tahoma Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 (edited) Onward, christian soldiers, marching as to war! Those muslims eh - nothing but trouble. As I have mentioned on a previous thread, maybe we should close down muslim-owned businesses here, and stitch crescents into their clothing so we can identify them. And yes, they should bloody well get to work. Arbeit Macht Frei! Peaceful purposes? Yeah right. Just like the peaceful purposes of their young warriors on shopping trips to downtown Tel Aviv. Who knows, the Islamists might start bombing London next--nearly forgot, they have already started. This really does fit in with the message of Christian tolerance and forgiveness you have ground out in other forums. Well done. Do chiche's sh*t in the woods? Edited April 17, 2006 by tahoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 (edited) Saudi Arabia is a fabulously rich country--for the extended family of the Sheiks. The vast majority of the population remain as poor nomads much as they have done for centuries. Distribution of wealth in a Moslem state is not what they are about. That is why "Democracy" has not and will not ever take hold--IMHO. The greatest threat to the Saudi royal family is democracy. They have to maintain a large police force to enforce religious laws and this is done through fear. Excecution for boozing, decapitation for reading Playboy, flogging of women who wear bikinis etc etc. THis kind of regime must maintain government by police. Onward, christian soldiers, marching as to war! Those muslims eh - nothing but trouble. As I have mentioned on a previous thread, maybe we should close down muslim-owned businesses here, and stitch crescents into their clothing so we can identify them. And yes, they should bloody well get to work. Arbeit Macht Frei! This really does fit in with the message of Christian tolerance and forgiveness you have ground out in other forums. Well done. Do chiche's sh*t in the woods? The Iranians leaders are not preaching love and tolerance but death and destruction. If we have to defend ourselves or our neighbour there is nothing wrong in such action--IMHO. Edited April 17, 2006 by Realistbear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Personally I think the Iranians want Nuclear Power (power, not bombs) so they can be oil independent. Then dispose of the spent fuel rods into the oil reserves, thereby making them no longer worth invading. Job done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahoma Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 If we have to defend ourselves or our neighbour there is nothing wrong in such action--IMHO. Defend? With a pre-emptive nuclear strike? Do you have any idea what you sound like to right-minded people? It's interesting how aggressive parties use the word 'defence'. Such as Wehrmacht, IDF etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 (edited) Or, the Iranians may be threatening to blow Israel off the map and send young warriors to blow up Western cities to jack the price of oil up? http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php...y_template.html Oil hits $70 as fears mount over Iran 17/04/2006 11:33 By Barbara Lewis LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. crude oil prices hit $70 on Monday, the highest level for nearly eight months, as Iran’s pursuit of its nuclear programme heightened fears the U.S. might take military action against the oil-producing nation. Since high oil prices was much to blame for the last 2 HPCs the Ayatollahs may be HPCers best friend? Defend? With a pre-emptive nuclear strike? Do you have any idea what you sound like to right-minded people? It's interesting how aggressive parties use the word 'defence'. Such as Wehrmacht, IDF etc. Remember Harry Truman? Defense sometimes involves pre-emptive action. I think we learned that one during the "Peace in our time" era when Churchill was branded as a war monger for warning that Hitler was about to invade his neighbours. Was the Moslem attack on 9/11 pre-emptive or defensive action? http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=5be35a...9448193&k=80938 Abbasi warned the would-be martyrs to "pay close attention to wily England" and vowed that " Britain's demise is on our agenda ," the newspaper reported. It quoted unidentified Iranian officials as saying 40,000 Iranian suicide bombers have been trained and are ready for action. At a recruiting station in Tehran recently, volunteers for the suicide force had to show their birth certificates, give proof of their address and mark a box stating whether they would prefer to attack American targets in Iraq or Israeli targets , the paper said. On Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "rotten, dried tree" that will be annihilated by "one storm." Last year, he said Israel should be "wiped off the map" and questioned whether the Holocaust actually happened. Britain's demise is on their agenda? Hitler tried to destroy Israel (the people) and I would argue that Fascists would like to see the job completed. Stopping the holocaust would not be fascist or Hitleresque but the right response to genocide. Edited April 17, 2006 by Realistbear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahoma Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Britain's demise is on their agenda? Oh, really?! Go ahead then, launch the Tridents. Lucky we've got people like you looking out for us. Phew. Of course, the fact that your fundamentalist Christian viewpoint would be satisfied by such an act is a mere coincidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 (edited) Oh, really?! Go ahead then, launch the Tridents. Lucky we've got people like you looking out for us. Phew. Of course, the fact that your fundamentalist Christian viewpoint would be satisfied by such an act is a mere coincidence. My first degree was in Eurpean History. I am no expert but I have studied how the failure to stop fascist government through appeasement does not pay off. Gentlemen like Saddam Hussein, Stalin and Hitler were all brought down by US and UK efforts. Are you saying that we acted incorrectly and that our actions were based on Christianity or some form of fundamentalism? Are you saying that Milosovich should not have been put away by Western democracies? Was this fascist another one of your innocent parties who shluld have been allowed to live and let live? I am not sure what Christianity has to do with the policies of protecting democratic regimes from fascist dictators whether they be Slavs, Moslems, Aryans, suicide bombers or those who make nuclear threats to remove a nation by a "fire storm." Genocidal maniacs need to be stopped and stopped as efficiently as modern warfare allows. What on earth is a "fundamentalist." Is chopping off hands of thieves, flogging women for wearing shorts or decapitating those of a different belief system what "fundamentalists" do in the name of some god? Edited April 17, 2006 by Realistbear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFineMess Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 a bunch of hollering, jabbering, backward, mongering imbeciles....mostly. and anyone lives in iraq and who isnt the above. ..is guilty of apathy. This is that modern invention, Iraq you're talking about, right? You might want to investigate the historically recent role of europe, including this country, in Iraq's existence as a political entity and its problems. For starters, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_01.shtml and the same goes for most of africa. corrupt to the core.... When your cultures are occupied and plundered for centuries, and entire countries arbitrarily created out of a mixture of historically different people to suit the invaders needs, it really does have a bad effect on the neighborhood. You are really quite ignorant and don't even realise it. You don't seem to realise how many of these problems we bear a large degree of responsibility for. Although I sometimes think we should learn to stop meddling sometimes. It's funny. I used to think you were really quite intelligent and amusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 Fundamentalist Western newspaper labels Iran's ranting president "Hitler." http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_obje...-name_page.html 16 April 2006 EXCLUSIVE: PM WILL MEET IRAN'S HITLER EXCLUSIVE Blair in talks bid By Rupert Hamer, Defence Correspondent TONY Blair is considering a meeting with Iran's hardline president in an effort to ease the nuclear crisis. The PM believes he could break the deadlock with face-to-face talks with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Downing Street sources have revealed. Number 10 does not want the meeting to take place in Iran - where Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" - because of security fears. Pro-Islamic Extremist = rational Anti- Islamic Extremist = fundamentalist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahoma Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 (edited) Pro-Islamic Extremist = rational Anti- Islamic Extremist = fundamentalist Close - let's try again: Pro-Islamic Extremist = fundamentalist Anti- Islamic Extremist = fundamentalist Edited April 17, 2006 by tahoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuluf Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 (edited) it just bothers me when people blame all their own problems on anything other than themselves. RTF.. Think about it.. Western intervention has had an effect. As we do not have a control experiment it is hard to determine what the situation would have been if the "biggest war mongers and thieves in history" had just stayed away.. If they had stayed away then we wouldnt be having THIS discussion.. Edited April 17, 2006 by Wuluf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 Close - let's try again: Pro-Islamic Extremist = fundamentalist Anti- Islamic Extremist = fundamentalist Or: If you both for and against Islamic Extremism you are simply a confused fundamentalist. Is a fundamentalist someone who believes in fundamentals? Is the opposite to a fundamentalist a superficialist? RTF.. Think about it.. Western intervention has had an effect. As we do not have a control experiment it is hard to determine what the situation would have been if the "biggest war mongers and thieves in history" had just stayed away.. If they had stayed away then we wouldnt be having THIS discussion.. That is true. IMHO if we had just left Hitler alone he would NOT have invaded Britain or posed a threat to the US. We may even have had more stability in the world as Hitler did want to cut a deal with the UK and US to divide the world into spheres of influence. This plan would have excluded the Russsians and, of course, the various ethnic groups that Hitler dissapproved of and therein lay teh problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 instead answer me this. why will abandoning any daily work for your family and getting together with some other armed males and leaping on the back of an african/iraqi pick up truck with an RPG rocket help anyone ? they simply are lazy fockers. Have you lost it pal? You have spent the last two years moaning about how our government has your back to the wall and that an honest days work won't get you anywhere. You have even called for direct action. Seems to me you'd be the first to take up arms if you lived under occupation / in abject poverty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp1 Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 On Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "rotten, dried tree" that will be annihilated by "one storm." Last year, he said Israel should be "wiped off the map" and questioned whether the Holocaust actually happened. [/indent] Perhaps the west needs to adopt an updated version of the Cold War doctrine of MAD? [Mutual Assured Destruction] If an Islamist country or proxy islamist terrorist group attacks using nuclear/chemical weapons, the west will retaliate by destroying Mecca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solvent Celt Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Perhaps the west needs to adopt an updated version of the Cold War doctrine of MAD? [Mutual Assured Destruction] If an Islamist country or proxy islamist terrorist group attacks using nuclear/chemical weapons, the west will retaliate by destroying Mecca Mutually assured destruction only works when both sides are rational actors. I really don't think from what I've read about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he is rational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Mutually assured destruction only works when both sides are rational actors. I really don't think from what I've read about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he is rational. The fact is he is a man of faith and faith needs no rationalisation. How does that make him different from Bush? Er? I know: he's on the other team. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solvent Celt Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 The fact is he is a man of faith and faith needs no rationalisation. How does that make him different from Bush? Er? I know: he's on the other team. Period. Bush might not be the sharpest tool in the box but he hasn't threatened to wipe any country off the face of the map. He's alraedy got nukes and hasn't used them. Whilst he might have religious leanings he has a whole system of government behind him to hold him back. The Iranian governmental system is itself theocratic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
othello Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Perhaps Iran could be persuaded to aim their missile at Phil Spencer and Kirsty Allsop? Her ass is big enough so should be an easy target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchinandwaiting Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 (edited) Bush might not be the sharpest tool in the box but he hasn't threatened to wipe any country off the face of the map. He's alraedy got nukes and hasn't used them. Whilst he might have religious leanings he has a whole system of government behind him to hold him back. The Iranian governmental system is itself theocratic. Pleasent graphic I'm in charge! Edited April 19, 2006 by watchinandwaiting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boom'n'Bust Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 (edited) In my personal opinion, I believe USA & its allies have made a BIG mistake. They simply thought that by attacking iraq, they'll get their oil and enjoy the revenues as well as tell the world they'll have freed iraq's people from their oppressor. Little did they know that by getting rid of Saddam, they have created an IRAN double the size!!!! Iraq's main population is SHIA'S who were under the oppression of saddam and now that their free and also are the majority in iraq's population, they tend to follow iran. If america attacks iran, they'll be looking at destabilising the situation in iraq too, hence they have to fight iraq and iran!!! GOOD LUCK! Because they'll need it! Edited April 19, 2006 by Boom'n'Bust Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.