NationStates Jolt Archive

Al-Qaeda Will Do It For Him ('http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070709-064703-2160r')

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- The self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq has given Iran a two-month ultimatum to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs or face all-out war, according to an audiotape posted on the Internet Monday.

"We give ... the leaders of Iran a period of two months to stop all forms of support to the rejectionists of Iraq, and stop direct and indirect interference in the affairs of the Islamic state," said a voice attributed to the group's leader Abu Omar Al Baghdadi.

The term rejectionists is used by Sunni militant groups to refer to Shiites, who dominate the government in Iraq and are in a majority in both Iraq and neighboring Iran.

"Otherwise, expect a fierce war that will annihilate you, which we have been preparing for over the past four years and just waiting to issue the orders to wage the campaign," the voice said.


Maybe we should leave Iraq immediately. And, as the current leaders of Iraq say, the "nation" of Iraq will immediately dissolve into massive civil war - which will consume Iran...

Nothing like getting something for nothing...

And, if the Iranians get a few nuclear weapons in the meantime (or the Pakistanis provide a few to the Sunnis), there will be marshmallow roasting all around the Gulf...

Sit back, and watch the fireworks...

Do you ever get tired of being a racist asshat? This topic would legitimate had some one else posted it, except Myrmidonisia I suspect.

Are you seriously hoping for nuclear war?

Are you seriously hoping for nuclear war?

Do you seriously want him to answer that? ;)

It would be better if AQ attacked before Iran had any possession of nukes, we don't want those falling into the wrong hands (yes there are hands worse then that of Ahmadinejad).

Do you ever get tired of being a racist asshat? This topic would legitimate had some one else posted it, except Myrmidonisia I suspect.

What's racist? Prove it. I can't help it if Sunnis and Shias are stupid enough to use their religion as a pretext to annihilate each other.

What? Am I the one fomenting their violence? Am I the one killing them?

Nope. Just watching.

Are you seriously hoping for nuclear war?

As long as it's on the other side of the world, it's OK by me.

We've had literally hundreds of above ground nuclear detonations, with no real overally ill effect on the world's population (other than some increased cancers, which have proven to be less than expected).

It's not my problem if they decide to be completely stupid with nuclear weapons.

As long as it's on the other side of the world, it's OK by me.

We've had literally hundreds of above ground nuclear detonations, with no real overally ill effect on the world's population (other than some increased cancers, which have proven to be less than expected).

It's not my problem if they decide to be completely stupid with nuclear weapons.

So, you completely lack empathy then?

What's racist? Prove it.
The basis for this thread is racism. My glasses arn't this see through.


And, if the Iranians get a few nuclear weapons in the meantime (or the Pakistanis provide a few to the Sunnis), there will be marshmallow roasting all around the Gulf...

Sit back, and watch the fireworks...
You are in support of the Middle East destroying itself on the basis it is full of Muslims.

The basis for this thread is racism. My glasses arn't this see through.


You are in support of the Middle East destroying itself on the basis it is full of Muslims.

I don't think you can be racist against a religion.

So, you completely lack empathy then?

Nope. I feel sorry for some of them, but I can't do anything about their stupidity.

See? The Democrats say it's not worth staying in the area to try to solve any of their problems. So, we should go home, and ignore the area, and let the nukes fall where they may.

The basis for this thread is racism. My glasses arn't this see through.

You are in support of the Middle East destroying itself on the basis it is full of Muslims.

Islam isn't a race...

Islam isn't a race...
But the most common followers are Arabic or Persian, both races living in the Middle East and usually not differentiated by anyone else.

Nope. I feel sorry for some of them, but I can't do anything about their stupidity.

So the people of the Middle East (who, on the whole, are not stupid) should suffer just because their governments are stupid?

But the most common followers are Arabic or Persian, both races living in the Middle East and usually not differentiated by anyone else.

The most common followers are Indonesians, by far. Going to say I have something against Indonesians?

They seem to be happy making money and investing in factories...

The most common followers are Indonesians, by far. Going to say I have something against Indonesians?

They seem to be happy making money and investing in factories...
I'm saying you have a problem with Arabic-like peoples who are followers of Islam, and Islam in general.

I'm saying you have a problem with Arabic-like peoples who are followers of Islam, and Islam in general.

I have a problem with militant Islam, as I have noted several hundred times now.

A point which you continuously ignore, and then distort to fit your own vision of what I believe.

The majority of your posts in response to anything I post is either lies, slurs, or vitriolic insults and cursing.

So the people of the Middle East (who, on the whole, are not stupid) should suffer just because their governments are stupid?

You could replace "Middle East" with "United States of America" and it would makes it funny in an ironic kind of way.

You could replace "Middle East" with "United States of America" and it would makes it funny in an ironic kind of way.

xD

I have a problem with militant Islam, as I have noted several hundred times now.

Didn't you advocate sterilizing all Muslims? :confused:

Didn't you advocate sterilizing all Muslims? :confused:

As a technical proposition only. It was then distorted by other posters into OMFGYOUFUCKINGNAZI!

You could replace "Middle East" with "United States of America" and it would makes it funny in an ironic kind of way.

We were stupid during the Cold War, and then suddenly, we came to our senses.

We were stupid during the Cold War, and then suddenly, we came to our senses.

Correction: We Americans still are a bit stupid, because both the US and the Russians are still at each other's throats and still capable of causing Armegeddon at the touch of a button.

We were stupid during the Cold War, and then suddenly, we came to our senses.

I was talking about right now, not back then in the cold war.

You guys might not realize it, but a lot of us from thye outside world are thinking it.

Correction: We Americans still are a bit stupid, because both the US and the Russians are still at each other's throats and still capable of causing Armegeddon at the touch of a button.

Actually, no. It takes a lot longer now to generate a firing order in the US than it did before 1991.

We also have only a fraction of the warheads and delivery systems we had at the time - and virtually no tactical nuclear weaponry.

We're down to such a small number in the US, that we couldn't take out the Russians now if we wanted to - if we hit their delivery systems, the vast majority of their population would survive. And, since our policy is counterforce, that's exactly what would happen.

I was talking about right now, not back then in the cold war.

You guys might not realize it, but a lot of us from thye outside world are thinking it.

Yes, I realize that you're thinking inane thoughts.

Yes, I realize that you're thinking inane thoughts.

So being lucid enough to realize your government is stupid counts as "inane thoughts"?

Seems like all but half of the US(the half who voted for Bush, anyway) are inane. Go figure, you guys must be right, and all the 6 billion of us wrong. *shrug*

So being lucid enough to realize your government is stupid counts as "inane thoughts"?

Seems like all but half of the US(the half who voted for Bush, anyway) are inane. Go figure, you guys must be right, and all the 6 billion of us wrong. *shrug*

You'll notice we haven't blown up the world. So I don't think we're inane. We didn't respond to 9-11 with a nuclear strike on Afghanistan. So I don't think we're inane.

I'll be laughing at you thinking the US is stupid compared to the rest of the world, when the whole Middle East goes at it tooth, nail, and nuke with the US nowhere to be seen in the region...

You'll notice we haven't blown up the world. So I don't think we're inane. We didn't respond to 9-11 with a nuclear strike on Afghanistan. So I don't think we're inane.

I'll be laughing at you thinking the US is stupid compared to the rest of the world, when the whole Middle East goes at it tooth, nail, and nuke with the US nowhere to be seen in the region...

Considering you'll be responsible for the whole mess? yeah, US government definately stupid.

The Middle East was nowhere near as militant nor as close to blowing up before you guys decided it was time to go meddle into their countries for the oil on false intelligence designed to justify otherwise unjustifiable wars.

'Just sayin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/world/middleeast/10iraq.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

“You can’t build a whole policy on a fear of a negative, but, boy, you’ve really got to account for it,” Mr. Crocker said Saturday in an interview at his office in Saddam Hussein’s old Republican Palace, now the seat of American power here. Setting out what he said was not a policy prescription but a review of issues that needed to be weighed, the ambassador compared Iraq’s current violence to the early scenes of a gruesome movie.

“In the States, it’s like we’re in the last half of the third reel of a three-reel movie, and all we have to do is decide we’re done here, and the credits come up, and the lights come on, and we leave the theater and go on to something else,” he said. “Whereas out here, you’re just getting into the first reel of five reels,” he added, “and as ugly as the first reel has been, the other four and a half are going to be way, way worse.”

Kinda like Harry Potter, except that hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions, will die for real.

Considering you'll be responsible for the whole mess? yeah, US government definately stupid.

The Middle East was nowhere near as militant nor as close to blowing up before you guys decided it was time to go meddle into their countries for the oil on false intelligence designed to justify otherwise unjustifiable wars.

'Just sayin.

We're not responsible for the current Iranian government - that was their choice - remember?

We're not responsible for Syria wanting to own Lebanon - that was their choice, remember?

We're not responsible for the death of Ali, and the roots of the Sunni - Shia conflict across the entire Middle East, remember?

We're not responsible for the founding of Israel (that was the UK, if you remember).

All the bricks were laid a long time ago - they are just bearing fruit, and we just happened to interfere before the harvest.

We can leave now, and remain relatively untouched.

What, are you saying we should stay, and try to undo a thousand years of history?

We're not responsible for the current Iranian government - that was their choice - remember?

We're not responsible for Syria wanting to own Lebanon - that was their choice, remember?

We're not responsible for the death of Ali, and the roots of the Sunni - Shia conflict across the entire Middle East, remember?

We're not responsible for the founding of Israel (that was the UK, if you remember).

All the bricks were laid a long time ago - they are just bearing fruit, and we just happened to interfere before the harvest.

We can leave now, and remain relatively untouched.

What, are you saying we should stay, and try to undo a thousand years of history?

A classic example of oversimplification designed to white-wash.

A classic example of oversimplification designed to white-wash.

Ah, it's history, not oversimplification.

Can you show how we're responsible for Syria's invasion and desire for Lebanon?

Or the roots of the Sunni - Shia conflict?

Or the current government in Iran?

You hate historical facts when the fly in the face of what you believe - that somehow, the US is responsible for everything wrong in the world...

What is funny is that when I was in school, the sunni were suposed to be the peacefull guys.

And, if the Iranians get a few nuclear weapons in the meantime (or the Pakistanis provide a few to the Sunnis), there will be marshmallow roasting all around the Gulf...

Sit back, and watch the fireworks...

And meanwhile, Oil prices surge to $500 a barrel and the Western consumer economy grinds to a halt. Yea, sounds like an awesome idea. :rolleyes:

And meanwhile, Oil prices surge to $500 a barrel and the Western consumer economy grinds to a halt. Yea, sounds like an awesome idea. :rolleyes:

It's going to do that within five years, no matter what.

Ah, it's history, not oversimplification.

Can you show how we're responsible for Syria's invasion and desire for Lebanon?

Or the roots of the Sunni - Shia conflict?

Or the current government in Iran?

You hate historical facts when the fly in the face of what you believe - that somehow, the US is responsible for everything wrong in the world...

You deliberately set premises that are too broad and seek to define US involvment therein. Tis bollocks. Might as well throw 'can you show the US responsible for Cain vs Abel' in a discussion on Ronnie Raygun and latin America.

You deliberately set premises that are too broad and seek to define US involvment therein. Tis bollocks. Might as well throw 'can you show the US responsible for Cain vs Abel' in a discussion on Ronnie Raygun and latin America.

You either have to say the US is responsible for the whole region's affairs (and support an effort to stabilize the region by any means necessary), or you should tell the US to leave, and not blame us for it being a shithole.

Which one?

You either have to say the US is responsible for the whole region's affairs (and support an effort to stabilize the region by any means necessary), or you should tell the US to leave, and not blame us for it being a shithole.

Which one?

Can't remember the name for that one O yeah - the false dilemma....

Can't remember the name for that one O yeah - the false dilemma....

Not a false dilemma.

I'm all for leaving. Why should we stay, when so many want us to leave.

Since leaving is their idea, they get to own the results, eh?

Not a false dilemma.

I'm all for leaving. Why should we stay, when so many want us to leave.

Since leaving is their idea, they get to own the results, eh?

But the results are not all of their own making....But yes, you should fuck off. Go "Bremmer" yourselves....

This situation wouldn't be occuring if the U.S. hadn't meddled with Iraq's internal affairs. You can't just wash your hands now and say "we had nothing to do with it". We should take responsibility for the instability of the region instead of trying to blame it on Islam and the Ay-rabs. Don't you think?

This situation wouldn't be occuring if the U.S. hadn't meddled with Iraq's internal affairs. You can't just wash your hands now and say "we had nothing to do with it". We should take responsibility for the instability of the region instead of trying to blame it on Islam and the Ay-rabs. Don't you think?

No. The all-wise Pelosi wants the US to leave immediately.

No. The all-wise Pelosi wants the US to leave immediately.

Leaving wouldn't be the same thing as admitting that it was the U.S. that caused the current climate. You can withdrawl and throw up your hands saying how "those people just want to fight each other despite our efforts".

Not that difficult to do both you see.

Leaving wouldn't be the same thing as admitting that it was the U.S. that caused the current climate. You can withdrawl and throw up your hands saying how "those people just want to fight each other despite our efforts".

Not that difficult to do both you see.

Leaving is abdicating responsibility.

Leaving is abdicating responsibility.

But don't you want us to stay with also the belief that the rumblings in the region isn't really the fault of the U.S.?

But don't you want us to stay with also the belief that the rumblings in the region isn't really the fault of the U.S.?

No, I want us to leave, since "the rest of the world" and "the Democrats" believe that we should leave. And, since the majority of Americans think we should leave.

Fuck 'em. Let's leave now.

Or the current government in Iran?

didn't we try to overthrow Iran's government only to have it blow up in our faces?

didn't we try to overthrow Iran's government only to have it blow up in our faces?

The overthrow was successful for decades.

Later, the Iranians overthrew that government, and installed one to their liking - one that had absolutely nothing to do with the US.

So, they have the government they prefer. If anything happens from 1978 on, it's their burden.

Islam isn't a race...

Says the guy who suggested building a Muslim only sterilizing virus.

Says the guy who suggested building a Muslim only sterilizing virus.

Yeah, it's an unworkable idea to kill people with a virus if it's a belief system.

The overthrow was successful for decades.

Later, the Iranians overthrew that government, and installed one to their liking - one that had absolutely nothing to do with the US.

So, they have the government they prefer. If anything happens from 1978 on, it's their burden.
actully, no. your boiling things down to what sounds good for you.

last I heard it is only in the recent generations that the major hate for the west (more specificly America) lowered. You can't pull bullshit like overthrowing governments and expect people to be fine with you after it is gone. The current government in Iran is, at least in part, a result of America overthrowning Iran's grovernment before. To pretend it is not is just burying your head in the sand.

The overthrow was successful for decades.

Later, the Iranians overthrew that government, and installed one to their liking - one that had absolutely nothing to do with the US.

So, they have the government they prefer. If anything happens from 1978 on, it's their burden.

And ours of course if we let them suffer because we didn't "like" their government. The ebil communists were out there after all and if people had to suffer becasue of Reagan's paranoia, well it just had to be done, right?

And ours of course if we let them suffer because we didn't "like" their government. The ebil communists were out there after all and if people had to suffer becasue of Reagan's paranoia, well it just had to be done, right?

Why should we pay for other people's mistakes?

Yeah, it's an unworkable idea to kill people with a virus if it's a belief system.

So why the hell did you suggest in the first place? Unless sounding like a doofus was your intention. Oh, and a genocide advocate to boot.

Why should we pay for other people's mistakes?

now you're switching from "America had nothing to do with it" to "It doesn't matter, it was a long time ago"?

So why the hell did you suggest in the first place? Unless sounding like a doofus was your intention. Oh, and a genocide advocate to boot.

Ah, so making suggestions is a bad idea in your book.

Genocide is a historical choice for many. It has worked (or at least been largely effective) in many cases.

The sack of Baghdad, for instance, while incomplete in a genocidal sense, completely altered the historical landscape to the present day.

Same for the Armenians. Yes, there are some left. But it has permanently altered the census of Turkey.

Discussing and suggesting is not advocating.

If you're not willing to think about these things, you're being intellectually dishonest.

Why should we pay for other people's mistakes?

Seems they didn't care for the American government though they did like the one they elected themselves that the West overthrew. It seems that we have selective blame in these cases.

Seems they didn't care for the American government though they did like the one they elected themselves that the West overthrew. It seems that we have selective blame in these cases.

They've elected one now. Happy? Or are you saying we're responsible for that one, too, ad infinitum, forever and ever, amen?

They've elected one now. Happy? Or are you saying we're responsible for that one, too, ad infinitum, forever and ever, amen?

hmmm....an anti-west government established after the western puppet government was overthrown...

yea, I'd say we are to blame at least for a few more generations.

If you're not willing to think about these things, you're being intellectually dishonest.

Then call us intellectually dishonest for not wanting to think and discuss genocide as a possible "solution" to the problems your government created itself by its imperialistic meddling.

Then call us intellectually dishonest for not wanting to think and discuss genocide as a possible "solution" to the problems your government created itself by its imperialistic meddling.

Ummm... yeah...

the Middle East had its current boundaries (and in some cases, rulers) imposed by what nation?

I'll give you a hint - it's not the US....

Ah, so making suggestions is a bad idea in your book.

Bad suggestions are in general. Bad.

Like say, suggesting making more holes in a leaky boat to let out all the water...while you're in the middle of the Atlantic. During a typhoon.


Genocide is a historical choice for many. It has worked (or at least been largely effective) in many cases.

Not anymore it does. And certainly not by any nation that depends on international goodwill and trade to keep from economic collapse.


If you're not willing to think about these things, you're being intellectually dishonest.

So have you ever considered that maybe the problem isn't someone else, but you? That maybe the answer isn't widespread killings, but selected immediate termination of various elite who have every intention to stay afloat on the bed of political fear? Like oh say, US politicians with links to the industrial military complex and actual high ranking radical Islamic militant leaders and support figures (like in Saudi Arabia).

Even odds say you never do.

Not anymore it does. And certainly not by any nation that depends on international goodwill and trade to keep from economic collapse.

I guess that's why the international community didn't invade Rwanda, and isn't doing anything about Darfur...

you're hilarious....

Ummm... yeah...

the Middle East had its current boundaries (and in some cases, rulers) imposed by what nation?

I'll give you a hint - it's not the US....

We're talking about the US meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan, taking out the regimes in power to replace them with pro-US puppets, not the UK drawing of country borders, however flawed and damaging it was.

Or are you saying declaring war on a country based on a) actions from a non-government-affiliated terrorist group and b)false reports of WDM and then only proceeding to save and protect oil infrstructures and capitals of said cities to protect the puppet governments isn't in fact the cause of all this mess?

Ah, so making suggestions is a bad idea in your book.

Genocide is a historical choice for many. It has worked (or at least been largely effective) in many cases.
Effective to what ends?
Discussing and suggesting is not advocating.
Please explain to me the difference between suggesting and advocating.

Are you seriously hoping for nuclear war?

You must realize RO thinks that God will protect the US from the bombs and the fallout.

All the bricks were laid a long time ago - they are just bearing fruit, and we just happened to interfere before the harvest.



What?

You can't go straight from a building metaphor to a food one!!

Especially if you're gonna carry on building up with the third one.

You should have said that the seeds were sown long ago.

Tsk.

Effective to what ends?

Please explain to me the difference between suggesting and advocating.

Effective, in that a major result happened.

How many Jews now live in Poland?

How many Armenians now live in Turkey?

While not all Jews and Armenians are dead, they're now mostly elsewhere.

Why didn't the world stop Rwanda? Darfur? Because they're not white people. Why did the West intervene in Kosovo, not even waiting for the UN to approve? Because "white people" were involved.

You may say - oh that nasty RO - he's such a terrible person. But what of how the West sees who should be rescued from genocide, and who should not?

Suggesting is merely bringing up a point for examination. Advocating is going out there and doing it.

You must realize RO thinks that God will protect the US from the bombs and the fallout.

Actually, I think that a few hundred aboveground nuclear bursts won't cause any more problem over here than the hundreds that have already been set off during nuclear testing.

It has nothing to do with God.

If you're going to attempt to guess at my beliefs, please try to be more accurate. You're about as far off as you can be.

Effective, in that a major result happened.
OK, well that's not the term I'd choose, but meh.
How many Jews now live in Poland?
24,999, by the 2002 Polish census. Which is for many, many reasons outside of the Holocaust, such as some going to Russia or the rest of Europe because...well... they can, really, as well as loads in the US and Israel.
How many Armenians now live in Turkey?
40,000 to 70,000, depending on how you count it.

They also now have their own proper country, with a population of 2,971,650 (July 2007 est. from the CIA factbook), instead of a province of a slightly larger population.
While not all Jews and Armenians are dead, they're now mostly elsewhere.
Quite.
Why didn't the world stop Rwanda?
Some countries, notably the UK, actually did try to stop Rwanda, which is why they now don't speak French (because the French didn't really give a shit) and they want to because a member of the commonwealth.
Darfur?
The African Union, the EU and the UN?
Because they're not white people.
Yeah, that's one reason.
Why did the West intervene in Kosovo, not even waiting for the UN to approve? Because "white people" were involved.
And because it was within easy striking range by road by most of the European countries, many of which don't have that many planes with which to build up a large force in a country such as any African one.
You may say - oh that nasty RO - he's such a terrible person.
I've never said that. Written it, mind, although not in those terms.
But what of how the West sees who should be rescued from genocide, and who should not?
Both bad, not at all mutually exclusive.
Suggesting is merely bringing up a point for examination. Advocating is going out there and doing it.
It's something of a thin line, and when genocide is on the table, it's a bit worrying.

Do you ever get tired of being a racist asshat? This topic would legitimate had some one else posted it, except Myrmidonisia I suspect.so you're admitting that you are biased against the poster?

As long as it's on the other side of the world, it's OK by me.

We've had literally hundreds of above ground nuclear detonations, with no real overally ill effect on the world's population (other than some increased cancers, which have proven to be less than expected).

It's not my problem if they decide to be completely stupid with nuclear weapons.sorry, but we are on one planet. and I would rather my friends in Japan, England, Germany and other nations who are 'closer' to that side of the world be caught up in those events.

And meanwhile, Oil prices surge to $500 a barrel and the Western consumer economy grinds to a halt. Yea, sounds like an awesome idea. :rolleyes:... hey, it will sure lite the fire to change to alternate fuels!

So being lucid enough to realize your government is stupid counts as "inane thoughts"?

Seems like all but half of the US(the half who voted for Bush, anyway) are inane. Go figure, you guys must be right, and all the 6 billion of us wrong. *shrug*

To be fair it was about 50-50% of 60-70% total population, making it only about 30-40% of the total population.

I was talking about right now, not back then in the cold war.

You guys might not realize it, but a lot of us from thye outside world are thinking it.

On this point only all I need to say is that stupidity is common everywhere.

As a technical proposition only. It was then distorted by other posters into OMFGYOUFUCKINGNAZI!

And I suppose your "killing Muslims is better than sex" comment was "distorted" too?

Oh, you cute little troll, as you try to wiggle around. It's ironic, you're willing to be a bigoted asshat, but when called on it you try to wiggle out of it, almost as if you are fearful of being un-PC.

Wow, nice casual racism.

We're not responsible for the current Iranian government - that was their choice - remember?

Yes, we are.

Some countries, notably the UK, actually did try to stop Rwanda, which is why they now don't speak French (because the French didn't really give a shit) and they want to because a member of the commonwealth.

They still speak French. French and English are both official languages, and English-speaking Rwandans are largely confined to Kigali and other major cities.

I am starting to see this whole Middle Eastern trouble as a Sunni vs. Shi'a confrontation. I hope that nuclear war doesn't happen, but it probably will. All the US, Europe, and everyone else could do is protect our interests over there and make sure that this crap doesn't bounce back to us (which it will).

I have a problem with militant Islam, as I have noted several hundred times now.

A point which you continuously ignore, and then distort to fit your own vision of what I believe.

The majority of your posts in response to anything I post is either lies, slurs, or vitriolic insults and cursing.

As far as I can tell, your version of 'militant Islam' is 'everyone who worships Allah.' So, yes, I'd say you've got a wee little bit of religious prejudice going on.

Can I still be prejudiced against religion as a whole?

Can I still be prejudiced against religion as a whole?

Sure, just be polite to us theists. And by polite, I mean that i respect your reasons to be atheist, and atheism in general, I don't tell atheists that they're deluded, or crazy, or anything else. All I ask is the same courtesy.

Where is the fun in that?

So, you completely lack empathy then?

I have no empathy for those morons...let them kill each other off..and which ever group is left at the end then so be it...

Where is the fun in that?

the fun is lambasting those that force their beliefs upon you while, at the same time and same conversation, being polite to those that don't.

I guess that's why the international community didn't invade Rwanda, and isn't doing anything about Darfur...

you're hilarious....

Rwanda needs what exactly to keep from economic collapse? Oh wait, it doesn't reply on imports. It exports. The US relies on imports.

You fail.

Let me put it this way. There's what, 1.2 billion Muslims out there? From various nations with a combined resource pool including most of the major oil supply and strategic nuclear weapons.

And you want to kill them all.

The one who's hilarious is you.

In fact, I'm on to your little game. You know your views are viewed with the disdain that the crap it is deserves. But you persist. Because you're hoping to use counterpoints to feed your "Oh I'm so persecuted complex on stormfront"

Additionally, you hope to get us banned by skirting the rules yet provoking the rest of us with unmitigated crap.

Congratulations. You've reached F.A.G. status. Welcome to /ignore.

So the people of the Middle East (who, on the whole, are not stupid) should suffer just because their governments are stupid?

well they do elect them,is not that the argument used when they behead westerners for the cause of their religion?
that since i am a tourist from america,i deserve to die cause i voted for bush(which i did not)and any pleading to the contrary,that the koran does not support murder of innocents,or that i did not vote for bush(as probably half the people in the trade centers did not,nor ron pearl)how does that argument stand?
yet it is used in reverse..go figure,by people that want to twist and distort their own religion to justify the murder of people from the west,and their own over a religous quibble that dates back thousands of years.

i have zip animosity to any muslim,jew,christian..anyone,but the poster does make a point,some of them are just completely around the bend,and leaders that they elected(hamas) to boot,just seem hell bent on killing someone..anyone,what are we suppose to surmise from that?

at what point dont you say to yourself,fuck it,let them kill themselves,like alot think we should do with the gangs in the u.s.
it is not that i dont feel emphathy or compassion for the thousands senselessly murdered by these disgusting people,but what the hell do you do?
we go there and become targets of them,but the world for meddling in their affairs,you tell me the answer,cause i sure dont have one for the blind hatred they have for everyone,including their own.

well they do elect them

Not in most cases.

Not in most cases.

well imanutjob was elected in iran,or am i incorrect?the palistinians elected hamas(kinda determined bunch that wants to kill jews?)
the irony is that the only non violent democracy in the middle east is the egyptians,and they hve issues with the fascists as well.
it seems like the monarchy/dictatorships of jordan,syria,saudi arabia dont have this blatant blood lust for the west or for their own.
it is interesting social question,that only those that are held at heel by the gov are not bloodthirsty,what does that tell you?
i am not saying muslims are bloodthirsty people,i know alot of great people from the middle east,but what does it say,when given the chance,at freedom and democracy,the worse offenders are given a choice?
the sad fact that the monarhy has to have a heel on there throats to keep them in check(for money of coarse)is somewhat telling.
persia is a whole nother ballgame,but the y did elect this idiot,that is slowly taking them to the brink of war,but he must have said something that resonated with the masses.
he was elected after all,maybe it was a bullshit election,like bushes,but do i want to kill all iranians for their misguided gov policies...hell no,but do i want to die for mine,and is it fair that i do?
alot of muslims seem to think so...from palestine to iran

and that is ignoring the blood lust between the sects.
any arab or persian could walk down my street and feel completely safe,even after 911,hell i would give them a ride if they were walking,just like my friend,an iranian did for me one night when i was stranded,he asked me what i was doing,said waiting for a ca,he said hop in,i'll drive you home,great guy,do you think i could walk down the street un molested in syria,iraq,anywhere in the mid east?
i would have hundreds invite me to break bread with them,but i bet i would be killed somewhere along the journey,and that is sad.
at the least,any arab or persion has a way better chance of making it down my street alive then i do down there street,if you doubt me,go for a stroll thru gaza.then come here.

Congratulations. You've reached F.A.G. status. Welcome to /ignore.

*Readies podium for RO, polishes medal*

Here's a catch -

I am seriously hoping for a Nuclear World War.

Not like 98% of the Human Population needs to be killed off anyways..

:rolleyes:

Didn't you advocate sterilizing all Muslims? :confused:

As a technical proposition only. It was then distorted by other posters into OMFGYOUFUCKINGNAZI!
Distorted by other posters? Ummmm I think the following seems far more personal than "technical"?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10018510&postcount=100

We all have our Dark Side.

I want to nuke large sections of the earth's surface, and forcibly sterilize whole populations.

Steph wants to impose one-party rule on Canada.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10083108&postcount=36

Yes, it's perverted. But if you sterilized everyone above the age of puberty, and forcibly re-educated the younger ones, within a generation, you wouldn't have Palestinians anymore.
When you advocate genocide, it is easy to understand that others would declare:

"OMFGYOUFUCKINGNAZI!"

Distorted by other posters? Ummmm I think the following seems far more personal than "technical"?

Yeah, but that's not R.O...

I couldn't say it with a straight face.

Not a false dilemma.

I'm all for leaving. Why should we stay, when so many want us to leave.

Since leaving is their idea, they get to own the results, eh?

Sure it is ... you could support a position for limited means (rather than ANY means necessary)

Yeah, but that's not R.O...

I couldn't say it with a straight face.
No, it is Deep Observer Remote Kimchi. :p

Wow...could this thread get any more off topic?

How about we discuss the article, instead of lambasting the OP for his own opinion on it for 90+ posts?

I wonder what Iran's reaction will be. Does anyone seriously think they'll stop supporting the Shi'a in Iraq?

What might AQ's plan be, and will coalition forces be caught in the middle, or can they stay out of it?

Not a word on any of that in here...sad, really.

Al-Qaeda Will Do It For Him ('http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070709-064703-2160r')



Maybe we should leave Iraq immediately. And, as the current leaders of Iraq say, the "nation" of Iraq will immediately dissolve into massive civil war - which will consume Iran...

Nothing like getting something for nothing...

And, if the Iranians get a few nuclear weapons in the meantime (or the Pakistanis provide a few to the Sunnis), there will be marshmallow roasting all around the Gulf...

Sit back, and watch the fireworks...

marshmallo roasting is pretty much "off the table". i need not go into details, but not everyone is completely insane.

bush never "had to" invade iraq nor afghanistan to begin with. "having to" never had anything to do with it. which is why having done so is so totally immoral.

nor a guarantee that a u.s. iran invasion won't happen. but the clock is ticking on what remains of shrubery's presidency, and there's just a chance, hope against hope, the insanity of an (overt!, COvertly it's already been going on for quite some time) iran invasion may yet be forstalled.

not that there arn't morally legitimate reasons for WANTING "regeme change" in iran (treatment of religeous minorities, NOT nuclear potential), it's just that, as i've pointed out consistently, millitary invasion in the service of it is like performing brain surgery with a sledge hammer. the likelyhood of any bennifit to the patient being rather slim.

=^^=
.../\...

Ladies and gentlemen we are in the middle of the melting pot. There is no way for the common man to get off this train so like it or not we are all in this together. Not one of us asked to be born so I am an advocate of suicide for those who wish to leave. That's probably the easiest way out, but as a self proclaimed desolation junkie I wouldn't mind having a front row seat to the clusterfuck about to befall the earth. I am no christian, nor atheist, I am very spiritual myself but I do not support or condone zealots. People who are so blinded by their own belief system that they cannot clearly state the very tennets they are supposed to live by have no purpose on this planet. Fuck them. On the United States note this country hasn't been a representative democracy since the was for southern independence. Our constitution, our founding mandate gives us the right and the responsibility to abolish a government that cleary fails to serve the needs of it's citizenry, but freedom means responsibility and that takes effort. This so called land of the free has more laws (legislation for the purpose of controlling the population, generating government income and keeping the stupid safe from themselves) than any other nation. We put a man on the moon almost 40 years ago. A self governing society is not that difficult, people simply have to condition themselves to it. True freedom means responsibility, the freedom we have now is the freedom of complacency. Just work your jobs, the few that remain here, and buy shit, imported from us companies overseas, go home, watch tv, and enjoy your insignificant lives. The United States have made themselves vulnerable to the global economy by outsourcing it's jobs to third world countries. We all know this. We have watched it with our own eyes as we have grown up, maybe our father or uncle lost their job due to overseas outsourcing of jobs, but what were we doing at the time? Watching television? Working a service job while we studied for careers? We let our own nation run us completely into the ground, because as long as there was something interesting to occupy our free time we didn't give a shit. As a whole we don't give a shit now. The job is too big. There is no way to work within the system to change it efficiently enough. Corruption has set in too deep. The people of the United States don't want the responsibility that freedom represents. Hell we don't want responsibility for our own actions. I have a close army friend who was stationed in Iraq. He had to pull checkpoint duty while he was there and the checkpoint out in the middle of the desert was full of half drunk bottles of water. It's nothing to us because we can walk inside our house and turn on the faucet, but it is a precious resource there. Our entire lives are geared for comfort. There are few challenges in our lives, or few that we choose to take. We are simply pieces of meat waiting on milestones, ignoring the truth of what's happening in the world and leaving each generation...our sons and daughters with the same responsibilities that we did not accept...fuck this is sad....this is my first forum post...ever...sorry it's so long.....goodbye cruel world...just kidding.:headbang:

I wonder what Iran's reaction will be. Does anyone seriously think they'll stop supporting the Shi'a in Iraq?

What might AQ's plan be, and will coalition forces be caught in the middle, or can they stay out of it?

I hate to quote myself, but I was seriously interested in what people think about the topic.