or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence? - Page 8

post #281 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

So you think everyone at the Pentagon is lying about Quds? To appease a president at 24% approval ratings?

Say it enough times and it's not a lie, until it's to late.

Meanwhile, after their service to the country, the war industry shall reward those that gave at the office.

Like Artman said, get a link or something before you spout opinions.
post #282 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Look away all, nothing to see here. Iran is not building IEDs. They're not killing US troops. They're not sponsoring terrorism. They're not making threatening statements towards Israel. They're not extremely hostile towards the US. They're not holding Death To America rallies in the streets. They're not ignoring the UN and certainly not publicly announcing their intent to disobey resolutions as soon as they are passed. It's all been concocted by the Evil Bush Administration and the Neocons®. Iran can do no wrong. If we would just leave them alone, we could go to bed and it would all turn out OK in the morning. See, Ahmadinejad was mistranslated and misunderstood. So are the mullahs. They're just nice old men with Santa Claus-like beards, wisely and perhaps a bit naively overseeing their Islamic Paradise on Earth. And if there is the occasional seemingly provocative statement, well that's our fault because the CIA Overthrew Their Government 50 Years Ago and we've been asking for it ever since. Every time we bend over to tie our shoes we piss them off, from Beruit to Libya to the Gulf War to invading Iraq, but mostly invading Iraq. Man, that really cause ALL the problems because we offended to many people and they voted that nutjob..er..I mean..."conservative" into power in Iran. But don't worry, he's really OK like I said. He's got those nifty looking sport jackets after all, and he says there are no gays in his country. What a kook! But he's harmless. Anyway, see it's all about Oil Oil Oil, and if we weren't sucking up all the resources on the planet and causing Global Warming®, we wouldn't need that. And no, we can't use nuclear power either, or drill the GoM, or ANWR, because once again we'd be interfering with nature and the migratory patterns of the caribou, not to mention that one species of fish I can't recall but tastes great. Problem is, my girlfriend is a Vegan so I can't eat that stuff anymore. Fortunately she's moving to Seattle next week and I can have some freedom. Damn, I hope no one finds out I like Big Macs® because they are delicious.

Nice bit of rambling, exceptional.
post #283 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

get a link or something.

Go to wikipedia (baby step) for the list of military people talking about Quds.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #284 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Go to wikipedia (baby step) for the list of military people talking about Quds.

You still crawling?
If you can't, or won't supply the link to back up your assertion, then I'll just post this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#U.S._troops
Quote:
A Zogby poll in February 2006 determined that most U.S. troops serving in Iraq think that the U.S. should exit the country within a year, i.e. before February 2007.[252] The poll found:
"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately"
"89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so."

Along with Artman's link in the More bad news out of Iraq thread about troops not bothering to go on patrol, moral is low and attacking Iran would be the worst thing Bush and his enablers could do.

Then again, arrogance trumps all, right?
post #285 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

If you can't, or won't supply the link to back up your assertion, then I'll just post this one.

Here you go, sweetheart. Go read it for yourself.

screeder, I know nothing will stop your love of seeming US defeat. This is pointless for you and I to argue. I believe we're doing better, things are improving, and the US will exit Iraq with goals achieved. You don't believe any of those things, and have joined the drum circle-jerk about any bad news that can be had.

We disagree, and that is OK.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #286 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's delusional and totally unsupported. In fact, you just saw two events an literally made up a connection.

Also, the real power in Iran is with the mullahs anyway. That has been that way long before our invasion of Iraq. Moreover, it amazes me that people actually stick to this line of reasoning in general. Not all anti-American sentiment comes from our actions in the ME. We could pull all our troops out and they'd still hate us (thse that do now), because we are The Great Satan and our position in the world impedes the Islamification of the world.

The problem is we are not dealing with rational, secular policies created by those with whom we merely disagree. We're dealing with religion-derived policies and ideals, some of which are more extreme than others. There are those whose religion tells them that we are infidels, and we must be destroyed because we are non-believers. Then national and group policy gets developed based on those ideals. So it's not just about our actions, Northgate. It's about their beleifs.

You people are unbelievable. Seriously.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #287 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Here you go, sweetheart. Go read it for yourself.

screeder, I know nothing will stop your love of seeming US defeat. This is pointless for you and I to argue. I believe we're doing better, things are improving, and the US will exit Iraq with goals achieved. You don't believe any of those things, and have joined the drum circle-jerk about any bad news that can be had.

We disagree, and that is OK.

Sweetheart? To each his own.

All allegations, no proof.
After all the shit that's happened, you still believe without questioning, this Administration?
You want to go to war with Iran based on allegations?

I don't want the US to lose, I want a stabilized Iraq and oil prices to come down.
Sadly, I don't see this happening and I hope the dopes in charge don't do any more damage.

If you're happy believing it'll all be good, fine.
Not me, I like to anticipate what's coming without a biased view, not what I want to happen.

From your link,
Quote:
The Quds Force was created during the Iran-Iraq war as a special unit from the broader Pasdaran forces. After the war, Quds Force continued to support the Kurds fighting Saddam Hussein, during the war it had helped the Kurds fight the Iraqi military. The Quds also expanded their operations into other areas, most notably aiding Ahmed Shah Massoud's Northern Alliance against the Soviets during the Soviet war in Afghanistan[citation needed] and then helping Massoud after the war against Taliban forces. There were also reports of the Quds forces lending support to Muslim Bosnians fighting the Serbs during the Yugoslav wars.[4]
According to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad helped found Quds Force while he was stationed at the Ramazan garrison near Iraq during the late 1980s.[5]

This lends credibility to Iran reaching out to the US.

And here we are now, discussing a war with Iran, perfect.

Here it is,
George W F.....g Bush, the worst president ever.
post #288 of 309
What utterly baffles my mind is that none of these "pro-war/attack Iran" cretens seem to understand that Iran would simply not be taking this position against the U.S. if we had not invaded Iraq. Ask any regular Joe Iranian and he is convinced that they are next. The believed it the minute the first bomb dropped on Iraq in '03.

If an aggressive and massively armored nation bombed the shit out of Mexico and then unilaterally and illegally took over Canada and started threatening me. I'd be the first fucking person driving to the border and telling those aggressors to go fuck itself. And I think a lot of you would too.

Pretty basic, no?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #289 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

I don't want the US to lose, I want a stabilized Iraq and oil prices to come down. Sadly, I don't see this happening and I hope the dopes in charge don't do any more damage.

Of course it's not going to happen. The massive Military Complex must be fed.

We are a millitary nation through and through now. The very thing MacArthur and Eisenhower feared would happen has happened.

Guess what? It's irreversable.

Hillary will be no different.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #290 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Of course it's not going to happen. The massive Military Complex must be fed.

We are a millitary nation through and through now. The very thing MacArthur and Eisenhower feared would happen has happened.

Guess what? It's irreversable.

Hillary will be no different.

She can't be any worse, I would hope.
post #291 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

She can't be any worse, I would hope.

She will be... because she will, by her name alone, knock the middle out of the fair-weather anti-war movement.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #292 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

What utterly baffles my mind is that none of these "pro-war/attack Iran" cretens seem to understand that Iran would simply not be taking this position against the U.S. if we had not invaded Iraq. Ask any regular Joe Iranian and he is convinced that they are next. The believed it the minute the first bomb dropped on Iraq in '03.

If an aggressive and massively armored nation bombed the shit out of Mexico and then unilaterally and illegally took over Canada and started threatening me. I'd be the first fucking person driving to the border and telling those aggressors to go fuck itself. And I think a lot of you would too.

Pretty basic, no?

You cannot possibly be that simple minded. First, who are the "pro-war/attack Iran cretens, exactly? I'm curious. The problem is that anyone that even think it might be an necessity someday is labeled as a "creten.

Secondly, you're just sticking to that claim about why they are hostile towards us. One more time: THEY HATED US LONG BEFORE IRAQ, LONG BEFORE 9/11, LONG BEFORE THE FIRST GULF WAR. So please stop. You're making a fool out of yourself.
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 #293 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm sorry, but you simply have no idea what you're talking about. Our air power is overwhelming. And Serb "armor and troops" did not "survive" anything. The political objective took that long to accomplish. It was also a much different tactical situation. We were going for troop positions, not the military-industrial complex.

Laying waste to 80% of Iranian industry in two days sounds plausible, because it doesn't hide or move, and US air power is massive indeed.

But when you say 80% of military capacity, that means Iran in smoking ruins and in total military defeat. Going after the troops on the ground, equipment stockpiles, everything.

No matter what, it is unrealistic.

I have worked in casualty simulation and estimation for large troop concentrations. And before that, been trained for a frontline command job with a strong focus on practical countermeasures to constant enemy air superiority and EW superiority.

Trust me: unless you have a military background, and not just any kind, you do not have a feel for how this really works.
Quote:
Now, perhaps I went over the top with the 100,000 figure. I'll give you that. That's probably considerably out of line now that I think about it. But the figure about 80% of their military resources is likely not that far off. Consider for a moment that in Operation Iraqi Freedom, we launched 750 cruise missiles in a matter of days. We flew something like 2,000 sorties per day according to the records I can find. We used 1,800 aircraft. We had 3,000 hard targets. And that was the scaled back version. Originally we planned for 6,000 targets.

Consider what that means. The above represented about 50-60% of our capacity to attack, probably less. We used five carrier battle groups and assorted other vessels. One would assume we'd use up to six for Iran and probably have at least 6,000-8.000 targets, as Iran's military is stronger and larger than Iraq's was. One could also assume we'd launch at least 1,000 cruise missiles.

There were in excess of 10,000 strikes against targets in Yugoslavia, 40,000 total sorties in the region. Yet the Serb troops were not disabled, and bombing infrastructure chosen to put pressure on politicians was the deciding factor.

Only a small amount of US air power is able to enter Iranian air defense with relative safety, so if Iran can conserve its defense and not allow it to be wiped out - the Serb succeeded in this - either US takes casualties or it can only use a part of its power. This puts a multiplier on the life of the targets.

Dispersing everything, digging in everything and everyone, rotating positions, decoys and fakes (a $500 box of electronics can look remarkably like an anti-air radar to a $200,000 radar-seeking missile, etc) - all of these are additional multipliers.

The maintenance, fuel, bombs needed for the air campaign is phenomenal. To a state fighting on its own soil, blood is often cheap and supplies are already buried where they want them.

If Iran doesn't roll over in response to its infrastructure being demolished, there's only bad choices left for the US. Not that I think the choices leading up to that point would have been any good.
post #294 of 309
Jub, the first paragraph in your link about the Quds quotes the FAS as the source defining who the Quds are and what they do. The FAS hasn't written a word about the Quds since 1996. Why on earth would you cite a ten year-old article as the main definition of something, unless you're trying to deceive by giving it some sort of legitimacy, showing, "see, not just the government is saying this"?

Blaming everything on Quds is simply a convenient way for those who would want to blame Iran to do so. It's the Iranian boogie man, just like Al Qaeda was the Afghan boogie man (and mysteriously became nonterritorial when we wanted to place them in Iraq).

Lie. Rinse. Repeat.
post #295 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You cannot possibly be that simple minded. First, who are the "pro-war/attack Iran cretens, exactly? I'm curious. The problem is that anyone that even think it might be an necessity someday is labeled as a "creten.

Secondly, you're just sticking to that claim about why they are hostile towards us. One more time: THEY HATED US LONG BEFORE IRAQ, LONG BEFORE 9/11, LONG BEFORE THE FIRST GULF WAR. So please stop. You're making a fool out of yourself.

Why, in your opinion, have they hated us for so long? Is there any logical reason, such as uninvited meddling in their affairs or a CIA sponsored coup to install a pro-US government?

Hmmm.... reap what ye sew.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #296 of 309
Iran says documents show U.S. backing "terrorists"

Quote:
Iran has access to evidence of U.S. support for terrorist groups in the Middle East, a senior Iranian official was quoted as saying on Sunday.

Iran's new chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, made the allegation in comments to visiting Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, whose country may soon send troops to hunt down Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq.

Tehran says the rebels are operating in Iraq with U.S. forces present in the country and this shows Washington is refraining from tackling them.

Like Turkey, Iran also has faced

Blackwater serves as a perfect example of state -sponsored terror. Yeah, but they are our terrorists....Silly Iran.

But we've known this all along. Bin Laden was a CIA trained operative. Saddam Hussein (not a terrorist, but not a very nice guy either) was also aided, significantly, by the US. See: Iran-contra affair.


Hell, even Israel aided and supported Iran (arms for oil) for years
.

Also:



Pro-war/attack Iran cretin
post #297 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

Laying waste to 80% of Iranian industry in two days sounds plausible, because it doesn't hide or move, and US air power is massive indeed.

But when you say 80% of military capacity, that means Iran in smoking ruins and in total military defeat. Going after the troops on the ground, equipment stockpiles, everything.

No matter what, it is unrealistic.

I have worked in casualty simulation and estimation for large troop concentrations. And before that, been trained for a frontline command job with a strong focus on practical countermeasures to constant enemy air superiority and EW superiority.

Trust me: unless you have a military background, and not just any kind, you do not have a feel for how this really works.There were in excess of 10,000 strikes against targets in Yugoslavia, 40,000 total sorties in the region. Yet the Serb troops were not disabled, and bombing infrastructure chosen to put pressure on politicians was the deciding factor.

Only a small amount of US air power is able to enter Iranian air defense with relative safety, so if Iran can conserve its defense and not allow it to be wiped out - the Serb succeeded in this - either US takes casualties or it can only use a part of its power. This puts a multiplier on the life of the targets.

Dispersing everything, digging in everything and everyone, rotating positions, decoys and fakes (a $500 box of electronics can look remarkably like an anti-air radar to a $200,000 radar-seeking missile, etc) - all of these are additional multipliers.

The maintenance, fuel, bombs needed for the air campaign is phenomenal. To a state fighting on its own soil, blood is often cheap and supplies are already buried where they want them.

If Iran doesn't roll over in response to its infrastructure being demolished, there's only bad choices left for the US. Not that I think the choices leading up to that point would have been any good.

Do you have a military background? Let's not go there, mmk? It's just a pissing contest and we won't get anywhere.

Now, you pretty much summed up my argument for me. We're dealing with two different political situations. Iran will be an operation to take out specific military and dual use assets. Kosovo was an operation intended to [i]change behavior[/quote]. In the end, your link proves another point...that Kosovo was not an ideal use for "air war" tactics. In effect, it was only the threat of a NATO ground invasion that brought Milosevic to his senses.

Secondly, while the total sorties were high, they were 1/2 as frequent (per day) at the height of the operation.

From your link:

Quote:
Reflecting the hesitancy and differences within the alliance, Allied Force began as [a campaign] of about 400 sorties per day, aimed at a restricted target list of enemy air defenses and military forces. But by the end of May, the operational tempo had reached 900 sorties per day, and the target list had expanded to include infrastructure targets such as bridges and power plants, civil-government facilities, and economic and manufacturing installations. Many of the latter were "crony" targets--facilities chosen for attack in part because members of Milosevic's inner circle of friends and supporters owned them. In total, NATO air forces launched 38,004 combat sorties, of which 10,484 were strikes against targets in Serbia, Kosovo, and Montenegro, and 18,439 of which were aerial tanker and airlift sorties in support of combat and humanitarian-relief operations. The three remaining chapters of the book examine the strategic implications of the war from different perspectives-- namely, [U]the effect of the bombing on Milosevic's decision making, lapses in strategic planning, and implications for air- warfare theory.

