NationStates Jolt Archive

first off, prove that 87% of the chem weapons used were from the United States when other nations supplied far more chemicals than we did!

second, prove that we actually coordinated 60% at things that were ony 40%rivers.

My remark was sarcastic. And again, prove you are not a goldfish.

My remark was sarcastic. And again, prove you are not a goldfish.

Failure to provide proof of an assertion shows that you are pulling shit out of your ass.

Either provide it or retract it.

You are misunderstanding me. I said that I do not support nukes but that Israel preventing them from getting them by missile attack would cause loss of life. please actually read what I write.
I never said that nukes would prevent loss of life but that the Israeli nuclear attack would cause it.

I understand you quite clearly. You, my friend, need to understand that it is quite difficult to follow an argument when you change your premise, and contradict yourself. You said first that you do not support nuclear weapons for Iran, and then you turn around in the same post and that you would if it would prevent the loss of life. Now you refuse to answer my last question because your premise holds no water. I ask again:
Do you support the continued course of action Iran is taking even though it would cause a retaliatory (read: preemptive) strike by Israel, and thus "loss of life that would occur in the event of an Israeli strike on Iranian facilities to prevent those nukes?"

My remark was sarcastic. And again, prove you are not a goldfish.

Whether or not he is a goldfish has nothing to do with the issue. Answer his question.

Whether or not he is a goldfish has nothing to do with the issue.

I notice he does that when his point goes down the tube or when proof is asked for. It really is getting irritating.

I notice he does that when his point goes down the tube or when proof is asked for. It really is getting irritating.

Pots and kettles there...However...to the topic at hand -

The fact is that the US supplied both artillery maps , and "Intelligence" which was composed of sattellite observation, and communication intercepts. Secondly, they, through third parties, allowed Saddams regime access to a large range of weaponry that otherwise he could neither have purchased nor afforded. This does not cover the US acting as what could be called "Naval support" for the Iraqi regime, under the guise of protecting shipping.

As to the percentiles in which this came in useful, we can each speculate. However its generally acknowledged that Saddam was infact saved by US support.

The israelis should die in droves if they do a nuclear first-strike, ditto the iranians.

Pots and kettles there...However...to the topic at hand -

The fact is that the US supplied both artillery maps , and "Intelligence" which was composed of sattellite observation, and communication intercepts.

True but that does not back up the point made by Sylthros.

Secondly, they, through third parties, allowed Saddams regime access to a large range of weaponry that otherwise he could neither have purchased nor afforded.

Now I do want to see proof of this statement.

This does not cover the US acting as what could be called "Naval support" for the Iraqi regime, under the guise of protecting shipping.

And your proof that it was indeed naval support and not protection of shipping?

As to the percentiles in which this came in useful, we can each speculate. However its generally acknowledged that Saddam was infact saved by US support.

Won't deny that the US supported Hussein and I will agree that we can speculate.

Nonsense. The Iraq and Afg invasions were the best things to have happened to Iran. They were constrained by the hostile regimes of taliban in Afg and Saddam in Iraq. Both are now gone and they are reverting to the natural influence of Iran over them. Iran wields good influence over the NA regime through the significant farsi speaking Irano-philes of western Afg and likewise in Iraq with the shia population. They have gotten the strategic space they never had and never even hoped for.

just because it didnt turn out that way doesnt mean that that wasnt the plan.

for example, the lack of WMD in iraq doesnt mean that we didnt go in to remove WMD from iraq. it means that we made the wrong assumptions

not that i agree with UB; his point was nonsense. its just that the huge benefit to iran was an unintended consequence of our adventures in iraq and afghanistan. it reflects a lack of understanding of the region rather than a plan to help out our long-time enemy.

hmmmm i guess my point is that while i agree with you, my first point still stands. things going irans way doesnt mean that our plan wasnt exactly the opposite.

My remark was sarcastic. And again, prove you are not a goldfish.

hmmm...since when were goldfish proven to be able to type or participate in forums?

If Israel is planning to do this, they will try to minimize the loss of life, but that is a secondary consideration. They will do whatever it takes to destroy these facilities if they deem it necessary. When Israel feels that its back is against the wall, it turns dangerous.

If Iran wants to stop this attack, they should either:
A) Cease uranium enrichment
OR
B) Invest in anti-air defenses AND buy a copy of 'Raid on the Sun' by Rodger Claire - a book about the Israeli attack on Osirak that reads like a techno-thriller.

