ElRazur:

It is all well to label and what not. I think you will fond that you are inaccurate.

Finally, I will suggest you look up the meaning of a Rogue state before using it next time.

I'm sure you think "Rogue State" is just a synonym for "Axis of Evil".

RichyBlacK:

I'm sure you think "Rogue State" is just a synonym for "Axis of Evil".

Don't be daft. I am asking you if you know the meaning of the phrase you used in the first place.

Israel do not fit into what you will class as a Rogue state period.

PS
You are so sure, you even know what "I think". Gosh I don't think it is worth wasting my time on this one.

davidylan:

you shouldnt have bothered . . . we all know that when it comes to Israel, Richy forgets all about objectivity. I wonder what he regards as "unilateral action" by Israel . . . does he mean enduring 6yrs of constant rocket attacks from Gaza?

That's not true. We do not agree on Israel because you have a positive bias for Israel and a negative bias towards the Iranians.

I look at the issue objectively. George W. Bush brought to fore the barbaric concept of "preemptive strike", and Israel wants to use it as a justification to hit Iran. This concept has been discredited and the Israelis should know better.

We must learn to give nations, even those we may not agree with on every issue, the benefit of the doubt, particularly on matters relating to military strikes and invasion.

Saddam said it countless times that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, but just because some Western nations find it hard to trust Muslim nations, they allowed their inferior emotion override their better judgment and went ahead to invade Iraq under the false claim that Saddam had weapons of mas destruction.

Today, Ahmadinejad is saying something similar: "we are not developing nuclear weapons", and again some Western nations are allowing their brains to be overridden by the emotion of "we can't trust the man who wants to wipe Israel off the map".

Saner minds in Israel should talk to the extremist in the Knesset and make them realize that the path they're trying to tread has been explored by Uncle Sam. Today, we all know how Uncle Sam feels about those mistakes. 

If that Class A slowpoke wallowing in Texas had listened to sane people instead fraternizing with psychotic murderers in suit, he would have avoided making the mistakes that has scarred the Republican Party.

ElRazur:

Don't be daft. I am asking you if you know the meaning of the phrase you used in the first place.

Israel do not fit into what you will class as a Rogue state period.

Your idiotic opinion. Who cares what you think? Israel is a rogue state, period!


See for more info: MPP calls Israel Rogue State

RichyBlacK:

Your idiotic opinion. Who cares what you think? Israel is a rogue state, period!

You are really daft to be honest. Just because you claim Israel is a rogue state do not make it one.

Your word usage and understanding are very poor. I once again urge you to look up words and phrase before you use them.

Since you lack the knowledge to debate, talk less of debating objectively. Here is a bit of knowledge for you.

Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction

rogue states are considered to be those nations utterly ruled by individuals (rather than subject to a popular electoral process) and whose legitimacy, intentions, and notions of the process of legitimate succession (if any) is highly suspect. Furthermore, rogue states (as opposed to nominal non-newsworthy dictatorships which pose no external threat) typically become consequential due to their engagement in the threat - or conduct of - war, particularly against neighbour states, without regard to international law.

There you go. Now that you know the basic meaning of a Rogue state, can you tell me how Israel fits into this? Or you just gonna engage your "naija mentality" and carry on been ignorant?

Iran fits in more to those definitions than any nation I can think off right now.

How ignorant are you RichyBlack? You ignored the very definition of a Rogue state and instead went after an opinion of someone I barely heard off? Where is the logic?

PS
Did you even take time to read what you posted?

"The comments of Mr. McNeely do not reflect the opinion of the government of Ontario or the premier," spokesman Chris Morley said. A few hours later, Mr. McNeely offered an apology.

"Recently I have made comments with respect to the current situation in the Middle East, which were inappropriate. I apologize for the language of my comments and sincerely regret the hurt they have caused," he said in a statement. "I recognize that the challenges faced in the Middle East are complex and longstanding. During this time of tension, it is even more important for everyone to remain respectful of each other, which I failed to do."

You really are ignorant.

@Richy,

If Israel, a well known aggressor-state, strikes Iran, I expect the Iranians to strike back! This sense of entitlement by a few nations, as regards development, must be stopped.
Iran has made it clear that her nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, hence their is no reason to bomb Iran. Any so-called intelligence that shows that Iran is developing nuclear weapons must be corroborated with other sources and tabled at the UN.
Unilateral actions by rogue states in the middle-east, e.g. Israel, must not be given any legitimacy by being tolerated.
Iran must start drawing up plans for a retaliatory strike against Israel if the Zionist State is still living in the limbo of "we can do anything to any nation"!

Again, your premise is wrong. It is therefore not surprising that everything that follows makes no sense. 

I wonder who is the agressor btw the nation which considers another illegitimate and has actively called for its destruction in words and deeds; and a nation who takes such words seriously and is preparing to tackle the threat before it reaches an existential dimension.  Again, I give it to your logic if you conslude that Isreal is thew aggrssor here.

On the other hand, it is so typical of you to say Iran should strike back if hit by Isreal, but everytime Isreal strikes back when hit by IUran cronies, you cry blue murder.  So as far as you are concerned, retaliation is only the exclusive preserve of your muslim friends. Ride on brother, ride on.

ElRazur:

How ignorant are you RichyBlack? You ignored the very definition of a Rogue state and instead went after an opinion of someone I barely heard off? Where is the logic?

PS
Did you even take time to read what you posted?  


You really are ignorant.

If I'm ignorant then you're a BIG FOOL!

You have your opinion and I have mine! Nonsense idiot!

@Richyblack,

If I'm ignorant then you're a BIG FOOL!
You have your opinion and I have mine! Nonsense idiot!

You should ban yourself right away for such a response. Someone called you ignorant and you responded by calling him a fool. That in my opinion is a "disproportionate response." Does that ring a bell?

RichyBlacK:

If I'm ignorant then you're a BIG FOOL!

You have your opinion and I have mine! Nonsense idiot!

You opinions and approach are ignorant [and with very good reasons.] This I have shown in my previous post. Maybe you should deal with that instead of using Ad homen tactics.

Tayo-D:

@Richyblack,
You should ban yourself right away for such a response. Someone called you ignorant and you responded by calling him a fool. That in my opinion is a "disproportionate response." Does that ring a bell?

I just hope that the basis of his moderating status have nothing to do with his debating skills.

@ElRazur,

I just hope that the basis of his moderating status have nothing to do with his debating skills.

Absolutely not! He got that role because like the average liberal out there, he has a lot of time on his hands. The conservatives in the house are too busy working and making enough taxable income to sustain their lifestyle

Tayo-D:

@Richy,
Again, your premise is wrong. It is therefore not surprising that everything that follows makes no sense. 

I wonder who is the agressor btw the nation which considers another illegitimate and has actively called for its destruction in words and deeds; and a nation who takes such words seriously and is preparing to tackle the threat before it reaches an existential dimension.  Again, I give it to your logic if you conslude that Isreal is thew aggrssor here.

On the other hand, it is so typical of you to say Iran should strike back if hit by Isreal, but everytime Isreal strikes back when hit by IUran cronies, you cry blue murder.  So as far as you are concerned, retaliation is only the exclusive preserve of your muslim friends. Ride on brother, ride on.

When has Iran ever attacked Israel?

Just because Western propaganda machines deliberately misinterpret Ahmadinejad's statements doesn't mean those interpretations are true.

Israel has no legal justification to carry out any form of military strike against Iran. [/b]And if they do, Iran must and should retaliate! Simple!

On the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, don't misinterpret my position. I've never said that Israel cannot retaliate, however, such retaliation should be proportional. Israel is much more powerful than Palestine, so what do you expect from me?

Israel is still more powerful than Iran, militarily, however, an Iranian response to an Israeli first strike would be much more damaging to Israel than a Palestinian reprisal.
[b]
Israel, that rogue state, must learn from it's big brother America. America exercised restraint for over four decades in not carrying out a first strike against the Soviets. That ensured some level of peace and kept the hooligans/neocons at bay far from the White House. The fear of a Soviet retaliatory strike was real and unambiguous.

This is the lesson the hawks in Israel must learn. If they strike Iran, Iran must retaliate to send the right message to the bully of the middle-east.

ElRazur:

You opinions and approach are ignorant [and with very good reasons.] This I have shown in my previous post. Maybe you should deal with that instead of using Ad homen tactics.



I just hope that the basis of his moderating status have nothing to do with his debating skills.

You insolent swine started the insults.

If you can't debate without insulting someone then f&*k-off!

Tayo-D:

@ElRazur,
Absolutely not! He got that role because like the average liberal out there, he has a lot of time on his hands. The conservatives in the house are too busy working and making enough taxable income to sustain their lifestyle 

Now you're talking like a five-year old infant.

I'm very sure my standard of living is far better than yours - conservative charlatan.

It's folks like you that think all liberals live on hand-outs. Sorry for you.

@Richy,

At this time, you should be able to know when I am kidding around. Na today me and you dey debate for nairaland? What are you so uptight about? Chill out.Okay.

Tayo-D:

@Richy,

At this time, you should be able to know when I am kidding around.  Na today me and you dey debate for nairaland? What are you so uptight about?  Chill out.Okay.

Okay, no probs.

It's that El-rufai abi na El-razaki guy wey dey make person vex.

All I want is a healthy debate without personal attacks.

I know I'm not a fan of Israel because of her policies, but why is it that supporters of Israel like to resort to ad hominems when someone upsets their delicate world-view on the infallibility of Israel?

RichyBlacK:

I know I'm not a fan of Israel because of her policies, but why is it that supporters of Israel like to resort to ad hominems when someone upsets their delicate world-view on the infallibility of Israel?

you're no different. I notice you have cleverly skipped EVERY important point as regards this issue rather prefering to pontificate on your own flawed opinions. Why is "retaliation" the exclusive preserve of muslim nations? (tayo D asked you that and all you sent in response was to insult him).

RichyBlacK:

I know I'm not a fan of Israel because of her policies, but why is it that supporters of Israel like to resort to ad hominems when someone upsets their delicate world-view on the infallibility of Israel?

Oh please. Now you are playing the victim. Get a grip.

Calling you ignorant is not an insult.  Here is an explanation if you really do not understand

Ignorance is the state in which a person lacks knowledge and is unaware of something. This should not be confused with being unintelligent.

So I still maintain that you really are ignorant. If you ain't, you wont result to making real insult [Calling me a swine is an insult, just in case you are ignorant of this too.]

This debate was doing fine until you came in here making claims you cannot defend when challenged. And this is you wanting a "Healthy debate", Do you even know what that means? Jeez.

For the record, simply because I disagree with some of your ignorant views do not make me pro Israel.

ElRazur:

Oh please. Now you are playing the victim. Get a grip.

Calling you ignorant is not an insult.  Here is an explanation if you really do not understand


So I still maintain that you really are ignorant. If you ain't, you wont result to making real insult [Calling me a swine is an insult, just in case you are ignorant of this too.]

This debate was doing fine until you came in here making claims you cannot defend when challenged. And this is you wanting a "Healthy debate", Do you even know what that means? Jeez.

For the record, simply because I disagree with some of your ignorant views do not make me pro Israel.

So, I'm ignorant because I believe Israel to be a rogue state?

Okay, is there any nation that can be called a rogue state?

davidylan:

you're no different. I notice you have cleverly skipped EVERY important point as regards this issue rather prefering to pontificate on your own flawed opinions. Why is "retaliation" the exclusive preserve of muslim nations? (tayo D asked you that and all you sent in response was to insult him).

Israel has the right to retaliate. Why not?

I have only criticized Israel on the issue of retaliation when its retaliation is disproportional. For example, three Israeli soldiers are killed and then Israel responds with one-tonne bombs, F-16s, level 10, 000 buildings and kill 1,500 people. That is clearly a disproportional response!

RichyBlacK:

Israel has the right to retaliate. Why not?

I have only criticized Israel on the issue of retaliation when its retaliation is disproportional. For example, three Israeli soldiers are killed and then Israel responds with one-tonne bombs, F-16s, level 10, 000 buildings and kill 1,500 people. That is clearly a disproportional response!

this is disgraceful double-speak. It seems the term "disproportionate" is reserved for Israel alone . . . suppose Israel bombed only the Natanz facility in Iran killing only 2 guards . . . would the appropriate Iranian response (according to you) be for them to just kill 2 guards too?

If HAMAS had the weapons Israel had . . . the jews would long have ceased to exist. Reading stuff like this from you makes me question whether we still have sane people on the planet.

RichyBlacK:

So, I'm ignorant because I believe Israel to be a rogue state?

Okay, is there any nation that can be called a rogue state?

You conveniently forgot Sudan? Yeah that paragon of democracy and the rule of law is certainly better than Israel were 20% of its population is Arab.

davidylan:

You conveniently forgot Sudan? Yeah that paragon of democracy and the rule of law is certainly better than Israel were 20% of its population is Arab.

Of course Sudan is a rogue state. See how they've allowed their citizens to be murdered.

However, Israel is also a rogue state.

RichyBlacK:

Of course Sudan is a rogue state. See how they've allowed their citizens to be murdered.

However, Israel is also a rogue state.

Based on?

davidylan:

Based on?

Go do some research.

People see what powers do people who really cannot debate. Here is a message richyblack just sent me.

Cease and desist
Sent to: ElRazur on: Today at 12:46:07 AM »

Please if you don't want to debate then leave the forum. Stop insulting me. This is your last warning on this.

Woah, your inability to debate properly now means you are removing my post and making threats to me? You are a sore loser. I am not the type to back down, especially when I haven't insulted you in anyway.

I have taken a screen shot of your message for anyone who wants it.

ElRazur:

People see what powers do people who really cannot debate. Here is a message richyblack just sent me.


Woah, your inability to debate properly now means you are removing my post and making threats to me? You are a sore loser. I am not the type to back down, especially when I haven't insulted you in anyway.

I have taken a screen shot of your message for anyone who wants it.

So why do you rely on ad hominems? Can't you debate without calling someone "ignorant"?

RichyBlacK:

So why do you rely on ad hominems? Can't you debate without calling someone "ignorant"?

If you don't to be called as one. Perhaps you should demonstrate this in your post? Ignorance is defined as the state of not knowing. Your post have showed you do not know some stuff and you refuse to take this on board. How is this ad homen in anyway? I have present my case based on logic, common sense and fact, but you just think what ever you says goes.

If you ban me, what does it give you? It shows that you are more or less a weak person to everyone reading. What makes you think I wont come back and carry on?

ElRazur:

If you don't to be called as one. Perhaps you should demonstrate this in your post? Ignorance is defined as the state of not knowing. Your post have showed you do not know some stuff and you refuse to take this on board. How is this ad homen in anyway? I have present my case based on logic, common sense and fact, but you just think what ever you says goes.

If you ban me, what does it give you? It shows that you are more or less a weak person to everyone reading. What makes you think I wont come back and carry on?

Let me tell you something, I'm only telling you to stop resorting to ad hominems because I don't want this thread to spiral into nothingness. Why can't you take my advice and desist from ad hominems?

RichyBlacK:

So why do you rely on ad hominems? Can't you debate without calling someone "ignorant"?

You're not debating yourself . . . just shouting and making defenceless claims.

RichyBlacK:

Go do some research.

Like copying another long meaningless website article that you dont understand?

RichyBlacK:

Let me tell you something, I'm only telling you to stop resorting to ad hominems because I don't want this thread to spiral into nothingness. Why can't you take my advice and desist from ad hominems?

Who are you to tell me what to do after you have called me a swine? Who are you to tell me what to do after you have swore at me? I haven't attacked you. I have merely showed you up as someone who is too weak to debate without making threats and resulting to childish affairs. Did you not call me ElRufai and ElRasaki, when my name aint even that?

If you do not want me to say your opinion are riddled with ignorance, perhaps you should present it in a manner that suggest that you are not ignorant.

Richayblack, I lost all respect for you, because you are the one doing all the ad homen. This is a classic case of a log in your eye and you are trying to remove a non-existent speck in mine.