Iran Leader: "Israel Will Be Annihilated"

[Guest BlackJesus]

[center][img]http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/3313/hgg5ai.png[/img][/center]

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='rumble in the jungle' post='249636' date='Apr 14 2006, 04:26 PM']your actually right about that, but they get their training and weapons from us. if you give us the same deal we would eat them boys alive. if you take their weapons away we would eat them up as well. their nothing without the weapons. and no one still has answered my question on why israel could have nuclear weapons but iran can't.[/quote]
Are you confusing "us" with "them" here? I thought I read you were a Muslim....that doesn't make you "they" in my book...what do you mean?

[|Bunghole|]

The fact that we have used nuclear arms before IMHO has no bearing on what we do with them now in terms of being responsible with their use. i am quite sure that Iran would be considered a far-less than responsible nation when it comes to nuclear arms. The world agrees with that, but the UN and USA disagree on how to go about it....sp they shouldn't have it...I sure do wish there was a way to allow countries to develop nuclear energy without being able to enrich uranium.....

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

Point to note though is that if Israel did attack an Arab country, Pakistan with it's nuclear program and nukes would probably get in on the mix as well. It doesn't get a lot of press, but their defence industry is a major, cheap provider of tanks and arms to Arab countries in the region.

Although Pakistan and Iran don't see eye to eye on a lot of things because of Iran's historically closer ties to India, an Israeli attack on an Arab country would provoke them as well given that they are part of the Muslim "Ummah" and the only ones with Nukes.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[b]The "Real" reason I believe that the U.S. , Russia, or China .... don't want other nations to have Nukes .... is because they know that once a Nation does .... then military interference is off the table.

For proof look at North Korea. We aren't doing shit about North Korea .... we also aren't doing shit about Pakistan - If anything we are giving them every goodie in the book to make their govt like us (and to also prop up an unpopular military dictator in Musharaff).


The "Big" 3 Nations know that when shit does hit the fan .... that these nations with Nukes are also going to have to be given a seat at the Table. And the less amount of seats .... the bigger the slice of the pie for those nations with the Nukes. [/b]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='249661' date='Apr 14 2006, 07:03 PM'][b]no need to apologize Rumble .... you are Palestinian and in my mind you have the right to be real pissed. If I had been born Palestinian I probably would have blown myself up along time ago right smack dab in the middle of a Tel Aviv bar mitzvah.

Also don't be afraid to politically discuss what is on your mind. All of us in this forum share controversial opinions, and speak on heated issues and we all still are friends (at least I think [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img] ) enough to share our love for the Bengals. I separate Politics and the Bengals when it comes time .... and thus would slam beers and party with any Bengal fan irregardless of their political stances. [/b][/quote]

i respect people that stand up for themselves and what they believe... i don't have to agree w/ them to like them.... so yeah, we're still cool

but when we have them beers, no politics... seriously....

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='249701' date='Apr 14 2006, 08:17 PM']The fact that we have used nuclear arms before IMHO has no bearing on what we do with them now in terms of being responsible with their use. i am quite sure that Iran would be considered a far-less than responsible nation when it comes to nuclear arms. The world agrees with that, but the UN and USA disagree on how to go about it....sp they shouldn't have it...I sure do wish there was a way to allow countries to develop nuclear energy without being able to enrich uranium.....[/quote]


I'm not so sure that you're right when you say that the fact that you have used nuclear arms before has no bearing on what you do with them now in terms of being responsible for their use. I see no particular evidence that the U.S. is anmore responsible now than it was then. Revelations are coming forth daily about just how irresponsible the U.S. invasion of Iraq was, and it looks an awful lot like the ruling regime is hell bent on exacerbating its irresponsible use of force. A lot of the current revelations are really just the rehashing of points made before the attack against Iraq that were ignored or hooted down by the American majority when they actually were gulled into thinking that WMDs would be found when their troops went in. The world is starting to see that it was wrong about the U.S., but world elites don't necessarilly care, since they have a different agenda than the masses. Poor countries in particular have less to fear from Iran's possession of nuclear weapons than they do from U.S. WMD's - or conventional weapons for that matter.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='249707' date='Apr 14 2006, 08:25 PM'][b]The "Real" reason I believe that the U.S. , Russia, or China .... don't want other nations to have Nukes .... is because they know that once a Nation does .... then military interference is off the table.

