
BOTH WERE "FALSE FLAG EVENTS," IN THE SENSE THAT HARMS SECRETLY DONE BY THE LIES THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROMOTED WERE USED AS THE EXCUSE TO ATTACK OTHER PEOPLE.
THE "SINGLE ENTRERPRISE" IS REALLY THE EVIL GOVERNMENT, PROMOTING EXCUSES SO THAT IT CAN BUILD A FASCIST POLICE STATE, TO PROTECT THE FASCIST PLUTOCRACY THAT CONTROLS THE GOVERNMENT.
All of the "boogie men" that have been blamed for a long, long time were being blamed by the biggest bullies who were controlling our society through lies and violence, and who wanted excuses to do more of that!
Benway, that is not a logical response. Besides, you are incorrectly using punctuation in several spots in your illogical, terribly brief, and disappointing retort.
I stick to my original point: You should be ostracized from a logical debate until you grow up and grow a pair. I wish you blessings. Try praying for discernment and then examining the facts again.
Remember that only large, powerful, responsible countries who would never use one (or two) on innocent civilian populations in order to strike at the heart of an enemys will to wage battle are entitled to have nukes......
As a signatory to the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty...NO THEY DO NOT. And in fact IRAN AGREES WITH THIS...WHY ELSE HIDE IT???!!! The irony of course is that in being a bunch of lying sacks of shit they're costing they're nation a fortune by not only trying to build a useless hunk of junk...because the regime seems so conflicted and in trying to hide it they have made so expensive they appear to bankrupting their own country. Unless of course they USA is so stupid as to STILL not move beyond the petro-dollar age by say...IMPOSING AN OIL EXPORT EMBARGO ON IRAN WHICH ONLY SERVES TO ENRAGE THE IRANIAN PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT OUR ENEMY. Anywho...just a little more crazy talk from "you know who" this eve. Having a happy non-sensical globaloney evening sheeple!
Nobody has a right to a nuclear weapon. Simply too much power for one bomb.
Let's get real. Iran already has WMDs. They had them for DECADES. Never used them even when Saddam used some against them. Iran has chemical weapons.
In other news... very realistic scenario on how the shit could hit the fan in America...
When The Music Stops – How America’s Cities May Explode In Violencehttp://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/bracken-when-the-mu...
Let every country have nukes. They can protect a place on the planet against complete domination by the NWO and maybe protect a physical area that a humane banking system can originate and spread.
It has nothing to do with "right". It's a practical necesity to wipe the fuckin floor with them and destroy all their nuclear technology ASAP. Fuck right.
I was able to read only to..."Since they can’t be pinpointed, nuclear weaponry can’t be used purely for defensive purposes on Earth. "..
Yes,they can.If Russia didnt have them,to protect her own land and natural resourses,Russian state would not exist in our days.Same for Iran.They dont need nuclear energy to bomb DC or to make cheap electricity.They have a ocean of cheap oil.All those people need is protection from central banksters.
But Russian nukes are just as likely as anyone else's to kill innocent civilians. The killing of such individuals can not be characterized as defensive in nature.
The Jews are gonna take us to war again.....Hope they don't re-institute the draft on your little boys and girls serving in the U.S. military cause it will be an ugly war when China and Russia get involved little Neo-cons....in fact The draft might be the best idea to prevent war across the world...Actually I would go one better than the randomness of the draft. Any sitting Congressman or Senator or Money Center Banker should have to send all of his children without question.....how's that sound for a constitutional ammendment ZH'ers? I think most on here would probably approve....
This is what pisses me off....we have enough nuclear weapons to turn the whole middle east into glass and we are worried (yeah right)about one nuclear bomb with no reliable delivery system,and don't give me the suit case bomb bullshit.
most right and most short comment on the situation.
+1
Regards Arphy
"Nuclear weaponry has only one function; the annihilation of vast amounts of people and property. There is no other use."
Unlike a B-52 full of conventional weapons? Unlike a MOAB? Unlike a tank full of high explosives? Unlike Napalm? Unlike a cruise missile? Unlike a battle ship gun? Unlike a land mine? Unlike a cluster bomb? Unlike a fully automatic machine gun? A nuke will kill more than any of those for sure, but the idea that nuclear weapons are unique in having a primary function of killing lots of people including mostly innocents is the convenient argument of a small mind who is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, e.g., libertarian fascism [square peg] into a supposed framework of individual freedom [round hole]. Your ideology is logically inconsistent. Get over it.
Exactly. Who needs a nuke?
http://rense.com/general19/flame.htm
Did you even read the article?
So Miller wants a worldwide ban on aerial bombs too?
That's Rothbard's quote. If you read the article you should have known that. If your comprehension of the material at hand is so poor how can you trust your own analysis? But what the hell, let's hear your argument in favor of the indiscriminate killing of nonviolent individuals.
So what is Miller saying? What is he suggesting?
Oh right. Nothing at all. Just saying "nukes shouldn't exist" and "everyone should have a pink unicorn".
Why do you believe that one should not speak out against indiscriminate killing? Can you provide examples of indiscriminate killing which you have found to be favorable?
everything depends on your point of viev.
and believe me, you just prooved you're a really narrow minded guy
Are you suggesting that enlightened individuals engage in indiscriminate killing? Can you provide some examples?
ask yourself how the viet won a war against the world superpower
I fail to see how your question is supposed to prove that indiscriminate killing is a form of advanced behavior. Stop acting so coy and spit it out -- why is killing civilians a sign of enlightenment in your opinion?
It's more than that. Libertarians childishly believe that all your views *have to* be able to be reduced to some mathematical internally consistent logical theory. In starting with key assumptions, then mercilessly going to the endpoint conclusions of those assumptions (even when they result in ideas contrary to common sense), libertarians are very similar to communists in their dogmatic way of thought.
Let me make an example. I want wanton animal cruelty to remain a crime, yet I cannot logically defend this as I eat animals and I still want to allow laboratory testing. But I still want it a crime, this illogic does not make me break down as it would a libertarian.
Can you provide a citation for a libertarian who made such an argument or are you simply making things up?
I have broached this exact subject with several libertarians.
They all said that they couldn't justify a ban against animal cruelty.
So do you think animal cruelty (i.e. I own an animal, say a horse, and in the privacy of my home I torture it for fun for a week) should be a crime or not?
One should not be subject to violence in order to stop one from acting cruelly toward animals which one owns. But there are plenty of other ways to modify behavior. If you start torturing animals and I become aware of your activities and give others graphic evidence of your actions what do you think will become of your status in the community?
I think your principal problem is with your simpleton Christian upbringing.
Slaughter with no good reason doesn't equate to the place in animal kingdom where evolution has put us.
Animals eat animals to survive. Not for ideology.
LOL, wut?
You're forgetting DU? Energy weapons? Weapons of mass psychology? All plenty destructive, too.
LTER, I am frequently glad to see you on here.
I have noticed that Libertarian hard liners, not unlike Dummycraps or Repugnicunts, hate to be logically challenged.
The point is that a weapon which can be targeted against an individual aggressor or aggressors is not immoral simply by existing. But weapons of mass destruction which are designed to kill indiscriminately and so must result in death and injury to innocent parties are immoral in their very conception, design and production.
Please provide a logical rebuttal to that statement.
I'm not sure that I care to logically rebut it. I am not a pacifist per se, but I think that most wars are immoral in general.
The point is that the logical premise of the entire piece is a bit askew. I tire of reading Miller's work, honestly. I do enjoy the threads on here, though, and I do appreciate your efforts at logic, Crockett.
I usually find myself siding with LTER, though. Sorry.
Weapons of mass destruction are not something I care to support, logically or otherwise, but they are reality. Libertarians are often troubled by reality. Honestly, as I've told you before, I "lean" Libertarian, but the more radical Libertarians seem, to me, to be ignoring quite a bit of reality--like you with 911 truth, for example.
The world is a messy place, largely controlled by a Luciferian system. Luciferians like indiscriminate killing. Luciferian morality is different from yours or mine.
Learn something about SRA and the secret societies for starters.
If you Libertarians ever expect to be taken seriously by the rest of us, you will have to demonstrate more awareness. One cannot merely wish away centuries of war and weapons evolution. Immoral? Sure. Plenty of things are immoral.
I don't think that the immorality of such weapons, though, will cause the US or any other nation to radically change arsenals. Ethical relativism will trump ethical absolutism in many instances, then. This seems to be the point others are trying to make.
Would I be James Dickey and sit in the "treasure-hole of blue light?" No, not if I could help it. I wouldn't support the Vietnam War either. But he was a great poet. Have you ever read "The Firebombing?"
The point is that technology has the potential to remove the perpetrator from his or her moral crime, from the emotional and cognitive connection to the reality of it.
It's kind of like ignoring 911 truth and pretending you know a whit about what's really happening, then trying to lecture everyone about what should be happening.
Libertarians don't want to be taken more seriously by you or anyone else. We just want you to stop pretending that the state has a moral right to force us to do that which is detrimental to ourselves, our families and our friends. A man owns his own body and the fruits of his labors. That's the only recognition a libertarian requires from others.
