Iran... the bomb... preemptive strikes...

[DC]

spellcheck.

i think the kids call that leetspeak, only the coolest of the coolest use that until they grow up.

Virus how old are you?

 

[Thunder]

I´ve come to deeply distrust anyone´s defition of what someone else´s definition of anything is. Particularly right-wingers´ definitions of Thunder´s definition of anything.

at first, I stated that "he who fires the first shot starts the war".

but after further review, I ammended this to say "he who fires the first shot OR invades another country's soveriegn territory, starts the war".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6385156#post6385156

conveniently, unsuprisingly, and expectedly, my ammended version has failed to be quoted/acknowledged.

 

[Virus]

So shutting the straits of Tiran, ejecting the UN peacekeepers from the Sinai and massing troops on the border had nothing to do with it? In geopolitical terms, that's fightin' words.

 

[Kopji]

We don't need to bomb them, they are running their stuff on MS Windows.

 

[Thunder]

So shutting the straits of Tiran, ejecting the UN peacekeepers from the Sinai and massing troops on the border had nothing to do with it? In geopolitical terms, that's fightin' words.

threatening war and actually starting it, are two different things.

how many times has an army threatened war and not gone through with it?

how many times has an army massed troops along a border, only to send them home?

many.

 

[DavidS]

How many children are you prepared to kill to fulfill your will?

That depends on the importance attached to that particular will.
For many purposes, none.
For a few purposes, a lot.
The closer the situation to the second category, the more the opposition needs to consider the number of children he's prepared to risk.

A painfully obvious example would be a perceived threat to children I don't want killed, which of course is likely to be perceived as a threat to children he doesn't want killed. It's sorta the whole point, actually.

Challenging nations with bombs isn't a game for the faint of heart. Play is much simpler from the side with the mostest and bestest bombs ready to hand.

That's an attitude, sir, that calls for the most delicate judgement on both sides. Because, as you know, in the heat of action men are likely to forget where their best interests lie and let their emotions carry them away.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Hey guys, watch Virus do a neat trick:

Who said anything about funding Al-Qaeda? Why did you twist "largest state sponsor of terror" into "funding Al-Qaeda"? Did you need a fish in a barrel to shoot?

Al-Qaeda won't take money from people they hate? Iran fund the Taliban. The Taliban are Sunni, consider Shiites "sub-human" and are intimately linked with Al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda is also known to operate out of Iran. From General Petraeus's statement to the Senate's Armed Services Committee:

lol

Anyways, in response to the question you asked in another thread, I think Dreadnoughts are way cooler than Terminator Marines.

 

[DC]

lol

 

[Thunder]

Hey guys, watch Virus do a neat trick:

you just...don't..get it.

right-wing Zionists are ALLOWED to do such things.

 

[Serafim Svensson]

Al-Qaeda won't take money from people they hate? Iran fund the Taliban. The Taliban are Sunni, consider Shiites "sub-human" and are intimately linked with Al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda is also known to operate out of Iran [...]

Iran also funds Hamas which is a Sunni group. I don't understand why people think Iran would never fund or support Sunnis. If it suits them, they will. And they do.

 

[Chaos]

at first, I stated that "he who fires the first shot starts the war".

but after further review, I ammended this to say "he who fires the first shot OR invades another country's soveriegn territory, starts the war".

Ah... okay. Thanks.

Though, technically, the midget sub thing only constitutes trying to fire the first shot. But then... screw it, they got caught red-handed trying to sneak a warship into Pearl Harbour. There is such a thing as casus belli, after all.

And, if you´re trying to get really technical, the US did not intentionally fire the first shot against Japan, because they did not know for a fact that the midget sub was Japanese.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6385156#post6385156

conveniently, unsuprisingly, and expectedly, my ammended version has failed to be quoted/acknowledged.

[sarcasm]*shrug* You disagreed with them, so you had it coming. [/sarcasm]

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Bulldust.

Another history denier I see.

The USA has a long and infamous history of supporting terrorist organisations. Can I suggest that as a starter you read the information contained on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism. That only touches on the area of US support for and participation in terrorism.

Have you ever heard of the CIA's involvement in Iran that directly led to the presence of Mullah's in that country? You do know about the US's activities in South America don't you? The appalling history of supporting terrorism that one of your Secretaries of State apologised for? It seems you do not.


Israel also operates an assassination programme that has resulted in the murder of innocent people. Murdering people without trial and in the process murdering innocent people constitutes a terrorist activity. You do know that Israelis collectively punishing the people of Gaza in an activity that constitutes a crime against humanity and a terrorist act?

The next time you try and deny history perhaps you might like to read some of it first.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

threatening war and actually starting it, are two different things.

how many times has an army threatened war and not gone through with it?

how many times has an army massed troops along a border, only to send them home?

many.

I absolutely agree. Wow. How can this be?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

So shutting the straits of Tiran, ejecting the UN peacekeepers from the Sinai and massing troops on the border had nothing to do with it? In geopolitical terms, that's fightin' words.

Only to two year old children.

 

[SnakeTongue]

One more page of:

- Yes, she shot first!
- No, she don't!
- Yes, she did!
- No, no evidence!
- Here, the evidence!
- This is no evidence!
- Bla!
- Bla!
- Bla!

Conclusion: none.



Lads, you are funny.

 

[Virus]

Another history denier I see.

The USA has a long and infamous history of supporting terrorist organisations. Can I suggest that as a starter you read the information contained on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism. That only touches on the area of US support for and participation in terrorism.

"The neutrality of this article is disputed."

Have you ever heard of the CIA's involvement in Iran that directly led to the presence of Mullah's in that country?

Not terrorism and the Iranian revolution led to the Mullahs. The US didn't put them there.

You do know about the US's activities in South America don't you? The appalling history of supporting terrorism that one of your Secretaries of State apologised for? It seems you do not.

Containment of communism.

Israel also operates an assassination programme that has resulted in the murder of innocent people. Murdering people without trial and in the process murdering innocent people constitutes a terrorist activity.

Like who? These guys?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations

Deserved it. Targeted killing is a legitimate operation in war.

You do know that Israelis collectively punishing the people of Gaza in an activity that constitutes a crime against humanity and a terrorist act?

Bunch of crap.

The next time you try and deny history perhaps you might like to read some of it first.

Denying your leftist spin isn't the same as denying history.

 

[Virus]

Deleted post.