# Iran to US : Fuck you, maybe we'll attack you 1st



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani has warned that Iran might launch a pre-emptive strike to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

He said this in an interview with Aljazeera TV on Wednesday.

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani said when asked about the possibility of a US or Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B19...7AF900949DE.htm

Yep, looks like everyone has done a fabulous job of bringing stability to the middle east.


----------



## 94NDTA (Jul 14, 2003)

Yeah, good going Canada.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Does the madness never stop









For the sake of humanity I hope people go extinct soon...


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Gee whoever opened the can of worms of "pre emptive self defence" by attacking a country based on the possibility that it may want to attack us in the future sure did us all a favor...


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2004)

Judging by Iran's support of Al Sadr and other insurgents, the Iranians have proven they will support terrorists and anything else that disrupts the lives of Westerners.

If the Iranians gain access to nuclear materials, the world will be a much more dangerous place.


----------



## 94NDTA (Jul 14, 2003)

elTwitcho said:


> Gee whoever opened the can of worms of "pre emptive self defence" by attacking a country based on the possibility that it may want to attack us in the future sure did us all a favor...


 uhhh.........yep, thats Canada.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

94 - You should have realized by the first post of yours I ignored that I'm not going to indulge your stupidity


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

let me guess, you think the US is the first for pre-emptive strikes....wrong. Look in history. Second, democrats are the ones thinking Iran should have been invaded. Again, Iran doesn't stand a chance against the US, Israel is the one to lose out if they do and in return, Iran will be ashes.


----------



## 94NDTA (Jul 14, 2003)

elTwitcho said:


> 94 - You should have realized by the first post of yours I ignored that I'm not going to indulge your stupidity


You sure about that? Maybe I should ignore this post and not indulge your stupidity to not pick up on the sarcasm.....nope, I'm indulging, you're stupid. Maybe you were to busy making a post to bash America, or shooting a bald eagle.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Do me a big huge favor and shut the f*ck up about Democrats vs Republicans. Can you possibly think about something other than proving your party is the best for one f*cking thread?


----------



## 94NDTA (Jul 14, 2003)

elTwitcho said:


> Do me a big huge favor and shut the f*ck up about Democrats vs Republicans. Can you possibly think about something other than proving your party is the best for one f*cking thread?


 "I'm not good at argueing, so I am going say f*ck like four times...f*ck f*ck f*ck f*ck."


----------



## 94NDTA (Jul 14, 2003)

:::waiting for long post of elTwitcho getting mad at me:::

Be nice, I have thin skin.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Ugh.

Mods can you close this. Obviously this was the wrong place to post a discussion about US foreign policy because the only logical response I've gotten is Bullsnakes. Everyone else either suffers from dyslexia where they see the words "Iran to US" as "Debate Republican vs Democrat" or can't read entirely.


----------



## EZ_Ian (Feb 21, 2004)

"I'm not good at argueing, so I am going say f*ck like four times...f*ck f*ck f*ck f*ck." [/quote]


----------



## 94NDTA (Jul 14, 2003)

Or hey! I got another idea!! Maybe we could salvage this post, to bash people who bash the US? Or people who like poking fun at other countries to make their country seem better? Could we do that? Cuz I know some people who I could bash.

OR ANOTHER ONE WE COULD DO!! We could make fun of people for poor grammar and english skills, because we can't take the heat of people disagreeing with us.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

el twitcho, if ya can't stand the fire...well you know the rest. And we all know the intention of this post wasn't to "discuss". And thats what most of us are doing. All i did was say "dems were the ones...." and you got all red. Maybe take it easy a little?


----------



## 94NDTA (Jul 14, 2003)

diddye said:


> el twitcho, if ya can't stand the fire...well you know the rest. And we all know the intention of this post wasn't to "discuss". And thats what most of us are doing. All i did was say "dems were the ones...." and you got all red. Maybe take it easy a little?


 Ya know why? Because he would rather have a discussion "USA vs Country X" instead of the politics of our country.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Dude, I'm irritated because the quality of responses were f*cking ABYSMAL (sp). If I'd have gotten "Shutup idiot, Bush is doing the right thing and if that means we have to attack Iran too then fine, we can take them" it would have been a response I don't agree with but it would have at least been a response. From that response there could have been a discussion. Instead I got "blah blah republicans vs democrats" and I don't even think 94 is getting at anything other than trying to be irritating. This thread sucks, it should be closed


----------



## 94NDTA (Jul 14, 2003)

It is true, I am just trying to be an ass. Anyone ever notice how there is never a "Poland sucks" or "f*ck Nigeria" threads? Why is it people only discuss the downsides of USA? Why are there so few posts saying "USA did a dman fine job with ____", and the threads that do priase the US get bombarded with a bunch of "Who cares, US did this wrong and I don't agree with such and such that they did."


----------



## EZ_Ian (Feb 21, 2004)

94NDTA said:


> It is true, I am just trying to be an ass.


 well, he's honest


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

The quality of responses wasn't up to your standards so now you are asking for the thread to be closed

Why not just stop posting/reading the thread ?

I think Iran is talking out of their ass, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Jewelz - because I really don't think the thread is going to go anywhere. It's not like I expect response in proper essay format with linked sources and a clearly outlined thesis, I just expected responses that at least dealt with the issue at hand. So far only Bullsnake as done that and now you. Other than that the thread is total sh*t.

As for Iran talking out their ass, that's the most likely thing but if they honestly think they're going to get attacked anyway I don't see that they would have much to lose by striking first. Which is why I think it was a mistake to attack someone on grounds as shaky as the case for attacking Iraq. Makes countries like Iran somewhat nervous and when people get nervous they tend to do stupid and irrational things like pre emptively launching missiles at the US or Israel. If they hit Israel's nuclear plant it's going to be a huge shitstorm. And honestly, while I wouldn't argue for a second the US couldn't obliterate Iran in a 1 v1 conflict I don't think the millitary is at such a level of resources that they can take on Iran while still dedicating enough resources to deal with the situation in Iraq.


----------



## piranhaha (Mar 22, 2004)

opinions are like assholes.....


----------



## piranhaha (Mar 22, 2004)

everyone has one and most of then stink


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

piranhaha said:


> opinions are like assholes.....


 You see what I mean? What the hell does that contribute exactly?


----------



## AlienPunk (Jul 30, 2004)

you are going to get a variety of responses no matter what you post...that is just the nature of a msg board..not everyone on here has the knowledge and prowess to have a polital conversation.

I think Bush totally effed up this war deal....I think we should have went to Iraq..but with the UN backing us...I think know..that close to 1k US soldiers have died over there...I think it is time to sit back and take a look at our foreign policy. We need to make some choices, or this IS going to turn into a world rally against the US with protests and vietnam like things going on. Now, Iran ...they could make nuclear weapons...that..in itself could endager other countries...even the US...so we can either A..wait for them to say..HA HA HA..We have nukes..ha ha ha...or we can B attack..take out their nukes, and then we are fighting on another front...seeming to take on terrorism all by ourselves ..will doubtfully work. On another note, if you wanted to know what I think.... let them create nukes...let them cause a world nuclear war...and then..we wont have to worry about it...

so I am liberal...but have a republican tyle conservative thought on a few things..so who knows..

good luck with the postings..and I hope that you get more answers to your polital thread because it seems like you want to argue for one side or the other, ...good luck...


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> piranhaha said:
> 
> 
> > opinions are like assholes.....
> ...


 chill...slowly step away from the computer....its called humor. get some.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

AlienPunk said:


> you are going to get a variety of responses no matter what you post...that is just the nature of a msg board..not everyone on here has the knowledge and prowess to have a polital conversation.


 exactly.. if you don't like somebody's responses, you don't have to acknowledge it

I think somebody may just be egging you on to get a rise out of you because they know you'll take the bait


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Hey, am I the only one wondering with what Iran wants to strike??


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

AlienPunk said:


> stuff


I edited your post for the sake of not stretching out this thread, not as any disrespect to you.

I think if anyone were to attack Iran it would cause a very real problem in the muslim world. Iraq and Afghanistan pissed people off but eventually at some point the camel's back is gonna break. I think by attacking Iraq you've kind of used up your "attack someone and get out of jail free" card and going after Iran isn't an entirely workable solution. I think a better case has to be made to get the world behind backing a policy against nuclear proliferation in Iran beyond just the current attitude of "yeah they shouldn't have them but we're not that concerned" everyone seems to have. I really think people need to get on Iran's ass about this because if both Iran AND Israel have nukes it'll inevitably lead to alot of mushroom clouds in the middle east because neither of those guys are particularly stable. That's just me but then I don't really think Israel should have nuclear weapons either...

Judazz - With their Al-somethingorother medium range ballistic missiles. Apparently they just increased the range and are confident they can hit Israel or US positions in Iraq with them.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

its very rare for somebody to have all conservative or liberal views. Its mostly one side w/ a lil of the other. Im the same way


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

I think Israel should definitely have nukes. They are basically surrounded by neighbors who would readily push them into the ocean if given the slightest chance


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Yeah but they've shown with their millitary that they can resoundingly kick the sh*t out of any of their neighbours should the need arise. I don't think they need nukes to defend themselves as it's something they can handle quite easily by conventional means. Not to mention there's no doubt the US would be sending backup in the event of a serious attack. Having nukes does nothing but raise the stakes to turn a regional conflict into a nuclear war which IMO isn't really necessary.


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

I dont think Iran is dumb enough to launch a strike knowing they will be obliterated if they do. If they do launch a strike, bye bye


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> Yeah but they've shown with their millitary that they can resoundingly kick the sh*t out of any of their neighbours should the need arise. I don't think they need nukes to defend themselves as it's something they can handle quite easily by conventional means. Not to mention there's no doubt the US would be sending backup in the event of a serious attack. Having nukes does nothing but raise the stakes to turn a regional conflict into a nuclear war which IMO isn't really necessary.


 That's true..

However, I think an argument can be made to keep them "in case of emergency", such as if one of the neighbors does develop their own nuclear arsenal and US is not there to prevent a strike for whatever reason. I don't doubt that they would never use them for anything other than a counter attack


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> I think Israel should definitely have nukes. They are basically surrounded by neighbors who would readily push them into the ocean if given the slightest chance


 I think they should be robbed from their nukes (the rest of the world as well, but Israel would be a good start).
It goes both ways: Arabs might pillage Israel as soon as they give up WMD (very unlikely since it's far superior as far as conventional military might goes, but still), but as long as Israel posses nukes, they are responsible for keeping the area polarized, fearstricken and explosive _as well_ (note the emphasis...)
It's not one party that is responsible for the current situation, and it won't be one party that can bring a sustainable solution - both parties need to give and take.


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

One thing about arabs that ive seen is that they talk alot sh*t.....

But they are cowards....


----------



## delta (Jul 23, 2004)

just give the entire middle east to isreal america just give isreal all old military equipment and in like 2 wks isreal would control middle east and they could get rid of terrorists and oil would be cheap no more iran, iraq,etc only isreal and her conquered lands


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

I actually think its likely israel gets attacked if they dont have nukes. If they are crazy enough for suicide attacks, knowing that almost the whole arab penisula is against them is a lot of people/armies to take at once. Even small groups like hamas (small when compared to a nation) constantly attack by unconvential means and i dont think they'd hesitate to attack w/ bio or chemical weapons if given the chance. Besides, we know terrorists already(or are in the process of) have wmd, if israel has its nukes taken away, they're already at a disadvantage.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

BraveHeart007 said:


> One thing about arabs that ive seen is that they talk alot sh*t.....
> 
> But they are cowards....


 That's about the most intelligent remark I've read this summer - I guess stereotyping and categorizing the world based on prejudice makes it more comprehensible, eh?


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

BraveHeart007 said:


> One thing about arabs that ive seen is that they talk alot sh*t.....
> 
> But they are cowards....


 Yeah those f*cking chicken sh*t bastards are so scared they fight a vastly superior enemy (america) openly in the streets, suffer huge losses and come back for more. Or those pussies who are so scared of death they turn themselves into human bombs and end their lives just to kill their enemies. Yeah THOSE f*cking cowards, not like the brave guys fighting in helicopters 2 miles out shooting guys in Infra red who have no idea they're being shot at, or the guys dropping bombs from AC-130 gunships the enemy can't even see let alone hit, or those guys hiding behind 100 mm of steel looking through a computer screen to fire the turret mounted machine gun. Why oh why can't those arabs fight bravely....

Not to take anything away from the US soldiers, I sure the f*ck would rather shoot the other guy from where he can't hit me back, but to call the Arabs cowards in comparison is nonsense.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

elTwitcho said:


> BraveHeart007 said:
> 
> 
> > One thing about arabs that ive seen is that they talk alot sh*t.....
> ...


 Well, there is a fine line between bravery and stupidity (judge for yourself), but saying all muslims are cowards is a tell-tale sign of a severe case of ignorance/washed brains...


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> BraveHeart007 said:
> 
> 
> > One thing about arabs that ive seen is that they talk alot sh*t.....
> ...


 pot - kettle - black

you're one to talk.. I surely can't remember you EVER stereotyping and categorizing Americans.. except in just about every single thread :rasp:


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

If there any brainwashing going on, Its Iran telling the world its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes for energy, and the world is believing it, they dont need a alternative energy source they have oil. But if Israel did attack first now they have to worry about Russia getting involved since Russia has billions invested in Iran's nuclear program.


----------



## Ydav (Aug 17, 2004)

When Bush first went into Iran, the Israily provided a model of global events, a worth case situation, in that model Iran or USA launches a pre-emptive strike against the other, China lanches on Tiwane, and India with Pakistan see it as good time to settle their differenses without the influense of other contries.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > BraveHeart007 said:
> ...


 I know I'm guilty of the same: aren't we all...
But at the same time I don't post my opinions as facts (something many appearntly have trouble with: differentiating between opinion and fact), since they are just that: my personal opinions. If anyone takes them as facts, it's their problem.
And one more difference is that I think before I post - not about how many people might get pissed off (since I don't care: if people get pissed off about my opinions, again, it's their problem), but about what I'm about to post...


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> I know I'm guilty of the same: aren't we all...
> But at the same time I don't post my opinions as facts (something many appearntly have trouble with: differentiating between opinion and fact), since they are just that: my personal opinions. If anyone takes them as facts, it's their problem.
> And one more difference is that I think before I post - not about how many people might get pissed off (since I don't care: if people get pissed off about my opinions, again, it's their problem), but about what I'm about to post...


 So what was it about his post that made you think he was presenting it as a fact ? as opposed to your posts where you present it as your opinion ?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Iran Threatens Israel on Nuclear Reactor

Iran Tests Missile Capable of Hitting Israel

Iran Warns Its Missiles Can Hit Anywhere in Israel

Iran is such a peaceful country.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > I know I'm guilty of the same: aren't we all...
> ...


What wasn't?

I know about both sides of the story (since I studied it in depth for years), not even close to everything, but imo. enough to say stuff that is based on facts.
(at the risk of looking like an ass if it isn't the case) that post clearly didn't suggest that...

btw: why bother? You lost the elections, debate time is over - don't be a sore loser


----------



## garybusey (Mar 19, 2003)

94NDTA said:


> elTwitcho said:
> 
> 
> > Gee whoever opened the can of worms of "pre emptive self defence" by attacking a country based on the possibility that it may want to attack us in the future sure did us all a favor...
> ...


 Blah blah You are just as bad 94NDT, what a friggin hypocrite you are. I agree all the US bashing is annoying and personally I am a big fan of Ol George and his war on terror, however your ASSININE cracks against Canada are more pathetic than funny. I got an Idea, try arguing about the TOPIC AT HAND, like all the INTELLIEGENT Americans on this site do.....


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

Back on topic... Iran needs to be next.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> Back on topic... Iran needs to be next.


 And then you wonder why so many hate the US, muslims in particular, and even more remarkable, wonder about it....
Personally I wonder what stunning justification Washington will come up with this time.

btw: who should be next after Iran?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

> btw: who should be next after Iran?


My guess would be syria









I fail to see why the USA has to do all of this..... We should be focusing more on NK, and China. Israel can take care of Iran and Syria by itself.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

User said:


> > btw: who should be next after Iran?
> 
> 
> My guess would be syria
> ...


 May I suggest Denmark?
They have a tiny terroris.... ummm.... muslim population, and they have nuclear power plants


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> Back on topic... Iran needs to be next.


 Yeah and after Iran we'll get North Korea, and by then we'll probably have pissed someone else off so we can go after them. And by then lots of people will be vocally against the US and there will be literally dozens of people lined up to attack after that!!!

As tempting as it must be to imagine perpetually blowing the sh*t out of someone somewhere because they don't like Americans you should probably take note that you don't currently have the resources to attack Iran, and with a shortage of kids signing up to go get shot at by Iraqis it's not likely you're going to see a whole bunch more enlisting to go fight Iranians.

But that kind of raises an issue with just how smart Bush's foreign policy was doesn't it? I mean, the US pretty much shot it's load on Iraq and is stuck there while justifications such as "Oh Saddam wasn't complying" and "we liberated, democracy, rah rah rah" aside, he didn't pose a threat to either his neighbours or the US because he didn't have WMD and his millitary was in shambles. So now that the US has pretty much commited most of it's available resources to fighting in Iraq, spent an obscene amount of money and isn't really in a position to go start another war, you have Iran come into the picture. A country that may be emerging as a direct threat to American assets and it's neighbours and you can't really do sh*t about it at the moment. While it's nice to think the whole world will jump in and pick up the slack, Iraq has shown that we probably won't. So now your hands are tied and can't deal with an actual enemy that poses an actual threat. How smart was the Iraqi war (part Deux) in retrospect?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Seriously Israel must stand alone, [even you bible freaks know this







] of cource I would still support the state but they must fight there own battles, they are strong enough to do so.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

elTwitcho said:


> How smart was the Iraqi war (part Deux) in retrospect?


 The war wasn't a bad move _per se_: they way it was conducted was however. Or rather, the justifications with which the Coalition tried to deceive the world backfired, and to be honest, it serves them right, imo.
If a broader coalition, a decent justification, support of the UN and a thorough plan of how to deal with the situation after the war were realised (and that's the biggest flaw in the whole campaigne, imo - lack of insight and planning), things were probably still messy in Iraq, but I doubt as much as it is now (pure speculation, of course)
But who wants to play with fire should be ready to sit on the blisters...


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> elTwitcho said:
> 
> 
> > How smart was the Iraqi war (part Deux) in retrospect?
> ...


 And the coalition is doing just that. They havent pulled out of Iraq, as they could have. Iraq will never be what the coalition wants it to be, but it is already better than when saddam was in power.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh by the way, this is my opinion. I didnt know some people on this site always assumed people were stating facts and not just their opinion, especially with all the citation going on around here.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> What wasn't?
> 
> I know about both sides of the story (since I studied it in depth for years), not even close to everything, but imo. enough to say stuff that is based on facts.
> (at the risk of looking like an ass if it isn't the case) that post clearly didn't suggest that...
> ...


 Bottom line is - what you're doing is really not different.

You say things like "America is a nation that is inherently racist and homophobic" (in a different thread). He said "Arabs are cowards" and you object.. And what "two sides" of the story you're referring to in this case I have no idea.. If you hate sterotypes so much, maybe it's not such a good idea to dish them out every chance you get



> btw: why bother? You lost the elections, debate time is over - don't be a sore loser


 - I presume that was your message for the Democratic party after the 2000 election ?


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> But that kind of raises an issue with just how smart Bush's foreign policy was doesn't it? I mean, the US pretty much shot it's load on Iraq and is stuck there while justifications such as "Oh Saddam wasn't complying" and "we liberated, democracy, rah rah rah" aside, he didn't pose a threat to either his neighbours or the US because he didn't have WMD and his millitary was in shambles. So now that the US has pretty much commited most of it's available resources to fighting in Iraq, spent an obscene amount of money and isn't really in a position to go start another war, you have Iran come into the picture. A country that may be emerging as a direct threat to American assets and it's neighbours and you can't really do sh*t about it at the moment. While it's nice to think the whole world will jump in and pick up the slack, Iraq has shown that we probably won't. So now your hands are tied and can't deal with an actual enemy that poses an actual threat. How smart was the Iraqi war (part Deux) in retrospect?


El Twitcho, those Convicts must be having a good effect on you, because that's probably, right or wrong, one of the best observations you've made to date. Iran IMO is emerging, like North Korea, as a more legitimate threat to the US. And now we've dwindled both our manpower and credibility. Who would back us against Iran in light of all this? It would be ironic if a war that was necessary was avoided.

BTW Judazz, you'll never quite get the fact that Israel has to stay as strong as possible in order not to get decimated. It's like having breeding Convicts surrounded by many aggro fish. As soon as you take away one of them, the other one gets destroyed. You can't reason with terrorists raised on hate any easier than you can reason with a predatory fish.


----------



## 94NDTA (Jul 14, 2003)

garybusey said:


> 94NDTA said:
> 
> 
> > elTwitcho said:
> ...


 You're shittin me right? I love Canada, I live very close to Canada and go there often. I was using sarcasm because it was obviouse he was talking about America. Settle Busey.


----------



## killarbee (Jan 23, 2004)

all those discussions about who's fault it is and who's not









i'm only concerned about one thing :


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

as the saying goes, shoot first, ask questions later. i say we blow iran off the face of the earth and sort out the good ones afterwards


----------



## jmcrabb (Oct 3, 2003)

First off, get off the sh*t that the administration blatantly and knowingly lied to the world about their reasoning for going into Iraq... they went off the information they had at the time, which appeared to be very accurate. Second, how do YOU KNOW that Saddam didn't have WMDs before we went in? He had PLENTY of time to get rid of them or even disassemble them and destroy the remnants. Perhaps if there hadn't been all the worthless pattycake that some people considered to be diplomacy and the UN had said "No, we're going to come in and you're going to give us all your WMDs" maybe some would have surfaced... but we'll never know that now, will we? Honestly, I would like to see any single person who thinks they could do better in the situations that Bush has been in do so. I don't think any of the courses that you all "know" would have worked better actually would have. I was discussing the situation with a professor I had for a Religions of the World class and he said that there is only one way that you can deal with fanatics of some of these religions, and that's by showing them that you can and are willing to destroy them if need be. Believe me, this guy knows his stuff, he has 4 master's degrees and is working on his third PhD. Mentioning Denmark's posession of nulcear power plants is just plain asinine. Are they saying that they want to attack anyone? Are they saying that they're working to create nuclear weapons for use against other nations? Maybe some other nations will open their eyes and see that there are countries out there that are helping terrorism, whether it's by allowing them to freely pass over their borders, or by directly funding their operations, and will decide that something needs to be done and either pressure those nations into stopping said activities or by actively removing the terrorist groups for them.

Additionally, I seriously tire of the constant bashing of the US by those who get so upset if you, however sarcastically, say something about their home country. Just brush it off and continue with your life.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

jmcrabb said:


> First off, get off the sh*t that the administration blatantly and knowingly lied to the world about their reasoning for going into Iraq... they went off the information they had at the time, which appeared to be very accurate. Second, how do YOU KNOW that Saddam didn't have WMDs before we went in? He had PLENTY of time to get rid of them or even disassemble them and destroy the remnants. Perhaps if there hadn't been all the worthless pattycake that some people considered to be diplomacy and the UN had said "No, we're going to come in and you're going to give us all your WMDs" maybe some would have surfaced... but we'll never know that now, will we? Honestly, I would like to see any single person who thinks they could do better in the situations that Bush has been in do so. I don't think any of the courses that you all "know" would have worked better actually would have.


 This thread isn't about the justification to go into Iraq bud... My comment about Iraq was that strategically it was a shitty move and now the US has their hands tied and can't properly deal with Iran. Though I think going into Iraq was an idiotic idea that's not the point here.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

jmcrabb said:


> First off, get off the sh*t that the administration blatantly and knowingly lied to the world about their reasoning for going into Iraq... they went off the information they had at the time, which appeared to be very accurate. Second, how do YOU KNOW that Saddam didn't have WMDs before we went in? He had PLENTY of time to get rid of them or even disassemble them and destroy the remnants. Perhaps if there hadn't been all the worthless pattycake that some people considered to be diplomacy and the UN had said "No, we're going to come in and you're going to give us all your WMDs" maybe some would have surfaced... but we'll never know that now, will we? Honestly, I would like to see any single person who thinks they could do better in the situations that Bush has been in do so. I don't think any of the courses that you all "know" would have worked better actually would have. I was discussing the situation with a professor I had for a Religions of the World class and he said that there is only one way that you can deal with fanatics of some of these religions, and that's by showing them that you can and are willing to destroy them if need be. Believe me, this guy knows his stuff, he has 4 master's degrees and is working on his third PhD. Mentioning Denmark's posession of nulcear power plants is just plain asinine. Are they saying that they want to attack anyone? Are they saying that they're working to create nuclear weapons for use against other nations? Maybe some other nations will open their eyes and see that there are countries out there that are helping terrorism, whether it's by allowing them to freely pass over their borders, or by directly funding their operations, and will decide that something needs to be done and either pressure those nations into stopping said activities or by actively removing the terrorist groups for them.
> 
> Additionally, I seriously tire of the constant bashing of the US by those who get so upset if you, however sarcastically, say something about their home country. Just brush it off and continue with your life.


 nicely put


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

great post crab. In response to eltwitcho, if iran is such a big threat, say iraq never happened, do you think if bush wanted to go into iran, the people who were against iraq(like yourself) would say the same things? My thinking is that no matter what happens, people would still be against iran. Your reasons are nuclear. Well weren't the reasons for war against iraq about wmd? Which nuclear weapson are?


----------



## joefromcanada (Apr 16, 2004)

> as the saying goes, shoot first, ask questions later. i say we blow iran off the face of the earth and sort out the good ones afterwards


great minds think alike


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

User said:


> > btw: who should be next after Iran?
> 
> 
> My guess would be syria
> ...


 Very easy. Israel/Zionism has always used foreign nations (Russia, The British, U.S.) to attack their enemies. They are parasites. Just like the war on Iraq, wars in Iran and Syria will be meant to do one thing, and one thing only, PROTECT ISREAL.

Not only does Isreal occupy Palestine, but they also occupy CAPITOL HILL........WAKE UP AMERICA!


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> User said:
> 
> 
> > > btw: who should be next after Iran?
> ...


 You know the Neo-Nazis also believe Israel is a parasite and that the war in Iraq, despite the obvious American corporate interests, is to protect the Zionists. You're in with some quality company. Maybe if Israel would go away the Islamic nations would become peaceful. After all, they were so peaceful in the centuries leading up to 1948.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

MoeMZA is mainly here for comic relief...

he himself admitted he was a moron previously


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> MoeMZA is mainly here for comic relief...
> 
> he himself admitted he was a moron previously


 really? I know he is, but I would like to see the proof...


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

mori0174 said:


> Jewelz said:
> 
> 
> > MoeMZA is mainly here for comic relief...
> ...


 You just saw it in his last post.


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

Fargo said:


> mori0174 said:
> 
> 
> > Jewelz said:
> ...










good point. I want to see the actually admission though. He shows it everytime.


----------



## ViBE (Jul 22, 2003)

Your all gay. WHat is this, some kinda debate on the net? LOL, get a life.


----------



## insomnia (Apr 7, 2004)

ViBE said:


> Your all gay. WHat is this, some kinda debate on the net? LOL, get a life.


 Haha, funny guy, I guess we SHOULDN'T USE THE INTERNET AS A FORMS OF COMMUNICATION. Right, nothing should be debated, discussed or questioned.

Damn, I need a life since I ask questions that are important, right ViBE?


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> MoeMZA is mainly here for comic relief...
> 
> he himself admitted he was a moron previously


It wouldnt suprise me If Moe is Yasser Arafat in disguise

I here Arafat likes to collect tropical fish....

Someone do a ip trace and see if it leads to Gaza :laugh:


----------



## insomnia (Apr 7, 2004)

I'd add some contribution to this discussion but I'm afraid its gone way off topic, from Iran > Democrat/Republican > Iraq > Israel > to the moon. Which one to discuss?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> User said:
> 
> 
> > > btw: who should be next after Iran?
> ...


 You sound paranoid man.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

BraveHeart007 said:


> Jewelz said:
> 
> 
> > MoeMZA is mainly here for comic relief...
> ...


 I think it leads to a cave in Eastern Afghanistan


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mori0174 said:


> Fargo said:
> 
> 
> > mori0174 said:
> ...


 he's said it before in a thread about 2000 election

his exact words were something like "morons, including me, voted for Bush.." something like that..


----------



## LEON (Dec 5, 2003)

Back on topic for all you history buffs.

Iran has always been (since the revolution in 1979) the largest sponser state of terrorists in the middle east. They have been sponsering Hezbula (possible misspelled) as well as other groups in lebanon and palestine.

I believe it was in 1983 when the US Embassy in Lebanon was truck bombed with direct ties to Hezbula and Iran. (Act of War).

One very disturbing thing that I recently saw on Fox News: Apparently since the US began posturing with Iran over their nuclear ambitions. Iran has been infiltrating terrorist cells into the US to act as a deterrent to US military action since they are incapable of matching up with us militarily.

(lots of misspelling and puctuation; fast typing.)


----------



## jmcrabb (Oct 3, 2003)

elTwitcho said:


> jmcrabb said:
> 
> 
> > First off, get off the sh*t that the administration blatantly and knowingly lied to the world about their reasoning for going into Iraq... they went off the information they had at the time, which appeared to be very accurate. Second, how do YOU KNOW that Saddam didn't have WMDs before we went in? He had PLENTY of time to get rid of them or even disassemble them and destroy the remnants. Perhaps if there hadn't been all the worthless pattycake that some people considered to be diplomacy and the UN had said "No, we're going to come in and you're going to give us all your WMDs" maybe some would have surfaced... but we'll never know that now, will we? Honestly, I would like to see any single person who thinks they could do better in the situations that Bush has been in do so. I don't think any of the courses that you all "know" would have worked better actually would have.
> ...


 actually, that was in response to this comment made by Judazzz:


> the justifications with which the Coalition tried to deceive the world backfired, and to be honest, it serves them right, imo.


as for the other topic, hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20, especially when the mistake was made by someone else...


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

jmcrabb said:


> actually, that was in response to this comment made by Judazzz:
> 
> 
> > the justifications with which the Coalition tried to deceive the world backfired, and to be honest, it serves them right, imo.
> ...


 Well, it's not that more countries than not objected an invasion not backed up by the UN, but for the sake of discussion let's just disregard that insignificant tidbit of information.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

No, what has the UN ever supported that was that important? Its a club that exists only to never get things done.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

diddye said:


> No, what has the UN ever supported that was that important? Its a club that exists only to never get things done.


 That's away to look at it, yes...









The UN has more potential to do good for mankind than the US ever had, has or will have, since it doesn't solely act out of self-interest.
So you don't think programs like the World Food Program, Unicef or Unesco do good? I guess not: what's the reason to exist if not the US is the main benefactor?
True, it's not their political branch I mentioned, but saying the UN is unimportant is ignorant, even at political level: it's just too bad that it's rendered powerless by those that put their own interests above the common good.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> I hope people go extinct soon...


 Genocide...

:hitler:


----------



## Heartless-Dealer (Aug 3, 2003)

must say ..... i do think israel caused more problems than they are worth


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Heartless-Dealer said:


> must say ..... i do think israel caused more problems than they are worth


 Want to solve our problems ?Find and destroy those towelheads who declared "jihad" or whatever that gibberish is against us. They want to be martyrs anyway - I say kill them and send them to their 72 virgins or whatever they think is waiting for them. All parties will be happy..


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Heartless-Dealer said:
> 
> 
> > must say ..... i do think israel caused more problems than they are worth
> ...


 f*ck it.. just take them all out... there will allways be new "converts".. so just whipe out all who might/will convert..

:hitler:


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Heartless-Dealer said:
> 
> 
> > must say ..... i do think israel caused more problems than they are worth
> ...


While were at it we might as well just kill anyone else who doesn't believe what you believe right?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Denver said:


> Jewelz said:
> 
> 
> > Heartless-Dealer said:
> ...


 Amen!!!


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

In response to the food programs, those aren't always very efficient. A large portion of thier funds are funneled to administration and logistics. Also, there was a scandel last week where money was embezzled. As far as "self interests"...your post (correct me if im wrong) makes it seem like every wrong move is made by the US b/c of "self interest". Wasn't it France that vetoed everything no matter what outcome b/c of its "self interest" in Iraq?

Heres a note for those who believe everyhing is Israels fault and Palestinians would have peace if Israel would give them land. A while ago, Sadat was the arch enemy of Israel. When he actually made peace w/ Sharon, his supporters (hamas i think) were so enraged b/c they didn't want peace and only wanted to destroy israel at any cost assaignated Sadat while he was watching a miliatry parade. Point is, Palestinians wont have peace b/c they dont want it. Only way it happens is if one or the other is gone.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> diddye said:
> 
> 
> > No, what has the UN ever supported that was that important? Its a club that exists only to never get things done.
> ...


 Why does the UN not openly condemn the genocide in the Sudan? I know I've brought this up before, but why should we place our faith in an institution that is so hypocritical. I heard a synagogue was burned down in France today; I don't hear the UN condemning that act, but they'd be quick to condemn anything Israel does - not that all of it is justified. Come on, we're all sick of the double standard.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

Another summary:

The UN is worthless. 25% of its funds come from the US. Brutal dictatorships have just as much say as democratic companies. Nothing important ever gets done efficiently, because money is just thrown around. You cannot solve problems by merely throwing money at them.

Israel is a beacon of light in the middle east. The jews have been pacefists for a thousand years, a minority persecuted against by nearly every side. They become systematically targeted and murdered, leading to a VERY small plot of land being delegated to them. A democratic country who has prospered with new ideas, surrounded by countries still stuck in the 8th century. Whereas Israel uses a military to defend itself, muslim extremists consistantly target innocent bystanders to get a 'shock' message across to drum up other murderous supporters. Other Arab countries don't give two shits about Palestine, but get 'small dick syndrome' about another country, with differing religion, prospering in 'their' part of the world. They use and manipulate images of Palestine while refusing to help their people.

The US is NOT overstepping its bounds in policing the world. We tried the whole neutrality thing once before... it DOESN'T WORK. By our very nature, we are a leader. Staying neutral cannot work, by no fault of our own. We are dragged into world affairs by others, and the best way to stay on top of things is to be one step ahead of the game... leading us to our current position.

It's easy to criticize whoever is on top. Nobody cares to listen to people bitching about the Dutch, because the fact is, they don't play a significant role in world affairs. It's so easy to say that the US is doing a bad job, because those who are saying it don't have to come up with an alternative that works. Hindsight is 20/20, and back-seat drivers need to be slapped.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

diddye said:


> In response to the food programs, those aren't always very efficient. A large portion of thier funds are funneled to administration and logistics. Also, there was a scandel last week where money was embezzled. As far as "self interests"...your post (correct me if im wrong) makes it seem like every wrong move is made by the US b/c of "self interest". Wasn't it France that vetoed everything no matter what outcome b/c of its "self interest" in Iraq?
> 
> Heres a note for those who believe everyhing is Israels fault and Palestinians would have peace if Israel would give them land. A while ago, Sadat was the arch enemy of Israel. When he actually made peace w/ Sharon, his supporters (hamas i think) were so enraged b/c they didn't want peace and only wanted to destroy israel at any cost assaignated Sadat while he was watching a miliatry parade. Point is, Palestinians wont have peace b/c they dont want it. Only way it happens is if one or the other is gone.


 Good try at twisting the truth...........but NO!

It wasn't any Palestinian who assassinated Sadat, but an Egyptian.

And furthermore, let's turn the table, the only Israeli ever to make peace with PALESTINIANS, Rabin, was assassinated by another ISRAELI. Arafat was embraced by the MAJORITY of Palestinians for making the Peace, not murdered.

You aren't fooling anyone.....don't try, please.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Where did I say palestinians killed him? I said his supporters (and I said I thought it was hamas) We all know that arabs are against israel. Btw, it is Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to199...sassination.php

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...aphy/sadat.html

So stop trying to put words in other peoples mouths mr. "moron" comic relief.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> diddye said:
> 
> 
> > In response to the food programs, those aren't always very efficient. A large portion of thier funds are funneled to administration and logistics. Also, there was a scandel last week where money was embezzled. As far as "self interests"...your post (correct me if im wrong) makes it seem like every wrong move is made by the US b/c of "self interest". Wasn't it France that vetoed everything no matter what outcome b/c of its "self interest" in Iraq?
> ...


 I'm just curious who rejected the most recent peace proposal, if anyone knows. I'm also curious how much money the leaders of the Palestinians like Arafat earn(?) in fighting their good fight.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Fargo said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > diddye said:
> ...


 What 'proposal'?

This one?

http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html

If you were a leader in this situation, would you agree to it? Of course not.

Again, the only Israeli ever to make peace with PALESTINIANS, Rabin, was assassinated by another ISRAELI. Arafat was EMBRACED by the MAJORITY of Palestinians for making the Peace, not murdered.

Who wants peace more, the Palestinians or the Zionists? Arafat is still the leader, while Isreal elected and re-elected a certified war criminal who has NEVER.......NEVER, agreed to any 'peace' offerings (including Egypt & Jordan peace DEALS) since his involvement (over 40 years) with Isreal.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Denver said:


> Jewelz said:
> 
> 
> > Heartless-Dealer said:
> ...


 No, just those that want to kill us; they want to be martyrs anyway, let's help them on their way to their "paradise and 72 virgins"

I will again quote a post by someone from a different forum that I've quoted here before:

"I don't think we are any safer with Saddam out of power. The opposite is true. Why? Because Saddam kept Iraq a secular country, and in the middle east a secular country should be the goal. I don't have a problem with arabs as a race. When raised in Western countries, taught Western ideals and raised with loyalty and service to their countries they are no different than European or African Americans. My problem is with the backward, evil, hateful religion of Islam. Wipe out Islam and this problem goes away. The fact is Muslims are killing non-Muslims for that simple fact. They are non-Muslims. Such bullshit occured with Christianity centuries ago, but Christians have since evolved past ignorance and stupidity of religious zealots. Muslims have yet to do so, and never will. Their whole goal is to devolve the human race (if you can call those camelhumping Koran thumping monkeys human), the only group of people on the planet trying to go backward. They cannot get along with anyone who isn't Muslim. I am sick and tired of always having the bleeding heart pussies on the left screaming how tolerant and peaceful Islam is. Sure as hell haven't seen anything but intolerance, ignorance, and murder from that brainwashing factory called the middleeast. Take away Islam and all the troubles of the world are mysteriously gone (aside from North Korea). They have declared this whole thing a "holy war" or Jihad or whatever gibberish they call a language, so when are the Western civilized nations going to realize this and give those fucks what they want? They are so anxious to reach "paradise", why don't we help every one of the 1.8 billion fuckwads get there faster?! "


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

Any attempt to paint Israelis as the victims is clearly zionist propaganda!! They are tyrants!


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

HAHAHAHA


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> Any attempt to paint Israelis as the victims is clearly zionist propaganda!! They are tyrants!


 Funny how you ignored all points made and switch 'points'. (Something you always do)

Turning to jokes or insults usually means your tossing in the towel.......smart move.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> Enriqo_Suavez said:
> 
> 
> > Any attempt to paint Israelis as the victims is clearly zionist propaganda!! They are tyrants!
> ...


 *Ahh... ahhh.... aachoo!*

Sorry... I'm allergic to bullshit.

If I were to address every single point brought up in the last 3 pages of this post, my reply would be 3 more pages. But you know this, which makes it easy for you to accuse me and others of switching subjects... Which happens to be the same tired thing you do every time. Grow up Osama. My post was effective in carrying out my intentions... pointing out the absurdity of your ridiculous notion that Israel is the cause of problems in the middle east.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > Enriqo_Suavez said:
> ...


 And I was about to run a 3 page counter, but Enrigo's simple analysis of the Zionist agenda has relieved me of the burden. LMMFAO


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Enriqo is in rare form today


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Haha....that blue dot is too generous....btw I love that quote "im allergic to bs". What movie was it from again?

jewelz: was that quote from a fitness website....i'll call it bb.com?


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> Fargo said:
> 
> 
> > MoeMZA said:
> ...


 Arafat man of peace

Sharon a war crimminal
























Spoken like a true brain washed muslim arab


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> jewelz: was that quote from a fitness website....i'll call it bb.com?


 well... yes, but not bb.com - it was from MM

are you a member there ?


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

BraveHeart007 said:


> Sharon a war crimminal


That's as much a fact as Arafat being a hazard for the peace proces.
Of course, those massacres in refugee camps are just Arab propaganda, just like everything that goes against republican ideology. It's easy to brand everything as Arab or terrorist propaganda - what better justification to do whatever you want, wheter illegal, genocidal or just plain stupid, can a nation come up with?


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> diddye said:
> 
> 
> > jewelz: was that quote from a fitness website....i'll call it bb.com?
> ...


 naw im just a lurker....but they sometimes have good discussions too.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> Jewelz said:
> 
> 
> > diddye said:
> ...


 Yeah I basically don't go there anymore since they upgraded to a different format message board software.. and now I can't access it from work since my work firewall filters won't let me through because of 'laungerie and swimsuit' categorie - uh well.. not to mention the whole site became pretty much a shrine to Jeff McFarland


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> Any attempt to paint Israelis as the victims is clearly zionist propaganda!! They are tyrants!


 hahahahaha


----------



## Alexraptor (Jan 30, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> Denver said:
> 
> 
> > Jewelz said:
> ...


 Actually Islam is not a Hatefull religion. i bet 90% of all of u has said it is hasent even studied the matter.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Markosaur said:


> Actually Islam is not a Hatefull religion. i bet 90% of all of u has said it is hasent even studied the matter.


 Oh no, not hateful at all.. seems so peaceful to me









Well I was actually quoting somebody else and it seems like a valid argument to me


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

elTwitcho said:


> Yep, looks like everyone has done a fabulous job of bringing stability to the middle east.


I believe the saying goes, "Rome wasnt built in a day." You cant expect immediate stability after removing a dictator from a country.


----------



## Alexraptor (Jan 30, 2003)

Its all these terrorists and those who want to Interpret the Koran for what THEY want.
But in fact the Koran actually encurages tollerance and even marriage between ppl of other religions.

dont beleive it if u dont want to, but u can always read the whole Koran chapter by chapter and then make your final decision
















of course..... i managed to get that info without searching and reading the whole book lol.


----------



## jmcrabb (Oct 3, 2003)

it's true that Islam is SUPPOSED to be a peaceful religion... unfortunately, there are many fanatical sects out there that make them all look like madmen... I hold nothing against the religion, even though I am a Christian myself... it's the people who, as Markosaur said, interpret it to suit their desires... and to clarify, it isn't always the individuals who interpret it that way, it is often the imams who interpret it and lead the groups of people to do things... in the religion imams (spiritual leaders, if you will) have a HUGE amount of influence over the people who they teach, and so they can often convince them to do things that are extremely outside of what the religion in general teaches...


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

There's not to many ways to "interpret" the following

"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. lie in ambush everywhere for them." (9:5)


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

How come islamic leaders never condemn these fanatics? They are always bashing America.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

If there is any doubt as to the nature of a religion, look at two things:

1) The life, actions, and teachings of its leader.
2) The status quo of the followers now.

Jesus was a man of complete peace and forgiveness. Muhammed was a man of war and worldly pleasures.

There are no significant Christian terrorist organizations in the world today. There are MANY very significant and dangerous Muslim terrorists. Additionally, the majority of 'peaceful' muslims do not condemn the acts of the few, but support them.

The statement that other religions have just as many fanatics, or can be interpreted just as wrong, does not hold up.
Slavery - Has been around since the beginning of time.
Hitler - Follower of the occult
Timothy McVeigh - Atheist pushing a political message... How ANYONE thinks the Oklahoma City bombing was a christian terroist attack is BEYOND my comprehension.
Abortion clinic attacks - VERY few and far between, looked HORRIBLY upon by all Christian leaders. Murder is against the core beliefs of Christianity, but these folks take vigilante justice into their own hands. The same can't be said of Islam.


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Denver said:
> 
> 
> > Jewelz said:
> ...


 Sounds like pure Racism to me. I never could understand the "nuke em" cowboys who want to wipe out an entire group because of their own pathetic views.








I consider myself neutral in this situation because I'm not gonna be fighting this war either way. I just look at the situation like this, if I was born in an Arab country, would I have a good reason to hate the US besides my religion? 
I have to say the answer is YES.


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)

Also, on another note, wouldn't wiping out Islam, as this writer suggests, be killing off a whole people for their religious beliefs? Just as he claims they want to do to us??? What a hypocrite.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Denver said:


> Also, on another note, wouldn't wiping out Islam, as this writer suggests, be killing off a whole people for their religious beliefs? Just as he claims they want to do to us??? What a hypocrite.


 Yes

I don't see where the hypocrisy is, however, his thinking is pretty straightforward - get them before they get us..

I've never advocated genocide personally, I only wanted to destroy those who wish to harm us - it's that simple, nothing complicated about that. If somebody wants to kill me, I'd rather kill them before they get to me, and to paraphrase mr. Wolf from Pulp Fiction "if self-preservation is an instinct that you posess", you'd do the same

Let's face it - survival is not reached by being sensitive to your enemies.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Blah blah racism this - Blah blah racism that, that statement is getting old.


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Denver said:
> 
> 
> > Also, on another note, wouldn't wiping out Islam, as this writer suggests, be killing off a whole people for their religious beliefs? Just as he claims they want to do to us??? What a hypocrite.
> ...


 Certainly, but the reasons they want to kill us run deeper than religious beliefs. All the Internet jokes in the world about genocide of muslims right now, well they may be entertaining, but we all know in our PC world, it's never gonna happen. If any sort of resolution is to occur, WE, in the US have to realize that there are other reasons they want to kill us than Islam. 
Let's face it, we haven't spent so much time and money in the mid east to get nothing out of it. They know that, and so should we. Maybe if we were not so shady in our dealings with these people the past century, they wouldn't want to kill us so badly? But no, we'd rather sit here and bash them, become racists ourselves, and never strive to change the history that created this problem. The same history we are recreating right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanomo etc.


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)

User said:


> Blah blah racism this - Blah blah racism that, that statement is getting old.


 Yeah, it never seems like racism when YOU agree with it.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Denver said:


> Jewelz said:
> 
> 
> > Denver said:
> ...


 The thing about it is.. it's not just us they are after

I can't think of a single region in the world that contains any decent number of muslim population where there isn't a conflict.. India, Philippines, Sudan, Indonesia.. eh, what's the difference ?

I find it funny how Democrats are quick to blame Republicans' policies for this, when bin Laden's got a recruiting tape where he is shooting an image of Bill Clinton. Did it ever occur to you that they hate us and others because of freedoms we have? We don't torture our women the way they do, we don't punish people for their personal choices.. in freaking Taliban-ruled Afghanistan you weren't even allowed to watch TV, I think...


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Denver said:


> User said:
> 
> 
> > Blah blah racism this - Blah blah racism that, that statement is getting old.
> ...


 I mirror that statement right back at ya.


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)

> The thing about it is.. it's not just us they are after
> 
> I can't think of a single region in the world that contains any decent number of muslim population where there isn't a conflict.. India, Philippines, Sudan, Indonesia.. eh, what's the difference ?
> 
> I find it funny how Democrats are quick to blame Republicans' policies for this, when bin Laden's got a recruiting tape where he is shooting an image of Bill Clinton. Did it ever occur to you that they hate us and others because of freedoms we have? We don't torture our women the way they do, we don't punish people for their personal choices.. in freaking Taliban-ruled Afghanistan you weren't even allowed to watch TV, I think...


India, that is a dispute over Kashmir. Who's to say who's right about it? Just because the muslims are involved, doesn't mean we can blame the whole conflict on them. The other countries you named have Internal conflicts and large muslim populations, IMO this has nothing to do with US/Arab dealings and is a totally different story.
The US has a vested interest in the Muslim world because of one thing, OIL. That's basically the first chapter of this book. Not going back to Europeans trying to take over mid east countries and the Soviets. It's easy to say that they hate us because of freedom, but if that's the case how come so many Muslim people resist Western-style freedoms when given the opportunity? I don't think that's it, I think it's when you see American bullets and bombs killing your family members and American interests exploiting your people for oil and money, you develop a certain hatred for Americans...which one do you think makes more sense?

I don't even think it's a Democrat/Republican argument, they don't care which one you are they hate Americans in general...we just use these issues to divide each other.


----------



## oldnavycb (Aug 27, 2003)

All i gotta say is i LOVE THE US OF A...and all other country's can lick my sac


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

> I don't even think it's a Democrat/Republican argument, they don't care which one you are they hate Americans in general...we just use these issues to divide each other.


Thats right, but since most democrats kiss ass rather than kick it, who do YOU think the leaders of Iran, Syria, NK, ect. want to be the next president? They sure as hell don't want Bush in WH, they want Kerry, so what do that tell you?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Denver said:


> The other countries you named have Internal conflicts and large muslim populations, IMO this has nothing to do with US/Arab dealings and is a totally different story.


 Uh.. exactly my point. Has nothing to do with US; they still can't get along with other people



> I don't even think it's a Democrat/Republican argument, they don't care which one you are they hate Americans in general...we just use these issues to divide each other


Also one of my points



> The US has a vested interest in the Muslim world because of one thing, OIL. That's basically the first chapter of this book


There is no oil in US-backed Israel, for one thing



> It's easy to say that they hate us because of freedom, but if that's the case how come so many Muslim people resist Western-style freedoms when given the opportunity?


That didn't make any sense. I didn't say they were jealous of our freedoms, I said they hated us for our freedoms



> I don't think that's it, I think it's when you see American bullets and bombs killing your family members and American interests exploiting your people for oil and money, you develop a certain hatred for Americans...which one do you think makes more sense?


Well, what can I say ? Nobody's family members must have ever been killed by muslim extremists.. only Americans kill people, right ?


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)

User said:


> > I don't even think it's a Democrat/Republican argument, they don't care which one you are they hate Americans in general...we just use these issues to divide each other.
> 
> 
> Thats right, but since most democrats kiss ass rather than kick it, who do YOU think the leaders of Iran, Syria, NK, ect. want to be the next president? They sure as hell don't want Bush in WH, they want Kerry, so what do that tell you?


 Most Democrats kiss ass? Now there's an educated statement.








That doesn't tell me much, honestly, I couldn't care less who the leaders of other countries would like for pres, they can't even vote!
IMO, they probably want Kerry because they know Bush is a pain in the ass to deal with!


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Denver said:
> 
> 
> > The other countries you named have Internal conflicts and large muslim populations, IMO this has nothing to do with US/Arab dealings and is a totally different story.
> ...


 Jewelz, basically no country gets along with everybody, that's obvious.
I think you knew I wasn't referring to Israel, but since you mention it, yes, it is one of the US's other vested interests in the region, for other reasons obviously.
But also a contributing factor to problems Americans have in the mideast.

I don't understand the last comment you make, obviously they have killed too, but anybody can do the research and find out, Americans have killed far more innocent civilians over the years in muslim countries, than vice versa. So what is it? Since they killed Americans that means it is open season???

It was good chattin...g'night. I'll b back 2morrow.


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

Denver said:


> I consider myself neutral in this situation because I'm not gonna be fighting this war either way. I just look at the situation like this, if I was born in an Arab country, would I have a good reason to hate the US besides my religion?
> I have to say the answer is YES.


The reason your tolerant to Islam is so that you can be neutral as you said

And to stand by just watching in a neutral manner all non muslim men women and children being killed all over the world in the name of Islam while they cry "Allah is great!"

Is a sympathizer

Therefore to not take a stance against this is to take a stance
moral relativism doesnt work here

And by name calling someone a "racist" who happens stands up against this murderous evil empire of a religion. Is ignorant of the known facts of Islams history and its racist doctrines or insane or a muslim

So having said that you defend your position out of political correctness instead of out of truth which is a shame. Because you say your not fighting this war?? Your in a comfortable place in life and this isnt affecting you. Well this has affected me my family my country and the world. And im not going to stand by with a passive attitude saying peace peace when there is no peace. And all of a sudden destruction comes from a dirty bomb in the Port of Los Angeles or New York. Or some muslim terroist will get his hands on a Agosta 90B stealth submarine. This Pakistani sub has a range of close to 12,000 miles and is capable of carrying 16 sea-to-land missles. By then its too late and all you can say is well. I guess I was wrong....Do us a favor and step aside and let those who know and understand. Stand up, speak out and support those by voting those in office who will fight against this flood of evil.

Something to note....Most of the Arab worlds "biggest pop-culture heroes" are terroists

And many of these muslim terroists dream, is to nuke a few key cities in the United States. Blind and devastate the Great Satan. Then watch while France, Germany, Italy, and England capitulate. To what you say?? To a global Islamic caliphate.

And when this happens I guarentee youll see muslims by the millions in every islamic nation dancing in the street celebrating this great act of genocide

And the US and the world shouldnt be alarmed at this?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Denver said:


> User said:
> 
> 
> > > I don't even think it's a Democrat/Republican argument, they don't care which one you are they hate Americans in general...we just use these issues to divide each other.
> ...


 I'm glad you benefited from that educated statement, learn from it and grow.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Denver said:


> Jewelz, basically no country gets along with everybody, that's obvious.
> I think you knew I wasn't referring to Israel, but since you mention it, yes, it is one of the US's other vested interests in the region, for other reasons obviously.
> But also a contributing factor to problems Americans have in the mideast.
> 
> ...


 "No country gets along with everybody"
Well, I can't think of any other group of population that has more problems getting along with everyone else in the world, can you ?

You live here, you enjoy America's freedoms.. how would you like to go live in pre-911 Afghanistan under Taliban where you weren't allowed to as much as educate yourselves, own a televison, sing or dance and women weren't allowed to reveal their face in public ? Not to mention - your beard had to be a certain length.. you are not actually saying that that nation is worse off now after our invasion, are you ? They are now preparing for their first democratic election, is this a bad thing that we did, liberating that country ? People come to our country in search of freedom from all over the world, like my family, migrating here from Russia, we found a better life in the US. Do you see a whole lot of immigrants seeking better life in a Muslim country ?

I'd like to see that statistics that show that Americans killed more innocent muslims than vice versa. I know we do not target innocent civilians, unlike them.

I never said it was "open season", the only thing I said was we should seek and destory those who declared a jihad against us.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

arabs view americans as immoral in regards to entertainment, clothing etc. For instance in afghanistan, its unheard of to wear clothing showing more than your face blah blah blah. They are jealous of Americans prosperity and power in the world. After the crusdes, they're sensitive of others even touching their land (ie the mosque in iraq). If i were an arab and was brainwashed as much as them (media is very limited) to follow the "group", i'd probably hate america also. to me, they basically dont know better. If your whole life you were taught to hate somebody,its hard to change. IMO, in 50 years, that whole area will be a wasteland. Hopefully technnology will change enough where the world wont rely on oil (hopefully hydrogen-then we'll be in russia haha) and arabs will be jst another 3rd world country a la africa.


----------



## KrazyCrusader (Oct 26, 2004)

I just hope that our Leaders don't bite off more that they can chew. I'm all for killing people before they become dangerous to us but at some point in time the rest of the world is going to lose it's tolerance for our shoot first ask questions later Philosophy and we are going to be regarded as reckless. sh*t we may already have gotten to that point.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Stop bumping old threads!


----------

