Israel

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

And we're back to are they actually trying to develop nuclear weapons, and believing War criminals and US dictators. I don't, so it's not a binary choice for me.

But quite prepared to dismiss the iaea report and believe brutal Islamist dictatorships that murder children. 

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

No serious attempt to engage on the clear differences I outlined then? Just blindly asserting that they can be compared despite the clear differences? 

I don't agree with what you wrote, sorry. These are opinions, not facts, so I can happily disagree with the fact that I don't believe if Iran are looking to develop nuclear weapons they are going to blindly use them as you do. 

If they are 100% looking to develop them, then International negotiations need to start again to ensure they don't. That's my position and it isn't going to change.

[egg]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Because if you don't agree with Israel or the US striking to prevent nukes then that's de facto support for Iran developing nuclear weapons. 

That's incredibly stupid. 

Incredibly. 

There is a binary choice in your head only. Well, Trump's perhaps. 

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

But quite prepared to dismiss the iaea report and believe brutal Islamist dictatorships that murder children. 

Point to where I am believing the Iranians?

[Farmer Saint]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

But quite prepared to dismiss the iaea report and believe brutal Islamist dictatorships that murder children. 

As an aside, I don't think anyone has murdered as many children this year as your hero Benji.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Point to where I am believing the Iranians?

Typical Hypo mate. You disagree with him and he just makes stuff up. Earlier I apparently said that the Iranians were pretending to build a nuke. 

[hypochondriac]

22 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I don't agree with what you wrote, sorry. These are opinions, not facts, so I can happily disagree with the fact that I don't believe if Iran are looking to develop nuclear weapons they are going to blindly use them as you do. 

If they are 100% looking to develop them, then International negotiations need to start again to ensure they don't. That's my position and it isn't going to change.

It's an opinion that juche ideology differs greatly from suffi extremist interpretations from Islam? That the ideologies that drive them mean that their risk of using a nuclear weapon won't be different? That there isn't plenty of documented evidence of jihad is being willing to destroy themselves and their things in service of their ideology because they believe that their earthly body is temporary and they are going to end up in heaven? Which part of that is opinion? 

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's an opinion that juche ideology differs greatly from suffi extremist interpretations from Islam? That the ideologies that drive them mean that their risk of using a nuclear weapon won't be different? That there isn't plenty of documented evidence of jihad is being willing to destroy themselves and their things in service of their ideology because they believe that their earthly body is temporary and they are going to end up in heaven? Which part of that is opinion? 

The part where you say the Iranian's will use nuclear weapons if they develop them.

Edited Monday at 17:56 by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

The part where you say the Iranian's will us nuclear weapons if they develop them.

Can you quote where I said that? 

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Can you quote where I said that? 

Ok, cool, so you don't think they will use them if they have them - then we're of the same opinion. So in that case what is the issue with them having them?

[Matthew Le God]

39 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Because if you don't agree with Israel or the US striking to prevent nukes then that's de facto support for Iran developing nuclear weapons. 

Why are the USA and possibly Israel allowed nukes... but not Iran?

[Farmer Saint]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's an opinion that juche ideology differs greatly from suffi extremist interpretations from Islam? That the ideologies that drive them mean that their risk of using a nuclear weapon won't be different? That there isn't plenty of documented evidence of jihad is being willing to destroy themselves and their things in service of their ideology because they believe that their earthly body is temporary and they are going to end up in heaven? Which part of that is opinion? 

So, would it be a better comparison to compare them to Pakistan? Sunni Muslims. When did they last use a nuclear weapon, or hand one off to a terrorist?

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why are the USA and possibly Israel allowed nukes... but not Iran?

My preference would be that no one has nuclear weapons but I'd certainly not be advocating for anyone else to get more. In particular a brutal, unstable Islamist extremist regime who thinks nothing of murdering people in service of their ideology. 

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

My preference would be that no one has nuclear weapons but I'd certainly not be advocating for anyone else to get more. In particular a brutal, unstable Islamist extremist regime who thinks nothing of murdering people in service of their ideology. 

Where as the Americans have Mango Mussolini in charge and have a history of using nukes on civilians! 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Where as the Americans have Mango Mussolini in charge and have a history of using nukes on civilians! 

My preference is for America and indeed every country to not have nuclear weapons. Unfortunately that's unlikely to happen. 

[aintforever]

I would rather Iran didn’t have nukes but they are a sovereign nation with every right to defend themselves. My concern with Trump acting like the World police is that countries like a Russia and China might hate that more than the idea of Iran having WMDs and just help them develop, or just supply them nukes to prove a point.

[egg]

26 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Can you quote where I said that? 

Well isn't your whole point that yiu believe that Iran will use a nuke if they have one? If that's not your point, what is your point? 

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I would rather Iran didn’t have nukes but they are a sovereign nation with every right to defend themselves. My concern with Trump acting like the World police is that countries like a Russia and China might hate that more than the idea of Iran having WMDs and just help them develop, or just supply them nukes to prove a point.

That's a valid concern but not likely to happen in my opinion. It would be a really bad idea abd woukd probably be stopped before it happened if it were attempted. 

I don't understand the logic of "they are a sovereign nation with every right to defend themselves." Using that, should every nation on Earth get a nuke if they fancy one in case they are attacked? 

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

That's a valid concern but not likely to happen in my opinion. It would be a really bad idea abd woukd probably be stopped before it happened if it were attempted. 

I don't understand the logic of "they are a sovereign nation with every right to defend themselves." Using that, should every nation on Earth get a nuke if they fancy one in case they are attacked? 

Yes, probably.

Edited Monday at 18:23 by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

Well isn't your whole point that yiu believe that Iran will use a nuke if they have one? If that's not your point, what is your point? 

I've never said Iran WILL use a nuke if they have one. And you accuse me of failing to understand the points you make. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yes, probably.

Yeah my opinion of that view is it's batshit insane. 

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I've never said Iran WILL use a nuke if they have one. And you accuse me of failing to understand the points you make. 

It's like arguing with the fucking riddler. 

So in that case what is the issue with them having one? Won't they just be like Pakistan?

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Yeah my opinion of that view is it's batshit insane. 

Why? It would have stopped Russia invading Ukraine.

Or preferably, no-one has one.

Edited Monday at 18:27 by Farmer Saint

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I've never said Iran WILL use a nuke if they have one. And you accuse me of failing to understand the points you make. 

Ok, but you think they are more likely to than not because they're a muslim state, but that the non muslim states won't. That's what you're saying in a nutshell isn't it. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

It's like arguing with the fucking riddler. 

So in that case what is the issue with them having one? Won't they just be like Pakistan?

Yep!! 

[Farmer Saint]

He's tying himself up in knots here. I think we should give him some time to untie himself and actually decide what his opinion is.

[Farmer Saint]

To be fair, it's actually quite nice to have a debate on here without insults being thrown about, so yay, go us!

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

It's like arguing with the fucking riddler. 

So in that case what is the issue with them having one? Won't they just be like Pakistan?

It's really not. Unfortunately you're unable to understand a very obvious point. I consider it more likely that some countries will use a nuclear weapon or that a nuclear weapon should fall into the hands of someone else than others. Nowhere have I ever said that Iran would definitely use a nuclear weapon as a cast iron certainty. That would be an insane thing to say. 

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

Ok, but you think they are more likely to than not because they're a muslim state, but that the non muslim states won't. That's what you're saying in a nutshell isn't it. 

No. I never said more likely than not.

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Why? It would have stopped Russia invading Ukraine.

Or preferably, no-one has one.

Of course it's preferable that no one has one. Being cool with literally any country in the world having one who fancies it is a frankly bizarre opinion and I'm not sure I believe you genuinely hold that opinion in a hypothetical scenario where that actually was a thing. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

No. I never said more likely than not.

But more likely than other countries? And because they're a muslim state? Yes? 

[AlexLaw76]

USA doing USA things (again)

just need Zelensky now to pop up and warn us that Russia will storm eastern Europe

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

It's really not. Unfortunately you're unable to understand a very obvious point. I consider it more likely that some countries will use a nuclear weapon or that a nuclear weapon should fall into the hands of someone else than others. Nowhere have I ever said that Iran would definitely use a nuclear weapon as a cast iron certainty. That would be an insane thing to say. 

Oh, ok, I didn't realise there was a hypo league table of nuclear use probabilities. I must have missed that on the BBC Verify page.

So with that in mind, you think they're more likely than anyone else in the world to use them, or just everyone who has them? And why are they higher than countries like Pakistan?

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

But more likely than other countries? And because they're a muslim state? Yes? 

More likely than many other countries of course. Due to a number of factors some unrelated to Islam-but primarily because they are a brutal extremist regime who are led by people who believe in a hyper exteme version of Islam. 

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

More likely than many other countries of course. Due to a number of factors some unrelated to Islam-but primarily because they are a brutal extremist regime who are led by people who believe in a hyper exteme version of Islam. 

But you don't think they'll use them anyway, because that would be an insane thing to say, so it's not really an issue.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Oh, ok, I didn't realise there was a hypo league table of nuclear use probabilities. I must have missed that on the BBC Verify page.

So with that in mind, you think they're more likely than anyone else in the world to use them, or just everyone who has them? And why are they higher than countries like Pakistan?

I'd prefer that no countries had nuclear weapons but if there has to be some who have them then clearly there are some countries you would be more keen than others to not have them. I'm not sure why you'd consider that a controversial opinion. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

But you don't think they'll use them anyway, because that would be an insane thing to say, so it's not really an issue.

I didn't say I don't think they will use them. Goodness me. 

[whelk]

It is comical that some posters view Pakistan and Iran as the same.

This is problem with polarisation and picking a side. We don’t like Trump and Israel so will side with whoever their enemies are. Iran Is under a despicable regime you fucking morons.

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I didn't say I don't think they will use them. Goodness me. 

Ah, but you're also not saying they will use them, because that would be insane. I thought this was a binary choice?

[Farmer Saint]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

It is comical that some posters view Pakistan and Iran as the same.

This is problem with polarisation and picking a side. We don’t like Trump and Israel so will side with whoever their enemies are. Iran Is under a despicable regime you fucking morons.

I'm sorry, but who's staying they're not? And who's siding with Iran? What were trying to understand is why Hypo thinks they shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

We're also told this isn't about regime change.

Edited Monday at 18:52 by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Ah, but you're also not saying they will use them, because that would be insane. I thought this was a binary choice?

I'm saying that in my opinion there is a risk that they would use them or that they could fall into the wrong hands that is unacceptable to me. My guess is you're being deliberately obtuse for some reason and pretending you don't know what I've said. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

More likely than many other countries of course. Due to a number of factors some unrelated to Islam-but primarily because they are a brutal extremist regime who are led by people who believe in a hyper exteme version of Islam. 

We got there eventually. "Of course" is your opinion. I disagree that there's more chance of Iran using a nuke than anyone else. It'd lead to their destruction.

[whelk]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I'm sorry, but who's staying they're not? And who's siding with Iran? What were trying to understand is why Hypo thinks they shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

It’s not just hypo, it’s any sane person

[egg]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

It is comical that some posters view Pakistan and Iran as the same.

This is problem with polarisation and picking a side. We don’t like Trump and Israel so will side with whoever their enemies are. Iran Is under a despicable regime you fucking morons.

Ditto Israel. Despicable does not make them a country who'd nuke another nuclear state who are backed by another nuclear state. Nonsense to suggest they'd do something to wipe their own country and it's people off the face of the earth. 

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm saying that in my opinion there is a risk that they would use them or that they could fall into the wrong hands that is unacceptable to me. My guess is you're being deliberately obtuse for some reason and pretending you don't know what I've said. 

Fine, I don't think they would use them, if they were developing them, not enough that it justified attacking a sovereign country.

That was a really long winded way to have this debate.

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Ditto Israel. Despicable does not make them a country who'd nuke another nuclear state who are backed by another nuclear state. Nonsense to suggest they'd do something to wipe their own country and it's people off the face of the earth. 

Ah, but Sunni Muslims. The same as in Pakistan.

Edited Monday at 18:56 by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

It’s not just hypo, it’s any sane person

I just think it's a couple of posters on here who fancy an argument. No one I've ever met in real life thinks it would be a good idea for Iran to get nuclear weapons. 

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, whelk said:

It’s not just hypo, it’s any sane person

I also wouldn't allow Donald Trump, Netanyahu, Vlad Putin, Kim Jong Un, Zardari or Modi have them, and yet...

Edited Monday at 19:01 by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

I just think it's a couple of posters on here who fancy an argument. No one I've ever met in real life thinks it would be a good idea for Iran to get nuclear weapons. 

But you're not getting what it is about. It's about attacking a sovereign nation based on that. We've had this before with Iraq, and we were lied to, by far more trustworthy politicians than we have now, and it created fucking havoc. Why are we doing it again?

[whelk]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

I also wouldn't allow Donald Trump, Vlad Putin, Kim Jong Un, Zardari or Modi have them, and yet...

So doesn’t matter who has them? Osama bin laden (God rest his soul)?