• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Putin warns Israel against selling arms to Ukraine

"Weapons"? Missile defense weapons. The same ones that people see no problem with NATO deploying near Russian borders.
No NATO missile systems are in Denmark yet. But Russia has already placed nuclear-capable Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad ... which borders two NATO nations.

You always conveniently ignore that fact.
 
Apparently Iran is still pissed off about it since America is still picking on them even today... :roll:
Bad things happen when you hold embassy personnel hostage for 444 days.
 
Simpleχity;1064545864 said:
Israel has now declined to send any high level official to Moscow for Russia's May 9 extravaganza celebrating the 70th anniversary of the defeat of the WWII Nazi regime. Attendance will be limited solely to Israel's ambassador to Russia. Many Western nations have also declined to send a high level dignitary to Moscow in protest of Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and supporting pro-Russia rebels in eastern Ukraine with troops, arms, and munitions.
It seems that the Jewish State has forgotten that it was Russia that liberated the Auschwitz camp, and they forget that Russia was instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany.

The Jews want to remember the "Holocaust" oh yes, but they are going to forget that Russia was one of their big liberators.

A severe lack of gratitude is obviously a big problem in the Jewish State.
 
Simpleχity;1064546256 said:
Bad things happen when you hold embassy personnel hostage for 444 days.
You do realize that we helped overthrow a democratically elected government and helped install the hated Shah and our presidential candidate Ronald Reagan asked them to keep the hostages a little longer to help him win the election, right? :roll:
 
It seems that the Jewish State has forgotten that it was Russia that liberated the Auschwitz camp, and they forget that Russia was instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany.
And it seems that you've forgotten that over one million Jews fled the USSR at the first opportunity.
 
You do realize that we helped overthrow a democratically elected government and helped install the hated Shah and our presidential candidate Ronald Reagan asked them to keep the hostages a little longer to help him win the election, right? :roll:
You do realize that all those historical players are long dead?
 
Simpleχity;1064546357 said:
You do realize that all those historical players are long dead?

And yet it still happened... and people havent forgotten about it.
 
I disagree with you that Iran is "the number one sponsor of terrorism on the planet".

You're actually in disagreement with the facts as you usually are.
Which state sponsors more terrorism across the globe than Iran does?

And many NATO installations are currently targets of Russia. If Denmark accepts NATO MD, they are added to that. You know that's not a big deal, but play it up as more than it is.

The logical basis of such thinking is nonexistent. Russia has no right to just target NATO members out of the blue, regardless of what you may believe.

And apparently you are unaware of the US's history of the use of terrorism to advance its "interests".

Written in 1954 by one of the coup's chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.

The document shows that:

Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.
The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi's regime two days after the coup prevailed.

New York Times Special Report: The C.I.A. in Iran

Well if you'd read the comments in this thread you'd see I have already referred to the way the Shah had came to power.
That you believe this is "terrorism" is ridiculous, and clearly I don't see what it has to do with the fact that Iran sponsors terrorism.

Professor William Odom, formerly President Reagan's National Security Agency Director, wrote:

As many critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world.[22]

United States and state terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The opinion of William Odom is simply is own. If you wish to base your claim that the United States engages in terrorism or that it had engaged so in the past the way that Iran does so now you will refer to actual facts such as terror attacks carried by the United States or by any of its proxies.
 
And yet it still happened... and people havent forgotten about it.

So have a lot of other historical occurrences.
Your point is what, exactly? That it grants Iran the right that you apparently believe it holds to murder Westerners and Jews around the globe?
 
He is not so much a hypocrite as a thug.
All thugs are hypocrites. They cry like babies when a bigger person slaps them silly.


Wasn't it started as a 'bash Russia fest'? How dare those Russians say anything bad to those poor Israelis?
Russia needs to be bashed over the head.

We send troops and equipment from the other side of the globe, and you would call it diplomacy I suppose.

The Russians send troops and equipment across a river and you call it aggression. Got it! :lol:
Surly you aren't serious.

So far, there is no Russian invasion of Ukraine, despite the provocative actions of the US and NATO.
You can't be serious so you must be a liberal troll working for a globalist progressive.

There may come a time that Russia DOES invade Ukraine, to defend against what it perceives as belligerence by outsiders. Only time will tell.
Once more you show a lack of understanding.


Simpleχity;1064543467 said:
No different than if US troops and equipment crossed the Rio Grande and began shelling Mexico.
No, not aggression but defense.

Other than the propaganda that you apparently believe, perhaps you should look closer at Saudi Arabia before condemning Iran. You know, the people who actually do sponsor terrorism by Islamic Radicals.
I agree that Saudi is paying the terrorists not to attack them but Iran is paying terrorists to attack us.
 
