@Rajk999 saidIranians like Jews. Under the Shah Iran had wonderful relations with Israel.
Right, let me explain what is going on here. Pakistan is the only Islamic country with nukes, and they are right next to India who are more powerful and India and Israel are allies. Indians like Jews, and dislike Muslims.
So the answer to your question is that Pakistan will think twice before trying to attack Israel. However there are dozens of reports coming out of Pak ...[text shortened]... istians and unbelievers they do it. They do it all over Nigeria and Congo.
So you have no point.
https://newlinesmag.com/argument/iran-and-israels-covert-pragmatic-friendship/
That has changed since the revolution, but plenty of Jews live peacefully in Iran so Muslims like Jews in Iran. You are just spreading misinformation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Jews
Your attempt to turn people against Iran with lies is noted.
@mike69 saidNATO is a defence alliance. Both Trump and yourself don't seem to be able to grasp this.
Pick something I said about nato, uk, and show me my mistakes
After 9/11 NATO acted as it was designed to do and came to the support of the US. (Suffering many causalities in the process).
The current war is something the US started on its own accord, not as a consequence of being attacked, and therefore not a trigger for Article 5. - Other NATO countries are not going to follow the US into an illegal and poorly planned war, based on the obvious lie of an imminent nuclear attack (only weeks away).
Your mistake Mike is not comprehending the above.
@no1marauder saidWhat an idiotic comment. Israels ability to defend itself against Islamic terrorists is the greatest deterrent. Had this not been the case Israel would have been conquered way back in 1948 and absorbed into an Islamic Palestine State, and Jews would have lived in subjection and abuse, the same way Christians in Pakistan now live. Many weaker nations have been overtaken by Islam in the last 75 years and have been destroyed, Christians murdered, women raped, and hundreds of thousands starved to death or killed. Here are some :
LMAO!
Your entire worldview falls apart if Muslim nations can be deterred by standard methods. Israel's nuclear arsenal alone would be a sufficient by the argument you just made regarding Pakistan vis-a-vis India.
**********************************
- Iran (1979): The 1979 Islamic Revolution overthrew the secular monarchy of the Shah and established an Islamic Republic governed by Shia clerics, fundamentally changing the nation into a theocracy.
- Afghanistan (1996–2001; 2021–Present): After the Soviet withdrawal, the Taliban first established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 1996. After a 20-year gap, they returned to power in 2021, reinstating a rigid interpretation of Islamic Sharia law.
- Pakistan (1970s–1980s): While gaining independence in 1947, the country underwent significant "Islamization" under Zia-ul-Haq, particularly after 1971, which formally intensified Sharia-based laws in the constitution.
- Sudan (1989): A military coup brought a government led by Omar al-Bashir to power, which enforced a strict form of Islamic law across the nation, making it an Islamic Republic in practice during the 1990s.
- Bangladesh (1977–1988): Originally founded as a secular state in 1971, Bangladesh began removing secularism from its constitution in 1977. By 1988, the Eighth Amendment officially declared Islam as the state religion.
- Mauritania (1960–Present): Since its independence, Mauritania has steadily tightened its constitutional focus on Islam, becoming an Islamic Republic where Sharia law is a primary source of legislation.
- The Gambia (2015–2017): In December 2015, President Yahya Jammeh declared The Gambia an Islamic Republic, citing the need to break away from the country’s colonial past, though this was reversed in 2017.
*********************************** From Google AI
@Metal-Brain saidMy post has not one single reference to Iran.
Iranians like Jews. Under the Shah Iran had wonderful relations with Israel.
https://newlinesmag.com/argument/iran-and-israels-covert-pragmatic-friendship/
That has changed since the revolution, but plenty of Jews live peacefully in Iran so Muslims like Jews in Iran. You are just spreading misinformation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Jews
Your attempt to turn people against Iran with lies is noted.
1 edit
@Ghost-of-a-Duke said@Ghost,
NATO is a defence alliance. Both Trump and yourself don't seem to be able to grasp this.
After 9/11 NATO acted as it was designed to do and came to the support of the US. (Suffering many causalities in the process).
The current war is something the US started on its own accord, not as a consequence of being attacked, and therefore not a trigger for Article 5. - ...[text shortened]... an imminent nuclear attack (only weeks away).
Your mistake Mike is not comprehending the above.
I kind of feel sorry for mike69 as I don't think he completely understands the situation of what is going on either.
-VR
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 211857
@Very-Rusty saidSeems that they, the Iranians, are in for an “ass kicking” by Tuesday (tomorrow) if you believe Trump’s latest threat. What’d think? Another extension?🤔
@Ghost,
I kind of feel sorry for mike69 as I don't think he completely understands the situation of what is going on either.
-VR
@Metal-Brain saidWell..then I change my question, who among the socialists would you like to be US President? We could rhen discuss a new administration without Trump, and a future of prosperity and innovation with your admiinistration.
It depends on who the primary winners are. Probably the socialist party candidate. The 2 major political parties both represent wealthy fascists. A vote for either is a wasted vote.
@Great-Big-Stees saidI believe the U.S. would have to put boots on the ground to get rid of all their firing power which is underground. The Iranians know the land better than the U.S. soldiers, so I think that would be a mistake. They have already shown their capable of taking down U.S. fighter planes. The President of Peace turned into the President of War. He even has Republicans speaking out against him now, which is not a good sign for him. Lets see how many elections they win come Mid term which comes up this year I believe.
Seems that they, the Iranians, are in for an “ass kicking” by Tuesday (tomorrow) if you believe Trump’s latest threat. What’d think? Another extension?🤔
-VR
@Very-Rusty saidI hear what you’re saying about avoiding war—I want that too. Nobody in their right mind wants conflict.
I believe the U.S. would have to put boots on the ground to get rid of all their firing power which is underground. The Iranians know the land better than the U.S. soldiers, so I think that would be a mistake. They have already shown their capable of taking down U.S. fighter planes. The President of Peace turned into the President of War. He even has Republicans speaking o ...[text shortened]... r him. Lets see how many elections they win come Mid term which comes up this year I believe.
-VR
But here’s the part that keeps me up at night.
Imagine you’re the president. You’ve built your whole life on the belief that peace is always the answer. Then one day, a country like Russia crosses a line and attacks a member of NATO. Suddenly, it’s not abstract anymore. It’s real people, real allies, real consequences.
Now you’re standing there with two choices—and neither one feels right. One of you turkeys actually says we should let Iran alone.
So in this scenario, the president canSend help or Show strength. But that risks a wider war, maybe something far worse than anyone can control.
Or he can hold back. Push for talks, sanctions, restraint. But then what? What if that hesitation tells the aggressor they can keep going? What if it puts even more innocent people in danger?
That’s the trap. It’s not about wanting war—it’s about what happens when avoiding it might actually make things worse.
I don’t think this is about being hawkish or dovish. It’s about recognizing that sometimes peace isn’t preserved by stepping back… sometimes it’s preserved by making sure the other side knows that you won’t. Peace through strength.?
I wish there were a clean, moral answer. There isn’t. There’s just the weight of the decision—and the consequences
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 said@AverageJoe1,
I hear what you’re saying about avoiding war—I want that too. Nobody in their right mind wants conflict.
But here’s the part that keeps me up at night.
Imagine you’re the president. You’ve built your whole life on the belief that peace is always the answer. Then one day, a country like Russia crosses a line and attacks a member of NATO. Suddenly, it’s not abstract a ...[text shortened]... ere a clean, moral answer. There isn’t. There’s just the weight of the decision—and the consequences
I think Trump made things worst not better, he would have to put boots on the ground to eliminate all threats from Iran. That could drag on for a long time, we don't know about sleeper cells that may have been in the U.S. since birth and loyal to Iran and what damage they could do. Food and Gas Prices will continue to rise in the U.S. and around the world. There is always a domino effect in this kind of war.
Trump already lied by saying he had sent Iran back in to the stone age, yet here they are shooting American fighter planes out of the sky. I would say he over stated how well they had done. Trump thinks he can do it all on his own and he can't which he is beginning to find out.
What keeps me up night is having a lunatic President with his finger on the button that could start a nuke war, which would pretty much end civilization as we know it. Also having a bunch of yes men and women with no one to put the reins on him.
-VR
@AverageJoe1 saidAll that long talk is useless with this crowd.
I hear what you’re saying about avoiding war—I want that too. Nobody in their right mind wants conflict.
But here’s the part that keeps me up at night.
Imagine you’re the president. You’ve built your whole life on the belief that peace is always the answer. Then one day, a country like Russia crosses a line and attacks a member of NATO. Suddenly, it’s not abstract a ...[text shortened]... ere a clean, moral answer. There isn’t. There’s just the weight of the decision—and the consequences
Islam does not respond favorably to weakness, so war and force is the only way to have a lasting stable peace.
@Very-Rusty saidYou can always say he thinks he can do it on his own, since he is bitching that NATO will do nothing to help. He asks them to. But he is a very positive person, as you can see by the way he says he will obliterate things and how he’s going to send them back to the Stone Age. Spoken like a true positive person Sounds good to me. A leader, like Patton.
@AverageJoe1,
I think Trump made things worst not better, he would have to put boots on the ground to eliminate all threats from Iran. That could drag on for a long time, we don't know about sleeper cells that may have been in the U.S. since birth and loyal to Iran and what damage they could do. Food and Gas Prices will continue to rise in the U.S. and around the world. ...[text shortened]... s we know it. Also having a bunch of yes men and women with no one to put the reins on him.
-VR
Yes we have domino effects in war. Whew.
So given all that you have just written, tell us to what extent reins should be put on our president, or do you think that we should just leave like marauder does. Which gives me back to my post just above.
Like, we are where we are. So what is the next step that Trump should take as you are so all knowing about military.
@AverageJoe1 said@AverageJoe1,
You can always say he thinks he can do it on his own, since he is bitching that NATO will do nothing to help. He asks them to. But he is a very positive person, as you can see by the way he says he will obliterate things and how he’s going to send them back to the Stone Age. Spoken like a true positive person Sounds good to me. A leader, like Patton.
Yes we have dom ...[text shortened]... re we are. So what is the next step that Trump should take as you are so all knowing about military.
I know Trump knows nothing about Military for sure. He thought Iran would be a peace of cake and is finding out differently. They will die to the last man and kill many along the way.
He underestimated Iran but is too bullheaded to admit it. You followers aren't a whole lot smarter in my opinion.
BTW....Just for your info U.S. is getting help not doing it alone and two countries can't take Iran down. How strong are they actually at the end of the day?
-VR
@Very-Rusty saidI get all that, Trump, tds, etc, but like I said , here we are, in the thick of it.
@AverageJoe1,
I know Trump knows nothing about Military for sure. He thought Iran would be a peace of cake and is finding out differently. They will die to the last man and kill many along the way.
He underestimated Iran but is too bullheaded to admit it. You followers aren't a whole lot smarter in my opinion.
BTW....Just for your info U.S. is getting help not do ...[text shortened]... e and two countries can't take Iran down. How strong are they actually at the end of the day?
-VR
So if you can write a post without the word, Trump in it and tell me if we should be there, if we should leave, should we have gone there in the first place….. That is what I’m looking for, it’s kind of like Neville Chamberlain who went over and spoke to Hitler and said ‘can we work this out’?
No need to get upset, only Funhouse gets to do that. Do you want to shut Iran down or not.?