Iranian Situation... - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15014131
Noemon wrote:Second, racism in your multi-racial society has been anathema in the past couple of decades only because your elites realised that inciting/permitting racial hatred will lead to the fragmentation of the USA due to the sheer size of non-white American community. And lastly we can clearly see in here that racist people with extremely racist views against other people and countries are still bothered being called out "racists" and are openly calling for the silencing of those who are calling them out as such as if free-speech only applies to them saying racist stuff but not to those calling them out. These people are neither free-speech advocates as they pretend nor are they not-racists. They are simply racists who demand the privilege of a safe space for racism.
QFT.

@anasawad Read that carefully. I think it applies to your comment on another thread about people using words like Nazi and racist.
User avatar
By noemon
#15014137
blackjack21 wrote:You can be jailed in many parts of Europe for speech issues. Try wearing a swastika in Germany. Try making derogatory comments about migrants in France. Try making a video of your dog doing a Nazi salute in the UK.


A clever person does not need to be derogatory and insulting to exercise the points of his/her speech. Making derogatory comments about migrants in France is a national pastime and the swastika in Germany was banned by the US-UK.

Nothing prevents them from organizing in the US. They are just not very popular. You might not consider the Ku Klux Klan to be an extremist group, but a lot of people in America would disagree with you. They were very popular for a long time and a big part of the Democratic party machine. Ku Klux Klan rally. In the US, Bernie Sanders runs as a Democratic Socialist in the Democratic party. Most of the Democratic party's more popular candidates are well to the left of center. Joe Biden is the last mainstream centrist, but between his neo roots, gaffes and the #metoo movement trying to flush him, the Democrats are headed to the left.


First of all I do not consider the KKK a non-extremist group, they are. Bernie Sanders and Cortez are totally mainstream in Europe, they are not the fringes as they are in the US. This shows a greater thread, Sanders and Cortez is where the limits of left go, while in Europe these views are in the centre rather than the fringe. At this point and by the standards of our resident right-wingers anyone who speaks kindly or neutrally for foreign people and does not want to kill them, deport them or imprison them is in your view a leftist. Is that really the demarcation line between the left and the right? And you can pretend that this may not be the case but most of the Trump supporters employ this kind of language in here and elsewhere and everywhere. If you do not mind a foreign guy for a neighbour you are somehow a leftist part of the establishment, a globalist or a "liberal", if you support anti-immigration policies, you are somehow a good guy.

We have a first past the post, winner-takes-all political system. Nobody is going to stop you from proposing a Nazi government. You just won't get enough adherents to be politically relevant. So people will just see you as some sort of crank if you do that.


France also has a first past the post system, but Le Pen is at 45% of the vote apparently. It's not just about the electoral system but various things like the media, art, tv, music and culture in general. Your polarities are so close to each other that the rope you have in between them is simply very small. The polarities ought to be further apart from each other to permit a healthy level of free speech and dialogue instead of mere platitudes.

Universal healthcare discussions are not prohibited in the United States by a long shot. Americans just look at the roads and say to themselves, "do we want the people responsible for our roads to be responsible for our healthcare too"? The answer is usually "no." Americans want more affordable health care, not socialist health care. American health care is shielded from true capitalist competition. That's why it's so expensive.


American corporate health care is shielded indeed to protect it from dangerous non-profit notions and not to disturb this mega health and pharma corporation racket they have got going.

Blackjack21 wrote:We had a fascist thread going here on PoFo at one point, and you were the most vocal opponent of it. How you claim to have free speech when you routinely use your moderators powers to suppress speech you don't like here on PoFo is absolutely bewildering.


This is so hilarious in so many levels that I cannot really miss the opportunity. How can you claim to accuse me of being against free-speech when you have the entitlement and freedom to make such an accusation against the head admin of the forum you are posting under? This is the same thing as going to have dinner inside someones house and spitting on their food, scratching the table, while yelling insults at them and for no reason either, I have not done something to you and the few times I have warned you for something was for rule violations, unapologetically. You 're like seriously tripping dude and you are showing that you have issues. Something about a fascist thread? Really? A vague accusation about something at some point and using my powers to suppress it? :lol: These figments of your imagination, if you have honestly convinced yourself of them then I seriously recommend that you see a therapist, if not and they are a rhetorical trick to turn this conversation either about me or to turn you into a self-fulfilling victim and then back to me as some kind of oppressor then let it be known to everyone reading that such kind of behaviour will not be tolerated. Either way it is irrelevant to my argument that the political spectrum is more colourful in Europe and consequently the breadth and depth of free speech is larger than it is in the US.

Accusations against the administrational integrity are not tolerated and no self-respecting individual would tolerate operating under an oppressor. Do not accuse me or any other mods for abusing our powers in the open forum. If anyone disagrees with a moderating decision then that can be disputed in the Basement or via PM. If someone feels slighted, then they know where the door is. Consider this fair warning.


A lot of people were utterly appalled by what they did in Libya and Syria--especially the Syria refugee crisis they spawned. So there are plenty of people who would have voted against Hillary for that reason. A lot of evangelicals for example would have voted against her for her position on late-term and partial birth abortion. You can chalk everything up to racism if you wish, but Trump even got more of the Hispanic vote than Romney did.


As I said if we are going to get technical there are various reasons to be said, sure I agree, but that is not the question I asked you exactly which you have evaded:

noemon wrote:Now we can put it to rest that "Killary's warmongering" was a real reason at least for those who are cheerleading the warmongering with Iran. Don't you agree?


Do you agree with this?

I don't think the US should invade Iran. I think the US Navy should demand more space around our warships. If Iran did shoot down a US drone, the US should have a meaningful response.


I agree.

Ok. So moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is an absolutely unprecedented event in modern history in your mind, and in mine it doesn't even warrant a shrug of my shoulders. I don't care.


No, that is not what is "unprecedented", lots of countries move their embassies from one city to another all the time, what is totally unprecedented is the US president essentially ceding foreign territory to another country without anything in return, a total freebie and not once but twice in 2 years. I thought Americans were supposedly all for capitalism and for trade and exchanging things between people and nations and totally against hand-outs. This kind of behaviour is unprecedented indeed and creates a whole host of problems not just for the world order in general but for the US in particular as it totally discredits the country in the international stage. You want to give East Jerusalem to Israel and go die in Iran that's...sure whatever...but did you ask the East Jerusalemites? When you say to the world I think these people's houses, churches and mosques should belong to a hostile nation don't you have to finish the sentence by saying that "but it was all necessary for this {insert an achievement, peace treaty, ceasefire, release of equivalent land elsewhere}". Would it not concern you a great deal if it was Hillary doing this?

I think pretending that Israel is not a US ally hasn't helped us in decades of trying to bring peace to that region, so I see little point in maintaining a facade that fools nobody.


This just goes to show that you are not very familiar with modern recent history and the international relations and treaties that define our world which are all the result of some sort of compromise even when dealing with defeated nations like Germany and Japan, let alone for thriving countries like Israel. But just so you know you can be an ally with someone, and can help them secure a better deal without having non-achievements under your belt. You can have some self-respect while doing it for example. Self-respect is good for the nation but most importantly good for international relations as it maintains the order that the US itself has created and shaped.

They normalized relations with Egypt too. Saudi Arabia fears Iran. So does Israel. The enemy of my enemy is my friend--as the foreign policy adage goes.


And if they normalised relations with Iran instead of Saudi then they would all be against Saudi....

What would racism have to do with Iran? They're aryan. R1 haplogroup. Maybe Arabs feel that way about Iranians, but it's not clear why you think Trump supporters would dislike Iran on some sort of racial basis. You seem race obsessed.


Are you implying that Americans consider the Iranians the same race as them? Cause the fact of the matter is that they do not. And that is not the meaning of what I said anyway.

Anti-immigrant isn't all about race either. It's significantly about wages. That's why Trump's tariff threats should have been taken seriously, but weren't by his detractors. I had a many hundred page thread on Trump that got shut down by the moderators. free speech :roll:


Get a grip about your complaining like a victim, it's cringeworthy honestly. A Trump thread getting locked 2 or 3 years ago by a mod(not even sure who it was) was temporarily removed to be cleaned up of insults merely to prevent further posts being made while cleaning is taking place(a usual practice for cases left unchecked for a long time), then reinstated and locked as there was no more to be said. You and anybody can say anything you like about Trump in here as you keep doing so your whining is totally ridiculous.

Look mate you are catching me in a very relaxing moment and hence the tolerance here but let me tell you clearly, if you actually had a point you would say: "Look noemon this idea of mine I cannot say it because you do not let me", I am honestly not aware of any idea or political statement that I have prevented you from sharing with me or others. So drop the act and get a grip.

You argue that we don't have free speech in the US, ignore the fact that you can be criminally sanctioned for speech in Europe, claim to be for some sort of "real free speech", and simultaneously use your moderator powers to take down speech you don't like.


I do not ever take down speech I do not like but insults against individuals and races that cannot be permitted in civilised conversation among adults. If you feel like screeching like a baboon, that too will be removed.

That sort of thing happens on PoFo right here too by you, way the hell over in Greece. You try to prevent anyone from espousing racist opinions here. You can certainly do that, but it's quite hypocritical to say there is more free speech in Europe of that you are somehow a champion of free speech.


Sure I fight against racism, that is our mission statement and rules. The fact that you consider this a bad thing or against free-speech just goes to show the ridiculous level of your entitlement. You might be surprised to hear this apparently but fighting against racism is an exercise of my own free-speech, participating and leading a community that is explicitly committed to fighting against racism is also an exercise of my own free-speech. The fact of the matter is that Europe has far greater free-speech than the US as I have clearly demonstrated. I have not made a statement about my own self at all. You are the one attacking me with ridiculous accusations despite the fact that I have not censored any political statements of yours. Your behaviour shows that you are the one who wants to silence others from exercising their right to free speech by preventing them from fighting against racism for example which is what you are arguing for and you also believe that slandering me in my own forum/house is the proper way to achieve your goal!!! :lol:

Does it really get any more ridiculous than this?

European countries have indeed a more active and plural voice of opinion. That makes the thread these countries swing from in the pendulum between left and right a lot larger than the US's thread which means that they operate within a larger fence of acceptable speech. That is the fact of the matter.

Well, if the mainstream media in the US and UK don't allow racist views, and Donald Trump got elected because of racism in your view, clearly your statement, "It is a heavily constrained free-speech, totally monitored and directed by the most powerful mind bending machine in history, tv, radio & internet." is manifestly false by your own arguments.


That is what is a total non-issue, if there is something to be shrugged off is some loud mouth railing against immigrants stealing our jobs, you think a) that this deserves to be the defining political discourse and fault line and b) that racist discourse is the victim here.

Brexit and Donald Trump alone would toss that on its head, and yet you embrace the US establishment's argument that anyone who opposes them does so because they are racist. :roll:


Both of these events confirm racism on its head indeed. I do not embrace this argument and nor is it anywhere implied or stated that I do.
By Hindsite
#15014169
skinster wrote:America's going it alone, nobody wants to play with America (besides its client genocidal regimes Israel and Saudi Arabia who nobody loves)

This is making President Trump ask the question, "Why is the U.S.A. alone expected to defend other countries ships against Iranian attacks?"

Does anyone remember that a community in the Golan Heights was named Trump Heights?
#15014177
noemon wrote:A clever person does not need to be derogatory and insulting to exercise the points of his/her speech.

So does that mean that people who aren't clever don't get freedom of speech?

noemon wrote:Making derogatory comments about migrants in France is a national pastime

Yes, but it's also subject to prosecution.

noemon wrote:and the swastika in Germany was banned by the US-UK.

The allies haven't ruled Germany for a little while now. Germany is responsible for its own laws.

noemon wrote:Bernie Sanders and Cortez are totally mainstream in Europe, they are not the fringes as they are in the US. This shows a greater thread, Sanders and Cortez is where the limits of left go, while in Europe these views are in the centre rather than the fringe.

That's because Europe for all practical purposes doesn't pay for its own defense.

noemon wrote:At this point and by the standards of our resident right-wingers anyone who speaks kindly or neutrally for foreign people and does not want to kill them, deport them or imprison them is in your view a leftist.

That's not my view. I work with foreign people on a daily basis. I have an 8:00 a.m. call with a bunch of guys in Spain tomorrow morning. I was in Dubai just last month. Just because I am opposed to illegal immigration doesn't mean I hate foreigners.

noemon wrote:If you do not mind a foreign guy for a neighbour you are somehow a leftist part of the establishment, a globalist or a "liberal", if you support anti-immigration policies, you are somehow a good guy.

Nobody cares about whether someone has immigrated from a foreign nation. They care about people being here illegally. If you are here illegally, you don't have a social security number, you don't file a 1040, and you can get free social services without paying taxes for them. Additionally, we have a serious problem of non-assimilation--people who refuse to learn the language, teach their kids the language, etc. Illegal immigration not only drives down wages for the working poor, it breaks social cohesion and leads to many other social problems.

noemon wrote:such kind of behaviour will not be tolerated.

In other words, speech you don't agree with, because that's the only behavior that's even possible on a bulletin board.

noemon wrote:Either way it is irrelevant to my argument that the political spectrum is more colourful in Europe and consequently the breadth and depth of free speech is larger than it is in the US.

Europe has more of an appetite for left wing politics than America does, but it's not because people are prevented from speaking about left wing ideas. AOC's views are standard fare on any college campus and are the views of most media talking heads. They just cater to a country that doesn't agree with them.

noemon wrote:Do you agree with this?

No. Trump supporters generally aren't calling for war with Iran. John Bolton was a Bush guy. It's no surprise he's calling for military action, but he's never done anything different and he would be just as happy serving Hillary Clinton.

noemon wrote:No, that is not what is "unprecedented", lots of countries move their embassies from one city to another all the time, what is totally unprecedented is the US president essentially ceding foreign territory to another country without anything in return, a total freebie and not once but twice in 2 years.

It's not American territory to cede. Trump is basically just saying that he sides with Israel in this matter.

noemon wrote:I thought Americans were supposedly all for capitalism and for trade and exchanging things between people and nations and totally against hand-outs.

The entire Democratic party is founded on hand-outs. They pay for votes.

noemon wrote:This kind of behaviour is unprecedented indeed and creates a whole host of problems not just for the world order in general but for the US in particular as it totally discredits the country in the international stage.

Really? Have we ever been "credited on the international stage" by people who disagree with us? Trump just rejects that rhetoric wholesale, and I agree with him on that point.

noemon wrote:You want to give East Jerusalem to Israel and go die in Iran that's...sure whatever.

Where is this assumption we want to go and die in Iran? At most, I think people are just trying to ensure that Straits of Hormuz remain open and Iran doesn't procure a nuclear weapon. Otherwise, we don't care all that much.

noemon wrote:Would it not concern you a great deal if it was Hillary doing this?

In the case of moving the embassy or recognizing Israeli suzerainty over the Golan Heights? Not particularly. Like Trump, I thought trying to overthrow Assad was foolish. Iraq wasn't nearly stable enough.

noemon wrote:This just goes to show that you are not very familiar with modern recent history and the international relations and treaties that define our world which are all the result of some sort of compromise even when dealing with defeated nations like Germany and Japan, let alone for thriving countries like Israel. But just so you know you can be an ally with someone, and can help them secure a better deal without having non-achievements under your belt. You can have some self-respect while doing it for example. Self-respect is good for the nation but most importantly good for international relations as it maintains the order that the US itself has created and shaped.

Palestinian groups have rarely negotiated in good faith, so it's no surprise that an ardent realist like Trump isn't going to wax hope for some pie-in-the-sky peace settlement. Gaza could easily model itself as the Singapore or Hong Kong of the Middle East, but it prefers to fight Israel, which is a fools errand in my view. Ten or twenty years of conflict would make some sense, but these people have been on the losing side of a fight lasting 70 years now.

noemon wrote:The fact that you consider this a bad thing or against free-speech just goes to show the ridiculous level of your entitlement.

It's definitely against free speech. Race-based systems are a historical fact.

noemon wrote:That makes the thread these countries swing from in the pendulum between left and right a lot larger than the US's thread which means that they operate within a larger fence of acceptable speech.

It's hard to believe that's the case when Tommy Robinson gets jailed for things that are perfectly legal in the US, because of our first amendment. It's even harder to believe when Count Dankula gets criminally charged for making a silly video of his dog doing a Nazi salute to taunt his girlfriend. Yet, this is common fare in Europe, just as it is common for Jean-Marie Le Pen to face fines for his comments, or Brigit Bardot for that matter.

noemon wrote:Both of these events confirm racism on its head indeed.

That is just your opinion. It is not dispositive of fact.

Hindsite wrote:This is making President Trump ask the question, "Why is the U.S.A. alone expected to defend other countries ships against Iranian attacks?"

Right. Save for the drone, it wasn't any US tanker that was hit. Doesn't Finland have a navy? Japan certainly does. Maybe they need to start escorting their ships through the Strait of Hormuz, put together some caravans, etc.

Beren wrote:Instead of having a war with Iran Americans should rather consider if they want their country to be like Iran. Or Russia. Or Turkey.

All of these countries are religiously more conservative than America at present, and I think a lot of evangelical Christians would prefer their more religious overtones to the calls for gay marriage, transgender bathrooms and various other LGBTQ fare. So in that respect, I don't think Americans intrinsically hate any of these countries, while our politicians may hate them but not really speak for the American people.

Anyway, I think we need a poll of who is actually interested in seeing America go to war with Iran, because there seems to be a lot of in-built assumptions that if you support Trump than surely you must want to go war with Iran, because you're a racist and that's what racists want to do... :roll: I frankly don't see a lot of interest in a war.
By Hindsite
#15014179
blackjack21 wrote:That's because Europe for all practical purposes doesn't pay for its own defense.

For all practical purposes, the USA supplement their prescription drug prices too.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15014193
Blackjack21 wrote:It's hard to believe that's the case when Tommy Robinson gets jailed for things that are perfectly legal in the US, because of our first amendment.
Just because you do not want to understand laws, doesn't mean they're wrong.

In May 2017, Tommy Robinson was arrested for contempt of court after he attempted to take video of the defendants in an ongoing rape trial outside Canterbury Crown Court.

Robinson was jailed and later released in mid-2018 for almost collapsing the Huddersfield grooming gang trial.

On 25 May 2018, Robinson was arrested for a breach of the peace while live streaming outside Leeds Crown Court[125][128] during the trial of the Huddersfield grooming gang on which reporting restrictions had been ordered by the judge.

Justice Marson sentenced Robinson to ten months for contempt of court and his previous three months' suspended sentence was activated because of the breach. Robinson's lawyer said that Robinson felt "deep regret" after comprehending the potential consequences of his behaviour.


It has nothing to do with "freedom of speech". Try to post as smart as you think you are.
By Torus34
#15014200
Reading through the last few posts, the discussion, such as it is, seems to have strayed from the Iranian situation.

As of this time and date [7AM, 6/25/19] the situation remains unresolved in all of its major areas. The United States of America has withdrawn from the multinational treaty which provided it with a level of control over Iran's nuclear ambitions. The remaining signatories have made little concerted effort one way or the other. Iran is being economically punished by the US. There appears to be no diplomatic effort on the part of either the US or Iran. Posturing continues on both sides.

The Congress of the United States of America, with its constitutional power to declare war upon other nations, appears focussed on the 2020 elections.

And so it goes.
User avatar
By noemon
#15014207
blackjack21 wrote:So does that mean that people who aren't clever don't get freedom of speech?


Derogatory comments and insults are not an exercise of free speech, it is the same as screeching like a baboon. Exercising verbal or physical violence against other individuals is not an exercise of free-speech. Non-clever people who do not know how to make their point without exercising violence should not have the right to exercise violence to feel better about their lack of intellect. Because the right of one person to be free from violence trumps the right of another person to exercise mindless violence.

The allies haven't ruled Germany for a little while now. Germany is responsible for its own laws.


How would swastikas alter the freedom of speech of Germans? Would the swastika provide some kind of mystical powers that would grant them the power of a more advanced speech to make their point heard?

That's because Europe for all practical purposes doesn't pay for its own defense.


What? Clearly at this point you will say anything that comes out of your brain however nonsensical that might be. Elaborate and explain why do you think NATO is credited with the plurality of political parties and media in Europe when compared to the US.

That's not my view. I work with foreign people on a daily basis. I have an 8:00 a.m. call with a bunch of guys in Spain tomorrow morning. I was in Dubai just last month. Just because I am opposed to illegal immigration doesn't mean I hate foreigners.


But you are not being opposed to illegal migration at this moment, you are opposing hate-speech legislation. You just hate hate-speech laws so that you can express your love and admiration for other races and nations. :roll:
The real question you should ask yourself is why do you think that exercising racist violence enhances the breadth and depth of your intellectual, political, or scientific speech.

Nobody cares about whether someone has immigrated from a foreign nation. They care about people being here illegally. If you are here illegally, you don't have a social security number, you don't file a 1040, and you can get free social services without paying taxes for them. Additionally, we have a serious problem of non-assimilation--people who refuse to learn the language, teach their kids the language, etc. Illegal immigration not only drives down wages for the working poor, it breaks social cohesion and leads to many other social problems.


And who, or what is stopping you from making this argument? Here, in the US or in some other EU country?

Europe has more of an appetite for left wing politics than America does, but it's not because people are prevented from speaking about left wing ideas. AOC's views are standard fare on any college campus and are the views of most media talking heads. They just cater to a country that doesn't agree with them.


No dear it is not a matter of appetite, it is a matter of culture and free-speech. Views such as those of the Communists, Le Pen and Golden Dawn are simply being permitted by the European establishment and that makes people like Sanders and AOC totally mainstream because that is what they truly are. In the US the fact that Sanders and AOC are in the fringes of political discourse proves beyond any doubt that the extent of political discourse is simply tiny and that cages your "free speech" extent within those confines. That is just the fact of the matter.

It's hard to believe that's the case


That is exactly the case as above and it's not just a fact but plain obvious. Your free speech in the US is confined within a very tiny cage that is significantly smaller than the extent of free speech in Europe.

when Tommy Robinson gets jailed for things that are perfectly legal in the US, because of our first amendment.


Contempt of Court is illegal in the US just like it is in the UK and other countries. Robinson confessed to Contempt of Court out of his own free will and accord.

It's even harder to believe when Count Dankula gets criminally charged for making a silly video of his dog doing a Nazi salute to taunt his girlfriend. Yet, this is common fare in Europe, just as it is common for Jean-Marie Le Pen to face fines for his comments, or Brigit Bardot for that matter.


It's good that you have your priorities straight mate, recognising the theft of Christian land & properties in Jerusalem as valid...totally a non-issue, shrug it off like you just don't care, warmongering against Iran with the possibility of throwing the entire world into war, sure no problem...telling people not to promote Nazi culture and talking points with a slap on the wrist...a total outrage!!

No. Trump supporters generally aren't calling for war with Iran.


I am talking about the Trump supporters that are calling for war with Iran. Those are the people my statement pertains to:

noemon wrote:Now we can put it to rest that "Killary's warmongering" was a real reason at least for those who are cheerleading the warmongering with Iran. Don't you agree?


It's not American territory to cede. Trump is basically just saying that he sides with Israel in this matter. .....Palestinian groups have rarely negotiated in good faith, so it's no surprise that an ardent realist like Trump isn't going to wax hope for some pie-in-the-sky peace settlement.


No dear, Trump has ceded foreign territory to another nation regardless if it is American or not and has declared that as far as the US and its legal system is concerned the houses, churches and properties belonging to a certain Christian and Muslim group of people are now part of a hostile nation that seeks to ethnic-cleanse them against their own safety, wishes and aspirations. Trump has decided to hand over land & properties from one group of people to another and uniquely in history has decided to do that for absolutely nothing in return. That is indeed unprecedented and along with the unilateral withdrawal from the Iran deal, it has totally discredited the US in the international stage and that is why Turkey and Iran are so emboldened but also why US allies find it difficult to fall behind the US like they used to. Because the US and its President are an international joke, a farce and that is not just bad for the US itself, it is bad for world order as well as it emboldens a whole host of dictators to act unilaterally and without concern for the fragile peace we have been enjoying for a very limited amount of decades. And once again, for what? What has the US earned out of this? Nothing at all!

Really? Have we ever been "credited on the international stage" by people who disagree with us? Trump just rejects that rhetoric wholesale, and I agree with him on that point.


The US has been credited in the international stage for a lot of things, you are not making much sense at all.

In the case of moving the embassy or recognizing Israeli suzerainty over the Golan Heights? Not particularly. Like Trump, I thought trying to overthrow Assad was foolish. Iraq wasn't nearly stable enough.


Would you or would not criticise Hillary if she made unilateral moves against foreign nations without the support of any the US's allies and for absolutely nothing in return! like Trump has done in those cases? The question does not have to relate to Jerusalem or the Golan or Iran, but anything really. Would you or would you not criticise her?
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15014210
anasawad wrote:@Nonsense
U just stated again that the tanker's owners should sue Iranians in >American courts<.
And I will, again, respond by shove those courts up your ass. The same to everyone who suggests suing Iran in American courts, which is not strange here on PoFo.

The only courts Iran will respond to are Iranian courts. American courts can keep their bullshit all day everyday, they have no authority in\on Iran.
Heck, not even international courts have authority in Iran, and will never do.



So, you also cannot understand the legal system either, or perhaps it's those prejudices inside your head that determine what keyboard keys you press?

If you believe that American courts are ineffectual in respect of events carried out by Iran, perhaps the immediate Iranian response to TRUMP's sanctions on their leaders might just give you pause to re-think, rather than retrench your attitude.
By B0ycey
#15014211
Nonsense wrote:So, you also cannot understand the legal system either, or perhaps it's those prejudices inside your head that determine what keyboard keys you press?

If you believe that American courts are ineffectual in respect of events carried out by Iran, perhaps the immediate Iranian response to TRUMP's sanctions on their leaders might just give you pause to re-think, rather than retrench your attitude.


Talk about Nonsense. Why should Iran accept the verdict of an American court? Talk about biased and tying you hands behind your back. :lol:
By anasawad
#15014212
@Nonsense
So, the inner workings of the US legal system that will have an effect so huge on Iran that it could result in sanctions?
Which sanctions though ?
I'm sure anyone who had read just a little bit about US-Iran relations, no need for a lot don't worry, would know the US already has all possible sanctions in place on long before any dumb fuck in some useless American court "judeges Iran".

The US has been placing every possible sanction on both Iran and its leaders for 40 years now. The most damage that could be done was already done.

Forgive my "inferior intellect", I thought we were talking about things like compensations and the likes; But now, after sharing your "superior intellect" I became aware of even more ways in which American courts can be useless when it comes to Iran. :knife:


Be real boy, there is nothing that any American court, even at the highest level, can do to harm Iran or the Iranian government.
In fact, since you're the one bringing it up, go ahead and provide just one example of a penalty or a sanction or whatever that they can do that isn't already done regardless of what a court stated.
Go on.


What? Sanctions ? done.
Travel bans ? Done.
Financial restrictions? done.
Freezing assets? done.
Classifying it as a terrorist ? guess what, done too.
Nothing the US government hasn't already done and all failed. Your courts can keep issuing statements and punishments and penalties against Iran and Iranian leadership and Iranian military and everything, it really does nothing. Its USELESS.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15014274
anasawad wrote:@Nonsense
Most of the strait is within Iranian waters and airspace.


Not sure what your point is,but international water shipping routes also lie within the Straits of Hormuz & Iran would be ill advised to mess around with the rights of international shipping.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15014275
anasawad wrote:@Nonsense
So, the inner workings of the US legal system that will have an effect so huge on Iran that it could result in sanctions?
Which sanctions though ?
I'm sure anyone who had read just a little bit about US-Iran relations, no need for a lot don't worry, would know the US already has all possible sanctions in place on long before any dumb fuck in some useless American court "judeges Iran".

The US has been placing every possible sanction on both Iran and its leaders for 40 years now. The most damage that could be done was already done.

Forgive my "inferior intellect", I thought we were talking about things like compensations and the likes; But now, after sharing your "superior intellect" I became aware of even more ways in which American courts can be useless when it comes to Iran. :knife:


Be real boy, there is nothing that any American court, even at the highest level, can do to harm Iran or the Iranian government.
In fact, since you're the one bringing it up, go ahead and provide just one example of a penalty or a sanction or whatever that they can do that isn't already done regardless of what a court stated.
Go on.


What? Sanctions ? done.
Travel bans ? Done.
Financial restrictions? done.
Freezing assets? done.
Classifying it as a terrorist ? guess what, done too.
Nothing the US government hasn't already done and all failed. Your courts can keep issuing statements and punishments and penalties against Iran and Iranian leadership and Iranian military and everything, it really does nothing. Its USELESS.


And yet...without making this circular, the Iranians somehow feel so affected as to 'allegedly' place limpet mines on vessels hove to in international waters, so, why would they resort to such actions, if, they have 'not' been affected by American instigated sanctions? :hmm:
#15014277
It's the United States who backed Saddam Hussein's Iraq against Iran . https://kulna.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/us-role-in-the-iran-iraq-war-and-its-negative-implications-on-us-iran-relations/ And John Bolton even colluded with the People's Mojahedin , which had collaborated with Iraq , during the war . https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/30/bolton-iran-mek-terrorism-trump/ Lastly , it was the U.S. backed Saudi led coalition that bombed a hospital in Yemen . https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/03/27/us-backed-coalition-bombs-yemen-hospital-killing-least-seven-including-four-children .

And so to cite a scene from this movie .

User avatar
By Nonsense
#15014288
Hindsite wrote:This is making President Trump ask the question, "Why is the U.S.A. alone expected to defend other countries ships against Iranian attacks?"

Does anyone remember that a community in the Golan Heights was named Trump Heights?



:lol: The U.S had a 'presidential' aircraft, called, Air Force 1, I think that TRUMP uses his own jet 'TRUMP 1', his own helicopter, must be, 'TRUMP 2' & his own office block, 'TRUMP Tower', isn't there an analogy to megalomaniac dictators somewhere here? :hmm:

I maybe wrong here, but isn't the President, 'judge, jury & executioner' in the American system, that can declare war on another state by virtue of a dual role of also being the, 'Commander-in-Chief'?

I'm not sure that is healthy in any democracy worthy of the name, but then democracies come in varying 'flavours' don't they.
Last edited by Nonsense on 25 Jun 2019 20:48, edited 1 time in total.
By anasawad
#15014289
@Nonsense
Don't try to diverge the topic to save face dude.
The sanctions have been on since 1979, and the conflict started for oil. Americans courts have no power or authority to do anything which is your initial claim. This is political.
The sanctions does some damage, but nowhere near what you wish it does.
If the sanctions were to cripple Iran and push towards imploding, you wont be seeing a couple of ships attacked, you'll be seeing the entire region catching on fire as Iran would have no option left but to attack.

2- If Iran started to spread mines in the strait, then no ship would be able to pass through, not civilian nor military. Anyone with a couple of brain cells can easily see that it's an attempt either by Saudi Arabia or Israel, or potentially the US itself to start a war.
Lindsey Graham, one of the key proponents of the war, even said that Israel will be the one to start the war.
So the fingerprints of a false flag attack to trigger a war is all over the place, to a point that even the country that its vessel was attacked, Japan, isn't pointing fingers at Iran.

And the fact that the US government moved an aircraft career closer to Iran, and recently tried to penetrate Iranian airspace is even more evidence to support this as it's obvious that the US and its allies are trying to start a war.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15014290
anasawad wrote:@Nonsense
Don't try to diverge the topic to save face dude.
The sanctions have been on since 1979, and the conflict started for oil. Americans courts have no power or authority to do anything which is your initial claim. This is political.
The sanctions does some damage, but nowhere near what you wish it does.
If the sanctions were to cripple Iran and push towards imploding, you wont be seeing a couple of ships attacked, you'll be seeing the entire region catching on fire as Iran would have no option left but to attack.

2- If Iran started to spread mines in the strait, then no ship would be able to pass through, not civilian nor military. Anyone with a couple of brain cells can easily see that it's an attempt either by Saudi Arabia or Israel, or potentially the US itself to start a war.
Lindsey Graham, one of the key proponents of the war, even said that Israel will be the one to start the war.
So the fingerprints of a false flag attack to trigger a war is all over the place, to a point that even the country that its vessel was attacked, Japan, isn't pointing fingers at Iran.

And the fact that the US government moved an aircraft career closer to Iran, and recently tried to penetrate Iranian airspace is even more evidence to support this as it's obvious that the US and its allies are trying to start a war.


"2- If Iran started to spread mines in the strait, then no ship would be able to pass through, not civilian nor military. Anyone with a couple of brain cells can easily see that it's an attempt either by Saudi Arabia or Israel, or potentially the US itself to start a war".


If that's the case, then, perhaps you can activate your two brain cells by substantiating that statement above with some 'evidence' to support it. :hmm: :p

The sending of capital ships to the area was in resonse to 'intelligence' of Iranian activities of concern to the international community,which proved correct & was not by way of provoking any U.S- Iranian conflict.
By anasawad
#15014291
@Nonsense
It's a well-known fact. You can bother reading those reports you're trying to allude to. Though I'm sure you'd have to find your two brain cells first to be able to do that.

And which international community concerns? It's the US going rouge now, not Iran.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

The upper classes and middle classes in Mexico ne[…]

The way he--and they--are happy to adopt as an i[…]

It probably shouldn't be surprising that Labour th[…]

Welcome to Social Government Well what if I told […]