So have a lot of other historical occurrences.
Your point is what, exactly? That it grants Iran the right that you apparently believe it holds to murder Westerners and Jews around the globe?

Who said anything about granting rights? My point is the causes of why Iran is acting like this- they feel that the West has done them wrong.
 
Who said anything about granting rights? My point is the causes of why Iran is acting like this- they feel that the West has done them wrong.

Yeah and they wouldn't be wrong, but so would India, Ivory Coast, Algeria and basically half the planet.
 
Who said anything about granting rights? My point is the causes of why Iran is acting like this- they feel that the West has done them wrong.
I feel strongly that the dem party and their liberal horde have done this country wrong but I'm not killing people that look liberal or sponsoring terrorizing the left.

Jimmy Carter refused to support the Shah when the people seemed to rise up against him but that wasn't good enough so they took our people hostage and have been killing innocent Americans ever since. Carter refused to take my advice and send the VP to Iran and demand the hostages be freed. Either free the hostages or kill the VP and suffer a nuclear strike.
 
How did the US help create the Islamic revolution, pray tell.

What on Earth are you talking about? The US didn't choose to oust the Shah, the Shah was a US imposed administration and the US did not want to see it gone, but the Islamic revolution led by Khomeinei and the protests were going to see the Shah ousted and Khomeinei's regime installed regardless of whether the US had decided to abandon it or not.

It's extremely absurd to believe that without an American involvement the region would have been rid of radical Islamists.
We over threw the democratically elected leader as is quoted below. Which when you mess with someone's government they are bound to not like yours. If you think we did nothing, then history has truly been re-visioned. We are the only ones to blame for the hatred we get and helped foster during our attempt to be an imperial power. The British learned their lesson the hard way and now we are learning ours. It is time to say, its over and done with and leave them alone. Not only for our sakes but also for theirs. The more we interfere the worse it is going to get and if you can't see it, just look at the Iraq vs Iran war that we helped cause. (USSR isn't without blame either) but when we help install a hated government and then blame the people because of our short sightedness.

They were happy to fight amongst themselves for thousands of years, and it is our interference that has caused them to turn towards the west. Time to let them go back to that.

And apparently you are unaware of the US's history of the use of terrorism to advance its "interests".

Written in 1954 by one of the coup's chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.

The document shows that:

Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.
The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi's regime two days after the coup prevailed.

New York Times Special Report: The C.I.A. in Iran

Professor William Odom, formerly President Reagan's National Security Agency Director, wrote:

As many critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world.[22]

United States and state terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do realize that we helped overthrow a democratically elected government and helped install the hated Shah and our presidential candidate Ronald Reagan asked them to keep the hostages a little longer to help him win the election, right? :roll:
 
I've searched around, but I can't find exactly what kind of weapons, how many, by what means of transport nor how they will be paid for.
 
We over threw the democratically elected leader as is quoted below. Which when you mess with someone's government they are bound to not like yours. If you think we did nothing, then history has truly been re-visioned. We are the only ones to blame for the hatred we get and helped foster during our attempt to be an imperial power. The British learned their lesson the hard way and now we are learning ours. It is time to say, its over and done with and leave them alone. Not only for our sakes but also for theirs. The more we interfere the worse it is going to get and if you can't see it, just look at the Iraq vs Iran war that we helped cause. (USSR isn't without blame either) but when we help install a hated government and then blame the people because of our short sightedness.

The Shah era has ended over 36 years ago, and your words carry no relevancy whatsoever to present time or to your argument that the present day Iranian government is not engaging in terrorism or even to your claim that the radicals were imposed by the US. Refer to these arguments that you've made.

They were happy to fight amongst themselves for thousands of years, and it is our interference that has caused them to turn towards the west. Time to let them go back to that.

No it's not. It's their agenda that caused them to turn towards the West. You don't see the Indian government managing terror proxies and ordering them to hit Western targets in revenge for the British colonialism era. Don't be absurd.
 
No, we're saying that your characterization of it as an "invasion" is false. And that's been hammered out endlessly in dozens of threads for a year and a half, so don't ask again. Go back and read.

Are you saying the Russian invasion isn't aggression?
 
The Shah era has ended over 36 years ago, and your words carry no relevancy whatsoever to present time or to your argument that the present day Iranian government is not engaging in terrorism or even to your claim that the radicals were imposed by the US. Refer to these arguments that you've made.
Yes, it was 36 years ago, less than a generation and of course they are going to be pissed. We fought a second war with the British less than a generation after our War of Independence. All because we didn't want them meddling with our government, again. Its like we are ignoring the lessons history has taught us and going into someone else's country and messing with their government. Our only option is to literally say, "Hey remember a few decades ago when we messed with your government, yeah sorry about that. We'll butt out now." Then we reestablish trade relations and show them we are not someone to hate. It worked for the USSR, will work for Cuba, worked for East Germany and etc. Failing to do this will just result in more hate towards us.

No it's not. It's their agenda that caused them to turn towards the West. You don't see the Indian government managing terror proxies and ordering them to hit Western targets in revenge for the British colonialism era. Don't be absurd.
Bull****, there were plenty of terrorist attacks against the British during their rule of India. Don't pretend there wasn't, I did a quick search to help you out.


Chauri Chaura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bhagat Singh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kakori conspiracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are plenty more prior to Ghandi demanding peaceful protests.
 
Simpleχity;1064543284 said:
Putin warns Israel against selling arms to Ukraine


Well now. Vlad has had no qualms about supplying lethal arms to the pro-Russia rebels in eastern Ukraine which has resulted in well over 6,000 dead and over 1,000,000 displaced.

Considering also that Putin is beginning to supply Israel arch-foe Iran with high-tech weapons systems ... the pinnacle of audacity and hypocrisy.

As he should. Its no different than the US warning Brazil to not sell arms to Mexico if they were fighting a war on our border.

As for 6000 dead, was it not Kiev that was attacking the pro-Russia rebels.

Were did the 1,000,000 displaced go. They went to Russia, were they got food & shelter.
 
Yes, it was 36 years ago, less than a generation

Just to be precise a generation is less than 36 years, not over 36.
A generation as a quantity of time is the average amount of years a person lives before having his first offspring.

and of course they are going to be pissed. We fought a second war with the British less than a generation after our War of Independence. All because we didn't want them meddling with our government, again. Its like we are ignoring the lessons history has taught us and going into someone else's country and messing with their government. Our only option is to literally say, "Hey remember a few decades ago when we messed with your government, yeah sorry about that. We'll butt out now." Then we reestablish trade relations and show them we are not someone to hate. It worked for the USSR, will work for Cuba, worked for East Germany and etc. Failing to do this will just result in more hate towards us.

So, using that logic, do you believe the world should invade present Germany and tear it to the ground due to the crimes it had committed against the world during WWII? Should the world sponsor and direct terror attacks that target German citizens in Germany and abroad? Seriously? Why do you insist on justifying the actions of the Iranian regime?

Bull****, there were plenty of terrorist attacks against the British during their rule of India. Don't pretend there wasn't, I did a quick search to help you out.

Now you're just presenting poor reading comprehension skills.

I referred to Indian acts of terror sponsored by the Indian government against British officials in the present era, not during the time India was colonized, since we're comparing this to the acts of terror taken against the West by Iran in this era, more than 36 years after the Shah era had ended.

Hopefully that makes it easier to understand although I find my original statement to be a very basic one and your lack of understanding of it to be confusing.

If you want to prove your point you will thus have to show how the Indian government is sponsoring terror attacks against the United Kingdom or the West in the present era. Since you can't do that, your point is obviously nonexistent.
 
Just to be precise a generation is less than 36 years, not over 36.
A generation as a quantity of time is the average amount of years a person lives before having his first offspring.

So, using that logic, do you believe the world should invade present Germany and tear it to the ground due to the crimes it had committed against the world during WWII? Should the world sponsor and direct terror attacks that target German citizens in Germany and abroad? Seriously? Why do you insist on justifying the actions of the Iranian regime?
We did, during WW2 we invaded and tore it to the ground. It was pretty successful if you recall as their major industries were heavily crippled. Granted a lot of them were producing weapons but we did exactly what you described for that generation. You might recall the Marshall plan? I'd suggest reading up on that one. It is exactly as you described. It doesn't need to be done today because Germany stopped what it was doing after we dismantled it.

It's almost as if you don't want to take responsibility for our actions that are causing the problems in the Middle East. We have been the cause of their problems since the end of WW2. We haven't helped them other for our own ends and continue to do so. By placing extra trading restrictions, embargos, and other requirements that we do not require of say Germany or Japan.



Apocalypse;1064547024 Now you're just presenting poor reading comprehension skills. I referred to Indian acts of terror sponsored by the Indian government against British officials [B said:
in the present era[/B], not during the time India was colonized, since we're comparing this to the acts of terror taken against the West by Iran in this era, more than 36 years after the Shah era had ended.

Hopefully that makes it easier to understand although I find my original statement to be a very basic one and your lack of understanding of it to be confusing.