For proof look at North Korea. We aren't doing shit about North Korea .... we also aren't doing shit about Pakistan - If anything we are giving them every goodie in the book to make their govt like us (and to also prop up an unpopular military dictator in Musharaff).
The "Big" 3 Nations know that when shit does hit the fan .... that these nations with Nukes are also going to have to be given a seat at the Table. And the less amount of seats .... the bigger the slice of the pie for those nations with the Nukes. [/b][/quote]


Agreed.

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='249701' date='Apr 14 2006, 08:17 PM']..I sure do wish there was a way to allow countries to develop nuclear energy without being able to enrich uranium.....[/quote]

There is, you can use Thorium. Which by a longer process basically transfers thorium to uranium. Given that Thorium is much more plentiful than Uranium, it might become the fuel of choice. But the technology is not there yet. India wants to make it's nuclear program fully thorium dependent in 25 years I think. Australia as well is flirting with the idea given their very large thorium deposits. But the anti-nuclear lobby in Australia is very powerful and pretty much firmly entrenched in their culture.

[STRAYCAT]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='249708' date='Apr 14 2006, 08:25 PM']i respect people that stand up for themselves and what they believe... i don't have to agree w/ them to like them.... so yeah, we're still cool

but when we have them beers, no politics... seriously.... [/quote]



my feelings also. we got here for one reason. The black and orange..ok now back at the debate [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//37.gif[/img]

[Rumble In the Jungle]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='249698' date='Apr 14 2006, 08:12 PM']Are you confusing "us" with "them" here? I thought I read you were a Muslim....that doesn't make you "they" in my book...what do you mean?[/quote]

how am i confusing you, i live here. and i've lived here for the last 20 years of my life. i consider my self an american palastinian. i love this country and willing to defend it. but will not kill my people for George Bush, i'll have to pull a mohammed ali on that bro. every thing that happend on 9/11 i don't believe in, if i have the choice i would of tortured those mother fuckers. feel free to ask me anything, even my thong size

[Guest Coy Bacon]

Iran Showdown Tests Power of "Israel Lobby"
By Jim Lobe, IPS News
Posted on April 14, 2006, Printed on April 14, 2006
[url="http://www.alternet.org/story/34935/"]http://www.alternet.org/story/34935/[/url]
One month after the publication by two of the most influential international relations scholars in the United States of a highly controversial essay on the so-called "Israel Lobby," their thesis that the lobby exercises "unmatched power" in Washington is being tested by rapidly rising tensions with Iran.

Far more visibly than any other domestic constituency, the Israel Lobby, defined by Profs. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, as "the loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction", has pushed the government -- both Congress and the George W. Bush administration -- toward confrontation with Tehran.

Leading the charge has been a familiar group of neo-conservatives, such as former Defence Policy Board (DPB) chairman Richard Perle and former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey, who championed the war in Iraq but who have increasingly focused their energies over the past year on building support for "regime change" and, if necessary, military action against Iran if it does not abandon its nuclear programme.

(On Tuesday, Iran announced that it had successfully enriched uranium, which can be used for both nuclear weapons and nuclear power reactors, in defiance of a U.N. Security Council resolution ordering an end to all enrichment activities by Apr. 28).

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier Israel lobby group whose annual convention last year featured a giant, multi-media exhibit on how Iran is "pursuing nuclear weapons and how it can be stopped", has also been pushing hard on Capitol Hill for legislation to promote regime change. Despite White House objections, the group has sought tough sanctions against foreign companies with investments in Iran.

"This bill has been pushed almost entirely by AIPAC," noted Trita Parsi, a Middle East expert at Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) here. "I don't see any other major groups behind this legislation that have had any impact on it."

Similarly, the American Jewish Committee (AJC), whose leadership is considered slightly less hawkish than AIPAC, has taken out full-page ads in influential U.S. newspapers since last week entitled "A Nuclear Iran Threatens All" depicting radiating circles on an Iran-centred map to show where its missiles could strike.

"Suppose Iran one day gives nuclear devices to terrorists," the ad reads. "Could anyone anywhere feel safe?"

In their 81-page essay, entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" and condensed in a shorter essay published last month in the London Review of Books, Mearsheimer and Walt, pillars of the "realist" school of international relations, argue that Washington's Middle East policy is too closely tied to Israel to serve its own national interests in the region, particularly in the so-called "war on terror".

They believe that the [b]power of the Israel Lobby [/b] -- derived, among other things, from its ability to marshal financial support for Democratic as well as Republican politicians, its grassroots organisational prowess, and its [b]ability to stigmatise critics as "anti-Semitic"[/b] (a tactic already deployed against the authors) -- is largely responsible.

"[b]No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially the same,"[/b] the authors argued, noting that the lobby, while predominantly Jewish, also includes prominent Christian evangelicals and non-Jewish neo-conservatives, such as Woolsey and former Education Secretary William Bennett.

[b]In the administration's decision to invade Iraq, pressure from Israel and the lobby played a "critical" -- although not exclusive -- role[/b], according to the paper, which cited pre-war public prodding by Israeli leaders and by leaders of many major Jewish organisations as evidence, [b]although it notes that most U.S. Jews were sceptical and have since turned strongly against the war.[/b]
Neo-conservatives [b]closely associated with the right-wing views of Israel's Likud party [/b] - both in and outside the administration -- played a particularly important role in gaining support for "regime change" in Iraq stretching back to the mid-1990s, according to the paper.

But even during the run-up to the Iraq war, Israeli leaders, notably then-Defence Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, depicted Iran as the greater threat, a theme that was picked up by the Lobby, led by the neo-conservatives, immediately after Baghdad's fall.

"The liberation of Iraq was the first great battle for the future of the Middle East... But the next great battle -- not, we hope a military one -- will be for Iran," wrote the Weekly Standard's neo-conservative editor, William Kristol, in early May 2003.

Shortly thereafter, neo-conservatives and other hawks led by Vice Pres. Dick Cheney [b]succeeded in cutting off ongoing U.S.-Iranian talks[/b] on Afghanistan and Iran and [b]killing an offer by Tehran to engage in a broader negotiation on all outstanding differences.[/b]
What makes the growing confrontation with Iran so remarkable is that the Israel Lobby appears to be the only major organised force here that is actively pushing it toward crisis.

[b]Mainstream analysts[/b], including arms control hawks who favour strong pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme, [b]have spoken out against military action as far too risky and almost certainly counter-productive. Even analysts at the right-wing Heritage Foundation have voiced doubts. "It just doesn't make any sense from a geopolitical standpoint," said Heritage's James Carifano, noting Iran's capacity to retaliate against the U.S. in Iraq.[/b]
The Iranian exile community, which has generally favoured more pressure on Tehran, similarly appears divided about the consequences of a military attack, with some leaders fearing that it would strengthen the regime, Walt told IPS. He added that "it's hard for me to believe that (U.S.) oil companies would be in favour of a military option (because they) don't like violence or events that create political risk or uncertainty."

While insisting that military action against Iran's nuclear programme should only be a last resort, the Israel Lobby, on the other hand, appears united in the conviction that an attack will indeed be necessary if diplomatic efforts, economic pressure, and covert action fail.

"(Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in," Patrick Clawson, deputy director of research of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank established by AIPAC, told New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. "We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates."

Hersh summarised Clawson's bottom line as "Iran had no choice other than to accede to America's demands or face a military attack."

That was much the same message delivered by Perle himself and rapturously received by the attendees at AIPAC's 2006 convention here last month. The convention, at which the keynoter, none other than the administration's ultimate hawk, Vice Pres. Cheney, vowed "meaningful consequences" if Iran did not freeze its nuclear programme, drew several hundred Democratic and Republican lawmakers in what could only be described as a show of raw political power.

[b]"I don't think there's another group in the country that has two successive conferences in which the centerpiece was beating the drums for war in Iran," [/b] noted one senior official with another major pro-Israel organisation, who asked not to be identified. "[b]They are the main force behind this."[/b]

All rights reserved, IPS—Inter Press Service (2006)

AlterNet staff writer Joshua Holland addressed the recent Israel Lobby report in an article last week.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief for Inter Press Service.

© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: [url="http://www.alternet.org/story/34935/"]http://www.alternet.org/story/34935/[/url]

[Lawman]

[quote]"No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially the same,"[/quote]

We need a steam coming out of the ears emoticon

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='249750' date='Apr 14 2006, 09:55 PM']We need a steam coming out of the ears emoticon [/quote]


Mad that the Zionists are pulling this off or mad that somebody has the nerve to point it out?

[TheBZ]

[quote name='BadassBengal' post='249568' date='Apr 14 2006, 04:14 PM']Why do we have to protect them? Let someone else protect them. We already have our own shit to deal with. What about the UN? How about all the countries of the world come together to create a base for the UN at the North Pole, or something, and let them have their own army and nukes to regulate shit. I'm tired of US having to be the enforcers...[/quote]

The United States doesn't protect anything except the system that keep the current power brokers in power. Everything else is just propoganda.

Unfortunately for them, a legion of holes are being poked through that system on a daily basis now...And it won't matter what the military does when none of it can be paid for any more.

[quote name='Bunghole' post='249628' date='Apr 14 2006, 06:09 PM']Israel has the most powerful military in the entire Middle East because they are trained and equipped by the USA, and the rest of the Arab world is scrounging up old artillery shells to use for IED's and using Soviet Union-era rocket launchers that are as prone to misfiring as they are to hitting their targets.[/quote]

That's true...And yet the news tells us every day how dangerous those countries are over there. Funny how a bunch of guys with old beat up rocket launchers are supposed to be a $600 Billion threat to American citizens.

[quote name='steggyD' post='249639' date='Apr 14 2006, 06:29 PM']I don't think Iran should have nuclear arms, but I think that every country should develop nuclear power for electricity.[/quote]

I definitely think everyone should have nuclear power for electricity...I think that NO ONE should have nuclear arms, but in lieu of that I support any country's desire to protect their soveriegnty in this current climate by having them. That is EXACTLY how you get to sit at the 'big boys table'.

Besides...I don't know another country that abuses force more than the United States anyways...And I would at least like to see the 'fear of god' put into the war mongers...Especially by those who are DEFENDING and not attacking. The bully could use another few punches in the mouth.

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='249661' date='Apr 14 2006, 07:03 PM']I separate Politics and the Bengals when it comes time .... and thus would slam beers and party with any Bengal fan irregardless of their political stances.[/quote]

I am definitely in agreement with that.

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='249707' date='Apr 14 2006, 08:25 PM']The "Big" 3 Nations know that when shit does hit the fan .... that these nations with Nukes are also going to have to be given a seat at the Table. And the less amount of seats .... the bigger the slice of the pie for those nations with the Nukes.[/quote]

You've got that right.


I don't get the rationale for Iran wanting to nuke Israel when it would destroy the Palestinians to whom they are trying to morally and politically support...I don't believe that is what they are saying...And I believe that is the media trying to use scare tactics to gauge support for an offensive.

(Since Rick is the media's bitch, he will declare war on the flavour of the week...It only takes a few articles to start beating the chest, eh Rick?)

Do I believe they would love to kick Israel's ass? Of course...But the tough talk is just rhetoric and baiting in the face of the media war that is going on.

I am coming to believe that there is a lot going on with regard to India, Pakistan, China and Russia as far as council votes and the willing to support an Iranian defense...Or condemn a US or Israeli offensive.

Something is up...And it seems like whenever the rock gets too hot, China or Russia step in to comment one way or the other. They are holding the cards on this one, because Iran is their oil producer to exploit...Iraq's is the US/UK version, and there seems to be a closed door deal going on there with regard to not messing up Russia's and China's energy planning.

The key will be whether those countries throw up their hands...And then the US hawks can get in there.

Just the same, I don't see why the US would want to do that...They've already spent $600 Billion to lose a war in Iraq. Their only accomplishment is removing Saddam and feeding the military complex. Everything else has been a loss, right down to the inability to control what is going on there and what will happen next.

Iran will be the same, if not worse...There is less money available now, and everyone is getting an itchy trigger-finger, including Pakistan...Because they see the ball in rolling their direction.


As far as Irael and the Palestinians go, I think that 100 years from now we will look at the social injustices there as the greatest cover-up crime of our day. It is an ongoing colonial takeover that has been done in such an insidious and drawn out fashion that it is tough to gauge at times just how badly the Palestinians are being abused.

Personally, I wish the Muslim nations would show a lot more solidarity in the face of such things, and 'play the game' of political and economic sanctions against the US and Israel. Unfortunately, half of them are 'on the take' and they really have trouble agreeing on anything other than that they are pissed off and/or defensive.

With the economic shifting going towards China and the East, I think there will soon be enough business interests there to make it so the Arabs don't have to 'play ball' any more...And when that time comes, I think the ability to produce nuclear power will be very handy...Because all of the oil will be going to China, and all the chits in the US stock market will be cashed in.

BZ

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='TheBZ' post='249762' date='Apr 14 2006, 10:44 PM']The United States doesn't protect anything except the system that keep the current power brokers in power. Everything else is just propoganda.

Unfortunately for them, a legion of holes are being poked through that system on a daily basis now...And it won't matter what the military does when none of it can be paid for any more.
That's true...And yet the news tells us every day how dangerous those countries are over there. Funny how a bunch of guys with old beat up rocket launchers are supposed to be a $600 Billion threat to American citizens.
I definitely think everyone should have nuclear power for electricity...I think that NO ONE should have nuclear arms, but in lieu of that I support any country's desire to protect their soveriegnty in this current climate by having them. That is EXACTLY how you get to sit at the 'big boys table'.

Besides...I don't know another country that abuses force more than the United States anyways...And I would at least like to see the 'fear of god' put into the war mongers...Especially by those who are DEFENDING and not attacking. The bully could use another few punches in the mouth.
I am definitely in agreement with that.
You've got that right.
I don't get the rationale for Iran wanting to nuke Israel when it would destroy the Palestinians to whom they are trying to morally and politically support...I don't believe that is what they are saying...And I believe that is the media trying to use scare tactics to gauge support for an offensive.

(Since Rick is the media's bitch, he will declare war on the flavour of the week...It only takes a few articles to start beating the chest, eh Rick?)

Do I believe they would love to kick Israel's ass? Of course...But the tough talk is just rhetoric and baiting in the face of the media war that is going on.

I am coming to believe that there is a lot going on with regard to India, Pakistan, China and Russia as far as council votes and the willing to support an Iranian defense...Or condemn a US or Israeli offensive.

Something is up...And it seems like whenever the rock gets too hot, China or Russia step in to comment one way or the other. They are holding the cards on this one, because Iran is their oil producer to exploit...Iraq's is the US/UK version, and there seems to be a closed door deal going on there with regard to not messing up Russia's and China's energy planning.

The key will be whether those countries throw up their hands...And then the US hawks can get in there.

Just the same, I don't see why the US would want to do that...They've already spent $600 Billion to lose a war in Iraq. Their only accomplishment is removing Saddam and feeding the military complex. Everything else has been a loss, right down to the inability to control what is going on there and what will happen next.

Iran will be the same, if not worse...There is less money available now, and everyone is getting an itchy trigger-finger, including Pakistan...Because they see the ball in rolling their direction.
As far as Irael and the Palestinians go, I think that 100 years from now we will look at the social injustices there as the greatest cover-up crime of our day. It is an ongoing colonial takeover that has been done in such an insidious and drawn out fashion that it is tough to gauge at times just how badly the Palestinians are being abused.

Personally, I wish the Muslim nations would show a lot more solidarity in the face of such things, and 'play the game' of political and economic sanctions against the US and Israel. Unfortunately, half of them are 'on the take' and they really have trouble agreeing on anything other than that they are pissed off and/or defensive.

With the economic shifting going towards China and the East, I think there will soon be enough business interests there to make it so the Arabs don't have to 'play ball' any more...And when that time comes, I think the ability to produce nuclear power will be very handy...Because all of the oil will be going to China, and all the chits in the US stock market will be cashed in.

BZ[/quote]


I agree down the line, except for the part with putting it all aside where the Bengals are concerned. I've set a time limit to wean myself from being a Bengals fan, or any kind of sports fan, in light of the kind of political company it puts me in.

[TheBZ]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='249772' date='Apr 14 2006, 11:07 PM']I agree down the line, except for the part with putting it all aside where the Bengals are concerned. I've set a time limit to wean myself from being a Bengals fan, or any kind of sports fan, in light of the kind of political company it puts me in.[/quote]

I have felt that way before...But you don't effect change in contemporary society by withdrawing from it. You only make yourself completely irrelevant.

Now, if your only goal is to continue to be bitter and choke on the injustices (which I do on a daily basis), then that is probably a safe move.

But you have already betrayed yourself, Coy...You believe your opinion is valid, and you've got things to say. Taking yourself out of the conversation is a disservice to yourself and to others...Even if they don't like what you have to say.

Personally...I must admit that I've rarely been able to go out for a beer and NOT talk about politics and religion. But football does allow me to forget about it for limited amounts of time.

BZ

[Guest bengalrick]

[i]I don't get the rationale for Iran wanting to nuke Israel when it would destroy the Palestinians to whom they are trying to morally and politically support...I don't believe that is what they are saying...And I believe that is the media trying to use scare tactics to gauge support for an offensive.

(Since Rick is the media's bitch, he will declare war on the flavour of the week...It only takes a few articles to start beating the chest, eh Rick?)[/i]

[url="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/14/iran.israel.reut/"]click here[/url]

for most things, i'd have to explain myself, but if every media outlet in the fucking world is mis tranlating, or just in bush's pocket, then we're all fucked anyways....

i know their just words... should we ignore them? you tell me, while i continue to beat my chest

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='TheBZ' post='249776' date='Apr 14 2006, 11:15 PM']I have felt that way before...But you don't effect change in contemporary society by withdrawing from it. You only make yourself completely irrelevant.

Now, if your only goal is to continue to be bitter and choke on the injustices (which I do on a daily basis), then that is probably a safe move.

But you have already betrayed yourself, Coy...You believe your opinion is valid, and you've got things to say. Taking yourself out of the conversation is a disservice to yourself and to others...Even if they don't like what you have to say.

Personally...I must admit that I've rarely been able to go out for a beer and NOT talk about politics and religion. But football does allow me to forget about it for limited amounts of time.

BZ[/quote]


Yeah, but there comes a time when talking is done. I think we're past that time in the U.S. For my reasons, I'm talking at a lot of these guys, but I have no pretence that I'm talking to them.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='249781' date='Apr 14 2006, 11:21 PM']Yeah, but there comes a time when talking is done. I think we're past that time in the U.S. For my reasons, I'm talking at a lot of these guys, but I have no pretence that I'm talking to them.[/quote]

b/c your better than us, right?

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='249787' date='Apr 14 2006, 11:26 PM']b/c your better than us, right?[/quote]

Didn't say that. We're just enemies.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='249790' date='Apr 14 2006, 11:28 PM']Didn't say that. We're just enemies.[/quote]

you remind me of how my grandpal would act... there was no chance that he was going to change his views either.... get it?

you need to seperate politics and life more...

[TheBZ]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='249777' date='Apr 14 2006, 11:16 PM'][url="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/14/iran.israel.reut/"]click here[/url]

for most things, i'd have to explain myself, but if every media outlet in the fucking world is mis tranlating, or just in bush's pocket, then we're all fucked anyways....

i know their just words... should we ignore them? you tell me, while i continue to beat my chest [/quote]

It's not ignoring them that I am recommending...

It's that I've read most of the same articles, and I fail to see where a nuclear threat is made against Israel...So, what are you out to deter? Angry words from a Muslim nation against Israel? The use of the dead tree metaphor? (which is obviously culturally directed towards a middle eastern audience)

Attacking someone over a constructed pretense is what put you in the Iraq mess in the first place. So you're going to pick up another pretense and do the same?

There is a pretty wide range of articles out there...But there is a definite difference between the phrasing and use of the quote in each one. Which ones are trying to push your buttons, and who published them?

Ask yourself...Which articles pushed your buttons to start blowing the trumpet of battle?
and
Do you want your buttons pushed?

BZ

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='249792' date='Apr 14 2006, 11:39 PM']you remind me of how my grandpal would act... there was no chance that he was going to change his views either.... get it?

you need to seperate politics and life more...[/quote]


Yep, a patronizing, presumptuous enemy. One that rather than acknowledge the obvious condition of emnity directly, proves it by launching a snide shot.

[TheBZ]

Anyways, Rick...I'm sorry to come right at you on that one. You're a gamer with this stuff, and I think your heart is in the right place.

I just get the feeling sometimes that your first impulse is to REACT TO newsfeeds and not INTERACT with them.

BZ