If Israel is planning to do this, they will try to minimize the loss of life, but that is a secondary consideration. They will do whatever it takes to destroy these facilities if they deem it necessary. When Israel feels that its back is against the wall, it turns dangerous.

If Iran wants to stop this attack, they should either:
A) Cease uranium enrichment
OR
B) Invest in anti-air defenses AND buy a copy of 'Raid on the Sun' by Rodger Claire - a book about the Israeli attack on Osirak that reads like a techno-thriller.
Hmm. Big Big Bomb vs. Itty Bitty Book. Who's going to win?;)

Hmm. Big Big Bomb vs. Itty Bitty Book. Who's going to win?;)
The bomb, obviously. I never said that it would STOP the Israelis. They MIGHT score a few hits, but the Israelis will succeed.

Now I do want to see proof of this statement..

Iraq was taken off the list of nations that support Terrorism in 1981 after the Invasion, extended 400 million USD credit Guarantee for US exports. By 1984 it had resored diplomatic relations. Haig, I believe, was one of the ones behind the pro-Iraq policy shift.


"7. CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure
that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to
avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war. Pursuant to the secred NSDD, the United
States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis
with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military
intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third
country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military
weaponry required. "
http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/hidden/teicher.htm


And your proof that it was indeed naval support and not protection of shipping? ..

The US refused to make the water a "neutral" non-military zone, and allowed Iraq to attack Iranian tankers, yet tried to prevent attacts on Iraqi tankers and those carrying supplies for Iraq.

deleted. Double post.

hmmmm i guess my point is that while i agree with you, my first point still stands. things going irans way doesnt mean that our plan wasnt exactly the opposite.

Yes, I did not imply that what I said was the plan. But it is the reality and I would think that despite the pubic posturing, the Bush admin would be cognizant of that.

It is amusing how US is blamed for both being complete ineptitudes and also as shrewd cunning evil master planners....

What a bullshit. Of course there are good guys and bad guys in this. Israel is aggressive scum and history proves it. They impose their immigration and crude state on the locals for over 80 years now and call it righteous because of some idiotic biblical shit.
Iran would have every right to pursue enrichment for power plants and even nukes. Iran bas been threatened ever since it got rid of its US puppet government, and has been attacked by US ally Iraq. And now again the US is making threats and Israel is of course following its big friend and protector. Also it is pretty clear what the ultimate goal of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was (if they had succeeded): to target Iran. Iran has every right and reason to want nukes.

The shah goverment in Iran, too which held massive protests against the US, concerning matters of being "godless" and "imperialist" along with kidnapping and taking hostages, in the overrun US embassy constitutes it as a puppet state? Wow, and I thought the Russians had a raw deal with Hungar yand Poland. :rolleyes:

As for Israel iditoic biblical shit fueling its conquest, erm are you aware Israel has been slowly conceeding territory too the Palestinians? Then again you probably didnt hear about that on Al-Jazeera. ;)

And it sure makes alot of sense too inavde Iraq and Afganistan, crushing public support and international sympathy while outsretching the millitary too its breaking point, just too target Iran. Its not like it would have made sense too directly target Iran for snactions and designate it as the major threat. :rolleyes:

Damn, a gun smilie being used in a 200-somethingth post? That's got to be a record.

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge: :upyours:

Not anymore :p

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge: :upyours:

Not anymore :p

Too late - I've beaten you to it ;) Even brought my own gun, as is fitting for someone with more than 10,000 posts :p

All parts I am not refuting I agree with, I built strawman, strayed from the facts a bit or the spun the facts to my advantage.


Factoid. This statement is untrue. Saddam Hussein was provided with material support precisely to keep Iran off balance. Positioning data was given to him to allow for coordinated SCUD launches onto Iranian territory and US supplied chemical weapons were also reputed to have been used.

I didn't say that Saddam was not helped by the US. I said that Iran was also helped. What oh what is the Iran-Contra scandal? Oh that's right the US sold weapons to Iran! So there were helping BOTH sides.


Factoid. This statement is false. US has without fail vetoed every single resolution against Israel. The US does protect Israel. Just not in the limited context you're applying.

I'm applying the same context I believe he was applying. Namely, that Israel is a US puppet that would never have survived without US support. I'm calling that false. As for the US being pro-Israel in the UN fine, but that doesn't mean that they are the only reason for Israel's continued existence.


Your added offense is full of holes. Also, please use spellcheck for future posts.

Those were only little bits in my post and most of my original post is still holding. And I appolojize that I ca'nt speell welll.

snip*

Thank you for the link. I like this part of it:

11. One of the reasons that the United States refused to license
or sell U.S. origin weapons to Iraq was that the supply of non-U.S. origin
weapons to Iraq was sufficient to meet Iraq's needs

Anyways, thanks again for supplying a link.

The US refused to make the water a "neutral" non-military zone, and allowed Iraq to attack Iranian tankers, yet tried to prevent attacts on Iraqi tankers and those carrying supplies for Iraq.

And proof of this is?

Thank you for the link. I like this part of it:


Yes, so they did so threw third parties or just sold "dual use" items, such as helicopters. As was mentioned in the testimony I quoted.


And proof of this is?

That they didnt stop iraq attacking Iranian tankers? In the historical record. Go look it up.

I didn't say that Saddam was not helped by the US. I said that Iran was also helped. What oh what is the Iran-Contra scandal? Oh that's right the US sold weapons to Iran! So there were helping BOTH sides. .

Yet the support for Iran ceased about halfway through the conflict when it was decided to go fully behind Iraq.

As for Israel iditoic biblical shit fueling its conquest, erm are you aware Israel has been slowly conceeding territory too the Palestinians? Then again you probably didnt hear about that on Al-Jazeera.


You mean giving back the parts they arent interested in while building settlements on those they are.

That they didnt stop iraq attacking Iranian tankers? In the historical record. Go look it up.

Does not prove a thing considering they were at war with Iran. First rule of war is to deny resources and to strangle your opponet's economy.

Does not prove a thing considering they were at war with Iran. First rule of war is to deny resources and to strangle your opponet's economy.

The Americans prevented Iran attacking Iraqi-linked vessels yet allow Iraq to attack Iranian-linked vessels. Theres no doubt as to what Iraq was doing, what we were dicussing was the US.


Or are you being deliverately obtuse to "mess with peoples heads" again?

The Americans prevented Iran attacking Iraqi-linked vessels yet allow Iraq to attack Iranian-linked vessels. Theres no doubt as to what Iraq was doing, what we were dicussing was the US.


Or are you being deliverately obtuse to "mess with peoples heads" again?

I'm not telling :D

I understand you quite clearly. You, my friend, need to understand that it is quite difficult to follow an argument when you change your premise, and contradict yourself. You said first that you do not support nuclear weapons for Iran, and then you turn around in the same post and that you would if it would prevent the loss of life. Now you refuse to answer my last question because your premise holds no water. I ask again:
Do you support the continued course of action Iran is taking even though it would cause a retaliatory (read: preemptive) strike by Israel, and thus "loss of life that would occur in the event of an Israeli strike on Iranian facilities to prevent those nukes?"

You are delibaratley misunderstanding me. My meaning was always that gettin the nukes was preferable to the loss of life that woud be caused by an Israeli attack on the nuclear facilities I do not believe that nukes are neccesary at all, I believe that the government should not try to acquire nukes but I believe more strongly that Israel should not attack and cause loss of life. I believe that pickpockets should not steal, but i believe more strongly that ou should not take a shotgun and blast away at a pickpocket for doing so. So no I do not support the course of action Iran is taking, never have, and have never said I have. Try again. And the goldfish comment was to demonstrate the immposibillity of proof.

You are delibaratley misunderstanding me. My meaning was always that gettin the nukes was preferable to the loss of life that woud be caused by an Israeli attack on the nuclear facilities I do not believe that nukes are neccesary at all, I believe that the government should not try to acquire nukes but I believe more strongly that Israel should not attack and cause loss of life.

However, if Iran does get nukes or is on the verge of it, Israel could very well do something. Iran's course of action could lead to what you do not want.

I believe that pickpockets should not steal, but i believe more strongly that ou should not take a shotgun and blast away at a pickpocket for doing so.

Anyone tries to take my wallet is going to have a very difficult time doing so considering where I keep it :D

So no I do not support the course of action Iran is taking, never have, and have never said I have. Try again.

Ok good then why do you say them getting nukes is preferable to the hypothetical loss of life if Israel attacks because of said Iranian action?

And the goldfish comment was to demonstrate the immposibillity of proof.

Funny. Nodinia has somewhat proved it for you. So much for the impossibility of proof :rolleyes:

However, if Iran does get nukes or is on the verge of it, Israel could very well do something. Iran's course of action could lead to what you do not want.

I just said I disagreed with Irans current course of action

Anyone tries to take my wallet is going to have a very difficult time doing so considering where I keep it :D

not answering my point

Ok good then why do you say them getting nukes is preferable to the hypothetical loss of life if Israel attacks because of said Iranian action?

Them getting nukes is preferable to the loss of life that would be caused by Israel acting to prevent this, I.e. doing what is suggested in the article that spawned this thread. Although If Israel doesnt attack and Iran decides not to get nukes thats evven better

Funny. Nodinia has somewhat proved it for you. So much for the impossibility of proof :rolleyes:not a complete proof. That is impossible. However yo have conceded the original point

not a complete proof. That is impossible. However yo have conceded the original point

Lose the quote boxes around your answers please so that I can respond properly.

Even though it's faux news, it's still kind of scary. Doubt they would do it though.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242243,00.html

I'm sure they have one planned. The question is, are they planning to execute said plan? probably not.

The US had lots of planned nuclear strikes, durring the cold war, that were never carried past the planning stages.

No, it's totally different. All the pro-Israel Zionists are saying Iran wants to wipe them off the map, they do not, they want to get rid of the Zionist regime that has hijacked Israel and caused nothing but trouble in the region.
Like replacing Saddam's regime? We saw how well that worked. ;)

So basicly Iran was the Israel government to disappear... The ONLY way that will happen is through foce, meaning killing Israelis and Southern Syrians(Palestinans)

So, yet again I call Bullshit.

I see no difference.

I'm sure they have one planned. The question is, are they planning to execute said plan? probably not.

The US had lots of planned nuclear strikes, durring the cold war, that were never carried past the planning stages.

and only 532 posts in!

that about sums it up. countries make lots of plans that they hope never to have to put into effect.

You mean giving back the parts they arent interested in while building settlements on those they are.


How can they not be interested in any of the land? They live on a little sliver of land as it is, and the population is growing!

I didn't say that Saddam was not helped by the US. I said that Iran was also helped. What oh what is the Iran-Contra scandal? Oh that's right the US sold weapons to Iran! So there were helping BOTH sides.

Did you miss the part where I said it was to keep Iran off balance? The US didn't want Iran toppled. It just wanted it devastated because their pet dictator got ousted. Iran without secretly provided US arms would have collapsed to Iraqi forces, which went against US aims.



I'm applying the same context I believe he was applying. Namely, that Israel is a US puppet that would never have survived without US support. I'm calling that false.

Who holds the puppet strings is highly debatable. It is noted that significant lobby groups with ties to Israel have strong holds in the American congress.

The question of survivability minus US support is also debatable, but it cannot be disputed that Israel has received and continues to receive significant military aid packages from the US.


Those were only little bits in my post and most of my original post is still holding.

A ship with a hull breach all the way to the engine room may not be completely gutted, but it's unlikely it will continue to go anywhere.


And I appolojize that I ca'nt speell welll.

Now you're just being petty.

http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?image=age1.jpg

EDIT: Poor spelling and grammar, my apologies. I slopped it together in paint. =/
Response (http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/6742/spriterefuteaj6.png) in sprites.

Why waste the time with drawing when you can steal some game sprites off the internet.

You are delibaratley misunderstanding me. My meaning was always that gettin the nukes was preferable to the loss of life that woud be caused by an Israeli attack on the nuclear facilities I do not believe that nukes are neccesary at all, I believe that the government should not try to acquire nukes but I believe more strongly that Israel should not attack and cause loss of life. I believe that pickpockets should not steal, but i believe more strongly that ou should not take a shotgun and blast away at a pickpocket for doing so. So no I do not support the course of action Iran is taking, never have, and have never said I have. Try again. And the goldfish comment was to demonstrate the immposibillity of proof.

You know, when you don't hold a consistent line, it is very difficult to understand you. But that says a lot about your position; the fact is, you can't maintain your argument when backed into a corner. Of course Iran's possession of nukes would be preferable to Israel attacking. But you're putting an effect before a cause, something that only happens in Einstein's Dreams (great book, btw). Iran cannot get nukes without risking an attack from Israel, and if they continue in their present course of action, which it seems they are, they will be attacked. So, it is because they are pursuing this direction that they will be attacked. No, you don't support Iranian nuclear weapons was all you had to say, stop contradicting yourself.

And the goldfish: Try using an argument that is germaine to the issue, so you don't look like a fool.

and only 532 posts in!

that about sums it up. countries make lots of plans that they hope never to have to put into effect.