The parts I've emphasized first deal with the number of sorties, and then the difference in goals of the operation. So, the prime difference in a hypothetical attack on Iran are that we'd be targeting military hard targets and dual-use facilities, and 2) we'd use a hell of a lot more sorties per day to do it. Kosovo was also what...8 years ago now? Our air capability has changed considerably since then. Yes, it's expensive, but we spend $500 billion a year on defense, so that's that. We have the capability.

The operation only lasted 2.5 months. So let's look at the variables.

Variables that would result in more operational time:

A. The size and scope of Iran's military
B. Potential retaliation, air defenses, etc.

Variables that would result in less operational time:

A. More sorties per day
B. More cruise missiles per day
C. More overall targets
D. Different kinds of targets
E. Different objective
F. Increase in bombing capability, technology

So what would it take to effectively neutralize Iran's military? A week, a most? I'm really asking your opinion here.
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 #298 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Why, in your opinion, have they hated us for so long? Is there any logical reason, such as uninvited meddling in their affairs or a CIA sponsored coup to install a pro-US government?

Hmmm.... reap what ye sew.

Getting into is silly. You know the answer...we all do. You also know it's not about Iraq primarily. Please don't play dumb.
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 #299 of 309
You don't want to explain history but you are willing to lay out plans for a military attack?

If you don't understand the history, you will not understand the impact of the military action.

I ask again, I would like to know why you think Iran has hated us for so long.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #300 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Getting into is silly. You know the answer...we all do. You also know it's not about Iraq primarily. Please don't play dumb.

From the darkness a low hum murmurs softly, sweeping low through the dank atmosphere it gradually gets clearer and more distinct merging strangely with the swirling wind to create an impression of massed lines of hooded monks singing soft in the medieval night.

In step with the broken footfall, religious in its fervour the quasi-human hum waxing ever louder sweeps all facts and reason aside.......

Iranians must die....Iranians must die.....Iranians must die.....Iranians must die.....
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 #301 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

You don't want to explain history but you are willing to lay out plans for a military attack?

If you don't understand the history, you will not understand the impact of the military action.

I ask again, I would like to know why you think Iran has hated us for so long.

Your post clearly confirms my point...you already know the answer to the original question. That raises two more questions: 1. Why ask me for reasons you already know? 2) Why assume I don't know the history?

These questions are easily answered. First, you'd like me to enumerate the reasons so you can proceed to pick them apart using strawman tactics and semantics. That way, you can avoid actually discussing the issue at hand. Your second question is intended to immediately frame any historical omission on my part as ignorance, thereby disqualifying my other arguments and statements.

And just think...all you really have to do is discuss the issue rationally. But you can't do that, apparently. Or you won't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

From the darkness a low hum murmurs softly, sweeping low through the dank atmosphere it gradually gets clearer and more distinct merging strangely with the swirling wind to create an impression of massed lines of hooded monks singing soft in the medieval night.

In step with the broken footfall, religious in its fervour the quasi-human hum waxing ever louder sweeps all facts and reason aside.......

Iranians must die....Iranians must die.....Iranians must die.....Iranians must die.....

Yeah, seg...we know. Anyone who thinks an attack on Iran might become necessary at some point really just wishes to KILL and MURDER and jerk off to things like "shock and awe."
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 #302 of 309


Quote:
"President Gerald Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete 'nuclear fuel cycle'." At the time, Richard Cheney was the White House Chief of Staff, and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."

Iran, a U.S. ally then, had deep pockets and close ties to Washington. U.S. and European companies scrambled to do business there.





post #303 of 309
Thread Starter 
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

US: No objection to Egyptian nuclear program

Quote:
The White House on Monday said it had little information about Egypt's plans to relaunch its nuclear power program but declared itself "generally supportive" of civilian atomic power.

"I don't know a lot about it. In general, we are supportive of countries pursuing civil nuclear energy. It's clean burning. It provides electricity in a clean-burning and affordable way for citizens," said spokeswoman Dana Perino.

"We are working with some countries in order to help them get there. But in regards to the Egyptian program, that report just came across. I don't know any more specifics about it," Perino told reporters.
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 #304 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

US: No objection to Egyptian nuclear program

Hey guys...did you miss it? Egypt and Iran have just become the SAME country! Awesome!
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 #305 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Hey guys...did you miss it? Egypt and Iran have just become the SAME country! Awesome!

SDW's thinking on this:

Egypt = Allies
Iran = Not Allies

But Ayman al-Zawahiri and Egyptian Islamic Jihad don't fit so neatly into those simple sets.

Too complicated for you? Try this:

Iran use to = Allies Maybe Egypt will not = Allies some day.

There is no reason to suppose that Egypt's Muslim nut squads are any less nuttier than Iran's Muslim nut squads. However, I suppose that if Egypt's nut squads manage to take over, this will give us a ready made excuse to nuke Egypt.

More?

Egypt is a dictatorship. Iran is a semi-democracy.

Anyway, who cares? It's Pakistan that I can't convince to you (much less anybody else) that is the worst Islamic nut clown car in the Middle East.
post #306 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Hey guys...did you miss it? Egypt and Iran have just become the SAME country! Awesome!

Yeah we all know the terrorists and arms come from Iran, and there are no terrorists or arms coming out of Egypt.

Everybody knows it. All the major intelligence agencies agree.

Egypt has never had problems with terrorism, either within the country, or coming from the country.

Egyptians wear white hats. Iranians wear black hats. Everybody knows it.


All I'm doing is pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of you and the other gullible sheeple. The gummint or the RWMM (right wing media machine) wants you to think Iran is a threat, you think Iran is a threat. The RWMM wants you to think Egypt is not a threat, you think Egypt is not a threat. Now go ahead, tell me from what country almost all of the 9/11 terrorists came out of, and what actions we've taken against that country. Why? Politics. Not truth. Not justice.
post #307 of 309
Egyptian Terrorists
Saudi Arabian Terrorists
American Terrorists (How many are Muslims and how many are "Christian" on that list?)
Iranian Terrorists

Wait a minute. Iran is full of terrorists, right? The government are terrorists even! Everybody knows it! So why is there no list of Iranian terrorists?

Oh, and by the way, did you see Arafat on the list of Palestinian Terrorists? Yet how many times do the RWMM and people like SDW and Trumpt keep repeating that he was a terrorist?

Lie. Rinse. Repeat.
post #308 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Egyptian Terrorists
Saudi Arabian Terrorists
American Terrorists (How many are Muslims and how many are "Christian" on that list?)
Iranian Terrorists

Wait a minute. Iran is full of terrorists, right? The government are terrorists even! Everybody knows it! So why is there no list of Iranian terrorists?

Oh, and by the way, did you see Arafat on the list of Palestinian Terrorists? Yet how many times do the RWMM and people like SDW and Trumpt keep repeating that he was a terrorist?

Lie. Rinse. Repeat.

Whether it means anything or not, the Weathermen aren't included on the "American terrorist" list. Probably because they never took any innocent lives in the bombings and other events they carried out. But their message was clear (fear) and they had an agenda (anarchy).

All this proves is that there are terrorists out there. It's their motivations that separate them but their methods the same. And I don't like any of them.

Oh, and I don't think all Muslims are nuts.
post #309 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Oh, and I don't think all Muslims are nuts.

But a lot of right wingers suffer from at the least, some form of neurosis, some of them here.

We have one who thinks the Saudis are golden, f?ck reality, lets bomb Iran.

Another one who has figured out how to run his SUV on endangered species entrails, f?ck the rest of us who rely on fossil fuels. Bomb Iran because he doesn't like Pelosi.

The damage this Administration has done in the Middle East is unconscionable, and still the yahoos believe.

segovius and Artman have shown these desperate Bush enablers the truth and they still deny, freaking amazing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence?