Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Nuclear deal with Iran - good or bad?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LoveBeingAMuslimah" data-source="post: 69702289" data-attributes="member: 323708"><p>Way to ignore all of the other evidence I gave of the genocide and Iran's part in it. Secondly, it's not my definition.</p><p></p><p>The United Nations Human Rights Council’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria issued a report in 2013. In it they said:</p><p></p><p>"While the definition of genocide can be debated technically, politically and legally,<u><strong> the Genocide Convention makes clear that the crimes committed in Syria are in fact considered genocide</strong></u>. <strong>Under Article Two of the Convention, “<u>Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group,</u> as such: (<u>a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part</u>;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”"</strong></p><p></p><p><strong> <a href="http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013/09/16/syrias-civil-war-has-become-genocide" target="_blank">Syria's Civil War Has Become a Genocide</a> </strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because maybe the deal wouldn't have happened if the public knew the whole story. And then maybe Iran wouldn't be given access to more funds to assist in committing genocide and terrorism.</p><p></p><p>It's pretty easy to connect the dots but I'll do you another favor and break it down further. Iran uses money (among other things) to help Assad commit his genocide. Iran now has access to more than a hundred billion dollars due to this deal. This deal may not have happened had the administration been upfront instead of spinning a narrative to make the idea more appealing to the public. If this deal did not happen, Iran would not have access to $150,000,000,000 to help Assad's regime commit genocide. I don't think I can make this any simpler so hopefully you understand it now.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If the timing of the negotiations didn't matter, then why did the administration create a narrative that they had only begun talking after the supposedly "moderate" regime was elected? Obviously it mattered enough that they had to lie about it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because maybe the deal wouldn't have happened if the public knew the whole story. And then maybe Iran wouldn't be given access to more funds to assist in committing genocide and terrorism.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because maybe the deal wouldn't have happened if the public knew the whole story. And then maybe Iran wouldn't be given access to more funds to assist in committing genocide and terrorism.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm sorry if you cannot read quotes properly even when they're handed to you and in bold. Let me try again to make it more obvious to you that I have been talking about the genocide and terrorism Iran is committing (since apparently you asking for evidence that Iran is funding genocide is not indicative of me making that claim in the first place):</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LoveBeingAMuslimah, post: 69702289, member: 323708"] Way to ignore all of the other evidence I gave of the genocide and Iran's part in it. Secondly, it's not my definition. The United Nations Human Rights Council’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria issued a report in 2013. In it they said: "While the definition of genocide can be debated technically, politically and legally,[U][B] the Genocide Convention makes clear that the crimes committed in Syria are in fact considered genocide[/B][/U]. [B]Under Article Two of the Convention, “[U]Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group,[/U] as such: ([U]a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part[/U];(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”"[/B] [B] [URL='http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013/09/16/syrias-civil-war-has-become-genocide']Syria's Civil War Has Become a Genocide[/URL] [/B] Because maybe the deal wouldn't have happened if the public knew the whole story. And then maybe Iran wouldn't be given access to more funds to assist in committing genocide and terrorism. It's pretty easy to connect the dots but I'll do you another favor and break it down further. Iran uses money (among other things) to help Assad commit his genocide. Iran now has access to more than a hundred billion dollars due to this deal. This deal may not have happened had the administration been upfront instead of spinning a narrative to make the idea more appealing to the public. If this deal did not happen, Iran would not have access to $150,000,000,000 to help Assad's regime commit genocide. I don't think I can make this any simpler so hopefully you understand it now. If the timing of the negotiations didn't matter, then why did the administration create a narrative that they had only begun talking after the supposedly "moderate" regime was elected? Obviously it mattered enough that they had to lie about it. Because maybe the deal wouldn't have happened if the public knew the whole story. And then maybe Iran wouldn't be given access to more funds to assist in committing genocide and terrorism. Because maybe the deal wouldn't have happened if the public knew the whole story. And then maybe Iran wouldn't be given access to more funds to assist in committing genocide and terrorism. I'm sorry if you cannot read quotes properly even when they're handed to you and in bold. Let me try again to make it more obvious to you that I have been talking about the genocide and terrorism Iran is committing (since apparently you asking for evidence that Iran is funding genocide is not indicative of me making that claim in the first place): [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Nuclear deal with Iran - good or bad?
Top
Bottom