As for 9/11 truth, maybe it's insane and maybe it's 100% true. It's just that not important to me. I already know that the state wants my money and will take my life if it chooses. I would rather spend my time attempting to live free in the present moment rather than performing a forensic investigation of 9/11.
Also note that the "Truthers" can be insufferable boors who deny evidence which is plain as day. The prime example was the way they glommed onto Ron Paul in 2008 and insisted that he was a "Truther" even though he publicly denied it on numerous occasions. I showed them dozens of quotes and videos but they just wouldn't except what everyone could see with their own eyes: a man named Ron Paul saying that he did not believe 9/11 was an inside job but was rather the result of blowback for US policies overseas. If the "Truthers" could not understand a few sentences spoken by Ron Paul in plain English then I can't trust their abilty to delve into the myriad conundrums of 9/11 and come up with anything resembling a complete or accurate analysis.
The JFK assassination proved in 1963 how the government is willing to commit murder domestically in furtherance of their agenda. And a majority of people believe that there was something beyond the Warren Report. But that knowledge did not lead to some renaissance in the American psyche. It was not the key for liberating us from the powers that be. And neither is 9/11 "Truth." The key to freeing yourself from the powers that be is to deny their moral right to enslave you. And that's what libertarianism is all about.
For the record, I don't want you to have to do anything detrimental, I don't want the state making laws that control your body, and I like the way you explain Libertarianism here, but that's not what I see from the more radical elements of your preferred ism.
I have shouted repeatedly on this site that I would not vote for RP b/c of his position on 911. I have never been confused about it. Neither has any truther I've interacted with. Some truthers may do this, but the majority, as far as I can tell, do not.
As for JFK, good points, but I'm not sure about the renaissance points--many folks woke up as a result of that.
911 is still very relevant, Crockett.
It's hard for me to buy into anything someone's selling if he or she can't see that buildings simply don't fall like that or that jet fuel doesn't produce molten steel.
It's hard for me to give too much credibility to anyone who can't see how important 911 truth is.
As usual, though, I do appreciate your time and the interaction. Thanks. :)
Read by not commented on as this thread is getting waaay old. I'm sure we'll have occasion to discuss these matters again.
NO
Just because those who make the decisions on who gets to have nukes or not and belong to the 1% of the elitist group, doesn't mean they have any intelligence does it?
Having money and the power that comes with it just doesn't make a person a stand up guy. Quite often it is the opposite. In this situation it is more about oil and those who depend on it don't like the fact that the Straight of Hurmoz or whatever it is called is not wholly controlled by the buyer of said oil.
Israel in the meantime is using religion and fear to get what it wants. So is everyone else. Just long enough to start something everyone will regret later.
Iran will not be a cakewalk like Iraq. Iran has some allies and natural resources.
Like Rodney King once said, "Why the fuck can't we get along?"
The Ayatollah has publically - and repeatedly - insisted that not olny would Iran NOT get the bomb - but - that the Atomic Bomb was "unislamic." He also issued a religious order forbidding muslins from getting the bomb.
I believe this Ayatollah takes his religious pledges seriously - very seriously. Iran will NOT - EVER - get the bomb. Unless of course the US gets the Shah's regime back in there and then anything goes.
I think the Ayatollah is crazier than a shit house rat ....But I still believe he can make rational decisions that will keep him and his bullshit cronies in power...I think he values that above his belief in the 12th Imam. Think about it....they are human too despite what some of you morons think...They like their long line of sycophantic bootlicking predecessors love power more than formal religon. They will not do anything to jepordize that...They are just dipping their toe in the Nuclear pool and testing it out....This shit will prolly drag on for at least a few more years cause Bibi knows he is fucking toast if he launches a war.....He has very few allies right now and I don't think the Saudis are really gonna be able to help him when the shit hits the fan..
Your idea that he is crazy comes from the source of probably every other 'opinion' that you have - propaganda. Wake up and think for yourself.
Legacy, didn't the US really play a significant role in getting the Shah out of there?
????
If you mean helping the Shah escape when the game was lost, then yeah we did that. But that was because he was our ally whom we had propped up from 1953 to 1979, not because all of a sudden we saw the light and wanted to set the Iranians free of our homicidal puppet. You did know that the US overthrew President Mossadeq and installed the Shah in 1953, didn't you?
Of course I know that, Crockett. Catch up.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/17/world/fg-shah17
http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/iranian_revolution.htm
These are just some takes on the matter which I quickly find, but there is a trove of info out there on how the US was involved with the "Islamic" revolt to oust the Shah.
Few things happen without TPTB allowing them to. That's just part of the reality that you continue to ignore.
Again, Crockett, I do appreciate you and wish you blessings, sincerely. But there might be some truth out there that you either haven't encountered or won't examine carefully.
If that is true then it's possible and even probable that you are working for TPTB whether you know it or not.
I'm just not sure how to respond to that absurdity, sorry. Did you even scan my links?
Clearly, by "few things," I mean major, international-scale events, not whether or not the soda machine rips me off or I slip and fall in the tub.
A Muslim, an Unconstitutional Laywer, an Anti-Semite and a Kenyan walk into a bar and the bartender says, "What will it be Mr. President?"
Does anybody really think Israel is going to bomb Iran? Now, of course, the Saudis and probably a few other Arab nations would back Israel all the way. I just don't see it happening. "Twenty on the red, Bill."
Like most nations, Saudi is divided into the ruling class and the people. The ruling class is small, and heavily backed by the US - the Saudi people will NOT back their ruling class in attacks on Iran. The Saudi's have to use an an entirely mercenary army for any such attack, and they do have such a force, because they know the Saudi people would never go to war with Iran, or Syria for that matter - where the Saudi's are currently deploying this army of mercenaries.
If the Saudi ruling class enter a war with Iran they risk a revolution against them from their own people. It is the Saudi people who are responsible for a great many terror attacks against US interests around the world. They are not happy with their rulers, and they are close to breaking point.
luv these
Off topic....according to the DNC,..."Government is the only thing we all belong too"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLa9Te8Blw
We are government slaves bitchez!
Nuclear weapons technology was developed 70 years ago.
Nothing more-substantial was developed since then?
Plenty of other WMDs and delivery systems since then.
Just most of the wars are limited rather than total. In fact 80% since WWII are internal affairs with ethnic minorities fighting a central state. State to state warfare is relatively rare. Evenly matched states squaring off against each other is the most likely to lead to WMD use....but this is actually an unlikely event historically speaking.
"Nuclear weaponry has only one function; the annihilation of vast amounts of people and property. There is no other use."
How about the use that most often applies to these weapons: DETERRENCE
Deterrence would be based on retaliatory use would it not?
he said something very clear. if you're not able to understand shut up troll
He was not clear. How can a nuclear weapon be used as a deterrent if one is not willing to use it to kill vast amounts of people?
Because the other side can never be sure that if they attack your people you won't change your mind on the whole unwillingness to kill vast amounts of their people thing.
You know you won't, they don't.
A game of brinkmanship with weapons which can destroy the world dozens of times over is nothing to bluff about. Not to mention the trillions of dollars wasted on weapons which can not be used.
yes he was clear.
"How about the use that most often applies to these weapons: DETERRENCE"
The only country that used it is USA. and after that nobody else used it against another nation. this is what deterrence mean.
The very fact that trillions of dollars are spent mining and refining uranium and developing and producing weapons which actually explode indicates that their function is, in fact, to explode. Why would so much money be spent on perfecting technology which you claim is not integral to the intended use of the finished product?
MAD only works if the opposition possesses a rational sense of self prerservation. The current leadership in Iran are a bunch of 12th Imam bat shit crazy lunitics. Their belief in instigating Armageddon, regardless of the human cost, as the "one true path" to Islamic global dominance make the the most fundamentalist Christian snake handlers pale by comparison.
So what if Israel has the bomb? Have they ever used it? Have they ever publicly threatened to use it? No on both counts. If the have not signed the Non-poliferation treaty then they have no obligation to the IAEA and can't be held in violation to a treaty they never signed then can they?
Because they know that Israel has the bomb, the means to deliver it and the will to use it, the wakodoodle islamist know the only way to defeat Israel would be to deliver a completely devistating nuclear blow first such that Israel could not respond in kind. They also know that if Israel was ever on the verge of losing a conventional war they would simple unleash the nukes and the capitols of every Islamic state in the region would disapper in an instant. The problen with this kind of insane scenario is that the Isrealis also possess submarines with missile launching capabilities that could never be touched in any first strike.
But then like I said the 12th Imam cultists don't give a shit
"Publicly" is the key word. See the Samson option.
Iran is a party to Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Israel is not.
Iran welcomes the IAEA, Israel does not. Israel doesn't even admit they've got nukes.
Stop fight Israels wars.
Jesus H Christ. If you dont think the U.S. military is a stabilizing force in the world, you are one stupid motherfucker.
There is a big difference between what is and what ought to be. But to compare the US to Iran is fucking retarded..
That is true smack daddy we are stabilizers and have been with our Naval Hegemony for years, but we are going broke..... so whats your realistic idea about what we can afford going forward?
"Jesus H Christ. If you dont think the U.S. military is a stabilizing force in the world.." WOW! Just tell this to American Indians or people in Latin America or people in Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria, etc.,
PS
People are still stupid animals.
ha! we posted within seconds of each other. lol
I'm sure Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Cuba, Venezuela, most of Latin America in fact, Iraq, DPRK, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, Panama, China and Russia would all agree.
NOT
You are right... it is "fucking retarded." Iran has not attacked a neighbor in hundreds of years. Indeed, not since the days of the Roman Empire has Persia attempted to be a conquering power. The United States, on the other hand, has provoked wars with all of the nations the folk listed below in addition to some others: let me add to the wars of aggression fought by the United States in the past 150 years: Mexico, Phillipines, Spain, Grenada, Columbia, Nicarauga, China (the U.S. crossed the line in Korea despite Chinese warnings that it would be considered an act of war). I will not bore you by listing separately every native American Indian group that the U.S. government attacked without provocation. The history that you have read has been written by the victors. If the vanquished could write the history of the last 150 years, it would tell a very different story than the one that you have been told.
Hmmm. Everyone else in the world has a far longer history of mayhem and destruction. You blame the United States by picking a particular time frame. Over the history of the world, the US is a bit player.
If someone told me they were going to go buy a gun and come back and kill me with it, I would look at them differently then if they had told me they were going to use it for target practice at the local range.
If someone's motto was "By way of deception thou shalt do war," would you take that as a warning?
Which are more important, the actions of a nation in the far past through long dead people or its actions in the near past and present through very much alive (and often still in power) people?
I'd say the recent past is far more indicative of the current moral (or lack thereof) of a nation, its people and its leaders and a better predictor of its future actions than events in the far past.
Hence there still being some level of suspicion on the Germans but nobody really caring anymore about, say, the seige of Constantinople.
So yeah, the track record violence of other countries in the far past by people that are long dead has no relevance whatsoever on how the US' recent track record shows it as a highly untrustworthy nation and not a force for good. The good news is that if the US stops its wars of aggression now in about 50-100 years nobody will be blaming Americans for them anymore.
If by that you mean tool for the Rothchilds in setting up central banks around the globe.
It's real simple, if you won't play the cb/fiat game you're not permitted to have nukes.
I wouldnt compare the US to Iran, you are right that woule be retarded.
The US (and Israeli regimes) are better compared to a werewolf, and Iran to some family trapped in a cabin in the woods with the werewolf prowling around it, howling and scratching the door.
Should the family be able to make silver bullets? Is that moral?
PS: When I read your comment it had 6 green arrows, even on ZH I am surprised to find people so many completely out of their minds - or rather in the wonderful world of the propaganda derived matrix that many mistake for reality.
you're absolutely right
+1
i bet 1000 bucks you just look for info on MSM
i feel pity for you
I'm with you SmackDaddy. Eat shit you Joooo Haters.
when you're hunting mister neutron, you gotta show them you got teeth. you don't want anyone to think you're chicken. you want them to be scared. and you want figures on how scared they are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si3WRRXVw0Y&t=310s
Technology makes the world smaller. The entire Mideast is no bigger than the distance from Detroit to New York City.
You want peace? Support the middle classes in that part of the world. That's the only way.
All the elitist BS just kills more on all sides.
AS USUAL.
More jobs, more trade, more contacts, more trust. And if some governments fall, excellent.
There is no other path but eternal war, and with technology, that will be the end of nations, starting with the smallest.
What a dumb ass article.
...ever notice how the two party political system works in the U.S.?
...have yuh ever noticed how the Shi'a and Sunni boys get along armed by two sides?
...ever notice how Israel became a nation through slaughter?
...have yuh ever considered how counterintelligence works, based on looking back and seeing the current outcome(s)? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzzVHXSJl9s
...ever notice the U.N. builders and Fed Fiat Printers of the Novus Ordo Seclorum map maker's mark to market?
Call 911 for some help if you don't get it by now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqQdy77mqzU&feature=youtu.be Ask for extension 2112 and a guy named Jacob. He will tell you what the trouble is all about. LMAO. Of course you will not find the real peace you are looking for, expect his false peace offer at first, lol, he will lie to you, but, if you wrestle with him long enough it will lead to peace with the whole Truth. Lol. You just gotta be Able, lol, but go from the hip with him. LMAO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AG8ottXd_M
Does the Iranian Government Have A Right To A Nuclear Bomb? Yes
Does the US and their allies have the right to burn Iran to the ground and kill every man, woman, and child if they use it in an aggressive manner? Also YES