Enough farting around on Iran & Nukes

[ironsides]

No one is trying to stop anyone from coming into the 21st Century, no one wants to prevent anyone from having technology. Look at Dubai. As for nuclear power, that is sort of like getting a gun permit, all countries are eligible but some are to psycho to be trusted with that right, Same with technology. You want to give your Muslim buddies nuclear weapons, keep them home and I have no objection, let them start crossing outside your borders and you become my target.

No ones trigger finger is twitching yet, some on the left may be shaking a little in their boots though.

 

[Goober]

No. We in the west are far more civilized than those clowns in Iran. We don't strap on bombs, we would saddle up in an F16 and blow their whole country all to hell. "Strafe them creeps in the sand dunes Daddio!"

Cliffy

You are avoiding the questions so I will post them once more for you but slightly different.

Go and check your posts regarding Religion - Have you not condemned religion - in particular Christianity for this? How it has been the source of conflicts - mass murder etc -

Now that was hundreds of years ago - from the Spanish forward - That is what you post from time to tine - Correct?

Now back up 2 or 3 centuries and that is where these boys are at - They ( Muslims) ruled a massive empire - and lost it - some want that back -

To the fanatic you are the enemy - to be slaughtered - just the facts Cliff - Just the bloody facts -

Now convince me they are sane - would a sane person -person ruling a country keep on this path - knowing that if the do not reach an accommodation the bombs will fall - Is that sane - They want a rift between the West and Muslims - Now do they want war is the next question?

AP WH 9 RISE of ISLAM to 1200 AD 09 N Ppt Presentation

 

[darkbeaver]

How many bombs does Israel have and where are they? There,s nobody more fanatic than Israelis, the rift masters.

 

[MHz]

Can you prove Canada has killed more civilians in Afghanistan than it has Taliban? If not, then quit making claims like that.

They are part of a multi-national force, they misdeed nreflect on the whole not on a subsection, which is Canada's role.

Phobic? Paranoid? Do you wander about expecting everyone to be your enemy? I don't nor does Les. And I think to most of the rest of the planet, Canada is either amicable or inconsequential. What would be the point in considering it an enemy under those circumstances? Have another toke or snort of glue or whatever it is you use.

Isn't that what The US, Britain, and Israel hammer the airwaves with hourly, Iran will let an a-bomb off the moment they get their hands on one.

Take the 25 years the US had influence in Iranian politics (53-78), was that an ememy who came under the guise of being a friend?

You don't retain very much of the posts you read, do you?

 

[AnnaG]

They are part of a multi-national force, they misdeed nreflect on the whole not on a subsection, which is Canada's role.

How'd you like to use English, please? Anyway, I asked for proof that Canada kills more civilians in Afghanistan than they do Taliban. Or even all the troops that are there. Put your facts where your mouth is. Show me where the US, Canada, and the others have killed more civilians than Taliban? I bet the Taliban has killed more civilians than Canada, US, etc. has.
Nevermind, I'll post the numbers.

More civilians have died in attacks by Taliban insurgents than by aerial strikes and military operations by pro-government Afghan and international forces: According to UNAMA, 1,397 were killed by anti-government elements, 465 by pro-government forces and 165 by other actors.

IRIN Asia | AFGHANISTAN: Over 2,000 civilians killed in first 10 months of 2009 | Asia | Afghanistan | Human Rights Conflict | News Item

Relax and stick your nose in the glue bag again.

Isn't that what The US, Britain, and Israel hammer the airwaves with hourly, Iran will let an a-bomb off the moment they get their hands on one.

Nope. They're worried about their own butts. Why should they worry about what Iran plans for Canada??

Take the 25 years the US had influence in Iranian politics (53-78), was that an ememy who came under the guise of being a friend?

What's that have to do with whether Iran would attack Canada or not?

You don't retain very much of the posts you read, do you?

lmao Apparently more than you. You can't even grasp what people say most of the time. And on top of that, you can't remember from one day to the next what we were talking about. And all you have to do is scroll back and read it again.
Relax and stick your nose in the glue bag again.

So explain to me why you are paranoid and think Canada should worry about Iran and its nukes?

 

[petros]

Can you prove Canada has killed more civilians in Afghanistan than it has Taliban? If not, then quit making claims like that.

HELLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!

The Taliban ARE civilians.

 

[AnnaG]

HELLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!

The Taliban ARE civilians.

Technically, I suppose you are right, but I am pretty sure you know what I meant anyway. I meant civilians that aren't out to plant IEDs everywhere and stuff like that. You know, the relatively innocent types I started out talking about. :roll: The Taliban are more like militia.

 

[petros]

If a of whack of drunk and drugged out porn packing putz pullers invaded your simple little nation what would you call someone who kissed their stained asses?

A traitor? If all those who gave into the wankers are traitors that makes the rest of the people who oppose occupation combatants. Lose the media label and you have a nation of civilians opposing an invader.

There is 175,000 Afghani army and police and the rest of the invaders trying to eradicate a religious sect at a ratio of 20:1 and every last one of those are civilian guerillas.

 

[MHz]

How'd you like to use English, please? Anyway, I asked for proof that Canada kills more civilians in Afghanistan than they do Taliban. Or even all the troops that are there. Put your facts where your mouth is. Show me where the US, Canada, and the others have killed more civilians than Taliban? I bet the Taliban has killed more civilians than Canada, US, etc. has.
Nevermind, I'll post the numbers.
IRIN Asia | AFGHANISTAN: Over 2,000 civilians killed in first 10 months of 2009 | Asia | Afghanistan | Human Rights Conflict | News Item

Relax and stick your nose in the glue bag again.

Doesn't take much to throw you off does it? Tell me you wouldn't feel a bit nervous if you attended a big wedding over there.

"
Seven Days of Ignominy

• October 11th - the farming village of 450 persons of Karam, west of Jalalabad in Nangarhar province is repeatedly bombed, 45 of the 60 mud houses destroyed, killing at least 160 civilians.77 Ms. Tur Bakai, who survived the attack, but all of whose children died in the attack, said, her voice barely audible, "I was asleep. I heard the prayers and suddenly it started. I didn't know what it was. I was so scared…"78 ;
• October 18th - the central market place, Sarai Shamali in the Madad district of Kandahar is bombed, killing 47 civilians;79
• October 21st - a cluster bomb falls on the military hospital and mosque in Herat, killing possibly 100 though I have recorded only 11;80
• October 23rd - in the early a.m. hours, low-flying AC-130 gunships repeatedly strafe the farming villages of Bori Chokar and Chowkar-Karez [Chakoor Kariz], 25 miles north of Kandahar, killing 93 civilians;81
• November 10th the villages of Shah Aqa and a neighboring sidling, in the poppy-growing Khakrez district, 70 kilometers northwest of Kandahar are bombed, resulting in possibly over 300 civilian casualties [though I have only recorded 125]82
• November 18th - carpet-bombing by B-52's of frontline village near Khanabad, province of Kunduz, kills at least 100 civilians.83"

Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan

"

1. Afghanistan (2001- )
   • Military Deaths
     • 21 March 2002 The Western Mail (Financial Times Information): 5,000-10,000 Taleban and al-Qaeda K,Wd or Cap. [Dead alone would be ca. 1/4 that, i.e. 1,250-2,500]
     • 14 Oct. 2002 Time: 5,000 Taliban and Al Qaeda KIA; 23 USAns.
     • Iraq Coalition Casualty Count: 139 USAns (to 16 Oct 2004)
   • Atrocities:
     • 26 Aug. 2002 Newsweek: 960-1,000+ Taliban POWs k. by Northern Alliance
   • Indirect Civilian Deaths
     • 20 May 2002 [London] Guardian: Max. war-related avoidable deaths: 49,600
       • Remained at home, relief disrupted: 40,000 d. max.
       • Refugee d. in camps: 1,600
       • Refugee d. outside the camps: 8,000
       • Of those, 60%-80% would have happened anyway, so 20%-40% US fault: 10,000-19,840 at max.
       • Also cited: Director of the Project for Defence Alternatives: above 20,000 d. unlikely.
   • Direct Civilian Deaths
     • 12 Feb. 2002 [London] Guardian: 2,000-8,000
     • Marc Herold: 3,767 (Oct. 7-Dec. 6) [[SIZE=-2]http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm[/SIZE]]. Revised overall death toll (October 7 to February 6) is 3,000 to 3,600 [Guardian (London), 20 May 2002]
     • 14 Oct. 2002 Time: <3,000
     • 3 June 2002 LA Times: 1,067 to 1,201 civilian deaths (not incl. 497 deaths that were not identified as either civilian or military). Also cited:
       • Relief officials with interim Afghan government: 1,000 to 2,000
       • Herold: 3,050 to 3,500
     • Project on Defense Alternatives (18 Jan. 2002): 1,000-1,300 [[SIZE=-2]http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html[/SIZE]]
     • 11 Feb. 2002 AP: 500-600
     • Some officials of Human Rights Watch privately: 100-350 by Dec. 2001 [[SIZE=-2]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0207-03.htm[/SIZE] or [SIZE=-2]http://wsjclassroomedition.com/tj_120401_casu.htm[/SIZE]]
     • MEDIAN: 1,134-1,500
   • ESTIMATED TOTAL KILLED (my guess 12 Feb. 2005)
     • USA: 23
     • Taliban, Al Qaeda: 1,250-5,000 (Western Mail, Time)
     • POWs killed: 960-1,000 (Newsweek)
     • Northern Alliance: 500-2,000 (pure guess: @ 40% of opponents)
     • Civilians: 1,134-1,500 (median)
     • TOTAL: ca. 3,900-9,500 k. to Summer 2002"

Twenty-first Century Death Tolls

Nope. They're worried about their own butts. Why should they worry about what Iran plans for Canada??

Perhaps those 3 suffer from paranoia and Iran has nothing planned for any of them, other than sell them oil while they bask in the sun. The speed at which Iraq is being handed back to the citizens speaks volumes about how invasions go when any of those 3 are involved.

What's that have to do with whether Iran would attack Canada or not?

Attack Canada, for what???? The question is would we go to Iran's defense if they were 'illegally invaded'?? No we wouldn't cause out 3 'friends' wouldn't let us. lol

lmao Apparently more than you. You can't even grasp what people say most of the time. And on top of that, you can't remember from one day to the next what we were talking about. And all you have to do is scroll back and read it again.
Relax and stick your nose in the glue bag again.

You even posted that you hoped the document about recent war crimes included crime by both sides rather than just the one side being picked on. How many posts before stated that both sides were being accused of war-crimes. You should try and not let 'little points' like that cloud your mind. lol

([FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths," Barbara Bush said on ABC's "Good Morning America" on March 18, 2003. "Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" )[/FONT]

So explain to me why you are paranoid and think Canada should worry about Iran and its nukes?

Don't you mean why would we say 'anybody' should be worried about Iran even wanting nukes? Like our 3 'friends', you know the 3 that have invaded the most places this century, rather than the ones who are trying to reduce their carbon foot-print. Not that radio-active waste is a good thing unless it is spread around like our 3 'friends' do, out of the barrel of some weapon.

Paranoia would mean I think you are just acting 'naive' about somethings, I'm quite convinced that you aren't acting at all.

 

[darkbeaver]

If the world would live in peace it should crush Israel, permanently and completely.

 

[petros]

Perhaps those 3 suffer from paranoia and Iran has nothing planned for any of them, other than sell them oil......

... in every currency on the planet BUT US dollars.

 

[Goober]

The Human Cost | Human Rights Watch

 

[petros]

War is peace. right Goobs?

 

[Goober]

War is peace. right Goobs?

Petros

No it is not -
Unfortunately the poor families on the street will pay - Regardless of sanctions or as they say selective pinpoint bombing - But the power structure - the elite will mainly survive and profit -

What I see is Imanutjob planning for war - now all 7 member s of the Security Council ( those with vetoes) are lining up with the west - He and his hardliners are fanatics -

As I have stated all along - the west including China- Russia do not want Iran with a nuclear weapons capability - Russia and China played the negotioans as far as they could - even they see that Iran does not want to negotiate -

I have given thought to this and Iran with a nuclear weapons capability would destabilize the Mid East even more that it is now - A new arms race of nukes by the Saudi's and others - Just what is not needed.

911 - Do you remember the stock crash etc - then the war in Afghanistan -

And all it takes is one bomb - even a dirty bomb going off in a western city and then what do you think the reaction would be -

Massive retaliation

The clouds or war are darkening and they as always will be accompanied by - conquest - war - famine and plague.

Not the apocalypse - - just what accompanies war.

No I am not for War - but I am scared to death of Iran with Nukes -

Anyone with a sense of reality would also be.

 

[Goober]

Thought this was a good story:
A young Canadian soldier was attending some college courses between assignments.
He had also completed missions in Afghanistan.

One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist. One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He Looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes."

The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am God. I'm still waiting." It got down to the last couple of minutes when the young soldier got out of his Chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold. The young man went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence.

The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the soldier and asked, "What the hell is the matter with you? Why did you do that?"

Came the reply,
"God was too busy today protecting our soldiers who are protecting your right to talk stupid and act like an asshole. So, He sent me"

 

[AnnaG]

If a of whack of drunk and drugged out porn packing putz pullers invaded your simple little nation what would you call someone who kissed their stained asses?

A traitor? If all those who gave into the wankers are traitors that makes the rest of the people who oppose occupation combatants. Lose the media label and you have a nation of civilians opposing an invader.

There is 175,000 Afghani army and police and the rest of the invaders trying to eradicate a religious sect at a ratio of 20:1 and every last one of those are civilian guerillas.

*shrugs* Whatever. Guerilla civilians, militia, whatever you want to call them, they aren't what I was referring to as innocent civilians.

 

[AnnaG]

Doesn't take much to throw you off does it?

Off topic? You habitually go off-topic. So what? You only mildly troll. Not a big deal.

Tell me you wouldn't feel a bit nervous if you attended a big wedding over there.

Ok. I wouldn't feel nervous. I would wonder if some nutcase hero of yours would drive a car loaded with explosives into the wedding, though.
Whatever that has to do with the discussion. Either way, your statement that the UN forces kill most of the civilians in Afghanistan is just plain wrong.

"
Seven Days of Ignominy

Whatever. I didn't read that.

Perhaps those 3 suffer from paranoia and Iran has nothing planned for any of them, other than sell them oil while they bask in the sun. The speed at which Iraq is being handed back to the citizens speaks volumes about how invasions go when any of those 3 are involved.

What volumes?

Attack Canada, for what???? The question is would we go to Iran's defense if they were 'illegally invaded'?? No we wouldn't cause out 3 'friends' wouldn't let us. lol

Wrong, that was not the question. Like I said, you can't seem to stick with the point.

You even posted that you hoped the document about recent war crimes included crime by both sides rather than just the one side being picked on. How many posts before stated that both sides were being accused of war-crimes. You should try and not let 'little points' like that cloud your mind. lol

I haven't read the thread from beginning to end. You don't either. So? Have another sniff.

Don't you mean why would we say 'anybody' should be worried about Iran even wanting nukes?

Nope. You said we. I am Canadian. I assume you are, too. When a fellow Canadian says "we", I am thinking they mean "we", not other people.

Like our 3 'friends', you know the 3 that have invaded the most places this century, rather than the ones who are trying to reduce their carbon foot-print. Not that radio-active waste is a good thing unless it is spread around like our 3 'friends' do, out of the barrel of some weapon.

I have no idea what this has to do with the conversation.

Paranoia would mean I think you are just acting 'naive' about somethings, I'm quite convinced that you aren't acting at all.

I don't care what you are convinced of. You obviously have no idea about what paranoia means. Nor naivete either, for that matter. Have another sniff.

 

[jsiooa]

No I am not for War - but I am scared to death of Iran with Nukes -

Anyone with a sense of reality would also be.

lmao. Israel with nukes is much more petrifying and much a detriment to the stabilization of the middle east.

 

[Colpy]

lmao. Israel with nukes is much more petrifying and much a detriment to the stabilization of the middle east.

Israel has had nukes for 40 years.

Israel has never threatened anyone with nukes, despite being in danger of destruction in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Iran has threatened Israel repeatedly.

Israel is a modern liberal, democratic secular state, responsible to its citizens.

Iran is led by Islamist nutcases responsible to no one, seeking glorious death in Jihad.......

Yeah. right. Israel is the relative danger. Uh huh.

 

[jsiooa]

Israel is a racist theocratic state holding their neighbors in concentration camps.