NationStates Jolt Archive

Saddam wasn't attacking the US. Thus, no American invasion of Iraq.

Oh ...wait.

As I said, I don't endorse the War in Iraq.

So we should have flown a couple of planes into their world trade center? What exactly would be the apropriate response? Do you not believe that the Battle of Britain deserved a response by the British? Why should this situation be any different?

And again, I don't endorse the war in Iraq.


The 'appropriate reponse' after 9/11 would have been to find the evidenc we have repeatedly claimed exists for a link between 9/11 and Osama bin Laden.

Afghanistan said they would hand him over, if we could show a connection.

Rather than jumping in gung-ho with grunts in irrelevent places, we should have used 'intelligence' to allow someone else to do the hard work.


The IRA wasn't attacking the US. Thus, no American invasion of Ireland.


They were attacking 'us' in the UK. But, at that point, the US was openly endorsing a group linked to terrorism.

I wonder how you feel the UK would be justified about invading and occupying the US, if the roles were reversed.


So we should be fighting them 'unconventionally'? Terrorist groups exist in real space. It's not like they disapear into nothingness once they perform their actions. They either have to hide out in a nation that won't endorse them and risk capture by the authorities, or seek protection from a nation that will shelter them. Just because Afghantistan didn't officially endorse Al Qaeda, doesn't mean that it's okay for them to shelter them.


You still don't get it. This is why we can never win the 'war on terror'. Terrorist groups don't NEED to 'hide out' anywhere... they are just people, right up until the minute they carry out acts of terror.

You are still thinking about them like an 'army'.


And Viet Nam didn't attack the US, or shelter terrorist groups that attacked the US. Different time, different situation.


Certainly didn't teach us the lesson of fighting guerrilla tactics...


Of course Al Qaeda isn't limited to one geography. But at that time, they were based in Afghanistan, and the Taliban was sheltering them.

You can't fight guerilla forces with conventional tactics, but you need conventional tactics to obtain posession of land in the first place.


Al Qaeda is also strong, and has historical links to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Which 'land' do you want us to 'possess'? And how is invasion of a sovereign nation justified by the (possible) presence of antagonistic elements.

The answer to fighting terrorism (other than trying to alleviate the reasons for the terrorism in the first place) is punish nations that promote it, and work with other nations at co-operating on eliminating it within their own boundaries.


There is no easy answer to terrorism.

The only thing that has historically been PROVEN to work, is zeitgeist.


Unfortunately, the only answer to fighting guerilla tactics is brutal dominance. Alexander the Great is one of the few in history to ever subjigate Afghanistan, and he didn't do it by being nice.

No - that is the only answer if you insist on fighting it as a WAR... which is a ridiculous approach.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=11fbf4a8-282a-4d18-954f-546709b1240f&k=32073

They're going to require Jews and Christians to wear colored badges - just like those handy badges that Hitler ordered for the Jews in Germany.

So, anyone here still want to say that Iran is just another nice place to live, that just wants peaceful nuclear power, that doesn't want to harm any other nations, and treats people better than the US?


A nation can treat its undesirables in a very cruel way and yet have no intentions on conducting itself in a aggressive manner(speaking in the sense of foreign policy)

Is that hard for you to understand?

Besides israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons and treats its muslim and christian populations as second rate citizens and NO ONE cares about that....:rolleyes:

Besides israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons and treats its muslim and christian populations as second rate citizens and NO ONE cares that that....:rolleyes:

Classic child abuse pattern. Jews get smacked around and killed through history, now it's their turn to have the fun.

"Never again... unless we're talking about dirty brown-skinned Muslims. Then it's Mazzletov!"

A nation can treat its undesirables in a very cruel way and yet have no intentions on conducting itself in a aggressive manner(speaking in the sense of foreign policy)


- True. Look at South Africa during the apartheid.
- Look at the Turkish and their Kurdish minority (or any other country with kurdish minorities, including Iran)
- Hell, you can even say that though treating its black population like dogs, the US did not had an agressive foreign policy in the first half of the XX century.

A nation can treat its undesirables in a very cruel way and yet have no intentions on conducting itself in a aggressive manner(speaking in the sense of foreign policy)

Is that hard for you to understand?

Besides israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons and treats its muslim and christian populations as second rate citizens and NO ONE cares about that....:rolleyes:
What does Israel do to it's Christian and Muslim citizens that makes you say it treats them as second class citizens? Nobody's ever been able to truthfully point out any evidence of this to me.

- True. Look at South Africa during the apartheid.
- Look at the Turkish and their Kurdish minority (or any other country with kurdish minorities, including Iran)
- Hell, you can even say that though treating its black population like dogs, the US did not had an agressive foreign policy in the first half of the XX century.

South Africa under apartheid did have an aggressive foreign policy. It annexed Namibia (South West Africa) after WW1 and held on until 1990 after fighting an insurgency against the South West African People's Organisation (SWAPO) throughout the 1980s. South Africa sent soldiers into Angola to support the UNITA guerrilla movement of Jonas Savimbi in the 1970s. South Africa also created and supported 'RENAMO' (a guerrilla army that laid land mines all over the Mozambican countryside) in Mozambique to destabilise that country's government. Apartheid South Africa bombed ANC headquarters and training camps in Lesotho and Botswana as well.

The 'appropriate reponse' after 9/11 would have been to find the evidenc we have repeatedly claimed exists for a link between 9/11 and Osama bin Laden.

Afghanistan said they would hand him over, if we could show a connection.

Rather than jumping in gung-ho with grunts in irrelevent places, we should have used 'intelligence' to allow someone else to do the hard work.

While I admit that the US didn't show any evidence at the time to back up it's invasion, hasn't Al Qaeda taken credit for 9/11 by now? Exactly what 'intelligence' do you think the US had inside that organization? Exactly who was supposed to do the hard work if not the US? You can't simply let someone attack your country, conventionally or non-conventionally and do nothing about it. You might as well put a big 'please terrorize us' sign on the map.

They were attacking 'us' in the UK. But, at that point, the US was openly endorsing a group linked to terrorism.

I wonder how you feel the UK would be justified about invading and occupying the US, if the roles were reversed.

I'm not defending the US backing of Sinn Fein. I'm simply stating that the US isn't going to attack a country sheltering terrorists that don't attack the US. If Ireland wasn't going to clamp down on the IRA, maybe the UK should have been more forceful with Ireland. But then again, the IRA didn't do anything near equivalent to 9/11.

There are also real-world military and political implications involved that have nothing to do with what you may perceive to be 'right or wrong'. I'm sure the UK could try to invade the US for supporting acts of terrorism, but I doubt they'd get very far.

And I'm not American. We have the same monarch.


You still don't get it. This is why we can never win the 'war on terror'. Terrorist groups don't NEED to 'hide out' anywhere... they are just people, right up until the minute they carry out acts of terror.

You are still thinking about them like an 'army'.

I don't get it ... :rolleyes: That's right, terrorists are magical creatures that are perfectly innocent until they suddenly EXPLODE!!! Give me a break. They train in camps or sites out of the radar of groups that want to see them destroyed, or are actively supported by states that support their goals.

Terrorists use weapons, either conventional or not, and while they may not be organized like traditional armies, they are still engaging in acts of war. Simply because they don't have the resources for a 'stand up' fight, doesn't mean that you can't use a police/military option to track them down or dispose of them.

Certainly didn't teach us the lesson of fighting guerrilla tactics...

No it didn't.

Al Qaeda is also strong, and has historical links to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Which 'land' do you want us to 'possess'? And how is invasion of a sovereign nation justified by the (possible) presence of antagonistic elements.

If the UK financially backed and supported a terrorist organization that blew up the Eiffel Tower, you don't think that France has the right to retaliate? Just because the UK says "I don't know what you're talking about, they're not our guys. Give us proof" doesn't mean that the UK isn't responsible. They have a duty to root out the group within their borders and assist France for the heinous crime.

If you want to live in a world where nations can simply support 'non-legitimate' groups and absolve themselves of their actions, well I guess that's your perogative. But this is the real world we live in. Backward nations that harbour terrorist groups responsible for acts of mass murder are going to get the heavy stick if they don't co-operate.


There is no easy answer to terrorism.

The only thing that has historically been PROVEN to work, is zeitgeist.

I never claimed there was an easy answer. But doing nothing about it isn't the answer either.

No - that is the only answer if you insist on fighting it as a WAR... which is a ridiculous approach.

You don't think mass murder on the scale of 9/11 is an act of war? If it had been missiles instead of planes, would that make it okay for you?

Not all of them. Rome tried that, remember. Ever heard of their little trouble-maker faction, the 'christians'?
Which actually wouldn't have been that big of a problem, if it weren't for a very specific set of circumstances that do not ocurr today. For instance, the practice of infant sacrifice seems to be strangely absent from modern day life.

What does Israel do to it's Christian and Muslim citizens that makes you say it treats them as second class citizens? Nobody's ever been able to truthfully point out any evidence of this to me.

No idea about christians, but it treats its sephardic Jewish and Arab Muslims very badly indeed. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm

No idea about christians, but it treats its sephardic Jewish and Arab Muslims very badly indeed. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm
Dude, that's a big web page and when I did a search for "sephardic" on it nothing came back. I'm not reading through all of that. Since you linked to it you know where the relevant information is. Please copy and paste it.

Which actually wouldn't have been that big of a problem, if it weren't for a very specific set of circumstances that do not ocurr today. For instance, the practice of infant sacrifice seems to be strangely absent from modern day life.

I'm not sure how you think that is relevent.

Christians were one of the persecuted minorities in the area around Roman rule, that were systematically hunted and removed.

But, despite this systematic process, almost exactly the opposite effect was achieved to what was aimed for... Christians became MORE numerous, and more powerful.

While I admit that the US didn't show any evidence at the time to back up it's invasion, hasn't Al Qaeda taken credit for 9/11 by now? Exactly what 'intelligence' do you think the US had inside that organization? Exactly who was supposed to do the hard work if not the US? You can't simply let someone attack your country, conventionally or non-conventionally and do nothing about it. You might as well put a big 'please terrorize us' sign on the map.


Al Qaeda HAS taken credit for 9/11. Yes.

However, I can recall something like half a dozen different organisations claiming responsibility for the Madrid bombing... one cannot always assume that a terror group actually DID the acts of terror they claim.

As to 'what intelligence' should we have used... that's the question, isn't it? Surely the whole thing MUST hinge on the fact that we KNOW Osama and Al Qaeda were responsible... so we must have SOME evidence, no?

Otherwise, we've just spent 5 years on a witch-hunt...


I don't get it ... :rolleyes: That's right, terrorists are magical creatures that are perfectly innocent until they suddenly EXPLODE!!! Give me a break. They train in camps or sites out of the radar of groups that want to see them destroyed, or are actively supported by states that support their goals.

Terrorists use weapons, either conventional or not, and while they may not be organized like traditional armies, they are still engaging in acts of war. Simply because they don't have the resources for a 'stand up' fight, doesn't mean that you can't use a police/military option to track them down or dispose of them.


I agree with the 'police' idea. I agree with any idea of using 'intelligence' agencies, or covert forces. I agree with using militarised law enforcement. What I do not agree with, is sending in the grunts. A groundwar is an ineffective way to fight guerrillas.

As to the training camps, etc... perhaps many terrorists do, now, get 'training'. They are fighting a 'smarter' guerrilla war. Maybe THAT is where we should focus our attentions? But - our OWN covert operations behind enemy lines do not make big headlines, do they - and it seems that being SEEN to be doing something - even the WRONG thing, is more politically advantageous than DOING something.


If the UK financially backed and supported a terrorist organization that blew up the Eiffel Tower, you don't think that France has the right to retaliate? Just because the UK says "I don't know what you're talking about, they're not our guys. Give us proof" doesn't mean that the UK isn't responsible. They have a duty to root out the group within their borders and assist France for the heinous crime.

If you want to live in a world where nations can simply support 'non-legitimate' groups and absolve themselves of their actions, well I guess that's your perogative. But this is the real world we live in. Backward nations that harbour terrorist groups responsible for acts of mass murder are going to get the heavy stick if they don't co-operate.


Regarding your 'Eiffel Tower' example - to make it parallel, the UK would have to turn around and say 'we HAVE your guys, prove it was tehm, and we'll hand them over'. Then, clearly, the French would have to be insane to invade the UK rather than look for proof, no?


I never claimed there was an easy answer. But doing nothing about it isn't the answer either.


Actually - empirically - it is.

Terrorism only 'works' if it causes a change in behaviour. If the US simply tightened up border security (which still hasn't happened), and got the hell on with life, 'terrorism' has failed. But instead - we are still hiding behind the couch after 9/11. They used the deaths of 3000 people to cow a nation of 350 million. That is why they are 'winning' this 'war'.


You don't think mass murder on the scale of 9/11 is an act of war? If it had been missiles instead of planes, would that make it okay for you?

No. It is not an act of war. How do you 'declare war' in any rational sense, when one of the 'sides' in that war has no unifying country or culture?

We will continue to beat our heads against this same rock, until people start to realise this is NOT a 'war' in any conventional sense. Bush proclaiming he will 'win the War on Terror' is rhetoric that can never be supported, short of genocide... and even then, what if the threat ALSO lies within?

Dude, that's a big web page and when I did a search for "sephardic" on it nothing came back. I'm not reading through all of that. Since you linked to it you know where the relevant information is. Please copy and paste it.

I presume they're covered under the term "Arab". Your comment on the acts of discrimination contained in the report?

Not really. The mossad agents that went after the terrorists killed only a single innocent, and that was because they mistook him for a terrorist. How many innocents do the mossad agents kill in Speilbergs movie? It's a hell of a lot more than one.
It's the duty of artists who make political work to look at different sides of issues. The worst thing they can do is take the government's position. That just makes them propagandists.

Many of our 'western' leaders believe that the Book of Revelation is truth. If Bush is as he claims, it is fairly safe to assume he imagines a future that makes the mere removal of Israel a pale reflection.

I don't care what Bush thinks, or what your opinion about Bush's thoughts are. I would like to have a discussion on Iran's policies that does not involve comparing them to America's.

Where do you get 'would do'?
From the anti-Israel statements, Holocaust denial, and mandatory badge-wearing for minorities. Empirical evidence suggests that governments that do these do not have peaceful intentions.

I a critical of the regime... just as I am critical of those elements of my own society that mirror it.
Then you're on the same page as me. Oh wait except that I actually do criticise Iran, rather than just replying "Bush/America does the same!" every time someone else criticises Iran.

I just don't think we should be going to war over it. But - if we were going to - THOSE should be the declared reasons... not some political shenanigans about what weapons we think someone MIGHT have.
I certainly don't think that there should be an invasion of Iran either. (Read my post!) Not until they start

attacking other countries
committing genocide within their borders


I hope it doesn't come to that, but I would only accept these reasons for a war against them. I'm sure sure you will agree with me here.

You seem to assume that every criticism of the Iranian government is a veiled statement of support for forced regime change there. It's not.

As already pointed out, we MADE the Taliban.

You're right, the USA made the Taliban. Thus it was was America's responsibility to get rid of them.

We are spilling blood in the middle-east because we got hurt. Because our pride was injured. Because we got suckerpunched... and we are going to make SOMEONE bleed for it.
US Governments are usually motivated by business interests or strategic interests, not by emotions like revenge. If anything, the Iraq war is about oil, or simply creating a pro-American state other than Israel.

I don't see us invading Saudi Arabia (where Osama was based, until the Gulf War), I don't see us invading Ireland (home of a number of 'terror' organisations, I don't see us invading Chechnya, I don't see us in Sudan.
I would argue that the US should invade Sudan, to stop the genocide.

The United States government has a tradition of arming and financing oppressive individuals and groups until they become an obstacle. This is also highlighted in the cases of Manuel Noriega and *gasp* Saddam Hussein.
Thanks for another statement of the obvious. I'm amazed that there are still people who don't realise this *cough*rightwingAmericans*cough*. But how is it relevant to this topic?

1) What do I expect? I expect a response that corresponds to the action. Slaughtering Afghans and Iraqis may have appeased the bloodlust after we were hurt, but it has been basically useless in defusing or removing the original source of the injuries.

I agree. Wars should never be fought for emotional reasons.

Besides israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons and treats its muslim and christian populations as second rate citizens and NO ONE cares about that....:rolleyes:
This isn't true. Israel is a secular state. Christians and Muslims can be found in all parts of Israeli society. They're no underclass (except the Palestinians - they're all basically prisoners). A Muslim can even be found on Israel's Supreme Court.

The only thing that has historically been PROVEN to work, is zeitgeist.
What is this "zeitgeist" you speak of?

Ok, so the last thing I've heard is this:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - A draft law being considered by Iran's parliament encourages the wearing of Islamic clothing to protect the country's Muslim identity, according to a copy of the bill obtained by The Associated Press on Saturday.

The 13-article bill, which received preliminary approval a week ago, does not mention requiring special attire for religious minorities.

On Friday, a Canadian newspaper, quoting Iranian exiles, said the law would force Jews, Christians and other religious minorities to wear special patches of coloured cloth to distinguish them from Muslims.
The Post also said that the law required Jews to wear a yellow strip of cloth sewn into their clothes, Christians to have a red one and Zoroastrians to wear blue. The copy of the bill received by AP makes no mention of minorities.

"Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed in parliament. Such news, which appeared abroad, is an insult to religious minorities here," Iranian Jewish lawmaker Morris Motamed told the AP.
Source (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=03dcff5f-b635-47f7-80a3-b2dc871676ec&k=73450&p=1)

There. Finished. No such law. It's done, so we can put this thread to rest and archive it under 'FALSE' once and for all, it seems

(Only thing I haven't gotten an answer to yet is how 'Munich' is supposed to be a Terrorist apologist-film... But I really don't care anymore.)

18 pages of utter shite about an false story.

god bless the internet

How reliable is this source? Are there others?

Many others it is happening buddy, that you can't believe it shows you have been drinking the irani cool-aid. ;)

18 pages of utter shite about an false story.

god bless the internet

O ya like Iran is tolerant, you anti-semitic scumbag, its bound to happen that they pass through this law! JUST LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS TO THE BAHA'I IN IRAN!

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060519-105912-5198r

Many others it is happening buddy, that you can't believe it shows you have been drinking the irani cool-aid. ;)
Or reading the God damned articles!! :eek:

Ok, so the last thing I've heard is this:



Source (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=03dcff5f-b635-47f7-80a3-b2dc871676ec&k=73450&p=1)

There. Finished. No such law. It's done, so we can put this thread to rest and archive it under 'FALSE' once and for all, it seems

It'll look nice on the shelf next to "Hugo Chavez Called Jews Christ-Killers." :D

(Only thing I haven't gotten an answer to yet is how 'Munich' is supposed to be a Terrorist apologist-film... But I really don't care anymore.)

I think it's that bit about portraying the conspirators as people with ambiguous shades of gray instead of Shiny Whitey superheroes taking down Dirty Muslim Raghead Terrorists that makes it an "Apologist Film."

18 pages of utter shite about an false story.

god bless the internet
Indeed :)

Or reading the God damned articles!! :eek:

Do you think a totalitarian regime like Iran would tell the truth? That they would actually show more tolerance to thier minority?

Ok, so the last thing I've heard is this:

There. Finished. No such law. It's done, so we can put this thread to rest and archive it under 'FALSE' once and for all, it seems

(Only thing I haven't gotten an answer to yet is how 'Munich' is supposed to be a Terrorist apologist-film... But I really don't care anymore.)

Brilliant. I only hope to hear a "My bad" from the OP and I'll be happy :D

Ok, so the last thing I've heard is this:

Source (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=03dcff5f-b635-47f7-80a3-b2dc871676ec&k=73450&p=1)

There. Finished. No such law. It's done, so we can put this thread to rest and archive it under 'FALSE' once and for all, it seems

I am glad to hear this! I really thought we were seeing an accelerated replication of the Nazi regime for a while there.

Brilliant. I only hope to hear a "My bad" from the OP and I'll be happy :D
Umm, you were the guy who wasn't particularly alarmed that Jews were being branded and marginalised when you thought it was true. You don't have a leg to stand on.

O ya like Iran is tolerant, you anti-semitic scumbag, its bound to happen that they pass through this law! JUST LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS TO THE BAHA'I IN IRAN!

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060519-105912-5198r

watch the accusations. :upyours:

the story is false. end of thread.

Umm, you were the guy who wasn't particularly alarmed that Jews were being branded and marginalised when you thought it was true. You don't have a leg to stand on.
Ehhh.... no.

I believe all I said was... Meh.

Read that anyway you want, but it certainly wasn't "Goody, lets kill teh j00hs".

I wasn't particularly alarmed by a story with no discernable back up or seperate supporting sources, no.

Brilliant. I only hope to hear a "My bad" from the OP and I'll be happy :D

It'll be the 22nd Century before that happens. Kimchi loves to cling to anything that strokes his "Muslims Bad! Muslims Die! Oh Baby Oh Baby!" fetish.

:D

Ehhh.... no.

I believe all I said was... Meh.

Read that anyway you want, but it certainly wasn't "Goody, lets kill teh j00hs".
I didn't accuse you of supporting it. That was Deep Kimchi. I accused you of being apathetic about it, which is also terrible.

I wasn't particularly alarmed by a story with no discernable back up or seperate supporting sources, no.

OK, so you knew that this story was bullshit all along, right? :rolleyes:

I didn't accuse you of supporting it. That was Deep Kimchi. I accused you of being apathetic about it, which is also terrible.
Apathy, smapathy. You know how many thead there are buttering people up saying how 'evil' Iran is, killing foetuses, burning virgins, Satanic rituals and the usual Jew pogrom.

Just another thread about it to me. So yeah, a big Meh.


OK, so you knew that this story was bullshit all along, right? :rolleyes:
No, but I do take any story from Deep Kimchi (and that I can't find anywhere else in news networks) with about 6 tons of salt. Bad for the digestive system, but there you go.

Do you think a totalitarian regime like Iran would tell the truth? That they would actually show more tolerance to thier minority?
Again, read the articles. No other sources support the claim of the iranian exiles, not experts, other media outlets, or the jewish member of the iranian parliament.

Umm, you were the guy who wasn't particularly alarmed that Jews were being branded and marginalised when you thought it was true. You don't have a leg to stand on.


We regularily get articles that declare that the WMD are finally discovered, that Yasser Arafat eat children without salt, and that there is some indication that the Sun does indeed shine out a right-wing American ass. This makes some of us rather cynical. A close reading of that article raises a number of warning flags. He has at least three legs to stand on.


(In fairness however this one took me in somewhat but thats my fault for not reading it closely enough.)

Maybe Michael Moore will do a documentary about a day in the life of a Christian or Jew in Iran, cooperating and wearing the badge.

Maybe Michael Moore will do a documentary about a day in the life of a Christian or Jew in Iran, cooperating and wearing the badge.

Of course, even a Moore documentary has basis in facts, which is something sorely lacking in this piece of Islamacaust propaganda. So no, don't think it's gonna be made.

:rolleyes:

Of course, even a Moore documentary has basis in facts, which is something sorely lacking in this piece of Islamacaust propaganda. So no, don't think it's gonna be made.

:rolleyes:

Moore and facts should not be used in the same sentence.

Moore and facts should not be used in the same sentence.

Unlike Ann Coulter and everyone on FOX News, Moore doesn't claim to be "Fair and Balanced" and however opinionated his documentaries are, they are rooted in facts. Until it's confirmed, it's just more Islamacaust spook story. The kind you and DK get off on.

Unlike Ann Coulter and everyone on FOX News, Moore doesn't claim to be "Fair and Balanced" and however opinionated his documentaries are, they are rooted in facts.

Fox News is based in facts. Moore is based in opinions.

Fox News is based in facts. Moore is based in opinions.

Theres a number of leaked memos that beg to differ.

Wow, so Nazi Germany is well and alive, this time in the Middle East.

Fox News is based in facts. Moore is based in opinions.

If you believe that then theres something wrong in your head.

Wow, so Nazi Germany is well and alive, this time in the Middle East.
If you actually read the thread (or even some of it) you would have realised that the story is false.

If Fox News was based on fact Truthiness wouldn't be so funny. The reason that whole spiel appeals is Fox News doesn't focus of facts, it focuses on gut reaction.

If you actually read the thread (or even some of it) you would have realised that the story is false.
Not in the mood to go wading through huge threads today...thanks for the clarification though.

Snopes nor urban ledgends have NOTHING on the story and it was removed from the linked web site ....hmmmm must really be bullshit ..and ther's even a link in this thread that points that out ..somewhere back a few pages...:D

But this thread wont die ?

OMFG!!!!!11 ITS TEH HITLER!!!!1 /kickbansorz!!!!!11!


stfu n00b

Snopes nor urban ledgends have NOTHING on the story and it was removed from the linked web site ....hmmmm must really be bullshit ..and ther's even a link in this thread that points that out ..somewhere back a few pages...:D

But this thread wont die ?
Go back one page and you'll find the link.

But I hope this thread dies now, so let me say it once and for all to make sure even new readers get an idea:

The story was false!

It has not been confirmed in any way at all.
Have a nice day.

I get the impression that you 'suffer' from Autism or Asperger's - those mental diseases that make you frightfully unaware that it takes 2 to have a friendly relationship.
Mental afflictions that leave you quite unfit to mix with civil society.
Not as much as you are blinded by your own ego and happy to throw mud at others without even understanding what they are saying...
Just my kind of thing...

lol...I must say Satan, you've made todays message boarding quite amusing
Thank you, I know some like me for what I trully am... Evil :mad:

I almost want to keep this thread alive to see how quick people are to demonize Iran :)

It not the nation it is a few of its leaders....one limo accident ;)


I almost want to keep this thread alive to see how quick people are to demonize Iran :)

:D :D :D

So,

Meh is now read as "Yup, hate dem Joos! I'm a Nazi and w00t Iran!"

Riight. :rolleyes:
Iran has a religious government. I have a friend who is Muslim and according to him, the Kuran says not to be friends with a Jew or a Christian. I am neither of those things.