Ahmadinejawhackjob Wants To Share Nukes With Middle East

**keda** · 18-09-2007, 01:37 PM

I'm sure you were living in the future then as you believe you are now. I cannot say what they were focusing on, I thought it was many things and in particular the nasty djoos bashing your peaceloving mates in real time, but tx for the education, glad to learn they were also rounding up those pesky Germans, but thought they were tamed by then and not still cause for concern as some are now.

And sure, only the djoos cash in, never your buddies.

Go on then, you haven't asked in a few days if I've taken my medication.

**keda** · 18-09-2007, 01:45 PM

Btw we're trying to have a sensible discussion about serious issues, so please contribute and stop making a damn nuisance of yourself.

You're a mod, so try and fool our newbies into thinking you have the makings.

Darn, if I had the money I'd buy TD just to put you in with Jarvis for a couple of hours daily and twice on weekends.

**raycarey** · 18-09-2007, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by keda

Btw we're trying to have a sensible discussion about serious issues,

so then why do you continually distract from the issue at hand and turn it towards alleged anti-semitisim....

Originally Posted by keda

only the djoos cash in,

**barbaro** · 18-09-2007, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

recall I listed the stealth bombers?
Nothing can see them...

Let's say the U.S. uses Stealth Bombers, which I presume they would.

There are only so many stealth bombers.

When the first explosions hit, anywhere in Iran, I assume there is a contingency plan for Iran to fire many, many, Shihab-3 rockets to U.S. targets, and Israel.

One Stealth bomber strike, cannot get them all quickly enough.

And intelligence on sites cannot be a 100%.

We now know this for sure, after Iraq.

**chinthee** · 18-09-2007, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

recall I listed the stealth bombers?
Nothing can see them...

Let's say the U.S. uses Stealth Bombers, which I presume they would.

There are only so many stealth bombers.

When the first explosions hit, anywhere in Iran, I assume there is a contingency plan for Iran to fire many, many, Shihab-3 rockets to U.S. targets, and Israel.

One Stealth bomber strike, cannot get them all quickly enough.

And intelligence on sites cannot be a 100%.

We now know this for sure, after Iraq.

The dynamics could be different this time if France is implicitly behind an attack. It may not be seen appropriate for Iran to attack Israel in response to a US-led attack. I expect Israel to distance itself from a coming US attack. To me, if we see this, it would signal an attack is imminent.

This could lead to more countries siding with the US in this case for a more definitive military operation.

**keda** · 18-09-2007, 08:32 PM

^^ True, but even if every missile could all be taken out simultaneously it wouldn't matter anyway, because his ICBMs would be launched in the form of a new and more potent jihad. He has and always will have the Islamic fanatics firmly on his side, and Muslims worldwide would in any case view it as an attack on their religion, with serious consequences.

Though it's difficult to imagine what could be worse and more awesome than humans eager to kill themselves for allah, I guess it's something like the same but on a far greater and more desperate scale.

Sure the nutjob knows it - as do our leaders, which makes the rhetoric that much more laughable.

**barbaro** · 18-09-2007, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by chinthee

It may not be seen appropriate for Iran to attack Israel in response to a US-led attack. I expect Israel to distance itself from a coming US attack. To me, if we see this, it would signal an attack is imminent.

This could lead to more countries siding with the US in this case for a more definitive military operation.

No, I honestly don't think so. Not at all.

Why?

Because Ahmadinejad (Iran) has publicly stated (yesterday) that it will fire 600+ Shihab-3 rockets at Israel. Maybe it's a bluff.

But from the rhetoric over the last 2 years, I think they are serious.

Israel can refrain and sit-back - but Israel will be attacked.

And....Israel will respond.

This is going to be a nasty mess if the U.S. launches a series of air strikes.

**chinthee** · 18-09-2007, 08:42 PM

^ well, that is a just another silly hostage taking approach. Iran threatens to target Israel if America attacks. Israel doesn't tell America when or if to attack. America will attack based on its own argument with Iran. Israel is a side show, as much as everybody wants to make it a central argument.

I think Israel knows the score, and probably accepts and is ready for it.

**keda** · 18-09-2007, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by chinthee

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

recall I listed the stealth bombers?
Nothing can see them...

Let's say the U.S. uses Stealth Bombers, which I presume they would.

There are only so many stealth bombers.

When the first explosions hit, anywhere in Iran, I assume there is a contingency plan for Iran to fire many, many, Shihab-3 rockets to U.S. targets, and Israel.

One Stealth bomber strike, cannot get them all quickly enough.

And intelligence on sites cannot be a 100%.

We now know this for sure, after Iraq.

The dynamics could be different this time if France is implicitly behind an attack. It may not be seen appropriate for Iran to attack Israel in response to a US-led attack. I expect Israel to distance itself from a coming US attack. To me, if we see this, it would signal an attack is imminent.

This could lead to more countries siding with the US in this case for a more definitive military operation.

First off, can you see France at the forefront of a military venture? Cmon...trying hard but can't see that at all.

If the US, France or even Fiji were to launch any form of direct attack against Iran, Islam would see Israel either as the instigator or the cause, because that's what they want to see.

Let's not forget we're talking about tens at very best but more likely hundreds of millions of ignorant and irrational people being led by the nose by intelligent and irrational leaders.

Countries siding with the US in any event are fairly constant as are those irrevocably against Israel, the only variable being whether the European fence campers might slither to join the US with token forces, or words, as in go get them we're right behind you, or into neutral as in don't look at me guv it were 'im.

**chinthee** · 18-09-2007, 08:53 PM

^ Yeah, I agree mostly, and Russia came out today against the French position. As usual, the US will take the lead, take the flak, and take the majority of the spoils at the end because everyone else are gutless appeasers.

**stroller** · 18-09-2007, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by keda

Btw we're trying to have a sensible discussion about serious issues, so please contribute and stop making a damn nuisance of yourself.

Indeed, perhaps you could set an example and respond to comments without deliberatly misunderstanding and launching personal attacks?

**raycarey** · 18-09-2007, 09:48 PM

considering the failures in iraq and afghanistan, i suppose it shouldn't be too surprising that the bush white house is preparing for another war it has no chance of winning.

**chinthee** · 18-09-2007, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

considering the failures in iraq and afghanistan, i suppose it shouldn't be too surprising that the bush white house is preparing for another war it has no chance of winning.

There is no such thing as "winning" today in wars. It's all about controlling situations. In the case of Iran, it would be to stop or delay their nuclear programme. The costs will be increased terrorist threats against mostly America, and increased security and inconvenience for all of us.

The alternative would be a nuclear armed Iran. Apart from the nutjobs on this forum, who the hell would want that???

**stroller** · 18-09-2007, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by chinthee

The alternative would be a nuclear armed Iran. Apart from the nutjobs on this forum, who the hell would want that???

THe "nutjobs" here all seem to think it's a good idea to attack Iran - the sooner, the better.

Others don't believe the hype and think all other avenues should be explored further to ensure there won't be a nuclear armed Iran. Others hold different believes still, some opinions include the notion Iran would be much better safeguarded against military aggression with nukes.

**chinthee** · 18-09-2007, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by chinthee

The alternative would be a nuclear armed Iran. Apart from the nutjobs on this forum, who the hell would want that???

THe "nutjobs" here all seem to think it's a good idea to attack Iran.

Others don't believe the hype and think all other avenues should be explored further to ensure there won't be a nuclear armed Iran. Others hold different believes still, some opinions include the notion Iran would be much better safeguarded against military aggression with nukes.

Thank you Neville Chamberlain.

**stroller** · 18-09-2007, 11:11 PM

Thanks for the red, dude, sorry not everyone agrees with you.

Not sure what Chamberlain's got to do with any of this, though.

Let me come back to your earlier post:
You put forward the fallacious argument that the only alternative to attacking Iran is Iran's nuclear enarmament, then proceed to imply that this is what everyone disagreeing with you wants, labeling them "nutjobs".

I hope you'll come up with better reasoning in future.

**chinthee** · 18-09-2007, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

Thanks for the red, dude, sorry not everyone agrees with you.

Not sure what Chamberlain's got to do with any of this, though.

Let me come back to your earlier post:
You put forward the fallacious argument that the only alternative to attacking Iran is Iran's nuclear enarmament, then proceed to imply that this is what everyone disagreeing with you wants, labeling them "nutjobs".

I hope you'll come up with better reasoning in future.

Ok, let's take this argument out to its logical conclusion according to you.

Iran is appeased. The are allowed to proceed unabashed. They develop both Nuclear power and weapons. They then become the dominant influence in the middle east.

They assert their brand of Islam throughout the middle east, causing de-stablization of the other muslim countries. In essence they become the dominant leader and ruler of middle east oil supply.

Are you happy with this Stroller? Wait a minute, I didn't ask if you are Iranian did I?

**keda** · 18-09-2007, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by keda

Btw we're trying to have a sensible discussion about serious issues, so please contribute and stop making a damn nuisance of yourself.

Indeed, perhaps you could set an example and respond to comments without deliberatly misunderstanding and launching personal attacks?

Thanks for the red, troller, I have responded with a green in line with my policy of loving thy neighbour even if he does happen to be an inbred with delusions of infallibility...and oh yes, anytime you feel a need be loved you know where to send your reds, eh?

**keda** · 18-09-2007, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by chinthee

Are you happy with this Stroller? Wait a minute, I didn't ask if you are Iranian did I?

nah the troller's no parsi, but might as well be.

**stroller** · 18-09-2007, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by chinthee

Ok, let's take this argument out to its logical conclusion according to you.

Hmm, I didn't know I was leading towards a conclusion, just pointing out the flaws in your arguments.

Originally Posted by chinthee

Iran is appeased. The are allowed to proceed unabashed. They develop both Nuclear power and weapons. They then become the dominant influence in the middle east.

They assert their brand of Islam throughout the middle east, causing de-stablization of the other muslim countries. In essence they become the dominant leader and ruler of middle east oil supply.

Sounds like your fears and fantasies, got nothing to do with anything I said.

Originally Posted by chinthee

Are you happy with this Stroller? Wait a minute, I didn't ask if you are Iranian did I?

No, I am rather disappointed with your response. Rational thought isn't your strength, is it?
Why on earth would you ask me if I was Iranian?

**stroller** · 18-09-2007, 11:44 PM

Hmm, what was this about trying to have a "serious discourse", keda?
Nothing but personal attacks and insults in your last posts, but don't worry, I won't delete, since there would be a storm of "sTROLLER is misusing his mod powers" all over the place. And it's better others can see and judge, n'est pas?

**chinthee** · 18-09-2007, 11:45 PM

^^ Ok, let's summarise shall we?

1. You support Iranian appeasement.

2. You support that appeasement leading to Iranian domination of the middle east.

3. You think Iranian domination is a good thing, for whatever reason.

If not, please refute.

**stroller** · 18-09-2007, 11:52 PM

Why should I refute something you state but I haven't said?

Start to make sense and I'd be happy to give it my best shot.

**chinthee** · 19-09-2007, 12:01 AM

Really, with over 12,000 posts I would expect a much better game from Stroller. Maybe he's under the weather?

**stroller** · 19-09-2007, 12:06 AM

No, waiting for a comment from you which recognises what I posted, did not say, and allows me to engage in a meaningful way.

Thread: Ahmadinejawhackjob Wants To Share Nukes With Middle East

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions