INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: ProfessorFarnsworth on January 09, 2012, 05:41:05 AM
-
Judging by current rhetoric and current political policies, I figure I'll open the betting table for when the war will start. Since it's starting to sound like Iraq rhetoric all over again, and considering recent 'drills' planned soon, deploying US military units in Israel and around the Gulf; it seems there's a considerable chance that soon war will be upon us.
The winners gets a compliment slice of delicious yellow cake with alpha emitting icing. :toporly:
Personally, I say June this year because most of the US-Israel war defence drills are planned around that time, as well as the enforcement of the oil sanctions against Iran too.
-
Last option. Beyond 2014 and possibly against another threat.
World War III could've happened 10 years ago with the 9/11 events and USA invading Iraq. But it didn't.
-
They are having elections in March I feel much of this is to distract the public and avoid the shit storm of protests they had the last go around.
-
How long do elections last? Last time it seemed to take months and months.
-
Last option. Beyond 2014 and possibly against another threat.
World War III could've happened 10 years ago with the 9/11 events and USA invading Iraq. But it didn't.
Ah, but this is different. The Strait of Hormuz is a strategic location for oil exports for a lot of nations and currently the Iranians are threatening to 'close' this route by force if their exports are restricted. 9/11 as specular in tragedy as it was, had no strategic importance in terms of affecting logistics of a critical natural resource and Iraqi forces had nothing to leverage against the U.S that could profoundly effect the global economy overnight. Back in 2001, the economy was still stronger too, but now it's highly volatile to such issues.
There's also Iran's ties with Russia and China, who purchase certain exports from Iran (especially oil), and they won't take kindly to the U.S invading one of it's key trade partners. They already are irritated by the U.S sanctions.
On a slightly unrelated matter, there's a NATO (I think) missile defence shield being planned (probably almost complete by now) in Poland that allegedly is aimed to counter Iran's or any potential missile attack from the middle east, but the Russians are angry about it because they know it's actually aimed towards them. That issue could blow up with already cold relations about Iran too.
So I'm factoring all these issues in and see a definite trend for war emerging soon.
-
The real question is whenever or not Iran carries out it's threat, and the U.S/Israel responds or some trumped up 'proof' of nuclear weapon development emerges and they pre-emptively strike. In a way right now both sides are playing a game of chicken rhetoric.
-
If the mullahs running Iran are any measure, I'd say we should nuke them as soon as possible.
They've promised that once they get their hands on nukes, they'll use them.
They will probably nuke Israel first, but the US would be second.
-
:flowersex: :bunny love: :party: :mo:
-
I have a feeling that since the US government (through the mass media) have convinced people that the end of the world would be on December of this year, that they will try to make it happen. :zombiefuck:
-
iran probably allready have nuclear capability, or will be having it anytime very soon
meaning
iran is untouchable, like india, pakistan, israel... any country with nuclear capability
time to look elsewhere for the "boredom-wars"
what about.. chile?
-
I have a feeling that since the US government (through the mass media) have convinced people that the end of the world would be on December of this year, that they will try to make it happen. :zombiefuck:
You never know. They did, after all, establish the Israeli state in fulfillment of the Scriptures.
-
iran probably allready have nuclear capability, or will be having it anytime very soon
meaning
iran is untouchable, like india, pakistan, israel... any country with nuclear capability
time to look elsewhere for the "boredom-wars"
what about.. chile?
They've only enriched one uranium fuel rod though and you need thousands for a fuel assembly to mass produce weapons grade plutonium in a short amount of time. Depends on what type of nuclear weapon they're building actually (if they're even building one). Progress, but hardly enough to deter war and even so, US/Israel are willing to take the gamble I'd say, especially now (as to let it go too far risks that untouchable scenario). However with a well executed bunker buster bombardment you could probably collapse the mounts of dirt on top of the underground nuclear facilities and mitigate fallout via implosion, well... I hope they can otherwise the local contamination will be sufficient (as I'm sure Iran has a lot of uranium in storage, likely tons of it).
-
They don't need to start a war, just threatening to do so drives up the price of oil hurts us more and they get more for what oil they can sell. The trade restrictions don't do too much when countries not party to them buy the oil anyway
-
I wonder what effect this assassination will have long term:
The assassination on Wednesday of another Iranian nuclear scientist may now prompt Iran to try to respond in kind.
The murder in Tehran of Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan is the fourth such attack on Iran's scientists in just two years.
It comes on top of a sophisticated cyber sabotage programme and two mysterious explosions at Iranian military bases, one of which in November killed the general known as 'the godfather' of Iran's ballistic missile programme.
No-one is claiming responsibility for these attacks but Iran blames its longstanding enemy, Israel, and occasionally the US.
Whoever is behind them, Iran is clearly being subjected to an undeclared campaign to slow down its nuclear programme, which the West and Israel suspect is aimed at developing an atomic bomb.
The latest Iranian scientist to die was killed by a magnetic bomb, attached to his car, a Peugeot 405, by two men on a motorbike.
Whoever was targeting him clearly knew his route, his car and his timings.
The small, professionally made device was designed to kill its victim but cause only limited damage to the surroundings.
It bears a striking similarity to the bomb used in November 2010 to kill another nuclear scientist, Majid Shahriari....
-
Long term well nobody will want to be a nuclear scientist in Iran anymore :zoinks:
Not sure they have been killing them for awhile now I am sure they have a lot more where he came from. You don't need the visionaries like they did for the Manhattan Project but more of a skilled technical type as I am sure they have plans for everything
-
They don't need to start a war, just threatening to do so drives up the price of oil hurts us more and they get more for what oil they can sell. The trade restrictions don't do too much when countries not party to them buy the oil anyway
Unless it's enforced by a U.S military checkpoint that screens all Iranian flagged or registered ships. They have positioned ships in the Arabian sea so it's possible that could be an option.
-
iran hasnt threatened war. theyve stated a few wishes "we wish the grass was greener, kebabs were juicyer, and israel not to exist anymore", but they dont directly threaten war.
america threatens war, and israel threatens war.
we need to keep the facts straight... we create paradoxes as we go along
like the godawful iraq war
america: "iraq are a danger to the world!!!"
iraq: "huh?"
america: "THEYRE COMING FOR US!!!" *whilst coming for iraq*
iraq: "wait, what"
america: "THEY ARE ATTACTING US!!!" *attacks iraq*
and now iraq is in smithereens, and this is a true story and all, and nobody... really? nobody sees the weird paradox that happened here!?
people are STILL reacting as if "phew, thats what iraq gets for coming at us and attacking us"
Who's side you on? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esHbIW2mVJg#)
im just seeing this scenario, again and again, and now ooonce more, and as always people just get riled up, irans sitting there doing nothing, and everyone's screaming "get out of the way! hes going nuts, shooting everybody, save yourseeelves!" cops bust the door down, iran's still sitting there doing nothing, cops screaming at it "drop the gun or we WILL fire! drop it! drop it nooow!!!" <---which of corse is the moment iran can do nothing, but get his face shot in
-
I agree, U.S/Israel are intentionally agitating a war situation and Iran's like, "Oh FFS, WTF is this shit? U MAD".
im just seeing this scenario, again and again, and now ooonce more, and as always people just get riled up, irans sitting there doing nothing, and everyone's screaming "get out of the way! hes going nuts, shooting everybody, save yourseeelves!" cops bust the door down, iran's still sitting there doing nothing, cops screaming at it "drop the gun or we WILL fire! drop it! drop it nooow!!!" <---which of corse is the moment iran can do nothing, but get his face shot in
But the Iranians are champions at defence though. They're more likely have the front door fortified and booby trapped and will blow away the invader upon trying to bust the door down.
Then they dawn their trollface. :trollface:
I'm only "hoping" for a war because I feel the U.S and Israel are grossly underestimating Iran's defensive and possibly offensive capabilities. Also I wonder just how much technology and support have the Russians and Chinese given them to bolster this ability too. Besides it's inevitable so I guess I'm just accepting it now.
-
I agree, U.S/Israel are intentionally agitating a war situation and Iran's like, "Oh FFS, WTF is this shit? U MAD".
im just seeing this scenario, again and again, and now ooonce more, and as always people just get riled up, irans sitting there doing nothing, and everyone's screaming "get out of the way! hes going nuts, shooting everybody, save yourseeelves!" cops bust the door down, iran's still sitting there doing nothing, cops screaming at it "drop the gun or we WILL fire! drop it! drop it nooow!!!" <---which of corse is the moment iran can do nothing, but get his face shot in
But the Iranians are champions at defence though. They're more likely have the front door fortified and booby trapped and will blow away the invader upon trying to bust the door down.
Then they dawn their trollface. :trollface:
I'm only hoping for a war because I feel the U.S and Israel are grossly underestimating Iran's defensive and possibly offensive capabilities. Also I wonder just how much technology and support have the Russians and Chinese given them to bolster this ability too.
wait what, iran deserves invasion cus they are too well defended?
that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever :S
if theyre well defended good for them, as for offense... not gonna happen. look... if YOU know that america has nuclear weapons, I know that america has nuclear weapons, and WIKIPEDIA knows israel has nuclear weapons...
trust me
iran knows this too.
if only bare, naked, common sense could prevail more in this world. iran is going to attack nobody, cus theyre gonna get destroyed back in return. and no, theyre not fine with self-destruction, they really arent. im not pointing at you now profesor, but people tell me shit like "yes theyre fine with being nuked, ITS THEIR CULTURE!!!" no, no, no its not.
heres proof: if attacking israel is a guaranteed self destruction, made "worth it" by the invasion of israel, then they woulda done it allready.
this whole preemptive aggression premise has that major flaw: preemptive means nobody has hurt you yet. no matter how you spin it, you will be the aggressor, the bad guy. "but he was thinking of maybe going to attack me! i swear!"
i really hope america+nato finds something better to do, soon, than contemplate who to attack next. war isnt a hobby. it should only be used in the greatest of necesity, not as a pastime activity...
oh and posessing of nukes is not a "greatest of necesity". or we'd all be warring india, pakistan, north korea ffs... china, france, britain... russia...
-
WTF? I wasn't suggest that. I'm only pointing that that should U.S/Israel attack, Iran will be very resilient with its defensive capabilities. ::)
Of course the West will attack first. Iran's not that stupid, but they're not exactly going be anywhere near as vulnerable as Iraq was and will put up a hell of a fight.
TL;DR: Iran will become the 21st century version of Vietnam in terms of results at best case scenario.
-
Let me guess ... ZEGH is a Ron Paul fan?
-
professor, then i misunderstood. and your right that if anybody strikes first, it will be western powers. im just pointing out that, like always, it will be over bogus reasons. iran is not a threat.
calavera, im not american
-
professor, then i misunderstood. and your right that if anybody strikes first, it will be western powers. im just pointing out that, like always, it will be over bogus reasons. iran is not a threat.
calavera, im not american
I'm aware of that too because Iran's history and nature alone suggests it rather be left alone and defend itself from foreign threats.
My other comment were sort of piss taking in a sense that, yeah, I hope you declare war on Iran, watch yourself get bogged down in a stalemate struggle with them and risk escalating it into a world war where no-one wins. Because this situation has world war written all over it.
Frankly, it actually does scare me. :(
It's funny, the propaganda is supposed to make me scared of Iran, but I'm more scared of U.S and Israel's actions actually.
-
My other comment were sort of piss taking in a sense that, yeah, I hope you declare war on Iran, watch yourself get bogged down in a stalemate struggle with them and risk escalating it into a world war where no-one wins. Because this situation has world war written all over it.
Frankly, it actually does scare me. :(
It's funny, the propaganda is supposed to make me scared of Iran, but I'm more scared of U.S and Israel's actions actually.
ah, a moment of aspie-sarcasm-block struck me there :D a war with iran would be very boggy indeed, and theyve got a big population, big manpower pool, and it would also be morale-hell for nato troops, and morale-heaven for the iranian ones.
look at the iran iraq war, iran just showered the iraqi with troops "takbiring" left and right.
and one thing we have learned (often again and again) is that superior technology ultimately works best as a propaganda tool, and down on ground level, your just as dead from roadside bombs, 70s soviet rpgs etc as you are from high-tech weapons. iran is way more technologically advanced, organized and all-in-all-powerfull than afghanistan could ever be, and afghanistan is completely wearing us out
and yes, the bolded out part is exactly my point.
A is pointing at B, accusing B of being violent
A then marches over, and kicks and hits B, still accusing B of being violent
A brushes off the dust, kicks B one more time, and goes "thats for being so violent"
A scares the shit out of me, B does not :D
its like w the anti-islam wave going on in europe
you have a muslim population on one side
and mostly violent skinhead hooligans on the other, screaming for everyone to watch out for the muslims.
(here too i know whats gonna happen, while not agreeing with it :D)
-
professor, then i misunderstood. and your right that if anybody strikes first, it will be western powers. im just pointing out that, like always, it will be over bogus reasons. iran is not a threat.
Iran is a threat if it has nuclear weapons just as USA is a threat, Great Britain is a threat, and so on and so forth. But I'd rather the more civilized world take control rather than an ultimate Persian/Arab/Sharia nation led by Islam.
calavera, im not american
Never asked whether you were American or not. I know many Aussies here who are in love with Ron Paul. It gets really annoying.
-
its like w the anti-islam wave going on in europe
you have a muslim population on one side
and mostly violent skinhead hooligans on the other, screaming for everyone to watch out for the muslims.
(here too i know whats gonna happen, while not agreeing with it :D)
Yeah, because Muslims are not mostly violent ...
-
professor, then i misunderstood. and your right that if anybody strikes first, it will be western powers. im just pointing out that, like always, it will be over bogus reasons. iran is not a threat.
Iran is a threat if it has nuclear weapons just as USA is a threat, Great Britain is a threat, and so on and so forth. But I'd rather the more civilized world take control rather than an ultimate Persian/Arab/Sharia nation led by Islam.
What about Pakistan though? That's always one step away from Taliban control with a currently corrupt government ruling it.
But I supposed by India having nuclear weapons also, they cancel each other out in sense of M.A.D.
But I doubt Iran would nuke Israel first, not unless it wants its allies like Russia and China to abandon them in alienation and contempt. Any nation that pre-empts a nuclear war would be almost unanimously condemned, as everyone knows what consequences such an act would entail. You have to bear in mind that radiological fallout of such an attack would likely affect Palestine and Lebanon too, containing some of Iran's allies like Hamas and Hezbollah respectively. They certainly wouldn't appreciate that either (despite the initial cheering), well, at least when their population starts dying slowly and their children develop horrendous deformities.
-
I agree with most of what you said but then again when to the leaders of a country really give two shits about the populace. I feel they would not want to perform a first strike mainly out of worry about themselves as they would be certainly dead not that long after
-
I'll always feel safer with America having nuclear weapons than with a country like Iran or Korea having nuclear weapons.
One reason why is because of the way America is ruled. It's not under the hand of just one leader. There's no dictatorship as it is in Iran.
-
professor, then i misunderstood. and your right that if anybody strikes first, it will be western powers. im just pointing out that, like always, it will be over bogus reasons. iran is not a threat.
Iran is a threat if it has nuclear weapons just as USA is a threat, Great Britain is a threat, and so on and so forth. But I'd rather the more civilized world take control rather than an ultimate Persian/Arab/Sharia nation led by Islam.
What about Pakistan though? That's always one step away from Taliban control with a currently corrupt government ruling it.
But I supposed by India having nuclear weapons also, they cancel each other out in sense of M.A.D.
But I doubt Iran would nuke Israel first, not unless it wants its allies like Russia and China to abandon them in alienation and contempt. Any nation that pre-empts a nuclear war would be almost unanimously condemned, as everyone knows what consequences such an act would entail. You have to bear in mind that radiological fallout of such an attack would likely affect Palestine and Lebanon too, containing some of Iran's allies like Hamas and Hezbollah respectively. They certainly wouldn't appreciate that either (despite the initial cheering), well, at least when their population starts dying slowly and their children develop horrendous deformities.
America, on the whole, is not crazy enough to unleash their nuclear weapons anyway (unless they themselves have already been hit with those same weapons or something and it's too late to do much about it). And you'd basically need the whole nation and the world) to agree to it.
Ahmadinejad, and people like him, are both crazy and enough to let it happen with just enough provocation.
-
Funny thing about Ahmadinejad though, he's just a subordinate to the Supreme Leader of Iran. So if anyone gives the order for war, it'll be the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Had to confirm that by checking wikipedia and fair enough:
The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war or peace.
So yeah, Ali Khamenei is the guy you really want to get to know. The western media seems to neglect mentioning this fact and loves to demonize Ahmadinejad, even though he's not really the guy in full control. Technically Ahmadinejad can only suggest to the Ayatollah the idea of war, and if he approves, then it'll happen.
-
By the way, I'm hardly saying Ahmadinejad is a saint though. Just pointing out that while he can bark viciously, he's still on a leash.
-
calavera, america is not crazy enough to unleash nuclear weapons?
dude, investigate world history and politics, then return to debate, wow...
1. crazy enough? theyre invading countries as a hobby. each invasion is deemed illegal, or at best illogical by most world communities.
2. they allready nuked a nation. actually, they ARE the ONLY country to nuke a nation
3. ^they planned to keep nuking them, with ca one nuke a week, untill they surrendered. thats not crazy enough?
im not even gonna entertain your generalistic islamophobic rants with a response. ive allready read the "EDF" agendas, its boring and unimaginative. same shit as always, only with "jews" replaced with "muslims" this time, or in breiviks case, "niggers" was edited out, replaced with "muslims", OH THE IRONY.
yeah, you would categorize politics according to who's a "ron paul fan" and who isnt. way to recognize the complexities in reality.
-
Funny thing about Ahmadinejad though, he's just a subordinate to the Supreme Leader of Iran. So if anyone gives the order for war, it'll be the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Had to confirm that by checking wikipedia and fair enough:
The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war or peace.
So yeah, Ali Khamenei is the guy you really want to get to know. The western media seems to neglect mentioning this fact and loves to demonize Ahmadinejad, even though he's not really the guy in full control. Technically Ahmadinejad can only suggest to the Ayatollah the idea of war, and if he approves, then it'll happen.
Point still stands, I guess.
-
calavera, america is not crazy enough to unleash nuclear weapons?
If I'm wrong, try to convince me.
1. crazy enough? theyre invading countries as a hobby. each invasion is deemed illegal, or at best illogical by most world communities.
That's not evidence they're crazy enough to unleash nuclear weapons, isn't it? And it's your extremely biased selective perception that makes you think that this is all a hobby to them. For every war, there's a reason. And for every invasion, the same. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it.
2. they allready nuked a nation. actually, they ARE the ONLY country to nuke a nation
3. ^they planned to keep nuking them, with ca one nuke a week, untill they surrendered. thats not crazy enough?
That's assuming Japan was innocent in this. Japan wasn't innocent. There was the Pearl Harbor event. And America was crazy enough to take revenge.
But tell me ... are you a mutant as a result of that event?
Do you think America didn't examine the consequences first before doing anything of the sort?
And do you think America hasn't changed much since the events of World War II?
We are talking about now ... not then. So stick to the present.
im not even gonna entertain your generalistic islamophobic rants with a response. ive allready read the "EDF" agendas, its boring and unimaginative. same shit as always, only with "jews" replaced with "muslims" this time, or in breiviks case, "niggers" was edited out, replaced with "muslims", OH THE IRONY.
So you don't think a lot of traditional Muslims hate Amreeka and Israel and want them exterminated by Allah's mercy and grace?
Have Muslim relatives?
If you don't, then don't tell me what Muslims generally feel.
If you don't want me to say "Muslims are also mostly violent" then don't say "Islamophobes" are mostly violent. Because it's not the "Islamophobes" who keep bombing and burning down holy places in the name of "peace" and "equality".
yeah, you would categorize politics according to who's a "ron paul fan" and who isnt. way to recognize the complexities in reality.
If you say "fuck you, Ron Paul", I'll accept you're not his fan.
-
By the way, I'm hardly saying Ahmadinejad is a saint though. Just pointing out that while he can bark viciously, he's still on a leash.
Sure, but that's the thing. Only one man is holding that leash. The President of the USA has more than one leash held about him (from various sides).
-
man, calavera, your a bigger retard than i ever guessed.
i had to wiki ron paul when you mentioned him, to check what he was all about.
that proof enough im not a "fan"?
and, who the fuck are you? you think only muslims hate america? have you been on earth?
and "stick to the present"? what does that have to do with anything? define present. ww2 isnt in some gone-by age, and i didnt say america's gonna nuke places NOW THIS VERY SECOND.
am i a mutant? no. oh phew, thats it then? all wars, all atrocities are okay, as long as they dont affect you directly? that explains it.
your argument that nuking a nation because they attack a naval base is legitimate is: retarded.
your assumption that americas wars in afghanistan and iraq being legitimate "just cus" is: retarded.
your generic assumption that america has improved since ww2 is: retarded.
your argument that you must be related to a culture to know about them iiis... guess what: retarded.
your assumption that only muslims bomb and kill people iiiiiiiiis: retaaarded...
i eagerly await your next shower of retardation.
-
Yep, stick to ad hominem and strawman and hiding certain facts. The only way you can get this argument going from your side.
I'll remind you that you actually denied Al Qaeda ever existed. And worse ... that Osama bin Laden himself never existed as a person. Who's really the fucking retard here?
Go on, keep coming up with these wild fringe retarded theories while you're high on the hashish.
-
Yep, stick to ad hominem and strawman and hiding certain facts. The only way you can get this argument going from your side.
I'll remind you that you actually denied Al Qaeda ever existed. And worse ... that Osama bin Laden himself never existed as a person. Who's really the fucking retard here?
Go on, keep coming up with these wild fringe retarded theories while you're high on the hashish.
i never claimed osama bin laden not to exist...
as for al qaeda, i still maintain that it is comparable to "ALF", in that it exists cus perpetrators give themselves the designation.
an original of the organization does exist, but from there on, it consists of independent groups calling themselves "al qaeda", and being welcomed to do so.
it even explains how it can operate so globally, with no centralized leadership.
if you actually understand what i say, it makes sense.
but thats fine. relish in your "media friendly" versions, they seem to suit you perfectly, oh and LOOK OUT! MUSLIMS ARE COMING TO GET YOU! :'D
-
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,17365.msg758647.html#msg758647 (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,17365.msg758647.html#msg758647)
I take it then the way you worded your post in there was retarded.
if you actually understand what i say, it makes sense.
I understand it, but it doesn't make sense. Retarded posts don't make sense anyway. To you, America (along with tis allies) is the greater evil of all. And most of your retarded political arguments are based on that idea, lol.
but thats fine. relish in your "media friendly" versions, they seem to suit you perfectly, oh and LOOK OUT! MUSLIMS ARE COMING TO GET YOU! :'D
If they ever do get their way, you better watch out as well.
This is what a typical traditional Muslim is thinking:
Richard Dawkins Interviews Muslim (Former Jew) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD1SXVAXxls#)
He wants Islam to rule the whole world eventually and he expects it to happen. In the meantime, he wants all the non-Muslims out of "the lands of Muhammad". And ... he's not the only one who thinks that way.
-
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,17365.msg758647.html#msg758647 (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,17365.msg758647.html#msg758647)
I take it then the way you worded your post in there was retarded.
you _actually_ missed the part where i immediately go "well, there is" and then explained what i meant by "there is no"?
you _actually_ missed that, to such a degree, you had to throw at me that ive claimed osama bin laden never existed?
impressive.
-
What's really "impressive" is that you didn't want to refer to what you said right before that bit.
i know it sounds stupid, but i CANT help but think:
1. they never fucking found the guy, we all knew, and they couldnt find him
2. now hes dead and gone, so theyre not looking for him anymore
3. while they looked for him, he was vital for the cause
4. now that theyve killed him, hes irrelevant to the cause
5. they wont show us proof, cus the images are "too gory"
What is it you don't believe here? That Osama wasn't responsible in any way for the 9/11 attacks? That he was long dead before they killed him?
What exactly do you mean by the above? Explain to me what's going on in that mind of yours.
-
What's really "impressive" is that you didn't want to refer to what you said right before that bit.
i know it sounds stupid, but i CANT help but think:
1. they never fucking found the guy, we all knew, and they couldnt find him
2. now hes dead and gone, so theyre not looking for him anymore
3. while they looked for him, he was vital for the cause
4. now that theyve killed him, hes irrelevant to the cause
5. they wont show us proof, cus the images are "too gory"
What is it you don't believe here? That Osama wasn't responsible in any way for the 9/11 attacks? That he was long dead before they killed him?
What exactly do you mean by the above? Explain to me what's going on in that mind of yours.
this: that the entire afghan war keeps osama bin laden as the main focus. that each sub-campaign uses osama bin laden as the main focus. but that in reality, osama bin laden is not the main focus. he is a poster bad guy for the war effort.
there.
did you understand it a bit better this time?
-
So do you believe he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
Yes or no?
-
So do you believe he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
Yes or no?
yes, he was in on it.
you seem very tense.
-
Ok, good. There's still hope ...
-
Ok, good. There's still hope ...
eat shit prick and shove your hope up your ass
:)
-
Ok, good. There's still hope ...
eat shit prick and shove your hope up your ass
:)
Better than shoving Muslim cock up the ass like you enjoy doing to yours, lol.
-
::)
you forgot the "yo mama" reference
-
if there is going to be some male on male sodomy, i want to watch
-
if there is going to be some male on male sodomy, i want to watch
im gonna need a muslim for that
-
I just saw your posts on Spasticity about Jesus' existence. Poor arguments may I add.
I'm thinking of bumping that thread I made here on the rubbish of Jesus copycat mythicism soon. But I'll leave you to enjoy some Muslim cock in the meantime.
-
I just saw your posts on Spasticity about Jesus' existence. Poor arguments may I add.
I'm thinking of bumping that thread I made here on the rubbish of Jesus copycat mythicism. But I'll leave you to enjoy some Muslim cock in the meantime.
wtf is this?
the revenge of the nerds or something?
do what you want dude, jeez, fuck off
-
still waiting for the sodomy
-
:probe:
-
Looks like I may win this bet after all... Assuming they go last minute.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-nuclear-iran-usa-israel-idUSTRE81202Z20120203 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-nuclear-iran-usa-israel-idUSTRE81202Z20120203)
From what I've seen, beyond June is a point where most of Iran's nuclear resources are safely secured in hardened bunkers. Since Israel doesn't want the U.S being the one to decide when to attack and wants to jump the gun, I don't think this is a bluff, it sounds very legit.