• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Iran Being a Terrorist State Debate & Weather They Should Have Nuclear Weapons

NCDinosFan said:
Honestly, why shouldn't they have a nuclear weapon? it protects the country from outside influences and power. Imagine if we didn't have one.
Click to expand...
Because my common sense says terrorist shouldn't have nuclear weapons. Percect analogy; Just like how children shouldn't play with fire. Irresponsible as hell.

No one can or wants to invade Iran, they have no legitimate reason for it really other then nuclear blackmail or other nefarious reasons.

What's to stop Iran from nuclear blackmail? What's to stop Iran from giving a bomb or bomb material to one of their proxies? OR what if one goes missing, can't imagine their security protocols will be as professional as any real nuclear power state, besides Pakistan who is equally on the same threat scale as Iran in my opinion given their terrorist elements, poor command structure, and support for terror.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Torch
NCDinosFan said:
Honestly, why shouldn't they have a nuclear weapon? it protects the country from outside influences and power. Imagine if we didn't have one. Nuclear weapons stop war and stop countries from invading you: militarily.
Click to expand...
For normal sane countries, perhaps. Their stated goal is to be slaughtered after starting a Great War. Not exactly who should have these weapons.

You are presenting a clear, sober and sane assessment. I agree with you, except for the great unwashed masses who reveled in pain and suffering.
 
Torch said:
For normal sane countries, perhaps. Their stated goal is to be slaughtered after starting a Great War. Not exactly who should have these weapons.

You are presenting a clear, sober and sane assessment. I agree with you, except for the great unwashed masses who reveled in pain and suffering.
Click to expand...
I agree, Russia should have their nuclear weapons taken away ;)
 
DarkNoon said:
Because common sense says terrorist shouldn't have nuclear weapons. Just like how children shouldn't play with fire. Irresponsible as hell.

What's to stop Iran from nuclear blackmail? What's to stop Iran from giving a bomb or bomb material to one of their proxies? Or if one goes missing can't imagine their security protocols will be as professional as any real nuclear power state besides Pakistan who is equally on the same threat scale as Iran in my opinion given their terrorist elements, poor command structure, and support for terror.
Click to expand...
I think American propaganda might be an issue here. What is a terrorist, and what is a valid government? What is the limit of homeland defense, is it invading and imposing law onto foreign lands which is good for a subset of people that is backed by a nuclear arsenal/military? I mean if we look at the history of the development of nuclear deterrence it creates more dialog than it destroys. You're not going to invade a nuclear country, you can do propaganda campaigns and hope the country collapses. I mean can we say the Cubans the united states trained were terrorists, can we say the pkk are terrorists? I mean terrorist is a term coined for a government (individual government entity) to make people afraid of a grouping of people.

If you look at the attacks by the Chechnians on the Russians... they were labeled terrorists because Russia pissed them off and they began to attack Russia. If we look at afgan terrorism the reason why they came here was because we pissed them off over there. It's not logical to think these groups weren't triggered by an action caused by an entity. Can the United States be considered a terrorist entity due to killing civilians in other countries? Where is the line of being a terrorist any attack will likely yield civ issues be it on an economic, military, or manufacturing base.


We are using words to define something that's convenient for us, yet we don't use it on things that aren't for us. The CIA fund terrorst operations, Mossad, and same for Saudi/Turkish/Russian/Iranian groupings. Even Korea (both north and south) somewhat funds terrorist operations.
Modern-day "terrorist groups" are just groups funded by a government in almost every aspect which are used to gain influence in a region and flip it.

IF we look at why these Middle Eastern terror groups got big it's because of the entrance of America and Russia into the region. The reason why afgan is ran by an ISIL origin group is not because of just threats we can look throughout world history where threatening groups still get overthrown (soviets, brits, congo groups, slavik groups, dynasties... and more). So, when more people support a group and defend it, the group maintains power. If most don't believe in the cause the group will fall out. Look at turkey riots/protests and how many are gathered. Look at how many people "Gathered together" after 9/11. Look at how many gathered together after the "border invasion" the Republicans claim.

You have to be more intropsective to the geopolitical whole and not just use a term coined to defend a notion fed to you by a grouping of individuals. The closest thing I can consider a terrorist attack would be the marathon bomber, the subway gassers, and some other situations. When a situation targets individuals directly. Not an economic sector, not a military base, none of that. The truck rammings are a terrorist attack, the beheadings in American culture can be considered a terrorist attack and I would consider it a terrorist attack; though, those people were likely captured because they had connections to intelligence agencies. It's very rare for a random person to get grabbed up by an intelligence network.

So who's truthful, is it something that's fed to you as a kid or what benefits you in the moment, or is the term coined across all different aspects even against your own government?
 
NCDinosFan said:
I think American propaganda might be an issue here. What is a terrorist,
Click to expand...
Seriously? 🤣 Iran. Who openly supports and funds terrorism to commit terrorist atrocities and has known terrorists within its government & military who have committed awful terrorist atrocities, spare us this entiely unfounded, unsound, sympathy for terrorist your putting down no one is picking up.
 
Last edited:
Great example: Was the nazi regime a terrorist organization? To anyone outside of that arena yes. To people born in the country raised under the country that lived under that government, likely not. The same goes for those born under Hutu/Tutsi rule in Rwanda. The other group can be considered "terrorists", but your own group is exempt.

We support the PKK (United states) yet Turkey considers it a terrorist group... so who's correct? Is it your home country and you don't question your home, or do you agree that it's a terrorist group? Terrorist group is a buzzword to enforce hate for a group that isn't meeting your country's goals of advancement.

Turkey says PKK is a terrorist group. America says it isn't and we actively fund them... who's right? The nazi's said jews were an enemy, and the rest of the world said no... who's right? Eurpoe Says Ukraine needs hep, America says they need to negotiate, who's right?

Azov Batallion is known to have nazi connections and symbolism... Ukraine says they aren't nazi, American groups and Russian groups are saying they are...so who's really right?

Let that sink in for a moment.
 
DarkNoon said:
Seriously? 🤣 Iran. Who openly supports and funds terrorism to commit terrorist atrocities and has know terrorist within its government who have committed awful terrorist atrocities, spare us this entiely unfounded, unsound, terrorist sympathy your putting down no one is picking up.
Click to expand...
America who created a group to invade Cuba, invade a lot of countries during the arab spring, and also locked up japaneese in camps during ww2 can claim higher morality.

We fund the PKK which is labeled as terrorists by the turks.

Where is your individual logic on what is a terrorist or what isn't. Are you going to eat the burger served to you by your government, or are you going to start applying the logic to all groupings.

Can you admit the PKK are terrorists... can you admit the cuban people we armed terrorist...can you admit that America funded groups that led to overthrowing groups during the arab spring are terrorists? Can you admit that groups the west funds to throw over governments can also be terrorist groups?

Can you claim that the IDF and Gyzan defense are both terrorists? where's the logic here.

Can we say the Japanese when peral harbor happened became terrorists? Can we say when the documents leaked about America wanting to mess with russian crops came out can that be considered terrorists?

Can we consider the grouping of American doctors who fed children and preg women uranium to be terrorists?
 
NCDinosFan said:
Great example: Was the nazi regime a terrorist organization? To anyone outside of that arena yes. To people born in the country raised under the country that lived under that government, likely not. The same goes for those born under Hutu/Tutsi rule in Rwanda. The other group can be considered "terrorists", but your own group is exempt.

We support the PKK (United states) yet Turkey considers it a terrorist group... so who's correct? Is it your home country and you don't question your home, or do you agree that it's a terrorist group? Terrorist group is a buzzword to enforce hate for a group that isn't meeting your country's goals of advancement.

Turkey says PKK is a terrorist group. America says it isn't and we actively fund them... who's right? The nazi's said jews were an enemy, and the rest of the world said no... who's right? Eurpoe Says Ukraine needs hep, America says they need to negotiate, who's right?

Azov Batallion is known to have nazi connections and symbolism... Ukraine says they aren't nazi, American groups and Russian groups are saying they are...so who's really right?

Let that sink in for a moment.
Click to expand...
Bro, what??

Terrorist is a term for a person that commits or conspires to commit acts of terror within a population. Not some political manipulation of words to further an agenda.
 
Spyglass said:
Bro, what??

Terrorist is a term for a person that commits or conspires to commit acts of terror within a population. Not some political manipulation of words to further an agenda.
Click to expand...
So then the Cuban Invasion was a terrorist act (killed civs by proxy). The PKK is a terrorist group (kills civs by proxy), IDF (killed civs by proxy), Russia (Killed civs by proxy), Hutu (again), Tutsi (Again).

It's a furtherance of an agenda, it doesn't take ChatGPT/GROK to see the correlation here. It's basic logic. If you've sat on a desk with intelligence in front of you on most of these groups or their attacks you'd see how it's labeled instead of just eating whatever is fed to you.

I wish more Americans would read their own documents provided by the CIA. Go read KGB docs, Isralie docs, turk docs, and you can see the language that each government uses to sway a group and define a group that doesn't go along with what they want. No country is different at heart. They have their interests and will use words, ads, and operations to dissway that group.

People need to live in other countries to understand this. Take some time in Europe, Asia, Slavics, and South America and you'll see that every government does this thing as a protection to themselves. If Persians began to revolt against the current Iranian government they'd be labeled as terrorists (which really might happen, that group of people really doesn't like the Iranian government).


What about the IRA... Are they terrorists, or is it the British for being within Irish land? Brittin labeled them as terrorists, yet Ireland holds them high as they fought for Irish independence. The same goes for the beginning of America when the brits ran us.

Can we use some logic here?
 
DarkNoon said:
Is definitely lacking. 😆
Click to expand...
Prove it then.

Great example: Are the IRA a terrorist organization, is the PKK a terrorist organization, were the contras? IRA = Brit terrorist list, PKK = Turk Terrorist list? Cuban exiles = Cuban terror list.

What about the Chechens on the Russian List? What about The french resistance during the nazi occupation?

Where is the line set :). Where is the line drawn, is it in your own mind when your government says so, or will it be when a world government says so...where is the line? It's a logical question :)


Answer this simple question instead of providing commentary that claims a lack of logic. It's very simple :)
 
NCDinosFan said:
Prove it then.

Great example: Are the IRA a terrorist organization, is the PKK a terrorist organization, were the contras? IRA = Brit terrorist list, PKK = Turk Terrorist list? Cuban exiles = Cuban terror list.

What about the Chechens on the Russian List? What about The french resistance during the nazi occupation?

Where is the line set :). Where is the line drawn, is it in your own mind when your government says so, or will it be when a world government says so...where is the line? It's a logical question :)
Click to expand...
When you kill and destroy people and property out of sheer hate, religious dogma, misplaced anger, misplaced fear, and with the ultimate goal of purging all those globally that do not agree with your views, then yes. That is what I define and a global terrorist threat.

IDF, US ARMY and all the other organizations do not have those goals. Terrorists do not care about civilians.
 
Spyglass said:
When you kill and destroy people and property out of sheer hate, religious dogma, misplaced anger, misplaced fear, and with the ultimate goal of purging all those globally that do not agree with your views, then yes. That is what I define and a global terrorist threat.
Click to expand...
Okay, but please answer it because it seems like you're the only one able to use words.

Is the IRA a terroist group. Is the PKK a terrorist group, and what about the Chechnians? can we consider them both a terrorist group?
 
Spyglass said:
When you kill and destroy people and property out of sheer hate, religious dogma, misplaced anger, misplaced fear, and with the ultimate goal of purging all those globally that do not agree with your views, then yes. That is what I define and a global terrorist threat.

IDF, US ARMY and all the other organizations do not have those goals. Terrorists do not care about civilians.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the terrorist organization he mentioned are war time or revolutionary terrorist. Iran is not at war or fighting a revolution.

Iran openly funds and commits terrorist acts, has known terrorist within its government/military, carriers out or funds violent acts just to kill innocent people and cause terror. Openly calls for the extermination of a entire race of people. Quite literaly the definition of a terrorist or terrorist organization. Makes total sense for them to have nuclear weapons. (NOT) Jesus christ. Lol
 
Last edited:
DarkNoon said:
Not to mention the terrorist organization he mentioned are war time or revolutionary terrorist. Iran openly funds and commits terrorist acts just to kill innocent people and cause terror. Quite literaly the definition of a terrorist or terrorist organization. Makes total sense foe them to have nuclear weapons. Jesus christ. Lol
Click to expand...

If you want a public example of this go to the CIA documents website and search the documents relating to the IRA or the declassified PKK documentation. The HUMINT will show you comments from people within those groups (or even the agent that works on supplying the group/getting them to do an action), and from leadership who were captured or are working with a government and just look at the way they speak. I will say the Middle Eastern grounds are more likely to be designated because the culture exemplifies no difference between a support worker/ and an attacker. Everything that supports a system is a threat. Though look at the IRA documents that are declassified and the PKK files.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom