or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Iran - Page 3

post #81 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by OfficerDigby View Post

I have got an idea.
How about starting some negotiations? We all know this is what Iran wants.

US we want negotiations, but first Iran must
(i) stop developing it's own technology.
(ii) drop its draws and bend over for some Uncle sam action.

Everyone else in the world knows it's bullshit: Iran stops it's nuclear (power) program, US says OK prove it. Wait for 6 months. US says OK maybe we can discus about this in 2009 when we are convinced more thoroughly of Irans intentions.

Neo-cons want war because they know 2008 is lost. We're exiting the world stage after the next election and becoming more isolationist to use an older term. Which is also dumb but whatever...it likely can't be avoided.

Anything better than the mess we've had during this administration. Even Carter would have been better. Damn, I wish Gore had won and I'm a Republican. Not that I voted for our illustrious leader either time. Voted for his dad twice. Dole once (lost cause that was too).

Hmmm...looking at the pattern I guess I tend to vote for guys who've actually been in a war zone. We better put up McCain if he's dumb enough to get crushed in '08.

Vinea
post #82 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Neo-cons want war because they know 2008 is lost. We're exiting the world stage after the next election and becoming more isolationist to use an older term. Which is also dumb but whatever...it likely can't be avoided.

Anything better than the mess we've had during this administration. Even Carter would have been better. Damn, I wish Gore had won and I'm a Republican. Not that I voted for our illustrious leader either time. Voted for his dad twice. Dole once (lost cause that was too).

Hmmm...looking at the pattern I guess I tend to vote for guys who've actually been in a war zone. We better put up McCain if he's dumb enough to get crushed in '08.

Vinea

Draft Gore 2008
post #83 of 200
Nah...I kinda identify with Clark over Gore...Democrat or really lonely Republican only I opted for lonely Republican which makes me an even bigger idiot*. Neither are running (yet) and Clark isn't electable anyway. The guy is even a bigger disaster on TV than Gore was. Gore sure looks a lot better than 2000 although still a bit stiff on the Oscars.

There's no party for socially liberal and financial/foreign policy/military conservative. Tho' the dems are looking somewhat less like morons these days but IMHO it's not because they got any smarter. If anything the rabid liberals are even more emboldened today. It's just too bad that the rabid conservatives are scaring me more after 8 years of idiocy.

"You are coming to a sad realization...cancel or allow?"

Allow...

Vinea

* Not as big an idiot as log cabin republicans but I digress...
post #84 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Well they certainly have Silkworms. And they should have a few Sunburns if they got sold some the same time the Chinese picked up a few. And unlike us the Iranians don't likely care about collateral damage so if they can get a decent OTH solutions they'll launch em and let the missiles hit what they find. Whether they sink anything will depend on luck. Leakers can always happen and unlike the west the Soviets built their missiles big. They need to only get a little lucky and for us to get a little unlucky to have a bad headline on CNN if they really have operational Sunburns.

Betting that your untested weapon system works as designed against their untested weapon system is a good way for losing some ships if you have a bad day.

A nuclear Iran isn't all that different than a nuclear Pakistan. There's no certainty they'll ever use one. And they aren't dumb enough to just hand one off to jihadists because they have no more desire to glow than we do. Unlike terrorists Tehran is easy to find.

We DO know that China has nukes and Iran is the second largest source of oil for China.

There's no bleeding way even someone with as questionable judgement as our President will order a strike on Iran. A nuclear Iran we can live with. Pre-emptive unilateral strike on a country strategic to a nuclear nation that's one of our biggest trading partners not so much.

If nothing else, China will invade Taiwan and dare us to respond. We won't and we'll look like bigger idiots and a failed world power. Which at that point we will be as much as France and the UK were at Suez. Historians will point to this and say "This is where the US stopped being a world power"...that's if we're lucky and they won't point at Iraq and say that already.

You and other "conservatives" may be dumb enough to hope your kids grow up in a declining world power. I'm not. Much more of the old guard "conservatives" that figure denying reality doesn't work well and winning a peace a more profitable deal in the long run for everyone.

Vinea


1. Having some silkworms and other missles is not going to be enough to take out a carrier. I would bet my last dollar that they would not sink a carrier if they tried.

2. I totally disagree about Iran having a nuke. Their government has some seriously radical elements. It is not the same as Pakistan at all. We have Pakistan under our thumb. Iran, not so much.

3. I strike may be the only option at some point. If a nuclear Iran cannot be tolerated, then it may just come to that. I hope it doesn't.

4. Iran openly supports terror. Why would they hesitate to give jihadists the bomb?

5. China invading Taiwan: Not likely. They don't yet have the amphibious capability to do so. We are also obligated by treaty to defend Taiwan. China may try it 10-15 years from now, but not now.

6. You may be right. The US may eventually decline as a world power, but it won't be from launching an attack on Iran.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #85 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

"You are coming to a sad realization...cancel or allow?"

Allow...

Vinea

Al Gore Will Not Only Run, but He Can and Will Win in '08
post #86 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Neo-cons want war because they know 2008 is lost. We're exiting the world stage after the next election and becoming more isolationist to use an older term. Which is also dumb but whatever...it likely can't be avoided.

Anything better than the mess we've had during this administration. Even Carter would have been better. Damn, I wish Gore had won and I'm a Republican. Not that I voted for our illustrious leader either time. Voted for his dad twice. Dole once (lost cause that was too).

Hmmm...looking at the pattern I guess I tend to vote for guys who've actually been in a war zone. We better put up McCain if he's dumb enough to get crushed in '08.

Vinea

Who wants a war?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #87 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Who wants a war?

It's starting to become apparent that war may be the only way to excise this evil and sick cancer masquerading under the obscene guise of 'freedom'.

I am far more optimistic this time - Iran can do some real damage and Bush has proved how inept and pathetic he is (like most bullies) when picking on someone his own size...err...wait...I mean oppressing people on a much lower military level.

The main thing that worries me the obvious fact he will strike with nukes given any provocation at all and of course his complete barbarian disregard for (ie inability to comprehend) any form of culture which will undoubtedly result in the destruction of much of the world';s greatest historical and architectural treasures but, in balance, I think the Bush regime can be dealt a series of crippling blows from Iran very, very quickly.

Overall I am optimistic Iran can resist the oppressors and am unfortunately leaning towards the idea that a conflict is as necessary as a surgical operation.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #88 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

It's starting to become apparent that war may be the only way to excise this evil and sick cancer masquerading under the obscene guise of 'freedom'.

I am far more optimistic this time - Iran can do some real damage and Bush has proved how inept and pathetic he is (like most bullies) when picking on someone his own size...err...wait...I mean oppressing people on a much lower military level.

The main thing that worries me the obvious fact he will strike with nukes given any provocation at all and of course his complete barbarian disregard for (ie inability to comprehend) any form of culture which will undoubtedly result in the destruction of much of the world';s greatest historical and architectural treasures but, in balance, I think the Bush regime can be dealt a series of crippling blows from Iran very, very quickly.

Overall I am optimistic Iran can resist the oppressors and am unfortunately leaning towards the idea that a conflict is as necessary as a surgical operation.

I assume you're just trolling at this point.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #89 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I assume you're just trolling at this point.

Read: A STRATEGIC SHIFT

Listen: Seymour Hersh on U.S. Policy Toward Iran

Watch: Seymour Hersh Uncovers Major Bush Scandal

If you think Seymour Hersh is a troll, you don't deserve to participate in this discussion.
post #90 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Read: A STRATEGIC SHIFT

Listen: Seymour Hersh on U.S. Policy Toward Iran

Watch: Seymour Hersh Uncovers Major Bush Scandal

If you think Seymour Hersh is a troll, you don't deserve to participate in this discussion.

I'm not sure why you posted all of that. The Hersh article is an interesting read, though he's expressing an opinion as everyone else is. He's relying on Pentagon consultants and public statements of various officials. That's all fine, I just don't see what message you're trying to send by posting it. I can only assume that it's meant to bolster the case that the administration is hell bent on war with Iran? If so, poor job.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #91 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm not sure why you posted all of that. The Hersh article is an interesting read, though he's expressing an opinion as everyone else is. He's relying on Pentagon consultants and public statements of various officials. That's all fine, I just don't see what message you're trying to send by posting it. I can only assume that it's meant to bolster the case that the administration is hell bent on war with Iran? If so, poor job.

I think Hersh did it again (see Abu Garab). Seems the Administration's doing a complete 180 with Iran. They have invited Iran and Syria to a "Neighbors Meeting" to sort things out. But whatever the reason (Baker is probably the motivator here) they may sit down and discuss avoiding Armageddon. That's cool. Glass parking lots are not as profitable when the US/UK Iraqi oil grab is a done deal.

Overall I'm breathing easier that the leaders have all come to their senses.
post #92 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm not sure why you posted all of that. The Hersh article is an interesting read, though he's expressing an opinion as everyone else is. He's relying on Pentagon consultants and public statements of various officials. That's all fine, I just don't see what message you're trying to send by posting it. I can only assume that it's meant to bolster the case that the administration is hell bent on war with Iran? If so, poor job.

I believe his point is that Hersh has been right about everything he's predicted/reported on thus far. Of course, it is possible that the admin is using Hersh to get the country in a tizzy about war in order to make Iran think we're ready to invade, which will either a) make them play nicer or b) send us into a full-on war. It would seem that the recent ratcheting DOWN of the admin bellicosity has led to A.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #93 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I believe his point is that Hersh has been right about everything he's predicted/reported on thus far. Of course, it is possible that the admin is using Hersh to get the country in a tizzy about war in order to make Iran think we're ready to invade, which will either a) make them play nicer or b) send us into a full-on war. It would seem that the recent ratcheting DOWN of the admin bellicosity has led to A.


I disagree. I think it's clear that the prior ratcheting UP of the rhetoric coupled with sending another carrier battle group put pressure on Ahmadinejad's goverment.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #94 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I disagree. I think it's clear that the prior ratcheting UP of the rhetoric coupled with sending another carrier battle group put pressure on Ahmadinejad's goverment.

That's actually not in conflict with what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that the admin beat the war drums, got the 30%-ers frothing at the mouth and screaming for war against Iran, sent in a carrier group to convince everyone that they were lunatics bent on war, and THEN adjusted their tone, which brought Iran to the table.

Good cop, bad cop.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #95 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

That's actually not in conflict with what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that the admin beat the war drums, got the 30%-ers frothing at the mouth and screaming for war against Iran, sent in a carrier group to convince everyone that they were lunatics bent on war, and THEN adjusted their tone, which brought Iran to the table.

Good cop, bad cop.

I think that's quite possible.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #96 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think that's quite possible.

Except that the frothing 30% (actually it's much more but whatever) screaming for blood virtually IS the Government.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #97 of 200
My question is this: When was Iran not willing to sit at this table?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #98 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Except that the frothing 30% (actually it's much more but whatever) screaming for blood virtually IS the Government.....


Well first, I don't think many people are screaming for blood. Some might eventually support strikes on Iran, but that's not the same thing.

According to the definition of "thirty percenter," I'd probably be considered one, but it depends on how the definition is worded. If it was "do you approve of how the President is handling his job, overall" I would answer "yes." However, I'd do so with a good bit of reservation as I disagree with numerous actions and positions. In any case, my point is that I, as part of this supposed group, don't really want strikes on Iran. I'd like to see it solved diplomatically. I just have my doubts that's going to work. The best I can say is that I'd support military action if several criteria are met.

1) Iran continues to defy UN demands over say, the next 18 months.

2) Significant evidence of Iran meddling in Iraq is presented.

OR

3) Clear evidence of an attempt to develop a nuclear weapon in presented.


The problem is that I think #1 is a given and #2 is extremely likely. #3 would and should result in immediate military action, which I would fully support. But a strike now, in the absence of any further developments? No. That would be a bad idea.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #99 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well first, I don't think many people are screaming for blood. Some might eventually support strikes on Iran, but that's not the same thing.

According to the definition of "thirty percenter," I'd probably be considered one, but it depends on how the definition is worded. If it was "do you approve of how the President is handling his job, overall" I would answer "yes." However, I'd do so with a good bit of reservation as I disagree with numerous actions and positions. In any case, my point is that I, as part of this supposed group, don't really want strikes on Iran. I'd like to see it solved diplomatically. I just have my doubts that's going to work. The best I can say is that I'd support military action if several criteria are met.

1) Iran continues to defy UN demands over say, the next 18 months.

2) Significant evidence of Iran meddling in Iraq is presented.

OR

3) Clear evidence of an attempt to develop a nuclear weapon in presented.

The problem is that I think #1 is a given and #2 is extremely likely. #3 would and should result in immediate military action, which I would fully support. But a strike now, in the absence of any further developments? No. That would be a bad idea.

Sometimes - just occasionally - some of your posts seem so reasonable that it briefly crosses my mind that I might need t put in a bit more effort into my own. This is one of them so...er...thanks....very well put.

Of course, I don't agree with the subtext but it is an eloquent statement of a reasonable position.

I might have reservations over #2. why can the US 'meddle in Iraq' and Iran not? Iraq is historically a part of greater Iran and of course there is 1500 years of religious inter-connection. None of which the US has.

I think any 'interference' is not only justified but should be expected. Of course, by the same token, I would not expect the US to do nothing but invading seems to me to be inappropriate.

Engaging Iranian forces on the ground (if there are such) is legitimate. Attacking civilian infrastructure of (another) sovereign State would not be.

Also I think that a major problem here is that Westerners don't understand the concept of Umma - basically this belief (which you will be shocked to hear I wholeheartedly endorse) states that an attack on one Muslim is an attack on all. essentially, being a Muslim transcends one nationality. This is as it should be imo and I really don't see a problem if Iran helps out the Iraqis while they are being attacked by an aggressor.

In fact, I think more States should oppose Imperialism, aggression and Zionism - we might get some peace in the world.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #100 of 200
Dear god. Me, SDW, and Seg having a discussion about Iran that's both polite and AGREEABLE?!?!

/me faints
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #101 of 200
I read this morning in some NY daily paper that Iran has threatened to use its Revolutionary Guard to pursue Kurdish rebels in Iraq, if Baghdad cannot maintain and expand the peace over the Iran-Iraq border. It was an AP story, but I can't find it. I found this one, which gives partial credit to AFP: link from "iranmania."

Hot war with Iran may not be that far off.
post #102 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

That's actually not in conflict with what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that the admin beat the war drums, got the 30%-ers frothing at the mouth and screaming for war against Iran, sent in a carrier group to convince everyone that they were lunatics bent on war, and THEN adjusted their tone, which brought Iran to the table.

Good cop, bad cop.


Uh, Uh. Bush meeting Syria and Iran because 'Iraq invited US'

Confused yet? Good that's the way they want you. Go back to watching American Idol.
post #103 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Sometimes - just occasionally - some of your posts seem so reasonable that it briefly crosses my mind that I might need t put in a bit more effort into my own. This is one of them so...er...thanks....very well put.

Of course, I don't agree with the subtext but it is an eloquent statement of a reasonable position.

I might have reservations over #2. why can the US 'meddle in Iraq' and Iran not? Iraq is historically a part of greater Iran and of course there is 1500 years of religious inter-connection. None of which the US has.

I think any 'interference' is not only justified but should be expected. Of course, by the same token, I would not expect the US to do nothing but invading seems to me to be inappropriate.

Engaging Iranian forces on the ground (if there are such) is legitimate. Attacking civilian infrastructure of (another) sovereign State would not be.

Also I think that a major problem here is that Westerners don't understand the concept of Umma - basically this belief (which you will be shocked to hear I wholeheartedly endorse) states that an attack on one Muslim is an attack on all. essentially, being a Muslim transcends one nationality. This is as it should be imo and I really don't see a problem if Iran helps out the Iraqis while they are being attacked by an aggressor.

In fact, I think more States should oppose Imperialism, aggression and Zionism - we might get some peace in the world.


With regard to my posts, well I suspect you have those moments when you realize what my true positions are. That's my guess, anyway. I am a Bush supporter, but I don't agree with everything he's done...not in the least. The biggest points I differ with him on are fiscal policy and immigration, but there are others. It also seems clear that we're not focusing on OBL very much at this point, which if true...is a real issue for me.

I think with respect to #2, it's the definition of "meddling" that needs to be articulated. It was probably a bad choice of word on my part. What I mean by that term is "supplying weapons and possibly personnel" to not only carry out attacks on civilians, but US forces as well.

I don't know about civilian infastructure. I see no reason we'd need to target it. That said, I do think that if we attack Iran, we need to do more than hit their nuclear sites. In my judgement you'd have to seriously degrade their ability to respond. This would mean hitting the Shalb missile sites, command and control, dual use facilities, etc. In other words, I think it would require a massive air operation. I actually am very weary of engaging Iranian ground forces and totally opposed to a full on invasion, at least as circumstances are at present. I might feel differently if they were to kill a large number of US troops in some kind of grant attack or what not.

As for Umma, well I don't know that it's really applicable to be honest. There would be anger on the Arab Street, but at the risk being totally flippant, we've already got that problem.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #104 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I disagree. I think it's clear that the prior ratcheting UP of the rhetoric coupled with sending another carrier battle group put pressure on Ahmadinejad's goverment.

Why is another battlegroup any sort of pressure when we have operational airfields in the region?

Vinea
post #105 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

S
Also I think that a major problem here is that Westerners don't understand the concept of Umma - basically this belief (which you will be shocked to hear I wholeheartedly endorse) states that an attack on one Muslim is an attack on all. essentially, being a Muslim transcends one nationality. This is as it should be imo and I really don't see a problem if Iran helps out the Iraqis while they are being attacked by an aggressor..

Are we then to assume that all Muslims are the enemy and respond accordingly?
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #106 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski View Post

Are we then to assume that all Muslims are the enemy and respond accordingly?

Do you know any muslims personally?
post #107 of 200
Lots

Let it be known that I don't consider all Muslims "the enemy". That comment was a normal extention of Segos lesson to we clueless Westerners.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #108 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski View Post

Lots........

How many is 'lots'?

Are these the ones you want to put in concentration camps?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #109 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

How many is 'lots'?

Are these the ones you want to put in concentration camps?



I'm in a very international environment Sego.

Never called for concentration camps. Did say that the idea of internment camps deserved a second look. Now that you tell me that Muslims are loyal to, above all, the Muslim Nation, probably needs a third look.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #110 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski View Post

I'm in a very international environment Sego.

Never called for concentration camps. Did say that the idea of internment camps deserved a second look. Now that you tell me that Muslims are loyal to, above all, the Muslim Nation, probably needs a third look.

Internment camps need a second look? Dude..I'm with seg on this one. That's straight up batshit nuts.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #111 of 200
"batshit nuts"

like that one. need to start using

Just having a little fun with our friend Mr Sego. Good fellow. A little pompous, but a good fellow overall.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #112 of 200
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #113 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous View Post


I guess he still supports that position. It's been a few days with no comment. Internment camps. Christ.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #114 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I guess he still supports that position. It's been a few days with no comment. Internment camps. Christ.

Well we're in agreement there. But you have to wonder about the sincererity of this indiviual. Is he for real or just one of those entities that floats around here saying really outragous things to annoy others while entertaining himself?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #115 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well we're in agreement there. But you have to wonder about the sincererity of this indiviual. Is he for real or just one of those entities that floats around here saying really outragous things to annoy others while entertaining himself?

Don't know what the fuss is about. You already have an internment camp. It's called Guantanemo. It's for people who looked suspicious in Afghanistan circa 2002.
post #116 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by OfficerDigby View Post

Don't know what the fuss is about. You already have an internment camp. It's called Guantanemo. It's for people who looked suspicious in Afghanistan circa 2002.

Not just afganistan, they also kidnapped enemy combatants in Iraq, Pakistan, and throughout the middle east, often paying the governments for prisoners. They kidnapped a homegrown Brooklynite too, a citizen of these United States of America. Imprisoned for years, without trial.
post #117 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by thuh Freak View Post

Not just afganistan, they also kidnapped enemy combatants in Iraq, Pakistan, and throughout the middle east, often paying the governments for prisoners. They kidnapped a homegrown Brooklynite too, a citizen of these United States of America. Imprisoned for years, without trial.

And a Canadian and a German.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #118 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

And a Canadian and a German.

I've heard. \ Brooklyn is particularly appalling, because Jose is a natural born citizen.
post #119 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by thuh Freak View Post

I've heard. \ Brooklyn is particularly appalling, because Jose is a natural born citizen.

Yes. The situation with Padilla is horrifying. Years in a Naval brig while being denied access to counsel.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #120 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thuh Freak View Post

Not just afganistan, they also kidnapped enemy combatants in Iraq, Pakistan, and throughout the middle east, often paying the governments for prisoners. They kidnapped a homegrown Brooklynite too, a citizen of these United States of America. Imprisoned for years, without trial.

And Italy.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider