Why The US Wants Civil Wars in Middle East

[d0b33]

Which EX-Sperts you refer to? Oh the MyAdsl cronies. I understand

HAHA you got jokes heh

Who to believe

Good question, my view on this as an Agnostic is not to believe but follow the facts, the only one who can clear this matter is Mr Ahmadinejad himself

Just to recap...

Khomeini's words were abstract: 'Sahneh roozgar.' Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as 'map', and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not 'Sahneh roozgar' but 'Safheh roozgar', meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word 'map' again.

 

[Alan]

You *DO* know that the terrorists belong to many different sects and those sects are often at each other's throats, right?

So. Hizbollah is Shia and Iran supports them. Do you honestly think they'll nuke their backers instead of their hated enemies.

I'm glad you admit it.

*hands Xarog an asprin*

That would be proving a negative. I can't find any sources which shows an Ayatollah martyring himself, so I assume it didn't happen. Feel free to look for a source of your own, though.

How hard did you look. Glossing over a few google pages for 5 minutes doesn't really count. Also I don't feel like going through a 100 years of Ayatollah history either so I'll assume there must of been.

You didn't say it, but considering your position you're a hair's breadth from such statements. You're basically advocating that if you see someone walking down the street on a dark night that you beat the cr@p out of him just because he could be a mugger. Don't you see how wrong that is?

I'll take that as an apology. Oh please, here we go with the fear mongering. So you are one of these "I'll wait untill I'm beaten, oppressed, killed before I make any attempt to do anything about it" types. If that someone was a known bully who beat kids and woman and threated to murder somebody I know and called me "the great satan" and wanted me dead while I knew he was trying to purchase a gun with the intention to kill that other person and threaten me with it either directly or through a henchman. Sure I'll beat the living crap out of him. Unlike you who'll only decide to do something once he's blown out your kneecap or shot the other guy died. What you gonna do? Bit late then isn't it.

I guess that's your "in depth thought" facial expression.

Is not. There is only a predicted future threat - there is no clear and present immidiate threat.

Oh. So we'll wait until he has a nuke and only then will we decide what to do anything about it.

IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING, THAT'S THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT!

Ooo, a shouting match. I don't normaly bother with that sort of thing but why not.

No it isn't, that's the whole bloody point

Yes, you are wrong. I said that no one could invade on that premise alone. But something like sanctions could be acceptable, on the other hand.

So what kind of sanctions would be acceptable for Iran if you believe they were a threat. Had the Allies invaded Germany in 1938 on the premise that Hitler was doing something wrong(ie:being a threat) would that have been unacceptable in your eyes.

You have yet to show a clear and present danger instead of a possible future danger.

By which time it is to late

The alternative is to become the aggressor, and the one who is doing wrong. You don't punch a guy in the face simply because you think he was looking for a fight.

Here you go again. If I thought he was looking to kill me or other people then I would punch him. There is nothing wrong about that.

No, it's your claim, you can find the source which proves your claim, and so thus the onus is on you to provide the source. I'm not rummaging through the internet looking for something which may or may not prove your case for you.

It's obvious. Do you have to be baby fed all the time. No one honestly belives he's a true communist.

Here's a question : are India's nukes a serious problem? What about Russia's, what about Israel's?

No, none of them are fanatical islamic regimes like Iran. I've explained about Iran on this thread plenty of times.

Yeah, that's right. Didn't you know? - I'm actually illiterate...

That would explain a lot of things.

LOL!

Well who? In this day and age who has said that.

Just what is your basis for determining if something is a threat, anyway?

How many more times must I tell you? 2,3,4,5 times.

If the US is planning an invasion of NK then they're a threat to NK - does that mean that NK can nuke the US?

It depends if NK becomes a serious threat to the U.S first. Then I don't think they can justify nuking the U.S in "self defence"

 

[Xarog]

So. Hizbollah is Shia and Iran supports them. Do you honestly think they'll nuke their backers instead of their hated enemies.

Yeah, we all know that Hezbollah are incapable of showing restraint, right? They're all fanatical muslims and that's why they regularly murder non islamic or non shiites in Lebanon, right?

How hard did you look. Glossing over a few google pages for 5 minutes doesn't really count. Also I don't feel like going through a 100 years of Ayatollah history either so I'll assume there must of been.

Logical fallacy. You cannot prove a negative so you try and prove the opposite. If you cannot prove the opposite then you assume the negative is true. Assuming something you CAN prove is just sloppy.

I'll take that as an apology. Oh please, here we go with the fear mongering. So you are one of these "I'll wait untill I'm beaten, oppressed, killed before I make any attempt to do anything about it" types.

Nope.

If that someone was a known bully who beat kids and woman and threated to murder somebody I know and called me "the great satan" and wanted me dead while I knew he was trying to purchase a gun with the intention to kill that other person and threaten me with it either directly or through a henchman.

You don't know that, though.

Sure I'll beat the living crap out of him. Unlike you who'll only decide to do something once he's blown out your kneecap or shot the other guy died. What you gonna do? Bit late then isn't it.

Actually if I was in this situation, I'd arm myself and wait for him to actually point the gun at me. There's nothing wrong with having a gun in and of itself, and since he's never murdered anyone else, why should I assume that he's buying the gun to kill someone?

Oh. So we'll wait until he has a nuke and only then will we decide what to do anything about it.

Exactly. That's what non-lunatics do.

No it isn't, that's the whole bloody point

Your hypocracy is astounding.

Well who? In this day and age who has said that.

We'll start with Bush and his war of civilisations rubbish for a start.

How many more times must I tell you? 2,3,4,5 times.

Another time, please. I want a clear and concise definition of what constitutes a clear and present threat.

It depends if NK becomes a serious threat to the U.S first. Then I don't think they can justify nuking the U.S in "self defence"

So we're in a who started it match? Lol. The U.S is going to come off second best in that competition - you know that, right?

 

[Alan]

Yeah, we all know that Hezbollah are incapable of showing restraint, right? They're all fanatical muslims and that's why they regularly murder non islamic or non shiites in Lebanon, right?

Oh I forgot Hezbollah are freedom fighters and all round nice guys. Rafik Hariri just spontaneously exploded while other prominent non muslims have also died mysteriously.

Logical fallacy. You cannot prove a negative so you try and prove the opposite. If you cannot prove the opposite then you assume the negative is true. Assuming something you CAN prove is just sloppy.

As I said I'm not going through the 100 year history of Ayatollahs just to disprove a claim you can't even prove.

Nope.

So no apology then?

You don't know that, though.

Yes I do. Just because you got blinkers on doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Actually if I was in this situation, I'd arm myself and wait for him to actually point the gun at me. There's nothing wrong with having a gun in and of itself, and since he's never murdered anyone else, why should I assume that he's buying the gun to kill someone?

Ah yes, give the criminal equal opportunity to kill. All's fair in your world, criminal or not. We just gotta hope you have a quick trigger finger and he has a lousy aim. You may be a gambling man but I'm not and I don't like those odds. He's just openly stated he wants to kill someone and threatend you. But hey lets only believe him once he puts a bullet in your head. Then we will know for sure and can take action. I don't know about you but I've never seen someone with a hole in his head fight back.

Exactly. That's what non-lunatics do.

That's what [-]non[/-]-lunatics do. So if you turn out to be wrong about Iran and they are armed with nukes what do you proclaim should be done about them?

Your hypocracy is astounding.

Yeah, I don't see western civilised states on a level par with islamic fundamentalist states. Do you?

We'll start with Bush and his war of civilisations rubbish for a start

So did he mention Capitalism, Christianity or Communism ruling the world?

Another time, please. I want a clear and concise definition of what constitutes a clear and present threat.

I've explained it already. If you're to dumb to pick it up in my posts in this thread that's your problem.

So we're in a who started it match? Lol. The U.S is going to come off second best in that competition - you know that, right?

Well you will surely do your best to make that happen. Why do you have a soft spot for tyranical regimes? Where would you rather live in Iran, NK or the U.S? Are you an Islamic fundamentalist? Are middle aged white christian men the only threat to liberty in the world?

To constitute a threat must somebody blatantly say it in big simple statements? Must Ahmadinejad use skywrighting over the U.N building stating "Destroy Israel and the great satan, Islam must rule the world and I am building nukes" for you to see him as a threat?

 

[Xarog]

Oh I forgot Hezbollah are freedom fighters and all round nice guys. Rafik Hariri just spontaneously exploded while other prominent non muslims have also died mysteriously.

I didn't say they were nice guys - I said they weren't medically insane.

As I said I'm not going through the 100 year history of Ayatollahs just to disprove a claim you can't even prove.

Then you must accept that my point is accurate.

So no apology then?

What for?

Yes I do. Just because you got blinkers on doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Right.

You've already made up your mind that the guy is after your life and nothing he could ever say or do will change it. It's like a sane man trying to prove his saneness to people who all think he's gone mad.

Ah yes, give the criminal equal opportunity to kill.

Who said he was a criminal? Taking it back to real life, ALL countries are criminals. Why should some criminals have different rules than other criminals?

[qupte]All's fair in your world, criminal or not. We just gotta hope you have a quick trigger finger and he has a lousy aim. You may be a gambling man but I'm not and I don't like those odds.[/quote]
Which means you're willing to be a murderer in order to 'defend' yourself.

He's just openly stated he wants to kill someone and threatend you. But hey lets only believe him once he puts a bullet in your head.

Yeah, so threats to kill someone are the same as actually killing someone, I forgot. You know how many people in their daily lives say "I'll kill the b@stard!"? tons. How many of them actually go out and do it? A fraction.

Then we will know for sure and can take action. I don't know about you but I've never seen someone with a hole in his head fight back.

One nuke isn't going to murder any nation.

So if you turn out to be wrong about Iran and they are armed with nukes what do you proclaim should be done about them?

Diplomacy, just like what every other nuclear nation does. M.A.D. does wonders.

So did he mention Capitalism, Christianity or Communism ruling the world?

By extension, yes. If there is a war of civilisation, then one will have to be victor and the other the loser. In turn, the winner shall have to rule over the loser.

I've explained it already. If you're to dumb to pick it up in my posts in this thread that's your problem.

I'm really looking for a principle here, in one phrase. If you've given it already, I apologise, but I haven't seen it.

Well you will surely do your best to make that happen. Why do you have a soft spot for tyranical regimes? Where would you rather live in Iran, NK or the U.S? Are you an Islamic fundamentalist? Are middle aged white christian men the only threat to liberty in the world?

*sigh*

Maybe you should examine why we like to demonise the other side. Not just the west, but people in general. We fear what we don't understand. Of course, certain people love to take advantage of this. They do things like plant propaganda to further their agenda.

I'm not a muslim. I'm certainly not a fundamentalist. Infact I regard all organised religions with suspicion.

As for who's the biggest threat : Who's got the biggest guns?

To constitute a threat must somebody blatantly say it in big simple statements? Must Ahmadinejad use skywrighting over the U.N building stating "Destroy Israel and the great satan, Islam must rule the world and I am building nukes" for you to see him as a threat?

Since when do politicians generally utter the truth? Almost never. Especially in the case of politics, judge a man by his actions, not his words. What Ahamadinejad was saying could easily be mere pandering to his audience to boost his popularity. When has Ahamadinejad actually made threatening moves?

As for where I'd prefer to live : For the moment it has to be Iran. Non muslims have far less laws to worry about - they are allowed to drink alcohol, for instance. I don't think Iran can afford the monstrous surveillance that the US is subjecting its citizens to, and I really do like my privacy. Did you know that there is at least one Jewish woman serving in the Iranian parliament?

But getting back to who's a bigger threat :

Israel has nukes. Israel routinely discriminates against non-Jews. They have collectively made the Palestinian's lives hell on earth, and denied them basic human rights. They are in the process of slowly starving Gaza. They have attacked their neighbours and have illegally captured their territory. They've commited countless warcrimes against the Palestinians. Why isn't America threatening regime change in Israel?

Iran is threatened daily by Israel's mere presence. And since you seem to think that the words of politicians mean something, Iran has been called part of an axis of evil. America has at least once in the past destroyed the democracy that Iran had and installed a brutal dictator (the Shah, who, incidentally, the Americans were only too happy to help him develop nuclear energy). So who became a threat to whom first?

 

[kilo39]

So you saying that the Iranians wouldn't give a fellow islamic terrorist group a nuke for fear that they would use it to against them?"

Lets be clear: you are asserting that Iran would give a terrorist group (whatever that may be?) a nuclear bomb? LOL Cluso accent definitely on bomb.

Some scenarios: a nuclear device needs to be delivered. We can talk the mythical suitcase nukes but there is the small matter of getting this through customs. Europe a more likely target. Okay so Iran gives a 'terrorist group' a nuke. They deliver it to Europe. It explodes. 25 kiloton. In fact in typing that it would be smaller 10 kiloton. (All of a sudden we're back in the fantasy world of mini nukes. You are dreaming!!) Or Iran has a nuclear weapon. Once again small matter of delivery. Um, back to icbm's. Nukes are not minor tech. Neither are icbm's.

Let's extend the scenario to Israel. In fact let's take it all the way. Iran nukes Israel. Long range missile strike. Israel, Palestine (cough) turned to glass. The world continues turning. One strike does not a asteroid field make. So now we have one idiot standing in front of the world saying or denying, "aw shucks, it wasn't me." Have you got any idea. Of the outlandishness of your proposals?

Let's explore a more likely scenario. Dirty bomb. Or even just contamination similar to the recent russian case. Dead people. Lots. Major capital evacuated etc. Once again an outlandish scenario.

Take the gas attacks in Japan. Um, how long was it before they knocked at Aum Shinrikyos door. 12 hours? So get real in your scenario planning and your view of the world. If an event like this had to happen do you think the world is going to sit back and say "Ah, gee."

Lets not forget that all of the above takes technology. Delivery. Never mind the event or the afterwards.

Has GB made the world safe or more unsafe? Are there more or less 'terrorists' now than before GB invaded Iraq?

Of course they have also noted the west's unwillingness for confrontation

Who owns the invading armies? 911? Was not Afghanistan enough?

passiveness and appeasement

What some call p&a others call not invading other countries on false pretences, lying to the world, killing thousands of people, including 3000 of their own.

undermined U.S efforts while galvinising extremists

Whose rhetoric is galvanising "extremists?" Why not call them the proper name Fascist Muslim Islamist Terrorists (and probably a few other choice words,) US efforts? Wars of aggression in 2 countries with a third planned. Never mind the latest actions in Somalia, 4000 dead/wounded civilians, 57 'islamists.' Kill them all they're bound to be in there somewhere.

You, in your fanciful model of "them against us" fail to realise you create "them." Back to 911. As you so strongly assert this, and it has so far contributed to 2 wars don't you think that an impartial non-secret investigation should be made into 911. Is it not fundamental? But no, we'll rather just brush over that I mean, reality, WTF is that?

You have no concept of humanity, fundamental human freedom or "your fellow man." You think it okay to kill/wound 4000 in search of 57. Oh and just before this you hang Saddam for 'crimes against humanity.'

There are many ways to solve problems, wars of aggression is not one of them.

These facts indicate their mindset. If they don't respect their own citizens why respect those of other countries. Especially when they have an agenda of spreading your fanatical religion around the region and later the globe.

Spoken to your neighbour recently? Are they converting? Their neighbours? Once again What Are You Talking About in your deluded fantasy?

So you are one of these "I'll wait untill I'm beaten, oppressed, killed before I make any attempt to do anything about it" types. If that someone was a known bully who beat kids and woman and threated to murder somebody I know and called me "the great satan" and wanted me dead while I knew he was trying to purchase a gun with the intention to kill that other person and threaten me with it either directly or through a henchman. Sure I'll beat the living crap out of him. Unlike you who'll only decide to do something once he's blown out your kneecap or shot the other guy died. What you gonna do? Bit late then isn't it.

Had the Allies invaded Germany in 1938 on the premise that Hitler was doing something wrong(ie:being a threat) would that have been unacceptable in your eyes.

How do you define defensively? When the invaders tanks come storming over the border in a blitzkrieg or one of your city's gets erased to the ground. Waiting for that to happen and to have done nothing to prevent it is what I call "passive".

Here you go again. If I thought he was looking to kill me or other people then I would punch him. There is nothing wrong about that.

History is as written. Britain was already at war when Churchill came to power. Seems Churchill was quite a maverick. Some things he said:

"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

He was talking of more than the physical fight: he was alluding to the fortress of the mind, ie, no matter the streets were occupied the person/mind would never surrender... "and in the streets." Even occupation doesn't equal surrender. This goes to all your outlandish remarks above: muslims want to take over the world, and "yes if I think so I will be the bully."

Based on false intel, misrepresentations, propaganda and lies. It has been stated by independent observers Iran is "at least 10 years away from a bomb."

How can you know truth if you are so ready to endorse lies (and it has been proven a lie.) Surely that makes you a liar?

The great muslim threat: a ragtag army with secondary weaponry against the greatest superpower in the world. Oh but they're going to get nuclear bombs. Glass. Asteroid field. Not. Let's be clear: no matter any reasons previously mentioned on this forum america lost the vietnam war for one simple reason: they didn't go all the way. They could have turned N.Vietnam into a dust bowl in 48 hrs. Or 12 if they wanted glass. But they didn't? Why? Because the obliteration of a people and country is unacceptable. They have the same problem in Iraq. You cannot fight wars unless you want to win. Liberal lesson no.1. Therefore have a damn good reason. Not lies. Or false presentation. Or rhetoric.

By adopting a policy of no surrender, Churchill kept alive the fire and spirit of democracy and human decency, and inspired the general revulsion against totalitarianism that echoes to this day.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Alan]

I didn't say they were nice guys - I said they weren't medically insane.

Are you a doctor? How do you define someone as medically insane? Are religious zealots insane, are people who fly planes in to buildings insane, are suicide bombers insane, are people who use civilians as shields insane. Was Saddam insane to gas villiages. If people are willing to kill civilians in that manner why would they have a problem nuking their enemy.

Then you must accept that my point is accurate.

Unless you can supply reasonable proof then no I won't.

What for?

For saying this "Sheesh, by your standard anything short of raping and killing the women and children is being "passive" "

Right.

You've already made up your mind that the guy is after your life and nothing he could ever say or do will change it. It's like a sane man trying to prove his saneness to people who all think he's gone mad.

You don't know that. If he apologised for stating that he wanted to kill me or the other person and proved he wasn't after a gun while putting in reforms to become a civilised person then I wouldn't harm him at all.

Who said he was a criminal? Taking it back to real life, ALL countries are criminals. Why should some criminals have different rules than other criminals?

Anyone who beats woman and children is a criminal in my eyes. Add the fact that he threatens my life and others while trying to obtain a gun means he is a threat to me.

Same rules different punishments.

Which means you're willing to be a murderer in order to 'defend' yourself.

Yes. You wouldn't?

Yeah, so threats to kill someone are the same as actually killing someone, I forgot. You know how many people in their daily lives say "I'll kill the b@stard!"? tons. How many of them actually go out and do it? A fraction.

If a criminal says they'll kill me or others I know while attempting to obtain a gun and comes up to me in a dark alley then I will "defend" myself.

One nuke isn't going to murder any nation.

I'm sure there are a few nations that'll disagree with you. There is a lot more to nukes than the initial explosion. What about radiation, damage to infrastructure of an important major city. The whole nation will be in turmoil. Even if it didn't bring the nation to it knees don't you think getting nuked alone is bad enough. Have you seen the destruction even "small" nukes can cause.

Diplomacy, just like what every other nuclear nation does. M.A.D. does wonders.

Ah yes diplomacy. It seems you are unwilling to accept anything else no matter what the situation. Don't tyrants know it too. Just because you're unwilling to use violence doesn't mean they aren't. If somebody is going to punch you no amount of "diplomacy" is gonna stop him. In fact it'll only encourage him more. But I suppose you think you can talk your way out of anything .

By extension, yes. If there is a war of civilisation, then one will have to be victor and the other the loser. In turn, the winner shall have to rule over the loser.

So he never said Capitalism, Christianity or Communism must rule the world.

I'm really looking for a principle here, in one phrase. If you've given it already, I apologise, but I haven't seen it.

Pity. I'm not repeating it again. It's time consuming enough debating all these other points.

*sigh*

Maybe you should examine why we like to demonise the other side. Not just the west, but people in general. We fear what we don't understand. Of course, certain people love to take advantage of this. They do things like plant propaganda to further their agenda.

I'm not a muslim. I'm certainly not a fundamentalist. Infact I regard all organised religions with suspicion.

As for who's the biggest threat : Who's got the biggest guns?

Well I do fear the "islamic fundamentilist" way of life. Secondly I don't take threats from their ilk lightly as well. Where do these "people" plant there propagander?

Good, I was starting to wonder whether you were one. A fundamentalist that is. You being a muslim makes no difference to me hence why I never asked if you were one.

Oh so those with the biggest guns are the biggest threat. Since when?

Since when do politicians generally utter the truth? Almost never. Especially in the case of politics, judge a man by his actions, not his words. What Ahamadinejad was saying could easily be mere pandering to his audience to boost his popularity. When has Ahamadinejad actually made threatening moves?

When politicians say something you don't like you just don't believe them? Well when the actions will do me harm then I won't wait and judge after the deed is done. So he better watch his words then.

As for where I'd prefer to live : For the moment it has to be Iran. Non muslims have far less laws to worry about - they are allowed to drink alcohol, for instance. I don't think Iran can afford the monstrous surveillance that the US is subjecting its citizens to, and I really do like my privacy. Did you know that there is at least one Jewish woman serving in the Iranian parliament?

IRAN

Oh man, that must be one of the most amazing(and amusing) things I've ever seen on a forum ever. Kilo take a bow at this chap. An atheist wanting to live in a country run by Sharia law. You obviously have no time for Democracy, women's rights or children' rights. Pity for your daughter(if you have one) who will have to live under these laws. No more YouTube, Wikipedia or any other sites that the overlords deem unsuitable for your consumption. They are worse than Telscum.

No surveillance! Bwahahahaha

I'm sorry I just can't go on with this.

An Atheist in Iran

 

[Alan]

Lets be clear: you are asserting that Iran would give a terrorist group (whatever that may be?) a nuclear bomb? LOL Cluso accent definitely on bomb.

Some scenarios: a nuclear device needs to be delivered. We can talk the mythical suitcase nukes but there is the small matter of getting this through customs. Europe a more likely target. Okay so Iran gives a 'terrorist group' a nuke. They deliver it to Europe. It explodes. 25 kiloton. In fact in typing that it would be smaller 10 kiloton. (All of a sudden we're back in the fantasy world of mini nukes. You are dreaming!!) Or Iran has a nuclear weapon. Once again small matter of delivery. Um, back to icbm's. Nukes are not minor tech. Neither are icbm's.

Let's extend the scenario to Israel. In fact let's take it all the way. Iran nukes Israel. Long range missile strike. Israel, Palestine (cough) turned to glass. The world continues turning. One strike does not a asteroid field make. So now we have one idiot standing in front of the world saying or denying, "aw shucks, it wasn't me." Have you got any idea. Of the outlandishness of your proposals?

Do they not have free fall "Bombs"? What size would they be(physically not destructive force). You underestimate the guile, knowledge and skill of these people. Not surprising considering you think the most powerfull man in the world is dumb.

I'm surprised you're so blase about nukes. All your whining about Iraqis geting killed but Israel gets nuked and "the world keeps turning". One strike is bad enough and who's to say it wont spiral out of control. After all aren't idiots in control of these things. In any case the thought of "One strike does not a asteroid field make" just encourages them them to try it.

Let's explore a more likely scenario. Dirty bomb. Or even just contamination similar to the recent russian case. Dead people. Lots. Major capital evacuated etc. Once again an outlandish scenario.

Why outlandish. You saw what was done. What if those behind the poisining wanted to kill as many as people as possible. That had access to radioactive material so why not?

Take the gas attacks in Japan. Um, how long was it before they knocked at Aum Shinrikyos door. 12 hours? So get real in your scenario planning and your view of the world. If an event like this had to happen do you think the world is going to sit back and say "Ah, gee."

How can you compare a gas attack to a nuke bomb? I would expect you to say "Ah, gee" followed by "it's all Americas fault don't retaliate. Peace on earth blah blah blah." What's "the world" gonna do? a bit late then is it not?

Lets not forget that all of the above takes technology. Delivery. Never mind the event or the afterwards

.

Techno that they are developing as we speak.

Has GB made the world safe or more unsafe? Are there more or less 'terrorists' now than before GB invaded Iraq?

Noticed any major terror attacks around the world in the last two years? I think there are just as many terrorists as there always were.

Who owns the invading armies? 911? Was not Afghanistan enough?

I should have said influential lefties unwillingness for confrontation. No Afghanistan was nowhere near enough.

What some call p&a others call not invading other countries on false pretences, lying to the world, killing thousands of people, including 3000 of their own.

Funny that's exactly what "p&a" is. Allowing Iran to build nukes under the pretence of "civilian power plants", Ahmadinejad denying the Holocast, claiming to be a free democracy, supply Shia militia in Iraq with weapons to attack U.S, U.K , Sunni's or anyone who doesn't agree to be ruled by their fundamentilist beliefs, stoning woman and children to death nevermind murdering political disidents.

Whose rhetoric is galvanising "extremists?" Why not call them the proper name Fascist Muslim Islamist Terrorists (and probably a few other choice words,) US efforts? Wars of aggression in 2 countries with a third planned. Never mind the latest actions in Somalia, 4000 dead/wounded civilians, 57 'islamists.' Kill them all they're bound to be in there somewhere.

The mass media. Lies like "Flushing Korans down toilets at Gitmo", editing and faking pictures, sweeping stories of U.S troops risking their lives to save Iraqis under the carpet while printing any dirt they can find on the few that step out of line. Again who came up with "neocons(and probably a few other choice words)"?. Sources for your Somalia statement?

You, in your fanciful model of "them against us" fail to realise you create "them." Back to 911. As you so strongly assert this, and it has so far contributed to 2 wars don't you think that an impartial non-secret investigation should be made into 911. Is it not fundamental? But no, we'll rather just brush over that I mean, reality, WTF is that?

Ah yes, that uber machine that churns these "typess" out. It's not only 911. What about the 1993 bombing, Embasy bombings in Africa, USS Cole, Bali, Beslan school. I can go on and on. Do you think all those events were planned and executed by the CIA?

You have no concept of humanity, fundamental human freedom or "your fellow man." You think it okay to kill/wound 4000 in search of 57. Oh and just before this you hang Saddam for 'crimes against humanity.'

I do have it.That's why I support defending it. Source

There are many ways to solve problems, wars of aggression is not one of them.

It's better than deluding, groveling and appeasement.

Spoken to your neighbour recently? Are they converting? Their neighbours? Once again What Are You Talking About in your deluded fantasy?

I prefer to do something about it before it's to late. That would save millions of lives in the long run. That's why you must confront it now.

History is as written. Britain was already at war when Churchill came to power. Seems Churchill was quite a maverick. Some things he said:

"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

He was talking of more than the physical fight: he was alluding to the fortress of the mind, ie, no matter the streets were occupied the person/mind would never surrender... "and in the streets." Even occupation doesn't equal surrender. This goes to all your outlandish remarks above: muslims want to take over the world, and "yes if I think so I will be the bully."

Churchill advocated tough action against Hitler long before he came to power. Pity your ilk undermined his efforts. Calling him a warmoger and rejecting preemtive action. Just like today really.

Where did I say "muslims want to take over the world". You put words in my mouth again. I guess you need to do that to try strengthen your argument.

Based on false intel, misrepresentations, propaganda and lies. It has been stated by independent observers Iran is "at least 10 years away from a bomb."

Who are these "independent observers"?

How can you know truth if you are so ready to endorse lies (and it has been proven a lie.) Surely that makes you a liar?

The great muslim threat: a ragtag army with secondary weaponry against the greatest superpower in the world. Oh but they're going to get nuclear bombs. Glass. Asteroid field. Not. Let's be clear: no matter any reasons previously mentioned on this forum america lost the vietnam war for one simple reason: they didn't go all the way. They could have turned N.Vietnam into a dust bowl in 48 hrs. Or 12 if they wanted glass. But they didn't? Why? Because the obliteration of a people and country is unacceptable. They have the same problem in Iraq. You cannot fight wars unless you want to win. Liberal lesson no.1. Therefore have a damn good reason. Not lies. Or false presentation. Or rhetoric.

What lies? I don't see a muslim threat?

Yes, the U.S lost the Vietnam war no thanks to you and mismangement by the White House. How are you supposed to fight a war without killing the enemy( granted civilians as well ). Who in there right mind fights a war of attrition with a communist nation. They should have heavily attacked NV in the begining. It would have saved lives in the long run and defended SV.

By adopting a policy of no surrender, Churchill kept alive the fire and spirit of democracy and human decency, and inspired the general revulsion against totalitarianism that echoes to this day.

Ah yes, Those Baathists and religious zealots are fighting for democracy( like they have in Iran and had in Iraq and Afghainistan) and human decency( stone children to death, opress woman and murder disidents) against the totalitarianism of the father of libery and democracy, America.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Mahatma Gandhi

Your other pet peev Christians?

 

[kilo39]

@Alanf85: if you read your own post and applied some fact and logic you would discover how intellectually weak it is. But then I suppose you actually need a brain to see this so that is somewhat of an oxymoron.

Continue hating, it's a good way to make friends.

Soft Power. ... I don’t think it is even now appreciated how much of the positive influence and reputation and respect enjoyed by the U.S. in the rest of the world flows from the belief out there that America really does stand for a better world and is the best hope of those who want to achieve it. As Tony Judt has recently put it, “What gives the US its formidable influence is not its unequalled capacity for war, but the trust of others in its good intentions.”
How American Power Seems to the Rest of Us

Notably you missed my comments on Churchill:

Britain was already at war when Churchill came to power.

He was brought to power in a democracy to fill a need. He was prime minister of a Liberal government; they were in charge. He was a maverick because he was equally liberal and conservative, largely liberal. Further he realised that true defence (and therefore offense) is heart and minds, not guns and bombs. (George, and you fail this one.)

Further you missed that I did not bold democracy. Democracy is heart and minds, not guns and bombs.

Re: american embassy bombings, random terrorism. Is selective short term memory a problem with rightwing zealots? It seems so, perhaps a gene deficiency; no brain?

Your great esteemed 911: perpetrated on americas presence in the middle east; which came first?

7 July 2005. And this came first, never mind the bogus threats. Now what was that about 2 years?

(...My 4000 comment came from TV news. Unfortunately no link.)

Iran 'years from nuclear bomb'

 

[d0b33]

Take a look at this...
You'll notice that Shi'ite Islam is a minority and found in Iraq and Iran, surprisingly both threats to the US (Iraq past tense since fall and death of Saddam) and the rest of the Islamic world is Sunni

And the US seems to be pinning the Sectarian violence and attacks in Iraq on Iran
(with no hard evidence to support its claims as usual) and Iran represents Shi'ite Islam in the Middle East.

And of course there's the execution of Saddam, reportedly done by the Shia militia in Iraq
which prompted revenge hangings of Shia

Looks like the US wants a civil war ?

 

[Alan]

@Alanf85: if you read your own post and applied some fact and logic you would discover how intellectually weak it is. But then I suppose you actually need a brain to see this so that is somewhat of an oxymoron.

Whoa the insults are coming thick and fast. I must be getting somewhere. In your world morons are the people with the most influence on world affairs so I guess it can't be all that bad.

Continue hating, it's a good way to make friends.

Who do I hate? I don't hate islamic fundamentalists. I dislike their ideology and I'll support anyone who defends liberty from them.

Soft Power. ... I don’t think it is even now appreciated how much of the positive influence and reputation and respect enjoyed by the U.S. in the rest of the world flows from the belief out there that America really does stand for a better world and is the best hope of those who want to achieve it. As Tony Judt has recently put it, “What gives the US its formidable influence is not its unequalled capacity for war, but the trust of others in its good intentions.”
How American Power Seems to the Rest of Us

You don't get more noble than defending liberty. Especially when you risk your own soldiers lives so others have the chance at experiencing it themselves.

Notably you missed my comments on Churchill:

Britain was already at war when Churchill came to power.

He was brought to power in a democracy to fill a need. He was prime minister of a Liberal government; they were in charge. He was a maverick because he was equally liberal and conservative, largely liberal. Further he realised that true defence (and therefore offence) is heart and minds, not guns and bombs. (George, and you fail this one.)

Further you missed that I did not bold democracy. Democracy is heart and minds, not guns and bombs.

I suggest you read this book: Winston Churchill's Second World War volume 1.

It should give you some good insight into what Churchill was really on about.

"We have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat, and France has suffered even more than we have." - Speech made during debate on Munich Agreement in House of Commons, October 5, 1938"

'"You chose dishonor, and you will have war!""

That's what he thought about your ilk's slavish devotion to diplomacy at any cost.

He lost "hearts and minds" with his policy of standing up to Hitler. They berated him and called him a "warmonger". No doubt someone called him dumb as well.

What he realised is you have to stand up to tyrants. Confront them before it's to late. If that leads to war so be it because if they want it they are going to get it sooner or later. Rather on your terms then theres.

Re: american embassy bombings, random terrorism. Is selective short term memory a problem with rightwing zealots? It seems so, perhaps a gene deficiency; no brain?

So all those events were completely random. No connection between them at all?

Your great esteemed 911: perpetrated on americas presence in the middle east; which came first?

Ah yes, the good old run away and they'll leave us alone tactic. The attack was on the "World Trade Center". They murdered people of many nationalities. How come they are fighting against other nations all over the globe. Why they attacking Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Russians, Chinese and fighting someone on almost every continent.

7 July 2005. And this came first, never mind the bogus threats. Now what was that about 2 years?

One and that was 18 months ago.

(...My 4000 comment came from TV news. Unfortunately no link.)

Well I'll wait for a link before I accept that as fact.

Iran 'years from nuclear bomb'

Well not according this.

the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security has suggested that _ if it were interested in producing bombs _ Iran could create a basic small plant of 1,500 centrifuges to make enough bomb fuel for one weapon within three years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083000831_pf.html

Plus Iran are disrupting efforts to monitor their programs so we don't know for sure. Why would they hide proof that they are a long way off nukes. Hopefully we don't misjudge the timetable like we did with the Soviets.

 

[Xarog]

Are you a doctor?

No.

How do you define someone as medically insane?

When they have lost grip on reality.

Are religious zealots insane, are people who fly planes in to buildings insane, are suicide bombers insane,

Possibly. Question is, who drove them to that point - you don't think they did it merely because of hatred, do you? (and that's assuming that the USGov is telling the truth about the incident, something I find hard to believe)

are people who use civilians as shields insane. Was Saddam insane to gas villiages.

No. Funny you mention Saddam's gassing of villages though - by your standard of 'defense' his actions were reasonable. Also, who sold him the weapons?

If people are willing to kill civilians in that manner why would they have a problem nuking their enemy.

I see, so because Saddam (who ruled secularly) was a bad guy, all muslims are the same?

Unless you can supply reasonable proof then no I won't.

And what is reasonable proof, hmm? Shall I read 1 book? What if that book mentions nothing about ayatollah's martyring themselves? 10 books? 100?


How would you prove to someone that you don't have a body hidden in your garden, if they accused you of such?

For saying this "Sheesh, by your standard anything short of raping and killing the women and children is being "passive" "

I see no reason to apologise - I still find your standards utterly brutal, and I still meant what I said then.

You don't know that. If he apologised for stating that he wanted to kill me or the other person and proved he wasn't after a gun while putting in reforms to become a civilised person then I wouldn't harm him at all.

And if he says "but I never threatened to kill you?"

Anyone who beats woman and children is a criminal in my eyes. Add the fact that he threatens my life and others while trying to obtain a gun means he is a threat to me.

But you seem to have no problem excusing it when it's more or less done in your name. What do you think of a nation of peoples that can casually torture civillians? What makes the west so special compared to everyone else?

Yes. You wouldn't?

No. I wouldn't go and kill a person because he may be a threat to me.

If a criminal says they'll kill me or others I know while attempting to obtain a gun and comes up to me in a dark alley then I will "defend" myself.

And in the real world you'd go to jail for murder.

I'm sure there are a few nations that'll disagree with you. There is a lot more to nukes than the initial explosion. What about radiation, damage to infrastructure of an important major city. The whole nation will be in turmoil. Even if it didn't bring the nation to it knees don't you think getting nuked alone is bad enough. Have you seen the destruction even "small" nukes can cause.

Funny you talk about the radiation - the US has had no problem poisoning masses of people with depleted uranium weapons.

The damage you talk about does not destroy a nation. It may hurt the economy, it may cause untold suffering - but unless you're nuking the vatican, the country will survive.

Ah yes diplomacy. It seems you are unwilling to accept anything else no matter what the situation. Don't tyrants know it too. Just because you're unwilling to use violence doesn't mean they aren't. If somebody is going to punch you no amount of "diplomacy" is gonna stop him. In fact it'll only encourage him more. But I suppose you think you can talk your way out of anything .

You're still presuming they want to punch you. The way I see it, everyone is trying to punch them. Look at you, you're actively advocating that someone 'take care' of the Iran problem. You're itching to throw the first punch.

So he never said Capitalism, Christianity or Communism must rule the world.

He did, but not in those words.

Well I do fear the "islamic fundamentilist" way of life. Secondly I don't take threats from their ilk lightly as well. Where do these "people" plant there propagander?

Take a look at the mainstream media. Take a look at the claims coming from Israel, America and G.B. Take a look at fox news one evening.

Good, I was starting to wonder whether you were one. A fundamentalist that is. You being a muslim makes no difference to me hence why I never asked if you were one.

Yeah, but given the discussion do you blame me for making the assumption?

Oh so those with the biggest guns are the biggest threat. Since when?

They're the ones with the potential to cause the most harm, are they not? You don't have any conclusive proof of a threat, only threats that may come about - that means we're talking about potential. So, who has the biggest potential to cause harm?

When politicians say something you don't like you just don't believe them? Well when the actions will do me harm then I won't wait and judge after the deed is done. So he better watch his words then.

No, when politicians say something I look at what their motivations for lying about it is.

An atheist wanting to live in a country run by Sharia law.

I'm not an atheist. And as I said, many of the more stringent laws apply to muslims only.

 

[kilo39]

@alanf85

Let's deal with your central theme: your constant 'liberal' bashing and their supposed policy of appeasement. As usual you are not paying attention: we would agree Churchill was a maverick, yet your constant hammering of a point denies this. IOW Churchill was a minority opinion in a world that didn't want war. He knew his material. Unlike George who lied. Unlike George who has the sales receipts. Unlike George who thinks might is right Churchill knew right is might. Seems George is a bit like hitler in this regard?

There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, there was no WMD, there was no connection to 911. An endless litany of lies: when did Churchill ever lie?

Not "slavish devotion to diplomacy," simply the truth which notably Churchill got right and GB didn't. I wonder if this included invading countries who were no threat, or was that Hitler?

It seems that no one is perfect but I doubt anyone ever called Churchill dumb. So here you are misrepresenting the truth again. Let's see: a mythical figure attacking the worlds superpower with a few AK47's, a worldwide communications network and a 'plan for global domination' all from a cave in Afghanistan. Or was it Pakistan. Or maybe somalia. What does this tell you?

It tells you that civilian wars around the world become aligned with a central ideology. Based on a tenuous thread of communication and global news. It tells you that terror is easily exportable, far easier than bombs, that muslims can identify with a common cause no matter their local situation. That might really isn't right. Look what happened to hitler.

if it were interested in producing bombs _ Iran could create a basic small plant of 1,500 centrifuges to make enough bomb fuel for one weapon within three years

More scenario planning from the fantasy world of Alanf: um, small matter of gathering 1500 centrifuges, in secret, no paperwork remember? One weapon? Now I wonder what they would do with this mythical [-]weapon[/-] bomb if they were interested? Ooooh ya, glass. How could I forget.



The americans have my sympathy. Pity GB and his buddies are such liars.

 

[Alan]

When they have lost grip on reality.

Your "reality".

Possibly. Question is, who drove them to that point - you don't think they did it merely because of hatred, do you? (and that's assuming that the USGov is telling the truth about the incident, something I find hard to believe)

Ideology, fanaticism and cults are all very powerfull tools with which to drive people to do the things they do. If you instil in people that others are inferior and if you died for the cause you go to paridise then you gonna have trouble. Mix that with people interested in power and prestige(ie:tyrants) and you have major problems.

No. Funny you mention Saddam's gassing of villages though - by your standard of 'defense' his actions were reasonable. Also, who sold him the weapons?

Here you go putting words in my mouth. Where did I say the gasing of civilians is acceptable? Oh yes the U.S sold him chemical weapons

I see, so because Saddam (who ruled secularly) was a bad guy, all muslims are the same?

Yet again you put words in my mouth. Where did I say all muslims are the same? If you are a tyrant who has no problems brutally murdering civilians for your own gain then why would you think that nuking them is any different.

And what is reasonable proof, hmm? Shall I read 1 book? What if that book mentions nothing about ayatollah's martyring themselves? 10 books? 100?

How would you prove to someone that you don't have a body hidden in your garden, if they accused you of such?

Well I wouldn't make the claim I don't have a body in the garden in the first place. Maybe you shouldn't make claims you can't prove.

I see no reason to apologise - I still find your standards utterly brutal, and I still meant what I said then.

I never said anything short of raping someone is appeasement. But seems after every post you are crediting to me more and more statements I never made. Why are you doing that?

And if he says "but I never threatened to kill you?"

Then he's a lier.

But you seem to have no problem excusing it when it's more or less done in your name. What do you think of a nation of peoples that can casually torture civillians? What makes the west so special compared to everyone else?

Which nation might that be? Who's doing it in my name? Why don't you ask the people who are flocking in from those countries(ie: Iran) to the west. Have you looked up on my links to info about Iran?

No. I wouldn't go and kill a person because he may be a threat to me.

That's your choice. I wouldn't trust my safety to your views because you seem to have severe suicidal tendencies.

And in the real world you'd go to jail for murder.

Ah please. But even if I did it would be better than being dead like you.( unless of course it's a S.A prison)

Funny you talk about the radiation - the US has had no problem poisoning masses of people with depleted uranium weapons.

The damage you talk about does not destroy a nation. It may hurt the economy, it may cause untold suffering - but unless you're nuking the vatican, the country will survive.

Oh yes depleted uranium weapons. The ultimate anti war argument "don't go to war because your weapons will poison and kill you nevermind the enemy"

I suppose it depends on how you define a destroyed nation.

You're still presuming they want to punch you. The way I see it, everyone is trying to punch them. Look at you, you're actively advocating that someone 'take care' of the Iran problem. You're itching to throw the first punch.

They have shown enough evidence that they want to punch me. Hey if they don't want to be punched then they gotta change there ways(threatning people). Simple really.

He did, but not in those words.

So how did he say it without actually saying it

Take a look at the mainstream media. Take a look at the claims coming from Israel, America and G.B. Take a look at fox news one evening.

Oh, you mean these guys again, The guys who post fake pictures of so called tortured Iraqis(Daily Mirror), rely on "local" sources for information who edit photos to over exaggerate damage done by western forces(Reuters), publish a false momo to negatively affect Duyba during an election(CBS) and lie about flushing Koran's down the toilet at Gitmo(Newsweek). I can go on and on

What about all the other nations that are worried? Are they in on it to?

Yeah, but given the discussion do you blame me for making the assumption?

Yes, but then again you seem to be developing a thing for putting words in my mouth.

They're the ones with the potential to cause the most harm, are they not? You don't have any conclusive proof of a threat, only threats that may come about - that means we're talking about potential. So, who has the biggest potential to cause harm?

Unfortuantly it seems "conclusive proof" in your eyes is a mushroom cloud.

No, when politicians say something I look at what their motivations for lying about it is.

But you assume they are lying first and then search for the motivations after.

I'm not an atheist. And as I said, many of the more stringent laws apply to muslims only.

Oh that makes everything fine then. They oppress those who happen to be different to you but hey it's not like you are suffering. I wonder where I've heard that before.

 

[Xarog]

Ideology, fanaticism and cults are all very powerfull tools with which to drive people to do the things they do. If you instil in people that others are inferior and if you died for the cause you go to paridise then you gonna have trouble. Mix that with people interested in power and prestige(ie:tyrants) and you have major problems.

Indeed. Another very powerful tool is giving the masses an enemy which threatens them and denouncing everyone who doesn't go with the flow as being unpatriotic, or pacifistic.

Here you go putting words in my mouth. Where did I say the gasing of civilians is acceptable? Oh yes the U.S sold him chemical weapons

The villagers were a threat to him. They were trying to start a rebellion. By your standards (advocating attacking Iran to stop them making nukes), this was a reasonable action.

Yet again you put words in my mouth. Where did I say all muslims are the same? If you are a tyrant who has no problems brutally murdering civilians for your own gain then why would you think that nuking them is any different.

You said :

"If people are willing to kill civilians in that manner why would they have a problem nuking their enemy."

Think about it for a second. Why mention Saddam's gassing of civilians (since who else gassed anyone) and asking why would they have a problem using a nuke if you weren't thinking that Saddam was just like the rest?

Well I wouldn't make the claim I don't have a body in the garden in the first place. Maybe you shouldn't make claims you can't prove.

Lol. You made the claim that the ayatollahs were martyrs. Where's your proof of that? You've just left an ipse dixit claim and you refuse to back it up.

Maybe you shouldn't make claims you are unwilling to prove.

I never said anything short of raping someone is appeasement. But seems after every post you are crediting to me more and more statements I never made. Why are you doing that?

Do you really not see the consequences of the position you advocate?

Then he's a lier.

I rest my case.

Which nation might that be? Who's doing it in my name? Why don't you ask the people who are flocking in from those countries(ie: Iran) to the west. Have you looked up on my links to info about Iran?

Whichever nation so arrogantly claims to be upholding the freedom and liberty of humanity when they're just advancing their own economic imperialism.

That's your choice. I wouldn't trust my safety to your views because you seem to have severe suicidal tendencies.

Saddam didn't either, judging by his actions.

Oh yes depleted uranium weapons. The ultimate anti war argument "don't go to war because your weapons will poison and kill you nevermind the enemy"

I suppose it depends on how you define a destroyed nation.

So then what's the problem with radiation in the first place?

They have shown enough evidence that they want to punch me. Hey if they don't want to be punched then they gotta change there ways(threatning people). Simple really.

So calling Iran part of an axis of evil, what was that? Invatation to tea??

Oh, you mean these guys again, The guys who post fake pictures of so called tortured Iraqis(Daily Mirror), rely on "local" sources for information who edit photos to over exaggerate damage done by western forces(Reuters), publish a false momo to negatively affect Duyba during an election(CBS) and lie about flushing Koran's down the toilet at Gitmo(Newsweek). I can go on and on

What about all the other nations that are worried? Are they in on it to?

Yeah, on the other hand the media was fervently making wild claims about Saddams WMD. But I guess that doesn't bother you - afterall the torturing of Iraqis never happened, right?

But you assume they are lying first and then search for the motivations after.

Nope. I look at their motivations to lie before assuming anything about the truthfulness of their statements.

As it stands, Iran could totally torpedo the American economy if its Euro based oil bourse takes off. Then there's the fact that AIPAC more or less controls US foreign policy at least as far as the middle east is concerned, and Israel regards Iran has a threat to it's regional superiority. Those are two very big reasons to want to go to war and to lie about the reasons for going to war.

Oh that makes everything fine then. They oppress those who happen to be different to you but hey it's not like you are suffering. I wonder where I've heard that before.

Now who's putting words in whose mouth?

 

[kilo39]

Your "reality".

Ideology, fanaticism and cults are all very powerfull tools with which to drive people to do the things they do. If you instil in people that others are inferior and if you died for the cause you go to paridise then you gonna have trouble. Mix that with people interested in power and prestige(ie:tyrants) and you have major problems.

Here you go putting words in my mouth. Where did I say the gasing of civilians is acceptable? Oh yes the U.S sold him chemical weapons

The public learned from other sources that at least since mid-1980s the US was selling chemical and biological material for weapons to Iraq and orchestrating private sales. These sales began soon after current Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad in 1985 and met with Saddam Hussein as a private businessman on behalf of the Reagan administration
[source]

Yet again you put words in my mouth. Where did I say all muslims are the same? If you are a tyrant who has no problems brutally murdering civilians for your own gain then why would you think that nuking them is any different.

600 000 dead civilians. Worlds leading nuclear nation. (Tap, tap, what's wrong with this picture?)

Well I wouldn't make the claim I don't have a body in the garden in the first place. Maybe you shouldn't make claims you can't prove.

I never said anything short of raping someone is appeasement. But seems after every post you are crediting to me more and more statements I never made. Why are you doing that?

Maybe you shouldn't make claims that are easily proven wrong (like who sold chemical weapons, and who created the tyrant in the first place.)

Then he's a lier.

Which nation might that be? Who's doing it in my name? Why don't you ask the people who are flocking in from those countries(ie: Iran) to the west. Have you looked up on my links to info about Iran?

Give them a cause, always a good rallying point: now wouldn't you agree GB has definitely given them that? Who is the proven liar?

That's your choice. I wouldn't trust my safety to your views because you seem to have severe suicidal tendencies.

Ah please. But even if I did it would be better than being dead like you.( unless of course it's a S.A prison)

Oh yes depleted uranium weapons. The ultimate anti war argument "don't go to war because your weapons will poison and kill you nevermind the enemy"

I suppose it depends on how you define a destroyed nation.

You really have no idea of pain or suffering do you? Just as long as it is them, not you? Maybe you should talk to the gulf war vets about gulf war syndrome.

They have shown enough evidence that they want to punch me. Hey if they don't want to be punched then they gotta change there ways(threatning people). Simple really.

So how did he say it without actually saying it
Oh, you mean these guys again, The guys who post fake pictures of so called tortured Iraqis(Daily Mirror), rely on "local" sources for information who edit photos to over exaggerate damage done by western forces(Reuters), publish a false momo to negatively affect Duyba during an election(CBS) and lie about flushing Koran's down the toilet at Gitmo(Newsweek). I can go on and on

Memo? Which one was that? The one where condelisa says "um, I don't remember?" Who is the proven liar? Who still has a job? Can we say that of the reuters reporter?

Maybe you need to read the truth on memos. [source]

What about all the other nations that are worried? Are they in on it to?

Yes, but then again you seem to be developing a thing for putting words in my mouth.

Unfortuantly it seems "conclusive proof" in your eyes is a mushroom cloud.

But you assume they are lying first and then search for the motivations after.

Oh that makes everything fine then. They oppress those who happen to be different to you but hey it's not like you are suffering. I wonder where I've heard that before.

Oh yes, more fantasy planning from the keyboard of Alanf. A mushroom cloud. Glass. Now why didn't I see that?

06-04) 04:00 PST Washington -- A military inquiry has found that U.S. guards or interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba kicked, stepped on and splashed urine on the Quran, in some cases intentionally and in others accidentally, the Pentagon said Friday
-
The report said investigators had looked into nine alleged incidents in which the Quran was mishandled, either intentionally or unintentionally, and confirmed five of them. Four involved guards at the detention center; one involved an interrogator.
[source]

@alanF: you really need to look into your version of reality because it is sadly distorted by lies, mistruths, and propaganda.

Note: these things were specialities of the 3rd Reich, your favourite people. Or rather it seems their policies were the same 'as your favourite people.'

Being Condi Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry

 

[LoneGunman]

Its interesting that 'pre-emptive war' is what guided Adolf Hitler and the third reich, who were and remained devout christians, from beginning to end. They believed there was a worldwide terrorist conspiracy against them (zionism & banking cartels) - and so by the various invasions and beginnings of slaughter, they too, were just "attacking the people they saw as their enemy, before the enemy could attack them."
And we all know how that logic turned out.

Therefore, ANY attempt to behave in a pre-emptive way, especially without any proof of tangible evidence that ones enemy has the MEANS to attack, puts the attacker in the same boat as the Third Reich.. in other words, from an outside perspective, an unreasonable, homicidal murderous expansionism and imperialism.

Almost all of the 911 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - instead, Afghanistan was targeted - this is more to do with securing the poppy fields and the heroin crops, which keep the world economy afloat with cash money.

Colin Powell's aide is on record as saying in essence, there were no WMD's and the entire story was bogus - a fact known when Powell addressed and lied to the UN, ahead of the Iraq invasion.
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/powell_lies_to_un.html

Intelligence services have stated, and are on record as saying Iran is 10 years away from having any nuclear capability.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453_pf.html
(Furthermore, they're quite simply entitled to have it, regardless of whatever statements its leaders have made, under international protocols.)
To imply for any reason that an entire nation is somehow crazy or too subhuman to be allowed to have the means of energy production, is to be making a Nazi-like argument about inferior peoples)

Its interesting that the first response to 911, by Sharon, when asked how this affected Israel - was that "It's good.. er I mean.."

It's interesting that little further investigation has been made public over the Mossad agents arrested on 911, as they laughed and cheered and gave each other 'high fives' while filming the burning towers.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/bergenrecord091201.html
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=75266&sw=mockery
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.03.15/news2.html
It's interesting that little further investigation has been made public over the massive Israeli 'art student' spy ring uncovered by the DEA ahead of 911..
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index_np.html

It's interesting that so much of what is unfolding, in the middle east, is benefitting the one country that has been in flagrant violation of UN laws for decades..

 

[d0b33]

Its interesting that 'pre-emptive war' is what guided Adolf Hitler and the third reich, who were and remained devout christians, from beginning to end. They believed there was a worldwide terrorist conspiracy against them (zionism & banking cartels) - and so by the various invasions and beginnings of slaughter, they too, were just "attacking the people they saw as their enemy, before the enemy could attack them."
And we all know how that logic turned out.

Therefore, ANY attempt to behave in a pre-emptive way, especially without any proof of tangible evidence that ones enemy has the MEANS to attack, puts the attacker in the same boat as the Third Reich.. in other words, from an outside perspective, an unreasonable, homicidal murderous expansionism and imperialism.

I totally agree...
I've been making the same point on other forums

 

[kilo39]

Almost all of the 911 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - instead, Afghanistan was targeted - this is more to do with securing the poppy fields and the heroin crops, which keep the world economy afloat with cash money.

Wah LG. This would tie in with the previous cia cocaine running cartels

... oooh ya, not to forget the crack cartels...

The Contras, Cocaine,
and Covert Operations