Wednesday February 15, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

SuperLib's past comments

2

SuperLibFeb. 06, 2012 - 10:24PM JST

Cletus: Yes they support terrorism that is aimed at Israel l agree again. BUT has Iran used its military to attack Israel? No it hasnt so apart from supporting terrorists (and many nations do that) and making threats that is your justification.

If you're to the point where you're only option is getting cute with semantics then you aren't trying to actually convince anyone of anything, you're just grasping for something to say. I don't think I've ever heard anyone from the West telling me that outrage over homosexuals hanging from cranes is evidence of my lack of tolerance for other cultures. That one probably takes the cake.

Posted in: Fears grow of Israeli attack on Iran
0

SuperLibFeb. 06, 2012 - 07:36PM JST

I kind of get the feeling that those who side with Iran don't really know that Iran funds and arms proxies like Hamas and Hezbullah who have been attacking Israel directly with rocket attacks for some time now. I keep seeing questions like "Who has Iran attacked in the last X years" and "Iran has never threatened Israel" and my only explanation is that they just don't have the information.

I also get the feeling that those who keep asking for evidence of Iran's nuclear ambitions have never read anything about the IAEA or their position on the matter. Even the head inspector has come out and said he believes Iran is putting itself in position to go nuclear. And they aren't exactly best friends with the US government.

I keep hearing questions about Iraq, but that's probably because those siding with Iran still view the world through a US filter. The opposition to Iran has been well documented by countries who fought the US tooth and nail on Iraq, but it looks like people don't know that so they just think the same thing is happening again. It's been well documented that other parties in the Middle East have no love for Iran and have serious concerns about their nuclear program. But again, most people seem to think this is Bush Part II since they don't know anything else.

I keep hearing claims of "hypocrisy", but it's hard to imagine people are looking at the prospect of nuclear arms races in the Middle East, global disruptions, and a return to the daily military battles of the past and setting all of that aside because they can't seem to get past the hypocrisy of Israel having nukes and Iran not. I'm not buying it.

People claim that Iran won't use nukes, but they don't seem to understand that they don't need to. They can step up the pace of military attacks on Israel and use the nuke as an umbrella. Look at North Korea's position where they have the ability to strike back. Ships get sunk and at the end of the day South Korea can't really respond. My guess is that's what Iran's goal is.

At the end of the day my guess is that the whole gay-hanging terrorist-supporting hardline religious theocracy about to get nukes thing just isn't registering with people.

Posted in: Fears grow of Israeli attack on Iran
0

SuperLibFeb. 06, 2012 - 04:31PM JST

SuperLib: Iran will develop nukes and engage in low-scale warfare until the end of time.

Ben_Jeckinoff: Actually, they have already been waging low scale warfare in Lebanon and Gaza for quite some time. Nuclear weapons would just mean they could be more active in the process.

That's what I was saying...

Posted in: Fears grow of Israeli attack on Iran
-4

SuperLibFeb. 06, 2012 - 11:59AM JST

Ah, the joys of modern technology mixed with religion. Either was we'll probably have war. Israel will strike first, or Iran will develop nukes and engage in low-scale warfare until the end of time.

SushiSake3: You're right. Has Iran already developed nuclear weapons?

Stick to Republican bashing. I can't imagine you've been following this story.

Posted in: Fears grow of Israeli attack on Iran
1

SuperLibFeb. 06, 2012 - 03:48AM JST

Maurice Wright: then I expect the US AND the UN to stay out of this issue as they have no right to interfere

Which in turn creates the de facto right for Assad to kill his own people, which probably isn't your intent. It's not an easy issue with a one-size-fits-all answer.

Centerlane: Russia and China choose to veto, alike the US in matters concerning Israel, end of story.

Try getting a resolution to a vote that actually mentions violence by Palestinians. Hamas could launch 1,000 rockets into Israel in a single day and people would put forth legislation calling on Israel to end the violence. They are publicity stunts.

Posted in: Outrage as Russia, China veto U.N. move on Syria
-1

SuperLibFeb. 05, 2012 - 08:29PM JST

At the very least the steady flow of rallies should provide some kind of check on his power and maybe even some kind of sense that he will be held accountable for his actions. Maybe it won't be a big change but his days of simply uttering anti-West speeches to get him off the hook are coming to an end.

Posted in: Tens of thousands rally against Putin's rule
1

SuperLibFeb. 05, 2012 - 08:25PM JST

Hard to know what to believe, really. I thought the West wasn't all that interested in removing Assad since the alternative might be worse. Has something changed in the last few months? Were they going to produce a strongly worded letter and leave it at that, or is there more substance here?

I can see Russia and China voting against it. Refusing an arms embargo, tho, that's a different story. And Russia is selling arms to Syria as we speak? Do they need the money that badly? Or do they think the West figured out a way for regime change?

Posted in: Outrage as Russia, China veto U.N. move on Syria
2

SuperLibFeb. 05, 2012 - 12:18PM JST

At some point people will have to come up with a reliable way to count people.

Posted in: Tens of thousands rally against Putin's rule
1

SuperLibFeb. 04, 2012 - 10:30PM JST

sailwind: Thought I'd help the Media here by including their exact past descriptions about Mitt in the article so far from articles about him here on JT.

Sailwind, you can talk about the media all you want, but it should be hardwired into a politician's head that the phrase "I’m not concerned about the very poor. " should never be uttered. It was a gaffe, even if it was part of a longer statement. And on top of that he said that he'll fix something "if" it needs to be fixed. It sounds like it comes from the mind of a man who thinks the very poor are fine just being very poor.

Any way you slice it, it was a horrible choice of words and he deserves criticism for it. If you don't agree with what the media has been doing then that's your choice, but I'm not hearing a lot in the way of your own criticism of Romney, if you think any is necessary.

Posted in: Romney admits he 'misspoke' over poor Americans
0

SuperLibFeb. 04, 2012 - 08:41AM JST

Israel + nukes = hypocrisy. Iran + nukes = global instability. When those two threats come within 100 miles of each other on the scale, please let me know.

Posted in: Israel says military action may be necessary against Iran
0

SuperLibFeb. 04, 2012 - 08:35AM JST

The BBC is clearly after oil.

Posted in: BBC accuses Iran of intimidating its staff
0

SuperLibFeb. 04, 2012 - 08:34AM JST

Does a resolution really matter either way?

Posted in: U.S. seeks Russia's vote for softer Syria resolution
0

SuperLibFeb. 03, 2012 - 11:29PM JST

Oh I agree the children have no future in Gaza. As long as Hamas burns down schools and uses children as human shields there won't be many of them left. They should have over to the West Bank and get an education and leave the self-destruction to the adults.

Posted in: Protesters throw shoes at U.N. chief in Gaza
0

SuperLibFeb. 03, 2012 - 11:26PM JST

A first strike by Israel would be a bad move. Iran needs to stumble, then a coalition of powers can put pressure on them. There are quite a few Arab states who want to see Iran's nuclear program stopped but their hands will be tied if Israel strikes first. It will also tie the hands of Western powers to some extent since there will always be a certain percentage of the population who simply refuses to accept what Iran is. That number could grow if the picture gets distorted with a first strike.

Posted in: Israel says military action may be necessary against Iran
2

SuperLibFeb. 03, 2012 - 11:23PM JST

Thanks to the media for making this front page news. Imagine if they had just ignored it...

Posted in: Trump endorsement of Romney a huge diversion in Republican race
4

SuperLibFeb. 03, 2012 - 10:47AM JST

Iranian proxies in the region, mainly Gaza’s Islamic militant Hamas and the Lebanese Hezbollah, have fired thousands of rockets into Israel

...but but but....Iran hasn't attacked anyone....

Posted in: Israel says military action may be necessary against Iran
1

SuperLibFeb. 03, 2012 - 10:41AM JST

The visit comes a day after the U.N. chief urged Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to ease his country’s restrictions on the coastal territory.

and

Ban entered the Hamas-run strip, hours after a barrage of eight rockets was fired from the Palestinian territory into southern Israel.

and

threw objects at Ban’s car as he drove past them.

= screwed up priorities on all parts.

Posted in: Protesters throw shoes at U.N. chief in Gaza
4

SuperLibFeb. 02, 2012 - 11:35AM JST

I get his point, but it shouldn't have been said...

Posted in: After Florida win, Romney makes gaffe on poor
1

SuperLibFeb. 02, 2012 - 05:17AM JST

Cletus: I just chuckle to myself every time you get a terrorist scare or you lose more troops

There we go. Let me nudge you a little more into the spotlight, then we can snap the photo. I won't even charge you for it.

Yeah right the politicians are targetted because of their policies surely you realise that and cant be that daft

Really? We're still here? We both know why only one specific politician was killed. And it's obvious you're ignoring the cartoon now. Yet here you are, still typing away like I can't see through you. Honestly, what's the point?

As for your statement about hollywood what a joke

Oh, it's no joke to them. Try getting a picture of Mohammad on TV or film. Can't. Blanket ban. But again, you already know this, and admitting that you watch NCIS won't change that. And just because Hollywood refuses to ever have an evil US government character...

and it is you that is throwing the hissy fit no that someone has refuted your GWB version of the world.

What's wrong with GWB? I remember years ago when Madverts and I were back in Texas shooting vermin with our .22s and talking about how much we wanted to BE that man. But since you aren't American like us and since you didn't vote for GWB like we did you couldn't possibly understand that. It's a Republican thing.

l am merely suggesting a long hard look at the way we are doing things and see if theres a better way. But as per usual you americans cant handle your ways being questioned which is why you lose every time.

You might think that you are trying to make things better, and that probably is your motivation, but the obvious obsession with the United States is what gets in your way. I'll stop poking at you if you stop mentioning "America" in every 3rd sentence. There's a big, complex picture out there and you're trying to solve a puzzle by taking the biggest piece to the other room.

Posted in: Obama confirms U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan
1

SuperLibFeb. 01, 2012 - 07:29PM JST

heh well you can shake your head in disgust all you want. At the end of the day it's better than frustration. You won't age as quickly. But personally, I like to see you angry and feeling helpless against the American machine. It keeps you in your cage of endless anger and I like the thought of that.

If you want to see previous statements I've made where I've used the words "Taliban-type state" then feel free to do so. You'll find it plenty of times, just click on my name and look back through my posts. My guess is that my answer was a little too close for comfort and you would prefer to be talking to someone who was way off. You haven't tried to slip in your own BS so perhaps you know you won't get too far with it.

I said there was no military action by Dutch politicians. If they've personally fought in the war and got murdered for it, please let me know. Same with cartoonists. These men were targeted or killed because of their ideas, not bombs. It's the same reason why Hollywood has imposed a blanket ban on symbols that might ignite radical Muslims. But I suspect you already know this and we're just wasting each other's time.

Ah, I see you've included a generalized "War on Terror" as a reason for being a target. I suppose that means that any country who has involved themselves with stopping international terrorism is a member, therefor any country I could mention would pretty much be included. That's a pretty cool trick considering it involves just about every country on the planet in some way, shape, or form. I guess everyone around the globe deserves to be killed by a terrorist in some way, ne?

Look, we can go around in circles forever if we wanted to. But the fact is that you're weak. You're hoping that if you can blame everyone but the terrorists then you can find a little part of the world where they will give you a free pass because you've been so good to them and kissed their ass like a good boy. The problem for you is that they will kill you just as quickly as they would kill me regardless of what we post on a message board. Oh, the irony of that situation if we ever found ourselves in it...

Posted in: Obama confirms U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan