Eish LG i don't know that i agree with you on this. I fear nulcear weapons in the hands of these madmen. Anyone who threatens to destroy another country should be taken care of first. Look what happened in 1930's. If they had acted immidiately on Hitler then we would not have had ww2. (maybe)
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be subscribing to the new Disney+ R49 streaming package?
The Coming Terror Attack News
- Thread starter LoneGunman
- Start date
freeek
Expert Member
The British is another funny country ... They have taken over more countries and than any other nation on this planet, yet they as a nation blabber about the morals of another nations doing so.
If the british were truely a moral nation they would give back all the treasures that they stole from other nations. They have'nt returned a thing and no nation will dare ask them out of fear.
If the british were truely a moral nation they would give back all the treasures that they stole from other nations. They have'nt returned a thing and no nation will dare ask them out of fear.
LoneGunman
Expert Member
craigsa - again - u say "I fear nulcear weapons in the hands of these madmen. Anyone who threatens to destroy another country should be taken care of first. Look what happened in 1930's. If they had acted immidiately on Hitler then we would not have had ww2."
Yes, but what you ARE suggesting, is EXACTLY the thinking of Hitler and the Nazi's themselves, you see?
ie: "lets go kill, and round up and slaughter the people we think are going to hurt or destroy US'
The only sane way to avoid that falling into the trap of becoming the Nazi oneself, is to go 'I'm NOT going to kill someone else because they allegedly might be a threat to me or my country'. I refuse to use that logic to justify murdering someone 'in advance'.
There's no other way to operate, and stay a decent human being. I'd rather be dead, or my country invaded, than to turn into the backward mad logic of being a 'peace-loving' State/person, that is willing to kill untold numbers of humans, in order to 'have peace'.
That road leads to Auschwitz and mass murder.
Rather disbelieve anyone and any State that tells you 'we have to go KILL someone else because they're going to/might/intend to KILL us.'
Once you accept that first step. Then you're like the Nazi's who started with the mentally retarded and gun control, and ended up burning corpses and getting VERY surprised when the world pointed out that this was 'wrong'.
It's a slippery slope, once you take that first step, of pre-emptively killing or attacking your 'enemy'- whoever they might be.
Yes, but what you ARE suggesting, is EXACTLY the thinking of Hitler and the Nazi's themselves, you see?
ie: "lets go kill, and round up and slaughter the people we think are going to hurt or destroy US'
The only sane way to avoid that falling into the trap of becoming the Nazi oneself, is to go 'I'm NOT going to kill someone else because they allegedly might be a threat to me or my country'. I refuse to use that logic to justify murdering someone 'in advance'.
There's no other way to operate, and stay a decent human being. I'd rather be dead, or my country invaded, than to turn into the backward mad logic of being a 'peace-loving' State/person, that is willing to kill untold numbers of humans, in order to 'have peace'.
That road leads to Auschwitz and mass murder.
Rather disbelieve anyone and any State that tells you 'we have to go KILL someone else because they're going to/might/intend to KILL us.'
Once you accept that first step. Then you're like the Nazi's who started with the mentally retarded and gun control, and ended up burning corpses and getting VERY surprised when the world pointed out that this was 'wrong'.
It's a slippery slope, once you take that first step, of pre-emptively killing or attacking your 'enemy'- whoever they might be.
Last edited:
Are you mad? I am not saying go and kill 6million people. I am saying that Iran has threatened destruction or intimidation of other countries. They started this. So what must we wait until their publicised intentions are realised? If this rouge regime threatens world peace which it is doing then yes go and sort them out.
LoneGunman
Expert Member
you ARE saying 'lets go kill six million people' - the instant you say 'Rather sacrifice the Iranian dictator then the whole world due to nuclear holocaust.'
'sacrifice'? You hear how your language is making murder sound almost 'justifiable'? That's part of the process that happens in the logic of the people who want to kill 'in advance'.
Again, you're trusting previous proven liars, to tell you that 'lets go kill someone who hasnt done anything physically - because they might/will do it'
No difference then, between you and your thinking, and the Nazi's who said 'Lets round up these stooges who are part of the Internal Jewish Conspiracy - and who threaten to destroy our Nation. They're GOING to hurt us - lets hurt THEM first.'
Don't you learn any lessons from history?
You've fallen into 'becoming what you hate the most'.
'sacrifice'? You hear how your language is making murder sound almost 'justifiable'? That's part of the process that happens in the logic of the people who want to kill 'in advance'.
Again, you're trusting previous proven liars, to tell you that 'lets go kill someone who hasnt done anything physically - because they might/will do it'
No difference then, between you and your thinking, and the Nazi's who said 'Lets round up these stooges who are part of the Internal Jewish Conspiracy - and who threaten to destroy our Nation. They're GOING to hurt us - lets hurt THEM first.'
Don't you learn any lessons from history?
You've fallen into 'becoming what you hate the most'.
I dont see how you can compare the west to the nazi's. Muslims have proven their intent all over the world. Iran has said publicly what it wants to do.(destroy anyone who it does not like). Taking out this lunatic is the right thing to do. But you knw what as i said time will tell. In the end i hope i am proved wrong. We just need one ******* to get a nuke and use it and then it is all over. Lets just hope you are right and i am wrong.
ettubrute
Expert Member
Unfortunately right! And I help you hoping...craigsa said:
LoneGunman
Expert Member
Like I say, rather a dead decent person, than the horror of realising - as one shovels dead muslim corpses (or other 'enemy') into a gas oven - that one has become what one never believed possible..
Again, the West is strong.
If and when a nuke event happens - first one sees where it truly came from, and what constitutes a valid response.
Again, given the political games played by the West, where attacking oneself and then blamiing 'the enemy' for it, in order to do what you wanted to do in the first place, is normal operating procedure - this sensible approach is unlikely to happen.
But the oil hungry nations don't want radioactive petroleum, so we'll see, I guess
Nuclear events aren't entirely like the movies, I doubt we'll ever have a 'everyone shooting off what they have' scenario - the powers that be fully intend to keep making money as long as possible, and consolidating power - and a charred empty Earth won't be much use to them, therefore, it won't happen like that, I'd guess..
Again, the West is strong.
If and when a nuke event happens - first one sees where it truly came from, and what constitutes a valid response.
Again, given the political games played by the West, where attacking oneself and then blamiing 'the enemy' for it, in order to do what you wanted to do in the first place, is normal operating procedure - this sensible approach is unlikely to happen.
But the oil hungry nations don't want radioactive petroleum, so we'll see, I guess
Nuclear events aren't entirely like the movies, I doubt we'll ever have a 'everyone shooting off what they have' scenario - the powers that be fully intend to keep making money as long as possible, and consolidating power - and a charred empty Earth won't be much use to them, therefore, it won't happen like that, I'd guess..
Last edited:
LG hit the nail on the head right there. Any country willing to pre-emptively strike another country (which is immensely weaker to begin with, irrespective of whatever types of weapons they may be able to develop) in supposed fear of being attacked by such a country may well have a case if all allegations are proven.
However, the USA have made it entirely clear that they do not need to provde such proof. Now, really... The USA is reaching for plot here. Iran is roughly the size of Alaska. The US has more Military Personnel (more than 1.375 Million Men & Women). The Iranian estimated Army size: 350 000 or less. Now, let's get to the real issue here... The USA had a stockpile of 10640 Nuclear weapons at the end of 2002. Iran has Zero. Nada. Zip, nothing. In fact, the US has more nuclear weapons stockpiled than Russia, France, China and the UK combined.
