Europe stops Iranian imports, and blocks key technology exports

MH · 01-23-12, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

The first ones to suffer will be iranian civilians, of course.

Any suggestions about how to deal with it in a better way?

Buddahaid · 01-23-12, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH

Any suggestions about how to deal with it in a better way?

Yes have God and Allah come down to Earth and explain to all the idiots what they actually stand for. After that we can all agree on whose right and stop fighting senseless battles over unsupportable claims of righteousness. I won't hold my breath.

antikristuseke · 01-23-12, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Yes have God and Allah come down to Earth and explain to all the idiots what they actually stand for.

they are the same being, suposedly

magicstix · 01-23-12, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

they are the same being, suposedly

Then why is it you have to say "there is no god but allah?"

Not to get into a religious discussion, but when you compare what's written in the torah and bible about YHWH to what's written in the Koran about Allah, they're almost exact opposites (genocides aside that is)...

Dowly · 01-23-12, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magicstix

Then why is it you have to say "there is no god but allah?"

Allah means God, so it's just a statement that there are no other gods but the God.

Other than that, are you REALLY surprised to find contradictions when it comes to different religions supposedly speaking about the same God?

magicstix · 01-23-12, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

Allah means God, so it's just a statement that there are no other gods but the God.

Other than that, are you REALLY surprised to find contradictions when it comes to different religions supposedly speaking about the same God?

Allah actually is the name of an older moon good that was at the head of a pantheon of gods worshiped by tribal Arabs. When Islam came along, all of the other lesser gods got the boot and Allah was all that was left. He was supposedly a god of the moon, which is why the symbol for Islam today is the crescent moon.

Takeda Shingen · 01-23-12, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magicstix

Then why is it you have to say "there is no god but allah?"

Not to get into a religious discussion, but when you compare what's written in the torah and bible about YHWH to what's written in the Koran about Allah, they're almost exact opposites (genocides aside that is)...

Islam holds Abraham, Moses and even Jesus to be prophets of god. As such Allah, Yahweh and God the Father are all the same god, ie Creator of the Universe. Where the three faiths differ is in regard to the natures and actions of later prophets and messiahs, as well as styles of worship and interpretation of will.

All of this theological discourse is, however, pretty left-field of the thread topic.

mapuc · 01-24-12, 05:26 AM

So much for this embargo

https://rt.com/news/iran-india-gold-oil-543/

Markus

Skybird · 01-24-12, 06:42 AM

Muhammad came into contact with many cults and sects during his early years when he led his uncle's trade-caravans around, because back then Arabia was the total opposite of today, it was a "multi-cultural" place, home to so very many different communities and sects, and Muhammad probably travelled far to the North as well, where the peninsula ended. He had a special interest in Christian and Jewish traditions and more or less "lectured" himself on them without ever entering any of them. Linguists would point out that even the origin of words like "Quran" seem to indicate that the collection originally maybe was meant or understood as a liturgic ammendement or comment to existing scriptures of Christians and Jews. But that is a complicated matter and not free of dispute, since a language "reform" of the Arabic also adds to the complexity, that meant dramatic changed for Arabic vocabulary. However, not before the Jews raised Muhammad'S rage and anger when they showed him in Medina during his meetings with the pharisees how small his insight of the Jewish teachings really was, and not before the conflict with the Mekkanese people forced him - or allowed him - to turn into a social rebel now also playing the military card, he tried to turn his so far fictional own creation of an ideology (basing on already existing beliefs) into a religion claimed to be the real fundament of the former religions, because he needed that to set himself aside and outside the reach of his critics, and to justify his ambitions and deeds. It was then when not only his hate on Jews broke out openly, in a search for revenge over narcissistic offence he suffered from them, but that he added changes to his religious model that should make it obvious to every casual observer that his Islam was not just a third version of the two others, but was independent, and even the real basis of the former two. He challenged the places of worship by Christianity and Jews and claimed dominance and ruling over them, he also changed certain habits in the practice of praying, most obviously changing the direction at which to pray.

The dispute amongst linguists how it all falls into place still continues. I found it to be complicated matter when I read about it several years ago. Also, historic research like this never is a precise, exact science, more a detective's work.

I think a very valuabe question always is: "Who benefits, who has a profit from it?". I never hid it that to me Muhammeddanism is nothing else but history's most monumental project of disguising an attempt of narcissistic self-justification.

Type941 · 01-25-12, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

So much for this embargo

https://rt.com/news/iran-india-gold-oil-543/

Markus

I HOPE this isn't surprsing for you.

Embargo itself is surprising though. Things must be not as bad in EU as they try to tell us.

kraznyi_oktjabr · 01-23-12, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH

Any suggestions about how to deal with it in a better way?

Asking help from tooth fairy?

Other than that I don't think there is any real options. I'm quite convinced that this disagreement will be solved only by war or nuke lobbing contest. Which one becomes reality depends on whether Iran will have nukes on top of ICBMs by the moment west goes on war path.

Skybird · 01-23-12, 04:25 PM

Oil imports are not stopped, but will be stopped not before summer in another 6 months. Loss of income to Iran is expected to be around one quarter of it'S regular earnings from oil. In other words, 75% of its oil incomes of today stay unaffected.

And the estimation still is questionable, for the oil price is already climbing, and Iran will seek and probably find customers replacing those who now threatened to stop buying in 6 months. What could counter this, is a strong global economic recession and thus falling demand for oil. Anyone interested in more recession?

Iranian population does not uprise against their masters and does not fight to free and change the country, so that they are effected by sanctions maybe is not as undeserved as Catfish indicated. My impression always was that a majority of the population supports and wants the bomb, as a symbol of national pride and sovereignity. To me, it compares to the German population in WWII. While not everybody was a Nazi, still resistence to Hitler was singular only (and even that we do not see in Iran to that scale). The Germans had it coming at them, so do the Iranians.

If your living place is tyranny, you have three options. You stay and adapt, that is what most people do. You leave and run, starting new in another place, that'S what quite some exile Iranians did. Or you stay and fight by any means, that'S what only the few chose to do.

Negotiations did never work and will never work, since it is the itnention of Iran to get the bomb, no matter what. The sanctions in summer are just an expression of how helpless the West feels so that it accepts to buy some more time in the unfounded hope that this nwoulkd make them change their minds. For the West is more afraid of war than Iran is. It also would be expensive - and this with the current crisis of politics and finances.

Iran possessing nuclear bombs and according know-how is still totally unacceptable to me.

magicstix · 01-23-12, 08:01 PM

The "sanctions only hurt the people" or "an embargo is an act of war" arguments always get me. If you have a neighbor who is selling you things and then using the money to build a cannon to shoot you with, and you stop buying things from him, how is that an act of aggression?

The European nations are sovereign states who can decide who they want to do business with. If they don't agree with the stance of the seller, then it's their right to boycott said seller. It's the same as if you didn't want to buy from Wal-mart because they destroy small business or you don't buy from GoDaddy because they support SOPA. The only difference is this is on the scale of nations.

Iran acting like they have the right to shut down an international waterway because Europe won't buy oil from them is like McDonald's saying they have the right to starve me to death because I don't want to eat their hamburgers.

Unfortunately, the Iranian people are irrelevant here, as the oil money is being used to directly fund Iran's bomb program (which exists, to believe otherwise is dangerously naive). Europe and the US have to look out for their own, and it makes no sense to be paying for the noose that hangs you (or in this case the nuke that melts you).

The only other options here are war now, or let Iran get a bomb, then war later. If Iran develops a bomb, the Saudis most definitely will.

soopaman2 · 01-23-12, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magicstix

The "sanctions only hurt the people" or "an embargo is an act of war" arguments always get me. If you have a neighbor who is selling you things and then using the money to build a cannon to shoot you with, and you stop buying things from him, how is that an act of aggression?

The European nations are sovereign states who can decide who they want to do business with. If they don't agree with the stance of the seller, then it's their right to boycott said seller. It's the same as if you didn't want to buy from Wal-mart because they destroy small business or you don't buy from GoDaddy because they support SOPA. The only difference is this is on the scale of nations.

Iran acting like they have the right to shut down an international waterway because Europe won't buy oil from them is like McDonald's saying they have the right to starve me to death because I don't want to eat their hamburgers.

Unfortunately, the Iranian people are irrelevant here, as the oil money is being used to directly fund Iran's bomb program (which exists, to believe otherwise is dangerously naive). Europe and the US have to look out for their own, and it makes no sense to be paying for the noose that hangs you (or in this case the nuke that melts you).

The only other options here are war now, or let Iran get a bomb, then war later. If Iran develops a bomb, the Saudis most definitely will.

I agree with all but the last sentence. The Saudis got more money than god yet needed the US to defend them in the first Gulf War, they buy their defense with oil. The West always jumps for them.

The only other option IMHO is Israel taking their own measures as they done in the past.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ry/Osirak.html

Then us acting all stupid, and fake outraged, while patting Israel on the back for taking the flak for us.

01-24-12, 05:26 AM	#8
mapuc CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 20,545 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	So much for this embargo https://rt.com/news/iran-india-gold-oil-543/ Markus __________________ My little lovely female cat

01-24-12, 06:42 AM	#9
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,694 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Muhammad came into contact with many cults and sects during his early years when he led his uncle's trade-caravans around, because back then Arabia was the total opposite of today, it was a "multi-cultural" place, home to so very many different communities and sects, and Muhammad probably travelled far to the North as well, where the peninsula ended. He had a special interest in Christian and Jewish traditions and more or less "lectured" himself on them without ever entering any of them. Linguists would point out that even the origin of words like "Quran" seem to indicate that the collection originally maybe was meant or understood as a liturgic ammendement or comment to existing scriptures of Christians and Jews. But that is a complicated matter and not free of dispute, since a language "reform" of the Arabic also adds to the complexity, that meant dramatic changed for Arabic vocabulary. However, not before the Jews raised Muhammad'S rage and anger when they showed him in Medina during his meetings with the pharisees how small his insight of the Jewish teachings really was, and not before the conflict with the Mekkanese people forced him - or allowed him - to turn into a social rebel now also playing the military card, he tried to turn his so far fictional own creation of an ideology (basing on already existing beliefs) into a religion claimed to be the real fundament of the former religions, because he needed that to set himself aside and outside the reach of his critics, and to justify his ambitions and deeds. It was then when not only his hate on Jews broke out openly, in a search for revenge over narcissistic offence he suffered from them, but that he added changes to his religious model that should make it obvious to every casual observer that his Islam was not just a third version of the two others, but was independent, and even the real basis of the former two. He challenged the places of worship by Christianity and Jews and claimed dominance and ruling over them, he also changed certain habits in the practice of praying, most obviously changing the direction at which to pray. The dispute amongst linguists how it all falls into place still continues. I found it to be complicated matter when I read about it several years ago. Also, historic research like this never is a precise, exact science, more a detective's work. I think a very valuabe question always is: "Who benefits, who has a profit from it?". I never hid it that to me Muhammeddanism is nothing else but history's most monumental project of disguising an attempt of narcissistic self-justification. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

01-23-12, 04:25 PM	#12
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,694 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Oil imports are not stopped, but will be stopped not before summer in another 6 months. Loss of income to Iran is expected to be around one quarter of it'S regular earnings from oil. In other words, 75% of its oil incomes of today stay unaffected. And the estimation still is questionable, for the oil price is already climbing, and Iran will seek and probably find customers replacing those who now threatened to stop buying in 6 months. What could counter this, is a strong global economic recession and thus falling demand for oil. Anyone interested in more recession? Iranian population does not uprise against their masters and does not fight to free and change the country, so that they are effected by sanctions maybe is not as undeserved as Catfish indicated. My impression always was that a majority of the population supports and wants the bomb, as a symbol of national pride and sovereignity. To me, it compares to the German population in WWII. While not everybody was a Nazi, still resistence to Hitler was singular only (and even that we do not see in Iran to that scale). The Germans had it coming at them, so do the Iranians. If your living place is tyranny, you have three options. You stay and adapt, that is what most people do. You leave and run, starting new in another place, that'S what quite some exile Iranians did. Or you stay and fight by any means, that'S what only the few chose to do. Negotiations did never work and will never work, since it is the itnention of Iran to get the bomb, no matter what. The sanctions in summer are just an expression of how helpless the West feels so that it accepts to buy some more time in the unfounded hope that this nwoulkd make them change their minds. For the West is more afraid of war than Iran is. It also would be expensive - and this with the current crisis of politics and finances. Iran possessing nuclear bombs and according know-how is still totally unacceptable to me. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

01-23-12, 08:01 PM	#13
magicstix Captain Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Nuclear submarine under the North Pole Posts: 482 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	The "sanctions only hurt the people" or "an embargo is an act of war" arguments always get me. If you have a neighbor who is selling you things and then using the money to build a cannon to shoot you with, and you stop buying things from him, how is that an act of aggression? The European nations are sovereign states who can decide who they want to do business with. If they don't agree with the stance of the seller, then it's their right to boycott said seller. It's the same as if you didn't want to buy from Wal-mart because they destroy small business or you don't buy from GoDaddy because they support SOPA. The only difference is this is on the scale of nations. Iran acting like they have the right to shut down an international waterway because Europe won't buy oil from them is like McDonald's saying they have the right to starve me to death because I don't want to eat their hamburgers. Unfortunately, the Iranian people are irrelevant here, as the oil money is being used to directly fund Iran's bomb program (which exists, to believe otherwise is dangerously naive). Europe and the US have to look out for their own, and it makes no sense to be paying for the noose that hangs you (or in this case the nuke that melts you). The only other options here are war now, or let Iran get a bomb, then war later. If Iran develops a bomb, the Saudis most definitely will.