Why A Yes Vote For The Iran Nuclear Deal Is A No-Brainer

If they could turn Israel into a cinder, why have they not done it at any point in the last 20 years? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Because the point isn't to destroy Israel for the sake of destroying Israel. The point is to "liberate" what the radicals in the Muslim world identify as the "occupied territories." Their interpretation of the "occupied territories" is not the same interpretation that the West and the rest of world has. To them, "occupied territories" is all of Israel, which they label as "Palestine," not Israel.

These radicals see all of the Muslim world as being part of the "Islamic Nation." To them, having Israel where it is would be like having a country in the middle of the United States. They see Israel as "invaders" occupying Muslim territory. Detonating a nuclear bomb, to make that area useless, would not make sense.

There would be no point in turning all of that area into smoldering cinders if they cannot use it. The point is to "liberate" by "expelling" the Israelis, liquidating Israel, and "returning" that area to the Palestinians. And, by extension, the "Islamic Nation." Iran's historical method of attempting to accomplish that goal is through funding of the terrorists that are attacking Israel.

If you were Iran. You AREN'T Iran, dumbshit. You're barely a functioning human being. What you say regarding things you have no knowledge of, is pointless drivel. Originally Posted by WombRaider

From a strategic standpoint, he's right. He does not have to be Iran to accurately identify that having a single bomb isn't sufficient to pick a fight with your adversaries. Especially if that adversary has multiple bombs where you only have "one". However, Iran will continue to utilize its chosen means to attack Israel, via proxy through the terrorists attacking Israel.

Your reply consists mainly of ad hominems, and no real refutation. Gnadfly has demonstrated far more understanding of the topic of this argument than any of you guys, on the left, have demonstrated. When you resort to name-calling, but no real attempt to rebut what he said, you know you've truly lost the argument.

Because the point isn't to destroy Israel for the sake of destroying Israel. The point is to "liberate" what the radicals in the Muslim world identify as the "occupied territories." Their interpretation of the "occupied territories" is not the same interpretation that the West and the rest of world has. To them, "occupied territories" is all of Israel, which they label as "Palestine," not Israel.

These radicals see all of the Muslim world as being part of the "Islamic Nation." To them, having Israel where it is would be like having a country in the middle of the United States. They see Israel as "invaders" occupying Muslim territory. Detonating a nuclear bomb, to make that area useless, would not make sense.

There would be no point in turning all of that area into smoldering cinders if they cannot use it. The point is to "liberate" by "expelling" the Israelis, liquidating Israel, and "returning" that area to the Palestinians. And, by extension, the "Islamic Nation." Iran's historical method of attempting to accomplish that goal is through funding of the terrorists that are attacking Israel. Originally Posted by herfacechair

I was responding to another idiotic poster's comment. That does not mean I subscribe to his thinking. I know they won't use a nuke. Tell it to that dumbass.

From a strategic standpoint, he's right. He does not have to be Iran to accurately identify that having a single bomb isn't sufficient to pick a fight with your adversaries. Especially if that adversary has multiple bombs where you only have "one". However, Iran will continue to utilize its chosen means to attack Israel, via proxy through the terrorists attacking Israel.

Your reply consists mainly of ad hominems, and no real refutation. Gnadfly has demonstrated far more understanding of the topic of this argument than any of you guys, on the left, have demonstrated. When you resort to name-calling, but no real attempt to rebut what he said, you know you've truly lost the argument. Originally Posted by herfacechair

When you resort to writing 9K word diatribes, you know you've truly lost the argument. Turdfly demonstrates understanding? He's the one who thinks Iran is going to nuke Israel. A point which you just refuted. Seems you two idiots belong together.

did you say something, puss in boots?
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Ask you mom, dickcheese.

Ask you mom, dickcheese. Originally Posted by WombRaider

speak up puss in boots. i can't hear you

I was responding to another idiotic poster's comment. That does not mean I subscribe to his thinking. I know they won't use a nuke. Tell it to that dumbass. Originally Posted by WombRaider

As usual, you're inferring from the post, that you're replying to, something that post is not communicating. This would not be a problem if you read my posts, as well as that made by the others arguing against you, with the intentions of understanding what you are reading. You asked a question. I turned around and answered your question. This argument isn't about what you subscribe to with regards to thinking.

My reply had everything to do with the question that you asked. It was a question that you asked intending to "weaken" his argument. I provided an answer amplifying the statement of the person that you replied to.

You need to read what that guy said, as well as my response, again.

When you resort to writing 9K word diatribes, you know you've truly lost the argument. Turdfly demonstrates understanding? He's the one who thinks Iran is going to nuke Israel. A point which you just refuted. Seems you two idiots belong together. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Wrong. Presenting an argument that's based on fact, logic, and reason, normally requires a longer post. That is how you win an argument, by advancing a fact, logic, and reasoned based argument against the opposition's refusing to do so. I've consistently won in this thread, and so have the others arguing on my side, especially when the opposition has done nothing but advance BS and emotional replies.

Yes, gnadfly has demonstrated far more understanding about what's going on, regarding the topic of this argument, then you guys have. You claim that he is arguing that Iran would nuke Israel. Based on the reading of the post that you referencing to, he only argued a hypothetical scenario dealing with what Iran would do regarding the nuclear option. In this scenario, if they were to nuke Israel, they would have to produce more nuclear bombs. He was advancing a hypothetical.

All I did was refute what you said. You continuously show a knack for not understanding what you're reading. You are replying to what you think was said, and not what was actually said. Considering that gnadfly and I have cut your arse off and shoved it down your throat, I can see why you would categorize us in the same category.

As usual, you're inferring from the post you are replying to something that post is not communicating. This would not be a problem if you read my posts, as well as that made by the others arguing against you, with the intentions of understanding what you are reading. You asked a question. I turned around and answered your question. This argument isn't about what you subscribe to with regards to thinking.

My reply had everything to do with the question that you asked. It was a question that you asked intending to "weaken" his argument. I provided an answer amplifying the statement of the person that you're replying to.

You need to read what that guy said, as well as my response, again. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Read the wrinkles on my nutsack.

Read the wrinkles on my nutsack. Originally Posted by WombRaider

sit DOWN puss in boots, you weren't asked!

Wrong. Presenting an argument that's based on fact, logic, and reason, normally requires a longer post. That is how you win an argument, by advancing a fact, logic, and reasoned based argument against the opposition's refusing to do so. I've consistently won in this thread, and so have the others arguing on my side, especially when the opposition has done nothing but advance BS and emotional replies.

Yes, gnadfly has demonstrated far more understanding about what's going on, regarding the topic of this argument, then you guys have. You claim that he is arguing that Iran would nuke Israel. Based on the reading of the post that you referencing to, he only argued a hypothetical scenario dealing with what Iran would do regarding the nuclear option. In this scenario, if they were to nuke Israel, they would have to produce more nuclear bombs. He was advancing a hypothetical.

All I did was refute what you said. You continuously show a knack for not understanding what you're reading. You are replying to what you think was said, and not what was actually said. Considering that gnadfly and I have cut your arse off and shoved it down your throat, I can see why you would categorize us in the same category. Originally Posted by herfacechair

So you're ok with hypothetical bullshit? Bibi said Iran would have the bomb within 3-5 years. That was 23 fucking years ago.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middl...emy-No.-1-1992

sit DOWN puss in boots, you weren't asked!

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You are very, very homosexual. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

You are very, very homosexual. Not that there's anything wrong with that... Originally Posted by WombRaider

sit DOWN puss in boots. you weren't asked!

sit DOWN puss in boots. you weren't asked!

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

As long as you're able to get it up, reytardo always has a seat, doesn't he?

As long as you're able to get it up, reytardo always has a seat, doesn't he? Originally Posted by WombRaider

sit DOWN puss in boots. you weren't asked.