3 ms·

>Eliminating the "Zionist regime" would require destroying Israel No it doesn't. A "regime" is a synonym for a government. Ironically your previous link to Kho

by ancap 12y ago

>Eliminating the "Zionist regime" would require destroying Israel No it doesn't. A "regime" is a synonym for a government. Ironically your previous link to Khomeini's plan for getting rid of the "Zionist regime", refutes your point. (The interesting part about that article is if you read the "controversial" document, it really is, more or less, pretty mild. In contrast you read Netanyahu's comments about the document and you'd think it was Mein Kampf) As for all the talk of "terrorism" the word is so politically charged as to make it almost worthless. All your links to "terrorist" activities are, as I said previously, small potatoes. Israel uses "terrorist" tactics against Iran, Iran uses "terrorist" tactics back. U.S. uses "terrorist" tactics against Iran, Iran uses "terrorist" tactics back. I'm not sure what else you would expect. And suppose they were funding the most egregious "terrorist" organization in the world, what's your point? What does that have anything to do with the article? Don't the poor serfs get enough of the war mongering propaganda through the myriad of other channels? Do you really need to echo it here?

adventured 12y ago
Eliminating the government of Israel would require destroying the country of Israel, which would very obviously require killing vast numbers of Israeli citizens. Feel free to now explain how Iran would wipe out Israel's government, while not killing huge numbers of Israelis. I don't regard any terrorism as small potatoes, no matter who does it. I think it's unfortunate you hold such a view. What's my point? My point was obvious: I replied to a parent comment that claimed Iran was moderate. Iran is the exact opposite of moderate, they're an oppressive theocracy that supports terrorism globally. And they're regarded by pretty much every first world country as being a leading State sponsor of terrorism.
- ancap 12y ago
  >Eliminating the government of Israel would require destroying the country of Israel, which would very obviously require killing vast numbers of Israeli citizens. >Feel free to now explain how Iran would wipe out Israel's government, while not killing huge numbers of Israelis. Because no government in the entire history of the world has ever fallen without the extinction of its citizens. /s Perhaps if you read the Khomeini document you referenced you could answer your own question. >I don't regard any terrorism as small potatoes, no matter who does it. I think it's unfortunate you hold such a view. The "small potatoes" comment is one of comparison, not of acceptance. >What's my point? My point was obvious: I replied to a parent comment that claimed Iran was moderate. Iran is the exact opposite of moderate, they're an oppressive theocracy that supports terrorism globally. And they're regarded by pretty much every first world country as being a leading State sponsor of terrorism. The term "moderate" is a term of comparison. So despite your disingenuous claims of "logical separation", in order to make a judgement call of whether Iran is "moderate" it must be compared to other countries. Hence my "small potatoes" comment. If Iran's "terrorism" makes it the "exact opposite of moderate" then many of the first world countries you refer to must be off the spectrum.

by ancap 12y ago

adventured 12y ago

Eliminating the government of Israel would require destroying the country of Israel, which would very obviously require killing vast numbers of Israeli citizens. Feel free to now explain how Iran would wipe out Israel's government, while not killing huge numbers of Israelis. I don't regard any terrorism as small potatoes, no matter who does it. I think it's unfortunate you hold such a view. What's my point? My point was obvious: I replied to a parent comment that claimed Iran was moderate. Iran is the exact opposite of moderate, they're an oppressive theocracy that supports terrorism globally. And they're regarded by pretty much every first world country as being a leading State sponsor of terrorism.

ancap 12y ago
>Eliminating the government of Israel would require destroying the country of Israel, which would very obviously require killing vast numbers of Israeli citizens. >Feel free to now explain how Iran would wipe out Israel's government, while not killing huge numbers of Israelis. Because no government in the entire history of the world has ever fallen without the extinction of its citizens. /s Perhaps if you read the Khomeini document you referenced you could answer your own question. >I don't regard any terrorism as small potatoes, no matter who does it. I think it's unfortunate you hold such a view. The "small potatoes" comment is one of comparison, not of acceptance. >What's my point? My point was obvious: I replied to a parent comment that claimed Iran was moderate. Iran is the exact opposite of moderate, they're an oppressive theocracy that supports terrorism globally. And they're regarded by pretty much every first world country as being a leading State sponsor of terrorism. The term "moderate" is a term of comparison. So despite your disingenuous claims of "logical separation", in order to make a judgement call of whether Iran is "moderate" it must be compared to other countries. Hence my "small potatoes" comment. If Iran's "terrorism" makes it the "exact opposite of moderate" then many of the first world countries you refer to must be off the spectrum.