They need censorship, imagine they’d have to present arguments
Yeah, I’m sad about it too. My second comment on a topic on the http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish.moderated/topics?hl=en usenet group was refused and if I may believe them, on the following grounds:
Thank you for your submission to soc.culture.jewish.moderated (a copy of which is included below for reference).
Unfortunately, having reviewed your submission, we are unable to post it, since it falls outside the defined topic of the newsgroup. For your information, soc.culture.jewish.moderated is chartered for "the discussion of all aspects of Judaism, including its history, philosophy, culture, practice, and law."
All right, it was off-topic. How fascinating. I was merely replying to a preexisting post on Iran’s nuclear threat, which was apparently not off-topic.
Let’s see what I said before and what I tried to post but was refused.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish.moderated/browse_thread/thread/74283f85f61ad146?hl=en"
> Agency. Ahmedinajad inaugurated an air base near the Afghan
> border. In his speech, he said that Iran could have nuclear
> weapons by this time next year.
> Your thoughts, group?
> chsw
problem if Iran had nuclear weapons?
Russia has them, the US has them, Pakistan, India, Israel, France,
Britain have them.
Many of the nuclear states do not have a working democratic system,
some of the nuclear states commit war crimes and illegal warfare,
notably among them the United States, yet we seem not to bother on a
daily basis with Pakistan, the US, or Russia having nuclear bombs
either.
"Mutually assured destruction" still works, you know?
So, what would be the problem?
herman
(the herman guy is me, for the record).
Not everyone agreed with me even asking this question. One Susan said,
"I’m sorry you feel you have to ask."
That’s how you tell people are out of arguments, sort of? Maybe it’s incredibly naive, but I was thinking that Israel having nuclear weapons would inspire some confidence in the pro-Israel crowd. Now that Iran, one of Israel’s arch enemies, is aspiring to have nuclear weapons, wouldn’t that be the very time Israels nuclear bombs start to be actually useful?
So I thought I had every right to reply:
"On Nov 9, 11:14 pm, "Asher_N" <asher…@gmail.com> wrote:
> None of the other nuclear states have vowed to wipe another state off the
> map. [this would mean that Iran as a nuclear nation would be much more of a threat than any of the other nuclear states, ed.]
>
And which one of these states is currently waging illegal wars and has actually used nuclear weapons in the past?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Ahmadinejad is on the right side of the fence.
But neither is the neocon regime. Washington is merely trying to brainwash us into believing that Iran is a "problem" that has to be "solved".
How is the US, UK using weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan not interpretable as a threat to Iran?
Let’s look beyond the Irani rhetoric and acknowledge that Ahmadinejad is just a much a "Realpolitiker" as most [o the leaders of, ed.] other powerful rogue states, such as China, the US, Russia, etc.
regards,
herman "
No, this was, the moderators told me, off-topic.
Yes, it scares the hell out of some people to hear truths they could never bear hearing. They’d feel that sourly aching feeling of being hypocrites unmasked.
But I don’t have to tell you that Operation Brainwash is very definitely under way. Now all our friends in the US have to wait for is another act of domestic terror, to then be blamed on Iran.
