A MUST READ: The truth about Islam and Iran - LONG READ

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
After looking at your pictures, aimster, you're full of sh!t.

I didn't read this thread or look at the pictures but you are correct aimster is full of sh!t.

You obviously have something against me and maybe you should seek some psychological help for that.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: conjur
Defend what point? You made no point. You're just blabbering some inane drivel by pulling opinions out of your arse.

If the facts bother you then go ahead. You are just upset cause I said I'm voting for Bush.

 

[conjur]

What facts?

 

[RabidMongoose]

The United States should not enter another mess, like Iran would probably be, without a stronger and larger coalition and absolute reason and cause.

Sure, it might be horrible to live under some sort of theocratic ruler or whatever, but they should handle it themselves first.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Aimster

If you cannot prove what I said in this thread to be wrong then maybe you should stay out.

I don't think so. And us going in and establishing democratic countries in the Middle East, presumably by force is your suggestion, is NOT the right way to do it.

What is the 'right' way to do it, in your estimation?

Originally posted by: viivo
Come on, don't resort to strawman. I didn't say Kerry is magic because he's not a fundie, and I certainly didn't say the invasion of Afghanistan was imperialism; that is what many people in the world perceive the invasions as, and that is what breeds the hatred. Like I said, our motives for invasion don't matter, others will see it as the big bad US beating on the little guy and they will react as such.

I also don't think Iran is the epicenter of Islam extremism, and honestly believing it could be "another Israel" once conquered is ludicrous.

Not a strawman, or at least not a deliberate strawman. If anything this is you mixing your political jibe with your actual idea, thereby confusing the issue.

So long as people see the President of the United States as fundamentalist Christian bulldozing through the middle east on a crusade, there will be hate and terrorism. It doesn't matter the motives - we can yell how it's for the good of man and we're only trying to help, they will only see it as imperialism.

There was terrorism before we started steamrolling in the Middle East. There was terrorism before we had a 'fundamentalist Christian' in the White House. I agree that our motives aren't really important, as people there might view us as an occupier. That's why I think we need to figure out a more expedient way to deal with the aftermath of these wars, if possible.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Aimster

If you cannot prove what I said in this thread to be wrong then maybe you should stay out.

I don't think so. And us going in and establishing democratic countries in the Middle East, presumably by force is your suggestion, is NOT the right way to do it.

What is the 'right' way to do it, in your estimation?

Enter talks with the EU and the Arab League to ensure Iran doesn't move toward making nuclear weapons. As Kerry mentions in his detailed agenda:

Join our European allies to offer Iran a simple deal?to
supply Tehran with the nuclear fuel it needs for peaceful
energy purposes and recapture any spent fuel so it
cannot be redirected into a weapons program,

Also, continue applying pressure on the Iranian government to provide the opportunities the citizens are crying out for. Did you read the link I posted earlier? The youth in Iran want democracy and do not trust the mullahs.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
But how do we go about it? It sounds like you know quite a bit about the situation. Do you think applying diplomatic pressure will work? Can we incite the Iranian people to hold a revolution? What action exactly would it take to topple the current government without resorting to gross military action on our part?

Sanctions will not work because Europe is not against Iran. Only the U.S and Israel are against Iran. I highly doubt the U.N will agree to sanction Iran as Iran has never been a threat to anyone except Israel.

It is only a matter of time however that a regime change will come, but it can happen a decade sooner with the help of the United States. The weapons are at the hand of the Mullahs' armies. The people of Iran are not allowed to own weapons. Having a gun in Iran without being part of the police force is a severe crime.

With the broadcast that the U.S is supporting the regime, the military will collapse with only the 20,000 loyal republian guard defending the regime against a population of 80 million.

You should check your facts, the EU will impose sanctions, discussions between Iran and EU are underway as we speak.

IF Iran persists they will have the entire world against them.

How sure are you of this? It won't happen and if it does then you will prove me wrong. Iran is full of European goods and Europe and Iran have constant visits yearly with a friendly/modest relationship. It is in Iran's best interest to have diplomatic relations with Europe as it has been isolated from U.S. The talks right now are to resolve the situation. It is not at the table yet and when it gets there then we can see if they will do it.

100% there are negotiations underway and the EU has requested a full cooperation plan from Iran (including inspections), if Iran persists in continuing it's current plans with the nuclear power plants the EU will impose sanctions on Iran.

There is also a discussion in the UN regarding the matter where the US and the EU are on the same side.

Nobody wants an Iran with nuclear capabilities, not the EU and not the US.

If Iran persists, they are on their own.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
The United States should not enter another mess, like Iran would probably be, without a stronger and larger coalition and absolute reason and cause.

Sure, it might be horrible to live under some sort of theocratic ruler or whatever, but they should handle it themselves first.

Definently, and if no one looses their cool now it is exactly what is happening.

 

[Aimster]

Conjur,

Instead of bashing my threadbecause I said I'm voting for Bush you should look at the rest of what I said. I supported Kerry and I devoted many long hours to his campaign here in Virginia and gathered up all my friends to register so they could vote for him. I changed my mind as I have a right to do.

Like I said..Iran was once friends with the United States and Israel. Something that no M.E country has yet to accomplish. Not as much as Iran did back in the 70s.

Your way of going about change in Iran is not going to work. You stated that the Arab League try to influence Iran to give up their nuclear ambitions. Iranians are not Arab and calling one so will just make you look stupid. They do not even speak the same language. It is like calling an Indian Pakistan.

The Iranian government cannot give the people what they want. They tried that with the reform president
and look what happend. Every motion for change was struct down.

You clearly take it that I meant for the U.S to attack Iran with everything they have. Without asking me how I would go about it, you simply assume I meant bomb the hell out of them and go off acting like you were 16 again.

I expected more from you Conjur. As a person on these political forums who I thought was open to all people's opinions.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
But how do we go about it? It sounds like you know quite a bit about the situation. Do you think applying diplomatic pressure will work? Can we incite the Iranian people to hold a revolution? What action exactly would it take to topple the current government without resorting to gross military action on our part?

Sanctions will not work because Europe is not against Iran. Only the U.S and Israel are against Iran. I highly doubt the U.N will agree to sanction Iran as Iran has never been a threat to anyone except Israel.

It is only a matter of time however that a regime change will come, but it can happen a decade sooner with the help of the United States. The weapons are at the hand of the Mullahs' armies. The people of Iran are not allowed to own weapons. Having a gun in Iran without being part of the police force is a severe crime.

With the broadcast that the U.S is supporting the regime, the military will collapse with only the 20,000 loyal republian guard defending the regime against a population of 80 million.

You should check your facts, the EU will impose sanctions, discussions between Iran and EU are underway as we speak.

IF Iran persists they will have the entire world against them.

How sure are you of this? It won't happen and if it does then you will prove me wrong. Iran is full of European goods and Europe and Iran have constant visits yearly with a friendly/modest relationship. It is in Iran's best interest to have diplomatic relations with Europe as it has been isolated from U.S. The talks right now are to resolve the situation. It is not at the table yet and when it gets there then we can see if they will do it.

100% there are negotiations underway and the EU has requested a full cooperation plan from Iran (including inspections), if Iran persists in continuing it's current plans with the nuclear power plants the EU will impose sanctions on Iran.

There is also a discussion in the UN regarding the matter where the US and the EU are on the same side.

Nobody wants an Iran with nuclear capabilities, not the EU and not the US.

If Iran persists, they are on their own.

Every country has a right to have nuclear bombs. However, you are right Iran with its current government does not deserve to have nuclear bombs. I once believed they did, but after reading up on their history I changed my mind. There has been evidence that the gasing of the kurds in Northern Iraq was not done by Hossein, but by the Iranians. If that is true then Iran has already shown it would use these weapons if they wanted to. To my shock Iran has also shown constant threats against Israel/U.S so much that it isn't even reported by the news anymore. Israel and the U.S have never harmed Iran, but it seems that is how they keep their power by having an imaginary war with the west.

Sanctions would be a horrible thing for Iran. Most of their goods come from Europe and the rich are living off the European goods and cars. What would the level of sanctions be? No EU country can trade with Iran? If that were the case then I would think a revolution would be closer than expected. The people will lose their luxury and the standard of living will go down the hill.

What do you think the chances are that Germany/France will agree to these measures?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Every country has a right to have nuclear bombs. However, you are right Iran with its current government does not deserve to have nuclear bombs. I once believed they did, but after reading up on their history I changed my mind. There has been evidence that the gasing of the kurds in Northern Iraq was not done by Hossein, but by the Iranians. If that is true then Iran has already shown it would use these weapons if they wanted to. To my shock Iran has also shown constant threats against Israel/U.S so much that it isn't even reported by the news anymore. Israel and the U.S have never harmed Iran, but it seems that is how they keep their power by having an imaginary war with the west.

Sanctions would be a horrible thing for Iran. Most of their goods come from Europe and the rich are living off the European goods and cars. What would the level of sanctions be? No EU country can trade with Iran? If that were the case then I would think a revolution would be closer than expected. The people will lose their luxury and the standard of living will go down the hill.

What do you think the chances are that Germany/France will agree to these measures?

I don't think those chances are very good at all.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur

Enter talks with the EU and the Arab League to ensure Iran doesn't move toward making nuclear weapons. As Kerry mentions in his detailed agenda:

Join our European allies to offer Iran a simple deal?to
supply Tehran with the nuclear fuel it needs for peaceful
energy purposes and recapture any spent fuel so it
cannot be redirected into a weapons program,

Also, continue applying pressure on the Iranian government to provide the opportunities the citizens are crying out for. Did you read the link I posted earlier? The youth in Iran want democracy and do not trust the mullahs.

I haven't read your links lately. It seems that you're just posting a ton of text so no one will bother to read it all or try to argue with you.

I also find it funny that your assertion that the *right* thing to do is a cut-and-paste from Kerry. I don't find it funny that we should pay for all of Iran's energy needs when they're sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world. This is simply avoiding the problem. While it is one possible solution, I don't think it's the best, as it doesn't address the primary issue - the current Iranian regime would do us harm if the possibility presented itself. If we're that untrusting of them as to follow Kerry's proposition, I don't see why we wouldn't incite a revolution there. Of course, I'm not sure if this is the best approach, but something similar to Afghanistan (a popular revolution with the aid of US troops) would be preferrable, in my opinion, to appeasement that dances around the real issue.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Conjur,

Instead of bashing my threadbecause I said I'm voting for Bush you should look at the rest of what I said.

Oh get over yourself. I'm not bashing your thread and esp. not over your candidate of choice. You are spouting pure opinion as fact with nothing to back it up.

 

[CanOWorms]

Israel and the U.S have never harmed Iran, but it seems that is how they keep their power by having an imaginary war with the west.

you need to read some more history 🙂

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur

Enter talks with the EU and the Arab League to ensure Iran doesn't move toward making nuclear weapons. As Kerry mentions in his detailed agenda:

Join our European allies to offer Iran a simple deal?to
supply Tehran with the nuclear fuel it needs for peaceful
energy purposes and recapture any spent fuel so it
cannot be redirected into a weapons program,

Also, continue applying pressure on the Iranian government to provide the opportunities the citizens are crying out for. Did you read the link I posted earlier? The youth in Iran want democracy and do not trust the mullahs.

I haven't read your links lately. It seems that you're just posting a ton of text so no one will bother to read it all or try to argue with you.

:roll: I'm talking about this thread. Although, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit.

I also find it funny that your assertion that the *right* thing to do is a cut-and-paste from Kerry.

That's just one aspect. Again, it's that reading comprehension problem of yours rearing its head.

I don't find it funny that we should pay for all of Iran's energy needs when they're sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world. This is simply avoiding the problem. While it is one possible solution, I don't think it's the best, as it doesn't address the primary issue - the current Iranian regime would do us harm if the possibility presented itself. If we're that untrusting of them as to follow Kerry's proposition, I don't see why we wouldn't incite a revolution there. Of course, I'm not sure if this is the best approach, but something similar to Afghanistan (a popular revolution with the aid of US troops) would be preferrable, in my opinion, to appeasement that dances around the real issue.

With the proper monitoring in place, why wouldn't allowing Iran to use nuclear energy be a good thing? If we start finding discrepancies, it's time to take the hard line.

And, as for inciting a revolution, when has that worked? We encouraged the Kurds and the Shiites in Iraq twice and left them high and dry to be slaughtered by Saddam both times. We didn't incite a revolution in Afghanistan either. I have no idea wtf you're talking about there.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
With the proper monitoring in place, why wouldn't allowing Iran to use nuclear energy be a good thing? If we start finding discrepancies, it's time to take the hard line.

And, as for inciting a revolution, when has that worked? We encouraged the Kurds and the Shiites in Iraq twice and left them high and dry to be slaughtered by Saddam both times. We didn't incite a revolution in Afghanistan either. I have no idea wtf you're talking about there.

Do you agree that, given the chance, Iran would harm the US through military or terrorist attacks? If so, supplying them with uranium may prevent them from developing nukes, but fails to address the underlying issue. If we're going to go through all of the trouble of giving them uranium and so on, why don't we just give them money straight up? They claim they're building the plants so they can sell their oil for cash.

The oil- and gas-rich Islamic republic says it wants to sell its fossil energy resources on the world market for hard currency, and is therefore investing in power-generating reactors to meet its domestic requirements.
Source: http://wais.stanford.edu/Iran/...dnuclearpower6803.html

In Afghanistan, we had quite a bit of popular support. We sent our troops there in limited numbers to reinforce their troops and ensure that they would win. It worked like a charm with very few casualties.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
With the proper monitoring in place, why wouldn't allowing Iran to use nuclear energy be a good thing? If we start finding discrepancies, it's time to take the hard line.

And, as for inciting a revolution, when has that worked? We encouraged the Kurds and the Shiites in Iraq twice and left them high and dry to be slaughtered by Saddam both times. We didn't incite a revolution in Afghanistan either. I have no idea wtf you're talking about there.

Do you agree that, given the chance, Iran would harm the US through military or terrorist attacks? If so, supplying them with uranium may prevent them from developing nukes, but fails to address the underlying issue. If we're going to go through all of the trouble of giving them uranium and so on, why don't we just give them money straight up? They claim they're building the plants so they can sell their oil for cash.

The oil- and gas-rich Islamic republic says it wants to sell its fossil energy resources on the world market for hard currency, and is therefore investing in power-generating reactors to meet its domestic requirements.
Source: http://wais.stanford.edu/Iran/...dnuclearpower6803.html

Uhh...you want us to just give tons of cash to Iran to cover their energy needs? And who is going to fund that? Our national deficit? Are we the only country buying oil from Iran?

And, no, I don't think that given the chance Iran would strike at us through military or terrorist attacks. If they do, they know we'd be on them like of ton of bricks, as we sort of did in Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, we had quite a bit of popular support. We sent our troops there in limited numbers to reinforce their troops and ensure that they would win. It worked like a charm with very few casualties.

And the reason we were even in Afghanistan was what again? Go ahead...you can say it. It was the focus piece of the entire RNC. That's right! You guessed it! 9/11.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
But how do we go about it? It sounds like you know quite a bit about the situation. Do you think applying diplomatic pressure will work? Can we incite the Iranian people to hold a revolution? What action exactly would it take to topple the current government without resorting to gross military action on our part?

Sanctions will not work because Europe is not against Iran. Only the U.S and Israel are against Iran. I highly doubt the U.N will agree to sanction Iran as Iran has never been a threat to anyone except Israel.

It is only a matter of time however that a regime change will come, but it can happen a decade sooner with the help of the United States. The weapons are at the hand of the Mullahs' armies. The people of Iran are not allowed to own weapons. Having a gun in Iran without being part of the police force is a severe crime.

With the broadcast that the U.S is supporting the regime, the military will collapse with only the 20,000 loyal republian guard defending the regime against a population of 80 million.

You should check your facts, the EU will impose sanctions, discussions between Iran and EU are underway as we speak.

IF Iran persists they will have the entire world against them.

How sure are you of this? It won't happen and if it does then you will prove me wrong. Iran is full of European goods and Europe and Iran have constant visits yearly with a friendly/modest relationship. It is in Iran's best interest to have diplomatic relations with Europe as it has been isolated from U.S. The talks right now are to resolve the situation. It is not at the table yet and when it gets there then we can see if they will do it.

100% there are negotiations underway and the EU has requested a full cooperation plan from Iran (including inspections), if Iran persists in continuing it's current plans with the nuclear power plants the EU will impose sanctions on Iran.

There is also a discussion in the UN regarding the matter where the US and the EU are on the same side.

Nobody wants an Iran with nuclear capabilities, not the EU and not the US.

If Iran persists, they are on their own.

Every country has a right to have nuclear bombs. However, you are right Iran with its current government does not deserve to have nuclear bombs. I once believed they did, but after reading up on their history I changed my mind. There has been evidence that the gasing of the kurds in Northern Iraq was not done by Hossein, but by the Iranians. If that is true then Iran has already shown it would use these weapons if they wanted to. To my shock Iran has also shown constant threats against Israel/U.S so much that it isn't even reported by the news anymore. Israel and the U.S have never harmed Iran, but it seems that is how they keep their power by having an imaginary war with the west.

Sanctions would be a horrible thing for Iran. Most of their goods come from Europe and the rich are living off the European goods and cars. What would the level of sanctions be? No EU country can trade with Iran? If that were the case then I would think a revolution would be closer than expected. The people will lose their luxury and the standard of living will go down the hill.

What do you think the chances are that Germany/France will agree to these measures?

You do not understand the issue, it seems, the negotiations have nothing to do with whether Iran get's to develop nuclear arms or not, they won't be allowed to do so, the negotiations are measures to strip Iran from their means of being able to do so.

Most of the world see the EU as an egoistic club of rich western countries who only think of what is best for themselves, that isn't really true, much effort and many contributions have been made all around the world from these nations.

The chance is 100% if Iran persists.

 

[0marTheZealot]

If we wanted democracy in the Middle East, we wouldn't have spent the last 50 years crushing nearly every democractic country in the Middle East. How the hell do you think the Shah got into power? We killed the democractically elected PM of Iran in the '50s.

It's much easier to negotatie for what we want with a leader that doesn't have to answer to his people. Why do you think the Kings of Saudi, Jordan are in power? The "President" of Egypt? The Emirs of Kuwait? The Sultans of the UAE? The despots in Oman and Yemen? We have supported them from day one and continue to do so.

Democracy is right at the bottom of list of objectives to acheive in the Middle East, right above Freedom and Self-determination.

As for the pictures on Islam :

The pictures of suicide bombers marching are in the contexts of a revolution. When you have a revolution, it helps to find something to unite the people, whether it be a common interest (freedom/serf-less society in Russia, Enlightment ideals in France, freedom from monarchy in American revolution) or a common religion. In the case of the West Bank, the instigators of violence have appealed to the common religion of the land to bolster their cause. 50 years of oppressive rule by anyone is more than any population deserves. Palestine has no tanks, no missiles, no airplanes to fight back with. Instead of branding all activities as terrorist, we should be asking the question "What is leading people to kill themselves so readily?"

The pictures of self-mutilation is a form of shiite worship in Islam. Shiities believe that they were neglieant (and so were sunnis for that matter) in preventing the death of Hussein. To alleviate this guilt, they believe that self-mutlitation is the only way. I don't see anything inherently wrong, but it makes a great spin image doesn't it? LOOK AT THOSE RAGHEADS THEY ARE F'ED UP.

Make a substantial arguement next time and do a little reading on history please.

 

[RabidMongoose]

If we wanted democracy in the Middle East, we wouldn't have spent the last 50 years crushing nearly every democractic country in the Middle East. How the hell do you think the Shah got into power? We killed the democractically elected PM of Iran in the '50s.

Times change and the Cold War is over.

But I don't think anybody really cares about spreading democracy in the world at huge costs.

The pictures of self-mutilation is a form of shiite worship in Islam. Shiities believe that they were neglieant (and so were sunnis for that matter) in preventing the death of Hussein. To alleviate this guilt, they believe that self-mutlitation is the only way. I don't see anything inherently wrong, but it makes a great spin image doesn't it?

I don't know, I think any kind of extreme self mutilation is kind of out there, but hey, whatever you got to do... 😉 Aimster actualyl kind of provided an explanation of this though.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Uhh...you want us to just give tons of cash to Iran to cover their energy needs? And who is going to fund that? Our national deficit? Are we the only country buying oil from Iran?

Who is going to pay for uranium? Uranium is much more expensive than oil, last I heard.

And, no, I don't think that given the chance Iran would strike at us through military or terrorist attacks. If they do, they know we'd be on them like of ton of bricks, as we sort of did in Afghanistan.

I didn't say overtly attack us. No country is going to overtly attack us.

In Afghanistan, we had quite a bit of popular support. We sent our troops there in limited numbers to reinforce their troops and ensure that they would win. It worked like a charm with very few casualties.

And the reason we were even in Afghanistan was what again? Go ahead...you can say it. It was the focus piece of the entire RNC. That's right! You guessed it! 9/11.[/quote]
Sorry, I didn't watch the RNC - couldn't tell you. You completely changed the subject there - how about responding in something other than an appeal to anti-Republican emotion?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Uhh...you want us to just give tons of cash to Iran to cover their energy needs? And who is going to fund that? Our national deficit? Are we the only country buying oil from Iran?

Who is going to pay for uranium? Uranium is much more expensive than oil, last I heard.

The Iranians want to purchase it. I assume they'll be paying for it, right? Can I get a "duh"?

And, no, I don't think that given the chance Iran would strike at us through military or terrorist attacks. If they do, they know we'd be on them like of ton of bricks, as we sort of did in Afghanistan.

I didn't say overtly attack us. No country is going to overtly attack us.

Oh, you're engaging in some nuance? What did you mean by Iran striking us through military or terrorists attacks? Some sort of subliminal terrorist attack, perhaps? 😕

In Afghanistan, we had quite a bit of popular support. We sent our troops there in limited numbers to reinforce their troops and ensure that they would win. It worked like a charm with very few casualties.

And the reason we were even in Afghanistan was what again? Go ahead...you can say it. It was the focus piece of the entire RNC. That's right! You guessed it! 9/11.

Sorry, I didn't watch the RNC - couldn't tell you. You completely changed the subject there - how about responding in something other than an appeal to anti-Republican emotion?

How about answering the question.

Why were we in Afghanistan? And drop your feigned superiority with this logical fallacy line. You are impressing no one with your little links dropped here and there.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Uhh...you want us to just give tons of cash to Iran to cover their energy needs? And who is going to fund that? Our national deficit? Are we the only country buying oil from Iran?

Who is going to pay for uranium? Uranium is much more expensive than oil, last I heard.

And, no, I don't think that given the chance Iran would strike at us through military or terrorist attacks. If they do, they know we'd be on them like of ton of bricks, as we sort of did in Afghanistan.

I didn't say overtly attack us. No country is going to overtly attack us.

In Afghanistan, we had quite a bit of popular support. We sent our troops there in limited numbers to reinforce their troops and ensure that they would win. It worked like a charm with very few casualties.

And the reason we were even in Afghanistan was what again? Go ahead...you can say it. It was the focus piece of the entire RNC. That's right! You guessed it! 9/11.

Sorry, I didn't watch the RNC - couldn't tell you. You completely changed the subject there - how about responding in something other than an appeal to anti-Republican emotion?
[/quote]

Uranium used for energy is more expensive than oil? You heard wrong.

Could it be that you are a fundamentalist christian?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
The Iranians want to purchase it. I assume they'll be paying for it, right? Can I get a "duh"?

So we're going to supply them with all their uranium, but they're still going to pay for it? Fair enough, if that's the case. Quit being so condescending - try sticking to actually discussing the issues rather than focusing on making yourself look like you're on the playground.

Oh, you're engaging in some nuance? What did you mean by Iran striking us through military or terrorists attacks? Some sort of subliminal terrorist attack, perhaps? 😕

Terrorist attacks aren't usually overt. How long did it take us to nail down who was really responsible for 9/11? Are we even sure yet that we know?

How about answering the question.

Why were we in Afghanistan? And drop your feigned superiority with this logical fallacy line. You are impressing no one with your little links dropped here and there.

Uh, we were in Afghanistan because of 9/11. What does that have to do with how we accomplished our goals there, which is what we were discussing? You're not impressing anyone with your fallacies - you're just wasting time.

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Uranium used for energy is more expensive than oil? You heard wrong.

Could it be that you are a fundamentalist christian?

Sigh. Why don't you PM me again and tell me how you fought in three wars so your opinion counts more than mine? Then, when I rebut everything you say, you can apologize, then reinstate your personal attacks in less than 24 hours. Grow up.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
The Iranians want to purchase it. I assume they'll be paying for it, right? Can I get a "duh"?

So we're going to supply them with all their uranium, but they're still going to pay for it? Fair enough, if that's the case. Quit being so condescending - try sticking to actually discussing the issues rather than focusing on making yourself look like you're on the playground.

Oh, you're engaging in some nuance? What did you mean by Iran striking us through military or terrorists attacks? Some sort of subliminal terrorist attack, perhaps? 😕

Terrorist attacks aren't usually overt. How long did it take us to nail down who was really responsible for 9/11? Are we even sure yet that we know?

How about answering the question.

Why were we in Afghanistan? And drop your feigned superiority with this logical fallacy line. You are impressing no one with your little links dropped here and there.

Uh, we were in Afghanistan because of 9/11. What does that have to do with how we accomplished our goals there, which is what we were discussing? You're not impressing anyone with your fallacies - you're just wasting time.

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Uranium used for energy is more expensive than oil? You heard wrong.

Could it be that you are a fundamentalist christian?

Sigh. Why don't you PM me again and tell me how you fought in three wars so your opinion counts more than mine? Then, when I rebut everything you say, you can apologize, then reinstate your personal attacks in less than 24 hours. Grow up.

I think it is a great answer, you really told me off.

Now HOW is uranium more expensive to use as an energy source than oil? I missed your explanation, repeat it please.

I apologize when i am proven wrong, i think it is the right thing to do, not everyone is like me though.

You are a fundamentalist, you admitted it yourself.