PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Stadust, the problem is that you sound like somebody convinced that he knows everything about anything, and nobody knows everything... This topic is too serious to be fighting or talking it lightly, this is not a joke. Please, calm down and let get to the points that are important. If you don’t believe that something may happen, it’s fine, all you have to say is: “I don’t believe that something is going to happen”, there is no need to be so complicated.

Anyway, honestly, I am so disconnected to your vibrations that I feel we belong to completely different worlds. I cannot connect with this aggressive attitude, I will definitely not... I tell you it in a friendly way: don't lose your time with me, you make me no vibrate at all, really, it is like "no sound in here, the cable is disconnected…”, sort of feeling. I see that you do lots of efforts when writing, what for, there is nothing to win here... I feel you get in a state of persecution but nobody is after you. Please, relax, with me at least. I don't care about what super rhetoric-mega-intelligent-super-intellectual writing you could bullet at me. I will not resonate with it. I honestly don’t have time for childish struggles and silly things of the like. Please, ignore me, this will most likely give you a little more of the peace you need in your inner self.

.

stardust - you're WAY too full of yourself and constantly divert these type of discussions with predictable rantor.
You are asleep.

So go ahead and belittle me for my observations. That's another one of your predictable responses.
Go ahead.

The ways of the world apparently do not fit within your narrow prism.
Sorry, but it's redundant to attempt to express otherwise.

Have a good life.

G

stardust wrote:And I see that he also acknowledges that even a different opinion that does not resonate is an opinion to respect.
This makes the difference sometimes.

This I agree with, none of us have ownership of the truth, whatever it may be, and you are very much entitled to your opinion.


However, this statement no right-minded person could accept:

stardust wrote:Wars are not owned by EEs.
They are owned by the agressor country's sovereign.
In a democratic country it's the people.
There must be a majority in those countries at war who legitimate the war.

Really? Tony Blair went to war with Iraq with the majority of people here against such action - even before the lie was exposed about WMDs. So are you saying because I live in a country that has gone to war I have somehow sanctioned it because I live in a so-called democracy? I didn't even vote for Blair. And even the people who did vote for Blair did not vote for the war: there was no referendum, no discussion, huge protests were ignored (the biggest anti-war demo ever) - this was a unilateral decision by Blair with most of his party towing the party line (except notably the late Robin Cook). This had nothing to do with the people. Short of storming parliament (oh how I wish...) what could the people do except voice their disapproval? You do not need the majority the legitimise war.

I find your comment naive and deeply insulting.

Seems like old times...

I dont think I've ever heard of a referendum being held to declare war. Its an interesting concept though, imagine if Japan had held a referendum on whether or not to bomb Pearl Harbour.

I think I recall there was a referendum here in Australia about withdrawing from Vietnam, but that was after the fact of being there.

Also, imagine if there was no A-bomb. Would anything be much different (I mean for humanity in the long run) given that more of Japan was destroyed from conventional bombing than A-bomb anyway.

If this thread becomes a war to talk about a possible war, I would be willing to rather close it and forget it. Let’s try to understand each other; there is no need for a fight. Let get into friendship and “communication”, this is the real thing. I am sure that we can communicate, fighting will bring absolutely nothing but sadness and confusion.

Fidel Castro coments and others views and words about it:

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/ ... 77214.html

.

That's true Gary, we have heard it several times already and nothing happened fortunately, but it was most of the times raised by lesser important people: journalists like to make noise and earn some respect and money. But those speaking today are prime ministers, CIA ex-agents, defense department’s chairman of such and such country and so on. The status of those giving their views now is important.

http://www.nationofchange.org/wikileaks ... ke-iran-13

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/ne ... n-1.357113

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... l-1.330386

.

I think the people of Iran want a war against their leaders more than any other nations citizens.
Can't blame them really.
Decades of guys wearing towels and robes as " leaders ", stoning women, and pretending they will die for Allah, when actually they are the cowards we usually find in holes with fists of cash.

The most recent brave Arab who claimed he'd die fighting for Allah was crawling through a sewer, was drug out and beaten by his fellow countrymen, then shot to death.

I am looking at these issues with great interest as we have had Atomic, and Nuclear weapons for decades.
But we haven't seen such brave young people in the Middle East in such great numbers before taking bullets for their cause, and it sure isn't Allah they're doing it for.

That no chinned jerk off in Syrias' father killed more of his own people than Israelis, and his son is racking up several thousand now too. These " soldiers " are really sickening to see beating on people as they show up in the emergency rooms.
I look forward to another brave " Soldier Of Allah " being stoned by his own people.
THese brave kids are real warriors, I hope they prevail.

garyb wrote:same as always. it doesn't mean that the threat isn't real, though...

But, Gary, for your understanding, what are they willing to do or achieve with all these assertions? Talking about such a dangerous thing meaning nothing, would be crazy. I don't understand which could be their interest in doing so, as this will evidently go against their credibility and significance as politicians. To me, someone speaking loud about mass destruction without being something important or proved or at least possible would mean that they are digging their own tombs politically.

XITE-1/4LIVE wrote: and it sure isn't Allah they're doing it for.

You bet, I coudn't agree more!

Nestor wrote:But, Gary, for your understanding, what are they willing to do or achieve with all these assertions? Talking about such a dangerous thing meaning nothing, would be crazy. I don't understand which could be their interest in doing so, as this will evidently go against their credibility and significance as politicians.

Please watch Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares to see why those in power think it's good to keep the people in fear.

Nestor wrote:To me, someone speaking loud about mass destruction without being something important or proved or at least possible would mean that they are digging their own tombs politically.

Doesn't seem to have done Tony Blair much harm.

Mr Arkadin wrote:

Nestor wrote:But, Gary, for your understanding, what are they willing to do or achieve with all these assertions? Talking about such a dangerous thing meaning nothing, would be crazy. I don't understand which could be their interest in doing so, as this will evidently go against their credibility and significance as politicians.

Please watch Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares to see why those in power think it's good to keep the people in fear.

Nestor wrote:To me, someone speaking loud about mass destruction without being something important or proved or at least possible would mean that they are digging their own tombs politically.

Doesn't seem to have done Tony Blair much harm.

I will look for this The Power of Nightmares, never seen it yet.


Anyway, how cool it is to comunicate instate of fighting, thank you

the Encyclopedia Brittanica states that Nimrod(Gilgamesh), the first declared King of Kings over all he saw, invented the idea of "government through random acts of violence"....

make what you will of it.

This video explains a lot in just three and a half minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Yes it does, and then this short historical model below, goes back to the days of the boy loving Athenians like Barney Frank, Coach Sandusky, and others who we have given authority to, just to see that mans purest emotion, Greed, always seems to take over.

George Washington was considered a lumatic, like Maximus Meridius, as they each had the people behind them to become a sole ruler, but decided to hand that power over to the people.
I'd love to see that again in my lifetime. I have faired fairly well but had to walk over many bodies on the way to snagging gigs, it turned into a competitive jerk, which does suit my nature, but it really doesn't have to be this way,
Most men just want their children to have the same oppurtunities and not have to worry about a lack of money.

Seems that Banks invest now and have no desire to loan money except on thos jive ass commercials where the Hot Dog Vendor has a store with lines of people and endless business all due to the Bank Of America............
Jesse James and the Younger Brothers had the right idea IMHO....


http://michael-hudson.com/2011/12/democracy-and-debt/

next to nothing wrote:This video explains a lot in just three and a half minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

yeaa..., I see...