Home | Community | Message Board



Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Growery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineCoaster
I'm Back Baby
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/23/08
Posts: 25,306
Loc: Sativa Central Flag
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DeadHearts]
    #465907 - 08/23/10 01:23 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Iran has stated millions of times that countries that own nukes are deplorable and that man and nuclear weapons cannot coexist. America wanted to wipe off the USSR off the map yet they did so peacefully, Iran will do the same. America is just as afraid of Iran as they are of us, attacking them would be suicide and all commanders know this.

:apestheclown:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDungenessDank
Lord of the Flies


Registered: 05/05/08
Posts: 9,372
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: Coaster]
    #465912 - 08/23/10 01:34 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Know why they aren't crying out Iran having chemical and biological weapons? Because they actually have them, and would use them on our troops.

No Thank You.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDeadHearts

Registered: 03/12/10
Posts: 710
Loc: ▐▐▐▐▐
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DungenessDank]
    #465918 - 08/23/10 01:51 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DungenessDank said:
Know why they aren't crying out Iran having chemical and biological weapons? Because they actually have them, and would use them on our troops.

No Thank You.




:facepalm:

If they did have them then of course they would use them on our
troops LOL. WTF??

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoaster
I'm Back Baby
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/23/08
Posts: 25,306
Loc: Sativa Central Flag
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DeadHearts]
    #465936 - 08/23/10 02:08 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

there would be zero purpose for a full scale invasion anyways its un:happyweed:productive


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekyuzo
Stranger Than Fiction

Registered: 07/05/10
Posts: 981
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: Coaster]
    #465990 - 08/23/10 03:35 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

lol @ this thread devolving into nothing more than blind emotionalism

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTomCollins


Registered: 10/06/09
Posts: 2,943
Last seen: 3 months, 5 days
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DungenessDank]
    #465999 - 08/23/10 04:18 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DungenessDank said:
:lol:

Don't be so ignorant.

The most war hungry nation to ever exist?
Ever hear of The British Empire?

Eastern Europe has been a war zone ever since WW2.

I'd be curious as to what ethnic group you consider yourself part of.




Yeah. If a proper comparison was done, my money would still be on you guys.

The whole of Eastern Europe has been a war zone since WW2? :lolsy: :facepalm: I dunno about that man.


--------------------
andyistic said:
Ok so let me bring you idiots up to speed.
The admins are tired of this shitfest being made the joke of the weed community on the Internet.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDungenessDank
Lord of the Flies


Registered: 05/05/08
Posts: 9,372
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: TomCollins]
    #466015 - 08/23/10 05:20 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Face it, you guys can't go 10 years without some kind of political coop or assault from Russia over there. It'd bundle it together with the middle east based on its political stability.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleInverted
CNC Machinist/Greenthumb
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/01/08
Posts: 9,953
Loc: North Star Flag
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DeadHearts]
    #466016 - 08/23/10 05:33 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DeadHearts said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
My money is on Israel.  Israel FTW.




Nice. I like how we sit here and cheer for war.




:lol:  The American way FTL


--------------------
Don't criticize what you can't understand

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDeadHearts

Registered: 03/12/10
Posts: 710
Loc: ▐▐▐▐▐
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: Inverted]
    #466027 - 08/23/10 06:06 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Inverted said:
Quote:

DeadHearts said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
My money is on Israel.  Israel FTW.




Nice. I like how we sit here and cheer for war.




:lol:  The American way FTL




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDungenessDank
Lord of the Flies


Registered: 05/05/08
Posts: 9,372
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DeadHearts]
    #466029 - 08/23/10 06:09 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Pacifist have no place in a discussion about war.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDeadHearts

Registered: 03/12/10
Posts: 710
Loc: ▐▐▐▐▐
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DungenessDank]
    #466035 - 08/23/10 06:15 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DungenessDank said:
Pacifist have no place in a discussion about war.




Um I think you are wrong about that :lol:

As it directly relates to war in general.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekyuzo
Stranger Than Fiction

Registered: 07/05/10
Posts: 981
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DeadHearts]
    #466044 - 08/23/10 06:30 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Nelson Mandela on the ANC's innevitable turn towards violence: 


<<< Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.

But the violence which we chose to adopt was not terrorism. We who formed Umkhonto were all members of the African National Congress, and had behind us the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of solving political disputes. We believe that South Africa belongs to all the people who live in it, and not to one group, be it black or white. We did not want an interracial war, and tried to avoid it to the last minute. If the court is in doubt about this, it will be seen that the whole history of our organisation bears out what I have said, and what I will subsequently say, when I describe the tactics which Umkhonto decided to adopt. I want, therefore, to say something about the African National Congress.

The African National Congress was formed in 1912 to defend the rights of the African people which had been seriously curtailed by the South Africa Act, and which were then being threatened by the Native Land Act. For thirty-seven years - that is until 1949 - it adhered strictly to a constitutional struggle. It put forward demands and resolutions; it sent delegations to the Government in the belief that African grievances could be settled through peaceful discussion and that Africans could advance gradually to full political rights. But white governments remained unmoved, and the rights of Africans became less instead of becoming greater. In the words of my leader, Chief Lutuli, who became President of the ANC in 1952, and who was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:

"Who will deny that thirty years of my life have been spent knocking in vain, patiently, moderately, and modestly at a closed and barred door? What have been the fruits of moderation? The past thirty years have seen the greatest number of laws restricting our rights and progress, until today we have reached a stage where we have almost no rights at all."

Even after 1949, the ANC remained determined to avoid violence. At this time, however, there was a change from the strictly constitutional means of protest which had been employed in the past. The change was embodied in a decision which was taken to protest against apartheid legislation by peaceful, but unlawful, demonstrations against certain laws. Pursuant to this policy the ANC launched the Defiance Campaign, in which I was placed in charge of volunteers. This campaign was based on the principles of passive resistance. More than 8,500 people defied apartheid laws and went to jail. Yet there was not a single instance of violence in the course of this campaign on the part of any defier. I and nineteen colleagues were convicted for the role which we played in organising the campaign, but our sentences were suspended mainly because the judge found that discipline and non-violence had been stressed throughout. This was the time when the volunteer section of the ANC was established, and when the word 'Amadelakufa' was first used: this was the time when the volunteers were asked to take a pledge to uphold certain principles. Evidence dealing with volunteers and their pledges has been introduced into this case, but completely out of context. The volunteers were not, and are not, the soldiers of a black army pledged to fight a civil war against the whites. They were, and are, dedicated workers who are prepared to lead campaigns initiated by the ANC to distribute leaflets, to organise strikes, or do whatever the particular campaign required. They are called volunteers because they volunteer to face the penalties of imprisonment and whipping which are now prescribed by the legislature for such acts.

During the defiance campaign, the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act were passed. These statutes provided harsher penalties for offences committed by way of protests against laws. Despite this, the protests continued and the ANC adhered to its policy of non-violence. In 1956, 156 leading members of the Congress alliance, including myself, were arrested on a charge of high treason and charges under the Suppression of Communism Act. The non-violent policy of the ANC was put in issue by the state, but when the court gave judgement some five years later, it found that the ANC did not have a policy of violence. We were acquitted on all counts, which included a count that the ANC sought to set up a communist state in place of the existing regime. The government has always sought to label all its opponents as communists. This allegation has been repeated in the present case, but as I will show, the ANC is not, and never has been, a communist organisation.

In 1960 there was the shooting at Sharpeville, which resulted in the proclamation of a state of emergency and the declaration of the ANC as an unlawful organisation. My colleagues and I, after careful consideration, decided that we would not obey this decree. The African people were not part of the government and did not make the laws by which they were governed. We believed in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that 'the will of the people shall be the basis of authority of the government,' and for us to accept the banning was equivalent to accepting the silencing of the Africans for all time. The ANC refused to dissolve, but instead went underground. We believed it was our duty to preserve this organisation which had been built up with almost fifty years of unremitting toil. I have no doubt that no self-respecting white political organisation would disband itself if declared illegal by a government in which it had no say.

In 1960 the government held a referendum which led to the establishment of the republic. Africans, who constituted approximately 70 per cent of the population of South Africa, were not entitled to vote, and were not even consulted about the proposed constitutional change. All of us were apprehensive of our future under the proposed white republic, and a resolution was taken to hold an all-in African conference to call for a national convention, and to organise mass demonstrations on the eve of the unwanted republic, if the government failed to call the convention. The conference was attended by Africans of various political persuasions. I was the secretary of the conference and undertook to be responsible for organising the national stay-at-home which was subsequently called to coincide with the declaration of the republic. As all strikes by Africans are illegal, the person organising such a strike must avoid arrest. I was chosen to be this person, and consequently I had to leave my home and family and my practice and go into hiding to avoid arrest.

The stay-at-home, in accordance with ANC policy, was to be a peaceful demonstration. Careful instructions were given to organisers and members to avoid any recourse to violence. The government's answer was to introduce new and harsher laws, to mobilise its armed forces, and to send saracens, armed vehicles, and soldiers into the townships in a massive show of force designed to intimidate the people. This was an indication that the government had decided to rule by force alone, and this decision was a milestone on the road to Umkhonto.

Some of this may appear irrelevant to this trial. In fact, I believe none of it is irrelevant because it will, I hope, enable the court to appreciate the attitude eventually adopted by the various persons and bodies concerned in the National Liberation Movement. When I went to jail in 1962, the dominant idea was that loss of life should be avoided. I now know that this was still so in 1963.

I must return to June 1961. What were we, the leaders of our people, to do? Were we to give in to the show of force and the implied threat against future action, or were we to fight it and, if so, how?

We had no doubt that we had to continue the fight. Anything else would have been abject surrender. Our problem was not whether to fight, but was how to continue the fight. We of the ANC had always stood for a non-racial democracy, and we shrank from any action which might drive the races further apart than they already were. But the hard facts were that fifty years of non-violence had brought the African people nothing but more and more repressive legislation, and fewer and fewer rights. It may not be easy for this court to understand, but it is a fact that for a long time the people had been talking of violence - of the day when they would fight the white man and win back their country - and we, the leaders of the ANC, had nevertheless always prevailed upon them to avoid violence and to pursue peaceful methods. When some of us discussed this in May and June of 1961, it could not be denied that our policy to achieve a non-racial state by non-violence had achieved nothing, and that our followers were beginning to lose confidence in this policy and were developing disturbing ideas of terrorism.

It must not be forgotten that by this time violence had, in fact, become a feature of the South African political scene. There had been violence in 1957 when the women of Zeerust were ordered to carry passes; there was violence in 1958 with the enforcement of cattle culling in Sekhukhuniland; there was violence in 1959 when the people of Cato Manor protested against pass raids; there was violence in 1960 when the government attempted to impose Bantu authorities in Pondoland. Thirty-nine Africans died in these disturbances. In 1961 there had been riots in Warmbaths, and all this time the Transkei had been a seething mass of unrest. Each disturbance pointed clearly to the inevitable growth among Africans of the belief that violence was the only way out - it showed that a government which uses force to maintain its rule teaches the oppressed to use force to oppose it. Already small groups had arisen in the urban areas and were spontaneously making plans for violent forms of political struggle. There now arose a danger that these groups would adopt terrorism against Africans, as well as whites, if not properly directed. Particularly disturbing was the type of violence engendered in places such as Zeerust, Sekhukhuniland, and Pondoland amongst Africans. It was increasingly taking the form, not of struggle against the government - though this is what prompted it - but of civil strife amongst themselves, conducted in such a way that it could not hope to achieve anything other than a loss of life and bitterness.

At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.

This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice. >>>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/23/nelsonmandela1

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDeadHearts

Registered: 03/12/10
Posts: 710
Loc: ▐▐▐▐▐
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: kyuzo]
    #466049 - 08/23/10 06:48 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Just a question. What was youre motivation behind posting that?
What is youre opinion on the matter?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekyuzo
Stranger Than Fiction

Registered: 07/05/10
Posts: 981
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DeadHearts]
    #466054 - 08/23/10 07:13 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DeadHearts said:
Just a question. What was youre motivation behind posting that?




to underline the idealistic nature of pacifism, and how it's dependent on some shared perception of common humanity between two sides

Quote:

DeadHearts said:What is youre opinion on the matter?




I generally think force should be a very last resort and am not quite convinced that's the only option left here (though I am honestly at a loss for what those other options are at this point).


Personally i would prefer the route of heavy sanctions, but they come with their own set of issues

Edited by kyuzo (08/23/10 07:16 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePicklez
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 17,919
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DungenessDank] * 1
    #466068 - 08/23/10 07:42 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

He's still bitter over Normandy and the failure of his countries ambitions to mass murder anyone and everyone who doesnt look and think like their own.

It wont be the United States who attacks Iran, it will be Israel. And IMO Israel will be justified. And it wont be an invasion, it will be a bombing of designated targets including nuclear facilities and materials storage locations.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDieCommie


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 214
Loc: West of the Wall
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: Picklez]
    #466072 - 08/23/10 07:46 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Makes sense to me ^^.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDeadHearts

Registered: 03/12/10
Posts: 710
Loc: ▐▐▐▐▐
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: Picklez]
    #466073 - 08/23/10 07:46 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

KillerPicklez said:
bombing of designated targets including nuclear facilities and materials storage locations.




Yeah there's not going to be any real damage or loss of life after that
attack.

Im completely baffled as to how anyone can support this shit.
How are they a fucking threat??

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDungenessDank
Lord of the Flies


Registered: 05/05/08
Posts: 9,372
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DieCommie]
    #466075 - 08/23/10 07:47 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Then they can come back 10 years later when the current presidents son is elected and really have at it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTomCollins


Registered: 10/06/09
Posts: 2,943
Last seen: 3 months, 5 days
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: DungenessDank]
    #466581 - 08/24/10 02:11 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DungenessDank said:
Face it, you guys can't go 10 years without some kind of political coop or assault from Russia over there.




We've gone 20 years so far. My country in particular has been one of the most economically successful post soviet countries in the world.

Face it, you have no clue what you're talking about. :lmafo:

Quote:

KillerPicklez said:Spency- I thought you of all people would know what ethnic cleansing looked like  :lolocaust:




Why would I know that?


--------------------
andyistic said:
Ok so let me bring you idiots up to speed.
The admins are tired of this shitfest being made the joke of the weed community on the Internet.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMagashM
The Feminizer
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/21/08
Posts: 6,634
Re: Israel vs Iran [Re: TomCollins]
    #466592 - 08/24/10 02:29 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Hey you guys, why do you keep saying the United States is broke?

Remember they have said they are broke for years and when the banks say they need money the Government bails them out with 8 billion dollars. When the banks said that wasn't enough they got 8 billion more.

The United States is that friend that always comes over and takes bong hits, eats the pizza, and drinks the beer without ever chipping in cause we say we are to broke. Then we roll up a day later in a new corvette. :wink:


May wanna remove the U.S. is broke thing from the argument.


:popcorn:


--------------------
All creatures tremble when faced with violence. All creatures fear death, all love life. If we can only see ourselves in others, then how could we possibly hurt another creature?


:growingweed: Join us at the Growery! :growingweed:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Ready for war against Iran?
( 1 2 all )
Picklez 4,509 33 11/09/12 09:15 AM
by Tank333
* Iran tested medium-long range missles today
( 1 2 all )
Picklez 5,603 25 07/10/08 02:31 PM
by Butters
* jewitagain is moving to israel
( 1 2 all )
Doitagain 7,110 29 12/23/08 01:58 PM
by Doitagain
* Iran Sells Clean Fusion-Based Electricity Across South Asia sloantbone 458 0 12/25/12 06:21 PM
by sloantbone
* Cease fire between Israel and Gaza Strip ends, 155 dead
( 1 2 all )
MassSpectrometer 9,343 32 12/27/08 08:57 PM
by Picklez
* NKorea steps up rhetoric amid nuclear crisis bobby 1,189 4 06/10/09 09:06 AM
by Ben18
* 24 reasons to support Israel
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Doitagain 21,724 100 02/08/09 07:01 PM
by Doitagain
* Security troops on US nuclear missile base took LSD Deadkndys420 1,804 9 06/18/18 08:59 AM
by Stoneth

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: FurrowedBrow, Harry_Ba11sach, Magash, Data, Stoneth, Dr. Siekadellyk
11,970 topic views. 10 members, 461 guests and 293 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 13 queries.