To be fair, it was mentioned way back...in the annals of time (of this thread), but, that kind of intelligent thinking doesn't lend much excitement to debate, does it?

Even though it's faux news, it's still kind of scary. Doubt they would do it though.

I acknowledge that the Israeli military might want to bomb the Natanz plant like they did with the Iraqi nuclear plant, but I don't think that even the most extremist shitheads would use nukes for that... and I don't think that they will attack Iran at all, after the Israeli failure (as said by Israeli CINC last week) in the last Lebanon war.

Check my link, it references a much more recent speech where those who were there took it as the same meaning as the english translation. It isn't a poor translation when the people there see his words when spoken in Farsi in the same light as when translated in English

Sorry, I must have missed the part of the article where it quotes him as saying he will wipe Israel off the map.

If you want to use soundbites to justify dropping nukes on Iran then it would be nice if you could actually quote them correctly.

I'm sure they have planned for a nuclear strike on Iran, as well as every other nation within range. It's what militaries do. If you suddenly need to go to war it's better to have planned it out beforehand than to wing it. I'm sure the US has plans for attacking Britain, Canada, Mexico, Sealand, and every other country on earth individually or in combination. Just in case.

I remember seeing a nuke strike map on Japan. If Israel nukes Iran it will be the second strike in mankind history..

I'm sure the US has plans for attacking Britain, Canada, Mexico, Sealand, and every other country on earth individually or in combination. Thats what Chavez says.

Thats what Chavez says.

Anyone with an ounce of sense could figure that one out.

Thats what Chavez says.

Even a douchebag who's planning to eliminate any independent media in his country can be right once in a while.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/16387097.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5755-2005Mar27.html

..a poor translation when ...
poor translation? poor translation???

dude.. reat it again "...no such idiom exists in Persian."

Anyone with an ounce of sense could figure that one out.

It seems Chavez could figure it out too.

Sealand,

Not even the United States and its entire nuclear arsenal could possibly hope to defeat Sealand's military forces.

Even a douchebag who's planning to eliminate any independent media in his country can be right once in a while.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/16387097.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5755-2005Mar27.htmlThe Europeans I know.. say US Media is NOT independent.

what do YOU have to say about that?

It seems Chavez could figure it out too.

Apparently. LOL

The Europeans I know.. say US Media is NOT independent.

what do YOU have to say about that?

That you should not listen to rumors.

The Europeans I know.. say US Media is NOT independent.

what do YOU have to say about that?

The Americans I know .. say Europe is a haven of Stalinist communism.

what do YOU have to say about that LOL?

The Europeans I know.. say US Media is NOT independent.

what do YOU have to say about that?

The Europeans you know have become so antiAmerican that they've rotted their brains. They've made themselves retarded with hate. In the US you can get news from foreign sources, big corporate sources, public television and radio, and anyone who cares to print a newsletter or put together a website. You can get anyone's point of view on the news. If you don't realize that then you're as dumb as your European friends.

df

That you should not listen to rumors.there is certain silly rumor going round-n-round the US.. about certain Iranian Prez saying Iran want/will wipe out Israel..

should I listen to that stupid rumor??
or are you still going to say "poor translation"..again?

there is certain silly rumor going round-n-round the US.. about certain Iranian Prez saying he will/want wipe out Israel..

should I listen to that stupid base rumor??
or are you still going to say "poor translation".. again.
(when I say you.. I mean "others like you")

No, of course not. When it comes their attitude toward Jews you should always give the benefit of the doubt to a nation which hosted a holocaust denial conference and that sponsors a terrorist organization that bombed a Jewish community center in Argentina.

Anyway, even people friendly to Iran admit that they want to wipe Israel off the map. For now, let's return to Ahmadinejad. In his "World Without Zionism" speech, he stated that "one day, Israel will be wiped off the map" and that "Israel should be moved to Europe", amongst other things such as denying the Holocausthttp://saracenarabianknight.blogspot.com/2006/05/does-ahmadinejad-really-want-to.html

there is certain silly rumor going round-n-round the US.. about certain Iranian Prez saying Iran want/will wipe out Israel..

should I listen to that stupid rumor??
or are you still going to say "poor translation"..again?

I never claimed poor translation. Just going by the rhetoric that is being spouted. Once the dots start being connected, it becomes obvious that he wants Israel wiped off the map.

Anyway, even people friendly to Iran admit that they want to wipe Israel off the map. LOL

people friendly to the US president do want to wipe China/Russia off the map.

I guess China/Russia is now justified to nuke US?

LOL people friendly to the US president admit do want to wipe China off the map.

I guess China is now justified to nuke US?

They do? WOW! I must have missed that news bulletin. Care to actually provide evidence as such?

:headbang: forgot that you do not know how to provide evidence.

They do? WOW! I must have missed that news bulletin. Care to actually provide evidence as such?.No. I do not care to prove it..
take it or leave it.

Once the dots start being connected, it becomes obvious that he wants Israel wiped off the map.WOW.. those must be very high fling dots.. ;)

No. I do not care to prove it..
take it or leave it.

Then you are full of shit as you always have been.

LOL

people friendly to the US president do want to wipe China/Russia off the map.

I guess China/Russia is now justified to nuke US?

Say what now? That doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.

Anyway, I'm sure that China and Russia have plans for fighting the US. If they don't they're as dumb as your friends from Europe.

Then you are full of shit as you always have been.then why are you always arguing with me.???
If I did have zero credibility.. I should not be worthed of discussion.

then why are you always arguing with me.???
If I did have zero credibility.. I should not be worthed of discussion.

You aren't worth it however I just like slamming you down so much that I keep you around.

LOL

people friendly to the US president do want to wipe China/Russia off the map.

I guess China/Russia is now justified to nuke US?

Anyway, even people friendly to Iran admit that they want to wipe Israel off the map.

The pronoun 'they' (bolding mine) refers to Iran, not the author(s) of the blog that this poster linked. If you can provide evidence of a pro-George W Bush source admitting that the United States desires to destroy Russia and China, then your argument might have some weight ...

Have a wonderful day.

You aren't worth it however I just like slamming you down so much that I keep you around.slamming ? ..LOL
You may not realize it.. but you are just kicking air..
you are missing 99% of the time.. I move too fast for you.

then why are you always arguing with me.???
If I did have zero credibility.. I should not be worthed of discussion.

How the fuck am I seeing your posts? I thought I put you on ignore. Well, fuck it. I guess I'll have to do it again.

The pronoun 'they' (bolding mine) refers to Iran, not the author(s) of the blog that this poster linked. If you can provide evidence of a pro-George W Bush source admitting that the United States desires to destroy Russia and China, then your argument might have some weight ...

He won't. He does not do it regardless of issue when asked to back up what he is saying. That is why most of us have fun smacking him down.

Have a wonderful day.

You 2.

slamming ? ..LOL
You may not realize it.. but you are just kicking air..
you are missing 99% of the time.. I move too fast for you.

:rolleyes:

Fuck! The fucking ignore function's fucking busted. Now I can see every fucking post by every fucking troll I've been so successfuly ignoring. This fucking sucks. I should be able to flame the shit out of the fuckers while ignore doesn't work.

:rolleyes:see?
anyways.. I must go AFK.. see ya al later, for some more "virtua-slaming"..

God I love this shit (NSforums) :D

Fuck! The fucking ignore function's fucking busted. Now I can see every fucking post by every fucking troll I've been so successfuly ignoring. This fucking sucks. I should be able to flame the shit out of the fuckers while ignore doesn't work.dont be such a sore loser.. you love "slammin me"..
/// goingAFK in 2'

Fuck! The fucking ignore function's fucking busted. Now I can see every fucking post by every fucking troll I've been so successfuly ignoring. This fucking sucks. I should be able to flame the shit out of the fuckers while ignore doesn't work.

Oddly enough when I went to check it my ignore list was empty ... and I'm certain I had at least two people in it ... maybe they were deleted since I added them.

dont be such a sore loser.. you love "slammin me"..
/// goingAFK in 2'

Only if we shared a cell and even then only with no lube and after a shitload of pruno.

Only if we shared a cell and even then only with no lube and after a shitload of pruno.LOL.. No thanks.
I am no into your kind of game.

// AFK now cya-all.

LOL.. No thanks.
I am no into your kind of game.

// AFK now cya-all.

Doesn't matter. It's better if you're not.

No. I do not care to prove it..
take it or leave it.It seems you take it enough as it is.

LOL..
Israel Gov now saying its absolutely not true.. no way.. never.. poor translation.. etc..

LOL..
Israel Gov now saying its absolutely not true.. no way.. never.. poor translation.. etc..

You are way behind the times if you are just posting that. And HELLO!!!! Of course they are going to deny it. If you believe their denial then you are even more stupid than I thought you were.