However, the USA have made it entirely clear that they do not need to provde such proof. Now, really... The USA is reaching for plot here. Iran is roughly the size of Alaska. The US has more Military Personnel (more than 1.375 Million Men & Women). The Iranian estimated Army size: 350 000 or less. Now, let's get to the real issue here... The USA had a stockpile of 10640 Nuclear weapons at the end of 2002. Iran has Zero. Nada. Zip, nothing. In fact, the US has more nuclear weapons stockpiled than Russia, France, China and the UK combined.
Last edited:
LoneGunman
Expert Member
craigsa - you probably think 'denial' is a river in Egypt
Moederloos
Honorary Master
kingmonty said:
Or. more to the point, The US has more nuclear weapons THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD put together. And people want to just let them have a free hand? Madness.
LoneGunman
Expert Member
US 'ELECTION' MACHINES IN ACTION- NEWS- (from March 8)
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/03/08/Neighborhoodtimes/Incumbents_return_in_.shtml
FL Candidate Votes for Self, Sequoia Touch-Screen Voting Machine Flips Vote to Opponent
"And on Election Day Cook charged that the voting machines malfunctioned in several precincts, including his own precinct at Skyview Recreation Center. When Cook tried to vote for himself, the machine defaulted to a vote for Taylor. A precinct worker finally moved Cook to a different booth.
Later in the day, Cook said he had other reports of voting machines malfunctioning in similar ways."
E-Voting System Adds 100,000+ Votes in One Texas County During Tuesday's Primary Election!
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/14056065.htm
"An undetected computer glitch in Tarrant County led to inflated election returns in Tuesday's primaries but did not alter the outcome of any local race, elections and county officials said Wednesday.
The error caused Tarrant County to report as many as 100,000 votes in both primaries that never were cast.."
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/03/08/Neighborhoodtimes/Incumbents_return_in_.shtml
FL Candidate Votes for Self, Sequoia Touch-Screen Voting Machine Flips Vote to Opponent
"And on Election Day Cook charged that the voting machines malfunctioned in several precincts, including his own precinct at Skyview Recreation Center. When Cook tried to vote for himself, the machine defaulted to a vote for Taylor. A precinct worker finally moved Cook to a different booth.
Later in the day, Cook said he had other reports of voting machines malfunctioning in similar ways."
E-Voting System Adds 100,000+ Votes in One Texas County During Tuesday's Primary Election!
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/14056065.htm
"An undetected computer glitch in Tarrant County led to inflated election returns in Tuesday's primaries but did not alter the outcome of any local race, elections and county officials said Wednesday.
The error caused Tarrant County to report as many as 100,000 votes in both primaries that never were cast.."
LoneGunman
Expert Member
Bush Approval Polls Keep on Dropping
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_poll
"Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.
On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.
Personally, far fewer Americans consider Bush likable, honest, strong and dependable than they did just after his re-election campaign.
By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls. Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.."
(emphasis added)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_poll
"Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.
On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.
Personally, far fewer Americans consider Bush likable, honest, strong and dependable than they did just after his re-election campaign.
By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls. Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.."
(emphasis added)
Moederloos
Honorary Master
LoneGunman said:
Well, his Daddy's friens like him - and that's all that matters...
LoneGunman
Expert Member
FBI Grills Professor Over Support for Venezuela
http://www.counterpunch.org/shore03102006.html
"A Pomona College professor who is an outspoken critic of U.S. policy in Venezuela was questioned yesterday by two agents from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in what he calls an act of intimidation.
The detectives visited Miguel Tinker-Salas during his office hours at about 2:40 or 2:45 pm Wednesday. They questioned him for about 20 minutes in his office at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif. The detectives identified themselves but their names are being withheld at the request of the FBI."
http://www.counterpunch.org/shore03102006.html
"A Pomona College professor who is an outspoken critic of U.S. policy in Venezuela was questioned yesterday by two agents from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in what he calls an act of intimidation.
The detectives visited Miguel Tinker-Salas during his office hours at about 2:40 or 2:45 pm Wednesday. They questioned him for about 20 minutes in his office at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif. The detectives identified themselves but their names are being withheld at the request of the FBI."