If you want to prove your point you will thus have to show how the Indian government is sponsoring terror attacks against the United Kingdom or the West in the present era. Since you can't do that, your point is obviously nonexistent.
You understand India is no longer controlled by the UK any more? They haven't been for nearly ~70 years (1947 fyi).

Pick a more modern example if you want to compare it to Iran, except we are still influencing their government because of what we caused originally.

Don't be willfully ignorant of what we are still doing to the country and try to compare it to something that was resolved.

We haven't completely taken over Iran like the UK did with India, but we need to leave them alone. Just like the British did back in 1947, and look at that no terrorist acts against the UK.
 
We did, during WW2 we invaded and tore it to the ground.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
We're talking about Iranian actions more than 36 years after the Shah era had ended, since you're the one who is justifying these actions with the historical occurrence that is the Shah regime and how the US put it into power over 36 years ago. Why then are you referring to the deeds occurring during WWII when you should be referring to a timeline long after the war has ended?

Unless the US and the allies had committed terrorism against German citizens 37 years after 1945, the end year of WWII, you - and it's getting usual now - have no point. Why? Because Iran is committing these acts of terror more than 36 years after the Shah era had ended.

You understand India is no longer controlled by the UK any more? They haven't been for nearly ~70 years (1947 fyi). Pick a more modern example if you want to compare it to Iran, except we are still influencing their government because of what we caused originally.

Which is precisely the point here. Iran is no longer under a Shah rule. They haven't been for nearly ~37 years(1979 fyi). So the Shah rule is irrelevant to the current Iranian policy to commit widespread terrorism around the globe. What, exactly, are you not getting here?

Don't be willfully ignorant of what we are still doing to the country and try to compare it to something that was resolved.

And what might that be?

We haven't completely taken over Iran like the UK did with India, but we need to leave them alone. Just like the British did back in 1947, and look at that no terrorist acts against the UK.

That's the crazy thing here - that you believe the reason there is no terrorism in India's case directed against the West while there is in Iran's case is, ridiculously enough, also the West's fault. That's absurd.
 
As he should. Its no different than the US warning Brazil to not sell arms to Mexico if they were fighting a war on our border.
Putin has no right to lecture anyone about arms sales. Russian weapons have devastated Syria.

As for 6000 dead, was it not Kiev that was attacking the pro-Russia rebels.
It would have been a simple police action had Putin not sent Russian forces and arms into eastern Ukraine.

Were did the 1,000,000 displaced go. They went to Russia, were they got food & shelter.
Many went to Russia because it's less than an hour drive away and Ukraine wasn't invading Russia.
 
Simpleχity;1064546350 said:
And it seems that you've forgotten that over one million Jews fled the USSR at the first opportunity.
It is hardly "fled or flee" when the Jews wanted to move to the Jewish State, so that was moving from Russia to the stolen land of Palestine.

And apparently you forget that the founders of the USSR as in Marx and Lennon and many more were all Jewish.

BUT NONE OF THAT has anything to do with the Jews refusing to participate with Russia over defeating Nazi Germany.

The Jewish State is being forgetful of their own history, along with being ungrateful to their own huge liberator of Russia.
 
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
We're talking about Iranian actions more than 36 years after the Shah era had ended, since you're the one who is justifying these actions with the historical occurrence that is the Shah regime and how the US put it into power over 36 years ago. Why then are you referring to the deeds occurring during WWII when you should be referring to a timeline long after the war has ended?
Yes, the Shah era has ended but who put the Shah in power against popular opinion, that would be us. Then we punish the people of the country by not liking the government we put in power and the one after it the people elected themselves by placing them on a terror list because "they talked to those dirty Commies (USSR)". Do you not see the hypocrisy of that?

Unless the US and the allies had committed terrorism against German citizens 37 years after 1945, the end year of WWII, you - and it's getting usual now - have no point. Why? Because Iran is committing these acts of terror more than 36 years after the Shah era had ended.
Iran is still being punished by us 36 years later after we set up their government.


Which is precisely the point here. Iran is no longer under a Shah rule. They haven't been for nearly ~37 years(1979 fyi). So the Shah rule is irrelevant to the current Iranian policy to commit widespread terrorism around the globe. What, exactly, are you not getting here?
Not really, its pretty relevant as their country is being punished by us for its government, that we helped set up. (Remember had we not set up the Shah rule, they might not be in the same predicament they are now.

That's the crazy thing here - that you believe the reason there is no terrorism in India's case directed against the West while there is in Iran's case is, ridiculously enough, also the West's fault. That's absurd.
That is because the UK hit it and quit it. Just like we should have done a long time ago. We haven't.
 
Back
Top Bottom